Prediction of the Dow

If you remember, on the 1st April (April Fools Day, I now realise!) I
predicted the Dow on the 15th would be 10,650 +/- 250, which means
somewhere between 10,400 and 10,900.

As usual (if not as always!) my prediction has failed to tally with
actual events as the Dow is now at about 10,241, which is below the
lowest level I predicted. While this is presumably better than Dent's
newsletter which, I think, was predicting a strong upturn by mid-April,
it is hardly confidence-inspiring.

Of course I was not daft enough to believe any predictions of mine or
anyone else's so I have no money on it, no US stocks or funds and can
view this shortfall with equanimity.

I do wonder, though, what you guys under your dim-witted leader are
playing about at over there as the indices show absolutely no sign of
reverting to the fabled 11% average annual rises all the IFAs quote.
Since Jan. 2000 the "world's greatest economy" has not made so much as a
bent nickel, falling from 11,723 to 10,241 in 5 years. This is 12.6%
down in 5 years and no sign of relief. When will the good times roll
again? When you replace Bush with Hillary Clinton? :-(

Re: Prediction of the Dow

David Wilkinson wrote:
> Since Jan. 2000 the "world's greatest economy" has not made so much
as a
> bent nickel, falling from 11,723 to 10,241 in 5 years. This is 12.6%
> down in 5 years and no sign of relief.

You do realize that the Dow does not measure the economy, right? Also,
remember the bubble?

Darin

Re: Prediction of the Dow

"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote
> David Wilkinson wrote:
> > Since Jan. 2000 the "world's greatest economy" has not made so much
> as a
> > bent nickel, falling from 11,723 to 10,241 in 5 years. This is 12.6%
> > down in 5 years and no sign of relief.
>
> You do realize that the Dow does not measure the economy, right? Also,
> remember the bubble?

Plus, annual dividends on the S&P 500 grew from 16.27 to 18.6 from
2000-2004, for an increase of 14% overall, or 3.4% per year on average. This
compares to an increase from 12.1 to 16.27 from 1990-2000, or 3.0% per year
on average.

Re: Prediction of the Dow

Elle wrote:
> Plus, annual dividends on the S&P 500 grew from 16.27 to 18.6 from
> 2000-2004, for an increase of 14% overall, or 3.4% per year on
average.

Okay, but they're still so low that it's not much to crow about.

Darin

Re: Prediction of the Dow

Do your figures represent TOTAL return (including dividends)? My
understanding is the DOW index is just the stock price and ignores
dividends. You always have to be careful which index you use and
whether you are talking just the index or the total return of the
stocks in the index.

As for predictions, what you should have done is make MANY of them,
some bullish, some bearish. Than, no matter what, you will have one
that is correct :-)

Consider this:
Get two large audiences.
Divide in 1/2
To one half predict a rise
To the other half, predict a fall.
Ditch the 1/2 that you were wrong with
Now divide the remaining into 1/2s
To 1/2 predict rise
To the other 1/2 predict fall
Ditch the 1/2 you were wrong with

Keep doing this until you have a few left who think you are stock
market GENIUS.

Then you get to manage all their money. :-)

Re: Prediction of the Dow

I guess the lesson here is not to invest in the Dow. At least in
retrospect, that's the lesson.

On the other hand, maybe it's a buying opportunity.

Hard to say, isn't it?

--

"Did you notice that [Candaq and Gardner] never miss one of my posts and I
never read theirs, I have to wonder just who it is that's envious." -Ed, in
news:<9cn26l$6di6$>.

Re: Prediction of the Dow

sam grey wrote:
> I guess the lesson here is not to invest in the Dow. At least in
> retrospect, that's the lesson.

The lesson is not to buy into an obvious bubble.

> On the other hand, maybe it's a buying opportunity.

Possibly, but you can't tell from the price drop alone.

> Hard to say, isn't it?

Yep. Too many unknowns...like usual. Then again, I believe I'd
probably recognize a 1982-type opportunity.

Darin

Re: Prediction of the Dow

"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote
> Elle wrote:
> > Plus, annual dividends on the S&P 500 grew from 16.27 to 18.6 from
> > 2000-2004, for an increase of 14% overall, or 3.4% per year on
> average.
>
> Okay, but they're still so low that it's not much to crow about.

I was not trying to contradict you. The value of the Dow or S&P 500 at any
point in time is more akin to the value of gold. It's kinda arbitrary.

The stock market is overvalued AFAIC. So what. So are the latest yuppie
gadgets (IPods, cell phones, luxury cars, clothes, etc.). The point is, as
you implied, the value of the Dow is a capricious measure of the strength of
the economy. I'm pretty darn happy with my stock investments. As long as
dividends keep growing at at least 3% a year, and as long as I have 20 years
to be in the market so I see some growth in principal, I'm figuring I'm
going to be ahead--and maybe way ahead--of inflation.

Re: Prediction of the Dow

"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> The lesson is not to buy into an obvious bubble.
>
Obvious only in retrospect. Wanna bet if goog is a bubble before 4/21 for
the record?

Re: Prediction of the Dow

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d3okf5$um1$
>
> When will the good times roll again?
>
When Iraqis pump 3m barrels a day as Cheney/Wolfie promised.

Re: Prediction of the Dow

TK Sung wrote:
> "Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
> news:
> >
> > The lesson is not to buy into an obvious bubble.
> >
> Obvious only in retrospect.

No, it was obvious to me then, too. I said so the time. I know that
doesn't serve as evidence for you, but nothing would.

> Wanna bet if goog is a bubble before 4/21 for
> the record?

I don't think an overpriced individual stock would be described as a
bubble. Anyway, I can't value individual stocks.

Darin

Re: Prediction of the Dow

Loose On the Lead wrote:
> Elle wrote:
>
>>Plus, annual dividends on the S&P 500 grew from 16.27 to 18.6 from
>>2000-2004, for an increase of 14% overall, or 3.4% per year on
>
> average.
>
> Okay, but they're still so low that it's not much to crow about.
>
> Darin
>
Darin

To reply to your previous note; no the Dow is not identical to the US
economy but must be closely related to it. The general explanation for
the growth in the Dow and S&P500 over the last hundred years or so was
the growing prosperity of the US economy and in particular the growth in
earnings. I am fairly sure you have in the past quoted the Dividend
Discount Model as a method of valuing shares and the more academic books
like Sharpe et al's, always quote it. Dividends being a fraction of
earnings go up and down with them and share prices are closely related
to earnings.

So, I tend to associate a static or falling Dow with a lack of progress
in the US economy. I also note that a number of previously claimed
company earnings turned out to be illusory and the CEOs of companies
like Enron, Worldcom, etc. were led away in handcuffs. But, if this is
an over-simplification then by all means put me straight on it.

Re: Prediction of the Dow

David Wilkinson wrote:
> To reply to your previous note; no the Dow is not identical to the US

> economy but must be closely related to it. The general explanation
for
> the growth in the Dow and S&P500 over the last hundred years or so
was
> the growing prosperity of the US economy and in particular the growth
in
> earnings. I am fairly sure you have in the past quoted the Dividend
> Discount Model as a method of valuing shares and the more academic
books
> like Sharpe et al's, always quote it. Dividends being a fraction of
> earnings go up and down with them and share prices are closely
related
> to earnings.

I mostly agree with you, but you're looking at a period that began with
the popping of a bubble, and the market may still be overvalued.
Multiple contraction has dominated stock returns since 2000, especially
with the low dividend yields. A DDM approximation is yield + real
dividend growth + inflation + effects of multiple expansion. Over long
periods of time, you can ignore the last term, but not five years after
a mania.

> So, I tend to associate a static or falling Dow with a lack of
progress
> in the US economy. I also note that a number of previously claimed
> company earnings turned out to be illusory and the CEOs of companies
> like Enron, Worldcom, etc. were led away in handcuffs. But, if this
is
> an over-simplification then by all means put me straight on it.

You're right on the games and the corruption and stuff, but that began
before the current administration took office. I will admit that this
administration is unlikely to make those problems any better.

Darin

Re: Prediction of the Dow

"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> No, it was obvious to me then, too. I said so the time.
>
I'm sure it was obvious to you and half the market on the other side of the
"new economy" camp. Will the real estate bubble still obvious to those who
think it is obvious if it does not burst?

> Anyway, I can't value individual stocks.
>
But you can value the entire market?

Re: Prediction of the Dow

TK Sung wrote:
> "Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
> news:
> >
> > No, it was obvious to me then, too. I said so the time.
> >
> I'm sure it was obvious to you and half the market on the other side
of the
> "new economy" camp.

It couldn't have been obvious to that many people, or it wouldn't have
existed in the first place.

> Will the real estate bubble still obvious to those who
> think it is obvious if it does not burst?

I don't consider the RE bubble to be as obvious as the stock bubble
was. The only value of stocks is in the cash they throw off...well,
except for hedging, but mostly it's about the dividends. RE has value
in part just because people like it. Thus, I can't be as confident
about a RE bubble.

> > Anyway, I can't value individual stocks.
> >
> But you can value the entire market?

Sure, or at least I have a better shot of telling if its valuation is
grossly out of whack. Does that really surprise you? It's usually way
easier to evaluate a group of things than individual things. Think
statistics.

Darin

Re: Prediction of the Dow

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:52:48 +0100, David Wilkinson <>
wrote:

>[...]
>I do wonder, though, what you guys under your dim-witted leader are
>playing about at over there as the indices show absolutely no sign of
>reverting to the fabled 11% average annual rises all the IFAs quote.
>Since Jan. 2000 the "world's greatest economy" has not made so much as a
>bent nickel, falling from 11,723 to 10,241 in 5 years. This is 12.6%
>down in 5 years and no sign of relief. When will the good times roll
>again? When you replace Bush with Hillary Clinton? :-(

From this and others of your past posts, I have come to the conclusion
that you are nothing but a troll. A bit more subtle and intelligent
than the average troll perhaps, but a troll nonetheless.

If you go back 10 years, S&P500 stocks show a total return of 10.8%
per year.

Go back 20 years, the Dow was just 1300.

The "fabled 11% average return" is doing just fine, thank you. After
all, it's supposed to be a long term average.

Of course, this won't make a dent in your thinking at all. To you,
"long term" means anything more than 3 years.

Re: Prediction of the Dow

"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> It couldn't have been obvious to that many people, or it wouldn't have
> existed in the first place.
>
You get my point. There were enough to debate new economy proponents, day
in, day out.

>
> I don't consider the RE bubble to be as obvious as the stock bubble
> was. The only value of stocks is in the cash they throw off...well,
> except for hedging, but mostly it's about the dividends. RE has value
> in part just because people like it. Thus, I can't be as confident
> about a RE bubble.
>
So, you think people may indefinitely remain irrational despite unusually
large gap between rents and property prices? Has the real estate game
somehow changed permanently? Sounds like a new economy argument to me. Or,
maybe it's just an execuse to avoid the task?

>
> Sure, or at least I have a better shot of telling if its valuation is
> grossly out of whack. Does that really surprise you? It's usually way
> easier to evaluate a group of things than individual things. Think
> statistics.
>
You apply the same analysis for a company as you do for the industry to see
if it's grossly out of whack. What relevant statistics do you have in mind?

Re: Prediction of the Dow

TK Sung wrote:
> "Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
> news:
> >
> > It couldn't have been obvious to that many people, or it wouldn't
have
> > existed in the first place.
> >
> You get my point. There were enough to debate new economy proponents,
day
> in, day out.

Yes. That doesn't change the fact that the bubble was obvious to me
personally. :-)

> > I don't consider the RE bubble to be as obvious as the stock bubble
> > was. The only value of stocks is in the cash they throw
off...well,
> > except for hedging, but mostly it's about the dividends. RE has
value
> > in part just because people like it. Thus, I can't be as confident
> > about a RE bubble.
> >
> So, you think people may indefinitely remain irrational despite
unusually
> large gap between rents and property prices? Has the real estate
game
> somehow changed permanently?

No. I didn't realize you were so convinced of the bubble yourself. I
think there's a bubble in the major markets, but I'm just not as
comfortable with RE as I am with common stocks. Also, there isn't a
whole lot I can do about it other than not buy property, which I wasn't
going to do anyway.

> Sounds like a new economy argument to me. Or,
> maybe it's just an execuse to avoid the task?

It's an excuse to avoid the task. Again, I do think there's probably a
bubble, as most of the usual signs are there, but there isn't anything
stunningly obvious like companies being valued as though they had
multiple times the entire market share of their respective industries.

> > Sure, or at least I have a better shot of telling if its valuation
is
> > grossly out of whack. Does that really surprise you? It's usually
way
> > easier to evaluate a group of things than individual things. Think
> > statistics.
> >
> You apply the same analysis for a company as you do for the industry
to see
> if it's grossly out of whack.

No, not at all. For example, I can't talk about market-cap-to-GDP with
respect to a company. I can look at P/S, but then I have to understand
the nuances of the company's particular industry and whether P/S is all
that relevant...and in what way it's relevant...and so on. Asset
classes are easier.

> What relevant statistics do you have in mind?

The one I just suggested is my favorite. The other valuation metrics
help, too. It's easier to apply them to an entire market or asset
class because then the company-specific and industry-specific
considerations have been "diversified" away. Also, there's virtually
no concern about proprietary technology, unique knowledge or expertise,
etc.

Darin

Re: Prediction of the Dow

I remember the 'bubble'..... I made enough during the Clinton
administration to enable me to retire early. 8-) I just hope that
the current administration does not totally screw up the economy
worse than they have so far....

--
Ed J edj22 at attglobal dot net
"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> David Wilkinson wrote:
>> Since Jan. 2000 the "world's greatest economy" has not made so much
> as a
>> bent nickel, falling from 11,723 to 10,241 in 5 years. This is 12.6%
>> down in 5 years and no sign of relief.
>
> You do realize that the Dow does not measure the economy, right? Also,
> remember the bubble?
>
> Darin
>

Re: Prediction of the Dow

"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> No. I didn't realize you were so convinced of the bubble yourself.
>
Well, I never am, though that never stopped me from making bets. Here, I'm
just to trying to take you to the task of admiting that you are not so sure
about future bubbles after all as you are about the past bubbles.

>
> No, not at all. For example, I can't talk about market-cap-to-GDP with
> respect to a company. I can look at P/S, but then I have to understand
> the nuances of the company's particular industry and whether P/S is all
> that relevant...and in what way it's relevant...and so on. Asset
> classes are easier.
>
But you have the same problem with asset classes when game-changing
potentials are introduced. Those are same type of factors that VCs and fund
managers look at when valuing individual companies. Sometimes, those
game-changing potentials are much more important than technology, expertise,
fundamental numbers, etc. And you have to evalute those potentials and come
to your judgement whether it is an individual asset or asset class.

Re: Prediction of the Dow

TK Sung wrote:
> Here, I'm
> just to trying to take you to the task of admiting that you are not
so sure
> about future bubbles after all as you are about the past bubbles.

It won't work. I doubt that I will see another bubble like that in my
lifetime, at least in my own country. They just don't happen very
often.

> > No, not at all. For example, I can't talk about market-cap-to-GDP
with
> > respect to a company. I can look at P/S, but then I have to
understand
> > the nuances of the company's particular industry and whether P/S is
all
> > that relevant...and in what way it's relevant...and so on. Asset
> > classes are easier.
> >
> But you have the same problem with asset classes when game-changing
> potentials are introduced.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I choose to buy funds rather than
individual stocks because there's less uncertainty, and the same can be
said for asset classes and markets.

> Those are same type of factors that VCs and fund
> managers look at when valuing individual companies. Sometimes, those
> game-changing potentials are much more important than technology,
expertise,
> fundamental numbers, etc. And you have to evalute those potentials
and come
> to your judgement whether it is an individual asset or asset class.

Yes, but I'm saying that I personally have no hope of evaluating those
"game-changing potentials" in individual stocks. That's too
complicated. Just because I understand (I don't really, but anyway...)
the textiles industry doesn't mean I understand the computer industry,
so I can't use the same valuation approach with one as with the other.
When it comes to comparing large growth to small value, or domestic to
foreign...the differences simply aren't that stark. They exist, but
they're neither as complex nor as deep. And then if you want to talk
about comparing individual companies...no way. I don't have that kind
of training. For that matter, I don't have the interest.

Darin

Re: Prediction of the Dow

"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> TK Sung wrote:
>> "Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>> >
>> > It couldn't have been obvious to that many people, or it wouldn't
> have
>> > existed in the first place.
>> >
>> You get my point. There were enough to debate new economy proponents,
> day
>> in, day out.
>
> Yes. That doesn't change the fact that the bubble was obvious to me
> personally. :-)
>
>> > I don't consider the RE bubble to be as obvious as the stock bubble
>> > was. The only value of stocks is in the cash they throw
> off...well,
>> > except for hedging, but mostly it's about the dividends. RE has
> value
>> > in part just because people like it. Thus, I can't be as confident
>> > about a RE bubble.
>> >
>> So, you think people may indefinitely remain irrational despite
> unusually
>> large gap between rents and property prices? Has the real estate
> game
>> somehow changed permanently?
>
> No. I didn't realize you were so convinced of the bubble yourself. I
> think there's a bubble in the major markets, but I'm just not as
> comfortable with RE as I am with common stocks. Also, there isn't a
> whole lot I can do about it other than not buy property, which I wasn't
> going to do anyway.
>
>> Sounds like a new economy argument to me. Or,
>> maybe it's just an execuse to avoid the task?
>
> It's an excuse to avoid the task. Again, I do think there's probably a
> bubble, as most of the usual signs are there, but there isn't anything
> stunningly obvious like companies being valued as though they had
> multiple times the entire market share of their respective industries.
>
>> > Sure, or at least I have a better shot of telling if its valuation
> is
>> > grossly out of whack. Does that really surprise you? It's usually
> way
>> > easier to evaluate a group of things than individual things. Think
>> > statistics.
>> >
>> You apply the same analysis for a company as you do for the industry
> to see
>> if it's grossly out of whack.
>
> No, not at all. For example, I can't talk about market-cap-to-GDP with
> respect to a company. I can look at P/S, but then I have to understand
> the nuances of the company's particular industry and whether P/S is all
> that relevant...and in what way it's relevant...and so on. Asset
> classes are easier.
>
>> What relevant statistics do you have in mind?
>
> The one I just suggested is my favorite. The other valuation metrics
> help, too. It's easier to apply them to an entire market or asset
> class because then the company-specific and industry-specific
> considerations have been "diversified" away. Also, there's virtually
> no concern about proprietary technology, unique knowledge or expertise,
> etc.
>
> Darin
>

TK. Nice bait job.

Re: Prediction of the Dow

David,

How may car and truck companies are left in the UK now that MG Rover just
bit the dust?


"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d3p25g$9m7$
> Loose On the Lead wrote:
>> Elle wrote:
>>
>>>Plus, annual dividends on the S&P 500 grew from 16.27 to 18.6 from
>>>2000-2004, for an increase of 14% overall, or 3.4% per year on
>>
>> average.
>>
>> Okay, but they're still so low that it's not much to crow about.
>>
>> Darin
>>
> Darin
>
> To reply to your previous note; no the Dow is not identical to the US
> economy but must be closely related to it. The general explanation for the
> growth in the Dow and S&P500 over the last hundred years or so was the
> growing prosperity of the US economy and in particular the growth in
> earnings. I am fairly sure you have in the past quoted the Dividend
> Discount Model as a method of valuing shares and the more academic books
> like Sharpe et al's, always quote it. Dividends being a fraction of
> earnings go up and down with them and share prices are closely related to
> earnings.
>
> So, I tend to associate a static or falling Dow with a lack of progress in
> the US economy. I also note that a number of previously claimed company
> earnings turned out to be illusory and the CEOs of companies like Enron,
> Worldcom, etc. were led away in handcuffs. But, if this is an
> over-simplification then by all means put me straight on it.

Re: Prediction of the Dow

NoEd wrote:
> David,
>
> How may car and truck companies are left in the UK now that MG Rover just
> bit the dust?
>
NoEd (Whoever you are?)

A very close approximation to zero, if you mean British-owned car
companies. There are a few specialist sports car companies like TVR and
Caterham. Everything else has either gone bust or been bought by
foreigners. There are quite a few well-run, prosperous foreign-owned car
manufacturers here, like Honda and Nissan and, of course, GM. BMW still
own the BMW- redesigned Mini and make it here. Even the great old
prestige makes like Rolls-Royce, Bentley and Jaguar are owned by
foreigners who make better versions of them than we did.

We are fairly good at inventing things, not that good at developing them
and almost useless at manufacturing them to any sort of quality and at a
profit. I last owned a British car about 25 years ago. All the British
cars I ever owned were really appallingly badly designed and
constructed, unreliable, low performance rust boxes without exception.
Since then I have only owned cars made by Honda and BMW and have found
them excellent.

Rover were always a basket case, from the days when they were British
Leyland and run by and for the Trade Unions. The evil working practices
the Unions insisted on were so ingrained that even when BMW bought what
survived of British Leyland and was called Rover, they were unable to
make anything of it and gave up in the end. BMW paid £800 million for
Rover and sold it about 4 years later for £10. Yes, that's not £10
million or £10 billion but £10. Ten pounds, and glad to get shot of it.

Rover went steadily downhill from then as their sales halved over 6
years. At the end they were losing £25 million a month and ran out of
cash to pay their suppliers and their own wages.

Only in the Grand Prix Formula One field do we have any sort of
British-owned automotive presence where the McLaren and Williams teams
have won World Championships, although those days seem to be largely
over now. We also had Lotus who were very strong in Grand Prix cars and,
in fact, completely redesigned the Grand Prix car to its modern form,
until founder Colin Chapman died. I think Lotus is owned by Proton now.
Of course Land Rover and Jaguar were good concepts, if unreliable on the
road, but are now owned by GM, probably, and a lot better designed and
made than when we had them.

As I said we have some quite good ideas but seem useless when it comes
to the tradesman's job of setting up a factory and running a company to
manufacture them. But, If some foreign manufacturers run the company we
can screw them together as well as anyone. It's all a bit paradoxical.
Perhaps we just get bored easily :-)

Re: Prediction of the Dow

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
> David,
>
> How may car and truck companies are left in the UK now that MG Rover just
> bit the dust?
>

Classic NoEd, MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

From: "NoEd" <>
Newsgroups: misc.invest.mutual-funds
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 08:06:35


"I am a very good writer, and it pays all my bills."

Re: Prediction of the Dow

You definitely know your failed past Britshed-owned car companies. As I have
said, the current problem with GM and Ford in North America is mostly legacy
costs and some general organization dysfunctionality. I don't believe the
retirees pay any part of their healthcare costs, which is unheard of outside
of government. When a Japanese car company opens a new factory they are not
subject to pay these costs. This is a huge, huge advantage and may be the
reason they are opening factories here. Come 2007 when the UAW (United Auto
Workers) union contract expires GM, Ford and Chrysler need to go to the mat.


"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d3rp39$aqr$
> NoEd wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> How may car and truck companies are left in the UK now that MG Rover just
>> bit the dust?
>>
> NoEd (Whoever you are?)
>
> A very close approximation to zero, if you mean British-owned car
> companies. There are a few specialist sports car companies like TVR and
> Caterham. Everything else has either gone bust or been bought by
> foreigners. There are quite a few well-run, prosperous foreign-owned car
> manufacturers here, like Honda and Nissan and, of course, GM. BMW still
> own the BMW- redesigned Mini and make it here. Even the great old prestige
> makes like Rolls-Royce, Bentley and Jaguar are owned by foreigners who
> make better versions of them than we did.
>
> We are fairly good at inventing things, not that good at developing them
> and almost useless at manufacturing them to any sort of quality and at a
> profit. I last owned a British car about 25 years ago. All the British
> cars I ever owned were really appallingly badly designed and constructed,
> unreliable, low performance rust boxes without exception. Since then I
> have only owned cars made by Honda and BMW and have found them excellent.
>
> Rover were always a basket case, from the days when they were British
> Leyland and run by and for the Trade Unions. The evil working practices
> the Unions insisted on were so ingrained that even when BMW bought what
> survived of British Leyland and was called Rover, they were unable to make
> anything of it and gave up in the end. BMW paid £800 million for Rover and
> sold it about 4 years later for £10. Yes, that's not £10 million or £10
> billion but £10. Ten pounds, and glad to get shot of it.
>
> Rover went steadily downhill from then as their sales halved over 6 years.
> At the end they were losing £25 million a month and ran out of cash to pay
> their suppliers and their own wages.
>
> Only in the Grand Prix Formula One field do we have any sort of
> British-owned automotive presence where the McLaren and Williams teams
> have won World Championships, although those days seem to be largely over
> now. We also had Lotus who were very strong in Grand Prix cars and, in
> fact, completely redesigned the Grand Prix car to its modern form, until
> founder Colin Chapman died. I think Lotus is owned by Proton now. Of
> course Land Rover and Jaguar were good concepts, if unreliable on the
> road, but are now owned by GM, probably, and a lot better designed and
> made than when we had them.
>
> As I said we have some quite good ideas but seem useless when it comes to
> the tradesman's job of setting up a factory and running a company to
> manufacture them. But, If some foreign manufacturers run the company we
> can screw them together as well as anyone. It's all a bit paradoxical.
> Perhaps we just get bored easily :-)
>
>

Re: Prediction of the Dow

Oh my. You poor, poor man. Not only are you rude,you're stupid.


"Gary C" <> wrote in message
news:CNe8e.3211$
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote in message
> news:
>> David,
>>
>> How may car and truck companies are left in the UK now that MG Rover just
>> bit the dust?
>>
>
> Classic NoEd, MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
> From: "NoEd" <>
> Newsgroups: misc.invest.mutual-funds
> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 08:06:35
>
>
> "I am a very good writer, and it pays all my bills."
>

Re: Prediction of the Dow

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
message >news:d3okf5$um1$

> When will the good times roll again?

These ARE the good times. When I took my first securities exams, the
SP500 was at 100. You young whippersnappers just need a longer term
perspective.


-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

Re: Prediction of the Dow

HW "Skip" Weldon wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
> message >news:d3okf5$um1$
>
>
>>When will the good times roll again?
>
>
> These ARE the good times. When I took my first securities exams, the
> SP500 was at 100. You young whippersnappers just need a longer term
> perspective.
>
>
> -HW "Skip" Weldon
> Columbia, SC

Ah Ha! Thanks for the clue Pops. Or should that be Gramps?

So you were about 20 some time around 1954, scaling off a graph in
Siegel's book, making you about 71 now. Elementary my dear Weldon!

Re: Prediction of the Dow

"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> It won't work.
>
Come to think of it, it already has. In the past you've admitted that you
didn't do anything much with what you now think was so obvious. No amount
of admission can top that.

>
> Yes, but I'm saying that I personally have no hope of evaluating those
> "game-changing potentials" in individual stocks.
>
It's always about you, isn't it? (hands on the hip, eyes rolled). The
question in hand is whether those game changing potentials are any easier to
evaluate for a class of stocks or asset classes than individual stocks in
general. They aren't. You know if the potential was real only after the
fact in both cases.

> Just because I understand (I don't really, but anyway...)
> the textiles industry doesn't mean I understand the computer industry,
> so I can't use the same valuation approach with one as with the other.
>
But you'd use the same valuation approach of market-cap-to-gdp-growth for
the class that encompass both. And, if the valuation goes out of whack
because of a game-changing potential in textile, you'd automatically dump
the whole thing even if computers remain reasonable.

Re: Prediction of the Dow

TK Sung wrote:
> "Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
> news:
> >
> > It won't work.
> >
> Come to think of it, it already has. In the past you've admitted
that you
> didn't do anything much with what you now think was so obvious. No
amount
> of admission can top that.
>
> >
> > Yes, but I'm saying that I personally have no hope of evaluating
those
> > "game-changing potentials" in individual stocks.
> >
> It's always about you, isn't it?

You always make it about me. See your comment above.

Darin

Re: Prediction of the Dow

"NoEd" <> wrote

> Oh my. You poor, poor man. Not only are you rude,you're stupid.

Your statement is both rude and stupid. What gives?