April 27, 2024

Archives for September 2011

Wealth Matters: Challenging Dollar-Cost Averaging and Other Bad Ideas

The sheer magnitude of the world’s problems — high unemployment and legislative gridlock in the United States, debt problems in Europe, signs of a slowdown in China — makes this a scary time for investors.

But what about the urge to take some sort of action? As I have written before, the better strategy is almost always to focus on a long-term plan and not abandon it the moment it gets tested. After the last three years, this is tougher to do than ever.

“It’s very hard to do nothing when everybody is trying to talk you into doing something, even when it’s wrong,” said Susan Fulton, founder and president of FBB Capital Partners.

Michael Martin, a trader and the author of the new book “The Inner Voice of Trading” (FT Press), put it a different way. The big risk for average investors now is confusing volatility with opportunity.

He said professional traders become more wary when prices are changing rapidly for no fundamental reason. And he equated the market, with its wild swings, to a drunken uncle at a holiday dinner. “When someone’s behavior becomes more volatile, you don’t want to warm up to that person,” he said. “You want to get away.”

But ignoring those swings can be difficult. Below are some bad ideas as well as some slightly contrarian thoughts that may offer comfort.

BAD IDEAS Fear causes investors to do all sorts of things that could hurt them in the long run.

The recent drop in gold prices to about $1,600 an ounce from just under $1,900 in August has damped down some of the enthusiasm for gold. But the gyrations in stocks have led some investors to think that they can find something there that will soar as gold did.

“People want to swing for the fences,” Ms. Fulton said. “We’re not going to have stocks that multiply by 10 in the near future.”

She said she advised clients to look instead at companies that had a lot of cash and were paying steady dividends. There is a predictability to those stocks that will help battered portfolios.

A variation on the stock-picking strategy involves using tax losses accumulated over the years to bet heavily on a risky company. The hope is that any gains will get an investor back to even and also be tax-free.

The problem is that unless the investor picks the next Google, his losses could be substantial. And even if he’s lucky enough to pick a stock that appreciates greatly, it could be years before he sells the stocks and is able to use the tax losses to offset the gains.

“You should use your tax losses on things that can benefit you today,” said Lewis Altfest, chief investment officer of Altfest Personal Wealth Management.

Mr. Altfest said a client recently wanted him to put money into some risky stocks because he was down so much. Instead of agreeing, Mr. Altfest suggested the client reallocate his portfolio back to 65 percent stocks and 35 percent bonds and then go back to that allocation whenever the stock position dropped below 63 percent.

“He’s got a human problem now — he’s behind,” Mr. Altfest said. “I could explain to him that this is the worst recession we’ve had in 80 years. It might help him intellectually, but he hurts, and he wants an answer.”

CONSOLING THOUGHTS One of the great comforts to average investors in a volatile market is dollar-cost averaging. This is a fancy way of saying you should invest your money over a period of time as opposed to investing it all at once, which is known as lump-sum investing.

Proponents of dollar-cost averaging offer two arguments. By putting money into, say, a stock over time, you will be buying shares at varying prices, which will benefit you in the end. This seems particularly appealing when stock prices are rising and falling so much.

The second advantage is psychological: If you put all your money into an investment and it is worth 10 percent less the next day, you’re going to feel horrible about it. Worse, you may also be less inclined to make further investments or pull your money out.

But new research from Gerstein Fisher, a money manager in New York, raises questions about that investing philosophy. It found that from January 1926 to December 2010, investing your money on one day yielded better results over a 20-year period than investing the same amount of money in equal chunks over 12 months.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=90a4d733ac782efae338a23b99bea603

DealBook: Warren Buffett Explains His Positions on Taxes and Economy

Few billionaire investors possess the influence of Warren E. Buffett, chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway. With his company’s stock buybacks making waves and a tax proposal dubbed the “Buffett Rule” aimed at the wealthy, Mr. Buffett has thrust himself in the headlines.

DealBook’s Andrew Ross Sorkin spoke to Mr. Buffett and Cathy Baron Tamraz, chief executive of Business Wire, at the New York Stock Exchange in an interview for CNBC.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=43e5ab86d5d27d29a9f2c1c0ed7cb257

Common Sense: Let’s Stop Rewarding Failed C.E.O.’s

So why is H.P. paying Mr. Apotheker more than $13 million in termination benefits?

Just three years after the financial crisis generated widespread public outrage that Wall Street chief executives walked away with hundreds of millions in bonuses and other compensation after driving their companies into insolvency and plunging the nation’s economy into crisis, multimillion-dollar pay for failure is flourishing like never before. H.P. is simply the latest example, albeit an especially egregious one. It’s hard to fault Mr. Apotheker for taking what H.P. offered. But among the many questions shareholders should be asking the board is why it approved an employment agreement for Mr. Apotheker that arguably made it more lucrative for him to fail — and the sooner the better — than to succeed.

“It’s a great irony that spectacular failure is rewarded lavishly,” John J. Donohue, a professor at Stanford law school and the president of the American Law and Economics Association, told me. “It is a terrible mistake to set up a structure where the top person walks away with millions even if the company is laid waste by their poor decision-making, yet this is what’s happening. It’s a shocking departure from capitalist incentives if you lavish riches on the losers.”

He added that it’s especially shocking at H.P., which fired its previous two chief executives before Mr. Apotheker and had to make multimillion-dollar payments as a consequence. “After what H.P. had gone through, you’d think the board would have been on their toes rather than asleep at the switch again,” he said.

Experts said Mr. Apotheker had what amounts these days to a fairly standard termination agreement for a chief executive. In the event he was terminated for “cause,” his contract, a summary of which HP filed as an exhibit to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, provided a cash payment of twice his base pay (of $1.2 million, or $2.4 million); his earned but unpaid bonus (his “target” bonus was $2.4 million per year); any accrued but unused vacation — and “no further compensation.” That would add up to a maximum of about $4.8 million. But he wasn’t fired for cause.

In the rarefied world of high-level executive compensation, “cause” is a term of art that long ago parted company with standard usage. “Cause is a foreign concept to the general public, at least when it appears in executive employment contracts,” observed Mike Delikat, head of the global employment practice at Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe, who said he’d litigated many such provisions on behalf of major companies. “Most people are employed at will, which means they can be fired any time and for any reason unless the reason is an unlawful one like discrimination. But ‘cause’ is a negotiated term. It is often very narrow, limited to things like conviction of a felony or a complete failure to perform material duties under the contract.”

Mr. Apotheker’s contract wasn’t quite so narrow (“I’ve seen worse,” said Mr. Delikat). But it did narrowly construe “cause” to mean only “material neglect” of his duties or “conduct” that he “knew or should have known is materially inconsistent with the best interest of, or is materially injurious to, H.P.” While such clauses may be open to interpretation, the board appears to have given no consideration to firing Mr. Apotheker for cause, which might be difficult to establish considering the board backed his various strategic initiatives, however ill-fated they proved to be.

Once Mr. Apotheker was being terminated “without cause,” a clause in his agreement kicked in that accelerated the grant of 200,000 shares of “sign on equity grants” and another 76,000 restricted shares and 608,000 “performance-based restricted units” as “long term incentives.” You’d think that long-term incentives would no longer be necessary or appropriate for someone who’d just been fired, and that anything “performance based” would be rendered moot by the plunge in H.P.’s stock price during Mr. Apotheker’s tenure. On the contrary. Thanks to his termination, “all restrictions shall be released” on the grants of restricted stocks, and the supposedly performance-based awards would assume that he was employed “through the end of the performance period,” according to his contract summary.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=da6302ef0fdb9e6c7de405f57bbec1dd

Barclays Faces Sanctions in Japan

Barclays said it would comply with the ban but that the violation was the result of a technical error, not deliberate short-selling.

In short-selling, traders bet against a stock’s rise and make money if the stock goes down in price. Regulators around the world have tried to regulate short-selling, saying it destabilizes financial markets.

Saddled with a stock market that has underperformed for years, Japanese regulators have been particularly wary of any destabilizing trades in equities.

On Friday, the Nikkei stock average closed flat at 8,700.29, ending three months in which stocks tumbled 11.4 percent.

In a statement, Japan’s Financial Services Agency said that Barclays Capital Japan had failed to properly code short-selling maneuvers on the Osaka Securities Exchange during an 18-month period that started in February 2010.

The agency will suspend equity trades between Barclays Capital Japan and Barclays’ other affiliated companies. The ban runs for 10 business days, ending Oct. 24.

Barclays Capital said the trades had not been coded properly because of a technical malfunction. The firm had suspended transactions on the system that had caused the error, it said in a statement.

“An internal review concluded that there was no deliberate intention to manipulate the market and derive a benefit,” Barclays said.

The agency ordered Barclays Capital to submit a report by Oct. 12 offering more details of the breach, including those responsible for the transactions, and outlining measures to prevent similar errors.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=784e80d043ba030530a5dfaf72781947

Troubled Poker Site May Be Bought by French Entrepreneur

Full Tilt Poker players may yet be able to cash out.

The embattled poker site said Friday that it had signed an agreement to be acquired by the investment company of George Tapie, a prominent French entrepreneur.

Under the agreement, Groupe Bernard Tapie would repay Full Tilt Poker players the hundreds of millions of dollars they have been unable to collect since the company was indicted in April by the Justice Department.

At the time, federal prosecutors accused the site, and two other offshore poker houses, of fraud and money laundering. Prosecutors shut down access to the sites for Americans.

Then, earlier this month, prosecutors separately filed civil charges against Full Tilt, asserting that the site’s owners and managers had siphoned off hundreds of millions of dollars that were supposed to be held in the accounts of individual players.

Under the terms of the agreement between Groupe Bernard Tapie and the management of Full Tilt, the acquisition deal would not go through unless there is a resolution to the civil suit.

Barry Boss, a lawyer for the corporate entities behind Full Tilt, stressed that the agreement announced Friday was merely a prelude to a formal acquisition, pending resolution of the civil suit.

Nevertheless, he said, “It’s a significant development and one that definitely gives a renewed since of optimism that the players will get paid.”

The Justice Department declined comment, and a representative of Groupe Bernard Tapie could not be reached for comment. Mr. Tapie’s son Laurent said in an interview with the Web site iGamingFrance that the company would be talking to the Justice Department next week. He said that there were no plans to change the site’s name, but that a change of management would be in store if the deal goes through.

Bernard Tapie is a flamboyant French businessman and a friend of President Nicolas Sarkozy. Previously a socialist minister, Mr. Tapie changed party loyalties in 2007 to support Mr. Sarkozy. He has made his fortune by purchasing distressed and bankrupt entities.

The involvement of a French businessman adds yet another geographic front to the complicated international saga of Full Tilt, which has been pursued by American prosecutors and is based in Ireland.

Earlier this week, Full Tilt had its operating license revoked by the Alderney Gambling Control Commission, which is based on the Irish Channel island of Alderney, where Full Tilt is registered.

Mr. Boss said the commission ruled that Full Tilt had not been up front with gaming authorities about the amount of cash it had on hand to pay back players. According to prosecutors in the United States, Full Tilt told players that it kept their funds in secure accounts, even as management was lining its pockets with those funds.

The prosecutors say Full Tilt owners and managers paid themselves $440 million since April 2007 but, as of March of this year, owed players $390 million.

In revoking the license, the Alderney Gambling Control Commission left room for a new owner to come in and re-establish a license, according to Mr. Boss.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=3c2f74f7577b4e76ead31dd1690fe383

Patricia Kluge Loses Her Fortune in the Downturn

After filing for bankruptcy in June, she has a day job.

Not an ordinary job though. She is working for Donald Trump, who scooped up the winery and vineyard that she had built on the Virginia estate — a high-risk venture that drained all her money until she had to seek protection from her creditors in court.

And she is living no ordinary life. Instead, she rents a 6,000-square-foot home with a swimming pool and five bedrooms decorated by a celebrity designer, David Easton, in what was intended to be the first house in an exclusive gated community down the road from her old mansion.

Her vision for an estate and business and gated community was certainly outsize. But the undoing of Ms. Kluge (pronounced KLOO-gie, with a hard “g”) was not so different from that of many Americans who maxed out their credit cards and their home loans during boom times. She borrowed heavily. It’s just that she had so much more to leverage.

While her financial straits have been documented as banks closed in on her, she is speaking publicly at last about her bankruptcy, sounding resolute, reassuring herself about the future — without the liveried servants that once attended to guests at her hunting parties.

“I loved the life I lived at Albemarle. Are you kidding? But it does not define who I am,” she says, dressed in cotton slacks and a T-shirt from the Mount Kenya Safari Club.

“If you can get a job, you can build another fortune,” she adds. “That is what I focus on.”

For now, Ms. Kluge, 62, and her husband, William Moses, 64, will make about $250,000 under a one-year contract to work for Mr. Trump at the winery. She handles winemaking, bottling and marketing, and Mr. Moses oversees legal and other matters part time. Roughly a third of their money goes to rent.

Lest anyone think that Ms. Kluge’s worries are entirely over, her lawyer points out that the future is unclear. “They are walking out of bankruptcy with nothing,” said the couple’s lawyer, Kermit A. Rosenberg, a partner at Butzell Long Tighe Patton. When they filed for bankruptcy, the couple listed $2.6 million in assets and $47.5 million in liabilities.

From her living room, she points to the few items that are hers: the photographs — her son in St.-Tropez two decades ago and her 2000 wedding to Mr. Moses — and her dogs, a Labrador retriever and a Tibetan terrier.

“No one should feel sorry for us,” Ms. Kluge added later. “I have a great family, a wonderful marriage and loving children and friends. We are not looking at this bankruptcy as if our life has ended. We see this as an opportunity to recreate ourselves.”

In business, she says, she went down a familiar path learned from Mr. Kluge. During the 1980s, he sold his highly leveraged media properties to a variety of buyers, most notably Rupert Murdoch, for more than $3 billion. “John was a huge borrower,” Ms. Kluge recalled. Her strategy was similar, attract equity investors to pay off the debt, make the business cash-flow positive and then sell.

Over a decade, she bet more than $65 million, using her own money at first and then borrowing more, on the winery, a notoriously risky and capital-intensive business. When the economy turned down, she could not make her payments, and the banks forced her to sell her estate, her winery, her jewels and the land she had acquired for the gated community. The jewelry and home furnishings raised nearly $20 million in a pair of auctions.

“It is Shakespearean in that Patricia aimed so high and did not make use of the kind of financial advice that would have increased the chances of making the vineyard work and minimized her financial exposure from the outset,” said Les Goldman, a business adviser and former partner at the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Flom.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=0ebd0f603019212247b79834fb3861f3

U.S. Consumer Spending Rises, but Incomes Fall

Opinion »

Op-Ed: Liberated, but They Have to Live There

Our legacy from the war in Iraq will be written in the lives of the people we have left behind.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=611a195a97ead44c0752a0a93d9db55a

S.E.C. Finds Problems at Credit-Rating Agencies

The examinations were mandated in the Dodd-Frank regulatory law passed last year after numerous investigations into the causes of the financial crisis. Several of those inquiries found that the agencies issued inaccurate reports, failed to report or manage conflicts of interest and put generating revenue ahead of rigorous financial analysis.

For the investing public, however, the S.E.C.’s report is likely to be of limited value because the commission declined to name the credit ratings agencies at which it found deficiencies. Instead, it refers to its findings as occurring either at one or more of the three large agencies — Moody’s Investors Service, Standard Poor’s and Fitch — or at one or more of the seven smaller ratings firms.

The report also found that all three of the large agencies and four of the small ones had weak controls or inadequate policies for ownership of securities by employees.

The findings have not resulted in any enforcement actions by the agency, but staff members could refer some or all of its findings to the enforcement division for further investigation.

Inflated credit ratings were the subject of several investigations into the causes of the financial crisis. A report by the Senate permanent subcommittee on investigations issued in April noted that more than 90 percent of the highest, or AAA, ratings given to mortgage-backed securities in 2006 and 2007 “were later downgraded to junk status, defaulted or withdrawn,” causing huge investor losses.

In a conference call with reporters, commission staff members said it was not forbidden by the Dodd-Frank statute or the commission’s own regulations from disclosing the names of the companies whose procedures it found deficient. Carlo Y. di Florio, director of the office of compliance inspections and examinations, said, “We made a decision internally that it was most effective” not to name the companies.

“We didn’t name names because we are separately following up” with each ratings agency about the findings, Mr. di Florio said, a path he said was “more efficient.”

The commission’s report said that each of the three larger ratings agencies “has made changes to improve its operations” since the last periodic examination in 2007-8. But the report also noted that all of the 10 agencies “failed to follow their ratings procedures in some instances.”

The report specifically said that the failure of one of the largest ratings firms to follow its own procedures resulted in ratings of asset-backed securities that were inconsistent with its publicly disclosed standards. “The staff is concerned about the extent to which market share and business considerations may have contributed” to the failure, the report said.

Mr. di Florio declined to disclose the company’s name. A footnote in the report said that the agency itself reported its analysis error as the S.E.C. staff was conducting its examination, which covered the period Dec. 1, 2009, through Aug. 1, 2010.

In August 2010, the S.E.C. released a separate report on its investigation of Moody’s, which found that the company made false statements in its registration as a ratings agency with the S.E.C. and failed to follow its procedures and methodologies for determining credit ratings.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=36dea2c1927fef6f5573f4606a75ecde

Economix Blog: U.S. Still Dominates in Research Universities

Next time you get depressed thinking about the state of the American education system, just visualize this chart:

DESCRIPTIONSource: O.E.C.D. and SCImago Research Group (CSIC) (forthcoming), Report on Scientific Production, based on Scopus Custom Data, Elsevier, June 2011. Statlink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932485310

The chart, based on new data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, shows the distribution of the top 50 universities for a range of disciplines. Rankings are based on citations of work coming from each university’s department.

The darker blue bars at the bottom of the chart refer to American universities. And as you can see, at least at the post-secondary level, we still have some top-notch schools.

In fact, for every discipline shown except for the social sciences, a majority of major research institutions are in the United States. Even in the social sciences a plurality of the top departments are based in the United States.

Across all disciplines shown, 80 percent of the top research departments are in the United States. The next-highest share is in Britain (light blue bars), which is host to 10 percent of the world’s top research departments.

American tertiary education dominance may not last forever, though.

The share of residents who hold doctorates is lower in the United States than in many other countries, as shown in the chart below. Indeed — partly because the rest of the American education system is so weak — many of the students attending American doctorate programs are visiting from abroad.

As other countries devote larger shares of their economies to research and development, the world’s top students may see new educational opportunities at home. And they may not bother reinfusing America’s university system with new talent.

DESCRIPTIONSource: OECD (2011), Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators, and OECD (2009), Education at a Glance 2009: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932485728

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=e79eb0f169adecd16dce20fc0f713d2e

You’re the Boss Blog: A Restaurant Owner Talks the Talk With His Customers

Start-Up Chronicle

Getting a restaurant off the ground.

I don't understand why I am here.Susan Meisel“I don’t understand why I am here.”

As you might have suspected, I have had many opinions about restaurants over the years, but I have never approached the owner of one of them and told him or her how I would improve his or her life’s work. So it is with admiration and puzzlement that I listen to all the guests who call me to their table or track me down to offer their sage suggestions. While 95 percent of the comments are insightful and positive, those other 5 percent stick to the ribs like a good porterhouse, which we do not serve and which is a constant source of contention.

Almost nightly, someone will tell me how to improve the menu, how to redesign the interior, how to replant the garden, what liquors we ought to carry, how many beers we need on tap, and where the television should go. All of these voluntary advisers, naturally, profess to be doing me a favor, upgrading the establishment while gently upbraiding the owner.

Here are snippets from my conversations, some of my favorite slights, in no particular order.

Guest: This is not bluefish.
Owner: What do you think it is?
Guest: I don’t know, but it can’t be bluefish.
Owner: Why not?
Guest: It’s delicious.

Guest: I just did my taxes.
Owner: You need a drink?
Guest: I have two children, and I spent thousands of dollars at another restaurant last year. I would love to bring them here, but you need some plain pasta.
Owner: We have plain pasta if you want it.
Guest: Not at these prices!

Guest: You need chairs with arms. ABC Carpet has chairs with arms and they’re much more comfortable than your chairs.

Guest: Does your sous vide egg have a yolk?
Owner: Yes.
Guest: Will it run when I eat it?
Owner: Yes.
Guest: Then I will puke, right here on the table.
Owner: How many would you like?

Guest: You call this chicken liver pate? This is too creamy, and it’s under all these vegetables. Chicken liver should never be treated like this. Who wants a chicken liver mousse? Chicken liver should stand on its own, on the side of the plate. Here’s how I would compose a chicken liver plate …

Guest: You need a steak on the menu.
Owner: Why?
Guest: You won’t make it without a steak.
Owner: Are you genuinely interested in our financial stability?
Guest: No, I am not. All I care about is how this restaurant serves me. How often can I eat here. Can I bring my mother here? Will she enjoy herself? That’s all I care about. I don’t care about anything else. I certainly don’t care about you. I don’t even know you.

Guest: You need better champagne.
Owner: What would you suggest?
Guest: I’ll bring my samples around next week. How about Tuesday?

Guest: Your food is exquisite, your service excellent, your ambiance is great, but your prices are too high.
Owner: Do you think the first three things would be true if the last one were not?

Guest: I understand your menu changes often.
Owner: Yes, this week we added blowfish and albacore.
Guest: Do you think it will change a lot next week?
Owner: Depends on what is available. Why?
Guest: Because I have a reservation for next Saturday night and I didn’t like anything I ate tonight.

Guest: You know why I love this place?
Owner: Tell me, please.
Guest: No guilt. I can indulge myself to the max and still feel like I’m saving the planet. Better than therapy! And I can drink too!

Guest: You need a kiddie menu.
Owner: We have a children’s menu.
Guest: How come I never saw it?
Owner: You never came with children.

Guest: This place is almost perfect. Almost.
Owner: I’ll bite, what would make it perfect?
Guest: A flat-screen television.
Owner: Oh.
Guest: Behind the bar.
Owner: I see.
Guest: With America’s favorite game.
Owner: War?
Guest: No, the N.F.L.
Owner: Oh, war substitute.
Guest: Imagine great food, great wine, and Tom Brady. What a trifecta!
Owner: You must be a gambler.
Guest: Wanna bet?

Guest: This is not an amuse bouche.
Owner: Why do you say that?
Guest: There are three things here and they constitute a whole course. Look at the size of those cucumbers. This is not an amuse bouche, sir.
Owner: If you are accusing us of serving too much food, we shall accept your criticism. Thank you. I mean, I’m sorry.

Guest: I can buy the same oysters you do. I don’t understand why I am here.
Owner: I don’t either.

Guest: You need valet parking.
Owner: Okay. Why is that?
Guest: I tripped in the parking lot.
Owner: Tripped over what?
Guest: My own feet.

Guest: Can you move us to another table?
Owner: What are you looking for?
Guest: Different chairs.
Owner: Oh, the chairs are a problem?
Guest: I know, my girlfriend has a big, beautiful bottom.
Owner: I didn’t notice.
Guest: But she can’t deal with the metal chairs. Who can figure this stuff out?

TBD Design

Guest: You need better lighting. I can’t read the menu.
Owner: We have candles and mini flashlights.
Guest: That’s too embarrassing.
Owner: I understand, but here is our dilemma. You read the menu for five minutes while you gaze into the face of your partner for two hours.
Guest: On second thought, the lighting’s fine.

A guy approaches me, raises his hands in front of his face, as if to pray.
Guest: Take off my handcuffs, please.
Owner: What?
Guest: The bar menu is too restrictive. Take off my handcuffs, please.
Owner: Sorry. It’s just a two-course prix fixe with no dessert.
Guest: Attica! Attica!

Guest: You specialize in local stuff, right?
Owner: Yes.
Guest: And you have organic vegetables, right?
Owner: Yes.
Guest: You know what you need?
Owner: I’m about to find out.
Guest: Local art.
Owner: Oh.
Guest: Photographs. You have lots of spaces here that would be enhanced by photographs of old farms and old tractors and old boats.
Owner: Do you know where I could get these photographs?
Guest: Here’s my card.

Guest: We met you at the charity event last week.
Owner: Yes, I remember. Nice to see you.
Guest: We came for the scallops sashimi we had there.
Owner: Sorry, we’re not serving them tonight.
Guest: But that’s why we’re here.
Owner: We have a lot of other equally good fish dishes.
Guest: You can’t do that. You gave them away, they were delicious, we came here for the scallops, and you don’t have any? That’s shameful. That’s false advertising. You’ll never see us again.

Guest: I ordered the soft shell crab.
Owner: I think you have it.
Guest: When I order soft shell crabs, I want soft shell crabs. Not an egg, not spinach and onion and fennel and radish and black olives — just soft shell crabs.
Owner: It lists all those items on the menu.
Guest: That’s beside the point.

Guest: You need a salmon and avocado salad here.
Owner: We don’t serve salmon.
Guest: It’s easy to make. I made one for lunch today.
Owner: We don’t have avocado either.
Guest: Want me to show your chef how?
Owner: I would love to see that. Unfortunately, the chef is not here right now.

Guest: One complaint. Too much treif.
Owner: Shalom.

Guest: I love your place. But you need a bigger sign out front, more lights in the parking lot, and the entrance should be in the front of the building. Who ever heard of an entrance in the rear?
Owner: No comment.

Guest: How can you force me to have dessert?
Owner: We can’t.
Guest: But I am paying for it on the prix fixe.
Owner: You can take it home for later or tomorrow. The cheese plate, the cookies, several desserts travel very well.
Guest: Take it home? You kidding? I’m starving.

Guest: The booths are not very comfortable. You need to soften them, line them with cushions. I’m pretty sore.
Owner: How long have you been here?
Guest: Three hours.

Chris Koszyk

Guest: I wanted the mussels.
Owner: They’re delicious, a little on the spicy side.
Guest: I ordered the sardines.
Owner: Why is that?
Guest: You don’t have French fries.
Owner: I know.
Guest: You cannot expect anyone to eat mussels without French Fries.

Guest: I tried the clam chowder and it was inedible.
Owner: I am sorry.
Guest: I tried the arctic char and sent it back.
Owner: I am sorry again.
Guest: I am going to try the mussels now.
Guest’s husband: Or we could just go to McDonald’s and be done with it.

Guest: You need more vegetarian entrees.
Owner: We have three.
Guest: You do? Where?
Owner: It says right there on the menu, near the bottom, “vegetarian dishes on request.”
Guest: Then you need larger type and better lights.

Guest: When I called at 7, the woman said there were no tables available at 7:30.
Owner: As you can see, we’re filling up.
Guest: I asked about the bar and she said no reservations at the bar.
Owner: The bar is for walk-ins. Like you. You just walked in and you’re eating at the bar.
Guest: But I’m not happy about it.

Guest: Why don’t you have wild salmon?
Owner: It comes from Alaska.
Guest: But it fits your profile.
Owner: Large carbon footprint.
Guest: Salmon have feet?

Guest: This is America, right?
Owner: Right.
Guest: Then why don’t you have steak on the menu?
Owner: We don’t have steak because we are a sustainable seafood restaurant, and beef is not an indigenous Long Island product, and we’d have to buy half a cow, and we have neither the storage space nor the clientele large enough to support that much beef, and we have no need for by-products like beef stock and hamburger, and if we bought industrial steak, it would be mediocre, and if we purchased grass-fed, heritage beef, we’d have to raise our prices, and there are plenty of restaurants in the area with good steaks, and we don’t necessarily believe that beef is all that good for the planet or the persons living on it.
Guest: How about lamp chops?

Bruce Buschel owns Southfork Kitchen, a restaurant in Bridgehampton, N.Y.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=a0be4e2fc01127e38cf0bf3b21febb3c