股市停步不前了吗？
Stalling on Wall Street
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STALLING and idling can be as simple as the level of fuel in the tank.
In the early part of last week, the major stock indexes appeared stalled just beneath recent highs. But a mere feathering of the gas pedal by stock buyers Wednesday showed the market simply to be in a restorative idle, when a lopsided one-day rally stretched the indexes toward new yearly highs, before another pause Thursday. Then a sluggardly, sputtering decline Friday again stalled the market below week-earlier levels.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average finished with a loss of 41 points at 9768, while the Standard & Poor's 500 dipped 2 to end right at 1050, a round number that has acted like the center line in a tug-of-war among short-term traders for weeks. Wal-Mart's earnings shortfall and a light reading on October retail sales led to some moderate worries about the state of consumers' minds and wallets as the heavy shopping season begins.
The Nasdaq Composite was set back on its heels by uncharitable reactions to earnings from Applied Materials and heaviness in the longtime-leading Internet sector. The index forked over some of the steep outperformance it's built for a year, dropping 40 points, or 2%, to 1930.
The main fuel for the eight-month rally has been the free-money, aggression-stoking policies of the Federal Reserve and the Bush administration, which have penalized risk aversion, provided windfall spending money to consumers and floated everything in sight -- stocks, bonds, gold, oil and the egos of stock investors riding the wave.
Fed officials, on banquet-room podiums and in press interviews, were straining last week to convince investors that it has no intention of bleeding away any of this liquidity any time soon.
The unspoken objective seems to be this: Deliver a weakened form of the old bubble-causing virus as an inoculation against deflation, a boost to employment and an invitation to asset and price inflation. Inflation, an enemy the Fed knows well and is confident opposing, would ease the huge debt-service burden and grease the gears of an economy with lots of capacity to spare. Or so the story goes.
In the end, stocks didn't fully cooperate, as leadership groups such as Internet names, semiconductors, biotechnology and brokerage stocks sagged to sink the broader market. Certain defensive groups, most notably pharmaceutical shares, bounced hard, with the drug-sector indexes up nearly 6%. Merck, recipient of a couple of analyst upgrades, added 2.65 to 46.50 and Pfizer climbed 2.31 to 34.08.
Among the presumed catalysts for the moves were some industry-friendly developments in the Medicare bill talks, positive scientific data on blood-thinning drugs and rising monthly prescription volumes.
The question is whether this marks the long-anticipated rotation from technology and cyclical fixation toward drug and consumer blue chips. The groups tend to trade at odds. Valuations for drug companies are depressed while techs' are strained and virtually every Wall Street handicapper has expected a rotation toward quality to occur at some point.
There was certainly an effort by pressing traders to push this process along late in the week, but it's far from clear that the two-day tango of these groups means a leadership handoff is under way. For one thing, history suggests that meaningful rotations don't often occur "on the run" with the overall market hanging firm. More often, the switch is formed in the crucible of a market melt, and then a new sector comes out of the correction ahead.
Russ Koesterich, strategist at State Street Global Markets, has been eyeing the prospective tech-to-drug move for months, and believes it's not necessarily identifiable yet. Head fakes that looked similar have happened before this year, albeit not any that was quite this dramatic or featured such heavy trading volume.
For it to happen, he says, "we need techs to roll over and for people to question whether the reflation trade has gone too far." Alternatively, growth estimates from drug pipelines need to stop falling and start turning higher. In other words, the drugs will start outperforming only if "people want to get defensive, or because they look like growth stocks again." It's not clear -- not quite yet -- that either of those things is the case.
GO AHEAD AND TALK ABOUT FAVORABLE seasonal trends. Note how the Fed is making sure that money's easier than the farmer's daughter. Mention that fund-manager urgency and the arrival of some less-than-savvy money could easily carry stocks another leg higher. Even make the case that today's sugary valuations can be sustained as earnings continue to climb, raising share values apace.
But just let's not hear any talk that stocks are cheap. Or, more interestingly, that there's even an appreciable selection of cheap stocks to be found. Among the reasons to buy stocks, highly attractive prices are not among them.
This isn't a novel assertion. Eminent philosopher-investors such as Warren Buffett, Marty Whitman and Jeremy Grantham have accentuated the point in Barron's in recent weeks, of course. But it bears a deeper look.
Even beyond the current S&P 500 price/earnings multiple of 20 times the current year's expected operating earnings -- much higher on the more stringent standard of trailing reported profits -- and the sub-2% dividend yield, indications of cheapness are hard to locate.
Looking at the distribution of individual stock multiples, there are far fewer stocks valued below 10 times earnings today than there were at the bubble's most bloated in early 2000. Of course, there are fewer stocks with infinite multiples (meaning negative earnings) and not as many trading above, say, 40-times profits, too.
So the lunatic fringe isn't as populous now. But the scarcity of earnings available at exceedingly depressed prices means there just aren't many no-brainers out there for the taking.
Approached a different way, it's stunning how many big stocks have already met or exceeded the stated upside expectations of Wall Street's sell-side analyst community, a group not usually renowned for swallowing its enthusiasm.
Richard Steinberg , president of Steinberg Global Asset Management and manager of the Reserve Large Cap Growth fund, keeps an eye on how stocks are trading versus the consensus share-price targets of the analysts who cover them. It's a way to neatly gauge what might be called the "opportunity quotient" of the market.
Exactly half the stocks in the S&P 500 last week had already exceeded their consensus price targets or were within 1% of them. That's a situation he considers a Sell signal for the affected stocks.
Another 26% of stocks had less than 10% of upside to the collective price objective and 16% had between 10% and 25% of headroom. Only 8% were more than 25% underneath their targets, which Steinberg views as potential Buys.
He calls the exercise "a litmus test of the overall market," and believes that currently the breakdown suggests "we need to have a pullback to re-justify certain expectations" embedded in share prices now.
Now, there are ways for backyard contrarians to argue their way around these numbers and recast them as a positive sign for stocks. This involves insisting that sell-side analysts are poor mouthing, underestimating corporate earnings power and offering conservative upside targets after a psychologically damaging bear market.
This possibility can't be dismissed out of hand. If an investor could go back and be granted one single insight at the start of this year, a smart one might indeed choose to bet that analysts would finally be shown to have cut earnings forecasts too much. It had happened by the time third-quarter earnings arrived, and by then stocks had well foreseen it.
But that's not to say that analysts -- who have been busily elevating earnings forecasts for 2004 -- are still struggling to catch up with the upward arc of profits and stocks. At some point -- maybe now, maybe soon -- these stockpickers will shift back toward an enthusiastic posture that pushes upside expectations ahead of probability.
There's no saying it's happening this minute. But if and when it does it may be marked by analyst moves like these from last week. Credit Suisse First Boston's Kevin McCarthy jacked his price target on Dell to 43.50 from 36, with the stock at 35.64 after Dell's earnings report. The analyst didn't boost his $1.01-a-share earnings forecast for the current fiscal year or the $1.20 for fiscal '04. But he initiated one for fiscal 2006 at $1.45, slapped a 30 multiple on that and arrived at the $43.50 target.
That puts more daylight between the stock price and the target, but at some point this activity represents over-reaching.
As a company, of course, Dell is a peerless operator, and it's hard to quibble with the idea that its shares deserve an ample premium to the market. The only argument is how much, and the argument should probably settle on a generous one.
Then there's Kohl's, which retains the affections of analysts (18 Buys, six Holds and one Sell, says Thomson First Call) who are intent on holding high its valuation, despite recent slippage in corporate results. The retailer's earnings last week hit its recently reduced projection, though they were down from a year earlier, and the company guided current-quarter numbers toward the low end of Street estimates.
Still, the stock -- though down 25% from its high of almost a year ago -- goes for 21 times next year's ambitious forecasts, generous for a company that managed an 11% drop in same-store sales last month.
Linda Kristiansen of UBS Investment Research, though, is carrying a 70 target, based on the idea the multiple "will improve to a 70% premium to the S&P, which is below its most recent high of 96% in May 2002."
Conservative forecasting -- redefined.
TO PRESS ON WITH THE INTERPLAY of sell-siders, retail stocks and the expectations game, last week Smith Barney upgraded Federated Department Stores with the stock trading in the high 40s. In doing so, the firm lifted earnings forecasts for the coming quarter and next year, buttressing its call with an improving fundamental trend.
Now consider what's gone on with Federated this year. At the end of 2002, with the stock at 28.76, Federated was expected to earn $3.75 a share. Clearly, with a forward P/E below 8, the market was mocking the notion that those earnings were likely to materialize.
And it was right. Sliding sales pressured earnings prospects to a low near $3.10 in late winter, when the stock bottomed around 21. Things have improved, but even now the company is expected to earn only $3.37 in 2003. And next year? That's when analysts see that old $3.75 that was promised a year ago to show up.
Meanwhile, the stock more than doubled, placing its forward multiple at 13.5. That's not by any means egregious, but for a company in a tough industry whose stock has already been generous, one might think investors would be quick to ease out.
But upon the upgrade last week, investors stretching for just a little more boosted the stock to a new intraday high above 50. That doesn't seem like the action of a Wall Street combine that's reluctant to become optimistic.
Steinberg notes that stocks with good share-price momentum without much fundamental momentum leave no room for the slightest error or disappointment. For recent buyers of Federated to win, the market had better be forecasting that the estimates are poised to surge, the way the market was foretelling the shortfall a year ago.
Valuations won't likely be the reason for any eventual market setback, as they rarely are. And, to be fair, there's plenty of talk all the time about valuation concerns, from some strategists and TV commentators, suggesting that there's still a reservoir of disbelief in stocks' run that will have to be drained away before they weigh on the indexes.
Still, once a setback is triggered, multiples that build in no cushion will make the fall that much more painful.
IF SKEPTICISM IS A WANING ASSET on Wall Street, it's got to be growing in worth every day.
This makes it sensible to scan stocks that the Street has labeled toxic but that have been finding buyers anyway.
Analysts have no use for Eastman Kodak. Not a single big brokerage house recommends the stock, five are telling clients to sell and two are neutral. Good thing for Kodak that Bill Miller doesn't get his ideas from analysts' reports.
The Legg Mason funds run by Miller -- the current holder of the record for the longest streak surpassing the S&P 500 -- last week disclosed an increase in their stake in Kodak to 10% from 8.7% in the third quarter. That was a quarter in which the company announced its radical plan to focus on digital photography and slashed its dividend. The move unnerved the market and knocked Kodak shares from 27 to 20.50 in a matter of days. But the shares have clawed their way back above 24, with no help from the sell side.
Miller is by no means infallible, but he is brave and pretty successful -- his flagship fund is up 35% this year. He's admired and occasionally maligned for his capacity to reload on stocks that are way down from his initial cost, something he did with Amazon to great success.
Meanwhile, a different breed of maverick, Carl Icahn, met with Kodak management last week and is reportedly thinking about investing a sizable sum.
Another Wall Street orphan is State Street, which enjoys only three Buy ratings among 19 analysts. For the most part, it's covered by bank analysts. Some of them note that, at 18 times expected 2004 earnings, it's quite expensive for a bank. Which makes sense, since State Street isn't really a bank, but a huge institutional investment manager, asset custodian and securities processor. It has massive scale in its main businesses and just got bigger, having bought Deutsche Bank's custody business. The deal has some observers fretting about possible poaching of Deutsche customers in this very competitive business. State Street says it's retained nearly 90% of clients, but the risk is believed still to exist. Cost pressures, meanwhile, have caused some to fear for profit margins.
There's something more timely to get investors interested here, perhaps, given that State Street is among the few potential beneficiaries of the messy mutual-fund market-timing scandal. For one thing, it's big in the business of "transition management," helping pension funds transfer assets between fired and hired money managers.
Also, it's a major index and global-markets asset manager, one that hasn't yet been implicated in the industry scandal, the kind of player that might be a net winner of mandates. Finally, it has a presence as an overseer of exchange-traded index funds, which could well win market share from disgusted retail investors.
Perhaps it's no surprise that since Sept. 3, the day New York's Eliot Spitzer went public with the improper fund-trading allegations, State Street shares are up 14%, versus 6% for the S&P. Again, without much cheerleading to egg it along.
股市停步不前了吗？
发动机是熄火了，还是处于怠速状态？其区别相信和油量表代表的油量一样一目了然。
上周头几天，主要股指好像在近期高点下方位置熄了火。而周三只经过一天的上涨，股指就又升至新的年内高点。看来市场其实是处在怠速状态，投资者稍一踩油门，股指就像汽车一样窜起来。周四股指稍事休整，小幅回落，而周五市场又懒洋洋地停在了一周前点位之下。
上周五，道琼斯指数收盘跌41点，至9768点，标普500指数跌2点，收于1050点整，刚好是近几周短线交易员拉锯战的中线。
沃尔玛连锁公司(Wal-Mart)的收益欠佳、美国10月份零售数据乏善可陈，这些因素使市场对即将到来的假日购物期间中消费者的购物意愿和钱袋感到些许担忧。
受应用材料公司(Applied Materials)的收益报告和一直领先的互联网类股受挫的影响，那斯达克综合指数也步道指后尘下跌。该指数不得不回吐了一年来积攒起来的部分战果，上周五收盘时下跌40点，至1930点，跌幅2%。
这波已持续了8个月的上涨行情主要受资金面，以及联邦储备委员会(Fed)和布什政府大规模刺激政策的助推，这些政策使害怕担风险的投资者尝到了苦头，为消费者带来了可供消费的收入，而市场上的每样东西似乎都在乘风而上--无论是股票、债券、黄金、石油，还是投资者的信心。
而Fed的官员上周不管是在宴会厅的小讲台上，还是在新闻访谈中都很谨慎，他们一再向投资者表示，无意很快收紧资金面。
虽然没有明说，但他们的目标和策略似乎可以这样表述：将过去曾引发经济泡沫的病毒的弱化版本植入经济体系，以对抗通货紧缩，刺激就业，推动资产价值和物价上升。
Fed深知通货膨胀的利害关系，也一向反对通货膨胀，但目前形势下，适度通货膨胀将缓解巨大的偿债负担，为经济领域大量闲置的机器装备和其他产能“擦上润滑油”，让它们重新运转起来。
但股市似乎并不很配合，其中互联网、半导体、生物技术及证券经纪等类股纷纷下挫，导致股市大范围走软。而某些抗跌股、特别是其中的制药类股则强劲反弹，该类股的分类指数涨幅接近6%。默克(Merk)上周五收盘涨2.65美元至46.50美元，辉瑞(Pfizer)涨2.31美元至34.08美元。
市场认为，推动制药类股实现如此佳绩的因素有以下几点：有关医疗保险法案的谈判已出现一些对业界有利的进展、血液稀释药物的研究得出了积极的结果、处方药月度销量上升。
问题是，这种现象是否是市场期待已久的上升动能从科技和周期性股向制药和消费类股的轮动呢？通常来说，这两组类股的走势是不同向的。制药类股的股价目前仍较低迷，虽然科技股已有所收敛，而华尔街那些负责对股票品头论足的分析师们也预计，到某个时间，上涨行情将向一些优质类股轮动。
本周后几天肯定会有一些因素导致交易员推动这次转变过程，但目前还不清楚，上述两组类股的走势是否意味著它们正在进行接力赛中的交棒手续。但有一点--从历史上看，在总体市场坚挺的时候，通常不会很快发生有实质性意义的轮动。更经常发生的情况是，市场在经受严酷考验的同时酝酿交接，一个新的领先的类股会在回调过程中脱颖而出。
State Street Global Markets策略师科思特里奇(Russ Koesterich)对科技股向制药股转移的动向已留意观察了数月，他认为，所谓轮动目前还不是很确定。类似的领先类股“换人”的假像今年也曾发生过，虽然不像这次这么剧烈，也没有这么大的交易量。
要真的发生轮动，一种情况是需要科技类股再次上涨，涨到人们质疑通货再膨胀是否已走得太远。或者另一种情况是，制药企业的增长预期不再继续下滑，而是开始转升。换句话说，只有在投资者希望买进抗跌股，或者因为制药股看起来很像成长性股票了，那时制药类股才会开始比大盘整体表现得好，成为“轮动”到的类股。唉，真不知道到时候会发生哪一种情况。
Federated评级被上调
上周，在经纪公司、零售公司股票和收益预期之间再次上演了一出好戏。美邦(Smith Barney)在Federated Department Stores股价接近50美元之际上调了该股评级。美邦上调了这家零售商下一季度和下一年度的收益预期，理由是其基本面在逐渐改善。
先来看看Federated今年以来的表现。2002年年底时 Federated的股价为28.76美元，全年每股收益预期是3.75美元。预期本益比不到8倍，市场显然对可能实现这样收益的想法感到不屑。
他们的判断不错。由于销售额下滑，该公司到冬末时不得不将每股收益预期下调至3.10美元附近，股价也在21美元附近触底。而后形势出现好转，但即便现在其2003年的每股收益预期也只有3.37美元。明年呢？许多分析师预计会达到该公司一年前所曾诺的3.75美元。
与此同时，该股已上涨一倍有余，本益比已达13.5倍。通常而言这样的倍数肯定不算高，但面临这样一只所处行业形势严峻、价格已处于高位的股票，人们不禁会产生投资者将急于退出的想法。
但在美邦上调该股评级之后，投资者作出进一步努力，推动该股的盘中高点超过50美元，创下新高。而这似乎不是华尔街不愿转为乐观时的一贯做法。
Reserve大型成长型基金经理理查德?斯登贝格(Richard Steinberg)指出，投资于那些基本面动力不大但股价本身充满动力的股票容不得半点差错。最近买进Federated的投资者若想赚钱，只能依赖于预期会大幅上升这样的希望，这样的心理与一年前市场预计收益将低于预期时类似。
尽管如此，估价本身通常不是市场最终受挫的原因，事实上也很少有过估价过高引发下跌的情形。但客观而言，包括一些策略师和电视评论员在内的众多人士一直在大谈估价方面的担忧，这表明股市上还有好多疑虑有待消散，否则会最终对主要指数造成压力。
而一旦跌势被触发，则本身毫无缓冲能力的高本益比将令跌势更加惨烈。
换个角度看问题
现在的情况是，资金很容易获得，基金经理的迫切需求，或者不够明智的新资金的涌入有可能轻松将股市推高一筹，甚至目前股市迷人的股价也有望得以延续，因为公司收益继续攀升的同时将支撑股价。
但不要去听那些眼下股价较低的说法，或更吸引人的说法：市场中有一些低价股可资挑选。买进股票的所有理由中，“股价非常诱人”不再其中。
这并非一个新鲜的论调。华尔街投资圣贤们，如沃伦?巴菲特(Warren Buffett)、马蒂?惠特曼(Marty Whitman)和杰瑞米?格兰瑟姆(Jeremy Grantham)最近几周在《巴伦周刊》上强调了这一点。
在今年营运收益预期的基础上，目前标准普尔500指数本益比为20倍，而以已公布的收益为基础计算的本益则更高。另外再考虑到目前不到2%的股息收益率，可以说很难找到股价偏低的个股了。
再看看个股本益比的分布，现在本益比不到10倍的股票个数远远少于2000年初泡沫最严重时的数量。当然，本益比无穷大的（即收益为负）股票也更少，股票本益比超过40倍的也相对较少些。
从另外一个角度来看，令人吃惊的是，很多大公司的股票已经达到或超过了华尔街卖方分析师预期的上限。
身兼Steinberg Global Asset Management总裁和Reserve Large Cap Growth基金经理两职的理查德?斯登贝格(Richard Steinberg)一直在关注个股的走势与分析师们为该股设定的目标价之间的关系。这是一个巧妙衡量所谓市场“机会系数”的办法。
确切地说，标准普尔500指数成份股中的半数上周的股价或者超过了其目标价，或者处于目标价1%的范围之内。他认为这是卖出相关股票的一个信号。
另有26%的成份股同目标价相差不到10%，有16%的个股同目标价的差距在10%至25%之间。只有8%的个股较其目标价低25%以上，斯登贝格认为这类股票是潜在的买入对象。
他认为上述分析显示“我们需要一次回落，对某些价格预期进行调整。”
眼下，持反对意见的人可以从几个方面对上述看法进行辩解。他们可以坚持认为，卖方分析师都是些乌鸦嘴，他们低估了公司盈利能力；在熊市中心理被挫伤后，这些人提供股价目标显得保守。
这种可能性不能够马上排除。如果一位投资者能有机会回到过去，并在今年年初洞察市场行情，一个明智的投资者可能的确会认为分析师下调收益预期的幅度太大了。到第三季度收益公布时，上述情况的确发生了。
但这并不是说这些分析师（他们在忙于上调2004年的收益预期）仍在尽量跟上收益增长和股价上扬的步调。在某个时候，也许是现在，也许是不久的将来，这些选股专家将重新倾向于乐观立场，这一立场有可能进一步推高预期。
瑞士信贷第一波士顿(Credit Suisse First Boston)的凯文?麦卡特尼(Kevin McCarthy)在戴尔(Dell)公布业绩后，将该股目标价从36美元上调至43.50美元，当时戴尔报35.64美元。
柯达、道富银行华尔街失宠
如果说怀疑论在华尔街逐渐消失的话，则这项资产的价值势必与日俱增。
由此来看，有必要扫描一下那些为华尔街所不齿、但却又总能受到青睐的股票。
分析师们不喜欢伊士曼柯达(Eastman Kodak)。不只是一家大型经纪公司建议卖出这只股票，有5家公司都建议客户卖出，还有两家给出的评级为中性。值得庆幸的是，比尔?米勒(Bill Miller)没有盲从分析师的这些报告。
由米勒管理的Legg Mason基金上周公布，第三季度内对柯达的持股比例从8.7%增至10%。该基金目前拥有表现连续好于标准普尔500指数的时间最长的纪录。
而柯达正是在此期间公布致力于数字化业务这项激进计划并大幅削减股息的。这些消息令市场感到吃惊，柯达股票在短短的几日内从27美元暴跌至20.50美元，但随后由于未获得抛盘推动，该股又逐渐回升到24美元以上。
米勒并非完美无缺，但他富有魄力，这帮助他取得了巨大成功：他所管理的旗舰基金今年以来增值35%。他还能以远远低于最初成本的价格增持股票，例如在就亚马逊公司(Amazon)进行的此类交易就相当成功。这种能力既令人□慕，又让人眼红。
与此同时，常常采取激进投资策略的金融家卡尔?伊灿(Carl Icahn)上周与柯达管理层会面。据说，伊灿考虑向该公司投入巨资。
另一只遭华尔街鄙弃的股票是道富银行(State Street)。19位分析师中仅有3位建议买进该股。跟踪该股的多是银行业分析师。
他们中的部分人指出，该股价格是2004年预期收益的18 倍，对于一家银行来说这种本益比太高。而道富银行实际上不是一般所说的银行，而是大型机构投资公司，并提供财产保管和证券处理业务。其各项主要业务规模巨大，并在该公司收购德意志银行(Deutsche Bank)的保管业务后进一步扩大。一些观察人士担心德意志银行这项竞争力很强的业务的客户会出现流失，但道富银行称，留住了近90%的客户。但据信这项风险依然存在。而成本方面的压力则令一些人担心利润率会下降。
其他一些消息也不失时机地引起了投资者的兴趣，原因在于道富银行是共同基金快进快出交易丑闻为数不多的受益者之一。比如，在这类丑闻曝光后，一些退休基金将资产转由新的公司来管理，而道富银行在“管理转移”这方面正好拥有强大的业务。
同时，该银行还是一项重要指数和全球市场资产管理者，本身没有卷入这类丑闻中，因此很可能只会从中受益。最后，该公司还从事指数基金业务，这项业务极有可能吸引更多一度失望的散户投资者。
自纽约州司法部长斯皮策(Eliot Spitzer)9月3日对数家基金公司提起诉讼以来，道富银行上涨了14%，超过标准普尔500指数同期6%的涨幅。也许该股这样的涨幅并非出人意料，但至少这一次仍然未受到直接的好消息推动。
