Due Cattive Notizie - gzibordi
¶
By: GZ on Martedì 22 Gennaio 2002 21:34
da : "daily reckoning"
1) normalmente in una recessione anche leggera la spesa per consumi del pubblico frena per via della disoccupazione e incertezza. Nel 2001 è aumentatainvece del 4.5%, ultimo dato trimestrale !. Quindi più di così non può aumentare, perchè è già al massimo.
2) la conseguenza di Enron (una delle tante) è che le aziende abbasserrano gli utili del prossimo trimestre, perchè per paura di finire nei guai useranno una contabilità con meno forzature. Enron nascondeva delle perdite tramite sussidiarie off-shore sperando di recuperarle l'anno dopo
Stephen Roach explains: "Our U.S. team now
estimates that real personal consumption expenditures
surged at around a 4.5% sequential annual rate in 4Q01
[English translation: the last quarter of 2001]. Only
once in the previous six recessions - way back in 2Q60
[the second quarter of 1960] when the consumption growth
rate hit 5.1% - has consumer demand expanded more
rapidly. By contrast, over the 28 recession quarters
since the late 1950s, annualized consumption growth
averaged a mere +0.4%. The spending burst of late 2001
was literally ten times as rapid as the recession norm.
"In retrospect," continues the economist, "we know
what did the trick in the period just ended - aggressive
price cutting, lower energy costs, cash-outs from home
mortgage refinancings, and a willingness to draw down
income-based saving and take on more debt. Yet all this
occurred in a climate of rising unemployment and slowing
real income growth - typically a lethal combination for
consumer demand. Never before have consumers stretched
this far in the depths of recession. If that's not
denial, I don't know what is."
Businesses are coming to terms with the slump.
They're taking charges, announcing losses and layoffs.
Restating earnings. Capital spending has been sharply
cut.
But America's "brain-damaged" consumers and
investors have not seemed to notice. They continue to
borrow, spend and invest as if this were still the '90s.
The recession has not corrected bad habits nor bad
attitudes. Which leads us to believe that we'll need a
lot more recession - and bear market - to get the job
done.
That doesn't necessarily mean that growth will
remain negative forever. But a lot more worrying has to
pile up before the stock market can climb a wall of it.
Eric?
*****
Eric Fry in New York...
- The U.S. stock market was closed Monday in honor of
Martin Luther King Day. It's probably fitting to take a
breather from the stock market's violent swings to
contemplate King's message of non-violence...You know,
come to think of it, cash is a pretty peaceful
investment.
- So we return to our favorite topic of the day: Enron.
- Everyone knows that in America you're innocent until
proven guilty. That's one of the great principals of our
criminal justice system. So let's hope that no one
rushes to judge the participants in the Enron scandal,
like CEO Kenneth Lay, for example.
- Until proven otherwise, we should assume that he knew
nothing about the off-balance-sheet partnerships that
permitted his company to show strong earnings growth
quarter-after-quarter. Nor should we assume that he had
any idea that this bogus rapid earnings "growth" would
cause Enron stock to soar, thereby enabling him to cash
in millions of dollars worth of options. Nor should we
infer any nefarious intent from the fact that he cashed
in some of his stock at the same time that thousands of
company employees were explicitly prohibited from doing
the very same thing. It's probably all just a big
misunderstanding.
- Perhaps he was so busy feathering his nest that he
simply did not have time to pay attention to the
shenanigans going on inside his own company. Again,
until proven otherwise, we should assume that no aspect
of his behavior was unlawful, immoral, or downright
scummy.
- However, a few thousand Enron shareholders and
bondholders will be keenly interested in finding out
what Mr. Lay knew and when he knew it. A few million
other investors might also care.
- They'd like to know if this CEO is typical or atypical
of America's corporate chieftains. Why was he unable -
or unwilling - to safeguard the interests of common
shareholders? Was he greedy, or just stupid? Perhaps
there's even a perfectly benign explanation. The
shareholders would love to hear it.
- Meanwhile, a growing sense of disillusionment is
arising from the realization that some of America's most
prominent brokerage and accounting firms helped to
construct and finance the Enron house of cards...
Disillusionment is probably not bullish.
- The stock market might be able to "climb a wall of
worry," but it will likely collide head-on with a wall
of investor distrust.
- Enron's collapse "has strained the trust of all
investors," says SmartMoney.com's Igor Greenwald. "[Its]
implosion has already destroyed untold stores of
goodwill, not the abstraction used to balance books but
the real kind required to trust in the transparency of
financial markets. That rare commodity has been
squandered."
- The stock market's sky-high valuations may not
withstand growing investor skepticism. Additionally,
says Greenwald, "looming on the horizon is that ultimate
destroyer of share-price multiples - re-regulation."
- Floyd Norris of the New York Times predicts the Enron
debacle will frighten corporate America into reporting
lower, more realistic, profits.
- The S&P 500 earnings projections for 2002 that so many
bullish analysts bandy about - $45 to $50 - generally
refers to "operating earnings." Yet, under GAAP
accounting, the S&P 500 will likely earn no more than
$35 in 2002.
- As investors begin to understand that 22 times
projected "operating" earnings is actually 37 times GAAP
earnings, their enthusiasm for stocks might wane just a
bit.
Edited by - gzibordi on 1/22/2002 20:37:23
