freddyv wrote:> Take a look at the latest S&P earnings:
> http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/xl ... EPSEST.XLS
> They have a predicted P/E ratio of 181 on 9/30/09 and then it
> magically falls to the low 20's based on estimates. Funny how the
> estimates always seems to be better than reality. Until this
> changes I see no reason to expect a turn-around in stocks.
> Notice also how the as-reported earnings P/E is 40 right now while
> the operating earnings P/E ratio is 14; I wish I could just ignore
> certain losses in my business...but I can't.
Art Cashin wrote:> Yesterday's stimulating stimulus was not mentioned by the
> Chinese. I think that's undercut world markets, and we're back to
> worrying about what we worried about before.
> I think we'll head lower, but I think, as I said yesterday,
> between here and Saint Patrick's day, there's going to be one
> whopper of a rally coming. At least that's the feeling. We
> revisited the 12-year lows, we've only done that 3 times in 109
> years, and the other two times we did it, we were either at the
> lows of the move, or within 3 months of the lows of the move.
Robert Brusca wrote:> We've got a signal from something that I look at from the
> manufacturing ISM that suggests that we're getting into rebound
> territory, and so I'm getting encouraged by that.
> And we saw claims today fall from their peak and it's a very
> highpeak for claims, that's true, but jobless claims tend to peak
> very close to the end of the recession, so once you've gotten a
> peak, and once it's authenticated -- and it's not authenticated
> yet , it's a volatile series, we could still see a higher number
> -- but if it's an authenticated peak, you'd expect to see the end
> of this recession coming around in a month, or maybe even two
> months, before not too long.
> What happens is that the low point in non-farm jobs tends to
> occur really right at the end of a recession, except for the last
> two recessions.
> The last two recessions were the exceptions. And the reason is
> that we lost jobs at a very slow pace.
> I tend to say that recessions are a little bit like billiards.
> The ball tends to come off the the cushion the way it goes into
> the cushion.
> So if you're losing jobs at a very painfully slow pace, you're
> going to gain them back at a very painfully slow pace.
> We're losing jobs at a horrific pace. And in fact if you look at
> it, compared to most recessions since about 1960, we're really on
> track to have a V-shaped drop and a V-shaped rebound, which means
> a nice strong rebound in jobs when it's over.
I agree that are dealing with generational forces that can not be stopped. However, people in power do have an impact. At least Paulson (Bush) were trying to stop the collapse. Maybe they were putting bubblegum in the dam but at least they were trying. Obama and Geithner are either incompetent or do not care. Here’s another thought: maybe for Mr. O. national health care and his other social programs are a higher priority than trying to save the economy.
Today President Obama lectured us on the value of his universal
health care initiative, implying that if we spend a few trillion more
dollars on it, then we'll save money. Obama is beginning to turn
into a used car salesman: The more he spends, the more money he's
saving you. I never felt that President Bush knew what was really
going on, but Obama appears to be much worse.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest