Our daily stock market commentary and views on the economy and geopolitical events are posted weekdays and Saturday by 12:30 a.m. ET.
[ Market Activity | Market Outlook | Market Trend | Economic Reports | Miscellaneous | Commodities | Fed Futures | Restructuring | Venture Capital | My Investments | Economic Outlook | Tech Stock 'Safe' Signal | Disclaimer | Archive | Blog | Books | Resources | Charts | Adages | Glossary | Lore | Search | Payment | Contact ]
The mini-correction continued on Monday, but did not accelerate. Despite the chatter about the price of oil and other issues, this is still more of a technical move and suggestive of range-trading rather than based on economic or business fundamentals. NASDAQ fell a moderate -14.95 points (-0.64%).
The economic data was mixed, as usual.
NASDAQ trading volume was moderate (1.85 billion shares), and breadth was moderately negative, with 1.38 losers for each gainer. This was not a heavy sell-off
The New York Fed Empire State Manufacturing Survey report for April registered a very sharp decline in the pace of business expansion, but continues to indicate a moderate rate of expansion of economic activity. This was a somewhat negative report, but there is a lot of volatility. New orders growth decelerated very sharply, but continue to expand at a moderate pace. Shipments growth decelerated moderately, but continue to expand at a moderate pace. Unfilled orders growth decelerated very sharply, and are now contracting at a modest pace. Employment growth decelerated very sharply, but continues to expand at a moderate pace. The average workweek growth decelerated very sharply, and is now expanding at only a modest pace. Overall six-month expectations accelerated moderately, and remain quite rosy. Modestly over half (52% vs. 48% last month) of the surveyed businesses expect better business conditions in six months, and only 10% (vs. 9% last month) expect conditions to be worse. Prices paid grew at a modestly slower but still rapid pace and prices received grew at a modestly faster pace, suggesting mixed signals on the inflation front. The six-month outlook strongly suggests that there is enough inflation queued up that higher Fed short-term interest rates would seem necessary.
The Treasury International Capital (TIC) Data report (AKA foreign capital flows) for February showed net foreign purchases of long-term securities were $86.9 billion. This was a positive report. U.S. residents purchased a net $12.6 billion in foreign issued securities. Contrary to popular myth, there is no monthly "financing of the trade deficit." There is an equilibrium over an extended period of years, but not a short-term monthly or quarterly or even annual basis. This is essentially a useless report, but does get a fair amount of media and pundit attention despite its lack of utility.
The AAA Daily Fuel Gauge Report registered a very sharp rise of +2.1 cents since Friday (from $2.761 to $2.782) in the retail price of a gallon of unleaded gasoline, a seventeenth rise after a decline after no change after three consecutive declines. This was a negative report. Regular unleaded gasoline is now +31.0 cents above the level of a month ago, +72.8 cents above its May 2004 peak of $2.054, and -27.5 cents below its September 2005 peak of $3.057. Using the rule of thumb that retail prices will tend to converge about 60 to 65 cents above the front-month NYMEX futures price (the so-called "wholesale price"), we could see $2.76 to $2.81 regular unleaded within a couple of weeks if the wholesale price were to remain steady. Retail prices could now rise by up to +3 cents or fall by up to -2 cents in the coming weeks. All of that is subject to dramatic change on a daily basis. My new daily routine in Boulder no longer takes me past enough gas stations on a regular basis to report local conditions.
I actually have a few job leads that I am pursuing. I had hoped to find some part-time consulting, but I've had no luck on that front, at least so far. Alas, a full-time job would be good for my finances, but not leave a lot of time for this daily commentary.
[4/13/06] Advance warning: As I'm searching for new work, it is very possible that what work I get might consume so much of my time that I can no longer maintain this daily commentary. It may not come to that, but be forewarned that the outcome is a distinct possibility.
[4/1/06] My current client out here in Boulder gave me notice last Monday as of April 15, so I'm looking for new work. Depending on what new work I find over the next couple of weeks, I may have to suspend this column if I have to work too many long hours. We'll have to see.
Crude oil is close to staging a breakout, but we'll have to see how much momentum is really there.
Gold continues to move up, but it's run may be nearing an end. We'll watch to see if it is really able to close above $625 within the next couple of weeks.
Sure, commodities continue to "boom" (selectively), but do so despite actual economic and business fundamentals. Longer-dated futures do not provide any support for the "boom", suggesting a short-term speculative frenzy as the cause. The "boom" could continue for some time, or could evaporate at any moment. This is a market for nimble traders and careful short-term speculators, not longer-term investors with a longer-term time horizon.
Although Iran does keep being mentioned in market reports, this is really simply excess recycling of the existing situation. There has been no new news over the the past few weeks that fundamentally changes the situation. New details emerge, but the overall picture doesn't change.
[3/14/06] Iran will continue to be a back-burner issue for the energy markets and occasionally pop up again at any moment, but it will no longer be crisis-level issue for the markets. Anxiety over Iran has more than been priced into the markets.
[2/22/06] Although I expect that some amount of "fresh" money will continue to flow into commodities for months to come, I suspect that the early, deep-pocket players are already starting to lighten up on their asset allocation for commodities.
[4/6/06] Recovery from the Gulf Coast storms continues to slog along. You can read the biweekly reports from the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) at 1:00 p.m. Central time every other Wednesday. We have a ways to go, but progress is occurring every week. According to MMS, another 0.52% of oil production came back online, with 22.70% (vs. 23.22% a month ago) of Gulf oil production now out of service, and another 0.41% of natural gas production came back online, with 13.62% (vs. 14.03%) of Gulf natural gas production now out of service. The current daily shut-in oil production is 340,438 barrels of oil per day. There are still 87 platforms evacuated (unchanged since a month ago), but I suspect that many of these were under-producing or not sufficiently economical at current prices, and are being left offline, for now. I'm not so sure that these numbers will hit zero any time soon since some of the outages were 100% losses and will require new equipment and facilities to be fully replaced. It's rather interesting how well the economy is doing and how moderated energy prices are considering those outages; so much for the persistent argument that energy markets are "tight". By the way, I never read any market reports suggesting that traders and speculators are taking any of these ongoing increases in production into account. The next update will be on Wednesday, April 19, 2006.
Crude oil futures remain in contango (rising prices) from May 2006 ($70.40) through January 2007 ($73.95 as the peak price in December 2006 and January 2007), and then backwardation (declining prices) all the way out to the December 2012 contract ($66.85) as the lowest price, below the front-month contract. All contracts remain above $60. The May 2006 through July 2009 contracts are above $70. The "backwardation" of longer-term contracts strongly suggests that elevated oil prices are primarily a speculative "bubble" due to deep-pocket investment funds rather than due to actual or prospective supplies or demand. The proposition that elevated oil prices are due to long-term demand growth and long-term supply shortages is simply not born out by futures contracts for outlying years.
Unleaded gasoline are now in full backwardation (declining prices) from May 2006 ($2.1697) through December 2006, and then a modest rise in January 2007 (to $1.9132). The January 2007 contract is now priced -26.65 cents below the May 2006 contract. The bottom line is that there is no evidence of a market expectation of dramatically rising gasoline prices over the long term. This is not a long-term bullish trend, and emphasizes an intense short-term speculative frenzy. Give it a few weeks to settle down.
[12/16/05] Although some of the metals popped up above the thresholds I suggested at the beginning of the month, they've all pulled back significantly and below my thresholds. So, I'll give them another couple of weeks to see if they can achieve some durable gains. I'm not forecasting that all speculation will vanish any time soon, but simply that the massive bull wave they was driving all commodities up may finally be over. I suspect that soon we will revert to the traditional, garden-variety speculation that we've always had, and that can usually be ignored by true investors.
[12/9/05] There are still plenty of people interested in speculating in commodities, but the breadth does seem to be waning. Spurts of activity such as on Thursday do seem bullish, but also seem to smack of a market on its last, anxious legs. Even outright bear markets (which we aren't quite in yet) occasionally have sharp rallies, but they don't indicate the overall, longer-term trend.
[12/1/05] With metals prices being so strong lately, I'm a little reluctant to call a full end of the commodities speculation wave of the last two years. I'd like to give the metals group another couple of weeks to see whether they are able to move up significantly from their recent highs, say another 5%, with gold to $525, platinum to $1,050, silver to $8.87 and copper to $2.18. Commodities may be at a similar stage as stocks back in mid-March of 2000, with the Dow having peaked in January, NASDAQ peaked on March 11, and the S&P 500 peaking on March 24. The euro peaked a long time ago, energy a while ago, and the metals are the remaining leg of the stool still standing.
[11/11/05] It's still too early to call an end to "The Great Oil/Energy/Commodities Speculation of 2004 and 2005", but the commodities markets have clearly been knocked off their feet. The shorts are still rather timid, but it's only a matter of time before the bulls finally capitulate. If gold fails to break out above $500 and crude fails to rally back above $65 by the end of November, I will "officially" call for the end of this incarnation of the commodities bull market.
[11/23/05] Goldman Sachs lowered its estimates for crude oil to $62 from $66 a barrel this year and to $64 from $68 next year. There was no mention of their infamous call for a $105 "superspike". This is backpedaling on their part, and likely to be followed by more backpedaling as the next six months unfold. They're obviously trying to "tout" speculation in commodities futures. They collect transaction fees as well as profiting on in-house trading. These are quite obvious conflicts of interest, but are oddly considered to be legal.
[10/19/05] Since some people are convinced that a recession is coming, the Asset Allocation Clock will tend to start moving those people out of commodities and into cash or other short-term fixed-income assets. The Fed campaign to raise short-term interest rates provides a further incentive for such a shift.
[4/15/05] The commodities markets remain "loopy". That's the most charitable thing I can say. There's simply too much "hot money" chasing a lot of unrealistic, concocted "stories", not unlike the old dot-com boom. Tears to follow for anyone who sincerely buys into any of those cockamamie stories as other than very short-term trading plays.
[8/4/05] Disclosure: I actually have some very small positions in some oil and gas production limited partnerships (Geodyne), less than $1,000 total, dating from the early 1980's. I've hung on to them merely because there isn't a liquid market for trading them, so I'd have to take a bath to sell them. The total return plus residual value since the early 1980's is probably significantly less than if I had invested in rolling T-bills for that period. These positions are small because they were actually quarterly payments (from a larger position that I dumped long ago) that were made in the form of fractional units of whatever their latest limited partnership was.
[11/11/05] Some popular books related to the "Peak Oil" fad: "Beyond Oil : The View from Hubbert's Peak" by Kenneth S. Deffeyes (2005), "Hubbert's Peak : The Impending World Oil Shortage" by Kenneth S. Deffeyes (2003), "The End of Oil : On the Edge of a Perilous New World" by Paul Roberts (2004), "The Coming Oil Crisis" by C. J. Campbell (2004), "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy" by Matthew R. Simmons (2005), and "The Oil Factor: Protect Yourself and Profit from the Coming Energy Crisis" by Stephen and Donna Leeb (2005). And if you're simply gung-ho about commodities in general, take a look at "Hot Commodities : How Anyone Can Invest Profitably in the World's Best Market" by Jim Rogers (2004). I'm not offering a recommendation on any of these books, but simply note that they are popular with the commodities crowd. If you're interest in the counterargument to "Peak Oil", check out "The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy" by Peter W. Huber and Mark P. Mills (2005). If I wasn't so lazy, I'd write my own book on commodities speculation called "Peak Bull".
The Treasury yield curve remains not inverted. It will probably continue to bounce in and out of partial inversion until the Fed clearly finishes its interest rate hike campaign.
There was no change in the odds of a hike to 5.00% in May, a moderately sharp decline in the odds of a hike to 5.25% in June, and a moderately sharp rise in the odds of a cut back to 5.00% late in the year or next year. The market is pricing in a hike to 5.00% in May, a likely hike to 5.25% in June, and a modest chance of a cut back to 5.00% in 2007. The betting on the June hike may be merely an insurance hedge rather than an outright bet, but the June hike looks rather likely.
[3/29/06] I agree with the Fed that high commodities prices are an inflation risk, so a hike to 5.25% in June is now more likely.
[3/31/06] Current market expectations are that the Fed will hike to 5.00% in May, hike to 5.25% in June, and then pause. Stay tuned, as this market expectation can turn on a moment's notice. My expectation is now that the Fed will pause after hiking to 5.25% in June, unless commodities prices pull back dramatically by then or the rest of the economy begins to wobble. If anything, I would be biased higher towards 5.50%.
[3/31/06] The fed funds futures market suggests a quarter-point hike to 5.00% at the May 10, 2006 FOMC meeting, a quarter-point hike to 5.25% at the June 28/29, 2006 FOMC meeting, no hike at the August 8, 2006 FOMC meeting, no hike at the September 20, 2006 FOMC meeting, no hike at the October 24, 2006 FOMC meeting, and no hike at the December 12, 2006 FOMC meeting. Fed funds futures are at best accurate no more than six weeks out, so any longer-term move is purely speculative, at best. The hike at the May FOMC meeting is very likely. The hike at the June meeting is likely, but not as certain. Bets on hikes beyond May are uncertain and may merely be insurance hedges rather than outright bets.
[4/13/06] Historically, 5.25% looks like a comfortable place for the Fed to rest as a neutral level.
[3/31/06] The recent rise in commodities prices will certainly keep pressure on the Fed to continue raising the fed funds target interest rate. I don't think the Fed will target commodities directly per se, but will indirectly under the rubric of "potential inflationary pressures". If commodities haven't fallen back sharply by mid June, expect the Fed to hike even to 5.50% in August. We'll have to see how the commodities speculation craze plays out.
[3/31/06] PIMCO's "Bond King" Bill Gross has posted his latest monthly April 2006 Investment Outlook (IO) letter, entitled "*@?#»! Bond Trading and the Tyranny of Indexation." I haven't read it carefully yet, but it is certainly an interesting rant. It almost sounds as if he's trying to incite an exodus from the U.S. bond market and even from dollar-denominated assets. He says "PIMCO suggests in the near term that a total boycott of the bond market is impractical since non-economic central bank buyers should continue to dominate. We do suggest, however, a strategic boycott of most risk assets based on the reality that an investor is not being paid adequately to hold them, as well as the Greenspan assumption that today’s low risk premiums ultimately lead to future periods that end badly. In turn, we currently suggest a substitution of near cash assets and non-dollar currencies for standard index assets." I'll read his letter more carefully over the coming days. Read his letter yourself and let me know what you think.
[2/17/06] Oddly as it may seem, a significant pullback in commodities could cause the Fed to hike above 5.00%. Normally, high commodity prices are a source of inflation, but they also act as a drag, on the economy, much like higher interest rates, which means that lower commodities prices effectively stimulate the economy. So, I suspect that commodities prices could be one of the keys to determining when the Fed ceases hiking short interest rates. Actually, the key here is the trend in real demand by end-users for commodities. Demand for commodities by speculators is not indicative of demand in the real economy. Still, a significant decline in commodities prices could be a significant stimulus over the coming year.
[2/2/06] My interpretation of the FOMC statement is that the Fed expects to have to hike again at the March meeting unless the economy heads south, and that their statement at that time will probably be very close to this statement. In other words, they would really like to see a significant easing of inflationary pressures, which means that core PCE needs to average under the midpoint of the Feds preferred range (1% to 2%) for several months in a row, as opposed to near the upper end of the range as it does now. Although I believe that commodities prices will decline in the not-too-distant future, you'd better believe that the Fed has to be at least a little worried that there is too much potential for persistent past commodities gains to flow through to core prices. Expect the Fed to be extremely vigilant on "inflationary pressures."
[1/14/06] Maybe this will be the market's M.O. until the Fed clearly states that it believes the latest hike was the last hike: Price in 100% odds of a hike at the next meeting and 50+% odds of a hike at the meeting after that. That seems like the safe way to bet, or at least seems what the market has been doing recently.
[1/24/06] The current inversion between short-term Treasuries and the 5-year treasury appears to be mostly due to the fact that the Treasury has been auctioning primarily the shorter-term debt and much less of the 5 and 10-year notes. That means an excess of supply of the shorter-term debt and a relative shortage of the longer-term notes, which pushes the short-term yields up and the longer-term yields down. This is primarily a function of Treasury's auction schedule as well as a conscious decision to shift supply towards the short end. None of this has to do with economic expectations, so the inversion is not indicative of the economic outlook.
[1/25/06] A major unresolved issue with Fed FOMC communications is whether the Fed FOMC will explicitly state in its announcement that its action at a meeting does in fact end its rate-hike campaign. A related issue is whether the Fed FOMC will explicitly state in its announcement that its action at the next meeting will likely be the pause point (i.e., a warning of the pause a meeting before it happens). The closest I can come to clarity on this is to note that since the Fed has now consistently said that its future actions will depend heavily on the economic data, the Fed may in fact give no warning in their announcement whether a given action was the end of the campaign or even whether the next meeting is likely to be the end. If that's the case, the only way people will know that the campaign is over is when an FOMC meeting passes without action, or if the Fed official comments between meetings seem to suggest a Fed feeling that "interest rates are about right", "further action isn't likely to be required", or similarly vague sentiments. Since the Fed has not been clear on these two communications issues, the markets will be quite volatile as market participants jockey for interpretations of the Fed's actual announcement phrasing. I'd also note that no market commentators have made clear their expectations on these two issues either. So much for transparency.
[1/5/06] Commodities prices will eventually moderate as higher interest rates gradually take hold and gain traction, but meanwhile, lofty commodities prices are a reality and a real inflationary effect, so the Fed does need to respond to them. That will assure that the Fed runs their interest rate hike campaign up to at least 5% (in May). Whether the commodities speculation binge peters out by Spring is a matter of debate, but it is the mere existence of that debate that will keep the Fed on a hawkish anti-inflation binge. The Fed shouldn't, and doesn't, target asset speculation, but the existence of such widespread asset speculation is an indicator that there is way too much cash (liquidity) sloshing around in the financial system.
[12/28/05] One important consideration to keep in mind with the treasury yield curve is that the power to predict recessions is driven by the concept of the Fed moving above the neutral range to a clearly restrictive monetary policy. The question is not whether rates are higher, but whether they are well above the neutral range. On January 11, 2000 when the 10-year and 30-year yields inverted, the 10-year was at 6.72%. On February 2, 2000 when the 2-year and 10-year yields inverted, the 10-year was at 6.60% and the 2-year was at 6.63% and the 6-month was at 5.94%. Today, the 6-month yield is at 4.31%, the 2-year is at 4.34%, the 10-year is at 4.34%, and the 30-year is at 4.50%. We have a long way to go to get to where the Fed was at in 2000, and most sane commentators are forecasting that the Fed will pause fairly soon, with the 6-month yield likely to be at least almost a whole percentage point below its level in 2000, possibly even 144 basis points. There is no sane way to look at the real data and conclude that the Fed is currently or likely to shortly pursue the kind of restrictive monetary policy that might be considered a cause of a recession.
[12/28/05] Another consideration to keep in mind is that there are a lot of people who have specific needs for treasuries of various durations, so real demand can drive the yield curve out of all proportion to any fundamental relationship between points on the yield curve. Some people hold treasuries as collateral for specific terms. A lot of baby boomers are getting close enough to retirement that their asset allocations are shifting in favor of holding longer-duration treasuries, which increases demand, pushes up prices, and pushes down the yields. Many bond holdings are "laddered", meaning they are intentionally spread over the yield curve to control risk, regardless of the valuation of any specific points on the yield curve. And, the varieties of needs of foreign central bankers is a vast snake pit of dynamic modalities and rationales.
[12/28/05] The bottom line: If the Fed is really doing its job of keeping inflation in check, we should see a flat yield curve. And it's not unreasonable to see modest fluctuations of up to five or ten basis points anywhere along the curve based on short-term fluctuations in supply or demand. The so-called "inversion" has been no more than what might be expected for volatility of prices that are subject to an open market.
[1/26/05] For the most recent rumors about companies that are laying people off, going out of business, shuffling management, or otherwise restructuring, check out F****dCompany.com.
[2/10/06] VentureOne (a unit of Dow Jones Newswires and the publisher of VentureSource) reports that there was a 19% rise in the amount of venture capital funds raised in 2005 compared to 2004, but there was a 10% decline from the amount raised in Q3, although the amount raised in Q4 of 2005 was 11% higher than the same quarter a year ago. These amounts are "commitments" to the venture funds which "closed" during the quarter. The funds will collect the actual money from their limited partners (LPs) incrementally as they are needed. Please note that this is about venture funds raising money to be invested, not the investments that they will eventually make with that money in the coming quarters and years. The net amount raised in 2005 was $22 billion. The net amount raised in Q4 was $5.6 billion. This was the highest level since 2001. The amount raised in 2005 was 30% higher than 1997, but 17% below 1998, 73% below the peak year of 2000, and 75% below the peak four quarters of Q4 1999 through Q3 2000. This was a somewhat positive, but mixed report. The venture capital sector is incrementally improving, but still not firing on all cylinders. Note that venture capital does not include buyout funds and angel investors.
[1/24/06] The VentureOne/Ernst & Young LLP Quarterly Venture Capital Report for Q4 registered a sharp decline (-9.9% vs. -1.42% last quarter) in the amount of money invested from Q3, but a very sharp rise (+14.0% vs. +16.40% last quarter) from Q4 a year ago in equity investment in U.S.-based companies who have received at least one round of venture funding from a surveyed professional venture capital firm. This was a mixed report. Venture investment for 2005 was +2.2% higher than the previous year. The total dollars invested in 2005 amounted to $22.1 billion, the highest amount since 2001 ($36.2 billion), and higher than 1998 ($17.9 billion). Unfortunately, 2005 was only slightly higher than 2002 ($22.0 billion) and it will probably take at least a couple of years to exceed the 2001 level. Please note that these numbers don't include either "angel" investments or "buyouts". The latter dwarfs venture investment and had its best year ever in 2005. Information technology (IT) continues to get the lion share of investment (51%) compared to distant second healthcare (36%). There was a very sharp decline (-16.7%) in the amount invested in information technology companies since last quarter, and a sharp decline (-10.9%) compared to a year ago. Computer software continues to be the largest sub-sector, with 23.1% of the money invested in Q4 and 42.7% of the IT money invested in Q4, and fell -5.6% from Q3 and fell -11.7% from a year ago. The bottom line is that a healthy amount of money is being invested in new ventures, but it's not what could be called a real "boom". Later stage deals received 49% of the money and first stage deals received only 22% of the money. The ten largest deals were: Health Dialog ($171 million), provider of care management services, including disease management, ORBCOMM ($110 million), provider of wireless telecommunications services, Cornice ($75 million), provider of compact, high-capacity storage for pocket-able consumer electronic devices, Perlegen Sciences ($50 million), developer of novel potential drug targets and markers which predict drug response using a method for rapidly analyzing and comparing entire genomes, Raven Biotechnologies ($48.3 million), developer of monoclonal antibodies (MAb) therapeutics for treating cancer, Portola Pharmaceuticals ($46 million), developer of therapeutics for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease, Small Bone Innovations ($42.2 million), provider of orthopedic products and technologies to treat trauma and diseases in small bones and joints, Nanosys ($41.5 million), developer of nanotechnology-enabled systems based on a platform technology incorporating high performance and highly integrated inorganic semiconductor nanostructures, Barracuda Networks ($40 million), provider of enterprise-class spam and spyware firewall solutions for comprehensive email protection, and SavaJe Technologies ($40 million), developer of Java-based operating system for wireless devices, with an emphasis on mobile phones. Note the dearth of software companies on that list, since the actual amount needed to fund a software business (especially in the first round) is frequently relatively small. The top ten states for amount invested were California at 45.32%, Massachusetts at 14.74%, Texas at 4.05%, New York at 3.36%, Virginia at 3.28%, Maryland at 3.25%, Washington at 2.79%, Colorado at 2.63%, Georgia at 2.24%, and New Jersey at 2.00%. The survey data was obtained from professional venture capital firms that have invested in U.S.-based early-stage, innovative companies and do not include companies receiving funding solely from corporate, individual, and/or government investors. Please note that there are companies receiving investments who are operating in so-called stealth mode, and don't show up in publicly-available statistics, but it is believed that such investments represent a small fraction of the total investments.
[1/13/06] According to Dow Jones Private Equity Analyst, U.S. private-equity firms raised $151.8 billion in 2005, which is an increase of 65% from 2004 and second only to the $177.9 billion raise at the height of the 2000 bubble. The largest increase came from the buyout and corporate-finance funds sector, which raised a record $106.4 billion, 90% more than 2004. That's a lot of money sloshing around, looking for a home. Some of it will be used to take public companies private
[10/11/04] For some background information on venture capital, click here.
Monday was tax day. I mailed my Colorado taxes, so that is now behind me. I'm caught up on my estimated federal taxes, so now I have only my back taxes (federal and New York State) to contend with via installment plans. The bad news is that my rainy-day fund is now virtually empty, coupled with the fact that I have no income scheduled for May. I do have a few job prospects, but nothing close to certainty.
[4/12/06] Unless I find new work within the next week or two, I will have to suspend my investment program and maybe even liquidate my current, very modest investment. Even if I do find work, I may need the proceeds simply to tide me over until my first check. Assuming I get work, my next automatic monthly dollar-cost averaging investment in the S&P 500 Tech Sector Spider (XLK) via ShareBuilder.com will occur on May 9, 2006, the second Tuesday of the month.
The 1-day yield for the Fidelity FPRXX taxable money market fund is up to 3.95% (up from 3.92%) and the FDRXX money market fund for non-taxable retirement accounts is up to 4.45% (up from 4.41%). There is a lag between Fed rate hikes and money market yields since the money market funds hold debt that will continue to have its original yield until that short-term debt matures and the proceeds are rolled into newer and higher-yielding debt. Sometimes you see declines in the yield, but they may simply be due to people putting fresh money in or taking money out of the funds, which may result in selling higher-yielding securities in some cases. With rates rising every FOMC meeting, it can make sense to leave fresh funds as cash until after the next FOMC meeting, but that can lower the short-term yield. Click here for the top Prime Retail Money Market Funds from iMoneyNet, which says that the average 7-day taxable simple yield is 4.17% (up from 4.14% last week), slightly below the average of FPRXX and FDRXX (4.20%). For the month of March my cash earned 3.80% (annualized, up from 3.64% last month) and my Roth IRA cash earned 4.32% (up from 4.13%).
[4/6/06] The ShareBuilder money market fund is called the Bedford RBB Fund (BDMXX) and had a 7-day yield of 3.98%.
[2/7/06] Unfortunately, I won't be able to make any significant contributions to my savings plans for the next two months since I have to resolve my income tax issues. I've negotiated installment payment plans with both the IRS and New York State for my back taxes, so they tie up a hefty chunk of my income. And, I have to come up with cash for my 2005 Colorado state income tax. And, I have to pay a hefty chunk of my back taxes to get below an IRS threshold to avoid having to go through a more lengthy and cumbersome approval process for my installment plan. And, I have to make extra sure that I'm paying all of my Fed and State estimated taxes. And, I'm waiting for the bill from my accountant. And, I don't have any credit cards or lines of credit to fall back on if I lose any income or some other contingencies come up. Other than that, I'm all set. Come April (or maybe May) I should be back on a budget that makes at least a modest savings contribution each month. I'm currently expecting that I can maintain my very modest monthly dollar-cost averaging investment plan with ShareBuilder.com. I'll be making my second investment next week. Unfortunately, my net worth will be negative for at least three or four more years, but at least I'll be solidly on an upwards trend.
[1/3/06] I've decided to restart my automatic monthly dollar-cost averaging investment plan with ShareBuilder.com. I'll continue buying a small slug of the S&P 500 Tech Sector Spider (XLK), but only the very modest amount I had chosen back in July 2004 when I first started the plan. Another change from my original plan is that my investments will be made on the second Tuesday of each month rather than the first Tuesday. My initial reason for this change was simply that it was too late to set up the plan for the first Tuesday of January. The commission is $4 for each monthly investment. I may have to stop the automated plan or maybe increase it, depending how my negotiations with the IRS go on setting up a payment plan for my back taxes. I had considered switching to another ETF, maybe an Internet ETF, but I have enough of a history with XLK to judge it reasonably well. One big, open question is whether Google (GOOG) will be added to the Information Technology sector of the S&P 500 Index. In any case, at least this decision is now out of the way, for now. Incidentally, the 7-day yield for ShareBuilder's money market mutual fund is 3.56%.
[12/27/05] Long before I focus too much of my attention on what stocks (or other assets) to buy, the simple truth is that there are three investment angles that have the potential to reward me far more handsomely than whether I get a return or 2% or 20% or even 200% on stocks over the coming few years: 1) my financial "wealth" is is so small that even the modest amounts of cash that I will contribute each month will dwarf any realistic investment return for quite some time to come, 2) "investing" in my intellectual and business skills (e.g., spending money on courses, seminars, and conferences) could result in opportunities to boost my income far in excess of any realistic investment returns on my meager "wealth" for the foreseeable future, and 3) cutting my expenses and shifting the cost savings into my investment accounts would likely also dwarf my investment returns. So, for now my optimal investment approach may be simply to leave the cash in money market mutual funds, with maybe a modest fraction of it invested in a simple market index fund.
[6/23/05] I continue to have a very, very modest portfolio in two rollover IRA accounts, but not enough to be worth speaking about.
Even after Monday's moderate decline, we remain at square one, with the market poised to either recover and move higher, resume its mini-correction, or trade in a range until more money flows accumulate. Range-trading is the likely scenario. True investors can of course safely ignore all of this.
[4/13/06] It's quite possible that it will take another several days or even a week for the short-term players to be thoroughly flushed from the market so that a new up-leg can be established.
[4/12/06] It wouldn't be unusual for traders and short-term speculators to continue to attempt to artificially push NASDAQ down further after the sharp declines on Friday and Tuesday, and they could succeed, but if they push too hard too fast the market could quickly reach the point of "selling exhaustion" and bounce back up in their faces and then momentum traders might pile on to ride the market higher and cause the shorts to cover and add additional momentum to the upside. In any case, this is all normal volatility and not an indication of the longer-term market trend. We could also see a nice recovery bounce based on short-covering by people who misguidedly thought that the declines signaled the end of the current bull market.
[4/8/06] Now that we've seen a sharp down day after the recent run-up, people will be puzzling over whether the run-up is completely over or simply pausing for a breather before resuming the advance.
[4/6/06] We could see some modest profit-taking after the recent run-up, but the market basically seems to be in reasonable shape. Be prepared for volatility though.
[3/31/06] Two open questions: When will NASDAQ hit 2,400 and when will it hit the 2,500 psychological level? Answers: Unknown.
[3/30/06] The recent NASDAQ rally seems to suggest that we can almost safely conclude that the market is not going to fall off a cliff any time soon and that selling by the November-to-February market-timing crowd is not mortally crippling the market. I won't call an "all clear" yet, but at least those two big worries now appear to be almost safely behind us. What is more clear is that the trading range of the past three months is now over. Still, I'd like to see a week of decent progress before calling a definitive "all clear". If we see the sunny side of the NASDAQ 2,400 level within the next two weeks, I'll be happy.
[3/30/06] My forecast is that the market will continue to drift up over the coming months and year, albeit with a fair amount of volatility.
[4/7/06] The fact that there was a net inflow into non-ETF domestic equity mutual funds for a third consecutive week after an outflow after nine weeks of inflows after five weeks of outflows after an inflow after two weeks of outflows after an inflow after thirteen consecutive weeks of outflows and the fact that we've seen inflows for 37 of the past 61 weeks, suggests that the market will continue to be quite volatile, but likely to maintain a gradual drift upwards.
[1/3/06] Click here for our Stock Market Outlook for 2006.
[4/12/06] NASDAQ is now in a mini-correction. This is unlikely to be a full correction since we didn't see the kind of trading pattern that would indicate a true "market top". This was more of a technical correction since the market was heavily overbought on a short-term technical basis. Worst case, this could be a return to trading within a range.
[3/30/06] Now that NASDAQ has finally set both new intra-day and closing highs after January 13th (the 3-month milestone for the rally since October 13th), we can finally declare that NASDAQ is in a new bull market off the October 13, 2005 low.
[3/30/06] Technically, NASDAQ is in a rally, within a bull market (since October 13, 2005), within a longer cyclical bull market (since October 10, 2002), within a secular bear market (since March 10, 2000), within the long-term secular bull market.
NASDAQ is in a flat, trading range over a one-month timeframe and moderately bearish over a 10-day period.
The major advance of NASDAQ off the October 10, 2002 low of 1,108.49 is 6 days off its closing high of 2,361.17 on Thursday, April 6, 2006, and 5 days off its intra-day peak of 2,375.45 on Friday, April 7, 2006.
The sharp gain of 29.16 points on Wednesday, May 4, 2005 confirmed the new up-leg of the October 2002 advance for NASDAQ that began with the intra-day low of 1,889.83 on Friday, April 29, 2005. This up-leg is now 237 days old, 6 days off its closing high of 2,361.17 on Thursday, April 6, 2006, and 5 days off its intra-day peak of 2,375.45 on Friday, April 7, 2006.
The sharp gain of +35.24 (+1.71%) points on Wednesday, October 20, 2005 confirmed the new up-leg of the October 2002 advance for NASDAQ that began with the intra-day low of 2,025.58 on Thursday, October 13, 2005. This up-leg is now 122 days old, 6 days off its closing high of 2,361.17 on Thursday, April 6, 2006, and 5 days off its intra-day peak of 2,375.45 on Friday, April 7, 2006.
The sharp gain of +28.75 (+1.26%) points on Friday, January 6, 2006 confirmed the new up-leg of the October 2002 advance for NASDAQ that began with the intra-day low of 2,189.91 on Tuesday, January 3, 2006. This up-leg is now 67 days old, 6 days off its closing high of 2,361.17 on Thursday, April 6, 2006, and 5 days off its intra-day peak of 2,375.45 on Friday, April 7, 2006.
The sharp gain of +33.32 points (+1.45%) on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 confirms the new up-leg of the October 2002 advance that began with the intra-day low of 2,132.68 on Monday, February 13, 2006. This up-leg is now 44 days old, 6 days off its closing high of 2,361.17 on Thursday, April 6, 2006, and 5 days off its intra-day peak of 2,375.45 on Friday, April 7, 2006.
Now that NASDAQ has established itself in a mini-correction, we once again begin looking for a confirmation of the next up-leg of the advance. The potential new leg that began with the intra-day low of 2,302.19 on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 was invalidated by the new intra-day low of 2,299.42 on Monday. The new potential new leg began with the intra-day low of 2,299.42 on Monday, April 17, 2006. We need to see a confirmation rally of at least 1% on volume higher than the preceding session and at least two days and no more than ten days after the intra-day low.
[4/7/06] NASDAQ closed at 2,361.17 on Thursday, April 6, 2006, at its highest closing level since it closed at 2,425.38 on February 16, 2001. The next older closing high was 2,552.91 on February 15, 2001.
[4/8/06] The NASDAQ intra-day peak of 2,375.45 on Friday, April 7, 2006 was its highest intra-day peak since the peak of 2,442.99 on February 20, 2001. The next older peaks were 2,457.65 on February 16, 2001, and 2,593.09 on February 15, 2001.
NASDAQ is now bullish on all timescales except the 6-year and 7-year charts (and 1, 2, 5 and 10-day and 3-month charts).
[4/18/06] Short-term (1-day): Moderately bearish.
[4/18/06] Short-term (2-day): Flat, trading range.
[4/12/06] Short-term (5-day): Moderately bearish.
[4/18/06] Short-term (10-day): Moderately bearish.
[4/12/06] Short-term (1-month): Modestly bullish.
[4/12/06] Short-term (2-months): Modestly bullish.
[4/14/06] Medium-term (3-months): Flat, trading range.
[3/18/06] Medium-term (6-months): Moderately bullish.
[3/16/06] Year-to-Date: Moderately bullish. [NASDAQ closed 2005 at 2,205.32]
[11/18/05] Medium-term (9-months): Moderately bullish.
[1/6/06] Longer-term (1-year): Moderately bullish.
[2/8/06] Longer-term (2-years): Moderately bullish.
[10/22/05] Longer-term (3-years): Moderately strongly bullish.
[3/31/06] Longer-term (4-years): Moderately bullish.
[4/18/06] Longer-term (5-years): Modestly bullish.
[3/2/06] Longer-term (6-years): Strongly bearish. This was the grand finale of the "boom" in 2000.
[3/2/06] Longer-term (7-years): Very modestly bearish. This was the start of the big run-up for the "boom" in 1999.
[10/15/04] Longer-term (8-years): Modestly bullish.
[10/15/04] Longer-term (9-years): Modestly bullish.
[10/15/04] Longer-term (10-years): Modestly bullish.
[1/1/05] The NASDAQ "bubble" (above the 3,000 level, including intra-day "flirtations") lasted from November 2, 1999 through December 13, 2000, a year and six weeks.
[11/28/05] The post-boom bear market that started in 2000 was signaled by the Dow Industrials closing at a high of 11,722.98 on January 14,2000 after hitting an intra-day peak of 11,908,50, by NASDAQ closing at a high of 5,048.62 on March 10, 2000 after hitting an intra-day peak of 5,132.52, and by the S&P 500 closing at a high of 1,527.46 on March 24, 2000 after hitting an intra-day peak of 1,552.87.
[11/28/05] The end of the post-boom bear market that started in 2000 was signaled by the Dow Industrials closing at a low of 7,286.27 on October 9, 2002, with an intra-day low of 7,181.47 on October 10, 2002, by the NASDAQ Composite closing at a low of 1,114.11 on October 9, 2002, with an intra-day low of 1,108.49 on October 10, 2002, and by the S&P 500 closing at a low of 776.76 on October 9, 2002, with an intra-day low of 768.63 on October 10, 2002. Some people claim that the market bottomed in March of 2003, but that is not the case. The intermediate lows in March 2003 attempted to test the market and instead proved that the bear market was over with the Dow Industrials closing at a low of 7,524.06 on March 11, 2003 and an intra-day low of 7,397.31 on March 12, 2003, with the NASDAQ Composite closing at a low of 1,271.47 on March 11, 2003 and an intra-day low of 1,253.22 on March 12, 2003, and with the S&P 500 closing at a low of 800.73 on March 11, 2003 and an intra-day low of 788.90 on March 12, 2003.
[4/1/06] Some people are projecting GDP growth of 4.0% for Q1, but some people are also expecting a slowing of growth for the remainder of the year. My current expectation is 3% over the year, but possible dipping as low as 2.5% and rising up as much as 4.5% in any given quarter of the year.
[3/15/06] Although the retail sales report for February was weak, this was probably more of a seasonal effect due to heavy gift card redemptions in January, so the economy is probably in better shape than people think.
[3/9/06] Oddly, there hasn't been any significant news recently that has significantly changed the economic outlook. The economy appears to be cruising along on autopilot, but that's what it is supposed to do.
[3/1/06] Although the latest housing data was weak, retail sales continue to chug along. Everybody knows that housing will moderate to some extent, so there's no (negative) surprise here, yet.
[2/15/06] Although retail sales were strong in January, that may have been due to redemption of gift cards, so we'll have to wait for a couple of more weeks of weekly chain store sales reports to judge the near-term strength of consumer spending. Still, the economy seems to be reasonably healthy and with the prospect of more of the same.
[2/14/06] State and local governments are experiencing a "revenue boom". This is further evidence that the economy is strengthening.
[2/11/06] The not-quite fully inverted Treasury yield curve does not forecast a high probability of the onset of a recession or significant economic weakness. Mostly the inversion reflects a high interest in longer-term fixed debt for reasons like retirement planning that have nothing to do with the short-term economic outlook.
[2/9/06] It is rumored that ex-Fed Greenspan is telling people that the economy is stronger than they think.
[2/8/06] Despite chatter to the contrary, there are no significant signs that the economy might be dramatically weakening in the next few quarters.
[2/4/06] The latest Factory Orders report and Employment report suggest that the economy has some real underlying strength even if there are pockets of apparent weakness.
[1/25/06] Consumer spending is holding up nicely, despite higher energy prices.
[1/19/06] All indications are that the economy is humming along nicely, but probably modestly below "potential" due to ongoing corporate restructuring issues. There is neither any recession nor any runaway inflation detectable either shortly in front of us or at or over the horizon at this point.
[1/18/06] The latest Industrial Production report suggests that the economy remains reasonably strong.
[1/13/06] The challenge for estimating the economic outlook is not so much the overall level of activity, but drilling down to sectors themselves, including business investment, consumer spending, energy production and pricing, transportation activity and costs, supply and demand for commercial real estate, major corporate layoffs, formation of new businesses, hiring by small businesses, etc. I'm not even sure we have any reliable information for much of that at all. It is so much easier to simply say that 2006 GDP growth will be in the 2.75% to 4.25% range (midpoint of 3.50%).
[1/10/06] Financier George Soros has forecast a recession in 2007. That's possible, but too far in the future to try to be accurate about. He (along with a chorus of others) claim vociferously that the Fed has "got to overshoot because they can't stop until the economy shows signs of a slowdown. By the time it shows those signs, it may be a little too late". I and some Fed officials would beg to disagree. I predict that the Fed will pause within a few months (May, actually, and at 5.00%, as opposed to the 4.75% in March that Soros predicts), and that the economy will give all appearances of still being quite strong at that point. The Fed wants to remove the last vestiges of "accommodation", but has no interest in causing a recession. So, why are Soros, et al, so wrong about this? For reasons unknown, they are acting as if the Fed rate hike campaign had started at neutral and was heading up into restrictive territory. If that were the case, the Fed would definitely be looking for a slowdown, since that would be the purpose of the hikes. But, instead, the goal of the Fed's current campaign is to end in the neutral range, which by definition means that monetary policy is neither accommodative nr restrictive, and if it isn't restrictive, then by definition it won't be slowing down the economy. In short, no recession in 2006, and the economy will continue to zigzag along through 2006 at a reasonable clip. As far as a recession in 2007, I think that would require some significant "unhinging" of economic factors that just doesn't appear in the cards. Sure, a housing slowdown might do it, but there is just as likely to be some positive forces developing as well (e.g., positive results from ongoing corporate restructuring and employment gains). And remember that regardless of Fed policy, there is an incredible amount of cash (liquidity) sloshing around looking for all manner of opportunities, so innovation and other aspects of the economy's growth engine won't be restricted at all, maybe not for the next several years.
[1/5/06] I'll withhold further judgment on the strength of the economy until I run across some data that relates to what's going on this month as opposed to last month or the month before. I may have to settle for anecdotal reports such as companies announcing major deals or out of the ordinary hiring plans.
[12/30/05] Hilton Hotels (HLT) says it plans to open 175 to 200 hotels in North America in 2006 and another 15 to 20 hotels internationally. That's impressive and suggests a bit more optimism about the economy in 2006 than I've been encountering lately.
[12/29/05] Despite chatter about a slowdown in the housing sector, I still feel that there are enough "good cylinders firing" in the rest of the economy to get reasonably decent growth in 2006.
[12/23/05] The final Q3 GDP report and the November personal income and expenditures report suggest that there is some real underlying resilience in the economy, despite lofty energy prices, the big hurricanes, and rising short interest rates.
[12/21/05] The latest housing construction report showed the economy humming along nicely, but that's not necessarily a reliable prediction of future economic activity.
[12/16/05] The latest industrial production report showed the economy humming along nicely, but that's not necessarily a reliable prediction of future economic activity.
[12/14/05] The latest monthly retail sales report was mixed and lackluster, but still consistent with a reasonably healthy zigzag economy that continues to plug along on a gradual upwards path.
[12/1/05] Based on the latest economic data and preliminary initial holiday shopping reports, the economy appears to be growing at a moderately strong pace, not truly strong or a real boom, but reasonably decent nonetheless. I expect this pace will continue for the foreseeable future (one to two years), albeit with occasional zigs and zags.
[12/2/05] One of the disturbing readings in the October personal income and expenses report is that savings has been in negative territory for five consecutive months. I'm willing to blame that on elevated oil and gasoline prices, but we need to see savings pop back up into positive territory before we can really say that the economy is truly healthy. The good news is that the savings deficit has shrunk each month since July and shrank from $70.9 billion in September to $61.5 billion in October.
[10/22/05] The recent decline in oil and gasoline prices should help to provide some additional boost to the economy. There is lots of talk about higher heating and electricity bills this winter, but it remains unclear how that drag will really play out.
[10/3/05] Some supposedly competent economists are now actually chattering about the prospects for a recession. Sorry guys, but the odds of a recession over the next year are close enough to zero to suggest that it's not a topic worthy of discussion. These recession-mongers crawl out of the woodwork every time there is even a slight bit of stress on the economy and they are almost always wrong. This time is no different. What these guys do know with certainty is that if they even bring up the "R" word, they get lots of press attention, and that's all they're really after anyway
[9/19/05] The latest economic data continues to support the thesis that the U.S. economy remains in the early stages of a protracted recovery. Some people are talking as if the economy is nearing the end of a business cycle, when we are really only in the early stages of a protracted business cycle. It will be another THREE years before the economy is fully back on track. Unemployment will decline only gradually. Creation of new businesses which will be the titans of tomorrow has yet to even commence, let alone take off. The bankruptcy rate will decline off recent highs (after a temporary blip for the October 17 deadline before the law changes go into effect), but remain at a fairly high level for another two years. There are still quite a number of businesses (and entire sectors) that will need to be restructured over the next two to three years as well. The sad thing is that a number of them don't yet know it or are afraid to admit it. Cost cutting and head count reductions will be ongoing mantras for the next two to three years. That said, there will be plenty of corporations that see increasing profits over the next few years as consolidation boosts their efficiency.
[4/2/05] For the record, we simply are not going to see consistently large payroll employment rises (200K/month or 2.4 million per year) until the vast bulk of "old economy" companies have finally worked their way through the restructuring process, which could be another two or maybe even three years. We still have quite a number of companies "hanging in there", resisting further (and inevitable) restructuring as they wait for the economy to turn up more strongly. This includes the old major airlines, the car companies, retailers, a fair number of technology companies, etc.
[2/18/05] Clearly higher interest rates will have some negative impact on the economy, but the extent of the impact is not so certain. First, the Fed is not trying to constrain demand, but simply getting rid of excessively cheap money that has the potential for causing speculative excesses. In other words, raising interest rates to roughly "neutral" won't cause normal economic demand to decline significantly, but could, for example, help to curb speculation on commodities and foreign exchange. Second, the Fed essentially sets only some short-term interest rates, but the market and the law of supply and demand set longer-term rates. The key factor right now is that there remains a credit glut; corporations remain more interested in trimming their debt load rather than expanding it.
[8/23/04] Clearly the elevated price of crude oil has to have some negative impact on the economy, but the big question is how much impact. Overall, the economy is less sensitive to the price of oil and “oil shocks” than in past decades, but some sectors (such as airlines and chemical companies) are significantly more sensitive, whereas most sectors are only modestly sensitive. The current price escalation in fact has not been caused by any supply shortage or any excess demand by end users, but is merely due to a dramatic level of speculation in crude futures. The bad news is that we don’t know how much longer that speculative ‘bubble’ will continue to grow. The good news is that oil at these prices is not as attractive an ‘investment’, so the speculation will be increasingly susceptible to profit-taking and renewed interest in short-selling. Besides, if oil really were expected to rise dramatically from here, we’d see it in the price of futures in coming years, and we don’t. In fact, futures ‘predict’ that the price of crude will decline in coming years. In any case, elevated oil prices will be a moderate drag on the economy, but not so much as to spur accelerating inflation or to trigger a recession. Maybe it will trim a quarter to half-point off GDP, but that’s about it. Besides, people and businesses will adjust their lives and operations to further reduce their dependence on expensive oil. And finally, high-efficiency hybrid-electric vehicles are beginning to debut and anxiety over the price of gasoline will simply accelerate the development and introduction of such innovative products, which will dramatically moderate the demand for oil a few years from now.
[5/21/05] I heard that Greenspan says oil prices may be taking 0.75% off of GDP, but prices have risen significantly since last August.
[7/6/04] Some people are protesting that company profits could suffer as companies run out of costs that they can cut. That’s complete nonsense. First, companies will never run out of costs to cut. But more importantly, one of the factors that has been holding back growth of business revenues (and profits) over the past three years is the fact that companies have been dramatically cutting costs and the cutting of a cost for one company is the cutting of the revenue of one or more other companies. That cost-cutting binge was exerting a distinct headwind on businesses, but that headwind will in fact fall off as the cost-cutting moderates. And as revenues begin to grow more strongly, companies will begin to reverse the process and both spend more and hire more workers. Continued technological advances will spur further cost-cutting, but on a more moderate basis.
[12/29/03] The two key factors driving the pace of the recovery will continue to be the ongoing process of shutting down or restructuring ‘problem’ businesses and the pace of the formation of new businesses which will create new jobs.
[3/12/05] A continuing big wildcard in 2005 will be the possibility of a new wave of corporate cost-cutting as companies burn through the easy part of revenue growth and are forced to revert to cost-cutting to keep up earnings growth. The problem is that one company’s cost is another company’s revenue or an employee’s income, so more cost-cutting can boost earnings in the near-term but risk putting intense downwards pressure on business spending and employment. This cost-cutting process will moderate once companies begin to build up a deep enough backlog of unfilled orders so that they can keep revenue growth at a consistently strong pace to keep earnings growth up. The economy will survive this process, but the zigging and zagging of the pace of the recovery will continue.
[9/1/03] Our Tech Stock ‘Safe’ Signal is still stuck at 0.00 (no safety) since none of the big tech companies are even hinting that they are seeing any significant improvement in demand. There does seem to be some sense of stabilization and a modest hint of improvement, but no clear and decisive indication of a dependable ramp up in revenues and earnings.
[1/13/06] Obviously, Apple (AAPL) has been doing quite well, but they don't seem to represent the rest of the tech sector.
[2/9/06] Google (GOOG) is another atypical tech stock.
[5/25/02] DISCLAIMER: I cannot and do not offer any recommendations of stocks to buy or sell. I may on occasion discuss companies that I am considering or myself have bought or sold, but the reader must do their own research before making their own purchase or sale decision. It is never a good idea to buy a stock just because someone else tells you to or even merely mentions a company in a favorable light.
-- Jack Krupansky -- The Unrepentant Optimist (Click here for Jack's Bio)
Updated: April 18, 2006 01:51:45 AM -0400
Copyright © 2006 John W. Krupansky d/b/a Base Technology