Ron Sheldon

Comments:

• Maybe, but that seems to fail to account for market volume, trading and equity holdings being dominated by institutional investors, all competing against each other rationally or irrationally. For each sale and each purchase, there are at least two parties involved and in most instances those parties are institutional investors who you would hope acted rationally based on the instantaneous information they all have and their assessment of the impact on the investment. That latter part is what differs and I would expect they are not shortsighted or irrational, only that they don't know what the future will bring and, thus, guess differently.

  Post: Not So Efficient

  Link to comment from December 7, 2021

• My point wasn't that you would have influence at a stockholders' meeting. With 90% of trading volume by institutional investors and institutions holding the vast majority of shares, if they invest by ESG standards they have no influence at stockholders' meetings of non-ESG companies and they are the entities that have the resources and majority voting rights that could make a difference in how a non-ESG firm operates, the individuals on the firm's Board of Directors and determination of executive pay. The individual investor has little influence in those matters and neither do the institutions that offer ESG mutual funds and ETFs. Thus, I am back to my initial point -- I do not see objectively how investing in individual ESG firms, mutual funds or ETFs has an effect on the future price of those firms or a detrimental effect on the non-ESG firms as long as those firms put the money they rise from issuing bonds, secondary offerings and operational earnings to financially prudent productive, efficient use to produce more money. So, I'll repeat, all I’m asking for are objective, rational financial based reasons why ESG investing should or may result in better performance and effect positive societal change. I don’t see how it does or may but you might. Please explain objectively with rational reasons. Or, is ESG investing only another Wall Street emotional feel good marketing approach, as so much of WS investing seems to be marketing based on emotions, that may or will have little or no positive impact versus total market investing like you practice.

  Post: Fill ’Er Up

  Link to comment from December 7, 2021

• John and mytimetotravel, with most equity held institutionally, I've read arguments that ESG investing is counter productive. If an institution does hot hold a non-ESG equity, they are unable to vote for changes in management and business practices. All I'm asking is for are objective, rational financial based reasons why ESG investing should or may result in better performance and effect positive societal change. I don't see it but you may. Please explain objectively with rational reasons, not reply with a question. Mytimetotravel, also please address John's "if a company is unpopular with the public for whatever reason, it would seem that would raise the risk premium (return) for investors, which is precisely my point." in the same manner. As far as CEO pay, that is a separate matter, in my opinion, unrelated to ESG. Executive compensation can only be determined by the Board of Directors and shareholder votes on matters at corporate shareholder meetings. If you are not a share holder you do not have a say in election of Board of Director members or executive compensation. Thus, again, shunning non-ESG equities seems to me to be ineffective in achieving the values you may prefer. For the record, I am not opposed to ESG concepts and values, but I have been unable to justify investing based on them as making any meaningful economic difference. Seems to me it would be much more effective to make the money by investing based on economic, objective evidence and then donate that money to the causes that might effectively and efficiently use the money to try to bring about positive changes towards the values the individual desires and favors. Admittedly, that approach takes away the personal ESG feel good factor, but might be more efficient and effective than ESG investing.

  Post: Fill ’Er Up

  Link to comment from December 6, 2021

• mytimetotravel, I fail to see how conscience would have any influence on the current or future price of a security. Please explain objectively how and individual buying or not buying a particular security would make a financial difference. Once shares of a security have been issued, the issuer has received the money from the issuance and, hopefully, but that money is put to financially prudent productive, efficient use to produce more money. Only or mainly if the issuer fails to do that over time would it seem to be the factor that would affect the price of a security, not individual buyer conscience. Thus, I believe attempts to value shame others, even if I hold similar values, should have little to no effect on the fate of the issuer, despite what some individuals may wish others would do. See John's example in his point 4.ESG re Altria/Phillip Morsis.

  Post: Fill ’Er Up

  Link to comment from December 6, 2021

• John, nice article and interesting evaluations, but I believe you misunderstand EMH. EMH says nothing about future prices. The Efficient Market Hypothesis states that at any given time, security prices fully reflect all available information and human emotional reactions to that information and current prices. It does not state that the current price is correct, only that the correct price is not knowable. Your analysis is valid for you, your goals and what you believe about the future. It proved beneficial in this instance so far. But many other professional investors must have felt differently about the future versus Total vis-a-vis their other investment opportunities. As explained in previous blog posts and elsewhere like Investopedia, EMH only states as above, current prices contain all available information and human reactions to that information and that price, not future prices, NOTHING MORE: The stock market consists of thousands of professional investors that provide 90% of trading volume. The markets’ price-discovery mission is being wonderfully fulfilled thanks to fabulous computers, Bloomberg terminals, instantaneous access to all sorts of information from all over the world 24/7, and increasing regulation to ensure equal access to all this information. The result: Not only do market-dominating professionals spend their days buying from and selling to other equally hard-working and capable professionals, but also almost all these folks almost always know almost everything almost always at the same time.  So, as the experts compete against each other, they are projecting what they believe the future will bring but those beliefs differ between the various expert investors. The result? They cancel each other out with some buying and others selling the same stock based on the same information, but with none knowing what the future will bring. That is, no one knows the future, but most try to predict, and those predictions differ using the same information, equivalent data and computers, and investment knowledge, skills and capabilities.   Thus, the stock markets are efficient and current prices, while always changing, reflect all known information, the varying expert interpretations of that information, and the hopes, dreams, biases and all other human emotion factors. While the current price may not be correct, no one knows the correct price and, thus, the current price is the best collective estimate of all investors at any given time, but not necessarily the correct price for the future. May your your rational educated guessing "luck" continue as you attempt to evaluate possible futures, what factors may influence the future and when, how much and for how long. Few , if any, have been able to do it consistently and accurately over time. The next time your evaluation may not be as beneficial and actually may be detrimental.

  Post: Fill ’Er Up

  Link to comment from December 6, 2021

• In sixth paragraph below, the full self-driving feature is a $10,000 upgrade, or $200/month, not $20/mo,

  Post: Hybrid Math

  Link to comment from November 17, 2021

• Much seems to depend on how many miles you drive per year and how many per typical trip. If most of your trips are less than 20 miles each way, total of 40/trip, a plug-in hybrid might almost always operate on electricity. For example, Consumer Reports info for the 2021 Toyota RAV4 Prime gives an overall vehicle rating of 79, MSRP price range of $38,350 - $41,675 with $1,175 destination charge. CR also indicates up $5,000 cash back incentives thru Jan. 2nd. CR mpge: Overall 72 / City 74 / Hwy 71 mpge.[I believe this is CR real world because EPA EV Equivalent Combined Fuel Economy (MPGe) given as 94 mpge with electric range as 42 miles.] In comparison, the 2021 Toyota RAV4 gets a 69 overall vehicle rating with MSRP price range of $26,350 - $37,430 with same $1,175 destination charge and same up to $5,000 cash back incentives thru Jan. 2nd. CR MPG Overall 27 / City 19 / Hwy 38 mpg [EPA Combined Fuel Economy at 29 mpg] A $4,249 difference between the two 2021 RAV4s, but with both having unlimited mileage range when operated via fuel. The the plug-in hybrid should typically requiring no fuel when operated in my typical day to day driving experience. Thus, in my environment, the breakeven could be much less than the 30,000 or 92,000 miles in the blog post, and for approximately similar vehicles but with better 10 point better CR overall rating for the plug-in hybrid. Regarding the 2021 Tesla Model S gets a lower 76 overall CR rating than the plug-in hybrid, and has a MSRP price range of $69,420 - $149,990 with $1,200 destination charge [Tesla options can become very expensive]. CR mpge Overall 102 / City 101 / Hwy 102 mpge [EPA EV Equivalent Combined Fuel Economy 110 mpge with 387 mile all electric range. A 2021 Tesla Model 3 with a 78 CR overall vehicle rating with MSRP price range $44,990 - $58,990, $1,200 destination, might be a better comparison to the Toyota RAV4s, except for much higher cost, especially if you got the longer range battery upgrade, ~$4,000, and/or Full Self Driving option, $10,000 or $20/mo. The CR overall vehicle rating for the Tesla Model Y, 47, would be a deterrent for me, as well as the $39,990 - $62,990, $1,200 destination, plus expensive upgrades. Much more than the price of fuel to consider, as I hope above indicates.

  Post: Hybrid Math

  Link to comment from November 17, 2021

• If the premium for the Plan G you purchased can increase every year based on your older age, it seems that you got a policy from an insurer that prices based on Attained Age. While all policies will typically have a general premium increase, policies from insurers that price based on Community or Issue Age should not factor in your older age each year in their premium decision each year. When younger, 65, Community based pricing is likely to be a bit higher than Attained Age because all in the insurer's policy pool are charged the same, including older individuals who are more likely to have more frequent medical situations with higher medical expenses. Issue Age pricing takes into account age when the insured purchases the policy, but thereafter any annual premium increases should be based on medical expenses of the total insured pool, not the age of the insured. Thus, it is likely that Community and Issue Age purchased at 65 should run neck-n-neck with somewhat higher premiums in the initial years and somewhat lower premiums in older years as compared to Attained Age priced policies for the age of the insured person. I believe it is to a person's benefit to consider these difference, decide which type pricing method is most appropriate for their age, and then comparison shop between insurers offering Plan G under the same price methodology. Since MJFlack has a Medigap broker, I think it would be wise for him to question the broker about the above and how he would account for the different pricing methodologies in future years since changing insurers after obtaining first Medigap policy at age 65 could subject the insured to medical underwriting from prospective different insurers, possible higher premiums because of the insureds then medical condition and history, or denial to insure.

  Post: Mind the Gap

  Link to comment from November 16, 2021

• I believe the $128 - $454 range represents the price range of the Plan G options from the different insurers offering Plan G for your area. Since all Plan G have the same benefit coverage, I would look for the insurer that offers the least expense Plan G. However, to do that it may take inquiries to most of the insurers offer Plan G in your area until you hit upon the one that has a $128/mo premium.

  Post: Mind the Gap

  Link to comment from November 16, 2021

• I may be mistaken, but I believe Plan G has an annual deductible equal the Medicare Part B annual deductible, $203 for 2021. After that, Plan G picks up the 20% not covered by Medicare Part B and all of Part A hospitalization subject to Medicare limits on number of day covered.

  Post: Mind the Gap

  Link to comment from November 16, 2021