Phil’s Favorites

Just another WordPress.com weblog

SNDK

Hi All - there are some new articles on the Phil’s Favorites backup site, and I’m posting this one since we need something newer in this space.

Sandisk (NASDAQ:SNDK): Moving into the seasonal sweet spot - Citigroup

Citigroup says mid-qtr check on Sandisk (NASDAQ:SNDK) fundamentals suggests positive EPS revision pressure is forming, in line w/seasonal norms which in yrs past have been ‘+’ for the stock. Demand risks exist (handset), though CIR thinks rising contract pricing from June to October is a reasonable outlook. SNDK is Citi’s mid-cap top pick on contract pricing and EPS revision catalysts. Since 2003 Street EPS have jumped 22% and 43% in 2Q and 3Q, respectively (shares by 18% and 34%). Firm recalls that contract pricing risks shift to the upside from May to September (back to school and pre-holiday demand), though broader chip industry orders are most benign from June to August. NAND’s comparative seasonal strength should augur well for SNDK shares if fundamental and estimate trends emerge in 2Q08/3Q08 as they think possible. Reits Buy. Notablecalls: Worth maybe 1pt upside here.

May 14, 2008 Posted by ilene9 | Uncategorized | | No Comments

It’s the dollar…

What’s Driving Oil Higher? It’s the Dollar, Stupid!

Courtesy of J.S. Kim

In this article, I will debunk the many articles that attribute inflation to rising prices and rising oil prices to nefarious OPEC nations that squeeze production and gouge Western nations. With the use of four charts, I can explain most succinctly what is the predominant factor in contributing to rising oil prices.

Just as inflation causes rising prices, and not the other way around, the falling dollar is the greatest single determinant of soaring oil prices, not speculators and not a shortage of supply. Sure, these other factors contribute to rising oil prices and shortage of supplies will certainly drive oil prices even higher in the future, but they are not THE main contributor today despite all the articles to the contrary. That honor goes to the falling dollar. To understand, take a look at the four charts below.

I have plotted the USO [AMEX], the United States Oil Fund, LP against gold, silver, the euro and the U.S. dollar for the last 3 years. The United States Oil Fund, LP (USO) invests in futures contracts for light, sweet crude oil and other types of crude oil, heating oil, gasoline, natural gas and other petroleum-based fuels that are traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange [NYMEX], International Currency Exchange [ICE] Futures or other United States and foreign exchanges, so generally it acts as a very good proxy for the price of crude oil (and gas).

If we look at the USO plotted against fiat currencies, it indeed appears that the price of oil is soaring. The USO has soared about 52% against the Euro in the last 3 years. On any terms, this is quite a hefty rise, but even this hefty increase pales in comparison when we observe the 3-year chart of the USO priced in U.S. dollars.

In U.S. dollars, the USO has soared by more than twice the rate it has against the Euro at 115%. However, because both the Euro and the Dollar are fiat currencies backed by nothing but the full faith and credit of governments, they theoretically can both be debased into worthlessness.

So now let’s price the USO in gold and silver for the past three years. When we do so, a markedly different picture emerges. The USO, over three years, despite having soared by 52% and 115% when respectively priced in Euros and Dollars, has incredibly dropped in value by 11.5% over the same time period when it is priced in gold. This means that oil would actually be cheaper than its price from 3 years ago were we to price its cost in ounces of gold. In other words, if the dollar was on a true gold standard today, nobody would be talking about soaring oil prices.

And what about when priced in terms of silver? If we price the USO in ounces of silver, we see from the below chart that the price of the USO has plunged a monumental 25% in price over the last 3 years.

So what does this tell us? In very simple terms, when goods are priced in stable currencies, their prices remain much more stable as well. When goods are priced in unstable, highly inflated currencies, then their prices soar primarily due to the significant debasement of the currency they are priced in. Furthermore, as I explained in this previous article, the debasement of currency often gives rise to an illusion of wealth creation while in reality, it actually destroys real wealth.

Though many others wish to confuse you with complex algorithms that include 50 different variables that determine why prices rise, in our current environment, dollar debasement is the top contributor. Yes, I do understand that it REALLY is not that simple, as the dollar has risen in recent weeks and so has oil, but you get my point, right? I’m not here to discuss other factors such as the spreads between futures and spot prices which move markets and what not, but just to discuss a very important point that I never see discussed in the mainstream media.

So if oil had been priced in Euros for the past 3 years, analysts would only now begin to start discussing rising oil prices. And if the world had been forced to keep large reserves of silver and gold for the past 3 years to pay for their oil, well, the only discussion that would be happening today would be within the meeting rooms of OPEC as they tried to figure out how to increase diminishing profit margins from falling oil prices.

Of course, one could argue that were oil priced in gold from 1980 to 2001, oil would have soared in price as gold spent 21 years in a bear market during those years. However, were the U.S. dollar backed by a true gold standard during these years, the price of gold would not have plummeted either (this analysis is much too complex for the scope of this short article). So when people say that oil is heading towards $150 to $200 a barrel, this prediction, though they will never admit it, is primarily based upon the untenable situation of the dollar, not the dwindling supply of oil as they state.

In terms of gold bullion, the price of oil will most likely only get cheaper or remain stable in the next few years. And due to continuing debasement of the dollar, we are highly unlikely to see oil prices retreat past $80 a barrel anytime in the foreseeable future.

I have always found many stories reported in the media to be humorous. For example, this past month, recent IMF officials stated that rising prices of food and oil are creating raging inflation rates worldwide that are quite worrisome. This is comparable to blaming a destroyed orange crop in Florida for creating frigid temperatures instead of correctly attributing the frigid temperatures to the destruction of the orange crop.

Yesterday, a news article out of Washington stated the following: “US President George W Bush will discuss rising oil prices and subsequent effects on global economies with Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah later this week.” The report further stated that “A White House spokeswoman also said that Bush would raise the issue of how high oil prices are draining the world economy.” While the debasement of the dollar is not the only contributing factor to rising oil prices, of all the factors, including dwindling supply, it is the largest singular contributor.

So again to use my analogy of the orange crops, singling out supply and production rates as being the most problematic factors in rising oil prices would be similar to discovering that 5% of all oranges destroyed by severe weather were also infested by bugs and then calling on a pesticide manufacturer to develop better pesticides as the solution. Of course, the best pesticides in the world still wouldn’t have saved the other 95% of oranges from being destroyed. In conclusion all the negotiation in the world won’t stop rising oil prices. Only a strong currency will stabilize prices and effectively moderate rates of inflation.

J.S. Kim is the President & Managing Director of SmartKnowledgeU™, an investment education & research firm with a unique mission of enabling investors to prosper as the dollar and financial crisis deepens. J.S.’s opinions are often distributed on nationally syndicated sites such as Reuters and Yahoo Finance and he has been quoted in numerous magazines, national newspapers and on television.

May 14, 2008 Posted by ilene9 | stocks | | 1 Comment

Death, Taxes and A Ridiculous Employment Report

Here’s a new article from Ken Bell, MarketRubbernecker.

Death, Taxes, and A Ridiculous Employment Report

I’m finally getting around to reviewing the latest monthly employment report. I would have tackled it sooner, but I don’t type well when I’m rolling on the floor laughing and coffee is coming out of my nose. Now that my sides have stopped hurting and my nose isn’t burning, let’s take a look at the report.

To recap, the market was looking for a loss of 80,000 jobs in April, and the “official” number came in much better at a loss of only 20,000. The media pretty much universally applauded the report with headlines such as:

“US Stocks Rally on Jobs Report” – International Herald Tribune

“Jobs: Glimmer of Good News in April” – BusinessWeek

“Fur Seal Caught Trying to Have Sex With Penguin” – FoxNews

“Stocks Seeing Strong Gains On Employment Report” – RTT News

“Job Loss Far Below Expectations” – TheStreet.com

This employment report reminded me of the recent Google (GOOG) and Intel (INTC) quarterly earnings reports. If you keep bringing down the estimates prior to the report to a level that’s easy to beat, you look like a hero when your report is just bad instead of apocalyptic. The purported loss of 20,000 jobs should look very suspect to anyone willing to pop an extra Ritalin, take a few minutes, and look beyond the headlines (this rules out most portfolio managers, government employees, and the breathing).

To really understand the employment numbers we have to look at what the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) calls its Birth/Death model. According to the BLS,

There is an unavoidable lag between an establishment opening for business and its appearing on the sample frame and being available for sampling. Because new firm births generate a portion of employment growth each month, non-sampling methods must be used to estimate this growth.

What’s going on here? Basically, the BLS samples businesses and government agencies for its employment report. These sampled entities account for about 1/3 of all nonfarm payroll jobs. The BLS should be able to accurately measure the change in employment for those firms that remain in the sample from one month to the next. After coming in late for work on one of his 27 annual non-holiday work days, catching up on the latest Hollywood gossip online, and taking a lunch break that would make even the Italians blush, your average government employee can still probably muster up the simple arithmetic needed for this calculation. The picture is a little fuzzier for those firms that die (go out of business) since some of them may be too busy hocking their nail guns and backhoes at the local pawn shop to respond to the survey, and others will have already fired everyone, including whoever was responsible for reporting their data to the BLS. The final factor is the birth of new firms. This one isn’t directly measurable in any given month since it takes about 7 months before a newly spawned firm is available for sampling.

So, the BLS created a statistical model to estimate the net employment effect of the recently deceased and the newly hatched. Unfortunately, their model doesn’t appear to be very effective at times when a significant change in trend is occurring. This is hardly surprising. They’re no better than any other government agency, circus monkey, Federal Reserve chairman, or economist at knowing when a recession is underway (no offense to the monkey), so we shouldn’t expect their model to accurately account for this. So there’s a lag between what the birth/death model calculates and what’s happening in the real world at significant turning points in economic activity. When we’re headed into a recession, the model is spitting out fairy tale numbers based on much more robust historical comparisons while real jobs are disappearing. When the economy is turning up and creating more jobs, the model is finally reflecting the preceding deterioration and predicting fewer birthed businesses. Interestingly, they used to admit to this shortcoming on their website but no longer do.

With that background let’s turn to the most recent employment data. According to the bullish BLS report, the economy only lost 20,000 jobs last month. Virtually everyone in the media focused on this figure (including the experts dropped off at CNBC daycare). What they should have been discussing (had they been aware of it) is that this figure includes 267,000 jobs assumed to have been created by the birth/death model! Unless Obama infiltrated the BLS with his cronies who secretly adjusted the numbers for his 7 new states, this number is ridiculous. Ignoring those assumed jobs, the economy would have registered a loss of 287,000 jobs. Can you imagine how the market would have reacted to that headline?!

So, GDP is flat-lining, the financial and retail industries are suffering, manufacturing remains a basket case, and housing is in freefall, but somehow this model assumes that new businesses created 267,000 jobs last month. It stretches the limits of one’s imagination. Where exactly is this job growth? Not everyone can be a repo man, auctioneer, or Wal-Mart greeter. The model tells us that 72,000 jobs were added in the “Professional & Business Services” category. Maybe all of those ex-Realtors and mortgage brokers have reinvented themselves as credit repair specialists. 83,000 jobs were supposedly created in “Leisure and Hospitality”. I guess it’s possible if they’re counting all the new stay-at-home Dads. 8,000 new “Financial” jobs were supposedly created despite the carnage in banking. Maybe they recategorized all of the lawyers now lining up to sue the banks?

I saved the best category for last. The model assumes that 45,000 jobs were created in April in the construction industry. The construction industry! Seriously, why are we paying these folks? Why do we have or need a BLS if this is the quality of their work? How do they explain this? We all know that the construction firms are going out of business and laying people off. Residential building is screeching to a halt and commercial is now being impacted as well. I suppose all of those people who were fired from their construction jobs turned right around and started their own construction businesses to take advantage of all the business the firm that fired them didn’t have. Before hocking his nail gun I think our pawn shop friend used it to put the last nail in the coffin of common sense.

Here’s another point I love. The actual full release of the employment report runs to 28 pages. Guess how many of those pages make mention of the 267,000 birth boost? Zero. There is a reference to the existence of the birth/death model in the “Frequently Asked Questions” and the “Reliability of the Estimates” sections, but if you want to actually find the number you have to go to a separate web page (http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm).

Furthermore, we all know that the employment figures are often significantly revised. The birth/death figures are no different. So, why does anyone pay attention to these releases, and why does the market move on this “news”? First of all, most participants don’t take the time to delve into the details of these reports. As I mentioned, the BLS doesn’t even provide the birth/death figures in its 28-page release. Second, even if you know these numbers are inaccurate at best, if you think that the rest of the market is going to pay attention and trade off of them then you need to be interested in them, too. In this case, if Trader Timmy is going to jump off a bridge, you’d better at least go and dangle your toes off the edge.

As for the BLS statistical methodology, I’m not one to rush to judgment. In the interest of fairness, I decided to use their random sampling methodology on the BLS itself. The results were as expected. I just came up with the B and the S.

May 14, 2008 Posted by ilene9 | stocks | | No Comments