Open source investing

I've just realized that I haven't really been that open with what I'm doing as far as my investments go. So here's a link to the Google Spreadsheet that I'm using to track my research into high dividend stocks. If you have questions, please comment on this post and I'll do my best to answer them.

Dividends

I've been working on a way to focus my investments into the highest possible dividend yield, and just discovered that Sharebuilder has upgraded their Dividend Reinvestment abilities. We can now change how dividends and capital gains are reinvested down to the individual stocks. That's really cool.

The list I'm collecting has some stocks that are currently paying up to 40% yield. I don't have a lot of money to put into them, but the money I am putting in is growing fast. I'm also focusing on monthly dividend stocks so they compound faster. As long as I keep my eye on things, they'll be growing pretty fast.

Let me know if you want to know more.

Citadel Broadcasting, 2008

Class II directors are up for reelection:

Michael J. Regan has been a Director of the Company since 2007. Mr. Regan (age 65) is a former Vice Chairman and Chief Administrative Officer of KPMG LLP and was the lead audit partner for many Fortune 500 companies during his 40 year tenure with KPMG. Mr. Regan is a member of the board of managers of Allied Security Holdings LLC and serves on its audit committee. He also is a director of Scientific Games Corporation and serves on its audit committee. Mr. Regan is a member of the Board of Trustees of Manhattan College.

Hard to narrow down on OpenSecrets, since it's a popular name. Approve.

Thomas V. Reifenheiser has been a Director since 2007. Mr. Reifenheiser (age 72) served as Managing Director and Group Executive for the Global Media and Telecom Group of Chase Securities Inc. (“Chase”) from 1977 until 2000. He joined Chase in 1963 and was the Global Media and Telecom Group Executive since 1977. Mr. Reifenheiser is a member of the board of directors and also serves as a member of the audit committee of Lamar Advertising Company, Mediacom Communications Corporation and Cablevision Systems Corporation.

Donates to Republicans. Deny

Herbert J. Siegel has been a Director since 2003. Mr. Siegel (age 79) was Chairman of the Board and President of Chris-Craft Industries, Inc. and Chairman of the Board of BHC Communications, Inc. until July 2001, when the two companies were acquired by The News Corporation Limited. Mr. Siegel was a senior advisor to The News Corporation Limited. He is currently a consultant to News America, Inc. Mr. Siegel is also a
director of IMG Worldwide Holdings Inc.

Donates to Republicans. Deny

Deloitte & Touche LLP: Approve

3M Proxy Votes

2008 3M COMPANY Annual Meeting of Stockholders
MEETING DATE: May 13, 2008
For Holders as of: March 14, 2008

Research on OpenSecrets.org shows the following:

Linda G. Alvarado - Gives to mostly Democrats - Approve

George W. Buckley - 3M Co PAC only - Approve

Vance D. Coffman - Mixed, but Rep Senatorial Committee stands out. - Deny

Michael L. Eskew - All Republicans - Deny

W. James Farrell - Mixed. Ted Stevens and Dick Durbin? Interesting combination... - Deny

Herbert L. Henkel - 15K to RNC. - Deny

Edward M. Liddy - Donates to Hillary - Approve

Robert S. Morrison - Donated to Mark Kennedy (R) - Deny

Aulana L. Peters - Mixed, mostly D - Approve

Robert J. Ulrich - Massive Republican Donor - Deny

Mr Ulrich is a new nominee, and was the CEO of Target. I'm not interested in rewarding that anyway, but he has given 176 times, nearly all to Republicans and Republican PAC's for a total of $201,827. No thank you.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as Auditor - Approve

Long-Term Incentive Plan - Approve

Pfizer, Inc. Annual Meeting - My Votes

Dennis A. Ausiello
No records on OpenSecrets
Michael S. Brown
No records on OpenSecrets
M. Anthony Burns
No records on OpenSecrets
Robert N. Burt
No records on OpenSecrets
W. Don Cornwell
No records on OpenSecrets
William H. Gray III
John Kerry,
Constance J. Horner
No records on OpenSecrets
William R. Howell
No records on OpenSecrets
James M. Kilts
No records on OpenSecrets
Jeffrey B. Kindler
Mixed, mostly Democrats
George A. Lorch
No records on OpenSecrets
Dana G. Mead
No records on OpenSecrets
Suzanne Nora Johnson
No records on OpenSecrets
William C. Steere, Jr.
Mixed, mostly Republican

SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL REGARDING STOCK OPTIONS
Voted against

SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL REQUESTING SEPARATION OF CHAIRMAN AND CEO ROLES
Voted for

Veterans Family Fund

http://www.veteransfamilyfund.org/

This is fantastic!

Friday, January 18, 2008

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/

With the goal of securing $300 million in deposits by the end of 2008, the Veterans Family Fund CD was conceived by Jane Jacobsen, a resident in Vancouver, Wash., with help from Mike Worthy, CEO of the Bank of Clark County. The two wanted a way to provide quick and flexible assistance for veterans in need of financial assistance.

Ideas from Dennis Baer

Call GOP contributor and war contractor General Electric Corporation at 203 373 2211 and ask for the public relations department. Tell the person in public relations that you want the GE CEO to get Bush to end the war in Iraq and then Bush resign with Cheney and until that happens you will not buy any GE products and that you will tell your friends about this.

Call GOP contributor Rite Aid at 1-800-325-3737 and tell the person to get the CEO to get the GOP to enact HR 676 Single payer universal health care and repeal Medicare Part D and place the drug benefit in Medicare Part B covering 80% of drugs with no extra premiums, no extra deductibles, no means tests, no coverage gaps, and remove the means test for Medicare Part B and until that happens, you won't buy ANYTHING from Rite Aid.

Call GOP contributor Wendy's restaurants at 614 764-3553 and Tell the person in public relations that you want their CEO to get the GOP to help enact a $10/HR MIN. WAGE into law and until this happens you will not go to a Wendy's Restaurant.

Source: Email from "Dennis Baer"

I don't personally believe in the effectiveness of Boycotts, but then again who knows. I think the more people do, the better.

Shared Debt Relief

Made a new connection today.

http://shareddebtrelief.com/

Still getting a picture of what their plans are, but the articles written by Stephanie Wilkinson jive well with what I've been reading elsewhere.

A missing piece of Savings

I'm reading through the works of Gene Sperling, and he keeps talking about providing incentives for lower income workers to save, either through a Universal 401K, or tax code changes, or whatever. It all sounds great, but it's missing an important element.

We can't, through changes in law, require individual savings. It's not that we couldn't pass a law requiring people to save some money, it's just that a law like that would cause a lot of ugly political consequences. Who wants to be the candidate for reelection who says "I voted for the bill that took 10% of your money away from you."

That doesn't work, and there's a better way.

While we can't have direct effect on the behavior of individuals, we can pass laws that affect how our government works. There has been a Balanced Budget Amendment introduced in Congress for years, if not decades. It's an idea that makes sense, and the last several years of the Clinton Administration shows what a budget written in balance can do. We were on track not just to pay down the National Debt, currently 8.9 Trillion Dollars, but to pay it off. This is a debt that exploded under Reagan and Bush I, and Bush II has reversed the positive direction that we had started to move.

So, why is a balanced budget so important? Because we owe money to other countries, and we have to pay interest on that money every year, regardless of anything else. Add that interest to the fixed expenses of Social Security, Medicare, and all the other promises that the Government has made, and we're heading towards a downward spiral that we won't be able to get out of.

Here's my spin. I don't think Balanced Budgets are the answer. They're not enough. We didn't pay down the Debt under Clinton by having Balanced Budgets, we paid it down by having a Budget Surplus. That's the key.

If we could require a 1-10% budget surplus at the Federal level every year, we would be able to start to pay down the debt that we have, and after a few years (or decades since we're so far in the hole), we would start having extra money. Before people start crying for tax cuts, I have a different idea. Wouldn't it be better to put that money to use in our overall economy?

Here's an even larger picture. If every level of government, from Federal down through States, Counties and Cities, were required to have a 1-10% budget surplus, all of them could start to pay down their debts and start putting money aside. For my own city of Seattle, the extra revenue could be put into local banks, and made available to businesses and home buyers as low interest and fixed rate loans. The interest earned from those loans would be made available to the city in the next budget cycle as part of the general fund, and that extra money would justify a reduction in taxes.

There are 50 states. Washington has 39 counties. Each county has several dozen cities. We're talking big bucks, and it's time we started using that money to help ourselves and rebuild our infrastructure. Building our civilization on a foundation of Debt is destroying us a little at a time. Building on a foundation of wealth has long term positive consequences for us and our children's future. I think it's a better course.

Sallie Mae buyout

Sallie Mae agrees to $25B takeover

I found this really troublesome. It says that we won't see changes in how the loans are handled or paid, but how do we know that will stay true? If you're a shareholder in Sallie Mae, I would vote against this deal. It's not about the money, it's about keeping institutions like this out of the hands of private sector people that only care about the money. Which is more important, after all? Are we only out to make a buck, or do we actually care about how much debt we are putting on our kids?

Disclaimer, I am paying off a student loan to Sallie Mae, so I have a personal stake in this. Do I own Sallie Mae stock? No. I can't own everything.

Research notes on Washington State Savings Plan

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003598128_spitzer05.html

CEO Homes linked to stock performance

This was an interesting article. Anyone in the market for a mansion?

When your CEO buys a megamansion, is it time to dump stock?

Capitalism is sooo 20th Century

http://kuow.org/programs/theconversation.asp?Archive=04-10

Scroll to the 45:00 mark and listen to my talk with Ross from KUOW.

City of Seattle Micro Bonds

I made an inquiry of Seattle City Councilmember Tom Rasmussen about the possibility of having the city offer municipal bonds at lower denominations than $5,000. He sent the question to Dwight Dively, the city's Director of Finance.

Tom, we tried this about 12 years ago. Several other nearby jurisdictions had issued what are called "minibonds" in denominations of $500 or $1000, so we tried it with a City Light issue. The theory was that citizens and employees would want to buy these bonds. It turned out that there was almost no interest in these bonds. Further, they require a significant administrative expense because they aren't managed through the usual municipal bond process, which is administered through the Bank of New York. City Light incurred substantial administrative costs for a relatively small amount of bonds. So, our experience suggests this just isn't worth it. Please let me know if you have other thoughts. Thanks.

Here is my response:

Thanks for the voice of experience. I pretty much expected that the administrative costs of such an enterprise would limit the effectiveness. The problem is that just like almost nobody has $5,000 to put into an investment, not many more people have $1,000 or even $500. $1,000 is a mortgage payment. $500 is a car payment. $100 is groceries for a week. $50 is a dinner out. $25 is an amount that people can spare. Until we can figure out a way to enable people to put down as little as $25 for a community investment, the interest won't be there from the general public.

What we did not have 12 years ago was the Internet. We didn't have online banking institutions like PayPal and Sharebuilder, each of which have $25 minimum investments. We didn't have Citigroup or Bank of America having market capitalizations above $200 Billion. And we didn't have a negative national savings rate. We were just starting to launch the Internet, and everyone was after 10% returns. It makes sense that the administrative costs at that point were prohibitive for micro-bonds.

But new ideas are the only way that we are going to dig our way out of the mess that we are in. If it's not worth the investment for the Bank of New York, maybe it would be something that Google.org would look at. The online financial services are trying to figure out a way to enable efficient transactions of $25 or less. How many of them would jump at the chance to create an investment vehicle for people to put in $25 or more? All I can do is ask, and hope that I can find someone who shares my vision. I'm tired of watching my city and my country build a foundation of debt. I'd rather watch, and help, as we build a foundation of wealth instead.

I don't know if that sounds too much like a soapbox article or not, but I have real concerns that we're headed towards a financial meltdown at a global level, and that the only way to stem the tide is to start saving money at an individual level.

I've started to work on a presentation that outlines the issue and what I think the solution is. I guess I was inspired by Al Gore. And now that I have a laptop, I can work on it at any time.

PS, is anyone watching this blog? Please let me know. Dialoge is always better than an echo chamber.

Review of Capitalism 3.0

Ok, I've finished reading the book by Peter Barnes, and I really think he's on to something.

First, the website link:

http://onthecommons.org/

This is a collaborative website between Peter are a few other authors on similar subjects, all focused on getting people's attention to the commons and our need to safeguard it and protect it.

The site is a project of the Tomales Bay Institute, a search for which came up with a whole bunch of interesting links, especially this one! I'll have to check those out a bit later.

Ok, back to the book. The core concept is that we need to establish property rights for the commons, and put trusts on par with corporations that would balance the needs of future generations and all life on earth with the corporation's need for profits. He cites the Alaska Permanent Fund as an example, and suggests that similar funds could be set up in other states, at a national level, and even global for something like the ocean.

I'm hoping that the book will be translated into Spanish so the new leaders in Latin America can try out the ideas down there.

Community Investment Trust

I'm almost done with Peter's book, but I just had something come to mind that I need to get down.

A Community Investment Trust would be a way to start building what I'm foreseeing as the future. The Trust would be open for people to invest in, and part of the interest would go to a charity of their choice within the community. The principle would always grow, and the more people that invested, the better.

Capitalism 3.0

There's a new book out by Peter Barnes, "Capitalism 3.0". Peter is the co-founder of Working Assets, and his thesis is that we need to upgrade our economic operating system to incorporate the concept of the commons. Just started reading it, but it sounds really good.

Find it here.

I'll post a review when I'm done with the book. And if anyone has contact information for Peter, please let me know.

Donation Certificates II

This is an idea that I've been working on for a while. The core concept is that we should be building our civilization on a foundation of wealth instead of a foundation of debt.

The idea behind Capitalism is that capital is made available by people who have it to those that need it. That usually comes with a price. That price is interest rates. If you borrow money from a bank, they will charge you interest on that debt. If you have money in the bank, they pay you an interest on that wealth, because they can offer that money to other people in the form of loans. That is the basic concept behind banking.

There's nothing wrong with that, except that the people who have money are getting more benefit than the people actually using that money to improve our lives. The current system of borrow and spend, then pay back with interest does only one thing. It consolidates the wealth of our economy into the hands of those with the money.

That means it consolidates the power into the hands of those with money. And that's against everything that the United States stands for.

I believe that our growing economy should be the funding source for our charities while at the same time providing a steadily growing source of financial security for our future. Social Security was never meant to be a savings program. It's an insurance program for those who need a boost. If we don't need it, we should leave it to those people who do.

If you open a high yield savings account, you can get interest on that money. Let's use 4% for our examples. My idea is to split that return in half. 2% would build the balance of the account, and 2% would go to a charity or cause that you support. That's the core concept.

A charity could sell bonds and handle the account. You would buy the bonds, and they would put the money into an account earning 4%, and each month when the bank paid interest on the account, half of that interest would be available to the charity to fund their programs. So, if you buy $100.00 worth of bonds, at the end of the year you will have $102, with $2 going to the charity. Doesn't sound like much? What if you buy $1,000 worth. At the end of the year, you will have $1,020, and $20 will go to fund the charity. $20 per year is a standard annual membership fee for many non-profit organizations. Get some friends to also buy some bonds, and the account balance goes up. And with many banks, the higher the balance, the higher the interest rate they will be willing to pay, because it means that they have more money to lend out at 10% to people buying homes or financing a business venture.

President Eisenhower said it this way:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

What the President was leaving out was the fact that investment in infrastructure, be it a school, a power plant, a highway or a hospital, provides the community with value for years or decades into the future, but spending it on a bomb means that as soon as that bomb explodes, that money is gone. And since there is no purpose to building a bomb except for it to explode, even building the bomb is a waste of the money when compared to other potential uses. And it must be said that the money goes to the military contractors.

I'm not saying that we should not have a military. I'm saying that we should understand the true cost of what we are putting our money towards. If it is still worth that cost, so be it.

In finance, a similar principle can be cited. Every dollar that goes directly to a charity goes to do good work. But the money once given is gone. With our economy building the way it is, there is a better way. With Donation Savings accounts and Non-Profit Bonds, the main advantage to the donor is that the amount of money never goes down. Nobody loses money. It's an investment that always grows and never loses value.

This is not going to replace direct donations. Many charities have budgets of a million dollars or more. To get that from a 4% Interest rate would take an account balance of $50 million dollars. While this might not be impossible for someone like Bill Gates, it's still a heck of a lot of money. And in order to be comfortable with that amount of money "just sitting in the bank" will take a major adjustment in our attitudes about money and a better cultural understanding of the entire monetary system.

However, considering the money that we raise for nationwide political campaigns, $50 each from one million people doesn't seem that impossible anymore.

Please download my PowerPoint presentation and send me feedback. You can also view the presentation on this website.

Please send me feedback. I need help to get this off the ground.

And to those who are reading this wondering why I'm working on this 2 days before V-Day, I've actually been working on it for months. I just finally had the time to put it together and post it.

New presentation for Donation Certificates

I've finished putting together a basic presentation on my idea for Donation Certificates. You can view the slides here.

Please post comments here or send me emails. I'd like feedback on the idea, and help setting this up.

Question "Socially Responsible Investing"

Got a post on the Northwest Progressive Community listserv.

I don't invest through mutual funds, mostly because I can't afford the minumum investment requirements for most of them. The only exception is within my 401K, but I don't have that many options there.

What I do instead is invest directly in stocks as a micro-investor. Sharebuilder.com makes that cheap and easy. There are other online investing companies as well, but sharebuilder has the lowest cost and lowest minimums. I currently have around $7,000 in their accounts.

I've always had a problem with socially responsible investing. My own reason is that it leaves the high-dividend, questionable ethics stocks in the hands of people who literally don't care about the environment, don't care about the middle class, and are willing to destroy the future in order to achieve immediate financial gains.

I strongly feel that we need to redistribute the wealth of our nation, and that a change like that must come from the bottom up. We have to put dividends into the hands of the people who will do something constructive and positive with the money, not just move it to offshore tax havens.

I can go on and on about this.

Here's an article that tells the story about SRI Funds.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/2006/article_2415.cfm

Learn more at Paul Hawken's group, the Natural Capital Institute

http://www.naturalcapital.org/