Earnings and revenues can't diverge forever: James Saft

Just about halfway through the U.S. third-quarter corporate reporting season and we find that 59 percent of S&P 500 companies have beaten their earnings estimates, down a bit from last quarter but still an upbeat number.

 

And yet about 60 percent have missed their sales targets, meaning that corporate America is somehow extracting more profit than promised despite bringing less money into the tills than expected.

 

That's admirable, but perhaps a bit disturbingly close to magical.

 

On many readings, all is rosy in the land of equities. Not only does the market have crucial support from central banks bent on forcing money into risk assets (and hoping some of the profits get spent), earnings are at record highs and the amount investors will pay for a share of those earnings is going up.

 

Analysts are forecasting fourth-quarter earnings to grow at a near 9 percent clip, down from the 17 percent they were penciling in earlier but still enough to take the earnings of the S&P 500 to almost $27 per share, in what would be yet another record.

 

And next year analysts are looking for growth of about 12 percent. That optimism, combined with quantitative easing fever and complacency over the euro zone, has allowed price-to-earnings multiples to expand, and not just in the United States.

 

On a global basis, forward-looking P/E valuations have gotten richer since early June, according to Morgan Stanley analysis, most notably for companies in mining, materials, energy and even finance.

 

That's all well and good, but very hard to square with the increasing number of companies saying they haven't been able to deliver promised growth in revenues. The huge majority of S&P 500 companies giving revenue or earnings guidance for the coming quarter have guided downwards, according to data from FactSet.

 

Third-quarter revenue for chemicals company DuPont dropped 9.2 percent from the year-before quarter, to $7.4 billion, below the $8.15 billion analysts expected, a miss the company blamed on global drops in demand. DuPont slashed its full-year earnings estimate to between $3.25 and $3.50 a share from about $4.20 before.

 

Similarly, farm and construction equipment maker Caterpillar Inc lowered its forecasts for the second time in a year, citing economic weakness and uncertainty.

 

WHERE'S THE GROWTH?

 

So, we have a trend towards lower revenue growth, a dwindling number of companies beating expectations and yet a world in which investors see this combination as growing in value.

 

In some ways this is reminiscent of the housing market in the middle years of the last decade, where prices, year after year, outpaced wage and income gains. The argument then was that incomes would soon catch up and that housing was cheap on a financing basis.

 

Housing, of course, was brought down with a thump when people finally worked out that the two numbers - cost and the amount of money available to service the debt backing that cost - could not forever drift further apart.

 

So it may prove for shares.

 

Surely some of the growth of earnings is a credit to company managers, who are proving unrelenting in wringing efficiencies from corporate structures, allowing for earnings growth even in challenging times.

 

Earnings are, on some level, an opinion. There is art to it as well as just math. Think about a bank which values assets and that drives earnings: those marks are ultimately subjective. While earnings may be more or less than meets the eye, a dollar in revenues is always a dollar.

 

Try this: compare earnings on an economy-wide basis and compare to overall economic output. On this measure, corporate America does not have a lot of room to expand its share of the pie, because earnings as a percentage of GDP are at near-record highs and are about half as high again as the kinds of figures we saw in most of the past 50 years.

 

The upside is, if the growth of earnings is confirmed over time by growth in the economy, this would send money flooding into corporations and allow for equity prices to rise even more relative to earnings. That, of course, depends on the fiscal cliff, the euro zone, China and any number of other tough-to-call macro issues.

 

The downside, of course, is that earnings revert to mean in terms of their share of overall output. When you track U.S. wages against profits, you see where most of the expanding share is coming from.

 

It may well be, especially if the government is not going to become much more leveraged, that profits will be limited by wage growth within a context of low overall growth. That particular scenario is only an outside chance, but one which would cause a big fall in shares.

 

Ultimately, the pie is going to have to grow for equities to hold their ground, much less gain more.

 

(At the time of publication James Saft did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund. You can email him at jamessaft@jamessaft.com and find more columns at blogs.reuters.com/james-saft )

 

(James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own)

 

(Edited by Chelsea Emery)

Election Proving a Cliff-Hanger for the Dollar

This year's presidential election in the U.S. is probably the most important in years, not only for the U.S. economy but also for the dollar.

The outcome on Nov. 6 will dictate who will be in the White House for the next four years, how much power he will have to resolve the country's immediate and long-term fiscal problems and whether the U.S. will lose the key triple-A rating that has made the dollar a safe haven for many years.

The market's focus on the election will be even more intense as it comes as the economy continues to struggle out of recession, after a couple of previous false starts, and as a way to prevent the reversal of previous tax cuts due to take place on January 2, 2013--the so-called fiscal cliff--has yet to be found.

Now, it is all in the hands of the U.S. electorate.

The problem for financial markets is that the election is becoming too close to call, with the latest polls showing the Democrat incumbent Barack Obama neck and neck with his Republican opponent Mitt Romney.

This in itself is starting to pose a threat to current market stability, especially if the final vote is too close to allow an immediate declaration and negotiations on the fiscal cliff have to be delayed even further.

As President Obama's previous attempts to resolve the issue with a Republican-led House of Representatives have shown over the last year, the issue is highly divisive and unlikely to lend itself to a quick resolution.

For financial markets, and the U.S. economy, probably the best near-term solution would be either a clear victory for Mr. Romney, keeping the House with him, or a clear victory for President Obama. In either case, that would probably mean at least a short-term extension of the existing tax cuts while negotiations on a longer-term solution take place.

But given the state of current polls, other, more messy, results are more likely. President Obama could be returned to the White House, retaining the status quo of a Democrat majority in the Senate and a Republican majority in the House. Or, he could lose the Senate as well and face an even more implacable task trying to reduce the tax cuts for the very rich.

Similarly, a close result with Mr. Romney in the White House but no backing in the Senate would reduce the chances of swift progress.

Whichever, the chances of a tax-cut extension will be considerably smaller and the U.S. economy could find itself falling over the infamous fiscal cliff.

A protracted stand-off between the White House and Congress would not only introduce fresh uncertainty to financial markets but bring new fiscal tightening to a U.S. economy that is already very fragile.

How this affects the dollar could prove difficult to predict. For much of this year as the global, and U.S., economies have stumbled, the dollar has remained relatively firm as investors have preferred safe havens.

But the dollar's role as one of these havens could well come under threat if the political uncertainty in Washington continues to threaten the U.S. recovery and if concern about the country's longer-term ability to deal with its gigantic deficits starts to undermine investor confidence.

Rumors once again surfaced this week that Fitch would remove the country's triple-A credit rating, a move that could make U.S. assets less attractive than they appear now, although Fitch said its rating is unlikely to change before late 2013.

Hints of what could come were already evident in U.S. Treasurys, where an auction of seven-year paper this week proved the weakest since 2009.

And there's still more than a week to go until the election.

(This is an opinion column by Nicholas Hastings, who is a Senior Correspondent in London for Dow Jones Newswires and has written about foreign exchange for more than 20 years. He previously covered a variety of markets, including equities, fixed income, commodities and energy. He can be contacted on +44-20-7842-9493, by email at nick.hastings@dowjones.com or on Twitter @NickHastingsDJ)

Clara Schumann: Famous wife but a musician in her own right

In the world of classical music, Clara Schumann's husband, Robert, is widely known. Yet Clara was not just wife and mother, but a virtuoso pianist.  Clara is getting worldwide attention Thursday, on the occasion of her 193rd birthday, with a Google Doodle.

Though Robert was 10 years older than Clara, her career started flourishing before his.

She was born Clara Josephine Wieck in Leipzig, Germany. Her music-teacher father taught her to play piano and she was performing by age 9.

INTERACTIVE: Fall Arts Preview

Around that time, Robert Schumann was in the early stages of a musical career and took piano lessons from Clara's father. But Robert became so obsessed with developing his playing technique that he damaged a finger badly enough that he had to give up playing and turn to composition. At 19, Clara became infatuated with him.

Even before it began, their marriage wasn't easy. Believing an unknown composer unfit for his talented daughter, Clara's father tried to keep them apart; when they wanted to marry he refused to give permission. They ultimately wed a day before she turned 21 and settled in Leipzig.

As he became musically proficient, she continued to perform both alone and on tour with Robert. She had their first child a year after they married and became pregnant nine more times, bearing eight children over the next 14 years.

ARTS PREVIEW: Classical music

In the mid 1840s, Robert was suffering from bouts of depression that would continue to plague him and their marriage. In 1854 he attempted to drown himself in the Rhine river and was committed to an asylum, where Clara could not visit him. She finally saw him once before he died two years later at 46. 

Clara lived for 40 more years, outliving several of her children.

She continued a long career as a concert pianist and editing her husband's works.  In her later years she taught piano in Frankfurt, where she died following a stroke at age 76, in 1896.

[For the record, 8:48 a.m., Sept. 13: An earlier version of this post had incorrect years for events in the Schumanns' lives. Robert was suffering from depression in the 1840s, not the 1940s, and Clara died in 1896, not 1986.]

 

The Medley of Amusing Donald

Carly Rae Jepsen - This Kiss

shulie cowen imdb,shulie cowen facebook

• shulie cowen imdb,
• shulie cowen facebook

Susan Hawk

During the original Survivor season she was a fan favorite and even celebrities, such as Rosie O'Donnell, were rooting for the working-class, midwestern truck driver, who presented herself as outgoing, open, and opinionated. Hawk seemed to get far in the game by using her secret alliance with Richard Hatch, Kelly Wiglesworth, and Rudy Boesch during a time when other cast members did not yet use alliances, and several even considered allied voting to be "cheating". Hawk liked being viewed as a stupid redneck during the game, and kept her intelligence hidden in order to throw off her opponents.

As the fourth-place finisher, she launched into her "rats and snakes" speech about the top two, Richard and Kelly. In her speech, she said there are only two things on the entire island: rats and snakes. Richard was a snake and Kelly a rat, and Hawk told the Jury members that they should obey the laws of nature by letting the snake eat the rat. She also told Kelly that if she ever saw her in a desert, dying of thirst, she would not stop to give her a sip of water and that she'd like to see the vultures get her. This resulted in angering Colleen Haskell and Gervase Peterson, who voted for Kelly. Nevertheless, Hatch still won 4-3.

The "rats and snakes" moment is arguably the most remembered moment in Survivor history, as the season one finale was the highest rated episode of Survivor to date and it was the first (but not the last) time in Survivor that anyone ever expressed such bitterness and anger. Entertainment Weekly put it on its end-of-the-decade, "best-of" list.^[1]