Good morning. This is what I’m reading this morning:

• Why Mortgages Will Soon Be More Expensive (Time)

• Investors’ Story Left Out of Wall St. ‘Wolf’ Movie (DealBook), see also Martin Scorsese’s longtime film editor discusses cutting ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ (WSJ)

• `Dogs of the Dow’ Strategy No Longer Works (Barron’s)



Continues here

Category: Financial Press

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

8 Responses to “10 Friday AM Reads”

  1. Bob is still unemployed   says:

    NFL Opposes U.S. Proposal to End Sports Blackout Rule for Pay TV (sfgate)

    “Dec. 19 (Bloomberg) — The National Football League said it “will strongly oppose” a proposal by U.S. regulators to eliminate the rule that keeps cable providers and satellite broadcasters from showing sports events lacking sellout crowds.

    “The blackout rule, crafted almost 40 years ago to promote live attendance, may no longer be necessary to ensure the public can see games, the Federal Communications Commission said yesterday in an e-mailed notice. Eliminating the rule would require the agency’s vote after a public comment period….”

    So let me see if I understand this correctly…

    The NFL relies on government welfare to get the money to build a stadium. Then the NFL denies the ability of the people who paid for the stadium to see the NFL games being played in that stadium.


    In a classic case of doublespeak, the NFL spokesperson says both:

    - “We are on pace for a historic low number of blackouts” with one game affected this season


    - “The blackout rule is very important in supporting NFL stadiums and the ability of NFL clubs to sell tickets and keeping our games attractive as television programming with large crowds.”

    If the blackout rule has affected only one game so far this season, how can it be “very important”?

    Wouldn’t it be a better strategy if the NFL were to make the games interesting enough to attract enough of an audience to fill its stadium? Or maybe even build a smaller stadium that will be filled by the those who want to attend the games in person.

    • TerryC says:

      It’s all NFL doublespeak. Ticket prices are insane, yet the stadiums are always full. I’ve been a Bears fan for 50 years, and I can’t remember the last time Soldier Field didn’t sell out (even in a blizzard). Same goes for Lambeau Field. Since so many fans of teams are spread out all over the country these days, and not just in the local market (I’m in Texas, so not going to Chicago on many Sundays to see a game), the FCC needs to allow networks the option for cable customers to choose the game they want to watch on TV. And I don’t mean by paying extra for an NFL package, either. If games were allowed for no extra charge, and I could watch the Bears every Sunday (instead of the horrible Cowboys and Texans), I would be happy.

      I’m willing to bet this would actually increase the viewer audience on game day. And, if certain teams didn’t fill their stadiums up by deadline (Friday evening?) then they could do the unthinkable and actually offer some discounted tickets to fill up the stadium.

  2. RW says:

    Wolf of Wall Street Whitewashes the Real Problems With Wall Street

    I’m not a movie critic so I won’t say much about the aesthetic qualities of The Wolf of Wall Street except that it was funny and far too long. … [but] by focusing on cases of egregious criminal fraud the movie elides the real scandal, which, as is often the case, is about what’s legal.

    …retelling stories about the lowest-rent and most egregious frauds around ultimately becomes a barrier to understanding. Scumbags like the guys in the movie don’t get invitations to the White House. But it’s the guys who have the ears of the people in power you should be worrying about.

    It was funny, weirdly and wildly hilarious in places in fact, and okay maybe a bit on the long side w/ the grief of swindled investors downplayed. But, yes, the far larger problem is what continues to be legal and the scumbags who do in fact continue to get invitations to the White House.

  3. rd says:

    Jimmy Stewart stars in a new movie “The Wolf of Bedford Falls”

  4. hue says:

    How Google’s robot army could launch a new era of human-robot interaction (New Yorker)

    Nick Saban: Sympathy for the Devil (GG)

    The 2013 Hater’s Guide To The Williams-Sonoma Catalog Edit (Deadspin)

  5. rd says:

    Interesting article about vaccinations:

    It appears that there is hope for the younger generation once they get free of their parents fear of everything rational.

  6. rd says:

    The Maine governor views global warming as a potential boon to his state down the road:

    I am in his camp of requring assessment of the positive as well as negative aspects fo global warming. Climate change and sea level change has always been with us. While ocena acification has some potential to be very bad, we are currently doing far more damage to our oceans worldwide with everyday activiites such as over-fishing, agricultural runoff, silt deposition due to erosion from clear-cut areas, filling of wetlands and estuaries, urban and industrial pollution of rivers and estuaries, and damming/diking rivers and floodplains cutting off spawning grounds and preventing repleishment of settled and eroded dealtas and beaches.

    The northern parts of the northern hemisphere have very young fertile soils because of the recent glacial advances and new soil deposition. Moving these soils into better growing zones could result in great improvements of agricultural production. Warm areas that allow for long growing seasons now tend to have old poor soils that have been leached of most nutrients over the past few million years.

    For everybody who is concerned about the impacts fo global warming, they should study how devastating cooling can be:

    • RW says:

      If one can judge by the news out of Maine, Governor LePage appears to be an ignorant, ineffectual fool who will probably not be governor much longer but I’m fairly certain regardless that he doesn’t have a clue what climate change means much less what it implies for his state; e.g., some models predict a stalled gulf stream that would leave coastal regions from New York, Maine and Nova Scotia and on through England and Northern Europe in the deep freeze.

      Global warming does not mean it will get hotter everywhere, at least at first, but the question of just what climate change might mean for N. America is clearly a pressing one just as it is for every other region of the world.

      Canadian soils currently in production are notoriously thin because a great deal of their topsoil wound up in the lower 48 of the USA as a result of glaciation during the last ice age. But further north there is a lot of frozen organic material bound up in permafrost that would be released — unfortunately also releasing lots more methane as well as collapsing structures relying upon that foundation — so a general movement of production north might work out, assuming precipitation patterns cooperate of course. Need to recall that the warming period during the middle ages — approx 950 to 1250 AD — was less than a half a degree warmer than now but the entire middle of N. America, from Texas to Saskatchewan and the Mississippi valley to the Sierra/Cascades, was desert (dig anywhere you like in the Middle West and you will eventually hit a buried sand dune).

      Which is only to say it would have been really nice if this particular ecological experiment were not already in full progress with ongoing evidence that leadership is still paying insufficient attention to what the science is saying much less appropriately weighting policy; i.e., everyone better hope the climate scientists are wrong because, at this point, there really is no plan B.