Conference nyoss1::market_investing

> Read a Jane Bryant Quinn article ....

	I believe I read the same ariticle.  For those in the Nashua
	area it was on page 9 of Tuesday's (July 25th) Nashua Telegraph
	section titled "Personal Finance".

>     Looking ahead, stocks may flatten out in 15 years or so when there are
>     fewer people coming into the investing market and the boomers start to
>     convert their holdings for retirement.

	And don't forget it also mentions property values in Northern
	climates dropping as the baby boomers retire and move to warmer
	(ie. down south) climates.

	Scary!

    This forecast is based on US demographic trends.
    
    Capital flows don't stop at national borders. Linking a market change
    to a one-country trend is questionable.

    I saw this article a while back.  I don't buy the argument
    that the strength in stocks is due to boomer saving.
    
    Check out the front-page article in the 05-Jun-95 WSJ.
    It cites a study by Merrill Lynch that looked into
    net financial assets held by households vs. age of the
    head of household.  For the 45-54 group net financial
    assets totaled a whopping (...are you ready for this...)
    $2600.  For the 35-44 group it was less than $1000.
    And look at the amount of installment debt in America.
    It's up more than 15 percent over last year's already
    high level.
    
    These are not the signs of a prudent, savings-prone cohort.
    Rather, these overaged adolescents are spending all they have
    (and more), expecting mummy and daddy will, as a final gesture
    to a generation accustomed to overindulgence, leave an
    inheritance sufficient to pay off last year's Visa bills.
    
    No, the rally in stocks stems from the expectations that
    the Fed would at long last reverse the trend of higher
    interest rates, and from the huge infusions of recycled
    dollars from our overseas trading partners.  When this
    music stops, it could get ugly.
    
    -jrh

>     This forecast is based on US demographic trends.
>     
>     Capital flows don't stop at national borders. Linking a market change
>     to a one-country trend is questionable.

	The WW-2 baby-boom demographic is US only?  I would of thought
	it would also be similiar for other countries involved in the
	War that had armies away from their spouses?  Ie. like
	Germany, Russia, England, France, Japan, Italy, .... ie.
	most of the countries with witch we have capital flows.

	I do feel however that part of the forecast being based on
	US demographics is very relevant, and can not be helped by
	an influx of foreign capital.  And that is the housing markets.
	When the baby boomer generation retires it is very likely
	lots of them, like other retiring generations, will move to
	warmer climates.

	FWIW, the next baby-boom generation may be the vietnam war
	protestors babies.  Supposedly lots of hippies became fathers
	so they could be spared the draft.  This demographer says
	that when these babies hit 25 they buy durables and that
	buying spree will only last a year or two.  He gave reasons
	why 25 is the magic number.

>     No, the rally in stocks stems from the expectations that
>     the Fed would at long last reverse the trend of higher
>     interest rates, and from the huge infusions of recycled
>     dollars from our overseas trading partners.  When this
>     music stops, it could get ugly.

	You must of read an article by a different demographer than
	the one that was on W$W (or was it NBR) last week.  The
	demographer was *not* giving an explanation of why we are
	having a rally *this* summer (or even this year).  We are
	talking about a much longer period of time here ......

	Even if you don't buy that baby boomers save/invest *more*
	than the previous generations, then I contend that their
	spending then (and they have much more to spend) indirectly
	is a large contributor to the upwood movement of stocks
	by increasing the profits of the underlying companies whose
	products they are buying.  Of course this is just a theory :-)

    '68 + 25 == 1993.  I haven't noticed a great number of kids-o-hippies,
    but then, who can tell if those balding heads are hippies?
    
    Mark :-) 

   .0
    
    
>    Looking ahead, stocks may flatten out in 15 years or so when there are
>    fewer people coming into the investing market and the boomers start to
>    convert their holdings for retirement.
    
    Is it true?? To me that would not make sense since Baby boomers did
    procreate didn't they. So why should the spending flatten out in 15
    years. Woudn't the kids take over?
    
    I guess the more correct thing to analyze is if population growth will
    slow down in years to come. Does anyone know if this is true ??
    
    On a related note, someone I know is seriously looking up a couple of
    companys who are on a funeral home buying spree. He thinks they will do
    great when the baby boomers drop dead.
    
    That really makes me sick. Making money through other's misery. I
    woudn't do it even if the stock climbs up 100 points.

    
    I'd do it if the stock just doubled ;-)
    
    We're all gonna die sometime...
    
    
    
    	the Greyhawk

>     Is it true?? To me that would not make sense since Baby boomers did
>     procreate didn't they. So why should the spending flatten out in 15
>     years. Woudn't the kids take over?

	That assumes baby boomers have same number of children as their
	parents did.

	In any case, it's a well known demographic (statistic) that 
	population trends cycle.

>     We're all gonna die sometime...

	But that doesn't mean we'll all be buying caskets (you only
	need a pine box for creamation ...)

    >     On a related note, someone I know is seriously looking up a couple of
    > companys who are on a funeral home buying spree. He thinks they will do
    > great when the baby boomers drop dead.
    
    Their motto: "Our stock goes up every time one goes down!"
    
    Sorry, couldn't resist. My mom-in-law works at a funeral home, after
    retiring from a career as a nurse.
    
    > That really makes me sick. Making money through other's misery.
    
    They are more in the business of providing comfort to the bereaved.
    This is how my mom-in-law sees her role. She started working there
    after her husband died.
    
    True, they make money doing so; but after all, they're a business.
    You make money at your job, don't you?
    
    Death is tragic, but it's also natural and part of the cycle of life.
    I'd recommend Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces" to you.
    While I wouldn't want a fancy funeral for myself ("Just one like Old
    King Tut!"), not everyone shares my tastes. Plus, the funeral is more
    for those left behind. (My dad always joked that, when he died, just to
    set him out at the trash with a six-pack; that way, he'd only need two
    pall bearers :-).
    
    (wait, this is the Investing note!) Would the enterprise mentioned
    above be a good investment? Maybe so. Not only will the number of
    deaths per year increase, but the baby boom generation as a class is less
    religious and more materialistic (and their kids are even more so.
    IMHO). Since every culture needs its death rituals, our group will
    probably overcompensate by having more expesive funerals.
    
    				Jim

re: .10

>	But that doesn't mean we'll all be buying caskets (you only
>	need a pine box for creamation ...)

Actually, some mortuaries use a fiberboard "container" if you 
don't plan to display the body.

While there may be profit to be made in caskets, the service 
margin is probably much higher.

Wes

    re -.1
    
    I would think the opposite.  As a 22-year-old son of a baby
    boomer ("Look honey, it's one of those Generation-Xers that 
    I've heard so much about") I would think that my parents would
    want a less expensive funeral.  If we are becoming less religious,
    and more materialistic, we will spend less on a funeral (sunk money)
    and on bereavement (we 'care' less.)
    
    Also bear in mind that there is a finite number of cemetery plots,
    So big funerals might become a notion of the past.  And, no
    matter how the cost of the funeral fluctuates, the price of the
    land might go up as supply goes down.
    
    My generation also is getting away from service-oriented businesses.
    We are doing more and more of our shopping at warehouses like
    Home Depot, Price-Costco, Comp USA, etc...  The funeral business
    is a service business.
    
    As for the moral issue, taking money during down parts of your
    life, think about how much money a wedding costs.  Many, Many
    people have their hands in your pocket during what is (for 
    some, anyway) an UP part of your life, and I think making money
    off of someone's joy is just as bad...
    
    
    Bart
    
    
    
    
    
    

    re: .7
    
    Regarding  the funeral home buying spree, once you dry off your tears
    I suggest taking a look at the Sept. 11 copy of Forbes.  There's
    a we up on a company called SCI - Service Corp. Intl.  They have been
    buying funeral business in the US and around the world, apparently
    quite profitably.  They are trading at 36 5/8 as of Sept. 19, 23
    times earnings.  The article gives them a good outlook, better than
    their main competitors, whom they also mention, as Loews Group
    and Stewart Enterprises.
    
    Jeff

    re: .-1 sorry for the typos, if the previous note seems incoherent,
    the terminal server has been throwing fits today.  Lucky I finishedd
    befoe it knocked me off.
    
    Jeff

> >       But that doesn't mean we'll all be buying caskets (you only
> >       need a pine box for creamation ...)

That must be the imported stuff. Usually a cardboard carton is good enough 
for domestic creamation :^)