These guys with a mentality that owning a Mercedes or Lamborghini means you are wealthy is dead wrong. It just means you spend your money on stupid things, unless the cost of buying a lambo is only a small fraction of yearly income, which I doubt is true of any doctor.

And I agree – even the doctors I work with haven’t a clue how to save money. I’m the only one I know who tries to live like a resident still.

I agree some of the assessments are not accurate, I wrote the piece right before FB IPO when everybody was going hoo haa about FB. I just wanted them to think about potential risks.

At the time, I had more than a few clients who want to devote a big chunk of their money to FB. This just shows how successful the Wall Street machine was in hyping it. When there is so much hype, you know people will almost surely overpay.

#10 is also true, not just for Zuck, but for all business owners. Academic studies show that IPO stocks underperformed in the market in the first three years. Even secondary issue stocks underperformed the market. This is for a good reason: business owners are primarily motivated to share risks, not rewards.

Sounds like you love Google+. You offer numerous old or inaccurate reasons of why Facebook is in danger. Your point #1 is true, but everything else you offer is less absolute, debatable, or old and inaccurate.

What’s up with point #9? Written 1 year ago? And attack point #10? Zuckerberg wouldn’t have let it go public if it was a money maker? Come on – I thought you were more knowledgable than that – there are many reasons and driving forces for a company to go public.

There is room for careful investment in small cap or individual stocks, including a small investment in a social media stock that has a huge user base and continues to modify and adapt.

Regards,
David
Long both GOOG & FB, but in small reasonable positions

It has been one year since Facebook IPO. Most of my top 10 reasons last year arguing against buying FB stocks are still true today. Remember the hype leading up to the IPO, then ponder this line of mine: “The more successful the Wall Street money machine is, the less likely you will get rich.”

Try reblogging

It’s amazing isn’t it?

This does not limit to Morgan Stanley. The wife of the doctor I write about the the previous post (prospective client B whose financial advisor is a good friend) told me she stumbled into buy Vanguard Funds. I told her: “You will do better with your own stumbles than with your financial advisor’s “good” intention.”

One of the things I have struggled with is dollar cost averaging after retirement. The markets are still going to fluctuate and there will never be a time when we won’t need more money. So continuing a regular investment plans seems neccesary. For me the answer was to grow my real estate investment business a little larger, then use that additional income stream to invest regularly.

You don’t over look the non-working population, but it somehow is inferred they are the new normal. If we can’t find something productive for all of our people to do, then we are faced with providing for all our people by only the citizens that are useful. I’d be open to closing all of those loopholes and go to a flat tax or even the fair tax, which provides a debit card each month necessicities that should be untaxed. After the card runs out we all pay something.

I’m told the trouble with the flat or fair tax is it’s unfair to the poor. I’ve noticed the people making this argument either prey on the poor or have never been poor themselves. I’ve been poor. It never occured to me that what I needed was food stamps and find a way to get assistance. What I needed was a job, with an economic ladder to climb.

The Govt has “invested” a lot of money trying to create jobs. They can be and have been criticised for it. What I have found personally is when I have a project I want to get done quickly, or the task is outside the scope of my ability, I hire someone to do it. In January 2010 I had craftsmen calling me to be certain I was still rehabbing houses. I hadn’t set out to create work for those people. The need for a task to be done and the ability to create or find working capital made this happen. This is how jobs are created in the private sector. A businessperson wants to get something done.

The $16T qustion for government, large or small, is how do they create the environment that fosters growth. It’s pretty obvious just throwing money at it doesn’t work. We had this same conversation 35 years ago in the barber shop. Fostering growth, creating more taxpayers, resulting in less safety net needs is the other end of the continuem from Capital Chronism or picking winners from inside the beltway and provdingssistance for those in need.

It seems to me we have, as a nation, differing points of view about what govt should be and do. I fall in the “protect the borders and deliver the mail camp”. I deeply believe that when people solve their own problems we will have real solutions. The other side, in an unclearly defined bundle of good will, wants to be helpful to/for the down trodden, poor, sick, unemployed, underemployed…this list really has no end because as soon as one thing is fixed there is another group of people that need their help. That is noble and altruistic. Charities have done that sort of thing successfully for many years. The difference is when I give to a charity it’s because I want to. When I give to the govt it’s because I have to, and I have no choice in the “investments” they make. Some commentators call that theft.

Most of us grew up listening to fairy tales. Robin Hood was a good one, they even made movies about it. What could possibly be wrong with taking from the rich and giving to the poor? First off, it’s a fairy tale. The rich guys would figure this out and avoid Sherwood Forest. Or use a vochure system like the Templars and Medicis offered. They, like all rich people, would find a way around this problem. Second, is the incentive/reward system is wrong. If the producers reach the point they are better off recieving, then the whole thing falls of it’s own weight.

If the folks in Washington really want to use fairy tales for plans, they should research the ant and the grasshopper or the goose that laid the golden egg.

I have enjoyed our conversation. We have bogarted Michael’s blog for our own satisfaction, and I apoligize for that. We are as far apart as our representative government in Washington. I guess that is why there is gridlock in DC. My world view has worked nicely for me and I assume your’s has done well for you. I see people walking around the neighborhood with nothing to do and I wonder why they don’t see the same opportunities I do. It’s the same neighborhood, banking system, incentive/reward system. Still, they don’t see it. I couldn’t get a job when I started this business, because I was too old and have heart problems. Yet I saw an amazing opportunity and went for it.

To get back to Michael’s question, the best answer against hi speed rail is an express bus line. The infrastructure is there. If needs change, routes are easily dropped or new ones created, and compared to standing, like most light rail systems, a bus is more comfortable. It does not have the gee whiz of “Bullet Train”, but they are building one now in California. California has had a net population loss each year for the last decade. Who will ride it? Who will pay for it? blah blah blah! If it were express bus service it would already be running, and if all the jobs went to Nevada, Texas, Florida, or Tennessee; they could easily move the busses and start providing service in one of those states. In a nut shell, If high speed rail is that good a deal, why aren’t the railroads we already have putting it together? They have rights of way, experience, economy of scale. Why are they sticking to freight?