Author: A.T.

You know what I’m realizing? I speak English, yes, but old English. For example, Friday’s “Goodnight, Irene” title possibly made sense to half of you, who know the song (the song goes: “Well, IiiiiiiiiiiiRENE, good NI-gh-igh-ight, IiiiiiiiiiiiRENE, good night. Good night, Irene, good night, Irene . . .”) — but to the rest of you it must have made no sense at all.

I tested this out. I asked a bright 25-year-old if he knew this song, and he looked at me as blankly as I looked at him when he asked me if I knew what MP3 stands for. (Musical Piracy — cubed.) Yet there are few living 50- to 100-year-olds who would not start humming, drowsily, at the menton of Irene.

So look what’s happening. We are living longer and longer, and everyone on the wired plaNet will soon be speaking English. We’re headed for a time a century or two hence when the question won’t be what language someone speaks — we’ll all speak English — but what decade do you speak?

OK, maybe that’s an exaggeration, but I was at the College of William & Mary, in Williamsburg, Virginia, recently speaking to some of their terrific students and I mentioned something about someone’s having “his 15 minutes” — as in Warhol’s famous phrase — and it occurred to me that the 18-year-old I was talking to might not catch the reference. And she hadn’t! She said she had heard of Warhol — which was something — but had never heard his line about everyone, sooner or later, having 15 minutes of fame.

And then I started asking others in the group — here’s looking at you, kid — had they seen Casablanca? Nope. The Maltese Falcon? Nope. How can you appreciate the word “dingus” without having seen The Maltese Falcon?

I have met bright young people who have never seen Gone with the Wind. Kids to whom 2001 seems quaint. (Gad zooks! 2001 is 62 weeks from now!)

It was reported last week that scientists now believe brain cells may be regenerative. Previously, it was assumed the last brain cell was added the night before the SATs. This is a good thing, because I could really use some more. (“And what about these mice?” the Vice President asked a group at lunch recently, playfully — “Just how smart are these mice going to get?“)

Every day there’s a gigabyte of stuff that passes through my eyeball input device, plus a few megs that come through my aural input, and I have long since run out of brain cells to store all this stuff.

Do you ever feel that way? No? You must be 25. Rent Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, Dr. Strangelove and Dr. Zhivago, Gone with the Wind and Inherit the Wind — immediately. When you’re done with those, I’ll suggest some more. (Z, The Ruling Class . . . )

But some of you, I know, are here for the money, not the movies, so tomorrow’s column is on the Casablanca of investment classics — a book, not a movie. Not one William & Mary senior in a hundred has heard of it. Yet it may be the most important investment book you’ll ever read.

(How’s that for hype? Well, it’s true! And, in any event, it’s free.)

Oops. Irene has all the flights from Miami canceled unless I make the 7:30am — doesn’t that change my plan to write this column around two in the morning, sleep til ten, and take my time making the 1:23pm flight.

So just a few quick thoughts in lieu of proving Fermat’s theorum (I came up with an elegant proof over dinner, but now no time to lay it out for you) —

(a) The upgrade to AOL 5.0 installed just fine, and there are a couple of nice things about it. I’m a happy camper, although I certainly look forward to 6.0. If you use AOL: take heart.

(b) Biztravel.com sure seems to be one of those (relatively few) that will become a winner. You really can get great airfares, it really does store your preferences, and if you change a nonrefundable e-ticket you purchased through Biztravel.com, you really can get credit for it when you buy another on the same airline. Of course, you can do that in the real world, too. Except that if you get the crazy low $200-type fares I often do, and then give up the $75 for changing, you’re talking about just $125 or so in credit — and that’s not a great reward for standing in line an extra 40 minutes at the airport within 24 hours of when you made the new nonrefundable reservation, or mailing stuff in to Dallas “just so” — this is easier.

(c) Have you finished Fire and Ice? Just click “Books,” above, and then scroll down to “excerpts” next to Fire and Ice. The whole book is there (minus the photos, coming one of these day), free. Pretty soon I plan to post the 20% of Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds everyone needs to read to consider him/herself adequately prepared for investing.

Goodnight Irene. (Not to be confused with an earlier, archived set of columns here by that name.)

RE: IDIOTS AT WORK

Craig Sellers: “Don’t try using an unsigned credit card outside the U.S. If you are lucky, they will simply refuse the unsigned card and request that you use another. If you are NOT lucky, or attempt to sign the card in front of the merchant, they will destroy the card. I first experienced this in Cozumel, Mexico where I was lucky enough to have another signed card to use. I have experienced similar situations and seen others cards destroyed in Europe, including London and Paris. These lessons taught me to always sign my credit cards no matter how ridiculous it seems.”

DON’T TRY THIS IN EUROPE

David Cook: “The comment from ‘Steve’ today prompted me to write about signing credit cards. I write ‘See Driver’s License’ on the signature line. If my card is stolen, the thief will most likely take off running when a clerk asks to see his/her driver’s license. Of course, only one in ten clerks look at the back of the card and ask for my driver’s license. But it gives me some comfort knowing that, within 10 tries, my stolen card will possibly be recovered. What do you think?”

I think it’s brilliant. But based on Craig’s comment, above, I might not try it overseas.

Of course, some credit cards now carry your photo — I don’t know why others have been so slow in adopting this — and that should be a good deterrent, too.

FIFTY BUCKS OFF A POWER SAW . . .

Mark Centuori: “You occasionally highlight certain shopping opportunities. I don’t recall reading about a site called Mercata. It’s a general merchandise site that will give you $50 in Mercata cash if you register (which is free). You can use it for merchandise, I think up to 50% of the purchase price, until Nov. 30. Shipping is currently free. They have things called Powerbuys which can lower the regular price even lower. I have no idea how their pricing usually runs, but with the free shipping & $50, it may not matter. I have no affiliation with Mercata.”

IDIOTS AT WORK

(Steve’s title, not mine — but it does seem apt)

Steve: “I was signing the receipt for my credit card purchase when the clerk noticed that I had never signed my name on the back of the credit card. She informed me that she could not complete the transaction unless the card was signed. When I asked why, she explained that merchants needed to be able to compare the signature on the credit card with the signature I entered on the receipt. So I nodded and signed the credit card in front of her. She then carefully compared that signature to the one on the receipt. As luck would have it, they matched. And that is why that person works as a cashier.”

DUMP THAT FUND?

As those of you who have registered at Personal Fund already know, we’ve added a new calculator to www.personalfund.com. It helps you figure out whether it’s worth the costs of dumping one mutual fund for another. (Sure, the new one might do better. But what if you incur taxes selling the old one?) We’ve been getting some nice notices for this site — which I should stress redound mainly to the credit of my partner Stefan Sharkansky, who has done the lion’s share of the work and good thinking. An e-mail I particularly enjoyed came yesterday from a former high-ranking S.E.C. official:

I was [title deleted until we get permission to identify him] at the SEC when we wrote our own web site’s cost calculator. We couldn’t devote the kind of resources to our calculator that you obviously have devoted to yours. By including data, comparisons, and tax effects, you have done a terrific job. We thought about this problem for a long time, and wanted to include such things, but it was beyond the scope of our budget.

Ah, if the United States government only had our resources.

This one’s not about money unless you or a friend or relative happens to need a job to earn some. In that case, it’s about money.

Apparently, George W. Bush recently told a Christian group that, if elected, he would not knowingly hire someone who was openly gay . . . but that, being a compassionate conservative, he wouldn’t fire someone later discovered to be gay. Those mistakenly hired would be grandfathered in.

This is almost breathtakingly bad policy, when you think about it. If gay folks are unfit for responsible posts, why should they be tolerated once discovered? And if they ARE fit for responsible posts, why discriminate against them? Just to narrow the nation’s talent pool?

Could this have been Lincoln’s policy? That Negroes would not be hired . . . but that if some particularly light-skinned Negroes made it through unnoticed, and were later discovered to have some Negro blood, they would be allowed to stay?

Lincoln was a Republican — what would he have made of this policy?

And what exactly would Bush have young gay kids think? That they are unwelcome, second-class citizens unqualified for decent jobs? That they should kill themselves? That they should just work really hard at faking heterosexuality, lying as necessary, committed to lonely, loveless lives? That they should all become priests or dancers?

The power of the presidency is largely the power to lead by example. So is it Bush’s view that IBM and Microsoft and Disney and J.P. Morgan and Chevron and American Airlines and General Mills — and 250 other Fortune 500 companies — are behind the times for explicitly including gays and lesbians in their nondiscrimination policies? That the forward-looking, compassionate, new-vision thing to do is to post notices in all their ads, just above the “Equal Opportunity Employer” logos, saying: “Gays and lesbians need not apply?”

If gay graduates are not fit for government service, are they fit for government-subsidized college educations in the first place?

George W. told USA Today on August 19 that the New Jersey Supreme Court was wrong — that the Boy Scouts should be allowed to exclude gay kids, just as, we now learn, George W. would exclude gay people from his administration. And just as he stood by as the Texas Republican Party barred the gay Republicans from its convention.

How about this — a U.S. Government pamphlet describing just where gay people may and may not apply for work? And in places that do have to employ them (lest millions just go on the dole, which the Republicans surely wouldn’t like), how about separate water fountains?

It would be funny if it were not so profoundly unAmerican.

A lot can happen in 507 years.

Not normally. Normally, nothing happens. Take, for example, the 507 years from 112,520 to 112,003 BC. Nothing happened. So, too, the 507-year period from 21,958 to 21,451 BC. Or even the 507 years from 611 to 1118 AD. Yes, there was great daily drama and suffering and struggle in those years. But in terms of progress . . . imperceptible steps, at best.

No more. Now every ten-year stretch is a pretty big deal, never mind 507 years.

I’m going to take the day off to contemplate just how North America has changed in the brief time since Chris set sail. And it is a brief time. It’s fewer than ten of the stretches of time I’ve been around; and just about five really long lifetimes, laid end to end. (In Detroit, one of the honorees at the dinner I wrote about Friday was 100 years old. And she danced.)

And the pace of our progress is only accelerating.

There will be no column today.

The other day I was in Detroit to speak at that city’s annual black-tie Human Rights Campaign dinner. About 1,200 people. I was to speak first, followed by Allan Gilmour, who until a few years ago held the number two spot at the Ford Motor Company. (Back then, as Ford’s Vice Chairman, he felt he could not be openly gay. Retired, and with the world having come a long way, that’s no longer an issue.)

Allan would be followed by Elizabeth Birch, who heads the Human Rights Campaign (and who, with her partner Hilary, has adopted two wonderful babies), followed by Senator Bill Bradley, the keynote speaker.

Though the average American claims to prefer death to public speaking, I was not overly concerned. It’s easy going first. The audience is fresh; you don’t have to worry about repeating what someone else has said; and then you get to eat. (Bad idea to eat first — all the blood that should be in your brain, thinking, rushes to your stomach, digesting.)

As it happened, the Bradley schedule required his leaving as quickly as possible, so the speaking order was changed to put him first. Once everyone was seated after the cocktail hour, and once the pre-set salad had been consumed, the dinner chairs introduced Senator Bradley.

Three minutes into his speech, someone with a headset who apparently actually believed that the Senator would be speaking for just 10 minutes found me and took me over to the on-deck area.

The Senator spoke — wonderfully — for half an hour.

(Let me hasten to say: we at the Democratic National Committee are neutral. The Vice President, as more and more people will come to realize, is also wonderful. Either one of them would be a terrific president.)

Bradley’s delivery was measured, as he leaned down, down, down to the lectern mikes. No thumping or shouting or histrionics. But his message rang clear and true: equal rights for all, including gays and lesbians.

(You can’t be fired in America just for being Jewish or black. But in most places you can be fired just for being gay. Or consider this: Georgia Congressman Bob Barr’s third wife — or his fourth if he should remarry — is entitled to full spousal Social Security benefits if something should happen to him. But the lifelong partner of a gay man or lesbian receives not a dime, even though the gay couple may have paid more in taxes and been together five times as long.)

The crowd interrupted many times for applause and when the Senator was done, he received a standing ovation.

Spirits and noise level in the ballroom were high.

Bring on the entree! It’s nine o’clock. We’re hungry!

At which point, an invisible voice from the ceiling announced, “Pleadh wllcccm the trzhr othe demcrtc natl commi an auth andy tobzhzh” — over the noise, who knows what anyone listening might have been able to make out. And no one was listening. The crowd was excited by the speech they had just heard, excited to be with their friends, and excited by the prospect of the entree. And even if they had heard — can you think of an introduction that sounds duller than, “Please welcome the treasurer of the Democratic National Committee?” (“Please welcome the county auditor,” perhaps?)

Up I bound to the stage, and this is not the first time in my life I have ever given a speech. But it is the first time in my life I have been shorter than the microphones.

Yes, the Senator had been stooping to reach them, but for me they were at hairline level. And I’m not sure, but I think my hairline may even have begun to recede a little in recent decades.

Hours later I would remember that lecterns like this have levers to raise and lower them. But with the bright lights and the need to seize the moment, I was just too stupid to think that fast.

“That’s a tough act to follow,” I shouted, hoping to get people’s attention, “and the great thing is — it wasn’t an act! The Senator means it! And so does the Vice President! And the President! And the Democratic party!” . . . my thought being to capture the enthusiasm in the room and segue straight into my own remarks, about being so proud of all that the Democratic Party has accomplished for millions of gay Americans and their families. “I will be brief,” I continued — eliciting a cheer from a table someplace in the back. This turned out to be my only applause line.

I have no idea what else I said, as I raced through my notes to get out of the way of the sliced chicken Kiev. I think I may have mentioned that the Log Cabin Republicans (the gay group) had been barred from the Texas State Republican convention, and that the Governor of Texas — his name escapes me — did nothing to reverse that.

Anyway, here’s my advice. Vote for either Gore or Bradley — enthusiastically — but do anything you can to avoid following them at the podium.

Also, not to get too personal, but be sure to check a new formal shirt for pins everywhere before you get all tuxed up and cummerbunded. Talk about surprises! But that’s another story.

Recently, we discussed how to specify which shares of a stock or fund you’re selling — if you’re not selling your full position — so you sell the shares with the smallest taxable gain. (Each separately-purchased set of shares is called a “tax lot.”)

Unless you are willing to accept the IRS presumption that you are using the “first in, first out” method . . . which often means selling the shares you bought cheapest . . . you have to let the broker or fund company know which shares you want to sell by specifying a “versus purchase” (VSP) date. As in: “Sell the 50 shares I bought on April 3, 1986.” And you have to get and keep written confirmation from your broker or fund company.

Mike Watts, Associate Professor of Accounting at the University of Arkansas, has pulled up the actual regulations . . .

Treasury Reg. Sec. 1.1012(c)(3):

(i) Where the stock is left in the custody of a broker or other agent, an
adequate identification is made if —

(a) At the time of the sale or transfer, the taxpayer specifies to such
broker or other agent having custody of the stock the particular stock to be
sold or transferred, and

(b) Within a reasonable time thereafter, confirmation of such specification
is set forth in a written document from such broker or other agent.

As a practical matter, some brokers aren’t set up to do this very well. Mike recounts his own experience . . .

“I’ve had problems, both myself and with clients, where the broker or mutual fund management company did not provide any type of confirmation. The issue has never come up in an audit, but it seems to me that the brokerage houses and the mutual fund companies should be doing all that they could to ease any potential problems for their customers.”

Realistically, as I suggested last time, if you make a good faith effort to specify the shares, by faxing in a note and keeping a copy of that with your records, you should be able to sleep well. There’s only a remote chance you will be audited and that, if audited, this will be an issue, and that, if you are and it is, your auditor will decide to be a complete [expletive deleted].

Tomorrow: Something — anything! — less boring

Rachil T: “I am a layman on investment. I graduated from college three years ago. Today, my manager, co-workers and I talked about personal investment. My manager suggested as a young person as I am, I should start investing. Since I am a kind of person who does not want to take the risk, a stable Mutual Fund will be suitable. My manager gave me your name. Thus, I found your web site. I would like to know if you can provide me some suggestions of seeking a stable, reliable, and trustful mutual fund. Thank you for your times and helps.”

Being young, Rachil, you can afford to take some risk and not pay for too much stability. (Stability doesn’t come free.) Just put away something every year, and down markets will be great for you in the long run, because they’ll allow you to buy even more shares when the price is low. Remember: when buying, you hope for low prices. It’s 40 years from now, when you start selling, that you hope for high prices.

Just be sure not to put money into the stock market, either directly or through mutual funds, that you might actually need in a year or two or three. That’s too short a time horizon for the stock market.

Recently, I passed on to you news of a stock-picking yucca plant. When it beats the averages, it is rewarded with water and light. When it lags, its owner moves it into the closet.

To which James Schaefer responded: “Yucca? We do it better in Texas. At the start of each year The Fort Worth Star-Telegram newspaper marks a grid on the floor of a cow pen. ‘Rusty’ eats and drinks. The financial editors then keep track of where the chips land and those are that year’s pick for the portfolio. In 1998 the cow beat the market. Here is Rusty’s portfolio of local companies.”

Reason enough to move to Ft. Worth.

Thad Fenton, meanwhile, lives one town over. His comments have nothing that I know of to do with yucca.

“While riding into work this morning in our car pool,” Thad writes, ” . . . probably the only car pool in North Texas, from the looks we get on the North Dallas Tollway . . . we hear a radio ad for a dot-com company that promises to get you four loan commitments within hours. This generates a discussion about the benefit consumers are reaping from the Internet in general, and from all these dot-com companies specifically. We marvel that we can save money by buying from Amazon.com versus the local stores. And that a copy cat dot-com, Booksamillion, sells the same books cheaper than Amazon. And there’s probably a copy-copy cat that’s selling the book even cheaper than BAM. Which is even more amazing considering the fact that Amazon is still losing money on each book it sells. Which means BAM must be losing even MORE money, and the losses must magnify down the line to each copy-copy cat.

“I comment that consumers are really saving money, for free, and the cost is borne by these dot-coms, but at some point we’ll probably have to pay a monthly fee to support these cost comparison and price shopping Internet services. Then Wayne, our driver, makes a comment that hits me like a bolt from the blue. ‘Yeah, as long as investors capitalize these Internet companies, I’ll buy the products they sell at a loss.’

“His comment crystallized for me the zero-sum equation. The dot-com companies aren’t subsidizing the tremendous savings on consumer goods via the Internet; it’s the dot-com ‘investors’ who are. The dot-com investors form the reservoir of money; the dot-com officers/employees drink heavily from the cash stream as it flows out of the reservoir; and the end consumers get sips downstream until the stream eventually dries up. As long as someone props up Amazon’s stock, my book purchase is subsidized. As long as I don’t buy any Amazon stock, yet buy books from that company, I’m ahead of the game.

“It’s so simple, but it never dawned on me until Wayne hit the nail on the head. All the dot-com investors/speculators are transferring their wealth to consumers via Internet companies that have no net profits due to impossible business plans. As long as the dot-com stock speculation continues, consumers will reap extraordinary savings. When the bubble bursts, the subsidies will cease and consumer prices will go up on the Internet, and perhaps in brick and mortar stores too.”

Are Thad and Wayne right? Are investors in Internet stocks suckers? (“Suck-Ah’s!” as W.C. Fields had it.) Only the yuccas know for sure.