Posts by casuallynx8

It strikes me—though I haven't had the opportunity to consult the specific legal statutes—that teachers are actually prohibited from charging their own students for private tutoring.

You should probably look into that. And if you do decide to take any formal action regarding this matter, my advice would be to wait until you have all your official graduation paperwork finalized by the school district first.😉

I’m having a hard time seeing the overlap between Clinton's "plan" and actual American bailout strategies. In the States, the approach moves in several distinct directions. First, there’s the injection of capital directly into banks to stabilize them. Second, you have massive bailouts for giant corporations that are essentially drowning—take General Motors, for instance—where much of that funding comes from monetary expansion. Third, there's the strategy of stimulating consumer spending by putting money back into people's pockets so they can drive economic growth from the bottom up. Finally, there are public works projects designed to absorb the workforce of those currently facing layoffs.

From my somewhat amateur perspective, that specific plan seems rooted in the idea that accepting a bit of inflation is a lesser evil than letting things spiral naturally toward deflation, or worse, a full-blown Great Depression.

Our leaders, however, seem to be tackling the issue through an entirely different lens. They don't actually care about the health of the economy; they realize that stimulating consumption is a moot point when we aren't producing anything of substance. Their sole, singular obsession is figuring out how to fill the state coffers. Without that revenue, they run into walls when trying to fund wage increases, pensions, or social safety nets, all of which are vital if they want to stay in power during local elections. Even Hank Paulson was hinting at raising the sales tax, though Clinton moved quickly to quiet that particular conversation. It really just highlights the pathetic, distorted state of our governance and the caliber of politicians we are forced to deal with.

Are they just incompetent?

I wouldn't go that far, but:

What shocked her and her colleague Nancy from their educational consulting firm most was that finance or accounting majors applying for auditor roles didn't actually grasp the fundamentals of reading financial statements or basic accounting principles.

In fact, the test results regarding technical skills were even more concerning, especially considering these subjects had spent years studying these exact topics at various universities across the USA.

Then again, this isn't exactly breaking news. I remember a lady telling me some 6 or 7 years ago that she’d have recent business school grads walking through her door who were hearing terms like "general ledger" or "chart of accounts" for the very first time.

We also have to consider this factor:

Two hundred candidates applied for the position, but once they realized there would be a competency exam, a hundred of them dropped out immediately.

I decided to double down on AT&T, though strictly from a mathematical standpoint; at the time, PepsiCo was still comfortably north of $400 (with my entry point sitting near $390), while AT&T was hovering around $282 (against my $310 entry). Furthermore, I held a larger position in Verizon.

If I were faced with that choice today, I’d likely split it 50-50, or perhaps even tilt the scales more heavily toward PepsiCo.

Most of the P/E ratios and ROE figures were pulled from Bloomberg, though I manually calculated a few specific companies myself. For Chevron and NASDAQ, however, I couldn't be bothered to dig through all the Q4 '06 data, so those P/E numbers are based on full 2006 results. (Chevron’s performance in '07 mirrored '06 quite closely, so the P/E holds steady there, though I'm less certain about NASDAQ)

Pension funds certainly played their part in this correction, but honestly, even without them, the market was bound to hit a breaking point where it would simply collapse under its own weight. It was inevitable. If they hadn't intervened, the fallout likely would have been significantly more catastrophic than what we're seeing now.

Regarding active trading, there is a rather fascinating statistic to consider: "From 1966 through late 2001, one study claimed, $1 held continuously in stocks would have grown to $11.71. But if you had gotten out of stocks right before the five worst days of each year, your original $1 would have grown to $987.12"

It sounds enticing, doesn't it? But the question remains: who can actually predict those five worst days? Who among us exited entirely into cash in October or December, anticipating this exact scenario? Personally, I moved my money out of funds in November—not long before the local bottom—but I'd call that more luck than intellect. That move was less a logical deduction and more of a gamble; what truly spooked me back then was the combination of Jack Welch's leadership at the firm and the tension in Mexico. So, let's just call it pure luck.

I recall Walter mentioning how he exited HDFC at 2000 because he realized a stock with a P/E over 100 and a price at only 8 times book value was essentially a bubble waiting to burst. I believe he mentioned elsewhere that he also exited a fund after it yielded massive gains in a very short window. To that end, Walter 🙏, I would love for you to enlighten us more on your methodology for recognizing when it's time to run for the exits 😁

Suppose a miracle occurs and by year-end, the Nasdaq surges to: a) 5000 b) 5500 c) 6000 points. Who would: a) retreat to cash; b) sit tight and hold exactly what they have; or c) beat themselves up for not buying more heavily at these levels—even if it meant buying on margin—only to start panic-buying during the height of the euphoria?

After witnessing a spectacular rally in various equities over the last year or so—with the NYSE climbing from 3,214 points on February 1, 2007, to its ATH of 5,392 on October 15—we have spent the last few months navigating a significant correction. Some of those popular stocks that everyone rushed toward in 2007 have seen their prices plummet relative to their ATH values; some have even shed 50% of their worth. Consequently, the prevailing sentiment among forum members, and indeed the broader public, revolves around two questions: "Have we hit rock bottom?" and "When will the recovery finally begin?"

There has been considerable discussion regarding how high returns in capital markets are typical for an emerging economy in transition, and the theory that these yields will diminish as we move closer to EU integration. Within the "mutual fund" threads, the consensus seems to be that we might have one or two years of elevated returns left before average fund performance drops, leaving investors to settle for a more modest 15% annual return.

It stands to reason to ask whether there is any concrete evidence to support these projections regarding future market yields, or whether the NYSE has truly reached its floor.

Let’s start by looking at the most developed capital market in the world. How has it behaved over the last three decades?



The average annual return of US indices would likely seem laughable to a novice investor who has just discovered the stock market. They typically expect a 10% jump in a matter of months, or in certain instances, just a few days.

However, the last decade was a rather lackluster period for major global indices. Conversely, the NYSE, acting as our "transitional" index, performed quite differently. Here is a look at the performance over the past 10 years:



From this historical data, we can draw several conclusions:
1) A 15% return, which fund investors are told they should be "satisfied" with long-term, is not merely satisfactory—it would be extraordinary if achievable. Unfortunately, such a target is almost entirely unrealistic in the long run. To achieve that, funds would need to outperform an index as strong as the NYSE's recent 10-year run by a full 3%, once you factor in the 2% management fee and the 0.3% custodial bank fee. Not a single fund managed to outperform the NYSE during last spring's aggressive rally.
2) For the NYSE to reclaim its ATH, it would need to climb approximately 40% from its current level. Given its average annual return of 14.4% over the last decade, it would take roughly two and a half years to reach that mark.

The logic falls apart if this correction is merely a temporary dip caused by pension funds, and if stocks return to their 2007 levels once those funds shift from selling to buying. If that were the case, current prices would be incredibly attractive, and we would expect a massive wave of buying to trigger shortly.

The reality, however, is better illustrated by this table:



Specifically, the average P/E for the NYSE is 37. In the last 20 years, the S&P 500 has exceeded that P/E ratio only once. Meanwhile, the average P/E for the DJIA currently sits around 16, and it's worth noting that those stocks offer an average dividend yield of 2.5%—something that remains unthinkable for most companies within the NYSE.

Admittedly, because local companies are advancing more rapidly, a higher P/E is partially justifiable. However, a return on invested capital averaging 11.33% suggests that the 14.4% annual price appreciation we have enjoyed thus far is unsustainable over the long term.

What are your thoughts?

I sincerely hope that none of the legal experts or other folks in this group attempt to advise you on how to dodge your fines. If you managed to rack up $1667 violations all at once, then frankly, you were being so incredibly reckless that you actually deserve the 👎