alternative places to invest

Discussion in 'Financial Planning' started by cporro, Jan 30, 2011.

  1. cporro

    cporro Guest

    i started investing about 11 years ago. at that time everything i read
    was about US stocks. Later i read about bonds and then there is real
    estate. these seem to be the main options.

    but these days i wonder if there is something better. in the last 11
    years we've had a major stock crash and a major housing crash. for a
    few this worked out well. but most people watched their overvalued
    assets evaporate.

    so what else is out there? i don't want gold either btw. what about
    micro-lending? or keeping the money more local where you can support
    the place where your family lives? how do you find out about other
    options? any recommended books? wouldn't community based lending be
    better for all involved? i've come to see many large financial
    institutions as high class grifters.

    so much is focused on US stocks and traditional investments. i think
    they are over hyped but i don't know where else to look.
     
    cporro, Jan 30, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. cporro

    dumbstruck Guest

    On Jan 29, 6:11 pm, cporro <> wrote:
    > so what else is out there? i don't want gold either btw. what about


    Click on categories http://finance.yahoo.com/etf/browser/mkt?k=6&c=0&f=0&cs=1&ce=177

    > micro-lending? or keeping the money more local where you can support


    Lies, Hype, and Profit:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/business...nd-profit-the-truth-about-microfinance/70405/

    > the place where your family lives? how do you find out about other
    > options? any recommended books? wouldn't community based lending be


    Investing around home may be ok if you have genuine knowledge that biz
    is good. Otherwise it can be putting too many eggs in one basket -
    like the Enron employees that put only Enron stock in their IRA only
    to evaporate along with their jobs. Maybe a fund of local banks across
    the nation?

    Anyway assuming you don't want to speculate on recovery of commercial
    reits or something, you did miss the tricky category of commodities.
    Things with industrial use such as palladium (pall) or cotton (bal) or
    whatever is in http://noir.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/cfutures.html
     
    dumbstruck, Jan 30, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. cporro

    Don Guest

    On Jan 29, 8:11 pm, cporro <> wrote:

    > i started investing about 11 years ago. at that time everything i read
    > was about US stocks. Later i read about bonds and then there is real
    > estate. these seem to be the main options.
    >
    > but these days i wonder if there is something better. in the last 11
    > years we've had a major stock crash and a  major housing crash. for a
    > few this worked out well. but most people watched their overvalued
    > assets evaporate.


    A lot of experts over the years have stressed that the best time to
    buy stocks is NOW, because there will always be ups and downs, and
    getting in the game early is a good idea. And so much the better if
    you get in during one of the "down" periods. According to that wisdom,
    it would seem that right now, today, would be a great time to invest
    in stocks, and real estate too.

    But it is interesting that you don't hear that advice much at the
    present time. In fact, if I recall correctly, you hear that wisdom
    most often during one of the "up" periods. People, even knowledgeable
    people, are now talking a lot about bonds and safe investments.
    Somehow it seems that the present-day part of the cycle usually turns
    out to be "special," unlike any previous episode, either at the bottom
    or the top of the market.
     
    Don, Jan 30, 2011
    #3
  4. cporro

    Ron Peterson Guest

    On Jan 29, 10:11 pm, cporro <> wrote:
    > i started investing about 11 years ago. at that time everything i read
    > was about US stocks. Later i read about bonds and then there is real
    > estate. these seem to be the main options.


    A breakdown of peoples assets show that as the main places people are
    invested.

    > but these days i wonder if there is something better. ...


    Having your own business is a good alternative with many side benefits
    like being able to work 60 hours a week.

    Buying collectibles like art and wine is a possibility, but isn't
    practical for most people.

    --
    Ron
     
    Ron Peterson, Jan 30, 2011
    #4
  5. cporro

    bo peep Guest

    On Jan 29, 9:11 pm, cporro <> wrote:
    > so what else is out there?


    There are stock options - puts and calls, spreads and straddles.
    People who are not knowledgeable about stock options often have the
    unfounded opinion that they are *always* highly speculative, but this
    is not necessarily the case. Options are available in a wide variety
    of prices, ranging from "in the money" to way *out* of the money.
    These range from highly speculative to highly conservative, and
    everything in between.

    Also note that an option transaction actually involves two
    transactions - one transaction creates or sells the option, the other
    transaction purchases the option. So, they more speculative one of
    those transactions is, the more conservative the other transaction
    will be.

    In any event, you would definitely need to do some considerable
    reading on this subject before attempting to trade stock options.
     
    bo peep, Jan 30, 2011
    #5
  6. cporro

    Elle Guest

    On Jan 29, 9:11 pm, cporro <> wrote:
    > in the last 11
    > years we've had a major stock crash and a  major housing crash. for a
    > few this worked out well. but most people watched their overvalued
    > assets evaporate.


    Those who were not diversified in stocks may have lost their shirts.
    But the long-term investors who were and remain diversified, and
    have been in the market at least six or seven years, are likely doing
    fine.

    Do you understand what it means to hold stocks? If a person does not
    understand this, then he or she will never be comfortable when the
    market declines for the short term, and stocks are probably a poor
    choice for them.
     
    Elle, Jan 30, 2011
    #6
  7. cporro

    dapperdobbs Guest

    On Jan 29, 11:11 pm, cporro <> wrote:
    > i started investing about 11 years ago

    <...>
    > so much is focused on US stocks and traditional investments. i think
    > they are over hyped but i don't know where else to look.


    I gotta go with Elle and Don on this one.

    The bottom line is that capital (money) is a store of value and a
    factor of production. Making products and services is the objective,
    not "making money." Only the U.S. Mint makes money.

    Owning a stock is owning a share in a company which is a producing
    enterprise. There are great companies with solid products and
    services. Lewis Rukeyser had a cool story about two brothers,
    investing the same $$ in stocks each year. One was lucky, and always
    bought at the lows. The other was unlucky and always bought at the
    highs. The unlucky one got started ten years before the lucky one did.
    After 30 years, the unlucky one had more money invested. Interesting
    little story.

    One can start one's own company, but it is critical to do your
    homework since something like 90% of all new businesses fail within
    the first two years - because they never had a business plan to begin
    with, never did their research on demand for product and services and
    even if they got plain lucky on that, never organized, never had
    adequate resources to produce (you must know what you're doing and be
    able to do it). There are lots of books on start ups, and some elect
    to go with a franchise - the business plan is all in a manual.

    Investing in your home town is admirable, and Food Lion got its start
    that way, I believe, tapping locals for five thousand each - that seed
    capital came to be worth a couple of million for those who took the
    plunge.
     
    dapperdobbs, Jan 31, 2011
    #7
  8. cporro

    Hayden Guest

    'Elle[_4_ Wrote:
    > ;709355']On Jan 29, 9:11*pm, cporro wrote:-
    > in the last 11
    > years we've had a major stock crash and a *major housing crash. for a
    > few this worked out well. but most people watched their overvalued
    > assets evaporate.-
    >
    > Those who were not diversified in stocks may have lost their shirts.
    > But the long-term investors who were and remain diversified, and
    > have been in the market at least six or seven years, are likely doing
    > fine.
    >
    > Do you understand what it means to hold stocks? If a person does not
    > understand this, then he or she will never be comfortable when the
    > market declines for the short term, and stocks are probably a poor
    > choice for them.


    Well said, before investing in stock market beware of long term
    investors.
    They can raise or down the market.




    --
    Hayden
     
    Hayden, Jan 31, 2011
    #8
  9. cporro

    dumbstruck Guest

    On Jan 29, 6:11 pm, cporro <> wrote:
    > so much is focused on US stocks and traditional investments. i think
    > they are over hyped but i don't know where else to look.


    I suppose this is another of those many posts where we all guess
    differently on what the OP was asking, and the OP never comes back to
    clarify. I hope they realize suggestions like mine can be dangerous
    without some interactive clarifications.

    But why didn't anyone guess they were asking about non-US stocks? It
    ought to be a great diversification, but they are somehow hard to get
    excited about for the first time in decades. Maybe that means it is a
    good time to get in?

    The emerging markets have great (although inflationary) economies, but
    unfortunately their stock valuations seem high. Japan has been
    slumbering for 2 decades. Euro land has been mostly exposed as a false
    utopia, previously funding their social welfare by deferring nearly
    all defense spending to the US taxpayer.

    I think there is one sure bet investment to depend on - cotton
    underware! Stockpile a lifetime supply in every closet or attic space
    you can find. Look how cotton continues to skyrocket (noted by me here
    months ago) compared to US or foreign developed/emerging stocks or
    gold:
    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=BAL&t=6m&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=efa,eem,gld,^GSPC
     
    dumbstruck, Jan 31, 2011
    #9
  10. cporro

    Elle Guest

    On Jan 31, 3:57 pm, dumbstruck <> wrote:
    > But why didn't anyone guess they were asking about non-US stocks?


    One reason: Large cap U.S. based stocks so often have a huge
    international presence that, as long as one is diversified across U.S.
    based stocks, one will have significant exposure internationally.

    > It
    > ought to be a great diversification, but they are somehow hard to get
    > excited about for the first time in decades. Maybe that means it is a
    > good time to get in?
    >
    > The emerging markets have great (although inflationary) economies, but
    > unfortunately their stock valuations seem high. Japan has been
    > slumbering for 2 decades.


    I do not think this sound bite describing Japan's stock market is
    helpful, accurate or relevant. Japanese industry experienced a bubble
    that peaked in the late 1980s and fell by one-half within five years.
    It continued to decline. But Japan is so tiny that what happened in
    Japan did not affect the economy of the whole world on any kind of
    long term basis. Bringing up Japan's blip seems as relevant as
    bringing up the Dutch tulip bubble of the 1600s.

    snip political speculation that cannot be verified
    > I think there is one sure bet investment to depend on - co

    tton
    > underware! Stockpile a lifetime supply in every closet or attic space
    > you can find. Look how cotton continues to skyrocket (noted by me here
    > months ago) compared to US or foreign developed/emerging stocks or
    > gold:http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=BAL&t=6m&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=efa,eem,...


    So your guidance is to buy that which has been going up, on the hope
    it will keep going up?

    To the OP: Diversify. Buy and hold for the long run. Read Jeremy
    Siegel, Ben Graham and others who have studied economies and the
    nature of businesses on a macro scale.
     
    Elle, Feb 1, 2011
    #10
  11. cporro

    dumbstruck Guest

    On Jan 31, 4:41 pm, Elle <> wrote:
    > One reason: Large cap U.S. based stocks so often have a huge
    > international presence that, as long as one is diversified across U.S.
    > based stocks, one will have significant exposure internationally.


    Practically every year of the last 30 any half way attentive
    international investor could double or triple sp500 positive returns
    by using foreign mutual funds or etfs. I say half way attentive
    because you didn't even have to cherry pick the best - I have lived
    that and retired very early. It doesn't come about by sleepwalking
    with the large cap US and related intn'l diversified area. Target
    sectors of regions for example. Certainly emerging market funds have
    been consistently up by hundreds of percent every few years, although
    notice I said not to be extrapolated now.

    > I do not think this sound bite describing Japan's stock market is
    > helpful, accurate or relevant. Japanese industry experienced a bubble
    > that peaked in the late 1980s and fell by one-half within five years.
    > It continued to decline. But Japan is so tiny that what happened in
    > Japan did not affect the economy of the whole world on any kind of
    > long term basis. Bringing up Japan's blip seems as relevant as
    > bringing up the Dutch tulip bubble of the 1600s.


    I contest every aspect. Japan stock market has fallen by 75% in last
    21 or so years! It's "tiny" impact comprises until recently the second
    largest market cap in the world! Broad index funds are cap weighted,
    so there has been a great proliferation of "asia ex-Japan" funds and
    the like. International funds tend to be largely weighted not only by
    Japan but England, which a discriminating investor has avoided. Thus
    that whole aging large cap soup of US/UK/Japan/etc is not
    representative of intn'l opportunities, rather it is the hall of shame
    we have soared over.

    > snip political speculation that cannot be verified


    You can verify it by checking how only the UK and Greece had
    significant defense budgets in the EU, and both of those were suddenly
    slashed. The US maintains a growing responsibility with about 24%
    defense budget. Meanwhile there is a book out urging the US to take up
    the Euro example of about 10 weeks holiday off per year, free college
    and generous welfare etc because it appears to work so well in Euro
    economies. Now that the veil is off, and non teutonic eu countries
    such as UK are facing stagnant growth, hardly encouraging for
    investing in a cap weighted Euro investment. Well, maybe so, if they
    can continue to freeload defense responsibilities for the world
    democracies, just like in their 1930's debacle.

    > So your guidance is to buy that which has been going up, on the hope
    > it will keep going up?


    The underwear price has been greatly lagging the cotton price rise,
    even when you consider it is a fraction of manufacturing cost. Do you
    understand the pipeline delay effect? Cotton can drop in half and
    underwear price will still rise and not drop. Are you saying
    underwear appreciation won't exceed the total return of treasuries,
    and rampant wage inflation in the SE Asia manufacturing region will
    have no effect? Why on earth try to score points about underwear?

    > To the OP: Diversify. Buy and hold for the long run. Read Jeremy
    > Siegel, Ben Graham and others who have studied economies and the
    > nature of businesses on a macro scale.


    That is the path to avoid mistakes, but to remain a wage slave. It
    assumes the reader is either uncertain or has a reckless streak that
    needs to be restrained. On the other hand, the reader can spend a few
    years thinking big yet experimenting with a tiny fraction of your
    portfolio - just enough to keep your interest and honestly recognize
    pain vs gains from it. May find one has a talent for some investment
    areas and a good enough track record to seriously pursue it.

    I thought my earlier posts had been laced with enough caveats so that
    Elle or others needn't go on the warpath, at least about underwear
    <grin>.
     
    dumbstruck, Feb 1, 2011
    #11
  12. cporro

    Elle Guest

    On Jan 31, 10:58 pm, dumbstruck <> wrote:
    > On Jan 31, 4:41 pm, Elle <> wrote:
    >
    > > One reason: Large cap U.S. based stocks so often have a huge
    > > international presence that, as long as one is diversified across U.S.
    > > based stocks, one will have significant exposure internationally.

    >
    > Practically every year of the last 30 any half way attentive
    > international investor could double or triple sp500 positive returns
    > by using foreign mutual funds or etfs. I say half way attentive
    > because you didn't even have to cherry pick the best


    I do not consider the last 20-30 years relevant here, first because I
    think the number of international funds available 20-30 years ago was
    minuscule compared to the number available today (with corresponding
    higher cost 20-30 years ago), and second because I think that U.S.
    based companies tended to become exponentially more exposed to
    international.

    > > I do not think this sound bite describing Japan's stock market is
    > > helpful, accurate or relevant. Japanese industry experienced a bubble
    > > that peaked in the late 1980s and fell by one-half within five years.
    > > It continued to decline. But Japan is so tiny that what happened in
    > > Japan did not affect the economy of the whole world on any kind of
    > > long term basis. Bringing up Japan's blip seems as relevant as
    > > bringing up the Dutch tulip bubble of the 1600s.

    >
    > I contest every aspect.  


    You fail to demonstrate that Japan's crash affected the S&P 500, for
    one.

    > > snip political speculation that cannot be verified

    >
    > You can verify it by checking how only the UK and Greece had
    > significant defense budgets in the EU, and both of those were suddenly
    > slashed. The US maintains a growing responsibility with about 24%
    > defense budget.


    Financially speaking, I do not think your political views are useful
    in this forum.

    You also omit how the U.S. defense budget helps the U.S. economy.

    > > So your guidance is to buy that which has been going up, on the hope
    > > it will keep going up?

    >
    > The underwear price has been greatly lagging the cotton price rise,
    > even when you consider it is a fraction of manufacturing cost.


    I am saying to the OP: Diversify. Do not try to time. Invest for the
    long run.
     
    Elle, Feb 1, 2011
    #12
  13. cporro

    Tad Borek Guest

    On 1/30/2011 11:35 AM, Elle wrote:
    > Those who were not diversified in stocks may have lost their shirts.
    > But the long-term investors who were and remain diversified, and
    > have been in the market at least six or seven years, are likely doing
    > fine.


    There's an even stronger statement than that...a buy and hold investor
    in a balanced index fund should today be at an all-time-high net worth,
    _regardless of when they invested_. Except for a few days over the past
    week or so but let's ignore that.

    Just one example:
    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=VBINX&a=05&b=20&c=1996&d=01&e=1&f=2011&g=m

    Look at the "adjusted close" column which factors in reinvested
    dividends. All the numbers in the past are lower! Do some math to see
    how the long-term returns look. How many investors beat that?

    You can do the same exercise with some all-stock index funds to get a
    sense of how that's done (for that, the exact timing of your initial
    investment is a huge factor).

    The whole "decimated retirement savings" vein in the media has missed
    this basic point, that a bland 60/40 stock/bond mix has done quite well.
    So before giving up on stocks & bonds in favor of the latest junk pumped
    out by Wall Street it's worth considering whether they've failed to
    build wealth.

    -Tad
     
    Tad Borek, Feb 1, 2011
    #13
  14. cporro

    Elle Guest

    On Feb 1, 11:05 am, Tad Borek <> wrote:
    > a buy and hold investor
    > in a [60/40 stock/investment grade bond] index fund should today be at an all-time-high net worth,
    > _regardless of when they invested_. Except for a few days over the past
    > week or so but let's ignore that.
    >
    > Just one example:http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=VBINX&a=05&b=20&c=1996&d=01&e=1&f=201...


    Nice addition to the thread.

    > Look at the "adjusted close" column which factors in reinvested
    > dividends. All the numbers in the past are lower! Do some math to see
    > how the long-term returns look. How many investors beat that?
    >
    > You can do the same exercise with some all-stock index funds to get a
    > sense of how that's done (for that, the exact timing of your initial
    > investment is a huge factor).


    Right, I just threw in SPY (S&P 500 index fund) to the yahoo site
    above, and the results are as you suggest: Not as good as the stock/
    bond fund and timing dependent.

    Granted this is a comment on coming out ahead after a bubble bursts
    and/or during a recession, no? When times are good, my eccentric
    relative will likely start talking again about how he is laughing
    himself to the bank, because he stuck with stocks FTW (for the win),
    though having a long time horizon.

    Really the bigger objective is sleeping well at night. I sleep fine
    with my more conservative approach (significant CD and similar
    proportion). The relative sleeps fine in nearly all blue chip stocks
    (but he has way more net worth than I). Orman sleeps fine with nearly
    no stocks (even more net worth). 'struck is happy in cotton.

    [bears repeating IMO]
    > The whole "decimated retirement savings" vein in the media has missed
    > this basic point, that a bland 60/40 stock/bond mix has done quite well.
     
    Elle, Feb 1, 2011
    #14
  15. cporro

    Guest

    Elle <> writes:

    > On Jan 31, 3:57 pm, dumbstruck <> wrote:
    >> But why didn't anyone guess they were asking about non-US stocks?

    >
    > One reason: Large cap U.S. based stocks so often have a huge
    > international presence that, as long as one is diversified across U.S.
    > based stocks, one will have significant exposure internationally.


    That was the premise of a fund that has long since ceased to
    exist, but which I found quite interesting. Papp America Abroad,
    run by L. Roy Papp in Phoenix. Papp sold his funds to Pioneer,
    I think, back in the early 00s, and he himself must be about a
    zillion year old now. But his premise was that large US-based
    companies are the best way to invest overseas inasmuch as you
    get US based accounting (which, contrary to such disasters as
    the recent financial crisis and such general outliers as Enron,
    is still pretty much the best in the world) and exposure to
    all the opportunities in other countries as profitable managers
    of succesful large companies here are capable of.

    I'm not sure I completely buy the premise, but it's certainly
    true that the world, especially at the large-cap level, is
    very small. Companies like Intel, for example, make very
    substantial portions of their profits overseas.

    Of course, recently, it has seemed that the world on the
    whole is more correlated than, perhaps, it was as recently
    as 20 or so years ago. That's a discussion for another time,
    I guess.

    But if you're looking for non-correlated asset classes to
    balance against US equities, and you want to stay in equities,
    I think you have to look at small-cap and emerging markets.
    The latter, on the large-cap level, are generally pretty
    tightly tied to commodities and may be more highly correlated
    with the developed world, too.

    --
    Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
     
    , Feb 2, 2011
    #15
  16. cporro

    Guest

    Elle <> writes:

    > On Feb 1, 11:05 am, Tad Borek <> wrote:


    >> a buy and hold investor
    >> in a [60/40 stock/investment grade bond] index fund should today
    >> be at an all-time-high net worth, _regardless of when they invested_.


    > Right, I just threw in SPY (S&P 500 index fund) to the yahoo site
    > above, and the results are as you suggest: Not as good as the stock/
    > bond fund and timing dependent.
    >
    > Granted this is a comment on coming out ahead after a bubble bursts
    > and/or during a recession, no? When times are good, my eccentric
    > relative will likely start talking again about how he is laughing
    > himself to the bank, because he stuck with stocks FTW (for the win),
    > though having a long time horizon.


    Maybe. The thing is that a 60/40 equity/bond portfolio simply
    has a better *risk-adjusted* rate of return than an all-equity
    portfolio even if an all-equity portfolio has beaten it on an
    absolute basis over some long-run period.

    And that risk-adjusted part is essential. It's essential to
    people who have trouble staying the course. And more than
    that, it's especially essential once you start plotting out
    ways to extract a retirement from a portfolio. Low volatility
    has huge value. And a 60/40 portfolio, over the last few
    decades, has captured almost all the long-run returns of an
    all-equity portfolio with a very substantially lower standard
    deviation.

    >From morningstar, the VBINX (balanced index) has had a

    15-year standard deviation of 10.09 and a 15-year total
    return of 6.91%

    The total stock market index (VTSMX) has had a 15-year
    total return of 7.05% (which beats the SP500, btw), but
    with a 15-year standard deviation of 16.76 (very slightly
    higher than the SP500).

    I had some 30 or 40-year numbers but they are not handy.
    IIRC, the standard deviations were similar, but the returns
    diverged a bit more (the 60/40 got was beaten by the all
    equity portfolio by a more substantial margin, but still
    beat the all-equity on a risk-adjusted basis quite handily).

    Whether any of that is repeatable, of course, is questionable.
    Current interest rates make bonds, at least anything with
    a maturiry of more than a few years, look a lot more risky
    than they've looked in a long time.

    But it's certainly worth remembering when builting an
    asset allocation.

    --
    Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
     
    , Feb 2, 2011
    #16
  17. cporro

    Elle Guest

    On Feb 1, 7:53 pm, wrote:
    > Of course, recently, it has seemed that the world on the
    > whole is more correlated than, perhaps, it was as recently
    > as 20 or so years ago.  That's a discussion for another time,
    > I guess.


    How wireless and internet communications have facilitated global
    financial machinations, and more cheaply than ever, in the last 15
    years or so was at the front of my mind as I wrote about how I think
    U.S. large caps tend to have a larger than ever before international
    presence. Of course I expect this trend must be true of any large
    business regardless of whether it is U.S. based or not.

    Then again it may be worthwhile to reflect on impact on stocks of the
    telephone in the early 1900s (I think) and other communication devices
    over history. I know this is nothing profound. Maybe what would be
    more worthwhile is to reflect on how there actually may be a limit to
    market expansion at this point. I am not expecting life on Mars. On
    the third hand, China is so rural and India so poor that I think it is
    safe to say my Philip Morris, for one, has plenty of room to grow more.
     
    Elle, Feb 2, 2011
    #17
  18. On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 20:53:15 CST, wrote:

    >Elle <> writes:


    >> Large cap U.S. based stocks so often have a huge
    >> international presence that, as long as one is diversified across U.S.
    >> based stocks, one will have significant exposure internationally.

    >


    >I'm not sure I completely buy the premise, but it's certainly
    >true that the world, especially at the large-cap level, is
    >very small. Companies like Intel, for example, make very
    >substantial portions of their profits overseas.


    While I am not a fan of international investing, I do agree with
    Elle's comment on large cap US stocks having international exposure.

    Here's an observation from last week's trip through Frankfort
    Germany's huge airport. The largest eatery in the airport, and the
    eatery with the longest lines, was McDonalds and it wasn't even close.
    Further, our Delta plane was at 100% capacity on its run from
    Frankfort to Atlanta, as was US Air's offering to Charlotte.

    It was obvious to me that those three companies were participating in
    those economies (for better or worse).
     
    HW \Skip\ Weldon, Feb 2, 2011
    #18
  19. cporro

    Guest

    Elle <> writes:

    > On Feb 1, 7:53 pm, wrote:
    >> Of course, recently, it has seemed that the world on the
    >> whole is more correlated than, perhaps, it was as recently
    >> as 20 or so years ago.  That's a discussion for another time,
    >> I guess.

    >
    > How wireless and internet communications have facilitated global
    > financial machinations, and more cheaply than ever, in the last 15
    > years or so was at the front of my mind as I wrote about how I think


    Don't forget massive improvements in transportation efficiency,
    too. As big a deal as the internet is, the modern shipping
    container (and computerized tracking of inventory - just what
    is actually in a given box) may be even more important.

    > market expansion at this point. I am not expecting life on Mars. On
    > the third hand, China is so rural and India so poor that I think it is
    > safe to say my Philip Morris, for one, has plenty of room to grow more.


    There's certainly a lot of economic growth poised to take place
    in some parts of the world with vast populations. How to find
    a way to profit from that, however, is not necessarily an
    easy question. But no doubt McDonalds, for example, will find
    a way.

    >From yesterday's NY Times:


    <http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-the-have-nots/?src=me&ref=business>

    Fascinating.

    --
    Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
     
    , Feb 2, 2011
    #19
  20. cporro

    Elle Guest

    On Feb 2, 8:30 am, wrote:
    > Don't forget massive improvements in transportation efficiency,
    > too.  As big a deal as the internet is, the modern shipping
    > container


    I worked briefly on container ships over 30 years ago, so I do not
    think the impact of this more efficient mode of transportation of
    goods is so new. Wiki elaborates. Nor do I think container ships'
    impact is as profound as the last 20 years of computer-driven
    communications and (agreed) inventorying etc. Just saying.
     
    Elle, Feb 2, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. dwilli

    discount price extending out 5 places

    dwilli, Mar 28, 2005, in forum: Quickbooks
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    275
    dwilli
    Mar 28, 2005
  2. Decimal Places

    , Aug 25, 2006, in forum: Quickbooks
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    329
  3. Decimal Places

    , Aug 25, 2006, in forum: Quickbooks
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    607
    Gary E
    Aug 26, 2006
  4. Thalamizer
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    338
    Thalamizer
    Nov 1, 2010
  5. cporro

    alternative places to invest part II

    cporro, Jul 22, 2011, in forum: Financial Planning
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    604
    megneton
    Aug 25, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page