Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Johnson & Johnson's 1Q net income falls 23 percent

By LINDA A. JOHNSON

Health care giant Johnson & Johnson said Tuesday its sales rebounded but its profit dropped 23 percent in the first quarter because of higher costs for recalls and litigation and a tax gain that boosted last year's results.

Adjusted earnings topped analysts' expectations. J&J also raised its full-year earnings outlook, sending the company's stock up $1.34, or 2.2 percent, to $61.80 in premarket trading.

The maker of Band-Aids, baby shampoo and birth-control pills posted net income of $3.48 billion, or $1.25 per share, down from $4.53 billion, or $1.62 per share, in 2010's first quarter.

But after an unprecedented two years of declining sales, revenue rose in the quarter by 3.5 percent, to $16.17 billion from $15.63 billion.

Adjusted income was $4.86 billion, or $1.35 per share. Analysts polled by FactSet, on average, expected earnings per share of $1.03 and revenue of $15.6 billion.

Johnson & Johnson, based in New Brunswick, N.J., raised its profit forecast for the year to $4.90 to $5 per share, from $4.80 to $4.90 per share. Those figures exclude any one-time charges or gains. Analysts previously expected $4.84 per share.

Overseas revenue jumped 7.3 percent, to $8.57 billion, offsetting a 0.6 percent decline in U.S. revenue to $7.61 billion. Domestic sales have been hurt by an embarassing string of 22 recalls of products including Tylenol and Benedryl over the last 19 months and the year-long closure of a consumer health products factory where many of the recalled medicines were made.

Consumer product sales decreased 2.2 percent to $3.68 billion as a 5.9 percent rise in overseas sales was wiped out by a 13.8 percent plunge in the U.S., mainly due to the recalls.

Drug revenue rose 7.5 percent worldwide, to $6.1 billion, and sales of medical devices and diagnostic products edged up 3.3 percent, to $6.43 billion.

"Our pharmaceuticals business demonstrated strong growth this quarter led by the performance of newly launched products," CEO William Weldon said in a statement. "We delivered solid earnings while making investments necessary to advance the robust pipelines across our business."

J&J took after-tax charges totalling $271 million for litigation and costs of additional recalls of DePuy artificial hips.

It also reported higher costs for production, sales and administration, and research and development. A year earlier, the quarter's results were buoyed by a $910 million after-tax gain related to litigation.

See the original article >>

Goldman posts 72 percent drop in quarterly earnings

by Reuters

Goldman Sachs Group Inc posted a 72 percent drop in first-quarter profit to shareholders as it made less money from trading bonds for clients. The largest U.S. investment bank posted a profit to common shareholders of $908 million, or $1.56 per share, compared with $3.3 billion, or $5.59 per share, in the same quarter a year ago.

Following is a selection of initial comments by analysts:

JOERG RAHN, CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER , MARCARD, STEIN & CO, HAMBURG

"These are good results. Yes, expectations weren't gigantic but they were beat nevertheless. As an investment bank, Goldman is a good indicator for the global M&A and IPO markets so overall this is encouraging going forward."

MATT MCCORMICK, PORTFOLIO MANAGER, BAHL & GAYNOR INVESTMENT COUNSEL, CINCINATTI

"It looks like Goldman had a good beat. It puts them up in the category of JPMorgan Chase. My guess is they'll be rewarded for it today as the market looks for a bit of a snapback for financials." The decline in fixed-income trading revenue was "a little bit higher than I expected, because I expected Goldman Sachs to be the best in class on that issue, but all their other peers seem to be facing the same challenges. I don't think the market will focus on that."

PETER CARDILLO, CHIEF MARKET ECONOMIST, AVALON PARTNERS, NEW YORK

"Goldman Sachs is a bellwether and these numbers will probably begin to calm some of the fears that the market has been worried about. It should help alleviate some of the fears and we could regain some of yesterday's losses."

GARY TOWNSEND, CEO, HILL-TOWNSEND CAPITAL, CHEVY CHASE, MARYLAND

Townsend said Goldman's toughest problem going forward would be its relationship with the U.S. government: "The government seems interested in diminishing franchise value. The report from (Senator Carl) Levin is just the most recent example."

MICHAEL NIX, CO-CHIEF INVESTTMENT OFFICER, GREENWOOD CAPITAL ASSOCIATES, GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA

"The numbers are pretty good I guess. They executed fairly well during the quarter. But if you look back three weeks ago, the consensus estimate was around $3.80 a share. That's pretty significant compression of earnings expectations over the last few weeks, and I wonder whether people pushed that down a little bit too far. I think you have to take these numbers with a little bit of a grain of salt. I hate to get too excited when the reality is this would have been a significant earnings miss a couple weeks ago."

Financial Scam Behind Rising Crude Oil and Food Prices?

By: Danny_Schechter

The global economy and its recovery, and the living standards of millions of plain folks, are now at risk from the sudden rise in oil and commodity prices. 

Gas at the pump is up, and going higher. Food prices are following. 

The consequences are catastrophic for the global poor as their costs go up while their income doesn’t. It’s menacing American workers too, who in large part have not seen a meaningful raise since the days of Reagan (keeping it this way is clearly behind the current flurry of attacks on unions). 

Already, unrest in the Middle East and many African countries is being blamed for these dramatic increases. It seems as if this threat to global stability is being largely ignored in our media, one that treats the oil business as just another mystical world of free market trading. 

Why is it happening? Why all the volatility? Is oil getting scarcer, leading to price increases? Is the cost of food, similarly, a reflection of naturally increasing commodity prices? 

While it’s true that natural disasters and droughts play some role in this unchecked price inflation, it also seems apparent that something else is attracting increasing attention, even if most of our media fails to explore what is a political time bomb while most political leaders shrug their shoulder and ignore it. 

President Obama recently said there is nothing he can do about the hike in oil and food prices. 

Critics say the problem is that government and media outlets alike refuse to recognize what’s really going on: unchecked speculation! 

Not everyone buys into this suspicion. In fact, it is one of more intense subjects of debate in economics. Princeton University economist Paul Krugman pooh-poohs the impact of speculation counter posing the traditional argument that oil prices are set by supply and demand. 

The Economist Magazine agrees, summing up its views with a pithy phrase, “Speculation does not drive the oil price. Driving does.” 

Others, like oil industry analyst Michael Klare of Hampshire College in the US see demand outdistancing supply: 

“Consider the recent rise in the price of oil just a faint and early tremor heralding the oilquake to come. Oil won’t disappear from international markets, but in the coming decades it will never reach the volumes needed to satisfy projected world demand, which means that, sooner rather than later, scarcity will become the dominant market condition.” 

Usually you hear this debate in scholarly circles or read it in political tracts where orthodox views collide with more alarmist projections about the oil supply “peaking.” 

But officials in the Third World don’t see the subject as academic. Reserve Bank of India Governor Duvvuri Subbarao charges "Speculative movements in commodity derivative markets are also causing volatility in prices," he said. 

The World Bank is meeting on this issue this week because it is seen as a matter of “utmost urgency.” 

“The price of food is a matter of life and death for the very poorest people in the world,” said Tom Arnold, CEO of Concern Worldwide, the international humanitarian agency, ahead of his participation at The Open Forum on Food at World Bank headquarters. 

He adds, “…with many families spending up to 80% of their income on basic foods to survive, even the slightest increase in price can have devastating effects and become a crises for the poorest.” 

Journalist Josh Clark argues on the website “How Stuff Works” that much of the oil speculation is rooted in the financial crisis, “The next time you drive to the gas station, only to find prices are still sky high compared to just a few years ago, take notice of the rows of foreclosed houses you'll pass along the way. They may seem like two parts of a spell of economic bad luck, but high gas prices and home foreclosures are actually very much interrelated. Before most people were even aware there was an economic crisis, investment managers abandoned failing mortgage-backed securities and looked for other lucrative investments. What they settled on was oil futures.” 

The debate within the industry is more subdued, perhaps to avoid a public fight between suppliers and distributors who don’t want to rock the boat. But some officials like Dan Gilligan, president of the Petroleum Marketers Association, representing 8,000 retail and wholesale suppliers has spoken out. 

He argues, “Approximately 60 to 70 percent of the oil contracts in the futures markets are now held by speculative entities. Not by companies that need oil, not by the airlines, not by the oil companies. But by investors who profit money from their speculative positions.” 

Now, a prominent and popular market analyst is throwing caution to the wind by blowing the whistle on speculators. 

Finance expert Phil Davis runs a website and widely read newsletter to monitor stocks and options trades. He’s a professional’s professional, whose grandfather taught him to buy stocks when he was just ten years old. 

His website is Phil’s Stock World, and stocks are his world. He’s subtitled the site, “High Finance for Real People.” 

He is usually a sober and calm analyst, not known as maverick or dissenter. 

When I met Phil the other night, he was on fire, enraged by what he believes is the scam of the century that no one wants to talk about, because so many powerful people armed with legions of lawyers want unquestioning allegiance, and will sue you into silence. 

He studies the oil/food issue carefully and has concluded, “It’s a scam folks, it’s nothing but a huge scam and it’s destroying the US economy as well as the entire global economy but no one complains because they are ‘only’ stealing about $1.50 per gallon from each individual person in the industrialized world.” 

“It’s the top 0.01% robbing the next 39.99% – the bottom 60% can’t afford cars anyway (they just starve quietly to death, as food prices climb on fuel costs). If someone breaks into your car and steals a $500 stereo, you go to the police, but if someone charges you an extra $30 every time you fill up your tank 50 times a year ($1,500) you shut up and pay your bill. Great system, right?” 

Phil is just getting started, as he delves into the intricacies of the NYMEX market that handles these trades: 

“The great thing about the NYMEX is that the traders don’t have to take delivery on their contracts, they can simply pay to roll them over to the next settlement price, even if no one is actually buying the barrels. That’s how we have developed a massive glut of 677 Million barrels worth of contracts in the front four months on the NYMEX and, come rollover day – that will be the amount of barrels "on order" for the front 3 months, unless a lot barrels get dumped at market prices fast.” 

“Keep in mind that the entire United States uses ‘just’ 18M barrels of oil a day, so 677M barrels is a 37-day supply of oil. But, we also make 9M barrels of our own oil and import ‘just’ 9M barrels per day, and 5M barrels of that is from Canada and Mexico who, last I heard, aren’t even having revolutions. So, ignoring North Sea oil Brazil and Venezuela and lumping Africa in with OPEC, we are importing 3Mbd from unreliable sources and there is a 225-day supply under contract for delivery at the current price or cheaper plus we have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve that holds another 727 Million barrels (full) plus 370M barrels of commercial storage in the US (also full) which is another 365.6 days of marginal oil already here in storage in addition to the 225 days under contract for delivery. “ 

These contracts for oil outnumber their actual delivery, a sign of speculation and market manipulation, as oil companies win government authorizations for wells but then don’t open them for exploration or exploitation. It’s all a game of manipulating oil supply to keep prices up. And no one seems to be regulating it. 

What Phil sees is a giant but intricate game of market manipulation and rigging by a cartel—not just an industry—that actually has loaded tankers criss-crossing the oceans but only landing when the price is right. 

“There is nothing that the conga-line of tankers between here and OPEC would like to do more than unload an extra 277 Million barrels of crude at $112.79 per barrel (Friday’s close on open contracts and price) but, unfortunately, as I mentioned last week, Cushing, Oklahoma (Where oil is stored) is already packed to the gills with oil and can only handle 45M barrels if it started out empty so it is, very simply, physically impossible for those barrels to be delivered. This did not, however, stop 287M barrels worth of May contracts from trading on Friday and GAINING $2.49 on the day. “ 

He asks, “Who is buying 287,494 contracts (1,000 barrels per contract) for May delivery that can’t possibly be delivered for $2.49 more than they were priced the day before? These are the kind of questions that you would think regulators would be asking – if we had any.” 

The TV news magazine 60 Minutes spoke with Dan Gilligan who noted that, investors don't actually take delivery of the oil. "All they do is buy the paper, and hope that they can sell it for more than they paid for it. Before they have to take delivery." 

He says they make their fortunes “on the volatility that exists in the market. They make it going up and down."
Payam Sharifi, at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, notes that even as the rise in oil prices threatens the world economy, there is almost total silence on the danger: 

“This issue ought to be discussed again with a renewed interest – but the media and much of the populace at large have simply accepted high food and oil prices as an unavoidable fact of life, without any discussion of the causes of these price rises aside from platitudes.”
What can we do about that?

Standard & Poor's U.S. Sovereign Debt Downgrade Watershed Event

By: Richard_Mills

"Common sense tells us that a government central bank creating new money out of thin air depreciates the value of each dollar in circulation." ~ Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)


Billions of Dollars


Declining confidence in paper money is pushing gold and silver from the shadows to center stage.



"The surge in commodity prices over the past year appears to be largely attributable to a combination of rising global demand and disruptions in global supply. These developments seem unlikely to have persistent effects on consumer inflation or to derail the economic recovery and hence do not, in my view, warrant any substantial shift in the stance of monetary policy." ~ Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Janet Yellen

"There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen... the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil." ~ Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)
The federal deficit this year is a record $1.6 trillion -- a number that requires the government to borrow 43 cents out of every dollar it spends. The US government's total debt will mushroom from $14.2 trillion now to almost $21 trillion by 2016.

Obama's projected $1.6 trillion deficit for the current year would be the highest dollar amount ever. It represents 10.8 percent of the total economy, the highest level since 1945 when the deficit was 21.5 percent of GDP and reflected heavy borrowing to fight the Second World War.

The president's 2012 budget projects that the deficits total $7.2 trillion over the next 10 years with the shortfalls never coming in below $607 billion.

Professor Peter Bernholz, from the University of Basel, examined 12 of the 29 hyperinflationary episodes where significant data exists.
"Hyperinflations are always caused by public budget deficits which are largely financed by money creation...The figures demonstrate clearly that deficits amounting to 40 percent or more of expenditures cannot be maintained. They lead to high inflation and hyperinflations."
Most analysts quote government deficits as a percentage of GDP:
"The president's projected $1.6 trillion deficit for the current year...would also represent 10.8 percent of the total economy."
This reporting is misrepresenting the true size of the problem because it doesn't say how big the deficit is relative to expenditures.

On February 14, 2011, President Obama released his 2012 Federal Budget. The report updated the projected 2011 deficit to $1.645 trillion. This is based on estimated revenues of $2.173 trillion and expenditures of $3.818 trillion.

He then unveiled a $3.73 trillion budget for 2012 with a projected deficit of $1.1 trillion - a lot of savings/cuts and revenue assumptions in the 2012 budget appeared to this author, to put it politely, to be pie in the sky. 

The savings and revenue projections have more to do with the 2012 election than reality - Obama is trying to appear fiscally responsible to the voters. It also doesn't look like either party can agree to any cuts except to those in someone else's (somebody from the other party) back yard.

The US government cannot sell enough of its debt to its own citizens and foreigners to finance its deficit and pay the interest on its existing debt.
"Yes, we are monetizing debt. You buy bonds and you monetize debt. Right now, a lot of that is going into excess reserves so it is not having an immediate effect on inflation. It will initiate inflationary impulses. It takes time." ~ Thomas Hoenig, President, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, early March 2011
The US government is already buying its own debt - this is the most inflationary thing a country can do - and it looks like we can expect this trend to continue and probably increase.

The Event

April 18th 2011 - Standard & Poor's Ratings Service lowered its long term outlook for the United States sovereign debt to Negative from Stable.

Moody's issued a warning earlier in 2011 saying that its rating could be downgraded if progress isn't made soon on the $1.5 trillion US budget deficit.

Conclusion

Are any countries in the world going to enter into a hyperinflationary episode anytime soon? This writer doesn't know - I do know we are experiencing inflation, I think it's going to get to much higher levels than today's and I've been saying so for quite a while.

Gold and silver shine brightest in inflationary times - when your cash is trash your gold and silver are shining - and history proves the greatest leverage to rising precious metal prices are junior companies involved in the discovery and development of precious metal projects.

Junior precious metal companies should be on every investors radar screen. Are they on yours?
If not, maybe they should be.

See the original article >>

Wheat prices soar as threats from dryness escalate

by Agrimoney.com

Wheat futures soared more than 3% in Paris, and 4% in Chicago, despite the US debt fears which sank many other markets, as weather fears prompted investors to reinject a risk premium into prices.
A range of assets sold off after Standard & Poor's cut to "negative", from "stable", its outlook for its rating on US sovereign debt, signalling that a downgrade may be on the way.
London shares ended down 2.1% and prices of many raw materials fell, including copper, which lost more than 1%, and New York crude, which shed 2.7%, with soft commodities also falling.
New York cocoa for May shed 3.5%, with losses also prompted by growing expectations of shipments out of Ivory Coast.
'Problems around the world'
However, grains - with gold, a safe haven in times of global uncertainty – showed substantial gains after weather forecasts over the weekend removed a forecast of rain for America's hard red winter wheat districts in the southern Plains, where grain ratings have suffered from a dearth of moisture.
"That's what started it, the idea that [the southern Plains] will not after all get rain on April 19-20," David Tallentis at WxRisk.com told Agrimoney.com.
While some models were now predicting rain for April 22-23, a series of wrong forecasts meant "people are getting pretty sceptical".
Furthermore, the forecast for northern Europe, where a lack of moisture is raising growing concerns for crops the region's four main grain-producing countries, including France, Germany, Poland and the UK, "still looks pretty dry".
"China is seeing problems too, especially in the north east. There are all sorts of problems all around the world."
'Not looking good'
Wheat for May closed 3.3% higher at E246.00 a tonne in Paris and, at 16:45 GMT, stood 4.5% higher at $7.78 a bushel in Chicago, regaining most of its losses of last week.
In Kansas, where the hard red winter variety of wheat is traded, the May lot added 4.2% to return back over $9, to $9.02 a bushel.
"If we did not have these negative outside market force, we would probably be limit up in wheat," Mike Mawdsley at Iowa-based Market 1 said. In Chicago, the maximum daily rise would take the grain to $8.04 ¼ a bushel.
Meanwhile, forecasts remain wet for major US corn districts, and are expected to land up to five inches of rain on some areas over the next week, hampering the spring sowing campaign.
"It is too early to say we have a problem. But it is not looking good for much of the Corn Belt," Mr Mawdsley said.
However much progress US farmers had made in sowings, which will be revealed later by weekly official US crop progress data, "I do not see it being added to much by next Monday around here", he added.

US downgrade would help stocks, hurt bonds

By DAVE CARPENTER and STAN CHOE

When Standard & Poor's says it might lower its top AAA rating on U.S. government debt, the stock market fell sharply. Traders were worried that if a downgrade happened, it would send interest rates higher. And, in turn, raise companies' borrowing costs.

But short-term investors were driving the markets Monday. For individual investors who are in the market for the long haul, a downgrade might not be as devastating as it seemed at first — especially if their biggest investment is in the stock market.

The downside of a lower U.S. credit rating would be another drop in Treasury prices. And they've already been falling because interest rates are expected to rise as the economy grows. But some analysts say that stock prices would rise over the long term because they'll have better returns than bonds and cash.

"For people who bought bond funds and think they won't lose money -- you're wrong," says Linda Williams, director of fixed income investments for Minneapolis-based private wealth management firm Lowry Hill. "When rates rise, those bond funds will be worth less than what you paid for them."

Stocks, meanwhile, will look more appealing compared to other investments that are losing value.

"The equity market may be the best alternative, and it could improve," says Randy Bateman, chief investment officer of Huntington Funds. He noted that U.S. businesses have strong balance sheets with record amounts of cash — unlike the indebted federal government.

A U.S. downgrade would also likely hurt the dollar's value. That would help stock prices of U.S. exporters, because their products would be cheaper for customers buying in foreign currencies, says Philip Tasho, chief investment officer of TAMRO Capital.

"The federal government's financial position is terrible," Tasho says. "Corporate America's is the best in a generation."

S&P's warning called attention to the fact that investors owning the 10-year Treasury note, or Treasurys with longer maturities, are particularly vulnerable.

"They have to realize that their bond portfolio is not where they want to be taking risk. You need to have a short maturity to protect yourself against a rising interest-rate scenario," says Tom Atteberry, co-manager of the FPA New Income Fund.

Investors shouldn't overreact based on Monday's news, however, cautioned Bill Stone, chief investment strategist for PNC Wealth Management. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone because the government has been taking on billions of dollars in debt since the financial crisis.

"If you had all your money in U.S. Treasurys, I'd say there might be some other places that are more attractive," he says, citing corporate debt and stocks. "But I don't think there's a reason to panic."

The risk that the U.S. government will default on its debt any time soon remains "infinitesimally remote," he says.

Some past downgrades - and threats of them - have had little impact on a country's stock market.
On May 21, 2009, S&P says it was considering a downgrade of Britain's AAA rating. The country's FTSE 100 index sank 5 percent over the next month and a half, but investors quickly shrugged it off. It rose 24.6 percent between May 21 and the end of 2009.

Follow Us