Stocks & Investing

[PeregrineV]

Can't seem to find a thread for it, but wanted to have one for talk about stocks and other investments for discussion, advice, etc.

[PeregrineV]

Now that's it up, looking for some advice.

So far, 2 states have approved the legal use of medical marijuana at the state level. Despite any federal vs state arguments, the markets will do what they can while they can.

After Washington & Colorado kind of made headlines late last year, I checked into any companies publicly traded in early January. I found CannaVEST Corp selling at around $40 a share. I thought that was too high to jump in, but added it to my watchlist. Turns out it is now at $143 a share.

Since I think this will only get bigger, I'm looking at a smaller company, Medical Marijuana Inc, selling at about 32 cents a share. I passed it over the first time because it was only a few cents a share and I did not want to waste me money if it was a fly-by-night.

I'm probably going to get 1000 shares since it's not much money, but would like to hear any other opinions (financially) regarding it.

[PeregrineV]

Did you have a question specifically?

Currently, regarding post #2 above.


In general, I think a thread like this would be good to discuss ideas and share information.

[PeregrineV]

far more than 2 states have approved the legal use of medical marijuana, but only two states have approved the recreational use of marijuana.

Personally, I'd have better uses for $320+transaction fees, but I'm a somewhat low risk investor and tend to look for low cost index funds.

If I were investing in a volitile uncertain market, I'd try to diversify my holdings within that market. Unless you have reason to value the one company in particular over the market's valuation, I wouldn't sink it all into one company.

Did you have a question specifically?

Currently, regarding post #2 above.


In general, I think a thread like this would be good to discuss ideas and share information.

Right, right. But threads tend to start off more interesting if there's some focus.

It's in a retirement type account that I pulled from the pension of a former company. I could wait 20 more years and get $120 a month, or move it all over to a retirement account that let's me invest it. I currently have COP and HAS stocks as well as World Growth and Health Care-based mutual funds. This is just something fun to mess with sometimes, but since I also looked at TESLA and YAHOO before they popped but had no resources, I figured $328.95 of money I can't use may be useful in the long run.

[PeregrineV]

Here is a half-article along with some other companies. A brief click on the 3m pricing shows jumps in all of them.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2005141 ... bis-stocks

[PeregrineV]

jumps in past price don't mean more likely future jumps in price.

I know. But I like to speculate on emerging companies, especially based on current or future technological, social, legislative, and/or cultural changes.

Health Care I selected because of America's aging Baby Boomer population will affect those types of companies.

World Growth, because the world is a big place, and most are only in a position to go up.

[PeregrineV]

Spoiler: Full text of the article above

Getting The Dope On These OTC Cannabis Stocks
Feb. 7, 2014 4:30 PM ET | 101 comments | Includes: CBIS, GRNH, HEMP, MJNA, PHOT
Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More...)
Know what you own, and know why you own it. - Peter Lynch

Introduction

And so the party continues; all around the country retail investors with dreams of hitting it big in the next emerging industry, pot stocks, continue to pile in and bid up the prices of certain OTC stocks. The names of these companies have been well circulated on boards such as Yahoo Finance and Investors Hub. It has even gotten to a point that certain media outlets like MoneyNews and the New York Post have started to raise awareness and caution potential investors. I've done a couple of articles on these companies already (here and here). I focused on retail investors as my audience and disclosed the inherent risks associated with not just these particular companies, but the OTC market as well. Since then, these stocks have been whipsawed back and forth, and retail investor speculation has only increased. But do retail investors really know what they are buying?

This article will disclose the actual businesses of these companies, highlight the competitive environment in which they operate, and do a comparison of current market value and growth expectations relative to average industry growth rates and values. The companies covered in this article are:

Medical Marijuana, Inc. (OTCPK:MJNA)
Hemp, Inc. (OTCPK:HEMP)
GreenGro Technologies, Inc. (OTCPK:GRNH)
Growlife Inc. (OTCQB:PHOT)
Cannabis Science, Inc. (OTCQB:CBIS)
Background

For the most part, retail investors speculating on these stocks have the impression that they are buying into companies that are at the forefront of either the medical or recreational marijuana industry. They believe that as additional states de-criminalize the drug that sales and revenue will skyrocket, justifying the already outrageous market capitalization they have attained. But you may be surprised when you actually find out what business these companies are in, and what kind of competition is actually out there.

As part of our investigation in these stocks, once we identify which industry the company operates (or is planning to enter based on management statements), we can evaluate the company's current value relative to its individual industry using a few assumptions. As a proponent of DuPont Analysis to track companies over a medium to long term (3-10 years), we will use 5 year growth rates, industry average price to sales, and return on assets.

Industry Capital Goods/ Farm Products Specialty Retail Internet Information providers Processed and Packaged Goods Personal Products
P/S 1.8 0.5 2.2 0.8 1.8
ROA 8.44 12.01 11.66 7.15 13.03
5yr Growth Rate 3.18 9.7 31.86 7.41 3.59
We will make the following assumptions:

Industry growth rates will continue at 5 year average
Individual company growth rates will compound annually from a market consisting of the populations of Colorado and Washington state, to the entire U.S. Population in 5 years, 19.23%
Individual companies will plow back (re-invest) 100% of their sales proceeds into the business over the next 5 years.
Assets acquired are efficiently utilized with absolutely no depreciation.
Each of these assumptions is either reasonable (industry growth rates) or extremely generous to each of the companies.

For each company, the analysis will calculate the potential growth rate based on the assumptions above (illustrated by green in each graph) and the potential sales growth required by the company to achieve that growth (illustrated by blue in each graph). Then we will look at current market value of the stock and calculate the growth rate retail investors are speculating (illustrated by red in each graph) and the associated growth in sales that would be needed to achieve that rate (illustrated by purple in each graph). At that point, retail investors can compare current value with a generous valuation based of the assumptions above. That way investors can get an idea of what kind of potential these stock have going forward.

People don't like the idea of thinking long term. Many are desperately seeking short term answers because they have money problems to be solved today. - Robert Kiyosaki

Medical Marijuana, Inc.

(click to enlarge)


The first company is the hardest for retail investors to wrap their minds around. The company's background reads like a classic shell company model although it claims to never have been one. It is solely a holding company for a portfolio of businesses associated with the hemp industry, and includes brands such as Dixie Botanticals and CanChew gum. It's storied history is well documented and includes a recent lawsuit over the acquisition of Red Dice Holdings and a DTC Chill on the stock that frustrated retail investors for over a year.

Additionally, the company does not (at this time) have anything to do with marijuana. To quote the company, "So that it is clear, MJNA does not grow, sell or distribute marijuana under any circumstances as defined by the USCSA. Red Dice Holdings does sell hemp based products through Dixie Botanicals where these products are legalized and controlled." Obviously, the company has intentions to enter the industry, or wants potential investors to think they will eventually enter the industry. For now, they are limited to the hemp industry and associated cannabinoids.

So, given the plethora of articles and analyst opinions available on this particular company, we will leave the business description here, and look further in the competitive environment.

Because the hemp industry is so broad in nature, the list of competitors is exhaustive. For our purposed, we will consider Dixie Botanicals product like oils, salves and creams and CanChew products such as its chewing gum and non-medicinal edibles. Here is a very small list of relavent competitors:

Hemp Traders
Living Harvest
Nature's Alchemy
Jarrow Formulas
Nutiva
Dastony
Manitoba Harvest
Natura
So, obviously, Medical Marijuana Inc. does not have a lock on the hemp/cannabinoid market. So, is there reason to believe that the company, just because its shares are publicly traded on the OTC, will rule the consumer botanical market or successfully compete with deep pocketed industrial giants if they ever enter the marijuana industry?

To make sure we cover all bases with this company, we are going to do our analysis twice. Once using data from the personal products industry (oils, salves, and creams) that includes companies like Revlon, Estee Lauder, Physicians Formula Holdings, and Natural Health Trends, and once using data from the processed and packaged goods industry (gums and non-medicinal edibles) that includes companies like Meade Johnson Nutrition, Smart Balance Inc, and Hain Celestial. That way, based on the diverse portfolio of the company, we can assume that it will fall somewhere in between.

As a Personal Products company, our assumptions result in a compound annual growth rate of 22.8% for the company. To attain this overall rate, the company would need to grow sales at an annual rate of 387% per year for the next five years. However, based on the current stock price, the market is assuming an annual compound growth rate of 207%. In order to achieve that, the company would have to grow sales at a 1132% rate.

As a Processed and Packaged Goods company, our assumptions result in a compound annual growth rate of 26.6% for the company. To attain this overall rate, the company would need to grow sales at an annual rate of 1672% per year for the next five years. However, based on the current stock price, the market is assuming an annual compound growth rate of 1339%. In order to achieve that, the company would have to grow sales at a 20,139% rate.

I'm not so certain the sales growth rates the market is currently projecting can be achieved. While MJNA is a well diversified company, expecting compound annual growth rates between 1,000% and 20,000% is unrealistic, and I am unable to fathom any justification for rates that high. Provided the company can mainstream its existing business lines, and since most of their existing business lines are already marketable to the entire US population, moderate growth rates consistent with the industry averages would be more realistic.

If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat? - Pink Floyd

Hemp, Inc.

(click to enlarge)


Hemp, Inc. states that it is focused on the emerging medical marijuana industry. The revenues earned come from sales of botanicals within the broader hemp industry, placing them along side Medical Marijuana, Inc. as a consumer products company. The company states, "The company does not cultivate, distribute or possess marijuana." However, the company has also stated that its intention is to enter the social networking and educational aspect of the industry.

The company contemplates becoming involved in a social networking media via the internet to connect industry participants and serve their information needs. The company also plans to pursue providing a full curriculum to educate participants in the industry both through live seminars as well as via the internet. The company intends to offer industry-related products and services where economically feasible. Finally, the company is developing a website providing entertainment and news which affect industry participants.

Ok, so the door is open to maybe providing medicinal or recreational marijuana products some time in the future (if economically feasible). But for now, the stated objective is to shift from consumer products (hemp based botanicals) to information technology (social networking, news, and entertainment). Perhaps Hemp, Inc. feels the margins associated with their existing business line are not competitive with respect to the list of competitors above. And how serious the company is with respect to this strategy is uncertain. But given the recent press releases, announcements, and spin-out/dividend of the non-traded (as of yet) stock, BioAdaptive, Inc, the company is obviously moving away from the consumer products/botanicals market.

However, the strategy announced by management places them directly in competition with the likes of Facebook (FB) and Twitter (TWTR), not to mention major media distributors. So, is it rational to believe that this company, just because its shares are publicly traded on the OTC, will be able to directly compete with media giants? Or can we expect yet another switch in strategic planning back to consumer products or some other unrelated business line as convenience dictates?

As an Internet and Information Provider company, our assumptions result in a compound annual growth rate of 51.1% for the company. To attain this overall rate, the company would need to grow sales at an annual rate of 195% per year for the next five years. However, based on the current stock price, the market is assuming an annual compound growth rate of 211%. In order to achieve that, the company would have to grow sales at a 569% rate.

Again, I'm not so certain the sales growth rates the market is currently projecting can be achieved. Because the company has made many different changes to its strategic planning over the past year, and because the firm lacks experience and even systems within the internet and information provider sector, I'd consider the baseline scenario overly ambitious and unrealistic.

Make a joke you I will sigh and you will laugh and I will cry - Black Sabbath

GreenGro Technologies, Inc.

(click to enlarge)


GreenGro Technologies designs, manufactures, and markets vertical cultivation systems. It has also sought to partner with others to lease and develop a farmers market in Buena Park, California, with the intention of building a greenhouse to show and promote its indoor cultivation system. This company has become a favorite on the OTC because many retail investors believe that it will be the leader in providing greenhouse solutions to marijuana farmers. However, the company has less than $5,000 in the bank as of the last quarterly report, had an accumulated deficit of more than $3MM and a net loss of just under $1MM. As a result, the company stated:

While the Company believes in the viability of its strategy to generate revenues and in its ability to raise additional funds, there can be no assurances to that effect. The ability of the Company to continue as a going concern is dependent upon the Company's ability to further implement its business plan and generate revenues.

To make matters worse, any "farmer" that would approach a company with such limited cash resources to produce vertically integrated growing systems could go to:

Vertical Garden Systems
Vertical Hydroponic
Super Closet Hydroponic Grow Systems
Sun State Organics
Hydro-Stacker LLC
So, to think that a company that does not have significant working capital could manufacture commercial grade indoor growing systems (greenhouses) and directly compete with the likes of AgraTech, Inc. Atlas Manufacturing, or Poly-Tex is irrational.

As a Processed and Packaged Goods company, our assumptions result in a compound annual growth rate of 28.9% for the company. To attain this overall rate, the company would need to grow sales at an annual rate of 203% per year for the next five years. However, based on the current stock price, the market is assuming an annual compound growth rate of 663%. In order to achieve that, the company would have to grow sales at a 1718% rate.

With this one too, I'm not so certain the sales growth rates the market is currently projecting can be achieved. Provided the company can expand its existing business lines, and successfully launch its farmers market operation, moderate growth rates consistent with the industry averages would be more realistic. However, keep in mind that the market the firm will have will be limited in scope and unable to expand beyond the Buena Park, California area.

What's the frequency, Kenneth? - R.E.M.

Growlife Inc.

(click to enlarge)


GrowLife, Inc. is another holding company in this space. It has multiple business lines that manufacture and supply gardening equipment and supplies. The company specifically mentions "equipment and expendables for growing of medical marijuana" in their business description. Businesses include SGT, Growlife Hydroponics, Urban Garden, 58Hydro.com, Phototron, Rocky Mountain Hydroponics, Evergreen Garden Centers and Greners, including Greners.com and 58Hydro.com. The company has become a darling of the OTC for the same reasons that GreenGro Tech. above has.

However, similar to our above example, Growlife Inc. has issued a going concern for the business:

For the nine months ended September 30, 2013, the Company incurred a net loss of $4,604,642 and cash used in operations was $1,036,947. The Company has experienced recurring operating losses and negative operating cash flows since inception, and has financed its working capital requirements during this period primarily through the recurring issuance of notes payable and advances from a related party. These facts indicate that there is substantial doubt of the Company's continuation as a going concern.

Now, Growlife has a much larger cash position of almost $200,000 on the balance sheet and more than $1.3MM in revenues. But given the above burn rate and loss, it's no surprise that the company filed a Form D exempt offering of $40MM of warrants. Which begs the question, is it rational to believe that this company, just because its shares are publicly traded on the OTC and it includes the words "medical marijuana" in filings, will be able to directly compete with the same manufacturing companies listed above and not dilute current shareholders?

As a Processed and Packaged Goods company, our assumptions result in a compound annual growth rate of 22.4% for the company. To attain this overall rate, the company would need to grow sales at an annual rate of 122% per year for the next five years. However, based on the current stock price, the market is assuming an annual compound growth rate of 159%. In order to achieve that, the company would have to grow sales at a 377% rate.

And again, I'm not so certain... nevermind, you get the idea. To the company's credit, the portfolio of products being offered are diverse, but to assume the company can successfully compete beyond average industry growth rates is unrealistic. Additionally, since the company already has market exposure throughout the U.S., even the baseline scenario is too generous.

And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes, I'll see you on the dark side of the moon - Pink Floyd

Cannabis Science, Inc.

(click to enlarge)


The company began as Patriot Holdings, Inc. Then it became National Healthcare Technology, Brighton Oil & Gas, Gulf Onshore, and finally Cannabis Science, Inc. It claims to be on the forefront of medical marijuana research and development. However, given the recent cold snap, many Americans are going to have monthly heating bills that are in excess of the cash this company had in the bank at the last quarter. There are no research and development expenses listed in the last filing, but multiple pages of related third party and equity transactions.

I'd rattle off a list of premium pharmaceutical companies that Cannabis Science is in direct competition with, however, I'm not certain it would be accurate. Since there is no evidence of them "researching" or "developing" anything (at least from a cash flow standpoint) we cannot know who the actual competition, or for that matter, the line of business is.

So, this is one instance where I'm going to guard myself and take Mama's advice. "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all."

(Analysis? Nope, not going there either.)

Ok people, move along. There's nothing to see here. - Officer Barbrady.

Conclusion

If as a retail investor your intention is to get in on the ground floor of the blossoming recreational or medical marijuana industry, are these really the companies that you should be speculating on? Would it not be more reasonable or responsible to look at the existing tobacco, agricultural, or even the wine/liquor industries or distribution companies that are already in existence and extremely well financed? Or is the simple attraction to these companies the ultra low per share stock price?

If, on the other hand, as a retail investor your intention is to get in on these new exciting companies in differing sectors, are these companies fairly valued based on your expectations? Or would it be more prudent to look at other companies that have an existing market hold and experience?

People might not want to admit it, but the likes of Altria (MO), Lorillard (LO), Reynolds America (RAI), Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), or even InBev (BUD) have very deep pockets and armies of lawyers. At the drop of a hat they can form and fund a subsidiary that could put your little pink sheet company out of business in short order. And for decades there have been rumors of strategic plans, filed in folders, sitting in executive offices, waiting to be implemented. Are you in this to gamble, or invest?

It's easy to forget sometimes, a share is not a lottery ticket… it's part-ownership of a business. - Peter Lynch

Additional disclosure: This information is not investment advice, nor is it a suggestion to either buy or sell any of these securities. Retail investors should do their own research and fully understand the risks associated with these companies.

[PeregrineV]

and Hasbro because old school games and toys are making a comeback, baby?

Hasbro because I spend too much on Magic cards, and the game hasn't lost steam after 20 years.

In addition, the digital versions are being charged at the same price as paper cards, with much lower costs. Cash cow, as long as they can keep customer service levels high enough.

In addition, they own the rights to many boardgames and toys that are somehow being made into movies & TV shows:
Transformers
GI Joe
My Little Pony
Pound Puppies
etc.

All of these should provide revenue pretty much for as long as they own the rights to them.

[PeregrineV]

[PeregrineV]

Just buy DJIA, S&P500 etc.

I have 401(k) funds already tied to those, and those don't let me apply them to specific stocks. That's what my old "pension" money is for.

Bought MJNA this morning at about 31 cents a share. It's still there.

[PeregrineV]

In another 20 years I'll be in debt $2M.

[PeregrineV]

Heard about this this morning. I bolded and redded the part that makes it more relevant to why I'm posting it.

All the other shareholders

pay for the taxes that the board of Directors and any other executives WOULD have to pay for their shares and options, while at the same time paying their own taxes for the inversion.


http://www.marketplace.org/topics/econo ... g-tax-bill

Inversions can hit small investors with a big tax bill

by Nancy Marshall-Genzer
Monday, August 25, 2014 - 05:00
STORY
Ninety-five-year old Lois Powers of Okoboji, Iowa, owns about $40,000 worth of Medtronic stock.

“I’ve been buying it all through the years,” she says.

Now, Medtronic is considering an inversion. Currently, it’s a pharmaceutical and medical device company.

It plans to buy Covidien, a surgical supply firm based in Dublin. Ireland has a lower corporate tax rate than the U.S., meaning Medtronic’s taxes would go down, but Lois Powers’s would spike up.

“It’ll be thousands,” she says.

That’s because Powers will get stock in the new company created by Medtronic’s merger with Covidien. To the IRS, it’ll look like Powers sold her old Medtronic stock.

She’ll have to pay capital gains taxes on the difference between what she originally paid for the stock, and on what it’s worth at the time of the merger.

But the profit’s all on paper. She didn't make a bundle of cash.

Steven Davidoff Solomon is a professor of law at University of California, Berkeley.

He says, for example, “Let’s say you bought the stock at $10 a share and now it’s at $40 a share. The IRS will look at that as $30 in profit and they’re going to tax that at the capital gains rate.”

Depending on your tax bracket, that rate can reach nearly 24 percent.

Why is the IRS doing this to shareholders? Believe it or not, it’s part of a 1994 law intended to discourage inversions.

Robert Willens is an independent tax adviser in New York.

He says the thinking was: “You know, no one will ever want to invert if we create this penalty, but it just hasn’t worked out that way.”

That’s partly because corporations reimburse executives for any capital gains taxes they pay

. Little guy investors aren’t reimbursed, of course. But they don’t protest.

Willens says many don’t realize they’re paying higher taxes in inversions because they hold mutual funds, which tally up your capital gains for the year without breaking it out stock by stock.

And individual investors may be thinking the stock price will eventually go up because of the inversion.

“Once it’s all said and done, we’ll be happy that we bore this short term penalty for the greater payoff that comes later,” Willens says.

But Lois Powers, our 95-year-old Medtronic shareholder, is skeptical.

“I don’t know that exactly," she says. "And furthermore, I probably don’t have that much time.”

Powers says she planned to pass the Medtronic stock on to her heirs so she wouldn’t have to pay tax on it.

“This is money that I have put away for my elder years and for my estate when it’s passed onto my children,” she says.

Now, Powers says, that money will take a hit.

[PeregrineV]

I find it hard to feel sorry for someone who has made enough money from investing that the tax from sale would be "thousands."

Put that in perspective. It means she's made at least 10 grand or so on her investment. If the tax is so burdensome to her, she can easily sell out to pay for it, but paying taxes on profit isn't a hardship. It's just what happens when you make money. There is no difference between this and the tax that comes out of a paycheck.

It's a timing issue. Buying stock over the course of 60 years to slowly cash out to meet your living expenses keeps your taxes at a manageable level.

An inversion where the government determines that the old stock you had is now gone and you made a large profit (which is on paper, not in cash) which you must pay taxes for is not the same as determining how and when to sell your stock and how you pay taxes on it.

For the paycheck example, if the government started taking 80% of your check and said "Hey, we will be applying this to your 2015 taxes, so just deal with it", you'd be in the same boat. Sure, you'd have more money in the future, but you probably plan your now-budget based on money you expect to have next week, not next year.

[PeregrineV]

so why doesnt she just cash out then?

I think she is just going to put it into her estate (she's 90something) and letting her kids deal with the taxes.

It's like having to pay taxes on the money you make selling your car even though you don't want to sell your car. Good news is that you are getting your car back , and even though it's exactly the same, it's now a "new" car.

[PeregrineV]

I find it hard to feel sorry for someone who has made enough money from investing that the tax from sale would be "thousands."

Put that in perspective. It means she's made at least 10 grand or so on her investment. If the tax is so burdensome to her, she can easily sell out to pay for it, but paying taxes on profit isn't a hardship. It's just what happens when you make money. There is no difference between this and the tax that comes out of a paycheck.

It's a timing issue. Buying stock over the course of 60 years to slowly cash out to meet your living expenses keeps your taxes at a manageable level.

An inversion where the government determines that the old stock you had is now gone and you made a large profit (which is on paper, not in cash) which you must pay taxes for is not the same as determining how and when to sell your stock and how you pay taxes on it.

For the paycheck example, if the government started taking 80% of your check and said "Hey, we will be applying this to your 2015 taxes, so just deal with it", you'd be in the same boat. Sure, you'd have more money in the future, but you probably plan your now-budget based on money you expect to have next week, not next year.

No, it would be like if the government took money out of your paycheck for some future benefit you might have. You know. Like they already do for social security and medicaid.

It's not a timing issue. The fact that you're able to make money and not pay taxes is something I don't support, and I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make with "in paper vs in cash." There's no other part of the tax code that makes this distinction. If you win a car, you have to pay taxes on that. If you buy a house and it grows in value, you have to pay taxes on that. As a general rule, investors are under taxed, not the other way around, and, if we return to the point at hand in order for those tax burdens to actually be detrimental, you have to have made literally tens of thousands of dollars. I feel no sympathy. None at all. Cash out if you can't handle it, but I'm pretty sure if you've got those kinds of investments just in PROFITS and you can't afford to pay a few thousand bucks in taxes then you're either a) an idiot who doesn't know that they need liquid capital or b) someone who doesn't know how to diversify their investments.

Suck it up, homie. Cry some more about netting 10000k in profit. No one likes paying taxes, but the harsh reality is that you have to, and investors get out of it more than literally any other group in society other than corporations.

No, it's more like (no pun intended) a change in the status quo. She has stocks that are sitting in her knitting drawer or whatever because they are not important to her current financial status, and BAM, they now cost you $10,000. Through nothing the greedy grandma did, just because the rules in place to make companies not move to a different country, and that exact same penalty in place through legislation does not affect the decision makers, it's passed on to the greedy grandmas of the world.

You don't make money until you cash your stock in (or cash your check). Until then, it's all on paper (not realized). The inversion forces a cash-in whether you like it or not.

If Grandma makes $25k a year, she probably has a tax burden of about 2k (8%). If she suddenly gets taxed for $100k while only making $25k, her taxes come to $18k (18%). If she had decided to cash in, then , yes, pay it and move on- you made money. My point is that she did not decide that, it was forced on her (and all investors on those companies except the ones that decide it).

[PeregrineV]

So what you're saying is she made a lot of money? And had to pay taxes on it?

Huh.

If that's all you really took away from it, OK.

[PeregrineV]

The interesting thing is that it harms non-grandmas more than grandmas. If I'm working at the 28% marginal income tax rate right now but I'm going to retire in two years at 65 and I know my income is going to reduce to near 0, I have every incentive to hold onto a stock I'll have to pay capital gains on because I'll be taxed this year at 15% and in two or three years at 0%.

Yes, the net effect is even worse for people near the top of their bracket, since it could send them over it. It is also mitigated by the fact that with an income in place, you can adjust your income to compensate.

Just against the whole forced nature of it, and those that it's intended to penalize bypass that penalty by passing it on.

[PeregrineV]

Yes. People at the top of the bracket should be taxed more. That's what's known as a progressive tax system, and it is one of the greatest achievements of our economic society.

Using my house example, if you buy a house for 100,000 and in 5 years that house is worth 500,000 do you think you should be paying property taxes on 100,000k or 500,000k?

Property taxes are paid every year. Pay on $500k.

Let's say your neighborhood association decided to do their version of inversion.
Your house is worth $500k. You just made $400k this year in addition to whatever you earned.
Pay taxes on that.

[PeregrineV]

Just buy DJIA, S&P500 etc.

I have 401(k) funds already tied to those, and those don't let me apply them to specific stocks. That's what my old "pension" money is for.

Bought MJNA this morning at about 31 cents a share. It's still there.

Looks like as a long term investment, it may be a bust.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2809915 ... nts_header

[PeregrineV]

I wanted to necro this thread just to point something out to people and point out why you'd invest in low cost index funds rather than pick what you think is going to be super great. The TLDR is you don't know. But longer version is this:

If when this thread started you invested 10,000 in an S&P 500 index fund you'd have about $11,570 right now or $12,134 if you reinvested your dividends. To be clear, that's a huge return over a 2 year period and I wouldn't expect it in the future. But it's still there.

If you had invested $10,000 in Medical Marijuana, the company we talked about on page 1, you'd have $1,250 right now. So obviously this is somewhat flawed: he was saying he was putting in $300ish at a shot it might go to the moon. But he still would have lost $250 doing that. That's a pretty nice meal!

It's even worse than that right now.

But, all my other ones are doing ok. *grumble grumble on some them*

[PeregrineV]

OK, I found a stock that has performed well, and am looking to find another that will preform similary over the next 7 years.

I hope to do this by comparing the statistics of the stock and look for current ones following a similar statiscal pattern.

CHTR
Charter Communications Inc N

12/2/2009- $33.00
12/8/2016- $278.98

Total return: 712.14%
Average Annual Total Return: 35.31%

No dividends paid, one or zero splits.

Any advice on what statistics I should research?

[PeregrineV]

I'm not sure what you're asking for. How to identify a company that has an average of a roughly 35% annual growth rate over 7 years?

If you find the answer, please share. Until then, I'll just scratch and win.

I know there are about a 1000 stats for a company. If I can find another one with similar growth, then we can correlate to see what stats are similar.
Of course, more companies that perform like this the better, but this is the first I've found.

Until I find another, or a few more, what are the most common stock indicators used? Like P/E Ratio (although that one does not work for this stock), etc.

[PeregrineV]

What should I do if i want to get my feet wet. where should i start, what should i read so i'm well informed on investing and stuff.

A good Google search can help, depending on how much you know/don't know.

http://www.investopedia.com/advisor-net ... t-savings/

Talks about mutual funds and regular investment vs retirement investment.

is that what you mean? Or more basic, or more advanced?

[PeregrineV]

That sounds good will check it out thanks. Should one always try to invest whenever possible? I am not well off or anything but I wonder if I should think about this for my future.

The best advice would be to put a small amount aside where you can't easily get to it, because you don't want it to be an emergency fund, you want it to be a "I want to stop working because I've worked 50 years straight already." fund.

And start with something like the S&P 500 Index or similar. Put in $25 a paycheck, and have it automatically invested in whatever fund is using the Index. It will seem slow to start, but you can increase it as your economic situation improves, and as you learn more about investing.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/201 ... 91153263a4

Of course, employee 401k is the best, usually because they match.
If not, use a Credit Union or bank- they almost all have investing services of some sort. I would avoid paying for any, it sounds like it will cost you more than it will help, at this point.

[PeregrineV]

What are ETFs?

Using ETFs for trading or buy-and-hold investing

By John Spence, MarketWatch
Exchange-traded funds are increasingly popular vehicles to gain exposure to a specific stock market, industry sector, or investment style. Yet many investors would be pressed to explain exactly what ETFs are and how they work. Do ETFs belong in your portfolio? The answers to these questions can help decide.

The ABCs of ETFs are straightforward.

"E" is for exchange, as in stock exchange. ETFs are listed like any stock, with a ticker symbol and a bid and ask price. Investors can do anything with ETFs that can be done with a listed security, such as borrowing shares and going short or buying on margin. Also, options are available on about half of listed ETFs.

"T" is for traded. ETFs are bought and sold throughout a trading day, whereas mutual funds are priced once daily at the market close. Because of their intraday trading capabilities, ETFs drew early attention from short-term traders. But ETFs also appeal to long-term investors -- more on that later.

"F" is for fund -- in this case an index fund. ETFs track segments of the U.S. and global securities markets by following benchmarks like the S&P 500 (SPX), the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJI), and the Lehman Aggregate Bond Index. If you want exposure to health-care, mid-cap value, or Brazilian stocks, there is an ETF to accommodate your needs. And like index funds, ETFs generally carry low expense ratios.

Is there a limit to ETF trading?

No. That's why ETFs are useful tools for market-timing investors who move rapidly in and out of economic sectors, rather than using individual stocks.

Why not just trade mutual funds instead?

Most mutual funds aren't friendly to whipsaw traders, and are less so in the wake of the fund industry's market-timing scandal. Some fund companies slap redemption fees on short-term trading -- or simply bar market timers outright.

In addition, since ETFs can be leveraged or sold short, investors use them to implement complex trading strategies based on the market's technical signals.

I'm a buy-and-hold investor. Can I use ETFs?

Yes. ETFs' broad index diversification, low cost, and tax efficiency make them appropriate for long-term investors.

Do ETFs have advantages over active mutual-fund management

?

Over a longer-term investment horizon, fund managers who actively manage portfolios through stock selection have had difficulty outperforming a benchmark index.

For example, two-thirds of active large-cap funds trailed the S&P 500 over the three years ending June, according to Standard & Poor's. Meanwhile, almost eight of every 10 actively managed mid-cap funds, and three-fourths of comparable small-cap funds, fared worse than their relevant S&P benchmark.

Aside from high expense ratios, active managers are saddled with transaction fees from stock trading. Taken together, these costs are ankle weights that make it tough for many active managers to keep up with the indexes.

How expensive are ETFs?

ETFs carry an average expense ratio of about 0.46 percent, less than one-third the cost of a typical actively managed U.S. stock fund, which levy a 1.50 percent fee.

Importantly, however, ETFs incur brokerage commissions to buy and sell shares. Also, some index funds are waiving management fees to undercut rival ETFs. When choosing an ETF, compare its expenses against index funds tracking a comparable benchmark.

Are ETFs tax efficient?

Yes. Most ETFs have much lower turnover than actively managed peers.

Accordingly, ETFs distribute fewer capital gains.ETFs have another advantage over traditional index funds in the tax-efficiency department: Long-term fund investors are often penalized when short-term shareholders cash out. The fund must sell stock to meet the redemptions, and taxable gains are passed on to remaining shareholders.

Since ETF shares trade on exchanges, and because of a unique "in-kind" creation and redemption process, ETF investors are unaffected by others' trading activity at tax time, in the same way as common stockholders.

What are the disadvantages of ETFs?

Since they trade like stocks, investors pay brokerage commissions to buy and sell shares. Some discount brokers are reducing fees to accommodate buy-and-hold investors. Even still, with so-called "dollar-cost averaging" -- contributing a certain amount on a regular basis -- those commissions can negate ETFs' lower expense.

Are there bond ETFs?

Yes. There are fixed-income ETFs tracking a total U.S. bond-market index, corporate bonds, Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) and U.S. Treasury bonds. Like their stock cousins, bond ETFs are generally cheaper than similar mutual funds.