Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Bush: Don't Panic! At Least Not This Week, Anyway
From President George W. Bush's speech today about the economy:
Over the past few days, we have witnessed a startling drop in the stock market -- much of it driven by uncertainty and fear.... This uncertainty has led to anxiety among our people. And that is understandable -- that anxiety can feed anxiety
Gee, I wonder why Americans are feeling anxious just a couple of weeks after THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TOLD THEM WE'RE HEADING FOR "A LONG AND PAINFUL RECESSION"????
More from Bush:
[T]he decline in the housing market has left many Americans struggling to meet their mortgages and are concerned about losing their homes. My administration has launched two initiatives to help responsible borrowers keep their homes. One is called HOPE NOW, and it brings together homeowners and lenders and mortgage servicers, and others to find ways to prevent foreclosure. The other initiative is aimed at making it easier for responsible homeowners to refinance into affordable mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration. So far, these programs have helped more than 2 million Americans stay in their home. And the point is this: If you are struggling to meet your mortgage, there are ways that you can get help.
Why does HOPE NOW leave me feeling so HOPELESS? Why is a chunk of my personal income going to bail out people who chose to refinance–not buy an initial mortgage necessarily, but leverage it into an even bigger ATM machine–at the top of an insane housing market? When do I finally get rewarded (through the market correction of prices), not punished (through taxation to artificially prop up those prices), for choosing to rent rather than buy into a bubble?
With these actions to help to prevent foreclosures, we're addressing a key problem in the housing market: The supply of homes now exceeds demand. And as a result, home values have declined. Once supply and demand balance out, our housing market will be able to recover -- and that will help our broader economy begin to grow.
Note this explicit justification for government action. It's now an urgent federal priority to make sure asset prices appreciate forever. Even though housing prices in real terms, even after a two-year plunge, are still up 40 percent since the beginning of 1997.
[W]e're working closely with partners around the world to ensure that our actions are coordinated and effective. Tomorrow, I'll meet with the finance ministers from our partners in the G7 and the heads of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Secretary Paulson will also meet with finance ministers from the world's 20 leading economies. Through these efforts, the world is sending an unmistakable signal: We're in this together, and we'll come through this together. [...]
And as we act, we will do it in a way that is effective. [...]
The plan we are executing is aggressive. It is the right plan. It will take time to have its full impact. It is flexible enough to adapt as the situation changes. And it is big enough to work.
A score of central governments working in concert to coordinate industrial policy on a perhaps-unprecedented scale? What ever could go wrong!
Exasperated sarcasm aside, I have two questions for the assembled:
1) Is this indeed The End of American Capitalism as we know it?
2) Am I the only tightwad in the world who has always thought it a way-too-risky idea to put any more than, say, 10 percent of your savings into equities markets? Seriously, I'm starting to feel like a jerk here, but when did "retirement" come to = "massive over-exposure into stock-index funds"?
David Zucker, back when he was still funny, predicted Bush's calming ways three decades ago:
|10.10.08 @ 2:22PM|#
Am I the only tightwad in the world who has always thought
it a way-too-risky idea to put any more than, say, 10 percent of
your savings into equities markets?
pfffft Did you live through the first Great Depression? Long term
investing requires substantial equities holdings. It's the only way
to keep ahead of inflation. Once you reach retirement and you're
depending on your nest egg to support you in your golden years,
then a very conservative strategy of as little as 50% may
be appropriate.
Who was it that was saying the president need to shut the fuck
up?
|10.10.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Over the past few days, we have witnessed a startling drop
in the stock market -- much of it driven by uncertainty and
fear.... This uncertainty has led to anxiety among our people. And
that is understandable -- that anxiety can feed anxiety
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to the dark
side.
Maybe they should print up little cards with the Litany Against
Fear on them.
robc|10.10.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Am I the only tightwad in the world who has always thought
it a way-too-risky idea to put any more than, say, 10 percent of
your savings into equities markets? Seriously, I'm starting to feel
like a jerk here, but when did "retirement" come to = "massive
over-exposure into stock-index funds"?
No, you arent the only one, but you seem way too conservative. Of
course, it depends upon your age, but high rewards come from high
risk. If having your investments lose 50% or their value bothers
you, you arent thinking long term enough and probably shouldnt be
invested that heavily in equities. Myself, its just a number on a
sheet of paper. Ive got over 20 years until Im 59.5, I cant begin
to touch my retirement accounts for a long time, it will be
back.
A few years back, I lost about 60k one year in one tech stock. My
response, other than beating myself up for not getting out, was
"Eh, I still had a really nice return from the time I bought it in
the mid 90s. Ignoring the missed upside, it was still a smart
investment".
Kyle|10.10.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Seriously, I'm starting to feel like a jerk here, but when
did "retirement" come to = "massive over-exposure into stock-index
funds"
Not that I totally disagree, but what were people supposed to do
with there money when interest rates were 1%? I may be totally
ignorant of the subject, but that's what I think of the matter.
|10.10.08 @ 2:27PM|#
when did "retirement" come to = "massive over-exposure into
stock-index funds"?
January 2005? Oh, wait, no, they killed that proposal.
|10.10.08 @ 2:30PM|#
but what were people supposed to do with there money when interest rates were 1%?
That depends. Did you need that money immediately? In 5 years? 10
years? 30 years?
robc|10.10.08 @ 2:33PM|#
joe,
Private accounts dont make stock index funds manditory. My mother,
for example, has a significant chunk of her IRA in CDs. She lets me
Dad's IRA do the risky investing.
Her IRA does better than social security, with little risk.
|10.10.08 @ 2:36PM|#
robc,
Private investing doesn't make stock index funds mandatory, either.
So?
Anyway, if your mom has an IRA that can pay for a retiree's
benefits today AND still compound enough interest for her own
retirement, I need her broker's phone number. Because if it doesn't
do that first part, then no, it doesn't do better than social
security.
EJM|10.10.08 @ 2:38PM|#
Tomorrow, I'll meet with the finance ministers from our
partners in the G7 and the heads of the International Monetary Fund
and World Bank. Secretary Paulson will also meet with finance
ministers from the world's 20 leading economies.
Therefore, Spain--the nation with the eighth-largest nominal
GDP and the 11th-largest PPP-based
GDP in the world--will be left out of both meetings--like with
last weekend's meeting in Paris of Europe's "leading economies".
(Paulson's meeting is with the G20.)
Granted, the end result likely doesn't matter too much, but if I
were Prime Minister Zapatero, I'd consider it a snub.
|10.10.08 @ 2:38PM|#
pfffft Did you live through the first Great Depression? Long
term investing requires substantial equities holdings. It's the
only way to keep ahead of inflation. Once you reach retirement and
you're depending on your nest egg to support you in your golden
years, then a very conservative strategy of as little as 50% may be
appropriate.
Actually, when you get close to retirement you should be in
majority fixed income. A combination of corporates and federal
bonds is good. The old rule of thumb is take 100 and subtract your
age for the percent of your retirement to put in equities. I think
it's too conservative for people
Michael Ejercito|10.10.08 @ 2:41PM|#
Am I the only tightwad in the world who has always thought it a way-too-risky idea to put any more than, say, 10 percent of your savings into equities markets? Seriously, I'm starting to feel like a jerk here, but when did "retirement" come to = "massive over-exposure into stock-index funds"?
In the long-term , equities markets are the way to go; the
market is higher than it was twenty years ago, let alone forty
years ago.
Someone who invested one thousand dollars in the stock market on
the eve of the 1929 crash would be ahead fifty years later.
Matt Welch|10.10.08 @ 2:45PM|#
My whole approach to money that I'm not spending is to make sure
I don't lose it. But then, I always believed Stevie Wonder's maxim
that if you believe in things you don't understand then you
suffer....
Luckily, I *do* understand currency arbitrage pretty well, which
I've used to strong advantage this past decade....
|10.10.08 @ 2:53PM|#
[T]he decline in the housing market has left many Americans
struggling to meet their mortgages
More gibberish; a decline in the market price of your home has
nothing to do with your ability to make the payment. If you're
trying to sell it in order to pay off the balance of the loan,
that's a different matter.
|10.10.08 @ 2:55PM|#
Oh, come on, George Bush can't be ignorant about the economy and finance; he has an MBA.
|10.10.08 @ 2:56PM|#
[T]he decline in the housing market has left many Americans
struggling to meet their mortgages and are concerned about losing
their homes.
Bullshit. The current market value of your house has exactly
nothing to do with whether you are, or can, make your mortgage
payments and keep your home.
My administration has launched two initiatives to help
responsible borrowers keep their homes.
Responsible borrowers don't need any help to keep their homes,
because they didn't borrow more than they can afford.
|10.10.08 @ 2:57PM|#
First "Change", now "Hope". Looks like the GOP respects Obama's marketing, if nothing else.
Kolohe|10.10.08 @ 2:58PM|#
Luckily, I *do* understand currency arbitrage pretty well,
which I've used to strong advantage this past decade....
You think the stock market is too risky but play the forex?
Or are you an international smuggler? (which don't get me wrong, is
a perfectly respectable profession)
|10.10.08 @ 2:59PM|#
Mo,
I still say that anyone who doesn't require round the clock care,
should be holding at least half their portfolio in equities.
However, the 'one hundred minus your age' strategy is endorsed by a
number of level headed investment advisers. So if you're of a
fretful nature, that would be acceptable, but anything more
conservative is paranoia or OCD.
|10.10.08 @ 3:01PM|#
And I am a "no" on the "end of American Capitalism as we know it" question. A little fat busting out of the seams, but everything will be back to the way it was after the surge subsides. At least, that's the way it has worked since forever. Greed and human nature don't change.
|10.10.08 @ 3:09PM|#
I'm starting to wonder if Directive 10-289 wouldn't have been better received by industrialists if only it were called something like HOPE NOW.
|10.10.08 @ 3:12PM|#
This is America, Episiarch. Talk American.
Goddammit. I shouldn't have to push one for American.
gmatts|10.10.08 @ 3:14PM|#
"Over the past few days, we have witnessed a startling drop in
the stock market -- much of it driven by uncertainty and
fear"
The drop in the stock market could also be characterized as being
driven logic. We were all told that for a long time the US economy
was being propped up by the housing market (which from March of '03
on took the place of the dot-com boom and led the Dow on a non-stop
trajectory upwards), which was being propped up by the ease of
securing a mortage due to low interest rates. Now we've come to
realize that all this did was create inflation and unreasonable and
unsustainable home prices. Now we are dealing with the logical
consequences of trends that could only end up doing what they are
doing now, which is why the DOW is now about where it wa when this
housing boom took hold. It seems that this is a crisis if everyone
was planning on retiring next month, but I'm at a loss to
understand why there's talk suggesting bread lines and images of
the Joad family wandering from place to place.
Old Bull Lee|10.10.08 @ 3:24PM|#
What gmatts says is what I've been saying for a while. I've got
401k and other stocks that have plummeted, but I wasn't planning on
selling for a long time anyway.
Ditto my house - doesn't matter what it's worth, the mortgage
paperwork in my file cabinet still has all the same numbers on it*,
nobody's gone over them with whiteout because of the house's market
value so I'm still making the same payment every month.
*Of course, silly me, I asked questions when I was signing all the
paperwork. I even read some of it.
|10.10.08 @ 3:36PM|#
But then, I always believed Stevie Wonder's maxim that if
you believe in things you don't understand then you
suffer....
Matt, I hope you were being glib there. I don't understand the vast
majority of things required to make modern life livable, but I
believe in them insofar as I know they do work. Hell, I don't
understand how my microwave works for the most part. If I don't
believe in my microwave, then I *will* suffer.
Matt Welch|10.10.08 @ 3:39PM|#
You think the stock market is too risky but play the
forex?
I am in forex whether I choose to be or not, due to my wife's
income streams. Choosing which income to spend at any given time,
and where to park various currencies, and when to exchange big
chunks into other flavors, can easily turn into a source of
considerable gain if you time things right.
And currencies-slash-countries are much, much easier to evaluate
and predict than individual stocks or index funds, IMO.
gmatts|10.10.08 @ 3:40PM|#
JW
Leaving aside the wonders of microwaves and email and such, I'm
still baffled that I can write out on a note on a piece of paper,
write where I want it to go on the outside, put a 40 cent stamp on
it, drop it off at a predetermined spot, and a series of perfect
strangers will, in about 3 days, get that exact note to where I
wrote I wanted it to go.
(and with some luck the gov't wont decide to read it!)
Matt Welch|10.10.08 @ 3:43PM|#
I don't understand the vast majority of things required to
make modern life livable, but I believe in them insofar as I know
they do work.
Aha, but how can one "believe" in a stock price? Microwaves will
work until they don't; then you buy a new one. Prices aren't meant
to march steadily upward in all cases -- they go up and down, based
on all kinds of things that are unknowable and unpredictable. Even
index funds, which are supposed to perform by at least XX% every YY
years, are only *supposed* to do that; there are no guarantees
there.
How do you know your index fund isn't too heavily weighted in
sectors that will cease to exist 10 years from now? You don't! So,
I treat equities like the place to gamble house-money, but I keep
my savings in places that are more knowable.
Mike Laursen|10.10.08 @ 3:49PM|#
One is called HOPE NOW...
I'm putting all the money I have left into acronyms! I tell ya,
they're gonna be hot.
Zeb|10.10.08 @ 3:52PM|#
While listening to the news I keep on thinking they are going to say "irresponsible borrowers" but then I am inevitably let down to hear once again something about "irresponsible lenders". Seems to me that at least half of the blame has to go to the borrowers.
Mike Laursen|10.10.08 @ 3:57PM|#
January 2005? Oh, wait, no, they killed that
proposal.
Actually, one of the worst things about the current Social Security
arrangement is that it is set up to yield piss-poor returns. For
folks with retirement years away, much more of their retirement
nest eggs should be invested in equities.
Mike Laursen|10.10.08 @ 4:01PM|#
Actually, when you get close to retirement you should be in
majority fixed income.
How old do you think Welch is?
A combination of corporates and federal bonds is
good.
And that whole conventional investing wisdom that federal bonds are
absolutely safe needs to be re-thunk.
Mike Laursen|10.10.08 @ 4:04PM|#
Oh, come on, George Bush can't be ignorant about the economy
and finance; he has an MBA.
I vaguely remember someone digging up some of his old college
papers during one of the Presidential campaigns. Am I
misremembering?
TallDave|10.10.08 @ 4:05PM|#
I must have missed when Obama was criticized for talking down the economy, and McCain praised for saying it was fundamentally strong.
Mike Laursen|10.10.08 @ 4:06PM|#
Bullshit. The current market value of your house has exactly
nothing to do with whether you are, or can, make your mortgage
payments and keep your home.
In fact it works the other way. If the value of your house declines
enough, it's no longer worth it to try to make the payments. Which
is one of the big factors in the current default crisis.
|10.10.08 @ 4:07PM|#
Actually, one of the worst things about the current Social
Security arrangement is that it is set up to yield piss-poor
returns.
Social Security isn't set up to yield returns at all. It's a
pay-as-you-go system.
If it were set up to yield returns, the money that would go to pay
this year's bills would be tied up.
TallDave|10.10.08 @ 4:09PM|#
And that whole conventional investing wisdom that federal
bonds are absolutely safe needs to be re-thunk.
If Uncle Sam defaults every other investment vehicle has not only
defaulted, but all the other backing institutions have probably
ceased to exist. Remember, these guys own the printing
presses.
So, I treat equities like the place to gamble house-money, but
I keep my savings in places that are more knowable.
/agree. Bonds ftw!
Old Bull Lee|10.10.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Wouldn't that only be true if it was falling apart or something? Even my house's value suddenly dropped 50% today, I could still easily come out ahead when I pay it off years (or decades) later.
Mike Laursen|10.10.08 @ 4:12PM|#
While listening to the news I keep on thinking they are
going to say "irresponsible borrowers" but then I am inevitably let
down to hear once again something about "irresponsible
lenders".
What's the complement of "predatory lender"? "Prey borrower"?
gmatts|10.10.08 @ 4:13PM|#
"In fact it works the other way. If the value of your house
declines enough, it's no longer worth it to try to make the
payments. Which is one of the big factors in the current default
crisis."
But is it worth it to walk away from a financial comittment, and
have that follow you aound forever, just because your home isn't
temporarily worth what you'd like it to be worth at this very
moment?
Mike Laursen|10.10.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Social Security isn't set up to yield returns at all. It's a
pay-as-you-go system.
Bullshit. It has a cashflow, therefore it IS a type of investment
and has historic yields, and a yield that can be predicted.
Mike Laursen|10.10.08 @ 4:17PM|#
But is it worth it to walk away from a financial comittment,
and have that follow you aound forever, just because your home
isn't temporarily worth what you'd like it to be worth at this very
moment?
It wrecks your credit rating, but it may be worth it to you.
Mike Laursen|10.10.08 @ 4:19PM|#
If Uncle Sam defaults every other investment vehicle has not
only defaulted, but all the other backing institutions have
probably ceased to exist.
I don't think that's true. It's a big world and there are a lot of
things you can do with your money. Besides, you've reinforced my
assertion that federal bonds should not be considered to be
absolutely safe.
Mike Laursen|10.10.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Wouldn't that only be true if it was falling apart or
something? Even my house's value suddenly dropped 50% today, I
could still easily come out ahead when I pay it off years (or
decades) later.
A lot would depend on how big a down payment you made. If you don't
have much equity at stake, why would you tough it out?
Mike Laursen|10.10.08 @ 4:22PM|#
And currencies-slash-countries are much, much easier to
evaluate and predict than individual stocks...
If you stay away from the glamorous stocks, which tend to have
distorted prices, you can make pretty good predictions based on the
company's history of sales, profits, and management. Check out the
NAIC (National Association of Investors Corporation) web site --
it's the absolute best place to learn about investing.
|10.10.08 @ 4:24PM|#
It has a cashflow, therefore it IS a type of
investment
Wow.
OK, if we're making up new definitions, then I get a really shitty
rate of return on the money I use to pay my bills on payday. I
mean, the three or four hours its' in my account doesn't usually
produce more than a nickel in interest.
Mike Laursen|10.10.08 @ 4:27PM|#
OK, it has a long-term cashflow, therefore it is an investment. What the hell do you think an investment is?
gmatts|10.10.08 @ 4:39PM|#
"It wrecks your credit rating, but it may be worth it to
you."
It may be worth it to me to do something that will make it more
difficult and costly in the future to borrow money simply because
the value of my home may be temporarily less than what is was just
a short time ago?
If I'm still able to make the payments, it seems to make more sense
to not panic, lose a from of equity, then have to look for a place
to rent(the worst way to spend money) and ruin my credit rating in
the process.
|10.10.08 @ 4:42PM|#
But it doesn't have a long-term cashflow. The money that comes
in goes out right away. That's what makes it pay-as-you-go.
It's like the Pentagon - if there's money in its budget next year,
that's because we put money in next year. There's no accumulation,
nevermind interest or earnings on that money.
gmatts|10.10.08 @ 4:52PM|#
"That's what makes it pay-as-you-go."
But if there are increases in benefits as time goes by, the system
can't truly be seen as a pay as you go type system
ed|10.10.08 @ 4:55PM|#
Social Security isn't set up to yield returns at all. It's a
pay-as-you-go system
That's right. The workers pay and the retirees go golfing.
|10.10.08 @ 5:32PM|#
And currencies-slash-countries are much, much easier to
evaluate and predict than individual stocks or index funds,
IMO.
I've seen $500/year newsletters with sales pitches not half this
good.
Bullshit. It has a cashflow, therefore it IS a type of
investment and has historic yields, and a yield that can be
predicted.
Not really. Investments are property. No one owns their social
security "account." joe's right - it is pay as you go. This year's
benefits are paid out of this year's taxes, and next year's
benefits will be paid out of next year's taxes.
When the SS tax for a year no longer covers that year's benefits,
the difference will be paid out of the general fund.
Sure, there's some phony baloney accounting in there, but them's
the facts.
|10.10.08 @ 5:53PM|#
Supply exceeds demand
Easy to solve
Lower the price
Burn the excess supply
Open the borders
No charge to the government for my free advice.
|10.10.08 @ 6:01PM|#
Aha, but how can one "believe" in a stock price?
Ya gotta have faith! No, I don't believe in any one stock price,
but I'm all good with historical averages giving me some idea of
what potential outcomes will be in 30 years.
Of course, past perfomrnace, yadda, yadda.
How do you know your index fund isn't too heavily weighted in
sectors that will cease to exist 10 years from now? You
don't!
No argument there, but I'm not sophisticated enough to play around
in financial instruments. All I can do is educate myself enough to
understand what I'm getting into and what precautions to take,
hoping I won't be fucked down the road.
Yeah, I know, pretty shitty system. Still better than betting on
politicans' promises.
Mike Laursen|10.10.08 @ 6:34PM|#
But it doesn't have a long-term cashflow. The money that
comes in goes out right away. That's what makes it
pay-as-you-go.
I don't care how it works internally. To the consumer, i.e. me, I
put money in and I'm promised a projected long-term yield. I even
get a statement each year from the Social Security Administration
telling me what my expected yield will be if I retire at various
ages. I can compare that projected yield to other possible vehicles
I can invest my money in.
Saying that that is not an investment, that it is somehow different
from and not comparable to other possible retirement investments,
is one of the semantic games that has been used to sell Social
Security.
|10.10.08 @ 6:44PM|#
gmatts,
The Pentagon budget increases every year. The farm checks get
bigger over time. The money that comes in is spent on current
expenses - that's a pay-as-you-go system.
Saying that that is not an investment, that it is somehow
different from and not comparable to other possible retirement
investments, is one of the semantic games that has been used to
sell Social Security.
Uh, that fact that it's not your money makes it pretty freaking
different from other investments. The fact that money is pooled and
distributed without there being anything bought makes it different
from other investments. The fact that the money you put in doesn't
stay there for you makes it different from other investments.
The fact that it's not an investment, but is a program that
collects taxes and pays benefits defined by legislation makes it
different from an investment. It makes it the DPW budget, except
the money goes out as checks instead of pavement and striping.
Mike Laursen|10.10.08 @ 6:49PM|#
Uh, that fact that it's not your money makes it pretty
freaking different from other investments.
It's my money up to the point where it is paid in. That's exactly
like lots of other investments that make no guarantee.
The fact that money is pooled and distributed without there
being anything bought makes it different from other investments.
The fact that the money you put in doesn't stay there for you makes
it different from other investments.
Yup, that's why it's a bad investment.
|10.10.08 @ 7:35PM|#
...images of the Joad family wandering from place to place...
The Joad family had it coming.
If all the Okies were that sack-of-hammers dumb, I don't see how
they managed to find California.
|10.10.08 @ 10:53PM|#
I don't care how it works internally.
There's the start of your problem right there, Mike - you don't
know, and don't want to know, what's really going on.
To the consumer, i.e. me, I put money in and I'm promised a
projected long-term yield. I even get a statement each year from
the Social Security Administration telling me what my expected
yield will be if I retire at various ages.
And there's the rest of it - you believe government propaganda
about Social Security.
I can compare that projected yield to other possible vehicles I
can invest my money in.
Two more mistakes - the money that goes into the Social Security
system isn't your money, and never was. And you can't make any
decisions to invest that money somewhere else.
I've got to figure out how to get a couple hundred Mikes in a room.
Would it even be wrong to fleece people this, um, misguided?
Mike Laursen|10.11.08 @ 12:09AM|#
Hey, R.C. I think you didn't catch what joe and I were debating about, or which one of us was on which side of that debate.
Mike Laursen|10.11.08 @ 12:10AM|#
And, R.C., I agree with everything you are implying about Social Security.
|10.11.08 @ 1:44AM|#
Watching the reactions of the market to everything the congress,
the treasury, and the president have said and done over the last
few weeks, I'm convinced that the best thing any of them can do is
shut the fuck up.
Of course, if Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulson, John McCain, Barack
Obama and every congresscritter that voted for the bailout were hit
by the proverbial bus, I would expect to see the NYSE and the
NASDAQ post all-time record gains that day.
-jcr
|10.12.08 @ 10:11AM|#
The supply of homes now exceeds demand. And as a result,
home values have declined. Once supply and demand balance out, our
housing market will be able to recover
easy solution, level every odd-numbered house. Take a wrecking ball
to 'em and make 'em flat. Over-supply situation resolved...
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245