Natural Gas: America's Energy Salvation [View article]
Going out to use up some clean, renewable (though regrettably not inexhaustible!) energy which requires only a little protein, fat and carbohydrates to power it. That would be muscle power to kayak on Lake Tahoe.
Before I do, let me thank all those who have already commented and answer some questions posed.
One eye, my best guess as to why hydro has declined is that it has only barely declined in absolute terms and then only for sound environmental concerns. In RELATIVE terms, however, we’ve probably tapped every major river we can and hydro’s percent of power generation will continue to slide relative to all the other sources. As for the BTU % generated by oil, I took these numbers directly from the Dept of Energy website. My GUESS – and it is only that – is that the 2% of utilities using oil slurp up a huge amount of the stuff because they are the oldest and biggest utilities near the biggest population centers. Newer plants built in the later-settled sections of the country use newer sources of fuel. If someone knows another reason, I’m all ears.
Wind4me, as stated in the text above the chart, I get my – what you in your blind obeisance to an appealing Siren song call “distorted figures” – from DOE. If I’m not mistaken, I believe the head of that organization, which currently spends $26 billion a year to maintain its vast bureaucracy of grants, subsidies and pork, is a direct report of President Obama.
John Peterson, there will always be those who hide their head in the sand and pretend that just because electricity is clean AT THE OUTLET, why, Santa’s elves must produce it at the North Pole. You are spot on. Clean-burning hybrids make the most sense economically, geopolitically and environmentally.
Grey Road, have the mighty fallen so far that the choices are “wind freak” or “Nat Gas freak”? //grins // I don’t believe espousing a sane, geopolitically, environmentally and economically feasible solution to our energy crisis is freaky at all!
And, last, AO. Thank you for your stirring words written from someone inside the business from roughneck to EVP... I tend to downplay the geopolitical side on an economic and investing forum like SA only because my many years as a world and regional geopolitical analyst in the US Intelligence Community already predisposes me to be more concerned about those issues, and I don't want to stray too far from how an investor might approach all this. They are clearly, however, the most important national strategic consideration. How can we maintain our strength as a nation if our leaders are blind to this massive drain on America’s future? “There are none so blind as those who will not see…” Thank you for taking the time to address all the issues attendant to this state of affairs. Parenthetically, when I was a wee lad just entering this business there were two companies I became very familiar with and recommended to my clients as being run by ethical, smart and aggressive energy leaders. Helmerich & Payne was one and Houston Oil & Minerals (if anyone even remembers that name so many years, national mis-steps, and OPEC-inflicted pain later.)
Finally, my comments, in the past, in this article, and in the future, are not about some food fight over whether natural gas or wind or solar are cooler to contemplate, but about advocacy for a sane national energy policy. Let the facts lead us to the most intelligent course of action, not the volume of rhetoric.
Robert Shiller on the Nascent Recovery [View article]
Prieur, thank you for reminding me why I stopped watching the Constantly Noisy Bull Channel (CNBC) years ago. I thought perhaps my one interview experience there was unique but your providing this video proves it wasn't. Every time Bob Shiller tried to explain something, the two "look at me!" talking heads cut him off.
CNBC's approach seems to be, "Just tell us what you think is going to happen TODAY!" [Followed by an attempt to by the respondent to explain why that's an idiotic approach, followed by...] "There you have it, folks! Stay tuned after these 27 commercials for someone else's response to our unimportant questions and, hey, check out my hair while we go to fade-out!"
To see what he thinks rather than what they show, I'll read his comments in the Times....
Global Markets in Review: Emerging Markets Showing First Signs of Retrenchment? [View article]
Re "...more upside lies ahead, said Abby Joseph Cohen, Goldman Sachs’ market strategist, who expects the Index to reach the 1,100 point by year end. (Is this a contrary indicator coming from a permabull?)"
I fear it may be. Ms. Cohen's beating of the Dow 20,000 drum in 2000 made the ensuing dot.bom far worse -- but it kept the party going long enough for her employer to IPO the last of their hope-and-a-prayer dot.coms with no revenues, no earnings and no likelihood of ever achieving either.
Then there was Goldman's call of $200 oil last year that gave them time to short oils when the public rushed in to buy on such "sage" advice.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me...
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
<"Facebook signals possible IPO date. ...will likely begin disclosing large amounts of financial information or else go public by April 2012.">
And again people line up around the block for a "concept." Yes, Facebook is new and different -- so was AOL once upon a time. But the premise most will apply as they fight and gouge to get stock is that they can sell it to someone else for a higher price. They won't bother to check the balance sheet or income statement to see if this is an ongoing business model that has legs any time after the IPO money has been blown down dusty cul-de-sacs.
Maybe Facebook will surprise and not be among the sock puppets of the last tech bubble -- but for those who care about outdated notions like value and net worth: the company, at its private valuation (jacked up by GS) of $50 billion, sells at 25 times sales. That's 25 times SALES, not 25 times earnings, which are both elusive and miniscule. PT Barnum was right, there IS one born every minute!
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Would this be the same Franklin Delano Raines who was the assistant director of the White House Domestic Policy Staff for Jimmy Carter? The same Franklin Delano Raines who was Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for Bill Clinton? The same Franklin Delano Raines the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (the regulating body of Fannie Mae) filed suit against IN 2006 (!) for shifting losses into future years so he could get bigger bonuses? (They sought $90 million but settled for less than $3 million, all paid by Fannie's insurance policies! Would it be that Franklin Delano Raines?
It would. And they say that crime doesn't pay. (Well, not unless you are politically well-connected, anyway...)
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
< "AIG could speed up its exit from government ownership while the government could potentially turn a profit on its holdings." >
Would this be a "profit" like the government made in GM? By "how much do you want it to be" accounting, the government makes a profit, but the taxpayers are still poorer than they were before the government got involved. When $700 billion comes back to American entrepreneurs, small business owners, taxpayers and consumers in the form of spendable cash, I'll believe the government has made a profit on its forced investments. Until then, I fear it is all smoke and mirrors...
XLNT post, sir! And I WAS mostly referring to those "other" web sites where wise men choose not to tread. //grins//
You'll note I said I've also held some positions more than 10 years. I have some clients with a basis in XOM of less than $30 and an effective yield at those entry prices of over 6%. It's unlikely I'll be discarding that AAA income stream any time soon!
My disparagement of "buy and hold" is to warn of Wall Street's desire to keep US holding (most often in their mutual funds and such) so they can trade wildly without having a bunch of what they consider small fry getting in their way. By all means, IF we have bought a stock so cheaply (or it has appreciated so well) that we have large gains and a large < and increasing > dividend yield, we should all be loathe to sell it just because the market drops a couple thousand points.
Where you and I may still honorably disagree is that, if someone does not yet have the benefit of a couple XOMs bought right, I say, "Wait a couple months and keep your powder dry -- as/if they get REALLY cheap, gulp hard and start buying at the distressing moment when it is most difficult emotionally to do so..."
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
<< "Goldman Sachs' (GS) international real estate fund, Whitehall Street International, has lost nearly all its $1.8B in equity on troubled property investments in the U.S., Germany and Japan... the fund was down to just $30M as of the end of 2009." >>
Well, thank heavens it's only the < investors > in Goldman's funds who lose everything. Can you imagine what would happen to the second home market in The Hamptons if Goldman executives put their own money into the trash they sell? At least the fund still has $30 million left to pay bonuses to its managers...
What Are Today's 'Extraordinary, Popular Delusions?' [View article]
"Climate Change...OK it is slow in coming but then so is your time perspective quite limited."
400 million years is quite limited? Wow, you DO take the long view! //grins// Thank you for your comment, sir. I selected these three issues as (what I believe to be) Popular Delusions precisely because I know they will engender controversy, discussion and experts learned and unlearned weighing in. It's working...
2010: Year of Energy, Metals and Healthcare...But Not Bonds [View article]
Doc, you and I can agree on two things...
(1) Take unlimited pain and suffering awards and harrassment litigation out of the equation and malpractice insurance rates would plummet and doctors would breathe easier practicing medicine, and
(2) Doctors should be the ones determining the best health care options for patients -- though I would add: "in concert with an informed and educated patient." No offense, Doc, but I know my own body better than you do.
It would still be necessary to have a few competent lawyers around to keep incompetent doctors from practicing (instead of the current model where hordes of competent AND incompetent lawyers chase competent AND incompetent doctors out of the business.)
However -- no matter your informed insider's opinion of the healthcare industry, you are overlooking one important fact: this is a website about INVESTING, not about politics or polemics or governance. If I believe there are opportunities for our clients to grow their portfolios, and they and I consider the sector and industry chosen to be responsible, then I will buy the best companies in that sector or industry.
I see comments from polemicists berating me for buying fossil fuels, for instance, because they are convinced the world will end next week if we burn another ounce of coal and they want to use Seeking Alpha as their bully pulpit. They are entitled to their opinion. But I will honor my commitment to our firm's clients to buy the best companies in the best sectors that offer the best combination of dividend income and future growth. And that includes the growth my research indicates is still ahead for energy, mining and health care.
On 2010 Jan 01 02:08 PM Doc 224899 wrote:
> JLS: how can you be so solidly grounded in precious metals and basic > materials, and so off the mark in healthcare?
3 Quality Stocks Yielding 8%+, Now Selling at Last Year's Price [View article]
Gimli, it would be irresponsible in the extreme for me to advise you on your personal portfolio. The answer to your "70%" question would differ radically for someone who is earning $300,000 a year, has $500,000 in non-tax-deferred accounts and has no debt, versus someone for whom their Roth represents much or most of their net worth and future security.
Beware ANY advisor or columnist so arrogant or narcissistic that they believe they can dispense Universal Advice without understanding your personal temperament for risk, your personal asset and income situation, your personal time horizon, and all the elements of risk inherent in any investing.
Wishing you good investing and good fortune in fine-tuning your answers to such questions...
On Dec 11 10:25 AM GimliJan wrote:
> Joseph, > Good article. I own some PGH and PVX. I was thinking of adding ERF > but am concerned about my high allocation to these Oil/Gas trusts > and my MLP's EPD and KMP. I am reinvesting all dividends. Do you > think 70% in a Roth IRA that only has 15 years to build a retirement > nest egg is too high? > I also have a 401k that is completed invested in two bond funds for > security and asset allocation. > > Thanks, > Gimli
Fantasy Housing Numbers a Prelude to the Next U.S. Crash [View article]
I happen to have left my cool and sunny mountaintop aerie of Lake Tahoe and am now on business in Miami. What I see here points to continuing housing problems from an untracked -- and untrackable -- source: "strategic defaults." The front page of today's Miami Herald chronicled an individual who paid $125,000 for a condo now worth $35,000. He simply stopped making payments on the condo a year ago, not because he can't afford it, but because he is so far underwater it doesn't make sense for him to, in his mind. Rather than do the ethical thing and leave, however, he is using the money he would have paid to the mortgage lender to pay off credit cards, car loans, etc. When / if the bankers finally get around to evicting him, he'll have lousy credit but no debts and a steady job. We can speculate on the size of this shadow market of foreclosures but we won't know who will walk away, who will continue to be squatters until they are forcibly ejected, and who will pay...
Neil459 repeats the common fallacy that American manufacturing is no more, that we are bereft of natural resources, and that our jobs are being outsourced overseas.
Bricki accurately corrects these misconceptions. We are the #1 manufacturer in the world. We have abundant resources and are doubly blessed to have a neighbor to the north that has far more energy, base metal, grain, and precious metal resources than their population requires, and they are willing to sell it to us at current prices and at far less transportation expense.
Recessions are normal! If a human heart races 100% of the time and never rests, that human will die. Expansion and contraction are normal in heartbeats and economies.
Government intervention, artificial stimulus, and worse, "targeted" stimulus means we are interfering with the natural order of things -- much like giving a shock when the heart is not in fibrillation and creating more problems than existed before.
Plus, targeted stimulus panders to the arrogant assumption that someone in Washington DC knows what to target. Past, and current, history, prove that they do not.
Market Outlook: A Return to the Swinging Seventies? [View article]
As a young Army officer just leaving active duty, I entered the brokerage business at the absolute top in 1972. (I was going into the Foreign Service but I ran out of money while SCUBA diving and cavorting in South Florida so when my car broke down in front of a brokerage firm, I decided to apply for a job...)
"Range bound" sounds so very calm and sterile. I can personally attest that every day of nearly that entire decade was a further assault of dashed hopes, false rallies, soaring up days and crushing down days, all punctuated by the kind of insanity-inducing Chinese water torture of slogging to get the market off dead center. And yet, those of us who stuck it out and learned from it learned that there are opportunities for sunshine even in the dead of winter.
Hundreds of thousands of investors threw in the towel and didn't return until the late 80s or 90s. If the same thing happens again, institutions will be the only ones left in the markets. And that would be the true disaster...
Arthur Levitt Defends High Frequency Trading [View article]
Mr. Levitt is often referred to in the press as “Arthur Levitt, former chairman of the SEC.” True as far as it goes and a testament to the value of hiring a good PR firm…
Mr. Levitt began his financial career selling cattle ranch tax shelters, then worked his way up through various brokerage firms until he was appointed SEC Chairman by Bill Clinton. In this role, he oversaw the gutting of Glass Steagall and numerous other protections for the individual investor, opposed the FASB proposal to require companies to show executive stock options on their income statements, and approved the exemption of Enron partnerships from the tight accounting rules of the Investment Company Act of 1940. (Without this exemption, Enron could not have hidden its off-balance sheet debt to its foreign shell companies.)
During his tenure, the first Madoff whistle-blowers came forward but Madoff went uninvestigated. After leaving the SEC, Mr. Levitt became a special advisor to AIG. We all know how well that went.
The gentleman may not be the stalking horse for Wall Street that many portray him to be. Maybe he’s just another starry-eyed, well meaning Phi Beta Kappa who has been fooled by lesser men on Wall Street. Either way, given his track record, I’d be highly suspect of activities he is a cheerleader for. Especially High Frequency Trading.
Natural Gas: America's Energy Salvation [View article]
Before I do, let me thank all those who have already commented and answer some questions posed.
One eye, my best guess as to why hydro has declined is that it has only barely declined in absolute terms and then only for sound environmental concerns. In RELATIVE terms, however, we’ve probably tapped every major river we can and hydro’s percent of power generation will continue to slide relative to all the other sources. As for the BTU % generated by oil, I took these numbers directly from the Dept of Energy website. My GUESS – and it is only that – is that the 2% of utilities using oil slurp up a huge amount of the stuff because they are the oldest and biggest utilities near the biggest population centers. Newer plants built in the later-settled sections of the country use newer sources of fuel. If someone knows another reason, I’m all ears.
Wind4me, as stated in the text above the chart, I get my – what you in your blind obeisance to an appealing Siren song call “distorted figures” – from DOE. If I’m not mistaken, I believe the head of that organization, which currently spends $26 billion a year to maintain its vast bureaucracy of grants, subsidies and pork, is a direct report of President Obama.
John Peterson, there will always be those who hide their head in the sand and pretend that just because electricity is clean AT THE OUTLET, why, Santa’s elves must produce it at the North Pole. You are spot on. Clean-burning hybrids make the most sense economically, geopolitically and environmentally.
Grey Road, have the mighty fallen so far that the choices are “wind freak” or “Nat Gas freak”? //grins // I don’t believe espousing a sane, geopolitically, environmentally and economically feasible solution to our energy crisis is freaky at all!
And, last, AO. Thank you for your stirring words written from someone inside the business from roughneck to EVP... I tend to downplay the geopolitical side on an economic and investing forum like SA only because my many years as a world and regional geopolitical analyst in the US Intelligence Community already predisposes me to be more concerned about those issues, and I don't want to stray too far from how an investor might approach all this. They are clearly, however, the most important national strategic consideration. How can we maintain our strength as a nation if our leaders are blind to this massive drain on America’s future? “There are none so blind as those who will not see…” Thank you for taking the time to address all the issues attendant to this state of affairs.
Parenthetically, when I was a wee lad just entering this business there were two companies I became very familiar with and recommended to my clients as being run by ethical, smart and aggressive energy leaders. Helmerich & Payne was one and Houston Oil & Minerals (if anyone even remembers that name so many years, national mis-steps, and OPEC-inflicted pain later.)
Finally, my comments, in the past, in this article, and in the future, are not about some food fight over whether natural gas or wind or solar are cooler to contemplate, but about advocacy for a sane national energy policy. Let the facts lead us to the most intelligent course of action, not the volume of rhetoric.
Robert Shiller on the Nascent Recovery [View article]
CNBC's approach seems to be, "Just tell us what you think is going to happen TODAY!" [Followed by an attempt to by the respondent to explain why that's an idiotic approach, followed by...] "There you have it, folks! Stay tuned after these 27 commercials for someone else's response to our unimportant questions and, hey, check out my hair while we go to fade-out!"
To see what he thinks rather than what they show, I'll read his comments in the Times....
Global Markets in Review: Emerging Markets Showing First Signs of Retrenchment? [View article]
I fear it may be. Ms. Cohen's beating of the Dow 20,000 drum in 2000 made the ensuing dot.bom far worse -- but it kept the party going long enough for her employer to IPO the last of their hope-and-a-prayer dot.coms with no revenues, no earnings and no likelihood of ever achieving either.
Then there was Goldman's call of $200 oil last year that gave them time to short oils when the public rushed in to buy on such "sage" advice.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me...
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
And again people line up around the block for a "concept." Yes, Facebook is new and different -- so was AOL once upon a time. But the premise most will apply as they fight and gouge to get stock is that they can sell it to someone else for a higher price. They won't bother to check the balance sheet or income statement to see if this is an ongoing business model that has legs any time after the IPO money has been blown down dusty cul-de-sacs.
Maybe Facebook will surprise and not be among the sock puppets of the last tech bubble -- but for those who care about outdated notions like value and net worth: the company, at its private valuation (jacked up by GS) of $50 billion, sells at 25 times sales. That's 25 times SALES, not 25 times earnings, which are both elusive and miniscule. PT Barnum was right, there IS one born every minute!
Great concepts do not always mean great stocks...
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
It would. And they say that crime doesn't pay. (Well, not unless you are politically well-connected, anyway...)
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Would this be a "profit" like the government made in GM? By "how much do you want it to be" accounting, the government makes a profit, but the taxpayers are still poorer than they were before the government got involved. When $700 billion comes back to American entrepreneurs, small business owners, taxpayers and consumers in the form of spendable cash, I'll believe the government has made a profit on its forced investments. Until then, I fear it is all smoke and mirrors...
Is It Time for That Summer Rally? [View article]
You'll note I said I've also held some positions more than 10 years. I have some clients with a basis in XOM of less than $30 and an effective yield at those entry prices of over 6%. It's unlikely I'll be discarding that AAA income stream any time soon!
My disparagement of "buy and hold" is to warn of Wall Street's desire to keep US holding (most often in their mutual funds and such) so they can trade wildly without having a bunch of what they consider small fry getting in their way. By all means, IF we have bought a stock so cheaply (or it has appreciated so well) that we have large gains and a large < and increasing > dividend yield, we should all be loathe to sell it just because the market drops a couple thousand points.
Where you and I may still honorably disagree is that, if someone does not yet have the benefit of a couple XOMs bought right, I say, "Wait a couple months and keep your powder dry -- as/if they get REALLY cheap, gulp hard and start buying at the distressing moment when it is most difficult emotionally to do so..."
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Well, thank heavens it's only the < investors > in Goldman's funds who lose everything. Can you imagine what would happen to the second home market in The Hamptons if Goldman executives put their own money into the trash they sell? At least the fund still has $30 million left to pay bonuses to its managers...
What Are Today's 'Extraordinary, Popular Delusions?' [View article]
400 million years is quite limited? Wow, you DO take the long view! //grins// Thank you for your comment, sir. I selected these three issues as (what I believe to be) Popular Delusions precisely because I know they will engender controversy, discussion and experts learned and unlearned weighing in. It's working...
2010: Year of Energy, Metals and Healthcare...But Not Bonds [View article]
Doc, you and I can agree on two things...
(1) Take unlimited pain and suffering awards and harrassment litigation out of the equation and malpractice insurance rates would plummet and doctors would breathe easier practicing medicine, and
(2) Doctors should be the ones determining the best health care options for patients -- though I would add: "in concert with an informed and educated patient." No offense, Doc, but I know my own body better than you do.
It would still be necessary to have a few competent lawyers around to keep incompetent doctors from practicing (instead of the current model where hordes of competent AND incompetent lawyers chase competent AND incompetent doctors out of the business.)
However -- no matter your informed insider's opinion of the healthcare industry, you are overlooking one important fact: this is a website about INVESTING, not about politics or polemics or governance. If I believe there are opportunities for our clients to grow their portfolios, and they and I consider the sector and industry chosen to be responsible, then I will buy the best companies in that sector or industry.
I see comments from polemicists berating me for buying fossil fuels, for instance, because they are convinced the world will end next week if we burn another ounce of coal and they want to use Seeking Alpha as their bully pulpit. They are entitled to their opinion. But I will honor my commitment to our firm's clients to buy the best companies in the best sectors that offer the best combination of dividend income and future growth. And that includes the growth my research indicates is still ahead for energy, mining and health care.
On 2010 Jan 01 02:08 PM Doc 224899 wrote:
> JLS: how can you be so solidly grounded in precious metals and basic
> materials, and so off the mark in healthcare?
3 Quality Stocks Yielding 8%+, Now Selling at Last Year's Price [View article]
Beware ANY advisor or columnist so arrogant or narcissistic that they believe they can dispense Universal Advice without understanding your personal temperament for risk, your personal asset and income situation, your personal time horizon, and all the elements of risk inherent in any investing.
Wishing you good investing and good fortune in fine-tuning your answers to such questions...
On Dec 11 10:25 AM GimliJan wrote:
> Joseph,
> Good article. I own some PGH and PVX. I was thinking of adding ERF
> but am concerned about my high allocation to these Oil/Gas trusts
> and my MLP's EPD and KMP. I am reinvesting all dividends. Do you
> think 70% in a Roth IRA that only has 15 years to build a retirement
> nest egg is too high?
> I also have a 401k that is completed invested in two bond funds for
> security and asset allocation.
>
> Thanks,
> Gimli
Fantasy Housing Numbers a Prelude to the Next U.S. Crash [View article]
No Chance of a 'V' Recovery [View article]
Bricki accurately corrects these misconceptions. We are the #1 manufacturer in the world. We have abundant resources and are doubly blessed to have a neighbor to the north that has far more energy, base metal, grain, and precious metal resources than their population requires, and they are willing to sell it to us at current prices and at far less transportation expense.
Recessions are normal! If a human heart races 100% of the time and never rests, that human will die. Expansion and contraction are normal in heartbeats and economies.
Government intervention, artificial stimulus, and worse, "targeted" stimulus means we are interfering with the natural order of things -- much like giving a shock when the heart is not in fibrillation and creating more problems than existed before.
Plus, targeted stimulus panders to the arrogant assumption that someone in Washington DC knows what to target. Past, and current, history, prove that they do not.
Market Outlook: A Return to the Swinging Seventies? [View article]
"Range bound" sounds so very calm and sterile. I can personally attest that every day of nearly that entire decade was a further assault of dashed hopes, false rallies, soaring up days and crushing down days, all punctuated by the kind of insanity-inducing Chinese water torture of slogging to get the market off dead center. And yet, those of us who stuck it out and learned from it learned that there are opportunities for sunshine even in the dead of winter.
Hundreds of thousands of investors threw in the towel and didn't return until the late 80s or 90s. If the same thing happens again, institutions will be the only ones left in the markets. And that would be the true disaster...
Arthur Levitt Defends High Frequency Trading [View article]
Mr. Levitt began his financial career selling cattle ranch tax shelters, then worked his way up through various brokerage firms until he was appointed SEC Chairman by Bill Clinton. In this role, he oversaw the gutting of Glass Steagall and numerous other protections for the individual investor, opposed the FASB proposal to require companies to show executive stock options on their income statements, and approved the exemption of Enron partnerships from the tight accounting rules of the Investment Company Act of 1940. (Without this exemption, Enron could not have hidden its off-balance sheet debt to its foreign shell companies.)
During his tenure, the first Madoff whistle-blowers came forward but Madoff went uninvestigated. After leaving the SEC, Mr. Levitt became a special advisor to AIG. We all know how well that went.
The gentleman may not be the stalking horse for Wall Street that many portray him to be. Maybe he’s just another starry-eyed, well meaning Phi Beta Kappa who has been fooled by lesser men on Wall Street. Either way, given his track record, I’d be highly suspect of activities he is a cheerleader for. Especially High Frequency Trading.