"DSK" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
..... I ran into one a few months ago who thanked me profusely for
telling him to buy Cisco in November of 1987, and call-protected NY AAA
insured munis yielding around 8%.


I'd thank you profusely if you could tell me where to buy some
call-protected insured munis yielding 8%, even if they weren't from NY.

Some things are a no-brainer.

DSK


It took immense effort for most customers to buy them, believe it or not.
They were hypnotized by the stock market. Bonds seemed boring. My mother in
law was always reading financial stuff and she insisted that I find her some
of those bonds. Everybody else needed to be educated.

One of our technical analysts, a guy named Ed Kerschner, ran an asset
allocation model that was brilliant. Not asset allocation as it's usually
thought of, adjusting portfolios to match your current goals, but a model
which predicted with uncanny accuracy which assets were more attractive at
the moment in terms of price (stocks, bonds or cash). Early in 1987, his
model began moving toward 90% bonds, 5% stocks and 5% cash, the breakdown in
early October. Few people listened in the time leading up to October 19th.
The model didn't expect every investor to shuffle their portfolio completely
to match his numbers, but it would've been a great idea to do something
rather than nothing.

I was still studying for the series 7 exam in that time period. On October
19th, mid-morning, the branch manager literally ran to my desk, said "You
passed your test- I can't talk now - go hang out with Jack so-and-so & see
if he can use any help talking to clients", and flew back to his office.
Around 5:00 PM, he handed me a bunch of cash, and asked if I'd mind going
out for a couple of bottles of scotch. :-) Learning about margin and risky
options trading in a book is one thing. Seeing real people's accounts turn
to crap (or even negative crap) in 4 hours is much different.

I'd thank you profusely if you could tell me where to buy some
call-protected insured munis yielding 8%, even if they weren't from NY.


JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
It took immense effort for most customers to buy them, believe it or not.
They were hypnotized by the stock market. Bonds seemed boring.

Sure.
Most people want to play "the money game" for fun & thirlls,
not for serious long term gain. That's why most people think
the stock market is rigged, and most people think stock
investing is for the rich, and most people think picking
good stocks is a matter of luck, and most people buy
investments that are sold to them rather than choosing
wisely for themselves.

But then, look at how many people buy lottery tickets.


... My mother in
law was always reading financial stuff and she insisted that I find her some
of those bonds. Everybody else needed to be educated.


Did your wife inherit her mom's acumen?
Investing is boring. And most people would be far better off
putting their money into a no-load index fund than chasing
after yesterday's (or last month's) hot tip market-beater.

Most people lose at poker, too.


One of our technical analysts, a guy named Ed Kerschner, ran an asset
allocation model that was brilliant. Not asset allocation as it's usually
thought of, adjusting portfolios to match your current goals, but a model
which predicted with uncanny accuracy which assets were more attractive at
the moment in terms of price (stocks, bonds or cash). Early in 1987, his
model began moving toward 90% bonds, 5% stocks and 5% cash, the breakdown in
early October. Few people listened in the time leading up to October 19th.
The model didn't expect every investor to shuffle their portfolio completely
to match his numbers, but it would've been a great idea to do something
rather than nothing.


What would this model suggest now, with stocks doing nothing
much and bonds already bid down, interest rates low and
little or no upward pressure?

Today's investing climate reminds me of that that old
Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."


I was still studying for the series 7 exam in that time period. On October
19th, mid-morning, the branch manager literally ran to my desk, said "You
passed your test- I can't talk now - go hang out with Jack so-and-so & see
if he can use any help talking to clients", and flew back to his office.
Around 5:00 PM, he handed me a bunch of cash, and asked if I'd mind going
out for a couple of bottles of scotch. :-) Learning about margin and risky
options trading in a book is one thing. Seeing real people's accounts turn
to crap (or even negative crap) in 4 hours is much different.


Haven't had an account turn to crap, but I have had a
professionally managed "low risk" investment account lose
40% and got no intelligent explanation. At the same time, my
account of stocks chosen by my dropped only a few percent
and I had a gain overall for the year (no thanks to them).
Where is Mr Kerschner working now?

Most "investment professionals" are shills & lackeys. I've
had an account with one or another of the big firms since
1978, and in that time found 3 that I respected. Some have
been real doozies (like the Merril Lynch guy who used to
call me on his car phone... this was in the '80s when having
a car phone was a big deal... to try to browbeat me into
buying his latest hot tip), and 2 were outright crooks.

Sometimes I wonder if if I went into the wrong business.
Engineering is for chumps!

Regards
Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message
...

... My mother in law was always reading financial stuff and she insisted
that I find her some of those bonds. Everybody else needed to be
educated.


Did your wife inherit her mom's acumen?

No. My ex is amazing at creating budgets that aren't painful, and she's a
brilliant woman in other ways. But, it took forever to get her to understand
how a bond with a 7% coupon could end up yielding only 6%. I'm talking
years.



One of our technical analysts, a guy named Ed Kerschner, ran an asset
allocation model that was brilliant. Not asset allocation as it's usually
thought of, adjusting portfolios to match your current goals, but a model
which predicted with uncanny accuracy which assets were more attractive
at the moment in terms of price (stocks, bonds or cash). Early in 1987,
his model began moving toward 90% bonds, 5% stocks and 5% cash, the
breakdown in early October. Few people listened in the time leading up to
October 19th. The model didn't expect every investor to shuffle their
portfolio completely to match his numbers, but it would've been a great
idea to do something rather than nothing.


What would this model suggest now, with stocks doing nothing much and
bonds already bid down, interest rates low and little or no upward
pressure?

Today's investing climate reminds me of that that old Chinese curse: "May
you live in interesting times."


Last time things were like this, the model was something like 60 stocks, 20
bonds, 20 cash.



I was still studying for the series 7 exam in that time period. On
October 19th, mid-morning, the branch manager literally ran to my desk,
said "You passed your test- I can't talk now - go hang out with Jack
so-and-so & see if he can use any help talking to clients", and flew back
to his office. Around 5:00 PM, he handed me a bunch of cash, and asked if
I'd mind going out for a couple of bottles of scotch. :-) Learning about
margin and risky options trading in a book is one thing. Seeing real
people's accounts turn to crap (or even negative crap) in 4 hours is much
different.

Haven't had an account turn to crap, but I have had a professionally
managed "low risk" investment account lose 40% and got no intelligent
explanation. At the same time, my account of stocks chosen by my dropped
only a few percent and I had a gain overall for the year (no thanks to
them). Where is Mr Kerschner working now?

Looks like here, unless they haven't updated the page and he's gone.
http://www.smithbarney.com/products_...oup/asset.html


2 were outright crooks.

That's why my manager eventually threw in the towel and went back to just
being a broker. The oversight responsibilities were extremely stressful, and
he was the most ethical guy imaginable.


Sometimes I wonder if if I went into the wrong business. Engineering is
for chumps!

Nah...engineering's far better than running investment seminars where 100
old people show up just for the free coffee, and you end up with a few more
people like the guy who used to call me every day, twice a day, and ask "So
how's big MO doin'?" (MO was Philip Morris, now Altria Group) He thought
MO was the perfect barometer for everything, including how much he'd enjoy
his next visit to the bathroom.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 08:24:59 -0400, DSK wrote:

Sometimes I wonder if if I went into the wrong business.
Engineering is for chumps!

Reminds me of the old joke about a guy who needed a plumber.

The plumber arrives, fixes the problem in 20 minutes and presents a
bill for $125.

The guy exclaims that not even his lawyer charges that much for 20
minutes work.

The plumber replies that he had the same problem when he was
practicing law.