The Patriots picked up Deion Branch for a fourth round draft pick earlier this week. I've heard a certain school of thought on this. It basically goes, "Branch has fallen off the face of the earth and why bring him back other than for sentimentality, and a fourth round pick is a waste of a pick."
Let me ask you this, would you trade any of the following for Deion Branch - even if he was only slated as your third receiver?
1. Rich Ohrnberger - Offensive lineman who is currently on the practice squad
2. Jonathan Wilhite - back up CB
3. Kareem Brown - Released defensive lineman
4. Garrett Mills - Released TE
5. James Sanders - occasional starter at Safety
If the answer was yes to those names, you should be fine with Deion. Those were our fourth round picks from 2005 - 2009.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Great demonstrative tax article
Harvard Econ Professor, Greg Mankiw, makes a great demonstrative case against higher marginal tax rates on the "rich." His NY Times OpEd, I Can Afford Higher Taxes. But They’ll Make Me Work Less, is a great (and easy) read. [Free registration required]
Click Here
Here's the gist of it (although the context of the article is good):
Suppose that some editor offered me $1,000 to write an article. If there were no taxes of any kind, this $1,000 of income would translate into $1,000 in extra saving. If I invested it in the stock of a company that earned, say, 8 percent a year on its capital, then 30 years from now, when I pass on, my children would inherit about $10,000. That is simply the miracle of compounding.
Now let’s put taxes into the calculus. First, assuming that the Bush tax cuts expire, I would pay 39.6 percent in federal income taxes on that extra income. Beyond that, the phaseout of deductions adds 1.2 percentage points to my effective marginal tax rate. I also pay Medicare tax, which the recent health care bill is raising to 3.8 percent, starting in 2013. And in Massachusetts, I pay 5.3 percent in state income taxes, part of which I get back as a federal deduction. Putting all those taxes together, that $1,000 of pretax income becomes only $523 of saving.
And that saving no longer earns 8 percent. First, the corporation in which I have invested pays a 35 percent corporate tax on its earnings. So I get only 5.2 percent in dividends and capital gains. Then, on that income, I pay taxes at the federal and state level. As a result, I earn about 4 percent after taxes, and the $523 in saving grows to $1,700 after 30 years.
Then, when my children inherit the money, the estate tax will kick in. The marginal estate tax rate is scheduled to go as high as 55 percent next year, but Congress may reduce it a bit. Most likely, when that $1,700 enters my estate, my kids will get, at most, $1,000 of it.
HERE’S the bottom line: Without any taxes, accepting that editor’s assignment would have yielded my children an extra $10,000. With taxes, it yields only $1,000. In effect, once the entire tax system is taken into account, my family’s marginal tax rate is about 90 percent. Is it any wonder that I turn down most of the money-making opportunities I am offered?
Click Here
Here's the gist of it (although the context of the article is good):
Suppose that some editor offered me $1,000 to write an article. If there were no taxes of any kind, this $1,000 of income would translate into $1,000 in extra saving. If I invested it in the stock of a company that earned, say, 8 percent a year on its capital, then 30 years from now, when I pass on, my children would inherit about $10,000. That is simply the miracle of compounding.
Now let’s put taxes into the calculus. First, assuming that the Bush tax cuts expire, I would pay 39.6 percent in federal income taxes on that extra income. Beyond that, the phaseout of deductions adds 1.2 percentage points to my effective marginal tax rate. I also pay Medicare tax, which the recent health care bill is raising to 3.8 percent, starting in 2013. And in Massachusetts, I pay 5.3 percent in state income taxes, part of which I get back as a federal deduction. Putting all those taxes together, that $1,000 of pretax income becomes only $523 of saving.
And that saving no longer earns 8 percent. First, the corporation in which I have invested pays a 35 percent corporate tax on its earnings. So I get only 5.2 percent in dividends and capital gains. Then, on that income, I pay taxes at the federal and state level. As a result, I earn about 4 percent after taxes, and the $523 in saving grows to $1,700 after 30 years.
Then, when my children inherit the money, the estate tax will kick in. The marginal estate tax rate is scheduled to go as high as 55 percent next year, but Congress may reduce it a bit. Most likely, when that $1,700 enters my estate, my kids will get, at most, $1,000 of it.
HERE’S the bottom line: Without any taxes, accepting that editor’s assignment would have yielded my children an extra $10,000. With taxes, it yields only $1,000. In effect, once the entire tax system is taken into account, my family’s marginal tax rate is about 90 percent. Is it any wonder that I turn down most of the money-making opportunities I am offered?
Monday, October 11, 2010
Eye on the Governor
Dayton is a tax the rich populist. He's a disaster. Independent Horner is screwing things up for business-minded Emmer. I never understood the concept of the independent candidate. Almost by definition you help the guy who is LEAST like you, and split the most like-minded. Independent voters who have shown where their voting preferences lie need to step up and not throw away their vote.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Disappointment
I hate the loss of Randy Moss. For all his lack of public relations ability, the guy is a constant threat on the field - even if this year has not exactly been his best. And as a bonus, Brady loves playing with him. His catch rate is down to 41%, and Football Outsiders ranks him as only the 44th best receiver this year. However, that doesn't take into consideration the fact that he sees quite a few double teams. The guy has the potential to be thrilling and explosive at any moment.
Maybe it was time. However, I'd rather see him in our uniform than someone elses - especially when that other uniform will be playing in Foxboro on Halloween. The Vikes play the Jets on Monday (will this be the first time a player has had back-to-back weeks on MNF?), and the Patriots are on bye. Inside the trading deadline, the timing couldn't have been better from a disruption point of view. Nevertheless, I would have rather seen him stay the remainder of the season and go somewhere else next year. NE would have received a 5th round compensation pick in 2012.
A friend of mine compared this trade to that of Nomar. I disagree. Nomar had to go to make the Red Sox a better team. I don't think Randy did. If you want to be optimistic, you could compare it to the Lawyer Milloy release in 2002. I'm not THAT optimistic.
I feel bad for Emily. Her Patriots jersey is #81 - Moss.
Maybe it was time. However, I'd rather see him in our uniform than someone elses - especially when that other uniform will be playing in Foxboro on Halloween. The Vikes play the Jets on Monday (will this be the first time a player has had back-to-back weeks on MNF?), and the Patriots are on bye. Inside the trading deadline, the timing couldn't have been better from a disruption point of view. Nevertheless, I would have rather seen him stay the remainder of the season and go somewhere else next year. NE would have received a 5th round compensation pick in 2012.
A friend of mine compared this trade to that of Nomar. I disagree. Nomar had to go to make the Red Sox a better team. I don't think Randy did. If you want to be optimistic, you could compare it to the Lawyer Milloy release in 2002. I'm not THAT optimistic.
I feel bad for Emily. Her Patriots jersey is #81 - Moss.
Monday, October 4, 2010
March, march, march
Friday was Westonka High School Homecoming. They have a short (somewhat lame) parade prior to the football game against Orono. What is nice is that they incorporate the middle school and elementary schools into the activity. The Third Grade got to close out the parade with their kazoo band, while singing the fight song. Emily enjoyed it.
The video was taken with my cellphone, so not exactly the best:
The video was taken with my cellphone, so not exactly the best:
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Big Short
Finished reading Michael Lewis' The Big Short. I've read many of his books, and really enjoy his writing style. This book is no different. Lewis focuses on a few smart, dedicated and especially odd investors who grappled with one of the greatest trades of all-time - short the subprime bubble. It is an in-depth look at the underpinnings of the financial crisis without getting too technical, and I would recommend it to all kinds of readers.
The underlying theme that impressed me most about the characters in the book was the dedication and commitment these people had to the trade, and the uphill battle most of them endured to keep it on. These people started shorting the subprime market as far back as 2005. It took 2-years to begin paying off - and pay off big it did. However, during that 2-year period each of these characters faced significant adversity from their investors - who all wanted them to unwind the trade!
John Paulson, the most famous winner in this trade, isn't covered in this book other than a few references. He probably didn't grant Lewis access. However, Lewis in more than one instance, insinuates that Paulson didn't come up with this trade alone. Rather, one of the characters in the book supplied him with the idea.
My boss during this period knew Paulson. They had worked together at Bear Stearns. When word came out in 2007 that Paulson had made a killing betting against subprime mortgages, my Boss berated himself (and tangentially us) for "not seeing it." We had long discussions about it when I was lucky enough to occasionally ride along during his daily car service. Without even a full understanding of how the trade worked, I would argue that it wasn't that easy, but he couldn't let it go. With more information now, it is even more apparent that we couldn't have pulled it off. As seen from this book, 1. you basically had to be introduced to this trade to even know it existed. Many of the securities that allowed you to go short were very esoteric; 2. you had to understand the nature of the trade, and dedicate significant analytical resources to know what you were shorting; 3. you had to be in the trade well prior to 2007 and stay in it!
The last point is the most salient. My boss was insistent after-the-fact that we should have been involved. However, to be "involved" meant putting this trade on in size in 2005 (or at least in early 2006) - and lose small amounts of money for the next 14-26 months straight. During that time, you had to endure investor complaints and threats that, "this isn't your area of expertise, you are wrong about this! Get out or give us our money back!" Even before reading this book, I knew from articles that Paulson's investors thought he was nuts! My boss (and particularly his partner) didn't have the stomach for that. They would have caved at the first investor letter. This trade would have been shuttered in the first six months, for sure.
20/20 hindsight is great for figuring out what you should have done. Having the fortitude and stamina to do it in real-time - and finish it out is something different altogether. The characters in The Big Short proved it, and it makes compelling reading.
The underlying theme that impressed me most about the characters in the book was the dedication and commitment these people had to the trade, and the uphill battle most of them endured to keep it on. These people started shorting the subprime market as far back as 2005. It took 2-years to begin paying off - and pay off big it did. However, during that 2-year period each of these characters faced significant adversity from their investors - who all wanted them to unwind the trade!
John Paulson, the most famous winner in this trade, isn't covered in this book other than a few references. He probably didn't grant Lewis access. However, Lewis in more than one instance, insinuates that Paulson didn't come up with this trade alone. Rather, one of the characters in the book supplied him with the idea.
My boss during this period knew Paulson. They had worked together at Bear Stearns. When word came out in 2007 that Paulson had made a killing betting against subprime mortgages, my Boss berated himself (and tangentially us) for "not seeing it." We had long discussions about it when I was lucky enough to occasionally ride along during his daily car service. Without even a full understanding of how the trade worked, I would argue that it wasn't that easy, but he couldn't let it go. With more information now, it is even more apparent that we couldn't have pulled it off. As seen from this book, 1. you basically had to be introduced to this trade to even know it existed. Many of the securities that allowed you to go short were very esoteric; 2. you had to understand the nature of the trade, and dedicate significant analytical resources to know what you were shorting; 3. you had to be in the trade well prior to 2007 and stay in it!
The last point is the most salient. My boss was insistent after-the-fact that we should have been involved. However, to be "involved" meant putting this trade on in size in 2005 (or at least in early 2006) - and lose small amounts of money for the next 14-26 months straight. During that time, you had to endure investor complaints and threats that, "this isn't your area of expertise, you are wrong about this! Get out or give us our money back!" Even before reading this book, I knew from articles that Paulson's investors thought he was nuts! My boss (and particularly his partner) didn't have the stomach for that. They would have caved at the first investor letter. This trade would have been shuttered in the first six months, for sure.
20/20 hindsight is great for figuring out what you should have done. Having the fortitude and stamina to do it in real-time - and finish it out is something different altogether. The characters in The Big Short proved it, and it makes compelling reading.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Faulk!
The Patriots 2nd half ineptitude continues. Very frustrating. However, the trend of Boston Sports injuries is even more concerning. The Red Sox never ending DL list - which in its own right probably fields an all-star team - has carried on to the Patriots.
The loss of Faulk is serious blow to our future 3rd down efficiency. Kevin is such a versatile threat, that a formation that includes Faulk can run almost type of play - screen, draw, run, pass. Last year's loss to Indy aside, Faulk is amazingly efficient.
Sad day for the Patriots if Faulk truly is out for the season.
The loss of Faulk is serious blow to our future 3rd down efficiency. Kevin is such a versatile threat, that a formation that includes Faulk can run almost type of play - screen, draw, run, pass. Last year's loss to Indy aside, Faulk is amazingly efficient.
Sad day for the Patriots if Faulk truly is out for the season.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Puget Sound
Although now three weeks ago, we had a nice mini-vacation to the San Juan Islands - north of Seattle. My friend, Peter, got married on Orcas Island. In addition to the wedding, we took a car tour of the island, drove to the top of Mount Constitution which had great views of the Puget Sound, Vancouver and the other San Juan Islands, and went on a whale watch.
We had some time to kill between our arrival at SEA-TAC and our flight out to Orcas. We grabbed a cab and spent a couple hours in Seattle's Public Market at Pike's Place.
We arrived in Orcas on a small 9-seat plane. It was a pretty incredible trip in.
Our whale watch was somewhat spontaneous. Because we couldn't get off the island when we originally intended, we had an extra day on our hands. Some whale watching ships have 40-60 people. Our small boat had 7. It was a nice set up.
Before catching the transient Orca whales, we surprised some seals.
There was a pack of five Orcas that we followed for close to an hour and a half.
Since the whales were spotted early in the day, a number of boats were on their trail.
Finally, on the way home we drove past a nature preserve island which had a large collection of American Bald Eagles. It was quite a site.
We had some time to kill between our arrival at SEA-TAC and our flight out to Orcas. We grabbed a cab and spent a couple hours in Seattle's Public Market at Pike's Place.
We arrived in Orcas on a small 9-seat plane. It was a pretty incredible trip in.
Our whale watch was somewhat spontaneous. Because we couldn't get off the island when we originally intended, we had an extra day on our hands. Some whale watching ships have 40-60 people. Our small boat had 7. It was a nice set up.
Before catching the transient Orca whales, we surprised some seals.
There was a pack of five Orcas that we followed for close to an hour and a half.
Since the whales were spotted early in the day, a number of boats were on their trail.
Finally, on the way home we drove past a nature preserve island which had a large collection of American Bald Eagles. It was quite a site.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
What Tony Said
Former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has a new book out. I have seen a few clips from it. What particularly interests me are comments he makes about George W. Bush:
"One of the most ludicrous caricatures of George is that he was a dumb idiot who stumbled into the presidency," writes Blair. "No one stumbles into that job, and the history of American presidential campaigns is littered with the corpses of those who were supposed to be brilliant but who nonetheless failed because brilliance is not enough."
He continues: "To succeed in U.S. politics, or that of the U.K., you have to be more than clever. You have to be able to connect and you have to be able to articulate that connection in plain language. The plainness of the language then leads people to look past the brainpower involved. Reagan was clever. Thatcher was clever. And sometimes the very plainness touches something else: a simplicity that is the product of a decisive nature."
From Hot Air:
Detailing the close professional and personal relationship which developed between the two leaders in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks in the U.S. and during the build-up to the Iraq war in 2003, Blair writes that Bush was “very smart” while having “immense simplicity in how he saw the world.”
“Right or wrong, it led to decisive leadership… he sincerely believed in spreading freedom and democracy,” he writes in “A Journey;” which hit book stores in the UK on Wednesday…
“I was asked recently which of the political leaders I had met had most integrity. I listed George near the top. He had genuine integrity and as much political courage as any leader I ever met,” he writes.
The U.S. Media is quick to create caricatures of those they cover. SNL skits become public reality. I have always argued that George Bush had to be a man of greater intellect than he was portrayed. Yes, his speaking style seems hick, and he struggles with written speeches; however, too many men and women - very smart ones at that - were impressed with him, followed him, and went to battle for him. The saying goes, you can judge a man by the company he keeps. Smart people don't go to bat for bumbling idiots. Every account I have read of him by people who have worked directly for and with him, suggests he's a diligent, loyal character who grasps complex situations. He had a black/white approach to many an item and that bothers some; however, it shouldn't be misconstrued as idiocy.
His low key post-presidency despite the constant attacks he takes has been admirable. He was here in Wayzata last week to raise money for his library. No press, no speeches, no public communication. The only reason I even knew it existed is that we passed the event by car, and the chef of the restaurant we attended happened to be working the event. I Googled the event, as surely there would be some press piece announcing his arrival. Nothing. Zero.
A couple of months ago, Laura and George Bush attended the homecoming of some soldiers from Iraq. He made a surprise greeting of the troops, shaking all their hands, and chatting with many of them. Obviously it was a big PR function with lots of news media. Nope. The only images that emerged came from the returning soldiers putting pictures up on Facebook.
"One of the most ludicrous caricatures of George is that he was a dumb idiot who stumbled into the presidency," writes Blair. "No one stumbles into that job, and the history of American presidential campaigns is littered with the corpses of those who were supposed to be brilliant but who nonetheless failed because brilliance is not enough."
He continues: "To succeed in U.S. politics, or that of the U.K., you have to be more than clever. You have to be able to connect and you have to be able to articulate that connection in plain language. The plainness of the language then leads people to look past the brainpower involved. Reagan was clever. Thatcher was clever. And sometimes the very plainness touches something else: a simplicity that is the product of a decisive nature."
From Hot Air:
Detailing the close professional and personal relationship which developed between the two leaders in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks in the U.S. and during the build-up to the Iraq war in 2003, Blair writes that Bush was “very smart” while having “immense simplicity in how he saw the world.”
“Right or wrong, it led to decisive leadership… he sincerely believed in spreading freedom and democracy,” he writes in “A Journey;” which hit book stores in the UK on Wednesday…
“I was asked recently which of the political leaders I had met had most integrity. I listed George near the top. He had genuine integrity and as much political courage as any leader I ever met,” he writes.
The U.S. Media is quick to create caricatures of those they cover. SNL skits become public reality. I have always argued that George Bush had to be a man of greater intellect than he was portrayed. Yes, his speaking style seems hick, and he struggles with written speeches; however, too many men and women - very smart ones at that - were impressed with him, followed him, and went to battle for him. The saying goes, you can judge a man by the company he keeps. Smart people don't go to bat for bumbling idiots. Every account I have read of him by people who have worked directly for and with him, suggests he's a diligent, loyal character who grasps complex situations. He had a black/white approach to many an item and that bothers some; however, it shouldn't be misconstrued as idiocy.
His low key post-presidency despite the constant attacks he takes has been admirable. He was here in Wayzata last week to raise money for his library. No press, no speeches, no public communication. The only reason I even knew it existed is that we passed the event by car, and the chef of the restaurant we attended happened to be working the event. I Googled the event, as surely there would be some press piece announcing his arrival. Nothing. Zero.
A couple of months ago, Laura and George Bush attended the homecoming of some soldiers from Iraq. He made a surprise greeting of the troops, shaking all their hands, and chatting with many of them. Obviously it was a big PR function with lots of news media. Nope. The only images that emerged came from the returning soldiers putting pictures up on Facebook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)