Thread closed. Thanks to all for their comments.


-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

nospam[at]atall.xatt.net wrote:

- quote -

Just to make sure no one "runs" with this one: That won't
really change the group's policy <grin> --the problem is that
while the New York Times will grant permission, the
permission is subject to requirements (which they have a
right to impose) and the moderators simply can't check every
single post to assure that the copyright holder's policy has
been complied with.

Because, in reality, the New York Times has every right to
change that policy tomorrow morning, so every time a new
post was made, the moderators would have to go get the
current NYT policy on newsgroup postings and then check the
posting to assure that, in fact, it complied with current
restrictions. As well, readers who see NYT articles posted
might decide that it's "OK" to post from other
publications--publications that have not granted the right
to reproduce their material on usenet. Now when the
moderators reject the posts, there will be complaints about
unfair treatment and/or the moderators are pushing a certain
political viewpoint.

For instance, allowing an NYT editorial on some finance
related issue, but rejecting a WSJ one--remember the WSJ is
a subscription based site. Now, the last time I checked the
editorial pages of those two publications have rather
different viewpoints <grin> , and I can just see being
accused of censoring viewpoints with that rejection. So the
best route for this group is to limit posts to links. As
well, there is some question about whether, in a discussion
group, there shouldn't be *some* discussion added by the poster.

The NYT policy is very useful for unmoderated groups,
because there the *poster* is the one who is the one
releasing the article into the world and the one to be
principally concerned about a violation.

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

BMS wrote:

- quote -

Actually, as another poster pointed out in email, this is
just about the opposite of fair use. Fair use gives you the
right to cite a *limited* portion of the copyrighted
material for purposes of commenting on it. So it may be fair
to use one paragraph from the article to enforce a point,
but when what you have is the entire article posted word for
word, that's reprinting--something that clearly is in
violation of the copyright on that work.

Having done numerous presentations, I can tell you that the
sponsoring organizations I work with would *never* agree to
let me redistribute an entire New York Times article without
having the express written permission of the Times.

That said, the URL link should accomplish the same goals
while not running afoul of any copyright restrictions, since
it then has users access the NYT article on the NYT's terms.

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

This is part of "fair use", no different than if you were citing it in a
presentation. Though if the moderated set a rule to only accept the url,
that would be reasonable.

"Nashville Pete" <poremski[at]comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bEKdnUPqfZ_5I6uiXTWJjQ[at]comcast.com...
- quote -

planning. Thanks. -HWW

Elizabeth,

The more I thought about your response....I changed my mind. You're 100%
correct and I was wrong.

Jason Richardson


"Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn[at]worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:nzwZa.95214$0v4.6547249[at]bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
- quote -

Actually, I didn't intend for my question to be forwarded to the newsgroup.
Yes, the NYTimes would probably have given permission. But laws are laws,
and it doesn't seem prudent for a moderated newsgroup to violate them. We
should be conscious of copyright violations (which is stealing just to keep
this on a slightly financial topic). The law doesn't provide that if you
include the proper citations you don't need to obtain permission just
because the NY Times probably makes enough money anyway. You can get access
to their articles for free online at their website -- registration required,
but still free.

Elizabeth Richardson

"S. L. Richardson" <blackdog[at]worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:8qvZa.95139$0v4.6541306[at]bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
- quote -

Probably not. But, with the byline, url for the article, recitation of "New
York Times" & the date published (presuming), and allcaps'ing the authors to
set apart their identities as being separate from the poster, do you really
think the poster was trying to take credit for the article, its content or
in any way disturb the copyright?

I imagine the NYT would appreciate the online advertising. Maybe not - I
could very well just be nuts

Jason




"Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn[at]worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:OPsZa.94993$0v4.6524997[at]bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
- quote -

The New York Times
August 10, 2003

What Investors Should Do Now
By DAVID LEONHARDT and ALEX MARKELS

DOROTHY O. MULVI has developed something of a following at Golden West Manor, a
high-rise retirement home overlooking the Rocky Mountains in Boulder, Colo.
When other residents are thinking about how to stretch their savings to pay for
retirement, they often come to Ms. Mulvi, an 82-year-old former bond trader,
for investment tips. These days, however, she tends to have only one piece of
advice, and it is not very comforting.

Sit tight, she told one friend recently. Don't tie up your money quite yet in
long-range interest-bearing investments. Just because long-term interest rates
have ticked up over the last month or so, she pointed out, they are still near
the 40-year lows.

This may well be the most confusing time for investors in more than 20 years,
and not only for those like Ms. Mulvi who are more dependent on the returns
from their investments to live day to day. Short-term interest rates are below
inflation for the first time since 1980. Many investment advisers consider
long-term bonds a poor choice despite the recent climb in their return, with
the rate on a 10-year Treasury note now at 4.27 percent, up from 3.1 percent in
June.

Stocks remain more expensive than they have been for much of the last century,
relative to corporate earnings. Real estate values in some regions are
considered excessive, making housing in some cases a potentially risky
investment.

"There is just no easy answer," said Jeremy J. Siegel, a finance professor at
the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Ms. Mulvi has even taken to advising some friends to do as she has done and dip
into their investment principal.

"That pains me," she said, tightening the grip on her cane as she sat in Golden
West's lobby. "I'm a conservative person."

Amid all the uncertainty, however, there is also room for many people to fare
better than they are now. Doing so requires thinking about investing as
something that encompasses more than cash flows and tax implications and
extends to far more basic concepts, financial experts say. In a strange way,
that might offer a little relief from all the uncertainty.

With short-term interest rates near zero, economizing has become more lucrative
than it was in the 1990's. People who cut $50 from their monthly expenses —
by switching to a less expensive Internet service, say, or quitting a gym they
never use — are adding the same amount to their after-tax income as the
interest on a $100,000 money market fund might.

Index funds, which generally have the lowest expenses among mutual funds, have
become attractive for the same reason. So are investments that do not force
people to tie up their money for years at the current level of returns. Many
households could more than double the return they are getting on a C.D. or
money market fund by moving the cash to inflation-indexed government bonds,
which are paying 4.66 percent a year and must be held for just 12 months.

Of course, investing never looks free of peril at the time when the decisions
are made. Many of the clairvoyant people who pulled their money out of
technology stocks in early 2000, for example, worried at the time that the
bubble was still inflating. The home buyers who brilliantly bought real estate
amid the 2001 recession received no assurances then that housing prices were
still on the rise.

But the current situation is nonetheless unusual. It has created vexing
questions for retirees, baby boomers preparing to follow them soon and even
Generations X, Y and Z, who should care almost exclusively about the long term
and will usually do best by diversifying their investments.

There is no low-hanging fruit, said Martin Barnes, managing editor of the Bank
Credit Analyst, an investment publication based in Montreal. It was easier in
the 90's, even before the run-up in stocks, he said.

After the recent jump in interest rates, as investors have become more
confident about economic growth but more concerned about the federal budget
deficit, long-term bonds offer the latest temptation. But buying these bonds
could ultimately feel like buying the best apple in a barrel full of rotten
ones.

A few years from now, the 4 percent return now available on a 10-year note
could look far less attractive than it does today, particularly if the economy
picks up and takes inflation with it.

"You've got to be patient in the expectation that rates will rise," said
Marshall B. Front, chairman of Front Barnett Associates, an investment
counseling firm in Chicago. "Then you can tie your money up."

People who buy long-term bonds now are likely to suffer the same fate as those
who bought long-term Treasuries a month ago, Mr. Front added. As interest rates
have risen, those investors have seen the principal value of their bonds fall
about 8 percent.

Ms. Mulvi agrees: "We've got a $450 billion deficit now, and it's going to be
financed through the issuance of additional Treasury securities," she said.
"That's going to bring interest rates up."

In fact, economists can make a credible argument, grounded in history, that
bonds or stocks or houses are so far ahead of themselves that they will be to
the coming decade what Japanese real estate and General Motors shares were to
the previous one. Based on earnings over the last 12 months, the Standard &
Poor's 500-stock index is more expensive than it has been at any time since
1950, outside of the late 90's.

Money market deposit accounts, meanwhile, are paying an average annual return
of about 0.5 percent, down from about 2 percent during most of 2001, according
to the research company BankRate.com. Against that background, some investors
find that they have more financial decisions to make, because some municipal
bonds and mortgage-backed securities have recently been called in before their
due dates, unable to continue paying 5 or 6 percent a year.

Ms. Mulvi and other people trying to live on investment income face the hardest
choices. Many already live on tight budgets, offering little chance at easy
savings, and they cannot simply abandon low-risk, low-return investments to put
their faith in the stock market's unmatched long-term record.

In Boulder, 20 percent of the apartments are now vacant at Villas at the
Atrium, a retirement home that costs $2,400 a month for a one-bedroom
apartment, meals, housekeeping and other services. That is more than twice the
rent across town at Golden West. Three years ago, Villas at the Atrium was
full.

"People are moving out of here because they can't afford it anymore," said
Elizabeth Pahlke, who moved to the Atrium four years ago with her husband and
has continued to live there since he died six months ago. "I'm having to dig
into the principal of my investments," she added, "to pay for it."

To conserve principal, she has made small spending cuts. She no longer eats
out, as she did with her husband, and avoids buying souvenirs on trips, like a
vacation last month in Minnesota with grandchildren. As is the case for many of
her peers, however, one big cost is going in the other direction: health care.

Although Medicare covered most of a recent ambulance ride to the hospital, her
share of the $800 bill was more than twice as much as it was the last time she
needed an ambulance, four years ago. "And it's not like it's something I could
have done without," Mrs. Pahlke said.

Overall medical costs having risen 10 percent since the start of 2001,
according to the Labor Department, while the Federal Reserve has lowered its
benchmark federal funds interest rate to 1 percent, from 6.5 percent. That
divergence has become a frequent subject of complaints to AARP, the lobbying
group.

"We get calls from seniors asking us to lobby Alan Greenspan to raise interest
rates," said David M. Certner, AARP's director of federal affairs. "But the
truth is, there's not an easy solution to the problem right now."

When Mr. Greenspan, the Fed's chairman, testified before Congress last month,
Representative Ron Paul, a Texas Republican, questioned him sharply about the
problems that low interest rates create for retirees. Mr. Greenspan replied
that the Fed had no choice but to keep its benchmark rate low and to encourage
business investment, home buying and other activity that would help the
still-weak economy.

"We can't have it both ways," Mr. Greenspan said. In other words, we cannot
have both high interest rates, which give significant incomes to those who hold
interest-paying investments, and low interest rates, which will stabilize the
economy and expand it.

INVESTORS can do better than a 1 percent annual return by handing over their
money for longer stretches of time. Five-year C.D.'s still yield about 2.7
percent, on average, compared with 0.85 percent for a three-month C.D. and 0.26
percent for an interest-bearing checking account, according to BankRate.com.

But these present some of the same problems as long-term bonds. At today's low
interest rates, tying up money for long periods rarely makes sense, financial
planners say. Despite their puny yields, money market accounts and C.D.'s
remain better options for many people who need income because of the
flexibility the investments offer. If rates rise, as many economists expect,
better opportunities will become available.

For investors who are just looking for a safe, decent return without immediate
income, meanwhile, the inflation-indexed bonds remain attractive. They are
still paying a better return than a 10-year note, even though they require just
a small time commitment and do not put the investment's principal at risk.

The bonds — which are known as I-bonds and should not be confused with
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, or TIPS, whose underlying value varies
— will now pay about 1.1 percentage points a year over the inflation rate for
up to 30 years, and they can be redeemed anytime after one year. For the first
five years, investors who redeem them must forfeit their last three months of
interest.

The stocks in the S.& P. 500 are also paying more income than money market
funds, and their current dividend yield of about 1.7 percent could increase
soon. The yield is now far below its 50-year average, and the most recent tax
cut included a reduction in dividend taxes for investors, potentially
increasing the incentives for companies to pay them.

Citigroup has increased its dividend to 35 cents a share, from 20 cents. Viacom
has said it will pay its first dividend in 16 years.

BUT the more basic — and perhaps creative — solutions to the challenge of
investing in a low interest-rate world present much less risk than stocks.

Coletta and Bill Davis of Carlsbad, Calif., did not come to the strategy by
choice, but they have been converted. They entered retirement with a bulging
stock portfolio, then watched as their life savings deflated in the last three
years. "We lost so much principal when the stock market went down," said Mrs.
Davis, 66, who had been a vice president at a large bank, "that the thought of
spending even a penny more of it just panicked me."

But they decided that they had no alternative — and have set aside some of
the money for living expenses while putting most of it in long-term
investments. By going to fewer movies and restaurants and canceling some trips
they had imagined, the Davises estimate that they spend about $300 less each
month than they had expected. A money market fund with a typical yield would
need to have a balance of $350,000 before it could produce that much income a
month — and that income would be taxed.

Investors can also create their own returns by moving money out of high-cost
mutual funds. The average annual expense for a domestic stock fund is 1.49
percent, while the average cost of an index fund is 0.78 percent, according to
Morningstar Inc. In other words, the difference between the two is a good bit
larger than the yield on a typical money market fund.

For people with outstanding credit card debt, the opportunity is even better.
"If somebody is making 1 percent on a money market fund and paying 18 percent
on a credit card, there's a spectacular investment to be made by paying off the
credit card," said Andrew Tobias, author of "The Only Investment Guide You'll
Ever Need" (Harcourt, 2002).

Where else are spectacular investments available these days?


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/10/bu...ey/10MONE.html