|Annex Research | Annex Bulletins | Quotes | Workshop | Feedback | Clips | Activism | Columns 
The copyright-protected information contained in the ANNEX BULLETINS is a component of the Comprehensive Market Service (CMS). It is intended for the exclusive use by those who have contracted for the entire CMS service.


Analysis of New IBM CEO’s First “State of the Union” Address

Sam Is No “Change Agent!”

Palmisano Said As Much Himself; Same Old Delusions, Some New Falsehoods; Annex Web Traffic Soars...

Text Box:  
Not a change agent…
PHOENIX, May 6 - There is no doubt about it anymore.  Sam Palmisano is no “change agent.”  IBM’s new CEO is just a kinder, gentler version of Lou Gerstner. 

Palmisano’s first “State of the Union” address to the Big Blue employees, delivered on Apr. 24 from Somers, New York, contained the same self-delusions and double-talk as the Gerstner’s various “vision statements” over the years (see “Louis XIX of Armonk,” Aug. 1996, for example).

“There is absolutely no reason for us to change our strategy,” he said.  “We've got the strategy nailed, we need to fine tune some things.

Meanwhile, the IBM stock is down 36% since its 52-week high ($126) on Jan. 9, having set a new 52-week low ($81) on Friday (May 3).  Last month, the company reported a disastrous quarter even by comparison to John Akers’ days at the helm. 

The Big Blue ship is leaking and creaking, and the new skipper says there’s no need to change.  Just keep those fingers plugged in the leaks, as we rehearse the sinking ship drill at Armonk.

Well, investors think there is good reason to change.  They are voting with their feet, just as we predicted back in January.  Here’s what we said about what we expected from IBM under Palmisano:

“Is Palmisano likely to carry out some badly needed radical reforms at IBM? (such as break it up - see “Break Up IBM!”, March 1996, and "What's IBM Really Worth?", Forbes, Nov. 2000).  Don’t hold your breath for it.  If Palmisano were not always “politically correct,” he would not be ascending to the Big Blue throne right now.  He’d be were all other “radical thinkers” in Gerstner’s Armonk ended up - out in the street.” (see “Gerstner’s Legacy: Good Manager, Poor Entrepreneur”).

Thank You, Lou, Sam…

Meanwhile, with the Armonk leaders continuing to spew out bunk instead of inspiration and vision, the traffic at the Annex Research web site (http://djurdjevic.com) has been goingText Box:  through the roof relative to the same period of last year.  The number of “hits” in April was up almost four-fold (+267%) over that in 2001, while the number of “pageviews” went up nearly six-fold (+461%).  For the year, the corresponding web statistics are up 118% and 206% respectively (see the chart).

And guess which was the top visiting site?  Yes, Big Blue (ibm.com).  Accounting for 15% of total hits in April, the IBM readers surpassed even those from the Internet’s largest network (aol.com), which placed second with 12.5% of the total traffic.

Thank you, Lou, Sam!

In short, it appears that when the marketplace, including IBM, wants to find out the unvarnished truth about IBM, they turn to Annex not Armonk.

And no wonder, considering the soapy delusions and some outright falsehoods IBM-ers are hearing from Armonk. 

What follows are excerpts from a Palmisano Apr. 24 “State of the Union” address, which has been already varnished ” by Sam’s handlers (“edited for content and continuity”). We’ve highlighted in red some of the particularly interesting passages.  And we have inserted our own editorial comments in between the Palmisano lines.  Finally, we have put it all together and in the context of our IBM forecast in the Summary section, at the end of this Annex Bulletin.

Excerpts from an IBM Transcript

Sam Palmisano, President and CEO

Employee Broadcast

On April 24, 2002, IBM President and Chief Executive Officer, Sam Palmisano, hosted a worldwide employee broadcast from Somers, New York. Palmisano reviewed IBM's first quarter performance in the context of current marketplace realities. He also spent some time talking about IBM's strategy and priorities for the second quarter. The following is a transcript of his prepared remarks. The text has been edited for content and continuity.

Good morning. I'm here today in Somers with many of our colleagues from across various organizations of IBM, all of our businesses and research functions. With me is the entire senior leadership team of IBM.

As you know on April 17th, we announced earnings. Regardless of all of our hard work, and believe me I know everyone worked very, very hard, we're disappointed. We did not meet our commitments to ourselves. We did not meet our commitments to our investors. And it is disappointing. [...] 

But I want to set the record straight. There are no issues with IBM's financial disclosure or accounting. Absolutely none.


The SEC Apologizes!?


In fact, a couple of weeks ago the United States Securities and Exchange Commission came out with an unprecedented statement and said it had some questions for IBM, questions which IBM answered. The issue was closed immediately. So we have no accounting issues or disclosure issues with the SEC. The SEC called and apologized about what happened. 



Annex Ed.: Apologized?  For what?  That’s the first we’ve heard of that.  A government watchdog apologizing to IBM for doing its job of watching IBM!?  “O tempora, o mores…”

And who is going to apologize to IBM investors and shareholders who have lost tens of billions of dollars since January alone? ($77 billion of market cap, to be exact, while its top executive takes off for the golf courses with nearly half a billion dollars of farewell compensation - see "Sir Lou OutLayed Lay!", Apr. 1, 2002).  Or to the IBM employees whose pension plan’s assets/obligations surplus has practically evaporated over the last two years? (see "IBM Pension Fund Vapors,", Mar. 23, 2002).  By the way, IBM has still not answered our Mar. 13 questions about it, and the SEC is still pondering what to do.


Armonk Bunk, Hegelian Dialectics


It (the SEC) felt badly about it — probably not as badly as we felt. Our stock was down $10-12 a share. But at least the SEC had the courage and conviction to go public on its position. And we really do appreciate that.


Annex Ed.: More Armonk bunk and Hegelian dialectic!  The IBM shares were NOT “down $10-$12” because of the SEC investigation disclosure in early April.  The stock barely moved because of that news.  The Big Blue stock took an $11-dive on Apr. 8 when IBM warned the market its profits and revenues would not meet Wall Street’s expectations (see "Big Blue Starting to Unravel," Apr. 8, 2002).  And IBM shares are down $45 (not just $10-$12, as Palmisano implied while exercising spin and “damage control”).  They are down because they should never have been up, but for the Armonk and Wall Street machinations and manipulations.  The shares are down because IBM business stinks, and the marketplace is finally waking up to this reality.



In all of the financial disclosure discussions that have been going on for the past couple of months, there are three issues that continue to come up: tax rate, share buyback and intellectual property. I'm going to tell you right up front that our handling of these three issues just makes good business sense — and I'll explain why it makes good business sense. I think you'll see why we're being viewed as a role model.


Tax Rate Wizardry

Let's start with tax rate. We used to have a 40 percent tax rate. I think most of you would agree with me that you don't think IBM as a company should overpay taxes. We should pay what we owe, but we shouldn't overpay. We felt that 40 percent was about 10 points too high, and our financial teams around the world worked very hard to get that tax rate down. And now it's 29-30 percent. That's good business. 

Annex Ed.: So we are supposed to have fallen from Mars, and believe that IBM "financial teams" are just smarter than all those competitors that pay at about 37% tax rate?! (see “Armonk Fudge Factory,” Apr. 1999, and “Is IBM Cheating on Taxes,May 1999).


It saves us money. We'd rather reinvest it in our business versus give it to governments for taxes. I hope you agree with me. I imagine you manage your household the same way.

Annex Ed.: What a smarmy thing to say!  Few IBM employees would rob his/her households the way Sir Lou and more than a dozen top IBM officers stuffed their pockets with proceeds from stock option sales (see "Sir Lou OutLayed Lay!", Apr. 2002). 


Stock Buyback Wizardry


Secondly, share buyback. Yes, we have purchased a lot of IBM shares back. As a management team, we're very confident in the future of IBM, and share buybacks has been accretive to earnings. It's a positive contributor to IBM earnings. Our multiple goes up and our stock goes up, which gives us a larger market capitalization to reinvest in our business. Again, this is just very good business.


We could have bought a bunch of dot-coms and then written them all off like some of our colleagues did. We didn't do that. We were very disciplined and we invested in ourselves.


Text Box:


Annex Ed.:  Wow!  Where do we begin debunking this?  So much bunk in so few words… IBM/Sam is evidently feeling the heat.

First, every grade school student who has mustered multiplication, division, addition and subtraction can figure out that increasing the earnings per share by reducing the number of share does not add one cent to earnings. 

As you saw in our five-year IBM forecast, our expected 2002 earnings of $3.73 per share are actually only $2.43 per share when adjusted for stock buybacks and IBM tax rate manipulations.  But the net earnings remain unchanged at $6.4 billion, unaffected by buybacks. 

So to say that stock buybacks are “a positive contribution to earnings” is just plain bunk.  Only ignorant or corrupt analysts or stupid investors would buy that.

That’s why we questioned IBM’s former CEO at the 1997 Annual Meeting in Dallas about why he was trying to create an “illusion of prosperity” instead of prosperity (see “Stock Buybacks Questioned: Is IBM Mortgaging Its Future Again?”, Apr. 1997).  Then as now we got BS in lieu of answers.

But Sam did take the Big Blue bunk spinning to a new level.  He said buying back shares is good because that “gives us a larger market capitalization to reinvest in our business.”

Ever heard of anyone being able to invest market cap in his business?  We haven’t.  But we wish IBM did invest in its business the $46 billion of real money it had squandered on stock buybacks without creating a single product or a job.


Intellectual Property Wizardry


The last one is intellectual property and it's the most incredulous of all. We invest in excess of $5 billion a year in research and development. We have brilliant scientists and technical people in IBM inventing things. We use some of the most wonderful inventions in our products and take them to market in our software, hardware, services. Other inventions we don't take to market for various business reasons. So we license that. We generate income on their inventiveness. What is wrong with leveraging the wonderful capabilities we have in our technical community? Now, because we invest so much money in research and development, we use income from intellectual property as an offset to expense. We could count it as revenue; we chose not to. 

Annex Ed.:  Why not?


We've been doing it this way since we began in 1987. So, there are no issues in intellectual property. These accounting practices make good business. And anyone who has an agenda or wants to start a rumor for whatever reasons can take a line item and pick it apart say, this is a big problem at IBM or GE or some other really prestigious world-class companies and get a headline or get some coverage on CNBC.


It's very important that you understand there are no issues with IBM. And in fact we've gone from being called out to now being viewed as a role model because of the way we've dealt with the situation. Last night on CNBC, Laura Unger, former commissioner of the SEC, spoke about IBM as a role model. And I'd like to run that video.



TV NEWS ANCHOR: So what do you think is the best solution? I mean, can the industry — can companies self regulate, is the SEC part of that solution? I mean, it's a very difficult question.


LAURA UNGER: I think you don't want the SEC too involved in the details of corporate disclosure. Broad based policy is a good way to approach that part of the SEC's responsibility. I think it's helpful when you have corporate leadership such as IBM coming out and saying more and really raising the bar of other public companies. And we need to see a change and attitude adjustment in corporate America. And I think that will go a long way towards providing more transparency...


PALMISANO: So that's behind us.

Annex Ed.: Did you see where in here Unger supposedly held up IBM as a “role model!” We didn’t.  IBM got caught by the New York Times with its finger in a cookie jar, and then was forced to make some public disclosures that it had not made voluntarily before (see “Big Blue Red Herring,” Feb. 15, 2002). If that's a “role model” for corporate America, it sends a message, “it's okay to cheat, as long as you don't get caught.”


Business Update


I'd like to get on something we can really impact and do something about — and that's our business. I'd like to spend some time talking about our business, because quite honestly we did not have a good start to the year. And as I said earlier, it's a tough environment. Given that, we need to improve. Let me put all this in perspective.


First the numbers. Revenues were down nine percent in constant currency. Our net income was down 32 percent and our earnings per share down 31 percent. It was a very, very tough, tough quarter. I'd like to add that we generated in pretax dollars — this is after tax $1.2 billion — $1.7 billion of tax income. We also generated about $4 billion of cash in IBM.


And I think when all the earnings are out, it's going to be like it was last year — if you take the total income of our top seven competitors and compare it to IBM's income, you'll see we earned more than half of the profit that was earned in the industry.


We have a challenging environment to operate in, but we don't have any long-term sustainable financial problems. We're making more money than anybody else out there. We are also executing in a very tough climate.  I want to go through what didn't go so well and what went well in 1Q. There were some pretty positive stories in the quarter.


Let's start with what didn't go so well. We knew we were going to have a tough first quarter because we exited the fourth quarter under a very similar set of circumstances. We saw customers deferring decisions. What happened to us, especially in our large profitable servers and in software, was we just couldn't get all the transactions closed. [...]


And public sector: Governments thankfully spend money in all kinds of economic conditions. And when they spent, we got more than our fair share, so we grew double digits there. We also grew double digits in Italy and Korea.

Annex Ed.: Well, at least this part is true.  Most global companies are reporting thriving government business due to increased spending, especially on military items.  But this is where IBM cut itself at the knees.  Back in 1994, it sold its Federal Systems Division to Loral Corp., a defense contractor.  IBM figured the Cold War was over, so it might as well get out of the government business.  Wrong!  Little did Armonk know that Washington can manufacture wars and crises with equal or better proficiency than IBM “financial engineers'” manufacturing of profits and illusions.  So much for that IBM/Gerstner strategy!


So there are several examples where we were able to continue to grow the business nicely in a very, very tough environment.


I want you to step back and go through what's going on in the world. I don't mean this as an excuse. Most of you who know me know I don't rationalize anything. I straight-talk, I deal with facts. But I think we need to have all the facts on the table to understand what we're managing through in this current environment.

The economies of the world, there's no doubt about it, are very slow. 

Annex Ed.: There certainly is plenty of “doubt about it.”  Two days after Palmisano said that, a 5.8% U.S. GDP burst was reported, the fastest rise in over two years!


We all were hopeful that they would rebound quickly. You probably read a lot about these v-shape recoveries. Well, it doesn't appear to be the case. I mentioned earlier capital spending is depressed. All the customers I meet with say they're going to spend, but they're waiting to see their business pick up. [...]


In addition to the macro economic environment, we have to be cognizant of the fact that our industry expanded at 10 percent per annum for more than a decade — huge growth in the industry. We can talk about the dot-com bubble, we can talk about the excess capacity that customers brought online to deal with Y2K. But fundamentally we are in an industry that has too much capacity. And we really do need to understand that. [...]


Even stalwarts, companies that you would have never thought would be tamping down expectations, are doing exactly that. Microsoft, with $32 billion cash on hand, came out and said they really see a tough year in 2002. EDS was another one that people thought was going to weather the storm better, until yesterday when they came out with their earnings. And they haven't weathered the storm so well in this environment.

Annex Ed.: What?  This is an outright falsehood!  As we said our Bulletin on IBM Global Services - “Tough Times, Soft Deals:”

“Even as the EDS revenue growth slowed to 7%, which is what it was at in the first quarter, it is still much higher that IGS’s - decline! (-3%).  As the EDS chairman and CEO, Dick Brown, put it when the company released its first quarter results on Apr. 22, the “revenue less than we predicted, but (we are) the best on a muddy track.”

So what the new IBM CEO said about EDS is either an example of self-delusion or of slander.  Either way, it’s utter falsehood.


No Need to Change Strategy  

[...] There is absolutely no reason for us to change our strategy. If you think about what I just said, everyone is copying us. HP and Compaq are copying us. Sun is trying to align with EDS to have a solutions play. Sun was once completely opposed to the open industry standard approach to computing and Linux. It's an endorsement, I think, of our strategy.


So there's no reason to make a major strategic shift.


If you look at what is going on in the marketplace, you get back to what customers are saying. They want solutions. They buy into e-business and the productivity gains it will give them in a networked world. There is no reason to shift our strategy.


Let me remind you what the strategy is. I'll give you maybe a Reader's Digest version of the strategy. Basically we want to participate in all segments of the industry, in certain ways.


The industry consists of three layers:


Business insight or value — think of this layer as systems integration, consulting and really some robust software like Cross Worlds, life sciences, and so on.

Infrastructure — where 80 percent of the industry is. Servers, storage, devices, middleware, all the stuff that really defines IBM. We play in multiple domains. We have a vision for it and I'll comment on that in a moment.


Technology — which fuels a lot of these wonderful things that occur in servers and the infrastructure and the like, and at the same time is a business unto itself where we create incredibly wonderful custom chips for game machines. It's a business that we've always said we want to be very focused, to carve out our segments where we can differentiate based on our intellectual property and research capabilities, and therefore make more money. And as things tend to be more standardized over time, we like to migrate up the value chain, because other companies play the scale game better than IBM. So that's the strategy. Now let's talk about where we want to play.


We don't want to be the best consulting company in the world. We want to help our customers transform their business processes so that they can become the best supply chain or customer relationship management company and so on. As we do that services engagement, we want to pull our robust infrastructure solutions: middleware, WebSphere, Tivoli. That's the point. We want to pull these things together.


Our competition is aligning like crazy. Accenture is aligning with Microsoft and others. We need to understand pragmatically that we're going to have to align and pull our robust infrastructure solutions through consulting engagements. Not only do we want to transform the process, we want to build them on a robust infrastructure.


We have a vision of the infrastructure that is quite different than many participates in our industry. We believe it should be open and industry standards-based. We believe you can not accomplish the scalability and security required in a proprietary way. Not in a Web Logic way, not in a .NET way, not in an iPlanet way. We believe it should be open industry standards-based.


That vision serves us very, very well in servers and storage and middleware. It's not just a software statement. We have a vision of where this industry is headed and where we need to participate.


We built this strategy in an environment where the industry was compounding at 10 percent. This is a $1.2 trillion industry; it's not a small industry. Well, 10 percent growth is no longer occurring. Last year the industry declined 2-3 percent. 

Annex Ed.: Where did he get that? Wonder what industry Palmisano thinks IBM is in?  Travel? (which may be valid, given the speed with which the IBM stock has plummeted lately. J).  

It’s true that IBM’s business declined by 3% last year.  But IBM is not the industry. Text Box:  
“L’état, c’est moi!” Still…
Unless Sam is now also starting to get afflicted with his boss’s ego and the “L’état, c’est moi!”- syndrome ("I am the state!" - Louis XIV; 1638-1715).

The Dow Jones Industrial Services Index, for example, is up 6.5% since a year ago.  Closer to home, the Annex Research index of the top IT services companies’ shows a 2001 revenue growth of 11%.  That’s certainly down from a five-year average increase of 13%, or compared to the 10-year growth of 17% (see the chart).  But it’s still a double-digit increase, versus IBM’s 3% decline.

So IBM’s game of slandering the competition, and lowering the bar to make its dismal performance appear more dignified, is nothing more than a cheap trick that will only fool the ignorant.

 Text Box:

On Future Layoffs  

If you look at the first quarter results of IT companies, it's clear that the industry is not bouncing back this year. We can argue whether it's down again or flat or modestly up. But it's not going back to high single digits or teens. Then project that out in 2003 and you see it's not going to be growing at 10 or 11 percent next year either.

So although we've got the strategy nailed, we need to fine tune some things. We were building up investments in the company that were based on the assumption that we would have huge robust growth that is not out there any more. And we (not) just have to stay where we are but pare back.

Annex Ed.: Just like the IBM of the 1980s.  It had also overbuilt its capacity based on a pipedream of inflated growth expectations.  Which eventually led to massive ($30 billion or so) write-offs and layoffs that spelled the end of John Akers’ career at the Big Blue helm. 


On Outsourcing Failures


The other point I'd like to make is an anecdotal observation. The last time we went through an economic shift I happened to be in services, and the U.S. economy was under a lot of pressure. It was the early nineties, and IBM was almost on its death bed. That's not the case at all today, this was a decade ago.

At that point in time, outsourcing was viewed as a solution for distressed companies. Who were our first customers? Continental Bank, almost in bankruptcy. First American. McDonnell Douglas. None of them exist anymore; they've all been merged or acquired by somebody else. But they were the first outsourcing customers. And the whole value proposition was to save them a lot of money fast.


The view of outsourcing changed dramatically to strategic outsourcing, to e-business infrastructures, to e-utilities. We now have $100 billion backlog in services. Outsourcing became strategic --a different way to manage your IT infrastructure. [...]


We have got to continue gaining share. We've done it. When our competitors' first quarter results roll in, you will see we have held or gained share again. We would like to have gained more, but we didn't lose.

Annex Ed.: Really? IGS shrinks by 3%; EDS grows by 7%, and IBM has gained share?  Another outright falsehood!

 Corporate SOS Signal

[...] Go do something that generates short-term revenue. So that's my suggestion. If you find you have more free time, don't take up golf lessons. Go help somebody help us gain share.

Annex Ed.: “Go do something that generates short-term revenue!?” And that’s a sound business strategy?  Sounds to us more like a corporate SOS (distress) signal.


[...] What does that mean? It means that when I get briefed before I visit a customer, I don't want to hear, "I can't get things done because the brand won't do this, or finance won't do that." You are in charge. You decide. You do it for the cluster, because you're the closest to the customer. And we're going to trust to you go do it right.


We've had no issue with the managing directors, no problems whatsoever. In fact, all of last year our margins went up. So we'll see what happens when we go to the next step. I'm betting that we'll gain share and our margins will go up in the cluster accounts too. So I'm very serious on this point. We need to free up people's time to go out there and win in the marketplace.


Yes, there are complex solutions, Yes, I understand it requires teamwork. But teamwork, in all due respect to the people in this room, doesn't start in Somers or Armonk. It needs to start in the field, where things are executed every day. And then hopefully it will come back up to Somers and Armonk and we'll get coordinated at this level. [...]


We have to take the assets of the IBM company and leverage them in the marketplace. We have the opportunity of a lifetime. We can take the share but to do it we need to be smart, intelligent and quick.




And that’s it.  That’s the bottom line of Palmisano’s “State of the Union” address to IBM employees… a plea to the field to help the HQ figure out which end is up.

So what do you think?  Impressed with the new IBM CEO’s leadership skills?  Ready to put your money where his mouth was? (i.e., invest in the IBM stock?).

If so, you’ll be evidently in a minority.  For, a vast majority of investors are voting with their feet.  They can see that Sam Palmisano is evidently no “change agent,” an attribute that boosted the IBM stock when Gerstner took over as a new CEO.

It follows, therefore, that change will be shoved down Palmisano’s throat by the marketplace, just as was the case with Sam’s first boss (Akers). 

And so, the future once again looks like the past.  To those, of course, who are students of history.

As for the rest, they may find little solace in the old saw, “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

Happy bargain hunting!

Bob Djurdjevic

[Also check outSam's Dull Scalpel (June 4), Looming IBM Write-offs (May 23), "No New News at IBM" (May 15),  "Looming IBM Layoffs" (May 14),  "Sam Is No 'Change Agent'," (May 6), Additional Stock Buybacks Authorized (Apr. 30, 2002),  "IBM 5-Yr Forecast: From Here to Eternity?" (Apr. 2002),  “Tough Times, Soft Deals,” (Apr. 25, 2002), "A Disastrous Quarter," (Apr. 17),  Industry Stratification Trend (Mar. 30, 1990),  “Gerstner’s Legacy: Good Manager, Poor Entrepreneur” (Jan. 2002),  "Big Blue Starting to Unravel," (Apr. 8, 2002), SEC Launches Formal Probe of Wall Street Research (Apr. 25, 2002),  “SEC to Tighten Stock Option Rules” (Apr. 5, 2002), "Sir Lou OutLayed Lay!" (Apr. 1, 2002), "IBM Pension Fund Vapors," (Mar. 23, 2002), Is IBM Cheating on Taxes, Annex Bulletin 99-17 (May 1999),  IBM 5-year Forecast 2001: An Unenviable Legacy (June 2001) "Break Up IBM!" (Mar. 1996), Fortune on IBM (June 15, 2000), “Smoke and Mirrors Galore,” July 2000), Annex Bulletin 98-14 ("Wag the Big Blue Dog"), Armonk's Fudge Factory (Apr. 9, 1999)Where Armonk Meets Wall Street, Greed Breeds Incest (November 1998)Stock Buybacks Questioned: Is IBM Mortgaging Its Future Again?, 97-18 (4/29/97),  "Some Insiders Cashed In On IBM Stock's Rise, Buybacks" 97-22, 7/27/97,  Djurdjevic’s Forbes column, "Is Big Blue Back?," 6/10/97;  “Executive Suite: How Sweet!,” (July 1997), "Gerstner: Best Years Are Behind", Aug. 10, 1999), "IBM's Best Years Are 3-4 Decades Behind Us" (July 1999), "Lou's Lair vs. Bill's Loft" (June 1999),  "Corporate Cabbage Patch Dolls," 98-39, 10/31/98; Djurdjevic’s Chronicles magazine October 1998 column, "Wall Street Boom; Main Street Doom", “Louis XIX of Armonk,” (Aug. 1996), "Mountain Shook, Mouse Was Born" (Mar. 25, 1994) etc.]

Or just click on and use "financial engineering" or similar  keywords.














































Volume XVIII, No. 2002-13
May 6, 2002

Editor: Bob Djurdjevic
Published by Annex Research
e-mail: annex@djurdjevic.com

P.O. Box 97100, Phoenix, Arizona 85060-7100
TEL/FAX: (602) 824-8111

|Annex Research | Annex Bulletins | Quotes | Workshop | Feedback | Clips | Activism | Columns