Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
"Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, appealed to Palestinian militant groups today to stop attacks on Israelis, saying the groups must give an American-backed peace effort a chance to work."
Is he sincere about that, or is this just another "Hudaibiya peace"? Is he saying one thing publicly and another privately, as he is alleged to have done in the past?
Thanks. That became clear once the jam came to fruition.
You were debating the subject of a right of return in #msg-1356709, #msg-1356977, #msg-1357559, and #msg-1360877, and that is the point I was addressing.
It's true that you introduced the subject of compensation in one of those messages. I do not dispute the right to just compensation of anyone whose property was taken without fair payment, or their heirs. I am, however, against trying to buy off Israel's enemies. I don't think it would work, because I think a large part of the money would be used to support attacks on Israel. I also think the chances of getting the American public to support it are about the same as the chances of getting the Arab countries to agree to just compensation for Arab Jews, i.e., zilch.
I see few if any cases in your link where the U.N. has returned refugees from 50 years ago. There comes a point where people need to quit trying to undo history and get on with their lives. Note that one of the categories in those reports is asylum.
I don't think that people who left a country because they hoped its government would be overthrown should in general have a right of return, and I certainly don't think their descendants should have one. Backing the wrong side in a war has consequences, and people need to learn to take responsibility for the consequences of their own choices.
What percentage of the refugees from the late forties are even still alive?
What's a "jam"?
I disagree that the U.N. returns most refugees where they came from. As a matter of fact I can think of only one case. Please give some specific examples.
[deleted - duplicate]
I think the status quo qualifies as a better idea than the U.S. doling out money that it knows is going to fall into the hands of terrorists.
I used the word "ally" because the U.S. is giving money to them. In any case it's beside the point. The two scenarios you mentioned are equally unrealistic, and for the same reasons: they would both require total political transformations within the countries that would have to bring them about, and consequently neither qualifies as "realistic."
Your proposal is basically tantamount to the U.S giving money to terrorists at the same time it is fighting a war on terrorism. This is not even remotely realistic.
So according to your logic, what should give the Palestinians a right of return that no other displaced peoples have is that they haven't given up. Sounds pretty fishy to me. I don't think right and wrong are determined by the simple fact of being stubborn.
What is the relevance of his age when prop 13 was passed? Everybody gets to be 70 some day, if they're lucky.
What evidence is there that the Palestinians would not use the money to attack Israelis?
You state that expecting the Arab countries to compensate the descendants of displaced Jewish Arabs is not realistic. You then state that the U.S. should divert funds from its allies to the Palestinians, which is equally unrealistic.
I believe you are mistaken about the others acquiescing. Certainly the Germans got tossed out of Poland, etc. through a very bloody war, for example.
"A minute minority of few hundred thousand voters being allowed to subvert the will of the people, millions of them that voted in the last election is nothing short of a travesty and a mockery."
There's one little detail you're overlooking: the recall has to get a majority of the votes in the upcoming election.
I'm more concerned about such a small minority being able to force the state to spend badly needed funds on a special election, and about the process for selecting the replacement: if the recall succeeds, it's highly likely that whoever wins will have done so with even less support than the guy getting kicked out!
Don't worry about it.
As for the tax advantages of shorting against the box, as Zeev pointed out those were nullified by Congress a number of years ago.
SPX has broken below yesterday's low.
SPX has broken below yesterday's low, but COMP and NDX have not, so far.
Er, no, it really is called short against the box.
http://www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/getword.cgi?4551
I believe the term is "short against the box."
$BPCOMPQ has finally crossed below its 20 EMA. It will be interesting to see if it bounces in and out like the other indexes did.
test 2
test signature
I think of the millionaire factor as tapering off gradually. There are of course many potential reasons why consumers might pull in their horns. Further job losses would top my list.
Looks like "they" are reading this thread. Last week I referred to the S&P 500 as the "big daddy" of the happy family theory of markets. Today I saw the S&P 500 referred to as the "big daddy" on CNBC. Scary.
I think you done broke the code. <g>
My favorite TA phrases:
"We'll know soon enough."
"If it exceeds X, it could go to Y."
Liberal use of words like "may," "might," and "could."
I think the motto of TA practitioners is "If you're going to predict, predict often." <g, d, & r>
Godfrey, some comments:
1. Most cities don't have a Microsoft dominating their economy. Extrapolating from Seattle's experience would tend to lead one to overestimate the impact of such cases nationwide.
2. Don't be misled by the estimate of 10,000 millionaires. A million dollars is not enough to support "mass consumption." Consider the comments in the article from the couple who had two million:
Since he left Microsoft, he and his wife have been careful not to overspend. They left the company with a smaller nest egg than many early retirees -- they say it is about $2 million. They own one car, a hot-pink 1979 Volkswagen beetle. He rarely buys new clothes and gets around town on a 1956 Vespa.
"We are not crazy, mad rich," Shari Thatcher said. "We are beer-and-pretzels rich."
3. The idea of consumer spending doing a 180 without warning implies people spending at extravagant levels until they run out of money. I doubt that most people handle it that way. In fact the article says that people tend to do their spending binges early on. In addition, it implies that the flow of excess money in Seattle has already been cut back for some time now:
When Microsoft options went underwater in 2000, however, so did the local economy. Seattle and Washington state sank into recession in early 2001, three months ahead of the rest of the nation. Even now, 2 1/2 years later, the economy still shows few signs of recovery. The state unemployment rate in June was 7.7 percent, third highest in the country.
Good catch on the March 7, 1998 issue. At that time he switched Microsoft and Vodaphone to 4% based on market value, while leaving other stocks on a cost basis.
I notice that in that issue he also mentioned the entry point on MSFT as a split-adjusted $4 in 1990. There have been two 2:1 splits since March of 1998, so that means the entry point was at a split-adjusted $1 per share in today's terms. Apparently he forgot about one of the splits when he said $2 this weekend.
http://table.finance.yahoo.com/d?a=0&b=1&c=1998&d=7&e=4&f=2003&g=v&s=msf...
Yahoo Historical Quotes shows a split-adjusted price of $6.27 for AMAT on 9/22/1995:
http://table.finance.yahoo.com/d?a=8&b=1&c=1995&d=8&e=30&f=1995&g=d&s=am...
By the way, today I thought I heard Bob say that he first recommended MSFT at a split-adjusted $2 per share in 1990 (he didn't specify which month). This doesn't quite make sense, because the split-adjusted range for MSFT during 1990 was $0.58 to $1.13.
http://table.finance.yahoo.com/d?a=0&b=1&c=1990&d=11&e=31&f=1990&s=msft&...
I also heard him say that he switched to 4% by market value in the newsletter in the Fall of 1998. I looked it up and found the following statement in the October 8, 1998 issue: "We believe specific stock risk should be managed carefully by limiting individual stock holdings to no more than four percent of equities based on market value." The limitation in the previous issue did not mention market value. MSFT was trading in the split-adjusted $24 - $25 range in the first few trading days after the publication date. Depending on how close the individual subscriber was to the 4% guideline when this change was made, it could have resulted in 90% of the position being sold at that time. Since it's only in the mid-twenties five years later, this looks like it was a good move.
http://table.finance.yahoo.com/d?a=9&b=1&c=1998&d=9&e=31&f=1998&g=d&s=ms...
Looks like the 10 week SMA would have been equally useful:
http://chart.bigcharts.com/bc3/intchart/frames/chart.asp?symb=spx&compidx=aaaaa%3A0&ma=1&...
Do you mean the 9, 13, and 20 day EMAs? Larry was using the 10 week SMA. The Wilshire 5000 has crossed below all of them.
http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.web?c=$WLSH,uu[h,a]waclyyay[pc4!b10!f][vc60][iUb14!La12,26,9]&...
Your chart had the 20 and 50 week SMAs. You have to divide by five to get DMA on the weekly chart.
"The other times the TRINQ hit those levels were at the beginning of fresh moves up."
Fresh moves up of the market, or moves up of the TRINQ?
are not "redundant and repetitive" redundant and repetitive?
That is why I put them together in that sentence - looks like you got my little joke!
Isn't it kind of redundant and repetitive to describe something as both quaggy and lutulent? <g>
What would you think of shorts on SPY or QQQ, with stops a little above the recent highs?
The Dow and the S&P exceeded Thursday's highs today, but NDX and COMP did not. Happy family theory says the latter two should follow suit, especially my version of it, which says that the S&P 500 is the big daddy of the family.
If you want to include investments that he spoke favorably about on the radio or television, it seems to me that is up to you. Just bear in mind that it's a much tougher job than tracking newsletter advice, because he has spent so much time in the broadcast media, and there is no record of most of it before David started his service.
I don't know whether he bought GE or not. All I know is that he used to say that it was so diversified that it was like buying a mutual fund. I never heard of it being recommended in the newsletter.
Kirk is right. It was GE.
Regarding selling Microsoft:
At one time Brinker's guideline was that the purchase price of an individual stock should not be more than 4% of one's portfolio. Somewhere around the mid 1990s he began recommending that the current market value of an individual stock should not be more than 4%. Because MSFT had gone up so much, this could have required selling quite a lot of it. Unfortunately I don't know the date when he made this change.