Portfolio Update August 2009

Portfolio Growth (YTD)	252.59%
Portfolio Value (Asset Value)	$53,109.43
Account Value (Owner's Equity)	$32,289.22
Outstanding Shares	129,862
Wittaya Wongwanich	88,362
Pramote Lumyai	27,698
Chaweng Wongwanich	12,226
Price/Share	$0.4090
Capital Inflow	$5,000
Capital Outflow	$550
Fund Purchasing Fee	$1.50
Total Capital	$21,600.00
Wittaya Wongwanich	$10,250.00
Pramote Lumyai	$6,350.00
Chaweng Wongwanich	$5,000.00
Asset Category
Cash Acct Balance	$0
Margin Acct Balance	$0
Margin Loan Balance	($20,820.21)
Equity	$49,112.50
Fixed Income	$0
Commodity	$0
Real Estate	$0
Options	$3,996.93

Master Kung Quotes

"Unless you enter the tiger's den you cannot take the curbs."

Confucius, AKA. "Master Kung", An esteemed Chinese thinker and social philosopher

Courier Tablet Part 3

the Dogs of the Dow

The Dogs of the Dow is a popular quantitative process that was introduced by Michael O’Higgins in 1991 in his book Beating the Dow. He discovered it as he was looking for a consistent and measurable system of stock selection that outperformed the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) annually. Similarly, an initial search criterion that you construct may be based on a simple filter.

The Dogs of the Dow is a very simple process that calls for the buying of an equal dollar amount of the 10 stocks with the highest yields from the DJIA. They are to be held for a period of one year, at which time the screen is reevaluated. At that time, you find the 10 stocks with the highest yields again, sell any of the stocks that are no longer on the top 10 list, and replace them with the new “highest-yielders.”

This method is dubbed the Dogs of the Dow because the high yielding stocks are the ones with prices that are low relative to the dividends paid, indicating stocks that are potentially out of favor.

Super Investor of Graham and Dodd

Warren Buffett: "I am really no different from any of you," he says. "I may have more money than you, but money doesn't make the difference. Sure, I can buy the most luxurious handmade suit, but I put it on and it just looks cheap. I would rather have a cheeseburger from Dairy Queen than a $100 meal ... If there is any difference between you and me it may simply be that I get up every day and have a chance to do what I love to do."

John Bogle: "Investing is all about common sense. Owning a diversified portfolio of stocks and holding it for the long term is a winner's game. Trying to beat the stock market is theoretically a zero-sum game (for every winner, there must be a loser), but after Wall Street's substantial costs of investing are deducted, it becomes a loser's game."

Warren Buffett: "Of the billionaires I have known, money just brings out the basic traits in them. If they were jerks before they had money, they are simply jerks with a billion dollars."

"The future is never clear," Buffett warns. "You pay a very high price in the stock market for a cheery consensus." Strategy: No trading, buy value, never sell. "I never have the faintest idea what the stock market is going to do in the next six months, or the next year or two," Buffett says. "But I think it's very easy to see what's going to happen over the long term."

"It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently," Buffett says. And to Congress: "I want employees to ask themselves whether they are willing to have any contemplated act appear on the front page of their local paper the next day, be read by their spouses, children, and friends ... If they follow this test, they will not fear my other message to them: Lose money for my firm and I will be understanding; lose a shred of reputation for the firm, and I will be ruthless."

Buffett says. "Success is getting what you want. Happiness is wanting what you get."

"You do things when the opportunities come along," Buffett says. "I've had periods in my life when I've had a bundle of ideas come along, and I've had long dry spells. If I get an idea next week, I'll do something. If not, I won't do a damn thing. ... You only have to do a very few things right in your life so long as you don't do too many things wrong."

"It's class warfare and my class is winning, but they shouldn't be," Buffett says. "If you're in the luckiest 1% of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99%." Most don't. So it's no surprise that Buffett's actions speak louder than words: The richest man on earth is giving away all of his fortune.

Life and investing are simple for Buffett: "We enjoy the process far more than the proceeds." He lives in the same modest house, drives an old car. The computer in his office is only used to play bridge with friends around the world.

OLPC with New XO-3

One Laptop Per Child, or OLPC, or the XO, was a flop however you look at it. Instead of just making a cheap, basic machine that could tough it out in its target third-world market, Nicholas Negroponte’s supposedly $100 laptop instead chose to both patronize and confuse with an over-simplified interface. At the same time, as the price rose and dates slipped by, the Rise of the Atom put cheap netbooks within reach of anyone with a few hundred bucks.

Now, Nick’s back, with the XO-3. The new hardware (read: vaporware) will come in the familiar green and white livery, only this time it’s a tablet (surprise, right?). The XO-3 will be showing its 800Mhz, 8.5-by-11-inch face in 2010, when hopefully the technology will exist to build what is essentially a giant iPod Touch for just $75.

But making an impossibly cheap entertainment device for developing countries (for what else is a tablet but a handheld media-center? Certainly not a functional computer or Microsoft’s earlier tablet PC efforts would have been successful) is not the only mission of the OLPC group. Negroponte told Engadget that there will be an OLPC 1.5 appearing in January, a $200 update to the current hardware, and an OLPC 1.75 in 2011, which will make good on the dual-screen promise first teased in May this year.

We’d love to see all of these devices, but CG mockups and philanthropic promises aren’t the same as real, shipping hardware. Still, the picture do look good.

Cap and Trade ....

CAP & TRADE = LESS CO2

The term cap and trade describes a set of environmental laws and regulations that aim to reduce greenhouse gasses and other pollutants. They combine a “cap” on emissions with the ability to “trade” emissions permits.

The idea is to give companies a certain amount of flexibility: You can invest in new, energy-efficient technology, and you won’t get fined for exceeding the cap. Or, you can buy permits on the open market and keep right on emitting as much as you want.

A Cap and Trade system is a market-based policy tool usually used by a state or central government to reduce the overall carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions. It is one of two major market-based options to lower emissions, the other being a carbon tax. In a cap and trade system a central authority sets a limit, or a cap, on the overall amount of pollutants that are allowed to emit in one certain area and allocates permits representing the right to emit a specific amount of pollutants to companies. Companies then can trade permits on a created market. Over time, the limit or the cap becomes stricter, allowing less and less pollutions, until the final reduction goal is met.

The development of the concept can be divided into four phases:

1. Gestation: Theoretical articulation of the instrument by Coase, Dales, Montgomery etc and, independent of the former, tinkering with "flexible regulation" at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
2. Proof of Principle: First developments towards trading of emission certificates based on the "offset-mechanism" taken up in Clean Air Act in 1977.
3. Prototype: Launching of a first "cap and trade" system as part of US Acid Rain Program, officially announced as a paradigm shift in environmental policy, as prepared by "Project 88", a network building effort to bring together environmental and industrial interests in the US.
4. Regime Formation: branching out from US clean air policy to global climate policy, and from there to the European Union, along with the expectation of an emerging global carbon market and the formation of the "carbon industry".

Alternative energy companies (solar, wind) are the obvious picks to benefit from cap and trade if you believe that their products will be more attractive as pollutants from traditionalsources (oil, coal, natural gas) become more costly. But the whole solar thing depends heavily on the cost of alternatives. The dollar per watt of a solar panel has to make economic sense to individuals and larger users. And cap and trade won’t necessarily affect the price of oil and coal.

The technology that utilities, for example, may use to clean their emissions to slide under the cap probably won’t have anything to do with solar. The big engineering firms could get some contracts out of this. And if the utilities become more efficient at producing power, they’ll use less coal, for example, and the price could come down.

How about the big, consolidated oil companies? Cap and trade is tougher to analyze there. Under the plans being discussed, the government will hand out permits to companies that produce the emissions, but not evenly. Utilities will get more of them; the oil companies, much less. Each company will be affected differently because of its different operations and the different sources of oil. Companies whose operations are concentrated in the U.S. will likely be hit hardest by the regulations.

More Information on EPA Website Here