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: pezz who wrote (3977)5/29/2001 11:39:06 PM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (5) | Respond to of 74559
 
Hi Pezz, I welcome back to this thread from your fishing holiday. We managed to amuse ourselves during your absence by straying into a bunch of vaguely, but obviously connected issues regarding Afghanistan, Balkans, Britain, Burma, Cambodia, Chile, China, France, Germany, India, Iraq, Japan, Jerusalem, Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Taiwan, US, Vietnam, Islam vs. Christianity vs. Buddhism, socialism vs. communism vs. capitalism, good vs. evil, right vs. wrong.

Had the holiday weekend been longer, we would have eventually gotten around to Lebanon, Northern Ireland, semi-good vs. partially evil, not-quite-right vs. maybe-possibly-wrong.

The only issue we managed to agree on without challenge and without question is that good is good, evil is evil, and thus, by corollary, capitalism is good, communism is evil. I hope your return to the thread will not upset the consensus we have achieved so far.

I suppose, on this thread, one would have to be a real bear to believe communism is good and capitalism is less good.

We have also started to agree that right may not be correct, and wrong may not be not-altogether-right.

As Westpacific pleaded, paraphrasing “boys and girls, get back to work!” and so we now do …

My “unless he repents and go with his deeper intuitive feelings” will come as close to a market taunt as you would likely get from me, with the next level being “… inflation, but when the official interest rate policy is to push me out of cash and cash equivalent and into equities, I am more concerned”. Not too bruising or otherwise psychologically damaging, I hope.

So, where are we now?

A gentleman who had once visited my mom and I, and who generally hangs out at the more soberly optimistic threads (I respect his opinion and appreciate his optimism, even as they seem to have been tuned down somewhat over the past 12 months), PM-ed me the following observation from Japan where he is visiting …

QUOTE
My view on the general picture.

1. The energy crisis: Sources alternative to oil such as electricity from burning coal with the expense of cleaning the gases released in its combustion, palm oil, gasoline from coal, etc. all have a price just at or slightly above present prices for energy from crude oil. Therefore the energy crisis, or oil crisis, to be more exact is more of an annoyance than a disaster. IMHO it is a minor negative for world economic growth. There is also a much safer nuclear energy coming within ten years.

2. Americans don't save. Well what's included? Stock investment, house purchase, I don't see any reliable figures.

3. The US balance of payments. The U.S. attracts investment. The figures also typically don't include services, software etc. The Euro won't soon replace the dollar; the UK is even hesitant about using the Euro. In Japan they love the appreciation of the dollar. The Japanese Government might shift from bonds to stocks but they are most unlikely to sell U.S. investments outright. They'd catch it from the Japanese exporters if they did. I imagine the Chinese government thinks similarly.

4. Credit card debt. The mushrooming of credit card debt is a result of the decision by lenders to take more losses from overspending idiots because as a group they are quite profitable, and have been underused. Who but an idiot would pay 18-20% interest to buy something? When the idiot goes bankrupt it doesn't have much impact; the lender writes it off against big profits from the other idiots.

5. Unemployment: I've been waiting for decades to see a level of automation which would make it almost impossible for grade 8 level people to get jobs. I'm still waiting but I think this situation has to come. It's a future negative.

6, Inflation: Before I thought it was a non-problem. But with the enormous tax cut and the decline in governmental revenues that comes with lower stock prices then inflation has to come back. Greenspan says that the U.S. will pay off its debt; with what money?

So the big picture is mixed. There is a recession in the IT industry, no doubt about it and the P/E's of most tech stocks have again crossed into the beginnings of the insane area.

I see a good chance of a 20-30% drop in the IT stocks. But after that, a gradual revival, as the inventories decrease. I'm hoping I can use my cash at the drop. The number of engineers and scientists AND THEIR OUTPUT is increasing exponentially. Basically I think we've already had the disaster of 2001. We may very well go near the lows again but it seems to me unlikely that tech spending will keep on going down.

In Japan I heard about a very interesting trend. As you know Japanese companies generally retire their employees at 60. The pensions are not enough so they must find some income or other. A growing favorite thing is to go to China and sell their expertise. Retirees who are engineers or scientists at well known Japanese companies are taking lucrative trips to China. Chinese engineers who have learned Japanese are paid 20-30% more per month because they can communicate more readily then with the Japanese technical expert. Otherwise they have to communicate in English and the probability that are both sides are well skilled in English isn't so high.

Take the chemical industry, for example. As a result of contact with the retirees a number of chemical plants are now producing product meeting international expectations of purity, which was not the case as little as two years ago. Not that the Chinese engineers couldn't scramble up the quality ladder eventually but this saves much time.

Interesting, what?

I'd like to invest in China myself, via stocks, but the disclosure is too opaque, or let's say non-existent.
UNQUOTE

I do not agree with everything quoted above, but I note that they are observations no worse than mine or anybody else’s.

What does Pezz see?

<<my "gut" feeling is usually wrong! … Soooo I have taken the contrary theory to it's most sophisticated level ... I'm contrary to myself ... Of course I must be careful here. I must be sure that I'm not being contrary to being contrary.... When I start to get a headache I know that I've gone to far>>.

I respect that line of thinking.

I note the following observations from news accounts …

1. The majority are optimistic about the equity market, which in itself means nothing, other than prices will stay rise and / or stay firm, for awhile, at the very least;

2. The US consumers continue to hold up the 2/3 of the economy accounted for by running a low savings rate. Again, this could go on, for awhile longer, at the very least;

3. Tech stocks have tanked (not news) and Old Ec shares holding up well (apparent new revelation to the spin-masters). Well, yes, in a manner of speaking, KO has held up well over the past 5 years, doing, net net, absolutely nothing, and is still not of value. But, never mind that single point observation;

4. Bond yield curve seem to say “expect inflation”, or, more benignly, say “funds are selling bonds to buy stocks”. I suppose if inflation is heading up, we are in trouble, and if indeed the funds are selling bonds to buy stocks, and if they are wrong, we (equity investors) will be in deeper trouble for being wrong twice;

5. Gold seem to say “inflation” or “I do not know what is going on, but I want to run anyway”;

6. Commercial real estate is saying “all is not well, but not as ill as it had gotten in the good old days”;

7. Residential real estate is saying “uh, is that big house with no view really worth that much, and the mortgage rate is no longer coming down with short rates”; and

8. Employment is saying “uh, not too bad yet, still got room to fall more before turning up”.

I am now situated in a small town of 600k in the middle of a giant dam project far away from everywhere, waiting to sign papers. I can only see so much from so far. What I am missing are the anecdotal observations.

In an effort to make a contribution of anecdotal observations from Hong Kong (I realize HK economy cannot swing world economy, but anecdotes are anecdotes, especially in many ways, HK is a microscope sample of the US, only different, as you will see) …

1. No wage pressure, as all are happy to have jobs, and cheap technical labor is only a train ride away;

2. No inflation pressure even though all edible, functional and decorative goodies are imported, but HK$ is tagged to the US$ and strong relative to its trading partners;

3. No cost pressure for the manufacturers, because all factories are not in Hong Kong but in low cost places like China, Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines, Mexico, Sri Lanka, South Africa, and everywhere else;

4. There is revenue pressure for manufacturers, result of world market conditions (no surprise here);

5. No taxation pressure, as HK taxes only 15.5% of wages earned in HK, and profit directly resulting from HK based corporate sales. There are no taxes on interest, dividends, capital gains, and offshore sourced income. FYI, as far as I am concerned, all income are sourced from offshore;

6. No interest rate pressure, as our rates are tagged to the US$ rates. Some bank just solicited us to take out a “prime rate minus” mortgage loan, yielding 5.5%;

7. No credit problems, as long as real estate do not fall 50%;

8. No energy problems, as gasoline has always been expensive, and electricity always cheap;

9. No saving rate problems, as everybody tries to save 30% per annum; and

10. No defense spending problems, as we have a fully funded, highest armed police force to population ratio in the world.

So, what do we fear, and why?

Well, we are afraid of what we do not understand, because we do not understand it.

<<… Unwarranted feelings of fear and euphoria ... Thus we have "tops" and "bottoms", "walls of worries" etc. Uh, Oh that headache ... >>

We understand there has been a massive top in the US, with outrageous valuation, at least some concomitant capex and economic dislocations, and at least some income, savings, and balance sheet imbalances. We do not understand why such an outrage needs to be further helped by lowering FED rate, and why the lowering of FED will help, at all.

<<Productivity, a strong dollar should compensate for lotsa money IMO>>

We understand that capacity utilization goes up with booming economy driven by money creation, stock market mania, and debt (at least depletion of savings) funded consumer spending, which in turn drives productivity indices. We do not understand how, as people in the aggregate are closer to want to take it easy, they can refuse to reverse their spending habit before matters are beyond terminal.

<<....OIL does scare me though>>

This we do not understand, as the gasoline prices in the US is the lowest in the world, and lower than in Hong Kong, even after a doubling.

So, as in a particular on-line Unreal Tourney game (Toys scenario), we hold on to our weapons and munitions, crouch high amongst the ceiling molding nooks and crannies, watch the SUNW, CSCO, KO, GE, bonds, real estate, USD, Yen, Euro, Gold, inflation, deflation, all dishing it out to each other on the floor below, and wait. GE and USD think they are doing fine against the other combatants.

We wait, until we understand, ready to swoop in to grab the prize from the last survivor in the arena. One shot, to the head, and clean up, forgetting about the 11% per annum objective.

Chugs, Jay



To: pezz who wrote (3977)6/15/2001 8:15:44 PM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 74559
 
Hi Pezz, <<... I ain't so sure ... inflation can be totally laid at the feet of the FED>>

No, of course not totally. I believe our last main series of discussion eventually settled on inflation, or the lack there of, as a possible trigger for the next accident.

The debate is happening elsewhere as well ...

grantsinvestor.com

QUOTE
A FED CELEBRITY DEATH MATCH?
by James Padinha 07:00 AM 06|15|2001

When Greenspan and Meyer spar over inflation, someone may lose an ear.

It smells like a fight to me. In the near corner, just out of his warm bubble bath and wearing the powder blue trunks is Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. And in the far corner, sporting the solid black trunks, is Fed Governor Larry Meyer. Being neither prizefighters nor kings, these guys aren't battling for money or for a come-hither woman named Helen. They're central bankers -- so, of course, they're fighting about inflation. Ladies and gentlemen, are you rrready to rrrumble?

The Tale of the Tape, so to speak, gives a sense of each fighter's thoughts about inflation, present and future.

In a May 24 speech, Meyer said this: "Given that labor markets remain tight, that inflation remains above the rate that I would find acceptable over the longer run, and that core inflation has been edging higher, attention must also be given to calibrating the easing to avoid overshooting in the other direction in a way that ends up adding to price pressures as growth strengthens." In a June 6 speech, he stressed the latter point again: "We have to be concerned that as we ease to mitigate the risks of a persistent slowdown or recession, we do not, at the same time, create conditions that would lead to higher inflation as the expansion gathers momentum."

Meyer's stance, then, is clear: He thinks overall inflation is already too high; he acknowledges that core inflation has been edging higher; and he cautions that too much easing might lead to a bigger inflation problem down the road.

Meyer's thinking stands in stark contrast to that of Greenspan, who believes that inflation is contained and will stay that way going forward. In his May 24 speech, the chairman did note "some apparent deterioration in actual and expected CPI inflation," but he downplayed these developments by turning to a kinder inflation measure, the core PCE price index. "There has been little acceleration in the broader index of core personal consumption expenditure prices," he declared.

Greenspan also argued that "the lack of pricing power reported overwhelmingly by business people underscores an absence of inflationary zest." He went on to forecast: "With energy inflation probably peaking and the easing of tightness in labor markets expected to damp wage increases, prices seem likely to be contained." Sound familiar? That's because the phrasing resembles the Fed's statement from the May 15 FOMC meeting: "With pressures on labor and product markets easing, inflation is expected to remain contained."

Finally, in a June 4 speech to the International Monetary Conference, Greenspan reiterated his views on the current inflation picture: "What we see. . . at this moment is a very extraordinary lack of pricing power in the American economy, which means, in effect, that the cost increases are not following through into significant pressures on prices but rather on profit margins."

In sum, then, Greenspan's view -- and hence the Fed's official view -- rests on the notion that inflation is already contained, and that mass firings, slower economic growth and a lessening of energy inflation will keep the lid on in the future.

Now that these two heavyweights have thrown a few jabs, how do we score the fight? Although the bout is still in the early rounds, Meyer is ahead on my card -- not because he's inflicted a lot of pain, but because Greenspan's punches have been so feeble. In fact, the big guy's emphasis on the core PCE price index makes him seem like he's gasping for air. Sure, that index is rising at only a 1.7% year-over-year rate, but during the first quarter, it posted the biggest increase (2.6%) we've seen in six years. Then, too, other price measures confirm that the inflation trend is still headed up.

The CPI, for example, rose at a 3.8% annual rate during the first four months of this year, compared with a 3.4% increase for all of last year. Remember, too, that last year's increase went into the books as the biggest since 1990. The core CPI, meanwhile, rose at a 3.3% annual rate during the first four months this year, a direct result of acceleration in the indices for shelter, medical care and tobacco and smoking products. The core CPI rose 2.6% last year, making it the biggest increase since 1996.

Finally, the Cleveland Fed's median CPI, another core consumer price measure, has accelerated steadily from the trough reached late in 1999. After grinding higher all year, this gauge is now rising at its fastest year-over-year rate since January 1996.

These accelerations might not qualify as "inflationary zest," yet one wonders if Greenspan needs a dose of smelling salts when he speaks of "the lack of pricing power reported overwhelmingly by business people." An acceleration in inflation, by definition, means not only that prices are rising, but that they are rising at a quicker pace than they were earlier.

Maybe Greenspan only talks to business people who manufacture clothes and new vehicles and computers, or maybe he talks to all kinds of business people who just plain lie to him. After all, how many businesses make a practice of shouting to the world, "Yes! we're raising prices"?

In any event, the acceleration of inflation measures confirms that many companies out there do have some pricing power and are, in fact, raising prices. So I'm subtracting a point from Greenspan for a low blow.

I'm subtracting another point for failure to separate -- that is, for clinging desperately to "easing pressures on labor and product markets" as an inflation damper. Pressure in the labor market has been easing for more than a year now -- employment growth peaked in May 2000. What has wage growth done since then? It has accelerated. The year-over-year increase in average hourly earnings speeded up to 4.2% from 3.4%. Wage growth in the service sector accelerated to 4.6% from 3.4%, and even wage growth in the goods sector jumped to 3.9% from 3.5%. Further, other measures of wage growth, such as those released alongside the productivity numbers, show increases of 6% and more.

That's why Meyer says "labor markets remain tight." We hear a lot about mass layoffs, and we know the current unemployment rate has risen to 4.4% from a cyclical low of 3.9% last autumn. Yet wage growth is still accelerating. Unfortunately for Greenspan, his easing-tightness-in-labor-markets notion packs no punch at all if it doesn't bring slower wage growth along with it.

The same goes for demand. What has inflation done since economic growth began to slow a year ago? As I detailed above, it hasn't decelerated or even leveled out. It has accelerated. Faster economic growth did not give rise to faster inflation during the latter 1990s. Indeed, that is the hallmark of the tech-led, productivity-driven "New Era." So if faster growth did not cause inflation to speed up, why is it, precisely, that slower growth will cause inflation to slow down?

Greenspan appears to be choking on his mouthpiece, while Meyer impresses the judges and the audience with solid jabs. He believes the kindly factors that helped keep inflation low in recent years have disappeared -- every last one of them.

Non-oil import prices? They were falling at rates greater than 4% less than three years ago, but now they're declining at just 0.6%. That's a swing of more than 3.4 percentage points. Energy prices? They were plunging at double-digit rates less than three years ago, but now they're rising at double-digit rates. Besides a change of direction, there's a 20-point swing. Oil prices? Down 44% less than three years ago, they're rising at a 9% rate now; a change of direction plus a 50-point swing. Health care prices? Rising at a rate of just 2.5% less than four years ago, they're shooting up at a 4.6% rate now. That's the fastest increase since 1995, and a two-point swing. Productivity? It was growing at 5.4% as recently as last year, but now it's growing at a 2.5% rate; a three-point swing. Unit labor costs? They were falling at a 0.5% rate as recently as last year, but they're climbing at a 3.4% pace now. That's a four-point swing plus a change of direction.

That's at least six good shots to the jaw. Now that Meyer has Greenspan in the corner where he wants him -- the kindly inflation factors are gone and core price increases have been accelerating as a result -- he can turn to the punishing body blows that lend his argument its power. He can refer to the fed funds rate, which has been lowered by 250 basis points in less than five months. He can use the real funds rate, which now stands at its lowest level (1.40%) since July 1994. He can bring in the M-2 measure of the money supply, which has now accelerated by almost two and a half percentage points, to 8.1%, in just nine months. Not since 1983 have we seen such money-supply growth. Bam, bam! Finally, Meyer can invoke the gap between the 10-year Treasury note and the three-month Treasury bill, which now stands at 169 basis points, its fattest since January 1995, and an indication that debt markets are more optimistic about the medium-term outlook for stronger growth and faster inflation than they have been in more than six years. Bam, bam, bam.

That's too bad for all of us, because a Meyer victory carries much worse consequences. If a bigger inflation problem emerges, the Fed will have to take back some, and perhaps all, of the easings it recently pushed through. And a higher fed funds rate won't help stocks or bonds.

Because he is a thoughtful, methodical and real-world fighter, Meyer has the edge over Greenspan, who seems to rely mostly on hope and who gives the impression of someone running around the ring with arms flailing, looking for a way out. So I pick Larry to win this fight -- and it won't surprise me if, at some point, Alan tries to bite his ear off.
UNQUOTE