Thursday, April 29, 2010

Oil, Oil Everywhere; and Not a Stop In Sight

Other than the late night comics, I haven’t heard a lot from the “drill baby, drill!” crowd. I suspect the disaster of the BP oil platform has made this sentiment politically untimely. But it does provide an object lesson for the American public. When you hear politicians espousing their positions on any given issue, like off-shore oil drilling, you should start from the position that whatever they are telling you that it is based on a complete lack of understanding or knowledge. Further, as they continue to explain the soundness and justification for their position that the intensity with which they support it is in direct proportion to the amount of campaign contributions that they are receiving from interest groups. Now, I don’t want you to think that I am referring exclusively to Republican politicians, the Democrats are no different; nor are Independent candidates.

What can we expect next from the politicos? There will be hearings on how this was allowed to happen and why it wasn’t handled better; and oh yes!, and who is to blame for this? It is very appropriate for these Congressional committee events to be called hearings given what occurs during the process. They called hearings because what you are going to get out of them is ‘hearing’ the assorted congress members who are on committee displaying their outrage and disbelief on how such an event could have been permitted to happen. These public servants will demand answers to their questions from the cast of individuals that are forced to appear before them. The questions will be found periodically inserted amid the long-winded statements and opinions that each Congress member has some need to place into the record concerning this issue. Sometimes the statements are flaccid statements of support for one of the individuals testifying, but more often than not their statements are diatribes condemning the event and the clear and undisputable blame that the particular person must be responsible for regarding the event. Then when they run out of their angry rhetoric, they relent to putting a question to the witness. They will even sometimes let the witness answer the question before they take off on their next bellowing bluster. The last thing that they are actually seeking is an answer, and certainly not any information that could lead to comprehension or understanding of the cause and effect factors that constructed the situation at hand.

After the hearing, there will some attempt to construct legislation to ‘safeguard the public and nation from such a disaster in the future’. The legislation may make it to a bill and be passed after sufficient lobbying efforts have had their opportunity to transform the bill into either a toothless watchdog or into the potential to selectively profit from the provisions and loop-holes strategically placed into the bill.

So pay heed America! Learn to view politicians and their actions for what they are: paid-for agents of special interest groups that are no more capable of serving the public interest than your average five year-old (no disrespect meant to five year-olds).

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Congress: Too Big To Flail?

Sen. Shelby and Sen. Dodd are pressing forward to formulate a bi-partisan financial reform bill, and they discussed it this morning on ‘Meet the Press’. Together they are fighting the partisan tides propelled on both sides by the opportunistic brinksmanship that the political parties are creating. Whether they will be successful at finding sufficient common-ground for enough members of Congress to accept a compromise bill that will even be accepted for debate, let alone in reaching acceptability for enactment is still in play for being ‘shorted’. But that is their challenge and their political problem. And as we have seen in the media, and will continue to see, the parties will be punting this political football back and forth without any evidence of skill or understanding. Congress will demonstrate yet again, that they are not too big to flail.

The problem for the American public is whether their solution will be effective in achieving its intended objectives. Assuming that the reform bill makes it through the bi-partisan negotiations with the basic concepts that it currently contains; there will be an extension of regulatory oversight in all financial areas that represent substantive potential for impacting the national economy, there will be an expansion of consumer protection regulation, and there will be greater regulatory authority for the oversight Government agencies to intervene in companies that are judged to be failing in acting in fiscally responsible and rational ways. With these additional responsibilities and authority vested in the federal bureaucracies will the American public be safe and assured that the powers on Wall Street will be brought to serving the national and public interests?

No. The regulatory approach retains its “cops and robbers” mind-set. It places the interests and motivations of the regulatory bodies in the position of searching for violations and wrong-doing amongst the players in the financial industry; and it teaches the financial companies to seek out loopholes and ways around the regulatory constraints being imposed upon them. It is the old mind-set that the Government achieves through a ‘find and punish’ method; and put businesses in the ‘avoid and obscure’ role. I don’t object to have the oppositional relationship between the regulating and regulated parties; but I don’t think that that is either the only nor the most productive means to accomplish a sound foundation for the national economy and business environments to be secured for the benefit of everyone, including the Wall Street elite that failed everyone so spectacularly while being the ‘only people capable and qualified’ to run these institutions.

Besides these conflicting interests have a recurring historic failure record. Regulatory agencies are often ill-equipped to fulfill their assignment, evolve into cozy regulatory/industry relationships, and are prone to the political sensitivities of politicians and special interest groups who can thwart their efforts and influence their funding.

What needs to be added to the financial reform effort is the inclusion of the same capitalistic dynamic that energizes the financial industry and its sage leadership to excel at creating the profits that establish their successes and funds their excessive and unwarranted salaries, bonuses, benefits, perks, and their corporate-supported political/charity/social contributions and influences. Where in the bill is the power to incent corporate leadership to manage the risks that they are undertaking with their investors’ wealth and the national economy in direct and inviolate relationship to their own and the corporations’ wealth and profits? You will not find it.

Now I have no idea what would make financial executives and leaders either interested in or pay any attention to ensuring that neither they nor their regulatory counterparts were ignoring or acting in financially irresponsible ways; but surely the ‘best and brightest’ in both government and the financial industry could figure some things out. Perhaps they could make some connection between long-term economic outcomes and access to bonuses. Or maybe, the differences in returns to the average investors versus the top-ten percent of investors could serve as a metric in setting compensation levels; making disproportionate achievements an undesirable accomplishment at least for the executives. And perhaps making investments in unregulated areas a highly progressive leveraged tax responsibility might make the attractiveness of ‘shadow investments’ more problematic when they are based on information that is non-public but very self-serving.

But let’s get back to Congress. Will they succeed, fail or flail? They will succeed to fail and flail.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Wailing and Wallowing On Wall-Street’s Witlessness

By now most people have settled into their own perspective view on the relationship between Wall Street and the economic disaster that has been playing out over the last year and a half. You probably find yourself orbiting amongst other like-minded individuals that have become attracted to or attached to one of several conceptual-masses that make up the political galaxy. An American galaxy from which we can each observe the consequences of the super-nova explosion originating from the derivatives instruments that were created by our Wall Street superstars. And; as in any galaxy, there are higher concentrations of matter around those bodies/ideas that have done nothing more perhaps than pull in a greater amount of matter that was conveniently available nearby. These political solar systems, like their stellar gravity-well counterparts, can grow to colossal sizes and become all-consuming black-holes. Annihilating everything in their reach and permitting nothing to escape nor providing light to illuminate the darkness.

In gazing out onto this galactic star-scape, we can find systems that have congealed from the nebular residue of the melt-down which are composed of:

• individuals, who have lost all or nearly all of their savings, assets or income from pension/retirement plans

• small pockets of folks that benefited from the collapse for any number of reasons

• those who expect their tax burdens to increase in the future to account for the debt obligations that have been assumed by the Government to react to and mitigate the economic crisis

• some who see the Government’s interventions as an attempt to take control of the nation through ownership of key industries

• predators and vultures who see an opportunity to game, leverage or cheat the system and accumulate wealth and power from the desperation and fear following in the wake of the collapse

• leaders and captains of industry who are ready to rebuild the financial industries and markets, but with better controls and protections for the public

• politicians who either want to make sure that this never happens again, or who want to restrain or remove governmental involvement in the financial industry

• and there are those who feel that they were cheated, deceived and taken advantage of so that rich, powerful and well-connected people and groups would not be destroyed by their own folly

Across this space, the predominant constellations shaping your fate are being reformed by the enormous energies raging through the public ether and propelling the tumultuous shifting in the balance of financial powers that will establish your role in the free markets. The underlying sources of these energies are the public anger and fear released by the impact the recession had on peoples’ lives and feelings of security. Adding to this kinetic impulse was the deeply felt sense of injustice and unfairness that fomented out of the bailouts and self-serving abuse of the public purse by ear-marking politicians.

What then are our national leaders going to do to steer the ship-of-state through the new economic reality that has coalesced from the financial ‘big bang’ that created our fiscal disaster out of nothing, or at least created from investments that were based on nothing. We have one group that wants to reform the financial regulatory environment to “prevent this from every happening again”, and enhance and strengthen the regulatory oversight of the financial industry. Another group of course wants to rely on the power of free-market forces to correct the problems in the marketplace without governmental interference; being emphatic that the regulatory body played a notably culpable role in the current crisis.

It doesn’t matter which one succeeds in advancing their vision, since neither is right. How can this be you ask? Well, both of these positions and approaches were actual factors that contributed to the melt-down.

The regulatory approach that had been crafted over the decades requires broad access to information, knowledgeable and insightful regulators, and a range of authority that enables effective control and enforcement of the financial industry players. And the evolving financial businesses have found efficient ways to erode all of these factors to the point that they are sufficiently weakened to undermine their ability to protect the public from corporate greed and malfeasance of their fiduciary responsibility.

The free-market approach, while essential to a democratic and free society, cannot be relied upon to exist in a free society in an unconstrained or unregulated condition. When businesses are solely left to serving their own interests, they predictably stray from an open and competitive marketplace to one where these businesses will create barriers and obstacles to openness and competition; and in the case of financial institutions in failing to serve the interests of the shareholders instead of the self-interest of executives. One of the fundamental reasons that America has prospered over the centuries is that the Government is explicitly responsible for insuring that everyone’s freedom and liberty are guaranteed and protected, including being safe from businesses that try to exert control over free access to competition in the marketplace and in fulfilling their duty to investors.

The market failure was not caused by truly new factors. It was not caused by a confluence of events that have never occurred before. In fact, the failure was produced by the same factors and the same events that have caused most if not all of the previous market failures in the last couple of centuries. The market failed because the public, the financial institutions and the government were all participating in a fraud. They were making investments in something that had no underlying real value, that did not require any participation in the risk that was being taken, and that rewarded the companies engaged in promoting these irrational investments with no connection to the true value of the investments.

Solving the problem will require a better understanding of what enables the irrational exuberance that propels the public and financial industries into these lemming-inspired stampedes.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Trust In Government? A Classic American Oxymoron

Given our nation’s seminal creative impulse to absolve its ties to our former governmental authority, is it really so surprising that the citizenry has a general distrust of the currently enthroned self-proclaimed mentally-absentee leadership: Congress, the civil service and the Administration? Unfortunately, yes it is surprising; in fact, we Americans don’t distrust our Government enough. It may be true at this moment that sentiments are running unusually high in terms of “public distrust” toward the Government. But during economic bad times, this is a very typical reaction on the part of the public. Citizens are under increased and unrelenting periods of stress and they are doing what all mature, informed and self-aware sentient beings will do in such circumstances. The public will lash-out and seek to blame their troubles on anyone handy. And the public is likely to translate this lower-brain reaction into a “vote them out” impulsive reaction, whether this will in any way affect the conditions that are causal to the problems of our time.

Add to this a constant and unrelenting blitz of Armageddon-scale accusations and diatribes of disaster from the frustrated fanatics of the flawed and failed political party so recently booted from office and you get protests and anger. Sprinkle in a measure of this party’s self-deluded belief in their hereditary right to office and power as the only Americans that have a true understanding of an America founded on the Constitution, and you get the dysfunctional political system we see in effect today.

So where does this leave us?

It leaves us with the political parties jockeying for position to regain or retain the political supremacy that they need as desperately as a drug-addict needs their fix. And it leaves us with a citizenry that collectively avoids the one, single and absolute truth about the source of our American problems. That is that our problems are a failure of our own making, and of our own irresponsibility; and of our own stupidity. We have ‘trusted’ ourselves over the years to elect the members of Congress and the Presidents from the “best and brightest” from both parties. We have demanded that these sage leaders present us with lower taxes and a higher standard of living. We let them sell us out to any special interest group that pays better than the last one; and we believe their self-righteous proclamations that they are only interested in serving the public and the country, and that only they share the America values that made this country great. And depending on your party affiliation, you unquestioningly trust yours and just as unquestioningly distrust the other’s.

The morale of this story is that the problem we have in America is that the public trusts the Government, at least when it’s their Government; and they trust it far too much. They don’t think about, don’t evaluate, don’t critique, and don’t challenge their party leaders. The party faithful have bought into one or more of the party’s key issues, and they have sold themselves to anyone who assures them that those issues will be delivered at any cost. At that point the politicians are free to carry out whatever schemes they choose to line their own or their close associates’ pockets, and to betray the very American values that are enshrined in the Constitution.

We don’t have a high distrust for the Government today. We have angry people. They won’t face up to the problems that they have evaded for years, and they will continue to evade for as long as they are allowed. But eventually, the consequences of their self-imposed blindness will be irresistible. Public debt cannot go unpaid forever, entitlements cannot be paid when there is no treasure in the Treasury, and budgets cannot be balanced when you lie about what you are spending.

Americans need to learn to not trust the Government all the time; whether things are good or bad, and whether the Republicans and Democrats are in the majority. They also need to stop trusting that the political parties have the answers to America’s problems. If they did have answers that were even close to being right, we would not be where we are today.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Your Financial Back, Who Has It? Republicans or Democrats

If you were tired of the Health Care Reform political quagmire and disinformation, then thank God the Republicans and Democrats have brought out their Spring-season political issue: Financial Markets/Industry Reform. It was probably fortunate for some Americans that the Health Care Reform bill was passed before the political football was put into mainstream public play; because Financial Reform will surely make you ill and thus in greater need of medical assistance. We can also be thankful that the political pros left this issue almost unattended to until now, so that the good weather season will allow more of the public to avoid as much of the media’s non-substantive reporting as possible.

So who then has your back on this issue?

Before you jump to your answer, and I realize that a large number of you already have, it would be a propos to consider what the basic positions and proposals on both sides are. For those of you who have already answered then I would assume that:

• you already know the proposals that each side has presented,

• have carefully considered and compared the different proposals on their merits and objectives,

• have ascertained which proposal has the most likely expectations of providing both a prudent and reasonable regulatory environment for the US financial markets as well as sound means for protecting the American investors and tax-payers from irrational, irresponsible and illicit behaviors/activities on the part of financial institutions.

H’mm! Do I really think that people who have already chosen their sides on this issue have thought that much about them? I think not. But I am sure that no matter which side you favor that the political party and politicians that represent you are sufficiently well qualified, knowledgeable and uninfluenced by special interest groups to be relied upon to fulfill their legislative duty in a manner to serve your interests admirably. I, on the other hand, am surer that neither the Democrats nor Republicans know how to pour water out of a boot with the instructions on the heel than know what they should do to create a governmental regulatory environment for the US financial markets. Especially their ability to setup a regulatory framework that will safeguard the American public from the risks and dangers of the financial industry’s corporate mindset for their profits at any price, and the self-interest of their executives for their own stellar compensation packages.

What do the Democrats propose? Their legislation would among other things create a liquidation mechanism for large financial firms that get into trouble. This would create a $50B fund for institutions that fail, but are “to big to fail”. So it include provisions that don’t cause financiers to be any more worried about failing than they were previously; and thus they can continue to take big risks and rely upon someone else to bail them out. While it is not explicitly the tax-payer who pays under this proposal, as the fund is created out of industry funding; it is ultimately paid for by the American people. Since the last time I checked the only place that anyone, including the government and financial institutions, gets their money is from the American people.

The Democratic proposal also imposes some regulatory restrictions and oversight on the heretofore unregulated derivatives market, and provides some consumer protection rules in the credit arena.

Now let’s consider the Republicans’ alternative proposals. Republicans want to not do what the Democrats propose. They are convinced that the Democrats are wrong, but details on their own remedies for securing the economy for the American people are woefully represented in the media as far as I have seen. Now I will admit that this may be due to my own inattentiveness, but should it really be that difficult to find or hear something substantive on their proposals? I do rest assured however that the Republican approaches will be as unimaginative, ineffective and unsuccessful as what the Democrats espouse; and much more likely to be influenced by the irreplaceable and brilliant minds that come the Financial companies who produced the near-economic collapse that us lucky tax-payers are privileged to pay for.

But don’t despair! The mid-term elections will without a doubt bring out the quality of politicians that America needs to bring about a resurgence in fiscal responsibility and economic security that we have lacked for decades under both Republican and Democratic administrations, Congresses, and voter sentiments.

I wonder if the public would have the “common sense” to seek out candidates who realize that they do not know how to address the problems in the financial markets, but who are willing to seek out individuals who can present understandable and compelling approaches that will achieve an improved regulatory environment that benefits the American public.

Oops, I forgot! This would require both uncompromised politicians and an electorate that thinks enough to dismiss the strident and partisan propaganda from both the Democrats and Republicans intended to serve their party’s interests above any value to America.

It’s too bad too, since as usual the concepts for effecting viable financial reforms are not actually that hard to develop.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Why Mining Safety Legislation Is Structured To Fail

With the recent coal-mining disaster in West Virginia, the media has unfailingly sought out opinions on the need for more mine safety legislation. Like almost any question or issue in the public arena there are always at least two positions. In this case the reactions seem to the obvious “yes better legislation/regulation is needed to insure miners’ safety”; and the idea that what is really needed is for the proper and effective enforcement of the existing legislation.

And who would oppose these sentiments? No one would, at least not overtly nor publicly. But the process that political and governmental leaders will use to get there will betray these admirable aspirations. They won’t do it purposely or with any ill-intention; but they will do their best and yet they will fall short of their objective. The reason for their failure is that they will persist in relying on an approach and method for achieving mining safety that they have been using up until now. They will establish a commission/panel to work out new and better regulations based on the results of the study of this latest incident and the information that will be uncovered that contributed to the disaster.

There is nothing wrong or illogical about what they are trying; and it is a necessary exercise in understanding what the problems were and what kind of procedures and precautions need to be in place to prevent recurrences of the disaster. But here is where they get tripped up. They believe that once they pass new rules that they will be able to enforce them and prevent opportunities for industry players to game the system, push the envelope, or flatly attempt to by-pass or avoid compliance. And here is where the check-on, find violations and then apply punitive fines approach results in the problem. The dynamic that it creates is a win-lose one that rewards a competitive conflict between the governmental agency that works to enforce the law, and the companies that will see benefits from finding ways to prevent them from finding reasons to fine them.

So the question that remains is, why not approach the problem with a better solution? Why not modify the approach; and set the process so that it actively rewards industry players for their mine safety performance? Make it worth their while to constantly seek out ways to be better than others in the business.

Monday, April 5, 2010

Owning Genes: Ownership Comes With Responsibilities

On CBS’s 60 Minutes show Sunday night, they did a segment on corporations patenting and owning human genes. The central controversy is whether it is right for corporations to be able to have the ability to own human genes. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is pressing a lawsuit against a company that has a patent on a/some human genes that indicate a predisposition for breast cancer. The company has developed a test that allows doctors and patients to determine if a woman has the genetic marker genes that predispose them to breast cancer. This company has decided that the test is fairly market-priced at around $3,000.00. This of course can cause problems or obstacles to patients that cannot afford the test, particularly where insurance companies will not cover the cost of such tests. This is nothing new in lots of medical treatment areas, but there are even more facets to the issue than just the cost of the test.

The patent holding company is also aggressively enforcing its rights to these human genes by prohibiting any other company or research entity from using the genes to investigate other tests, procedures, treatments, or even basic scientific knowledge about the genes. Their position is that since they own the genes that no one else can use them for any purpose or in any manner without their permission and approval.

The ACLU’s position is that the US Patent Office granted the patent in error, since the genes represent a natural creation and as such is not patentable. The test procedure that the company created may be patentable, but it patent would not grant the company any ownership rights over the genes themselves and would it allow them to prohibit others from using the genes for their research and development purposes. The case will be set a major precedent in patent law when it is finally settled, which may require the lawsuit to be taken to the Supreme Court.

I think that the ACLU missed the better position to litigate. Instead of questioning the company’s right of ownership, the ALCU should have brought a suit against the company with charges of product-liability and criminal-negligence. Since the company owns the genes, they must be responsible for their product and its consequences to the public. So given that these genes contribute to a predisposition or even cause breast cancer, the company is liable for such cancer cases. They also are responsible for their negligence in correcting the problem that their genes produce, failing to warn the public and individuals that they are at risk from these defective products, and that they must assume full fiduciary responsibility for correcting these problems. With respect to the individuals that they have harmed, the company should be required to also pay punitive damages.

I think that a jury of fair-minded American citizens would be likely to agree that this company should be and would be held responsible for their product, and that their irresponsible actions to date should be made an example of to the corporate world that in the United States no company will be permitted to exercise ownership rights without complete and absolute accountability for their product and its consequences to the public. After an example is made of the company in the breast cancer genes case, I think it would be reasonable for the US Government to offer a amnesty period for other companies that hold such human gene patents to rescind their patent ownership claims and turn any and all future ownership right over to public-domain ownership.

The executives of the company that loses the court case would be unfortunately completely wiped out, or we should do all that we can to insure that result; but the long-term benefit to the American people and surely to the citizens of all countries would be well worth their inconvenience. After all it seems only fair that they should pay for their poor judgment, management, and sense of responsibility.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

A Test Of Faith

The current priests’ sex scandal within the Catholic Church in European countries, mirroring the one that spread across America over the past decade has occasioned the Pope to express that this is a test for both him and the Church. And he Pope is correct that this is a test, and in fact a ‘test of faith’ for not only him but for the Church itself. But what exactly do you think the Pope or the Bishops, or any of the multitude of groups embroiled in the issue would mean when they say that this crisis for the Church is a ‘test of faith’?

I suspect that in many cases, the ‘test of faith’ concept relates to fulfilling precepts of their faith. Thus the Catholic clergy have voiced the need for all parties involved to do their proper penance for their actions/inactions, to admit to their sins or mistakes (of omission or commission); to seek forgiveness from God and from those they have harmed/failed; and to try to go forth and improve themselves (and sin no more) in the future. There is nothing wrong with this in actually. First, it is a ‘practice what you preach’ principle being followed; and second, as the leadership of the Church they are responsible for guiding the Church through every circumstance that they and their congregations encounter.

Beyond this sense of a ‘test of faith’ is another; the Pope, the Cardinals, the Bishops, and the faithful are challenged to find the strength and courage to forgive. This is far harder actually than the admitting, or repenting, or the improving efforts; and certainly more difficult even than the ‘not doing it again’ directive. This forgiveness article of faith requires a depth of belief in the power of redemption.

Is it strange then that we see little so little of these very principles of faith coming forth from all sides in the controversy? I don’t think so, because there is a wide divide between knowing and advocating the tenets of one’s faith and of actually being able to adhering to and applying them to your actions. This is the very nature of the conflict between ‘good’ and ‘evil’, of following the path of faith or of falling by the wayside.

But there is another meaning to the ‘test of faith’ occasioned by this crisis. This concept of ‘testing one’s faith’ does not revolve around knowing the rules or whether you follow those rules in practice; but it concerns whether you understand what justifies the rules, precepts, tenets and beliefs as being the right principles by which you should live. And here is where the Catholic Church and other religions do poorly. By not achieving a better understanding of the justifying principles that support the religion’s teaching; and not incorporating that understanding into their teaching of the faithful, they do not promote a deeper and more sustentative basis for guiding one’s actions along a righteous path. Without attempting to understanding the faith that you follow beyond rules and precepts, you subject yourself to relying on the interpretation of individuals in authority, you place trust in positions of power rather than in comprehending what is required independently from position, and you replace another’s judgment above your own. And in matters of faith you must of necessity be the sole and only person who has to determine the righteousness of your actions. You can seek information from others, but when it comes to being faithful, you have to act according to your understanding of our faith and its principles. In this context, where did the Church leadership fail? Did they fail in understanding what their faith required them to do, or did they fail to comprehend why their actions were not in adherence with their faith and with the fundamental justifying principles of their faith?

The conflict that will continue within the Church and from outside the Church will not be waged on the basis of faith; rather it will be conducted on legal fronts, for tangential objectives, and for emotional and psychological needs. These will be test of law, culture and power. But faith will be left in the background, mostly unrecognized or acknowledged as a factor in the conflict. At some point people will move beyond this particular conflict, but will not likely have dealt this the last concept of having ‘tested their faith’. The will not have learned more about their faith, and in many cases they will have lost what understanding of the faith that they had.

So that other religious or non-religious communities do not feel left out, I doubt that the scandal for the Catholic Church is that unique to their system. Sex scandals are not uncommon to other groups, why the Church of Scientology is dealing with its own versions of sexual abuse claims now also. Of course, no one should be concerned since they deal with such incidents within the Church hierarchy and thus everyone can rest assured that it is dealt with justly, effectively and without any possibility of abuse of power. And if you dig very hard and work untold hours at it, you will probably find sex scandals with whatever group you look into. With the internet, it probably will take less than a minute and require only that you can spell ‘sex’, ‘scandal’, and ‘religious group of your choice’; and then only have to read through the volume of sources that turn up.