BCE (but also Telus and Rogers)

Just this week our minister Tony Clements announced that the federal government has plans to “liberalize” the telecommunications (and broadcasting ? ) industry in order to create a little more competition. Canadian rates for cell phones and fixed lines are often twice  what they are in other civilized countries ,which difference is not entirely explained by the more challenging expanse of the Canadian territory. More probable , the 3 main companies providing these services, each with a quasi geographic monopoly, have , so far at least, managed to keep their monopoly rents at the expense of the public. Slowly this is changing and , perhaps, the rate of change will accelerate! Under such circumstances BCE would be extremely vulnerable as it is most dependent on fixed lines and is(or was), by far, one of the worst managed companies in Canada, something it could only afford thanks to those same rents. Its attempt to go private at about $41/42 a few years ago became a disaster despite the fact that the company was able to , literally “walk on water” as it negotiated some of the foreign content and other issues with the relevant authorities. Here are the charts;

BCE June 2010 bce june 2010 2

On the left is the long term picture. From an EW perspective a multiyear A-B-C is a reasonable expectation (for a good comparison look at GE , General Electric; the comparison is not that far-fetched as BCE is the widows and orphans stock par excellence , whereas GE is the only stock left standing from the original Dow Jones Index, see below for your convenience)

ge june 2010

Remember that you can enlarge these charts by clicking on them, and then you can put them side by side if you wish. The chart on the right is the short term (3 years) chart. The stock drops pretty well precisely 50% of its value ( mainly due to the failed privatization  attempt which coincided with the second coming of the great depression. Now we have regained 50%  and in the process have closed the gap. However, this being a C wave  and therefore requiring 5 waves, it is not at all clear that we have had 5 waves, in fact  one more down seems very plausible which would fit the big picture handsomely. By the way, a drop to about $15 would still keep the stock above the long-term trendline; all this would do is erase the brief madness between 99 and 01 and, paradoxically return the stock to blue-chip status. Definitely a sell, just in case!

Unemployment in US, according to ShadowStats

unemployment rate in US according to ShadowStats.

This mornings unemployment rate was announced as having dropped 2/10 of a percent and now stands at 9.7% (compared to 8.1% in Canada). However, according to ShadowStats.com the stats are massaged to show a way too flattering result. If, again according to them, the old way of calculating this statistic was used, that is if the longer term unemployed were not simple ignored, the rate would be as high as 22%. The U-6 rate is actually reported and stands at 16.6%. Over and above that the US has the doubtful distinction of having the largest proportion of any civilized country of their citizens behind bars ( hopefully they do not also receive Old Age Security on top of their room and board as they do in Canada). Arguable this also flatters the situation even more. Anyway, with 1/5+ of your population not working it is not clear how this recovery can be self sustaining.

DAX, as a proxy for TSX and S&P

DAX June 4 2010

The question at this point is whether or not we are at the beginning of a tremendous sell-off, wave 3 of C within a multi-year correction or if we still have upside potential first. The action over the past few weeks has been ambiguous as is nearly always the case just to confuse us all. Using the DAX as a proxy I can come up with three basic scenarios, the first (in purple) is bullish as we had a simple a-b-c correction and are now on our way to a new high; this would be valid in either a 3-3-5 flat structure or a 5-3-5 zigzag. I have little confidence in this scenario considering the big picture in which we retraced 62% of the entire down move.

The second possibility (in green) is that we traced a 1-2, (1)-(2), a fairly common occurrence where waves of different degrees sort of merge. This would require a 5-3-5-3 pattern which, with a little imagination may actually have occurred. This is a decidedly bearish situation! It fits the bigger picture to a tee.

The third possible scenario (blue) is that we had a first wave down followed by a a-b-c counter-trend correction.  This scenario is unlikely to be correct as the b-leg is very obviously a 5-wave affaire which it should not be! Apart from that, this too is a bearish scenario as , once complete, we go straight down again. The critical level to watch is about 6200 on the upside and , of course 5600 on the downside.

For the moment, the evidence in this case as well as in the bigger picture points to the most bearish scenario as the correct one. Instead of the DAX, the Can Dollar can also be used and, for that matter also the S&P, see below.

fxc june 2010 S&P June 2010

The S&P, by the way, allows for a fourth interpretation wherein the entire pattern is just one single first wave down followed by a rather pathetic counter trend, again bearish.

PD again

PD June 3

Maybe it is in recovery mode. Some things do not seem to add up. First of all the liability of US companies operating in the States is limited to $75 mln. Sure that will be changed after the fact but at what political cost? Secondly, this company earned 6Bln in the last quarter, so far the costs of this disaster are in the order of 1 Bln. It is not clear that the company is with its back to the wall as, no doubt, this will take 20+ years to sort out. Anybody who tried to short Philip Morris after the tobacco costs were levied and the mainstream thought was that they would face extinction soon, will tell you that that was not a good idea.

   Interestingly there is a little history worth recounting as it was so Canadian. When the company did a fairly large public offering back in 1987 the likes of Wood Gundy and, to a slightly lesser extend, Dominion Securities, were so confident that the “bought deal” was the way to go after Gordon Capital pioneered the concept in 1982, that Wood Gundy was essentially bankrupt and DS was not far behind when then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher refused to listen to pathetic pleas to pull the issue . The deal between WG and First of Chicago fell through and in pure desperation WG accepted the somewhat reluctant embraces of CIBC with a little help of Brascan. DS, of course caved in to the Royal after having just recently tried to solve their succession problems ,endemic to every partnership, by going public. For Canada this effectively ended the four pillar system whereby banking, trust services, insurance and underwriting were strictly compartmentalized , as under Glass-Steagal in the US.Today both these investment dealers arguable run their parent banks which definitely is food for thought.