It was an unexpected bull market that began just over 11 years ago on the heels of a brutal 17-month, 57% decline in the S&P 500 index. Premature calls for the bull’s demise became routine throughout 14 drops of at least 5% during the 11-year run, including six declines of at least 10% and three falls of at least 15%. The bull market started in the third month of the Obama White House and lasted more than three years into the Trump administration. When the bull run finally came to an end last Thursday, the gain for the S&P 500 from its “troughto-peak” was +529% (total return) or an average 18.3% per year, making it the longest running stock bull market since the end of WWII (source: BTN Research).It may have been just a difference of opinion as to how to proceed in the face of declining global oil demand, but the two oil producing superpowers (Saudi Arabia and Russia) turned the disagreement into a playground brawl. Saudi Arabia wanted the OPEC+ alliance (which includes Russia) to cut production, theoretically driving the price of oil higher. Russia balked at the plan, causing Saudi Arabia to strike back by decreasing its official price of oil while announcing plans to increase its production to a record 13 million barrels a day, apparently in order to punish Russia. The net result: the price of oil closed last week at $31.73 a barrel, down 48% from the end of 2019 (source: BTN Research).The Fed announced on Thursday 3/12/20 that it would inject $6.5 trillion of 1-month and 3-month loans into the short-term “repo” market through Friday 4/17 /20. The “repo” market has been dependent on the Fed for assistance to ensure market liquidity since September 2019, key to avoiding a panic that can occur if a “seller” cannot quickly find a “buyer” without cutting the price of the asset they hold (source: BTN Research).Notable Numbers for the Week:WHEN INTEREST RATES COLLAPSE – Long-dated Treasury bonds produced a gain of +46.4% (total return) on a trailing 1-year basis as of the close of trading last Monday 3/09 /20 (source: Barclays).THE SICKEST AMONG US – Just 1 % of the U.S. population is responsible for 22% of total health care spending in the country, i.e., 1% of our 329 million population (3.3 million people) create $800 billion of health care expenses or an average of $242,000 per person per year (source: Brookings).THEY VOTE – 9.8% of eligible voters for the 2020 presidential election were born outside of the U.S.A. but have since legally become U.S. citizens, a total of 23 million immigrants (source: Census Bureau).I GOT THE FLU – During the 2018-2019 flu season in the United States ( approximately November 2018 through mid-April 2019), 35.5 million Americans got sick with the flu, 16.5 million saw a health care provider, 490,600 were hospitalized and 34,200 died from the flu (source: Center for Disease Control).
Grocery shopping can take a big bite out of your household budget. In fact, a family of four spends up to an average of $1,300 a month on food at home, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That means families can shell out more than $15,000 a year on groceries.With the right strategies you can cut your grocery spending in half or more. Just ask Kyle Taylor, founder of personal finance blog ThePennyHoarder.com. When he was just a teenager, he was finding ways to whittle down his family’s grocery bill to less than $20 a week. Since then, he’s launched a career in helping people save more money.The entrepreneur is a finalist in GOBankingRates’ 2015 “Best Money Expert” competition hosted in collaboration with Ally Bank. Taylor shared these tips to save money on groceries without spending hours clipping coupons. continue reading » 32SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr read more
9SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr Yesterday, we took a look at Part 1 of our Top 10 Community Posts of 2017. Here’s Part 2 as we prepare for 2018!Why my credit union is no longer my PFIBy. Joe Winn, GreenProfit Solutions, @JoeCUGeekFour signs you should not be a leaderBy. Laurie Maddalena, Envision Excellence LLC, @cuexeccoach Are you confused by this simple grammar rule?By. Lorraine Ranalli, Credit Union Network for Financial Literacy, @LorraineRanalliOut with skimming, in with shimming?By. Ashley McAlpine, CO-OP Financial Services, @COOPFSThe CFPB’s payday lending rule is a grand slam for credit unionsBy. Beth Planakis, Velocity Solutions Inc, @GoMyVelocityIf you missed Part 1 yesterday, click here! read more
Gays, bias and phony scienceNew York Post 1 December 2016Family First Comment: Here’s a classic example of why you should always be wary of social science research by activists…“In a paper just published in the peer-reviewed journal Social Science & Medicine, Regnerus examines a widely-publicized 2014 study by Mark Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University, which found that living in an “anti-gay” community reduces the life expectancy of sexual minorities by 12 years—more than a pack-a-day smoker’s habit reduces his lifespan. After ten attempts using the same data, Regnerus was unable to replicate Hatzenbuehler’s results. Despite ample opportunity to respond, Hatzenbuehler, who is an editor of Social Science & Medicine, has not yet done so, and he may not feel the need. As Riley observes, “certain conclusions are simply more acceptable than others,” and neither the academic establishment nor the media that covered Hatzenbuehler’s study may want to hear that his work is questionable.”Ooops!#JunkScience #DontLetTheFactsGetInTheWayOfAgendasThe headlines were unsparing and unambiguous. “Anti-gay Stigma Shortens Lives,” wrote US News & World Report.“Anti-Gay Communities Linked to Shorter Lives,” said Reuters. “LGB Individuals Living in Anti-Gay Communities Die Early,” according to Science Daily.Two years ago, these stories were hard to ignore when Columbia professor Mark Hatzenbuehler found that gays and lesbians who faced prejudice in their communities had a life expectancy 12 years shorter than those who lived in more accepting areas. Just so we’re clear, that’s bigger than the lifespan gap between regular smokers and nonsmokers.We always knew prejudice was bad, but an Ivy League researcher had found that there were significant effects on the physical health of those experiencing it.But where, one might wonder, were the headlines when another researcher tried to replicate Hatzenbuehler’s effects and came up empty?Last month, Mark Regnerus, a professor at UT Austin, published an article in the journal Social Science and Medicine that concluded that “ten different approaches to multiple imputation of missing data yielded none in which the effect of structural stigma on the mortality of sexual minorities was statistically significant.”In other words, Regnerus tried seven — er, 10 — ways from Sunday to try to get the same results as Hatzenbuehler using the exact same data, but failed. Which means, he concluded, that “the original study’s . . . variable (and hence its key result) is so sensitive to subjective measurement decisions as to be rendered unreliable.”Oops. In case you missed it, there has been a “crisis of replication” in the social sciences recently. Or at least it was discovered recently. In 2015, a large initiative called The Reproducibility Project, led by Brian Nosek at the University of Virginia, repeated 100 published psychological experiments and replicated the results of only a third of them.While no academic or media outlet has made a peep about Hatzenbuehler in the weeks since Regnerus’ article was published, Regnerus was subject to immediate public excoriation for his findings in a 2012 paper on the effects of same-sex parenting on children, which ran contrary to accepted academic opinion on the subject. Despite calls for his firing, the University of Texas found no wrongdoing. Critics disagreed with his methodology, but there was no mystery about how he arrived at his conclusions.The difference between Regnerus and Hatzenbuehler is obvious. Certain conclusions are simply more acceptable than others.Take, for instance, the fraudulent 2014 study in which UCLA’s Michael LaCour was found to have made up out of whole cloth segments of his data on shifting attitudes toward same-sex marriage. LaCour suggested that if someone knocking on doors and asking people about their attitudes toward gay marriage revealed that he himself was gay, that would dramatically change the answers of the respondent.For years, LaCour’s research was cited by major media and used in political campaigns, but it turned out to be what New York magazine’s Jesse Singal called “one of the biggest scientific frauds in recent memory.”In the end, neither LaCour nor Hatzenbuehler actually did the work to prove their theses — because there would be no real consequences if they were caught, and anyway academia writ large didn’t want to “catch” them at all. Facts be damned. Academics care only about the “narrative.” Naomi Schaefer Riley, “Gays, Bias, and Phony Science,” New York Post, December 1, 2016.Mark Regnerus, “Is structural stigma’s effect on the mortality of sexual minorities robust?” Social Science & Medicine, 2016 (free access).Background: Andrew Ferguson, “Revenge of the Sociologists,” The Weekly Standard, July 30, 2012.READ MORE: http://nypost.com/2016/12/01/gays-bias-and-phony-science/ read more
Loading… “This amicable agreement illustrates the mutual trust between Senegal and the IOC. I would like to express my sincere thanks to President Macky Sall, a great friend and supporter of the Olympic Movement, for this exceptional relationship of trust and quality. For all these reasons, I am sure that, together, we will organise fantastic Youth Olympic Games Dakar 2026 for Senegal, the entire African continent and all the young athletes of the world,” said IOC President Thomas Bach. read also:2022 Youth Games: IOC picks Senegal ahead of Nigeria “I would like to reiterate that the IOC has my full support for the organisation of the Youth Olympic Games, postponed to 2026. I take this opportunity to reaffirm my confidence in the Executive Board and welcome the commitment of its teams, working side by side with us, to make Dakar 2026, the first Olympic event in Africa, a successful and memorable occasion”, said President Macky Sall. The agreement was approved today by the IOC Executive Board, and will be submitted to the IOC Session for ratification this Friday, 17 July 2020. FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmail分享 Senegal and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have mutually agreed to postpone the Youth Olympic Games (YOG) Dakar 2022 to 2026. President Macky Sall’s proposal was welcomed by IOC President Thomas Bach, following in-depth discussions on the subject. This postponement meets the requirement of responsibility and the concern for efficiency imposed by current circumstances. The postponement of Dakar 2022 allows the IOC, the National Olympic Committees (NOCs) and the International Federations (IFs) to better plan their activities, which have been strongly affected by the postponement of the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020, by the subsequent postponements of major international sports events, and by the operational and financial consequences of the global health crisis. At the same time, it allows Senegal to carry on the excellent preparations for the Youth Olympic Games. The two leaders, who praised the progress made so far, have jointly renewed their confidence in Dakar 2022 President Mamadou Diagna Ndiaye, IOC Member in Senegal, and both remain fully committed to the great success of these Youth Olympic Games, the first Olympic event ever to be organised in Africa. The IOC and Senegal understand that this news will be disappointing for many young athletes. Both parties can only appeal to their understanding. This agreement results from the large scale of the operational challenges which the IOC, the NOCs and the IFs are facing following the postponement of the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020. With this in mind, the IOC will continue to offer all IFs and NOC Continental Associations the full content of the educational programmes of the Youth Olympic Games. This will allow for the objectives of this very important and much-appreciated component of the YOG to be maintained through the many events organised between now and 2026, in particular during the Continental Youth Games. Promoted Content9 Most Epic Movie Robots We’ve Ever SeenTop 7 Best Car Manufacturers Of All TimeThe World’s 7 Most Spectacular Railway Stations7 Mind-Boggling Facts About Black Holes14 Hilarious Comics Made By Women You Need To Follow Right NowHow They Made Little Simba Look So Lifelike in ‘The Lion King’From Enemies To Friends: 10 TV Characters Who Became Close10 Risky Jobs Some Women Do6 Incredibly Strange Facts About Hurricanes14 Hilarious Comics Made By Women You Need To Follow Right Now2020 Tattoo Trends: Here’s What You’ll See This Year8 Superfoods For Growing Hair Back And Stimulating Its Growth read more
WOMEN’S WORLD CUPDuro IkhazuagbeMaria Bonsegundo’s equalizing goal for Argentina in last night’s 3-3 draw with Scotland has brighten Nigeria’s Super Falcons prospects of making it to the Round of 16 of the ongoing FIFA Women’s World Cup in France. With that draw, the Super Falcons remain in third spot in the standings for third placed teams, ahead of this evening’s matches in Group E and F. The draw also knocked out either Argentina or Scotland from dreaming of picking any of the four slots reserved for best third place finishers.England and Japan qualify from this group as winners and runners-up respectively.And so, as the France 2019 group stage goes out with a bang today with two matches, Nigerians will be praying that in Group E, neither Cameroon nor New Zealand who are meeting in the last match should get any win more than 1-0.Although they both having no point yet but any win for either team in excess of 1-0 will likely spell doom for Nigeria as their minus 3 goal difference respectively may drop to either same with Falcons or superior count.In Group F, Thailand is out of the equation for qualifying having no point and standing on minus 17 goals.But should Chile currently on no point get a win of 4-0 over the Asians, that will reduce their goal-deficit to minus one, a superior aggregate over Nigeria.Apart from the battles for the last two slots of the Third place finishers, Netherlands and Canada will battle for the top spot of Group E while USA and Sweden also on same six points as the teams in the earlier group have so much to fight for.Top spot in Groups E and F are on the line as holders USA face bogey team Sweden in Le Havre, while Canada takes on European champions The Netherlands in Reims.With a ticket to the Round of 16 already booked, Sarina Wiegman’s The Netherlands want to turn on the style. Wiegman has been satisfied with their results but says the Oranjeleeuwinnen “can do so much better” when it comes to the quality of their performances.A Canada side also assured of their place in the next round might prove the perfect opponents for the Dutch Lionesses to rediscover the spark that brought them the European title.Canada have reached the last 16 but sit second in Group E with the Netherlands ahead on goals scored. The Canadians are keen to win this match and top the table with captain Christine Sinclair having warned about the dangers of speculating on knockout phase opponents. A slight change in the line-up is expected to increase momentum, add some freshness and possibly catch the Dutch off guard.While USA and Sweden are both safely through to the last 16, the rich history between the teams makes this a mouth-watering fixture. Sweden inflicted the US’s first and – to date – only group-stage loss at a Women’s World Cup back in 2011. More recently, at the 2016 Olympics, the Swedes were responsible for the Americans failing to reach the last four of a major tournament for the first time in their history. The holders know they’ll need to be at their best to avoid a repeat in Le HavreShare this:FacebookRedditTwitterPrintPinterestEmailWhatsAppSkypeLinkedInTumblrPocketTelegram read more