I've missed a few things the past week. First, let's celebrate missing the $1.99 title of a post to celebrate gas prices coming down. The local Costco stands at $1.97 and some others are even lower. Isn't it great when gas prices are low so that people have more money to spend on their own needs? Ah, the freedom to buy gas and go on a road trip, or direct funds your own way. Having the extra money is freedom to make decisions at the family level -- very nice.
The second miss: I did see TV spots in the last few days of the election that did raise questions about (then) Senator Obama's relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I am not a big TV watcher, and I saw it once or twice. I was willing to link to the youtube version I had seen, but I couldn't find it there -- instead, I managed to find several other versions. It seems other parts of the country likely got more doses on their TVs -- I guess that's what I get for living in a state with relatively low (13) electoral votes! I should be happy.
OK, the third miss has me very confused. Barack Obama's historic election has a lot of exciting hope behind it. I'm more cautious than euphoric. The large list of promises made now need decisive action behind them to deliver solutions. I can campaign on words as well, but if there isn't action behind them, then it's rather hollow. With the euphoria and Congress aligned, Obama should have little problem moving ahead the agenda he proposed. Yesterday's business section of the Washington Post asked "Can He Do It?"
The other highlight from the Sunday Post biz section I usually enjoy is Michelle Singletary's column The Color of Money which often has some good insights to personal finance. Ms. Singletary's practical approach to personal finance (spend less than you earn, cautious with debt, living in your means) are all things that I embrace as well. This past Sunday she disappointed me as she seemed to pin personal hopes on an Obama presidency. An excerpt:
As an African American mother of three children, I've been sporadically crying ever since Election night. When I tell my children they can work hard and aspire to any job in this country, that statement is finally, finally true.
The newspapers have had numerous photos of tears flowing after this historic election. If, for the reason of positive progress that has occurred in the civil rights movement in the last 50 years, then celebrating with tears of joy may be a worthy style of celebration. If, for the reason that Barack Obama is being seen as a "messiah" of sorts that will remedy all ills in the world, then I'm saddened that people have that perception. Obama has made big promises and I hope he delivers some and fails at others.
Secondly, I hope that Ms. Singletary's column just reads this way and truly doesn't mean it -- does she really only think that only now her encouraging words to her children saying that they can aspire to any job in this country -- is that true only now? I hope she doesn't feel that she's been lying to her children for several years now only because of an election. A historic election in many ways -- but did the Singletary children only have room to celebrate success because of a Barack Obama presidency? I hope they don't have their hopes and dreams pinned on one man either -- I hope they chart their own course.
Again, maybe I missed it.
Ms. Singletary finally highlights some economic differences along racial lines. She builds a case to say that the playing field in America is not level. Perhaps in some ways it isn't, however my senses tell me that politicians don't hold the answers. If the color of a politicians skin resulted in his abilities to fully empower any group he chose, I think the inner cities would be booming in wealth, success, low crime, high education and many of the things Ms. Singletary recognizes that people need. Politicians would not withhold that from the citizens in their districts, wards, or regions that they serve.
As I live in a suburb of Washington, DC I would expect the 'District' to have it all fixed if this was the case. I think District politicians stand up for their citizens -- but it still means there are many problems. Politicians are not going to solve it. There are no public office messiahs.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
"Just Like Bush"
This phrase was mentioned to me a couple times as the reason why President-elect Obama reached that status on November 5, 2008. I don't think that's really the reason, but it's partially in the back of many voters minds as they went to the polls to cast their ballots. I also don't know that voters consider what I'm going to call the 'Campaign Iceberg Effect' -- and this has nothing to do with governors from Alaska.
The primary reason is the economy. Exit polling suggested 63% had the economy as their highest concern. Sure, the war in Iraq is making huge progress (due to the surge of troops most likely. I doubt the insurrectionists have totally given up; history shows they'll fight decades if needed for an issue). So, Iraq is not a headline -- the media has removed it from their talking points. Anne Kornblut I believe got it right in her Washingon Post article here Measured Response to Financial Crisis Sealed the Election. Ms. Kornblut highlights that as candidate Obama met with his team Sept 14th looking for more ideas, the race was tight. The next morning, Lehman Brothers (LEH), filed for bankruptcy. The S&P 500 index was down about 12% at that point on the year (to the previous Friday, September 12th). Suddenly, the S&P fell apart (along with near all other equities) and went down another 22% from Sept 15 to November 3. It was up from a few days before when it did reach a point of -33% from Sept 15 to Oct 27.
The economy was a great concern on election day. Painting John McCain as one that would contribute George Bush's policies was good enough. Voters had opened their brokerage statements and didn't like the trendline. And as that trendline changed, also the difference in support between the candidates changed.
My job has me speaking with people in a variety of places and yesterday, the people of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) that's >3 million people in lower Ontario, Canada had questions too. One quipped that McCain was "just like Bush" so that got the title. Although I disagree, it shows that it was a valid tactic that worked it's way into peoples minds.
Now, the iceberg concept... when politicians are on the campaign trail, they must deliver sound bites and information in small blocks. Our MTV culture wants to hear small snippets & the 22 minute news broadcast has lots to cover. Giving small bits is key. Also, these small bits must be very positive, wide reaching, and inspire some votes. Full detailed disclosure of the estimated results of a policy should not be discussed. Politicians will have their best foot forward to show their "dating side" -- what they would present to a first date they wish to impress. The deep realities under the surface, what I'm calling the iceberg, don't come out until the marriage begins--until the election is over.
Let's give some credit to Nancy Pelosi for her observations in this article. She is partially defending President-elect Obama's challenges ahead. But, she also knows that leading a large group of diverse opinions is a difficult task. Speaker Pelosi (D-California) suggests that the country must be governed from the center. She also knows that Obama faces "'more expectations than any president I can ever remember in my life time.'" She's probably right. Running a campaign of hope with many details to the issues (more icebergs) under the surface, the more extreme special interests that will come to the well to drink of government programs and dollars, and the political support in Congress and the Senate to get it done? The pressure is high.
Bill Clinton learned this early -- his first 100 days in office he pushed for the gays in the military efforts that generated a lot of strife and caused a lot of dissent ion. Obama won California with around 58% of the vote. California was leaning toward banning gay marriage however in the Proposition 8 ballot question to amend the California constitution. Some absentee ballot counting continues. The ballot question basically asks for a referendum to decide if the California Supreme Court got it wrong when they supported gay marriage earlier in 2008. President-elect Obama seems to support civil unions but not necessarily marriage for gay couples. Speaker Pelosi disagrees with the Proposition (thus permitting gay marriage). Wikipedia reports that all 10 major newspapers editorialized against Proposition 8, thus supporting gay marriage. Insert your own joke (or ardent defense) about potential media bias here.
Just using California as an example -- America will give Obama four years to show his skills and work to bring solutions about that he highlighted in his speeches. Votes from less likely Republican areas showed this. The mainstream swing voters largely gave him support. But even more liberal America (in California) is not ready to embrace the leftist special interests to a dramatic effect. Obama will be wise to discern these two, and make important gains where he can for the larger good.
The primary reason is the economy. Exit polling suggested 63% had the economy as their highest concern. Sure, the war in Iraq is making huge progress (due to the surge of troops most likely. I doubt the insurrectionists have totally given up; history shows they'll fight decades if needed for an issue). So, Iraq is not a headline -- the media has removed it from their talking points. Anne Kornblut I believe got it right in her Washingon Post article here Measured Response to Financial Crisis Sealed the Election. Ms. Kornblut highlights that as candidate Obama met with his team Sept 14th looking for more ideas, the race was tight. The next morning, Lehman Brothers (LEH), filed for bankruptcy. The S&P 500 index was down about 12% at that point on the year (to the previous Friday, September 12th). Suddenly, the S&P fell apart (along with near all other equities) and went down another 22% from Sept 15 to November 3. It was up from a few days before when it did reach a point of -33% from Sept 15 to Oct 27.
The economy was a great concern on election day. Painting John McCain as one that would contribute George Bush's policies was good enough. Voters had opened their brokerage statements and didn't like the trendline. And as that trendline changed, also the difference in support between the candidates changed.
My job has me speaking with people in a variety of places and yesterday, the people of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) that's >3 million people in lower Ontario, Canada had questions too. One quipped that McCain was "just like Bush" so that got the title. Although I disagree, it shows that it was a valid tactic that worked it's way into peoples minds.
Now, the iceberg concept... when politicians are on the campaign trail, they must deliver sound bites and information in small blocks. Our MTV culture wants to hear small snippets & the 22 minute news broadcast has lots to cover. Giving small bits is key. Also, these small bits must be very positive, wide reaching, and inspire some votes. Full detailed disclosure of the estimated results of a policy should not be discussed. Politicians will have their best foot forward to show their "dating side" -- what they would present to a first date they wish to impress. The deep realities under the surface, what I'm calling the iceberg, don't come out until the marriage begins--until the election is over.
Let's give some credit to Nancy Pelosi for her observations in this article. She is partially defending President-elect Obama's challenges ahead. But, she also knows that leading a large group of diverse opinions is a difficult task. Speaker Pelosi (D-California) suggests that the country must be governed from the center. She also knows that Obama faces "'more expectations than any president I can ever remember in my life time.'" She's probably right. Running a campaign of hope with many details to the issues (more icebergs) under the surface, the more extreme special interests that will come to the well to drink of government programs and dollars, and the political support in Congress and the Senate to get it done? The pressure is high.
Bill Clinton learned this early -- his first 100 days in office he pushed for the gays in the military efforts that generated a lot of strife and caused a lot of dissent ion. Obama won California with around 58% of the vote. California was leaning toward banning gay marriage however in the Proposition 8 ballot question to amend the California constitution. Some absentee ballot counting continues. The ballot question basically asks for a referendum to decide if the California Supreme Court got it wrong when they supported gay marriage earlier in 2008. President-elect Obama seems to support civil unions but not necessarily marriage for gay couples. Speaker Pelosi disagrees with the Proposition (thus permitting gay marriage). Wikipedia reports that all 10 major newspapers editorialized against Proposition 8, thus supporting gay marriage. Insert your own joke (or ardent defense) about potential media bias here.
Just using California as an example -- America will give Obama four years to show his skills and work to bring solutions about that he highlighted in his speeches. Votes from less likely Republican areas showed this. The mainstream swing voters largely gave him support. But even more liberal America (in California) is not ready to embrace the leftist special interests to a dramatic effect. Obama will be wise to discern these two, and make important gains where he can for the larger good.
Friday, October 31, 2008
New World Man?
Six degrees of separation likely led me to this one... watch 'Chuck' on NBC and they made some jokes about the band Rush and the old Atari game of Missile Command (rather odd twist on the plot, I'm sure it'll re-run or show up online). Sure enough, gets me listening to the Rush on the iPod and their song New World Man. Some lyrics:
He's got to make his own mistakes
And learn to mend the mess he makes
He's old enough to know whats right
But young enough not to choose it
He's noble enough to win the world
But weak enough to lose it ---
He's a new world man...
With the election coming what's not to laugh or cry about, right? Oh, either politician could make their share of mistakes, but perhaps I'm more inclined to pick on Senator Obama as he retains a lead in the polls. The thing I'm most concerned about is that the media supposedly sent a few dozen reporters to Alaska to investigate Bristol Palin's boyfriend (fiance?) and yet we no nothing more about Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Twenty years Obama attended the church that Rev. Wright presided over. That's a fair amount of time to get to know someone -- many marriages don't last that long. Huntley Brown wrote a letter that put some information together on this. Read the whole letter here if you choose.
Brown is a Christian musician who's also Black and lives in the USA. He highlights some concerns that seem fair. He asks:
Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a ...
1. Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community.
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
Obviously, Huntley is writing the opposite of the tenets of Obama's former church to draw a conclusion. What makes me nervous is the value system that would be connected to an organization with these goals for 20 years?
Certainly, the Reverend Wright stepped aside and no other questions have been asked about Senator Obama's 20 year relationship (Wright did marry the Obamas) with the value system of this church. When the church became a potential political liability, Obama was wise separate himself. But why did it take 20 years? Only now after some polls and surveys did the ideals of the church seemed out of touch with religion, main street America, or Christian faith?
I was also trying to consider some of these sermons that Rev Wright delivered. After 9/11 he suggested the attacks were America's fault -- almost as if we got what we deserved. After thousands of Americans died, perhaps something more comforting could be said by a clergyman? Obama remained on with the church -- no issues.
In 2003, Wright gave some of his opinions suggesting that God should not bless America, but the exact opposite. I truly don't think the government gives people the drugs, builds bigger prisons and is intentionally out to destroy the lives of anyone in the country. Certainly, systems have faults and poor individual decisions are made. I would imagine that a church of this size (8500 members) that people would talk. If the pastor of a church gave a message like that, wouldn't others in the church quickly hear about the message? How would you respond.
I know how I would. I'd quit the church. The first time.
He's got to make his own mistakes
And learn to mend the mess he makes
He's old enough to know whats right
But young enough not to choose it
He's noble enough to win the world
But weak enough to lose it ---
He's a new world man...
With the election coming what's not to laugh or cry about, right? Oh, either politician could make their share of mistakes, but perhaps I'm more inclined to pick on Senator Obama as he retains a lead in the polls. The thing I'm most concerned about is that the media supposedly sent a few dozen reporters to Alaska to investigate Bristol Palin's boyfriend (fiance?) and yet we no nothing more about Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Twenty years Obama attended the church that Rev. Wright presided over. That's a fair amount of time to get to know someone -- many marriages don't last that long. Huntley Brown wrote a letter that put some information together on this. Read the whole letter here if you choose.
Brown is a Christian musician who's also Black and lives in the USA. He highlights some concerns that seem fair. He asks:
Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a ...
1. Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community.
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
Obviously, Huntley is writing the opposite of the tenets of Obama's former church to draw a conclusion. What makes me nervous is the value system that would be connected to an organization with these goals for 20 years?
Certainly, the Reverend Wright stepped aside and no other questions have been asked about Senator Obama's 20 year relationship (Wright did marry the Obamas) with the value system of this church. When the church became a potential political liability, Obama was wise separate himself. But why did it take 20 years? Only now after some polls and surveys did the ideals of the church seemed out of touch with religion, main street America, or Christian faith?
I was also trying to consider some of these sermons that Rev Wright delivered. After 9/11 he suggested the attacks were America's fault -- almost as if we got what we deserved. After thousands of Americans died, perhaps something more comforting could be said by a clergyman? Obama remained on with the church -- no issues.
In 2003, Wright gave some of his opinions suggesting that God should not bless America, but the exact opposite. I truly don't think the government gives people the drugs, builds bigger prisons and is intentionally out to destroy the lives of anyone in the country. Certainly, systems have faults and poor individual decisions are made. I would imagine that a church of this size (8500 members) that people would talk. If the pastor of a church gave a message like that, wouldn't others in the church quickly hear about the message? How would you respond.
I know how I would. I'd quit the church. The first time.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Run-up to Election
It's always nice when the end of election season is upon us. I just grow tired of it. Yes, my liberal arts education in political science (even that!) is not enough for me to be tired of the rhetoric from the campaign trail. The end of the elections season the end of the half-truths that bombard us from every angle. It's always good to have closure around elections.
I still decry my dis-infatuation with political events to be greatly to the lack of one major element that I find lacking in the political sphere today: statesmanship. I don't know how the dictionary would define it, but when Steven Covey suggests "think win-win" he is suggesting for opposing ideas to share information and work to discover a third way (beyond what either originally had proposed) to achieve something better. In politics, the idea of discrediting the opposition is the primary goal.
Who hasn't watched a couple talking heads across the newsdesk or on opposite monitors from any TV news broadcast and seen this in plain display? When yielded 30 seconds to share an opinion, the viewer typically gets 25 seconds of insults followed by 5 seconds of insight. Then, the other opinion has to throw mud. It's truly amazing when the question is about tax policy and the opposing forces (can we call them "op-for"?) spend their whole allotment to talk about something totally different!
Let me shift gears to the positive. Abraham Lincoln was an amazing example of true statesmanship. Here is a guy leading an unpopular war with over 600,000 dead -- at the time nearly 2% of the nation's population (slave & free of all ages). 2% seems small, but 2% of today's US population would be near the 5.9M level today -- definitely a huge number that would be impacting lives everywhere in the union.
Lincoln looked like he was going to lose this election but signed a pledge that said he was going to do everything possible to win the war before he was removed from office. The pledge stated:
This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he cannot possibly save it afterwards. (Basler, Roy P. (1955), Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press)
Putting re-election aside to do what was needed to save the country? Ah, brilliant and bold statesmanship putting the needs of others ahead of his personal desires. Of course, after this, some major victories went the way for the Union and Lincoln ended up winning (with only the votes of the northern states of course) the election of 1864.
Where can we find a statesman like this to put in office? I'd rather have him working for my country than working for his own self-serving issues. No surprise that Abraham Lincoln is often at the top of the list for US Presidents that made significant impacts and influence.
I still decry my dis-infatuation with political events to be greatly to the lack of one major element that I find lacking in the political sphere today: statesmanship. I don't know how the dictionary would define it, but when Steven Covey suggests "think win-win" he is suggesting for opposing ideas to share information and work to discover a third way (beyond what either originally had proposed) to achieve something better. In politics, the idea of discrediting the opposition is the primary goal.
Who hasn't watched a couple talking heads across the newsdesk or on opposite monitors from any TV news broadcast and seen this in plain display? When yielded 30 seconds to share an opinion, the viewer typically gets 25 seconds of insults followed by 5 seconds of insight. Then, the other opinion has to throw mud. It's truly amazing when the question is about tax policy and the opposing forces (can we call them "op-for"?) spend their whole allotment to talk about something totally different!
Let me shift gears to the positive. Abraham Lincoln was an amazing example of true statesmanship. Here is a guy leading an unpopular war with over 600,000 dead -- at the time nearly 2% of the nation's population (slave & free of all ages). 2% seems small, but 2% of today's US population would be near the 5.9M level today -- definitely a huge number that would be impacting lives everywhere in the union.
Lincoln looked like he was going to lose this election but signed a pledge that said he was going to do everything possible to win the war before he was removed from office. The pledge stated:
This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he cannot possibly save it afterwards. (Basler, Roy P. (1955), Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press)
Putting re-election aside to do what was needed to save the country? Ah, brilliant and bold statesmanship putting the needs of others ahead of his personal desires. Of course, after this, some major victories went the way for the Union and Lincoln ended up winning (with only the votes of the northern states of course) the election of 1864.
Where can we find a statesman like this to put in office? I'd rather have him working for my country than working for his own self-serving issues. No surprise that Abraham Lincoln is often at the top of the list for US Presidents that made significant impacts and influence.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
$2.99
Election season drones on in the States with large amounts of political advertisements that bake half-truths and sugar coat them for the American public. Few good questions are asked at this time as the "what can you do for me?" question is asked in heads across the land as they gaze on two political figures that don't have a lot of answers. It's all about perception though, and being a friend of George Bush or a friend of Bill Ayers could be the mark of the beast to some voters.
The market has had a terrible couple past weeks with a small bounce finally coming yesterday in a 932 point DJIA rally (11% !!) yesterday. Friday afternoon showed a little promise in the last hour of trading and it continued. Perhaps this just a "dead cat bounce" that will get people excited for a day (or a week) and then give it all back again to more tears. Maybe load up on KMB (Kimberly-Clark) stock with all the Kleenex tissues we'd be using.
One thing not to shed tears over is the first sign in Manassas boasting $2.99/gallon for regular 87 octane gasoline. I saw this on a morning run and it was refreshing. Our friends at Gasbuddy.com have even identified a couple stations at $2.89/gallon. This should bode well for American consumers.
Perhaps my ignorance toward the political campaigns has left me missing if either candidate is personally claiming responsibility for the change in prices. I'm sure it's a matter of time. However, the "what next?" question will stay on my mind. Gas at $4/gallon (at least locally) is a level that really got people mad. A few ruffled feathers had people driving less, looking at alternatives, thinking about their local errands more.... it had them yelling about a possible electric car, wind power, nuclear power, off-shore drilling, etc.
I'm for a lot of alternative ideas because I just believe Americans can do those better than anywhere else in the world. And I believe in global supply & demand -- if we're demanding, someone will be supplying. The answer then becomes "how about us!" Looking at the $2.99 pivot point, will we lose our focus or are we going to still remember and demand that something is done?
The market has had a terrible couple past weeks with a small bounce finally coming yesterday in a 932 point DJIA rally (11% !!) yesterday. Friday afternoon showed a little promise in the last hour of trading and it continued. Perhaps this just a "dead cat bounce" that will get people excited for a day (or a week) and then give it all back again to more tears. Maybe load up on KMB (Kimberly-Clark) stock with all the Kleenex tissues we'd be using.
One thing not to shed tears over is the first sign in Manassas boasting $2.99/gallon for regular 87 octane gasoline. I saw this on a morning run and it was refreshing. Our friends at Gasbuddy.com have even identified a couple stations at $2.89/gallon. This should bode well for American consumers.
Perhaps my ignorance toward the political campaigns has left me missing if either candidate is personally claiming responsibility for the change in prices. I'm sure it's a matter of time. However, the "what next?" question will stay on my mind. Gas at $4/gallon (at least locally) is a level that really got people mad. A few ruffled feathers had people driving less, looking at alternatives, thinking about their local errands more.... it had them yelling about a possible electric car, wind power, nuclear power, off-shore drilling, etc.
I'm for a lot of alternative ideas because I just believe Americans can do those better than anywhere else in the world. And I believe in global supply & demand -- if we're demanding, someone will be supplying. The answer then becomes "how about us!" Looking at the $2.99 pivot point, will we lose our focus or are we going to still remember and demand that something is done?
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Smart, Inc.
As the federal government takes some time and enacts debate on what's been called historical financial rescue this past week, the American citizens got to enjoy politics at the core of the debate. When will partisan presidential politics stop trumping the business of the nation? Many true statesmen (& women) that would be able to contribute to the general welfare of helping direct national policy are seemingly missing in the US Congress.
Naturally, the spending and tax programs that were inserted into the legislation the first round -- dare I call it "Bailout One"? The Chicago Tribute reported "Arrows, rum, wool and NASCAR" as some of the things that were inserted as amendments & riders to the bill that should have been the focus of an up or down vote.
Ah, but then the aftermath -- the vote goes through the market goes down at just about the minute it was announced. I had C-Span in one browser with the vote pending & then matched the response in a minute chart (watching the ProShares Ultra Dow ticker: DDM & updating every 60 seconds) in my trading account with Interactive Brokers. The market quickly responds to actions and laws created on the federal level (the DDM went down as the Dow Jones Index dropped after the vote). Market traders and investors recognize that corporations are going to respond to the laws that are on the books -- either present or futures.
Which (finally) gets me to the title of the post -- corporations are smart. They are going to do what's in their best interest to make their revenues and deliver to 'The Street' what is expected. Maybe this is something for the two aspiring US Presidential candidates to read and remember: Corporations will respond to tax law imposed on them and they will act accordingly to their best interest. Tax rates will determine where hiring is done. Regulation will determine the countries where workers are hired, licenses are paid, employees are trained, business travel will be conducted -- the list goes on.
Today's Washington Post reports this -- "After Change in Tax Law, Wells Fargo Swoops In" resides above the fold on the front page. How big is the change? Citigroup had put a $2.2 billion bid together to win Wachovia that originally had been agreed by both parties. The FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corp) had promised to limit Citigroup's losses in the deal since Wachovia has some troubled loans in their holdings. Seemed like maybe a good deal for both Citigroup & Wachovia...
But Wells Fargo comes in and offers $15.4 billion. Nice premium to the original, and to boot, the Wells Fargo chairman Richard Kovacevich said, "This agreement won't require even a penny from the FDIC." Great -- no cost or government involvement? What could be better!? Reading down the article, it seems Wells Fargo has suggested they might be able to shelter $74 billion in profits from taxation. The former law would have limited the benefit to around $20 billion (cap of $1 billion/year over a 20 year period). New law? $74 billion.
Again, corporations are smart. They give guys with good business sense, experience, attorneys, and accountants money to know and understand this and lay a framework for the corporate financial activities of the company -- raising money in the capital markets, mergers & acquisitions, and especially tax laws. Favorable or unfavorable changes in the tax laws are going to be acted on appropriately.
Those in politics need to recognize and remember that their actions will be responded in the best interest of those in the businesses that are affected. It might mean to off-shore employees, or add a call-center in India and not Ohio. It also might mean to bid an extra $13.2 billion to gain a $74 billion tax write-off.
Naturally, the spending and tax programs that were inserted into the legislation the first round -- dare I call it "Bailout One"? The Chicago Tribute reported "Arrows, rum, wool and NASCAR" as some of the things that were inserted as amendments & riders to the bill that should have been the focus of an up or down vote.
Ah, but then the aftermath -- the vote goes through the market goes down at just about the minute it was announced. I had C-Span in one browser with the vote pending & then matched the response in a minute chart (watching the ProShares Ultra Dow ticker: DDM & updating every 60 seconds) in my trading account with Interactive Brokers. The market quickly responds to actions and laws created on the federal level (the DDM went down as the Dow Jones Index dropped after the vote). Market traders and investors recognize that corporations are going to respond to the laws that are on the books -- either present or futures.
Which (finally) gets me to the title of the post -- corporations are smart. They are going to do what's in their best interest to make their revenues and deliver to 'The Street' what is expected. Maybe this is something for the two aspiring US Presidential candidates to read and remember: Corporations will respond to tax law imposed on them and they will act accordingly to their best interest. Tax rates will determine where hiring is done. Regulation will determine the countries where workers are hired, licenses are paid, employees are trained, business travel will be conducted -- the list goes on.
Today's Washington Post reports this -- "After Change in Tax Law, Wells Fargo Swoops In" resides above the fold on the front page. How big is the change? Citigroup had put a $2.2 billion bid together to win Wachovia that originally had been agreed by both parties. The FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corp) had promised to limit Citigroup's losses in the deal since Wachovia has some troubled loans in their holdings. Seemed like maybe a good deal for both Citigroup & Wachovia...
But Wells Fargo comes in and offers $15.4 billion. Nice premium to the original, and to boot, the Wells Fargo chairman Richard Kovacevich said, "This agreement won't require even a penny from the FDIC." Great -- no cost or government involvement? What could be better!? Reading down the article, it seems Wells Fargo has suggested they might be able to shelter $74 billion in profits from taxation. The former law would have limited the benefit to around $20 billion (cap of $1 billion/year over a 20 year period). New law? $74 billion.
Again, corporations are smart. They give guys with good business sense, experience, attorneys, and accountants money to know and understand this and lay a framework for the corporate financial activities of the company -- raising money in the capital markets, mergers & acquisitions, and especially tax laws. Favorable or unfavorable changes in the tax laws are going to be acted on appropriately.
Those in politics need to recognize and remember that their actions will be responded in the best interest of those in the businesses that are affected. It might mean to off-shore employees, or add a call-center in India and not Ohio. It also might mean to bid an extra $13.2 billion to gain a $74 billion tax write-off.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Global Supply & Demand
Today's Washington Post included an article about India open for doing up to $80 billion in nuclear energy business. General Electric (GE) helped put up an early reactor in the 1960s and sees another $30 billion in potential alone. Another situations where the US Congress is involved though makes this rather curious. India has a demand? Who will be allowed to supply the demand is the question.
The Indians already know the answer to solving their problems. To directly quote the article, "'If a deal with Congress doesn't happen, we will have business with other countries. So simple,' said SK Malhotra, a spokesman for India's Department of Atomic Energy." Mr. Malhotra is wise and knows the options for his nation. India is going to demand electricity and energy for their population and nuclear energy would be a good solution. With advancements allowing better treatment of waste (yet something else that can be recycled!) and less impact on clear air, the Indians are thinking a nuclear solution could be good for a portion of their energy needs.
Which brings us to supply & demand -- India will have nuclear power, that's a given they have asserted will be true. With no agreement from the US Congress that would forbid US companies to get into a $30 billion (or maybe $80 billion?) market, the French and Russians will get the contracts. This is simple supply & demand. Worldwide demand will create supply from some part of the globe. If the USA doesn't supply, the Indians go shopping.
US oil demand of over 20 million barrels per day is big and conservation would be wise and efforts should be made to reduce that number when possible. But even starting today, oil consumption is going to continue. As the USA demands oil, the supply will be made available. If the USA chooses not to produce our own, we'll buy it. If we choose to produce it ourselves, the advantages are: 1) we control the import & export accordingly. 2) US workers earn a living in the production process. These workers pay taxes and help drive the economy. 3) Corporate taxes, leases and other gains to the US treasury exist. 4) We control the environmental regulations and restrictions -- strict enough to be clean and relaxed enough to allow production. 5) Top oil producing nations (Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Venezuela) that might not always have a similar worldview will not benefit financially from our spending -- WE will benefit from buying from ourselves.
The demand will continue to exist in some way. The USA can be a leader to responsibly extract oil for ourselves -- or leave it to others who might not be good stewards of the environment or care about our workers or our national security. What's it going to be? Drilling in America is one option. If we say "no" to that, then some other country will drill and they will sell to us, and we will owe them. I recommend we bring more of our own energy policy into our own control.
The Indians already know the answer to solving their problems. To directly quote the article, "'If a deal with Congress doesn't happen, we will have business with other countries. So simple,' said SK Malhotra, a spokesman for India's Department of Atomic Energy." Mr. Malhotra is wise and knows the options for his nation. India is going to demand electricity and energy for their population and nuclear energy would be a good solution. With advancements allowing better treatment of waste (yet something else that can be recycled!) and less impact on clear air, the Indians are thinking a nuclear solution could be good for a portion of their energy needs.
Which brings us to supply & demand -- India will have nuclear power, that's a given they have asserted will be true. With no agreement from the US Congress that would forbid US companies to get into a $30 billion (or maybe $80 billion?) market, the French and Russians will get the contracts. This is simple supply & demand. Worldwide demand will create supply from some part of the globe. If the USA doesn't supply, the Indians go shopping.
US oil demand of over 20 million barrels per day is big and conservation would be wise and efforts should be made to reduce that number when possible. But even starting today, oil consumption is going to continue. As the USA demands oil, the supply will be made available. If the USA chooses not to produce our own, we'll buy it. If we choose to produce it ourselves, the advantages are: 1) we control the import & export accordingly. 2) US workers earn a living in the production process. These workers pay taxes and help drive the economy. 3) Corporate taxes, leases and other gains to the US treasury exist. 4) We control the environmental regulations and restrictions -- strict enough to be clean and relaxed enough to allow production. 5) Top oil producing nations (Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Venezuela) that might not always have a similar worldview will not benefit financially from our spending -- WE will benefit from buying from ourselves.
The demand will continue to exist in some way. The USA can be a leader to responsibly extract oil for ourselves -- or leave it to others who might not be good stewards of the environment or care about our workers or our national security. What's it going to be? Drilling in America is one option. If we say "no" to that, then some other country will drill and they will sell to us, and we will owe them. I recommend we bring more of our own energy policy into our own control.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
