Is the stock market going to tank?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schuss

So she can run two companies into the ground?

---

Don’t believe the tech wimp whining:


“But one useful way to judge a CEO is by how the stock performed during his or her tenure. It is certainly not the only indicator, but it is a popular one. Marissa Mayer became CEO of Yahoo on July 16, 2012. On that day, the stock was at $15.69. Almost exactly four years later, the stock is at $38.90. That’s a 151% increase during Mayer’s tenure. And it’s more than double the 61% growth of the S&P in that time.”

Mayer cleaned the decks at a bloated yahoo (think pre musk Twitter) so the value of Alibaba and the other assets could be realized. Just think what kind of value Is locked up in GOOG should they choose to monetize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yeahman

Sure, but as bbear said, it ain't worth a frickin' dime until you sell it.

This is why I hate the stock market. I don't have the stomach for all the shoulda woulda coulda.

---

Index funds, my man... boring as all shit, but line goes up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4matic

Don’t believe the tech wimp whining:


“But one useful way to judge a CEO is by how the stock performed during his or her tenure. It is certainly not the only indicator, but it is a popular one. Marissa Mayer became CEO of Yahoo on July 16, 2012. On that day, the stock was at $15.69. Almost exactly four years later, the stock is at $38.90. That’s a 151% increase during Mayer’s tenure. And it’s more than double the 61% growth of the S&P in that time.”

Mayer cleaned the decks at a bloated yahoo (think pre musk Twitter) so the value of Alibaba and the other assets could be realized. Just think what kind of value Is locked up in GOOG should they choose to monetize.

---

Eh, the Asian investments that would make YHOO worth far more than Yahoo's core business were largely thanks to Jerry Yang. But sure, Mayer deserves some credit for doing the financial shuffle to unlock the value that Yang's investments had grown into (not that that value would have evaporated had she not done so during her tenure). I don't know that there's anything like a parallel situation for GOOG, GOOG's main asset being Google itself.

Big boys selling off.

Its coming.

Where the FUCK is NakedShorts?? This may be his time to shine.

:D

Who’s selling what? SP500 is down like 0.4%. What are we getting worked up over?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

Who’s selling what? SP500 is down like 0.4%. What are we getting worked up over?

---

NakedShort assured us that the END WAS NEAR.

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

Who’s selling what? SP500 is down like 0.4%. What are we getting worked up over?

---

Some news article about some hedge fund selling tech?

https://fortune.com/2024/03/03/what-...an-us-get-out/

Ah fuk it dude let's go bowling

looks like PSRHF struck that helium load… up 67% already today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobz

Eh, the Asian investments that would make YHOO worth far more than Yahoo's core business were largely thanks to Jerry Yang. But sure, Mayer deserves some credit for doing the financial shuffle to unlock the value that Yang's investments had grown into (not that that value would have evaporated had she not done so during her tenure). I don't know that there's anything like a parallel situation for GOOG, GOOG's main asset being Google itself.

---

Exactly this. She inherited a lottery ticket and yahoo has done largely Jack shit since. She fired a bunch of people to cut expenses and now they're an also-ran. They've even ruined their other brands (Engadget, autoblog) with a total lack of investment or tact. If they were gone tomorrow no one would care.
That's not the work of a good CEO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schuss

Exactly this. She inherited a lottery ticket and yahoo has done largely Jack shit since. She fired a bunch of people to cut expenses and now they're an also-ran. They've even ruined their other brands (Engadget, autoblog) with a total lack of investment or tact. If they were gone tomorrow no one would care.
That's not the work of a good CEO

---

That’s like saying Balmer set the table for Nadella. She did the job Yahoo needed at the time. It wasn’t worth saving.

She’s exactly what GOOG needs at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4matic

That’s like saying Balmer set the table for Nadella. She did the job Yahoo needed at the time. It wasn’t worth saving.

She’s exactly what GOOG needs at this point.

---

Goog needs a direction, not a slasher. They scale like crazy and are still making crazy money now and have a ton of talented people, they just need a place to point them, not a financial restructure.

Google prints money with search and Youtube revenue, but the company is a hollow shell of what it once was.

I was in a procurement roll at a company a decade ago and there was some functionality that we needed that Google's product didn't have that we needed. Google was strategically investing in the vertical that my company belonged to and built the product we needed in a week. The level of service and technical expertise as unparalleled when Google wanted to do something.

It has been a long slow slide to mediocrity since then. They make a huge amount of money, but they are no longer leaders in any particular vertical. The wife of a friend who works there is a recruiter and she is deeply incentivized on hiring DEI candidates. It is no longer the meritocracy that it once was.

TLDR- Google is to the millennial workforce what IBM was to the boomer workforce. It was once a great company where talented people aspired to work that has been culturally gutted by shitty management. The people who made it great have long since moved on or retired.

Anyone buying DJT? Would be fun to be part of the eventual class action lawsuit, but not worth it for me at this price. I wonder what number it needs to hit for Donny to cash out? Does Truth social have advertisers?

Or, is anyone shorting DJT?

How much money is Truth Social making?
It had more than $800 million in sales last year. Trump Media's Truth Social platform generated $3.3 million in revenue during the first nine months of 2023.

I found this interesting from yahoo finance:

"But there are very few DJT shares available to execute short trades, which makes it extremely costly to bet against the stock. That means elevated short interest is a strong indicator of negative views of the company’s prospects. “There is very little stock available to support new short sales,” Dusaniwsky said. “But short sellers are staying in this trade even while paying over 200 times the average stock borrow rate for a US short trade.”"

Re DJT I have no stomach to short anything which has cult characteristics.

Perhaps the classic SPAC play around the time of the unlock where locked up shareholders can sell. But that will be some time yet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeeLau

Re DJT I have no stomach to short anything which has cult characteristics.

---

Should have ignored your stomach. :D

DJT down 64%+ since the March 27th high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skaredshtles

Should have ignored your stomach. :D

DJT down 64%+ since the March 27th high.

---

Make that 68%+

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

Make that 68%+

---

https://media.giphy.com/media/PZusN3...giphy.gif&ct=g

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunion 2020

Or, is anyone shorting DJT?
Trump Media's Truth Social platform generated $3.3 million in revenue during the first nine months of 2023.

---

There are dental offices that do more revenue in a 9 month period.

PHG bet paid off.

I'm wondering how the higher for longer thing is going to play out for equities. So far it doesn't seem to be making a huge difference, since the total stock market indices are near all-time highs.

Will the $6 trillion on the sidelines flow to assets in a long-term inflationary environment, wait in money market funds for distressed assets to become available, or just hold onto yield in the money market funds?

If we do go into stagflation, wouldn't it be good to own assets instead of holding cash/ money market funds?

Wall Street salesman have been taking about money on the sidelines forever. Like decades and it never happens.

Opinions on financial advisors? Yay or nay?

Been talking to some since my dad's estate was settled. Standard procedure seems to be to give them every scrap of financial information about yourself so they can create a financial "plan" (I've never had one), then they want to take control of your assets and do their thing for a fee. And if you want access to your own money you need to go through them. I have a really hard time relinquishing control like that. Like, a really hard time. But the portfolio my dad left needs work. It is heavy on equities and has some concentrated positions that seem unwise to hold, but the unrealized gains make it tricky to deal with from a tax perspective. Maybe all I need to do is to work with my accountant?

I feel like if I could consult with somebody for a flat fee and develop a strategy on how to deal with the portfolio, I could implement it myself. It's not hard to click a mouse and move stuff around. But nobody I've found seems to want to do that type of consultation. They want a looooong relationship where they control your assets and the fees go on forever. Seems like a bit of a racket but maybe I'm being too cynical about this? Should I just submit to the system and pay somebody?

https://www.westendadvisors.com/

Some of my nut is w these ppl. 50/100k min portfolio value. .5/1% fees

My FA says they are tits. Rolling w it.

I can get my fa to chat w you via email for free most likely. He's over 1M buy in at this point. My family has been w JMS forever, this guy was picked as senior VP but the outgoing VP 80 yrs old. Manages 700 families.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yeahman

Opinions on financial advisors? Yay or nay?

Been talking to some since my dad's estate was settled. Standard procedure seems to be to give them every scrap of financial information about yourself so they can create a financial "plan" (I've never had one), then they want to take control of your assets and do their thing for a fee. And if you want access to your own money you need to go through them. I have a really hard time relinquishing control like that. Like, a really hard time. But the portfolio my dad left needs work. It is heavy on equities and has some concentrated positions that seem unwise to hold, but the unrealized gains make it tricky to deal with from a tax perspective. Maybe all I need to do is to work with my accountant?

I feel like if I could consult with somebody for a flat fee and develop a strategy on how to deal with the portfolio, I could implement it myself. It's not hard to click a mouse and move stuff around. But nobody I've found seems to want to do that type of consultation. They want a looooong relationship where they control your assets and the fees go on forever. Seems like a bit of a racket but maybe I'm being too cynical about this? Should I just submit to the system and pay somebody?

---

My GF is a financial planner (I confess to not knowing the ins and outs of "financial planner" vs "financial advisor" vs "investment advisor" or whatever other terms may exist). I know she does some stuff on a flat fee basis, and also has long term clients. So they're out there.

Try Vanguard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by up an down

Try Vanguard

---

I hope they have better services than their retail facing investor stuff, because while I like their products, their website sucks, and when I have called to talk to someone, the hold time was abysmal.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/fiduciary

Fiduciary duty vs. suitability standard


The main difference between a fiduciary duty and the suitability standard is that fiduciary duty means an advisor must act in the best interest of their clients. The suitability standard means a broker-dealer must have a reasonable belief that an investment, transaction or the frequency of transactions is suitable for the customer.

The Investment Advisers Act of 1940 states that an investment advisor (or anyone in the business of giving investment advice) has a fiduciary duty to their client
[COLOR=#005FB9 !important][4]
. The act itself calls these measures broad and doesn't provide specific regulations beyond requiring that advisors act in the best interest of a client.
[/COLOR]
The suitability standard is set by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA. The “reasonable belief” in the suitability standard leaves room for broker-dealers to recommend products that will increase their bottom line through commissions, but may not necessarily be the best investment for you.

Registered investment advisors are legally fiduciaries, but broker-dealers and other types of money managers are not. Some financial advisors, such as certified financial planners, may also be fiduciaries.

A broker-dealer is a broader term used to describe a person or firm that buys and sells securities on behalf of a client as well as for themselves or their organization. They aren't uniformly governed by a fiduciary duty, though under particular circumstances (such as state law), some may be held to a fiduciary standard.

If your financial advisor doesn't have a fiduciary duty to you, they may be able to recommend investments or products that pay them a bigger commission over ones that would be the best fit for you, which could cost you more. Fiduciaries, on the other hand, must act in your best interest. That's why it's considered better to work with a fiduciary rather than an advisor who is simply following the suitability standard.

How do I know if I'm working with a fiduciary financial advisor?


There are many different types of financial advisors, and beyond that, several certifications and licenses those advisors can hold. Few titles beyond investment advisor and broker-dealer are regulated at all, including common titles like “wealth advisor” and “financial advisor,” so it’s especially important to vet any potential advisors before committing to one.

The easiest way to verify that a potential advisor is a fiduciary financial advisor is to simply ask and then verify their status.

To check that they’re registered with the SEC, use FINRA’s BrokerCheck database
[COLOR=#005FB9 !important][5]
. If you’re working with an investment advisor firm, you can also check for an advisor’s Form ADV on the SEC’s IAPD page, which catalogs their registration with the SEC or state, along with disclosures about the firm, the firm’s business operations, and any misconduct the firm or advisor may have been involved in
[COLOR=#005FB9 !important][6][/COLOR]
.
[/COLOR]
Another way to ensure your advisor is a fiduciary is to work with a certified financial planner — a highly trained specialist with significant financial education and experience. The CFP code of ethics states that all CFPs “must act as a fiduciary, and therefore, act in the best interest of the client.”
[COLOR=#005FB9 !important][7]
So if you see the CFP designation, you know you’re in good hands. You can verify a CFP through the CFP Board’s website
[COLOR=#005FB9 !important][8][/COLOR]
.
[/COLOR]

I'll likely never have this "problem", but I thought inherited stock doesn't incur capital gains on any growth prior to your inheritance, but any change in value thereafter will likely trigger capital gains taxes when sold? If that is true, I would just sell the individual stocks and put in mix of vanguard ETF, like VOO, VYM, etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

My GF is a financial planner (I confess to not knowing the ins and outs of "financial planner" vs "financial advisor" vs "investment advisor" or whatever other terms may exist). I know she does some stuff on a flat fee basis, and also has long term clients. So they're out there.

---

Yes, fee for service financial advisors (or are they called financial planners?) are definitely a thing. For the reasons you outlined, it absolutely makes sense to use a fee-for-service planner if you can find one rather than someone that wants to manage your money forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

I hope they have better services than their retail facing investor stuff, because while I like their products, their website sucks, and when I have called to talk to someone, the hold time was abysmal.

---

Yep.. I dont trade anymore so the website problems don't bother me.. And I have never had a problem reaching my advisor.. But.. Vanguard has admitted in a round about way..that their tech is bad... And is now committing billions to upgrading it.. Time will tell if they succeed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 406

I'll likely never have this "problem", but I thought inherited stock doesn't incur capital gains on any growth prior to your inheritance, but any change in value thereafter will likely trigger capital gains taxes when sold? If that is true, I would just sell the individual stocks and put in mix of vanguard ETF, like VOO, VYM, etc

---

Correct. But if the inheritance is large enough there may be inheritance taxes from federal and state... I forgot to add... IRS rules apply if the inheritance is in a tax deferred account.

Yeahman, The search term you want is "fee-only" advisor/planner. You're absolutely on the right track in that situation. Tell the AUM advisors to fuck off.

You should just park it in an 80/20 etf portfolio equities to bonds. Everybody offers one that tracks the s&p 500 for basically zero money in fees. Same for a bond etf. When it comes time for you to retire, rebalance to 60/40. I just saved you 1% for life and you won't have to think about this at all.

Where an advisor provides value is if you have plans to get "creative" or have a multitude of different assets like real estate holdings, stock portfolios, & stakes in businesses. That adds complexity and you will want good advice, and you will also need a good accountant as well. A financial advisor is not going to do both of those tasks nor should you trust one to do both.

And if they start pushing annuities just tell them to fuck off and find somebody else. 9 times out of 10 they are just trying to hustle you for a commission.

Yeahman, sent you a PM but posting here because no idea if the shitty software will notify you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdironRider

You should just park it in an 80/20 etf portfolio equities to bonds. Everybody offers one that tracks the s&p 500 for basically zero money in fees. Same for a bond etf. When it comes time for you to retire, rebalance to 60/40. I just saved you 1% for life and you won't have to think about this at all.

Where an advisor provides value is if you have plans to get "creative" or have a multitude of different assets like real estate holdings, stock portfolios, & stakes in businesses. That adds complexity and you will want good advice, and you will also need a good accountant as well. A financial advisor is not going to do both of those tasks nor should you trust one to do both.

And if they start pushing annuities just tell them to fuck off and find somebody else. 9 times out of 10 they are just trying to hustle you for a commission.

---

That's fucking great advice.

and thats 1% per year those asset % fees get. for just doing the same thing. Thats a lot of fucking money. Lets say you get a reduced rate of say .5% of 2mil over 30 years. compounded at 5% thats 700k. They aren't providing more than 100k worth of value over that time period.

Do what AD says, and get a good CPA/CFP who is fee based.

Also, check on the step up in basis like has already been mentioned. Unless it was in an irrevocable trust already (pretty common scenario now adays. with your dad as income bene and you as remainderman which in that case in usually no step up) you should probably get it