Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
© St. Petersburg Times, published July 18, 2002
Re: Investors start shying away from stock market, July 12.
I have a good friend who worked hard all his life, ran a successful business, sold it very profitably when he retired -- and then turned all of his money over to his banker and broker to manage. Even today, when he complains he's down 30 percent, he has no interest in controlling his own finances.
This good friend is an all too common example of the investors you interviewed who are alarmed by the relentless decline in the stock market and in their own holdings.
The story is repeated in every down cycle of the market, and I sympathize with the losers until I am reminded that it doesn't have to happen. Their fate is in their own hands. Why have they allowed their life savings to crumble? Why didn't they get out two years ago after the market peaked?
William O'Neil, founder of Investor's Business Daily, repeatedly recommends that investors sell when a stock drops 7 percent from its purchase price. And Phil Grande, the bombastic radio stock show host, harps on bailing out with professional traders when a stock drops through a major moving average.
It really as simple as that to protect your money.
I know that stock brokers will rush to tell you to hang tough, that the market always comes back, that you never know when it's the top or bottom. But how many months or years are you willing to wait to break even? Meanwhile, you could have safely waited in money markets.
I also know that these observations will fall on deaf ears. Before you start whining again, remember that your fate is in your own hands.
-- John V. Wilson, Pinellas Park
Shareholders should organize. When labor was being abused, the workers formed guilds, unions, associations, etc. So has every imaginable activity known to man. Only the shareholders of the world are unorganized and are being swindled by stock analysts, chief executive officers, chief financial officers, chief operating officers, boards of directors, etc.
We must organize, and I would recommend pension, trust, estate and mutual fund managers to start the ball rolling.
United shareholders of America, rise up and throw off your shackles.
-- Boris Stephen, Weeki Wachee
President Bush was a director and a member of the Harken Energy audit committee. Bush sold about 212,000 shares of Harken Energy Corp. just before the stock tumbled. Bush also got a low-interest loan as a director of Harken Energy Corp, a type of loan that he now wants to ban.
He has done all the things he is complaining about now. How can we trust him to correct these problems?
-- Horace L. Hall, Brooksville
The July 16 article on page 5 of the business section, Bush sold Harken stock, despite pledge to hold 6 months, would have been better placed on the front page, or some reference to it in the "The Times Today" summary section of the front page.
Putting it inside the business section is really concealing it from most of the public, as most people are are not investors and therefore would never see the article.
That article should be front-page news, as the public needs to know that their president, in today's uncovering of corporate greed, while calling for a crackdown on corporate wrongdoing, was once involved in the Harken Energy Corp. as a director. While a director, he was sent a letter by the secretary of Harken and was asked not to sell his stock for a period of 180 days from the date of the proposed public offering. He promised to hold on to the Harken stock by signing and returning the letter the next day.
The fact of the matter is he did not hold it, but sold it in 21/2 months, not six months or 180 days. This is just a matter of public record reported by the Associated Press and should be read by members of the public so they can determine that this is not a smear campaign, but what appears to be a fact which has now resurfaced since 1990.
Whether or not President Bush was right or wrong is not for newspapers to decide. Let the people decide for themselves; don't conceal the news!
-- Nelson M. Powell III, Tampa
Re: Investors start shying away from stock market, July 12.
I would hope that an objective reporting of the facts would include interviews with a spectrum of investors instead of the very narrow slice of the demographic pie we see in this story. None of the retirees referenced in the story would qualify as typical investors (or typical retirees), despite an effort to portray them as such.
Instead, each of the examples cited looked like people who are involved in very risky investing, particularly so for people who retired so young (all of the subjects were under 60 and some were under 50 -- none were old enough to qualify for many pensions or Social Security).
The securities markets are NOT a good place to "park" one's retirement savings or "nest egg." Although preservation of capital can be a sensible investment objective, it will not typically generate the positive returns traditionally associated with market investing.
Evidently, the people quoted in the story only go shopping (groceries, consumer goods) when prices are high; clever shoppers buy more aggressively when prices are low. Conventional wisdom tells us that the only people who would short the markets at this point are those who are either pessimistic about America's economic future, or those who don't believe they have enough time left in life to recoup a potential loss; in either case those people need to be on the sidelines, not in equities.
Since losing the White House in 1992, the GOP has had good reason not to trust the media to tell it straight when reporting on the economy. All Americans should pay careful attention to reading between the lines as we approach the 2002 election season. Expect to see more media "talking down" the economy. Given Bush's continued favorability among voters, it's the only story liberals have to tell.
-- Jim Parker, Tampa
Re: Swings don't faze investors, by Kris Hundley, July 16.
Most of America's "investors" don't live in places like Pasadena Yacht and Country Club nor do we own 46-foot Sea Rays. We can't jet to our Colorado vacation home because we have to work extra hours to put food on the table. Maybe Michael Baggs can give away some of his "play money" to the thousands made unemployed by our corporate CEOs cooking the books to enhance their personal stock holdings.
I'm sorry, I can't be sympathetic to someone whose portfolio has shrunk to $14-million. . My 401(k) has lost everything I put in it last year -- and I'm a typical American investor, not part of the Pasadena Yacht and Country Club crowd.
-- Peter McDonald, Palm Harbor
Re: The stock market.
During President Bush's presidential campaign, his cronies combatted the affluence resulting from President Clinton's tenure in the late '90s by saying that the tremendous market wealth enjoyed by the country was a trickle down effect from President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts in the early '80s.
Now, President Bush is saying that the slowdown in the economy is from the "binge" of the late '90s. But if Reagan's tax cuts were responsible for the growth in the late '90s, doesn't that mean President Reagan is responsible for the slowdown today? Tax cuts from 20 years ago are still wreaking havoc on our financial system. It's a good thing that we haven't given out any more tax cuts that could do damage for another 20 years . . . Uh, oh. I think we're in trouble again.
-- Jamie Wrye, Spring Hill
Re: Religious exemptions head to court, July 10.
I agree with John Leo that verifiable ID with a photo is required if a person is to drive or board an airplane, especially in these times of terrorism and identity theft. As we have seen in Israel, women as well as men could be suicide bombers, and it is easy to steal the identity of someone who has no photo ID.
Until such time as the state uses retinal scans, a face ID will be required. However, the picture could be taken in private by a female state photographer and the individual, if stopped by the police, could ask for and wait for a female trooper to come to make the identification. And if she is to board a plane, she could go to a private security room with a female to make the identification.
Yes, it is time consuming to wait, but it is a better alternative than not being allowed to drive or board a plane. As we have been reminded many times, driving is a privilege, not a right, so I do not think she would win the case. Allowing her to preserve her modesty by dealing with females might be a way to preserve this privilege.
-- Karen Sinnreich, Tampa
A couple of years ago, I decided to take a trip to Seattle to visit my daughter. Being retired, time was not a concern, so I thought I would go by train. I went to my local Amtrack office and inquired about scheduling and price. The clerk quoted a price that was nearly three times the cost of air fare. And when I told her that it was far more than the airlines would charge, she said "Amtrack is not for transportation, it's a luxury thing like a cruise."
Now comes Amtrack with it's low-level whining in the media. It will fail if it doesn't get a substantial hunk of the American workers' tax money. What will we do without Amtrack? Without Amtrack, who will provide the wonderful land-cruise for the elite? I hope that Congress will not waste our tax money.
Remember Amtrack is not for transportation, "Its a luxury thing, like a cruise."
-- Harold G. Raithel, Pinellas Park
Re: Barbarians at the gates, or vulgarians behind them?, by Mary Jo Melone, July 7.
As a resident of the gated subdivision Bayport which Melone mentions, I take issue with several points in her column. But I object most strenuously to her statement that gates signal, "If you're not the right color . . . your type not wanted here." By what leap of logic does one go from gates to classism and racism? Melone has no knowledge of the actual racial, economic, religious or any other type of diversity of the residents here. She references no survey of their attitudes and no evidence of profiling of any kind.
She's entitled to her opinions, but when one's opinions are based on facts one has a lot more credibility. At the very least, to make judgments of others based on huge assumptions is definitely not being a "good neighbor." Perhaps she should examine her own conscience.
-- Candace Bowers, Tampa
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731.
They can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.