|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Hello Clyde,
illuminating but not overwhelming. dividends wouuld change this
considerably.
Best regards,
Jim Johnson mailto:jejohn@xxxxxxxxxxx
--
Monday, September 23, 2002, 2:10:17 PM, you wrote:
CL> Maybe so!
CL> Right column is ratio of price currently divided by price in '84.
CL> After all the BS I've heard about GE, it is a wonder that it
CL> is not at the top of the list.
CL> Clyde
CL> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CL> Clyde Lee Chairman/CEO (Home of SwingMachine)
CL> SYTECH Corporation email:clydelee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CL> 7910 Westglen, Suite 105 Office: (713) 783-9540
CL> Houston, TX 77063 Fax: (713) 783-1092
CL> Details at: www.theswingmachine.com
CL> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CL> ----- Original Message -----
CL> From: "M. Simms" <prosys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CL> To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CL> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 11:50 AM
CL> Subject: RE: [RT] GE and Welch
>> the economy was on "auto pilot" during the 1990s......
>> gorillas could have run the company.
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: BobsKC [mailto:bobskc@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 12:19 PM
>> > To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Subject: Re: [RT] GE and Welch
>> >
>> >
>> > At 09:32 AM 9/23/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>> >
>> > >Frankly, with a 2800% increase in share value it would
>> > >seem to me he earned a very "perky" retirement.
>> > >
>> > >Clyde
>> >
>> > I agree completely. Whatever that package was costing GE, it was the
>> > tiniest token of what he did for the company. Getting shareholder
>> > approval for a perk package isn't a reasonable solution either
>> > ... no more
>> > so that expecting government to come to the voters to decide
>> > where to place
>> > a stop sign.
>> >
>> > Bob
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> > >Clyde Lee Chairman/CEO (Home of SwingMachine)
>> > >SYTECH Corporation email:clydelee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > >7910 Westglen, Suite 105 Office: (713) 783-9540
>> > >Houston, TX 77063 Fax: (713) 783-1092
>> > >Details at: www.theswingmachine.com
>> > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> > >
>> > >----- Original Message -----
>> > >From: "Daniel Goncharoff" <thegonch@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > >To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > >Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 9:26 AM
>> > >Subject: Re: [RT] GE and Welch
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > I call a contract that means my assets are used to pay someone
>> > > > indefinitely for not providing any work on my behalf abridging my
>> > > > property rights.
>> > > >
>> > > > You may also want to consider that just because there is a signed
>> > > > contract, it doesn't make a transaction legal.
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards
>> > > > DanG
>> > > >
>> > > > Jim Johnson wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Hello Daniel,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Then you shouldn't own shares in a company whose
>> > bylaws/policies don't
>> > > > > stipulate that all executive comp plans be put to a
>> > shareholder vote.
>> > > > > That is rare to nonexistent. You need to understand how the
CL> process
>> > > > > works. You elected the board and gave them the latitude to
>> > make these
>> > > > > decisions for you. If you don't like that arrangement you can:
CL> sell
>> > > > > your shares, use options, start your own conglomerate, agitate for
>> > > > > board/comp policy reform etc. But the inference I make is that
CL> you
>> > > > > would prefer to abridge rights of property ownership.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > Jim Johnson mailto:jejohn@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Sunday, September 22, 2002, 7:21:37 AM, you wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > DG> As a shareholder of GE, I don't remember agreeing to
>> > this package of
>> > > > > DG> retirement perks. In fact, I only found out about it
>> > because of his
>> > > > > DG> divorce case. I certainly would have voted against it,
>> > as I don't
>> > > > > DG> believe in post-retirement benefits of this kind
>> > (apartments, jets,
>> > > > > DG> etc.) There should be a bonus at departure, partly cash,
CL> partly
>> > >stock
>> > > > > DG> with a long-term vesting period, fully disclosed to the
>> > >shareholders.
>> > > > > DG> Then we would have the ability to make a free choice.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > DG> Regards
>> > > > > DG> DanG
>> > > > >
>> > > > > DG> Jim Johnson wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Hello BobsKC,
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> you can't hold teachers accountable--they're unionized
>> > AND they have
>> > > > > >> tenure. what's that all about?
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> about money--PAC money mainly. the largest contributors
>> > to Democrats
>> > > > > >> are unions, teachers associations and trial lawyers.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> the liberal philosophy continues to eat away at our way of
CL> life.
>> > >even
>> > > > > >> last night on the WSJ editorial board roundtable--when
>> > asked about
>> > > > > >> Welsh's retirements perks, not one of those presumably
>> > free market
>> > > > > >> conservative writers observed that what he got was given to him
>> > > > > >> freely. Even they seemed to be tacitly buying into the
>> > implication
>> > > > > >> that somebody (government I assume) should get involved
>> > in this. the
>> > > > > >> title of van Hayek's book is chilling--The Road to Serfdom.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Best regards,
>> > > > > >> Jim Johnson
CL> mailto:jejohn@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> --
>> > > > > >> Saturday, September 21, 2002, 10:29:59 PM, you wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> B> Unions. I watched the UAW refuse to give back a dime
>> > to Cat when
>> > >things
>> > > > > >> B> got tough in the early 80's even in the face of warnings
CL> they
>> > >would move
>> > > > > >> B> their Iowa plants. Well, they moved them. To
>> > France! My company
>> > >provided
>> > > > > >> B> two way radio and closed circuit tv services to those
>> > plants and
>> > >it was a
>> > > > > >> B> tough loss for us.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> B> There was a time for labor unions. That time was 80
>> > years ago.
>> > >Most of
>> > > > > >> B> the money they pull in goes to organized crime and they have
>> > >caused
>> > > > > >> B> manufacturing to depart wholesale. Besides, I am
>> > suspicious of
>> > >anyone who
>> > > > > >> B> wants to work at a job where they tell you how much
>> > you can make.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> B> So, greed has driven out the manufacturing jobs. Our
>> > education
>> > >system has
>> > > > > >> B> lowered the bar for the few until the majority are getting a
>> > >second rate
>> > > > > >> B> education and can not compete in the world market place.
>> > >Education is not
>> > > > > >> B> the same as corporate earnings. You can't just lower the
>> > >estimates. I
>> > > > > >> B> worry a lot about our youth .. kids coming out of high
CL> school
>> > >today are
>> > > > > >> B> less informed that kids coming out of 8th grade 30 years
CL> ago.
>> > >The damn
>> > > > > >> B> bar better get put back up where it belongs and teachers
CL> held
>> > >accountable
>> > > > > >> B> and tested.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> B> Bob
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> B> At 05:57 PM 9/21/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>> > > > > >> >>Did the US have a choice in its conversion? It was
>> > convert or die.
>> > >The
>> > > > > >> >>manufacturing went elsewhere because they could do it
>> > just as good
>> > >and a lot
>> > > > > >> >>cheaper. The only other alternative we had was to become
>> > >isolationists again
>> > > > > >> >>and ban imports. Our agriculture is going the same
>> > way right now.
>> > >Garlic
>> > > > > >> >>is coming in from China at 1/2 the price it can be
>> > produced for in
>> > >the US.
>> > > > > >> >>The same with oranges, grapefruit and other citrus
>> > from Australia
>> > >and South
>> > > > > >> >>America. Are the grain markets in the same shape? Brazil,
>> > >Australia, and
>> > > > > >> >>other countries are producing product for less. How long can
CL> a
>> > >subsidy
>> > > > > >> >>last? Where is our vaunted fishing fleet. Are there
>> > any American
>> > >flag
>> > > > > >> >>vessels left afloat, outside of the Navy and coast
>> > guard. Do we
>> > >produce
>> > > > > >> >>shoes or clothing any more? We still have a thriving wine
>> > >industry.
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >>I have a question. Who does the service industry
>> > service? We have
>> > >banks
>> > > > > >> >>that lend money to foreign countries that don't repay
>> > the loans.
>> > >We have
>> > > > > >> >>computer companies that import all of the parts they
>> > assemble here.
>> > >So we
>> > > > > >> >>did save those high paying assembly line jobs. The fast food
>> > >restaurants
>> > > > > >> >>are expanding overseas instead of in the US so those
>> > high paying
>> > >service
>> > > > > >> >>jobs at Wendy's and McD aren't going to shrink the
CL> unemployment
>> > >rolls. The
>> > > > > >> >>banks can now lose money in insurance, brokerage and other
CL> non
>> > >banking
>> > > > > >> >>endeavors. Even the federal government is sending our
>> > armaments
>> > >for
>> > > > > >> >>production overseas.
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >>Were is the talent coming from to operate the high
>> > tech companies?
>> > >That
>> > > > > >> >>talent is coming from oversees. We can't even produce an
>> > >intelligent work
>> > > > > >> >>force. There is one ever expanding area of the
>> > economy. Tattoo
>> > >parlors and
>> > > > > >> >>body piercing salons are popping up all over. Now
>> > there is a real
>> > >future
>> > > > > >> >>for your kids. Am I missing something here? Ira
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >>----- Original Message -----
>> > > > > >> >>From: "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > > > > >> >>To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > > > > >> >>Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 4:54 PM
>> > > > > >> >>Subject: Re: [RT] Service vs Manufacturing economy
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >> > Gary, do you have a URL for that article, sure would like
CL> to
>> > >read the
>> > > > > >> >>whole
>> > > > > >> >> > thing?
>> > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > >> >> > I have long believed that true economic strength is
>> > built upon a
>> > >strong
>> > > > > >> >>and
>> > > > > >> >> > resilient manufacturing base. I have also been
>> > saying for many
>> > >years that
>> > > > > >> >> > the US would suffer deeply in the next
>> > recession/depression for
>> > >having
>> > > > > >> >> > converted to a service based economy.
>> > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > >> >> > Earl
>> > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > >> >> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > > > >> >> > From: "Gary Funck" <gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > > > > >> >> > To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > > > > >> >> > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 3:23 PM
>> > > > > >> >> > Subject: RE: [RT] 10 year note near 40 year highs ?
>> > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > >> >> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > >> >> > > > From: Daniel Goncharoff [mailto:thegonch@xxxxxxxxxx]
>> > > > > >> >> > > > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 9:37 AM
>> > > > > >> >> > > > To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > > > >> >> > > > Subject: Re: [RT] 10 year note near 40 year highs ?
>> > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > >> >> > > > I think there are two sides to this point. Isn't a
>> > >service-based
>> > > > > >> >>economy
>> > > > > >> >> > > > more flexible than one based on large
>> > factories? It may mean
>> > >that
>> > > > > >> >> > > > changes come more easily, and that new industries can
>> > >develop using
>> > > > > >> >>the
>> > > > > >> >> > > > excess information-based labor from weaker sectors.
>> > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > >> >> > > > In this respect, telecoms will be a good
>> > real-life example.
>> > >It will be
>> > > > > >> >> > > > interesting to see what happens to all the
>> > people getting
>> > >laid off by
>> > > > > >> >> > > > the telecoms firms that won't be growing for
>> > several years.
>> > >If they
>> > > > > >> >>end
>> > > > > >> >> > > > up having no place to go, that would indicate
>> > your believe
>> > >is
>> > > > > >> >>validated.
>> > > > > >> >> > > > If they find new jobs in a similar field, I think the
>> > >economic hit
>> > > > > >> >>will
>> > > > > >> >> > > > not be very big at all.
>> > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > >> >> > > In this week's Business Week, there's a rather
CL> disturbing
>> > >article that
>> > > > > >> >> > refutes
>> > > > > >> >> > > the theory that a service based economy should be more
>> > >resilient.
>> > > > > >> >>Excerpts
>> > > > > >> >> > > below:
>> > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > >> >> > > SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
>> > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > >> >> > > NEWS: ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY
>> > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > >> >> > > The Educated Unemployed
>> > > > > >> >> > > The jobless rate for managers and professionals
>> > is likely to
>> > >rise
>> > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > >> >> > > [...]
>> > > > > >> >> > > Here's why joblessness is likely to rise: Across
>> > the board,
>> > >companies
>> > > > > >> >>are
>> > > > > >> >> > > facing an unholy trio of low profits, weak
>> > demand, and falling
>> > > > > >> >> > prices--with no
>> > > > > >> >> > > relief in sight. Revenues for the companies in
>> > the Standard &
>> > >Poor's
>> > > > > >> >> > 500-stock
>> > > > > >> >> > > index are down 2% over the past year, adding to
>> > the pressure
>> > >on
>> > > > > >> >>businesses
>> > > > > >> >> > to
>> > > > > >> >> > > cut costs by cutting workforces. At the same time,
>> > >productivity is
>> > > > > >> >>soaring
>> > > > > >> >> > at a
>> > > > > >> >> > > rapid clip--a 6% gain over last year at nonfinancial
>> > >corporations.
>> > > > > >> >>That's
>> > > > > >> >> > > allowing businesses to meet flat demand with
>> > fewer workers.
>> > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > >> >> > > Even more distressing, some of the sectors where the job
>> > >market has
>> > > > > >> >>stayed
>> > > > > >> >> > > relatively strong--including health, education,
>> > finance, and
>> > >retailing,
>> > > > > >> >> > which
>> > > > > >> >> > > together make up about 40% of the total
>> > workforce--are showing
>> > >signs of
>> > > > > >> >> > > cracking. And the already grim labor picture in
>> > the airline,
>> > >energy,
>> > > > > >> >> > > technology, telecom, and media sectors--some 7% of the
>> > >workforce--keeps
>> > > > > >> >> > > deteriorating.
>> > > > > >> >> > > [...]
>> > > > > >> >> > > This is the dark side of the productivity boom. During
CL> the
>> > >second half
>> > > > > >> >>of
>> > > > > >> >> > the
>> > > > > >> >> > > 1990s, output per worker rose, but soaring demand and
>> > >revenues, driven
>> > > > > >> >>in
>> > > > > >> >> > part
>> > > > > >> >> > > by the technology and telecom boom, helped boost
>> > hiring and
>> > >push down
>> > > > > >> >>the
>> > > > > >> >> > > unemployment rate below 4%. Wages and bonuses
>> > soared, and it
>> > >seemed like
>> > > > > >> >>a
>> > > > > >> >> > > golden age for workers.
>> > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > >> >> > > But rising productivity without rising demand is
>> > a recipe for
>> > > > > >> >>disappearing
>> > > > > >> >> > > jobs. If companies can't raise prices, the only
>> > way they can
>> > >boost
>> > > > > >> >>profits
>> > > > > >> >> > is
>> > > > > >> >> > > to cut workers--and higher productivity makes
>> > that possible.
>> > > > > >> >> > > [...]
>> > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > >> >> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> > > > > >> >> > > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > >> >> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>> > > > > >> >>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>> > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > >> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> > > > > >> >> > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > >> >> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>> > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>> > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> > > > > >> >>realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > >> >>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>> > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> B> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> > > > > >> B> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> B> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>> > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> > > > > >> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>> > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>> > > > >
>> > > > > DG> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> > > > > DG> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > DG> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>> > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> > > > > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>> > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> > > > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> >realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>>
CL> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CL> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CL> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home with Ease!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/ySSFAA/zMEolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|