Scott Sacknoff

Confirmed: Defense Spending Creates Fewer Jobs than Other Types of Spending

Not confirmed. Just repeating data from recent another posting you did that can be influenced by the assumptions chosen, the agenda that is sought, and the outcome that you want to reach. As I said on your other posting, as Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." I've worked with policy groups that can give you statistics on whatever you are trying to say. The table above will depend on a> what primary data is used (is this direct and/or indirect jobs), b> what type of jobs (ie. engineers tend to get paid more than bus drivers and teachers as well as soldiers), how the jobs are determined (in a heavy R&D activity there are additional costs that lead to indirect jobs), etc. Including personal consumption was the kicker to me on a bias. Whereas certain jobs in certain industries lead to sustained growth and are hence better for the health of an economy, this analysis tells me its better to get a tax refund and spend it on new shoes than spend it in areas which create a better trained workforce, new technologies, marketable skills, and increased exports which are a plus to resolving our deficit issues.

Military Spending Double Whammy: Increasing Unemployment and Reducing GDP

OK, I'm probably biased in the other direction but the analysis seems to be more politically-driven than based on economics. What is apears to fail to recognize is a> all the jobs that would be eliminated by a smaller economy; b> all the training and skills that military service provides workers that are entering the workforce; c> the technology generated by the defense sector that makes its way into the economy (where would our economy be without commercial applications that emerged from defense technology -- ie. the internet, composite materials, and information technology, to name but three); and exports (which is one of the few sectors of the U.S. economy that is a net positive to the U.S. economy). Citing construction and manufacturing as sectors that lose out was the clincher. The Department of Defense spends billions on construction annually and defense manufacturing employs millions, so how do they lose out? If anything, in an economic climate such as today, the sector is a stable buyer and does not have to deal with economic issues faced by commercial entities such as whether the bank will provide loans for a project to continue. As said, I see this "economic analysis" as one trying to validate a political agenda not one that I see based on facts. Remember the Mark Twain quote, "there lies, damn lies, and statistics."

OOK, Inc: The Shortest ETF Name in the World

Just in case the article made things more confusing....

- OOK Inc. is the legal name for the OOK Oklahoma ETF (NYSEarca: OOK), the exchange traded fund. The website as you indicated is www.ooketf.com

- The SPADE Oklahoma Index (ticker: OKLAH) is the underlying index that the ETF tracks. The website containing the index rules / methodology / constituents / historical performance / etc. can be found at www.spadeindexes.com/o...

Best,
Scott Sacknoff
SPADE Indexes

Sector Outlook: Defense Stocks

According to the most recent "Defense News", the top line budget for FY2010 is $537 billion up from $513 billion; a gain of 4.7%. Details on line items and the amount going to specific procurement and R&D items have not yet been released.

McCain ETFs: What If the 'Maverick' Pulls It Off?

The Powershares Aerospace & Defense ETF (PPA) should benefit as well perhaps more so. ITA has a heavier concentration in commercial aerospace whereas PPA is shifted toward defense and security.

ETF Update: Aerospace and Defense, Railroads, US Dollar

MYP has little to do with the aerospace and defense sector. There are a lot of stocks involved with biotech, computer software, etc. all with a "security" theme.

Play Defense With iShares US Aerospace & Defense ETF

There is an ETF that follows a better index - the Powershares Aerospace & Defense ETF (PPA) tracks the SPADE Defense Index. It offers more diversification, is not as heavily weighted toward commercial aviation, and includes all of the mid-cap companies that would benefit in a recapitalization and the vision of 21st century force. Companies involved with network centric warfare, sensors, armor, battlespace visualization, information technology, etc. led the sector rise in the early to mid-2000s but have lagged in recent years as funding was shifted toward Iraq. The premise that the 8-year run in the defense sector is not finished, is likely true.