Jump to content

Bernie Sanders casts sinister shadow over the stock market


RuleNumberOne
 Share

Recommended Posts

What happened in uk with corbyn and Johnson is instructive. Sanders has zero chance of winning anything so take it as an investment opportunity if you think some stocks tank because of him. However it's unlikely a sector or stock drops just because of his words.

 

BBH tanked when Hillary Clinton started jawboning drug pricing in the last election.

I sold it for a 42% gain a few years later & will do exactly the same thing if it drops sub $100 again.

 

Holy guacamole Batman, politics can play a part in investing.

 

That said,

a non partisan thread

is less of a hotbed

don't be misled

by insults misread

they lead to bloodshed

I like monkey bread

Get it in your grocers freezer case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the key to these situations is where perceptions diverge greatly from reality. Politics is often the most likely catalyst for these type of investment situations to play out, but the make or break variable is looking ahead and figuring out what/if any sort of multiple expansion/contraction will occur.

 

Some healthcare players never recovered (reputation and market multiple wise) from the 2016 publicity tour. BBH is actually a very smart way to play something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue these are trades and not investments. Closer to the speculative side of things. You're betting that you understand the market's perception of political events and can discount them better than everyone else.

 

Which may in fact be true. Politics has become very binary and so it appears that the odds and outcomes are well defined, at least for now.

But as with all things speculative, this can change. Caution may be warranted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all:

 

If I were in the DNC, I would be absolutely PANICKING over Bernie Sanders.  He is not going to win anything on a national level.  Trump is going to absolutely steam roll him.

 

Bernie does not play to the industrial Midwest, union members, anybody with capital, and so on. 

 

I've heard multiple different people, some Democrats & liberals, describe him as a "crank" and "loser".

 

If he gets the nomination, Dems will also lose offices downticket.  It will be a disaster of "biblical proportions" for the party.  I think they know this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bernie has a good chance of winning because he is clever enough to never reveal how he intends to pay for his promises. In 2016, his promised expenditures were 3-5x greater than his tax revenues.

 

Every college student or person with student debt or parent whose child may be going soon to college would turn out to vote for Bernie if he promises to cancel student debt and make college free.

 

In my county, the voter turnout in 2016 was 35%. The side whose voters are most enthusiastic will win. Elizabeth plummeted as soon as she revealed how she plans to pay for free healthcare. Bernie never bothered giving detailed plans in 2016. When taxpayers are forced to pay $200k for partying teenagers majoring in useless stuff, the nation's competitiveness goes down.

 

 

What happened in uk with corbyn and Johnson is instructive. Sanders has zero chance of winning anything so take it as an investment opportunity if you think some stocks tank because of him. However it's unlikely a sector or stock drops just because of his words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bernie has a good chance of winning because he is clever enough to never reveal how he intends to pay for his promises. In 2016, his promised expenditures were 3-5x greater than his tax revenues.

 

Every college student or person with student debt or parent whose child may be going soon to college would turn out to vote for Bernie if he promises to cancel student debt and make college free.

 

Bernie never bothered giving detailed plans in 2016. When taxpayers are forced to pay $200k for partying teenagers majoring in useless stuff, the nation's competitiveness goes down.

 

I've got some bad news...

 

The country is ALREADY paying for $200k degrees in useless nonsense.

 

How is that?  There is something called IBR (Income Based Repayment).  If you make a certain amount of income, you can get on it.  Most people qualify for it.  Once you are on it, you pay a percentage of your income, between 0 and 20%?  After 20 years, if you stay in the program, and if you have not paid off your student loan, it is discharged.

 

A huge percentage of people on IBR pay little or nothing.

 

So a large percentage of student loan debt is never going to get repaid, one way or the other.  There are two problems with that:

 

A). Students buried under hopeless debt have it for 20+ years.  Makes family formation, retirement savings, and other things much more difficult.  If they have a "bum degree", let them bankrupt out after a shorter period of time? 

 

B). The skools laugh all the way to the bank.  They get their money up front, and have no vested interest in the financial or professional outcomes of their students.  Skools have to take some responsibility and can't be selling useless pieces of paper.  They are also going to have to lower price, increase quality and WORK a lot harder.  When I was in skool, it was SHOCKING how lazy some of professors were.  Maybe increase their workweek from 12 hours to 50?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost of "college education" is not going to get fixed. Universities maintain a 1:1 ratio for students:staff. I think the teaching staff are a small minority (something like 10%) of the university employees. Why do you need that many non-teaching employees and so many useless majors?

 

The average pension for a U. of California employee is $88,000 per year.

 

If you consider that you might have one pensioner per active student, plus one university employee per active student, you can see why college costs can never come down.

 

University employees are unionized and no politician wants to alienate the unions.

 

I think Bernie has a good chance of winning because he is clever enough to never reveal how he intends to pay for his promises. In 2016, his promised expenditures were 3-5x greater than his tax revenues.

 

Every college student or person with student debt or parent whose child may be going soon to college would turn out to vote for Bernie if he promises to cancel student debt and make college free.

 

Bernie never bothered giving detailed plans in 2016. When taxpayers are forced to pay $200k for partying teenagers majoring in useless stuff, the nation's competitiveness goes down.

 

I've got some bad news...

 

The country is ALREADY paying for $200k degrees in useless nonsense.

 

How is that?  There is something called IBR (Income Based Repayment).  If you make a certain amount of income, you can get on it.  Most people qualify for it.  Once you are on it, you pay a percentage of your income, between 0 and 20%?  After 20 years, if you stay in the program, and if you have not paid off your student loan, it is discharged.

 

A huge percentage of people on IBR pay little or nothing.

 

So a large percentage of student loan debt is never going to get repaid, one way or the other.  There are two problems with that:

 

A). Students buried under hopeless debt have it for 20+ years.  Makes family formation, retirement savings, and other things much more difficult.  If they have a "bum degree", let them bankrupt out after a shorter period of time? 

 

B). The skools laugh all the way to the bank.  They get their money up front, and have no vested interest in the financial or professional outcomes of their students.  Skools have to take some responsibility and can't be selling useless pieces of paper.  They are also going to have to lower price, increase quality and WORK a lot harder.  When I was in skool, it was SHOCKING how lazy some of professors were.  Maybe increase their workweek from 12 hours to 50?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost of "college education" is not going to get fixed. Universities maintain a 1:1 ratio for students:staff. I think the teaching staff are a small minority (something like 10%) of the university employees. Why do you need that many non-teaching employees and so many useless majors?

 

The average pension for a U. of California employee is $88,000 per year.

 

If you consider that you might have one pensioner per active student, plus one university employee per active student, you can see why college costs can never come down.

 

University employees are unionized and no politician wants to alienate the unions.

 

 

You pretty much nailed it. There is so much bloat in these universities with useless administration staffs. The costs have gone nuts.

There is no incentive to control costs, only expand their empires.

 

These guys need accountability.  If you have strict entrance tests, like ACT/SAT's , you ought to have strict exit tests to expose those

universities that offer no learning value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost of "college education" is not going to get fixed. Universities maintain a 1:1 ratio for students:staff. I think the teaching staff are a small minority (something like 10%) of the university employees. Why do you need that many non-teaching employees and so many useless majors?

 

The average pension for a U. of California employee is $88,000 per year.

 

If you consider that you might have one pensioner per active student, plus one university employee per active student, you can see why college costs can never come down.

 

University employees are unionized and no politician wants to alienate the unions.

 

It's incredible that on a value investing website, factual evidence is treated to casually.

 

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the national average for college student-to-faculty ratios is 18:1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LC, I think you missed this in my post in the heat of the moment. I said the teaching staff are a small minority (like 10%) of the total university employee count.

 

The link below from the U. of California website clearly shows the faculty are just one-tenth of the employee count at the U. of California.

 

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/uc-employee-headcount

 

If you add up the faculty, it comes to 23k while the total university employee count is 236k.

 

The average pension for a UC employee is $88k. There are just 280k students enrolled. Universities need to get more efficient. Just shut down the useless majors.

 

The cost of "college education" is not going to get fixed. Universities maintain a 1:1 ratio for students:staff. I think the teaching staff are a small minority (something like 10%) of the university employees. Why do you need that many non-teaching employees and so many useless majors?

 

The average pension for a U. of California employee is $88,000 per year.

 

If you consider that you might have one pensioner per active student, plus one university employee per active student, you can see why college costs can never come down.

 

University employees are unionized and no politician wants to alienate the unions.

 

It's incredible that on a value investing website, factual evidence is treated to casually.

 

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the national average for college student-to-faculty ratios is 18:1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think my average of 18:1 includes all college faculty, not just teachers. I doubt there is a single college with a 1:1 student:staff ratio (maybe some tiny lib arts college in the middle of nowhere)

 

But I completely agree with the spirit of your responses in terms of efficiency. Too many middle managers, too little actual academic staff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a few quick comments. You are putting many employees in the administration category who are not administrators but aid in the educational mission of the UC system. For instance, the 25,972 teaching assistants. Many of these do direct teaching. For a freshman general chemistry class at Cal you might have 520 students in the class. This would consist of three hours of lecture per week, which might be two sections with a faculty member would teach in a 260-seat lecture hall. Then there would be a three-hour laboratory per week. This would be a laboratory classroom that might accommodate 26 students. You would have 20 of these sections per week and a teaching assistant would teach two of these sections.

 

There are 6,491 postdoctoral scholars and 6,034 medical interns/residents. In a sense these are students getting more experience/training but not with an end degree as the goal. Also, the funding for the postdoctoral scholars does not come from the UC system. This funding would come from the contracts and grants of faculty members who hire these postdocs. The funding for the interns and residents would come from patient fees.

 

I don’t disagree there has been growth in number of administrators. Some of this is due to increased federal regulations. To deal with FERPA, the American Disabilities Act, etc. requires increased administration. For 20 years I never knew that students in my class may have learning disabilities. Today about 4% of my students have accommodations. This means special situations for testing that is done at other locations/times than the exams I give my class. It takes staff to administer all these individual tests.

 

LC, I think you missed this in my post in the heat of the moment. I said the teaching staff are a small minority (like 10%) of the total university employee count.

 

The link below from the U. of California website clearly shows the faculty are just one-tenth of the employee count at the U. of California.

 

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/uc-employee-headcount

 

If you add up the faculty, it comes to 23k while the total university employee count is 236k.

 

The average pension for a UC employee is $88k. There are just 280k students enrolled. Universities need to get more efficient. Just shut down the useless majors.

 

The cost of "college education" is not going to get fixed. Universities maintain a 1:1 ratio for students:staff. I think the teaching staff are a small minority (something like 10%) of the university employees. Why do you need that many non-teaching employees and so many useless majors?

 

The average pension for a U. of California employee is $88,000 per year.

 

If you consider that you might have one pensioner per active student, plus one university employee per active student, you can see why college costs can never come down.

 

University employees are unionized and no politician wants to alienate the unions.

 

It's incredible that on a value investing website, factual evidence is treated to casually.

 

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the national average for college student-to-faculty ratios is 18:1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He s a novel idea. Privatize education. Make them all for profit. And get the government out of lending. Then they'll have to compete. And competition breeds success. Why pay $35K a year? Because x% of students get in, and out of those, x% graduate, and of those x% get jobs inside of 6 months from graduation in a field related to their studies making $xx,000 on average. On average, student loans are repaid in x years after graduating". Of course, the consumer would need to conduct their own due diligence with respect to the reliability of the "marketing material" but the universities would also then have to underwrite much of their loan book... you'd at least have accountability somewhere.

 

Right now....Sally studies sea shells at Wesleyan paying $55k a year. Whats the graduation rate for those applicants? dunno. Whats the employment figures? Dunno. How much does she make? dunno. Does she ever repay her loans? dunno

 

The problem with higher education is that its become viewed as a rite of passage rather than a life decision with financial consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support TAs, RAs, faculty, postdocs, medical residents. TA/RAs are paid around $1300 per month and don't get a pension. Postdocs and medical residents don't get a pension either. So they are very cheap and efficient. Faculty deserve their pensions. But all departments in the university cannot be treated the same.

 

The UC system added 19,000 full-time non-academic employees in the last 5 years alone. The average UC employee gets a $88k pension guaranteed by California's taxpayers. The current UC student enrollment is just 280k.

 

I was thinking along the same lines as Gregmal. The universities should make the student loans and hold them on their balance sheet. If students cannot repay, it comes out of the employee pensions and salaries (first thing to go should be the Dean's salary). Then universities would be very careful about what departments they keep, how many employees they hire, how much they pay whom in which department, whether non-faculty should get pensions etc.

 

 

Just a few quick comments. You are putting many employees in the administration category who are not administrators but aid in the educational mission of the UC system. For instance, the 25,972 teaching assistants. Many of these do direct teaching. For a freshman general chemistry class at Cal you might have 520 students in the class. This would consist of three hours of lecture per week, which might be two sections with a faculty member would teach in a 260-seat lecture hall. Then there would be a three-hour laboratory per week. This would be a laboratory classroom that might accommodate 26 students. You would have 20 of these sections per week and a teaching assistant would teach two of these sections.

 

There are 6,491 postdoctoral scholars and 6,034 medical interns/residents. In a sense these are students getting more experience/training but not with an end degree as the goal. Also, the funding for the postdoctoral scholars does not come from the UC system. This funding would come from the contracts and grants of faculty members who hire these postdocs. The funding for the interns and residents would come from patient fees.

 

I don’t disagree there has been growth in number of administrators. Some of this is due to increased federal regulations. To deal with FERPA, the American Disabilities Act, etc. requires increased administration. For 20 years I never knew that students in my class may have learning disabilities. Today about 4% of my students have accommodations. This means special situations for testing that is done at other locations/times than the exams I give my class. It takes staff to administer all these individual tests.

 

LC, I think you missed this in my post in the heat of the moment. I said the teaching staff are a small minority (like 10%) of the total university employee count.

 

The link below from the U. of California website clearly shows the faculty are just one-tenth of the employee count at the U. of California.

 

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/uc-employee-headcount

 

If you add up the faculty, it comes to 23k while the total university employee count is 236k.

 

The average pension for a UC employee is $88k. There are just 280k students enrolled. Universities need to get more efficient. Just shut down the useless majors.

 

The cost of "college education" is not going to get fixed. Universities maintain a 1:1 ratio for students:staff. I think the teaching staff are a small minority (something like 10%) of the university employees. Why do you need that many non-teaching employees and so many useless majors?

 

The average pension for a U. of California employee is $88,000 per year.

 

If you consider that you might have one pensioner per active student, plus one university employee per active student, you can see why college costs can never come down.

 

University employees are unionized and no politician wants to alienate the unions.

 

It's incredible that on a value investing website, factual evidence is treated to casually.

 

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the national average for college student-to-faculty ratios is 18:1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be completely wrong in talking about the UC because its possible the UC has no share in the student loan crisis. I have come across interns from expensive very-low-ranked private colleges (lot more expensive than a UC) who don't know any Unix commands even with one year left for graduation in computer science.

 

We need a breakdown of the outstanding student loans by major and by college. If colleges hold all the loans on their balance sheets, and reported loan losses on their income statements just like banks, we would be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other area that supports universities holding their own loans is the fact it serves purpose to the pensions and endowments...Right now much of those funds are bullshit and used to yield power and status, lobby, and make celebrities out of scholars. Instead of school XYZ diverting their funds to Blackstone hoping to achieve 7% annualized returns, why doesnt it make sense for them to appropriately underwrite 5-10 year student loans at 7% rates? Makes all too much sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently we have colleges charging up to $300k for a 4-year stay. They cater to those who could not get into any reasonable university, who have never worked hard in the past and wouldn't be able to work hard in future either. The major doesn't matter because all majors at such colleges require the same effort, everybody graduates with little effort.

 

At such places, you can get a diploma in any major you want, the quality of education is really low (though the cost seems to be inversely proportional to the quality, e.g. a top university might charge a fraction for the same major). You can graduate in computer science without learning any Unix command, all you need to do is pay $300k. The student loan to pay for this requires no collateral, unlike a mortgage.

 

Then Bernie wags his finger at taxpayers and forces them to pay for these partying teenagers. He incites mobs of such people. If somebody made the mistake of trying to invent new drugs or medical devices, he threatens to nationalize the biotech and medical device industry. Lets see what happens if he wins Iowa, NH and CA as the polls predict.

 

The other area that supports universities holding their own loans is the fact it serves purpose to the pensions and endowments...Right now much of those funds are bullshit and used to yield power and status, lobby, and make celebrities out of scholars. Instead of school XYZ diverting their funds to Blackstone hoping to achieve 7% annualized returns, why doesnt it make sense for them to appropriately underwrite 5-10 year student loans at 7% rates? Makes all too much sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cherzeca

The other area that supports universities holding their own loans is the fact it serves purpose to the pensions and endowments...Right now much of those funds are bullshit and used to yield power and status, lobby, and make celebrities out of scholars. Instead of school XYZ diverting their funds to Blackstone hoping to achieve 7% annualized returns, why doesnt it make sense for them to appropriately underwrite 5-10 year student loans at 7% rates? Makes all too much sense.

 

converting all student loans into in effect "purchase money mortgages" creates the right incentives...make the university have skin in its own game of producing an educated student able to enter the world on a self sufficient basis.  gregmal for secretary of education!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel safer posting some very relevant stock market comments under the Politics section.

 

Has the Grand Experiment Killed Cycles asks a General Discussion thread? - Maybe, but it hasn't killed Bernie Sanders whose national rent-control proposals will kill real estate and banks.

 

Medical device stocks are hovering at P/Es of 40. Some drug stocks are close to all-time highs, despite Bernie's proposed abolition of private health insurance!!! Right now a breakthrough medical innovation reaches patients immediately in the US thanks to private health insurance, which funds the next cycle of medical innovation and US exports and biotech leadership. That will stop immediately as panels of bureaucrats and hecklers like AOC take over. All we can then export would be farm products.

 

CoronaVirus is a sad and terrifying disaster especially for people living in Wuhan. For the stock market, Bernie Sanders is a far scarier virus that has already infected a big chunk of the population. Though he is leading Biden and Trump in the polls, the market has assumed either Biden or Trump will be the next President. To people who never put much academic effort but expended $200k-300k of OPM for getting a printout of a diploma, Bernie has promised to erase college debt thereby ensuring his election victory.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cherzeca

to my simple mind, sanders has diminished the dignity of work and the dignity of paying your debts, of becoming self-sufficient, all in the pursuit of some conception of social justice...a socialist meme that somewhat amazingly to me, has been picked up at least to some degree by all of the other D candidates. even Biden and bloomie who should know better, but it is hard to compete with free, except to say that free isn't really free, but no registered D voter seems to want to hear that right now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...