Planning
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Or you might get Enronitis. Don't worry, Snow is clueless. A throw back from another Century.
But it is good to diversify. The problem is some companies pay 401K matches in stock and won't let you sell for a certain # of years.
So does Greenspan.
I said T not VZ. ;)
Better sell. Snow just gave all Telecoms the snow job.
So I guess it's time to short T.
US Treasury nominee sees industry overcapacity problem
Tuesday January 28, 12:07 pm ET
WASHINGTON, Jan 28 (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Secretary nominee John Snow said on Tuesday a number of industries were faced with excess capacity that could take "some time" to work off.
"There is a number of industries in which that is true," Snow told the Senate Finance Committee at a hearing on his nomination when asked if he saw a problem of overcapacity in the U.S. economy.
He said some industries -- such as telecommunications and aviation -- faced particularly acute excess capacity problems, saying they "substantially overbuilt in anticipation of demand continuing to rise, and it didn't, and they find themselves with substantial, very substantial in some cases, excess capacity."
"It will take some time to work that off," he said.
Let me read you a story Mr. President. But first turn the book right side up!
This could go on ad nauseum. Which it is making me. EOM.
That would only get you point deductions. ;)
edit for Susie
Look again......
Posted by: fung_derf
In reply to: BullNBear52 who wrote msg# 1767
Then my sadistic side said this guy is really suffering much like all Red Sox fans.
Can someone direct me to the Ignoramous button. TIA.
That is in reference to Huck's upgrade. He is now a paying customer.
Problem is when they listen to Bush, they will think he said the word correctly. ie. Sad man.
But I'll WAG 4. Two of them will be Economy and stupid.
Its called CYA.
And the loan officers.
That was the sequel. BoB dabbled where Citi had already learned their lesson.
As long as the 2nd one fits in your shirt pocket and you leave no Memory behind.
The second set of books. No audit trail and easily disposed of with a match leaving no evidence behind.
Did you remember to cry for Argentina?
Early morning shop talk.
You forgot T accounts. And of course they found it necessary to R/S.
Apparently there are some posters that have diplomatic immunity.
Asking a sox fan to do that, is the same as asking him to root for the Yankees. Thus cursed twice. See Bambino's curse for the other.
he'd pass on the clam chowder also.
two things to never argue about, politics and religion.
To read the articles. eom
Is that with the Neru jacket or the Leisure suit?
seekends=weekends or is he still searching for himself?
Bet he's rolling in his grave!
They did. That's why I didn't mention amortization. FASB threw that out and said companies no longer have to depreciate Goodwill.
They are however required to take a yearly look at the underlying value of the "asset". lol. And make the necessary adjustment for any loss.
Example.
DYN's 9/30/02 numbers included a $900MM adjustment to the goodwill account. The rocket scientists in NY thought this was a hit to revenue, not understanding it was a BS adjustment. The stock tanked to .69 pps. Thank you very much!
BTW, the original Arthur Andersen, refused to change his negative audit of one of his first customers at the customers request.
He lost the contract.
The company later folded.
Or at least he can play with the colorful beads.
You know better than that! There are well established guidelines for reasonable estimates and judgement calls.
Impossible to define these precisely.
No it's not! You define them within reasonable expectations.
2 examples you mention,
Reserve for bad debt. WCOM was cooking the number and not disclosing to meet the street.
Unbilled Revenue. EDS did the same with their WCOM contract. (Also the Navy and US Air.) In their haste to close the deal EDS did not include cash payments up front to cover startup costs associated with the deal. Then they turned around and started booking the rev in larger chunks to cover those higher upfront expenses. Hello? You need to tie the expense to the revenue. I have seen this quite often in outsourcing deals, where the Sales Force sells the company down the river. BTW EDS should have been paying closer attention to the FS of WCOM & US Air prior to booking the rev. Not necessary with the Navy contract as we all know Uncle Sam is good for it.
And 1 example you didn't,
Goodwill. What a black hole that is! It certainly did in WCOM to some extent. And more companies need to clean this account up.
I didn't want to date myself. :)~
Sox will now be scratching his head all day trying to figure out what's the correct answer.
Remember 90% of success is just getting the people to show up to the show. The other half is entertaining them when they do.
That would be 90% plus one-half = 140%. No wonder you flunked the CPA course.
But is that the right answer?
Or is it,
90% + 1/2 of the remaining 10%=95%
or
90% + 1/2 of 90%=135%
or like the previous writer said
90% plus one-half = 140%
That is the problem with accounting. There is no cut and dried answer as some people think. It's based on what answer will produce a positive bottom line for the company and a continuing engagement for the CPA firm.
The above excerpted from the Arthur Andersen Partners LLC handbook.
Huck, Thanks you do good work! That lawsuit in VA against the Richmond Fed was hysterical. What a ballsy move suing the FRB over a crooked bank that paid you off. For $100MM too. Or was that what the shorts were going to have to cover for.
I bet the judge is still laughing.
~~~~~COMPX 01/28/2003~~~~~
Previous Close - 1,325.27
1290 BullNBear52
1301 WTMHouston
1350 Phil
1369 shao
It may be a while before we get back up to 1398....
Troy
ATT: NO Personal Attacks, or the using of foul names on our fellow posters!!!
We can agree to disagree, but please leave the name calling back at Ragingbullchit, where it accepted and not here!
Thank You!
This weeks winners areeeeeeeeeee
Rant goes to....Charliemike post # 5472
LMAO at that winner!
If Short Sellers Take Heat, Maybe It's Time to Bail Out
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
IF you own shares in a company that declares war on short sellers, there is only one thing to do: sell your stake.
That's the message in a new study by Owen A. Lamont, associate professor of finance at the University of Chicago's graduate school of business. He analyzed returns at 270 companies that waged public battles with short sellers, investors who bet on a stock's fall. He found that their stocks lagged the market by 2.34 percent in each of the 12 months after the battles began.
The study, which covers 1977 to 2002, shows not only that the stocks of companies who try to thwart short sellers are generally overpriced, but also that short sellers are often dead right.
The study divides the tactics used against short sellers into three types: belligerent statements, which include claims of a short seller's conspiracies or of lies spread by the pessimists; taking legal or regulatory action against short sellers; and making technical moves to prevent short selling, like urging shareholders to register stock in their names rather than in those of their brokerage firms, so that shares cannot be lent to short sellers. Companies also try to get big stakes into friendly hands, so short sellers cannot borrow them.
The negative returns varied depending on the strategy, the study showed. Companies that urged shareholders to take delivery of their stock lagged the market by 3.17 percent a month in the following year. Those that worked to get their stock into friendly hands underperformed the market by almost 5 percent a month.
During the 25 years that Mr. Lamont tracked, he found 326 incidents at some 270 companies. Among them were Conseco, the insurance giant that filed for bankruptcy protection last month, and Samsonite, the luggage maker, whose shares traded at 38 cents last Friday. MicroStrategy Inc., a software company whose chairman settled accounting fraud accusations brought by regulators in December 2000, also figured in the study. Its shares peaked at $333 a share in 2000, but closed Friday at $1.55, adjusted for a reverse split.
In recent months, executives at Allied Capital, a small business lender, MBIA Inc., a securities guarantor, Farmer Mac, a maker of agriculture loans, and Pre-Paid Legal Services, a provider of legal assistance plans, have whined about short sellers or tried to instigate action against them.
When stock prices fall, Mr. Lamont said, companies, investors and even regulators often attack short sellers. "You tend to see when stock prices go down a wave of harassment and government suppression of short selling," he said. It's irrational, he added, and an example of the limited good concept, where someone's success is seen as having come at the expense of others.
But short sellers are not the enemy of investors — they are often right about their targets. And Mr. Lamont noted, "Many firms accuse short sellers of fraud, but are in fact themselves guilty of fraud."
The fact is, short sellers actually reduce volatility in the market. Their selling helps keep stocks from flying too high, and when they close out their trades, the buying often gives beleaguered stocks support. "If there had been more short selling of tech stocks in 1999, the market wouldn't have gone up so much," Mr. Lamont said. "And it wouldn't have gone down so much because short sellers would have provided a floor."
When companies rail against short sellers, it makes one wonder: why don't they stick to running their businesses rather than trying to run their stock price?
http://gsb-www.uchicago.edu/fac/owen.lamont/research/go%20down%20fighting.pdf
Maybe the Hedge Funds are right.
If Short Sellers Take Heat, Maybe It's Time to Bail Out
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
IF you own shares in a company that declares war on short sellers, there is only one thing to do: sell your stake.
That's the message in a new study by Owen A. Lamont, associate professor of finance at the University of Chicago's graduate school of business. He analyzed returns at 270 companies that waged public battles with short sellers, investors who bet on a stock's fall. He found that their stocks lagged the market by 2.34 percent in each of the 12 months after the battles began.
The study, which covers 1977 to 2002, shows not only that the stocks of companies who try to thwart short sellers are generally overpriced, but also that short sellers are often dead right.
The study divides the tactics used against short sellers into three types: belligerent statements, which include claims of a short seller's conspiracies or of lies spread by the pessimists; taking legal or regulatory action against short sellers; and making technical moves to prevent short selling, like urging shareholders to register stock in their names rather than in those of their brokerage firms, so that shares cannot be lent to short sellers. Companies also try to get big stakes into friendly hands, so short sellers cannot borrow them.
The negative returns varied depending on the strategy, the study showed. Companies that urged shareholders to take delivery of their stock lagged the market by 3.17 percent a month in the following year. Those that worked to get their stock into friendly hands underperformed the market by almost 5 percent a month.
During the 25 years that Mr. Lamont tracked, he found 326 incidents at some 270 companies. Among them were Conseco, the insurance giant that filed for bankruptcy protection last month, and Samsonite, the luggage maker, whose shares traded at 38 cents last Friday. MicroStrategy Inc., a software company whose chairman settled accounting fraud accusations brought by regulators in December 2000, also figured in the study. Its shares peaked at $333 a share in 2000, but closed Friday at $1.55, adjusted for a reverse split.
In recent months, executives at Allied Capital, a small business lender, MBIA Inc., a securities guarantor, Farmer Mac, a maker of agriculture loans, and Pre-Paid Legal Services, a provider of legal assistance plans, have whined about short sellers or tried to instigate action against them.
When stock prices fall, Mr. Lamont said, companies, investors and even regulators often attack short sellers. "You tend to see when stock prices go down a wave of harassment and government suppression of short selling," he said. It's irrational, he added, and an example of the limited good concept, where someone's success is seen as having come at the expense of others.
But short sellers are not the enemy of investors — they are often right about their targets. And Mr. Lamont noted, "Many firms accuse short sellers of fraud, but are in fact themselves guilty of fraud."
The fact is, short sellers actually reduce volatility in the market. Their selling helps keep stocks from flying too high, and when they close out their trades, the buying often gives beleaguered stocks support. "If there had been more short selling of tech stocks in 1999, the market wouldn't have gone up so much," Mr. Lamont said. "And it wouldn't have gone down so much because short sellers would have provided a floor."
When companies rail against short sellers, it makes one wonder: why don't they stick to running their businesses rather than trying to run their stock price?
http://gsb-www.uchicago.edu/fac/owen.lamont/research/go%20down%20fighting.pdf
Boston has appeared in only four World Series since 1918, losing each one in seven games. Many consider Boston's performance after the departure of Babe Ruth to be attributable to "The Curse of the Bambino."
Source: http://www.soxsuck.com/
World Series Championships
New YorkYankees Boston Red Sox
1901-1918 (prior to the sale of Babe Ruth)
None 1903
1912
1915
1916
1918
1919-present (after the sale of Babe Ruth)
1923 None
1927 Zip
1928 Nada
1932 Zero
1936
1937
1938
1939
1941
1943
1947
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1956
1958
1961
1962
1977
1978
1996
1998
1999
2000
In 16 years!