sailrmac

Darren McCammon

sailrmac’s Activity

Thu Mar 31

NL

Boards Post

sailrmac replied to the Mechanical Investing board. 10:10 AM

Re: Bear Catcher II Bug Fix

Thanks for your efforts. We do appreciate it!

Wed Mar 16

NL

Boards Post

sailrmac replied to the Real Estate Inv. Trusts: REITs board. 8:58 PM

Re: TANO

One doesn't have to take wild guesses on default rates, Moody's has been keeping track for years and publishing statistics: [more]

Tue Mar 8

NL

Boards Post

sailrmac replied to the Dividend Growth Investing board. 11:30 AM

Re: In their 30s and living off of Dividends

It indicates they retired a couple years ago so the 10 year period could have been 2003 - 2013 when the S&P 500 had an average return of 10.97%.

Assuming 20% taxes (remember average tax rate not marginal and I assume they maximized [more]

NL

Boards Post

sailrmac replied to the Real Estate Inv. Trusts: REITs board. 11:07 AM

Re: ARE declares 80c dividend + AREpD

"there is a complicated formula within the document that I'm not sure how to parse, but from the more enlightened investors on this board the consensus, if I remember clearly, was that the convertible would increase from .24 shares to a maximum [more]

Sun Mar 6

NL

Boards Post

sailrmac replied to the Real Estate Inv. Trusts: REITs board. 5:05 PM

Re: AMH Preferreds Worth A look

Seems like their would be a pretty strong interest rate factor here. Higher interest rates would both make the coupon less attractive and tend to hold down the HPA. Conversely, continued low rates would boost both the value of the coupon and the [more]

Thu Feb 26

NL

Watercooler Post

sailrmac wrote 3:40 PM

The US government should change tax laws allowing all corporations the option to become pass-through entities. Simplified somewhat, pass-through entities (e.g. BDC's, MLP's, REIT's) are those who do not have to pay corporate income tax provided they distribute the majority of their taxable income, usually 90%, to shareholders. These distributions avoid double taxation (corporate taxes + dividend taxes) but the receivers have to pay marginal tax rates on them (typically 28-42%) instead of receiving the lower dividend tax rate status (15-20%). The benefits to our society would be significant: 1.) This would both reduce the machinations companies go through to avoid taxes, and encourage US job formation. Companies hold sizable profits overseas in order to avoid paying US taxes on them. Elimination of the corporate tax allows them to repatriate these funds to the US, returning them to shareholders or using them to fund growth. Shareholders are much more likely to spend or re-invest the funds rather than letting them sit in banks like many companies do. This would jump start the economy by putting the money to work. In economics terms, it would increase the velocity of money. As importantly, companies would no longer have any tax incentives to build factories and transfer patents overseas in order to recognize their profits overseas. This would further encourage US jobs and competitiveness. 2.) In my, and Economist magazine's, opinion pass through entities provide advantages over regular C-corps for the investor. Many studies have shown dividend paying entities outperforming non-dividend payers. Some have even shown higher dividend payers outperform lower dividend payers on both a nominal and risk adjusted basis. Since pass-through entities must distribute 90% of their taxable income they tend to high yield. Furthermore, this effectively means they need to go back to shareholders (or banks) in order to raise funds for large projects. Thus they must be more selective with projects and able to justify large projects to third party stakeholders in order to access funding. 3.) If you believe in a progressive tax system, this would ensure fairness. Warren Buffett for instance would no longer be paying a lower average rate on his taxes than his secretary. This is because 90% of taxable income must be distributed and the distribution from these pass through entities would be subject to the same marginal tax rates as salaried or hourly income. Indeed Warren's average tax rate under this system is very likely to be higher than his secretaries. He would be declaring much more income, so a higher proportion of which would be in the higher brackets. However, it would still likely be close to revenue neutral for the government in the short term. Basically a reduction in corporate taxes, especially those paid by the small business owner, would be offset by an increase in income taxes for the top 10% of earners. Longer term it would actually be revenue positive for the government if you believe, as I do, that the change is very likely to lead to a higher US growth rate. While passing anything through our legislative branch seems to be a stretch nowadays, I think this is a worthwhile proposal that both could actually happen and would have a significant positive effect on our economy. Themes: taxes, economy, growth

CAPS Stats & Trivia

CAPS Player Rating 56.43
Player Rank 32625 out of 74880
Score 83.32
Score Change Today -4.59
Accuracy 50.63%
Active Picks 16
Total Picks 166
Best Pick XRM (+181.95)
Worst Pick AAPL (-147.59)
Average Score per Pick 0.50
Charms Earned 5
Highest Rated Favorite 80brown
Go to sailrmac’s CAPS page

Boards Stats & Trivia

Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool
Board Posts 4568
Recs Received 6742
People who have rec'd these posts 1564
Recs to Posts Ratio (last 30 days) N/A
Threads Started 428
Threads Started Percentage 9.37 %
Most Frequent Board Macro Economic Trends and Risks
Very First Post Re: Alternate Standard of Risk (8/28/1999)
Percentage of Posts Rec'd 49.43 %
Show sailrmac’s 10 Latest Posts