-Caveat Lector-
RadTimes # 102 November, 2000
An informally produced compendium of vital irregularities.
"We're living in rad times!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents:
---------------
--Experts: Machine Counts Inaccurate
--U.S. Voting Equipment Outdated
--Electoral College may not need Florida electors to choose president!
--U.S. Constitution: Twelfth Amendment
--Who Cares Who Wins if Greenspan's at Fed Helm?
--Political Gridlock Tends to Create A Profitable Environment for Stocks
Linked stories:
*URL's on the 2000 US Presidential Elections
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin stories:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experts: Machine Counts Inaccurate
November 11, 2000
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Think every vote counts? Think again.
Problems with automated vote-counting equipment, especially the computer
card punch type used in south Florida, have been well documented, said
Rebecca Mercuri, a visiting professor of computer science at Bryn Mawr College.
``You will never get the same numbers,'' she said. ``If you run thousands
of these cards through again and again, you will continue to get different
numbers that are coming up.
``An error rate of 2 percent to 5 percent, believe it or not, is considered
acceptable by most election officials ... if the error is evenly=
distributed across all of the candidates.''
In Florida's punch card system, tabulating equipment can fail to pick up
cards that aren't punched cleanly through. And the bits of paper punched
out of the cards -- called ``chad'' -- can then move around and become
lodged in the open holes of other ballots, causing machines to misread
otherwise perfectly punched ballots.
Problems also can arise when cards are misaligned, and there can be
problems with the computer software that keeps track of the tally.
Mercuri, who has testified in various municipalities about problems with
voting technology, said the National Institute of Standards and Technology
criticized punch card ballots in 1988.
Election officials often are willing to live with error margins because
they typically value ballot privacy over accuracy when they purchase
vote-counting machinery, she said.
Florida's 67 counties use 11 different systems, ranging from electronic
tabulating machines that scan the results of the ballot to punch card
machines. North Florida's Union County counts all of its ballots by hand.
In Broward and Palm Beach counties, where Democrats are seeking hand
recounts of the ballots, the voting tabulation systems were made by
Election Resources Corp. of Little Rock, Ark. Company President Paul Nolte
acknowledged Saturday that ``hanging chad'' is a known problem with punch
card systems.
Still, he said, ``The chances of finding hanging chad after four machine
recounts are pretty remote.'' He said equipment used in those counties met
Florida's error tolerances and performed with zero errors on tests for
state certification.
``It's more accurate than the critics are saying,'' Nolte said.
Republicans have filed suit to block manual recounts, contending they are
less accurate than machines. But Peter Neumann, principal scientist at SRI
International, a nonprofit computer research group, who has testified
before Congress on computer issues, says officials in England and Germany
consider manual counts to be more accurate than automated ones.
``You should do a manual recount of every card in the state,'' Neumann
said. ``This is an endemic problem. It's high time that people woke up and
realized how flawed the process is.''
Robert Rackleff, a Leon County commissioner and a member of that county's
canvassing board, maintains that punch card systems are eight times more
likely to miss a vote than optical scanners used elsewhere.
When Florida's next legislative session begins in March, several lawmakers
plan to propose changes to the system, said state Sen. Kendrick Meek, a
Democrat.
``We can definitely bring some uniformity to the ballots in the state of
Florida,'' Meek said. ``This is a major embarrassment for the state of
Florida.''
State Rep. Tom Feeney, the House Speaker-designate, said he would consider
measures to expedite the vote count, but he's reluctant to make hasty changes.
``Can we modernize? Can we do things quicker? Yes,'' said Feeney, a
Republican. ``But I don't like passing law based on anecdotal evidence.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Voting Equipment Outdated
November 11, 2000
By DAVE CARPENTER, AP Business Writer
CHICAGO (AP) - Cash machines are everywhere, two in five Americans own cell
phones, handheld computers are hot and the digital revolution is on
fast-forward.
Yet as many voters were reminded last week, much of the nation's voting
technology is still emerging from the horse-and-buggy age.=20
More than half of Americans who cast ballots in Tuesday's presidential
election are estimated to have done so using technology developed in the
19th century - mechanical hand levers and punch cards. A million or more
others voted by paper ballot.
Amid the continuing controversy over voting foul-ups, recount delays and
other problems in Florida, New Mexico and elsewhere, many are asking why
American polling places are a throwback to another era.
The answer: The higher costs of higher-tech systems, tradition and a fear
that the lack of a paper trail will compromise the voting process.
"I call it the 1776 Syndrome," says Doug Lewis, executive director of The
Election Center, an independent clearinghouse that works with election
authorities throughout the country.
"They tell themselves 'We've been having elections since 1776 whether we
spend money or no money, so let's not spend money on a new system,"' he says.
Companies that supply state-of-the-art voting systems say they constantly
run up against a reluctance to change; several officials describe the
prevailing attitude as "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
"The technology is here, it works, it's very accurate," maintains Jay
Bennett, vice president of Fidlar Doubleday Inc., a Rock Island, Ill.-based
firm which makes a touch-screen voting system that's in limited but growing
use. "It's just slow to get people to change."
The system may not be broken, but this year's election brought out flaws
with voting technologies old and new, prompting handwringing about whether
outdated equipment is compromising results and a renewed look at expensive
new systems that aren't perfect, either.
Florida's chaotic election embodied many of the concerns.
The presidential photo-finish between Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov.
George W. Bush generated complaints about the confusing juxtaposition of
names on the punch-card ballot, slow tabulation of votes, a mixup with
ballots that weren't punched all the way through, and the eyebrow-raising
changes the recount produced.
In New Mexico, a computer glitch and ill-marked ballots that befuddled
vote-counting machines left the presidential contest unresolved.
In Chicago's Cook County, 120,503 voters using the decades-old punch-card
ballot system either failed to register a choice for president or "spoiled"
them by marking two or more candidates. The percentage of voters was so
high, 6 percent, that experts say it raises questions about shortcomings in
the process.
"It's not an exact science," says Kimball Brace, president of Election Data
Services Inc., a Washington-based consultant on the administration of
elections. "Every voting system has its pluses and minuses."
Of the half-dozen or more ways that Americans vote, the mechanical-lever
machine is the unlikeliest to be still prospering in the 21st century. No
longer manufactured, it also may be the most vulnerable to breakdown.
Introduced in 1892 in Lockport, N.Y., it was used by 18.6 percent of
registered voters in elections in 1998 - mainly in the Northeast - and
probably nearly as many this year, according to Election Data Services.
Erie County, N.Y., election commissioner Ralph Mohr swears by the 800-pound
behemoths: "Their reliability plus the ability to verify the results makes
them still the best choice for us."
But mechanical problems are worsening. Last Tuesday,a counting device broke
down on one of the machines in a Buffalo-area voting station.
The most common voting method is the punch-card system, from a technology
originally developed for the 1890 census. It was used by 34.3 percent of
voters in 1998 elections, the most recent year for which data is available.
While cost-effective and generally reliable, the kinds of problems they
caused in Florida were familiar to election authorities elsewhere. When
Erie County used them in 1987, seven close races ended up in court amid the
complaints; the county promptly switched back to levers.=20
Optical scanning, in which lasers read printed or hand-marked symbols on
ballots, were used by 27.3 percent of voters. It is considered both
imperfect and costly, requiring excess printing of ballots among other
problems.
The ATM-like touch-screen system and other direct electronic technology was
used by just 9.1 percent in 1998 - a number that is increasing only
cautiously.
California's Riverside County last week became the first jurisdiction to
use touch-screen voting exclusively, winning positive reviews from voters
for its new $14 million system.
County registrar Mischelle Townsend touts the process as more secure, more
accurate and faster - even cheaper over the long run because of no paper
costs.
"It's going to make a difference in the election process," she says.
Skeptics note two drawbacks: the $3,000 to $8,500 cost for each machine and
the lack of physical ballots to recount.
This year, overseas military personnel from three states voted online in a
procedure closely monitored by the Defense Department. Another 2,000 people
participated in online voting experiments in four California counties.
"Probably eventually we'll all be voting online," says Lorrie Cranor, an
Internet security researcher at AT&T Labs who has studied electronic voting
techniques since 1994. "But we're nowhere near ready to do it in a national
election."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electoral College may not need Florida electors to choose president!
<http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/11/10/election.scenario/index.html>
November 10, 2000
By Raju Chebium
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On December 18, electors from all 50 states are
scheduled to pick the president. An 1887 law fixes this as the date for
electors to cast their ballots, constitutional law scholars said Friday.
Because Florida's votes are still being counted and given the possibility of
legal challenges blocking ballot certification, it is remotely possible that
Florida may not appoint its share of 25 electors by December 18, the
scholars said.
That means only 513 members of the 538-strong Electoral College would be
available to pick either Democrat Al Gore or Republican George W. Bush to be
the next president.
Can the remaining electors still pick the president with Florida shut out of
the process?
Yes, according to Neal Katyal, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown
University's law school. He said the 12th Amendment to the U.S. only requires
a majority of the electors to vote and nothing in the Constitution says all
electors must vote.
Such a scenario could help Gore, he said.
If all 538 members voted, the winner would need 270 votes to be named the
next president. But if only 513 electors were present, the requisite
majority would be reduced to 257, said Michael Glennon, a constitutional
scholar at the University of California-Davis who has written a book on the
Electoral College.
Gore is closer to 257 than Bush. In fact, until Friday evening, Gore had 260
electoral votes, compared to Bush's 246.
After New Mexico was ruled too close to call, Gore lost five electoral votes
from that state, bringing his total to 255, while Bush's tally remained
unchanged.
The likelihood of Florida electors being shut out
Joel Gora, an election-law specialist at the Brooklyn College of Law, said
it is highly unlikely that Florida will fail to certify its ballot and
appoint electors by December 18.
Soon after the votes are recounted November 17, I think the state would go
ahead and certify unless there is a court order otherwise. And I think that's
extremely unlikely as a practical matter, but it is possible.
He said allegations over a confusing ballot in Palm Beach County likely
would not be sufficient for a Florida judge to put the statewide
certification process on hold.
Gora also said the U.S. Supreme Court has not had a case requiring the
justices to definitively interpret the 12th Amendments Electoral College
provisions.
The prior constitutional crisis
The only time there was a potential constitutional crisis over the Electoral
College issue was in 1876, Glennon said.
GOP candidate Rutherford Hayes won 185 electoral votes though Democrat Sam
Tilden, who had 184 electoral votes, had won the popular election by a
razor-thin margin of less than 1 percent, Glennon said.
Democrats in Congress overruled one of Hayes electors votes and in
retaliation Republicans overruled 19 of Tilden's electoral votes, Glennon
said.
Faced with a constitutional crisis, politicians reached a compromise they
appointed a special commission composed of five Democrats, five Republicans
and five Supreme Court justices, he said.
After Hayes promised to withdraw Northern troops from the South, the
commission awarded all 20 electoral votes to Hayes, making him the
president, Glennon said.
To prevent future Electoral College disputes, Congress passed the Electoral
Count Act in 1877. The law left the task of choosing electors to the states,
but Congress reserved the power to reject any electors vote if a simple
majority of members in the U.S. House and Senate agreed that the vote must
not be counted, Glennon said.
Yet another scenario
Fast-forwarding to 2000, there is yet another scenario under which Florida
electors could cast their votes even if the state fails to certify the
ballot by December 18, according to Bruce Fein, a constitutional scholar and
lawyer in McLean, Virginia.
Electors for Gore or Bush could still cast their ballots and leave it up to
Congress to challenge individual votes if they choose to on January 6, when
the electoral votes will be unsealed and tallied, Fein said.
Fein rejected the interpretation of the 12th Amendment and the 1877 law that
says choosing electors is a state function. Because Congress has the
ultimate authority to accept or reject an electors vote, the issue of
whether an elector has been appointed is a matter of federal constitutional
law, Fein said.
What's most likely to happen (is) both the Gore and the Bush electors would
go and cast the ballot whether or not there was an official certification by
Florida, he said. Why would a state want to disenfranchise itself?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Constitution: Twelfth Amendment
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment12/index.html>
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for
President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an
inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their
ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the
person voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each,
which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of
the government of the United States, directed to the President of the
Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate
and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall
then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for
President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole
number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from
the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of
those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose
immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the
votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having
one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members
from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be
necessary to a choice. "And if the House of Representatives shall not choose
a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the
fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as
President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the
President." (Text in above quotes is superseded by amendment 20 as stated
below) -- The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President,
shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole
number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from
the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the
Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the
whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be
necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the
office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the
United States.
See also:
Electoral College
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/02.html>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who Cares Who Wins if Greenspan's at Fed Helm?
November 13, 2000
Wall Street Journal
By WILLIAM PESEK JR.
Investors wanted gridlock in Washington and they certainly got it -- just
not the kind they'd expected. The U.S. government ground to a halt last
week as the nation tried to make sense of the controversy surrounding who
won the White House. Yet, regardless of who ends up winning this year's
presidential race, be it Al Gore or George W. Bush, it may not make much
difference to U.S. bond and currency=20 markets.
In the short term, the post-election crisis may take its toll on the bond
market and the dollar if foreigners doubt a smooth transfer of power. But
such dramas notwithstanding, the reasons investors are flooding the U.S.
with capital haven't changed. They include the credibility of the Federal
Reserve, prospects for an economic soft landing and the strong dollar.
Investors looking to Europe are turned off by the wobbly euro, and stagnant
growth has made Japan unappealing. The U.S., for all its problems, will
remain the most popular investment destination.
The magnetic forces pulling in foreign capital these days have less to do
with the White House than the Fed, where Chairman Alan Greenspan seems
likely to be ensconced for a while. If Vice President Gore ends up winning
the election, there's no reason to think his relationship with Greenspan
will be any less deferential than President Clinton's. If Bush wins, his
relationship with Greenspan likely would be much better than that of his
father's. Former Fed Governor Lawrence Lindsey, a top Bush adviser, will
see to it that the executive and monetary policy branches of government get
along.
The same is true of dollar policy. Lindsey, who's thought to be a leading
candidate for Bush's Treasury Secretary, last week endorsed the
strong-dollar policy. Given the size of the U.S. current-account deficit, a
Bush Administration wouldn't have much choice: The firm greenback is
attracting the capital needed to fund our trade imbalance. But investors in
dollar-denominated assets should find some solace in reassurances from the
Bush camp that it won't seek a softer currency in the longer term.
Finally, there's the issue of gridlock, a condition the bond market hoped
for. Neither a Gore nor Bush Administration will have much of a mandate
from the American people. And the GOP will control Congress by a razor-thin
margin. That would make it difficult for Bush to pass stimulative tax cuts,
while Gore would be hard-pressed to spend as much of the federal government
surplus. "The lack of a clear mandate will prevent politicians from acting
like proverbial kids in a candy store and help to protect the growing
budget surplus," says Anthony Crescenzi of BondTalk.com.
Greenspan will have the final say on whether the next President's economic
policies have the intended effect. The current Fed chairman has been
holding the nation's economic reins since the early 'Nineties, when elected
officials turned to the task of moving the federal budget to surplus. It's
unlikely that goal will change, making the Fed a natural check on the
nation's politicians. As David Gilmore of Foreign Exchange Analytics sees
it, markets seem to think "as long as In-Greenspan-We-Trust is in charge,
the White House and Congress do not matter."
That sentiment was behind the bond market's performance last week. The
stock market didn't take the presidential election drama very well, but
bond aficionados saw little to frown about. The yield on the 10-year note
ended the week at 5.80%, compared with 5.84% a week earlier. The two-year
note closed the week at a rate of 5.91% versus the previous week's 5.94%.
Yet Treasury yields may not be able to move much lower because of inflation
fears. The producer price index jumped 0.4% in October, owing to increases
in the price of food and natural gas. Traders didn't panic, however,
because the "core" rate, which excludes food and energy, fell 0.1%. And as
always, market participants are withholding judgment until they see this
week's report on consumer prices. Those data are due out Thursday, a day
after the Fed meets to discuss interest-rate policy.
The Federal Open Market Committee is expected to leave rates alone
Wednesday amid signs that growth is slowing. The latest evidence that
higher rates are biting came from the Labor Department, which reported a
35,000 increase in the number of Americans applying for unemployment
insurance. While some of the rise was related to temporary layoffs in the
automobile industry, it's consistent with a slowdown in economic activity.
That's important because the Fed is known to watch the jobless-claims data
carefully. Yet the FOMC is widely expected to maintain its bias toward
higher interest rates. The reason, says Goldman Sachs economist Jan
Hatzius, is continued concern over tightness in the labor markets. Besides,
adopting a neutral stance might give markets the green light to zoom
higher, stimulating the economy.
The wild card in all this is the feud between the Gore and Bush campaigns.
It's already hurting stocks and corporate bonds and raising questions about
the dollar's near-term outlook. And the longer the impasse goes on, the
more it could undermine U.S. assets. Notes Credit Suisse First Boston
economist Kathleen Stephansen: "The United States' safe-haven status is
still intact, but political concerns are threatening that status a bit."
Are Texans bad for the dollar? They certainly have been in recent decades,
and since George W. Bush may soon become President, it's a fair question to
ask. Most of the major dollar devaluations the U.S. has weathered since the
'Seventies have occurred under Treasury Secretaries from the Lone Star State.
The first came during the tenure of President Richard Nixon's finance
minister, John Connolly. This Texan oversaw the collapse of the Bretton
Woods system, which effectively devalued the dollar. Then President Ronald
Reagan's Treasury Secretary, James Baker, engineered the Plaza Accord, an
agreement to drive down the dollar. In the mid-'Nineties, Texan Lloyd
Bentsen, President Bill Clinton's Treasury chief, gave investors the green
light to sell the greenback.
Then there are the other, less obvious, examples of Texas dollar-meddling.
President George Bush's finance czar, Nicholas Brady, tirelessly called on
the Fed to ease, in part to soften the dollar. And, as Barron's Assistant
Managing Editor Randall W. Forsyth reminds us, there was the time President
Lyndon B. Johnson hauled Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin down to the
ranch to chew him out about a rate hike. At the time, some analysts thought
Johnson feared tight money would impair his guns-and-butter economic policies.
Is all of this a coincidence? "The Texas propensity for dollar devaluations
was not an accident," says economist David Hale of Zurich Financial
Services. To Hale, it reflects ancient divisions in America's political
system extending back to the Civil War, a time when Western states tended
to support leaders who wanted to sever the dollar's links to the gold standard.
The gold-standard debate has sputtered since then, but regional
disagreements about monetary policy continue. As in the 19th century, Hale
says, people from Western commodity-producing states have tended to favor
monetary accommodation and a soft currency more than folks in the East and
in the financial markets. But today, Americans almost universally associate
a strong dollar with a healthy economy. And when folks on Main Street and
Wall Street look at the success of the strong-dollar policy promulgated by
Clinton's latest Treasury chiefs, Lawrence Summers and, before him, Robert
Rubin, it's unlikely there's much desire for change.
Nevertheless, markets might be suspicious if Bush names a Texan as Treasury
Secretary. Former Fed Governor Lindsey is not a Texan, but another possible
candidate, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm, is. If the Texas
standard is any guide, Lindsey might be a better choice for dollar bulls.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Political Gridlock Tends to Create A Profitable Environment for Stocks
November 12, 2000
The Wall Street Journal Sunday
By JEFF OPDYKE
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
The continuing uncertainty surrounding one of the closest, most contentious
presidential elections in U.S. history could turn out to be a lucrative
opportunity for investors.
For weeks, Wall Street's experts insisted that the election's outcome would
have little impact on stock prices. And then the elections happened, and a
president wasn't chosen.
"Investors who knew what they wanted to buy based on who won, now don't
know who it's going to be," says Christine Callies, chief U.S. investment
strategist at Merrill Lynch.
Coming on top of investor concern about corporate sales and profits in the
face of a slowing economy, the uncertainty about which candidate will be
the next leader of the Free World cut short the rebound in stock prices
that preceded the election.
Rough Week
For the week, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 2%, including Friday's
2.1% slide.
Meanwhile, the Nasdaq Composite Index ended down 12.2%, including Friday's
5.4% decline. The tech-heavy Nasdaq, gored in part by Dell Computer's sales
warning Friday, is now at its lowest point of the year.
Quite clearly, one of the oldest cliches on Wall Street -- that the market
abhors a vacuum -- contains more than a grain of truth.
"Wall Street can deal with good news and it can deal with bad news. What it
can't deal with is uncertainty," says John Johnson, a portfolio manager
with Crabbe Huson, an investment-management firm in Portland, Ore.
"The worst thing that could happen is that lawyers get involved. And now
they're involved," Mr. Johnson says.
Until the political stalemate is resolved, stock prices are apt to remain
volatile.
As unnerving as that may be, it could actually provide an opportunity for
astute investors who buy solid stocks on price dips sparked by
election-limbo sell-offs.
Long term, "this, too, will pass," says Michael Stalker, a financial
planner at MCS Financial Advisors in Eugene, Ore.
And when it does, it will leave investors facing what, in recent years, has
been a favorable environment for stocks -- political gridlock.
Weak Mandate
No matter whether it's Vice President Al Gore or Texas Gov. George W .
Bush, the next resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. will take office without
a mandate for significant change.
Moreover, the results of the Senate and House elections ensure that he will
share policymaking responsibility with a narrowly divided, highly partisan
Congress.
The upshot is that neither Mr. Gore nor Mr. Bush is apt to enjoy sufficient
political sway to push through any of the measures strongly endorsed during
the campaign, be it a tax cut, revamped health care or an overhauled Social
Security system.
Impediment to Spending
Likewise, neither party is going to be in position to muscle through any
spending plans or economic and social policies that might rattle the markets.
That should be a boon to stocks over the next few years, although the
economy and the Federal Reserve will certainly color much of what occurs in
the market.
Before the events that have turned America's 2000 presidential race into a
global spectacle, Wall Street was "wanting a Bush win, since most of the
Street likes the Republican fiscal program," says Al Goldman, chief market
strategist at A.G. Edwards & Sons, the St. Louis brokerage firm.
Now, however, those wants are all but irrelevant since once either man is
sworn in as the 43rd President, the market's focus will revert to what
typically drives stocks: corporate earnings, economic growth and
interest-rate policy.
When the focus returns, Mr. Goldman says, the market "will resume its
primary trend -- up."
That means, the pros say, that investors should use this brief period of
presidential confusion to put some dollars to work for the long term on
Wall Street.
Mr. Goldman counsels investors to look to historically strong growth issues
in fields ranging from technology to finance to pharmaceutical companies.
Far-Flung Picks
The companies he likes include such household names as Intel, Applied
Materials and Dell Computer in the technology arena (even though Dell on
Friday lowered its sales growth guidance for the fiscal year ending 2002
and the stock lost 18%).
He also favors Merck and Pfizer in drugs; and Wells Fargo and Citigroup,
among others, in the interest-sensitive financial sector. Mr. Goldman says
financials will benefit because he expects that the Federal Reserve policy
makers will trim interest rates early next year, a move that historically
has buoyed stock prices of banks and insurance companies. (The Fed's
policymaking Federal Open Market Committee is expected to leave rates
unchanged when it gathers Wednesday.)
Defensive View
Ben Fisher, managing director at NFJ Investment Group Inc., a Dallas
money-management firm, has a more defensive posture, one that he believes
should withstand the Bush-Gore Florida showdown and, ultimately, the coming
presidency -- no matter who claims the Oval Office.
Though he has no "super favorites," as he calls them, NFJ has built
positions in energy, utility and telephone stocks such as Verizon
Communications (the merged Bell Atlantic and GTE Corp.); TXU Corp., a
Dallas utility company; and KeySpan Corp., the largest distributor of
natural gas in the Northeast.
Gridlock Survivors
These kind of stocks "should play well in a gridlocked environment," he says.
Ms. Callies, at Merrill Lynch, also is a fan of technology stocks,
particularly those in computer manufacturing and companies that make many
of the internal components and connectors.
She also likes utility stocks and high-quality energy companies such as
those involved in exploration and production, drilling and oil-field services.
"Six months from now we'll have a president," Ms. Callies says, "and the
market will have returned to what it cares about."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linked stories:
********************
URL's on the 2000 US Presidential Elections
<http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/florida.html>
********************
=====================================================
"Anarchy doesn't mean out of control. It means out of 'their' control."
-Jim Dodge
======================================================
"Communications without intelligence is noise;
intelligence without communications is irrelevant."
-Gen. Alfred. M. Gray, USMC
======================================================
"It is not a sign of good health to be well adjusted to a sick society."
-J. Krishnamurti
______________________________________________________________
To subscribe/unsubscribe or for a sample copy or a list of back issues,
send appropriate email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
______________________________________________________________
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
