CDZ Cash is King

[320 Years of History]

Up until recently Ford, Microsoft for most of its existence and most of the smaller firms in Europe.

Define recently, please, in terms of when "recently" begins in your mind. Looking at Ford's 1998 balance sheet, I see both short and long term debt. Recently must have predated 1998. Is your idea of "recent" measured on geological scales?

I know of 25 companies that at least at one point in time had no long term debt reported on their balance sheets. I don't know how long each of them maintained that position.

 

[320 Years of History]

Up until recently Ford, Microsoft for most of its existence and most of the smaller firms in Europe.

Looking at Microsoft's balance sheets, I see they carried long and short term liabilities in:

1. 2016
2. 2015
3. 2014
4. 2013
5. 2012
6. 2011
7. 2010
8. 2009
9. 2008
10. 2007
11. 2006
12. 2005
13. 2004
14. 2003
15. 2002

I got tired of checking at that point, but I really don't expect to find anything different for the seven years preceding 2002 which would make for enough years to cover over half of Microsoft's existence (the company was founded in 1975). Looking at Microsoft's financial statement and the related notes to them, what's clear is that for a long time, Microsoft was able to use equity financing rather than long term liabilities as modes of financing its growth. That said, the notion that Microsoft doesn't and did not for most of its existence use/carry debt is just wrong. It does now; it always has.

 

[william the wie]

The loans were by their overseas subsidiaries for most of that time in order to avoid double taxation.

 

[Wilbur Right]

The loans were by their overseas subsidiaries for most of that time in order to avoid double taxation.

Tax on borrowing? When did that start? Are you sure?

 

[320 Years of History]

The loans were by their overseas subsidiaries for most of that time in order to avoid double taxation.

Does your statement above refer to Microsoft (MS), Ford or someone else? To the extent it refers to MS, overseas or not....so what? This new statement by you further refutes your earlier general assertion that MS didn't carry/use debt, and it has zero impact on the temporal quality of when MS did or didn't take loans, nor on the start and end points of MS's loan activity as a borrower, other than the loans having to have been originated after MS acquired the overseas subsidiaries. I don't know which subs you have in mind or when MS acquired them.

 

[william the wie]

The loans were by their overseas subsidiaries for most of that time in order to avoid double taxation.

Tax on borrowing? When did that start? Are you sure?

The loans were by their overseas subsidiaries for most of that time in order to avoid double taxation.

Tax on repatriated overseas earnings, which does not apply to most forms of borrowing. Consult with a tax lawyer before doing this at home..

 

[william the wie]

Well the rate hike will raise my income on cash on hand {bank} but the pay out is still so low its not worth it. If we were to have a "bank holiday" like the one in Greece just a 10% trim could wipe out seven years of sitting with a keystroke.

which is exactly why I prefer to write options pm liquid assets.with low volatility. My premiums income reduces the cost basis of my investment rather quickly,.25 month payback. generally, and at that point I stop caring. If I don't have better prospects I leave the position alone, if something better is on offer I liquidate and go elsewhere.

Just look into Lever Bros. They make soap/shampoo, laundry soap and tooth paste and deodorant. Its a low return but safer then a bank.

Every civilization wants to be clean so its an ever growing market. Its a mass market object found from truck stops to every Walmart/ dollar store in the country. Risk is non existent and use is steady.

Well the rate hike will raise my income on cash on hand {bank} but the pay out is still so low its not worth it. If we were to have a "bank holiday" like the one in Greece just a 10% trim could wipe out seven years of sitting with a keystroke.

which is exactly why I prefer to write options pm liquid assets.with low volatility. My premiums income reduces the cost basis of my investment rather quickly,.25 month payback. generally, and at that point I stop caring. If I don't have better prospects I leave the position alone, if something better is on offer I liquidate and go elsewhere.

Just look into Lever Bros. They make soap/shampoo, laundry soap and tooth paste and deodorant. Its a low return but safer then a bank.

Every civilization wants to be clean so its an ever growing market. Its a mass market object found from truck stops to every Walmart/ dollar store in the country. Risk is non existent and use is steady.

I pretty much agree and those are the kinds of issues I like to write options on.

Just watch the buy and sell daily for a week. A LOT of investors "park" there.

I just stick to the basics:

no surprise financials. That's why I subscribe to Value Line the subscription price means I get put into a class action if there is fraud in the balance sheet.

I write barely in the money options reduce my cost of getting in or out.

I stick with share prices below 40 for all but the most pristine issues in the 600 to stay diversified.

Again except for the very best issues I stick to a beta of less than one.

I'm running @ 100% APR