SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sandeep who wrote (38772)2/1/2000 3:31:00 PM
From: Doo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 99985
 
And this is your first post on SI? LOL!!!!

heinz drove you out from under some deep sand to scream such profound wisdom from the highest dune around? ROFLMAO!!!!

;)



To: sandeep who wrote (38772)2/1/2000 8:42:00 PM
From: John Madarasz  Respond to of 99985
 
Maybe the market is seriously undervalued; or so shall our descendents say...

I for one hope you are correct but I doubt it... here's an interesting edited article anyway; check the link for some accompanying charts and the complete story... Enjoy

ntrs.com

The Greatest Generation? Brokaw Is Right

Well, here we are, setting the record for the longest US economic expansion since they started keeping track of these things back in the 1850s. Should there be any surprise about this? Of course not. After all, it was my generation - the Baby Boomers - that first discovered justice. Quite naturally, then, it would be my generation that would be responsible for the longest business expansion. So, is Tom Brokaw incorrect in calling my parents' cohort "the greatest generation?" After all, we broke their longevity business expansion record without a major sustained hostile military engagement.

Assuming that longevity isn't everything, Brokaw still may be right.

My parents' run of 106 months of business expansion (starting in March 1961 and continuing through December 1969) was associated with faster real economic growth, higher productivity growth and a better trade-off between real economic growth and inflation than has this generation's 106-month run. Let's roll out some charts to illustrate my contentions.

In the 35 quarters ended 1969:Q4, real GDP advanced at a compound annualized growth of 4.82%.

In the 35-quarters ended 1999:Q4, real GDP has grown at an annualized rate of 3.61% -- 121 basis points less and only 15 basis points higher than the 3.46% compound annualized growth in real GDP from 1959:Q1 to 1999:Q4.


What about inflation?

The 35-quarter compound annualized growth in the chain-type GDP price index in 1999:Q4 was only 1.9% -- 75 basis points less than what it was in the 35 quarters ended 1969:Q4.

But recall, in the 1960s, the real economy grew faster than it did in the 1990s. So, to measure the trade-off between real economic growth and inflation between the two periods, let's subtract the compound annualized growth in the chain-type GDP price index from that of real GDP.

In the 35 quarters ended 1969:Q4, this difference was 217 basis points compared with 171 basis points in the 35 quarters ended 1999:Q4.

What about productivity?

All of the new technology we Baby Boomers have had at our disposal must have allowed us to pass up our parents in terms of productivity growth. Guess again. The compound annualized growth in nonfarm productivity in the 34 quarters ended 1999:Q3 (BLS has not yet released Q4 productivity data) was only 2.19% -- 100 basis points slower than it was for our parents in the 35 quarters ended 1969:Q4.

A few more words on the reasons for the longevity of this current business expansion.

The media is coming up with all kinds of "new era" explanations from productivity to globalization to Greenspan to Rubin. I think that the behavior of the global economy has had something to do with the longevity of this expansion. But not for the reasons typically ascribed to the economic virtues of globalization. Rather, because of the lack of synchronization between the US economic cycle and that of Europe and Asia, especially Japan, in this expansion, US inflation has been muted longer than it otherwise would have been.

*** As a result, Greenspan has not pushed down as hard on the monetary brakes as he would have had the rest of the world had less idle capacity.

The global economic environment with respect to US inflation is becoming less benign, however. This year promises to be one in which global economic growth will be the strongest since the first half of 1997 and perhaps the most synchronized of the current US expansion. I do not believe that is was just a coincidence that the US dollar prices of industrial commodities bottomed out in early 1999 as the global economy started to recover.

One final point on the longevity of this expansion.

As mentioned above, the compound annualized growth of this expansion to date has not been spectacular in comparison with the long 1960s expansion or growth over the past 40 years. One reason for this is that the current expansion was very slow getting out of the blocks. In the first 8 quarters of the current expansion, real GDP grew at a compound annualized growth of only 2.76%. As shown in the chart below, this was the slowest start to any expansion in 1959-99 period. The average annualized growth in the first 8 quarters of the prior four expansions (not counting the brief 1980-81 expansion) was 5.56%.

Why such a slow start to this current expansion?

The US banking system and Alan Greenspan appear to have something to with the answer.

As can be seen, real M3 was contracting in the early years of this current expansion. In contrast, in the prior four economic recoveries, real M3 growth came roaring out of the chute. Why the different behavior of M3 growth in the first two years of the current expansion? The banking system was unable to lend to the private sector because of capital deficiencies and Alan Greenspan was slow to lower rates enough to combat this problem. So, one reason that this expansion has gone on so long is that it was very slow getting into high gear.

* I believe Heinz is correct in his assertions that it is the massive injections of liquidity that have kept this market at such high levels, and as long as it continues soft landings will most likely be the order of the day. Election years are always up years for the market, but inflation is on the horizon...and closing fast; even a joe six pack like me can see that... in the grocery, at the gas pump, and at the mall.

Watch the dollar, and the Euro...

Sure hope it's a new era, but it can't hurt to have a plan just in case it's not...and some savings too<g>

Best Regards,

John Madarasz



To: sandeep who wrote (38772)2/1/2000 10:21:00 PM
From: bobby beara  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 99985
 
>>>What gives you so much confidence that the current state of the market is a bubble ? <<<

Sandeep, good question, nobody knows, a lot of people have been confident this is a bubble for a decade now.

The market follower/trader must just follow the markets and try to capitalize on indicators that will allow you to sell when greed is at it's greatest and buy when fear is at it's greatest.

Then bubblenomics is a thing to talk about at cocktail parties, but nothing to make money on.

b