PDA

Vollständige Version anzeigen : Die sturen Bullen ignorieren alles ...... aber


Ralph
30.01.2001, 07:54
Market Bullheadedly Ignores Missed Earnings, Salivates for Rate Cut

By Aaron L. Task
Senior Writer
1/29/01 6:25 PM ET

GuruVision: Fed Trumps Fundamentals
SAN FRANCISCO -- "Earnings are dead, long live interest rates!" That proclamation, heard from a growing number of traders lately in reference to short-term market influences, was on obvious display today.

Sidestepping the cautious comments from Cisco Systems (CSCO:Nasdaq - news - boards), the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 0.4%, the S&P 500 gained 0.7%, and the Nasdaq Composite Index rose 2.1%. Meanwhile, the Nasdaq 100 gained 2.4%.

Even Cisco seemed immune to its own devices, closing off 2.9% at $37.25 after trading as low as $35.50.

"The Cisco news came and went -- people blinked and went on to the next thing," said one West Coast trader. "We've seen a lot of this lately. The negative impact [of slowing earnings] is behind us and people are looking out six months to see what happens in the economy."

Still, the trader wondered how long the upward momentum can last "if things don't turn around" on the economic front. A big key to that, of course, will be the Federal Reserve, from which most expect another 50 basis points of easing this week.

Projections for more aggressive rate cuts -- and the added bonus of potential tax relief -- captured the hearts and minds of the gurus this week. Here's a sampling of their weekly comments:


"Winning is easy when the Fed is on your side," according to Edward Kerschner, chief global strategist at UBS Warburg. "Don't fight the Fed. Don't fight a cheap market. Never fight both!"

"Marginal tax-rate cuts ... along with sizable cuts in interest rates, should cause some sizable amounts of cash to move from the sidelines," wrote Greg Smith, chief investment strategist at Prudential Securities. "This inflow of cash should create a pretty big rally."

"The growth capital window is reopening, liquidity premiums are falling and [price-to-earnings] multiples are rising," commented Thomas Galvin, U.S. portfolio strategist at Credit Suisse First Boston. "One could argue that our current year-end price targets of 4000 for the Nasdaq and 1600 for the S&P are too conservative."

"The combination of tax cuts and easier Fed policy should be a significant positive for equities in 2001," according to Christine Callies, U.S. investment strategist at Merrill Lynch.

"We reiterate our view that the current market environment is very comparable to that of 1995 [when] the market rallied strongly despite a slowing economy," wrote Robert Robbins, chief investment strategist at Robinson-Humphrey in Atlanta. "We continue to forecast a 24% rise in the S&P 500 to approximately 1690 by year-end 2001."

"Avoid overanalyzing the gyrations and stick with the macro themes: Lower interest rates help stock prices," observed Brian Belski, fundamental market strategist at U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray in Minneapolis. "Lower interest rates especially help growth stocks."
You get the concept. But can it really be that there's no risk to owning stocks for the next year? Before attempting to answer that, recall that many of the aforementioned gurus were bullish throughout much of 2000. (Even Kerschner, who presciently warned of risks in March, got back on the bullish bandwagon too soon.)

Gotta Have Faith
Judging by the market's gains thus far in 2001 and again today, investors (and gurus) are clearly putting their faith in the Fed's ability to revive the economy, and thus prospects for corporate earnings.

In a quick change worthy of the catwalk, it has recently become fashionable for economists to talk openly about the possibility of recession. But most observers express confidence the Fed will take appropriate action. Thus, the biggest risk to the optimists is if rate cuts and/or tax cuts prove unable to stop the economy from careening into full-blown recession (or deeper into it for those who believe we're already in a recession).

"The market feels the Fed will do what it takes [to prevent recession] but people are buying into the V-shaped recovery" scenario, said William Dudley, director of U.S. economic research at Goldman Sachs. "Too much so in my opinion."

Dudley forecast a 1-in-3 chance the economy falls into recession in a report Friday, predicting the Fed could thus have to move far more aggressively than most investors currently expect. "The historical record as well as current circumstances suggest that Fed officials could ease by an additional 200 to 300 basis points," with 150 to 200 coming this year, he wrote.

Splitting the difference, 250 basis points of easing would ultimately take the fed funds rate to 3.50%, far below the popular expectation that it's heading back toward 4.75%, the level from which the Fed began tightening in June 1999.

Dudley believes the bond market -- in which long-dated securities fell today for the sixth time in seven sessions -- is currently not priced for such aggressive Fed easing. He recommends buying bonds in general and going long the March Treasury bond futures at 102.30, specifically, with a target of 107.00 and a stop on a close below 101.08.

The economist did not discuss equities. But Dudley's commentary recalled Don Hays, of Hays Advisory Group in Nashville, Tenn., whose overriding outlook is predicated on a belief that extensive Fed rate cuts will prove unable to prevent the economy from falling into recession. Realization of that fact will undermine investor confidence, he believes, and bring on the harrowing "third phase" of the bear market, beginning sometime between April and June.

In a report today, Hays suggested the Nasdaq is "probably ready for a two to four week rest that could take as much as 14% off its current level, maybe back to 2500."

But such a decline would end only the first of what Hays expects to be three rallies in the Comp's "interlude phase" before the bear market resumes in earnest. The three-rallies prediction is based on an expectation the Comp will continue to follow the pattern of the Nikkei Dow, specifically its "interlude rally" phase between Oct. 1, 1990, and May 1991.

Hays recommended traders "nail down your profits and try to pinpoint the next bottom," which he predicts will occur in the next four to five weeks. For investors, he suggested "riding out the first couple of waves, with the intent of taking profits at the last peak of this interlude rally."

Market conditions permitting, tomorrow we'll examine another alternative: that the economy isn't as weak as some fear, and that the combination of Fed ease and tax cuts will reignite inflationary pressures.

Source: TheStreet
***********************************************************

Ralph

Ralph
30.01.2001, 07:57
Mein Freund James C. Cramer -der auch zu den Bullen gehört- hat auch wieder was zu sagen.


This Market Just Won't Quit
By James J. Cramer

1/29/01 4:16 PM ET

The Nazz shakes off Cisco (CSCO:Nasdaq - news - boards). What else can you say. This is a market that just won't quit, and it pays to be in with whatever you can throw at this tape. We are now in the world where whatever visible weakness we get just assures us further that we will have a monster easing.

And a monster easing is like a giant tide that lifts even the worst boats. When I saw the bad Xerox (XRX:NYSE - news - boards) numbers and read about the DaimlerChrysler (DCX:NYSE - news - boards) layoffs and tried to piece together the potential shortfall at Cisco, only one thought came into my head: more and bigger eases. That's where we are in the cycle. That's why it can't be fought. That's why I have said repeatedly that we are in a benign period where things go right. That's why I continue to try to put as much emphasis on my Action Alerts as possible. Because this is the period where you need to be in, and any weakness is both momentary and a gift.

It is truly an incredible period, made even more incredible by the total lack of enthusiasm people feel for this market. Isn't that just what you want if you are a bull?

Source: TheStreet
************************************************************

Ralph

<font size=1>[Dieser Beitrag wurde von Ralph am 30.01.2001 editiert.]</font>

Ralph
30.01.2001, 08:01
Aber es gibt auch andere Ansichten, die ich auch teile !

It's the High Multiples, Stupid

By Adam Lashinsky
Silicon Valley Columnist
1/29/01 4:09 PM ET

You'd think that the blowup in PMC-Sierra (PMCS:Nasdaq - news - boards) and the continued warnings from Cisco Systems (CSCO:Nasdaq - news - boards) would knock some sense into the market. It hasn't. The argument against dangerously high-tech stock multiples plays out as clearly and vividly as the EyeVision camera-angle switcheroo device CBS used in Sunday's Super Bowl. And yet the high multiples remain.

Takes shares of PMC-Sierra (please!), which makes specialty semiconductors (commonly known as integrated circuits) that go into communications devices like switches and routers. Despite PMC's management informing Wall Street last week that it has next to no visibility on its next two quarters, its shares trade for around $72, or 81 times Wall Street's consensus estimate of earnings per share for 2001 of 89 cents.

The previous estimate had been nearly twice that, meaning that Wall Street has as little clue of what's to become of PMC-Sierra's performance as the company itself does. But what makes the valuation even more frightening is the multiple Wall Street is awarding Cisco, PMC's biggest customer. At a recent 37, Cisco trades for around 43 times its estimated earnings per share of 87 cents for the four quarters ending in January of next year (a close approximation of calendar earnings).

"Normally, the guy further down the food chain is awarded a higher P/E," says Douglas Whitman, who runs an eponymous investment fund in Palo Alto, Calif. Whitman, a longtime communications-industry research analyst before escaping to the buy side, won't disclose his private fund's positions. But he allows that he isn't betting on the increase of communications chipmakers.

"The stocks got so stretched and out of reality that now people are looking at them where they are in relation to where they were," says Whitman. "There's no way the communications IC companies can keep their multiples when their customers' multiples are far lower."

The comparison isn't apt only for the should-be symbiotic relationship between Cisco and PMC-Sierra. At $39, Nortel Networks (NT:NYSE - news - boards) trades for about 41 times its estimated 2001 earnings of 96 cents per share. Foundry Networks (FDRY:Nasdaq - news - boards) is worth roughly 31 times its current-year guesstimated profits of 71 cents a share.

Almost without exception, however, the chip companies that supply the equipment makers are more richly valued. Chipmaker Vitesse Semiconductor (VTSS:Nasdaq - news - boards) trades for 54 times its calendar 2001 earnings estimates. Superstar Broadcom (BRCM:Nasdaq - news - boards) is worth 70 times projected profits and Applied Micro Circuits (AMCC:Nasdaq - news - boards) fetches a forward price-earnings multiple of 100.

One could argue that as this is a classic case of disequilibrium, the prices of the equipment makers will need to go up as the chipmakers' shares go down. That's too easy. The more precise argument is that multiples will need to come into balance, and that simply means that the communications IC maker's multiples need to fall before they are in line with those of their customers.

Semiconductor makers typically have higher gross margins than equipment makers. PMC-Sierra's gross margins, for example, were about 75% in the fourth quarter, while Cisco's were 64% in the quarter ended Oct. 28. But their growth rates will approximate each other's over time, and PMC's growth is more dependent on Cisco's than the other way around.

Comparing valuations of customers and suppliers is an inexact science. But multiples this out of whack for companies facing the same business climate won't stand.

When the Investment Banking Machinery Shuts Down
A hopeful maxim of the investment banking business is that when the corporate finance business (initial public offerings, debt issues and the like) slows down, mergers and acquisitions will take its place. Distressed companies, goes the conventional wisdom, will sell out rather than shut the doors, and healthy businesses will snap them up in bargains.

Unfortunately for investment banks, it's not that simple. Sellers initially think their shares are too cheap. Ditto for buyers, who don't want to give up their depressed shares to make acquisitions. Then, when it's clear that acquisitions actually have come down, would-be acquirers are tough to find.

Case in point: PMC-Sierra. In one of the overlooked comments it made in its gloomy conference call Thursday evening, PMC said it has halted for the time being any shopping expeditions. "We're going to be less acquisitive," says CEO Robert Bailey, noting that the company made seven acquisitions by September of last year but hadn't yet adequately integrated them. (The names are worth printing; It shows the creativity in the naming game in Silicon Valley: SwitchOn Networks, Quantum Effect Devices, Datum Telegraphic, Malleable Technologies, Extreme Packet Devices, AA Netcom, Toucan Technology.)

Bailey's professed aversion to acquisitions is relevant because it shows that at least one previously fast-growing company will have one fewer growth arrow in its quiver. Analysts were straining to learn PMC's "organic" growth, in other words, the growth of its business subtracting out the addition of newly purchased companies. The answer will be simpler going forward: All of PMC's growth beginning later this year will be organic, at least until the company ramps up the acquisitions engine again.

The important question is whether PMC's behavior is aberrant or the norm. If tech companies stop buying others and stop doing IPOs, young companies will have no "exit strategies." The domino effect would hit venture capitalists, individual investors and entrepreneurs alike. This will affect employees as well. It may be easier for healthy companies simply to hire away good people than to try to buy their companies.

Note, too, that the deals that do happen at high valuations typically are strategic purchases of relatively healthy tech concerns, not fire-sale pickups of dying firm. Witness Monday's acquisition of software maker Agile Software (AGIL:Nasdaq - news - boards) by Ariba (ARBA:Nasdaq - news - boards) for a preannouncement price tag of $2.5 billion. Money-losing Agile's shares had been falling since they peaked in October, but the company sales have been tripling on a year-over-year basis.

"There are no buyers," laments George Boutros, head of tech M&A for Credit Suisse First Boston in Palo Alto, Calif. Boutros fully expects M&A activity to pick up again, but only after buyers and sellers have a clear understanding of their respective values. (See Scott Moritz's story today on Cisco M&A activity.) Boutros isn't saying when that will be. Clearly the time isn't now.

Source: TheStreet
***********************************************************

Ralph