Seeking Alpha

Keystone pipeline decision delayed again, likely until after November elections

  • The Obama administration is indefinitely extending its review of the Keystone XL pipeline (TRP), probably delaying a decision on the project until after November's U.S. midterm elections.
  • The State Department - which has had the project under review for nearly six years -  says it needs more time to prepare its recommendation to Pres. Obama because of ongoing litigation in Nebraska that is unlikely to be resolved before next year; the department was set to close a review process with eight other federal agencies on May 7.
  • Pipeline supporters are criticizing the delay as a political ploy, but the move looks likely to keep environmental activist money flowing into the election races; billionaire Tom Steyer, who has pledged to spend $100M to support candidates who back strong policies to fight climate change, is praising the delay as "good news."
  • ETFs: XLE, ERX, OIH, VDE, ERY, DIG, DUG, IYE, PXJ, PXI, PSCE, FENY, FXN, RYE, DDG
Comments (124)
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1876) | Send Message
     
    Another a BS promise down the drain.
    19 Apr, 01:07 AM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2480) | Send Message
     
    One of the least friendly to business presidents of the last 50 years - no wonder job growth has been so poor.
    19 Apr, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (825) | Send Message
     
    Do you have any statistics to back that up? Your opinion is useless. Job growth is slow because Republicans were too friendly to the big banks and it ended in the Great Recession.
    19 Apr, 04:24 PM Reply Like
  • Hubert Biagi
    , contributor
    Comments (689) | Send Message
     
    How about going on national media after the gulf spill and saying "I want to know whose ass to kick". In the end, the drilling moratorium actually hurt the coastal economies more than the spill itself. Just one example out of many, many instances and speeches, where Obama has demonized the financial, energy and healthcare sector... no wonder the economic "recovery" is so tepid.
    19 Apr, 04:54 PM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (825) | Send Message
     
    Hubert, do you have any statistics to back that up? Of course not. Just more hot air and talking points. We are now on 6 straight years of private sector job growth, more jobs created than under Bush, 9 million more Americans with health care, on our way to energy independence without tar sands, stock market at record highs, deficit cut in half (as promised). Those are all verifiable facts, unlike your BS oil spill claim. Don't blame your shortcomings on the President, take responsibility.
    19 Apr, 05:11 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Jake, I believe that when Obama promised to cut the deficit in half it was at about $300 billion (that was in 2007-8 time period). His first year in office the deficit ballooned to 1.3 or 1.4 Trillion. Cutting that amount in half is a far cry from cutting 300 to 150.

     

    And yes, he didn't create the financial crisis and you can debate the steps taken during and after, but to say he's met his stated goal of deficit reduction is comparing apples and oranges. He has not come close to reaching 150 billion and his own budgets submitted to the Congress don't ever come near that number.
    19 Apr, 05:18 PM Reply Like
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (681) | Send Message
     
    The solution is to send Obama a strong message during the Mid Terms. Vote Republican as a vote for any Democrat is really a vote for Obama!
    19 Apr, 09:14 PM Reply Like
  • The Rebel
    , contributor
    Comments (424) | Send Message
     
    Jake- Yeah, sure. Of course it had nothing to do with Barney Frank and his committee pushing those big banks to lend to people who had no business securing loans for home mortgages, with the insinuation being the banks were racist and discriminatory.

     

    Nice try.
    19 Apr, 10:12 PM Reply Like
  • Nate Sterling
    , contributor
    Comments (414) | Send Message
     
    Jake Jake Jake,

     

    Democrats love to say that we need more regulation and that big government is the answer to our problems and that the free-market capitalist system is what caused the financial crisis in late 2008. The problem is, this line of thinking ignores the reality that there has been no free market in housing or finance. Government has long exercised massive control over the housing and financial markets–leading to many of the problems being blamed on the free market.

     

    Consider the low lending standards that were a significant component of the mortgage crisis. Lenders made millions of loans to borrowers who, under normal market conditions, weren’t able to pay them off. These decisions have cost lenders, especially leading financial institutions, untold billions of dollars.

     

    It is popular to take low lending standards as proof that the free market has failed, that the system that is supposed to reward productive behavior and punish unproductive behavior has failed to do so. Yet this claim ignores that for years irrational lending standards have been forced on lenders by the federal Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and rewarded (at taxpayers’ expense) by multiple government bodies.

     

    The CRA forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks would otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of government bureaucracies that they are not engaging in "discrimination", a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be denied. But what counts as discrimination?

     

    According to one enforcement agency, “discrimination exists when a lender’s underwriting policies contain criteria that disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants.” Note that these so-called unfair criteria include most of the essentials of responsible lending: income level, income verification, credit history and savings history–the very factors lenders are criticized for ignoring because the CRA requires they ignore prudent lending standards.

     

    The government has promoted bad loans not just through the stick of the CRA but through the carrot of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which purchase, securitize and guarantee loans made by lenders and whose debt is itself implicitly guaranteed by the federal government. This setup created an easy, artificial profit opportunity for lenders to wrap up bundles of subprime loans and sell them to a government-backed buyer whose primary mandate was to “promote homeownership,” not to apply sound lending standards.

     

    Of course, lenders not only sold billions of dollars in suspect loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, contributing to their present debacle, they also retained some subprime loans themselves and sold others to Wall Street–leading to the huge banking losses we witnessed. Is this, then, a free market failure? Again, no.

     

    In a free market, lending large amounts of money to low-income, low-credit borrowers with no down payment would quickly prove disastrous. But the Federal Reserve Board’s inflationary policy of artificially low interest rates made investing in subprime loans strangely profitable. Subprime borrowers who would normally not be able to pay off their expensive houses could do so, thanks to payments that plummeted along with Fed rates. And the inflationary housing boom meant homeowners rarely defaulted; so long as housing prices went up, even the low-credit or low-income borrowers could always sell at a higher price or refinance by pulling out equity.

     

    Thus, Fed policy turned malinvestments into successes. Bankers who made the deals lured investors and were showered with bonuses. Concerns about the possibility of mass defaults and foreclosures were assuaged by big government policies and CRA which aimed to make every American into a homeowner--to create "an ownership society".

     

    Further promoting a sense of security, every major financial institution in America–both commercial banks and investment banks–was implicitly protected by the quasi-official policy of “too big to fail.” The “too big to fail” doctrine holds that, when they risk insolvency, large financial institutions (like AIG and JP Morgan Chase) must be bailed out through a network of government bodies including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks and the Federal Reserve.

     

    All of these government factors contributed to creating a situation in which millions of people were buying homes they could not afford, in which the participants experienced the illusion of prosperity, in which billions upon billions of dollars were going into malinvestments. Eventually the bubble burst; the rest is history.

     

    Given that our government was behind the wheel, influencing every aspect of the mortgage crisis under the CRA and too big to fail and "ownership society" mandates, it is absurd to call the financial crisis the result of insufficient regulation, yet that is the lie that some try to trick the uninformed masses into believing.

     

    We do not need more regulation or laws that mandate banks to make bad loans or mandate individuals to buy Obamacare or bureaucrats dictating to financiers and investors the kind of innovation they may or may not engage in. If that were the solution to economic problems, then the world’s healthiest economies would reside in Cuba, Argentina, North Korea and other communist nations. What we need to do is remove the government’s power to coerce, bribe, reward and bail out malinvestments. The unfree market has failed. It’s time for a truly free market to be let loose to succeed without the mandates and burdens of big government.
    19 Apr, 11:50 PM Reply Like
  • AllStreets
    , contributor
    Comments (1018) | Send Message
     
    The FY2007 deficit was $161 billion, the FY 2008 deficit was $458 billion, and the FY2009 deficit was $1,413 billion (the highest ever) (http://bit.ly/YUCPqy). (Note that US fiscal years end on September 30 each year and reflect budgets set over a year prior but revenue and much safety net spending depend on economic trends and are out of Congress' or the President's control .) On February 23, 2009 the President promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office. The first term ended in early January, 2013, so that was about half way through FY2013. The FY2012 deficit was $1,087 billion and the FY2013 deficit was $680 billion, less than half of the FY2009 deficit. It isn't crystal clear what President Obama thought the numerical deficit was at that moment in time, however, most likely he was going by the OMB projected 2009 deficit. It appears that he basically did keep his promise if you ascribe FY2013 results to his last year of the first term and compare it to the 2009 deficit. In any case it's a close call, but the promise was fulfilled even if you say it happened a few months late.

     

    One question that can't be answered is what would have been the timeline of the deficit if Republicans hadn't taken control of the House in 2010 and blocked the stimulus budgets Obama had in mind in 2009. One can easily argue that the recovery would have been faster and the deficit would have shrunk faster due to accelerated tax revenue and a faster decline in automatic safety net spending. In addition, the reduction in the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy probably would have happened sooner, also accelerating revenues.
    20 Apr, 08:28 AM Reply Like
  • AllStreets
    , contributor
    Comments (1018) | Send Message
     
    @Nate Sterling, you wrote "Lenders made millions of loans to borrowers who, under normal market conditions, weren’t able to pay them off."

     

    This is the shibboleth Kool Aid that bankers and politicians have been feeding everybody since the crisis emerged to deflect blame from the bank regulators. You are absolutely correct that the government exerts massive control over the mortgage market, and that is precisely why there was a financial crisis. But it wasn't because the loans were bad in the first place. Most of the loans met the existing guidelines, a certain amount of fraud aside (which is always present in the system), and most could have been safely refinanced at some point in absence of government blundering. The fact is, the Federal Reserve orchestrated a move in concert with all federal bank regulators and all state mortgage regulators to summarily shut down all subprime ARM lending, all Alt-A ARM lending, most prime ARM lending, all prime stated income lending, most option ARM (graduated payment ARM) lending, and all high-CLTV HELOC lending.

     

    They dropped the nuclear bomb on the mortgage industry on October 4, 2006 in the form of the "Interagency Guidance on Nontraditional Mortgage Product Risks." By March, 2007 the only subprime lender still making subprime loans was Citi, and those were basically fixed rate with stiffer guidelines (i.e. hundreds of subprime lenders went out of business in just a few months). This had the effect of guaranteeing that virtually all the existing 2-year and 3-year subprime ARMs could not be refinanced and would have massive interest rate and payment increases at first adjustments. By 2008, Aurora, the largest Alt-A lender, and an operation of Lehman would go bust dragging Lehman down with it resulting in a larger stock market crash and a financial crisis. They had basically shut down at least 50% of all US mortgage lending capability. This move was unnecessary and untimely and resulted in a worldwide financial crisis.
    20 Apr, 08:52 AM Reply Like
  • SoCalNative
    , contributor
    Comments (423) | Send Message
     
    Ugh. "jake" is back. You're a blowhard cheerleader. Go somewhere else. Ban this punk.
    20 Apr, 11:43 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3666) | Send Message
     
    To those who don't know, Jake is a forum troll who hardly ever engages in investment conversation, but only here to spew misinformation for "the cause".

     

    Just look at his comment history.
    20 Apr, 12:23 PM Reply Like
  • Mongoose7916
    , contributor
    Comments (214) | Send Message
     
    Free market capitalism is the worst form of economy except all the others that have been tried.
    20 Apr, 01:47 PM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1876) | Send Message
     
    Yes - except he doesn't get deleted and I do when I comment on him?
    20 Apr, 02:00 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    I agree that Jake is very aggressive in his trolling. Whatever happened to Terry (she of the notable avatar)

     

    However, I am amused at how there is no corresponding outrage at the many SA posters who create a large # of right-wing posts.

     

    I guess it's only offensive if you disagree with it. In fact, I've seen multiple posters state something along the lines of "this is an investment site, take your politics elsewhere"... right before and after posting a right-wing message themselves. LOL.
    20 Apr, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • Petrarch
    , contributor
    Comments (629) | Send Message
     
    the issue is not Keystone
    the issue is the profound lack of courage exhibited by Mr. Obama.
    that is his fundamental failure as a leader and why he cannot be jusdged a succesful President.

     

    time again this has been his hallmark. the health care reform being the all too visible reminder of his inability to lead.

     

    if Mr Obama believes Keystone is a bad idea then just say No and move on.
    that is his prerogative.
    you may not like it and yes
    there would be fall-out but there would also be clarity

     

    leadership is sometimes/often about making the least worst decision - any decision can be criticized and all leaders understand the risks. that is what defines leadership. it is also why Mr. Obama is no leader

     

    P
    20 Apr, 03:01 PM Reply Like
  • rasanders22
    , contributor
    Comments (529) | Send Message
     
    Delayed until after the elections so his denial of the pipeline can not be labeled as a job killing move by the right.
    21 Apr, 07:18 AM Reply Like
  • DrP79
    , contributor
    Comments (582) | Send Message
     
    Perhaps one could argue the FIRST delay was to avoid politics. Yet that was literally YEARS AGO, so the plausibility of that claim is minimal.

     

    The no-decision is worse that a NO decision, as the latter could be appealed and we would have made progress by now.
    21 Apr, 07:43 AM Reply Like
  • chuckbryden
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    Jake - LOL - deficit cut in half? What exactly are you smoking? Get your facts straight - the deficit and debt have skyrocketed under Obama. Job growth and economic growth have been the weakest on record for after a major economic downturn.
    21 Apr, 09:10 AM Reply Like
  • Ruffdog
    , contributor
    Comments (1218) | Send Message
     
    And environmentalist will contribute to the democratic party, like Como (SP?)
    21 Apr, 10:22 AM Reply Like
  • Nawar Alsaadi
    , contributor
    Comments (431) | Send Message
     
    This delay will have a very favorable impact on the bitumen by rail players, most specifically Canexus (TSX: CUS) and Gibson Energy (TSX:GEI), here is my write up on Canexus from earlier this month:

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    Regards,
    Nawar
    19 Apr, 01:17 AM Reply Like
  • Nawar Alsaadi
    , contributor
    Comments (431) | Send Message
     
    How To Profit From Keystone XL's Indefinite Delay

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    Regards,
    Nawar
    21 Apr, 09:15 AM Reply Like
  • piwarsk1
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Good, in reality tar sand oil isn't really cost-effective anyway. Honesty, I feel that the Keystone pipeline is a mirage that's being exploited in the US for political gain. I hope other people start to see it for what it is...
    19 Apr, 03:30 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    Is it your belief that, should the Keystone pipeline not be completed, the tar sands won't be developed?

     

    Not having the pipeline *does* marginally hurt the economics of those plays. But the far bigger factor is the market price at which it can sell. Once that is high enough -- something the odds generally favor, going forward -- that oil is going to make its way to the market, one way or another.

     

    I would prefer that: 1) it move by pipeline rather than rail or truck, and 2) it flow into the US, rather than out to the Canadian west coast to Asian markets.
    19 Apr, 09:30 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3666) | Send Message
     
    They will just flood the border with transport trucks overloading our understaffed Customs service.

     

    They will export the majority to China, we don't play nice with our friends China is there with open arms.
    19 Apr, 09:51 AM Reply Like
  • TAS
    , contributor
    Comments (1983) | Send Message
     
    piwarsk !

     

    I gave your post a like. Not because it was intellectually hones, but for a more sinister reason. I am hoping you gather confidence to further post your views on securities. I would LOVE to be on the other side of trades you make.
    19 Apr, 12:38 PM Reply Like
  • Peter Stevens
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    I think your view of costs is out of date with current extraction techniques.

     

    Keystone is important for providing a pathway straight from Alberta straight to the Gulf refineries. They're set up for heavy crude, processing Venezuelan heavy crude amongst others. It makes no sense from a capital allocation point of view to not use Keystone, unless of course the pipeline is being blocked for an alternative political agenda.

     

    The only political gain is that the White House can't afford to offend the radicals who think they can "strand" the assets of oil companies, such as the oil sands.
    19 Apr, 04:17 PM Reply Like
  • hmarleau1@gmail.com
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    I'm sick of billionaires like Steyer and Koch who think that they know better and use their money to influence the electorate and politicians.
    19 Apr, 04:15 AM Reply Like
  • Ruffdog
    , contributor
    Comments (1218) | Send Message
     
    And throw Como in there too!
    19 Apr, 09:24 AM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    Koch creates jobs...Funny you didn't mention Soros, Katzenberg, Buffett and all the other Holywood elites funding the corrupt DNC. You are a funny propagandist.
    19 Apr, 10:51 AM Reply Like
  • TAS
    , contributor
    Comments (1983) | Send Message
     
    hmarleau1

     

    And Soros, and Buffett, and Gore, and Oprah and ........
    19 Apr, 07:29 PM Reply Like
  • phxcrane
    , contributor
    Comments (415) | Send Message
     
    How do you feel about unions or George Soros using their money to influence the electorate and politicians?
    20 Apr, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • rasanders22
    , contributor
    Comments (529) | Send Message
     
    They probbaly feel about it like the coal unions who backed Obama only to have him say he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry.
    21 Apr, 07:20 AM Reply Like
  • I'm Howard
    , contributor
    Comments (86) | Send Message
     
    Canada has started to build pipeline to the East and West coasts and when the dithering States finally realises they need this oil, too bad, so sad, China and Europe are buying it and the States can continue funding overseas terrorism.
    Oil money is buying a lot of votes and Obama continues to disappoint,unable to make decisions, unable to fulfill promises,the typical Politician,do nothing then you can not be accused by anyone.
    Teflon President.
    19 Apr, 07:09 AM Reply Like
  • Peter Stevens
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    I think the East pipeline reversal is just the start. If it's successful they'll expand. The radicals can probably block pipelines through BC, but doubtful whether they can block pipelines through SK & MB & ON. QB is a maybe.
    19 Apr, 04:19 PM Reply Like
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (681) | Send Message
     
    Long on Ideology and short on common sense! That is what we have in this decision. A couple of months ago he said he would make a decision in a couple of months and now we get more punting. This should bode well for the republicans during the mid terms.
    19 Apr, 08:10 AM Reply Like
  • DrP79
    , contributor
    Comments (582) | Send Message
     
    Just like the IRS scandal, the decision process has been hijacked.

     

    If the decision was no, it can be appealed. Yet putting off the decision puts it in limbo where NOTHING can be done. Thus the punting on the decision is actually worse than saying no.

     

    Justice delayed is justice denied.
    19 Apr, 09:08 AM Reply Like
  • Ruffdog
    , contributor
    Comments (1218) | Send Message
     
    Great news for Kinder Morgans TransMountain expansion project.
    Long KMP
    19 Apr, 09:26 AM Reply Like
  • theboys
    , contributor
    Comments (94) | Send Message
     
    Yes, if he was an honest person, he would pick a position and live with it. Instead we get what he has done for decades and that is to take the fence position. He loves to say oil production is up in the US, but he fails to say it was all increased on private lands. Of course our stupid media says nothing. A recent on the street polling was done asking what April 15th meant to anybody. They were all young voters and not one remembered it was tax day. Our population is stupid and this president is exploiting it.
    19 Apr, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • Vaun
    , contributor
    Comments (315) | Send Message
     
    Or we responsibly filed our taxes a couple months ago when the 1099's came in...
    19 Apr, 09:51 AM Reply Like
  • Andysud
    , contributor
    Comments (181) | Send Message
     
    Glad to hear that the thousands of "Eminent Domain" land grabs required to build the pipeline have been put on hold for now. Americans keeping their private property is a good thing in my book.
    19 Apr, 09:59 AM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    I don't recall you saying that about Harry Reid's land grab in Nevada....Hmmm. It's only leftist politics you support.
    19 Apr, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • EnergySpartan
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    The administration is, to put it nicely, limited in intellectual or emotional development. They are too blind to realize pipelines are the most efficient way to get energy supply to the market...
    19 Apr, 10:19 AM Reply Like
  • locutus49
    , contributor
    Comments (879) | Send Message
     
    It helps Canada. But what if the pipeline springs a leak over an American water table? Who will pay the billions in costs? Canada? Or the GOP? The rewards go the Canada but the US takes the risks. When will the GOP support America and American interests instead of a foreign country?
    20 Apr, 02:26 PM Reply Like
  • Peter Stevens
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    There are thousands of pipelines across North America. The only difference with Keystone is that some radicals see it (incorrectly) as an opportunity to "strand" assets if the pipeline is not constructed. The oil sands will be developed, it's just a matter of what capital expenditure is required.
    20 Apr, 07:32 PM Reply Like
  • User 19061561
    , contributor
    Comments (29) | Send Message
     
    They support what goes into their own pockets.. Not a one of them would have the pipeline in their back yard or risk their property against the dirty abrasive tar sands.
    21 Apr, 03:57 AM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1497) | Send Message
     
    What a surprise. Oh well, inventories are starting to pile up in Houston anyway. The Seaway and the southern XL are draining Cushing but there's a lot of WTI inventory stacking up in the gulf. That's why we get calls to approve crude exports.
    19 Apr, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • jerrycalpha
    , contributor
    Comments (59) | Send Message
     
    Energy Independence - Thanks to the Reformed Broker

     

    http://bit.ly/1lkozoF
    19 Apr, 10:46 AM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    Gas prices, food, and everything else going through the roof and not a peep from the state run media or the propagandists on the left who were screaming when GWB was in office about $2.50 gas. For those who voted for the bumbling idiot Obama, you reap what you sow.
    19 Apr, 10:55 AM Reply Like
  • chriff
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
     
    Summer of 2008, Bush's last full year in office, gas cost over $4.20 a gallon here. Haven't seen it that high since.

     

    So by your logic, where the president of the US can just dictate what the gas price should be, Bush made it go up over 50% while Obama has stabilized it around 90% of what Bush left it at.
    19 Apr, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • retpdguy
    , contributor
    Comments (157) | Send Message
     
    Devil dog was in my estimation referring to the media. I recall Nancy Pelosi crying to the public about the high price of gas(during Bush's term) taking food out of Americans mouths. And the MEDIA was in her back pocket then as well as it is now.
    19 Apr, 03:50 PM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1876) | Send Message
     
    Really? - it's over4.50 here right now.
    19 Apr, 08:02 PM Reply Like
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    By the way,where is here?
    20 Apr, 01:31 AM Reply Like
  • AllStreets
    , contributor
    Comments (1018) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, not a peep from state media Fox News, and I noticed that since 2009 Barack has bought at least 80% of all the oil futures and his CFTC appointees refuse to enforce the contract limits.
    20 Apr, 01:12 PM Reply Like
  • AllStreets
    , contributor
    Comments (1018) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, GW started buying futures like mad when he left office and Barack has been selling like mad, so not much changed.
    20 Apr, 01:42 PM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1876) | Send Message
     
    Where else - California.
    20 Apr, 02:02 PM Reply Like
  • rasanders22
    , contributor
    Comments (529) | Send Message
     
    Bush comes into office
    Gas price Jan 20th 2001 - $1.46
    Hites a high of $4.26
    Gas price Jan 20th 2009 - $1.84
    Bush leaves, Obama comes in
    Gas hits a high $3.90
    Currently - ~$3.65

     

    "So by your logic, where the president of the US can just dictate what the gas price should be, Bush made it go up over 50% while Obama has stabilized it around 90% of what Bush left it at. "

     

    I don''t know where you get 90% of where Bush had it. Obama has it 198% higher than where Bush left it. What you can correctly say is gas peaked 9% lower than under Obama than Bush. However we still have 2 years of Obama left and a very strong upward trend thats been building for 6 years where as under Bush it was pretty much a horizontal trend until the last year of his presidency.
    21 Apr, 07:37 AM Reply Like
  • Special Situations Monitor
    , contributor
    Comments (95) | Send Message
     
    I have an easy solution to this controversy. Ask the oil executives who will benefit from the pipeline whether it is safe for the people living near the pipeline? If they say yes, which they have been, ask them to move their families near it as well. See how many will agree to this condition. If a majority do, then i would say case closed, build the pipeline.
    19 Apr, 11:09 AM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    There are pipelines all over the country...literally everywhere just like power lines. I have one right behind my yard, its not a big deal, jeez. I would bet some executives of energy companies have pipelines near their land too just because statistically it is likely.
    19 Apr, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • taxman100
    , contributor
    Comments (244) | Send Message
     
    I'm sure there is a pipeline near where they are currently living.

     

    We used to live in a country where people were encouraged to take risks, get things done, and build a country.

     

    Now we are clearly living on our past accomplishments, and we have a President who represents the majority of Modern Americans - on the dole, intellectually vapid, and fully immersed in the mindsets of socialism and victimhood.

     

    Canada will move forward without us - and good for them.
    19 Apr, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • Special Situations Monitor
    , contributor
    Comments (95) | Send Message
     
    Fine. Then let them show what you say is the case. I think it is important to have oil execs demonstrate that they are willing to have their loved ones in the same position that they are asking other folks to put their kids in, fair enough? I think I might be able to get bipartisan support on my position..
    19 Apr, 11:24 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3666) | Send Message
     
    there is over 100,000 miles of pipeline that already exists, a less than 1% increase in pipeline won't cause a catastrophe, you are so misinformed its pathetic.
    19 Apr, 11:31 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3666) | Send Message
     
    Special

     

    Where do you live? You probably live closer to a pipeline than you think. What about sewage pipelines that break every year, water main pipelines break and all cause severe damage with septic bacterial shock, sink holes ect. Yet you want to harp on oil pipelines that leak once in a few decades.
    19 Apr, 11:33 AM Reply Like
  • Bret Jensen
    , contributor
    Comments (9798) | Send Message
     
    How is 1200 mile pipeline any different from 2.3mm miles that already exist in the country? If anything, it will be much safer as will be built to latest standard when some pipe is over 50 years old............also 10x safer than rail, which is how oil will come here anyhow.
    19 Apr, 11:40 AM Reply Like
  • Special Situations Monitor
    , contributor
    Comments (95) | Send Message
     
    You sound angry..i am not sure why I offended you. Please go back and read my earlier comments. I am not saying that the pipeline should not be built. Just that the folks who directly benefit and benefit the most from it should also take some physical risk and put their kids in the same position that they are asking other to put their kids in. No need to get angry. Please tell me if my position is unfair on this subject and if so, why?
    19 Apr, 11:40 AM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2480) | Send Message
     
    Special - if you have natural gas in your home, you live under a pipeline. And how would oil executives convince the ppl who own the land where the pipeline is passing through to sell their homes to them? Your point makes no sense about why anyone is objecting to the pipeline either - ppl are concerned about the tar sands and global warming - very few are worried about their physical safety from an oil pipeline.
    19 Apr, 12:02 PM Reply Like
  • Special Situations Monitor
    , contributor
    Comments (95) | Send Message
     
    Bret. Just to clarify, i think the pipeline should be built. The less we depend upon imported oil, the better off we will be as a nation. My position is actually quite practical. I think that if oil execs had their families' safety on the line (pun intended), they would build it safer and monitor it well.

     

    I wonder if the guys at GM who let kids die instead of fixing a small problem might have acted differently if their kids were forced to drive the same cars? My position is actually based upon market principles rather than ideological. I think folks here misunderstood my intent.
    19 Apr, 12:39 PM Reply Like
  • haoleboy1967
    , contributor
    Comments (244) | Send Message
     
    I owned commercial land that we developed and it had two pipelines running right through the middle of it. All we had to do was meet the requirements of each pipeline company when we went to build around it. We could not build over them except paving.
    Was no big deal and we got the land for a good price because the owner already collected money on the pipeline deal.
    19 Apr, 01:53 PM Reply Like
  • bklieb1
    , contributor
    Comments (23) | Send Message
     
    Special,

     

    That isn't how capitalism works. No industry works how you are describing. To ensure safety pipelines, chemical plants and refineries are built to ASME codes, API codes, EPA and local regulations. Operating the facility must comply with OSHA and/or PSM standards (if you are really good you'll be a VPP operator like where I work).

     

    I hear what you're saying, but the symbolism behind it has absolutely nothing to do with building and operating a safe pipeline.
    19 Apr, 10:57 PM Reply Like
  • Art Rimbaud
    , contributor
    Comments (43) | Send Message
     
    Special,

     

    Your ignorance about the vast network of pipelines that already exists in this country aside - in heavily populated areas, no less - I kind of like your idea if it means that we can exile the green fascists, particularly, Steyer, Gore and McKibben into the middle of wind farms or, even better, into the middle of a deep sea wave farms.

     

    Doing so, I think their carbon footprints would finally match their propaganda levels.
    20 Apr, 08:50 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3573) | Send Message
     
    Those greenies sure didn't want the sea-based windfarms off the coast of Nantucket... Perhaps they feared wind leaks...
    20 Apr, 10:16 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    Sooo, you want TRP execs to be forced to move their families away somewhere near a pipeline?? Seems like an odd idea to me. I'll admit I don't like eminent domain forcing people to allow the pipelines on their land, but they do have legal options to fight it, and most landowners will probably just take the deal they are offered anyway, so they know the risks.
    19 Apr, 11:35 AM Reply Like
  • hmarleau1@gmail.com
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    retired investment banker, money manager and director of publicly traded companies.
    19 Apr, 12:29 PM Reply Like
  • Bobco23
    , contributor
    Comments (158) | Send Message
     
    In my business career I have experienced four separate eminent domain takings of agricultural land. In every case we were paid way, way more than the land was worth. We welcomed these events and replaced the assets with similar or better assets at a lower price.

     

    My experience is a small sample, but I thought it would be useful to offer evidence that a "taking" is not always detrimental to the owner.
    19 Apr, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • medzjohn
    , contributor
    Comments (218) | Send Message
     
    Praise to the President, who takes his responsibility to protect North America's natural environment for future generations enough to not rush such a momentous decision. If truly needed to support life, the tar sands will still be there.
    19 Apr, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • James Bjorkman
    , contributor
    Comments (568) | Send Message
     
    Yes, and since immigration reform is such a big issue with such mighty implications, we should take another few decades to think it through thoroughly from every angle before doing anything.
    19 Apr, 01:55 PM Reply Like
  • tsspry
    , contributor
    Comments (52) | Send Message
     
    Wrong. The pipeline to west coast is already begun. China will snatch the oil from under our noses while this president insults America's closet ally. A bigger fool than Obama cannot be found. I only wish we could see the classes he took in college. Certainly History and Mathematics were missing from his curriculum. Anyone care to refute that?
    19 Apr, 03:21 PM Reply Like
  • The Rebel
    , contributor
    Comments (424) | Send Message
     
    "...not rush such a momentous decision."

     

    This has been going on for over 5 years now. Some rush. And why is this decision so "momentous"? Just because you use flashy adjectives doesn't make it so.
    19 Apr, 10:26 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (557) | Send Message
     
    " If truly needed to support life, the tar sands will still be there."
    Lol, no, they'll be sold to China and refined there instead of the US. One country has incredibly strict regs on emissions and one country produces so much pollution there are entire cities in which you can't see a few yards in front on you. In which country do you think this decision will steer the oil?
    19 Apr, 11:57 PM Reply Like
  • rasanders22
    , contributor
    Comments (529) | Send Message
     
    Yes. Maybe they should have also taken time to read Obamacare law before they voted on it too and not voted on it to see what was in it, right?
    21 Apr, 07:47 AM Reply Like
  • haoleboy1967
    , contributor
    Comments (244) | Send Message
     
    This doesn't surprise me. Can anyone point to a president that was open minded and listened to people who are leaders in their respective fields?
    This president seems like always has to be the smartest guy in the room.
    I am basing this off the way he blew off Harold Hamm went they met.
    19 Apr, 02:08 PM Reply Like
  • tsspry
    , contributor
    Comments (52) | Send Message
     
    The obvious answer: Ronald Reagan. Democrats have no sense of history. They are doomed to failure.
    19 Apr, 03:16 PM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1876) | Send Message
     
    Problem is they are taking us with them.
    22 Apr, 05:35 PM Reply Like
  • MisterJ
    , contributor
    Comments (580) | Send Message
     
    House Republicans have had how many days now to vote on the Senate bill for comprehensive immigration reform? Apparently they are not the only ones who can play the waiting game.
    19 Apr, 02:18 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    I believe they have clearly stated they won't pass that bill and do not support it. That's hardly waiting.

     

    I don't necessarily agree with their position but they have been clear that the bill won't be passed.

     

    And since when is leadership comparing yourself to the failure of others???? Oh, its not. Which is exactly the problem with our current President. There aren't wars going on in this country against women or gays or college graduates with loans or minorities, etc. There is just an desire by politicians and bureaucrats to create the appearance of "need" and keep themselves in power.
    19 Apr, 05:29 PM Reply Like
  • Andy Zelenak
    , contributor
    Comments (292) | Send Message
     
    I've got mixed feelings about this. Anything to help wean us off oil is good news, because there are better alternatives. Natural gas, biodiesel, and electric vehicles are all superior. Look at what Brazil has done with ethanol. We can't copy Brazil because we can't grow much sugarcane, but switchgrass is a possibility.

     

    On the other hand, I would've preferred an honest No from Obama. Dithering only helps bureaucrats and lawyers.
    19 Apr, 02:37 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    Just FYI, Brazil uses a s*** ton of oil.
    19 Apr, 02:44 PM Reply Like
  • Andy Zelenak
    , contributor
    Comments (292) | Send Message
     
    Not really. I'm seeing that 30-50% of the fuel sold in Brazil is ethanol.

     

    http://wapo.st/1h7VV2b
    20 Apr, 11:56 AM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    Perhaps but they are also consuming more oil than they produce making them an importer of both crude and refined products. I think as time goes on they are finding ethanol to be less useful. When I was there every vehicle I rode in was either gasoline, diesel or nat gas. Even the article you cited is discussing the decline of the ethanol market.
    20 Apr, 12:50 PM Reply Like
  • Trinta
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    Most scientists say climate change is real. But most of the pastors in America say that Jesus will return well before that is a problem. It sort of balances out. I know that there is a risk praying to invisible cloud people to save us. But the American people always think god is going to look out for them. Happy Easter and good investing.
    19 Apr, 03:01 PM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1876) | Send Message
     
    Trinta - When you say "But the American people always think god is going to look out for them. " I assume you mean the God I believe in - not the one in Washington? Sadly I believe a LOT of Americans believe he is their savior.
    19 Apr, 08:32 PM Reply Like
  • Coolbluelake
    , contributor
    Comments (544) | Send Message
     
    Trinta, good points on God saving us. By the way, has anyone noticed that the primary purpose of most pastors, especially those on TV, is to get you to send them $$$$ by dialing their 800 number and giving them your credit card donation? What does God have to do with your credit card?
    19 Apr, 08:49 PM Reply Like
  • James Bjorkman
    , contributor
    Comments (568) | Send Message
     
    There are a handful of Democrat Senate candidates - at least - who are going to be hurt by this. That's just a fact, it's not really debatable, the only question is whether they survive it anyhow. Since there are much bigger issues at election time, it may not tip the balance in their elections, but someone like Mary Landrieu who poses as a big oil and gas development supporter, well, let's just say it hurts some of them more than others.

     

    Who controls the Senate matters for this and other issues, so it's on topic. I'm convinced the pipeline will be approved eventually, it's only a matter of when.
    19 Apr, 03:13 PM Reply Like
  • The Rebel
    , contributor
    Comments (424) | Send Message
     
    If the Dems lose the Senate and Obama doesn't approve it before the elections, then it will never be approved by him. He will give the middle finger to the American people for having the audacity to throw the Dems out of power in the Senate.

     

    But as always looking for a conspiracy, I see the delay allowing Senators like Landrieu to excoriate the President between now and November, and then just before the election he approves the pipeline, thus allowing Landrieu and others to skate in again.
    19 Apr, 10:34 PM Reply Like
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (681) | Send Message
     
    IMO - Obama has been giving the American people the middle finger ever since he got elected. ;-)
    20 Apr, 08:07 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    If find the whole episode to be a sad reminder of how ineffective our government has become. Regardless of the decision - its long past the time for one to have been reached.

     

    I support in concept the pipeline. I don't support the use of eminent domain to achieve the passageway for the pipeline.

     

    We've had several NG pipeline explosions in the past few years - its obvious that our pipeline infrastructure is old and needs to be replaced. Where is any discussion about that?

     

    Canada is our closest ally. Should we really have hundreds of bureaucrats "studying" Canadian environmental policy???? Are we saying the Canadians are too stupid to decide for themselves how to use their land and resources??

     

    Instead the USA looks stupid and arrogant. I guess our sprawling bureaucracy now thinks they run the lives of everyone in the world - not just the USA. Sarcasm intended.
    19 Apr, 05:25 PM Reply Like
  • Coolbluelake
    , contributor
    Comments (544) | Send Message
     
    Agree. Eminent domain to cross farms is a disgraceful way to go with this uneeded pipeline to begin with. I wonder how many politicians would allow a pipeline to run through the middle of their properties.
    19 Apr, 08:44 PM Reply Like
  • pencilskirtartist
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Follow the money. The left is all Pres. Obama has left. Must keep the passionate base happy to prevent election destruction. If he would have caved on the pipeline the real and more vital pipeline of campaign cash would have dried up.
    19 Apr, 06:03 PM Reply Like
  • Coolbluelake
    , contributor
    Comments (544) | Send Message
     
    What is the value of the Keystone pipeline when most of the tar sands oil that will be flowing through it will be dirty oil and go overseas anyway. Once the pipes are in place, not that many jobs will remain and with domestic oil/gas doing so well, who even cares about tar sands oil anyway.
    19 Apr, 08:43 PM Reply Like
  • Moon Kil Woong
    , contributor
    Comments (11014) | Send Message
     
    I agree somewhat. In reality the US should be supporting new and more modern oil and gas processing plants. Of course oil/gas processing companies don't even want that because they make billions causing prices to spike by shutting down scarce processing to do maintenance, etc. they make billion in California doing that and because they bought off lobbyists, California commuters can't even buy cheaper gas elsewhere in such times.

     

    Cha ching... $$$ for such companies every problem is an opportunity to bilk the consumer. The same money supporting the keystone is the same money trying to export oil and gas out of the US to keep prices up.
    19 Apr, 09:21 PM Reply Like
  • AllStreets
    , contributor
    Comments (1018) | Send Message
     
    Right.
    20 Apr, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • CMPMD
    , contributor
    Comments (94) | Send Message
     
    Oil is a fungible asset. There is absolutely no guarantee that the oil making its way to the gulf via the Keystone pipeline will be made available to the US market. It will go to the highest bidder, whether that bidder is in China, Europe, or the US.
    19 Apr, 09:35 PM Reply Like
  • 911Slade
    , contributor
    Comments (25) | Send Message
     
    If I were the Canadian PM I would make a deal with the Chinese and build a pipeline on their dime to the west coast and tell Obama to pound sand. This is no way to treat your closest ally and neighbor.
    19 Apr, 10:22 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    No need for that, KMP already has one in the works. EEP too I think.
    Also KMP already has the Trans-Mountain line in service. They are just looking to expand it.
    20 Apr, 07:28 AM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    I know this would never happen, but I think it would be hilarious if the Canadians just closed off all pipelines and oil exports to the United States until they approve Keystone.
    20 Apr, 08:22 AM Reply Like
  • ellaruth
    , contributor
    Comments (122) | Send Message
     
    Remember that Obama made a 10 billion dollar stimulus money loan to Brazilian Petrobas for offshore oil and gas development. This same Obama promised a Messianic number of Green Jobs only asking about 500 Billion or a Trillion Dollars of dept to do it. We received tax payer funded Solyndra and numerous other solar business failures.
    Next to unwanted military intervention is the power to lower oil and gas prices and increase our exports to Europe. Had we followed Sarah Palin's "Drill Baby Drill" opened up drilling offshore in the Atlantic, Alaska and the Northeastern Gulf of New Mexico and Alaska 6 years ago we would have today a credible relief to our European Nato Allies as well as the possibility of bankrupting Russia through aggressive Oil and Gas exports to Europe.
    Instead our President is easily out maneuvered by Vladimir Putin, and even the smallest preparation for such a scenario is put on hold.
    Obama is beholden to the interest of tree huggers that he cannot help us regain our footing to fight in the new cold war. Putin is winning, and the US is loosing there is no reversal insight.
    20 Apr, 12:56 AM Reply Like
  • june1234
    , contributor
    Comments (2492) | Send Message
     
    politicians worship gods of reelection above all else, as soon as thats out of the way pipeline will resume.
    20 Apr, 08:25 AM Reply Like
  • Archman Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (2350) | Send Message
     
    Invest in $PBA & $IPPLF. Make money. Thank me in 25 years.

     

    Ignore the rest.

     

    The political end of it is a joke & distraction.

     

    There is no two party system in this country. Just a big group of political multi-millionaires who want Americans watching either FOX or MSNBC. Their true message to Americans: get nothing done just keep hating your fellow countrymen day and night. That is their agenda. That keeps them in power. Always has been and more so over the past decade. Divide and conquer. A strategy centuries old and still works 100% today.

     

    If you haven't figured that out yet then they have already won.
    20 Apr, 09:59 AM Reply Like
  • SoCalNative
    , contributor
    Comments (423) | Send Message
     
    Right on, Archman. Thank you for actually mentioning investment ideas based on this news rather than "it's Bush's fault" "republicans" and all that other troll-bait crap that ruins the comments section.
    20 Apr, 12:11 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (557) | Send Message
     
    I bought PBA the last time you recommended it, incredible return and a nice divi, too. Maybe Ill buy more.
    20 Apr, 06:20 PM Reply Like
  • TFCAB
    , contributor
    Comments (1942) | Send Message
     
    Obama simply needs to grow a pair and make a decision. Continuing to hide behind further study as a reason for inaction speaks to his total lack of manhood.
    Meanwhile we wait for the next train derailment...then we will have to list to him launch an investigation into rail car safety. Truly pathetic lack of leadership
    20 Apr, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (5137) | Send Message
     
    A page from NY governor Andrew Cuomo's playbook.

     

    Place a moratorium on fracking and never lift it. Even when the NY Department of Environmental Conservation reports, simply sit on the report and keep your "friends" happy by not allowing fracking. NY state is sliding into the abyss, and my governor is worried about keeping his buddies happy.

     

    I have included a link to the NYSDEC's map of the Marcellus Shale in New York.
    http://bit.ly/PkRKJj
    (note the NYC watershed and Catskill Park are highlighted. No colors of the other watersheds or parks in the area are shown)

     

    Sitting on top of it in Allegany County and can't touch it because Uncle Andrew is worried about something....not sure what that is, but if will affect his run for the White House, then I am starting to understand.

     

    Apologies if this is off the pipeline topic.
    20 Apr, 06:09 PM Reply Like
  • SharkETF
    , contributor
    Comments (56) | Send Message
     
    Bad news for PXX
    20 Apr, 06:26 PM Reply Like
  • miriam ledwith
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    Haven't read all 105 comments yet, but I see no mention of KS decision delay in any of the MSM headlines this morning. Putting this news out there in the middle of a 3 day holiday weekend speaks volumes. This was a calculated decision [to leak their non decision] on a weekend so they figure no one will notice. Typical. mnl
    21 Apr, 06:17 AM Reply Like
  • Ruffdog
    , contributor
    Comments (1218) | Send Message
     
    I live in California and it was in our local paper Saturday, but then again Obama is coming to California to attend Democratic fund raisers this week. I hear that the tickets are going for $37,500.
    21 Apr, 10:26 AM Reply Like
  • miriam ledwith
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    Makes sense. Lets everyone know how green he is. Fundraisers are very important, especially in California. I hope that the traffic tie ups don't cause a lot of emissions from cars stuck in traffic. Here in Philly, a 5 PM Friday fund raiser for our Prez causes havoc and grid lock for the entire rush hour.
    29 Apr, 08:33 PM Reply Like
  • ellaruth
    , contributor
    Comments (122) | Send Message
     
    http://nyti.ms/1lLUE4O

     

    For those of you who have diagressed to asking questions or citing blame for the subprime loan/financial market meltdown. Please take this article from the liberal press NYT, as a primary piece of evidence that demands a verdict.
    24 Apr, 10:55 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    If you want to pursue this dialog, you need to look into the studies of where most of the defaults occurred -- hint, investor-owned properties, mainly in suburbs, and concentrated in a few states and cities. The data doesn't present a great fit for the narrative you are trying to sell.
    24 Apr, 11:54 PM Reply Like
  • ellaruth
    , contributor
    Comments (122) | Send Message
     
    Miriam Ledwith

     

    Your comment is the golden apples in pictures of silver.

     

    In short it the less obvious that's the most telling.

     

    Thanks
    27 Apr, 11:24 PM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1876) | Send Message
     
    Pretty sure I agree with all your comments but I am having trouble deciphering this one? (not a shot ;))
    Bill
    28 Apr, 07:26 PM Reply Like
  • ellaruth
    , contributor
    Comments (122) | Send Message
     
    A word fitly spoken is like Apples of Gold in Pictures of Silver. A quote from Hebrew Wisdom literature, the book of Proverbs.

     

    http://binged.it/1mVXojV
    29 Apr, 08:02 PM Reply Like
  • bill d
    , contributor
    Comments (1876) | Send Message
     
    OK.
    30 Apr, 01:45 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3573) | Send Message
     
    More recent, to quote a Jamey Johnson song (that is referring to black and white pictures), "You Should Have Seen It In Color".
    29 Apr, 08:13 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|