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.
Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (133355)3/13/2004 1:39:16 PM
From: John Carragher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472
 
Hopefully, qcom outperforms Buffett for next ten years.



To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (133355)3/13/2004 4:03:01 PM
From: Jim Mullens  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 152472
 
Darffot, Re: BRKa / QCOM and, “look at a 4-year chart of BRK.A vs. QCOM. QCOM down a bit more than 50%; BRK.A up about 125%.”

Interesting choice of time frame. Let’s look longer term and throw in a dividend comparison.

...................Dec 96..............Curr............... % inc........Div/Sh......Yield on 12/96 Price
QCOM.......$..........3.97...... $......63.02.....1475%........$.40...........10%
BRKa..........$34,100............$92,150............170%..........0...............0

BRKa’s increase probably doesn’t even keep pace with insurance premium increases over that period.

Qualcomm pioneered CDMA which revolutionized wireless communications and will better the life of billions of the world’s population by enabling them to communicate with each other and access the internet and high speed data services.

WB enables folks to acquire insurance coverage, pay ever increasing premiums for such and hassle agents / claims adjusters, and chow down at Dairy Queen / Sees Candies.

WB who feels its okay to raise everyone else’s taxes, to my knowledge has never sold a share of BRKa , and therefore never paid a dime of capital gains / dividend taxes on such.



To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (133355)6/2/2004 12:01:44 AM
From: Jon Koplik  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 152472
 
Yet another example of Warren Buffett being out-performed, over a long period of time, by an investment pool that most people have never heard of :

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

$75,000 a Record Gift for Yale? Here's How

June 1, 2004
By STEPHANIE STROM

Yale University will celebrate the largest class gift in
its history this week when it credits the class of '54 with
a contribution of more than $110 million.

The bulk of the gift, $90 million, comes from an unusual
fund-raising exercise born 25 years ago out of $75,000 in
seed money and frustration with the university's financial
management.

"Savvy money management is taken for granted by most
graduates of universities today, but it is a relatively new
phenomenon," said Richard Gilder, a member of the class of
'54. "Yale does a great job of managing the endowment now,
but back then its investment performance was pretty lousy."

In 1979, Mr. Gilder and a group of his classmates were
attending their 25th reunion and bemoaning the sorry state
of Yale's finances, when Mr. Gilder proposed a novel idea:
What if they pooled their donations and entrusted them to a
professional money manager with a plan to turn the
principal and the interest earned over to Yale at their
50th reunion?

Mr. Gilder, one of Wall Street's most famous money
managers, has made and given away several fortunes in his
lifetime. It was he who wrested the management of Central
Park from the City of New York, which led to the park's
renaissance. So few of his classmates balked at his
suggestion.

Two years after the reunion, after receiving nonprofit
status from the Internal Revenue Service, the 54/50 Fund
was born. Some 40 members of the class of '54 seeded it
with $75,000, and an additional 31 put in about $300,000
more - no one can remember the precise amount - on the
occasion of the 30th reunion.

The fund performed better than expected, growing at a 37
percent compound annual rate of return on the original
investment.

"We all thought it was a terrific idea when Dick proposed
it, but we had no idea it would be so successful," said
Donald K. Clifford Jr., known as Obie. "We put in next to
nothing and came out with millions."

Mr. Clifford contributed $5,000 to the fund but was
recently thanked by Yale for his contribution of
$2,562,000. Joel Smilow, the current class secretary, put
in $15,000 and was credited for a gift of $3,501,791.
"What's happened is beyond anyone's wildest dreams," Mr.
Smilow said. (The alumni received tax deductions for their
original donations only.)

The fund did not replace direct giving to the university.
There is the Smilow Field House, courtesy of a gift from
Mr. Smilow, and Johnson Field, an athletic field financed
by another class member, Charles B. Johnson.

"This class has been incredibly loyal to the university,
and the 54/50 Fund has perhaps encouraged that," said
Christopher A. Forster, a class of '54 member.

Over the years, Yale tried numerous times to get the class
to hand the gift over. "They didn't like it because Yale
didn't control it, but we held on to it anyway," Mr. Gilder
said.

Five years ago, concerned that Yale was falling behind in
the sciences and engineering, the university's president,
Richard Levin, asked if the class would unleash some of the
money early to back an expansion of Science Hill on campus
and kick off a $500 million enhancement.

The class drove a hard bargain. The fund was then about $70
million, but its stewards figured it would continue to
grow.

"We were giving up four years of income," Mr. Gilder said.
"So we told them we wanted a credit for a 10 percent annual
compounded return for those years."

Ultimately, the fund got credit for raising $90 million.
The new $25 million Environmental Science Center bears the
class of '54 name, as will a new $25 million chemistry
building that is under construction.

The remaining $20 million went to a matching fund aimed at
enticing class of '54 members to make donations to the
class's 50th reunion gift. Last week, Mr. Smilow said the
fund was almost depleted.

Almost as valuable as the donation, Dr. Levin said, has
been the esprit de corps the fund has fostered. For that
reason, he has encouraged recent classes to do something
similar.

"Their interest in their investment fund actually brought
the class of '54 closer to the university, I think, and
that's never a bad thing," he said.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (133355)10/15/2004 12:56:21 AM
From: Jon Koplik  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 152472
 
WSJ -- Eliot Spitzer / lying, cheatin' insurance companies / maybe the "great" Warren Buffett is about to have his "goose cooked"

October 15, 2004

Spitzer Charges Bid Rigging In Insurance

Top Broker, Major Firms Named in Legal Actions; 'Trust Me: This Is Day One'

By THEO FRANCIS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Marsh & McLennan Cos., the world's biggest insurance broker, cheated corporate clients by rigging bids and collecting huge fees from major insurance companies for throwing business their way, according to allegations made by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

Mr. Spitzer's charges came in a civil suit and in plea-bargain deals on criminal charges against two insurance executives.

The civil complaint filed by Mr. Spitzer against Marsh in state supreme court in Manhattan names insurance companies American International Group Inc., Ace Ltd., Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. and Munich-American Risk Partners as participants with Marsh in paying improper fees and bid rigging.

Two AIG executives each pleaded guilty to a first-degree felony count of a "scheme to defraud." The probe could extend to top executives at AIG -- the largest U.S. commercial insurer, with more than $81 billion in annual revenue -- and elsewhere.

Mr. Spitzer's allegations depict the insurance industry as plagued with corruption and signal a much wider probe than was previously known, shedding new light on the issue of bid rigging and touching on almost all forms of insurance.

"The insurance industry needs to take a long, hard look at itself," Mr. Spitzer said. "If the practices identified in our suit are as widespread as they appear to be, then the industry's fundamental business model needs major corrective action and reform."

He made clear that other insurers and insurance brokers could face criminal and civil charges: "Trust me, this is day one," he said.

Marsh and the four insurers all said they are cooperating with Mr. Spitzer's office. The news of the legal actions caused major insurance-industry stocks to drop sharply.

Marsh shares closed at $34.85, down $11.28, or 24%, in composite trading on the New York Stock Exchange, while AIG closed at $60, down $6.99, off 10%. Both companies are based in New York. Many other insurance stocks were down 5% to 6%.

The announcements bring to a head Mr. Spitzer's months-long investigation into the practices of insurance brokers. The inquiry was disclosed by major insurance brokers this spring, and it raised questions about the fairness of an industry that reaches deep into every part of the business world and the pocketbooks of consumers. Mr. Spitzer said unsuspecting insurance buyers, who believed that brokers were looking out first for their clients' interests, included large and midsize corporations, municipal governments, school districts and some individuals.

Mr. Spitzer has become a huge and controversial force in shaking up the way the U.S. financial-services sector does business, and often embarrassing regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission in the process. His probe into the insurance industry follows high-profile inquiries into conflicts of interest tainting the research of Wall Street analysts and into special trading privileges enjoyed by selected big mutual-fund investors.

The probes all have in common that they soiled the reputations of some of the country's best-known and largest corporations. While the facts differed in each one, the scandals share a common element: alleged wrongdoing that had been commonplace for years, often with regulators looking the other way.

Insurers are regulated by individual states, and the state-by-state oversight may have helped pave the way for the problems Mr. Spitzer cites, some critics say. Different standards can apply in different states, and even states that, like New York, have sought to force increased disclosure of fees and commissions can have trouble enforcing such requirements. For years insurers have resisted federal regulation, though in recent years some parts of the industry have been warming to the concept.

In general, insurance brokers serve as middlemen, matching buyers and sellers, and Marsh long has been the leader in the business. For their part, the insurers linked to its alleged wrongdoing are some of the leaders in selling property-casualty coverage to businesses around the world. Premiums paid last year just in the U.S. totaled $176 billion.

In essence, Mr. Spitzer maintains that Marsh steered business toward certain insurers at designated prices, while simultaneously soliciting other fake bids to create the illusion of competitive bidding for its clients' business. Mr. Spitzer maintained that Marsh would designate one insurer to win a particular client's business. Marsh then would solicit "B" bids, or artificially high fake bids, from other insurers to give the appearance of real bidding. Marsh did this even as it claimed in public statements that its "guiding principle" was to consider its client's best interests, he alleged.

At the heart of the inquiry are fees that many insurance brokers receive from insurance companies over and above their ordinary commissions. They are paid, most commonly, for steering volume business an insurer's way. Insurance companies call the fees "contingent commissions" or "market service agreements." A growing chorus of critics, including some policyholders who have sued over the practice in state courts in recent years, have used another term: "kickback."

While controversy has swirled over contingent commissions before, prompting some lawsuits, Mr. Spitzer's bid-rigging allegations are new. If true, they could lead to a new wave of corporate and class-action litigation.

The fee arrangements date back several decades. Many industry executives say it was no big secret among insiders that such pacts were in place to boost revenue at both the insurance brokers and the insurance companies that agreed to them. Controversy over them first flared up in the late 1990s, when New York insurance regulators raised concern, saying the payments ought to be disclosed. That controversy died down when the big brokers agreed to provide information on the arrangements -- if asked by clients.

The brokers say their practices are above-board and appropriate, and that they now disclose the payments adequately. But critics say the practices remain poorly disclosed and are a conflict of interest for brokers acting on policyholders' behalf.

Mr. Spitzer said Marsh "very possibly" could face criminal charges for the conduct described in the civil complaint. In investigating the firm, he said his office was "misled at the very highest levels of that company." He also said, "The leadership of that company is not a leadership I will talk to; it is not a leadership I will negotiate with."

Marsh said in a statement that it has been cooperating with Mr. Spitzer's office. "We are committed to getting all the facts, determining any incidence of improper behavior, and dealing appropriately with any wrongdoing. Marsh is committed to serving its clients to the highest professional and ethical standards."

Hartford, Munich-American, Ace and AIG said they are cooperating with Mr. Spitzer's office. "The Hartford does not condone bid-rigging or any other illegal activity," a spokeswoman for the Hartford, Conn.-based insurer added. Munich-American is based in Princeton, N.J.

AIG said it had sought guidance from New York insurance regulators about its contingent-commission pacts in 2002, "before this investigation began," and again last fall, but it didn't reveal what advice it received, if any. It said the two guilty pleas of its employees "saddened" it, because "we hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards. Any breach of those standards is unacceptable."

AIG executives Jean-Baptist Tateossian, manager of AIG's national accounts unit, and Karen Radke, an AIG senior vice president, each pleaded guilty to a first-degree felony count of a "scheme to defraud." They were accused of allowing Marsh to control the insurance market and "to protect incumbent insurance carriers when their business was up for renewal."

"On numerous occasions," Ms. Radke and Mr. Tateossian both supplied fake quotes to provide the illusion of competitive bidding for Marsh clients, "knowing that another insurance carrier would nonetheless win the bid."

Mr. Spitzer's allegations indirectly touch three members of what might be called the first family of insurance. The chairman and chief executive of AIG is Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg, while his eldest son, Jeffrey W. Greenberg, a former AIG executive, is chairman and CEO at Marsh. Another son, Evan Greenberg, is president of Bermuda-based Ace. A person familiar with the probe said there is no indication that the family relationships played a role in any of the transactions being investigated. No members of the family have been named in the investigation.

Marsh received $800 million in revenue from the contingent commissions last year, the equivalent of more than half its $1.5 billion in income, Mr. Spitzer said. He called the comparison valid because, he said, Marsh performs few services in return for those payments, making them highly profitable.

Mr. Spitzer's complaint cites internal communications in which employees of Marsh and insurance companies openly discuss actions that were aimed at maximizing Marsh's revenue and insurance companies' revenues. For example, one senior Marsh executive sent a message to colleagues saying: "We need to place our business in 2004 with those [insurance companies] that have superior financials, broad coverage and pay us the most."

Another executive noted that the size of contingent commissions will determine "who [we] are steering business to and who we are steering business from."

Mr. Spitzer said that evidence uncovered in the probe suggests that illegal and improper practices extend to "virtually every major insurance broker" and through every line of insurance, including personal auto coverage, health insurance, life insurance and employee benefits. He declined to elaborate.

Marsh has named Michael G. Cherkasky, chief executive of the company's risk and insurance-services unit, Marsh Kroll, to head an internal investigation of Mr. Spitzer's allegations and related issues. Mr. Cherkasky will be joined by Bob Fiske and Carey Dunne, attorneys with law firm Davis Polk, and will ultimately report his findings to the chief executive, Jeffrey Greenberg, and the board's independent directors.

Yesterday evening, Marsh's independent directors issued a statement that in part affirmed its "full confidence in the company's leadership" and promised to "take all appropriate action" once the company's internal review is complete.

The two next-biggest U.S. brokers, Chicago-based Aon Corp. and New York-based Willis Group Holdings Ltd., also receive contingent commissions and have received subpoenas from Mr. Spitzer's office. Those companies weren't implicated in bid-rigging yesterday, but Mr. Spitzer left the door open for litigation against other brokers later.

Write to Theo Francis at theo.francis@wsj.com

Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.