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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (3714)8/1/2002 5:22:22 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
CEOs/CFOs who've reported to the SEC:

sec.gov



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (3714)8/1/2002 5:30:16 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Double Dip

usatoday.com

Dip 1 is Bush Jr.
Dip 2 is Cheney.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (3714)8/1/2002 5:34:58 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
The Fragile Recovery

The New York Times
Lead Editorial
8/01/02

The latest raft of economic data released yesterday was cause for more heartburn. The weaker-than-expected growth for the second quarter of this year — an annual rate of 1.1 percent, half of what had been predicted — calls into question the solidity of the recovery and gives more credence to warnings by some analysts that the economy could be in for a possible "double-dip" recession.

The new government data also seem to confirm a fact of life not always acknowledged by pure economic orthodoxy — the volatile stock market's impact on the "real" economy. Those free-spending consumers who have been propping up the economy at a time of sluggish business investment do not inhabit a parallel universe, untouched by Wall Street. They are the same people who receive increasingly painful brokerage statements, which helps explain the falloff in consumer spending growth shown in yesterday's report and earlier surveys indicating plummeting consumer confidence.

For weeks President Bush and his top economic advisers have been trying to change the subject from that of a stock market spooked by corporate scandals to that of the economy's sound fundamentals. They may now need another subject.

Mr. Bush tried to minimize the news by talking about the more positive average growth for the first two quarters. The first quarter's rate was revised downward yesterday by a point, to a still-healthy 5 percent, bringing growth for the first half of the year to 3 percent. Other officials were quick to note that business spending is declining now at a slower pace, and that investment in computer equipment and software actually rose. Strong productivity numbers, the strength in the housing sector and a low-interest-rate, low-inflation environment are also signs that a continued recovery is still possible.

The president could not have reassured anybody yesterday when he said he remained committed to making his fiscally disastrous 10-year tax cuts permanent. It seemed especially surreal to mention this, as he did, after saying that he would ask Congress to show some fiscal restraint.

nytimes.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (3714)8/1/2002 7:12:02 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
A credit crunch?

Cash is increasingly hard for companies to come by.
August 1, 2002: 5:44 PM EDT
By Justin Lahart, CNN/Money Staff Writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Stocks' sharp decline is provoking a fear that a credit crunch, where even solid companies can't raise needed funds, is looming.

Stocks drop in July had investors pulling back from all kinds of risk. Not only were they dumping shares, they were also shunning the corporate bond market. Corporate bond issuance fell to its lowest level in seven years while bond trading got so ugly that at its worst moments traders were comparing it to the meltdown following the 1998 Russian debt crisis.

With stocks off their lows conditions have improved -- but not by much. Yields on corporate bonds are incredibly steep compared Treasury bonds. With rates so high a company would have to be desperate to put through a large bond issue right now. And if a company is desperate for cash, the bond market will charge it much higher rates. Trying to raise money through an initial public offering in the stock market is out of the question -- July was the lowest cash month for IPOs since Nov. 1995.

"Every layer of the market is pulling back from extending risk at this point," said CreditSights analyst Louise Purtle.

Banks, too, may get into the act shutting their windows to lenders. Even with the fed funds rate (what it costs them to borrow) at 1.75 percent they've shown an unwillingness to lend, tightening lending standards on commercial and industrial loans.

The fallout
The immediate fallout from a credit crunch is that cash-strapped companies would face failure. Already this has happened in certain sectors like energy trading (home to Enron, Williams and Dynergy) and telecom (home to Worldcom and Qwest) where the excesses during the bubble years were profound. The trouble could spread.

"What we had seen prior to three weeks ago was that credit problems were sector and industry specific," said Morgan Stanley chief U.S. economist Richard Berner. "The sharp slide in stocks changed the picture."

How would all this play out?

Let's say you run a profitable candy factory. At certain times of the year -- Halloween, Easter -- you need to stock up on chocolate, sugar, corn syrup and so on to meet rising demand. You take out a short term loan to buy the supplies you need, but if credit is hard to come by you're going to have to pay higher rates. Since that will cut into your earnings, maybe you'll buy less. That doesn't just hurt you, it hurts the guy you buy chocolate from.

Now maybe the machine you use to make marshmallow peeps is getting gummed up all the time so you can never make as many as you could sell. Normally you might raise money in the bond market for a new peep machine. But now that's too costly. So you stick with the old machine and are less productive than you could be, employ fewer people and make less money. The company that makes peep machines makes one less sale.

And in a credit crunch, what happens to your candy factory is happening all over the place.

"It would hurt their growth and profitability," said Northern Trust economist Paul Kasriel. "Production wouldn't be as strong. Hiring would remain lackluster, or go down." In the end the economy would suffer, which would only serve to make investors and lenders even more risk averse.

Could it happen? Bank One chief economist Diane Swonk thinks that as long as the trouble in credit markets doesn't deepen we'll be in the clear. Good companies still have access to cash and what we've seen so far could be little more than a hiccup.

"As long as it doesn't last too long it won't be a problem," she said. "And if it does last too long, the Fed will ease."

But a pessimist might wonder what a Fed ease would do. If investors and banks are unwilling to give extend cash to companies with the funds rate already at it's lowest level in forty years, why should they get less tight-fisted if Big Al cuts?



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (3714)8/1/2002 11:49:04 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Why Europe's Bear Market Is Worse Than America's

By Matthew Lynn

London, July 31 (Bloomberg) -- Watching any news program, or reading the bulk of financial commentary, you could be forgiven for thinking the bear market is a largely U.S. phenomenon.

The news is filled with U.S. corporate collapses, with U.S. accounting scandals and with the decline of the dollar. The opinion pages fill up with wise-looking pieces on the unwinding of the U.S. economic miracle.

But the reality is different. The raw numbers say that though the U.S. is indeed going through a savage bear market, European markets are having a much rougher time. The U.S. may have bigger scandals but Europe has a bigger collapse of confidence.

That is a mystery. Europe, after all, avoided much of the speculative hype of 1999 and 2000. Yet, though it never climbed so high, it has fallen harder. It skipped the party but got the hangover all the same -- surely the worst of all possible worlds.

So far this year, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen 13 percent and the S&P 500 Index 21 percent. Those are big falls, but some of the main European indexes fared worse. France's CAC-40 is down 25 percent as is Germany's DAX. The FT-SE 100 has fallen 19 percent. And be thankful you are not Swedish -- Stockholm's OMX Index is down 37 percent this year.

The figures look just as bad when you measure from the peak. The Dow has dropped from 10,673 to just over 8,680. The FT-SE 100 is down from a peak of 5,362 to just over 4,200, the DAX from 5,467 to just over 3,800 and the CAC from 4,720 to just over 3,400. Whichever way you divide up the cake, Europe has secured for itself a grisly and meagre slice.

State of Europe

Why is that? And what does it say about the state of the European economy?

On the surface, Europe's markets should be doing better than the U.S. There is no Enron Corp. or WorldCom Inc. in Europe. True, there have been several big corporate disaster stories -- NTL Inc. in the U.K. and Vivendi Universal SA in France (there are quite a few more waiting to unfold -- watch out for Fiat SpA, DaimlerChrysler AG, GlaxoSmithKline Plc and Vodafone Group Plc). But though there is much stupidity, hubris, and chaos there are very few instances of fraud, deception or crookedness. Either through luck, or through better corporate governance, there is no crisis of trust in the economic system in Europe.

Nor is there the same sense of panic in the economy. The euro is not falling but rising. Foreign investors are not fleeing the continent (there weren't many of them to flee). Trade and budget deficits are not ballooning out of control. Growth is sluggish and unemployment stubbornly high -- but it has been for a decade. There is no reason for the markets to suddenly panic.

Finding Its Feet

The depth of Europe's bear market tells us two things: that European bourses remain heavily dependent on a small number of mega-cap stocks and that despite the creation of the single currency, Europe remains psychologically dependent on the U.S. It has yet to find its own feet.

Europe is going through a blue chip bear market, but the U.S. is going through a new economy bear market -- and that explains a big part of the difference between the two continents.

In the U.S., it is the new economy champions such as Enron, WorldCom and the lost legions of dot-coms that have hit the worst trouble. They flourished briefly then vanished almost as soon as they appeared. The old economy heavyweights soldier on. Some have dropped a few million on Web ventures, but with the exception of Time Warner Inc., which rushed into a foolish merger with America Online Inc., none have been fatally wounded.

Going Pop

In Europe, established blue chip companies went pop when the bubble burst. All the big national telecommunications companies paid silly prices to expand out of their domestic markets and ruined their balance sheets.

Most paid the U.K. and German governments tens of billions of euros for 3G mobile phone licenses that have turned out to be worthless.

Likewise, blue chip companies rushed for new economy assets. In France, Vivendi squandered the wealth built up through a century as a utility buying film and Internet businesses. In Britain, GEC, once one of the U.K.'s biggest companies, renamed itself Marconi Plc, bought a series of telecom equipment businesses, and is now worth next to nothing.

The destruction of investors' money through over-ambitious acquisitions was far greater in Europe than in the U.S., and it was often old well-established companies that suffered most. Those companies make up a big chunk of each national index. Why is Stockholm's market down so much? Try looking up the Ericsson AB share price. As mega-cap companies have collapsed in value, they have dragged indexes down with them.

Bone Damage

The U.S. remains a more entrepreneurial economy. Change is driven by new companies. In Europe, it is driven by old companies transforming themselves. In the U.S., much of the fat of the boom has now been stripped away, but the skeleton of the economy remains intact. In Europe, the bone has been damaged. Lot of big, blue chip companies have blundered and hurt themselves. That is what Europe's bourses are reflecting -- and that is why they have performed so much worse than the U.S.

Europeans can be forgiven a degree of smugness over the collapse of the U.S. markets. The U.S. economic surge of the 1990s came with a lot of preaching and everyone likes to see the self-righteous come unstuck. But it would be a mistake to gloat too much.

Europe's bear market shows that its economy is still weak. Its big corporations are still making mistakes, and a slow- growth, high unemployment economy is always going to suffer most in a global slowdown. Europe should have been using this moment to break away economically from the U.S. That it hasn't shows just how much it still needs to be reformed.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (3714)8/2/2002 3:39:34 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
WATCH THE FLOODGATES

jefco.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (3714)8/2/2002 3:41:14 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
The Money Analyst - Aug. 2002

jefco.com