Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #155734 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-01 10:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-03 17:11 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 320 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 10:49 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-01 13:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 12:05 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-02 04:41 -0400
Re: I Feel Old "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-01-02 11:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 17:14 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-03 08:07 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 15:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 11:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-03 17:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 18:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 06:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 12:24 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-03 09:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 13:12 -0700
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 16:56 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 14:27 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-03 23:53 +0000
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-04 07:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 14:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 16:55 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 11:41 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-03 17:37 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 13:11 -0700
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 16:01 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 16:23 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-03 17:30 -0400
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-04 14:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:15 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 13:31 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-05 22:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 17:07 -0800
Re: I Feel Old philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-06 19:21 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-01 21:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-01 22:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 15:57 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-01 20:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-02 00:45 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 06:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 08:18 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 07:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:34 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-02 14:27 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:28 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-02 19:56 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 07:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-03 10:00 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-17 08:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 13:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 11:15 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-06 11:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-06 12:02 -0600
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 18:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-06 18:06 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 09:22 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 15:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 09:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:47 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 18:47 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 19:23 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 10:58 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 06:37 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 15:53 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 11:26 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 09:53 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:24 +0100
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-10 06:06 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-08 10:13 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:42 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-09 07:07 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-09 11:55 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 15:40 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-10 06:13 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-09 13:36 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-09 15:30 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-08 10:43 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 10:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 10:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 22:53 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 12:53 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:29 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:26 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 16:22 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 10:03 +1100
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-12 21:01 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 14:22 +1100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-13 10:14 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-13 18:51 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-14 07:02 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 13:06 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 09:51 +1100
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 06:01 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-08 13:21 -0600
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-08 20:58 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> - 2016-01-08 20:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:31 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-09 18:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-09 12:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 15:31 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 17:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-09 17:07 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-10 11:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 17:08 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:43 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 08:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 09:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 12:28 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 10:58 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 14:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 13:57 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 18:19 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 17:37 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 18:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-08 16:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-09 18:38 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 21:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-09 22:56 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 23:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 14:58 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 14:01 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 16:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 14:48 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-11 17:28 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 19:01 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 16:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-07 13:13 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 18:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 23:20 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:29 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:30 +0100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 10:59 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 19:48 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-05 06:27 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 16:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 11:08 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 13:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-04 14:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:38 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 17:47 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 01:27 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 11:18 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-13 19:05 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 20:22 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-14 14:09 -0600
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-15 14:51 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 09:48 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 17:26 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 13:19 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-15 09:20 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-15 17:44 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 12:57 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-19 12:42 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-19 15:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 19:15 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 13:44 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-15 15:02 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-16 08:58 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 23:51 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 16:01 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 17:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 08:03 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-16 08:29 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 03:38 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 15:32 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 16:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 16:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 02:11 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 14:02 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 14:22 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-18 05:09 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 15:00 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-18 03:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-16 16:15 +0100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-17 11:39 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-18 04:41 +1100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-16 16:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-16 11:19 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-16 18:36 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-16 17:23 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 13:01 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-16 20:55 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-16 14:53 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 05:43 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 19:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 09:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 14:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 15:19 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 19:27 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 15:00 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 15:32 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 22:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 16:12 +1100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-17 11:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 12:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 09:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-17 10:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-17 15:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 05:14 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 15:38 -0600
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-16 14:09 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-16 15:19 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-15 19:29 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-15 14:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-14 13:46 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-14 05:17 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-14 13:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:37 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-05 04:44 -0400
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 11:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 17:04 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-04 17:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-02 15:01 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 15:58 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 06:40 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 12:31 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 22:06 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 07:09 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 12:11 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 20:42 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 16:43 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 22:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:21 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-04 17:47 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 16:10 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:26 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:57 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:46 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:36 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-07 13:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:35 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-08 00:15 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 19:41 +1100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 12:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-07 21:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:51 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 12:59 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:35 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-05 17:31 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:38 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 13:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 05:49 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 07:13 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 16:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:39 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-06 09:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 17:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:42 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 14:20 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:34 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 19:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 12:35 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 20:54 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 23:48 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:38 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-07 07:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 06:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-09 21:47 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 05:45 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-10 12:18 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 08:12 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-10 13:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-07 08:15 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 05:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:29 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:20 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:52 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:34 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:40 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:39 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:22 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 17:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 20:13 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:37 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 23:25 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Freddy1 <something@something.com> - 2016-01-02 21:35 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-03 05:34 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 08:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Freddy1 <something@something.com> - 2016-01-03 15:17 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-03 20:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 05:09 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:57 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-01 20:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-01-02 07:00 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Louis Krupp <lkrupp@nospam.pssw.com.invalid> - 2016-01-02 01:44 -0700
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 13:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-02 09:11 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-02 11:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-03 08:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-03 17:11 +0000
Page 9 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 16 Next page →
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 20:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n770k2$820$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156612 |
On 13-Jan-16 19:05, Lawrence Statton wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >>> There are, in most places, also clear limits to how much of the >>> fund payment that can go to buy the company shares; with limits >>> on the order of 15% or so. >> >> Even that is questionable to me; if your employer goes bankrupt, >> it's bad enough that you lose your income, but also 15% of your >> pension? > > This is a case where a neutral fund manager would be to your > advantage -- if you work for ReallyStableCorp (I would like to think > of an example from today, but I can't) having 15% in your own company > might actually be a perfectly reasonable risk. I disagree; fate-sharing is a serious problem--and history has shown that even the most "stable" companies can shock everyone with a surprise bankruptcy announcement. > Imagine an extreme case thought experiment -- the fund manager has > no idea who the employers of the participants actually is -- they > are nothing more than account numbers. > > If investing in the company that happened to employ you were a good > risk, for John Smith who works at OtherCorp, it should be a good > risk for you, too. No, because John Smith doesn't have the fate-sharing problem I do. Beyond that, I wouldn't want 15% of my pension invested in _any_ single company's stock. Probably not even any single company's bonds. One exception would be during a transition from employer pensions to trust pensions, since the most logical way to do that would be for the employer to fund the trust with newly-issued equities representing its existing obligations. However, I would expect the trusts to then swap equities around so that they were all properly diversified. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 14:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n78v3t$mne$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156619 |
On 13-Jan-16 20:22, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > One exception would be during a transition from employer pensions to > trust pensions, since the most logical way to do that would be for the > employer to fund the trust with newly-issued equities representing its > existing obligations. However, I would expect the trusts to then swap > equities around so that they were all properly diversified. Oops; that should have been "securities", not "equities". I'd think bonds would generally be more appropriate, but there may be cases where stocks could be acceptable, e.g. when issuing enough bonds would itself put the employer at risk of bankruptcy. Note that moving to trust pensions also puts those assets out of the reach of corporate raiders (or corrupt execs), which radically reduces the odds of the employer going bankrupt in the first place! S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 14:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005296094F0B736@aca20255.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #156657 |
Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 13-Jan-16 20:22, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> One exception would be during a transition from employer pensions to >> trust pensions, since the most logical way to do that would be for the >> employer to fund the trust with newly-issued equities representing its >> existing obligations. However, I would expect the trusts to then swap >> equities around so that they were all properly diversified. > > Oops; that should have been "securities", not "equities". > > I'd think bonds would generally be more appropriate, but there may be > cases where stocks could be acceptable, e.g. when issuing enough bonds > would itself put the employer at risk of bankruptcy. > > Note that moving to trust pensions also puts those assets out of the > reach of corporate raiders (or corrupt execs), which radically reduces > the odds of the employer going bankrupt in the first place! And then the companies in charge of those trusts go bankrupt. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 09:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7b46p$k89$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156676 |
On 15-Jan-16 08:51, jmfbahciv wrote: > Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> Note that moving to trust pensions also puts those assets out of >> the reach of corporate raiders (or corrupt execs), which radically >> reduces the odds of the employer going bankrupt in the first >> place! > > And then the companies in charge of those trusts go bankrupt. So what? A new trustee gets appointed, and everything is fine. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 17:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t5jnmc-73q.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156683 |
In article <n7b46p$k89$1@dont-email.me>, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >On 15-Jan-16 08:51, jmfbahciv wrote: >> Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> Note that moving to trust pensions also puts those assets out of >>> the reach of corporate raiders (or corrupt execs), which radically >>> reduces the odds of the employer going bankrupt in the first >>> place! >> >> And then the companies in charge of those trusts go bankrupt. > >So what? A new trustee gets appointed, and everything is fine. What you Leftopondians need to understand is that there is absolutly no reason to accept that your employer or any other limited company is in ownership of your pensions. None. Whatsoever. There are lots of different, sane structures to have pensions in. Like trusts, these 401k's you have as a special semi-corporation, coops, unions[*], etc. etc. There is no reason why you should go for complicated management of these pensions. There are no complicated management that has proven it's muster. The only rules that work are very simple ones where you shift instruments according to the business cycle. Otherwise just stay invested in some index fund that takes around 1/100th of a percent margin every year, be it stocks or bonds. If the caretaker of all your pensions goes bust the worst that should happen is a hundred dollars in setup fee for a new one. -- mrr [*] Please remember that lots of organisations outside the US has incorporated as unions. You need 8 people here to make one. You get barganing power, to the extent that that is useful, but you also get lots of legal protection and tax free investments. (They are taxed as they are paid back out). They can supply you with extra education grants, unemployment and sick grants, not tax free but at sensible tax rates. All legally isolated from your employer and yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 13:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7bgj6$bcd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156685 |
On 15-Jan-16 10:26, Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <n7b46p$k89$1@dont-email.me>, Stephen Sprunk > <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> On 15-Jan-16 08:51, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>>> Note that moving to trust pensions also puts those assets out >>>> of the reach of corporate raiders (or corrupt execs), which >>>> radically reduces the odds of the employer going bankrupt in >>>> the first place! >>> >>> And then the companies in charge of those trusts go bankrupt. >> >> So what? A new trustee gets appointed, and everything is fine. > > What you Leftopondians need to understand is that there is absolutly > no reason to accept that your employer or any other limited company > is in ownership of your pensions. None. Whatsoever. I totally agree; that's the sort of thing trusts were _created_ for. > There are lots of different, sane structures to have pensions in. > Like trusts, these 401k's you have as a special semi-corporation, > coops, unions[*], etc. etc. 401(k) and similar plans are trusts; the only corporation involved is the "plan administrator", which is a fancy word for trustee. I see no reason to _not_ use a trust for any such plan, even if such plan were organized by a coop or union. > There is no reason why you should go for complicated management of > these pensions. There are no complicated management that has proven > it's muster. The only rules that work are very simple ones where you > shift instruments according to the business cycle. Agreed, which is why the overhead of 401(k) and similar plans themselves are essentially zero; there are costs to having a web site, keeping track of the accounts for each beneficiary, receiving and issuing checks, etc., but they're negligible as long as you have scale. The trust itself invests in various mutual funds, which have their own costs, but anyone who chooses anything other than indexes is an idiot, and in that case fund overhead is negligible as well. > Otherwise just stay invested in some index fund that takes around > 1/100th of a percent margin every year, be it stocks or bonds. Agreed. > If the caretaker of all your pensions goes bust the worst that > should happen is a hundred dollars in setup fee for a new one. Trustees are replaced all the time; it's not a problem. Again, that is part of the _point_ of using a trust. > [*] Please remember that lots of organisations outside the US has > incorporated as unions. You need 8 people here to make one. You get > barganing power, to the extent that that is useful, but you also get > lots of legal protection and tax free investments. (They are taxed > as they are paid back out). They can supply you with extra education > grants, unemployment and sick grants, not tax free but at sensible > tax rates. All legally isolated from your employer and yourself. Our unions (i.e. organized crime) aren't the same as your unions (i.e. workers' guilds); I'd still want a trust even if funded via members' dues. The union itself wouldn't need to be the trustee; there is an entire trust management industry that would do a better job at lower cost--and with much lower risk of corruption. Given the low rate of unionization (11.1% of US workers), it seems far more urgent to find a similar structure for non-union workers. OTOH, such plans might help unions gain millions of new members. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 09:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87vb6uiwu0.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #156676 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > And then the companies in charge of those trusts go bankrupt. recent saga is ENRON. preventing regulation of CDS were originally billed as gift to ENRON. #2 on time's list of those responsible for economic mess: http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877330,00.html when head of CFTC proposed regulating CDS, quickly replaced by the senator's wife (who blocked regulating CDS), while the senator gets legislation preventing CDS regulation ... after which the wife resigns and joins ENRON board and the audit committee. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#enron Congress then bills Sarbanes-Oxley as preventing future ENRONs and guaranteeing executives (& auditors) would do jail time ... but it required SEC to do something http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#sarbanes-oxley possibly because even GAO didn't believe SEC was doing anything, it started doing reports of public company fraudulent financial filings, even show they increased after SOX goes into effect (and nobody doing jailtime). http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#financial.reporting.fraud then CDS grambling bets play a role in the economic mess ... initially paying for triple-A rating eliminated any reason to care about loan/mortgage quality. The triple-A rating also opens the market for toxic CDOs to large funds restricted to "safe" investments (like large retirement funds, claims that it resulting in 30% fall in the funds and shortfall of trillions for pension payouts) contributing to being able to do over $27T 2001-2008. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#toxic.cdo Then they realize that they can securitize mortgages designed to fail, pay for triple-A rating, sell to their victims and then take out CDS gambling bets that they would fail (creating enormous demand for bad mortgages). Yesterday had latest announcement of billions in "deferred prosecution" fines for activities during the economic mess (trivial amounts compared to the tens of trillions that were involved). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_prosecution These fines have being turned over to organizations created to help victims of the mortgage practices ... but huge amounts appear to be siphon off with little actually reaching the victims. and on-going saga of calpers Why is CalPERS Understating Its Cost of Investing in Private Equity by Roughly $1.6 Billion, Meaning 80%? http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/01/why-is-calpers-understating-its-cost-of-investing-in-private-by-roughly-1-6-billion-meaning-80.html after they got such a bad reputation during the S&L crisis, the industry changed its name to "private equity" (and junk bonds became "high-yield bonds") ... past posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#private.equity it is like the joke why do crooks rob banks ... because that is where the money is ... similarly the large pension funds have large amounts of money and have been attractive target for all sorts looking at skimming&looting money (armed bank robbing is typically measured in thousands, wallstreet looting is measured in hundreds of billions and tens of trillions). -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 17:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6tWdnbjxzYFrsgTLnZ2dnUU78UudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #156676 |
On 15/01/2016 14:51, jmfbahciv wrote: > Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> On 13-Jan-16 20:22, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> One exception would be during a transition from employer pensions to >>> trust pensions, since the most logical way to do that would be for the >>> employer to fund the trust with newly-issued equities representing its >>> existing obligations. However, I would expect the trusts to then swap >>> equities around so that they were all properly diversified. >> >> Oops; that should have been "securities", not "equities". >> >> I'd think bonds would generally be more appropriate, but there may be >> cases where stocks could be acceptable, e.g. when issuing enough bonds >> would itself put the employer at risk of bankruptcy. >> >> Note that moving to trust pensions also puts those assets out of the >> reach of corporate raiders (or corrupt execs), which radically reduces >> the odds of the employer going bankrupt in the first place! > > And then the companies in charge of those trusts go bankrupt. > > /BAH > Preventing the trust managers from spending the money on themselves is important.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 12:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7bf9t$5sc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156689 |
On 15-Jan-16 11:44, Andrew Swallow wrote: > On 15/01/2016 14:51, jmfbahciv wrote: >> Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> Note that moving to trust pensions also puts those assets out of >>> the reach of corporate raiders (or corrupt execs), which >>> radically reduces the odds of the employer going bankrupt in the >>> first place! >> >> And then the companies in charge of those trusts go bankrupt. > > Preventing the trust managers from spending the money on themselves > is important. There are hundreds of years of common law and experience around keeping trustees honest; provided the trust is constructed competently, that is simply not an issue in practice. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 12:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <73ee63ba-af6f-4339-8ea5-81bec8361c4f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156692 |
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 1:57:38 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > There are hundreds of years of common law and experience around keeping > trustees honest; provided the trust is constructed competently, that is > simply not an issue in practice. Sleazy people will find a way to sleaze. As an example, Banks used to offer trust accounts, say for a wealthy family for its kids, or the endowment fund of a non-profit organization. A small fee would be charged. Then someone found that those fees could be jacked up to nasty amounts. Perfectly legal. A lot of non-profits got badly burned by this. Sometimes the bank trusetee was hard-coded in the charter (to prevent the organization from looting it), and moving the money to avoid the fees was very difficult. The government can be sleazy too. Years ago, a dormant account would stay with a bank for 21 years. Then the government realized it could get its mitts on that money, and in some states reduced it to five years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 15:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7m9im$eau$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #157039 |
On 19-Jan-16 14:42, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 1:57:38 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk > wrote: > >> There are hundreds of years of common law and experience around >> keeping trustees honest; provided the trust is constructed >> competently, that is simply not an issue in practice. > > Sleazy people will find a way to sleaze. Yes, which is why common law provides protections to trusts; that was settled _centuries_ ago. But some responsibility _does_ fall on the creator of a trust to construct it properly. > As an example, > > Banks used to offer trust accounts, say for a wealthy family for its > kids, or the endowment fund of a non-profit organization. A small > fee would be charged. > > Then someone found that those fees could be jacked up to nasty > amounts. Perfectly legal. A lot of non-profits got badly burned by > this. Sometimes the bank trusetee was hard-coded in the charter (to > prevent the organization from looting it), and moving the money to > avoid the fees was very difficult. All it takes is the beneficiary going to court and showing a breach of trust, which is clearly established by charging more than "reasonable and customary" fees for services rendered. Not only can a court change the trustee (even if hardcoded), but the trust may even be able to recover excessive fees already charged plus punitive damages. > The government can be sleazy too. Years ago, a dormant account > would stay with a bank for 21 years. Then the government realized it > could get its mitts on that money, and in some states reduced it to > five years. Yes, but at least in that case, you can get back any unclaimed funds just by proving they're yours; they even provide helpful web sites so you can locate them. The state is primarily after the interest on the funds until then, and in many cases, the claimant wasn't earning any interest himself anyway so there's no harm done. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 19:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ajpnmc-fjq.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156689 |
In article <6tWdnbjxzYFrsgTLnZ2dnUU78UudnZ2d@giganews.com>, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >On 15/01/2016 14:51, jmfbahciv wrote: >> Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> On 13-Jan-16 20:22, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>>> One exception would be during a transition from employer pensions to >>>> trust pensions, since the most logical way to do that would be for the >>>> employer to fund the trust with newly-issued equities representing its >>>> existing obligations. However, I would expect the trusts to then swap >>>> equities around so that they were all properly diversified. >>> >>> Oops; that should have been "securities", not "equities". >>> >>> I'd think bonds would generally be more appropriate, but there may be >>> cases where stocks could be acceptable, e.g. when issuing enough bonds >>> would itself put the employer at risk of bankruptcy. >>> >>> Note that moving to trust pensions also puts those assets out of the >>> reach of corporate raiders (or corrupt execs), which radically reduces >>> the odds of the employer going bankrupt in the first place! >> >> And then the companies in charge of those trusts go bankrupt. >> >> /BAH >> > >Preventing the trust managers from spending the money on themselves is >important. Don't ever give them spending access to the trust. Billing, yes. Direct spending; no. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 13:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7bi2d$h3j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156694 |
On 15-Jan-16 12:15, Morten Reistad wrote: > Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >> Preventing the trust managers from spending the money on themselves >> is important. > > Don't ever give them spending access to the trust. > > Billing, yes. Direct spending; no. The trustee must have access to the trust's funds in order to do his job; that's why they're usually required to itemize everything they do, which for any non-trivial trust will be audited by a third party. Fees paid to the trustee get itemized separately; for ones like this, that's typically a flat 1-2% of net asset value per year specified in the trust's construction. Beware any trust that allows the trustee to increase his own compensation via "transaction fees", "expenses", etc. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 15:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dft52fFj4pmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156702 |
"Stephen Sprunk" wrote: > The trustee must have access to the trust's funds in order to do his > job; that's why they're usually required to itemize everything they do, > which for any non-trivial trust will be audited by a third party. > > Fees paid to the trustee get itemized separately; for ones like this, > that's typically a flat 1-2% of net asset value per year specified in > the trust's construction. Beware any trust that allows the trustee to > increase his own compensation via "transaction fees", "expenses", etc. This seems to me like a pretty rarefied discussion. I have a vague idea of setting up a trust for someone else, an heir for example, who is young, incompetent or has bad judgment. Are there other reasons for having a trust? I have a sinking feeling that if I won a certain kind of some huge legal suit, a trust would be created for me to give everyone involved (except me) a warm, happy glow. I note that the 1% charge per year is 20 times the cost of the Vanguard Amazon 500 Index fund. And I assume the trustee pays someone else to do the actual work so he just pre-skims the base before doing anything especially useful for most ordinary people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 08:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dft8d6Fjv6kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156707 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message news:dft52fFj4pmU1@mid.individual.net... > "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: > >> The trustee must have access to the trust's funds in order to do his >> job; that's why they're usually required to itemize everything they do, >> which for any non-trivial trust will be audited by a third party. >> >> Fees paid to the trustee get itemized separately; for ones like this, >> that's typically a flat 1-2% of net asset value per year specified in >> the trust's construction. Beware any trust that allows the trustee to >> increase his own compensation via "transaction fees", "expenses", etc. > > > This seems to me like a pretty rarefied discussion. I have a vague idea of > setting up a trust for someone else, an heir for example, who is young, > incompetent or has bad judgment. Are there other reasons for having a > trust? Yes, tax, here. > I have a sinking feeling that if I won a certain kind of some huge legal > suit, a trust would be created for me to give everyone involved (except > me) a warm, happy glow. > I note that the 1% charge per year is 20 times the cost of the Vanguard > Amazon 500 Index fund. And I assume the trustee pays someone else to do > the actual work so he just pre-skims the base before doing anything > especially useful for most ordinary people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 23:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <co9omc-5hr.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156707 |
In article <dft52fFj4pmU1@mid.individual.net>, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >"Stephen Sprunk" wrote: > >> The trustee must have access to the trust's funds in order to do his >> job; that's why they're usually required to itemize everything they do, >> which for any non-trivial trust will be audited by a third party. >> >> Fees paid to the trustee get itemized separately; for ones like this, >> that's typically a flat 1-2% of net asset value per year specified in >> the trust's construction. Beware any trust that allows the trustee to >> increase his own compensation via "transaction fees", "expenses", etc. > > >This seems to me like a pretty rarefied discussion. I have a vague idea of >setting up a trust for someone else, an heir for example, who is young, >incompetent or has bad judgment. Are there other reasons for having a trust? >I have a sinking feeling that if I won a certain kind of some huge legal >suit, a trust would be created for me to give everyone involved (except me) >a warm, happy glow. The trust is a separate legal person. This means it tax-wise acts as if it were a corporation. It may be liable for some taxes, or not, depending on jurisdiction. But the bulk of the taxes are usually paid when you withdraw from the trust. The trust can have you as a beneficiatly alone. This could give you a lifetime monthly income; e.g. This would be safe even from your own bankrupcy (but they could collect from the payments). >I note that the 1% charge per year is 20 times the cost of the Vanguard >Amazon 500 Index fund. And I assume the trustee pays someone else to do the >actual work so he just pre-skims the base before doing anything especially >useful for most ordinary people. This is what we call "managed fortunes". "This year you have the money, we have the experience. Next year we have the money, you have the experience.". There is not reason whatsoever to pay more than a few ticks a year for any ~1M$ management. That is a handful of 10000ths. Which is what it would cost to handle insurance, payments etc. No more. A percentage is exorbitant. 30 to 50 times less is more like it. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 16:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7h2q9$6q1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156717 |
On 15-Jan-16 16:51, Morten Reistad wrote: > Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >> This seems to me like a pretty rarefied discussion. I have a vague >> idea of setting up a trust for someone else, an heir for example, >> who is young, incompetent or has bad judgment. Are there other >> reasons for having a trust? ... > > The trust is a separate legal person. This means it tax-wise acts as > if it were a corporation. It may be liable for some taxes, or not, > depending on jurisdiction. Tax codes generally have one set of rules for natural persons (which generally get most of their income from wages and can't deduct most expenses) and another set of rules for other persons; it's not that they have a specific set of rules for corporations. > But the bulk of the taxes are usually paid when you withdraw from > the trust. Not in Leftpondia; taxes are due whenever a person has income, and the only exception I can think of is tax-deferred retirement accounts. > The trust can have you as a beneficiatly alone. This could give you a > lifetime monthly income; If that's what you want, just buy a life annuity. > e.g. This would be safe even from your own bankrupcy (but they could > collect from the payments). You could simply refuse to take any payments from the trust until the bankruptcy was completed, which takes a few months at most if you have no attachable assets--and that's part of the point of using a trust. > There is not reason whatsoever to pay more than a few ticks a year > for any ~1M$ management. That is a handful of 10000ths. Which is what > it would cost to handle insurance, payments etc. No more. A > percentage is exorbitant. It depends on the range of services you're getting; I know a few people who use "wealth management" services that are billed this way. These groups do pretty much _everything_ for you, e.g. investment managers, banking, insurance, lawyers, realtors, accountants, personal shoppers, etc. and it's all included in one bill. Several are (or at least were, last time we spoke) landlords, and the management of those properties (e.g. screening tenants, collecting rent, doing repairs, evicting deadbeats, etc.) is included as well. You could assemble the same group of experts as well, but you'll pay them at least as much in the end--probably more because they're not used to working together and bill you for all the time they spend talking to each other, on top of the time they spend talking to you and doing what you tell them to do. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 17:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7bu6b$33d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156707 |
On 15-Jan-16 15:02, Osmium wrote: > "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >> The trustee must have access to the trust's funds in order to do >> his job; that's why they're usually required to itemize everything >> they do, which for any non-trivial trust will be audited by a third >> party. >> >> Fees paid to the trustee get itemized separately; for ones like >> this, that's typically a flat 1-2% of net asset value per year >> specified in the trust's construction. Beware any trust that >> allows the trustee to increase his own compensation via >> "transaction fees", "expenses", etc. > > This seems to me like a pretty rarefied discussion. I have a vague > idea of setting up a trust for someone else, an heir for example, who > is young, incompetent or has bad judgment. Are there other reasons > for having a trust? There are lots of different reasons, and a trust would be constructed differently depending on what the goal was. However, they all share a fundamental design: the trust owns assets that the trustee controls for the benefit of a third party (aka the beneficiary). > I have a sinking feeling that if I won a certain kind of some huge > legal suit, a trust would be created for me to give everyone > involved (except me) a warm, happy glow. That's doubtful; the loser generally doesn't care what happens after they pay out. The main exception is class action suits: the loser pays the trust, and then the trust pays the class members--and the lawyer. OTOH, a trust is a good way to avoid someone suing _you_; if they win, you'd just declare bankruptcy (since _you_ have no attachable assets) and they'd get nothing. Your trust (and anything it owns) would be unaffected because it wasn't a party to the suit or the bankruptcy. Living trusts also avoid probate--and inheritance taxes--since they're not part of your estate. > I note that the 1% charge per year is 20 times the cost of the > Vanguard Amazon 500 Index fund. That's not comparable; they're completely different things. > And I assume the trustee pays someone else to do the actual work so > he just pre-skims the base before doing anything especially useful > for most ordinary people. The trustee _should be_ the person doing the actual work; if not, you picked the wrong one. Note that in the case of living trusts (very common), the trustee and the beneficiary often start out as the same person. When that person dies, the trust dictates who succeeds him in both roles--and those are often different people, e.g. when the beneficiary is a minor. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 08:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1708264937.474641608.336923.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156707 |
Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: > "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: > >> The trustee must have access to the trust's funds in order to do his >> job; that's why they're usually required to itemize everything they do, >> which for any non-trivial trust will be audited by a third party. >> >> Fees paid to the trustee get itemized separately; for ones like this, >> that's typically a flat 1-2% of net asset value per year specified in >> the trust's construction. Beware any trust that allows the trustee to >> increase his own compensation via "transaction fees", "expenses", etc. > > > This seems to me like a pretty rarefied discussion. I have a vague idea of > setting up a trust for someone else, an heir for example, who is young, > incompetent or has bad judgment. Are there other reasons for having a trust? > I have a sinking feeling that if I won a certain kind of some huge legal > suit, a trust would be created for me to give everyone involved (except me) > a warm, happy glow. > > I note that the 1% charge per year is 20 times the cost of the Vanguard > Amazon 500 Index fund. And I assume the trustee pays someone else to do the > actual work so he just pre-skims the base before doing anything especially > useful for most ordinary people. > > We set up a trust and put our house and condo in it. If either of us needs long-term care this will keep the government's hands off of it. Unfortunately we just did it recently, so we have to stay healthy for a few years. We're the trustees so no fee. The kind of legal settlement you're talking about is, I think, a "structured settlement". I'm always seeing ads by companies who will buy you out of these, guving you a lump sum but taking a big hunk themselves. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 08:29 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dfv2ejF2rl2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156735 |
"Peter Flass" wrote: > Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >> "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >> >>> The trustee must have access to the trust's funds in order to do his >>> job; that's why they're usually required to itemize everything they do, >>> which for any non-trivial trust will be audited by a third party. >>> >>> Fees paid to the trustee get itemized separately; for ones like this, >>> that's typically a flat 1-2% of net asset value per year specified in >>> the trust's construction. Beware any trust that allows the trustee to >>> increase his own compensation via "transaction fees", "expenses", etc. >> >> >> This seems to me like a pretty rarefied discussion. I have a vague idea >> of >> setting up a trust for someone else, an heir for example, who is young, >> incompetent or has bad judgment. Are there other reasons for having a >> trust? >> I have a sinking feeling that if I won a certain kind of some huge legal >> suit, a trust would be created for me to give everyone involved (except >> me) >> a warm, happy glow. >> >> I note that the 1% charge per year is 20 times the cost of the Vanguard >> Amazon 500 Index fund. And I assume the trustee pays someone else to do >> the >> actual work so he just pre-skims the base before doing anything >> especially >> useful for most ordinary people. >> >> > > We set up a trust and put our house and condo in it. If either of us > needs > long-term care this will keep the government's hands off of it. > Unfortunately we just did it recently, so we have to stay healthy for a > few > years. We're the trustees so no fee. The kind of legal settlement you're > talking about is, I think, a "structured settlement". I'm always seeing > ads by companies who will buy you out of these, guving you a lump sum but > taking a big hunk themselves. Now, *that*, I can understand. *You* can be destitute, a pauper, and go on Medicaid, meanwhile, your wife can buy you a new Rolls Royce. Not literally, but do whatever it takes to allow you full use of the car. Like telling you where it is and giving you the keys. Is this simply a side effect of laws with some reasonable intent? Digging into my memory the credit lines on some PBS shows sometimes include a mention of trusts, as in the John and Mary Doe Trust. That sounds like there might be some justification hidden in there somewhere. But I think that it is more common to refer to "Foundations". Are there some big trusts I might know of? For example, the Joe Kennedy Trust? From the description of your example, it seems like every married couple who has two nickels to rub together should have a trust. But they don't, what is the dark side of setting up a trust?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web