I would be interested to see how much they've been printing...
The China Stock Blog » Labeling China a Currency Manipulator (ETFs: FXI, PGJ): "This is just one possibility. I would be surprised if any byproduct of the China situation turns out to be truly dire, negative and noticeable sure but not dire.
This is one reason why I have maintained Chinese exposure personally and for most clients. I own iShares FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (ETF: FXI) personally, and some clients own one of the Chinese oil companies. The yuan rising creates a little tailwind for Chinese stocks along the lines of what I wrote about yesterday."
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Friday, April 28, 2006
Cash is The King? Elvis it ain't...
Bill Cara: FUBAR or Foobar, we all recognize it, Fri., Apr. 28, 2006, 9:28 AM: "Circumstances in free markets today are such that �borrow and spend� has gone overboard, and the world is afloat in paper money seeking an economic return.
But the two people in the world who have the most money (and by definition the most opportunities and research and management resources) have each decided that things are too FUBAR to sensibly put that money at risk.
Yes, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have decided that holding cash is the prudent thing to do until the world gets its act together."
They've been accumulating cash for awhile now. Warren because there's "no deals to be had in the market" and Bill, well, probably to fight all those legal battles.
I would like to see Warren pay out a dividend, even though he said he would never do something like that it would really stir the markets. (+ the stock)
But the two people in the world who have the most money (and by definition the most opportunities and research and management resources) have each decided that things are too FUBAR to sensibly put that money at risk.
Yes, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have decided that holding cash is the prudent thing to do until the world gets its act together."
They've been accumulating cash for awhile now. Warren because there's "no deals to be had in the market" and Bill, well, probably to fight all those legal battles.
I would like to see Warren pay out a dividend, even though he said he would never do something like that it would really stir the markets. (+ the stock)
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Are you a Corporate Ho?
Its time for all shareholders to realize they have a responsibility as owners of stock. That if you dont fulfill that obligation, you are nothing more than a corporate Ho and your share of stock is nothing more than a baseball card, worth what the next Ho will pay for it.
Dont be a Ho.
I like to compare stocks to baseball cards, since really that's what you're buying. It's something collectible that somebody else will either pay more or less for. It's not like you, as a small-time investor, would have any pull whatsoever.
"Hit a home run, Strawberry!"
"Ok Skip!"
Dont be a Ho.
I like to compare stocks to baseball cards, since really that's what you're buying. It's something collectible that somebody else will either pay more or less for. It's not like you, as a small-time investor, would have any pull whatsoever.
"Hit a home run, Strawberry!"
"Ok Skip!"
Ronald Reagan's favourite economist - Wendy Lee Gramm
Wendy Lee Gramm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "In her role at the Mercatus Center, Wendy Gramm generally calls for deregulation of the energy industry.
Previously, Wendy Gramm held several positions in the Reagan Administration, including heading the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. After a heavy lobbying campaign from Enron the CFTC exempted it from regulation in trading of energy derivatives. Gramm headed the commission from 1988 to 1993 following which she resigned and took a seat on the Enron Board of Directors where she was paid 1.85 million dollars. Enron used this lack of federal oversight to engage in its widely publicized accounting scandal. While on the board of directors she received donations from Enron to support the Mercatus Center."
Previously, Wendy Gramm held several positions in the Reagan Administration, including heading the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. After a heavy lobbying campaign from Enron the CFTC exempted it from regulation in trading of energy derivatives. Gramm headed the commission from 1988 to 1993 following which she resigned and took a seat on the Enron Board of Directors where she was paid 1.85 million dollars. Enron used this lack of federal oversight to engage in its widely publicized accounting scandal. While on the board of directors she received donations from Enron to support the Mercatus Center."
Ronald Reagan's favourite economist - Wendy Lee Gramm
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Lee_Gramm">Wendy Lee Gramm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "In her role at the Mercatus Center, Wendy Gramm generally calls for deregulation of the energy industry.
Previously, Wendy Gramm held several positions in the Reagan Administration, including heading the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. After a heavy lobbying campaign from Enron the CFTC exempted it from regulation in trading of energy derivatives. Gramm headed the commission from 1988 to 1993 following which she resigned and took a seat on the Enron Board of Directors where she was paid 1.85 million dollars. Enron used this lack of federal oversight to engage in its widely publicized accounting scandal. While on the board of directors she received donations from Enron to support the Mercatus Center."
Previously, Wendy Gramm held several positions in the Reagan Administration, including heading the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. After a heavy lobbying campaign from Enron the CFTC exempted it from regulation in trading of energy derivatives. Gramm headed the commission from 1988 to 1993 following which she resigned and took a seat on the Enron Board of Directors where she was paid 1.85 million dollars. Enron used this lack of federal oversight to engage in its widely publicized accounting scandal. While on the board of directors she received donations from Enron to support the Mercatus Center."
Monday, April 24, 2006
Some key statistics - M3 is back
Some key statistics: "M3 is back
We did some sleuthing and data extraction and put M3 back together from various weekly Federal Reserve reports that are still available.
The formula we're using has five 9s correlation to the original data back to 1980.
There is only one missing element that is apparently no longer available (Eurodollars) and an adjustment has been applied to generate it. Its only about 3% of total M3 so should not have a material effect on the total.
Here is a very little known Fed press release that tells more of the real story with M3, and on which we based the idea and concept of the reconstruction. "
We did some sleuthing and data extraction and put M3 back together from various weekly Federal Reserve reports that are still available.
The formula we're using has five 9s correlation to the original data back to 1980.
There is only one missing element that is apparently no longer available (Eurodollars) and an adjustment has been applied to generate it. Its only about 3% of total M3 so should not have a material effect on the total.
Here is a very little known Fed press release that tells more of the real story with M3, and on which we based the idea and concept of the reconstruction. "
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Why 1973 is like 2006 -- Tuesday, February 27, 1973
British Columbia is still nuclear free after 33 years.
Hansard -- Tuesday, February 27, 1973: "MR. BROUSSON: The last spring session, I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, this winter the Premier has been heard to say that he has some kind of a hang-up with nuclear power. He's been reading some learned tomes which now have further convinced him that there will be no nuclear power in British Columbia, he says -without discussion, without stating his reasons, without further examining the matter.
I was privileged last June, Mr. Chairman, to have a very thorough and a very exhaustive trip - I would say a very exhausting trip - through the Pickering nuclear plant just east of Toronto, run by Ontario Hydro. I would recommend this particular trip to the Premier and to anybody in this Legislature who is interested in this subject, before they go out and make statements about whether nuclear power is good, bad or indifferent. I think this is a worthwhile study to be made.
This particular plant will consist of four reactors, each one 540 megawatts, so that the four, when they're finished, will total 2,160 megawatts of power. In that one power plant, Mr. Chairman, you will have slightly more than one-half of B.C. Hydro's total generating capacity - in that one power plant in Pickering, about 20 miles east of Toronto.
Reactor No. I has been going now for about a year and a half. It was shut down during my visit because it was having at the end of its first year a routine check of the turbine blades. One of the interesting things about this visit was to see the turbine completely stripped down and spread around the power house, while the blades and the other internal workings were being examined to see what condition it was in after its first year of operation. The report on that first year's operation was just 100 per cent. They were delighted with the results they found.
"
Reactors No. 2 and 3 at that time had been operating on full-rated load for many, many months. I saw the chart which showed that they'd been on 98 to 99 per cent of full-rated power for many, many months, That's reactors 2 and 3. Reactor 4 was at that point still under construction. As a result, I had the privilege of walking through the entire internal area of the reactor and seeing the internal workings of it, the safety regulations, how it was constructed, the various things that were going to be done to make it safe.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. BROUSSON: I've got the figures all here in this file, if you want to look at it, through you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Ontario Hydro is doing virtually all of the construction costs of Pickering. There certainly has been federal government involvement in some of the others. The figures are all in this file for you.
If what I saw at Pickering in this development is an experiment, as Mr. Williston used to call it, I wonder what he would consider to be conclusive evidence. If the Premier has a hang-up about it, I think he should go and look at it and see exactly how it works and learn something about it from the people who have designed it and who are building it.
HON. MR. BARRETT: What about the wastes?
MR. BROUSSON: I don't mind saying that I was tremendously impressed by Pickering and by what I've been able to learn of it since. I would personally be prepared to start planning a nuclear plant for Vancouver Island right now. This is a project that would take at least five years to plan and construct. So, even if we started now, it would be 1978, 1979 perhaps, before it would be ready to go on line.
. I know there are problems, Mr. Chairman. But I think the greatest problem we have in terms of nuclear power in British Columbia are fear and ignorance. In my view, we can be very proud of the Canadian achievements in this field. We have probably the finest nuclear power system in the world - the Candu system. It's certainly the safest. The major concern is that eventually, modern science being what it is, there are probably going to be improvements that will make this plant old-fashioned sooner or later. But I don't think that's any reason why B.C. shouldn't be a part of going forward in the nuclear age today.
For one thing, Mr. Chairman, B.C. Hydro needs to develop a nucleus of knowledgeable people in this field. Right now there are only one or two people in the entire staff of B.C. Hydro who are really knowledgeable from a technical point of view of nuclear power generation. I think B.C. should do its share in training people in this field, and that B.C. Hydro should have a nucleus of people who have some knowledge of it.
I'd like to, as I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, look briefly at some of the major points that are problems in this regard. First, danger from accident. I believe that the safety controls that we have under the Candu system - C-a-n-d-u - which is the name for the Canadian system - are completely adequate and safe. I say without fear of contradiction that Canada has the safest nuclear power system in the world.
Danger from radiation has been one of the things that have been suggested as problems. Our standards at present are exactly the same as the safety standards of the United States. But the actual escape of radiation in the water or through the air at Pickering and others has proven to be only about I per cent of those standards. In other words, we could raise those standards by 100 times and still be within the practical operating limit of Pickering.
Thermal pollution has been listed as one of the dangers, one of the problems. Well, it can be a problem in some places. I suppose if you're building a nuclear power plant in Florida and places of that kind - perhaps Hawaii, southern California - where the waters are warm, this may be a serious problem, But it's certainly not true on the Pacific coast of British Columbia. In fact, it's very clear from the basis of scientific knowledge becoming available that there are advantages to come from this in terms of oyster farming and a number of other potential benefits, Perhaps the most nagging and serious problem at the present time is that of waste disposal. This is not one of immediate urgency. For, at the very least, the first 13 years of a Candu nuclear power plant, the waste can be contained completely within the premises in what is called the spent fuel bay, which is approximately the same size as an Olympic swimming pool, only deeper. The waste fuel is canned - put into heavy-duty cans - and kept under water securely. The U.S. does have some real problems, some serious problems, because they enrich their fuel by 100 times compared to the Canadian system. The American fuel is enriched uranium. Ours is natural uranium. That factor of 100 makes a great deal of difference to the danger of the spent fuel.
There's no question, Mr. Chairman, that in the long-term future we have to provide for this. I've got abiding faith in our technology to solve this problem. In the short-term, in the foreseeable future, in terms of a few small power plants, this is not any kind of a problem at all.
As far as cost, our system of heavy water and natural uranium does cost a little more than the United States'. But the fuel is cheaper because we use natural, not enriched, uranium. The fact is that our long-term operating costs are less but our first cost is a little higher. As a result of that first cost, we get a safer system.
If you assume a 71/2 per cent interest rate, which is higher than the last issue of Hydro parity bonds, and retire the capital cost over only 30 years, the operating cost of a Vancouver Island nuclear power plant has been estimated to be 63/4 mills per kilowatt hour for a 1979 start-up. Yet some estimates for a natural gas thermal plant on Vancouver Island under the same conditions are 9.1 mills, approximately 30 per cent more.
It's clear that natural gas is not going to come down in price; whereas the materials needed for a nuclear plant - which in the case of the Canadian system are the heavy water, estimated to be 2/10 mill per kilowatt hour and the natural uranium, about 9/10 mill per kilowatt hour - are certainly going to be resistant to the inflation and the rising cost of other kinds of fuel.
The final problem that the Canadian system does have is heavy water. The source of this is perhaps the biggest immediate problem for the Canadian system. There is a serious shortage at the present time. By 1977 there could well be a surplus, on the basis of plants that are under construction and will be on stream by 1977. And 1977 is well before we are going to be needing it in British Columbia.
So to summarize, Mr. Chairman, it's clear that a Canadian nuclear power system is safe, economic and practical. Least a beginning in its use should be made in British Columbia in certain selected areas. Vancouver Island, for the reasons I suggested, is an ideal place for it.
Hansard -- Tuesday, February 27, 1973: "MR. BROUSSON: The last spring session, I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, this winter the Premier has been heard to say that he has some kind of a hang-up with nuclear power. He's been reading some learned tomes which now have further convinced him that there will be no nuclear power in British Columbia, he says -without discussion, without stating his reasons, without further examining the matter.
I was privileged last June, Mr. Chairman, to have a very thorough and a very exhaustive trip - I would say a very exhausting trip - through the Pickering nuclear plant just east of Toronto, run by Ontario Hydro. I would recommend this particular trip to the Premier and to anybody in this Legislature who is interested in this subject, before they go out and make statements about whether nuclear power is good, bad or indifferent. I think this is a worthwhile study to be made.
This particular plant will consist of four reactors, each one 540 megawatts, so that the four, when they're finished, will total 2,160 megawatts of power. In that one power plant, Mr. Chairman, you will have slightly more than one-half of B.C. Hydro's total generating capacity - in that one power plant in Pickering, about 20 miles east of Toronto.
Reactor No. I has been going now for about a year and a half. It was shut down during my visit because it was having at the end of its first year a routine check of the turbine blades. One of the interesting things about this visit was to see the turbine completely stripped down and spread around the power house, while the blades and the other internal workings were being examined to see what condition it was in after its first year of operation. The report on that first year's operation was just 100 per cent. They were delighted with the results they found.
"
Reactors No. 2 and 3 at that time had been operating on full-rated load for many, many months. I saw the chart which showed that they'd been on 98 to 99 per cent of full-rated power for many, many months, That's reactors 2 and 3. Reactor 4 was at that point still under construction. As a result, I had the privilege of walking through the entire internal area of the reactor and seeing the internal workings of it, the safety regulations, how it was constructed, the various things that were going to be done to make it safe.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. BROUSSON: I've got the figures all here in this file, if you want to look at it, through you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Ontario Hydro is doing virtually all of the construction costs of Pickering. There certainly has been federal government involvement in some of the others. The figures are all in this file for you.
If what I saw at Pickering in this development is an experiment, as Mr. Williston used to call it, I wonder what he would consider to be conclusive evidence. If the Premier has a hang-up about it, I think he should go and look at it and see exactly how it works and learn something about it from the people who have designed it and who are building it.
HON. MR. BARRETT: What about the wastes?
MR. BROUSSON: I don't mind saying that I was tremendously impressed by Pickering and by what I've been able to learn of it since. I would personally be prepared to start planning a nuclear plant for Vancouver Island right now. This is a project that would take at least five years to plan and construct. So, even if we started now, it would be 1978, 1979 perhaps, before it would be ready to go on line.
. I know there are problems, Mr. Chairman. But I think the greatest problem we have in terms of nuclear power in British Columbia are fear and ignorance. In my view, we can be very proud of the Canadian achievements in this field. We have probably the finest nuclear power system in the world - the Candu system. It's certainly the safest. The major concern is that eventually, modern science being what it is, there are probably going to be improvements that will make this plant old-fashioned sooner or later. But I don't think that's any reason why B.C. shouldn't be a part of going forward in the nuclear age today.
For one thing, Mr. Chairman, B.C. Hydro needs to develop a nucleus of knowledgeable people in this field. Right now there are only one or two people in the entire staff of B.C. Hydro who are really knowledgeable from a technical point of view of nuclear power generation. I think B.C. should do its share in training people in this field, and that B.C. Hydro should have a nucleus of people who have some knowledge of it.
I'd like to, as I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, look briefly at some of the major points that are problems in this regard. First, danger from accident. I believe that the safety controls that we have under the Candu system - C-a-n-d-u - which is the name for the Canadian system - are completely adequate and safe. I say without fear of contradiction that Canada has the safest nuclear power system in the world.
Danger from radiation has been one of the things that have been suggested as problems. Our standards at present are exactly the same as the safety standards of the United States. But the actual escape of radiation in the water or through the air at Pickering and others has proven to be only about I per cent of those standards. In other words, we could raise those standards by 100 times and still be within the practical operating limit of Pickering.
Thermal pollution has been listed as one of the dangers, one of the problems. Well, it can be a problem in some places. I suppose if you're building a nuclear power plant in Florida and places of that kind - perhaps Hawaii, southern California - where the waters are warm, this may be a serious problem, But it's certainly not true on the Pacific coast of British Columbia. In fact, it's very clear from the basis of scientific knowledge becoming available that there are advantages to come from this in terms of oyster farming and a number of other potential benefits, Perhaps the most nagging and serious problem at the present time is that of waste disposal. This is not one of immediate urgency. For, at the very least, the first 13 years of a Candu nuclear power plant, the waste can be contained completely within the premises in what is called the spent fuel bay, which is approximately the same size as an Olympic swimming pool, only deeper. The waste fuel is canned - put into heavy-duty cans - and kept under water securely. The U.S. does have some real problems, some serious problems, because they enrich their fuel by 100 times compared to the Canadian system. The American fuel is enriched uranium. Ours is natural uranium. That factor of 100 makes a great deal of difference to the danger of the spent fuel.
There's no question, Mr. Chairman, that in the long-term future we have to provide for this. I've got abiding faith in our technology to solve this problem. In the short-term, in the foreseeable future, in terms of a few small power plants, this is not any kind of a problem at all.
As far as cost, our system of heavy water and natural uranium does cost a little more than the United States'. But the fuel is cheaper because we use natural, not enriched, uranium. The fact is that our long-term operating costs are less but our first cost is a little higher. As a result of that first cost, we get a safer system.
If you assume a 71/2 per cent interest rate, which is higher than the last issue of Hydro parity bonds, and retire the capital cost over only 30 years, the operating cost of a Vancouver Island nuclear power plant has been estimated to be 63/4 mills per kilowatt hour for a 1979 start-up. Yet some estimates for a natural gas thermal plant on Vancouver Island under the same conditions are 9.1 mills, approximately 30 per cent more.
It's clear that natural gas is not going to come down in price; whereas the materials needed for a nuclear plant - which in the case of the Canadian system are the heavy water, estimated to be 2/10 mill per kilowatt hour and the natural uranium, about 9/10 mill per kilowatt hour - are certainly going to be resistant to the inflation and the rising cost of other kinds of fuel.
The final problem that the Canadian system does have is heavy water. The source of this is perhaps the biggest immediate problem for the Canadian system. There is a serious shortage at the present time. By 1977 there could well be a surplus, on the basis of plants that are under construction and will be on stream by 1977. And 1977 is well before we are going to be needing it in British Columbia.
So to summarize, Mr. Chairman, it's clear that a Canadian nuclear power system is safe, economic and practical. Least a beginning in its use should be made in British Columbia in certain selected areas. Vancouver Island, for the reasons I suggested, is an ideal place for it.
The world hasn't changed a bit -- Tuesday, February 27, 1973
British Columbia is still nuclear-free after 33 years.
Hansard -- Tuesday, February 27, 1973: "MR. BROUSSON: The last spring session, I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, this winter the Premier has been heard to say that he has some kind of a hang-up with nuclear power. He's been reading some learned tomes which now have further convinced him that there will be no nuclear power in British Columbia, he says -without discussion, without stating his reasons, with-
[ Page 810 ]
out further examining the matter.
I was privileged last June, Mr. Chairman, to have a very thorough and a very exhaustive trip - I would say a very exhausting trip - through the Pickering nuclear plant just east of Toronto, run by Ontario Hydro. I would recommend this particular trip to the Premier and to anybody in this Legislature who is interested in this subject, before they go out and make statements about whether nuclear power is good, bad or indifferent. I think this is a worthwhile study to be made.
This particular plant will consist of four reactors, each one 540 megawatts, so that the four, when they're finished, will total 2,160 megawatts of power. In that one power plant, Mr. Chairman, you will have slightly more than one-half of B.C. Hydro's total generating capacity - in that one power plant in Pickering, about 20 miles east of Toronto.
Reactor No. I has been going now for about a year and a half. It was shut down during my visit because it was having at the end of its first year a routine check of the turbine blades. One of the interesting things about this visit was to see the turbine completely stripped down and spread around the power house, while the blades and the other internal workings were being examined to see what condition it was in after its first year of operation. The report on that first year's operation was just 100 per cent. They were delighted with the results they found.
"
Reactors No. 2 and 3 at that time had been operating on full-rated load for many, many months. I saw the chart which showed that they'd been on 98 to 99 per cent of full-rated power for many, many months, That's reactors 2 and 3. Reactor 4 was at that point still under construction. As a result, I had the privilege of walking through the entire internal area of the reactor and seeing the internal workings of it, the safety regulations, how it was constructed, the various things that were going to be done to make it safe.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. BROUSSON: I've got the figures all here in this file, if you want to look at it, through you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Ontario Hydro is doing virtually all of the construction costs of Pickering. There certainly has been federal government involvement in some of the others. The figures are all in this file for you.
If what I saw at Pickering in this development is an experiment, as Mr. Williston used to call it, I wonder what he would consider to be conclusive evidence. If the Premier has a hang-up about it, I think he should go and look at it and see exactly how it works and learn something about it from the people who have designed it and who are building it.
HON. MR. BARRETT: What about the wastes?
MR. BROUSSON: I don't mind saying that I was tremendously impressed by Pickering and by what I've been able to learn of it since. I would personally be prepared to start planning a nuclear plant for Vancouver Island right now. This is a project that would take at least five years to plan and construct. So, even if we started now, it would be 1978, 1979 perhaps, before it would be ready to go on line.
. I know there are problems, Mr. Chairman. But I think the greatest problem we have in terms of nuclear power in British Columbia are fear and ignorance. In my view, we can be very proud of the Canadian achievements in this field. We have probably the finest nuclear power system in the world - the Candu system. It's certainly the safest. The major concern is that eventually, modern science being what it is, there are probably going to be improvements that will make this plant old-fashioned sooner or later. But I don't think that's any reason why B.C. shouldn't be a part of going forward in the nuclear age today.
For one thing, Mr. Chairman, B.C. Hydro needs to develop a nucleus of knowledgeable people in this field. Right now there are only one or two people in the entire staff of B.C. Hydro who are really knowledgeable from a technical point of view of nuclear power generation. I think B.C. should do its share in training people in this field, and that B.C. Hydro should have a nucleus of people who have some knowledge of it.
I'd like to, as I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, look briefly at some of the major points that are problems in this regard. First, danger from accident. I believe that the safety controls that we have under the Candu system - C-a-n-d-u - which is the name for the Canadian system - are completely adequate and safe. I say without fear of contradiction that Canada has the safest nuclear power system in the world.
Danger from radiation has been one of the things that have been suggested as problems. Our standards at present are exactly the same as the safety standards of the United States. But the actual escape of radiation in the water or through the air at Pickering and others has proven to be only about I per cent of those standards. In other words, we could raise those standards by 100 times and still be within the practical operating limit of Pickering.
Thermal pollution has been listed as one of the dangers, one of the problems. Well, it can be a problem in some places. I suppose if you're building a nuclear power plant in Florida and places of that kind - perhaps Hawaii, southern California - where the waters are warm, this may be a serious problem, But it's certainly not true on the Pacific coast of British Columbia. In fact, it's very clear from the basis of
[ Page 811 ]
scientific knowledge becoming available that there are advantages to come from this in terms of oyster farming and a number of other potential benefits, Perhaps the most nagging and serious problem at the present time is that of waste disposal. This is not one of immediate urgency. For, at the very least, the first 13 years of a Candu nuclear power plant, the waste can be contained completely within the premises in what is called the spent fuel bay, which is approximately the same size as an Olympic swimming pool, only deeper. The waste fuel is canned - put into heavy-duty cans - and kept under water securely. The U.S. does have some real problems, some serious problems, because they enrich their fuel by 100 times compared to the Canadian system. The American fuel is enriched uranium. Ours is natural uranium. That factor of 100 makes a great deal of difference to the danger of the spent fuel.
There's no question, Mr. Chairman, that in the long-term future we have to provide for this. I've got abiding faith in our technology to solve this problem. In the short-term, in the foreseeable future, in terms of a few small power plants, this is not any kind of a problem at all.
As far as cost, our system of heavy water and natural uranium does cost a little more than the United States'. But the fuel is cheaper because we use natural, not enriched, uranium. The fact is that our long-term operating costs are less but our first cost is a little higher. As a result of that first cost, we get a safer system.
If you assume a 71/2 per cent interest rate, which is higher than the last issue of Hydro parity bonds, and retire the capital cost over only 30 years, the operating cost of a Vancouver Island nuclear power plant has been estimated to be 63/4 mills per kilowatt hour for a 1979 start-up. Yet some estimates for a natural gas thermal plant on Vancouver Island under the same conditions are 9.1 mills, approximately 30 per cent more.
It's clear that natural gas is not going to come down in price; whereas the materials needed for a nuclear plant - which in the case of the Canadian system are the heavy water, estimated to be 2/10 mill per kilowatt hour and the natural uranium, about 9/10 mill per kilowatt hour - are certainly going to be resistant to the inflation and the rising cost of other kinds of fuel.
The final problem that the Canadian system does have is heavy water. The source of this is perhaps the biggest immediate problem for the Canadian system. There is a serious shortage at the present time. By 1977 there could well be a surplus, on the basis of plants that are under construction and will be on stream by 1977. And 1977 is well before we are going to be needing it in British Columbia.
So to summarize, Mr. Chairman, it's clear that a Canadian nuclear power system is safe, economic and practical. Least a beginning in its use should be made in British Columbia in certain selected areas. Vancouver Island, for the reasons I suggested, is an ideal place for it.
Hansard -- Tuesday, February 27, 1973: "MR. BROUSSON: The last spring session, I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, this winter the Premier has been heard to say that he has some kind of a hang-up with nuclear power. He's been reading some learned tomes which now have further convinced him that there will be no nuclear power in British Columbia, he says -without discussion, without stating his reasons, with-
[ Page 810 ]
out further examining the matter.
I was privileged last June, Mr. Chairman, to have a very thorough and a very exhaustive trip - I would say a very exhausting trip - through the Pickering nuclear plant just east of Toronto, run by Ontario Hydro. I would recommend this particular trip to the Premier and to anybody in this Legislature who is interested in this subject, before they go out and make statements about whether nuclear power is good, bad or indifferent. I think this is a worthwhile study to be made.
This particular plant will consist of four reactors, each one 540 megawatts, so that the four, when they're finished, will total 2,160 megawatts of power. In that one power plant, Mr. Chairman, you will have slightly more than one-half of B.C. Hydro's total generating capacity - in that one power plant in Pickering, about 20 miles east of Toronto.
Reactor No. I has been going now for about a year and a half. It was shut down during my visit because it was having at the end of its first year a routine check of the turbine blades. One of the interesting things about this visit was to see the turbine completely stripped down and spread around the power house, while the blades and the other internal workings were being examined to see what condition it was in after its first year of operation. The report on that first year's operation was just 100 per cent. They were delighted with the results they found.
"
Reactors No. 2 and 3 at that time had been operating on full-rated load for many, many months. I saw the chart which showed that they'd been on 98 to 99 per cent of full-rated power for many, many months, That's reactors 2 and 3. Reactor 4 was at that point still under construction. As a result, I had the privilege of walking through the entire internal area of the reactor and seeing the internal workings of it, the safety regulations, how it was constructed, the various things that were going to be done to make it safe.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. BROUSSON: I've got the figures all here in this file, if you want to look at it, through you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Ontario Hydro is doing virtually all of the construction costs of Pickering. There certainly has been federal government involvement in some of the others. The figures are all in this file for you.
If what I saw at Pickering in this development is an experiment, as Mr. Williston used to call it, I wonder what he would consider to be conclusive evidence. If the Premier has a hang-up about it, I think he should go and look at it and see exactly how it works and learn something about it from the people who have designed it and who are building it.
HON. MR. BARRETT: What about the wastes?
MR. BROUSSON: I don't mind saying that I was tremendously impressed by Pickering and by what I've been able to learn of it since. I would personally be prepared to start planning a nuclear plant for Vancouver Island right now. This is a project that would take at least five years to plan and construct. So, even if we started now, it would be 1978, 1979 perhaps, before it would be ready to go on line.
. I know there are problems, Mr. Chairman. But I think the greatest problem we have in terms of nuclear power in British Columbia are fear and ignorance. In my view, we can be very proud of the Canadian achievements in this field. We have probably the finest nuclear power system in the world - the Candu system. It's certainly the safest. The major concern is that eventually, modern science being what it is, there are probably going to be improvements that will make this plant old-fashioned sooner or later. But I don't think that's any reason why B.C. shouldn't be a part of going forward in the nuclear age today.
For one thing, Mr. Chairman, B.C. Hydro needs to develop a nucleus of knowledgeable people in this field. Right now there are only one or two people in the entire staff of B.C. Hydro who are really knowledgeable from a technical point of view of nuclear power generation. I think B.C. should do its share in training people in this field, and that B.C. Hydro should have a nucleus of people who have some knowledge of it.
I'd like to, as I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, look briefly at some of the major points that are problems in this regard. First, danger from accident. I believe that the safety controls that we have under the Candu system - C-a-n-d-u - which is the name for the Canadian system - are completely adequate and safe. I say without fear of contradiction that Canada has the safest nuclear power system in the world.
Danger from radiation has been one of the things that have been suggested as problems. Our standards at present are exactly the same as the safety standards of the United States. But the actual escape of radiation in the water or through the air at Pickering and others has proven to be only about I per cent of those standards. In other words, we could raise those standards by 100 times and still be within the practical operating limit of Pickering.
Thermal pollution has been listed as one of the dangers, one of the problems. Well, it can be a problem in some places. I suppose if you're building a nuclear power plant in Florida and places of that kind - perhaps Hawaii, southern California - where the waters are warm, this may be a serious problem, But it's certainly not true on the Pacific coast of British Columbia. In fact, it's very clear from the basis of
[ Page 811 ]
scientific knowledge becoming available that there are advantages to come from this in terms of oyster farming and a number of other potential benefits, Perhaps the most nagging and serious problem at the present time is that of waste disposal. This is not one of immediate urgency. For, at the very least, the first 13 years of a Candu nuclear power plant, the waste can be contained completely within the premises in what is called the spent fuel bay, which is approximately the same size as an Olympic swimming pool, only deeper. The waste fuel is canned - put into heavy-duty cans - and kept under water securely. The U.S. does have some real problems, some serious problems, because they enrich their fuel by 100 times compared to the Canadian system. The American fuel is enriched uranium. Ours is natural uranium. That factor of 100 makes a great deal of difference to the danger of the spent fuel.
There's no question, Mr. Chairman, that in the long-term future we have to provide for this. I've got abiding faith in our technology to solve this problem. In the short-term, in the foreseeable future, in terms of a few small power plants, this is not any kind of a problem at all.
As far as cost, our system of heavy water and natural uranium does cost a little more than the United States'. But the fuel is cheaper because we use natural, not enriched, uranium. The fact is that our long-term operating costs are less but our first cost is a little higher. As a result of that first cost, we get a safer system.
If you assume a 71/2 per cent interest rate, which is higher than the last issue of Hydro parity bonds, and retire the capital cost over only 30 years, the operating cost of a Vancouver Island nuclear power plant has been estimated to be 63/4 mills per kilowatt hour for a 1979 start-up. Yet some estimates for a natural gas thermal plant on Vancouver Island under the same conditions are 9.1 mills, approximately 30 per cent more.
It's clear that natural gas is not going to come down in price; whereas the materials needed for a nuclear plant - which in the case of the Canadian system are the heavy water, estimated to be 2/10 mill per kilowatt hour and the natural uranium, about 9/10 mill per kilowatt hour - are certainly going to be resistant to the inflation and the rising cost of other kinds of fuel.
The final problem that the Canadian system does have is heavy water. The source of this is perhaps the biggest immediate problem for the Canadian system. There is a serious shortage at the present time. By 1977 there could well be a surplus, on the basis of plants that are under construction and will be on stream by 1977. And 1977 is well before we are going to be needing it in British Columbia.
So to summarize, Mr. Chairman, it's clear that a Canadian nuclear power system is safe, economic and practical. Least a beginning in its use should be made in British Columbia in certain selected areas. Vancouver Island, for the reasons I suggested, is an ideal place for it.
Britain regaining superpower status?
For years the US has been the center of the universe for the wealthy & elite. Is that title moving back to Europe, and (indirectly) India?
India-born steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal tops British rich list - Yahoo! News: "In its 104-page supplement, the Sunday Times said the wealth of Britain's richest 1,000 people now stands at a record 300.9 billion pounds, up from 249.6 billion pounds last year -- a rise of more than 20 percent.
This represents one of the biggest year-on-year increases since the Rich List -- based on 'identifiable wealth' such as real estate, art and shareholdings, but not bank accounts -- was first published in 1989."
India-born steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal tops British rich list - Yahoo! News: "In its 104-page supplement, the Sunday Times said the wealth of Britain's richest 1,000 people now stands at a record 300.9 billion pounds, up from 249.6 billion pounds last year -- a rise of more than 20 percent.
This represents one of the biggest year-on-year increases since the Rich List -- based on 'identifiable wealth' such as real estate, art and shareholdings, but not bank accounts -- was first published in 1989."
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Pension Exposure in Europe
Seeking Alpha » Royal Philips Electronics Q1 2006 Earnings Conference Call Transcript (PHG): "OK. I’ll take them in sequence. The first one, on the U.K., it’s definitely a one-off. We were under-funded. The reason why we decided to fund the U.K. is because the regulators there are taking a vested interest in this and there are possibilities that if you are not fully funded in that part of the world, the regulator could be in the way of potentially, for instance, reorganization of a portfolio."
--Pierre-Jean Sivignon from Royal-Phillips
--Pierre-Jean Sivignon from Royal-Phillips
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Seeking Alpha » Caterpillar’s Mysterious $400K Consultant (CAT)
Seeking Alpha » Caterpillar’s Mysterious $400K Consultant (CAT): "And perhaps Danielle Pflederer may want to consider investing in a basic website — you can build one for well under $100 these days — so that she can attract other Dow 30 companies to her business. It might also stem the confusion of people like me, who when they look into this sort of thing, begin to wonder why Peoria-based Caterpillar might be spending $400K on a Rochester, NY-based wedding planner."
Weddings are expensive these days... especially multi-year ones. I wonder what religion that would be?
Weddings are expensive these days... especially multi-year ones. I wonder what religion that would be?
Monday, April 17, 2006
Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders
Stock Tip #5 - Always read the Balance Sheet and Cash Flow in between the lineshref="http://groups.msn.com/BerkshireHathawayShareholders/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=&ID_Message=20651">Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders: "
The Little Trick: the little trick is to compare your calculated retained earnings figure to the market cap. If the retained earnings figure is 15% or less than your market cap, then I think you had better start asking some questions. If it is less than 10% of market cap, then you really have some real questions to ask. The first question that comes to mind is: I'm putting up X dollars, you've been in business for 10 or 20 years (doing what you do), you've only made 10% of X, how in the hell are you planning to pay me back X plus interest (doing what you do)????"
So adding back all dividends into Retained Earnings shows all profits a company has made since the beginning of time. Sort of like adding your annual salary since the beginning of time, and figuring out how much you're worth based on it. Not a hugely valuable metric... P/E & Debt numbers are probably worth more.
The Little Trick: the little trick is to compare your calculated retained earnings figure to the market cap. If the retained earnings figure is 15% or less than your market cap, then I think you had better start asking some questions. If it is less than 10% of market cap, then you really have some real questions to ask. The first question that comes to mind is: I'm putting up X dollars, you've been in business for 10 or 20 years (doing what you do), you've only made 10% of X, how in the hell are you planning to pay me back X plus interest (doing what you do)????"
So adding back all dividends into Retained Earnings shows all profits a company has made since the beginning of time. Sort of like adding your annual salary since the beginning of time, and figuring out how much you're worth based on it. Not a hugely valuable metric... P/E & Debt numbers are probably worth more.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Stanford Securities Class Action Clearinghouse - Index of Filings
Stanford Securities Class Action Clearinghouse - Index of Filings
Stock Tip #4 - A good company spends time with their products and customers, not with lawsuits against their products by their customers.
Stock Tip #4 - A good company spends time with their products and customers, not with lawsuits against their products by their customers.
Bureau of the Public Debt : The Debt To the Penny
Bureau of the Public Debt : The Debt To the Penny: "Current Amount
04/13/2006 $8,406,142,649,741.06
Current
Month
04/12/2006 $8,402,876,241,412.25
04/11/2006 $8,406,559,401,664.39
04/10/2006 $8,402,073,299,705.08
04/07/2006 $8,398,801,893,932.15
04/06/2006 $8,393,742,553,848.46
04/05/2006 $8,388,876,683,304.95
04/04/2006 $8,388,195,236,701.49
04/03/2006 $8,377,471,102,607.82
Prior
Months
03/31/2006 $8,371,156,293,376.33
02/28/2006 $8,269,885,515,386.04
01/31/2006 $8,196,070,437,599.52
12/30/2005 $8,170,424,541,313.62
11/30/2005 $8,092,322,205,720.65
10/31/2005 $8,027,123,404,214.36
Prior Fiscal
Years
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/"
04/13/2006 $8,406,142,649,741.06
Current
Month
04/12/2006 $8,402,876,241,412.25
04/11/2006 $8,406,559,401,664.39
04/10/2006 $8,402,073,299,705.08
04/07/2006 $8,398,801,893,932.15
04/06/2006 $8,393,742,553,848.46
04/05/2006 $8,388,876,683,304.95
04/04/2006 $8,388,195,236,701.49
04/03/2006 $8,377,471,102,607.82
Prior
Months
03/31/2006 $8,371,156,293,376.33
02/28/2006 $8,269,885,515,386.04
01/31/2006 $8,196,070,437,599.52
12/30/2005 $8,170,424,541,313.62
11/30/2005 $8,092,322,205,720.65
10/31/2005 $8,027,123,404,214.36
Prior Fiscal
Years
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/"
Useful Excel from Dr. Mayes' Web Pages
Index to Dr. Mayes' Web Pages
I like his quote bubbles...
Stock Tip #3 - You'll make more money by selling advice than taking it is a good one.
He has some amazing links to tools like Edgarscan - the ability to dump, say, the last 15 years of data from Microsoft into a spreadsheet instantly.
http://edgarscan.pwcglobal.com/servlets/getCompanyDetail?Name=MICROSOFT+CORP - click on Excel Spreadsheet.
He even wrote a Monte Carlo simulator for Excel, and has a spreadsheet analyzing Oil Prices vs. Rigs from 83-97.
I like his quote bubbles...
Stock Tip #3 - You'll make more money by selling advice than taking it is a good one.
He has some amazing links to tools like Edgarscan - the ability to dump, say, the last 15 years of data from Microsoft into a spreadsheet instantly.
http://edgarscan.pwcglobal.com/servlets/getCompanyDetail?Name=MICROSOFT+CORP - click on Excel Spreadsheet.
He even wrote a Monte Carlo simulator for Excel, and has a spreadsheet analyzing Oil Prices vs. Rigs from 83-97.
Why Bill Cara doesn't like Google
Do good, even if it means shovelling do and throwing it at the media.
Stock Tip #2 - Don't trade on B.S. Use The Bullfighter on any company releases.
Bill Cara: The BC 100 Explained, Sun., Apr. 16, 2006, 11:45 AM: "But here�s the rub: Shame on these Google guys for how they act. The founders insulted me (and maybe you) when they brought a wheelbarrow of manure to the pre-IPO marketplace when they talked about establishing the world�s largest altruistic foundation � let them do it like Bill Gates before putting it into our face � and they talk about scanning every book in every library without having the mega-trillions of dollars in reserve to pay for copyrights. I don�t respect these guys enough to put them on the Cara 100 list.
You see; I�m a trader � I don�t trade on b.s.
I�d like to see them stick to their knitting and knock off Microsoft from its perch. Then, they�d get my respect! In the back of my mind, however is the knowledge that one proprietary technology can carry you only so far in this day and age. "
Stock Tip #2 - Don't trade on B.S. Use The Bullfighter on any company releases.
Bill Cara: The BC 100 Explained, Sun., Apr. 16, 2006, 11:45 AM: "But here�s the rub: Shame on these Google guys for how they act. The founders insulted me (and maybe you) when they brought a wheelbarrow of manure to the pre-IPO marketplace when they talked about establishing the world�s largest altruistic foundation � let them do it like Bill Gates before putting it into our face � and they talk about scanning every book in every library without having the mega-trillions of dollars in reserve to pay for copyrights. I don�t respect these guys enough to put them on the Cara 100 list.
You see; I�m a trader � I don�t trade on b.s.
I�d like to see them stick to their knitting and knock off Microsoft from its perch. Then, they�d get my respect! In the back of my mind, however is the knowledge that one proprietary technology can carry you only so far in this day and age. "
Bill Cara: The BC 100 Explained, Sun., Apr. 16, 2006, 11:45 AM
I'm going to try something new for a little while and summarize items by a stock tip.
Here's Stock Tip #1 from Bill Cara: Check out companies with head office in the Bahamas, since they skirt some of Canada's (& US) taxes. I don't agree with companies that do this, but it does make sense from a bottom-line perspective. Who has the advantage, someone who pays 0% or 37% to taxes?
Bill Cara: The BC 100 Explained, Sun., Apr. 16, 2006, 11:45 AM: "In the next week or two, I intend to write a little more about my biases. A couple pop out at you right out, including ATI from Canada, but then you know I'm Canadian eh? How about Teekay LNG Partners L.P.? I chose that one because I like the tax benefits of Bahamas, and I like TK management. Their other, larger, transport shipping venture (NYSE: TK) has more competition though, and LNG is just coming into vogue. "
Here's Stock Tip #1 from Bill Cara: Check out companies with head office in the Bahamas, since they skirt some of Canada's (& US) taxes. I don't agree with companies that do this, but it does make sense from a bottom-line perspective. Who has the advantage, someone who pays 0% or 37% to taxes?
Bill Cara: The BC 100 Explained, Sun., Apr. 16, 2006, 11:45 AM: "In the next week or two, I intend to write a little more about my biases. A couple pop out at you right out, including ATI from Canada, but then you know I'm Canadian eh? How about Teekay LNG Partners L.P.? I chose that one because I like the tax benefits of Bahamas, and I like TK management. Their other, larger, transport shipping venture (NYSE: TK) has more competition though, and LNG is just coming into vogue. "
Monday, April 10, 2006
A New Tool for Investors Interested in Energy - United States Oil Fund, LP
A New Tool for Investors Interested in Energy - United States Oil Fund, LP
One of the risks for this fund is that USOF and its general partner may have conflicts of interest, which may permit them to favor their own interests to your detriment.
Hey, honesty pays off.
Can't tell what all the pricing babble is, but I think the MER is around 0.5% with a .35% brokerage fee.
Looks like an interesting way to trade oil futures.
Getting a fund like this off the ground doesn't seem cheap - since June 2005 they've spent over $11M on salaries and wages - on an initial investment of $400M.
Our sole General Partner is Victoria Bay Asset Management, LLC (formerly Standard Asset Management, LLC), a single member limited liability company that was formed in the state of Delaware
One of the auditors is none other than Malcolm R Fobes III of Berkshire Hatha... I mean Forbes... I mean Berkshire Focus.
The CEO of VBAM looks to have started specifically to launch this fund on May 10, 2005.
Another interesting director.
Peter M. Robinson has been an Independent Director of the General Partner since September 30, 2005. Mr. Robinson has been employed with the Hoover Institution since 1993. Mr. Robinson graduated from Dartmouth College in 1979 and Oxford University in 1982. Mr. Robinson spent six years in the White House, serving from 1982 to 1983 as chief speechwriter to Vice President George Bush and from 1983 to 1988 as special assistant and speechwriter to President Ronald Reagan. After the White House, Mr. Robinson received an MBA from the Stanford University Graduate School of Business. Mr. Robinson then spent a year in New York City with Fox Television. He spent a second year in Washington, D.C., with the Securities and Exchange Commission, where he served as the director of the Office of Public Affairs, Policy Evaluation, and Research. Mr. Robinson has also written three books and has been published in the New York Times, Red Herring, and Forbes ASAP and he is the editor of Can Congress Be Fixed?: Five Essays on Congressional Reform (Hoover Institution Press, 1995). Mr. Robinson is 48 years old.
Interesting high-profile fund offering....
One of the risks for this fund is that USOF and its general partner may have conflicts of interest, which may permit them to favor their own interests to your detriment.
Hey, honesty pays off.
Can't tell what all the pricing babble is, but I think the MER is around 0.5% with a .35% brokerage fee.
Looks like an interesting way to trade oil futures.
Getting a fund like this off the ground doesn't seem cheap - since June 2005 they've spent over $11M on salaries and wages - on an initial investment of $400M.
Our sole General Partner is Victoria Bay Asset Management, LLC (formerly Standard Asset Management, LLC), a single member limited liability company that was formed in the state of Delaware
One of the auditors is none other than Malcolm R Fobes III of Berkshire Hatha... I mean Forbes... I mean Berkshire Focus.
The CEO of VBAM looks to have started specifically to launch this fund on May 10, 2005.
Another interesting director.
Peter M. Robinson has been an Independent Director of the General Partner since September 30, 2005. Mr. Robinson has been employed with the Hoover Institution since 1993. Mr. Robinson graduated from Dartmouth College in 1979 and Oxford University in 1982. Mr. Robinson spent six years in the White House, serving from 1982 to 1983 as chief speechwriter to Vice President George Bush and from 1983 to 1988 as special assistant and speechwriter to President Ronald Reagan. After the White House, Mr. Robinson received an MBA from the Stanford University Graduate School of Business. Mr. Robinson then spent a year in New York City with Fox Television. He spent a second year in Washington, D.C., with the Securities and Exchange Commission, where he served as the director of the Office of Public Affairs, Policy Evaluation, and Research. Mr. Robinson has also written three books and has been published in the New York Times, Red Herring, and Forbes ASAP and he is the editor of Can Congress Be Fixed?: Five Essays on Congressional Reform (Hoover Institution Press, 1995). Mr. Robinson is 48 years old.
Interesting high-profile fund offering....
Good investment or Nigerian?
You can now email me at: davidsimp2006@yahoo.com
FROM: Sgt. David Simpson,
Contact me via my private email: davsimp2006@yahoo.com
To whom it may concern.
I am an American soldier, I am serving in the military of the 1st
Armored Division in Iraq, as you know we are being attacked by
insurgents everyday and car bombs.
We managed to move funds belonging to Saddam Hussein's family. The
total amount is US$7.2Million dollars in cash, mostly 100 dollar bills.
We want to move this money to you, so that you may invest it for us and
keep our share for banking.We will take 60%, my partner and I.
You take the other 40%. No strings attached, just help us move it out of Iraq,
Iraq is a war zone. We plan on using diplomatic courier and shipping
the money out in one large silver box, using diplomatic immunity.
If you are interested I will send you the full details, my job is to find a
good partner that we can trust and that will assist us. Can I trust you?
When you receive this letter, kindly send me an e-mail signifying your
interest including your most confidential telephone/fax numbers for
quick communication also your contact details. This business is risk free.
The box can be shipped out in 48hrs.
Respectfully,
Sgt. David Simpson
Private email: davsimp2006@yahoo.com
- David Simpson
FROM: Sgt. David Simpson,
Contact me via my private email: davsimp2006@yahoo.com
To whom it may concern.
I am an American soldier, I am serving in the military of the 1st
Armored Division in Iraq, as you know we are being attacked by
insurgents everyday and car bombs.
We managed to move funds belonging to Saddam Hussein's family. The
total amount is US$7.2Million dollars in cash, mostly 100 dollar bills.
We want to move this money to you, so that you may invest it for us and
keep our share for banking.We will take 60%, my partner and I.
You take the other 40%. No strings attached, just help us move it out of Iraq,
Iraq is a war zone. We plan on using diplomatic courier and shipping
the money out in one large silver box, using diplomatic immunity.
If you are interested I will send you the full details, my job is to find a
good partner that we can trust and that will assist us. Can I trust you?
When you receive this letter, kindly send me an e-mail signifying your
interest including your most confidential telephone/fax numbers for
quick communication also your contact details. This business is risk free.
The box can be shipped out in 48hrs.
Respectfully,
Sgt. David Simpson
Private email: davsimp2006@yahoo.com
- David Simpson
Friday, April 07, 2006
Aggressive Income Fund
Aggressive Conservative Income Portfolio
* 25% Dow Jones Select Dividend Index (DVY)
* 25% Powershares International Dividend Achievers (PID)
* 15% MCSI US Equity REIT index (VNQ)
* 5% KKR Financial Corp (KFN)
* 5% Allied Capital (ALD)
* 25% Lehman Aggregate Bond Fund (AGG)
* 25% Dow Jones Select Dividend Index (DVY)
* 25% Powershares International Dividend Achievers (PID)
* 15% MCSI US Equity REIT index (VNQ)
* 5% KKR Financial Corp (KFN)
* 5% Allied Capital (ALD)
* 25% Lehman Aggregate Bond Fund (AGG)
Canadian Capitalist » New Dividend ETF
<
The cool thing about these ETFs is that they provide a quick screen for a list of companies that have increased their dividends. If you use their current holdings as a starting point for research into dividend paying companies a good part of the research has been done for you. Or you could just invest in the ETFs. ;)
2. Canadian Capitalist Says:
March 14th, 2006 at 11:17 am
Great point. I refer to the S&P Dividend Aristocrats and the Mergent Dividend Achievers indices every time I am considering an investment.
The comments regarding a new FDL dividend-yielding ETF may make more sense than the actual FDL ETF. If you look at the split - Financials (41.99%), Utilities (18.41%) and Telecommunications (16.67%) - it's heavily weighted in industries that could be affected by the upcoming drought in mortgage lending, cheap VOIP, and higher-costs for fuel. It may be better to pick 2-5 of your favourites out of these indexes...
The cool thing about these ETFs is that they provide a quick screen for a list of companies that have increased their dividends. If you use their current holdings as a starting point for research into dividend paying companies a good part of the research has been done for you. Or you could just invest in the ETFs. ;)
2. Canadian Capitalist Says:
March 14th, 2006 at 11:17 am
Great point. I refer to the S&P Dividend Aristocrats and the Mergent Dividend Achievers indices every time I am considering an investment.
The comments regarding a new FDL dividend-yielding ETF may make more sense than the actual FDL ETF. If you look at the split - Financials (41.99%), Utilities (18.41%) and Telecommunications (16.67%) - it's heavily weighted in industries that could be affected by the upcoming drought in mortgage lending, cheap VOIP, and higher-costs for fuel. It may be better to pick 2-5 of your favourites out of these indexes...
Canadian Capitalist » New Dividend ETF
<a href="http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2006/03/13/new-dividend-etf">Canadian Capitalist » New Dividend ETF: " 1. 0xcc Says:
March 14th, 2006 at 6:30 am
The cool thing about these ETFs is that they provide a quick screen for a list of companies that have increased their dividends. If you use their current holdings as a starting point for research into dividend paying companies a good part of the research has been done for you. Or you could just invest in the ETFs. ;)
2. Canadian Capitalist Says:
March 14th, 2006 at 11:17 am
Great point. I refer to the S&P Dividend Aristocrats and the Mergent Dividend Achievers indices every time I am considering an investment.
The comments regarding a new FDL dividend-yielding ETF may make more sense than the actual FDL ETF. If you look at the split - Financials (41.99%), Utilities (18.41%) and Telecommunications (16.67%) - it's heavily weighted in industries that could be affected by the upcoming drought in mortgage lending, cheap VOIP, and higher-costs for fuel. It may be better to pick 2-5 of your favourites out of these indexes...
March 14th, 2006 at 6:30 am
The cool thing about these ETFs is that they provide a quick screen for a list of companies that have increased their dividends. If you use their current holdings as a starting point for research into dividend paying companies a good part of the research has been done for you. Or you could just invest in the ETFs. ;)
2. Canadian Capitalist Says:
March 14th, 2006 at 11:17 am
Great point. I refer to the S&P Dividend Aristocrats and the Mergent Dividend Achievers indices every time I am considering an investment.
The comments regarding a new FDL dividend-yielding ETF may make more sense than the actual FDL ETF. If you look at the split - Financials (41.99%), Utilities (18.41%) and Telecommunications (16.67%) - it's heavily weighted in industries that could be affected by the upcoming drought in mortgage lending, cheap VOIP, and higher-costs for fuel. It may be better to pick 2-5 of your favourites out of these indexes...
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Bill Cara Knows what 2014 looks like
But, while there is some strength in the bonds, the traditional capital intensive and commodity price sensitive groups are today’s leaders on the U.S. equity market board (e.g., mining, construction, gold & silver, oil well services and equipment, and crops), and the economy-sensitive groups are mostly losers (e.g., paper products, med equipment, jewelry, fabricated plastic and rubber, advertising, restaurants, containers & packaging, business services, and tires).
Hmm, where have I seen that list of loser groups before? Is 2014 coming sooner than we think?
Hmm, where have I seen that list of loser groups before? Is 2014 coming sooner than we think?
Table 3a. The 10 detailed industries with the largest wage and salary employment growth, 2004-14
Table 3a. The 10 detailed industries with the largest wage and salary employment growth, 2004-14: "Table 3a. The 10 detailed industries with the largest wage and salary employment growth, 2004-14
Table 3a. The 10 detailed industries with the largest wage and salary employment growth, 2004-14(1)
(Numbers in thousands)
Employment Change
Industry 2004 2014 Number Percent
Employment services 3,470.3 5,050.2 1,579.9 45.5
Local government educational services 7,762.5 8,545.5 783.0 10.1
Local government, excluding education and hospitals 5,485.6 6,249.3 763.7 13.9
Offices of physicians 2,053.9 2,813.4 759.5 37.0
Full-service restaurants 4,226.4 4,927.8 701.4 16.6
General medical and surgical hospitals, private 4,050.9 4,699.0 648.1 16.0
Limited-service eating places 3,726.7 4,318.6 591.9 15.9
Home health care services 773.2 1,310.3 537.1 69.5
Colleges, universities, and professional schools, private 1,377.5 1,849.8 472.3 34.3
Management, scientific, and technical consulting services 779.0 1,250.2 471.2 60.5"
Sorry for the poor table layout, but I thought it was funny that Employment services would be the top growing industry with the largest salaries and wages in 2014.
That sounds like who makes the most money when buying and selling stocks - the moneychangers.
Next on our list, education and learning. Well, salaries for teachers have room to grow.
Doctors - hmm.. lotsa old people in 2014.
Full-service restaurants.. lotsa old rich people in 2014.
Hospitals... ""
Limited-service eating places... lotsa old unrich people...
Home health care services.. Pattern here???
Colleges, universities.... 2nd baby boom?
Management, scientific, and technical consulting. Now that's disappointing...
How about the decliners?
Employment Change
Industry 2004 2014 Number Percent
Wired telecommunications carriers 548.4 380.1 -168.3 -30.7
Cut and sew apparel manufacturing 219.9 80.0 -139.9 -63.6
Printing and related support activities 665.0 600.1 -64.9 -9.8
Fabric mills 115.7 60.0 -55.7 -48.1
Semiconductor and other electronic component manufacturing 452.8 399.9 -52.9 -11.7
Crop production, primary job 530.2 482.1 -48.1 -9.1
Basic chemical manufacturing 156.1 110.0 -46.1 -29.5
Rubber product manufacturing 173.0 132.8 -40.2 -23.2
Foundries 165.4 127.8 -37.6 -22.7
Computer and peripheral equipment manufacturing 212.1 175.0 -37.1 -17.5
Let's see... Telecom? How about free wireless internet for everyone and let's see how long that one lasts.
Cut & sew - see China & India
Printing and related - see eBooks & Internet
Fabric mills - see China & related.
Semiconductor - ? Not sure why this would decrease. Maybe organic LEDs that can be grown instead of created?
Crop production, primary job - farmers are not going to be doing much farming unless they're in front of a machine.
Chemical ... (see paper & fabric)
Rubber... (autos)
Foundries... (?)
Computer and peripheral. I guess old people won't be using computers that much.
Now the fastest growing occupations into 2014
Employment Change
Occupation Most significant source of post-
2004 2014 Number Percent secondary education or training(1)
Home health aides 624 974 350 56 Short-term on-the-job training
Network systems and data communications analysts 231 357 126 55 Bachelor's degree
Medical assistants 387 589 202 52 Moderate-term on-the-job training
Physician assistants 62 93 31 50 Bachelor's degree
Computer software engineers, applications 460 682 222 48 Bachelor's degree
Physical therapist assistants 59 85 26 44 Associate degree
Dental hygienists 158 226 68 43 Associate degree
Computer software engineers, systems software 340 486 146 43 Bachelor's degree
Dental assistants 267 382 114 43 Moderate-term on-the-job training
Personal and home care aides 701 988 287 41 Short-term on-the-job training
Home health.. old people.. pattern here!
Network systems and data comm analysts. Everything in 2014 will be about networking computers and the power of the clustered environment.
Medical, Physician... Physical therapist, dental hygenist, dental assistant, personal home care aids...you get the idea.
Two of my top inventions for 2014 will be the Magnifying Glass that has a built in MP3 player (I will call it iGlass) so you can read your old books and listen to audiobooks at the same time, and the I Lost My Dentures GPS system, for those bad memory days.
Seriously though, demographics play an amazing role in the markets, and in your life.
Change Percent Annual growth
Level Number Percent distribution rate (percent)
Group 1994 2004 1994 2004 1994 2004
1994 2004 2014 to to to to 1994 2004 2014 to to
2004 2014 2004 2014 2004 2014
Total, 16 years
and older 142,534 144,863 162,269 14,429 17,406 11.3 12.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.1 1.1
16 to 24 21,612 22,268 22,158 656 -110 3.0 -0.5 16.5 15.1 13.7 0.3 0.0
25 to 54 93,898 102,122 105,627 8,224 3,505 8.8 3.4 71.6 69.3 65.2 0.8 0.3
55 and older 15,546 23,011 34,315 7,465 11,304 48.0 49.1 11.9 15.6 21.2 4.0 4.1
Men 70,817 78,980 86,194 8,163 7,214 11.5 9.1 54.0 53.6 53.2 1.1 0.9
Women 60,239 68,421 75,906 8,182 7,485 13.6 10.9 46.0 46.4 46.8 1.3 1.0
White 111,082 121,086 129,936 10,004 8,850 9.0 7.3 84.8 82.1 80.2 0.9 0.7
Black 14,502 16,638 19,433 2,136 2,795 14.7 16.8 11.1 11.3 12.0 1.4 1.6
Asian(1) 5,472 6,271 8,304 799 2,033 14.6 32.4 4.2 4.3 5.1 1.4 2.8
All other groups(2) (3) 3,406 4,427 (3) 1,021 (3) 30.0 (3) 2.3 2.7 (3) 2.7
Hispanic origin 11,975 19,272 25,760 7,297 6,488 60.9 33.7 9.1 13.1 15.9 4.9 2.9
Other than Hispanic origin 119,081 128,129 136,340 9,048 8,211 7.6 6.4 90.9 86.9 84.1 0.7 0.6
White Non-Hispanic 100,462 103,202 106,373 2,740 3,171 2.7 3.1 76.7 70.0 65.6 0.3 0.3
That chart was even worse... but the details are that 55 and older will grow by 4%, with women leading the pack, since women are known to live longer than men.
The Hispanic community will be growing by a staggering 4.9% over 0.9% White, but I don't think that is organic growth. I think the growth is due to the immigration rules that, as the Freakonomic Steven Levitt would say, will 'reveal' those people. Like his story about how 7 million children in the US 'disappeared' one fateful year in 1987.
Next up.. what stocks I think make good sense in 2014, or why the heck didn't I buy Extendicare back in 2001???
Table 3a. The 10 detailed industries with the largest wage and salary employment growth, 2004-14(1)
(Numbers in thousands)
Employment Change
Industry 2004 2014 Number Percent
Employment services 3,470.3 5,050.2 1,579.9 45.5
Local government educational services 7,762.5 8,545.5 783.0 10.1
Local government, excluding education and hospitals 5,485.6 6,249.3 763.7 13.9
Offices of physicians 2,053.9 2,813.4 759.5 37.0
Full-service restaurants 4,226.4 4,927.8 701.4 16.6
General medical and surgical hospitals, private 4,050.9 4,699.0 648.1 16.0
Limited-service eating places 3,726.7 4,318.6 591.9 15.9
Home health care services 773.2 1,310.3 537.1 69.5
Colleges, universities, and professional schools, private 1,377.5 1,849.8 472.3 34.3
Management, scientific, and technical consulting services 779.0 1,250.2 471.2 60.5"
Sorry for the poor table layout, but I thought it was funny that Employment services would be the top growing industry with the largest salaries and wages in 2014.
That sounds like who makes the most money when buying and selling stocks - the moneychangers.
Next on our list, education and learning. Well, salaries for teachers have room to grow.
Doctors - hmm.. lotsa old people in 2014.
Full-service restaurants.. lotsa old rich people in 2014.
Hospitals... ""
Limited-service eating places... lotsa old unrich people...
Home health care services.. Pattern here???
Colleges, universities.... 2nd baby boom?
Management, scientific, and technical consulting. Now that's disappointing...
How about the decliners?
Employment Change
Industry 2004 2014 Number Percent
Wired telecommunications carriers 548.4 380.1 -168.3 -30.7
Cut and sew apparel manufacturing 219.9 80.0 -139.9 -63.6
Printing and related support activities 665.0 600.1 -64.9 -9.8
Fabric mills 115.7 60.0 -55.7 -48.1
Semiconductor and other electronic component manufacturing 452.8 399.9 -52.9 -11.7
Crop production, primary job 530.2 482.1 -48.1 -9.1
Basic chemical manufacturing 156.1 110.0 -46.1 -29.5
Rubber product manufacturing 173.0 132.8 -40.2 -23.2
Foundries 165.4 127.8 -37.6 -22.7
Computer and peripheral equipment manufacturing 212.1 175.0 -37.1 -17.5
Let's see... Telecom? How about free wireless internet for everyone and let's see how long that one lasts.
Cut & sew - see China & India
Printing and related - see eBooks & Internet
Fabric mills - see China & related.
Semiconductor - ? Not sure why this would decrease. Maybe organic LEDs that can be grown instead of created?
Crop production, primary job - farmers are not going to be doing much farming unless they're in front of a machine.
Chemical ... (see paper & fabric)
Rubber... (autos)
Foundries... (?)
Computer and peripheral. I guess old people won't be using computers that much.
Now the fastest growing occupations into 2014
Employment Change
Occupation Most significant source of post-
2004 2014 Number Percent secondary education or training(1)
Home health aides 624 974 350 56 Short-term on-the-job training
Network systems and data communications analysts 231 357 126 55 Bachelor's degree
Medical assistants 387 589 202 52 Moderate-term on-the-job training
Physician assistants 62 93 31 50 Bachelor's degree
Computer software engineers, applications 460 682 222 48 Bachelor's degree
Physical therapist assistants 59 85 26 44 Associate degree
Dental hygienists 158 226 68 43 Associate degree
Computer software engineers, systems software 340 486 146 43 Bachelor's degree
Dental assistants 267 382 114 43 Moderate-term on-the-job training
Personal and home care aides 701 988 287 41 Short-term on-the-job training
Home health.. old people.. pattern here!
Network systems and data comm analysts. Everything in 2014 will be about networking computers and the power of the clustered environment.
Medical, Physician... Physical therapist, dental hygenist, dental assistant, personal home care aids...you get the idea.
Two of my top inventions for 2014 will be the Magnifying Glass that has a built in MP3 player (I will call it iGlass) so you can read your old books and listen to audiobooks at the same time, and the I Lost My Dentures GPS system, for those bad memory days.
Seriously though, demographics play an amazing role in the markets, and in your life.
Change Percent Annual growth
Level Number Percent distribution rate (percent)
Group 1994 2004 1994 2004 1994 2004
1994 2004 2014 to to to to 1994 2004 2014 to to
2004 2014 2004 2014 2004 2014
Total, 16 years
and older 142,534 144,863 162,269 14,429 17,406 11.3 12.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.1 1.1
16 to 24 21,612 22,268 22,158 656 -110 3.0 -0.5 16.5 15.1 13.7 0.3 0.0
25 to 54 93,898 102,122 105,627 8,224 3,505 8.8 3.4 71.6 69.3 65.2 0.8 0.3
55 and older 15,546 23,011 34,315 7,465 11,304 48.0 49.1 11.9 15.6 21.2 4.0 4.1
Men 70,817 78,980 86,194 8,163 7,214 11.5 9.1 54.0 53.6 53.2 1.1 0.9
Women 60,239 68,421 75,906 8,182 7,485 13.6 10.9 46.0 46.4 46.8 1.3 1.0
White 111,082 121,086 129,936 10,004 8,850 9.0 7.3 84.8 82.1 80.2 0.9 0.7
Black 14,502 16,638 19,433 2,136 2,795 14.7 16.8 11.1 11.3 12.0 1.4 1.6
Asian(1) 5,472 6,271 8,304 799 2,033 14.6 32.4 4.2 4.3 5.1 1.4 2.8
All other groups(2) (3) 3,406 4,427 (3) 1,021 (3) 30.0 (3) 2.3 2.7 (3) 2.7
Hispanic origin 11,975 19,272 25,760 7,297 6,488 60.9 33.7 9.1 13.1 15.9 4.9 2.9
Other than Hispanic origin 119,081 128,129 136,340 9,048 8,211 7.6 6.4 90.9 86.9 84.1 0.7 0.6
White Non-Hispanic 100,462 103,202 106,373 2,740 3,171 2.7 3.1 76.7 70.0 65.6 0.3 0.3
That chart was even worse... but the details are that 55 and older will grow by 4%, with women leading the pack, since women are known to live longer than men.
The Hispanic community will be growing by a staggering 4.9% over 0.9% White, but I don't think that is organic growth. I think the growth is due to the immigration rules that, as the Freakonomic Steven Levitt would say, will 'reveal' those people. Like his story about how 7 million children in the US 'disappeared' one fateful year in 1987.
Next up.. what stocks I think make good sense in 2014, or why the heck didn't I buy Extendicare back in 2001???
Monday, April 03, 2006
The other Hank Scorpio
"This elite corps of managers examines potential deals, performs due diligence on loans that Cerberus makes, and sits on Cerberus company boards. Feinberg also expects his CEOs to bring him ideas for deals. Their incentive: a chance to run a company and get a chunk of equity. 'With their operating experience, they help us identify both opportunities and problems we might not see,' says Cerberus Chief Operating Officer Mark A. Neporent."
Sounds to me like they want to ... take over the world.
Forget about buying expensive cars, just buy your own car maker.
Sounds to me like they want to ... take over the world.
Forget about buying expensive cars, just buy your own car maker.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Why Insurance Float is like Gift Card Breakage
Seeking Alpha » The Bull Case For Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA): "That underwriting profit meant that in 2005, again, Berkshire Hathaway didn’t pay a cent to use the capital that makes up its float. And since Berkshire Hathaway’s float amounts to some $49 billion dollars, that’s a huge cost advantage in the investment business. While banks have to pay interest to depositors, and hedge funds have to share profits with their investors, Berkshire Hathaway can invest a no-cost $49 billion."
Gift Cards are Weapons of Mass Destruction
Warren Buffett wouldn't buy a gift card for anyone:
"But buried in the K that Home Depot filed late yesterday was the fact that for the full year, the number for gift card breakage was actually $52 million. Though the company warns repeatedly throughout the K that the $52 million is essentially a one-time bonus because it is accounting for unspent gift cards since the program was launched back in the late 1990s, it does leave one wondering how much this will contribute to Home Depot going forward not to mention what the impact will be on dozens of other retailers. After all, those gift cards are ubiquitous and they’re very hard to pass up when you’re desperately looking for something — anything — to buy for your brother-in-law."
Gift cards are nothing more than derivatives or the option to buy something at a certain price. If you give someone a gift card for $100 at Best Buy, for example, and they use it 11 months later, Best Buy has just made money off of the money you loaned them + the cost of the goods your buying has gone down + inflation went up + you always seem to have to add a little cash to your purchase.
And with gift cards getting redeemed just a little bit more than mail-in rebates, some creative accounting can be used to move the numbers around.
If you're going to give a gift card, why not just give something that's returnable?
"But buried in the K that Home Depot filed late yesterday was the fact that for the full year, the number for gift card breakage was actually $52 million. Though the company warns repeatedly throughout the K that the $52 million is essentially a one-time bonus because it is accounting for unspent gift cards since the program was launched back in the late 1990s, it does leave one wondering how much this will contribute to Home Depot going forward not to mention what the impact will be on dozens of other retailers. After all, those gift cards are ubiquitous and they’re very hard to pass up when you’re desperately looking for something — anything — to buy for your brother-in-law."
Gift cards are nothing more than derivatives or the option to buy something at a certain price. If you give someone a gift card for $100 at Best Buy, for example, and they use it 11 months later, Best Buy has just made money off of the money you loaned them + the cost of the goods your buying has gone down + inflation went up + you always seem to have to add a little cash to your purchase.
And with gift cards getting redeemed just a little bit more than mail-in rebates, some creative accounting can be used to move the numbers around.
If you're going to give a gift card, why not just give something that's returnable?
Blog Maverick - www.blogmaverick.com _
Blog Maverick - www.blogmaverick.com _: "Now lets look at the perspective of the corporate insider, in particular the CEO.
There are two types of CEOs, those who are the founders or co-founders of their companies, and those who were hired to do the job. The difference is important because those involved with the founding of their companies not only have a different personal connection with the company and its employees, but more importantly, since they founded the company, they most likely already own a lot of stock. The motivation of a founding CEO will be money, but there will be other considerations. Sometimes.
Then there are those hired to be CEOs. What are the goals of hired CEOs ?. Plain and simple, its to get paid. To make as big a chunk of money as they possibly can in the shortest amount of time. No one in their right mind is going to take on a job with the amount of pressure, stress and away from family time that comes with being the CEO of a public company without getting paid incredible sums of money.
There is an interesting kinship between hired CEOs and professional athletes. Both realize that there are limited opportunities to make the big financial score, and if they dont make it this time through, they may never get the opportunity again."
There are two types of CEOs, those who are the founders or co-founders of their companies, and those who were hired to do the job. The difference is important because those involved with the founding of their companies not only have a different personal connection with the company and its employees, but more importantly, since they founded the company, they most likely already own a lot of stock. The motivation of a founding CEO will be money, but there will be other considerations. Sometimes.
Then there are those hired to be CEOs. What are the goals of hired CEOs ?. Plain and simple, its to get paid. To make as big a chunk of money as they possibly can in the shortest amount of time. No one in their right mind is going to take on a job with the amount of pressure, stress and away from family time that comes with being the CEO of a public company without getting paid incredible sums of money.
There is an interesting kinship between hired CEOs and professional athletes. Both realize that there are limited opportunities to make the big financial score, and if they dont make it this time through, they may never get the opportunity again."
Blog Maverick - www.blogmaverick.com _
Blog Maverick - www.blogmaverick.com _: "Here we have the CEOs of two companies saying that one small research compay out of Arizona can have more influence on the actions of current and potential shareholders than not only every other research company combined, including those who have been following the company for an extended period of time, but also more influence than the CEOs themselves. Of course these CEOs must also believe that what is reported by this company is more important than the results of operations of the company.
Is a single research pen mightier than the P&L, Balance Sheet and Statement of Cash Flows ? that is the question you must ask yourself.
If you think the answer is yes, and you are an investor, you probably dont know enough about the companies you own stock in to stay in the market.
If you think the answer is yes, and you are a trader, hopefully you have gotten to the point of knowing you are just winging it anyway, and you win some and lose some.
If you are the CEO of a public company and you think the answer is yes. Please email me with the stock symbol of your company. I want to short it.
Any good CEO knows:
Sticks and Stones my hit my stock price, but a great operating company will make the shorts cover and push the stock price higher.
Any bad CEO knows:
If i can create a diversion, I know I can convince at least a few funds to hold on, and that gives me a chance to sell more stock.
If none of this makes sense, make sure none of your money is in the market"
Is a single research pen mightier than the P&L, Balance Sheet and Statement of Cash Flows ? that is the question you must ask yourself.
If you think the answer is yes, and you are an investor, you probably dont know enough about the companies you own stock in to stay in the market.
If you think the answer is yes, and you are a trader, hopefully you have gotten to the point of knowing you are just winging it anyway, and you win some and lose some.
If you are the CEO of a public company and you think the answer is yes. Please email me with the stock symbol of your company. I want to short it.
Any good CEO knows:
Sticks and Stones my hit my stock price, but a great operating company will make the shorts cover and push the stock price higher.
Any bad CEO knows:
If i can create a diversion, I know I can convince at least a few funds to hold on, and that gives me a chance to sell more stock.
If none of this makes sense, make sure none of your money is in the market"
Saturday, April 01, 2006
The Color Of Money
When currency starts gaining colour, I get worried. Colourful currencies to me usually mean that the country producing the currency is somewhere in a tropical area, where the rich/poor line is tightly drawn, and the rich keep their money in other currencies. In countries like these, the American greenback has always been their favourite, since it signifies power - the power to buy stuff that their currency doesn't provide. Tourists bringing greenbacks always have friends in these countries.
Canada just released a pink ribbon coin to commemorate the fight against Breast Cancer. I think this is a great cause, and coloured coins are relatively new and different than colourful paper, since it is a technology relatively few governments have right now. However, when a country starts printing colourful money is inflation is around the corner? How about stamping colourful coins? Is this the same thing?
I think of my trip to Brazil a few years ago, and looking at the see-through window in the Real. When a currency has a viewfinder in it, you know they are trying to make it something worth collecting (or something hard to counterfeit). Back then I would stick with paying $0.80 worth of Canadian coins for a beer. I wonder how much it is now...
Perhaps my favourite financial blogger right now, Bill Cara, can tell us - he'll be setting up in warmer climates shortly.
Canada just released a pink ribbon coin to commemorate the fight against Breast Cancer. I think this is a great cause, and coloured coins are relatively new and different than colourful paper, since it is a technology relatively few governments have right now. However, when a country starts printing colourful money is inflation is around the corner? How about stamping colourful coins? Is this the same thing?
I think of my trip to Brazil a few years ago, and looking at the see-through window in the Real. When a currency has a viewfinder in it, you know they are trying to make it something worth collecting (or something hard to counterfeit). Back then I would stick with paying $0.80 worth of Canadian coins for a beer. I wonder how much it is now...
Perhaps my favourite financial blogger right now, Bill Cara, can tell us - he'll be setting up in warmer climates shortly.
Salary Disclosure 2006 (Disclosure for 2005) : Hydro One et Ontario Power Generation
Salary Disclosure 2006 (Disclosure for 2005) : Hydro One et Ontario Power Generation
The CEO made 1.5 Million.
Find more salaries over 100K for Canadian Government employees, and see what public sector jobs pay the best.
The CEO made 1.5 Million.
Find more salaries over 100K for Canadian Government employees, and see what public sector jobs pay the best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
