text:
'Snagadate' Heart Association fundraiser planned Oct. 13
Citizen Staff Reports 10/11/11
The third-annual "Snagadate," a fundraiser for the American Heart Association, will be held this Thursday, Oct. 13, at Aloft Richmond West's xyz bar in Glen Allen, beginning at 6:30 p.m.
Former NBC12 news anchor Gene Cox will host the event, and heart-disease survivor Andy Hrabovsky, a professional auctioneer, will preside over live bidding for themed date packages donated by local and regional businesses.
Volunteer Snagajob employees will pose as bachelors and bachelorettes to present attendees with an overnight stay and Sunday brunch at The Jefferson, skydiving for two, a mix of weekend and week-long stays in locales including Snowshoe, the Outer Banks and Charleston, S.C., and a Mosiac chef-prepared meal for eight, among other packages.
Snagadate organizers this year expect to exceed the combined total of $17,000 raised by the event to date.
Snagadate is open to the public. Organizers expect a spike in attendance from a mix of Snagajob employees, corporate donor representatives and individuals and couples from around the area.
Attendees receive free admission and parking, and donors are offered free appetizers prepared by popular local caterer Groovin' Gourmets. A cash bar will be fully stocked and open throughout the event.
Snagadate also is designed to encourage participation in AHA's annual Start! Heart Walk, a family-oriented fundraiser that promotes exercise as part of a heart-healthy lifestyle, scheduled in Richmond for Oct. 22.
For details, visit http://www.snagadaterichmond.com or follow @Snagadate on Twitter.
Glen Allen student to perform at Carnegie Hall
Thanks to a first-place win in The American Protege International Vocal Competition 2014, Glen Allen High School student Matija Tomas will travel to New York City to perform at Carnegie Hall in December.
At the first-place winners recital in Weill Hall, Matija will perform Giacomo Puccini's opera aria, "Chi il bel sogna di doretta." She will perform with other vocalists from around the world and have the opportunity to win other awards and scholarships.
Locally, Thomas has performed with Richmond's renowned Glorious Christmas Nights, Christian Youth Theatre, and WEAG's Urban Gospel Youth Choir. > Read more.
Gayton Baptist Church dedicates new outreach center
The John Rolfe YMCA and Gayton Baptist Church have partnered in an effort to bring greater health and wellness opportunities to the community.
Through this partnership, the John Rolfe Y will run Youth Winter Sports programs, including basketball and indoor soccer, in Gayton's newly renovated $5.5 million outreach center that features a new gymnasium, youth and teen space, social space with café, meeting space and full service commercial kitchen. > Read more.
Henricus Historical Park to host Publick Day Sept. 20
Citizen Staff Reports 09/15/2014
Henricus Historical Park will commemorate its anniversary during Publick Day, a signature annual event that celebrates the establishment of the second successful English settlement in the New World. In September 1611, Sir Thomas Dale, along with soldiers, tradesmen and farmers, ventured from Jamestown to create the Citie of Henricus. Leaders of Henricus developed the first English hospital, chartered the first college in North America, established tobacco as the first cash crop in Virginia, and created a place where Pocahontas lived and met John Rolfe.
Publick Day will take place Saturday, Sept. 20, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Admission is free and parking is $5 per vehicle. > Read more.
Page 1 of 117 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›
Extras sought for AMC's 'TURN'
Paid extras are being sought to appear in the AMC television series TURN: Washington's Spies, which will begin filming its second season in the Richmond area at the end of September and continue through February.
No experience is required, but producers say that extras must have flexible availability, reliable transportation and a positive attitude.
Arvold Casting is holding an open call on Sunday, Sept. 21 and is seeking men, women and children who are Caucasian, African American and Native American, with thin to average builds and who can realistically portray people living in Revolutionary War times. Long hair is a plus but not a must. > Read more.
Weekend Top 10
TGIF! Celebrate the weekend at Oak Hall Baptist Church's Community Block Party on Saturday. Learn more about ballroom dancing, art and Colonial times. Or take the kids to Generation Z Games for water play or Southern Season to cook up a Disney-theme meal. For all our top picks this weekend, click here! > Read more.
Weekend Top 10
Check out these three B's in Henrico this weekend: books, bluegrass and "Born Yesterday." Other activities to participate in – and feel good about – are the 15th annual James River Regional Cleanup and the 5th annual Richmond Out of the Darkness Community Walk. For all our top picks this weekend, click here! > Read more.
Business in brief
NBC News' Sara James to speak at Tucker HS convocation
Highland Springs HS wins Keep Virginia Beautiful grant
Henrico Police investigating suspicious death
Accreditation woes for HCPS
- More News
Print Edition
Sep. 18, 2014Click here to read the print edition.
Extras sought for AMC's 'TURN'
Weekend Top 10
Weekend Top 10
When the cliche stands tall
Weekend Top 10
- More Entertainment
Obituary – Susie Ann Walker
Obituary – Philip "Al" Cebulski
Obituary – Cecelia Davis Stevens
- More Obituaries
Glen Allen student to perform at Carnegie Hall
Gayton Baptist Church dedicates new outreach center
Henricus Historical Park to host Publick Day Sept. 20
- More Community
The Citizen at 13
Peeling off the labels
A messy food fight
- More Opinions
Hermitage to host Monday night football events
Down to the wire
Babe Ruth 13U World Series arrives in Glen Allen
- More Sports
Reader Survey | Advertising | Email updates
ClassifiedsDONATE YOUR CAR, TRUCK OR BOAT TO HERITAGE FOR THE BLIND. Free 3 Day Vacation, Tax Deductible, Free Towing, All Paperwork Taken Care Of. 888-617-1682
Full text
Place an Ad | More Classifieds
CalendarVCU Medical Center will present the seminar "Sleep from Argh! To Zzzz…" at 5:30 p.m. at Lewis Ginter Botanical Garden, 1800 Lakeside Ave. Learn about the biology of sleep and… Full text


text:
StayLock Perforated ColorsRead 6 Reviews | Write a Review - Share Images
On Sale Now $4.49 / piece Was:
Per SF $4.49 You Save 9%
StayLock perforated non-slip floor tile easily connects together with a tab locking system that will not allow the tiles to separate over time. This modular, perforated floor tile mat is perfect for pool and spa surrounds because it's easy on bare feet and durable enough for tables and lawn chairs. The top surface of this non-slip tile will provide traction when wet and comfort for standing and walking.
This Product Ships UPS Ground, FedEx Ground and/or Freight.
Please review our shipping disclaimer.
Customer Reviews
Customer Rating:
Exactly what I needed. Very good product. I use it in the shower and for a console mat in my boat. I only wish I could get a white or an off white.
Claude Lee
Newhill, NC
Customer Rating:
Awesome love them by our pool entrance. Look great too.
Phoenix, AZ
Customer Rating:
Awesome , I loved it
Chilliwack, BC
Customer Rating:
very good for the price and easy to put down.
Brooklyn, NY
Customer Rating:
As advertised! Very nice product, using it around the litter box !
San Antonio, TX
Customer Rating:
I want to tell you how happy we are with your product. Our kids are even happier. They are beautiful and exactly what we needed. We converted an ugly, deformed concrete base into a beautiful, cushioned green play area. Thank you.
New York, NY

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Beat Those Jets Shirts
Hey Hornets! Leadership will be selling Beat Those Jets t-shirts and long sleeves during the week of Island Bowl at lunch time in the main hall. T-shirts will be $13 and long sleeves will be $15. Get them before they run out, We have a limited amount! Thank you
Homecoming Dance 2014
Hey Hornets!
This years homecoming dance is on October 11, 2014 from 7-10 pm at Eagles Hall. The theme is neon and white and there will be black lights and neon paint!


text:
25 Iconic Celebrity Swimsuits
Get poolside style inspiration from some of our favorite swimsuits of all time.
By Julia Malacoff
Back Next
Esther Williams - 1950's
Swimwear is close to the heart for teenage swimming champion, Esther Williams. The star has even lent her name to a line of retro swimwear.


text:
Green cars are still present at this year's North American International Auto Show, but green isn't the theme to the same extent that it was last year, when everyone seemed enthusiastic to generic viagra overnigh have an electric car of some stripe or other. However, that emphasis has carried over in this year's top car picks, including the Chevy Volt and cialis dosage the Nissan LEAF.
This year there aren't the big announcements about manufacturers making major capital investments like there were last year, when both Ford and GM made splashes with their plans for new factories. That was good political fodder, and several dignitaties from the state of Michigan, as well as a congressional delegation, were present at the 2010 show. This year, however, the newly elected officials are more low profile, if they are attending at all.
With a foundering economy last year, there was not as much excitement from dealers and manufacturers for the coming sales year, and everyone's technological developments made good stories in the absence of much other good news. This year, however, the "green" car seems to be just another segment for a manufacturer's "full line," to go along with the sport vehicle, the family car, the utility vehicle and the online pharmacies other checkboxes a manufacturer needs to have to compete. Here are some of the offerings and concepts on display this year:
Chevrolet - the Volt is, of course, Chevy's big story. But Chevy also debuted the www.strattonpublishing.com Sonic, a new small car with expected 40 MPG rating. It will also, according to GM, be the only small car that is built in the US.
Ford - two different hybrid versions of the new C-Max will be offered, going after both the Toyota Prius and the Chevy Volt with a Prius-like version expecting to get 50 MPG and a Volt-like REEV expecting a 500 mile range.
Toyota - offering three new versions of the Prius, including a plug-in version and also showing an electric RAV4.
Honda - introducing the new Civic with three powertrains. Natural gas version with very low emissions to be available in all 50 states, as well as conventional and www.karlbarth.nl hybrid versions.
Volvo - sticking with their perennial theme of safety, Volvo test-crashed a C30 and have it on display to tramadol 50mg 180 pills show how the battery will withstand a high speed crash.
Audi - winner of http://invens.nl/order-usa-cialis-online last year's Green Car of the Year, this year the focus was on the new A6 which is almost 180 pounds lighter than its predecessor and has an average of 19% lower fuel consumption; sounds exciting, but with city/highway mileage numbers like 16/24 to 21/30, we're not impressed. The electric e-tron was given only passing mention.
Hyundai - the Veloster is a small 40 MPG car aimed at the younger buyer and has a $17-18,000 price.
Tesla - the new Model S sedan is represented with a naked exploded body, but the http://www.auburg.de/viagra-info discussion at the announcement was about body and styling rather than efficiency and engineering.
BYD - the Chinese manufacturer is www.worcestercountybar.org again on http://www.worcestercountybar.org/viagra-from-mexico the main floor. They have fielded a test fleet of their F3DM cars with the City of Los Angeles. The company wants to sell not only vehicles, but an integrated system of low-cost solar power generation and environmentally friendly power storage.
Mazda - green efforts seem to be represented by a lone hydrogen concept car at the back of the booth.
Nissan - despite winning Green Car of the Year, Nissan does not have a presence at this year's Detroit show. Reportedly Nissan will return to Detroit in 2012.
previously: 2009, checking up on 2009 in 2010, 2010
written by Ethical Gifts, January 12, 2011
Regarding the entry, Honda and Toyota have stolen the start by releasing Prius and Hybrid so they're quite familiar with this field and http://paradigms.com.do/cialis-online-50mgs I think they're still going to dominate green cars market in the future.
written by D Craig, January 19, 2011
Without trying (and often travelling at 70mph) I average 37 miles per US gallon on long journeys, and if I restrict myself to 60 mph max then I get 41 miles per US gallon. This with no sacrifices in performance - and no need to viagra low price manufacture and ship a heavy battery, or to manufacture two power trains. I'm sure across the lifetime of my car the conventional (but highly efficient) powersource is less of an environmental load, costs less, and performs better than a hybrid.
|< Prev
|Next >


text:
Birth Order May Affect Risk of Allergies Study Suggests First-Born Children Are More Likely to Have Allergies WebMD Medical News By Jennifer Warner Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD More...
Click here to read the full story.
© 2012 WTVQ-TV, LLC | Site Map | Terms of Use | Privacy Statement | FCC Compliance | Employment | Advertise on ABC36 | Contact Us
WTVQ.com supports children's privacy rights. All persons under the age of 13 MUST have parental permission to use this website and direct parental supervision is strongly recommended.


text: Every gift makes a difference, and ongoing support from our donors is critical. As a public institution, we rely heavily upon the support of alumni, parents, and friends of the University who believe in our mission. In addition, participation in corporate matching gift programs frequently enables donors to double or triple the impact of their gift. See your Human Resource Department for more details about participation and match levels.


text:
'Substantial' Cuts Likely To Military
ALEX ROZIER: A group of house Republicans and Democrats came together on Monday and they insist that substantial reductions in military spending should be part of any budget deal that President Barack Obama negotiates with Congress to avert the so-called fiscal cliff.
Local military leaders at Fairchild Air Force base and the National Guard tell us that they have been instructed by the United States Department of Defense to not comment on what may happen. They say they will not engage in speculation.
Many lawmakers argue right now with the drawdown in Afghanistan and the end of the war in Iraq that reductions are possible.
Barney Frank of Massachusetts led the Congressional effort along with Chris Gibson of New York. Those two are on opposite sides of the aisle and they think national security will not be jeopardized by making cuts to defense.
If the two sides fail to reach an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff, the military would face automatic, across-the-board cuts totaling $55 billion next year and close to $500 billion over ten years.
It is a wait and see game but it appears that as of right now lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are getting on board with substantial cuts to the military.
AP Sources: Obama, Boehner Talk On Fiscal Cliff
WASHINGTON (AP) - Administration and congressional officials say President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner spoke on the telephone early Tuesday evening. The conversation occurred after both sides exchanged new proposals on how to avoid looming fiscal cliff. Obama and Boehner met Sunday at the White House. The White House then offered a new proposal lowering its proposed figure for tax revenue from $1.6 trillion to $1.4 trillion. Boehner offered a Republican counter proposal on Tuesday. While Tuesday's phone conversation and the exchange of offers indicated stepped up activity, it was unclear whether the talks were resulting in real progress.(Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
Boehner: Obama Slow Walking Cliff Talks
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker John Boehner says President Barack Obama is slow-walking talks to avoid the fiscal cliff, and hasn't outlined spending cuts he's willing to support as part of a compromise. The Ohio Republican said Tuesday that without spending cuts, there can be no balanced plan to reduce deficits and avoid the automatic tax hikes and spending cuts set to kick in at the turn of the year. In a downbeat assessment of negotiations to date, the speaker said the longer the president drags the talks, the closer the economy gets to the fiscal cliff and the threat of a new recession.
Pelosi Calls For Vote On Extending Most Tax CutsWASHINGTON (AP) - House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi is calling on Republicans to permit a vote on President Barack Obama's plan to let tax cuts expire at upper incomes, while keeping them in place for the middle class. In remarks on the floor of the House, she predicted the legislation would pass. Rebutting remarks that Speaker John Boehner made moments earlier, the California Democrat said Obama and Democrats have in fact identified spending cuts they can support as part of a balanced plan to avert a "fiscal cliff" that threatens to send the economy into another recession. Without action by Congress, tax cuts will expire on all income levels and government funding for numerous programs will be cut at the end of the year.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House has said that President Barack Obama still believes a deal with Republicans is possible in order to avoid a fiscal cliff. But there's been no outward signs of progress in talks on how to reach a budget agreement. Obama still wants to raise taxes on individuals making more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000. Top Republicans say they're waiting for Obama to say the word on what spending cuts can come to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.


text:
At the beginning of this month, a 2004 Harley-Davidson FXSTB Softail Night Train washed up on the shores of Graham Island, British Columbia. What made this remarkable was that it was owned by Ikuo Yokoyama, who lives in Japan. The bike was washed out to sea amidst the tsunami that hit Japan back in March 2011.
Canadian Peter Mark discovered the Harley at low tide more than a year after the disaster, along with some other contents of a cargo container and it made headlines the world over. Now, after Harley-Davidson have offered to repatriate the bike, Yokoyama has politely declined and requested the bike be preserved in the Harley-Davidson Museum in honour of those who lost their lives or have been forever changed by the disaster.
Yokoyama is still trying to piece together his life after the tragic event and is currently in temporary housing in Miyagi Prefecture.
"It is truly amazing that my Harley-Davidson motorcycle was recovered in Canada after drifting for more than a year," Yokoyama said, "I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt appreciation to Peter Mark, the finder of my motorcycle. Due to circumstances caused by the disaster, I have been so far unable to visit him in Canada to convey my gratitude.
"Since the motorcycle was recovered, I have discussed with many people about what to do with it. I would be delighted if it could be preserved in its current condition and exhibited to the many visitors to the Harley-Davidson Museum as a memorial to a tragedy that claimed thousands of lives. I am very grateful to Harley-Davidson for offering me an opportunity to visit the museum, and I would like to do that when things have calmed down. At the same time, I would like to meet Peter, who recovered my motorcycle, to express my gratitude. Finally, I would like to thank all people around the world once again for their wholehearted support of the areas hit by the earthquake and Tsunami. I would like to ask them to help convey messages from the Japanese people about the tragedy of the Great East Japan Earthquake, which was a disaster of historic proportions."
A truly remarkable sentiment, I think…


text:
The Three Musketeers Photo Gallery
This explosive, family action adventure from director Paul WS Anderson sees Aramis, Porthos, Athos and the spirited D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman) take on the deadly, double-crossing, mysterious Milady (Milla Jovovich), as Buckingham's evil plot takes flight, masterminded by the dastardly devout Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz). View photos from The Three Musketeers…
Roll your mouse over the left and right-hand sides of the image and then click to view more pictures.
1 of 17
Read our review of The Three Musketeers or our interviews with Matthew Macfadyen, Luke Evans and Ray Stevenson or director Paul WS Anderson
Recent Galleries:
- Interstellar (Matthew McConaughey) Poster Gallery
- The Expendables 3 Photo Gallery
- Fury (Brad Pitt/Logan Lerman) Banner Poster Gallery
- Guardians of the Galaxy - Official Illustrative Poster Series by Matt Ferguson
- Mad Max: Fury Road (Tom Hardy) First-look Photo Gallery
- Dawn of the Planet of the Apes Photo Gallery
- The Fault In Our Stars (Shailene Woodley/Ansel Elgort) Photo Gallery
- Fruitvale Station (Michael B Jordan/Melonie Diaz) Photo Gallery
- 22 Jump Street Photo Gallery
- Kingsman: The Secret Service (Colin Firth) Photo Gallery 1


text:
Naturepedic Organic Cotton Bassinet Mattress. The Naturepedic Organic Cotton Bassinet Mattress features a luxurious organic cotton fabric with a clear 100% polyethylene food-grade waterproof coating. Non-allergenic and easy-to-clean. Measures: 15" x 30" x 2"
Pure, Natural, and chemical-free
Features Air-Core™, a non-toxic environmentally friendly support layer made from
100% food-grade polyethylene. Air-Core is a network of closed cell air pockets that provide a firm and comfortable base without the toxic properties of polyurethane foam and the allergenic concerns of latex rubber.
NO Vinyl, PVC, or Phthalates
NO Polyurethane Foam
NO Latex or Wool (for allergy concerns)


text:
What Really Makes Your Retirement Accounts Grow
Published on - January 12th, 2012 (by Robert Brokamp)
This is a post from staff writer Robert Brokamp of The Motley Fool. Robert is a Certified Financial Planner and the adviser for The Motley Fool's Rule Your Retirement service. He contributes one new article to Get Rich Slowly every two weeks.
As far as investing goes, 2011 won't be a particularly memorable year. The Standard & Poor's 500 began the year at 1,257 and ended the year at the exact same spot. So if you began the year with $10,000 in your 401(k) and invested it in an index fund that seeks to mimic the performance of the S&P 500, you'd just have $10,000 a year later, right?
Probably not. The value of your portfolio depends on a few factors:
- The increase or decrease in value of your investments. Okay, so that's obvious. In the case of the S&P 500 in 2011, it ended the year where it started.
- Contributions or withdrawals from your accounts. If you're still saving for retirement, you make an investment every time money gets transferred from your paycheck or savings account to your 401(k) or IRA. Each investment has its own purchase price, and thus its own return. During 2011 the S&P 500 increased to 1,363 by the end of April, then dropped to 1,123 by early October, only to then rebound back to 1,257. If you invested in an S&P 500 index fund, some of the purchases you made last spring may be still underwater, but the purchases you made in the fall have so far produced a nice double-digit return.
- The amount of interest and dividends you receive throughout the year and what you do with that money. I've written before about how dividend growth and reinvestment are a powerful — and under-appreciated — way to grow a portfolio; it can produce a decent return even if the price of a stock goes nowhere for decades. That's because dividends grow, historically at a rate that exceeds inflation. Not every stock pays a dividend, but most of the big names do. In 2011, of the 500 companies in the S&P 500, 394 companies paid a dividend; 320 increased their dividend, 22 started paying a dividend (they weren't paying one beforehand, or it had been suspended), and only five decreased their dividend. Most investors use those dividends to buy more shares of stocks, which pay more growing dividends, which buy more shares, and so on. The same principle applies if you own bonds or bond funds, though you don't get the same type of growth in the payments.
Investors who survived the "Great Recession"
So even though the S&P 500 went nowhere in 2011, someone who kept investing in the Vanguard 500 or any other similar index fund — both through additional contributions to retirement accounts and dividend reinvestment — saw her net investment grow in value. This presumes, of course, that she stuck with the investment as it dropped almost 20% from April to October.
To take a slightly longer-term look at sticking with an investment, a recent report from Fidelity Investments illustrates the value of summoning courage in the face of a downturn. The company analyzed the returns of investors with Fidelity retirement accounts from the market decline of 2008 to 2009 through June 2011 and found the following:
- Participants who changed their equity allocations to zero between Oct. 1, 2008, and March 31, 2009, and never jumped back into the market saw their accounts grow a measly 2%.
- Investors who sold all their stocks, but got back into the market at any point before June 2011, enjoyed a 25% larger account balance.
- Those who stuck with their asset allocations saw their account balances skyrocket 50%.
The analysis also compared investors who stopped contributing to their 401(k)s with those who kept on savin'. The account balances of the former grew 26%, while those of the latter ballooned 64%.
These are important lessons, since the world seems pretty scary these days. Of course, investing when everyone else is scared is what we're supposed to do. But today's risks — debt problems in Europe, falling home prices, swelling government deficits, increasingly unfunded entitlements, computers accounting for most of the trading volume — are real and unprecedented. Plus, the market isn't priced to provide extraordinary returns. I don't know exactly when, but there will be more years like 2011, even those as bad as 2008. During those times, it will be important to remember the conclusions of that Fidelity study: Stick to your allocation (except for occasional rebalancing), and keep on savin'.
This article is about Investing, Retirement
The thinking behind this article is rooted in the Buy-and-Hold Model for understanding how stock investing works. Under this model, future returns cannot be predicted. So we are stuck investing in stocks at all times.
Robert Shiller describes a very different model (I call it "Valuation-Informed Indexing") in his book "Irrational Exuberance." Under this model, the money used to finance out-of-controlbull markets is being borrowed from future investors. This means that we CAN predict future returns and we can know in advance when we must lower our stock allocations to avoid wipeouts.
Bull markets causes economic crises. There is not a single exception in the historical record. Economic crises eventually push stock prices down to one-half of fair value. Again, there is not a single exception in the historical record. A drop to one-half of fair value is a price drop of 65 percent from where we stand today.
Stocks will be a wonderful asset class after the 65 percent price drop. But those invested heavily in stocks today are not going to have any money left to invest after taking a hit of that size on top of the hits they have been taking for 12 years now.
We need to let go of Buy-and-Hold and move on to discussing what the past 30 years of academic research says about what works in stock investing.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Particularly when you wrote "Stocks will be a wonderful asset class after the 65 percent price drop. But those invested heavily in stocks today are not going to have any money left to invest after taking a hit of that size on top of the hits they have been taking for 12 years now."
Why does the value of my investment accounts have anything to do with the amount of money I'm not spending from my income and therefore have available to save/invest?
I don't entirely understand your question, Courtney.
The object of the game is to acquire a specified portfolio size by the time you reach retirement age. If you have large amounts invested in asset classes that are providing negative returns for long time-periods, you are falling behind over the years rather than moving ahead.
Many today complain that non-stock asset classes do not provide high enough returns. But a zero return is outstanding in a time-period when stocks are providing a negative return. The differential you will enjoy over the Buy-and-Holders will produce compounding returns for many years to come.
I'm not a master of investments, but I have one advice for everyone – invest at the market that you KNOW. I don't know stocks, I don't know bonds, I don't know real estates. So I just don't put my money at these things. I personally know gold and silver coins market and if today I would win a million dollars, I'd know where to put them. So people, learn your market and then you will not have problems with crisises, debt problems and "scary times".
Totally off-topic, but I don't know anybody who knows coins and google doesn't help, so I apologize if this is completely off for most readers but hey, you're an expert, so I have to ask.
I have this silver Spanish coin that I want to sell. It's from some sunken ship or something, from 1808, tarnished and with some green spots, weights 27g. Here's a photo I found of the same coin; http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php?topic=281640.0
Should I clean it first or sell it as-is? If I want to keep it for future appreciation, should I have it cleaned or leave it filthy? And any idea where I could get it appraised? Many thanks in advance.
Do a search for a similiar item on eBay to get an idea of its value, before taking it to a dealer.
At least that way you will have a ballpark valuation.
Thanks! I looked up on ebay and they are offered from $60-$200+ ha ha. Not too accurate. One old acution with no picture shows it sold for $195. It's clearly not worth a fortune, but I'll bring it to dealers around just for the fun. Thanks again!
I agree, I continued to contribute to my fidelity 401k and even increased the % I put in to the funds. I started investing in 4th Quarter 2008 so I went in at a bottom of the markets. Waiting to see if 2012 will be a good year for those fidelity funds in terms of capital appreciation.
My experience is dividens is the only way I have made money in my S&P500 indexed fund. I have been in this S&P indexed fund for about 10 years and the fund is now 14% higher than it was 10 year ago. That is less than a 1.4% growth per year.
All this 10 years you are adding more money to your investment? or just invested some in S&P 10 years back?
I invested over a few years but about 10 years ago I stopped adding to this S&P 500 indexed fund. I have just let the money set for the last 10 years. If I remove the dividens I get the 1.4% gain per year number.
"When we get to a P/E10 level of 25, we have 20 years of bad returns. There's not one exception in the record."
You mean three times in the last 100 years. And even that isn't true. Because the last time was 2000 and we don't know those results yet.
I don't think two historic examples is a very good sample to draw firm conclusions about the future.
You mean three times in the last 100 years.
This comment is a response to the #11 comment by Ross Williams.
It's four times in the past 100 years, Ross. The bull of the early 1900s brought on 20 years of poor returns. Then the bull of the late 1920s brought on 20 years of poor returns. Then the bull of the mid-60s brought on 20 years of poor returns. Then the bull of the late 1990s brought on 12 (and counting) years or poor returns.
I don't think [this] is a very good sample to draw firm conclusions about the future.
The 140 years of returns now in the record are the only sample we have to go by, Ross.
The alternative is to go with a Buy-and-Hold strategy, for which there is no support in the historical record.
I would like to have 1400 years of data rather than 140. But I would prefer to have 140 years of data supporting my strategy over having zero years of data supporting my strategy.
Please understand that I don't intend a personal insult with that comment. I wish you the best of luck with whatever strategies you elect to follow, Ross. I say it that way because there's been a lot of big money put to the task of promoting Buy-and-Hold for years now and I have searched and searched the data and never found any support for it.
If Shiller is right, the continued promotion of Buy-and-Hold will bring on the Second Great Depression. That concerns me. It seems to me that as a society we are taking an awful big bet on a strategy that has never yet in history performed well through an entire bull/bear cycle.
"It's four times in the past 100 years, Ross. The bull of the early 1900s brought on 20 years of poor returns. Then the bull of the late 1920s brought on 20 years of poor returns. Then the bull of the mid-60s brought on 20 years of poor returns. Then the bull of the late 1990s brought on 12 (and counting) years or poor returns."
The "bull of the early 1900′s" the PE peaked slightly over 25 in 1901 – 110 years ago. And we have no idea what the results of the PE peak in 2000 will be. You have two real examples in the last 100 years.
As for recent poor returns, almost every investment in stock since the dot com bubble bust in 2000 has made money. The investments that lost money were made in the late 1990′s.
"The 140 years of returns now in the record are the only sample we have to go by, Ross."
You are using a dataset with two points, not 140. Even if it is all you have, it is still meaningless. Its like concluding a coin is weighted heads because you flipped it once and it turned up heads.
"The alternative is to go with a Buy-and-Hold strategy, for which there is no support in the historical record."
Finding support for buy and hold is actually a no-brainer. If you bought a DOW index stock (yes, I know that doesn't exist) in 1981 at 1024 and held those stocks, they would be worth 12 times that much today. If you had made regular investments and held them during that same period you would be ahead on the vast majority of them. And that is true fro virtually every 30 year period.
Shiller was making the point that historically high PE's are an indicator that stocks are not cheap right now. That may be important to anyone who is looking for short term gains over the next 10 years. It probably isn't for people saving for retirement in 25 years.
If you bought a DOW index stock (yes, I know that doesn't exist) in 1981 at 1024 and held those stocks, they would be worth 12 times that much today. If you had made regular investments and held them during that same period you would be ahead on the vast majority of them. And that is true fro virtually every 30 year period.
There are two factors that cause stock prices to go up, Ross. One is economic growth. The gains caused by economic growth are real and lasting. Two is overvaluation. The gains caused by overvaluation are temporary and artificial.
If you look only at 30-year time-periods, you are right that stocks only go up. If you look at 10-year and 20-year time-periods, stocks do NOT always go up. It depends on what you paid for the stocks.
We were at three times fair value at the top of the bubble. We always end up at one-half fair value. That's a drop of five-sixths. If you held $1.2 million in portfolio value in 2000, you should be expecting to hold $200,000 in portfolio value when we get to the bottom of this bear market.
Those are huge losses. No one needs to endure such losses. If you simply take valuations into consideration when setting your stock allocation, all that risk goes away. There has never yet in history been a time when stocks provided a good long-term return starting from insanely high prices and there has never yet been a time when stocks provided a poor long-term return starting from moderate or low prices.
You are making it sound like Shiller's findings are not a big deal, Ross. Here are the words of the subtitle of his book : "The National Bestseller that REVOLUTIONIZED the Way We Think About the Stock Market."
Shiller changed everything. He showed us how to earn far higher returns while taking on dramatically less risk. I think it's a wonderful advance. I do acknowledge that there are many who do not see it that way.
I certainly wish you the best of luck with your strategies. Perhaps you will be proven right and I will be proven wrong. It wouldn't be the first time it happened.
Yes, but who invests their 401K just in an S&P index fund or large cap fun? Mine is diversified, like a good retirement investor, and the "reward" for staying in and investing in an international fund, which comprises 30% of my portfolio, is not quite the same as the person who is only invested in an SP Index.
The stock market takes your presumed 65% drop. My investment balance is now maybe $5K (accounting for the fact that it's not entirely stocks).
This comment is a response to the #13 comment by Courtney.
Your numbers are right, Courtney. I think what you may be missing (in my assessment!) is the time element. No middle-class person could hope to retire at age 65 without the compounding returns effect. You need to have that factor working for you to have any realistic hopes.
If your portfolio merely retains its value or goes up a wee bit over a 20-year period, you're not going to make it. If you start investing at age 25, you get 40 years to achieve your goal. Give up half of them and the numbers don't work.
It's not my intent to scare you. The full reality is that Shiller's research permits us all to attain far higher returns at greatly reduced risk and to retire many years sooner than anyone thought possible in the Buy-and-Hold years. Once we get to stock prices of one-half fair value, the most likely annualized 10-year return is 15 percent real. You can become wealthy in a very short amount of time earning that high an annual return.
You want to be sure to have funds to invest at those prices when those prices arrive! Every dollar you lose on the way down to one-half fair value is a dollar not available to you when those great returns become available to us.
My aim is to invest less in stocks when the long-term return is poor and more when the long-term return is mouth-wateringly great. The combined effect of losing less and gaining more provides a super long-term result, according to the last 30 years of academic research.
I do wish you the best with whatever strategies you elect to pursue. And I of course acknowledge that I could be wrong. It's been known to happen!
"No middle-class person could hope to retire at age 65 without the compounding returns effect."
There are no "compounding returns" on stock investments. You buy shares, you sell shares. Your return is the difference. The point is that if you are regularly buying stock, you will buy more shares when the price is low
There are no "compounding returns" on stock investments.
We are going to need to agree to disagree re this one, Ross.
It is my view that the compounding returns phenomenon applies to stocks just as it does to all other asset classes. It's not just the returns you obtain that matters, it's also when you earn them. Earning a 10 percent return this year is better than earning a 10 percent return 20 years from now because in the first case you will enjoy 20 years of compounding on that return that you will not obtain in the second case.
Again I wish you the best in any event. I hope we both get to enjoy lots of compounding in days to come!
"Earning a 10 percent return this year"
You don't earn ANY return on stock unless you sell it. You buy shares of stock. Regardless of what you paid for them or how they were valued in the interim, you get the same price when you sell them.
There is nothing wrong with treating your profit as compound interest for comparison purposes. But it is not the same thing.
One could argue that reinvested dividends are a form of compounded returns.
I think that is right. But there are still differences. The dividends are not based on the stock's price, although the number of shares the dividends will purchase is.
We didn't invest much for retirement at all in 2011. We put 6% to my husband's 401k to get the match (effectively 3%).
The rest of the money we put toward our house down payment fund instead of our IRA. That was a good move since it enabled us to put 20% down this year.
I think if we could have, it still would have been good to keep on funding the IRAs.
The money would be able to grow eventually.
I'm not stressing about it too much, though. We're back to contributing 9% to our IRAs.
We're rebalancing our portfolio since it's spread across a 401k and three IRAs (a traditional and 2 Roths).
Slow and steady seems to be the key to retirement with no lasting debt. Also, getting used to living a frugal and minimalist lifestyle will focus needed energy on relationships rather than the accumulation of things.
Good points! Dividends and capital gains reinvestment can grow a portfolio in a stagnant economy.
I'm enjoying the stock market strategy debates in this thread very much, but every time this comes up it reminds me why I have my investments divided amongst mutual funds/real estate/small business. Barring a zombie apocalypse, I'm golden. :0P
[i]There is nothing wrong with treating your profit as compound interest for comparison purposes. But it is not the same thing.[/i]
Say that I have $100,000 invested in stocks. And I believe based on a study of the academic research that we are going to see a 65 percent price drop sometime over the next few years. So I take that $100,000 out of stocks and invest it in CDs earning a return of 2 percent real.
Then say that stock prices do in fact fall by 65 percent three years down the road. And then I put the money back in stocks. And from that point forward stocks earn an average return of 15 percent real for the next 10 years.
Do I not have more money in my portfolio at the end of those 13 years than I would had had I followed a Buy-and-Hold strategy? It sure seems so to me.
I can point you to academic research that compares how Buy-and-Hold strategies have compared with Valuation-Informed Indexing strategies over the years for which we have records. VII beat Buy-and-Hold for 102 of the 110 30-year time-periods now in the historical record. And Valuation-Informed Indexers earn those far higher returns while taking on dramatically less risk (because they are not heavily invested in stocks at the times when they are most risky — times of highly inflated stock prices).
I like the idea of obtaining far higher returns while taking on dramatically less risk, Ross. I see it as a win/win/win. You are not the first person who has responded to my thinking with great skepticism. I get this sort of reaction all the time. You are in very good company. But I continue to believe that it is a good thing to get far higher returns at dramatically less risk. My feeble brain is not able to identify the downside.
"Then say that stock prices do in fact fall by 65 percent three years down the road. And then I put the money back in stocks. And from that point forward stocks earn an average return of 15 percent real for the next 10 years."
You will have more shares by buying low. The amount more you will make when you sell depends entirely on how many more shares you bought. It has nothing to do with compounding.
But you hit the nose on the head. To make out from this you need to be able to anticipate not only the upside, which you apparently think was 2000, but also accurately predict the downside. If you sold in the late 90′s when the PE first hit 25, you are still waiting for the bottom and, depending on your timing, you may well have sold at far less than the current market price. The DOW went down to 7540 in late 1998 when the PE was well above 25.
Just to be clear on the "compounding". If I invest $1000 buy and get 90 shares and you invest $1000 and buy 100 shares, I will make 10% less if we both sell all our shares at the same time. It doesn't matter AT ALL whether you bought the shares ten years before me, ten years after me or the same day.
"…Then say that stock prices do in fact fall by 65 percent three years down the road." That's the tricky part. If things actually did what you expected, of course you are right.
In 1996 it was clear that the market was way overvalued and it was not a good time to buy or hold. However, the market continued climbing for four additional years. Similarly, when the Japanese market plummeted a while back, it was obviously time to buy, buy, buy. Only that market stayed bad for many, many years. Just because the market is overvalued does not mean you have any clue when it will fall.
So, I do some broad market buy-and-hold. I have some dividend stocks. I have some I-bonds. I've paid off my house. (I prefer the shade of trees to solar panels, and I really don't at all enjoy farming or ranching, so I'll just risk being able to afford food and energy in the future. Instead, I invest in cooking skills and try to minimize my need for electricity with things like insulation and manual tools.)
Just because the market is overvalued does not mean you have any clue when it will fall.
Just for the record, we are in 100 percent agreement re this, Debbie.
I do not believe that it is possible for anyone to say what the market will do next week, next month or next year.
The research shows that it is only when you go 10 years out that it becomes possible to make statistically valid predictions of future returns.
I am not underestimating Shiller. I just think you are misunderstanding him and drawing conclusions well beyond what his arguments support.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, Ross. And it is a good idea for others to be skeptical of what I say too. I am some fellow whose claim to expertise is that he figured out how to get stuff posted to a discussion thread on a blog.
If there are people reading these words who think there might be some value in what I say, I invite you to go to the home page of my blog (I believe that clicking on my name will take you there) and reading the "People Are Talking" feature that runs down the left-hand side of the home page of the blog. There are over 100 comments there (with links to where the comment was made) of people who have found great value in my work.
We need to hear all sides of the story. We need to hear what Ross has to say. I believe that we also need to hear what those who do not agree with Ross have to say. I hate being put in circumstances where I come off to some as being argumentative. But I sincerely believe that Wall Street's relentless promotion of Buy-and-Hold strategies has put us all in very dire economic circumstances and that we are going to have to help people learn about the other side of the story if we are to recover from this economic crisis.
I don't think Buy-and-Holders are bad people. I think they made a mistake. The strategy was developed at a time when all the research had not yet been completed. In other areas of human endeavor, we learn new things and we move on to better times. In the area of stock investing, it seems that we are stuck saying over and over again what some good and smart people sincerely believed to be the case in 1974.
I think we can do better today because we have learned a whole big bunch in the past 30 years that no one knew in 1974. That's why I solider on with this stuff in the face of a good bit of skepticism. I believe in progress. I believe that those of us alive today just happen to be living in the best time in history to be stock investors. If only we could find a way to share with each other our growing knowledge of what really works!
I am grateful to you for participating in the back and forth, Ross. I will reread the thread tomorrow and try to pick up on things in your words that I may have missed the first time through and thereby try to learn more from your efforts to help us all out.
I say we all take everything out and watch it crash. It's fundamentally broken and corrupt and to participate in continuing the game just extends it. It's not a free market nor a capitalist system that we have.
You hit on something important here.
We don't live in a capitalist or free market society.
Conservatives like to say we are marching towards socialism, but we are already partly there.
What we have currently is a hybrid of capitalism and socialism – but ONLY the worst parts of each.
The profits are privatized and the losses are socialized.
This is a recipe for disaster and why so many people are upset these days.
I believe this is called 'corporatism'.
It has nothing to do with compounding.
We still don't see eye to eye re this one, Ross. My take is that your money earns money. The more money you have working for you in your early years, the better off you will be in your later years.
To make out from this you need to be able to anticipate not only the upside, which you apparently think was 2000, but also accurately predict the downside. If you sold in the late 90′s when the PE first hit 25, you are still waiting for the bottom and, depending on your timing, you may well have sold at far less than the current market price. The DOW went down to 7540 in late 1998 when the PE was well above 25.
I sold all my stocks in 1996 and put my money in TIPS and IBonds paying 3.5 percent real. The last time I checked the numbers, I was ahead of the game for having done so.
I sold far before we got to the top and in all likelihood I will buy long before we get to the bottom. You know what? It doesn't matter.The gains from long-term timing are so huge that getting it even roughly right puts you far ahead in the long term.
The thing that causes all the confusion is that many people try to practice short-term timing. That's guessing where stocks are going to be a year from now and changing your allocation in accord with that guess. I agree 100 percent with the Buy-and-Holders that that doesn't work. There is a wealth of research showing this to be so. The finding of the Buy-and-Holders that short-term timing never works was a huge advance.
The unfortunate thing is that the people who discovered that short-term timing never works jumped to the hasty conclusion that no form of timing works. The research does NOT support that claim. There is extensive research on this and all the research shows that long-term timing ALWAYS works. There is not a single exception in the record.
To accept this, you have to understand how short-term timing and long-term timing differ. Short-term timing is playing guessing games. That's silly. It's perfectly obvious why short-term timing never works.
Long-term timing is paying attention to price when you make a purchase of something. It is impossible for the human mind to come up with a theory for how paying attention to the price of something you buy could ever not work. Long-term timing always works because long-term timing always MUST work.
The future of investing analysis is to COMBINE the huge insight of the Buy-and-Holders (that short-term timing never works) with the huge insight that Shiller added to the mix a few years later (that long-term timing always works). The combination (Valuation-Informed Indexing) works like gangbusters. High returns, virtually zero risk. Investor heaven!
Or at least so Rob Bennett (some fellow whose claim to expertise in this field is that he figured out how to get things posted to blog discussion threads) believes.
"I sold all my stocks in 1996 and put my money in TIPS and IBonds paying 3.5 percent real. The last time I checked the numbers, I was ahead of the game for having done so."
The DOW was under 5000 in 1996, it is almost to 12,500 now. That is a 150% increase and 3.5% compounded annually gives you about 60% total return. And getting 3.5% on a bond or any other fixed interest investment these days means taking on a lot of risk.
What is clear is that you have very strong faith that eventually, before you die, the market will crater. Most people aren't that stubborn.
A fourth important factor is how much you pay in fees. That's why it's better to use index funds over managed funds (way cheaper) and to keep your turnover low (fewer fees). Of course staying out of the market, you get to pay zero fees.
Most people aren't that stubborn.
I think that's a fair comment, Ross.
I'm a go-along-to-get-along type guy on most issues. But my father once told me that, when I think I am right about something important, I am like steel. It's probably for others to say whether that is a good trait or not. I'm stuck with it in either event.
And my poor wife! Please pray for her!
I have grown one of my self IRA accounts from $21,000 to $27,800 this year simply by investing in companies run by great leaders like AAPL, GOOG, CMG and BIDU.
I am using a personal approach to combine technical analysis along with fundamentals to buy and hold stock for 10-20% appreciation in my IRA account. It has worked well this year.
It remains to be seen if I can produce same result in 2012 or not.
I think this Shilpan, is a much smarter play than index investing buy/hold.
Investing in your retirement is not a quick turn investment. During the course of your lifetime the reality is that there will be ups and downs. The market has proven itself to be cyclical and not for the weak of heart. Riding out the lows and still investing your hard earned dollars is hard but can prove to be very rewarding as you will be purchasing at some of the lowest rates imaginable and when things turn around you'll reap the rewards.
Now it is important to take your life stage in mind, if retirement is right around the corner it is not the time to be in high risk investments. I highly recommend consulting a finance specialist/adviser and educating yourself on the investments you are making.
If there are people reading these words who think there might be some value in what I say, I invite you to go to the home page of my blog (I believe that clicking on my name will take you there) and reading the "People Are Talking" feature that runs down the left-hand side of the home page of the blog. There are over 100 comments there (with links to where the comment was made) of people who have found great value in my work.
And I invite you to go here:
where you'll find that most of those people had their words mischaracterized, misquoted, or taken out of context by Mr. Bennett as supporting his "work" when in fact they did not.
where you'll find that most of those people had their words mischaracterized, misquoted, or taken out of context by Mr. Bennett as supporting his "work" when in fact they did not.
There are indeed Buy-and-Holders who have made such claims. I encourage those interested in learning the realities of this matter to check things out for themselves. You can look at the words that appear at the link I provide and at the words that appear at the link provided by Carlyle and determine for yourself who you believe is telling the straight story.
Buy-and-Hold is an intensely emotional strategy. This evidences itself in the manner in which Buy-and-Holders defend their strategy from research-supported challenges.
I think they all did rather well "in the game." As did many others Lazy "buy-hold-rebalance" Portfolios.
Then why are we in an economic crisis, Carlyle? When Buy-and-Holders obtain good returns, they credit their strategy. When they obtain poor returns, they blame it on the economy. It's always something!
The reality is that when large numbers of investors come to believe in Buy-and-Hold, we always have an economic crisis. There is not one exception in the historical record. It's not even possible that there ever could be one. Imagine what would happen to us if large numbers of car buyers came to believe that cars are worth buying at any price. That would cause an economic crisis too in time.
For a market to work, there must be price discipline. Buy-and-Hold teaches that stocks are worth buying at any price. Our economy cannot survive once large numbers of investors stop applying price discipline in their stock-buying decisions.
Mr. Bennett thinks his strategy of timing the S&P 500 Index is the only rational way to invest.
I believe that all investors must take into consideration the price at which stocks are selling when they make purchase decisions. I am not able to imagine any exception to that rule. I believe that all purchasers of sweaters and cars and comic books should ALSO consider price when making price decisions.
I believe that anyone who tells you that you don't need to consider the price at which stocks are selling when you are setting your stock allocation is trying to sell you something. When you hear someone say the words "Buy-and-Hold," you should hold tight to your wallet and run. I am not able to imagine how ignoring the price of something you are buying could ever work to your benefit.
I think the record shows Lazy Portfolios offer a simple an effective way of investing.
Lazy portfolios always become popular during out-of-control bull markets. By the time we get to the end of the bear market that follows, they are always unpopular. We are only halfway through this bear market, Carlyle.You need to look at what the numbers show after we experience another 65 percent price crash. That's what the Lazy Portfolio investors will have left to build their retirement plans on.
And the record also shows his opinion that buy-hold-rebalance strategies are about to cause the "Second Great Depression" is just plain goofy.
Excuse me? My experience is that Buy-and-Holders don't even like to discuss this point. Buy-and-Hold caused the market to be overvalued by $12 trillion in 2000. Even John Bogle acknowledges that market prices always return to fair value levels after 10 years or so. Are you able to imagine some way we could have avoided an economic crisis once the market became overpriced by $12 trillion?
With Valuation-Informed Indexing, there can never be overpricing. When investors know the realities, they act in their own self-interest. Once investors know to lower their stock allocations when prices get too high, prices can never get too high. The only real risk of stock investing is that you will fall for the marketing pitches of those trying to persuade you to buy stocks when they are not worth buying.
Unfortunately, many of us have done this in recent years. My guess is that, as the economic crisis worsens, more and more people are going to become willing to look critically at the investment advice offered by the stock selling experts.
I sold all my stocks in 1996 and put my money in TIPS and IBonds paying 3.5 percent real. The last time I checked the numbers, I was ahead of the game for having done so.
If in 1996, one had instead invested $1,000 in Vanguard's Wellington fund they would have seen their investment grow to $3,508 at year-end 2011, for Balanced Index Fund $2,856, Star Fund $3,139, and for the Coffeehouse Portfolio $3,200. I think they all did rather well "in the game." As did many others Lazy "buy-hold-rebalance" Portfolios.
These results above were for lump sum investments. More typical for average investors are periodic investments over long periods of time. Google Simba's spreadsheats over at Bogleheads to see how other Lazy Portfolios have fared over extended periods of time using either lump sum or periodic investing. Mr. Bennett thinks his strategy of timing the S&P 500 Index is the only rational way to invest. I think the record shows Lazy Portfolios offer a simple an effective way of investing. And the record also shows his opinion that buy-hold-rebalance strategies are about to cause the "Second Great Depression" is just plain goofy.
Then why are we in an economic crisis, Carlyle?
Several different factors, Mr. Bennett. All related to home financing, not buy-hold-rebalance investment stratagies as you imagine.
Several different factors, Mr. Bennett. All related to home financing, not buy-hold-rebalance investment stratagies as you imagine.
Are you sure, Carlyle?
What if you are wrong?
No one knows everything. The Buy-and-Holders have this attitude that they have it all figured out and they can never acknowledge a mistake. I think Buy-and-Hold is a huge mistake that has caused a major financial crisis and that that financial crisis is going to worsen if we don't all get about the business of working together to fix the mistake.
You are entitled to your opinion. And I am entitled to mine. I hope it doesn't hurt your feelings that I sincerely believe that you made a big mistake when you elected to follow a Buy-and-Hold strategy, a mistake that has done both you and the entire society that you live in a great deal of harm.
Apparently Mr. Bennett took his money out of the market 15 years ago and is still waiting for the collapse that will send it low enough to warrant buying stock again.
If he is right, he will save a lot of money when the market finally tanks and make a lot of money if it recovers again. If he is wrong, he will still be waiting in another 15 years.
Its not really that much different than people waiting to win the lottery, expecting the apocalypse or believing the world will end in December. If they are wrong in the short run, they just reset their expectations.
If he is right, he will save a lot of money when the market finally tanks and make a lot of money if it recovers again. If he is wrong, he will still be waiting in another 15 years.
I think that's a fair statement, Ross. You are properly describing both the potential upside and the potential downside.
Buy-and-Hold was developed by serious, smart and good people. If those people got it right, Buy-and-Hold is the way to go. I don't say different.
What I think you are missing is that the same applies from the other perspective.
I sincerely believe that the serious, smart and good people who developed Buy-and-Hold made a mistake. If that's so, then Buy-and-Hold is NOT the way to go. And just as you point out that there is a downside to going with Valuation-Informed Indexing if the principles on which Valuation-Informed Indexing is based are wrong, it is also so that there is a downside to going with Buy-and-Hold if the principles on which Buy-and-Hold is based are wrong.
We need to figure out which one of these two models for understanding stock investing is right and which of them is wrong. We must do this. The future of our economy depends on us getting this one right.
No one should go just by what I say. But no one should go just by what you say either. And no one should go just by what John Bogle says or what Bill Bernstein says or what Robert Shiller says or what the author of the article that kicked off this discussion says.
The answer is for all of us to talk these matters over until we all come to a clearer understanding. I've been arguing for ten years now that we all should be encouraging such discussions. The Buy-and-Holders are very, very. very strongly opposed. Why?
If Buy-and-Hold is so great, why would anyone be worried that it will not stand up to informed scrutiny? If there is research supporting Buy-and-Hold, why can't the Buy-and-Holders just provide the URL for the study? No one ever does that when I ask these questions. They often say that my claims are "goofy," like Carlyle does above. But they rarely (there are a small number of exceptions) offer a reasoned case for their position.
You believe what you believe. I think it is fine that you share what you believe with us here. I'd like to think that you think that it is fine that I share what I believe too. Do you?
My thought is that, if there is even a one in a thousand chance that you are wrong, we need to hear both sides. The risks of permitting just one point of view to be expressed are just too great for that ever to be an acceptable option, in my assessment.
Its not really that much different than people waiting to win the lottery, expecting the apocalypse or believing the world will end in December. If they are wrong in the short run, they just reset their expectations.
This is just what I see the Buy-and-Holders doing, Ross. Buy-and-Hold has been tried four times in history and it has caused a mass wipeout of all who followed it on each of those four occasions. But the Buy-and-Holders continue to come up with new explanations of why it is all going to turn out different this time. They see no gains for 12 years and they blame the economy instead of their investment strategy.
What if it is this investment strategy that causes the economy to fail each time it becomes popular? How would you ever know if you are not even willing to look at the possibility that Buy-and-Hold was just a big mistake going back to the first day?
They see no gains for 12 years and they blame the economy instead of their investment strategy.
Instead of Mr. Bennett's opinions, let us instead look at facts.
Simba's spreadsheat for backtesting over at Bogleheads contains data from 1985-2010 for 25 Lazy Portfolios. As he's not yet updated the spreadsheat to include 2011 returns, I'll use 2010 as the endpoint for the last 12 years.
Rather than no gain for the last 12 year period, we see that CAGR for the 25 portlolios ranged from a high of 8.89% to a low of 3.87%.
Let's look at just four of the portfolios as a sample of the larger group. For the period 1999-2010, Vanguard's Wellington Income Fund shows a CAGR of 6.39% and $10,000 invested in 1999 would have grown to $21,036 (Total Rebalanced Nominal) or $15,730 (Total Rebalanced Real) by the end of 2010. Bill Bernstein's No Brainer Portfolio: 5.04%, $18,033, $13,485. Bill Schultheis' Coffeehouse Portfolio: 6.67%, $21,704, $16,230. And Scott Burns' Couch Potato Portfolio: 5.33%, $18,641, $13,939.
No gain? As often is the case when examining Mr. Bennett's opinions, we see in this instance as well that his opinion is unencumbered by any factual evidence.
Mr. Bennett, feel free to use Simba's wonderful resource to look at returns for Lazy Portfolios. Though the Bogleheads do not allow you to participate by posting at their discussion board, you still have unfettered access to the spreadsheat. I think most people will be rather impressed by the returns for the Lazy Portfolios for the 1985-2010 time frame. As those figures don't support your own narrative, I suspect you will not.
As often is the case when examining Mr. Bennett's opinions, we see in this instance as well that his opinion is unencumbered by any factual evidence.
Please take a moment to read those words back to yourself and ask yourself if you want to represent your position through the use of that sort of tone. It doesn't add. It subtracts.
Now —
You say: "Simba's spreadsheat for backtesting over at Bogleheads contains data from 1985-2010 for 25 Lazy Portfolios."
Do you not see the problem there?
Stocks were priced well in 1985. It is not until 1996 that stock prices reached insanely dangerous levels. You would expect stocks to perform well from 1985 through 1995. You didn't get good results for those years because you followed a Buy-and-Hold strategy. You got good results for those years because stocks were priced to provide good results.
It's from 1996 forward that stocks have been priced to provide poor results. And — Surprise! Surprise! — stocks have indeed provided poor results from 1996 forward.
That's the way it works. That's the way it has always worked. Stocks always provide good long-term results when priced well and stocks always provide poor long-term results when priced poorly. Why would anyone think it would be any different (but for the hundreds of millions of dollars that Wall Street spends trying to persuade us that this is going to be the first time when all the rules are going to change and Buy-and-Hold is going to finally work out well for the long-term investor)?
You're entitled to your opinion, Carlyle. But the stuff about what I am saying not being based on facts is wrong. The historical return data is public information. Anyone reading these words can check out the data. For 140 years, it has been playing out the way I say. We are talking numbers here.
Though the Bogleheads do not allow you to participate by posting at their discussion board
What does that tell you, Carlyle?
The Bogleheads Forum promotes Buy-and-Hold Investing, does it not? There are people there who claim that Buy-and-Hold is supported by the academic research, are there not?
Why don't they permit posting by people who have a history of reporting what the academic research says accurately and honestly? Why is that such a problem for them?
There was a time when many people really thought that the data supported Buy-and-Hold. But that was 30 years ago. Shiller published his research showing that valuations affect long-term returns in 1981.
Is it not time to move on?
If an economic crisis is not enough to persuade you that it is at least time to permit discussion of the possibility of moving on, are you able to identify anything that could persuade you that places like the Bogleheads Forum should permit open and honest discussion of these questions?
Would seeing a Second Great Depression influence your thinking? If the economic crisis continues to worsen for another 10 years, would that be enough human suffering to cause you to open your mind a bit on these questions?
We are all on the same side, Carlyle. We are all trying to finance our retirements. Why the hostility? What is that about? What do you see as being the downside to permitting both points of view to be heard at every discussion board and blog on the internet?
"As often is the case when examining Mr. Bennett's opinions, we see in this instance as well that his opinion is unencumbered by any factual evidence."
Please take a moment to read those words back to yourself and ask yourself if you want to represent your position through the use of that sort of tone. It doesn't add. It subtracts.
Mr. Bennett, I can both add and subtract. If you cannot, I would at least hope you might have enough familiarity with arithmetic to be able to both observe and also to comprehend that I've shown your opinion that buy-hold-rebalance investors have seen no gain in their portolios over the past 12 years to be mistaken. I can understand why you're uncomfortable with my tone since you cannot support your opinions with any evidence, but instead rely soley upon verbosity.
It's from 1996 forward that stocks have been priced to provide poor results. And — Surprise! Surprise! — stocks have indeed provided poor results from 1996 forward.
Ok Mr. Bennett, once again I'll do the work for you since you seem unwilling to do so yourself.
From Simba's spreadsheat for backtesting at Bogleheads, this time using 1996 as the start date per your request. A time of "insanely dangerous" valuations in your opinion. For the period between 1996 and 2010; the highest annual return for one of the 25 Lazy Portfolios was 10.11% (9.22% CAGR) and for that of the lowest portfolio, 7.21% (6.80% CAGR).
Again, using the same four sample portfolios from my example above. [Please do feel free to go to the spreadsheat and check out the other portfolios at your convenience.] For the 15 year period beginning in 1996 and ending in 2010 (spreadsheat not yet updated with 2011 returns), Vanguard's Wellington Income Fund shows average annual returns of 9.10% (8.45% CAGR) and $10,000 invested in 1996 would have grown to $33,752 (Total Rebalanced Nominal) or $23,637 (Total Rebalanced Real) by year-end 2010. Bill Bernstein's No Brainer Portfolio; 8.63%/7.52%, $29,683, $20,788. Bill Schultheis' Coffeehouse Portfolio; 8.41%/7.84%, $31,039, $21,737. Scott Burns' Couch Potato Portfolio; 7.72%/7.17%, $28,254, $19,787. Do those really look like poor results to you, Mr. Bennett?
"Though the Bogleheads do not allow you to participate by posting at their discussion board."
What does that tell you, Carlyle?
That the Bogleheads have no desire to have their conversations constantly disrupted by Rob Bennett.
That the Bogleheads have no desire to have their conversations constantly disrupted by Rob Bennett.
There are a good number in that community who feel that way, Carlyle. That's a fact.
They are all Buy-and-Holders. That's also a fact.
A good number of non-Buy-and-Holders there told me that I was one of their favorite posters ever. And they said similar things about other posters who pointed out the dangers with Buy-and-Hold strategies.
The Buy-and-Holders who felt the way you do often employed the same tone you employ in the words above.
All of this tells a tale, in my assessment. I find it all very, very sad.
I do wish you the best with whatever investment strategies you elect to pursue in any event, Carlyle. I hope that there will come a day when we can talk in warm tones, as friends.
Again, using the same four sample portfolios from my example above. [Please do feel free to go to the spreadsheat and check out the other portfolios at your convenience.] For the 15 year period beginning in 1996 and ending in 2010 (spreadsheat not yet updated with 2011 returns), Vanguard's Wellington Income Fund shows average annual returns of 9.10% (8.45% CAGR) and $10,000 invested in 1996 would have grown to $33,752 (Total Rebalanced Nominal) or $23,637 (Total Rebalanced Real) by year-end 2010. Bill Bernstein's No Brainer Portfolio; 8.63%/7.52%, $29,683, $20,788. Bill Schultheis' Coffeehouse Portfolio; 8.41%/7.84%, $31,039, $21,737. Scott Burns' Couch Potato Portfolio; 7.72%/7.17%, $28,254, $19,787. Do those really look like poor results to you, Mr. Bennett?,
I take it you don't want to answer my question. Terribly sorry the facts failed to support your narrative.
I want you to get past your hostility so that you can understand the answers I give to your questions, Carlyle. We are not lawyers in a courtroom placed in circumstances in which, if one person wins, the other loses. We are both on the same side. If we learn something new about how investing works, we both (and lots and lots and lots of others) win.
You are cherry-picking results, Carlyle. The proper way to check whether Buy-and-Hold works is to test what the Buy-and-Holders said would work at the time they were promoting Buy-and-Hold. The Buy-and-Holders for many years said that a broad index fund like the S&P would work. It didn't. Now they change the story.
It's too late to change the story, Carlyle. Millions of people have already followed the advice the Buy-and-Holders were giving for years and have already suffered the financial consequences for having done so. Those people cannot go back in time and use your after-the-fact cherry-picked choices.
And even those cherry-picked choices will not work when you count in the 65 percent price drop that we are likely to see over the next few years. You don't want to count that. But the 65 percent price drop still ahead of us is a very important part of this story, a part that cannot be ignored by any investor truly seeking to invest for the long term.
Buy-and-Hold is rooted in the Efficient Market Hypothesis. If the EPH is legitimate, Buy-and-Hold works. I certainly don't say different. The reason why I speak out so strongly in opposition to Buy-and-Hold is that I am aware of the 30 years of academic research showing that the market is not efficient, that valuations affect long-term returns.
If the market is efficient, each day is a new day. The returns we saw 10 years ago or 15 years ago have nothing to do with the returns we will see this year and next year and the year after. That's why you don't count the 65 percent price drop we have coming up ahead.
If the market is not efficient (that is, if valuations affect long-term returns), the returns experienced in earlier years affect the returns we will be seeing next year and the year after. If Shiller is right (as I believe) and not Fama (as you believe), then the out-of-control bull market of the 1990s was being financed by today's investors. We were as a nation incurring trillions upon trillions of credit-card debt that our later selves would have to pay off. Those of us living today and those of us who will still be here a few years from now are the ones who have to pay off that debt.
The direct Buy-and-Hold debt is $12 trillion. Including indirect effects, the number rises to something in excess of $20 trillion. The entire Federal debt that we have accumulated going all the way back to the days of George Washington is something in the neighborhood of $15 trillion. So with Buy-and-Hold we are talking about a debt not only larger than the annual budget deficit, something you hear discussed as a great calamity all the time, but something larger than the entire Federal debt (the aggregation of ALL the annual budget deficits going back to the founding our our nation). It's a big, big, big. big. big number.
If you think that paying off that debt is not going to cause a 65 percent price drop (remember, this is what we have seen in the wake of every out-of-control bull market in U.S. history and none of the earlier bull markets were anything close to as out-of-control as the one we saw in the 1990s), then you and I just disagree. People don't always agree. That's where it stands.
You are allowed to disagree, Carlyle. That's 100 percent healthy and good. What's not so healthy and good is this tone that comes through in your posts that other community members are not allowed to disagree with you. Please think about what it means if what I am saying here is right. It means that the entire economic and political system that we all benefit from is about to go down. Game Over.
It doesn't have to be that way. The other side of the story is that, when you combine Shiler's insights with the many powerful and genuine insights developed by the Buy-and-Holders, you have a stock investing strategy that diminishes the risk of stock investing by 80 percent (this can be shown with numbers) while greatly increasing returns and permitting us all to retire five to ten years sooner than we ever before thought possible. We become the luckiest group of investors ever to walk the planet, if we ever care to become that.
Think what it would mean if we could tell people what they need to know. The increased confidence people would have in their financial futures would cause them to start spending again and the increased spending would bring about the greatest period of economic growth we have ever seen. We would be able to pay off that huge debt we acquired in years when we didn't know better and enjoy the fruits of the many genuine insights of the Buy-and-Holders for many years to come.
There's only one thing holding us back today, Carlyle. We have all the research we need. We have all the calculators we need. We have all the podcasts we need. We have lots of people who have thought carefully about these questions for many years. We lack one thing. We lack a way to get the word out to the millions of middle-class investors who need to learn about these things and who need to be able to ask questions in a place where they feel safe to do so.
That's where you can help us all out, Carlyle. Can we count on your support?
I sold all my stocks in 1996 and put my money in TIPS and IBonds paying 3.5 percent real. The last time I checked the numbers, I was ahead of the game for having done so.
Let's say instead you'd purchased shares in Vanguard's Wellington Income Fund. A $10,000 investment in 1996 would have grown to $33,752 by year end 2010. If we now have the 65% drop in stocks you say is imminent, then the value of your holdings would decrease by $13,163 (Wellington holds 60% stocks for a dollar total of $20,251; 65% of $20,251 equals $13,163) leaving you with an account balance of $20,589. You could use Simba's spreadsheat to "check the numbers" to see how investments in other Lazy Portfolios would have worked out for you.
Whether you're "ahead of the game" depends upon how much your alternative investment had grown from 1996 to 2010. As I've shown, for each $10,000 invested in Wellington you would now have $33,752. Did your chosen investment surpass that figure?
No Mr. Bennett, cherry picking is when you look at the historical returns record and based on that data, determine what would have been the optimal level of stocks to hold at each particular PE10 level and what PE10 level had proved to be the most advantageous to use as a signal for switching between stocks and fixed income. You know, a entirely hypothetical and backwards looking project. Like the one used to construct valuation informed investing.
Can we count on your support?
Are you able to address the emotional aspect of the question, Carlyle?
Say that you are 100 percent right in everything you say and that I am 100 percent wrong in everything I say. How do you explain the intense emotionalism that comes through in all your posts?
If people talked this way about any other subject, other people in the room would take note of that, no? Why don't they take note of it when the subject is Buy-and-Hold Investing? I think it's because LOTS of us are caught up in the emotionalism inherent in this strategy and we cannot bear to hear what the numbers really say.
There are some Buy-and-Holders who disagree with things I say but who express themselves in far more reasoned and friendly and warm ways. Jacob, over at My Personal FInance Journey, is a great example. I had a Guest Blog ever there today. Jacob put forward both positive and negative comments re Valuation-Informed Indexing. I feel that I can have a good back-and-forth with him because he evidences an openness to the other point of view (while not entirely buying into it).
I don't get that from you, Carlyle. And I don't mean that as a personal dig. The reality is that I don't get it from a LOT of Buy-and-Holders. And Buy-and-Holders rarely speak up when they see people on "their side" behaving in this way. I find that terribly, terribly unfortunate.
An investing strategy that makes people behave that way is not for me, Carlyle. I presume that you don't see it, so you don't agree. But all I feel that I can say for the benefit of any community members listening in is that there is something that just isn't right about this investing strategy any which way you cut it. It's anti-human.
It's not all about numbers, Carlyle. People can play with numbers in a million different ways once they become committed to rationalizing in defense of an investment strategy. I think that all the Buy-and-Holders who hold the numbers up to their chests are just fooling themselves. And I think more and more ordinary people are catching on every day. At least they are beginning to ask questions and to wonder whether they have been sold a bill of goods.
As I say above, I also believe that the Buy-and-Holders are responsible for some truly breakthrough insights and I believe that the best way to show our gratitude to them is to help them see that some changes very much need to be made. I am going to continue working to see those changes adopted in the real world and to get us all working together toward realization of life-affirming goals.
My guess is that these words will make you even more angry. There's nothing I can do about that, you know? My experience with you on many boards and blogs is that just about every word in the English language makes you angry once you learn that it is being said by someone trying to warn his fellow community members about the dangers of Buy-and-Hold.
I think you are on the wrong track, Carlyle. Still, I acknowledge that I could be wrong here — I've been wrong about things in the past and I would probably be the last to know if it were happening once again. I certainly wish you the best in all your future life endeavors in any event.
Please take care, my old friend.
Oh, I understand perfectly Mr. Bennett. Or should I say Hocus? I have some familiarity with you. I have posed questions to you that you were unable or unwilling to answer. Invariably in any discussion you're involved with, there comes a point when faced with factual evidence that contradicts your various assumptions you begin a routine of circular arguments quickly followed by the assertion that the other party is being emotional. The psychological term for that is projection.
Again, since I'm familiar with you and your behavioral patterns, I know your ego compels you to always get in a last word (or more correctly, a last dig). And you have the time and inclination to continue this exchange ad infinitum. Me, not so much. Good day, Mr. Bennett.
Oh, I understand perfectly Mr. Bennett. Or should I say Hocus?
I don't understand this one, Carlyle. You can call me "Rob" if you like. If the "Mr. Bennett" thing makes you happy, that's accurate. "Hocus" is a screen-name I used for a long time on a number of discussion boards. That's accurate enough too, but it's sort of dated.
I know your ego compels you to always get in a last word
Last words should not be an issue on blog threads. The way it should work is that we both get to express our point of view. We don't need any of this nasty calling-people-out stuff. Ditch that junk, man. If you have a genuine question, by all means ask it and I will try to help out. But questions should not be asked just for the purpose of being argumentative. That serves no helpful purpose.
Discussions are held both here and elsewhere all the time on topics other than Buy-and-Hold without these sorts of problems coming up. I think we all should be asking ourselves what it is about Buy-and-Hold that makes discussions of its merits or lack thereof proceed in such strange ways.
(or more correctly, a last dig).
Is it a personal dig if I say that I believe that your investing strategy makes you overly emotional? If it is, how do we talk about this aspect of the question? My aim is to help people understand what is going on here. There's obviously something mighty strange going on. Should we ignore that?
I'm happy that you got to say that you like Buy-and-Hold. I don't. But, as I noted above, I could be wrong. So it's good that people get to hear another side of the story. I view that part of your comments as a positive. My preference would be if you would just express your own viewpoint and then let it go (or ask questions re which you have a sincere interest in hearing the answer).
Good day, Mr. Bennett
I wish you the best, Carlyle. You hang in there.


text:
Ameren.com Website and Mobile Application
PLEASE READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE OR MOBILE APPLICATION. Your use of the Ameren Corporation ("Ameren") website (the "Website") and mobile application (the "application") is expressly conditioned on your acceptance of the following terms and conditions. By using the Website or application, you signify your assent to these terms and conditions. If you do not agree with any part of the following terms and conditions, you must not use the Website or application.


text:
Click here to read the latest issue
Browse Sections:
Weather Cams:
Cape Canaveral
Treasure Coast
Courtesy of JoesDiscoWeatherCentral.com
Now browsing: Hometown News > News > Indian River County
By Jessica Tuggle
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY -- Riverside Park is known for hosting many happy events during the year, but next year, the park will also be home to a yappy event.
The inaugural Bark in the Park, a fundraising walk benefiting the Humane Society of Vero Beach and Indian River County, will take place on Jan. 19 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the park on the water.
Usually only service dogs are allowed in the city-owned park, but event organizers received a special permit from the city to hold the event, said Tim Swift, development director for the animal shelter.
Bark in the Park will include a dog walk, demonstrations by champion dogs and law enforcement K9s, music, vendors, food and beverages and a dog agility course.
The vendors will donate a portion of the proceeds to the animal shelter, but the major part of the fundraising effort will be during the dog walk, Mr. Swift said.
The event website has a donation button where people can make an outright donation or find their friends who are walking and donate to them specifically, he said.
In keeping with the doggy theme, individuals can walk the 1.5-mile course as "strays," or with a "pack," Mr. Swift said.
"Using the web page, you can send an email to all of your contacts saying support me and make a pledge," he said.
"I was amazed, I raised about $1,400 in two days!" Mr. Swift said.
The dog walk, or dog parade, idea has been used in other cities and states and met with great success in places such as Fort Lauderdale and Denver, where the walks are annual community events.
"It's a walk, not a race by any means. People are free to come and walk, they don't have to pay, but if they do raise money and sign up they get a T-shirt and a bandana for their dog," said Mr. Swift.
The credit for organizing the event goes to the Young Professionals Network of Indian River County or "The Yuppie Puppies" as the Humane Society staff has dubbed them.
"This is a new (fundraising) approach for us. This really is a tremendous effort by the Yuppie Puppies, the idea came from them and we're really lucky to have the volunteers because this is much bigger than we can do," Mr. Swift said.
During the event, participants and onlookers will be treated to exhibitions by The Disc-Connected K9s, world champion Frisbee dogs.
The dogs were rescued from animal shelters and trained to perform incredible tricks that require speed and agility.
Like the dogs and other animals at the county animal shelter, the champion dogs first had to have support from the community to keep them alive.
The Humane Society has to raise 43 percent of its annual budget, about $1.6 million.
"We're always trying to close that gap," Mr. Swift said.
To sign up, or for more information about Bark in the Park, call (772) 388-3826 or visit www.barkintheparkvero.org.
Legal Notices
Join our Mailing List:
Crossword Puzzle:
Click here for this week's crossword puzzle
Archives Calendar:
Search Stories:
Order Photos
© Copyright 2005 CityHost411.com
Powered by CityHost411


text:
Letters and Politics, for July 16, 2012 - 10:00am
Download this clip (mp3, 10.27 megabytes)
Play this clip in your Computer's media player
More from this show: About the Show | Archives of this Show | Playlists from this Show
Letters and Politics, for July 16, 2012 - 10:00am
More from this show: About the Show | Archives of this Show | Playlists from this Show
Cole's either naive or misinformed. Rice has humanitarian motives? Look at her history. One thing that has nothing whatever to do with US foreign policy is humanitarian (or "democratic") concerns.
Again we have the canard of Syria "deploying death squads"...
...Remember the Maine? The Reichstag fire? The Tonkin Gulf 'incident'?
Can you spell INSIDE JOB? We know from his performance in last years
genocide in Libya that Juan Cole is an old hand at the art of studied
cluelessness in the face of the standard western psy ops. But instead
of blaming the may '84 press conference bombing on the Sandinistas
(targeted by the CIA's 'Psychological Operations in Guerilla Warfare'
instructions to "cause the death of...innocent...to be made use of
immediately against the regime") the murders being committed today in
Syria by our Al Qaeda linked 'contrarevolucionarios' (left over from
our crusade against Soviet socialism) are being blamed on the
socialist government there, targeted along with socialist Libya and
Iraq by Pentagon instructions to cause 'a useful wave of indignation'
from false flag operations like 'Northwoods' or (on 9-11-01) plans
for a "new Pearl Harbor" in the words of the Project for a New American Century.... .
According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ):
"Those killed were almost exclusively from families belonging to Houla's Alawi and Shia minorities. Over 90% of Houla's population are Sunnis. Several dozen members of a family were slaughtered, which had converted from Sunni to Shia Islam. Members of the Shomaliya, an Alawi family, were also killed, as was the family of a Sunni member of the Syrian parliament who is regarded as a collaborator. Immediately following the massacre, the perpetrators are supposed to have filmed their victims and then presented them as Sunni victims in videos posted on the internet." (Neue Erkenntnisse zu Getöteten von Hula.Abermals Massaker in Syrien, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 7, 2012 translated from the German,
preface: using small characters because i am weak with illnesses. also psychologically using small characters easier on my mind(think bauhaus, ee cummings,et al).
fine post. thanks for the link. unfortunately its no longer there: "error 404..." (whatever that means).british, oxford educated economist, "old labour"(democratic socialist) Martin Summers referred to Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on the same incident. i listen to pacifica more than any internet radio station. it is my main source for "the real news" and heart and mind of the former republic become post ww2 bloody empire:usa(see william blum, national security archives, et al). check out bcfm(bristol, england) politics program friday drivetime(2 hr program, once per week). excellent community and international news and commentary program. i stopped listening to the bbc two years ago. they are now as biased for the western corporate/military complex as fox "news". the bbc is just more subtle with its bias. they have to, we have uk government on the leash(bbc=usa empire lapdog, mouthpiece). thanks, dahszil,male,usa


text:
XML Catalog Manager (xmlcatmgr in its short form) is a small utility used
to manipulate SGML and XML catalogs. It is extremely small and lightweight,
specially designed to be run from packaging systems. Basically, it allows
adding and removing entries from catalogs in a completely automated way.
A catalog is a lookup mechanism used to translate entities into other
different entities. They can, for example, map public identifiers to
local files or URIs. This allows you to tell the parser where to look
for entities without having to modify the original document source.
WWW: http://xmlcatmgr.sourceforge.net/
This port is required by:
To install the port: cd /usr/ports/textproc/xmlcatmgr/ && make install cleanTo add the package: pkg install textproc/xmlcatmgr
cd /usr/ports/textproc/xmlcatmgr/ && make install clean
pkg install textproc/xmlcatmgr
===> The following configuration options are available for xmlcatmgr-2.2:
DOCS=on: Build and/or install documentation
===> Use 'make config' to modify these settings
Number of commits found: 20
Trim header.
- Use OPTIONS_DEFINE.
- Add STAGEDIR support.
Add NO_STAGE all over the place in preparation for the staging support (cat:
- Use SUB_FILES for pkg-{install,deinstall,message}.
- Replace a literal ${PREFIX} with %%PREFIX%% [*].
PR: ports/164903 [*]
-remove MD5
- Switch SourceForge ports to the new File Release System: categories starting
with T,U,V
Approved by: krion@
Fix pkg-plist.
Spotted by: kris
Approved by: portmgr (kris)
Update to 2.2.
Update to 2.1, which is the second stable version of the 2.x branch,
released on 2004/05/02.
* Fixed an attribute name when parsing the `uri' tag in XML catalogs; it
expects `name', not `uriId'.
* Fixed a warning message when removing entries from an XML catalog.
* Added the `-p' flag which changes the behavior of the `add' action so
that new entries are prepended instead of appended.
* Improved consistency of the lookup action so that it behaves equally
for SGML and XML catalogs (this includes making XML lookup show all
matching entries).
Approved by: linimon (mentor)
Add size data, approved by maintainers.
- Update to 2.0beta1:
It recognizes two default catalog files (one for SGML, and another for XML)
and some bugs have been fixed.
PR: ports/62028
Submitted by: maintainer
- Update description
PR: ports/61550
Submitted by: hrs (maintainer)
Update to 2.0alpha2 which fixes the critical docbook-xsl bug reported in
Submitted by: maintainer
Add workaround to correctly install the docbook-xsl port.
A new release will come asap.
Submitted by: Mike Harding (bug), hrs (fix)
Approved by: nork (mentor/implicitly)
Update to 2.0alpha1 release. [1]
Correctly support NOPORTDOCS.
Submitted by: hrs
Approved by: nork (mentor)
- Update to 1.2
- Switch to using native (i.e. buildtool) build/install mechanism
This should give a bit more visibility to Buildtool,
which is a great BSD-licensed replacement for autoconf/automake disaster
Submitted by: sergei
Approved by: hrs (maintainer)
Update port: textproc/xmlcatmgr 1.1
Update to 1.1.
PR: ports/57955
Submitted by: Hiroki Sato <firstname.lastname@example.com>
Fix typo (s/ENV/SETENV/) and bump PORTREVISION.
Submitted by: hrs
Add xmlcatmgr 0.2, SGML/XML catalog manager.
PR: ports/53818
Submitted by: Hiroki Sato <firstname.lastname@example.com>
Servers and bandwidth provided byNew York Internet, SuperNews, and RootBSD
5 vulnerabilities affecting 12 ports have been reported in the past 14 days
* - modified, not new
All vulnerabilities