More Earnings Reports
Posted by Eddy Elfenbein on April 17th, 2008 at 10:11 am

There are a few earnings reports to pass along this morning. Danaher (DHR) earned, after adjustments, 89 cents a share. That’s a good number since the Street was looking for 88 cents per share. Previously, the company said that its range for Q1 was 84 to 89 cents per share, so I guess they knew what they were talking about.
The Q1 result is a 15.5% increase over last year’s first quarter, and sales rose by 20%. The company has also said that it’s looking for $4.30 to $4.40 for the full year.
Danaher makes the Craftsman line of tools. So far, the housing slowdown hasn’t had a noticeable impact on its bottom line. At least, not yet. At the current price, the stock seems to be correctly priced.
Amphenol (APH) reported earnings of 54 cents a share, two pennies about the Street’s estimate. The company also guided higher for Q2 and the full year. APH now sees this quarter coming in at 57 to 59 cents a share (the Street was at 55 cents), and $2.26 to $2.31 for the year (the Street was at $2.23).
This is a nice increase in guidance. In January, the company said Q1 was looking to come in at 50 to 52 cents, and $2.18 to $2.25 for the year. The stock seems slightly over priced right now, but not by much.

Market Quiz
Posted by Eddy Elfenbein on April 16th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

What Omaha-based stock has the best long-term performance?
Yep, it’s Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-A), which is a stock everyone has heard of. But do you know about Valmont Industries (VMI)? The company is also based in Omaha, and while it’s not the amazing success that’s Berkshire, Valmont’s performance is still quite impressive.
The company reports after the bell today and the shares have, for the first time, ever crack $100 a share. Three years ago, you could have picked up VMI for just $22 a share. If you were around in 1970, you could have got it for just 25 cents a share.

Top Hedge Fund Earners for 2007
Posted by Eddy Elfenbein on April 16th, 2008 at 11:11 am

From Alpha magazine:
1 John Paulson Paulson & Co. $3.7 billion
2 George Soros Soros Fund Management $2.9 billion
3 James Simons Renaissance Technologies Corp. $2.8 billion
4 Philip Falcone Harbinger Capital Partners $1.7 billion
5 Kenneth Griffin Citadel Investment Group $1.5 billion
6 Steven Cohen SAC Capital Advisors $900 million
7 Timothy Barakett Atticus Capital $750 million
8 Stephen Mandel Jr. Lone Pine Capital $710 million
9 John Griffin Blue Ridge Capital $625 million
10 O. Andreas Halvorsen Viking Global Investors $520 million
Of course, that’s pre-tax.

No Comment
Posted by Eddy Elfenbein on April 16th, 2008 at 10:55 am

From The Inquirer:

Women give out passwords for chocolate

The Education of Warren Buffett
Posted by Eddy Elfenbein on April 16th, 2008 at 10:29 am

Here’s an interesting article looking at why Warren Buffett has quietly walked away from the coal business. The article contains this tidbit:

A final clue to Buffett’s change of direction on coal comes from looking at his history on other controversial issues, especially his decision in the early 1990s to revise his investment policies regarding tobacco. In 1987, Buffett told John Gutfreund of Salomon, “I’ll tell you why I like the cigarette business. It costs a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It’s addictive. And there’s fantastic brand loyalty.”
By 1994, however, Buffett was ready to drop his tolerance of tobacco lucre, telling Berkshire Hathaway’s annual meeting that tobacco investments are “fraught with questions that relate to societal attitudes and those of the present administration … I would not like to have a significant percentage of my net worth invested in tobacco businesses.”
The upshot: Buffett keeps his finger in the wind and reacts quickly when he feels society shift. For this reason, his reversal on coal, though it may have been largely forced upon him, is significant nevertheless. As usual, Buffett has made the “smart move” a bit faster than some of his colleagues. Let’s hope they take note and follow his lead.

Not Getting Predictions Market
Posted by Eddy Elfenbein on April 16th, 2008 at 9:46 am

James Ledbetter at Slate brings up one of my pet peeves today. He’s about the 600th writer to ask why are predictions markets so often wrong.
The answer is simple: They’re not predictions markets, they’re really odds-setting markets. Just because the event with the highest odds didn’t come to pass, doesn’t mean that the market is somehow wrong.
The Giants beat the point spread in the Super Bowl. Did Vegas fail? No, it’s called an upset.
Nearly four years ago, Google went public at $85. Did the stock market get it wrong? Of course not, Google proved its worth to shareholders over time. Over the last six months, the reverse is happening. The markets adjust.
As I’ve said many times, I don’t take these markets too seriously. They’re for fun and most of the standard complaints are accurate (too small, too partisan).
Another aspect that people must understand about these markets is that they’re futures markets. This means there’s a very large dispersion of returns. In other words, you get all or nothing. That’s a little different from your standard stock market. As a result, these markets can be far more volatile than what you may normally be used to.
By the way, John McCain’s contract to win the GOP nomination is going for 94.1/94.3. Hmmm. That could be a good money market substitute until the convention this summer.

Nominal GDP Growth
Posted by Eddy Elfenbein on April 16th, 2008 at 9:36 am

Continuing on yesterday’s post about debt levels and interest rates, I wanted to look at nominal (meaning, not adjusted for inflation) GDP growth. Here’s how it looks on a trailing 12-month basis going back to 1986:

These are, of course, the government’s numbers, so use at your own risk. But you can clearly see where the recessions are, and I expect that for the immediate future, the line will droop down.
What I find interesting is that long-term Treasury yields have still trended below GDP growth. Will all those foreigners dump their Treasuries? I doubt it, but if they do, it’s not because we’re unable to pay them back.

Herb Greenberg Leaving MarketWatch
Posted by Eddy Elfenbein on April 15th, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Herb Greenberg, one of my favorite reporters, is leaving MarketWatch:

Just a bit of housekeeping – actually, house cleaning!
On May 1, I’m leaving MarketWatch, Dow Jones and traditional journalism to start an independent research firm with my friend, Debbie Meritz, an analyst/accountant who has been a very good source of ideas in the past.
I’ve devoted my career to journalism, starting in elementary school by delivering copies of the Miami News from my bicycle, to my first job out of college in 1974 as the first business reporter for the Boca Raton News.
I’ve since been part of the evolution of modern business journalism, working from beat reporter to correspondent to columnist to blogger.
When Debbie and I first started talking about the idea of setting up a research firm, it seemed like the next logicial step, just as it did when I left traditional print journalism 10 years ago to join the fledging online world.
Change is never easy, especially leaving a place as great as MarketWatch, which has been my home for the past four years. But change is also exciting and I’m looking forward to the next adventure.
Until then… you’re stuck with me for a few more weeks.
The beat goes on…

I’m sad to see you go, but best of luck in your new business.

Erosion of Support for Free Markets
Posted by Eddy Elfenbein on April 15th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

From World Public Opinion:

Majorities in most countries continue to support the free market system, but over the last two years support has eroded in 10 of 18 countries regularly polled by GlobeScan. In several countries this drop in support has been quite sharp.
The latest polling was completed before the current stock market volatility that began earlier this year.
Back in 2005 only one country polled–France–had more citizens disagreeing than agreeing with the statement that “the free enterprise system and free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world.”
Displacing France as the least supportive of the free market system today is Turkey where approval of the free market system has plunged from 47 percent in 2005 to 34 percent now, while opposition has risen from 36 to 41 percent.
Support for free markets has also dropped 15 points in South Korea since 2005, though a majority (55%) continue to be supportive. Opposition there has jumped 20 points from 19 to 39 percent.
Support among Chileans is also down 14 points since 2003 when Chileans were last polled on this question.
Support in other countries is down by more modest though significant numbers: China (down 9 points), Britain (7 points), Brazil (7 points), Mexico (6 points), and Kenya (6 points).
The one country to show upward movement in agreement with the free market system is France–up five points. However, more continue to disagree (45%) than agree (41%).
The GlobeScan poll of 9,357 people worldwide also found that large numbers continue to look to their government to take a strong hand in regulating the market. In 17 of the 18 countries a majority (15 countries) or a plurality (two countries) agreed that “the free enterprise system and the free market system work best in society’s interest when accompanied by strong government regulation.”
Interestingly, supporters of the free market show more enthusiasm for a strongly regulated free market system than critics. Among those who agree that the free market system is the best system, three-quarters also agree that it works best with strong government regulation.
Those who are not enthusiastic about the free market system are divided as to whether it works best with government regulation.
At the same time agreement with this proposition, while still averaging 62 percent across all countries polled, is down in ten countries. This appears to be related to the drop in confidence in the free market system. Among the ten countries for which there was a drop in agreement with the proposition that the free market system works best with strong regulation, six of them also had a significant drop in support for the free market system, and only one had an increase.
Interestingly, three countries that in 2005 were among the four highest in support for the free market system–China, the Philippines, and South Korea–showed substantial increases in agreement with the idea that the market works best with regulation.
The results come from a private multi-client poll conducted by international polling firm GlobeScan between May 29 and August 10, 2007. GlobeScan’s paying clients had exclusive use of the poll’s findings until today’s first-time public release. The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland assisted GlobeScan with the analysis and interpretation of these findings.
GlobeScan president Doug Miller says, “The results suggest that the free enterprise system was already beginning to lose the unquestioned trust of citizens before the current banking meltdown. It underscores the importance of re-building trust sooner rather than later.”
Steven Kull comments, “It appears that as people have doubts about the ability of government to regulate the free market, confidence in the market diminishes.”
A total of 9,357 citizens in Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, the Philippines, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, and the United States were interviewed face-to-face or by telephone. Polling was conducted by GlobeScan and its research partners in each country. In eight of the 18 countries, the sample was limited to major urban areas. As the questions were asked to half samples in each country, the margin of error per country ranges from +/-3.3 to 5.0 percent.

Here’s a PDF of the report.

Could the U.S. Lose it AAA Rating?
Posted by Eddy Elfenbein on April 15th, 2008 at 2:11 pm

B-Riz notes a WSJ story on the possibility of the U.S. government losing its triple-A rating. Barry, rightly, thinks S&P isn’t brave enough (though he alluded to their “stones”).
To me, it’s a hugely frivolous issue. U.S. Treasuries receive a credit rating every day. It’s better known as the price. I don’t see how some rating from a questionable firm could possibly have an impact greater than price movements. If anything, a downgrade would merely confirm what the market is already saying.
There’s also the fact that the government owns the printing press, so they’ll get those dollars to bondholders one way or another.
I would go as far as saying it’s safe to look past all forms of debt measurements and ratios, and concentrate on Treasury yields. Is the debt too high? Depends, what are T-bonds yielding? If their yields are going up, then yes. If not, then I’m not concerned.
There are lots of good reasons for lower debt. But long-term nominal GDP growth can easily top current yields.