Promod Radhakrishnan's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/136739/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/1026131/comments?source=feed#comment-11988731 11988731 Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:40:35 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1026131/comments?source=feed#comment-11988301 11988301 Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:30:46 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/224807/comments?source=feed#comment-1226890 1226890 Sat, 25 Sep 2010 11:42:04 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/205354/comments?source=feed#comment-1025978 1025978 Sun, 16 May 2010 20:23:24 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/205354/comments?source=feed#comment-1025484 1025484 Sun, 16 May 2010 11:56:39 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/165859/comments?source=feed#comment-712588 712588

On Oct 11 10:11 AM AddYourComment wrote:

> More upside on Monday?
>
> For more finance & econ news & opinions you'll like tinyurl.com/n854tt]]> Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:33:02 -0400

On Oct 11 10:11 AM AddYourComment wrote:

> More upside on Monday?
>
> For more finance & econ news & opinions you'll like tinyurl.com/n854tt]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156473/comments?source=feed#comment-634406 634406

On Aug 17 10:47 PM j-dub wrote:

> THE NEW NORMAL?
>
> 10% unemployment
> effects of socialism
> depressionary states
> higher taxes
> oppressive oversized government
> social unrest
> decending to mediocrity
>
> NO THANKS]]> Tue, 18 Aug 2009 07:53:07 -0400

On Aug 17 10:47 PM j-dub wrote:

> THE NEW NORMAL?
>
> 10% unemployment
> effects of socialism
> depressionary states
> higher taxes
> oppressive oversized government
> social unrest
> decending to mediocrity
>
> NO THANKS]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156473/comments?source=feed#comment-634402 634402

On Aug 17 03:29 PM E Nuff Sed wrote:

> I don't see an investment thesis in this article. I ask the author
> to comment if we were to assume a "new normal" is the market over,
> under or fairly valued?
>
> Mr. Krishnan seems (but not quite) stating that the govt may be in
> danger of re-inflating another bubble? I don't see any evidence of
> such a bubble.
>
> I am always skeptical of a focus on the "economy" vis-a-vis the stock
> market. The economy was never as bad to justify a 57% fall in the
> stock market, nor has the situation turned around so much to justify
> a 50% increase from the bottom. Looks like 90% emotions to me. Surely
> fundamentals will take on at some time.]]> Tue, 18 Aug 2009 07:49:20 -0400

On Aug 17 03:29 PM E Nuff Sed wrote:

> I don't see an investment thesis in this article. I ask the author
> to comment if we were to assume a "new normal" is the market over,
> under or fairly valued?
>
> Mr. Krishnan seems (but not quite) stating that the govt may be in
> danger of re-inflating another bubble? I don't see any evidence of
> such a bubble.
>
> I am always skeptical of a focus on the "economy" vis-a-vis the stock
> market. The economy was never as bad to justify a 57% fall in the
> stock market, nor has the situation turned around so much to justify
> a 50% increase from the bottom. Looks like 90% emotions to me. Surely
> fundamentals will take on at some time.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156473/comments?source=feed#comment-634397 634397
I understand your point of view - but small business can thrive and innovation can continue to be driven only if we have a macro-economic atmosphere condusive for the same. If monetary and fiscal policy is not controlled in a balanced manner, it would probably result in expedited economic cycles and whenever we see a downturn, the biggest hit is often small business. What we need is balanced growth which would then nurture small and medium businesses...


On Aug 17 10:29 AM whidbey wrote:

> You seem to assume that someone is driving.
>
> Not the Fed, not the treasury, but only the small businessperson
> can define the new normal and its terms.
>
> Planners, such as yourself, are the major failing in modern economics.
> You know very little of what you recommend and you, and others like
> you, seem to think there are choices that will work. No true for
> the most part. It is a muddle through economy, that is not going
> anywhere quickly.
>
> Be supportive of the job creation, small business sector and it will
> shake out the economy by shear weight of its impact.]]> Tue, 18 Aug 2009 07:43:16 -0400
I understand your point of view - but small business can thrive and innovation can continue to be driven only if we have a macro-economic atmosphere condusive for the same. If monetary and fiscal policy is not controlled in a balanced manner, it would probably result in expedited economic cycles and whenever we see a downturn, the biggest hit is often small business. What we need is balanced growth which would then nurture small and medium businesses...


On Aug 17 10:29 AM whidbey wrote:

> You seem to assume that someone is driving.
>
> Not the Fed, not the treasury, but only the small businessperson
> can define the new normal and its terms.
>
> Planners, such as yourself, are the major failing in modern economics.
> You know very little of what you recommend and you, and others like
> you, seem to think there are choices that will work. No true for
> the most part. It is a muddle through economy, that is not going
> anywhere quickly.
>
> Be supportive of the job creation, small business sector and it will
> shake out the economy by shear weight of its impact.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/130629/comments?source=feed#comment-462299 462299 Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:55:47 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/129639/comments?source=feed#comment-460316 460316 b) increased share holder vigil
c) a new set of regulations forcing higher capital cushion, stronger liquidity norms etc
do we really think either the government or the banks will let this happen in the near term? More over, the relaxation of mark-to-market accounting norms reduce the incentive associate with such devious tactics.

Also, the bigger question - other than letting the liquidity crisis play out slowly (which would have severe unemployment consequences), what are the alternate options to unfreeze liquidity?]]> Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:52:00 -0400 b) increased share holder vigil
c) a new set of regulations forcing higher capital cushion, stronger liquidity norms etc
do we really think either the government or the banks will let this happen in the near term? More over, the relaxation of mark-to-market accounting norms reduce the incentive associate with such devious tactics.

Also, the bigger question - other than letting the liquidity crisis play out slowly (which would have severe unemployment consequences), what are the alternate options to unfreeze liquidity?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128316/comments?source=feed#comment-448577 448577 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:33:04 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128343/comments?source=feed#comment-444116 444116
On your other point, the only reason sellers would hesitate to embrace the plan is if they feel assets are already written down below fair value/assets are worth more than what the market's valuing it at. In that case, the basic premise is that there's not much down side. Even in that case, wouldn't a competitive bidding scenario surely help determine true market value?


On Mar 29 07:49 AM CautiousInvestor wrote:

> It is not clear to me this is a well thought out plan.
>
> The most fundamental issue is whether bids for troubled assets will
> be accepted by the seller. If the bids are low and the seller does
> not accept the bid, the toxic assets remain on the books and we delay
> resolution.
>
> Realted to this is the delicate matter of timing. It would appear,
> now, that the most important of the two programs and the one dealing
> with legacy securities will not become operational until late June
> or July. During this span home prices are likley to continue falling
> at a 18% annual rate.........further depreciating the assets that
> the banks wish to sell and making it more likely bids will fail to
> clear.]]> Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:49:10 -0400
On your other point, the only reason sellers would hesitate to embrace the plan is if they feel assets are already written down below fair value/assets are worth more than what the market's valuing it at. In that case, the basic premise is that there's not much down side. Even in that case, wouldn't a competitive bidding scenario surely help determine true market value?


On Mar 29 07:49 AM CautiousInvestor wrote:

> It is not clear to me this is a well thought out plan.
>
> The most fundamental issue is whether bids for troubled assets will
> be accepted by the seller. If the bids are low and the seller does
> not accept the bid, the toxic assets remain on the books and we delay
> resolution.
>
> Realted to this is the delicate matter of timing. It would appear,
> now, that the most important of the two programs and the one dealing
> with legacy securities will not become operational until late June
> or July. During this span home prices are likley to continue falling
> at a 18% annual rate.........further depreciating the assets that
> the banks wish to sell and making it more likely bids will fail to
> clear.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128343/comments?source=feed#comment-444090 444090
The tax payer didn't bring this market down - hence participants who caused this will/should be forced to play by stricter rules - through increased supervisory oversight, tighter regulations and disclosures etc. The outline of Geithner's plan already has heavy provisions for disclosures and reporting on many fronts - inluding those related to hedge funds, venture capital funds and private equity funds. As long as the government follows up with efficient execution on this front, we will gradually move towards sanity.


On Mar 29 11:55 AM ed233 wrote:

> HERE IS THE SCARY PART. The government is trying to flog depressed
> valued instruments to prop up a few once big international banks;
> that if they fail could possibly topple the whole financial global
> markets which would spell double trouble for the emerging economies
> who have invested heavily in these toxic investments. The US government
> to protect their standing as the choice of currency for international
> transactions have placed the US taxpayer as the ultimate fall-guy
> by guaranteeing unnecessarily the future generations of their children's
> children. To make those investments more palpable it would have made
> more sense to protect the investments behind these toxic instruments
> rather than watch those(eg. housing investments) plummet month after
> month. But as they say you can always find a buyer if the price is
> right. The question is how sweet is the deal going to be for anyone
> to stick their toes in at the expense of joe public. It's the US
> currency as a currency of choice world wide that is at risk because
> when the US prints more money they'll be able to export most of their
> toxic instruments via the debasement of the dollar. The countries
> holding large amounts of the US dollar and bonds will pay the ultimate
> price at the expense of the wall street types and the federal government
> who move more US dollars globally]]> Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:33:22 -0400
The tax payer didn't bring this market down - hence participants who caused this will/should be forced to play by stricter rules - through increased supervisory oversight, tighter regulations and disclosures etc. The outline of Geithner's plan already has heavy provisions for disclosures and reporting on many fronts - inluding those related to hedge funds, venture capital funds and private equity funds. As long as the government follows up with efficient execution on this front, we will gradually move towards sanity.


On Mar 29 11:55 AM ed233 wrote:

> HERE IS THE SCARY PART. The government is trying to flog depressed
> valued instruments to prop up a few once big international banks;
> that if they fail could possibly topple the whole financial global
> markets which would spell double trouble for the emerging economies
> who have invested heavily in these toxic investments. The US government
> to protect their standing as the choice of currency for international
> transactions have placed the US taxpayer as the ultimate fall-guy
> by guaranteeing unnecessarily the future generations of their children's
> children. To make those investments more palpable it would have made
> more sense to protect the investments behind these toxic instruments
> rather than watch those(eg. housing investments) plummet month after
> month. But as they say you can always find a buyer if the price is
> right. The question is how sweet is the deal going to be for anyone
> to stick their toes in at the expense of joe public. It's the US
> currency as a currency of choice world wide that is at risk because
> when the US prints more money they'll be able to export most of their
> toxic instruments via the debasement of the dollar. The countries
> holding large amounts of the US dollar and bonds will pay the ultimate
> price at the expense of the wall street types and the federal government
> who move more US dollars globally]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/114280/comments?source=feed#comment-353928 353928

On Jan 12 02:39 PM PROXIMO wrote:

> To put a positive spin on the road ahead is a stretch, given the
> tons of economic stats already out and continuing to come out. Strongly
> disagree with "If Obama does succeed, even moderately, of targeting
> fresh money to areas like construction, healthcare, green energy
> and education, the very impact of this in downstream sectors and
> resulting gains in employment would be more than enough to crank
> the engine back." IT WON'T MAKE A DENT.]]> Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:48:52 -0500

On Jan 12 02:39 PM PROXIMO wrote:

> To put a positive spin on the road ahead is a stretch, given the
> tons of economic stats already out and continuing to come out. Strongly
> disagree with "If Obama does succeed, even moderately, of targeting
> fresh money to areas like construction, healthcare, green energy
> and education, the very impact of this in downstream sectors and
> resulting gains in employment would be more than enough to crank
> the engine back." IT WON'T MAKE A DENT.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/114280/comments?source=feed#comment-353927 353927
Assume we have a stimulus package which does a mix of these:
1) Large scale spending in new (non-pork!) projects in alternate energy, healthcare, infrastructure (targeted)
2) Tax hikes on higher income segments while maintaining corporate tax levels
3) Tax cuts on lower income segments
i.e. target investments in productive sectors which drive future growth while not going over board with tax cuts and fiscal imprudence. This can both help save/create millions of jobs while keeping the dent on long term deficits to a minimum (with the assumption that productive investments yield tax revenues and downstream jobs, which in turn create more revenues etc).

Even if we touch a 10% fiscal deficit (USD 2 trillion) by Q2 2010, as long as we have a way up to take us back to a 4-6% level in the next 2-3 years, we would have prevented a deeper recession without creating too much of long-term fiscal imbalance!


On Jan 12 11:45 AM OldLimey wrote:

> "The big question in every one's mind is - is this the start of a
> deeper recession or is the worst behind us?"
>
> No, not every one's. The question on my mind is whether the economic
> model that has powered global growth over the last two decades (cheap
> and increasingly easily available credit fuelling sequential asset
> price bubbles fuelling overconsumption and misdirected investment)
> is permanently broken. If it isn't, then the author's optimism may
> well be correct - although what price we will ultimately have to
> pay for yet another debt-fuelled surge in end-consumption is anybody's
> guess. If the model is in fact broken, a much longer period of (global)
> economic rebalancing will be required whilst the role of household
> consumption in total economic activity is ratcheted back down to
> historically more normal levels in the Anglo-American economies.]]> Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:43:55 -0500
Assume we have a stimulus package which does a mix of these:
1) Large scale spending in new (non-pork!) projects in alternate energy, healthcare, infrastructure (targeted)
2) Tax hikes on higher income segments while maintaining corporate tax levels
3) Tax cuts on lower income segments
i.e. target investments in productive sectors which drive future growth while not going over board with tax cuts and fiscal imprudence. This can both help save/create millions of jobs while keeping the dent on long term deficits to a minimum (with the assumption that productive investments yield tax revenues and downstream jobs, which in turn create more revenues etc).

Even if we touch a 10% fiscal deficit (USD 2 trillion) by Q2 2010, as long as we have a way up to take us back to a 4-6% level in the next 2-3 years, we would have prevented a deeper recession without creating too much of long-term fiscal imbalance!


On Jan 12 11:45 AM OldLimey wrote:

> "The big question in every one's mind is - is this the start of a
> deeper recession or is the worst behind us?"
>
> No, not every one's. The question on my mind is whether the economic
> model that has powered global growth over the last two decades (cheap
> and increasingly easily available credit fuelling sequential asset
> price bubbles fuelling overconsumption and misdirected investment)
> is permanently broken. If it isn't, then the author's optimism may
> well be correct - although what price we will ultimately have to
> pay for yet another debt-fuelled surge in end-consumption is anybody's
> guess. If the model is in fact broken, a much longer period of (global)
> economic rebalancing will be required whilst the role of household
> consumption in total economic activity is ratcheted back down to
> historically more normal levels in the Anglo-American economies.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/68233/comments?source=feed#comment-125881 125881
As for macro economics, i cannot agree more with you on the fact that deficit budgets, over reliance on consumer spending and over dependence on foreign investment in treasuries and US assets won't keep the economy stable and growing for long. There are obvisouly fundamental changes required - hopefully some of that to start coming with the next government in power. However, we are not really in a time where we could/should cry over macr economic ills and the fact that a crash is bound to happen. All said, i don't hold a view that a 200 bn kitty is enough to avoid slow down or recession completely. However, we need the establishment to think forward, think positive and take steps that would smoothen the slow down and make it bearable for the economy and all of us. If we keep a prudish you-did-wrong appraoch with the money center banks, how would you expect them to lend for homes and education...and in that case, how would you expect the economy to stay resilient.

Just to recap - this single Fed move won't make for a turn of the tide. However, we need multiple steps like these to bring some sanity to the credit/fixed income markets.

Tony, likd your story :-)]]> Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:10:36 -0400
As for macro economics, i cannot agree more with you on the fact that deficit budgets, over reliance on consumer spending and over dependence on foreign investment in treasuries and US assets won't keep the economy stable and growing for long. There are obvisouly fundamental changes required - hopefully some of that to start coming with the next government in power. However, we are not really in a time where we could/should cry over macr economic ills and the fact that a crash is bound to happen. All said, i don't hold a view that a 200 bn kitty is enough to avoid slow down or recession completely. However, we need the establishment to think forward, think positive and take steps that would smoothen the slow down and make it bearable for the economy and all of us. If we keep a prudish you-did-wrong appraoch with the money center banks, how would you expect them to lend for homes and education...and in that case, how would you expect the economy to stay resilient.

Just to recap - this single Fed move won't make for a turn of the tide. However, we need multiple steps like these to bring some sanity to the credit/fixed income markets.

Tony, likd your story :-)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/66780/comments?source=feed#comment-121837 121837 Tue, 04 Mar 2008 07:16:17 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/65122/comments?source=feed#comment-117265 117265 Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:23:06 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/63354/comments?source=feed#comment-114962 114962 Wed, 06 Feb 2008 19:05:23 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/63354/comments?source=feed#comment-114961 114961 I agree with you on the nature of this article! I hold on to the view despite the CSCO earnings report!

Let's take a look at these stocks individually:

1) MSFT has been sustaining a revenue and EPS growth of over 24% over multiple quarters. Assuming a PEG of 1 on forward earnings, you are looking at a EPS growth of 18 to price the stock at 31+. I do not think the slow down/recession is going to be as bad that MSFT gets hit worser than that!

2) AAPL - Phenomenal EPS growth over the past quarters due to block buster cutting edge products and high margins. Revenue growth of 28%. At 120-125, the stock is priced at a PE of ~28. If you really hold a negative view on the economy, i would agree this one holds some medium-term risk. However, i dont see much of a risk on a 12-18 month horizon.

3)GOOG - EPS growth of over 50%+ consitently over past quarters. At a PE of 38 at 495 levels, this one's holding the least amount of risk among the 3 - again by a classic PEG=1 thumbrule. I do not believe a revenue stream of online advertising would be as affected by a slow down as compared to TV or other media advertising.


Finally, the calls you take on these stocks - short term or long term depends on your risk appetite and view on the economy. Short or medium term, the judgements are debatable, especially on AAPL. Long term (12-18 months) risk is very low on these stocks at current levels.

]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2008 19:02:37 -0500 I agree with you on the nature of this article! I hold on to the view despite the CSCO earnings report!

Let's take a look at these stocks individually:

1) MSFT has been sustaining a revenue and EPS growth of over 24% over multiple quarters. Assuming a PEG of 1 on forward earnings, you are looking at a EPS growth of 18 to price the stock at 31+. I do not think the slow down/recession is going to be as bad that MSFT gets hit worser than that!

2) AAPL - Phenomenal EPS growth over the past quarters due to block buster cutting edge products and high margins. Revenue growth of 28%. At 120-125, the stock is priced at a PE of ~28. If you really hold a negative view on the economy, i would agree this one holds some medium-term risk. However, i dont see much of a risk on a 12-18 month horizon.

3)GOOG - EPS growth of over 50%+ consitently over past quarters. At a PE of 38 at 495 levels, this one's holding the least amount of risk among the 3 - again by a classic PEG=1 thumbrule. I do not believe a revenue stream of online advertising would be as affected by a slow down as compared to TV or other media advertising.


Finally, the calls you take on these stocks - short term or long term depends on your risk appetite and view on the economy. Short or medium term, the judgements are debatable, especially on AAPL. Long term (12-18 months) risk is very low on these stocks at current levels.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/59954/comments?source=feed#comment-114609 114609 Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:34:07 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/60248/comments?source=feed#comment-114605 114605 Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:29:21 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/59851/comments?source=feed#comment-109909 109909 Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:52:34 -0500