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 (5699)9/3/2002 11:21:32 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
ucomics.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (5699)9/3/2002 11:44:35 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
The perils of ignoring bubbles

news.ft.com

By Stephen Cecchetti
The Financial Times
Published: September 3 2002 20:28

Central bankers keep inflation low, real growth high and the financial systems operating smoothly by using a combination of data and their own instincts to move before things get bad. Pre-emptive action, based on hunches and suspicions rather than hard facts, is in monetary policymakers' blood. So why do Alan Greenspan and his colleagues at the Federal Reserve remain steadfast in their view that trying to head off asset price bubbles, with their obviously disastrous consequences, is not in their department?

Recent Japanese and American experiences have taught us important lessons about the way asset price bubbles distort economic and financial decisions. The costs are enormous.

Take the US case. America's internet bubble led to over investment in high- technology companies and affected tax policy, pension investment decisions and even the measurement of output. We all know about the misallocation of investment resources and the huge rise and fall in stock market wealth. It is the other results that have come to light more recently that may have more lasting effects.

As stock prices rose, capital gains taxes filled the coffers of local and federal governments in America. With all the extra money, politicians could increase spending while cutting taxes. And they did it as if the revenue growth were permanent.

Now that the bubble has burst and tax collection has collapsed, legislators are stuck with unpopular alternatives. Do they raise taxes, cut spending or increase debt? With the economy sputtering along, the first two options look pretty bad. But borrowing is unavailable to almost everyone bar the federal government in Washington - and even there it is unclear how wise it is. The internet bubble created these problems and they surely involve hundreds of billions of dollars.

Underfunding of Social Security, the US public pension system, has been a problem for years. And now we learn that the stock market boom and bust has created trouble for the private system. When high stock returns drive the accumulations in these private funds above the level that actuaries say they need, the sponsoring companies are allowed to make withdrawals. These "negative" pension contributions increase company profits, driving stock prices even higher.

Needless to say, a lot of this went on during the late 1990s. With the stock market falling, these pensions have become underfunded and so companies are now forced to put the money back in - money that, if it had not been for the bubble, would never have been withdrawn in the first place. Today, some say the size of the problem is about $100bn.

In a more subtle way, the bubble drove up measured gross domestic product growth. Much of the over- investment in the US economy has been in computer equipment. Companies purchased and installed more machines than they needed. And these essentially worthless computers, representing extremely fast productivity growth, made up an ever- increasing portion of output. Part of America's new economy miracle, with its growth rates of 4 per cent and above, now looks as if it was partially a statistical mirage: US potential growth is 3 per cent, more than a full percentage point below the level people hoped for just two years ago. That affects both public and private decisions at all levels.

Add all of this together and the cost is several per cent of US GDP and still counting. When faced with the potential for output losses of this size, central bankers usually work fast to try to minimise the damage. So why, when faced with strong evidence of a bubble, do they react so differently, claiming that there is nothing they can do? The response is surprising.

Policymakers are usually not shy about intervening in the economy when faced with hard problems. These are the people who raised interest rates in the winter of 1994 when they had deep suspicions that inflation was going to go up, and lowered them in the autumn of 1998 when they thought that the financial system was teetering on the edge of a cliff. From today's vantage point, these decisions continue to look like the right ones.

Central bankers make two arguments for ignoring asset price bubbles. They say that there is no way to be sure that there is a bubble out there - and even if there is, they say, there is nothing they can do about it.

The first argument rings hollow. Just because something is hard to measure, that does not mean you can ignore it. For example, it is impossible to avoid forecasting inflation and growth, activities that are certainly not for the statistically squeamish. Beyond that, it is important to realise that buried in the bowels of the forecasts are implicit or explicit estimates of the asset prices, the implied equity premium and any potential bubble. These are necessary inputs into any forecast of consumption, investment, overall growth and aggregate inflation. Why not just admit that you take a position on future asset prices and be done with it?

What about the second argument? The most common line of reasoning is that the best monetary policy can do is to react to changes in inflation forecasts. But, to the extent that those forecasts are correct, they will show inflation falling after the bubble bursts and the result is perverse.

Taking explicit account of the bubble by tightening is a sound alternative. To the extent that bubbles arise from unrealistic expectations of future economic growth, interest-rate increases that moderate current levels of growth can put a brake on them.

I believe we are now paying the price for the Fed's failure to contemplate such action in the spring of 1997. If it had raised interest rates even only slightly - 0.5-0.75 of a percentage point, say - it would have put a modest brake on growth, reduced reported corporate profits and lowered estimates of future revenue growth. With a slower growth forecast, the stock price bubble might have been less extreme.

I cannot claim this would have worked and did not push for it at the time - but I certainly should have.

__________________________________________________

The writer is professor of economics at Ohio State University, and research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He was director of research of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York between 1997 and 1999



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (5699)9/3/2002 11:59:23 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Oil still has the power to shock

news.independent.co.uk



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (5699)9/4/2002 12:28:36 AM
From: elpolvo  Respond to of 89467
 
by 2005 the world image of USA will be fully tarnished
we are slowly acquiring a much deserved reputation
too much influence peddling,
organized crime,
overt crime,
conflict of interest,
distorted data reporting,
selfish politicians,
deceptive corporate leaders,
white collar theft of lower & middle class wealth,
control of press/ media coverage,
dominant special interest groups,
financial dollar-based hegemony,
and more


uuuhhmmm, make that 2002 and i'll agree.

we need a new image.

nelson mandela for president in 2004!!

or ????

the floor is open for nominations.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (5699)9/4/2002 6:32:54 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Citigroup shares drop as concerns increase

Enron, WorldCom fallout and Brazil losses feared

By Riva D. Atlas
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE
September 4, 2002

NEW YORK – Citigroup shares fell nearly 10 percent yesterday, as one analyst downgraded the stock and concerns grew about the bank's potential losses in Latin America and its liabilities related to Enron and WorldCom.

Michael Mayo, an analyst with Prudential Securities, released a report estimating Citigroup's legal and regulatory liabilities from its business with the two bankrupt companies and other corporate scandals at as much as $10 billion. Mayo qualified his projections by calling them "seat of the pants estimates," based on conversations with lawyers.

Separately, a House committee investigating the ties between executives at Citigroup and WorldCom released more documents yesterday, following last week's disclosures that a unit of Citigroup, Salomon Smith Barney, had awarded big allocations of initial stock offerings to WorldCom's top executives. The newest documents include an e-mail forwarded by Salomon's former top telecommunications analyst, Jack Grubman, to a WorldCom executive explaining that the stock was being cut from the firm's recommended list, though he continued to rate it highly.

Although there were no stunning revelations about Citigroup in Mayo's report or in the e-mails, any hint of deepening problems can spur nervous investors to sell Citigroup's shares, analysts and investors said.

"Some people may be thinking this is a good time to take profits," said Thomas Finucane, a financial services analyst with State Street Research in Boston.

Citigroup shares are down nearly 38 percent this year, with a sharp tumble in late July when Congress held hearings examining Citigroup and J.P. Morgan's dealings with Enron. The stock hit a low of $22.83 on July 24. Yesterday, its shares fell $3.36 to close at $29.39 a share. Although the overall market was down sharply, Citigroup fell far more than the 4 percent average decline.

Mayo, who put a "sell" rating on Citigroup's shares, said the bank had enough capital to pay any fines or legal judgments. "I'd be happy to have a bank account at Citi," he said. But he said that, given the risks in the near term, the stock looked expensive.

Investors in bank stocks noted that Mayo has long been negative on the banking industry. He is the only analyst out of 21 covering Citigroup and tracked by Bloomberg with a sell recommendation on the company's shares.

"We are bearish on banks overall," Mayo said, adding that Citigroup is confronting a wider range of problems than most banks.

Mayo's report listed several developments that could drag down Citigroup's shares in the next few weeks. He is expecting more congressional hearings this month, as well as a ruling by a federal judge in Texas about whether a lawsuit against Citigroup and other banks and their dealings with Enron can proceed.

Mayo said lawyers polled for his report estimated that banks could face $50 billion in liabilities from Enron and WorldCom litigation, and potential lawsuits related to other companies whose financial statements are facing scrutiny. Citigroup could be stuck paying $10 billion of the amount, given the volume of business it did with those companies, Mayo said.

Citigroup has yet to reach a settlement with New York's attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, who is investigating Salomon Smith Barney's activities as part of a broad investigation into stock research practices on Wall Street. Citigroup has announced several changes in practices relating to its research division, but they have not been enough to satisfy Spitzer, who appears to be broadening his investigation beyond Grubman to include top Citigroup executives.

Latin America also could prove troublesome to Citigroup, Mayo said, pointing to elections in Brazil in early October. "If the free-market candidate fails to advance past this round, the chance for a default by Brazil could increase, thereby placing more strain on Citi's Brazilian investments," Mayo wrote in his report.

Citigroup has $11.3 billion at risk in Brazil, including corporate loans, as well as Brazilian securities on its books, Mayo said.

Some owners of Citigroup's shares were critical of Mayo's report, saying that any estimate of the bank's liabilities was premature.

"I think it is somewhat reckless to throw out numbers as he has," said Thomas K. Brown, whose investment firm, Second Curve Capital, bought Citigroup's stock last July. "But when you are in a bear market, people will give credence to many stories."

In the meantime, Mayo's concern about further scrutiny of Citigroup by Congress proved true. Late yesterday, the House financial services committee released a series of e-mail messages related to its investigation of WorldCom.

Most of the messages show WorldCom's efforts to control the damage earlier this year as negative reports surfaced about its finances. But one exchange points to the close relationship between WorldCom and Grubman, Salomon's former telecommunications analyst.

Grubman forwarded a message in March to Scott Sullivan, then WorldCom's chief financial officer, letting him know that a Salomon strategist was removing WorldCom's stock from his recommended list. "This is our strategist, not us," Grubman wrote to Sullivan.

"He takes an almost apologetic tone," said Peggy Petersen, a spokeswoman for the House Committee, who said the message was further proof of the close ties between Grubman and WorldCom's executives. Grubman did not downgrade WorldCom until June, a day before the company announced that it had improperly accounted for $3.8 billion in expenses.

A spokeswoman for Citigroup, Arda Nazerian, said there was "nothing inappropriate" about the e-mail. She declined to comment on its tone.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (5699)9/4/2002 7:58:09 AM
From: pogbull  Respond to of 89467
 
Must Read Article: Taylor On US Markets & Gold

gold-eagle.com

Major Financial Markets Summary

Following is a quick commentary of major markets based on some very simple observations of their charts as at the end of this past week.

Bullish Markets

U.S. Treasury Debt - 30-Year T-Bond rates broke below a March 2002 trend line this week. They are below the 20 day, 50-day and 200 day moving average

Commodities - The CRB closed at 219.20 which puts it solidly above its 20-day, 50-day and 200-day moving averages

Gold - Gold closed the week at $312.30 which compares to its 20-day moving average of $310.56, 50-day moving average of $311.65 and 200-day moving average of $302.27

These markets are demonstrating a flight to quality from a still far overvalued stock market. In the paper markets we are seeing a flight to "quality" in the move away from equities to U.S. Treasuries and away from anything but the very top rated corporate debt as credit quality continues to be a concern for corporate America. The move to gold is the ultimate move toward quality as gold is honest money that derives its value not on the basis of the ability of others to pay, but on the basis of its own intrinsic value. Gold is asset money. U.S. dollars are liability money. Hence as doubts grow concerning the viability of the U.S. economy, doubts about the ability of people to honor their liabilities in terms of dollar payments become suspect. Hence, so does the currency itself become suspect.

Commodities like gold but unlike paper money, contain intrinsic value, though other commodities are for various reasons far less suitable for use as money than gold and to a certain extent silver.

Bearish Markets

Last week we saw more news that growth in the U.S. economy and growth in the labor markets are not taking place as the establishment have been predicting for many quarters now. Accordingly, it looks to your editor as though the equity markets and also the dollar may be in for another major decline after what was a rather spectacular bear market rally of the past few weeks.

The U.S. Dollar - at 106.79, last week it broke slightly below its 20-day, 50-day and 200-day moving averages and it broke below a mid July up trend line

Equities - The Dow, The NASDAQ and the S&P 500 all broke below their 20-day, 50-day and 200-day moving averages last week and have either broken through or are threatening to break through their bear market rally up trend line dating to early July

WILL $2 TRILLION IN NEW MONEY BE ENOUGH?

Richard Russell instructed his readers today to write down the following on their bathroom mirrors. "THE FED WILL DO ANYTHING TO AVOID DEFFLATION" Richard talks about how the Fed continues to count on the consumer to keep spending and the are encouraging him to continue to live beyond his means in order to keep our economy from plunging over the cliff. As we just noted, housing and to a lesser extend auto sales have helped to offset some $7 trillion to $8 trillion in stock market losses so far. Against these equity losses, home values during the same time have increased by about $3 trillion.

Mr. Russell also noted in his Saturday missive that the latest weekly increase in M-3 was $41.9 billion for the week. Annualized, this amounts to about $2 trillion per year or about 24% of the current M-3 total of $8.3 trillion! Bear in mind that our current money supply is the aggregate since the inception of our Republic in 1776. Also bear in mind that money, in our fractional reserve system is created from debt. Debt growth is close to 100% of money growth, but income growth that results from this debt is less than 20%! I DON'T CARE HOW MUCH YOU TRY TO INCREASE THE MONEY SUPPLY, IF DEBT IS GROWING THIS MUCH FASTER THAN INCOME, THE RESULT WILL BE "ECONMIC DEATH THROUGH DEBT STRANGULATION."

Clearly something has gone terribly wrong for the Fed. They have cut interest rates eleven consecutive times but the stock market continues to fall and at best we are having a limp wristed economic recovery. Why is it that this is the first time since the 1930's that at least two or more successive rate cuts have failed to result in higher stock prices and that such a massive infusion of money into the system is failing to trigger a vigorous economic recovery?

The answer I believe is at least in part found in the Kondratieff wave theory of Ian Gordon. It is clear to me by now that at this stage of the Kondratieff cycle, all the policy makers are doing when they lower rates (increase the money supply) is what a man does when he struggles in quick sand. The more he struggles, the more he sinks toward ultimate by way of suffocation. As we pointed out in our August 7th, issue, at this time in our economic history, you get about $1 of new GDP growth for every $4 or $5 of new debt from which money was created. So, when Richard Russell said in today's missive that "They're talking about $3 trillion, rather than the growth at the current $2 trillion will be required to stave off deflation," it is clear to me that these people simply don't get it. Like Dr. North, they do not understand that we have reached a "threshold of lethality" so far as debt creation is concerned. And they do not understand that it is at this point when the Fed has no way out of the mess it created over decades of an undisciplined monetary policy - Thanks to the absence of a gold induced discipline on the creation of money in our fractional reserve banking system. Unfortunately, with each increase in the money supply at this juncture, the cure is worse than the disease. Creating more money is making a very bad situation even worse.

**********

IN GENERAL, STOCKS REMAIN HUGELY OVERVALUED

The S&P 500's PE ratio at the end of this past week stood at a still historically high 37.2 times which equates to an earnings yield of only 2.69% of which 1.72% is paid out in dividends. So stocks remain outrageously expensive. Interestingly, the dividend yield has been increasing, but it remains far, far below what one would expect at the bottom of a bear market. But at least the dividend portion of the earnings yield is certain and tangible. The retained earnings portion of the earnings yield remains highly suspect in a day and age when morality is no longer defined by the Ten Commandments, but in accordance with what is deemed right in the minds and hearts of each individual. No wonder government is stepping in to take our freedom away!

Despite the $7 or $8 trillion of equity losses so far, a report by Comstock Partners suggests the small investor keeps piling into the market. At the same time various measures talked about by Richard Russell demonstrates that the really big money keeps coming out of stocks as the little guy pumps more in. This continues to be a tragedy in the making of an epic magnitude. It is the immorality of our Wall Street firms, who refuse to examine the evidence of an overvalued stock market that keeps sucking average folks into stocks in the midst of what we think will be the worst bear markets ever. Stocks are hugely over valued but like the used car salesmen that can't help himself, Abby Joseph Cohen and her peers keep on pumping and dumping. This kind of irresponsible action on the part of Wall Street has resulted in the following two statistics, which your editor finds astounding:

At the end of the first quarter of 2000, there were 4,000 mutual funds -- today there re 4,800 mutual funds
Shareholder accounts numbered 154 million at the top in 2000, but have actually increased to 169 million today
FOLKS, THIS IS NOT CAPITUATION! When markets reach their bottom, you can expect to see people running as fast as possible away from stocks and also a return P/E ratios under 5 or certainly 10 times, and dividend yields for strong companies in the 6% to 10% range. In fact, we agree with Richard Russell that current valuations, like the 37 P/E ratio for the S&P 500 is more akin to historical bull market tops than bear market bottoms! This suggests to your editor that this bear market has a long, long way to travel.

GOLD

As noted above, gold remains bullish with its spot price slightly above the 50-day moving average and also above its 200-day moving average. We always take it as a given that the policy makers are doing all they can to trash gold and hence bolster confidence in their bogus currency, led by the U.S. dollar.

When will the day arrive when the huge short fall in mind production can no longer be met with dwindling gold reserves is the $64 trillion question. While I was in London I spoke to a very talented man who works with Frank Veneroso. He told me it was his speculative view that the central banks have already granted the bullion banks (named as defendants in Reggie Howe's lawsuit) the right to repay them not in gold but in paper money. This would then provide more time before "the fecal matter hits the rotary oscillator" in the gold markets.

Unfair as that would be to Americans and citizens of other countries that may have lent gold out, it would be consistent with the dishonest handling of our national gold treasury by our policy makers. I think the hunch of my English friend is most likely correct. But the fact remains, gold mines are producing far less gold than is being taken off the markets. So, sooner or later the price of gold may well explode to levels well beyond the imagination of even the most ardent gold bulls, given the enormous inflation of paper money that is not only huge but accelerating at this very moment.

**********

CAN GOLD REALLY DO WELL IN A DEFLATION?

A very astute investor on the west coast and a friend of mine sent me the following e-mail message this past week. He is worried about our contention that gold can do well in a deflationary environment. That is a troubling concept to many investors who have only experienced gold performing well in an inflationary environment during the 1970's. For the benefit of all subscribers here is my friend's question followed by my response.

"With respect to the most recent hot-line update:

"As Ian Gordon has pointed out, gold does very well during the inflationary Kondratieff summers when inflation is THE problem. But it does even better during the Kondratieff winter, when deflation implodes a countries currency to oblivion."

"As I observed previously, Prechter is in direct contradiction to this premise, based as best as I can see, on following the course of events and charts from the LAST Kondratieff in 1930's ..

"Some resolution is needed between the contention on the one hand that Homestake and gold was a good hedge and a profitable position in the 30's deflationary depression, and on the other hand Prechter's claim that gold did not start to rise until the economy began to recover in the 30's.

"Perhaps the difference lies in the fact of the underlying debt which the U.S. is in this time around .. but that is pure speculation on our parts that 'this time is different' if Prechter is correct (?).

"This needs to be nailed down, it seems to me. As I said before, the divergence between yourself and Prechter is worrisome especially since you both seem to accept the Kondratieff cycle/validity, but come to divergent conclusions on the issue of gold."

My Response:

In fact the price of gold was fixed for Americans at $20.67/oz. Then reflecting the realty of the global market forces of supply and demand for gold, after taking the gold from the American people, Roosevelt devalued the dollar by increasing the leading monetary asset of that time, namely gold by nearly 69% to $35/oz. The depth of the depression was commonly believed to have been in 1932 or 1933. In January 1934, the price of gold was increased by decree from Roosevelt to $35, so it is correct to say that gold did not rise before the economy bottomed out. However, IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT DEMAND FOR GOLD DID NOT RISE UNTIL AFTER THE ECONOMY BOTTOMED!

In fact, quite the contrary was true. In 1932 Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury reportedly warned his boss that so much gold was being demanded from the U.S. Treasury by U.S. citizens and from people abroad in exchange for paper dollars that the U.S. Treasury would soon lose all of its gold. That's why on January 31, 1934, Roosevelt forced American citizens to give up their gold or face a $10,000 fine and 10 years in jail. And as an aside, I think it is interesting to note that one day after the gold was stolen by the government from the American people, Roosevelt increased the price from $20.67 to $35. And get this! With the 69% revaluation of gold from $20.67 to $35, the government booked a $2 billion profit which it socked away in THE EXCAHNGE STABALIZATION FUND which according to GATA to this day is being used to manipulate the gold price.

But the point I am trying to make is that in the midst of the deflation, people were trashing paper money and demanding gold. Why? Because they KNEW, just as Japanese people today know that their money would not be safe in the bank. They instinctively opted for gold - an asset money rather than paper money which is a liability money!

Prior to the confiscation of gold, many Americans began gold and also Homestake Mining shares as a proxy for gold, just as investors are now doing. From 1929 through 1940, the closing year end prices of a share of Homestake Mining shares were as follows:

1929 - $78.50
1930 - $80.625
1931 - $128.00
1932 - $150.00
1933 - $315.00
1934 - $376.00
1935 - $486.063
1936 - $422.00
1937 - $471.00
1938 - $513.50
1939 - $468.00
1940 - $$404.00

While the DOW was mercilessly hammered in the Great Depression, Homestake Mining relentlessly appreciated.

Again, bear in mind that these huge increases in the price of Homestake came when major DEFLATIONARY forces were taking place. American bought gold shares as a proxy for gold because they were not allowed to by gold. But gold was in huge demand as money around the world when the value of the dollar was actually buying more! The fact is that as huge numbers of people and businesses were defaulting on their dollar obligations, people preferred to get paid in gold rather than paper because gold was an asset money while money that would retain its value even as massive defaults rendered paper money worthless.

JAPAN IN 2002 - According to Miningweb.com, demand for gold in Japan is dramatically for reasons that are very similar to reasons for a rise in demand for gold in the U.S. during the 1930's. Japan is about ten years ahead of the United States in its Kondratieff winter. It has been in a decade long deflation which, along with a permissive monetary policy like that of the U.S. has lead to an increasingly insolvent banking system. Understanding this danger to their money, the Japanese people are opting to store value in the form of gold rather than electronics credits and checking accounts in the banks. So in fact, the Japanese people are acting very rationally by turning their yen and dollars and other currencies into gold.

The Miningweb reported last week that "Year on year figure show imports of 60.5 tones of gold or more than three times higher than in the first seven months of 2001. It had tailed off a few weeks ago, but in July demand began to rise dramatically once again. The fear is that as the U.S. economy slows, Japan's fortunes will plummet still further because exports to America has been about the only bright spot for Japan. So despite a horrid deflation in Japan now for many years, people demand gold they know it will retain value even as paper money vanishes into the thin air from whence it came.

In my view, the message is quite clear. Gold will rise when people lose confidence in paper money. That process is well under way in Japan and Argentina (see chart below showing that the peso price of gold soared more than 260% THIS YEAR) and elsewhere though it has only just barely begun in the U.S.

As the world's reserve currency, the U.S. will be the last paper currency to fall, but when it does, there will be no place to hide accept gold and to a lesser extent perhaps silver and other commodities which also hold some intrinsic value. Now, as we expect the Dow and other stocks to plunge to valuations akin to other bear market bottoms ( at least another 50% or more from current levels) and as the economy continues to tread downward, we think gold will have its day. And because sooooooo much paper money has been created and soooooo much debt in the process, I fear defaults levels will be cataclysmic. And because so many units of currency have been created, not only in the dollar but in virtually every currency around the globe (this time there is no currency tied to gold), the price of gold vis-à-vis paper money will shoot to the moon. Accordingly, it may be possible that many if not most of the penny gold stocks listed on page 16 of our monthly newsletter will be quoted in numbers akin to those of Homestake in the mid 1930's. As such, those who own gold should be better able to offset paper losses, which will be beyond comprehension to most investors.

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

September 2, 2002

Jay Taylor, Editor of J Taylor's Gold & Technology Stocks