H, kids have enormous opportunities today. There are more grants, student aid, community colleges work/study programs, etc.. available to them than ever. My kids will be there soon. Its not that kids don't have opportunities; in many cases they don't have proper gudiance, supervision or support from their parents. Don't blame the wealthy for this. If anything people have it too easy today. In your parents' and grandparent's generations, survival came first, everything else was gravy. Today by and large, survival is taken for granted. The average standard of living is much higher than ever before, even for $12/hour wage-earners.
Don't knock $12/hr. Twice in my life thought I had it made earning $12/hour: (1) At age 16, was selling shoes and making that and more in commissions; (2) at a later stage in life, was making $12/hour in interest and dividends (ok, that includes hours sleeping, etc...). Neither income level proved sufficient for all of life's wants and needs. Moral of the story: $12/hour should not be the goal of anyone today. Funny how most of these $12/hour people still have cars, computers, smart phones, a roof over the heads and food to eat. Look around the world; it could be a lot worse.
So the answer is to leave the "bought and paid for parties" alone and enact bad policies?
That's circular reasoning, H. You don't tax gifts to pay for war. Arguably, we wouldn't be going to war had we not advertised to all the bad guys in the world that our goal was to avoid war at all cost. And you don't rob Peter to pay Paul. With a more sensible tax code, we'd raise more money, not less, and remove the ridiculous deductions, not those that serve a public purpose. You want a flat tax? Fine, but leave the few deductions that actually benefit society. You want a progessive tax? That's fine, too, but don't give half the population a free pass.
H, you tax gifts and you reduce gifting. Why don't we encourage gifting to charities by allowing MORE deductions for gifts, not less (and certainly not taxing charitable gifts)? The tax code is full of moronic deductions but the charitable gift tax deduction is not one of them. You're right about one thing; You, Pam and Jenna would be a vast improvement over the status quo.
One of LUK's more ardent supporters is Bruce Berkowitz (of Fairholme fame). Even Berkowitz has refrained from buying any shares of late. What is Berkowitz buying? SHLD is at the top of the list. You may not like or agree with Berkowitz, but when you compare the performance of Berkowitz's fund to that of LUK, the winner (and loser) is quite obvious.
H, unlike Congress, private sector folks with opposite political views can work well together. There is perhaps no better example than Buffett ande Munger. When politics stops getting in the way of accomplishment, maybe we'll get some qualified candidates on the big stage. Until then, you'll likely get your wish of more of the same.
BTW, the terms of the BK deal look a lot better when you read the fine print.
H, we'll have to disagree. Job losses offshore are a symptom of the problem. The problem does not go away with stupid regulations.
H, taxes matter and I hope we do all the tax inversion deals we can get if the economics of those deals otherwise make sense. Anyone who doesn't like "tax inversions" probably doesn't understand the fiduciary duty a company has to its shareholders.
Typical lame-brained govt. reaction. Instead of addressing the real issue (tax reform), they opt to create more regulations and silly rules.
LUK makes for a fine trade when it is priced significantly under BV. It has fallen very short of the SPY as a long term hold for the last 20 years, a long enough measuring period by anyone's standards. I almost purchased the stock again when it recently traded in the mid $24 range, but passed. Ironically, I'd have sold it after the JEF earnings for an 8% +/- gain, but in the same time period, my holdings in BRK appreciated about the same (without any subsequent price drop). BRK and SPY are far superior holdings for the long run. LUK can be bought and sold (in non-taxable accounts) for good gains so you have to follow the stock and its BV. The objective for most stock investors is increasing net worth, not justifying holdings and hoping they appreciate in value. LUK can and does invest in anything. Unfortunately, it hasn't done a particularly good job, at least as compared to BRK, which can only invest on a much larger scale and with far more limited options. LUK should be able to outperform BRK but unlike Buffett, LUK's management profited at the expense of shareholders. Even absent the large bonuses and stock options received by management, LUK's performance is nowhere near that of BRK. That said, there are times when LUK presents itself as a great opportunity, just not for the long haul IMO.
Didn't see the segment but I'd assume Buffett held his own. Personally hope that Buffett does all the tax inversions he can get. (lest we forget: lower taxes are good for shareholders). There is no other issue here.
If the Fed keeps a lid on interest rate for another year or more, $200+ is a reasonable price target. 0% interest rates have pushed us this far and you don't see people bailing our of equities into bonds or CDs now, so what is going to prompt them to do so anytime soon? As usual, most people who have been pushed into equities due to low/no returns elsewhere will be the victims of a nasty downturn in stocks. Once lending rates begin to rise, its anyone's guess how far we drop, especially if the economy remains weak.
H, look at the volatility of the stock. If I were to guess, average "cost basis" in all trades after short puts, assignment, covered calls and appreciation in shares sold would be under $20/share.
H, Rocket ain't no investment advisor. The fact is, SHLD has been a great trade for the past year and nothing has changed. The more "bad" news that is a mere reiteration of the past "bad" news is music to my ears. If SHLD turns itself around, great. If it doesn't., the downside is very limited from here. Do your own due dili.
LOL, one of the knocks on Sears was that it would soon run out of cash. Now that it secured the cash (that it already had), the CEO gets knocked for protecting his investment.