miércoles, mayo 13, 2015

VACACIONES MAYO 2015 / GRL

|

VACACIONES MAYO 2015


Jueves 30 de Abril del 2014

Queridos amigos,

Les escribo estas líneas con motivo de mi próximo viaje que me tendrá ausente de la oficina y de nuestras lecturas cotidianas, desde el lunes 4 hasta el miércoles 20 de Mayo próximo.

Durante estos días no tendré acceso regular al Internet ni a mis correos.

Lamentablemente, en los últimos meses la situación internacional se ha seguido complicando tanto social, económica, financiera y geopolíticamente, de acuerdo a lo previsto en mi carta de Setiembre pasado y las anteriores, a pesar de todas las declaraciones y anuncios en contrario por parte de las autoridades de los bancos centrales y los representantes de los gobiernos.  

En realidad no podía ser de otra manera, si tenemos en cuenta que no se ha hecho nada en los últimos años para reparar los profundos desequilibrios estructurales en los fundamentos de la economía global, sino que mas bien, por el contrario, se ha seguido "maquillando" por parte de los bancos centrales la insostenible situación económica y financiera global, profundizando los desequilibrios y la inestabilidad vía el constante crecimiento de las deudas, aumentando las ineficiencias y dilatando el necesario ajuste. El crecimiento estructural de la economía global es cada vez mas frágil, dudoso e insostenible.

Hasta la crisis del 2000 y luego de la del 2008, ahora así llamada la Gran Recesión, la demanda global había sido “subvencionada” por un sistema financiero manipulado e intervenido, creando una demanda y una economía global ficticia, una recuperación así llamada "subprime", liderada por la FED mediante un crecimiento desproporcionado de las deudas, imposible de auto-sustentarse en un crecimiento de la economía real en el largo plazo. 

Deuda, deuda y mas deuda, parece ser el mantra de la FED.

Desde entonces, la FED y el resto los bancos centrales de todos los países más importantes del mundo se han negado y se siguen negando a reconocer esta realidad, aceptando el inicio de un ajuste inevitable y estructural, regresando a un nivel real de la economía global de alguna manera manejable. Aun siguen abocados al esfuerzo de una gran represión financiera, manipulando e inflando irresponsablemente los mercados financieros vía una política monetaria de emisiones inorgánicas de papel moneda sin respaldo y muy bajas tasas de interés.

Las deudas de consumidores, empresas y gobiernos, eran y son insostenibles.

Por ello creemos que los bancos centrales no aumentarán de "motu propio" las tasas de interés de manera importante a corto plazo, salvo que este aumento provenga final y sorpresivamente de una crisis generada por la desaparición de la confianza de los inversionistas globales en los mercados financieros.

Inmediatamente sus deudas se volverían obviamente impagables y la crisis que tanto han tratado de evitar reconocer, sobrevendría inevitable.

Solo para mencionar al país con la economía mas importante, la deuda de los Estados Unidos de Norteamerica ha crecido por encima de los 18 trillones de dólares, a mas del 100% de su PBI. Y si incluimos las deudas contingentes internas, como el Seguro Social y los Fondos de Pensiones, algunos analistas calculan que la deuda norteamericana podría llegar a sumar entre los 80 a 120 trillones de dólares, es decir, entre 5 a 7 veces el producto bruto anual.

Para un análisis detallado del desarrollo de esta problemática y la verdadera situación actual, ver los artículos del blog, aquí, aquí y aquí.

Esta situación se ha seguido agravando en los últimos años y es insostenible en el mediano y largo plazo.  (ver articulo)

Para evitarlo, es que los bancos centrales han tenido que esforzarse en mantener ficticiamente una apariencia de normalidad en el "statu quo", inyectando cantidades innombrables de papel moneda sin respaldo a los mercados financieros y reducido las tasas de interés a niveles nunca vistos por largo tiempo, desde que la historia económica recuerda. (QE1, QE2, QE3, Q4, Abenomics, China, etc….)

Todo ello nos hace presumir que todo ello se lleva a cabo por el fundamentado temor a perder el control del esquema Ponzi mundial, que es lo que son ahora la economía global y los mercados financieros, y por ende se derrumbe el castillo de naipes enfrentando de golpe un ajuste económico enorme y hasta la posibilidad de una revolución social incontenible, guerras, etc.

¿Porqué un ahorrista o un inversionista estaría dispuesto a depositar su dinero en un banco o comprar un bono de un gobierno, que no solamente no le paga ningún interés sino que más bien ahora le cobra por mantener su deposito, o si se lo paga, es un interés muy reducido y hasta negativo?

Ello sucede solo cuando el ahorrista y/o el inversionista esperan una deflación en la economía, i.e. que los precios mañana serán mas bajos que los de hoy, la que sería mayor que el costo de ese depósito, y/o una ganancia potencial en el fortalecimiento de esa moneda, es decir, en ambos casos, a pesar de todo, un aumento del poder adquisitivo de sus inversiones. Y también, cuando además, existe una enorme aversión al riesgo en los mercados financieros "tradicionales". Solo así se puede justificar racionalmente esta realidad por un ahorrista o inversionista que desea mantener su poder de compra, sin tener que enfrentar riesgos desconocidos e incalculables, pero claramente presumibles en los mercados financieros globales. (ver articulo)

El hecho es que el esfuerzo de política monetaria intervencionista llevada a cabo por la mayoría de los bancos centrales del mundo, en los últimos 15 años, más intensa y desproporcionadamente desde los últimos siete años, además, ha producido la transferencia más importante de riqueza que se recuerda en la historia, de manos de los pensionistas y los ahorristas, hacia las clases privilegiadas. 

Mas importante todavía, se ha distorsionado y manipulado fundamentalmente las reglas de la economía del libre mercado con consecuencias funestas y aun impredecibles en el mediano y largo plazo para los consumidores e inversionistas del mundo, incrementando la alocación  ineficiente de los recursos de inversión, además de multiplicar el costo de la inevitable implosión de los mercados financieros, tanto de las acciones, como de los bonos y otros instrumentos de inversión financiera.

Todo esto para no mencionar a los derivados financieros, estimados por algunos analistas en mas de 1 cuadrillón de dólares (1000 trillones de dólares),  que se ciernen como una espada de Damocles, sobre todo el sistema financiero y económico internacional.

Recientemente el FMI ha advertido de la posibilidad que la economía global esta entrando a un periodo de "stagnación" y a una probable nueva recesión, con las consecuencias que ello implicaría. (ver articulo)

El reconocido economista y analista Ricardo Lago hace recientemente en un diario local un excelente resumen de la ultima reunión del FMI y el Banco Mundial en Washington, sus conclusiones e implicancias. (ver articulo

Obviamente estos organismos no pueden decirnos toda la verdad. Ello sería propiciar ellos mismos el adelanto inevitable del descalabro global, el caos y el ajuste sin anestesia, con resultados imprevisibles. 

La pregunta de fondo es ¿hasta cuando se podrá o podrán mantener esta realidad bizarra?
Y eso nadie lo puede responder con seguridad. La confianza de los inversionistas en los mercados financieros es la verdadera incógnita.

¿Existen aun los inversionistas? 

Observan algunos críticos y analistas que los pequeños y medianos inversionistas se han retirado del mercado y todo el movimiento que observamos en los índices, es solo en volúmenes reducidos. Piensan que ello se debe solo a la actuación de unos cuantos brokers y/o "high frequency traders"de los grandes bancos globales que se siguen "alimentando" de las manipulaciones y ventajas, coordinadas y producidas por los bancos centrales.

Hace alrededor de 100 años el asesinato del archiduque Francisco Fernando y su esposa Sofía Chotek en Sarajevo fue el detonante de la primera guerra mundial. Y nadie pensó en ese momento que ese acontecimiento, aparentemente sin importancia global, traería la primera guerra mundial.

Por ello ahora tenemos que preguntarnos seriamente, ¿cuál de todos los potenciales "cisnes negros", conocidos o no, que hoy se ciernen sobre la economía global ,y que son muchos, económicos, sociales y geopolíticos, podrían ser el detonante de la nueva catástrofe?

Solo la historia nos responderá a esta crucial pregunta. No hay cuerda para mucho. Y evidentemente, toda situación que es insostenible, finalmente se caerá.

Tenemos que insistir mas que nunca que la experiencia y la prudencia, el análisis y la inteligencia, la vigilancia y la paciencia, son los socios más importantes en las decisiones de políticas y estrategias de inversión a corto y mediano plazo.

En un cambio importante de ciclos como en el que pensamos que estamos envueltos hoy día, y en el que mas allá de lo circunstancial, el pasado y el futuro se bifurcan y se oponen,  los riesgos para los inversionistas son profundos. (ver articulo)

Con estas  anotaciones y advertencias que espero les sean de utilidad, me despido de Uds. con un cordial abrazo hasta el regreso a mis actividades, Dios mediante, a inicios de la semana del lunes 23 de Mayo próximo, cuando estaré nuevamente a su gentil disposición.

Gonzalo

PD. Algunos días durante mis vacaciones en la medida de lo posible y excepcionalmente publicaré artículos en el blog que podrán leer entrando directamente y/o subscribiéndose al blog:  www.gonzaloraffoinfonews.com

May 1, 2015 3:10 pm

A world of difference: the global challege of rising inequality

Martin Wolf

Martin Wolf on the difficulties governments face in tackling the growing problem


A rickshaw and a BMW make their way through Old Delhi in 2012©Alamy
A rickshaw and a BMW make their way through Old Delhi, 2012

Inequality: What Can be Done?, by Anthony Atkinson, Harvard University Press, RRP£19.95/$29.95, 304 pages

The Globalization of Inequality, by François Bourguignon, translated by Thomas Scott-Railton, Princeton University Press, RRP£19.95/$27.95, 200 pages


Inequality is back, as both a subject of inquiry and a focus of concern. The extraordinary response to Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century revealed that the ground for this renewed interest was already fertile. It merely required a seed. Other seeds are now being planted.
 
These new books by two distinguished experts, the British economist Sir Anthony Atkinson and the French economist François Bourguignon, are important contributions. The former is the doyen of the economists who are exploring this once-neglected terrain. The latter was chief economist at the World Bank, where he also did significant work in this area.

While the books are on the same topic, they are very different. Bourguignon presents a systematic account of the global and domestic trends, while Atkinson focuses on what is happening within advanced countries, particularly his own, the UK. Readers wanting a map of the terrain should read Bourguignon. Those who desire a thought-provoking guide to policy options in advanced countries should grapple with Atkinson’s work.

Bourguignon makes clear that this is a global concern. “After a significant decline in the mid-20th century, followed by a long period of stability, inequality has begun to rise over the last two or three decades in the large majority of developed countries.” he writes. “It has also risen in a number of developing countries for which we have long-term data. This phenomenon is therefore not isolated to a few cases, such as the oft-cited examples of the United States and China.”

Yet, while inequality in the distribution of incomes has risen in most high-income countries, the scale of that increase varies. Atkinson notes that the US and UK have experienced exceptionally large rises in inequality since 1980. Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Japan and Germany have experienced far smaller rises. France has even experienced a small reduction. The forces driving the increase in inequality in the high-income countries are strong, but cannot be overwhelming. This conclusion is supported by the fact that levels of inequality are also divergent: relatively low in the Nordic countries, far higher in the UK and US, but also in Italy and Japan, with France and Germany in between.

On inequality of wealth, Atkinson underlines points made by his sometime collaborator Piketty, whose thesis in essence is that returns on capital normally exceed the rate of economic growth, so generating a tendency towards increasing inequality. First, Atkinson says, ratios of wealth to national income have risen sharply since the mid-1970s, largely because of appreciation in the value of a range of assets. Second, a significant part of this increase in wealth belongs to the middle and upper-middle classes, because of the rise in the proportion of the population that owns its own homes, many of which have appreciated greatly in value. Many of these people also own claims on corporate equity via pension funds and other institutional arrangements.

Experience in emerging and developing countries is complex. Inequality of incomes has risen greatly in China and also, suggests Bourguignon, in India, Indonesia and Bangladesh, but not in the rest of Asia. In Africa, Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria have experienced large increases in inequality. But Cameroon, Uganda and Senegal have not. In Latin America, a continent of historically high inequality, it grew substantially in the “lost decade” of the 1980s, then fell quite broadly in the 2000s, though levels generally remain high.

Yet, crucially, while inequality among households has been rising within many countries, it has been falling among households at a global level, albeit from extremely high levels. This is because the “great divergence” in the average incomes of today’s developed and developing countries that occurred during the 19th and early 20th centuries has been followed by, first, a period of postwar stability, and then by more than two decades of the opposite development — a “great convergence”.

For the global distribution of household incomes, the dominant forces are not changes in the distribution of income within countries, but rather changes in the relative average incomes of countries, weighted by population. The extraordinary growth of China and, to a lesser extent, of India, which contain almost two-fifths of the world’s population, largely explains the decline in global household inequality.

The improved performance of erstwhile laggard economies has also brought with it an impressive reduction in the proportion of the world’s population living in extreme poverty (judged to be an income below $1.25 a day at 2005 dollars adjusted for purchasing power). This has fallen from 32 per cent in 1990 to 16 per cent in 2010. Growth matters.

Underlying these complex trends, argue the authors, are complex economic forces: globalisation; technological change; the rise of winners-take-all markets; financial liberalisation; and a huge increase in rent extraction, shown in a big rise in the pay of the business executives who control a large part of the economy’s resources and in extraordinary earnings in the financial sector. Entwined with these are political factors, especially the pro-free-market turn across the world since about 1980, and, more broadly, a decline in the egalitarian ethos that held sway in many countries in the mid-20th century.

Both authors agree that something should be done about inequality. Atkinson provides a number of arguments for concern over rising inequality within rich countries. Some argue, for example, that only equality of opportunity matters. To this he responds that successful personal outcomes are often merely a matter of luck, that the structure of rewards is often grossly unfair and that, with sufficient inequality of outcome, equality of opportunity must be mirage.

Beyond this, argues Atkinson, unequal societies do not function well. The need to protect personal security or to incarcerate ever more people is likely to become a drag on economic performance and inimical to civilised life. If inequality becomes extreme, many will be unable to participate fully in their society. In any case, argues Atkinson, a pound in the hands of someone living on £10,000 a year must be worth more than it is to someone living on £1m. This does not justify complete equality, since the attempt to achieve it will impose costs. But it does mean that high inequality needs to be justified.

What about policy? At the global level, both authors recommend improved and more generous aid. Bourguignon adds that properly managed trade has much to offer developing countries. Within countries, both authors call for higher taxes on wealth and incomes, and for better regulation, particularly of finance. Also important, they agree, will be policies directly addressed at improving educational outcomes for the disadvantaged.

Atkinson goes far further, offering a programme of radical reform for the UK. It is not merely radical, but precise and (to the extent such a programme can be) costed. It starts from the argument that rising inequality “is not solely the product of forces outside our control. There are steps that can be taken by governments, acting individually or collectively, by firms, by trade union and consumer organisations, and by us as individuals to reduce the present levels of inequality.”

Thus policy makers should develop a national pay policy, including a statutory minimum wage set at the “living wage”, and should also offer guaranteed public employment at that rate. A “participation income” should be introduced at a national or even EU level, or — as an alternative to such a universal income — social insurance should be made more generous.

In addition, the UK should offer national savings bonds that guarantee a positive real return, and should create a capital endowment paid to all on reaching adulthood. On the tax front, it should return to far more progressive personal income taxes, up to a top rate of 65 per cent, and should turn inheritance taxes into progressive taxes on receipts. The tax on property should be proportional or progressive, not regressive, as it is now, largely because the main tax on property — the council tax — bears proportionately far more heavily on lower-value housing.

Yet history is not on Atkinson’s side. The egalitarianism of the mid-20th century occurred at a very particular time. The developed countries enjoyed a monopoly of industrial know-how. The two world wars and the Great Depression not only devastated private wealth, but also created a powerful sense that “we are all in it together”. Moreover, capital flows were controlled and capitalism was predominantly national.

None of these conditions holds. Thus, while Atkinson’s ideas are interesting, they will not be adopted, at least in the UK. Many of us do not share his nostalgia for the 1970s. The UK abandoned the corporatism of that era for rather good reasons. Moreover, the high taxes on incomes he proposes risk suppressing entrepreneurial risk-taking and increasing emigration of the talented.

Nevertheless, reforms that would render our societies both fairer and more efficient can be readily imagined. Among the most important is to concentrate resources on children, and particularly the children of the relatively disadvantaged. Also sensible, though politically difficult, is to tax ownership of land and other scarce natural resources more heavily.

Furthermore, a tax on lifetime receipts of gifts and bequests, plus wider spreading of educational opportunities, seems to the only way to limit the cascade of unearned advantages across generations.

Accelerating reliance on robots and “intelligent” software would reinforce the need to consider the implications of concentrated ownership of productive capital. It is also important to reduce rent extraction, including by corporate management, and to improve co-operation over the taxation of income, particularly income from capital. A situation in which the world’s wealthiest are among the least taxed is indefensible.

Yet much the biggest of all the related challenges is global: it is to eliminate extreme poverty. Globalisation is part of the answer. But it needs to be guided — by, for example, pushing developed countries to stop conniving with corruption and theft in developing countries. Targeted aid will also help.

Inequality is an important and complex subject. On the biggest issue of all — global inequality — the recent news has been good. The story on inequality within countries is less appealing, however.

These books tell this complex story well. Bourguignon’s provides an accessible overview, while Atkinson’s offers the social democratic response.

This debate is just beginning. It will become louder.


Martin Wolf is chief economics commentator at the FT

Financial Instability Of Negative Swiss Interest Rates And A Case For GLD

by FX Analyst

Apr. 28, 2015 12:29 PM ET


Summary
  • Negative interest rates are affecting Swiss pension funds and insurance companies adversely.
  • These institutional investors might be tempted to withdraw their millions of spare cash and keep it in a vault. This would represent a bank run.
  • This might spread from Switzerland to the world and GLD represents a good way to hedge this financial instability concern.
Swiss negative interest rate is starting to have the unintended consequences of encouraging a bank run by institutional clients. The Swiss National Bank (SNB) announced a negative interest rate of -0.75% in January 2015 and it was to encourage greater levels of investment instead of 'cash hoarding'. Well it turns out that the reality is that these institutional investors also have cash/liquidity requirements, and pension funds are one of them. Sufficient cash would be required to meet their monthly payment obligations and other operational purposes.

This negative interest rate is having a real impact on pension funds as reported by the Swissinfo website. Swiss pension fund have a funding gap of $1 Trillion and the negative interest rates are definitely not helping them. As this remains a relatively new phenomenon without precedence, there is no way to account for the impact fully. UBS had calculated that with low interest rates and a weak stock market, money in pension fund for compensation could be depleted by 2024. The calculations are not in for negative interest rates yet but it is likely to worsen the situation.

The National Australia Bank (NAB) provided us with an interesting way to circumvent this problem of shrinking cash balances due to negative interest rates. The NAB suggested that savers would be better off hiding their money under the mattress or in safe deposit box than to put them in banks. This would mean that huge pension funds would be tempted to withdraw all their funds and put them in a reliable safe deposit box until they have the need to withdraw them.

Contagion Risk

If this were to happen in the epicenter of global financial centre like Switzerland, it could mean further issues with financial stability for the whole of Europe. We have seen the bank run in the U.K. with Northern Rock in 2011 during the Great Recession. Depositors were worried about the housing loans in Northern Rock's loan book as negative news rolled out. The U.K. government had to bail out Northern Rock to prevent a second Lehman Brothers' style collapse for the U.K. and the world.

The worries of financial stability would be on a totally different level if this were to occur in Switzerland of all places. Research by Rabobank last year showed that Swiss banks had assets equivalent to 469% of GDP. This shows how leveraged Swiss banks have become and how difficult it would be for the Swiss government or Swiss National Bank to bail them out when institutional depositors decide to abandon the banking system. There will be no lines forming but capital would most definitely flow out at a faster rate than the longest queue in the world.

When you are an institution dealing with billions of funds, it is only natural that you keep a few millions in liquid cash to deal with redemption or withdrawals. At these amounts, it would make sense to withdraw the cash and stash them in safe deposit instead of allowing it to be eroded by negative interest rates. Banks operate on a fractional reserve system and when enough funds were to flee the system, there will not be enough money to meet all redemption.
The IMF had noted that negative interest rates forced insurance companies to take on excessive risk in their 2014 review. They noted that Swiss financial institutions were not immune to financial contagion in the system.


(click to enlarge)

We can see that Swiss banks and insurance company Swiss Re (OTCPK:SSREY) were the most affected by the Global Financial Crisis than the European Sovereign Debt Crisis. This shows the extent of their global linkages. However, it is the European situation that forced the SNB to lower its interest rates to negative. The consequences are not clear yet and there is a possibility that contagion would be a 2-way street.

If major pension funds and insurance companies are to abandon Switzerland, it is clear that Swiss authorities will not be able to bail out. This could spill out of the Swiss border into the global economy. UBS (NYSE:UBS), Credit Suisse (NYSE:CS), Zurich Financial (OTCQX:ZURVY) and Swiss Re are all prominent global financial institutions. If they show signs of collapse, there will be significant consequences for financial stability not only in Switzerland but also the world.

Conclusión

It is not known when that will happen or if the authorities would take pre-emptive steps to prevent it from happening. As individual investors, these are out of our hands. What we can do is to take preventive steps by buying gold. You can either do that by purchasing physical gold or by buying gold ETFs such as SPDR Gold Trust ETF (NYSEARCA:GLD).

(click to enlarge)


As you can see on the chart above, GLD had formed a bottom at around $114. If you are saving for your retirement in Switzerland, you can consider GLD. It's valued in USD and is highly liquid with market capitalization of over $28 billion and transaction volume of more than 7 million daily. Even if you are not in Switzerland, it will be good to keep some form of gold in your investment portfolio.

This would provide you with an alternative source of income if your money is eroded by negative interest rates in your pension account. This might be current situation and it is not that bad compared to the financial instability posed by negative interest rates. It is said that gold is a barbaric relic that does not give you returns but at least it would not shrink in storage.

This will give you an edge in an environment of negative interest rates and even more if inflation were to rise its head.

The End Is Near, Part 2: Everyone Piles Into Junk Bonds

By: John Rubino

Saturday, May 2, 2015


Six years into a recovery, stocks at record levels, high-end real estate in the stratosphere and debt levels soaring in virtually every public and private sector. Time to scale back and protect those gains, right? Wrong, apparently, for a depressingly obvious reason: Huge sections of the investing public can't afford to move into cash or even into conservative paper like short-term Treasuries.

Pension funds that are required to generate 8% annual returns, insurance companies that only make money if incoming premiums earn at leas 6%, retirees who need to generate cash on their savings in order to eat, mutual funds that are judged on quarterly returns, hedge funds that have underperformed lately and will see a tidal wave of redemptions if they don't outperform from here on out -- all feel compelled to make even more money this year than last. They therefore have no choice but to roll the dice for big immediate gains. And guess what they're choosing:
Junk bonds take the lead in fixed-income returns 
After plunging oil prices sent the U.S. high-yield corporate bond market into a tailspin late last year, the asset class has come back.
High-yield is the best performer in U.S. fixed-income in the year so far, after chalking up positive returns in April to outperform investment-grade and Treasuries. 
High-yield debt has returned 3.8% in the year so far, according to the Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Index System. That compares with 1.7% for investment grade and 1.3% for Treasuries. 
The asset class has also outperformed the broader stock market, with the S&P 500 SPX, +0.92% showing total returns of 1.1% in the year so far, according to FactSet data. 
"There's just been a desperate demand for yield because rates are so low," said Martin Fridson, chief investment officer of wealth management firm Lehmann Livian Fridson Advisors. "Fears of a rate hike have receded and the expectations have been pushed back to 2016, and high yield has benefited." 
In April, the high-yield sector had a positive total return of 1.2%, while investment grade had a negative return of 0.5% and Treasuries a negative return of 0.4%. As of Thursday, high-yield was offering an extra 459 basis point-spread over Treasuries, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch. 
Not surprisingly, high-yield issuance has continued at a healthy clip. U.S. issuers have sold $133.8 billion of debt in 176 deals in the year so far, according to Dealogic. That's up from $126.5 billion in 212 deals in the same period in 2014. 

What's depressing about this is the repetition. Since the late 1980s, panicked governments have responded to slowdowns by herding their most vulnerable savers into excessively risky assets and then pulling away the football. And every time the same groups fall for it. Supposedly risk-averse capital flows to the least appropriate borrowers, who satisfy the demand by issuing a tidal wave of crappy paper which blows up in short order.

And then the game begins again. Since this process is so obviously purposeful and clearly doesn't help the individuals who have their nest eggs and pensions depleted by the inevitable busts, the only conclusion is that someone else is getting something out of it. Wonder who that could be?