I usually favour the longest possible historical series so sympathise with your 20th century perspective. The chart which shows an average ratio of 54 is 'confined' to 35 years primarily because, earlier than that, governments had prevented the gold price from fluctuating while the silver price was freer to move.
Theoretically, a handful of superannuation funds will eventually own all the stock in the ASX 200 at current rates of growth. The Australian superannuation arrangements are structurally unsound. The upshot is ASX 200 stocks ending up in an asset bubble or Australia's household savings being forced offshore. Neither is without its policy problems.
Company management pitched itself as having a superior skill base and in doing so created expectations of near perfection. The Vietnam drill results were not bad. They were not perfect. A more strongly capitalised company could brush it off and keep going. Neon needed a perfect outcome to succeed. Moral: the chance of a company outperforming if it has already produced returns among the top 3-5% in the sector is low.
The official statistics do not get revised like the HSBC ones. In this instance, I am prepared to accept that the official numbers are better quality than the bank numbers because the latter are designed for speed (and profile for the bank). Chinese new year, weather, smog are all influnces in the short term but take a step back and the numbers have been consistently showing very little postive momentum. You get the same message from whichever angle the data are viewed.
Kazakhstan supplies c.40%. See my wire today on stocks.
On There has been good news from Japan but bad news from Kazakhstan for the uranium industry this month -
You are right but it would only take ASX/ASIC to tackle one or two cases to cause a change because companies are taking advice from professonals on what they can get away with. Consequently, I am happy to take the opportunity, when it arises, to refer to ASX as running a seedy backstreet Moroccan bazaar to goad it into action.
I have not read these studies but the conclusion referred to would be consistent with comments by the Fed chairman that consideration would be given to the unusually and persistently low participation rate in framing any future unemployment target. See my comment and chart at http://www.eimcapital.com.au/portfoliodirect/daily_views0913.htm for 9 September on the employment-population ratio.
If ICAC had its way, any potential explorer would have to raise capital first (i.e. the current model would be turned on its head). That is what ICAC wants to have happen but it does risk stifling activity - all because we cannot count on NSW politicians being honest.