________

Site Feed

 
Things have been hectic of late, and I'm spreading myself thinner and thinner. Some of my Phi Tau brothers and I have started a music blog the Mound O' Sound. Hopefully we can expose each other to new and interesting music, and maybe even take some random readers along for the ride.

Last week, I went to NYC for a trade show with my entire group. The show ran the gammut from being incredibly dull to somewhat fun. I played the visit 7 sponsor booths scattered throughout the center and try to win a Mini Cooper game. That kept me entertained... that and a 30 minute session with GE regarding a piece of equipment they had previously refused to sell us because of competing interests. The sales lady never asked about my company.

The off time also vacillated between interesting and tedium- with my boss showing us his New York and taking us to Ithaka - an excellent Greek restaurant on the Upper East side. We stayed on West 45th St, two blocks from Broadway, so we were in the midst of the Time Square madness. I'm not a huge fan. NYC’s other neighborhoods seem much more interesting. I hit up the Heartland brewery, and wished that I spent my time two doors down at a lively Belgian bar, the BXL cafe.
posted by Ben at (0) comments 7:57 PM

 
Here's a list of 100 top stocks to consider. http://money.cnn.com/data/commentary/sivy70/  The growth projections for Genentech, Boston Scientific, and Tyco certainly caught my eye. For non-investment reasons, I'm happy to see Wyeth on this list.

While Millipore didn't make the cut (we're probably a bit over-valued at present), many of our customers are on the list and expected to have double digit growth. If they're growing that much they'll need to increase production, and that means increasing consumption of single and multiple use disposable separations products.
posted by Ben at (4) comments 10:22 AM

 
Warren Buffet has issued his most recent annual report. It includes a strong caution about active traders, and the increasing prevalence of expensive investment advisors - both in terms of Mutual Funds and Financial Planners. He sees the fee structure as a serious source of loss of return.

Admittedly, I flirted with some active trading this summer and saw the folks at etrade get $10-16 per trade whether I was buying or selling, losing or gaining. In the end, E trade made more money than I did. That didn't bother me too much, as I wouldn't have made nearly as much had I not paid Etrade a per transaction fee.

The more alarming troubles are the suggestions that mutual funds will eat away at overall investment gains. I see mutual funds, at least those with no fees and a limited management structure as a necessary way for small investors to distribute risk. Say a young engineer is in the process of aggregating and saving money for a down payment on the house. If he'd like to see a greater ROI than simple savings account interest Mutual funds, particularly index driven funds, offer instant diversity with a single transaction fee.

Admittedly, funds with loads are excessively costly. Investment administration costs money, and the time savings are worth something - a value Buffet left out of his stern warnings but probably included in his underlying analysis. Financial Planers and investment advisors do charge fees that significantly chip away at investment return. (Sorry Dad) Those that need advice would be better distributing their risk and playing the numbers game with index funds than selecting a high priced stock picker.

Here's a quote from the CNN transcript that I thoroughly enjoyed.

Long ago, Sir Isaac Newton gave us three laws of motion, which were the work of genius. But Sir Isaac's talents didn't extend to investing: He lost a bundle in the South Sea Bubble, explaining later, "I can calculate the movement of the stars, but not the madness of men." If he had not been traumatized by this loss, Sir Isaac might well have gone on to discover the fourth law of motion: For investors as a whole, returns decrease as motion increases.

Here's the answer to the question posed at the beginning of this piece: To get very specific, the Dow increased from 65.73 to 11,497.12 in the 20th century, and that amounts to a gain of 5.3 percent compounded annually. (Investors would also have received dividends, of course.) To achieve an equal rate of gain in the 21st century, the Dow will have to rise by Dec. 31, 2099, to -- brace yourself -- precisely 2,011,011.23. But I'm willing to settle for 2,000,000; six years into this century, the Dow has gained not at all.
posted by Ben at (0) comments 8:25 AM