Look at these sound bites from an editorial today:
"...the $789 billion stimulus and recovery package that Congress approved this week could have accomplished more than it did..."
"...President Obama’s futile pursuit of bipartisanship, rendered it smaller and less focused than it needed to be..."
"...the stale politics of Washington ended up including $70 billion for relief from the alternative minimum tax. The relief is necessary, but it has nothing to do with stimulus or recovery..."
"...The real question is what the Obama administration does for a follow-up..."
"...after a botched rollout this week of their bank bailout plans, administration officials will likely need another few weeks to develop a coherent proposal..."
"...it’s not clear whether Mr. Obama’s team understands the scale of the effort required.."
"The administration also appears to be waffling in its support for passing new legislation that would allow bankrupt homeowners to have their mortgages modified under court protection."
Here is the full editorial. And yes, that's right. This is from the New York Times, not the Journal. Congratulations to the Times for taking a fair and even-handed approach in its assessment. Where is Bill O'Reilly right about now?
I have come to realize this has to be one of the dumbest phrases...one of the biggest illusions that we who invest in stocks conjure up to make ourselves feel better. Tell me, when you've got a big gain on a stock and that gain is "unrealized," you feel pretty good, right? And you treat that gain like it's your money, right? I mean after all, most stocks are fairly liquid investments -- plenty of buyers and sellers.
And yet, when one is way down in the chips on a stock or basket of stocks, it's just a "paper loss." It's not real, unless you sell the stock. Interesting. Isn't it your money that's invested in the stock? And isn't the current price of the stock reflective of how much that investment is worth? Sure there are normal cycles, highs and lows, price swings due to the "beta" of an individual stock, etc. But I wonder if we lull ourselves into dangerously ignorant complacency with this term "paper loss."
Last Fall I sold a bunch of stocks -- among them Bank of America. Over a brief amount of time I had purchased 400 shares averaging about $40 and change per share. When I dumped the stock I "realized" a loss of just over $8150 -- or around 50% of my investment. But I think "realized" is a term for the IRS. They "realize" money when you take a gain, and you "realize" a deduction when you take a loss. The point of my story: in the last couple of days we've seen BofA sink further. Now it seems they paid too much for Merrill Lynch, they may have solvency issues, and so they need $20 billion more money on top of the $25 billion already received from the government. The stock price today slid to a multi-year low and BofA slashed its formerly stratospheric dividend to one cent per share.
Had I held onto BofA stock until today, my "unrealized" and/or "realized" loss would have been nearly $5,100 greater -- a loss of nearly $13,250 in total. In percentage terms the loss on my original investment would have been more than 82%.
"Paper loss?" I don't think so. OK, enough babbling. I've got to get myself over to Circuit City to figure out how to spend that $5,100.
...in response to unspeakable evil. Read this bone-chilling firsthand account from Mumbai on Forbes.com called "Heroes at the Taj" and written by Michael Pollack, a partner at a U.S. financial services firm. It will likely leave you speechless. And/or watch this interview with Michael and his wife, which aired on a recent "Charlie Rose" program on PBS. Enough said.
Here is a recent interesting blog post from Seth Godin, calling into question why the New York Times has abdicated so much leadership in the brave world of online and social media, and is therefore "fading away." Some of Seth's prescriptions may seem a bit off-center but: a) isn't that the point -- to buck conventional thinking instead of being outwitted repeatedly? b) his last paragraph has implications for any business, in the now old-school mode of the "Innovator's Dilemma."
Sure it does, but unlike the Wall Street Journal -- which has shown an increasingly dimwitted conservative bent, I'd give NPR some street cred for deploying an ombudsman that encourages self-reflectiveness and community input in terms of its news coverage.
Apparently, a slight majority of voting Californians think not. I heartily disagree with that majority. So does Vishal M., a former work and current Facebook friend who says he is disappointed to see that we have chosen "to legislate bigotry and selfishness in California."
Bram T., a friend from high school radio station days writes on Facebook, "This vote sounded a distressingly familiar note in an election season
which seemed to signal we were commencing a new anthem of unity - we
can only hope CA changes its tune in the future - we shouldn't be
afraid of gays - we need to be scared of laws like Prop 8."
Thanks to Vishal for flagging this video. And thanks to Bram for an eloquent articulation with which I heartily concur.
I'm a physical fitness, wine, and gardening enthusiast who lives in the SF Bay Area with a very lovely wife and work in CRM product marketing at Oracle.
Recent Comments