WESCO International, Inc.'s (WCC) fourth-quarter 2016 adjusted earnings per share (EPS) of 96 cents beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate by 2.1% or 2 cents.
KLA-Tencor Corporation (KLAC) reported second-quarter fiscal 2017 earnings of $1.52 a share, topping the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.41. Earnings were up a massive 46.2% from the year-ago quarter.
Top Analyst Reports for Gilead Sciences, Las Vegas Sands & Illinois Tool Works
Last week, #Maddog was a top trending hashtag during General Mattis' (ret.) Senate confirmation hearing for Defense Secretary. While this nickname may be ideal for social media discourse, it's completely inadequate to describe what James Mattis and other military leaders have experienced over the course of the last two decades. Incoming Secretary Mattis is a strategic thinker who understands how US strength is a cooperative endeavor. Today's military readiness, in fact, requires it. As we move through the rubble of campaign rhetoric into a new administration, the best way to support our own disrupted democracy will be to understand today's security threats and the individuals who are in charge of protecting us. Always look beyond hashtags. Remember, General Mattis served during a pivotal time of transition at the end of the Cold War, when old notions of strength changed dramatically. From the end of World War II until 1991, strong militarily states were the threat. Our Cold War policy of deterrence relied on mutually assured nuclear destruction. In those days, security risks looked linear, technological and even predictable--a Soviet Army on the border of East Germany. In contrast, today's security risks look chaotic, human and even random--a teenager in Minneapolis targeted online, cultivated by peers and recruited by ISIS. Today, weak and collapsed states pose dangers that can't be solved using the methods of the last century. It used to be that military power was measured through the application of force. But in the modern world, deadly force is often counter productive. Fixating on it as the sole solution will make our problems worse. After all, to an ISIS fighter, "I'm going to kill you" isn't a deterrent, it's an incentive. Today's defense strategy must recognize that the definition of modern power includes the ability to influence positive change. Incoming Secretary Mattis knows this. His active duty experience happened during the globalization of national security: Terrorism, malevolent ideology, state corruption, cyber attacks, disruptive climate, human migration, contagious disease, nuclear material proliferation. These are mutual threats and powerful countries know that they must be addressed collaboratively by helping willing partners build inclusive governing systems. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is the world's most successful military alliance partly because it supports these activities. Secretary Mattis wants to focus on building a strong military to fight and win our nation's wars. That's a fine goal, but to truly achieve a modern security strategy, we must fully embrace non military methods of prevention as the necessary foundation of the larger objective. If we don't, the military will continue to be dragged out of its remit and into crisis management. Promoting social cohesion and local resilience are the goals of prevention. Socially cohesive societies work for the well being of all their members. Resilience is the ability to navigate successfully through disruption and change. These are usually tasks for people in normal clothes, not uniforms. In order to focus clearly on prevention, we'll need a more precise division of labor in our national security. To stress this point, here is a list of what military leaders and other policy types have called the modern battlespace since 1991. (I derived this list from my time spent working on Capitol Hill 97-06) These imprecise labels describe situations where violence lurks everywhere and the lines between civilian and military are blurred. No matter what we call it, these terms describe a military coping with an overwhelming set of global responsibilities. Nearly all of them imply helping or creating space for competent and trustworthy governments i.e. ones that can build social cohesion and resilience: Military Missions Other than War (MMOTW) Cooperative Threat Reduction Peacekeeping Peace and Stability Operations Peace Enforcement Four Block War Nation building Mass Atrocity Response Operation Fourth Generation Warfare Asymmetric Warfare Civilian Security Population security Stability and Support Operations Complex Contingency Operations Expeditionary Operations Formative Engagement Preventive Defense Unconventional Warfare Shaping Stability Phase Zero Hybrid Warfare Counterinsurgency Global Convergence Irregular Warfare post Conflict Reconstruction Persistent Conflict Low Intensity Conflict Gray Zone Feral Cities Countering Violent Extremism "CVE" Murky, urgent and potentially violent situations are not going away. Barring a comprehensive push for prevention, the blurred lines in our strategy will continue to cause policymakers to default to the military. The coming years are going to present us with a whole menu of threats caused by grievance and despair. The goal of ISIS and other violent extremist groups is to manage chaos where it exists and create chaos where it does not exist. The goal of Russia, it seems, is to degrade and destabilize democratic systems. Other chaos creating trends--refugee flows, climate disruption, disease--continue. The only way we can truly get in front of these threats is through a comprehensive focus on prevention. A primary driver of violent extremism is predatory governing. We should be seeking and supporting alternative structures to contain and share power. It doesn't have to be called "democracy," but our strategy does have to be local, legitimate and atuned to emerging opportunities for cooperation. It for sure shouldn't use the word "counter" as that signals use of force and will limit participation. US troops were recently stationed in Poland. Russia's actions against democracy is putting our best chances at successful, modern government at risk. American troops are fighting ISIS in the region of Northern Iraq. Our military has a considerable set of ongoing responsibilities. For this reason, we must double down on non-military methods of prevention, not back away from them. Our goal should be to help countries out-govern the extremists in their midst. This is not a job for the use of force, or even just for the US government. It will require the private and public sectors, humanitarians and diplomats, students and citizens. It will require even more cooperation and support among our allies. Only a concerted surge can spur an upward virtuous cycle of life chances for more people. Most important, it will mean that the new administration and Congress must fully fund our civilian agencies--the diplomats at the State Department and our experts at the US Agency for International Development. "Maddog" Mattis is a military man through and through. But he fully understands that the challenges we face will require supportive teamwork beyond the military. Look beyond individual personalities and understand that our government is made up of many experienced and principled leaders that deserve your support. If you still believe in America, help our governing institutions work. Incoming Secretary Mattis can uniquely make the case for a modern national security strategy--one that insists on prevention-- to all of our political leaders. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Linear Technology Corp. (LLTC) reported second-quarter fiscal 2017 earnings of 54 cents, which exceeded the Zacks Consensus Estimate by a penny. Earnings increased 1.60% sequentially and 8.8% year over year.
* Linear Technology reports sequential increases in revenue, net income, and earnings per share. The company increases the quarterly dividend $0.01 to $0.33 per share
The last two posts were essentially about picking a value-stock portfolio and managing the risk. And they were lessons that I thought I could implement. This is stuff I find harder. So I am looking for your input.--This is the portfolio of a fairly well known value investor in March 2008. I have taken the name off simply because it doesn't help but there was roughly $4 billion invested this way.To put it mildly this portfolio was very difficult over the next twelve months. Sector allocation Positions Banks - Europe 24% Fortis, ING, Lloyds, RBS Banks - Japan 14% Millea, MUFJ, Mizuho, Nomura Banks - USA 8% Bank of America, JP Morgan Technology - PC & Software 18% Linear Technology, Maxim Integrated products, Oracle Semiconductor equipment 14% Applied Materials, KLA Tenecor, Novellus Systems Beer 20% Asahi, Budweiser, Group Mondelo, Heinekin, InBev Media 15% Comcast, News Corp, Nippon Television Other 14% eBay, Home Depot, Lifetime Fitness, William Hill Net effective exposure 127% Shorts -16% Net exposure 111% Cash -11% The PE ratios mostly looked reasonable and all of these positions could be found in quantity in the portfolios of other good investors. Its just the combination turned out more difficult than average.Your job however is to risk-assess the portfolio.Even with the considerable benefit of hindsight how would you analyse this portfolio?What would you say as risk manager that made the portfolio manager aware of what risks he was taking?What would you say if you were a third party analyst trying to assess this manager?What is the tell?Remember the portfolio manager here has a really good record and the "aura" around them. They are smarter than you.And yet with the restrospectascope up there is stuff that is truly bad.They had four European banks making up a quarter of the value of the portfolio. Most European banks went through the crisis hurt but not permanently crippled. Permanently crippled came later with the Euro crisis.The four European banks here (Lloyds, RBS, Fortis, ING) however received capital injections so large that they were effectively nationalised. If you had thrown darts at European banks it might have taken hundreds of rounds to pick four that bad... They could not have been picked this bad by chance - they had to have systematic errors here.There is something really wonky about this portfolio - and it is not by chance - so there was something faulty about the way the portfolio was constructed.JohnPS. It is fair to say some of the portfolio (News Corp for example) was awful in the crisis and came back stronger than ever. And some that I would have thought ex-ante high risk (such as the semi-conductor capital equipment makers) turned out okay - having "ordinary" draw downs in the crisis and recovering them since.PPS. I kept the document this came from because at the time I thought the portfolio was absurd and would end in tears. But some of my thoughts then were wrong too - especially re the semiconductor capital equipment stocks.