'\ TABELL'S MARKET ….. H.' LETTER 909 STATE ROAD. PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08540 MEMBER NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC MEMBER NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS, INC (609) 924-9660 November 2, 1984 Symmetry is a not uncommon feature of stock-market patterns, The Dow, it will be recalled, ,made its high almost a year ago, at 1287.20, and dropped sharply to 1134 in February. That low constituted the' bottom,lof a -trading – rangew-Iiich-lii.sted fOUr monthsand- waslinally -broKen- in-April'. ' . Then, unexpectedly. the rally in August of this year moved the Dow back through that trading range and almost to the previous high. However, the rally attempt failed some 50 points under the November peak. the most recent high being 1237.52 on September 14. On a much smaller scale, an- other trading range was then formed between1175 and 1200. The subsequent rally attempt in mid- October fruled just under the September high at around 1225. Despite the surface negativity of this pattern of lower peaks, there has been, since the mar- ket reached its hIgh in mid-September, some pattern of underlying improvement. This improvement can be seen in breadth figures. For example, if one cumulates the advice-decline difference since September 18, the day the market started down, one finds that it has returned almost to its start- ing point despite the fact the market was, in September, 20 points higher and indeed, the cumula- tive a /d figure was actually plus when the Dow was at 1225 two weeks ago. It is possible, by ana- lyzing some 9000 days of trading, to arrive at a normal or expected figure for both advances and declines, given the change in the Dow. We have set out in the following table the actual and ex- pected figures for each of the breadth components since September 18. The figures show fairly clearly that breadth on most days has turned out somewhat better than the normal expectation. DJIA A d van c e s Dec 1 1 n e sUn c h e d Cumulative Date F't Ch Act. Ex. Dlff. Act. Ex. Diff. Act. Exp. Diff. Act. Exp. SEF' 18 -10.82 SEF' 19 -13.25 687 559 128 77B 499 279 851 1048 -197 478 409 69 -164 -4B9 B04 1097 -293 419 405 14 -190 -10B7 SEP 20 3.53 SEP 21 -14.BO B68 877 -9 731 464 267 71B 731 -16 437 412 25 -40 -944 832 1137 -305 443 405 38 -I'll -1617 SEF' 24 3.32 576 861 -285 947 72B 219 472 406 66 -512 -14B4 SfP 25 2.10 649 835 -186 900 756 144 450 408 42 -763 -1405 SSEEFP' 26 27 44..6964938034- 897 877 -63 -53- 694 –5B1- 692 690 2 1'0-8- – 445608-4'4O0'7l-S5-6-1—'-2672'35–,1I2,0O-0I–I–. SEP 28 -10.05 658 556 102 872 1005 -133 427 396 31 -489 -1462 OCT 1 -7.73 458 612'-154 1101 967 134 422 402 20 -1132 -1817 OCT 2 -7.62 530 614 -84 926 967 -41 528 403 125 -1528 -2170 OCT 3 -8.50 496 598 -102 1057 997 60 448 406 42 -2089 -2569 OCT 4 4.53 786 876 -90 690 689 1 490 401 89 -1993 -2382 OCT 5 -4.86 769 667 102 691 898 -207 504 399 105 -1915 -2613 OCT 8 -4.64 517 648 -131 B41 861 -20 535 384 151 -2239 -2B26 OCT 9 -2.76 6BO 722 -42 794 B62 -68 514 404 110 -2353 -2966 OCT 10 2.10 711 B23 -112 7B5 743 42 471 401 70 -2427 -2BB6 nCT 11 5.B5 977 910 67 540 662 -122 458 403 55 -1990 -263B OCT 12 7.62 1067 960 107 4B4 630 -146 447 40B 39 -1407 -230B OCT 15 12.26 1019 1060 -41 550 527 23 427 409 IB -93B -1775 OCT 16 -5.19 743 675 6B 819 922 -103 443 408 35 -1014 -2022 OCT 17 -1.88 777 751 26 771 850 -79 462 409 53 -1008 -2121 OCT 18 29.49 1264 1462 -198 433 150 283 334 419 -85 -177 -809 OLT 19 23OCT OCT 0.55 -8.73 -4.19 1079 827 252 694 606 88 787 703 84 618 817 -199 859 1008 -149 767 904 -137 367 420 -53 471 410 61 463 410 53 284 -799 119 -1201 139 -1402 OCT 24 3.42 757 880 -123 807 741 66 472 415 57 89 -1263 UCT 25 -5.41 612 676 -64 946 932 14 459 409 50 -245 -1519 OCT 26 -6.07 490 657 -167 1050 941 109 465 407 58 -805 -1803 UCT 29 -3.54 598 710 -112 904 882 22 495 405 90 -1111 -1975 OCT 30 15.90 1083 1157 -74 500 457 43 447 416 31 -528 -1275 OCT 31 -9.93 744 578 166 821 1037 -216 461 411 50 -605 -1734 NOV 1 9.70 1027 1006 21 546 590 -44 434 411 23 -124 -1318 Especially significant is the fact that the number of declining stocks has, since September, generally turned out to be considerably lower than expected. For example, on September 21, with a 14. SO-point decline in the Dow, 1137 declines would have been normal. There were only 832. On 13 of the 33 days under study, the number of declining issues was more than 100 fewer than expected. Also interesting is the relatively large number of stocks that have managed to remain unchang- ed. On only two of the 33 days has the number of unchanged issues been less than one would normally expect. All this lends some credence to the belief that the ultimate resolution of the current impasse will be on the upside, perhaps even, in the process, erasing the breadth divergence which has ex- isted since mid-summer of last year. In any case, it will be worth continuing to watch breadth action closely. Dow-Jones Industrials (12'00 p.m.) 1220.07 S & P Composite (1200 p.m,) 167.35 Cumulative lndex (11/1/84 2074.27 ANTHONY W. TABELL DELAFIELD, HARVEY, TABELL INC. NOTE In keeping with this letter's quadrennial tradition of predicting the result of the Presidential election, we forecast the reelection of President Reagan, No statement or e. pression 01 opinion or any other matter herein Contained IS or IS 10 be deemed to be directly or Indlrectlv, an oller or the soliCitation of an offer to bu) or sell any security re1crred tOOl mentioned The matler IS presented merely lor the con\lenlcnce of Ihe subscriber While we believe the sources 01 our Information to be reliable, we In noway represent or guaranteetne accuracy Ihereol nor 01 the statements made herOin Any aellon \0 be tal-en bv Ihe subSCriber should be based on hiS own Investigation and information Delafield, Harvey, Tabell Inc, as a corporation ilno liS ofllcer, or omployeo may now I'ilve, or may liller tal-.(. pOSitions or trades In respecll0 any securities menlloned In thIS or any future Issue, and such poslilon may be diliment from any views nowor hO!l;afler c1pmssd In thiS or any olher Issue Delafield Harvey labell Inc whiCh IS reglslered With Ihe SECas an Investment adVisor, may give adVice 10 ItS mves/mlml adVisory and ollwr customcrs mocpeno8nlly 01 any Sla/ements made m thiS or many o/het Issue Further mlormallon on any socumy mentIOned herem IS avaIlable on reQuest

TABELL'S MARKET LETTER 909 STATE ROAD. PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08540 MEMBER NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC MEMBER NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS, INC (609) 924-9660 November 9, 1984 ed to Eleclion l'esults-re now in, and we are' the conventional election-year pattern. cBlaossiec-atlol-yd, isict'osveeerminsg-hoto w well–1-984 too far out willhaveconform- of line. With today's market level fairly close to' the 1983 close, the year appears unlikely to be a severe bear- market one. a statement whiCh has been true of all but three of the past 21 election years. Even more typically, the Dow is likely to end the year above the June average price of 1110.37, which conforms to the notable tendency toward strength in the second half. One way in which it did not conform was in the proclivity, which we pointed out early this year, for weakness through April to suggest a change in administrations. Such weakness indeed occurred, but it did not bother Mr. Reagan. In the spirit of looking ahead, we have produced the following table which indicates how the stock market did in the 22 most recent years after an election. Like our usual election-year table, it shows the average price for each month on the Dow as a percentage of the previous December's close (i.e . 110 means the market was up 10; 90 means it was down 10). Year President ———- 1897 1901 1905 Cleveland Mcllinle, Roosevelt 1909 Taft 1913 Wl1son – – 1917 W11 son —–t-921–Ha-r d 1-ns 1925 CoolidSe 1929 Hoover 1933 Roosevelt 1937 Roosevelt 1941 Roosevelt 1945 Roosevelt 1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 Truman Eisenhower Eisenhower I\enned, Johnson 1969 Nixon 1973 1977 1981 Nlon Carter Reagan Jan Feb Mar Apr Ma, Jun Jul Ami Sep Oct Nov Il .. c D 84 82 82 79 R 96 97 97 104 R 101 106 112 115 R 99 97 97 101 D 97 92 91 92 l 10'2 96 100 99 R-I-04-105-104-107- R 101 100 100 99 R 102 103 103 103 l 103 92 96 111 D 101 105 104 99 D 98 92 93 92 D 101 103 103 105 l 101 99 99 99 R 99 98 98 94 R 97 93 94 97 D 102 105 109 111 l 101 102 102 104 R 99 98 97 99 R 100 D 97 R 101 95 93 93 94 94 93 99 103 104 79 85 92 104 107 101 95 98 101 109 104 101 99 92 93 89 107 108 114 117 115 118 123 134 105 107 110 it4 114 114 114 114 90 85 BEl 91 93 90 BB B8 – -98 10'2 98 93 88 83 75 -107 – 9-6- 95………93 9.b l00J05 74 .U.1 104 107 111 115 118 125 128 1-28 103 105 114 120 11 97 76 82 139 157 164 165 166 153 159 165 96 95 99 102 89 78 69 ,,9 89 92 96 97 97 93 89 85 109 109 108 110 117 121 124 126 97 93 97 101 102 105 108 111 94 91 '13 9 B9 93 95 96 100 101 103 98 94 89 88 88 112 112 112 117 115 114 117 118 106 100 100 102 10 108 109 109 101 96 89 87 87 8B BEl 83 90 88 89 87 90 95 87 80 92 91 90 87 B5 82 EI; 81 102 103 98 95 89 89 90 91 The most obvious conclusion suggested by the table is, unfortunately, that such years appear to have a fairly significant bearish bias. In 13 of the 22 years, the average price for December was lower than the previous December's close. This is in direct contrast with the record for all years since 1897. The market was up in 52 of those 87 years, or 60 of the time, thus sug- gesting that the post-election pattern is a bit unusual. Nor does Mr. Reagan's party affiliation help. The market has been down in the year following the election of a Republican in every post-election year since Hoover. (This bias was apparently not present in the first part of the century, with the accessions of Theodore Roosevelt, Taft, Harding, and Coolidge all producing good years.) Based on what we currently perceive to be good market action we are not sure how much weight should be given to the above table, especially as far as the first half' of 1985 is concerned. Nonetheless, it is worth keeping in mind. AWTrs ANTHONY W. TABELL DELAFIELD, HARVEY, TABELL INC. Dow-Jones Industrials (1200 p.m.) 1231. 78 S & P Composite (1200 p.m.) 169.10 Cumulative Index (11/8184) 2100.45 No statemerll or Brpresslon of opinion or flny otl1er matter herein contamoo IS, or IS to be deemed to be directly or Indirectly, an offer or the soircltallOn of an oller to buy or sell any secUrity referred 10 or mentioned The matter IS presented merelv for the convenience of the subSCriber While we believe the sources of our rnlormatlon 10 be reliable, we In no way represent or guarantee the accuracy thereof nor of the stateml'nlS made herein corporallon and Its oilicersor employees maf nON Any have action to be liJken or may later lahl, by the subSCriber pOSitions or Irade s s ho In uld be based on hiS own investig respect to any seCUrities mentio ation and ned In \hl mtormal10n D sor any future eIslasfuiee,ldnHdasrvuecyh Tabe)) Inc as a position may be different from any ews now or hewalter e)(presscd In this or my olher Issue Delafield Harvey Tabell Inc, which 15 registered With the SEC as an Investmflnt adVisory and other customers Indflpendently of any statemonls m ..de 10 thiS or In any other Issue Furlhflr mformatlon on any securltv Investment mentioned haedrVeisinorImavaayiglalvbflleaodnvlrceflqtuoelsist

TABELL'S MARKET LETTER , ,. 909 STATE ROAD, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08540 MEMBER NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC MEMBER NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS, INC (609) 924,9660 November 16, 1984 With the ma,rket si!1king toward tile 1200 level again this week, it is interesting to recall that the Dow first crossed that, figure in April, 1983, 19'months ago. -Allof the' trading since that-time has' been within a range of roughly 100 points on either side of 1200, and the bulk of it has been in a range of plus or minus 50.0 This has led to a complex pattern, still not fully resolved, which is deline- ated on the Joint uuu ,'fl ,.Jre chart below I, II IT Uel,' ' ,, hnw;n , on Dow. – – 0. Following the first 1200 crossing of April, 1983, the average remained between 11 0 an. 1250 until mid-July (A), breaking down to reach the 1160 level in August. This downside breakout, as has been the case in a fair number of recent instances, proved to be false. The Dow moved up again in the late summer and fall of 1983, in the process attaining its closing high to date of 1287.20 on November 29. In the process of attaining that high, a new trading range, this one between 1220 and 1290 (B), was traced out. The 1290 high was tested for the second time in January of this year, following which the Dow promptly broke below 1220 in February. Unlike the previous breakout, this one was real. A low of 1120 was attained in February with little in the way of upside interruption. Thlo top at (B) had an indicated downside objective of 1095, and, for a while, it looked as if it might not be attained. The average was able to hold above the 1120 low through July, but broke at that point and reached the 1090 level no fewer than three times. It was, however, able to make little in the way of upside progress, repeatedly being turned back at 1130 by the overhead supply created by most of the first half-year's trading (D). With the most plausible objective of the 1983 top having been reached, the configuration at (C-D) began to resemble a so-called fulcrum base, as noted at the time. This was confirmed by the straight-line rise to the 1220 level last August. The upside objective of this base was and remains in the 1350-1380 range. . Subsequent to the August rally the Dow has onCe more been able to make little progress, hav- ing been turned back at 1240 four times since then, the most recent case being just last week. It seems obvious that the indicator now finds itself wedged, at (E), between the heavy overhead supply at (B) and the support from the original base at (e), support which turned back the short-lived downthrust of early October. /7 ' C – 0- As we noted above, the pattern remains unresolved. The downside objective of the 1290-1220 top has been reached and, if this is the correct downside reading, one would suspect that the 1350-1380 upside target mentioned above is correct. If, on the other hand all trading at (A-B) is to be regarded as a top, the overhead supply should prevail, and a move back to or through the lows of early 1984 would not be out of the question. As we have noted, we think the market's improving internal condition and the number of bullish individual stock patterns suggest an upside resolution. This, however, will not be confirmed until, first 1240, and then 1290, are penetrated. AWTrs ANTHONY W. TAB ELL DELAFIELD, HARVEY, TAB ELL INC. Dow-Jones Industrials (12 00 p. m.) S & P Composite (1200 p.m.) CumUlative Index (11 115 184) 1204.06 165.96 2075.76 NO statement or e..-presslOn 01 opinion or any other matter herom contamed IS or IS to be deemed to be dlreclly or mdlrectly. an olfer or the soliCitation of an offer to buy or sell any secunty referred tOOf mentioned The mailer IS presonled merely forthe convenl(mceollhesubscnber While we believe the sources of our information to berellabte we Inno way represent or guarantee the accuracy thereof nor of the statoments made herein Any action to be laken by the subscriber shoutd be based on his own investigation and information Delafield Harvoy TaOOIl Inc as a corporation and Its offlc(lrs or employees may now have, or may later take, pOSitIOns or trades in respect to any secuntles mentioned In thiS or any future Issue nd such POSition my be dillereni from any views nowor hereafter expressed m thiS or any olherlssue Delalreld Harvey labell Inc which IS registered With the SECas an mvestment advisor, may 91ve advice to liS mvestment adVISOry and other customers rndependently 01 any statements made m thiS or In any other Issue Further mformatlon on any secunty mentioned herem IS available on request .,

TABELL'S MARKET LETTER 909 STATE ROAD, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08540 MEMBER NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC MEMBER NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS, INC (609) 9249660 — ,, Noy'e!'1.er23, 1984 We noted last week that the Dow had spent 'the monthsof-'A-ugust to'.Novemoer wedgea'oe ;'– tween overhead supply at approximately 1240 and support at around the 1170-1180 area. It has been turned back by the supply once in each of the four months with closing highs of 1239.73 on August 21, 1237.52 on September 14, 1225.93 on October 19, and 1244.15 on November 6. The bottom of the range has been defined by two downward thrusts, to 1175,13 on October 9 and, so far, to 1185.29 on Monday. We have made an effort to examine the action of individual stocks during this period. sur- veying the price action of 2197 issues, 1242 on the NYSE, 227 on the ASE, and 728 Over-The- Counter. The individual stocks made their highs in each of the four months as shown in the fol- lowing table. Month of High August September October November Number Number Number Number NYSE 407 33 246 2'0 251 2'0 338 27 ASE 96 43 63 27 34 15 34 15 OTC 318 44 153 21 117 16 140 19 Total 821 38 462 21 402 18 512 23 The table shows some evidence of internal deterioration, which had best not go unchecked if the market is going to continue to make upside progress, Thirty-eight percent of all issues made their highs in August and have not been able to move ahead to new highs since. The table also shows relatively poor performance on the part of secondary stocks. Both the ASE and OTC sectors have demonstrated a progressively smaller number of new highs as the period has worn on. The NYSE, however, was able to show some recent improvement, with more stocks being able to each-c-!lewhigh-in,-November…thanJILeither….s.ep.temb'-'e'-'ro'-'r'–'Oc-'tobe'-'ri.c—,-.—-.–;;7.—-c;-..,.'1 The same disparityis evident -if one observes -ffie month of the low for tile perioa in each sector, Most NYSE issues made their lows in October or before, and only a quarter of them have gone on to new lows in November so far, On the AMEX and OTC, however, November has seen a larger number of new lows than any previous month. Month of Low August September October November Number Number NYSE 247 2'0 266 Number 21 433 Number 35 296 24 ASE 37 16 33 15 63 28 94 41 OTC 129 18 101 14 211 Total 413 19 400 18 707 29 287 39 32 677 31 Secondary stocks have also, by and large, corrected more than the NYSE universe. The average decline from the high, whenever made, to the subsequent low has been 15.2 on the NYSE. For AMEX issues it was 22.9 and for OTC stocks 24.6. Those 318 OTC issues that reached their highs in August have subsequently declined, on average, 33.7, just about one-third. If one takes Monday's close as a reference point, one discovers that the average recovery of the loss from the August-November high to the subsequent low has been rather small. The av- erage issue, as of Monday, had recovered about 20 of that loss. It is interesting that this figure appears fairly consistent across all exchanges and regardless of the month in which the high was made. The bulk of stocks seem, during the August-November period, to have undergone a notable correction and to remain in the bottom portion of the corrective range. Our study, in summary, shows some attempt at probing for a bottom on the New York Stock Exchange at least, with a fair number of issues having been able, so far, to hold above their August-October lows and recover modestly. Further market strength at this,juncturehold-c ing down the number of new lows scored in November, will be bullish, at least for the serlior sector. However, noticable deterioration, despite the flat trend of the averages seems to be con- tinuing on the American Stock Exchange and Over-The-Counter. ' AWTrs ANTHONY W. TAB ELL DELAFIELD, HARVEY, TAB ELL INC. Dow-Jones Industrials (1200 p.m.) 1213.00 S & P Composite (1200 p.m.) '.16586 Cumulative Index (11/21/84) 2052.76 No S1atemenl or expression 01 opinion or any other matter herem contained IS, or ,s to be deemed to be dlrectty or mdlrectly an offer or the sohclla1l0n of an oller to buyor sell any security referred 10 or mentIoned The matter IS presented merely for the convenience 01 the subscriber While we believe the sources of our mformatlon 10 be reliable, we In no way represent or guarantee the accuracy thereof nor 01 the statements made herem Any action to be taken bylhe subSCriber should be based on hiS own Investigation and Information Delafield, Harvey, labell tnc, as a corporation and lis officers or employees, may now have, or may laler take. pOSitions or trades In respect to any secuntles mentioned In thiS or any future Issue, and such pOSlllon may be dlfferenllrom any VIOWS now or Mlealter opressed In Ihls or any other Issue Delafield Harvey label! fnc which IS registered wIth the SECas an Investment adVisor, may give advice to Its Investment adVisory and other customers Independently 01 any slalemcnls made In thiS or In any other Issue Further Informal Ion on any securlly mentioned herein IS available on request .—'

———- TABELL'S MARKET LETTER 909 STATE ROAD, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08540 MEMBER NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC MEMBER NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS. INC (609) 9249660 -,.. November 30, 1984 – The.-(e9tureor'Hleeek'sfina.n.ciarn-ewsas the- -Treasury taxreformproposal–ana'-t1ie Iffipres-io-n—- – – gained from the published response thereto was that it turned out to be a monumental lead balloon, pos- sibly because almost everybody's pet ox appeared to be gored somewhere in the process. This was curi- oue, since the tax reform impetus is hardly new. The President made it a keystone for his campaign, bills bearing the imprimatur of both political parties (Kemp-Kasten and Bradley-Gephardt) have been around for Borne time, and the Treasury study is simply a more detailed synthesis with the same thrust. In light of the cool reaction, one wonders why reform has gained as much momentum as it has. The reason is summarized in the first paragraph of the Treasury proposal. The present U.S. tax system desparately needs simplification and reform. It is too complicated, it is unfair, and it retards savings, investment, and economic growth. Essentially, one either believes that statement or one doesn't. We tend to believe it. Reduced to their essence, current proposals can be viewed as a practical triumph for one of the basic tenets of supply-side economics. That tenet stresses the economic disincentives of high marginal tax rat es, and the unifying tiane of all existing reform proposals is that those rates are reduced — to a 35 personal maximum in the Treasury offering, lower in Bradley-Gephardt and Kemp-Kasten. The fundamental distinction that needs to be made in understanding the proposals is between average and marginal tax rates. Since the proposals are theoretically IIrevenue-neutral. the average percentage of total Income paid for a given tax-paying entity will change hardly at all. This legerdemain is accompli- shed by eliminating a mare's nest of former deductions and taxing the resultant higher income at a lower rate. The resuit Is that the potential value of an additional dollar of income earned is, due to that lower rate. increased. Now, revenue-neutral is a totally theoretical concept. It means that if the proposed changes were applied to the existing Income structure, total tax revenues would remain the same. The point is that, once a change is enacted economic decisions, are made on the basis of that change. An additional dollar of income under the Treasury proposal will be worth 65, 30 more than it is worth under current law and 116 more than it was worth a few years ago when a 70 marginal rate existed. IEleme,n;;t;ary.;eco– –T\nom1cs–nms us thBtsucn an -mcentive favors …tnecreation ofaaaitiOiliiltncome or,-'in'other words, eco- nomic growth. The basic argument in favor of reform is. really. no more complicated than that. Many of the specifics of the proposed legislation, especially those that relate, directly or indirectly, to the stock market can be understood in terms of incentives. The basic corporate tax rate is like that for individuals, reduced sharply from 46 to 33. As an offset, the Investment Tax Credit and the Ac- celerated Cost Recovery System, two of the most conspicuous economic miscarriages of current tax legis- lation J are removed. These were originally band aid proposals to compensate business for its inability to recover replacement costs of assets in an inflationary environment. The economic life of an asset, how…. ever, cannot be fixed by legislation. In practice both ACRS and ITC have simply turned out to be sub- sidies to those businesses investing heavily in capital equipment. The effect has been to make such in- vestment f in many cases , a tax decision rather than an economic decision. It is the restoration of eco,, nomic incentives that is the thrust of reform proposals. Other features of direct concern to investors are the taxation of capital gains at (lower) ordinary in- come rates and, perhaps, more important, the partial deductabllity to corporations of dividend payments, a step, at least, In the direction of eliminating the Ion g-established double taxation of the corporate In- come stream. This Is a direction which we have long approved. It has always been our feeling that capital investment decisions should be subject to the discipline of the market place. Current tax law has always provided an incentive for corporate reinvestment in decaying industries. The proposed changes would tend to force more income into the hands of investors who could then make their own decisions regarding reinvestment rather than having those decisions made for them by corporate management. It has been argued (see George Gilder on the op-ed page of today's Wall Street Journal) that placing the same economic value on a dollar of interest or dividend income and a dollar of capital gain will be a deterrent to investment in smaller companies where rewards J traditionally have been reaped in the latter form. We are not so sure that this is the case. It seems to us that an incentive for venture capital in- vestment has always been in the potential size of the returns rather than their nature. That potential, it seems to us, will remain. We have presented above arguments in favor of tax simplification simply by way of indicating our be- lief that some species of reform, however altered in the political process is likely to be implemented, de- spite the anguished howls that emerged from all sides this week. As that implementation becomes closer, investment decisions are, quite obviously. going to have to be made in this light. Overall. however. we believe reform will improve. rather than c1oud,the investment climate. AWTrs ANTHONY W. TAB ELL DELAFIELD, HARVEY, TAB ELL INC. Dow-Jones Industrials (12 00 p.m.) 1190.81 S & P Composite (1200 p.m.) 163.84 CumUlative Index (11/29/84) 2053.61 No statement or expression 01 opinion or any other malter herein contained IS or IS to be deemed to be, directly or Indirectly, M offer or the soliCitation of an offer to buy or sell any secunty referred to or mentioned The mailer IS presented merely for the convenlenceoi theubscnber While we beheve the soorces of oor information to be reliable we in no way represent orguarantel'! the ilccuracy Ihereol nor of the corporallon and Its of/lcers statements made herein 01 employees, may now Any have action to be taken or may later lake, by the subscriber Should be positions or lrades In respe based on hiS own Investigation ctlo any seculltles mentioned I nanthdiSInofroarnmylfIuotnureDeIslasfuieeldnHdasrvuecyh lPaObSeitliionInmc different from any views now or h!lIealter e.opressed In thiS or any other Issue Delafield Harvey Tabell Inc which IS registered With tile SECas an Investment adVisory and other customers Independently 01 any statements made In thiS 01 In any ottler Issue Further InformatIOn on any secunty Investment mentioned haedrelisnorImavaayilgaibveleaodnvlrceqeutOett S