.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Friday, February 27, 2009


TGIF - The Budget Plan Blues

Is it really necessary for me to explain how much I hate the Obama proposed budget? Why would I need to "expound on the obvious," to borrow a phrase from Haverford's last football coach, the late Dana Swan?

It's really funny to watch Jim Cramer on "Mad Money" railing about the end of capitalism in America, and how there are no "Obama stocks." So what is one to do with one's money if we are going to be the Peoples Republic of the US?

Beats me. My formula is based on the theory of following the market wherever it goes, letting it tell us when it's low so we can buy and high so we can sell. If it all goes to zero, the music stops and we are left without a chair, that is, no one to sell to.

By then, Obama may outlaw the ability to take any tax deductible capital losses at all, since the Treasury will be down to its last few tuppence.

In the meantime, my plan is to follow the formula, even unto oblivion, making sure to take my $3,000 of net allowed losses on each year's tax return. They shouldn't be very hard to assemble. I didn't mind taking gains each year during the low tax Bush years (even tax year 2008), figuring I could save the losses for the higher tax years surely coming (2011 at the latest). But I'll be darned if I want to pay an extra shekel into this Treasury.

No surprise that a plan to undo our health insurance system made it into the budget scheme. Look, our system is not perfect, and there is a significant uninsured population it does not serve, but they are outnumbered by those it does. I expect the controversy over that issue to be a real donnybrook. Looked at from the perspective of the world, there should be at least one country where you can get immediate service and right now that's here. If we go the socialized route, where will Canadians go when they need surgery?


I often blog about things I read in the Wall St. Journal, which I consider the best value of just about any product I buy. For those who eschew old fashioned newsprint, the on-line edition is just as serviceable and affordable. By pointing out the many shortfalls of the new administration, the editors and op ed writers on the WSJ serve the important function of loyal opposition, certainly more effectively than their political allies in the GOP. I would gladly offer the following deal to every one of my liberal friends: I will suffer through the daily editorials and op eds of the New York Times (or Slimes as Mark Lavin calls it), giving it full attention and consideration, if you will do the same with the WSJ. I predict you will be at least partially converted before me. And much more entertained.

I say this with confidence since like many neo-conservatives, I am a refugee from the left.

By the way, one controversy erupting this week involves efforts by some of the commissars in Congress to rein in conservative talk radio. Their case seems to be that conservatives' time slots are more the result of some vast right wing conspiracy than market forces, and that's why there are no lefty talk shows. Of course, they completely miss the point. The reason Rush and Mark have an audience is because the mainstream media is left - dominated, and conservatives need another outlet. How could a left oriented show have listeners and advertisers if they are just going to repeat what we hear on the 11:00 network news every night?

President Reagan's elimination of the "fairness doctrine," which was anything but, should not be reversed. I say this even though I am willing to stipulate that Rush and Mark ain't exactly Pulitzer Prize caliber journalists.


Tiger Woods is back, and not a moment too soon for the professional golf tours, losing sponsors and tournaments steadily in his absence. What's more, he seems to have made a remarkable recovery from his serious injuries, walking and swinging easily, looking as fit and athletic as ever. That he lost in the second round of this week's match play (where almost anything can happen) does not take away from the impression that he returns as good as ever.

Great news for golf; not so great for his competition.


Best Family Feud Poll Result - What do you take on a hunting trip with (former) VP Cheney? Most popular answer - Bullet proof vest.


Monday, I bought 400 shares of Gencor (GENC), a value buy at the discounted price of 6.15. We had a refreshing short covering rally Tuesday, but you knew it was the shorts since the stocks that acted best were the ones that have been pummeled the most recently. In a real rally, the less unscathed would have led the advance. Sure enough, the rest of the week was down.

Today, GE, as has been long predicted by this blog, cut its dividend by two-thirds. We continue to see layoffs, downgrades, rising foreclosures, and lousy revenues and earnings. Having fun yet? In Germany, they have started burning BMW's and other luxury cars. If you still have a Lexus, you might want to trade it for a Camry. Ostentatious is out.

One bracing item was that Fed Reserve Chairman Bernanke, in a stunningly intelligent dialogue with Representative Ackerman (D-NY), agreed that restoration of the short selling uptick rule and relaxation of mark-to-market accounting might alleviate the economic crisis. I never would have suspected that Helicopter Ben was a redwavemusings reader. That was enough to intensify Tuesday's rally, but for the rest of the week, it was all news Obama all the time and every time he spoke in front of the cameras, it was good enough for 100 Dow points in the wrong direction. His speaking style may be great, but what he is saying is just killing us. At least Bush kept himself cooped up in the Oval Office most of the time.

Thursday, February 19, 2009


Rocky start for the Obama team

"Don't judge a golfer by how his swing looks. Watch where the ball goes." - Bill Russell

So it is with politicians and leaders. Forget the rhetoric, which is often purposely misleading. Watch what they do. Unfortunately, what politicians say creates an impression, an image that is often politically more important than what they actually do. George W. Bush, as inept a communicator as any President in the television era, created all the wrong impressions, and it was from that perspective that his policy decisions were viewed and judged by the media and the public. History will be kinder, since a lot of his policy approaches will be proven correct (other than the mishandling of our current financial mess) and his broken syntax will be recalled with more humor and less mean spirited derision.

If the honeymoon with President Obama and his administration seems undisturbed a month into his term, I would attribute it to the fact that, heck, it's only been a month, there is a well - known media bias in favor of liberal Democrats, and his communications skills are as good as W's were bad. But let's be clear. If you're watching where the policy "ball" is going, and not how its being communicated, you have to be concerned about the following:

1. So far, Mr. Obama is proving that everything the McCain campaign predicted about how he would govern was right on the money. Though he is talking the centrist game, in fact, Obama is governing well to the left, the same pattern that we saw Bill Clinton cleverly execute during his first term. Proof positive is the so-called stimulus plan, stuffed with all the Pelosi/Reid pent up legislative spending ideas they could jam into it, without losing the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate. So the GOP got THE most offensive stuff out of the bill, and that made it palatable for a few eastern moderate Republicans to go along, under the pressure of the Obama campaign to paint the opposition as obstructionists.

2. In foreign affairs, the full scale appeasement campaign is on, again mirroring the Clinton years, with tough talk alternating with clear signals that the US won't take meaningful action. This has been true with respect to both North Korea and Iran for starters. The fiasco with Guantanamo (it's closing, no it's not) and with Afghanistan (the 17,000 troop surge will actually not be in place until the summer?) are just the beginning, I'm afraid. By the way, the Russians are having all they can do to keep from laughing at us publicly, seeing us repeat their mistake by getting bogged down in Afghanistan. Even the Brits know better than to do that, also from bitter experience.

3. On the financial mess, the administration has been very active, but not at all effective, rolling out more and more bailout spending to no apparent effect. Meanwhile, the public relations machine works overtime on the subject of executive compensation, as if fixing that will somehow cure anything. Let's stipulate that executive pay has been a major insult, but the folks bearing the cost have been their beleaguered public stockholders. The financial markets have given a clear thumbs down on the administration's efforts, and the public is probably not far behind, finding a particular aversion to the foreclosure bailout plan allowing people to keep homes they never could have afforded.

So this administration has gotten out of the gate poorly, but shaky starts have become the norm for Presidential terms. There are so many jobs to fill, the government is just so big, and the preceding administration usually allows some tough problems to build up during its lame duck period. Also, the ideas that resonate in campaigns often look unworkable, even foolish, once you grab the reins. So we will stipulate that it's too soon to judge the current administration, only to suggest that so far we are concerned, not impressed.


On the financial mess, it's really not fair to criticize everyone and everything without suggesting a program to get things back on track. So here goes (with few surprises for regular musings readers):

1. The only bailout we really need is the "Bad Bank" approach. I actually think the idea the administration had to use private and public money for the bad bank was a good one, since the hard part about buying these toxic assets is to price them correctly. Put that together quickly and we can stop worrying about massive FDIC interventions and about the solvency of bank counterparties. But is is not clear that the Treasury has figured out how to implement this.

2. Allow historical cost accounting for performing debt instruments in GAAP and for risk based capital calculations. This will nip the vicious cycle of asset devaluation and capital shortages in the bud. Mark-to-mark accounting is killing us.

3. Tell the Fed to develop a mechanism for pegging the dollar to gold, and stop trying to control interest rates. Return the Fed to a single economic responsibility - dollar stability - and restore responsibility for the maintenance of economic health to the administration (Treasury). The Fed should establish a nominal dollar price target range for an ounce of gold ($750-800) and lift that target by 1% or 1.5% per year, allowing only a healthy rate of inflation, but not deflation. Fed open market operations and the discount window can be used to maintain the dollar within the target range. Let the private sector determine the cost of money (interest rates).

4. Otherwise, and certainly once things are stable, let the companies that have to fail, fail. How many generations will have to bail out Chrysler before we realize that this company cannot succeed? But don't nationalize banks, as some are now suggesting, simply because mark-to-market accounting rules force them to raise capital they don't really need to meet cash needs.

5. Regulations, whether relating to the environment, public safety and welfare, or anything else should be subjected to rigorous cost/benefit analysis before implementation. Look at the environmental impact studies it takes to get a plant built and compare that to the comparatively inconsequential hurdles to passing new regulations that cause serious economic harm. The second order impacts from such regulations hurt the public far worse than all the nuclear power plants operating in the US ever have.


Speaking of second order effects, wait until you see the impact tax increases in states like New York have on what's left of our business community there. It seems that only Mayor Blumberg among politicians in the state have figured out that eliminating all of the bonuses and high salaries on Wall Street have destroyed the public treasuries along with the economy. Who do the folks in the state legislature think has been paying for all these state government employees and services anyway?

California has learned the hard way about job and business flight due to extreme tax levels. Now we see them offering giant subsidies to Hollywood, trying to bring their film industry back.

Well, maybe the accidental NY Governor Paterson will figure it out before it's too late, but I doubt it. Polls basically show that he won't beat anyone in 2010, and the public now has the firm impression that he simply isn't up to the job. This is a guy everyone was rooting for initially.

No one gives much thought to who gets the Lieutenant-Governor spot on a ticket. If anything, the job is even more embarrassing than being Vice President. Maybe we need to rethink that. I guess that is why people soured on Governor Palin. She would have been just fine as VP, but lacked the experience if she ever needed to move into the top spot, and maybe the chops too. That's the situation in New York right now, not that the job is easy or the agenda favorable. Unfortunately, this guy has got to go, but the election is not for 21 months, and that's a long time to be saddled with this group. Then, it's going to be Governor Cuomo, I suppose.


Tuesday night, my full service broker's jazz buddies, which include me, went to the Jazz Standard, a favorite venue on East 27th, to see Helen Sung, whom I have blogged about previously, leading a quartet. There was a full house, and the anticipation in the room was feverish. Clearly, Ms. Sung has quickly earned a devoted and loyal New York following, and for good reason. The pianist is perhaps the most exciting young player on the scene. For this gig, the group was recording a live CD, so both sets would be the same selections, giving them two takes, in effect.

We were at the first set, and I can tell you that each of the nine selections was good enough to be a print. Ms. Sung's virtuosity and powerful playing was complemented perfectly by drummer Eric Harland, whose set required some repair after the third selection, the result of his own powerful approach to the bass drum. When the set was over, I was exhausted and all I could say was, "they're going to do THAT SET again?" If I didn't have to catch a train, I would have loved to stay for it.

Ms. Sung is headed for some dates in Europe. She's a must see when she returns.

This is really a brutal stock market. There's no relief when you get to the water torture stage of a bear market, and they're murdering my preferred stocks even worse than the common. Tuesday, I bought 300 more shares of Ladish (LDSH), at the low, low price of 9.51, and it immediately dove even lower. Yesterday, we bounced right back with a new name, Raven Industries (RAVN), my last selection from this year's Forbes best small company list. I bought 100 shares at 20.88. Let's hope the Raven won't be squawking, "Nevermore."

Monday, February 16, 2009


Inscrutable Valentine's Present from Treasury

The Treasury's "Bad Bank" plan did not seem to be a plan at all, just a random collection of ideas that could be called upon to rescue the banking system. Since the financial markets have already endured eight months of Treasury and the Fed playing blind man's bluff with the economic crisis, this was not really bracing. Traders were somehow hoping that the Obama team actually had a set of specific steps to make progress against the crisis, but it soon became clear,as Mr. Gaithner rambled on, that the new team had about as much of a handle on things as the Bush team, and so everyone sold stocks and anything else they could get rid of, other than gold and short dated Treasuries. In fact, we have said here that it was pretty clear that the Obama team did not have the answers or they would have given the Bushies some tactical direction during the transition (why take over an economy in even worse shape?).

We have also said that while there are steps that can and should be taken, there is some aspect of letting slumps just run their course that is, in fact, necessary. I have been cheered the last few days to hear more economists and commentators talking about the advisability of relaxing mark-to-market rules. Without belaboring the need for that, it seems like it could happen, and that would set off a rally, I think.

Otherwise, the market is in sell and see mode, not exactly wait and see. It is a good thing that this will be a four day week. We're not exactly looking for more opportunities to trade.

Probably the least surprising test result in history was when Alex Rodriguez came up positive for steroids. A-Roid would be rightfully indignant about the publicizing of individual results of what was supposed to be an anonymous survey test if he wasn't such a liar and hadn't repeatedly denied using performance enhancing drugs. Worse for baseball than having him outed, following the paths of Bonds and Clemens, is the overall result of the survey showing over a hundred players with positive results.

The major concern about performance enhancing drugs is that it pressures all the players to use them to compete, and that would cause all to risk their long term health. This seems to be exactly the result that occurred during what is now called the steroid era. So does that absolve everyone or cast doubt on their stats and accomplishments? Sadly, it's the latter.

So will A-Rod, Barry and Roger join Shoeless Joe and Charley Hustle on the outside of the Hall of Fame looking in? Ultimately that is a call to be made by the Baseball Writers Association. Maybe we can have a Devil's Hall Annex for those who are otherwise qualified but ethically challenged.

We had a very nice Valentine's dinner at one of the better local restaurants, La Bussola in Glen Cove, and I have to say it was quite busy with people still coming in to fill the tables after 9 PM. This in a reasonably expensive watering hole. The recession is clearly bad, as the statistics make clear, but it is spotty. My wife reports the malls are as busy as ever. People are still spending money, just less than when the economy was riding high.


Cutting this post a little short so that I can get to Dave Barry's blog (blogs.herald.com/dave_barrys_blog/) before "24" starts. I have to say that his blog and the 500 or so comments that will be posted between 9 and 10 PM are as funny as anything you would ever see on TV, and put the show's gratuitous violence and insipid dialogue in perspective without taking away from its fast paced action. So, my priorities being in order, it's almost Jack Bauer time!

Last Monday, I bought 300 more shares of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp (NWSA) at 6.97. Print media is depressed, and so is network TV but Murdoch has much more than that and my guess is that this business will find a way back to strong profitability as the economy improves.

Looking at what to do tomorrow, the formula came back with Bank of Granite (GRAN) but frankly, the recent quarter was so bad, and the questions about this bank's health so serious that I elected to do something else for tomorrow without removing GRAN from the buy/hold list. The upside of the Bank's recovery is much better than the downside of holding it, but that doesn't mean we have to slavishly follow the formula by dong something stupid. Adding more shares of this holding right now might just be stupid. We'll buy something else.

Sunday, February 08, 2009


Mostly music this time - it's Emmy night

First, we'll try to respond to Rufus T. Firefly's comment on the January 25th post. Mark - to - market accounting refers to the requirement in GAAP accounting to value certain securities for financial statement purposes at their most recent market price. No problem doing this with certain assets whose market price best reflects their true value, such as stocks. For securities where there is no active market, companies must go to a broker for a best estimate of where the market price would be, and that is not a very accurate value measurement. Further debt securities usually have a quiet secondary market if any, and debt value is more a function of recoverability and collectability than immediate liquidity. Until recently, debt instruments were valued at historical amortized cost, not market. The requirement to value these assets at market is killing the banks and our economy by forcing valuations down and requiring additional capital and collateral.

With respect to the question about bank lending, banks are in poor position to take the TARP funds and lend them out, since they need to maintain the added capital to support market valued investments, and because the poor economy makes new loans risky. Anyway, the politicians and their economists are wanting to have it both ways. When there was too much debt, that was a problem, and now it's a problem that there is no lending.

The big problem with no lending right now is that retailers and other businesses cannot refinance inventory nor roll over their existing loans, and that is causing business failures and layoffs. This is why the banks must be given more reasonable accounting and capital standards, to buy time so that they can return to their traditional financing role. The "bad bank" approach has promise if the assets will be bought at a value that exceeds market (and approaches historical cost). That way, the banks will not lose too much on the capital transaction. The taxpayer subsidy will relate to the extra price paid for the bad assets, but some of that will be recovered over time as real values (even for those bad assets) are realized.


Then there is the stimulus package. It is senseless to argue over whether the amount is enough or too much. There will be a stimulus passed, and that may help confidence, though by itself, it will stimulate nothing. My hope is that the money will be spent wisely and not on boondoggle earmarks. Of course, I know better.


The Super Bowl was terrific, one of the most entertaining ever, and though I did pick the winner, I am sorry if anyone lost money on the Steelers since they did not cover (and that was only right. The Cardinals surprised to the upside). Readers should understand that my football picks are no better than my stock picks, alas. Another great thing about the game was halftime. The Boss was simply outstanding, pulling out all the stops (the guitar throw, the knees slide, and the dueling guitar bit with Stevie). Even those typically indifferent to Bruce (like me) agreed that if he had gone on for 40 minutes rather than 12, that would have been just fine with us.

Of course, his current tour is sold out, so if you want to see him but don't have tickets, you will be at the mercy of the scalpers.


I was staying in the City on business Thursday night, which gave me a chance to go to Birdland for the late show and see the Lewis Nash quintet, including the outstanding bassist Peter Washington and Jimmy Green on sax. Let it be said once again that Mr. Nash is hands down the best drummer around, though it must also be said that the legendary Roy Haines is still playing as well as ever, apparently. Nash is in total control of his instrument, fantastic with sticks, brushes and hands, and feet also (he wowed them with his high hat work on the set's concluding number). Mr. Nash returns to Birdland March 3-8 playing with Michel Legrand and the world's greatest bassist, Ron Carter. This annual Birdland gig has become among the most anticipated on the calendar, and this year, Legrand will also have a string quartet to help him perform his prolific and beautiful compositional output.


Speaking of jazz, one of the best values for NY area Jazz lovers is Hot House, the free monthly magazine issued at all of the venues around town. In addition to several interesting feature articles, Hot House contains the schedules for each of the clubs and bars where live acts perform each month - everything from 55 Bar to Rose Hall at Lincoln Center. There are so many great shows on tap this month, but a few I have my eye on include Helen Sung at Saint Peters Jazz Ministry (free) on Feb. 15, and at Jazz Standard on Feb. 17, Eric Alexander (one of my faves) playing in a Joe Farnsworth (not my fave) led group at Smoke, Feb. 19-21, German bassist Iris Ornig leading a quartet featuring trombone Wycliffe Gordin at Kitano, Feb 18, Wycliffe leading a group at Miller Theatre, Columbia University on Feb. 21, Ken Peplowski leading a quartet including pianist Don Friedman at Kitano Feb. 27-28.


Who cares if it's a bear market rally? Any rally was welcome. On Groundhog Day, we poked our heads out long enough to buy 300 shares of Gencor Industries, (GENC) a new name off the Forbes small company list at 8.17. This company is mainly into road construction, which means that the stimulus plan may mean a recovering revenue stream for this company that has an almost pristine balance sheet. On Wednesday, another new name off the same list was added - 400 shares of Home Diagnostics (HDIX) at 6.38. The hook here is that with half the population testing at pre-diabetes levels (if you can believe the press hysteria), home testing and monitoring is bound to grow. Time for the periodic disclaimer. Neither redwavemusings nor its author are investment advisors, and the securities mentioned in this blog are not to be considered recommendations since they may not be suitable for anyone else (or even for me).


Sunday, February 01, 2009


Stimulating TV

Today is a pop culture holiday called the Super Bowl, when many of us, including the legions who would never watch any other football game, gather for a party (usually featuring mass quantities of chips, beer and spicy, non-nourishing food items) and to watch four hours of very clever commercials interrupted by occasionally exciting football and a spectacular halftime show. This year's halftime fittingly features Obama campaigner Bruce Springstein, himself an icon of late and post baby boomer culture. I am looking forward to it, but not nearly as much as Tom Petty last year. But that's just me.

The game is something of an enigma. As usual, the two teams involved are playing their best football of the year coming into the game, but neither was a heavy favorite to get this far and one, the Cardinals, was a bigger long shot than the Giants, who upset form to win last year. I will concede that the Redbirds are flying on all cylinders but I still make Pittsburgh the winner, 34-17.


Everything else making the news lately involves financial stimulus and the bill brewing in Washington. Despite the new President's better intentions, the House bill turned into a partisan exercise, which is what happens when folks like Pelosi, Waxman, Conyers, Rangel, et al are in charge. They have managed to lard this thing up with a lot of spending that has nothing to do with stimulating anything except the Dems chief fundraisers, i.e. the teachers' and public employees unions. So naturally, all of the GOP members wound up in opposition joined by a few red state Dems.

So I would make the case that while the vote FOR the bill was partisan, the vote AGAINST it was a little bipartisan. I know, I'm just being difficult.

This morning, the Senators took their turn on the news shows. Supposedly, this is a more serious and deliberative group, but we live in post-literate times, when soundbites are what seem to matter and all arguments are dumbed down to the lowest common denominator (inanity). By the way, this seems to go for just about everyone. It's not just the politicians in child-speak, the questions coming from the moderators reveal no greater insight. On Meet The Press this morning, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) advocated for INCREASING the cost of the bill to put more of the actually useful projects in, while keeping all of the social spending, the redistributionist tax breaks, and the lard in the bill. Senator Hutchinson (R-TX) seemed to be garbling her talking points, advocating for the job creating aspects of the bill but insisting that the short term fixes come out, simultaneously complaining about the spending that will take too long to have an impact. In the end, she said she will oppose the bill unless it is changed.

A somewhat more intelligent panel followed, the most persuasive of the group being (as usual) Steve Forbes. He may not be taken seriously by academic economists and political scientists, but Mr. Forbes has long been among the most insightful (and accurate) observers of the American economic and political theater. He took his usual strong positions on reducing taxes on capital and on payrolls, while advocating most strongly for the end of mark-to-market accounting. For a review on the latter, just scroll down to my last post.

Also on the panel was CNBC's Erin Burnett, a well educated young player in the business media who happens to combine intelligence and good looks (to a distracting degree). She more than held her own, pointing out that the populist political posturing by the administration and congress on the subject of Wall Street bonuses (known everywhere else as COMPENSATION) was distracting everyone's attention from the real problem.

My take is that there has never been a stimulus plan that stimulated job recovery and this one doesn't either, and it won't even if it gets fixed. That having been said, there are some useful planks in it (certain infrastructure items that should be done on the merits and AMT relief) and just because a stimulus program doesn't stimulate, it may still be economically valid if the improvements are long lasting and provide important benefits. For example, 75 years after the New Deal failed to life the country out of the depression, its tangible evidence is still providing public benefit. The highway system, built during the slowdowns of the post-war years have provided tremendous economic benefits and still do, though ongoing maintenance is always necessary. However, what we don't need is to nationalize the banking system and provide a lot of useless bridges to nowhere, libraries and museums no one wants to visit, transit systems for cities where the public insists on driving, and pouring more money at a public school system that needs a qualitative overhaul, not a refunding.

On taxes, rather than put an annual band aid on the AMT, we should make it the income tax system for the whole country. It is fairer, removes incentives that no longer are needed, and simplifies the tax system by eliminating deductions and taking the lower half of the income earners off the roles.

If we could eliminate mark-to-market, the banks would have the time to repair their own balance sheets. The bad bank scenario now being discussed would only help if the public bank overpays for the assets; otherwise, the write-downs will be realized and the banking system will be no better capitalized than now. So if it looks like the Obama administration is squirming and groping (just like the Bush administration did) it is because government money is not really the answer to this crisis.

As for Wall Street "bonuses," the investment banking business model of paying 50% of revenues as compensation was not viable, and so it went - there is no independent investment banking industry left. That compensation system will be gone. The payments approved by Merrill's John Thane on his way out the door fulfilled what he believed to be his obligation to the traders, and it looked worse than it was. In retrospect, he should have reduced the formula substantially to better reflect Merrill's failure. Those traders were lucky to get anything - just ask the people who used to work for Lehman Brothers.

But using Wall Street as a whipping boy is not winning the President any points in my book.


Last Monday, I bought 300 shares of Bolt Technology for my IRA at 6.96. Each year, Forbes publishes a list of the country's best 200 small publicly traded companies and I usually pick two or three that meet my criteria to add to the buy/hold list. I will start adding those new names this week.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?