SI
SI

 Strategies & Market Trends | Natural Resource Stocks


Previous 10 | Next 10 
From: isopatch1/19/2011 1:11:23 PM
of 90441
 
ot/But thought provoking. <Brain Drain: Most College Students Learn Next to Nothing, New Study Says

Posted Jan 18, 2011 02:49pm EST

by Stacy Curtin

With millions of people out of work in this country -- many who have college degrees and even advanced degrees -- rising tuition costs have many wondering if college students are getting the bang for their parents' buck. (See: Rethinking College as Student-Loan Burdens Rise)

A new study suggests, “not hardly,” if the goal of earning a four-year college degree is to actually learn something.

The report based on the book Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses found that after two years of college, 45% of students learned little to nothing. After four years, 36% of students learned almost nothing.

Lack of Learning

Most people would jump to the conclusion that it is the fault of the college student who just wants to have fun and party, but that’s not entirely the full picture. Even though students are about 50% less likely to study today than in previous decades, the report found universities are to blame as well; largely because professors spend too much time focused on research and not enough time on the students.

On the flipside, the real world still does value a college education.

Even (and especially) in today's tough labor market, Corporate America agrees that, "yes" college is worth every penny as most employers consider a college degree a prerequisite for employment.

Do you think college is worth the cost?>

finance.yahoo.com 

Comments?

TIA

Iso

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: isopatch1/19/2011 1:26:09 PM
of 90441
 
Magnum Hunter longs get blown out of the box:

<Meet Today's Berserk HFT Algo-Driven Flash Crash: Magnum Hunter Resources

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/19/2011 10:16 -0500

Today's flash crash du jour comes to you courtesy of Magnum Hunter Corporation (MHR), which in the span of a few tick lost half its $500 million market cap. Unlike most other such HFT triggered events, there was actionable news, after the company announced it would acquire NuLoch Resources, yet still the fact that a selling algo can take out virtually the entire orderbook half way down to zero would once be considered at least modestly surprising. Not so much anymore.>

Below is the live action snapshot of this latest in the massive surge of MM engineered aka <fat finger> muggings in the past few years. It's one of the reasons so many investors have left the equity markets:

zerohedge.com 

zerohedge.com 

Logged off til later,

Iso

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: isopatch who wrote (88396)1/19/2011 1:28:26 PM
From: Mannie of 90441
 
These flash crashes sure make stops difficult to use.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Mannie who wrote (88397)1/19/2011 1:47:35 PM
From: isopatch of 90441
 
That they do, Scott. And that makes managing company specific risk more difficult.

It's yet another reason my wife and I continue to diversify away from our over concentration in equities. We've made progress, in the past few years, but still have a lot to do.

Iso

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: isopatch who wrote (88398)1/19/2011 4:16:57 PM
From: Mannie of 90441
 
Social Security Is in Far Worse Shape Than You Think
By CHARLES HUGH SMITH


For years, politicians and policymakers have reassured the American public that the Social Security system, which sends monthly checks out to 53 million beneficiaries, is safely solvent -- and will be for decades to come. But federal spending and income data from the Treasury Department reveal that the Social Security program is already deep in the red, with outlays exceeding payroll tax revenues by $76 billion in 2010 alone.

This stunning shortfall calls into question the rosy fiscal forecasts made by the Social Security Administration (SSA) about the program's future solvency.

The annual report of the Social Security Trustees, published in August 2010, forecast that the primary Social Security program, the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (OASI), would not exceed its tax receipts until 2018. Unfortunately, it happened in fiscal 2010, which ended in October. That year's outlays for the OASI fund were about $580 billion, while receipts came to only $540 billion -- a whopping $40 billion shortfall.

Add in the deficit from the second Social Security fund, Disability Insurance (DI), and the gap between total SSA outlays ($707 billion in 2010, according to the Treasury) and tax receipts ($631 billion) grows to $76 billion -- more than 10% of the program's expenses.

Short-Term Estimates Were Way Off the Mark

The SSA trustees had estimated a $41 billion deficit (excluding interest income), but the final deficit came to $76 billion -- almost twice what they had guessed. Just as troubling, their estimate for total SSA income in 2010 (which included both Social Security payroll taxes and interest paid by the Treasury on the Social Security Trust Funds) was $791 billion -- a number that overshot the actual total income of $741 billion (tax receipts of $631 billion plus interest income of about $110 billion) by $50 billion.

That the trustees could miss estimates only a few months into the future by such huge margins calls into question the accuracy of their long-term projections, which are stated in the report:

"Social Security expenditures are expected to exceed tax receipts this year for the first time since 1983. The projected deficit of $41 billion this year (excluding interest income) is attributable to the recession. This deficit is expected to shrink substantially for 2011 and to return to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving economy. After 2014 deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the baby boom generation's retirement causes the number of beneficiaries to grow substantially more rapidly than the number of covered workers. The annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037."


SSA's estimate for total income in 2011 is $855 billion -- fully $114 billion more than the program's actual income in 2010 ($741 billion). With employment stagnant, is a 15% jump in payroll taxes remotely plausible?

Payroll Taxes Won't Bounce Back That Fast

For context, let's look at what happened to Social Security receipts in 2009, a recession year, and 2010, a year of modest economic recovery.

Sponsored Links
According to the SSA, the system's income for 2009 was $807 billion ($698.2 billion in the OASI and $109.3 billion in the DI). Income in 2010 was $741 billion -- a massive one-year decline of $66 billion.

Given the magnitude of this recessionary drop in income, it's difficult to place much faith in the trustees' extremely optimistic forecast of double-digit payroll tax increases in 2011. As I reported on DailyFinance in December, job gains have been exceedingly modest in the 154 million-worker U.S. economy, and many of those jobs were temporary or part-time. Factor in lower incomes for the self-employed, and it's little wonder that payroll tax receipts have been flat.

The trustees' forecast of Social Security's outlays in 2010 were much more accurate than their estimates of income: The report anticipated outlays of $714 billion, and the final total came in at $707 billion. The report's estimate of 2011 outlays is $742 billion, an increase of $35 billion, which is higher than the 3.5% ($23.8 billion) jump in 2010 costs over 2009 outlays.

That $742 billion estimate for 2011 costs is almost exactly equal to 2010 income of $741 billion. That means if outlays were to rise even a bit more than expected, or income were to decline from 2010 totals, Social Security would hit a deficit that the trustees aren't expecting to occur until 2025. Given that shortfalls have already reached levels the SSA hadn't expected until 2018, it's not that big a leap to conclude that the system's projections are woefully out of alignment with the nation's new realities.

Retiring on Borrowed Time

What do these potentially large, structural deficits in Social Security mean? It's simple: The Treasury will have to borrow more money on the global bond market to fill the gap, increasing pressure on an already unprecedented federal deficit.

Given the above data, it's unsurprising to find that the Treasury needed to borrow money to pay Social Security benefits in 15 out of the last 25 months. When the cost of monthly benefit payments exceeds the Social Security tax revenues, then the Treasury has to fill the gap with borrowed money.

Policymakers and citizens alike will need to have a realistic grasp of these Social Security deficits if they're to make the tough decisions about taxes and spending that lie ahead.

See full article from DailyFinance: srph.it 

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Mannie who wrote (88399)1/19/2011 5:13:15 PM
From: isopatch of 90441
 
Amazing./eom

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: isopatch who wrote (88395)1/19/2011 5:27:10 PM
From: FreedomForAll of 90441
 
What a bargain I got in the 70s. But when I went to school even public schools gave good value if the reasonably intelligent student wanted to learn. There were plenty of distractions then, too. I think my 4-year degree from a well known, well respected state uni cost about $4000. Today, it would cost 16 times that price.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: FreedomForAll who wrote (88401)1/19/2011 5:45:01 PM
From: isopatch of 90441
 
Ditto. Graduated from Rutgers in 1968. In state tuition was incredibly cheap.

The real rub is college costs have increased more rapidly than inflation. This chart shows the rapidly increasing divergence from 1978-2008:

satyagraha.files.wordpress.com 

<Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics and the College Board.

The figure compares inflation over the last 30 years associated with (1) the general cost of living, (2) the cost of medical care, and (3) college tuition and fees.>

In todays job environment, post secondary vocation programs for careers in recession resistant job categories which can't be exported R better investment values and offer greater job security than most 4 yr academic college degrees.

In my conversation with successful parents of my generation, most still resist this conclusion. But, economic reality will eventually make it unavoidable. And college enrollments will decline.

Iso

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: isopatch1/19/2011 5:58:46 PM
of 90441
 
Worthwhile read: <Tom DeMark: A 11% Drop In The Market Is Imminent

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/19/2011 09:21 -0500

Tom DeMark, whose Sequential and Combo indicators are among the most used indicators by professional technicians and chartists on Wall Street, is out with some chilling words overnight. The Market Studies LLC president told Bloomberg that U.S. stocks are within a week of “a significant market top” that is likely to precede a drop of at least 11 percent in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. “I’m pretty confident that in one to two weeks, the market will be in a descent,” said DeMark, founder and chief executive officer of Market Studies LLC. “It could be pretty sharp.” And since the Hindenburg Omen in mid-August was prevented from taking its share of scalps only by dint of the Chairman's Woods Hole speech a week later which set off the market on the biggest melt up since... well August of 2009, we wonder if the Fed's Open Market Operations desk will take this warning as a leading indicator to start spreading rumors of another QE expansion. Keep a close eye on those Jon Hilsenrath "leaks."

From Bloomberg:

DeMark’s forecast follows projections from Wall Street strategists that the S&P 500 will climb to 1,384, an annual gain of 10 percent, through the end of the year, according to the average of 12 estimates in a Bloomberg survey. Short selling of companies in the index has fallen to the lowest level in a year, according to Data Explorers, a New York-based research firm.

Steven A. Cohen, founder of Stamford, Connecticut-based SAC Capital Advisors LP, which manages $12 billion, and John H. Burbank, founder of San Francisco-based Passport Capital LLC, which manages $4.2 billion, are partners in Market Studies, DeMark said. The firm has its headquarters near Scottsdale, Arizona.

On a weekly basis, the two indicators signaled on Jan. 14 that a reversal is imminent as the S&P 500 closed at its highest level since August 2008. DeMark expects a decline of at least 11 percent because his work shows that markets move in increments of 5.56 percent, he said. Assuming a drop twice that size is “a conservative estimate,” he said.

The indicators are based on comparisons of the current closing level of the index with closing and intraday levels over previous periods. The reading Jan. 14 was the first signal of a reversal in the S&P 500 since March 2009, when the indicators showed a rebound was imminent, he said. That month the S&P 500 fell to a 12-year low from which it has rebounded more than 90 percent.

All that said in US central planning market, stocks drop you.>

zerohedge.com 

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Mannie1/19/2011 8:11:42 PM
of 90441
 
Read Replies (1) of 11684

British lawmakers propose energy rationing
January 18, 2011 3:04 pm
by Kiran Stacey


A group of MPs have suggested that the UK should introduce a system of energy rationing to deal with what they view as impending energy and climate crises.

Under the proposed system, a set number of tradeable energy quotas (TEQs) would be issued and used to purchase energy, whether through fuel or electricity.

The amount of energy being used would essentially be capped, and anyone wishing to use more than their personal allowance would have to pay a market rate for that.

The scheme, as proposed by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil, would run like this:

The Committee on Climate Change issue TEQs on a weekly basis, 40 per cent of which would be given for free to individuals and 60 per cent of which would be auctioned off. This part of the scheme works in much the same way as the issuance of government bonds.
When users, whether individuals or businesses, pay for energy, they pay the monetary value but also surrender a certain amount of TEQs (the amount depends on the amount of carbon used in producing the energy). Effectively, energy users pay double for their energy.
Each entity that gets paid for their energy pays in turn for their energy through TEQs, all the way up to the primary producers, who then redeem that with the government.
The primary objection is obvious: this leaves the (presently cash-strapped) consumer paying lots more for the energy they use – not only in terms of the power they consume at home, but also in terms of the extra cost of everything they buy. After all, manufacturers are hardly likely to absorb all the extra costs themselves.

Those who support the proposal say it would cost less than the inevitable price spike that will come our way when we hit peak oil — better to ration our energy use now than have it forcibly rationed by a lack of oil.

But their main evidence for an approaching oil crisis seems to be flow rates for the next five years, which is nowhere near enough information to declare for certain that peak oil is around the corner. And even if it was, the shale gas boom is making a mockery of the idea that we’re about to run out of hydrocarbons.

It would be better instead for the group to focus on how this policy would help reduce emissions and tackle climate change. We have to reduce energy by this much to hit our emissions targets, the reasoning would go, all we’re arguing about now is how to allocate what is available – and as a market-driven system, this is possibly the least draconian.

Of course, the consumer still ends up footing the bill, and the system could effectively price poorer people out of the market – but then that is true of almost any other system devised also, including all types of carbon trading.

Two problems lie in wait for this motley group of backbenchers and business leaders: their reliance on the idea that we’re about to run out of oil and gas; and the fact that Chris Huhne, the energy secretary, has just endorsed a carbon floor price as the best way to tackle this issue.

blogs.ft.com 

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.