<PAGE>
SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No. )
Filed by the Registrant [X]
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant [_]
Check the appropriate box:
[_] Preliminary Proxy Statement [_] Confidential, for Use of the
Commission Only (as permitted by
Rule 14a-6(e)(2))
[_] Definitive Proxy Statement
[X] Definitive Additional Materials
[_] Soliciting Material Pursuant to Section 240.14a-11(c) or Section 240.14a-12
SUMMIT FAMILY RESTAURANTS INC
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)
FIRST GLOBAL SECURITIES INC
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)
Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):
[_] $125 per Exchange Act Rules 0-11(c)(1)(ii), 14a-6(i)(1), 14a-6(i)(2)
or Item 22(a)(2) of Schedule 14A.
[_] $500 per each party to the controversy pursuant to Exchange Act Rule
14a-6(i)(3).
[_] Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(4) and 0-11.
(1) Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed
pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (Set forth the amount on which
the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Total fee paid:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[_] Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.
[_] Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange
Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee
was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement
number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.
(1) Amount Previously Paid:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Filing Party:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Date Filed:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
<PAGE>
NEWS RELEASE-JUNE 26, 1996
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Susan W. Trenham
(818) 568-8800
Re: Summit Family Restaurants, Inc.
SUMMIT BOARD RESORTS TO SMEAR TACTICS
PASADENA, CA.--The Board of Summit Family Restaurants, Inc. today issued
solicitation material to Summit shareholders which included a statement, "Should
You Trust The Opposition Group?" In that letter Clark Jones, Chairman of Summit
Family Restaurants, Inc. and the Board of Summit cited a number of legal actions
which were purportedly brought against Susan Trenham or Noble Trenham or Noble
Trenham's previous business associates.
Susan Trenham issued the following statement:
"It is too bad that no one in this country seems to be able to step forward
with a little old fashioned integrity and leadership without being smeared. I
am not a public figure and I will take legal action against Summit immediately
for defamation of character and slander. Summit's attorneys had asked me to
give them twenty-four hours to comment on materials before issuing any
statements other than the proxy material. Yesterday, the attorneys advised that
they were issuing material from Summit but gave us no opportunity to comment.
The information which has been issued by Summit is grossly misleading.
Summit shareholders deserved to know that there was an opinion that the CKE
offer is not a fair offer and that there is an alternative. There was no other
ulterior motive and the statements made by Clark Jones and the Summit Board to
any other effect are not true."
Background
- ----------
First Global Securities, Inc. is a research driven firm. Its specialty is
high value low cap companies which are at the edge of producing new profits for
shareholders. Virtually all of the reports issued by First Global Securities,
Inc. are on companies which have valuable assets behind their product or
service. First Global Securities, Inc. clears through Bear Stearns, does not
make any markets, and buys only a few shares of stocks in companies in which it
issues research reports so that it is not in conflict with the interests of its
clients. Neither Susan Trenham nor Noble Trenham trade for their own account.
In 1994, First Global Securities, Inc. issued a purchase recommendation on
Summit Family Restaurants, Inc. The impetus for that report was a conversation
between Noble Trenham and Clark D. Jones, Chairman of the Board of Summit Family
Restaurants, Inc. Noble Trenham called Mr. Jones to wish him a happy birthday.
Noble Trenham has wished Clark Jones happy birthday every year since 1972 when
Clark Jones was named CFO of Summit Family Restaurants, Inc. Trenham calls
approximately one thousand individuals a year to give them best wishes.
1
<PAGE>
Clark Jones bragged to Noble Trenham in 1994 that new management had been
brought into Summit and that they were in the process of turning Summit around.
He invited Noble Trenham to come to see the company.
Noble Trenham made a trip to see the new management of Summit, visited a
number of restaurants, and conducted his own due diligence on the company.
First Global issued a purchase recommendation prepared by Noble Trenham citing
the years of failure to provide a dividend to shareholders and stating that it
was issuing the report on the basis that new management seemed to be turning the
company around. The report also stated, "As an owner of JBBB these are your
risks: the company has generated operational losses in five of the last ten
years including 1991 through 1994; there is no guarantee that that will change;
the restaurant business is a highly competitive industry; JBBB has not paid a
dividend for eight years; the author might be wrong in his assessment of the
management and of the new opportunity and therefore, the company might fail to
produce reasonable profits."
Clearly, First Global Securities, Inc. is disappointed in the performance
of the management of Summit and reached the conclusion that the Summit Board is
not capable.
Summit continues to ignore the fact that there are existing shareholders
who have come forward to disagree with the merger offer. Instead they are
putting out garbage to have shareholders believe there is some sort of
undercover takeover effort. Shareholders will have to reach their own
conclusions as to the ethics of the Summit Board and the ethics of the
Opposition Group.
Noble Trenham has not been a participant in the effort of the Opposition
Proxy Group. Noble Trenham trades stocks and provides most of the research for
First Global Securities, Inc. Susan Trenham owns First Global Securities,
Inc., is the CEO and conducts the investment banking business for First Global.
Summit has repeatedly ignored that fact. Susan Trenham stated, "Our roles are
separate. I hope, at age 50, with twenty-five plus years of professional
experience that I do not have to defend myself because of being a female in
business with her husband. We are two adults conducting a business with
separate responsibilities and positions."
Susan Trenham has had a long career as is outlined in the Opposition Proxy
Statement. It speaks for itself. It is her position that the effort to
intertwine Noble Trenham in the Summit issue goes far beyond discrimination
against a woman's accomplishments and abilities. Trenham stated, "It is
calculated and manipulative to cause shareholders to take action which the Board
cannot justify substantively. It does, however, illustrate the problems that
women run into when they take leadership and break through the glass ceiling."
The statements made herein are in answer to Summit's document. They are
made solely to correct the record and are not intended to make Noble Trenham a
participant. They are issued by First Global Securities, Inc. They do not
address every issue in Summit's statement with which they disagree. First
Global Securities, Inc. has never had any complaints filed against it and has
had no customer complaints.
History of Legal Actions
- ------------------------
On June 7, 1977, Mr. Harry John, Chairman of the DeRance Foundation, the
largest Catholic foundation in the country chose Noble Trenham and Fred Astman
to manage DeRance's money. They were given $20 million to manage. Between 1977
and 1983 they invested the money in more than four hundred public companies,
growing the
2
<PAGE>
investment to $188 million--giving the DeRance Foundation net profits of $127
million. They were ranked as the number one portfolio managers in the country by
Computer Directions Advisors, Inc. for three consecutive years.
Until the 1980's the DeRance Foundation used its funds solely to provide
funding for Catholic charities. In the early nineteen eighties, Harry John
decided to use the huge profits of the foundation to buy television stations to
establish a Catholic version of PTL programming. He ordered the liquidation of
DeRance assets sometimes at the rate of $2 million per week. It has been
acknowledged in Court papers and newspapers that Harry John's decisions were
contrary to the recommendation of virtually every professional around him--
including Noble Trenham and Fred Astman. A bit of irony is that years later the
television stations were sold at a profit.
In 1983 and 1984, Erica John, the wife of Harry John for thirty years, sued
Harry John to have him removed as head of the foundation. She won that suit.
She also entered suits against every money manager, every attorney, and every
accountant who was associated with him. The difficulty with suits is that anyone
can say anything that they want and there is no recourse. Eventually, Harry
John testified that in all cases Noble Trenham and Fred Astman had acted in
accordance with their agreements with the DeRance Foundation. And the bottom
line was that they delivered $127 million in profits.
One does not go from managing $188 million to zero without ramifications.
There was a domino effect of the suits which took place with ensuing legal fees
in excess of $2 million for Astman and Trenham. Settlements were made--always
with the specific denial of Astman and Trenham of any wrongdoing on their part
and acknowledgment of the parties of a lack of findings.
The story should have ended there but it did not and those things come back
to haunt. DeRance made allegations to the SEC and after a two year
investigation Noble Trenham signed a consent decree stating he would comply with
all securities laws in the future. The consent decree specifically stated that
there were no findings on the part of the SEC and Noble Trenham specifically
stated in the settlement document that he could no longer afford legal fees and
wished to end the matter.
The real story, however, went on. The thirty year marriage of the Johns
ended in divorce. Harry John was removed as head of the foundation. Later
there would be charges of involvement of the Catholic church to insure that they
continued to receive funds that they saw being funneled to television stations.
And then in December, 1994, Harry John had a stroke. He had videotaped a last
Will and Testament in 1985, giving him final control over the foundation he had
established and from which his former wife had had him removed. He stated in
that videotape, "Events in recent months have led me to doubt that DeRance could
or would..carry out my religious objectives," Mr. John said on the tape. He
left all of the assets, approximately $100 million, to Southern Cross, a new
charitable organization he had established.
Harry John did not die on the day he had his stroke. He was found at least
twenty-four hours later. Over the objections of doctors, who later made public
statements before reporters about the matter, his former wife and daughter,
Paula John, an attorney, had him taken to the hospital, had him kept
artificially alive, and ordered the transfer of at least $70 million in assets,
thereby avoiding Harry John's last Will and Testament. As soon as the transfer
was completed they removed the life support and he died immediately. Erica John
is being sued today for her actions. Her explanation of the transfer of the
assets was,
3
<PAGE>
"Somebody looking at this from the outside might say that this was a
triumph over Harry John. But this is really an expression of the original Harry
John, the true Harry John."
Summit shareholders may want to ask themselves whether, in order to gain
control, a person who had her former husband put on life support in order to
transfer $70 million in assets might have made false claims against the people
who made the $127 million.
Claim of Fraud
- --------------
Summit claims in its information to shareholders that a suit was filed in
1994 against Susan Trenham and Noble Trenham. What Summit fails to state is
that the Plaintiffs owed Noble Trenham in excess of $700,000, that all claims
against Susan Trenham were dismissed when she proved she had not lived in the
state, had not even met all of the Plaintiffs, and that contrary to the
statements of Summit, in the only meeting that she had ever attended with some
of the Plaintiffs, she had advised them that there was difficulty with a
property in which they had invested personally with Noble Trenham years before
she had even met Noble Trenham. The issues involved in that suit are
complicated and would take pages to describe. The suit involved a piece of
property owned personally by Noble Trenham and his mother which ultimately
became entangled in a divorce settlement and a host of other issues. Noble
Trenham specifically denied the claims. In this case Susan Trenham provided
plenty of documentation to the Court that she had not in any way been involved
in the property in dispute. It was the Plaintiffs decision to drop the
complaint against Susan Trenham after the Court instructed that Susan Trenham
would be given permission to bring a malicious prosecution action against the
Plaintiffs if they did not produce evidence of involvement by Susan Trenham.
Further, the Plaintiffs acknowledged in their settlement with Noble B. Trenham
that their investigation had not yielded findings as they had alleged in their
complaint against him. Summit has ignored that documentation.
Other Issues
- ------------
All of the other legal issues cited by Summit relate to events surrounding
the DeRance situation. Noble Trenham and Fred Astman had indemnified Morgan
Olmstead for any legal fees arising out of their money management. Morgan did
not wish to use First Wilshire's attorneys to jointly defend a suit against
Morgan by Erica John and then sought recovery from Astman and Trenham. First
Global Securities, Inc. conducts business virtually every day with the successor
organization to Morgan Olmstead and provided them more than $200,000 in profits
in the past year.
The Real Issue
- --------------
The real issue is that the Opposition Group believes that Summit
shareholders have not gotten a fair deal from CKE. The actions of the Summit
directors speak for themselves loudly. The Opposition Group came forward when
CKE reduced its offer, when prices for CKE increased, and when the management of
Summit was terminated.
"I stepped forward because I believe we can turn Summit into a winning
company for shareholders. There is no other reason. If Noble Trenham were a
participant, Summit shareholders would have someone who delivered over $100
million in profits to his clients, on their team. When all is said and done, if
CKE's stock goes up Summit shareholders will realize little benefit under the
proposed deal. If the Opposition Group succeeds Summit shareholders will
realize every penny of gain in the stock. You have a very credible group of
people, all of whom were aware of Noble Trenham's background, who have stepped
forward to try to give Summit shareholders a profitable alternative to the CKE
offer."
4
<PAGE>
Milwaukee
THE JOURNAL
-----------
Tuesday, December 29, 1992 -- Latest Edition III
DE RANCE FOUNDATION DISSOLVES
Catholic charity paid out $100 million, mostly here, before founder died
By Michael R. Zahn
of The Journal staff
- --------------------
The De Rance Foundation, the world's largest Catholic charity, has given
away its entire $100 million in assets and has been dissolved.
Erica John, president of De Rance, said Tuesday that about 80% of the money
was given to charities in the Milwaukee area.
The Archdiocese of Milwaukee received a $70 million fund for charitable and
religious projects. The fund is expected to make donations of several million
dollars a year to local Catholic charities.
"Likely recipients will be Catholic schools, hospitals, social services and
pastoral organizations," according to a news release from Thomas G. Cannon, De
Rance's attorney.
The archdiocese has also received De Rance's headquarters, at 7700 W. Blue
Mound Road, Wauwatosa, which is valued at $2.5 million.
"Since De Rance's original funds were generated in Milwaukee, the trustees
and directors felt strongly that the majority of those funds should be invested
in this community," Erica John said.
The massive - and swift - giveaway was designed to avoid having to transfer
De Rance's assets to a different organization made up of allies of De Rance's
deposed founder, the late Harry G. John.
Cannon said that the terms under which De Rance was founded provided that
upon John's death, De Rance's assets - if there were any - would be transferred
to some other charity of his choosing.
FOUNDER SUFFERED STROKE
John suffered a stroke on Dec. 14. The De Rance board, expecting his death,
decided to put into effect longstanding plans to strip De Rance to keep its
assets in Milwaukee, preventing the assets from going to a new conservative
Catholic entity that John had specified, Southern Cross Inc.
The final decision was made at a board meeting Dec. 15. By Dec. 19, the
date of John's death, all $100 million had been given away, Cannon said.
"Somebody looking at this from the outside might say that this was a
triumph over Harry John," Cannon said. "But this is really an expression of the
original Harry
- ----------------------------
Please see Foundation page 5
<PAGE>
FOUNDATION/ De Rance is dissolved
"John, the true Harry John."
"The board felt pretty strongly that Harry's original ideas for the
foundation were the expression of the true Harry John, the idealistic young
fellow who gave all his money to charity," Cannon said. "In his later years, he
got kind of sidetracked into a power and ideological bent."
Cannon said De Rance's board had planned the giveaway and the dissolution
since 1990. "The necessary legal research and the preparation of corporate
documents had all been completed prior to the board meeting [after John's
stroke]," he said.
"The dissolution would have occurred in any event in the very near future,"
Cannon said. Mr. John's illness simply provided the final impetus to sign the
appropriate documents."
Cannon noted that in 1946, John had named the Milwaukee Archdiocese as
beneficiary of De Rance's funds. It was not until 1985, while struggling for
control of De Rance, that John named Southern Cross as the beneficiary.
Milwaukee attorney John P. Miller, a member of Southern Cross' board, said
Tuesday that he was not aware of the dissolution of De Rance and could not
comment on it.
Miller said Southern Cross "had no significant assets" except for those
that it had expected to get from De Rance upon John's death.
Miller declined to describe Southern Cross' philosophical leanings, except
to say "Southern Cross was created to carry on the work that Harry John
started."
John, heir to the Miller Brewing Co. fortune, started De Rance in 1946 with
most of his inheritance: Miller Brewing stock then valued at $14 million.
John was a grandson brewery.
The value of the stock - and the power of De Rance - soared in 1972 when
the Philip Morris conglomerate bought Miller Brewing.
John was deposed in 1986 by the other two directors of De Rance: his wife,
Erica, and a longtime friend, Donald Gallagher, who were distressed by his
plan to spend millions of dollars on a national Catholic television network.
WHO GETS DE RANCE MONEY
Here is a partial listing of beneficiaries from the dissolution of the De
Rance Foundation's assets. In addition, a supporting fund of about $70 million
was established to benefit charities of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee:
. MESSMER HIGH SCHOOL - $3.2 million, including real estate, for a
scholarship fund.
. MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY - $2 million for its Campus Circle project and for
scholarships.
. MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY HIGH SCHOOL - $1 million for scholarship fund.
. FAMILY ROSARY INC., of Albany, N.Y. - $5 million to memorialize Father
Patrick Peyton's life. Peyton was a lifelong friend of Harry G. John and
the John Family.
. HOUSING WITH HELP INC., which operates Richardson House and East Samana,
residential support facilities for lower-income elderly and disabled
adults - $2 million.
. FATHER HALLIGAN'S WORKING BOYS' CENTER, Ecuador - $3 million.
. ST. CATHERINE'S RESIDENCE, a home for women seeking independent living -
$30,000.
. NEXT DOOR FOUNDATION - $100,000 for youth and family counseling programs.
. THOMAS AQUINAS COLLEGE, Santa Clara, Calif. - $2.7 million.
. RED CLOUD INDIAN SCHOOL, Pine Ridge, S.D. - $8,900.
. NATIONAL BLACK CLERGY CAUCUS - $10,000.
. JESUIT FATHERS OF THE NEAR EAST - $500,000.
. MISSIONARIES OF AFRICA - $25,000.
. DIOCESE OF HUANCAVELLCA, PERU - $15,000.
6
<PAGE>
The Milwaukee Journal
---------------------
August 27, 1993
DOCTORS SAY LIFE SUPPORT FOR HARRY JOHN WAS FUTILE
Miller heir's family accused of keeping him alive to dispose of assets
By Michael R. Zahn
By The Journal Staff
- --------------------
At the direction of his family, Catholic philanthropist Harry G. John was
kept artificially alive for two days though there was no medical reason to do
so, two doctors have testified.
The doctors' affidavits bolster a claim that John's relatives kept him on
life support to give them time to frantically dispose of $100 million in assets
of the De Rance Foundation, mostly to a charitable fund affiliated with the
Archdiocese of Milwaukee.
The directors of the archdiocesan fund include John's ex-wife, Erica, and
their daughter, Paula, as well as Archbishop Rembert Weakland.
John, a Miller Brewing heir, founded De Rance in 1946, and it grew into the
world's largest Catholic charity. In 1986, a judge ousted him from control on
the basis of allegations by Erica John and others that he was squandering its
assets.
If the $100 million still had been held by the De Rance Foundation at the
time of John's death, legal documents prepared for John specified that some of
the money would have gone to a conservative Catholic foundation called Southern
Cross, which John created in March 1985.
Southern Cross, operated by individuals of whom the family did not approve,
received permission this week from Federal Judge Terrence Evans to file suit
against John's family and others who were involved in the transfer of assets.
The suit is expected to be filed soon in Milwaukee County Circuit Court by
attorney Robert A. Slattery.
Attorney Thomas G. Cannon, who represents the John family, has
characterized the proposed lawsuit as "Harry John's cronies making a desperate,
greedy grab...it's nothing more than a publicity stunt." He has denied that the
family kept John alive for the purpose of transferring the assets.
NO CHANCE OF RECOVERY
Donald M. Luedke, the physician who was on duty at Elmbrook Memorial
Hospital in Brookfield on the evening of Dec. 14, 1992, said in his affidavit
that John "was brought to the emergency room at 6:30 p.m. in a comatose
condition after having sustained a massive stroke in his home." John lived
alone.
Skin ulcers on his body showed that John had likely been lying unconscious
for more than 24 hours, the doctor said.
After doing a brain scan, Luedke said, he concluded that John "had suffered
a massive stroke and resulting permanent brain injury.
"The hemorrhage was so extensive that no attempt was made to evacuate the
blood because clinical experience does not show improved survival or recovery in
cases of this nature," the doctor said. "There was essentially no chance of
recovery."
About 11 that night, John stopped breathing and was placed on a life
support system.
Luedke said, "It was my opinion, as well as that of the other physicians
with whom I sought consultation, that there was no medical reason to keep Mr.
John on life support, and we recommended that life support be discontinued so as
to not unduly prolong Mr. John's hospital stay."
Luedke said he gave that recommendation to John's family several times, but
"the family members present requested that life support be continued and all
measures be taken to keep Mr. John alive pending the arrival of additional
family members."
It was not until about 10:45 p.m. on Dec. 16--two days after John had
stopped breathing--that the family authorized removal of the life support
system, Luedke said. John died at 5:30 a.m. Dec. 19.
Luedke's account is confirmed by a second affidavit, from neurologist James
C. Hanson, who examined John and concluded that "Mr. John's hemorrhage was
massive and irreversible."
On the morning of Dec. 15, Hanson said, "it was my recommendation to stop
respiratory support for Mr. John and let him die."
PLANS CALLED LONGSTANDING
In December 1992, when John's family announced the massive giveaway and the
dissolution of De Rance, they said John's stroke caused them to put into effect
what they called longstanding plans to keep De Rance's assets in Milwaukee. A
board meeting was held on the 15th--the day after John was taken to Elmbrook
Memorial--and all $100 million was distributed by the time of his death on the
19th, they said.
Cannon, the family's attorney, said at the time that "the necessary legal
research and the preparation of corporate documents had all been completed prior
to the board meeting [after John's stroke]."
"The dissolution would have occurred in any event in the very near future,"
Cannon said at the time. "Mr. John's illness simply provided the final
impetus."
<PAGE>
Noble B. Trenham was co-portfolio manager of the First Wilshire Securities
Management's portfolios as disclosed by CDA in this document. First Wilshire was
ranked number one in the USA by CDA for the 3 1/2 year period from 1979 thru
June 1982. CDA obtained its information from the public SEC 13(f) filings.
INVESTMENT
ADVISORS
EQUITY
PERFORMANCE
A quarterly report based on the 13(f)
filings of all investment advisors with
equity assets exceeding $100 million.
June 30, 1982
Reprinted with permission from
CDA
investment services
Computer Directions Advisors, Inc.
11501 Georgia Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20902
Phone: (301)942-1700
* by Computer Directions Advisors, Inc. 1981. May not be reproduced, in whole or
in part, without written permission. The data contained herein has been obtained
from S.E.C. filings, company reports, financial reporting services, and other
sources believed reliable. Although carefully verified, data and compilations
are not guaranteed by us and may not be complete. This material does not purport
to comply with the Statement of Policy of the Securities and Exchange Commission
and may not be used by broker-dealers or their representatives to promote the
sale of securities listed. Computer Directions Advisors, Inc. does not have a
selling agreement of any kind with the securities mentioned herein and no offer
or solicitation to sell or buy any of these is made. The Corporation may or may
not be interested in any of the securities mentioned herein.
<PAGE>
INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
INVESTMENT ADVISORS -- 13F EQUITY PERFORMANCE -- 6/30/82
ALPHABETIC BY MANAGER
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
3/31/82 3/31/82 LATEST QTR YR TO DATE 12 MONTHS 3-1/2 YRS
NO. PORTF VALU WGHTD AVG 3/82-6/82 12/81-6/82 6/81-6/82 12/78-6/82
MANAGER NAME STKS (MIL $) BETA COEF PERF RANK PERF RANK PERF RANK PERF RANK
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
ABEL NOSER CORP. 102 148 1.31 -6.3 154 -11.1 106 N.A. NA N.A. NA
ALGER FRED MANAGEMENT 123 840 1.19 0.8 31 -7.7 60 -16.8 89 N.A. NA
ALLEGHANY CORPORATION 168 1608 0.82 -0.9 87 -8.0 67 N.A. NA N.A. NA
ALLIANCE CAPITAL MGMT 46 132 0.91 -2.8 137 -7.8 65 -15.9 80 N.A. NA
ANALYTIC INVESTMENT MGMT 165 152 1.06 -0.6 74 -10.1 99 -13.4 57 N.A. NA
ANDRECOM ADVISORS CORP 64 108 0.69 -1.1 93 -7.6 59 -10.7 30 N.A. NA
ARGUS INVESTORS COUNSEL 72 169 0.80 -0.3 59 -3.3 13 -9.3 24 N.A. NA
ARNOLD & S.BLEICHROEDER 35 26 1.44 5.5 4 -12.1 115 N.A. NA N.A. NA
ATALANTA CAPITAL CORP 70 266 0.90 3.9 6 0.9 5 1.9 2 N.A. NA
ATLANTA CAPITAL MGMT CO 161 386 1.00 -0.2 55 -11.0 104 -16.5 84 N.A. NA
AXE E. W. & CO., INC. 85 353 1.57 -0.3 60 -14.6 138 -17.8 100 N.A. NA
BEA ASSOCIATES INC 349 984 0.88 0.2 40 -3.7 18 -11.7 43 N.A. NA
BABSON DAVID L. & CO. 281 1729 1.03 -3.3 145 -12.6 118 -16.0 81 26.1 39
BACHE HALSEY STUART SHLD 68 57 1.03 -0.6 71 -14.2 134 N.A. NA N.A. NA
BARROW HANLEY MEWHINNEY 50 159 0.82 1.0 27 -2.7 11 -1.9 3 N.A. NA
BATTERYMARCH FINL. MGMT. 686 5017 0.75 -0.5 70 -4.8 24 -9.5 26 N.A. NA
BECK MACK & OLIVER 136 227 1.04 -0.8 84 -9.7 93 -12.3 47 N.A. NA
BECKER A G INCORP 133 95 1.11 -0.1 48 -9.6 89 -15.3 73 N.A. NA
BERNSTEIN SANFORD C & CO 86 236 0.87 0.2 39 -3.6 17 -9.2 22 N.A. NA
BERNSTEIN-MACAULAY INC. 118 424 0.88 -2.4 132 -9.8 94 -12.6 52 51.6 17
BJURMAN GEORGE D & ASSOC 95 328 1.10 -2.2 128 -14.0 131 -18.7 105 N.A. NA
BOSTON COMPANY INC 364 1347 0.87 -0.8 85 -7.5 57 -12.9 56 35.3 34
BRISTOL JOHN W & CO INC 79 498 1.08 -3.6 147 -13.9 128 -19.6 108 N.A. NA
BROKAW CAPITAL MGMT. CO. 24 154 1.15 -0.3 62 -8.2 69 -14.0 61 N.A. NA
BROWN BROTHERS HARRIMAN 148 1320 1.00 -2.0 121 -12.1 114 -18.8 106 27.1 38
BRUNDAGE STORY & ROSE 210 1335 1.34 -2.9 139 -18.5 148 -26.1 122 N.A. NA
CMB INVESTMENT COUNSELOR 210 279 1.03 -0.4 67 -8.1 68 -10.9 33 N.A. NA
CAMPBELL ADVISORS INC. 69 296 1.56 -3.2 142 -17.9 147 -23.5 120 N.A. NA
CAPITAL CONSULTANTS INC 53 268 0.89 -0.2 50 -3.9 20 -15.3 74 N.A. NA
CAPITAL GUARDIAN TRUST 227 3739 0.81 -0.9 88 -5.6 33 -11.1 35 N.A. NA
CAPITAL SUPERVISORS 111 596 0.84 -0.5 69 -6.2 44 N.A. NA N.A. NA
CASHMAN FARRELL & ASSOC. 37 112 1.14 -3.9 150 N.A. NA N.A. NA N.A. NA
CENTURY CAPITAL ASSOC. 34 338 0.78 1.9 16 -4.1 21 -12.8 55 68.3 5
CHASE INVESTMENT COUNSEL 36 74 0.97 -0.3 63 -5.4 31 N.A. NA N.A. NA
CHESWICK RE & GILLESPIE 82 140 1.02 -2.8 138 -14.9 139 -21.3 115 20.4 40
COLE YEAGER & WOOD INC. 77 429 0.99 -0.5 68 -7.2 55 -11.4 41 43.2 28
COLUMBIS MANAGEMENT CO 225 580 0.92 0.8 30 -5.7 36 -12.1 44 47.8 24
CUMBERLAND ASSOCIATES 114 115 0.97 1.3 23 -1.0 7 -3.5 7 N.A. NA
DELAFIELD ASSET MGMT. 82 105 1.05 -1.5 107 -7.0 51 -16.7 87 N.A. NA
DEAN WITTER REY. INTERCP 159 228 1.07 -0.1 49 -8.7 75 -12.2 40 N.A. NA
DONALDSON LUFKIN JENRETT 512 4557 1.14 -2.0 124 -10.2 100 -17.2 95 52.1 16
EAGLE MGMT & TRUST CO 81 517 1.15 0.0 44 -13.1 124 -16.5 85 N.A. NA
ENDOWMENT MGMT & RES 95 1225 1.25 -3.7 148 -15.4 140 -20.1 110 50.3 19
ESSEX INVESTMENT MGMT 152 362 1.02 2.8 11 -8.3 70 -14.7 66 N.A. NA
FMR CORP 718 2048 0.91 0.4 37 -5.4 32 -9.9 28 N.A. NA
FAHNESTOCK & CO 35 71 1.26 1.9 15 -8.7 76 -14.4 64 55.3 14
FIDELITY INTL LTD 222 156 1.16 1.0 28 -6.9 50 -12.7 54 N.A. NA
FIRST MANHATTAN CO INC 287 660 1.06 1.4 22 -5.4 30 -8.1 18 N.A. NA
FIRST PACIFIC ADVISORS 85 266 0.91 2.6 12 -6.1 43 -5.6 14 N.A. NA
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* FIRST WILSHIRE SEC MGMT 109 123 1.19 -1.1 95 -9.6 90 -15.5 77 77.7 1
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
