Are banks really too big?

The linked video is an interesting and controversial one.

Interesting presentation, but he provided no real solutions to bring to lawmakers. Maybe it was the way he made it sound, but telling a company you are too big or too powerful seems socialist in nature, assuming they have not broken any anti-trust laws (which none of these banks currently have).

Competition is still alive and well right now in the financial marketplace. He claims that the banks have gotten bigger due to risk-taking, but in reality, the ability to purchase cheaper, undervalued assets has contributed to higher earnings. In conjunction, the Fed's maintenance of all-time low interest rates allows them to borrow for cheaper than they can lend, in a sensible way.

If people want to support the breakup of Goldman, then why not other large corporations such as Walmart? Also, this seems to become a slippery slope. Who decides or distinguishes what banks or corporations are too big to fail?

Goldman actually sold off one of its key trading divisions to KKR not long ago. I suspect other banks will follow.

The speaker was dead on about the poor compensation structure, however. It's not necessarily the size of the bonuses, as how they are obtained (i.e. reward for risk). If employees of any corporation are properly compensated with decisions that favor long-term sustainability and growth of the organization, then reward amounts and bonuses are not going to be a major issue in the future.

I'll step off the soapbox now.

More trouble for the U.S. Dollar?

Recently, the FED has substantially cut rates in response to the growing recession fears that have spread into the minds of more academics and economists. Although the possibility of a recession is no small matter, the FED has seemingly ignored another major problem facing our economy and financial well-being.

Our US Dollar has resumed its downfall against other major world currencies, most importantly the Yen and Euro. After a mid-December rally, the USD has plunged to new lows again compared against both currencies. Despite a global credit crunch and recession worries in Asia and Europe, the FED typically acts most rapidly and decisively when problems arise. On this positive note, we can expect the other central banks to begin cutting rates sometime later in the year as a more reactionary measure instead of a combination between reaction and precaution. Asian growth is still expected to maintain, but interest rates have risen to unhealthy levels. Meanwhile, Europe seems a few months behind the US economy in the GDP cycle, so slower growth may not be realized until the late 3rd or early 4th quarter of this year.





One solution to the falling value of the Dollar the FED has yet to utilize is the mop up of excess money floating around throughout the economy. Unfortunately for the US central banking arm, excess liquidity has been necessary in a marketplace stricken with tightening credit standards and loan requirements. As the financial sector continues to right itself (with the help of much needed investment from the private sector and abroad), the FED may begin to start diminishing some of this exorbitant amount of dollars. Hence, less supply will help drive the USD's value back in the right direction.

Was Jerome Kerviel a man "without any particular genius"?

Within the past week, Jerome Kerviel changed the landscape and mindset of the financial world. According to the article from the Tribune Company, Kerviel is responsible for a whopping $7.14 Billion in losses incurred by French megabank Societe Generale. Although everyone's initial shock stems from the monetary value Kerviel cost his employer (not surprising considering the value), I was left in awe when reading about the ease and amount of transactions involved in his illegal actions.

For Societe Generale to comment on Kerviel as a "fragile person...without any particular genius" really worries me. Is this French bank so arrogant that they fail to believe he truly profited at any time from his illegal trading (which they also stated)? Are those at the top so stubborn to give Kerviel any credit for defrauding their organization for the largest amount in history? Or are those executives at Societe Generale telling us something else?

In an updated article, the bank claims he "hacked computers and "combined several fraudulent methods". How easy is this system to hack? If Kerviel was truly a man "without any particular genius," can we expect thousands of computer wizards to flock to investment banks in search of a trading position, which they will be able to use to extort or defraud massive amount of money? Are these banks, supposedly with the top computer security in the world (save national governments and agencies) really that safe?

Societe Generale might want to start a company-wide investigation, quick. Ditto for the rest of the banks. Because if Kerviel is just a normal guy with average intelligence and knowledge of his field and the trading system, this won't be the last case we see of this nature in near future.

Privatized Social Security?

Recently, Republican Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson has become outspoken on the Social Security issue. In one of the rare cases where a politician musters up enough courage to discuss one of the premier dilemmas facing American society, Thompson seems to be on the right track. Instead of relying on increasing taxes in order to boost account values like Senator Clinton has suggested, Thompson began talk of privatizing Social Security and allowing individual Americans to save their money as they so chose via an investment vehicle (likely a 401(k) or something similar).

When asked his main thoughts behind the process, Thompson replied with a refreshing remark. "The American people are smart", said Thompson reflecting on U.S. citizen's abilities to invest themselves. How about that? A politician that has faith in the American people to choose and dictate their own prosperous future.

Contrast Thompson's pro-individual comments to those of Hilary Clinton's latest speech, in which she mandated, "When I am president, we'll have our priorities in order. We will return to fiscal responsibility and fair tax policies first, and then we will address the long-term challenges facing Social Security."

With an overwhelming lead in the Democratic Primary's early polls, I worry for the country with her pro-tax hike mentality, something a fragile economy wouldn't take kindly to. What happened to the pro-growth Democrats like Kennedy? Maybe Hilary should consult someone with experience in the position, someone who understood that tax hikes were detrimental to the economy. Say her husband, Bill.

Stocks will push for another bullish end to the year

With so much controversy and turmoil in the marketplace in 2007, it seems only fitting that a prediction of bullishness is viewed skeptically by many in the investment world. However, I believe there are several factors that will continue to churn out new records in most equity sectors and classes.

Recent stock market pull-backs have been caused mainly by rising interest rates. Bond Yields rose again on Thursday bringing rates to around 5.17%. Despite the substantial increase of 400 basis points, the equity markets finished higher due to some good economic data. Although bond yields pose a short-term threat to the markets, they can only do so much damage before the flood of capital and investor confidence takes over.

Looking at the 10-yr bond yield (considered one of the best measures of rates), it continues to approach the target Federal Funds rate level. But what is going to happen when bond prices become just a few hundred basis points away from the target interest rate? They will halt, quickly. In other words, the upside to the stock market far outweighs the potential rise in bond yields. Therefore, if bond rates are not going to get much higher, we must assume that housing will begin to stabilize during the latter half of the year. In addition, consumer and institutional confidence should continue to increase providing higher highs in the marketplace.

Another key aspect of the interest rate impact regards the flattening of the yield curve. One of the main arguments of the bearish analysts on Wall Street this year has been the inverted yield curve. Not only has the curve flattened, it has really begun to shape back to its normal progression, with yields correlating to the length of the investment. Stabilization of interest rates and normal payout percentages will make short term bonds more unattractive and simultaneously display equities as a prime target for even larger amounts of capital.

Stocks remain undervalued when taking into account global profits, revenue and earnings growth, higher margins, and currency conversions. Now might be the time to buy, not sell.

Another big sell-off, but was it healthy?

As US economic growth wavered in Q1, coupled with a few big sell-offs in the equities markets, stocks steadfastly rebounded and repeatedly approached new record highs. Taking into account the vast amount of negative numbers regarding economic data, equity prices fearlessly drove higher, despite predictions by several top economists and market analysts that a recession was near. A key basis point of these bears centered around the inverted yield curve, a unique phenomenon which has been succeeded by a recession every time it develops.

Low and behold, several months and vastly higher heights later, another pair of significant sell-offs occurred. This time however, these bears are missing a significant piece to their pessimistic puzzle. Finally, after years of mismanagement by the FED and US Treasury Dept., the yield curve has begun to normalized. The inversion has reversed, as long-term treasury yields have overtaken the 90-day T-bill rates.



Another issue the bears seemed to dwell on regarded weakness in the US Dollar. Many argued that global equity markets would continue to prosper while US stocks would take a significant hit because of the weakness in profitability between exchanges in currency rates relating to asset levels and market capitalization. Unfortunately, these bears failed to realize the global impact and success of American companies abroad. Giants such as General Electric, United Technologies, and Boeing continue to impress and solidify market share across the globe. Therefore, these revenues made abroad will translate high relative to the USD, failing to impact corporation's balance sheets like pessimists believed they would. In addition, the Dollar has continued to climb against the Yen and made a good comeback against the Euro recently.

Therefore, don't expect a large correction over 5-6% anytime in the near future. The US economy is going strong and stock slumps are supposed to be caused by Bond yield inflation, not computer glitches. This is a natural cycle and valuations are still appealing in the equity markets.

Quote of the Day

"As you have heard me say on many occassions, the key to Tiger's success over the years has been a steady commitment to buying the best stocks and shorting the worst. In a rational environment, this strategy functions well. But in an irrational market, where earnings and price considerations take a back seat to mouse clicks and momentum, such logic, as we have learned, does not account for much."

-The great Julian Robertson, Tiger Management

US investments continue higher despite China

For the past few years, many bearish global and US market analysts have claimed that a recession or sharp decline on Chinese exchanges will create a detrimental domino effect throughout the free market world. Well, guess what, China's Shanghai index dropped some 8+%. Despite the rapid drop-off, resembling the DJIA in 1929, US stocks failed to coincide, edging slightly higher overall, including some of the very stocks with huge interest on the exchange such as PetroChina and CNOOC.

Unfortunately for these bears, they refuse to realize that globalization has helped reduce risk and dependence in any one country or region. Negating fundamental economics, though, baffles me.

As of 10:58PM ET, the Shanghai Index was down another 5%. We will see if the US exchanges can continue the momentum and further our dominance as the supreme nation of wealth. Also interesting, the Hang Seng seems to be higher still, some .37%. This means that worries among Chinese investors have yet to spread to outside investors, including a signifcant portion from the US.

For more detailed Energy stock picks...

Visit my stock advice and suggestion site at Stock Picks and Advice

As Energy Prices Rise, Fight Back With Investments

Lately, it seems like every time I turn the TV to news, finance or political programming, you hear consumers and politicians whining about the recent run-up in energy (particularly gasoline) prices. Although this complaining seems to be partially justified, few have answers to the continuous rise in demand and market assessed risk that remain the force behind rising fuel costs. In a capitalist economy, you have to accept the fact that markets set the price. Higher demand and risk mean higher fuel prices. If illegal price gauging activity is present in the marketplace, then by all means Congress and the justice system need to take action. However, in the previous 30 investigations led by the FTC, there has been no conclusion of wrongdoing.

Instead of sitting on your hands, upset about the higher cost of your summer vacation, hedge against fuel price inflation by investing in energy companies. As a sector, energy has performed well this year, especially oil exploration & drilling companies and refiners. These stocks are only beginning their upward summer trends. Baring a significant political or economic change in the industry, energy stocks should continue to increase in price, running up another 50% or more in some cases. Profiting from investments during inflation in energy prices helps to hedge your earnings and protect your wealth and purchasing power. Here are some ideas for investors:

If you are conservative in your stock selections, go with a typical big name driller or refiner. Some names to look at include Valero Energy -VLO- (still extremely undervalued using valuation measures), Marathon Oil -MRO-, Transocean -RIG-, or Exxon Mobil -XOM-.

For investors desiring higher earning potential, I recommend some energy plays abroad. Recently, international oil and gas companies have experienced significant stock price advances. Nevertheless, many of these companies remain undervalued when taking into account their projected earnings and revenue growth rates. Some companies to consider include Buffett-owned Chinese giant PetroChina -PTR- (AKA China National Petroleum Corporation, a stock I will discuss in my China sectorsnap later this week), Argentine emerger Petrobras Energia Participaciones S.A. -PZE-, and the Brazilian integrated Petroleo Brasileiro -PBR-.

Yet another reason to avoid American automakers

As if their overall strategy, quality and labor hassles weren't enough to deter investors, GM now admits that the SEC is investigating the firm's use of financial hedging tools, as well as possible restatements of earnings derived from GM's former banking arm.

Previously, I blogged about what I felt was unfair criticism towards GM. Although I certainly didn't recommend the stock, I suggested that it might be a viable option in the future and was unfairly linked to the slumping Ford and Chrysler. Despite these recent allegations, I still believe GM is in better overall shape then Ford, who is now saddled with some $167 Billion in debt. GM's $46 B certainly isn't a good number, but it comes at one third of the amount Ford has, making it a much more attractive stock for private equity and investment firms.

Judging from the recent news though, I would continue to keep clear of US automakers until Detroit proves it can maintain profitability over a 2-quarter period.

BUY



OR



Both Japanese carmakers recently experienced undeserved price declines over the past few months and possess appealing valutaions

When will Carter and Greenspan just shutup?

I don't know what it is with former famous political leaders, but they seem to be having a problem keeping their mouths closed. Just a few days ago, former President Jimmy Carter went off as saying "the current administration is the worst in history". Later, Carter claimed he was only referring to the Bush Administration's foreign policy.

But, like Greenspan, what good did these comments really do for the country? Confidence is already near all-time lows, set when guess who was President-Carter himself. A vast majority of Americans in both parties know how poorly Bush has done in respect to foreign policy, so why does the former maligned leader feel the need to state the obvious? Considering his track record, Carter has no room to criticize or talk.

Today, former FED Chairman Greenspan decided to tell the world that China will have a big sell-off at some point. Well, no kidding! Anyone who follows economics and investing understands that China is due for a correction at some point. Did Greenspan really find it necessary to state the obvious as well?

However, I fail to see where this "big" correction will come from. If you take into account the P/E ratios over the projected five-year earnings growth rates in China, the stocks seem more appealing then those in the United States. Yet, Greenspan seems to ignore key numbers such as this all too often. To be critical of China, when you have been linked directly to many of the problems the US Economy currently faces, takes one arrogant and senile former economist and politician.

Carter and Greenspan need to go play a round of 18 and accept the fact that they failed during their tenures.

(Chile)ng Economic Trials

In a recent Wall Street Journal column, a reporter chronicled the upcoming problems the Chilean economy faces. Like several other developing nations, Chile's economy seems to have become over-reliant on a single industry. In this specific case, Chile's recent economic boom has been fueled largely by mining commodities, especially considering how copper has tripled in the past 5 years or so.

However, Chile is dissimilar in the methods it has taken to combat the volatility derived from commodity markets by using investment techniques on a percentage of revenue generated from taxes on the economy. With tax revenues higher during years of commodity price increases, Chile has been able to develop a system that invests a percentage of taxes during this period into foreign investments such as government bonds. Although it would generally be wiser of them to place this money in equities, I applaud the finance and economics ministries for even coming up with such an idea that generates guaranteed return on money they don't need to spend.

By hedging against these fluctuations in Chile's economy, stability and long-term upward growth can more easily be secured. Many of the dividends and repayment of these funds will be invested into innovation so that the country becomes competitive in other sectors such as Technology, Financial Services and Consumer Products. All too often, developing countries focus on short-term profits, economic growth and end up spending instead of accruing or building their wealth. You will be hard pressed to find any country that has a better long-term economic strategy and focus on innovation and techonological improvement then Chile.

As with any government, the diffulty to balance the budget always poses a threat and concern among politicians and citizens. Chile's comprehension of the peaks and valleys associated with commodity dependence help create barriers against recession or stagflation. There are always issues and programs that need financial support, but tighter spending leads to a more balanced budget and higher levels of fiscal responsibility. Maybe US Politicians can learn something from our Chilean allies.



Note: GDP for Chile rises significantly after 2002.

How common investors can get in on Private Equity

For yet another year, Private Equity buyouts are expected to set a new record on Wall Street. Although the "rich get richer" theory applies, investors of all levels and experience have seen the benefits of leveraged buyouts. Rumors and announcements of LBOs stemming from Private Equity capital has driven stock prices dramatically higher, making these firms pay more for each acquisition or considered target. Although investors have little control over the situation and some may not want to lose ownership of the company they are part of, these Private Equity deals provide payouts of premiums that more then make up for these feelings.

Private Equity has remained an elitist group over time, with high barriers of entry. Until now. Presently, PE firms either trade sections of their firm publicly or have planned IPOs set to unveil before the end of this fiscal year. If you are looking for an immediate venture into ownership of a PE firm, you can try Fortress Investment Group (FIG), Apollo Group or KKR, the noteworthy firm that recently announced a bid for TXU. Investors with patience may want to wait for IPOs expected from the two most powerful and well-known firms in the PE world, Carlyle Group and Blackstone Group.

To some, it may seem confusing as to the reasoning behind Private Equity firms going public, especially because of their namesake. Thinking critically about how these firms derived their name, they still possess the ability to keep restructure and overhaul acquisitions in private. Disclosures in financial statements are a specific concern to some analysts, but the numbers will never fully display how the firms turnaround or fail with individual acqusitions. In addition, the acquisitions acquired by these financial barrons are likely to benefit because they are allowed to operate like a separate entity without the pressure of growing an artificial number such as a stock price.

Buyer beware though, as this article explains, PE firms stock growth after three years of their IPO is only 39% compared with normal growth of 45% for other companies. Also, as Adam Lashinsky writes, these PE firms are forced to cater to those pesky investors which they try to avoid so adamantly in the process of their business. Another possible red flag of the firms center around the use of stockholder's equity instead of debt. While the practice is generally seen as favorable and may be the case in some of these IPOs, the possibility of maxed-out debt could be extremely detrimental to the overall growth in earnings and health of the firm.

Should Orbitz go public?

Blackstone group, one of the famed private equity firms, recently announced they are taking Orbitz Worldwide Inc. public. This seems like an odd time to do so considering the high level of competition among online travel agencies, price wars between the airlines and rising costs due to elevated fuel prices.

Orbitz reported an increase in bookings of 38% last year, along with revenue of $752 Million. Looking at those numbers, one might be inclined to buy this IPO. However, if you look at the net income, Orbitz claimed a loss of $146 Million. This makes me question how the company derived that $752 Million in revenues; Orbitz makes profit by taking money off the top of flights, hotels, and cars other companies provide. If that revenue amount included the actual total flight, hotel, and rental costs, Orbitz might be cheating itself by going public at this juncture. Perhaps, investors are the ones who will get cheated if they fail to look at these numbers closer.

Even if Orbitz generated that $752M in revenue solely from its commissions, where do these high costs come from that created a net loss of more then 1/7 of these revenues? It makes you wonder if the costs can be cut or controlled, especially once full disclosure of financials is needed. In addition, revenue may slump this summer if fuel prices remain high and are built into plane ticket or car rental prices.

It isn't usually smart to go against Blackstone and underwriters such as Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and UBS, but I will be searching for more information before I jump on this IPO bandwagon.

Are Biofuels contributing to inflation in the U.S.?

With the steady rise of demand for biofuels due to subsidies and governement regulations, displacement of crops may lead to higher inflation in food prices. According to Shane Romig of the Associate Press, Argentines are not all happy about the government's new ethanol/bio-diesel plan.

Although few would argue against the environmental benefits of ethanol and other crop-based fuels, economic feasibility has long been in question. This article makes an important point in that diversion of crops towards fuel will likely lead to higher food prices. Despite vast differences in wealth, Americans in the lower and bottom middle-class could possibly face drastic changes to their food purchasing habits.

This may go a long way to show that hydrogen fuel-cell and other alternative means such as batteries may ultimately replace Ethanol as the mobile energy for the future.

ARTICLE LINK

Protectionism is a double-edged sword

Sen. Hilary Clinton continues to lead the protectionist rampage on the political front, she has yet to provide any hints as to her solutions to the various problems that are certain to arise should she win and enact her regulations. Protectionism has both positive and negative effects, the later of which Clinton ignores.

I doubt anyone questions the concern over the amount of outsourcing that has taken place since the early 1990s. Something needs to be done to revitalize the US economy, that isn't debatable. The methods for achieving the end means is where politicians and economists seem to differ.

Clinton tends to suggest that Protectionism will help keep jobs inside of US borders, lower the trade deficit and ultimately act beneficial to the overall economic well-being. She doesn't seem to realize that the trade deficit has no net affect on the United States. Entities and people trade, not countries. She should be more focused on U.S. GDP Growth rates because various factors influence trade, including tariffs, tax rates in respective countries and currency conversion rates.

If you look at Hilary's plan, implementing policies to force companies and Americans to buy home-grown products will certainly result in significant spikes in inflation. She doesn't seem to have any grasp of this concept. If strong tariffs or other protective measures are enacted, those goods that will be then produced by workers in America will most definitely be higher in price due to the wage and benefits difference.

Another key consequence on protectionism is a stronger US Dollar. Although some argue that would be beneficial for the United States and her citizens, this would only hold true when trading or converting currency or wealth with other countries. An inflated currency has proven to be part of the problem with outsourcing because a higher USD makes foreign imports cost less and become more attractive. This is a central factor in the massive import problem the US faces. Should the USD fall relative to the Asian currencies, which it still has yet to do, demand for US exports will rise dramatically.

The double edge sword comes into affect if the US Dollar were to fall too quickly, lowering the value of personal wealth and ultimately creating inflation simultaneously. By any means, the situation is complex and fragile, something Sen. Clinton needs to realize soon.

To be or not to be...Protectionist

There is a very fine line for the subject and cringe at those who believe it should be one extreme or the other. Senator Clinton has already established herself as a major protectionist, but I wonder what the other candidates stances are on this issue. If Clinton continues on this rampage, she will certainly alienate conservative or pro-business, pro-market Democrats as well as Republicans. During this time of economic prosperity and concerns over whether it will last, she might play herself into a defeat during the Democratic Primary.

With global trade and economic dependence, protectionism will be a key issue in the economic debates for both the primary and general elections. I'm interested to see how big pro-Wall Street politicians like Giuliani feel about this subject. Giuliani is by far the best candidate for Wall Street, or so those who work there believe. His extensive background in business and business law should certainly aid him throughout the Republican Primary. Whether the financial outlook looks bleak or solid, he can use his vast experience to persuade voters that his economic policy will either strengthen or maintain the future.

Whichever party wins, I hope Congress and the financial and economic experts in their cabinet and in key organizations (FED, FOMC, etc.) deter any candidate from going one way or the other. Too much protectionism, such as Sen. Clinton is proposing, will create a steep increase in inflation, decrease US exports as well as imports, and put a significant strain on our diplomatic relationships around the globe. By the same token, failure to create and maintain low-wage jobs will also create economic and social problems such as high unemployment and more dependence on government welfare and tax dollars. Additionally, Wal-Marts will continue to force their suppliers to venture outside of the US to keep up with the low prices they demand, directly affecting the job market.

Protectionism is a touchy subject, one that will not become any easier to figure out as the US economy becomes more reliant on globalization. Creating a limited protectionist platform sounds like the most effective route to counter this problem. Although it will create subjectivity, most who follow the economy can agree that neither extreme would ultimately be beneficial for America. Free trade needs to be emphasized, but some low taxes can offset enough jobs from being sent overseas.

Good numbers for the U.S. Economy

More good numbers came out today, suggesting a recession is not likely in the near term for the United States economy like some economists such as Paul Krugman and Barry Ritholz. Let's start with the bad numbers.

Pending Home Sales came in at -4.9% against projections of 0.4% increase due to spring buying habits. Part of this number may be due to the cold snaps felt throughout the early part of the spring. I wouldn't be surprised to see that number rally this month.

Now on to the good news. The ISM Manufacturing Index rose to 54.7%, a new 52-week high. With the good manufacturing numbers came a sharp decline in bond rates, a move that will help support the stock market's rally.
Source: Marketwatch

Yesterday several strong numbers came out including personal income and DPI, each rose by 0.7%. Improvement in income leads to higher consumer spending and eventually GDP growth, corporate profits and a bullish stock market. The PCE inflation measure was flat, signaling slowing inflation. This is key considering inflationary worries and concern over the FED hiking rates if inflation maintains high levels. Gold prices also dipped, strengthening the dollar and lowering commodity prices.

U.S. to be free of Middle Eastern Oil by 2012

Last night, Interior secretary Dirk Kempthorne was on CNBC touting a new offshore oil drilling program that would put to work 48 Million Acres in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coasts of Alaska and Virginia.

"Department officials estimated that the entire plan could produce 10 billion barrels of additional oil and 45 trillion cubic feet of additional natural gas over the next 40 years."

This would effectively provide enough energy for the US to completely cease its importing of oil from any Middle Eastern Country according to the Interior Secretary. In addition, they plan to make sure that certain environmental standards are being met:

"The proposal includes measures to protect against damage to coastal areas from oil spills and other accidents. It would not allow drilling within 50 miles of the Virginia shore and would wall off an additional “obstruction zone” near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay."

However, environmentalists are criticizing the plan for not being protective enough:

“The Bush administration is zeroing in on the most environmentally sensitive areas for offshore drilling,” said Richard Charter, a lobbyist for Defenders of Wildlife and co-chairman of the National Outer Continental Shelf Coalition. “These areas that they are characterizing as buffer zones are woefully inadequate when you consider that the Exxon Valdez oil spill traveled hundreds of miles in a matter of weeks.”

My thoughts on this issue are that it would be great for our own economy, hurt the purchasing power of the Middle Eastern countries, lower the price of oil in general and really help create a more energy independent country. The problem is, I do worry about potential oil spills and tend to question the safety of these offshore oil rigs with the oceanic environment. I feel split because nobody can guarantee environmental protection with these oil fields.

SOURCE: Kudlow & Company, New York Times