SUMMARY - "PIG":
The Contrarian's View is published 11 times per year on a mostly-irregular schedule, and the views expressed are those of the author and editor, Nick Chase. Because nobody can predict the future, results of past suggestions or recommendations are no guarantee of future results. Material in this publication may be freely quoted provided proper attribution is given to its source. Subscription rate: Free on the Internet through the World-Wide Web service at Assumption College. Using your favorite Web-browsing program, Open URL http://nick.assumption.edu. Mailed paper subscriptions, one year for $39 to The Contrarian's View, 132 Moreland Street, Worcester, Massachusetts 01609. There is a limit of 50 paid subscribers at one time; please check for availability before sending any money. Sorry, Visa and Mastercard are not available. Overseas subscription rate, U.S. $54. Unsolicited material sent to us by UPS or by courier other than the postal service is refused and returned to sender! Phone: (508) 757-2881
Then there was the freelance feature writer who wanted to feature me in a magazine article, to the point where he was going to fly to Worcester and stay with us while he wrote the story. As time went on, his storyline shifted to a more conventional operation, and I was left out of the picture.
Then there was the time our local daily birdcage-liner featured Fred Orkiseski, a trumpet player for the now-defunct Worcester Orchestra, claiming that he had founded the Worcester Orchestra in 1968. As nearly every Worcesterite knows, and as our local paper should have known, and would have known if it had checked its own files, Harry Levenson founded the Worcester Orchestra in 1945 (under the name Little Symphony), as well as the Central Massachusetts Symphony Orchestra in 1976 after being shafted out of his Worcester Orchestra position. I sent a letter to the paper... which claims it prints every letter it gets.... pointing out the obvious lie. Nothing appeared. My wife started badgering the underlings at the paper, and got the runaround. Finally, they told her it would be printed after "an appropriate response" had been written. What kind of response could possibly be needed other than "we goofed"?
Anyway, eventually the letter appeared with an editorial note below it that the Worcester Orchestra was reorganized in 1968 as a "professional" orchestra, in an effort to make it look like I don't know what I'm talking about. Another lie; all that happened in 1968 was a change in contract terms with the musicians' union.
And the press wonders why people distrust them? Why shouldn't we, when they pretend to pass down the perceived wisdom from on high, write their own rules for presenting it, and refuse to admit to their errors? The Internet is a blessing when it allows us to take these blowhards down a peg or two and make them accountable for their disguised biases.
At any rate, when I'm approached by the press, or even when I see something in the press that I know to be wrong, I generally run in the other direction. It's nearly impossible to fight these people on their own turf, because they control what they will present. No way are you guaranteed a chance to accurately and fairly present your position.
That was my position.... no more screwing around with the press.... when the Worcester Phoenix, a local weekly throwaway paper, featured in its January 9, 1998 issue an article by Kristen Lombardi which gave the illusion of being an investigative exposé of WCUW, the noncommercial community radio station (similar to public radio) where I air a Monday-night classical music program. Funny thing, though; the article didn't even come close to describing the WCUW I know, and I've been volunteering there continuously since May 1980.
Instead, it focused on the views of a few dissidents primarily allied with Mark Edmonds, a volunteer Friday and Saturday blues programmer who was suspended for dissing WCUW's station manager, Joe Cutroni, on the air and for various violations of FCC regulations. The blowup began when Cutroni advised Edmonds that he was shifting the time of the Friday show to make the weekday schedule uniform, and Edmonds launched an on-air effort to "save the show" when in fact the existence of the blues programs was never threatened. This important fact was never reported in Lombardi's article; the blues shows continue today, minus Edmonds.
Lombardi's article highlights the beginnings of WCUW in the 1970s, when a free-wheeling spirit prevailed (at taxpayer expense, primarily using CETA money); then there is a strange void for most of the 1980s and early 1990s, completely skipping over the major 1986 capital campaign when WCUW raised money to buy the building housing its studios, and over the 1991-93 period, when a dishonestly-elected and mostly corrupt or inept new board of directors dismissed the then-station manager and took over the day-to-day operations of WCUW itself, nearly driving the place to ruin.
Fast-forward to the present in Lombardi's article, which badmouths the current board and management, who rescued WCUW from oblivion in 1993, for not doing enough (according to the critics quoted). She lionizes volunteer Troy Tyree as someone whom "many" volunteers see as a leader. But beyond the obvious biases in the article, most painful is that she simply got some things wrong; important facts are omitted, or stated in a way that imply sinister actions by management when there's really nothing sinister at all, or reality is scrambled into non-recognition.
It was the distortion of the facts that most got to my wife (also a volunteer at WCUW since 1980), so she called Kristen Lombardi to set the record straight. The "reporter" refused to talk to her! So my wife wrote a lengthy letter to the publisher, correcting some of the mistakes in the article and asking that the corrections be printed. The Phoenix (which normally doesn't print letters to the editor) agreed to print them as a signed letter to the editor.
And this is where I, who had been carefully avoiding getting sucked in, got sucked in. My wife didn't want to send a letter to the Worcester Phoenix with her signature because of a conflict of interest - she also works part-time in commercial radio. She wanted me to sign it.
Well, I told her, if you want me to sign it, I wouldn't send the letter you wrote. You're playing by their rules - just trying to correct their mistakes without pointing out the illegitimacy of the article in the first place. If I write a letter, I'll let them have it between the eyeballs, and show them just how they were deliberately biased and botched the job.
So, I did something I haven't done in years - pulled an all-nighter - composing at the computer until 6:30 AM to meet a Friday afternoon deadline. I even gave the Phoenix my letter on diskette in addition to a printed copy, so they wouldn't have to rekey it.
On Monday, I heard from the editor: My letter was "too long" - it wouldn't fit in the allotted space. Funny, nothing was mentioned about length when the Phoenix agreed to print our response - here I was, playing by their rules again. You had no problem finding enough space to print the original article full of misinformation, I commented to the editor. Well, that's different, she told me. (Sure it is, I thought to myself; getting it right means work.)
Well, I told her, I don't alter my opinions to tailor them to artificial constraints set by others. My letter hangs together as a whole piece - if you can't print it in its entirety, don't bother printing it at all. Fine, she said, but it would be retained if I changed my mind.
I phoned my wife and told her what had transpired. She said she really wanted the factual corrections printed, and my letter would fit if I cut out "the emotional part", as she put it. So we worked together, cutting the letter about in half; I made the edits on the computer and e-mailed them to the Phoenix.
My wife next heard from the editor; seemed that some of my comments about Mark Edmonds would have to be toned down because the publisher was fearful they would expose the Worcester Phoenix to a lawsuit, so my wife and the editor had reworked the text over the phone. Sued?, I said. By whom? Certainly nobody in WCUW's management would sue for printing these corrections. As the writer of the letter, I certainly wouldn't sue. The only possible person who would have any incentive to sue the Worcester Phoenix would be its own part-time employee.... Mark Edmonds!
In other words, the Phoenix management knew up front what Mark Edmonds is like, and that he might file a temper-tantrum lawsuit if it printed anything critical of him. That means that its publishing its biased article on WCUW was not just irresponsible, it bordered on malevolence.
When my shrunken letter appeared in print in the Worcester Phoenix, even that last reference to Mark Edmonds' culpability had been removed. What chickenhearts.
The ultimate outcome of this whole episode did not surprise me at all, after my previous encounters with the press. But, I though to myself, I have the ultimate revenge, because I own my own press, thanks to the Internet (and my small subscriber base to the paper Contrarian's View). More people probably read The Contrarian's View on the Internet in a week than throw away the Worcester Phoenix in a month. I can "print" the entire letter myself, along with the true story of how it came not to be. So here it is, the letter the Worcester Phoenix refused to run in its entirety:
To: Worcester Phoenix
314 Washington Street
Auburn, MA 01501
Let me state my opinion clearly, right up front: Kristen Lombardi's January 9 feature story on WCUW, "Making Waves", was a hatchet job disguised as a piece of balanced reporting; and I intend to devote the rest of this letter demonstrating why.
In the 21st paragraph of the story, after most of the sentiments of the critics have been presented and the reader has been titillated with sensational "facts", we find this parenthetical note: (In interests of disclosure, it must be noted Edmonds writes for the Worcester Phoenix.) Ah, there's the truth of the matter for those of us familiar with WCUW: This is to be Mark Edmonds' view of how WCUW works. Certainly the picture of WCUW presented in the article doesn't jibe with the WCUW I know, and I have been there since 1980.
In fact, I was puzzled that Ms. Lombardi, in addition to contacting former staff members Harriet Baskas and Randy Wynne (both talented and knowledgeable people) for perspective on the old days, when both left in the early 1980s and have been out of the local picture for 15 years, did not also contact me, as I am one of the very few volunteers who has been at WCUW continuously from the time of the move off the Clark campus. But then, why would Mark Edmonds suggest to the gullible Ms. Lombardi that she interview me when he knew that I would give a view of WCUW that differs considerably from his?
I started at WCUW, along with my wife, doing a classical music program featuring locally-recorded classical music concerts. Over the years I have been on the board of directors, clerk (secretary) of the corporation, treasurer, grant writer, bookkeeper, editor of The Lobe, ad-hoc office manager and computer consultant. I have painted walls, built storerooms, framed and hung doors, done wiring, emptied trash, cleaned toilets, served on committees and helped rewrite the bylaws, twice. In 1986 I began publishing an investment newsletter, The Contrarian's View, and for its first five years the proceeds went to WCUW's financial support. Today I still co-host the classical music program ClassiCollage and am a Shirim program host, do remote broadcasts, and I also do the station's tax returns along with other small projects.Obviously, I know something about how WCUW works.
Why did Ms. Lombardi not tell her readers that the demise of American Roots Radio began when station manager Joe Cutroni told Mark Edmonds he was shifting the time of the Friday program to make the weekday schedule more uniform? That Edmonds badmouthed management on the air once, was warned, then did it again before being suspended? Excuse me, but I thought management had the right to make programming changes - or am I wrong, and volunteer programmers own their show slots as a matter of divine right?
Did Ms. Lombardi tell her readers that at the Board meeting where the police were present, this was done because Mark Edmonds had been, literally, threatening Board members? No. In fact, the threats were so severe that one board member's wife was afraid to leave the house. The family could very easily have pressed harassment charges against Edmonds but chose not to do so to try to let tempers cool.
WCUW does not throw people out without considerable cause and only after appeal to, and a hearing by the Board. Mark knows his music but, in view of his immature behavior, I believe his dismissal was long overdue. I spoke with Mark on the phone when he was drumming up support for his position, and I reminded him that there are two nonprofit radio stations in town - why didn't he just go volunteer at the other one? Well, he said, he'd prefer to remain at WCUW. Translation: Mark knew up front that WICN wouldn't put up with his BS.
If Ms. Lombardi believes that Edmonds' treatment was unfair, then I suggest that she write a long article exposing all of the dissatisfactions and dirty laundry of the staff of the Worcester Phoenix (if there is any) and see if she still has a job after it's published.
No, that won't work, it's unlikely the Worcester Phoenix would ever publish such an article about itself. So let me extend this invitation: My show on WCUW is normally classical music, but I'll make time for Ms. Lombardi, or any disaffected staff member of the Worcester Phoenix (except Mark Edmonds), should there be any, to come on the program and air his or her gripes. If that person still has a reprimand-free job at the Worcester Phoenix the week after the show airs, be sure to let me know.
Other parts of the article that appear to be factual distort the truth. For example, the classified advertisement for the station manager's position appeared because Joe Cutroni wished to renegotiate his contract. The Board misunderstood and thought he wished to resign. By the time the confusion was cleared up, the ad had already been printed, but in a sense the position was never really open because Joe clearly always had a majority of Board members who would "rehire" him.
Shortly after the ad posting, my wife received a call from Troy Tyree, who told her that he did not know what station was in the ad, though he presumed it was WCUW. He asked if she and I would write a letter supporting his candidacy. She said she would not do so until she had found out if it were really WCUW and that Joe Cutroni really had resigned. We later found out that Troy knew the true story but was not letting on to us. Now that's a good way to start out - dissemble to the staff!
Troy tends to take on projects for a few months, work very enthusiastically, and then drop them abruptly - not good managerial qualities. But, thanks to his hard work, we do have new carpet tiles in the air studio and hallways, and a newly-rearranged CD library with donated storage racks he obtained - so WCUW definitely benefits from his occasional bursts of energy.
In fact, Troy is typical of many of WCUW's volunteer programmers - energetic, creative, full of fresh ideas - but without the time or managerial skills needed to see them through to fruition. (This doesn't stop them from trying, though.) In other words, great on the air, a disaster in the back office. This is why a majority of the staff, in my opinion and contrary to the impression the article leaves, is content to stick to radio shifts and let the Board and station manager take care of the day-to-day operations.
I don't know Darcy Adshead, but I was amused by her quip, "There's a group of directors making all the decisions." Imagine that - directors making decisions! What is the world coming to? Why did Ms. Lombardi highlight Adshead and the quote to give the impression that something directors should be doing is improper?
Another inference is that "the gas company turned off the furnace, permanently" for nonpayment of bills. In fact, WCUW asked to have the gas turned off for safety reasons; there are dangerous leaks in the heating unit. It has been estimated that to replace the unit, which is too badly worn to fix, would cost more than $15,000. We chose to turn the gas off rather than to spend that kind of money. The air studio remains warm because the equipment heats it up; the small electric space heaters are to protect water pipes, not people.
The Airwave Lift mentioned in the article was a group of volunteers who did a few days worth of work and then did not follow through to finish, though credit must be given to Craig Van Batenburg who really tried, by organizing this effort, to make the facilities look a lot better than they have in years. The Board members mentioned who had Saturday programs had spent a considerable amount of time, without publicity, doing cleanup tasks on their own and had spent considerable behind-the scenes time doing a great deal of paperwork, in one case the equivalent of a 40-hour week, for many weeks. He and the other Board members thanked those who came and mentioned the cleaning efforts several times. The description in the article was not accurate.
In the criticism that WCUW did "only" one concert series in 1997, Ms. Lombardi neglected to point out (did not know?) that the series was a substantial one, presenting summerlong concerts in Worcester's parks at a time when not much else was going on culturally. In addition, no mention was made of WCUW's ongoing community-outreach efforts, such as the annual live broadcasts of the Kol Nidre services from Temple Emanuel (as a service for those Jews too ill or elderly to attend services) and the live broadcasts of the CMSO summer family concerts in East Park and Institute Park. In addition, the classical music volunteers regularly record and broadcast concerts by the Central Massachusetts Symphony Orchestra, Salisbury Singers, Master Singers of Worcester, Worcester Chorus, Worcester Symphony Orchestra, Composers in Red Sneakers, and many others both in and out of the area.
WCUW does not do "business in darkness". Board meetings are open to staff and members (except for certain personnel matters confined to executive session). In fact, a few years ago a disgruntled staffer invited a reporter to one of the Board meetings in support of his cause, and the reporter was welcome to stay. After the Board dealt with the matter fairly and the reporter saw the staffer's position was off the wall, he left and no story ever appeared. Perhaps if Ms. Lombardi had bothered to attend a meeting and see the Board in action, instead of relying on secondhand information, she would have gotten a better feel for the "players" and the difficulty of managing a small business operation with 100 DJ egos, and she would never have written her epistle of half-truths.
The Annual Meeting will not be held until the spring because, at the last one, the fiscal year was changed and the date for the meeting must conform to the new fiscal year for the presentation of annual reports.
I cannot recall any year when WCUW had five on-air fund drives. One year there was a special fund drive for roof repairs, and in another a deficit-closing drive. Normally there are two per year, spring and fall. By the way, I have heard up to 4 drives per year on WGBH and WFCR.
The implication that WCUW is saddled with debt (still declining and now under $100K) does not mention that we own our own building, that rental income covers debt service, that WCUW's net worth is in excess of $130,000 and has been steady or climbing for five years, and that the "market value" of WCUW is likely considerably greater than the net worth shown on the books. Some years WCUW runs in the red, others in the black; I'm sure this trend will continue, as no organization other than national governments can spend more than it makes for any length of time and remain in business.
Ms. Lombardi cites the experience of WOMR in Provincetown, which embarked on a campaign to increase its power from 1000 to 6000 watts, implying that WCUW should make a similar bold move. Sadly, that option is not open to WCUW; our signal is stuck at 630 watts because two college stations, in Framingham and Fitchburg, have the same frequency and must be protected. The airwaves are full; there is no other frequency we could shift to in order to increase power.
She also mentions the "focus" of WMNF in Tampa without mentioning that WMNF has a 100,000-watt signal that covers most of western central Florida and several major metropolitan areas. In New England, this would be signal coverage equivalent to that of WBZ-FM, WSRS or WAAF. We should be so lucky.
Finally, by omission she misses the heart and soul of WCUW's existence: It is a democratic organization. WCUW's listener-members elect the Directors, who in turn elect officers, structure committees and hire the employee. As a practical matter, most listeners don't care who gets elected as long as they like what's on the air, so it is mostly the programmer/volunteers who vote, as they have since the earliest days.
If the majority of programmers were truly unhappy with the management of WCUW they would rise up and vote in a new slate of directors, as they did in 1993 when they threw out a corrupt Board that nearly drove WCUW to ruin. If the critics quoted in the article were really serious, they would run for the Board, gain a majority and make the changes they want.
But no, it's much easier to criticize in the press than actually commit to taking on management responsibility and suffer the barbs of criticism themselves. Has Ms. Lombardi figured out yet that she has been used by a few dissidents who would rather pursue their own agenda in trial by press, rather than really work for change?
Perhaps so, because when my wife attempted to make an appointment with Kristen Lombardi to correct some of the errors I've mentioned, she refused to see her. How outrageous! Write a biased article, then refuse to accept responsibility for it. It was only after my wife contacted the publisher that the Worcester Phoenix agreed to speak with her.
What is the reality of WCUW? The truth is, it's a tough situation to grow out of. A station survives primarily on its listener base, which is determined by its signal strength, which in WCUW's case cannot be increased. The audience size determines the rates that are set for underwriting. The operation is too small to be subsidized by the federal government, which is itself trying to cut back its support to only the largest public radio stations. The competition for listeners is fierce; another local nonprofit station, and a dozen others east and west of us, cover a substantial part, if not all, of our signal area. Cable TV broadcasting has made inroads. "Microbroadcasters" - properly known as pirate radio stations - pop up and are shut down. Government grants are fickle, hard to come by and generate tons of time-consuming paperwork when you get them. A democratically-elected board means WCUW will never have as directors self-perpetuating "community leaders" with ties to big businesses or foundations to suck in giant amounts of money.
For almost eighteen years I have watched people try to crack this tough management nut (and tried myself). Sometimes we have had good Boards and good station managers, other times not-so-good Boards and no station managers, and WCUW's fortunes have waxed and waned. Sometimes some of life's problems have no really good solutions, and WCUW may be one of these. But since the near-brush with death in 1993, I have seen WCUW stabilize, remain stable, and slowly but surely improve, and I have hope that this will lead to increased community recognition and acceptance and real growth in our services to the community, even if we can't increase the signal.
I do know, however, that I don't want to see misfortune again visited on WCUW by people who irresponsibly abuse the press to their own ends rather than taking the first, elemental steps to assuming responsibility. Kristen Lombardi's article would have been much better if she had clearly expressed her own point of view of the situation; if she had explained why she decided to write the story; if she had not put most of the sensational, critical stuff at the beginning of the story and buried the more balanced views toward the end; if she had not used factoids which are really only part of the truth; if she had observed and investigated, rather than just assembled others' quotes into a pastiche. The article, as it stands, is fundamentally dishonest - junk journalism - worthy of tabloid exposure, but in no sense investigative reporting. My suggestion to the Worcester Phoenix is, if you publish something like this again, have it done right.
Sincerely,
Nick Chase
WCUW volunteer/programmer
If Clinton were the Titanic, the iceberg would have sunk. - Paul Green
Only Bill Clinton could divert attention from one sex scandal with another sex scandal. - Jay Leno
The silence you hear is America passing through the eye of a hurricane; it is a bizarre distortion of reality. Do not adjust your instincts: they are correct. In Bill Clinton's America, the evening news has become pornography, prefaced by warnings that it is unsuitable for children. The intricacies of oral sex are the hot topic of conversation around the kitchen table and in the media. He stands in stark contradistinction to Abraham Lincoln who unified the nation; he has reduced, repulsed and divided it. - Steve Myers
Lawyers familiar with the prosecutorial process have told the nation that Starr is merely doing what prosecutors do. Nobody hears, because conspirators headquartered in the White House are yelling so loudly about Clinton's innocence. These characters knew the truth about Gennifer Flowers in 1992 and helped Clinton lie to the nation. He is lying again, and they are lying for him again. - John Robert Starr (no relation to Kenneth)
When we have a leader who lies, what does it say about us? When we don't care, what does that say about our ability to choose a leader? - Ann Martin
If the American people are right now handing approval to a president who has brought us as low as this president has, then they do not pass a judgment on the president, they pass a judgment on themselves. - Alan Keyes
I'm feeling a bit ill over the seemingly widely-held opinion that there really isn't anything wrong here anyway. It's apparently OK to have an affair, to pursue a woman slightly older than one's daughter and to have "activities" in the White House, according to some segments of our population. Really? If this is our majority-held opinion of what marriage is about in this country, what our president may be up to is the least of our problems. - Seth Isenberg
Is there anyone in this Godforsaken administration who ever tells the truth? I've spent 30 years watching politicians lie, cheat and steal, but never on such a wide scale as the pond scum that Bill Clinton brought to town and installed in the halls of government. These people are, without a doubt, the most dishonest, corrupt, immoral and unrepentant collection of crooks to ever walk the halls of power in Washington. And that's saying a lot in a city where corruption is standard operating procedure and truth is the first casualty. What's disgusting... is not only the callous, indifferent way that Clinton and his gang of criminals go about their lying ways, but also the way the dumbass public acknowledges these lowlifes and then gives them approval for their actions. To all the brain-damaged slugs out there who keep telling the pollsters that they think Bill Clinton is doing such a great job, consider this: You got what you deserve in the White House. - Doug Thompson
People react to dealing with the Clinton matter the same way they would to cleaning up cow patties with their bare hands. Rather not, thank you. But, unlike the manure, which will become fertilizer given time, Clinton's messes will belong to history. No, Mr. and Mrs. America, as much as you do not wish to do so, you are going to have to deal with Mr. Clinton's scandalous behavior. His was not an "affair." It was shoddy, seamy sex, an abuse of personal power in the most important room -- the Oval Office -- in America's White House. Tolerating such behavior is a disgrace to the memories of our many great Presidents. I know it's hard, but, for the sake of the Presidency in your grandchildren's time, kick the bum out. - Lila Hoffman-Thome
Kathleen Willey.... was working as a volunteer at the White House when she was ushered into the Oval Office to meet with Bill Clinton on Nov. 29, 1993. Willey was seeking a job because her husband had been caught embezzling a ton of money and her home life was falling apart. Her husband's generous contributions to the Democratic Party (with, it turned out, other people's money) got her a personal audience with the President. Clinton....was first sympathetic. He put his arms around here to, she thought, console a woman who was upset. But the consolation took a sharp turn when Clinton kissed her, started fondling her breasts through her blouse and grabbed her hand and shoved it into his crotch."I've always wanted to do that," Clinton told her....What makes this story even more disgusting is that Willey's husband, depressed over getting caught with his hand in the till, had killed himself earlier that day. Willey didn't know that when she entered the Oval Office, but Clinton had learned about it from aides before his meeting with her. So instead of actually comforting a woman who did not even know she was a widow, he put the moves on her.... A CEO of any company would find his butt on the street if he grabbed a subordinate, fondled her breasts and put her hand on his crotch. But Bill Clinton remains in the White House, smug and content in the knowledge that the American public is just too damn dumb to demand that he be tossed out in disgrace. - Doug Thompson [Nick's note: The news accounts I've seen say that Ed Willey's body was found on November 30, the day after Kathleen Willey's meeting with Clinton.]
Only conservatives, it appears, can be sexual harassers. As for liberals, like Ted Kennedy and Clinton, they can have their way with women -- any way they want. They can screw them, abandon them, ruin them, even leave them to drown, and feminists will look the other way. In fact, they will fight to keep them in power. It will be interesting to see whether any of them perceive that their own champion, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is in fact a classic abused spouse. And with that perception will come what -- more lies to protect the guilty, so long as he is a "liberal"? - David Horowitz
God knows we need something to speed up home access to the World Wide Web. It's as slow as a White House lawyer producing incriminating documents. - Walter S. Mossberg
Of course, if Wall Street learned about the sexual escapades of someone with real
power, the markets might react negatively. But as far as we know, Alan Greenspan has
been behaving himself. - Robert Sobel
So imagine my surprise when I found that, this year, he was about as optimistic as anyone could be, and certainly more optimistic than I ever expected to see him. He had spent so many years being pessimistic, he said, and where had it gotten him? Only being continually wrong. So he had "reformed", and become an optimist.... here he was, riding the bull market with trades his broker recommended, and having a great time.
Is Fred the ultimate contrary indicator? Perhaps, but sometimes all is not what it seems to be. In fact, Fred made his fortune long ago, and he plays the stock market with "pin" money. I presume he has decided that even if the apocalypse does come, he is pretty well insured against it, so he might just as well live the rest of his life enjoying himself for as long as the good times last. (As Harry Levenson used to say, "At my age, I don't buy green bananas".)
Now, I'll tell you what the ultimate contrary indicator would be: If I turned bullish. Not a chance.... I still feel we're headed for a market meltdown, and I feel it will be a truly spectacular, history-making event, catching nearly everybody by surprise and demolishing the hopes of a generation of investors. I am wary of what will follow when I review the history of the 1920s and 30s and read that it was inconceivable at the turn of the decade that a great deflation and depression lay directly ahead. It was a change in psychology of the public that led to an asset meltdown and depression in the 1930s, and really, in the late 1920s the only hint that it would happen was the extreme overvaluation of, and the public's infatuation with financial assets. Today we have an even more extreme overvaluation and manic pursuit of things financial. Anybody care to place a bet that the downside, when it does finally arrive, will be equally or even more devastating?
Even so, I must confess that even though the risk of a meltdown is extremely high (like, 100%), I do not see it happening in the next few months as a result of economic events. The Federal Reserve remains mildly accommodative and, as long as the money supply keeps increasing and the U.S. is perceived as a "safe haven" for capital fleeing the Asian mess, our stock-market bubble is likely to keep slowly expanding, with concentration in the big-cap stocks favored by institutions. For the past few months I've felt that the bear market began last October; that's true, it seems, only on an unweighted basis (more stocks neutral or going down than going up), while the market as a whole continues to suck up even more money, mostly into the aforementioned big-cap stuff.
It's possible this bubble could continue to slowly grow until mid-1999, when the impact of Y2K should begin to be felt. Or, a pin could appear at any time to shift the public mood from optimism to pessimism and trigger the meltdown. The most likely pin (the usual suspect) is rising interest rates, which could come not just from conscious effort by the Federal Reserve, but from Asian countries finally needing to sell U.S. bonds to reliquefy their collapsing financial structures. Should China devalue, then Hong Kong's efforts to support its dollar fail.... both likely within the next year, I think.... the financial position of Japan will be so weakened, in my opinion, that it will be forced to sell U.S. debt to raise cash, thus triggering wholesale dumping of our bonds and sharply-rising interest rates. However, we remain highly vulnerable to a "political" pin - that is, Bill Clinton's troubles - which could unpredictably appear at any time. The nature of the pin is unimportant; what counts is the resultant shift in the public's mood.
So you can be like Fred, ride the wave and enjoy yourself while it lasts. Or, you can
be like me, hunker down and wait for the lower prices which will come someday, even
though that someday is nowhere in sight. I guess it boils down to whether you think
you're clever enough to bail out of stocks before the deluge. If you think you have
this skill, good luck, for history is not on your side.
Original cost: $ 8,090.45
Present value: $ 7,373.37
Increase: $- 717.08 [-8.86%]
The performance of this portfolio and its predecessors ("Hedger's Delight", "Present and Future Income", "Crapshooter's Folly") from January 1987 to the present is +3.34%, for a compound annual rate of return of +0.30%. COMMENT on "Phoenix": There is no change from the last issue.
B. "Professors' Investment Group (PIG)" - investment club portfolio.
SUMMARY - "PIG":
Original cost: $ 7,580.00
Present value: $ 7,504.02
Increase: $ - 75.98 [-1.00%]
COMMENT on "PIG": There is outstanding a GTC order to buy 25 Ciber Inc. (CBR), a Y2K
company, at 55. The PIGs' Web page is at
http://www.assumption.edu/HTML/Faculty/Kantar/WPigs.html
C. Fidelity IRA - real portfolio, includes commissions:
SUMMARY - IRA:
Original (1983-86) cost: $ 8,326.19
Present value: $13,299.52
Increase: $ 4,973.33 [59.73%]
The performance of this portfolio (including its predecessors) from January 1, 1987 to the present is +21.27%, for a compound annual rate of return of 1.75%.
D. CREF Pension plan; I switch between indexed stock/bond/money funds:
Date Sold Bought
13Mar92 stock @ 56.65 MM @ 13.41
29Apr92 MM @ 13.48 bond @ 31.19
19Jun92 bond @ 32.14 MM @ 13.55
29Jun92 MM @ 13.57 stock @ 56.74
24Jul92 stock @ 56.76 MM @ 13.61
29Oct92 MM @ 13.72 stock @ 58.61
23Dec92 stock @ 61.48 MM @ 13.78
16Jan95 MM @ 14.83 equity-index @ 26.44
20Jan95 eq-index @ 26.19 MM @ 14.84
30Oct97 MM@ 17.24 bond@47.56 (27.17%)
30Oct97 MM@ 17.24 i-i bond@26.12 (27.17%)
11Feb98 bond@ 48.84 MM@17.52 (27.17%)
11Feb98 I-I bond@ 26.23 MM@17.52(27.17%)
Values, 28Feb98: stock, 149.04; MM, 17.56; bond, 48.80; inflation-indexed bond, 26.23
Gain, 1988: 18.91%; 1989: 14.48%; 1990: 8.28%; 1991: 27.93%; 1992: 10.20%; 1993: 3.08%; 1994: 4.07%; 1995: 4.80%; 1996: 5.28%
Gain, January 1 through December 31, 1997: 5.38%
Total gain since January 1, 1988 (10 years): 159.20%
Compound annual rate of return: 10.00% (My long-term target: in excess of 15%)
Gain shown excludes the impact of additional monthly cash contributions.
Buying CREF stock on January 1, 1988 and holding it gained 341.21%, for a compound annual rate of return of 16.01%.
E. Current unfilled portfolio good-til-cancelled orders: None.
COMMENT on "Timer's Trend": Comment on "Timer's Trend": We're still on a BUY signal generated January 28.
______________________________ TIMER'S TREND _________________________________
Thu 20 Nov 97 . | . # }| 7826.61 |~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Fri 21 Nov 97 . | . # | 7881.07 |~.+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Mon 24 Nov 97 .# I . {| 7767.92 *~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tue 25 Nov 97 . I #. | 7808.95 | + *
Wed 26 Nov 97 . |# . }| 7794.78 | + *
Fri 28 Nov 97 . | .# | 7823.13 | + *
Mon 1 Dec 97 . | . # | 8013.11 |~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Tue 2 Dec 97 . | # | 8018.83 | .+ *
Wed 3 Dec 97 . | .# | 8032.01 | .+ *
Thu 4 Dec 97 . | # | 8050.16 | .+ *
Fri 5 Dec 97 . | . # | 8149.13 |~.~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Mon 8 Dec 97 . | .# | 8110.84 | .+ *
Tue 9 Dec 97 . |# . | 8049.66 |~.*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wed 10 Dec 97 . #| . | 7978.79 |~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thu 11 Dec 97 #. I . * {| 7848.99 |+.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fri 12 Dec 97 . #I . | 7838.80 |-. *
Mon 15 Dec 97 . I #. | 7922.59 |-. *
Tue 16 Dec 97 . I # ]| 7976.31 |-.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Wed 17 Dec 97 . | # }| 7957.41 + . *
Thu 18 Dec 97 . #I . {| 7846.50 |+.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fri 19 Dec 97 # I . | 7756.29* |+.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mon 22 Dec 97 . I # | 7819.31 |+. *
Tue 23 Dec 97 . I# . | 7691.77 *|+.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wed 24 Dec 97 . I# . | 7660.13 +~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fri 26 Dec 97 . I# . | 7679.31 + . *
Mon 29 Dec 97 . | . # }| 7792.41 |~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Tue 30 Dec 97 . | . # | 7915.97 |~.+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Wed 31 Dec 97 . | . # | 7908.25 | . + *
Fri 2 Jan 98 . | .# | 7965.04 |~.~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Mon 5 Jan 98 . | .# | 7978.99 | . + *
Tue 6 Jan 98 . # . | 7906.25 | . + *
Wed 7 Jan 98 . |# . | 7902.27 | .+ *
Thu 8 Jan 98 . #I . |*7802.62 |+.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fri 9 Jan*98 # . I . {| 7580.42 |-.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mon 12 Jan 98 .# I . | 7647.18 | - *
Tue 13 Jan 98 . I . # | 7732.13 |-.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Wed 14 Jan 98 . I . # ]| 7784.69 +~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Thu 15 Jan 98 . I# . [| 7691.77 +~.~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fri 16 Jan 98 . | . # }| 7753.55 | .+ *
Tue 20 Jan 98 . | . # | 7873.12 |~.~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Wed 21 Jan 98 . |# . | 7794.40 | .+ *
Thu 22 Jun 98 . # . | 7730.88 |~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fri 23 Jan 98 . & . {| 7700.74 |~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mon 26 Jan 98 . I# . | 7712.94 |+. *
Tue 27 Jan 98 . I # ]| 7815.08 |+. *
Wed 28 Jan 98 . | .# }| 7915.47 |+.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Thu 29 Jan 98 . | . # | 7973.02 |~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Fri 30 Jan 98 . | # | 7906.50 | .+ *
Mon 2 Feb 98 . | . # | 8107.78 |~.~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Tue 3 Feb 98 . | . # | 8160.35 |~.~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Wed 4 Feb 98 . | . # | 8129.71 | . + *
Thu 5 Feb 98 . | . # | 8117.25 | . + *
Fri 6 Feb 98 . | . # | 8189.49 | . + *
Mon 9 Feb 98 . | . # | 8180.52 | . + *
Tue 10 Feb 98 . | . # | 8295.61 |~.~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Wed 11 Feb 98 . | . # |*8134.55 |~.~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thu 12 Feb 98 . | . # | 8369.60 |~.~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Fri 13 Feb 98 . | .# | 8370.10 | . + *
Tue 17 Feb 98 . | . # | 8398.50 | . + *
Wed 18 Feb 98 . | . # | 8451.06 |~.~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Thu 19 Feb 98 . | .# | 8375.58 | . + *
Fri 20 Feb 98 . | . # | 8413.94 | . + *
Mon 23 Feb 98 . | . # | 8410.20 | . + *
Tue 24 Feb 98 . | #. | 8370.10 | . + *
Wed 25 Feb 98 . | . # | 8457.78 | . + *
Thu 26 Feb 98 . | . # | 8490.67 | . + *
Fri 27 Feb 98 . | . # | 8545.72 |~.~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
========================================================================
{, } = "Timer's Trend" (4% and 10% exponential) SELL ({) or BUY (}) signal
NEXT ISSUE - will appear about March 28.
/Nick Chase