Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Classic TA Workplace -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AllansAlias who wrote (23979)	12/6/2001 9:35:12 AM
From: orkrious	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 209892

Retailing sucks. Most of the few stores reporting decent results are not as good as it appears because of the way the calendar falls. Here's a couple of comments from Herb Greenberg at TSCM this am Herb Greenberg plce 12/06/01 9:21 AM ET Pay special attention to Children's Place. Analysts had been expecting same store sales to fall by 5% to 8%, but they fell by 16%. And that's WITH the positive boost most retailers are getting from the shift in the calendar with more days in the month after Thanksgiving. The real issue here, though, is that there was NO hint of trouble last week when PLCE management met with analysts at a CSFirst Boston conference, where the company touted all that was good. More interesting, on Tuesday Stanley Silverstein, a director and the father-in-law of CEO Ezra Dabah, filed to sell 50,000 shares of PLCE stock. hg Herb Greenberg chbs 12/06/01 9:12 AM ET Careful about jumping to conclusions about strong retail sales. Christopher & Banks, for example, reports a 10% gain in November comp store sales. But take away the "calendar shift" from more post-Thanksgiving days, and sales were up just 4%; analysts had been expecting 5%. What's more, December will be up only 3% to 5%. Hardly barnburner.

To: AllansAlias who wrote (23979)	12/6/2001 9:46:35 AM
From: JRI	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 209892

OT He didn't get much a chance to explain himself, but Jeremy Siegel of Wharton spoke on TV this morn, and stated that he did not think this recession would be that deep- primarily that this boom's "problem" (my word) was primarily a financial bubble, contained within a segment of technology, and was unlike the recession of 1990, which he is claiming had a greater, deeper impact due to the bubble in real estate, and other high fixed assets (he claims..the internet firms had little in fixed assets besides people..so, implied, the condition can be relieved quicker) I was surprised, to say the least, to hear his "summation"....he doesn't seem to think there is a linkage from the bubble to other parts of the economy, and may not mention of debt/derivitives issues....would like to find out more on his view....Siegel is no dummy, and was blowing the bear horn loudly during the bubble...