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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: altair19 who wrote (162537)3/8/2009 7:33:01 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361469
 
Top-exec pay train runs full steam ahead

crainsnewyork.com

Crain's New York Business

March 08, 2009 2:08 PM

Filings for '08 show boards are doing all they can to ignore poor performance, giving major paychecks and bonuses despite having sunk into the red last year.

Amid the deepest economic collapse in generations, corporate America is coming up with a novel way to justify extravagant executive pay: Ignore the bad news.

Companies that sank into the red last year are looking past a host of business expenses, ranging from asset write-downs to higher-than-expected operating costs, to rationalize paying brass even more than they got in flush times. Others appear to be reducing pay but continue to bestow extraordinary perks, such as “golden coffins.”

Defiant shareholders admit that reining in the practices is a tough battle, even though the dire economy and lousy results would seem to make pay cuts a given.

“Executive pay is the ultimate shell game,” says Richard Ferlauto, a longtime critic of corporate compensation practices and director of pension investment policy at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. “Boards come up with all sorts of new ways to pay people whose performance shows they don't deserve it.”

Just last week, New York Stock Exchange parent NYSE Euronext Inc. said that Chief Executive Duncan Niederauer had been awarded total compensation of $7.1 million in 2008—his first full year in the job—including $4 million designated a “performance bonus.”

Mr. Niederauer's pay was nearly $2 million more than predecessor John Thain got in 2006, his last full year at NYSE. The exchange's performance in 2008 was dismal by almost any traditional measure. It posted a $738 million net loss, and the stock price fell 68%. (Rival Nasdaq dropped 50%.)

The loss was driven by a $1.6 billion asset write-down related to the 2007 acquisition of Paris-based Euronext. NYSE concluded that European operations will generate less cash than expected because of bleak markets and regulators' opening trading to more competition, a much-anticipated development that hurt its market share and led to lower transaction fees.

In defending Mr. Niederauer's pay, NYSE argues that the company fared better in 2008 than its financial results and stock price suggest. A spokesman points out that revenues rose 4%, while fixed operating expenses declined. “Pro forma” earnings rose 9% when the merger-related charges and other items are excluded, according to the spokesman. “The board deemed that, overall, we met targets as a company,” he says.

Indeed, NYSE directors had tried to show Mr. Niederauer more largesse. They had established a $5 million “target bonus” for him but ultimately awarded less because management cut the company-wide bonus pool by 20%. In a regulatory filing, the board said, “We believe individual performance would have supported higher award levels.”

Magnificent as NYSE was, Loews Corp. went the extra mile when it came to CEO James Tisch.

Loews, whose holdings include hotels, insurers and oil exploration outfits, lost $182 million from continuing operations last year, and its stock price sank 44%. Yet the board paid Mr. Tisch $7 million—8% more than in 2007, when Loews generated $1.6 billion of net income from continuing operations.

Grading pay on a curve

The company covered Mr. Tisch's raise partly by excluding $2 billion worth of setbacks that it said “would not be appropriate” to consider when setting pay.

The bad news includes a higher-than-budgeted $204 million of catastrophe losses in its insurance division, nearly five times as much as in 2007, mainly due to hurricanes Gustave and Ike. Companies of-ten exclude noncore items when -determining compensation, but Loews acknowledges in its annual report that catastrophe losses are an “inevitable” part of its insurance business.

Loews directors also decided it wasn't fitting to consider the insurance division's $750 million of realized investment losses. Additionally, they dismissed over $750 million of write-downs in the oil exploration unit, which stemmed partly from revaluing reserves to account for lower commodity prices.

“What does "pay for performance' mean if you ignore performance?” Mr. Ferlauto asks.

Loews declined to comment.

Some CEOs are willing to accept less compensation. Stephen Schwarzman of the Blackstone Group cut his pay 99% last year, to $350,000, after the firm swung to a $1.2 billion net loss connected to heavy write-downs. Numbing the pain was the $180 million Mr. Schwarzman pocketed in 2007, when he took his leveraged-buyout firm public.

But even companies that have better aligned their pay policies with the times still seem to have a tin ear when it comes to what critics call over-the-top perks.

For example, the total pay of Verizon Communications Inc. CEO Ivan Seidenberg fell 30% last year, to $18.6 million. But some shareholders are peeved that his heirs stand to collect up to $35 million payable upon Mr. Seidenberg's death—an unusual benefit known as a “golden coffin.”

Arguing that shareholders shouldn't be saddled with a payment for which no service can be rendered, the Philadelphia city employees' pension fund and another public pension fund have filed a shareholder resolution for Verizon investors to vote on the perk.

Verizon insists that golden coffins are necessary to retain key employees.

But the pension funds wryly retort that “in our opinion, death defeats this argument.”

CHECK STUBS

Duncan Niederauer
$7.1 Million
NYSE chief collects a performance bonus after posting a $738 million net loss.

James Tisch
$7 Million
LOEW’S CEO gets 8% hike from board that ignored $2 billion worth of bad news.

Ivan Seidenberg
$18.6 Million
VERIZON head keeps controversial $35 million “golden coffin”



To: altair19 who wrote (162537)3/9/2009 9:32:46 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361469
 
Graham Shows S&P 500 Still Too High as Buffett Loses (Update2)

By Alexis Xydias and Michael Tsang

March 9 (Bloomberg) -- Benjamin Graham, the father of value investing and mentor of Warren Buffett, would find most U.S. stocks expensive even after the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index dropped 56 percent in 17 months.

Graham measured equities against a decade of profits to smooth out distortions, a method that shows the S&P 500 trading at 13.2 times earnings, according to data compiled by Yale University Professor Robert Shiller. At the bottom of the three worst recessions since 1929, the average ratio fell below 10. To reach that level, the S&P 500 would sink another 27 percent.

The rout set off by the subprime-mortgage collapse in August 2007 has fooled investors from Legg Mason Inc. money manager Bill Miller to Traxis Partners LP’s Barton Biggs, who said shares were cheap as they continued to fall. Even Buffett, the billionaire chief executive officer of Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc., who worked for Graham in the 1950s, was taken by surprise. He said he was buying on Oct. 17. The S&P 500 lost 28 percent since then, ending March 6 at 683.38.

“We are in a depression, therefore I would expect Graham’s and Shiller’s earnings ratios to get down to a single figure,” said Robin Griffiths, who first studied Graham in 1966 and helps oversee $15.5 billion at Cazenove Capital Management in London. “If it is a bad depression, it could take the S&P 500 to 400 or 500. It is clearly becoming better value as the market comes down, but it is nowhere as cheap as it can get.”

Futures on the S&P 500 slid 1.7 percent at 6:53 a.m. in London after the World Bank said the global economy will likely shrink for the first time since World War II.

Value Investing

Graham, who died in 1976 at 82, and David L. Dodd laid out the principles of value investing in “Security Analysis,” the 1934 textbook used by Buffett to help transform his Omaha, Nebraska-based company into an investment firm with a market value of $112 billion. Dodd died 21 years ago at 93.

Value investors seek out companies priced below their forecast of future earnings to compensate for the possibility of losses. The discount represents the so-called margin of safety that Graham’s followers demand before buying a stock. Graham avoided calculating values according to a single year of profits, instead urging investors to examine periods as long as a decade to erase anomalies.

During the worst bear markets, stocks don’t reach “bargain basement prices” until they fall to 10 times profit or less using Graham’s method, according to James Montier, Societe Generale SA’s London-based global equity strategist. That translates to a price of about 500 for the S&P 500, based on combined per-share earnings of at least $50.

Graham’s Disciple

Buffett, 78, who attended Graham’s Columbia University classes and worked for him at New York-based Graham-Newman Corp. in the 1950s, misjudged the severity of the credit market freeze, which spurred the first simultaneous recessions in the U.S., Europe and Japan since World War II. Berkshire’s market value decreased $119 billion since its peak in December 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

On Oct. 17, Buffett wrote in the New York Times that he was buying U.S. shares. The 263-point slump since then extended the index’s decline. Buffett said in his annual letter to shareholders on Feb. 28 that he made a “major mistake” buying shares in Houston-based ConocoPhillips when oil prices were near a peak last year. Berkshire’s net income fell 96 percent in the fourth quarter.

Buffett told CNBC today that the economy “has fallen off a cliff” and that efforts to stimulate a recovery may lead to inflation higher than the 1970s. While he stood by his Times column, he said, "I just wish I wrote it a few months later."

‘Quite Suspect’

Investors who valued companies based on earnings or forecasts covering just one year have been burned as equities kept dropping. The S&P 500 fetched 16.2 times its companies’ 12- month profits on Jan. 7, the lowest since at least 1998, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The index has since plunged as much as 25 percent to a 12-year low.

“A lot of earnings estimates on which the market valuations are based are quite suspect,” said John Carey, who oversees $8 billion at Pioneer Investment Management in Boston. “You have to adjust what you see out there for reality. I remember thinking that a stock selling at 10 times earnings was expensive” in the 1970s and 1980s, he said.

Wall Street strategists are confident the U.S. market has tumbled enough to start a rally.

The S&P 500 will rise to 1,007 by year-end, according to the average estimate of 11 equity strategists tracked by Bloomberg. The projection represents a rise of 47 percent from last week’s closing price and an increase of the price-earnings ratio to 18.88 times operating profit, based on the strategists’ average per-share earnings estimate.

Time to Buy?

Some measures suggest U.S. stocks are cheap. Profits as a percentage of the index’s value climbed to 6.96 percentage points above the yield on 10-year Treasuries, the biggest advantage since at least 1962, monthly data compiled by Bloomberg show.

The S&P 500 also fell below its price trend dating back to 1900 in the past month to levels not seen since 1995, adjusting for inflation, according to Jim Reid and Nick Burns, credit strategists at Deutsche Bank AG in London. They’re still not convinced that’s low enough to ensure equities will gain.

“We are now entering the ‘cheap’ side of historical valuations,” Reid and Burns wrote in a report dated March 3. “Cheap is helpful but not a reason to suggest an imminent sustainable bounce.”

‘Very, Very Cheap’

Biggs, co-founder of New York-based hedge fund Traxis and formerly chief global strategist for Morgan Stanley, said in February last year that U.S. stocks were “very, very cheap” and the market was “at or very close to an important bottom.” The S&P 500 subsequently fell 49 percent.

Legg Mason’s Miller posted the worst performance of his 27- year career in 2008 as his $3.28 billion Value Trust trailed 99 percent of competing mutual funds. Miller, who guided his fund to a better performance than the S&P 500 for a record 15 years ending in 2005, said in December that U.S. stocks could rise as much as 20 percent this year. The S&P 500 instead is off to the worst start in its 81-year history.

In the previous three economic contractions since 1929 that lasted as long as the current one -- the Great Depression, the oil shock in 1973-1975 and the 1981-1982 recession -- the S&P 500 bottomed only after the index fell to 8.74 times profit on average, based on data compiled by Yale’s Shiller.

To match those levels, the S&P 500 would have to fall 21 percent to 537.95, based on analysts’ profit estimates for 2009 that strip out the impact of non-operating charges such as investment losses and writedowns.

“Our view on valuations is yes, they are cheap,” said Joost van Leenders, an Amsterdam-based strategist at Fortis Investments, which oversees $243 billion, and uses Graham’s method as one way to measure stocks against earnings. “But they can become cheaper.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Alexis Xydias in London at at axydias@bloomberg.net; Michael Tsang in New York at mtsang1@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: March 9, 2009 06:59 EDT



To: altair19 who wrote (162537)3/9/2009 9:52:42 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 361469
 
Marc Faber Says Government Actions Will Boost Stocks (Update1)

By Eric Martin and Deirdre Bolton

March 9 (Bloomberg) -- Government spending will spur gains in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index after it fell 56 percent from an October 2007 record, investor Marc Faber said.

“Equities could rally between here and the end of April,” Faber said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “The government’s efforts will fail to boost economic activity. They can boost stocks. Stocks have adjusted meaningfully.”

Faber said that although the S&P 500 may drop 27 percent to below 500 before the bear market ends, investors will make money over the next 10 years.

Congress last month enacted President Barack Obama’s $787 billion package of tax cuts and spending on roads, bridges and public buildings. His 2010 budget indicated the government may devote another $750 billion to a financial rescue after an initial $700 billion.

The S&P 500 dropped 56 percent from an Oct. 9, 2007, record, dragged down by $1.2 trillion in losses at financial firms worldwide from the collapse of the subprime mortgage market. The benchmark for American equities lost 38 percent last year, its biggest annual decline since 1937.

Industrial commodities are more attractive than gold, Faber said, after bullion rallied 6.3 percent this year, compared with a 9.1 percent decline for the Reuters/Jefferies CRB Index of 19 materials.

Faber, the publisher of the Gloom, Boom & Doom report, advised buying gold at the start of its eight-year rally, when it traded for less than $300 an ounce. The metal topped $1,000 last year and traded at $932.78 an ounce today. He also told investors to bail out of U.S. stocks a week before the so-called Black Monday crash in 1987, according to his Web site.

To contact the reporters on this story: Eric Martin in New York at emartin21@bloomberg.net; Deirdre Bolton in New York at dbolton@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: March 9, 2009 09:25 EDT



To: altair19 who wrote (162537)3/9/2009 10:35:30 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361469
 
GE chief says company prepared for worst
_______________________________________________________________

Bloomberg News / March 9, 2009, 6:10AM

General Electric Co.’s Jeffrey Immelt says he’s prepared to steer through a financial “armageddon” that has wiped out 78 percent of GE’s market value in a year and forced its first dividend cut since the Great Depression.

“You’re talking to somebody that earned $18 billion last year on $183 billion in revenue, that’s outperformed the S&P 500 from a revenue and earnings standpoint over the last five years,” the GE chief executive officer said in a March 5 interview, his first since the dividend cut on Feb. 27. “But I don’t think any CEO worth his or her salt can sit back and say, it happened to everybody so it’s okay.”

GE’s reduction of a dividend that had grown since 1938 unleashed a market rout that sent the stock price last week below $6, the price of some GE light bulbs. A downgrade of the company’s Aaa credit rating by the Moody’s Investors Service may come as early as this week.

The company has come under attack from some investors, analysts and the media for a lack of transparency at GE Capital, the finance arm at the heart of the stock decline. Investors fear the unit, already facing rising credit-card delinquencies and $4 billion in unrealized property losses, will require more capital than GE now anticipates.

“If you look at this management team’s track record since July of last year in predicting whether or not they need equity, the one thing you can be very certain about is, if they say they don’t, they will,” said Charles Ortel, managing director of Newport Value Partners in New York, who advises hedge funds to bet against GE stock.

Counting on Dividend

Immelt, 53, said Jan. 23 he saw no need to cut the dividend. His reversal after the economy worsened left some individual investors, who comprise 40 percent of the shareholder base, saying they felt betrayed.

“We were counting on the $50 per month dividend,” said David Dill, 78, a retired engineer in Santa Barbara, California, who five months ago bought 500 GE shares for $22 apiece, about the same price as warrants taken by billionaire investor Warren Buffett last year. “We are average folks and every source of just $50 adds up to pay steady monthly bills.”

The motivation, GE’s lead independent director Ralph Larsen said in an interview, is to preserve cash. Cutting the annual dividend to 40 cents a share from $1.24 saves GE $9 billion, which it can use to shore up the finance unit.

“That was a source of agony for us as a board and for Jeff,” Larsen said of the dividend cut, adding that Immelt has the board’s “complete confidence.”

“The worst thing you can do is run out of cash, because nobody’s going to lend it to you when you need it,” Larsen said. “We made the tough call and the history books will judge us.”

Former GE chief Jack Welch, who presided during the longest peacetime economic boom in U.S. history in the latter part of his tenure, said he has watched his successor, Immelt, grapple with a far less ideal business climate. As U.S. unemployment topped 8 percent and home foreclosures rose to records, GE’s stock closed Friday at $7.06, down from $40 when Immelt took over in 2001. Shares in Germany were priced at $7.02 as of 11 a.m. local time.

“We picked him, we like him, and I have nothing to change that view,” Welch said in an interview. “He’s involved in a very difficult, once-in-a lifetime situation. He will work his way through with a great team.”

With $637 billion in assets, the GE Capital finance arm is similar in size to the sixth-biggest U.S. bank, according to CreditSights Inc. GE’s financing of everything from manufactured homes to railcars provided more than 50 percent of profit in recent years, more than the aircraft engines, appliances and power-plant turbines for which the 117-year-old company in Fairfield, Connecticut, is better known.

GE says its finance arm will earn $5 billion this year, even accounting for the absorption of $10 billion in losses mostly from its consumer division.

“The whole damn stock market’s down 50 percent. We’re down 75 percent, okay? We don’t like where we are but it’s not like anybody’s feeling the groove right now,” Immelt said in the interview in his office at 30 Rockefeller Plaza in New York.

Immelt and GE have gone on the offensive to defend the company, agreeing to an interview and putting finance chief Keith Sherin on the company-owned CNBC network to declare last week there were no “time bombs” in the finance unit. Immelt also appeared at a JPMorgan Chase & Co. session in front of 250 CEOs in New York last week.

“He hasn’t been the guy watching the train coming down the tracks,” JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, a friend of Immelt’s since his wife shared classes with the future GE chief at Harvard Business School in the 1980s, said in an interview. “He’s moved and bobbed and weaved.”

After injecting $9.5 billion in GE Capital this quarter, GE will have added $15 billion in capital to the finance unit in the past six months to reduce its debt-to-equity ratio to 6-to-1 net of cash. The finance arm now has $63 billion in equity, $34 billion of tangible equity and $36 billion of cash, GE said last week. That gives GE Capital a 5.3 percent ratio of tangible common equity to assets, in line with most banks.

In Mesa, Arizona, GE is taking other steps to protect its interests. Brad Nikolaus, who sells manufactured homes in one of the states with the highest foreclosure rates in the country, says a GE account manager visited him last month and told him the rate on financing he uses to keep homes in his showrooms would increase on March 1 to 7.56 percent. That increases his monthly interest bill to $95,000 from $65,000, at a time he’s already selling homes below cost to survive, he said.

“Does GE have hope in the future of our industry?” asked Nikolaus, president of Associated Dealers Inc. “You know, they’ve raised the rate up that huge percent, you’ve got to wonder if they’re just trying to put something in the kitty to prepare for what’s going to come.”

Immelt has confronted crises from almost the first moment he became CEO, four days before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which could have crippled two of GE’s biggest businesses, aviation and insurance.

He moved to get GE out of volatile industries, shedding all $150 billion in insurance assets, a plastics unit before oil prices made producing the raw material too expensive and Japanese consumer lending. He sold a unit in Burbank, California, that loaned money to subprime borrowers in 2007, before the extent of the credit crisis became known. The next year, Immelt began shopping for offers on its credit-card unit.

In April 2008, GE reported a quarterly profit decline just months after Immelt had said his forecasts were “in the bag” and weeks after the Federal Reserve was forced to rescue Bear Stearns Cos.

The seize-up of capital markets forced GE to write down the value of some loans and thwarted asset sales, the company said at the time, which proved to be only the beginning of further turmoil that led to the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in September.

“From Sept. 15 of last year, every day is a week, every week is a month, every month is a year,” Immelt said in the interview. One hint of the brutal pace: He said he couldn’t recall a day in that period he hasn’t worn a suit to the office, because news events might prompt an unscheduled television appearance or a visit to Washington.

On Sept. 25, GE reduced its annual profit forecast for a second time and suspended its stock buyback. A week later, GE got a $3 billion investment from Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and said it would sell $12 billion in common stock.

“That was a bold and insightful move” on Immelt’s part, said Bob Spremulli, managing director for research at TIAA-Cref, which owned 74.1 million GE shares at the end of 2008. “Some people didn’t do a capital raise and they’re paying the price.”

In January, Immelt moved GE’s annual retreat from its usual location at a resort hotel in Boca Raton, Florida, to the John F. Welch Leadership Center in Crotonville, New York.

Arrayed around him in a sunken conference room called “the pit,” Immelt told the managers they’d all made a mistake when they didn’t anticipate how bad the economy would get. Now he urged them to roll up their sleeves and deliver. GE Vice Chairman John Rice said he spent an afternoon working on ways to generate more cash from his businesses, which include health care and aircraft engines.

“The second you go outside, we’re going to be back again in the worst environment of your lifetime,” Immelt said, according to a transcript provided by GE. “We’ve got to fight hard to protect our reputation.”

Within weeks, it got even worse for GE, Immelt and the American economy as GE cut its dividend. Because the company’s operations are so diverse, investors often view it as a proxy for the U.S. economy and some say a ratings cut represents a negative judgment on all of American business. Buffett called GE “the symbol of American business to the world” in October.

In February, GE said Immelt waived a bonus and incentives worth at least $11.7 million for 2008. His salary was $3.3 million.

As of March 6, credit-default swaps, contracts that protect bond investors against default, on GE Capital were about as expensive as those for building materials-maker Louisiana-Pacific Corp., which posted nine straight quarterly losses.

“Somebody has always known something,” said Bill Fleckenstein, president of Fleckenstein Capital in Seattle. “The market was correct with Ambac, MBIA, AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Citigroup,” he said, reeling off the names of financial firms that either failed or sought capital. “Maybe GE.”

Fleckenstein, whose fund in the past sold stocks short, or bet on declines, said he doesn’t have a position in GE stock.

Immelt called the speculation “blather” in the interview. “We’re the last remaining finance company,” he said. “We’ve kept the company safe and secure in really an armageddon case in financial services.”

As for credit default swaps, he said investors can force substantial price moves “by spending 25 million bucks in a handful of transactions in an unregulated market. I just don’t think we should treat credit default swaps as like the Delphic Oracle of any kind. It’s the most easily manipulated and broadly manipulated market that there is.”

GE scheduled what it calls a “deep dive” meeting to explain GE Capital’s liabilities for the week of March 16.

Immelt said he also plans to bring more of what he called “naysayers” to speak to GE managers at planning sessions and make sure they’re asking the right questions. For the field visits he typically makes to customers and salespeople, he’ll turn his focus inward this year to teams that manage cash and receivables, he told managers at Crotonville.

Like most CEOs, Immelt said, he’s worked weekends and long hours since September. At home, he sleeps — when he can.

“Sleep comes tough, because you’ve got a sense of what you go to bed with the night before and what you might wake up to the next day,” he said.

www.bloomberg.com



To: altair19 who wrote (162537)3/9/2009 10:59:06 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361469
 
Applications Drop 20% at Williams as Economy Sours (Update1)

By Janet Frankston Lorin

March 9 (Bloomberg) -- Applications dropped at seven of the top eight liberal-arts colleges in the U.S., led by a 20 percent plunge at Williams College in Massachusetts.

Families facing higher taxes and declines in investments and home values are balking at the costs of small private schools, which can reach $50,000 a year. While attending an Ivy League school, such as Harvard University in Cambridge, may be worth the cost for families that don’t qualify for financial aid, the next level of elite schools may not carry the same value in a sour economy, educators and parents said in interviews today and last week.

Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, ranked third-best among liberal-arts institutions by U.S. News and World Report, drew 10 percent fewer applicants than last year, and there was a 12 percent drop at fifth-ranked Middlebury College in Vermont. Amherst College in Massachusetts said applications fell 1 percent for the next school year. Amherst and Williams are tied for first in the ratings.

“I told my kids that below a certain level of private college, it’s more reasonable to go to a public school,” said Linda Moses, a New York banker whose son will attend the University of Chicago in Illinois after being accepted early. “I am willing to stretch for Chicago, but for not every school.”

The decline in applications may mean students have a better chance gaining admission to top liberal-arts schools, said Jon Reider, director of college counseling at San Francisco University High School, and a former admissions officer at Stanford University in California. Williams, for one, turned down the majority of applicants last year, admitting only 17 percent.

Increase at Wellesley

A low acceptance rate is one factor used by U.S. News & World Report in determining top schools.

Applications also fell at Carleton College in Minnesota, Bowdoin College in Maine, and Pomona College in California. Only Wellesley College in Massachusetts reported an increase among the top eight liberal arts schools ranked by U.S. News. Wellesley said applications rose 2 percent, to about 4,200.

Applications at all eight Ivy League universities in the Northeast U.S. increased. Harvard College received about 29,000, a 5.6 percent gain from a year earlier, while Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, got 26,000, 14 percent more. The increase at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia was just four applicants.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Stanford University in California and Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, also attracted more applicants.

Feeling Squeezed

Families that once could afford private college are feeling squeezed during the economic meltdown, as many don’t qualify for financial-aid packages. While Yale provides aid for families earning as much as $200,000 a year, more than three times the median income in the U.S., the limit for aid eligibility is often lower at other schools.

The small liberal-arts colleges, like the larger Ivy League institutions, have enhanced financial aid in recent years. Williams eliminated loans in November 2007, instead giving students more grants.

Williams received 6,024 applications. Last year, applications at the school increased 17 percent to a record 7,552.

“Certainly the economy has to have an effect,” said Richard Nesbitt, director of admissions at Williams. “Some of these kids might have applied to 14 schools last year. Instead of 14, they’re applying to 10 now and maybe the last four are lower- cost public institutions.”

‘Extraordinary’ Applicants

Perhaps the “bigger-name research universities are being kept on the list” and smaller liberal-arts colleges are being dropped, Nesbitt said. Williams continues to attract “extraordinary” applicants, he said.

“We still have the third-highest number we’ve had in the history of the college,” Nesbitt said. “It’s not like were suffering for lack of quality.”

Middlebury received 6,904 applications this year, down from the record 7,823 last year, said Robert Clagett, the dean of admissions.

Swarthmore got 5,626 applications, down from the record 6,241 last year, said Jim Bock, dean of admission and financial aid.

“This year it might be about the money,” Bock said. “We just don’t know.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Janet Frankston Lorin in New York jlorin@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: March 9, 2009 15:45 EDT