• Markets
• Economy
• Federal Reserve
• Housing
• Energy
• Digital Media

How Good Are Earnings Really?

One of the strongest issues in the perma-Bull's arsenal has been the 16 consecutive quarters of double digit year-over-year earnings growth.

My reservations about earnings have been twofold: First, SPX gains have been unusually reliant on energy and materials stocks, accounting for a disproportionate (by some measures, as much as half) of earnings improvements; Given the drop in oil, copper, steel, etc., (at least short term), these companie's contribution to S&P profitability are likely to feel some impact. (Longer term, I remain bullish on the Oils). 

Secondly, financial engineering of year-over-year earnings continues via share buybacks. About a third -- 5 of the 15% E gains -- are due to the massive stock buybacks we have seen. According to Merrill Lynches David Rosenberg, this has reduced share count to the point of improving earnings by that third.

Now, there is another earnings issue worth looking at: Expectation-Management:

"Stephen Biggar, director of American equity research at Standard & Poor's, questions the reliability of those estimates. In the weeks before an earnings announcement, Mr. Biggar said, companies often talk down their prospects so that analysts reduce estimates, making the actual numbers sound better. He prefers to compare reported earnings with estimates made before the expectation-management exercise begins. Using estimates in place on Sept. 18, he concludes that companies are not doing as well as many people think.

Of 68 S.& P. 500 companies that have reported third-quarter results, 41 failed to meet the September estimates for operating earnings, he said. The median shortfall was 4.3 percent. But 74 percent of companies in the S.& P. 500 that have reported so far exceeded the latest estimates and only 8 percent undershot them, according to Thomson Financial."

In the final month of the quarter, companies do some "fancy footwork" to bring down estimates. They restate earnings from previous quarters, making the present growth seem more robust, according to Mr. Biggar. "There is a penchant by companies to make this year's number look good but to make last year's number look bad," he said.

The reality check? Investors need to scrutinize earnings reports carefully: "A lot of these companies that say they're 11, 13, 14 percent growers are not," he said. "It's difficult to have confidence in the numbers they're reporting."

UPDATE October 24, 2006 3:45pm
Here's a chart of Third Quarter Earnings and Guidance changes via Birinyi Research --

>

Source:
Comparisons That Make Earnings Look Good
CONRAD DE AENLLE
NYT, October 22, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/business/yourmoney/22mark.html

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 | 07:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBack (0)
add to de.li.cious | digg this! | add to technorati | email this post

Comments

Well, here's a look at the other side of this discussion. The market doesn't always make "sense":

"During the last century in the United States, there have been eight occasions where the P/E declined for three consecutive years. In all but two of them, the fourth year had a large P/E expansion that added to a robust bull market.

The six positive and P/E expansion fourth years were 1908, 1918, 1942, 1949, 1967 and 1995. Each of them was preceded by a three year span of declining P/E. Each period had multiple economic, financial and geo-political consequences of serious magnitude during the three declining years History buffs can fill in the details for each of these time periods. "

Here are the complete comments from David Kotok and Cumberland Advisors, who have changed their view of the markets, and are heading towards a fully invested position. I think they're spot on:

http://www.cumber.com/commentary.aspx?file=102106.asp&n=l_mc

Posted by: JGarcia | Oct 24, 2006 7:25:08 AM