There is an embarassingly nice profile in the "Quite Contrary" column of yours truly today.
My favorite line of the interview (unfortunately) got cut:
"If this is a short term call, its rather late, as the SMHs have already fallen more than a third from their highs, giving back half of their gains. If its a long term call — is this semi-condictor cycle over already? — it seems to be rather early."
That’s from memory; It was prolly wordier than that (and hence exised).
In response to those of you without WSJ access, here’s a PDF
Quite Contrary: Placing a Wager On the Chip Sector
Maxim Strategist Ritholtz Sees Tax-Incentives Sunset Picking Up Semiconductors
By Erin Schulte
Wall Street Journal, August?3,?2004;?Page?C3
Interesting observations from the WSJ this weekend:
“The market has a problem with the possibility of a Democrat winning, but doesn’t seem to have a problem with the reality of a Democratic president,” says Tom Gallagher, an analyst at economic-research firm International Strategy & Investment in Washington, D.C. Mr. Gallagher also notes that the market tends to do better under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.”
The article (see link below) is chock full of other counter-intuitive observations. Consider, for rexample . . .
Fascinating story in today’s Times regarding the drop in Americans’ incomes. The surprising culprit? “Falling incomes, rather than tax cuts, appear to count for the greatest share of the decline in income taxes paid.”
graphic courtesy of New York Times
This two year consecutive drop, like the tech bubble that preceded it, is unprecedented in post war America:
“The overall income Americans reported to the government shrank for two consecutive years after the Internet stock market bubble burst in 2000, the first time that has effectively happened since the modern tax system was introduced during World War II, newly disclosed information from the Internal Revenue Service shows.
The total adjusted gross income on tax returns fell 5.1 percent, to just over $6 trillion in 2002, the most recent year for which data is available, from $6.35 trillion in 2000. Because of population growth, average incomes declined even more, by 5.7 percent.
Adjusted for inflation, the income of all Americans fell 9.2 percent from 2000 to 2002, according to the new I.R.S. data.”
That is some nasty data. While we all have anecdotal tales as to how the public gets impacted by economic recessions, its certainly stark when you see it in black and white.