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.
Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sharp_End_Of_Drill who wrote (15305)7/20/2002 4:49:36 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 23153
 
Fear soaring on Wall Street

By Ben White
The Washington Post
Saturday, July 20, 2002 - 12:00 a.m. Pacific

NEW YORK — The Dow Jones industrial average plunged yesterday to its lowest level in nearly four years, and some veteran stock-market hands said the drop signaled the arrival of that moment that occurs in every bear market, in which selling feeds on selling — the mirror opposite of the psychological dynamic that drives stock prices up in a bull market.

Investors continued a sell-off that began with riskier stocks in spring and has spread to some of the nation's largest and most respected companies.

The Dow fell below the low it hit in September after the terrorist attacks, losing 390.23 points, or 4.64 percent, to finish at 8,019.26. That was the worst close for the blue-chip index since October 1998 and its seventh-largest point-drop ever.

Investors awoke to news reports of a government investigation into a Johnson & Johnson plant in Puerto Rico, helping touch off waves of selling that began with Wall Street's opening bell.

"I don't think the word 'capitulation' has been accurately used in the past few weeks," said Dan McMahon, head of block equity trading at CIBC World Markets.

"But that's what you are seeing now, when any sniff of bad news sends people running for the doors."

The other major indexes also lost ground as investors troubled by bad corporate news and continuing financial scandals ignored a week of efforts in Washington, D.C., to restore confidence.

It was the Dow's eighth losing week in the past nine, despite House and Senate passage of separate bills toughening penalties for financial wrongdoing, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan's upbeat comments about the economy and White House statements reaffirming President Bush's faith in the fundamentals of the economy.

"I'm pulling my money out," said Washington, D.C. resident Floyd President, 55, on a late-afternoon cigarette break. "I just don't trust the people who are running these companies anymore."

Henry Cavanna, who oversees $6 billion for J.P. Morgan Fleming Asset Management, said, "The pain is definitely spreading.

"And it is impacting the less controversial names, the Pepsicos, the Coca-Colas, who may face certain problems but nothing terribly serious. That's the true hallmark of a bear market operating with a life and a momentum all its own."

The U.S. stock market's tumble followed sharp losses across Europe yesterday as markets in Germany, Britain and France all slipped nearly 5 percent.

By the end of the day, every one of the 30 stocks that make up the Dow had fallen. The broader S&P 500 index slid 33.80 points, or 3.8 percent, to close at 847.76. The tech-heavy Nasdaq composite index lost 37.80, or 2.79 percent, to close at 1,319.15.

McMahon, of CIBC World Markets, pointed to quick sell-offs this week of Capital One, PNC Bank and several other firms on news that in another environment might have had far milder effects.

"These are stories where ordinarily the stocks would be punished but not taken out behind the barn and shot," he said.

He and others noted that yesterday's dramatic plunge also came despite second-quarter earnings figures being released by many firms that, while far short of sensational, are in many cases meeting or slightly beating Wall Street expectations.

"Microsoft's earnings were very strong," said Timothy Stives, portfolio manager at Ashland Capital Management, which handles $2 billion for wealthy and middle-class investors.

"For them to grow revenues 10 percent in the current market, considering the low demand for personal computers and weak corporate capital spending, is phenomenal. I thought that would stem the tide. It didn't. This is just total capitulation by the retail investor."

Stives said he spoke with one customer this week who demanded that his money be taken out of stocks. "He said: 'I want out, and you can't talk me into staying. I just can't handle it anymore.' "

David Memmott, head of block equity trading at Morgan Stanley, said cash continues to pour out of mutual funds as investors digest their second-quarter statements and decide they can stomach the losses no longer. Mutual-fund companies often must sell shares in blue-chip stocks to raise cash to pay investors who are pulling out, Memmott said.

"A monthly average outflow of $6 billion is not helping this market," he said.

Some of yesterday's selling also stemmed from a significant increase in margin calls in recent days, he said. Margin calls occur when brokerage firms that have lent money to clients to buy stocks request that the client put up more money because the stock has fallen, which often forces the client to sell stocks to raise money.

"Margin calls are running at between 15 and 25 times normal," Memmott said.

The heavy volume of trading yesterday was fueled in part by technical factors, including changes in the composition of the stocks in the Standard & Poor's index that go into effect this weekend. The S&P 500, which closed below 900 Thursday for the first time in nearly five years, is replacing all seven of its stocks of foreign companies with domestic issues. As a result, mutual funds that track the index were selling and buying millions of shares yesterday.

Cavanna of J.P. Morgan Fleming Asset Management suggested that a confluence of factors could help encourage buyers to return to the stock market.

"We are dealing with a serious loss of investor confidence," he said. "And nothing will change that in the near term, not Fed action or congressional action. ... But we are setting the stage for a market based on more reasonable valuations."

Cavanna added: "I think we are in fair-value territory and may be near undervalued territory. You combine that with an eventual return of investor confidence, the lack of a double-dip recession and you have a recipe for a better future — not a meal, but a recipe."

Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company

seattletimes.nwsource.com



To: Sharp_End_Of_Drill who wrote (15305)7/20/2002 6:19:01 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 23153
 
How Long a Slump?

By David Ignatius
Columnist
The Washington Post
Friday, July 19, 2002

After the "long boom" of the 1990s, what's the chance that we are now facing the prospect of a long slump in this decade -- a Japan-like malaise that may last years before investors recover their fractured confidence?

Unfortunately, some of Wall Street's most seasoned players fear we may have entered just such a period of prolonged decline. And because their confidence about the future is crucial in priming the pump, their prophecies tend to be self-fulfilling.

"In my opinion, the market is headed lower and will not start any serious recovery for some time," cautions James A. Harmon, former chairman of the investment bank Schroder Wertheim & Co. and former head of the U.S. Export-Import Bank. "This market will not boomerang," Harmon said during a telephone interview yesterday, "and the earnings of most of the large public companies probably will not keep pace with the growth of GDP over the next few years."

Is he right? There's obviously no way to know. But the fact that growing numbers of Wall Street insiders agree with him is important in itself.

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself," said Franklin D. Roosevelt in his 1933 inaugural address, describing the long slump that had followed the stock market crash of October 1929. The same words apply today: If investors regained their confidence and put their money to work, the slump would end quickly.

But will they? The "infectious greed" of the 1990s, to use Alan Greenspan's memorable phrase in his testimony this week, has given way to an infectious anxiety about the future. As in the 1930s, we're living in a Keynesian world where monetary policy alone can't shake investors from their "liquidity preference" -- and the corresponding reluctance to invest for the long term in productive assets.

Where investors once bragged about all the high-tech companies they owned, they now boast about their cash positions -- the lucky investors, that is. They are husbanding that cash for the moment when stocks finally hit bottom. "I am almost 100 percent liquid," one investment banker confided this week. "I have been waiting for this unique opportunity for some years. It will be comparable to the '70s."

Steven Rattner, who heads a New York private equity firm called Quadrangle Group, noted that one feature of this market is the continuing mismatch between what sellers think their companies are worth and what buyers are willing to pay. Recent experience has taught that if you wait, the price will decline -- and nobody wants to feel like a sucker who paid too much. So potential buyers sit on the sidelines, waiting.

"It's certainly plausible that the financial markets could remain in disarray and even move downward for some protracted period of time, but who knows?" says Rattner. "This is an exceptionally difficult period to make predictions with any degree of confidence."

Even the financial reforms that investors have been clamoring for may actually make the situation worse in the short run. Rattner notes that if companies follow Greenspan's advice and record stock options as an expense, that could cut the earnings of the average company in the Standard & Poor's 500 by 20 to 30 percent. And the earnings of high-tech giants such as Microsoft and Cisco Systems, which have granted billions of dollars in options, could suffer even more.

One of the few positives these days is that the world's financial architecture still looks solid amid the howling winds. Unlike the financial crises of 1997 and 1998, this time major financial institutions appear to have hedged their risks fairly well. Investors' losses of trillions of dollars in debt and equity markets haven't led to systemic failures by big banks or investment houses.

How could things get worse? For an answer, consult the annual report of the Bank for International Settlements, issued this month. Under a section entitled "Seeds of Concern," the BIS notes that financial consolidation has meant that just a few giant banks now control the unregulated market for financial derivatives. The top three banks controlled 89 percent of foreign-exchange derivatives booked by U.S. banks in 2001, up from 59 percent in 1995; the top three banks' share of U.S. interest-rate derivatives rose to 86 percent in 2001 from 56 percent in 1995; the top three's share of credit derivatives rose to 94 percent in 2001 from 79 percent in 1998.

In laymen's language, that means that, with fewer and fewer big banks, a failure by any one of them could be disastrous. That's one of the problems with globalization -- it puts everyone's eggs in the same few baskets.

Greenspan expressed this summer's rueful financial lessons eloquently in his congressional testimony this week. "It is not that humans have become any more greedy than in generations past," he observed. "It is that the avenues to express greed [have] grown so enormously." And now we are paying the price, saints and sinners alike.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

washingtonpost.com