Table On-Topic Summary - 01-Nov-2002
A compilation of this board's financial/economic posts From 44383 to 44442

Post  44383  by  lkorrow       Reply
Pace, that means I have to sell some gold stocks! I'm going to throw your stuff in a watch list. Don't have time to watch stocks closely now, too much work to do. Agree AMGN. Odd market. Have something to tell you re: China, I posed the deflation question to the U. S. Bank, but tomorrow, I'm hitting the hay. And all caught up!

Post  44384  by  lkorrow       Reply
Decomposed, I slipped, substitute "solar" for "cellular."

Post  44385  by  pmcw       Reply
pace, I'm glad you decided to hold on to your INTC - I thought you said you sold at $14. I think things could get a little choppy before the next run, but hey, you gotta buy a ticket if you wanna win. If / when it hits in the low $20's (a few weeks IMO) I would either hedge or sell and look for re-entry during the second week of December. Regards, pmcw

Post  44386  by  tinljhtkh       OT: Just how much

Post  44387  by  pmcw       Reply
Hmmm, The 6th is shaping up to be a very interesting day. The wild card: How many elections will be final??????? My buddies AG and Lou will both talk on the 6th. XICO is up to bat again at AEA.
I'm already past my primary personal goal at VSE, but I think I'll go ahead on hold on for the ride. The next few days may take a five point harness to keep me in the seat, but the G forces of post election, interest rate cut (just a quarter point - sorry) and Lou at the mike might make me glad I kept my hands and feet inside the cockpit. ;o) Regards, pmcw

Post  44388  by  ttalknet2       OT: On the recent solar energy topic

Post  44389  by  clo       Reply
RESEARCH ALERT-UBS cuts Albertson's to "sell"

NEW YORK, Nov 1 (Reuters) - Investment bank UBS Warburg on
Friday said it has downgraded its rating on No. 2 U.S. grocer
Albertson's Inc. to "sell" from "reduce" after the
company lowered its earnings expectations for the third and
fourth quarters.
UBS analyst Neil Currie cited Albertson's deteriorating
sales picture and expected that "significant gross margin
reinvestment will be required to turn the situation around."
"We are concerned that management has been slow to respond
to an increasingly competitive trading environment and there is
a significant risk that our forward estimates may yet prove to
be optimistic," said Neil in a research note.
Shares of Albertson's fell about 18 percent following the
company's announcement on Thursday of a reduced profit outlook.
Neil also cut his price target on the stock to $16 from $22 per
((Thi Nguyen; Wall Street Desk 646 223 6153))
*** end of story ***

Post  44390  by  pacemakernj       Reply
Linda, RE: MACR, posted pro forma earnings of $.13 blowing away the street consensus of $.02. On a reported basis, net loss for the qtr. was $11.7 million or $.19 per share. Pace.

Post  44391  by  pacemakernj       Reply
PMCW, I did sell INTC at 14 but bought back in. I've been trading UTX as well. Bought DUK as well and sold it at 20.10. I've just been trading this market a lot. I just think it's time to put more money to work. As I said before imo, this is a great traders market and that is exactly what I am doing. I bought AMGN yesterday on a 10% pullback hoping it would hold at it's 50 day M/A. It did and closed above my buy point. I think we'll get to at least 50 and then I'll kick it out. But I only bought a half position just in case I am wrong and it pulls back to 40 in which case I'll double down. I just sit at my screen and trade. I love the action. Regards, Pace.

Post  44392  by  Decomposed       OT: Table ON TOPIC SUMMARY Oct 31, 2002
Post  44393  by  Decomposed       OT: Table ON TOPIC SUMMARY Oct 31, 2002

Post  44394  by  Decomposed       Reply

What toy does JAKK make? You might remember that I recommended KNM a week ago. KNM has the rights to "Yu-Gi-Oh!" playing cards and toys. Yu-Gi-Oh! is is rapidly gaining popularity with kids, so it seemed that the very low-volume stock had room for growth.

And it IS moving. In the VSE competition, it's my only winner for the week.

Post  44395  by  lkorrow       Reply
Pace, You're a good stock picker, JAKK's doing really well too!

Getting back to China, an officer from the Export-Import Bank of the United States was a luncheon panel speaker. They're an independent agency whose role is to, "help companies export products and sustain jobs in the U. S." I spoke to him afterwards and mentioned people are getting increasingly concerned about possibile global deflation from the movement of manufacturing to China and was he concerned. He said we'll handle that by using highly automated plants here. So much for sustaining jobs. The goodness is it essentially eliminates labor as an issue, making us competitive. He also mentioned 86% of the high tech market is outside the U. S.

One presenting company said they would customize solar manufacturing plants worldwide based on job needs. Less automation, more labor intensive for developing countries where employment is desired, like China. More automated in developed companies where low cost is desired. I would think developing countries might be at a competitive disadvantage longer term as their labor costs go up, as has occurred in India to some extent in software development (not an apples to apples comparison), but I suppose they would eventually automate too. Interestingly, he said solar is taking off in developing countries for village electrification and not here because it's cheaper in developing companies. Why? Because in the U. S., companies have a higher cost structure because of commoditization and more need for marketing and systems skills sets.

A company that produces fuel cell air management systems, a cross-industry supplier, said his customers have told him he needs to get his component price point down to $100. He can get production costs down to $100, but needs to make a profit. So, he'll have to move manufacturing to China; they quoted him $37. Quite a difference. He also mentioned that the U. S. is behind in the high-tech fuel cell field. Korea, Japan, and China are way ahead of us. Hello?

At the rate wer'e going, we're letting a trillion $ market slip away. Senator Charles Schumer (D) spoke in the opening address along with Admiral Truley. Schumer, is on the energy committee now. He wants to inspire a "Manhattan Project" for oil independence, but says there is little interest.

We will throw a billion $ towards a nuclear plant, but only a hundred million to renewable energy. These companies are coming up with awesome innovations, but spend too much time looking for money, imho. There seem to be a fair number of "incubators" around the country for startups, but these companies need a boost getting into high volume manufacturing phase.

Post  44396  by  Decomposed       Reply

I guess I'm just opposed to boondoggles. There are certainly enough other WORTHY things for *me* to spend *my* money on. (And remember: The government's only source of money is theft.)

Nuclear power is SO incredibly practical and solar power is so... NOT. If it weren't for the fact that nuclear power has been politicized by IDIOTS and most Americans are too gullible, ignorant and lazy to bother seeking out the facts, we could all have cheap, clean power NOW.

BTW... is there REALLY a 12 year payback on household solar power in NY? Or is it being subsidized by the government (like most government projects) in order to bring the payback time down to something folks might, possibly, take an interest in?

Also, it was my understanding that New York is a TERRIBLE state in which to employ solar. Because of its high latitude, it receives severely diffracted sunlight. Because of its weather, it often receives NO sunlight. A friend once told me about his brother, who paid a bundle to install solar panels all over his house, only to find that the stats he had been sold on were acquired in Florida, not New York! Because of his location, he wound up buying nearly as much energy from the power companies as ever... and he was socked for something like $40,000 in solar panel bills too.

Solar. What a great idea. Why don't we spend a ton of money researching gold-extraction-from-seawater too, while we're at it?

Post  44397  by  Decomposed       ot: Tin,

Post  44398  by  angus_mac01       Reply
GMPW~NY Times article
From .065 to .12 almost 100% for the day …..Do some homework on this one, its about to challenge AUTOCAD, the industry leader in CAD software solutions, with the support of Microsoft CE

Post  44399  by  Decomposed       Reply
Thanks for the update about ABS, clo. Think it is on the same track (Down big time, down, up, up, up, up, up, up) as Sears?

Post  44400  by  lkorrow       Reply
ttalknet, I'm with you 100% on independence from the grid. Problem today is deregulation has made utilities profit centers and the rate of adoption is slow as a result. This is why utilities like wind power, plant is still fairly expensive so they can still keep central control. Utilities shouldn't be so concerned with the population growth projections and associated increases in power requirements, which could be absorbed by solar, etc.

I may have to take back my solar power from space is nuts comment one day as technical advances could make it possible without huge arrays and maybe they'll capture and convert other sorts of radiation, who knows. They sky's the limit, pun intended. :-)

Of course there are overcast days to contend with and that possible gap might need to be bridged by traditional power. Solar still works during cloud cover but the efficiency's way down. I suppose that's when the grid comes into play or plants would need to be designed with overcapacity for such situations. I don't know that anyone's thinking on that kind of scale yet, but solar is beginning to go. . . .

Decomp, since you enjoy the outdoors so much, I would have thought you'd be psyched on solar! I drove by the fringe of the Great Smokey Mountains recently right after a storm went through and cleaned the air and it was STILL hazy with pollution comparable to LA!

Post  44401  by  lkorrow       Reply
Decomposed, you're right, there are tax subsidies, etc. Will get back to you later on . . .

p. s. your KNM's down a lot today, but this was a favorable story. It says the game you mentioned surpassed Pokemon in popularity in the U. S.

Post  44402  by  lkorrow       Reply
Impressive results out of AU yesterday, stock's up close to 7% today. And gold production 11% higher . . .

AngloGold Headline Earnings Rise 16% To $101 Million
Thursday October 31, 8:51 am ET

NEW YORK, NY--(INTERNET WIRE)--Oct 31, 2002 -- AngloGold (NYSE:AU - News) today announced solid earnings for its third quarter ended September 30, 2002. Key features of the quarter and nine months include:

- Headline earnings up 16% ($14 million) to $101 million or 91 US cents per share

- Operating profit increases by 7% to $174 million

- Net profit up by $2 million to $81 million

- Return on equity and capital employed of 23% and 17% respectively

- Total cash costs down 2% to $158 per ounce, despite increased labor costs in South Africa

- Gold production 11% higher quarter-on-quarter at 1.6 million ounces

- Geita reserve increases by 24% to 4.8 million ounces (attributable), following successful drilling program

- Further, though modest, reduction in the hedge book -- rate of decline slows as expected

Commenting on the quarter's results, CEO Bobby Godsell said: "This quarter AngloGold has produced a good set of results. The wide diversity of AngloGold's operations has enabled the impact of inflation and reduced grades to be offset, allowing the company to deliver an 11% increase in gold production, a 16% improvement in headline earnings and a 2% decrease in total cash costs. We continue to target high returns for shareholders: returns on equity and capital remain strong at 23% and 17% respectively."

Turning to the company's growth strategy, he said: "Two of AngloGold's five capital projects (Sunrise Dam in Australia and Cripple Creek & Victor in the USA) are now complete with the other three (Mponeng, TauTona and Moab Khotsong, all in South Africa) on track for completion on time and within budget. Together, these five projects will yield some 15 million additional ounces of gold production over their lives.

"The company is also studying the feasibility of a two other ventures: the expansion of Boddington in Western Australia and the deepening of the existing Cuiabá mine in Brazil. These have the capacity to add a further 5.5 million ounces of gold to AngloGold's production base. In South Africa, the dramatically higher rand gold price, which has contributed a further 11 million ounces of gold to reserves, has resulted in the company considering the possible development of six deep-level mining projects.

"On the exploration front, we continue to have positive results, particularly at Geita in Tanzania, where a successful drilling program has increased reserves by 24% to 4.8 million ounces (attributable), confirming AngloGold's confidence in the prospectivity of the Geita deposit."

Addressing the South African Government's Socio-Economic Empowerment Charter for the mining industry, which was unveiled earlier this month, Godsell noted: "AngloGold believes this charter succeeds in establishing the right balance between the country's political imperatives and the need for a growing and profitable mining industry to capitalize on South Africa's wealth potential.

"We believe the 15% or R100 billion (US$10 billion) five-year and the ten-year 26% empowerment target can be realistically met. The company awaits with interest the finalization of the charter's adjunct 'scorecard'.

"AngloGold is well placed to implement the charter. On the ownership question, the company has completed a number of asset sales in the past four years which have shown how it is possible to craft viable transactions which expand empowerment with no significant loss of value. The company is also energetically pursuing enquiries into forms of broad-based equity ownership."


Post  44403  by  Decomposed       ot: Solar,

Post  44405  by  uponroof       Reply
R.B. Arnold...

will be having a guest on this Sunday discussing Technical Analysis vs Qualitative Analysis (perhaps this might include thoughts along the lines of Soros's reflexivity?).

As usual some interesting comments for the day which follow the opening paragraphs. Arnold explains why American markets continue to outperform their counterparts around the world. Which is in itself the explanation of why our markets are so unpredictable and capable of rising in the face of overwhelmingly bad news....simple....winner by default. All economies are losing ground, the dollar simply remains on top as all in concert are pulled down. Sure sounds like deflation to me.

Once again the FED is behind the curve as they waste time putting forth the 'no serious problem economy' the cost of being late with repairs for a very, very real problem.

It will be interesting to look back at this point in time to debate just how critical this restrained cut was...and if the delay (in cutting), which looks more and more like FED false bravado (nothing wrong with the economy folks!), has serious ramifications...including being too far behind the ever growing momentum of global deflation.

AG needs to get pace's cell number. He had this called right months ago.


General Comments

This Sunday we will have Tom O'Brien on the show from to discuss the relationship between technical analysis (Tom) and qualitative analysis (me) as well as a discussion about gold. Tom is the host of the Tom O'Brien show on as well as the editor and publisher of a variety of newsletters focusing on technical analysis.

I will be opening the lines for calls for those of you that wish to speak with Tom. The Roger Arnold show is on from 8-11 am eastern time every Sunday morning. It is carried on line at You can also page to the bottom of the DO's to find out how to find a station in your area that carries the show.

The number to get on the air is 1 877 266 7469

There is a great deal of confusion about the relationship between economic reality and the financial markets implied perception of the future right now.

With the overwhelmingly negative economic news coming out from all over the world many are wondering why the US equities have been able to increase over the last few weeks.

With the US consumer beginning to show signs of slowing many are wondering why the US dollar has not depreciated more aggressively against the Euro, Yen and Gold than it has.

Put on top of that low capacity utilization, record debt levels for consumers, companies and countries world wide, pension underfunding in the US, Social Security underfunding all over the world, tax receipts falling, earnings falling and being overestimated again, a potential war in the middle east, North Korean nukes, South Korean elections, socialists taking over Brazil, assassinations in Japan, German deflation expectations rising, French consumers capitulating, a breakdown in European Union cooperation, a transition of political power in China, the most negative congressional campaigns in recent US history, the specter of the US congress to be taken over by fiscally liberal leaders in a couple of days, etc.

Many are saying that the bad news has already been priced in because these concerns are known. The problem is that we have heard this by analysts for 3 years now.

The problems listed above are not past problems. They are current problems and will result in even larger economic problems in the future. They are also part of a continuum. They are not isolated, disconnected events.

So, the question must be asked, why are the US equity markets increasing into increasingly negative news?

And this is why understanding the world and the macro relationships we discuss here is so important in being able to put current financial events in context.

If you don't understand the big picture you can't understand the small picture.

Many ask me why I discuss Japan or Germany or those areas around the world that we follow. I'm a mortgage lender. What does the collapse of Japan have to do with mortgage lending in the US? For the regular listeners and readers you already know.

US interest rates are determined by global events not US events. Interest rates in the US are tied to US treasury yields and the value of the dollar in relation to other currencies. These in turn reflect not only the economic expectation for the US DOMESTIC economy but of the entire world economy.

US treasury yields are used as a peg for loan rates all over the world and are the primary reserve held by central banks all over the world. The dollar is the WORLD currency. The vast majority of actual dollar bills in circulation are outside the US. This means the use of the dollar as a reserve currency is not simply a political or central bank arrangement. People all over the world want to hold their money in the form of dollars.

So the US financial markets are not really US financial markets. They are the world markets. They represent the collective and net concerns of all investors all over the world about their home economies and about how their home economies relate to each other.

There is an old saying that is appropriate for today: "As goes the US so goes the world"

So, the bottom line is that the US equity markets increasing does not necessarily have to be predictive of increasing economic viability in the US. It can be and is also reflective of the lack of economic viability elsewhere. The other side of the story so to speak.

There is a mass exodus of money from the rest of the worlds markets going on right now. That money is making its way "home" to the US. That is not to say that the owners of this money live in the US or are even US citizens or companies.

In an interrelated global economy the US financial markets are "home" for everyone.

Risk is relative.

To a German equities trader today the US equities look far less risky than anywhere else in the world. The same is true for every other countries market. So they migrate here. It is a very easy transition from trading on one exchange to trading on another today.

But, even as the US equities are being driven primarily by foreign investments many US equity traders are measuring their risk against their expectations solely in the US and are selling out to go to US Treasuries.

So, they sell out to go to treasuries and watch US equities increase anyway; scratching their heads all the way.

Learning to understand the world this way will greatly increase your understanding of what is happening.

So now money is flowing into everything in the US except Corporate Bonds. I hate to sound like a broken record here folks, but, if any of the trading going on in paper assets anywhere was predictive of opportunity rather than reflective of risk corporate bonds would be surging and junk bond yields and spreads would be falling.

Post  44406  by  Decomposed       ot: Lkorrow,

Post  44407  by  oldCADuser       Reply
I wouldn't hold my breath on this one. Note that I've been in the CAD industry for over 25 years and while "GiveMePower" (GMPW) looks like a very interesting little product, it's just that, an "interesting little product". Anyone who has followed the CAD industry for any amount of time knows that there have been literally hundreds of "interesting little products" developed over the years and only a VERY small number ever made it past version 1.2.


Post  44410  by  jeffbas       Reply
pmcw, I share your view on a December correction. Previously, I expected insignificant tax loss selling as most people had no gains to offset. However, a lot more folks now could use them, so I think we get more tax selling.

Post  44412  by  pmcw       Reply
OCU, I was waiting for your response, but knew I would have to wait at least until you stopped laughing. A CAD program running on CE taking out AutoCAD................ ;o) Regards, pmcw

Post  44415  by  danking_70       OT: Now, the Human Rights Watch is

Post  44417  by  pmcw       Reply
maniati, I think the thing I love most about the study of economics is the same thing I enjoy about technical analysis - they are both great ways to predict (explain) the past. ;o) At the core, both are based on solid principles, but at the fringes, they both need a pile of assumptions to churn out numbers. At least with economics, they are honest about this which is why it is called "economic theory".

Seriously though, I do like discussing economics and one of my facisnations is that it connects virturlly everything in the world. Getting one's arms around the subject is like squeezing a baloon. Just when you think you have one part under control another pops out between your fingers and says "you forgot all about me".

When we went in this year for meet the teacher night at my daughter's school the American History Teacher quickly drew four lines on the board that represented the axis and plot lines for a S/D graph. He quickly asked if anyone knew what it was. Long ago, my wife trained me to sit quietly during these meetings so I just whispered to here, "why is he drawing a supply / demand graph". As his presentation went on he explained that his background was teaching economics and that he simply fell in love with history through his study of the economy. Now he combines the two loves into one course and teaches American history (1870 to present) and focuses on how economics drove history and how history drove economics. Needless to say, we're now buddies - the fact that he also leads the tech group is a plus too.

To say that a good economist (I think we can all agree that Greenspan is a good economist) pays attention to everything and focus solely on nothing is a point to which we can aggree. By stating this please take it as self-evident that I stand in agreement that the FMOC focus is certainly not on the stock market, but I might stand on different ground if you think the market is totally ignored by the FMOC. I think it is a part of the economy that plays a varying role in their decisions. However, not necessarily because it is up, down or sidewise, but more because it is a part of the whole economy and can be a part of their consideration at times when it affects other economic fundamentals within their core agenda.

In 2000, the FMOC raised rates when there wasn't a hint of traditional inflation in sight. The strain on full employment was clearly ebbing so if it was on the real agenda, it was a mistake to consider employment inflationary. However, there were clear signs of non-traditional inflation that were of concern. The US$ was highly inflated in value when comparred to other world currencies. And, a share of CSCO, et al, was tremendously inflated when comparred to the dollar. Heck, little AOL bought the largest American media company with their "inflated currency" and just months before was valued higher than the three largest airlines combined. I know we disagree on these points (at least we did when I posted this opinion in the Spring of 2000), but it is my opinion that these were two of several (maybe not the top two) drivers that encouraged the FMOC to raise rates.

In January 2001 Greenspan realized it was a tragic mistake to raise the cost of buying productivity tools for the brick and motar folks while he tried to stem the wasteful "investments" that are at the core of our debt bubble today. He said this very clearly to the Senate during his speach in January 200 and to the economy with a double cut prior to the speach. Leading up to 2000 he went down to much too quick and tried to over compensate it and then had to reverse it again starting in 2001 - he was out of rythm - off his game - and maybe even "ignorant" to the benefits afforded through the use of new productivity tools. Since then, I feel he has been VERY consistent and right on target. The economy was in terrible shape and destined to suffer from the deceleration of capital investment that you wrote about in your seminal post of late 2000. However, the FMOC has done what it could and I feel their pace, message and measure has been appropriate.

As we approached the summer of 2002 I feel the rate cuts were doing what they could to stabalize a still shaky economy, but that more then was innapropriate. Not that it couldn't have been used, but that it might have heated up certain sectors too much and it would have most certainly curtailed the ability to add liquidity later. I think the brew simply needed to simmer before new ingrediants should be added which is why I stated that the cuts would not happen until November.

To me, November was simply the logical alternative. In November we would have a convergence of many things and a small rate cut could (can) really make a positive difference. Back in the summer, not only was it not timely, but it most likely would have sent the wrong message. The appropriate message was that we're tough enough to go forward without it for now.

However, as we near the mid point of Q4 the economy is ready for some more heat. Home sales naturally slow in Q4 and the recent increases in mortgage rates (even in the absense of a FMOC change) leaves those who were waiting for just a little lower rate hungry for the opportunity. It is reasonably predictable that this election will leave the US with mixed emotions. Until the fiasco of 2000 elections nearly always left the economy feeling better just because they take wild cards from the deck and we all know wild cards aren't welcome. Whether the 2002 elections are decisive or not, a nice rate cut and unchanged bias will be just the spice we need to feel good as the shopping season approaches. And yes, I feel the FMOC is interested in seeing a reasonably good retail season. For many busiensses, this quarter means survival or failure.

Virtually all the companies in the business of predicting future trends say that we are due for a nice increase in IT spending. Greenspan now loves IT and feels that it is an investment in productivity - the anti-inflation drug if you will. We are also way past due for a cap/ex round in telecom - not only for improving the metro ring, but simply for maintainance of existing equipment. Keeping our telecom systems healthy and reliable is not only a huge economic interest, but also vital for national security. The redefinition of UNE-P regulations during Q1 will go a long way to encourage this spending, but low interest rates will ceratainly be needed too.

Bottom Line: I feel the hold back was for consumers to finish their summer run catch their wind (consumers were still doing great in the summer during the high season in home sales) and add energy later for their continued support during the high shopping season. I feel now is the appropriate time to give the economy a timely "feel good" and to support the industrial sector when it appears to be ready to turn a corner. I also feel that the banks will welcome the spread as they continue to belch out the debt bubble. And finally, that financing government deficit at a lower rate will be beneficial. A little drop of the dollar against foreign currencies won't hurt, but I doubt it is a issue of any real consideration. From where I was sitting last summer, all of these issues appeared clear. To this end, I maintain that we'll see a quarter point in November and then, if it is appropriate, another quarter point in December. However, I think Greenspan wants to keep as many bullets in the chamber as possible so that he has options in the future.

Regards, pmcw

Post  44418  by  pmcw       Reply
New car sales might have held up the GDP in Q3. but all American auto companies had a terrible October. This is probably also the case for foreign companies, but I don't have any contacts with the big ones so I can't say for sure. Regards, pmcw

Post  44419  by  Decomposed       Reply

Terrible is an understatement. Ford sales fell 30%. And wasn't that WITH some extraordinary buying incentives in place?

So, auto purchase are way off. Consumer optimism is way off. All it takes is a rotten Christmas season for retailers and the economic cat will be out of the bag.

I don't think home prices can possibly hold. In my own neighborhood, prices are up at least 100% since 2000. (My neighbor's house is on the market right now for 66% more than it was assessed for in APRIL!) My wife and I want a larger place, but since prices are inflated, we'd be on the losing end of the stick if we traded places right now. Better to hold off for up to two years... during which I'm convinced I'll see a 30% - 40% pullback.

As you pointed out, there are a LOT of folks out there who are leveraging themselves to the hilt. Doing this in an economic maelstrom -- when the downturn hasn't even really hit the unemployment figures yet -- is very foolish, IMO.

In housing, 2003 is gonna be gruesome for sellers.

Post  44420  by  StockmanI7       OT: Dan, Human Rights Watch

Post  44421  by  pmcw       Reply
Decomp, I think that other than for the balance of payment compensated by changing interest rates, the home bubble is very regionalized. We certainly don't see it here. From what I've heard, you had an influx of traditional silicon valley jobs as the factories opened some stuff in your area in an effort to attach a lower cost employee base.

The confidence numbers, from what I can gather so far, were mostly reflective of the days from October 5 through October 12. This was a bad week for confidence.

I agree about the shopping season and I feel there is no hope for high end retailers. You might look at the short list I posted towards the start of October. I've not checked them out, but if they aren't hurt now they will be soon. However, I feel the lower half of the scale will do well (Penny's down).

The two big wildcards in the deck right now are the elections and geo-political.

Which party will win and when will the results be final?

War, terror, both????????

Regards, pmcw

Post  44422  by  jeffbas       OT: Decomposed, if you really believe what you pos
Post  44423  by  lkorrow       OT: Decomposed saw your notes, but will have to ge
Post  44424  by  lkorrow       OT: Decomp, a p. s. on nuclear pollution. On LI, w

Post  44425  by  lkorrow       Reply
Results of CIO Magazine's Tech Poll on IT spending came out today:

October's CIO Magazine Tech Poll results were released
on Friday, November 1 at 8:00 am EDT. Though overall
spending plans remain muted, for the ninth consecutive
month chief information officers were more optimistic
about IT spending plans over the next 12 months when
compared to the past 12 months. Additional findings

* Approximately 2 in 10 respondents anticipate a spending
increase due to fourth quarter "spend the budget" cycles.

* 26% of chief information officers claim they plan to pick
up IT spending in the first half of 2003 while 21% claim
they must wait until the second half of 2003 and 15%
report their budgets will not increase until 2004.

* Security software, storage systems and data networking
repeated as the top 3 spending categories.

For more on the October CIO Magazine Tech Poll results, go to:

Post  44426  by  ljpit       ot: ahh, come on now, stockman, you mean statement

Post  44427  by  oldCADuser       Reply
Let's all hope the come Wednesday that the Fed makes a cut and it better be a good one as it's beginning to look like if it's only a 1/4 point that people may be disappointed, at least that's what you could read between the lines in items like this:

Stocks Climb as Investors Bet on Rate Cut

Friday November 1, 3:25 pm ET
By Chelsea Emery

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stocks climbed to session highs in late afternoon on Friday after weak jobs and manufacturing data boosted hopes for an interest-rate cut. Investors also said they were relieved the figures were not worse than many had anticipated.

Stocks dropped immediately after the figures showed the nation lost jobs in October for the second straight month and pointed to a higher jobless rate, but losses evaporated as Wall Street bet the U.S. Federal Reserve will cut rates next Wednesday to shore up the economy....

For the complete article, go to:


Post  44428  by  oldCADuser       Reply
Let's all hope the come Wednesday that the Fed makes a cut and it better be a good one as it's beginning to look like if it's only a 1/4 point that people may be disappointed, at least that's what you could read between the lines in items like this:

Stocks Climb as Investors Bet on Rate Cut

Friday November 1, 3:25 pm ET
By Chelsea Emery

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stocks climbed to session highs in late afternoon on Friday after weak jobs and manufacturing data boosted hopes for an interest-rate cut. Investors also said they were relieved the figures were not worse than many had anticipated.

Stocks dropped immediately after the figures showed the nation lost jobs in October for the second straight month and pointed to a higher jobless rate, but losses evaporated as Wall Street bet the U.S. Federal Reserve will cut rates next Wednesday to shore up the economy....

For the complete article, go to:


Post  44429  by  oldCADuser       OT: Sorry for the double post, but at first it loo

Post  44430  by  stockmom       Reply

Judge OKs Most Microsoft Provisions
Friday November 1, 4:21 pm ET
Judge OKs Most Provisions of Antitrust Settlement Between Microsoft, Justice Department

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge on Friday approved most of the provisions of an antitrust settlement between Microsoft Corp. and the Justice Department, largely setting aside concerns by some states that the sanctions were too light on the software giant.
The sanctions are to last for at least five years unless extended by the court, the judge said.

Post  44431  by  pacemakernj       Reply
Decomp, RE: JAKKS Pacific, makes action figures, die cast collectibles and toy vehicles, pre-school toys, fashion dolls and accessories. Brands include, Road Champs, Remco and Child Guidance. But the best part of this company is they have $5 a share in cash, the trailing P/E is 13 but the CEO confirmed 4th qtr quidance between a $1.64 and $1.75 which makes the P/E go to a very low 8! Furthermore it's trading below book value which is about $14.41. They have very little debt and a quick ratio of 3 to 1. If that's not a steal than I am missing something. Even if it only grows at a modest 10% it's a steal. Regards, Pace.

Post  44432  by  lkorrow       Reply
OCU, I had a similar problem and did a refresh and it showed up. Never had to do that before . . .

Post  44433  by  pacemakernj       Reply
Linda, RE: China, if those other countries can create more energy efficient operations I am all for it. The market will weed out the weak and reward the strong. As for Chucky Schumer and a Manhattan project for energy it's not as easy as you think. I've said this before it must be a gradual approach which I believe is what the President spoke about in his energy plan. But I don't think there is any question we need to wean ourselves off this oil. If for nothing else I am sick of fighting over a bunch a sand where we have to send our young men and women in to save the day. I hope that if we go to war with Iraq this will be the last time we do it. That might be wishful thinking but I pray that is so. We need to make that stuff in the ground worthless. I think GW's plan also called for alternative energy plans. But don't quote me on that. I am for whatever will provide the cheapest cleanest energy we can get. BTW, I am a so so stock picker. But lately I've been getting better. Over the years I've lost more than I've won. Pace.

Post  44434  by  pacemakernj       Reply
Roof, how about this idea on why the markets are moving. As the news gets worse people (investors) are realizing that AG will be forced to use draconian measures to stimulate growth. I mean massive stimulus. I think the FED has been holding back on some very powerful tools. IMHO, that might be the bet, that the FED will be FORCED to apply those tools to this anemic economy. How about a 100bp cut and money supply growth at double digits. To name a few. Congress can cut the dividend tax, increase deduction of capital losses from $3,000 to $10,000. These are just a few things they can do. IMO, it's now in the Fed's hands and Congress' will they step up to the late. IMO, that's what the markets are saying, they will. Regards, Pace.

Post  44435  by  pacemakernj       Reply
Roof, how about this idea on why the markets are moving. As the news gets worse people (investors) are realizing that AG will be forced to use draconian measures to stimulate growth. I mean massive stimulus. I think the FED has been holding back on some very powerful tools. IMHO, that might be the bet, that the FED will be FORCED to apply those tools to this anemic economy. How about a 100bp cut and money supply growth at double digits. To name a few. Congress can cut the dividend tax, increase deduction of capital losses from $3,000 to $10,000. These are just a few things they can do. IMO, it's now in the Fed's hands and Congress' will they step up to the late. IMO, that's what the markets are saying, they will. Regards, Pace.

Post  44436  by  Decomposed       ot: Lkorrow, Radioactive Aquifers

Post  44437  by  maniati       Reply
Decomp: Yeah, you're right, you can't put a solar array a million miles away. The only place you can put it is geosynchronous orbit. Even then, you have problems aiming the beam, and with dispersion, not to mention clouds.

But, here's the problem that intrigues me, and I never hear it mentioned, so that just makes me wonder even more. You want this thing to have as little mass as possible, because it's going to be unbelievably gigantic anyway, and, the heavier it is, the more $$ it costs to lift into orbit. At the same time, it needs to span a lare area. So, that means you have this extremely large object that is virtually two-dimensional, with as little mass as possible, and it's facing directly at the sun. Doesn't that sound like a problem to you? What about "solar wind?" Wouldn't this thing act like a giant sail and want to fly off towards Pluto? :-) Just a thought.

Post  44438  by  StockmanI7       OT: lj, HRW

Post  44439  by  Decomposed       Reply

I know you're kidding, but your point WOULD be valid if it weren't that solar arrays are actually pretty damn massive, even on a square foot basis. They're made of metal, after all. The solar wind, on the other hand, is nearly ethereal... strong enough to drive gases but not much else. Fabric more than a few atoms thick is going to be VERY hard for the solar wind to push.

And there's no way we would take Manhattan-size solar arrays into space from Earth. It still costs around $10,000 per pound to lift things into orbit. But fortunately, space is VERY manufacturer friendly. Weightlessness, vaccuum, and *lots* of space could dramatically reduce the costs of huge construction projects.

The solar array wouldn't be made on Earth; it'd be made in space.

So, the solar wind isn't going to move our huge solar panels. Not much, anyway. But even if it did... by the time we have the kind of technology to support worries of this nature, we'll also have solutions. Route a little of the electricity the array generates into coils, and voila! We've got a 100 mile magnetic bottle, funneling solar plasma and interplanetary gas into our fusion drives. THAT oughta keep the array in place!

Whoops. But if we have fusion drives, why do we need the solar array?? You catch my drift?

Solar power is *NOT* going to save the Earth. (Except in the most literal sense, of course.)

Post  44440  by  clo       OT: GWB is comfortable with Pitt & the SEC...?

Post  44441  by  jeffbas       Reply
lkorrow, you have a bad memory on that Long Island plant, or were not around at the time. I was. Political and regulatory entities changed the rules as to what had to be done so many times (over so many years) that the cost mushroomed out of sight. (How can any company do business that way - which is why no new power plants are built in the US today.)

Finally, when the utility did everything it was supposed to do, a new generation of (stupid) Long Island politicians pulled the plug altogether when the plant was completed (over, I recall, failure to meet newly created evacuation plans, that could never be met). If the state hadn't taken the plant over, the utility would have gone bankrupt for what was entirely a political disaster, having NOTHING to do with any failure on the part of the utility (which is why the utility got bailed out). In my opinion, poorly educated Long Islanders who inspired their politicians with visions of a nuclear power plant being an atom bomb waiting to explode got exactly what they deserved.

Post  44442  by  clo       Reply
Big automakers report 33% drop in October U.S. sales after year-ago bonanza

DETROIT, Nov 01, 2002 (The Canadian Press via COMTEX) -- A year after
incentives helped the auto industry to its best month ever for U.S. vehicle
sales, the top American automakers reported Friday that sales dropped nearly 33
per cent last month compared with October 2001.

Sales in the United States for General Motors, the world's largest automaker,
fell nearly 32 per cent. Car sales were down 39.9 per cent, while light truck
sales - including pickups, sport-utility vehicles, vans and minivans - fell 25.7
per cent.

No. 2 Ford said sales were down nearly 35 per cent from a year ago. Ford's car
sales were down 38.8 per cent; light truck sales fell 32.6 per cent.

At DaimlerChrysler's Chrysler Group, sales fell nearly 31 per cent, with car
sales down 34.7 per cent and light truck sales down 29.8 per cent.

"Last month's year-over-year sales comparison was not unexpected," said Gary
Dilts, Chrysler's senior vice-president for sales.

Last year, the lure of no-interest financing helped industry sales show a 24 per
cent October increase. Ford sales jumped 36 per cent compared with October 2000,
while GM's October 2001 sales rose 31 per cent and Chrysler's were up five per

"Looking at the broader picture, we are pleased with our overall performance for
the first 10 months of the year," said Bill Lovejoy, GM North America group
sales vice-president.

"Our October retail sales were significantly higher than September results, but
were down compared to an exceptionally strong October in 2001."

Earlier in the day, GM announced its latest incentives, waiving down payments
and interest charges, and requiring no payments for three months on a new car or

To compete for customers in the sluggish economy, Ford and Chrysler joined GM
last year in offering lucrative incentives.

The 34.9 per cent decline in October sales of Ford, Lincoln and Mercury cars and
truck was compared with record sales in the same month a year ago.

George Pipas, Ford's top sales analyst, said last month's numbers also felt the
effect of heavier buying of new vehicles during the summer because of zero per
cent financing offers.

"What we see in October is a reflection of what we saw in July and August,"
Pipas said.

Ford's Jaguar unit reported sales slightly lower than in October of last year.
The automaker's Land Rover unit showed sales that rose 48 per cent, while Volvo
sales were down 22.7 per cent.

GM's Saab unit reported a 63 per cent drop in sales last month compared with
October 2001.

The online source for news sports entertainment finance and business news in Ca

Copyright (C) 2002 The Canadian Press (CP), All rights reserved


SUBJECT CODE: business

*** end of story ***