SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jill who wrote (41963)9/17/2001 5:04:05 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
A CALL TO FINANCIAL ARMS...

Message 16368096

Regards,

Scott



To: Jill who wrote (41963)9/17/2001 6:22:33 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
Tech Economy Might Get Some Jolts

Monday September 17 4:59 PM ET

By BRIAN BERGSTEIN, AP Business Writer

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) - High-tech companies that specialize in consulting, teleconferencing, network infrastructure and security are expecting a surge in business in the aftermath of last week's terrorist attacks.

But analysts don't believe it will amount to enough of a jolt to end the tech swoon that began in 2000.

``I don't think this is big enough to turn the ship, so to speak,'' said Donna Scott, a research director at Gartner Dataquest.

The technology-heavy Nasdaq Stock Market index fell 6.8 percent Monday after trading resumed on Wall Street for the first time since the attacks. The broader Dow Jones index lost 7.1 percent.

Economists have predicted the overall economy could slide into a recession from drops in air travel and other consumer spending. That certainly wouldn't help most technology companies, which have laid off hundreds of thousands of workers this year to deal with slumping sales in saturated markets.

A Taiwanese research firm, Market Intelligence Center, said the attacks likely would ``worsen the severity of America's declining (personal-computer) market.''

But some segments of the technology economy could get a big boost.

For example: tech companies that provide any form of security - online and in the physical world.

Companies including IBM Corp., Bedford, Mass.-based RSA Security and Silicon Valley's Counterpane Internet Security Inc. ``will have more business than they can handle,'' Forrester Research analyst Carl Howe predicted.

Shares of RSA Security, a provider of encryption software, jumped 7 percent Monday on the Nasdaq. Shares of Visionics Corp., a maker of face-recognition equipment and other security products that use biometrics - the identification of people through physical characteristics - soared 93 percent.

Several analysts have recommended that companies use video conferencing and Webcasting more often as an alternative to traveling.

Expecting such a trend, investors eagerly bought shares in WebEx Communications Inc., a San Jose-based seller of Internet communications platforms. Its stock gained 24 percent.

Shares of Polycom Inc., a Milpitas-based maker of teleconferencing products, were up 33 percent. Shares of video conferencing supplier PictureTel Corp. of Cambridge, Mass., were up 13 percent.

Both companies have made their equipment available for free to organizations affected by the terrorist attacks.

An estimated 26.5 million square feet of occupied office space in lower Manhattan was destroyed or damaged in the attacks and the resulting fires and collapses, according to the Grubb & Ellis real estate company. The disaster is thus a boon for companies that recover lost data and rebuild networks for displaced businesses, and that provide equipped-outfitted temporary offices.

One such services company, Rosemont, Ill.-based Comdisco Inc., said it has restored networks or relocated offices for more than 30 New York companies since the attacks.

Gartner Dataquest's Scott predicted that Comdisco and competitors such as IBM and Wayne, Pa.-based SunGard Data Systems Inc., will see sales rise as more companies see a need for their services.

If that happens, it couldn't come at a better time for Comdisco, which has filed for bankruptcy and is selling its tech-services business to Hewlett-Packard Co.

Comdisco spokeswoman Mary Moster said her firm actually wasn't expecting much of a short-term boost, because most Fortune 500 companies already have disaster recovery in their long-term plans.

Still, Comdisco and SunGard shares both gained 6 percent Monday.

Analysts said even companies that were well-prepared likely will need consulting and service help - a highly profitable line of business - from hardware and software companies.

The devastation also might accelerate the long-term trend toward using the Internet to decentralize information. Business software maker PeopleSoft Inc. has said it expects more demand in coming months.

But those specific bumps don't reflect other potential problems. Companies that rely heavily on fast shipping of parts - to keep inventories low and their manufacturing process lean and efficient - could be hurt by slowdowns in air traffic.

Both the leading PC maker, Dell Computer Corp., and the world's top manufacturer of computer chips, Intel Corp., transferred some air shipments to the ground last week.

But neither company said it was hurt by that.

Dell factories in Texas and Tennessee are served by suppliers relatively close by, and its overseas plants get most of their parts from components makers in those countries.

Intel also wasn't hindered because it performs most of its manufacturing overseas, spokesman Chuck Mulloy said.



To: Jill who wrote (41963)9/17/2001 6:35:03 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 65232
 
W. Stands for War: A new beginning for the Bush presidency

by: Fred Barnes

jewishworldreview.com

PRESIDENT BUSH did not become a war president on the day of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. It happened the next morning. Bush was sitting in the Cabinet Room at the White House between Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell. At 10:53 a.m. the president, looking somber, leaned forward to read a statement. Often Bush is tongue-tied and struggles for words. This time he spoke crisply and forcefully. Acts of war had been committed, he said. "The United States of America will use all our resources to conquer this enemy. . . . It is not business as usual." As reporters were led out of the room, Bush was asked if he would seek a declaration of war. Bush didn't answer, flinch, or look up. He sat stonily.

The first requirement of a war president is to assure the nation he's in charge. And Bush's three-minute soliloquy put him on the way to meeting it. His comments to the press the next day brought him further. The media had been summoned to the Oval Office to observe a staged phone conversation between Bush and New York governor George Pataki and New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. The phone chat fell flat, but Bush's response to press questions afterwards didn't. Eradicating terrorism "is now the focus of my administration," he said. "Now is an opportunity to do generations a favor by coming together and whipping terrorism, hunting it down, finding it and holding [terrorists] accountable." A day later - Friday, three days after the attacks - Bush addressed a prayer service, now more confident in his role as a war president. America has "a responsibility to history: to answer these attacks."

Being in charge, of course, isn't the only test of an effective war president. There are two others. One is bringing events under control and restoring stability and a reasonable amount of calm. The other is crafting a strategy that's likely to work, plus the will to carry it out. The model for meeting all three requirements is Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, in Desert Storm. The negative model is President Jimmy Carter in the Iranian hostage crisis. He fell short on all three counts.

George W. Bush stumbled on day one in establishing himself as a man in charge, comfortable as commander in chief. But it could have been worse. Security officials wanted him to spend the night outside Washington. After stopping at two air force bases and dropping off a taped statement to the nation, Bush insisted on returning to the White House, despite the risk. Bush's taped message was weak. He looked harried and unsure. That night from the Oval Office, his speech was marginally better. The president looked stiff, gesticulated in a wooden manner, and failed to create the impression he's up to the task ahead. The feedback from Republicans on Capitol Hill, outside advisers, and even some White House aides was less than positive. Bush hadn't risen to the occasion.

Neither did his father on day one of Desert Storm. Bush senior initially put out a wishy-washy statement, then told reporters he wasn't considering the use of military force (even though he was). It wasn't until four days after Iraq had seized Kuwait that Bush settled on a firm position and declared the Iraqi invasion "will not stand." From that moment, Bush was palpably in command. For Bush the son, it took about the same amount of time.

Requirement two - bringing events under control - was a critical problem for Bush senior and is for George W. The fear in 1990 was Saddam Hussein would attack Saudi Arabia and its oilfields before enough American troops and planes were deployed to stop him. So it was Saddam who controlled events early on, but he balked at invading Saudi Arabia. Once the build-up in the gulf commenced, Bush senior grabbed control.

Now, Bush the son is hard pressed to assert full control. Three days after the strikes on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, he proclaimed a national emergency "by reason of certain terrorist attacks." The day before, the Capitol had had to be evacuated briefly and the vice president had been shipped to Camp David to make sure a terrorist couldn't take out both Bush and Cheney in a single attack. Suspected terrorists remained at large in this country. The worst fear at the White House was of another terrorist assault, which would raise doubts about Bush's (or anybody's) ability to bring terrorism under control, ever. As for Carter, he was never in control in the Iranian hostage case.

Whether Bush will satisfy requirement three of a war president - having a strategy and the will to carry it to a successful end - is unknowable. But Bush and his advisers, notably Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, have created the strong impression they actually do intend to extinguish terrorism aimed at America. That's a tall order. But Bush had one (and only one) strong line in his Oval Office address: that groups or states harboring terrorists would be held responsible. Others have echoed it. Wolfowitz said the Bush policy is to "end" states that aid terrorism. Buttressing the talk were real actions: a call-up of military reserves, coalition building on a world scale, and $40 billion in new military spending, just for starters.

The question is whether Bush will stay the course when, say, bombs aimed at terrorists kill women and children, or Saddam Hussein must be confronted forcibly, or complaints mount about "profiling" of Arab Americans, or allies drop by the wayside. My guess is Bush will stand firm. As a war president, he has something he didn't have before. It's a purpose for his presidency. Cutting taxes and trying to reform education are worthy goals. Wiping out terrorism is a noble cause, a crusade, if successful, that transforms a run-of-the-mill presidency into one of historic importance.

What's not required of Bush is that he become a rhetorical president. Yes, it would be nice if Bush's speeches stirred the nation. But he's no Winston Churchill and never will be. His choice of microphone as he spoke Friday afternoon beside the debris of the World Trade Center was a bullhorn. It worked. When someone yelled, "I can't hear you," Bush instantly shouted back, "I can hear you and the rest of the world can hear you, and all the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." The crowd burst into a chant of "USA, USA, USA." And at that moment Bush's transformation into a war president, capable of inspiring without being eloquent, was complete.
jewishworldreview.com