Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Still long? Chinese Inets pulling back here. SINA down $1 from your long.
"self destruction????"
C'mon, get hold of yourself. You're reading way too much media hype to think CA will self destruct.
By the way, Northern CA is one of the best places to live on the face of the earth in my humble opinion. But it isn't inexpensive.
So is Don Sew posting anywhere else in the mean time?
You may be allright on PSFT as ORCL just announced (I think this morning) that they are determined to acquire PSFT and didn't rule out raising their price. I'm just thinking ORCL earnings will be less than stellar and they don't need to raise their price until OCT / NOV when the gov't is expected to rule on the acquisition. That combined with these nosebleed levels makes me think I can maybe get it back in the 16s or 17s again.
While I'm at it let's take this post
You definitely were on Zeev. It's nice to see a pullback from all this exuberance.
Funny how about 55 NAS points higher 2 days ago, all you heard were things like:
"Long and Strong"
"Follow the trend and the trend is up"
"What is, is"
"NAS 2000 looks like it could happen this week"
"Looks like there are no sellers in this market"
Well, I guess it goes to show it's a tough market to call either way and some sellers finally did show up.
I'm going to wait until after ORCL earnings to play it again.
Zeev, sold my PSFT long a couple days ago in the 19s. I'm nervous about ORCL earnings Friday. While they have underperformed the NAS in the last 3 months, I don't think the applications business is as strong as analysts would like to believe.
Anyone have a chart or site of historical P/Es? Including Q2, 2003 would be great.
I'm having a tough time finding one. I don't care if it's SP500, NAS, or DOW and I don't care if it's trailing or forward looking, and I guess I don't care if it's CORE, GAAP, or ProForma as long as it's an "apples to apples" comparison which may eliminate ProForma.
Thanks in advance for any assistance in this quest.
nvls getting whacked down to 39.80 AH - and another $70M charge. Also, bringing top line down to range of $215 - $220M from $220M.
Someoone has to get all over all these accounting games sooner or later.
I'm hoping so too. I still have a bunch long.
It's tough to tell. ORCL really put PSFT in the spotlight and brought them lot's of free marketing by trying to buy them. If ORCL backs off, Larry Ellison clearly lost this battle and made a big mistake trying to go after them so in a way his back is against the wall and a way to save face (and win) is to up his bid to a point PSFT can't say no.
Another alternative is PSFT crashes and burns on their own and all of a sudden Ellison's bid looks good.
A major market selloff would add to that possibility as well.
PSFT just announced they are again offering their 200-500% refund program to not just PSFT customers but JDEC customers this quarter and will continue this program next quarter if necessary.
This just adds to the price ORCL will have to pay for PSFT / JDEC and puts pressure on ORCL to up their bid and get this deal done already or just drop it altogether.
Hey, somebody just took a few thousand shares of my PSFT at 17.40 as well...
August 24, 2003 E-mail story Print
THE TIMES POLL
Bustamante Has Big Lead on Schwarzenegger
But nearly half say their choice for a successor to Davis, if he is ousted, may change. Predicting who will turn out for the election is difficult.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Times Staff Writer
Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante holds a wide lead over Arnold Schwarzenegger in the race to succeed Gov. Gray Davis, according to a new Los Angeles Times poll, which finds the Republican vote splintered among several GOP contenders.
As the sole major Democrat running to replace Davis — should the incumbent be ousted Oct. 7 — Bustamante enjoys the support of 35% of likely voters, the poll found.
Schwarzenegger received the support of 22%, followed by three fellow Republicans: state Sen. Tom McClintock of Thousand Oaks with 12%, businessman Peter V. Ueberroth with 7% and Bill Simon Jr. — the GOP's 2002 gubernatorial nominee — with 6%.
Simon abruptly quit the race Saturday, after the poll was completed. He said that "there are too many Republicans" running and expressed concern that his candidacy would undercut GOP efforts to oust Davis and replace the Democrat with one of their own.
Simon's earlier failure to beat Davis apparently took a toll on his repeat run; nearly one in five likely voters said they would be less likely to support Simon because of last year's loss.
Three other gubernatorial contenders who have won prominent mention lag far behind the major-party hopefuls, according to the poll. Arianna Huffington, who is running a nonpartisan campaign, received the support of just 3% of likely voters, and the Green Party's Peter Camejo drew 1%, tying him with Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt.
Under the idiosyncratic rules that govern the recall vote, all 135 candidates from assorted parties or no party are listed on the same ballot. The candidate who gets the most votes will become governor — if Davis is kicked out, which will be the first issue on the ballot.
The poll, completed Thursday night, found that 50% of likely voters favored recalling Davis and 45% were opposed, with 5% undecided.
But the contest remains unsettled, and polling is a particular challenge in this environment, given the special nature of the election and the way the campaign has been collapsed into a relatively brief, two-month time frame. California has never before witnessed a gubernatorial recall election. Voter turnout will be critical to the outcome, yet it is difficult to predict who will cast ballots. The figures in the Times poll assume a disproportionately high Republican turnout.
The poll suggested a great deal of fluidity: Although views on the recall effort itself were quite fixed, 46% of likely voters said they could change their minds about whom to support between now and Oct. 7.
Democrats were more certain of their candidate choices, with six in 10 saying they had definitely made up their minds, compared with 46% of the likely Republican voters.
Despite the smorgasbord of gubernatorial hopefuls, likely voters do not appear terribly enamored of their options. Of the leading contenders to replace Davis, only Bustamante and Ueberroth are seen in a largely positive light, though just half of likely voters indicated that they knew enough about Ueberroth to make a decision. Others were even less known or, in the case of Flynt, Huffington and Simon, seen in mostly negative terms.
Schwarzenegger has a mixed image among likely voters, with 46% saying they have a favorable impression of him and 44% an unfavorable one.
Much of his campaign strategy is based on his cross-over appeal to non-Republican voters, given his comparatively moderate positions on issues such as gun control, abortion and gay rights. But less than two weeks into his first run for elected office, Schwarzenegger has already become a politically polarizing figure.
Roughly seven in 10 likely Democratic voters have an unfavorable impression of the action-movie star, while the same number of likely Republican voters expressed a favorable view.
The actor won the support of 39% of likely Republican voters, 20% of independents and 7% of Democrats polled. McClintock received 21% of the Republican respondents' backing, Simon got 12% and Ueberroth 10%.
Overall, 50% of likely voters see Schwarzenegger as a political moderate. Twenty-seven percent view him as a conservative and 11% as a liberal; the remainder were not certain or declined to say.
The Times Poll, directed by Susan Pinkus, interviewed 1,351 registered voters between Aug. 16 and Aug. 21. Among them were 801 voters deemed likely to cast ballots in the recall election. The margin of sampling error for likely voters is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The survey suggested that, for all the novelty of the campaign and the unconventional backgrounds of many of those running, no candidate has yet captured the imagination of California voters.
Bustamante, serving his second term as lieutenant governor, is vying to become the first Latino elected California's governor in modern times. He is pursuing a dual strategy, urging a "no" vote on the recall question but asking voters to support him in the event that Davis is thrown out of office.
Asked if Bustamante's candidacy made them more likely to go to the polls Oct. 7, an overwhelmingly majority of likely voters — including Democrats — said it did not. Even his fellow Latinos were not dramatically more inspired: 75% said Bustamante's running made them no more likely to take part in the recall vote.
Overall, the lieutenant governor was chosen by 65% of the Democratic respondents, one in five independent voters and 8% of Republicans.
Fifty-one percent of likely Latino voters surveyed backed Bustamante, 13% chose McClintock and 12% favored Schwarzenegger.
Among union members, a crucial part of the Democratic Party base, Bustamante was receiving 39% support, with Schwarzenegger at 18% and McClintock at 15%.
For all the star power the actor brings to the race, Schwarzenegger — like Bustamante — has not made voters notably more inclined to take part in the election. About seven in 10 likely voters surveyed said the movie star's run made no difference in their intentions to vote, a finding that was constant across party lines, regardless of political philosophy.
The poll suggested that Schwarzenegger, who launched the first paid advertising of the recall campaign Wednesday, still has a selling job to do with many voters who doubt his credibility as a potential governor.
While a little more than half — 56% — of likely voters said they believed that the first-time candidate knew "some" or "a lot" about the issues facing California, more than a third — 36% — said he didn't know much at all about such issues.
One such skeptic was Linda Lackey, a 55-year-old insurance agent in Downey.
"He may care about certain things, he may care about children and stuff, but he really has no background in this type of thing," she said in a follow-up interview. "And he's very quiet about what he actually thinks and what he plans on doing. He doesn't put his ideas out well."
Lackey, a Republican, said she was leaning toward the more conservative McClintock. "He's in government already and seems knowledgeable," she said.
Schwarzenegger has made his political-newcomer status a central part of his campaign, vowing to "clean house" in Sacramento if elected.
But that promise is met with widespread skepticism: Nearly six in 10 likely voters predicted "politics as usual" if Schwarzenegger became governor, while just about a third said they expected that he could rein in the power of "special interest groups."
Former Gov. Pete Wilson is a key advisor to Schwarzenegger, having urged him into the recall election and serving as his campaign co-chairman. Many of Wilson's former aides are involved in the actor's effort, including Wilson's ex-chief of staff, advertising consultant and press secretary.
Two weeks ago, Wilson created a stir by revealing Schwarzenegger's support for Proposition 187, the anti-illegal-immigration initiative pushed by Wilson and passed by voters in 1994. Analysts were split over the potential effect. Some suggested the disclosure would help Schwarzenegger by shoring up his Republican support; others said it would hurt him among Latino voters.
Both assessments appear correct.
Overall, just about half of likely voters said a candidate's position on Proposition 187 would make no difference in how they voted. But 34% of Republicans said it would make them more likely to support a candidate.
Forty-two percent of Latinos said it would make them less likely. Of that 42%, the overwhelmingly majority opposed efforts to kick Davis out of office.
Jill Darling Richardson, associate director of the Times Poll, and Claudia Vaughn, the poll's data management supervisor, contributed to this report.
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.
Click here for article licensing and reprint options
AJ, I'm not sure how much you trade on your own TA but are you heavily long right here and if not do you plan on getting heavy long tomorrow at least for this 7-10 day potential upswing due to the high P/C ratio you have mentioned earlier?
Thanks.
"What about the Mona Lisa? and Renoirs and while we are at it Van Goch? I think we ought to get those price down to realisrtic levels as well."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Too bad they can't reissue more Mona Lisas and Renoirs, huh? Maybe do a secondary offering on them? Back to your point of supply and demand Limmy, there's an unlimited supply of stock and when it gets short (no pun intended) they just issue more.
You may want to work on your analogies, even a perma-bull can do better than this.
P/Es specifically are way too high. And the validity in respect to the current market is a good point. In fact I believe I see the opposite. I think P/Es are more manipulated today than ever before and they're still too high. We need to get the S&P back to a realistic P/E of around 15 and that's not Proforma or even GAAP P/E with tons of buried charges and all the other accounting games that go on today far more than they did 100 years ago.
And for now the Grand Nassacre has not materialized but I wouldn't count it out.
Limtex, I strongly disagree with your quote "historical valuations are meaningless."
And the point that there are more stockholders in the world today than ten years ago is true but I don't understand it's meaning. The number of stockholders in the markets have increased ever since the markets were created and we've had ups and downs.
It would be interesting to see a chart that compares the increase in stockholders to the increase in market cap over the last ten years.
Anyway I think historical valuations are very important and today valuations are far too high.
Marc talks about doing "apples to apples" comparisons on historical P/Es and he doesn't do them in his article?????
That would be a much better article if he actually did an "apples to apples" comparison with all the input variables he mentions and comes up with some comparison numbers.
"Historic valuations are meaningless since there are so many more people in the market today and more every day as the Chinese, Russians and Indians start buying on top of all the new buyers from the US."
----------------------------------------------------------------
I would have to strongly disagree with this statement.
The Intel news today was good news for Intel and potentially for some other companies in their space. However, I believe the market must start looking at evaluations, specifically todays P/Es vs. historical averages. Even Intel is pricey here at a 50 P/E despite the 5% increase in guidance.
We've had a 60% run off the October lows with no real pullback. Any big piece of bad news could easily get the ball rolling to at least get us back to historically average P/Es. I think the recent weakness in the S&P may be a sign of evaluations coming back into the forefront. This could come as a shock to folks in the face of this good news.
Duper, less than a week ago you were a perma-bear so it's tough to take guys like you seriously when you change your mind like the weather. Anyway, on your esteemed Philly Fed number, here's some historical data:
May-87 19.8
Jun-87 13.1
Jul-87 15.4
Aug-87 30.2
Sep-87 26.3
Oct-87 27.2
Nov-87 11.8
Dec-87 29.7
Jan-88 3.6
Feb-88 18.4
Mar-88 12.7
Apr-88 26.6
May-88 17.8
Jun-88 17.5
Jul-88 23.6
Aug-88 15.3
Remember, we crashed in October, 1987 when the Philly Fed had very consistent positive readings, in fact 26.3 the month before the crash which is higher than our current reading of 22.
And here's some more recent Philly Fed data:
May-02 7.3
Jun-02 20.4
Jul-02 5.9
Aug-02 -0.3
Sep-02 0.4
Oct-02 -7.5
Nov-02 6.5
Dec-02 11.3
Jan-03 11.2
Feb-03 2.3
Mar-03 -8
Apr-03 -8.8
May-03 -4.8
Jun-03 4
Jul-03 8.3
Aug-03 22.1
So frankly I see no real correlation between the Philly Fed and the market. I would be happy for somebody else to show me a correlation that makes sense.
I believe the only jobless report worth looking at from the gov't is the nonfarm payrolls (August figures released September 5th):
Industry Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey Data)
Total nonfarm payroll employment in July was 129.9 million (-44,000 over
the month). The number of jobs has declined by 486,000 since January.
This is the true employment picture and has only gotten worse each month.
The employment report is actually two separate reports which are the results of two separate surveys. The household survey (which gives you the 6.4% number) is a survey of roughly 60,000 households. This survey produces the unemployment rate. The establishment survey is a survey of 375,000 businesses. This survey produces the nonfarm payrolls, average workweek, and average hourly earnings figures, to name a few. Both surveys cover the payroll period which includes the 12th of each month.
OT - California Recall Cont'd...
mlsoft, I believe you are possibly regurgitating your latest read of The New Republic when you state with no facts that "Davis has been a disaster for the State." {g}
But seriously, if I remember correctly, you live in Tennessee which I believe has no Personal Income Tax which may cause you to be somewhat removed from the biggest reason for the CA budget deficit (which by the way pales in comparison to what Georgie Boy is doing to the Federal Budget Deficit). I believe there are roughly 10 states or so in this fine nation with no income tax and Tennessee is one of them along with VT and NH, TX, Alaska, South Dakota, WA, Nevada, FL, and maybe Colorado - I once knew these and could be wrong on the list but they come to mind.
Unfortunately, CA has a big income tax and that means they receive STOCK OPTION REVENUE and CAPITAL GAINS REVENUE. In fact in Fiscal 2000 - 2001, California received around $70B in total revenue and around 25% of that $70B, or $17.5B came from STOCK OPTIONS and CAPITAL GAINS. In fiscal 01 - 02, that total went from 25% down to around 11%, 02-03, expected to be further reduced down to around 7%.
Many states that receive revenue from STOCK OPTIONS and CAPITAL GAINS are facing big budget deficits because they didn't count on the bubble bursting like it did. Probably most to blame is the federal CBO (Congressional Budget Office) whose analysts failed to anticipate that these sources would dry up as fast as they have, and almost without exception everyone involved is scrambling to make up the difference. A completely different conversation involves how each state (including CA) should put money away from the "go-go" years of the 90's "in case" something like this happens but I've never met a politician that knows how to "save for a rainy day."
Now this problem is exacerbated tremendously in a state like CA due to Silicon Valley companies which have made it customary to grant their employees (citizens of California) large parts of compensation in the form of STOCK OPTIONS.
So how much is Davis to blame for this shortfall in revenue? About as much as Greenspan and Bush in my opinion so if you think we should recall Davis, than we should probably recall Bush as well.
Now you can bring up the energy crisis and some other petty little things but none warrant this lynch mob attemp to oust Davis.
Because I believe this is another very dirty Republican effort to steal the Governorship of California, I will definitely be voting NO ON THE RECALL AND YES ON BUSTAMANTE (who is not as qualified as Davis but the next best thing).
The more Arnold opens his mouth, the more he will sink the Republican party and I don't think the Buffet circus will save him but I could easily be surprised here.
Nice wine and I bet it's drinking well now. Have a bunch of the 97 onwards and just letting them rest...
I like their monthly wine program as well.
OT
mlsoft, sorry I have to stand firm here on my thoughts on the recall. The 1911 law should be repealed but there were "much bigger fish to fry" and until that sleazeball Issa decided to invest millions of his own money to dredge up this loophole in order to try and steal an election, the recall law was not quite "top of mind."
While I am not a huge fan of Davis, his term should run its course and then have a normal election.
You're right about the facts, let's talk about a few:
Under the state's recall procedures, it takes signatures amounting to just 12 percent of the votes cast in the last election for a governor to force a recall — in this case 897,158.
CA has 15 million registered voters.
Now tell me how hard it is to get less than 900,000 votes in a state of 15 million registered voters and why you would need ANY democrats to join the recall effort when you have some guy spending millions of dollars to get the votes.
Now that this sleazeball (and his team) have "gotten the ball rolling" there will be a recall on the ballot for every governor (democrat or republican) until this law is repealed.
While I know many "God Fearing Republicans" would love to see this happen as a continuance of the Florida and Texas shenanigans, I for one hope these tactics don't need to be resorted to on either side.
I thought OVTI was richly priced but the earnings don't look bad. Slight beats on EPS and REV and slight up in guidance.
Is it just a sell the news or am I missing something else?
While this would hurt me Public Heel, it may be the right thing to do but I would even go further saying seniors and maybe people with low incomes are grandfathered.
Thanks for checking my math Zack - you are correct. I thought I read $30,000 in taxes and assumed he had a home worth around $5M but assessed around $2.5M.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just found this on another web site:
From an article in Wall Street Journal Friday Aug 15 on Warren Buffet being Arnold's financial advisor:
"Mr. Buffett...took on California's famous Proposition 13, which has limited property taxes there since 1978."
"[Warren Buffet's]home in Omhaha, he said, is valued at roughly $500,000. His current yearly property tax bill on that home: $14,401. In California, he owns a Laguna Beach home valued at $4,000,000, or eight times as much. The annual property taxes on that home are just $2,264--a fraction of what he pays in Omaha."
I believe property taxes in Laguna Beach are about 1% so this means that he probably paid about $100 - $150K for his home some 30 years ago or so and 2% a year on the assessed value at $226,400 on the tax rolls. Wow, there's a deal for you!!!
Nice trades today Yayaa!
Newly, right now if we eliminated Prop. 13 your and my property tax bill would rise by at least 50% giving the state at least 50% more revenue from just our 2 houses so how do you not see the significant difference in revenue?
I think Buffet is saying property taxes should work both ways - as prices go up, increase the taxes bases on the actual value and as prices go down, decrease the taxes based on the actual value (which we already have today based on your example from 89).
Well, at least you know we're going to 10K and then down this time. Hope that keeps you on the winning side. You could be very right however I see risk so covered one of my longs today but haven't added to shorts yet.
I'm not joking Plexxus. This is a bearish thread in general and my perception is that it has become much more bullish during this recent rally. That would line up with the %bulls / bears data so I'm not sure why it is so hard to believe?
OT, sounds about right - around 1.25%.
Newly, here's where the discrepancy exists:
"Since taxes are based on the sales prices here..."
My taxes are based on the sales price of 8 years ago, not comparable sales today. As a very clear example, let's say I paid $1 Million for my house in 1995. I can sell it for $2 Million today but I'm only paying property taxes on a value of $1.2M because Prop 13 limits the increase in property taxes no matter how much the true value of the property is.
Hope this clarifies things a bit.
OT - Yayaa, I would say it's way too early to say this recall looks like it will be successful but there's nothing wrong with wishful thinking.
Duper, here's a post of yours to Metsin2 4 days ago:
"I think this bull market is pure bull$hit. After AG finally gets it to 10K on the Dow, party hats on, and just like that it will be over."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Did you guys just watch Freaky Friday together or something and decide to switch personalities?
OT Yayaa,
In U.S. history, only one gubernatorial recall has succeeded, in North Dakota in 1921. Since California's adoption of the recall in 1911, none of 31 attempts to remove a governor has made it to the ballot.
The Davis recall has been engineered by conservative San Diego County Congressman and car alarm millionaire Darrell Issa, also a candidate to replace Davis. Issa has been twice arrested (though not convicted) for car theft.
I agree the HP products are good and they were being produced anyway. My point is if they had a good quarter they would have maybe waited a week to have the new product pitch although back to school shopping is here so there wasn't much room in the timing.