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

To: Sully- who wrote (48806)	3/19/2002 6:29:33 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 65232

Astros Remove Enron's Name From Field By PAM EASTON Associated Press Writer Tuesday March 19, 5:59 pm Eastern Time Houston Astros Remove Enron's Name From One Side of Field HOUSTON (AP) -- Letter by letter, Enron Corp.'s name is being stripped from the field the once mighty energy giant called its own. On Tuesday, the Houston Astros took down one of the three remaining huge outdoor signs which once beckoned baseball fans to the team's downtown ballpark. Astros spokesman Todd Fedewa said the team hopes to have all the outdoor and indoor signage down by the team's home opener April 2, when the team starts its third year in the park. If the team doesn't come to a naming rights agreement by the time the first pitch is thrown, the stadium will be known as Astros Field but won't be labeled that way, Fedewa said. The sign over the third base side of the ballpark came down Tuesday to the delight of some. A man driving by in a pickup truck honked his horn and held his thumb in the air as a large crane removed the 'E' from Enron Field. "I think it's a positive move," said Robert Scheve, who came to the ballpark Tuesday to investigate purchasing season tickets. "It puts all the bad feelings to rest. It would have been a real sore black eye on the city and the team. The Astros bought back the naming rights to the ballpark Feb. 27, paying about $2.1 million to the bankrupt energy trader. The Astros also regained the right to immediately negotiate a naming rights agreement with a new partner. Team owner Drayton McLane said Tuesday the Astros were involved in the team's second round of discussions with eight companies and could have a new name within 30 days. Companies interested in naming rights include Conoco Inc., Compaq Computer Corp. (NYSE:CPQ - news) and Landry's Restaurants, all headquartered in Houston. To help the 4,500 employees who were laid off by Enron after the company declared bankruptcy, the Astros also announced Tuesday they'll donate $150,000 to an employee relief fund set up to assist those who found themselves jobless.

To: Sully- who wrote (48806)	3/19/2002 8:04:26 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 65232

The Recession Lovers' Club FORTUNE Monday, April 1, 2002 By Rob Norton When Alan Greenspan told Senators in early March that "the recent evidence increasingly suggests that an economic expansion is already well under way," it wasn't exactly news to economic forecasters and others who pay close attention to indicators. Evidence had been accumulating through January and February that the recession--if not over already--was likely to be shorter and far less severe than many had feared. Way back in early January, 90% of the forecasters polled by Blue Chip Economic Indicators predicted it would be over by April. Hardly a week has gone by since without the release of yet more data confirming their optimism. By early March, the evidence of the economy's strength was conclusive: GDP grew 1.4% in the fourth quarter--far higher than the 0.2% initial estimate--and the economy added 66,000 jobs in February, the first increase since July. The Fed chairman's remarks made headlines as usual but were especially notable because his picture of a recovering economy was so at odds with the pessimistic readings featured in many newspapers over the past few months. Some of the media's most prominent pundits and journalists seemed particularly eager to refute the idea that the recession might be short and shallow, and reluctant to change their view as the data came in. There are two reasons for this--one political and one institutional--and we'll get to them in a bit. But first a few examples: When Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said after Sept. 11 he wasn't certain the economy was headed for recession and that the stock market might even bounce back over the next 18 months, he was derided. A New York Times editorial harrumphed that it was "not useful for the secretary to try to influence the markets with empty cheerleading and predictions of imminent upturn." The media were more in tune with Joseph Stiglitz, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Clinton Administration, who wrote in the Washington Post that he saw "the inklings of the downward spiral that was part of the Great Depression of 1929" and worried that "the U.S. economy will sink deeper into recession, and the rest of the world with it." By Christmas, it was pretty clear to everyone that 2001 was not 1929. Most economists were already predicting the recession's imminent demise. But some media commentators were still dubious. On Jan. 9, Robert J. Samuelson warned Washington Post readers, in a column headlined economic dreamland, that they should "treat the recovery forecasts with skepticism." Even in late February, two weeks before Greenspan wrote the recession's epitaph (and, to be fair, before the final burst of bullish economic indicators), some in the media had a hard time letting go. On Feb. 22, Paul Krugman, in his New York Times column, argued, "Both the Administration and many business leaders have taken a modest improvement in economic indicators as proof that the economy is poised for a full recovery. They could be right--but don't count on it." Two days later, New York Times staff reporter Louis Uchitelle began his Economic View column with "Skepticism about the economy is becoming harder to sustain. The latest statistics are too hopeful." But by the end of the column he had found a way to sustain his skepticism anyway, concluding--as had Krugman--that "maybe, instead of recovery there will be a second dip into recession." The political explanation for the media's predisposition toward pessimism is this: As long as there's a recession, there's trouble for the Bush Administration, since whatever party holds the White House tends to get credit or blame for the state of the economy. Joseph Stiglitz is a vehement critic of Bush's policies; Paul Krugman, a downright splenetic one. Both of their aforementioned articles drip with disapproval of Bush and his policies. While it's possible the two might be as bearish about the economy if the current President's name were Gore instead of Bush, it's impossible to imagine. Such political animus is in fact rare in financial journalism. The articles cited above by Samuelson and Uchitelle, for instance, are long on skepticism but devoid of Bush bashing. The more important and widespread reason for the media's pessimism is that journalists have every incentive to accentuate the negative. Media organizations prize skepticism: Pollyannas are frowned upon; Cassandras get promoted. Even Chicken Littles are tolerated, as long as they come up with hot copy. Why? Bad news sells. Just as a forecast like HURRICANE THREATENS WASHINGTON D.C. gets more viewers than one saying STORM MAY PETER OUT OVER CAROLINAS, a headline that says IS THIS ANOTHER DEPRESSION? will sell more papers than RECESSION MAY NOT BE SO BAD.

To: Sully- who wrote (48806)	3/20/2002 9:20:56 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 65232

Housing Starts Zoom Ahead in February Wednesday March 20, 8:38 am Eastern Time WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Boosted by a sharp gain in single-family homes, U.S. housing starts in February zoomed to their fastest pace in more than three years, the government said on Wednesday, in an encouraging sign for the strength of the emerging U.S. economic recovery. The Commerce Department said starts rose 2.8 percent to a seasonally adjusted 1.769 million annual rate, the strongest clip since December 1998. January starts were revised upward, to a 1.721 million annual rate from the previously reported 1.678 million pace. The unexpectedly strong gain was led by a 7.4 percent increase in single-family home starts, which saw ground broken at 1.457 million unit rate, the quickest pace since December 1978, according to Commerce. The report may ease worries about how strong the economy's recovery will be in coming months. Retail sales gains often follow home sales as newly minted homebuyers move to furnish their houses, boosting the overall economy. Permits for home construction -- an indicator of future activity -- were also up in February, rising 1.8 percent to a 1.752 million annual rate. Wall Street analysts had been expecting sales to fall back in February after being boosted by January's unusually warm weather. The average forecast in a poll of economists by Reuters had called for both starts and permits to post a 1.642 million annual rate.