hellava Oconomy we got going on here

sarktastic

Makes you wonder where EPS would be if we didn't have record LBB's since interest rates have been artificially frozen at zero, doesn't it, Honda.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/02/profits sales and EPS_0.jpg

2001400ex

sarktastic said:

Makes you wonder where EPS would be if we didn't have record LBB's since interest rates have been artificially frozen at zero, doesn't it, Honda.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/02/profits sales and EPS_0.jpg

Please learn how to interpret charts.

sarktastic

By all means, please, tell us what you think this means. Your last entry indicates you're confused... again

2001400ex

sarktastic said:

By all means, please, tell us what you think this means. Your last entry indicates you're confused... again

It's year over year sales and earnings per share. In other words, it shows 5 straight years of growth. And yes of course growth is slowing, that's what happens after 5 years of continual growth.

It's funny, you'll say that Obama had the slowest recovery every, yet that chat indicates a smoking economy in 2010. See the hypocrisy? It's how you lie with stats.

Now.... Let's hear your interpretation. Give me about 5 minutes tho to make some popcorn.

dnc

2001400ex said:

sarktastic said:

By all means, please, tell us what you think this means. Your last entry indicates you're confused... again

It's year over year sales and earnings per share. In other words, it shows 5 straight years of growth. And yes of course growth is slowing, that's what happens after 5 years of continual growth.

It's funny, you'll say that Obama had the slowest recovery every, yet that chat indicates a smoking economy in 2010. See the hypocrisy? It's how you lie with stats.

Now.... Let's hear your interpretation. Give me about 5 minutes tho to make some popcorn.

Dude.

What is indicated in chat, stays in chat.

sarktastic

Imagine for a moment a period of time when earnings are stable. Assume also, during that same period, the number of shares outstanding fell. Would the earnings per share during this period be falling? Rising? Or stay the same?

Citrus4Troogs

Zero Hedge can be interesting, but shouldn't be taken seriously; they've been consistently claiming that we're due for a Mad Max-style dystopia since the mid-2000s.

Russkie Propaganda?

2001400ex

It depends, are you talking diluted EPS? What is the cause of shares outstanding declining? From purchase of treasury stock or other reasons.

GrundleStiltzkin

2001400ex said:

It depends, are you talking diluted EPS? What is the cause of shares outstanding declining? From purchase of treasury stock or other reasons.

Can we get @thechatch in here for an explanation?

2001400ex

GrundleStiltzkin said:

2001400ex said:

It depends, are you talking diluted EPS? What is the cause of shares outstanding declining? From purchase of treasury stock or other reasons.

Can we get @thechatch in here for an explanation?

I'm waiting for @sarktastic to respond. I have a feeling that one went right over his head.

HoustonHusky

2001400ex said:

sarktastic said:

By all means, please, tell us what you think this means. Your last entry indicates you're confused... again

It's year over year sales and earnings per share. In other words, it shows 5 straight years of growth. And yes of course growth is slowing, that's what happens after 5 years of continual growth.

It's funny, you'll say that Obama had the slowest recovery every, yet that chat indicates a smoking economy in 2010. See the hypocrisy? It's how you lie with stats.

Now.... Let's hear your interpretation. Give me about 5 minutes tho to make some popcorn.

There is so much misinformation in this post not sure where to start. If you want to talk US economic growth...go look at GDP stats. The original post I'm assuming is referencing the relative increase in stock prices vs. actual earnings growth, and how there has been a growing disjuncture between the two. Turning it into a claim about the US economy is FS.

BTW...love zerohedge. Fun blog to read, even if I don't buy all the doom and gloom.

2001400ex

HoustonHusky said:

2001400ex said:

sarktastic said:

By all means, please, tell us what you think this means. Your last entry indicates you're confused... again

It's year over year sales and earnings per share. In other words, it shows 5 straight years of growth. And yes of course growth is slowing, that's what happens after 5 years of continual growth.

It's funny, you'll say that Obama had the slowest recovery every, yet that chat indicates a smoking economy in 2010. See the hypocrisy? It's how you lie with stats.

Now.... Let's hear your interpretation. Give me about 5 minutes tho to make some popcorn.

There is so much misinformation in this post not sure where to start. If you want to talk US economic growth...go look at GDP stats. The original post I'm assuming is referencing the relative increase in stock prices vs. actual earnings growth, and how there has been a growing disjuncture between the two. Turning it into a claim about the US economy is FS.

BTW...love zerohedge. Fun blog to read, even if I don't buy all the doom and gloom.

Well you could start with something that's wrong in my post. You can assume a lot from the original post, however the only thing I can gather is that since growth has slowed, clearly or economy is not doing well.

I would not agree that there is a disconnect between earnings and stock market price. Look at EPS for the stock market as a whole, it's still at the lower end of the spectrum.

While EPS is not the only indicator of the economy, it's still a factor. If earnings are declining, then it's an indicator it a pending recession. But there is a lag, as there is with everything in a large economy. However the chart is still showing EPS growth. Clearly sarktastic can't read the chart.

RaceBannon

Slow growth has slowed. Compare it to Reagan who you love to mock. That's right wikipedia didn't tell you about the late 70's major recession

Never mind

2001400ex

RaceBannon said:

Slow growth has slowed. Compare it to Reagan who you love to mock. That's right wikipedia didn't tell you about the late 70's major recession

Never mind

Clearly you don't remember a recession a year into Reagan's term or over 11% unemployment during his presidency.

Tequilla

This thread just made my head hurt ...

Here's what you can tell from the chart:

1) Coming out of the downturns in the economy in '08 and '09 (which tends to happen as we head into election cycles where the winner is less of a formality), sales growth SHOULD have seen explosive growth from a YoY standpoint as it's not only a component of real growth, but a recovery from limited (or negative) growth before it.

2) Beginning at the end of 2011, the revenue growth cannot be viewed as a driver of our economy as it has consistently been under 5% and trending more in the 2-3% range that would typically be observed when looking at GDP.

3) EPS growth is taking place in part because businesses are focusing on cost controls driving earnings growth. Simply put, growth in revenues >>> growth in expenses. That's just fundamental good business. Other than a few small period specific outliers, since 2012, the EPS growth has mimicked that of the revenue growth.

4) During 2013, we saw some drops in revenue growth that before a rebound at the end of 2013 and into 2014. We're seeing a similar, but sharper, decline in the most recent months. I would bet that we're going to head towards a recession over the next 12-24 months simply driven by the fact that we're heading into a new election cycle.

5) What the chart really shows is that during Obama's presidency, there really hasn't been an economic boom. What his supporters will point to early in his first term was driven moreso from the recovery from the housing collapse as it was anything that Obama did. Once the markets returned to normal, that's played out consistently since then despite a number of factors that would suggest a beneficial environment for growth (low interest rates = cheap money for businesses to invest; continued efficiency growth through technology producing more organic cash to invest with).

Looking forward, another huge issue that is going to be in play with respects to today's global economy is the influence in currencies. There are more than a few currencies that are struggling around the globe and there's always a risk of what the underlying EU countries will do given that there's such long-term distrust between the countries and the growing chasm between the have's and the have-not's within the EU.

RaceBannon

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

Slow growth has slowed. Compare it to Reagan who you love to mock. That's right wikipedia didn't tell you about the late 70's major recession

Never mind

Clearly you don't remember a recession a year into Reagan's term or over 11% unemployment during his presidency.

We're 6 years into Obama but still


Never mind

2001400ex

RaceBannon said:

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

Slow growth has slowed. Compare it to Reagan who you love to mock. That's right wikipedia didn't tell you about the late 70's major recession

Never mind

Clearly you don't remember a recession a year into Reagan's term or over 11% unemployment during his presidency.

We're 6 years into Obama but still


Never mind

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

January 1981 7.5%
July 1981 7.2% (low)
December 1982 10.8% (peak)
January 1987 6.6% (same duration of presidency as last month)

January 2009 7.9%
July 2009 9.5% (comparable to July 1981)
October 2009 10.0% (peak)
December 2010 9.3% (comparable to December 1982)
January 2015 5.7% (comparable to January 1987)

Don't forget, Reagan presided under 6 years of growth in government employees, Obama has presided under 6 years of government employee decline.

Revisionist history there?

RaceBannon

Don't forget Reagan policies worked. Obama's haven't.

We already covered the phony unemployment numbers. You weren't there and you're just a hack now so never mind. Obama is great. All is well.

CuntWaffle

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

Slow growth has slowed. Compare it to Reagan who you love to mock. That's right wikipedia didn't tell you about the late 70's major recession

Never mind

Clearly you don't remember a recession a year into Reagan's term or over 11% unemployment during his presidency.

We're 6 years into Obama but still


Never mind

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

January 1981 7.5%
July 1981 7.2% (low)
December 1982 10.8% (peak)
January 1987 6.6% (same duration of presidency as last month)

January 2009 7.9%
July 2009 9.5% (comparable to July 1981)
October 2009 10.0% (peak)
December 2010 9.3% (comparable to December 1982)
January 2015 5.7% (comparable to January 1987)

Don't forget, Reagan presided under 6 years of growth in government employees, Obama has presided under 6 years of government employee decline.

Revisionist history there?

A lot of sizzle there.

2001400ex

RaceBannon said:

Don't forget Reagan policies worked. Obama's haven't.

We already covered the phony unemployment numbers. You weren't there and you're just a hack now so never mind. Obama is great. All is well.

Lol, you don't like he numbers so they are phony. How did I know that was your answer. Really it's just embarrassing for you.

puppylove_sugarsteel

2001400ex said:

It depends, are you talking diluted EPS? What is the cause of shares outstanding declining? From purchase of treasury stock or other reasons.

Been living at investopedia Ex? Anybody with any business acumen wouldnt be spewing your plagiarized, verbatim and silly references. Give it up buttfuck.