studiophototrope

Paragon Shipping: Financial Gauge Analysis for the September 2009 Quarter

Nice analysis and an issue worth a further look.
Thanks,
Louis

Cisco Financial Gauge Analysis for October 2009 Quarter

Great analysis...thanks.
Best regards,
Louis

Nvidia Income Statement Analysis for October 2009 Quarter

Neil Carvin,
Thanks for the analysis...your transparent style of breakdown should be standard procedure for company releases. I'll be looking forward to more articles from you in the future. Keep up the good work.
Best regards,
Louis

American Austerity Is About to Begin

>>> Agree in principle, but where is the data to back up the claims of consumers borrowing more than ever? <<<

"merely from the fact that we are borrowing more than ever"

>>> I don't know of very many folks being approved for additional credit, in fact I know of more and more people having their credit limits cut or eliminated. And small business folks that I know are being squeezed by their banks when it comes to lines of credit. <<<

But why should Mr. Schiff let the truth get in the way of hyperbole?

The Economic Recovery That Isn't

>> Those who do cling to the absurd belief that, absent exponential productivity gains, the economy can expand while workers are being laid off will undergo a massive test of their convictions now that it's clear the employment picture is bleak. <<

And those who gravitate to view points on the edges, rather than understanding that what takes place usually is somewhere near the middle, subject themselves to not being taken seriously.

You write as if the economy can't expand once the lay offs stop but hiring doesn't resume.
Can the economy expand without workers being laid off but minus a renewal of large scale hiring? The answer is yes, slowly.

At some point workers will stop getting laid off and concurrently companies will find their equilibrium point. From there, they don't go on a hiring rampage and create the unnecessary/duplicate jobs that needed to be cut during the contraction, but rather, they manage their workforce relative to the economic cycle. The economy grows slower, but it grows, as "capitalism and free markets" work out the excesses. That should be cheering you up, no?

The current economic statistics are difficult to interpret correctly because they are contradictory on so many levels. Growth in some areas, contraction in others demonstrates a changing, evolving worldwide business environment and economy. Cherry picking stats to support a position should be reserved for those who follow sports.

I would think being the "free market" guy you are, you would have at least considered that US businesses are capable of managing their employment rolls not only when the economy contracts or expands, but also when it grows slowly. No one is happy with the large number of people still losing their jobs, but isn't the free market, cutting the fat, tightening the belt stage what free market capitalists have been recommending since this began? Now that the markets are doing their thing, it's suddenly become proof of fundamental flaws??

I'm not sure if you aware, but there are colors that exist between black and white.

Best regards
Louis

Lehman's Collapse, Revisited

>> Since market forces are no longer allowed to allocate capital and control risk, these decisions are now made by government regulators and are then passed through to their subordinates on Wall Street. This perverse organizational structure constitutes a new form of American fascism. <<

Your political ambitions are showing.

Money Supply: The Myth of Hyperinflation

Great read, excellent analysis. Well done.

Market Indicator Watch: Insider Selling on the Rise

“The best-informed market participants are sending a clear signal that the party on Wall Street is going to end soon,”...

We've all seen too many instances where insider selling indicated next to nothing regarding market direction.
I'll also take issue with insiders being 'the best informed market participants'.
Given that this has become a true trader's market, who hasn't been locking in some profits during this huge move off the bottom?

Less Government or Lower Wages? You Choose

It's odd how in writing this article you talked about consumers spending less, saving more, cut the size of government, cut taxes, cut regulations and "let market forces ring out the excesses".

Yet, most of what you are preaching doesn't even peripherally mention employment/unemployment.
Yes, you can spend a lot less but you can't save more when you're not working.
Yes, you can cut the size of government by eliminating more jobs.
Yes, you can cut taxes so those that do have jobs take home more, and business see smaller top lines but better bottom lines while all those people who are not working do not pay taxes. And revenues to run the country drop even more than they already have. [Unless of course you enjoy major potholes on your highway while driving on a "less government, no speed limit" trip to the local head hunter who is going to tell you there's nothing right now.]
Just think how low the price of gasoline will be when no one is working!!
Yes, market forces can ring out excesses, just as they did when businesses closed, successful companies dramatically reduced payrolls at the first sign of trouble and asked questions later. Question is, how do you grow from there? Answer is, you don't.

How can you write an article about "less government or lower wages" and not mention "In July, the number of unemployed persons was 14.5 million. The unemployment rate was 9.4 percent"? Maybe the article's title should be changed to "Less Government AND No Wages"? In your approach, do unemployed people just disappear??

Given your solutions to the current state of the economy, what would you estimate would be the appropriate number of people out of work to "fix" the situation? 20 Million? 30 million? 40 million? Maybe we should shoot for an even 50 million? When we get to those kind of numbers will we be on the right track to "returning our economy to health"?? Amazing.

We go with your solutions, it won't be safe to walk to streets. And you'll be smack in the middle of your "surviuval of the fittest" routine.
This is a world of "gray", not black and white. Government and the private sector need to work together to make "free markets" work correctly. Your "free market" solutions produced, not one, but two great depressions [late 19th century and early 20th century]. And major consensus for oversight and regulation of the capitalist/free market system.
Fortunately, this is the 21st century where enlightened minds understand that regulating a free market is necessary, that regulation differs with current economic circumstances and times, and regulation works when done with insight. Ideologues just don't get that.

Recession Is Over: Long Live Depression

Glen L
>>...in addition to the ones Peter and others here have pointed out, is that the money given to the recipients is money stolen from productive Americans, who would otherwise save it or use it for business and job creation. <<

"Stolen" from Americans??...lol...Maybe everyone should take up arms to protect themselves against this "theft"?...Oh right, they are.
Watch out for those Black Helicopters.

At best, if any of this money that you believe is being stolen, it's being "stolen" from the Chinese...which is another issue. Last I looked, they're getting paid for the money stolen from them. And, they'll get their money back. And they continue to allow us to steal it from them...along with a number of other countries. Why do you think that is?

I have a feeling you folks don't quite get what would have happened if this administration did not step in during this crisis. It's not hype to say that in all probability, without the huge injections of cash/liquidity across the board, we would have seen people ~~lining up at the front doors of their banks~~ trying to get whatever money they had on deposit. And that would have been only the beginning. Think about that for a second...and what would have followed after you found out you couldn't get your money out of the banks. And do not try and tell anyone that was not a real probability, absent the huge injections of stolen cash.
But, according to you folks, it would have been better to "let these companies" fail because we had to deficit spend to save the system. Right.

I have a feeling that while you guys were lining up outside of JPMorgan's door to ~~try~~ and get your hands on your hard earned, life savings, you wouldn't have been espousing this 'survival of the fittest' routine. Especially when you were jobless...Master's degree or not.
Be thankful all your/our jobs were saved because we did NOT make the myriad of mistakes that were made that caused the Depression. Take heart that this administration, and the people who are over seeing the unwinding of the 'no regulation, free market' dogma of the previous self serving administration, are not ideologues but pragmatists and that they understand the difference between free markets and gaming the system.

Un-American Government Intervention

>>> I think what is being referred to here as a “sham” is a scenario where a class of investor that stood in first position to benefit as owner of the assets, regardless of their “valuation” in terms of Federal Reserve Notes,...<<<

"Regardless of their valuation"??
So, as a preferred holder, I get to put any valuation on the assets of one step away from liquidation entity that Gonzalez and the BK court has determined is worth only $800 million? My preferred rights allows me to petition the federal government to inject billions more of taxpayer money so my investment can be returned in full??
It's bankruptcy court folks, the debtor's get what's left in the entity...and that's exactly why investor's purchase preferred investments, to be protected in BK court. Now if you want to discuss "bad investments" in poorly run companies, that's another, different, column.

Un-American Government Intervention

>>> In allowing this sham bankruptcy to be crammed through the courts, we have shredded the vital principal of the rule of law, and have become a nation of men, rather than one of laws. <<<

If you read the Bankruptcy Court's decision you will see that
s/Arthur J. Gonzalez
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT,
ruling that the secured creditors are entitled to the satisfaction of their claims "out of the bankruptcy estate", which is/are what is left of the assets of the Debtor.
So it came down to liquidating the whole thing with a likely max valuation of $800M, or sell the Chrysler assets to New Chrysler (Fiat, US, Canada, UAW) and get about $2B for the creditors.

And you want to call this a "sham bankruptcy"?
I believe the "sham" is the campaign that tries to imply the creditors are being short changed. The fact that the creditors wanted the Feds to inject more taxpayer capital so their secured claim would be larger is the second part of the sham.
Fortunately, the bankruptcy court was the appropriate place to make the necessary decisions. Using the very rule of law and contracts you preach about the creditors received more than liquidation would have provided...but obviously less than if the secured creditors were able to suck out more from the taxpayers.
Why do I get the impression you did NOT read the Gonzalez opinion? And how does a bankruptcy court that provides more than double the valuation of a bankrupt entity to creditors get labeled a sham by you?

The Time Is Ripe for a Short-Term JP Morgan Short

With all the places and instruments in the current market environment to potentially make money, somehow shorting JPMorgan at $27 for a move to $24 is something you're focusing on? Even if you're correct, I would gladly give those 3 points to someone else.
You do know Mr. Mayo was a buyer of Lehman, with a mid $20's price target, weeks before it went under?
I'm always dubious of any trade recommendation when "hopefully" is part of the due diligence.

Bear Market Rally Nearing Completion

>>> This bear market will eventually end. However, it will not occur with 18% moves in one week. Instead, it will limp to a close when investors have abandoned hope and stocks are universally cheap, yet the economy finally rests on solid footing. At the moment, those days remain well into the future. <<<

First, let me say that I enjoy reading your work and your call regarding the recent rally was spot on.
However, I have to disagree with the above statement. You're indicating that the next market upturn will be unlike any other market turns?
I have always worked under the assumption that the market is a discounting mechanism and that markets, as well as stocks, turn months in advance of economic indicators bottoming. I don't see how this bear will limp to a close when current economic indicators are so volatile and contradictory it's difficult to foresee these indicators all bottoming simultaneously giving a clear indication of an economic upturn. As a result, it would seem that those prescient enough to choose and filter the correct economic indicators will be be buying and creating the beginnings of the new bull market well before all those economic indicators "ring the bell" that the recession has ended. Of course, my interpretation would seem to fly in the face of your outlook.
I'd be interested in your response.
Best regards

Wednesday Outlook: Commodities, Global Markets

I'm new to your columns, and I'm a follower of TA...your chart analysis/commentary is a valuable read. Thanks.