Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis |
- Cisco Misses Estimates, Warns of Dwindling Public Spending; CEO Chambers Not Worth a Cent; Lather, Rinse, Repeat
- Ireland's Finance Minister Seeks "Substantial Discount" on Senior Bank Debt
- Ron Paul slams Fed’s bond-buying program; Political Pressure on Fed Mounts
- Republicans Attack Dual Mandate; Bernanke Defends QE Yet Again, Says Unemployment will "Remain Elevated", Chastises Congress on Fiscal Policy
- Money Heaven
Posted: 09 Feb 2011 06:17 PM PST I do not often comment on individual stocks, especially technology stocks. However, I want to point out a couple of things that I have been saying for quite some time that came up in Cisco's second-quarter results announced this evening.
Cisco managed to tie those two themes together. CEO John Chambers blamed the public sector for a miss on profits and competition for a miss on margins. Please consider Cisco spooks Street again with weak outlook, margins Network equipment maker Cisco Systems Inc's CEO John Chambers spooked investors for the third time in as many quarters, warning of dwindling public spending and weaker margins from tough competition.Growth at What Price? Channing Smith's idea that Cisco's growth rivals Apple or Google seems rather preposterous. Regardless, the important question is "How much you want to pay for the growth at Apple or Google, vs. Cisco?" I suppose one can make a case many ways on that, but it is important to phrase the issue properly. John Chambers 2010 Stock Sales Inquiring minds just may be interested in Cisco Insider Sales. Here are the transactions for John Chambers alone.
Lather, Rinse, Repeat Cisco Monthly Chart Chambers has not done a damn thing for shareholders for 10 years, cashing out hundreds of millions of dollars along the way. From the perspective of a shareholder of a publicly traded company, Chambers is not worth a damn cent. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List |
Ireland's Finance Minister Seeks "Substantial Discount" on Senior Bank Debt Posted: 09 Feb 2011 01:07 PM PST In a series of wishy-washy statements Ireland's Lenihan Wants Senior Bank Debt Discounts Irish Finance Minister Brian Lenihan said the government is pressing for a "substantial discount" on 20 billion euros ($27.2 billion) of unsecured senior bank bonds, a push resisted by the European Central Bank.Arrogance of Trichet Note the arrogance of ECB president Jean-Claude Trichet - "Haircuts on investors isn't part of the plan." The idea that bondholders should have no risk is preposterous. If investment had no risk it would be called "winning" not investing, and everyone would be plowing into Greek bonds right now at huge guaranteed rates. Well I do not believe those guarantees, and more importantly, neither does the market. If the market thought there will not be haircuts, then there would be no difference in yields on Greek bonds vs. German bonds. Going About This The Wrong Way Lenihan is going about this the wrong way. Ireland should not be asking for "substantial discounts" or haircuts. Rather, Ireland should be telling the ECB and Jean-Claude Trichet that haircuts are coming. The correct starting point for negotiation is default, a 100% haircut. Instead, Lenihan made wishy-washy statements, begging for a "substantial discount" while also stating "he couldn't see the European Central Bank contemplating discounts on senior bondholders." What kind of nonsense is that? Fortunately, Lenihan will be out on his ass after the next election. For the sake of the Irish citizens, let's hope the next prime minister and finance minister are more willing to tell the ECB just where to stuff it. This is not about what the ECB wants, but rather how much Ireland is willing to make its citizens debt slaves to the senior bondholders, in other words, the UK, German, French, and US Banks. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List |
Ron Paul slams Fed’s bond-buying program; Political Pressure on Fed Mounts Posted: 09 Feb 2011 11:49 AM PST MarketWatch reports Paul slams Fed's bond-buying program Outspoken Federal Reserve critic Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, slammed the central bank's latest $600 billion bond-buying program on Wednesday, saying it and near-zero interest rates haven't led to job creation in the United States.Political Pressure on Fed Mounts WSJ's Sudeep Reddy reports on concerns the Federal Reserve could be facing political pressure from Congress, as Rep. Ron Paul holds the first hearing of a new Fed oversight committee. Separately, Fed Chairman Bernanke updates Congress on the economy. If the above YouTube does not play here is a link: Rep. Ron Paul Ignites Fed Worry Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List |
Posted: 09 Feb 2011 10:25 AM PST Like a broken record, Bernanke keeps playing the same tune, this time to the House Budget Committee. Please consider Bernanke Says Unemployment to `Remain Elevated' Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said the unemployment rate is likely to remain high "for some time" even after the biggest two-month drop in the jobless rate since 1958.Full Text of Bernanke's Remarks Fox News has the full text of Bernanke's Remarks to House Budget Committee for those who are interested. Here are a few snips. The economic recovery that began in the middle of 2009 appears to have strengthened in the past few months, although the unemployment rate remains high. The initial phase of the recovery, which occurred in the second half of 2009 and in early 2010, was in large part attributable to the stabilization of the financial system, the effects of expansionary monetary and fiscal policies, and the strong boost to production from businesses rebuilding their depleted inventories.Bernanke on Fiscal Policy The above snips addressed monetary policy. Bernanke also yapped about fiscal policy. Here is one small but noteworthy clip: "The unsustainable trajectories of deficits and debt that the CBO outlines cannot actually happen, because creditors would never be willing to lend to a government with debt, relative to national income, that is rising without limit. One way or the other, fiscal adjustments sufficient to stabilize the federal budget must occur at some point." Bernanke went on preaching to the House Budget Committee about various things including , debt-to-GDP ratios, but of course he does not want them to do anything now. No one ever wants to do anything "now". Should by some miracle the recovery pick up steam they will not want to do anything "then" either, for fear of killing the recovery. Such is the nature of Keynesian and Monetarist clowns. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List |
Posted: 08 Feb 2011 11:58 PM PST Via email, reader Denis wonders "Where did the Money go?" Hello Mish I read many times on your blog how bubbles created by the Fed led to the overpricing of assets such as real estate and stocks. Someone paid those overpriced valuations. So, where is the money? At some point will that money be used to mitigate the economic doom? Denis Illusion of Wealth Let's take a look at a real estate example, then the stock market. Please consider home ownership rates. In 2002 there were 71,278,000 owner occupied homes. In 2006 there were 75,380,000 owner occupied homes. The difference is 4,102,000 homes. Thus, the overwhelming percent of the population did not buy a house in the biggest bubble years 2003-2006. Most had a house for many years and millions of others rented throughout. Therefore it's safe to say that most homeowners rode home valuations up, then down, feeling rather wealthy in 2005-2006, and decidedly less wealthy now. Anywhere, USA Consider a typical subdivision of 200 houses, Anywhere USA where the homes are all relatively similar in size and value. Assume those homes were worth $250,000 in 2002 and $450,000 in 2006, with a few of sales at varying prices, but no sales since 2006. Now let's assume one person has to sell now and all he can get is $220,000. Poof. Conceptually, the entire subdivision was just repriced on one sale. Disregarding that sale, no money went anywhere (except of course via rising property taxes over the years to pay overly generous wages and pension benefits to police, fire department and other government workers). On a percentage basis, few bought or sold during the years in question. In general terms, the winners were those who sold at or near the top (and those benefiting from rising property taxes). The losers were those who bought near the top (along with taxpayers under the burden of rising property taxes). Of course, many millions took out home equity lines and bought boats or made home improvements. However, those loans (except for loans in foreclosure or default) are still on the books of banks, most likely not marked-to-market. Repricing Events In the example above, 1 house out of 200 sold, yet that lone sale set the price for the entire neighborhood. Given that current buyers will not pay 2006 prices, repricing occurs whether any transactions take place or not. Such repricing events happen all the time in the stock market as well. For example, in premarket trading of as little as 100 shares, stocks can rise or fall 5% or more easily. Money does not go anywhere per se. Rather valuations change, just as happened in my housing example above. To understand how valuations change over long periods of time, please consider Negative Annualized Stock Market Returns for the Next 10 Years or Longer? It's Far More Likely Than You Think Cycles of PE Compression and ExpansionOf course, there are hedge fund managers who made $5 billion or more in the crash, but that pales in comparison to the valuation of the stock market which changed by $trillions on the way up and the same amount on the way down. On an ongoing basis, broker-dealers and CEOs take their cut (and huge bonuses as well). Here is a case-in-point: Anthony Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide Financial, single-handedly cashed out over $1 billion in shares and options (but that was over the course of a decade). Will Mozilo use his $billion to help mitigate the economic doom? How far would it go, even if he did? $1 billion is extremely tiny compared to the total stock market valuation and housing bubble bust. So Where Did the Money Go? Clearly, Wall Street took a tiny percentage (and continues to do so). Those CEOs and broker-dealers take their cut whether the market goes up or down. They don't care what happens to anyone in the process. A few big hedge funds betting the stock market would drop made out very well. However, the stock market would have plunged whether anyone bet against it or not. At the housing and stock market peaks, presumed wealth was nothing but an illusion caused by the Fed's serial bubble blowing policies. It would have been impossible for everyone to cash out then, or cash out now. Thus, most of the money went to "money heaven" which is to say nowhere at all. It was not really "money" in the first place, but rather unrealistic valuations (and in regards to real estate, a mountain of debt that cannot be paid back). Valuations went up, then down, repriced over time (with Wall Street siphoning off a bit in both directions). This helps explain why the rich get richer and the middle-class continually shrinks. Millions of lives, late to each bubble-blowing party, take on too much debt and are destroyed in the process. Bernanke's policies ensure it's going to happen again. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List |
You are subscribed to email updates from Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 |
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu