Sete momentos mais marcantes de Centeno no Banco de Portugal

[MozHawk]

Caro Curare,

Confesso que gosto da The Economist. Acho que, apesar de tudo, é uma boa revista. Contudo, não posso deixar de relatar uma experiência que vivi à conta deles, mais propriamente da sua EIU (Economist Intelligence Unit)... Corria o ano de 1998 e o Grupo decidiu "encomendar" a um banco de investimento um estudo sobre o seu valor actual. Para não entrar em grandes detalhes, gostaria apenas de referir que um dos documentos que serviu de suporte aos preços futuros de uma determinada commodity foi precisamente um estudo, caríssimo por acaso, da EIU e que se revelou um profundo falhanço. Falharam por completo em toda a linha.

Os lucros estão a aumentar? Muito bem... mas à conta de quê? Como é evoluiu a P&L nos últimos períodos? E o BS? CF?

Um abraço,

MozHawk

[Curare]

In profits we trust

Dec 18th 2002
From The Economist Global Agenda

2002 will be the third consecutive year in which global share prices have fallen. A reason for hope is that companies’ profits are recovering
AFTER a welcome rally in November, stockmarkets have again run out of steam; most are as much in need of a holiday as investors. The S&P 500 and the FTSE 100 are both likely to end 2002 nearer their lows for the year than their highs. The same goes for many other markets around the world. Unless they have been lucky, clever or both, for the third consecutive year investors in equities will have seen their portfolios dwindle in value. Time for some holiday cheer? Hardly.


Investors are so downtrodden that most will be happy if 2003 turns out merely to be no worse than 2002. In fact, there are reasons to think things will improve. The first is that after a couple of dismal years, companies’ profits are set to recover. J.P. Morgan, an investment bank, reckons that operating profits worldwide are likely to climb next year by around 10%. That follows a decline of 23% in 2001 and an expected rise this year of around 5%. However, much of the gain is likely to come from cost-cutting and restructuring, not from a robust recovery in profitability.

One reason for J.P. Morgan’s optimism is that the overhang in companies’ inventories has dwindled to the point where it is no longer forcing them to write down the value of their stocks. Nor is it eroding their pricing power to the same extent as before. Many companies have also shed their unwanted staff so that wages are now growing more in line with productivity. That is true at least of America, where firms have been quicker to restructure themselves than their counterparts in Europe.

Just as America went into, and came out of, recession earlier than most economies in Europe, so American companies are recovering more quickly than European ones. Figures from Commerzbank suggest that, in Europe, companies’ earnings could grow by an average of nearly 12% next year after a lacklustre 2002. Even those firms at the bottom of the pile should see a profit decline of only around 4%, says the bank.

Another reason to be cheerful is that interest rates are unlikely to rise over the next few months, particularly in Europe. If they do begin to edge up in America, says J.P. Morgan, it will be because unemployment is declining or because there is solid evidence that manufacturing has begun to recover more strongly. Even the effect of inflation could be benign. Although the prices of some goods (such as energy and industrial raw materials) could pick up in 2003, the effect will probably be balanced by continuing falls in the prices of most services. Since price deflation is a greater threat to profits than stable or rising inflation, in theory this should also be good for equities.

With luck, too, companies should have better news to tell their shareholders in 2003—if only because 2002 has been such a rotten year for many firms. A large number of American companies saw their profits collapse, or became mired in scandal, or both. Unprecedented numbers of high-profile firms went bust: this week, Conseco, an insurer and lender, was added to the list, failing with $6.5 billion of outstanding debts. European firms were also rocked by scandals and took on too much debt during the boom years. According to Standard & Poor’s, a rating agency, no fewer than 27 rated companies and financial institutions in Europe defaulted on their debt during the 11 months to the end of November. That is nearly double the number during the whole of 2001. Although the red ink will continue to flow during 2003, Standard & Poor’s reckons the “most vicious stage of this cycle” may be over.

Having watched their shares suffer because they failed to live up to analysts’ expectations, many companies are wondering whether they would be better off saying nothing at all. This week, Coca-Cola became the latest big company to announce that it will no longer guide analysts as to the level of earnings they can expect from one quarter to the next. This is a risky strategy—adopted by only a handful of others, including Intel, a chip maker—but one that could bring benefits in the long run.

Coca-Cola will continue to provide as much information to shareholders and the markets as it has in the past; indeed, it may end up giving them even more. The difference is that in future, analysts will be left to draw their own conclusions rather than being given specific guidance on numbers such as earnings per share. Inevitably, this will widen the range of analysts’ estimates. In theory, it will encourage investors to take a longer-term view, so releasing managers from the tyranny of having to “meet their numbers” every quarter.

While most companies would prefer to be judged over the long term, in today’s markets most investors peer only a day or two ahead. The continued slide in share prices and the corporate scandals of the past year or so have knocked the stuffing out of private shareholders. Many are content to sit on their hands. As a result, the stockmarkets are being driven by professionals seeking short-term gains, mainly from dealing in derivatives. This has led to low trading volumes and high volatility. Only when a majority of investors again have confidence in what companies are telling them is this likely to change.

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1502454