Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
If you have internet connection problems this Saturday, March 31.....LIP
Neat. Like something out of "Die Hard 4". I don't think they can, will or that it was a good idea to broadcast this in advance, but amusing, nonetheless.
Mis-direction. A kinda, opps, you found my play book; but that is what I wanted so that I may mis-direct everything else. The broadcast will cause grief and overtime hours at many "it" departments. The positive side is that (not that folks don't know) it keeps providers on their toes and not complacent.
Very enlightening article in this morning's WSJ regarding internet security, in an interview with a retiring FBI official who was responsible for evaluating such things.
Basically, he said: "Internet Security? Forget it. We will never get ahead in this game."
Scary, as the article mentions the vulnerability of major infrastructure such as atomic power generating plants, electrical distribution grids, and oil refineries to such interruptions. FWIW, the Public Safety Radio System of San Francisco also is controlled by such technology, HOWEVER there is absolutely NO interface with the public internet, because of this very situation. If we could see the issue, isn't it reasonable to demand that critical facilities also protect themselves in this area?
Or does that come under the heading of "more government regulation"? (At least in this case any government regulation would seem to be required to apply to the government itself, also.)
Reply to @Old_Joe: With older infrastructure, security risks are likely even higher. All the discussion of "smart grids" never materialized, which, given security risks...is not that great.
No, you're right re the smart grids. The main problem is that the older stupid grids are VERY susceptible to hacking and other electronic mayhem. Really takes very little to cause a major flow disruption, and then sit back and watch the whole damned thing take itself down (self-protection disconnect). Sometimes the restoration of a major electrical distribution network can take days.
You would most likely be amazed if you knew how much of our vital infrastructure uses the public internet for command and control. What this country needs is some sort of parallel network that could be shared by government and critical infrastructure, without access to the public internet.
I suppose even then some hacker would manage to gain entry through some poorly guarded terminal, somewhere. Sigh. But it would make it a lot harder.
Reply to @Old_Joe: "You would most likely be amazed if you knew how much of our vital infrastructure uses the public internet for command and control." Actually I probably wouldn't, which is the unfortunate thing - it's something that isn't much discussed, and there isn't really the money to do anything about it on the scale that needs to be done - and that's if it doesn't get tied up somewhere along the line in the broken political process we have today.
As for hacking, I'm surprised a minor, regional version of what happened in "Die Hard 4" hasn't happened here yet.
As for infrastructure, China seems eager to invest in infastructure in the US and Europe.
There is a smart GRID etf (GRID, oddly enough...) but it has not exactly done well, more than likely due to lack of anticipation of something being done.
___________________________________
Taken from a post I did in another thread regarding infrastructure:
In terms of infrastructure, I find it rather interesting that a number of Chinese interests (either their SWF or companies) have started buying infrastructure in Europe and apparently intend do so here.
"BEIJING - China's sovereign wealth fund wants to invest in improving neglected U.S. and European roads and other infrastructure to spur global growth, the fund's chairman said in comments published Monday.
The announcement reflects a shift in strategy for the $410 billion fund, which was created in 2007. Until now, it has limited its investments mostly to small stakes in publicly traded companies to avoid stirring political opposition overseas.
China Investment Corp. wants to begin in Britain by teaming up with fund managers or investing directly in infrastructure projects, Lou Jiwei said in a commentary in London's Financial Times newspaper.
"China is keen to get involved" in improving U.S. and European infrastructure, which "badly needs more investment," Lou wrote. He cited energy, water, transport, digital communications and waste disposal but gave no indication of possible projects or the size of Chinese investment."
Yep, they are buying infrastructure in Europe out of the goodness of their hearts to help spur growth. In the meantime, they also take stakes in things like power supply and water supply.
"Some commentators in both Europe and China have suggested Beijing might use its $3.2 trillion in foreign reserves to gain leverage on political or trade issues at a time when other governments urgently want investment."
Uh, yeah I think it may be used as leverage.
""There is a general thought that maybe China should not invest in U.S. Treasurys or European sovereign bonds. Instead, why can't we hold direct assets in the economy?" Shen said.
By investing in individual projects, he said, "you don't have to depend on government guarantees and it should be affected less by the sovereign debt crisis."
Um, if China stops buying bonds and starts buying hard assets instead, who is going to make up for them not buying so many bonds?
Overall, what China is doing can be said is in the interest of promoting global growth, but I don't think what they're doing is in the interest of anyone but China.
Good discussion from a different standpoint. Highlights kind of nightmarish event that could impact stock markets "out of the blue." Imagine waking up some morning to half dozen nuke plants running amuck because of some worm or virus. Look at what just the one in Japan did (due to natural disaster) - still mopping up. Not saying live in fear, but as investors those types of potential events need be at least in back of our minds.
Good morning, sir. Yeah, you gotta wonder. Take the whole concept of "cheap insurance". Do you or I, for instance, run threadbare tires on our vehicles and then go high-speed on the freeways? I very much doubt it. Yet both of us (and most likely everyone else here at MFO) tend to trim our expenses whenever possible.
So what's the story? Simply that having decent tires is "cheap insurance", and the potential catastrophic results of running poor tires far outweighs any short-term cost benefits. Yet in instance after instance we see examples of government, industry, and financial houses willing to take a long-term chance to save a few bucks in short-term profit. To pick just a few from memory at random, without regard to any particular nation or company:
• Unnecessary coal-mining "accidents" due to willful negligence. • Train "accidents", due to poor design, poor maintenance. • Bridge failures, again due primarily to poor maintenance. • Unnecessary aircraft "accidents", yet again poor maintenance. • Running passenger ships onto rocks- willful negligence. • Extending credit in the housing markets - willful negligence. • Gas line explosions, due to poor design, poor maintenance.
and of course- • Nuclear power "accidents", due to poor design, poor maintenance.
I'm certain that any of us could expand this list indefinitely. Common denominator? Failure to consider "cheap insurance". Black swans? Not really... any reasonable person realizes that if you cut corners past a certain point it's just a matter of "when", not "if".
And dependance of critical infrastructure on the public internet fits right in here too. Willful negligence again, for sure.
Comments
The broadcast will cause grief and overtime hours at many "it" departments.
The positive side is that (not that folks don't know) it keeps providers on their toes and not complacent.
Basically, he said: "Internet Security? Forget it. We will never get ahead in this game."
Scary, as the article mentions the vulnerability of major infrastructure such as atomic power generating plants, electrical distribution grids, and oil refineries to such interruptions. FWIW, the Public Safety Radio System of San Francisco also is controlled by such technology, HOWEVER there is absolutely NO interface with the public internet, because of this very situation. If we could see the issue, isn't it reasonable to demand that critical facilities also protect themselves in this area?
Or does that come under the heading of "more government regulation"? (At least in this case any government regulation would seem to be required to apply to the government itself, also.)
You would most likely be amazed if you knew how much of our vital infrastructure uses the public internet for command and control. What this country needs is some sort of parallel network that could be shared by government and critical infrastructure, without access to the public internet.
I suppose even then some hacker would manage to gain entry through some poorly guarded terminal, somewhere. Sigh. But it would make it a lot harder.
As for hacking, I'm surprised a minor, regional version of what happened in "Die Hard 4" hasn't happened here yet.
As for infrastructure, China seems eager to invest in infastructure in the US and Europe.
There is a smart GRID etf (GRID, oddly enough...) but it has not exactly done well, more than likely due to lack of anticipation of something being done.
___________________________________
Taken from a post I did in another thread regarding infrastructure:
In terms of infrastructure, I find it rather interesting that a number of Chinese interests (either their SWF or companies) have started buying infrastructure in Europe and apparently intend do so here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15914102
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/usa/weekly/2012-02/17/content_14629220.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jan/20/china-sovereign-wealth-fund-thames-water
http://www.startribune.com/business/134572378.html
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/China-Buys-Into-Portuguese-National-Power-Company-Politicians-Aghast.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/utilities/8629206/Northumbrian-Water-accepts-2.4bn-bid-from-Li-Ka-shings-Cheung-Kong-Infrastructure-Holdings.html
This one is of particular interest and is both an excellent example and an interesting read: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/China-Buys-Into-Portuguese-National-Power-Company-Politicians-Aghast.html
And the list goes on.
"BEIJING - China's sovereign wealth fund wants to invest in improving neglected U.S. and European roads and other infrastructure to spur global growth, the fund's chairman said in comments published Monday.
The announcement reflects a shift in strategy for the $410 billion fund, which was created in 2007. Until now, it has limited its investments mostly to small stakes in publicly traded companies to avoid stirring political opposition overseas.
China Investment Corp. wants to begin in Britain by teaming up with fund managers or investing directly in infrastructure projects, Lou Jiwei said in a commentary in London's Financial Times newspaper.
"China is keen to get involved" in improving U.S. and European infrastructure, which "badly needs more investment," Lou wrote. He cited energy, water, transport, digital communications and waste disposal but gave no indication of possible projects or the size of Chinese investment."
http://www.startribune.com/business/134572378.html
Yep, they are buying infrastructure in Europe out of the goodness of their hearts to help spur growth. In the meantime, they also take stakes in things like power supply and water supply.
"Some commentators in both Europe and China have suggested Beijing might use its $3.2 trillion in foreign reserves to gain leverage on political or trade issues at a time when other governments urgently want investment."
Uh, yeah I think it may be used as leverage.
""There is a general thought that maybe China should not invest in U.S. Treasurys or European sovereign bonds. Instead, why can't we hold direct assets in the economy?" Shen said.
By investing in individual projects, he said, "you don't have to depend on government guarantees and it should be affected less by the sovereign debt crisis."
Um, if China stops buying bonds and starts buying hard assets instead, who is going to make up for them not buying so many bonds?
Overall, what China is doing can be said is in the interest of promoting global growth, but I don't think what they're doing is in the interest of anyone but China.
So what's the story? Simply that having decent tires is "cheap insurance", and the potential catastrophic results of running poor tires far outweighs any short-term cost benefits. Yet in instance after instance we see examples of government, industry, and financial houses willing to take a long-term chance to save a few bucks in short-term profit. To pick just a few from memory at random, without regard to any particular nation or company:
• Unnecessary coal-mining "accidents" due to willful negligence.
• Train "accidents", due to poor design, poor maintenance.
• Bridge failures, again due primarily to poor maintenance.
• Unnecessary aircraft "accidents", yet again poor maintenance.
• Running passenger ships onto rocks- willful negligence.
• Extending credit in the housing markets - willful negligence.
• Gas line explosions, due to poor design, poor maintenance.
and of course-
• Nuclear power "accidents", due to poor design, poor maintenance.
I'm certain that any of us could expand this list indefinitely. Common denominator? Failure to consider "cheap insurance". Black swans? Not really... any reasonable person realizes that if you cut corners past a certain point it's just a matter of "when", not "if".
And dependance of critical infrastructure on the public internet fits right in here too. Willful negligence again, for sure.