One of my pet peeves has been all the talking heads... including the President this morning... trying to tell me (and you) that the valuation of the stock market is amazingly low and needs to be bought at these levels because it's 50% lower than it was last year.
Let's have a little lesson on valuation:
* The long-term Price/Earnings ratio for the stock market is 10x.
* The trough market valuation in the 1980-82 recession (as well as other recessions) was 6.8x earnings.
* The earnings estimates for the S&P 500 have dropped almost $2 over the past week.
* The current forward P/E ratio for the S&P 500 is 11.3x
What's that all that mean?
* Assuming earnings do not drop further, the market is still currently valued at 13% above median long-term valuations.
* Assuming earnings do not drop further, the market is 40% above trough valuations. That means we could see the S&P get close to 400 and the Dow get close to 4000.
* My assumptions include this recession/whatever-you-want-to-call-this-pain not being any worse than the 1980-82 downturn and EARNINGS NOT DROPPING ANY FURTHER.
You might have picked up on the fact that the assumption that earnings will not drop any further is a big stretch for me. And if earnings do drop... then what? Well, if earnings drop by 25% from here? Hmmmm. That means that the forward P/E would currently be 15x... meaning it would be 55% above the trough valuation.
Sleep well tonight.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Spare the change, spoil the child
If you spend much time at all chatting with me about the markets and the economy, you’ve probably heard my socio-economic theory on how we got here. But while I think I’m a pretty keen observer of patterns and trends, I didn’t have much hard core data to back me up… until Friday.
‘This American Life’, a radio show produced by Chicago Public Radio, has done some amazing work explaining the mortgage crisis, and followed up this past week with a show explaining the banking crisis in non-investment-geek English. I love the show and highly recommend tuning in.
Anyway, one of the experts that they chatted with was David Beim, a former banker turned professor at Columbia Business School, who has a graph that exactly illustrates why we’re this pickle… and which fits my theory exactly. Those of you who are impatient will want the graph now, but I’m going to make you wait (patience is a virtue). First, the theory.
Our grandparents (or great-grandparents, depending on your age) had a seminal event in their lives that changed how they approached everything: the Great Depression. Times were tough: unemployment at 25%, no social safety nets, record bank failures. These are people for whom thrift wasn’t just a good idea: it was the only way to survive. Credit? Not so much. Now I recognize that the credit card industry as we know it didn’t even exist until the 1950’s (Diner’s Club) or 1965 (BankAmericard) depending on how you define it. Still, the use of credit really wasn’t that tempting to that Depression generation. My 89 year old grandfather didn’t have a credit card until he was in his late 60s, and then he only got it in order to establish a credit file that was needed even though he was going to pay cash for whatever it was.
One of the things that I’ve observed (and I’m sure there’s a sociological study out there somewhere to support it, but I’m not going to go look it up) is that we all not only want a better life for our children, but most of us also want our kids to be raised differently than we were. Sometimes that takes the form of allowing a later curfew (or earlier if you yourself were a wild child). It probably also explains why grandparents and grandkids get along so well: they were most likely raised the same way and have a common enemy – the parent.
In monetary terms, though, I’ve seen time and time again that parents and grandparents continue to baby their children long past the time when they should have been self-sufficient. So the grandparents, those who lived through the Depression, provided more for their children than they could have ever had when they were growing up: dance lessons, a car to drive in high school, college education, more clothes, etc. And of course, because the children got more, they grew to expect more. Salaries hadn’t increased so much that when those kids went out on their own they could keep up the life style to which they had become accustomed, so the grandparents continued to help here and there so that their poor little darlings didn’t feel the awful pinch of want that they themselves had to live through.
Case in point? The baby boomers will receive the largest generational wealth transfer in history. Their parents not only took care of themselves through retirement, but in many cases provided the money their children will be using for retirement… unless they blow through it first. A generation or two of that, and you end up with some mighty spoiled consumers. Take a quick look around and you can see what (and who) I mean. Ummm, darlin’, don’t forget to look in that mirror over there.
So I suppose you could say I’m blaming the grandparents, but really it’s about the very natural greed of humans combined with the fading influence of the church’s (any church’s) values of charity and putting others above self. (Don’t even get me started on that here… but if you’d like to chat offline, email me.) Regardless, we haven’t spared the change, so we’ve not only spoiled the child… we’ve spoiled the economy.
How bad is it? Ahhh, glad you asked. This is where David Beim’s graph comes in (although I should add that there is attribution to Credit Suisse as the possible original source of the chart). I give to you a vision that should explain why it is that I’m not expecting this little downturn to end in 2009 (or 2010… or 2011…)
The graph measures the ratio of household debt to Gross Domestic Product. Don’t let the different lines throw you… they’re basically the same thing, but the government apparently changed the data series midway through the graph. What should you take away from this? The last time and ONLY time we Americans have had this much debt on our PERSONAL balance sheets was 1929. Folks, it's at 100% of GDP. One. Hundred. Percent. It seems apparent to me my friends that we’re in for one of those lovely life-changing experiences just like grandma and grandpa had. Fasten your seatbelts… it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
‘This American Life’, a radio show produced by Chicago Public Radio, has done some amazing work explaining the mortgage crisis, and followed up this past week with a show explaining the banking crisis in non-investment-geek English. I love the show and highly recommend tuning in.
Anyway, one of the experts that they chatted with was David Beim, a former banker turned professor at Columbia Business School, who has a graph that exactly illustrates why we’re this pickle… and which fits my theory exactly. Those of you who are impatient will want the graph now, but I’m going to make you wait (patience is a virtue). First, the theory.
Our grandparents (or great-grandparents, depending on your age) had a seminal event in their lives that changed how they approached everything: the Great Depression. Times were tough: unemployment at 25%, no social safety nets, record bank failures. These are people for whom thrift wasn’t just a good idea: it was the only way to survive. Credit? Not so much. Now I recognize that the credit card industry as we know it didn’t even exist until the 1950’s (Diner’s Club) or 1965 (BankAmericard) depending on how you define it. Still, the use of credit really wasn’t that tempting to that Depression generation. My 89 year old grandfather didn’t have a credit card until he was in his late 60s, and then he only got it in order to establish a credit file that was needed even though he was going to pay cash for whatever it was.
One of the things that I’ve observed (and I’m sure there’s a sociological study out there somewhere to support it, but I’m not going to go look it up) is that we all not only want a better life for our children, but most of us also want our kids to be raised differently than we were. Sometimes that takes the form of allowing a later curfew (or earlier if you yourself were a wild child). It probably also explains why grandparents and grandkids get along so well: they were most likely raised the same way and have a common enemy – the parent.
In monetary terms, though, I’ve seen time and time again that parents and grandparents continue to baby their children long past the time when they should have been self-sufficient. So the grandparents, those who lived through the Depression, provided more for their children than they could have ever had when they were growing up: dance lessons, a car to drive in high school, college education, more clothes, etc. And of course, because the children got more, they grew to expect more. Salaries hadn’t increased so much that when those kids went out on their own they could keep up the life style to which they had become accustomed, so the grandparents continued to help here and there so that their poor little darlings didn’t feel the awful pinch of want that they themselves had to live through.
Case in point? The baby boomers will receive the largest generational wealth transfer in history. Their parents not only took care of themselves through retirement, but in many cases provided the money their children will be using for retirement… unless they blow through it first. A generation or two of that, and you end up with some mighty spoiled consumers. Take a quick look around and you can see what (and who) I mean. Ummm, darlin’, don’t forget to look in that mirror over there.
So I suppose you could say I’m blaming the grandparents, but really it’s about the very natural greed of humans combined with the fading influence of the church’s (any church’s) values of charity and putting others above self. (Don’t even get me started on that here… but if you’d like to chat offline, email me.) Regardless, we haven’t spared the change, so we’ve not only spoiled the child… we’ve spoiled the economy.
How bad is it? Ahhh, glad you asked. This is where David Beim’s graph comes in (although I should add that there is attribution to Credit Suisse as the possible original source of the chart). I give to you a vision that should explain why it is that I’m not expecting this little downturn to end in 2009 (or 2010… or 2011…)
The graph measures the ratio of household debt to Gross Domestic Product. Don’t let the different lines throw you… they’re basically the same thing, but the government apparently changed the data series midway through the graph. What should you take away from this? The last time and ONLY time we Americans have had this much debt on our PERSONAL balance sheets was 1929. Folks, it's at 100% of GDP. One. Hundred. Percent. It seems apparent to me my friends that we’re in for one of those lovely life-changing experiences just like grandma and grandpa had. Fasten your seatbelts… it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Loans loans everywhere and not a cent to spend
Before I even start, I want to be clear that I am not espousing a political opinion here. I hate politics. I'm not interested in them. But I do like investing (well, up until recently). And we all know I *LOVE* retail (well, up until recently). I want to go back to the good ole days of making and spending stupid amounts of money just as much as you do. But it would be disingenuous to suggest that it were possible to do so. I firmly believe that we are in the midst of a Great Adjustment not unlike that which our grandparents experienced... but different because we got here differently.
So, what I'm trying to figure out how we get out of this mire in which we're muddling. I'm all about common sense, or at least I'd like to be. The President just talked about 'new common sense rules of the road' (that's a direct quote from the President's speech... just a second ago), but then he's talking about increasing the lending again. He mentioned that it was only through borrowing that Americans could buy homes (okay), buy cars (can't we buy cheaper cars?) and attend college (a little help is fine, but those kids coming out of college with $110k in debt are in a world of hurt that will take YEARS to dig out from.)
Okay, the banks have shut off the faucet completely. For businesses. For consumers. For everyone. That's not good. We know what happens when there is no credit - there is no economy. I don't like that. You don't like that. Heck, no one in the world likes that. On the other hand, when there's too much credit, problems also ensue.
I am so very very concerned that all the talk is about getting lending moving again so that the consumer can bounce back. Our consumers have been consuming too much, have collected too much debt already, and they're going to be digging out for a long long time. I'm not saying I'm an expert, but I play one on TV. Every indicator I can find shows the U.S. consumer is tapped out, drowning in debt, swimming in stuff that they thought they needed but really didn't.
Let's think about this. Home mortgage default rates (delinquent loans as a percentage of total loans) are over 5%. Maybe that's because the long-term average percentage of Americans who own homes is 65%... and even with all the foreclosures we're still at roughly 67.5% owning homes. Too many people who couldn't afford a home were allowed to buy a home anyway, at least for a time.
We all know about the problem with subprime loans, but no one is really talking about the next pig in the python: the Option Adjustable Rate Mortgage problem that is staring us in the face. These Option ARMS are even more toxic than the subprime mortgages, maybe that's why no one wants to talk about them.
I gave a talk last weekend on the economy entitled "Fairy Tales Retold: Today's Economy Explained."
In the case of consumer credit, my point is that you can wait for Prince Charming all you want, but he's not going to pay off your debt... he can't afford to pay off his own! Okay, we're a little off the highs, but consumer credit (not including mortgages, just credit card-like stuff) is over 21% of personal income. Back in 1974 we were closer to 15%. Of course, we didn't all have fabulous designer handbags and great technological toys back then either.
I can't tell you how many folks I've had tell me that their home is their savings account. Great thought until home prices fall 20%. A better place for savings might be, wait for it, a savings account. But as a culture we apparently don't believe in those either, maybe because they don't give you the rush that the stock or housing markets do. They also don't turn your stomach like the stock or housing markets.
In the graph above I've shown the personal savings rate as a percentage of disposable income since 1959. The average over that time period is indicated by the gold line across the middle: 6.9%. It doesn't take a statistician to see that the average is only that high because of the early years in the graph. In fact, since the beginning of 2005, the average is only 0.8%. No, that's not a typo. Less than 1% of our disposable incomes are being saved. No wonder we're living on debt, we don't have anything in savings for emergencies. And up until last quarter, a sale at Macy's qualified as an emergency.
So when the tap got turned off by the banks and it looked like they were really serious this time, is it any wonder that retail sales took a nose dive down the rabbit hole?
That little graph there shows the year over year change in retail sales since 1992. That drop-off on the right side? Unprecedented. Ugly too.
So we have no savings in our homes or savings accounts. We have lots of credit card debt. We have lots of people defaulting on their mortgages and more to come. We're a consumer economy (70% of the economy is consumer driven), and we're not buying any more... because we can't.
I'm not saying we won't get out of this, because we will. But anyone who's believing it's going to be quick or easy? Not so much. I don't have the answer, but I'm pretty sure we can't leverage ourselves out of it this time.
So, what I'm trying to figure out how we get out of this mire in which we're muddling. I'm all about common sense, or at least I'd like to be. The President just talked about 'new common sense rules of the road' (that's a direct quote from the President's speech... just a second ago), but then he's talking about increasing the lending again. He mentioned that it was only through borrowing that Americans could buy homes (okay), buy cars (can't we buy cheaper cars?) and attend college (a little help is fine, but those kids coming out of college with $110k in debt are in a world of hurt that will take YEARS to dig out from.)
Okay, the banks have shut off the faucet completely. For businesses. For consumers. For everyone. That's not good. We know what happens when there is no credit - there is no economy. I don't like that. You don't like that. Heck, no one in the world likes that. On the other hand, when there's too much credit, problems also ensue.
I am so very very concerned that all the talk is about getting lending moving again so that the consumer can bounce back. Our consumers have been consuming too much, have collected too much debt already, and they're going to be digging out for a long long time. I'm not saying I'm an expert, but I play one on TV. Every indicator I can find shows the U.S. consumer is tapped out, drowning in debt, swimming in stuff that they thought they needed but really didn't.
Let's think about this. Home mortgage default rates (delinquent loans as a percentage of total loans) are over 5%. Maybe that's because the long-term average percentage of Americans who own homes is 65%... and even with all the foreclosures we're still at roughly 67.5% owning homes. Too many people who couldn't afford a home were allowed to buy a home anyway, at least for a time.
We all know about the problem with subprime loans, but no one is really talking about the next pig in the python: the Option Adjustable Rate Mortgage problem that is staring us in the face. These Option ARMS are even more toxic than the subprime mortgages, maybe that's why no one wants to talk about them.
I gave a talk last weekend on the economy entitled "Fairy Tales Retold: Today's Economy Explained."
In the case of consumer credit, my point is that you can wait for Prince Charming all you want, but he's not going to pay off your debt... he can't afford to pay off his own! Okay, we're a little off the highs, but consumer credit (not including mortgages, just credit card-like stuff) is over 21% of personal income. Back in 1974 we were closer to 15%. Of course, we didn't all have fabulous designer handbags and great technological toys back then either.I can't tell you how many folks I've had tell me that their home is their savings account. Great thought until home prices fall 20%. A better place for savings might be, wait for it, a savings account. But as a culture we apparently don't believe in those either, maybe because they don't give you the rush that the stock or housing markets do. They also don't turn your stomach like the stock or housing markets.
In the graph above I've shown the personal savings rate as a percentage of disposable income since 1959. The average over that time period is indicated by the gold line across the middle: 6.9%. It doesn't take a statistician to see that the average is only that high because of the early years in the graph. In fact, since the beginning of 2005, the average is only 0.8%. No, that's not a typo. Less than 1% of our disposable incomes are being saved. No wonder we're living on debt, we don't have anything in savings for emergencies. And up until last quarter, a sale at Macy's qualified as an emergency.
So when the tap got turned off by the banks and it looked like they were really serious this time, is it any wonder that retail sales took a nose dive down the rabbit hole?
That little graph there shows the year over year change in retail sales since 1992. That drop-off on the right side? Unprecedented. Ugly too.
So we have no savings in our homes or savings accounts. We have lots of credit card debt. We have lots of people defaulting on their mortgages and more to come. We're a consumer economy (70% of the economy is consumer driven), and we're not buying any more... because we can't.
I'm not saying we won't get out of this, because we will. But anyone who's believing it's going to be quick or easy? Not so much. I don't have the answer, but I'm pretty sure we can't leverage ourselves out of it this time.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Yep, he saw his shadow all right
So I know I'm a couple of days late, but on Monday Punxsutawney Phil (the most famous groundhog ever) saw his shadow, thus predicting another six weeks of winter.
Interestingly, in a similar ceremony held this morning in Issaquah, Washington, my friends at Costco confirmed Phil's bleak outlook. The company came out with comparable store sales of -2% ... not horrid when you consider that gasoline price declines hurt sales by 4% in the US and the strong dollar accounted for an 18% (yes, eighteen percent, that's not a typo) swing in International comparable sales from 9% in local currencies to -9% in dollars. But still, not good. Even worse, earnings for this quarter are going to be 'significantly' below the $0.70 estimated by Wall Street pundits and the company is withdrawing guidance for the rest of the year. 'Significantly' translated to 10% below expectations last quarter... but the company isn't offering interpretations this quarter. Let's just call it yucky and move on.
More of an issue than sales were margins on discretionary items. Let's face it, even though Costco got good pricing on some fabulous items, they were competing against mainstream retailers that were quite literally willing to give away the shirts on their racks in order to clear inventory. One example is the cashmere sweaters they had in the Issaquah store. They arrived in November with a price of about $69. Normally, they would have sold like hot cakes at the original price, but these are not, if you haven't noticed, normal times. By Christmas they were about $49. The killer, though, was that in mid to late January there were STILL cashmere sweaters for sale. Maybe cashmere is 'out' right now. I noticed it wasn't selling well at Macy's either. But more likely, Costco's 'bargain' price didn't look as bargain-ish when compared to the discounts the mainline retailers offered. Thank goodness they sell food too, which drove the frequency of customer visits to a high 4%.
Bottom line for me, though, is that if Costco which sells food/staples (~60% of revenue) and discounted discretionary items (~40% of revenue) is having issues, we are obviously still smack dab in the winter of our discontent. It doesn't appear likely that the sun, my friends, is going to shine on the consumer in the near term - literally or figuratively.
Interestingly, in a similar ceremony held this morning in Issaquah, Washington, my friends at Costco confirmed Phil's bleak outlook. The company came out with comparable store sales of -2% ... not horrid when you consider that gasoline price declines hurt sales by 4% in the US and the strong dollar accounted for an 18% (yes, eighteen percent, that's not a typo) swing in International comparable sales from 9% in local currencies to -9% in dollars. But still, not good. Even worse, earnings for this quarter are going to be 'significantly' below the $0.70 estimated by Wall Street pundits and the company is withdrawing guidance for the rest of the year. 'Significantly' translated to 10% below expectations last quarter... but the company isn't offering interpretations this quarter. Let's just call it yucky and move on.
More of an issue than sales were margins on discretionary items. Let's face it, even though Costco got good pricing on some fabulous items, they were competing against mainstream retailers that were quite literally willing to give away the shirts on their racks in order to clear inventory. One example is the cashmere sweaters they had in the Issaquah store. They arrived in November with a price of about $69. Normally, they would have sold like hot cakes at the original price, but these are not, if you haven't noticed, normal times. By Christmas they were about $49. The killer, though, was that in mid to late January there were STILL cashmere sweaters for sale. Maybe cashmere is 'out' right now. I noticed it wasn't selling well at Macy's either. But more likely, Costco's 'bargain' price didn't look as bargain-ish when compared to the discounts the mainline retailers offered. Thank goodness they sell food too, which drove the frequency of customer visits to a high 4%.
Bottom line for me, though, is that if Costco which sells food/staples (~60% of revenue) and discounted discretionary items (~40% of revenue) is having issues, we are obviously still smack dab in the winter of our discontent. It doesn't appear likely that the sun, my friends, is going to shine on the consumer in the near term - literally or figuratively.
Monday, February 2, 2009
An afternoon at the museum
I had occasion to meet a friend for lunch today. We decided to take our chances and try to get in at a favorite restaurant in the local museum. This particular museum is the best in the area and full of lots of lovely displays that they change with the seasons.
Frankly, because it's such a beautiful place as well as a yummy restaurant, I was shocked shocked shocked at how empty both were. Yes, it was midday during the week, but come on. We weren't just seated immediately, we were seated in a really empty section, our food arrived really quickly, and the place stayed fairly empty the entire time we were there.
I suppose the economy has a lot to do with that. Heck, the economy had a lot to do with the museum becoming what it is today. Just last year, I remember when this museum changed its displays because they old ones had been sold out instead of them just being shipped off to the discount liquidators. And it was just last year when that restaurant had an hour long wait at almost anytime of day. But last year consumers had credit cards, they had investment portfolios, the economy was going just fine (or so we thought) and consumers were spending like drunken sailors. Ahh, the good ol' days.
It's just so sad to see such a fabulous, high endmuseum mall so bereft of shoppers. And I love love love the Cheesecake Factory, but if the place stays that easy to get into, it'll quickly be impossible to get a table since they'll be closed.
If anyone out there has insight as to how this could reverse itself quickly, please do tell! My inbox in open, and I'd love some reason to be more positive on both the stock market in general as well as retail stocks in particular. But today Macy's cut 7,000 jobs, which is a pretty clear indicator that they're not looking for a quick turnaround either.
Frankly, because it's such a beautiful place as well as a yummy restaurant, I was shocked shocked shocked at how empty both were. Yes, it was midday during the week, but come on. We weren't just seated immediately, we were seated in a really empty section, our food arrived really quickly, and the place stayed fairly empty the entire time we were there.
I suppose the economy has a lot to do with that. Heck, the economy had a lot to do with the museum becoming what it is today. Just last year, I remember when this museum changed its displays because they old ones had been sold out instead of them just being shipped off to the discount liquidators. And it was just last year when that restaurant had an hour long wait at almost anytime of day. But last year consumers had credit cards, they had investment portfolios, the economy was going just fine (or so we thought) and consumers were spending like drunken sailors. Ahh, the good ol' days.
It's just so sad to see such a fabulous, high end
If anyone out there has insight as to how this could reverse itself quickly, please do tell! My inbox in open, and I'd love some reason to be more positive on both the stock market in general as well as retail stocks in particular. But today Macy's cut 7,000 jobs, which is a pretty clear indicator that they're not looking for a quick turnaround either.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
::squish:: ::squish:: ::squish::
Well, someone stepped in something unpleasant this morning.
Our friends at "The Squish" (as my friends and I have called Microsoft for years) were supposed to report earnings this afternoon after the close. Apparently someone leaked something, so they did a surprise announcement before the market opening today.
To say the numbers weren't good would be an understatement. Earnings per share were $0.47 versus expectations for $0.49 and last year's $0.50. Sales were only up 1.6% for the quarter. Personal computers just aren't selling well (unless it's an Apple)... and I hear the beta version of Windows 7 is already more popular than Vista ever has been, so people are waiting for the formal release before they buy.
There have been rather vigorous rumors floating around the Seattle area for weeks now about a large and looming layoff at Microsoft. This is a big deal since they have never laid anyone off, even when the tech bubble burst in 2000. This morning they confirmed that there will be layoffs of up to 5,000 people over the next 18 months. Since I'd personally heard 15,000 I suppose only 5,000 is a bit of a victory. Either way, it will certainly change the landscape in Seattle. Let's see, we've lost Washington Mutual, the Seattle P-I newspaper (probably all gone, goodbye), and now folks from Microsoft.
Looks like this economic malaise might actually be getting serious or something.
Our friends at "The Squish" (as my friends and I have called Microsoft for years) were supposed to report earnings this afternoon after the close. Apparently someone leaked something, so they did a surprise announcement before the market opening today.
To say the numbers weren't good would be an understatement. Earnings per share were $0.47 versus expectations for $0.49 and last year's $0.50. Sales were only up 1.6% for the quarter. Personal computers just aren't selling well (unless it's an Apple)... and I hear the beta version of Windows 7 is already more popular than Vista ever has been, so people are waiting for the formal release before they buy.
There have been rather vigorous rumors floating around the Seattle area for weeks now about a large and looming layoff at Microsoft. This is a big deal since they have never laid anyone off, even when the tech bubble burst in 2000. This morning they confirmed that there will be layoffs of up to 5,000 people over the next 18 months. Since I'd personally heard 15,000 I suppose only 5,000 is a bit of a victory. Either way, it will certainly change the landscape in Seattle. Let's see, we've lost Washington Mutual, the Seattle P-I newspaper (probably all gone, goodbye), and now folks from Microsoft.
Looks like this economic malaise might actually be getting serious or something.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Selling apples on street corners
Apparently our great grandparents were onto something when they sold apples on street corners during the Great Depression. While I've never seen their quarterly earnings reports from that period, I know there were a number of folks who supported their families that way, at least for a time.
Fast forward to today and whatever we're calling this economic scenario: apples are still selling better than expected. After the market close Apple Computer (AAPL) announced earnings of $1.78, slicing and dicing the analyst's expectations for $1.39. I'll admit that I wasn't blown away by the traffic in their stores on Black Friday, but they did have some of the more consistent traffic over the holiday period.
Technology "toys" are obviously still big business. And the iPhone was one of the few must-have items this year.
I still don't believe that all technology is going to be able to press out numbers like these, but it's nice to know a few surprises to the upside are still possible.
Fast forward to today and whatever we're calling this economic scenario: apples are still selling better than expected. After the market close Apple Computer (AAPL) announced earnings of $1.78, slicing and dicing the analyst's expectations for $1.39. I'll admit that I wasn't blown away by the traffic in their stores on Black Friday, but they did have some of the more consistent traffic over the holiday period.
Technology "toys" are obviously still big business. And the iPhone was one of the few must-have items this year.
I still don't believe that all technology is going to be able to press out numbers like these, but it's nice to know a few surprises to the upside are still possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
