Morning Report

Posted on February 10, 2012 by Brent Nyitray

Vital Statistics:

Last Change Percent
S&P Futures 1335.3 -13.0 -0.96%
Eurostoxx Index 2475.6 -46.8 -1.85%
Oil (WTI) 98.15 -1.7 -1.69%
LIBOR 0.506 -0.004 -0.78%
US Dollar Index (DXY) 79.112 0.495 0.63%
10 Year Govt Bond Yield 1.97% -0.07%

Stock markets are weaker across the board as Greek austerity talks hit a snag. A party leader in Greece is now saying he won’t support austerity measures agreed upon.  The Germans are holding Greece’s feet to the fire with a “no disbursement without implementation” stand.  Greek sovereign debt is more or less flat.  Portuguese debt still trades like a 1999-vintage .com with another big rally today.  Their 10 year bond yield has blown out from 12.5% to over 18% and then back to 12.7% in about 4 weeks on no news.  So much for “safe, boring, risk-free,” sovereign debt trading.  S&P futures are down 13 points.  The S&P 500 has gone from 1200 to 1350 on more or less a straight 45-degree line, so I wouldn’t fall out of my chair with shock if we had a retracement.

In economic data, the trade deficit increased again.  Imports and exports increased, but imports increased by $3 billion while exports increased by $1.2 billion, to net out at a $48.8 billion trade deficit.  $26.9 was with China. The full year 2011 numbers are included in the release as well. Takeaway – the consumer is returning. Pre-crisis, the trad deficit was in a 55 – 65 billion range.  In summer of 2009, it dropped to 25 billion.  So a smaller trade deficit isn’t necessarily a good thing.

Next week we have Retail Sales, Capacity Utilization, Industrial Production, PPI&CPI, FOMC minutes, and leading indicators.  Earnings season is more or less over until the retailers with January fiscals start reporting.  Still, a couple of big names will report – Deere, GM, and CF Industries.

Have a good weekend!

Filed under: Uncategorized | 38 Comments »

Quick Question

Posted on February 9, 2012 by Michigoose

I’m working on my fourth (and hopefully final) post about the Komen/Planned Parenthood debacle, and I’ve run into a conundrum.  I’ve been using the term “anti-abortion” to describe the group of people that raised the ruckus over Planned Parenthood funding.  For me, that narrows their focus down to a single point: abortion.  “Pro-life” (again, for me) can encompass everything from no contraception to no death penalty, so I feel that “anti-abortion” suffices for my purposes in this argument.

But what is the converse?  It’s not anti-life, it’s not pro-abortion (for reasons lms has pointed out), help me figure out the right term.  I’d much prefer it to be “anti-something”,  just because I think that using “anti” v “pro” terms is inherently combative and argumentative.  I’d also like it to be narrowly defined: a medical procedure which is legal under US law to women up until 24 weeks after conception (a partially arbitrary date, but consistent with current viability outside the womb standards).  If you can come up with two “pro” terms that would fit the criteria for both sides I’m willing to switch to that, too.  And let’s not go into the weeds about the viability date; I’ll explain in the post when it goes up.

So what would be the best term(s) for me to use?  I’m trying to provoke discussion here, not diatribes from either side, so I want to know what would be acceptable to most.

Filed under: Komen, Planned Parenthood, politics | Tagged: | 78 Comments »

Yet Another Political Test

Posted on February 9, 2012 by Fairlington Blade

The Pew Research Center came out with what they classify as political typology. It’s a bit more refined than the political test in the other thread. It’s a more nuanced take than many I’ve seen. The full report and test are here:

http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/04/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology/

http://www.people-press.org/typology/quiz/

Mostly Republican

Staunch Conservatives (Highly Engaged Tea Party Supporters)

Main Street Republicans (Conservative on most issues)

Mostly Independent

Libertarians (Free market, small govt. seculars)

Disaffecteds (Downscale and cynical)

Post-Moderns (Moderates, but liberal socially)

Mostly Democratic

New Coalition Democrats (Upbeat, majority minority)

Hard Pressed Democrats (Relgious, financially struggling)

Solid Liberals (Across the board liberal positoins)

Bystanders

Young, politically disengaged

I scored as a post-modern, which feels about right. I’m clearly a Democrat, but have voted for the occasional Republican. [Note to NoVa – Sorry I missed your note the other date about Moran and his opponent.]

BB

Filed under: Uncategorized | 49 Comments »

Bits & Pieces (Thursday Night Open Mic)

Posted on February 9, 2012 by Kevin S. Willis

Bad Lip Reading does Newt Gingrich:

It’s about time that a visionary work of sci-fi accurately predicts our inevitable future. Iron Sky is this movie.

That’s it for me. — KW

Filed under: Bits and Pieces | Tagged: , , , , | 7 Comments »

The political compass

Posted on February 9, 2012 by markinaustin

The political compass attempts to isolate two different axes of thought.  One ranges from “radical” to “reactionary” and one from “libertarian” to “authoritarian”.  The questions allow for shaded answers rather than “yes” or “no”.  I have found the website.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Here is the test.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

 

As I said, I was 3/10 libertarian and exactly on the midline between “rad” and “reac”.  My 100% R voting friend, no ticket splitter he, was 2/10 libertarian and 1/10 reactionary.  We were too close to even shake a stick at, but I am an inveterate ticket splitter.  So I think it’s more fun and less demeaning than a pigeonholed test that puts the enlightened at one end [lib, if a liberal wrote it, conservative, if a conservative wrote it].  If any of you take it, I don’t care how you score, but I would like to know afterward if you think it was relatively fair and/or relatively surprising to you.  In my case, my old friend and I were surprised we were so close.  But on reflection, we noted that we had been friends for 50 years at the time and always were able to pick up where we left off.  So maybe not so surprising.

 

Filed under: Uncategorized | 64 Comments »

A Thanks to All the “Moderates”

Posted on February 9, 2012 by Kevin S. Willis

Of course, by “Moderate”, I mean that as a name for a participants on this blog. Sort of like “Go Panthers!” except that, since the blog is called “All Things in Moderation”, we are all “Moderates”. In the same sense that the members of a sports team are “Panthers”.

When a new post comes up, or a new comment is posted, it is natural to dive right into the meat of it. Generally, we either start asking questions, concurring (with amplification), or disagreeing, and launching into debate. Which is all well and good: that’s sort of the point, after all!

However, when individuals make the sort of efforts that Michigoose has recently on her Komen articles, or someone takes time out of their busy schedule to contribute, as did ABC the other day, or someone like Fairlington Blade puts so much energy into explaining to all of us how his job works, I think a special thanks is also in order.

And the Morning Report! I realize Brent posts them at his own blog, but he takes the time to bring them over here and share, and they are awesome.

There are some really heroic efforts being made here when it comes to content, and I just wanted to express my own heartfelt thanks to everybody for their participation.

While citing Brent and Michigoose and ABC, the same shout out goes to everybody who contributes content. When we see a post, we often dig into the meat of the debate, which is good. But it’s also good to thank the folks who are devoting so much time and energy (and providing so much unique insight) for starting the conversations.

So, thanks!

Filed under: administrative | Tagged: | 56 Comments »

Morning Report

Posted on February 9, 2012 by Brent Nyitray

Vital Statistics:

Last Change Percent
S&P Futures 1347.8 0.8 0.06%
Eurostoxx Index 2535.2 22.2 0.88%
Oil (WTI) 99.73 1.0 1.03%
LIBOR 0.51 -0.003 -0.63%
US Dollar Index (DXY) 78.556 -0.182 -0.23%
10 Year Govt Bond Yield 2.04% 0.06%

Markets are up slightly on a better than expected initial jobless report. Initial Jobless claims were 358k last week versus 370k expected.  The ECB maintained rates and Draghi sounded bearish tones regarding the European economy.  Headlines are coming across right now that claim Greek leaders have agreed on an austerity package.

Bloomberg is reporting (on the pay site, not the free site) that the price of Bakken shale oil has fallen out of bed (down 25%) in the last week.  There are no futures contracts on Bakken so it can’t be traded, but it demonstrates how volatile oil can be.  The reason seems to be a lack of demand from the refineries, so the oil is backing up with nowhere to put it. Refineries are probably changing over from heating oil production to gasoline production right about now.  I plotted the prices of Brent, WTI, and Bakken oil over the past year so you can see the volatility.

It looks like we have a settlement with the banks and the state AG’s over foreclosures.  $26 billion from 5 banks.  $20 billion is to be used to cut principal balances and to refi current, but underwater, homeowners.  So, of the AGs and the banks, who won?  Both.  The AGs get their scalp, and the banks will be able to count losses already taken towards the settlement. (You owe $100 on your $70 home.  I’ll be a nice guy and cut your principal to $90.  Of course, I probably am already carrying the loan at 90 on my books anyway).  On the refis, the banks will be simply cutting the interest rate on a $100 loan, which stays marked at $100. So no write downs there either.  My guess is this will be earnings-neutral near term and may cause analysts to take down next year’s numbers a little. But that’s it.  So you might want to resist the urge to take some SKFs (Proshares Ultrashort Financial ETF) on the open.

Will it help support the housing market?  Maybe at the margin.  It is no silver bullet – consider my example above – will the homeowner who now owes $90 instead of $100 go out and spend more money?  Probably not. Plus a chunk of this is simply a direct transfer from the government to borrowers since Ally Bank (the old GMAC) is owned by the government.

Filed under: Economic data, Foreclosure, housing, Shale Oil | 12 Comments »

Whither Now, Komen, Part Three (Politics, Komen and Planned Parenthood)

Posted on February 8, 2012 by Michigoose

As okie mentioned in a comment on Part Two, Karen Handel resigned from Komen yesterday.

This was the statement issued at the time:

Statement from Susan G. Komen Founder and CEO Nancy G. Brinker

“Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s mission is the same today as it was the day of its founding: to find a cure and eradicate breast cancer.

“We owe no less to our partners, supporters and, above all, the millions of people who have been and continue to be impacted by this life-threatening disease. We have made mistakes in how we have handled recent decisions and take full accountability for what has resulted, but we cannot take our eye off the ball when it comes to our mission. To do this effectively, we must learn from what we’ve done right, what we’ve done wrong and achieve our goal for the millions of women who rely on us. The stakes are simply too high and providing hope for a cure must drive our efforts.

“Today I accepted the resignation of Karen Handel, who has served as Senior Vice President for Policy since April 2011.  I have known Karen for many years, and we both share a common commitment to our organization’s lifelong mission, which must always remain our sole focus. I wish her the best in future endeavors.”

I hope that Nancy realizes that this is not going to quiet the firestorm, especially since Handel lashed out at dissenters in both her letter of resignation

“I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it,” Handel’s resignation letter read. “I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen’s future and the women we serve.”

and in at least one interview she gave afterwards

Handel first denied that the decision had been in any way related to the political controversy, and was quick to blame Planned Parenthood for politicizing the debate.

“The mission was always foremost in everyone’s mind:  the mission and the women that we serve,” Handel said. “The only group that has made this issue political has been Planned Parenthood.”

But when asked later about her role in the decision, Handel appeared to admit that the group had long been under pressure from anti-abortion advocates.

“It’s no secret that Komen and other organizations that were funding Planned Parenthood had been under pressure for some years, long before my time,” Handel said, later adding, “Komen was doing its level best to move to neutral ground — and I will say, I was asked to look at options for doing that.”

But when asked whether the funding-cut push was her idea, as was contended in a Huffington Postinterview that cited internal emails, Handel sidestepped the question.

“I’m saying that this was long an issue for Komen, dealing with the controversies of Planned Parenthood,” she responded.

In addition, our Affiliate’s Executive Director wrote an opinion piece that was scheduled to be published in our local newspaper today (don’t know if it made it in yet as I haven’t seen the paper):

Susan G. Komen for the Cure found itself caught in a media storm this week. In short, a decision made by the head office regarding Planned Parenthood’s eligibility for grant funding was reversed.

Across the country, Komen affiliates felt the fallout. The Salt Lake City office received calls, Facebook posts and emails. Most expressed outrage at Komen’s move to pull funding from Planned Parenthood. When the decision was reversed, we had some angry feedback then too. Meanwhile, it was clear that many of the comments came from people who had little or no idea of what we do, who we are, or how we spend our money. So let me take the opportunity to clarify what Komen represents here in Utah.

First, we are small. We have two full-time and one part-time paid staff. But, with a corps of passionate volunteers, we raise a lot of money, thanks mainly to the 16,000 or more people who join us every year in the Komen Salt Lake City Race for the Cure.

Second, 75 percent of our net funds stay in our local community. We granted $735,000 in 2011 to Utah nonprofits. We fund mammograms performed by Intermountain Healthcare for the uninsured or underinsured. And we support breast health education and other programs, like a van service organized by a small group in Price to ensure that women can travel safely (and free of charge) to Provo for mammography, chemo, or radiation. Our grantees are listed on our local web site, www.komenslc.org. They also include groups that serve minority populations. One of our goals is to increase the mammography rate. Utah ranks second to lowest in the entire nation for screening. We want to change that ranking.

Third, 25 percent of our funds go to Komen headquarters–not for overhead, but for research projects selected at the national level to avoid duplication and ensure impact. Frequently, the funds that we send to Komen HQ for research come back to Utah. For example, Huntsman Cancer Institute is currently working on a project to learn how to isolate breast tumors and prevent them from spreading because that’s when cancer may lead to death. This research is occurring thanks to a $180,000 Komen national grant.

Many women are alive today because of Komen funding. Twenty five years ago, the five-year survival rate for a woman diagnosed with breast cancer (when detected early) was 75 percent. Now it’s 98 percent. Progress is being made. That said, breast cancer remains a serious, life-threatening disease that affects one in eight women.

Regarding Planned Parenthood: Have we given them money in the past? Yes. Will we continue to do so? Yes, if their request is related to breast health, and if our independent panel of reviewers decide that their proposal is a priority, given other requests and funds available. Some may still feel that the very fact that we provide funds of any kind to Planned Parenthood constitutes tacit endorsement of their organization. It is not an endorsement of any kind. It is simply a response to a need in this community for breast health information or services.

In summary, the REAL Komen, the Komen that I know, respect and support, is the Komen in your backyard.

We continue to hope for a great turnout at the Race for the Cure this year as fellow Utahns show their trust and belief in us, and join us in the war against breast cancer.

Debbie Mintowt, Executive Director, Salt Lake City Affiliate of Susan G. Komen for the Cure

Over the weekend I heard from our Board’s President that all of the Affiliates that were on that particular conference call with Nancy Brinker and HQ staff flat-out stated that Karen Handel had to go, and at that time Nancy didn’t want to do that. . . so something happened between Saturday and yesterday.  Sooner or later I imagine I’ll hear what it was.  Although I have always known that she is a Republican and a conservative Christian religiously conservative woman,  up until now Nancy Brinker kept politics out of the Komen brand.  I don’t think that we’ll ever shove that genie back in to bottle, so from here on out we’re going to have to be hypervigilant about sponsors, grantees, honorary chairs–everything that is the public face of Komen, and that’s a shame, because both Komen and Planned Parenthood do good work.

Part four is in the works: women’s health, Planned Parenthood, and Komen.  I see that part two is up around 180 comments now.  If nothing else, I seem to be able to write posts that spark a lot of discussion.

 

EDIT:  Both Mark and Karla pointed out that Nancy Brinker is possibly Jewish rather than Christian; I don’t know why I’d always been led to believe that she’s Christian, but after looking into it I can’t find a citation one way or the other, so I edited it above.  I know from meeting her at Komen events and public information that she is a conservative and religious woman (who I admire greatly), so I’ve decided to go with those two descriptors.

Filed under: Komen, Planned Parenthood, politics | Tagged: | 56 Comments »

Morning Report

Posted on February 8, 2012 by Brent Nyitray

Vital Statistics:

Last Change Percent
S&P Futures 1345.8 1.1 0.08%
Eurostoxx Index 2528.9 14.8 0.59%
Oil (WTI) 99.67 1.3 1.28%
LIBOR 0.5133 -0.007 -1.30%
US Dollar Index (DXY) 78.443 -0.110 -0.14%
10 Year Govt Bond Yield 1.99% 0.02%

Markets are flattish this morning as talks continue between Greece and its creditors. The WSJ is reporting that the ECB has agreed to exchange bonds it bought at a discount in the secondary market at a price less than par.  Greek 10 year yields are down a percentage point to 33.14%

The WSJ has a story this morning discussing how the energy boom is driving the economy. The story points out that the multiplier effect from this is huge – for every new worker employed in the oil and gas industry, another 4 jobs are created in support.  Obama will have to walk a fine line between mollifying his environmental base which hates fracking and the fact that the energy sector is one of the few bright spots in the economy overall.

One housing story that has not been getting a lot of play has been the perilous state of FHA’s reserves.  FHA’s cash reserves are below the 2% statutory limit and a bailout may be necessary if housing deteriorates further.  How will it affect housing?  My gut says that the government will quietly tell FHA to start unloading foreclosed homes in order to raise cash. This will undoubtedly complicate the government’s efforts to support the housing market.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 67 Comments »

Open Letter to Chris Matthews

Posted on February 7, 2012 by allbutcertain

Chris, you are wrong when you say it is a violation of religious freedom for the Obama administration to require large employers of institutions with religious affiliations to provide insurance that covers contraception for employees. Churches, which are religious entities, are exempted. Universities and hospitals that serve the public and employ people of different religious backgrounds and beliefs should not have the right to deny such coverage to people who do not share the church’s institutional position. In my view, that is a larger violation of religious freedom. Beyond that, it violates the rights of employees to receive the same insurance that the law requires be available to other workers. And beyond that, it is a matter both of women’s rights and women’s health.

I have heard the argument that “liberal” Catholics who helped to pass the Affordable Care Act are incensed that their opposition to Secretary Sebelius’s decision was not respected. They apparently feel their support for ACA earned them policy chits in another area. Why? Presumably, they thought the act was a good idea and a step toward making insurance available to everyone. Did they feel their support was somehow contingent on the idea they would be able to veto the rights to contraception for women who want and need it?

I have long been troubled by the ease with which the church I was baptized in waves its wand over the most deeply personal of human choices. The sexual scandals within the church in recent decades have found clergy and religious throughout the church covering up the most terrible of crimes against children out of a desire to protect the church’s reputation and, I think, out of some sense of loyalty to people who have shared their vocations, in spite of their violations. I think that loyalty could not be more horribly mistaken, but on some level I almost understand it as an empathetic reaction.

It is deeply sad to me that people whose vows and chosen vocations have meant they have not faced real world decisions about child rearing, family size, maternal and infant health, and family financial pressures not only pass down edicts about what is right and wrong in terms of contraception but also show so little empathy for the people whose sexual choices are at variance from those edicts. I find it profoundly immoral that someone in the hierarchy may look the other way when a priest sodomizes a child and yet pound down an iron fist of opprobrium when a woman makes her own very personal choice about family planning. Your ire and sympathies are misplaced, Chris. There is no need to valorize the moral position of institutions (hospitals and universities are people?) over their workers who have a smaller voice but their own moral position and rights.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 100 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »