A Woman's Place Is at the Financial Controls

I applaud Toddi Gutner's new column, focusing on women's personal money issues (''Women's investing: Vive la difference,'' Business Week Investor, Jan. 31). After 58 years of marriage, my father recently died and left my 79-year-old mother with a whole new world of money management she was ill-prepared to face. I have been able to assist her, but there are sensitive issues that make it difficult. To be suddenly on your own after that much time being cared for emotionally and financially makes independence very different from what it is for me: divorced, a business owner, and 46.

I'd like to see you address the issue of independent financial consultants and the claims of independence by brokers, insurance agents, and other commissioned professionals. That has been the most thorny issue with my mother--her continuing reliance on my dad's longtime broker and that tie to some vestige of my dad.

For someone who never had to know the difference between a stock and a certificate of deposit, the further confusion of discerning between an independent voice and that of someone familiar, working for a major brokerage firm, adds another layer of fuzziness. I'm looking forward to your column.

Elaine Baugh
Tucson

My wife and I enjoyed your new column. Dale and I are both 74. I have run the family finances from the beginning. Now I am teaching Dale a course I call Widowhood 101, taking her step by step through our financial life to prepare her for the time after I die.

Leonard Nemerovski
Wilmette, Ill.

This is an issue that needs to be addressed. Women have to start taking financial responsibility for their families and for themselves. My husband is a professional, and I help him in most business decisions, and I have also taken charge of all our financial planning and investments. This involves learning the stock market, staying aware of the economy, world situations, and tax and money issues. It upsets me that so many women don't want to bother. How can they dump all this responsibility on their husbands? The fact of the matter is, they will most likely end up making these choices anyway through death, divorce, or necessity.

Judy Lang
Medford, Wis.

I am 24 years old and began investing about a year ago. I decided to place my money in four mutual funds because: 1) I am watching my parents worry about retirement, even though they both make good money; 2) I am not in a relationship currently, and I am not sure when (or if) I will be married, therefore I have been investing (I hate to say this) out of fear.

The world is a different place from what it was 10 or 15 years ago; women are investing because they have been placed in a position to choose marriage later in life. So women do the college thing, then the career, and before they know it, they are 30 and wanting kids. The problem is this: Because women are not getting married until later, how do they know if it is going to ever happen? I invest because ''what if?'' I want the house and the car and a kid or two, but I don't want to have to wait around for some guy to make it happen. Investing gives me a sense of control.

Elizabeth Quickel
Oradell, N.J.

Why does every certified financial planner, analyst, and broker assume women know nothing about investing? And when it comes to riskier activities such as trading (day or short-term position trading), they think we don't have a clue. This bothers me, because it colors the advice I get when I talk to advisers: Just because I'm a woman doesn't mean I'm stupid when it comes to trading and investing. Don't dumb down your column or avoid more risky investment strategies just because you are talking to women.

Annie Goodman
Edwards, Colo.

Pricewaterhouse: No Audits Were Compromised

''If you can't trust the auditors...'' (Editorials, Feb. 7) dangerously misleads your readers, out of either ignorance of the facts or malice. The facts are straightforward. No audits of annual financial statements were compromised. The filings of all affected clients are being processed in the ordinary course of business. There is not one scintilla of evidence that anyone at PricewaterhouseCoopers used information improperly for personal gain or affected the outcome of an audit.

This is not meant to mitigate the seriousness of the problem. We take independence seriously and will settle for nothing less than full compliance with the independence rules. Your readers should have been informed of the sweeping actions that we have taken to prevent this from happening again.

We have spent more than $25 million to design and implement new state-of-the-art independence systems, procedures, and training. Random audit and disciplinary processes have been developed to isolate future infractions and punish the offenders. Ten people, including five partners, have been dismissed for egregious disregard of the rules.

With the most comprehensive quality control system in the business and a renewed commitment to independence in fact and in appearance, our ability to serve our clients and the public interest is stronger than ever. Be critical when and as you wish--but be responsible when you editorialize. Otherwise the question you ask might one day be asked of you.

Kenton J. Sicchitano
Global Managing Partner
Independence & Regulatory Affairs
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York

Don't Be Too Harsh on the Cendant Board

While I am certain you made every effort to determine the rankings fairly of ''The best and worst boards'' (Special Report, Jan. 17), I would be remiss if I didn't report our point of view on Cendant. As stated, Cendant's ranking was primarily influenced by two factors; the fraud discovered at former CUC International business units and the repricing of options.

As you probably know, Cendant's board was restructured in 1998. All board members who were directors of the former CUC (prior to its announced merger with HFS) resigned from Cendant's board. Thus it is unfair to blame the current board for fraud that occurred at former CUC business units for which they had no responsibility or fiduciary duty. In the spirit of fairness, the former CUC board should have been ranked among the worst boards, not Cendant's board.

Regarding the repricing of options, the Compensation Committee was compelled to reprice options to ensure the stability and continued healthy growth of Cendant's businesses. Remember that Cendant experienced a stock meltdown, not a meltdown of its business units. The Compensation Committee acted in the best interests of all Cendant shareholders when it decided to reprice options. When you consider the tempering components of the repricing program, including the cancellation of 15 million options and repricing of 20 million options at twice fair-market value, the board's action to reprice should be viewed in a favorable light.

Elliot Bloom
Vice President
Corporate Communications
Cendant Corp.
Parsippany, N.J.

With Universal Health Care, Everybody Could Live Longer

Gary S. Becker applauds the advance in life expectancy that the 20th century brought (''Longer life was the century's greatest gift,'' Jan. 31). As he recognizes, this would not have been possible without government funding of preventive health care, childhood immunization, clean water, insurance, dissemination of health information, and research.

Much more can be done, say, to decrease infant mortality and ensure health care for all. Perhaps Professor Becker should consider lending his Nobel-enhanced prestige to support political candidates who--gasp!--are willing to ensure that all Americans have a chance to receive the greatest gift. Maybe he can give substance to the phrase ''compassionate conservatism.''

Eric Schliesser
Chicago

Japan's Inheritance Tax: Not So Lethal

While your attention to Japan's inheritance-tax system is appreciated, the article may convey a distorted impression (''Inheritance taxes are draining Japan's lifeblood,'' Asian Business, Dec. 13, 1999). The tax is neither crazy in its burden nor remarkable in its maximum rate. The article concludes that inheritance tax is heavier in Japan than in the U.S. solely by comparing maximum rates: 70% in Japan vs. 55% in the U.S. Effective tax rates, however, depend on many other factors. Appropriate tax rates in the U.S., for example, are applied to the entire estate, while those in Japan are applied to each legal share of inheritance. Thus, the effective rates would vary even if the rate structures were the same.

An analysis of comparative burdens by the Japanese Ministry of Finance shows that the U.S. burden on taxable estates of less than $45 million surpasses that of Japan, even though Japan's maximum tax rate is higher. It also shows that the tax burden for a taxable estate of 300 million yen ($2.7 million) is the second-lowest among Group of Five countries.

In addition, more attention could have been given to the fact that the inheritance-tax burden on family businesses has already been relieved to a large extent. According to recent research, no entrepreneurs failed to pass their businesses on to their children because of the tax burden. Some of the members of the tax commission criticize such generous measures as discriminating in favor of second-generation managers, vs. those who want to establish or expand businesses, in terms of ensuring equal opportunity.

As for reform, the Ministry has never been against lowering the maximum rate. The postponement of a review is not a stalling tactic. The MoF is still considering what the system should be.

Kazuho Tanaka, Director
Property Tax Policy Div.
Ministry of Finance
Tokyo

Will Driving a Toyota Make Me Young Again?

''Toyota: Chasing boomers' babies'' (The Corporation, Dec. 6) states that ''Toyota has set a goal of lowering its customers' age by a decade.'' I drive an Audi and have been contemplating a Land Rover as my next vehicle. If Toyota can make me 10 years younger, however, I'll reconsider.

Suzanne Lowe
East Lansing, Mich.

''Beating the football odds'' (Economic Trends, Feb. 14, 2000)

In ''Beating the football odds'' (Economic Trends, Feb. 14), the sentence illustrating how point spreads work should have read: "If you bet on a team favored by seven points, your bet will lose unless the team wins by more than seven."