By Andrew Mickey, Q1 Publishing

All eyes are on Washington this week.

The Federal Reserve is issuing bundles of new regulations for credit card issuers. There will be no credit cards for anyone under the age of 21 without parental consent or without proof of income. And there won’t be higher interest rates for higher risk borrowers.

Although those policy changes will have consequences (think college kids were broke before, looks like a boom is coming in ramen noodles), the much bigger, near-term impact on the banking system will come from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). They’re going to “fix” the credit rating agencies in the name of “preventing” another mortgage security meltdown.

The New York Times reports New SEC Rule Heightens Risk of Insider Trading:

At the heart of the problem is that it is legal for companies and other issuers of securities to give confidential information to rating agencies.

Back before the crisis, the fact the agencies had access to such information served to enhance the respect given to their opinions.

Now we know that the major rating agencies — Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch — disgraced themselves in rating structured finance products. They relied on bad assumptions, and in some cases may have been lied to by issuers. Their models turned out to be spectacularly wrong.

A lot of people think a root cause of the problem was the conflict of interest created by the fact the agencies were paid by the creators of those products, and therefore were dependent on their good will for additional business.

But regulators are unwilling to outlaw the old system, in part because that would leave investors without access to ratings unless they paid for them. So the solution chosen by the S.E.C. is to encourage other rating agencies to rate the products.

As with most issues, the Times gets the facts right, but draws the absolutely wrong conclusions.

Facts:

- Heart of the problem - agencies had access to inside information which implied their opinion was more reliable
- Regulators unwilling to make sufficient changes
- root cause of the problem was the conflict of interest created by the fact the agencies were paid by the creators of those products

Times Conclusion:

Cut off the inside information. The rating agencies now have an exemption from the S.E.C.’s Regulation FD, for fair disclosure. If that exemption were removed, the level playing field would be restored. And the respect that ratings now get from people who assume the raters know more than they do would fade away.

Real Solution:

Get rid of all government involvement in the rating agencies and let investors’ go in and rate the debt. The rating agencies have no “skin in the game” and you’ll get the similar results as any other situation where there is no vested interest in the outcome.

I see a very similar set-up in the financial publishing industry. There are two kinds of researchers.

Some are paid for by public companies. The writers, editors, or analysts are paid by the company. All that I’ve seen have fairly lengthy disclaimers, so it appears to be all legal. However, investors who don’t read all the fine print may not be aware of the obvious biases.

Other publishers of investment ideas and investment research, like us at Q1 Publishing, are independent. We work for our readers. Our interests are squarely aligned.

That kind of simple rationale could easily be applied to all of the rating agencies and the debt.

Think of it like this. Let’s say you go into a bank for a loan which you know you can’t afford and a lot of stuff has to come together for you to pay it off. You’re a risky customer. But hey, you brought your own loan officer to approve your loan. How many banks do you think would last?

The fact that if people don’t learn from the lessons of history, they are doomed to repeat it is true, we can start counting down the days until next debt-fueled bubble forms.

By Andrew Mickey, Q1 Publishing

A few months ago we had the opportunity to sit down with Sprott Asset Management’s John Embry.

We talked about gold, silver, oil, uranium and all other sorts of assets investors should be looking into.

Despite the good prospects for all those, Embry and your editor both agreed the best opportunity was probably in agriculture. Embry brought up specifically the impact of solar activity, a.k.a. sunspots, on crop production.

Although it’s impossible to see over year to year, the sunspot activity is in sharp decline.

Physics World reports, The Sun Could Be Headed into a Period of Extended Calm:

Researchers in the US may have discovered further evidence that the Sun is heading towards an extended period of quiet activity, the like of which has not been seen since the 17th century. The impact this may have on climate is poorly understood but it would be good news for satellite communications, which would continue to avoid the harsher impacts of space weather.

Scientists have long known that the Sun's magnetic activity varies over a cycle of approximately 11 years. Greater magnetic activity leads to more "sunspots", or darker patches visible on the solar surface. These sunspots are regions where the magnetic field lines have become twisted due to differential rotation in the outer layers of the Sun.
----
We were expecting to reach the next solar maxima around 2011–2012. However, space weather experts have been surprised over the past few years to report very few signs that the number of sunspots has been picking up since the last solar minimum in 2006. This has prompted some space scientists to forecast that we are heading towards another prolonged spell of quiet sunspot activity, the last of which was observed between 1645 and 1715 in a period called the “Maunder Minimum”.

This could, and more likely will, have a tremendous impact on curtailing agriculture production. All this is happening at a time when demand is continuing to rise.

Cosmos Magazine lays it all out in The Coming Famine:

Pandemics and cosmic accidents, there will be about 9.1 billion people living in the world in 2050. Yet they will eat as much food as 13 billion people at today's nutritional levels. So how will we feed them all?
----
The problem is that humanity is consuming more food, year-on-year, than it produces, especially as demand for high-protein food increases in high population developing countries like China and India.

The world is also moving towards a water crisis: cities are now taking up to half of the water that was once used to grow food, while groundwater levels are declining in every country where it is used for food production. The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in the U.S. suggests that by 2025 water scarcity may inflict an annual loss of 350 million tonnes of food – roughly equivalent to losing today's global rice harvest or the entire U.S. grain crop.

We're also losing land; we are building on it, eroding and degrading it, or locking it in conservation reserves. Whatever the cause, the total available area of arable land is now falling. Compounding this, we are losing nutrients in the land we do have.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation notes that we apply about 150 million tonnes of elemental fertiliser to our farms every year; however the U.S. Department of Agriculture points out that we lose six times that amount – an estimated 1.1 billion tonnes of nutrients – through soil erosion and leaching.

It’s the perfect storm for agriculture. I expect it to take a year or two to really start playing out, but I still believe agriculture investments will be one of the best places to have your money in the next decade.

It’s simple supply and demand. Supply is going to decline and demand is going to rise. Agriculture prices will rise and successful investors looking for the best investment ideas will get in now.

We continue to wait for any correction in the markets to load up on agriculture stocks. Agriculture stocks are going to be one of the best spots to have your money in the next 10 years and we’ll be covering them all across Q1 Publishing’s investment newsletters.

By Andrew Mickey

On Friday we talked about how successful investors can align their interests with politicians for maximum gains and profit.

Right now there appears to be another opportunity to just that. In this case, it’s by betting on a devaluation of the British pound. England’s central banker seems more than willing to accommodate - maybe even embracing - the devaluation of the pound.

Bloomberg reports Pound Slides on Speculation Bank of England Favors Declines to Buoy Economy:

The pound fell to its lowest level in almost six months against the euro on speculation the Bank of England favors a weaker currency to help revive the economy.

----

There’s “growing concern over the financial position of the U.K.,” said Lee Hardman, a currency strategist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. “Added to the negative pound sentiment this week were the comments from King that the bank favors the weaker pound as a means to rebalance the economy.”

----

The Bank of England’s nine-member Monetary Policy Committee was unanimous in leaving the its asset-purchase program at 175 billion pounds ($279 billion) at its Sept. 10 meeting, the minutes showed on Sept. 23. King had pushed at the August meeting for an increase to 200 billion pounds but was outvoted.

The central bank began the so-called quantitative-easing policy in March in an effort to lower borrowing costs as the U.K. grappled with its worst recession since World War II.

----

“A currency which the country’s own central bank likes to see weak obviously is not an attractive investment,” analysts including Lutz Karpowitz at Commerzbank AG in Frankfurt wrote in a research note. “If King keeps digging then he is clearly signaling that he does not care about this loss of trust.”

----

“The Bank of England appears unconcerned by the currency weakness at this stage,” analysts including Ian Stannard in London wrote in a report yesterday. “We maintain our bearish sterling view, expecting the currency to be the weakest among the majors.”

Bearishness is high and we could be on the verge of another “breaking of the Bank of England.”

The best part is, our interests will actually be aligned right along with the politicians. The United Kingdom’s elected officials actually want to devalue the pound.

England’s central banker is on board. Here’s where Governor of the Bank of England is actually talking down the pound:

Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, appeared to back a weak UK currency and reiterated concerns about the prospects of Britain’s recovery.

Speaking to The Journal, the Newcastle newspaper, Mr. King said that the significant decline in the value of sterling in recent months “will be helpful” in rebalancing Britain’s economy by helping to boost exports.

This is shaping up to be big. And readers of our investment newsletters will be well-positioned in the days ahead.

By Julian D.W. Phillips

www.GoldForecaster.com

This is a snippet from a recent issue of the Gold Forecaster with
Subscriber-only parts excluded.

As an almost revered subject, the question of whether central banks across the world will be buyers or sellers of gold is one usually left until after the event.   Central Banks themselves are usually very unhappy to talk about their gold policy.   When they do it is a once-in-several-years-event.   As a result we watch the behavior patterns of the last decade to see what lies ahead.

First we look at the I.M.F and look at just how it will support gold.  

The I.M.F. Gold Sales.

We have been waiting so long for clarity on the policy the I.M.F. are to adopt with the sale of their 403.63 tonnes of gold.   The IMF Executive Board has now approved the sale of 403.3 metric tons.   The head of the I.M.F., Strauss-Kahn said, "These sales will be conducted in a responsible and transparent manner that avoids disruption of the gold market.    Most importantly, the sales are strictly limited to 403.3 metric tonnes, which is one-eighth of the fund's total holdings, so the IMF will continue to hold a relatively large amount of its assets in gold."

Prior to selling the gold on the market, the I.M.F. is prepared to sell the gold directly to central banks or other official sector holders.  These sales to official sector holders will be conducted at market prices and would shift official gold holdings without changing total official gold holdings.

Any gold sales on the market would be phased over time, the I.M.F. said.   Regular external reporting on gold sales will also be provided to assure markets that gold sales are being conducted in a responsible manner.

Let’s be clear on this, if the I.M.F. are to offer this gold to other central banks before offering the gold to the ‘open market’ they are likely to receive bids that would certainly confirm that central banks [whether few or many is irrelevant] value gold in their reserves and are prepared to buy it in even at these prices!   If all the 403 tonnes is sold this way, then that confirmation will elevate gold as a reserve asset and a measure of value.

If there is an amount left over, it will be sold in a manner that will not bring the price down brutally [avoids disruption of the gold market].

Which large $ surplus holding nations can afford this?   Far more than just China or Russia!   We expect the I.M.F. is already receiving offers from these central banks.   So will any of this gold make it to the open market?   What if only 100 tonnes are left for the market, what if none is left?   Sales of this gold to any central bank will be positive for the gold price.   Sales of all of it will bring a confidence to the gold price that will send it to new heights!

We believe that this statement from Strauss-Kahn, in itself is extremely positive for the gold price and will represent confirmation of gold’s role in the monetary system.

The New Central Bank Gold Agreement.

Take a look at the Table above, on the tonnages of gold selling by the Central Bank Gold Agreement Signatories [in the latest Gold Forecaster – Subscribers only], over the last five years.   With the final week of this Agreement on us, the future of European central bank selling becomes very clear to us.  

As you can see, the original intention of the signatories to the Agreement was that they wanted to bring transparency to their gold sales, so as to make it clear to the world that they were not going to dump gold onto the market, a fear that had persisted for the previous 20 years prior to the “Washington Agreement”.   To that end, they announced the amounts they were going to sell in the future.   It was not an announcement to sell an amount during the five years of the agreement, but an announcement of their total future sales, as you can see in the Table.  

Some countries made no announcement and made unexpected sales.    The E.C.B., Spain and Belgium were the only countries that did this.   But Belgium has not sold any gold since 2006 and Spain has not sold since 2007.  

However, it became clear that these were limited, with the exception of the E.C.B. who confirmed they had sold, after the event.    They have sold each year of the Agreement.   The question is, “will they sell under the new Agreement starting September 26th 2009” [next week].  

More importantly, since Switzerland’s announcement to sell an extra 150 tonnes, no announcements to sell have been made by any country that signed the Agreement.   Take another look at this Table and you will see that the residual amounts still to be sold are very small and lie in the hands of countries that have not sold for the last three and two years respectively.    Now add to that, that the number of signatories has increased substantially [with signatories who hold barely any gold anyway and with no announcements being made to sell from them] and you have a remarkable picture emerging.      There appear to be no sellers among the signatories at all!

Yes, the agreement allows for up to 400 tonnes a year to be sold.   But as we mentioned in an earlier essay, this 400 tonne limit allows for the I.M.F. to sell its 403 tonnes anyway it wishes under this agreement, in one shot, or over the period in dribs and drabs, whichever way they want to go.   So this 400 tonnes is for the benefit not of the signatories, but for the I.M.F.!

But will they buy?   Two points must be made here: -

1.    The Agreement is an agreement to limit sales of gold and makes no reference to buying of gold.

2.    The original purpose of selling the gold was in support of a newly launched currency, the €.   Now it is well established there is no reason to sell more, particularly when one considers how against national interests past sales have been shown to be by a rising gold price.

With gold having risen nearly fourfold since the first European central bank gold agreement [the “Washington Agreement”] gold has proved itself as an invaluable reserve asset since the turn of the century.   The problem is that the States and Europe are totally committed to paper currencies, with only a hidden and almost unrecognized backing of gold.   Gold in this role is only designed for use in case of emergency [in extremis].   For the States or Europe to be seen to be buying gold would be seen as an admission of failure of the paper currency system.   So while they will no longer be sellers of gold, we doubt they will be buyers in the next couple of years.

Their support of the gold price comes then from the termination of their sales, removing what was up to 400 tonnes supply from the market?

Russia

So will any central banks will be buyers?   Russia has stated it wants to see 10% of its reserves in gold, but that is now several thousand tonnes of gold, just not available at anywhere near current prices.   But they are on record as having bought in the ‘open’ market.  They have bought up to 4 tonnes a month this year [9 tonnes in August] and from the end of last year.   But they have made no announcement on whether they have been buying gold from local producers, before it reaches the open market.    If they are buying locally, then the amount of 1 tonne a week they are buying in the open market must be in addition to this.   We will have to wait until the evidence is before us before we can say they bought over 300 tonnes this year.  

China

At one point China held only 300 tonnes in the gold and foreign exchange reserves.   Then an announcement was made that they had doubled this to 600.   Now this year they again announced that they had been buying gold at the rate of 91 tonnes a year since then.   At the moment this reserve level is 1,054 tonnes.   The Chinese way of accounting and buying allows for this to be hidden.   This past week we heard from Mr. Cheng of the Chinese government who made this extraordinary comment to Mr. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the Daily Telegraph, “Gold is definitely an alternative, but when we buy, the price goes up.   We have to do it carefully so as not stimulate the market," he said.   Why is this extraordinary?   Because China produces the most gold in the world and can also buy from local producers, without a ripple in the market place.  Unless it buys in the ‘open’ market, China cannot ‘stimulate the market’ except in the longer term because of the reduction in supply.  It certainly does not make sense to buy in the ‘open’ market without buying local production too.   While it is an assumption, at the moment, it appears that China is buying at least 91 tonnes a year [as they reported] and with local production of over 270 tonnes, it looks like they are buying around 90 - 360 tonnes a year?  

Will other central banks start to buy gold?   We know that South Africa has stated that they are gold buyers, but not the amount.   We believe that other central banks will become buyers, if they are in a surplus position to do so.   We could not say when.   If the $ does crash [$1.60+: €1] it is more than likely than many central banks will become buyers, but we will only know after the event.

But while Russia and China are buying, the pressure on other banks to buy gold is growing as the $ and other currencies become subject to difficult questions.

So we do believe that gold already is attractive to central banks.   They will keep silent on this at all times because of the fear of “stimulating’ the market.    Nevertheless their actions and inactions are supporting if not raising the gold price!

The Impact on the Gold Price in price terms?
For Subscribers only!

Gold Forecaster regularly covers all fundamental and Technical aspects of the gold price in the weekly newsletter.  To subscribe, please visit www.GoldForecaster.com



Legal Notice / Disclaimer
This document is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase or subscribe for any investment.  Gold Forecaster - Global Watch / Julian D. W. Phillips / Peter Spina, have based this document on information obtained from sources it believes to be reliable but which it has not independently verified; Gold Forecaster - Global Watch / Julian D. W. Phillips / Peter Spina make no guarantee, representation or warranty and accepts no responsibility or liability as to its accuracy or completeness. Expressions of opinion are those of Gold Forecaster - Global Watch / Julian D. W. Phillips / Peter Spina only and are subject to change without notice. Gold Forecaster - Global Watch / Julian D. W. Phillips / Peter Spina assume no warranty, liability or guarantee for the current relevance, correctness or completeness of any information provided within this Report and will not be held liable for the consequence of reliance upon any opinion or statement contained herein or any omission. Furthermore, we assume no liability for any direct or indirect loss or damage or, in particular, for lost profit, which you may incur as a result of the use and existence of the information, provided within this Report.

By David Morgan

Many have been asking what is going to happen with gold and silver this month, and I maintain it is a tough call. The September month is usually pretty positive for the metals. In fact, there have been several articles talking about the last chance to buy gold under $1000. Frank Holmes, a much respected fund manager, spoke recently about September being one of the best months to be in the metals markets. I certainly don’t disagree with Frank. I’m pretty bullish for September but I’m very cautious going into October.

As addressed in last week’s article, I am personally more comfortable buying the metal than the stocks here, but the stocks are outperforming, currently. I think buying the metal is different from buying the equities or futures or options positions, because by buying the metal you can hardly go wrong. Certainly there was a push into the metals in 2008 where we peaked out—silver above $21.00 and gold over $1,000.00.

Gold has surpassed that level again, and on Tuesday I sent an update out to our subscribers stating that the odds are clearly in favor of the metals continuing higher for a while. However, the commitments of traders in both gold and silver are flashing caution alerts in my view, and by any technical measure, both the metals are overbought.

Experience shows that a market can stay overbought for a very long time and continue higher and higher. However, remember the real estate market?

I now have a pretty good projection on where I think we will top on this rally, and the question then becomes how big a correction will we see? What if the general stock market drops off during October—how will that affect the mining shares? If the Dow gets hit in October, will that send gold and silver even higher?

Longer term, I think we’re going to see far higher prices in both metals. Having said that, I think the best approach for the physical metal is just dollar cost average. Just discipline yourself to buy so many dollars’ worth of gold or silver or both, each and every month. This approach provides you a very good price basis as these metals continue their upward path. This same technique can be used if you own a gold mutual fund, but I do not advise it for individual stocks.

In theory, the best way to do it is to pick a day of every month and put in the same dollar amount. So, for example, on the first Monday of every month, obtain $100.00 worth, regardless of price, and do that consistently, month after month after month. It accomplishes two things: first, it teaches discipline; and second, you don’t have to think about it—you just buy that dollar amount. Thus, when the price is high you’re buying less metal, and when the price is low you’re buying more metal. And over time as long as we’re in a bull market, and we are, you will actually do far better by using that discipline. Whereas if you try to time the market exactly and get in and out, it can be done certainly, but it’s much more difficult than most people think.

In the September issue I quoted Thomas Jefferson:

“With the respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming neither the legislature nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age.”

In my view, Jefferson is probably one of the best thinkers, and there were several, who formed the foundation of the United States of America. And we were very blessed, in my view, to have such great people involved in that undertaking, from an intellectual basis. Then of course it was put into practical terms and really worked quite well until the basic principles were ignored.

What a concept: to only live within your means as a human being or your nation state. Today, the U.S. is selling away its children’s futures, so to speak; there is too much debt—that’s the problem! The U.S. has not lived within its means for quite some time and was actually in far better shape in the 1930s than it is today. It was far more self sufficient on an individual basis and as a nation state.

If you go back to the last bull market in the metals, to 1980, the country was in better shape than it is today. The debt problems and the ability to service the debt have become a very big concern. We’re seeing this in the mainstream financial press. China basically has enough U.S. dollars and is looking for an alternative. Russia’s saying something similar. Japan is concerned. Most everyone who holds our debt is concerned.

A recent article addressed a proposal that said wouldn’t it be great if we had a global currency that would usurp the dollar as the universal standard. This is stuff in the mainstream. We are in uncharted waters. We are in a situation where we have a debt-based economy and there really is no way to pay it back in the foreseeable future. Doesn’t this lead to a very, very big financial crisis? It always has. We’re witnessing that now. Some people are well aware of the true condition of the debt bomb exploding, and others are ignoring it. And still others are saying it’s really not that big a deal, we’re going to come out of it. Time will tell.

I believe there is a misrepresentation of what’s really going on. What we have is a money supply that continues to increase, if you count money as credit. That means with all these trillions of dollars that are coming out, basically out of thin air, or with computer entries going into the same failed banking system that’s already put us in this predicament, you have the financial assets that represent on paper basically the physical economy your businesses.

Financial assets have actually come down substantially from when the credit crisis started in 2007, but they are making a brief rally here and personally I think it is about over. More important than money and more important than ownership of a business is what is the physical economy actually doing, because this is what is required for all of us to eat, have shelter, and make a living. And that has been deteriorating in real terms since about 1968 in the United States of America. You might get some controversy on that statement, but the facts are there, if you look, on an inflation-adjusted basis. In real terms, the physical economy in the United States started going down in about that timeframe. Certainly people got paid more “money” for their goods or their services. But in real terms, was the wealth per capita increasing or decreasing? The answer is “decreasing.” Your standard of living might have gone up, you might be in a bigger house, but the debt load to carry the mortgage on that house required both mom and dad to work to pay the mortgage. 

Also in the September issue we discussed the rare earth elements sector, which was written about by Clint Cox, who, I’m honored to say, has been contributing to The Morgan Report for quite some time. In my view, Clint is one of the foremost authorities in REE. He is as picky as I am, meaning that he really selects companies very carefully and really hasn’t come up with any at this point that have met his strict criteria. We did have an REE company earlier and took profits after a double.

A lot of these companies have a great story. They might have a great (rare) element but they really don’t know the business to the extent that you could actually make a profit with the grades that they have obtained in different parts of the world. China basically has a monopoly on the rare earth element field, owning roughly ninety percent of the market. It’s a fascinating story. The market is extremely small but it’s imperative for your hybrid cars and many high-tech applications. So we’re watching it carefully. The REE sector isn’t something we focus on in every issue, but we usually have Clint report to us at least two to four times a year.

Since China has such a huge percentage of the market share, if a company outside of China had rare earth minerals or metal that was in high demand and it was one of the few in the western hemisphere, it could do quite well. There will be a lot of them, just like anything in the resource sector. There’s a lot of hype and promotion around a lot of these small companies that don’t merit that kind of investment participation. A lot of people don’t know better, but some do, and they are just betting on the fact that it will be a bunch of not so sophisticated investors who will buy the party line and invest in the stock, when the actual merits of the company really don’t warrant people putting in that kind of money. That’s sort of the history of investing in these small junior companies.

As we move onward in this debt ridden situation it is my firm thinking that readers would do well to consider the following work by Trace Mayer.

CREDIT CRISIS AUTOPSY

The Great Credit Contraction is fine analytic work from Trace. He comes to the gold community with a different slant and background. He is a legal scholar with an emphasis on the Constitution, focusing on gold and currency issues. In his e-book, one can read about the historical significance of a crisis that will surely reshape the world. The global economy is built on an illusion currency that is evaporating before our very eyes. This book is an autopsy of the current worldwide systems and begins with financial history, discusses the current great deflationary credit contraction, projects the future environment, and concludes with suggestions on how to protect, preserve, and generate wealth in this challenging time. An appendix analyzes important topics. Click here to order.

It is an honor to be.

Sincerely,


David Morgan

Mr. Morgan has followed the silver market for more than thirty years. He wrote the book, Get the Skinny on Silver Investing. Much of his Web site, Silver-Investor.com, is devoted to education about the precious metals, it is both a free site and does have a members only section.

Disclaimer: Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but there is no guarantee as to completeness or accuracy. Because individual investment objectives vary, this Summary should not be construed as advice to meet the particular needs of the reader. Any opinions expressed herein are statements of our judgment as of this date and are subject to change without notice. Any action taken as a result of reading this independent market research is solely the responsibility of the reader. Stone Investment Group is not and does not profess to be a professional investment advisor, and strongly encourages all readers to consult with their own personal financial advisors, attorneys, and accountants before making any investment decision. Stone Investment Group and/or independent consultants or members of their families may have a position in the securities mentioned. Investing and speculation are inherently risky and should not be undertaken without professional advice. By your act of reading this independent market research letter, you fully and explicitly agree that Stone Investment Group will not be held liable or responsible for any decisions you make regarding any information discussed herein.