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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Tatnic who wrote (134)10/24/2000 12:35:36 PM
From: quasar_1  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559
 
OT: Bedtime Reading…

In my opinion, earnings aren't as important as interest rates, but they do give a reading of the economy's overall health.

Interest rates are important but that wasn't the point. The point is that over short time frames earnings are poorly correlated with stock prices 3 to 6 months out. By the way, interest rates were rising for many quarters before stock prices fell. The interest rate/stock price lagged effect is not tradable.

Still healthy and doing just what the FED wanted...i.e, growth is slowing somewhat. That's good.

I made that exact point in one of my posts. Contrary to the media spin, earnings have come in very well. This buttresses my argument that oil prices are not as important to producer costs as they were in the '70's.

The problem here is that while its true that higher oil prices are an indication of a healthy world economy (from increased demand), if they stay at these levels for too long it will put a halt to this world-wide recovery in a heart beat. Most of the third world's economic growth is still very much dependent on oil. I believe we are seeing signs of a stumble already. It doesn't take much to kill a fledgling recover.

I agree that rising oil prices affect world growth. Where we disagree is the extent. The thing that is putting pressure on foreign economies right now is capital disintermediation. I will say it again. World oil prices are not as important in the producer cost structure as they were in the last oil shock. This is due to greater efficiencies worldwide. Of course this is offset by higher overall demand. But this translates to greater units of output per barrel of oil. This is the nature of efficiency. This is my point.

I can't predict at what point the price of oil 'kills fledgling recoveries'. I don't know if you mean negative growth (recession/depression) or slowing of growth. I have seen/heard predictions that the price would have to get to $50 per barrel before we see negative growth.

the banking sector does poorly in a rising rate environment and will start looking good at the first hint of rate cuts by the FED.

Would it surprise you to know that the Dow Jones Financial Index just came off a 1 year high in September. How could this happen in a rising interest rate environment? The low for the year was in April. We are up 33% from the low and only 9% off the high in this index.

As far as stocks the Fed Funds rate stood slightly below 4.5% in January of 1999. The Fed has raised it consistently since then. At the beginning of January 1999 the DJI (the most interest sensitive) stood at 9184. At its height, during a rising rate environment the DJI stood at 11,908 a phenomenal 29.6% rise in about a year. This is during 12 months of Fed tightening. Even today, almost a year and three quarters since the FFR bottom the DJI is still up 13.24%.

What is the point. Of course interest rates do affect the stock market. But they are not a slam dunk prediction machine. Rising interest rates raise costs for industries that rely of borrowing, can contract P/E multiples and can have an effect on consumer demand. But these effects can be more than offset by other factors. Why have retail sales remained high during periods of 'high' real rates, falling stock prices (reverse wealth effect), and very high consumer debt? This is a very complex economic model that doesn't lend itself well to simplistic evaluation. This is the main failing of the popular media—leading people to the simplistic solution.

The problem now is that no one knows for sure when or if the FED will cut.

I don't think that is the main problem right now.

As for the bond market, the FED's intervention has thrown that all askew.

The Fed can affect the Fed Funds Rate and the Prime Rate. The Fed has very little real effect in the Bond Market. Long term inflationary expectations are the prime determinant of the 30 year Rate. (In fact the falling 30 year rate tells us inflation in not a problem right now), rising oil prices notwithstanding. How can that be?

In fact I could argue the Bond Market leads the Fed, not the reverse. What has affected the 30 year Market is the removal of supply from the system due to the retirement of debt. That is why I look more to the 10 year note market now for the markets interest rate/inflation call.

HD's profit warnings are the beginning signs that housing is slowing somewhat.

Actually the home construction stocks are up 22.61% over the last 3 months. They are one of the best performing sectors in the economy. What you refer to in the building materials stocks. They are down 19.52% over the same period.

But remember, thats what the FED wanted to happen..put a damper on the run-away economy to head off inflation.

The Fed has been totally wrong. There was no run-away economy. There was surprisingly little inflation for the high rates of growth. The bond market tells you this. There were run away stock prices from the greed driven buying panic. I don't believe what the Fed said. They were trying to bring the market down because they thought we were entering a bubble. They were right about the .coms and some of the nifty fifty tech stocks. They were also terrified of the wealth effect as it took away their control of the demand side through interest rate hikes.

Not such a bad thing.

The Fed's targeting of economic activity and interest rates is a very bad thing. It is anti free market. The Fed should be the lender of last resort, not the Politburo.

As for the whole brick and mortart distribution being in a state of chaos,

Please be accurate. I said in the preliminary stages of chaos.

I would tend to think that brick and mortar is much better off than etailers such as amazon et al. Those are the retailers that are in a state of chaos and desperation,

I agree

not the traditional brick and mortar bunch...

You were just talking about Home Depot's problems. Circuit City is also blowing up. Check out Nordstrom's. The problem with the traditional bunch is that there are some B&M's who are leveraging information technologies (WalMart, The Sharper Image) and those that aren't (Home Depot). This reinforces my big player small loser argument. B&M's have to figure out how to be price competitive with high front end costs. This squeezes margins. This will eliminate the weak over time.

'73~'74 was a pretty desparate time for this country. Ugly bear market.

Frankly '73-74 has nothing to do with today's market. All bear markets are ugly.

I also believe that alot of people got pretty mangle this year...

Good! Many of these same people realized tremendous gains since the beginning of the bull market, far above historical norms. Markets don't always go straight up.

and that you won't see as much money being thrown at the market.

Where is this torrent of 401k and IRA money going to go—into the fixed income markets? That is still probably a decade away.

Certainly the net stocks are not going to attract the great gobs of speculative money that they did in recent years. That's gone.

Good riddance!

I hear this text book mantra all the time...i.e., that oil prices are meaningless today because we are in a new economy where oil isn't as important.

I didn't say they were meaningless. I said they were less important.

This is such BS.

The fact that they are less important is demonstrably true. Even the 'great Fed' says so.

Everything is still dependent on oil. EVerything you see in your office or the stores or anywhere for the most part is still dependent on oil. The biggest difference between present day and 25 years ago is that we have become so much more efficient in our consumption,

You are reiterating my point. This contradicts your earlier assertion. If we are more efficient, more GDP can be achieved per barrel. This makes oil less important as a cost component per dollar of GDP.

but at the same time we are getting bigger and bigger so the net change in consumption keeps going up, not down.

But the correct way to look at the problem in GDP per barrel. This addresses my original assertion.

Never mind us, the third world is desparately dependent on oil and oil prices since they are even close to us in energy efficiency.

You are correct.

They will fold up shop if the prices remain at these levels for much longer.

You can't just assert this without supporting facts. How long will it take the price at these levels to cause them to 'fold up shop'? No oil price rise ever has caused any one economy to fold up shop that I know of. We are only talking about growth slowdowns. At some price oil costs can cause recession or depression. I don't know where that is and I suspect neither do you.

I disagree with your reasoning behind the Euro's weakness. Its not that complicated to figure out if you've ever been there. Its a simple matter of business. Look at all the weak, business hating, socialist countries in the Euro. France and Italy being the worst offenders. There is no way in hell the Euro will ever amount to anything as long as those socialist countries are members. That's why Great Britain has resisted joining them. Why would a great, capitalist country want to dilute their "stock" with a bunch of socialist?

This is what I wrote:

They are clinging to industrial age economic principals while the world has dramatically shifted in front of their eyes. What will happen is that many companies will fail not because of global recessions, but because they fail to grasp the competitive truth. This is the main reason Europe (Euro) is failing.

Nice to see we agree. Did you even read what I wrote? You claim to 'disagree with my reasoning' then you restate my case. This seems to be at odds with your opening statement that you 'hate to quibble'.

Lot of fluff there....can you translate that?

Translations:

The smaller amount of companies that remain will be incredibly prosperous.

Translation: Non-competitive companies will not survive. The free ride is over. Those that do survive will add value and become wealthy.

They will in essence become world corporate states.

Translation: Political entities become less important in highly competitive environments. Corporations already dominate our political institutions. Global capital knows no nationalistic borders. I am just extrapolating these trends.

They will rely on the small entrepreneurial firms to take the risk, while they aggregate the winners into their massive global enterprises.

Translation: The big fish will eat the little fish

The small companies that succeed will be moon shots.

Translation: These successful entrepreneurial companies will make a lot of money.

The rest will be buried or absorbed into the matmos.

Translation: The matmos was a sludge-like pool that people were thrown in to die from the movie Barbarella.

Compete? ARe you joking?

No.

The US is the clear leader in all that is business.

I agree. But that can lead to complacency. Pride goeth before the fall…

We are the envy of the world.

We are also scorned in the world.

Do you see many US engineers and scientist flocking to India to look for jobs?

US software jobs going to India and Eastern Block countries right now. The labor costs are much cheaper and the talent pool is very well educated.

How bout France?

France is a disaster.

We are and will continue to be the magnet for all who seek a better life and better opportunities.

The US offers a high standard of living. There are growing opportunities worldwide.

The real long-term question is can we continue to grow our economies and quality of living without completely destroying our environment. That's the real challenge facing the world in my opinion, and that will be a good place to look for some interesting growth companies now and in the future.

Here here! This is the best point of your post. I totally agree. Always save the best for last!

Thanks for your thoughts!

Quasar



To: Tatnic who wrote (134)10/24/2000 11:15:01 PM
From: bobby beara  Respond to of 74559
 
I hear this text book mantra all the time...i.e., that oil prices are meaningless today because we are in a new economy where oil isn't as important. This is such BS. Everything is still dependent on oil<<<<<

yes, but it seems a lot of people still believe these and other myths that brought the nasdaq to 5000,