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 : John Pitera's Market Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: John Pitera who wrote (5416)1/12/2002 1:35:39 PM
From: Jon Koplik  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 33421
 
Gary Shilling's comments on economy / recession in Barrons.

January 14, 2002

Not a Believer

Why Gary Shilling still isn't a convert to the religion of a quick economic recovery

By Jonathan R. Laing

Almost from the official declaration late last November that the U.S. was in
recession, the bulls on the economy and stock market were quick to declare
victory. The trough of the recession was imminent and would be followed as
night by day with a robust recovery in 2002's first quarter, said Wall Street
optimists, noting that post-war recessions have lasted on average, about 11
months and that the current one was deemed to have started last March.

The stock market typically anticipates or "discounts" recoveries by four to six
months. Therefore, the sharp rallies of over 20% in the Dow and Standard &
Poor's 500 and 45% in the Nasdaq since the September 21 post-terror-attack lows
both point to an impending rebound in the economy and a potential boost to
flagging consumer and business spending.

The bulls also say that 11 straight rate cuts by the Fed, including one last month,
should shock the comatose economy back to consciousness soon. If this proves
insufficient, post-attack fiscal stimulus should do the trick.

All of this, however, leaves economist Gary Shilling less than impressed. The
proprietor of the Springfield, New Jersey, research firm A. Gary Shilling & Co., in
fact, had been predicting a nasty recession and stock-market correction for the
past couple of years. "The official recognition that the expansion had ended in
March [2001] was something of relief for us since we'd maintained since
February [2001] that the U.S. had slipped into recession," says Shilling, who sees
rising unemployment, falling profits and limp production lasting at least into the
third quarter.

Likewise, he sees another sharp drop
in the stock market between March
and May that, he says, probably will
be deeper than the emotion-induced
lows set in September when the
Dow sank to 8236, the S&P to 966
and the Nasdaq, to 1423. Over a
year ago, he used various valuation
measures to set targets -- still in
force -- of where the selloff would
likely end. He sees the Dow
eventually down 30%-40% from its
all-time high of 11,723, to
7034-8206, and the S&P selling off
40%-50% from its all-time peak of
1,528, to 764-917. His Nasdaq target: 1010-1515, or 70%-80% below its peak of
5049. Only the Nasdaq penetrated his range on September 21.

According to Shilling, recessions are less predictable than commonly thought. And
the current one is a particularly odd duck, he says.

Normally, says Shilling, recessions have been triggered when the Fed tightened
credit and raised short-term interest rates to cool an overheated economy and
stifle inflation. The first casualties of war were often housing and other
interest-sensitive industries like autos and capital goods. Inventories would build,
leading to slashed production schedules and rising layoffs. Recovery would come
only after inventory excesses were worked off.

To be sure, the current recession was preceded by Fed credit tightening beginning
in June 1999. But the ensuing contraction was initially confined to the New
Economy, weighted down with gross overcapacity from years of insensate capital
spending. Capacity utilization imploded in areas as diverse as fiberoptic
telecommunications and semiconductor manufacturing. Venture-capital money
and bank credit dried up for new technology projects. Capital spending, normally a
late-recession casualty, plummeted early on.

These New Economy problems, in turn, fed back into the consumer economy
when technology stock prices crashed after March, 2000. Many affluent investors
throttled back their spending when tech stock losses suddenly imperiled their
comfortable lifestyles and retirements.

Yet, in the main, consumer spending continued to grow unabated until October
and housing activity continues at a healthy clip. And, the recent bounce back in
stocks only confirms in investors' minds the lesson of the past 20 years: Buy on
weakness because stocks always come back and hit new heights.

But now, argues Shilling, a more lethal recessionary phase is impending, as the
malaise spreads to the Old Economy. Mounting job losses in the manufacturing
and service sectors have caused consumer confidence to crumple. Consumers
finally threw in the towel in the middle of last year and largely used their tax-rebate
checks to pay off debt rather than buy new goodies. Spending is sliding
dramatically. Housing prices show signs of leveling off, a likely prelude, says
Shilling, to actual declines.

Moreover, Old Economy weakness will tend to feed back into the tech area,
Shilling insists. Sales for many tech consumer products are slowing. Palm Pilots,
for example, are considered consumer durables. And, Shilling points out, if auto
sales fall next year as predicted, so will demand for the semiconductor chips that
abound inside new cars.

Shilling also delineates secular trends likely to extend the recession and blight the
vigor of any recovery. For one thing, consumer spending patterns are in a rapid
downshift because of the trauma of September 11, elevated personal-debt levels,
growing joblessness and shoppers' propensity to demand price discounts and
curtail the purchase of non-essential items. Income growth is likely to suffer from
cuts in hours worked (December's rise in this regard was an aberration, Shilling
maintains) and lower year-end bonuses for everyone from Wall Street investment
bankers to auto workers.

Management requests for wage concessions are cropping up with greater
frequency than at any time since the Great Depression. And consumer spending
will be curtailed by the need of Baby Boomers to finally save for retirement.

Given all this, he suspects that the economy is still careening down the left side of
what will prove a wide U-shaped cycle. Or it may trace a W-shaped formation
with a mild rebound coming in the current quarter, followed by a resumption of
negative growth over the next two quarters. In any case, Shilling doesn't see a
trough followed by a vigorous rebound early this year.

The possibility of a synchronous worldwide recession also looms, according to
Shilling. As a result, export growth won't provide a cushion for the U.S. The last
time the U.S. faced a global downturn was during the bloody 1973-1975
recession.

According to Shilling, most bulls are counting on monetary and fiscal stimulus to
rescue the economy. However, Shilling contends that Fed easing is way overrated.
"Look, the Fed eases at about the peak of most business cycles and recoveries
always follow, but it's equally true that eclipses of the sun go away when you go
outside and beat a drum," he notes. "We always got recoveries from recessions
even before the Fed was created in 1913. The Fed is just along for the ride in any
business cycle. If banks continue to raise credit standards and corporate and
personal bankruptcies continue to spiral, today's credit crunch will increase in
severity, despite all the ministrations of the Fed."

Likewise, fiscal stimulus usually arrives too late to have much impact on
recessions. Of the $40 billion approved in federal relief spending passed three days
after the September attacks, only half of the funds have been appropriated and a
tiny fraction actually spent, says Shilling. And the supplemental stimulus package
continues to be mired in partisan bickering in Congress. Finally, much of the
federal stimulus will be offset by spending cuts and tax increases forced on state
and local governments, which are constitutionally required to balance budgets.

Shilling insists that economic growth won't get the same push from a rising stock
market in the years ahead that it did in the 'Nineties. For one thing, stock-market
valuations remain at nose-bleed levels even after the selloff that began in March
2000. And many of the artificial spurs to corporate profits that drove stock prices
relentlessly higher figure to reverse. The capital-spending boom of the late
'Nineties will inflate depreciation charges. Falling interest rates and a less ebullient
stock market will boost required corporate contributions to defined-benefit
pension plans.

By all means be of good cheer, Shilling advises. But stock investors should be
careful not to overindulge. The hangover could prove painful.

E-mail comments to editors@barrons.com

Copyright © 2002 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



To: John Pitera who wrote (5416)1/14/2002 9:09:10 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 33421
 
Hey John... I'm trying to track down a rumour I heard today about Jeff Skilling of ENE shorted his own stock.

Anyone hear about this?

Hawk



To: John Pitera who wrote (5416)1/19/2002 5:33:33 PM
From: Jon Koplik  Respond to of 33421
 
Latest John Berry / Washington Post / un-named "sources" / what Alan Greenspan really was trying to say (in his last speech or appearance) ... article

Greenspan Speech Was Misjudged, Aides Say

By John M. Berry
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 19, 2002; Page A01

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, in a speech last week, sounded more pessimistic than intended about the prospects for U.S. economic recovery, according to several Fed sources.

Stock prices fell steeply after he began the Jan. 11 speech, in part because of his cautious tone and apparent emphasis on the "significant risks" to the economy. Bond traders also concluded that Greenspan was signaling that the Fed would lower interest rates again later this month.

However, this week, a number of Fed officials expressed surprise at that interpretation and suggested that the market had "over-interpreted" what the chairman had said.

According to several sources, it is much more likely that the chairman will propose that the Fed's target for overnight rates be left unchanged when the central bank's policymakers meet Jan. 29 and 30.

That would sit well with many of the other 16 policymakers who will attend the meeting, the sources said. Nevertheless, some of the sources cautioned, a rate cut cannot be completely ruled out.

Part of the confusion over the speech was due to the subtlety of Greenspan's intended message that the recession was likely to end soon, but that a quick, strong rebound was not assured.

Greenspan chooses his words very carefully, keenly aware that his public utterances are closely parsed by the markets and often move global stock and bond prices. An economist who speaks in highly technical language about extremely arcane subjects, he also is so aware of his reputation for impenetrable prose that he occasionally plays it for laughs. He usually writes his own first drafts of speeches and is heavily involved in editing them.

Greenspan's earlier drafts of the Jan. 11 speech were more optimistic about the prospects for recovery, sources said, so much so that the tone raised worries that the markets would expect a sharper upturn in economic growth than he foresees.

That would be a problem for the economy if it strengthened the belief among some analysts and investors that the Fed would move quickly to raise short-term interest rates, perhaps even before the middle of the year. That belief had helped cause long-term rates to rise in recent months. But if Greenspan could temper those expectations, then perhaps those longer-term rates could come back down somewhat, Fed sources said.

So as the speech was fine-tuned, much of the optimism leaked away; the final version left listeners and readers hearing a very different message than intended.

In the speech in San Francisco, Greenspan acknowledged that the recession that began last spring shows signs of ending. "Signals about the current course of the economy have turned from unremittingly negative through the late fall of last year to a far more mixed set of signals recently," he said

But he immediately added, "I would emphasize that we continue to face significant risks in the near term." He read a sizable list of risks, including weak business profits and investment, uncertain prospects for consumer spending, rising unemployment and the past two years of falling stock prices.

Given that litany, many investors and financial analysts quickly concluded that Greenspan was preparing the market for another reduction in the Fed's target for overnight interest rates, which now is 1.75 percent. The Fed has lowered the target 11 times, by a cumulative 4.25 percentage points since the beginning of last year, to try to boost the economy as it slid into recession.

Greenspan will have an opportunity next Thursday to clarify his message when he testifies before the Senate Budget Committee.

In deciding whether to lower the interest-rate target again, a key point for many Fed officials is that the effect of rate cuts on the economy is delayed. Many of the previous Fed rate cuts -- particularly those that occurred after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks -- haven't had time to have much effect yet. Even if the Fed leaves its target unchanged this month, the recent cuts will continue to stimulate economic activity for months to come.

However, in last week's speech, Greenspan cautioned that it was too early to be sure about the nature of the recovery. "Despite a number of encouraging signs of stabilization, it is still premature to conclude that the forces restraining economic activity here and abroad have abated enough to allow a steady recovery to take hold," he said.

Since Greenspan's speech, several economic reports -- on initial claims for jobless benefits, industrial production, business inventories and consumer confidence -- all suggested that the recession is over or nearly so, analysts said.

"The economic news clearly indicates the economy is turning," said Bill Dudley, chief economist for Goldman Sachs in New York. "First-quarter economic growth will almost certainly be positive" after declines in the third and fourth quarters of last year. "I would put the trough of the recession in December," he said.

Economists also took comfort from improving consumer attitudes, hoping they indicate a continued willingness to spend. Yesterday the University of Michigan said its consumer sentiment index rose to 94.2 for the early part of this month, the highest level in a year, from 88.8 in December. The index reached a low of 81.8 in September after the terrorist attacks. All of the improvement this month came in consumer expectations of improved economic conditions later this year.

Earlier this week, the Fed reported that industrial production fell 0.1 percent last month, much less than in several previous months and a possible indication that the hard-hit manufacturing sector is stabilizing. Motor-vehicle output rose strongly in December, and even production of semiconductors and computers, which had been extremely weak earlier in 2001, was rising again.

Meanwhile, inflation remains subdued. The Labor Department said this week that consumer prices fell 0.2 percent last month, primarily because of falling energy prices, and were up only 1.6 percent from December 2000.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company