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: Mark Adams who wrote (22493)	8/10/2002 6:44:45 PM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 74559

I think one thing that really stood out in the ML article, is the adjustment of the consumer debt burden for a higher level of credit card transactions. This is the first I've seen of that, and not an easy piece of info to come by. That's an interesting point. I recently shifted all my utilities to auto-pay via credit card to get airline mileage points. I've shifting anything else I can think of, since I've been traveling a lot and need to rack up the mileage. I now carry a much higher average credit card debt, but I always pay it off every month. Some friends just bought a car on two credit cards to get the airline mileage. They'll have it paid off in a few months.

To: Mark Adams who wrote (22493)	8/10/2002 8:38:46 PM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

Mark, That was a well thought out post on your part. I am continually impressed by the collective intelligence possessed by many of the posters here on SI, and especially on this thread. The cost of capital is rising (higher corporate bond spreads) while excess capacity (US and Global) seems to remain... . . . A more positive note, apparently productivity gains have helped lower the cost of labor 2.2%. This may help offset higher capital costs, leaving overall profitability unchanged. Take note that productivity gains are achieved at the risk of increasing excess capacity. Whenever a company can squeeze costs from producing facilities, work-flow processes and final product delivery, that also means that the same cost savings procedures can be applied to excess capacity facilities, thereby increasing any levels of excess capacity beyond predictable current/future needs or end user demand (for the company's product or service). And therein lies the rub. As various companies find ways to squeeze out profits and/or lower costs, that necessarily means that there is less need to increase CAPEX spending for additional gains in profits or margin. A firm can remain highly competitive without increasing its business spending, thereby almost ensuring that a vicious cycle of CAPEX non-spending will continue for the short term future. CAPEX spending, or self-investment if you prefer, will not resume until there exists some sort of very major technical advancement that would give a firm employing this new (as yet unidentified) technology some sort of a cost advantage over its competitors, at which time the competitors would have no choice other than to use the new technology themselves, or risk loss of market share. Since a new technology such as this is not readily visible today, (to me) this suggests that CAPEX spending will be limited to maintenance items, such as replacing broken down PCs (or workstations), or perhaps migrating to the next version of software, things along those lines; simple and low cost expenditures. Also keep in mind that much of the cost savings we have seen to date for most firms comes primarily from only two sources: reduced CAPEX spending and reductions in staffing levels (layoffs). This bodes somewhat ill for the near and long term futures because it shortchanges a company's abilities to quickly respond to future demand increases or expansion (growth). Accordingly, I'd discount ML's report somewhat given that they have a highly vested interest in the resumption of a wild bull market. From my perspective, things still look extremely bleak, at least for the foreseeable future (say the next 4 quarters at an absolute bare minimum). KJC

To: Mark Adams who wrote (22493)	8/11/2002 1:56:45 AM
From: smolejv@gmx.net	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

>>worries about consumer indebtedness are overdone<< There's two facets to it, what's the amount outstanding and what does it take to service it. >>the ratio of debt service to income peaked at ...<< etc argues from the second point of view, like "they're managing OK month to month". Of course, if the interest rate cuts tricked down to the consumer. They can even load the boat more. The first facet, the size and the quality of the debt, is not mentioned in ML's report. Here's this same facet on a little bigger scale: Foreign direct investments ( in US, DJ totaled more than $3 trillion at market values and about half of that amount at current cost. But looking at their miserable return, it was gigantic malinvestment. In 1997, earnings from direct foreign investments amounted to $43 billion. These peaked in 2000 at $69 billion, collapsing in 2001 to $37 billion. The rate of return was a little over 2%, measured on the costs of these investments. (from Dr Richebächer letter aug 2002) I dont think the home team gets any better treatment. Well, the ROI is at least positive (ng). The question of course is (back to facet 2), if printing some more money and then letting them foreign investor put it back in again is the way things will go. Because the biggest threat is the owners of these trillions of foreign dollar holdings get restless. RegZ dj