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: T L Comiskey who wrote (53220)6/26/2002 2:39:28 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 65232
 
11:16 Daschle: SEC's Pitt 'not doing the job' on enforcement



To: T L Comiskey who wrote (53220)6/28/2002 11:18:03 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
The price of American leadership is on the slide

By anatole kaletsky
The London Times
June 28, 2002


timesonline.co.uk

America has spent most of the past decade lecturing the rest of the world on how to run its affairs: telling the Arabs to replace their leaders, the Japanese to restructure their industries and the Europeans to reorganise their societies and ways of life. Now this hubris is making way for nemesis.

For most people around the world, the most important event in America this week was President Bush’s speech on the Middle East. There was a chillingly Orwellian quality to his proposal that Palestinians should vote for leaders approved in advance by Israel and Washington. For Mr Bush, however, this week’s Middle East challenges paled into insignificance beside the challenges from Wall Street. To judge from his brief appearance on TV from the G8 summit in Canada, the accounting scandal at WorldCom aroused much deeper emotions in Mr Bush than any event in the Middle East — and, in a way, this order of priorities was understandable.

The adage that “the business of America is business” has never been truer than it is today. Washington is run by an Administration that looks, behaves and thinks exactly like the board of a Fortune 500 company.

What makes the collapse of US share prices especially alarming for the White House — and therefore especially important for the world as a whole — is that events on Wall Street have moved from the realms of economics and finance to politics and morality. Events are no longer just a matter of money. They have become an ethical and ideological issue. To see what I mean consider Wednesday morning’s news summary column in the Wall Street Journal. The column was led by the following six items:

“The audit panel at WorldCom (America’s second biggest telephone company) uncovered what could be one of the largest accounting frauds ever, with the discovery of $3.8 billion of expenses improperly booked as capital investments.”

“Prosecutors widened the probe of Martha Stewart (a media celebrity and lifestyle ‘role model’) to include possible obstruction of justice and making false statements related to the sale of ImClone shares.”

“The SEC is taking a tough stand on how Qwest (another leading telephone company) accounted for as much as $1.4 billion in sales of fibre-optic capacity.”

“Citigroup (the biggest US bank) marketed financing arrangements to energy firms that inflated their cash flow, a practice now drawing scrutiny.”

“The Justice Department is investigating the role of several former employees of Greenwich NatWest in some Enron partnerships.”

“Adelphia (one of the country’s biggest cable TV companies) filed for bankruptcy protection amid probes into some of the largest self-dealing in US corporate history.”

The significance of this epidemic of corporate malfeasance extends far beyond the losses of well over $100 billion already suffered by shareholders and bankers from the collapse of WorldCom. They can be considered under three headings – direct financial effects; broader economic impact; and implications for American politics and diplomacy.

The scandals are obviously doing direct damage to the stock market and the US economy. By reducing household wealth, undermining consumer confidence, and discouraging business investment, the WorldCom and other scandals will certainly slow the rate of economic recovery and slightly increase the risks of a second or “double-dip” recession in the year or two ahead. But these direct effects are likely to prove rather transient and unimportant.

For a start it is quite possible that the WorldCom scandal will mark the low point for Wall Street. For months, investors have been asking themselves why share prices were persistently falling, at a time when the US economic recovery, the improvement in profits and the still very low level of interest rates seemed to provide an almost ideal environment for stock market gains. This week we learnt the answer — and now that the news is out about WorldCom it seems reasonable to expect a stock market recovery to begin, unless there are even nastier financial skeletons still lurking in Wall Street’s cupboards.

Even if the stock market continues to fall, the probability of a double-dip recession will be very small. Any weakening of demand caused by lower share prices can (and will) be offset by further reductions in interest rates, even bigger expansions in public spending and even bigger tax cuts than the whopping $200 billion fiscal stimulus already planned by Mr Bush.

A more durable economic effect of the WorldCom and other scandals could actually be quite benign. The elimination of fraudulent companies such as WorldCom and Enron should be good news for the properly financed and honest businesses which have been struggling against these unfair competitors for years. Improperly financed companies such as WorldCom, Enron and Adelphia have distorted competition and misallocated vast amounts of capital in important industries in telecoms, energy and the media.

Their demise should therefore be considered good news. It is worth recalling that the bursting of the technology bubble in April 2000 encouraged the revival of many “old economy” companies in sectors such as retailing, house-building and basic manufacturing. These sectors had been starved of capital by the technology incubus.

In terms of economics, therefore, the WorldCom and other scandals need not cause too much disquiet. It is when we turn to the political and diplomatic impact that the White House, and maybe the whole of America, have real cause for alarm. The domestic political implications of the scandals are easy enough to define. Washington this week has been abuzz with rumours that the Democrats would try to turn November’s congressional elections into a referendum on corporate America’s excesses. With the Bush Administration identified so closely with tax cuts for the rich and “corporate welfare” for big business, a populist campaign against economic abuses in both Wall Street and Washington would give the Democrats a good chance of electoral success.

Even a small swing against the Republicans — and a swing against the incumbent party has been an invariable rule of US politics in mid-term elections — would be disastrous for the White House. At the moment, political analysts in Washington almost all rule out a Democratic victory, partly because Mr Bush’s poll ratings have remained at stratospheric levels since September 11.

But the President’s personal standing is doing his party no good. When it comes to voting intentions in the congressional election, as opposed to patriotic expressions of support for the Commander in Chief, the stalemate in public opinion today is exactly the same as it was in the 2000 election. The polls show Democrats and Republicans exactly neck and neck. The congressional election is therefore wide open and the Wall Street scandals have greatly improved the chances of Democrats upsetting conventional wisdom, winning control of Congress and turning Mr Bush into a lame duck.

The possibility of a lame duck President brings me finally to the most interesting – if farfetched – consequences of the Wall Street scandals. By weakening Mr Bush, discrediting the US economic model and undermining America’s moral authority, these scandals will confirm a trend which began with the Axis of Evil speech and Mr Bush’s over-enthusiastic embrace of Ariel Sharon. By threatening to go to war against countries which have never attacked the United States, and boasting about his power to dispose of any political regimes not to his liking, Mr Bush has lost the respect of both America’s military enemies and its allies. Now the loss of international respect for the United States is moving a step further.

America has forfeited its global military leadership by blustering against President Saddam Hussein and failing to curb Mr Sharon. It has forfeited its global diplomatic leadership by abrogating treaties on climate change and criminal justice. It has forfeited its global economic leadership by protecting its steel companies and increasing subsidies to farmers. Now America is forfeiting its global business leadership by failing to enforce proper financial practices and ethical standards. This loss of American leadership will probably be the most enduring legacy of the scandals on Wall Street.



To: T L Comiskey who wrote (53220)6/30/2002 8:00:06 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
A lazy Congress grandstands on the furor

By Joe Patrick Bean
Editorial
The Philadelphia Inquirer
6/30/02

Congress can act with extraordinary dispatch and unity on symbolic issues that have little, if anything, to do with members' job descriptions or the nation's well-being. But Congress far too often demonstrates much less ability or willingness to act on more important matters. All of which was on display in Wednesday's congressional reaction to the "under God" ruling.

The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution condemning the decision (now suspended) by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Leaders from both parties expressed outrage at the ruling and pledged to amend the U.S. Constitution, if necessary, to overturn it. Members of the U.S. House of Representatives took to the steps of the Capitol to recite the Pledge of Allegiance en masse.

Wish that they acted with the same vigor and speed on issues of substance.

But Congress doesn't do that very often. Thus, many matters that affect the well-being of the nation still await action. Among the more pressing:

Passing some kind of plan to provide affordable insurance coverage to the 35 million-plus Americans - many of them working poor and children - who lack access to even basic health-care coverage.

Adopting a patients' bill of rights to ensure that Americans who do have health insurance are able to receive the treatment their health-care providers deem necessary.

Bringing the runaway cost of prescription drugs - whose research and development are largely subsidized by taxpayers - under control.

Giving the President trade-promotion authority to negotiate free-trade agreements with other nations, pacts that would benefit both American workers and consumers and strengthen the country's economic future.

Giving regulatory agencies sufficient authority to prevent the kind of multibillion-dollar corporate abuses by companies such as Enron, WorldCom and ImClone that defraud stockholders, workers and customers.

If this truly were a nation "under God" in deed as well as in word, we would not have:

More than 30 million people, including 11 million children, in poverty.

More than 35 million Americans without health insurance.

Major corporations lying and cheating everyone in sight.

But it's so much easier to talk the talk than to walk the walk - for all Americans, not just those we elect.

---------------------------------------------------



To: T L Comiskey who wrote (53220)7/1/2002 12:08:44 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
Vice-President's oil firm facing SEC probe into accounts

news.independent.co.uk



To: T L Comiskey who wrote (53220)7/2/2002 12:58:01 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
Everyone Is Outraged

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Editorial / Op-Ed
The New York Times
July 2, 2002

nytimes.com

Arthur Levitt, Bill Clinton's choice to head the Securities and Exchange Commission, crusaded for better policing of corporate accounting — though he was often stymied by the power of lobbyists. George W. Bush replaced him with Harvey Pitt, who promised a "kinder and gentler" S.E.C. Even after Enron, the Bush administration steadfastly opposed any significant accounting reforms. For example, it rejected calls from the likes of Warren Buffett to require deduction of the cost of executive stock options from reported profits.

But Mr. Bush and Mr. Pitt say they are outraged about WorldCom.

Representative Michael Oxley, the Republican chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, played a key role in passing a 1995 law (over Mr. Clinton's veto) that, by blocking investor lawsuits, may have opened the door for a wave of corporate crime. More recently, when Merrill Lynch admitted having pushed stocks that its analysts privately considered worthless, Mr. Oxley was furious — not because the company had misled investors, but because it had agreed to pay a fine, possibly setting a precedent. But he also says he is outraged about WorldCom.

Might this sudden outbreak of moral clarity have something to do with polls showing mounting public dismay over crooked corporations?

Still, even a poll-induced epiphany is welcome. But it probably isn't genuine. As the Web site dailyenron.com put it, last week "the foxes assured Americans that they are hot on the trail of those missing chickens."

The president's supposed anger was particularly hard to take seriously. As Chuck Lewis of the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity delicately put it, Mr. Bush "has more familiarity with troubled energy companies and accounting irregularities than probably any previous chief executive." Mr. Lewis was referring to the saga of Harken Energy, which now truly deserves a public airing.

My last column, describing techniques of corporate fraud, omitted one method also favored by Enron: the fictitious asset sale. Returning to the ice-cream store, what you do is sell your old delivery van to XYZ Corporation for an outlandish price, and claim the capital gain as a profit. But the transaction is a sham: XYZ Corporation is actually you under another name. Before investors figure this out, however, you can sell a lot of stock at artificially high prices.

Now to the story of Harken Energy, as reported in The Wall Street Journal on March 4. In 1989 Mr. Bush was on the board of directors and audit committee of Harken. He acquired that position, along with a lot of company stock, when Harken paid $2 million for Spectrum 7, a tiny, money-losing energy company with large debts of which Mr. Bush was C.E.O. Explaining what it was buying, Harken's founder said, "His name was George Bush."

Unfortunately, Harken was also losing money hand over fist. But in 1989 the company managed to hide most of those losses with the profits it reported from selling a subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum, at a high price. Who bought Aloha? A group of Harken insiders, who got most of the money for the purchase by borrowing from Harken itself. Eventually the Securities and Exchange Commission ruled that this was a phony transaction, and forced the company to restate its 1989 earnings.

But long before that ruling — though only a few weeks before bad news that could not be concealed caused Harken's shares to tumble — Mr. Bush sold off two-thirds of his stake, for $848,000. Just for the record, that's about four times bigger than the sale that has Martha Stewart in hot water. Oddly, though the law requires prompt disclosure of insider sales, he neglected to inform the S.E.C. about this transaction until 34 weeks had passed. An internal S.E.C. memorandum concluded that he had broken the law, but no charges were filed. This, everyone insists, had nothing to do with the fact that his father was president.

Given this history — and an equally interesting history involving Dick Cheney's tenure as C.E.O. of Halliburton — you could say that this administration is uniquely well qualified to chase after corporate evildoers. After all, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have firsthand experience of the subject.

And if some cynic should suggest that Mr. Bush's new anger over corporate fraud is less than sincere, I know how his spokesmen will react. They'll be outraged.

____________________________________________________

Columnist Biography: Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and continues as Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.

Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the "new trade theory," a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. In recognition of that work, in 1991 the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal, a prize given every two years to "that economist under forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic knowledge." Krugman's current academic research is focused on economic and currency crises.

At the same time, Krugman has written extensively for a broader public audience. Some of his recent articles on economic issues, originally published in Foreign Affairs, Harvard Business Review, Scientific American and other journals, are reprinted in Pop Internationalism and The Accidental Theorist.

Krugman was born on February 28, 1953.