Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Berney who wrote (26648)	9/22/1999 12:04:00 AM
From: Vitas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

Berney, I don't know what this has to do with it, but: Olstein who runs the Olstein Financial Fund said about LU back in March: 1. 20% of profits are from pension plan gains 2. profits from lower taxes 3. lower allowance for doubtful accounts 4. gap? between margin decreasing- it's in the 10Q or 10k 5.wrote off 2.5 bill in process R&D Now you as a bean counter should be able to make this very clear to me. Vitas

To: Berney who wrote (26648)	9/22/1999 12:33:00 PM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Respond to of 99985

OT Berney may I add that from your response you did not read the whole decision. Please read the comments of Justice Stevens - dissenting and his interpretation of the law. More important The Supreme Court decision over-ruled Justice Stevens assertions. For convinience I will post it. Congress, the Court seems to recognize, could not have intended that someone spend up to 30 years in prison for falsely flattering a bank officer for the purpose of obtaining favorable treatment. 1 Yet the Court justifies its interpretation of the statute by positing that a literal reading of §1014 will not "normally" extend the statute "beyond the limit that a materiality requirement would impose." Ante, at 17. In making this assertion, the Court correctly avoids relying on prosecutors not to bring frivolous cases. This part which was over ruled has to do with corporation issuing misleading financial statements. Unfortunate shareholders are government agencies but Pension Plans for government employees or banks may be, but for that we need a Supreme Court Rulling. 2 Rather, it appears to have made an empirical judgment that false statements will not "usually" be about a trivial matter, and that the government will "'relatively rare[ly]'" be able to prove that nonmaterial statements were made for the purpose "of influencing a decision." Ibid. I am not at all sure, nor do I know how the Court determined, that attempted flattery is less common than false statements about material facts. Even if it were, the "unusual" nature of trivial statements provides scant justification for reaching the conclusion that Congress intended such peccadillos to constitute a felony. and read this example which was rejected by the Supreme Court - e.g. GO to Jail. Consider the following scenario. A crafty home owner in need of a mortgage, having learned that the bank's loan officer is a bow tie aficionado, purchases his first bow tie to wear at their first meeting. As expected, the loan officer is wearing such a tie, which, incidentally, the prospective borrower considers downright ugly. Nevertheless, thinking that flattery will increase the likelihood that the officer will be favorably disposed to approving the loan, the applicant swallows hard and compliments the officer on his tie; he then volunteers the information that he too always wears a bow tie. This is a lie. Under the majority's interpretation, this person could spend 30 years in federal prison. He made a "false statement." 18 U.S.C. §1014. In fact, until that day he had never worn a bow tie. And the statement was made "for the purpose of influencing" the bank. Ibid. The applicant subjectively hoped that the loan officer—flattered and feeling a sartorial common ground—would be more likely to approve his mortgage. Now rosy statements are made to induce us the public at large to buy shares in XYZ company. If we would be protected as teh government is how you think the financial statements will look like?? Haim