50% Profit Growth And Historical Realities

Submitted by Lance Roberts of STA Wealth Management,

As the markets push once again into record territory the question of valuations becomes ever more important.  While valuations are a poor timing tool in the short term for investors, in the long run valuation levels have everything to do with future returns.  The reason I bring this up is that in 2013 reported earnings per share for the S&P 500 rose by 15.9% to a record of $100.28 per share with roughly 40% of that increase occurring in the 4th quarter alone.  That late surge in corporate profits was a bit of a surprise as estimates had been lowered going into the end of last year.  The question, however, remains the ongoing sustainability of that growth rate of earnings going forward.  John Hussman, via Hussman Funds, made an interesting point in this regard in a recent note:

"I’ve noted frequently that after-tax corporate profits as a share of national income are about 70% above historical norms; that these profit shares are heavily mean-reverting and strongly (inversely) associated with subsequent profit growth over the following 3-4 year period; and that the current surplus of corporate profits is the mirror-image of corresponding deficits in household and government savings (a relationship detailed in prior weekly comments). Recent profits data, as well as the entire historical record, are tightly explained by these factors.

 

Notably, this data is derived from the national income accounts computed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and it’s worth understanding how the BEA computes profits. Specifically, the BEA points out, 'Because national income is defined as the income of U.S. residents, its profits component includes income earned abroad by U.S. corporations and excludes income earned in the United States by foreigners.'”

The chart below shows corporate profits, per the BEA, divided by GDP.  (You can substitute GNP but the result is virtually identical between the two measures.)

Corporate-Profits-GDP-030414

The current levels of profits, as a share of GDP, are at record levels.  This is interesting because corporate profits should be a reflection of the underlying economic strength.  However, in recent years, due to financial engineering, wage and employment suppression and increase in productivity, corporate profits have become extremely deviated.

This deviation begs the question of sustainability.  Currently, according to the S&P website, reported corporate earnings are expected to grow by 20.26% in 2014, and by an additional 20.28% in 2015.  In total, reported earnings are expected to grow by almost 50% ($100.28/share as of 2013 to $147.50/share in 2015) over the next two years.

If we assume that these projections are accurate, and we assume a continued growth rate of 2% annually in the economy (as has been witness the average since 1999) we can put the current environment into perspective.  The chart below shows real, inflation adjusted, GDP and reported earnings, both actual and estimates, through 2015.

S&P-500-Earnings-GrowthvsEst-030314

I also notated the previous earnings trendline estimates that existed prior to each market peak.  

The sustainability of corporate profits is dependent on two primary factors; sustained revenue growth and cost controls.  From each dollar of sales is subtracted the operating costs of the business to achieve net profitability.  The chart below shows the percentage change of sales, what happens at the top line of the income statement, as compared to actual earnings (reported and operating) growth. 

S&P-500-AccountingMagic-030414

Since 2000, each dollar of gross sales has been increased into more than $1 in operating and reported profits through financial engineering and cost suppression.  The next chart shows that the surge in corporate profitability in recent years is a result of a consistent reduction of both employment and wage growth.  This has been achieved by increases in productivity, technology and offshoring of labor.  However, it is important to note that benefits from such actions are finite.

Wages-to-Profits-030414-2

As asset prices continue to surge higher in hopes of an "economic revival," the question of "sustainability" of corporate profitability looms large.

As John Hussman concludes:

"Given the economic landscape of recent years, large offsetting sectoral deficits and surpluses are not surprising, but they should not be taken as evidence that the long-term profitability of the corporate sector has permanently shifted higher. Stocks are not a claim to a few years of cash flows, but decades and decades of them. By pricing stocks as if current profits are representative of the indefinite future, investors have ensured themselves a rude awakening over time. Equity valuations are decidedly a long-term proposition, and from present levels, the implied long-term returns are quite dim.

 

The chart below (CPATAX/GNP) provides a good summary of the present situation, and a reasonable sense of what we expect for corporate profit growth over the coming several years."

Profit-Growth-GNP-ForwardGrowth-030314

As we know from repeatedly from history, extrapolated projections rarely happen.  Could this time be different?  Sure.  However, believing that historical tendencies have evolved into a new paradigm will likely have the same results as playing leapfrog with a Unicorn

There is mounting evidence, from valuations being paid in M&A deals, junk bond yields, margin debt and price extensions from long term means, "irrational exuberance" is once again returning to the financial markets.  However, that does not mean that a mean reversion process in imminent.  It was in 1996 when Alan Greenspan first uttered those famous words, it was 4 years later before investors regretted not paying attention them.  It is likely that the same will be true this time.  With the Federal Reserve still pushing liquidity into the markets, there is little to deter the "bullish bias" presently.  However, as John noted above, investors that fail to heed the warning signs will likely ensure themselves a rude awakening over time


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1dnwMTt Tyler Durden

DC Council Votes To Decriminalize Marijuana

Cheers to the District of Columbia Council, which voted today in
favor of
a measure decriminalizing marijuana possession
in the district.
Under the new rules, possessing a small amount of marijuana will be
a civil, not criminal, offense, punishable by a $25 fine. That’s
less then the price of your average D.C. parking ticket!

The law also: 

  • protects people who share marijuana from being prosecuted as
    dealers

  • prevents police from charging people with possession or dealing
    if they simultaneously possess both bags of marijuana and lots of
    cash

According
to The Washington Post
, the move makes the capital one
of the most lenient places in the nation for marijuana possession,
after many years of strict war-on-drugs policing that
disproportionately harmed the city’s African American residents.
According to the measure’s author, Council member Tommy Wells
(D-Ward 6),
eight times more blacks than non-blacks are arrested
for pot
possession in the district. A report released by the American Civil
Liberties Union last June showed that D.C. had a higher marijuana
arrest rate than any state in 2010. 

An earlier version of the bill would also have made smoking pot
in public a civil offense, punishable by a $100 fine. But as
passed, the measure keeps criminal penalties in place for smoking
or selling marijuana.

“While we support the dramatic reduction in penalties associated
with marijuana possession, this legislation will still allow the
police to continue to hassle and arrest District residents who
choose to smoke marijuana,”
said Adam Eidinger
, chairman of the D.C. Cannabis Campaign, a
committee working to further reduce criminal penalties associated
with marijuana possession and cultivation. “We are organizing so
voters have a say on whether marijuana should be fully legal this
November.”

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1n8qSIR
via IFTTT

Ukraine Steps Up Protection Of Its Nuclear Power Plants, Cites “Grave Russian Threat”

This one should be intuitive: with Ukraine scrambling to load up on natgas ahead of the price surge once Gazprom ends its discount pricing, and unclear what if any access it will have to Russian gas in the future and at what cost, it was only a matter of time before the Ukraine stepped up the protection of its only true energy asset: its 15 nuclear power plant, which supply nearly half of the country’s energy needs. Ukraine told as much to the U.N. atomic watchdog on Tuesday, although it framed it as a result of the “grave threat to the security” of the country posed by the Russian military.

From Reuters:

Ukraine has 15 nuclear power reactors in operation, accounting for nearly 44 percent of its electricity production in 2013, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) website.  Ukraine’s envoy to the IAEA said in a letter to IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano: “Illegal actions of the Russian armed forces on Ukrainian territory and the threat of use of force amount to a grave threat to security of Ukraine with its potential consequences for its nuclear power infrastructure.”

 

Ambassador Ihor Prokopchuk’s letter, dated March 4, was circulated among delegations attending a week-long meeting of the IAEA’s 35-nation governing board in Vienna. It was given to Reuters by a diplomat from another country.

 

Prokopchuk’s letter to Amano, apparently written before Putin’s comments, said: “Under these circumstances, the competent authorities of Ukraine make every effort to ensure physical security, including reinforced physical protection of 15 power units in operation at four sites of Ukrainian NPPs (nuclear power plants).

 

“However, consequences of the use of military force by the Russian federation against Ukraine will be unpredictable.”

 

On Sunday, Ukraine’s parliament called for international monitors to help protect its nuclear power plants, as tension mounted with its neighbor. Prokopchuk urged Amano to “join international efforts in de-escalating the crisis around Ukraine and to urgently raise the issue of nuclear security” with Russia.

 

Amano said on Monday there were 31 nuclear-related facilities in Ukraine that were being monitored by the IAEA to make sure there was no diversion of material for military purposes, as it does in other countries with nuclear plants.

Whether or not the protection surge is a result of Russian fears is irrelevant: one thing that is certain is that it is quite welcome, when one recalls that it was in the Ukraine where 28 years ago Chernobyl exploded in what was unti then the worst nuclear disaster in history.

In fact, perhaps instead of Crimea, Putin should have gone for one of the Japanese isles several years ago. Maybe only then could the great Fukushima disaster, which continues billowing alpha, beta and gamma rays to this day having surpassed Chernobyl in the worst radioactive catastrophes of all time record, would have been avoided.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1fF8JSh Tyler Durden

Video: MDMA for PTSD – How Ecstasy Is Helping People with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

“MDMA for PTSD: How Ecstasy Is Helping People with
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder” is the latest video from
ReasonTV. Watch above or click on the link below for video, full
text, supporting links, downloadable versions, and more Reason TV
clips.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/NsDPRc
via IFTTT

Things to do-March 6-March 29

March

March 6

The MOMS Cub is sponsoring a Spirit Night at Chick Fil-A Dwarf House, 221 Banks Station today from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Bring the kiddos out in their best princess and pirate finery to enjoy the fun! We’ll have face painting and a free throw contest! MOMS Club of Fayetteville will get a portion of the proceeds to support the Church Street Park Improvement Project,

March 7

read more

via The Citizen http://ift.tt/1c5R05r

Ron Paul: “Hagel’s ‘Defense Cuts’ Are Smoke & Mirrors”

Submitted by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute,

Last week Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel proposed an additional 40,000 reduction in active duty US Army personnel, down to 450,000 soldiers. As US troops are being withdrawn from the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it might make sense to reduce not only the active duty military but the entire military budget. However, from the interventionists’ reaction to Hagel’s announcement you might think President Obama announced he was shutting down the Pentagon!
 
Rep. Michael McCaul, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, claimed that this slight reduction in personnel would hurt our military readiness. He blamed the exploding spending on welfare entitlements for the proposed military cuts, stating, “It’s all being sacrificed … on the altar of entitlements. This president cannot take on mandatory spending, so all we’ve done in the Congress — and this president — is basically cut discretionary spending.”
 
McCaul is partly right. Welfare spending is bankrupting the country. But military spending is also welfare: it is welfare for the well-connected military-industrial complex, which enriches itself manufacturing useless boondoggles like the F-35 fighter. We should never confuse legitimate defense spending – which I support – with military spending, which promotes interventionism overseas and actually undermines our national security.
 
Neoconservative Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain were also quick to criticize Hagel’s announcement. They said the cuts were dead on arrival in the US Senate. “We are going to kill it, not let it happen,” said Graham. McCain added, “We live in an ever-increasingly dangerous world and this budget is out of touch with reality.”
 
What McCain and Graham won’t admit is that much of the reason we are in an increasingly-dangerous world is that the neocons keep inviting blowback with the interventions they are constantly pushing. If we minded our own business we would live in a far less dangerous world.
 
Nevertheless, although the neocons make a big deal about this small cut in military personnel, in reality these are not military cuts at all. These are token proposed cuts in troop levels which Congress won’t allow the administration to do anyway. What Hagel proposes is not cuts, but instead a shift in spending away from personnel and toward new high-tech weapons which are favored by and profitable to the military-industrial complex.
 
The F-35, for example, will continue in production according to Hagel’s plan, despite the numerous cost over-runs and design flaws. This is likely because the F-35 is built in 46 US states and nine foreign countries! That makes it particularly popular in Congress, regardless of its flaws and expense.
 
We do need real cuts in military spending, not just moving spending around from troops to new weapons systems. But what we really need is for the president to downsize US foreign policy. Maintaining a military presence in 140 countries while continuing to stir up trouble can lead to problems when the military is downsized. So, it’s our intervention that needs downsizing.

A proper foreign policy would mean a strong national defense, but a huge reduction in interventions and commitments overseas. Why are we stirring up trouble in Ukraine? In Syria? In Africa? Why are we defending South Korea and Japan when they are wealthy enough to defend themselves? A proper sized foreign policy would defend the United States instead of provoking the rest of the world.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/NszGg7 Tyler Durden

Obama’s Pricey Budget is Just a Big Government Political Pamphlet

President ObamaIt’s been a while since federal
budget proposals by the White House or congressional leaders
(individual legislators and independent groups are a different
matter) were much more than political pamphlets, so President
Obama’s proposed Fiscal Year 2015 budget
continues an American tradition, albeit, a crappy one. At
$3.901 trillion
, though (up from $3.651 trillion in 2014 and
rising to $5.912 trillion in 2024), the president’s pamphlet seems
a tad on the pricey side. Then again, the all-you-can-eat
government it proposes couldn’t possibly be done on the cheap, and
nobody really expects Congress to adopt the whole package.

President Obama
remarked
at Powell Elementary School in Washington, D.C., “the
budget is not just about numbers, it’s about our values and it’s
about our future,” and his expensive pamphlet lays out what he
thinks those values ought to be, and how that future should look.
To be honest, he seems to think it should look a bit like SimCity, with
everything carefully planned and arranged. It includes “45
high-tech manufacturing hubs where businesses and universities will
partner to turn groundbreaking research into new industries and new
jobs,” “access to…high-quality preschool and other early learning
programs,” “apprenticeships to connect more ready-to-work Americans
with ready-to-be-filled jobs,” and “over $1 billion in new funding
for new technologies to help communities prepare for a changing
climate today.”

Also
in the budget
is an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit,
tax credits for child care, and for college loans—all billed as
“tax cuts” for “13.5 million working Americans” and the middle
class. The cuts/credits would be offset by “closing tax loopholes,
including the so-called ‘Gingrich’ and ‘Carried Interest’
provisions that let high-income professionals avoid the income and
payroll taxes other workers pay.”

In his
message to Congress
, the president bills this all as tax code
simplification, but it looks more like shuffling benefits around
among favored and disfavored categories of Americans.

And, again, the White House’s proposed budget projects
continuing increases in federal spending with big deficits (that
$3.901 trillion in outlays is based on $3.337 trillion in receipts)
at a time when the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that “the gap
between federal spending and revenues would widen steadily after
2015…a path that would ultimately be unsustainable.”

The CBO’s warnings are based on
slightly lower federal outlays
than those foreseen by the White
House, and generally lower revenues. Possibly of interest, the CBO
now forecasts lower gross domestic product over the next few years
than was originally believed. According to a February 28 report,
“From the earlier projection to the more recent, CBO’s projection
for potential output in 2017 declined by 7.3 percent.” That just
might have an impact on resources available to the federal
government.

Then again, expensive and micromanaging though it may be, nobody
really expects the president’s budget to be adopted. Josh Voorhees
at Slate calls it a “liberal
wish list
.”

But that doesn’t mean the federal government looks like it’s
poised to pass something more realistic.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1dnbZz6
via IFTTT

Russian Nat Gas Game Theory

The question many are asking this morning is what is the iron-first of Putin thinking? With his "military exercise" over, does he believe it enough to have shown the world his potential for disruption? We suspect another reason may have been weighing on his mind. As we noted previously, Europe accounts for around a third of Gazprom's total gas sales, and around half of Russia's total budget revenue comes from oil and gas… and whatever Putin's geo-political ambitions, we suspect he did not want to jeopardize that source of revenue – no matter how much sabre-rattling and Gazprom-fear-mongering. As the following chart shows, Europe should be sighing a huge relief this morning – but remain cognizant that this, we suspect, is far from over.

And here's some helpful advice from the EU…

So – follow the money… US to IMF; IMF to Ukraine; Ukraine to Russia; Russia buys US Treasuries again?

Or the EU looks at this chart…

Source: @ReutersGMF

and that's why this happens…

Remember, as we noted in detail hereRussia receives around $100 million per day from Europe for Natural Gas

And these are the nations (via Morgan Stanley) who are the most dependent on that flow of natural gas…

 

But while we noted the dependencies last night, it is worth noting that thanks to a warmer than expected winter in Europe, EU states have significant gas stocks…

 

The game is only just beginning…just as explained in great detail here.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1kVjUWb Tyler Durden

RightsCon: Encryption vs. Surveillance and How Do You Govern the Web, Anyway?

Yesterday, the third annual RightsCon kicked off
in San Francisco. The conference brings together tech executives,
diplomats, policy advocates, and self-described cypherpunks who
sometimes double as security experts, to name a few. The goal is to
find ways in which the digital realm, which is ever more
encompassing and impacting daily life, can be used to protect and
expand the rights of people worldwide. Here are two highlights from
the first day of the conference:

1. Encryption won’t save us from surveillance, but it’s
better than regulation

Where do we stand in the battle against digital surveillance?
“If you imagine being a cypherpunk in the ’90s, and waking up right
now, you might actually think we won,” speculated Morgan
Marquis-Boire, a Senior Security and Technical Adviser at the
Citizen Lab (Marquis-Boire is also a Senior Security Engineer at
Google, but explicitly said he was not speaking in that capacity).
He pointed to the proliferation of the Tor Project, the encryption
of major operating systems, and the interpretation of HTTPS into
most browsers. But, the surveillance game has changed too.

While governments used to rely on their in-house capabilities,
the demand for surveillance has given rise to third party
cybersecurity companies like Narus, Amesys, and Blue Coat
Unfortunately, their technology ends up in the hands of repressive
regimes, who use it to find dissidents, infect them with malware,
and extract information about them and their allies. Last year,
Reports Without Borders declared Blue
Coat an “enemy of the Internet” for helping China, Russia,
Venezuela and others free speech-squelching capabilities.

Marquis-Boire was hesitant about regulatory efforts to do away
with these problems, noting that secret court systems, such as the
U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, could easily make
exceptions for themselves. Instead, he suggested engineering
solutions. Encryption “won’t save you,” but that “we need to start
engineering in a commercially resistant manner.” Marquis-Boire
explained that security engineers can develop encoding that’s so
complex and hard to crack, decrypting would be financially
unfeasible. He also pointed to opportunistic encryption, which can
secure communications between

2. Who governs the web? And more importantly
how?

Who governs the Internet? “This is a very important question,”
said Fadi Chehade, the CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN), which plays a major role in internet
governance.

Speakers on a panel listed an alphabet soup of organizations
like ICANN, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
which all play different roles, such overseeing domain space and IP
addresses, managing the engineering of the internet, and conducting
policy discussions.

A more important issue, though, is how they are held
accountable. After all, as Professor J.D. Ross of Syracuse
University writes, ongoing is a “15-year controversy over the U.S.
government’s special relationship to [ICANN].”

Betrand de La Chapelle of ICANN contended that the
“accountability mechanism of the representative-democratic system
is relatively weak for international issues,” and presented a
hypothetical crime in which an “Australian traveling in Peru, using
Yandex, to say something about a Chinese. What’s the jurisdiction
for that?” De La Chapelle suggested that this leaves the world in
“in a framework where you have to pile up accountability
mechanisms,” and that the best way to do so is through transparent
multistakeholder meetings, in which (ideally) anybody can
participate.

Particularly, next month the international community hopes to
address some of the issues around this next month at the Global
Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in
Brazil. The panel acknowledged that currently, those outside the
tech community–and even many within it–are unaware of Internet
governance and the ability to participate in it. One panelist
suggested a simple solution: making information public on
GoogleDocs and allowing anybody to comment on it as it is being
discussed.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1f307it
via IFTTT