The stock market is slowly going up with
many companies hitting new highs and very few new lows. The call option activity is greater than put option activity which
indicates the 'smarter' money is bullish. The volume on these up days is light while the volume on recent down days has been
higher. The VIX is creeping down which correlates to the stock market rising. There fore for now the trend is up although
it is not a STRONG up with many fundamental economic reasons to be bearish such as the US Debt, California Debt, Europe Debt,
problems all over the world. Shorter term traders should play this weak up trend while longer term should be wary of basic
fundamental problems.
The Sage of Omaha made a bet that was written
up in a recent Fortunemagazine article. Basically, Warren Buffett bet that the S&P 500 would outperform a group
of funds of hedge funds over the next ten years. A million dollars to someone's favorite charity is on the line. This week
we will analyze the bet, using it as a springboard to learn about valuation and value investing. As we will see, there are
times that making a bet on the S&P 500 to outperform hedge funds (or bonds or real estate or whatever asset class) makes
sense and times when it doesn't.
Warren Makes a Bet
Buffett
is the clear winner in investing, and his wisdom is followed by a large legion of fans, among which I am one.( I am a fan
of an intelligent person with that much wealth )
"And to that there is a certain history, which began at
Berkshire's May 2006 annual meeting. Expounding that weekend on the transaction and management costs borne by investors, Buffett
offered to bet any taker $1 million that over 10 years and after fees, the performance of an S&P index fund would beat
10 hedge funds that any opponent might choose. Some time later he repeated the offer, adding that since he hadn't been taken
up on the bet, he must be right in his thinking."
I will
make Warren Bufffet that bet, with my private Investment Club here at Learn A Better Life, if any one knows Mr. Buffett, please
tell him I will take his bet, as I have been a Berkshire Hathaway owner before and feel I will win the bet. ( my
Investments will out perform the SP 500 over the next 10 years )
George A. Crawford III
A Quick Bio on Warren Buffett
From 1965 to 2006, the Standard and Poor’s 500 Index—one of the most commonly
used benchmarks for the overall U.S. stock market—had an average annual return of 10.4%.
The goal of most investors is to "beat the market", meaning they would like for their portfolio to outperform
the S&P 500. This would not have been an easy task over the past 42 years. However, one individual not only beat the market
over this time period, he absolutely crushed it. Who, you ask? None other than the “Oracle of Omaha.”
An Investing Genius Is Born
Warren Buffett was born on Aug 30, 1930 in Omaha,
Nebraska, to Howard Buffett, a stockbroker and member of Congress, and Leila Buffett. He wasted no time jumping into the investing
world—purchasing his first stock, Cities Services preferred shares, at the tender age of 11, for $38 each. He would
turn around and sell his holdings and make a cool profit of $2 per share.
You will never guess
what unfolded next. The stock eventually hit $200 a few years later. However, this laid the foundation for what would be Buffett’s
long-term investment strategy.
In addition to recognizing the importance of the stock market at
such an early age, other highlights included Buffett successfully deducting his bicycle as a work expense at 13 years old
while filing his first income tax return. Also, in 1944, when he was 14, he invested $1,200 of his savings into 40 acres of
farmland. Little did he know at the time that he would eventually be worth more than $40 billion.
Father Knows Best
Warren Buffett is considered by many to be the greatest investor
ever. When he took over at Berkshire Hathaway in 1965, its shares sold for $20. They recently traded at a whopping $109,650.
That is not a typo—trust me. What is this Wall Street wizard’s recipe for success? Wouldn’t we all like
to know? We do have some clues, however.
Buffett worked under the tutelage of Benjamin Graham—the
father of value investing. Value investors are constantly on the hunt for stocks that are selling below their true value.
When Buffett is contemplating investment opportunities, he goes beyond determining whether or not it is selling below its
fair value. The business has to have solid economics behind it as well.
A number of Buffett’s
investing tenets have been pointed out by many people. Some of the more popular are covered below. They can serve as a nice
blueprint when constructing your value approach to investing.
The Oracle’s Investment
Philosophy
1. Buffett will place his investment dollars only in businesses that he fully
comprehends. This makes sense: if you don’t understand the business, how can you project future performance? Furthermore,
if a company’s life is less than 10 years, it will typically miss his radar.
2. Some of
the common financial measures that Buffett will look at include return on equity (ROE) and the debt-to-equity ratio (commonly
referred to as a firm’s leverage).
As we mentioned in our article on ROE, it is not only
important to find companies in which their ROE’s are improving, but this measure must also be compared to the industry
average. Buffett adheres to this.
The debt-to-equity ratio tells investors what proportion of
equity and debt the company is using to finance its assets. The ratio is provided below. A high debt-to-equity ratio can lead
to greater volatility in a company’s earnings. I bet you can guess what Buffett looks for here.
Debt/equity
ratio = Total Liabilities/Shareholder’s Equity
3. Buffett is a stickler for quality management—management
committed to expanding profit margins. High and growing profit margins, calculated as net income divided by revenues, are
extremely appealing and rightfully so. It is one thing for a company to increase profits, but if it can manage costs along
the way, that is the ultimate goal.
4. Economic moat. What? Yeah, that is a rather unusual term
that floats around the finance industry (no pun intended). Buffett is credited with coining the term which simply means a
company’s competitive advantage. When a company is said to have a wide economic moat, competitors have a much tougher
time capturing market share. Buffett favors these types of companies.
5. Last, and certainly not
least, Buffett determines what every value investor attempts to uncover—the company’s intrinsic or actual value.
No one knows for sure exactly how he arrives at this. Or if someone does, I can guarantee he or she is also a very wealthy
individual. Some suggest he utilizes a discounted cash flow model, while others refute this claim. This is the most difficult
task for any value investor, except for Mr. Buffett, of course!
Whether you are a Buffett fan
or not (Warren, not Jimmy), you cannot argue with the man’s success. When Forbes released its recent list of the world’s
richest people, Buffett occupied second place. But he has a firm hold on first place in the hearts of value investors around
the world.
From 1965 to 2006, the Standard
and Poor’s 500 Index—one of the most commonly used benchmarks for the overall U.S. stock market—had an average
annual return of 10.4%.
The goal of most investors is to "beat
the market", meaning they would like for their portfolio to outperform the S&P 500. This would not have been an easy
task over the past 42 years. However, one individual not only beat the market over this time period, he absolutely crushed
it. Who, you ask? None other than the “Oracle of Omaha.”
An Investing Genius
Is Born
Warren Buffett was born on Aug 30, 1930 in Omaha, Nebraska, to Howard Buffett,
a stockbroker and member of Congress, and Leila Buffett. He wasted no time jumping into the investing world—purchasing
his first stock, Cities Services preferred shares, at the tender age of 11, for $38 each. He would turn around and sell his
holdings and make a cool profit of $2 per share.
You will never guess what unfolded next. The
stock eventually hit $200 a few years later. However, this laid the foundation for what would be Buffett’s long-term
investment strategy.
In addition to recognizing the importance of the stock market at such an
early age, other highlights included Buffett successfully deducting his bicycle as a work expense at 13 years old while filing
his first income tax return. Also, in 1944, when he was 14, he invested $1,200 of his savings into 40 acres of farmland. Little
did he know at the time that he would eventually be worth more than $40 billion.
Father
Knows Best
Warren Buffett is considered by many to be the greatest investor ever. When
he took over at Berkshire Hathaway in 1965, its shares sold for $20. They recently traded at a whopping $109,650. That is
not a typo—trust me. What is this Wall Street wizard’s recipe for success? Wouldn’t we all like to know?
We do have some clues, however.
Buffett worked under the tutelage of Benjamin Graham—the
father of value investing. Value investors are constantly on the hunt for stocks that are selling below their true value.
When Buffett is contemplating investment opportunities, he goes beyond determining whether or not it is selling below its
fair value. The business has to have solid economics behind it as well.
A number of Buffett’s
investing tenets have been pointed out by many people. Some of the more popular are covered below. They can serve as a nice
blueprint when constructing your value approach to investing.
The Oracle’s Investment
Philosophy
1. Buffett will place his investment dollars only in businesses that he fully
comprehends. This makes sense: if you don’t understand the business, how can you project future performance? Furthermore,
if a company’s life is less than 10 years, it will typically miss his radar.
2. Some of
the common financial measures that Buffett will look at include return on equity (ROE) and the debt-to-equity ratio (commonly
referred to as a firm’s leverage).
As we mentioned in our article on ROE, it is not only
important to find companies in which their ROE’s are improving, but this measure must also be compared to the industry
average. Buffett adheres to this.
The debt-to-equity ratio tells investors what proportion of
equity and debt the company is using to finance its assets. The ratio is provided below. A high debt-to-equity ratio can lead
to greater volatility in a company’s earnings. I bet you can guess what Buffett looks for here.
Debt/equity
ratio = Total Liabilities/Shareholder’s Equity
3. Buffett is a stickler for quality management—management
committed to expanding profit margins. High and growing profit margins, calculated as net income divided by revenues, are
extremely appealing and rightfully so. It is one thing for a company to increase profits, but if it can manage costs along
the way, that is the ultimate goal.
4. Economic moat. What? Yeah, that is a rather unusual term
that floats around the finance industry (no pun intended). Buffett is credited with coining the term which simply means a
company’s competitive advantage. When a company is said to have a wide economic moat, competitors have a much tougher
time capturing market share. Buffett favors these types of companies.
5. Last, and certainly not
least, Buffett determines what every value investor attempts to uncover—the company’s intrinsic or actual value.
No one knows for sure exactly how he arrives at this. Or if someone does, I can guarantee he or she is also a very wealthy
individual. Some suggest he utilizes a discounted cash flow model, while others refute this claim. This is the most difficult
task for any value investor, except for Mr. Buffett, of course!
Whether you are a Buffett fan
or not (Warren, not Jimmy), you cannot argue with the man’s success. When Forbes released its recent list of the world’s
richest people, Buffett occupied second place. But he has a firm hold on first place in the hearts of value investors around
the world.
Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (NYSE: BRK.A, BRK.B) options will begin trading on the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE), enabling investors to bet on the company using a technique Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Warren
Buffet has rejected, Bloomberg News reported. “Usually, if you want to buy or sell a stock,
you should buy or sell the stock,” Buffett said last year on the weekend of the company’s annual meeting. “Using
options, four times out of five you will be right, the last one you’ll miss. I’ve virtually never used options
as a way to enter or exit a position.” CBOE will offer contracts on Buffet’s conglomerate starting today (Thursday).
may 21 2010
Warren Buffett was busy making moves with Recommended
List selection Berkshire Hathaway's (BRK.B, $75.47, -0.84) large investment portfolio in Q1. While
he added to some positions, most of his attention was focused on trimming or exiting stakes.
Buffett completely
exited positions in health insurers WellPoint (WLP, $53.08, -0.44) and UnitedHealth
Group (UNH, $30.18, -0.26), insurer The Travelers Companies (TRV, $49.83, -0.29), and bankSunTrust
Banks (STI, $28.03, -1.85).
He was also reducing his stakes in newspaper publisher Gannett
(GCI, $15.56, -0.63), consumer products giants Johnson & Johnson (JNJ, $62.97, -0.91),
used-car retailer CarMax (KMX, $22.85, -0.74), retailer Costco Wholesale (COST, $57.78,
-0.57), energy multinational ConocoPhillips (COP, $54.67, -0.52), credit rating firmMoody's
(MCO, $21.03, -0.42), and bank M & T Bank (MTB, $83.61, -4.23).
He also reduced
stakes in two Recommended List selections: Procter & Gamble (PG, $63.21, -0.17) and Kraft
(KFT, $30.03, -0.52), whose purchase of confectioner Cadbury Buffett has criticized. Buffett reduced his stake in
Kraft to 106.7 million shares from 138.0 million.
Buffett wasn't only reducing positions during the quarter,
as he added to stakes in laboratory equipment maker Becton, Dickinson and Co (BDX, $74.30, 0.52) and
information storage and management firmIron Mountain (IRM, $25.67, 0.31). His biggest buy was to increase
his position in waste management firm Republic Services (RSG, $29.75, -0.04) where he has quickly
built a large stake over the last few quarters.
BMR Take: Part of the reason for all of the
selling in the quarter was due to Berkshire's earlier purchase of railroad Burlington Northern and Buffett's desire to have
at least $20 billion in cash on hand. The four positions he completely exited were pretty small positions, although it does
appear that Buffett doesn't like the health insurance group too much after the healthcare reform passed.
The two
biggest moves in dollar terms were the sale of Kraft and P&G shares, although both stocks are still among his top five
holdings. While Buffett showed his displeasure in the Kraft deal by selling a large portion of shares, it is worth noting
that Pershing Square Capital's Bill Ackman made the stock his second largest holding behind Target (TGT, $54.22,
-1.66) by purchasing 32.8 million shares, which was more than the 31.5 million Buffett sold. Unlike Buffett,
we like the deal, but agree that we would have liked to see Kraft keep its frozen pizza business.
We continue to
rate both Berkshire and Kraft "Buys."
The U.S. government is starting to see profits
from the $750 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), started last year to thwart the financial crisis. However, the
two largest recipients of TARP money – Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) and Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) – have yet to pay back their loans and the government is still exposed to possible losses from those two heavyweights,
as well as from smaller U.S. banks.
The government netted roughly $4 billion – the equivalent of a 15% annual
return – from eight of the biggest banks that have fully repaid their obligations to the government, according
to calculations by The New York Times.
Those financial institutions consist of:
Goldman
Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) – $1.4 billion in profit.
Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) – $1.3 billion in profit.
American Express Co. (NYSE: AXP) – $414 million in profit.
Northern Trust Corp. (NYSE: NTRS), The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (NYSE: BK), State Street Corp. (NYSE: STT), U.S. Bancorp (NYSE: USB) and BB&T Corp. (NYSE: BBT) – $100 million to $334 million in profit.
Fourteen smaller banks that have repaid their debt – $35 million
in profit.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) and Capital One Financial Corp. (NYSE: COF) could yield an additional profit of more than $3.1 billion in the coming month, but the final number is dependent on how
much they will pay to buy back their warrants, The Times said.
Additionally, the U.S. Federal Reserve
earned $16.4 billion through the first six months of the year, thanks to a range of rescue programs – including loans
to investment banks and purchases of mortgage-backed securities – while the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) saw
a profit of more than $7 billion on the fees it charged through a program that guaranteed debt issued by banks. Still, the FDIC has agreed to assume most of the risk on $80 billion in loans and other assets, and expects to eventually have to cover $14 billion in future losses on deals cut so far, according to The Wall
Street Journal.
“Taxpayers should heave a sigh of relief that the investment in banks protected them from even more catastrophic losses from more bank failures,” said Aswath
Damodaran, a finance professor at the New York University’s Stern School of Business.
The government said last
year that its decision to purchase preferred shares from hundreds of banks ravaged by mortgage defaults would yield a positive
return, including a 5% quarterly dividend and warrants to buy stock in the banks at a set price over 10 years.
As many
banks stanched their losses and began to turn a profit, the government authorized them to buy back the preferred stock, make the dividend payments for each quarter since October.
Banks also were permitted to buy back the warrants, which had a low fixed price – and which provided therefore provided
a windfall for the government as the markets rallied.
The U.S. should consider imposing an automatic ban on dividend
payments by lenders when “the bank stock price plummets and the banks aren’t doing well,” New York Federal
Reserve Chairman William Dudley told CNBC, expressing concern over how the payouts could end up
dissipating the banks’ capital.
Should a bank lose capital because of a falling stock price, it could raise more
capital by issuing debt that is convertible, Dudley said.
Had private investors taken matching stakes in the banks in
October, they would have tripled their investment to roughly $12 billion, or 44% on an annual basis, according to University
of Louisiana at Lafayette finance professor Linus Wilson, who analyzed the data for The Times. But
there’s a good reason for that. Under this hypothetical scenario, the private investors would have demanded a higher
rate of return, bought in at a lower price, or both – because of the high risk that they would have been incurring.
But
the government wasn’t in this to make a profit – it was working to stabilize a financial system that was quickly
losing the public’s confidence, experts note.
“Had these banks tried to raise money any other way, they
probably would have had to pay quite a bit more than the government received,” Espen Robak, head of Pluris Valuation
Advisors, which analyzes the value of large financial institutions, told The Times.
Threat
Posed by Loss-Shares
Despite the encouraging news that taxpayers are getting strong returns on their reluctant investments,
the loan guarantees invested in the two largest TARP recipients – Citigroup and Bank of America – have not yet
been repaid. Citi received $50 billion in TARP funds, while BofA got $45 billion.
In the last month, Citigroup has seen
its stock surge roughly 58%, along with a 19% return in the shares of BofA, which leaves the U.S. government sitting on a
combined $18 billion of profits from the warrants it purchased last year.
Those banks also hold troubled mortgages and
other loans that no one can put a value on – which is why these so-called “toxic assets” have yet to attract
buyers.
More than 50 deals brokered by the FDIC to absorb losses at small banks affected by the financial crisis still
remain in place. These agreements to assume the risk of loans and other assets from the consolidation of failed banks are
known as “loss-shares,” and are an important inducement for healthy banks to take over busted institutions.
The
FDIC brokered the sale of Alabama’s Colonial BancGroup Inc.’s (OTC: CBCGQ) deposits to BB&T after Colonial failed. It also agreed to help BB&T buy Colonial’s $15 billion portfolio of
loans and other assets and absorb over 80% of any future losses. Under the deal, BB&T’s losses are capped at $500
million and – in the unlikely event the entire portfolio becomes worthless – the FDIC is on the hook to cover
the rest.
The FDIC sees these deals as a way to keep loans and other assets in the private sector, as well as mitigate
the cost of cleaning up the industry.
It would cost the FDIC considerably more to simply liquidate the assets of failed
banks, especially with more than 400 banks on its “problem list.” Loss-share deals will cost $11 billion less
than if the agency seized assets and sold them, The Journal said, citing the FDIC.
So far
this year, 109 banks have failed – quadruple the amount of failures in 2008. The FDIC’s recouping any lost money
from the loss-share deals, many of which are in place for up to 10 years, is dependent on the recovery of the economy
Some
worry that bankers may tire of the partnerships with the FDIC and not work toward fixing bad loans because the bulk of the
losses will fall to the government. But agency officials maintain that because banks still have a “material” exposure,
they will be reluctant to do this.
“There is certainly an incentive for the banks to play fair and do right, but
there is never a limit on the ability of the private sector to shift cost to the government,” former FDIC general counsel
John Douglas told The Journal.
A typical deal has the FDIC agreeing to cover 80% of future
losses on a big portion of the assets, and 95% on the rest. However, the FDIC does not expect to see the 95% scenario play
out on any of the deals it has made so far.
Join the Learn A
Better Life Investment Club
Every week we give Investment recommendations
some have had gains as much
as 500% in less than 2 months
One of my principles in my life is
intelligence and honesty, the truth, after spending the past 25 years studying the markets, reading other 'experts' ideas,
that have proven correct- I love to discredit the efficient market theory I was taught and expected to study in college
that I did study enough to earn a B and my degree but called it crap to the professor who was advertised as having a PhD from
MIT, the MIT. Therefore to go along with my life long bashing of the crap I was taught and did not bust my ass studying to
get As, I feel that what goes up highest comes down hardest.
my other objective is to bash 'the purpose of a
company is to maximize stock owner value' that I was taught by the same 'MIT PhD' at Purdue, who also said to the entire class
'you can not do what I teach you' capital budgeting, who I think had several look a likes, based on my personal experience
starting in high school at merrill lynch, smith barney, painewebber, where the punks said 'it does not matter that you own
stock, we do not maximize stock owner value'- a very true statement, 'just because you own the company does not mean you get
a pay check or we have to do anything you say' 'we do not let just anyone do it- you are no different than everyone else'
and as always I do not work for free- an expense.
I was a Kansas Scholar, which was not good enough, I earned
my BS MS to be a multi billionaire with the precedents established in america, I always used my so called father with a Wharton
Degree and Harvard Law degree as an example of stupidity, zero credibility, and bottom line NOT A FILTHY RICH BILLIONAIRE
WITH THOSE DEGREES. Another of my life objectives is to punish all of the scum in the KC area Stock broker offices, the KS
State Securities Commission, the KCMO and JOCO court houses and drs etc at hospitals I was put in, for every thing they
have done to me since I earned my masters, in a way equal too and appropriate for the law of america and man that they have
violated against myself. THE LAW IS A 2WAY STREET and my experience is it is crap enorced by crap. I want a DNA test
to see if the guy who claims to be my father and babbles about killing people and stealing identity is really or not my father.
Recent FREE OPTION PicKs
A member of the investment club made a comment about our stock picks, these are the ones he referred to. We always
make small trades on our picks to document them. The fertilizer co CF call was bought at $1.75 2/19/08 and today 4/17/08 is
at $6.60. A gain of $4.85 or 277%, today 4/18/08 bid $8.9 ask $9.2, if you want to sell half or all of your posistion to lock
in 400% + gains, go ahead.
The Credit card co , COF put was bought on 2/4/08 at $2.45, today it is at $1.15, 4/17/08.
a loss of 1.3 or 53%.
As of today 4/17/08, the combination of those 2 stock picks is $4.2 cost, $7.75 current value,
$3.55 gain, or 84.5% gain in about 2 months. If you are not satisfied with that, we can not help you. No not 100% of our picks
make gains, at all times, yes that example is 50% of the picks correct so far. We guarantee satisfaction or your money back,
with reasonable complaints. You may quit the Investment Club at any time, but if you stick with US for 1 Year, follow all
of our picks, and do not make $, we will give you a 100% refund. We document our picks and will back up every thing we do.
THANKS TO ALL OF YOU
Learn A Better Life
Another Stock we picked- ACI Arch Coal, 3/10/08, bought at $1.3, today 4/28/08 at $3.3,
up $2 from purchase, a 154% gain in less than 2 months
UPDATE ARCH COAL JULY Call OPTION, $10.6, close
on June 6, high of 11.5 for the day, a possible 885% gain in 3 months,
Join the investment club
today to get Stock Picks like the above and below. Laugh at the efficient market theory Like I did in school, all the
way to riches, you never believed possible.
Thurs Sept
11, 2008, LEH put traded at 6.6 for a possible 500% gain from our 1.1 purchase price 6 months ago, would you like to possibly
earn 500% returns every 6 months? IF SO JOIN THE LearnABetterLife.com investment club or inquire about the PRIVATE Hedge Fund
TODAY.
sept 12. 2008, we told our readers
to sell out at 7.2 today, if they want to hold on for complete zero value of LEH, then the puts will have a max gain
of 8.9, (10-1.1), we will take a 1.1 investment to 7.2 in 6 months every time, 6.1 gain, 550% gain in half a year, bravo......
Lehman Brothers is going bancrupt today, monday Sept 15, 2008, If you held our recommendation
from 6 months ago, you could have a 9.8-1.1= 8.7 gain, 790% in 6 months HALf a Year, vs. the Dow Jones Industrial Average
from March 18, 2008 to September 15, 2008, dow down 1239 or 10.1% over the same period, who says we can not out perform the
dow jones industrial average, a 790% gain for US vs a 10.1% loss on the Dow.
The term "theory of relativity" was coined by Max Planck in 1908 to emphasize how special relativity (and later, general relativity) uses the principle of relativity.
The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light.
The resultant theory has many surprising consequences. Some of these are:
Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock.
Length contraction: Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer.
Relativity of simultaneity: two events that appear simultaneous to an observer A will not be simultaneous to an observer B if B is moving with respect
to A.
General relativity is a theory of gravitation developed by Einstein in the years 1907–1915.
The development of general relativity began with the equivalence principle, under which the states of accelerated motion and being at rest in a gravitational field (for example when standing on the surface of the Earth) are physically identical. The upshot of this is that free fall is inertial motion: In other words an object in free fall is falling because that is how objects move when there is no force being exerted on them, instead of this being due to the force of gravity as is the case in classical mechanics. This is incompatible with classical mechanics and special relativity because in those theories inertially moving objects cannot accelerate with respect to each other, but objects in free fall
do so. To resolve this difficulty Einstein first proposed that spacetime is curved. In 1915, he devised the Einstein field equations which relate the curvature of spacetime with the mass, energy, and momentum within it.
Some of the consequences of
general relativity are:
The Universe is expanding, and the far parts of it are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. This does not contradict the theory of special relativity, since it is space itself that is expanding.
Frame-dragging, in which a rotating mass "drags along" the space time around it.
Technically, general relativity
is a metric theory of gravitation whose defining feature is its use of the Einstein field equations. The solutions of the field equations are metric tensors which define the topology of the spacetime and how objects move inertially.
Living Reviews in Relativity — An open access, peer-referred, solely online physics journal publishing invited reviews covering all areas of relativity
research.
$3.8 Billion/yr, the new minimum wage, just
like Mike Milkin got how many Hundred Million in 1985 when I earned my masters, just like all of the billionaires who got
business licenses to start, etc.
$3,700,000,000.00
/year
$308,333,333.33
/mo
12mo/yr
$77,083,333.33
/wk
4wk/mo
$15,416,666.67
/day
5day/wk
$1,927,083.33
/hr
8hr/day
$32,118.06
/min
60min/hr
I
George A. Crawford III was told my degrees do not matter by so called managers of offices of K.C. area stock broker offices
ie merrill lynch, smith barney, painewebber, and they have had me arrested for fiction such as trespassing 10+ times since
1985 when I earned my masters, (punk-fags)... In jail and mental hospitals I was told my degrees do not matter by so called
Drs and nurses, (punk-nazis), one in particular, nurse fran stauss, said I am brilliant, I said 'yes', she said 'no one deserves
more than $30,000/yr' I laughed, she then said 'I get $40,000/yr' later that week she had me put in jail, (punk-nazis), maybe
they are look a likes from KC stock broker offices pretending to be Drs and Nurses, (punk-joke-fags), other social workers
said my degrees do not matter, stock ownership does not matter- (punk-joke-nazis), and my so called dad, says, 'don't
tell people your degrees' he supposedly has a Harvard Law degree and wharton econ. degree, he has talked how he 'dropped'
people who fucked him, he in 83 in 2008. The punks at the KS topeka securities office said my degrees do not matter,
my genius IQ does not matter and they will not give me a license, (fag-punk-jokes)
I think that the above hedge fund manager needs his ACT SAT scores and degrees made public knowledge along with every
one else who has a license and the punks who grant licenses or in my case do not, along with judges, etc. who jailed me for
nothing. Lets go on prime time TV fag punk jokes............
News recently hit the Street that former Merrill Lynch CEO John
Thain rushed to hand out year-end bonuses prior to his firm's acquisition by Bank of America (BAC: sentiment, chart, options), and the report has now attracted the attention of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Bloomberg
says that Cuomo may demand the return of $4 billion in bonuses paid out prior to the buyout's completion. The attorney general
is also curious to find out how much BAC CEO Kenneth Lewis knew about the accelerated bonuses, and whether he was truly surprised
by Merrill's massive $15 billion net loss in the fourth quarter.
According to the report, Cuomo is investigating whether
shareholders were properly informed about Merrill's finances, and he's also checking up on the use of federal bailout loans
by Bank of America for potential improprieties. The attorney general is specifically looking for possible violations of New
York securities laws, which could result in fines.
In the first hour of trading today, BAC is off 2.7%. The Dow component
has swallowed a hefty 84.6% loss during the past 52 weeks, and it's hovering near 18-year lows. Despite the stock's dismal
performance, there's still plenty of room for more bearish sentiment to build -- BAC's Schaeffer's put/call open interest
ratio (SOIR) is 0.53, just 1 percentage point from an annual peak of optimism.
Mental health, creativity link discovered
STOCKHOLM, Sweden (UPI) -- Thinking outside the box -- creativity -- may also be linked to mental
illness, researchers in Sweden said.
"We have studied the
brain and the dopamine D2 receptors, and have shown that the dopamine system of healthy, highly creative people is similar
to that found in people with schizophrenia," Fredrik Ullen of Karolinska Institutet said in a statement.
Ullen said studies show dopamine receptor genes are linked to the capacity for divergent thought.
The study, published in the journal PLoS one, measured the creativity of healthy individuals using psychological tests
to determine different solutions to a problem.
"The study
shows that highly creative people who did well on the divergent tests had a lower density of D2 receptors in the thalamus
-- a part of the brain that serves as a kind of relay center filtering information -- than less creative people," Ullen
said. "Schizophrenics are also known to have low D2 density in this part of the brain, suggesting a cause of the link
between mental illness and creativity."
Fewer D2 receptors
in the thalamus probably means a lower degree of signal filtering, and thus a higher flow of information from the thalamus
and this may be behind the ability of healthy highly creative people to see numerous uncommon connections to solve a problem
and the bizarre associations found in the mentally ill, Ullen said.
The Most Important Article You'll Read This Month By Dr.
David Eifrig M.D.
It really ticked me off.
It was 1986... and my first fall working on
Wall Street for Goldman Sachs. It was election season, and Robert Rubin was walking the trading floor. He was head of the
fixed-income division. (He soon became co-chair of the company and later Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.)
Rubin
asked us if we had turned in our donations to the political party of our choice. He asked each of us – one by one –
right on down the desk.
If we said no, he told us he wanted to see a check signed from us soon. When he walked
away, I asked what he was up to. The guys on the desk laughed and just told me to cough up a thousand for the Democratic Party
by tomorrow. I protested: "But I'm Republican."
The response: "Not anymore!"
I hadn't
thought about that moment in a long time until I read the sensational Rolling Stone article recently written by Matt
Taibbi. The article is a true "exposé" of the BS that goes on in the financial world.
The subject
is one I'm well versed in: The investment bank Goldman Sachs (by now, known by many as "Government Sachs"). Taibbi
shreds the company in an article titled The Great American Bubble Machine, and it's an absolute must-read.
The article claims Goldman has helped engineer most of the great asset bubbles
of the past 80 years... including the tech bubble, the credit bubble, and last year's enormous rise in oil prices. Taibbi
also writes Goldman has packed the highest levels of government with former employees, who help it suck billions of dollars
from a gullible public.
It's one of the most damning articles I've ever read in mainstream media. So it's no wonder
I've had several friends ask me, "Doc... You worked for Goldman for a long time. What's your take?"
I
tell them: It's appalling. And, sadly... mostly true.
For years, Goldman has used fear and greed to control markets
and make millions for its employees and shareholders. During the credit bubble peak in 2007, the company doled out over $20
billion to its employees. Its CEO made $65.8 million that year. At last count, the average employee compensation will be around
$386,000 for just the first six months of this year.
Sure... the money is insane. But I don't begrudge any smart
banker or trader for making money within the rules. It's the way Goldman has stuffed its alumni into the most important positions
in government... it's similar to mafia corruption. It ensures they play a major role in fixing the rules for their cronies'
benefit... and your loss.
Here's a short list of ex-Goldman heads who've greased the political wheels for the
company: Henry Paulson (former CEO, went on to become Treasury Secretary under Bush), John Corzine (former CEO, current governor
of New Jersey), Stephen Friedman (former director, became Chief of the New York Fed)... and, of course, the aforementioned
Robert Rubin. (You can read about plenty more "implants" here.)
Current and ex-Goldman employees won't even consider the possibility there are conflicts of interest with the
Treasury Secretary (an ex-Goldman head) deciding to let one of Goldman Sachs' main competitors – Bear Stearns –
go belly up.
And it's insulting to think a government employee can give my tax money to a company that was going
bankrupt without any oversight or public discussion in Congress. I'm talking about AIG Insurance, which, incidentally, had
big deals with Goldman that would have gone sour without the bailout.
Sure, Taibbi went over the top with his
assertions. But the spirit of the article – and most of its claims – is 100% true. The fleecing and manipulation
of regular folks like you and me is simply outrageous.
Goldman Sachs – and nearly every other Wall Street
institution – is not in the business of helping you find safe investments. It's in the business of selling overpriced
stocks and bogus mortgages to anyone it can find. It's in the business of siphoning big fees from your 401(k) plan, your mutual
fund, your annuity, and your kid's college fund.
This is how Wall Street bankers live in million-dollar mansions
in the Hamptons, drive Maseratis, and dash off for $20,000 weekends in London. It's why you probably haven't made a dime in
stocks over the past 15 years. Wall Street doesn't care if you make any money... just as long as you keep paying their fees.
And the financial policymakers in Washington D.C. who aren't socialist morons are bright capitalists who work indirectly for
Goldman. It's a crazy mixture that loads the system with huge risks.
Bravo
to Rolling Stone and Matt Taibbi. I lived and worked in the environment described in the article. While there are
some great people and institutions in New York, I left Wall Street because I couldn't stand the Goldman-style conflicts of
interest and political haggling.
The sooner investors wake up and become highly skeptical of everything Wall Street
and Washington D.C. do, the better.
Good investing,
Doc Eifrig
Buffett:
I'm Keeping My Goldman Sachs Warrants
Friday, July 24, 2009 1:31 PM
Article Font Size
NEW YORK -- Warren Buffett said he
has no plans to soon exercise Berkshire Hathaway Inc's warrants to buy $5 billion of Goldman Sachs Group Inc stock, although
he could make a big profit by doing so.
Berkshire got the warrants in September when it also bought $5
billion of Goldman preferred shares, which throw off a $500 million annual dividend.
The warrants let
Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire buy Goldman common shares at $115 each at any time until October 1, 2013. With Goldman's stock
having closed at $165.45 on Thursday, those warrants are worth well over $2 billion.
Buffett is sitting
tight.
"We will hold the warrants," Buffett said on Fox Business Network. "Every instinct
in my body tells me that we will want to hold those warrants until they're very close to their expiration date. The preferred
pays us the dividend and the warrants are going to make us the money."
Goldman is the largest financial
services company to exit the U.S. government's bank bailout program.
Earlier this week, it paid $1.1 billion
to buy back warrants issued to the Treasury Department. The government said it got a 23 percent annualized return on its Goldman
investment.
For a while, Goldman had looked like one of Buffett's lesser ideas, as its shares fell below
$48 in November.
Yet its recovering stock price signals investors' belief that Goldman still deserves
much of its luster as one of the world's most aggressive and profitable banks.
Buffett, the world's second-richest
person, has had less success with a purchase of preferred stock and warrants in General Electric Co.
Berkshire
in October bought $3 billion of GE preferred shares yielding 10 percent and warrants to buy $3 billion of GE stock at a $22.25
strike price. GE shares closed Thursday at $11.95, leaving the warrants out of the money for now.
Class
A shares of Berkshire rose $1,050 to 94,550 in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
NCAA Wrestling Team Championship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The NCAAWrestling Team Championship was first officially awarded in 1929 and began to be continuously awarded on an annual basis in 1934 except during World War II1943-1945. In 1928 and from 1931 to 1933, there was only an unofficial title. Oklahoma A&M, now Oklahoma State, won the 1928, 1931 unofficial titles. Indiana University won the 1932 unofficial title. In 1933, Iowa State and Oklahoma A&M were unofficial co-champions.
At the NCAA Wrestling Championships, which also crown individual
champions, a points system is used to determine the team champion. Oklahoma State University has won more NCAA team championships
than any other school, having won the title 34 times (includes 3 unofficial titles), most recently in 2006. The school with the second most championships is Iowa with 21 NCAA titles
Intent in law is the planning and desire to perform an act, to fail to do so (i.e. an omission) or to achieve a state of affairs in psychological view it may mean a different thing.
In criminal law, for a given actus reus ("guilty act"), the required element to prove intent consists of showing mens rea (mental state, "guilty mind").
The requirements for the proof of intent in tort law are generally simpler than criminal law. Knowledge of the repercussions of the act is often not necessary. It is sometimes
only a matter of showing that there was desire to perform an act.
Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort, while like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally (and maliciously) instituting and pursuing (or causing to be instituted or pursued)
a legal action (civil or criminal) that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, the term "malicious prosecution"
denotes the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while the term "malicious use of process" denotes the wrongful
initiation of civil proceedings.
Criminal prosecuting attorneys and judges are protected, by doctrines of prosecutorial
immunity and judicial immunity, from tort liability for malicious prosecution. Moreover, the mere filing of a complaint cannot
constitute an abuse of process. The parties who have abused or misused the process, have gone beyond merely filing a lawsuit.
The taking of an appeal, even a frivolous one, is not enough to constitute an abuse of process. The mere filing or maintenance
of a lawsuit, even for an improper purpose, is not a proper basis for an abuse of process action.
Declining to expand
the tort of malicious prosecution, a unanimous California Supreme Court in the case of Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert &
Oliker, 47 Cal. 3d 863, 873 (1989) observed: "While the filing of frivolous lawsuits is certainly improper and cannot
in any way be condoned, in our view the better means of addressing the problem of unjustified litigation is through the adoption
of measures facilitating the speedy resolution of the initial lawsuit and authorizing the imposition of sanctions for frivolous
or delaying conduct within that first action itself, rather than through an expansion of the opportunities for initiating
one or more additional rounds of malicious prosecution litigation after the first action has been concluded." (Per the
case of Lossing v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 635, 638-640[255 Cal. Rptr. 18]; see also Tellefsen v.
Key System Transit Lines, supra, 198 Cal.App.2d at p. 615 [Court of Appeal has remedies for frivolous appeals]; Green v. Uccelli
(1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1112, 1122-1123 [255 Cal.Rptr. 315]
Contents
English Rule
Sixteen U.S. states require another element of malicious prosecution. This element, commonly called the English Rule, states that, in addition
to fulfilling all other malicious prosecution elements, one must also prove injury other than the normal downside of being
sued. This rule is limited to equitable damages, such as loss of profit, and excludes damages that cannot be measured by the
law (e.g., damage to reputation).
In Canadian Law
The Canadian rules have been changed in that if any individual
takes legal action that has the above criteria met may take action against police or the Crown Attorney (The Attorney General). The C.A. used to be exempt from malicious prosecution and abuse of process. This is no longer the case. This may be looked
up @ CANLII.
In common lawlegal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body adopts when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.
Contents
Description
The precedent on an issue is the collective body of judicially
announced principles that a court should consider when interpreting the law. When a precedent establishes an important legal
principle, or represents new or changed law on a particular issue, that precedent is often known as a landmark decision.
Precedent is central to legal analysis and rulings in countries that follow common law like the United Kingdom and
Canada (except Quebec). In some systems precedent is not binding but is taken into account by the courts.
Precedent that must be applied or followed is known as binding precedent (alternately mandatory precedent, mandatory or binding authority, etc.). Under the doctrine
of stare decisis, a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court that is within the appeals path of cases the court hears. In the United States state and federal courts, jurisdiction is
often divided geographically among local trial courts, several of which fall under the territory of a regional appeals court,
and all regional courts fall under a supreme court. By definition decisions of lower courts are not binding on each other
or any courts higher in the system, nor are appeals court decisions binding on each other or on local courts that fall under
a different appeals court. Further, courts must follow their own proclamations of law made earlier on other cases, and honor
rulings made by other courts in disputes among the parties before them pertaining to the same pattern of facts or events,
unless they have a strong reason to change these rulings.
One law professor has described mandatory precedent as follows:
Given
a determination as to the governing jurisdiction, a court is "bound" to follow a precedent of that jurisdiction
only if it is directly in point. In the strongest sense, "directly in point" means that: (1) the question resolved
in the precedent case is the same as the question to be resolved in the pending case, (2) resolution of that question was
necessary to disposition of the precedent case; (3) the significant facts of the precedent case are also present in the pending
case, and (4) no additional facts appear in the pending case that might be treated as significant.[1]
In extraordinary circumstances a higher court may overturn or overrule mandatory precedent, but will often
attempt to distinguish the precedent before overturning it, thereby limiting the scope of the precedent in any event.
Precedent that is not mandatory but which is useful or relevant is known as persuasive precedent (or persuasive authority or advisory precedent). Persuasive precedent includes cases decided by lower
courts, by peer or higher courts from other geographic jurisdictions, cases made in other parallel systems (for example, military
courts, administrative courts, indigenous/tribal courts, State courts versus Federal courts in the United States), and in
some exceptional circumstances, cases of other nations, treaties, world judicial bodies, etc.
In a case of first impression, courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other jurisdictions that have previously dealt with similar issues. Persuasive precedent may become binding through the adoption of the persuasive
precedent by a higher court. And this is due to per incuram. Dr. McMinge a self made law lord said " the lords can change
its decision when it appears right to do so".
Custom
Long-held custom, which has traditionally been recognized by courts and judges, is the first kind of precedent. Custom can be so deeply entrenched
in the society at large that it gains the force of law. There need never have been a specific case decided on the same or
similar issues in order for a court to take notice of customary or traditional precedent in its deliberations.
Case law
The other type of precedent is case law. In common law systems this type of precedent is granted more or less weight in the deliberations of a court according to
a number of factors. Most important is whether the precedent is "on point," that is, does it deal with a circumstance
identical or very similar to the circumstance in the instant case? Second, when and where was the precedent decided? A recent
decision in the same jurisdiction as the instant case will be given great weight. Next in descending order would be recent
precedent in jurisdictions whose law is the same as local law. Least weight would be given to precedent that stems from dissimilar
circumstances, older cases that have since been contradicted, or cases in jurisdictions that have dissimilar law.
A judicial precedent attaches a specific legal consequence to a detailed set of facts in an adjudged
case or judicial decision, which is then considered as furnishing the rule for the determination of a subsequent case involving
identical or similar material facts and arising in the same court or a lower court in the judicial hierarchy.[2]
Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of
stare decisis et non quieta movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled."
Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Under the doctrine of stare decisis
a case is important only for what it decides — for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the
"how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal
consequence following a detailed set of facts.[3]
Academic study
Precedents viewed against passing time can serve to establish
trends, thus indicating the next logical step in evolving interpretations of the law. For instance, if immigration has become
more and more restricted under the law, then the next legal decision on that subject may serve to restrict it further still.
Scholars
have recently attempted to apply network theory to precedents in order to establish which precedents are most important or authoritative, and how the court's interpretations
and priorities have changed over time. [4]
Super stare decisis
Super-stare decisis is a term used for important precedent
that is resistant or immune from being overturned, without regard to whether correctly decided in the first place. It may
be viewed as one extreme in a range of precedential power,[5] or alternately, to express a belief, or a critique of that belief, that some decisions should not be overturned.
In
1976, Richard Posner and William Landes coined the term "super-precedent," in an article they wrote about testing theories of precedent
by counting citations.[6] Posner and Landes used this term to describe the influential effect of a cited decision. The term "super-precedent"
later became associated with different issue: the difficulty of overturning a decision.[7] In 1992, Rutgers professor Earl Maltz criticized the Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey for endorsing the idea that if one side can take control of the Court on an issue of major national importance (as in
Roe v. Wade), that side can protect its position from being reversed "by a kind of super-stare decisis."[8]
The issue arose anew in the questioning of Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito during their confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Before the hearings the chair of the committee, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, wrote an op/ed in the New York Times referring to Roe as a "super-precedent." He mentioned the concept (and made seemingly humorous references
to "super-duper precedent") during the hearings, but neither Roberts nor Alito endorsed the term or the concept.[9]
Criticism of Precedent
In a controversial 1997 book, attorney Michael Trotter blamed over-reliance by American lawyers on binding and persuasive authority, rather than the merits of the case at hand,
as a major factor behind the escalation of legal costs during the 20th century. He argued that courts should ban the citation
of persuasive precedent from outside their jurisdiction, with two exceptions:
(1) cases where the foreign jurisdiction's
law is the subject of the case, or
(2) instances where a litigant intends to ask the highest court of the jurisdiction
to overturn binding precedent, and therefore needs to cite persuasive precedent to demonstrate a trend in other jurisdictions.[10]
^ Marjorie D. Rombauer, Legal Problem Solving: Analysis, Research and Writing, pp. 22-23 (West Publishing
Co., 3d ed. 1978). (Rombauer was a professor of law at the University of Washington.)
^Allegheny General Hospital v. NLRB, 608 F.2d 965, 969-970 (3rd Cir. 1979) (footnote omitted), as quoted
in United States Internal Revenue Serv. v. Osborne (In re Osborne), 76 F.3d 306, 96-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr.
50,185 (9th Cir. 1996).
^United States Internal Revenue Serv. v. Osborne (In re Osborne), 76 F.3d 306, 96-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH)
paragr. 50,185 (9th Cir. 1996).
^James H. Fowler and Sangick Jeon, "The Authority of Supreme Court Precedent," Social Networks (2007), doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2007.05.001
^ Maltz, Earl. "Abortion, Precedent, and the Constitution: A Comment on Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania
v. Casey", 68 Notre Dame L. Rev. 11 (1992), quoted by Rosen, Jeffrey. So, Do You Believe in 'Superprecedent'?, NY Times (2005-10-30).
^ Michael H. Trotter, Profit and the Practice of Law: What's Happened to the Legal Profession (Athens,
GA: University of Georgia Press, 1997), 161-163.
1.60
sentiment
