You can't grow your economy if you can't grow the revenues

Here is a great summary from Lynn Lewis at Scotia McLeod. You can reach Lynn at: [lynn_lewis "at" scotiamcleod.com]

North American markets have continued to trade in a very tight range this week as we have heard good news and bad news stories. Following some proclamations last week that the recessions for Canada and the U.S. are supposedly over, markets rocketed higher on the expectation that economic growth is going to be strong and sustainable for the rest of 2009.

The TSX Index is getting closer to its recent high from June 10, while U.S. indices have broken through their recent highs since the market downturn last fall. The calls for the end of the recession are based on the technical definition of a recession in that some economists are predicting marginal if not breakeven growth for Canada and the U.S. in Q3; but those economists are also adding the caveat that while growth may return, the recovery will be difficult as unemployment is expected to rise further, home prices may continue to struggle in the U.S. and you'll still have a financial system that is on government assisted life support for some time.

Lynn says, "I add these caveats as they are a warning to us as investors not to get too carried away with how high we take the markets since this is not just an economic downturn we've witnessed, but a financially structural problem that is going to take years to fix."

This does not mean that markets can't appreciate over the next year or so, but it does mean that we should not see the magnitude of appreciation we've witnessed in previous recoveries when the economy expanded but the financial system was in much better condition.

We also saw the U.S. Case-Shiller Home Price Index report for May where a year over year decline of 17.06% was registered. This was better than the 17.9% decline that economists were forecasting, but let me be clear while this number is improving, it is still awful. All in all we are still cautiously optimistic.
General Commentary from Gareth Watson, CFA
An almost US$4.00 per barrel decline in the price of crude oil on Wednesday sent the TSX lower by 115 points or about 1%. The weakness was not contained just to energy but to other commodity prices as rumours continue to come out of China indicating that the Chinese government may be changing loan policy in an attempt to slow the pace of economic growth in an attempt to avoid any type of asset pricing bubbles in the near term.

Since China has basically been the place where everyone is pointing to for growth, any indication of lending restrictions or signs of reduced lending is definitely going to make investors think twice about piling into economically sensitive areas of the market such as oil, gas and base metals. The Energy subsector was easily the weakest on Wednesday followed by Materials and then Financials (even though some Canadian banks finished higher).

In fact only three sectors managed to post gains including Industrials, Consumer Discretionary and Consumer Staples. Wednesday was the second day of triple digit losses for the TSX as investors are realizing that valuations may be too optimistic at this stage of the economic cycle. Today is an exceptionally busy day for corporate earnings in both Canada and the U.S. We've had some companies already report in the U.S. this morning and we continue to see the recent trend of beating on the earnings line but missing on the revenue line which means we can't be too excited about these results as it would appear as though the earnings are being driven more by cost cutting than by revenue growth.

There definitely have been some companies that have beaten expectations on both lines, but there are others do exist where cost cutting appears to have been the theme for the quarter. You can't grow your economy if you can't grow the revenues.

Selling your business

If gaining access to funding is the biggest initial stumbling block for small businesses, managing growth is certainly the most significant second-stage challenge.
Countless businesses, in spite of showing early promise have failed for one of many growth-related reasons, from lack of cash flow and skills to poor management expertise or insufficient infrastructure. But perhaps the biggest culprit is an unwillingness or inability on the part of the business owner to relinquish the iron-fist control that they grew used to exercising (and which was essential) when the business was growing.
Unable to spread themselves across all areas of the business but unwilling to delegate tasks to others, such entrepreneurs doom their businesses to failure. Either that, or they end up selling to someone who can run a growing operation.

Bay Street Broads Club

I admire the CEO of 85 Broads, Janet Hanson and was delighted when one of my brilliant team members, Winnie Chou, sent me this article on Janet.
Her comments on putting family and relationships at the same level as their career would have been chum to the sharks backin the Ninties. I am so glad to see someone being honest about how family and love are important. As Janet puts it, "She did not want to be someone's rich aunt." It shows that the choices for women can be managed because Janet is her daughter's rich mum! Shows that it can be OK to seek happiness.
Janet's a Columbia MBA, the first woman in Goldman Sachs' history promoted to sales management, founder of a $3B asset management fund, a published author, philanthropist, mother and more.
You can also read Janet's Q&A in full on The Doostang Blog.
Here's a quick summary:

Tell us about 85 Broads and why you started it. I set out to solve a problem.
When I left Goldman Sachs in 1993, I was leaving the world I had known and loved for 14 years to stay at home with my two young children. I wanted to know what the markets were doing, I wanted to be “in the game” but instead I was at home wishing I wasn’t. I founded 85 Broads (which is a humorous play on Goldman’s street address in Manhattan) to re-establish a connection between women who were “alumnae” of the firm with women who were still in the building. You have had a very successful career in finance.

Can you elaborate on your decision to go into that field, and give us perspective on that choice?
I won the career lottery after I graduated from Columbia Business School at the age of 24 – I became an associate in the Fixed Income Division at Goldman Sachs. It was just an amazing time to be at the firm. Being in Fixed Income Sales played to my competitive strengths – I thrived because I was challenged every single day to push myself. It was incredibly hard work but it was also incredibly rewarding. The 2-year investment banking stint as we know it isn't a pervasive option for top grads today. What advice do you have for members who are facing this tumultuous job market early in their careers? My best advice: be willing to really push yourself – whether you’re doing a 2-year stint with Teach For America or 2 years as a banking analyst, this is how young people can truly differentiate themselves. If you can figure out how to live and breathe the company’s “mission,” you will earn the respect of the people who hired you and invested in you. And lastly, when you’re young, if you do nothing else, figure out how to leverage your college alumni network. That is the single best resource you have and it’s free. Like you, many of our members have elected to further their education with an MBA.

Women have made strides in business thanks to trailblazers like you. What advice would you give to the high-achieving women on Doostang who hold career success as a core value?
We have a favorite expression: “read the ending first.” Being driven in your career is great as long as you have your eye on what else will be critical to your happiness 5 or 10 years down the road. I left Goldman Sachs when I was 35 because I had no social life whatsoever. I was on track to be made a partner within a year or two. I left the firm just as my career was going into high gear so that I could concentrate on how to be in a successful relationship as well as have a successful career. Five months after I left, I came back to Goldman in a part-time job in Personnel. My friends thought I was absolutely insane. But less than a year later, I married Jeff Hanson, who I worked with in Personnel. Even though he wasn’t a “big hitter” by Goldman standards, he was brilliant and fun and we built an amazing life together. I left Goldman Sachs because I didn’t want to just be someone’s rich aunt,! I wanted to have a family AND a successful career. My approach was a bit unconventional but it worked – Meredith and Chris Hanson are the loves of my life. They are the reason I’m still happily “in the game.” Bottom line, I had the guts to know that to be happy I needed a successful career AND a great family. That is not work/life balance. That is work/life optimization.

What are some common mistakes you've observed in interacting with top grads just starting out, as well as the hiring managers who recruit them?
It is critical to figure out how to relate to young people – the smartest thing a hiring manager can do is solicit candid feedback from the young people they hire. These kids are absolutely whip smart. They are the best educated, best traveled generation ever. And they learn fast so it’s imperative for managers to keep them intellectually engaged and motivated. That is their single biggest challenge.

In a recent interview for the Huffington Post, you talk about "reading the ending first" in job search. What does this mean for our members who are actively looking for new opportunities?
It means acquire real skills which will make you eminently more qualified. If I was a young person today I would want to have killer computer skills so that I could analyze data and information better and faster. That doesn’t mean you have to be a programmer. It means knowing how to use technology to your greatest advantage. Anyone over 40 years old is probably not that familiar with how to use SEO or the newest social media tools which could give their companies or organizations a real competitive advantage. Young people, if they’re smart, will use this “edge” to make themselves invaluable in any career path. Older people are at a severe disadvantage which young people can exploit (in a nice way). That is a co-mentoring opportunity if there ever was one.

What does career management mean to you?
I will always be grateful to Nancy Reagan. When she was First Lady, she was asked by the press how she would tell young people to steer clear of drugs. Her answer: “just say no.” She was derided in the press for that rather simplistic response but guess what – saying “no” is actually one of the most important skills you need to master in order to have any semblance of happiness – particularly as you get older and are likely juggling career and family responsibilities. Jeff and I launched Milestone Capital so we could spend more time with our kids and have complete control of our own destiny. We worked like absolute dogs but we never looked back. In 2004, I left Milestone and went to work for Lehman Brothers to hedge our downside risk if our business started to falter. But as everyone knows, stuff happens. That and there are no guarantees in life. If I had to do it all over again, I would have banked! a lot more of my income from Goldman which would have given me many more options down the road.

To read more:

But You Knew This Already...

Here's a great Global Recession Chart from Moody's Economy.
Check out Nigeria - it's all that oil helping things? Is our Canadian government being too quick to say things are turning around?

Inflation beaters - Canada rocks

A reality is that politicians are seldom courageous enough to run on a platform of raising taxes to reduce deficits and pay down debt ─ and almost certainly not now.
Much easier to pay lip service to debt and deficit reduction at a price of inflated money supplies and tolerable inflation; in other words, to monetize the debt. However, the risk in this approach is of inflation getting out of hand, and in the extreme becoming hyper-inflation.
In historical terms the catastrophic collapse of Weimar Germany wasn’t all that long ago. Earlier this year, Zimbabwe, another hyper-inflated country, got to printing bank notes in denominations of up to one hundred trillion dollars, worth about US $30 at the time.

(As a side note, when I left Zimbabwe thirty years ago, I got two US dollars for every Zim dollar - Jacoline Loewen).

Imagine how China would feel if it’s estimated $2 trillion worth of U.S. Treasury bonds (purchased to help the U.S. fund its massive trade deficits) were redeemed in a currency debased anything like this. If there is one thing we should have come to realize it is that the Chinese are no pushovers.
Of course, something this extreme couldn’t conceivably happen. Nor should it, given the U.S. economy’s famed entrepreneurial drive and its enviable record of adjusting to new economic circumstances and growing afresh. Warren Buffett is one who believes America’s best days could yet lie ahead now that it is confronting its challenges “with knowledge”. I especially liked his latter reference, also having long learned never to sell an irrepressible America too short.
A much more palatable, middle-of-the-road option for debt and deficit-strapped governments would be to boost the productive capability of their economies. If inflation is defined as too much money chasing too few goods and services, and economies everywhere are awash with stimulus and deficit money, why not raise the output of goods and services to balance the two better. This way there would also be a cap on prices – and on inflation. The way to achieve this better balance? Encourage cost-saving, productivity-enhancing investment in new plant, equipment, systems, infrastructure – in everything!
In his admirable work, John Aitkens, investment strategist at TD Newcrest, sees a half-speed economic recovery accompanied by a full-speed boost in productivity. He reminds that when this happens the bottom-line impact on corporate profits can be tremendous.
Clearly, the greater the debt and deficit burdens, the greater the inflation threat. The IMF debt-to-GDP danger benchmark is 60%. In Britain and Japan this ratio is already at or close to 100%, in the US approaching 80%. In Canada by comparison it should remain in the low 30% range even allowing for the increased deficit-funding debt issues to come.
Unlike most other G8 and OECD members, Canada did save for a rainy day by using that string of past budget surpluses to pay our national debt a long way down. Not too many years ago we too had exceeded that dangerous 60% high water marker, but no longer.

Thank you, Paul Martin!
Canada’s continuing relative fiscal strength cannot be over-emphasized. Where a U.S. budget deficit of $ 2 trillion would be 13% of GDP, Canada’s at $50 billion will be closer to 3%. The same with the respective national debt burdens - theirs 80%, ours 35%. For this reason alone a resurgent Canadian dollar represents a problem of strength (not of weakness), despite the shorter-term pressures it is putting on our manufacturers and exporters.