To All, Barron's Review. Fairly decent issue.
1. Abelson quotes an economist with Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi about the downturn in computer sales. A bunch of stuff about first time and worst time ever for computers in the first quarter. He suggests that America's big technology upgrade is behind us, and with it, productivity gains. Good stuff except for the fact that I don't accept the published productivity numbers. Abelson also takes another whack at TheStreet.Com. An analyst mentions that the co. would have to earn $50 million to conform to market valuation. That eps figure is approximately 10 times current "revenues." <g> He will get mail. And a bearish bank analyst lists two he likes, KeyCorp and Huntington Bancshares.
2. In Followup, a kissy-face review of Hewlett's latest eps. No mention of the fact that the entire earnings gain came from "Other Income." Lots of mention about how great the non-growing operating businesses are doing. <g>
3. Three articles about the Fed bigotry, er, bias. <g> The first marked the return of Lauren Rublin to the pages of Barron's. Although her interview sources think that rates are not going up, she does have the moxie to mention that Greenspan's favorite valuation model shows the S&P 500 overvalued by 40%. Abby Jo said the CPI was all the fault of the tobacco cos., which must be why apparel and transportation prices were up so much. I wonder if Harpo ever thinks about what she says? She has gotten worse. The one lunch I had with her, she was able to present a linear argument that was wrong, but at least made sense.
4. Randall Forsyth, whose stuff I often like, pens a nonsensical article about the trade deficit, claiming we are really buying from ourselves. Huh? It goes like this. We are buying goods made by American cos in foreign countries, so, the deficit really isn't that bad. I have to ask, which workers get paid for building this stuff. Who collects the lion's share of the taxes for their sales? Who are the primary suppliers of materials and services to the plants that make the stuff? If you answer, Americans, go back and try the quiz again. <g> But, Forsyth and many others, mainly shils for global corporations, believe that having the US economy killed by friendly fire is superior to having it killed by foreign guns. In other words, traitors, si, foreigners, no. Dumb stuff.
5. A bullish article about railroads. I couldn't get into it given the recent sad passing of Boxcar Willy. <g>
6. An interview with yet another bullish portfolio manager. This one looks like a mortician. <g> Or Alan Cranston.
7. Gene Epstein explains the Core rate. Nary a mention of the words Congress Of Racial Equality. <g> I found it kind of basic.
8. The best thing in Market Watch is Matt Stichnoth's comparison of the values of Graham and Dodd with current investor practices. G&D win. <g> They finally have an excerpt from Richebacher, and a nice sized one. And, I couldn't figure out whether Ian McAvity is bearish or bullish.
9. A nice letter about Warren Buffett books, but, otherwise, the Mailbag needs me to liven it up. <g>
10. Current Yield talks about the Fed and, more to the point of making me profits, the widening spreads in corporates.
11. In Trading Points, Randall Forsyth redeems his credibility after the trade gap article. Talking about Fed rates, he quotes the Taylor
Rule, which sees Fed Funds heading to somewhere between 5 1/2% and 6%. Developed by a Stanford professor, it has been fairly accurate in the past, which is typical for academic tools. It is only the present and the future that give them trouble. <g> Seriously, I give a lot of weight to Taylor's work. I am betting against it right now, but it is a credible piece on the opposite side of my position.
|
