There was quite a debate on Fox’s Bulls & Bears show Saturday. The gathered sunshine squad/’shroomers on the show had a huge debate as to whether the Dow was going to a gazillion or merely to a katrillion. They ultimately split the difference, agreeing we would hit a bazillion. (Hey, I guess that’s just the Cost of Freedom).
I sent a note to the producers, noting that if they could not find anyone who does not believe the market is going to launch into a new Bull run, that I could forward you a list of well regarded strategists, economists and fund managers who aren’t quite so sanguine.
I also respectfully suggested they change the name of the show to BULLS & BULLS.
On a positive note, I did appreciate the new humor section they added to the beginning of the show — it was a satire that explained how fabulously well the war in Iraq was going. My favorite part was when Tobin Smith explained that if Saddam was still in power, with Oil at $60, he would be accumulating $300 Billion of year. That buys a lot of WMD!
This new move towards satire at the beginning of the show on the war was simply hysterical! I thought they were going after CNBC, but it appears their true target is The Daily Show. Brilliant, brilliant parody.
UPDATE: March 20, 2006 6:24am
A reader informs me that the first section of the show was not parody, but actually reflected the views of the assembled strategists . . . Astonishing! I never would have beleived that any show claiming the war is going fantastic, the economy is terrific, and that the markets are poised to launch into a new Bull run was anything but satire.
My bad . . .
The WSJ streak of taking very interesting columns and hiding them on Saturday continues.
Yesterday, they asked: Are some CEOs reaping millions by landing stock options when they are most valuable amatter of dumb luck — or something else?
"On a summer day in 2002, shares of
Affiliated Computer Services Inc. sank to their lowest level in a year.
Oddly, that was good news for Chief Executive Jeffrey Rich.
annual grant of stock options was dated that day, entitling him to buy
stock at that price for years. Had they been dated a week later, when
the stock was 27% higher, they’d have been far less rewarding. It was
the same through much of Mr. Rich’s tenure: In a striking pattern, all
six of his stock-option grants from 1995 to 2002 were dated just before
a rise in the stock price, often at the bottom of a steep drop.
lucky? A Wall Street Journal analysis suggests the odds of this
happening by chance are extraordinarily remote — around one in 300
billion. The odds of winning the multistate Powerball lottery with a $1
ticket are one in 146 million.
Suspecting such patterns aren’t
due to chance, the Securities and Exchange Commission is examining
whether some option grants carry favorable grant dates for a different
reason: They were backdated. The SEC is understood to be looking at
about a dozen companies’ option grants with this in mind.
Journal’s analysis of grant dates and stock movements suggests the
problem may be broader. It identified several companies with wildly
improbable option-grant patterns. While this doesn’t prove chicanery,
it shows something very odd: Year after year, some companies’ top
executives received options on unusually propitious dates.
analysis bolsters recent academic work suggesting that backdating was
widespread, particularly from the start of the tech-stock boom in the
1990s through the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate reform act of 2002. If so,
it was another way some executives enriched themselves during the boom
at shareholders’ expense. And because options grants are long-lived,
some executives holding backdated grants from the late 1990s could
still profit from them today."
The chart below implies that the odds against these being random are quite high. (I guess Sarbanes Oxley didn’t root out all the corporate corruption after all).
Last week it was the mortgage resets, and this week its CEO Options. Great stories, buried on the front page — of the Saturday edition . . .
The Perfect Payday
CHARLES FORELLE and JAMES BANDLER
WSJ, March 18, 2006; Page A1
How the Journal Analyzed Stock-Option Grants
WSJ, March 18, 2006; Page A5