Hussman & Hester vs Wall Street Finest.......

Once more brilliant "Anti Spin" & almost a rant from the usually polite Hussman.....Spot on with my take Of Course It Is Still A Good Time To Buy, Buy, Buy..... when it comes to Wall Street Finest.....

There maybe are legitimate reasons to buy stocks, but a favourable opinion from "Wall Street Finest" should definitely not play any role among your screening process .... Except you use them as a "contrary indicator".... ;-)

Einmal mehr deutliche Worte vom ansonsten doch recht zurückhaltenden Hussman....Eine erstklassige Ergänzung zu meinem früheren Posting Of Course It Is Still A Good Time To Buy, Buy, Buy.....

Grundsätzlich mag es ja durchaus gute Gründe die für Aktien sprechen geben, man sollte aber sicherstellen das die Einschätzungen der "Experten" beim Auswahlprozess keinerlei Rolle spielen....Es sei denn man nutzt sie als Kontraindikator.... ;-)

H/T Randy Glasbergen Collection

Misallocating resources John Hussman

On a valuation basis, the S&P 500 remains about 40% above historical norms on the basis of normalized earnings. The disparity between our valuation assessment and the putative undervaluation being touted by Wall Street analysts is so great that a few remarks are in order. First, virtually every assessment that "stocks are cheap" here is based on the ratio of the S&P 500 to year-ahead operating earnings estimates, and often comes with a comparison of the resulting "earnings yield" with the depressed 10-year Treasury yield. What's fascinating about this is that this is the same basis on which analysts deemed stocks to be about 40% undervalued just prior to the 2007 top, following which the market plunged by more than half.

To properly understand the price-to-forward operating earnings ratio, you have to recognize that operating earnings exclude a whole host of charges - what some observers correctly call "recurring non-recurring" charges. These include large and often quite regular losses that the companies deem, often on the thinnest basis, to be detached from their core business - even if the losses are directly related to their core business.

More on this topic in "Reported Earnings vs Operating Earnings"

Mehr zum Thema in "Reported Earnings vs Operating Earnings"

When you hear analysts say that the historical average P/E ratio is about 15, you have to recognize that this is the normal P/E based on trailing 12-month earnings after subtracting all writeoffs and other charges. Forward operating earnings are invariably much higher, and it turns out that the comparable historical norm, as I discuss in that 2007 piece, is only about 12. If you exclude the late 1990's bubble valuations, you get a historical norm closer to 11.5. The 1982 and 1974 market lows occurred at about 6 times estimated forward operating earnings

A final observation is crucial. Current forward operating earnings estimates assume profit margins for the S&P 500 companies that are nearly 50% above their long-term historical norms. While we did observe such profit margins for a brief shining moment in 2007, profit margins are extraordinarily cyclical. Investors will walk themselves over a cliff if they price stocks as if profit margins, going forward, will be dramatically and sustainably higher than U.S. companies achieved in all of market history.

They also ignore the large percentage of reported earnings that are actually quietly distributed to corporate insiders through the issuance of stock and options.

They blindly accept that "share repurchases" are somehow a pleasant distribution of earnings, whereas the majority of share repurchases are actually made by companies to do nothing more than offset the dilution from stock shares and options granted to insiders.

A good question to ask in the years ahead, immediately after profits are reported, is "how much of this figure is actually delivered to shareholders?" If you've been attentive over the past decade, the answer turns out to be much closer to the dividend yield than to the operating earnings yield that companies have reported.

For a moment, at least, it is good to be a corporate insider, particularly at major financial companies.

First, you get to report productivity gains and "operating profits" - not by making smart investments in productive assets, but instead by writing up debt thanks to Treasury intervention, by misstating your balance sheet thanks to FASB changes last year, and at industrial firms, by cutting the number of workers per unit of capital.

Next, you quietly write off large losses on bad investments and unrecoverable loans as "extraordinary expenses," to which investors pay no notice.

And to add insult to injury, you deliver a significant portion of the remaining profits to yourself as "incentive compensation," followed by buybacks of stock to offset the dilution, which investors actually cheer because they don't realize they've been taken for suckers.

Wall Street Earnings Expectations Ignore Economic Divergences Bill Hester / Hussman Funds

The graph below attempts to contrast the erosion in the global PMI indexes against the rising optimism of stock analysts.

Six series of data are plotted: the changes in earnings expected for the companies in the S&P 500 and the Euro Stoxx Index, and four PMI indexes for the US, the Euro area, Germany, and China. Each of the series is indexed to 100 in April, the month where most of the PMI data peaked.

Now take a look at the Chart showing the period between 2007 and 2008 using the same indices.... I highly recommend to read the entire links.... There is much more.....

Hier zum Vergleich der identische Chart für die Zeit von 2007 bis 2008...... Empfehle die kompletten Links zu lesen... Wie üblich findet man dort noch deutlich mehr "Anti Spin"......

UPDATE:

RARE INTERVIEW WITH JOHN HUSSMAN: WHY HE IS BEARISH RIGHT NOW PragCap

Stocks Expected To See 12% Increase In Revenues In Q2, 41% Increase In EPS, And A Summary Outlook From Rosenberg ZH

As for all of 2010, the consensus is at $82 operating EPS, and for a new record to be reached in 2011, at $96 — breaking the record of $88 three years ago. Good luck in seeing a further 30% increase in profits with nominal GDP rising at a 3.0-4.0% annual rate at best in the next six quarters and at a time when margins are already back to cycle peaks.

For the full John Hussman archive visit the blogroll.....

Für eine komplette Auflistung der gesammelten Werke von Joghn Hussman bitte Blogroll beachten.....

Where Is The Volume......?

Some very interesting charts & observations from William Hester. As i´ve written earlier i´m very sceptical ( quite an understatement ) regarding the health of the recent market rally..... I´ve added the latest from Rosenberg via Zero Hedge & another Chart via WSJ

Einige sehr aufschlußreiche Charts & Bemerkungen von William Hester. Wie bereits früher geschrieben bin ich extrem skeptisch ( leichte Untertreibung ) was die Verfassung der Märkte angeht. Ich habe zusätzlich noch was vom Rosenberg ( via Zero Hedge ) sowie dem WSJ hinzugefügt.

A Bear Market Lurks as Dow Nears 10000 WSJ

Rosie On Who The Market Buyers Are From this morning's Breakfast With Dave:

Is it the private client? Not really — stock funds actually had net outflows of $1.33 billion last week, while bond funds enjoyed an $8.2 billion net inflow.

Is it corporate insiders? Well, heck no — Robert Toll (CEO of Toll Brothers) just disclosed that he sold a total 1.6 million shares of his company’s stock yesterday.

UPDATE via Hulbert: They are selling a whole lot more of their companies' stock than they are buying. The net difference is even larger than it was two months ago, when I noted that insiders were already selling at a greater pace than at any time since the top of the bull market in the fall of 2007

For the week ended last Friday, according to Vickers, insiders sold 6.31 shares for every one than they bought. The comparable ratio two months ago was 4.16-to-1, and at the March lows the ratio was 0.34-to-1.

Is it buybacks? Not at all — in fact, S&P 500 companies bought back a mere $24.4 billion on stock repurchases in 2Q, down 72% from a year ago and the lowest in recorded history, according to Howard Silverblatt of Standard & Poor’s. ( great Chart via Floyd Norris )

So who’s doing the buying? Very likely it is still a combination of program trading, short coverings and portfolio managers desperately trying to make up for last year’s epic losses.

Without Phoenix Stocks, Volume Continues to Contract Wiliam Hester / Hussman

The most notable characteristic of a durable stock-market advance, which failed to appear in the recent advance, is a strong expansion of trading volume. When you adjust the trading volume data for a handful of mostly lower-quality financial stocks, the picture gets worse.

I noted in Trading Volume Separates Bull Markets from Bear Rallies that bull markets have typically begun on strong volume after selling had become exhausted. As Richard Russell has said - “volume should always be studied as a trend relative to what has preceded it”. The chart below updates one of the graphs for the elapsed time from that earlier piece. The vertical axis measures the six-month percent change in the S&P 500 from the bottom of each bear market going back to the early 1940's. The horizontal axis shows the percent change in volume over that same period.


Familiar durable bear-market bottoms stand out, like in 1982 and 1974. These rallies had strong returns that coincided with large bursts of trading volume during the first six months of the rally. There are a couple of examples, like 1998 and 2003, where bull markets had a good start on mediocre expansions in volume. But for the most part, in the cases where volume contracted the bull market beginnings have been uninspiring. More common is a strong increase in volume that coincides with gains of 20 to 25 percent during the first six months.

It's clear that this year's rally is an extreme outlier in the dataset, with above-average returns and a continued contraction in volume from the levels of trading in March.

Even so, some analysts have become optimistic because volume trends first leveled off, and then have risen marginally over the last few weeks.

But almost the entire rise in volume during the last month and half has come from a handful of stocks. Examples include Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Citigroup, AIG, and Bank of America

These are just five. There are a couple of other stocks that are interchangeable with these companies and would produce similar results – but the characteristic they all share is that they are financial stocks that only recently were on the brink of collapse. And since the Government's rescue of these and other financial firms, the group has risen up from the ashes. For ease of reference, we'll call these Phoenix stocks.



The rise in trading volumes in some of these stocks has been considerable. The shares of AIG now often trade with 15 times the volume they traded a year ago. Citigroup has traded at 12 times the amount from a year ago. This helps explain why the trades in these companies' shares are taking up a larger fraction of total share volume. The graph below shows the trading volume in the Phoenix stocks as a percent of total NYSE share volume since 2003. You can see that the trend of rising volumes in relation to total volume began during 2008, when volumes rose as the market capitalizations of these companies shares fell. Off of this year's March low, Phoenix volumes as a percent of total volume rose above 5 percent for the first time and then fell off slightly in June and July.

During the last six weeks, the trading in these stocks as a percent of total volume has jumped to almost of fifth of share trading.

Commentators and analysts have offered up a few explanations for the heavy trading in these shares – short covering, the focus of day traders, and institutional trend following programs. Each of those explanations is probably doing their part. Outside of highlighting the casino-like atmosphere that has gripped parts of the stock market, the amount of trading in these shares is less important than the role this trading is playing in the overall volume figures.

The graph below shows two measures of trading volume. The blue line is the daily share volume traded on the NYSE (smoothed). The red line is total volume less the volume traded in our group of Phoenix stocks. As the graph shows, during the last couple of years, the two lines have hardly parted. That's because the Phoenix trading volume was a small fraction of total volume. The recent divergence between the two highlights that volume outside of a handful of these financial stocks continues to contract.

On a Phoenix-volume adjusted basis, NYSE share trading is at the lowest level in years. Healthy bull markets, even if not during the earliest days of a rally, will typically recruit growing amounts of investor interest and expanding levels of volume as prices rise

Expanding volume continues to be an important characteristic missing from this rally.

Update:

I think balance sheets and sustainability - govt, central bank AND private sector, MATTER Bob, ‘The Bear’, Janjuah via FT Alphaville

If they no longer matter, I will be WRONG, and I will have to accept that the policy of ‘Print/Borrow/Spend on Rubbish we don’t Need’ is a limitless phenomena, without consequences, which means there should never be a bear market ever again….

I hope this sounds as ridiculous to you reading as it did to me when writing…..

This quote was just too good to be burried in the comment section...... ;-)

Dieses Zitat war einfach zu gut um es lediglich in den Comments zu posten.. ;-)

Consumer Spending Break-Down / Hester

Nice quote via William Hester from his piece Consumer Spending Break-Down .

Nettes Zitat via William Hester aus Consumer Spending Break-Down

Following a Bull's game in the 90's where Michael Jordan scored 69 points and the newly acquired Stacey King contributed one point, the rookie quipped, “I'll always remember this as the night Michael Jordan and I combined to score 70 points.” Whether you're handicapping basketball games or the economy, it's always best to figure out how the major producer will perform.

It´s still amazing that some are still in denial.....

Schon erschreceknd das bei den meisten "Experten" der Groschen noch immer nicht gefallen ist.....

A quick look at economist's expectations for the economy this year shows that much is riding on the forecast of a mild slowdown. The level of GDP should be essentially unchanged the first two quarters of this year, and then expand at almost 2 percent in the second half, according to a Bloomberg poll. Underlying those estimates is the forecast for spending to grow at an average rate of one half percent in each of the first two quarters, and at about 2 percent in the second half

But they are probably betting on the never ending story of creative accounting from the government level ( Pre-Revision CPI: 9%, Disappearing Economic Indicators, Unemployment Soars, Jobs Collapse etc ) to mask the real damage. At least the officials haven´t gotten so far as the pentagon ( Behind Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand )..... :-)

Wahrscheinlich werden hier schon die "kreativen" Berechnungsmethoden von Staatsseite eingepreist ( Pre-Revision CPI: 9%,Disappearing Economic Indicators, Unemployment Soars, Jobs Collapse usw ) die nur ein Ziel haben die Wirklichkeit in einem besseren Licht erscheinen zu lassen. Das mag kurzfristig sogar funktionieren, mittel bis längerfristig wird hier aber enormer Schaden angerichtet. Immerhin sind Sie noch nicht soweit wie das Pentagon gegangen (Bush kaufte TV-Militärexperten ).... Obwohl ich ir da auch nicht immer ganz sicher bin .... :-)