Economists have been busy lately, revising earnings estimates and projections of growth for 2002. Gross domestic product, GDP, the broadest measure of the economy�s health, grew at an annual rate of 1.7% in the last quarter of the year. That was the best growth return of the entire year.

These latest GDP reports reinforce the view that the recession that began last March has ended and turned out to be one of the mildest recessions of record. We are starting to look at the recovery of the economy. While I would prefer a more stable, steady annual growth rate of 3%, some local economists are now predicting between 4 and 6% for the coming year. We have already seen manufacturing begin production again as inventories have been sold off.

Consumer spending, which accounts for 2/3 of all economic activity in the US, continued its pace and grew at a rate of over 6%. The consumer never stopped spending during the recession and perhaps was the reason why the downturn was mild.

My educational message today is on price-to-earnings (PE) ratios

At the top of the market two years ago, many stock commentators were saying that the PE ratios of the stocks were too high and the market should be avoided. Some are now saying that PE ratios are too high and the market should be avoided. How can they be saying the same thing when the market is at two very different levels?

The PE ratio is the price of the stock divided by the earnings of the stock. If XYZ Company is selling at 50 per share and the earnings are estimated to be $2.00 per share, the PE ratio is 25. A PE ratio of 25 is historically on the high side for economists. Now let�s assume the market is advancing and XYZ company has risen in value to $75 per share in anticipation of future growth and earnings improving. Now the PE ratio is 75/$2 =37.5 Many of the growth technology companies had PE ratios of 50 or 100 during the first quarter of 2000. If the market has corrected and the prices have fallen, how can economists again say that PE ratios are high?

When the economy began to falter, sales began to slow and companies were not projected to be earning the profits they were capable of during the previous year. Earnings of the companies were revised downward, reflecting the more realistic view of depressed sales. Lets go back to XYZ company with the share price of $50 with a revised estimate of earnings to be $1.00 per share, instead of $2.00 and now the PE ratio is 50/1= 50. Again, this may appear the PE ratio that is too high. Think about the ratios of the stocks in l930, the year after the great depression, a period in time that had the highest PE ratios. Most of the companies did not have earnings (or they were a negative number) so the stock prices divided by fractional earnings would again give very high PE ratios.

Where are we now? I believe we have a market with many stocks near their 52-week lows. I also see earnings on companies beginning to improve and analysts are beginning to revise their earnings estimates upward as sales are beginning to improve in many sectors of the economy. This means the security prices will begin to rise and earnings will also rise, thus bringing the PE ratios back in line. So, do not be confused when you hear or read that PE ratios are to high and the market is still overvalued. Most people only focus on the price of the security when making that statement forgetting those low earnings could be the culprit.

The area that concerns me is the continued unrest in the Middle East. As the hopes of peace in that area look more remote, the cost of crude oil is climbing. As the cost of oil increases, it will have a trickle down effect on transportation and fuel costs. We are already seeing higher gas prices and I hope this does not stall the recovery. The leisure sector is then impacted, as it will cost more to fly or drive to your vacation destination. The economic impact is always secondary and minor compared to the escalating loss of lives. Pray for peace.

State of California Tax Update

California still has not conformed to the new Federal tax law changes passed last fall but some progress has been made. The California Senate passed S.B. 657 that would conform state law to the 2001 Federal law. The California Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee has also approved another nearly identical conformity measure, A.B. 1122. Hopefully the two houses will be able to agree on one of the bills or some combination of the two. This has the most direct bearing on the IRA contributions for 2002 where Federal law permits $3000 and California allows $2000. We will keep you updated on this.

�Opportunities come to those who set out to meet them�

As always, we look forward to keeping in touch with our clients. Please keep us updated with changes in your goals, lives and financial situations.



Sandra C. Field, CSA, MBA, CFP