Print this

Email this

Submit a Question

KAREN GIBBS: So where to from here? Brian Belski, market strategist for U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray in Minneapolis, was the only strategist on Wall Street to forecast a first half recovery. And while bullish longer term, he's keeping his fingers crossed for the time being. Phil Dow, Director of Equity Strategy at RBC Dain Rauscher, says don't be cavalier. This rally has legs from both a historical and psychological perspective. Gentlemen, welcome. Phil, let me start with you. Explain the historical and psychological perspective supporting this rally.

PHIL DOW: Well, the thing you first have to realize is economic recoveries are always doubted until they're absolutely obvious to everybody, so surprise plays a role. If you look back historically to 1926, the S&P has had 14 recoveries. The average first year has been up about 28 percent. We've had about 14 of that so far on a total return basis. So by historical standards it could go further. Also these recoveries tend to last for several years, in excess of three years in terms of the S&P, and provide double digit returns. So the history is pretty strong that if this is the real thing, it's going to be more than we've seen up to now.

GIBBS: Brian, what's your take on this?

BRIAN BELSKI: I agree with Phil and his assessment because it's hard to doubt history. However, the past really is never indicative of it exactly is going to happen in the future. I think one of the major problems with the stock market and the economy in particular, we've had this disconnect for the last two or three years. And it now seems finally that we're starting to be reconnected. The only issue with looking at economic data is that it's lagging. It's what's happened. And we tend to look more at what's happening now in terms of the earnings and what the forward outlook is. And the forward outlook is pretty good, but the question that we have is, how is that very bullish forward outlook going to be met if we're not seeing the implicit fundamentals underneath? Meaning the type of sales growth and margin expansions we think companies need to show to actually meet the very bullish forward expectations that analysts are modeling.

GIBBS: Brian, investors are cheering the fact that the second quarter earnings are coming in better than expected. Am I missing something here?

BELSKI: You are missing a little bit because, number one, they are coming in better than expected. There's two major points, though. Number one, they're coming in about at the same pace as they were in the first quarter. Number two, there's more companies this time around actually meeting expectations relative to the first quarter. And then number three, technology in particular is a troublesome area because, number one, they're not meeting expectations or beating expectations at the same rate as they were in the first quarter. And number two, earnings revisions in the technology sector have begun to slow on an absolute, but more importantly, on a relative basis compared to the market.

So what does earnings revision mean? Well, technology companies revisions are not being revised up in terms of their earnings relative to what we're seeing in the market, but more importantly from what we're seeing from other cyclical areas like industrials and materials, and that's a very important case if we are indeed going to see an earnings recovery of the cyclical nature.

GIBBS: Phil, talk to me about the outlook here in terms of business spending. A lot of people have said that the gains that we've seen in earnings are due to either cost cutting or productivity. Will we see any pickup in business spending?

DOW: You're going to have to see a return of business confidence. That's been a real big problem. And increasingly you're seeing businesses begin to spend. Only yesterday Microsoft pointed out that they're going to be hiring some more people, adding to R&D. I think it's going to be that kind of anecdotal evidence. Plus I think hidden in the second quarter numbers, I mean there were no terrible catastrophes.

Secondly, guidance hasn't come down. I mean basically guidance is up for the third quarter and even more for the fourth quarter. So there is some risk those numbers might not be met, but to me, the economics are unfolding. And I think you have to anticipate these things. If the numbers do come in good, the market will have moved. So I think anticipating positive outcomes is what I'm trying to do right now.

GIBBS: Brian, you're on record saying that the S&P would hit 1,000 or 1,050, and we're pretty much at the top of that trading range. Where's the bottom, and do you see us retesting the bottom of the trading range?

BELSKI: Well, I think the original bottom of the range, Karen, was around 750, and I think a lot of the technicians would like to see some sort of a higher low in here, as we would. Of course we look at earnings and valuation, so we don't really try to look at support levels, so to speak. But I think you could easily see some sort of an 8 or 10 percent correction from these levels that would afford investors a better risk/reward ratio over the next two or three months.

Now clearly we're not trying to be market timers. We deal with institutions that swing trades around and swing positions around pretty aggressively. And from what we're seeing on the institutional side is people are, I think, becoming a little bit leery, especially considering the type of gains that we've seen. Now bear in mind, we've come out of a very negative three-year period with very negative performance. I deal with portfolio managers that are trying to recoup some of their track record, and part of that recouping is taking profits and rebuilding their track record. So I think a trend like that could very well take place over the next month or two.

GIBBS: Phil, what about that? Is there a difference in the way individual investors look at the market versus institutions?

DOW: Well, I serve individual investors, and the individual investor is only beginning to look at his or her statement again in the last couple of months. But really I don't attempt to try to call the next 10 percent downside or upside. I'm trying to position our clients and their retirement money for the longer term. And my guess is that over the next several years the return for stocks is going to be better than any other financial asset. So it's trying to find those opportunities right now.

GIBBS: Phil, you've looked at some opportunities, particularly in the cable sector. Cable index up over 21 percent year to date. What do you like in the cable arena?

DOW: Well, the first thing I like is that it's an industry where there's pricing power in a world where there isn't much in the way of pricing power. I always tend to go with the leaders, and the leading operator in this space is Comcast, and they've got a great operating record. As you know, they bought the cable assets from American Telephone. Their margins in that business are close to double Telephone's margin. So if they just operate there effectively, you're going to see tremendous cash flow and earnings growth over the next several years.

GIBBS: How about healthcare providers? That index, Phil, is also up over 15% year to date.

DOW: Right. We like the healthcare companies. By and large there are opportunities in some of the leaders. A company like Pfizer would be one, which I know a lot of your guests like the stock, but ...

GIBBS: They also just reported an incredible loss on that expensive acquisition of Pharmacia.

DOW: Right. You would expect something like that in a major acquisition. But the product traction is good. Most companies would be happy with one billion-dollar drug; they've got 10. An enlightened dividend policy I think keeps shareholders optimistic and encouraged. This company has increased the dividend 140% the last five years. I would guess they're going to do that in the future. And it's one that's gotten no respect. The stock really hasn't done much the last three years. My guess is it probably trades 10 points too cheap to its real true franchise value.

GIBBS: Brian, what do you think about the healthcare industry?

BELSKI: Well, we like healthcare a lot. In fact, we've been overweight healthcare for the last several months. Amgen's been on our list for well over a year. Here's a stock that bottomed out on a price to sales ratio under one around a year ago when everybody hated biotechs. Now it's gone on a tear as of late. Longer term, we think the growth rate of the company is very strong. The company came out and beat earnings this week. It's a franchise-type stock. Phil talked about liking franchise names. I'm in a similar boat there. We like franchise names in healthcare like Medtronic, too, a company that's on an April year end, so it's not involved in the current earnings season. However, this is a traditional 20% earnings grower, another franchise-type player within healthcare.

GIBBS: You mentioned the industrials earlier. Talk to me about sector and give me some names there that look appealing.

BELSKI: Well, I think an environment like this, where once again we are longer term bullish, we do expect stocks to outperform over the next several years. You have to, I think, have more of a barbell strategy. When you're looking at sectors, you have to have some cyclical exposure and steady growth exposure. In terms of earnings, I think you get the steady growth exposure from healthcare, but you get the cyclical growth in terms of turning from negative to positive earnings from the industrials. We upgraded the industrials in April right before they ran, and we put out a stock list actually in January, and that delineated some stocks that actually looked very strong in the industrial sector. One of them would be Dover Corporation, DOV, which came out with earnings this week, exceeded expectations. It's one of those companies that has transitioned over the last quarter or two from negative to positive earnings. The other one would be Illinois Tool Works, the traditional manufacturer of tools, that also reported earnings and came out on the upside. Another one of those traditional cyclical stocks that does very well in times like these.

GIBBS: Phil, rising natural gas prices what companies are poised to benefit from that, and what companies would be hurt?

DOW: Well, first those that will benefit are those, we think the exploration and production companies, the companies that find the resource. We'd use Burlington Resources there. It's a way for individual investors to take advantage of the high prices they've been paying for energy the last couple of years and hedge it. I think the chemical companies could be vulnerable, because natural gas is an important feed stock to those companies.

GIBBS: Brian, is there anything that you would be avoiding?

BELSKI: Well, I think some technology companies have run up here a lot, some of the higher beta tech stocks, that if you screen the market for performance and look at those stocks that are up, triple digits over the last two or three months, that maybe went from very, very low single digits to mid-single digits. I think those are the kind of stocks you have to worry about, especially considering that they are more risky and they're not growing I think at the pace that Wall Street maybe wants them to.

GIBBS: And with interest rates rising, would you avoid the bond sector or financials?

BELSKI: Well, the bond sector actually looks a little bit like it's near term oversold, so we may get a swing back in bonds. I think the issue with financials going forward is that I think you may see a flattening of the yield curve, which we did out of the last recession, where yields kind of flattened, and actually went inverted for awhile in the year 2000, and that really hurt financial stocks. Now remember, over the last three years financials became the number one sector in the S&P for a reason. Why? Because we had a steepening of the yield curve and lower interest rates. So I think financials could have some issues over the next 12 to 24 months.

GIBBS: Brian, very quickly, do you have any disclaimers or disclosures that you need to give on the stocks that you've mentioned?

BELSKI: No, I don't.

GIBBS: How about you, Phil?

DOW: I own all of them, and we have no banking relationship with any of them.

GIBBS: All right. Gentlemen, thank you very much for joining us.

DOW: Thank you.

BELSKI: Thank you.

Stein, Zacks & Shiller on their own books

GEOFF COLVIN: Well, some people read thrillers on summer vacation. Others read mysteries. But for real life thrills, and mystery, you cannot beat the stock market.

We’ve got three new books for your summer reading list, two of which claim to have solved the mystery of beating the market; the third, an unlikely thriller about conquering the many risks to your financial life.

» Not your standard beach books

Ben Stein is not only a very funny actor in TV and movies, he is also an economist and lawyer, who along with Investment Advisor Phil DeMuth, has written Yes, You Can Time the Market.He joins us from San Francisco.

Mitch Zacks is a portfolio manager at Zacks Investment Management. His new book is Ahead of the Market.

Robert J. Shiller is an economics professor at Yale whose previous book, Irrational Exuberance, called the bull market top. His new book is The New Financial Order. He joins us from New York.

Ben, one of our two other guests, and I’ll reveal which one in a moment, recently wrote this: “The absolute best market timing model anyone has ever developed is very simple. Remain invested at all times.” What do you say to that?

BEN STEIN: Well, I don’t think it’s true. I mean, it would be nice if it were true, because it would simplify things a great deal.

By the way, let me back up and say I don’t believe I have figured out how to conquer the market. What we have done is show that if you buy at all times, that means you buy at some very, very bad times as well at some very good times. And historically if you buy when certain metrics show that the market is cheap, like price to earnings, price to dividends, price to sales, price to cash flow, price to book, historically 10, 15, 20 years later, you’ll make a great deal more money than if you simply dollar cost averaged all your way through. There can be short-term rallies and tremendous ones in the meantime. But over long periods of time, for the serious, conservative investor, you will make much more money if you buy when these metrics flash "Buy".

COLVIN: Now you’re disputing one of the bedrock pieces of advice from investment advisors, that you cannot time the market. You hear this all the time.

STEIN: Well, that’s true in terms of short-term market timing. That is 100 percent true. All the data says that short-term market timing does not work, and we 100 percent agree with that.

But the data also show that if you buy when price-to-earnings, price-to-dividends, price-to-sales, price-to-cash flow, and just comparing price to 15-year moving average is low -- when all those metrics are low, you will make more money over long periods of time than if you just dollar cost average. The data is overwhelming.

This says nothing about whether you will get in on a short-term bull or bear market, and it doesn’t say that you shouldn’t buy all the time if you feel like buying all the time. We just say your returns will be higher if you buy when these metrics are lower.

COLVIN: Now if I read your factors correctly, it suggests that you would have told investors basically not to buy stocks in any year since about 1985, missing out on one of the great bull markets.

STEIN: No, that is not true. What it says is, on a yearly basis, you would not have found any years to buy since about the mid-1980s. But there were many months in between, in the following years between 1984 and, say, 1997 when the indicators would have told you to buy. And actually the price-to-book would have told you to buy for quite a long time after that.

But we certainly would have told you not to be in the market on the buy side in ’98, ’99 and early 2000. And our theory is that the conservative investor would rather miss out on a catastrophe than run the chance of making a great deal of money in a sudden, huge bull bubble. I mean we are aiming at the conservative, long-term investor who would be prepared to miss out on some short-term, very large movements in order to avoid large losses to his capital.

COLVIN: I understand. Mitch Zacks, you were the author of the mystery quote. Now, what do you say about this?

MITCH ZACKS: I think that what Ben is basically talking about is long-term mean reversion, with respect to valuation multiples. And there has been a tremendous amount of academic research that says to some extent there may be mean reversion with respect to P/E multiples.

But as soon as you start telling your average investor now is the time to get in the market and now is the time to get out of the market, that strategy is only going to be effective in making commissions and generating commissions and generating revenue for the person’s broker. It’s not going to make the actual investor any better off. The reason is, a lot of these studies suffer from what’s called the look-ahead bias, is that you’re looking at data that isn’t available at the time that you’re making the selection strategy. And you’re also engaging in something called data mining, which is if I look at the market and I come up with 10 strategies to time the market, by random chance one of those 10 strategies is going to deliver market timing results. I then forget about those other nine strategies that I test, and I say, “Oh, look, I have a strategy that can time the market.”

I believe Ben may be on to something in terms of these long-term mean reversions, but for the individual investor, for your average investor, listening to signals of getting into and out of the market is going to put you in the poor house.

COLVIN: Well, although he – to point out in Ben’s defense – he has looked over the past century and tested this out.

STEIN: And with all due respect, we do consider explicitly both of the objections you’ve raised: data mining, and also the look-ahead bias. And we find that the look-ahead bias, even if you corrected for the look-ahead bias, you would find that the results would be changed by an extremely timing amount, and the basic trends are still true. And as to the data mining, I don’t think we’re data mining when we go back to something as basic as buy low and try to buy when the multiples are low. That could hardly be considered data mining.

And we don’t say that we have found some miraculous cure for all stock market problems. We say that if you buy when these metrics say stocks are cheap, over long periods of time you will make more money. That is not short-term market timing. That is basic good sense in terms of buying low. And I believe that almost everyone wants to buy low.

ZACKS: I think Ben and I can both agree that short-term market timing is not such a great idea. And where the question is, is whether looking at these larger metrics, such as price to dividend or price to earnings ratios, when they become low values does that necessarily mean that the market is going to rise over the next three to five years, and there we may have some disagreement.

One of the classic examples is looking at the dividend yield. And people said, “Well, when the price to dividend yield becomes too high, it’s an indication the market is getting overvalued and is going to fall down.” But what’s been happening over the last 50 years is the number of equities that are paying dividends has been dramatically decreasing. So the price-to-dividend yield of the market as a whole has been decreasing while the market has continued to move up and up and up. So if, for instance, in the ‘60s and ‘70s you were looking at a price to dividend yield metric as saying your valuation metric, there was a fundamental change that occurred in the market that would prevent you from actually making money using this…

COLVIN: I understand. And we could pursue this for quite a while, but I want to get Professor Shiller into the act also, who has written a lot about the topics we’re talking about, but they’re really not the subject of his new book. Professor Shiller, a lot of people are familiar with the idea of financial risk, but what you’re talking about in your new book is really something different from what most people are familiar with. What are you talking about?

ROBERT SHILLER: Well, I’m talking about the future and about the ordinary risks that we have. The stock market is actually a rather small component of most people’s incomes and wealth. Your labor income matters more than your stock market investments, and the value of your home matters more. And these are not well protected in today’s economy.

COLVIN: Well, no, they’re not. And the risk of losing those things is something that we sometimes think about, but we don’t often think about what we can do to protect against those risks. That seems to be what you’re writing about.

SHILLER: Well, my book is very different from the other two, which are very interesting. But my book is really a futuristic book about where we’re heading as a society. And I think that finance is a powerful force in our society today and will become much more powerful in the future, and it will affect our daily lives in very important ways.

COLVIN: Yeah, well are there ways that people could protect themselves against the ordinary risks that you’re talking about?

SHILLER: Well, we have a number of ways that’s developed over the century. You buy homeowners insurance for you home, you buy life insurance, you buy disability insurance, and you diversify your portfolio. If you put all those together they help, but they don’t protect you against the changes in the market value of your home or changes in the market value of your career… the whole country.

COLVIN: Is there anything you can do about that?

SHILLER: Well, I think things are changing, and there are new economic institutions that are evolving through time.

I think the Internet and our new information technology has already made important changes in our economy. For example, the online auctions that we now have have really changed the way we buy and sell little things. And I think that that inspiration can be carried forward to really help manage our risks a lot.

There’s a lot of risks that we’re facing in this tumultuous world economy. Risks to our jobs is the most important one to our livelihoods, and we have to work on how to protect them better.

STEIN: This man is a brilliant man. I have been following him for years, and he is making a brilliant point.

And I am reminded of what Bernard Baruch said after World War I -- I was not alive, of course, but I read it -- which is, he said, “How should people respond to the risks of the new world order after World War I?” and he said, “Work and save.”

And the number one way to deal with all these risks is to have substantial savings, and the number two way to deal with these substantial risks is to not lose your savings. And that is why, if I may say so, a very conservative approach to investing, which may miss out on some of the short-term rallies, if it will keep you from being catastrophically wiped out as people were in 2000, is a very useful concept to ponder.

COLVIN: It is for sure. And one of your big points -- and it’s a big point of Warren Buffett and others -- is, the first rule of investing is “Don’t Lose.”

STEIN: And the second rule is “Remember the first rule.”

COLVIN: The second rule is remember the first rule. I want to ask all three of you, are we in a bubble now?

ZACKS: I don’t think that we are in a bubble right now. The forward P/E multiple of the S&P 500 is currently around 19 times forward earnings estimates, and that’s in keeping with what it’s historically been in the later half of the ‘90s, from ’94 onward. We’re within the 15 to 20 multiple range.

COLVIN: Professor Shiller, you wrote the book called Irrational Exuberance. What do you say now?

SHILLER: Yeah. First of all, I think Ben Stein is on track. Even though Mitch was my student and I’m very proud, I think there is a little bit more to market timing than Mitch is willing to give. I think one problem today is that our earnings are not accurately measured. If you take the core earnings that the S&P computes, which are better earnings, the current price/earnings ratio on the S&P is in the 40s, and that’s way above historical. You know, even if it were 19, it would still be high by historical standards.

STEIN: Well, may I say, with all due respect to Mitch Zacks, of whom I am a fan, whose quotes I always read with great respect, the forward-looking earnings multiple is a meaningless number, because nobody knows what earnings are going to be. That’s like saying what the weather forecast is going to be for July 4, 2004.

The present Dow is 29 times earnings. That is an incredibly high multiple. The present S&P multiple, even if we put in all the bad things that Professor Shiller is concerned about, is 32 or 33. That’s very high. The earnings multiple for the Nasdaq Q’s is almost 250. I don’t see how you can call a 250 multiple not a bubble. We certainly have a bubble on the Nasdaq, and it’s very scary that we have another bubble three years after we had the last bubble.

COLVIN: Mitch, what do you say?

ZACKS: I don’t think we’re necessarily in a bubble market. You know, we all got through the bubble market. That experience is looming very, very large in our minds. And from a psychological perspective, our gut reactions, as soon as we see stock prices rising again, to have a knee-jerk reaction and say, “Oh, we’re heading back into the bubble.”

I believe that we learned our lesson the first time around with this, you know, the collapse of these new technology stocks. In terms of whether the P/E multiple should be a trailing 12-month earning multiple or a forward earnings estimate multiple, I still believe that looking at the forward earnings estimates is the way to correctly gauge the valuation of the market.

COLVIN: Well, and actually this gets into the main point of your book, which I want to make sure we talk about, which is essentially that we can pick stocks successfully, and it has to do with paying attention to Wall Street analysts, which seems incredible after all we’ve learned about analysts in the past couple of years. But you mean something very specific.

ZACKS: Yes. I believe that by looking at changes to earnings estimates, analysts’ earnings estimates, by focusing on analysts’ earnings revisions, it’s possible to identify stocks that are more likely to receive estimate revisions in the future.

COLVIN: So, pay no attention to buy, sell, or hold.

ZACKS: Ignore the buy, sell, and hold recommendations. Focus on the earnings estimates, not by one individual analyst, but the earnings estimates made by multiple analysts and how those estimates are changing over time. And that has statistically proven to be a very, very accurate way of predicting stock price movement over the next quarter.

COLVIN: So, buy stocks that have earnings estimates being revised upward; avoid stocks with estimates being revised downward.

ZACKS: At the most basic level, that’s the thesis of the book. You want to be owning stocks where analysts are revising their earnings estimates up and avoiding stocks where analysts are revising their earnings estimates down.

STEIN: Well, Mitch, with all due respect, doesn’t that go into the price in about five minutes, as soon as the revision upward is done? I mean isn’t it by that time a little bit late for the ordinary investor to get in it? And can we go back…

ZACKS: Ben, that’s a very, very good question. There really are two issues here.

One is there’s an immediate price response to an estimate revision. As soon as the estimate revision hits the wire, that’s distributed by us or someone else, there is going to be an immediate price response.

But what most people don’t realize is that the probability of a stock receiving upward estimate revisions is higher when that stock has already received upward estimate revisions. So essentially what we’re doing is we’re focusing on predicting the behavior of the analyst. Stocks that have received upward estimate revisions, I agree with Ben, there’s going to be immediate price response. But what is not incorporated into that price are the future estimate revisions. And what I am saying is that there’s a serial correlation over time between estimate revisions.

STEIN: Well, doesn’t that also go into the price? I mean as soon as your theory is known to be a theory, which accounts for price behavior, will that not automatically move the stock so much that all future estimates are already in the price?

ZACKS: So the question then becomes, “Are people focused enough on analysts’ earnings estimates revisions?” And my response would be that people look at stocks beyond just the narrow focus of looking at earnings estimates. They look at a stock as a company that they’re owning. So it's very, very hard for a large portfolio manager controlling billions of dollars to immediately start buying stocks simply because it’s receiving upward estimate revisions. But what I believe happens is when that stock’s received that upward estimate revision, the portfolio manager begins to buy that over time, and there is a delayed price response estimate revision. But far more important, there is predictive ability. You’re able to predict which stocks are going to receive the estimate revisions.

COLVIN: Right. And we should point out, of course, that your company, Zacks Investment Management, is in the business of tracking precisely these revisions.

ZACKS: Yes. We -- go ahead, Geoff.

COLVIN: Professor Shiller, I wanted to ask you about the bond market, because we hear a lot these days about it perhaps being in a bubble. What’s your view?

SHILLER: Well, I think it may also be a bubble. That’s absolutely right. It especially looked bad on June 13 when the 10-year Treasury fell down to 3.1 percent. Now it’s up to like 3.9 percent. So I think that may have been the peak. Of course you can never predict these things with accuracy. The problem has been that people have been too worried about deflation or too much expecting inflation to be conquered, but I don’t think it’s conquered. And I think people have, the idea that the 10-year rate would be only 3.1 percent is sort of like people saying that interest rates are never going to take off again.

STEIN: Yeah, it’s a mystery. It’s a mystery.

SHILLER: I think that’s, it’s a mystery.

STEIN: It’s a mystery why Mr. Greenspan, who is a wonderful human being and a very, very dear friend, would say that the big problem is deflation when we have a fairly substantial rate of inflation which is ongoing, and when we have a rate of inflation which is considerably higher right now than it was for most of the ‘50s, and yet the big worry is supposedly deflation. We’ve been having deflation in manufactured goods for a very long time, but deflation in service, which is the main component of the CPI, does not seem to be really happening, and why there is so much worry about it is a mystery to me. And it seems to me if you’re looking at bonds, you’ve got to look at inflation-protected bonds or bonds that have some cushion built into the coupon.

ZACKS: I agree with him. I think you should be avoiding bonds at this point. I don’t see interest rates going substantially lower.

COLVIN: We need to wrap this up, I’m afraid. But I want to ask each of you for your concluding piece of advice to investors, starting with Ben.

STEIN: I would say buy when stocks are cheap, which isn’t now, and save as much as you possibly can. The future is extremely dicey. It’s good to have a lot of savings.

COLVIN: Sounds good. Mitch?

ZACKS: I would say buy stocks that are receiving upward earnings estimate revisions and are reporting positive earnings surprises and avoid stocks that are reporting earnings that are missing analyst estimates.

COLVIN: Professor Shiller?

SHILLER: Well, I would say people should avoid concentration in any one investment too much. And I think the stock market is perhaps the riskiest of investments, but there are other risks. The bond market is a risky place and the housing market is a risky place now. So I would say diversify. Don’t put too much in any one thing.

COLVIN: The books are Yes, You Can Time the Market by Ben Stein and Phil DeMuth, Ahead of the Market, by Mitch Zacks, and The New Financial Order, by Robert J. Shiller. Gentlemen, thanks to all of you.