Greek Crisis Update

I go on vacation for a couple weeks and things change quickly in Greece.

Greek bond rates shoot past 10% almost to 11%.  CMA datavision now shows a probability of default of 68% (highest in the world), up from 34% a month and a half ago.

Interesting note - California and Illinois probabilities of default have shot up considerably recently as well.

Greek Crisis Over? No

For links and explanations on the current economic scene, go here.

A few weeks back, Greek bond rates soared and the EU rushed in with a bailout.  Crisis averted, story over, right? Not exactly.

Before rates started to skyrocket they were on a steady upward march.  After the panic, however, government bond rates returned to that upward trend.  This crisis can not be considered over until Greek government bond rates stop going up.  They are now north of 8% and are on trend to cross 10% by the end of the year. 

Furthermore, I captured CMA Datavision's estimate of the cumulative probability of default back on May 12th.  At the time it was 33.92%.  That number has now risen to 45.31% a month later.

I see no sign yet that Greece is going to recover without a default or leaving the Euro and printing money.

Why I Don't Believe in the Recovery

I was quite surprised last month by the announcement that 290K jobs had been added over the last month.  The number is a little sketchy given that 66K were temporary census hires, but 224K is still a very solid number.  The problem I have with this number is two fold.

1) The ADP employment number usually tracks well with the BLS report.  Scott Grannis has a nice chart:

Strangely, though, the gap last month between the BLS and the ADP grew wider than anything visible in this chart (last month is not shown).  ADP showed 32K jobs, and the BLS showed 290K.  That's a 260K gap.

2) The weekly initial jobless claims numbers just aren't revealing much growth.  During the last few years before this recession, weekly initial jobless claims ran in the 300-340K range.  Now, we are hovering in the 460K range.  We need a 140K average drop to be at a "normal" rate of layoffs.  Chart from Bloomberg below.

Funny Math with Unemployment

Weekly initial jobless claims came out this morning.  According to the title of Foxnews article: on May 13th:

Weekly Jobless Claims Drop 4,000 to 444,000

Interestingly enough, I found another Foxnews article issued on May 6th detailing last week's initial jobless claims with this title:

New Weekly Jobless Claims drop 7,000 to 444,000


This is not a misprint.  Foxnews has the numbers right as reported by the government.
 
Given this math, I want to make a bold prediction.  Jobless claims will continue to drop throughout the year, and could reach as low as 444,000 by Christmas.

Following the Greek Crisis

Here are a few links to help you follow the Greek Crisis:

To see what the market thinks of Greece's ability to pay back it's loans, you can use the change in interest rates on Greek governments bonds.  If you look at the chart, it's bad news.  All from Bloomberg:

Two-year bonds
Five-year bonds
Ten-year bonds

To check on "contagion", the only free site that I have found that follows government bonds worldwide is CMA Datavision.  At this link there are three lists.  The 1st list is comprised of countries with the highest probability of default.  The 2nd group is comprised of countries whose CDS spread (a measure of the probability of default and bankruptcy) are shrinking.  This is good for those countries.  The 3rd group is comporised of countries whose CDS spreads are increasing.  This is bad.  Unfortunately, it doesn't give history or list every country every time it is updated (I think twice a day).

CMA Datavision, Sovereign Debt Credit Spreads

Bloomberg lists the rates for a few major countries around the world, but it leaves much to be desired.  That link is here:

Gilts, Bunds, and other Government Bond rates

To see the effects in the United States, you can check out a few links as well.  The market price of risk is the VIX.  Traditionally, the VIX runs about 15-20 in a calm market.  On Friday, May 7th, the VIX hit 40, which is not good.  It hit 80 back in the 2008 panic.  It will soar during a market panic, and is a good indicator as to the nervousness of professional traders.

VIX

To see if American banks might be in trouble you can check out the TED spread.  This is a measure of the credit risk seen within American banks.  If banks are going to melt down this measure will spike.  It was running in the teens and has now jumped to 30 bps.  During the last market panic this number his 300, I think, so don't sweat this little jump too much just yet.

TED Spread

For the economy as a whole, I love Consumer Metrics Institute.  They measure internet purchases, which seem to have an uncanny ability to predict future GDP reports.  Right now, their data suggests a double dip recession.  The 2Q GDP report (out August ~25th) may show negative growth.

Consumer Metrics Institute

That's all for now.  If anyone has any good links or a request for a link, let me know.  I have a few more, but I suspect that none of you would want to get that deep into the data.

I'm Psychic

Back in March of 2009 I said:

U.S. Govt Crowding Out International Borrowing


A while back I brought up the idea that the U.S. government was borrowing so much money that some other governments might begin to have trouble borrowing for their own purposes. The world has a finite amount of cheap capital, and with the amount of money that our government and several others are...borrowing to prop up financial firms and wager on Keynesian stimulus that the supply of those funds might dry up.
 
Now, the credit spreads for numerous European countries are widening.  The world is running out of money.

Deflation is Dead

In recent months I have seen two sets of forecasts cross my desk from the chief corporate economist from two of the largest financial companies in the world. Both predicted deflation or near zero inflation. Both predicted falling long term interest rates. Both were noticeably Keynesian in their viewpoints of the economy. Both are quickly getting egg on their faces.

Unfortunately, their materials were copyrighted so I don't know if I can give you many specifics.

First, let's look at long-term interest rates.

Prediction by the first: Long term rates sliding down to 2.75% by year's end.
Prediction by the second: 30-yr rates falling to 3.5% during 2Q09

Let's go to the chart:

Hmmm...30-yr rates seems to have climbed to 4.3% as of 5/8 closing. These rates are almost up to the pre-crash rates of early 2008. 30-yr Treasuries tend to be an implication of the market's beliefs of long-term inflation.

Now, let's examine the whole deflation thing. How about the price of oil? Sorry for the ugly chart, but it gets the point across. Data here, along with Friday's close from Bloomberg.

Or perhaps the fact that the dollar is now at a 4-month low? If we're stuck in a liquidity trap like the Keynesians believe, then why is the world beginning to not hoard dollars?

Since, I am mocking their predictions, I will make some predictions of my own. And, since my ego is still drunk on my previous success, I'm going to make some bold ones.

1. 30-yr Treasury yields break 5.00% by year's end. 10-yr Treasuries break 4.00%.

2. WTI Oil Price will break $80/barrel before year's end.

3. Bloomberg's Dollar Index, will drop below 70 before year's end. (Currently 82.53)

So remember, buy some eggs on December 31st. My face is ready!

4 out of 5 Ain't Bad - My Housing Predictions

In February of 2008 I made some predictions on 5 major housing markets as to their price falls from the then most recent data on the S&P Case Shiller.

Now, using the most recent data I've been able to check those predictions. Four out of five are spooky accurate, so I just had to brag.

Predictions for total price drop:

Miami – 32% drop
Los Angeles – 31%
Tampa, FL – 28%
Las Vegas – 28%
Washington – 24%

Actual

Miami - 33% drop
Los Angeles - 30%
Tampa, FL - 27%
Las Vegas - 38%
Washington - 23%

Note: For a fee I will send you lottery number predictions and perform Taroh card readings as well.

The Fed's Quantitative Easing is Having a Curious Effect

On March 18th, the Federal Reserve announced that it was going to perform 'Quantitative Easing'. The plan is to buy treasury bonds on the open market. This would have two effects. First, it should increase the money supply which does provide, in fact, a temporary boost to output (although a misallocation of resources that reduces long term growth). Second, it should lower interest rates, obstensibly to lower mortgage rates and induce consumers to purchase some of these unwanted houses around the country.


Well, an interesting thing has happened since this announcement. 30-yr Treasury yields have been rising and are now at their highest point so far this year. Is this a trend? Is this the beginning of the dramatic and inevitable rise I expect in borrowing costs? We'll see...




Source


Why is This Happening?


China is selling long-term U.S. Treasury Bonds in favor of short term t-bills. This has driven yield on short term t-bills down while putting upward pressure on yields for treasury bonds.


According to Bloomberg:


Rates on three-month bills turned negative in December for the first time since the government began selling them in 1929 as investors sacrificed returns to preserve principal. After increasing at the start of the year, rates have dropped 0.20 percentage point since the beginning of February to 0.13 percent.

Demand for bills is rising again because investors including foreign central banks are snapping up the shortest- term U.S. securities as the Federal Reserve buys Treasuries to drive down borrowing costs in a policy of so-called quantitative easing. China, the largest U.S. creditor, with $744 billion of debt, has questioned the practice and shifted purchases to bills from longer-maturity securities.

“There’s a group of investors out there who are looking at what the Fed is doing and the policy action they’ve taken and the asset purchases, and saying ultimately this is inflationary,” said Stuart Spodek, co-head of U.S. bonds in New York at BlackRock Inc., which manages $483 billion in debt. “You’re going to invest in very short-term bills because you absolutely need not just the quality but also the absolute liquidity.”

China bought $5.6 billion in bills and sold $964 million in U.S. notes and bonds in February, according to Treasury data released April 15. It was first time since November that China purchased more bills than longer-maturity debt.

Texas is the Future

Fortune Magazine put out its annual list - The Fortune 500.

Last year, the state of Texas pulled out into the lead against New York by having 58 of the 500 largest companies in the U.S. New York fell to second with 55. This year, New York actually gained one, surprising given their financial problems extending well back into 2008. Texas, however, placed 6 additional companies on the list, for a total of 64.

Within Texas, the major metropolitan regions had these totals:

Houston 29
Dallas/Fort Worth 25
San Antonio 5
Austin 3
Pittsburg, El Paso 1 each

Here's a chart with a little historic data:

U.K. Having Trouble Borrowing Money

I have mentioned before that we may see some countries around the world run into difficulty borrowing money because of the massive amount of borrowing the United States has committed to.

Another piece adding fuel to that theory from Bloomberg.

The U.K. failed to find enough buyers for 1.75 billion pounds ($2.55 billion) of bonds for the first time in almost seven years as debt investors repudiated Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s plan to stem the worst economic crisis in three decades.
...
Brown’s government aims to sell a record 146.4 billion pounds of debt this fiscal year and as much as 147.9 billion pounds in 2010 as he tries to pull Europe’s second-largest economy out of its worst recession since 1980. The prime minister’s plan drew criticism yesterday when Bank of England Governor Mervyn King told lawmakers in Parliament in London the government should be “cautious” about spending and deficits.
...
“This sinks Brown below the waterline,” said Bill Jones, professor of politics at Liverpool Hope University. Brown’s “whole strategy is based on borrowing and now he can’t get anyone to buy his gilts. This means the prospect of going cap in hand to the IMF hovers increasingly into view.”

This isn't a watershed moment for England, but it should raise some eyebrows given other evidence.

Yes to Suspending Mark-to-Market

Steve Forbes has been beating a drum over the last month, repeating his call to suspend mark-to-market accounting rules. I think that I have finally been fully convinced that this is a good idea. Not permanent suspension, but perhaps a two year holiday from these requirements.

As an employee of one of these bailout blackholes, I have seen the damage to my firm from these kinds of rules. If it were not for them, I suspect that we would never have needed a single dime of government money. Companies with positive cashflow should not be going insolvent because the market value of assets that have not defaulted and they do not intend to sell have lost value.

Why is mark-to-market good?

It forces companies to report what the actual value of their securities are, and not just what they paid for them (like under book value accounting). As an analogy: Say Bob is applying for a new $2 million construction loan to build an apartment complex. He is using his existing complex, which he bought 3 years ago for $2 million as collateral. The problem is, that his old complex has been condemned by the city for health code violations. His collateral would only sell for $1 million on the open market as of today.

Corporations sometimes do the same thing. They buy assets at price X, those assets plummet to price Y, yet they report the value and solvency of the company based on a depreciation model or book value based on price X.

Why is mark-to-market bad?

When fears of corporate defaults are more random, it is fine. If it is feared that Company A will default, then companies B – Z write down any assets they held in company A. Fortunately, those losses are spread across a large number of companies. There is damage, but it isn’t that bad. Mind you, this can occur under the fear of defaults, and not actual default.

When fears of corporate defaults are widespread, it can cause a cascading effect of failures. If it is feared that companies A-I default, then J-Z have to write down those assets. Because of the large write downs by companies J-Z, fears of wider defaults grow. A vicious cycle develops, what we’ve dubbed “contagion”. A critical mass of write downs can lead to total meltdown like we’ve seen.

Using another analogy:

Imagine that you bought a house for $500,000. You had $100,000 down, so you borrowed $400,000. Imagine too that everyone in your city has done the same thing. Due to current market conditions the value of your homes fall by $200,000. Everyone in town now owes around $400,000, but has homes that are only worth $300,000.

As it is right now, the vast majority will just ride it out. They will keep paying their mortgages and prices will eventually rise over the coming years and you will all be back in the black some day. My parents did this during the Oil Bust here in Houston during the 80s.

Now, let’s assume that all home loans required mark-to-market accounting. That is, if your home lost value, you were required to post more collateral to cover the loans. Everyone in town now had to come up with $100,000 of assets to add as collateral. Anyone who failed to do so within 3 months would have their homes repossessed.

What do you think would happen to this town? As repossessions soared, prices would fall further, requiring even more assets to be posted. The town would be destroyed. Virtually no one would be able to keep their home.

In short, I think Mark-to-Market is good 95% of the time, but it creates a systemic risk during a financial slowdown. I agree with Steve Forbes, and I think there should be a 2-year suspension for most firms.

U.S. Govt Crowding Out International Borrowing

A while back I brought up the idea that the U.S. government was borrowing so much money that some other governments might begin to have trouble borrowing for their own purposes. The world has a finite amount of cheap capital, and with the amount of money that our government and several others are trying to borrowing to prop up financial firms and wager on Keynesian stimulus that the supply of those funds might dry up.

After a conversation with Robert Wenzel of the blog EconomicPolicyJournal, I feel more confident that this may occur. I have also predicted inflation, which I also expect to see overseas first.

Then, I ran across this interesting chart (HT: Objectif Liberte)

Original image source here, and data here.

What we see here is that the required rate of interest for these EU countries compared to Germany has been skyrocketing. In late 2007, there is little difference between the worst countries and Germany (with the lowest cost of capital). What this implies is that either these countries are all becoming worse credit risks compared to Germany or that the pool of resources available to them is dwindling.

Will the Recession Cause a Surge in Crime?

I gathered the historical murder rate from here, which may not be perfectly reliable, but it corroborates with FBI data here, but the FBI data doesn't go back quite as far as I would have liked.

Just eye-balling the data, it doesn't seem to correlate really strongly. The recession in the early 90's seems to match, but there doesn't seem to be a strong lagging correlation between a high unemployment rate followed by a rising murder rate.

Also, the R-squared on concurrent correlation is 28%. Using a one-year lag (how well does unemployment this year predict the murder rate next year), the correlation fell to 16%. It seems that a higher murder rate in the next year is only very weakly predicted by the data.

Notes
1. The unemployment rate is in percentages and was gather from http://www.bls.gov/. An average of the calender year unemployment rate was used.
2. The murder rate is murders/100,000 individuals.

Be Careful Not to Exaggerate

I am a believer in supply-side economics, but sometimes conservatives exaggerate its effects. There’s a little bit of this exaggeration in the criticisms I've read of the new Obama tax plan. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a bad idea and will only lead to less economic growth, but we are not going to plunge into a second recession from it alone.

From what I have read there are three major anti-growth tax changes that Obama wants to implement. First, is a hike in the marginal income tax rate for evil rich people. Not only do higher marginal provide a disincentive to work, but it also leads to less capital accumulation. The rate change, at least proposed, will move the highest marginal rate from 35% to 39.6%. If this were shooting up above 70% like under the Carter administration this would be a major concern. But, as is, it is only a slight negative effect.

Secondly, is the hike in the Capital Gains tax. This is the most moronic of all the tax hikes, as history has shown that cutting them down to 15% actually raised government revenue. This will have a more significant negative effect on capital flow into and out of the United States. However, changes in investment do not lead to immediate changes in the economy. This will be a long-term drag on the economy overall. However, the effects will be more immediate in the stock market.

Lastly, is forcing hedge funds to pay the corporate income tax rate instead of just the capital gains tax rate. Effectively what this says is that if you are an individual who invests one’s own money, you can pay the lower capital gains tax (15% soon to be 20%), but if you and your friends go into together you are now a corporation that needs to pay the higher corporate rate of 35%.

These changes are bad and they will lead to less economic growth, but the results will slowly build over time. If we were more sensitive to the tax competition they have in Europe the effects would be much bigger, but I don't think we are as sensitive to globalization as some would imagine.

Think of supply-side tax cuts this way: It’s like dieting. Cutting out the chips and sodas will lead to weight loss, but don’t expect to wake up the next morning looking like Brad Pitt.

Or the converse: It’s like me in college. I start off 5’11” and 130 lbs. As a carefree freshman, I laugh off suggestions about weight gain as I consume massive quantities of sodas, chips, and rolls of Pillsbury cookie dough. By the end of my sophomore year I’m pushing 175. Tax hikes always catch up to you, but only drastic changes show up quickly.

Some States Are Getting Screwed - An Update

Marginal Revolution posted the graphic below in this post.

If you recall, I blogged on the noticable fact that states with low unemployment rates seemed to be getting more stimulus spending. I picked out the most egregious examples. Alex Tabarrok plotted all of the states. As you can see from the scatterplot below, there is a negative correlation between unemployment rates and per capita infrastructure spending in the stimulus. That is, states with low unemployment are, on average, getting more money than states with higher unemployment.

I guess those kinds of mistakes happen when our illustrious President screams that the sky is falling as his party passes the largest increase in spending in the history of the world be damned a proper review.

The Liquidity Trap, I’m a Believer

Paul Krugman, the influential Sith Lord columnist has finally convinced me that America is indeed in a Liquidity Trap. However, I have to add a few tweaks and variables to his thinking.

The traditional “Liquidity Trap” is as follows: Financial meltdown scares the public into saving money and not spending. Aggregate demand then falls, lowering prices. Companies begin to shed workers because of this fall in demand. More unemployed people spend less and discourage other consumers even more. Aggregate demand then falls, lowering prices. The cycle repeats.

Here is my “Liquidity Trap” as follows: Financial meltdown scares the public into saving money and not spending. The government does something reckless and foolish like a bank bailout, hurting future expectations of economic growth and recovery, which kills stock prices. Aggregate demand then falls, lowering prices. Aggregate demand begins to recover, and then the government does something reckless and foolish like a stimulus. Stocks fall, demand drops, inflation retreats. Recovery begins and then the government does something reckless and foolish like announcing a vague new bailout plan. Stocks fall, demand drops, inflation retreats.

Here’s the cycle more clearly in 6 easy steps:

1. Bank panic
2. Stocks crash
3. Government Panics and Screws Things Up
4. Stocks tank again, treasuries surge, inflation falls
5. Stocks begin to recover, treasuries decline, inflation starts to pick up
6. Return to step 3.

I had believed massive inflation was inevitable because the Federal Reserve is cranking out the dough like Pillsbury, but apparently, all the government has to do is slowly but surely destroy the economy to head this off. It's amazing how closely the data fits my new model. Hopefully Obama’s cabinet doesn’t run out of bad ideas anytime soon, or we’re all screwed.

Vincent Benard Writes the Complete Story on the Credit Crisis

For months now I have witnessed various economists lay out their version of the housing collapse and financial crisis. For whatever reason, none seemed to be able to wrap their heads around all of the pieces that I was seeing.

However, my friend Vincent Benard, a French economist and President of the "Institut Hayek", has now done that, and this time it is in English! Link here.

A general outline:

Ignition - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac*, Fed Reserve's Low Interest Rates**
Amplification - Land Use Regulations
Propagation - Federal Reserve system encourages banks to be highly leveraged, Derivatives were poorly priced and risk misunderstood
Punchline - "Big Government is the culprit"

* - Vincent sent me some links after I poo-pooed Fannie and Freddie here. I have since softened my stance and believe that the two government subsidized organizations have more influence than my previous impressions.
** - I railed against this theory here, but again I have softened my stance (without writing about it) that it does have a significant impact, it is just not a primary cause.

Inflation is Coming

Contrary to what the Keynesians and their marionette in the White House believe, there is no liquidity trap and there is no threat of long-term deflation.

George Melloan has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (HT: EPJ) with the following excerpts:

Why 'Stimulus' Will Mean Inflation

In a global downturn the Fed will have to print money to meet our obligations.

So what is the outlook? The stimulus package is rolling through Congress like an express train packed with goodies, so an enormous deficit seems to be a given. Entitlements will go up instead of being brought under better control, auguring big future deficits. Where will the Treasury find all those trillions in a depressed world economy?

There is only one answer. The Obama administration and Congress will call on Ben Bernanke at the Fed to demand that he create more dollars -- lots and lots of them. The Fed already is talking of buying longer-term Treasurys to support the market, so it will be more of the same -- much more.

And what will be the result? Well, the product of this sort of thing is called inflation. The Fed's outpouring of dollar liquidity after the September crash replaced the liquidity lost by the financial sector and has so far caused no significant uptick in consumer prices. But the worry lies in what will happen next.

Even when the economy and the securities markets are sluggish, the Fed's financing of big federal deficits can be inflationary. We learned that in the late 1970s, when the Fed's deficit financing sent the CPI up to an annual rate of almost 15%. That confounded the Keynesian theorists who believed then, as now, that federal spending "stimulus" would restore economic health.

Adding to this analysis is recent data. Ten year Treasury rates are rebounding rapidly. From around 2% up to almost 3% in 6 weeks. The long term inflation outlook priced into the 5yr treasury/TIPS spread reveals that inflation expectations by the market have risen from almost -1% to +0.37% (at time of publish), again in about 6 weeks. Oil prices are slowly rising from low 30’s to low 40’s. Gold prices are rising as well.

Many have made a big deal about the astonishing growth in the money supply, but this has been offset by growing excess reserves held by banks. The banks were hoarding cash and not lending. However, the bi-weekly reports from the Fed show that excess reserves fell a little bit, meaning more of that massive money supply is getting into the market.

While rapid inflation isn't a sure thing from the data, I see nothing in the markets right now that predicts anything but growing doubts about deflation.

Silly Socialists, Capitalism Spreads the Wealth Around

It is often, and incorrectly, believed that capitalism inevitably leads to the accumulation of wealth in the grip of a handful at the great expense of the masses. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is capitalism that abuses the businessman by forcing him to share the fruits of his labor before he can enjoy them himself. The common man benefits from the talents, genius, and/or obsession of the rich capitalist. The rest of us should not envy, discourage, or hinder them, but cajole them to further abdicate leisure so that we can enjoy the benefits.

Let me explain how this is so…

Imagine an island with three inhabitants. Abram lives on the east coast and produces ice cream. He is industrious and driven to expand his wealth and production. Bob lives in the heart of the island, raises cattle, and produces steaks. Bob likes to play cowboy and has little interest in expanding production. Craig lives on the west coast as a vegetarian. He produces tofu burgers, and he too has little desire to expand output, and would rather do yoga.

In recent weeks, Abram produces 10 pints of ice cream every five days, but has grown to dislike the ice cream he produces. Bob produces 10 steaks and Craig produces 10 tofu burgers in the same 5 days. Abram trades with Bob 5 pints for 5 steaks. Abram trades Craig 5 pints for 5 tofu burgers. Bob likes to eat ice cream for lunch and a steak for dinner. Craig likes to eat a tofu burger for lunch and ice cream for dinner.

Now Abram wants to increase his wealth and has been focusing his thoughts on expanding production. Finally one day, the answer strikes him and he is able to increase his ice cream production to 14 pints of ice cream every five days.

Still not liking ice cream, Abram goes to Bob and asks to trade him 7 pints of ice cream for 7 steaks. Bob declines. He says, “I like having ice cream AND steak every day. So, I’ll just take my usual 5 thank you.” Abram goes to Craig and offers to trade him 7 pints of ice cream for 7 tofu burgers. Craig, too, declines. He says, “I like having ice cream AND burgers every day.”

Undaunted, Abram goes back to Bob and offers him a new deal. He says, “I will trade you 7 pints for just 6 steaks. Now you can have more food than you had before.” Bob now realizes that he can have ice cream for lunch, dinner, AND breakfast once every 5 days. Bob happily agrees to the trade. Abram makes the same offer to Craig and he accepts as well. Because Bob and Craig have a diminishing marginal utility of ice cream, Abram must lower the price of ice cream to match his new supply to the quantity demanded.

Abram now enjoys 6 steaks and 6 tofu burgers, so he is clearly better off, but it is a smaller increase in consumption than his increase in production. For Abram to increase his own consumption of the things he likes but does not produce, he must increase the consumption of his fellow islanders. Bob and Craig add nothing, but still enjoy the benefits. Capitalism, it seems, “spreads the wealth around”.

So, to all of those 70 hour week, no vacation, divorced three times, stress medication, corporate titans, I say “Keep up the good work”, my free lunch is depending on you.