>>Has anyone else(as in someone who matters, ie. lawmakers)
>>come up with something better?
>
>Not sure

You're not sure if someone else has come up with something better, or you're not sure if it's "better"?


>Well, I agree, the robinhood scheme is a crock. However,
>that is the system we have and it will take forever to
>change it, if ever. To address the current situation and
>fix the economy NOW, we have to get consumers out there
>consuming. I'm taking as many wild stabs at this as the
>next guy, speculation is all we can really do. I'm just
>suggesting we stop taking so much from the guy who does the
>most spending, whomever he may be.

Wouldn't that be what the tax cuts are for? That would put more money weekly (use it now!) into the hands of those who do the most spending. I see it as across the board cuts that would benefit every level, not just one particular group. (democratic plan)

Furthermore, we've only
>had one go at "trickle-down" and it was during at great
>bull-run in the market. I hardly think this is an
>endorsement for success. I could go on and on about how
>times are different with respect to "trickle-down", if you'd
>like.

Agreed, but the "other" side could go on about how the "robin hood" is a crock as well as you stated above. Let's not go there= boring posts.
>
>>I am not picking a fight with you. It's just that your posts
>>have a decidedly Democrat-liberal flavor to them is all.
>
>I'm not a democrat. I may have voted for Bush, but there
>were only 2 guys running that had a chance of getting
>elected and I didn't want Gore. Doesn't mean I agree with
>Republicans either. I don't think "flavor" should matter,
>just facts, truth and reason.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Oh, sometimes I side with the
>underDawg, just to bring balance to an arguement, doesn't
>mean I subscribe to the thought.

Why would anyone do that other than for the sake of being argumentative? Why would you want to side with other than your convictions?

With congress and the
>pres. both being repubs, I think we need balance.

This is a classic democrat argument. When one side is equal to the other, there is no progress (or regression for that matter). Nothing gets done for fear of making the "other" side look good. I don't agree with this. I see it as "lead, follow, or get out of the way" -type politics. If you have a plan and it's good for the MAJORITY of Americans,and it doesn't infringe upon "cetain inalienable rights", then go with it. No government is perfect, but everyone has the responsibility to vote (barring legal restrictions, of course). I am a believer in "make yourself heard" otherwise you LOSE.


>>You do make good points, though.
>
>Thank you
>
>>Now, do you have any upbeat posts? LOL < HUMOR HERE -NOT A
>>SLAM>

I was just prodding you on this and the drug company "rant".lol
>
>Well, I could post some meaningless fictious humor, lol.

We like that too!


>Just don't want my FTE buds getting the short end of any
>stick. Further, I find FTE has a "real world" attitude that
>greater represents the American society, which I find good
>for my own thinking.

Agreed again. Good post.

Chuck

 

I like you, let us debate:

>You're not sure if someone else has come up with something
>better, or you're not sure if it's "better"?

Both!

>Wouldn't that be what the tax cuts are for? That would put
>more money weekly (use it now!) into the hands of those who
>do the most spending. I see it as across the board cuts that
>would benefit every level, not just one particular group.
>(democratic plan)

Well, you may have a point there, I'm just saying the ones that do the spending should be included in ANY taxcut. Whether the other people get the cut is not relevant to the good of the economy (can't wait till you ask about this one, lol). However, some say (not necessarily me) across the board cuts take away from needed gov programs.

> Oh, sometimes I side with the
>>underDawg, just to bring balance to an arguement, doesn't
>>mean I subscribe to the thought.
>
>Why would anyone do that other than for the sake of being
>argumentative? Why would you want to side with other than
>your convictions?

Well, I guess I should clarify that. Of course I will not take a side with what I vehemently disagree with; but, either to stimulate my own thinking, or the thinking of someone ******* someone else's beliefs w/o using logical thought or reason, I will produce some challenging thoughts from an opposing side. Maybe you call it arguementative, devil's advocate, or whatnot. I see it a lot on this forum. That's when people really get going, it brings out the best and worst of them.

> With congress and the
>>pres. both being repubs, I think we need balance.
>
>This is a classic democrat argument. When one side is equal
>to the other, there is no progress (or regression for that
>matter). Nothing gets done for fear of making the "other"
>side look good. I don't agree with this. I see it as "lead,
>follow, or get out of the way" -type politics. If you have a
>plan and it's good for the MAJORITY of Americans,and it
>doesn't infringe upon "cetain inalienable rights", then go
>with it. No government is perfect, but everyone has the
>responsibility to vote (barring legal restrictions, of
>course). I am a believer in "make yourself heard" otherwise
>you LOSE.

Boy, you sure know a lot about the democratic side of thinking, I'm guessing your a somewhat recent convert, maybe a Ditto-Head? Anyway, shying away from labeling, I think deadlock, many times, is the best thing. My father used to say, "Deadlock is good, you don't want them to change anything, more times than not, they'll just screw it up".

>I was just prodding you on this and the drug company
>"rant".lol

Yep, no secret my fur only rubs one way.
There is a high intrinsic value to a public forum, the public can view it. Sometimes I take it upon myself to issue warnings about impending doom, lol.

 

>Lets me clear things up about equities. When a company goes
>public, they call upon an underwriter, who then issues
>shares and pays the company money for the shares. The
>company leaves the picture with the money. The underwriter
>then sells the shares to the public to regain the money they
>gave the company (if the underwrtiter can't sell them, they
>are stuck). Once all the shares are sold, any further
>trading stays amoung investors. (Of course, the underwriter
>takes a fee and other bankers may be involved on the ground
>floor). So, when you buy stock, you are not supporting a
>company. The company already has all the money they are
>going to get from the stock.

You're only half right. You are correct that initial public offerings ("IPOs") of stock are made through underwriters, and that your purchases of stock are from other investors and underwriters, and not the company. That much is true. You cannot, however, make the leap to "when you buy a stock, you are not supporting a company." To do so misses some critical fundamentals of corporate finance.

Companies do not issue 100% of the shares of their stock when they go public. Often, a corporate board will "authorize", say, 1 million shares, and make only 600,000 available through the IPO. The rest remain in the corporate treasury. Those 400,000 "treasury shares" are like cash to the company. If the stock is trading at $10/share, then the treasury shares have a market value of roughly $4 million. If the stock doubles to $20/share, then the corporation now has $8 million worth of its own stock sitting in the bank. Those shares can be sold as needed or, better yet, used to finance acquisitions and do other things that corporations need to do to survive and prosper. They can be used as collateral for advantageous financing, they can be tendered in payment of debts, they can be swapped for the stock of other companies, etc. In fact, they are better than cash because of the tax and accounting treatments.

I'm an in-house lawyer for a Fortune 100 publicly-traded company (NYSE:MDT), and I know first hand how important the stock price of a company is to its health and future. So while your purchase of a share of a company's stock does not put cash in the company's bank account, it does benefit the company in very important ways.

For the same reason, your analysis of stock dividends is fatally flawed. A stock's return on investment (ROI) is a combination of two things -- it's appreciation in price AND its dividends. While a stock's "dividend yield" (dividend amount as a percentage of stock price) will fall as the price of the stock goes up, thus reducing ROI, this reduction is always more than offset by the capital gain from the appreciation in the price of the stock itself. As I pointed out previously, many stocks these days don't pay any dividend at all, making their investment value solely dependent on their appreciation in price.

The fact that they have a dividend yield of 0% does not make them worthless or bad investments. To the contrary, some of the best performing stocks in terms of ROI over the past decade have been stocks with miniscule or 0% dividend yields. This makes sense when you consider what a dividend is. It is profits paid out from the company to the shareholders. Companies that don't pay dividends have more cash to put into things like research and development, marketing, improving distribution, and the like. Thus, low dividends, while sometimes a sign of a company in trouble, are also often a sign of a company that is investing in its future.

Finally, elimination of the tax on dividends may have some very positive effects on the market. Right now, dividends are taxed as ordinary income, with rates of 39% for high income investors. By contrast, capital gains are taxed at only 20%. Thus, the current tax structure strongly disfavors dividends. Companies that retain their earnings and, as a result, drive up their stock price, tend to be better investments because your gain will be taxed at 20% rather than at 39%. Of course, to realize that gain, you have to sell, which introduces excessive trading and transaction costs to the market and discourages market stability.

I'm not saying that I agree with Bush's plan to eliminate the tax on stock dividends, but I do think that dividend payments should be taxed the same as capital gains to eliminate that perverse incentive.

 

>How someone thinks getting less return on their money is a
>good thing is beyond me. It just goes to show how well
>politics work. If I invest X dollars and get 4% return,
>then the return drops to 2%, I would sell and find a higher
>rate of return somewhere else. But I guess that's just me.
>

I respectfully disagree with your analysis here. You're making a fundamental mistake that lots of people make. You invested say 1000 dollars in a stock that was yielding 4%. Over time, the dividend stays the same (unlikely, but possible), but the price of the underlying stock doubles, so your yeild is now 2%
BUT YOU ONLY INVESTED 1000 DOLLARS.
You are still making 4% on the money that you invested. Plus you have an unrealized capital gain (until you sell) of 1000 dollars.

I think the dividend tax cut is a great idea. Maybe people (boomers esp.) will start to take responsibility for their retirement and save the social security system from going under, since dividends make a nice payout every year.

Wanna be rich in 50 years? Buy good solid dividend paying stocks, and let the dividends reinvest. (would really be nice if you didn't have to pay taxes on it). You buy more shares when the price is low (because generally the dividend payout is steady or hopefully growing over time) and fewer when it's high, cutting your overall price point, and over time, painless to you you collect hundreds and thousands of shares.
Retire and live off the dividends (ok, not quite, but a nice bonus, nonetheless)

 

One at a time guys

>Wanna be rich in 50 years? Buy good solid dividend paying
>stocks, and let the dividends reinvest.

Oh really? Well lets take for example an S&P 500 index fund based IRA (just for example, don't everybody get excited) started in 1953. With dividends reinvested, taxes deferred (right? - since the tax is gone now, we can use this), transaction costs included and adjusted for inflation. You will have a average yearly rate of return (ROI) of 6%.

Let's go back farther, try 75 yrs, you will have a ROI of 5% if started in 1928. How about 100yrs? You get the same ROI, 5%.

I guess 5% on 100 yrs you may be rich if you save every penny, but by then, your too old to enjoy it.

If you don't believe me, then go see for youself. Crestmont Holdings has done marvelous work in composing this chart.
http://www.2000wave.com/pdf/retirement_real_11x17.pdf

 

Karlsd, you should know as well as I the main reason for a company buying it's own stock back is to drive up the price so the insiders can sell (case in point - AutoZone - AZO). I think your hanging around the "market analyst" crowd too much in your firm. . Me, oh I'm just a lowly stock speculator who has managed to carve a good living out of this bear market while all the "experts" are drowning in red ink and the funds got killed. This is how I can sit here and talk to you guys all day w/o starving to death. Now that we have traded formalities, we can get back to fundamentals.

I am 95% right, not half. If you want to buy a share, you must find somebody to sell it to you. That somebody will almost always be another investor that is willing to sell at the price your willing to buy. Rarely will you ever buy straight out of the treasury. That would be a sign of trouble in the company anyway, so why would you buy? That company must need money to pay off its debts or something like that. (That would be a godsend to anyone carrying a large shorted line because he could unload it w/o much rise in price, since the company is likely to sell a lot in one shot at any price). No speculator I know thinks he is supporting the company by buying shares, as a matter of fact; we get a good laugh every time the media says something to that nature. If you subscribe to that line of thought, I guess you would 'shoot on site' any short-seller you see then? They don't support the economy, quite the opposite with that logic.

Come on now, let's get real, the only reason you guys care if your stock goes up, is because it reflects that your earnings have gone up, and nobody will get canned; and, the fact that your insiders can then go and sell. By no stretch will you get me to believe that my buying your stock will fund your R&D.

By the way, it looks to me MDT's stock is getting ready to take the plunge. See that large volume back in July? That's a sign of weakness. The price since hasn't been able make it back above $50 and all the insiders are taking options and selling. Not to mention, the PE is 44, P/sales and P/book is 8. The only thing fatally flawed around here is the logic used by whomever computed MDT's EPS for the next 4 quarters. All it will take is for one of those numbers to be revised and down she comes (which may be likely considering a lot of the doctors taking a walk and the fumimg insurance debauchery). Although I do see the heart health care industry doing well (relatively) in the long term due to the large population of baby-boomers who subscribed to the AHA's low-fat/high carb diet. Which should also fuel your new diabetic glucose monitor sales. They really look nice, Edward Ludwig was just on CNBC promoting it. Looks like a good deal you guys got in on.

I never had this much time out of an attorney for free.

 

As I sit here looking at the current Dow 128 pts down, and yesterdays dip, I'm really not worried about my stance. Personally, I like to avoid dividend stocks. Most are in the wrong market cap for me, but you're talking to a short term speculator here. Its hard to realize large percentage swings out of large caps. However, many times, those end up being your best long term investments (if you have to stay with stocks - in which case I would reinvest dividends, why not?). You always want to reinvest if you can, or else why be invested to begin with? Also, you always want to buy low and sell high. That's rule #1.
I can find only two acceptable views here. 1) The market will rally (hasn't so far) as DY stocks get speculated upwards. This will drive your dividend yield down, and this taxcut will mean less to you. On the other hand though, the share price is higher, so you have a larger yield there, assuming you sell. If you don't sell, you are not realizing those gains produced by the higher share price. You are only taking a dividend, even though you have more money in there now that could be working for you in other ways. Now, if everybody wakes up and realizes this, we may see case 2. 2) The markets tank due to everybody taking advantage of speculative high prices. Now, your yield will go up, and the taxcut will mean more to you, but the value of the shares you own will be low. The whole purpose of dividends is to keep you from selling! Its a hook. I watch the financial shows where they are recommending DY stocks a lot here lately. Why, because, if it goes down, you still get some money and your happy. And they know there's a strong possiblity that the markets will go down, but they don't want to say it on TV. Its kinda like these people that like the government to keep their money all year for them so they get a big tax refund check next year. That doesn't make sense to me either, but they insist this to be the best way for them. I hope this is making sense to somebody. I'm at a loss to put it some other way. I can say though, Buffet doesn't pay dividends, if that means anything to you. He must figure it is better for the company (and shareholders), to keep the money and reinvest. I don't hear anybody complaining. Berkshire is doing quite well I believe.

This all started as a rant about this goofy taxcut stimulating the economy, and got turned into a school on investment strategy. Which I don't mind, but I do feel a bit overwhemled. Be that as it may, if I woke up and found myself heavily invested in stocks for the long term, I would wait for the highest rally and sell. Then either play the market on a short term basis, or find some other suitable investment to house my money besides equities. I just don't think now is the time to be buying stocks for the long term. They are way over-priced, the future is dismal, war is looming and were staring inflation in the face. The bond market took off today in parallel fashion, some insist bonds may be the best place for your money. Some say gold.

PS, Don't let the media fool you into thinking the dip in the market today was due to a plane crash or some crap like that. Earnings drive the markets, aside from that, its fear and greed.

 

>I didn't say anything about a company buying its own stock
>back. That is very rarely done.

I beg to differ there, it is done quite often. It is quite relevant to the number of shares in the treasury.

>If a stock buyback is
>authorized by the Board of Directors, it is because they
>believe that the stock is undervalued, and that buying it
>back will benefit all of the stockholders.

Wrong. If a stock buyback is authorized, it means the company has more money than they know what to do with. So they buy their stock back, drive up the price, then the insiders sell. I see it often.

>If the Board
>authorizes a buy-back to benefit "insiders", then the Board
>is violating its fiduciary duties and legal obligations, and
>can and should be sacked, sued and prosecuted. Remember --
>management cannot typically authorize repurchase of company
>stock.

You better get on their case then, it happens all the time.

>Only the Board can do that, and the Board represents
>(and is elected by) the shareholders, not management.

Everybody gets greedy, even elected officials.

>If the stock climbs 25% in value, then we have a
>lot more value to use to buy other companies.

Not because the stock price climbed, but rather, because earnings picked up.

If the stock
>falls, then acquisitions become virtually impossible.

Yeah, because earnings fell; hence, your stock fell as well.

>an example, look at AOL. When America Online's stock was
>flying ridiculously high, the company used it to buy Time
>Warner Communications. As a result, AOL's shareholders
>probably were much better protected from the end of the "dot
>com bubble" than they would have been if AOL had stayed as a
>pure internet company. Major acquisitions are almost NEVER
>paid for with cash -- they are all done by issuing stock.
>The more your stock is worth, the more you can "pay" to add
>value to your company.

AOL is a real crappy example, one of the most over speculated ones out there. And Time Warner got ripped-off. Even so, the earnings of Time Warner buffered the losses of AOL and sheilded the investors from a sudden drop. What's the point?

>You've just confirmed that you are an idiot. If you believe
>in technical analysis, or think that you can consistently
>and accurately predict future stock prices from historical
>charts, then I've got a bunch of bridges to sell you.

You have resorted to name calling, a no-no here at FTE. I think you need to take some quiet time and reflect. However, if I am an idiot, I am a wealthy one and could likely buy a few of those bridges you have for me.

 

>How someone thinks getting less return on their money is a
>good thing is beyond me. It just goes to show how well
>politics work. If I invest X dollars and get 4% return,
>then the return drops to 2%, I would sell and find a higher
>rate of return somewhere else. But I guess that's just me.
>

It's not less return on my money if the stock price goes up and the divendend yield in terms of percentage goes down. If the stock price goes up to $20, my dividend yield is still 4% because my cost basis is 10.13 a share, not $20. Just because the stock price went up doesn't mean it cost me more. My price was the same. The dividend yield would be at a lower percent for someone who bought it at $20 per share but that's their problem for waiting too long to buy the stock. And they don't have to buy it, if they want a higher yield, they can buy a different stock. That's the beauty of free markets. You still have the choice. And just because they are removing the taxes on dividends to me is not any reason to complain, you still have the choice of any investment vehicle you want, just now a few less of will be taxable.

 

>It's not less return on my money if the stock price goes up
>and the divendend yield in terms of percentage goes down.

It is if you don't sell

>If the stock price goes up to $20, my dividend yield is
>still 4% because my cost basis is 10.13 a share, not $20.

What? If you get a 'fixed' amount per share, how could that be true?
Your stock is worth more at 20, therefore you have more buying power in there that isn't working very hard for you, only giving you the same dividend per share as when you bought at 10. Your yield went down, cost basis is no concern to me, only gains. If it goes up to 20, that's 100% gain, sell it and find another good investment. Don't stick around to await the paltry 4% or whatever.

>just because they are removing the taxes on dividends to me
>is not any reason to complain, you still have the choice of
>any investment vehicle you want, just now a few less of will
>be taxable.

I'm not complaining. The biggest thing I'm trying to illustrate is no taxcut is going to solve our problems with this economy. Which is stock market centered.

 

>>If the stock price goes up to $20, my dividend yield is
>>still 4% because my cost basis is 10.13 a share, not $20.
>
>What? If you get a 'fixed' amount per share, how could that
>be true?
That's my point, I still get ten cents per share no matter what the stock price is.

>Your yield went down, cost basis is no
>concern to me, only gains.

My yield did not go down, the number of dollars I have invested hasn't changed. Someone else's percent yield will be lower (2%) than mine (I am still earning 4% dividend on my investment of $10 per share) if they pay $20 dollars per share when I payed ten, but just cuz the price went up doesn't mean it cost me more, just the next guy, and it's up to him whether 2% is worth his investment or not.

>If it goes up to 20, that's 100%
>gain, sell it and find another good investment. Don't stick
>around to await the paltry 4% or whatever.

To some people who are living on their investments and are retired, risk is unacceptable and 4% is pretty good.

 

>That's my point, I still get ten cents per share no matter
>what the stock price is.

Yeah, that's my point as well, but if your share price went up, the ten cents is a lower percentage of the money you have invested.

>My yield did not go down, the number of dollars I have
>invested hasn't changed.

If the price of the stock went up, then yes, the number of dollar you have invested did go up.

>Someone else's percent yield will
>be lower (2%) than mine (I am still earning 4% dividend on
>my investment of $10 per share)

No, you have 20 invested if the price rose to 20. Hence you are getting 2%

>To some people who are living on their investments and are
>retired, risk is unacceptable and 4% is pretty good.

Not with inflation it isn't

 

>One at a time guys
>
>>Wanna be rich in 50 years? Buy good solid dividend paying
>>stocks, and let the dividends reinvest.
>
>Oh really? Well lets take for example an S&P 500 index fund
>based IRA (just for example, don't everybody get excited)
>started in 1953. With dividends reinvested, taxes deferred
>(right? - since the tax is gone now, we can use this),
>transaction costs included and adjusted for inflation. You
>will have a average yearly rate of return (ROI) of 6%.
>

Yes
and my numbers are going to be a little off, but anyone with a financial calculator can do this. If you make 7% compounded on your money, you double your money about every 7 years (close, I'm a little off, I'm going off memory here)

that means in 7 years you have 2x, in 14 years you have 4x, in 21 years you have 8x, in 28 years you have 16 times the original money you invested. That's a pretty good return. For not doing any real work in 28 years.
don't you think?

 

>I like you, let us debate:

Likewise. I like thought-provoking posts and posters.
>
>>You're not sure if someone else has come up with something
>>better, or you're not sure if it's "better"?
>
>Both!

That's an answer? No elaboration? That won't cut it if you're running for President in 2004! LOL
>
>>Wouldn't that be what the tax cuts are for? That would put
>>more money weekly (use it now!) into the hands of those who
>>do the most spending. I see it as across the board cuts that
>>would benefit every level, not just one particular group.
>>(democratic plan)
>
>Well, you may have a point there, I'm just saying the ones
>that do the spending should be included in ANY taxcut.

Which ones aren't included?

>Whether the other people get the cut is not relevant to the
>good of the economy (can't wait till you ask about this one,
>lol).

Ok, I'll bite. You're going to tell me the usual liberal (not saying you are one) mantra about how only the rich are benefitting from Bush's tax breaks, blah, blah, blah...

However, some say (not necessarily me) across the
>board cuts take away from needed gov programs.

I'm too tired to fight on this one, but I will say that I believe the more the government stays out of the affairs of it's people, the better off those people will be.
>
>> Oh, sometimes I side with the
>>>underDawg, just to bring balance to an arguement, doesn't
>>>mean I subscribe to the thought.
>>
>>Why would anyone do that other than for the sake of being
>>argumentative? Why would you want to side with other than
>>your convictions?
>
>Well, I guess I should clarify that. Of course I will not
>take a side with what I vehemently disagree with; but,
>either to stimulate my own thinking, or the thinking of
>someone ******* someone else's beliefs w/o using logical
>thought or reason, I will produce some challenging thoughts
>from an opposing side. Maybe you call it arguementative,
>devil's advocate, or whatnot. I see it a lot on this forum.
> That's when people really get going, it brings out the best
>and worst of them.

This I just do not understand. I, also, see it sometimes on this forum, but personally, I don't like conflict and argument.I like to subscribe to the "peace at ALMOST any price mindset." As for giving that type of thought a name,it doesn't matter what you call it,why would anyone WANT to bring out the worst in/of someone?
>
>> With congress and the
>>>pres. both being repubs, I think we need balance.
>>
>>This is a classic democrat argument. When one side is equal
>>to the other, there is no progress (or regression for that
>>matter). Nothing gets done for fear of making the "other"
>>side look good. I don't agree with this. I see it as "lead,
>>follow, or get out of the way" -type politics. If you have a
>>plan and it's good for the MAJORITY of Americans,and it
>>doesn't infringe upon "cetain inalienable rights", then go
>>with it. No government is perfect, but everyone has the
>>responsibility to vote (barring legal restrictions, of
>>course). I am a believer in "make yourself heard" otherwise
>>you LOSE.
>
>Boy, you sure know a lot about the democratic side of
>thinking, I'm guessing your a somewhat recent convert, maybe
>a Ditto-Head? Anyway, shying away from labeling,

"Recent convert?" , <a mild chuckle> Hardly. Ignoring the fact that it's too late to shy away from your labeling,I prefer to think for myself rather than being led down the path of "victim" economics by one side and the "What's best for big business is best for the country" economics on the other, among other subjects.

I think
>deadlock, many times, is the best thing. My father used to
>say, "Deadlock is good, you don't want them to change
>anything, more times than not, they'll just screw it up".

Good gosh.
>
>>I was just prodding you on this and the drug company
>>"rant".lol
>
>Yep, no secret my fur only rubs one way.
>There is a high intrinsic value to a public forum, the
>public can view it. Sometimes I take it upon myself to
>issue warnings about impending doom, lol.

For that I commend you. I, too, share that sentiment. A purdy stubbern feller says most. Good post RD.

Chuck

 

>that means in 7 years you have 2x, in 14 years you have 4x,
>in 21 years you have 8x, in 28 years you have 16 times the
>original money you invested. That's a pretty good return.
>For not doing any real work in 28 years.
>don't you think?

That sounds real good. Don't forget inflation. Seriously though, download the chart I was on about. Its a PDF file so you'll have to have acrobat installed. It takes a few minutes to learn how to read it, but once you do, you'll be wondering just how profitable long term investments can really be.