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.
Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: qveauriche who wrote (121875)7/21/2002 11:44:47 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 152472
 
i would take issue with several of Bary's points:

1. he says SPX PE is 17x, but he neglects to mention this is a PRO FORMA ESTIMATE, which has been REVISED DOWNWARD countless times. i would say real earnings are more like 25x, or 23x as Grantham states.

2. the assumptions he mentions, e.g., Wien's 10% profit growth, are ludicrous. there is no reason to think that in a low-inflation environment (with huge excess capacity thanks to malinvestment during the bubble) the SPX as a whole can sustain 10% profit growth for the long term (it certainly hasn't in the past).

3. even his 7% profit growth assumption is suspect. while this is a historical figure, it incorporates a very inflationary period, so the nominal figure is misleading. safer imho is to assume 1-2% real profit growth as per historical avg. add the dividend yield to that and the real-return outlook is not very appealing compared to TIPS imho.

4. i really agree w/Grantham that the best you can say about the market is that it's not as overvalued as it used to be. bulls may catch a good trading rally, but from a forward expected-returns perspective, i find it hard to call this market a compelling buy.

5. every past bubble has ended in a shambles, with exceedingly cheap values, not just "not-as-expensive-as-before" type of values. why should this one be different?

6. these jokers always like to compare the SPX "earnings yield" (which is BS pro forma in the first place) against the 10yr note. what they should really compare it against is corporate bonds, which makes stock values look even less compellling.

7. we don't know what other skeletons are lurking in the closet, but there probably are some, and they are probably not the kind that make equities look less risky.

8. the market has essentially priced in no excess risk premium in the aftermath of 9/11. if another such event were to occur, the market may readdress the risk-premium issue (i.e., make equities cheaper).



To: qveauriche who wrote (121875)7/21/2002 2:02:10 PM
From: Jon Koplik  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472
 
NYT -- Investor Confidence Ebbs as Market Keeps Dropping

July 21, 2002

Investor Confidence Ebbs as Market Keeps Dropping

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON

Not long ago, United States investors were true believers. They trusted corporate executives to be truthful about
their companies' performance and prospects. They felt sure that the stock market was the only path to a
prosperous future. And they trusted Alan Greenspan to steer the economy through any storm.

But by the end of last week, the investor trust on which the bull market of the 1990's had been founded seemed to
have almost entirely vanished. As the Dow Jones industrial average careened to a loss of almost 400 points by the
close of trading on Friday, it became clear that many investors may have finally stopped believing.

Thanks to Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing and Tyco, confidence in corporate executives and the validity of their
companies' earnings is gone.

And with trillions of dollars in lost stock market wealth, so is the trust in company shares as the way to a comfortable retirement.

After Mr. Greenspan's testimony in Congress last week, investors' faith in him suffered some severe slippage.

This, market strategists say, is what a stock bubble looks like after it has popped. Unfortunately, economists add, the stock decline is so bad that it now threatens to weaken the economy's last pillar of strength: consumer spending. If consumers shut their wallets, hope for an economic recovery goes out the window.

"I don't think we've got an awful lot of problems in the economy," said Alan Kral, portfolio manager at Trevor Stewart
Burton & Jacobsen in New York. "But we could if we totally undermine consumer confidence by knocking down the
market."

A good hard knock is certainly what the market took on Friday. The Dow Jones industrial average lost almost 5
percent for the day and fell 7.7 percent for the week.

According to Thomas McManus, chief United States strategist at Banc of America Securities in New York, $6.7
trillion has been lost in stocks since the peak in March 2000.

This wealth destruction has finally begun to register with investors who, until recently, were holding onto their falling
stock positions with an admirable stoicism. "Confidence has been pretty beat up," Mr. McManus said. "I think it's
pretty clear there are going to be more ugly revelations at companies. I think there's a chance that there will be some investors who have such a bad experience that they will never want to touch stocks again. The pressure is going to be greatest for the people who got in late because they are the ones who are looking at this as a really disastrous move."

What economists fear most is that investor losses will translate to a slowdown, or worse, in consumer spending.
While corporate spending has been nonexistent for months, consumers have kept their wallets open. Low interest
rates and surging home prices have encouraged them.

But as consumers recognize the extent to which the falling stock market has decimated their retirement accounts or their children's college savings plans, their spending may come to a halt. If corporations make additional rounds of job cuts, this possibility may become a reality.

"The really big risk is that consumers will reawaken to the timeless truth that the best way to save money is to stop spending," said Richard Hastings, chief economist at Cyber Business Credit, a retail advisory firm in New York. "And I think that will impact aggregate demand in a way that has not been seen since the 1930's."

Economists at Goldman, Sachs, for example, say that weakness in consumer spending will curb economic growth not only for the remainder of this year, but well into 2003. As a result, the firm recently lowered its estimates for gross domestic product growth to 2.5 percent this year and 2.8 percent in the next.

"My feeling is the stock market is telling us something about the economy," said James Paulsen, chief investment
officer at Wells Capital Management in Minneapolis. "That the economy is going to be really bad for the rest of the
year. I also think what it's telling us is the consumer is going to get close to capitulation in the second half."

It wasn't supposed to be this way. After a year and a half of interest rate cuts, the economy was supposed to be
chugging along. Investors were told over and over again that six months after the Federal Reserve began cutting rates, stock prices were always higher. Instead, corporations are struggling with profits, the stock market is making new lows and the economic data are weak.

Apart from doubts about whether corporate financial statements are reliable, many investors still believe that the broad market is overvalued in relation to actual profits. Many of them are staying on the sidelines until they see a turnaround in profits, which remain under pressure.

With economic weakness still weighing on the market, investors are beginning to doubt Mr. Greenspan and his control over the economy. Indeed, one of the biggest shifts that market strategists sensed last week among investors was a diminished trust in the Fed chairman.

Throughout the two years since the stock market peaked, investors have viewed Mr. Greenspan with something
approaching awe. Now they are wondering if he can do anything to stop the market's slide.

"Greenspan did not have his typical calming moments in front of Congress," Mr. Kral, the portfolio manager, said of
his testimony last week. "He came away looking like a follower in the marketplace, not a leader. And that undermined some people's conviction with regard to the market's direction."

As they begin to wonder about Mr. Greenspan's power, investors' fears can only escalate. "Behind this downward
move is a Fed impotency panic," said Mr. Paulsen. "What's the catalyst that can turn the market around? Usually it's the Fed." But he added that investors seem to be so anxious these days that if the Fed moved, it might scare investors even more, if temporarily.

Many investment strategists think that investors are spending the weekend sorting through their fears of what the
coming weeks might bring. These ruminations may results in further selling on Monday. As Mr. McManus pointed
out, markets rarely hit their lows on Fridays.

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company