Michael Kors Holdings Announces Pricing of Its Secondary Public Offering

Remember when secondaries came years after the IPO?

Fun times….

“We received a phone call over the weekend from a close friend and someone who reads our comments religiously. He had a question for us.

He wanted to know if we were still in the secular bear market camp or have we thrown in the towel since the economic news has gotten much better and virtually every index is either at or close to new 52 week highs or are fairly close to all time highs. He explained that it looked to him that the European risk has moderated, the China “collapse” has evaporated, the jobs and housing problems of the U.S. have now clearly turned.

We responded that we are still in the secular bear market camp and, in fact, are surer than ever that we are close to a significant peak in the market. He responded, “Please, explain yourselves.” This is the logic we used.

First of all, we explained that this market (using the S&P 500 index-but DJIA and NASDAQ could also be used) has been in a secular bear market starting in 2000. You have to agree that the market sold at extremely high levels during the dot.com bubble before bursting in 2000 (the NASDAQ was much worse). Starting in 1998, when the market traded at extreme levels, the S&P 500 traded at 920 (with a P/E of 20 -the area of past peaks) before peaking at 1550, with a P/E multiple of 32 times earnings in March of 2000 (NASDAQ traded at 245 times earnings).

Of course, you could go all the way back to 1994 when the S&P sold at 440 but was not at extremely high valuation levels. So, we are talking about a market that was overvalued in 1998 and has never since then traded at levels that could be considered cheap or even inexpensive after trading at extremely high valuation levels at the peak in 2000. So essentially, the stock market has not been considered inexpensive for the past 14 years and we surely expect the stock market to trade at typical bear market trough valuations (7 to 10 P/E) after two major bull market scams (dot.com & housing)….”

Read more

Come on now; buy some garbagio you really feel good not need. It will make you……

Wonder how much of the other side they took over the past month?

Usually the last market to show the cracks….

WTI is up $0.23 @$105.58

Not surprising….

Indeud

“Copper traders extended a bearish streak into a second week on mounting concern that demand is weakening after manufacturing contracted from China to Europe.

Twelve of 29 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg expect the metal to decline next week and seven were neutral. Inventories at bonded warehouses in Shanghai more than doubled since the fourth quarter, a survey of seven traders and analysts showed. Separate stockpiles monitored by the Shanghai Futures Exchange are near the highest in at least nine years, bourse data show. China consumes 40 percent of the world’s copper.

Factory output in Germany and France unexpectedly shrank in March, adding to signs Europe is sliding into recession, and a measure of China’s manufacturing fell to the weakest since November, reports showed yesterday. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao cut the country’s annual growth target to 7.5 percent earlier this month, the lowest since 2004. Europe accounts for about 18 percent of global copper demand, Barclays Capital data show.

“A slowdown in Europe and China is not good for the long- term outlook,” said Jeffrey Sherman, who helps manage about $30 billion of assets for DoubleLine Capital in Los Angeles. “It feels that we could repeat 2011, where we had a good first half and then there was a correction.”

Copper rose 10 percent to $8,379 a ton this year on the London Metal Exchange. Prices were little changed through most of the first six months of 2011 and then plunged 26 percent in the third quarter. The Standard & Poor’s GSCI gauge of 24 commodities climbed 8.5 percent this year and the MSCI All- Country WorldIndex (MXWD) of equities advanced 11 percent. Treasuries lost 1.6 percent, a Bank of America Corp. index (MXWD) shows….”

Read more

As usual over zealous consumer confidence is being touted as economic rebound….

“Portugal’s town halls face default amid 9 billion euros ($12 billion) of debt unless the government provides aid soon, said Fernando Ruas, president of the nation’s association of municipalities.

“At a company we call it insolvency,” Ruas said in a telephone interview from Lisbon on March 21. “It could happen that some town halls could have to restructure their debt if the government doesn’t intervene.”

Ruas blamed a decline in money transfers from the government in Lisbon to municipalities for their growing financial woes. Portugal last year became the third euro-area country to request external aid, following Greece and Ireland. Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho is cutting spending and raising taxes to meet the terms of the 78 billion-euro rescue.

“A sharp decrease in money transfers has made it harder for many town halls to comply with their ongoing commitments,” said Ruas. His association estimates town halls face about 9 billion euros in liabilities. About 1.5 billion euros of the total is in bills to suppliers overdue by more than 90 days while the remainder is mostly made up of debt to banks, he said….”

Read more

Asia

Europe

Futures

Currencies

Commodities

LIBOR, EURIBOR, 10 year yields for Italy, Spain, France, and Germany

They are spinning it as an “accidental drowning” caused by a heart attack, caused by a variety of drugs. They named all the prescription drugs, but failed to mention the large amount of fucking cocaine in her system.

By Dylan Stableford | The Sideshow – 12 hrs ago

Researchers at the Univ. of Pennsylvania say they have identified the scalp chemical that stops hair from growing, and believe it may finally—finally!—lead to the elusive cure for male pattern baldness.

The scientists found that a protein called PDG2 was three times as prevalent on the scalps of balding men. (PDG2-blocking drugs are already being tested by researchers working on alternative treatments for asthma, so they’re hopeful testing for baldness can be expedited.)

The news was met with joy in England, where an estimated 7.4 million men are bald or balding.

“Excitingly,” the Daily Mail reported, “drugs that block the protein have already been developed for other purposes, meaning a hair restoring lotion or potion could be on the market in under five years.”

Read the rest here.

John Nolte

If any sacred cow whines to YouTube and Facebook, whatever that sacred cow is whining about is immediately taken down. 

But a song that openly calls for the killing of Rush Limbaugh apparently doesn’t offend YouTube or Facebook, in the least.

Disgusted by Rush Limbaugh’s recent antics? Blast our song, ‘KILL RUSH’

Just don’t call anyone a “slut.”

Source

Twitter: @alphaconsumer

On the surface, the retail world seems stacked against women: We pay more for many items, from shampoo to razors to dry-cleaning services. But a look into the reasons for this alleged price discrimination reveals legitimate market forces—not sexism—to be at work.

In a provocative article on Marie Claire’s website, “Why Women Pay More,” writer Lea Goldman quite rightly points out that women pay more to dry clean shirts than men do. She also calls out more expensive women’s shampoos and razors and different insurance rates for women. “We lose out in nearly every transaction we make,” Goldman asserts.

Aside from that being a gross overstatement (the vast majority of the transactions we make are gender neutral—when you bought your morning coffee, did the barista make note of your gender?), many of Goldman’s examples can be explained through simple economics, not sexism.

Men’s and women’s shirts, for example, are not created equal. Men’s shirts, because of their flat lines, are far easier to clean, and dry cleaners can use standardized machines to iron them. Women’s shirts are, naturally, curvier, and require a more labor-intensive dry cleaning process. It would hardly be fair to require a dry cleaner to charge the same amount for such different services. (Even the feminist blog Jezebel acknowledged this fact when the story first made the news in 2009.) Goldman calls this price difference “blatant discrimination,” but the facts suggest it is only the market at work.

Goldman’s reporting also reveals the complex system of tariffs the United States has developed over the years. Men’s sneakers are taxed at 8.5 percent; women’s at 10 percent. But the price difference isn’t always biased against women. Men’s gloves are taxed at 14 percent and women’s are taxed at 12.6 percent. Complicated and bureaucratic, yes. Sexist? Only if the tax difference always gave men a better deal for no legitimate reason, which it doesn’t.

Goldman also points out a fact of life that many couples have surely noticed: Women’s self-care products tend to be pricier than men’s. Shampoo, deodorant, and razors marketed to women tend to carry higher price tags than those sold to men. Perhaps women prefer fancier products, or maybe we’re simply willing to pay more for our hygiene routines, but the market clearly supports pricier products for women. But is it really sexist when women also have the choice to simply skip the expensive options and purchase off-brand razors, soap, and shampoo instead? Anyone who’s recently visited a pharmacy knows that women do not suffer from lack of choice in the self-care aisles.

The article also calls attention to the higher rates women pay for health insurance, an area of legitimate concern, as the national birth control debate recently made clear. This topic is too important to be lumped in with complaints about expensive conditioners and $7 dry cleaning charges, which are, after all, luxury expenses anyway. The area of insurance is a complicated one, and women don’t always get the short end of the stick: Auto insurance companies often give young women better deals than young men, and for good reason—they’re safer drivers. Does Goldman also think that’s sexist?

Marie Claire encourages readers to contact their members of Congress to ask them to outlaw this so-called “gender-pricing.” Before you do that, consider the unintended consequences of such laws. If dry cleaners could no longer charge more to clean a shirt that required more labor, how many of those small businesses would go out of business? If women’s shampoo couldn’t cost more than men’s shampoo, which popular yet pricey products would be forced off the market? (Goodbye, Kerastase.)

There’s plenty of discrimination and abuse against women in the world to get angry about and to fight. Paying more for expensive dry cleaning and shampoo is not one of them.

Source