Picking My Poison

There are more kinds of stocks than there are colors in a box of crayons. There are low priced and high priced stocks. There are stocks that can be held for income, and stocks that can be held for growth or speculation. There are stocks that are very risky, and there are stocks that are boringly safe. What kinds of companies will I own?

The type of company which a person is interested in buying is a reflection of that person's view of the purpose of investing. It may be helpful once again to visit the story of the beginning. God had created people, and gave to them His first instructions.

1. be prolific in order to fill the Earth with people,and,
2. exercise absolute control over the Earth to maximize its production for the benefit of the people.

Each person must come to grips with his or her own level of submission to those two tasks. My own response to the the charge leads me to invest in companies which produce goods and services, and most specifically, goods and services of the types which I find myself using in the course of life. Utilities, manufacturing companies, food production, pharmaceuticals, transportation; all these sectors are comfortable in the sense that I feel myself to be providing benefits to other people.

Where a company is located is also a matter of interest. When I invest in a company, I provide it with operating capital which allows it to expand operations and ultimately provide jobs for other people. If I feel a higher level of concern for the people of my own nation than for people in far off places, i will tend to invest in more local companies.

The type of return and the long-range goal of my investing will determine whether I choose stocks which tend to grow in value in and of themselves, or stocks which pay out higher percentages of the company profits in annual dividends. A determining factor in choosing a stock will be its price history over a period of several years. If I wish to speculate -- gamble if you will -- by trying to buy low and sell high, the dividend history of a stock will be of less interest than its price history. If I wish to maximize an income stream from my investment, the ratio of the dividend to my purchase price will be a more important factor.

So, then, some general guidelines which I have formulated for my own holdings:

1. The investment must be morally sound. I will not invest in products or services which I feel do not contribute to the betterment of my society. Shares in casinos or cigarette companies are not even on the radar because of their records of destruction of human lives. Neither are insurance or finance companies, since those entities generate their profits through fear and usury. You might be shaking your head at this point, since those kinds of companies frequently offer the highest rates of return. I reserve the right to judge the righteousness of my own investments, and pay the penalty for my judgment.
2. The investment must pay a dividend. If I am to be an owner in a company, I want it to make a profit, and when it makes a profit, as an owner, I feel entitled to my part of that profit. Dividends can be tricky; the higher returns often are a sign of higher risk.
3. The investment must be affordable and such that downward changes in price are not likely to cause excessive mental stress. I choose cheap(er) stocks for two good reasons. The first is that if two stocks are paying the same amount of dividend annually, but one is half the price of the other, the rate of return for the lower price stock is twice that of the higher. Simple math, but often ignored. The second reason has to do with the volatility of the stock market and the possibility of being forced to liquidate a position in a down market. If the price of a stock declines, say 30%, I will lose far less of my initial investment in X shares of a cheap stock than I would in X shares of a high flyer. I am loathe to spend more than $40/share. While some of my stocks are currently trading in the mid-$70 range or above, I bought them at about $40, and I will not buy any more of those stocks while they remain so expensive (although I will probably let the dividends be reinvested).

So what do I own at this time? What I am about to tell you is not to be considered a reliable guide to making money. You are about to view my idiosyncrasies, and if you attempt to duplicate what I have done, you may loose your shirt (along with the rest of your clothing). Thus, in order of my capitalistic meanderings:

AIVSX - The Investment Company of America. This is my only mutual fund, originally recommended by Mark Novkov. I hold it simply because it has sentimental value. It is also growing, and if you take pleasure in watching trees grow or racing turtles, this one is exciting. It does seem safe, though.

D - Dominion Resources, Inc. My natural gas supplier finally convinced me that I should buy its stock and get back some of my heating bill money. As the price has gone up, the dividend yield percentage has shrunk a bit; it is now a hair over 2%. Still, winter comes once a year to this corner of the globe, and I see a future for furnace fuel far into the distance. I bought it in late 2008; it was at about $35 then.

SJM - I originally bought Smuckers at $42.24 per share, a steep price for me, but since we drink Folgers coffee, eat Jiff peanut butter, and bake with Crisco, it seemed like the right thing to do. While it pays $1.92 annually, it traded over the last year from $60.46 to $80.25, and if it wasn't for the Folgers, I probably would have sold it. I can't justify spending any more money on this one; it is now too risky for me.

PFE - Pfizer was not purchased because it produces Viagra. At the time I bought it, it was paying a 32 cent quarterly dividend, or about an 8% return. When the dividend was cut to 16 cents, the price plummeted, but it is now back up to 22 cents, with a current return of about 3.6%.

KMB - Kimberly-Clark makes Scott toilet paper. 'Nuf said. What goes in, must come out; there will always be a need for toilet paper. I bought a few shares at $58 and cannot justify buying more at today's prices, but the dividend is hefty enough to register about a 3.5% return.

WIN - Windstream is a telcom stock. I was driving around Geauga County, seeing Windstream Cable vans everywhere, and decided to buy. My initial 100 shares were purchased at $14.21, and over the last year it has traded in the range of $10.76 to $14.40. The dividend, however, is $1.00 annually, or 7% on my initial investment, and being in a DRIP, it has grown to the point where if I had to sell it, I would likely break even on my initial principal. If I hold it and let it grow, it will, in a decade or so, be a handsome income stock. As of September 24, the dividend return is just over 9%.

FE - FirstEnergy is an electrifying stock. Yuk-yuk-yuk! Hey, same idea as Dominion, here. I have to light my bulbs, I may as well pay myself for the favor. Paying about 5% now.

CAG - Conagra Foods makes ACT II popcorn, Hebrew National hot dogs, and Swiss Miss cocoa. Gotta have it. Returning roughly 3.5%.

LYTS - I purchased 100 shares of LSI Industries at $7.26; it pays 20 cents annually for a 2.75% return on my initial investment, and roughly 3.5% at current prices. However, it is in a Dividend Reinvestment Program, and over the last year has traded in the range of $5.85 to $9.61. It is a park-and-forget stock. I bought it because I was intrigued with the electronic billboards that LSI makes. Besides, it's an Ohio company. Have to keep the neighborhood employed.

RPM - Rustoleum Products, anyone? Another neighborhood business, paying about 3%.

GRC - Gorman-Rupp Company. Hmmm. I bought this to show solidarity with my son-in-law. Have to keep him employed. Good thing this stock did a 5 for 4 split soon after I bought it. Still under water, and only paying about 1.4%. HOWEVER. It has some strong points, like almost zero debt, and a huge market for its industrial pumps. Tortoises belong in every portfolio. It was purchased for the long-term, though, and is (to me) a prime example of the idea of exercising the Genesis 1 requirement.

FTR - Frontier Communications is another communications holding, bought initially at $5.95 and paying 75 cents annually, or 12.6%. It has had a 52 week range of $5.33 to $9.84 and is being held for income. Although the quarterly dividend was cut to 10 cents, it is still putting out over 8.5%.

ALSK - Alaska Communications. What? Yep, a cheap dividend stock. Looks like a loser, but when something is this cheap and paying 8% - 9%, you buy lots and hang on. Besides, they nearly have the wireless spectrum cornered in Seward's Folly. I can live with this risk.

DOW - The Dow Chemical Company. Better living through chemistry. I'll buy that. I did. Paying about 4%.

OLN - Every feller needs his Winchester. Buying this was an American thing to do. Besides, it pays about 3.5%.

TNK - Teekay Tankers is a company for us oil speculator types. Of course, all we do is fill up the big tubs and sail them from place to place. As long as the return is in the 10% - 13% range as it has been this year, I'll anchor some money here. This is one where the dividends have outweighed the loss in principal over the course of the year.

NM - Navios Maritime Holdings is a Greek owned bulk carrier with a huge modern South American terminal. Somebody has to feed the world; we deliver the food. And other stuff. They were a cheap buy, and the dividend is about 6%.

CSX - Well, I couldn't afford the Reading or the B&O, so I bought CSX since it was cheap and had a cute internet commercial. It is paying about 2.6%. The graph for this one shows why being a day trader is a sure cause of heart attacks. In this rodeo, you get on and hang on. We will always need our choo-choos, and I will probably buy more of this in the future.

I see only one legitimate and constructive way of "occupying" Wall Street. Buy stocks.

A Biblical Definition of Marriage

I had posted a transcript of my June 10th sermon on Facebook, and Hansen commented that it was blog material. Since I have ditched Facebook, I suppose this is a good resting place for it.

----------------------------- We're faced with a lot of tumult in the world; we're faced with a lot of decisions to make. There are contrary opinions floating here and there and we often have to make statements because people ask us what do we think about this thing or that thing. It's good to understand exactly what the Scripture has to say about certain things. I'd like to begin reading in the book of Genesis, all the way back in the second chapter. God had created man, He set man in the Garden of Eden, and He gave Adam a task. In the 18th verse:

Gen 2: 18-24 "18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

I would also like to read from Matthew, the 19th chapter, where Jesus was faced with a question. Matthew 19, beginning with the 3rd verse:

MT 19:3-9 : "3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. "

Recently, a Federal court made a ruling that parts of the law known as the Defense of Marriage Act were unConstitutional. That aroused a good bit of unhappiness because one of the things the Defense of Marriage Act says is that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman. Anybody running for office is faced sooner or later with the question, "Where do you stand with regard to this?" As Christians, we're often expected to say, "We agree with the Defense of Marriage Act." Yet the Scripture tells us something that is slightly different -- it's enough that we have to stop and think about what it's actually saying -- because Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." And when we stop to think about that, we have to stop to think about what it is that God has set up in His regime that is different from the world's.

Peter writes that in the last days, it will be just like in the days of Noah. He says they are going to be marrying and giving in marriage. So we have to think a little bit about this question. What is marriage? That's a big argument that's going on in our society today -- What is marriage? How do you define marriage? Is marriage just the relationship between one man and one woman?

I read a very interesting article, by Dr. R. Albert Mohler -- he's the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary -- writing as a contributing writer to CNN. He said that the question about homosexual marriage is one of the things that he is asked about most frequently. He pointed out what the Scripture has to say about homosexuality, and then he made a statement that caught my attention He said that the church has an opportunity at this point, and that it needs to make sure that it does what's right because it made a mess of the question of divorce.

I thought about that. You see, one of the things that people are upset with Christians about today is that we say marriage is just between one man and one woman. They ask, "What's so wrong about some other kind of arrangement? How can you Christians be so judgmental?" In fact, we find that in all the Scripture, it doesn't talk too much about what marriage is, so much, as it talks about the union between a man and his wife. So in Genesis we see that God declares that the two become one flesh. And we see in Matthew that Jesus repeats that, and He goes right back to that verse in Genesis, and says, "Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and they twain shall be one flesh?" For the most part the Christian world looks at that and says, "OK, that means one man and one woman."

However, the Apostle Paul writes something very, very interesting. He says this in the 6th chapter of 1st Corinthians :

"13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh."

Throws an interesting light on it, doesn't it? What happens in an adulterous situation? What happens if you have one man and one woman and they have been joined together as one flesh, and one of them steps outside the relationship and becomes joined to another person as one flesh? Is that also a marriage? It would be, according to the Word of God. At that point the world says, "Wait a minute, we can't handle that."

In fact, under the law, people said, "We can't handle this." So Jesus pointed out, "Because of the hardness of your hearts God gave you divorce." But, he says, "It wasn't like that from the beginning. Divorce -- simply the fact that somebody says you are no longer married -- doesn't undo what God did."

The world says, "Wait a minute -- that means that if a man divorces his wife and marries somebody else, he now has two wives!" Yeah, it does. And they are both marriages. And the question becomes, "How do we get around the Word of God? How do we satisfy our consciences so that we can say it's all OK?" Jesus said divorce was permitted because of the hardness of peoples' hearts -- the unwillingness to obey God. What God has joined together, nobody can take apart. And Paul writes in Romans, that under the Law, when a woman is married to a man, the only thing that separates them is death.

At this point someone -- the government -- steps in and says "We're going to define marriage." I suppose they can do all the defining they want, but they can't undo what God said. That creates some other problems, too, doesn't it?

The Apostle Paul in Romans talks about those who have left the intended use of the body; about homosexual relationships. That leaves you wondering exactly what God is looking at in those. Are those marriages in the sense of becoming one flesh? Scripture is really not that clear on it, but the possibility exists. If the mere physical act is enough to trigger the joining as one flesh, would that illuminate the statement in the Law that bestiality creates confusion?

But our problem is that we fail to understand, we fail to admit, we fail to cling to what the Scripture says. God says, "The two become one flesh." And the Apostle Paul says, "You fool around? You go out and have an affair with a harlot, or more than one, and when you do, you become one flesh with that person or persons!"

It doesn't talk about any marriage ceremonies, it doesn't talk about any legal arrangements, it talks about the fact that the two become one flesh. And THAT's Gods standard, His definition.

Brother Froelich wrote a very interesting book, and it ought to be required reading for everyone. We've got it on our website, so if anybody wants to read it, it's there. You see, he had a problem. He had a very big problem, because in Switzerland, in his canton, if you did not belong to the established church, if you did not go to the established church, you couldn't get married.

He met his wife, and they wanted to get married, and the canton said, "No, you don't belong to our church. We won't issue a marriage license for you." So he searched the Scripture, and his book, Matrimony According to the Word of God , is an interesting read because he tells about what he found. Nowhere in the Scripture is there a marriage ceremony! It all comes down to the two becoming one flesh.

So, free in conscience, he and his bride went before his church, and they asked the church's blessing. Then they set up housekeeping, without a marriage license, without a ceremony, without official sanction from the state. And every time his wife bore a child, she was thrown in prison for prostitution. That's what happens when there is no First Amendment.

What is our stand on marriage? Do we go with the world, or do we go with the Word of God? If we go with the Word of God, are we willing to accept the discomfort that comes with accepting what the Word of God says, because Jesus says this, " Whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication and shall marry another committeth adultery, and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Now -- is adultery sin? Do we call sin, sin? Do we admit to it? Or do we shovel it under the rug and say, "Well, that was for those people. We don't have to worry about that, because our government says something different."

I don't think we have that liberty if we want to be faithful to God.

So I think the church may need to change its terminology a little bit. We may need to redefine things a little bit, because when the world talks about marriage, it talks about a contractual relationship between people and it talks about legal relationships. You know, in Ohio, we no longer have common-law marriage. We did, up until the 1970's. Common law marriage came out of Anglo-Saxon tradition where two people could simply say, "We're married" and set up housekeeping. Simply because they agreed and said so, the state accepted it. But then the lawyers passed a law, and they said, "No, you can't do that any more, because it produces legal problems. It makes it difficult for the state to determine who owns what property. So, you can't do that any more." And that is the reason why everybody's so interested in defining marriage -- because there is money involved. Not because they want to take the high road, not because they want to take God's definition, but because there is money involved.

So maybe the church needs to sit back and think about this a little while, because as Froelich wrote, matrimony is something that is honorable, just as the Apostle Paul also wrote. And it's something that is good and clean. But it has to be within the constraints of what God says, and there's a difference between that which is blessed by God, and that which people do on their own.

Maybe that term that seems to have fallen out of use -- the idea of Holy Matrimony -- ought to be revived. Not that we would talk about marriage, because as we see from the Scripture, somebody who is promiscuous could be married to an awful lot of people, but it's not HOLY matrimony. It's not God's plan, it's not what He intended. We need to understand that.

Yes, the church has made a big mess of the question of divorce. Because of the hardness of their hearts, people didn't want to look at what God said. They looked to government rather than God, and the government gave them an out and said, "If you want to do it, we'll let you do it."

So people make excuses. The Apostle Paul talks about that too, in Romans -- it's kind of interesting the way he phrases it -- he talks about them excusing and accusing one another -- because they know that the things they do are condemned by God. In chapter 2,

"14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

See, all those excuses aren't going to stand up. People make up rules and they make up laws and they define things but if they don't look into God's word, and see what their conduct ought to be, it's all in the vanity of their own minds. They're all going to have to give account of it someday because there will be a judgment. We have to ask ourselves whether we want to be included among those who accuse or excuse base on worldly judgments; based on the darkness of our own minds, the hardness of our own hearts.

Oh, yes, it leaves a lot of problems. What do we do when people sin; how do we handle it? What happens within our own families when people sin? How do we treat those who sin? Scripture has a remedy for that also, and the first place we need to look is how does Jesus treat us when we sin? It is easy to condemn someone for an infraction of the law. Its easy to condemn someone for something that we might say is a really big sin. Do we condemn, or do we intercede?

Scripture tells us that if we offend in one point, we've broken the whole law. We might try to weigh good and evil and we might try to say that this sin is worse than that one, but in God's eyes, the businessman who takes home pencils from the office is just as guilty as the murderer. We don't like that, do we? We don't like that standard of judgment because we'd rather say, "My sin is not as bad as his!" But all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. That is the measuring stick -- the glory of God. When God says that something is, and in this case, He says the two shall be one flesh, then I'd better believe it. We'd better listen to what He has to say.

When the world comes to us and asks, "How do you define marriage?"; we've got it here: the two become one flesh. Throw aside all the little conditions that people might put on it. Throw aside all the things that they might say, like, "It doesn't count unless the state sanctioned it" or, "It doesn't count unless it's done in a church" or, "It doesn't count unless it's between two people who are ... whatever." Throw that all aside. God says, "The two become one flesh." That is HIS definition of marriage. Where do we stand? Do we look at marriage as being just a convenience or do we really take it for what it was intended -- Holy Matrimony? Maybe we need to bring our own thinking in line with God's.