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.
They market will likely run like hell on that news or the rumor thst he's been captured.
yeah, like saddam. but not until october. everyone would forget about it before the election.
Bush got $140 M in campaign funds.
yeah, but kerry's got a boatload of siri ...
Japan's monetary alchemy may not yield gold
By Richard Duncan
The most aggressive experiment in monetary policy ever conducted is now under way. Japan is printing yen in order to buy dollars in such extraordinary amounts that global interest rates are being held at much lower levels than would have prevailed otherwise. In essence, the Bank of Japan is carrying out the unorthodox monetary policy that the US Federal Reserve intimated it was considering in mid-2003. In other words, the BoJ is creating money and buying US Treasury bonds, which is helping to drive down US interest rates and underwrite US economic growth - and, by extension, global growth.
It is inconceivable that economic policymakers in Tokyo and Washington do not understand the impact that this unprecedented act of money creation is having on global interest rates and economic output. The amounts involved are staggering. Since the beginning of 2003, monetary authorities in Japan have created Y27,000bn with which they have acquired approximately $250bn - that amount is equivalent to more than 4 per cent of Japan's gross domestic product. It also represents $2,000 for every person in Japan. In fact, it would amount to $40 per person if divided among the entire population of the world. Most importantly, it is also enough to finance almost half of America's $520bn budget deficit this year.
The amount of new yen that Japan "printed" and converted into dollars during January 2004 alone was enough to finance 13 per cent of the US budget deficit. The investment of those dollars into dollar-denominated debt instruments clearly explains why the yield on the 10-year US Treasury bond fell last month in spite of the 10 per cent upward revision in the Bush administration's budget deficit projections.
By accident or by design, Japan is carrying out the most audacious endeavour to conjure wealth out of nothing since John Law sold shares in the Mississippi Company in 1720. So far, the results have been impressive. Japan's monetary alchemy has been the most important factor in allowing the US government to finance a $700bn deterioration in its budget over the past three years without pushing up US interest rates to levels that would pop the wealth-creating property bubble there.
US tax cuts have fuelled domestic consumption. In turn, growing US consumption has shifted Asia's export- oriented economies into overdrive. China has played an important part in this process. With a trade surplus vis-à-vis the US of $125bn, equivalent to 9 per cent of its 2003 GDP, China has become a regional economic growth engine in its own right. China has used its large trade surpluses with the US to pay for its trade deficits with most of its Asian neighbours, including Japan. This recycling of China's US dollar export earnings explains the incredibly rapid "reflation" now under way across Asia. Even Japan's moribund economy has begun to show signs of export-oriented growth.
These developments highlight a fundamental question that has been debated over centuries: can governments create money and make the population richer without setting in motion a chain of events that ultimately ends in monetary chaos? We may be about to find out as Japan tests the hypothesis on an unprecedented and global scale. If this experiment in unorthodox monetary policy succeeds, then we have arrived at a new international monetary paradigm. Governments will have discovered how to finance limitless deficits through the creation of paper money, and we all can look forward to an age of great prosperity. If it fails - as have all past attempts to create wealth from thin air - then the world may not be able to avoid a severe and protracted economic slump as the extraordinary imbalances in the global economy (caused by the explosion of fiat money in recent years) begin to unwind.
In mid-2003, economists at the US Federal Reserve published a paper explaining why the Fed was not "out of bullets" despite having cut short-term interest rates to 1 per cent. That paper stated that "the Fed could even implement what is essentially the classic textbook policy of dropping freshly printed money from a helicopter," if necessary, to stimulate the economy.
Today, that helicopter is in the air. But, strangely, it is not the Stars and Stripes that is painted on its side, but rather the Rising Sun. That much is clear. What still is not quite discernible, however, is who is actually in the pilot's seat
wsj online
Global Reserves, and Jitters, Build
Liquidity Pool Amassed
By Asian Central Banks
Sparks Inflation Worries
PARIS -- U.S. and European government officials have spent a lot of time complaining about Asian central banks' intervention in foreign-exchange markets to keep their currencies from rising against the dollar.
Their griping inevitably focuses on the impact to Western companies that supposedly struggle to stay competitive as a result. But that perceived impact pales in comparison to another potential problem from the mass intervention: the accumulation of huge foreign-exchange reserves.
Some warn those reserves are at such a high level that they threaten to accelerate the sharp economic rises and falls that central banks themselves are charged with preventing. "The rise in reserves that we are seeing right now suggests that the world is on the verge of boom-and-bust cycles that could exceed anything we have seen before," says Steve Barrow, the chief currency strategist at Bear Stearns in London.
Got your attention yet?
Well, try this. In aggregate, global foreign-exchange reserves first reached $1 trillion (€788.2 billion) in 1991. By October 2000, that had risen to $2 trillion. Just three years later, in November 2003, it stood at $3 trillion. Of that, $1.94 trillion was held by the 11 biggest Asian central banks, including those in Japan, China, Taiwan and South Korea, an increase of $514 billion, or 36%, from a year earlier.
Here is how the theory works, with some shortcuts for simplicity's sake. To give themselves firepower in foreign-exchange markets, central banks create local money with which to buy dollars. That can be "tantamount to money-printing and could lead to inflation," says Stephen Jen, chief currency economist at Morgan Stanley. Last year, for instance, Japan bought roughly $188 billion intervening, and in January 2004 alone, a record $67.7 billion.
Then, once they have bought the dollars, they need to figure out what to do with them.
Now, a checking account at Citibank is always an option. Still, they mostly seek to reinvest the money. Often they go for government securities. But the amounts they have at their disposal now are so vast that wherever they invest them risks creating directly or indirectly a bubble -- in other words, an unsustainable boom that is out of kilter with the real economics underlying particular markets.
"Too much liquidity has already been created," Mr. Barrow says. "It has to find a home. And with global growth still sluggish, it will find a home in financial assets."
Their favored investment has been in U.S. Treasurys. That has helped keep a lid on U.S. interest rates but carries some risks of its own. "The concentration of risk might not be prudent," Mr. Jen says. Similarly, it probably isn't desirable for the U.S. that "a small number of countries control its Treasury market."
Others say that flushing so much money into the system has helped sustain bubbles in Asian stocks, commodities, Japanese government bonds and selected property markets.
When Asian and other central banks sell their own currencies and buy dollars, they usually try to temper the inflationary impact by selling domestic bonds to mop up the excess liquidity, a process professionals call sterilization. Still, Mr. Barrow says the banks aren't always that successful.
There is a precedent for such a big accumulation: the late 1960s and early 1970s. The U.S. Federal Reserve's pumping liquidity into the U.S. financial system and the cost of the Vietnam War caused an acceleration in U.S. inflation.
Meanwhile, European central banks and Japan -- forced, under the now-defunct Bretton-Woods system, to purchase dollars at a fixed exchange rate -- amassed huge foreign-currency reserves. Buying dollars at inflated prices, they effectively imported inflation from the U.S. "The end result was accelerating global inflation -- especially for commodities -- soaring interest rates, and a weak stock market," says Nicholas P. Sargen, chief investment officer of Fort Washington Investment Advisors in Cincinnati.
How likely is that to happen again? Mr. Sargen contends that today is different: Inflation is at four-decade lows. Asian countries are buying dollars to keep their industries competitive, not because they must. What is more, the impact of the increase in reserves varies. "In Japan, currency intervention has the effect of boosting the domestic money supply, which helps counter deflation," Mr. Sargen says. In China, by contrast, it has helped feed "a rapid growth of money and credit."
And the dollar's precipitous drop against the euro and other European currencies could be reversed gradually. If so, the "logical outcome," he says, would be for the Asians to stop intervening -- which would reduce their reserve buildup -- while the European Central Bank cuts interest rates. "That said, I'm not holding my breath waiting for either to happen," Mr. Sargen says. "In short, the buildup is likely to continue until something goes wrong."
Write to Michael R. Sesit at michael.sesit@wsj.com
is that really a harami? shouldn't it appear at the end of a downtrend, rather than at the top of a big white candle?
> 2100
ah, you're looking at nazdog: well trinq was low today. although high yesterday.
Theres simply very few sellers.
hunh? the trin was > 1 all day, except briefly between 1-2pm
whoa, that's a nice close on the HUI ...
whoa dan! mng on fire today. what gives?
as you're fond of saying: supply and demand. see trimtabs re record fund inflows. (liquidity report) although they're also forcasting a slight crunch about now because of massive insider sales and new offerings sopping up all up.
lawrence lindsey opinion on the tech rally in wsj (!).
personally, i find this pretty distasteful (especially the msft antitrust views, which i'd say aren't really very closely related to the bubble at all ...)
-------------
COMMENTARY
How to Sink the Tech Comeback
By LAWRENCE B. LINDSEY
Now that the Nasdaq has closed consistently back above 2000 it appears that much of the healing process from the collapse of the 1990s technology bubble is finally behind us. Sound macroeconomic policy prevented the resulting wealth destruction from producing a downward economic spiral like that of the '30s.
Going forward we must adhere to sound microeconomic policy as well if America is to retain its global leadership in technology. After the initial speculative frenzy and its collapse, the successful financing of new industries over the longer term requires a more stable environment. Clearly, competitive pressures are intense both within the existing market and from even newer technologies. But an equally important risk comes from public policy that is subject to a variety of political pressures to control the emerging market environment.
As a result, bad public-policy choices, especially in antitrust, can easily destabilize the new financial arrangements in the market. Today, there are four key factors that policy makers must take into consideration if we wish to preserve the newly found stability of our capital markets.
• First, public policy should respect the underlying franchise value of the recently created firms and industries. Although the Nasdaq bubble would have burst in any event, the actual timing of its collapse coincided with two public policy events that cast doubt on these franchise values. First, the antitrust division of the Justice Department announced its Microsoft suit and suggested remedies that many felt threatened its business model. Although some of Microsoft's competitors would supposedly have benefited from the suit, they soon found that their stock values plummeted as well as the viability of the industry was questioned.
Several weeks later, President Clinton joined Prime Minister Blair in declaring the human genome to be the common heritage of mankind. The biotech sector soon saw its equity values collapse too. If the human genome belongs to all of mankind, what is the value of patents on products developed from human-genome research?
Today, regulators must show more forbearance regarding policies that would harm the market value of the technology industry. As the economy continues to strengthen, more mergers will take place as the natural process of creative destruction continues. We have seen consolidation occur in a number of technology fields, including computer hardware and media players, and there is more consolidation planned in fields like business application software. The prospect of buyouts, in fact, is part of the market value of all technology firms. But if this route for business development is closed, the market value of technology firms will drop.
Of course, regulators must vigorously enforce laws that prohibit anticompetitive conduct. But whether emerging market structures will allow anticompetitive conduct in the future based on established rules of market concentration is a purely hypothetical exercise. It is far more important to focus on the reality of performance than the theoretical possibilities of what might happen based on structure.
• Second, market pricing is underpinned by the development of effective shareholder control. The regulatory environment should defer to shareholder decisions as much as possible regarding corporate control. The shareholders of an industry that has just seen its market value decimated are primarily focused on preserving what value is left and finding a way to rebuild. Both sustained economic growth and the long-term competitiveness of our high-tech industries requires that these shareholders succeed.
In the beginning, high-tech companies are owned chiefly by founders and a few key sponsors. As the market value rises, the shares are distributed more widely to a public that buys the shares because they like the concept the firm presents or the momentum of its stock price. These shareholders often back the founders in establishing poison pills that limit the possibility of a buyout because they believe they are betting on a winner and don't want to be part of some other organization.
After the market collapses and these shareholders liquidate, professional financial managers take over seeking value in stocks that have been knocked down too far. These value-oriented investors have no particular attachment to the original business model or its founders and are simply seeking to make a profit by acquiring undervalued assets and restructuring them in a way that will allow their resale to higher bidders. This process is key to rationalizing an industry and making it viable in the long term. Public-policy actions that inhibit this process -- by blocking mergers and takeovers on allegedly competitive grounds or by overly protecting the poison pill arrangements of the initial founders -- can do substantial damage to the long-term viability of the high-tech marketplace.
• Third, public-policy must recognize that the competitive threats to the high-tech industry are numerous and by themselves sharply limit the scope for anticompetitive conduct. This is particularly true in our highly globalized market. A famous historical example from the late 1960s and early '70s was the antitrust position that General Motors could not exceed a 60% market share of U.S. auto production. This position was quickly made ridiculous by the invasion of Japanese cars. Similarly, the once dominant positions of IBM and Xerox quickly eroded. The reality is that the extreme amount of competition in the global market is the best check to anticompetitive business practices.
• Finally, mergers can also be a way to increase competition. If two medium-size firms merge, they may end up better positioned to challenge the largest firm in the market. Leveraging new economies of scale is a way for smaller firms to reclaim market share lost to the largest firms.
* * *
It is somewhat ironic that, after all the high-tech equity market has been through, one of the greater threats to its overall valuation is not technological or even competitive, it is public policy. The months ahead will determine whether the recent rise in the Nasdaq reflects a new level of maturity for these emerging industries, or whether it will disappear because public-policy makers are unwilling to allow time for these industries to fully recover from the excesses of the '90s.
Mr. Lindsey served as assistant to the president for economic policy under President George W. Bush and is currently president and CEO of the Lindsey Group, a global economic consulting firm.
Updated February 9, 2004
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107629060037024118,00.html?mod=opinion
I wonder, has the British medical system developed any new and exciting drugs lately?
why should they have to? they can import at low prices.
TJ, I think you must be young, because you remind me of my rages against the unfairness of life when I was young. Show me today's idealists, and I will show you tomorrow's cynics.
*blush*
As to what R&D is undertaken, that is determined by nature and the market (i.e. where can they make the biggest bucks), just like for every other business. Follow the money!
ya see, i have no problem with this attitude at all. i just find this inconsistent with advocating gov policies designed to protect higher prices in the u.s.
Oddly enough, it reminds me in some ways of the big pharmas, and the recent flap over prices they charge for their drugs. Yes, the price has to have a profit incentive, but it must also reflect the cost of development. Cut off their ability to recoup development costs in the price and, at least in the case of the pharmaceutical companies, one is cutting one's own throat by destroying the company's incentive for and ability to develop new and better solutions for the physical ills of mankind. Oh, didn't Ayn Rand already say something like that?
whoa. a subject close to my heart (since i now just discovered my new hobby, replying to wsj opinion pieces, and this was one of 'em).
i'd think there's no real question of whether pharmas can or should recoup the costs of r&d. the questions are: should american seniors be solely or largely responsible for funding these activities? (after all, if you're arguing that "making drugs more affordable for seniors" will mean that these co's can't recoup their costs, then you're pretty much saying that this is the case, right?) and should the gov be in the position of restricting free trade to support these higher prices (reimportation) and restraining their customers (medicare negotations) to protect the profits of these companies?
the libertarian side of my brain says that this is just bad policy; worse even than providing direct gov subsidies for r&d.
grrr ... i guess this is politics, so i'll stop. this whole thing wouldn't irk me so much if i didn't see so many so-called conservatives making flimsy arguments against reimportation, while the big pharma co's spend endless ad dollars on commercials for antidepressants. (persuading patients to ask their doctors about obtaining antidepressants!? what a world.)
although ....
Cut off their ability to recoup development costs in the price and, at least in the case of the pharmaceutical companies, one is cutting one's own throat by destroying the company's incentive for and ability to develop new and better solutions for the physical ills of mankind.
... you're either a good capitalist here or you're not. if r&d is motivated by profit, that's one thing. but if gov is going to act to insure that r&d is funded through higher prices on today's meds, then why don't we (or we through the gov) get to set the research agenda that they pursue? how do we know we won't just be getting an endless array of incremental upgrades to viagra and cialis ... ?
6:07pm 02/07/04 SNOW: G-7 MEMBERS MORE UPBEAT ABOUT GLOBAL GROWTH
does this mean "more upbeat than last year"? or "more upbeat than snow himself"?
from bloomberg:
U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow's effort to focus talks mainly on ``anemic'' global growth was resisted by ministers Francis Mer of France and Germany's Hans Eichel, who said the weakening dollar hurts the 12-nation euro zone's economy and exports. They also say that the euro has done more than its fair share of the global currency adjustment.
speaking of gold, here is onishka's elliot wave take on where gold is going. (summary: perhaps test 440 again or make a minor new high, but a serious correction to under 330 is in order.)
german:
http://www.wallstreet-online.de/ws/news/news/main.php?action=viewnews&newsid=974767&a...
poor google translation:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wallstreet-online.de%2Fws%2Fnews%2Fnews%2Fm....
disclaimer: its elliot wave stuff, so ... for entertainment purposes only.
just kidding. as ewavers go, onishka has had good predictive value over the last year.
his nazdog forecast is also interesting, but the google translation must be way off ...
Nasdaq: Beginn der Saure-Gurken-Zeit
Nasdaq: Beginning of the sour cucumber time...
eh?
Nasdaq:
http://www.wallstreet-online.de/ws/news/news/main.php?action=viewnews&newsid=975851&m=3.7.10....
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wallstreet-online.de%2Fws%2Fnews%2Fnews%2Fm....
Dow:
http://www.wallstreet-online.de/ws/news/news/main.php?action=viewnews&newsid=975775&m=3.7.10...
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wallstreet-online.de%2Fws%2Fnews%2Fnews%2Fm...
i've been thinking the same about g-7 and gold, if only because it was last year's g-7 meeting that started a long slide for the dollar and a continuous rise for gold over the year. but also, thinking that alot of the negatives could have been priced in, i took a smallish position in gold this week - ~10% of my portfolio, which for me has been small (was like 60% in november, down to 0% in jan).
the actual g-7 announcement seems pretty tame:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aOZTrbilFILA&refer=top_world_news
but elsewhere, someone has pointed out that next week we humphrey-hawkins, which could be more of a market/currency mover than g-7.
anyway, time for me to wait and see. competitive devalution of currencies isn't much fun if the ecb won't play the game.
------------------------------------------------------------
G-7 Condemns `Excess Volatility' in Currencies (Update3)
Feb. 7 (Bloomberg) -- The Group of Seven industrial nations said exchange rates should be flexible and avoid ``excess volatility,' giving European ministers language they sought to help ease the euro's surge against the dollar. The G-7 outlined no specific steps to reach the goal.
``Excess volatility and disorderly movements in exchange rates are undesirable for economic growth,' the G-7 finance ministers and central bankers said in a statement at the end of their two-day meeting in Boca Raton, Florida. ``In this context we emphasize that more flexibility in exchange rates is desirable for major countries or economic areas that lack such flexibility.'
U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow's effort to focus talks mainly on ``anemic' global growth was resisted by ministers Francis Mer of France and Germany's Hans Eichel, who said the weakening dollar hurts the 12-nation euro zone's economy and exports. They also say that the euro has done more than its fair share of the global currency adjustment.
``We got exactly what we wanted,' Italian Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti said in an interview, echoing similar comments by his French and German counterparts. ``We're very satisfied.'
The euro has risen 12 percent against the dollar since the G- 7 last met Sept. 20 in Dubai, while the yen is up just 8 percent because Japan sells yen to weaken its currency.
The European Central Bank also expressed satisfaction with the statement, saying that it ``reflects consensus.' The bank's President Jean-Claude Trichet said he backed ``a solid euro' and that the ECB's monetary policy was ``appropriate.'
re seasonal adjustment: as i understand it, the seasonal adjustments are meant to smooth out the variations in employment, to normalize them month-to-month. i think what you're doing is picking out some extremal values here which otherwise would have been "smoothed-out" by the adjustments. for example, the nov 2000 numbers come in the middle of winter when over 2mm jobs were added (and then disappeared in the fall). if you're using the actual numbers, its probably more correct to compare annual vs annual to omit seasonal variation. (although i guess you can also get some interesting info from the fact that winter 2000 added 2mm jobs and winter 2003 added more like 100k.
the scox saga, endgame approaching (maybe?).
scox drops trade secret claims against ibm (stock swoons), but then adds copyright infringement (stock rallies). judge rules next week.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/35411.html
a rather perplexing case: cuz if they can't win - and their inability to present any evidence of their claims in court suggests that they probably can't, as ibm and linux volken have said all along - then what's left of their business? they've already threatened to sue all of their customers and alienated the entire linux community. or maybe, as the cynics suggest, that was known all the time, and the very public case was just a way to get the stock price up, to give insiders an exit ...
"CSCO, YHOO and EBAY did go out on the highs."
although yhoo was mildly red most of the day. i'd suspect much if its squeeze-potential was exhausted yesterday (or it kept bumping up against the top of its recent down-channel).
COMPX Ddaily - breaking out of the down channel.
although conversely, many of the stocks that i watch haven't: e.g. INTC, MSFT, YHOO, QQQ (and NDX), PMCS, NTAP ...
HUI and XAU did ... at least, in a way that's enouraging to me (first time hui has outperformed xau to the upside in a while).
speaking of politics (without discussing it here, of course) - this is really cool:
http://thepriceofloyalty.ronsuskind.com/thebushfiles/
internal docs, letters and memos behind the recent book by o'neill.
"Tactically, they concluded some years ago, the only way to accomplish that, given its hallowed status as demogogic tool #1 of electoral politics (rivaled only by "taxes"), was to simply bankrupt it. Do you think any of them will EVER go on record on that?"
seems kinda reckless. how would you ever guarantee that the actual outcome wouldn't be outrageously higher taxes? e.g. judging by what i've read on polling data lately, i'd bet that the popular support would fall squarely in the "raise taxes" rather than in the "let it go bankrupt" camp.
could someone who watches the junk bond market confirm or refute this, please? (from prudent bear chat):
Junk bonds topped out about twp weeks ago and remain under heavy pressure. This bodes ill for stocks to put it mildly as it shows that investor appetite for risk has peaked.
I am not looking for the big bear to resume right now, but a correction to something like S&P 500 1050 by the end of February would not surpise me.
"I haven't seen market dump into morning data for a while."
you haven't?? maybe i was just dreaming all of last week ...
Does the wash sale rule apply at all to day trades?
i'm sure someone here will add to this but: wash sale will only affect your calculations if there are long term cap gains involved.
I would say that nanotech's worth paying attention to no matter what your background because if you look far enough into the future, it'll impact just about any industry you can think of.
i think he forgot the "maybe" part.
maybe you can 'envision' the technologies of the future, but you can't know whether they'll ever come or what they'll look like if they do. look at a.i. and all of its hype, for example.
re nanotech: if you asked me (and i'm sure u didn't i'd bet we get further sooner by understanding and modifying the nanomachines that already exist now and have for millenia: proteins.
see, now that's why i liked reading him. always these bits of insight that sound like they're coming from someone so connected and 'on the inside' of things.
but an ‘implied’ inflation rate of 4-5% puts most everything in balance (nominal GDP +5.1%)
the positive action in the miners today suggests to me that maybe i should start rebuilding my position. could take a beating coming out of g-7, i suppose, but now with everyone watching g-7, alot of that should be priced in.
and anyway, no pain, no gain
presently, though, i'm pretty short (tech, not gold, mostly big caps).
google
January 29, 2004
Wall Street bonanza hopes fade as Google delays float
From James Doran, Wall Street Correspondent
GOOGLE is to put its keenly awaited multibillion-dollar flotation on the back burner, dashing hopes of a springtime fee bonanza on Wall Street, The Times has learnt.
The internet search engine company has never confirmed that it will float on New York’s Nasdaq market. However, speculation has been rife for months that the group will launch an initial public offering (IPO) in the spring, valuing the internet giant at up to $20 billion (£11 billion).
The Times has learnt that Google’s management, headed by Eric Schmidt, the chairman and chief executive, has grown wary about the timing of a float because market conditions are not right. [Parker sez: hunh??]
Dr Schmidt attended a series of closed-door meetings in London this week, at which he was repeatedly asked about the company’s intentions to float.
He told business leaders gathered at the private meetings that Google had no urgent need to tap the stock market for capital because the company’s cash position was extremely strong. However, in a surprise move, the Google chief added: “An IPO is not on my agenda right now.”
The statement jars with persistent market speculation, which appeared to set the scene for a flotation of the business in the spring or early summer of this year.
When questioned about the statement, Dr Schmidt declined to comment. However, a source close to Google confirmed that the statement reflected the chief executive’s views. The source added that investment banks, jockeying to be appointed as lead underwriters and advisers to an IPO, have told Google to delay a flotation because the high-tech market is expected to continue its recent rise.
Dr Schmidt’s comments mark a huge departure from current views about Google and its plans to raise money in the public markets. Just days ago, the New York market was buzzing with reports that the company had completed an internal audit and was set to seek regulatory approval for a full public offering of shares.
Analysts estimate that Google is worth between $15 billion and $20 billion, and believe that an IPO would see about a quarter, or a third, of the company offered to the public.
A deal would generate much-needed investment banking fees on Wall Street, which continues to suffer a drought of high-rolling IPOs.
“This would have been a significant IPO this year,” Justin Cable, of B Riley Equity Research, in Los Angeles, said. “If it does not go ahead, then the investment banks would feel it. But the company would still be in good shape. It generates a lot of cash. It is right to say it does not need to float.”
Google — as a private concern, owned largely by the venture capital firms Sequoia Capital and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers — does not release financial information. Analysts estimate, however, that Google’s annual revenue is between $500 million and $1 billion, with profits between $150 million and $300 million.
Anyone seen an article about what moves are being considered by the SEC?
i thought they were dropping the uptick rule ...
I was surprised they had my e-mail already listed as a user.
you didn't mention which e-mail address this was. for things like msn.com, hotmail and other microsoft properties, they've been using passport for a long time as their login ... those were all switched over automagically a few years ago.
Re: Dow Joes Transports
well, maybe this is neither here nor there, but feb 2nd is supposed to be a major "al qaeada destroys nyc" threat day. at least as per debka.com, a couple weeks ago.
cool. thanks.
so am i alone in this, or does anyone else see a head and shoulders breakdown on intc. (neckline: late sept, mid dec; currently at 31) volume pattern seems to confirm ...
if so, kinda poetic that the target would be ~200dema ...
Global: Debating the Jobless Recovery
Stephen Roach and Richard Berner (New York)
There’s never been anything like it. The US economy is currently in the midst of the most profound hiring shortfall of any modern-day business cycle. Fully 25 months since the economy technically bottomed in November 2001, private nonfarm payrolls are 7.7 million workers below the typical hiring trajectory. Employment is even tracking 2.4 million workers below the employment profile of the upturn of the early 1990s — heretofore America’s worst jobless recovery.
Debate has long been a hallmark of Morgan Stanley’s macro research culture. True to form, over most of the past several months, we — Steve Roach and Dick Berner — have taken opposing sides of the debate over this critical macro issue. Yet, perhaps surprisingly to our readers, we do share common ground on several crucial aspects of this issue. The job conundrum is obviously central to the debate over the US and global economic prognosis. In our view, there can be little dispute that if this trend continues, recovery in the US economy — to say nothing of recovery in a US-centric global economy — could well be in serious trouble. Nor can there be any doubt of the ominous policy and political implications of a lingering jobless recovery. The key question: Will it continue?
Not surprisingly, this is where we part company. Dick says no, Steve says yes. In what follows, we explain why. But we again find agreement on what might happen if — perish the thought — Steve is right.
[...]
http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/latest-digest.html#anchor0
Beware Maria, she does rumor rather well.
ah yes, i like her 'journalistic' credentials. i listened to her a bit on wednesday, after the fed announcement, and she kept asking everyone she talked to the same question: wasn't the selloff overdone? interest rates are historically low, so why does raising them matter? yadda yadda. i think kudlow's been passing around the koolaid ...
Nice TJ: I don't love or hate any stock, I just trade 'em, though I can understand how you can become enamored of a stock that makes you profits. But I hope you don't fall deeply in love; they have a way of eventually breaking you heart.
indeed. i did obscenely well with a short-and-hold strategy for pmcs from last aug through the winter. after that, i continued to try playing it, but the big boys came in. and i'm not in a league to play with those guys. (especially since i'd rather position/swing trade.) kopn has been a pretty reliable sleepy little stock. but at this point, love or hate, i'm not playing any one stock with a big bet, unless its very liquid. e.g. qqq, intc, maybe csco ...
believe NOTHING emanating from the administration; all administrations.
i'll believe that. i wasn't very political until recently, so i never really had an opinion on the clinton stuff. and i probably also don't have a good reference point for the current administration. but ... i dunno, i have to shake my head. if these guys were running a company i think they'd be well advised to take it public quickly, dump their shares and plan an exit strategy.
but at least i think i see why its always said that americans love a divided congress that can't get anything done. because when they do get things done, we end up with plans to create new jobs on mars and "give back" everyone their hard earned tax dollars by taking out huge loans to fund the plan ... what madness.
where are the journalists!?!
I hope you are right about bin laden, but I'll lay 2 to 5 that you aren't.
nah. but i suspect he's either caught or dead. (otherwise there'd be a video by now. that would be great p.r. for him, if he were able to do it.) on the other hand, publicly "capturing" him would be bad either because of (1) terrorist backlash, cuz he's so well respected in the arab world, or (2) new sense of comfort in the u.s., which would only be good for the bush boys for the election. otherwise, they need fear to rule in the imperial way.