Internet Surfer: Getting Started/Internet Surfer - Getting Started (Wayzata Technology)(7231)(1995).bin/pc/textfile/faqs/inve_faq/part2

Internet Message Format | 1995-01-01 | 47.3 KB

Xref: bloom-picayune.mit.edu misc.invest:33570 news.answers:4573
Newsgroups: misc.invest,news.answers
Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!enterpoop.mit.edu!ira.uka.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!stepsun.uni-kl.de!uklirb!bogner.informatik.uni-kl.de!lott
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Lott)
Subject: misc.invest FAQ on general investment topics (part 2 of 2)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: misc.invest
Summary: Answers to frequently asked questions about investments.
         Should be read by anyone who wishes to post to misc.invest.
Originator: [e-mail]
Keywords: invest, stock, bond, money, faq
Sender: [e-mail] (Unix-News-System)
Supersedes: <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: bogner.informatik.uni-kl.de
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Kaiserslautern, Germany
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:00:43 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Expires: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 05:00:06 GMT
Lines: 1016

Archive-name: investment-faq/general/part2
Last-modified: Fri Dec 11 10:33:32 MET 1992
Compiler: Christopher Lott, [e-mail]

This is the general FAQ for misc.invest, part 2 of 2.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THIS PART
    Money-Supply Measures M1, M2, and M3
    Options on Stocks
    P/E Ratio
    Renting vs. buying a place to live
    Shorting Stocks
    Stock Index Types
    Stock Index - The Dow
    Stock Indexes - Others
    Stock Splits
    Ticker Tape Terminology
    Treasury Direct
    Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (UGMA)
    Warrants
    Zero-Coupon Bonds

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Money-Supply Measures M1, M2, and M3
From: [e-mail]

M1: Money that can be spent immediately.  Includes cash, checking accounts,
    and NOW accounts.

M2: M1 + assets invested for the short term.  These assets include money-
    market accounts and money-market mutual funds.

M3: M2 + big deposits.  Big deposits include institutional money-market
    funds and agreements among banks.

"Modern Money Mechanics," which explains M1, M2, and M3 in gory detail,
is available free from:
        Public Information Center
        Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
        P.O. Box 834
        Chicago, Illinois 60690

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Options on Stocks
From: [e-mail]

First, an option is a contract between buyer and seller.

The option is connected to something, such as a listed stock or an
exchange index or futures contracts or real estate.  For simplicity,
I will discuss only options connected to listed stocks.

The option is designated by:
       - Name of the associated stock
       - "strike price"
       - Expiration Date

       - The option costs a "premium" to buy, plus brokers commission.

The two most popular types of options are Calls and Puts.

    Example:  The Wall Street Journal might list an
                IBM Oct 90 Call @ $2.00

    Translation:  This is a Call Option

                  The company associated with it is IBM
                    (See also the price of IBM stock on the NYSE)

                  The option expires on the third Saturday
                      following the third Friday of October, 1992.
                     (an option is worthless and useless once it expires)

                  The strike price is $90.00  If you own this option
                  you can buy IBM @ $90.00, even if it is then trading on
          the NYSE @$100.00 (I should be so lucky!)

                  If you want to buy the option it will cost you $2.00
                  plus brokers commissions.   If you want to sell
                  the option you will get $2.00 less commissions.

In general, options are written on blocks of 100s of shares.  So when
you buy "1" IBM Oct 90 Call @ $2.00 you actually are buying a contract
to buy 100 shares of IBM @ $90 per share ($9,000) on or before the
expiration date in October.   You will pay $200 plus commission to buy
the call.

If you wish to exercise your option you call your broker and say you
want to exercise your option.  Your broker will arrange for the person
who sold you your option ( a financial fiction:  A computer matches up
buyers with sellers in a magical way) to sell you 100 shares of IBM for
$9,000 plus commission.

If you instead wish to sell (sell=write) that option you instruct your
broker that you wish to write 1 Call IBM Oct 90s, and the very next day
your account will be credited with $200 less commission.

If IBM does not reach $90 before the call expires, the option writer
gets to keep that $200 (less commission)   If the stock does reach above
$90, you will probably be "called."

If you are called you must deliver the stock.  Your broker will sell
your IBM stock for $9000 (and charge commission).  If you owned the
stock, that's OK. If you did not own the stock your broker will buy the
stock at market price and immediately sell it at $9000.  Commissions
each way.

If you write a Call option and own the stock that's called "Covered
Call Writing."  If you don't own the stock it's called "Naked Call
Writing."   It is quite risky to write naked calls, since the price of
the stock could zoom up and you would have to buy it at the market price.

My personal advice for new options people if to begin by writing
covered call options for stocks currently trading below the strike
price of the option (write out-of-the-money covered calls).

When the strike price of a call is above the current market price of
the associated stock, the call is "out of the money" and is "in
the money" when the stock price is below the call's strike price.

Most regular folks like you and me do not exercise our options; we
trade them back, covering our original trade.  Saves commissions and
all that.

The other common option is the PUT.  If you buy a put from me, you
gain the right to sell me your stock at the strike price on or before
the expiration date.  Puts are almost the mirror-image of calls.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: P/E Ratio
From: [e-mail], [e-mail]

P/E is shorthand for Price/Earnings Ratio.  The price/earnings ratio is
a tool for determining the value the market has placed on a common stock.
A lot can be said about this little number, but in short, companies
expected to grow and have higher earnings in the future should have a
higher P/E than companies in decline.  For example, if Amgen has a lot
of products in the pipeline, I wouldn't mind paying a large multiple of
its current earnings to buy the stock.  It will have a large P/E.  I am
expecting it to grow quickly.

P/E is determined by dividing the current market price of one share
of a company's stock by that company's per-share earnings (after-tax
profit divided by number of outstanding shares).  For example, a company
that earned $5M last year, with a million shares outstanding, had
earnings per share of $5.  If that company's stock currently sells for
$50/share, it has a P/E of 10.  Investors are willing to pay $10 for
every $1 of last year's earnings.

P/Es are traditionally computed with trailing earnings (earnings from
the year past, called a trailing P/E) but are sometimes computed with
leading earnings (earnings projected for the year to come, called a
leading P/E).  Like other indicators, it is best viewed over time,
looking for a trend.  A company with a steadily increasing P/E is being
viewed by the investment community as becoming more and more speculative.

PE is a much better comparison of the value of a stock than the price.
A $10 stock with a PE of 40 is much more "expensive" than a $100 stock
with a PE of 6.  You are paying more for the $10 stock's future earnings
stream.  The $10 stock is probably a small company with an exciting product
with few competitors.  The $100 stock is probably pretty staid - maybe a
buggy whip manufacturer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Renting vs. buying a place to live
From: [e-mail], [e-mail]

This note will explain one way to compare the monetary costs of renting
vs. buying a home.  It is extremely predjudiced towards the US system.

SUMMARY:
 - If you are guaranteed an appreciation rate that is a few points above
   inflation, buy.
 - If the monthly costs of buying are basically the same as renting, buy.
 - The shorter the term, the more advantageous it is to rent.
 - Tax consequences in the US are insignificant.


The three important factors that affect the analysis the most:
    1) Relative cash flows; e.g., rent compared to monthly ownership expenses
    2) Length of term
    3) Rate of appreciation

The approach used here is to determine the present value of the money
you will pay over the term for the home. In the case of buying, the
appreciation rate and thereby the future value of the home is estimated.
This analysis neglects utility costs because they can easily be the
same whether you rent or buy.  However, adding them to the analysis
is simple; treat them the same as the costs for insurance in both cases.

Computation of present value is reasonably straightforward and is explained
elsewhere. Programs to compute present and future value as well as for loan
amortization (pv, fv, loan) are also available from Lott.

Opportunity costs of buying are effectively captured by the present value.
For example, pretend that you are able to buy a house without having to
have a mortgage.  Now the question is, is it better to buy the house with
your hoard of cash or is it better to invest the cash and continue to rent.
To answer this question you have to have estimates for rental costs and
house costs (see below), and you have a projected growth rate for the cash
investment and projected growth rate for the house.  If you project a 4%
growth rate for the house and a 15% growth rate for the cash then holding
the cash would be a much better investment.


Renting a Home.

* Step 1: Gather data. You will need:
    - monthly rent
    - renter's insurance     (usually inexpensive)
    - term             (period of time over which you will rent)
    - estimated inflation rate to compute present value (historically 4.5%)
    - estimated annual rate of increase in the rent (can use inflation rate)

* Step 2: Compute the present value of the cash stream that you will pay over
the term, which is the cost of renting over that term.  This analysis assumes
that there are no tax consequences (benefits) associated with paying rent.
(The 'pv' program can help here.)

Long-term example:
    Rent          =  990 / month
    Insurance         =  10 / month
    Term        =  30 years
    Rent increases    =  4.5% annually
    Inflation         =  4.5% annually
    For this cash stream, present value = 348,137.17.

Short-term example:
    Same numbers, but just 2 years.  Present value = 23,502.38


Buying a Home.

* Step 1: Gather data. You need a lot to do a fairly thorough analysis:
    - purchase price
    - down payment & closing costs
    - other regular expenses, such as condo fees
    - amount of mortgage
    - mortgage rate
    - mortgage term
    - mortgage payments (this is tricky for a variable-rate mortgage)
    - property taxes
    - homeowner's insurance
    - your tax bracket
    - the current standard deduction you get
  Other values have to be estimated, and they affect the analysis critically:
    - continuing maintenance costs (I estimate 1/2 of PP over 30 years.)
    - estimated inflation rate to compute present value (historically 4.5%)
    - rate of increase of property taxes, maintenance costs, etc. (infl. rate)
    - appreciation rate of the home (THE most important number of all)

* Step 2: compute the monthly expense.  This includes the mortgage payment,
fees, property tax, insurance, and maintenance.  The mortgage payment is
fixed, but you have to figure inflation into the rest.  Then compute the
present value of the cash stream.  (The 'pv' program can help.)

* Step 3: compute your tax savings.  Roughly you should multiply your tax
bracket times the amount by which your interest plus property tax expenses
exceeds your standard deduction.  No fair using the whole amount because
everyone gets the standard deduction for free.  Must be summed over the
term because the standard deduction will increase annually, as will your
property taxes.  Note that late in the mortgage your interest payments will
be be well below the standard deduction.  I compute savings of about 5%.
(The 'loan' program can help.)

* Step 4: compute the future value of the home based on the purchase
price, estimated appreciation rate, and the term.  Once you have the
future value, compute the present value of that sum based on the
inflation rate you estimated earlier and the term you used to compute
future value.   If appreciation > inflation, you win.  Else you lose.
(The 'pv' and 'fv' programs can help.)

* Step 5: Compute final cost.  All numbers must be in present value.
    Final-cost = Down-payment + S2 (expenses) - S3 (tax sav) - S4 (prop value)

Long-term example #1:

* Step 1 - the data:
    Purchase price   =  145,000
    Down payment etc =  10,000
    Mortgage amount  =  140,000
    Mortgage rate    =  8.00%
    Mortgage term    =  30 years
    Mortgage payment =  1027.27 / mo
    Property taxes   =  about 1% of valuation; I'll use 1200/yr = 100/mo
            (which increases same as inflation, we'll say)
    Homeowner's ins  =  50 / mo
    Condo fees etc   =  0
    Tax bracket         =  33%
    Standard ded     =  5600
  Estimates:
    Maintenance      =  1/2 PP is 72,500, or 201/mo; I'll use 200/mo
    Inflation rate   =  4.5% annually
    Prop taxes incr  =  4.5% annually
    Home appreciates =  6% annually (the NUMBER ONE critical factor)

* Step 2 - the monthly expense, both fixed and changing components:
Fixed component is the mortgage at 1027.27 monthly.  Present value = 203,503.48
Changing component is the rest at   350.00 monthly.  Present value = 121,848.01
Total from Step 2: 325,351.49

* Step 3 - the tax savings.
I use my loan program to compute this.  Based on the data given above,
I compute the savings: Present value = 14,686.22.  Not much at all.

* Step 4 - the future and present value of the home.
See data above.  Future value = 873,273.41 and present value = 226,959.96
(which is larger than 145k since appreciation > inflation)
Before you compute present value, you should subtract reasonable closing
costs for the sale; for example, a real estate brokerage fee.

* Step 5 - the final analysis for 6% appreciation.
Final = 10,000 + 325,351.49 - 14,686.22 - 226,959.96
      = 93,705.31

So over the 30 years, assuming that you sell the house in the 30th year for
the estimated future value, the present value of your total cost is 93k.
(You're 93k in the hole after 30 years ~~ you only paid 260.23/month.)

Long-term example #2:  all numbers the same BUT the home appreciates 7%/year.
Step 4 now comes out FV=1,176,892.13 and PV=305,869.15
Final = 10,000 + 325,351.49 - 14,686.22 - 305,869.15
      = 14796.12
So in this example, 7% was an approximate break-even point in the absolute
sense; i.e., you lived for 30 years at near zero cost in today's dollars.

Long-term example #3:  all numbers the same BUT the home appreciates 8%/year.
Step 4 now comes out FV=1,585,680.80 and PV=412,111.55
Final = 10,000 + 325,351.49 - 14,686.22 - 412,111.55
      = -91,446.28
The negative number means you lived in the home for 30 years and left it in
the 30th year with a profit; i.e., you were paid to live there.

Long-term example #4: all numbers the same BUT the home appreciates 2%/year.
Step 4 now comes out FV=264,075.30 and PV=68,632.02
Final = 10,000 + 325,351.49 - 14,686.22 - 68,632.02
      = 252,033.25
In this case of poor appreciation, home ownership cost 252k in today's money,
or about 700/month.  If you could have rented for that, you'd be even.

Short-term example #1:  all numbers the same as Long-term example #1, but you
sell the home after 2 years.  Future home value in 2 years is 163,438.17
Cost  = down&cc + all-pymts - tax-savgs - pv(fut-home-value - remaining debt)
      = 10,000  + 31,849.52 - 4,156.81  - pv(163438.17 - 137,563.91)
      = 10,000  + 31,849.52 - 4,156.81  - 23651.27
      = 14,041.44

Short-term example #2:  all numbers the same as Long-term example #4, but you
sell the home after 2 years.  Future home value in 2 years is 150,912.54
Cost  = down&cc + all-pymts - tax-savgs - pv(fut-home-value - remaining debt)
      = 10,000  + 31,849.52 - 4,156.81  - pv(150912.54 - 137,563.91)
      = 10,000  + 31,849.52 - 4,156.81  - 12,201.78
      = 25490.93


Some closing comments:

Once again, the three important factors that affect the analysis the most
are cash flows, term, and appreciation.  If the relative cash flows are
basically the same, then the other two factors affect the analysis the most.

The longer you hold the house, the less appreciation you need to bet renting.
This relationship always holds, however, the scale changes.  For shorter
holding periods you also face a risk of market downturn.  If there is a
substantial risk of a market downturn you shouldn't buy a house unless you
are willing to hold the house for a long period.

If you have a nice cheap rent controlled appartment, then you should probably
not buy.

There are other variables that affect the analysis, for example, the inflation
rate.  If the inflation rate increases, the rental scenario tends to get much
worse, while the ownership scenario tends to look better.

Question:  Is it true that you can usually rent for less than buying?

Answer 1:  It depends.  It isn't a binary state.  It is a fairly complex set
of relationships.

In large metropolitan areas, where real estate is generally much more expensive
then it is usually better to rent, unless you get a good appreciation rate or
if you are going to own for a long period of time.  It depends on what you can
rent and what you can buy.  In other areas, where real estate is relatively
cheap, I would say it is probably better to own.

On the other hand, if you are currently at a market peak and the country is
about to go into a recession it is better to rent and let property values and
rent fall.  If you are currently at the bottom of the market and the economy
is getting better then it is better to own.

Answer 2:  When you rent from somebody, you are paying that person to assume
the risk of homeownership.  Landlords are renting out property with the long
term goal of making money.  They aren't renting out property because they want
to do their renters any special favors.  This suggests to me that it is
generally better to own.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Shorting Stocks
From: [e-mail]

Shorting means to sell something you don't own.

If I do not own shares of IBM stock but I ask my broker to sell short
100 shares of IBM I have committed shorting.  In broker's lingo, I
have established a short position in IBM of 100 shares.  Or, to really
confuse the language, I hold 100 shares of IBM short.

Why would you want to short?

Because you believe the price of that stock will go down, and you can
soon buy it back at a lower price than you sold it at.  When you buy
back your short position, you "close your short position."

The broker will effectively borrow those shares from another client's
account or from the broker's own account, and effectively lend you
the shares to sell short.  This is all done with mirrors; no stock
certificates are issued, no paper changes hands, no lender is identified
by name.

My account will be credited with the sales  price of 100 shares of IBM
less broker's commission.  But the broker has actually lent me the stock
to sell; no way is he going to pay interest on the funds from the short
sale. (Exception:  Really big spenders sometimes negotiate a full or
partial payment of interest on short sales funds provided sufficient
collateral exists in the account and the broker doesn't want to lose
the client.  If you're not a really big spender, don't expect to receive
any interest on the funds obtained from the short sale.)  Also expect
the broker to make you put up additional collateral.  Why?

Well, what happens if the stock price goes way up?  You will have to
assure the broker that if he needs to return the shares whence he got
them (see "mirrors" above) you will be able to purchase them and "close
your short position."  If the price has doubled, you will have to spend
twice as much as you received. So your broker will insist you have
enough collateral in your account which can be sold if needed to close
your short position.  More lingo: Having sufficient collateral in your
account that the broker can glom onto at will, means you have "cover"
for your short position. As the price goes up you must provide more cover.

Since you borrowed these shares, if dividends are declared, you will be
responsible for paying those dividends to the fictitious person from
whom you borrowed.  Too bad.

Even if you hold you short position for over a year, your capital
gains are short term.

A short squeeze can result when the price of the stock goes up.  When
the people who have gone short buy the stock to cover their previous
short-sales, this can cause the price to rise further.  It's a death
spiral - as the price goes higher, more shorts feel driven to cover
themselves, and so on.

You can short other securities besides stock.  For example, every time
I write (sell) an option I don't already own long, I am establishing a
short position in that option. The collateral position I must hold in
my account generally tracks the price of the underlying stock and not
the price of the option itself.  So if I write a naked call option on
IBM November 70s and receive a mere $100 after commissions, I may be
asked to put up collateral in my account of $3,500 or more!  And if
in November IBM has regained ground and is at $90 [ I should be so
lucky ], I would be forced to buy back (close my short position in
the call option) at a cost of about $2000, for a big loss.

Selling short is seductively simple.  Brokers get commissions by
showing you how easy it is to generate short term funds for your
account, but you really can't do much with them.  My personal advice
is if you are strongly convinced a stock will be going down, buy the
out-of-the-money put instead, if such a put is available.

A put's value increases as the stock price falls (but decreases sort
of linearly over time) and is strongly leveraged, so a small fall in
price of the stock translates to a large increase in value of the put.

Let's return to our IBM, market price of 66 (yuck.) Let's say I strongly
believe that IBM will fall to, oh,  58 by mid-November.  I could short
IBM stock at 66, sell it at 58 in mid-November if I'm right, and make
about net $660.  If instead it goes to 70, and I have to sell then I
lose net $500 or so.  That's a 10% gain or an 8% loss or so.

Now, I could buy the IBM November 65 put for maybe net $200.  If it
goes down to 58 in mid November, I sell (close my position) for about
$600, for a 300% gain.  If it doesn't go below 65, I lose my entire
200 investment. But if you strongly believe IBM will go way way down,
you should shoot for the 300% gain with the put and not the 10% gain
by shorting the stock itself.  Depends on how convinced you are.

Having said this, I add a strong caution:  Puts are very risky, and
depend very much on odd market behavior beyond your control, and you
can easily lose your entire purchase price fast.  If you short options,
you can lose even more than your purchase price!

One more word of advice.  Start simply.  If you never bought stock
start by buying some stock.  When you feel like you sort of understand
what you are doing, when you have followed several stocks in the
financial section of the paper and watched what happens over the course
of a few months, when you have read a bit more and perhaps seriously
tracked some important financials of several companies, you might --
might -- want to expand your investing choices beyond buying stock.
If you want to get into options (see FAQ on options) start with writing
covered calls.  I would place selling stock short or writing or buying
other options lower on the list -- later in time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Stock Index Types
From: [e-mail]

There are three major classes of indices in use today in the US.  They are:

A - equally weighted price index
    (an example is the Dow Jones Industrial Average)
B - market-capitalization-weighted index
        (an example is the S&P Industrial Average)
C - equally-weighted returns index
        (the only one of its kind is the Value-Line index)

Of these, A and B are widely used.  All my profs in the business school
claim that C is very weird and don't emphasize it too much.

+ Type A index:  As the name suggests, the index is calculated by taking the
average of the prices of a set of companies:

            Index =  Sum(Prices of N companies) / divisor

In this calculation, two questions crop up:

1. What is "N"?  The DJIA takes the 30 large "blue-chip" companies.  Why 30?
I think it's more a historical hangover than any thing else.  One rationale
for 30 might be that a large fraction of market capitalization is often
clustered in largest 50 companies or so.

Does the set of N companies change across time?  If so, how often is the
list updated (wrt companies)?  I suspect these decisions are quite
judgemental and hence not readily replicable.

If the DJIA only has 30 companies, how do we select these 30?  Why should
they have equal weights?  These are real criticisms of the DJIA type index.

2. The divisor is not always equal to N for N companies.  What happens to
the index when there is a stock issue by one of the companies in the set?
The price drops, but the number of shares have increased to leave the market
capitalization of the shares the same. Since the index does not take the
latter into account, it has to compensate for the drop in price by tweaking
the divisor.  For examples on this, look at pg. 61 of Bodie, Kane, & Marcus,
_Investments_ (henceforth, BKM).

Historically, this index format was computationally convenient.  It doesn't
have a very sound economic basis to justify it's existence today.  The DJIA
is widely cited on the evening news, but not used by real finance folks.

I have an intuition that the DJIA type index will actually be BAD if the
number of companies is very large.  If it's to make any sense at all, it
should be very few "brilliantly" chosen companies.

+ Type B index:  In this index, each of the N company's price is weighted by
the market capitalization of the company.

        Sum (Company market capitalization * Price) over N companies
Index = ------------------------------------------------------------
        Market capitalisation for these N companies

Here you do not take into account the dividend data, so effectively you're
tracking the short-run capital gains of the market.

Practical questions regarding this index:

1. What is "N"?  I would use the largest N possible to get as close to the
"full" market as possible.   BTW in the US there are companies who make a
living on only calculating extremely complete value-weighted indexes for
the NYSE and foreign markets.  CMIE should sell a very-complete value-weighted
index to some such folks.

Why does S&P use 500? Once again, I'm guessing that it's for historical
reasons when computation over 20,000 companies every day was difficult and
because of the concentration of market capitalization in the largest lot
of companies.  Today, computation over 20k companies for a Sun workstation
is no problem, so the S&P idea is obsolete.

2.  How to deal with companies entering and exiting the index?  If we're
doing an index containing "every single company possible" then the answer
to this question is easy -- each time a company enters or exits we recalculate
all weights.  But if we're a value-weighted index like the S&P500 (where there
are only 500 companies) it's a problem.  Recently Wang went bankrupt and S&P
decided to replace them by Sun -- how do you justify such choices?

The value weighted index is superior to the DJIA type index for deep reasons.
Anyone doing modern finance will not use the DJIA type index.  A glimmer of
the reasoning for this is as follows:  If I held a portfolio with equal number
of shares of each of the 30 DJIA companies then the DJIA index would accurately
reflect my capital gains.  BUT we know that it is possible to find a portfolio
which has the same returns as the DJIA portfolio but at a smaller risk.
(This is a mathematical fact).

Thus, by definition, nobody is ever going to own a DJIA portfolio.  In
contrast, there is a extremely good interpretation for the value weighted
portfolio -- it's the highest returns you can get for it's level of risk.
Thus you would have good reason for owning a value-weighted market portfolio,
thus justifying it's index.

Yet another intuition about the value-weighted index -- a smart investor is
not going to ever buy equal number of shares of a given set of companies,
which is what index type a. tracks.  If you take into consideration that the
price movements of companies are correlated with others, you are going to
hedge your returns by buying different proportions of company shares.  This
is in effect what the index type B does and this is why it is a smarter index
to follow.

One very neat property of this kind of index is that it is readily applied to
industry indices.  Thus you can simply apply the above formula to all machine
tool companies, and you get a machine tool index.  This industry-index is
conceptually sound, with excellent interpretations.  Thus on a day when the
market index goes up 6%, if machine tools goes up 10%, you know the market
found some good news on machine tools.

+ Type C index:  Here the index is the average of the returns of a certain
set of companies. Value Line publishes two versions of it:

  * the arithmetic index :  (VLAI/N) =  1  * Sum(N returns)
  * the geometric index :  VLGI  = {Product(1 + return) over N}^{1/n},
    which is just the geometric mean of the N returns.

Notice that these indices imply that the dollar value on each company has
to be the same.  Discussed further in BKM, pg 66.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Stock Index - The Dow
From: [e-mail], [e-mail]

The Dow Jones Industrial Average is computed from the following stocks:

Ticker  Name
------  ----
AA    Alcoa
ALD    Allied Signal
AXP    American Express
BA    Boeing
BS    Bethlehem Steel
CAT    Caterpillar
CHV    Chevron
DD    Du Pont
DIS    Disney
EK    Eastman Kodak
GE    General Electric
GM    General Motors
GT    Goodyear Tire
IBM    International Business Machines
IP    International Paper
JPM    JP Morgan Bank
KO    Coca Cola
MCD    McDonalds
MMM    Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M)
MO    Philip Morris
MRK    Merck
PG    Procter and Gamble
S    Sears, Roebuck
T    AT&T
TX    Texaco
UK    Union Carbide
UTX    United Technologies
WX    Westinghouse
XON    Exxon
Z    Woolworth

The Dow Jones averages are computed by summing the prices of the stocks
in the average and then dividing by a constant called the "divisor".  The
divisor for the industrial average is adjusted periodically to reflect
splits in the stocks making up the average; the divisor was originally 30
but has been reduced over the years to 0.462685 (as of 92-10-31).  The
current value of the divisor can be found in the Wall Street Journal
and Barron's.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Stock Indexes - Others
From: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail]

Standard & Poor's 500:    500 of the biggest US corporations.
    This is a very popular institutional index, and recently becoming
    more popular among individuals.  Most often used measure of broad
    stock market results.
Wilshire 5000
    Includes most publicly traded shares.  Considered by some a better
    measure of market as a whole, becuase it includes smaller companies.
Wilshire 4500
    These are all firms *except* the S&P 500.
Value Line Composite
    See Martin Zweig's Winning on Wall Street for a good description.
    It is a price-weighted index as opposed to a capitalization index.
    Zweig (and others) think this gives better tracking of investment
    results, since it is not over-weighted in IBM, for example, and
    most individuals are likewise not weighted by market cap in their
    portfolios (unless they buy index funds).
Nikkei Dow (Japan)
    I believe "Dow" is a misnomer.  It is called the Nikkei index (or
    the Nikkei-xx, where xx is the number of shares in it, which I
    can't quote to you out of my head).  "Dow" comes from Dow Jones &
    Company, which publishes DJIA numbers.  Nikkei is considered the
    "Japanese Dow," in that it is the most popular and commonly quoted
    Japanese market index, but I don't think Dow Jones owns it.
S&P 100 (and OEX)
    The S&P 100 is an index of 100 stocks.  The "OEX" is the option on
    this index, one of the most heavily traded options around.
S&P MidCap 400
    Medium capitalization firms.
CAC-40 (France)
    This is 40 stocks on the Paris Stock Exchange formed into an
    index.  The futures contract on this index is probably the most
    heavily traded futures contract in the world.
Europe, Australia, and Far-East (EAFE)
    Compiled by Morgan Stanley.
Russell 1000
Russell 2000
    A small cap stock index.
Russell 3000
NYSE Composite              [options on index]
Gold & Silver Index         [options on index]
AMEX Composite
NASDAQ Composite
Topix (Japan)
DAX (Germany)
FTSE 100 (Great Britain)
Major Market Index (MMI)

 [ Compiler's note: a few explanations are still missing.
   Can anyone supply a few? ]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Stock Splits
From: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Ordinary splits occur when the company distributes more stock to holders
of existing stock.  A stock split, say 2-for-1, is when a company simply
issues two shares for every one outstanding.  If the stock was at $50
per share, after the split, each share is worth $25, because the company's
net assets didn't increase, only the number of outstanding shares.

Sometimes an ordinary split is referred to as a percent.  A 2:1 split is
a 100% stock split (or 100% stock dividend).   A 50% split would be a 3:2
split (or 50% stock dividend).  You will get 1 more share of stock for
every 2 shares you owned.

Reverse splits occur when a company wants to raise the price of their
stock, so it no longer looks like a "penny stock" but looks more like a
self-respecting stock.  Or they might want to conduct a massive reverse
split to eliminate small holders.  If a $1 stock is split 1:10 the new
shares will be worth $10.  Holders will have to trade in their 10 Old
Shares to receive 1 New Share.

Often a split is announced long before the effective date of the split,
along with the "record date."   Shareholders of record on the record
date will receive the split shares on the effective date (distribution
date). Sometimes the split stock begins trading as "when issued" on or
about the record date.   The newspaper listing will show both the pre-
split stock as well as the when-issued split stock with the suffix "wi."
(Stock dividends of 10% or less will generally not trade wi.)

Theoretically a stock split is a non-event.  The fraction of the company
each of your shares represents is reduced, but you are given enough
shares so that your total fraction of the company owned remains the same.
On the day of the split, the value of the stock is also adjusted so that
the total capitalization of the company remains the same.

In practice, an ordinary split often drives the new price per share up,
as more of the public is attracted by the lower price.  A company might
split when it feels its per-share price has risen beyond what an individual
investor is willing to pay, particularly since they are usually bought
and sold in 100's.  They may wish to attract individuals to stabilize the
price, as institutional investors buy and sell more often than individuals.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Ticker Tape Terminology
From: [e-mail], [e-mail]

Ticker tape says:        Translation (but see below):
        NIKE68 1/2            100 shares sold at 68 1/2
     10sNIKE68 1/2           1000 shares sold at   "
 10.000sNIKE68 1/2          10000 shares sold at   "

The extra zeroes for the big trades are to make them stand out.  All
trades on CNN and CNBC are delayed by 15 minutes.  CNBC once advertised
a "ticker guide pamphlet, free for the asking", back when they merged
with FNN.  It also has explanations for the futures they show.

However, the first translation is not necessarily correct.  CNBC has
a dynamic maximum size for transactions that are displayed this way.
Depending on how busy things are at any particular time, the maximum
varies from 100 to 5000 shares.  You can figure out the current maximum
by watching carefully for about five minutes.  If the smallest number
of shares you see in the second format is "10s" for any traded security,
then the first form can mean anything from 100 to 900 shares.  If the
smallest you see is "50s" (which is pretty common), the first form
means anything between 100 and 4900 shares.

Note that at busy times, a broker's ticker drops the volume figure and
then everything but the last dollar digit (e.g. on a busy day, a trade
of 25,000 IBM at 68 3/4 shows only as "IBM 8 3/4" on a broker's ticker).
That never happens on CNBC, so I don't know how they can keep up with all
trades without "forgetting" a few.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Treasury Direct
From: [e-mail]

You can buy T-Bills directly from the US Treasury.  Contact any Federal
Reserve Bank and ask for information on Treasury Direct.  The minimum
for a Treasury Note (2 years and up) is only $5K and in some instances
(I believe 5 year notes) $1K.  There are no fees and you may elect to
have interest payments made directly to your account.  You even may pay
with a personal check, no need for a cashier's or certified check as
Treasury Bills (1 year and under) required.  AAII Journal had an article
on this a couple of years ago. Like they said, the government service is
great, they just do not advertise it well.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (UGMA)
From: [e-mail], [e-mail]

The Uniform Gifts to Minors Act allows you to give $10,000 per year
to any minor, tax free.  You must appoint a custodian.

Some accountants advise that one person should make the gift and
that a different person should be the custoidian, but I have never
seen any IRS publication to justify this, nor any tax case ruling
which makes this a problem.  I suspect some people are just being
conservative.

To give such a gift, go to your friendly neighborhood stockbroker,
bank, mutual fund manager, or (close your eyes now: S&L), etc. and
say that you wish to open a Uniform Gifts (in some states "Transfers")
to Minors Act account.

You register it as:
  [ Name of Custodian ] as custodian for [ Name of Minor ] under the
  Uniform Gifts/Transfers to Minors Act - [ Name of State of Minor's
  residence ]

You use the minor's social security number as the taxpayer ID for this
account.  When you fill out the W-9 form for this account, it will
show this form.  The custodian should certify the W-9 form.

The money now belongs to the minor and the custodian has a legal
fiduciary responsibility to handle the money in a prudent manner for
the benefit of the minor.

So you can buy common stocks but cannot write naked options.  You
cannot "invest" the money on the horses, planning to donate the
winnings to the minor.  And when the minor reaches age of majority -
usually 18 - the minor can claim all of the funds even if that's
against your wishes.  You cannot place any conditions on those funds
once the minor becomes an adult.

Until the minor reaches 14, the first $500 earned by the minor is
tax free, the next $500 is taxed at the minor's rate, and the rest
is taxed at the higher of the minor's or the parent's rate.  After
the minor reaches 14, all earnings over $500 are taxed at the
minor's rate.

Note that if you want to continue doing your childs taxes even after
they turn 18, there is no reason they need to know about their UGMA
account that you set up for them.  They certainly can't blow their
college fund on a Trans Am if they don't know about it.

Even if your child does his/her own taxes, you can still give them
gifts through a trust without them knowing about it until they are
more mature.  Call and ask Twentieth Century Investors for information
about their GiftTrust fund.  The fund is entirely composed of trusts
like this.  The trust pays its own taxes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Warrants
From: [e-mail]

There are many meanings to the word warrant.

The marshal can show up on your doorstep with a warrant for your arrest.

Many army helicopter pilots are warrant officers, who have received
a warrant from the president of the US to serve in the Army of the
United States.

The State of California ran out of money earlier this year and
issued things that looked a lot like checks, but had no promise to
pay behind them.  If I did that I could be arrested for writing a
bad check.  When the State of California did it, they called these
thingies "warrants" and got away with it.

And a warrant is also a financial instrument which was issued with
certain conditions.  The issuer of that warrant sets those conditions.
Sometimes the warrant and common or preferred convertible stock are
issued by a startup company bundled together as "units" and at some
later date the units will split into warrants and stock.  This is a
common financing method for some startup companies.  This is the
"warrant" most readers of the misc.invest newsgroup ask about.

As an example of a "condition," there may be an exchange privilege
which lets you exchange 1 warrant plus $25 in cash (or even no cash
at all) for 100 shares of common stock in the corporation, any time
after some fixed date and before some other designated date.
(And often the issuer can extend the "expiration date.")

So there are some similarities between warrants and call options for
common stock.

Both allow holders to exercise the warrant/option before an
expiration date, for a certain number of shares.  But the option is
issued by independent parties, such as a member of the Chicago Board
Options Exchange, while the warrant is issued and guaranteed by the
corporate issuer itself.  The lifetime of a warrant is often
measured in years, while the lifetime of a call option is months.

Sometimes the issuer will try to establish a market for the warrant,
and even try to register it with a listed exchange.  The price can
then be obtained from any broker.  Other times the warrant will be
privately held, or not registered with an exchange, and the price
is less obvious, as is true with non-listed stocks.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Zero-Coupon Bonds
From: [e-mail]

Not too many years ago every bond had coupons attached to it.  Every
so often, usually every 6 months, bond owners would take a scissors
to the bond, clip out the coupon, and present the coupon to the bond
issuer or to a bank for payment.  Those were "bearer bonds" meaning
the bearer (the person who had physical possession of the bond) owned
it.  Today, many bonds are issued as "registered" which means even if
you get to touch the actual bond at all, it will be registered in your
name and interest will be mailed to you every 6 months. It is not too
common to see such coupons. Registered bonds will not generally have
coupons, but may still pay interest each year.  It's sort of like the
issuer is clipping the coupons for you and mailing you a check.  But
if they pay interest periodically, they are still called Coupon Bonds,
just as if the coupons were attached.

When the bond matures, the issuer redeems the bond and pays you the
face amount.   You may have paid $1000 for the bond 20 years ago and
you have received interest every 6 months for the last 20 years, and
you now redeem the matured bond for $1000.

A Zero-coupon bond has no coupons and there is no interest paid.

But at maturity, the issuer promises to redeem the bond at face value.
Obviously, the original cost of a $1000 bond is much less than $1000.
The actual price depends on: a) the holding period -- the number of
years to maturity, b) the prevailing interest rates, and c) the risk
involved (with the bond issuer).

Taxes:  Even though the bond holder does not receive any interest while
holding zeroes, in the US the IRS requires that you "impute" an annual
interest income and report this income each year.  Usually, the issuer
will send you a Form 1099-OID (Original Issue Discount) which lists the
imputed interest and which should be reported like any other interest
you receive.  There is also an IRS publication covering imputed interest
on Original Issue Discount instruments.

For capital gains purposes, the imputed interest you earned between the
time you acquired and the time you sold or redeemed the bond is added to
your cost basis.  If you held the bond continually from the time it was
issued until it matured, you will generally not have any gain or loss.

Zeroes tend to be more susceptible to prevailing interest rates, and
some people buy zeroes hoping to get capital gains when interest rates
drop. There is high leverage.   If rates go up, they can always hold them.

Zeroes sometimes pay a better rate than coupon bonds (whether registered
or not).  When a zero is bought for a tax deferred account, such as an
IRA, the imputed interest does not have to be reported as income, so
the paperwork is lessened.

Both corporate and municipalities issue zeroes, and imputed interest on
municipals is tax-free in the same way coupon interest on municipals is.
(The zero could be subject to AMT).

Some marketeers have created their own zeroes, starting with coupon
bonds, by clipping all the coupons and selling the bond less the coupons
as one product -- very much like a zero -- and the coupons as another
product. Even US Treasuries can be split into two products to form a
zero US Treasury.

There are other products which are combinations of zeroes and regular
bonds.  For example, a bond may be a zero for the first five years of
its life, and pay a stated interest rate thereafter.  It will be treated
as an OID instrument while it pays no interest.

(Note:  The "no interest" must be part of the original offering; if a
cumulative instrument intends to pay interest but defaults, that does not
make this a zero and does not cause imputed interest to be calculated.)

Like other bonds, some zeroes might be callable by the issuer (they are
redeemed) prior to maturity, at a stated price.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compiler's Acknowledgements:
My sincere thanks to the many submitters for their efforts.  Also thanks to
Jonathan I. Kamens for his guidance on FAQs and his post_faq perl script.

Compilation Copyright (c) 1992 by Christopher Lott, [e-mail]
--
Christopher Lott    [e-mail]   [phone], -3331 Fax
Post: FB Informatik - Bau 57, Universitaet KL, W-6750 Kaiserslautern, Germany