Very interesting story from Mark Cuban about stocks.

Search

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
44,516
Tokens
Yes this is an old story but I bet many people have not read it.
I have been thinking like this for a while now and finally found someone who feels the same way as me. And who is it? Mark Cuban of all people.

He talks about non dividend stocks being like baseball cards. The only reason common shares have value is because people collectively decide they have value. nothing more then pieces of paper after the initial IPO. One of the big reasons some of these small cap stocks never get off the ground is because they were not IPO'd by a major firm like Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan. The fund managers are not going to take interest if there buddies were not part of the ponzi scheme. I also just read the book he recommended in the blog "The Number" and give it a perfect 5/5. I would encourage eveyone to read that book. Here is the story:






The Stock Market
Apr 13th 2004 11:20AM

Mark Cuban

I get asked all the time to write a book about business and my approach to it. I’m not ready to take that leap yet, but along the way, when I find a book that really impresses me, I try to help it find an audience. In this case, it wasn’t long ago I read my now favorite book about the stock market called The Number by Alex Berenson. I liked it so much, I volunteered to write the forward for the paperback edition which comes out this week.

Here is the foreward I wrote for The Number. I recommend that anyone with an interest in the market jump at the chance to buy it.

In 1990, I sold my company, MicroSolutions – which specialized in what at the time was the relatively new business of helping companies network their computer equipment – to CompuServe. After taxes, I walked away with about $2 million. That was going to be my nest egg, and my goal was to protect it at all costs, and grow it wisely.

I set about interviewing stockbrokers and settled upon a broker from Goldman Sachs, Raleigh Ralls. Raleigh was in his late 20s, and relatively new to Goldman. But we hit it off very well and I trusted him. As we planned my financial future, I made it clear that I wanted my nest egg to be invested not like I was 30 years old, but as if I were 60 years old. I was a widows and orphans investor.

Over the next year I stuck to my plan. I trusted Raleigh, and he put me in bonds, dividend-paying utilities and blue chips, just as I asked.

During that year, Raleigh began asking me a lot of questions about technology. Because of my experience at MicroSolutions, I knew the products and companies that were hot. Synoptics, Wellfleet, NetWorth, Lotus, Novell and others. I knew which had products that worked, didn’t work, were selling or not. How these companies were marketed, and whether or not they were or would be successful.

I couldn’t believe that I would have an advantage in the market. After all, I had read A Random Walk Down Wall Street in college. I truly thought that the markets were efficient, that any available knowledge about a company was already reflected in its stock price. Yet I saw Raleigh using the information I gave him to make money for his clients. He finally broke me down to start using this information to my advantage to make some money in the market. Finally after more than a year, I relented. I was ready to trade.

Notice I didn’t use the word invest. I wasn’t an investor. I just wanted to make money. The reason I was ready to try was that it was patently obvious that the market wasn’t efficient. Someone like me with industry knowledge had an advantage. My knowledge could be used profitably. As we got ready to start, I asked Raleigh if he had any words of wisdom that I should remember. His response was simple. “Get Long, Get Loud”.

Get Long, Get Loud. As we started buying and selling technology stocks, most of which were in the local area networking field that I had specialized in at MicroSolutions, Raleigh put me on the phone with analysts, money managers, individual investors, reporters, anyone with money or influence who wanted to talk technology and stocks.

We talked about token ring topologies that didn’t work on 10BaseT. We talked about what companies were stuffing channels – selling more equipment to their distributors than the distributors really needed to meet the retail demand. We talked about who was winning, and who was losing. We talked about things that really amounted to the things you would hear if you attended any industry trade show panel. Yet after hanging up the phone with these people, I would watch stocks move up and down. Of course as the stocks moved, the number of people wanting to talk to me grew.

I remember buying stock in a Canadian company called Gandalf Technologies in the early 90s. Gandalf made Ethernet bridges that allowed businesses and homes to connect to the Internet and each other via high-speed digital phone lines called ISDN.

I had bought one for my house and liked the product, and I’d talked to other people who’d used it. They had decent results, nothing spectacular, but good enough. I had no idea Gandalf was even a public company until a friend of Raleigh’s asked me about it. What did I think about Gandalf Technologies? It was trading at the time at about a buck a share. It was a decent company, I said. It had competition, but the market was new and they had as much chance as anyone to succeed. Sure, I’ll buy some, and I would be happy to answer any questions about the technology. The market size, the competition, the growth rates. Whatever I knew, I would tell.

I bought the stock, I answered the questions, and I watched Gandalf climb from a dollar to about $20 a share over the next months.

At a dollar, I could make an argument that Gandalf could be attractive. Its market was growing, and compared to the competition, it was reasonably valued on a price-sales or price-earnings basis. But at $20, the company’s market value was close to $1 billion – which in those days was real money. The situation was crazy. People were buying the stock because other people were buying the stock.

To add to the volume, a mid-sized investment bank that specialized in technology companies came out with a buy rating on Gandalf. They reiterated all the marketing mishmash that was fun to talk about when the stock was a dollar. The ISDN market was exploding. The product was good. Gandalf was adding distributors. If they only maintained X percentage of the market, they would grow to some big number. Their competitors were trading at huge market caps, so this company looks cheap. Et cetera, et cetera.

The bank made up forecasts formulating revenue numbers at monstrous growth rates that at some point in the future led to profits. Unfortunately, the bank couldn’t attract enough new money to the stock to sustain its price. It didn’t have enough brokers to shout out the marketing spiel to entice enough new buyers to pay the old buyers. The hope among the “sophisticated buyers” was that one bank picking up coverage would lead to others doing the same. It didn’t happen. No other big investment banks published reports on the stock. The volume turned down.

So I did the only smart thing. I sold my stock, and I shorted it to boot. Then I told the same people who asked me why I was buying the stock that I had shorted the stock. Over the next months, the stock sank into oblivion. In 1997, Gandalf filed for bankruptcy. Its shares were canceled – wiped out – a few months later. I wish I could take credit for the stock going up, and going down. I can’t. If the company had performed well, who knows what the stock would have done?

But the entire experience taught me quite a bit about how the market works. For years on end a company’s price can have less to do with a company’s real prospects than with the excitement it and its supporters are able to generate among investors. That lesson was reinforced as I saw the Gandalf experience repeated with many different stocks over the next 10 years. Brokers and bankers market and sell stocks. Unless demand can be manufactured, the stock will decline.

In July of 1998, my partner Todd Wagner and I took our company, Broadcast.com, public with Morgan Stanley. Broadcast.com used audio and video streaming to enable companies to communicate live with customers, employees, vendors, anyone with a PC. We founded Broadcast.com in 1995, and we were well on our way to being profitable. Still, we never thought we would go public so quickly. But this was the Internet Era, and the demand for Internet stocks was starting to explode. So publicly traded we would become and Morgan Stanley would shepherd us.

Part of the process of taking a new company public is something called a road show. The road show is just that. A company getting ready to sell shares visits the big mutual funds, hedge funds, pension funds – anyone who can buy millions of dollars of stock in a single order. It’s a sales tour. 7 days, 63 presentations. We often discussed turning up the volume on the stock. It was the ultimate “Get Loud.” Call it Stockapalooza.

Prior to the road show, we put together an amazing presentation. We hired consultants to help us. We practiced and practiced. We argued about what we should and shouldn’t say. We had Morgan Stanley and others ask us every possible question they could think of so we wouldn’t look stupid when we sat in front of these savvy investors.

Savvy investors? I was shocked. Of the 63 companies and 400-plus participants we visited, I would be exaggerating if I said we got 10 good questions about our business and how it worked. The vast majority of people in the meetings had no clue who we were or what we did. They just knew that there were a lot of people talking about the company and they should be there.

The lack of knowledge at the meetings got to be such a joke between Todd and I that we used to purposely mess up to see if anyone noticed. Or we would have pet lines that we would make up to crack each other up. Did we ruin our chance for the IPO? Was our product so complicated that no one got it and as a result no one bought the stock? Hell no. They might not have had a clue, but that didn’t stop them from buying the stock. We batted 1.000. Every single investor we talked to placed the maximum order allowable for the stock.

On July 18, 1998, Broadcast.com went public as BCST, priced at 18 dollars a share. It closed at $62.75, a gain of almost 250 percent, which at the time was the largest one day rise of a new offering in the history of the stock market. The same mutual fund managers who were completely clueless about our company placed multimillion orders for our stock. Multimillion dollar orders using YOUR MONEY.

If the value of a stock is what people will pay for it, then Broadcast.com was fairly valued. We were able to work with Morgan Stanley to create volume around the stock. Volume creates demand. Stocks don’t go up because companies do well or do poorly. Stocks go up and down depending on supply and demand. If a stock is marketed well enough to create more demand from buyers than there are sellers, the stock will go up. What about fundamentals? Fundamentals is a word invented by sellers to find buyers.

Price-earnings ratios, price-sales, the present value of future cash flows, pick one. Fundamentals are merely metrics created to help stockbrokers sell stocks, and to give buyers reassurance when buying stocks. Even how profits are calculated is manipulated to give confidence to buyers.

I get asked every day to invest in private companies. I always ask the same couple questions. How soon till I get my money back, and how much cash can I make from the investment? I never ask what the PE ratio will be, what the Price to Sales ratio will be. Most private investors are the same way. Heck, in Junior Achievement we were taught to return money to our investors. For some reason, as Alex points out in The Number, buyers of stocks have lost sight of the value of companies paying them cash for their investment. In today’s markets, cash isn’t earned by holding a company and collecting dividends. It’s earned by convincing someone to buy your stock from you.

If you really think of it, when a stock doesn’t pay dividends, there really isn’t a whole lot of difference between a share of stock and a baseball card.

If you put your Mickey Mantle rookie card on your desk, and a share of your favorite non-dividend paying stock next to it, and let it sit there for 20 years. After 20 years you would still just have two pieces of paper sitting on your desk.

The difference in value would come from how well they were marketed. If there were millions of stockbrokers selling baseball cards, if there were financial television channels dedicated to covering the value of baseball cards with a ticker of baseball card prices streaming at the bottom, if the fund industry spent billions to tell you to buy and hold baseball cards, I am willing to bet we would talk about the fundamentals of baseball cards instead of stocks.

I know that sounds crazy, but the stock market has gone from a place where investors actually own part of a company and have a say in their management, to a market designed to enrich insiders by allowing them to sell shares they buy cheaply through options. Companies continuously issue new shares to their managers without asking their existing shareholders. Those managers then leak that stock to the market a little at a time. It’s unlimited dilution of existing shareholders’ stakes, death by a thousand dilutive cuts. If that isn’t a scam, I don’t know what is. Individual shareholders have nothing but the chance to sell it to the next sucker. A mutual fund buys one million shares of a company with your and your coworkers’ money. You own 1 percent of the company. Six weeks later you own less, and all that money went to insiders, not to the company. And no one asked your permission, and you didn’t know you got diluted or by how much till 90 days after the fact if that soon.

When Broadcast.com went public, we raised a lot of money that certainly helped us grow as a company. But once you get past the raising capital part of the market, the stock market becomes not only inefficient, but as close to a Ponzi scheme as you can get.

As a public company, we got calls every day from people who owned Broadcast.com stock or had bought it for their funds. They didn’t call because they were confused during our road show, were too embarrassed to ask questions and wanted to get more information. They called because they wanted to know if the “fundamentals” – the marketing points – they had heard before were improving. And the most important fundamental was “The Number,” our quarterly earnings (or in our case, a loss). Once we went public, Morgan Stanley published a report on our company, as did several other firms. They all projected our quarterly sales and earnings. Would we beat The Number?

Of course, by law, we were not allowed to say anything. That didn’t stop people from asking. They needed us to beat the forecast. They knew if we beat The Number the volume on the stock would go up. Brokers would tell their clients about it. The Wall Street Journal would write about it. CNBC would shout the good news to day traders and investment banks that watched their network all day long. All the volume would drive up the stock price.

Unfortunately, patience is not a virtue on Wall Street. Every day, portfolios are valued by at closing price. If the value of your fund isn’t keeping up with the indexes or your competition, the new money coming in the market won’t come to you. It just wasn’t feasible for these investors to wait till the number was reported by companies each quarter. The volume had to be on the stocks in you fund. To keep the volume about a stock up, and the demand for the stock increasing, you needed to have good news to tell.

Volume, The Number, whisper numbers, insiders granting themselves millions and millions of options – these are the games that Wall Street plays to keep on enriching themselves at the expense of the public. I know this. I have tried to tell people to be careful before they turned over their life savings and their financial future to someone whose first job is to keep their job, not make you money.

Till I read The Number by Alex Berenson, I never had a book that explained how the market truly worked that I could tell my friends, family and acquaintances to read. I never had a book that would truly warn them that the market was not as fair and honest as mutual fund and brokerage commercials made them out to be. I may be a cynic when it comes to the stock market, but I am an informed cynic, and that has helped me make some very, very profitable decisions in the market.

If you are considering investing in the market, any part of it, or if you are considering giving your hard earned money over to someone else to manage, please, please read The Number first.

- Mark Cuban, Dallas, Texas, January 2004
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
Cuban one of the few honest rich guy's out there that both "gets it" and willing to say what he believes with no filter on it

---------------------------------------------------------

Wall Street’s new lie to Main Street – Asset*Allocation
January 24, 2011 @ 4:18 pm › markcuban
The greatest lie ever told used to be Wall Street telling main street to “buy and hold”. *Of course thats what they told you every chance they got. It’s not what they did. *The holding period for stocks dropped from 8 years in 1960s to 2 years in the 1990s and 8 months in the 2000s. * Today, stocks are bought and sold in milliseconds. *Which is one of the big reasons you don’t hear much about buy and hold any more. That and the fact it didn’t work. *I think individual owners of stocks *finally came to understand that old saying “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me for 50 years, shame on me. “

But Wall Street needs a marketing slogan doesn’t it ? How else are they going to get all the suckers back into the market ? (Great article on the Stock market is for Suckers from Macleans.ca). So what’s the new mantra that all those brokers, mutual funds and ETFs want you to buy in to ?

Asset Allocation (Aka diversification) is the best approach to investing. *Everyone is talking about asset allocation. *It’s not a surprise given all the new funds, REITs and ETFs that have popped up in the last couple years. The more diversification sold to individuals, the more money to buy them all. *Wall Street has to sell what it has doesn’t it * ? It’s just good business for them. But not for you.

No longer does Wall Street *even want you to consider buying what you know. Remember Peter Lynch describing how buyers of stocks should pay attention to what they see in the mall and elsewhere and use that as a source *of ideas and information ? Or Warren Buffet suggesting that we should actually invest in things we know and look for the value there ? *Well you can forget about that kind of investing.

Today, your investment advisors want you invest in things you have absolutely no fricking clue about and have pretty much absolutely no fricking ability to learn about.

They want you to diversify into Emerging Markets, Commodities, International Bonds, Munis, Real Estate Investment Trusts, ….and.. well, a lot of different “stuff”. Here is an excerpt from an article from a Sarasota *paper today:

“For context, I will provide the performance of my “moderate investor’s asset allocation” for both 2010 and with its predecessors for the period since 2000. For the previous 10 years, its predecessors were up about a cumulative 104 percent.

Last year’s version of the allocation was:

Fifteen percent in an S&P 500 index fund (IVV).

Five percent in a small-capitalization value fund (VBR).

Twenty percent in a diversified international stock fund (VEU).

Five percent in an emerging markets international fund (VWO).

Five percent in Real Estate Investment Trusts (VNQ).

Ten percent in large and mid-capitalization stocks with a history of paying competitive and increasing dividends (VIG).

Ten percent in a diversified portfolio of convertible securities (ACHIX).

Five percent in a U.S. Treasury inflation-indexed bonds and notes (VIPSX).

Fifteen percent in an international bond fund with traditional fixed coupon bonds (GIM).

Five percent in an international bond fund for inflation-indexed bonds (WIP).

Five percent in cash equivalents.”

*

That is a suggestion for a “moderate investor” . Let me translate this all for you. “I want you to invest 5pct in cash and the rest in 10 different funds about which you know absolutely nothing. I want you to make this investment knowing that even if there were 128 hours in a day and you had a year long vacation, you could not possibly begin to understand all of these products. In fact, I don’t understand them either, but because I know it sounds good and everyone is making the same kind of recommendations, we all can pretend we are smart and going to make a lot of money. Until we don’t“

Asset allocation is about making you a sucker. *Do you seriously want to put a significant percentage of the money you will need for your future in funds that put your money into things you have absolutely no idea about? Will you have any clue about when to change your asset allocation ? *Will you change it based on changes in the dollar ? Changes in domestic inflation ? Changes in European inflation ? Inflation in China ? Changes in tax laws in Italy and Greece ? Changes in interest rates ? Trade balances ?

It comes down to this. Do you want to invest in something you know, or in something Wall Street wants you to believe ?

Do you really think your broker, his boss and the analysts at their firm really are being completely honest with you about how much they know about these investments they want you to make ? *Ask them if they are making the exact same investment with their money. Ask them if they would make the same investment if they were not allowed to look at a quote screen all day long like you aren’t able to – which tells you if they trust the investment or want to watch it second by second knowing they may have to pull the trigger and get out on a moments notice.

Ask your broker for the names of people they have had to call or get a call from and let them know that their investment has *been wiped out. Talk to those people to understand what the ramifications of making in an investment in something you know nothing about might be.

Don’t be a sucker. Remember this. It’s better to make less, or next to nothing than to lose everything. Don’t get greedy. *Don;t get desperate. The stock market can’t save your financial future, but it can end it .
 

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
1,281
Tokens
Chop and Tiz. Thanks for the great post. I have been watching the shark tank the last couple of weeks and i have been becoming a huge fan of Mark Cuban.
The media has been portraying him as an obnoxious nba owner but hey he is a fan of the game. Love him or hate him, you can not take a way his keen sense for business....
 

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX.
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
15,353
Tokens
Cuban is from my hometown! Wooo hoo go Mark! LoL.

THis guy has family members that cant stand him here........nevertheless I like him. ALways have. He tells it like it is........with everything. Guy makes some valid points too.

Chop----Thanks for posting this. It was an excellent read and confirms what I always believed about the market. I remember my first TD Ameritrade purchase online 11 years ago or so......I bought this stock and I looked at my computer and said.....I dont really own anything here! I just have some numbers on a screen that says they are mine!

You have to be on the inside to make mega bucks in most cases.....Buffet, Jim Rodgers, Soros, these guys were privy to inside information and cashed in on their info. Plain and simple. Millionaires become billionaires and the story marches on.
I think this paragraph sums it up best.......
I know that sounds crazy, but the stock market has gone from a place where investors actually own part of a company and have a say in their management, to a market designed to enrich insiders by allowing them to sell shares they buy cheaply through options. Companies continuously issue new shares to their managers without asking their existing shareholders. Those managers then leak that stock to the market a little at a time. It’s unlimited dilution of existing shareholders’ stakes, death by a thousand dilutive cuts. If that isn’t a scam, I don’t know what is. Individual shareholders have nothing but the chance to sell it to the next sucker. A mutual fund buys one million shares of a company with your and your coworkers’ money. You own 1 percent of the company. Six weeks later you own less, and all that money went to insiders, not to the company. And no one asked your permission, and you didn’t know you got diluted or by how much till 90 days after the fact if that soon.
 

And thats why they play the game.
Joined
Sep 26, 2002
Messages
1,169
Tokens
"Asset allocation is about making you a sucker. *Do you seriously want to put a significant percentage of the money you will need for your future in funds that put your money into things you have absolutely no idea about? Will you have any clue about when to change your asset allocation ? *Will you change it based on changes in the dollar ? Changes in domestic inflation ? Changes in European inflation ? Inflation in China ? Changes in tax laws in Italy and Greece ? Changes in interest rates ? Trade balances ?"

Not entirely accurate here....you should be investing in the managers of the funds/etfs. They each should have the knowledge of how to invest your money for you..after all that is why they all have built in expenses. The manager of the emerging market fund makes the call as to where to invest. ie China, Brazil, Russia , India...not you as the end investor (in most cases anyway). Same for bonds...the bond fund manager follows interest rates, inflation rates, currencies etc and makes the decision as to what countries debt has value. This of course is the premise for the average investor who has no clue and pays for someone to allocate those assets for them.

The key is to find managers who have been in the business, have a proven track record, invest a large portion of their personal net worth in their own funds (or all of it). If they invest their personal net worth along side your money, at least your interests are aligned.

And fees of course do play a role, but I'd persoanally rather pay 1% fee and get 3-5% market out performance. than a .5% fee and no chance at beating the market.

A few managers (mutual funds) that meet the criteria mentioned and have steadily outperformed are Fairholme, Yacktman, FPA, Symons Value, FPA Cresent, Greenspring...and there are more...these tend to be go anywhere value managers.
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
hussman the only guy i'd trust my money with in the money managing world.....

he may suck during bubble times (last few years been crappy)...but he'll protect you for times when looking at the longer term like the past decade (where he has outperformed the S&P by alot)

the china, brazil, russias funds ETFs...aren't actively managed i don't believe...and its just the investment banking crooks using some sorta stock index like the dow with occasional flipping in and out of certain stocks........

the big problem with the markets today is just this general sense expectation that somebody else is going to do the work for you and isn't going fuck you over.....that general investing complacency is what allows crooks and banksters to run wild.....

until people wake up and take control of their own investing future, do some research, do some independent thought into economics etc.....nothing will change....as the market will have to adopt to the new public that is now sharper and more up to speed with things

banksters feed on the stupidity/complacency whatever you wanna call it of the average global citizen when it comes to economics and investing....
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
its just utterly flabergasting to me

how every single global citizen participates in the economy

but most of um are utterly clueless to how things really work.....or have little to no interest in figuring out how to invest their money and would rather trust somebody else to do it for them

i mean i kinda understand why as its very complex and probably not the most enjoyable thing to think about for your average joe......your average american couple has to work 2 jobs to survive nowadays, work longer hours etc...free time much more limited....on top of all the non stop propaganda and constant brainwashing from the CNBC type media.......

the housing bubble for instance is impossible for the banksters/government to produce unless you have a economically retarded population to work with.....the banksters can only lay the bait....they can't force you to take it.....

i'm just personally fascinated with because it as its one huge complex puzzle and I realize that it is by far the #1 factor in how the human world turns........especially today where the government and fed is so involved in the "free" markets....
 

And thats why they play the game.
Joined
Sep 26, 2002
Messages
1,169
Tokens
Hussman would be on my short list as well. He is very pessimistic currently and that has hurt him during the last 2 years. His Monday morning pieces are great for analysis and information. He has been calling for a correction forever now and at some point he will be right. He is sticking to his guns and that is hurting his performance.

Tiz - It would be easy to guess that you are a fan of his.

All the managers I mentioned above are value managers with similar investment philosophies to Hussman when it comes to stock selection. And most, if not all outperform Hussman over 1,3,5 and 10 year. And that includes managing the downside risk in 2008, which Hussman called nicely. I think I have the numbers somewhere and will post them Monday if I can get them from excel into here.
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
Obviously there are other good money managers that take pride in doing what's right for their clients with a long term perspective like hussman...cuban's point as well as mine is the buy and hold ETF world overall is a complete sham and financial advisors in general are not looking out for your best interests.....

Im not really saying stay away from it completely but at least have a decent handle on what you are invested in....if more people did that the bad seeds in the financial managing world (which is a vast majority these days) would be naturally weeded out as they'd no longer have customers or would have to change their ways
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
Also I'm not a fan of the 2,5,10 year performance stuff

Like last 10 years is a completely different set of investing circumstances than the previous 10 before it....and the next decade will likely continue to be a completely different set of circumstances as we are moving into unchartered territory as the global economy continues to get even more complex, crooked, and unstable

What matters to me is philosophy and intent in that he cares about his customers and the product he's pushing

With hussman I know I'm getting a straight shooting value investor taking a careful long term approach with a % take near as low as it gets for the industry and gives you weekly updates etc.....last decade he's been just over a doubler not many can say that

Last few years have sucked due to the ridiculous amount of speculative activity shockingly taken on with the aid of QE....as he's been hedging his underperforming safe longs....
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
44,516
Tokens
Here is another homerun article from the great Mark Cuban. I think I will be pulling for the Mavs this year in the playoffs.



You can have as long a term horizon as you want, but like most other long term plans we have, most peoples lives dont match up to their “horizons”. Its amazing how life intervenes. Kids, whatever. its a fortunate few that can just shell it away and never touch it. Your “horizon” hits a dead end when you have to put money into a checking account. I have never seen any investing research that deals with random withdrawls that represents real world. And boy oh boy, if life hits you hard when the market is down, you make a withdrawl and you wont ever catch up.

But thats just the start of the problem. Lets say you buy into what the brokerages and funds are selling. Buy and hold, or whatever. How do you pick from the 17k funds ? By reading some websites ? By talking to some friends ? By watching the commercials ? By selecting among the optionsyour company gives you in their plan ? Which of course was the result of a salespitch that the fund company put together to the person offering the plan to your company. Everyone is getting paid on the gravy train, except for the guy putting in the money at the end.

Wall Street has done an AMAZING job of creating conventional wisdom . “Buy andHold “is the 2nd
most misleading marketing sloganever, after the brilliant “rinse and repeat” message on every
shampoo bottle. Weas a country have fallen for it. Every message from every marketer of stocks tell
us.Young or old, if you can hold for the long term, things will work out for you.

That is total bull****. Its for suckers.

Ive traded stocks for almost twenty years now. IM good at it. When i work at it. And it takes a lot of work. Not just reading all the 10K/Qs and corporate websites and product managers, or talking to people at the outskirts of the company where management doesnt reach. It takes often knowing the market for a company’s product better than the company does. After all just because a company is public doesnt mean a thing other than someone has , and continues to make money buying and selling the stock as their own product.

If you are going to trade stocks, you just have to follow one rule and remember one thing. That rule is
always have a definite knowledge advantage about the company you are trading, and always remember that every stock transaction has a sucker, and you have to know whether its you or the person on the other side of the trade. No one buys a stock from your, or sells one to you knowing they are leaving money on the table.

The bottom line is that unless you plan on making it a full time job to do your research and put yourself in a position to have an advantage, you are going to get your ass kicked at some point by someone who does. You just have to hope that it doesnt put a big financial hurt on you when it happens
The same logic applies to funds. Funds are in the business of making money for themselves first. You 2nd.

First check what the heads of some public mutual funds are making. Someone help me out, I cant find the link right now .Was it Mario Gabelli who not only paid himself more than his fund earned for its shareholders in a year (forget the people with money in his funds), but he was paying himself from like 3 companies at the same time? Get me the links and I will update them here.

Then you should check the turnover of fund managers some day. You know where the good ones go ? To start or manage their own funds.

Then there is the portfolio turnover. How often they completely turn over the stocks in their fund. last
numbers I saw was that on average funds turnover their portfolios 85pct every year. Thats not investing. Its fund managers doing whatever they can to beat their peers, knowing that if they dont, they are out of a job. Their bosses know that if they dont beat their peers, the money flows out, and that is a HUGE problem for any fund. So many funds take chances they shouldnt, with your money. We never see any headlines for funds that close.

Why is that ? We never see any headlines for fund managers who get fired. Why ?

But even if performance sucks, rather than saying how bad it is, they pick the short stint when it wasnt so bad. orbes

did a nice job reviewing this little marketing habit of fundsand referencing some manager turnover issues at Fidelity.

As far as ETFs. Which one ? Remember, the Dow and S&P are marketing tools. They change the indexes. Look at the stocks in there today, vs what was in there in years past. You are not buying a passive investment that tracks nthe economy. You are buying the stock pickers at those respective indexes. Last time I looked, both Dow Jones and McGraw Hill are for profit companies. They want people tothink theirDJ 30 & S&P 500 indexes are
powerful indexes that can be reported daily as a reflection of market action. So they change the stocks when they think they need to. To help them with their product.

Ive said a lot of this before. The stock market
is by definition a ponzi scheme. As long as money keeps on
coming in, then there is someone to take the stocks from the sellers. If the amount of money coming in is reduced,
the stocks, indexes, et al go down. What if, for who knows whatever reason, the amount of money going into
stocks declined significantly ? Who would buy stock from the sellers. I mean goodness gracious, you could see
something disastrous happen. Like the Nasdaq dropping from 5000, to under 2000 in just a few years. Its happened
before, it can happen again.

Which is exactly why we get all these nonsensical commercials from brokerages. To keep the money coming in . I
wish someone would index the amount of money spent on marketing by mutual funds and brokerages to the Nasdaq and Dow
and see if it correlates.

Money inflows drives the business. We can get all the economic data we ever dreamed of getting, but if money
inflows declined significantly for an extended period of time, then every rule of thumb would go out the window until
money started flowing in. Yes it would flow in eventuallyas prices dropped. From big investors like me
who wouldnt have gotten hurt by a huge market decline and could come in and buy huge chunks, or companies
outright.

You ? You probably would be like Charles Ponzi’s customers. You wouldnt be able to get your money out of the fund
when it went down, and by the time you did, it would be too late. You would have been crushed.

Ive said it before,a stock that doesnt pay dividends is valued like a baseball card.
Just whatever you can sell it for. The concept that you own “your share” of the company is a joke. You are completely
at the whim of the CEO and board who will dilute you on a daily basis with stock options, then try to buy back stock
to cover it up and push up the price, rewarding the shareholders who get out, rather than those that continue to hold
the shares. Meaning you.

Have you ever seen Warren Buffet talk about buying 100 shares of anything k shares ? or does he take control of
, or purchase a material percentage of a company ?

If you have enough money to have influence , take control or buy it outright, then the stock market can
workfor you. Thats why I buystock in public companies that relate to myother business
entities. When i pick up the phone and call the CEO of a company i own shares in, they call me backvery
quickly. When I ask if there arebusiness opportunities that make sense for the company and another company of
mineto work together, I wont always get the business, but Iwill always get a meeting.If Im smart
about the investments I make, the more important returns come from the relationships with the companies than the
action of the stock.

If the best you can do is buy shares that are going to be continuously diluted, then you are merely a
sucker.There is a good chance that the shares you boughtcame fromsharesan insider who got
stock options. You just helped dilute yourself with your first share purchase.

The wealthy can make the stockmarket work for them. Individuals buying shares of stock in non dividend paying
stocks… they work for the stockmarket.

I know Ive painted a pretty bleak picture.

The stockmarket isnt going away. Would it shock me if the whole thing collapsed ? yes. it would. Its just too
engrained in our way of life in the USA. What would change my mind is if a better investment vehicle came
along.

The stockmarket used to be about investing capital in companies that came public or did secondary offerings. That
money was used to create amazing businesses and return dividends back to people who truly were investors. There
once was a day where most companies paid dividends higher than the interest rates on their bonds. Why ? Because
stocks are inherently more risky. If a company goes belly up, bondholders collect first, shareholders usually
last. People could buy and hold stocks, and get paid real cash money for being a shareholder in the company at
rates far higher than the divident yields we see today. If the company did well, the dividends went up. Investors who
held, actually got all their money back in dividends at some point and the rest was gravy. The good ole days.

But that changed when mutual funds came along and started marketing the concept of growth as a way to attract
investors.

Its not inconceivable that the old mindset could comeback. That a new market of stocks could be created where
companies didnt continuously dilute shareholders by issuing stock and options to themselves. Where earnings were
earned for the same reason they are in private companies, to not only fund growth, but also provide cash back to
investors. Now if that market existed today. Where I could buy 100 shares of stock, and even if it represented just
1/100000 of ownership in the company, I could have confidence that year after year, I would still own 1/100000th of
that company, and if that company generated earnings , I would have at least some of that money returned to me. Well
then, that wouldnt be a ponzi scheme. That would be a true market of stocks, and I would be happy to recommend to
anyone to be careful, but buying stocks in that market could be something worth considering if your appetite for risk
canhandle it.

Sorry for the long winded response Tom, but thanks for getting me going

If you put your money in safe bets like i mentioned in the last post, then you can spend that time you would
otherwise have to spend researching funds and or stocks, either with people you love, things you love to do, or in
yourself.Using those hours to be the best at whatever you love to do.Thats an investment you never
have to pay a commission on. You never get a margin call. And thereturns can be astronomical. - Cuban, 2006.
 

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX.
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
15,353
Tokens
its just utterly flabergasting to me

how every single global citizen participates in the economy

but most of um are utterly clueless to how things really work.....or have little to no interest in figuring out how to invest their money and would rather trust somebody else to do it for them

i mean i kinda understand why as its very complex and probably not the most enjoyable thing to think about for your average joe......your average american couple has to work 2 jobs to survive nowadays, work longer hours etc...free time much more limited....on top of all the non stop propaganda and constant brainwashing from the CNBC type media.......

the housing bubble for instance is impossible for the banksters/government to produce unless you have a economically retarded population to work with.....the banksters can only lay the bait....they can't force you to take it.....

i'm just personally fascinated with because it as its one huge complex puzzle and I realize that it is by far the #1 factor in how the human world turns........especially today where the government and fed is so involved in the "free" markets....

Funny you mentioned this Tiz. When I started work 13 years ago at a real job, the veteran employees said just invest with them you will be a millionaire when you retire! So I followed blindly in my second year. I'd check from time to time but didnt care b/c I was in for the long haul. In Spring of 2010 I looked at my statement and was pissed. I am 1/3 of the way towards retirement and I have less money in my retirement acct than I put in!!!!! 11 years of this and I lost money! I started doing my own research which led me to the Fed, fiat currency, fractional reserve banking, etc.........I am still so angry I was never taught about any of this in HS or college and even had an economics class in college. bastards!
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
This ties in well with my rant in the other thread about education and personal responsibility of parents vs expecting the government to do it for you

I'm not judging your parents at all but just making a point that my parents taught me the importance of money, fiscal conservatism in your personal finances (things like not spending beyond your means), and instilled a desire to research investments/stocks etc my schooling had nothing to do with it...I've had one bullshit economics class in my lifetime everything else learned on my own time....
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,659
Tokens
Only question I have with what Cuban is saying is he keeps emphasizing non-dividend stocks...

Like 375/500 of the S&P 500 pays dividends, so does he think those are OK? What does he think of dividend paying stocks that have done so consecutively for 5-25 year timeframes?

Also, if people dont invest in the stock market, what should they then invest in (i know this is a big commodities crowd) but besides that? Bonds pay 3%, money markets pay .3% with no hope for payment growth and/or capital apprecation...

Just curious what some of you guys think is the way to allocate capital in 2011.

Also, isnt what hes saying just a takeoff of what Buffet said about the market being a voting machine short-term and a weighing machine longterm?
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
dividend yields as a whole are total garbage right now on a historical basis
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,659
Tokens
dividend yields as a whole are total garbage right now on a historical basis

Thats because we had a market double in the past 2 years though. S&P 500 dividend yield hit 4% at one time, dont you think that was a time to buy? Yield at 2.2% still isnt bad though compared to bonds/savings

Also, why do people always look for historical standards regarding PE ratios, dividend yields, home prices etc...

People have WAY more $ now, the world is awash with capital compared to even 10 years ago. Way more multi-millionaires and billionaires, look at the forbes 500 now vs 2000....So assets like stocks/bonds/real estate being analyzed compared to historical valuations when rich people need a place to park $ seems off to me. just my 2 cents
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
way more poverty and people on food stamps too

its a two tale economy....rigged for the elite....and against the have nots....

the large gaps are unsustainable....and eventually "naturally" implode.....

as for historical valuations how else are you going to judge the current valuation of the markets....and the low yields aren't a recent phenomenon.....they've been low for decades....i'll track down a chart for that......

Snap%201.png
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
here's P/E

http://www.multpl.com/

chart


Mean: 16.40
Median: 15.77
Min: 4.78 (Dec 1920)
Max: 44.20 (Dec 1999)

the march 2009 with S&P at 666....got us down to the area of the historical mean/median value for the first time in over 20 years.....

this is a P/E 10 chart (average P/E calculated using average earnings for the prior 10 years to help smooth out recessions and such)
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,659
Tokens
I understand all that...

Im saying why would stocks/home prices revert back to a historical norm. For most of US history stocks were undervalued because only a few elites could own a lot of them.

Now there has been an EXPLOSION in wealth in the last 20-30 years, this wealth has to be parked somewhere and that is a big rason you have an avg dividend yield of 2%....do you agree with that? its just something i thought of....Look at forbes 500 listfrom like 01 compared to now, an explosion of wealth in what hasnt been the greatest of economic times.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,120,286
Messages
13,579,783
Members
100,958
Latest member
onestpfwdtwostpsback
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com