Here's our summary of key economic events overnight that affect New Zealand with news Wall Street is rising again, partly because some large retailers like Macy’s, Dollar General and Dollar Tree all reported good results reflecting their ability to handle margin pressures from inflation's surge.
Meanwhile, initial jobless claims fell again last week in the US, but the number of people on these benefits rose marginally, but they are still below 1.3 mln and still hovering near 50 year lows.
Pending home sales also fell in April, and both by more than expected and by more than in March. This is an embedded trend now, taking the string of falls to six consecutive months. Higher mortgage servicing costs are hampering sales. That average prices are still rising just means those that are selling are at the higher-priced end of the market. More recently we should note that US mortgage interest rates dropped last week, for a second straight week.
Although it did fall slightly, the Kansas City Fed manufacturing survey stayed historically strong in May.
Also falling slightly was the second estimate of Q1 economic activity in the giant American economy. As we have reported with the first estimate, it shrank slightly from the very strong Q4-2021, but is up +3.5% from the same quarter a year ago on an inflation-adjusted basis. On a nominal basis it is up +10.6% year-on-year, boosted of course by heady inflation.
There was yet another very well supported US Treasury bond auction overnight, for their 7 year Note, and again, bidders drove the median yield lower than at the prior equivalent event a month ago. It slipped from 2.84% to 2.71% at this latest event.
Also showing signs of wear were Canadian retail sales which were unchanged in March from February when a rise was anticipated. Sales volumes fell.
The news out of China is still mostly negative and compounding that more property developers have said they can't make loan repayments in full.
South Korea raised its OCR by +25 bps to 1.75% in a move that was no surprise in response to rising inflation.
Singapore's industrial production bounced back less in April than anticipated, but the year-on-year gain is still a good +6.2%.
Russia cut its policy rate sharply again, slicing it by -300 bps today on top of the prior -600 bps retreat. They say inflation is retreating fast in the middle of "challenging" economic trends. Their policy rate is now 11%. Their inflation target is 4%, but it is running at over +17% currently they say, but falling faster than that anticipated - hence the rate cut.
In Australia, investment in new private capital fell unexpectedly in Q1-2022, when a solid +1.5% rise was anticipated. This was because investment in buildings and structures fell -1.7% while investment in plant and machinery rose by +1.2%.
Staying in Australia, power prices are regulated. Now just days after the election their regulator has announced new higher "default" power prices, up by between +1.7% and +8.2% above inflation in NSW, south-east Queensland and South Australia from July 1. Soaring coal and gas prices are inflating wholesale prices, mostly war-driven.
The cost of containerised shipping freight barely budged last week. The cost of shipping bulk cargoes fell from its recent highs. The number of ships waiting to be unloaded at the key Southern California ports shrank again and are now at their lowest levels since the pandemic. Freight clearances off theses ports are again much faster. But we are about to head into the stressful part of the year and officials aren't entirely sure these logistics pressures are behind them even if the recent trends are much better.
The UST 10yr yield will start today at 2.76% and little-changed. The UST 2-10 rate curve has steepened slightly to +27 bps and their 1-5 curve is little-changed at +75 bps. Their 30 day-10yr curve is unchanged at +220 bps. The Australian ten year bond is now at 3.21% and down -2 bps. The China Govt ten year bond is -4 bps softer at just under 2.76%. And the New Zealand Govt ten year is down -6 bps at 3.49%.
Wall Street is rising today with the S&P500 up a strong +2.2% in late Thursday trade and so far this week it has risen more than +3.5%. The NASDAQ has recovered too. Overnight, European markets were all up about +1.7% except London which gained a lesser +0.6%. Yesterday, Tokyo ended down -0.3%, Hong Kong was also down -0.3%. Shanghai closed up +0.5% with another late-session rise. The ASX200 ended its Thursday session down -0.7%, while the NZX50 fell -0.6% on the day.
The price of gold is lower today, down -US$2 since this time yesterday at US$1849/oz.
And oil prices are up +US$4 from this time yesterday and now just on US$113.50/bbl in the US, while the international Brent price is now just at US$114.50/bbl.
The Kiwi dollar will open today little-changed against the US dollar, now at 64.7 USc. Against the Australian dollar we are softer at 91.2 AUc. Against the euro we are also softer at 60.4 euro cents. That all means our TWI-5 starts today at unchanged 71.5.
The bitcoin price has slipped a minor -0.6% from this time yesterday and is now at US$29,615. Volatility over the past 24 hours has been high however at +/- 3.5%.
The easiest place to stay up with event risk today is by following our Economic Calendar here ».
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
105 Comments
New study shows US and UK individuals heavily exposed to potentially stranded fossil fuel assets...
No real concern really. Banks worried because some of their investors are too heavily invested in fossil fuel assets when the world is moving away from from fossil fuels? This reads to me like banks scaremongering because they didn't see the writing on the wall, or chose to ignore it, and are now trying to socialise their risk after privatising huge profits.
When the world comes to a standstill due to climate change policy, everyone will be begging for fossil fuel assets.
We dont yet have any viable large scale alternatives, so climate change policy merely exports the emissions elsewhere on this same shared planet.
see 3rd Graph
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
Just checked a fossil fuels usage graph since 1800. As we all know, there has certainly been no reduction in world fossil fuels usage in recent years. My current favourite one is NZ sitting on literally millions of tons of fossil fuels, so our government imports coal from Indonesia to run the Huntley power station.
What we do know is that people are dim and that they vote with their hearts. The same heart programmed to obey by the MSM and Academia collective. The heart of the WMV (C) BL.
That’s funny eh, the “Ok Boomer” person with …. Oh the silver fox, kingmaker, no boomer there.
Be fantastic if the popcorn wasn’t already sold out on the OCR+RBNZ=Inflation from overseas fiasco, to watch both these Politicians win their respective electorates then negotiate. What a show. 😀.
I've had a conversation with her on Twitter, talking about housing shortages, where she was opposed to limiting immigration even though so many Kiwi kids are sleeping in cars.
It seemed a bit of a "do not compute" moment for her, where she couldn't or wouldn't see the connection between mass immigration and homeless Kiwis.
This is what I find most concerning about the "Greens". They are trying to protect the environment, yet they seem to think we can have unlimited populace living in harmony within said environment.
Of all parties, they are the ones I expect the most to understand limited resources. Yet as you say, they "do not compute"
Late 2017, I recall you writing that you were a swing voter (cough cough) and you had swung from National to Labour based on their housing policies. It’s coming up five years since then. The continued backing of this lot and the above ad hominem says a lot more than the posts in 2017.
"ability to get ahead financially"
Sure he did well with his role at Air NZ.
But if he really wants to be a leader for New Zealanders, he would do well to take a lesson from John Key and put his assets into a blind trust so he appears impartial.
One of the reasons we have a 'housing crisis' is because we have had property investors buying up houses that would otherwise have been purchased by first home buyers. So from him buying 7 rentals, he is part of the problem and not part of the solution. His personal actions are making life harder for younger New Zealanders trying to get established in NZ. So you can't then try to speak on a political platform to say 'hey look I'm here to help you' when your actions are the opposite. He appears to represent financial repression from my perspective....the rich get richer....vote for me and I'll help you do the same.
If he sells up his rental portfolio, showing that he actually cares about solving the 'housing crisis', as opposed to being part of the problem (i.e. home ownership rates dropping and homes falling into the hands of property investors), then sure I'd consider voting for him. Until then it's not going to happen as he comes across as a hypocrite.
That would be a fantastic idea. Luxon's current apparent idea (and obvious self-interest) that higher house prices are desirable is enough for me to write off National entirely. He is pandering to a tiny minority of people who own multiple properties and throwing the rest of the country under the bus.
To me his policies are as crazy as running on a platform of celebrating high food prices and wanting to help support the Supermarket duopoly.
Yes even talking among property owning people in their 40-50's with adult children who are prospective FHB's, Luxons policies don't fit well with promoting home ownership.
Luxon sitting on 7 of them and creaming it when he really doesn't need to be (there are many other investments he could make to generate yield and protect capital) just isn't a good look.
Its politically tone deaf.
I didn't say growth...you did. I did say capital protection and yield, of which you could look almost anywhere and find investments comparible to property investment (or if prices do fall 20-30%, then many that will be superior to it).
The current environment isn't one to search for growth, its capital preservation and if lucky enough, some yield to cover some of the losses.
Would be interesting to see where else Luxon has put his money, or whether he has a very high concentration in property or more balanced with bonds, equities etc.
When your benchmark is leveraged investment in NZ property, just about anything is a safe haven.
I'd much prefer him to be invested in simple worldwide index funds to reduce the risk of self-interest affecting his policies. Perhaps an NZX or other NZ share tracker so that his financial interests are aligned with the country rather than opposed to its population. Or a true blind trust where he has no idea what he is invested in.
Should be so simple - Luxon needs to start talking about the policies to switch the economy to a productive one based on business (NOT housing). So - how will he get people to switch from investing in property and instead into productive and growing businesses.
Idealy starting by selling his houses and getting his MPs to follow suit and convince us.
In doing so i suspect everything else thats going wrong would automatically change too.... (kids would want to stay as there would be good well paying jobs, climate focussed tech companies would grow locally - driving climate change.. etc etc).
If he doesnt i think we will need another National leader change before the election - we cant vote for him as it is...
Yes completely agree. Doubling down on the political ideology that selling houses to each other in order to 'get ahead' worked for Key and to an extent English, but if prices start falling now and we have a deteriorating quality of life/living standards, we need far greater political vision that what is currently being put forward.
"If he sells up his rental portfolio, showing that he actually cares about solving the 'housing crisis', as opposed to being part of the problem (i.e. home ownership rates dropping and homes falling into the hands of property investors), then sure I'd consider voting for him. Until then it's not going to happen as he comes across as a hypocrite."
Agreed, but what are the alternatives? We're well and truly into 'least worst' territory - Luxon and his 7 rentals or the most open and transparent Labour. Who will wreak the least damage?
If house prices are your main concern (which obviously it isn't for everyone), Labour, Green or TOP are clear winners over National. Do you vote for the party(ies) that brought in more regulations to discourage the investor feeding frenzy, or the party that will undo those changes?
I'm not sure the relationship is so simple. Whether a house is owned or rented, people live in it. Moving houses from one pool to the other doesn't make much difference to supply, so when a landlord buys an existing house and rents it out this doesn't help anything. When they build a new house to rent this added to supply so all good, hence the exemptions from some of the new regulations for new builds.
The simple problem is supply of houses hasn't kept up with demand, and you can decide whether you think this is more to do with historic ~2% per annum increase in population (way above any other Western country) or a perennial failure to address the regulations preventing adequate supply.
And refusing to rent them to beneficiaries.
And keeping them for holiday or occasional homes.
And keeping them empty so there are no tenants to wreck the carpets (a la Gareth Morgan).
And keeping them as a way to store money from overseas, eg China. So not really bothering about rent. Ghost houses, especially in Auckland.
Wall Street is rising today with the S&P500 up a strong +2.2% in late Thursday trade and so far this week it has risen more than +3.5%.
Despite all the gloom about asset prices it's been a civilised retreat so far. We've not seen the market freezing up as it does when there is real fear.
That said some measures of inflation are looking a bit sticky so...
Almost certainly. Coal out of Newcastle couldn't get $50/ton at the end of 2021, now it's over $400/ton. What we're sort of seeing is that companies shunned by ESG for years are having their revenge because investment has tried to migrate more rapidly than demand.
In Auckland house prices are already down by 10% - 15% from its peak and we are at just start of the downfall..beginning.
If this is the beginning, it can be safely predicted that 25% to 30% fall is inevitable if not more.
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2022/05/losses-snowball-across-new-zea…
The rise has been so fast and so high that this current fall, so far is like a drop in Ocean for FHB.
Worst hit will be those who turned builders without deep pockets as it is they, who have paid a premium on top of premium supported by easy and cheap money. Many will bleed as house prices tumble and many go back to traditional houses or unit instead of newly constructed pigeonhole houses, which many will be forced to offload, if possible without loss or with minimum loss.
House prices are falling and the process of raising interest rate has just started in USA, which has dominio effect world over
https://www.ft.com/content/734cb1ff-9dc1-4a67-a567-c2f681f18a77
In NZ, rates to further go up by 65% to 85% as per various experts and also by RBNZ.
People shouldn't be paying a dollar more than early 2020 prices. Sellers are still holding out for November free capital gains and many buyers think they're the only ones with a lower pre-approval so they're still trying to stretch as much as they can.
Anecdotal ofcourse but I found it interesting to find this house in Auckland didn't make a single gain in value over the past 2 years.
Purchased June 2020 - 730k
Sold March 2022 - 730k
https://homes.co.nz/address/manukau/manurewa/8-burundi-ave/AzgYn
MidNZ
Always hard to tell if anything going on in the background. That house I posted doesn't look like a leaky home and using the same photos as it had been from when it was previously sold.
There are plenty of houses around Wellington that have sold recently for 300k - 500k under RV but it's hard to tell if thats because it might be a leaky home so I can't be sure.
What’s not factored into all these house prices dropping comments I see on here is the people who sold in the last say ten years in Auckland, made wonderful tax free profits, moved to the beach area 2-3-hours out of AKL built or bought a house, (pushed up our land values hugely) for $500-800k freehold. They are left with a lifetime of cash and freehold. In my rural town of say 3000, there’s a 1000 of these folk. No stress here for them. My kids can’t afford the section next door now, but hey, I’m bitter I should have bought the farm next door and cut it up like the guys from Auckland did!
Wouldn't worry so much. With house prices in the city centres dropping and our working age population shrinking (down 7500 last year) as more people retire or leave, there should be plenty of inner city properties going for bargains in the near-ish future... if the city centres don't become crime riddled slums.
I'd be cautious citing Macrobusiness, it seems to be more of a blog than a news outlet.
Looking at the Australian election and with ours on the horizon it seems like there is a fair amount of pent up demand for a type party to engage on environment issues but without the baggage of being too far left or right...
Even if for whatever reason people don't think climate change is an issue, surely no one is saying pollution is an issue?
I haven't seen anything talking about all the extra rubbish that the global response to Covid has produced, or have I just not been looking in the right places?
That is true, but it's not like there is a media blackout on discussing things like that is there?
One year would be not much time to do the research to confirm if there is enough interest for a party like that and then go through whatever processes are required to stand up a party I would have thought?
Putin may win this round - because Russia's wealth is underwritten in real stuff.
Most of the West's 'wealth' was in speculated-up 'prices' of existing stuff (like houses).
Where is the base-line for that landing? Probably where the divergence started; back around 1980. So prepare for 1980 house prices? Given the ability to repay debt in the future, that may well be the reality. Pity economics forgot to teach physics as a core part of their 'teaching'.
If the petro-Ruble displaces the petro-Dollar, we are heading for Third World status.
Why wouldn't it be? They have demanded other states pay in rouble for their oil and gas, in somewhat of a master stroke. This essentially backs their currency with their energy, and disassociates it with the US dollar which has no value any more to them. This is what many of us have been saying about the West shooting themselves in the foot with the economic sanctions - it will drive some major players (Russia/India... maybe China) away from the USD and sets up a new petrol rouble. And it's backed by both real energy and nuclear armed nation security. The question is what will the US do to challenge it? The current proxy war in Ukraine is helping their arms industries, but not much else. As most of the USD is in leveraged stuff, its not real wealth, it's imaginary hopes based on future growth, which as pdk will probably attest to, is looking less and less likely.
This, of course, emboldens China, so a multipolar world, here we come. Biden won't attack Russia directly as the nuclear threat is too real. At best is seems the West may end up doing an ordered retreat, learns, licks it's wounds and comes back stronger later. At worst the US triggers a new world war against these "upstarts" or at least some more proxy wars.
I made this point and was accused of being a Russian sympathiser of all things. The West have been debasing their currencies through QE and most have debt to GDP >100% now. Meanwhile, Russia has debt to GDP of 18% and a hard currency backed by needs not wants (oil & gas). Putin also made billions by going long commodity's prior to the invasion.
We are not going to beat China/Russia without seriously reducing our standard of living, they have us over the barrel.
Yes I agree TK....the west are out of control at present and other than invading other countries (which I disagree with), Russia appear to be playing a relatively intelligent financial war against the USD dominated world. The US is essentially bankrupt, and by throwing billions of dollars more each month at Ukraine, they are making themselves worse off/even more vulnerable/weaker. Got to give it to Putin for picking his timing on the invasion and the tactics that he is using to try and undermine the USD system.
Large, millitary enabled autocratic states with economies backed by manufacturing and natural resources versus the financialised consumer economies of the West. Add to that the energy and food imbalance and the Wests commitment to Net Zero and and it's going to get messy, real messy.
How much pain does the average Western voter put up with before they want out? In many ways I think we are very fortunate here, I know we have issues but we are relatively self-sufficient.
Can you imagine what sanctions against China would do to our economy's? Our standard of living collapses - guaranteed depression.
Yes there could be some huge structural shifts in geopoliticals/globalisation and economic goals/policy coming up the next 5 years or so.
People may not recognise the world that is coming at us compared to what we've experienced in recent history, peoples lifetimes.
Then again, from the reading I've done from Dalio through to Strauss-Howe and others, this perhaps shouldn't be unexpected and lines up with the long cycle debt theories/4th turning and this period of stability was due to expire about now (1946 - present or every 75 years or there abouts).
This is an interesting thread reading TK and IO's contributions below, but the question for me remains why invade. If your views are correct Putin did not need to invade anyone. His purported threat from Ukraine was clearly rubbish. If he wanted a land corridor to Crimea, or even undisputed possession of Crimea he could have negotiated with Ukraine to do it peacefully where Ukraine profitted too. Such an approach would have strengthened Russian mana and influence. But the approach he has chosen has shown the Russian bear to be but a shadow of what it is purported to be, aside from it's nukes, and destroyed any trust the west and other might or will have had. China too will be very wary now.
Have you ever considered why Hitler decided to invade the Sudetenland? (and the series of events that this ultimately resulted in...)
Do you think Hitler was a rational human being?
Do you think Putin is a rational human being?
In the answer to the above, why then use things like "mana" and "influence" as an explanation to determine what a person like Putin might or might not do? It would appear to be that you are framing the situation based upon the way you see the world (from your lived experience) as opposed to the way Putin see's the world.
No, I don't think there has been a lot of rationality involved, as evident is previous discussions. If there had been Putin may have come to what I suggested himself, and I suspect most the the World's leaders expected that of him. But there are too many, I feel, too willing to give his reasoning some credence. My issue is primarily that he has committed himself, Russia and likely the world to a path that is both high destructive and there can be no going back from. The Ukrainians don't refer to Russians as Orcs for nothing. The final out come may even result in Russia losing control and the benefits of all those resources you are talking about.
One thing I strongly believe in with the politicians is that with the right approach diplomacy can get you almost anything, where as strong arm only builds antipathy. There are plenty of examples of that today.
My attempt was to point out that you are attempting to rationalise the issue from your point of view, which is shaped from your personal experience, which shapes your values and principles.
I'm sure Putin has had a very different experience to you.
Just as Hitler probably had a very different experience to your father or grandfather who had to go and fight him to ensure you had the wonderful post WW2 experience you have had.....peace and prosperity. Once more, people might have to go and fight Putin to ensure that another period of peace is ensured for future generations. This isn't new....its almost predictable if you study history...its only unpredictable if you think that your personal life experience is reflective of how the world actually works. And if you are a boomer (you might be as you get triggered when I mentioned them), who have experienced a period of peace and prosperity that is almost unheard of, then its possible to understand where the confusion might come from.
Hitler's perspective, having been traumatised in the trenches of WW1 was of seeing the Allies destroy Germany through the treaty of Versailles. His invasion of Poland and the rest was an inevitable backlash against the politics of the day. Putin's actions are not comparable. The west would have preferred Russia to be a wealthy, stable trading nation (authoritarian or not) which many here have indicated they have the resources to be. But instead ideology will destroy that.
Again you frame this from what the west want as if what the west wants is what the west should get....and the way the west see's the world is super to any other view point.....just trying to point out its a faulty paradigm.
How about the experiences that influenced Putin as a younger person....where is that in your assessment above and how do you think that has shaped his thinking in today's world?
(btw - I'm not arguing that what he has done is ethically correct)
Are you suggesting he wants something different other than what the west wants? If so what? Because at the moment by any form of rational thinking he is on a path of self destruction.
From his history growing up in the Soviet Union and being a rising star in the KGB he will have seen the wealth in the west and the poverty caused by the authoritarian power in the USSR. He would have also seen the wealth and hypocrisy of the party members, as well as their paranoia not just against external enemies but the internal ones as well. Information suggests today he is living it, still. Do you think that is his ideal? If he wanted unparalleled power in his own country he could have achieved it by peaceful means, if his plans were to rule Europe and then the world, and this was just the first move, then he has stumbled seriously as his vaunted military is not anything it was believed to be. And if that is his plan (as it is the only one that makes any sense) then he MUST be stopped sooner rather than later.
Honestly, we will never really know. Ukraine has moved further to the West/Nato than had been agreed when the USSR was dissolved by Gorbachev and Putin has been been beating the drum on this. The US would never allow Mexico to join a millitary alliance with China as a contrast.
There have been a few articles on the end of Globalisation and I think that is a genuine risk. We have all beneifited from it.
I have no problems with profits and genuinely believe the rise of China as a good thing. Our standard of living has soared, but of course the benefits are not evenly distributed.
Unwinding this will be painful, if it gets that far. Russia ia an entree to the main course which is China. If they invade Taiwan then I'm going to my bunker.....
Have you considered that the fairly miserable showing from Russian troops is exactly what Putin wants? Russia hasn't been involved in an all out conflict for quite some time. And as America can attest to, you only keep your sword arm strong by exercising it. Yes, Putins reaction to the NATO threat was over the top and his blatherings about Nazis or some such is pure fiction, but any one of the permanent nuclear powered security council can go to war for any reason they deem necessary, as shown by the US a number of times. So it's probably Putin is just singing from the same hymn sheet as America, using the Ukraine war to sharpen his troops.
Giving credence to this, it looks like Russia has thrown it's crap troops first at the Ukraine. But it has started putting in it's missile tanks and new fighter jets to strengthen its positions. It was noted early on that Russia didn't try the shock and awe tactics of the US nor send the tip of it's spear in (much of its airforce missing, for instance). They seemed to send in a bunch of half trained louts with older weaponry to see what would happen... which has been extremely predictable. Yes there has been a mixture of good weapons with bad (maybe to show that its a "real force"), but there invasion is very restrained in a military sense, from what they are capable of.
Then we should ask "why would Putin do that?". Well, if you want to rearm and retrain your troops, you want some battle hardened commanders and you don't want to have to maintain your old equipment. Russia now has the source material to build a new bunch of weapons (energy/steel), the justification to do so and the relationships with China/India to supply anything it's lacking at a cost that is diminishing by the day as its rouble strengthens.
As I have said, Putin isn't stupid, he is a chess player looking at a longer game. Is he a mass murdering war criminal? Sure, but not stupid, you couldn't be to retain power for so long in a country like Russia.
Russia have implemented capital controls and demanded payment for exports of gas and oil in Rubles, which is pushing their currency through the roof (probably the strongest currency in the world at the moment). Russia only invade other countries when oil prices are high and they have decent leverage. The trouble they are in is on the battlefield.
so much for the sanctions doing anything
https://twitter.com/RobinBrooksIIF/status/1526538655266967552?cxt=HHwWg…
According to UK newspapers Putin ran out of bullets 2 months ago..... It's obvious the West is being fed a lot of propaganda and things are going well for Russia, that narrative will never be told. Russia can continue to trade with the likes of China etc and do very well, meabwhile the West are raising interest rates to deal with inflation and pushing economies into recession.
In fact let's call it, Russia is winning. They will be very happy to grind Ukraine down slowly and they are powering ahead economically.
And oil prices are up +US$4 from this time yesterday and now just on US$113.50/bbl in the US, while the international Brent price is now just at US$114.50/bbl.
U.S. Refiners Set To Add Just 350,000 Bpd Capacity By End-2023
Clearly, ESG, in attempting to micro-manage business outcomes in targeted sectors, has Consequences....
I smile at the TV ad which has a poppet giving thumbs down to 'oil and gas drilling' investments and think, well what else grows the food, transports it to processors and ultimately on to the local supermarket? Hint to poppet: it ain't Cargo Bikes.
Diesel = Food....
Wall Street is rising today with the S&P500 up a strong +2.2% in late Thursday trade and so far this week it has risen more than +3.5%. The NASDAQ has recovered too.
The stock market hasn’t been moneyed; well, US equities, anyway. What do I mean by “moneyed?” Common perceptions (myth) link the Federal Reserve’s so-called money printing (bank reserves) with share prices. Everyone still thinks there’s a direct monetary injection in this case by the central monetary agency which causes stocks to rise for no good reason. Link
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.