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.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (2509)7/18/2002 12:32:36 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Stock Declines Prompt Lifestyle, Portfolio Changes

By Caroline E. Mayer and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 18, 2002; Page A01

James Oliver can still be found working in his
Northwest Washington office -- even though
the 60-year-old cardiologist had hoped to be
retired and living on San Diego's waterfront
by now.

Elizabeth Medina of Queens, N.Y., shortened
her family's summer vacation from eight days
to four. And instead of taking their two young
daughters to Walt Disney World near
Orlando, Medina and her husband went to
Tampa. "We'd have spent more money in
Disney World," said the 38-year-old online
service specialist.

Meanwhile, retired West Virginia government
employee Frank Tolliver has decided not to
replace some of the equipment on his
300-acre farm. "For a while I was feeling
pretty flush," said Tolliver, who was heavily
invested in technology stocks. Today, he
added, "I certainly have less faith in the stock
market."

The sharp decline of the stock market is
slowly but steadily prompting many investors
to make changes in the way they manage their
money and even how they live from day to
day. For some, plunging share prices have
meant shifting funds from equities to more
conservative bonds and money-market funds. For others, it has meant lifestyle changes.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that nearly four out of 10 Americans said they or
someone in their immediate family has been hurt financially by the recent sharp drop in stock
prices. By contrast, in October 1987 -- just after the Dow Jones industrial average suffered its
biggest one-day percentage drop ever -- only two in 10 respondents said they had been hurt.

And 8 in 10 Americans consider the stock market to be a risky investment; three years ago, only
half of the respondents rated the market as risky.

The poll suggests that higher-income households have become sensitized to the risk that
lower-income Americans have seen in the stock market. Eighteen months ago, only half of those
making more than $50,000 a year said the market was risky. That proportion has now risen to 70
percent, closing in on the 84 percent of lower-income households who see risk in the market.

Despite the increase in investor wariness, most Americans -- 64 percent -- continue to believe that
the stock market "treats individual investors fairly."

The poll also shows that four out of 10 Americans said they are not confident they will have enough
retirement income and assets -- almost double the number a year ago.

Those concerns are prompting many Americans, like D.C. cardiologist Oliver, to delay their
retirement, while some retirees are going back to work.

Consider the 66-year-old Pittsburgh quality-assurance manager who retired from U.S. Steel six
years ago. Yesterday, he began a part-time steel plant job that he hopes will become full time.

The worker, who declined to be named, said the $560,000 lump sum he received in 1996 rose about
$100,000 before the market started to drop. Now, it has "dwindled down to half of what it was"
initially. As a result, he and his wife have reduced by half the $4,000 they had been pulling out of
retirement funds each month.

Still, the steelworker is not giving up on the market. "I think I'm better staying in. You either stay in
forever or get out of it forever."

The stock market reached its high on Jan. 14, 2000, when the Dow Jones industrial average closed
at 11,722.98. It has fluctuated since, with the 52-week high of 10,635.25 posted on March 19.
Yesterday, the Dow closed at 8542.48, gaining 69.37 points in its first up day since July 5.

As the market has dropped, investors have retreated. Since the end of May, U.S. stock mutual funds
have had an outflow of $40 billion, according to Charles Biderman, president of TrimTabs
Investment Research. By contrast, $10 billion was invested in bond funds, $12 billion in retail
money-market funds and $41 billion in bank savings accounts.

Rockville dentist Lawrence Goldbaum, for example, is putting all new savings into cash after
watching his nest egg's value drop more than 50 percent over the past two years. While the stock
market was roaring, Goldbaum used to pause between patients to check his investments online.
Today those breaks are deliberately rare. "It's too unpleasant to keep looking at the money
disappear."

Cardiologist Oliver says he's "afraid to throw money into the market at this point." Instead, he's
putting it into money-market funds, artwork or real estate; he owns two houses and one office
building.

Oliver had been planning to retire last year and had even gone to San Diego to look at real estate.
But when the market "went south in March 2000," he decided to continue his medical practice and
recently began moving savings into money-market funds. He figures his assets have lost about
one-third of their value.

Manhattan advertising consultant Steve Hunter finds himself in the same situation. At 64, Hunter
expected to be reading books, kicking sand and yelling at birds. Instead he is running a business
from his home as he watches his net worth shrink. He calculates that his stock investments have
shed 20 percent of their value.

Hunter and his wife have trimmed their expenses -- eating out less and seeing fewer Broadway
musicals. But they are not going to switch their investment strategy. "I'd hate to make changes right
now," he said. "The trick is to outlast it."

The Post-ABC News poll shows that an increasing number of Americans are investors. Of those
recently surveyed, more than half said they had money invested in stocks or mutual funds, up from
one-third in 1987.

Not surprisingly, the poll shows that those feeling the greatest pain are people ages 45 to 60 in
households earning more than $75,000 a year. Sixty percent of these Americans -- who are in their
peak earning years and thinking about retirement -- said they were hurt by the market's drop. By
contrast, only about 32 percent of those middle-aged Americans making less than $50,000 a year
said they had been hurt.

A total of 1,512 randomly selected adults were interviewed July 11-15 for this survey. Margin of
sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Driving a lot of the current disillusionment is the continuing rash of corporate scandals and
misdeeds. Phil Smith, general manager of the Carrier Air Conditioning sales staff near Charlotte,
blamed corporate executives' greed for much of the trouble. "As they were trying to bolster their
companies," he said, "they were being a little aggressive, quite a bit actually."

Smith has watched his portfolio shrink from $750,000 before Sept. 11 to about $500,000. But he
said his loss would have been worse if he had not started moving into fixed-income investments in
September.

The 50-year-old still has about $200,000 in a handful of mutual funds, which are "worth about half
what they were." Even so, he still faithfully puts $1,000 a month into his mutual fund investments.
Meanwhile, his retirement may have to be delayed. "I try not to dwell on it," he said.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (2509)7/18/2002 12:57:20 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Why Does Congress Keep Asking Mr. Greenspin About Everything But Monetary Policy?

United States Daily Economic Commentary
Northern Trust
July 17, 2002

ntrs.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (2509)7/18/2002 3:14:00 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Name of module: Pricking Bubbles Slowly 101

Course requirements: Growing Bubbles 101, 102, 6 months experience as a day trader

Reference materials: These course notes, Speeches of Federal Reserve Board Chairmen

Description: This is an extra-curricular module that is recommended to all students who intend to follow a career in Government with the intention of reaching the top of the pyramid, or who aspire to becoming a member of staff for an incumbent in Congress.

solutions.synearth.net



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (2509)7/18/2002 3:19:48 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Bush Pre-Judges SEC on Halliburton

House GOP Born-Again Reformers

7/18/02
dailyenron.com

Even the O.J. Simpson jury waited for the end of the trial to acquit. But, yesterday - in what might be called a case of "SEC-nullification" - President Bush declared Vice President Dick Cheney innocent.

The remarks came as the SEC's investigation into allegations that Halliburton Corp. cooked its books from 1998-2001 was just getting underway. Cheney served as the company's CEO from 1995-2000.

Bush's unscripted remarks defending Cheney came when he was blindsided by a reporter's question at press conference with Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski.

In a series of stumbling dead-end sentences Bush stated that he was "sure [Cheney] did nothing wrong." Critics quickly blasted the remark as a transparent attempt to influence already embattled SEC Commissioner Harvey Pitt.

"When the president of the United States stands at a podium and says, basically, there is nothing to this investigation, I think that could have a significant impact on the SEC's investigation," said Jennifer Palmieri, spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee.

Yesterday's presidential absolution may have done Cheney more harm than good. Since the news of Halliburton's troubles first surfaced, Cheney has refused to comment on the case, stating that any comment from the Executive Branch about an ongoing investigation would be inappropriate.

"President Bush has blown Cheney's cover," said Palmieri. "The White House has refused to answer any questions about Cheney's Halliburton past for fear of influencing the SEC investigation. The President has taken that excuse away by saying that he thinks Vice President Cheney did not do anything wrong."
Finally, by excusing Cheney's business practices at Halliburton, Bush has only reinforced a growing public perception that Bush is too wedded to business interests to fully address the issue of corporate ethics.
"When I picked him [Cheney] I knew he was a fine business leader and a fine, experienced man," Bush said yesterday.

Besides the SEC investigation, Halliburton and Cheney were named as defendants last week in a $450 million shareholder lawsuit alleging accounting fraud during Cheney's tenure.

Both the President and Vice President are under a cloud of suspicion and controversy over their behavior as private executives. While the Halliburton matter is currently under scrutiny by the SEC, the agency's investigation of Bush's actions while at Harken Energy in the late 1980s was closed in 1993 without action being taken. But even now, neither the SEC nor the White House will authorize the release of the files on that investigation.

Critics have charged that the investigation of Bush's Harken stock sales took place under the auspices of his father's administration and its outcome is therefore suspect. They have asked that the files be released so independent experts can examine them.

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

House GOP Deserts White House
You don't see the likes of it very often, but we saw it this week: panic among House Republicans. With control of the House in their hands since 1994, House Republicans usually carry themselves with a monarchial air of cocky self-confidence. Not this week though.

This week it was every man and woman for him and herself. After months of sticking by the Bush administration's "go slow, go easy" strategy to corporate governance reforms, House Republicans suddenly found themselves on the wrong side of public opinion.

When Enron failed, the White House and House GOP leaders crafted a plan they hoped would allow Republicans to appear concerned about corporate crime, without actually enacting strong accounting and other reforms.

Consequently the House passed a bill by Financial Services Committee Chairman, Michael Oxley, (R-OH) which has since been criticized as a weak collection of half steps towards reform.

When the Democrat-controlled Senate moved a strong set of measures sponsored by Senate Banking Chairman Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) that garnered bipartisan support and public praise, House Republicans felt they had been hung out to dry by the White House.

"Hey, lots of these folks up here have to face voters back home this fall," a Hill source said. "The White House misjudged this one. They thought they could dampen public backlash with largely symbolic legislation. But the issue had gotten away from them. And, now with both Bush and Cheney being lumped in with Ken Lay (Enron) and Bernie Ebbers (WorldCom), it was time to start looking out for themselves."

A New York Times/CBS poll released today showed that, "by more than two to one, the poll's respondents found that the administration was more interested in protecting the interests of large corporations than those of ordinary Americans." Even Republicans - more than half of those polled - believe their party is too beholden to business.

So, House Republicans broke ranks with their own administration this week and, as the stock market plummeted, called for stiffer penalties for corrupt CEOs than the president has proposed.

And, after years of refusing to adequately fund the SEC, they proposed more money for both the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Treasury Department to be earmarked for policing corporate behavior.

"We will advance further than Bush will at this stage in the game," said Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), "He can't control everything. . . . Sometimes we have to lead."
For months, the White House strategy was to frame Enron and subsequent corporate meltdowns as business rather than political issues. But, this tactic was overwhelmed by the crush of company failures, investigations, and news reports detailing a virtual crime wave in the suites.

"In the final analysis, we're no good to Bush if we don't keep the majority," a GOP strategist told the Washington Post. "…So we've got to look out for ourselves, first and foremost. We have to go home in a week and say we've done something. People have to wake up and realize the political nature of this fight."
After seven months of foot-dragging and half-measures, House Republicans rushed to announce that they would now push to approve new tough corporate regulations by July 26.

House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-MO) described the born-again GOP reformers as "political posers."

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

More Documents Held Hostage
Not since Richard Nixon was President has a more secretive administration occupied the White House. And never has anyone established a broader or more self-serving view of executive privilege than the current Bush administration. Since taking office, the administration has limited access to enormous swaths of both current and historical Executive Branch documents.

In 2001 the Bush administration refused to release Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force documents, claiming they were privileged. The General Accounting Office has sued to gain access to those documents, as have several public interest groups that contend citizens have a right to know whom the administration consulted in formulating its national energy policies. Nevertheless, those documents continue to be held under lock and key in a secure, undisclosed location.

A new set of documents have now been added to the list of those the administration refuses to release. When the SEC investigated then-private citizen George W. Bush in 1993 for possible insider trading, his father was President. The SEC Commissioner Richard Breeden was a Bush appointee, and G.W. Bush's former personal attorney, James. A. Doty, was the SEC's General Counsel. The SEC closed the investigation without taking action. The SEC also ruled that the sale of a Harken subsidiary during Bush's tenure on its board was without economic substance - i.e. phony - and ordered the company to reverse the sale.

When asked about these events at recent news conferences, President Bush has claimed he was exonerated by the SEC and, when pressed for details, has referred reporters to SEC documents and Harken's own board minutes.

But, the SEC refuses to release its file on the Harken investigation and the White House refuses to ask Harken Energy to release its board minutes from that period.

The only SEC document to surface so far has been a letter from the SEC to Bush's attorney stating that the SEC had investigated Bush's stock sale and had decided there was not enough proof of wrongdoing to proceed with SEC action. The letter also clearly warned that the decision was not and should not be described as exoneration. And, that if new evidence surfaced later, the SEC retained the option of reopening the probe.

Critics say the only way President Bush can shake the Harken controversy is to order a full release of all files on the case and request that Harken Energy do the same.

"You'd think that the White House would have learned something from the Whitewater affair," a Hill observer said. "The lesson was, release everything. Do it now. Don't dribble the stuff out. Get it over with. Because, sooner or later, it's all going to come out anyway."

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

Quote of the Day

"Manifestations of lax corporate governance, in my judgement, are largely a symptom of a failed CEO....One thing I have become acutely aware of is how crucial the issue of what the [a company's] CEO believes and does is."

-Alan Greenspan, July 16, 2002