STOCK MARKET WATCH, Friday 30 January (#1)

[ozymandius]

Friday January 30, 2004

COUNTING THE DAYS
DAYS REMAINING IN THE * REGIME 360
REICH-WING RUBBERSTAMP-Congress = DAY...
DAYS SINCE DEMOCRACY DIED (12/12/00) 3 YEARS, 49 DAYS
WHERE'S OSAMA BIN-LADEN? 2 YEARS, 101 DAYS
WHERE ARE SADDAM'S WMD? - DAY 313
DAYS SINCE ENRON COLLAPSE = 797
Number of Enron Execs in handcuffs = 17
ENRON EXECS CONVICTED = 2
Other Arrests of Execs = 53

U.S. FUTURES & MARKETS INDICATORS
NASDAQ FUTURES-----------------------------S&P FUTURES




AT THE CLOSING BELL ON January 29, 2004

Dow... 10,510.29 +41.92 (+0.40%)
Nasdaq... 2,068.23 -9.14 (-0.44%)
S&P 500... 1,134.11 +5.63 (+0.50%)
10-Yr Bond... 4.20% +0.00 (+0.05%)
Gold future... 398.50 -16.10 (-3.88%)

DOW..........................NASDAQ.......................S&P

||


GOLD, EURO, YEN and Dollars


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PIEHOLE ALERT

Heads Up!
Preliminary info on appearances by Bush & Co. throughout the country. Details & links are added as they become available so check back. And if you know more, are organizing something, or would like to, contact [e-mail]

For information on protests and other actions Citizens For Legitimate Government

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[ozymandius]

1. WrapUp by Martin Goldberg

"Nobody Needs A Hummer"
A Technical Look at Auto-Related Stocks

About 18 short months ago it appeared that the US auto manufacturers were in serious trouble. The US economy was in the midst of a soft patch, and it appeared as if automobile demand was turning down within a slumping economy. US automakers were facing pension liabilities that were magnified since they already had highly leveraged balance sheets. At the time, it almost seemed that the only thing that would help the automakers was a government bail out. However, in a short amount of time, the stocks of the US automakers and other auto related companies staged an impressive comeback. This was fueled by the growth in the Asia Pacific region as well as continued robust sales in the US aided by economic stimulus from the government. In this article, I take a technical look at key stocks related to the Automobile industry.

There are many “moving parts” in the auto sector that makes it difficult to thoroughly evaluate the stocks. One such notable moving part is the significant boost to US auto sales resulting from a federal tax deduction for some purchases of gas guzzling trucks and SUVs. According to the Bozeman Chronicle (Montana) (emphasis added by Martin) (1):

“As part of a $350 billion economic stimulus package passed in May 2003, Congress quadrupled to $100,000 the amount business owners can deduct in the first year when they purchase a qualifying vehicle. The quirk is, the vehicle has to weigh at least 6,000 pounds. But almost every pickup and most SUVs meet that threshold, said John Wendt, a sales manager at JC Billion in Bozeman. Self-employed folks like real estate agents, consultants, doctors and lawyers all are finding advantage in the tax break. "We've had quite a number of people buying expensive SUVs and pickups," Wendt said. "They've been advised by their accountants to do that." Wendt said the sales staff doesn't suggest people buy an SUV for the tax break. "Obviously we're not tax accountants," Wendt said. But sales people don't have to bring it up, he said. People are showing up armed with the tax information and ready to buy big SUVs like the GMC Yukon, he said. "It's pretty incredible that you can write off what you can," Wendt said.”

The Bozeman Chronicle captures the essence of what’s going on. Although qualifying people can only deduct the fraction used for business (wink), this is a perfect example of “displacement”. The government, via a tax break, is paying people who would otherwise drive smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles to buy larger gas-guzzlers, which also happen to have higher profit margins. The tax break is good for the automobile manufacturers, bad for the taxpayers. It’s good for the oil companies and bad for the ecology. It’s bad because it makes the US more dependent on foreign oil. It’s bad for drivers of smaller vehicles, since these 6,000+ pound vehicles are a danger for other motorists in smaller cars. On the surface it’s good for the doctors, lawyers, consultants, real estate agents and others who make this entirely discretionary purchase versus a more suitable smaller vehicle. Or is it? The savings reduced cost resulting from the tax deduction of the Cadillac, Lincoln, Lexus or Hummer SUV is likely offset by the higher maintenance and gasoline costs. But many qualifying Americans are flocking to the new car dealerships anyway to stroke their egos by purchasing these large wagons. And the auto companies are doing a great job of feeding the strange desire that makes such a purchase appealing to many Americans’ psyche. For example, the Hummer television commercial airing during the NFL playoffs immediately comes to mind, featuring the song “Happy Jack” by The Who. But no matter what mental baggage potential Hummer customers may carry to their dealerships, it is clear to me that nobody needs a Hummer.

http://www.financialsense.com/Market/wrapup.htm

[sendero]

25. There must be a mistake

Free marketeers are not in the business of "picking winners and losers". Yeah, right.

[ozymandius]

2. Good morning Marketeers!

:donut: :donut: :donut: :donut: :donut: :donut: :donut:

I haven't checked the headlines yet this morning. But if memory serves me correctly, we should see some profit taking from that pawltry bump the Dow experienced yesterday. BTW I heard on the radio that the markets saw extremely heavy trading. That would account for the doodling numbers, I think.

Back with more relative news later.

:hi:

[Frodo]

3. Initial 4th Quarter GDP comes in below expectations.

4th Quarter GDP comes in at 4.0% (expected 5.0%)

Chain Deflator well below expectations at 1% (expected 1.3% - prior quarter 1.6%). Inflation remains low

Watch for a small bounce in gold -

[KayLaw]

4. Frodo?

What were the expectations? Do you know or have any comments or thoughts?

[Frodo]

6. Still more of the "great, but 'not as good as expected' so it sucks"

In any other year 4% would be a great number. Clinton didn't ahve a year over 4% until after he was re-elected. (On edit - I just checked.. He DID hit 4% in 1994 - 93-96 were 2.7% 4.0% 2.7% 3.6%)

The problem is that everyone was anticipating some kind of gangbuster number (concensus 5% with lots of people speculating an upside surprise - perhaps 5.5%).

Some people will consider this a good thing - too rapid growth (a few quarters of 6-8%) would bring inflation down on our heads and be bad mid-term. But don't expect much postive response from the market today

[cthrumatrix]

9. i think 4.8%...(I know it was higher than 4.0)

[KayLaw]

10. Thanks to both of you ( NT )

[ozymandius]

14. story here

US economy brakes to 4.0 percent growth in fourth quarter

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US economy braked fiercely in the last quarter of 2003, slowing to an unexpectedly low 4.0 percent annualized growth pace as consumer spending dried up, data showed.

Growth shrank to less than half the blistering, 19-year record 8.2 percent pace of the third quarter, defying economists' predictions of a 5.0 percent expansion to wrap up the year.

Over the whole of 2003, output in the world's biggest economy was up 3.1 percent, the Commerce Department (news - web sites) said Friday.

story

Don't the "overall" figures include defense (offense) spending?

[54anickel]

15. Good morning Ozy and thank you for the link.

[Frodo]

16. Sure.

"Overall" figures include defense spending because if the Army buys a tank they have to pay some company - which was to employ some people, which have to pay taxes and buy food and, of course, SUV's.

So it "counts" because it should count. How do you think Reagan got all those big GDP numbers?

[54anickel]

17. This is not very good. It appears the golden goose is all pooped out.

Consumers, whose spending accounts for two-thirds of US economic activity, were blamed for the end-of-2003 slowdown.

People cut spending to a 2.6 percent growth pace in the last quarter of the year, compared with an increase of 6.9 percent in the previous three months, as buyers steered clear of car showrooms, the Commerce Department said.

Final sales -- a sum of total demand in the economy -- rose 3.4 percent in the last quarter of the year, down from the previous quarter's 8.3 percent boom.


Remember the good old days, when banks loved to have you SAVE money? The free toasters, waffle irons, dish sets and glassware -rewards for opening an account. It's all so reversed, inside-out, upside-down now. Borrow, borrow, spend, spend!!! Those damn inconvenience checks they keep sending you in the mail that hook you on the promise of low interest, but up and up it goes.

Interest on savings? Why would anyone do that? Need you to get that money circulating! Contribute to the national economy, GDP, etc. You want rewards for saving? No way! Only chance you have of a reward is by taking more and more risk with your money. Put it in the Stock Market, that's where you'll get your reward. :eyes:

Hey, but I'm cool with it. :hippie:

[sendero]

26. As I like to say...

... live by the debt, die by the debt.

Our entire economy is a ponzi scheme. (ok, not really but I'm feeling extra hyperbolic this morning :))

[KoKo]

35. Since some might not remember the "free toasters" and when folks

actually earned a nice percent on their savings, it was nice to see your comment. Can you imagine the "fear" that must be out there in the financial community and with the Bush Crime Family, Inc. to keep us spending even as we mortagage our future as far as we can see? Without us.....there's little left of our great GDP.

It' has to be "fear" because "greed" alone doesn't account for what we are seeing. People have always been greedy but institutions and government have put the brakes on and in many instances did worry about "the people," getting so in debt that it would cause a major financial collapse. They also thought that people being thrifty helped solvency and allowed banks to fund new businesses. That philosophy worked in America "off and on" and given some past bubbles and a Great Depression. I'm still waiting for that "trickle down," to kick in. Waiting......waiting. Until then, I guess I will go check out what's on sale today. Maybe see how the Hummer sales are going so I can get that write off. (just kidding about the Hummer.....blech!) :-(

My rant for the morning...with a lightbulb going off in my head, that it may not be "all greed" with the Bushies, but that they are terrified about the US economy (if we don't keep borrowing and spending) and they are "dancing as fast as they can" but in their frenzy have lost ability to understand or hear what music or song is playing. :think:

I am very worried.

[54anickel]

41. Good Morning KoKo1. Nice to see you stopping by. Yes, I usually don't

like to give away my age like that, but those were the grand old days, weren't they? Passbook savings accounts, Christmas club accounts - remember those? They would actually HELP you save through weekly deductions and then in November they would mail you a fancy Christmas-ee looking check. And how about that payroll deduction for savings bonds!

Those were the days. :hippie:

[Frodo]

52. From a banker - You've actually got that backwards.

Remember that banks make NOTHING on deposits (ok, with the recent rise of fee-income that's changing a little). We make almost all of our profit on lending that money out.

When a bank is lending money out faster than it can take it in THAT's when you'll see a marketing emphasis on savings/demand account (it might not be a toaster today, but I've see $100 bills or savigns bonds offered to open new accounts - same idea). When the money is rolling in from deposits is when you'll see big lending campaigns being advertised... because if we can't lend it out we're not making much money on it (see George Bailey in "Wonderful Life" for a "your money isn't here in the vault" explanation), our other investments aren't doing any better than your savings accounts... we can't invest in stocks (and that's a GOOD thing).

So what you remember as times we were encouraging you to "save save save" was REALLY when you were borrowing the fastest. It amy be moving that way again (I'm no longer in contact with the people who do that), but for the previous 2-3 years deposits weren't the problem disintermediatory funds were flowwing in from all those people getting scared of the stock market. THAT (combined with the general reduction in rates) is why your savings account pays .2% interest -w e can't loan it out fast enough. Most of the additional debt you're bemoaning (incorrectly from a economic standpoint but VERY correct from a personal finance standpoint) is financed by the Mortgage industry (which doesn't lend out deposited dollars - they securitize it) and the credit card industry (which does securitze some and finance with deposits some), but it's an increasingly specialized part of the banking industry.

[54anickel]

54. I tend to disagree, It is the Banks that now have it backwards. And

is one of the major reasons our great nation has become the leading debtor instead of contributor to the world economy. But I digress.

Simply stated, and your explanation supports the idea -
Wealth to debt to speculative investing.

[Frodo]

57. Hey, don't blame us. We don't control consumer priorities.

We make money by taking in deposits and loaning money out. The profit is the difference between what we charge on loans and what we pay in deposits (of course, banks have now gotten into lots of other lines of business, but this is still the core). THAT margin has been shrinking rapidly over the last decade or more.

If you think we're acting differently than we did under Clinton, or Bush, or Reagan or Carter you are mistaken.


And becoming a debtor nation is not something new. Please explain this table with how banks have done something different over the last few years?



"Remember the good old days, when banks loved to have you SAVE money?"
I'll say it again - The days that you remember banks trying to encourage you to SAVE money was because you were BORROWING it so fast we didn't have the deposits to support the lending. A push on lending now (if there is one by banks) is because you've given us TOO MUCH in deposits and we have to lend it out. We ask for what we need to make the balance. The mortgage lending boom is actually CREATING some of the problem because people are paying off their bank loans with the refinance and depositing the left-over money they haven't spent yet. The big increase in debt has been almost entirely away from traditional BANK lending and on to mortgages. And, no, mortgages (for the banks that do them) don't help us loan out deposits. Almost zero dollars of those mortgages are held as bank assets. They are almost exclusively securitized out to investors through Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac.

[JNelson6563]

58. Isn't consumer debt at an all time high?

And isn't it credit (bank) cards where most of this debt is? Isn't this one of the highest profit margin parts of the banking industry (besides predatory lending of course)?

I'd invest in banks at this time because of the debt level of Americans. Of course record bankruptcy and foreclosure is a deterent.

Americans have a saving rate of about 3% of their money. Japan has a saving rate of about 40%.

We are headed for trouble with all this debt.

Julie

[Frodo]

60. I can't advise you to invest in banks in general.

That segment tends to go up earlier in a recovery and we may be about done beating the averages for a couple years. Increases from here are predicated on bank mergers, but you've got to guess WHO is going to be purchased to play that game.

As for your point... yes, credit card debt is going way up, but I wouldn't say it's the "highest profit margins" when you take into account defaults, competitive pricing (all those 2.2% offers you get), and bankruptcies.

Also, what many have missed is the sharp decrease in the number of banks IN that line of business. The market has really shrunk to just a handful of major players.


Your comparrison between the US and Japan has incorrect figures, but the undelying point is correct. Just keep in mind it didn't save them from the last decade of recession (probably CAUSED a lot of their bank failures and is part of why they try to hold up the dollar). Also remember that our savings rate in the late 90's was actually NEGATIVE. People making money in the markets were actually spending more of that profit than what they were saving.

Lastly, I wouldn't invest in banks solely on the debt of the customer base. Keep in mind that critical interest rate spread. If rates go up too quickly we will be paying more on CDs and savings, but stuck still charging 6% on some loans that you would be foolish to pay off. It could get tight. It happened the other way in the early 90's when rates started to fall. We were charging 6% on some home equity products while we were still paying 10% on some long-term CDs opened in '88-'89. Not a good way to do things.

Panic? No (I'm over-weighted in financial stocks myself right now - but for different reasons), that's what asset-liability management is all about in a bank, and the good ones know what we're doing. But my advice for ANY investment is to KNOW their business. How they work and WHY they work - BEFORE sinking money into them.

[JNelson6563]

71. Interesting

As for your point... yes, credit card debt is going way up, but I wouldn't say it's the "highest profit margins" when you take into account defaults, competitive pricing (all those 2.2% offers you get), and bankruptcies.

Yeah, I think I mentioned those as deterents. They go hand in hand with a bad employment situation.

Also, what many have missed is the sharp decrease in the number of banks IN that line of business. The market has really shrunk to just a handful of major players.

I don't see how that plays into the point of profit margin. It does favor the high profit margin argument a bit, we all know large corporations don't make business decisions with an eye to philanthropy....



I think it is amazing the rate of savings in Japan during this tough recession of theirs. Too bad so much of the spending going on is on imported goods. Otherwise it might actually help.

Lastly, I wouldn't invest in banks solely on the debt of the customer base. Keep in mind that critical interest rate spread. If rates go up too quickly we will be paying more on CDs and savings, but stuck still charging 6% on some loans that you would be foolish to pay off. It could get tight. It happened the other way in the early 90's when rates started to fall. We were charging 6% on some home equity products while we were still paying 10% on some long-term CDs opened in '88-'89. Not a good way to do things.

While I wouldn't invest soley onthe debt business either, it is a strong incentive (to be weighed against the disadvantages). You yourself stated above in this thread banks make the money off of what they loan out. They are loaning lots out. The logical conclusion is they will make some money. Didn't the 80's have notorious bank problems?

Panic? No (I'm over-weighted in financial stocks myself right now - but for different reasons), that's what asset-liability management is all about in a bank, and the good ones know what we're doing. But my advice for ANY investment is to KNOW their business. How they work and WHY they work - BEFORE sinking money into them.

Who said anything about panic?

And I agree about your advice, find out about a business before investing. I generally steer clear of banks. My opinion of the industry is not stellar and there are others I know much better. That's why I put "I'd" in my original post meaning "I would", not "I'm going to". ;-)

Julie

[Frodo]

73. A reply.

Yeah, I think I mentioned those as deterrents. They go hand in hand with a bad employment situation.

Well.... yes and no. I think we can agree that the employment picture was pretty rosy at the and of the 90's, but the "record" today's bankruptcies are topping was set during those years. i blame it more on how easy it is to go in to bankruptcy (it's really almost painless for many people) - but, hey, I'm a banker - what did you expect me to say?

I don't see how that plays into the point of profit margin. It does favor the high profit margin argument a bit

Actually, it's that the credit card portion of the market has gotten so cutthroat that most banks DON'T make any profits doing it. It's getting to the point where I'm willing to separate "credit card companies" out from "banks". We really don't operate the same way. in fact, a couple of the big boys are more like Fannie Mae (without the pseudo Govt backing) than they are like banks.

You yourself stated above in this thread banks make the money off of what they loan out. They are loaning lots out.

To make the point more completely. They make nothing if they can't lend the money out... but the profit is in the DIFFERENCE between the rate on loans and the rate on deposits. You can make LOTS of loans and lose money if you have no pricing power... and a lot of banks will hit that wall when rates start to climb and new borrowing slows down. For a good bank (ahem...:-)), this isn't as big a problem. We have solid credit standards, so fewer of our clients are going to bail on us and the "effective" margin can be more manageable without actually changing rates as much.

Didn't the 80's have notorious bank problems?

Yes. Different situation. That was a commercial real estate crunch. Some larger banks had gotten overly leveraged in one type of lending (a warning for the big credit-card "banks" but it's probably too late for them) and when the Trumps of the world had problems they dumped assets on those banks that were worth a fraction of what they were taken for collateral. Again, the better managed banks did not have that problem. The bank I worked for at the time was hardly ever better than the late 80's early 90's.
Who said anything about panic?

Sorry - I should have said "does this mean you should SELL all of your bank stocks? - no..."

[KoKo]

61. Frodo, what do you think about the "credit card debt." If you separate

that out from the "mortgage debt" you've still got "whopping debt" for the average consumer. Back in the days of the "free" toasters people didn't have the credit card debt they are assuming now and you couldn't qualify for a mortgage without a much larger downpayment and much higher requirements on what your income was to ability to pay back mortgage payment.

I know you've seen charts from way back in the 60's and 70's I don't have links here, but I've seen the charts and know that there's no way $20,000 down in the 70's or even the 80's would have allowed a purchase of an $800.000 home. (An article just this week here from Financial Sense used that example) Folks just didn't have the ability to assume the kind of debt through easy credit and mortgage loans that they do now.

Something is very wrong and it can't be sustained. Although I understand your optimism since you are a banker. It's like the argument that the "Economy" is not the "Stock Market." Which is true, but there is a common dependence on the actions of the consumer in both the "Market" and the "Economy" which can have grave consequences when they get out of sync or the numbers are tinkered with as I believe they are right now.

Just my observations as a "consumer" working hard as hard as I can to contribute to the stability of the US "GDP." But becoming more wary every day. :D

[Frodo]

72. I'd agree with most of that.

One point I would make, however - from a personal finance standpoint - is the difference between "secured" and "unsecured" debt. $10,000 owed on a credit card is far worse than $20,000 owed on a $22,000 car. So those credit cards are the big problem... and it may be worse than people think because you can put off the problem by transfering balances from one card to another.

Back in the day when I had some debt (right after getting married) we once went five months without making a payment, not because we didn't have the money, but because we kept getting offers to transfer the money for free (or better than free - with a cash rebate) to a different card. Having all those cards probably DID dent our otherwise clean credit report for a few months, but you get the picture. If we WERE having financial problems... the reckoning could be put off for a significant period of time.

Some of this is also alleviated by the rise in property values and the low mortgage rates.

[54anickel]

63. Your chart only goes back to 92.

Well will need to agree to disagree on this one Frodo. It would be like arguing creationism vs evolution.

The 80's was the dawn of supply-side economics, a mere 20 year old experiment that has reached the point in the experiment where it must prove or disprove its viability.

We are at a crucial turning point on this theory. Certainly I am not going to cheer for its failure as it would mean unthoughtful extremes for everyone involved. Nor will I turn a blind eye to the fact that this very young theory is at a crucial point - which the media and pundits seem to be hoping we all overlook.

It is easy to get lost in the forest if you pay no heed to where you have been.

http://www.the-privateer.com/usdebt/usdebt.html#links

[The Voice]

46. Re Defense Spending

Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment increased 0.7 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 1.2 percent in the third. National defense increased 1.8 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 1.3 percent. Nondefense decreased 1.6 percent, in contrast to an increase of 6.5 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross investment increased 0.9 percent, compared with an increase of 2.1 percent.

http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm

[54anickel]

65. Thanks for the link. Nothing privatizing the military can't fix, hey?

:evilgrin:

And welcome to DU. :hi:

[JNelson6563]

5. Good morning Marketeers!

So GDP at 4% eh? Isn't that short of expectations? Hmmm. Interesting. I'm sure by the end of the day expectations will be down the memory hole and 4% will have become beyondour wildest dreams. haha

I will have little time for the Stock Market today. I have child home sick from school and brunch for 100 to cook for for tomorrow. The kitchen aide is whirring as I type.

Will keep periodic eye on how today's numbers play out. Will check in to read all your updates etc.

Good luck in the casino Marketeers! :hi:

Julie

[54anickel]

7. Sorry to hear the little one's not feeling well. Hmm, brunch for 100?

Anything good on the menu?

If I remember from UIAs report menu yesterday there was quite a bit due out today. I'll be ready for the sunshine and roses, gonna wear my "Cool" shades all day. B-)

[Frodo]

11. Those were the two big ones, but

We get a revision on the Michigan consumer sentiment number in an hour or so - not expected to change, but 103 WAS awfully high and the Conference board number wasn't AS big an improvement.

Then we get the Chicago PMI number fifteen minutes later - that's a medium-high important number. Anything over "50" indicates growth in that sector (but again it's 'what have you done for me lately'). The prior number was a 59 or so and this one is expected to improve to 62. So bet that it will come in a bit lower (60-61) and the improvement will still dent the market for "not as good as it should be".

[JNelson6563]

12. The Menu

Stabenow Brunch Menu


Smoked Whitefish

Fresh Fruit Display

Cheese Display

Spring Mix Salad w/ Dried Cherry Vinigrette

Breads & Various Pastries

Fresh Fruit Crepes with Cream Cheese Filling

Paine Perdu’

Peasant Egg Casserole

Breakfast Sausage

Assorted Coffees, Teas & Juices

Mimosa Punch


Not too late to RSVP!! :-)

Thanks 54-for the sympathy on the sick one. Poor kid, he's got a cold/cough and with all that yucky stuff associated with cough has made him sick to his stomach. He's back asleep thankfully. I am loading up Jeep with non-perishables to take over to fundraiser site. Also need to stop and get bakery boxes and doilies. haha It's those detail items that'll kill ya.

Julie

[54anickel]

21. Mmmm. Looks Yummy! You doing all that work yourself? I can't

imagine. Largest crowd I ever had to fix a meal for was 40. This is for 100? Zowie!

If the big pond was froze over I'd drive on by for a sample and to give you a hand. That detour through Chicago's gonna slow me way down.

Thanks again for all you do! B-)

[JNelson6563]

23. My hubby's a chef haha!!

I don't like to cook so of course I married a chef. I am however a very experienced baker, was inthe confectionary business for 10 years.

Tho' a chef my hubby manages a chain restaurant cause that's where the money and security is. He feeds hundreds of folks a day so it's really not that big of a deal. Well it is but only in that it's a lot of work. It's not bad when you know what you're doing though.

I invite all Marketeers to come enjoy this beautiful region in the summer. I'll keep you posted when we are having big Dem events. 54--you could catch the ferry to Ludington. ;-)

Off to get more supplies. Markets look rather unhappy.

Catch you all later.

Julie

[llmart]

69. Julie...

thanks for all you do here in Michigan, too. I'm downstate and read your posts and feel guilty that I don't do more for our Democratic party. I love our two esteemed Senators, though, and think we are very, very fortunate to have them. Debbie S. is the best! Only wish Jennifer would've endorsed Dean:)

[JNelson6563]

76. thank you

And I don't mean to make you feel guilty, jump aboard and just do what you can. Every little bit helps!

Aren't we lucky to be so well represented in the Senate? :toast:

Julie

[llmart]

81. Yes, we are lucky

but I still wish David Bonior wouldn't have left us. And weren't you just delighted when one-termer Spence left us? I did actively campaign for Jennifer though so I felt good about that.

[cthrumatrix]

8. Record number to lose jobless benefits 375,000 workers to lose payments

Record number to lose jobless benefits
375,000 workers to lose payments this month

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4105947 /

"A record-high 375,000 jobless workers will exhaust their unemployment insurance this month and an estimated 2 million workers will find themselves in the same predicament during the first half of the year, according to an analysis of Labor Department statistics by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities."

"Labor Department officials noted that President Bush approved extensions of jobless benefits since he took office."

[54anickel]

13. So sad. This will be an extremely difficult year for many. Good Karma to

all and their loved ones.

This article is so sad and it points out those who have the heart and mind to listen to the public and truly see what is going on vs those who never leave their caves and rely completely on the statistics laid before them by some heartless, souless computer program.

snip>
Republicans lead the opposition on an unemployment insurance extension because they believe they have solved America's economic problems," Clinton said. "People are desperate but they are being ignored by the Bush administration."

snip>
"New jobs have been created five months in a row, while the nation's unemployment rate and new claims have fallen significantly," Ed Frank, a department spokesman, said in a statement. "Still, the president has said many times that he's not going to rest until every person who wants a job can find one."

Sure, he's not going to rest, big deal. Talk is cheap. What will he do to help these poor souls. Certainly not rethink the extension.

[Coventina]

18. Good morning all!

Sorry I don't have a reading for you today.

I just wanted to say hi to everyone, and tell you that even when I don't get the opportunity to post, I still read all your hard work daily. (Sometimes not until late in the day, though).

Thanks for maintaining this thread, which has been so much help to so many.

Have a great weekend guys!

:hi:

[UpInArms]

19. daily dollar watch

http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=NYBOT_DXY0

Last trade 87.24 Change -0.34 (-0.39%)

related articles

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world_business/view/68752/1/.html

Dollar perks up ahead of US growth snapshot

ONDON : The dollar clawed back against the euro ahead of US growth figures expected to show further signs of recovery in the world's biggest economy.

The single European currency eased to 1.2371 dollars in late morning London trade from 1.2405 late on Thursday in New York. At one point the euro fell to as low as 1.2350 dollars.

The dollar stood at 105.86 yen against 105.95 on Thursday.

The greenback has staged a modest rebound since the Federal Reserve statement on Wednesday suggesting that US interest rates might be set to rise.

After faltering on Thursday, the dollar resumed its bounce back ahead of anxiously awaited US gross domestic product (GDP) figures for the fourth quarter of 2003.

The data was expected to show an annualised growth rate of 4.9 percent compared with the sizzling 8.2 percent figure seen in the third quarter.

"Given the recent Fed meeting and the rolling forward of expectations of US interest rate hikes, there should be more focus on US data compared to recent weeks." said ABN Amro analyst Paul Mackel.

"An upbeat (GDP) figure would underscore the idea that the dollar does have some positive properties."

...more...
http://www.reuters.com/financeArticle.jhtml?storyID=4247821&newsType=usDollarRpt&menuType=currencies

Dollar retains gains on US rate/data hopes

LONDON, Jan 30 (Reuters) - The dollar edged up towards Thursday's one-week high against the euro on Friday as forecasts for robust U.S. data later supported expectations of higher U.S. rates which could come as early as the first half of this year. The dollar rallied to $1.2360 per euro on Thursday after the Fed dropped its pledge to keep rates on hold for a "considerable period", instead saying it "can be patient" about lifting rates. Fourth-quarter U.S. growth data, a regional manufacturing survey and a consumer sentiment indicator are all due later in the day. Better than expected figures could further fuel expectations for a rate rise -- currently priced in for June -- and lift the dollar higher.

The dollar's recovery this week was also seen as relief for euro zone officials, who have expressed concerns about a rapid rise in the euro ahead of a February 6-7 Group of Seven finance ministers meeting. "The market has discounted U.S. data before because nobody thought the Fed would raise rates. Now that the Fed is seen more hawkish, stronger than expected data could lead the market to test the year low for the euro, although next week has a big event risk of the G7," said Shahab Jalinoos, senior currency strategist at ABN AMRO.

"The dollar has been treated as a global funding currency for a long time. Anything that suggests this carry story will dissipate will be a big plus for the dollar."

By 0845 GMT, the dollar was trading at $1.2364 per euro having finished the New York session at $1.2407. It stood at 105.96 yen , above this week's three-year low around 105.45. "Recent dollar-selling has come to a halt and it'll probably stay supported until the G7," said Kenji Kobayashi, senior manager of the foreign exchange and treasury division at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi.

<snip>

The Japanese authorities are believed to have intervened on Wednesday, pushing the dollar up by nearly a yen to 106.65.

...more...

http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/040130/15/3hmzl.html

Hot Money Outflow Could Weaken Hong Kong Dollar

HONG KONG (Dow Jones)--A weakening of the Hong Kong dollar in the past couple of days has traders worrying that the inflow of billions of U.S. dollars in speculative money supporting the currency is in danger of reversing.

After trading for weeks around HK$7.7630 to the U.S. dollar, the spot rate moved to around HK$7.7750 during the day Friday - the closest it has come since last September to the formal peg rate of HK$7.80.

"It seems that sentiment is turning quite quickly," said Pieter van der Schaft, an economist at Barclays Capital. "All of a sudden you could see a trickle turn into a flood."

Strength in the Hong Kong dollar started in September after an unexpected combination of events: a rise in Asian currencies after Western governments criticized them as undervalued, coinciding with a surge in speculation about a possible revaluation of the Chinese yuan.

...more...

Well it looks as though 4% GDP was not good enough to keep the dollar going higher and it is not slumping. More numbers due in today may not do it either. The BoJ is still intervening (in spite of the G7 warnings) and will probably continue to do so. The Greenspin and Snowjob did nothing yesterday. I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude :)

Hope all you Marketeers have a Great Day!

[54anickel]

70. My those folks in the currency trading pits certainly wield a lot of power

these days, don't they. They could make or break a nation.
:scared:

[ozymandius]

20. Europe vs. America and Israel? by J. R. Nyquist

If Europe is to come together politically, and the plan of unification is to be realized, some outside threat – that is, an outside economic threat – might be useful for the final push. At the moment, America is an obvious candidate. Now that Russia’s armored divisions are gone from central Europe, America’s protecting hand is superfluous. For those on Europe’s left, and for those who dream of a united Europe, it may be time to bite down hard on superfluous things.

<cut>

Recently, the European Union and the United States have been unable to agree on a formula for anti-dumping duties. Mobilizing for maximum political advantage, and for the mileage this promises to the cause of European unity, Brussels is preparing to blast the U.S. with an official complaint before the World Trade Organization. It’s a win-win move for Brussels and a lose-lose situation for Washington (because Washington has a strategic interest in Europe while Europe has none in America). Theoretically, free trade is a good thing for all peaceful nations. But free trade is like the man in the moon. Our fanciful mood sees him even though he isn’t there at all. And modern legislation being what it is, with differing rates of taxation, with fluctuating national currencies and subsidies, one is left to search in vain for the Seven Cities of Gold, the Fountain of Youth and free trade. Does it anywhere exist? Has it ever existed? Will it ever be found?

As Brussels prepares its complaint before the WTO, Washington appears unwilling to back down. There are other disputes on the table, as well. Europe and America disagree over US export subsidies, hormones in beef and genetically modified crops. America is also being blamed for the collapse of WTO development talks in Cancun.

Is the European relationship with America headed for an impasse?

[aneerkoinos]

48. Yuck

What a horrible, repulsive article. The writer obviously agrees with that Buchanan character who is loathing us Euros for not being anymore the fanatical chauvinists and militarists and fascists we used to be (and got the whole world into to big orgies of blood). It is a tragedy that these Nyquists and Buchanans and Israeli ambassadors, who share the same values and lot of same rhetoric with pre-WWII fascists, have so much prestige in the current world :(.

Sorry for the rant, don't want to make a thread hijack.

[ozymandius]

50. Nyquist is always good for an "ewww".

My impression is that they feature his writing on FSO for the balance factor. I put it here to see what kind of response it receives. Yours did not surprise me.

[KoKo]

62. Ozy, I didn't want to comment........was laying low after reading that.

It really is a stinker.....Your snip was the best part. :D

[ozymandius]

22. Casino is open. Looks more like an abbatoir.

9:44
Dow 10,456.59 -53.70 (-0.51%)
Nasdaq 2,063.73 -4.50 (-0.22%)
S&P 500 1,129.59 -4.53 (-0.40%)
10-Yr Bond 4.151% -0.046

[ozymandius]

24. and the blather...

Stocks Open Down After GDP Disappoints

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. stocks opened lower on Friday, after a closely watched report on U.S. economic growth came in well below Wall Street expectations.

<cut>

The U.S. economy grew at a solid 4 percent annual rate in the final three months of last year, the government said, but the pace was weaker than forecast and less than half the rate of the third quarter, as consumers cut back their spending. Analysts polled by Reuters had pegged annualized growth of 4.8 percent, with some forecasting as much as 6.0 percent.

link to blurb

[Frodo]

27. Later numbers provide some relief. Chicago PMI surprises upward.

The U of Michigan consumer sentiment survey was actually revised upward from 103.2 to 103.8 (mild surprise - expected a lower revision)

More importantly, the Chicago Purchasing Managers Index rose quite a bit more than expected. It was anticipated to rise from 59.2 to 61.1 - Instead, the December figure was revised upwards to 61.2 and January rose to 65.9 - the highest since around 1994.

Anything over 50 in this number is supposed to be a good thing.

We'll find out shortly what the internals are. A good look at coming employment picture in there.

[Teaser]

28. Employment component decreased...

slipped to 48.3 from 49.6

[ozymandius]

30. What does this mean? nt

[Frodo]

32. What it means is...

Frodo needs to type faster. I'm here working on a stupid table and Teaser comes and steals my thunder. Heck, THREE people post before I get it out.

I need to go with "post now, commentary edit later"

[Frodo]

33. OK. What it really means it.

From Briefing.com:

Highlights

January Chicago PMI 65.9 (4.7 pts) -- highest level since July 1994.

Key Factors

Forward looking component new orders provided a lift to 69.7 -- a new high and consistent with continued strength.
Production showed a far stronger rise to a tremendous 76.5 as low inventories (37.4) provides support.
Employment fell off to 48.3 and continues to bounce around near 50. Labor demand slow in improving.
Prices paid (67.8) led by energy prices and contrast with weak output pricing power.
Chicago along with the east coast manufacturing indices bode well for January ISM and the manufacturing outlook.


Translation - pretty good news for the economy going forward (That production number is hot), but not very good news for the unemployed - and therefore not great for Bush. Not "bad" you understand, but the markets will probably react better than the average voter.



We'll know more on Monday with the ISM index release.

[ozymandius]

29. Losses curbed. Nasdaq above water. 10:23

Dow 10,481.41 -28.88 (-0.27%)
Nasdaq 2,076.44 +8.21 (+0.40%)
S&P 500 1,133.06 -1.05 (-0.09%)
10-Yr Bond 4.169% -0.028

[Frodo]

31. OK. Internals are in. Very interesting commentary on state of the economy.

EVERYTHING in the Chicago PMI index went up SUBSTANTIALLY... EXCEPT the employment number (which still languishes right around the break-even point).

------------.--Jan Dec Nov Oct Sep
Chicago PMI---65.9 61.2 62.9 55.8 53.0
New Orders----69.7 66.1 68.5 61.6 54.8
Production----76.5 68.9 68.3 63.9 57.1
Employment---48.3 49.6 49.3 51.4 46.0
Prices Paid----67.8 57.3 68.1 59.8 53.0

[UpInArms]

34. do you think that the employment numbers

are starting to reflect all the outsourcing that has been happening and is forecasted?

[Teaser]

37. I think that's right.

This is a strange, structural change in our economy. I don't think there is any going back.

[ozymandius]

42. more than outsourcing - I think

There are also garden variety layoffs that color this picture: restructuring, automation (increased productivity without increased personnel), bankruptcies, etc

[54anickel]

43. Oh, don't forget my favorite - Mergers and aquisitions. This is the year

for M&A remember.

[ozymandius]

49. I am embarrassed for having omitted M&A.

All told, this presents a sizeable chunk of jobs lost and jobs that will be lost. I pity the fool who tries to run on our burgeoning economic strength.

[54anickel]

51. No need to be embarrassed. It is a favorite topic of mine for several

reasons.
3) I'd been through many back in my old days of banking.
2) It is the reason I am currently unemployed.
And the number 1 reason:
It was the topic of an early thread I posted which put me more in touch with UIA and all you "Cool" Marketeers. B-)

[Frodo]

45. I'd say yes. That and other things.

1) There's been a structural change going on in employment going back at least to the late 80's that I suspect is more pronounced in weaker economic times.

2) I also think companies have gotten more and more "efficient" at handling their "human resources". Just like "just-in-time" this and that or "supply chain management" companies are getting by with just what they need (employment-wise) and of course THAT will always be more pronounced after a recession - and it's gotten worse (from an employment perspective) after each successive downturn.

3) As you suspect - Tied to that "efficiency" "improvement" is likely the continual increase in companies identifying jobs that can be done elsewhere cheaper. I'd PREFER that it be New York companies recognizeing that North Carolina is a better place to do business (or Silicon Valley companies moving to Northern Virginia), but some of it will obviously be jobs moving overseas. There's no question it ahs an effect.

[fishnfla]

59. Also technology is replacing employees with machines

new technology, especially in the manufacturing sector, is causing IRREVERSIBLE unemployment.

Example? The layoffs at Kodak. Digital cameras replacing traditional film.

[TrogL]

75. That's more bad business decisions by Kodak

They should have seen this coming and bought or developed some digital technology.

There's a screaming need for cheap digital cameras in the $30-50 range to give to kids who don't need a fancy one. Kodak could easily have filled this niche.

[54anickel]

36. POLL-U.S. managers look to Europe, away from bonds

Money continues to be transformed from wealth, to debt, to speculative investment. The wave of the future.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2004/01/30/rtr1235678.html

BOSTON (Reuters) - U.S. fund managers, certain that a global economic recovery will follow on the heels of stronger U.S. growth, invested more money in Europe in January and prepared to take it out of U.S. bonds, a new poll shows.

Managers who oversee billions of dollars in assets for companies, including Citigroup Asset Management, Deutsche Asset Management, and UBS, told Reuters they got the long awaited sign this week on where U.S. interest rates will move.

"The Federal Reserve has changed its language," said Anthony Chan, chief economist at Banc One Investment Advisors, adding that "bonds will now likely lose their cachet."

more...

[JNelson6563]

38. Gee wasn't I just talking yesterday about

wealth fleeing our shores and going abroad to find better returns....?

Sometimes it seems like I have a clue what the hell I'm talking about. Sometimes. ;-)

10:54 and here's a snapshot of the action at the casino:


Dow 10,463.04 -47.25 (-0.45%)
Nasdaq 2,072.33 +4.10 (+0.20%)
S&P 500 1,130.47 -3.64 (-0.32%)
10-Yr Bond 4.155% -0.042

Mixed. :shrug:

Julie

[54anickel]

40. Yes, you are another one of the true "seers" here on the SMW.

Speaking of "seers", where is Maeve and the tag along ghost?
:hippie:

[ozymandius]

44. Man, oh, man - that reads like a gut punch to the bond market.

At least, it's a tap to the solar plexis.

[54anickel]

47. Question for you Ozy...

As I am still trying to get my brain wrapped around the mechanics of the bond market in the BIG picture.

From my research thus far, I understand that it is truly the bond market that sets the interest rates, not the Fed (they simple react to the bond market). If that is correct, what might this new mean to that inter-relationship - if it truly exists, that is?

Would it be forecasting a raise or lowering?

[ozymandius]

53. I'll take a swing - but you should ask Julie about the bond market.

Julie is the bond queen here.

My understanding of the 10-year is that it has more impact on the interest rate of a 30-year mortgage than the overnight lending rate set by the Fed. Now if money is leaving these shores and going elsewhere, this would mean that the bond rates would have to increase their interest rate in order to stay competitive with overseas markets. This is one of the strange inverse correlaries explained here a while back: when the 10-year posts negative increase in rates, more money is coming in (everyone's happy). As the money influx slows down, rates increase.

just a student's two cents worth

[54anickel]

55. Yes, thank you. From what I've been able to gather, the interventions

going on in the currency wars have basically disarmed the alarms of the bond market for raising the rates. It is disguising the only alarm left in tact (as the selective CPI means nothing anymore).

With that alarm disfunctional, the Fed could oversleep sending us into hyperinflation - if I'm understanding what I've been reading thus far anyway.

[ozymandius]

56. as for a raise or a lowering of the overnight rate...

Not sure. I think there may be more impact on tax codes than anything - in the long run. We could also see accelerated ballooning of the federal deficit.

On the psychology of the bond market: the market tends to be afraid of its own shadow. Typical behavior in the relationship between stocks and bonds is that they work contrary to each other. Stocks do well, bonds sink - that kind of stuff.

My ideas are very general and sketchy rather than specific to describe the dynamics in play here.

[54anickel]

64. It is a difficult relationship to grasp, at least for me. But I have

read that bonds vs fed story line in several articles. It sticks in my mind so clearly because one went into calling the bond market Greenspins nemesis. It was a great article and I have been unable to relocate it.

[54anickel]

39. A Pivotal Month Ahead for Gold

A lot riding on the outcome of the G-7 next week.

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Temple/jan302004.html

snip>
Two meetings loom in February that will help to give us the answer as to whether it’s now time to load up again. The first is the G-7 meeting scheduled for February 6-7 in Florida. The fur is expected to fly over how the dollar’s essentially unchecked decline has threatened Europe’s exports, as it has led to record highs in the euro versus the dollar. Interestingly, the U.S. might end up largely as a spectator, as Europe seems to be far more upset with Japan than it is with Uncle Sam!

Apparently resigned to a prolonged weakening in the dollar, Europe will be making the case that it should not be bearing the brunt of the dollar’s decline virtually alone. It will browbeat Japan for intervening so heavily to keep the yen’s ascent against the dollar relatively modest. Japan will be under some considerable pressure to slow down its interventions supporting the dollar.

I won’t hazard a guess as to what might come out of this latest gathering of the world’s most notable financial ministers and assorted other pooh-bahs. Remember, though, that it was the LAST G-7 meeting several months ago that actually helped to solidify the dollar’s bear market. My gut tells me that something different will come out of them this time; but just what—and how the markets will react—is unknown. The possibility that the dollar could have a sustained bounce against the euro afterwards, though, is reason enough to stay cautious for now; after all, further weakening in the euro and strength in the greenback would take down gold even further.

Last, but perhaps not least, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan will soon make his regular semiannual pilgrimage to Capitol Hill. Especially in this election year, Democrats on the respective Senate and House committees will blame Greenspan for all the world’s ills, including the harsh winter weather of late in Washington. Republicans (with the one notable exception being Congressman Ron Paul of Texas) will pat him on the back for reviving the economy and the stock market.

Traders will be especially on the watch, however, for SOMETHING from Greenspan that will provide some clarification to what the F.O.M.C. had to say on Wednesday. In addition—and especially following the release by the Bush Administration this week of even uglier budget deficit projections for the current fiscal year—Greenspan’s comments on that topic will be watched closely as well.

[SpiralHawk]

78. G-7 in Florida. WTF?

All the 'interesting' stuff happens in Florida, doesn't it?

[54anickel]

66. Hmm, What's this? Greenspin rhetoric having some effect or what?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=114&topic_id=5187

[54anickel]

67. Here's an interesting article. Even a bit of praise for Poppy Bush

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/1/22/164856/449


on edit add:
A more in depth look, with links to pros and cons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

[KoKo]

74. It does lay it all out without alot of technical financial jargon. And I

agree. I hope this great "Supply Side" experiment is successful or even mostly successful because I don't want to think about the consequences. :nuke:

It's going to be very difficult for any President, Dem or not to deal with what "might" happen if SS theory doesn't work they way their models have predicted. If they ever had "models." I think it was cooked up in a think tank's back room by some hot shot University of Chicago Grad Students with no thought to consequences like the Iraq Invasion was cooked up with no thought to aftermath by the NeoCon's.

Actually, I just Googled David Stockman whom Reagan fired and my flaky memory was correct. A bunch of U. of Chicago, folks. (not dissing any of you here who are grads of that esteemed U. unless you are one of those SS'ers :D) I remembered it being Stockman who had been the "pusher." He got the blame, though, I believe, at the time. Later he has recanted and said the theory doesn't work.

Anyway, some more background more accurate than my memory:
(On Edit: The author of the linked article blames Greenspan for the SS'ers getting a Bad Rap! Go figure. Everyone gets credit when things are good and blame when it all blows up. Anyway it's an interesting read if you're into arguing Supply Side.

What Really Happened in 1981
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... David Stockman was not the architect of Reaganomics. The archi- tects were supply-side
economists, most of whom were trained at the University of Chicago or by ...
www.independent.org/tii/media/pdf/tir52roberts.pdf - Similar pages

[54anickel]

79. Ha ! Thanks KoKo1. Your memory has always been correct as

far as I can remember, then again mine is pretty flaky.

Yes, The Reaganomics birth - I've heard it told it was discussed at a Repug fund raiser between Stockman and a econ major who was scribbling on a cocktail napkin as he explained his theory. Stockman liked it (they were probably half in the bag) and put the napkin in his pocket.

That's how my econ professor explained it, he wasn't known for his sense of humor so I always half believed it. I still like his version better. :evilgrin:

[ozymandius]

68. Have a wonderful weekend folks!

Thank you all for such lively discussion and comeraderie. :hi:

Ozy

[JNelson6563]

77. 2:42 will this week ever end??

Dow 10,473.04 -37.25 (-0.35%)
Nasdaq 2,064.74 -3.49 (-0.17%)
S&P 500 1,130.09 -4.03 (-0.36%)
10-Yr Bond 4.134% -0.063

Not bad in Treasuries, the rest kinda yucky. Make that yucky-poo.

Julie

[54anickel]

80. Last pondering point for the week end...

http://www.kitco.com/weekly/paulvaneeden/jan302004.html

The Greater Depression


Last week we discussed foreign currency crises and the increase in the US dollar exchange rate during the Nineties. Starting with Brazil in 1992 one currency crisis after another spread across the globe causing capital flight. Net foreign investment in the United States totaled thirty eight billion dollars in 1992 and increased to over five hundred billion dollars during the past four quarters. Cumulative net foreign investment since 1992 has been almost three trillion dollars.

Most of this foreign capital found a home in US bonds, increasing US bond prices throughout the 1990s. Rising bond prices mean lower interest rates. The interest on 30-year Treasury Notes fell from an average of 8.61% in 1990 to 5.02% as of yesterday and the yield on 90-day Treasury Bills decreased from 7.75% to only 0.87% in the same period.

Lower interest rates meant that corporate borrowing costs declined and that lead to an almost instantaneous increase in corporate profits. Higher profits justified higher stock prices and the thus the stock market bubble was born.

more...

[KoKo]

82. A kick for weekend Financial "Wonks" if they're interested in our little

comments. I for one,have so much trouble with bonds and understanding the swings and sways that I get :crazy:

I try to just follow what I "basically know about the US from my experience on this earth" and what I've observed buying and selling many houses being a "Corporate Employee" and a Market Investor and looking ahead to where we are going, always and yet....always a Dem. I't's been hard being a Dem, many times, when folks ask: "Why do you care about what happens to "infra-structure and welfare people."

But, I look at the market that way...which makes me always have "Bear" leanings and be very cautious. :D