Forum Replies Created

Viewing 10 posts - 61 through 70 (of 86 total)
  • Author
    Posts
    • Thu, Nov 14, 2013 - 10:00am

      #6
      Hrunner

      Hrunner

      Status Bronze Member (Offline)

      Joined: Dec 28 2010

      Posts: 210

      count placeholder0

      Good analysis Charles, Dave

    Thanks for your chart analysis.  Very thoughtful as usual.

    For the record, I don't follow TA because I believe it "works" in any historically-relevant sense.

    I don't believe that PM follows any TA fundamentals in the way that TA adherents think they do.

    I follow TA because I believe a (potentially market-moving- sized) portion of the market (individual traders, hedge funds, institutional investors) follow TA analysis.  Thus, because these. may I say, sheep, use TA, I use TA.

    As I posted earlier, any simple money supply/ PM demand, not to mention a clear-eyed need for insurance for the eventual collapse of currencies worldwide, would put gold at a minimum of $2,200 right now, and it really should be higher.

    TA can give stackers a bit of insight into optimal times to buy more physical metal.

    (FWIW, I'm getting very close to seeing another one of those "optimal" times, and find it hard to resist another sizeable purchase.)

    The only reason that the actual movers of the market, the commercial banks in alliance with central banks, follow TA so they can optimally time manipulative moves, IMHO.

     Keep the TA coming Dave and Charles!

    • Thu, Nov 14, 2013 - 09:38am

      #19
      Hrunner

      Hrunner

      Status Bronze Member (Offline)

      Joined: Dec 28 2010

      Posts: 210

      count placeholder0

      Thanks, TechGuy, appreciate information

    Kudos TechGuy for posting information.  I find it more helpful when posters make specific recommendations and the rationale behind it, rather than general statements.

    I appreciate your stimulating our thinking about fertilizers.  While I am a big supporter of organic, your proposals make for simple, practical advice.

    Good safety tips also about fertilizers.  If anyone has more details about safe storage ideas, I would greatly value hearing it.

    Thanks again,

    H

    • Tue, Nov 12, 2013 - 10:02am

      #4
      Hrunner

      Hrunner

      Status Bronze Member (Offline)

      Joined: Dec 28 2010

      Posts: 210

      count placeholder0

      It’s all fun, until someone gets hurt

    Honestly, I wasn't awake enough to watch and appreciate what was happen in 2000-2006 with respect to the housing market.  And I had no idea of the monstrosity that was the credit default swaps and the billions of synthetic i.e. backed by air debt securities. 

    Kudos to those (Kyle Bass, Peter Schiff, et al.) who were smart enough.

    And had the courage of their convictions to make money based on their analysis.

    Perhaps, if I recall correctly my mindset, there was a slight questioning inside my head along the lines of "wow, housing keeps going up 8% a year, can this really go on forever?  Oh well, good for us, our house is worth so much more this year than last".  But I clearly wasn't paying attention.

    Now, I am paying attention.

    To wit,

    With respect to the housing market in 2006, if one tried to "get inside its head" and "get outside my own head, leave my ego behind, and I try and intuit what the COMEX/GLD  buyer homeowner was thinking, by watching what they do", what should I have done in the fall of 2006?

    (Graph intentionally truncated at 2006)

    Gee, the "market" is telling me to buy houses, ignore the fundamentals that housing prices cannot go higher on flat or decreasing household income forever. 

    There were a million 'good' explanations why this could go on forever.  Except that it could not.

    (edit: is it just me, or are housing prices turning higher again, on no household income growth- wow, the half-life on lessons learned is so short these days).

    FWIW, Dave, housing was a highly manipulated market by the Fed, in alliance with the commercial banking industry and the federal government.   High liquidity plus little to no regulation, no bankruptcy, no transparency

    Money markets, i.e. the dollar and gold, are highly manipulated markets by the Fed, in alliance with the commercial banking industry.

    What do we have today?  High liquidity with little to no regulation, no bankruptcy, no transparency.

    And as we know, the real wreckage was caused by the connection between housing prices and the millions of highly leveraged and fraudulent financial instruments.  In isolation, we likely could have handled such a home price pullback, and we probably could have resolved this pullback fairly quickly with limited pain.

    Someone once said "you can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality".

    As I observe the slow train wreck of the world economy, I'm see the role of propagandists, i.e. government officials, mainstream business shows, and used car salesmen, which is to simply get me to ignore reality, at least long enough to digest their propaganda and further their goals, sell me their garbage, do what's good for them, but clearly catastrophic for me.

    Not me, not this time, Dave, my friend.  I may be a dumb doctorate-holding schlub, but I can learn, eventually.

    • Tue, Nov 12, 2013 - 01:15am

      #2
      Hrunner

      Hrunner

      Status Bronze Member (Offline)

      Joined: Dec 28 2010

      Posts: 210

      count placeholder0

      Another $4 billion printed, another down day for gold.

    Situation normal.

    May we just step back for a moment and look at the big picture, as a brief pause from Dave's excellent daily commentary.

    S&P 500 vritually straightline up from 1350 to 1750 over last 12 months.

    On very little organic revenue growth.  Companies buying back shares and rolling over old debt at ever lower rates.

    Gold straightline down (with the exception of a wild and fundamentals-ignoring monkey-hammer down in April)  from 1725 to 1280 over last 12 months.

    $4 billion a day, $85 billion a month, month after month, business day after day.

    All the major central banks doing the same, some like Japan even more so.

    The S&P 500 makes a lot more sense to me from a pure math standpoint.

    If gold had just mirrored the drip-drip-drip of the stock market going up due to the freshly printed bennies, then gold would be at 2240.

    Don't even get me started on silver.

    Have a good evening.  Play with your kids.

    H

     

    • Sat, Nov 09, 2013 - 12:02pm

      #7
      Hrunner

      Hrunner

      Status Bronze Member (Offline)

      Joined: Dec 28 2010

      Posts: 210

      count placeholder0

      Happy to be the contrarian

    Dave, Charles,

    While I agree with you that practically the Fed cannot taper, I believe they will.

    The main issues against taper is the rising nominal unemployment rate, and the falling labor participation rate.  

    However, in recent years, realize that the Fed has increasingly become fixated on 'optics'

     I would call it PsyOps (against the American and world people), but they call it "communication tools". 

    Add to that the fact that they are a chummy group of peers, that want to burnish the reputation of their alpha male, Mr. Bernanke, Janet Yellen will be under pressure from congressional hearings by budget hawks and this all adds up to a symbolic taper of $10 billion. 

    Here is the sequence:

    A contentious congressional hearing will be held where the likes of Rand Paul scorch Janet Yellen on her destructive and savers-repressive policies.  The corrupt media criticizes Paul and Cruz for their 'anti-woman' attitudes.  Of course all the while having no discussion about objective data and the substance and facts of the arguments against Yellen's monetary policy, regardless of whether she is man or a woman or a martian et al.  Yellen is confirmed with a hail of cheers from the state-controlled media for a "historic" nomination as the first woman, etc, etc.

    Yellen announces $10 billion USD taper in Dec.

    The Fed and the corrupt media will laud Bernanke the Great and shower him with praise as the man who saved Western Civilization.

    Market promptly falls by 5% in the next week.  10 year bond yields rise precipitously to 3.3%

    The current job report will be revised by a "surprise" downward number from +204,000 to +130,000.  It will be blamed on lack of data due to the government shutdown.  Of course, Yellen and co. have known these numbers for weeks.

    The Fed will hold an emergency meeting.  Followed by an emergency announcement of an increase of QE to $100 billion.  Just temporarily of course, to "stabilize" the global financial markets. 

    Stock markets rebound to all-time highs.  6,000 contracts of gold will  be paradoxically dumped (nothing to see here Dave) in very thin overnight Globex pushing price to 1200.  It will be ascribed to the recovering world markets now that "sufficient" QE is in place.  All is well.

    All setting the stage for what Yellen has her highly educated and erudite finger ready to do- press the print button to QE $150 billion, $200  billion, $300 billion next year as the world crumbles.  Buckle up kiddos.

    H

    • Fri, Oct 18, 2013 - 11:54am

      #10
      Hrunner

      Hrunner

      Status Bronze Member (Offline)

      Joined: Dec 28 2010

      Posts: 210

      count placeholder0

      Money ain’t Inflation until it gets spent

    Jim H, Dave,

    You know I don't care for a good ole inflation discussion because I prefer precise metrics like price and not amorphous ones like 'inflation', but some key points need to be considered.

    1.  We do have inflation in the stock market.  Dave, the S&P price is 1733 now from a low of 735 in Jan 2011.  On anemic to nonexistent absolute revenue growth (some Dow components like Merck actually shrinking by 1% in sales). 

    You and the pundits may call this happy days growth, I simply call this stock inflation.

    2.  Case Shiller

     

    Notice how that little blue line is turning up since 2012?  That's a roughly 14% housing inflation in the last 18 months.  Do you think that Ma and Pa Kettle are upsizing to a bigger McMansion?  With demographics favoring an aging U.S. population in search of downsizing their homes, and household income falling?  Uh, sorry Dave, no.  More like hot money that is now finally a bit scared of the size of the stock market inflation looking for the next asset to bubble up.  Next up, commodities.  Except for gold of course.  Gold smashed down and in a trading range despite 235% stock market inflation, 14% housing inflation, massive amounts of QE.  Driven down in price with wonderfully efficient profit-maximizing sell execution where massive 20 seconds dumps of 2/3 of the annual production of gold dumped in the dark of night.  Nothing to see here, please move along.

    FWIW, Dave, you joke about upside manipulations, but in these thinly traded and manipulated markets, where commercial banks are allowed to create infinte, unregulated amounts of paper metal (I thought commodity markets were representing actual producers of goods, not fictitious paper / electronic goods, but call me stupid), I am concerned that profiteering entities use naked paper like an accelerator, brake, accelerator, brake, on a backdrop of real traders, to place price where they want it, when they want it, making money on knowing the directionality in advance. 

    If you knew exactly where and by how much price was going 10 minutes before it happened, do you thing you could make money off of that knowledge? 

    So yes, we are getting asset price increases.  I don't give a rat's you know what about the fraudulent CPI numbers, models, estimations, divining rod estimations, whatever they are.  Consumer-level prices have risen but not into high-inflation, hyper-inflation levels because 1) consumer are over-leveraged due to years of living beyond their means, and under-capitalized due to stock and housing market crashes, and 2) are simply making less money due to structural labor market changes, Obamacare job losses and hour losses, and general business de-leveraging.

    Nobody in the main stream media seems the least bit stunned that we have increased the money supply by trillions but get a net loss in the labor participation rate, and a net loss in household income.  Again, nothing to see here, move along.

    General price increases, aka inflation is coming.  I think the triggers will be a combination of hits to the dollar confidence raising bond yields (ex-US investors start this by selling UST), which (finally) trigger consumer loss of confidence in the dollar, meaning you and I start buying whatever we can now, fearing that the price will be higher tomorrow.  And a spectacular money-printing show by Central Banks globally as they double, triple, quadruple down on their printing.  As Kyle Bass and Chris and others have said, they will "succeed" in inflation targets, at least nominally, beyond their wildest imaginations.

    As far as repudiating Fed holdings of UST, it could theoretically happen, but I say no for these reasons:

    1)  UST = USD = exchange value for actual wealth such as boats and houses (at least for now, until hyperinflation).  If you were a member of the Fed, would you like to be $2 trillion dollars poorer overnight?

    2)  This is a spectacular admission of failure of Keynesian wonder economics.  While in theory, it should make remaining UST more, not less valuable (scarcity and all that), the price of anything is driven in large part by subjective value (hat tip to Menger), and UST holders would see this as a scary sign, and start selling.  And they would be correct.  Repudiating/ Vaporizing $2 trillion UST is a bandaid.  The Fed will print that in 2 years or less- I believe as things become unglued, in much less than 2 years.

    The Fed has been dishonest for many years regarding "monetizing the debt".  Bernanke makes technical arguments.  His distorted logic is that the Fed is not monetizing the debt because monetizing the debt means the Fed prints money out of thin air and buys UST and then holds it to maturity (by law returning the interest profits to the US government).  The core of his logic is that the Fed is just temporarily holding the UST but will then return it to the market, thus they are not monetizing the debt.

    Hmmmm.  Except for Operation Twist, which was balance-sheet neutral regarding total UST held, when exactly was the last time the Fed SOLD UST into the open market?  Last time I checked, the direction the Fed was going was at least $45 billion per month in the opposite direction.  I'm sure that the Fed will soon start selling their trillions of UST back into the market (sarc off), not to mention shutting down QE altogether.  After all, if they didn't sell their holdings, that would be monetizing the debt, wouldn't it?

    Enjoy your weekend,

    H

    • Thu, Oct 03, 2013 - 09:47am

      #8
      Hrunner

      Hrunner

      Status Bronze Member (Offline)

      Joined: Dec 28 2010

      Posts: 210

      count placeholder0

      Currency Collapse, not Inflation, is the Issue

    Dave,

    First, before I forget, I wanted to say thank you again for your insightful and clearly data-driven PM Commentary.  It is one of my must reads.  We may disagree on the meaning, mechanism and direction of things, but your writing is very clear (the highest compliment) and thoughtful.

    That said (there's always a but), I think Armstrong's and your analysis is focusing on general trends and statistical averages, all of which are correctly derived and presented, but miss the most important points.

    Inflation versus Price

    First, you know I generally don't care for "inflation" or even "CPI"  or any of these "averaging" statistics.  I don't entirely reject them, I just don't find them nearly as useful as the "price" of the entity of interest.  Carl Menger and the "subjective theory of value" is still a landmark work in human history, IMHO, because it explained price better than any previous (and mostly subsequent) economic theory.  Menger recognized the interplay between subjective and objective forces that give us the current price, and we would do well to remember that price is at any given instant an integration of those forces.

    I believe inflation is an unavoidable consequence of a fiat, fractional-reserve money system that simply must mathematically grow the money supply or die due to monetary destruction.   To be clear, a fiat monetary system is not the only option to have economic prosperity and even wealth creation, as Chris has pointed out in the review of American Growth over the centuries in Crash Course.   Also, Karl Denniger once stated that the Founding Fathers intended a "stable" money supply, and under no twisted logic or deception is "stably growing" equivalent to "stable", therefore I also reject the fiat-fractional system as constitutional.

    What is Different 1970's verus 2010's?

    The data you post is correct, but you aren't analyzing things in context.  The 1970's and 1980's were a time of robust economic growth, across the board, in house prices, household incomes, and of course Wall Street bonuses and Wall Street bank accounts.  Yes, there was inflation, but no one cared, because almost everyone's salaries were growing and almost everyone's home prices and bonuses were inflating.  The Fed was not printing money via QE to infinity.  Is there any surprise that gold was not loved (subjectively- please see Carl Menger)? 

    Now, look at the following charts and see if anything has changed since the 1980's:

    I think the charts speak for themselves.

    Commodity prices are going down because of two reasons.  Again with deference to Menger, one is fundamental and one is subjective.  There is a fundamental decrease in economic activity due to problems in the three E's, i.e. there is physically less demand for goods and services (more on gold in a minute).  And subjectively, the large traders of managed money who actually set the 'market price' (it ain't the middle-class mom buying aluminum baseball bats at Dick's Sporting Goods) perceive that commodities "are trending down" and "are a bad investment", thus the price goes down.

    Reality Catches Up Eventually

    Since gold doesn't have a huge industrial demand, then the fundamental side of it's input is low, and the subjective input is high.  Gold is going down because the large market traders aren't subjectively interested in it.   I believe the center of mass of the market is moved by the manipulation of a few players at the margin (seriously Dave, repeated dumps of 3,000 contracts in the dead of night?), but you don't have to invoke manipulation to follow the logic.  However, if you look at the above charts, their subjective price assessment is disconnected from the reality of monetary fact.  But the large traders subjective valuation is just as real as the physical reality (again, h/t to Menger) and thus the price goes down.

    A market that is driven so much by subjective inputs can turn very quickly.  Some goods are produced from plentiful inputs like bicycles or pet rocks.   Supply can respond relatively quickly to demand, with a lag period where price can temporarily climb high.  However, precious metals are called precious for a reason- they are rare, hard to find and expensive in term of labor and energy to produce.  Gold producers will not be able to crank up the gold machine by 10-fold to respond to price.   I realize there is a lot of gold reserve above ground, but I don't think it will come off the sidelines until prices are much, much higher, and alternative investments are much, much more attractive.  Multiple the preceding analysis by 10 for silver which has an extraordinary tight supply.

    What Happens Next?

    I think that is the key question we are all asking, and no one knows in detail.  Fundamentally, gold and silver should be multiples higher right now, based on a fundamental analysis of currency versus supply.   However, Menger's "subjective" inputs have driven it lower.  One could say the same thing for UST and really anything that is a USD-denominated instrument.  I don't know what happens next.  However, if you look at the graph of the German Mark, you can compare 'Early' versus 'Late' phases of currency destruction.

    If you were a German citizen and looked at the data in the 1st half of 1920 (Early Circle), you would conclude that all is well, inflation is going down, not up.  However, the fundamental analysis of German economic output versus World War I debts would easily show that Germany could not pay its debt (in 1919 Marks).  The Late Circle tells the rest of the story we know well.  Please note how exponentially inflation moved in just one year.

    The graph in your post is factually correct, but out of context to the larger forces of money supply, economic growth, and money velocity.  It also looks suspiciously like the inflation graph above in 1919 Germany.

    I admit that I don't think things will unfold just like Germany, so Germany as a model has limited utility.  For one thing, Germany had paper currency which could not be easily sucked back out of the system or moved around at the speed of light.  Electronic currency is much more manipulable and movable.  There was no internet or sped-up world.  There was no highly interconnected central banking and private banking sector.  There also were no derivatives.  And no just in time food service and water and energy (h/t to Rawles).

    I think there are a few broad categories of scenarios:

    1.  Humans discover some miracle abundant energy source that is not a fossil fuel.  Gamechanger, like cheap Thorium nuclear energy.   Many problems solved- but not as easily the fresh water and potential global warming.

    2.  We have a true leadership renaissance and start the conversations that Chris so often mentions and make very hard but correct choices that put us on a path toward sustainability.

    3.  We keep printing money like crazy to make government and financial leaders happy and give the masses a warm and fuzzy feeling, while destroying our currency and our real economy that grows food, makes medicines, and moves supplies around the globe.  There are other variations like debt jubilees (which sound nice but are just as much a destruction of paper wealth/ currency default and disruption-causing as inflationary disasters, so I lump these together).

    I simply think that based on human psychology and historical precedent, 3. is vastly more probable that 1. or 2.   But I would welcome a thoughtful reason why 1., 2. or some other scenario is more likely.  Thus I plan to stay the course of investing in tangibles versus USD-denominated instruments.

    Keep the excellent posts flowing!

     

     

    • Wed, Oct 02, 2013 - 10:46am

      #3
      Hrunner

      Hrunner

      Status Bronze Member (Offline)

      Joined: Dec 28 2010

      Posts: 210

      count placeholder0

      Losing Credibility

    When Armstrong says "The nonsense put out about gold as a hedge against inflation and the coming hyperinflation trapped a lot of people in the yellow metal.", he loses much credibility with me.

    This statement is nonsense, not using gold as a hedge against inflation.

    There are at least two things Armstrong gets wrong.

    I agree we "face deflation".  Yes, the developed world is trying to deflate, naturally.  That is the natural direction of the markets.  It is a consequence of aging demographics and subsequent reduced consumption (hat tip to Mr. Demographics, Harry Dent), and as Chris constantly discusses, the decreased availability of cheap energy is causing the natural deflation, and other forces not the least of which is too much debt relative to our ability to service debt.

    The problem is, our dear leaders are doing everything in their power to not allow deflation.   Whether they are indeed smart enough to understand the deeper problem of the end of the debt supercycle and are playing some global chess game with a deeper agenda, or they are more like rats pulling levers to "make the money machine work again" (I tend to favor explanations that are simpler and assume human frailties and incompetence), the behavior is the same: print, print, print.  Make the money machine work again.  This is what we are objectively seeing, despite the fact that 1) it is objectively not working, 2)  a rational and fundamental analysis explains how and why it will not work.

    So which way is the right way to bet?   That the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Government, and any other developed nation's central bank and leadership will suddenly see the objective facts, choose the hard but correct path, stop printing and allow deflation to happen naturally as it is trying to do, until markets are restored to a healthy state, albeit with much "wealth" destruction (paper wealth actually, true hard copy wealth like food and tools can only be destroyed by fire, theft etc), and admittedly significant disruption and misery,   If you like this choice, then yes, discard all your devaluing precious metals. 

    Or that the Fed and U.S. Government will continue money printing which is irrational, contends with the objective world, but allows the psychological boost and the charade to continue for yet a little while?  Also, does anyone think that there is a limit to the amount of money they will print?   There is no limit.  They will not stop until markets and mass revolt forces them to stop.   If you think there will be a great intellectual awakening in government and central banks, sorry friends, it will not go down that way.   And the more chips on the table, due to human pride and stubbornness, the less likely it will go down that way.  We had our lessons during the tech bubbles, the Great Depression and we did not learn the lessons that the market was trying to teach.

    That's the second thing that Martin gets wrong.  He seems to ignore that in the real world, there are stochastic, unpredictable events that spoil beautiful plans.  I won't invoke black swans.  I don't need to.  Whether natural events or unpredictable human acts, these things can not be predicted by models and equations.  What we can analytically say is that we are moving toward either more resilience or less resilience.  Either a stronger balance sheet or a weaker balance sheet.  The facts show that we are increasing weakness and decreasing resilience every day. 

    That doesn't mean that I or Chris or Martin Armstrong can craft an equation or cycle theory that accounts for the billions of inputs into this system and the trillions of resultant effects, but I believe in the existence of natural law.  The natural law that states that eventually, if you create more and more weakness and fragility, something will "break".  Applying increasing tension on a string, piling weight on a board, revving an engine past redline, driving while drunk.  The more fragile the system, the smaller the force needed to break it, and the more likelihood that one out of the millions of insults that occur each day will rise to that threshold of "breaking" the system.

    We are putting more and more weight on a glass floor that I am standing on with everyone else, partying on, dancing on, living our lives on.  A few of us see the danger of adding more and more partiers on that glass floor.  I come her as one place to try to find tools to help listen for the sound of cracking before the floor gives way in a catastrophic event.  I can't tell you exactly to the minute when the floor will give way, but I hope I can listen for cracking and discern when to get off the floor quickly.

    Thanks for the analysis Martin, but I will keep my nonsensical precious metals as one of many hedges against inflation, aka electronic dollar destruction.  FWIW, tools, food, clothing, anything tangible are also good hedges against inflation, but I'm sure Armstrong has an argument why I should not own those either.   Follow this line of thinking at your own peril.

    • Sat, Aug 17, 2013 - 02:49am

      #8
      Hrunner

      Hrunner

      Status Bronze Member (Offline)

      Joined: Dec 28 2010

      Posts: 210

      count placeholder0

      Two scenarios

    Hugh,

    Yes, Faber could be right.  Scenario One is similar to the selloff of everything in April, and I think Chris had it right that this was a rush to gather liquidity, probably to cover margins.  

    Scenario Two is the one to watch since it is not a liquidity crisis, with attendant sell off of everything, but if the major players are not margin-called but simply looking for a true safe haven, then I will expect several asset classes, but especially stocks, to fall and for gold to rise.  This scenario has the potential to be explosive, in that the gold market is so small compared with most every other market.  I agree that we should not expect to see this until we are at or near endgame.  As always, we don't when that is.

    Sorry to hear about pensions, so you're doing the next best thing.  Think about your strategy- would you rotate out of PM ETF to something else, cash, stocks, REITs depending on relative price action?

    FWIW I thought the Swiss Franc was hard-pegged to the Euro at 1.2 to 1? 

    Thank you the invitation, I will definitely take you up on that.

    H

     

    • Sat, Aug 17, 2013 - 02:36am

      #11
      Hrunner

      Hrunner

      Status Bronze Member (Offline)

      Joined: Dec 28 2010

      Posts: 210

      count placeholder0

      Congrats Kevin

    Congratulations, Kevin.

    Now think through when you are calm and not watching price under what conditions you would sell.

    Many, including myself, consider PM to be an insurance policy against currency destruction by govt and central banks. 

    Consider what is your panic level on the downside of price.  The beauty of owning physical silver in your possession is that it is always the same value in grams of silver.  You don't ever have to sell it.  Even if the paper price is driven to 18, 15, or 0, it matters not to you or me. 

    I will not sell until I see fundamental reform of the current financial system and markets.  Or a triggering event that forces a reset on the system, in which case my silver will preserve wealth while the administrators work their magic (sarc off).

    Now if silver goes to 200, and housing prices fall, such that I could rotate out of silver into great deals on real estate, now that would get my attention….

    H

Viewing 10 posts - 61 through 70 (of 86 total)