What’s Six Times Seven? Can You Spell "Complementary?" February 16, 2011March 21, 2017 DEFUND KENTUCKY Kentucky is home to Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, who are horrified by federal spending. Yet Kentucky also takes $1.51 from Washington for every $1 it sends in taxes. So Paul Begala proposes that we give them what they want: a sharp cut in federal spending. Specifically, take them off the Federal dole. Cut them back at least to par, where they get no more from Washington than they contribute. It’s time, Paul says, for New York and California to stop subsidizing Kentucky. ASKING TO SPEAK TO THE WRONG PERSON Jean MacMillan: “Your story about the call from the funeral home hit a familiar note. A good friend’s father died some years ago—he had run a successful family business. The IRS auditors descended in droves on the business after his death, of course. After going through the records for days, they showed up in my friend’s office to say, ‘Everything seems in order, but we have a few questions for Mr. D—-’ (her father). To which she replied, ‘If you reach him, I have a few questions of my own.’ ” Actually, Charles is still very much here. Only now I generally get my way. (Though not always.) CHARLES’S RELATIONSHIP TO MONEY Charles and I were quite different. I spell reasonably well; he thought there was only one R in SURPRISE and asked how to spell FLORIDA. He could sketch anything; my repertoire begins and ends with a smiley face. I live for punctuation; he had no clue in that regard – and yet read five times as fast as I do, and voraciously (the complete works of Trollope, for example), and with greater insight. (At movies, he’d always figure out what was going to happen, while I would just be surprised along with the rest of the audience.) I’m good with numbers; he was not. When he first mentioned this, 16 years ago – “I’m not good at math,” he said – I said, “Well, I’m not talking about math, I’m talking about arithmetic. What’s six times seven?” To which I assumed he would respond, “forty-two,” making my point. Instead, he hit me. Only in the arm, but hard. I had never previously met a seriously bright, successful person who could not multiply six times seven. He cooked magnificently; I Cook Like a Guy™. Clothing? I only learned last week, from one of our friends, that it was when Charles noticed my pants were two inches too short – and that he didn’t care –that he knew he loved me. Flowers? . . . Sun glasses? . . . The list goes on. And then there was our relationship to money. Come back tomorrow.
CBRX February 15, 2011March 21, 2017 IN PASSING . . . A representative from the funeral home called today. “Mr. Nolan?” she asked. “No; Mr. Tobias,” I said, explaining who I was, conveying the sad news to her (which, of course, being from the funeral home, she already knew; but I didn’t know who was calling). “Oh, of course. Sorry. Mr. Tobias.” Turned out, she was calling to see whether we were satisfied. Very nice. But I do think one thing they might add to their checklist is not, when calling, to ask for the deceased. CBRX Although up 12% since Friday’s suggestion, it may not be too late to take a flier on this one – albeit only with money you can truly afford to lose. Guru writes: “So last week a different firm, K-V Pharmaceutical, got approval for an injected form of progesterone for pre-term birth. Specifically for women who have already had one pre-term child and who are, thus, at risk for a second one. They estimate this population at 140,000. They are launching the drug March 15 and will be charging $1,500 per injection, estimating 15-20 injections (per the conference call that just ended) for an estimated list price of $22,500 to $30,000. Of course, there will be mandatory Medicaid discounts, but they believe the price is justified by the estimated cost of a preterm delivery ($51,000). Their data do NOT show a benefit to the infant in terms of reduced morbidity or mortality.” What has this to do with CBRX? Guru continues: “Our CBRX assumptions assume approval for women with ‘short cervix,’ a population that ranges from 430,000 to 1.2 million in number; and a course of therapy of $2000. (Yes, less than a tenth what K-V is charging and a 50% increase to the current price of the CBRX version of progesterone now on the market.) Once approved, WPI – CBRX’s marketing partner – will withdraw the CBRX version of progestersone (given topically, no shots, not painful, given right to the cervix, so less chance of systemic complications) and reintroduce it for this ‘short cervix’ indication. The chart I sent you shows the numbers at $2000/course of therapy. The analysis shows how the product is easily justified at $5000/course of therapy – so you can more than double the numbers there. Not sure where the actual price will be, but you can do the math and make your own guess on where CBRX could be with higher pricing. Way up from here. Oh, and CBRX/WPI have data showing statistically significant benefit to infant morbidity (a huge source of the cost).” Remember: The odds may be good for this bet, but there is no guarantee it will work out. KEEPING SCORE Have you ever wondered how these various suggestions over the years actually do? I have. So I’ve hired someone to read the past 3,699 columns and pull out all the suggested buys and sells and try to make sense of what would have happened if you had, for example, put $1,000 into each. It’s not such an easy thing to do, for at least two reasons. (One is mechanical: what if he misses dividends or stock splits or something else for which the stock price should have been adjusted? One is more subjective: how do you weight a strong suggestion versus a weak one? How should you count repeated suggestions – add $1,000 for each one? Just stick with the first $1,000?) And there is a third reason: he likes me (I think), and I am paying him. Consciously or, more likely, subconsciously, on close calls he may give me the benefit of the doubt. So even when he completes the task, we won’t really know anything exactly. But we may at least have a sense of what ballpark we’re in. Not that it will make any difference to the actual results you may have achieved, buying FMD and Google puts. (Google puts? you suggested Google puts?*) *Yes, when the stock was $144. But only to Republicans.
Quiet Subtle Ways February 14, 2011March 21, 2017 EGYPT Carries risk – but how wonderful to see freedom come to 85 million people. A potentially bright development for the world. WASHINGTON The conservatives were in D.C. this past weekend. Andrew Sullivan links to a short video that gives some of the flavor. Wrong-headed but congenial. REPEALING REPEAL If elected President, former Republican Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty says he would attempt to repeal the repeal of DADT – and somehow recoup the funds spent implementing repeal. BARBARA BUSH ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY These 30-second videos are pretty neat. (Barbara’s mom Laura – and her political cousins, Cindy and Meghan McCain, Dick and Lynne Cheney – agree: people should be allowed to marry the partner they love.) And speaking of partners (happy Valentine’s Day, by the way) . . . FIRE ISLAND Fashion blogger Bradford Shellhammer remembers mine: Several summers back on a Saturday afternoon I sat around the pool of my Fire Island share house. It was a typical lazy Saturday on the island, nothing to do and no one to see. One of my housemates, then a rather new friend . . . told me we’d be visiting the home of Andrew Tobias . . . and his partner Charles Nolan. While most assumed it was Andy I’d know, the opposite was in fact true. I did not know who Tobias was, but Charles Nolan I did. I was a fashion lover more than a political junkie. The visit was brief. We drank a few beers. Mostly talked of politics and blogging and assuredly some other beachfront small talk I cannot remember. I don’t remember what I was wearing. I don’t recall Tobias’ summer outfit nor Monte’s. But I do recall Charles. He had on a faded, well washed T-shirt and black Ray Ban Wayfarers. I remember being so impressed with Nolan’s look. It was relaxed. Not put on. Classic. Timeless. I was newly single that summer. I was growing up, having just turned 32. And I was looking to tone down my audacious style in favor of a more age appropriate personal style. I never saw Charles Nolan again after that summer afternoon. But I did take a little piece of him with me that day. I rushed out and replaced all my glasses, both eyeglasses and sunglasses, with that American classic, the Wayfarer. It’s since become a part of my personal style. And I borrowed that. Copied it, yes, from Mr. Nolan. When news of Charles Nolan’s death broke [two] weeks back, the inspiration I pulled from his quiet charm and classic style became apparent. That’s how the truly stylish people inspire and affect us. They don’t force us to buy or buy into their look. They inspire in subtle ways. In quiet, powerful, subtle ways.
If Ike Had Had Two Moms And 1,000 CBRX February 11, 2011March 21, 2017 So far, 60 boxes of books and fabric (and hats!) have been trucked down to what will be the Charles Nolan Library at the High School of Fashion Industries. Forty or 50 to go. And we haven’t even started bubblewrapping the knickknacks. CBRX Another speculative drug stock. Guru thinks it could be $5 within a year, so I bought a bunch yesterday at $2.55. Guru is often but not always right. So only with money you can truly afford to lose. THIS EAGLE SCOUT HAS TWO MOMS Click here. I LIKE IKE I have no recollection of Harry Truman. Dwight Eisenhower was the President of my youth though our family would have preferred Adlai Stevenson. Two years into his presidency, Ike wrote his brother Edgar this remarkable letter. The section most often quoted . . . Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid. . . . but it’s worth reading the whole thing, in context. If only to imagine how these brothers managed not to kill each other when they met at family reunions. But also for its thoughtfulness and parallels to today.
Fixing The Senate And a CPAC Debate February 10, 2011March 21, 2017 FILIBLUSTER Seriously – shouldn’t it be spelled that way? And what happened to the reforms we hoped we’d get that magical first day of the new Congress, when the Senate can (arguably) amend its rules? If you’ve been paying attention, you know we got . . . nothing. But if you’ve been paying really close attention – as Sandy Newman has – you know we actually have made gains. From his email to supporters (a version of which is cross-posted at the American Constitution Society, here): [We have achieved] what we think is some unexpectedly good news. As you know, we had previously pulled together a coalition of groups to work on changing the Senate rules. We decided in November not to seek a change in the 60-vote threshold needed to break a filibuster. The changes that we sought would have reduced from four to one the number of opportunities to filibuster each bill, would have required Senators to stay on the floor and talk in order to sustain a filibuster, and would have limited post-cloture delay of judicial nominations. In order to break an expected filibuster against those changes, we needed a majority of Senators to back a ruling (referred to as ‘the Constitutional Option’) that, at the start of a new Congress, a majority vote was sufficient to break a filibuster. We knew the odds were against us, but we felt the changes were important enough to merit undertaking an uphill battle. We also felt sure that, if the Republicans became the Senate majority after the 2012 elections, they would use the Constitutional Option to do away with the filibuster themselves, since it would no longer serve their interests. Our three champions on this issue, Senators Tom Udall, Jeff Merkley, and Tom Harkin, proposed a joint resolution making these reforms when the new Senate convened on January 5th, and they worked extraordinarily hard to pass it. Together, we came close to garnering the votes we needed to uphold the Constitutional Option – but we didn’t quite get there. Meanwhile, Senators Reid and McConnell asked Senators Schumer and Alexander to begin negotiations, with leverage provided by the reform effort. The deal they struck includes a key stipulation. McConnell and Reid both pledged not to use the Constitutional Option to change the rules for the next four years. This is a very big deal. Looked at one way, the glass is half-empty because the agreement precludes our making another attempt to change the rules at least until 2015. But had we done nothing, the rules would have stayed as they are through 2012. Then, if Republicans won a majority, the rulebook would suddenly have changed to do away with the filibuster because it was getting in the Republicans’ way. I can just imagine the millions of dollars and enormous energy many progressive groups would have felt they needed to put into that fight, as they did in 2005 when the Republicans tried to do away with filibusters on judicial nominations. And the result would likely have been similar to the result in 2005, when seven Democrats essentially agreed to give up use of the filibuster on court nominations in return for the Republicans not changing the rules. The result was that the filibuster was of little use to the Democrats when they were in the minority, but sprung back to life more powerful than ever as soon as the Republicans needed it to block legislation and nominations. Whether one looks at this exclusively from a “good government” lens, or also looks at it through a second lens that considers the impact that rules have on progressive policy outcomes, having both sides play by the same set of rules is a good thing. From my perspective, this glass is half-full of bubbly! The deal also includes four other components that will likely have a smaller (but perhaps still significant) impact: Prohibiting anonymous “holds” and requiring that at least one of the Senators responsible for blocking any particular nomination or legislation disclose his or her identity; For legislation that has been made available to Senators in advance, banning the delaying tactic of requiring that the entire bill be read aloud on the Senate floor. Trimming from about 1,400 to 1,000 the number of executive branch nominations requiring Senate confirmation. An “understanding” between McConnell and Reid that Republican filibusters of the motion to begin consideration of legislation, and Democratic use of procedures to prevent Republicans from offering amendments, will become “the exception rather than the rule.” Neither McConnell’s agreement not to make rules changes by a simple majority in 2012, nor the other changes described above would have happened without the work that our Senator champions, our coalition partners, and many of you did over the last several months. They also might not have happened had we not been able, with your support, to pull together the reform coalition. Separately from the negotiated leadership agreement, Senators Tom Udall, Jeff Merkley and Tom Udall will propose three measures: a revised version of the Udall-Merkley-Harkin Resolution; a stand-alone Merkley proposal requiring that Senators stay on the floor and keep talking if they want to sustain a filibuster; and Senator Harkin’s proposal to lower the filibuster threshold. Each of those proposals will be blocked by a filibuster. Because we didn’t have the votes to prevail on the Constitutional Option, a two thirds supermajority will be needed for cloture to break filibusters on these rule changes. None of these will garner two thirds support, so they will not get yes or no votes. One other outstanding question, unlikely to be resolved this week, is whether Schumer and Alexander are able to negotiate any deal to shorten post-cloture debate on nominees. We’re checking whether there is anything we can do to increase the prospects for that. In summary, we moved further than any Senate pro would have said was likely back when we started. We also have helped many Senators and scores of editorial boards and reporters realize that the Senate wasn’t intended to be a body in which 3/5 were required for action. Voices for Progress didn’t by any means do this alone. The biggest share of credit should go to our champions, Senators Tom Udall, Jeff Merkley and Tom Harkin. Much credit should also go to our coalition partners including the Communications Workers of America, Common Cause, the Sierra Club, CREDO Action, Daily Kos, the Alliance for Justice, People for the American Way, the Brennan Center, the American Constitution Society, the AFL-CIO, the Center for American Progress, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Progressive Congress, USAction, and many others. The coalition effort would have been far less effective if it weren’t for the financial support provided for its work from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Communications Workers of America Atlantic Philanthropies, Sierra Club, and CREDO. GOPROUD VS. FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL Let’s go to the videotape – the debate being whether the Family Research Council should be boycotting CPAC today, and whether they’re doing so because they don’t like gay conservatives. Three minutes to each side.
Barney Frank and Ron Paul February 9, 2011March 21, 2017 BRAVE NEW WORLD: BURN SURGERY This short video reminds us of the medical miracles around the corner. (Thanks, Sid and Diane.) WHY BARNEY’S RUNNING AGAIN He had planned to retire after this term. Thankfully (in my view), he will not. Here’s why: NEWTON, MA – Congressman Barney Frank today announced that he will be a candidate for re-election to the United States Congress in 2012. His statement follows. I will be running for re-election to the House of Representatives in 2012. While I would have preferred to put off a discussion about the next election until a later date, I have been asked on a number of occasions about my plans. In addition, I have become convinced that making my decision to run for re-election known is important for maximizing the impact I can have on the range of issues to which I am committed. These issues require a time commitment longer than the next two years. There are two issues in particular that are of central importance. The first is to defend the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which will substantially diminish the likelihood of the risky and irresponsible behavior which led to the current economic crisis. The law is already under attack by those who oppose meaningful regulation and who would undermine it, either by pressuring regulators to weaken the law or by underfunding agencies such as the SEC and CFTC which are charged with administering it. The House Republican leadership has been very explicit about this, specifically targeting stronger regulation of derivatives, the independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and restrictions on excessively risky behavior by federally-insured banks. If these opponents of reform are successful, it will put American workers and families at risk of suffering the effects of another economic meltdown. I intend to do everything in my power to fight their efforts. My second national priority is to reduce significantly America’s swollen, unnecessary, worldwide military footprint – this is the only way to reconcile the need for us to spend wisely, to promote our economy and to accomplish substantial deficit reduction. Failure to address excessive military spending will either add to the deficit or force cuts in education, police, fire, transportation, scientific research, food safety, and infrastructure investment. The disparity between the cost of America’s legitimate security needs and the money we spend to maintain a worldwide military presence is the single greatest obstacle to responsible deficit reduction. While in the past it has appeared to be politically impossible to make reasonable cuts to excessive military spending, there are recent encouraging signs, including the bipartisan work I have done with Congressman Ron Paul. I will continue to make this a major part of my work in order to improve our economy and preserve our quality of life. While these two issues are central to our ability to return to a full-employment economy while protecting our quality of life, there are other national and regional issues on which I will be working as well — protecting the fishing industry in Massachusetts from arbitrary, unjust and unfair actions; fighting for full legal equality for all citizens; providing for the housing needs of low-income people, not by pushing them unwisely and unsustainably into homeownership, but rather by building affordable rental housing; and helping local communities provide a level of service adequate to the needs of their residents. DFZ Chris Brown: “We were able to sell all of our DFZ today at avg. 10.18 after the earnings report came in about as disappointing as possible. In the near-term, the stock is likely dead in the water as there don’t seem to be any catalysts, and the quarter was so disappointing. For those inclined to hold longer-term, the stock is only at about 9x my estimate of forward eps (85 cents) once you back out the cash on hand, so it isn’t expensive, but you’ve got the prospect of higher Chinese labor costs and higher commodity costs, and frankly I suspect part of this bad season was due to competitors having more stylish offerings, forcing DFZ to go lower on price, so it may be tough sledding. The upside is that they just made an acquisition which should help earnings some (not included in my estimate), and the valuation is low, so though languishing is a real possibility, the company would seem to be an obvious private equity target if it got much cheaper. Sorry it didn’t work out as I had hoped, but hopefully nobody got clobbered on it.” ☞ Given all the gains Chris has helped us make, the occasional 5% or so dip may be tolerable. MY OUTLOOK EMAIL PROBLEM . . . . . . wherein the text of emails I receive shows up in the preview pane but disappears when I open the email. In case any of you encounter this problem: Wayne: “It sounds like your outlook problem is due to some bad html in the email message (e.g. white text on white background). To see what’s in the body of the email try these solutions. Solution 1: Open the email in question. Then, from the file menu (or goofy windows circle, if you are running outlook 2007+), click ‘Save As’ and in the ‘save as type’ drop-down choose ‘Text Only’. This should save the text version of your email. Solution 2: Open the email in question. Then, where the email text should be, right-click and select ‘View Source’. It will be ugly, with all sorts of format tabs, but if it is a short message, you should be able to decipher it.” ☞ Thanks! Works!
Gold February 8, 2011March 21, 2017 Yesterday, Charles’s closet. (Skeletons aside, his actual closet was a magical kingdom with twenty-cents worth of penny loafers, a riot of red socks, a rodeo of dungarees, a Savile row of suits and ties – but also puppets and ribbon and flags. He could make anything look amazing.) Today, his hallway, shared with two neighbors. For a long time, it was the ugliest hallway in the building – possibly in the entire neighborhood – but somehow no one did anything about it. Finally, a few weeks ago, Charles took charge. Designs were designed, frames framed, contractors contracted with, carpet squares ordered. Two weeks ago today he said, “I know this is going to sound ridiculous, but I don’t want to die until they finish the hallway.” I briefly thought of asking the workers to slow down, but he really wanted to go and, in any event, it was hard to imagine they could work any slower, so I went out into the hallway and explained the situation. Two days later, it was done – the sharpest hallway in the building, possibly the entire neighborhood. Here (and here). Tomorrow, his library. You know the Clinton Library in Little Rock? The Kennedy Library in Boston? This will be a little less grand, but we’re packing his 30 years’ of collected art books and fashion books and design books . . . along with all manner of Nolan sketches and garments . . . and donating them to New York’s High School of Fashion Industries (“We design the future”) which has agreed to dedicate a large room — that some of the school’s more than 1,700 students will help design and keep fresh — to the Charles Nolan Collection. GOLD Janet Tavakoli on Huffington Post (aka AOL): Gold Game Changer: JPMorgan Accepts Bullion as Money. As in: don’t sell your GLD, up about 42% since first suggested here two years ago. It’s so obvious that the dollar will have to fall in relation to gold in the years to come that maybe it won’t happen (markets are funny that way). But as a hedge? I still own it. WALMART Alan Wenker: I had some of the same reservations about buying shares of Walmart as the emailer you mentioned in yesterday’s post. What I’ve found with nearly all investments is the good corporate citizen record is mixed. In the case of Walmart, last year I watched a piece on Charlie Rose as to large companies (and Walmart was specifically mentioned) are working to become more energy efficient as well as reducing waste as yet more means to cut costs. Typical of Walmart, once they do this for themselves they then work on their suppliers to do the same. Walmart also recently announced their line of packaged foods will be made healthier. Walmart may be motivated solely by profits to do this, but we will all have a cleaner environment and customers will have lower cost, healthier food. I wish McDonalds would do the same. I rarely shop at Walmart, but they do provide low income people a means to stretch their money further. Like most large, multinationals, Walmart is not perfect, but certainly not all evil. That said, I’d never buy a tobacco stock.”
How To Write A Condolence Letter February 7, 2011March 21, 2017 Turns out, Charles had skeletons in his closet. One was just the hang-on-the-door-at-Halloween variety, which I threw out. (I hate Halloween.) But the other was a full-on anatomically correct skeleton that seemed too heavy to be plastic but may take its weight from the metal rods and connectors that keep it all together. (The thigh bone’s connected to the hip bone.) I decided it was the kind they use in medical school. Why we had this I am totally at a loss to recall; but there it was and I wanted no part of it. I called a science teacher friend who rushed over to get it before someone else did (like who?), for use in his classroom. It’s too soon to make any lighter of this. (How does one get the skeleton down the elevator and into a cab – especially under the current circumstances – without creating a scene? By wrapping it in a sheet? Suffice it to say, we found a way.) But don’t think for a minute I’m going to stop writing about Charles. Or bragging about his talent. HOW TO SEND CONDOLENCES The main thing to say is that it’s “pass/fail.” As my wise friend Patty Marx, the writer, explained to me, “People agonize over what to say, as if there’s something they could say that would actually make it better” – certainly I always agonize in these situations – “when in fact there’s nothing to say except, thinking of you in this difficult time.” Or words to that effect. Sure, there will be the occasional piece of amazing advice, or the perfect anecdote or shared memory. But basically, Patty says, you either send a note (and pass) or become paralyzed trying, as I so often have (and fail). Now that I’ve experienced it from the other end, I plan to fail less often. (And to send nicer flowers.) Not least because it’s now okay to do it by email. Sure, it’s classier to send a handwritten note. But I have lost the ability to write anything legible by hand. And if one does send a physical note, one sort of puts an obligation on the recipient to reply in kind, and, well, I’m sorry, but I’m responding by email. If you’re close to the bereaved – or someone important, like CEO of the company she works for – don’t be shy about calling the day of the event, as soon as you hear. If you’re (both?) lucky, you’ll get voice mail. But whether you do or get her actual ear, Patty’s advice holds: it’s not so much what you say (“I’m so sorry! Is there anything I can do?”) as the fact that you summoned the courage to call. Again, something I have too often failed to do in the past. Thanks (again) to all of you who’ve emailed (stop! stop!) . . . and now back to business: WALMART Fred Campbell: “Re your recommending their stock recently . . . if you’re comfortable supporting the one company that has single handedly driven more small businesses bankrupt due to their unethical (if not illegal) pricing policies, go ahead; but I don’t know how you can sleep at night.” ☞ I’ve actually never shopped at a Walmart. (I did once buy clothes at a Walgreens – another Charles tale – but that’s a different company.) So I’m not one of the tens of millions of Americans who do support it. My owning WMT stock does them no particular good – they are not short of capital – although it does allow me to vote progressively on any shareholder resolutions. I cheer for the positive initiatives Walmart has taken these past few years. I think at least part of their motivation has been to be on the right side of progress – which is just good business – and that they should be applauded when they are, if only to encourage more good conduct. On the main issue you raise – the impact of Walmart on small businesses – the downside is very real. Heartbreaking, even. And yet I don’t see it as an easy black-and-white issue. To me, it’s similar to the issue of local bookstores. I feel for our vanishing local bookstores. I even feel for the big chains like Barnes & Noble that have put so many local bookshops out of business and that are themselves now having a tough time. But I sure do like being able to get a book instantly, cheaply, without cutting down trees or burning fuel to truck it to my door, by downloading it as an e-book or audiobook. Or getting the physical copy at 40% off with free shipping without ever leaving my chair. Where Walmart has violated fair trade practices, it should be pursued aggressively by trial lawyers everywhere. But otherwise? I just don’t share the outrage.
Farewell February 4, 2011March 21, 2017 Charles got a wonderful send-off. His brother David, a Catholic priest, officiated. Hundreds of wonderful people came. Russell Bell: “As a person totally ignorant of fashion (as one look announces), I knew about Charles only from your web columns. I was surprised to see his obituary in Wednesday’s Albuquerque Journal: it’s a small paper that covers the deaths of the famous and some locals – he doesn’t seem to be from New Mexico, so I guess he’s famous. I read it and found no mention of you, in line with their usual politics.” One blog posted the interview I did with Charles a few years back. Another reviewed the funeral. WEDNESDAY’S ADVICE TO SELL DEPO AT $8.34 Mark Klein: “But Andy, I sold two weeks ago when you told us to – at $5.75.” ☞ Oops. My selective memory. Good point. Technically, it was not I who said sell, it was Guru (here); and he followed up the next day with a somewhat more bullish assessment here. But where Guru frequently goes in and out of positions, turning on a dime, it’s not realistic (or a good idea) for us to do that. So you’re quite right that it’s only your gain up to $5.75 that I have any right to crow about. (And after I said “sell” at $8.34 Wednesday, it’s risen another buck and a half.)
Sell! February 3, 2011March 21, 2017 I know you come here mainly to learn how to cook like a guy or write a condolence letter (stay tuned), but every so often I have to let a little finance or politics creep in. DEPO / NPSP These have worked out well. (Thanks Guru.) DEPO, suggested 15 months ago at $4.50 and $3.02, yesterday closed at $8.34. Sell. NPSP, suggested at $6.65 two months ago, closed at $9.63. Guru thinks it could be in the $12 to $15 range a year from now. Hold. (Presuming, that is, that you bought it only with money you could truly afford to lose.) HEALTH CARE Gloria: “Thank you for the link to T.R. Reid’s lecture. He also has a Frontline documentary called ‘Sick Around the World.’ He visits the UK, Germany, Taiwan, Japan, and Switzerland, and analyzes their very different health care systems. This is a great eye-opener to those who say the US cannot do better.”