August 2007

America: Freedom to Fascism

Tribute to Aaron Russo
by Nelson Hultberg

August 26, 2007

Aaron Russo lost his fight early Friday morning, August 24, 2007 to cancer. He was 64 years old and surrounded by family at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

Like most Americans, I first became aware of Aaron through his award winning movies in the 70s and 80s. But I really began to take notice of the man because of his scintillating interview in Liberty magazine in 1995 that advocated the formation of a new third political party – the Constitution Party – to challenge the monopolized rule of the Demopublicans in Washington. It was one of those expositions of thought and panache that grabs you, lets you know that here is a man to be reckoned with.

I was first introduced to Aaron by GATA head, Bill Murphy in Dallas, in 2003. And I worked briefly with him in his pursuit of the Libertarian Party presidential nomination in early 2004. Immediately I recognized the immense talent of the man and his potential for furthering the freedom movement in America. The production of his film, America: From Freedom To Fascism, is a classic that will live for a hundred years and beyond. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. His film is worth a thousand books.

Aaron had truly found his calling with AFTF. While he was a great speaker and campaigner (he scared the pants off the Republican establishment in his run for the governorship of Nevada in 1998), his real talent lay in proselytization of his fellow men’s minds through film. The campaign trail, with all its crudities, was not what he was meant to pursue, and it is to his credit that he realized it after 2004. Thankfully for us, he then embarked upon the real mission that he was meant for with his great creation of America: From Freedom to Fascism.

The Aaron Russo I knew was a tough, principled, fearless fighter willing to stare down the monstrous IRS and the Orwellian powers behind the Federal Reserve without blinking an eye. But then he was not about to let the Demopublican establishment get away with the usurpation of our rights and the wholesale destruction of everything America has stood for over 200 years. So it was no surprise to me when his blockbuster film was released with its confrontational style and “The Emperor is buck naked” message.

Russo could not compromise on such a resplendent flower as freedom. He could not, and would not, tone down the truth to appease the powerful. He could not and would not play the game that our contemptible pundits in Washington and on Wall Street play so disingenuously in order to gain the prominence they crave.

America’s only hope is for men of the mind to truly stand for freedom, to make of themselves Gibraltar-like representatives of its attributes no matter what level of rejection, calumny and injustice is heaped upon them by the political grafters of the establishment.

Aaron Russo “truly stood for freedom.” He refused to opt for popularity over principle in order to gain momentary celebrity. He spoke truth to power because he understood that freedom is not for the trepid. It is for the stalwart and the daring. He understood that if we, as a people, do not regain our love of freedom, the entire world will go back to its barbaric beginnings. He knew that we in America set the tone for the world. What kind of example we set will determine whether a new Dark Age settles over us in this upcoming century.

Aaron was one of our greatest patriots. He left us a powerful, wonderful, earthshaking legacy. His masterpiece of a film, America: From Freedom to Fascism, can light spectacular fires of reform throughout the country. If it can be widely circulated to American citizens in the upcoming years, Gargantua in Washington can be brought down. The tyrannical world government so ominously beckoning our leaders, can be averted. The Founders vision can be restored.

Nelson Hultberg
Americans for a Free Republic

Are you being conned by the Global Warming Evangelists into the swelling end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it mass hysteria? Keep your distances and cool head with this additional, previously unseen, footage from the eye opening ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ documentary. A sobering production by UK Channel 4.

John Rubino, co-author with GoldMoney’s James Turk of “The Coming Collapse of the Dollar,” has written a wonderful little essay, “Nope, That’s Not Money,” about the misperception of debt as money. You’ll enjoy it even if you have a clue about what IS likely to be money:

Nope, That’s Not Money

John Rubino

Prudent Bear’s Doug Noland has for years been pointing out that one of the drivers of the credit bubble has been the ever-broadening definition of money. As the global economy expanded without a hic-up, more and more instruments came to be used as a store of value or medium of exchange or even a standard against which to value other things—in other words, as money. Thus mortgage-backed bonds and even more exotic things came to be seen as nearly risk-free and infinitely liquid. In Noland’s terms, credit gained “moneyness,” which sent the effective global money supply through the roof. This in turn allowed the U.S. and its trading partners to keep adding jobs and appearing to grow, despite debt levels that were rising into the stratosphere. For a while there, borrowing actually made the world richer, because both the cash received and the debt created functioned as money.

With a few months of hindsight, it’s now clear that debt-as-money was not one of humanity’s better ideas. When the U.S. housing market—the source of all that mortgage-backed pseudo money—began to tank, hedge funds found out that an asset-backed bond wasn’t exactly the same thing as a stack of hundred dollar bills. The global economy then started taking inventory of what it was using as money. And it began crossing things off the list. Subprime ABS? Nope, that’s not money. BBB corporate bonds? Nope. High-grade corporates? Alas, no. Credit default swaps? Are you kidding me?

No longer able to function as money, these instruments are being “repriced” (a slick little euphemism for “dumped for whatever anyone will pay”), which is causing a cascade failure of the many business models that depend on infinite liquidity. The effective global money supply is contracting at a double-digit rate, reversing out much of the past decade’s growth.

But here’s where it gets really interesting. The reaction of the world’s central banks to the freezing-up of the leveraged speculating community has, predictably, been to create massive amounts of new fiat currency and hand it to the banking system. They’re not dropping twenties out of helicopters yet, but functionally it’s the same thing. By swapping dollars, euros and yen for no-longer-money bonds that are plunging in price, creating some paper profits where there once were catastrophic losses, the Bankers hope to revive the animal spirits of the leveraged speculators. Specifically, they hope to stop the financial community from going further down the moneyness checklist and eliminating any more instruments.

But you don’t forget a brush with death that easily. The process of debt reclassification has a momentum that a few hundred billion new dollars won’t stop. And once corporate bonds and agency bonds and emerging market bonds have been crossed off the list, the system will start eyeing the dollar. Is it really a store of value after falling by half against oil and gold in the past five years? Didn’t the Fed just create a tidal wave of new dollars and promise to create infinitely more if needed? Isn’t the U.S. economy hobbled by the implosion of housing and mortgage finance and hedge funds and (soon) derivatives? Don’t Americans owe more per capita than any people in human history? And a realization will begin to dawn: Maybe the paper currency of an over-indebted country isn’t money either…

Fed Fails So Far in Bid to Reassure Anxious Investors

By Serena Ng, Grep Ip, and Shefali Anand
The Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Investors largely shrugged off the Federal Reserve’s attempt to restore order to the credit markets and bought up the safest government securities, triggering the biggest drop in yields on short-term Treasury bills in nearly 19 years.

While the stock market rose, conditions improved in currency markets and several companies successfully sold new bonds, investors refused to take any risk with their cash holdings. Instead, they accepted sharply lower yields in exchange for the safety of government bonds.

Their actions signaled that the Fed, which moved Friday to shore up confidence in the markets, has failed so far to persuade investors that problems in securities linked to subprime mortgage loans wouldn’t cause widespread losses in normally safe securities.

To ease a worsening credit crunch, the Fed on Friday cut the interest rate it charges on direct loans to banks from its “discount window” to 5.75% from 6.25% and took other steps designed to increase the flow of cash to the nation’s financial system. While the Fed didn’t alter the key federal-funds rate, its target for short-term interest rates, it said that the “downside risks to growth have increased appreciably” and it was “prepared to act.”

It made no mention of inflation, its principal concern for the past two years.

Stock and bond markets initially reacted positively to the Fed’s overture, but grew more skeptical as this week began. The reaction yesterday in the Treasury-bill market can be seen as “a vote of no confidence in the Fed’s move,” said Larry Dyer, an interest-rate strategist at HSBC Securities in New York. “If people felt that the end of the problem was around the corner, yields would be higher. But we’re still seeing a continued flight to quality, and that’s not what the Fed wanted.”

The latest wave of risk aversion in the credit markets is being led by managers of money-market funds, which are designed to behave like bank accounts and whose primary goal is to avoid losing money for investors. While some of these funds own only short-term Treasury bills, most also own corporate IOUs known as commercial paper and other highly rated, short-term securities.

Because both individual and institutional investors are worried about risks in the commercial-paper market, they have been shifting money to Treasury-only funds. That has forced funds that hold commercial paper to sell some of those holdings and Treasury-only funds to buy even more Treasury bills. Some funds that own both types of securities are shifting toward Treasurys.

Mutual-fund companies such as Vanguard Group and Fidelity Investments say they have been flooded with calls from investors asking whether their money-market funds hold commercial paper backed by mortgage securities. Vanguard said its money funds aren’t exposed to subprime-mortgage assets, and Fidelity says it has “minimal” holdings of them. Still, in many cases investors have moved their money to lower-yielding Treasury funds.

In the final three days of last week, money-market investors overall poured $50 billion into these Treasury- and government-only funds, while pulling $21 billion out of so-called prime money markets, which can invest in other securities, according to iMoneyNet Inc., which tracks money-market mutual funds.

Money-market managers themselves are worried about losing money or “breaking the buck,” a reference to the stable net asset value of these funds. Michael Cheah, a fixed-income portfolio manager at AIG SunAmerica Asset Management in Jersey City, N.J., says a colleague recently asked whether he should invest in a seven-day commercial-paper issue from a large U.S. bank. The paper bore an attractive yield of around 5.5%.

“I told him: This is all about safety. If we break the buck, we will lose our bonus and may get fired,” says Mr. Cheah, adding it would be better to invest in Treasurys. The manager decided to put the money in a short-term Treasury repurchase loan that paid 4.3%.

“This is about dealing with what we don’t know. There is little margin for error in money-market funds,” adds Mr. Cheah.

As investors snapped up three-month Treasury bills yesterday, prices soared and the yield, which moves in the opposite direction, fell for the fifth straight day, tumbling 0.7 percentage points to 3.05%, the sharpest decline since January 1989. The three-month yield sank as low as 2.5% at one point during the day. The yield on one-month Treasury bills fell 0.61 percentage points to 2.35%.

“The market is clearly saying that what the Fed has done isn’t enough. We’re having a crisis of confidence, and investors with the cash have no risk appetite at all,” said James Kauffmann, head of fixed income at ING Investment Management in Atlanta.

Still, many analysts say it is too early to measure the full effect of the Fed’s effort to improve liquidity by encouraging banks to borrow. Stocks rose yesterday as investors digested the Fed’s move. The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 42.47 points to 13121.35, on top of Friday’s 230-point advance.

One positive sign from the credit markets is that several companies managed to sell new bonds yesterday. SABIC Innovative Plastics sold $1.5 billion in junk bonds to fund its buyout of General Electric Co.’s GE Plastics unit, agreeing to pay 9.5% interest on the debt. It was the largest junk-debt sale since a sale of loans by Chrysler Group in late July. Comcast Corp., Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. also issued new investment-grade bonds.

In addition to cutting the discount rate, the Fed also moved Friday to lengthen the term of any direct Fed loans to banks to 30 days from one day and reminded banks they could pledge a wide variety of collateral, including unimpaired subprime mortgages. Fed officials reassured bankers that they would view borrowing from the discount window as a sign of banks’ strength. Such loans have developed a stigma because they have been viewed as a last resort for troubled banks.

While banks don’t need the cash, the Fed hopes they will use it to lend to their own customers or to finance transactions in relatively safe securities, such as those backed by prime jumbo mortgages. So far, Deutsche Bank is the only bank that has said it has borrowed from the discount window, according to people familiar with the German bank.

Even so, the Fed hinted yesterday that it is expecting a sizable response by banks. It said it would redeem $5 billion of maturing Treasury bills in its portfolio to offset other factors that could expand its balance sheet, such as “discount window borrowings.” Traders took that as evidence the Fed expects about $5 billion in such borrowings in coming days. The planned move has the added benefit of freeing up more Treasury bills for the public to buy. The Treasury Department also helped by selling a larger-than-expected $32 billion in new four-week Treasury bills at its auction yesterday.

Fed officials have indicated they expect it to take some time before they know whether their actions had restored confidence to the debt markets. Some economists say the Fed may have only a few days to wait for market conditions to improve. If conditions deteriorate, it will have to take the more aggressive step of cutting its main interest rate target, the federal-funds rate, from the current 5.25%.

Stephen Stanley, chief economist at RBS Greenwich Capital, said the Fed has given the impression it would prefer not to cut rates at all, and that if it had to, it would do so at its scheduled Sept. 18 policy meeting. “But given what happened today, I’m not sure they’ll make it that far.”

While the stock market rose and trading appeared to improve in currency and some bond markets, money managers said it was still difficult to make trades in some cases. Jeff Gladstein, global head of foreign exchange trading at AIG Financial Products Corp. in Wilton, Conn., said that trading liquidity in some of the high-yielding currencies, like those for many emerging-market countries, was the worst he had seen in a few years. “There’s a repricing of risk going on,” he said.

In other currency markets, volatility declined in comparison to last week. The relative calm “doesn’t necessarily mean that nervousness is declining,” said Jens Nordvig, a currency strategist at Goldman Sachs. “There’s not much appetite to trade.” The elevated uncertainty about where money-market rates are heading is also making it more difficult to price currency forwards, which are contracts used to trade a currency at some future date. If there’s going to be abnormal volatility in prices, “You need a strong desire in order to trade at all,” said Mr. Nordvig.

The European commercial-paper market also struggled despite recent injections of capital. Yesterday, traders in London said trading was difficult; investors demanded higher yields and shorter durations. In a research note yesterday, Deutsche Bank analyst Ganesh Rajendra said, “Never before in our memory has the European structured finance market looked so fragile.”

The problems in the market caused troubles for another investment firm. London hedge fund and money manager Solent Capital Partners LLP said an affiliate might have to sell some assets, including securities tied to U.S. mortgages because it couldn’t raise the funding it needs.

Solent, which had $8.8 billion under management in mid-July, said a debt vehicle it oversees may have to sell U.S. bonds it owns because it has found few buyers for the short-term debt the vehicle uses for financing. The Solent affiliate, registered in the Cayman Islands, is called Mainsail II Ltd. It owns about $2 billion in securities underpinned by assets including U.S. mortgage loans, according to a Fitch Ratings report in May.

Mainsail II sells short-term commercial paper to cover its existing debts and to buy assets that generate returns. A Fitch Ratings report said the main focus of Mainsail II is high-grade residential mortgage-backed securities.

In the U.S., Wall Street money-market specialists said that while some issuers of commercial paper backed by mortgage assets had to exit the market, most of the maturing short-term debt was being resold, albeit some of it at higher-than-usual interest rates and for shorter terms.

* * *

High Risk Credit

By Congressman Ron Paul
August 20, 2007

As markets went on a rollercoaster ride last week, our economy is coming close to a day of reckoning for loose credit policies being followed by the Federal Reserve Bank. Simply, foreign banks we have been relying on to buy our debt are waking up to the reality of much higher default rates than predicted, and many mortgage backed securities have been reduced to “junk” ratings. Wall Street fears the possibility of tightening credit and the tightening of America’s belts. Why, they say, “if Americans spend only what they can afford, think of the ripple effects throughout the economy!” This is the cry, as the call comes for the fed to cut rates and bail out companies in trouble.

More inflation is, however, never the answer to inflation.

The truth is that business involves risk, and businesses that miscalculate risk should be liquidated, so their assets can be reallocated to businesses that correctly judge risk and make profits. Instead, the Fed has injected $64 billion into the jittery markets, effectively amounting to a bailout that keeps these malinvestments afloat, but eventually they will become the undoing of our economy.

In addition to the negative reactions in financial markets, many Americans have taken on too much personal debt owing to exotic mortgage products and artificially low interest rates. Unfortunately, these families are now in the position of losing their homes in unprecedented numbers as the teaser rates expire and the real bills are coming due.

The real answers are, and always have been, found in the principles of the free market. Let the market set the interest rates. If we had been functioning under a true and transparent free market system, we would not be in the mess we are in today. Government, like the American household, needs to live within its means to get back on stable fiscal ground.

We’ve been headed in the wrong direction since 1971. This week marks the 36th anniversary of Nixon’s decision to close the gold window, which convinced me to seek public office to call attention to the runaway money train that would come in the aftermath of that decision. The temptation to print and spend money with impunity, like the temptation to max out lines of credit, is too strong to for government to resist. While Nixon brokered exclusivity deals with OPEC to prop up demand for the tidal wave of green pieces of paper the Fed pumped into the markets, the world is tiring of marching to the beat of our drum in order to secure their energy needs. The house of cards Nixon built is now on the verge of collapsing on our heads, and on our children’s heads.

As the dollar weakens, it becomes ever clearer that we need a return to sound, commodity-based money for a secure future. Money based on real value, not empty promises and secretive backroom machinations, is the way to get out of the current calamity without causing even bigger problems.

Here’s another “must read” by Doug Casey from this week’s “The Room” – a subscribers only newsleter:

By Doug Casey

Over the last few weeks we’ve experienced extreme volatility, and fear, in the financial markets. The event itself wasn’t unexpected around here. After all, we’re on record as expecting to see the Greater Depression materialize in the years to come. Maybe even starting now.

But just because something is inevitable doesn’t mean it’s imminent. Some of you may be asking “OK, Casey, but what makes you think that a depression is inevitable – forget about imminent?” A proper answer to that would take a couple of chapters, and this isn’t the forum for that. Besides, I’ve done that in my book Crisis Investing for the Rest of the 90’s. Unfortunately, the book has been off the shelves for some years. If you have a copy, go over it, and see if the reasoning seems sound.

In essence, however, an economic depression is a period of time when most people’s standard of living drops significantly. More exactly, it’s a period of time when distortions and misallocations of capital – caused by government intervention in the economy, particularly by currency inflation – are liquidated. Inflation sends false signals to both businessmen and consumers; it makes consumers think they’re richer than they really are, so they spend more. Businessmen gear up to meet this artificially created demand, by hiring more workers and building more facilities. Currency inflation, in its early stages, gives the appearance of prosperity. It also tends to lower interest rates simply because interest is the price of money, and when you expand the supply of anything, its price tends to fall; so everybody tends to save less and borrow more. Later, however, rates rise, because people won’t lend without compensation for the currency’s depreciation. The process causes a phenomenon called the business cycle. A phony boom can cause a very real depression.

The long boom we’ve had since the bottom of the last cycle in 1982 – a time that was characterized by high unemployment, lots of bankruptcies, high interest rates, and a low stock market – has lasted 25 years. It could have ended badly a number of times along the way, such as 1987, 1993, or 2000. Each time the government propped the house of cards up higher by injecting more currency into the system. It’s analogous to someone driving a high-performance car on a mountain road with a stuck throttle. The driver can mash on the brakes, slowing it from 50 to 30. The car charges to 80, but this time the fading brakes can only bring it down to 60. After a couple of cycles, it’s going 140. And Ben Bernanke is no Michael Schumacher. Perhaps he can navigate the road. But the chances are better, at this point, that the economy will go off a cliff.

So, if we’re going to have a depression, what should you do about it? Our advice here has always emphasized owning a lot of gold. That’s because it’s the only financial asset that’s not somebody else’s liability. That’s important whether the depression is deflationary or inflationary in nature. Deflationary depressions are characterized by lots of bankruptcies and defaults; the only assets you can count on are those in your own possession, like cash or gold. Currency becomes more valuable because so much is wiped out in defaults. But gold is the ultimate form of cash. Inflationary depressions, however, wipe out the currency itself, which loses value rapidly, because the government creates so much more. Gold profits from this process.

Is this the start of something big and nasty? It’s impossible to say. But the slap the markets have administered upside the back of everyone’s head should alert them to the possibility. You want lots of gold. Limited debt. International diversification. And some situations – like our recommended gold stocks – that present some real speculative upside.

The ultimate cause of all the problems we’re facing is government, with its taxes, regulations, inflation. And wars, pogroms, confiscations, persecutions, and myriad other stupidities. But most people are more concerned today about the proximate cause of the recent unpleasantness.

The Proximate Cause

The genesis of the current crisis is subprime mortgages. For well over a decade, lenders have been making mortgage loans available to literally anybody with a pulse who wanted to own a house. Several times, in the mid-‘90s, I expressed astonishment at the fact lenders were loaning over 100% of the appraised value of a house. Even back then, it seemed that was the top of the housing bubble. But what do you know? It hadn’t even turned on the turbos… just going to show how hard it is sometimes to pick an actual top.

This leads to one of the more interesting distortions arising from a really big credit-driven boom. You know the old saying: If you owe a banker a little money and can’t pay, you’re in trouble. But if you owe a lot of money, he’s in trouble. That’s exactly what’s happened here. All those new homeowners are already having trouble paying their mortgages. As rates go up, their ranks will swell since they’re almost all on floating-rate mortgages. Higher rates and more distress sales will take housing prices lower. Which, in turn, will encourage more people to leave their keys in the mailbox and walk away.

On the other side of the trade are all the funds and institutions that bought the paper. They’ll eventually recover some percentage of their money, after the houses in question have gone into foreclosure and are taken over by new owners. The ones who will really be hurt are the hedge funds, which have become so popular in recent years. Hedge funds are investment pools, available only to sophisticated investors, which are essentially unregulated and can invest in anything, long or short.

And, most important, in any amount of debt. In fact, what many appear to have been doing in recent years is borrowing money cheaply (perhaps paying 1% in yen), and then using the proceeds to buy high-yielding paper (like subprime mortgages yielding perhaps 8%). A million dollars of capital invested at 8% would impress nobody; a million dollars, plus another 9 million borrowed at 1%, however, would yield 64%. This was essentially what Long Term Capital Management was doing when it blew up in 1998. What’s happening today is a repetition of that misadventure, except on a much larger scale: it is said that some large percentage of the estimated 9,000 hedge funds in existence now control over a trillion dollars in debt. The future of those funds is very much in doubt.

The government will probably come up with some moronic and counterproductive scheme to keep people who can’t afford their houses – and should be renting, which is a much better bargain today – in them. That will also serve to save the investors’ bacon. What it will also do is add to already massive burden on taxpayers. And it will acutely accelerate the destruction of the currency. As an aside, it will also give the SEC an entrée to regulate hedge funds, which will serve no useful purpose.

What you’re really asking yourself, however, in view of the specialty of our flagship publication, the International Speculator, is: “What about our mining stocks?”

Mining Stocks

These, as you well know, are probably the most volatile securities on the planet. And you’ve just had a demonstration of how volatility can go both ways. Many have gone up by a factor of 10, or more, since the current bull market started in 2000. But on August 16th alone, the average stock went down about 10%. I’d say most stocks are off 40% from their previous highs. Many are asking themselves if the bull market is over. I’d say, almost certainly not. This is for several reasons:

1. We’re still in the Wall of Worry stage of the market. The Stealth stage ended in 2003, and the Mania stage hasn’t yet begun. The bulls and the bears are still fighting. Retrenchments like this happen. Bull markets naturally try to take as few investors along as possible; it simply wouldn’t do if everybody could make a living in the market. Who’d do the real work? But the market will continue to climb the Wall of Worry in my view. And we will have a Mania.

2. The public is still out of the gold market. I promise you that every market top I’ve witnessed in my life was accompanied by cocktail party chatter about the asset class in question. I have yet to have any indication the public has a clue that gold and other resources even exist. If this is a market top, it’s unique.

3. Extraneous factors, not fundamentals, caused the sell-off. In other words, gold went down simply because there was a bid for it, and sellers needed dollars to meet their obligations. All the other metals were in the same position. Hedge funds appear to have owned a lot of metals, simply because they offer a lot of leverage. And the stocks, which are always illiquid, were showing their usual leverage.

4. Governments all over the world are pumping hundreds of billions into the system. They’re doing that to ward off a credit collapse, and will almost certainly succeed. But all that extra purchasing media means higher inflation and brings us closer to the day that the foreign holders of $6 trillion will step up to the cashier and ask for their money back. The attention of the markets will soon shift to gold.

My guess, therefore, is that the ugliness for the mining stocks won’t last long. I don’t have any prediction about exactly when the golds will come back. But I think that by year-end, they’ll be heading strongly back toward new highs. I will say this: you want gold stocks, not copper, nickel, lead, zinc, or even silver. Gold is the cheapest asset out there. Uranium remains my second favorite.

We saw the meltdown of the subprime market coming. And correctly anticipated the government’s response. But we didn’t, I think, adequately clock how ugly it would be for the juniors. Why not? The fact is that once you sell, you tend not to buy back in. And trading is a sucker’s game; the odds are greatly tilted against you by the bid/ask spreads, commissions and, most importantly, your own emotions. So we only like to sell when we think a particular company is going in the wrong direction.

Recall the recent tech boom. There were numerous brutal sell-offs on the way to the ultimate top in March 2000. We’ll have other sell-offs in this market as well on the way to the top.

Rest assured, we’re anxious to give an all-out sell on all these resource stocks. At that point, we hope to have found a market sector that’s as cheap as they were back in 2000. But that’s not yet, and probably not for a couple of years.

Hang tough. Buy more of the best of the best.

Next Page »