As we approach Labor Day—the traditional end of the summer travel season—gasoline prices in Connecticut are again flirting with the $4.00 mark. Indeed, in Fairfield County, the average price for a gallon of regular has already surpassed that milestone. Motorists in the Hartford area are paying an average of $3.973 per gallon. In southeastern Connecticut, the average is $3.964. The statewide average today sits six-tenths of a cent below $4.00, according to AAA’s Daily Fuel Gauge Report.
The statewide average of $3.994 per gallon for regular is nearly three cents more expensive than a week ago and 18 cents more expensive than a month ago.
Connecticut motorists are now also paying more for gasoline than they were a year ago, when the average was $3.916. While pump prices started high and moved lower during the summer of 2011, we’re seeing the opposite happen this year. Domestic supply and distribution issues have been the driving force behind rising gasoline prices over the last several weeks (see graphic). Oil prices have also been increasing amid positive global economic news and continued geopolitical tensions with Iran.
AAA continues to expect that, given current conditions, prices at the pump will decline following Labor Day as the summer driving season comes to a close and the transition from summer to winter blend fuel occurs.
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-02/politics/politics_senate-insider-trading_1_insider-trading-catchall-bill-senate?_s=PM:POLITICS Daniella .. coincidental to your point, the above CNN page has at least 4 different links to stock pushers: 2012 Top Penny Stocks, Best Gold Plays Right Now, Jim Cramers Stock Picks, Todays Top 5 Trades. Paul .. i understand your frustration, but relax, this is all part of the cycle. We had big gas-guzzling beasts in the 1970's. Then Israel was attacked, the middle east went in to turmoil, and the arabs instituted the oil embargo. Oil and its derivatives skyrocketed. You could only get gasoline 2-3 days per week. Then Lee Iacocca saved Chrysler by inventing the economical K-Car. You are doing the right thing. In my opinion, everything is cyclical and this cycle is about to change.
Relative to the rest of your comment, can you please tell me what you are trying to say. In a free capitalist market with no collusion, if there is a party making too much money competitors move into the market and that drives the price down. Look at Apple and its iProduct juggernaut. How many competitors are there? Venezuela, that has also created a vertical business model: Exploration/production, into refining and end user sales. Granted Venezuelan oil is a very very low grade requiring special cracking processes. If there is money to be made, the socialist Chavez is happy to be a capitalist when it suits his needs. Look at Q8 (Kuwait) in Europe as it attempts to create a vertical business.
Think about this for a moment. If there were no insider trading laws, a rumor of an acquisition would cause people to acquire shares, traders would start to see that action and start to acquire shares as well. The price moves higher and a shareholder sells thinking he got a good price, but when an acquisition is announced he might complain that he could have gotten more, but he sold voluntarily. The buyer surely would not complain. As the price would move higher indicating it may be in play, and other acquirers might be interested in an acquisition thus driving the price yet higher which is bad for the acquirer, but not the acquiree. You see the idea here. The are many market participants looking at volume. A good story can’t stay quiet for long, There are people watching plane movements, and meeting locations and car services, and I can go on, all looking for a hint something is up.
Investments are made to produce a return that allows the capital to #1 stay on par with inflation (purchasing power), #2 stay ahead of taxes relative to potential gains (net post tax gain, if taxable), and #3 to produce a return that will allow the assets to grow over time (by accretion). The purpose of investment portfolios that inherently have risk is to reduce the funds that would be required to provide the future benefits. The greater the return, the lower the annual funding requirements. Your idea would result in a massive tax increase because the returns of safe investments in the size of many larger pension funds would be a NEGATIVE. Yes, negative when you take into account just a moderate inflation rate ~2.2%, and a safe 10yr return on treasuries of (~1.5%. 2.2% - 1.5% = -0.7%). The result is an increase in taxes on the Municipal and State levels to cover the effective difference between standard actuarial return of 8% to a negative say 1%, a 9% delta. You have complained of taxes going up, and you would I am sure like to see your rent go up 25% just to cover this concept of yours. http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/ http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield
When the price is low it has the opposite effect on users.
This issue reminds me of George Orwell's book, "Animal Farm", Wherein he writes:"All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others." Doesn't that sound familiar :-? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-08/congress-isn-t-supposed-to-be-above-the-law-commentary-by-stephen-carter.html
We all should be opposed to many of the green generation ideas in the electrical power area. Specifically Winds and Solar. It creates by need a redundant cost situation driving electric prices higher for ALL consumers with no real economic or "green" benefits.
we have now a stock market that generates its own profits, based on the fee revenue of billions of trades performed, having nothing to do with anything close to a tangible product. it is parasitic, but is wholly dependent on the existence of those corporations, for without them, the Wall Street Shirts would not have a function/job to do. i would dare say, the market is more likely a detraction and impediment, than a service for honest and productive job creating companies.
Fast forward. We still have investors today, however they make up a fraction of the trading volume. New Companies try to raise money through Venture Capitalists that take an early stake in a business for the hopes of a large pay day. We see companies go to market at inflated values. Facebook“FB” is an example. I can talk for an hour on this issue. One thing you seem to be missing is that after a company sells shares to the public, it has no vested or direct interest in the share price....
Why has this happened? We made it too cheap to trade. Wow that was a tough one to figure out… You lower transactions costs to literally a fraction of a cent per share, we then went to decimal trading and then to hundreds of a cent trading, and low and behold you only need to see a $0.005 movement to buy and then sell. So you have $100K, and you buy say 5,000 shares of FB, and it moves up 2 cents and you gross $100, and it costs you $10 or $20 to buy AND sell so you net $80 or $90. Not bad for a 5 minute trade. Do it 10 or 15 more times and you are making a grand a day. I am not saying there is no risk, yet you can control those elements unlike at a casino.
The market has always generated profits but when you lower the cost of transactions you get more transactions. Econ101. So it is the existence of AT&T and IBM and ExxonMobil that created this problem. That is the same thing as saying because we have more variety in the grocery store that people eat too much. So if we reduce the number of items people will get thin? That is nonsensical. Your comments border on Marxism. So how would you suppose Henry Ford would have gotten started, or Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates, or Sergey Brin and Larry Page or well you do get the idea.
scale wise, it is indeed a win/win for the trader/market business, yet it contaminates the company/corporate stock incentive, as is demonstrated by huge bonus/ options packages that are taken (and i emphasize the word TAKEN) by CEO and boards of dirs, that casually cut costs (ie>> fail to re-invest profit, plan effectively, other) that ends peoples jobs/livelihood. if the only reason some of these people have a company or job is 'to make money' and nothing else, they are not part of the solution. rather they become leeches of other's work effort and wealth. being a financial planner/consultant i understand your position is biased to that end, rather than to the actual task of producing, sweating and job creation.
The second paragraph can’t be responded to because I am not sure of your point. If by company you are referring to the issuers of stock, then your mindset is wrong. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did not create businesses to ‘make money’ as the sole purpose as you imply. They built Microsoft and Apple to create something, where there was nothing. If you were referring to traders, I would beg to differ. I am not a trader professionally, but an investor. However traders provide liquidity and that is a service. I just think it has gone way out of reasonable, but when you cut costs to fractions of a cent, what can you expect. Remember however you still have to generally put up 50% of the price of stock before you can trade on credit and that keeps a small lid on things. Otherwise you would see 1928 all over again. Your comments are disingenuous. I am biased to a free market, no bailouts, and people understanding how things work. I am not a fan of day trading or High Frequency Trading and Automated Trading. I do understand them as I should.
However the share price is paramount to the investor/shareholders. Share price appreciation and dividends are what provides the impetus for investors to invest. Employees or those within the company may have a vested interest because of options, and/or other ownership methods or proxies. Those with an ‘invested’ interest direct or indirect, have an interest in price. Price appreciation is affected by growth potential, profit margins, and many, many other factors including the psychology of the market, industry and business space. Lastly, price appreciation is positive reinforcement to the enterprise and shareholders that management and employees are successfully executing their business operation. They all work together to produce operating profits, and with it share price appreciation.
When people, and businesses are run by people in case you may have forgotten, do not use cash when they are uncomfortable with risks and.or they feel there are unknowns. Individually, if you have cash to buy a car, and your income is reduced say 20% even though you might till have excess cash flow and cash on hand, you will NOT make that car purchase. You WILL delay it until you feel more comfortable, or until you have to buy that car. Businesses do the same thing you as a person do, hold onto cash. Shareholders would not want to see cash spent in an uncertain environment. Obamacare (Note: POTUS calls it that) and Dodd-Frank are still not written! There are rules related to the laws that are unknown and thus fraught with danger for every businesses and consumers. No one wants to take on unknowns, and they will sit on cash until the dust clears and things are settled. Also many companies are not going to increase headcount unless they must, especially those in the 50 employee range where Obamacare and CT sick pay lurks.
Relative to oil prices.... Do you mean collusion among the 115 producers(wikipedia) tens of thousands of retailers, traders, oil company personnel, and everyone else. I forgot the local gas seller down the street, and his competitors within a mile or so. I knew I was out of the loop. Regulation would add cost that you would pay and have no effect on the world price, supply, and demand. Show me a sign of greed. Show me a company that is being ‘greedy’. BTW, Do you also complain when the price declines? Did not think so.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-r-0319.htm http://knowledgeproblem.com/2011/01/24/an-act-purporting-to-ban-gasoline-zone-pricing-in-connecticut/ http://knowledgeproblem.com/2011/03/02/zone-pricing-ban-proposal-advances-in-connecticut-zone-price-ban-law-in-new-york-still-not-working/ I also buy my gas and alcohol, and now other things. Mass is better off.
And #Grumpy - your comment is spot on. I would add though, that Keystone will add nothing to the USA, except the liability of a Russian made pipe bursting under someone's farm or water supply.