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

To: TobagoJack who wrote (17881)	4/5/2002 11:03:28 PM
From: smolejv@gmx.net	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

Interesting stats () average productive days lost in strikes US 16,9 Canada 15,3 Ireland 7,5 Belgium 7,3 Norway 6,8 Sweden 6,2 Netherlands 4,0 Danmark 3,9 UK 3,3 Japan 2,0 Germany 1,6 Spain 1,6 Austria 0,8 dj () source Inst. der deutschen Wirtschaft Köln, time interval 1990-1999, selection of states

To: TobagoJack who wrote (17881)	4/6/2002 2:07:51 AM
From: Moominoid	Respond to of 74559

An interesting point noted in the Australian press in the last couple of days is that with such large debt to income loads a smaller increase in interest rates will do the same job of slowing the economy as a smaller increase may have done in the past. So instead of a coming financial collapse in fact we perhaps should expect smaller interest rate rises and smaller falls in asset prices than in the past?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (17881)	4/6/2002 2:26:57 AM
From: Moominoid	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Looking everywhere for an online version of the story about Chinese born children getting chucked out of HK, that is being reported extensively on the radio here. But coming up with nothing... Strange...

To: TobagoJack who wrote (17881)	4/6/2002 8:06:45 AM
From: mcg404	Respond to of 74559

<<The lesson which consumers—and also many over-sanguine economists—have to learn is that spending cannot outpace income for ever. House prices have saved America and the world from a deep downturn, but they do not remove the need for consumers to take care over their balance sheets. Homes are only as sound as their foundations. >> from contrary investor: What the raw real estate data tells us is that a good portion of the price appreciation in real estate over the last few decades has been monetized Not all, but a meaningful portion. Household real estate ownership today is more dependent on leverage than really ever before... Moreover, so much of this leverage has been securitized and sold off into secondary markets creating both the perception of heightened liquidity and engendering ever higher levels of lending activity. Real estate has simply been a part of the overall credit expansion process. Where conceptual trouble may lie in terms of financial and macro economic flexibility ahead is in the potential mismatch of assets and liabilities. For the portion of monetized real estate equity that has gone to fund current consumption, households have been left with long lived liabilities against short dated assets. The classic financial mismatch.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (17881)	4/8/2002 3:30:03 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

disparity between profits at S&P 500 companies and optimistic GDP forecasts Chief executives vs the statisticians John Lipsky and James Glassman explain the disparity between profits at S&P 500 companies and optimistic GDP forecasts Published: April 7 2002 18:39 \| Last Updated: April 7 2002 18:55 Who is right about the US economy? Is it the chief executives and financial officers who are facing a round of downbeat first-quarter earnings reports? Or is it the Department of Commerce statisticians, whose calculations of gross domestic product portray an economy that already began producing an impressive profits rebound late last year? Consider the facts: according to the stunning GDP figures released last week, after-tax profits from current production of all US corporations surged in the fourth quarter, leaving profits 5.7 per cent higher than a year earlier. But this stands in sharp contrast to the 24.5 per cent year-on-year fourth-quarter drop registered in 2001 in the after-tax operating earnings of the S&P 500 corporations. Who is right? In one sense, both are. Profits have dropped sharply since mid-2000 at the big, high-profile companies that are represented in the S&P 500 index. However, the composition of the S&P 500 over the past few years has become more heavily weighted towards the telecommunications, media, technology, energy and financial sectors. These were precisely the sectors that soared in 1998-1999 but slipped during 2000-2001. The profit performance of the S&P 500 over the past few years therefore has not reflected accurately the entire US economy. In fact, operating earnings of S&P 500 companies represent only two-thirds of US corporate profits. In contrast, the government's quarterly profit estimates reflect the results from more than 8,000 US corporations. The gap between reported (S&P 500) and economic (GDP) profits reflects methodological issues as well as the specific sectoral slant of the S&P 500. Investors' corporate profit perceptions typically focus on corporate reports prepared using generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). These exclude the impact of cumulative accounting changes, discontinued operations, and one-off charges. However, GAAP- based profits fail to account for other distortions. The most important of these differences relates to the treatment of depreciation charges. Such charges are deducted from profits under both GDP and S&P definitions. According to the government's statisticians, however, corporations following GAAP guidelines reported depreciation charges on investments that exceeded "true" economic depreciation. In other words, corporations at present are allowed to write down investments more quickly than their economic usefulness expires. This gap became a significant factor amid the rapid build-up of business investment spending during 1995-2000 and probably accounted for up to a third of last year's S&P/GDP "profit gap". Other important differences exist between the two accounts but, surprisingly, they would normally tend to reduce, not boost, the reported profit gap. Most notably, the GDP accounts deduct the cost of stock options from earnings at the time that they are exercised, while S&P operating profits do not deduct employee stock options from earnings at all, in line with GAAP guidelines. Last year, however, it is likely that the cost of options exercised waned, so the effect would have boosted 2001 GDP profit growth. Other methodological differences do not create meaningful divergence in the outcomes. Last quarter's profits surge may also have been obscured in part by Wall Street's focus on year-on-year profits comparisons. This practice reflects the practical unreliability of seasonally adjusting any single company's quarterly earnings. The GDP-based profit figures are seasonally adjusted, which is a much more reliable exercise when applied to aggregate figures. While this adjustment did boost GDP profits in last year's final quarter, seasonal factors for last year's fourth quarter nonetheless have to be viewed with caution. Cutting through the technicalities, there is little mystery why broadly measured profit growth is rising. Companies in all sectors have been squeezing out new productivity gains in spite of an economic stall that left national output roughly flat last year. Furthermore, businesses have been curbing costs, including slowing wage gains. With sales volumes growing since late last year and unit labour cost falling, corporations' after-tax cashflow has rebounded to a record level and is relatively high even as a percentage of national output. If this more upbeat profits analysis is correct, it will go a long way to explaining another mystery: why the US stock market has continued to support a historically impressive ratio of stock prices to reported operating earnings. In fact, the GDP accounts indicate that the after-tax profits share of national output has already been restored to the level reached in the mid-1990s, largely reversing the slide that began in mid-2000. The chances are that chief executives are going to have a more upbeat story to tell in the next few quarters. The writers are senior economists at JP Morgan in New York