HomeGeorge A. Crawford IIIPoetryAbout UsLatest NewsInvestment ClubInv. Club- MembersPhoto & TravelHealthy IdeasGuestbookFavorite LinksContact UsItems WantedK.C. Business ClubChristian SinglesK.C. Art TradersK.C. Room MatesKCRoomMates.comgift certificatest shirtscharitiestable of contents
learnabetterlife/learnhedgeaddesign.gif

for the record, this investment club and private hedge fund are not licensed. The license applications I attempted were turned down by the ks securities commission where the fagot punks said my degrees and genius IQ does not matter. The license procedure involved being sponsored to take the tests, which I passed with some of the highest scores in America when allowed to try. the kc area stock broker offices, merrill lynch, smith barney, painewebber did not sponsor me, said my degrees do not matter, said my ownership of those companies does not matter, and had me arrested for fiction such as trespassing, which the fagots in the securities commission used as reasons to deny my license saying, 'ownership is not right'. Since I have been bankrupt, jailed, put in mental hospitals, drugged, lost my real estate sales license and denied my real estate broker license, told for 30 years by my so called daddy a harvard degree lawyer in kc, not to go to law school, I would never get a license or job, and his mafia crap has put me in jail mental hospitals for 30 years, I started the private hedge fund/investment club, and always said it is not licensed.

I have been disrespected since age 18 and have to be a multi billionaire. The ks state securities office mailed me a letter today questioning my web site and the fact I am not licensed and are threatening me with law suits. These same punks would not grant me a license and disrespected me face to face. There is no license for this, I HAVE TO EARN $5 BILLION/YR IN AMERICA IN 2012 AND BACK PAY CHECK and PAY BACK FOR 30+ years of disrespect, mafia, nazi, punk murder. 

http://www.ksc.ks.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/174

learnabetterlife/learnhedgeaddesign.gif
learnabetterlife/sowhat.jpg
learnabetterlife/learnhedgeaddesign.gif

 dad was murdered by- ?

the police, a set up, mistaken identity with look a likes, gossips saying he was the look a like, with their look a like dad crap, stole his identity, stole his money, killed him making him as the bad guy because they had the look a like do things, gossips saying it was him, then they set him up, killed him,

similar lies about myself, raping women, molesting, in smith barney and other stockbrokers, lies in court by punks fagits

when I was 16, the gossip took off, he- dad, would not play by the rules, talked of me taking people's stock broker accounts, his, 'take it', how do you take a persons stock broker account assets? fake identity, -it is just a paper- be a man- fight- some thing-'so how do I get paid?' idiots... having the papers with the stock statements?- idiots, how do I cash them out and put cash in my pocket?' idiots...people with working knowledge of the office/company- could do such fraud, but to fight to then actually do it?' - I believe his look a like started that when I was 16, and then murdered him, police maybe, as some gossip was, he said he was scared once, that a guy who looked like him was doing things, he said he had unique hand writing as some try to copy his, that changed after my college, he changed- mafia gossip mimic idiot,  and they wanted to turn me into one of them, never leave the hood of punks, they hated me going on trips to california and hawaii, turn me into their punk  life of lies fraud and murder. ignored in the law and court, reality- so what, no one cares, what are you going to do about it?,  just talked about around the hood to the peoples.... all punks in hell. 

or 'snakes' murdered him in a stock broker offices, snakes of another frat, who could also be police, become police to frat war, as some gossip goes

or his law firm people killed him, because he was better than them and they say he did some thing to them, maybe true, into their own trap of crap, or gossip of crap/lies, 'your dad was murdered, you will see how much money his law firm people have who are inferior to him'
 
or his friends? killed him from his investment group, took him out to their farm, stuck rebar up his ass, because he was an 'ass hole' and they built homes, then stole his identity and made it seem like we were all friends, just a brain wash scam for the children growing up who could not know any different. a whole group of people who have look a likes for groups, as some gossip goes, and frats, frat group look a likes, all a mass of confusion, intentionally then total chaos 

or a Beta ceo of sprint wrestled him, broke his legs, and they left him to die crippled in the office and had a party as he watched- stole his money

or / and he started the KC Merrill Lynch office and they killed him after he took their companies public, did what only he could do with his degrees, made them rich, then stole his money and hid their crimes, or he was asked by a girl or frat brother from a local non ranked college how to do something in a stock broker office, he showed them, then after 'they know how to do it' they blind sided him, killed him, a shot to the head, laughed and called him chump, my mom has called me chump lately, tod crm at coldwell banker blind sided me with the sleeper hold in the contract room, asking me for help, lied about his education, as the current reece nichols web site lists it, bud, another realter, has poisened my food I believe, at dads funeral at the country club, with people coming and going, making cracks, and the last time we ate lunch, for 20 years, at my suggestion, to see who he was, showing up, for one reason, the same with other persons, lunch, to see who they are this time.
 
or a guy at an auto plant made something out of steel, dad said so what, they had a big guy attack dad with their punk group, dad put him down, had him in the sleeper hold, and they hit dad in the back of the head with the steal pipe and killed him, blind siding him from the start with a group of punks in the office - or they were his friends? who hated him, and had to beat him, any way they could

or he was killed, as gossip of many from his country club were killed, because all they did was '....' just educated people who were killed by punks who 'work' and think that entitles them to kill people, they kill their betters, with office jobs and country clubs, they kill their betters in the offices and country clubs among each other, steal their identities, saying 'all they do is, we can do that' 'we don't need degrees to do it, or that degree' 'competition-anything goes' or 'we let engineers kill people' 'your dad was not as smart as some engineers' well many engineers are smarter than most, like myself, and their is plenty of fraud, look a like identity theft involved, crap created to 'just scrub bathrooms with toothbrushes' - so what waste of time and energy, and time and energy put in the trash, ignored not used in reality, because of costs, time, practical, etc.

there is always some one better in some way than another, some better with lies and fraud or no way to prove it, some better who are damaged along the way by others, I have that experience. what ever reason  any people use to disrespect others, the same will be used against them selves, what goes around comes around, on the streets, maybe the streets over rule the law and courts, maybe sometimes they rightfully should, maybe sometimes it is all lies and crap, so ? 

maybe one gossip was my natural dad was a farmer, and could not take care of kids and lawyer dad took the kids and mom, as maybe he was messed up and could not have children, or maybe as one gossip goes, he murdered natural dad with mom, for money, and natural dad was just a gm factory worker/engineer w/o any college degrees, but the lawyer degrees had more money and mom and him killed my natural dad, or maybe when they moved when I was in kindergarten he was murdered and they moved out away from the people that knew, or maybe again he was murdered when I was 16 by kids from my hs, their parents had them do it to be 'men' or they had gossip set ups and had their hs frat kill him in a wrestling fight at Merrill lynch, because 'he was a big bad beta wrestler' as police and nazi drs. have called me - and they said he was an investor, and they hated him owing the companies, and killed him, too many gossip stories but they all have some truth credibility, based on my own experience, with police, and the law, mental health nazis
 
or after punks at Merrill lynch blind sided me, arrested me at the plaza, then threatened me on the phone with fake new england accents, I spray painted I own the place, which I did, on 103 and metcalf, 6 months in jail for that? malicious prosecution, decapitate all of them .... and after several rounds in the punk court houses, they invited me to a seminar in the plaza office, when I was in California buying a house. or they begged dad to open an account, he did, they started messing with me, him, when I was 16, he went in to close out his account, trust accounts, they killed him, since he was not going to supply them with any more money, be of no use to them? he was doing something bad against the company? they are punks, doing good or bad for the company?, any thing  -lies-can be created by punks, decapitate all of them.  The punks at smith barney did the same thing, arrest me for fiction, raping molesting women, trespassing, then a year or so after, call me up asking for me to open an account. Or was it all set ups by dead dad and the court house as he once claimed, 'they do not even know what is going on' 'smith barney has merrill lynch' he said, or did he start it after the first blind side arrest at merrill lynch on the plaza, when they called me 'video corner' while I was hand cuffed and blind sided by cops, trying to break my arms, video corner was out of my portfolio by then. 
 
I guess some of the most destructive issues of my life have been gossip, negative crap. true or false, about my family, parents, friends, bad talking others at jobs, during job interviews in college, maybe the intent of scum, to turn me against those I should trust or be with, and killing all trust every where. Creating issues of hate against groups, that are irrelevant to common sense, thus creating anarchy among all, and trust of no one. When no one has trust, credibility, then all gossips of murders, identity theft, become real, impossible to all be real, but in some ways, all real.  This has created my motives since a teen, and my dad, who was no billionaire with his degrees, and what is the difference between any one person and every one else? if he and others disrespect my degrees, they themselves become nothings, as they demonstrate by their homes and wealth, and complete insane crap every where with every one. Motivation to be right, no where. Once people threaten me, over what ever issue, they and the issue become black marks, if it is a company- the company has a black mark, and reinforces act gmat BS MS. When people try to suck me into their 'group' 'company' it is a joke? why? trying to take me away from what I have, create wars in what I have, well wars are 30 years old now, never going away. If it is family, family talking up persons who previously were punks, family is a question, and then ignoring past issues about punks. Owners being talked down, then talked up, in private video corner, etc. who cares, every thing is about ME, and who are they? black marks 4ever, nothings but war, issue/issue, $ issue / $ issue 4ever, person/person, company/company- punks.  

kcroommates.com

learnabetterlife/learnhedgeaddesign.gif
gac/kcrHedge-Fund-Salaries.jpg

learnabetterlife/lblinvestclub.jpg
learnabetterlife/learnhedgeaddesign.gif
learnabetterlife/lovemoney.jpg

Click on LOG IN button, then enter your email and password

learnabetterlife/hedgefundlearn.jpg

hedgefundletters

GMO

insider monkey

indispensable-websites-for-investors

indispensable-books-for-investing-better

learnabetterlife/learnhedgeaddesign.gif
learnabetterlife/efficientmarkettheory.jpg
learnabetterlife/learnhedgeaddesign.gif

tradestops.com

“Buy Wide and Sell Tight.”

 

That is, buy junk bonds when there’s panic in the air and spreads off treasuries have ballooned extraordinarily, and sell them when there’s confidence and spreads tighten.

 

 HYG   We’re attempting only to impress upon you, our reader, the importance of this sector as an indicator of what’s to come.  On the one hand, junk is sensitive to the general state of credit (as we mentioned above).  During times of instability and fear, spreads will widen considerably, as they did earlier this summer.  On the other hand, junk trades directly off the underlying stock.  That is, it moves with the market in general and not as a function of changes in interest rates.

hyg

2010--2012+

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 )

Carol Loomis (one of my favorite financial writers) writes in this week's Fortuneabout a bet that Warren Buffett made with a hedge fund management company. You can read the fascinating story at http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/04/news/newsmakers/buffett_bet.fortune/index.htm. Quoting:

"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).

learnabetterlife/begown.jpg

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

Join today for only $24.99/mo

Opinion About Finance Theory, click here

learnabetterlife/usaquotes.jpg
learnabetterlife/usaquotes.jpg
learnabetterlife/usaquotes.jpg
learnabetterlife/actionreaction4ever.jpg
learnabetterlife/learnhedgeaddesign.gif
learnabetterlife/prcedentscred2.jpg

This is an example of biased opinions to automatically disqualify, based on the words 'only way', as I studied finance at Purdue Krannert, when it was ranked 'simply as good as it gets' in national mba school polls, they taught the efficient market theory with such biasness, that I did not study the crap much, earned Bs, as I was the same way in many classes in engineering and high school, that were too biased, too much crap, too much fraud. When I look at certain things, written words, people, objects, I auto matically disqualify many based on first impressions/looks, such as teachers in school, ie finance teacher- efficient market theory. I called smith barney morgan stanley last week, the yahoo finance listed number, asking to talk to the listed chairman, and was transferred to the complaint department, where a younger sounding girl acted like she was seriously listening and taking notes, about my issues since the 1970's - asking me how much money would settle my complaints, I replied, $100 Billion, based on real damages, physical, and lost money, pay checks at hedge funds at over $1 billion/yr for 10years now, and the current listed $3.5 million/yr pay check of the ceo. She said they would be back with me in 4 weeks, in October 2012.  The next day, a dirty old looking crummy car drove by the front of my house, a woman, all made up smiling, a guy who looked like the old Purdue finance teacher, PhD MIT- I could hear snot off saying 'punk', key idea is 'looked like' 30+ years of look a likes, idiots, identity theft, pretenders, as that teacher in class acted tough, smoked cigarettes-like an idiot- with his military? crew cut, turtle necks, black nerd glasses, and contradicted himself over the 2 year period I earned my degrees, REAL BIASED.

“Channel Investing”: The Only Way To Beat The Efficient Market Hypothesis


 
There is a way to beat the market. To understand how it is possible, we must first understand why it is so difficult and why the vast majority of traders never accomplish it.

In a nutshell, the barrier to truly spectacular gains is “efficient markets.” As you may know, the efficient-market hypothesis is one of the most important insights into equity trading ever developed. First, I’ll give you the Wikipedia definition. Then I’ll add to it and tell you how to overcome it. Wiki says:

In finance, the efficient-market hypothesis (EMH) asserts that financial markets are “informationally efficient.” In consequence of this, one cannot consistently achieve returns in excess of average market returns on a risk-adjusted basis, given the information available at the time the investment is made.

In other words, so much information is available to so many traders all the time, it is nearly impossible for one person to glean something from the blizzard of information and disinformation available online to consistently outperform all the others trying to do the same thing.



This is true. There is a way, however, to beat the traders. The technique is a radical financial strategy called “investing.”

Yes, I’m being somewhat facetious, but it’s true.

Historically, investors who did their homework and identified technological innovations before the mass of traders began trying to predict every micro-movement in a stock have been able to reap legendary gains.

This is possible for a number of reasons. One is that the vast majority of traders are not experts at anything except following trends. They are generalists almost by definition. Therefore, an army of generalists is constantly reacting to the tiniest, most trivial bit of data, trying constantly to predict what all the other generalists will do.

The odds of winning this game, once you realize that the brokerages play the same role as “the house” in Las Vegas, are dismally low. I have a friend who has run several major brokerages who tells me that he and everybody else in that business know this is true but will never admit it.

Investors, however, have the option of actually doing the work and learning about emerging technologies. Armed with sufficient understanding of specific innovations and overall economic forces, investors in breakthrough technologies can earn huge returns. I use the word “earn” purposely, by the way. If you hear somebody use the word “win” or “won” in the stock markets, you know they are gamblers, not investors.

Investors don’t constantly buy and sell trying to outguess the market, which is exactly what brokerages want you to do. Investors do the work to understand where science and technology are going and buy equities in companies, not stocks, positioned to profit from the constantly changing technological environment.

This is actually a very difficult thing to do, for psychological and emotional reasons. People tend to watch tickers too closely and fall prey to the herd mentality. I tell people, however, that it is far better to sit on a transformational stock that doubles in value for five years than it is to try to win 10% or 15% gains in the short run.

The calculated annual ROI of a successful short-run trade is, on paper, huge. The fact is, however, that virtually nobody constantly wins short-run trades. Only supercomputers on the floors of the exchanges do that. Traders who average 20% gains yearly are nearly nonexistent. If you have the patience to invest in companies that can double or triple in a five or so year cycle, however, such returns are absolutely feasible.

You hear about big trading success stories, however, as traders are likely to brag about those “wins” while ignoring their losses and charges. Brokerages also tout those instances, just as the casinos issue press releases when somebody wins big at slots. Neither brokerages nor casinos put out press releases showing the vast majority of gamblers slowly turning over their wealth to the house.

Investors often buy only once and sell once many years later. Some sell at various points in the upward movement of a company’s stock to lock in gains or get cash to buy additional equities when markets inevitably dip. Investors who indulge in this sort of trading are actually engaging in “price averaging” and can make truly spectacular gains, as quite a few of my readers have demonstrated. 



The key, however, is that the trades are meant to bolster an investment, not outperform the gamblers.

Price averaging is simply adding to your holdings of companies that you believe will increase in the long run. I also call this channel trading because many early-stage innovation companies vacillate regularly in pretty well defined channels. Armed with enough information about those patterns, it’s not that hard to buy after a stock goes down and sell some after it goes back up — keeping in mind that the true point is to add to long-term holdings at low prices.

The key point about this strategy is that the channel traders’ buys and sells take place “after” movements. Unlike traders trying to predict movements and place their orders before the herd stampedes, channel investors can sit back, watch the herd and profit by increasing their ownership of companies in a diversified portfolio of transformational technologies.

This is the only way to beat the efficient-market hypothesis, because it’s based on knowledge that traders simply don’t bother to learn. It often involves relatively complex science and even some basic knowledge of math and statistics. While it is simple in theory, it’s very difficult to stay calm and stick to your guns while investors are shouting and waving their arms around like branches in a hurricane.

Regards,

Patrick Cox, for Penny Sleuth
I like these ideas, below- George A. Crawford III MS BS still, now on my second half century
All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make, the better.

Ralph Waldo Emerson


Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

- Buddha

learnabetterlife/itallmatters.jpg

learnabetterlife/usaquotes.jpg
gac/trespassingkc29.jpg

gac/gacstkpunk.jpg
learnabetterlife/usaquotes.jpg

gac/gacstkpunk.jpg
gac/gacstkpunk.jpg
learnabetterlife/usaquotes.jpg
gac/gacstkpunk.jpg
gac/gacstkpunk.jpg
learnabetterlife/learnhedgeaddesign.gif
gac/gacstkpunk.jpg
gac/gacstkpunk.jpg
gac/gacstkpunk.jpg
learnabetterlife/learnhedgeaddesign.gif
learnabetterlife/usaquotes.jpg

gac/gacstkpunk.jpg
gac/gacstkpunk.jpg
learnabetterlife/learnhedgeaddesign.gif
   



pttt

Theory of relativity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two-dimensional projection of a three-dimensional analogy of space-time curvature described in General Relativity.
Two-dimensional projection of a three-dimensional analogy of space-time curvature described in General Relativity.
This page is about the scientific concept of relativity, for philosophical or sociological theories about relativity see Relativism.

The theory of relativity , or simply relativity, refers specifically to two theories of Albert Einstein: special relativity and general relativity. However, "relativity" can also refer to Galilean relativity.

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.

Contents

 

 Special relativity

Main article: Special relativity

Special relativity is a theory of the structure of spacetime. It was introduced in Albert Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Special relativity is based on two postulates which are contradictory in classical mechanics:

  1. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (Galileo's principle of relativity),
  2. 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.
  • Mass-energy equivalence: E = mc2, energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable.

The defining feature of special relativity is the replacement of the Galilean transformations of classical mechanics by the Lorentz transformations. (See Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism and introduction to special relativity).

General relativity

Main article: General relativity

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:

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.

References and links

See the special relativity references and the general relativity references. For information on the silent film produced on this subject, see The Einstein Theory of Relativity.

External links

Look up theory of relativity in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Bear or Bull market?

wyattresearch.com

insider-monitor

sentimentrader.com

Technical Analysis

tech sigs

http://www.itulip.com/

cycle analysis

gold

sentimentrader

intrade.com

Hedge Fund Manager Paid $3.8 Billion in 2007 click here

$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............

NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo Investigating $4 Billion in Accelerated Merrill Bonuses

1/30/2009 10:46 AM
Keywords:

BAC

 

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



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 NCAA Wrestling Team Championship was first officially awarded in 1929 and began to be continuously awarded on an annual basis in 1934 except during World War II 1943-1945. 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

Contents

 

Division I Team Champions

  • 1928 Oklahoma A&M
  • 1929 Oklahoma A&M
  • 1930 Oklahoma A&M
  • 1931 Oklahoma A&M
  • 1932 Indiana
  • 1933 Iowa State
  • Oklahoma A&M
  • 1934 Oklahoma A&M
  • 1935 Oklahoma A&M
  • 1936 Oklahoma
  • 1937 Oklahoma A&M
  • 1938 Oklahoma A&M
  • 1939 Oklahoma A&M
  • 1940 Oklahoma A&M
  • 1941 Oklahoma A&M
  • 1942 Oklahoma A&M
  • 1946 Oklahoma A&M
  • 1947 Cornell College
  • 1948 Oklahoma A&M
  • 1949 Oklahoma A&M
  • 1950 Northern Iowa
  • 1951 Oklahoma
  • 1952 Oklahoma
  • 1953 Penn State
  • 1954 Oklahoma A&M
  • 1955 Oklahoma A&M
  • 1956 Oklahoma A&M
  • 1957 Oklahoma
  • 1958 Oklahoma State
  • 1959 Oklahoma State
  • 1960 Oklahoma
  • 1961 Oklahoma State
  • 1962 Oklahoma State
  • 1963 Oklahoma
  • 1964 Oklahoma State
  • 1965 Iowa State
  • 1966 Oklahoma State
  • 1967 Michigan State
  • 1968 Oklahoma State
  • 1969 Iowa State
  • 1970 Iowa State
  • 1971 Oklahoma State
  • 1972 Iowa State
  • 1973 Iowa State
  • 1974 Oklahoma
  • 1975 Iowa
  • 1976 Iowa
  • 1977 Iowa State
  • 1978 Iowa
  • 1979 Iowa
  • 1980 Iowa
  • 1981 Iowa
  • 1982 Iowa
  • 1983 Iowa
  • 1984 Iowa
  • 1985 Iowa
  • 1986 Iowa
  • 1987 Iowa State
  • 1988 Arizona State
  • 1989 Oklahoma State
  • 1990 Oklahoma State
  • 1991 Iowa
  • 1992 Iowa
  • 1993 Iowa
  • 1994 Oklahoma State
  • 1995 Iowa
  • 1996 Iowa
  • 1997 Iowa
  • 1998 Iowa
  • 1999 Iowa
  • 2000 Iowa
  • 2001 Minnesota
  • 2002 Minnesota
  • 2003 Oklahoma State
  • 2004 Oklahoma State
  • 2005 Oklahoma State
  • 2006 Oklahoma State
  • 2007 Minnesota
  • 2008 Iowa

(I have wrestled before- nothing to do with me going to college or OK ST but I have done it, respect gets respect, ditto disrespect, physical gets physical,professional gets professional, punks/behind the back, gets it back)

 

wrestling contract

wikipedia.org NCAA Wrestling Team Championship

Intent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

See also

 

Malicious prosecution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scales of justice
Tort law
 
Part of the common law series
Intentional torts
Assault · Battery
False imprisonment Consent · Necessity
Self defense
Property torts
Trespass (land · chattels)
Conversion
Detinue · Replevin · Trover
Dignitary torts
Defamation · Invasion of privacy
False light · Breach of confidence
Abuse of process
Malicious prosecution
Alienation of affections
Economic torts
Fraud · Tortious interference
Conspiracy · Restraint of trade
Nuisance
Public nuisance
Rylands v. Fletcher
Negligence
Duty of care · Standard of care
Proximate cause · Res ipsa loquitur
Calculus of negligence
Rescue doctrine · Duty to rescue
Specific types Employment-related · Entrustment
Malpractice (legal · medical)
Duty to visitors
Trespassers · Licensees · Invitees
Attractive nuisance
Strict liability torts
Product liability
Ultrahazardous activity
Liability, defences, remedies
Comparative / contributory negligence
Last clear chance · Eggshell skull
Vicarious liability · Volenti non fit injuria
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Neutral reportage · Damages
Injunction
Other common law areas
Contract law · Property law
Wills, trusts and estates
Criminal law · Evidence
v  d  e

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.

See also

External links

learnabetterlife/learnhedgeaddesign.gif

Precedent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In common law legal 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.

Types of precedent

Binding precedent

Main article: Binding precedent

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.

Persuasive precedent

Main article: Persuasive precedent

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.

Critical analysis of precedent

Court formulations

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stated:

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]

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stated:

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]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ 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.)
  2. ^ 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).
  3. ^ 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).
  4. ^ James H. Fowler and Sangick Jeon, "The Authority of Supreme Court Precedent," Social Networks (2007), doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2007.05.001
  5. ^ Sinclair, Michael. "Precedent, Super-Precedent", George Mason Law Review (14 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 363) (2007)
  6. ^ Landes, William & Posner, Richard. “Legal Precedent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis”, 19 Journal of Law and Economics 249, 251 (1976).
  7. ^ Hayward, Allison. The Per Curiam Opinion of Steel: Buckley v. Valeo as Superprecedent?, Cato Supreme Court Review 195, 202, (2005-2006).
  8. ^ 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).
  9. ^ Benac, Nancy. Roberts Repeatedly Dodges Roe v. Wade, Associated Press (2005-09-13): Specter asked, "Would you think that Roe might be a super-duper precedent?"
  10. ^ 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.