Financial topics

[John]

PxQ++

Are you a chess player?

John

[aedens]

Has the dragon saved enough fire for a rainy day.
Will the given the rate of currency swaps in geopolitical
regions of intent overlay true progress. Many can see the
aerospace sector being extinct in the states.
Remember true fungible attributes of pragmatic geocorporates
to vanilla level investors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/busin ... ml?_r=2&hp

"Asked about the balance of financial power between China and the United States, one of the Chinese government’s top monetary economists, Yu Yongding, replied that “I think it’s mainly in favor of the United States.” He cited a saying attributed to John Maynard Keynes: “If you owe your bank manager a thousand pounds, you are at his mercy. If you owe him a million pounds, he is at your mercy.” "The abrupt slowdown in China’s accumulation of foreign reserves instead seems to suggest that investors were sending large sums of money out of mainland China early this year in response to worries about the country’s economic future and possibly its social stability in the face of rising unemployment."
Does the Party believes it can outrun pressures for democracy through reform and performance? I should be interesting with Putin's pipeline and Peking regard that it does not matter is the cat is black or white but if it catches the mouse. Given the African oil supply messy issue's to the true seen and unseen oil economic's they may have the moral compass needed. We must reserve thought to what can be seen to there bent of mind to the legal system which can meet justice as does any civilization which wants to move forward or decline.

unconfirmed # of 4/09
Country % of Global GDP % of World Population
USA 32.9% 4.65%
Japan 13.4% 2.09%
Germany 6.0% 1.36%
Britain 4.6% 0.99%
France 4.2% 0.97%
China 3.7% 20.84%
Italy 3.5% 0.95%
Canada 2.3% 0.51%
Mexico 2.0% 1.62%
Spain 1.9% 0.65%

[malleni]

...
unconfirmed # of 4/09
Country % of Global GDP % of World Population
USA 32.9% 4.65%
Japan 13.4% 2.09%
Germany 6.0% 1.36%
Britain 4.6% 0.99%
France 4.2% 0.97%
China 3.7% 20.84%
Italy 3.5% 0.95%
Canada 2.3% 0.51%
Mexico 2.0% 1.62%
Spain 1.9% 0.65%
...

I do not understand why people using these "phantom GDP" values?
At least if we talking about USA-s GDP?

I always believed that everybody understand that at least one HALF of the USA-s GDP "official statistic" is - debt.... (of all sorts!)

... and - what is idea with GDP than...?

[aedens]

...
unconfirmed # of 4/09
Country % of Global GDP % of World Population
USA 32.9% 4.65%
Japan 13.4% 2.09%
Germany 6.0% 1.36%
Britain 4.6% 0.99%
France 4.2% 0.97%
China 3.7% 20.84%
Italy 3.5% 0.95%
Canada 2.3% 0.51%
Mexico 2.0% 1.62%
Spain 1.9% 0.65%
...

I do not understand why people using these "phantom GDP" values?
At least if we talking about USA-s GDP?

I always believed that everybody understand that at least one HALF of the USA-s GDP "official statistic" is - debt.... (of all sorts!)

... and - what is idea with GDP than...?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy ... ility2.pdf
Yes to consider your value qustion. Net working capital does exist in Business. Problem is where down 52 percent
from our numbers in our arena to reality. Food for thought in tough times.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo ... stdebt.htm
BBC
Total government debt will double to 79% of GDP by 2013 - the highest level since the Second World War. The annual budget deficit will rise sharply to £175bn for the next two years. The Budget received a cool reception in the City with the pound down - and the Confederation of British Industry said it did not set out a "credible and rigorous" path to recovery. Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said the government "have condemned us to years of unemployment and decades of debt" and claimed Labour had been "desperately rushing around picking up half-baked ideas to save the skin of this failing government

[aedens]

Posted by Tyler Durden
Just another day at the NYSE where people are either all buying, or all selling. NYSE is going from +1,300 (upticks) to -1,000 (downticks) in a matter of seconds.
I can just hear Steve Grasso somewhere saying how swell this is.

Rick Bookstabber's solution to the M.A.D. problem of Quants: faster processors...
Yes hes looking for a job also…
http://rick.bookstaber.com/2009/04/arms ... ading.html

“If we get out of the forest and look at what is going on, some questions come to mind. Does anyone really get a benefit in having the latency of their trade cut by milliseconds – except for the fact that their competitor is also spending the money to cut his latency?”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home
Hibernating nuetral

[freddyv]

I'm not sure if I wrote about this here but it bothers me enough that I want to write about it again.

Since I discovered this Standard & Poor's earnings data sheet here many months ago I have been following it closely:
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/xl ... EPSEST.XLS

I also keep an eye on a page at The Wall Street Journal that shows the P/E ratios of all major indexes at
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2 ... dc_h_usshl

About a month or so ago I noticed that the WSJ page was still showing a P/E of 12 or 13 for the S&P 500 and figured they would have to change it when reporting was finally 100% complete. But guess what? The P/E stayed the same. So I wrote to Birinyi Associates, who provides the data to the WSJ and I also wrote to the WSJ. The WSJ got back to me to say that they would pass my message along but offered no more than that.

I kept checking the page but saw no change, except for something...oh yes, the notice that said that P/E ratios were based on "as-reported" earnings was gone. Yes, what had clearly happened was that Birinyi Associates had decided they didn't like the idea of a 50 or 60 P/E ratio (they not only provide this data to the WSJ but they also manage investments and have stated clearly that they are bullish as of December 2008) so they switched over to using operating earnings and apparently didn't tell anyone, including the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ only removed the noticed when I complained.

In the good old days this would have flown but now people are starting to pay attention and the single biggest problem I am seeing is that we can't trust government or media to lookout for our interests; not at all. It's all about the money and right now it is the common investor and taxpayer who are getting screwed in such an unimaginable way that they can't even imagine that what we see happening is happening. Did our government REALLY just spend 800 billion dollars of our money without anyone really knowing where the money was going? No...couldn't be...that Ms Pelosi looks like such a nice, trustful woman.

Our own government bails out "too big to fail" financial companies to the tune of trillions of dollars and CNBC and The Wall Street Journal flat out lie to us and we do nothing. Did you see that interview Jon Stewart did with Cramer? Most just hope that the stock market will go back up so they jump in at the top of a bear market rally only to get burned once again. But how could that happen when Jim Cramer himself told us it was the bottom? He seems like such a nice man.

--Fred

[freddyv]

I am a subscriber to Richard Russell's newsletter and highly recommend it. If you aren't familar with the name, Richard Russell is the single most respected Dow Theororist in the world and is also old enough to have a lot of experience in the markets.

Today in his newsletter he wrote this:

I've thought all along that the steadily rising rate of unemployment and loss of income will be the surprises of this bear market. Unemployment will produce a downward spiral of negative growth in the US. When an individual or a family leader is laid off, the full impact of a loss of income hits the unit. They will immediately cut back in every area possible -- doctor's visits, dentistry, meds, clothes, automobiles, travel, vacations, expensive colleges, food, entertainment, etc. This sets off a "downward spiral." It's a spiral that only halts with exhaustion.

I post this for two reasons:

1. It seems to be the new reality: frugality. People are embracing it because they have little choice and the media is starting to point it out. My guess is that we are just now about to really start on our deflationary journey because nothing feeds deflation like frugality.

2. Gordo. Gordo's shock at my suggestion that people could actually consume less food has not been forgotten and I imagine he got sick and tired of being corrected here and has probably left but I never pass up a chance to point out that I was correct.

I think that Mr. Russell's ending sntence is most important, "It's a spiral that only halts with exhaustion." When people talk about capitulation they are stuck on the idea of a big volume day but in fact, secular bear markets, and in particular, the secular bear ending in 1932 ended with a long drawn out whimper of ever lower trading volume. Only when most everyone was left penniless was the market finally able to revive and finally put in a bottom.

--Fred

[aedens]

I am a subscriber to Richard Russell's newsletter and highly recommend it. If you aren't familar with the name, Richard Russell is the single most respected Dow Theororist in the world and is also old enough to have a lot of experience in the markets.

Today in his newsletter he wrote this:

I've thought all along that the steadily rising rate of unemployment and loss of income will be the surprises of this bear market. Unemployment will produce a downward spiral of negative growth in the US. When an individual or a family leader is laid off, the full impact of a loss of income hits the unit. They will immediately cut back in every area possible -- doctor's visits, dentistry, meds, clothes, automobiles, travel, vacations, expensive colleges, food, entertainment, etc. This sets off a "downward spiral." It's a spiral that only halts with exhaustion.

I post this for two reasons:

1. It seems to be the new reality: frugality. People are embracing it because they have little choice and the media is starting to point it out. My guess is that we are just now about to really start on our deflationary journey because nothing feeds deflation like frugality.

2. Gordo. Gordo's shock at my suggestion that people could actually consume less food has not been forgotten and I imagine he got sick and tired of being corrected here and has probably left but I never pass up a chance to point out that I was correct.

I think that Mr. Russell's ending sntence is most important, "It's a spiral that only halts with exhaustion." When people talk about capitulation they are stuck on the idea of a big volume day but in fact, secular bear markets, and in particular, the secular bear ending in 1932 ended with a long drawn out whimper of ever lower trading volume. Only when most everyone was left penniless was the market finally able to revive and finally put in a bottom.

--Fred

Entropy
A doctrine of inevitable social decline and degeneration.
Creative destructive real time other than our spreadsheet :-/
Thanks for the info will read

[aedens]

I'm not sure if I wrote about this here but it bothers me enough that I want to write about it again.

Since I discovered this Standard & Poor's earnings data sheet here many months ago I have been following it closely:
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/xl ... EPSEST.XLS

I also keep an eye on a page at The Wall Street Journal that shows the P/E ratios of all major indexes at
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2 ... dc_h_usshl

About a month or so ago I noticed that the WSJ page was still showing a P/E of 12 or 13 for the S&P 500 and figured they would have to change it when reporting was finally 100% complete. But guess what? The P/E stayed the same. So I wrote to Birinyi Associates, who provides the data to the WSJ and I also wrote to the WSJ. The WSJ got back to me to say that they would pass my message along but offered no more than that.

I kept checking the page but saw no change, except for something...oh yes, the notice that said that P/E ratios were based on "as-reported" earnings was gone. Yes, what had clearly happened was that Birinyi Associates had decided they didn't like the idea of a 50 or 60 P/E ratio (they not only provide this data to the WSJ but they also manage investments and have stated clearly that they are bullish as of December 2008) so they switched over to using operating earnings and apparently didn't tell anyone, including the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ only removed the noticed when I complained.

--Fred

We released our numbers and just on that alone things are and will wind down which will be evident. Product lines are clipped to reflect the reality's we must prepare for.
Fear and praise for the new age. Emptor

It is as if one elects to protect their family against disease by sanitizing the city dump where bacteria may grow. The world is full of "swamps." By all measures, they are growing, not shrinking. The economic and human costs of stabilizing them and making them prosperous are astronomical. In the last few decades of the 20th century and the first of the 21st century, the United States could afford an expensive and inefficient "drain the swamps" strategy. But as we grapple with an aging population, exploding health care costs, decaying infrastructure, and mounting educational challenges, the American people will no longer tolerate this. Phil Williams SSI

Of thoughts that in many cases extend back in time to Aristotle, Thucydides, Mises, the Church, Aquinas, Burke, Rome, or "the common sense of mankind." This is why we are conservatives. I did convey as my duty to Washington as many also has done. Never give up......

[John]

Dear Fred,

> About a month or so ago I noticed that the WSJ page was still
> showing a P/E of 12 or 13 for the S&P 500 and figured they would
> have to change it when reporting was finally 100% complete. But
> guess what? The P/E stayed the same. So I wrote to Birinyi
> Associates, who provides the data to the WSJ and I also wrote to
> the WSJ. The WSJ got back to me to say that they would pass my
> message along but offered no more than that.

> I kept checking the page but saw no change, except for
> something...oh yes, the notice that said that P/E ratios were
> based on "as-reported" earnings was gone. Yes, what had clearly
> happened was that Birinyi Associates had decided they didn't like
> the idea of a 50 or 60 P/E ratio (they not only provide this data
> to the WSJ but they also manage investments and have stated
> clearly that they are bullish as of December 2008) so they
> switched over to using operating earnings and apparently didn't
> tell anyone, including the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ only
> removed the noticed when I complained.

Thank you for following up on this.

I'd like to write an article with a title something like, "Is WSJ
lying about P/E ratios?"

In the S&P spreadsheet, P/E values using reported earnings are shown
as 127.64, 1932.00 and -464.52. No wonder WSJ is going nuts.

Do you know exactly what figures (numerator and denominator) that WSJ
and Birinyi are using to compute P/E = 12? The S&P spreadsheet shows
P/E values of 20 or 30 using operating earnings.

Sincerely,

John