Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
If cars go electric it would create grounds for inovation that the current oligarchs might not be able to control. What oligarch wants that?
From the war machines perspective electric is useless for flying war planes. If the war machine separates its interests from the mass populace it would make it harder to justify many oil based invasions and oil based loss of lives.
If things get really tight for Oil in the future the west is going to be shocked at how efficient the old soviet nuclear generated electric powered system of trains can be. I am against all nuclear power personally. Just look at Chernobyl. However if a tectonic shift and shock in the Oil supply comes critical intercity travel in the former soviet block countries will continue. Here?....
Since last year I take a train to Canada and fly in and out of Canada. If the U.S. Airline industry wants to act like Nazis, screw em. My luggage was never lost but small sculptures from South America were intentionally "dropped" in front of my face.
How do you like the warrants recently spun off from AAU.V? I only deal in warrants in a much more selective fashion than the stocks themselves. Even though they have been a small percentage of my portfolio they represent a huge part of my profit. A big part of that was betting heavily on Nova Gold warrants when they first came out. As soon as the warrants from the AAU.V spin off trade I am doubling my position. It wont be as big a slice as the Nova Gold warrants but people who know a lot more than me say that given the odd terms of the warrants the leverage is outrageuos and will pay off much bigger than Nova Gold warrants as the POG approaches and passes its all time high. WHT? If that is Wheaton river minerals it was my first sizable bet on the gold bull after I finally became a believer. Been a few years since I owned that one but I remember being quite happy with it. I like NXG and owned it several times but always zigged when it zagged. I like GPXM for a polymetallic Jr. Miner. Currently my biggest headache is the tax man beating me over the head with a lead pipe. As soon as the Taxes are finished I am working out mathematical models for profit taking on really volatile stocks like Jr. miner silver stocks. Also looking at mathematical models for profit taking into account compounding long term capital gains Vs. taking short term profit surges in a generally sideways market. If you know of a site or a book that deals with these issues please pass it along.
:)
Gotta go! Squirrrl and tax man cometh with baseball bat.
Dont leave home without it
http://scientificsonline.com/product.asp_Q_pn_E_3102300
They have been doing this in towns in silicon valley for a while now. When I tried it they wanted a lot of info I did not want to give. Privacy issues with wireless eavesdropping are a big question as well. So many coffee shops in the area offer wireless I just use them when privacy is not an issue. Amazing that they are doing it Nationwide now.
The wild surges in the Jr. Miners are very real but if one intelligently picks 10 of them they surges up and down in individual issues tend to cancel eac other out making the ride less of a thrill seeking adventure. Jr. miners have been very good to me.
Hillary Clinton "enforcing the peace" using Bush's dictatorial policies? This guy is looking to far ahead and he uses a perspective of viewing things that is far to balanced. If everyone did that we would start seeing how bad things are and might actually do something real to resolve them even if the price is high. That cant be right!
Having spent a lot of time stateside over the winter I see the illegal immigration issues at the borders a misdirection on a scale much larger than I thought. I think the real issue is the growing legal poor income hispanic population that is already here and how they will work with the rich. Many people just dont get the numbers. No immigrants needed to induce large demographic shifts. I finally see an "intelligent strategy" possible with the war on terror. "Intelligent" for the very rich that is. They intend to lose the war on terror in a big way and make huge amounts of money doing it. Both through military spending and through embracing and spinning the growing legal hispanic population to their short term advantadge.
If someone could point out how any of our military spending in the last two decades gives us any kind of advantage against real opponents like China and Russia I would certainly have to reconsider this notion. The war on terror always had an element of a game that we were playing to lose intentionally. Still with war being unpredictable I was not so sure. Now that I see a huge work force that will replace the current one at costs much more competitive with the rest of the world and much more acceptable to the rich the war on terror makes a lot more sense to me as a huge losing money making distraction. Not that I have not thought of this before but seeing current trends in California up close put this all in a clearer perspective in many ways.
I wonder how long it will be before discount brokers offer $1 trades and let people open accounts with $50?
First we hated the Arabs, then we hated Bush, next was those damn illegal aliens. The whole way we lose.... who will we hate next?
Interesting article. It fails however to mention a few things that I find quite interesting. It speaks of the Yeltsin billionaires yet makes no mention of Putins source of power and what he was doing in this time period.
It mentions the telecom billionaires in Mexico yet says nothing about the Guatamalian drug gangs working their way north and Militarizing all mexcican police forces along the way. Even in the tiny villages. The Guatamalian drug gang leaders were originally trained at the school of assains in fort benning georgia.
How do you determine clean air in terms of rads?
I dont have a link at the moment but about a month ago I believe it was the nuclear power plant industry returned a report that building "hardened nuclear power plants" resistant to terrorist attacks was not "cost effective".
I assume it would take a surface to surface missile significantly more powerful than a bazooka to cause a real full scale melt down but a plane smaller than a commercial airliner would probably do the job.
Same goes everywhere else in the world as far as I know. As the various war machines gain momentum I think these power plants will become more popular targets for those without big technology. The collective insanity of the nuclear powers of the world will reach new heights before the war on terror runs its course.
Why did they wait so long to develop the Tesla motor? Tesla was a Serbian American who was close friends of Mark Twain for Christs sake. Its not as if this technology is new.
The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany's Nazi prison camps
anyway you'll get the picture. that these drugs are not as advertised!
Name one FDA approved drug that is.
Until a sizable public backlash developed part of Hillary's health care plan was to make a federal law that would have made all water supplies coast to coast undergo mandatory flouridation. Bill and Hillary were both pushing hard for it.
Yes and my guess is China gonna play nice until after the Oympics. The period after the Olympics going into the Presidential election gonna be mighty interesting I think. BWDIK
Suppressed? If Americans were more curious about such things they could have known. Ambrose Evens-Pritchard did an excellent job covering the story in real time as a lot of the dirt surfaced in Arkansas. I believe he was writing for the London Telegraph at the time. The thugs in washington tried to have him deported several times. Virtually all U.S. Media outlets ignored the story. Also ignored was the connection between the drug running gang working with Seal the Bushies and Eugene Hasenfuss ( or however the heck you spell it ) Hasenfuss testified be before a congressional subcomitte that he was the pilot working for the CIA who smuggled the Heroin out of Vietnam to the U.S. The Heroin was stuffed in the lungs of the dead U.S. soldiers.
Its in black and white in the congressional record.
Iran Contra started when Hasenfuss's plane was shot down full of Cocaine. Anyone who knew their history immediately knew that he was a CIA regular.
A bi-partisan drug smuggler connected to the Bushies. What a surprise.
Why not Ron Paul?
A friend from WhatzamattaU PM'd this
Been talking about that back here. It seems the US rhetoric over Iran is designed in part to take down the dollar. This way we can assure our European allies who would very much like to see a stronger dollar that we didn’t tank the dollar on purpose. Or in other words, we had to attack Iran because they are evil the dollars drop was an unwanted side affect.
China has also been diligently trying to prop up the dollar so I think you are right on.
``Geopolitical risk is increasing on concern the U.S. may take action against Iran,'' Upadhyaya said. This boosted the yen's status as a safe-haven currency, he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=atiBFmS9dIZ0&refer=japan
As soon as I saw that our government pushed for vigilance not new regulation for hedge funds, I went over to our ruling class or government’s major vehicle, the Carlyle Fund, and sure enough they have become a hedge fund among other things.
US alternative asset manager The Carlyle Group becomes the latest firm to hire staff from Amaranth Advisors, the US hedge fund manager that collapsed in September, according to Financial News, who quoted the news source as HedgeWorldNews.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:2A27s75nxssJ:www.dealbreaker.com/private_equity/carlyle_group/+c....
US foreign assets are more than 75% non-dollar-denominated. This means that the United States' assets grow and its liabilities shrink in value as the dollar falls.
It looks like our own government is betting against us and as usual will go to extremes to hurt it's own citizens.
This is complex.
Four texts:
1)The US, the world's hedge fund
2)Government pushes vigilance, not new regulations for hedge funds
3)Carlyle Group Opens Hedge Fund
4)Yen Gains Most Since 2005 Versus Dollar as Traders Unwind Bets
(Geopolitical risk is increasing on concern the U.S. may take action against Iran)
1) The US, the world's hedge fund
By Max Fraad Wolff
Feb 27, 2007
There are some strange facts about the asset and trade positions of the US economy in the globalizing economy. The United States runs massive and growing trade deficits, is borrowing at a clip that would arouse the suspicions of a casino pit boss, and has been selling its assets to anyone who will buy. In the past 24 months, the US balance on goods and services comes in just shy of negative-$1.5 trillion. Across the same period, the US has sunk further into debt to the rest of the world.
For 2006, exports of US$1.4378 trillion and imports of $2.2014 trillion resulted in a goods and services deficit of $763.6 billion, $46.9 billion more than the 2005 deficit of $716.7 billion. For goods, exports were $1.0237 trillion and imports were $1.8598 trillion, resulting in a goods deficit of $836.1 billion, $53.3 billion more than the 2005 deficit of $782.7 billion.
As a result of that shortfall the US has been selling assets and borrowing. The net international investment position (NIIP) is the Bureau of Economic Analysis's broadest measure of US-owned foreign assets less foreign-owned US assets.
There has been a dramatic and sustained deterioration in the US NIIP over the past several decades. Between 1986 and 1988, the US transformed itself from creditor to the world to debtor extraordinaire. It has never looked back, nor has it been forced to.
The US has enjoyed positive net income from its increasingly larger negative total holding of foreign assets. This has partially insulated the US from instability, dollar plunges and rising interest rates. Declines in the US currency get help from those most hurt - foreign owners of US assets. As greenbacks fall, the US increases its positive income stream because the value of it assets rises and the value of the United States' liabilities falls.
US imports are linked closely to or pegged to the dollar and US export markets are less so. Thus falling dollars impose massive costs on asset holders and trading partners, reducing the regularity and severity of episodes. At least that has been true thus far. Spiking interest rates and falling dollars have neither regularly nor painfully recurred. There has been no forced rebalancing as economic theory suggests. Herein lies the source of much trouble, and many sound forecasts have gone awry.
Many have seen the growing negativity of net assets and predicted a coming dollar downdraft and violent rebalancing. Dollar slides have occurred - sometimes rapidly and to destabilizing effect. There have been episodes of rebalancing, but they are few and the trend is still clearly away from balance. The US NIIP has continued down, beyond the targets advertised as hard constraints. The US has avoided the forecast costs. How? Why?
There are many and complex answers to this question. Key among the factors is the United States' persistent ability to attract copious capital - at fairly low interest rates and with no risk premium associated with rising indebtedness. The US trade deficit's net outflow of dollars comes back as purchases of US assets and loans to US borrowers. The world buys US debt, at low yields and across maturities. They don't just buy, they hold. [1] They hold come hell or high water. The United States' foreign friends also undertake direct investment in the US.
Their returns, even unadjusted for currency, are terrible. US returns on foreign investment are much, much higher. It is estimated that US assets overseas outperformed foreign assets invested in the US by 210 basis points between 1952 and 2004 and by just shy of 300 basis points between 1973 and 2004. [2] Thus the United States' dwindling net assets are more than offset by vastly superior yields. It has helped the US that it tends to acquire riskier assets, equities and foreign direct investment (FDI), while they snap up debt. Rather amazingly, over past decades, the return to US FDI is more than 400 basis points higher than the return to foreign FDI in the US. [3]
The US is also allowed to borrow in dollars. US foreign assets are more than 75% non-dollar-denominated. This means the United States' assets grow and its liabilities shrink in value as the dollar falls. [4] Most important, the US has managed to earn more with fewer and fewer net foreign assets than foreigners have managed to earn with more and more net US assets.
In other times and places, such arrangements have been referred to as tribute, and were not handled through global "free" asset markets. Today they are. It might be worthy of note that the more unstable floating-exchange-rate period has been very kind to the US. Money comes to the US for safety and to fund the world's consumer demand. Thus the US invests according to portfolio theory, getting maximum cash returns, and they maximize across a broad range of non-cash-return considerations.
The net capital the US has deployed abroad is ever smaller relative to the net capital foreigners have deployed in the US. Both are rising fast in absolute terms. It is more than $2.6 trillion less as of the writing of this article. It was not until the fourth quarter of 2005 that US income receipts fell below US payments, despite trillions more in assets held by foreigners. There it has stayed for the last three quarters for which final data are available. The net income outflow remains tiny given the difference in size of net capital. The income shortfall was $3.8 billion in the third quarter of 2006, up from $2.2 billion in the second quarter of 2006. How can this be explained? What does it mean for it to end?
There are a few leading "explanations" for the superior returns of US assets abroad. The least interesting is called the "dark matter" theory and basically explains away the size of US NIIP as a failure to measure accurately complex and non-quantitative US assets held abroad. This merits little comment and recalls the classic line from Young Frankenstein, when the hunchback responds to the obvious question with, "What hump?"
On the more plausible side are explanations focused on the privileged and unique position of the US as the guarantor of liquidity and the printer of the global reserve currency. The US is able to borrow cheaply and lend dear with lower risk premiums attached to her debt. This allows the US to act as banker to the world, skimming off an "intermediation" fee that allows positive returns on portfolio maturity and quality composition. This has some explanatory power. However, it would seem the US is doing everything possible to cancel this advantage without appearing to lose the returns associated. A more rigorous and complex version of the history and measure of this oddity is well told with supporting data in "From World Banker to World Venture Capitalist" by Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas and Helene Rey. [2]
Gourinchas and Rey divide the reasons for persistent positive returns on declining US-owned assets abroad into two broad categories. The first source of positive returns has to do with the relative composition of US- versus foreign-held assets. The second has to do with the returns on these assets. Here we discover that the US has a preference for equity and FDI, while the rest of the world has accumulated trillions in US government debt securities.
The US holds riskier assets as a much larger portion of its portfolio. In addition, US FDI investment abroad earns much higher returns than foreign FDI in the US. The US runs much more leverage. Higher risk earns higher returns. The US even enjoys superior returns on its FDI compared with foreigners' FDI in the US.
The US functions like a leverage-loving hedge fund, hunting down and eating alpha. What this says about the others in the global portfolio allocation game, I leave to you to decide. All are acting in self-interest and all are aware of what they are doing. None seem to see a palatable alternative.
Others have added valuable elements to our understanding of NIIP anomalies. Some suggest that profits are reported outside the US where taxes are lower, artificially reducing the reported returns here. Many hold that foreign firms buy in the US for political reasons or to gain access to the US market. I would add funding the United States' trade shortfall as a leading motivation. Many who buy and hold do so to defend favorable exchange rates, curry favor and provide credit to the US state and consumer. This is a payment to continue the world economic and political order.
Before leaving you to ponder all this, we need to address what it means that the US is no longer above water in terms of the income from its negative net assets. It likely means building pressure on the dollar. If and when this occurs, it means pain to foreign creditors and possible political risk.
The sheer size of the US negative NIIP is flirting with offsetting the past advantage of positive net income. Rebalance will occur, US relative returns will rise further, or this former support will stay a drag. This signals the end of a support for the United States' over-indebtedness, although that may take time to manifest.
It raises a bigger question for the rest of the world. Why is it so vital for them to subsidize the US so much and for so long? What will happen to their swollen positions in low-yielding dollar assets? Last but not least, if the US is a leveraged hedge fund among nations, should Uncle Sam really be casting stones at the private firms mirroring US macroeconomic strategy?
Notes
1. Recently a troubling thing has been happening. Official holdings of US Treasuries have not been growing so rapidly and private holdings have taken their place. This may signal less stability of ownership at a future point.
2. Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas and Helen Rey, From World Banker to World Venture Capitalist. Presented 2005, National Bureau of Economic Research Conference on G7 Current Account Imbalances. Appendix Table 1.
3. Alexandra Heath, "What Explains the US Net Income Balance?" BIS Working Paper 223. January 2007.
4. If we were interested in scaring the rest of the world, particularly the big holders of dollar assets in Japan and China, we would repeat that line again and ask, "Are we all in this thing together?"
Max Fraad Wolff is a doctoral candidate in economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and editor of the website GlobalMacroScope.
(Copyright 2007 Max Fraad Wolff.)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/IB27Dj02.html
2) Government pushes vigilance, not new regulations for hedge funds
By Associated Press
Thursday, February 22, 2007 - Updated: 07:27 PM EST
WASHINGTON -- Increased vigilance, not new government rules, is the best way to handle risks in the trillion dollar hedge fund industry, the Bush administration and regulators said Thursday.
Officials put forward guidelines they said should be followed by fund investors and institutions such as banks and brokerage houses that do business with the funds.
The guidelines, said Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, ”should serve as a foundation to enhance vigilance and market discipline further, which will strengthen investor protection and guard against systemic risk.”
Business groups supported the hands-off approach. Critics said the growing size of hedge funds _ they top $1 trillion in the United States _ and some spectacular failures such as last fall’s collapse of Amaranth Advisors showed the need for greater controls.
Hedge funds can invest in anything from commodities to real estate. By comparison, mutual funds generally hold stocks and bonds. Some hedge funds even buy entire companies; others buy and sell stocks like day traders, but with billions of dollars at stake.
U.S. hedge funds now number more than 9,000. They traditionally have catered to the rich, as well as pension funds and university endowments, but increasingly are luring less wealthy investors. The funds operate with minimal government supervision.
The recommendations came from the President’s Working Group, formed after the 1987 stock market crash. Paulson leads the group, which also includes the heads of the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
The guidelines stress the need for more information so investment decisions are based on accurate and timely assessments.
Last September, Amaranth Advisors lost a stunning $6 billion because of bad bets on natural gas prices. California’s San Diego County lost an estimated $85 million from an Amaranth investment by its employee pension fund.
In 1998, the collapse of Long Term Capital Management rocked Wall Street as investors struggle to cope with the Asian financial crisis.
Richard Blumenthal, attorney general in Connecticut, home to many hedge funds, said the new guidelines did not adequately protect investors.
”These vague recommendations lack substance and specifics, making them unenforceable. In a perfect world, everyone would already follow these guidelines, but in the real world we need real protections,” he said in a statement.
The chairman of the House Financial Services Committee said the group’s proposal was a first step in addressing questions presented by the funds’ growth. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said the committee would hold a hearing on hedge funds this spring.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, who leads the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, said the report correctly identified systemic risk and investor protection as chief areas for concern. Dodd, D-Conn., said he would seek testimony on ”what, if any, steps they intend to take to ensure that these concerns are being addressed in an effective and appropriate manner.”
In December, the SEC proposed to raise the minimum financial requirements for individuals wanting to invest in hedge funds.
Under rules in effect since 1982, an individual must have at least $1 million in net worth or annual income of $200,000 to qualify to invest in a hedge fund.
The new proposal would add a requirement that an individual’s assets include at least $2.5 million in investments, excluding a personal residence.
Only about 1.3 percent of U.S. households would qualify as eligible under the proposal, according to SEC economists.
The SEC also proposed an anti-fraud rule for hedge funds, making it clear the agency will pursue fund managers for improper activity.
The agency was thwarted by a federal appeals court last year in its effort to bring hedge funds under its supervision. The narrower changes are not expected to be open to legal challenge.
This month, finance ministers and central bank presidents from the leading industrialized nations called for more vigilance over hedge funds and pledged to assess the impact of the funds on global financial markets.
http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=184434&format=text
3) Carlyle Group Opens Hedge Fund
Carlyle Group is planning to start a hedge fund to trade stocks and bonds, reports the Wall Street Journal. It’s the latest move by private-equity firms to enter new businesses as their traditional way of investing struggles to keep pace with the billions of dollars pouring in from investors.
Carlyle is close to hiring Ralph Reynolds, global head of proprietary trading at Deutsche Bank AG in New York, which has one of the world’s largest and most aggressive trading operations.
Other private-equity firms have ventured into the faster-paced world of hedge funds. Texas Pacific Group, for instance, in 2004 hired Dinakar Singh, previously Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s head of in-house trading, to start its TPG-Axon Capital hedge fund. That fund now manages about $5.5 billion.
Some critics have questioned private-equity firms moving into trading publicly listed stocks and bonds because in the course of pursuing buyouts, private-equity executives often get access to nonpublic information. So-called due-diligence reviews of potential targets are required in almost all private-equity bids because the firms rely on borrowed money for a majority of their purchases, and lenders require access to such information.
Read the Wall Street Journal story (subscription required)
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:VRe8H5EKV0AJ:directorship.wordpress.com/2006/08/01/carlyle-group....
4) Yen Gains Most Since 2005 Versus Dollar as Traders Unwind Bets
By Min Zeng
Feb. 27 (Bloomberg) -- The yen rose the most in more than 19 months against the dollar amid a sell-off in U.S. stocks and as investors shunned emerging-market assets, prompting an unwinding of trades betting on a decline in the Japanese currency.
Japan's yen also gained against the British pound and euro after International Monetary Fund Managing Director Rodrigo de Rato said carry trades, where investors borrow in Japan and buy higher-yielding assets, may cause exchange-rate misalignments. The Swiss franc, another funding currency for the carry trade, rose the most in almost three months.
``There is a perfect storm brewing against yen carry trade,'' said Paresh Upadhyaya, who helps manage $29 billion in currency assets at Putnam Investments in Boston. ``The yen has further scope to appreciate as people cut back their short yen positions.'' A short position is a bet on a currency's decline.
Japan's currency climbed 2.35 percent, the most since a gain of 2.4 percent on July 21, 2005, to 117.85 against the dollar at 3:37 p.m. in New York, from 120.66 yesterday. The yen touched 117.49 per dollar, the strongest since Dec. 15. It also gained to 156.13 per euro from 159.13, rebounding from an all-time low of 159.65 on Feb. 23.
The yen also advanced 5.4 percent against the Turkish lira, 4.5 percent versus the South African rand and 3.4 percent against Iceland's krona as investors shunned riskier assets in emerging markets following a rout in Chinese stock market shares.
Borrowing Costs
At 0.5 percent, Japan has the lowest borrowing costs in the industrialized world compared with 5.25 percent in the U.S. and U.K. Switzerland's benchmark is 2 percent, while the European Central Bank's rate is 3.5 percent.
One-month implied volatility on options on the dollar versus the yen rose to 7.88 percent, the highest since Feb. 1, from 7.2 percent yesterday.
The increase may discourage carry trades, as it implies wider exchange-rate fluctuation risk. The one-month implied volatility of yen against the euro and the pound also increased.
The dollar dropped to the lowest level in almost two months against the euro after a government report showed orders for durable goods fell 7.8 percent in January from a revised 2.8 percent gain a month earlier, raising speculation signs of slow growth may push the Federal Reserve to cut borrowing costs this year.
The dollar weakened to $1.3243 per euro from $1.3188 yesterday. It reached $1.3259, the lowest since Jan. 3.
`Report Is Dreadful'
``The durable goods report is dreadful,'' said Michael Woolfolk, senior currency strategist at the Bank of New York in New York. ``I think the market is writing the same conclusion: it is time to sell the dollar. Yield differentials are moving against the dollar right now.''
The difference in yield between two-year U.S. and Japanese government bonds reached 3.75 percentage points, the least since Dec. 7.
The yen benefited as the decline in emerging-market equity markets pushed investors out of riskier assets.
China's shares tumbled the most in 10 years on concern the government may crack down on illegal investments that helped drive benchmarks to records. Russian and South African shares fell from all-time highs. Turkey's index had its biggest decline since June.
Japan's currency also strengthened as Iran defied a United Nations Security Council deadline for the country to stop uranium enrichment, which can be used for civilian power generation and building a nuclear weapon.
`Geopolitical Risks'
``Geopolitical risk is increasing on concern the U.S. may take action against Iran,'' Upadhyaya said. This boosted the yen's status as a safe-haven currency, he said.
``There seems to be a lot of nervousness in the market,'' said Steven Butler, director of foreign exchange trading at Scotia Capital Inc. in Toronto. ``The market has been unwinding carry trades.''
Disorderly global imbalances could be worsened by the increased usage of the ``yen carry trade,'' according to de Rato's prepared remarks last night before Harvard Business School alumni in Washington.
The yen has erased two months of losses against the dollar after a government report this month showed Japan's economy grew the fastest in almost three years in the fourth quarter and the central bank last week raised borrowing costs. The yen has strengthened 1 percent versus the dollar since the start of the year.
The Washington-based Commodity Futures Trading Commission last week said the difference in the number of wagers by hedge funds and other large speculators on a fall in the yen compared with those on a gain -- so-called net shorts -- was 116,195 on Feb. 20, compared with net shorts of 167,505 a week earlier.
To contact the reporter on this story: Min Zeng in New York at mzeng2@bloomberg.net .
Last Updated: February 27, 2007 15:40 EST
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=atiBFmS9dIZ0&refer=japan
THIS IS WHAT GOVERNMENT MEANT AND YOU KNOW IT!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070301/tv_nm/newyork_word_dc_3
JAMES BOND TEQUILA!!!
Tanks a lot for that! My guess prior to this week was they are winning more by grabbing market share and the first hiccup they might arrange in the market would be nearer to the Presidential elections. I expected it from bonds. But I really dont know squat about short term and intermediate term fundamentals. I am a scientist that likes charts, world politics and long term fundamentals. If the article is on the money I find it very interesting that they have already grabbed enough market share in the exchanges to have such and impact. Prior to this week one of the questions I was asking myself was if Japan could neutralize the Chinese bond bomb if they wished. After this week I am not sure it matters wether they can or not.
I wonder how much influence this kind of economic event will give the Chinese in the upcoming Presidential election.
Tanks, what the bears will be driving one day soon.
Since this weeks drop originated in China I cant help but wonder if it as not intentional in response to inceasing Sabre rattling about invading Iran where the CHinese have billions of dollars invested. Do you think there is much chance of this?
Pretty scary chart considering these are the Governments own projections.
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/conrad/2006/0630.html
I wonder what POG will be when the two lines intersect?
363 tons?!! Whoa! Hey its only 6 stealth bombers.
Amazingly some Democratic Presidential candidates are using the "T" word. I believe Senator Edwards was calling for immediate one third of the troops leaving Iraq and the resting leaving in a year. I cant remember if he said redeploy or bring them home. Still just talk and the election is way in the future. He probably has no expectation to do anything of the sort. Just being a team player and doing his part to bring Bush lower in the polls which is fine by me but I doubt anything real becomes of it.
At the same time the Democrats and republicans are criticizing ( long overdue ) Bush over Iraq all of them Agree loudly Pakistan and Afghanistan are a threat and need to be dealt with. Along with the first real talk ( but no action ) of withdraw from Iraq the war is expanding geographically with the recent involvement in Somalia.
What will we have accomplished if Bush gets trashed and a new Democratic administration commits even more money and troops to Afghanistan and Somalia?
Bottom line with Iraq is Israel. Long term I dont think there is anyway Russia, China and Iran will accept anything less than taking control - directly or indirectly - of all of a Iraq and thus will be mighty close to the Israeli border and only an arab country in between. I also think that it would be good a good bussiness move for China to deliver the west a humiliating military defeat like Stalingrad. That would take away any hesitation from future bussiness partners world wide to be afraid of military retaliation from America or other western powers. If China and Russia work together they could just keep upping the ante in Iraq to a point where we would have a hard time exiting. They probably have a better understanding of the mood of the American public than Bush.
Said to say I still think we are not much beyond the second inning in all this War on Terror farce. BWDIK
Facts about radiation from a real scientist.
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/SecretFallout/
Low level radiation from Chernobyl made it into Michigan milk and baby formula. Radiation maps usually pick levels of radiation high enough so that it looks as if the radiation fallout from Chernobyl stopped at the most northern tip of Canadian permafrost after going over the north pole.
Some Russian scientists think that without Chernobyl the Soviet Union would not have collapsed. The radiation damage to the Soviet Union work force caused the already iffy economy not only to collapse but to do so in a predictable, demographically timely fashion. Thus the fall of the Berlin wall and the whole timing of thew "war on terror" were written in advance based on the Chernobyl disaster. Of course neither East nor west wants to admit this. The scientists were largely ignored.
Since all governments want nuclear power all governments lie or keep quiet about how the first people to get nuked were the U.S. public. The above link from Sternglass tells the story quite clear.
As far as massive dumping of the dollar I dont think the Chinese want that anytime immediately as it will disrupt the markets they are effectively taking more and more market share every day. I am not good at short and intermediate term fundamentals, I work mainly with TA and long term fundamentals . Still I suspect that the first time the CHinese will dump enough dollars to create a world wide hiccup will be much closer to the Presidential elections. My Question on that is what will Japan do? From a military point of view it is pretty obvious that Japan should side with China and Russia. With their markets so tied to ours I am not really sure what they would do if China leaned on them to dump the dollar.
I think a lot of people apply the trend is your friend till it ends notion. In the back of their reptilian brains they vaugely imagine something like John Wayne coming to save the day or something. Remember when most thought the Nasdaq was going to 10 k? LOL!
Its gonna take a big bang to make people realize sixty years of world domination is over. I mean I for one am not sixty yet. I cant remeber Hoovervilles and what not. Gonna be a rude surprize for most.
DId not mean to imply you approved of the plan. Just stating I think things will be really different this time. I myself am not the involved political activist I once was. When I see people acting smarter than worms I will get more active. In the mean time I worry more about the gold market and having a decent geiger counter with me at all times. LOL!
I am in a Starbucks now! LOL! Thanks for letting me know. I have not ordered coffee yet. I will just steal some wireless time and go. COffee here is so so anyway.
They want the oil. Maybe if he dates an Astronaut wearing diapers they will let him go?
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyid=2007-02-06T024148Z...
We are only 5 years into a 10 year plan to takeover their oil fields...
The huge difference this time is that we wont take over the oil fields. We will receive an ass whipping like nothing we have Known in the Marshall plan Era. The current U.S. military defeat the combined efforts of CHina, Iran and Russia? What a joke. The U.S. will be lucky if it can take the Oil from Chavez.
Criminal Case Likely to Put All of Yukos in State Hands
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Reprints Share
DiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/business/worldbusiness/06yukos.html
By ANDREW E. KRAMER
Published: February 6, 2007
MOSCOW, Feb. 5 — New criminal charges filed Monday against former leaders of the Yukos oil company, once Russia’s largest private energy concern, are likely to ease what remains of the company into state hands, strengthening the Kremlin’s control over the industry, analysts and company officials said.
In this sense, the Yukos affair is ending as it began — in an opaque mixture of criminal prosecution and Russian energy nationalism, where it is far from clear where one ends and the other begins.
“It comes at a time when we’re moving into the final chapter of Yukos,” Chris Weafer, chief analyst at Alfa Bank and a former adviser to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, said Monday. “They want a change in how people view the Yukos affair. It is important that they shake off the image of the asset grab.”
State-owned companies already control a third of the oil production in Russia, one of the world’s largest producing nations.
Now, both of Russia’s large state energy companies are expressing interest in buying Yukos oil fields and refineries, assets that critics say were expropriated by the government but that could look more like the spinoff from a corporate tax and accounting scandal if the new charges stick, as expected.
Authorities in Chita, a city near the Chinese border, charged Yukos’s former chief, Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, and his business partner, Platon A. Lebedev, with embezzlement and money laundering.
Charles Krause, a lawyer for Mr. Khodorkovsky, said in a conference call from Washington that prosecutors were accusing Mr. Khodorkovsky of having embezzled money from oil trades executed between Yukos company subsidiaries, in a practice known as transfer pricing.
Under this maneuver, which the company acknowledges existed, a trading arm of Yukos paid lower than world prices for oil bought from other company subsidiaries, in what was presented as a legal tax-minimization strategy. The transfer-pricing operations that formed the basis of the new charges were also the source of the Russian government tax claims that bankrupted Yukos.
Russian authorities say they may also prosecute Yukos’s auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers. In a statement, PricewaterhouseCoopers denied any wrongdoing.
The remaining Yukos assets, roughly $22 billion, are to be auctioned within months. Though diminished after the loss of its largest pumping asset in 2004, Yukos remains a valuable company. At stake are 2.3 billion barrels of oil reserves and 400,000 barrels a day in production, five refineries, a network of gas stations and Moscow real estate.
Yukos, though bankrupt, owns valuable minority stakes in both major state energy companies — 9.5 percent of Rosneft and 20 percent of Gazprom’s oil subsidiary, Gazprom Neft. Gazprom has said it would like to buy back the shares in the oil subsidiary. Rosneft is expected to bid for the pumping assets and at least some of the refineries.
Yukos is administered by a court-appointed receiver, Eduard K. Rebgun, who in a telephone interview Monday sought to minimize any connections between the criminal charges and the bankruptcy process. He said that Yukos’s finances were threadbare even before the tax charges were filed in 2003, and that asset and revenue stripping were most likely the cause — a message that dovetailed with the new criminal case. “It’s clear they were already stripping assets and revenue,” Mr. Rebgun said, adding that in 2003, Yukos reported a loss of $1 million.
The new charges could have a bearing in a separate court process in the Netherlands, where ownership of more than $1.5 billion in Yukos’s European assets are being contested by Mr. Rebgun. Yukos International, which is still independent of the Russian bankruptcy process, holds $1.49 billion in a Dutch bank account from the sale of a Lithuanian refinery, 49 percent of a Slovak pipeline network, and a Swiss engineering company valued around $25 million.
New Pipeline to Bypass Belarus
Transneft, Russia’s oil pipeline monopoly, is planning to bypass neighboring Belarus by building a pipeline to a Baltic port, Primorsk.
“Of course this is very, very expensive,” Transneft’s president, Semyon Vainshtok, said on state television yesterday. “If we didn’t have such risks from neighboring states, it wouldn’t be necessary to spend so much money.”
Transneft cut supplies to Belarus for three days last month after Belarus demanded a transit fee for crude oil moving through its pipeline, causing shortages at refineries in Eastern Europe. The Interfax news agency reported yesterday that Belarus was planning to increase fees by 35 percent, starting Feb. 15.
Transneft’s new route will run from the Belarus border to Primorsk, Mr. Vainshtok said. It will have to be able to pump 50 million tons of crude oil annually, about two-thirds of Primorsk’s capacity now.
People need to write Shawn Penn and thank him for showing up. Write the other Hollywood stars as well and ask them to turn out for such events.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/16630162.htm
People need to write Shawn Penn and thank him for showing up. Write the other Hollywood stars as well and ask them to turn out for such events.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/16630162.htm
Thanks for the post. So assuming this is the first statement of "bring the troops home". I have to ask what took so long? Glad theses words are now out on the table. Still though Bush could send the troops tomorrow with no funding and people need to keep in mind that all cosigners except for Barbara Lee gave Bush that power.
I said it before and I will say it again. We are at the end of the Marshal plan Era. In my mind the true end to that era was when Iran gave America and Israel the Bird and said they were pushing ahead with the Nuke program. not so long ago that kind of statement would have been met with an immediate bombing of Iran.
I strongly suspect public awareness about this U.S. loss of world domination will escalate into the next Presidential elections with huge amounts of hysteria largely due to the economic implications on the American lifestyle. If the Bushies dont give CHina and Russia what they want in the middle east gold and oil will be escalating ( most likely in a dramatic fashion ) as well IMO.
I have a train to catch now so I will have to read the article later but surely at this point one needs to ask for a definition of bring the troops home. Does that mean a fifth go home and four fifths go to Somalia and the gulf of Aden?
I have a yellow dog and a broken mirror. Anyone have some smoke and beer?
ANYONE BUT SADDAM! ANYONE BUT SADDAM! Oh wait he is dead and cant testify. oppps!
If people remembered they would not have been screaming anyone
anyone but Bush - its that simple. You might, but most dont.
Why do you think any of the dog and pony show means anything? None of these "purse string" control measures will do anything for a year and a half - right before the election.
The Decider didn't hear the voters on Nov 7 - ya think he'll hear the US Senate?
Everyone you mention in your post GAVE the Bush thug the right to not hear anyone when they voted FOR the war. People seem to for get that which I find strange. The question is not will Bush listen to the Senate.The question is does the Senate fear getting voted out if Bush does not listen. If they did they would be taking more radical measures. The fact that NO ONE Congress person has uttered the "bring the troops home" phrase should clue everyone in on the fact that all in Congress want more war and more profit.
Your thinking to clearly, honestly and directly. I have reported you to Homeland security as a result.
your post seems to imply that their is some difference between a liberal and a Republican. LOL!
Who in their right mind believes the troops are coming home??
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/how-congress-will-stop-th_b_40111.html
Even if you are delusional enough to believe that anyone in Congress wants to bring the troops home it would be election time before anything happened. and that assumes everything runs smooth as silk.
NAME THREE PEOPLE IN THE CONGRESS OR SENATE THAT HAVE UTTERED THE WORDS "bring the troops home"??
How much longer will the public stay on its knees kissing the democrats feet begging for them to piss on their back and tell them it is still raining??
It is all Bullshit posturing for the next election.
More war. More American deaths. Just not in Iraq.
The ONLY thing that has looked even remotely good to me has been some of the noise Hollywood has been making. I have seen Hollywood smack congress between the eyes and loosen a few teeth on medical issues. However that was only the medical establishment. Now they have to stop the medical establishment and the arms manufacturers. Also the time I am refering to was during a good economy. Congress told the FDA and AMA to go screw themselves and took bribes from elsewhere. As the war builds momentum it becomes closer and closer to the only big show in town.
Also getting Hollywood to agree on a unified front for the war is a long shot. If Hollywood does stand up and do the right thing I think the odds favour a Kerrycrat type failure. I hope Sharondon and Clooney and their kind prove me wrong and are a bigger unifying force that I am imagining. Diniro has a documentary about 911 coming up soon. Lets hope its radical enough to make Micheal Moore look like his true self - a classic case of the Peter principle. I like Moores movies a lot. Political and otherwise. His direct involvement in politics was a real failure IMO.
The enthusiasm of the mainstream media for Hillary should make progressives VERY wary. She is Bush light IMHO.
She will be Bush light until elected. Before she is finished she might make Bush look like Hillary light. At this point I think the war machine will be telling the political parties and the public how fast to shovel coal into the furnace.
At this point I dont see any Americans stopping the war. We had our chance and were spineless. It will be the Russian War machine and the Chinese war machine that contain the American war machine.
One thing about the Clintons that almost no one talks about are what the Clintons consider to be unfinished bussiness in the Balkans. Look for a Clinton administration to throw its weight around in the Balkans. Part of Europe will side with Russia against the Clinton war machine in the Balkans. Probably get whupped worse than in Iraq. WHo other than the French will side with Russia I am not sure but I do know all of Europe would like heating oil in the winter. Moscow has made it plain two years in a row who controls oil flowing through Ukraine and Belarus. Are Budapest and Vieena pipelines next??
Only Tojo's hairdresser knows for sure.
Oh yes and dont forget we are not in the starting stages of a war in Somalia.
French Onion today.