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 : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChanceIs who wrote (120069)	5/1/2008 9:30:57 PM
From: Giordano Bruno	Respond to of 306849

Didn't Wachovia just get popped for drug money like yesterday?!? Free the pigmen fincen.gov

To: ChanceIs who wrote (120069)	5/1/2008 9:51:56 PM
From: ChanceIs	Respond to of 306849

>>long period with scarcely any bond defaults by companies, there have been 21 failures this year, according to Standard & Poor's, a rating agency; some 122 issuers, with debt of around $102 billion, are deemed vulnerable to default. <<< See my comment #4 in my previous post. The corporate debt monster is out there waiting to be FED. (Cute huh??) ___________________________________________________________ Credit crunch Too soon to relax May 1st 2008 From The Economist print edition Sentiment has improved, but lots of financial problems remain IS IT really over? In the middle of March investors were worried that the financial system was going to hell in a handcart. Analysts competed to produce the highest possible forecast for losses from the credit crunch. Just six weeks later, everything seems a lot calmer. Stockmarkets have stabilised and corporate credit spreads (the excess interest rates paid by risky borrowers) have come down sharply. Gold is cheaper. Bankers talk about having put the worst behind them. This week the Bank of England's twice-yearly Financial Stability Report was cautiously optimistic (see article) and America's Federal Reserve was relaxed enough to cut the pace of its monetary easing (see article). Rates may even have reached the bottom. Optimists can point to one big relief. When the Fed helped JPMorgan Chase to rescue Bear Stearns, it sent a signal to the markets—a kind of “No Bank Left Behind” Act. If the Fed was willing to save an investment bank, without any retail depositors, then the system would not be brought down by a “plumbing problem”, such as the collapse of a counterparty in the derivatives market. The boost to confidence has helped banks to repair their balance sheets by raising large sums from both shareholders and the bond markets. Maybe financial Armageddon had been avoided. A sea of troubles Maybe. But the fight ahead still looks bloody. Although the system as a whole is safer, plenty of problems remain for particular banks. In the money markets, the banks are still having to pay a high margin over official rates to borrow short-term money, despite the ingenious efforts of the Bank of England, European Central Bank and America's Fed. Investors are still worried that banks could get into trouble. There is probably more troubling news to come on write-offs; declared losses so far are well short of the $945 billion that the IMF estimated were the global losses from the crisis, much of it outside the banking system. The malaise that started the crisis—the American housing market—is still getting worse. The month-on-month decline in the Case-Shiller index of house prices in 20 large cities is accelerating; on the latest reckoning, it was down by 12.7% over the 12 months to February 29th. As the decline continues, more homeowners will default on their loans. And losses are now emerging in areas other than housing. After a long period with scarcely any bond defaults by companies, there have been 21 failures this year, according to Standard & Poor's, a rating agency; some 122 issuers, with debt of around $102 billion, are deemed vulnerable to default. Ominously, corporate debt is the shaky foundation for trillions of dollars of derivative contracts. Consumers round the world are grappling with higher food and fuel prices. British house prices are now showing annual declines. Europe's economies seem to be deteriorating. In April the Belgian business confidence indicator, a good gauge of the continent's conditions, suffered the biggest decline in its 28-year history. Commercial property looks vulnerable, as do some emerging markets, especially in central and eastern Europe. And things are shaky in Japan, where industrial production declined more than 3% in the latest month. Imagine that you had fallen asleep last July and that you had been spared the dread words “credit crunch” and “Bear Stearns”. On waking today, you would be astonished at how low American interest rates had fallen (especially in the light of headline inflation). But you would still be alarmed at the state of housing markets, the prospects for consumer spending and the trend in forecasts of economic growth. You would not assume that the worst was over. Nor should investors, just because they have had to live through it all.

To: ChanceIs who wrote (120069)	5/2/2008 1:08:05 AM
From: Perspective	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

This chart of S&P500 vs Fed Funds is interesting. I think it was Marty Zweig that used to say "don't fight the Fed" and had empirical rules that gave green lights on the market for six months following every rate cut. That didn't hold true in the 2001 bear, and perhaps it won't hold true now either. It was only a couple of months after the Fed Funds stopped falling in 2002 that the market turned back down, and puked hard for months: `BC

To: ChanceIs who wrote (120069)	5/3/2008 4:04:00 PM
From: Perspective	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

Now that we've got much of the Q1 EPS out, I've started going back over them. I'm amazed - absolutely astounded - at how well some of them held up. Are these guys really weathering the storm that well, or have they been to the Jack Welch school of earnings management? EAT is interesting - they claim they did OK - 17 cents - excluding "discontinued" operations. But they haven't even sold Romano's yet! Then it gets more interesting - excluding "other charges" they made 33 cents. WTF are they excluding? If they really made 33 cents, then earnings weren't hit badly at all in the face of weakening demand and rising costs. Estimates call for a bigger sales decline this quarter, but still very little EPS hit. I'm skeptical. finance.yahoo.com Shareholder's equity sure dumped; those buybacks aren't free: biz.yahoo.com March 26, June 27, 2008 2007 (Unaudited) ASSETS Current assets of continuing operations $309,893 $249,289 Assets held for sale 218,411 423,378 Net property and equipment (a) 1,516,264 1,465,241 Total other assets 186,335 180,113 Total assets $2,230,903 $2,318,021 LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY Current installments of long-term debt $1,918 $1,761 Current liabilities of continuing operations 534,215 519,269 Liabilities associated with assets held for sale 16,840 23,856 Long-term debt, less current installments 910,860 826,918 Other liabilities 167,434 141,128 Total shareholders' equity 599,636 805,089 Total liabilities and shareholders' equity $2,230,903 $2,318,021 biz.yahoo.com Brinker swings to 3Q loss due to discontinued operations Tuesday April 22, 8:47 am ET Brinker swings to fiscal 3rd-quarter loss due mainly from discontinued operations, charges DALLAS (AP) -- Brinker International Inc., which operates the Chili's Grill & Bar chain, said Tuesday it swung to a loss in its fiscal third quarter, but results beat Wall Street estimates, once discontinued operations and charges were excluded. ADVERTISEMENT For the quarter ended March 26, the company reported a loss of $38.8 million, or 38 cents per share, compared to a profit of $54.6 million, or 43 cents per share in the prior-year quarter. Excluding discontinued operations, the company earned 17 cents per share, compared to 37 cents per share for continuing operations a year ago. Brinker includes the results of its Romano's Macaroni Grill chain as discontinued operations because it plans to sell the brand. Excluding other charges and costs, the company said it earned 33 cents per share. Analysts polled by Thomson Financial, on average, expected profit of 32 cents per share. Revenue fell 4 percent to $907.7 million, from $944 million in the third quarter of 2007. Analysts predicted revenue of $895.6 million. Same-store sales, or sales at locations open at least a year, rose 1.1 percent. Same-store sales is a key indicator of restaurant performance, since it measures growth at established locations rather than newly opened ones. Capacity fell 7 percent, due to the sales of restaurants to franchises and the closing of locations. Shares rose $1.30, or 6.6 percent, to $20.90 in premarket electronic trading. The shares closed at $19.60 in Monday's regular session. `BC