SI
SI
Advertise on SI

 Non-Tech | Auric Goldfinger's Short List


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who started this subject7/11/2002 11:58:53 AM
From: Steve168   of 19401
 
Any sector leader stock with more than 20% short interest?

Thanks,

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who started this subject7/12/2002 6:48:53 PM
From: Glenn Petersen   of 19401
 
Yikes...a little bit of history...

Robertson Stephens shut down

FleetBoston Financial fails to find buyer for arm

msnbc.com 

NEW YORK, July 12 — FleetBoston Financial Corp. Friday said it was shutting down its Robertson Stephens arm, after failing to find a buyer for the beleaguered technology investment banking specialist.

FLEET’S PREDECESSOR, BANKBOSTON, paid $800 million for the investment bank in 1998, but the investment soured as the tech stocks tumbled and the hot underwriting deals from the sector disappeared.

Robertson Stephens still had about 950 employees when it pulled down shutters. A Fleet spokesman said the bank will discuss the related charges when it unveils its second quarter earnings Monday.

“In recent weeks, Fleet and the Robertson Stephens management group were unable to structure an agreement for an employee buyout of the firm,” Eugene McQuade, Fleet’s chief financial officer, said in a statement.

Fleet said it would sell Robertson April 16, and market watchers thought the bank was initially looking for a price of around $450 million, but a buyer never materialized.

July 2, Fleet said it would take a second-quarter write-down of $282 million on its original investment in Robertson, and said it expected to take additional related charges.

Robertson, which had revenues of $1.5 billion last year, was expected to post a $60 million loss for 2002 as the environment for tech deals worsened since late 2000.

The firm, along with Hambrecht & Quist, Broadview International and Volpe Whelan, were among a handful of West Coast, tech-focused investment banks that profited from the dot-com boom.

Fleet shares closed off 26 cents at $29.04 in New York Stock Exchange trading.

© 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: stockskeptic who wrote (9745)7/14/2002 8:28:15 PM
From: stockskeptic   of 19401
 
XMM <===== splaaaaat!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (10128)7/15/2002 12:41:06 AM
From: Francois Goelo   of 19401
 
>>> Brownie-Finger, the Potty Mouthed one...

You're so low on my list of Priorities, that it took me all this time to reply...

Message 17601078

BTW, how much did BAIL cost?...

JMHO, F. Goelo + + +

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Edscharp who wrote (10129)7/15/2002 12:55:17 AM
From: Francois Goelo   of 19401
 
>>> Ed, we have a difference of Opinion, here...

and I know I am right... ;-)

Does South Africa calls itself Africa, because they just feel they're the dominant force on the African Continent?...

No, only the United States of Mid-North America has had the arrogance to attribute itself the name of a Continent... Unfortunately, the US of MNA Empire is now on the decline and should soon meet the unenviable fate of all other Empires before it....

For future Reference:

Canada = United Provinces of Upper-North America

Mexico = Estados Unidos de [Lower-North America]

Otherwise, Peruvians and Bolivian would have every right to claim to be American, since it's their Continent, too... and by the same token, even the Caribbean, a mere extension of the American Continental Shelf, could rightfully claim to be "American"...

Ergo, Cubans are also Americans... Duh....

JMRO, F. Goelo + + +

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (4)

To: stockskeptic who wrote (10140)7/15/2002 7:32:46 AM
From: StockDung   of 19401
 
Bored by boardrooms, bedazzled by bedrooms

Don Bauder

July 14, 2002

Bedroom. Boardroom.

If a politician is going to have a peccadillo, the latter is better. Boardroom monkey business is convoluted, draped in recondite legalese, craftily made impenetrable by well-paid lawyers.

But the voting public understands bedroom monkey business.

Just ask Bill Clinton. The Whitewater investigation – burrowing into bewilderingly complex land deals – went nowhere until it landed in the bedroom, and the headlines featured Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and assignations facilitated by Arkansas state troopers.

Then the public got aroused.

Today, when the subject is boardroom shenanigans, the public is aroused only to the extent that mutual funds and 401(k)s are tanking.

A couple of years ago, theoreticians were gloating that the people's capitalism had finally taken root; half of American households owned stocks directly or indirectly.

Now, the people are getting decapitated. They don't like it. President Bush is finding that out. Democrats are wary of pushing the investigations too far because their skirts are very dirty, too.

But boardroom bamboozlers have a defense: complexity. Contrived complexity is at the heart of almost all white-collar fraud. Corporate cozeners are praying that the public will soon tire of legal polysyllabics, and go looking for activity that can be capsulized in four-letter words.

WorldCom's disguising of routine expenses as capital expenditures seems easy to grasp, but just wait until investigators start probing "material irregularities" in the company's reserve accounts.

Bring back thongs!

Companies puff up sales through channel stuffing, vendor financing, swaps. Alas, these swaps are not as titillating as spousal swaps. Not as good courtroom drama, either. Certainly not as good for TV ratings.

Everybody knows Enron is bad. But how long will the public want to delve into special purpose entities and special purpose vehicles by which the adverse balance sheet statistics were sent packing offshore?

Ah, offshore. Understanding tax prestidigitation on secrecy-shrouded offshore tax havens requires a deep understanding of geography. Quick now: How much do you know about Alderney, Vanuatu, Sark, Niue, Nauru, Mauritius, Dominica, Guernsey, Herm, the Turks & Caicos Islands?

Wouldn't you prefer to read about a romantic tryst on Monaco? Even if it is interrupted by a short trip to a brass plate bank?

A pump 'n' dump sounds enticingly Clintonian until you realize it is a description of a penny stock manipulation.

From an investigation standpoint, George Bush and Dick Cheney have a leg up on Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

The public will soon get bored of the probe into Halliburton's practice of booking revenue from cost overruns before customers agreed to pay the excess costs. It happened on Dick Cheney's watch. Will the public's eyes glaze over?

Some of us have been writing about George W. Bush's adventures with Harken Energy for more than a decade. There seems to be some public interest now, but how long will it last?

A group of Harken insiders, with money borrowed from Harken, paid a fat price for a Harken subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum, thus relieving Harken of a big loss in 1989. Similar insider ploys are being criticized today, but will the public connect the dots?

Bush dumped his Harken stock before bad news hit, then was eight months late reporting the sale. After looking into it, the Securities and Exchange Commission decided not to go further. The SEC head was then Richard Breeden, who had been a deputy counsel to Bush Sr. when he was vice president. The SEC general counsel was James R. Doty, who had assisted Dubya in the purchase of the Texas Rangers baseball team. Who will care?

A predecessor company of Harken was Arbusto Energy. It was George W. Bush's first business. One of Arbusto's major backers had extensive ties to the Saudi bin Laden family and the Bank of Commerce and Credit International, said to have been the most corrupt bank in financial history. But that's old history – and dull history, by Lewinsky standards.

And how did tiny Harken get the contract to drill for oil in Bahrain?

Bahrain? Is that near Monica? Oops: I mean Monaco.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Bauder: (619) 293-1523; don.bauder@uniontrib.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Axxel who wrote (10135)7/15/2002 9:09:39 AM
From: StockDung   of 19401
 
Euro Rises to $1 for the First Time in More Than Two Years
By Geraldine Ryerson-Cruz


New York, July 15 (Bloomberg) -- The dollar fell past the $1 per euro level for the first time since February 2000 and sank to a 10-month low against the yen as foreign demand for U.S. financial assets waned.

The U.S. currency weakened to $1.0033 per euro, from 99.14 cents per euro late Friday in New York. It has declined 13 percent in the past five months to its weakest level since Feb. 24, 2000. Against Japan's currency, the dollar sank to 115.93 yen, its lowest level since Sept. 20, from 116.88 Friday.

``This is about capital flows into the U.S. drying up,'' said Paul Podolsky, chief currency strategist at Fleet Global Markets in Boston, who expects the currency to weaken to $1.02 per euro this quarter. Today's move through $1 means ``we're getting there fast,'' he said.

The dollar has declined this year alongside a slump in stocks. The Standard & Poor's 500 and Nasdaq Composite stock indexes last week fell to their lowest levels since 1997 on concern companies have falsely inflated earnings and speculation profits won't soon rebound. Many U.S. companies will report second- quarter earnings this week.

``With accounting problems at companies, investors aren't so keen on holding U.S. assets,'' said Myrvin Anthony, an economist in London at Old Mutual Asset Managers, which oversees about $8.8 billion. ``People aren't too sure which numbers they can trust and that's hitting the equity market very hard.'' The euro may rise to $1.05 by the end of the year, he said.

Greenspan

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan will deliver the U.S. central bank's semiannual report on monetary policy and the economy to the Senate tomorrow. A downbeat assessment could fuel more declines in the dollar, analysts said.

The dollar fell on Friday after the University of Michigan's consumer-sentiment index unexpectedly dropped in its steepest decline since the September terrorist attacks.

A Goldman Sachs index suggests one euro should buy $1.19. Goldman, which handles the fourth-largest share of trading in the $1.2 trillion-per-day currency markets, forecasts the euro will rise to $1.12 in the next year, and recommends clients buy euros and sell dollars.

Germany's BGA association of exporters cut its forecast for expansion in the euro area's largest economy this year to 0.6 percent from 0.9 percent, three months after raising it, citing the euro's gain against the dollar. The rise in the dozen-nation currency makes German products more expensive abroad, potentially cutting demand for the goods.

The dollar is still about 16 percent stronger than when Europe's common currency started trading in January 1999, at $1.16675.

`Favorable Level'

The yen's gain may be limited after Haruhiko Kuroda, vice finance minister of international affairs, said the government's currency policy is unchanged, indicating it may sell yen for an eighth day in as many weeks. Japan is trying to thwart gains that erode exporters' profits.

Japan sold yen on seven days since May 22, and the currency has risen almost 6 percent against the dollar since then.

Before Kuroda's remarks, Finance Minister Masajuro Shiokawa on Sunday signaled the government will again sell the currency by saying the country wants to see the yen fall.

``The dollar trading between 125 yen and 130 yen is a favorable level for the Japanese economy,'' Shiokawa said on Asahi National Broadcasting Co.'s business television program ``Sunday Project.''

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Francois Goelo who wrote (10142)7/15/2002 10:14:22 AM
From: Edscharp   of 19401
 
Francois,

You're definitely missing the point.

For instance, caucasian people are often referred to as 'white' in spite of the fact that, strictly speaking, they are not white at all.

Place a white sheet of paper next to a caucasian's skin and you will realize they are a tan or light brown.

'Caucasian'is the most appropriate term to use, but that doesn't stop virtually everybody in the States from using the term 'white' or 'black' when discussing race issues.

The point you're missing is that it's not regarded as incorrect usage here to use those less than accurate terms. It is culturally acceptable to refer to ourselves this way in the same way we refer to ourselves as "Americans". It is not unusual for certain words, terms or descriptions, even though not exactly accurate, to enter into a language and become readily understood. It's called common usage. The English language, especially 'U.S.A. English' is constantly changing. Language use is not regulated by any government agency.

People outside of the United States can refer to us in any way they want. We refer to ourselves as 'Americans'.

To use the example that you gave about South Africa, I would suggest that if indeed South Africans were to refer to themselves as simply "Africans" then I would also do the same if I were visiting their country. It's their language and their culture, they are entitled to call themselves anything they want. Honestly, I think the arrogance would be mine if I referred to them in any other way. Outside of South Africa I would certainly make the distinction between 'South Africans' and 'Africans'.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Francois Goelo who wrote (10142)7/15/2002 11:14:17 AM
From: Edscharp   of 19401
 
Francois,

One last point.

Keep in mind that the British have been referring to us as "Americans" ever since the late 1700's so there is a historical basis to this as well

By the time of the American Revolution there was no nation of Canada. What we today call Canada was a British territory that had been recently acquired by the British from the French during the "French & Indian War" (also called the Seven Year War) in the 1750's (I think).

For that matter, there was no Mexico at that point either. What we now call Mexico was a territory of Spain.

There is a long established history of us calling ourselves "Americans". It has to do with culture, language and history of our country and was never intended to describe the geographic location of the United States. We became a country before Canada and Mexico ever did.

You're trying to change over 300 years of history because the term "American" somehow offends your sensibility or perhaps because you think it is offensive to others.

There is not a single American I know of that uses the word to connote an insult to any other nationality. If you or others are construing it that way then I can only conclude that you (or they) have agendas of their own.

In case your interested here is a standard definition of the word "American" from the Miriam-Webster Dictionary.

m-w.com 

Main Entry: 1Amer·i·can
Pronunciation: &-'mer-&-k&n, -'m&r-, -'mar-, -i-k&n
Function: noun
Date: 1578
1 : an American Indian of No. America or So. America
2 : a native or inhabitant of No. America or So. America
3 : a citizen of the U.S.
4 : AMERICAN ENGLISH

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Francois Goelo who wrote (10142)7/15/2002 12:10:34 PM
From: Edscharp   of 19401
 
"Unfortunately, the US of MNA Empire is now on the decline and should soon meet the unenviable fate of all other Empires before it...."

This is a very good and very interesting issue; also, a very complex one. It's almost impossible for anyone to predict what our future holds for us. However, if you are predicting a decline like the kind experienced by the Roman Empire I couldn't disagree more.

We live in a time of unparalleled technology and communications and there is nothing analogous to the barbarian Goths that brought down the Roman Empire. Even our modern day terrorists don't come even close to this role. Any earnest attempt made by them to bring down this country would be met with a retaliatory effort a hundred-fold greater than the provocation. Believe me.

However, it is not totally out of the question that other countries could become ascendant relative to our own. China is sometimes mentioned as a country that could be the next Superpower. This might be convincing to me if China could overcome their own government which still constricts innovation and free enterprise. IMO, it will be many years before that country matures and can rid themselves of the remnants of their communist past (much less their communist present).

I appreciate that nothing lasts forever, but it's difficult to perceive at this juncture in history what kind of event could bring about our precipitous downfall. I believe the U.S. and it's allies will be around for many scores of years to come.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.