To contact us Click HERE
From the Desk of:Steve Elliott
Dear Patriots,
I will make no attempt to "make sense" of the horrific tragedy that devastated the community of Newtown, Connecticut, and has shaken our nation.
How can we make sense of the senseless murder of twenty children and seven adults? How can we make sense of one deranged individual who was in such a dark place that he shot his own mother, murdered children and then killed himself?
Yesterday, my church -- like I'm sure countless places of worship -- paused to pray for the families, their community and our nation. Our president spoke, on our behalf, words of comfort and support.
Now, as we move forward, efforts will be made to prevent this from happening again -- or at least to minimize the risk. It will be a difficult task.
A Societal Cancer
What we face is more like a cancer than a virus. Our society has turned on itself, and these mass murders are the shocking fruit. The perpetrators of these crimes now typically turn their weapons on themselves and have essentially become societal suicide bombers. As the military knows, there is no real defense against a suicide bomber who has reached such a point of desperation and delusion that his own life doesn't matter.
Responding to this specific crisis with legislation would be a mistake that politicians will likely make.
Responding to the root cause of the crisis would be a better way to go.
And what is that root cause?
The destruction of the family.
I'm not discounting any other factors, but to address problems with our mental health institutions or virtual reality gaming or the drugging of our children or our gun laws or the media culture's glorification of such violence and not deal with the root cause of our societal decay are vain attempts to mask symptoms.
The statistics back me up on the destruction of the family being at the center of our na
tional crises, including violence.Before I cite the statistics, please do not take these numbers as a condemnation of single moms or dads. There is no condemnation. Many single parents are doing double duty and raising wonderful children.
But the numbers are hard to overlook.
Our Family Crisis
Consider what our family brokenness has done to society:
* 3 in 10 children grow up in broken homes.
* In the African-American community, it's far worse: two-thirds of black children grow up with one parent.
* More than half of all babies are conceived out of wedlock.
* Of those conceived out of wedlock, 4 in 10 are aborted. And so, the cycle of violence begins.
* Of the survivors of abortion, half the children born out of wedlock end up in poverty.
Children from broken homes account for:
--63% of teen suicides.
--71% of teen pregnancies.
--90% of homeless and runaways.
--71% of high school dropouts.
--75% of all drug users.
--85% of behavioral disorders.
--70% of those in juvenile detention.
--57% of all prison inmates.
Building Families in Tough Times
As you know, for the past few weeks, I've been on a journey of discovering and sharing lessons from a 2,500-year-old letter written by the prophet Jeremiah to Jewish exiles.
In light of the national discussion that will take place in the coming weeks, as we seek to heal and strengthen our land, I find it interesting that at the very center of Jeremiah's instructions to exiles is an explicit endorsement of family:
"Take wives and become the fathers of sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; and multiply there and do not decrease" (Jeremiah 29:6, NASB).
In the midst of tough times, getting married and thinking about the future do not instinctively come to mind. Marriage is expensive. Children are expensive. Yet in Jeremiah's letter to exiles, marriage and child bearing are central to the instruction. Perhaps this is because in tough times -- at any time, for that matter -- the marriage bond is the stabilizing force for individuals, for families, for communities and even for a nation. Marriage and strong families are vital to thriving in exile.
What if our government policies unashamedly focused on the goal of reducing the fatherless and divorce rates? What if our laws profoundly preferred those who get married and stay married?
More importantly, what about you and me? After all, our laws only reflect our culture.
What are we actually doing in our families and communities to strengthen marriages? Is it clear in our social circles that sex out of wedlock is wrong? Are we holding young men accountable for their actions, demanding they take their responsibility as fathers seriously? Do men face any negative societal pressure for putting children and mothers at risk for the sake of fulfilling their own sexual exploits outside the marriage bond?
Many traditional wedding ceremonies include an open acknowledgment by all in attendance of their responsibility to do whatever it takes to help this new couple in their marriage. We should take that commitment much more seriously.
Every marriage faces profound times of crisis. Perhaps your prayer, phone call or offer to babysit could ultimately help save a marriage, keep a child from facing long odds and, dare I say, spare a community from another unspeakable horror.
Steve Elliott, Grassfire
Read More from Steve Elliott from Grassfire HERE
3 Ocak 2013 Perşembe
Guns Can Save Lives
To contact us Click HERE
Disarming law abiding citizens left them sitting ducks.
Has anyone noticed that these mass shootings at public schools increased after the 1995 Gun-Free School Zone Act? Passed with good intentions, banning guns would supposedly make schools safer.
But law abiding citizens, not criminals, obey these bans. Instead of making places safer, disarming law abiding citizens left them sitting ducks.
Killers go where victims can't defend themselves. In the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooting, out of seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect's apartment, only one banned permitted concealed handguns. The suspect didn't go to the closest nor the largest, but to the one that banned self-defense. Time after time the story is the same.
With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. Despite strict gun regulations, Europe has had three of the worst six school shootings.
Sometimes, permit holders save lives. Joel Myrick, an assistant high school principal in Pearl, Miss., used to carry his permitted handgun at school, but stopped after the 1995 act passed. When his school was attacked in October 1997, he ran a mile to get his gun stored off school property, and still stopped the attack 11 minutes before police arrived. Before 1996, he could have stopped it sooner.
More than 8.5 million Americans can legally carry concealed handguns. They are next to us in restaurants, movie theaters and stores. Permit holders are law abiding, committing firearms violations at a rate of hundredths of 1%.
Before the 1995 act, states allowing concealed carry let permit holders carry guns in schools. In four states, they still can. No problems ever reported.
As a compromise, over the past 15 years more than 12,000 former military members have gone into public schools teaching through "Troops to Teachers." Let them carry.
Still in doubt? Ask yourself: Would you feel safer with a sign on your house saying "this house is a gun-free zone"? But if you wouldn't put these signs on your home, why put them elsewhere?
John R. Lott Jr. is a former chief economist for the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the author of More Guns, Less Crime.
“A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.”Barry Goldwater
Disarming law abiding citizens left them sitting ducks.
Has anyone noticed that these mass shootings at public schools increased after the 1995 Gun-Free School Zone Act? Passed with good intentions, banning guns would supposedly make schools safer.
But law abiding citizens, not criminals, obey these bans. Instead of making places safer, disarming law abiding citizens left them sitting ducks.
Killers go where victims can't defend themselves. In the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooting, out of seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect's apartment, only one banned permitted concealed handguns. The suspect didn't go to the closest nor the largest, but to the one that banned self-defense. Time after time the story is the same.
With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. Despite strict gun regulations, Europe has had three of the worst six school shootings.
Sometimes, permit holders save lives. Joel Myrick, an assistant high school principal in Pearl, Miss., used to carry his permitted handgun at school, but stopped after the 1995 act passed. When his school was attacked in October 1997, he ran a mile to get his gun stored off school property, and still stopped the attack 11 minutes before police arrived. Before 1996, he could have stopped it sooner.
More than 8.5 million Americans can legally carry concealed handguns. They are next to us in restaurants, movie theaters and stores. Permit holders are law abiding, committing firearms violations at a rate of hundredths of 1%.
Before the 1995 act, states allowing concealed carry let permit holders carry guns in schools. In four states, they still can. No problems ever reported.
As a compromise, over the past 15 years more than 12,000 former military members have gone into public schools teaching through "Troops to Teachers." Let them carry.
Still in doubt? Ask yourself: Would you feel safer with a sign on your house saying "this house is a gun-free zone"? But if you wouldn't put these signs on your home, why put them elsewhere?
John R. Lott Jr. is a former chief economist for the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the author of More Guns, Less Crime.
“A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.”Barry Goldwater
Korea's New Leader
To contact us Click HERE
I am really concerned about North Korea 's appointment of the "dear leader", Kim Jung Ill's youngest son to be the new leader of North Korea-- a nuclear power!
After all, Kim Jung Un (pronounced Kim's young-un?) had NO military experience whatsoever before daddy made him a four-star general in the military. This is a snot-nose twerp who has never accomplished anything in his life that would even come close to military leadership: he hasn't even so much as led a cub scout troop, coached a sports team or commanded a military platoon... ...So, setting that aside, next they make him the "beloved leader" of the country. Terrific!!!
Ooops. Oh, crap! I'm sorry. I just remembered that we did the same thing here. We took a community organizer who has never worn a uniform and made him Commander-in-Chief; a guy who has never led anything more than an ACORN demonstration and made him the leader of this country. I'm sorry I brought this up, never mind. Let us suffer the pain because of the ignorant Democrats shoving this Marxist Leader on America.
I am really concerned about North Korea 's appointment of the "dear leader", Kim Jung Ill's youngest son to be the new leader of North Korea-- a nuclear power!
After all, Kim Jung Un (pronounced Kim's young-un?) had NO military experience whatsoever before daddy made him a four-star general in the military. This is a snot-nose twerp who has never accomplished anything in his life that would even come close to military leadership: he hasn't even so much as led a cub scout troop, coached a sports team or commanded a military platoon... ...So, setting that aside, next they make him the "beloved leader" of the country. Terrific!!!
Ooops. Oh, crap! I'm sorry. I just remembered that we did the same thing here. We took a community organizer who has never worn a uniform and made him Commander-in-Chief; a guy who has never led anything more than an ACORN demonstration and made him the leader of this country. I'm sorry I brought this up, never mind. Let us suffer the pain because of the ignorant Democrats shoving this Marxist Leader on America.
Occupy Wall Street Doctor Arrested With Bomb Making Chemicals And Many Weapons
To contact us Click HERE
If this person was a Tea Party Member this story would be front-page news. Lowly Ann Curry, idiot Matt Lauer and racist Sam Donaldson would be blasting this to all the Obama supporters who listen to the Vile MSM.
Despicable Morgan Gliedman, 27, and scumbag Aaron Greene, 31, were taken away from their home in Manhattan's pricey Greenwich Village on Saturday. Liberals have a proclivity for violence.
The ugly and vile Gliedman, who is nine months pregnant, is the daughter of a top Brooklyn cancer doctor and was educated at the Dalton School, an exclusive New York prep school attended by the likes of Anderson Cooper and Claire Danes.
Dirtbag Greene went to Harvard University for his undergraduate degree and did graduate work at the Kennedy School of Government there, as well. Isn’t Harvard still hiding the records of barry soetoro?
Below portion from the Citizen Journalist:
Police have arrested a 60 year old unemployed doctor, Roberto Rivera, after finding a large quantity of chemicals used in bomb making after they conducted a raid on his home in Ridgewood, New Jersey. The search of Rivera’s home on Friday night also revealed a number of assault rifles and other weapons
Rivera was charged with second degree recklessly creating a risk of widespread injury or damage; fourth degree failure to mitigate against recklessly creating a risk of widespread injury or damage; third degree unlawful possession of a destructive device; fourth degree unlawful possession of a stun gun; fourth degree unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition magazine; and second degree unlawful possession of an assault firearm. His bail has been set at $1 million dollars.
Let's add this to the huge Occupy Wall Street's Rap Sheet
If this person was a Tea Party Member this story would be front-page news. Lowly Ann Curry, idiot Matt Lauer and racist Sam Donaldson would be blasting this to all the Obama supporters who listen to the Vile MSM.
Despicable Morgan Gliedman, 27, and scumbag Aaron Greene, 31, were taken away from their home in Manhattan's pricey Greenwich Village on Saturday. Liberals have a proclivity for violence.
The ugly and vile Gliedman, who is nine months pregnant, is the daughter of a top Brooklyn cancer doctor and was educated at the Dalton School, an exclusive New York prep school attended by the likes of Anderson Cooper and Claire Danes.
Dirtbag Greene went to Harvard University for his undergraduate degree and did graduate work at the Kennedy School of Government there, as well. Isn’t Harvard still hiding the records of barry soetoro?
Below portion from the Citizen Journalist:
Police have arrested a 60 year old unemployed doctor, Roberto Rivera, after finding a large quantity of chemicals used in bomb making after they conducted a raid on his home in Ridgewood, New Jersey. The search of Rivera’s home on Friday night also revealed a number of assault rifles and other weapons
Rivera was charged with second degree recklessly creating a risk of widespread injury or damage; fourth degree failure to mitigate against recklessly creating a risk of widespread injury or damage; third degree unlawful possession of a destructive device; fourth degree unlawful possession of a stun gun; fourth degree unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition magazine; and second degree unlawful possession of an assault firearm. His bail has been set at $1 million dollars.
Let's add this to the huge Occupy Wall Street's Rap Sheet
ObamaCare includes Racial Preferences and Death Panels for Senior Citizens
To contact us Click HERE
The New Year starts with a bang as Obamacare aka obamatax kicks in. Obamacare can get rid of the People Obama hates the most. Barry Obama can get rid of Old White People in one fell swoop with Obamacare. The disgusting Marxist Regime has Death Panels and racial preferences loaded up in Obamatax. Should we call it Soetorotax and Soetorocare now?
Yes it is true that ObamaCare includes racial preferences, called "priorities" in the law. When the first version of ObamaCare appeared in a bill, I wrote about the racial preferences in it here for American Thinker on July 21, 2009. Now that we have a final version of the law, it is reasonably safe to elaborate how those preferences have evolved.
Under ObamaCare, if a medical or dental school wants to increase its chances of receiving many different kinds of grants and contracts from the federal government, it should "have a record of training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups" or "from underrepresented minorities." This is because ObamaCare requires the secretary of health and human services to give priority to the entities that have demonstrated such a record in the awarding of these grants and contracts to medical and dental schools and other entities.
ObamaCare does not state what would qualify as a "record" of such training, so we can expect medical and dental schools and the other entities to do whatever they think they can get away with to train as many "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups" or "from underrepresented minorities" as necessary to have a better "record" in this regard than their competitors. Soetorocare or ObamaCare creates a significant financial incentive for medical and dental schools and other entities to lower admission standards for "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups" or "from underrepresented minorities" if that is what it takes to have the winning "record" of such training.
In Section 5301, ObamaCare states that the HHS secretary:
... may make grants to, or enter into contracts with, ... [a] school of medicine or osteopathic medicine ... which the Secretary has determined is capable of carrying out such grant or contract --
(A) to plan, develop, operate, or participate in an accredited professional training program, including an accredited residency or internship program in the field of family medicine, general internal medicine, or general pediatrics for medical students, interns, residents, or practicing physicians as defined by the Secretary[.]
ObamaCare then states that the "[s]ecretary may make grants to or enter into contracts with accredited schools of medicine or osteopathic medicine to establish, maintain, or improve ... programs that improve clinical teaching and research in" the fields defined above, or "programs that integrate academic administrative units in" the fields defined above "to enhance interdisciplinary recruitment, training, and faculty development."
In a subsection entitled "Priorities in Making Awards," ObamaCare states: "In awarding grants or contracts under" the paragraphs quoted above, "the Secretary shall give priority to qualified applicants that ... have a record of training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups[.]"
ObamaCare's race-based "priorities" extend to dental education as well. Section 5303 of ObamaCare states that the "[s]ecretary may make grants to, or enter into contracts with, a school of dentistry, public or nonprofit private hospital, or a public or private nonprofit entity" for the following purposes:
(A) to plan, develop, and operate, or participate in, an approved professional training program in the field of general dentistry, pediatric dentistry, or public health dentistry for dental students, residents, practicing dentists, dental hygienists, or other approved primary care dental trainees, that emphasizes training for general, pediatric, or public health dentistry;
(B) to provide financial assistance to dental students, residents, practicing dentists, and dental hygiene students who are in need thereof, who are participants in any such program, and who plan to work in the practice of general, pediatric, public heath dentistry, or dental hygiene;
(C) to plan, develop, and operate a program for the training of oral health care providers who plan to teach in general, pediatric, public health dentistry, or dental hygiene;
(D) to provide financial assistance in the form of traineeships and fellowships to dentists who plan to teach or are teaching in general, pediatric, or public health dentistry;
(F) to meet the costs of projects to establish, maintain, or improve predoctoral and postdoctoral training in primary care programs[.]
In a subsection entitled "Priorities in Making Awards" ObamaCare states: "With respect to training provided for under this section, the Secretary shall give priority in awarding grants or contracts to the following ... [q]ualified applicants that have a record of training individuals who are ... from underrepresented minorities."
Apart from the legality of such "priorities" under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups" or "from underrepresented minorities," ObamaCare will foster the racial preference or "priority" climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences or "priorities." For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any non-merit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?
A non-merit-based preference program based on an individual's physical appearance or surname is no less a "badge of inferiority" than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to ObamaCare's racial preference or "priority" program, which provides a financial incentive for medical and dental schools to lower admission standards for "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups" or "from underrepresented minorities," those individuals at these medical and dental schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference or "priority," will wear that badge.
Anyone over 70 will not receive curative care under the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare)"), which has the explicit task of reducing the rate of growth in Medicare expenditures. It will implement the rationing by setti...ng Medicare reimbursement rates to physicians and hospitals for medical procedures, therapies, drugs and so forth. By setting reimbursement rates prohibitively low, IPAB will have a strangle hold on what treatement is provided to which "units." Although the reimbursement rates established by IPAB are technically only “recommendations,” under the law these “recommendations” automatically go into effect unless Congress overrules the agency’s decisions, a highly unlikely occurrence.
The IPAB rationing board will have unprecedented control over patients’ personal medical decisions, but limited medical expertise. ObamaCare limits IPAB's membership of doctors who have real experience caring for patients, selecting instead numbers-crunchers focused only on costs.
During the past presidential debates, Barry Hussein Obama repeated his support for the controversial Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) — which can be called “death panels”.
Government bureaucrats, especially Racists and Marxists, should not be making the health decisions that impact millions of Americans
The New Year starts with a bang as Obamacare aka obamatax kicks in. Obamacare can get rid of the People Obama hates the most. Barry Obama can get rid of Old White People in one fell swoop with Obamacare. The disgusting Marxist Regime has Death Panels and racial preferences loaded up in Obamatax. Should we call it Soetorotax and Soetorocare now?
Yes it is true that ObamaCare includes racial preferences, called "priorities" in the law. When the first version of ObamaCare appeared in a bill, I wrote about the racial preferences in it here for American Thinker on July 21, 2009. Now that we have a final version of the law, it is reasonably safe to elaborate how those preferences have evolved.
Under ObamaCare, if a medical or dental school wants to increase its chances of receiving many different kinds of grants and contracts from the federal government, it should "have a record of training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups" or "from underrepresented minorities." This is because ObamaCare requires the secretary of health and human services to give priority to the entities that have demonstrated such a record in the awarding of these grants and contracts to medical and dental schools and other entities.
ObamaCare does not state what would qualify as a "record" of such training, so we can expect medical and dental schools and the other entities to do whatever they think they can get away with to train as many "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups" or "from underrepresented minorities" as necessary to have a better "record" in this regard than their competitors. Soetorocare or ObamaCare creates a significant financial incentive for medical and dental schools and other entities to lower admission standards for "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups" or "from underrepresented minorities" if that is what it takes to have the winning "record" of such training.
In Section 5301, ObamaCare states that the HHS secretary:
... may make grants to, or enter into contracts with, ... [a] school of medicine or osteopathic medicine ... which the Secretary has determined is capable of carrying out such grant or contract --
(A) to plan, develop, operate, or participate in an accredited professional training program, including an accredited residency or internship program in the field of family medicine, general internal medicine, or general pediatrics for medical students, interns, residents, or practicing physicians as defined by the Secretary[.]
ObamaCare then states that the "[s]ecretary may make grants to or enter into contracts with accredited schools of medicine or osteopathic medicine to establish, maintain, or improve ... programs that improve clinical teaching and research in" the fields defined above, or "programs that integrate academic administrative units in" the fields defined above "to enhance interdisciplinary recruitment, training, and faculty development."
In a subsection entitled "Priorities in Making Awards," ObamaCare states: "In awarding grants or contracts under" the paragraphs quoted above, "the Secretary shall give priority to qualified applicants that ... have a record of training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups[.]"
ObamaCare's race-based "priorities" extend to dental education as well. Section 5303 of ObamaCare states that the "[s]ecretary may make grants to, or enter into contracts with, a school of dentistry, public or nonprofit private hospital, or a public or private nonprofit entity" for the following purposes:
(A) to plan, develop, and operate, or participate in, an approved professional training program in the field of general dentistry, pediatric dentistry, or public health dentistry for dental students, residents, practicing dentists, dental hygienists, or other approved primary care dental trainees, that emphasizes training for general, pediatric, or public health dentistry;
(B) to provide financial assistance to dental students, residents, practicing dentists, and dental hygiene students who are in need thereof, who are participants in any such program, and who plan to work in the practice of general, pediatric, public heath dentistry, or dental hygiene;
(C) to plan, develop, and operate a program for the training of oral health care providers who plan to teach in general, pediatric, public health dentistry, or dental hygiene;
(D) to provide financial assistance in the form of traineeships and fellowships to dentists who plan to teach or are teaching in general, pediatric, or public health dentistry;
(F) to meet the costs of projects to establish, maintain, or improve predoctoral and postdoctoral training in primary care programs[.]
In a subsection entitled "Priorities in Making Awards" ObamaCare states: "With respect to training provided for under this section, the Secretary shall give priority in awarding grants or contracts to the following ... [q]ualified applicants that have a record of training individuals who are ... from underrepresented minorities."
Apart from the legality of such "priorities" under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups" or "from underrepresented minorities," ObamaCare will foster the racial preference or "priority" climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences or "priorities." For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any non-merit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?
A non-merit-based preference program based on an individual's physical appearance or surname is no less a "badge of inferiority" than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to ObamaCare's racial preference or "priority" program, which provides a financial incentive for medical and dental schools to lower admission standards for "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups" or "from underrepresented minorities," those individuals at these medical and dental schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference or "priority," will wear that badge.
Anyone over 70 will not receive curative care under the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare)"), which has the explicit task of reducing the rate of growth in Medicare expenditures. It will implement the rationing by setti...ng Medicare reimbursement rates to physicians and hospitals for medical procedures, therapies, drugs and so forth. By setting reimbursement rates prohibitively low, IPAB will have a strangle hold on what treatement is provided to which "units." Although the reimbursement rates established by IPAB are technically only “recommendations,” under the law these “recommendations” automatically go into effect unless Congress overrules the agency’s decisions, a highly unlikely occurrence.
The IPAB rationing board will have unprecedented control over patients’ personal medical decisions, but limited medical expertise. ObamaCare limits IPAB's membership of doctors who have real experience caring for patients, selecting instead numbers-crunchers focused only on costs.
During the past presidential debates, Barry Hussein Obama repeated his support for the controversial Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) — which can be called “death panels”.
Government bureaucrats, especially Racists and Marxists, should not be making the health decisions that impact millions of Americans
2 Ocak 2013 Çarşamba
"To the Class, and People, of 2012"
To contact us Click HERE
"To the Class of 2012"
By Bill Bonner
"We spent the weekend in Charlottesville, VA…at the UVA graduation for our son, Henry. The University of Virginia is probably the most handsome campus in America. Especially in May. It has a green central esplanade bordered by columned buildings in the Greco-Roman style. At one end is the famous Rotunda. Flowers and trees bloom everywhere. We know of no other president who achieved anything equivalent. Some waged dubious wars. Some launched weasely social welfare programs. The best of them idled away their careers, shaking hands, making deals, and otherwise shuffling offstage leaving it no better or worse than it was when the curtain first went up. But Mr. Jefferson left an architectural monument that is breathtaking. He would be proud of it today.
It is too bad that the soliloquies of its 2012 commencement exercises came nowhere close to the grandeur of the setting itself. Instead, there was nothing more than the usual hollow, air-head do-goodism you associate with graduation speakers. One urges students to go out in the world and ‘make a difference.’ Another tells them to use their educations for some great public purpose. Another insists that they become the leaders of tomorrow. All declare that their years spent (there was no mention of the money) at UVA were a good investment…both formative and decisive…making them the determined, capable people that they have allegedly become.
Jefferson would roll his eyes.
Herewith, we offer an alternative graduation speech. An honest address to the class of 2012. One we will never be invited to give: I see you before me. Arranged in alphabetical order. From Mr. Aaron from Alexandria to Mr. Zyman of Richmond. You are all suited up…wearing the ancient vêtements that have marked men of learning for hundreds of years. And in a few minutes you will move the tassels on your funny little hats from the right side to the left, indicating that you have been awarded a bachelor’s degree. This signifies that you have joined the few…the elite…the learned.
But how many of you really are learned? How many are imposters? How many are capable of writing a simple essay? How many can decline a Latin verb? How many have mastered calculus and quantum physics?
You’ve heard about the group of men at the old English club. The waiter comes up and asks if they would like some hock. One of them cleverly says ‘hic, haec, hoc.’ So the waiter comes back with drinks for all of them except him. When he asks why, the waiter replies: ‘But sir, you declined the hock.’
How many of you got that joke?
I only ask the question because I am suspicious. Many college grads of today could hardly be called intellectuals. Many have hardly used their brains at all. Some have merely spent the last four years learning a few tricks and the latest jargon of a trade. Marketing, for example. Or journalism. Marketing evolves so fast that whatever you learn here will be mostly obsolete by the time you get a job. If you ever get a job. Besides, the important points could be picked up in a few weeks on the job anyway.
As to journalism, there are a few skills you need to know, which you could pick up in an afternoon; the rest is undifferentiated. You look. You ask questions. You think. And you tell the world what you come up with. No college necessary. In fact, college may hinder you. Instead of using your own eyes and your own brain, and developing your own way of looking at things, you spent your best years in class absorbing the claptrap du jour of the mainstream media.
Others among you have read popular novels or a few history books. You think you know something. Maybe you call yourself a historian. Or perhaps a literary critic. My advice is to keep that to yourself. You have paid a lot of money for something that millions of other people - just as smart as you are - do for a hobby or past-time. There’s not much real knowledge in either of those things…just opinions and ideas which are more vanity and entertainment than genuine learning.
Same thing for those who have spent years studying ‘politics’ or ‘economics.’ Drop the pretense that you know something. You don’t. All you have is a full plate of opinions…most of them preposterous…and most of them indigestible by a thoughtful person.
I don’t doubt that many of the courses offered here - to say nothing of the beer parties - are interesting and fun. But are they worth $160,000 and 4 years of your life? How about some of these titles that I got out of the Course Catalog for 2012: “Fantasy and Values” or “Black Women Authors” or the “Cinema of India” or “Feminist Theory in Anthropology,” or “Creole Narratives” or “Zen” or “Business Ethics”…?
As to that last one, when you get out in the real world, which unless you go to graduate school is happening as of tomorrow…you will find that it is very unlike the make-believe world at this university.
They say that by going to a university you open yourself up to a whole world of knowledge. Yes, perhaps you do gain easy access to a whole world of simplified knowledge and politically correct opinions. But you also cut yourself off from a larger world of real knowledge…the kind you get by doing and observing.
In your course on Business Ethics, for example, you are no-doubt exposed to a number of ideas and theories on the subject. You’d be better off learning it on the job. First, instead of paying someone to teach you, you would get paid for learning. Besides, you can get the ideas and information in the course materials by reading a few $29 books…or read them online for even less. That is true for almost all the coursework in the arts and social sciences. It is all available to you at much less expense. So, in a sense, you have been a sap to pay so much for it.
But you would do even better to combine your reading with real life experience. And in real life you would quickly discover that things are much more complex, much more nuanced, and much less clear than you thought. That’s true in business ethics as it is in everything else. As the Jewish philosopher Hillel explained, the core idea of the Torah, the Bible, the Sermon on the Mount, and business ethics is as simple as this: if you wouldn’t want someone to do it to you, don’t do it to someone else. The rest is detail. And the details depend on the situation, which you only encounter in its full complexity, when you are face to face with it. You don’t encounter it in a book…or in your lecture halls…or in your seminars on campus. So, the time you spend on campus actually prevents and delays you from coming to grips with the real problems you will face in real life…and thus retards your education.
So, you’ve spent - or your parents…or the taxpayers have spent - $150,000 on your education. And you’re retarded.
And now you enter the job market. And don’t think you’ll have an easy time of it. Because previous graduates of this university and others have applied the lessons they learned in school and made a god-awful mess of the economy. There are 14 million people without jobs. About one in 20 young people is jobless. You’re just another one. Frankly, I’m surprised the unemployment rate for young people isn’t higher…given how worthless most young people are.
Why so many unemployed? Because economics professors have taught 3 generations of economists that a command and control economy - to a point - will work. It won’t. But a command and control economy is good for economists and do-gooders, who get jobs commanding.
Economists convinced policymakers…who have their own corrupt reasons for wanting to twist up the economy - to control the price of labor…and prevent it from falling, using a variety of tools and subterfuges. By the way, a ‘subterfuge’ is defined in the dictionary as “an artifice or expedient used to evade a rule, escape a consequence, hide something, etc.”
I mention that because I know that half of you are functionally illiterate. MSNBC recently reported that: "More than 50 percent of students at four-year schools and more than 75 percent at two-year colleges lacked the skills to perform complex literacy tasks. The results cut across three types of literacy: analyzing news stories and other prose, understanding documents and having math skills needed for checkbooks or restaurant tips."
But one of the subterfuges used by the feds that makes it so hard for you to get a job is student loans. They’ve lent out more than $1 trillion - some of it to you. Rather than work for lower wages, students borrow money at low teaser rates…and go to school. On average, you have about $20,000 worth of debt when you leave this university. And I’ll bet that a lot of you won’t pay up. But I’ll give you some advice. String your lenders out as long as possible. Eventually, the same college-educated dimbulbs who perverted the employment market will destroy the dollar. Avoid paying your loan long enough and it will probably go away…
Of course, the outlook is not all bad. Some of you will find good jobs - those who have used your time wisely, by studying science and engineering. It’s only the rest of you who are screwed. The feds keep the price of labor too high. Employers would have to pay you more than you are worth. So, they are reluctant to hire you.
Employers know damned well too that you’ve been retarded by your education. So, they’re leery of hiring you. Especially if they see you’ve taken a class in business ethics. They think you’ll stab them in the back the first chance you get. And they’re probably right. Because you’ve been told to go forth and create a better world. I’ve seen the surveys. Two out of three of you want to work for non-profit organizations. Why is that? Because your whole weltanschauung…well, I mean, your worldview…has been corroded by your education. You think business is greedy…selfish…and stupid. But where they hell do you think non-profits get their money? Where does the government get its money? How can our society afford to let you waste so many years in college? All of this money has to come from the productive sector of the economy.
You think you can do good by working for the government or a non-profit organization? Well, I’ve got news. You’ll be a parasite, just like the rest of them. A leech, sucking the life out of the real, productive economy. That’s another reason it’s so hard for you to find a job. The more people who fantasize about getting paid for doing good…for trying to make a better world…the worse the real world gets. Because that leaves fewer people actually doing the kind of real world work that makes the world richer and more prosperous…and better organized…safer and healthier.
So, forget about making the world a better place. Forget about leading anybody anywhere. Forget about thinking you know something. You don’t know enough to lead yourself, let alone anyone else. And most of what you think you know is worthless claptrap. Pseudo-knowledge, in other words. Finally, don’t try to be a leader. The world doesn’t need any more leaders. It’s got too many already. Instead, try to find a real job in the real world. Do it well. And mind your own business. Thank you. And good luck."- http://dailyreckoning.com/
By Bill Bonner
"We spent the weekend in Charlottesville, VA…at the UVA graduation for our son, Henry. The University of Virginia is probably the most handsome campus in America. Especially in May. It has a green central esplanade bordered by columned buildings in the Greco-Roman style. At one end is the famous Rotunda. Flowers and trees bloom everywhere. We know of no other president who achieved anything equivalent. Some waged dubious wars. Some launched weasely social welfare programs. The best of them idled away their careers, shaking hands, making deals, and otherwise shuffling offstage leaving it no better or worse than it was when the curtain first went up. But Mr. Jefferson left an architectural monument that is breathtaking. He would be proud of it today.
It is too bad that the soliloquies of its 2012 commencement exercises came nowhere close to the grandeur of the setting itself. Instead, there was nothing more than the usual hollow, air-head do-goodism you associate with graduation speakers. One urges students to go out in the world and ‘make a difference.’ Another tells them to use their educations for some great public purpose. Another insists that they become the leaders of tomorrow. All declare that their years spent (there was no mention of the money) at UVA were a good investment…both formative and decisive…making them the determined, capable people that they have allegedly become.
Jefferson would roll his eyes.
Herewith, we offer an alternative graduation speech. An honest address to the class of 2012. One we will never be invited to give: I see you before me. Arranged in alphabetical order. From Mr. Aaron from Alexandria to Mr. Zyman of Richmond. You are all suited up…wearing the ancient vêtements that have marked men of learning for hundreds of years. And in a few minutes you will move the tassels on your funny little hats from the right side to the left, indicating that you have been awarded a bachelor’s degree. This signifies that you have joined the few…the elite…the learned.
But how many of you really are learned? How many are imposters? How many are capable of writing a simple essay? How many can decline a Latin verb? How many have mastered calculus and quantum physics?
You’ve heard about the group of men at the old English club. The waiter comes up and asks if they would like some hock. One of them cleverly says ‘hic, haec, hoc.’ So the waiter comes back with drinks for all of them except him. When he asks why, the waiter replies: ‘But sir, you declined the hock.’
How many of you got that joke?
I only ask the question because I am suspicious. Many college grads of today could hardly be called intellectuals. Many have hardly used their brains at all. Some have merely spent the last four years learning a few tricks and the latest jargon of a trade. Marketing, for example. Or journalism. Marketing evolves so fast that whatever you learn here will be mostly obsolete by the time you get a job. If you ever get a job. Besides, the important points could be picked up in a few weeks on the job anyway.
As to journalism, there are a few skills you need to know, which you could pick up in an afternoon; the rest is undifferentiated. You look. You ask questions. You think. And you tell the world what you come up with. No college necessary. In fact, college may hinder you. Instead of using your own eyes and your own brain, and developing your own way of looking at things, you spent your best years in class absorbing the claptrap du jour of the mainstream media.
Others among you have read popular novels or a few history books. You think you know something. Maybe you call yourself a historian. Or perhaps a literary critic. My advice is to keep that to yourself. You have paid a lot of money for something that millions of other people - just as smart as you are - do for a hobby or past-time. There’s not much real knowledge in either of those things…just opinions and ideas which are more vanity and entertainment than genuine learning.
Same thing for those who have spent years studying ‘politics’ or ‘economics.’ Drop the pretense that you know something. You don’t. All you have is a full plate of opinions…most of them preposterous…and most of them indigestible by a thoughtful person.
I don’t doubt that many of the courses offered here - to say nothing of the beer parties - are interesting and fun. But are they worth $160,000 and 4 years of your life? How about some of these titles that I got out of the Course Catalog for 2012: “Fantasy and Values” or “Black Women Authors” or the “Cinema of India” or “Feminist Theory in Anthropology,” or “Creole Narratives” or “Zen” or “Business Ethics”…?
As to that last one, when you get out in the real world, which unless you go to graduate school is happening as of tomorrow…you will find that it is very unlike the make-believe world at this university.
They say that by going to a university you open yourself up to a whole world of knowledge. Yes, perhaps you do gain easy access to a whole world of simplified knowledge and politically correct opinions. But you also cut yourself off from a larger world of real knowledge…the kind you get by doing and observing.
In your course on Business Ethics, for example, you are no-doubt exposed to a number of ideas and theories on the subject. You’d be better off learning it on the job. First, instead of paying someone to teach you, you would get paid for learning. Besides, you can get the ideas and information in the course materials by reading a few $29 books…or read them online for even less. That is true for almost all the coursework in the arts and social sciences. It is all available to you at much less expense. So, in a sense, you have been a sap to pay so much for it.
But you would do even better to combine your reading with real life experience. And in real life you would quickly discover that things are much more complex, much more nuanced, and much less clear than you thought. That’s true in business ethics as it is in everything else. As the Jewish philosopher Hillel explained, the core idea of the Torah, the Bible, the Sermon on the Mount, and business ethics is as simple as this: if you wouldn’t want someone to do it to you, don’t do it to someone else. The rest is detail. And the details depend on the situation, which you only encounter in its full complexity, when you are face to face with it. You don’t encounter it in a book…or in your lecture halls…or in your seminars on campus. So, the time you spend on campus actually prevents and delays you from coming to grips with the real problems you will face in real life…and thus retards your education.
So, you’ve spent - or your parents…or the taxpayers have spent - $150,000 on your education. And you’re retarded.
And now you enter the job market. And don’t think you’ll have an easy time of it. Because previous graduates of this university and others have applied the lessons they learned in school and made a god-awful mess of the economy. There are 14 million people without jobs. About one in 20 young people is jobless. You’re just another one. Frankly, I’m surprised the unemployment rate for young people isn’t higher…given how worthless most young people are.
Why so many unemployed? Because economics professors have taught 3 generations of economists that a command and control economy - to a point - will work. It won’t. But a command and control economy is good for economists and do-gooders, who get jobs commanding.
Economists convinced policymakers…who have their own corrupt reasons for wanting to twist up the economy - to control the price of labor…and prevent it from falling, using a variety of tools and subterfuges. By the way, a ‘subterfuge’ is defined in the dictionary as “an artifice or expedient used to evade a rule, escape a consequence, hide something, etc.”
I mention that because I know that half of you are functionally illiterate. MSNBC recently reported that: "More than 50 percent of students at four-year schools and more than 75 percent at two-year colleges lacked the skills to perform complex literacy tasks. The results cut across three types of literacy: analyzing news stories and other prose, understanding documents and having math skills needed for checkbooks or restaurant tips."
But one of the subterfuges used by the feds that makes it so hard for you to get a job is student loans. They’ve lent out more than $1 trillion - some of it to you. Rather than work for lower wages, students borrow money at low teaser rates…and go to school. On average, you have about $20,000 worth of debt when you leave this university. And I’ll bet that a lot of you won’t pay up. But I’ll give you some advice. String your lenders out as long as possible. Eventually, the same college-educated dimbulbs who perverted the employment market will destroy the dollar. Avoid paying your loan long enough and it will probably go away…
Of course, the outlook is not all bad. Some of you will find good jobs - those who have used your time wisely, by studying science and engineering. It’s only the rest of you who are screwed. The feds keep the price of labor too high. Employers would have to pay you more than you are worth. So, they are reluctant to hire you.
Employers know damned well too that you’ve been retarded by your education. So, they’re leery of hiring you. Especially if they see you’ve taken a class in business ethics. They think you’ll stab them in the back the first chance you get. And they’re probably right. Because you’ve been told to go forth and create a better world. I’ve seen the surveys. Two out of three of you want to work for non-profit organizations. Why is that? Because your whole weltanschauung…well, I mean, your worldview…has been corroded by your education. You think business is greedy…selfish…and stupid. But where they hell do you think non-profits get their money? Where does the government get its money? How can our society afford to let you waste so many years in college? All of this money has to come from the productive sector of the economy.
You think you can do good by working for the government or a non-profit organization? Well, I’ve got news. You’ll be a parasite, just like the rest of them. A leech, sucking the life out of the real, productive economy. That’s another reason it’s so hard for you to find a job. The more people who fantasize about getting paid for doing good…for trying to make a better world…the worse the real world gets. Because that leaves fewer people actually doing the kind of real world work that makes the world richer and more prosperous…and better organized…safer and healthier.
So, forget about making the world a better place. Forget about leading anybody anywhere. Forget about thinking you know something. You don’t know enough to lead yourself, let alone anyone else. And most of what you think you know is worthless claptrap. Pseudo-knowledge, in other words. Finally, don’t try to be a leader. The world doesn’t need any more leaders. It’s got too many already. Instead, try to find a real job in the real world. Do it well. And mind your own business. Thank you. And good luck."- http://dailyreckoning.com/
Karl Denninger, "Only One Thing To Say To This"
To contact us Click HERE
"Only One Thing To Say To This"*
by Karl Denninger
"Yeah, it's pretty clear, eh? "The Senate early on New Year's Day voted overwhelmingly in favor of a fiscal cliff deal that would extend tax rates on annual household income under $450,000 and postpones automatic spending cuts for two months. The bill was approved in an 89-8 vote that came after only 10 minutes of formal floor debate and no official score from the Congressional Budget Office. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated it would reduce federal revenue by $3.93 trillion over the next decade compared to current law."
Net spending reduction? $15 billion. In other words, effectively zero.
I thought I'd update you on where I think things are going to shake out in the short term. First, everyone's taxes are going up- the invisible taxes. Specifically, the Payroll Tax Cut is going to expire. Count on it. I strongly support this; it was a massively-destructive revenue cut that was intended to and did destabilize Social Security funding.
Neither side of the aisle will talk about this but it's a fact. This particular tax change alone will add about $200 billion to Federal Revenues annually, and it falls "on employers" (supposedly.) In reality it falls on all employees, because every tax assessed on an employer is immediately passed through to the employee, and is considered when all salary offers are made- dollar for dollar.
If you have any interest in balancing the budget you want this tax "cut" to expire. If you have an interest in the national debt you want this tax "cut" to expire. And if you are either receiving Social Security now, or think you will at some point in the future- any point in the future and in any amount- you want this tax "cut" to expire.
By law when the Social Security "trust fund" runs out of surplus all benefits must be ratably cut immediately to eliminate any shortfall. The "cliff" date for this has been widely quoted as 2039. This "tax cut" had accelerated this to as soon as 2019 or thereabouts, roughly 6 years hence! The problem is that a huge percentage of the damage is already done, and ZIRP does even more as it lowers on a permanent basis the coupon that is earned on long term Treasuries, which is what the "trust fund" holds and buys. Even ceasing the Payroll Tax Cut now will not reverse the damage that has been inflicted, but it does stop it from accumulating. Once the dust settles I will try to run an actuarial calculation on exactly where the exhaustion date is now, but my suspicion using just some rough guesses is that it's around 2025 - that is, the few years of "tax cut" has taken more than 10 years off the lifetime of the existing "trust funds" under existing law.
Second, those who continue to have the insane view that "deficits don't matter" or worse, that any sort of exponential (compound) growth system can persist on an indefinite basis are about to get a very rude awakening, and it's not going to be fun.
2013 is going to bring many changes and you're not going to like them, no matter what side of the aisle you hail from, or if you refuse to buttonhole into one of the "left/right" paradigm cubbies. Of that I'm certain.
As such you had better figure out where you stand on many issues, where your lines in the sand really are, whether they're really lines or whether you will move them in which case you have no moral compass or lines at all, and exactly what you are willing and prepared to immediately do in response if they are crossed. There will be many attempts to cross those lines this coming year and the seminal issue for all in this nation is are those lines you draw rhetorical devices - in other words bull**** - or are they real? Unfortunately. Happy New Year."- http://market-ticker.org/ *:
by Karl Denninger
"Yeah, it's pretty clear, eh? "The Senate early on New Year's Day voted overwhelmingly in favor of a fiscal cliff deal that would extend tax rates on annual household income under $450,000 and postpones automatic spending cuts for two months. The bill was approved in an 89-8 vote that came after only 10 minutes of formal floor debate and no official score from the Congressional Budget Office. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated it would reduce federal revenue by $3.93 trillion over the next decade compared to current law."
Net spending reduction? $15 billion. In other words, effectively zero.
I thought I'd update you on where I think things are going to shake out in the short term. First, everyone's taxes are going up- the invisible taxes. Specifically, the Payroll Tax Cut is going to expire. Count on it. I strongly support this; it was a massively-destructive revenue cut that was intended to and did destabilize Social Security funding.
Neither side of the aisle will talk about this but it's a fact. This particular tax change alone will add about $200 billion to Federal Revenues annually, and it falls "on employers" (supposedly.) In reality it falls on all employees, because every tax assessed on an employer is immediately passed through to the employee, and is considered when all salary offers are made- dollar for dollar.
If you have any interest in balancing the budget you want this tax "cut" to expire. If you have an interest in the national debt you want this tax "cut" to expire. And if you are either receiving Social Security now, or think you will at some point in the future- any point in the future and in any amount- you want this tax "cut" to expire.
By law when the Social Security "trust fund" runs out of surplus all benefits must be ratably cut immediately to eliminate any shortfall. The "cliff" date for this has been widely quoted as 2039. This "tax cut" had accelerated this to as soon as 2019 or thereabouts, roughly 6 years hence! The problem is that a huge percentage of the damage is already done, and ZIRP does even more as it lowers on a permanent basis the coupon that is earned on long term Treasuries, which is what the "trust fund" holds and buys. Even ceasing the Payroll Tax Cut now will not reverse the damage that has been inflicted, but it does stop it from accumulating. Once the dust settles I will try to run an actuarial calculation on exactly where the exhaustion date is now, but my suspicion using just some rough guesses is that it's around 2025 - that is, the few years of "tax cut" has taken more than 10 years off the lifetime of the existing "trust funds" under existing law.
Second, those who continue to have the insane view that "deficits don't matter" or worse, that any sort of exponential (compound) growth system can persist on an indefinite basis are about to get a very rude awakening, and it's not going to be fun.
2013 is going to bring many changes and you're not going to like them, no matter what side of the aisle you hail from, or if you refuse to buttonhole into one of the "left/right" paradigm cubbies. Of that I'm certain.
As such you had better figure out where you stand on many issues, where your lines in the sand really are, whether they're really lines or whether you will move them in which case you have no moral compass or lines at all, and exactly what you are willing and prepared to immediately do in response if they are crossed. There will be many attempts to cross those lines this coming year and the seminal issue for all in this nation is are those lines you draw rhetorical devices - in other words bull**** - or are they real? Unfortunately. Happy New Year."- http://market-ticker.org/ *:
"Empires of Illusion and the Credibility Trap"
To contact us Click HERE
"Empires of Illusion and the Credibility Trap"
by Jesse
"I came across a nice, compact interview with Chris Hedges which illuminates his thesis of the decline of the American Empire and the illusory thinking that accompanies it. Can the shock and meltdown of Karl Rove on election night be any better contemporary illustration of the power of selective thinking to delude a group of seemingly rational people to their own downfall?
The end of empires and the accompanying sea change of social organization are always remarkable for their extremes of human behavior. The almost frenetic preoccupation and adherence to the Nazi ideology in the latter stages of the war, when it was obvious to any rational observer that they could not win, is remarkable. I had been particularly struck in my reading some time ago with the 'wolf packs' of Nazis who had raged through Berlin, rounding up old men, and even boys who had not joined the Volkssturm, and hanging them, even while the Russians were shelling the Reichstag. It never made sense to me until today.
"The radio announced that Hitler had come out of his safe bomb-proof bunker to talk with the fourteen to sixteen year old boys who had 'volunteered' for the 'honor' to be accepted into the SS and to die for their Fuhrer in the defense of Berlin. What a cruel lie! These boys did not volunteer, but had no choice, because boys who were found hiding were hanged as traitors by the SS as a warning that, 'he who was not brave enough to fight had to die. When trees were not available, people were strung up on lamp posts. They were hanging everywhere, military and civilian, men and women, ordinary citizens who had been executed by a small group of fanatics. It appeared that the Nazis did not want the people to survive because a lost war, by their rationale, was obviously the fault of all of us. We had not sacrificed enough and therefore, we had forfeited our right to live, as only the government was without guilt."- Dorothea von Schwanenfluegel, eyewitness account, fall of Berlin 1945.
I was reminded of this phenomenon by the trial of Sophie Scholl, and her words to the judge Roland Freisler, as he ranted his virulent condemnations at them. 'Soon you will be in our place,' she said to him. He did escape the hangman's noose at Nuremburg, but only by virtue of an Allied bomb in 1945. When his body was brought to hospital an orderly remarked, 'It was God's verdict.' He was buried in an unmarked grave, without ceremony and unmourned. Much like his beloved Fuhrer.
This is an almost perfect illustration of the credibility trap. One cannot allow the illusion to falter, even a little, to the bitter end. And as the fraud fades, the force intensifies, becoming almost rabid in its deflection. Because that illusion has become the center of a hollowed people's being, their raison d'être, a mythological justification for their existence. If the ideology had been a lie, then they are not heroes and gods on earth, but monsters and criminals, and their life has been self-serving and meaningless, without significance and honor. And that is the credibility trap. It is the impulse for the leaders to keep doubling down in the hope of a win, until exhaustion and collapse. And this is the US financial system today."
"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason."- John Harrington
Chris Hedges on "Empire of Illusion"
- http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article38274.html
- http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/
by Jesse
"I came across a nice, compact interview with Chris Hedges which illuminates his thesis of the decline of the American Empire and the illusory thinking that accompanies it. Can the shock and meltdown of Karl Rove on election night be any better contemporary illustration of the power of selective thinking to delude a group of seemingly rational people to their own downfall?
The end of empires and the accompanying sea change of social organization are always remarkable for their extremes of human behavior. The almost frenetic preoccupation and adherence to the Nazi ideology in the latter stages of the war, when it was obvious to any rational observer that they could not win, is remarkable. I had been particularly struck in my reading some time ago with the 'wolf packs' of Nazis who had raged through Berlin, rounding up old men, and even boys who had not joined the Volkssturm, and hanging them, even while the Russians were shelling the Reichstag. It never made sense to me until today.
"The radio announced that Hitler had come out of his safe bomb-proof bunker to talk with the fourteen to sixteen year old boys who had 'volunteered' for the 'honor' to be accepted into the SS and to die for their Fuhrer in the defense of Berlin. What a cruel lie! These boys did not volunteer, but had no choice, because boys who were found hiding were hanged as traitors by the SS as a warning that, 'he who was not brave enough to fight had to die. When trees were not available, people were strung up on lamp posts. They were hanging everywhere, military and civilian, men and women, ordinary citizens who had been executed by a small group of fanatics. It appeared that the Nazis did not want the people to survive because a lost war, by their rationale, was obviously the fault of all of us. We had not sacrificed enough and therefore, we had forfeited our right to live, as only the government was without guilt."- Dorothea von Schwanenfluegel, eyewitness account, fall of Berlin 1945.
I was reminded of this phenomenon by the trial of Sophie Scholl, and her words to the judge Roland Freisler, as he ranted his virulent condemnations at them. 'Soon you will be in our place,' she said to him. He did escape the hangman's noose at Nuremburg, but only by virtue of an Allied bomb in 1945. When his body was brought to hospital an orderly remarked, 'It was God's verdict.' He was buried in an unmarked grave, without ceremony and unmourned. Much like his beloved Fuhrer.
This is an almost perfect illustration of the credibility trap. One cannot allow the illusion to falter, even a little, to the bitter end. And as the fraud fades, the force intensifies, becoming almost rabid in its deflection. Because that illusion has become the center of a hollowed people's being, their raison d'être, a mythological justification for their existence. If the ideology had been a lie, then they are not heroes and gods on earth, but monsters and criminals, and their life has been self-serving and meaningless, without significance and honor. And that is the credibility trap. It is the impulse for the leaders to keep doubling down in the hope of a win, until exhaustion and collapse. And this is the US financial system today."
"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason."- John Harrington
Chris Hedges on "Empire of Illusion"
- http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article38274.html
- http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/
Paulo Coelho, “The Imperfect Attracts Us”
To contact us Click HERE
“The Imperfect Attracts Us”
by Paulo Coelho
"Beauty exists not in sameness but in difference. Who could imagine a giraffe without its long neck or a cactus without its spines? The irregularity of the mountain peaks that surround us is what makes them so imposing. If we tried to make them all the same, they would no longer command our respect.
It is the imperfect that astonishes and attracts us. When we look at a cedar tree, we don’t think: ‘The branches should be all the same length.’ We think: ‘How strong it is.’ When we see a snake, we never say: ‘He is crawling along the ground, while I am walking with head erect.’ We think: ‘He might be small, but his skin is colorful, his movements elegant, and he is more powerful than me.’
When the camel crosses the desert and takes us to the place we want to reach, we never say: ‘He’s humpbacked and has ugly teeth.’ We think: ‘He deserves my love for his loyalty and help. Without him, I would never be able to explore the world.’
A sunset is always more beautiful when it is covered with irregularly shaped clouds, because only then can it reflect the many colors out of which dreams and poetry are made.
Pity those who think: ‘I am not beautiful. That’s why Love has not knocked at my door.’ In fact, Love did knock, but when they opened the door, they weren’t prepared to welcome Love in. They were too busy trying to make themselves beautiful first, when, in fact, they were fine as they were. They were trying to imitate others, when Love was looking for something original. They were trying to reflect what came from outside, forgetting that the brightest light comes from within.”- http://paulocoelhoblog.com/
by Paulo Coelho
"Beauty exists not in sameness but in difference. Who could imagine a giraffe without its long neck or a cactus without its spines? The irregularity of the mountain peaks that surround us is what makes them so imposing. If we tried to make them all the same, they would no longer command our respect.
It is the imperfect that astonishes and attracts us. When we look at a cedar tree, we don’t think: ‘The branches should be all the same length.’ We think: ‘How strong it is.’ When we see a snake, we never say: ‘He is crawling along the ground, while I am walking with head erect.’ We think: ‘He might be small, but his skin is colorful, his movements elegant, and he is more powerful than me.’
When the camel crosses the desert and takes us to the place we want to reach, we never say: ‘He’s humpbacked and has ugly teeth.’ We think: ‘He deserves my love for his loyalty and help. Without him, I would never be able to explore the world.’
A sunset is always more beautiful when it is covered with irregularly shaped clouds, because only then can it reflect the many colors out of which dreams and poetry are made.
Pity those who think: ‘I am not beautiful. That’s why Love has not knocked at my door.’ In fact, Love did knock, but when they opened the door, they weren’t prepared to welcome Love in. They were too busy trying to make themselves beautiful first, when, in fact, they were fine as they were. They were trying to imitate others, when Love was looking for something original. They were trying to reflect what came from outside, forgetting that the brightest light comes from within.”- http://paulocoelhoblog.com/
Chet Raymo, “When No One Is Looking?”
To contact us Click HERE
“When No One Is Looking?”
by Chet Raymo
“Here is a short passage from Rachel Joyce's sweet little novel “The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry”. Harold, a retired, henpecked, sixty-something couch-potato, for a reason we need not describe, is walking, absurdly ill-equipped, 500 miles across England. Footsore, discouraged and forlorn, he steps into a cathedral: "When no one was looking, Harold slipped to his knees and asked for the safety of the people he had left behind, and those who were ahead. He asked for the will to keep going. He also apologized for not believing."
Whence this compulsion to address God for mercies even in our unbelief? I am sure I am not the only professed agnostic who occasionally in moments of stress does not whisper to the empty sky, "Oh God, please let…"
This in spite of the fact that in 76 years on the planet I have never encountered other than anecdotal evidence for the efficacy of petitionary prayer. I know too that every empirical attempt to examine the efficacy of prayer has been negative. (I go into this in some detail in "When God Is Gone, Everything Is Holy.") There are few things I am more sure of than the fact that my pleas go unheard.
Is the tendency to address a transcendent power in moments of need a residue of a religious upbringing? Is it conditioned by our childhood dependence on a parent? Is it innate? Is the tendency universal? Are there hard-nosed atheists among you who have never spontaneously addressed a plea for help to some transcendent and effectively personal spirit?
Harold is strengthened by his prayer, even in his unbelief. It is easy to assume an evolutionary origin for the feeling that we are not helpless and alone in the cosmos, more difficult to prove. So we soldier on, confident of our cosmic solitude, yet nevertheless desirous to be part of something bigger, something social and personal. With or without belief, we wish well for those we have left behind and those ahead, and hope for the will to keep going."
"Happy New Year.”
- http://blog.sciencemusings.com/
by Chet Raymo
“Here is a short passage from Rachel Joyce's sweet little novel “The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry”. Harold, a retired, henpecked, sixty-something couch-potato, for a reason we need not describe, is walking, absurdly ill-equipped, 500 miles across England. Footsore, discouraged and forlorn, he steps into a cathedral: "When no one was looking, Harold slipped to his knees and asked for the safety of the people he had left behind, and those who were ahead. He asked for the will to keep going. He also apologized for not believing."
Whence this compulsion to address God for mercies even in our unbelief? I am sure I am not the only professed agnostic who occasionally in moments of stress does not whisper to the empty sky, "Oh God, please let…"
This in spite of the fact that in 76 years on the planet I have never encountered other than anecdotal evidence for the efficacy of petitionary prayer. I know too that every empirical attempt to examine the efficacy of prayer has been negative. (I go into this in some detail in "When God Is Gone, Everything Is Holy.") There are few things I am more sure of than the fact that my pleas go unheard.
Is the tendency to address a transcendent power in moments of need a residue of a religious upbringing? Is it conditioned by our childhood dependence on a parent? Is it innate? Is the tendency universal? Are there hard-nosed atheists among you who have never spontaneously addressed a plea for help to some transcendent and effectively personal spirit?
Harold is strengthened by his prayer, even in his unbelief. It is easy to assume an evolutionary origin for the feeling that we are not helpless and alone in the cosmos, more difficult to prove. So we soldier on, confident of our cosmic solitude, yet nevertheless desirous to be part of something bigger, something social and personal. With or without belief, we wish well for those we have left behind and those ahead, and hope for the will to keep going."
"Happy New Year.”
- http://blog.sciencemusings.com/
1 Ocak 2013 Salı
HP is reeling from operational miscues
To contact us Click HERE
We separate HP into three distinct groups, each with fundamentally different growth and margin prospects: printers and personal computers, enterprise software and infrastructure, and services. Printers and personal computers, the largest of these segments, accounts for more than 40% of HP's operating income and roughly half of revenue. HP is the leader in both markets, and we believe that the firm will generate substantial cash flow from PCs and printers even as both come under increasing competitive and secular pressures. While neither business benefits from a defensible competitive advantage, printers and PCs remain important to HP's overall success in the traditional enterprise and commercial markets, in our view. HP's large commercial installed base provides the firm incremental opportunities to sell its stickier--and higher-margin--infrastructure products and software tools into the enterprise. More important to HP now, however, is the solid cash generation that we believe printers and PCs can consistently provide over the next several quarters as the firm strengthens its balance sheet.
HP separates its enterprise software and infrastructure businesses into distinct business units, but these businesses naturally fit together. The infrastructure business, which consists primarily of servers, storage arrays, networking equipment and related maintenance services, accounts for more than 40% of the firm's operating income. HP is the industry leader in x86 servers and maintains substantial market share in storage and switches. Customers face reasonably high switching costs when considering a change to their storage and core network infrastructure, and status quo is the default option for these systems. Additionally, HP owns valuable intellectual property utilized in its storage arrays and networking equipment, and we believe that HP earns gross margins above 50% from these products. Server virtualization has lowered customer switching costs substantially for x86-based servers, but we believe that HP still generates economic profits selling x86 servers as a result of the firm's scale, an attractive razor/blade business model for its chassis-based systems, and through related sales of software management tools and maintenance subscriptions.
HP's $4 billion software portfolio is small relative to the firm's overall revenue and operating income. Still, HP holds leading and defensible positions in IT infrastructure management software, security and business analytics, and we believe that the firm's software portfolio increases the stickiness of its enterprise relationships. Combined, HP's enterprise hardware and software businesses account for nearly 50% of the firm's overall operating profit, and we think that this collection of businesses holds a durable competitive advantage and is key to the firm's future success. While cloud computing, a terminal decline in HP's business critical servers, and increasing competitive pressures from traditional hardware vendors will pressure gross margin and revenue growth over the next several years, we think HP can adapt its enterprise product portfolio to effectively negotiate these challenges.
Finally, HP runs a massive services organization as a result of its 2008 acquisition of EDS. This business accounts for 20% of revenue, but will generate little to no operating profit in fiscal 2013 due to mismanagement and increasing competition. IT services firms can possess competitive advantages, depending on portfolio mix, but HP's services business is sprawling and complex and the firm is at a competitive disadvantage versus more focused players, like IBM, Accenture, and best-in-class offshore providers. In addition to competitive pressure, services firms generally face secular headwinds caused by cloud computing. Given these pressures, we believe that HP should sell or spin out its services business in order to alleviate management distractions and eliminate the temptation to over-allocate scarce corporate resources to a turnaround that may never materialize. Were HP to shed its services organization, the firm could once again be viewed as a friendly supplier by the IT service providers who may in turn be more likely to recommend HP's high-margin infrastructure offerings to their clients.
Valuation
We have lowered our fair value estimate to $17 per share from $20, as we have significantly reduced our revenue and operating profit forecasts across HP's businesses.
We expect revenue to fall from $120 billion in fiscal 2012 to $100 billion in 2016. This forecast is based on our expectations for upper-single-digit annualized revenue declines in PCs, printers, and enterprise services; this will be partially offset by low-single-digit growth in enterprise infrastructure and related services and upper-single-digit revenue growth in software.
Assuming our revenue forecast plays out, HP should experience consolidated gross margin improvement despite ongoing pricing pressure across most of its businesses. Software, storage, networking, and related maintenance services should experience moderate growth and we estimate that these categories carry significantly higher gross margins than PCs, x86 servers and enterprise services, which should shrink over time. The net result is a 160-basis-point improvement in consolidated gross margin during the next five years. Still, the higher gross margin products also require significant ongoing investments in product development, sales, and marketing; we expect HP's fixed costs to grow over time despite management's ongoing efforts to rein in costs. The combination of rising operating expenses and declining revenue should lead to operating margin contraction, and we model HP's long-run operating margin to settle in at about 6% in steady-state.
We currently model capital expenditures to remain roughly flat at about $3.5 billion-$3.8 billion per year during the next five years, but we would not be surprised to see capital spending come in lower than our current forecast depending on how aggressive of a restructuring plan management ultimately chooses to pursue. Finally, we model $8.5 billion in acquisitions from fiscal 2013 through fiscal 2016, which shaves about $4 per share from our fair value estimate. While HP's top priority is to fix existing operations and strengthen its balance sheet, we think the company will have to continue to make targeted acquisitions in software, security, networking, and storage in order to remain competitive.
Risk
HP faces material threats in several of its divisions. PCs are undifferentiated, and discount notebooks, virtualization, and a general shift to the cloud from processing and storing data locally threaten to compress already challenged margins. A similar phenomenon is occurring in printing, as single-function devices become commodities. HP has good technology and is pushing into higher-end printers, but a successful transition is not guaranteed. The market for server technologies remains a stronghold for HP, but renewed interest from Cisco, Dell, and even Oracle raises concern. Failure to capture significant share in storage, networking, and servers could leave HP's server business vulnerable.
Management & Stewardship
Meg Whitman was appointed CEO in September 2011, replacing Leo Apotheker after less than a year at helm. As part of the change, Ray Lane has taken on additional responsibility, becoming executive chairman. The new management team brings a focus on operating HP's existing businesses, a sharp reversal from the previous regime's goal of transforming the firm via software acquisitions. Helping with the new strategy, HP enjoys a deep bench of management talent that should be able to keep each of HP's business units on track.
Though we are growing more comfortable with the new regime's strategy, HP has been plagued by poor capital allocation decisions in recent years. Share repurchases averaging nearly $10 billion a year were egregious, considering the firm's balance sheet. The $11 billion Autonomy acquisition cannot be viewed as anything but destructive to shareholder value without some extremely optimistic projections. Furthermore, turmoil at the board level has led from one scandal to the next, creating instability and a lack of accountability for HP's recent performance. We believe the new management team is on the right track, but more evidence that HP is making capital allocation decisions that are to the benefit of shareholders is needed before we change our view on the firm's stewardship practices.
Overview
Financial Health:
HP's financial health has deteriorated in recent years due to unnecessarily aggressive acquisitions and share repurchases. The company's $29.5 billion debt load seems manageable, however, and the firm holds approximately $9.5 billion in cash and equivalents on hand.
Profile:
Hewlett-Packard manufactures and sells information technology products and services to businesses and consumers worldwide. Services accounts for about 20% of revenue, enterprise hardware, software and related services accounts for about 25%, printers and PCs account for 50%, and the remainder comes from financing.
by Grady Burkett, CFA (Analyst at Morningstar)
Hewlett Packard is in a difficult position. The firm faces increasingly fierce competition across its portfolio as it works through a protracted turnaround of its enterprise services business. We believe that HP has strong enough assets to stabilize its business, but the firm's earnings power and competitive position have deteriorated. We expect HP to manage through its current challenges, but investors should be prepared for occasional setbacks and should temper their expectations for future growth.We separate HP into three distinct groups, each with fundamentally different growth and margin prospects: printers and personal computers, enterprise software and infrastructure, and services. Printers and personal computers, the largest of these segments, accounts for more than 40% of HP's operating income and roughly half of revenue. HP is the leader in both markets, and we believe that the firm will generate substantial cash flow from PCs and printers even as both come under increasing competitive and secular pressures. While neither business benefits from a defensible competitive advantage, printers and PCs remain important to HP's overall success in the traditional enterprise and commercial markets, in our view. HP's large commercial installed base provides the firm incremental opportunities to sell its stickier--and higher-margin--infrastructure products and software tools into the enterprise. More important to HP now, however, is the solid cash generation that we believe printers and PCs can consistently provide over the next several quarters as the firm strengthens its balance sheet.
HP separates its enterprise software and infrastructure businesses into distinct business units, but these businesses naturally fit together. The infrastructure business, which consists primarily of servers, storage arrays, networking equipment and related maintenance services, accounts for more than 40% of the firm's operating income. HP is the industry leader in x86 servers and maintains substantial market share in storage and switches. Customers face reasonably high switching costs when considering a change to their storage and core network infrastructure, and status quo is the default option for these systems. Additionally, HP owns valuable intellectual property utilized in its storage arrays and networking equipment, and we believe that HP earns gross margins above 50% from these products. Server virtualization has lowered customer switching costs substantially for x86-based servers, but we believe that HP still generates economic profits selling x86 servers as a result of the firm's scale, an attractive razor/blade business model for its chassis-based systems, and through related sales of software management tools and maintenance subscriptions.
HP's $4 billion software portfolio is small relative to the firm's overall revenue and operating income. Still, HP holds leading and defensible positions in IT infrastructure management software, security and business analytics, and we believe that the firm's software portfolio increases the stickiness of its enterprise relationships. Combined, HP's enterprise hardware and software businesses account for nearly 50% of the firm's overall operating profit, and we think that this collection of businesses holds a durable competitive advantage and is key to the firm's future success. While cloud computing, a terminal decline in HP's business critical servers, and increasing competitive pressures from traditional hardware vendors will pressure gross margin and revenue growth over the next several years, we think HP can adapt its enterprise product portfolio to effectively negotiate these challenges.
Finally, HP runs a massive services organization as a result of its 2008 acquisition of EDS. This business accounts for 20% of revenue, but will generate little to no operating profit in fiscal 2013 due to mismanagement and increasing competition. IT services firms can possess competitive advantages, depending on portfolio mix, but HP's services business is sprawling and complex and the firm is at a competitive disadvantage versus more focused players, like IBM, Accenture, and best-in-class offshore providers. In addition to competitive pressure, services firms generally face secular headwinds caused by cloud computing. Given these pressures, we believe that HP should sell or spin out its services business in order to alleviate management distractions and eliminate the temptation to over-allocate scarce corporate resources to a turnaround that may never materialize. Were HP to shed its services organization, the firm could once again be viewed as a friendly supplier by the IT service providers who may in turn be more likely to recommend HP's high-margin infrastructure offerings to their clients.
Valuation
We have lowered our fair value estimate to $17 per share from $20, as we have significantly reduced our revenue and operating profit forecasts across HP's businesses.
We expect revenue to fall from $120 billion in fiscal 2012 to $100 billion in 2016. This forecast is based on our expectations for upper-single-digit annualized revenue declines in PCs, printers, and enterprise services; this will be partially offset by low-single-digit growth in enterprise infrastructure and related services and upper-single-digit revenue growth in software.
Assuming our revenue forecast plays out, HP should experience consolidated gross margin improvement despite ongoing pricing pressure across most of its businesses. Software, storage, networking, and related maintenance services should experience moderate growth and we estimate that these categories carry significantly higher gross margins than PCs, x86 servers and enterprise services, which should shrink over time. The net result is a 160-basis-point improvement in consolidated gross margin during the next five years. Still, the higher gross margin products also require significant ongoing investments in product development, sales, and marketing; we expect HP's fixed costs to grow over time despite management's ongoing efforts to rein in costs. The combination of rising operating expenses and declining revenue should lead to operating margin contraction, and we model HP's long-run operating margin to settle in at about 6% in steady-state.
We currently model capital expenditures to remain roughly flat at about $3.5 billion-$3.8 billion per year during the next five years, but we would not be surprised to see capital spending come in lower than our current forecast depending on how aggressive of a restructuring plan management ultimately chooses to pursue. Finally, we model $8.5 billion in acquisitions from fiscal 2013 through fiscal 2016, which shaves about $4 per share from our fair value estimate. While HP's top priority is to fix existing operations and strengthen its balance sheet, we think the company will have to continue to make targeted acquisitions in software, security, networking, and storage in order to remain competitive.
Risk
HP faces material threats in several of its divisions. PCs are undifferentiated, and discount notebooks, virtualization, and a general shift to the cloud from processing and storing data locally threaten to compress already challenged margins. A similar phenomenon is occurring in printing, as single-function devices become commodities. HP has good technology and is pushing into higher-end printers, but a successful transition is not guaranteed. The market for server technologies remains a stronghold for HP, but renewed interest from Cisco, Dell, and even Oracle raises concern. Failure to capture significant share in storage, networking, and servers could leave HP's server business vulnerable.
Management & Stewardship
Meg Whitman was appointed CEO in September 2011, replacing Leo Apotheker after less than a year at helm. As part of the change, Ray Lane has taken on additional responsibility, becoming executive chairman. The new management team brings a focus on operating HP's existing businesses, a sharp reversal from the previous regime's goal of transforming the firm via software acquisitions. Helping with the new strategy, HP enjoys a deep bench of management talent that should be able to keep each of HP's business units on track.
Though we are growing more comfortable with the new regime's strategy, HP has been plagued by poor capital allocation decisions in recent years. Share repurchases averaging nearly $10 billion a year were egregious, considering the firm's balance sheet. The $11 billion Autonomy acquisition cannot be viewed as anything but destructive to shareholder value without some extremely optimistic projections. Furthermore, turmoil at the board level has led from one scandal to the next, creating instability and a lack of accountability for HP's recent performance. We believe the new management team is on the right track, but more evidence that HP is making capital allocation decisions that are to the benefit of shareholders is needed before we change our view on the firm's stewardship practices.
Overview
Financial Health:
HP's financial health has deteriorated in recent years due to unnecessarily aggressive acquisitions and share repurchases. The company's $29.5 billion debt load seems manageable, however, and the firm holds approximately $9.5 billion in cash and equivalents on hand.
Profile:
Hewlett-Packard manufactures and sells information technology products and services to businesses and consumers worldwide. Services accounts for about 20% of revenue, enterprise hardware, software and related services accounts for about 25%, printers and PCs account for 50%, and the remainder comes from financing.
New engines of growth will highlight that Google is more than an Internet search company.
To contact us Click HERE
With respect to operating costs, we note that other costs of revenue increased 57% sequentially (while Google's stand-alone revenue grew 5%). Even after accounting for effects of acquisitions and costs from the launch of the Nexus 7 tablet (Google's Android tablet), we estimate that other costs of revenue increased more than 30% versus the prior quarter. We believe this dramatic increase highlights Google's evolution toward a content distribution platform. Although the firm recognizes gross revenue by selling content on YouTube and Google Play, we suspect the bulk of the economics flow to the content owners, resulting in lower gross margins. If these efforts become even more significant relative to the total company, overall operating margins will suffer. Although we believe the company has other levers within is expense base to eventually expand margins, we may take a more cautious stance.
Thesis 03/05/12
After rising to prominence by attracting massive numbers of users and ad dollars for its Internet search product, Google is investing in its next act.As the pre-eminent leader in search, Google maintains more than 60% of worldwide market share; no other competitor has even 10%. We believe the company's early technical advantages attracted users who now use it habitually, creating a switching cost based on familiarity with the engine. While the firm may face near-term headwinds from efforts by Microsoft's MSFT Bing and social network Facebook, we expect the larger players to win share from weaker players, including AOL AOL and IAC's IACI Ask. Although we expect small movements in market share, we believe Google's dominance will persist and not lose more than 3-5 points of share.
A strong secular growth trend for online advertising is core to our thesis. The market for Internet search advertising is still growing in the double digits, while display advertising is growing thanks to newer innovations tying display ads to specific actions, including clicks, leads, and customers. Also, faster-growing geographies such as Asia are propping up overall growth rates as Western Europe has recently been slowing. We forecast global Internet ad spending to grow in the midteens annually during the next five years. We expect that Google will leverage its dominant position in Internet search and support strong growth in display and mobile advertising, allowing it to meet or exceed the overall industry growth rates.
Although competitors like AOL and Yahoo YHOO have routinely claimed competitive advantages in display advertising for content rather than search, Google is not on the sidelines. In fact, we estimate the company generated more than $4 billion in display advertising in 2011, exceeding Yahoo's display revenue for the year. While we would be more enthusiastic if it announced large deals with branded advertisers, we still expect Google will participate quite aggressively in this market. The company is continuing to innovate around its DoubleClick Ad Exchange in an attempt to offer advertisers ways to incorporate real-time bidding and directly target audiences with specific demographics as opposed to choosing websites. Ultimately, advertisers want specific targeting; providing technology that helps automate this targeting delivers tremendous value in maximizing budgets. Furthermore, Google recently announced a plan to invest an additional $100 million in its heavily trafficked YouTube website. As rich video content continues to move online, we are optimistic about YouTube's value and ability to monetize its content.The importance of Android cannot be overstated, particularly in light of the massive adoption of smartphone and tablets. Android is an open-source mobile operating system (the code is shared with the community using a free software license) to allow handset manufacturers and users to load applications that software makers build. During 2011, Android's installed base of smartphones vaulted to 38% market share according to Gartner, well ahead of market leaders Apple AAPL and Research in Motion RIMM. While many industry watchers are scratching their heads over the significance of a business that generates no direct revenue for Google, we are more enthusiastic: The move protects the firm's economic moat and provides new revenue streams. With Android living on smartphones, more users are likely to use Google's services. In fact, we have seen estimates of Google's market share in mobile search exceeding 90% last year.
Still, there are risks on several fronts. First, we cannot ignore the potential impact of social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn LNKD. While we believe these will not be an immediate or direct threat to Google's search business, we do believe they are immediate and significant competitors for display ads. Additionally, these firms undoubtedly will invest in search capabilities, and we could be wrong about their ultimate success. We also believe the returns on capital for the new businesses will be lower than the returns in its core search business. As many companies are investing heavily in content strategies, Google will have to continue investing in an attempt to keep pace in attracting more branded advertisers.
Valuation
Our fair value estimate is $780 per share, representing a 2012 price/earnings multiple of 23 and an enterprise value/EBITDA multiple of 14. We forecast revenue to grow more than 12% annually during the next five years, slightly ahead of the growth rate for the overall online ad industry. Google reports its business in three market segments: Google websites, Google Network websites, and other.
Revenue driven by Google websites include its search engine and Web properties such as YouTube and Google Finance. Although we expect minor short-term loss of market share in search, we believe that improvements in monetization (the conversion of a search to a paid click on an advertisement) and overall market growth will help drive revenue. Additionally, with additional investment in display revenue technology and content on YouTube, we have modeled Google websites to grow more than 18% per year. We also expect uplift from mobile search to support strong revenue growth in this core business. Excluding YouTube, search is the most significant cash generator and highest-margin business for Google. We are more conservative in our view of revenue coming from Google Network. Google Network represents revenue earned by the placement of ads on partner websites. We anticipate this growth will lag the market, growing at 8% per year through 2015.
While we believe Google could easily drive operating margins substantially above 40%, it would have to ratchet down its investment in R&D and its data centers to achieve these targets in the short term. We expect operating margins to stay below 30%, reflecting increased investment and higher personnel costs caused by the pay raise instituted in January. After this year, we forecast operating margins to begin expanding again and reaching 32% in 2015. Because Google is heavily investing in new markets, we still expect free cash flow to be depressed over the next few years. However, we expect growth in free cash flows to exceed 25% annually through our explicit forecast period.
Risk
Although we believe Internet search is habitual, explicit switching costs are relatively low. Fickle consumers may move to a competitor that is able to establish a stronger brand or a more useful experience. Google is investing in new businesses where it is less competitive, which may lead to a deterioration in its operating margin and return on capital. Advertisers may find new ways to reach their target audience in a cost-effective manner, like Facebook. Finally, competition in technology is fierce, and employee retention may become more difficult and cause an increase in operating costs.
Management & Stewardship
Cofounder Larry Page was named CEO in April, taking over from Eric Schmidt. Schmidt was CEO from 2001 to 2011, a period that saw Google define its business model, become a public company, and stay at the forefront of the Internet advertising industry as the largest company by revenue and enterprise value. Schmidt is retaining his position as chairman of the board and serving a more active role in lobbying Washington. With Schmidt as a key executive, the company essentially has been managed by a three-person team of him, Page, and cofounder Sergey Brin. The company's equity has a dual-class structure that concentrates the voting power in the hands of these three executives, who hold two thirds of the voting rights. They also have a significant economic interest in the firm at more than 15%, which helps to align the interests of management with the shareholders.
We are comfortable with management at the firm, but employee retention will be a continual challenge for Google. Page's style and efforts will not mirror Schmidt's and may cause some short-term disruption. In fact, the senior vice president of product management resigned the week that Page's new title became official. Although we don't view the move as emblematic of any looming management issues, we would not be surprised to see other similar moves as competition for personnel is ruthless in the technology sector. To address these concerns, the company is rumored to have given a 10% pay raise to every employee effective in January.Generally, we are encouraged management's by the long-term focus on capital allocation, although the lack of transparency around milestones for new projects presents an analytic challenge. We are encouraged that past acquisitions including DoubleClick, Android, and YouTube are bearing fruit and deepening the company's moat. Additionally, the management has recently begun pruning products that have not been hitting internal success metrics, a positive development, in our view.
Overview
Financial Health:
Google's balance sheet is flush with more than $44 billion in cash equivalents and about $4.2 billion in short-term debt and long-term debt.
Profile:
Google manages an Internet search engine that generates revenue when users click or view advertising related to their searches. This activity generates more than 80% of the company's revenue. The remaining revenue comes from advertising that Google places on other companies' websites and relatively smaller initiatives, such as hosted enterprise products including email and office productivity applications.
by Rick Summer, CFA, CPA (Analyst at Morningstar)
Google's GOOG third-quarter earnings report brought hand-wringing from the market and new issues to light for us. While we believe our long-term thesis is intact, we are concerned that we may have been overly optimistic about operating leverage, given the changing revenue mix. Still, although we may modestly decrease our fair value estimate after completing our analysis, we consider the company slightly undervalued at these levels. Perhaps most importantly, we see no evidence of diminishing competitive advantages.Revenues for Google Sites grew 15% compared with 2011, while revenue from the Google Network (ads placed on partner sites) grew 21% versus 2011. The strong dollar created a headwind to results as well, with a negative impact on Google's stand-alone revenue growth rate (excluding Motorola) of 600 basis points versus 2011. As Google Network revenue outpaced Google Sites, we believe this may be the start of an important trend: Google will increasingly rely on placing ads and distributing content for content owners to subscribers, but fee sharing and content acquisition costs will constrain the company's ability to gain operating leverage from the business.With respect to operating costs, we note that other costs of revenue increased 57% sequentially (while Google's stand-alone revenue grew 5%). Even after accounting for effects of acquisitions and costs from the launch of the Nexus 7 tablet (Google's Android tablet), we estimate that other costs of revenue increased more than 30% versus the prior quarter. We believe this dramatic increase highlights Google's evolution toward a content distribution platform. Although the firm recognizes gross revenue by selling content on YouTube and Google Play, we suspect the bulk of the economics flow to the content owners, resulting in lower gross margins. If these efforts become even more significant relative to the total company, overall operating margins will suffer. Although we believe the company has other levers within is expense base to eventually expand margins, we may take a more cautious stance.
Thesis 03/05/12
After rising to prominence by attracting massive numbers of users and ad dollars for its Internet search product, Google is investing in its next act.As the pre-eminent leader in search, Google maintains more than 60% of worldwide market share; no other competitor has even 10%. We believe the company's early technical advantages attracted users who now use it habitually, creating a switching cost based on familiarity with the engine. While the firm may face near-term headwinds from efforts by Microsoft's MSFT Bing and social network Facebook, we expect the larger players to win share from weaker players, including AOL AOL and IAC's IACI Ask. Although we expect small movements in market share, we believe Google's dominance will persist and not lose more than 3-5 points of share.
A strong secular growth trend for online advertising is core to our thesis. The market for Internet search advertising is still growing in the double digits, while display advertising is growing thanks to newer innovations tying display ads to specific actions, including clicks, leads, and customers. Also, faster-growing geographies such as Asia are propping up overall growth rates as Western Europe has recently been slowing. We forecast global Internet ad spending to grow in the midteens annually during the next five years. We expect that Google will leverage its dominant position in Internet search and support strong growth in display and mobile advertising, allowing it to meet or exceed the overall industry growth rates.
Although competitors like AOL and Yahoo YHOO have routinely claimed competitive advantages in display advertising for content rather than search, Google is not on the sidelines. In fact, we estimate the company generated more than $4 billion in display advertising in 2011, exceeding Yahoo's display revenue for the year. While we would be more enthusiastic if it announced large deals with branded advertisers, we still expect Google will participate quite aggressively in this market. The company is continuing to innovate around its DoubleClick Ad Exchange in an attempt to offer advertisers ways to incorporate real-time bidding and directly target audiences with specific demographics as opposed to choosing websites. Ultimately, advertisers want specific targeting; providing technology that helps automate this targeting delivers tremendous value in maximizing budgets. Furthermore, Google recently announced a plan to invest an additional $100 million in its heavily trafficked YouTube website. As rich video content continues to move online, we are optimistic about YouTube's value and ability to monetize its content.The importance of Android cannot be overstated, particularly in light of the massive adoption of smartphone and tablets. Android is an open-source mobile operating system (the code is shared with the community using a free software license) to allow handset manufacturers and users to load applications that software makers build. During 2011, Android's installed base of smartphones vaulted to 38% market share according to Gartner, well ahead of market leaders Apple AAPL and Research in Motion RIMM. While many industry watchers are scratching their heads over the significance of a business that generates no direct revenue for Google, we are more enthusiastic: The move protects the firm's economic moat and provides new revenue streams. With Android living on smartphones, more users are likely to use Google's services. In fact, we have seen estimates of Google's market share in mobile search exceeding 90% last year.
Still, there are risks on several fronts. First, we cannot ignore the potential impact of social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn LNKD. While we believe these will not be an immediate or direct threat to Google's search business, we do believe they are immediate and significant competitors for display ads. Additionally, these firms undoubtedly will invest in search capabilities, and we could be wrong about their ultimate success. We also believe the returns on capital for the new businesses will be lower than the returns in its core search business. As many companies are investing heavily in content strategies, Google will have to continue investing in an attempt to keep pace in attracting more branded advertisers.
Valuation
Our fair value estimate is $780 per share, representing a 2012 price/earnings multiple of 23 and an enterprise value/EBITDA multiple of 14. We forecast revenue to grow more than 12% annually during the next five years, slightly ahead of the growth rate for the overall online ad industry. Google reports its business in three market segments: Google websites, Google Network websites, and other.
Revenue driven by Google websites include its search engine and Web properties such as YouTube and Google Finance. Although we expect minor short-term loss of market share in search, we believe that improvements in monetization (the conversion of a search to a paid click on an advertisement) and overall market growth will help drive revenue. Additionally, with additional investment in display revenue technology and content on YouTube, we have modeled Google websites to grow more than 18% per year. We also expect uplift from mobile search to support strong revenue growth in this core business. Excluding YouTube, search is the most significant cash generator and highest-margin business for Google. We are more conservative in our view of revenue coming from Google Network. Google Network represents revenue earned by the placement of ads on partner websites. We anticipate this growth will lag the market, growing at 8% per year through 2015.
While we believe Google could easily drive operating margins substantially above 40%, it would have to ratchet down its investment in R&D and its data centers to achieve these targets in the short term. We expect operating margins to stay below 30%, reflecting increased investment and higher personnel costs caused by the pay raise instituted in January. After this year, we forecast operating margins to begin expanding again and reaching 32% in 2015. Because Google is heavily investing in new markets, we still expect free cash flow to be depressed over the next few years. However, we expect growth in free cash flows to exceed 25% annually through our explicit forecast period.
Risk
Although we believe Internet search is habitual, explicit switching costs are relatively low. Fickle consumers may move to a competitor that is able to establish a stronger brand or a more useful experience. Google is investing in new businesses where it is less competitive, which may lead to a deterioration in its operating margin and return on capital. Advertisers may find new ways to reach their target audience in a cost-effective manner, like Facebook. Finally, competition in technology is fierce, and employee retention may become more difficult and cause an increase in operating costs.
Management & Stewardship
Cofounder Larry Page was named CEO in April, taking over from Eric Schmidt. Schmidt was CEO from 2001 to 2011, a period that saw Google define its business model, become a public company, and stay at the forefront of the Internet advertising industry as the largest company by revenue and enterprise value. Schmidt is retaining his position as chairman of the board and serving a more active role in lobbying Washington. With Schmidt as a key executive, the company essentially has been managed by a three-person team of him, Page, and cofounder Sergey Brin. The company's equity has a dual-class structure that concentrates the voting power in the hands of these three executives, who hold two thirds of the voting rights. They also have a significant economic interest in the firm at more than 15%, which helps to align the interests of management with the shareholders.
We are comfortable with management at the firm, but employee retention will be a continual challenge for Google. Page's style and efforts will not mirror Schmidt's and may cause some short-term disruption. In fact, the senior vice president of product management resigned the week that Page's new title became official. Although we don't view the move as emblematic of any looming management issues, we would not be surprised to see other similar moves as competition for personnel is ruthless in the technology sector. To address these concerns, the company is rumored to have given a 10% pay raise to every employee effective in January.Generally, we are encouraged management's by the long-term focus on capital allocation, although the lack of transparency around milestones for new projects presents an analytic challenge. We are encouraged that past acquisitions including DoubleClick, Android, and YouTube are bearing fruit and deepening the company's moat. Additionally, the management has recently begun pruning products that have not been hitting internal success metrics, a positive development, in our view.
Overview
Financial Health:
Google's balance sheet is flush with more than $44 billion in cash equivalents and about $4.2 billion in short-term debt and long-term debt.
Profile:
Google manages an Internet search engine that generates revenue when users click or view advertising related to their searches. This activity generates more than 80% of the company's revenue. The remaining revenue comes from advertising that Google places on other companies' websites and relatively smaller initiatives, such as hosted enterprise products including email and office productivity applications.
Microsoft is trying to change the recent downward trajectory of its Windows OS franchise.
To contact us Click HERE
The moat around the Windows operating system is the result of high switching costs that are due to an easy-to-use OS that is tightly integrated to diverse suites of application software, combined with the network effect of massive global market share that creates sticky users. The rise of cloud computing has weakened the links among users, the Windows OS, and its integrated application software suites, while also reducing the network effects as consumers discover acceptable OS and software substitutes. The rise of alternative computing devices further weakened the links between consumers and the Windows ecosystem by replacing the traditional desktop PC and changing usage patterns.
Although Microsoft is playing catch-up, Office 365 is its response to competing cloud-based productivity tools, offering subscription-based services for Office, Exchange, Lync, and Sharepoint. We think compatibility and continuity concerns will drive professional users to Office 365, helping to maintain the size of the installed base, which should reinforce the network effects of the Windows franchise. Given the substantial capital investment required to build and maintain such a robust cloud offering, we believe there are significant barriers to entry for this business that will limit entrants, allowing Microsoft to generate high returns on its investment over the long term.
Windows 8, the Surface tablet, and the Windows Store flesh out Microsoft's response to the challenges facing its Windows franchise. The new Windows OS will be used across many devices, providing a smooth, more cohesive user experience from PC to tablet to smartphone. The Surface and other Windows-based tablets are Microsoft's first foray into tablet computers; we believe a tablet that runs the Office productivity suite is more appealing to many consumer and business users relative to competing devices. The final piece of the strategy is the Windows Store, a digital distribution platform for Windows 8 where users can purchase and download apps, which is meant to create a community and marketplace for developers and consumers.
Many of these products are "me too" ideas, but we believe the combination of these products and services will build customer stickiness across multiple devices, which should help slow, stop, or possibly reverse the decline of the Windows franchise. We do not expect all facets of this strategy to be successful in the near term, but Microsoft has a record of investing significant resources over long periods in pursuit of its objectives. As the company works to reinvigorate its Windows division, the server and tools division remains a stalwart as its server and SQL database products continue to gain share even as the global market expands. Microsoft Business Division has seen solid growth in following the release of Office 2010; Office 2013 expected to be released in December 2012. Combined, the server and business segments represent 58% of total revenue and contribute 66% of operating income--enough to shoulder the load as the Windows makeover unfolds.
Valuation
Our fair value estimate is $35 per share, which implies a 2013 price/earnings multiple of 11.9. We forecast slowly declining revenue growth from the Windows division over the next 10 years because of a short-term slow erosion of market share of Windows-based PCs. We expect Windows 8, RT, cloud strategies, and Microsoft's entrance into tablet computing to slow the erosion in market share over the next three years. We forecast long-term revenue growth in the server and tools and business divisions, but we expect the hardware and management costs of cloud technologies will weigh on Microsoft Business Division's operating margins over the long term. Given the less advantageous pricing and poor economics associated with having a lower market share in the search business, we forecast that the online services business remains unprofitable for the foreseeable future.
Risk
Microsoft's flagship Windows operating system and Office productivity software suite are under assault from tablet computers, cloud alternatives, and OS X offerings from Google, Apple, and open-source providers like Linux. Windows-based PC shipments have slowly eroded from approximately 95% market share a decade ago to 90% today owing to shifting consumer preferences and the rise of OS X and Android-based tablet computers and smartphones. With the release of Windows 8, the Surface tablet, and the pending release of the Nokia Windows phone, Microsoft hopes to reverse market share declines while establishing beachheads in the smartphone and tablet markets. We believe the Surface and upcoming OEM Windows-based tablets are good first efforts and the inclusion of Office should help broaden the appeal of Windows tablets to traditional laptop users in addition to tablet users.
Management & Stewardship
Given their combined equity stake of 9.4%, we believe CEO Steve Ballmer's and chairman Bill Gates' interests are probably aligned with shareholders. Ballmer has served as CEO since January 2000 and has been with the company since 1980. He has done a satisfactory job building and protecting the core businesses, but the company has consistently had to play catch-up in key growth areas (Internet, online commerce, social networking) over the past decade. Large acquisitions in an attempt to regain lost ground (aQuantive and Skype, for example) have had a mixed record at best. Ballmer's fiscal 2012 performance-related bonus was reduced 4% because of slower-than-expected progress in the online business and a decline in Windows revenue.
Overview
Financial Health:
Microsoft has more than $66 billion in cash and cash equivalents and approximately $12 billion in debt. We expect the company to generate about $20 billion in annual free cash flow, enabling it to comfortably service debt while investing in the business.
Profile:
Microsoft develops and sells software, hardware, and services. The company is organized into five business segments: Windows and Windows Live, Microsoft Business Division, server and tools, online services, and entertainment and devices. Microsoft Business Division is the largest component of revenue at 33% in fiscal 2012, with server and tools and Windows and Windows Live each contributing 25%, entertainment and devices 13%, and online services 3.9%.
by Norman Young (Analyst at Morningstar)
Although the conventional wisdom regards Microsoft as a technology giant in decline, we see glimmers of a more cohesive strategy through new Windows.Microsoft has been a step behind as competitors and new technologies have slowly eroded the moat around its Windows PC operating system. We believe Microsoft's new multiprong strategy to compete in the world of cloud computing and mobile devices should help rejuvenate its Windows OS and software franchise by creating a more cohesive user experience among multiple devices, which should strengthen the links among the users, the OS, and the application software.The moat around the Windows operating system is the result of high switching costs that are due to an easy-to-use OS that is tightly integrated to diverse suites of application software, combined with the network effect of massive global market share that creates sticky users. The rise of cloud computing has weakened the links among users, the Windows OS, and its integrated application software suites, while also reducing the network effects as consumers discover acceptable OS and software substitutes. The rise of alternative computing devices further weakened the links between consumers and the Windows ecosystem by replacing the traditional desktop PC and changing usage patterns.
Although Microsoft is playing catch-up, Office 365 is its response to competing cloud-based productivity tools, offering subscription-based services for Office, Exchange, Lync, and Sharepoint. We think compatibility and continuity concerns will drive professional users to Office 365, helping to maintain the size of the installed base, which should reinforce the network effects of the Windows franchise. Given the substantial capital investment required to build and maintain such a robust cloud offering, we believe there are significant barriers to entry for this business that will limit entrants, allowing Microsoft to generate high returns on its investment over the long term.
Windows 8, the Surface tablet, and the Windows Store flesh out Microsoft's response to the challenges facing its Windows franchise. The new Windows OS will be used across many devices, providing a smooth, more cohesive user experience from PC to tablet to smartphone. The Surface and other Windows-based tablets are Microsoft's first foray into tablet computers; we believe a tablet that runs the Office productivity suite is more appealing to many consumer and business users relative to competing devices. The final piece of the strategy is the Windows Store, a digital distribution platform for Windows 8 where users can purchase and download apps, which is meant to create a community and marketplace for developers and consumers.
Many of these products are "me too" ideas, but we believe the combination of these products and services will build customer stickiness across multiple devices, which should help slow, stop, or possibly reverse the decline of the Windows franchise. We do not expect all facets of this strategy to be successful in the near term, but Microsoft has a record of investing significant resources over long periods in pursuit of its objectives. As the company works to reinvigorate its Windows division, the server and tools division remains a stalwart as its server and SQL database products continue to gain share even as the global market expands. Microsoft Business Division has seen solid growth in following the release of Office 2010; Office 2013 expected to be released in December 2012. Combined, the server and business segments represent 58% of total revenue and contribute 66% of operating income--enough to shoulder the load as the Windows makeover unfolds.
Valuation
Our fair value estimate is $35 per share, which implies a 2013 price/earnings multiple of 11.9. We forecast slowly declining revenue growth from the Windows division over the next 10 years because of a short-term slow erosion of market share of Windows-based PCs. We expect Windows 8, RT, cloud strategies, and Microsoft's entrance into tablet computing to slow the erosion in market share over the next three years. We forecast long-term revenue growth in the server and tools and business divisions, but we expect the hardware and management costs of cloud technologies will weigh on Microsoft Business Division's operating margins over the long term. Given the less advantageous pricing and poor economics associated with having a lower market share in the search business, we forecast that the online services business remains unprofitable for the foreseeable future.
Risk
Microsoft's flagship Windows operating system and Office productivity software suite are under assault from tablet computers, cloud alternatives, and OS X offerings from Google, Apple, and open-source providers like Linux. Windows-based PC shipments have slowly eroded from approximately 95% market share a decade ago to 90% today owing to shifting consumer preferences and the rise of OS X and Android-based tablet computers and smartphones. With the release of Windows 8, the Surface tablet, and the pending release of the Nokia Windows phone, Microsoft hopes to reverse market share declines while establishing beachheads in the smartphone and tablet markets. We believe the Surface and upcoming OEM Windows-based tablets are good first efforts and the inclusion of Office should help broaden the appeal of Windows tablets to traditional laptop users in addition to tablet users.
Management & Stewardship
Given their combined equity stake of 9.4%, we believe CEO Steve Ballmer's and chairman Bill Gates' interests are probably aligned with shareholders. Ballmer has served as CEO since January 2000 and has been with the company since 1980. He has done a satisfactory job building and protecting the core businesses, but the company has consistently had to play catch-up in key growth areas (Internet, online commerce, social networking) over the past decade. Large acquisitions in an attempt to regain lost ground (aQuantive and Skype, for example) have had a mixed record at best. Ballmer's fiscal 2012 performance-related bonus was reduced 4% because of slower-than-expected progress in the online business and a decline in Windows revenue.
Overview
Financial Health:
Microsoft has more than $66 billion in cash and cash equivalents and approximately $12 billion in debt. We expect the company to generate about $20 billion in annual free cash flow, enabling it to comfortably service debt while investing in the business.
Profile:
Microsoft develops and sells software, hardware, and services. The company is organized into five business segments: Windows and Windows Live, Microsoft Business Division, server and tools, online services, and entertainment and devices. Microsoft Business Division is the largest component of revenue at 33% in fiscal 2012, with server and tools and Windows and Windows Live each contributing 25%, entertainment and devices 13%, and online services 3.9%.
With pricing in place, and input costs easing, Clorox faces fewer headwinds.
To contact us Click HERE
First-quarter sales, adjusting for foreign currency movements and acquisitions, ticked up 1.8% year over year, as lower volume (down 1%) was offset by higher prices (up nearly 3%). Volume weakness in the household business (due to lower shipments of charcoal products and cat litter, two categories where the firm recently raised prices) was offset by continued momentum in the cleaning segment, which included the highest level of volume growth for bleach in more than two years. Because the consumer spending environment has yet to meaningfully pick up steam, we intend to continue monitoring the impact that Clorox's higher prices have on the firm's volume over the coming quarters. If volume remains depressed, we wouldn't be surprised to see the firm roll back prices in a few of the categories where commodity cost pressures have retreated. Clorox's cost-saving initiatives combined with the higher prices it's charging at the shelf offset modest raw material inflation, increased supply chain costs, and unfavorable product mix, as gross margins expanded 90 basis points to 42.9% (excluding restructuring charges in the year-ago period). However, consolidated operating margins increased just 20 basis points, as Clorox ramped up its spending behind brand marketing support--in line with our thinking--to ensure that its products stand out in this intensely competitive operating environment.
Thesis by Morningstar Equity Analysts, 06/05/12
With 14% of total sales derived from bleach, 13% from trash bags, and another 11% from charcoal, Clorox is a consumer-packaged firm in a tough spot. Leading brands, including its namesake bleach, Glad, and Kingsford, haven't entirely insulated the firm as its categories have continued down the road of commodification over the years. Input cost inflation has compressed margins along the way, and while we still accord Clorox a narrow economic moat for its brand equities and economies of scale, the company's returns on invested capital have eroded.
For most household product firms, the name of the game is differentiated products in growing categories or growing markets. Clorox is doing a decent job considering the cards it has to play, but activist investor Carl Icahn trained his sights on the firm last year because he viewed the stock as underperforming. Icahn's attempt to flush out a buyer for the firm fell flat, as we expected it would. While it would be possible to unlock value in Clorox by breaking up the firm and selling off its brands, we don't believe there is a sound strategic argument to buying the firm outright or merging it with another company. Private-label penetration is high in many of the company's categories, sales are derived predominantly in developed markets, and 44% of total revenues are concentrated with only five domestic retailers. All these factors made the firm relatively susceptible to economic shocks during the last several years, and arguably a less attractive partner.
While the board wasn't interested in Icahn's offer, and no other buyers came forward, it should be noted that for all of its challenges, Clorox is a fairly well-run firm. Management has shed noncore assets, including its Armor All brand, and has made acquisitions to diversify its product base. During the last several years, Clorox acquired Burt's Bees, and in keeping with its strategic aim of building an infection-control business, which we view as complementary to its core foothold in bleach, the company completed tuck-in acquisitions of Caltech, Aplicare, and Healthlink. The timing for Burt's Bees was poor; at 2008 prices, management had to write down $258 million in goodwill last year when the optimistic projections underpinning the purchase price failed to materialize. However, we don't disagree with the aim of product diversification or the focus on the natural or organic niche. The issue is more about growth, and as Clorox has come to realize with its Green Works brand, consumers are willing pay for natural or organic products, but not necessarily the premium that was once expected. Instead, natural and organic products are becoming more mainstream, in which case Clorox should be fairly well-positioned given its scale and distribution network.
In the meantime, Clorox is doing a respectable job managing input cost inflation, which drove down gross margins by 160 basis points in 2011, and controlling costs, which boosted margins by 170 basis points during the same period. The firm is adept at navigating price increases to balance the inevitable volume declines, and has worked hard to expand into adjacent product categories to reduce its dependence on product lines, like trash bags and food containers, where consumers are likely more inclined to shop on price. This type of expansion can still smartly leverage a strong brand equity like Clorox or Glad, while also providing higher margins. Clorox's hard work hasn't been paying off as it had in the past, but the company is holding steady with its market shares. Pricing the firm has pushed through also appears to be sticking, which speaks to management's skills at gauging appropriate price points and the firm's strong brands. With commodity costs likely to ease in coming quarters Clorox should be able to regain some lost margin. If management invests back in the business on higher ROIC projects, which we fully expect it to do, the firm's narrow moat should remain intact.
Valuation
We are maintaining our fair value estimate of Clorox shares at $68, which implies a forward fiscal-year adjusted price/earnings of 16.8 times, enterprise value/EBITDA of 10.1 times, and a free cash flow yield of 5.3%. We expect soft consumer spending in developed markets to continue weighing on top-line results, so we forecast annual revenue growth of 3%-4% during the next five years (excluding the impact of acquisitions). Input cost inflation has been difficult to overcome, but we expect to see some modest margin expansion during our forecast period.
Clorox does a solid job of managing overhead expenses, and as it slowly reduces its dependence on sales of trash bags and charcoal, margins should show steady improvement. We forecast operating margins in excess of 19% by fiscal 2014, up about 150 basis points to the fiscal 2011 adjusted operating margin. Management expects to build margins 25 to 50 basis points a year so we see this estimate as fairly reasonable. Through 2016, we expect return on invested capital to average 22%, well in excess of our 9.0% cost of capital estimate, supporting our opinion that Clorox maintains a narrow economic moat. Even with a choppy revenue line and margin line, we place a low degree of uncertainty around our fair value estimate for the shares as we think projections of the company's cash flows fall within a fairly narrow range.
Risk
Clorox is influenced by the commodity-driven nature of its business. Volatile input costs, as well as the commodification of several of its categories (such as bleach and trash bags), can have a significant impact on profitability. The company also faces stiff competition from branded and private-label manufacturers in many of its product lines. In addition, with 44% of its sales resulting from its top five customers (26% from Wal-Mart alone), Clorox maintains significant exposure to consolidation among retailers.
Management & Stewardship
From our perspective, Clorox is a well-run organization, with returns on invested capital (including goodwill) that have been more than double our cost of capital estimate in each of the last 10 years. Donald Knauss, 60, assumed the CEO and chairman positions at Clorox in October 2006. Since taking over at the firm he has overseen the company's acquisition of Burt's Bees and push into consumer and professional health and wellness categories. Knauss coolly kept Carl Icahn at bay as the investor attempted to sell Clorox off to a bidder that never materialized. While overtures failed, with Knauss looking as steady and sure as ever, the effort drew attention to the firm's lagging stock price. Improved fundamentals, solid cash flows and healthy dividends and buybacks all point to management running Clorox for the long term and not the quarter, but the solid results are failing to boost the shares. At some point shareholders may lose patience. In the meantime we accord a standard stewardship grade to Clorox.
It's worth noting that in fiscal 2011, in the midst of Icahn's run at the company, Clorox made numerous positive changes to its compensation program, including reducing the change in control severance payments and eliminating tax gross-ups for "golden parachute" tax liabilities. Compensation at Clorox is reasonable and, despite some fairly long-tenured board members, corporate governance at the firm is sound.
Overview
Financial Health:
We are not concerned by Clorox's nearly $2.6 billion of debt on its balance sheet, given the substantial cash flows it generates. During the next five years, we forecast debt/capital to fade to below 0.75 (from 1.03 in fiscal 2011) and operating income to cover interest expense between 7 and 8 times. We assign Clorox an issuer credit rating of A-.
Profile:
For nearly 100 years, Clorox has operated in the household product industry, expanding its portfolio to include such leading brands as Clorox, Glad, Hidden Valley, and Kingsford. The firm distributes its products through mass merchants, grocery stores, and other retail outlets. With its acquisition of Burt's Bees in 2007, Clorox gained entry into the fast-growing natural personal-care category. International sales amount to 20% of the firm's consolidated total.
by Morningstar Equity Analysts
Clorox's CLX fiscal first-quarter results, which included modest sales growth and margin improvement, supported our thinking that spending to invest behind its brands (both in terms of advertising and product innovation--about 11% of consolidated sales) as well as investments to improve its cost structure are appropriate for the long-term health of the business. However, we are maintaining our cautiously optimistic outlook, given that Clorox competes in categories with high levels of private-label penetration and derives the bulk of its revenue from mature, developed markets. While we aren't forecasting robust growth from this household- and personal-care firm anytime soon, we still think Clorox will generate outsize returns and excess cash for shareholders over the longer term (with the strong brand equity inherent in its portfolio that results in leading share in several of the categories in which it competes). Management confirmed its full-year fiscal 2013 guidance for 2%-4% sales growth, 25-50 basis points of EBIT margin improvement, and earnings of $4.20-$4.35 per share (which slightly exceeds our $4.36 forecast). While we intend to update our discounted cash flow model for Clorox’s recent results, we don’t anticipate a material change to our $68 fair value estimate, which remains in place. Despite this, we view shares as slightly overvalued at 17 times the midpoint of the company's earnings per share guidance (compared with an average of 15 times for Morningstar's household- and personal-care coverage universe).First-quarter sales, adjusting for foreign currency movements and acquisitions, ticked up 1.8% year over year, as lower volume (down 1%) was offset by higher prices (up nearly 3%). Volume weakness in the household business (due to lower shipments of charcoal products and cat litter, two categories where the firm recently raised prices) was offset by continued momentum in the cleaning segment, which included the highest level of volume growth for bleach in more than two years. Because the consumer spending environment has yet to meaningfully pick up steam, we intend to continue monitoring the impact that Clorox's higher prices have on the firm's volume over the coming quarters. If volume remains depressed, we wouldn't be surprised to see the firm roll back prices in a few of the categories where commodity cost pressures have retreated. Clorox's cost-saving initiatives combined with the higher prices it's charging at the shelf offset modest raw material inflation, increased supply chain costs, and unfavorable product mix, as gross margins expanded 90 basis points to 42.9% (excluding restructuring charges in the year-ago period). However, consolidated operating margins increased just 20 basis points, as Clorox ramped up its spending behind brand marketing support--in line with our thinking--to ensure that its products stand out in this intensely competitive operating environment.
Thesis by Morningstar Equity Analysts, 06/05/12
With 14% of total sales derived from bleach, 13% from trash bags, and another 11% from charcoal, Clorox is a consumer-packaged firm in a tough spot. Leading brands, including its namesake bleach, Glad, and Kingsford, haven't entirely insulated the firm as its categories have continued down the road of commodification over the years. Input cost inflation has compressed margins along the way, and while we still accord Clorox a narrow economic moat for its brand equities and economies of scale, the company's returns on invested capital have eroded.
For most household product firms, the name of the game is differentiated products in growing categories or growing markets. Clorox is doing a decent job considering the cards it has to play, but activist investor Carl Icahn trained his sights on the firm last year because he viewed the stock as underperforming. Icahn's attempt to flush out a buyer for the firm fell flat, as we expected it would. While it would be possible to unlock value in Clorox by breaking up the firm and selling off its brands, we don't believe there is a sound strategic argument to buying the firm outright or merging it with another company. Private-label penetration is high in many of the company's categories, sales are derived predominantly in developed markets, and 44% of total revenues are concentrated with only five domestic retailers. All these factors made the firm relatively susceptible to economic shocks during the last several years, and arguably a less attractive partner.
While the board wasn't interested in Icahn's offer, and no other buyers came forward, it should be noted that for all of its challenges, Clorox is a fairly well-run firm. Management has shed noncore assets, including its Armor All brand, and has made acquisitions to diversify its product base. During the last several years, Clorox acquired Burt's Bees, and in keeping with its strategic aim of building an infection-control business, which we view as complementary to its core foothold in bleach, the company completed tuck-in acquisitions of Caltech, Aplicare, and Healthlink. The timing for Burt's Bees was poor; at 2008 prices, management had to write down $258 million in goodwill last year when the optimistic projections underpinning the purchase price failed to materialize. However, we don't disagree with the aim of product diversification or the focus on the natural or organic niche. The issue is more about growth, and as Clorox has come to realize with its Green Works brand, consumers are willing pay for natural or organic products, but not necessarily the premium that was once expected. Instead, natural and organic products are becoming more mainstream, in which case Clorox should be fairly well-positioned given its scale and distribution network.
In the meantime, Clorox is doing a respectable job managing input cost inflation, which drove down gross margins by 160 basis points in 2011, and controlling costs, which boosted margins by 170 basis points during the same period. The firm is adept at navigating price increases to balance the inevitable volume declines, and has worked hard to expand into adjacent product categories to reduce its dependence on product lines, like trash bags and food containers, where consumers are likely more inclined to shop on price. This type of expansion can still smartly leverage a strong brand equity like Clorox or Glad, while also providing higher margins. Clorox's hard work hasn't been paying off as it had in the past, but the company is holding steady with its market shares. Pricing the firm has pushed through also appears to be sticking, which speaks to management's skills at gauging appropriate price points and the firm's strong brands. With commodity costs likely to ease in coming quarters Clorox should be able to regain some lost margin. If management invests back in the business on higher ROIC projects, which we fully expect it to do, the firm's narrow moat should remain intact.
Valuation
We are maintaining our fair value estimate of Clorox shares at $68, which implies a forward fiscal-year adjusted price/earnings of 16.8 times, enterprise value/EBITDA of 10.1 times, and a free cash flow yield of 5.3%. We expect soft consumer spending in developed markets to continue weighing on top-line results, so we forecast annual revenue growth of 3%-4% during the next five years (excluding the impact of acquisitions). Input cost inflation has been difficult to overcome, but we expect to see some modest margin expansion during our forecast period.
Clorox does a solid job of managing overhead expenses, and as it slowly reduces its dependence on sales of trash bags and charcoal, margins should show steady improvement. We forecast operating margins in excess of 19% by fiscal 2014, up about 150 basis points to the fiscal 2011 adjusted operating margin. Management expects to build margins 25 to 50 basis points a year so we see this estimate as fairly reasonable. Through 2016, we expect return on invested capital to average 22%, well in excess of our 9.0% cost of capital estimate, supporting our opinion that Clorox maintains a narrow economic moat. Even with a choppy revenue line and margin line, we place a low degree of uncertainty around our fair value estimate for the shares as we think projections of the company's cash flows fall within a fairly narrow range.
Risk
Clorox is influenced by the commodity-driven nature of its business. Volatile input costs, as well as the commodification of several of its categories (such as bleach and trash bags), can have a significant impact on profitability. The company also faces stiff competition from branded and private-label manufacturers in many of its product lines. In addition, with 44% of its sales resulting from its top five customers (26% from Wal-Mart alone), Clorox maintains significant exposure to consolidation among retailers.
Management & Stewardship
From our perspective, Clorox is a well-run organization, with returns on invested capital (including goodwill) that have been more than double our cost of capital estimate in each of the last 10 years. Donald Knauss, 60, assumed the CEO and chairman positions at Clorox in October 2006. Since taking over at the firm he has overseen the company's acquisition of Burt's Bees and push into consumer and professional health and wellness categories. Knauss coolly kept Carl Icahn at bay as the investor attempted to sell Clorox off to a bidder that never materialized. While overtures failed, with Knauss looking as steady and sure as ever, the effort drew attention to the firm's lagging stock price. Improved fundamentals, solid cash flows and healthy dividends and buybacks all point to management running Clorox for the long term and not the quarter, but the solid results are failing to boost the shares. At some point shareholders may lose patience. In the meantime we accord a standard stewardship grade to Clorox.
It's worth noting that in fiscal 2011, in the midst of Icahn's run at the company, Clorox made numerous positive changes to its compensation program, including reducing the change in control severance payments and eliminating tax gross-ups for "golden parachute" tax liabilities. Compensation at Clorox is reasonable and, despite some fairly long-tenured board members, corporate governance at the firm is sound.
Overview
Financial Health:
We are not concerned by Clorox's nearly $2.6 billion of debt on its balance sheet, given the substantial cash flows it generates. During the next five years, we forecast debt/capital to fade to below 0.75 (from 1.03 in fiscal 2011) and operating income to cover interest expense between 7 and 8 times. We assign Clorox an issuer credit rating of A-.
Profile:
For nearly 100 years, Clorox has operated in the household product industry, expanding its portfolio to include such leading brands as Clorox, Glad, Hidden Valley, and Kingsford. The firm distributes its products through mass merchants, grocery stores, and other retail outlets. With its acquisition of Burt's Bees in 2007, Clorox gained entry into the fast-growing natural personal-care category. International sales amount to 20% of the firm's consolidated total.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)