I thought I'd mention a few I own that have held up fairly well over the last six months or so.
1. Nordic American Tanker NAT. It has traded in a $25 - $33 range while still paying out a nice 3.50/share (12%) dividend. If it drops down closer to $25, I might load up some more.
2. McDonalds MCD. It has also done pretty well staying in a $53 - $60 range and paying a dividend of 2.00/share (3.7%). Its last earnings report was phenominal and stands to do well in a bad economy. Plus, they are still expanding in China.
3. Abbott ABT. Well, except for today after the announcement of our moving towards national healthcare. It has traded in a $55 - $60 range and also pays a nice 1.60/share (2.0%). Today saw a drop of over 5% which is huge for this kind of stock. If I wanted more shares, I'd look to pick some up if it drops below $50 which seems to be the put options price. They just raised their dividend ( how many other companies can say the same? ) 11% and have consistently raised their dividend year over year.
4. The biggest surprise is Visa V. I bought shares the day it IPO'd in March and sold off all but a few back when it was close to its peak. But, the shares I have left are right around what I originally paid. The dividend is nominal but I'll take flat over major loss any day.
5. Linn Energy LINE. I picked up some more when it dropped around $11 back in December and has maintained a trading range of $12 - $15 with a pretty dividend of 2.52/share (18%). They just reported today and outlook appears good for 2009.
6. Freeport McMoran. This poor, beaten down stock went from 125.00 last summer down to 16.80 in December! I actually traded this thing and got in when it was in the 70's then rode it up to 125.00 and sold at 100.00 when it started to come down. I did buy back in when it was around 40.00 and dollar cost averaged as it dropped even further. From its low of 16.80 to now, it has seen a 100% increase. Copper stockpiles are dropping and China has announced new infrastructure stimulus which should draw down those stockpiles even more. Freeport halted a lot of its mining and even decided, smartly so, to suspend its dividend to preserve cash. While this stock has rallied in recent months, if it pulls back a little, I might pick up some more. I think there is a lot of upside still.
My next buy will be some Smith and Wesson SWHC. Both the stock and their product.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Earth to Geithner
Banks are solely to blame for the damaging loss of confidence in the market?
Because I'm pretty sure the market has already figured in the bank problem at this point. Don't get me wrong, I think banks have a lot of responsibility in this mess, but the fact is, the stock values of the banks are at such levels that they could all go to zero and not have a huge affect on the DOW. Bank of America is $5. Citigroup is $2.50. AMEX is $13 and JP Morgan is a whopping $21. Glad my portfolio doesn't really trade with the DOW since the only DOW stocks I own are MCD and JNJ.
Could the fact that every time his boss has opened his mouth for the last two months using his peppy words of doom and gloom corresponding with a precipitous 2500 drop in the DOW be the real cause for the damaging loss of confidence in the market? Take today for example. Yes, the DOW was down 180 in early trading but managed to crawl its way back to +80 heading in to the last half hour. Obama then had a news conference about who knows what new spending bill he was planning to pass, but the fact of the matter is, as he spoke, the DOW ticker in the bottom corner of the screen dropped like a rock to end down 80 points. Just like that. Gone. Thanks.
Maybe the loss of confidence is related to the fact that NO ONE HAS A PLAN! They can sure spend like there's no tomorrow. Obama has kept Geithner in a closet since his disappointing debut a month ago and he has the nerve to "come out" just to try and convince us that everyone else, except our ever increasing big government, is to blame for damaging loss of confidence?
Maybe it's when I read articles like this one that makes my blood boil: http://www.cnbc.com/id/29389477
Let me state my feelings in the words of Geithner: I am "deeply offended by the quality of judgments we've seen in the leadership of our nation....."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/29394378
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday scolded bankers for creating a damaging loss of confidence, but said nationalizing banks was the wrong strategy for the United States.
In an interview with Public Broadcasting Service's "Newshour" program, Geithner said he was "deeply offended by the quality of judgments we've seen in the leadership of our nation's financial institutions."
"They've created a deep hole of public distrust and anger which is enormously damaging, and they have a huge obligation to try to restore that basic trust and confidence. And we're going to make sure they do it by making sure that our assistance comes with conditions," he said.
Because I'm pretty sure the market has already figured in the bank problem at this point. Don't get me wrong, I think banks have a lot of responsibility in this mess, but the fact is, the stock values of the banks are at such levels that they could all go to zero and not have a huge affect on the DOW. Bank of America is $5. Citigroup is $2.50. AMEX is $13 and JP Morgan is a whopping $21. Glad my portfolio doesn't really trade with the DOW since the only DOW stocks I own are MCD and JNJ.
Could the fact that every time his boss has opened his mouth for the last two months using his peppy words of doom and gloom corresponding with a precipitous 2500 drop in the DOW be the real cause for the damaging loss of confidence in the market? Take today for example. Yes, the DOW was down 180 in early trading but managed to crawl its way back to +80 heading in to the last half hour. Obama then had a news conference about who knows what new spending bill he was planning to pass, but the fact of the matter is, as he spoke, the DOW ticker in the bottom corner of the screen dropped like a rock to end down 80 points. Just like that. Gone. Thanks.
Maybe the loss of confidence is related to the fact that NO ONE HAS A PLAN! They can sure spend like there's no tomorrow. Obama has kept Geithner in a closet since his disappointing debut a month ago and he has the nerve to "come out" just to try and convince us that everyone else, except our ever increasing big government, is to blame for damaging loss of confidence?
Maybe it's when I read articles like this one that makes my blood boil: http://www.cnbc.com/id/29389477
Let me state my feelings in the words of Geithner: I am "deeply offended by the quality of judgments we've seen in the leadership of our nation....."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/29394378
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday scolded bankers for creating a damaging loss of confidence, but said nationalizing banks was the wrong strategy for the United States.
In an interview with Public Broadcasting Service's "Newshour" program, Geithner said he was "deeply offended by the quality of judgments we've seen in the leadership of our nation's financial institutions."
"They've created a deep hole of public distrust and anger which is enormously damaging, and they have a huge obligation to try to restore that basic trust and confidence. And we're going to make sure they do it by making sure that our assistance comes with conditions," he said.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
As if the market is struggling enough as it is....
Imagine a piece of garbage legislation introduced in the Ways and Means Committee this week ACTUALLY makes it through Congress........
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1068.IH:
HR 1068 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1068
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a tax on certain securities transactions to the extent required to recoup the net cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 13, 2009
Mr. DEFAZIO (for himself, Mr. WELCH, Ms. SUTTON, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. WU, Mr. STARK, Ms. DELAURO, and Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a tax on certain securities transactions to the extent required to recoup the net cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street's Bailout Act of 2009'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Bush Administration allocated the first $350 billion of TARP funds in a manner that has outraged the Nation by failing to provide the most basic oversight of the funds.
(2) Congress has declined to block the remaining $350 billion of TARP funds despite the lack of oversight and the record fiscal year 2009 budget deficit estimated at $1.2 trillion.
(3) The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System has committed more than a trillion dollars to stabilize the economy by bailing out various banks deemed `too big to fail'.
(4) The $700 billion TARP fund and the new Federal Reserve lending facilities were created to protect Wall Street investors; therefore, the same Wall Street investors should pay for this infusion of taxpayer money.
(5) The easiest method to raise the money from Wall Street is a securities transfer tax, a tax that has a negligible impact on the average investor.
(6) This transfer tax would be on the sale and purchase of financial instruments such as stock, options, and futures. A quarter percent (0.25 percent) tax on financial transactions could raise approximately $150 billion a year.
(7) The United States had a transfer tax from 1914 to 1966. The Revenue Act of 1914 (Act of Oct. 22, 1914 (ch. 331, 38 Stat. 745)) levied a 0.2 percent tax on all sales or transfers of stock. In 1932, Congress more than doubled the tax to help overcome the budgetary challenges during the Great Depression.
(8) All revenue generated by this transfer tax should be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury of the United States, scaled to meet the net cost of these bailouts, and phase out when the cost of the bailouts are repaid.
SEC. 3. RECOUPMENT OF DEFICIT ARISING FROM FEDERAL BAILOUT.
(a) In General- Chapter 36 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after subchapter B the following new subchapter:
`Subchapter C--Tax on Securities Transactions
`Sec. 4475. Tax on securities transactions.
`SEC. 4475. TAX ON SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS.
`(a) Imposition of Tax- There is hereby imposed a tax on each covered securities transaction an amount equal to the applicable percentage of the value of the security involved in such transaction.
`(b) By Whom Paid- The tax imposed by this section shall be paid by the trading facility on which the transaction occurs.
`(c) Applicable Percentage- For purposes of this section--
`(1) IN GENERAL- The term `applicable percentage' means the lesser of--
`(A) the specified percentage, or
`(B) 0.25 percent.
`(2) SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `specified percentage' means, with respect to any taxable year beginning in a calendar year, the percentage that the Secretary estimates would result in the aggregate revenue to the Treasury under this section for such taxable year and all prior taxable years to equal the Secretary's estimate of the net cost (if any) to the Federal Government of--
`(i) carrying out the Troubled Asset Relief Program established under title 1 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, and
`(ii) the exercise of authority by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System under the third undesignated paragraph of section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 343).
`(B) DETERMINATION OF PERCENTAGE- Such percentage shall be determined by the Secretary not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this section, and redetermined for taxable years beginning in each calendar year thereafter. Such percentage shall take into account the Secretary's most recent estimation of such net cost. Any specified percentage determined under this paragraph which is not a multiple of 1/100th of a percentage point shall be rounded to the nearest 1/100th of a percentage point.
`(d) Covered Securities Transaction- The term `covered securities transaction' means--
`(1) any transaction to which subsection (b), (c), or (d) of section 31 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 applies, and
`(2) any transaction subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
`(e) Administration- The Secretary shall carry out this section in consultation with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of subchapters for chapter 36 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item relating to subchapter B the following new item:
`subchapter c. tax on securities transactions'.
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to sales occurring more than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1068.IH:
HR 1068 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1068
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a tax on certain securities transactions to the extent required to recoup the net cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 13, 2009
Mr. DEFAZIO (for himself, Mr. WELCH, Ms. SUTTON, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. WU, Mr. STARK, Ms. DELAURO, and Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a tax on certain securities transactions to the extent required to recoup the net cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street's Bailout Act of 2009'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Bush Administration allocated the first $350 billion of TARP funds in a manner that has outraged the Nation by failing to provide the most basic oversight of the funds.
(2) Congress has declined to block the remaining $350 billion of TARP funds despite the lack of oversight and the record fiscal year 2009 budget deficit estimated at $1.2 trillion.
(3) The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System has committed more than a trillion dollars to stabilize the economy by bailing out various banks deemed `too big to fail'.
(4) The $700 billion TARP fund and the new Federal Reserve lending facilities were created to protect Wall Street investors; therefore, the same Wall Street investors should pay for this infusion of taxpayer money.
(5) The easiest method to raise the money from Wall Street is a securities transfer tax, a tax that has a negligible impact on the average investor.
(6) This transfer tax would be on the sale and purchase of financial instruments such as stock, options, and futures. A quarter percent (0.25 percent) tax on financial transactions could raise approximately $150 billion a year.
(7) The United States had a transfer tax from 1914 to 1966. The Revenue Act of 1914 (Act of Oct. 22, 1914 (ch. 331, 38 Stat. 745)) levied a 0.2 percent tax on all sales or transfers of stock. In 1932, Congress more than doubled the tax to help overcome the budgetary challenges during the Great Depression.
(8) All revenue generated by this transfer tax should be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury of the United States, scaled to meet the net cost of these bailouts, and phase out when the cost of the bailouts are repaid.
SEC. 3. RECOUPMENT OF DEFICIT ARISING FROM FEDERAL BAILOUT.
(a) In General- Chapter 36 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after subchapter B the following new subchapter:
`Subchapter C--Tax on Securities Transactions
`Sec. 4475. Tax on securities transactions.
`SEC. 4475. TAX ON SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS.
`(a) Imposition of Tax- There is hereby imposed a tax on each covered securities transaction an amount equal to the applicable percentage of the value of the security involved in such transaction.
`(b) By Whom Paid- The tax imposed by this section shall be paid by the trading facility on which the transaction occurs.
`(c) Applicable Percentage- For purposes of this section--
`(1) IN GENERAL- The term `applicable percentage' means the lesser of--
`(A) the specified percentage, or
`(B) 0.25 percent.
`(2) SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `specified percentage' means, with respect to any taxable year beginning in a calendar year, the percentage that the Secretary estimates would result in the aggregate revenue to the Treasury under this section for such taxable year and all prior taxable years to equal the Secretary's estimate of the net cost (if any) to the Federal Government of--
`(i) carrying out the Troubled Asset Relief Program established under title 1 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, and
`(ii) the exercise of authority by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System under the third undesignated paragraph of section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 343).
`(B) DETERMINATION OF PERCENTAGE- Such percentage shall be determined by the Secretary not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this section, and redetermined for taxable years beginning in each calendar year thereafter. Such percentage shall take into account the Secretary's most recent estimation of such net cost. Any specified percentage determined under this paragraph which is not a multiple of 1/100th of a percentage point shall be rounded to the nearest 1/100th of a percentage point.
`(d) Covered Securities Transaction- The term `covered securities transaction' means--
`(1) any transaction to which subsection (b), (c), or (d) of section 31 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 applies, and
`(2) any transaction subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
`(e) Administration- The Secretary shall carry out this section in consultation with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of subchapters for chapter 36 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item relating to subchapter B the following new item:
`subchapter c. tax on securities transactions'.
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to sales occurring more than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Anyone want to place a bet
that the market will tank this week once Obama opens his mouth again and talks about his plans to raise the taxes on the "wealthy", which will include thousands of small businesses, decrease defense spending and let the Bush tax cuts expire?
Let's look at a few things that will happen when the Bush tax cuts expire:
1. Child credit will drop from $700 per child to $500.
2. Income tax rates will increase about 4% in each bracket.
3. The standard deduction for joint filers will shrink from 200% to 167% (and will now include the 15% bracket) which will basically create a marriage penalty.
4. Estate tax exempt rate will drop from 3.5 million single or 7 million joint to 1 million single and 2 million joint at a taxable rate of 55 - 60%. Unless, of course, you inherit an estate in 2010 which in that case you would owe 0% any any amount.
5. The 10% tax bracket will go away raising the tax burden on the other brackets by about 5% .
6. The 0% tax rate on capital gains for those in the 10 - 15% tax bracket would go away. ( see #3 and #5 )
Where is the incentive to invest anymore? Why does the government feel they deserve over half of a family's inheritance? What risk and capital did they ever make to deserve half? Where is the incentive to work if the government is going to take half? If a person has over 1 or 2 million in assets, what would be the incentive of working to make or invest more knowing they would just be working to give it all back to the government?
What would one suppose would happen when the "wealthy" decide they would rather stop working than work to pay taxes? Oh yeah. There will be less money to pay for all of those new welfare programs. Then what?
What do you think would have happened if the DOW dropped over 2200 points within 2 months of Bush taking office? For some reason, Obama gets a free pass having to explain.
Let's look at a few things that will happen when the Bush tax cuts expire:
1. Child credit will drop from $700 per child to $500.
2. Income tax rates will increase about 4% in each bracket.
3. The standard deduction for joint filers will shrink from 200% to 167% (and will now include the 15% bracket) which will basically create a marriage penalty.
4. Estate tax exempt rate will drop from 3.5 million single or 7 million joint to 1 million single and 2 million joint at a taxable rate of 55 - 60%. Unless, of course, you inherit an estate in 2010 which in that case you would owe 0% any any amount.
5. The 10% tax bracket will go away raising the tax burden on the other brackets by about 5% .
6. The 0% tax rate on capital gains for those in the 10 - 15% tax bracket would go away. ( see #3 and #5 )
Where is the incentive to invest anymore? Why does the government feel they deserve over half of a family's inheritance? What risk and capital did they ever make to deserve half? Where is the incentive to work if the government is going to take half? If a person has over 1 or 2 million in assets, what would be the incentive of working to make or invest more knowing they would just be working to give it all back to the government?
What would one suppose would happen when the "wealthy" decide they would rather stop working than work to pay taxes? Oh yeah. There will be less money to pay for all of those new welfare programs. Then what?
What do you think would have happened if the DOW dropped over 2200 points within 2 months of Bush taking office? For some reason, Obama gets a free pass having to explain.
Kill the goose who lays the golden egg.........
I just don't get it. Some presidents are dumber than rocks.
I just don't get it. Some presidents are dumber than rocks.
UPDATE: Market saw a nice 250 decline or 3.4% thanks to Obama's no plan plan. What did I tell you?
Friday, February 20, 2009
Interesting.
I thought the Democrats tried to convince everyone that the Republicans never brought up having any oversight of Fannie and Freddie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
