By:
On:
In: Commentary
Tagged:
With: 0 Comments

Earlier, I spoke about the earning estimates of the “experts” and that, at least in the case of Target [stckqut]TGT[/stckqut], the numbers didn’t make sense for a 5-year projection of their earnings growth.

Let’s dig in a bit deeper. We will stay with MSN Money (I am not beating up MSN Money – it is simply reporting data supplied by others – you can find the same numbers at Morningstar or probably your favorite broker’s website). A few items below Earnings Estimates, you will see Financial Results and then Statements will appear and it will show a page that includes a tab for 10 Year Summary.

Let’s compare Sales over the last 10 years to Earning before Interest and Taxes (EBIT). We can quickly calculate that Earnings has varied from about 5.5% to 7.5% and averages about 6.3%. We can also see that for the last couple years, Target has been a bit below average on its Earnings compared to Sales (5.92% for last year).

Earlier, we saw that the analysts are saying the company is going to increase earning 12% per year for the next five years. That would mean that either Sales are going to increase at 12% (something that when you look at the Sales column hasn’t happened in the last 3 years) OR the earnings/sales would have to increase very dramatically – something that also has not happened in the past.

My prediction is that Target will not grow earnings at greater than 12% per year for the next 5 years. The evidence of the company to pull off that level of performance is simply not available.

A quick side note – why do I care about earnings growth? Simple, earnings growth should result in a higher stock price meaning my investment in the company will continue to appreciate. The growth of one company compared to another company is a major factor in my decision to invest my hard-earned capital in any given company. I want to maximize my rate of growth of my investment – don’t you?

P.S. Tomorrow, I will post my analysis on Target Corporation. Sorry to use them as my whipping boy for this commentary.

By:
On:
In: Commentary
Tagged: ,
With: 0 Comments

DailyFinance.com has a great article on the new jobs outlook for the US that was reviewed by BloggingStocks.  I think that they only thing that is missing is the acknowledgement that is nearly impossible to get zero unemployment.  In fact, it would probably be bad for the economy to have zero unemployment!

What is the perfect unemployment rate? Ask 10 economists and you will likely get 12 answers.  Most of them will likely say a number between 4-7%. When the country gets below about 4% then entry level jobs become quite expensive and inflation is almost guaranteed to happen. Once you are above 7% then the country starts to feel real pain in that large ticket items are harder to purchase.

We are currently just under 10%, that means we are about 25-30% above our optimum level. While this is not great, it does have a significant advantage for those industries and businesses that rely on a large workforce to create product.

As the unemployment rate drops, pay a bit more attention to stocks of companies that create bigger ticket items (e.g. automobiles, planes, vacations, computers, homes). As long as the unemployment is a bit high, be careful of those big ticket items and look for companies that make low cost items or items of necessity or need a large, cheap workforce (restaurants, grocery, food production).

While I have not reviewed Kroger [stckqut]KR[/stckqut] on this site, it is a good example of a company that will slightly benefit from high unemployment or at least not be hurt as dramatically as others like Ford [stckqut]F[/stckqut]. Kroger recently released a fairly strong quarterly earnings report.

By:
On:
In: Commentary
Tagged: , ,
With: 0 Comments

From CNBC’s Mad Money:

Jim Cramer (text from Newsbusters.org):

The number you need to watch is the number that Scott Brown racks up against Martha Coakley in this amazing Massachusetts Senate race. I say amazing ’cause this was supposed to be a walkover. I mean, even a few weeks ago it was a lock for Democrat Coakley. But now everything’s up in the air, and a Brown win would be devastating for the president’s agenda. Let’s put Brown, okay, and I don’t mean UPS which I happen to own for my charitable trust. Particularly on healthcare reform, because Republican Brown has said he will definitely vote against the plan.

Brown in the Senate? That wrecks the 60-vote supermajority the Democrats have been counting on. It could spell the end for this almost year-long nightmare of a piece of healthcare legislation.

What does a Brown election mean larger than this? Well, first you’re going to get a knee-jerk rally in all the so-called penalized stocks — the HMOs, the drugs, the medical device-makers. I call it “knee-jerk,” though, because these stocks have been on fire for months. Look at Cramer fave WellPoint, or United Health. 52 week high. 52 week high. Merck, 52 week high. It’s been clear as a bell that the healthcare reform wasn’t going to affect most healthcare stocks. That’s versus what we thought last year.

More important, though, I think investors who are nervous about the dictatorship of the Pelosi proletariat will feel at ease, and we could have a gigantic rally off a Coakley loss and a Brown win. It will be a signal that a more pro-business, less pro-labor government could be in front of us. Hey, would you say it is more China like perhaps? No, we can never be as capitalist as the Communist Chinese. But how about a little bit less like the old Soviet Union? Yeah, that would be a bit more like it. Pelosi politburo emasculation! Everything from the banks, which are usually in the Democrats’ penalty box, or the oils which are despised by this administration for being carbon, could be propelled dramatically higher all of this Tuesday night.