From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #2089 Reply-To: canslim Sender: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-No-Archive: yes canslim-digest Monday, January 28 2002 Volume 02 : Number 2089 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen client RE: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen client RE: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen client Re: [CANSLIM] CHBS Re: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen client Re: [CANSLIM] CHBS [CANSLIM] CHBS Re: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen client Re: [CANSLIM] CHBS Re: [CANSLIM] CHBS Re: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen client RE: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen client Re: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen client ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:22:54 -0700 From: "Patrick Wahl" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen client Since I just saw an interesting discussion about analysts on CNBC, and for the most part their failing to be on top of the Enron debacle, I looked up the ratings on GX at Yahoo. There is 1 strong buy, 1 buy, 7 holds, and 2 sells. The fact that there are any sells is surprising, that indicates how much trouble they are in. (the discussion on CNBC, incidentally, was with a former energy analyst. He is out of Wall Street now, so he spoke fairly candidly. Said in the 1970's brokers got much of their money from retail customers, so their sense of obligation was for providing good research to their clients. Lately, much of the business for larger brokerage houses comes from underwriting, so they tend to have loyalty towards companies they are supposedly providing objective opinions about. In a nutshell, the advice isn't necessarily going to be trustworthy.) On 28 Jan 2002 at 20:34, Tom Worley wrote: > Global Crossing Ltd (GX) just filed for bankruptcy as a preplanned reorganization in which two of its Asian partners will buy the assets for $750 million. Closed today at 28 cents, down 23 cents for the day on NYSE (gotta be embarrassing to NYSE, ENE was the record bankruptcy, GX is #4, and that's just this month). I am sure it's a coincidence, but for year 2000 Andersen billed them $2.3 million for audit services, and nearly $12 million for consulting and other non-audit services. I am sure that couldn't have biased Andersen in any way, of course. > > Common and preferred shareholders lose everything, including Management reported still owning 14%. Then again, there was some insider selling last May when the stock was still in the mid-teens, as well as some buying in October when it traded $1-3. > > Anybody know a place on the net where I can find a list of Andersen's clients, showing billing by Audit and non-Audit services? I would like to do some shorting. There seems to be a pattern emerging here. The Chairman of Andersen says the firm will survive, but I am not sure that is good news for investors. > > Tom Worley > stkguru@netside.net > AIM: TexWorley > - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:31:54 -1000 From: "Mike Gibbons" Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen client This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C1A819.4BD3B920 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tom, Andersen's chairman could hardly say anything else, or all their existing clients would head for the door, just as some of them have reportedly done already. I think their future is in doubt and they certainly risk losing key partners and staff because the malodour of working for Andersen's is not one they will all want to bear. Their future is probably to become a second or third tier firm, or be merged into what will become the big 4. The implication of your post is that bankruptcies are somehow linked to the auditor but I find that a bit of a stretch, despite the circumstantial evidence you cite. Management and the Board, together with market conditions, must surely bear the responsibility for a company going belly-up. The Auditors role is not to tell management where their policies may lead the company to failure, in fact questioning management is something they are loath to do. Andersens would appear to have failed in their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders in the Enron case (although I think we should consider them innocent until proven guilty), but I have seen no evidence that in doing so they contributed to Enron's collapse. Last Friday, All Things Considered (NPR) had a story about how some analysts had been shorting Enron stock, or refused to recommend it, because their numbers were non-sensical. You can hear it here http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/atc/20020125.atc.10.ram As for answering your question about data sources, I have no idea. Because the Accounting firms are partnerships, they have no responsibility to publish such information and clearly have an interest in holding it closely, so I doubt it is available. Aloha, Mike Gibbons Proactive Technologies, LLC http://www.proactech.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Tom Worley Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 3:34 PM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen client Global Crossing Ltd (GX) just filed for bankruptcy as a preplanned reorganization in which two of its Asian partners will buy the assets for $750 million. Closed today at 28 cents, down 23 cents for the day on NYSE (gotta be embarrassing to NYSE, ENE was the record bankruptcy, GX is #4, and that's just this month). I am sure it's a coincidence, but for year 2000 Andersen billed them $2.3 million for audit services, and nearly $12 million for consulting and other non-audit services. I am sure that couldn't have biased Andersen in any way, of course. Common and preferred shareholders lose everything, including Management reported still owning 14%. Then again, there was some insider selling last May when the stock was still in the mid-teens, as well as some buying in October when it traded $1-3. Anybody know a place on the net where I can find a list of Andersen's clients, showing billing by Audit and non-Audit services? I would like to do some shorting. There seems to be a pattern emerging here. The Chairman of Andersen says the firm will survive, but I am not sure that is good news for investors. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net AIM: TexWorley - ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C1A819.4BD3B920 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Tom,
 
Andersen's chairman could hardly say anything = else, or=20 all their existing clients would head for the door, just as some of them = have=20 reportedly done already. I think their future is in doubt and they = certainly=20 risk losing key partners and staff because the malodour of working for=20 Andersen's is not one they will all want to bear. Their future is = probably to=20 become a second or third tier firm, or be merged into what will = become the=20 big 4.
 
The=20 implication of your post is that bankruptcies are somehow linked to the = auditor=20 but I find that a bit of a stretch, despite the circumstantial evidence = you=20 cite. Management and the Board, together with market conditions, must = surely=20 bear the responsibility for a company going belly-up. The Auditors role = is not=20 to tell management where their policies may lead the company to failure, = in fact=20 questioning management is something they are loath to do. Andersens = would appear=20 to have failed in their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders in the = Enron=20 case (although I think we should consider them innocent until proven = guilty),=20 but I have seen no evidence that in doing so they contributed to Enron's = collapse.
 
Last=20 Friday, All Things Considered (NPR) had a story about how some analysts = had been=20 shorting Enron stock, or refused to recommend it, because their numbers = were=20 non-sensical. You can hear it here http://www.n= pr.org/ramfiles/atc/20020125.atc.10.ram
 
As for=20 answering your question about data sources, I have no idea. Because the=20 Accounting firms are partnerships, they have no responsibility to = publish such=20 information and clearly have an interest in holding it closely, so I = doubt it is=20 available.
 
Aloha,
 
Mike Gibbons
Proactive Technologies, = LLC
http://www.proactech.com
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Tom=20 Worley
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 3:34 PM
To:=20 canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: [CANSLIM] Another = Andersen=20 client

Global Crossing Ltd (GX) just filed for = bankruptcy=20 as a preplanned reorganization in which two of its Asian partners will = buy the=20 assets for $750 million. Closed today at 28 cents, down 23 cents for = the day=20 on NYSE (gotta be embarrassing to NYSE, ENE was the record bankruptcy, = GX is=20 #4, and that's just this month). I am sure it's a coincidence, but for = year=20 2000 Andersen billed them $2.3 million for audit services, and nearly = $12=20 million for consulting and other non-audit services. I am sure that = couldn't=20 have biased Andersen in any way, of course.
 
Common and preferred shareholders lose = everything,=20 including Management reported still owning 14%. Then again, there was = some=20 insider selling last May when the stock was still in the mid-teens, as = well as=20 some buying in October when it traded $1-3.
 
Anybody know a place on the net where I can = find a list=20 of Andersen's clients, showing billing by Audit and non-Audit = services? I=20 would like to do some shorting. There seems to be a pattern emerging = here. The=20 Chairman of Andersen says the firm will survive, but I am not sure = that is=20 good news for investors.
 
Tom Worley
stkguru@netside.net
AIM:=20 TexWorley
- ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C1A819.4BD3B920-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:37:38 -1000 From: "Mike Gibbons" Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen client Yes, commissions were deregulated in the 70's and competition and the internet have driven them ever lower making the investment banks dependant on thier corporate instead of retail clients. An example of the unintended consequences of deregulation. Every silver lining has a cloud. Aloha, Mike Gibbons - -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Patrick Wahl Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 4:23 PM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen client Since I just saw an interesting discussion about analysts on CNBC, and for the most part their failing to be on top of the Enron debacle, I looked up the ratings on GX at Yahoo. There is 1 strong buy, 1 buy, 7 holds, and 2 sells. The fact that there are any sells is surprising, that indicates how much trouble they are in. (the discussion on CNBC, incidentally, was with a former energy analyst. He is out of Wall Street now, so he spoke fairly candidly. Said in the 1970's brokers got much of their money from retail customers, so their sense of obligation was for providing good research to their clients. Lately, much of the business for larger brokerage houses comes from underwriting, so they tend to have loyalty towards companies they are supposedly providing objective opinions about. In a nutshell, the advice isn't necessarily going to be trustworthy.) On 28 Jan 2002 at 20:34, Tom Worley wrote: > Global Crossing Ltd (GX) just filed for bankruptcy as a preplanned reorganization in which two of its Asian partners will buy the assets for $750 million. Closed today at 28 cents, down 23 cents for the day on NYSE (gotta be embarrassing to NYSE, ENE was the record bankruptcy, GX is #4, and that's just this month). I am sure it's a coincidence, but for year 2000 Andersen billed them $2.3 million for audit services, and nearly $12 million for consulting and other non-audit services. I am sure that couldn't have biased Andersen in any way, of course. > > Common and preferred shareholders lose everything, including Management reported still owning 14%. Then again, there was some insider selling last May when the stock was still in the mid-teens, as well as some buying in October when it traded $1-3. > > Anybody know a place on the net where I can find a list of Andersen's clients, showing billing by Audit and non-Audit services? I would like to do some shorting. There seems to be a pattern emerging here. The Chairman of Andersen says the firm will survive, but I am not sure that is good news for investors. > > Tom Worley > stkguru@netside.net > AIM: TexWorley > - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:56:47 EST From: Spencer48@aol.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CHBS Warren: In DGO, Funds own 39% (not 93%) of the stock float. Banks own 16%, and management owns 8%. Thus 61% of CHBS' float is neither owned by funds nor management. jans In a message dated 1/28/2002 9:19:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, wkeuffel@xmission.com writes: << Thanks. Someone (who wishes to remain anonymous) pointed out that CHBS has 93% institutional ownership (99% of the float!) and therefore concludes that there is little further room for the big money to move in. Sounds logical to me. Anyway I also discovered that a small-cap mutual fund that I invest in is the 2nd largest institutional holder of CHBS, so I am already getting a piece of that action. Warren >> - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:18:40 EST From: Spencer48@aol.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen client Mike: I agree. Anderson cannot be held accountable (no pun intended) for Enron's lousy economic plan or planning. However, not only is their an apparent conflict of interest when the auditor is also a consultant, but also it is difficult to believe that the consultants at Anderson and the auditors at Anderson do not speak to each other. The upshot is that an incentive is given to the auditor to not scrutinize Enron (so Anderson continues to get the Anderson Auditing Account), and to the consultant to bamboozle the auditor the best he can. So each has a motivation to not accurately reflect the financial condition of Enron. And, of course, their motivation is magnified by the pressure elicited by the fees and commission paid out to Anderson which employs each of them. This sort of fraud can affect the capital markets so that people can become afraid to invest in the stock market because they feel the markets are not run on the square. If that happens, and the little investor no longer buys stock (either on the retail level or in mutual funds), then market is in for a definite swoon. jans In a message dated 1/28/2002 9:29:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, mikegibbons@proactech.com writes: << The implication of your post is that bankruptcies are somehow linked to the auditor but I find that a bit of a stretch, despite the circumstantial evidence you cite. Management and the Board, together with market conditions, must surely bear the responsibility for a company going belly-up. The Auditors role is not to tell management where their policies may lead the company to failure, in fact questioning management is something they are loath to do. Andersens would appear to have failed in their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders in the Enron case (although I think we should consider them innocent until proven guilty), but I have seen no evidence that in doing so they contributed to Enron's collapse. >> - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:20:44 -0600 From: "Katherine Malm" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CHBS This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0069_01C1A841.A5885340 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Warren and jans, DGO is a little obtuse on these numbers, so here's how they fall into = place: Outstanding shares =3D 24.7m Management/Insiders own 8% of the *outstanding* shares (1.9m) The remaining 92% of outstanding shares are in float (22.8m) Institutions (banks/funds) owns 39 + 16% =3D 55% of the *float* (12.5m) Everybody else owns 45% of the float (10.3m) Either way, institutional ownership is on the high side! Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Spencer48@aol.com=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CHBS Warren: In DGO, Funds own 39% (not 93%) of the stock float. Banks own = 16%, and=20 management owns 8%. Thus 61% of CHBS' float is neither owned by funds = nor=20 management. jans In a message dated 1/28/2002 9:19:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,=20 wkeuffel@xmission.com writes: << Thanks. Someone (who wishes to remain anonymous) pointed out that = CHBS=20 has 93% institutional ownership (99% of the float!) and therefore=20 concludes that there is little further room for the big money to move = in. Sounds logical to me. Anyway I also discovered that a small-cap = mutual fund that I invest in is the 2nd largest institutional holder = of=20 CHBS, so I am already getting a piece of that action. =20 Warren >> - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - ------=_NextPart_000_0069_01C1A841.A5885340 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Warren and jans,
 
DGO is a little obtuse on these numbers, so here's how they fall = into=20 place:
 
Outstanding shares =3D 24.7m
Management/Insiders own 8% of the *outstanding* shares (1.9m)
The remaining 92% of outstanding shares are in float (22.8m)
 
Institutions (banks/funds) owns 39 + 16% =3D 55% of the *float* = (12.5m)
Everybody else owns 45% of the float (10.3m)
 
Either way, institutional ownership is on the high side!
 
Katherine
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Spencer48@aol.com
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 = 8:56=20 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] = CHBS

Warren:

     In DGO, Funds = own 39%=20 (not 93%) of the stock float.  Banks own 16%, and
management = owns=20 8%.  Thus 61% of CHBS' float is neither owned by funds nor=20
management.

jans


In a message dated 1/28/2002 = 9:19:39 PM=20 Eastern Standard Time,
wkeuffel@xmission.com=20 writes:

<< Thanks.  Someone (who wishes to remain = anonymous)=20 pointed out that CHBS
 has 93% institutional ownership (99% = of the=20 float!) and therefore
 concludes that there is little further = room=20 for the big money to move
 in.  Sounds logical to = me. =20 Anyway I also discovered that a small-cap
 mutual fund that I = invest=20 in is the 2nd largest institutional holder of
 CHBS, so I am = already=20 getting a piece of that action.
 
 Warren
 =20 >>

-
-To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com"
-In= the=20 email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
-"unsubscribe = canslim".  Do=20 not use quotes in your email. - ------=_NextPart_000_0069_01C1A841.A5885340-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:20:26 -0500 From: "Bert Pesak" Subject: [CANSLIM] CHBS FWIW I just check the profile of CHBS on yahoo and it does say that 93% is instutional owned. Bert Pesak - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:32:34 EST From: Spencer48@aol.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen client Mike: I'm not certain what you're saying here. Is the conclusion suppose to be that deregulation and increased competition led to the Enron debacle? But, if so, and if dereg began in the 70's, why did it take 30 years for a financial catastrophe like this one to occur? And if it didn't take 30 years-what was the first one? And does the go-go era of the 90's (stock market wise) evince convincing contrary evidence that dereg and increased competition in commisssions is a bad thing? Moreover, I'd hazard that a lot of people including corporate accounts and investment bank officers lost money in Enron. That's why it plummeted the way it did-because everyone was selling, and no one (except perhaps Anderson auditors, and certain officials in Enron) had any idea-since the losses were off the books-why. jans In a message dated 1/28/2002 9:36:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, mikegibbons@proactech.com writes: << Yes, commissions were deregulated in the 70's and competition and the internet have driven them ever lower making the investment banks dependant on thier corporate instead of retail clients. An example of the unintended consequences of deregulation. Every silver lining has a cloud. >> - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:34:46 -0600 From: "Katherine Malm" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CHBS This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_007D_01C1A843.9B14EE80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bert and all, I'm going to take a guess that Yahoo's numbers haven't been adjusted to = account for the recent 3/2 split. If they haven't increased the = outstanding shares in the denominator, it would account for the odd 93% = and the discrepancy we're seeing. I'll bet on DGO's numbers over Yahoo, = as they are quite diligent in their research and updating. Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Bert Pesak=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 9:20 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] CHBS FWIW I just check the profile of CHBS on yahoo and it does say that 93% is instutional owned. Bert Pesak - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - ------=_NextPart_000_007D_01C1A843.9B14EE80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bert and all,
 
I'm going to take a guess that Yahoo's numbers haven't been = adjusted to=20 account for the recent 3/2 split. If they haven't increased the = outstanding=20 shares in the denominator, it would account for the odd 93% and the = discrepancy=20 we're seeing. I'll bet on DGO's numbers over Yahoo, as they are quite = diligent=20 in their research and updating.
 
Katherine
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Bert = Pesak=20
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 = 9:20=20 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] CHBS

FWIW
I just check the profile of CHBS on yahoo and = it does=20 say that 93% is
instutional owned.
Bert = Pesak



-
-To=20 subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com"
-In= the=20 email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
-"unsubscribe = canslim".  Do=20 not use quotes in your email. - ------=_NextPart_000_007D_01C1A843.9B14EE80-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:42:18 EST From: Spencer48@aol.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CHBS Warren and Jans: As usual, Katherine is nearer the mark than either one one of you. I=20 get approximately 53% held by the top institutions and mutuals. This is=20 from Briefing Book.com (put out by the Wall St. Journal): =20 INSTITUTIONAL HOLDINGS =20 Christopher & Banks Corp. (CHBS)=20 =20 Institutions The 10 largest institutional investors Share Holdings =20 Change in Share =20 Holdings* =20 Date =20 Reported =20 =20 LIBERTY WANGER ASSET MGMT L.P. 1,683,000 =20 337,500 =20 9/30/01 =20 =20 =20 WASATCH ADVISORS, INC. 1,316,853 =20 708,858 =20 9/30/01 =20 =20 =20 T. ROWE PRICE ASSOCIATES, INC. 1,173,525 =20 1,173,525 =20 9/30/01 =20 =20 =20 AIM MANAGEMENT GROUP,INC. 836,100 =20 183,150 =20 9/30/01 =20 =20 =20 TAUNUS CORPORATION 729,680 =20 84,137 =20 9/30/01 =20 =20 =20 DIMENSIONAL FD ADVISORS, INC. 671,099 =20 -3,450 =20 9/30/01 =20 =20 =20 PILGRIM BAXTER & ASSOC LTD. 636,638 =20 -98,850 =20 9/30/01 =20 =20 =20 JLF ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC 579,150 =20 579,150 =20 9/30/01 =20 =20 =20 BARCLAYS BANK PLC 556,695 =20 159,945 =20 9/30/01 =20 =20 =20 DUNCAN-HURST CAPITAL MGMT 513,795 =20 -514,860 =20 9/30/01 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Mutual Funds The 10 mutual funds with the largest holdings Share Holdings =20 Change in Share =20 Holdings* =20 Date =20 Reported =20 =20 LIBERTY ACORN FUND 1,275,000 =20 241,500 =20 9/30/01 =20 =20 =20 WASATCH SMALL CAP GROWTH FUND 639,150 =20 639,150 =20 9/30/01 =20 =20 =20 PIMCO MICRO- CAP FUND 450,675 =20 -247,500 =20 6/30/01 =20 =20 =20 AIM SMALL CAPITAL GROWTH FUND 375,000 =20 -45,000 =20 9/30/01 =20 =20 =20 BRAZOS MICRO CAP PORTFOLIO 307,256 =20 88,499 =20 5/31/01 =20 =20 =20 STI CLASSIC SML CAP GR STK FD 300,000 =20 60,000 =20 9/30/01 =20 =20 =20 HARRIS INSIGHT SML CAP OPPTY F 249,150 =20 0 =20 9/30/01 =20 =20 =20 BRIDGEWAY ULTRA SML CO PORT 242,831 =20 -67,500 =20 12/31/00 =20 =20 =20 AIM SMALL CAP OPPORTUNITIES FD 232,500 =20 0 =20 9/30/01 =20 =20 =20 DEUTSCHE ASSET MGMT SML CAP PT 218,400 =20 79,575 =20 9/30/01 =20 =20 =20 =20 *Reflects the change in shares since the prior quarter's disclosure of=20 holdings.=20 =20 Shares are not adjusted for stock splits.=20 =20 Source: Thomson Financial =20 =20 Copyright =A9 2002 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved "=20 jans =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 In a message dated 1/28/2002 10:20:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,=20 kmalm@earthlink.net writes: << Hi Warren and jans, =20 DGO is a little obtuse on these numbers, so here's how they fall into place= : =20 Outstanding shares =3D 24.7m Management/Insiders own 8% of the *outstanding* shares (1.9m) The remaining 92% of outstanding shares are in float (22.8m) =20 Institutions (banks/funds) owns 39 + 16% =3D 55% of the *float* (12.5m) Everybody else owns 45% of the float (10.3m) =20 Either way, institutional ownership is on the high side! =20 Katherine >> - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:03:41 -0700 From: "Patrick Wahl" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen client He was replying to my comment on analysts, and how they have changing allegiances since the seventies, when retail customers represented more of the brokerage's income. Enton is unrelated to that, but the fact that most analysts were not warning anyone of the seriousness of the problems (some analysts still had buys on it up to the bankruptcy) may be related to the deregulation. On 28 Jan 2002 at 22:32, Spencer48@aol.com wrote: > Mike: > > I'm not certain what you're saying here. Is the conclusion suppose to > be that deregulation and increased competition led to the Enron debacle? > But, if so, and if dereg began in the 70's, why did it take 30 years for a > financial catastrophe like this one to occur? And if it didn't take 30 > years-what was the first one? > > And does the go-go era of the 90's (stock market wise) evince convincing > contrary evidence that dereg and increased competition in commisssions is a > bad thing? > > Moreover, I'd hazard that a lot of people including corporate accounts > and investment bank officers lost money in Enron. That's why it plummeted > the way it did-because everyone was selling, and no one (except perhaps > Anderson auditors, and certain officials in Enron) had any idea-since the > losses were off the books-why. > > jans > > > > > In a message dated 1/28/2002 9:36:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, > mikegibbons@proactech.com writes: > > << Yes, commissions were deregulated in the 70's and competition and the > internet have driven them ever lower making the investment banks dependant > on thier corporate instead of retail clients. An example of the unintended > consequences of deregulation. Every silver lining has a cloud. > >> > > - > -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" > -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or > -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:15:02 -1000 From: "Mike Gibbons" Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen client Hans, I was adding amplification to Patrick Wahl's point about industry analyst's advice being unreliable. I was not blamimg de-regulation for the Enron debacle. Aloha, Mike Gibbons Proactive Technologies, LLC http://www.proactech.com - -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Spencer48@aol.com Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 5:33 PM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen client Mike: I'm not certain what you're saying here. Is the conclusion suppose to be that deregulation and increased competition led to the Enron debacle? But, if so, and if dereg began in the 70's, why did it take 30 years for a financial catastrophe like this one to occur? And if it didn't take 30 years-what was the first one? And does the go-go era of the 90's (stock market wise) evince convincing contrary evidence that dereg and increased competition in commisssions is a bad thing? Moreover, I'd hazard that a lot of people including corporate accounts and investment bank officers lost money in Enron. That's why it plummeted the way it did-because everyone was selling, and no one (except perhaps Anderson auditors, and certain officials in Enron) had any idea-since the losses were off the books-why. jans In a message dated 1/28/2002 9:36:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, mikegibbons@proactech.com writes: << Yes, commissions were deregulated in the 70's and competition and the internet have driven them ever lower making the investment banks dependant on thier corporate instead of retail clients. An example of the unintended consequences of deregulation. Every silver lining has a cloud. >> - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:18:33 -0600 From: "Katherine Malm" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen client This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_00B6_01C1A849.B8E9E5E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mike, jans, Patrick, Thanks for an enjoyable exchange. If it can be this complicated just = *talking* about dereg, analysts, accounts, consultants, ENE, and = Anderson--then imagine how easy it is to muddy the financial and = political waters just enough so that *nobody* can figure out what's = really going on. I am reminded of the great Houdini. Marvelous = illusionist, very entertaining, lived a good life---until someone sucker = punched him when he wasn't paying attention. Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Mike Gibbons=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 10:15 PM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen client Hans, I was adding amplification to Patrick Wahl's point about = industry analyst's advice being unreliable. I was not blamimg de-regulation for = the Enron debacle. Aloha, Mike Gibbons Proactive Technologies, LLC http://www.proactech.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of = Spencer48@aol.com Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 5:33 PM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen client Mike: I'm not certain what you're saying here. Is the conclusion = suppose to be that deregulation and increased competition led to the Enron = debacle? But, if so, and if dereg began in the 70's, why did it take 30 years = for a financial catastrophe like this one to occur? And if it didn't take = 30 years-what was the first one? And does the go-go era of the 90's (stock market wise) evince convincing contrary evidence that dereg and increased competition in commisssions = is a bad thing? Moreover, I'd hazard that a lot of people including corporate = accounts and investment bank officers lost money in Enron. That's why it = plummeted the way it did-because everyone was selling, and no one (except = perhaps Anderson auditors, and certain officials in Enron) had any idea-since = the losses were off the books-why. jans In a message dated 1/28/2002 9:36:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, mikegibbons@proactech.com writes: << Yes, commissions were deregulated in the 70's and competition and = the internet have driven them ever lower making the investment banks = dependant on thier corporate instead of retail clients. An example of the = unintended consequences of deregulation. Every silver lining has a cloud. >> - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - ------=_NextPart_000_00B6_01C1A849.B8E9E5E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mike, jans, Patrick,
 
Thanks for an enjoyable exchange. If it can be this complicated = just=20 *talking* about dereg, analysts, accounts, consultants, ENE, and = Anderson--then=20 imagine how easy it is to muddy the financial and political waters just = enough=20 so that *nobody* can figure out what's really going on. I am reminded of = the=20 great Houdini. Marvelous illusionist, very entertaining, lived a good=20 life---until someone sucker punched him when he wasn't paying = attention.
 
Katherine
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Mike Gibbons
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 = 10:15=20 PM
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Another = Andersen=20 client

Hans, I was adding amplification to Patrick Wahl's = point about=20 industry
analyst's advice being unreliable. I was not blamimg = de-regulation=20 for the
Enron debacle.

Aloha,

Mike = Gibbons
Proactive=20 Technologies, LLC
http://www.proactech.com

-----Original=20 Message-----
From: owner-canslim@lists.xmis= sion.com
[mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On=20 Behalf Of Spencer48@aol.com
Sent:=20 Monday, January 28, 2002 5:33 PM
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=
Subject:=20 Re: [CANSLIM] Another Andersen=20 client


Mike:

     I'm not = certain what=20 you're saying here.  Is the conclusion suppose to
be that = deregulation=20 and increased competition led to the Enron debacle?
But, if so, and = if  dereg began in the 70's, why did it take 30 years for = a
financial=20 catastrophe like this one to occur?  And if it didn't take=20 30
years-what was the first one?

     = And does=20 the go-go era of the 90's (stock market wise) = evince
convincing
contrary=20 evidence that dereg and increased competition in commisssions is = a
bad=20 thing?

     Moreover, I'd hazard that a lot = of=20 people including corporate accounts
and investment bank officers = lost money=20 in Enron.  That's why it plummeted
the way it did-because = everyone was=20 selling, and no one (except perhaps
Anderson auditors, and certain=20 officials in Enron) had any idea-since the
losses were off the=20 books-why.

jans




In a message dated 1/28/2002 = 9:36:18=20 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mikegibbons@proactech.com=20 writes:

<< Yes, commissions were deregulated in the 70's = and=20 competition and the
 internet have driven them ever lower = making the=20 investment banks dependant
 on thier corporate instead of = retail=20 clients. An example of the unintended
 consequences of = deregulation.=20 Every silver lining has a cloud.
  >>

-
-To=20 subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com"
-In= the=20 email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
-"unsubscribe = canslim".  Do=20 not use quotes in your email.


-
-To = subscribe/unsubscribe, email=20 "majordomo@xmission.com"
-In= =20 the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
-"unsubscribe = canslim". =20 Do not use quotes in your email. - ------=_NextPart_000_00B6_01C1A849.B8E9E5E0-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ End of canslim-digest V2 #2089 ****************************** To unsubscribe to canslim-digest, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe canslim-digest" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.