January 31, 2012
6.2.12
Mississippi Most Conservative State, D.C. Most Liberal
February 3, 2012
Mississippi Most Conservative State, D.C. Most Liberal
State patterns in ideology largely stable compared with previous years
by Frank Newport
PRINCETON, NJ -- Mississippi remains the most conservative state in
the union, and, along with Utah, Wyoming, and Alabama, is one of four
states with 50% or more of its population identifying as conservative.
At the other end of the ideological spectrum, 40% District of Columbia
residents and 30% of Massachusetts residents identify as liberal; all
other states have a liberal population of 26% or less.
Arizona pension systems a soaring burden
Arizona pension systems a soaring burden
Craig Harris The Arizona Republic
Even as local governments and the state are slashing budgets,
Arizonans are propping up public-pension systems that allow civil
servants to retire in their 50s, receive annuities that can exceed
$100,000 a year, and collect pensions while staying on the same job, The Arizona Republic has found.
Over the past decade, government agencies have been forced to pour
billions of dollars into the state's six pension systems to keep pace
with continual benefit enhancements. The added cost of these
enhancements has been largely borne by taxpayers as pension investments
eroded amid stock-market declines.
Even some of the pension funds' managers agree that these
enhancements over the past decade have grown so expensive they are
unsustainable without sharp increases in public funding and cuts to
critical public services.
Legislators and other policy makers, meanwhile, have done little to
overhaul the systems. In fact, pension reform is rarely, if ever,
mentioned by Gov. Jan Brewer or the Legislature as they grapple with
ways to bridge a two-year budget deficit estimated at $2.25 billion. A
key lawmaker said that needs to change.
"It's a ticking time bomb," Arizona House Speaker Kirk Adams said of
the state's pension systems. "A lot of people for too long have tried
to ignore it and set it aside. The Legislature needs to seriously look
at what the options are."
The tab for local governments and the state to run these
systems grew 448 percent over the past 10 years to $1.39 billion
annually, according to a Republic analysis of the benefits paid
to more than 111,000 retired public employees. In many cases, taxpayer
contributions to the pension funds far exceed workers' contributions. In
fact, most employees earn all their contributions back within three to
four years of retiring.
Today, more money is spent on Arizona's public-pension systems than
on the individual state budgets for higher education, corrections,
economic security or health insurance for the poor.
Even as governments cut budgets, public-pension costs will keep
growing. The state Constitution forbids the government from decreasing a
payout for any retiree now in the system. And a coming wave of Baby
Boomer employees will soon retire, further increasing the costs.
Byron Schlomach, an economist who studies pensions for the
Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, said there is little political will
to change public-employee retirements because they affect about 363,000
state and local public employees who wield clout and because lawmakers
benefit from the best of the publicly funded systems.
"Some of the resistance is coming from people who you would think
were conservatives, but they may have retired from another pension
system," Schlomach said. "They like the systems the way they are. They
have their benefit, and they are resistant to change."
Well paid
For this series, The Republic filed 67 public-records
requests. They were sent to the state's four public-pension systems, the
Phoenix and Tucson municipal pension systems and all 57 public-school
districts in Maricopa County. The newspaper, through the Arizona Public
Records Law, obtained the amount of pensions paid to retirees in the six
systems and the salaries of hundreds of retirees who still hold
government jobs, with most being educators.
The Republic's analysis shows a system that pays some retirees well, including:
Elected officials. Among those who retired in the past decade,
dozens now are paid more in annual retirement benefits than they were
paid while in office.
Public-safety officers. An incentive program to keep officers
working longer allows them to stop contributing to their pension funds
five years early, keep working, then receive large lump-sum payouts - an
average of $247,422 for police officers and $314,338 for firefighters.
Those officers also then draw regular annual pensions.
City officials. The Phoenix retirement system allows employees
to boost their public pay as they near retirement age, triggering
increases in the annual amount of their pensions.
Educators. Employees in many school districts find ways to
retire and then return to government jobs while also drawing a pension.
Some in the public-education system have created a cottage industry to
make so-called "double-dipping" easier. More than 900 teachers and
administrators in Maricopa County school districts legally collect state
pension checks while being paid to keep working for the schools. Some
teachers make more than $100,000 a year in combined pension and salary,
while administrators' combined pay and pension can exceed $200,000
annually.
Criminals: Six elected officials and a former county manager
now receive state pensions despite being convicted of crimes involving
misconduct while in office.
The bottom line: While most private employers have scaled back
retirement programs and put more or all of the financial responsibility
for their funding onto employees, Arizona civil-servant retirement
systems have not made major changes.
Calls for reform
California, New Jersey and Illinois are among many states now
struggling with the costs of public-pension systems. Reform movements in
some states have cut benefits and raised the age at which workers can
start drawing pensions.
Internationally, there have been moves by financially strapped
governments across Europe to raise the retirement age. In Greece,
generous early-retirement practices led to a debt crisis that prompted
unpopular changes earlier this year. Last month, amid mounting protests
that hampered France's economy, the French parliament bumped the
retirement age from 60 to 62 to preserve its pension system.
Arizona anti-tax groups and business leaders are calling for changes to ease Arizona's ever-growing pension costs.
Kevin McCarthy, president of the Arizona Tax Research Association and
a recent board appointee to the Arizona State Retirement System, said
ongoing enhancements to the retirement systems are unsustainable.
"I don't know how some of this stuff is rationalized," McCarthy said.
Lawmakers have taken small steps to bring costs under control.
Several modifications begin July 1, 2011, for ASRS, the state's
largest system. Newly hired employees who are part of ASRS will be
required to work a few years longer before they can draw a retirement
check. Also changed was the formula by which retiring employees' average
ending salary is calculated, slightly lowering pensions.
However, the state won't see a savings from the changes until those new hires begin to retire years from now.
Even those modest proposals took four years for the Legislature to finally pass.
Though the $23.1 billion ASRS trust is currently underfunded and
payments exceed contributions, ASRS Director Paul Matson said the trust
is in no danger of becoming insolvent because its size is expected to
grow and its investment values will recover.
How pensions work
The largest of Arizona's six public-pension systems is ASRS, which
covers 708 employers of state, county and municipal workers,
public-school teachers and those working for Arizona's three state
universities. Created in 1953, it has 92,216 retirees and 220,323
actively contributing members.
Three other systems cover elected officials, corrections employees
and police and firefighters. Tucson and Phoenix run their own systems.
Public employees contribute a portion of their pay toward their
pensions. Their employers also make contributions equal to or greater
than the employees' amount.
All provide defined-benefit plans, meaning the retiree's benefits are
guaranteed no matter how much he or she has paid into the system while
working.
Under such a plan, each trust pays a pension whose annual amount is
determined through a formula taking into account the employee's highest
average wage at the end of a career, years of service and a benefit
"multiplier."
For example, an ASRS retiree's benefit is calculated by multiplying
the years of service by his or her average salary over the last three
years of employment. That figure is then multiplied by the multiplier, a
percentage set by state law and tiered by years of service.
So, an employee who has worked 20 years and had an average annual
salary over the last three years of $40,000 would have a multiplier of
2.15 percent. That would result in a lifetime annual pension of $17,200.
The biggest public pensions are given to those who work longer and
make more money at the end of their careers. There are 392 government
retirees in Arizona who receive annual pensions in excess of $100,000,
and the average pension for all six systems is $23,221, according to
records the paper compiled.
In the ASRS system, the average retirement age is 60, and the
typical retiree works 19.26 years. The average annual lifetime ASRS
pension is $19,788.
In the private sector, a 401(k) would have to accumulate $273,752 to
$283,327 over a 20-year period to get the same $19,788 annual pension
at retirement, according to Michael Juilfs and Jim Dew, certified
financial planners who operate separate Scottsdale firms.
For the private employee, the money would last 19 to 20 years,
assuming modest interest-rate gains during retirement. The calculations,
however, are based upon retiring at 65 - common in the private sector
but five years later than a typical ASRS retiree.
"Public employees have a better deal than they realize, and they are not that low-paid," Juilfs said.
Insufficient funds
Because of the recession and years of low investment returns, Arizona's public-pension funds are now considered underfunded.
Ideally, a trust is 100 percent funded, meaning the current value of
the assets in the trust is equal to the pension cost calculated for all
current and future retirees. Pensions funded at 80 percent or higher are
considered healthy by industry standards.
As investment values slide, extra money has to come from somewhere.
Each trust has different contribution rates for employees and employers.
In five of the six systems, the employer has a higher contribution
rate than the employee. Only ASRS has matching contribution rates.
That ASRS rate in 2000 was low because the 1990s stock-market boom
provided an investment surplus for its trust. Back then, the combined
contribution rate, the total from employees and employers, was 4.34
percent. Today, it is 19.2 percent, with each side contributing half, or
9.6 percent. Matson projects the combined contribution rate, which
includes a small amount going to retiree health-insurance cost, will
steadily increase to 22.96 percent by 2018, then decline as the trust's
financial health improves.
Even with far higher contribution rates, the ASRS trust's assets cover only 75 percent of its liabilities.
Matson chiefly blamed stock-market crashes in 2001 and 2008 for the
ASRS trust's underfunding, and he said earnings in three other years did
not meet projections of 8 percent growth.
Most of Arizona's other public-pension funds are in worse shape. The
Public Safety Personnel Retirement System has the worst funding ratio,
at about 66 percent.
During the past 30 years, many private businesses have dumped similar
defined-benefit pension plans for defined-contribution plans such as
401(k)s. Employers make set contributions to employees' individual
retirement accounts but are not responsible for guaranteeing their
retirement income or earnings growth.
In 1980, 84 percent of private-sector employees had defined-benefit
plans, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. By March 2009,
the most recent records available show, that number dropped to 21
percent.
Recent federal records show 84 percent of state and local government workers still have defined-benefit plans.
"Pension benefits have been cut so much that it appears firemen and
teachers have a golden parachute when they really don't," said Elizabeth
Ashack, a Bureau of Labor Statistics economist. "For them, it's just
the way it used to be."
The Arizona National Federation of Independent Business said none of its 7,500 members offers a defined-benefit plan.
"It's becoming extinct in the private sector, especially for small
businesses," said Farrell Quinlan, the federation's Arizona director.
Matson, the ASRS director, defends defined-benefit plans, saying
retirees with pensions are less likely to be dependent on government
services when they retire. He added that defined-benefit plans provide
better long-term security for retirees and they typically are better
managed than defined-contribution plans.
Big payouts
The system is providing many employees a comfortable retirement.
Meanwhile, taxpayer costs are rising, with the system paying out more
than it is taking in. In fiscal 2009, for example, ASRS contributions
from employers and employees totaled $1.6 billion. Its benefit payouts:
$2 billion, further depleting the trust.
Public-sector retirees' pensions benefits are guaranteed for as long
as they live, and surviving spouses collect some benefits even after the
retiree dies.
The largest annual pension in ASRS goes to Carol Peck, who retired as
superintendent of the Phoenix-area Alhambra Elementary School District
in July 2002 with 35 years of service. According to ASRS records, she
had an ending salary of $275,022.
Now chief executive of the Rodel Charitable Foundation of Arizona, she receives a $226,422 annual pension.
Peck, who received numerous professional accolades, including
national superintendent of the year, said in an e-mail response that her
salary was above average compared with other superintendents but was
"determined to be commensurate with my performance." She also wrote that
teacher and staff salaries, as well as student performance, were above
average at Alhambra. Peck declined further comment.
Traditionally, public-employee pension systems were recognized as a
way to overcome inequities between lower public-sector salaries and
higher pay in the private sector. However, that inequity is no longer
the case in Arizona, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The average state-employee salary in 2009 was $46,841, and the
average municipal-employee salary was $42,668. In the private industry,
the average pay was $42,090.
Public costs
As governments juggle their budgets to keep their employees' pensions
intact, they have simultaneously found themselves cutting public
services because of shrinking revenue and a lingering economic downturn.
At the local level, cities have cut library hours, closed recreation
facilities, curtailed public-transit spending and furloughed or laid off
employees.
The state has cut health care for needy families, shuttered some
state parks and motor-vehicle registration branches, trimmed
law-enforcement and prison budgets, and laid off hundreds of workers.
Arizona still faces a combined budget deficit estimated at $2.25
billion this year and next. Gov. Brewer has said public education,
health and welfare programs all are likely to see significant reductions
in 2011.
As state officials slashed budgets in recent years, they repeatedly
argued that they had to cut public services because huge portions of
their budgets were off-limits. Spending approved by voters or otherwise
guaranteed cannot be cut.
A large portion of that off-limits spending goes to pensions. But
cutting that spending is difficult because pension costs are layered
throughout dozens of government-agency budgets rather than being lumped
together as a single expenditure.
Solutions
Along with a weak economy, Arizona lawmakers shoulder some of the
blame for the pension imbalance. In 2001, they permanently increased the
largest system's multiplier, which increased retiree payouts. Three
years earlier, they successfully asked voters to approve a
constitutional amendment that does not allow public-employee pension
benefits to be diminished.
Since then, they have done little to soften the financial impact on taxpayers.
Adams, the House speaker, said that while lawmakers can tweak the
pension systems, they likely will need to ask voters to change the state
Constitution.
"If we are going to have any fundamental reform, the voters will
have to get involved," Adams said. "They need to remove the roadblock so
the Legislature can do something different like have a
defined-contribution plan."
The governor said Arizona's pension systems are in better shape than
other states', but "that doesn't mean we don't need to go in there and
look at this and get the discussion on the table and fix it."
The Arizona Chamber of Commerce has openly encouraged lawmakers to
consider new public retirement plans that combine a defined benefit and a
defined contribution.
Suzanne Taylor, senior vice president of public policy for the
chamber, said the current system is "not a sustainable path" for
taxpayers.
Retirement system board member McCarthy, a limited-government
activist, said lawmakers must act quickly when the session begins in
January.
"We are not talking about small parts of state and local
governments," he said. "We are talking about extraordinary costs, and
people are finding out these things are choking state and local budgets.
The person taking it is the taxpayer."
Reach the reporter at craig.harris@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-8478.
2.2.12
U.S. Senators' Stock Picks Outperform the Pros'
OCTOBER 26, 2004
By JANE J. KIM | Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Politicians may have done a poor job improving the government's bottom line, but they seem to be doing quite well with their own.
A study suggests that U.S. senators possess stock-picking skills that even the most seasoned money manager would envy. During the boom years of the 1990s, senators' stock picks beat the market by 12 percentage points a year on average, according to the study. Corporate insiders, meanwhile, beat the market by about six percentage points a year, while U.S. households underperformed the market by 1.4 percentage points a year on average, according to separate studies. The final details of the study will be published in the December issue of the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis.
The study's authors, relying on financial-disclosure forms from 1993 to 1998, looked at about 6,000 common-stock transactions of about a third of the senators each year. The researchers then mimicked the senators' transactions, buying the stocks the senators bought and selling the shares they sold. Over a six-year period, that "superportfolio" essentially beat the market by about one percentage point a month, or 12 percentage points a year.
Looking at the timing of cumulative returns, the senators also appeared to know exactly when to buy or sell their holdings. Senators would buy stocks just before the shares suddenly would outperform the market by more than 25%. Conversely, senators would sell stocks that had been beating the market by about 25% for the past year just when the shares would fall back in line with the market's performance.
The researchers say senators' uncanny ability to know when to buy or sell their shares seems to stem from having access to information that other investors wouldn't have. "I don't think you need much of an imagination to realize that they're in the know," says Alan Ziobrowski, a business professor at Georgia State University in Atlanta and one of the four authors of the study.
Senators, for example, are likely to know which tax legislation is apt to pass and which companies might benefit. Or a senator who sits on a certain committee might find out that a particular company soon will be awarded a government contract or that a certain drug might get regulatory approval, says Prof. Ziobrowski.
The Code of Ethics for Government Service states that government employees cannot use any confidential information acquired in the performance of governmental duties as a means for making profit. The U.S. Senate Ethics Manual lays out other rules barring any actions that would create a conflict of interest. But the manual also notes that if a senator happens to personally benefit from legislation that has a broad, general impact on his or her state or the nation, that gain is assumed to be "incidentally related." By law, senators are required to disclose their common-stock transactions and other personal financial interests by May 15 of each year. Those public documents can be found online atwww.opensecrets.org, a Web site run by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research group in Washington.
Not all of the senators actively are buying and selling stock. Just over a third of the senators bought or sold individual stocks in any one year in the study, and the vast majority of stock transactions were less than $15,000. But a small group of senators appeared to be quite active in the stock market. In fact, a handful of senators -- Clairborne Pell (D., R.I.), John Warner (R., Va.), John Danforth (R., Mo.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) -- accounted for nearly half of the stock trades analyzed. (Only Sens. Boxer and Warner are still in the Senate. A spokeswoman for Sen. Boxer says her assets are now in a blind trust, and a spokesman for Sen. Warner declined to comment.) To eliminate the possibility that the heavy trades of a few senators may have skewed the results, the authors also looked at each senator's trades as individual transactions and found that both big traders and small ones shared similar outsized returns.
Since congressional disclosure forms use broad ranges to report investment income and losses, the amount of money earned or lost by a senator from stocks could not be determined, the study noted.
Write to Jane J. Kim atjane.kim@dowjones.com
31.1.12
Biggest Holders of US Government Debt
| Biggest Holders of US Government Debt | |||
| Switzerland | 113.9B | ||
| Taiwan | 149.6B | ||
| Caribbean Banking Centers | 185.3B | ||
| Brazil | 206.4B | ||
| Oil Exporters | 232.0B | ||
| Insurance Companies | 250.1B | ||
| Depository Institutions | 284.5B | ||
| The United Kingdom | 429.4B | ||
| State and Local Governments | 484.4B | ||
| Mutual Funds | 653.5B | ||
| Pension Funds | 852.2B | ||
| Japan | 1.038T | ||
| Other Investors / Savings Bond | 1.107T | ||
| China | 1.132T | ||
| Federal Reserve and Intragovernmental Holdings | 6.328T | ||
| SOURCE: cnbc.com (Jan 31, 2012) | |||
11.1.12
Private-Equity Payday: Carlyle Founders Get $402 Million
By GREGORY ZUCKERMAN And RYAN DEZEMBER
Amid a swirl of controversy about the private-equity
business, industry powerhouse Carlyle Group revealed that its three
founders together earned more than $400 million last year.
News of the payday comes as Republican presidential candidate Mitt
Romney has been bombarded with criticism for the work of his former
firm, private-equity giant Bain Capital, including from fellow
Republican Newt Gingrich. Mr. Romney's campaign has indicated it is
prepared to defend his work as a part of free-market capitalism. Bain has said the company's focus is on
working with management teams "to build great companies and improve
their operations."
At Carlyle, the earnings for David
Rubenstein, William Conway and Daniel D'Aniello amounted to salary of
$275,000, a bonus of $3.5 million, and a $134 million share of the
firm's investment profits apiece, according to a document filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission late Tuesday.
The filing is ahead of Carlyle's anticipated initial public offering
later this year, likely in the second quarter, according to someone
close to the matter. A representative for the firm declined to comment.
Washington D.C.-based Carlyle, like other buyout firms, claims 20% of
the profits of the firm's investments. The $402 million the three
executives shared—in addition to their salaries and bonuses—represented
more than half of the 20% fees that Carlyle claimed on the firm's
investment gains in 2011.
The three also saw hefty returns on their personal investments in the
firm's funds, separate from their take of the profits. Carlyle reported
distributions to Messrs. D'Aniello, Conway, and Rubenstein of $77.6
million, $70.9 million and $56.8 million, respectively. The filing
doesn't specify what portion of those distributions consisted of their
original investments.
The founders continue to plow money back into their funds. Last year,
Mr. Conway, a co-chief executive, invested $164 million, Mr. D'Aniello,
Carlyle's chairman, put in $98 million, and Mr. Rubenstein, the other
co-CEO, invested $97 million, the filing says. They have made
outstanding commitments to invest an additional $490.7 million to the
funds, the filing says.
Within Carlyle, the compensation didn't cause many ripples. Some
executives were unaware of pay details of the three founders, one person
at the firm said, adding that the three top partners were generally
assumed to have been making more than half of the firm's profits.
"It's certainly a sizable payday and yet in this sector, it's not
unusual," said David Wise, senior principal at management consulting
firm Hay Group. "People go into private equity because at the end of the
rainbow, they can have a payout like this."
When Blackstone Group
LP was preparing its own public offering in 2007, it reported that in
2006 its top five executives shared in $771.5 million in cash
distributions, their full compensation at the time. Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer Stephen Schwarzman was paid $398.3 million, senior
chairman Peter Peterson's share was $212.9 million and Hamilton James,
Blackstone's president and chief operating officer, collected $97.3
million, according to a securities filing.
The Carlyle payday resulted from an especially active and successful
period last year. The buyout firm has reported economic net income, the
industry's preferred measure of earnings, of $579 million through the
first nine months of last year, the most recent data available from the
company. It handed back $15 billion to its investors during those nine
months, representing profits from the firm's buyout deals as well as
original money invested by clients. That was a record for any nine-month
period for Carlyle and almost double the previous best period.
The firm, founded in 1987, originally forged close ties within
political circles, hiring former senior politicians such as former
Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci, who served as chairman of Carlyle from
1992 to 2003. Former President George H.W. Bush and former Secretary of
State James A. Baker III also served as advisers. Early on, some of
Carlyle's deals were in the defense industry.
But in recent years Carlyle has cut ties with former politicians,
emerging as a more-global buyout player than some of its peers, with
early deals in China. Carlyle has launched many more, smaller buyout
funds than rivals, sometimes with a narrow focus, and executives receive
more of their compensation from the profits they specifically generate,
rather than the overall firm's gains.
Though the Carlyle pay may cause a backlash, some clients said they
had little to criticize after a year of big gains from the sale of
interests in companies including China Pacific Insurance Group Co., Kinder Morgan Inc. and Dunkin' Brands Group
Inc. "They obviously had a very good year and are incentivized to
create gains for investors and are entitled to 20% of those gains," says
an executive with an investment in Carlyle funds. "Investors had to
have made a lot of money" for the trio to make more than $400 million
last year.
Write to Gregory Zuckerman at gregory.zuckerman@wsj.com
26.9.11
Is Gold Rally Finally Over? What History Tells Investors
Published:
Monday, 26 Sep 2011 | 12:25 PM ET
Gold's toppling from record highs, culminating in Monday's huge price plunge,
has investors asking whether a decade-long bull run is over. History
would suggest that while gold has taken a beating, it is far from down
and out.
Monday's tumble to around $1,535 an ounce
dragged prices 20 percent below the record $1,920 reached this month.
But since its rise from just over $250 in early 2001, gold [XAU=
1623.89
-2.96
(-0.18%)
] has bounced back from bigger drops, having fallen 25 percent between May and June 2006, and 27 percent in October 2008.
The
2008 episode saw gold treated like any other high risk asset when the
collapse of Lehman Brothers sparked heavy selling across financial
markets in a widely-documented "dash for cash"—after which it bounced
back hard to record highs.
"Gold
and other real assets are not immune from global sell-offs, and this is
a textbook example we are seeing now," said Bayram Dincer, an analyst
at LGT Capital Management.
"If
you want to draw an analogy, look at 2008, when the Lehman fall saw
gold collapsing around $250. The markets are in this 2008, global
post-Lehman sell-off mode."
In
the short term, the sharply higher volatility in gold typified by
Monday's trade will have battered its already tarnished reputation as a
haven. Prices could have further to correct, given their hefty run-up of
recent months.
But
expectations that, longer term, other asset classes could prove still
more of a risk, coupled with the low interest rate environment, are
likely to push prices higher when selling peters out.
While gold may be seen as less of a haven than
in the days before $50 daily price moves became a regular feature of the
market, it is hardly alone in seeing heightened volatility.
"Clearly
any move like this is going to make people at least question the
assumptions they had that any euro zone stress might be positive for
gold," said David Jollie, an analyst at Mitsui Precious Metals. "General
financial market volatility is a threat to any asset."
Riskier assets
The
euro, stock markets and raw materials such as oil and copper have all
posted losses this month as investors sold these nominally riskier
assets in response to growing concerns over the euro zone debt
crisis.
Gold
seemed to have reached a tipping point as worsening financial market
conditions forced some investors to realise fat profits in the metal to
cover losses elsewhere, and on a rush to the greater liquidity of the
dollar and Treasurys.
"For now, investors are only finding comfort in the relative safety of cash," said UBS analyst Edel Tully.
These
kinds of fears usually benefit gold, so its switch in role from haven
to source of funds shows not only how much stress the financial markets
are under, but also how overstretched the metal had become.
Signs
that gold was ripe for a correction were rife after its sharp rally to
record highs in early September—which saw it surge by 28 percent in just
over two months—was followed by a period of intense volatility.
"The
rise in volatility taking place in the gold price was clearly an
indication that gold was no longer a low-risk asset," said Natixis
analyst Nic Brown.
"We
are unwinding much of recent move over last two to three months. It's
too early to say whether it's the big burst. It could be, but it's
equally possible that it could be what allows the market to push over
further highs over the next few months."
Long-term investors hold on
Holdings of gold-backed exchange-traded funds have remained relatively steady during recent sell-offs, suggesting they have been reasonably resilient to short-term moves.
Analysts say recent sharp price moves are a likely result of repositioning by large institutional investors like hedge funds. But these are not the only, or even the main, buyers of gold.
Small-scale retail investors, particularly Asian buyers looking for a store of wealth and a hedge against inflation, have also been key bullion buyers, and are likely to remain so.
In
the short term, investors are likely to be wary of "catching a falling
knife," and buying into the market before the correction has fully run
its course. But they may be swift to do so as prices stabilize, analysts
predicted.
While
gold's retracement was sharp, spot prices are still up 7 percent this
quarter, and nearly 14 percent on the year, despite the failure of a
number of key risk factors, like fears of a U.S. default or fresh monetary easing, to materialize.
"In
Q4 2008... the gold price fell by 25 percent over a fairly short
period," said VM Group analyst Carl Firman. "But it does tend to recover
at significantly higher levels."
"I
think what you will see could be a gold recovery very similar to the
one you saw in Q1 2009, when the gold price recovered long before other
assets hit bottom," Firman said.
"We
are still looking at a high inflationary environment, we are looking at
negative real interest rates, there are all sorts of uncertainties out
there," he said. "That has got to benefit gold, at some point."
Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters.
SOURCE: http://www.cnbc.com/id/44671131
23.9.11
A Gold Rush Wanes as Hedge Funds Sell
By: Julie Creswell,
The New York Times
The New York Times
Is the smart money fleeing gold?
For the better part of the last two years, some of the world’s biggest hedge funds have been piling into gold, betting the precious metal would
provide an effective hedge against inflation or be a safer place to
park cash as equity markets around the world stumbled.
But to the surprise of many investors, when equity markets across the globe tumbled once again on Thursday, gold moved sharply lower as well.
Gold futures
for September delivery fell $66.30, or 3.7 percent, to $1,739.20 an
ounce in New York. It was quite a turnabout for the metal, which has
been soaring in recent months amid the turbulent stock markets.
Hedge funds, which have been ratcheting down their positions in
gold futures since early August, were quickly named as the culprits in
the latest sell-off.
Some
traders said that hedge funds were beginning to unwind, or close out,
what has been a very popular and profitable trade for the last 18 months
as they bet the dollar would fall and that gold would rise. In the last
month alone, the euro has fallen nearly 4 percent against the dollar amid worries about the European debt crisis.
The
sell-off in gold was part of a broader move in the markets that had
investors shifting away from perceived riskier assets, like commodities,
and into the dollar in reaction to the Federal Reserve’s announcement
on Wednesday of its new stimulus program.
In addition, the Fed,
said that there were “significant downside risks” to the United
States economy, which sent several commodities, including crude oil and
copper, tumbling on Thursday on fears of a global slowdown in demand.
Other
market participants said hedge funds were selling their positions in
gold to raise cash to meet increased capital demands for their
borrowings from Wall Street banks as the assets they have put up as
collateral, like other commodities or stocks, have declined sharply in
value.
“On the one
hand you have a lot of strength in the U.S. dollar, historically gold
and the dollar do trade inversely,” said Ryan Detrick, senior technical
strategist at Schaeffer’s Investment Research. “The hedge funds are long
gold and they need to raise cash and it looks like they are definitely
selling some gold.”
Others say some hedge funds may be selling to meet redemption requests from investors who have been spooked by the recent market volatility and fear a repeat of the problems of late 2008.
“A
lot of investors are waking up to the realization that something is
off. We’ve seen Goldman Sachs close its flagship fund, legendary hedge
funds are down sharply, and I suspect we’re going to see significant
withdrawals from some hedge funds this year,” said Michael A. Gayed, the
chief investment strategist of the investment advisory firm Pension
Partners.
“The
tendency for individual hedge funds or anybody is to sell winners before
they sell losers. What’s been one of the few winners this year? It’s
been gold,” Mr. Gayed added.
Still,
some are not yet ready to call the end of the gold rush. Even with the
pullback, gold remains one of the most profitable investments this year
with a gain of 22 percent.
Some
strategists have even predicted that gold will reach a record of above
$2,300, which it hit during the early 1980s when adjusted for inflation
and translated into current dollars. Likewise, the world’s largest
exchange-traded gold fund, the SPDR Gold Shares [GLD
161.22
-7.83
(-4.63%)
], fell 2.6 percent on Thursday, but remains up 22 percent for the year.
Gold,
whether through futures contracts or via exchange-traded funds, has
been a popular investment among some of the world’s largest hedge funds.
One of the best known “gold bugs” is John A. Paulson, whose firm,
Paulson & Company, is the biggest shareholder in the SPDR Gold
Shares ETF. But many other hedge funds have embraced the metal as well.
After
peaking in early August, hedge funds have been reducing their exposure
in the gold futures market, according to Mary Ann Bartels, the head of
United States technical analysis for Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
SOURCE: http://www.cnbc.com/id/44638898
22.9.11
Soros: US Is Already in Double-Dip Recession
Published: Thursday, 22 Sep 2011 | 1:51 AM ET
By: Reporting by Maria Bartiromo, Writing by Antonya Allen, CNBC.com
Billionaire investor George Soros said he believed the United States was already experiencing the pain of a double dip recession and that Republican opposition to Obama's fiscal stimulus plans was to blame for sluggish growth.
Asked by CNBC if he believed the US risks falling into a double-dip recession
, Soror said: "I think we are in it already."
"We have a slowdown and basically a conflict about whether the rich ought to pay taxes to create jobs or not and there was a deal in the making which would have balanced the budget over the long term, but would have allowed short-term fiscal stimulus, which would have been the right policy," Soros said in an interview late Wednesday.
"That was rejected, it fell apart… so it will come to the electorate next year to decide what they want," he added.
Euro zone policymakers have repeatedly followed the wrong policy shifts, creating a situation in Europe "more dangerous" to the global financial system than the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, Soros said.
"It is a more dangerous situation [than Lehman Bros] and I think that the authorities, when push comes to shove, will do whatever it takes to hold the system together, because the alternative is just too terrible to contemplate," he added.
A number of smaller euro zone nations
could default andleave the single currency area, Soros said, but he warned if it happened on an ad hoc basis, there would be considerable risk to the global economy.
"I think that you could have two or three of the small countries default or leave the euro provided it is prepared and done in an orderly way," Soros said.
"If it were to happen unprepared it could actually disrupt the global financial system, but that's why it's important to allow for it to happen and then those countries have a genuine choice it doesn't mean they are being pushed out."
Soros said he believed the so-called 'Troika' of the EU, ECB and IMF
would release the next tranche of aid to heavily indebted Greece, but he stressed the creation of a European bailout fund would determine whether Greece received another bailout in December.
8.9.11
Obama's jobs speech transcript
|
Obama's jobs speech transcript
September 8, 2011 07:42 PM EDT |
|
|
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary September 8, 2011 Remarks of President Barack Obama in an Address to a Joint Session of Congress
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, and fellow Americans:
Tonight we meet at an urgent time for our country. We continue to face an economic crisis that has left millions of our neighbors jobless, and a political crisis that has made things worse. This past week, reporters have been asking “What will this speech mean for the President? What will it mean for Congress? How will it affect their polls, and the next election?” But the millions of Americans who are watching right now: they don’t care about politics. They have real life concerns. Many have spent months looking for work. Others are doing their best just to scrape by – giving up nights out with the family to save on gas or make the mortgage; postponing retirement to send a kid to college. These men and women grew up with faith in an America where hard work and responsibility paid off. They believed in a country where everyone gets a fair shake and does their fair share – where if you stepped up, did your job, and were loyal to your company, that loyalty would be rewarded with a decent salary and good benefits; maybe a raise once in awhile. If you did the right thing, you could make it in America. But for decades now, Americans have watched that compact erode. They have seen the deck too often stacked against them. And they know that Washington hasn’t always put their interests first. The people of this country work hard to meet their responsibilities. The question tonight is whether we’ll meet ours. The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy; whether we can restore some of the fairness and security that has defined this nation since our beginning. Those of us here tonight can’t solve all of our nation’s woes. Ultimately, our recovery will be driven not by Washington, but by our businesses and our workers. But we can help. We can make a difference. There are steps we can take right now to improve people’s lives. I am sending this Congress a plan that you should pass right away. It’s called the American Jobs Act. There should be nothing controversial about this piece of legislation. Everything in here is the kind of proposal that’s been supported by both Democrats and Republicans – including many who sit here tonight. And everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything. The purpose of the American Jobs Act is simple: to put more people back to work and more money in the pockets of those who are working. It will create more jobs for construction workers, more jobs for teachers, more jobs for veterans, and more jobs for the long-term unemployed. It will provide a tax break for companies who hire new workers, and it will cut payroll taxes in half for every working American and every small business. It will provide a jolt to an economy that has stalled, and give companies confidence that if they invest and hire, there will be customers for their products and services. You should pass this jobs plan right away. Everyone here knows that small businesses are where most new jobs begin. And you know that while corporate profits have come roaring back, smaller companies haven’t. So for everyone who speaks so passionately about making life easier for “job creators,” this plan is for you. Pass this jobs bill, and starting tomorrow, small businesses will get a tax cut if they hire new workers or raise workers’ wages. Pass this jobs bill, and all small business owners will also see their payroll taxes cut in half next year. If you have 50 employees making an average salary, that’s an $80,000 tax cut. And all businesses will be able to continue writing off the investments they make in 2012. It’s not just Democrats who have supported this kind of proposal. Fifty House Republicans have proposed the same payroll tax cut that’s in this plan. You should pass it right away. Pass this jobs bill, and we can put people to work rebuilding America. Everyone here knows that we have badly decaying roads and bridges all over this country. Our highways are clogged with traffic. Our skies are the most congested in the world. This is inexcusable. Building a world-class transportation system is part of what made us an economic superpower. And now we’re going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads? At a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right here in America? There are private construction companies all across America just waiting to get to work. There’s a bridge that needs repair between Ohio and Kentucky that’s on one of the busiest trucking routes in North America. A public transit project in Houston that will help clear up one of the worst areas of traffic in the country. And there are schools throughout this country that desperately need renovating. How can we expect our kids to do their best in places that are literally falling apart? This is America. Every child deserves a great school – and we can give it to them, if we act now. The American Jobs Act will repair and modernize at least 35,000 schools. It will put people to work right now fixing roofs and windows; installing science labs and high-speed internet in classrooms all across this country. It will rehabilitate homes and businesses in communities hit hardest by foreclosures. It will jumpstart thousands of transportation projects across the country. And to make sure the money is properly spent and for good purposes, we’re building on reforms we’ve already put in place. No more earmarks. No more boondoggles. No more bridges to nowhere. We’re cutting the red tape that prevents some of these projects from getting started as quickly as possible. And we’ll set up an independent fund to attract private dollars and issue loans based on two criteria: how badly a construction project is needed and how much good it would do for the economy. This idea came from a bill written by a Texas Republican and a Massachusetts Democrat. The idea for a big boost in construction is supported by America’s largest business organization and America’s largest labor organization. It’s the kind of proposal that’s been supported in the past by Democrats and Republicans alike. You should pass it right away. Pass this jobs bill, and thousands of teachers in every state will go back to work. These are the men and women charged with preparing our children for a world where the competition has never been tougher. But while they’re adding teachers in places like South Korea, we’re laying them off in droves. It’s unfair to our kids. It undermines their future and ours. And it has to stop. Pass this jobs bill, and put our teachers back in the classroom where they belong. Pass this jobs bill, and companies will get extra tax credits if they hire America’s veterans. We ask these men and women to leave their careers, leave their families, and risk their lives to fight for our country. The last thing they should have to do is fight for a job when they come home. Pass this bill, and hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young people will have the hope and dignity of a summer job next year. And their parents, low-income Americans who desperately want to work, will have more ladders out of poverty. Pass this jobs bill, and companies will get a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job. We have to do more to help the long-term unemployed in their search for work. This jobs plan builds on a program in Georgia that several Republican leaders have highlighted, where people who collect unemployment insurance participate in temporary work as a way to build their skills while they look for a permanent job. The plan also extends unemployment insurance for another year. If the millions of unemployed Americans stopped getting this insurance, and stopped using that money for basic necessities, it would be a devastating blow to this economy. Democrats and Republicans in this Chamber have supported unemployment insurance plenty of times in the past. At this time of prolonged hardship, you should pass it again – right away. Pass this jobs bill, and the typical working family will get a fifteen hundred dollar tax cut next year. Fifteen hundred dollars that would have been taken out of your paycheck will go right into your pocket. This expands on the tax cut that Democrats and Republicans already passed for this year. If we allow that tax cut to expire – if we refuse to act – middle-class families will get hit with a tax increase at the worst possible time. We cannot let that happen. I know some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live. Now is not the time to carve out an exception and raise middle-class taxes, which is why you should pass this bill right away. This is the American Jobs Act. It will lead to new jobs for construction workers, teachers, veterans, first responders, young people and the long-term unemployed. It will provide tax credits to companies that hire new workers, tax relief for small business owners, and tax cuts for the middle-class. And here’s the other thing I want the American people to know: the American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit. It will be paid for. And here’s how: The agreement we passed in July will cut government spending by about $1 trillion over the next ten years. It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Tonight, I’m asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act. And a week from Monday, I’ll be releasing a more ambitious deficit plan – a plan that will not only cover the cost of this jobs bill, but stabilize our debt in the long run. This approach is basically the one I’ve been advocating for months. In addition to the trillion dollars of spending cuts I’ve already signed into law, it’s a balanced plan that would reduce the deficit by making additional spending cuts; by making modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid; and by reforming our tax code in a way that asks the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share. What’s more, the spending cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small business and middle-class families get back on their feet right away. Now, I realize there are some in my party who don’t think we should make any changes at all to Medicare and Medicaid, and I understand their concerns. But here’s the truth. Millions of Americans rely on Medicare in their retirement. And millions more will do so in the future. They pay for this benefit during their working years. They earn it. But with an aging population and rising health care costs, we are spending too fast to sustain the program. And if we don’t gradually reform the system while protecting current beneficiaries, it won’t be there when future retirees need it. We have to reform Medicare to strengthen it. I’m also well aware that there are many Republicans who don’t believe we should raise taxes on those who are most fortunate and can best afford it. But here is what every American knows. While most people in this country struggle to make ends meet, a few of the most affluent citizens and corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets. Right now, Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary – an outrage he has asked us to fix. We need a tax code where everyone gets a fair shake, and everybody pays their fair share. And I believe the vast majority of wealthy Americans and CEOs are willing to do just that, if it helps the economy grow and gets our fiscal house in order. I’ll also offer ideas to reform a corporate tax code that stands as a monument to special interest influence in Washington. By eliminating pages of loopholes and deductions, we can lower one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Our tax code shouldn’t give an advantage to companies that can afford the best-connected lobbyists. It should give an advantage to companies that invest and create jobs here in America. So we can reduce this deficit, pay down our debt, and pay for this jobs plan in the process. But in order to do this, we have to decide what our priorities are. We have to ask ourselves, “What’s the best way to grow the economy and create jobs?” Should we keep tax loopholes for oil companies? Or should we use that money to give small business owners a tax credit when they hire new workers? Because we can’t afford to do both. Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs? Right now, we can’t afford to do both. This isn’t political grandstanding. This isn’t class warfare. This is simple math. These are real choices that we have to make. And I’m pretty sure I know what most Americans would choose. It’s not even close. And it’s time for us to do what’s right for our future. The American Jobs Act answers the urgent need to create jobs right away. But we can’t stop there. As I’ve argued since I ran for this office, we have to look beyond the immediate crisis and start building an economy that lasts into the future – an economy that creates good, middle-class jobs that pay well and offer security. We now live in a world where technology has made it possible for companies to take their business anywhere. If we want them to start here and stay here and hire here, we have to be able to out-build, out-educate, and out-innovate every other country on Earth. This task, of making America more competitive for the long haul, is a job for all of us. For government and for private companies. For states and for local communities – and for every American citizen. All of us will have to up our game. All of us will have to change the way we do business. My administration can and will take some steps to improve our competitiveness on our own. For example, if you’re a small business owner who has a contract with the federal government, we’re going to make sure you get paid a lot faster than you do now. We’re also planning to cut away the red tape that prevents too many rapidly-growing start-up companies from raising capital and going public. And to help responsible homeowners, we’re going to work with Federal housing agencies to help more people refinance their mortgages at interest rates that are now near 4% — a step that can put more than $2,000 a year in a family’s pocket, and give a lift to an economy still burdened by the drop in housing prices. Other steps will require Congressional action. Today you passed reform that will speed up the outdated patent process, so that entrepreneurs can turn a new idea into a new business as quickly as possible. That’s the kind of action we need. Now it’s time to clear the way for a series of trade agreements that would make it easier for American companies to sell their products in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea – while also helping the workers whose jobs have been affected by global competition. If Americans can buy Kias and Hyundais, I want to see folks in South Korea driving Fords and Chevys and Chryslers. I want to see more products sold around the world stamped with three proud words: “Made in America.” And on all of our efforts to strengthen competitiveness, we need to look for ways to work side-by-side with America’s businesses. That’s why I’ve brought together a Jobs Council of leaders from different industries who are developing a wide range of new ideas to help companies grow and create jobs. Already, we’ve mobilized business leaders to train 10,000 American engineers a year, by providing company internships and training. Other businesses are covering tuition for workers who learn new skills at community colleges. And we’re going to make sure the next generation of manufacturing takes root not in China or Europe, but right here, in the United States of America. If we provide the right incentives and support – and if we make sure our trading partners play by the rules – we can be the ones to build everything from fuel-efficient cars to advanced biofuels to semiconductors that are sold all over the world. That’s how America can be number one again. That’s how America will be number one again. Now, I realize that some of you have a different theory on how to grow the economy. Some of you sincerely believe that the only solution to our economic challenges is to simply cut most government spending and eliminate most government regulations. Well, I agree that we can’t afford wasteful spending, and I will continue to work with Congress to get rid of it. And I agree that there are some rules and regulations that put an unnecessary burden on businesses at a time when they can least afford it. That’s why I ordered a review of all government regulations. So far, we’ve identified over 500 reforms, which will save billions of dollars over the next few years. We should have no more regulation than the health, safety, and security of the American people require. Every rule should meet that common sense test. But what we can’t do – what I won’t do – is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades. I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety. I reject the argument that says for the economy to grow, we have to roll back protections that ban hidden fees by credit card companies, or rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury, or laws that prevent the health insurance industry from shortchanging patients. I reject the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy. We shouldn’t be in a race to the bottom, where we try to offer the cheapest labor and the worst pollution standards. America should be in a race to the top. And I believe that’s a race we can win. In fact, this larger notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everyone’s money, let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they’re on their own – that’s not who we are. That’s not the story of America. Yes, we are rugged individualists. Yes, we are strong and self-reliant. And it has been the drive and initiative of our workers and entrepreneurs that has made this economy the engine and envy of the world. But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. But in the middle of a Civil War, he was also a leader who looked to the future – a Republican president who mobilized government to build the transcontinental railroad; launch the National Academy of Sciences; and set up the first land grant colleges. And leaders of both parties have followed the example he set. Ask yourselves – where would we be right now if the people who sat here before us decided not to build our highways and our bridges; our dams and our airports? What would this country be like if we had chosen not to spend money on public high schools, or research universities, or community colleges? Millions of returning heroes, including my grandfather, had the opportunity to go to school because of the GI Bill. Where would we be if they hadn’t had that chance? How many jobs would it have cost us if past Congresses decided not to support the basic research that led to the Internet and the computer chip? What kind of country would this be if this Chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? How many Americans would have suffered as a result? No single individual built America on their own. We built it together. We have been, and always will be, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all; a nation with responsibilities to ourselves and with responsibilities to one another. Members of Congress, it is time for us to meet our responsibilities. Every proposal I’ve laid out tonight is the kind that’s been supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past. Every proposal I’ve laid out tonight will be paid for. And every proposal is designed to meet the urgent needs of our people and our communities. I know there’s been a lot of skepticism about whether the politics of the moment will allow us to pass this jobs plan – or any jobs plan. Already, we’re seeing the same old press releases and tweets flying back and forth. Already, the media has proclaimed that it’s impossible to bridge our differences. And maybe some of you have decided that those differences are so great that we can only resolve them at the ballot box. But know this: the next election is fourteen months away. And the people who sent us here – the people who hired us to work for them – they don’t have the luxury of waiting fourteen months. Some of them are living week to week; paycheck to paycheck; even day to day. They need help, and they need it now. I don’t pretend that this plan will solve all our problems. It shouldn’t be, nor will it be, the last plan of action we propose. What’s guided us from the start of this crisis hasn’t been the search for a silver bullet. It’s been a commitment to stay at it – to be persistent – to keep trying every new idea that works, and listen to every good proposal, no matter which party comes up with it. Regardless of the arguments we’ve had in the past, regardless of the arguments we’ll have in the future, this plan is the right thing to do right now. You should pass it. And I intend to take that message to every corner of this country. I also ask every American who agrees to lift your voice and tell the people who are gathered here tonight that you want action now. Tell Washington that doing nothing is not an option. Remind us that if we act as one nation, and one people, we have it within our power to meet this challenge. President Kennedy once said, “Our problems are man-made – therefore they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants.” These are difficult years for our country. But we are Americans. We are tougher than the times that we live in, and we are bigger than our politics have been. So let’s meet the moment. Let’s get to work, and show the world once again why the United States of America remains the greatest nation on Earth. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. SOURCE: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4B560AE8-0819-5D2E-D6E227091DB7DE5E ### |
|
|
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2012
(6)
- ▼ 02/05 - 02/12 (3)
- ► 01/29 - 02/05 (2)
- ► 01/08 - 01/15 (1)
-
►
2011
(36)
- ► 09/25 - 10/02 (1)
- ► 09/18 - 09/25 (2)
- ► 09/04 - 09/11 (2)
- ► 08/21 - 08/28 (4)
- ► 08/14 - 08/21 (6)
- ► 08/07 - 08/14 (3)
- ► 07/31 - 08/07 (2)
- ► 07/24 - 07/31 (3)
- ► 07/17 - 07/24 (3)
- ► 06/26 - 07/03 (1)
- ► 06/12 - 06/19 (1)
- ► 06/05 - 06/12 (1)
- ► 01/23 - 01/30 (1)
- ► 01/16 - 01/23 (1)
- ► 01/09 - 01/16 (5)
-
►
2010
(23)
- ► 12/26 - 01/02 (1)
- ► 12/12 - 12/19 (2)
- ► 11/28 - 12/05 (2)
- ► 09/19 - 09/26 (1)
- ► 08/29 - 09/05 (1)
- ► 08/08 - 08/15 (2)
- ► 08/01 - 08/08 (2)
- ► 07/25 - 08/01 (5)
- ► 07/18 - 07/25 (3)
- ► 03/28 - 04/04 (1)
- ► 03/07 - 03/14 (1)
- ► 02/28 - 03/07 (1)
- ► 02/21 - 02/28 (1)
-
►
2009
(82)
- ► 09/27 - 10/04 (2)
- ► 09/20 - 09/27 (2)
- ► 08/02 - 08/09 (3)
- ► 07/19 - 07/26 (1)
- ► 07/12 - 07/19 (1)
- ► 06/14 - 06/21 (5)
- ► 05/31 - 06/07 (2)
- ► 05/24 - 05/31 (3)
- ► 05/17 - 05/24 (1)
- ► 05/03 - 05/10 (2)
- ► 04/26 - 05/03 (4)
- ► 04/19 - 04/26 (5)
- ► 04/12 - 04/19 (3)
- ► 04/05 - 04/12 (3)
- ► 03/29 - 04/05 (6)
- ► 03/22 - 03/29 (7)
- ► 03/15 - 03/22 (5)
- ► 03/08 - 03/15 (5)
- ► 03/01 - 03/08 (3)
- ► 02/22 - 03/01 (4)
- ► 02/15 - 02/22 (3)
- ► 02/08 - 02/15 (6)
- ► 02/01 - 02/08 (1)
- ► 01/25 - 02/01 (2)
- ► 01/18 - 01/25 (1)
- ► 01/11 - 01/18 (1)
- ► 01/04 - 01/11 (1)
-
►
2008
(158)
- ► 12/28 - 01/04 (1)
- ► 12/21 - 12/28 (2)
- ► 12/07 - 12/14 (3)
- ► 11/30 - 12/07 (6)
- ► 11/23 - 11/30 (2)
- ► 11/16 - 11/23 (1)
- ► 11/09 - 11/16 (3)
- ► 11/02 - 11/09 (5)
- ► 10/26 - 11/02 (7)
- ► 10/19 - 10/26 (12)
- ► 10/12 - 10/19 (16)
- ► 10/05 - 10/12 (10)
- ► 09/28 - 10/05 (12)
- ► 09/21 - 09/28 (6)
- ► 09/14 - 09/21 (10)
- ► 08/31 - 09/07 (2)
- ► 08/17 - 08/24 (3)
- ► 08/10 - 08/17 (3)
- ► 08/03 - 08/10 (7)
- ► 07/27 - 08/03 (6)
- ► 07/20 - 07/27 (1)
- ► 07/13 - 07/20 (2)
- ► 07/06 - 07/13 (6)
- ► 06/29 - 07/06 (1)
- ► 06/22 - 06/29 (2)
- ► 06/15 - 06/22 (1)
- ► 06/08 - 06/15 (2)
- ► 06/01 - 06/08 (3)
- ► 03/16 - 03/23 (1)
- ► 02/17 - 02/24 (1)
- ► 02/10 - 02/17 (3)
- ► 02/03 - 02/10 (2)
- ► 01/27 - 02/03 (3)
- ► 01/20 - 01/27 (1)
- ► 01/13 - 01/20 (3)
- ► 01/06 - 01/13 (9)
-
►
2007
(180)
- ► 12/30 - 01/06 (1)
- ► 12/23 - 12/30 (8)
- ► 12/16 - 12/23 (8)
- ► 12/09 - 12/16 (14)
- ► 12/02 - 12/09 (13)
- ► 11/25 - 12/02 (14)
- ► 11/18 - 11/25 (11)
- ► 11/11 - 11/18 (4)
- ► 11/04 - 11/11 (12)
- ► 10/28 - 11/04 (13)
- ► 10/21 - 10/28 (3)
- ► 10/14 - 10/21 (6)
- ► 10/07 - 10/14 (3)
- ► 09/30 - 10/07 (8)
- ► 09/23 - 09/30 (4)
- ► 09/16 - 09/23 (11)
- ► 09/09 - 09/16 (1)
- ► 09/02 - 09/09 (9)
- ► 08/19 - 08/26 (7)
- ► 08/12 - 08/19 (8)
- ► 08/05 - 08/12 (8)
- ► 07/29 - 08/05 (10)
- ► 07/22 - 07/29 (4)