Re: Class-conscious bankers

2003-01-21 Thread Nomiprins
In a message dated 1/18/2003 12:57:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

BANKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

>From a research note circulated in November by Morgan Stanley to its North 
American clients.

At the risk of encouraging the ghost of Joe Hill to come back and haunt us, 
we suspect investors should avoid heavily unionized industries today more 
than usual. From a long-term perspective, unionized areas have not been 
market-leading industries, and today heavily unionized industries stand 
directly in whatever the opposite of the sweet spot is. Consistent with our 
"buy the 800-pound gorillas" theme, nonunionized companies competing in 
heavily unionized arenas probably stand to accrue large relative gains.

What does history suggest about investing in heavily unionized industries? 
Avoid them. While the recent carnage in stock prices and brouhaha over 
excessive options issuance has kept investor focus squarely on the 
incredible shrinking tech sector, folks may be looking in the rearview 
mirror when it comes to where risks lie today. Yesterday's options problems 
in technology may be a lesser evil than tomorrow's pension and health-care 
funding requirements in rust-belt industries. In all kinds of respects we 
are living in a brave new world, but a decidedly old-world 
phenomenon—unions— may weigh on some new-world issues in the year ahead.

Look for the union label . . . and run the other way.


This is not only an anti-union, but also a horribly shallow and erroneous piece of analysis from Morgan Stanley. First, the technology sector, by which I assume they mean telecoms as well, had many more problems than those they refer to as 'options problems' - like debt-bloated business models, lack of balance sheet transparency due to a plethora of mergers, inflated stock evaluations and deliberate fraud.

Aside from that, they are downright wrong about unions and telecoms. Actually, the least unionized companies committed the most fraud and lost the most value in the sector. The most criminal failures were staunchly anti-union. WorldCom was not unionized, Adelphia was barely unionized, and Global Crossing sold much of its unionized component from Frontier to Citizens Communications. The more unionized telecoms like the Bells, though they have other faults, fared dramatically better. Not only that, they did so without firing as high a percentage of workers. 

Nomi


RE: Re: Class-conscious bankers

2003-01-21 Thread Devine, James



Nomi 
writes:
This is not only an anti-union, but also a horribly shallow 
and erroneous piece of analysis from Morgan 
Stanley.

there's a 
whole school of thought that says that unions are good for business ... but that 
argument is a long-term one. These folks don't care about the long-term, since 
they can cut and run: grab those super-profits and run, putting them into a 
diversified portfolio... who cares about the future? 
JD


Class-conscious bankers

2003-01-18 Thread Louis Proyect
(From the February Harper's Magazine)



[Memo]

BANKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

From a research note circulated in November by Morgan Stanley to its North 
American clients.

At the risk of encouraging the ghost of Joe Hill to come back and haunt us, 
we suspect investors should avoid heavily unionized industries today more 
than usual. From a long-term perspective, unionized areas have not been 
market-leading industries, and today heavily unionized industries stand 
directly in whatever the opposite of the sweet spot is. Consistent with our 
buy the 800-pound gorillas theme, nonunionized companies competing in 
heavily unionized arenas probably stand to accrue large relative gains.

What does history suggest about investing in heavily unionized industries? 
Avoid them. While the recent carnage in stock prices and brouhaha over 
excessive options issuance has kept investor focus squarely on the 
incredible shrinking tech sector, folks may be looking in the rearview 
mirror when it comes to where risks lie today. Yesterday's options problems 
in technology may be a lesser evil than tomorrow's pension and health-care 
funding requirements in rust-belt industries. In all kinds of respects we 
are living in a brave new world, but a decidedly old-world 
phenomenon—unions— may weigh on some new-world issues in the year ahead.

Look for the union label . . . and run the other way.


Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org