Economy:
Housing starts drop 9% in February and show little sign of perking up; permits fall - MarketWatch
Housing starts drop 9% in February and show little sign of perking up; permits fall - MarketWatch
Yield curve may be indicating increased chance for rate cut but not a recession, says former Fed Chair Yellen - MarketWatch That possibility is consistent with the yield curve at the short end but is not IMO the most probable explanation when the yield curve inversion is accompanied by widespread economic slowdowns.
++++++
Markets and Market Commentary:
The Stock Jocks are not ready to pay much attention to economic slowdowns and inverted yield curves.
The Stock Jocks are not ready to pay much attention to economic slowdowns and inverted yield curves.
Bond market says a recession is coming, and the Fed will cut rates
The Bond Vigilantes Used to Fear Inflation. Now They Fear a Recession.
The Bond Vigilantes Used to Fear Inflation. Now They Fear a Recession.
Several ten year government bond yields are in nominal negative territory and others are moving closer toward negative yields: World Government Bonds - Daily updated yields
Apple Stock Will Plunge Because There’s Not Much Profit in New Services, Goldman Sachs Says
Apple Stock Will Plunge Because There’s Not Much Profit in New Services, Goldman Sachs Says
+++++++
Trump:
I have faith in Mueller's integrity and competence. I may or may not agree with his conclusions when his full report and all of the facts are released for public scrutiny.
The special counsel's investigation "did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election", according to the summary released by the Attorney General.
Barr added that the "investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Those sentences resulted in this kind of headline which is understandable given what was disclosed in Barr's letter: Mueller report finds no evidence of collusion, though leaves obstruction question unanswered - MarketWatch The public needs to know whether those headlines go too far.
One question is whether Mueller found some circumstantial evidence of cooperation but not enough evidence to justify a finding of collusion.
The use of the words "find" and "establish" suggest that Mueller was using an evidentiary standard to reach a conclusion and the evidence either fell short of whatever evidentiary standard he was using or there was no credible evidence at all.
Ultimately, these questions and others will be answered, possibly by some some cogent questioning when Barr soon testifies before the House Judiciary Committee or when the full report is released to the public.
For example, a number of questions could be asked that relate to the evidence that Manafort and Gates, while working for the Trump campaign, turned over internal Trump polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik. believed to have ties to Russian intelligence or to be a Russian operative by the CIA and FBI, which would be useful in Russia targeting U.S. voters to influence the outcome. Prior reports claimed that the polling data was contained in 75 pages.
Manafort Accused of Sharing Trump Polling Data With Russian Associate - The New York Times;
Manafort shared polling data on 2016 election with elusive Russian -The Guardian;
Here’s the sort of information that could have been in polling data shared by Paul Manafort - The Washington Post;
Mueller: Manafort Lied About 'Russian Brain' Kilimnik - The Atlantic;
Mueller Report, Paul Manafort, Konstantin Kilimnik: No collusion. But how? (just more questions that need an answer);
Why Would Paul Manafort Share Polling Data with Russia? | The New Yorker
And, Manafort lied according to federal prosecutors about his knowledge on that matter. Why lie when there is an innocent explanation that does not involve cooperation with the Russians using a wink rather than a formal agreement to cooperate. In August 2016, Manafort would meet with Kilimnik in a NYC cigar bar which makes the polling data transfer even more suspicious.
If all of that is true, then someone has some explaining to do.
Even criminal cases can be built on circumstantial evidence.
Mueller may have downgraded that circumstantial evidence, as well as others, for reasons that are not now clear to me now. Maybe he needed to find something like an agreement to cooperate rather than just talking and swapping information on a variety of topics. Or, maybe Mueller could not find enough evidence that the U.S. person knew that the other person was a Russian intelligence officer or asset.
It could be that Gates and Manafort denied that trying to help the Russians influence the election and had some other purpose for example. Why would that be a credible explanation when they knew about Kilimnik's history?
The best reasonable inference is that the data was delivered knowing it would end up in Russian government hands. Yes, but did they know it would be used to interfere in the election or could the government prove that it was used by Russia for that purpose? Is that even relevant? I recall that Kilimnik denied giving the data to the Russian government. That is what you would expect him to say if he gave the data to Russia.
So let's wait for all of the facts to be released before spending to much time guessing. Trump has become more insufferable after the report was released.
Mueller did not exonerate Trump on the obstruction of justice claims. This did not stop Trump from claiming total exoneration when that was obviously not true.
Most of the evidence relating to those claims originate from public statements made by the Duck himself.
Mueller specifically claimed that his investigation did not exonerate Trump of obstruction justice. As described by the AG Barr, Mueller merely set out the facts in his report and left it to the AG to "determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime".
I would like to hear Mueller's explanation as to why he punted the obstruction case to political appointees whose decision was a foregone conclusion. Avoiding that kind of conflicted decision is why he was appointed in the first place.
Barr and the Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein have already concluded the evidence "is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."
The phrasing of that previously quoted sentence indicates that Barr and Rosenstein were using a likely to convict using a guilt beyond a reasonable doubt standard when making their decision on the obstruction charge. 9-27.200 - Principles Of Federal Prosecution | JM | Department of Justice ("The attorney for the government should commence or recommend federal prosecution if he/she believes that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction", with certain narrow exceptions)
That is the appropriate standard IMO for bringing criminal charges regardless of whether the person is the President or some low life career criminal caught in the act again.
That conclusion, coming from Trump appointees, is nonetheless suspect. Barr is known as a loyal republican soldier for his entire adult life and Rosenstein previously provided Donald cover for firing Comey. It looks to me that Rosenstein was kept around to provide cover for Barr on this very issue and will leave after a suitable waiting period.
Overall, the Mueller report was a victory for the Duck and put to rest any possibility of impeachment during his remaining term unless strong evidence of some other major criminal act emerges.
I previously argued that it would not be wise or responsible for the Democrats to proceed with impeachment based on obstruction or campaign reporting violations. I can now add Russian collusion to that list.
No republican President would vote to impeach Donald on those grounds, so it would be foolish to even start proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee. I agreed with Nancy Pelosi's position that any impeachment needed to be bipartisan. 3/13/19 Post I regarded the republicans effort to impeach Bill Clinton to be irresponsible and unnecessarily divisive for the same reason. Democrats would not vote for impeaching him based on lies about his sex life. The GOP's irresponsibility on that matter paled into insignificance compared to their almost unanimous decision to invade Iraq.
So was Donald justified in attacking Mueller's integrity and objectivity, frequently in his normal vicious manner, in 100 or so statements? No doubt Teflon Don will apologize for those attacks soon or at least the more vicious ones.
Donald did not collude with the Russians according to Mueller, but that does not make him a good person or leader. He remains a lying, mean spirited, authoritarian leaning Demagogue who is a wretched human being. Those matters do not require a special counsel's investigation. The facts are publicly available and have been for years to establish those traits far beyond any reasonable doubt. And he may be reelected as President for a second term unless there is a recession and rapidly rising unemployment leading up to election day.
72 percent of Republicans think Trump is 'a good role model for children'
Again, just to highlight that I am not a liberal, I voted for Senators Lamar Alexander (R) and Bob Corker (R). I only sound liberal to republicans since most of them are nowhere close to being conservatives.
I have faith in Mueller's integrity and competence. I may or may not agree with his conclusions when his full report and all of the facts are released for public scrutiny.
The special counsel's investigation "did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election", according to the summary released by the Attorney General.
Barr added that the "investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Those sentences resulted in this kind of headline which is understandable given what was disclosed in Barr's letter: Mueller report finds no evidence of collusion, though leaves obstruction question unanswered - MarketWatch The public needs to know whether those headlines go too far.
One question is whether Mueller found some circumstantial evidence of cooperation but not enough evidence to justify a finding of collusion.
The use of the words "find" and "establish" suggest that Mueller was using an evidentiary standard to reach a conclusion and the evidence either fell short of whatever evidentiary standard he was using or there was no credible evidence at all.
Ultimately, these questions and others will be answered, possibly by some some cogent questioning when Barr soon testifies before the House Judiciary Committee or when the full report is released to the public.
For example, a number of questions could be asked that relate to the evidence that Manafort and Gates, while working for the Trump campaign, turned over internal Trump polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik. believed to have ties to Russian intelligence or to be a Russian operative by the CIA and FBI, which would be useful in Russia targeting U.S. voters to influence the outcome. Prior reports claimed that the polling data was contained in 75 pages.
Manafort Accused of Sharing Trump Polling Data With Russian Associate - The New York Times;
Manafort shared polling data on 2016 election with elusive Russian -The Guardian;
Here’s the sort of information that could have been in polling data shared by Paul Manafort - The Washington Post;
Mueller: Manafort Lied About 'Russian Brain' Kilimnik - The Atlantic;
Mueller Report, Paul Manafort, Konstantin Kilimnik: No collusion. But how? (just more questions that need an answer);
Why Would Paul Manafort Share Polling Data with Russia? | The New Yorker
And, Manafort lied according to federal prosecutors about his knowledge on that matter. Why lie when there is an innocent explanation that does not involve cooperation with the Russians using a wink rather than a formal agreement to cooperate. In August 2016, Manafort would meet with Kilimnik in a NYC cigar bar which makes the polling data transfer even more suspicious.
If all of that is true, then someone has some explaining to do.
Even criminal cases can be built on circumstantial evidence.
Mueller may have downgraded that circumstantial evidence, as well as others, for reasons that are not now clear to me now. Maybe he needed to find something like an agreement to cooperate rather than just talking and swapping information on a variety of topics. Or, maybe Mueller could not find enough evidence that the U.S. person knew that the other person was a Russian intelligence officer or asset.
It could be that Gates and Manafort denied that trying to help the Russians influence the election and had some other purpose for example. Why would that be a credible explanation when they knew about Kilimnik's history?
The best reasonable inference is that the data was delivered knowing it would end up in Russian government hands. Yes, but did they know it would be used to interfere in the election or could the government prove that it was used by Russia for that purpose? Is that even relevant? I recall that Kilimnik denied giving the data to the Russian government. That is what you would expect him to say if he gave the data to Russia.
So let's wait for all of the facts to be released before spending to much time guessing. Trump has become more insufferable after the report was released.
Mueller did not exonerate Trump on the obstruction of justice claims. This did not stop Trump from claiming total exoneration when that was obviously not true.
Most of the evidence relating to those claims originate from public statements made by the Duck himself.
Mueller specifically claimed that his investigation did not exonerate Trump of obstruction justice. As described by the AG Barr, Mueller merely set out the facts in his report and left it to the AG to "determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime".
I would like to hear Mueller's explanation as to why he punted the obstruction case to political appointees whose decision was a foregone conclusion. Avoiding that kind of conflicted decision is why he was appointed in the first place.
Barr and the Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein have already concluded the evidence "is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."
The phrasing of that previously quoted sentence indicates that Barr and Rosenstein were using a likely to convict using a guilt beyond a reasonable doubt standard when making their decision on the obstruction charge. 9-27.200 - Principles Of Federal Prosecution | JM | Department of Justice ("The attorney for the government should commence or recommend federal prosecution if he/she believes that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction", with certain narrow exceptions)
That is the appropriate standard IMO for bringing criminal charges regardless of whether the person is the President or some low life career criminal caught in the act again.
That conclusion, coming from Trump appointees, is nonetheless suspect. Barr is known as a loyal republican soldier for his entire adult life and Rosenstein previously provided Donald cover for firing Comey. It looks to me that Rosenstein was kept around to provide cover for Barr on this very issue and will leave after a suitable waiting period.
Overall, the Mueller report was a victory for the Duck and put to rest any possibility of impeachment during his remaining term unless strong evidence of some other major criminal act emerges.
I previously argued that it would not be wise or responsible for the Democrats to proceed with impeachment based on obstruction or campaign reporting violations. I can now add Russian collusion to that list.
No republican President would vote to impeach Donald on those grounds, so it would be foolish to even start proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee. I agreed with Nancy Pelosi's position that any impeachment needed to be bipartisan. 3/13/19 Post I regarded the republicans effort to impeach Bill Clinton to be irresponsible and unnecessarily divisive for the same reason. Democrats would not vote for impeaching him based on lies about his sex life. The GOP's irresponsibility on that matter paled into insignificance compared to their almost unanimous decision to invade Iraq.
So was Donald justified in attacking Mueller's integrity and objectivity, frequently in his normal vicious manner, in 100 or so statements? No doubt Teflon Don will apologize for those attacks soon or at least the more vicious ones.
Donald did not collude with the Russians according to Mueller, but that does not make him a good person or leader. He remains a lying, mean spirited, authoritarian leaning Demagogue who is a wretched human being. Those matters do not require a special counsel's investigation. The facts are publicly available and have been for years to establish those traits far beyond any reasonable doubt. And he may be reelected as President for a second term unless there is a recession and rapidly rising unemployment leading up to election day.
72 percent of Republicans think Trump is 'a good role model for children'
Again, just to highlight that I am not a liberal, I voted for Senators Lamar Alexander (R) and Bob Corker (R). I only sound liberal to republicans since most of them are nowhere close to being conservatives.
Just another example that Trump ignores the process for making decisions and the recommendations of experts, preferring instead to go with his gut and his belief that Kim is really a good guy. Trump surprises his own aides by reversing North Korea sanctions 1 day after his administration rolled them out; Trump botches North Korea sanctions announcement, sparking widespread confusion - The Washington Post
++++
Michael Avenatti, "Esq." (soon to be "unesquired" and "defanged", new words for disbarred):
Donald is not the only person in the world suffering from the narcissistic personality disorder. My previous mention relating to Avenatti was to note that Donald and Avenatti deserved one another-two peas from the same pod; soul brothers from different mothers; birds of a feather flock together. I could go on but you probably catch my drift.
Tough guy Michael Avenatti has gone far singing his own praises which apparently works far better in the U.S. than being modest and allowing others to praise you when deserved. Over-the-top self promotion certainly worked for the Duck.
Avenatti was charged by federal prosecutors in California and New York with a grab bag of felonies.
I have read a factual summary of the indictments as well as the indictments. It looks like he is toast on the charges brought in California. His bombast, tweets and I will bury you approach to everything, are not going to help him in that case. Lawyer Michael Avenatti Arrested on Federal Bank Fraud and Wire Fraud Charges | USAO-CDCA | Department of Justice; Read the extortion and fraud charges against Michael Avenatti - Axios
He may beat the Nike extortion charge in NY. The argument will be that he was just attempting to negotiate a settlement for a client. One problem for him in that case is his threat made to hold a press conference to knock billions off the stock price unless millions were paid pronto. Another is that he allegedly demanded to be paid, along with his co-counsel who is an unindicted co-conspirator and reported to be celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos, between $15 to $25M by Nike to conduct an "internal investigation". So he went beyond demanding a settlement for his client. Mark Geragos, reportedly Michael Avenatti's unindicted coconspirator, built a long career on celebrity clients - The Washington Post
The California matter involves alleged misappropriation of client funds and bank fraud. The statements of fact made in the indictment are most damning IMO.
Lawyers will defend you to your last dime. I would not exactly regard him as a good risk to pay his legal defense fees, at least from funds that legally belong to him.
Avenatti has denied any guilt and proclaimed that the facts will vindicate after he receives due process. The slammer is due process for this guy.
For Michael Avenatti, a luxury lifestyle built on a purported house of cards - Los Angeles Times
Avenatti to give up financial control of law firm after he's accused of hiding millions - Los Angeles Times
++++
Portfolio Management:
I eliminated my positions in three T. Rowe Price stock mutual funds last.
I discuss the first one below and the other two will be summarized in two future posts.
I am simply selling into the strong stock market rally, harvesting some capital gains and reducing risk.
I also wanted to reduce the number of T. Rowe Price down to four core ones. When I finish, and I have one more that needs to be sold, I will be left with the following with the first two being significant positions:
T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Fund PRWCX (my largest position and the most conservative fund in this group);
T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth Fund PRDGX
T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Stock Fund OTCFX
T. Rowe Price Health Sciences Fund PRHSX
I can not find any bonds to buy now other than short term treasury bills as an alternative to cash, particularly at Schwab where the money market sweep account pays almost nothing.
I only casually looked around yesterday for corporate bonds and just gave up.
I am doing some light selling into this strong bond rally.
There have been several strong bond rallies over the past several years that fizzled out with interest rates then turning back up, providing better opportunities to buy. I sold during the bond rally in 2017 and then bought back many of the bonds sold at lower prices than previous purchases as the ten year yield moved toward and back over 3%. I would note that the ten year yield was at 3.24% on 11/8/18 and closed yesterday at 2.4%.
Maybe that bungee jumping will happen again. Maybe savers are just doomed to negative or barely positive real returns before taxes. It does not look like any relief will happen this year.
A return of inflation could turn markets on their head, warns Northern Trust - MarketWatch
++++++++
1. Elimination:
A. Sold 955.886 Shares of PRSGX:
Sponsor's Page: Spectrum Growth Fund (PRSGX) Investment Performance - T. Rowe Price
I sold those shares on Monday (3/18) at $22.73.
The closing price on the prior Friday (3/15) was $22.63. At that time I had an unrealized gain of $5,119.97:
Profit Snapshot: $5,439.27
A. Sold 955.886 Shares of PRSGX:
Sponsor's Page: Spectrum Growth Fund (PRSGX) Investment Performance - T. Rowe Price
I sold those shares on Monday (3/18) at $22.73.
The closing price on the prior Friday (3/15) was $22.63. At that time I had an unrealized gain of $5,119.97:
Profit Snapshot: $5,439.27
This is a fund that owns other T. Rowe Price mutual funds. The weighted net expense ratio was .77% as of 12/31/18. That would be from the underlying funds.
Morningstar: PRSGX rated 2 stars
Rationale: This is a fund of fund that has underperformed as reflected in the 2 star rating. One option that I have is to use stock rallies to eliminate underperforming funds.
The average annual total return over the past 10 years through 3/18/19 was 15.1% but the more recent numbers have been subpar for the risk. Shares were bought more than a decade ago. I have not sold any prior to this elimination.
The average annual return over the past five years was 8.3% and was negative YTD through 3/18. In contrast, the dumb S & P 500 ETF had a 11.06% annual average total return of 11.06% over the same five year period and was up 4.71% YTD.
I will move proceeds to another broker when I have enough funds to receive at least 250 free trades or will keep the proceeds in a Price MM fund until there is at least a 20% SPX decline (preferably 30+%) from the current level.
I have been taking dividends in cash for several years. Those dividends are paid annually which I do not like.
2. Short Term Bond/CD Ladder Basket Strategy:
$6K in Adds
I not fill my ladder with treasuries maturing in 12+ months to 2 years by buying at auctions. The treasury auctions only have 1 year bill and a 2 year treasury note.
A. Bought 1 Treasury 2.375% Coupon Maturing on 4/30/20:
YTM = 2.554%
I now own 5 bonds.
B. Bought 2 American Express 2.6% SU Bonds Maturing on 9/14/20:
I rolled the proceeds of 2 American Express SU bonds that matured on 3/18/19.
Finra Page: Bond Detail (prospectus linked)
Issuer: American Express Co. (AXP)
AXP Analyst Estimates
2018 Annual Report
Last Bond Issuance Prior to Trade (2/19): Prospectus
Credit Ratings:
Bought at a TC of 99.677
YTM at TC Then at 2.819%
Current Yield at TC = 2.6084%
B. Bought 2 American Express 2.6% SU Bonds Maturing on 9/14/20:
I rolled the proceeds of 2 American Express SU bonds that matured on 3/18/19.
Finra Page: Bond Detail (prospectus linked)
Issuer: American Express Co. (AXP)
AXP Analyst Estimates
2018 Annual Report
Last Bond Issuance Prior to Trade (2/19): Prospectus
Bought at a TC of 99.677
YTM at TC Then at 2.819%
Current Yield at TC = 2.6084%
C. Bought 1 Treasury 1.5% Coupon Maturing on 4/15/20:
YTM = 2.54%
I now own 2 bonds.
YTM = 2.54%
I now own 2 bonds.
D. Bought 1 Treasury 1.5% Coupon Maturing on 5/15/20:
YTM = 2.538%
YTM = 2.538%
E. Bought 1 Treasury 2.5% Coupon Maturing on 6/30/20:
YTM = 2.514%
I now own 3 bonds.
YTM = 2.514%
3. Intermediate Term Bond/CD Ladder Strategy:
A. Sold 2 Novartis Capital 2.4% SU Maturing on 5/17/22-In a Roth IRA Account:
FINRA Page: Bond Detail
Profit Snapshot: $12.88
Item # 4.B. Bought 2 NVS Capital 2.4% SU Maturing on 5/7/22 at a TC of 97.657 (3/22/18 Post)
Sold at 99.047
YTM at 99.047 = 2.707%
Current Yield at 99.047 = 2.4231%
Proceeds at 98.847 (includes $4 commission)
On the date sold, my Vanguard Prime Money Market fund had a higher current yield than this bond but the yield has already started to tick down some.
I will consider repurchasing this one at less than my last purchase price.
A. Sold 2 Novartis Capital 2.4% SU Maturing on 5/17/22-In a Roth IRA Account:
FINRA Page: Bond Detail
Profit Snapshot: $12.88
Item # 4.B. Bought 2 NVS Capital 2.4% SU Maturing on 5/7/22 at a TC of 97.657 (3/22/18 Post)
Sold at 99.047
YTM at 99.047 = 2.707%
Current Yield at 99.047 = 2.4231%
Proceeds at 98.847 (includes $4 commission)
On the date sold, my Vanguard Prime Money Market fund had a higher current yield than this bond but the yield has already started to tick down some.
I will consider repurchasing this one at less than my last purchase price.
I eliminated my common stock position in my accounts (10/24/18 Post), but kept a position in a family member's Fidelity account. The annual dividend was just paid into that account and more than 30% was withheld by Switzerland to pay the dividend tax. The maximum amount that can be collected under the tax treaty is 15%, but the broker has to assert treaty rights for their customers.
In the past, Fidelity has done so for dividends paid by Swiss companies, so this was a first for that brokerage company.
I am not going to complain since the dividend was invested at what I would consider a high price; and I have found my complaints on excessive foreign tax withholdings to be both frustrating and extremely aggravating for the amount of money at issue. The excessive foreign tax credit may prove to be valuable than the 1 share or so that could have been bought with the excessive tax.
B. Bought 2 Sovran Acquisition L.P. 3.5% SU Maturing on 7/1/26-In A Roth IRA Account:
I now own 4 bonds with the other owned in a taxable account.
FINRA Page: Bond Detail (prospectus linked)
Issuer: Operating Subsidiary of Life Storage Inc. (LSI) (formerly known as Sovran Storage) who guarantees the notes
Life Storage, Inc. Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2018 Results
LSI "is a self-administered and self-managed equity REIT that is in the business of acquiring and managing self storage facilities. Located in Buffalo, New York, the Company operates more than 750 storage facilities in 28 states and Ontario, Canada. The Company serves both residential and commercial storage customers with storage units rented by month. Life Storage consistently provides responsive service to its 400,000-plus customers, making it a leader in the industry."
SEC Filings
2018 Annual Report (debt discussed starting at page 53)
Sovran Self Storage, Inc. Acquires LifeStorage (7/18/16)
Sovran Self Storage, Inc. to Rebrand as Life Storage (7/18/16)
Credit Ratings:
In the past, Fidelity has done so for dividends paid by Swiss companies, so this was a first for that brokerage company.
I am not going to complain since the dividend was invested at what I would consider a high price; and I have found my complaints on excessive foreign tax withholdings to be both frustrating and extremely aggravating for the amount of money at issue. The excessive foreign tax credit may prove to be valuable than the 1 share or so that could have been bought with the excessive tax.
B. Bought 2 Sovran Acquisition L.P. 3.5% SU Maturing on 7/1/26-In A Roth IRA Account:
FINRA Page: Bond Detail (prospectus linked)
Issuer: Operating Subsidiary of Life Storage Inc. (LSI) (formerly known as Sovran Storage) who guarantees the notes
Life Storage, Inc. Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2018 Results
LSI "is a self-administered and self-managed equity REIT that is in the business of acquiring and managing self storage facilities. Located in Buffalo, New York, the Company operates more than 750 storage facilities in 28 states and Ontario, Canada. The Company serves both residential and commercial storage customers with storage units rented by month. Life Storage consistently provides responsive service to its 400,000-plus customers, making it a leader in the industry."
SEC Filings
2018 Annual Report (debt discussed starting at page 53)
Sovran Self Storage, Inc. Acquires LifeStorage (7/18/16)
Sovran Self Storage, Inc. to Rebrand as Life Storage (7/18/16)
Credit Ratings:
Bought at a Total Cost of 95.752 (includes $4 brokerage commission)
YTM at TC Then at 4.184% (tax free in the Roth IRA)
Current Yield at TC = 3.6533%
4. Purchases:
A. Added 50 DX at $6-Used Commission Free Trade:
Dynex Capital Inc.-MarketWatch
Website: Dynex Capital, Inc. - Home
Closing Price Yesterday: DX $5.98 +$0.08 +1.36%
Generally speaking, I do not view mortgage REITs as worth the risk.
This purchase brings me up to 100 shares in my Fidelity account plus shares purchased with dividends.
I decided to buy another 50 shares in response to the FED becoming even more dovish. Yield is going to be hard to find in the next year or two, or possibly much longer.
My objective with any MREIT purchase now is to harvest at some point an 8% average annual total return which means that I am okay losing some money on the shares without the ROC adjustment.
Dividend: CURRENTLY, Monthly at 6 cents per share ($.72 annually)
Dynex Capital, Inc. Declares Monthly Common Stock Dividend of $0.06 for March 2019
I would not label the dividend amount as reliable going forward. MREITs have slashed their payouts over the past several years.
Last Ex Dividend: 3/21/19 (day after purchase)
Average Total Cost Per Share = $6.05
Dividend Yield at Total Cost: 11.9%
The yield curve gyrations have caused recently substantial declines in MREIT net asset values. The flattening of the yield curve is also a major negative.
Tax Characterization:
Most of the 2018 dividend was classified as a return of capital ($.56+ per share out of $.72 total). Dynex Capital, Inc. Announces 2018 Dividend Tax Information
The ROC dividend amount is not taxable for U.S. taxpayers until the shares are sold. The ROC amount reduces the tax cost basis and is in that way a tax deferral. It is captured as income when the shares are sold at profit over the adjusted cost basis reduced by the ROC adjustments.
Since the taxable part of dividends paid by a pass through entities are entirely or close to it non-qualified, the high tax bracket investor may be able to turn the taxable amount into a long term capital gain taxable at a lower marginal rate when the shares are sold or hold the share until death when, under current law, the cost basis is stepped up to the market value then. Step-Up in Basis
Last Earnings Report (QE 12/31/18):
Dynex Capital, Inc. Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2018 Results | Business Wire
YTM at TC Then at 4.184% (tax free in the Roth IRA)
Current Yield at TC = 3.6533%
4. Purchases:
A. Added 50 DX at $6-Used Commission Free Trade:
Dynex Capital Inc.-MarketWatch
Website: Dynex Capital, Inc. - Home
Closing Price Yesterday: DX $5.98 +$0.08 +1.36%
Generally speaking, I do not view mortgage REITs as worth the risk.
This purchase brings me up to 100 shares in my Fidelity account plus shares purchased with dividends.
I decided to buy another 50 shares in response to the FED becoming even more dovish. Yield is going to be hard to find in the next year or two, or possibly much longer.
My objective with any MREIT purchase now is to harvest at some point an 8% average annual total return which means that I am okay losing some money on the shares without the ROC adjustment.
Dividend: CURRENTLY, Monthly at 6 cents per share ($.72 annually)
Dynex Capital, Inc. Declares Monthly Common Stock Dividend of $0.06 for March 2019
I would not label the dividend amount as reliable going forward. MREITs have slashed their payouts over the past several years.
Last Ex Dividend: 3/21/19 (day after purchase)
Average Total Cost Per Share = $6.05
Dividend Yield at Total Cost: 11.9%
The yield curve gyrations have caused recently substantial declines in MREIT net asset values. The flattening of the yield curve is also a major negative.
Tax Characterization:
Most of the 2018 dividend was classified as a return of capital ($.56+ per share out of $.72 total). Dynex Capital, Inc. Announces 2018 Dividend Tax Information
The ROC dividend amount is not taxable for U.S. taxpayers until the shares are sold. The ROC amount reduces the tax cost basis and is in that way a tax deferral. It is captured as income when the shares are sold at profit over the adjusted cost basis reduced by the ROC adjustments.
Since the taxable part of dividends paid by a pass through entities are entirely or close to it non-qualified, the high tax bracket investor may be able to turn the taxable amount into a long term capital gain taxable at a lower marginal rate when the shares are sold or hold the share until death when, under current law, the cost basis is stepped up to the market value then. Step-Up in Basis
Last Earnings Report (QE 12/31/18):
 |
| Nothing Comforting Here |
CEO Byron Boston on Q4 2018 Results - Earnings Call Transcript | Seeking Alpha
I recently discussed buying a Dynex cumulative equity preferred stock as a trade: Item # 4 Bought 50 DXPRB at $23.77-Used Commission Free Trade (2/2/19 Post); Dynex Capital Inc. 7.625% Cumulative Preferred Series B Stock
B. Bought 10 FSMD at $24.1-Commission Free at Fidelity:
Quote: Fidelity Small-Mid Factor ETF Overview
Sponsor's Webpage: FSMD | ETF Snapshot - Fidelity
Closing Price Yesterday: FSMD $24.45 +$0.28 +1.14%
Last Discussed: Item # 4.A. (3/13/19 Post)
I have nothing to add to that post.
Since I shifted money out of several stock mutual funds, one of three recent elimination was discussed above and the other two will be mentioned in subsequent posts, I will be buying low cost stock ETFs in small lots that can be purchased commission free at one or more of my brokers.
Maximum Position: 100 Shares
Current Position: 20 Shares
Purchase Restriction: Small Ball Rule
I recently discussed buying a Dynex cumulative equity preferred stock as a trade: Item # 4 Bought 50 DXPRB at $23.77-Used Commission Free Trade (2/2/19 Post); Dynex Capital Inc. 7.625% Cumulative Preferred Series B Stock
B. Bought 10 FSMD at $24.1-Commission Free at Fidelity:
Quote: Fidelity Small-Mid Factor ETF Overview
Sponsor's Webpage: FSMD | ETF Snapshot - Fidelity
Closing Price Yesterday: FSMD $24.45 +$0.28 +1.14%
Last Discussed: Item # 4.A. (3/13/19 Post)
I have nothing to add to that post.
Since I shifted money out of several stock mutual funds, one of three recent elimination was discussed above and the other two will be mentioned in subsequent posts, I will be buying low cost stock ETFs in small lots that can be purchased commission free at one or more of my brokers.
Maximum Position: 100 Shares
Current Position: 20 Shares
Purchase Restriction: Small Ball Rule
Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor but simply an individual investor who has been managing my own money since I was a teenager. In this post, I am acting solely as a financial journalist focusing on my own investments. The information contained in this post is not intended to be a complete description or summary of all available data relevant to making an investment decision. Instead, I am merely expressing some of the reasons underlying the purchase or sell of securities. Nothing in this post is intended to constitute investment or legal advice or a recommendation to buy or to sell. All investors need to perform their own due diligence before making any financial decision which requires at a minimum reading original source material available at the SEC and elsewhere. A failure to perform due diligence only increases what I call "error creep". Stocks, Bonds & Politics: ERROR CREEP and the INVESTING PROCESS Each investor needs to assess a potential investment taking into account their personal risk tolerances, goals and situational risks. I can only make that kind of assessment for myself and family members.
For whatever it is worth, Nomura initiated coverage on 10 MREITs today including Dynex Capital (DX) discussed in this post.
ReplyDeleteDX was started with a buy and a price target of $7.
For Fidelity brokerage customers, a summary of the analyst report is available from the MT Newswire service. The analyst claims the "environment for leveraged mortgage-backed operating models is the best it's been since the Taper Tantrum".
Just passing that one along without comment.
"[The president] ignores the process for making decisions and the recommendations of experts, preferring instead to go with his gut and his belief"
ReplyDeleteIgnoring the context - Trump, Kim, etc. - I'm not sure that this is a bad thing. My impression is that government by "expert" and technocrat is pretty new, and I'm not sure it's better. In my humble opinion, both Washington and Lincoln, for example, were great presidents, and I never saw any sign that they were guided by experts.
D.: Issues that a President must address now are far more complex and varied than in the past, particularly if you go back as far as the 19th or 18th centuries.
DeleteTrump will not even process accurate information being given to him by those who possess it. The President still has to have good judgment to make decisions based on information and advice given to him. That has not changed. And, it would frequently be a mistake for delving so far into the weeds that the President can no longer even see the big picture or how to resolve the problems that the nation faces.
I think you are inclined to view Donald more favorably as President than me. Willful ignorance, coupled with unwillingness to learn and an undue reliance on gut instincts and false information, are not qualities possessed by our better Presidents.
Those presidents didn't decide based on gut.
DeleteThey had well articulated thoughts, based on gathered data at the time, and ideas based on philosophical writings of leading thinkers over the ages. Their letters show how they arrived at their conclusions, and show much depth of analysis... rather than a reliance on gut or expecting to overpower others desires through relationships to them.
I'm not always convinced that current experts are accurate in conclusions, (but there are always some experts with other conclusions to consider.)
However, meanwhile, but their data is vast and generally valid and important. One can not know by gut what satellites are telling about nuclear development.
Also the opposite of their conclusions is not to use old generalizations (such as 1950's thoughts on how things are) or conspiracy theory personalities' inputs such as Alex Jones. It's to simply pick a different conclusion from the studied data.
"Maybe savers are just doomed to negative or barely positive real returns before taxes."
ReplyDeleteDoes look that way. Sad for people like me.
The two year treasury auction produced a 2.261% yield which is near the bottom of the FED federal funds range of 2.25% to 2.5%. When the Fed was raising the FF rate, that would results in upward pressure on the 2 year note yield. The fact that the 2 year is near the low point in the FF range is yet another market signal that the FED's next move will be to cut rates. That is also consistent with the FF future's market where the odds of a rate cut on or before the December meeting is now at 73.2%.
ReplyDeleteThe 3 month bill is being anchored by the expectation that no change will be made within the next 3 months. There is no such anchor for the 10 year treasury yield whose decline resulted first in a narrowing of spreads with short term treasuries and then an inversion.
The 3 month closed today at 2.44% while the 10 year provided less yield at 2.39%.
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield
For the treasury maturities shown in that table going from 1 month to 10 years, the highest yield is the 6 month bill at 2.46% following by the 1 month at 2.45%. The lowest is the 3 year note at 2.16% which is below the 2 year.
The one and two month treasury bills will be auctioned tomorrow. Actually, it is better to call them by the number of days which will be 28 days for the one month and 56 days for the 2 month.
I had some cash build up in my Schwab account which pays almost nothing on its sweep account option so I will be participating in the 28 day bill auction and punt the redeployment for now.
The Cleveland FED recession prediction model, which uses the yield spread between the 3 month treasury bill and the 10 year treasury note, has been updated now with data through March 22.
ReplyDeleteAs I noted in a recent comment, I expected the recession odds to increase. The probability of a recession by next March did increase to 32.7% from the prior month's prediction of 29.7%.
https://www.clevelandfed.org/our-research/indicators-and-data/yield-curve-and-gdp-growth.aspx
I do not expect the next monthly update to go over 40% but the number will accelerate at a faster rate compared to March over February given the actual inversion starting after the end of the last data period.
I would note that the model was at 44.43% in December 2007 with the recession starting in January 2008 as later determined by NBER in December 2008.
About all that you can say about these FED models is that the probabilities will start to go parabolic either before or during a recession.
I do not like this model much since the probability of a recession did not meaningfully spike up in 1974 and 2000 until the recessions were underway with catastrophic stock market events in motion.
The Cleveland FED model did not go parabolic until the 1974 recession was in full swing, producing one of the 4 catastrophic stock events since 1928 and my first experience with one. In that case, this model was worthless as a forward indicator of an upcoming recession which was also the case in 2000.
If a forward indicator is usable as an asset allocation tool, it does not work when the prediction is that a recession is possible when the economy is already in one. Thanks for the tip as I wipe the blood from the coup de grâce administered by the market when I first see that signal.
I am not going to talk about the Cleveland Fed Model until they turn it into a useable one. An investor could try to massage a signal out of it based on prior history, but the signal would not be wait for a greater than 50% probability looking at the past.
I would have expected a much higher shift than 29 --> 32% with a significant factor (inversion) happening in the mix.
ReplyDeleteWell, good to know that these models aren't predictive.
"Yield curve may be indicating increased chance for rate cut but not a recession, says former Fed Chair Yellen - MarketWatch"
ReplyDelete"" That possibility is consistent with the yield curve at the short end but is not IMO the most probable explanation when the yield curve inversion is accompanied by widespread economic slowdowns.""
The inversions normally include a short initial one where I assume the Fed then takes actions (or some fiscal policy is enacted) that stops the inversion.
Then a later longer deeper inversion happens.
I wonder, in those shorter first inversions, does the Fed normally announce that it's nothing to worry about? Same as Yellen is doing? It's what I expect is behind Yellen's comments. ... that usual human trait of thinking everything is under control when a signal arrives that it's not really as much under control as one would like.
If I'm counting right that's 4 days of inversion in 3m/10y with a 5th likely today. It's not a very deep inversion at this time.
ReplyDeleteOther models that use breath are indicating more rally to come. They don't assess or imply that a recession won't follow any rallying in short order after. Only that momentum is pointing upward. I don't have experience to comment with.
Land: The VIX Model is still flashing the green light.
DeleteThe inversion occurs because bond investors sense a recession coming and buy the 10 year treasury expecting rates to fall and a flight to safety whenever the Stock Jocks have an anxiety attack that can not be resolved by hooking themselves up to IV of chill out juice.
Th 10 year treasury note rises in price and falls in yield, but the FED is sitting on its hands keeping the federal funds rate unchanged as they are doing now.
That anchors the 3 month yield from moving down as the 10 year comes down in yield and ultimately inverts as it did last Friday.
With more slowdown date, then at some point the FED will reduce the FF rate by a .25% or .5% as demanded by Larry Kudlow today and that may quickly end the inversion and causes it to go positive, perhaps temporarily, since the 3 month bill will go down by a similar amount to the FF increases. Given the abnormally low 3 month bill now by historical standards, a .5% cut in the FF rate would cause a huge percentage move down in yield.
None of that is going to impact what is baked in the economic cake. That is how you can see a positive yield spread leading up to the recession. The FED has changed the rate by then, but that change does not alter what will happen.
By 2006 or thereabouts, there was no avoiding what was about to happen. It was not crystal clear to the Stock Jocks until it unraveled in real time during September 2008.
So you're basically saying that adjusting the FF rate doesn't change the economic environment when there's a slow down happening. (It can help after slowdowns by adding liquidity but that's a different situation.)
DeleteThis environment is not yet at the 2006 area where what was going to happen was unavoidable? There's still a possibility that economics or some QE type actions will help the economy?
Land: The Fed can not change what will happen now by lowering the FF range to 1.75% to 2%. The real economy is not being negatively impacted by a 2.25%-2.5% short rate with intermediate and longer term rates well below historical averages.
DeleteA reduction in short term rates take away disposable income from most households through lower interest income on risk free savings held in savings accounts, CDs, and other short term instruments like T. Bills. In doing that, the FED encourages the assumption of debt as a funding source for spending and reduces reliance on disposable income which is the long term benign source for consumer spending.
What is important to keep in mind is that the recovery will be 10 years old in June 2019. And, slightly more than 1 year after the tax cuts became effective, Kudlow and Trump are telling the FED to introduce more monetary stimulus on top of the fiscal stimulus from the tax cuts and the $1 trillion on so in deficit spending so that Donald and the republicans have a better chance of avoiding a recession before the November 2020.
The questions which are not asked is why does the economy need such massive monetary and fiscal stimulus and how long can that continue?
The reduction in the FF does not add liquidity IMO, but does encourage more spending of borrowed money and more money flow into the only game in town. Both of those results ultimately can have major blowback down the road.
Liquidity is added through money creation that will occur in a QE program, but that is more of a stock market event than a real economy one.
I don't think lending is improved by forcing banks to lend more money at narrower spreads to them. The reaction may be to lend less and just hold more money at the FED and in shorter term bonds.
If I was running a bank now, I would be cutting back on riskier loans given the inadequate net interest margins and the potential recession or economic slowdown. That money can now earn 2.4% at the FED:
https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reqresbalances.htm
The end result of more monetary stimulus is that the positive impacts are far outweighed by the negative effects. The FED would be pushing on a string, which just curls the string, potentially backward.
The only thing that will rescue this economy are policies that encourage organic business growth. It's possible they appear before a recession... but with this president we will see more of the same, not some shift to another approach.
ReplyDelete""The questions which are not asked is why does the economy need such massive monetary and fiscal stimulus and how long can that continue?
""
That's the big question. Why can't this economy seem to get off the ground? A big part of the question...I've never known so many people with job search problems with unemployment this low.
Land: I will touch on this subject in my next post.
DeleteThe most basic problem is that income generated by productivity gains over the past 5 decades has been increasingly absorbed by top income quintile. Real wage gains have largely been stagnant for the middle income households or more broadly the working class which includes the working poor.
https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
That has required those households to be under a multi-generational financial strain and has required more debt as a percentage of disposable income to pay expenses.
The next major problem has been what I will generally describe as inappropriate and misguided spending by the federal government. Take two recent examples: (1) the GOP's Iraq Invasion and (2) Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
In both cases, large amounts were borrowed to finance that spending, and those borrowings will have to be refinanced for as long as the U.S. remains a creditworthy borrower.
The ultimate costs of the IRAQ invasion will be over 2 trillion and that money just went down a rat hole and the war ended up making the U.S. left safe IMO.
The Obama stimulus was estimated to cost over $800B but was poorly designed to create any long term stimulus .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009
An extremely small amount was devoted to infrastructure projects or anything permanent, unlike the money spent during the New Deal to build structures that are still being used.
Identify the structures being used today built with the Obama bucks.
That money, which included what is called tax spending (tax cuts), is just gone.
What if all of that money had been spent since 2008 instead on building much needed infrastructure in the U.S. and repairing existing structures? Where is the infrastructure bill that was promised prior to the election? I suppose that Trump's infrastructure bill is to appropriate by executive fiat money allocated to the military to build his wall.
Two major military installations destroyed by hurricanes need to be rebuilt. Where is the money?
https://news.usni.org/2018/12/13/39623
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/15/17978902/hurricane-michael-panama-city-tyndall-air-force-f22-climate-change
Hadn't thought about the top keeping it, as the issue causing so much stagnation.
DeleteI agreed on principle with the logic that Iraq had built nuclear planet before and was again and it had to be stopped, by war if necessary. But I assumed congress had access to more secret info because the public info wasn't enough to depend on to go to war for. Turned out they didn't. I also was shocked at the vote because I thought we needed another 3-6 months of evidence gathering and alliance-building before voting. I was young enough that it was my first realization that Congress was filled with idiots. I'd previously thought they were at least in majority, smart people.
I will never understand why the Obama stimulus was not directed at infrastructure. We will pay for that mistake for a long time to come. There was an awarded grant local to my childhood region for a museum of LOCAL Jewish community's history during early USA years. There was NONE! Well close to none. Pre-IBM in 1950-60s, it was a small, rural, farming community. Money for a museum? Who's going to go to it? The only history element worth noting was that Jews weren't allowed in the local country club until 1980s. As a child my mom's friend "passed" by having a non-Jewish husband who was a local big-wig so he went to the club. A museum of black history of the region would make sense - there's some local very interesting events on the underground railroad. Even specific houses still standing that were "stations." I'm rambling on. But it was so incredibly annoying. It wasn't locals getting the grant either. It was likely NYC transplants, who had other ways to make a living. Meanwhile, a water main break put a huge burden on the local taxes.
On the economy - I'll wait for your next installment.
Land: It is clear to me that the best evidence prior to the invasion proved that the reasons given were false and known to be false.
DeleteAn example would be the conclusion reached by a guy at CIA, "Joe T", that aluminum tubes seized in transit to Iraq were for centrifuges used in the uranium enrichment process. They were actually artillery casings.
Joe T., the so called expert in gas centrifuges that gave Bush-Cheney what they wanted, graduated with a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Kentucky. His conclusion that the casings could be used in uranium enrichment was the one that Bush-Cheney accepted even though it was known at the time that the foremost experts in that process who worked at the government's Oak Ridge facility told everyone who would listen that Joe T. was wrong and did not know what he was talking about.
This is all very well documented.
I found this summary which can be accessed over the internet by those who do not have subscriptions to the relevant publications:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/whatever-bush-knew-the-di_b_18283
You can go through each one of the purported justifications and come to the same conclusion that no sensible person would accept them as being true and/or reliable.
E.g. "Curveballs" claims accepted by Bush-Cheney even though he was just a former taxi cab driver who was a drunkard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
The claimed asserted "biological weapons labs" turned out to be a trailer used to fill hydrogen balloons when one was actually found in Iraq after the invasion.
"But they cited the Iraqi Survey Group's nonclassified, final report to Congress in September 2004 as reflecting the same conclusions. That report said the trailers were "impractical for biological agent production," lacking 11 components that would be crucial for making bioweapons. Instead, the trailers were "almost certainly designed and built for the generation of hydrogen," the survey group reported."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888_pf.html
That's why I assumed Congress was seeing data we hadn't. Compelling data. Because what we'd see wasn't compelling. I didn't need to know all of that detail you've outlined, to know what was public was too narrow and not backed up enough.
ReplyDeleteIt's why 3-6 months was needed for building alliances and gathering evidence. Because we hadn't built them well enough. Doing it to back us up, wasn't good enough. That others weren't very enthused said it wasn't time yet - not enough data yet.
The only part that was convincing and it was significant, is that Syria had built one. The world had ignored and denied. So the pattern existed before. ...that made it important to look at the situation and the collected data and to take action IF/When it was compelling.
What do you think of medicare for all? I'm not a politically focused person. I don't actually try to have in depth opinions on every policy since it takes a lot of study -- instead I look to elect people intelligent to do more than ramble off popular soundbites.
ReplyDeleteI spent time a few days ago with folks who aren't for it, but are now emailing around gathering data about it (and whether it will save money). I wish I could politely get off the emailing.
My experiences with medicare, don't point me to thinking it should be expanded to for-all. That there has to be a better way to get to universal coverage. Curious what you've concluded if anything.
Land: I would view Medicare for all as a worthy long term objective that may be possible after the baby boom generation mostly dies out and advances are made in treating major causes of death far more effectively and at substantially lower costs, and the implementation of sensible efforts made to more closely costs with treatment results. One of the problems now, besides the population being uninformed and frequently hysterical on this issue, is that the link between quality of care and its cost has been broken. The U.S. has managed over the years to develop an extremely expensive health care system that does not work that well.
DeleteThe nation can not afford Medicare for All now, nor the other pipe dreams being advanced by liberal Democrats (e.g free college). Unfunded liabilities from existing programs are a major problem going forward.
I do not foresee either political tribe doing anything to address the fundamental and structural problems or to do anything other than accelerate the Day of Reckoning.
Perhaps I need to continuing reading "The Witches: Salem, 1692" to cheer me up.
Now a days that does sound like a cheery book.
DeleteI agree with everything, so I'll leave it there...
So back to investing...
On Iraq, what the data listed tells me, is that one can sometimes reach some accurate assessment of what gov't is offering with basic common sense. I used common sense and concluded there wasn't enough evidence yet, without even digging into details.
ReplyDeleteI also thought it insane that we went into Afghanistan. At least with Iraq there might be a danger we could stop - that was worth considering. With Afghanistan, we should have gone in stealthy and addressed the problem group Al-Quaeda. Then developed international policies to address how Afghanistan had brewed into a good cover area and what to do about the country and it's problems and the general radicalization problem. I.e hard diplomatic work.
I have published a new post:
ReplyDeletehttps://tennesseeindependent.blogspot.com/2019/03/observations-and-sample-of-recent_31.html