Highlights and Commentary

By Roy Weitz

(Originally posted March 1, 2001) [Archive Table of Contents]
The FundAlarm Hatchling Report: This month's FundAlarm database contains 199 funds that completed their first full year in 2000.....And how did they perform?.....It's difficult to generalize, because there are relatively few funds in some categories (for example, only two new balanced funds, and one new utilities fund).....But in the two categories with the largest number of new funds (technology and large-cap), the new funds generally performed worse than older funds.....For example, 52% of the new technology funds (35 of 67) underperformed our technology fund benchmark for 2000, compared with only 47% of the older tech funds.....Likewise, 54% of the new large-cap funds (29 of 53) underperformed our large cap benchmark for 2000, versus only 42% of the funds that were around before 2000.....As we said, the results are inconclusive, but at least one thing was clear in 2000: Contrary to a widely-held belief, new funds were not the path to sure and easy riches.....The accompanying pages present all 199 new funds, sorted in two different ways: alphabetically by benchmark, and performance-ranked by benchmark.....Just for fun, here's a list of the very best and worst new funds for 2000, by benchmark category (categories with fewer than 10 new funds are omitted):

Benchmark category	Best new fund for 2000/ (total return %)	Worst new fund for 2000/ (total return %)
Large-cap	AIM Large Cap Oppty A (LCPAX) +30.86%	OpenFund (OPENX) -41.93%
Mid-cap	Franklin U.S. Long-Short (FUSLX) +55.08%	H&Q IPO & Emerging Co B (HIPBX) -49.53%
International	Deutsche Europe Eqty Inv (MEUVX) +86.98%	Dreyfus Founders Passport B (FPSBX) -30.05%
Specialty-Health	Evergreen Health Care A (EHABX) +119.05%	Alliance Health Care C (AHLCX) +30.43%
Specialty-Tech	Potomac Internet/Short +59.4%	Jacob Internet (JAMFX) -79.11%

Robert Mohn runs Liberty Acorn USA Fund.....In a recent interview with CBS.MarketWatch.com, Mohn said that he and his team pride themselves on "finding that special stock before it's discovered by the rest of the crowd".....Mohn proceeded to identify three of his favorite "sleeper stocks": ITT Educational Services (ESI), Telephone and Data Systems Inc. (TDS), and National Data Corp (NDC).....Let's take a closer look:

• ESI is owned by 221 institutional shareholders, and institutions hold 95% of the shares outstanding;
  
  
• TDS is owned by 500 institutional shareholders, and institutions hold 70% of the shares outstanding;
  
  
• NDC is owned by 295 institutional shareholders, and institutions hold 83% of the shares outstanding.*
  
  

If there's a sleeper stock in here, we must be missing it.....We don't mean to single out Mohn (OK, we do), but this kind of routine manager BS never ceases to amaze us.....Does Mohn really think that he's found three undiscovered stocks?.....In that case, he's just scary.....Or, does he think that we're all morons, and no one will be able to verify what he says?.....Does he have so little respect for his investors (and potential investors) that he doesn't care what comes out of his mouth?.....Or, does he figure that any mention in the media is better than nothing at all, and nobody pays attention to this stuff anyway?.....Unfortunately, Mohn's blather is not unique, so here's a great way to simplify your investment life: Don't read, watch, or listen to any fund manager interviews for the next six months.....Then, ask yourself if you feel intellectually deprived, or if your portfolio has suffered.....We'll bet the answer is "No," on both counts.
* Data source: wsj.com ("Briefing Books")


If you've ever done any retirement planning (online or off), you know how it usually works: A computer program asks for your age, assets, required monthly income, and an assumed rate of investment return.....Then, the program crunches some numbers, and it tells you whether or not you'll be able to meet your income goal.....Retirement models like this are inflexible, especially the way they handle investment returns, and that's their biggest drawback, .....For example, say you assume an average investment return of 12% over a 30-year retirement....In the real world, of course, an average return of 12% doesn't mean that every year will come in at 12% -- some years will generate much higher returns, and some much lower.....If the early years of your retirement include several low-return years, you could run out of money much sooner than 30 years, even though the average 30-year return might still be 12%.

To get around the shortcomings of single-scenario retirement models, financial planners have recently turned to multi-scenario models, which sometimes use "Monte Carlo analysis".....Multi-scenario models are the ultimate black box, and the average (even way-above-average) investor has no hope of ever verifying the underlying calculations.....But if you trust the model -- a big "if" -- multi-scenario retirement analysis is much more useful than single-scenario analysis.....The typical multi-scenario model might consider hundreds of different year-by-year return combinations during a 30-year retirement, and it will give you an answer in terms of probabilities, rather than a simple "yes, you'll make it" or "no, you won't".

If you're interested in seeing a simple multi-scenario retirement model at work, check out the T. Rowe Price Web site (http://www2.troweprice.com/retincome/RIC).....Here's the opening screen (we've already entered some data, and we'll explain where these numbers come from in a minute):


Static image: The links and
drop-down menus don't work on our site
The most unfamiliar part of the entry screen is probably the last item, "Simulation Success Rate".....Price claims that its model analyzes 500 different scenarios, and this is the place where you tell the program what probability of success you require.....For example, in this case, we've asked the program to tell us if at least 90% of the scenarios -- 450 out of 500 -- show us reaching our retirement goal, given the other data that we've entered above.....Even though we've set a modest goal in the example above ($1,000 of retirement income per month, or $12,000 per year), our assets of $230,000 are even more modest.....When we hit the "calculate" button (not shown), the program tells us that we can only spend $598 per month if we want a 90% probability that our money will last 40 years.....If we're willing to settle for only a 50% probability, the program tells us that we can spend as much as $782 per month....On the other hand, if we want a 99% probability that our money will last a full 40 years, we can only spend $483 per month.

There's at least one more interesting feature of the Price retirement income model.....In the example above, we've indicated that our portfolio is "40/40/20," which means 40% "stocks," 40% "bonds," and 20% "short-term securities".....Even if we bump our portfolio up to 100% stocks, the program tells us that our monthly expenditure (at the 90% probability level) shouldn't exceed $598.....In other words, over a 40-year retirement, we have no greater probability of meeting our goal with a 100% stock portfolio than we do with a 40% stock portfolio.....We tested many other basic retirement scenarios, and we got the same result for almost all of them: At some point, adding more stocks to your portfolio results in no greater probabilty that you'll meet your retirement goal -- and, in some cases, adding more stocks actually reduces the probability that you'll meet your goal.....Try it for yourself: It's an odd and somewhat disturbing asset allocation message from a company that's known for its stock mutual funds.


Where did we get the data that we use in the T. Rowe Price retirement model, above?.....Charles Schwab has a new book, You're Fifty-Now What?, and there's one part of the book that's getting a lot of media attention.....It's Schwab's "Guideline of 230K" (page 48), which goes like this:

"For every $1,000 you'll need each month [during retirement], you should have at least $230,000 invested when you stop working."

Schwab says that his 230K guideline applies to "moderately aggressive" portfolios, and he recommends that readers plan for a 40-year retirement.....Basically, we set up the Price retirement model (above) to test the validity of Schwab's 230K guideline.....As we saw, the Price model wasn't impressed.....According to the Price retirement planner, if you follow Schwab's guideline, and you spend $1,000 per month on $230,000 of capital, there's less than a 50% chance -- probably about 5% -- that your money will last 40 years.....Caveat reader: Quickie guidelines and rules of thumb are almost worthless in this complex area.....Schwab (or, more likely, his ghostwriter) should know better.


And here's a retirement planner that's really depressing:


An interactive retirement worksheet (defective, we hope)
from the Strong funds Web site.

As democratic institutions go, mutual funds leave much to be desired.....But at least fund shareholders have the power to approve or disapprove any new fund manager.....Right?.....Wrong.....In the typical structure, fund directors hire an investment advisor to run the fund's investment operations, and the fund manager is an employee of the investment advisor.....If the fund's directors want to hire a new advisor/manager, shareholders must approve.....However, certain funds operate under what's called a multimanager exemption, which is granted by the SEC on a case-by-case basis.....A multimanager fund (such as Master's Select Equity) is still technically run by an investment advisor, but that advisor usually doesn't have any role in the day-to-day selection of investments.....Instead, the advisor farms out the investment work to one or more subadvisors, who actually run the fund (in the case of Master's Select, the advisor is Litman/Gregory, and the subadvisors include Mason Hawkins, Bill Miller, and Sig Segalas).....When a fund with a multimanager exemption wants to fire or hire a subadvisor/manager, shareholder approval isn't required.

The multimanager exemption was originally designed for funds that anticipated frequent turnover of their subadvisors.....Lately, however, the SEC has granted the multimanager exemption to funds that seldom, if ever, change subadvisors.....This means that some multimanager funds operate exactly like conventional funds, with one big difference: If a manager change is ever necessary, shareholders will have no say in the selection of that manager.....If you're the kind of fund investor who never votes a proxy, or never votes against the choice of a new fund manager, you probably don't care if your fund is operating under a multimanager exemption.....But if you value your voting right, then a multimanager exemption is something that you might want to avoid when buying a fund (although it's probably not a reason to sell).....Among the fund families with a multimanager exemption: Frank Russell, ASAF (American Skandia Advisor Funds), and the aforementioned Master's Select funds (both Equity and International).....You should also watch out for multimanager exemptions among annuity funds, where they are especially popular.
"A Voting Rights Issue That Hits Home for Investors," Mercer Bullard, TheStreet.com, February 13, 2001


The slogans of most mutual fund companies are bland, harmless, and completely unmemorable.....Occasionally, however, a fund company slogan is so ridiculous, and so inappropriate, you'd think that even the marketing people might have some second thoughts about using it.....Consider, for example, the following juxtaposition, which recently appeared on the PBHG Home page:





Last year, the turnover of PBHG Large Cap Value was 1,018%, which roughly means that the fund had a new portfolio every month.....Manager Raymond McCaffrey recently told the Dow Jones Newswire that he adds "value" by trading so much,* but we'd be more interested in learning about the Power of his Discipline.....At first glance, turnover of 1,000% suggests a manager who is dangerously out of control.....But perhaps we should give McCaffrey the benefit of the doubt: Without that PBHG Power of Discipline, he might be turning the portfolio every week.


And what does McCaffrey have to say about "The Rewards of Time"?

"In building the portfolio [remember: 1,000% turnover], we attempt to balance a company's long-term growth potential and near-term business results with the valuation it commands in the market.*"

At first we were astonished by this comment, and its blatant lack of truthfulness, but now we get it: McCaffrey is using one of those new, trick languages, that only look like English.
* From the PBHG Web site


Last month, we ran a brief item about the Mainstay Equity Index fund.....We marveled that this load fund (3%) with an exorbitant expense ratio (0.94%) could still manage to attract $1.2 billion in assets, especially when index fund investors have so many less expensive alternatives.....After the item appeared, several FundAlarm readers pointed out that this Mainstay fund comes with an unusual money-back guarantee, which is described in the prospectus as follows:

"...If, ten years from your date of purchase, the net asset value of a unit [with dividends reinvested] is less than the price you initially paid for the Fund share, NYLIFE will pay you the difference between the price you paid and the value of a unit."

In other words, for ten years, you can't lose any money on this index fund.....One reader wanted to know (a) if we were aware of the guarantee, and (b) if the guarantee changed our opinion of the fund, to which we answer (a) No, and (b) No.....Basically, this guarantee is a form of insurance (it's no surprise that NYLIFE is the parent company of Mainstay).....As with any insurance policy, you have to weigh the cost of the coverage against the potential loss (or risk) that's being covered.....In this case, the built-in cost of the insurance isn't stated, but we'd guess it's no more than about $10 per year for each $10,000 initial investment.....And what about the risk?.....That turns out to be even smaller than the cost of insurance.....Since 1929, the start of the Great Depression, there have been 62 rolling ten-year periods (1929-1939, 1930-1940, 1931-1941, and so on, ending in 1990-2000).....Of those 62 ten-year periods, the S&P 500 lost money in only two, and even then it didn't lose much: 1929-1939 (-0.8%), and 1930-1940 (-1.0%).....While the cost of insurance within this fund may be low, the risk that it insures against is essentially non-existent.....In our opinion, this fund's guarantee is a gimmick, around which Mainstay has wrapped an unconscionably expensive index fund.....We still think that investors in this fund are getting screwed.


Benjamin Graham is widely regarded as the father of value investing, so it was somewhat surprising to see his name invoked in Jim Goff's year-end letter to shareholders of Janus Enterprise, a growth fund if there ever was one:

	"Benjamin Graham, perhaps the most famous practitioner of the fundamentally-based, company-by-company approach we follow, once said that 'In the short-term, the market is a voting machine, and in the long-term, it's a weighing machine.' Ultimately, we believe the strong earnings growth each of our holdings is capable of delivering will tip the scales in our favor."
--Thanks to FundAlarm reader William Cornwell, of Fredericksburg, VA, for bringing this item to our attention

Benjamin Graham responds:

Dear Mr. Goff:

I urge you to read "The Intelligent Investor" again (or, perhaps, for the first time). If you find even one sentence in my book that specifically supports the Janus style of investing, please let me know. You might want to start with the Introduction, where I wrote:

1. Obvious prospects for physical growth in a business do not translate into obvious profits for investors.

2. The experts do not have dependable ways of selecting and concentrating on the most promising companies in the most promising industries.

I would be especially interested in learning how the "margin of safety," the guiding principle of my entire investment career, applies to even one holding in your fund's portfolio.

Mr. Weitz is handling my e-mail. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

B. Graham


And now, perhaps, it's time for some grief counseling:

	"I think [Internet stocks] are fairly close to the bottom. We've gone through massive consolation."
---Paul Meeks, manager of Merrill Lynch Internet Strategies fund, quoted (we hope incorrectly) at Worth.com

Charles Schwab (the person) is one of the main reasons that Charles Schwab (the company) has been so successful, and Schwab-the-person is prominently featured in much of the media produced by his company.....These days, "content" is one of the company's main strategic initiatives, which means that online Schwab newsletters, classes, and financial shows are ultimately designed not to feed your brain, but to hustle Schwab products.....As the leading spokesman for the Schwab brand name, the "polite, personable, and genteel" Chuck Schwab has even been compared to Walt Disney.....Now, Schwab's company faces the morbid question of what to do when its namesake eventually passes on to that great trading floor in the sky:

"Like Disney's, Schwab's name will live on long after his death. It's also easy to see how Schwab's company could continue to use his image after he's gone, just as Disney sometimes comes in handy or a cartoon version of Colonel Sanders still flogs chicken on television. Some Schwab executives have even discussed, only half-kiddingly, the idea of creating a 2-D version of Schwab -- the 'autoChuck' -- that would pop up to help confused users in much the same way that Microsoft's annoying 'paper clip guy' comes to the rescue."*

* "Why Charles Schwab Is the Newest Media Mogul," Randall Lane, Worth, March 2001

EXCLUSIVE! FundAlarm has obtained an early version of Schwab's "AutoChuck"!

View "AutoChuck," version 1.0

Briefly noted:

• February wasn't a great month for the FundAlarm Discussion Board 2001 Model Portfolio, but it still performed better than the benchmark fund.....For an update on portfolio performance, check the accompanying page.
  
  
  
• Late last month, Janus fund managers cut their equity stake in the company from about 6% to 2.4%, by selling shares back to Janus and the parent company (Stilwell Financial).....At any other firm, this kind of massive unloading might be interpreted as a sign that employees had lost faith in their company, and were making other career plans.....But not at Janus.....Once again, representatives from Janus have assured shareholders that seemingly bad news has no greater significance.....Although the official Janus explanations were somewhat murky, it appears that senior Janus fund managers are merely being benevolent, giving up their stock so that junior employees can have the incentive to acquire an asset that more experienced employees don't value and don't want.....Scott Schoelzel (Janus Twenty) is one of the managers who recently cashed-in his stock.....Schoelzel is also reportedly trying to unload a used car, but none of the junior staff is biting on that one, either.
  
  
  
• So, you want to start your own mutual fund?.....It sounds like a Walter Mitty fantasy, but it's actually quite doable.....In fact, starting your own fund could set you back less than a top-of-the-line Lexus.....The key to becoming a mini-Fidelity is using one of the many mutual fund service providers, such as Wadsworth Group or Bisys Group, which treat your new fund as a "series" of an already-existing fund....For as little as $40,000, you get a pre-cooked Board of Directors, and you can tag along with most of the pre-existing legal and regulatory work.....Operating costs run about $100,000 per year, so it's possible to break even with about $10 million in assets and a 1% management fee.....If you really want to do things right, be sure to spend an extra $50 and buy yourself the FundAlarm Mutual Fund Starter Kit, which includes a life-size poster of Tom Marsico (for inspiration), an asset-gathering net (for recreation), and statistics that predict your fund's chance of success (for perspiration).
  "Specialty Firms Are Midwives To New Funds," Paul Katzeff, Investor's Business Daily, February 8, 2001
  
  
  
• OK, so maybe you'd rather work for a mutual fund, instead of starting one.....At mutualfundsnet.com, you can find an extensive listing of jobs in the mutual fund industry (actually, this site links to about 100 fund company sites that list their employment opportunities online).....Even if you aren't looking for a fund industry job, it's fun to poke around and see the kinds of positions that make mutual funds tick.....And guess what?.....Lots of fund companies are trying to hire marketing people.
  
  ["Sheriff Ted" originally posted the link to mutualfundsnet.com on the FundAlarm Discussion Board, and Ted posts new links almost every day. If you haven't been following Ted's posts on the Board, you've been missing a terrific mutual fund resource.]
  
  
• Apparently seeking to give new meaning to the phrase "market crash," Fidelity and the General Motors OnStar service are teaming up to provide drivers with financial information, which will allow drivers to trade stocks and mutual funds in their vehicle while on the road*....FundAlarm contacted a number of personal-injury lawyers who applauded the new service, predicting that it would cause several hundred additional fatal and near-fatal automobile accidents each year.....FundAlarm's informal poll of car drivers also showed widespread support for the service.....According to one driver, "I'm bored dodging all those idiots on their cell phones. I'm ready for a new challenge."
  *Reuters, February 13, 2001
  
  
  

  Not your fund

  "Loyalty, tenacity, and optimism are great human characteristics, but when they are applied to the wrong object of affection -- your mutual fund -- they can be a problem. There is no reciprocity. A fund is like one of those robot dogs. You can lavish it with attention but get nothing -- not even a lick on the hand -- in return."

  I couldn't have said it better myself.....In fact, I did say it, in a recent Valentine's Day column by Charles Jaffe.....Jaffe makes an important point: Your fund does not love you back....Your fund doesn't know you or care about you....Your fund is disloyal.....Your fund consistently breaks its promises.....If you live with a person who has these characteristics, you're considered a good candidate for psychological counseling.....If you stock with a fund that has these characteristics, you're considered a patient investor.....Time to break that dysfunctional fund relationship?
  
  
  
• Joseph Foster manages Van Eck International Investors Gold Fund and, according to him, "it is a question of when gold moves higher, not if".....John Hathaway manages the Tocqueville Gold Fund, and he's equally bullish.....Today, all that's missing is a catalyst for gold price increases -- the same problem that gold funds have had for about 20 years.....FundAlarm believes that the catalyst could be a wave of extra-terrestrial abductions, but one fund manager in London believes it's more likely to be "a sharp, sustained rise in the gold price combined with a withdrawal of gold liquidity from the market by the central banks".....FundAlarm thinks that the catalyst also might be a new Ice Age, but Joseph Foster thinks it's going to be a change in investor attitude: "The Fed will have difficulty combating the excesses that have built up over the past 10 years, and when this becomes obvious, gold will move into the spotlight".....Hathaway sees gold prices starting to rise for some of the same reasons that natural gas prices are rising, which seems to ignore the fact that no one heats a home with precious metals.....Still, it could happen.....More than anything, we suspect, gold fund managers need some reason to get out of bed in the morning, so they keep on hoping.
  "Gold: 'A question of when, not if'," Thom Calandra, cbs.marketwatch.com, February 2, 2001
  
  
  
• IPS New Frontier lost 56% last year, and you'd think that the shareholder letter might shed some light on exactly what happened.....But manager Greg D'Amico merely notes, among other things, that "bear markets are a valuable learning opportunity," and the universe is a "lumpy" place.....Lumpy???....We have no idea what D'Amico is talking about.....If we had to guess, we'd say that D'Amico is making some kind of reference to "Lumpy" Rutherford, a character on the "Leave it to Beaver" television show.
  
  
  
• In case you were wondering, 2000 was the most tax-inefficient year for equity mutual funds in the past 20 years.....Dividend distributions last year represented 9.19% of average share price (net asset value), while the average fund returned only 0.03%.
  Source: Wiesenberger/Thomson Financial
  
  
  
• As manager of the Oakmark fund in the late 1990s, value-oriented Robert Sanborn disappointed thousands of investors, and he quit the fund (in March 2000) just as the market was finally turning in his favor .....Sanborn is now back in the money management business, running his own hedge fund,* where he has the opportunity to disappoint a smaller and much more elite group of investors (there's a $5 million minimum).....When Oakmark was in the dumps, Sanborn (rightly) criticized his critics for having a short-term investment perspective, and Sanborn was always eager to point out that the market conditions of 1998/1999 (tech, tech, tech) wouldn't last forever.....Now, in marketing his hedge fund, Sanborn proudly points to the 85% return that he achieved in a similar account during the fourth quarter of 2000 -- an investment track record of exactly 92 days.....Ah, this must be what they mean when they say the shoe is on the other foot.
  * Morningstar.com, February 12, 2001
  
  
  
• Corporations often need to borrow short-term money, and that's why they issue commercial paper.....Money market funds need to invest in short-term financial obligations, and that's how commercial paper finds its way into money funds.....Two California utilities (Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison) recently defaulted on their commercial paper, and that has reminded folks that some money funds do, indeed, carry risk.....No fund investors have lost money as a result of the California defaults, but some funds have stunning exposure to commercial paper, and the credit problems that may develop in the future.....For example, commercial paper recently comprised 91% of the American Express Cash Management fund.....TD Waterhouse Investors Cash Management and PaineWebber Cash funds were each recently invested more than 80% in commercial paper.
  "Defaults Sound Alarm About Money Funds," Carole Gould, The New York Times, February 11, 2001
  
  
  
• Four?.....Four hundred?.....Four thousand?.....Four million?.....Foliofn, the only online stock folio service that currently has much to offer, still refuses to reveal how many client accounts it has, or how much money its customers have invested in their folios.....Given the fact that no financial firm in history has ever failed to trumpet good financial performance, we're pretty sure that the folio concept still hasn't caught on, at least at Foliofn.....Undeterred, Fidelity recently announced that it's planning to introduce five to ten stock baskets of its own, with each basket containing five to 50 stocks that represent a single industry or stock-picking approach.....Fidelity analysts (or qualified outsiders) will initially design the baskets, and investors will have some ability to modify their baskets.....Fidelity's approach addresses one of the biggest problems facing start-up folio firms, which is the start up's total lack of a track record.....Schwab is trying to do Fidelity one better: In a test program, Schwab's U.S. Trust unit is designing folios that meet certain risk criteria (for example, "aggressive growth"), and U.S. Trust periodically follows up on those folios with buy-and-sell recommendations.....Now, if Schwab can just figure out how to manage the capital gains tax that results from its sell recommendations.....Maybe Schwab should scrap this folio thing, before it gets out of hand, and think about starting something called a "mutual fund".....Done properly, we hear, mutual funds can even control capital gains tax.
  "Fidelity Gives 'Stock Baskets' Another Try, Karen Damato, The Wall Street Journal, February 15, 2001
  
  
  
• Edward C. "Ned" Johnson III has been running Fidelity for about 30 years, and there's increasing speculation about his successor.....His daughter Abigail (who never really cut it as a fund manager), will probably have the fanciest title, but it now seems that day-to-day operations will be handed to Robert Reynolds, "a West Virginia native with gold cuff links and a salesman's charm"*.....Fidelity is still privately owned, so no one really knows what Ned's transition plans might be and no one, it seems, is even entitled to ask.
  * "Future Leadership Question Dogs Fidelity As Chief Weighs Retirement," Beth Healy, The Boston Globe, February 9, 2001
  
  
  
• There's always been some question whether Ned Johnson had a personality, but apparently he does.....According to a recent article:
  
  

  Johnson (left) and Curvey

  "Johnson has a quirky side that the public rarely gets to see. He and Curvey [another Fidelity exec] used to travel around the country and drop in on employees at Fidelity investor centers. They'd drop in on rivals too, to check out the competition. More than once, the two would stop at a Charles Schwab & Co. brokerage office and 'ask to see Chuck,' Curvey confesses, much to the dismay of the confused employees."*

  
  Then, Johnson and Curvey would hurry back to the hotel, where they'd place some phony pizza delivery orders, and make about a dozen hilarious Prince-Albert-in-a-can telephone calls.
  * From the same Beth Healy article, above
  
  
  

---

[Top]

FundAlarm © Roy Weitz, 2001