Your Stocks, Rebates, Lint, Tivo – and House February 28, 2005January 19, 2017 This morning I have had to cram in, also, the stuff for February 29, 30, and 31. Way too much to read, so pick just ONE of the topics. But don’t miss the last one, about your house. YOUR STOCKS APC closed Friday at $77.73, up a further 10% or so for the week and CMM closed at $19.60, up about 20%. When I begin to get giddy (I was noticeably by giddy Friday afternoon), it’s often time to sell. Except when it’s not. Having only a slight clue which time is which, I’m holding on to both. As to CSPLF, Jim Karn kindly sent this from SafeHaven.com by Charles Meek: Canada Southern (CSPLF, 6.80) announced Thursday night that the well they are drilling in the Yukon Kotaneelee field has encountered the gas bearing zone (the “Nahanni” formation) which it failed to hit last month, sending the stock south. This brightens the outlook for this company, which was reflected in the stock’s price on Friday. It now appears likely that they will have a producing well. Whether it is a good well or not depends on several factors, including whether the section of the zone that they are in has too much water, whether the area is fractured enough to allow the gas to flow to the well bore, and whether there are mechanical problems as they now drill ahead horizontally into the zone. Horizontal drilling technology significantly increases the chances that a well like this will be good. A horizontal well can contact more of the pay zone than a vertical-only well. And it can stay high up in the zone to minimize the water problem. This is only the sixth well in this field in which two of those six wells were among the top ten gas wells ever in north America. It is very difficult to guess where this stock may go from here. This a very expensive well and if it is not a good one, shareholders will be disappointed. But in addition to the well in the Yukon, they have a deep gas exploratory well nearing completion in British Columbia on the so-called Mike/Hazel prospect, as well as a nearby oil well at a shallower depth. There is certainly a chance that nothing good will come of these wells. But they have spent a lot of money on 3-D seismic at Mike/Hazel which they related in their 2003 annual report as very promising. The likely scenario is that the news in the next month will be positive. And there is a chance that this drilling could transform this company – and that the stock could rocket higher. If you happen to have a lot riding on this stock, you might trim it back if we see prices approach $10. But if the news is good, hope for much higher prices than that. We put the stock on our list at $4.60 a year and a half ago. CSPLF is a lot more speculative than the other two, but I’m holding it, also. Finally, one of you rightly pointed out that YUKOS, suggested here August 23, has been obliterated by Vladimir Putin. But we ditched it October 15, before it cratered. As always, it’s important to note that, being human, I tend to note these things only when the news is good. (Have not been crowing much about my Google puts; and ARC is, thus far, a loser also.) The smart thing for most folks is not to invest in stocks until many other bases are covered – e.g., paying off those credit card balances and building up a rainy day fund – and then to but stocks via a steady program of monthly investments in U.S. and foreign index funds, at Vanguard or elsewhere. YOUR REBATES Gary: ‘The information regarding rebates explained several occurrences: 1) CompUSA – I was told something I was encouraged to purchase was covered by a rebate. I complied with all the rebate requirements only to be rejected. I will no longer shop at CompUSA. 2) Gillette – I mailed in all the rebate paperwork and was notified that I had not. I have not bought a Gillette product since, and that was many years ago. 3) Nikon – Nikon handles rebates themselves. I bought an expensive piece of equipment. I threw away the box. I then went to fill out the rebate claim and found out I needed the box. I called my camera dealer who told me to call Nikon. I explained the situation. They told me to mail in what paperwork I had with a note. I did. They mailed me a large rebate check. I now think even more highly of them.’ The Great Rebate Scam By Carol Vinzant Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2003 I was recently lured into a Verizon Wireless store by a Web ad for a fancy Audiovox cellphone – only $50 after a $100 rebate. I really only needed a junky $50 phone to replace one I’d put through the wash, but for the same price, why not get the Audiovox with color screen and Ghostbusters-themed ringer? The Web site said the rebate offer lasted three months, and the only catch seemed to be that I had to send them my old phone. I sat down the next day with the rebate forms, pleased with my own consumer diligence. I felt I’d skirted a major obstacle when I saw that the form had to be returned within two weeks, not three months. Then I realized I’d made a rookie mistake: I’d thrown out the box with the UPC code. I called up the store and started to explain my predicament. The clerk cut me off: “You threw out your box, didn’t you?” Apparently they’d seen my kind before. I was out of luck-even though they knew for sure I had the phone, since it was on their service. That, however, wasn’t the point of the rebate. They were trying to thin out the rebate pool; they succeeded. Over the last five years, rebate volume has been skyrocketing. The actual volume is hard to pin down because it is only tracked by guesstimaters in the industry. One of those guesstimaters, Michael Leonard, vice president of marketing at Continental Promotions Group, says the volume of rebates is about $4 billion today. Back in 1999 it was reported at just $1 billion. Rebates are surging not because of manufacturers but because of retailers. You only have to visit an electronics store or leaf through a Sunday newspaper insert to see how far rebate-mania has gone. In a recent Best Buy ad, about one-third of the merchandise came with rebates. When a manufacturer offers a rebate, you needn’t be too suspicious. The manufacturer wants to lower the price temporarily (to move an old product or combat a competitor’s new low price), but doesn’t have faith that the retailer will pass on the savings. But if it’s a retail store that is offering the rebate, ask yourself a simple question: Why isn’t it just on sale? The store doesn’t have any good reason to offer a rebate, since it could just as easily have a sale-if it in fact wanted you to have the product at a lower price. It doesn’t, and that’s the point. When you see that a store is offering you a rebate, remember that back at HQ some executive is betting against you, rooting for you to slip up, calculating the odds that you will lose the receipt, go on vacation, write in a wrong number. A store offering a rebate must pay a fulfillment center anywhere from 40 cents to $1.75 to process each claimed rebate. When you figure in that extra cost and hassle for the store-not to mention the shopper’s inconvenience and irritation-how can rebates be worth it? Economically, they make sense only if stores can count on not actually giving the rebate to a large portion of consumers. “They can get all the benefits of advertising a lower price without necessarily having to deliver on that price to everybody,” explains David Aron, assistant professor of marketing at DePaul University. Even with the most attractive rebates, 10 percent of consumers fail to get their act together to turn in the form. Often the failure rate tops 90 percent. Women are better at closing the rebate deal than men. The success rate goes up as the rebate gets more valuable. Stores use secret actuarial calculations to figure out what kind of rebate they can offer. And, increasingly, they employ brutal tricks to prevent shoppers from cashing in. It’s fair enough for retailers sit back and hope consumers trip themselves up. But stores are erecting ever-more-elaborate obstacles to screw consumers out of their discounts. Many rebates, such as my Verizon one, lure people in with the claim that the rebate offer will last a leisurely several months. Only if they read the fine print do consumers realize that they have only days after the transaction to send the forms in. (For another recent rebate, the store delayed sending me the right forms for so long that I only had one day to get them postmarked in time.) Some rebates require you to cash the check almost the minute you get it. Other stores offering rebates don’t manage to send the check at all, perhaps relying on the forgetfulness of the customer. If you do remember that the check hasn’t come, and you contact the store, it will often respond that it has no record of your rebate application. You’re thinking, “Here comes that tip to be cautious and keep copies.” Well, no, because often the rebater specifies it won’t accept copies. (The super-aware who return their rebate forms by certified letter or Fed Ex are often out of luck, because many companies won’t accept those deliveries.) Many rebates demand multiple kinds of documentation (forms, receipts, UPCs) or require you to complete elaborate forms for each component (printer, monitor, desktop). Sometimes you have to circle a date or price to get your cash back. Many rebaters refuse to give the discount to more than one person in the same household. Some insist on access to your credit record before they’ll give you the discount. Perhaps the most notorious consumer rebate was one offered by Microsoft last year for people upgrading to Visual Studio or Visual Basic. [Note: Slate is published by Microsoft.] To get the $300 rebate, customers had to send in part of the box-from the original program bought years before. One small rebate company ran a program for stores that required the consumer to send in forms by registered mail every six months for three years, an exercise they call a “memory test.” After complaints, they now only demand a form at the beginning and end of three years. . . . All of this hoop-jumping fuss-the paperwork, the postmarking, the sales slips-is quite unnecessary, says Leonard. Fulfillment centers can now do it all online-whether or not the purchase was online, with a credit card, or with cash. They don’t need the UPCs or the old phones or any such nonsense. The sales receipt could contain a unique code number that the consumer could enter into a Web site. Think of that the next time you are dissecting a box to get a lousy UPC code. Carol Vinzant has covered Wall Street for Fortune and the Washington Post. YOUR LINT Pieter Bach: ‘Regarding the film that collects on the lint filters in driers – that is the build-up of resins that are released by the little sheets of fabric softener that you put in with your clothes, if you do that. They don’t actually soften the fibers so much as they coat the fabric with oils and resins that make it feel silky to your hand. That’s why a bath towel that’s been washed and dried with dryer sheets several times is no longer as absorbent as it was when you bought it. The best way to remove or reduce the build-up on clothing is to wash in the hottest water the fabric can stand and then put a really good slug of plain white vinegar in the rinse water. This helps neutralize and release the oils/resins and restores absorbency to things like towels and sheets. I don’t mind a few wrinkles here and there – I generally snap things out as I remove them from the dryer and I remove them as soon after they’re dry as I can.’ YOUR TIVO Dave White: ‘With TiVo and DirecTV service you can simultaneously record two programs, watch a prerecorded program from TiVo and, in my case, pay about $12 a month less than cable. It’s why I ditched Comcast over a year ago and haven’t missed it at all since.’ Liz: ‘If you get a TiVo with two tuners, you can record two live shows and watch a recorded show. We have two TiVo’s in our house and would not live without one EVER! They have truly changed our lives.’ YOUR HOUSE MICHAEL KINSLEY ON THE REAL ESTATE BUBBLE I couldn’t have said it better myself. With Kinsley, that’s always the case. To wit: Bye-Bye, Housing Boom By Michael Kinsley Sunday, February 27, 2005; Page B07 Pop! That is the sound of the real estate bubble bursting. And it’s a good thing. It is obvious to me that today’s real estate prices are a speculative bubble that is bound to burst. Of course, this has been obvious to me for about three decades and wrong almost all of that time. Nevertheless. One piece of evidence is the Dinner Party Index. The boom is over when more people are bored by real estate anecdotes (“My next-door neighbor got three times her asking price before she even put it on the market, from a professional mind reader who divined that she was thinking about selling. . . .”) than have new ones. Another reason the value of your house is about to plunge is that the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and The Washington Post all say that it isn’t. A recent L.A. Times article reported that the median price of a local house had gone up only 17 percent in the past year. Headline: “L.A. County Home Prices Cool Slightly.” Subhead: “Slowdown may not last.” To describe a 17 percent annual increase as a “slowdown” assumes that annual gains of 20 percent or more are the norm. And the evidence for “may not last” is quotes from real estate agents whistling in the dark. You’ve got a bubble when today’s prices assume large future increases. If you think prices will be 20 percent higher in a year, you’ll be willing to pay 19 percent more today. But if others share that belief, today’s price will already be 19 percent higher. Betting on appreciation makes sense only if you are even more optimistic than other buyers. That is hard to be right now. In Washington, where house prices have doubled in five years, The Post says, “Experts Predict Steady Gains in 2005, but More Moderate Than in Past Years.” But whatever “experts” say, it is not the nature of price explosions to segue gracefully into more moderate growth. When today’s run-ups are based on beliefs about tomorrow’s run-ups, the self-feeding frenzy goes into reverse when those assumptions are dashed. The New York Times also must be talking to experts. “In Housing Sales, Frenzy is Giving Way to Balance,” it says. And it reports from suburban Westchester County that “Housing Market Is Still Going Strong.” In 2004 the median sales price rose from $564,000 to $645,000. “More and more families are seeing the residential real estate market as the best and safest place for their money,” a real estate agent says. And the article adds chirpily, “Even the ongoing problem of a lack of houses for sale in Westchester eased somewhat last year.” Like a roller coaster, a financial bubble has a moment of eerie stillness at the top. Buyers have adjusted, sellers haven’t. So sales dry up. When the New York Times spins a surplus of unsold houses as a sign that “the ongoing problem of a lack of houses for sale” has been solved, it means that you had better not count on the Times to tell you when it’s time to bail. Let’s step back a moment. All the housing in the United States is worth about $14 trillion. If the value of existing housing (not counting new construction) goes up 7 percent this year, which is the recent national average, homeowners will seem to be about a trillion dollars richer. But will the nation be a trillion dollars richer? No. These are the same houses, in the same place. That trillion dollars comes partly from non-homeowners, who must pay more to buy in. And it is partly illusory. If many current homeowners tried to cash in, the drop in prices would quickly wipe out that trillion. When the price of something goes up, two things happen: the economy starts to produce more of it, and existing units are worth more. For most of what we buy, the first effect overwhelms the second and constrains it. A rise in the price of a can of tuna fish does not produce many self-satisfied anecdotes from people who have a third of their net worth in Chicken of the Sea. But real estate is different, mainly because it requires land. As the cliché goes, they’re not making any more of it. Perusing the real estate ads like pornography and imagining what our houses are worth is the great American pastime. But a real estate crash, if it came, would have some advantages. The 19th-century American Henry George explained how rising real estate values harm the economy by operating as a tax on both labor and capital. Money for labor makes people work harder. Money for capital makes people save more. Both make the country richer. Money for land just makes the owner richer. There are all sorts of complications and qualifications, but the basic point is a good one. People do foolish things under the impression that they are getting richer because their houses are worth more. They save less, they spend more. Egged on by television commercials, they “consolidate their debts” (i.e., buy a new boat) with a second mortgage. And who really gains from soaring house prices? First-time buyers don’t. Nor does anyone who plans ever to trade up. The only beneficiaries are those who are selling their last house, after a lifetime of appreciation. The bigger the house, the bigger the windfall. This is yet another thank-you from America to the so-called Greatest Generation. I’m not sure it’s necessary. And I’m not sure it will continue. I’m pretty sure it won’t. So I’m going to sell my house before it’s too late. Right? Are you kidding? The writer is editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times.
Washing Your Dryer And Doubling Its Life! February 25, 2005February 28, 2017 GOOD FOR OFFICE MAX Cal Kimberly: ‘I recently received the ‘POSTCARD’ saying I didn’t send in the correct things (and I had called them before sending and followed their instructions). I took the postcard back to Office Max where I purchased and the manager quickly gave me the rebate from their cash register. I think we should remember the store is our representative.’ GOOD FOR THE CABLE GUY Jim Maloney: ‘With regard to his cable company non-TiVo DVR, Cyrus Ginwala writes: ‘Aside from the ability to record and watch two different live programs simultaneously, it is inferior to TiVo in every way.’ He says this as though being able to record two things at once is no big deal. But this is a huge advantage over TiVo. And he failed to mention that not only can you record two programs at once, but while so doing you can watch something you have already recorded. How else would I have been able to watch American Idol, The West Wing and the finale of Project Runway last night without this feature? While I fully admit the cable DVRs have limitations and TiVo has far superior software, the manufacturers of the cable DVRs (Scientific Atlanta in my case) are listening to our complaints and modifying software accordingly. The cable companies rushed into this without fully testing the service and have paid a price with bad press, but it’s only a matter of time before the cable DVRs are every bit as good as TiVo. At that time, who would want to deal with two separate programming guides (TiVo and the one from the cable company)? Also, my DVR service is ten bucks a month with no equipment to buy.’ Scott Obeck: ‘I recently had to switch cable service providers (to Cablevision from Time Warner) and my new service will not allow me to watch a previously recorded show while recording two other live shows (in fact, I have a friend that has a service that records up to six shows at once). The fact that TiVo only records one show at a time would keep me from ever purchasing one.’ WASH YOUR DRYER Thanks to John Ebert for this, which someone sent him. I tried it, as John did (see below), and it seemed to work: I had a wonderful morning. The heating unit went out of my dryer! Why does everything seem to fall apart this time of year!??? The guy that fixes things went in to the dryer and pulled out the lint filter. It was clean. We always clean the lint from the filter after every load of clothes. He told us that he wanted to show us something. He took the filter over to the sink and ran hot water over it. Now, this thing is like a mesh – I’m sure you know what your dryer’s lint filter looks like – WELL……the hot water just laid on top of the mesh!!! It didn’t go through it at all!!! He told us that a film forms over that mesh and that’s what burns out the heating unit. You can’t SEE the film, but it’s there. He said the best way to keep your dryer working for a very long time (and to keep your electric bill lower) is to take that filter out and wash it with hot soapy water and an old toothbrush (or something) at least every six months. He said that doubles the life of the dryer! John concludes: ‘I went to the dryer and tested my screen by running water on it. The water collected a little but ran though the screen. I was ready to put it back in the dryer since the water ran through it but, I thought, what the heck – it won’t hurt to wash it while I had it out. Warm soap water and a nylon brush and I had it done in 30 seconds. I then ran the water over the screen and what a difference! The water just gushed through with no puddling at all and this time I was running the water at a faster rate. That repairman knew what he was talking about.’
TiVo and Rebate Mavens February 24, 2005January 19, 2017 Since last week’s update, CSPLF has jumped from $5.12 to $7.10 and CMM has jumped from $16.34 to $18.70. CSPLF seem to be drilling for something. CMM seems to be entertaining offers to sell itself. I’ve been in both for a long time; but I’m not rushing to get out of either, even though CSPLF will almost surely fall back if the news is not good (we’ve drilled for things before). TIVO Cyrus Ginwala: ‘After several years of happy TiVo service, we decided to try the local cable company’s new supposedly TiVo-like DVR service. Aside from the ability to record and watch two different live programs simultaneously, it is inferior to TiVo in every way. We’ll probably dump it. It makes me appreciate the simple intuitive genius of TiVo. I hope TiVo survives and thrives.’ George Hamlett: ‘If it’s hidden TiVo codes you’re after, here‘s a good place to find them. You’ll waste ALL the time you save skipping commercials.’ JD: ‘The feature I would like most from my TiVo, is some mechanism that will allow me not to feel embarrassed that it ‘thinks’ I’m a 14-year-old girl.’ REBATES Susan: ‘I am one of those folks who almost never gets around to sending in rebate forms and I’ve lost out on hundreds of dollars over thee years, but lately there’s one store where I have consistently submitted the rebates and have had a 100% success rate! At BJ’s Wholesale Club they print everything you need on the receipt to apply for the rebate online. They must actually want people to get the rebates they advertise.’ John Ebert: ‘I have bought computers and printers at Best Buy with rebates as incentives. I followed ALL the instructions printed on the several feet of cash register tape that spewed out at the time of purchase, and I received every cent promised. I can tell you that the hundreds of dollars I got for the time invested FAR exceeded the hourly rate for any job I’ve ever held.’ Richard Factor: ‘CompUSA are evil, but I can’t resist their sales! I bought a UPS for $10 ($25 before rebate) and am still waiting for my $15. I will get it, just as I got the $50 rebate on my MP3 player after fighting with them and the rebate center for almost a year. They are pros, as your reader says, but I am more than a match for them. Besides, they can’t spend all their time plotting how to keep customers from getting rebates – they need to devote some of it to their ‘bait and switch’ tactics.’ Jim Hickel: ‘I am a mail-in rebate junkie, but seriously question whether it’s worth my time. I’ve learned to always scan and keep a copy of all the supporting documentation. About 40% of the time, I get one of those ‘you didn’t qualify’ postcards, and then I re-submit copies of all the paperwork (including the all-important UPC code) with a polite letter demanding my rebate. The second submission almost always seems to work. In my experience, the most consistent offender is not CompUSA but Symantec (the Norton software people), who NEVER seem to be able to find all my paperwork the first time I send it in. ‘There are other annoying aspects of mail-in rebates. Here’s a recent message I received, acknowledging the receipt of my rebate submission: ‘We have received your submission and are currently processing your order. Please allow 6 – 8 weeks to process your request. If approved, you will receive another e-mail notifying you that your rebate has been mailed.’ Six to eight weeks to process a rebate? Including the mailing time, it is typically three months or so between the time I send the rebate and the time the check arrives — assuming that the submission is accepted as complete on the first go around. And don’t even get me started on ‘remote disbursement,’ which is covered here. We rebate junkies have sent more mail to Young America, Minnesota than we send to our actual relatives.’
The Hump and the Jump February 23, 2005February 28, 2017 THE HUMP Chris Williams: ‘The T shape is the correct one for the straps of bullet proof vests. Vests cover both front and back but there is a buckle arrangement in one style at that position. Security arrangements for the prez are never released so it can’t be admitted to. But if you’d like a more technical tidbit, the mechanism for getting information into his ear would have to be a bone conduction microphone – given that a hearing aid would be visible. If using a bone conduction microphone, you don’t need a long wire running over a shoulder. Also, you have to pick a frequency for transmission. With a roomful of electronic cameras and an audience probably doing their own recording on little gizmos they bought from Radio Shack – you have no idea if that frequency will be clear. It would be silly to rely on ‘a wire’ to feed cheatsheet data to the president when you can’t take a good RF survey of the room a priori. Hell, the airlines make you turn off your sound deadening earphones on approach to landing and the airplane’s nav system is using ground nav aids with lots of transmitting power from the ground. They still aren’t sure the frequency will be clear. I’d be nuts to rely on an RF link in a non surveyed room. ‘Besides which, Jesus, Andy, you have got to get off the left wing paranoid extremism insanity. The technology on this stuff is way beyond I-pod. If I wanted to feed cheatsheet facts to the president why in the name of God would I strap a refrigerator to his back? This stuff is tiny nowadays. You can do this kind of thing with plenty of power for bone conduction in something the size of stick of chewing gum.’ ☞ So when the White House said it was bad tailoring, they just were fibbing? OK, but that still leaves some questions. First, this was a very secure room – I was there – and if he needed a vest for this appearance, one might imagine he wears it most or all public places he goes. If so, wouldn’t a load of people already have noticed it on past occasions? Second, let’s assume it was a bulletproof vest – how does that explain his testy ‘let me finish’ when no one was interrupting him? Could he not have had something ‘the size of a stick of chewing gum’ in addition to a bulletproof vest? And isn’t it fair to imagine that the team who would have been involved with this could either have chosen some unusual frequency . . . or simply counted on the fact that we would all turn off our cell phones during the debate? I sure turned off mine. And then there is the question of his odd pauses during the debate. And the specific contract provision negotiated by the Bush team (ignored by Fox) that there be no camera shots from the rear. If that were routine – because in public he wears the vest so they always require that – wouldn’t the networks have declared it routine rather than let us believe it was unusual? I’m obviously not saying I’m certain what happened. But ‘bad tailoring,’ or even the bullet-proof vest (or the imagined medical device some of you e-mailed me about), still leave me with questions. Is it really fair to characterize them as insane? THE JUMP I’m not sure TiVo is a buy here at $3.70, although its stock is certainly out of favor, which never hurts. And I’m well aware that your local cable company may be offering something quite similar soon, if it doesn’t already – and cheaper. But I would be lost without my six TiVos (hey, I drive a seven-year-old car and buy my clothes by mail – give me a break), and thus I offer you, belatedly, David Pogue’s column from a couple of weeks ago in the CIRCUITS section of the New York Times. Note the hidden feature he has uncovered: you can jump ahead in 30-second increments. For TiVo, It’s Not Over Yet By David Pogue I’m furious at all the media vultures who are circling TiVo, maker of the life-changing, time-shifting TV box, and declaring its long-term prospects hopeless. The Times reported last week that co-founder Mike Ramsay declined a deal to bundle TiVo technology into cable boxes from Comcast (for well under a dollar a box) – media analysts implied that that was a fatal move – and stepped down as CEO. Unfortunately, media reports about a company’s struggles can have a way of becoming self-fulfilling. Here’s a list of some of the brilliant features that make a TiVo a TiVo, the features that make it stand head and shoulders over the copycat digital video recorders (DVR’s) provided by, for example, cable companies. (And if you’re unfamiliar with this entire category of TV equipment, here’s a refresher.) I consider this an important list for two reasons. First, it will give non-TiVoholics a taste of the refinement and elegance that they’re missing. Second, I don’t think that TiVo’s doom is sealed by any stretch of the imagination. But if its future is threatened, heaven forbid, this list may clue in TiVo’s successors concerning what made it great. (ReplayTV, which I also love quite a bit, probably comes the closest to matching TiVo’s ingenuity. Note, though, that a lot of its best features, like automatic commercial skipping and Internet show swapping, have been taken out of the current model, thanks to lawsuits. And on a related point, I do realize that many rival boxes have some of these features. But none that I know of offers all of these them – and especially not in such an easy-to-use, brilliantly designed software package.) Retroactive recording. You come home, flip on the TV, and discover that you’re 35 minutes into what looks like a great show. If you have TiVo, you can either rewind into the past (to view what you missed while the TV was off) or even record it, thanks to the TiVo buffer that always stores the most recent 45 minutes of the current channel. Wish list. On a TiVo, you can type something — an actor, movie title, anything — that you’re interested in, even if it’s not anywhere in the TV guide. If and when it’s ever broadcast, on any channel at any time, the TiVo will record it for you. (At our house, we do this all the time. For example, we’ll hear about a great movie that’s in theaters now, and plug it into the Wish List so we’ll get it as soon as it’s shown on TV, some time next year.) Built-in reaction time. When you’re fast-forwarding through a show (or, more often, through commercial blocks), you’re watching the video flickering by. And then you see the part you want to watch — and hit Play. Now, on a less intelligent machine, you’d be too late. You’d have missed the first 20 seconds of what you wanted, because the fast-forwarding had already blown past it. But not on a TiVo. It compensates for your reaction time. When you hit Play, it doesn’t begin playing from that point; it begins playing a few seconds before that, with uncanny “it knew what I wanted” accuracy. 30-second skip. It’s not a documented trick, but it’s nonetheless a juicy and delicious one. Press the following buttons on the remote while a show is playing back: Select, Play, Select, 3, 0, Select. Now your Advance button is a 30-second skip button. Press the same sequence again to turn off this feature. (You have to re-do this after a power failure.) It’s a much quicker, more precise way to skip ads. Season pass. On many DVR’s, you can ask to have a certain show recorded every week automatically — “Desperate Housewives” or whatever. But on a TiVo, you get some important options with that. For example, you can tell the TiVo to record only first-run episodes and not repeats. And you can give it a maximum number to store, so you don’t return from a two-week trip to find 579 new and syndicated reruns of “E.R.” clogging your hard drive. TiVoToGo. A software upgrade, which is arriving silently over the phone lines this month and next, lets you copy shows onto a Windows laptop from across your home network for watching on the plane, train or automobile. Folder groupings. Your list of recorded shows can be sorted by name, recording date or expiration date — and can arrange themselves into “folders” of shows (for example, all your “West Wing” episodes) to save list clutter. Smart offers. If you bail out of watching a recorded show within a few minutes of the end, TiVo asks if you want to delete the recording to free up hard drive space. That’s smart; it’s assuming that since you’re near the end, you’ve probably watched all you intend to watch. (If you cancel playback in the middle or beginning, though, TiVo doesn’t bother you with that offer; it assumes you’re not finished with the show yet.) Retroactive TV guide. The Guide button on the remote brings up a scrolling TV guide. What’s really cool is that, for a given channel, you can scroll both forward into the future (to see what will be in HBO in, say, two weeks) and into the past (to see what was on earlier this day or week). Both are very handy in certain circumstances. Recording log. TiVo can show you what you’ve recorded — and, when something you requested did not get recorded (it happens), it can show you exactly why. It will tell you that your hard drive was full, for example, or that somebody in your house scheduled a conflicting show and gave it higher priority. There are probably a hundred other graceful little touches; I hope that TiVo fans will post some of their favorites on the Pogue feedback board. (And if there is, indeed, a cable-company box that offers all of these features, let me know that, too!) But the point should be clear: when every tiniest aspect of a machine is this deeply, thoroughly considered and intelligently designed, the result is a product that inspires fierce loyalty and makes you only too happy to join the cult. Visit David Pogue on the Web at DavidPogue.com.
Name Your Child Tivo and Get $100 Rebate February 22, 2005February 28, 2017 My thanks to the estimable Alan Light for bringing both of these to our attention: HOW POPULAR ARE YOU, FERN? You will have so much fun with this. Type a name in at the top (sorry, Thor). But also, just move your mouse around the screen. JUST $199 AFTER MAIL-IN REBATE Have you ever gotten one of those postcards telling you that you didn’t qualify for a rebate of some kind when you were almost sure you did? This post on Ed Foster’s GripeLog may explain the $500 in Tivo rebates I never got over the years. In part: . . . [A] reader sent me an actuarial table of sorts that he had received from one of the rebate houses showing the expected percentages of rebates that would be claimed by customers. A $30 rebate on a product retailing for $100, for example, would have a claim rate of 30 percent. A free-after-rebate deal of $50 (a $50 rebate on a $50 product) would be claimed 50 percent of the time, but a $5 rebate on a $5 product only 15 percent of the time. In between those extremes, the average claim rate on the rebate fulfillment house’s table was about 25 percent. “Now, here’s the interesting part,” the reader wrote. “The rebate fulfillment house will GUARANTEE IN WRITING to the manufacturer that the percentage of rebates claimed as presented in this table will not be exceeded. They will eat the cost if it is.” Small wonder then that the rebate house sometimes just can’t see that receipt you’re certain you included in the envelope. If they wind up paying the rebates out of their own pocket, it makes sense to just pay off those who scream the loudest. And small wonder the vendors are tempted to offer these magical discounts on their products. If one rebate fulfillment house won’t guarantee to keep your costs low enough, just use a slightly sleazier one that will. How can we take the bait out of rebates? One way or another, we’ve got to break out of the statistical mold the marketers have pegged us in. If you’re going to play the rebate game, play it for all you’ve got. When you’re not treated fairly, make sure the rebate house, the manufacturer, the store, the FTC, and the GripeLog all get an earful. Better yet, only patronize vendors, stores, and websites that give you a straight price with a real discount. Tiresome though it may be, the best solution is to not take the bait. One reader of that posting, Arnold Kling, offered a sobering tale of his own. Also in part: Last month, I bought a laptop at a CompUSA in Rockville, Maryland. I did not know nor care about any mail-in rebates. However, as I was standing at the cash register waiting for the stockboy to bring the box, I was accosted by two salesmen as well as the register clerk, who told me that I was entitled to a lot of free merchandise, because of a special sale that week. The catch was that I would have to pay for the merchandise and then wait for the rebate. I was wary about this arrangement, but they assured me that the rebate would be easy to get. One of them explained, “Since you’re not buying it off the Internet, you don’t need to send in all that paperwork. You can just send in the form that we print out from the register here.” Eventually, I took the merchandise, which amounted to several hundred dollars in list price, although the value to me was very little (so far, I have only opened one of the boxes, and that was for software for which I already own a license that would have permitted me to make a copy from another computer). When I got home, I saw that the rebate forms were much more demanding than the sales staff had indicated. In fact, it seemed impossible to comply with the letter of the forms. Each product had two rebate forms, and each form requested the UPC code from the box containing the merchandise. The forms went to separate addresses. I did the best I could, sending the UPC codes to the addresses listed as “manufacturer’s rebate” and not sending them to the addresses listed for the CompUSA rebates, figuring that CompUSA would not dispute my purchase of products at its own store. So far, I have received denial letters for every single rebate. Even where I enclosed the UPC codes that I painstakingly cut from the boxes, the denial letters allege that documents I enclosed were not in fact enclosed. Other denial letters state requirements for documents that I do not believe were listed on the original rebate form. In fact, when I have phoned the CompUSA rebate center (which apparently handles all of the rebates, even the so-called “manufacturer’s” rebates), they have sometimes given me different reasons for denial than what I received in writing. Clearly, as far as the processing center is concerned, mail-in rebates are mail-un-rebates. I took the issue up with the customer service staff at the CompUSA, but we reached an impasse. My position is that I qualified for the rebate, and they know it. I mean, if I were to order my credit card company to stop payment, I am sure that CompUSA could come up with what it considers to be convincing documentation that I purchased the products in question. Nonetheless, their position is that I am not in compliance with the terms of the rebate form. At one point, the store manager “confided” that he does not like the rebate forms, and he blamed the manufacturers for using them. This seemed to me to be quite at variance with the behavior of his staff, who had gone to considerable effort to convince me to take the forms that their supervisor supposedly hated. By this point, I was not taking any statement from a CompUSA employee at face value. Viewed as a whole, what CompUSA appears to have is a well-oiled machine for foisting unwanted merchandise on consumers and then denying the rebates to which those consumers thought that they were entitled. Based on some brief Internet searches, my sense is that other computer retailers engage in similar practices. However, my impression is that CompUSA’s sales force is the most tightly organized and carefully trained. This makes them more effective than their competitors at exploiting the mail-in rebate, as well as other shady business practices. My father needs help buying a new computer, and I plan to take him elsewhere. It is not just that I bear a grudge against CompUSA. I am, quite frankly, frightened of how slick they are. The way I look at it, if I go to Best Buy or Office Depot I may run into the occasional amateur sleazebag, and one has to be prepared to deal with that. But CompUSA has real pros. I don’t want to mess with them. Adding insult to injury is the loss of time. It’s fine to have rebate programs the seller knows many people will not bother with.* But once a buyer does bother, he ought to the heck get his rebate. The fact that he so often does not could be the stuff of a series of class action lawsuits or government regulators. But isn’t the best route just to shun these time-wasting deals in the first place? *That way, the seller takes a page out of the airlines’ book, after a fashion: two people may pay different prices for the same seat, which lets the airline sell more seats without having to give everyone the lowest price. In the case of mail-in rebates, those with time to bother with the forms will get a little lower price. Those who value time above money won’t.
Visitor Discretion Advised February 18, 2005February 28, 2017 But first . . . Tom MacFarland: ‘KF has done better than you noted in your recent scorecard recap, since they also paid a dividend of $0.65 per share in late December.’ [So we’re up nearly 24%, not 20%.] Scott Mandel: ‘Re the President’s odd ‘I’m not finished’ outburst – maybe this has something to do with the President’s relationship with God.’ [Finally: a plausible alternative to the ‘he was wired’ theory.] And now . . . Sunday night at eight, Springfield legalizes gay marriage in a bid to boost tourism . . . and one of the Simpsons’ characters – could it be Abu? Marge’s sister Patty? surely it must be Smithers – comes out. For the first time in the show’s history, the episode bears a ‘Viewer Discretion’ warning. Well, after reading what follows – from the Canadian Prime Minister – I think we may have to get Christo to drape the entire nation of Canada in Visitor Discretion fabric. Actually, the Viewer Discretion label is smart marketing on Fox’s part. It generates publicity that will boost viewership, while paying respect to folks still troubled by the concept, as many, understandably, are. Here’s the speech: PRIME MINISTER PAUL MARTIN FEBRUARY 16, 2005 HOUSE OF COMMONS I rise today in support of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act. I rise in support of a Canada in which liberties are safeguarded, rights are protected and the people of this land are treated as equals under the law. This is an important day. The attention of our nation is focused on this chamber, in which John Diefenbaker introduced the Bill of Rights, in which Pierre Trudeau fought to establish the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our deliberations will be not merely about a piece of legislation or sections of legal text – more deeply, they will be about the kind of nation we are today, and the nation we want to be. This bill protects minority rights. This bill affirms the Charter guarantee of religious freedom. It is that straightforward, Mr. Speaker, and it is that important. And that is why I stand today before members here and before the people of this country to say: I believe in, and I will fight for, the Charter of Rights. I believe in, and I will fight for, a Canada that respects the foresight and vision of those who created and entrenched the Charter. I believe in, and I will fight for, a future in which generations of Canadians to come, Canadians born here and abroad, will have the opportunity to value the Charter as we do today – as an essential pillar of our democratic freedoms. There have been a number of arguments put forward by those who do not support this bill. It’s important and respectful to examine them and to assess them. First, some have claimed that, once this bill becomes law, religious freedoms will be less than fully protected. This is demonstrably untrue. As it pertains to marriage, the government’s legislation affirms the Charter guarantee: that religious officials are free to perform such ceremonies in accordance with the beliefs of their faith. In this, we are guided by the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, which makes clear that in no church, no synagogue, no mosque, no temple – in no religious house will those who disagree with same-sex unions be compelled to perform them. Period. That is why this legislation is about civil marriage, not religious marriage. Moreover — and this is crucially important – the Supreme Court has declared unanimously, and I quote: “The guarantee of religious freedom in section 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs.” The facts are plain: Religious leaders who preside over marriage ceremonies must and will be guided by what they believe. If they do not wish to celebrate marriages for same-sex couples, that is their right. The Supreme Court says so. And the Charter says so. One final observation on this aspect of the issue: Religious leaders have strong views both for and against this legislation. They should express them. Certainly, many of us in this House, myself included, have a strong faith, and we value that faith and its influence on the decisions we make. But all of us have been elected to serve here as Parliamentarians. And as public legislators, we are responsible for serving all Canadians and protecting the rights of all Canadians. We will be influenced by our faith but we also have an obligation to take the widest perspective — to recognize that one of the great strengths of Canada is its respect for the rights of each and every individual, to understand that we must not shrink from the need to reaffirm the rights and responsibilities of Canadians in an evolving society. The second argument ventured by opponents of the bill is that government ought to hold a national referendum on this issue. I reject this – not out of a disregard for the view of the people, but because it offends the very purpose of the Charter. The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority. We embrace freedom and equality in theory, Mr. Speaker. We must also embrace them in fact. Third, some have counseled the government to extend to gays and lesbians the right to “civil union.” This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians. Mr. Speaker, the courts have clearly and consistently ruled that this option would offend the equality provisions of the Charter. For instance, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that, and I quote: “Marriage is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships …falls short of true equality.” Put simply, we must always remember that “separate but equal” is not equal. What’s more, those who call for the establishment of civil unions fail to understand that the Government of Canada does not have the constitutional jurisdiction to do so. Only the provinces have that. Only the provinces could define such a regime – and they could define it in 10 different ways, and some jurisdictions might not bother to define it at all. There would be uncertainty. There would be confusion. There would certainly not be equality. Fourth, some are urging the government to respond to the decisions of the courts by getting out of the marriage business altogether. That would mean no more civil weddings for any couples. It is worth noting that this idea was rejected by the major religions themselves when their representatives appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in 2003. Moreover, it would be an extreme and counterproductive response for the government to deny civil marriage to opposite-sex couples simply so it can keep it from same-sex couples. To do so would simply be to replace one form of discrimination with another. Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are some who oppose this legislation who would have the government use the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights to override the courts and reinstate the traditional definition of marriage. And really, this is the fundamental issue here. Understand that in seven provinces and one territory, the lawful union of two people of the same sex in civil marriage is already the law of the land. The debate here today is not about whether to change the definition of marriage – it’s been changed. The debate comes down to whether we should override a right that is now in place. The debate comes down to the Charter, the protection of minority rights, and whether the federal government should invoke the notwithstanding clause. I know that some think we should use the clause. For example, some religious leaders feel this way. I respect their candor in publicly recognizing that because same-sex marriage is already legal in most of the country, the only way – the only way – to again make civil marriage the exclusive domain of opposite-sex couples is to use the notwithstanding clause. Ultimately Mr. Speaker, there is only one issue before this House in this debate. For most Canadians, in most parts of our country, same-sex marriage is already the law of the land. Thus, the issue is not whether rights are to be granted. The issue is whether rights that have been granted are to be taken away. Some are frank and straightforward and say yes. Others have not been so candid. Despite being confronted with clear facts, despite being confronted with the unanimous opinion of 134 legal scholars, experts in their field, intimately familiar with the Constitution, some have chosen to not be forthright with Canadians. They have eschewed the honest approach in favour of the political approach. They have attempted to cajole the public into believing that we can return to the past with a simple snap of the fingers, that we can revert to traditional definition of marriage without consequence and without overriding the Charter. They’re insincere. They’re disingenuous. And they’re wrong. There is one question that demands an answer – a straight answer – from those who would seek to lead this nation and its people. It is a simple question: Will you use the notwithstanding clause to overturn the definition of civil marriage and deny to Canadians a right guaranteed under the Charter? This question does not demand rhetoric. It demands clarity. There are only two legitimate answers – yes or no. Not the demagoguery we have heard, not the dodging, the flawed reasoning, the false options. Just yes or no. Will you take away a right as guaranteed under the Charter? I, for one, will answer that question, Mr. Speaker. I will answer it clearly. I will say no. The notwithstanding clause is part of the Charter of Rights. But there’s a reason that no prime minister has ever used it. For a prime minister to use the powers of his office to explicitly deny rather than affirm a right enshrined under the Charter would serve as a signal to all minorities that no longer can they look to the nation’s leader and to the nation’s Constitution for protection, for security, for the guarantee of their freedoms. We would risk becoming a country in which the defence of rights is weighed, calculated and debated based on electoral or other considerations. That would set us back decades as a nation. It would be wrong for the minorities of this country. It would be wrong for Canada. The Charter is a living document, the heartbeat of our Constitution. It is also a proclamation. It declares that as Canadians, we live under a progressive and inclusive set of fundamental beliefs about the value of the individual. It declares that we all are lessened when any one of us is denied a fundamental right. We cannot exalt the Charter as a fundamental aspect of our national character and then use the notwithstanding clause to reject the protections that it would extend. Our rights must be eternal, not subject to political whim. To those who value the Charter yet oppose the protection of rights for same-sex couples, I ask you: If a prime minister and a national government are willing to take away the rights of one group, what is to say they will stop at that? If the Charter is not there today to protect the rights of one minority, then how can we as a nation of minorities ever hope, ever believe, ever trust that it will be there to protect us tomorrow? My responsibility as Prime Minister, my duty to Canada and to Canadians, is to defend the Charter in its entirety. Not to pick and choose the rights that our laws shall protect and those that are to be ignored. Not to decree those who shall be equal and those who shall not. My duty is to protect the Charter, as some in this House will not. Let us never forget that one of the reasons that Canada is such a vibrant nation, so diverse, so rich in the many cultures and races of the world, is that immigrants who come here – as was the case with the ancestors of many of us in this chamber – feel free and are free to practice their religion, follow their faith, live as they want to live. No homogenous system of beliefs is imposed on them. When we as a nation protect minority rights, we are protecting our multicultural nature. We are reinforcing the Canada we value. We are saying, proudly and unflinchingly, that defending rights – not just those that happen to apply to us, not just that everyone approves of, but all fundamental rights – is at the very soul of what it means to be a Canadian. This is a vital aspect of the values we hold dear and strive to pass on to others in the world who are embattled, who endure tyranny, whose freedoms are curtailed, whose rights are violated. Why is the Charter so important, Mr. Speaker? We have only to look at our own history. Unfortunately, Canada’s story is one in which not everyone’s rights were protected under the law. We have not been free from discrimination, bias, unfairness. There have been blatant inequalities. Remember that it was once thought perfectly acceptable to deny women “personhood” and the right to vote. There was a time, not that long ago, that if you wore a turban, you couldn’t serve in the RCMP. The examples are many, but what’s important now is that they are part of our past, not our present. Over time, perspectives changed. We evolved, we grew, and our laws evolved and grew with us. That is as it should be. Our laws must reflect equality not as we understood it a century or even a decade ago, but as we understand it today. For gays and lesbians, evolving social attitudes have, over the years, prompted a number of important changes in the law. Recall that, until the late 1960s, the state believed it had the right to peek into our bedrooms. Until 1977, homosexuality was still sufficient grounds for deportation. Until 1992, gay people were prohibited from serving in the military. In many parts of the country, gays and lesbians could not designate their partners as beneficiaries under employee medical and dental benefits, insurance policies or private pensions. Until very recently, people were being fired merely for being gay. Today, we rightly see discrimination based on sexual orientation as arbitrary, inappropriate and unfair. Looking back, we can hardly believe that such rights were ever a matter for debate. It is my hope that we will ultimately see the current debate in a similar light; realizing that nothing has been lost or sacrificed by the majority in extending full rights to the minority. Without our relentless, inviolable commitment to equality and minority rights, Canada would not be at the forefront in accepting newcomers from all over the world, in making a virtue of our multicultural nature – the complexity of ethnicities and beliefs that make up Canada, that make us proud that we are where our world is going, not where it’s been. Four years ago, I stood in this House and voted to support the traditional definition of marriage. Many of us did. My misgivings about extending the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples were a function of my faith, my perspective on the world around us. But much has changed since that day. We’ve heard from courts across the country, including the Supreme Court. We’ve come to the realization that instituting civil unions – adopting a “separate but equal” approach – would violate the equality provisions of the Charter. We’ve confirmed that extending the right of civil marriage to gays and lesbians will not in any way infringe on religious freedoms. And so where does that leave us? It leaves us staring in the face of the Charter of Rights with but a single decision to make: Do we abide by the Charter and protect minority rights, or do we not? To those who would oppose this bill, I urge you to consider that the core of the issue before us today is whether the rights of all Canadians are to be respected. I believe they must be. Justice demands it. Fairness demands it. The Canada we love demands it. Mr. Speaker: In the 1960s, the government of Lester Pearson faced opposition as it moved to entrench official bilingualism. But it persevered, and it won the day. Its members believed it was the right thing to do, and it was. In the 1980s, the government of Pierre Trudeau faced opposition as it attempted to repatriate the Constitution and enshrine a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But it persevered, and it won the day. Its members believed it was the right thing to do, and it was. There are times, Mr. Speaker, when we as Parliamentarians can feel the gaze of history upon us. They felt it in the days of Pearson. They felt it in the days of Trudeau. And we, the 308 men and women elected to represent one of the most inclusive, just and respectful countries on the face of this earth, feel it today. There are few nations whose citizens cannot look to Canada and see their own reflection. For generations, men and women and families from the four corners of the globe have made the decision to chose Canada to be their home. Many have come here seeking freedom — of thought, religion and belief. Seeking the freedom simply to be. The people of Canada have worked hard to build a country that opens its doors to include all, regardless of their differences; a country that respects all, regardless of their differences; a country that demands equality for all, regardless of their differences. If we do not step forward, then we step back. If we do not protect a right, then we deny it. Mr. Speaker, together as a nation, together as Canadians: Let us step forward. Religious freedom? Freedom of the individual? A diverse, welcoming society? These may ultimately prove to be Canada’s downfall. But lately, the Canadian dollar has been rising against our own. The Simpsons: Sunday at 8 / 7 Central, on Fox. Have a great long weekend.
Finally, Some Financial Advice February 17, 2005February 28, 2017 But very briefly, first . . . A TWEAK Good for President Bush. He apparently opened the door yesterday to extending the wage base on which Social Security tax is levied beyond the current $90,000. This one modest change would go a very long way to solving the Social Security ‘crisis’ all by itself. (Right now, the rate we and our employers’ each pay is 6.2% of the first $90,000 or so, after which it drops to zero. Rather than extend the current 6.2% rate to $140,000, say, and then, as now, drop it to zero, maybe drop it to 1% or 1.5% after $90,000 and keep it there no matter how much one earns.) As for private accounts . . . your IRA, your Keogh Plan, your SEP or SIMPLE or 401K or 403B or even just your own private brokerage or mutual fund account? We already have them, and I hope you are funding yours. No need to privatize Social Security – let alone borrow $2 trillion more in the process. A HUMP John Ryan: ‘The hump is not a listening device, it’s a medical device that shocks the heart in case it stops beating.’ ☞ Can’t be – the White House has said it was bad tailoring. But I do see that theory circulating. Here, for example. What it doesn’t offer is an adequate explanation for President Bush’s testy ‘I’m not finished‘ – when no one was interrupting him. I’m waiting for anyone to come up with a plausible explanation other than the obvious. If he wore a wire, that’s cheating. And denying it is lying. The rightwing press just shouts this down. But what IS their explanation? And now . . . A CONFESSION I haven’t written much about money lately. I spent part of my day at Jury Duty today contemplating the reasons. First, I must confess, there are only so many times I can bring myself to write about the pros and cons of pre-paying your mortgage or the virtues of dollar-cost averaging or the similarity that index funds bear to thoroughbreds with 20-pound jockeys on their backs (when all the other horses in the race have 100-and 200- and even 300-pound jockeys). This is the two thousand two hundred twenty-third column in this space, and all but the first couple hundred are in the archives, so you can just go back and read them. Or flay yourself with thorns. Failing that, you could buy or borrow the latest copy of my book. Second, I do think most people should do most of their stock market investing via a steady program of buying US and international index funds, month in and month out, leaving at most a relatively small kitty to be managed on your own, whether for the tax control it gives you (deduct the losses; use the long-term gains to fund your charitable giving) or for the sheer fun of it. So how can I write that over and over? Third, though I have certainly had some clunkers (those March Google puts are looking awful), I have been amazingly lucky. Part of me wants to quit making suggestions while I’m ahead and part of me, as always, is very loath to see you lose money. Which leads to . . . Fourth, it’s hard to see great bargains in stocks, long-term bonds, or real estate these days, hard to get excited . . . though it’s always possible that with Arafat’s death and Iraq’s election we are at the beginning of what could be – and let us pray it is – a long virtuous cycle of peace and increasing global cooperation and prosperity. (Or, we could be nearing an upturn in inflation and interest rates that could burst the real estate bubble and send our debt-burdened economy into a tailspin. Bad results in the Gulf and in Venezuela could send oil, and the Rapture Index, soaring.) Then again, I just bought some Comcast after reading in yesterday’s New York Times that Warren Buffett’s team has picked up another 5 million shares and that Glenn Greenberg, one of the smartest money managers I know, has 25 million shares in his fund. Of course, I assume they paid less than I did, which always makes me nervous (the stock was as low as $25.89 in the last 52 weeks, compared with its $32.33 close last night). But – while they’re not always right – these guys are right a lot more often than I am, and never get into a stock for just a small gain. And then, of course, there’s Borealis, which is easily worth ten times its current price if there is anything ‘there’ there, and vastly more than that in the unlikely event it were all they claim . . . but which could absolutely be worth nothing – although by now, having long owned a ton of it, I seem to have persuaded myself there is some there there, and that, market psychologists will tell you, is a sure sign of disaster. So Borealis is only for that tiny sliver of your dough, if any, you can truly afford to lose without a pang. And while we’re at it, the Korea Fund suggested here December 23 at $22 closed last night at $26.60, up 20% in two months (I am holding on) . . . and for those of you who keep track, here is the wrap-up I posted October 29th with today’s updates in red. 1. Google – GOOG – which went public at $85 in a Dutch auction, continues to soar, closing at $193.30 yesterday [$198.41], bought in great quantity by people who didn’t care to buy it at less than half the price two months ago. (Nearly 15 million shares traded hands yesterday, or nearly $3 billion worth.) The puts I’ve bought are obviously not doing well. [Not well at all!] 2. ARC – so far, so bad, as well. Down from just over $14, where I suggested it, to $12.70 [$12.30] last night. If this troubled trailer park real estate investment trust were able to solve its problems and maintain its $1.25 distribution, it would have a phenomenal yield. I’m not tremendously confident, but I’m holding mine. 3. Apple LEAPs. Suggested here last November 25 at around $4 when the stock was just above 20, Apple’s long-term calls (known as LEAPS) are now around $30 [$70], with the stock at $50 [$90]. Stupidly, foolishly, and reprehensibly [not to mention idiotically, haplessly,and pusillanimously], I suggested selling half at the end of March, for little more than a double (what was I thinking?), thinking that you would be then be playing ‘with the house’s money’ with the rest. And later, when the LEAPS had tripled, I suggested perhaps selling a like number of out-of-the-money calls to make for what would have been a likely quadruple while you waited for the LEAPS to go long-term. So if you followed these suggestions, you would have long since doubled half your money and quadrupled the other half, but be sitting here like me, rocking back and forth wringing your hands, imagining how sweet life would be if you had just held on. 4. Borealis – BOREF – the great lottery ticket of this column. At $7-ish [$8-ish], it’s about double where I first started suggesting it years ago as the ‘stock that would surely go to zero’ – unless it didn’t, in which case it would go to the moon. But, boy (as I stressed), was this ever too good to be true. Well, as before, there’s a good chance it will be zero. But the upside it so enormous if it’s real, I plan to hold mine (I have a ton of it) until I’m either the envy of my nursing home, and Charles comes to visit me on Sundays in one of our two helicopters . . . or, more likely, until it’s gone to zero and I get to write a funny story about it. 5. CICI was suggested here at 35 cents on December 23, 2003. When it hit 90 cents not long after, I suggested selling two-thirds of it. The remaining third got back down close to 35 cents but last night closed at 68 [44] cents, so overall we have better than a double. I plan to hold my remaining third a while. Who knows? 6. Oil stocks have been suggested here from time (February 16) to time (June 14), including TXCO at $4.50 (now only a little higher, at $5.30 [$5.15]) . . . APC, suggested at $56.50, now $67.50 [$70] . . . and CSPLF, up from $4.30 or so to $6.30 or so [$5.12]. Maybe oil will be $8 a barrel next year, after the Iraqis throw flowers and start pumping in earnest again. But my current plan is to hold all these for some time to come. 7. SYM, suggested here in February a hair below $8 a share is now $10.45 [$13.88], up 30% in six months [75% in a year]. I plan to hold on until ‘something happens.’ There is the hope they will sell out and that the value of their real estate handily exceeds the current price. 8. TIPS, PCL and TRF were mentioned here May 4, at $119, $30.20 and $35.70 respectively. (I had suggested them before, at lower prices; this was a progress report.) Half a year later, they closed last night at $127, $36.60 and $41, respectively (plus a little ‘yield’ along the way from the first two). I wouldn’t rush to buy them at these prices, but I might well still own them in 10 years. [The TIPS, maturing April 15, 2032, closed yesterday at $136; PCL at $38.20 and TRF at $41.85, though I had December 13 suggested perhaps swapping out of that and into KF. The only thing I can tell you for virtually certain is that the TIPS will be redeemed at $100 on April 15, 2032 – plus a factor for all the inflation that had accrued in the prior 30 years, which so far is about 7.5%. I am holding PCL with confidence that their trees will continue to grow; and some TRF in hopes for Russia but less confidence.] 9. ILA, CMM were suggested earlier, but on May 10, when one of you asked about them, they were around $3.90 and $10.75, and I said I was holding them. ILA has dropped to $3.15 or so [$3.70], CMM risen to $16 or so [$16.34] – and I’m still holding them. 10. NTII was suggested August 16 at $2.60, closed last night at $3.65 [$4.18], and I’m holding it, too. All in all, not a bad year. On some kind of blended average maybe up 30%? But that raises all the usual caveats and more. First, if I could do this well consistently, I wouldn’t have to write this column. I got lucky. Second, you don’t find me doing these little recaps when things are bad – by being able to report to you when I want to, not on some fixed schedule, the game is stacked in my favor. Third, when I have done OK, as now, that generally bodes ill. From now on you should probably short all the stocks I suggest, except for the ones I suggest shorting, like Google, which you should buy. Fourth, there is the inadvertent but real tendency to forget to include the clunkers. So if you blame me for some stock I forgot to include here, just me-mail me and I will try to wriggle out of any responsibility for it by blaming my subordinates. Fifth, most people should do the preponderance of their stock market investing – if they should be in the stock market at all – via something as simple and sensible as Vanguard Index Funds. Low expenses and tax exposure all but guarantee you will do better than most of your friends who try harder. Sixth, the stock market is risky. You must promise me to invest only money you won’t need to touch in the next year or three. Because you don’t ever want to be in a position where you’re selling because you have to – only because you want to. Seventh, I think the next few years in the stock market could be challenging. If you’re young, by all means get into the habit, or continue the habit, of investing $500 a month, or whatever you can afford – and be thrilled if the market drops. That just means you can buy new shares ‘on sale.’ But if you’re 70, I sure wouldn’t have all my money in the stock market at today’s levels (or any levels). I’ve seen arguments that the broad market averages are 40% lower than their fair value. But that assumes interest rates will stay low, and other things will go right, and there is some risk in those assumptions. So I have a fair amount in stocks, but a fair amount not in stocks. I am a very fortunate fellow to have enough assets to be able to diversify, and I have a President working hard to try to make me even more fortunate by borrowing money from your children to lower my taxes.
More Free Software To Organize Your Photos of that Hump February 16, 2005February 28, 2017 FROM GOOGLE Check out picasa.com – a free download from Google (thanks, John Seiffer) that ‘helps you instantly find, edit and share all the pictures on your PC.’ All part of Google’s mission ‘to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.’ THE HUMP Michael Fang: ‘Reading all the lunatic theories about Bush’s hump kinda reminds me of all the weird and crazy theories that the right-wing used to spout about Bill Clinton. I guess it just goes to show lunacy goes both ways.’ ☞ You figure it was just atrocious tailoring? And do you sometimes say testily to no one in particular, apropos of nothing, ‘Let me finish!’ ? (And why the ‘no camera shots from behind’ clause the Bush camp insisted on?) Why is it lunacy to believe the most obvious explanation? In response to yesterday’s column, I got the requisite “get OVER it”s and “you’ve lost it”s – and that’s fine. But no one offered an alternative explanation. I remain all ears. WHO SAYS THERE’S NO TRUST FUND? ‘In my economic plan, more than $2 trillion of the federal surplus is locked away for social security. For years, politicians in both parties have dipped into the trust fund to pay for more spending. And I will stop it.’ – George W. Bush, Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center, May 15, 2000.
That Hump February 15, 2005February 28, 2017 GOOGLE MAPS – AGAIN Here’s the corrected link to the Google Maps tour. Sorry! THAT HUMP Was it really just dreadful tailoring? My own guess is that the true explanation is the most obvious one – he was wearing a transmitter. Read this and see what you think. In small part: The suspicion that Bush had been getting cues or answers in his ear was bolstered by his strange behavior in that first debate, which included several uncomfortably long pauses before and during his answers. On one occasion, he burst out angrily with “Now let me finish!” at a time when nobody was interrupting him and his warning light was not flashing. . . . Dr. Robert M. Nelson, a 30-year Jet Propulsion Laboratory veteran who works on photo imaging for NASA’s various space probes and currently is part of a photo enhancement team for the Cassini Saturn space probe, entered the picture. Nelson recounts that after seeing the Salon story on the bulge, professional curiosity prompted him to apply his skills at photo enhancement to a digital image he took from a videotape of the first debate. He says that when he saw the results of his efforts, which clearly revealed a significant T-shaped object in the middle of Bush’s back and a wire running up and over his shoulder, he realized it was an important story. The bigger story here is why there wasn’t a bigger story here. And that is addressed in the link, as well.
Maps and Boots February 14, 2005February 28, 2017 GOOGLE MAPS Think you can’t get there from here? Google now has ‘dynamic, interactive maps.’ Take a look. You can hardly expect Google to someday rule the world without first being able to map it. FASCISM VIDEO Dave Hoopaugh: ‘Sorry, but I do NOT think the fascism video is over the top or offensive. I think those who reject the idea that the current administration is headed that way have their heads in the sand. I was a Naval officer during the Vietnam era and am accustomed to honoring my Commander In Chief – something I can no longer do in good conscience. For the first time in my 62 years, I have become deeply concerned over the direction my country is headed.’ Jeremy Bronson: ‘I woke up this morning (even before I read your entry on the flourishing roots of fascism in America) thinking about why I’m so angry at my friends who are good and decent people but voted for Bush. Last weekend, I saw the excellent play Copenhagen – at least in part about how inaction was as powerful an enabler of the Nazi rise as overt action. So many people look on the bright side of the Bush Administration, focus on their dislike for Kerry and try not to think about the evil Bush does or allows. They are as guilty as the people who poured a year of their lives into reelecting Bush. Is the video you linked to offensive and over the top? Not to me. Not at all.’ ☞ Many of you said much the same thing. Even as I share your concerns, I do think it’s indisputable – and germane – that our motives in Iraq and Afghanistan are vastly different from Hitler’s motives in, say, Poland or France. I think we are ‘approaching the foothills of fascism’ – but that with any luck we will turn away long before we get there. But we’re less likely to turn away if we don’t see where we could be headed, which is why I think that flash animation deserves wide distribution. THE DRAFT You’ve probably already seen Rolling Stone‘s overview. If not, and you or anyone you know is between the ages of 18 and 34 . . . or will be . . . click here. Happy Valentine’s Day, Sweetness!