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: Jim Willie CB who wrote (49280)4/1/2002 5:20:45 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
Chagrined Enron Partners Try to Stave Off Both Losses and Scandal's Taint

By LESLIE WAYNE
The New York Times
March 31, 2002

It is hard to imagine what the Chanel
family of France, teachers in the
state of Arkansas and a group of
well-placed Wall Street executives have
in common. But right now they are all
in the same situation: as investors in
one of the biggest off-the-books
partnerships that helped wreck Enron,
they are now fighting to
salvage their holdings and keep the taint of Enron at bay.

This was hardly the outcome they expected when, back in 1999, Enron was riding
high and & Company was dangling a tantalizing
prospect before wealthy investors - put money into an Enron-related partnership,
called LJM2, and watch it grow by at least 30 percent a year, perhaps even double
in shorter order.

Only wealthy individuals and institutions could invest, and they did. Demand was
so strong that Merrill raised $394 million for LJM2, even though it was seeking
only $200 million. All went according to plan, at first. A steady stream of cash came
to these investors as one LJM2 investment after another scored big, including one
that returned 212 percent in just three months and others earning more than 100
percent.

But the collapse of Enron pulled back the curtain on LJM2 and showed that the
investors, whether knowingly or not, had provided the cash and the cover that
allowed Enron to hide assets and manipulate its finances. Now, the Enron fallout is
beginning to envelop them as well.

"LJM2 seemed to be the brightest star among a number of investment funds we
had seen," said Charles Vondran, vice chairman of the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System, which had committed $30 million to LJM2 and still has $5
million invested. "It promised a return higher than anything we had seen. Now that
it is splattered across the press, we are beginning to understand the issues."

Many LJM2 investors say they are embarrassed by their
role in a partnership that has come to exemplify the
self-dealing and greed of the Enron scandal. More than
image is at stake, however. LJM2 investors are engaged in
a multifront battle as they try to extract value from an
estimated $80 million in non-Enron-related assets still in
the partnership and distance themselves from the scandal.

For the moment, LJM2 investors are fearful of potential
litigation from Enron shareholders, who are going after
any last pocket of money linked to the company. In
addition, some of the investors - primarily Wall Street
executives and firms - face scrutiny from Congressional
investigators examining Enron's relationship with the
financial services industry. One big question is whether
Wall Street executives were strong-armed by Enron into
investing in LJM2 as a way to help Enron's
behind-the-scenes financial machinations, or whether
Enron gave certain investment bankers who worked with
Enron a sweetheart deal as a reward.

Another battle is being played out in a Delaware court,
where investors have been maneuvering for months to
wrest control of the partnership from Michael J. Kopper,
the former Enron executive who took over as LJM2's
general partner last July from Andrew S. Fastow, then
Enron's chief financial officer and the architect of the
company's off-balance-sheet maze. Late this month, a
Delaware judge affirmed Mr. Kopper's ouster, an
extremely rare move in the world of private equity. While
control of LJM2 has shifted to a management team
selected by the limited partners, the partners remain at
odds with Mr. Kopper over a $3.8 million fee paid to him
that they want returned. Mr. Kopper's lawyer, Eric
Nichols, would not comment.

"There are a limited number of assets in LJM2 that still
have value, and that's what all the fighting for control of the partnership is about,"
said Robert McCullough, an energy industry expert at McCullough Research, a
consulting firm in Portland, Ore., that has analyzed confidential LJM2 documents.
"You would not expect them to fight over a profitless undertaking."

While many Enron-related assets with names like Osprey and Whitewing are
worthless, LJM2 has such other valuable non-Enron assets as a large stake in
Northern Border Partnership L.P., which owns a natural gas pipeline linking the
United States and Canada.

Even though the LJM2 investors have gotten the bulk of their money back, they
still have millions at stake - and whether that money will be lost in litigation or
recouped through asset sales remains an open question.

For their part, many LJM2 investors cite a confidentiality agreement in declining to
speak openly. But few, in any event, see a reason to draw attention to their role in
financing a partnership that made money, in part, by buying Enron assets at low
prices, selling them back to Enron at higher ones and pocketing the difference for
themselves and Enron executives. Among the assets run through LJM2 were a
Polish power plant and a Gulf Coast natural gas operation.

"It's horrifying to see what has happened," said one LJM2 investor, who insisted on
not being identified. "Investors in LJM2, at best, look like fools. At worst, we look
complicit, and I hope that neither is the case. A lot of us would love for this to go
away. Frankly, it's been a nightmare."

A total of 51 limited partners are listed on partnership documents, and most are
either groupings of executives from Wall Street firms that did business with Enron,
private money management firms or wealthy clients of Merrill Lynch.

Merrill, which was one of the biggest underwriters of Enron stocks and bonds, was
the placement agent for the partnership. The firm got the assignment after Enron
was turned down by Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, which cited its discomfort with
the conflicts of interest inherent in the partnership. D.L.J. objected to the fact that
Mr. Fastow would be the general partner of LJM2 while remaining a top Enron
executive - a position that put him on both sides of the negotiating table as assets
were traded back and forth between the partnership and the company.

In the end, a group of 96 Merrill Lynch executives invested $16.6 million of their
own money in LJM2, and Merrill put in an additional $5 million for its own
account. One Merrill broker, Louis Chiavacci, invested $1 million in his own name.
Though D.L.J. passed on being placement agent, its executives put in $5 million.

Two firms that arranged lines of credit for LJM2, Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein
and Credit Suisse First Boston, both made investments for themselves or their
executives: $5 million by Dresdner and $10 million by Credit Suisse. (Credit
Suisse subsequently acquired D.L.J.)

Other financial firms taking limited partnership stakes were J. P. Morgan Chase
(news/quote) ($25 million), Lehman Brothers (news/quote) ($10 million), Citicorp
(news/quote) ($10 million) and the American International Group (news/quote)
($30 million).

Many of these firms also provided investment banking services to Enron, and that
confluence of facts has raised questions in Congress about Wall Street's myriad
dealings with the company. Lawmakers are examining whether Wall Street firms
with stakes in LJM2 kept inside knowledge of Enron's deteriorating finances from
their brokerage customers, along with the role Wall Street played in structuring
and marketing Enron's partnerships.

"Some of the partnership deals were too good to be true and, as it turns out, they
were," said Ken Johnson, spokesman for the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, which is investigating Enron, adding that LJM2 is "hugely important"
in the investigation.

Merrill Lynch, the only investment firm that would comment, defended its role in
LJM2. "We placed this privately with a limited number of sophisticated institutions
and high-net-worth investors who received full disclosure about its structure and
potential risk," Bill Halldin, a Merrill spokesman, said. "We did not create or
manage the partnership."

Merrill Lynch was anything but shy in promoting LJM2. One pitch that resonated
with investors was the mention in offering documents that an earlier partnership
between Enron and the California Public Employees' Retirement System had
internal returns of 194 percent. Mr. Fastow's dual role was marketed as an
advantage that gave LJM2 investors a ringside seat on Enron deals.

"Merrill's marketing gave LJM2 real legitimacy," said David Snow, a spokeman for
PrivateEquityCentral .net, a trade publication. "Merrill has golden contacts in the
institutional world."

Some investors agree that it was Merrill's backing that prompted them to write
checks. "It's a minor piece of our portfolio, and we could have done better due
diligence," said George Follini, a spokesman for Mousseteek Free, the investment
fund for the Chanel family. "But you've got Merrill Lynch saying they are behind it.
What are you going to do?"

A number of LJM2 investors are rueful today. One of them, an institutional
investor, said he put money in LJM2 as part of a larger energy portfolio and
expected annual returns of 20 percent to 30 percent. Immediately, the returns
exceeded expectations as nearly half of the deals returned cash the first year -
compared with a more typical period of several years.

"Some deals were very quick," the investor said. "It was phenomenal."

Yet rather than investing in the "plain vanilla" deals this investor expected, LJM2
put money into deals of exceptional complexity - for instance, the "Raptor" deals
that Enron used to hedge against declines in its technology investments. Though
the hedges ultimately failed, the deals provided returns to LJM2 investors ranging
from 193 to 2,500 percent. By the time this institutional investor looked into these
arrangements, Enron had collapsed.

"We are really, really sorry we invested in LJM2," the investor said. "We thought we
had full information. This was supposed to be a win-win-win situation. Good for the
company. Good for the shareholders. Good for the partnership. But I have no idea
who the winner is here."

Other LJM2 investors include Leon Levy, former chairman of Odyssey Partners, a
once-successful hedge fund, who was part of a group putting in a total of $12
million. An additional $5 million came from the Institute for Advanced Study at
Princeton, N.J., where Albert Einstein once worked and where Mr. Levy is the
board's vice chairman.

Wealthy individuals in LJM2 include Robert D. Basham, the president of Outback
Steakhouse (news/quote), Eugene Conese, a Florida businessman, and Joseph
Marsh, a producer for the magician David Copperfield, each with $3 million.

nytimes.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (49280)4/1/2002 6:20:21 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 65232
 
Telecom mess even worse than Enron

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Tuesday, March 26, 2002

Thanks to a star-quality cast, the Enron wreck has been riveting theater. Greedy executives concocting transactions to inflate company earnings, grasping Wall Street bankers eager to assist, pliant accountants and analysts looking the other way -- Broadway's finest could not have come up with a better script.

While all eyes remain on Enron, a tragedy of identical plot but with far more damaging implications has been playing out on another stage. Unlike Enron's saga, this drama is not about a single, rogue company operating to enrich its executives, but about an entire industry: telecommunications.

It rose to a supposed value of $2 trillion based on dubious promises by Wall Street and company executives of an explosive growth in demand for telecommunications services. When that demand failed to materialize, the companies were left with mountains of debt and little revenue.

Now, securities regulators are examining transactions among some telecom companies -- Global Crossing and Qwest Communications are two -- that may have been designed to pad inadequate revenue. Last week, Congress, too, started an investigation of the telecom mess, looking at how certain companies accounted for the deals they struck with one another and whether employees in the companies' 401(k) plans were treated fairly.

As they dig, they may discover a trait that distinguishes this financial mess from others: the role played by an extensive web of relationships among these companies. Because of many deep and tangled ties, telecom companies were able to show what looked like promising growth in the mania's initial stages. But when one company failed, other failures became almost inevitable.

It is unclear whether many of these interlocking relationships served any economic purpose. What is clear is that executives had incentives to make them: by creating revenue, they helped keep the stock price up.

There is no doubt that the mess is large.

Since the telecom sector peaked in the spring of 2000, about $1.4 trillion in paper investor wealth has evaporated, according to one analyst. More than 15 companies have filed for bankruptcy reorganization in the past year or so, including former high fliers such as Global Crossing, which made the fourth-largest bankruptcy filing in American history in January, as well as 360 Networks, PSINet and Net2000 Communications. Many others in the industry are teetering.

Even companies that seemed solid and well diversified have been hurt. Lucent Technologies and Nortel Networks, both generous financiers to upstart telecom companies that bought their equipment, have had to write off billions of dollars in bad debts associated with their customers' failures.

Almost 400,000 jobs in the telecommunications sector have vanished as well, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas, the job-placement concern. And the bloodletting is not slowing: Telecom companies cut about 61,000 jobs in the first two months of 2002, up 42 percent from the toll during the comparable period last year.

"The underpinnings of the emerging telecom bubble were a phenomenal miscalculation," said David Barden, a telecommunications analyst at J.P. Morgan. "At the time it seemed like a logical progression of history: cellular, the Internet, the new thing. It was bold, it was risky, it was expensive. And it was wrong."

Executives and shareholders lucky or prescient enough to get out early got rich as their companies' shares rocketed. Joseph Nacchio, chairman of Qwest, and Philip Anschutz, the co-chairman, have sold shares worth almost $2.3 billion since 1998. And James Crowe, chief executive of Level 3 Communications, sold $115 million worth of stock from 1999 to 2001.

"This, in part, set the stage for this massive transfer of wealth to the new telecom barons, not only from gullible investors, but banks and lenders who presumably should have known better," said Paul Elliott, an analyst at Thomson Financial.

Workers and shareholders who did not get out were left without chairs when the music stopped. In the 401(k) at Qwest, for example, almost 40 percent of the assets were in Qwest stock at the end of 2000, the most recent filings available. Since then, the shares have lost almost 80 percent of their value.

The telecom turmoil isn't over. Two years after the bubble popped, many companies in the industry are still operating on the edge, even more heavily encumbered with debt as a portion of capitalization than when their stocks were flying high.

As a result, in recent months, Qwest, WorldCom, Sprint and AT&T have sharply reduced their operations, staffs and earnings forecasts. Smaller companies such as XO Communications -- on which Seattle-area billionaire Craig McCaw lost nearly all of his estimated $5 billion investment -- and Level 3 Communications are struggling to restructure the terms of their debt obligations to stave off bankruptcy. Just last week, Metromedia Fiber Networks warned that it might file for bankruptcy soon. [Note: The amount McCaw lost has been changed since this article was originally published.]

Regulators, meanwhile, are focusing their investigations on how telecom companies accounted for certain transactions in which competitors swapped capacity on their networks. At issue is whether companies artificially inflated their earnings by striking deals that had no economic value but that appeared to produce immediate revenues.

As the accounting for some transactions is being questioned, these relationships are causing more problems for telecommunications companies.

Two weeks ago, Qwest announced that it had been contacted by the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding its accounting treatment of long-term contracts it had struck to sell capacity on its high-speed voice and data networks to Global Crossing, whose accounting is also under investigation. Both companies say their accounting methods are proper.

Such swaps continued to be struck across the industry as recently as last year, long after the bubble began to lose air. Kalla estimates that telecom companies made swaps worth $2.5 billion in 2001. It is not yet clear how many of those swaps lacked a real business purpose. But some analysts wonder if these interlocking relationships were intended to overstate the true economic value of the businesses. Given that the companies were not generating nearly enough revenue to keep investors happy last year, there was certainly incentive to inflate results.

Bad as things have been in telecom, the worst may not be over.

"Many of these companies have been through multiple rounds of layoffs, yet the industry is leading the way in 2002," James Challenger, the outplacement authority, said.

"This suggests that the excesses of the late '90s have yet to be purged."



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (49280)4/1/2002 9:59:27 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
China CNPC To Invest $700 Million In Sino-Russia Oil Pipe

Monday April 1, 9:51 pm Eastern Time

SINGAPORE -(Dow Jones)- China National Petroleum Corp. will invest US$700 million in a crude oil pipeline linking hydrocarbon deposits in Russia and northern China , state media reported.

Russian companies will invest another US$1 billion in building the 2,400- kilometer pipeline linking the Angarsk Oil Field in Irkutsk of Siberia and Daqing in northern China , reported China OGP, an industry newsletter published by the official Xinhua News Agency in its latest issue.

The framework agreement on the construction of the pipeline was signed in September between CNPC and Russia 's second largest oil company, Yukos (R.YUK), and Transneft of Russia .

CNPC and its Russian counterparts are expected to complete the feasibility study of the pipeline by August this year and it will take another 10 months for the government to complete the approval process, it said.

The project is scheduled to start construction in July 2003 and be complete in 2005.

It will transport an initial volume of 20 million tons a year by 2005 and expand to 30 million tons by 2010.

The reports said the crude will be processed by refineries in northeastern China around Daqing.

-By Xu Yihe, Dow Jones Newswires; 65-6415-4068; yi-he.xu@dowjones.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (49280)4/1/2002 10:14:57 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 65232
 
Emerging-Market Debt Is Expected to Stabilize

By: Angela Pruitt
Dow Jones Newswires
Monday April 1, 10:01 pm Eastern Time

NEW YORK -- After racing higher during the first quarter, emerging-markets debt is likely to remain steadier in the next few months, analysts say.

This year, U.S. corporate bonds lost luster because of the problems of high- profile companies such as Enron Corp. Investors shifted money to bellwether emerging-markets nations such as Brazil , Russia and Mexico .

Fund inflows helped propel the benchmark J.P. Morgan (NYSE: JPM - news) Emerging Markets Bond Index Plus upward by some 6.5%.

But most emerging-markets debt issues are approaching fair value, and it is unlikely that overall returns will stay as high, some in the market say. Although "cautiously optimistic" about the sector in the second quarter, David Rolley, a fund manager at Loomis Sayles & Co ., said he isn't looking for the returns seen in the first quarter.

Already, there are signs the rally might be petering out. J.P. Morgan said a survey indicated that clients over the past month have lightened exposures to the emerging markets while increasing cash positions.

"It's unclear whether most emerging markets will continue to receive exceptional flows, given that so many credits are at expensive levels relative to U.S. corporate [bonds]," said Lenora Suki, a debt strategist in the New York office of Spain 's Santander Central Hispano. Coupon and amortization payments will represent the major component of total returns this quarter, and probably more so than price appreciation, she said.

Latin American politics, the trajectory of U.S. interest rates and Argentina 's continuing financial crisis will dominate the market's attention, analysts and investors say. Most of the focus will center on Brazil , as investors keep close tabs on the country's presidential race this year. "If Brazil goes well, so will the asset class," said Mark Dow, a portfolio manager at MFS Investment.

With Mexico 's bonds viewed as expensive, given the country's investment-grade status, Brazil is now the most widely followed emerging-markets nation in Latin America, as well as the country most heavily weighted in key indices.

Thomas Trebat, an economist at Salomon Smith Barney, said that in the second quarter, there should be more clarity on how Brazil 's presidential race will take shape. If a viable pro-market candidate took the lead, returns could be affected more broadly, he said.

Meanwhile, Argentina appears to face formidable problems, as its government seeks International Monetary Fund aid. Unable to grow out of a recession that has dragged on since mid-1998, Argentina in December defaulted on $141 billion in public-sector debt. But "if there were a meeting of the minds" on resolving Argentina 's financial crisis, that could provide a boost to emerging-markets debt, Mr. Rolley said.

Among other Latin nations, the markets will also be keeping a close eye on the politically charged environment in Venezuela , where President Hugo Chávez faces an eroding power base.

Treasurys

Treasurys ended lower on signs of strength in the manufacturing sector and on gains in oil prices.

U.S. bond markets were closed Friday for the Good Friday holiday. At 4 p.m. , the benchmark 10-year Treasury note was down 8/32 point from last Thursday, or $ 2.50 per $1,000 face value, at 95 26/32. Its yield rose to 5.428% from 5.393% Thursday, as yields move inversely to prices.

The 30-year Treasury bond's price was down 13/32 point at 93 23/32 to yield 5.827%, up from 5.796% Thursday.

Price action was quiet throughout the session, as traders started the first day of a new calendar quarter.

Losses were modest, and some traders said they would have been larger if not for a slide in equities prices that gave Treasurys some attraction. The Dow Jones Industrial Average ended 41.24 points lower at 10362.70.

Most of the decline in Treasurys came after release of the monthly Institute for Supply Management purchasing-management index, which rose to 55.6 in March from 54.7 in February and 49.9 in January. Above 50 suggests an expansion of activity.

The report helped keep traders focused on the reality that the economy is emerging from recession, and that higher interest rates lie ahead in coming months.

-- Michael S. Derby contributed to this article.

Write to Angela Pruitt at angela.pruitt@dowjones.com