No. of Recommendations: 1
As an economic conservative and critic of most things "liberal", I humbly apologize for peeking into this bulletin board. I promise not to get political (if I can help it!).

I see that the original RETIRE EARLY HOMEPAGE still references Harry Dent. It seems to me that the equity markets should be many points higher by now, according to ol' Harry.

I am wondering if he ever finally fessed up or at least gave the usual excuses that fallen financial soothsayers give (such as, "wait till next year" or "blah blah blah could not be forseen and it changed everything).

Don't you think we followers of this type of data (not necessarily investing accordingly...but at least following the dribble) are entitled to some fessing up.

So where does he stand now? Did he fess?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Daryl,

I consider myself reality-based, meaning I look at the data and draw conclusions. IF that means "liberal", so be it.

As far as I'm concerned, Harry Dent lost it before the dot.dom bust. I've never followed him because he seems to be "messianic", or maybe telling folks what they want to hear.

Now having a Reuters story about "systemic margin call" does worry me a bit.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080308/wallstreet_losses_jpm.html?.v=1

From the article: JPMorgan, which sent a default notice to Thornburg Mortgage Inc. (NYSE:TMA - News) after the lender missed a $28 million margin call, said more default notices and margin calls were likely. The Carlyle Group's mortgage fund also failed to meet $37 million in margin calls this week.

"A systemic credit crunch is underway, driven primarily by bank writedowns for subprime mortgages," according to the report co-authored by analyst Christopher Flanagan. "We would characterize this situation as a systemic margin call."


But if you want to follow Harry Dent, far be it from me to tell you otherwise.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Actually in was Intercst who followed him initially and piqued my interest. Intercst STILL references him on his (Intercst's) RETIRE EARLY HOMEPAGE.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Harry Dent could have been Hocus's model for selling his financial theories:


http://store.hsdent.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=7




Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Daryll40 asks,

As an economic conservative and critic of most things "liberal", I humbly apologize for peeking into this bulletin board. I promise not to get political (if I can help it!).

I see that the original RETIRE EARLY HOMEPAGE still references Harry Dent. It seems to me that the equity markets should be many points higher by now, according to ol' Harry.

I am wondering if he ever finally fessed up or at least gave the usual excuses that fallen financial soothsayers give (such as, "wait till next year" or "blah blah blah could not be forseen and it changed everything).

Don't you think we followers of this type of data (not necessarily investing accordingly...but at least following the dribble) are entitled to some fessing up.

So where does he stand now? Did he fess?


The latest forecast I've seen from Dent is a 20,000 Dow and 5,000 NASDAQ by 2010. That was about 18 months ago.

Here's my annual article tracking Dent, Bernstein, Buffett from last May.

http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/reallife07.html

The next update will be published on May 1st. I've already run the numbers on a few of the portfolios.

Value as of Dec 31, 2007 (1994-2007 period)

Buffett $401,128
Dent $405,623
Bernstein (MPT) $218,900
S&P500/FI $247,900

Value as of Dec 31, 2007 (2000-2007 period)

Buffett $166,983
Dent $104,507
Bernstein (MPT) $118,952
S&P500/FI $77,709

I haven't heard if he's "fessed", though obviously if you've followed his demographic theories on investing from 1994 to date you've been very pleased with the performance.

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I know he's calling for an emerging markets peak in late 2008 and commodoties peak in late 2009 or early 2010.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Grain commodities really are off to the races & ought not peak for a while.

This in today's N.Y.Times seems to substantiate:

The Food Chain
A Global Need for Grain That Farms Can’t Fill
Dan Koeck for The New York Times

On his North Dakota farm, Dennis Miller has seen wheat prices steadily climb.
Article Tools Sponsored By
By DAVID STREITFELD
Published: March 9, 2008

LAWTON, N.D. — Whatever Dennis Miller decides to plant this year on his 2,760-acre farm, the world needs. Wheat prices have doubled in the last six months. Corn is on a tear. Barley, sunflower seeds, canola and soybeans are all

Articles in this series will examine growing demands on, and changes in, the world's production of food.

The cost of bread in Nigeria soared in the last year as demand for wheat outstripped supply. More Photos »

“For once, there’s great reason to be optimistic,” Mr. Miller said.

But the prices that have renewed Mr. Miller’s faith in farming are causing pain far and wide. A tailor in Lagos, Nigeria, named Abel Ojuku said recently that he had been forced to cut back on the bread he and his family love.

“If you wanted to buy three loaves, now you buy one,” Mr. Ojuku said.

http://tinyurl.com/2nvmfq
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<“If you wanted to buy three loaves, now you buy one,” Mr. Ojuku said.
>>



Do you suppose Mr. Ojuku would prefer that Americans use corn for fuel or that he would favor drilling for oil in offshore areas around the United States or ANWR?




Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Do you suppose Mr. Ojuku would prefer that Americans use corn for fuel or that he would favor drilling for oil in offshore areas around the United States or ANWR?

Seattle Pioneer
---------
I would like to think that was a Rhetorical question.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hey, we might find a good use for that oil someday. Drill it today, and all we will do is snort if up our tailpipe.
--Alan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Hey, we might find a good use for that oil someday. Drill it today, and all we will do is snort if up our tailpipe.
--Alan
>>



That's a reasonable thing to suggest, in my view, but it wont work.

Production on the Alaska North Slope fields are in decline, and at a certain point the Alaska pipeline will have to be shut down and removed or abandonned. If that happens, the enormous and strategically valuable American oil production that could be gained from developing ANWR and perhaps other oil fields will be lost forever.

Use it or lose it.

I'm always amused by environmentalists who piously proclaim that they don't want the United States "help hostage" to middle east oil, but then want to refuse to devlope oil in the United States. It's quite clear that they are being dishonest in making such claims.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"Use it or lose it." - Seattle Pioneer
------------------------------------------------------


Where's it going? It's in the bank. Personally I think it's illogical to use it up when there are other sources of oil available. Much smarter to use the rest of the world's oil first before tapping into our own reserves.

Let it sit there, stored, and after the rest of the world runs out of oil we will have our own reserves left to tap into.

Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<"Use it or lose it." - Seattle Pioneer
------------------------------------------------------


Where's it going? It's in the bank. Personally I think it's illogical to use it up when there are other sources of oil available. Much smarter to use the rest of the world's oil first before tapping into our own reserves.
>>



It wont be going anywhere if the Alaska pipeline utilization gets reduced to a low enough point, which it will if new oil fields aren't brought into production.

When available oil for transport falls to a certain level, the oil pipeline will have to be shut down, and removed root and branch very likely. At that point, we will no longer have an option to exploit remaining oil reserves.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
When available oil for transport falls to a certain level, the oil pipeline will have to be shut down, and removed root and branch very likely. At that point, we will no longer have an option to exploit remaining oil reserves.

Why? I can understand that nature will have some corrosive impact on the pipeline if it sits idle, so re-start would require some maintenance (depending on how long it actually sits). But that does not mean that choosing to wait is the wrong option. It depends on the value of oil in the future, the cost of later maintenance, etc. Without a pretty detailed analysis, the conclusion that we have to "use it or lose it" seems pretty arbitrary. Of course there is always an option somewhere in between. We could run the pipeline with minimal flow to avoid deterioration until some later date when oil was very valuable. There seem to be an infinite number of alternatives of which "use it or lose it" sounds like one extreme that is based solely on a trite expression.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Why? I can understand that nature will have some corrosive impact on the pipeline if it sits idle, so re-start would require some maintenance (depending on how long it actually sits).

Remember that the environment in Alaska is very harsh. To keep a working pipeline would require a certain level of annual maintenance that I don't believe anyone is willing to pay for on the chance it might pump oil again. For comparison, there is a lot of old mining equipment lying around old mines and with current gold prices, some mines are being considered to be re-opened. Granted, new techniques would make most of it obsolete, but the current condition of the equipment makes it unusable and not cost effective to refurbish. The oil pipeline would likely fall into this category after 5-10 years.

Calvin
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
salaryguru writes,

<<SP: When available oil for transport falls to a certain level, the oil pipeline will have to be shut down, and removed root and branch very likely. At that point, we will no longer have an option to exploit remaining oil reserves.>>

Why? I can understand that nature will have some corrosive impact on the pipeline if it sits idle, so re-start would require some maintenance (depending on how long it actually sits). But that does not mean that choosing to wait is the wrong option. It depends on the value of oil in the future, the cost of later maintenance, etc. Without a pretty detailed analysis, the conclusion that we have to "use it or lose it" seems pretty arbitrary. Of course there is always an option somewhere in between. We could run the pipeline with minimal flow to avoid deterioration until some later date when oil was very valuable. There seem to be an infinite number of alternatives of which "use it or lose it" sounds like one extreme that is based solely on a trite expression.

</snip>


Actually, the pipeline operator would probably opt to run the line at minimal flow just to avoid the cost of dismantling the pipeline and doing the environmental remediation work. Depending on the dismantling cost, it might even make sense to barge oil to Point Barrow just to keep the pipeline running.

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Actually, the pipeline operator would probably opt to run the line at minimal flow just to avoid the cost of dismantling the pipeline and doing the environmental remediation work. Depending on the dismantling cost, it might even make sense to barge oil to Point Barrow just to keep the pipeline running."

If you could get barges to Prudhoe Bay, you wouldn't need a pipeline.

At some point in the not too distant future, it might make economic sense to shut down the pipeline. It is now running at about 20% of capacity.....and dropping each year.

It costs tens of millions to maintain it....and tens of millions to operate it.

The only hope is to develop ANWR (and hopefully find enough oil to make it worthwhile - no one knows for sure). Or find oil off the coast in the new oil exploration leases.

THere will come a point where the cost to keep the pipeline (and collecting system at Prudhoe Bay) in operation exceeds the profits on the oil. Remember, Obama thinks the 'oil companies don't want to give up those profits'. He is all set to 'take them'. Alaska wants more money - their revenues are declining. They want a bigger share.

The flow of oil cannot drop too low...otherwise oil will freeze in the pipeline....it gets to 50 and 60 below zero in the winter time.

The Prudhoe Bay collector system rusted out because BP didn't use enough rust preventer - it has to add this to the system at the well head to keep the pipes from rusting and being eaten out by moisture and acids in the oil. Oil coming out of the ground contains dozens of chemicals, water, acids, dissolved gasses, etc.

The pipeline was meant to last 25 years - same with the pipes at Prudhoe..it is now 30+ years.

If it gets shut down, that will be the end. Almost impossible to mothball - things will rust almost immediately all along the pipeline - seriously. After a year, you'd have to replace much of it at a cost of $30 to $50 billion or more.

The road along the pipeline (the haul road) costs tens of millions to keep open all year long. It is constantly being rebuilt and reworked.

Just like deep sea platforms, when they get 'too old' they get dismantled and sold for scrap.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
The pipeline was meant to last 25 years - same with the pipes at Prudhoe..it is now 30+ years.
Perhaps, but just a few years back they began a "strategic reconfiguration" to bring another 30 years of service to the pipeline. There is no rush. The world is not going to end and we all end up punished for the resources we failed to consume.
It is just like the old growth forests. We have consumed 98% of them and only 2% remain. The "envirowackos" get disparaged for attempting to preserve this last 2%. Sure, that last 2% is now very valuable because, well, it is the last 2%. I would think a true conservative would understand putting a little in the bank for later.
--Alan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<It is just like the old growth forests. We have consumed 98% of them and only 2% remain. The "envirowackos" get disparaged for attempting to preserve this last 2%. Sure, that last 2% is now very valuable because, well, it is the last 2%. I would think a true conservative would understand putting a little in the bank for later.
--Alan
>>


If global warming is the fact that my Liberals friends say it is, what's the point of protecting "old growth" forests? They are simply doomed to destruction by global warming and insects in a very few years.


Shouldn't we be adopting a plan of intensive logging of old growth forests now, with a plan of replanting with palm trees (or whatever) to avoid disasterous damage when dead trees allow mudslides of unprecidented proportions?




Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
You are clueless.
Good job misrepresenting global warming though. You can't have it both ways... you need to pick one, and the select a course of action consistent with that. Hint: extremists are usually wrong.
--Alan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<You are clueless.
Good job misrepresenting global warming though. You can't have it both ways... you need to pick one, and the select a course of action consistent with that. Hint: extremists are usually wrong.
--Alan
>>


You seem to be unwilling to draw the logical conclusions your own theories suggest. They aren't MY theories --- but I presume you believe them.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You seem to be unwilling to draw the logical conclusions your own theories suggest. They aren't MY theories --- but I presume you believe them.
What conclusions are those? Note that forests tend to consume Co2, and lots of it. Removing them would accelerate global warming.
Personally, I don't have a theory. I just listen to experts and occasionally read peer reviewed journal articles. It is clear atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are increasing. Anything we can do to ameleorate that would be great. Doing things that hurt it are bad. The fact that several actions are being taken today to help with global warming will lead to a different outcome than if we do nothing.
--Alan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The oil pipeline would likely fall into this category after 5-10 years. - Calvin
-----------------------


When Oil is between $500 and $800 per barrel they'll figure out a way to get it up and running.

Artie
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement