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 (51026)7/14/2004 12:44:45 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Why Software Companies Missed
_______________________________

By Bill Snyder
TheStreet.com Staff Reporter
7/14/2004 10:03 AM EDT
URL: thestreet.com

A perfect storm of macro and micro economic factors disrupted software sales in June, forcing at least two dozen vendors to tell investors they would not meet quarterly financial targets.

Behind the ugly June swoon were dips in sales to key customer segments, forecasts based on incomplete information and ironically enough, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, once seen as an important sales driver.

Companies that missed the mark included relatively small vendors such as FileNet (FILE:Nasdaq) , as well as major players such as PeopleSoft (PSFT:Nasdaq) , Veritas (VRTS:Nasdaq) , Siebel Systems (SEBL:Nasdaq) and Computer Associates (CA:NYSE) .

Perhaps most surprising was the rapidity with which the wheels seemed to come off software's cart. Veritas, for example, announced its major miss just three weeks after reaffirming a set of upbeat predictions.

The parade of warnings stunned Wall Street. "Although I have been covering the software space for just under 10 years as a senior analyst, last week by a long shot counts as the most surprising, disappointing and most filled with preannounced earnings misses that I can think of since I started my career on Wall Street," Lehman Brothers analyst Neil Herman wrote in a note to clients.

How could so many companies be so far off the mark? After nearly two weeks of hand wringing and head scratching by analysts and investors alike, it's becoming clear that factors affecting the software industry as a whole came together in what Rick Sherlund of Goldman Sachs called a "perfect storm." Most significantly:

Sales to customers in three key segments -- retail, telecommunications and financial services, which account for 21% of technology spending, Sherlund said -- dipped near the end of the quarter, when many software companies close most of their businesses.

Customers are now involving more high-level executives in major buying decisions, a fact of life that makes it harder for sales representatives to forecast when deals will close.

Many large companies are struggling to meet compliance deadlines for Sarbanes-Oxley, and that's sucking up major IT staff time as well as dollars. Among other things, the act requires management to explicitly take responsibility for establishing, maintaining and testing an adequate internal control structure. Moreover, businesses are reluctant to make significant changes to major software until they have documented and tested all major business processes, said analyst David Rudow of Piper Jaffray.

Making life all the harder for vendors is the apparently permanent expectation by customers that they'll get a major discount by haggling hard and waiting until the very end of the quarter to make purchases. "It's a buyers' market and they're addicted to the 50% plus discount rates they've been getting the last two years," said Erin Kinikin, a vice president of Forrester Research.

Siebel, she said, had the same number of deals as last quarter but almost a 25% drop in average selling price. And although it's impossible to quantify, some analysts think that well-publicized discussions of cutthroat pricing during the Oracle (ORCL:Nasdaq) antitrust trial reinforced that sense of entitlement.

Unlike hardware companies, software companies book nearly all of their business at the end of the quarter. And since software vendors give guidance at the beginning of the quarter, a fair amount of guesswork is always involved, and the estimates of sales people in the field are weighted heavily.

Experienced software salespeople know when their clients are likely to buy, but since the technology bubble burst, they have lost a good deal of what insiders call "visibility," said software analyst Sheryl Kingstone of the Yankee Group. "There are people in the buying loop now that they don't know well, and that makes it tough for them to forecast accurately," she said.

Case in point, FileNet: According to First Albany analyst Mark Murphy, "a handful of North American transactions failed to close in the final days of the quarter [as top executives] put the deals on hold, overriding verbal commitments from IT executives." By the end of the quarter, six to eight transactions valued at $1 million to $2 million in license revenue had unexpectedly slipped away, the company said.

Rob Tholemeier, a vice president at Halpern Capital in Aventura, Fla., argues companies are simply changing the way they buy infrastructure software, but vendors haven't mastered how to account for this in their sales projections. What customers are doing now, he said, is buying a small amount of software -- or using a test copy -- and then adding licenses for users after they have gone live with the software. By contrast, in the old days companies would buy everything they needed upfront for millions of dollars.

It's also worth noting that Microsoft (MSFT:Nasdaq) may have inadvertently hurt other vendors as customers who signed $800 million worth of upgrade contracts two years ago needed to negotiate new ones, said Lehman's Neil Herman. "Customer re-signings with Microsoft could have caused them to delay other software commitments and at the margin could have played a role in the end-of-the-quarter problem," he said. (Microsoft will report its fiscal fourth-quarter results on July 22.)

When will the software storm abate? Not immediately. The quarter ending Sept. 30 is historically slow, in part because so many key decision makers are on vacation.

But the weather might clear toward the end of the year. "We believe the deals are being delayed, not cancelled," said Piper Jaffray's Rudow.

Sherlund said the severity and the significance of the software downturn may have been exaggerated. "Aggregate license revenue of the top four enterprise applications vendors continued to grow during the quarter," he noted.

For now, though, better hold on to those umbrellas.

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

Staff reporter Ronna Abramson contributed to this story.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (51026)7/14/2004 1:45:58 PM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Russia’s Run on Deposits and Yukos Demands: Ominous Signs for the Global Economy?

By Sergei Blagov

MOSCOW (KWR)—Despite high crude prices Russia’s largest oil firm drifts towards insolvency and the country is experiencing the biggest run on deposits since the 1998 financial meltdown. It remains to be seen whether events in Russia will have wider repercussions.

Russia's recently acquired image of order and stability became shaky in early July as bailiffs began dismembering the once-profitable oil giant Yukos and panicked depositors staged a run on several of the country's top banks.

Russia proved to have too many small, unstable banks and not enough large ones with transparent operations. Cracking down on even the smallest sends shockwaves through the system. Russia’s Central Bank revoked Sodbiznesbank's license in May for laundering what it said was some $1 billion of suspicious funds. CreditTrust went bankrupt in June.

Reports of a central bank list of banks under scrutiny were repeatedly denied by authorities. In early July, ratings agency Moody's said it had put 18 banks under review for possible downgrades. Banks have also begun closing lines of credit on each other, creating a climate of distrust along with a liquidity problem.

Among the worst hit was Alfa, the country's largest private bank. After what its directors called a black public-relations campaign by competitors, it had withdrawals of $100 million in the first week of July - 10 times more than normal - based almost entirely on rumors. Some branches had waiting lists to close accounts, leading the bank to introduce a temporary 10% commission on early withdrawals.

Largely unsourced media reports suggested that Alfa Bank, the nation's largest private lender and the third-biggest bank by personal deposits, might be next triggered a panic-driven run that saw Alfa clients pull some $160 million from their accounts in just three days. Alfa lashed out at the media for fueling fears of a full-blown crisis, in particular Kommersant daily and its owner, disgraced tycoon Boris Berezovsky, who is wanted by Russian authorities for alleged tax fraud and is living in self-imposed exile
in London.

However, Alfa Bank reiterated that all withdrawals would be honored. State-owned Vneshtorgbank has agreed to buy out Guta, thereby rescuing its depositors. The Central Bank cut the minimum reserve held by banks against ruble deposits to 3.5% from 7%. By halving mandatory reserve requirements for banks to 3.5%, it freed up some 130 billion rubles ($4.5 billion).

The State Duma on July 9 passed a bill guaranteeing deposits in uninsured banks that fail. It will apply to all banks that go under after February 2003, when the Law on Insurance Deposits was adopted. All deposits up to 100,000 rubles ($3,350) will be returned within six months. This means that clients of two failed second-tier banks, Sodbiznesbank and CreditTrust, will be covered.

Adding to the unease was a statement by international ratings agency Moody's that it would review 18 Russian banks, including Alfa, MDM, Bank of Moscow and Russian Standard, for possible downgrades. "The review will focus on the capacity and willingness of Russia's central authorities and other banking-market participants to provide prompt liquidity support to the solvent banks in need of such aid," Moody's said in a statement.

Moody's rivals, Fitch and Standard&Poors, however, both said they saw no reasons yet to review their ratings of Russian banks. S&P said it has already factored the "institutional weakness of the Russian banking sector" into its ratings of 21 banks, while Fitch noted that Alfa's liquidity is "consistent with its ratings." "While the current retail deposit runs and interbank market turmoil may end very quickly, institutional weakness in the sector will remain," S&P said on July 9. "Russia will not enter a banking crisis on the scale of the one seen in 1998," S&P said in a statement.

On the other hand, Russia now faces its oil major Yukos's imminent bankruptcy. Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said on July 9 that Yukos had run out of time for striking a deal with the government on restructuring a $3.4 billion back tax bill for 2000, making asset seizures inevitable. His statements came a day after Yukos sent a proposal to the government offering to voluntarily pay more than $8 billion in additional tax payments for 2000 to 2003 on condition it was given three years to do so. The company has received another claim for $3.4 billion for 2001 and could face further sanctions for other years.

Last June, Russian President Vladimir Putin indicated the Kremlin did not support the bankruptcy of Yukos, however, courts have frozen the company's assets, leaving it without the funds to pay the back-tax demands and hence opening a way for the company’s formal insolvency.

"The actions of representatives of the Russian government have led Russia's best and most creditworthy company to the brink of an unintended and artificial situation of insolvency and bankruptcy, creating an unthinkable default situation with its bank lenders, all at a time when the company is experiencing the best results in its history," Yukos chief financial officer Bruce Misamore said in a statement.

The firm was dealt another blow when a syndicate of Western banks led by France's Societe Generale declared it in default of a one billion-dollar loan. Misamore said the consortium of banks was not demanding immediate repayment of the $1 billion yet, but could do so now at any time following the company's formal notification by the banks on July 2 that it was in default. As of July 8, "some action could be taken against our assets," Yukos's CFO Misamore admitted to investors during a conference call on Tuesday. Unless a negotiated solution is reached, the government will have "the full right to come in and try to realize the value of assets to pay the tax bill. This could be sale of assets conducted by the bailiffs ... either through an auction or direct sales," he said.

Yukos said the move to freeze its Russian bank accounts could force it to halt production because it would not be able to make the payments required to continue operations. Yukos could slash some of its 400,000 barrels per day of oil and products exported by rail and river in July as it struggles to find cash for core operations with its bank accounts frozen, according to media reports. Yukos' pipeline exports to destinations such as Poland, Slovakia and Hungary, much of which are committed under long-term deals, could also come under threat as soon as August, forcing the firm to declare force majeure.

Western institutions have been reportedly buying Yukos stock thinking everything is going to be fine because President Vladimir Putin said there would be no bankruptcy. Meanwhile, a group of minority investors has called on Russia to re-think the assault on Yukos. "A climate of fear and uncertainty has descended upon the market regarding the state's ultimate intentions toward Yukos," the group, which includes Deka, Germany's second- biggest mutual fund and Janus, the ninth-largest U.S. stock and bond mutual fund manager, said in a letter to Putin quoted by The Moscow Times. The group has requested a meeting with Putin to discuss the affair.

Another group of minority shareholders is suing Yukos for allegedly deceiving investors on the true state of affairs at the company from Feb. 13 to Oct. 25, 2003, the day Khodorkovsky was arrested. A lawsuit was filed at a New York court on Friday via the law firm Lerach Coughlin Stoia and Robbins, Vedomosti daily reported.

Last year, Yukos had been rumored to be considering selling a major stake to world oil No. 1 ExxonMobil, in an apparent bid to ward off official pressure by linking up with a foreign partner. Prior to flying on his last trip to the U.S. in October 2003, Yukos former head Mikhail Khodorkovsky announced he would rather go to jail than leave the country as a political emigre and abandon his fight with the Kremlin.

Western governments are warning Russia that its aggressive legal assault on the country's largest fully private company risks souring relations. New European Union member Lithuania on Jul 7 said that "all of Europe" would have to respond if Russia forces Yukos into bankruptcy. "Economic and trade matters can't be separated from politics and foreign policy when deciding the fate of such a huge company with assets in Lithuania and other parts of Europe," Lithuanian Prime Minister Algirdas Brazauskas told reporters in Vilnius. Lithuania owns 40.7% and Yukos 53.7% of Mazheikiu, the nation's biggest company by revenue. Mazheikiu operates the only refinery in the Baltics and owns an oil terminal and pipelines.

"The Yukos affair is being monitored carefully" by the British government, visiting British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told reporters July 7. "We have some direct British interests in this," Straw said after meeting Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. “Many Yukos shareholders are British”, he stated.

The United States lashed out at Russia's judiciary, saying the case appeared to be lacking due process and was discouraging investors. "We've been concerned about this case all along, and will continue to follow it closely," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said in Washington. "We haven't taken a position on the merits of this specific case, but we have been concerned about how this process is unfolding and the effect it might have on investment," Boucher said.

As the crisis around Russia’s banks and leading oil company, Yukos, unfolds, it remains to be seen how it can end without wider repercussions and whether these events will create new anxieties in global business and financial markets.

Sergei Blagov is a Senior Consultant at KWR International
kwrintl.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (51026)7/15/2004 9:14:14 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
The War in Iraq Will Take Bush Down
___________________

Mark Hertsgaard

At the height of his power, Joseph McCarthy appeared invincible. Beginning in 1950, the senator from Wisconsin made a name for himself by claiming that the USA government employed hundreds of communists. For the next four years, no one in Washington dared stand up to McCarthy’s witch hunting. Yet his over-reach soon prompted the establishment to regard him as an unsteady extremist and to turn against him. Within months, the USA Senate had voted overwhelmingly to censure the demagogue, and McCarthy’s career was finished.

The illegal war of aggression against Iraq has become a festering sore, and will be to the future shame of all American political society.

The illegal war of aggression against Iraq has become a festering sore, and will be to the future shame of all American political society.

Fifty years later, USA President George W. Bush is about to suffer the same fate. He, too, looked invincible after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the war in Afghanistan. With help from advisers, Bush, too, intimidated critics into silence by challenging their patriotism. And Bush, too, eventually over-reached, insisting on a war in Iraq that has now blown up in his face. Opinion polls have shown for weeks that Bush is being dragged down by Iraq, but the polls only hint at a deeper problem: The costs of the Iraq war have turned America’s political middle, both inside Washington and across the country, against Bush. Politics are unpredictable and a lot can happen in four months. But absent a miraculous return to calm in Iraq, Bush is headed for defeat in November.

The USA is often described as polarized on political and cultural issues, with half the country favoring Democratic and half preferring Republican values. In fact, over a third of the electorate identifies itself as “independent,” sometimes leaning to the right, sometimes to the left. In effect, they are the kingmakers of American politics, and they will decide Bush’s future. Bush will never lose the third of the electorate that stands on the right of the political spectrum. Nor will he gain the third on the left. It is the middle third whose votes will be decisive.

Bush’s approval ratings soared after Sept. 11, largely because most of the middle third rallied behind him. And they stayed behind him for the next two years, through the initial phase of combat in Iraq. But when the USA occupation began unraveling this spring, many independents began rethinking their support of both the war and the president who launched it. A poll in June by the Annenberg Election Center found that nearly twice as many self-described independents disapproved of Bush’s handling of Iraq as approved it. By late June, a majority of Americans was saying that the war was not worth its cost and had increased, not reduced, the threat of terrorism.

This dissatisfaction on national security issues - which had been Bush’s strength - has driven his overall approval ratings down to 42 percent, according to a New York Times-CBS News poll released on June 27. Not only is this the lowest level during Bush’s presidency, it is dangerously low by historical standards. During the last 50 years, no president suffering such poor approval ratings four months before an election has recovered to win a second term.

Bush brought these troubles upon himself. He sold the Iraq war as an act of idealism and self-defense, and Americans trusted him. But the war they signed up for is not the war they got. The weapons of mass destruction and the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda that were the war’s main rationales turned out to be false. USA troops in Iraq were not greeted as liberators but resented as occupiers. And the Abu Ghraib pictures sickened the public, undercutting faith in the war’s morality.

Worst of all for Bush, USA casualties and televised beheadings of hostages have fed Americans’ doubts that the war can ever be won. These doubts are more important than the absolute numbers of casualties in Iraq. Analysis of USA public opinion during previous wars shows that Americans will accept relatively large numbers of casualties if they believe that a war is being won. But once Americans conclude it cannot be won, even small numbers of casualties are regarded as unacceptable. This dynamic not only explains the erosion of Bush’s support over the past four months, it suggests his ratings will fall further in the months ahead unless violence in Iraq dramatically declines.

The Bush administration plainly hopes the recent transfer of official sovereignty to Iraqis will reassure the American public that USA involvement in Iraq is winding down. But no amount of spin can disguise the fact that 140,000 USA troops are still in Iraq and will remain there past election day. Insurgents are sure to continue targeting these troops (and the thousands of civilian contractors in Iraq), making additional casualties certain.

All this will keep Iraq in the news through to the election. And the tone of coverage will be skeptical, largely because the center is also turning against Bush inside Washington. Most Washington journalists are hostages to official sources; the doctrine of objectivity means they can’t report that grass is green unless someone in authority says so. This helped Bush after Sept. 11, when Democrats and Republicans held their criticism for the sake of national unity. But beginning with the dissent in 2003 of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who blew the whistle on the administration’s false claims about Saddam’s nuclear weapons capabilities - and saw his wife identified as a CIA agent in retaliation - more and more Washington insiders have dared oppose Bush’s foreign policy.

The most recent case is an anonymous high-ranking CIA official who charged in his book “Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terrorism” that Bush played into Osama bin Laden’s hands by invading Iraq. In mid-June, a group of 26 former generals and diplomats issued a statement charging that the Bush administration’s foreign policy, especially in Iraq, had damaged USA national security and urged that Bush not be re-elected. The White House dismissed the group as partisan, but the conservative pedigree of many of its members made that jibe unpersuasive. Meanwhile, Bush and his neoconservative advisers have also received extraordinary criticism from active duty military officers, exemplified by an Army Times editorial that insisted that the administration should not be allowed to pin blame for Abu Ghraib solely on low-ranking troops.

This dissent colors the tone of coverage. The same news outlets that cheered Bush on through the initial combat phase in Iraq are now running stories highlighting the problems for the USA occupation. Journalists were embarrassed by how uncritically they transmitted the administration’s now-discredited rationale for war, and some are trying to make up for it. The New York Times and Washington Post have published self-criticisms, but more important has been the new skepticism of the press corps, and not only on Iraq. When Attorney General John Ashcroft called a news conference to warn that terrorists might strike during the Memorial Day holiday, reporters immediately asked if he was not simply attempting to manipulate the public mood - a challenge that would have been inconceivable six months ago.

But even hot-button issues won’t distract voters anguished by the deaths in Iraq. Nor is the economy, usually the most important influence on voters, likely to save Bush. In recent months the government has reported that the economy is expanding, jobs are being created and consumer confidence is increasing. But these announcements have not translated into more support for Bush in polls, perhaps because they come in the wake of the largest USA job losses in history and because many of the new jobs are in the low-paying services sector. Even if the economy continues to improve, it may not help Bush much.

In the history of USA presidential elections, there is one issue that trumps the economy in influencing voters. When the country is engaged in a shooting war, the latter becomes decisive in voters’ choices. That’s not good news for Bush.

The 2004 election is, in short, John Kerry’s to lose. And while no one should put that past the stiff Massachusetts senator, this election is not primarily about Kerry. One last lesson from USA presidential history: When an incumbent is running for re-election, the vote is more a referendum on him than a judgment on his challenger. Do voters want to give this president another four years or not? Bush is running against himself, and his mishandling of Iraq makes that a losing proposition. As with Joe McCarthy, the American middle is finally waking up. And George W. Bush is going down.

Mark Hertsgaard is a correspondent for The Nation and Link TV and the author, most recently, of “The Eagle’s Shadow: Why America Fascinates and Infuriates the World.”

Article courtesy of the Daily Star

Published by the World Crisis Web
world-crisis.com
Thursday, July 15th, 2004 - 12:18am GMT