Seeking Alpha

Nick Gogerty's  Instablog

Nick Gogerty
Send Message
Nick Gogerty he has worked at a value based hedge fund, a quant forex desk and debt prop desks, various technology and marketing firms and a deep future science research lab as well as one of the world's largest hedge funds. He is to be a guest lecturer at Columbia's Value Investing program fall... More
My company:
Thoughtful Capital Group
My blog:
The Nature of Value
My book:
The Nature of Value: How to invest in the adaptive economy.
View Nick Gogerty's Instablogs on:
  • Gold and Forex ETF sensitivity to Presidential decree?
    The cheapest lessons are provided by history, sadly they are often ignored as irrelevant or untimely.  In 1971, Nixon took the US off the gold standard and also put an immediate 10% tax on import goods including the use of price and wage freezes. He blamed speculators and wrapped the message up in "worker support" speak and anti-elitist tones.

    Many Americans would now believe these types of actions to be the sole activity of banana republics.  Things can change in an instant.  This post isn't about a party, policy or president, merely a pointer to a past that isn't really that far past. If you are young read more history, if you are old, don't forget.



    Here is a transcript of the video I had produced for $1 on Mechanical turk:

    The third indispensable element in building the new prosperity is closely related to creating new jobs and halting inflation. We must protect the position of the American dollar as a pillar of monetary stability around the world. In the past seven years there has been an average of one international monetary crisis every year. 

    Now who gains from these crises? Not the working man, not the investor, not the real producers of wealth. The gainers are the international money speculators. Because they thrive on crises, they help to create them. In recent weeks the speculators have been waging an all out war on the American dollar. 

    The strength of a nation's currency is based on the strength of that nation's economy, and the American economy is by far the strongest in the world. Accordingly, I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to take the action necessary to defend the dollar against the speculators. I directed Secretary Connally to suspend temporarily the convertibility of the dollar into gold or other reserve assets except in amounts and conditions determined to be in the interest of monetary stability and in the best interest of the United States. 

    Now what does this action, which is very technical, what does it mean for you? Let me lay to rest the bugaboo of what is called devaluation. If you want to buy a foreign car or take a trip abroad, market conditions may cause your dollar to buy slightly less. But if you are among the overwhelming majority of Americans who buy American-made products in America, your dollar will be worth just as much tomorrow as it is today. The effect of this action in other words will be to stabilize the dollar. Now this action will not win us any friends among the international money traders, but our primary concern is with the American workers and with fair competition around the world. 

    To our friends abroad including the many responsible members of the international banking community who are dedicated to stability in the flow of trade, I give this assurance: The United States has always been, and will continue to be, a forward-looking and trustworthy trading partner. In full cooperation with the International Monetary Fund and those who trade with us we will press for the necessary reforms to set up an urgently needed new international monetary system. 

    Stability and equal treatment is in everybody's best interest. I am determined that the American dollar must never again be a hostage in the hands of international speculators. I am taking one further step to protect the dollar, to improve our balance of payments, and to increase jobs for Americans. 

    As a temporary measure I am today imposing an additional tax of ten percent on goods imported into the United States. This is a better solution for international trade than direct controls on the amount of imports. This import tax is a temporary action. It isn't directed against any other country. It's an action to make certain that American products will not be at a disadvantage because of unfair exchange rates. 

    When the unfair treatment is ended, the import tax will end as well. As a result of these actions the product of American labor will be more competitive and the unfair edge that some of our foreign competition has will be removed. This is a major reason why our trade balance has eroded over the past 15 years.



    Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.
    May 03 9:39 AM | Link | Comment!
  • The Fed can push up the price any asset it wants to and QE 1 should have been $2.0 trillion
    The title is not mine,it is paraphrased from former Fed official who wokred on QE1 (see video below).  I find the quotes quite scary, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of price and value and incredible hubris.  These statements were made by a former Federal Reserve employee this week.  See scary video:

     

     

    Joseph Gagnon, Future of the Fed from Roosevelt Institute on Vimeo.

    Listen carefully above about pushing up the price of assets.  Value investors will understand what a fools errand this is.  When the fed "pushes up the price" of something long term value hasn't changed with the exception of the dollars made for the purchase.  Those dollar's value will go down and most likely the assets will revert to value.  Distressed assets work the same, but should the fed really be a tarted up vulture fund dry humping the latest depressed asset of some too big too fail banker.

    I attended the Roosevelt Institute conference on the future of the Federal Reserve hosted at the Harvard Club in New York. A friend joked it sounded like a meeting of the illuminati.  Well not quite that much fun, no hoods, tin foil hats or goat sacrifices, just an 8AM continental breakfast with bagels and chit chat about monetary plumbing.  

    The intimidating thing is the vapid fawning discussions of Fed power. The Fed and others believe it can affect un-employment etc. a la the Phillips curve argument. Many economists in the room seemed to believe the Fed can cure cancer, anorexia and malaria if just given more mandates or regulatory "tools" as the wonks say.  Lots of bright people in the room were focused on the Fed hammer as an uber tool for any problem, this perception is a major part of the problem.

    There was a frightening lack of global perspective displayed with the exception of Jorg Bibow, who said, "be thankful, just for the Fed's problems. Just look at the ECB."  

    Most who argue about Fed policy or markets are talking from a statistical sample of one and deserve the attention that such sample sizes warrant. Belief in continued American exceptionalism can be parochial and limiting to thoughtful debate.

    I view the Fed as having asymmetric power, meaning mostly they can do only harm and the best good they can do is to function passively similar to good surgeons in the 15th century and with about the same level of tools, knowledge and sadly over-confidence.

    The conference had good discussions of the woeful failures in regulatory oversight. These oversights were failures to act which would be criminal negligence in the private sector.  Why isn't there an equivalent to fiscal or regulatory manslaughter? Where are the class action suits against regulatory failures due to inaction?

    Dennis Kelleher had some good comments about this and other things.

    Plumbing as infrastructure is an asymmetric tool of empire. Plumbing is what keeps the empire running, it only facilitates growth but doesn't garuntee it.

    Plumbing's
    failure to function can limit or constrain growth.  My opinion is that the Fed is mere plumbing and quite mucked up.  Watch the videos if you dare.  Elliptical utterances followed by non-falsifiable tautologies fill the air and these are mostly the good guys seeking transparency and improvement.

     Mike Konczal did a great job putting the conference together. P.S. it couldn't have been illuminati (it was free to any and all and they let me in)

    Many presenters were honest in their wish for a more open Fed and many used the phrase regulatory capture to indicate their beliefs that banks own the Fed which is probably legally true if the shareholder structure of the Fed were publicKind of weird to think the Fed Shareholders could be the firms being regulated by it...what could possibly go wrong with that closed loop?

    I find the Fed silly with its sense of secrecy and importance. With the exception of D-Day invasion type activity, rarely has widespread secrecy been proven to be in the interest of any citizenry long term. If the Fed is so important that it can only function secretly it will find at some point the tide turns and its air of mystery won't induce awe but rather deep doubts, by then it will be too late

    Many present pointed to the excellent Rolling Stone Article about the Real Wives of Wall Street.  If this is the tip, how big is the iceberg?  I advised friends and family to get out using Norwegian Krone Overlay's in early 2009

    Disclosure: I am long GOLD.
    Apr 29 6:19 PM | Link | Comment!
  • Earthquake and Nuclear Risk for New York City energy provider

    The Indian Point reactor near New York city may be at risk of de-commissioning if the 1:10,000 year geological failure risk is correctly presented as a 1:200 risk of reactor failure over the systems life. For Entergy (NYSE:ETR) decomissioning could cost $1b based on comparative costs. The risk is actually much higher according to this report about 1 in 13 chances: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/08...

    The Indian Point reactor provides up to 30% of New York city and surrounding area electricity. De-commissioning would mean increased demand on other resources and likely capex of $1-2b for a replacement generating source and transmission facilities if Indian Point is de-commissioned.

    Measuring risk correctly

    We respond to risk based on our perception of it. Geological nuclear risk is mis-perceived and could be costly for investors. Thinking about risk using a technique called actionable systems thinking can help.

    Systems thinking involves looking at risks or value creating processes as whole systems. This technique simplifies and clarifies. Many risk managers get carried away with complex tools and piles of data. These tools and data are used to as the basis for complicated models with costly and sometimes tragic consequences.

    Events in Japan raise concerns about US nuclear risk. The NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) released the risks associated with, “an earthquake that would cause damage to a reactor's core releasing radiation”. The information as released mis-represents the risks.

    The flawed risk unit known as the year

    Risk is often expressed as the likelihood of an event occurring within a period of time such as a year. The time period is arbitrary. Like the useless financial Value at Risk metrics used by banks, co-variances and other non-sense these misrepresentations lead to bad choices.

    Natural event risk is usually represented as an event happening every X number of years. This presentation of data is misleading. A more useful presentation is to use the unit of the system lifecycle.

    Buying a house on a flood plain vulnerable to a once in a hundred year flood (1:100 years) may feel fairly safe. If you plan on owning the house for 33 years (its functional system life period), you have a 33% chance of disaster. People think differently when risk is expressed in system lifecycles.

    The Indian Point nuclear facility near New York city is reported to have a one in 10,000 year risk of geological activity that could breach the core leading to radioactive material escape. This sounds safe until one considers the plant as a system. Systems have functional lives. Many nuclear reactors are re-licensed for 10 or more year increments. A 50 year functional life isn't extraordinary.

    Systems thinking risk applied to the Indian Point reactor puts failure odds at 1:200

    When viewed as a 50 year system the Indian Point nuclear facility has a 1:200 chance of earthquake risk breaching the core and spilling radiation during its life. 50x1:10,000= 1:200 If during the design and permitting phase someone presented such a low probability high impact risk with that figure it would most likely be un-acceptable.

    On the other side of the coin using the 1:10,000 year figure means on any given day the odds are 1:3,652,000 which many may say is acceptable. In the actionable systems risk framework, the correct metric to use is the systems life indicating The nuclear system has a 1:200 chance of geologically induced failure.

    Each of the 104 reactors in the US operates independently, but combined can be considered as the US nuclear system. Using NRC data aggregating the US nuclear geological system risk one gets annual odds of 1:480 for a failure in the system. If one assumes each reactor is licensed and operational for 50 years, the risk horizon for a geological event in the US nuclear system is 10.42% or roughly 1:10 over a 50 year lifetime. 50x1:480 =50:480

    This seems high for just one dimension of risk, namely geological. I am a fan of nuclear as a "clean" energy but only when risk is designed and priced correctly. Most likely some reactors should be shut down or moved if geographic and other risk vectors were presented using a systems risk perspective.

    Nuclear operator's liabilities are capped under the Price act at $560 million but the potential national cost for such an incident could exceed $500 billion. (see article link below).

    The nuclear and finance industries needs to measure risk using systems thinking and systems frameworks to better engineer in safety. The higher risk operators in the Spreadsheet attached to this article may face material cost impacts from shut-down or redesigns of reactors.

    Even NASA gets it wrong

    NASA got risk wrong with the space Shuttle. NASA estimated the space shuttle system to be over 99.9999% safe. Nobel prize wining physicist Richard Feynman brilliantly described his role on the Challenger Blue ribbon panel in his book “What do you care what other people think?”. Feynman calculated probability of shuttle failure as 1:96. NASA organizationally saw risk and reported it the way it wanted to, not the way it was. Bankers and Utility companies may have the same behavioral risk drives.

    The utility companies listed below may have margins shrink or costs increase if risks are correctly interpreted using a systems thinking perspective. This could be short term expensive for a few, but better for society in the long run.

    In my day job I help banks, family offices and hedge funds understand risk and opportunity. This task often starts by getting rid of all price based models like VaR, volatility, beta, BIS standards and Modern Portfolio Theory. Losing these frames of belief causes distress at first until the Systems Thinking approach is brought in. Letting go of familiar but wrong metrics to replace them unfamiliar metrics that may bear bad news is rarely easy or popular.

    Systems thinking mostly ignores price

    Price reflects two opposing opinions expressed at a single point in time. 99% of investors can’t beat a buy and hold index. It stands to reason 99% of the opinions creating price are probably wrong when considering the correct measurement of value and risk.

    participants symbol list: GE (General Electric), HIT (Hitachi), EXC (Excelon), AEE (Ameren), CEP (Constellation energy), DUK (Duke energy), D (Dominion Energy), private (Energy Northwest), FE (First Energy), FPL (Florida Light and Power), private (Nebraska Public Power District), NU (Northeast Utilities), NMC (Nuclear Management Company), NA (Omaha Public Power District), PCG (Pacific Gas and Electric), PGN (Progress Energy), SO (Southern Company), TVE (Tennessee Valley Authority), TXU (TXU energy), XCL (Xcel Energy)

    Geological risk table:

    Nuclear facility and geological risk an event compromising the reactor. Yearly rate Risk as % Systems rate @ 50 years Systems Risk as %
    1. Indian Point 3, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 10,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 17,241. Change in risk: 72 percent. 10,000 0.0001 200 0.50%
    2. Pilgrim 1, Plymouth, Mass.: 1 in 14,493 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 125,000. Change in risk: 763 percent. 14,493 6.89988E-05 289.86 0.34%
    3. Limerick 1, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Change in risk: 141 percent. 18,868 5.29998E-05 377.36 0.26%
    3. Limerick 2, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Change in risk: 141 percent. 18,868 5.29998E-05 377.36 0.26%
    5. Sequoyah 1, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Change in risk: 420 percent. 19,608 5.09996E-05 392.16 0.25%
    5. Sequoyah 2, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Change in risk: 420 percent. 19,608 5.09996E-05 392.16 0.25%
    7. Beaver Valley 1, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 20,833 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Change in risk: 269 percent. 20,833 4.80008E-05 416.66 0.24%
    8. Saint Lucie 1, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A. 21,739 4.60003E-05 434.78 0.23%
    8. Saint Lucie 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A. 21,739 4.60003E-05 434.78 0.23%
    10. North Anna 1, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Change in risk: 38 percent. 31,250 0.000032 625 0.16%
    10. North Anna 2, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Change in risk: 38 percent. 31,250 0.000032 625 0.16%
    12. Oconee 1, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Change in risk: 330 percent. 23,256 4.29997E-05 465.12 0.21%
    12. Oconee 2, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Change in risk: 330 percent. 23,256 4.29997E-05 465.12 0.21%
    12. Oconee 3, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Change in risk: 330 percent. 23,256 4.29997E-05 465.12 0.21%
    15. Diablo Canyon 1, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A. 23,810 4.19992E-05 476.2 0.21%
    15. Diablo Canyon 2, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A. 23,810 4.19992E-05 476.2 0.21%
    17. Three Mile Island 1, Middletown, Pa.: 1 in 25,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Change in risk: 82 percent. 25,000 0.00004 500 0.20%
    18. Palo Verde 1, Wintersburg, Ariz.: 1 in 26,316 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A. 26,316 3.79997E-05 526.32 0.19%
    18. Palo Verde 2, Wintersburg, Ariz.: 1 in 26,316 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A. 26,316 3.79997E-05 526.32 0.19%
    18. Palo Verde 3, Wintersburg, Ariz.: 1 in 26,316 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A. 26,316 3.79997E-05 526.32 0.19%
    18. Summer, Jenkensville, S.C.: 1 in 26,316 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 138,889. Change in risk: 428 percent. 26,316 3.79997E-05 526.32 0.19%
    22. Catawba 1, York, S.C.: 1 in 27,027 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 33,333. Change in risk: 23 percent. 27,027 3.7E-05 540.54 0.19%
    22. Catawba 2, York, S.C.: 1 in 27,027 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 33,333. Change in risk: 23 percent. 27,027 3.7E-05 540.54 0.19%
    24. Watts Bar 1, Spring City, Tenn.: 1 in 27,778 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 178,571. Change in risk: 543 percent. 27,778 3.59997E-05 555.56 0.18%
    25. Indian Point 2, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 30,303 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 71,429. Change in risk: 136 percent. 30,303 3.3E-05 606.06 0.17%
    26. Duane Arnold, Palo, Iowa: 1 in 31,250 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A. 31,250 0.000032 625 0.16%
    27. McGuire 1, Huntersville, N.C.: 1 in 32,258 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 35,714. Change in risk: 11 percent. 32,258 3.10001E-05 645.16 0.16%
    27. McGuire 2, Huntersville, N.C.: 1 in 32,258 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 35,714. Change in risk: 11 percent. 32,258 3.10001E-05 645.16 0.16%
    29. Farley 1, Columbia, Ala.: 1 in 35,714 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 263,158. Change in risk: 637 percent. 35,714 2.80002E-05 714.28 0.14%
    29. Farley 2, Columbia, Ala.: 1 in 35,714 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 263,158. Change in risk: 637 percent. 35,714 2.80002E-05 714.28 0.14%
    31. Quad Cities 1, Cordova, Ill.: 1 in 37,037 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 71,429. Change in risk: 93 percent. 37,037 2.7E-05 740.74 0.14%
    31. Quad Cities 2, Cordova, Ill.: 1 in 37,037 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 71,429. Change in risk: 93 percent. 37,037 2.7E-05 740.74 0.14%
    33. River Bend 1, St. Francisville, La.: 1 in 40,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 370,370. Change in risk: 826 percent. 40,000 0.000025 800 0.13%
    34. Peach Bottom 2, Delta, Pa.: 1 in 41,667 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 120,482. Change in risk: 189 percent. 41,667 2.39998E-05 833.34 0.12%
    34. Peach Bottom 3, Delta, Pa.: 1 in 41,667 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 120,482. Change in risk: 189 percent. 41,667 2.39998E-05 833.34 0.12%
    36. Crystal River 3, Crystal River, Fla.: 1 in 45,455 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 192,308. Change in risk: 323 percent. 45,455 2.19998E-05 909.1 0.11%
    36. Seabrook 1, Seabrook, N.H.: 1 in 45,455 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 114,943. Change in risk: 153 percent. 45,455 2.19998E-05 909.1 0.11%
    36. Beaver Valley 2, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 45,455 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 188,679. Change in risk: 315 percent. 45,455 2.19998E-05 909.1 0.11%
    39. Perry 1, Perry, Ohio: 1 in 47,619 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,176,471. Change in risk: 2371 percent. 47,619 2.1E-05 952.38 0.11%
    39. Columbia 1, Richland, Wash.: 1 in 47,619 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A. 47,619 2.1E-05 952.38 0.11%
    41. Waterford 3, Killona, La.: 1 in 50,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 833,333. Change in risk: 1567 percent. 50,000 0.00002 1000 0.10%
    42. Dresden 2, Morris, Ill.: 1 in 52,632 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 434,783. Change in risk: 726 percent. 52,632 1.89998E-05 1052.64 0.09%
    42. Dresden 3, Morris, Ill.: 1 in 52,632 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 434,783. Change in risk: 726 percent. 52,532 1.9036E-05 1050.64 0.10%
    42. Monticello, Monticello, Minn.: 1 in 52,632 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 38,462. Change in risk: -27 percent. 52,632 1.89998E-05 1052.64 0.09%
    45. Wolf Creek 1, Burlington, Kansas: 1 in 55,556 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 400,000. Change in risk: 620 percent. 55,556 1.79999E-05 1111.12 0.09%
    46. San Onofre 2, San Clemente, Calif.: 1 in 58,824 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A. 58,824 1.69999E-05 1176.48 0.08%
    46. San Onofre 3, San Clemente, Calif.: 1 in 58,824 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A. 58,824 1.69999E-05 1176.48 0.08%
    48. Millstone 3, Waterford, Conn.: 1 in 66,667 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Change in risk: 50 percent. 66,667 1.49999E-05 1333.34 0.07%
    48. Brunswick 1, Southport, N.C.: 1 in 66,667 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 263,158. Change in risk: 295 percent. 66,667 1.49999E-05 1333.34 0.07%
    48. Brunswick 2, Southport, N.C.: 1 in 66,667 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 263,158. Change in risk: 295 percent. 66,667 1.49999E-05 1333.34 0.07%
    48. Robinson 2, Hartsville, S.C.: 1 in 66,667 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 370,370. Change in risk: 456 percent. 66,667 1.49999E-05 1333.34 0.07%
    52. Oyster Creek, Forked River, N.J.: 1 in 71,429 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 126,582. Change in risk: 77 percent. 71,429 1.39999E-05 1428.58 0.07%
    53. Fort Calhoun, Fort Calhoun, Neb.: 1 in 76,923 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A. 76,923 1.3E-05 1538.46 0.07%
    53. Ginna, Ontario, N.Y.: 1 in 76,923 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 238,095. Change in risk: 210 percent. 76,923 1.3E-05 1538.46 0.07%
    53. Susquehanna 1, Salem Township, Pa.: 1 in 76,923 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 416,667. Change in risk: 442 percent. 76,923 1.3E-05 1538.46 0.07%
    53. Susquehanna 2, Salem Township, Pa.: 1 in 76,923 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 416,667. Change in risk: 442 percent. 76,923 1.3E-05 1538.46 0.07%
    57. Calvert Cliffs 2, Lusby, Md.: 1 in 83,333 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 116,279. Change in risk: 40 percent. 83,333 1.2E-05 1666.66 0.06%
    57. D.C. Cook 1, Bridgman, Mich.: 1 in 83,333 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A. 83,333 1.2E-05 1666.66 0.06%
    57. D.C. Cook 2, Bridgman, Mich.: 1 in 83,333 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A. 83,333 1.2E-05 1666.66 0.06%
    57. Grand Gulf 1, Port Gibson, Miss.: 1 in 83,333 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 106,383. Change in risk: 28 percent. 83,333 1.2E-05 1666.66 0.06%
    57. Kewaunee, Kewaunee, Wis.: 1 in 83,333 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 71,429. Change in risk: -14 percent. 83,333 1.2E-05 1666.66 0.06%
    62. Millstone 2, Waterford, Conn.: 1 in 90,909 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 156,250. Change in risk: 72 percent. 90,909 1.1E-05 1818.18 0.06%
    62. Salem 1, Hancocks Bridge, N.J.: 1 in 90,909 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 172,414. Change in risk: 90 percent. 90,909 1.1E-05 1818.18 0.06%
    62. Salem 2, Hancocks Bridge, N.J.: 1 in 90,909 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 172,414. Change in risk: 90 percent. 90,909 1.1E-05 1818.18 0.06%
    62. Point Beach 1, Two Rivers, Wis.: 1 in 90,909 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Change in risk: -15 percent. 90,909 1.1E-05 1818.18 0.06%
    62. Point Beach 2, Two Rivers, Wis.: 1 in 90,909 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Change in risk: -15 percent. 90,909 1.1E-05 1818.18 0.06%
    67. Turkey Point 3, Homestead, Fla.: 1 in 100,000 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A. 100,000 0.00001 2000 0.05%
    67. Turkey Point 4, Homestead, Fla.: 1 in 100,000 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A. 100,000 0.00001 2000 0.05%
    67. Calvert Cliffs 1, Lusby, Md.: 1 in 100,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 142,857. Change in risk: 43 percent. 100,000 0.00001 2000 0.05%
    70. Vermont Yankee, Vernon, Vt.: 1 in 123,457 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 434,783. Change in risk: 252 percent. 123,457 8.09999E-06 2469.14 0.04%
    71. Braidwood 1, Braceville, Ill.: 1 in 136,986 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,785,714. Change in risk: 1204 percent. 136,986 7.30002E-06 2739.72 0.04%
    71. Braidwood 2, Braceville, Ill.: 1 in 136,986 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,785,714. Change in risk: 1204 percent. 136,986 7.30002E-06 2739.72 0.04%
    73. Vogtle 1, Waynesboro, Ga.: 1 in 140,845 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 384,615. Change in risk: 173 percent. 140,845 7.1E-06 2816.9 0.04%
    73. Vogtle 2, Waynesboro, Ga.: 1 in 140,845 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 384,615. Change in risk: 173 percent. 140,845 7.1E-06 2816.9 0.04%
    75. Cooper, Brownville, Neb.: 1 in 142,857 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A. 142,857 7.00001E-06 2857.14 0.04%
    76. Davis-Besse, Oak Harbor, Ohio: 1 in 149,254 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 625,000. Change in risk: 319 percent. 149,254 6.69999E-06 2985.08 0.03%
    77. Palisades, Covert, Mich.: 1 in 156,250 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A. 156,250 0.0000064 3125 0.03%
    78. South Texas 1, Bay City, Texas: 1 in 158,730 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,298,701. Change in risk: 718 percent. 158,730 6.30001E-06 3174.6 0.03%
    78. South Texas 2, Bay City, Texas: 1 in 158,730 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,298,701. Change in risk: 718 percent. 158,730 6.30001E-06 3174.6 0.03%
    80. FitzPatrick, Scriba, N.Y.: 1 in 163,934 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 833,333. Change in risk: 408 percent. 163,934 6.10002E-06 3278.68 0.03%
    81. Byron 1, Byron, Ill.: 1 in 172,414 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,470,588. Change in risk: 753 percent. 172,414 5.79999E-06 3448.28 0.03%
    81. Byron 2, Byron, Ill.: 1 in 172,414 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,470,588. Change in risk: 753 percent. 172,414 5.79999E-06 3448.28 0.03%
    83. Surry 1, Surry, Va.: 1 in 175,439 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 123,457. Change in risk: -30 percent. 175,439 5.69999E-06 3508.78 0.03%
    83. Surry 2, Surry, Va.: 1 in 175,439 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 123,457. Change in risk: -30 percent. 175,439 5.69999E-06 3508.78 0.03%
    85. Nine Mile Point 2, Scriba, N.Y.: 1 in 178,571 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,000,000. Change in risk: 460 percent. 178,571 5.60001E-06 3571.42 0.03%
    86. Browns Ferry 2, Athens, Ala.: 1 in 185,185 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 625,000. Change in risk: 238 percent. 185,185 5.40001E-06 3703.7 0.03%
    86. Browns Ferry 3, Athens, Ala.: 1 in 185,185 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 625,000. Change in risk: 238 percent. 185,185 5.40001E-06 3703.7 0.03%
    88. Nine Mile Point 1, Scriba, N.Y.: 1 in 238,095 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,724,138. Change in risk: 624 percent. 238,095 4.2E-06 4761.9 0.02%
    88. Fermi 2, Monroe, Mich.: 1 in 238,095 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 625,000. Change in risk: 163 percent. 238,095 4.2E-06 4761.9 0.02%
    90. Arkansas Nuclear 1, London, Ark.: 1 in 243,902 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,063,830. Change in risk: 336 percent. 243,902 4.10001E-06 4878.04 0.02%
    90. Arkansas Nuclear 2, London, Ark.: 1 in 243,902 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,063,830. Change in risk: 336 percent. 243,902 4.10001E-06 4878.04 0.02%
    92. Comanche Peak 1, Glen Rose, Texas: 1 in 250,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 833,333. Change in risk: 233 percent. 250,000 0.000004 5000 0.02%
    92. Comanche Peak 2, Glen Rose, Texas: 1 in 250,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 833,333. Change in risk: 233 percent. 250,000 0.000004 5000 0.02%
    94. Browns Ferry 1, Athens, Ala.: 1 in 270,270 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,000,000. Change in risk: 270 percent. 270,270 3.7E-06 5405.4 0.02%
    95. Prairie Island 1, Welch, Minn.: 1 in 333,333 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 714,286. Change in risk: 114 percent. 333,333 3E-06 6666.66 0.02%
    95. Prairie Island 2, Welch, Minn.: 1 in 333,333 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 714,286. Change in risk: 114 percent. 333,333 3E-06 6666.66 0.02%
    97. La Salle 1, Marseilles, Ill.: 1 in 357,143 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,851,852. Change in risk: 419 percent. 357,143 2.8E-06 7142.86 0.01%
    97. La Salle 2, Marseilles, Ill.: 1 in 357,143 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,851,852. Change in risk: 419 percent. 357,143 2.8E-06 7142.86 0.01%
    97. Hope Creek 1, Hancocks Bridge, N.J.: 1 in 357,143 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 909,091. Change in risk: 155 percent. 357,143 2.8E-06 7142.86 0.01%
    100. Clinton, Clinton, Ill.: 1 in 400,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 370,370. Change in risk: -7 percent. 400,000 0.0000025 8000 0.01%
    101. Shearon Harris 1, New Hill, N.C.: 1 in 434,783 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 277,778. Change in risk: -36 percent. 434,783 2.3E-06 8695.66 0.01%
    102. Hatch 1, Baxley, Ga.: 1 in 454,545 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,351,351. Change in risk: 197 percent. 454,545 2.2E-06 9090.9 0.01%
    102. Hatch 2, Baxley, Ga.: 1 in 454,545 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,351,351. Change in risk: 197 percent. 454,545 2.2E-06 9090.9 0.01%
    104. Callaway, Fulton, Mo.: 1 in 500,000 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A. 500,000 0.000002 10000 0.01%
             
    www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42103936/ns/world_n.../   0.21%   10.42%
             

    Spreadsheet risk Data: from NRC Geological nuclear risk.XLS

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42103936/ns/world_news-asia-pacific/

    http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/18/would-fund-protect-us-taxpayers-from-nuke-disaster-here/



    Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.
    Mar 26 6:44 PM | Link | 2 Comments
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »

Latest Comments


Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.