My Sunday morning train reads:

• Thursday’s Selloff, By the Numbers (MoneyBeat)
• 3 market warning signs predict 20% stock tumble (Marketwatch) but see Have a Plan (Irrelevant Investor)
• Vanguard Demonstrates When Active Management Pays (Barron’s)
• Math nerds are taking over Wall Street (CNN Money)
• Big Banks Still a Risk (NYT)
• Republicans deliver another self-inflicted wound (Washington Post) see also Same Woes for House Republicans as Border Vote Canceled (Bloomberg)
• California’s Exceptional Drought Just Keeps Getting Worse (Bloomberg)
•  How to Think About the New Middle East (Politico)
• Do we know what we see?  Alison Gopnik on an experiment that sows doubt (WSJ)
• .@HiddenCash Revealed: Making Generosity Go Viral (TechCrunch)

What’s for brunch?


Source: Barron’s


Category: Financial Press

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

13 Responses to “10 Sunday Reads”

  1. RW says:

    A Distant Mirror

    Book Review of ‘The Invisible Bridge: The fall of Nixon and the rise of Reagan,’ by Rick Perlstein

  2. farmera1 says:

    Follow up to Barron’s article (Vanguard Demonstrates When Active Management Pays)

    I was not able to read the Barron’s article but I found a Vanguard paper that talks about the subject.

    The case for Vanguard active management: Solving the low-cost/top-talent paradox?

    As a great fan of Vanguard the article is a restatement of Vanguard’s long term position: FEES MATTER

    So the greatest chance of success for an investor is to find a fund with low fees that has talented managers running it. Nothing new here or nothing exciting to those that follow these kinds of things. Vanguard just happens to have the lowest fees in the industry and they also have some good managers, so in aggregate your odds investment success improve when you invest with …….Vanguard. Nothing new here .

  3. willid3 says:

    all of those inversions will hurt investors as they will end up owing capital gains taxes.

    As U.S. corporations move offshore to potentially avoid billions in U.S. taxes, they are sticking their shareholders with an unexpected tax burden over which investors have no control.

    The Joint Commission on Taxation, a non-partisan congressional research panel, estimates that the U.S. stands to lose as much as $19.5 billion in tax revenues over the next decade if corporate “inversions” are allowed to continue. Yet, while U.S. corporations will gain—by exploiting a loophole to avoid paying billions in U.S. taxes if their deals are successful—shareholders stuck footing a tax bill on capital gains stand to lose.


    This is complicated stuff, so let’s take a real-world example. Consider the recent $28 billion merger between Dublin’s Activis PLC and U.S.-based Forest Laboratories, which closed on July 1. When Forest reincorporates in Ireland, its shareholders will owe capital gains on their Forest shares.

    (For example) Vanguard’s massive 500 Index Fund owned, collectively, 2,468,154 shares of Forest Labs at the end of June, the day before the transaction closed. The gain in Vanguard’s position based on Forest’s average price could be $146.7 million dollars, though it could be even higher or lower thanks to the invisibility factor. On that $146.7 million gain, shareholders in the fund could collectively owe as much as $29.3 million in taxes. And that’s just one fund. To be clear, investors in IRAs and other tax-exempt accounts aren’t liable for the tax hit.

    wonder who pays if they are tax exempt? maybe Vanguard ends up having to pay?

    • rd says:

      We have the opportunity to fire every Representative and one-third of the Senators this November. If we don’t fire a substantial percentage of them, then we must like what they are doing and should not complain.

  4. VennData says:

    The US president school’s the Economist and their simplistic GOP-talking point parroting.

    Once a reliable source, they’ve become nutty reactionaries.

  5. rd says:

    More examples of socializing costs and privatizing profits:

    Not mentioned in the article, but algae blooms are greatly exacerbated by fertilizer runoff from industrial agriculture of which Ohio has a lot of.

    People want to live in the woods where the land is less expensive and they can commune with nature

    Some of these are truly tragedies where people lived in decentralized locations in rural areas with an expectation that government would ensure their safety. If that is done correctly, it is very expensive when people are dispersed instead of concentrated. People used to have forts where they would go to for safety provided by the local governments while their homes would go undefended.

    There are two separate but parallel issues here:

    1. Allowing non-point source pollution to impact water supply sources means that the water supply for cities needs additional levels of treatment with the transfer of costs that implies.

    2. Should government play a role in defining and providing safe areas in rural areas which is generally much more expensive per capita than providing the same in cities? Who should be responsible for the incremental costs?

  6. VennData says:

    “… It’s broadly consistent with Republicans’ continued anger with the Fed…”

    I hope their anger continues to guide us.