kscarbel2

Surrey Leader / June 24, 2016 Volvo Trucks North America has been ordered to pay a Surrey couple nearly US$5 million after being found negligent in a tractor-trailer crash in 2009. The B.C. Supreme Court ruling, released Friday, found Volvo was negligent in installing hardware on the tractor’s engine, causing the loss of electrical power. Amandeep and Pavandeep Hans were travelling along a highway, returning to their home following a long trip that extended from the U.S. to Eastern Canada and Manitoba. Amandeep was pulling a fully-loaded trailer about 65 to 70 km/h (40-44 mph). Without warning, all electrical power in the truck was lost, including the power steering, headlights and interior lights. According to the ruling, Amandeep saw the trailer begin to jack-knife, and heard the sound of tires squealing, and sparks flying from the trailer’s landing gear hitting the pavement. The truck was forced off the road and into a ditch, coming to rest on the driver’s side of the cab. He and his wife managed to get out and onto the roadway in the freezing night, but a Manitoba Hydro vehicle happened by shortly after the crash, and gave the couple shelter. While neither suffered serious physical injuries, their lives have changed dramatically, the judgement said. Amandeep is now “a shadow of his former self physically, emotionally and socially,” and is “incapable of enjoying life as he formerly did.” During court hearings, medical experts said he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder caused by the crash and his reaction to it. Justice Barry Davies awarded the couple US$4.86 million, including US$1.45 million to Amandeep for loss of future earning capacity, and US$1.78 million for his future care and supervision, medication and rehabilitation therapies. Lawyer Les Mackoff said his clients have lived very modestly since the 2009 crash, with Pavandeep working in the early mornings, and after school, every day of the week, with her days commonly 20 hours. Amandeep has been diagnosed with a very serious chronic form of PTSD, and all treatment modes have failed so far, Mackoff said. “There’s some small hope that his function will improve somewhat, but there’s a great danger of him harming himself in the future as well,” he said. “It’s a very delicate situation.” Mackoff said post-traumatic stress disorder “actually physically changes the way the human brain works.” But not everybody reacts the same way to the same stressful incident. “Two veterans can be involved in an IED (improvised explosive device) exploding in front of them and watching a comrade be blown to bits. One guy goes on and never recovers and another person says gee that was a horrible thing, but it has no appreciable affect on them,” Mackoff said. Volvo’s engineer admitted, Mackoff said, that they knew there were some trucks that had left the factory without a nut properly tightened on a critical joint where the electrical cables pass through a bulkhead between the engine compartment and the passenger cab. All the electrical wires from the truck’s engine terminate on what’s known as a pass-through plate, he said, and an improperly fastened nut loosened up and caused a failure of the electrical connection as the couple drove through Manitoba. The judge found that Volvo had notice of the potential problems with the electrical defect, but failed to warn people. The power failure that led to the accident wasn’t the first for the Hans’ in their Volvo truck which they bought new in 2008. On July 4, 2008 they were heading into Regina when they suffered a catastrophic failure in the middle of a sunny day. But Mackoff said they were lucky as they were travelling at low speeds and there was no traffic. They brought the truck to Volvo, who attributed the problem to a master fuse blowing. Volvo replaced the fuse, and the couple were told not to worry about it, Mackoff said.

Truck Maker Volvo Raises Provision for Possible EU Antitrust Fines The Wall Street Journal / June 25, 2016 Swedish company sets aside another €250 million, raising total amount to €650 million Swedish truck maker Volvo AB said Saturday it had increased by more than 60% a provision for possible fines in connection with a European Union antitrust probe. Volvo said it had set aside €250 million (about $278 million) on top of the initial €400 million provision it made in late 2014, adding it would book the additional amount against second-quarter earnings. The first provision was made in late 2014, shortly after the European Commission, the bloc’s top competition regulator, issued formal charges against a number of heavy-truck makers, including Volvo. The Commission has said it suspected Volvo and the other companies of participating in an illegal cartel. Volvo said the probe targets possible antitrust violations prior to January 2011. At the time, the Commission made a series of unannounced inspections of European firms in the trucks sector. Volvo said the total provision of €650 million is based on the company’s best assessment of the financial impact of the investigation at the present time.

Land Line / June 24, 2016 The new law signed by Gov. Butch Otter early this year permits loads weighing up to 129,000 pounds (58,513kg) on Interstates 15, 84, 86, 90 and 184 – up from 105,500 pounds (47,854kg). The weight change takes effect July 1. The U.S. Congress gave Idaho permission late this past year to pursue the change. Advocates said the change will benefit shippers who now must downsize loads entering from Montana, Nevada and Utah – all of which permit at least 129,000-pound loads. Wyoming allows loads up to 117,000 pounds. Sen Bert Brackett, R-Rogerson, led the way for the bill through the statehouse. He previously said it is a simple bill that aligns the state with the recently passed federal legislation. In 2003, Idaho lawmakers approved a pilot project authorizing multiple trailer trucks with overweight permits to weigh up to 129,000 pounds on 35 southern Idaho routes, rather than the previous restriction of 105,500 pounds. A decade later the change became permanent. In addition, a separate 2013 law permitted the state to add roads in northern Idaho – as long as local highway officials agree. Supporters of truck size and weight increases also refer to an Idaho Transportation Department report that found the weight change authorized 10 years ago saved companies money and reduced truck trips without much change to wear and tear on affected roads. Additionally, the agency reported there wasn’t an increased danger to the public. Opponents, including OOIDA, question the results. They point to a congressionally mandated pilot program in Vermont on heavier trucks. A Federal Highway Administration report noted that pavement damage and crash rates each increased by at least 10 percent. Two more new laws in Idaho set to take effect at the first of the month also cover truck rules. One new law allows stinger-steered vehicle transporters up to 80 feet – up from 75 feet. The front overhang can also be up to four feet while the rear overhang can be up to six feet – up from a combined seven feet. The second rule change states that the highway department must provide for commercial vehicles to keep their license plate number upon renewal, or a different number upon request.

General Motors Press Release / June 23, 2016 Hydrogen fuel cell technology could augment ships and subs on patrol General Motors, the Office of Naval Research and the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory are cooperating to incorporate automotive hydrogen fuel cell systems into the next generation of Navy unmanned undersea vehicles, or UUVs. Hydrogen fuel cells convert high-energy hydrogen efficiently into electricity, resulting in vehicles with greater range and endurance than those powered with batteries. Under the ONR’s Innovative Naval Prototype program for Large Displacement UUVs, energy is a core technology in the Navy’s goals for vehicles with more than 60 days endurance. The Naval Research Laboratory recently concluded an evaluation of a prototype UUV equipped with a GM fuel cell at the heart of the vehicle powertrain. The tests, a key step in the development of an at-sea prototype, were conducted in pools at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Carderock, Md. “Our in-water experiments with an integrated prototype show that fuel cells can be game changers for autonomous underwater systems," said Frank Herr, ONR's department head for Ocean Battlespace Sensing. "Reliability, high energy, and cost effectiveness — all brought to us via GM's partnering — are particularly important as Navy looks to use UUVs as force multipliers." Hydrogen fuel cell propulsion technology helps address two major automotive environmental challenges: petroleum use and carbon dioxide emissions. Fuel cell vehicles can operate on renewable hydrogen from sources like wind and biomass stored for later use. Once converted to electricity, water vapor is the only emission. Recharging takes only minutes. GM’s fuel cells are compact and lightweight, and have high reliability and performance. Lower cost is achievable through volume production. These attributes match the goals of the Navy to develop reliable, affordable systems. “The collaboration with the Navy leveraged what we learned in amassing more than 3 million miles of real-world experience with our Project Driveway fuel cell program,” said Charlie Freese, executive director of GM Global Fuel Cell Activities. “Our customers will benefit from additional lessons we learn about the performance of fuel cells in non-automotive applications that will be useful in GM’s drive to offer fuel cells across consumer markets.” About the Naval Research Laboratory The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory is the Navy's full-spectrum corporate laboratory, conducting a broadly based multidisciplinary program of scientific research and advanced technological development. The Laboratory, with a total complement of approximately 2,500 personnel, is located in southwest Washington, D.C., with other major sites at the Stennis Space Center, Miss., and Monterey, Calif. NRL has served the Navy and the nation for over 90 years and continues to meet the complex technological challenges of today's world. More information on NRL can be found at http://www.nrl.navy.mil/ About the Office of Naval Research The Office of Naval Research enables the discovery, development, and delivery of innovative science and technology to meet the needs of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps today, and for the future force. To do this, ONR invests in targeted basic and applied research and technical development with partners in industry, academia, and Department of Defense laboratories. http://www.onr.navy.mil

Particularly in a steady rpm construction machinery application, why not? Remember, Isuzu's new global market 5.2-liter 4HK1 (210-240hp) for medium trucks is a four-cylinder design. The fenders, pretty much the global standard in design for backhoes. If they resemble CAT, then CAT copied John Deere.

Ford Trucks Press Release / June 17, 2016 Ford Trucks are available with a state-of-the-art ZF intarder (aka. retarder) auxiliary brake which is designed to handle up to 90% of all braking requirements, without involving the service brake, by making 4,000Nm of braking torque available within one second of activation. Thanks to Ford’s “Smart Brake” management system, it is possible to control the Jacob’s engine brake and ZF intarder simultaneously by actuating the foot brake. Mounted integrally to the transmission for optimized mounting and light weight, The powerful retarder increases comfort and safety, lowers maintenance costs and reduces environmental impact through a drastic reduction in brake dust. . Ford Trucks and You – "Sharing the Load" At Ford Trucks, we’re serious about trucking. It's why we designed the new 2016 Cargo heavy truck range from the ground up to meet your needs and expectations. See your authorized Ford heavy truck dealer for details, or visit the global Ford heavy truck website at https://www.fordtrucks.com.tr/ .

Volvo Group Press Release / June 25, 2016 The Volvo Group has decided to make an additional provision of EUR 250 million (SEK 2.3 billion) in connection with the ongoing investigation, in which the Commission’s preliminary standpoint is that Volvo and other companies in the truck industry may have violated EU antitrust laws in the period prior to January 18, 2011. The provision will have an impact on operating income in the second quarter of 2016. In January 2011, the Volvo Group and a number of other companies in the truck industry became part of an investigation by the European Commission regarding a possible violation of EU antitrust rules. In the fourth quarter of 2014, the Volvo Group made an initial provision of EUR 400 million (SEK 3.8 billion) since it was likely that the Group’s financial results and cash flow would be adversely impacted by the Commission’s investigation. At the same time, Volvo announced that the company would reassess the size of the provision on a continuous basis as the Commission’s investigation continued. The provision made by the Volvo Group total EUR 650 million (SEK 6.1 billion, US$716.6 million) and is based on the company’s best assessment of the financial impact of the investigation at the present time. The investigation is ongoing and the Volvo Group is cooperating fully with the authorities involved.

A respected government figure (one of the very few)..........calling a spade a spade. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CNBC / June 24, 2016 Former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan says the U.K. voting to leave the European Union "is just the tip of the iceberg." "This is the worst period, I recall since I've been in public service," Greenspan said. "There's nothing like it, including the crisis — remember October 19th, 1987, when the Dow went down by a record amount 23 percent? That I thought was the bottom of all potential problems. This has a corrosive effect that will not go away." The former Fed chairman said that the root of the "British problem is far more widespread." He said the result of the referendum will "almost surely" lead to the Scottish National Party trying to "resurrect Scottish Independence." Greenspan said the "euro currency is the immediate problem." While the euro and the euro zone were major steps in a movement toward European political integration, "it's failing," he said. "Brexit is not the end of the set of problems, which I always thought were going to start with the euro because the euro is a very serious problem in that the southern part of the euro zone is being funded by the northern part and the European Central Bank," Greenspan said. Even with that in mind, the European Central Bank is limited in what it can do because these fundamental problems like the stagnation of real incomes don't have easy solutions, Greenspan said. "There's a certain amount that monetary policy can do, but our problem is fundamentally fiscal," he said, adding that this is true in the United States as well as "every major country in Europe." Part of the problem is that the "developed countries are all aging very rapidly," which is leading to a higher ratio of government spending in the form of entitlements, Greenspan said. The 90-year-old Greenspan presided over the Federal Reserve for 19 years, starting with the administration of President Ronald Reagan through that of George W. Bush. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SN1jid9lLjY&spfreload=10

The Iron Lady saw the EU for what it was, and wisely began in 1984 retracting the UK's footprint in the affair. Thanks to the UK "rebate" she demanded, the UK pays US$18.7 billion annually instead of US$26 billion. Note that French president and primadonna Charles De Gaulle vetoed the UK's entrance into the EEC (European Economic Community) in 1963 and 1969. Only after he died (in 1970), was the UK admitted in 1973. The EU's demised was posted on the wall in 2004 when it admitted 10 economically-troubled countries that did NOT qualify to be members.

Jim, it's a beautiful truck. But looking at those 3 lift axles........US truck design really hasn't changed/progressed in decades. For optimized hauling efficiency, maneuverability and long road life (ideal weight distribution), I'd rather have a COE (twin-steer) 8-legger with a steerable tag (10x4), or for enhanced fuel efficiency an 10x2 (of course with locking inter-wheel differential).

Coming out of our government, the EU and mouthpiece CNN news, I haven't seen such a mountain of misinformation, distorted hype, in years. The EU was doomed to fail from day one. It's a wonderful concept that couldn't possibly work in reality.....and it doesn't. I should also add, the EU was the idea of the Bilderberg Group. Founded by the Rockefellers and composed of the world's wealthiest business people, it proposed the EU so they could enhance their profitability in Europe. Remember that "giant sucking sound"..........yes, NAFTA was a Bilderberg Group creation to enhance their US market profitability (How could it "possibly" create American jobs?.......one of the largest shams in modern times). The only way the EU could work is if all the member states were actually belonging to a single country, as is the structure of our "United" States. But as is, there is constant and inevitable bickering. The EU member states are anything but "united". The UK has only been in the EU since 1973, but has been an ally to the United States for decades. The UK, wisely, never adopted the Euro currency, and does not need to be a EU member to conduct trade. The EU has been on a downward spiral for a decade, and I predict its demise within 10 years.

FYI http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/42134-mack-frames-1978/ http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/42109-mack-frames-1989/ http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/42121-mack-frames-1997/

Automotive News - June 24, 2016 General Motors plans to spend $290 million on its Corvette plant in Kentucky, just as rumors about GM’s plans for the next generation of its iconic sports car heat up. GM today said it will “upgrade and modify” the Bowling Green plant’s vehicle assembly operations for “technology upgrades and manufacturing process improvements.” It didn’t say whether the investment is needed for an eventual redesign of the Corvette, which is three years into its seventh generation. The announcement comes amid speculation about the next iteration of the ‘Vette. Last month, Car & Driver reported that a midengine Corvette -- for decades the subject of enthusiast rumors and lust -- is slated for the 2019 model year. The magazine’s report cited an “impeccable source” and includes plenty of detail, even reporting that some prototypes of the “C8” (eighth-generation) Corvette are housed in Building 54 at GM’s proving grounds in Milford, Mich. It says the car would use a version of today’s V-8 engine, be priced around $80,000 and will be shown at the Detroit auto show in January 2018. The report also says that the current C7 Corvette Stingray will be phased out by late 2018. That would leave the critically praised current version in service for slightly more than five years, a truncated product cycle relative to previous Corvettes. The C6, for example, was in service for about eight years. Some industry forecasters don’t expect the next-gen Corvette to appear until after 2020. GM last year said it would spend $439 million on a new paint shop at the Bowling Green plant, which employs about 940 people and assembles only Corvettes. Work on the paint shop began last year and will run until mid-2017. “We are making technology investments that will continue to improve our manufacturing processes and ultimately the quality of our vehicles,” GM North American Manufacturing Manager Arvin Jones said in a statement. GM said the work related to the $290 million investment will begin this summer.

Why replace that cab when an experienced body man can repair it ? Unless you can obtain a cab extremely cheap..........but then you still have the time-consuming task of swapping over. I real body man can bang that out. Otherwise, panels should still be available. Patch the fiberglass sunvisor and buy a right windshield (9QT521AM). And isn't it possible to swap out the Maxi-Glas door with the later steel door, meaning, if you can find a good used door of either type.

UK votes to leave EU, markets reeling, Cameron resigns, Queen assumes control The Financial Times / June 24, 2016 David Cameron is resigning as prime minister after Britain voted to leave the EU in a referendum that has sent shockwaves across Europe and triggered financial market turmoil across the globe. Cameron said he would resign because Britain needed “fresh leadership” to take it in the new direction chosen by voters. He will stay in office for the next few months “to steady the ship”, with the Conservative party leader choosing his successor by October. “I do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers the country to its next destination,” Cameron said outside 10 Downing Street. Cameron’s hopes of securing a Remain vote evaporated as working-class voters turned out in huge numbers to deliver a stunning rebuke to the establishment and the status quo. With all the votes counted, 51.9 per cent voted to sever Britain’s 43-year membership of the EU, 48.1 per cent to stay in. As the scale of the uprising became clear, the pound dived to a 30-year low. Bank stocks took a hammering, with Lloyds down 30 percent, Royal Bank of Scotland down 34 percent and Deutsche Bank falling 17 percent. The Bank of England said it was monitoring market developments closely in conjunction with the Treasury and other central banks and would “take all necessary steps to meet its responsibilities for monetary and financial stability”. S&P confirmed that the UK is likely to lose its final triple A credit rating. Barometers of risk aversion for investors soared in value, with the 10-year US Treasury yield falling 25 basis points to 1.49 per cent, the lowest level since 2012. The German 10-year Bund yield fell 24bp to a record low of minus 0.14 per cent as periphery EU debt weakened sharply, with Italy’s 10-year yield up 30bp to 1.53 per cent. US stock-index futures fell more than 5 percent as global equities slumped. Shares in Japan declined more than 8 percent as the yen appreciated sharply against the pound and dollar. The pound was down about 14 per cent against the Japanese currency. Eurosceptic parties were quick to draw inspiration. “Victory for liberty!” tweeted Marine Le Pen, France’s far-right leader. “We must now have the same referendum in France and other EU members.” The Eurosceptic PVV party in the Netherlands also called for a referendum. “Great Britain has shown Europe the road to the future and liberation,” it said. Norbert Röttgen, chairman of the Bundestag foreign affairs committee and a senior member of chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU party, said the UK vote to leave was “the biggest catastrophe in the history of European integration”. Cameron has promised to honor the verdict of the British people. Months and years of protracted exit negotiations with the EU lie ahead, but it remains to be seen whether the prime minister will survive to carry them out. Cameron led a cross-party coalition for Remain, backed by Britain’s biggest companies, leading economists and trade union leaders, but swaths of the country simply ignored the warnings of the economic danger of Brexit. Just over a week ago, the pound approached $1.40 to the dollar and then surged, peaking at $1.5018 as polls were released soon after voting ended, suggesting a Remain victory. The pound touched a low of $1.3224 on Friday. During the post-Bretton Woods era of floating currencies, the pound has rarely spent time below $1.40 aside from the mid-1980s era of extreme US dollar strength. Newcastle upon Tyne, which had been expected to be solidly for Remain, backed Britain’s continued EU membership by a margin of only 51-49. In nearby Sunderland, a traditional working-class city in the north-east, there was a resounding 61-39 majority for splitting from the EU. London, Liverpool and Glasgow voted strongly for Remain, but in countless rural councils and towns across England — including many traditional Labour areas — there were strong votes for Leave. Sheffield, Nottingham and Coventry were among the cities voting for Brexit. At dawn, as the victory for Leave became clear, Nigel Farage, the UK Independence party leader who has led the crusade against the EU, told cheering supporters: “Let June 23 go down in history as independence day.” This was the third UK-wide referendum. The other two both produced a vote for the status quo: in 1975 Britain decided to stay in the EU and in 2011 it opted to stick with its first-past-the-post system of electing MPs. .

Associated Press / June 24, 2016 Former Secretary Hillary Clinton failed to turn over a copy of a key message involving problems caused by her use of a private homebrew email server, the State Department said Thursday. The disclosure raises the question of whether other work-related emails were deleted by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. The email was included within messages exchanged Nov. 13, 2010, between Clinton and her Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin. At the time, emails sent from Clinton’s BlackBerry device and routed through her private clintonemail.com server in the basement of her New York home were being blocked by the State Department’s spam filter. A suggested remedy was for Clinton to obtain a state.gov email account. “Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible,” Clinton responded to Abedin. Clinton never used a government account that was set up for her, instead continuing to rely on her private server until leaving office. The email was not among the thousands of emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in response to public records lawsuits seeking copies of her official correspondence. Abedin, who also used a private account on Clinton’s server, provided a copy from her own inbox after the State Department asked her to return any work-related emails. That copy of the email was publicly cited last month in an audit by the State Department’s inspector general that concluded Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup violated federal standards and could have left sensitive material vulnerable to hackers. “While this exchange was not part of the approximately 55,000 pages provided to the State Department by former Secretary Clinton, the exchange was included within the set of documents Ms. Abedin provided the department in response to our March 2015 request,” said State Department spokesman John Kirby. Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said Clinton provided “all potentially work-related emails” that were still in her possession when she received the 2014 request from the State Department. Fallon refused to say whether Clinton deleted any work-related emails before they were reviewed by her legal team. Clinton’s lead lawyer, David Kendall, refused to comment. The November 2010 email was among documents released under court order Wednesday to the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch, which has sued the State Department over access to public records related to Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State between 2009 and 2013. The case is one of about three dozen lawsuits over access to records related to Clinton, including one filed by the AP. Before turning over her emails to the department for review and potential public release, Clinton and her lawyers withheld thousands of additional emails she said were clearly personal. Clinton has never outlined in detail what criteria she and her lawyers used to determine which emails to release and which to delete, but her 2010 email with Abedin appears clearly work-related under the State Department’s own criteria for agency records under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. Dozens of the emails sent or received by Clinton through her private server were later determined to contain classified material. The FBI has been investigating for months whether Clinton’s use of the private email server imperiled government secrets. As part of the probe, Clinton turned over the hard drive from her email server to the FBI. It had been wiped clean, and Clinton has said she did not keep copies of the emails she choose to withhold. On Wednesday, lawyers from Judicial Watch, a conservative legal organization, questioned under oath Bryan Pagliano, the computer technician who set up Clinton’s private server. A transcript released Thursday shows Pagliano repeatedly responded to detailed questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as he did last year before a congressional committee. Dozens of questions Pagiliano declined to answer included who paid for the system, whether there was technical help to support its users and who else at the State Department used email accounts on it. Pagliano also would not answer whether he discussed setting up a home server with Clinton prior to her tenure as secretary of state. “Contrary to her statement under oath suggesting otherwise, Mrs. Clinton did not return all her government emails to the State Department,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said. “Our goal is to find out what other emails Mrs. Clinton and the State Department are hiding.”

"In 1978 and 1979, lawyer and First Lady of Arkansas Hillary Rodham engaged in a series of trades of cattle futures contracts. Her initial $1,000 investment had generated nearly $100,000 when she stopped trading after ten months. In 1994, after Hillary Rodham Clinton had become First Lady of the United States, the trading became the subject of considerable controversy regarding the likelihood of such a spectacular rate of return, possible conflict of interest, and allegations of disguised bribery,[1] allegations that Clinton strongly denied. There were no official investigations of the trading and Clinton was never charged with any wrongdoing." Rodham had no experience in such financial instruments. Bill Clinton's salary as Arkansas Attorney General and then Governor of Arkansas was modest and Rodham later said she had been interested in building a financial cushion for the future (the ill-fated Whitewater Development Corporation would be another such effort from this time). Starting in October 1978, when Bill Clinton was Attorney General and on the verge of being elected Governor, she was guided by James Blair, a friend, lawyer, outside counsel to Tyson Foods, Arkansas' largest employer, and, since 1977, a futures trader who was doing so well he encouraged friends and family to enter the commodity markets. Blair in turn traded through, and relied upon cattle markets expertise from, broker Robert L. "Red" Bone of Refco, a former Tyson executive and professional poker player. Rodham later wrote that she educated herself about the market and followed it closely, winning and losing money. By January 1979, she was up $26,000; but later, she would lose $16,000 in a single trade. At one point she owed in excess of $100,000 to Refco as part of covering losses, but no margin calls were made by Refco against her. Near the end of the trading, Blair correctly sold short and gave her a $40,000 gain in one afternoon. In July 1979, once she became pregnant with Chelsea Clinton, Clinton said "I lost my nerve for gambling [and] walked away from the table $100,000 ahead." She briefly traded sugar futures contracts and other non-cattle commodities in October 1979, but more conservatively, through Stephens Inc. During this period, she made about $6,500 in gains (which she failed to pay taxes on at the time, consequently later paying some $14,600 in federal and state tax penalties in the 1990s). After her daughter was born in February 1980, she moved all her commodities gains into U.S. Treasury Bonds. The profits made during the cattle trading first came to public light in a March 18, 1994 report by The New York Times, which had been reviewing the Clintons' financial records for two months. The matter immediately gained considerable press attention, and coincided with the beginning of congressional hearings over the Whitewater controversy. Media pressure continued to build, and on April 22, 1994, Hillary Clinton gave an unusual press conference under a portrait of Abraham Lincoln in the State Dining Room of the White House, to address questions on both matters. She stated that she had done the trading, but often relying upon the advice of Blair, and having him place orders for her; she said she did not believe she had received preferential treatment in the process. She also downplayed the dangers of such trading: "I didn't think it was that big a risk. [Blair] and the people he was talking with knew what they were doing." Afterwards she won media praise for the manner in which she conducted herself during this, her first adversarial press conference; Time called her "open, candid, but above all unflappable ... the real message was her attitude and her poise. The confiding tone and relaxed body language ... immediately drew approving reviews." Financial writer Edward Chancellor noted in 1999 that Clinton made her money by betting "on the short side at a time when cattle prices doubled." Bloomberg News columnist Caroline Baum and hedge fund manager Victor Niederhoffer published a detailed 1995 analysis in National Review that found typical patterns and behaviors in commodities trading not met and concluded that her explanations for her results were highly implausible. Possibilities were raised that broker actions such as front running of trades, or a long straddle with the winning positions thereof assigned to a favored client, had taken place. In a 1998 article, Marshall Magazine, a publication of the Marshall School of Business, sought to frame the trading, the nature of the results, and possible explanations for them: These results are quite remarkable. Two-thirds of Hillary’s trades showed a profit by the end of the day she made them, and 80 percent were ultimately profitable. Many of her trades took place at or near the best prices of the day. Only four explanations can account for these remarkable results. Blair may have been an exceptionally good trader. Hillary Clinton may have been exceptionally lucky. Blair may have been front-running other orders. Or Blair may have arranged to have a broker fraudulently assign trades to benefit Clinton's account. Chicago Mercantile Exchange records indicated that $40,000 of her profits came from larger trades initiated by James Blair. According to exchange records, "Red" Bone, the commodities broker that facilitated the trades on behalf of Refco, reportedly because Blair was a good client, allowed Rodham to maintain her positions even though she did not have enough money in her account to cover her activity. For example, she was allowed to order 10 cattle futures contracts, normally a $12,000 investment, in her first commodity trade in 1978 although she had only $1,000 in her account at the time. Bone denied any wrongdoing in conjunction with Rodham's trading and said he did not recall ever dealing with Rodham personally. As it happened, during the period of Rodham's trading, Refco was under investigation by the Mercantile Exchange for systematic violations of its margin trading rules and reporting requirements regarding cattle trading. In December 1979, the exchange issued a three-year suspension to Bone and a $250,000 fine of Refco (at the time, the largest such penalty imposed by the exchange). The trading practices in Refco's Springdale, Arkansas, office, which Bone was the manager of, came under investigation following the October 1979 collapse of cattle prices, which caused traders with that office to lose close to $20 million. A number of the traders, including Blair, sued Refco and its chair, Thomas Dittmer, as well as Bone, on grounds of having manipulated prices and thus precipitating the collapse. Blair and Refco reached an out-of-court settlement. In a case that went to trial, an Arkansas jury found in favor of some of the traders and against Refco and Dittmer, but that verdict was later overturned by a federal appellate court. Court documents detailed some of the alleged trading practices at Refco, including block trading, end-of-day allocation, backdating of trades, and waived margin calls. Two brokers at Springdale, Bill McCurdy and Steven Johns, testifying about another trader's case, said they participated in a cover-up of block trading on a day in June 1979 that happens to coincide with the opening of what would become Rodham's single most profitable trade. After the Rodham trading matter became public, Leo Melamed, a former chairman of the Mercantile Exchange, was brought in by request of the White House to review the trading records. On April 11, 1994, he said that the whole matter was "a tempest in a teapot" and that while her brokers had not required her to provide typical margin cushions, she had not knowingly benefited. On May 26, 1994, after the new records concerning the larger Blair trades came to light, he said "I have no reason to change my original assessment. Mrs. Clinton violated no rules in the course of her transactions." But as to the question of whether Hillary had been allocated profits from larger block trades, he said of the new accounting, "It doesn't suggest that there was allocation, and it doesn't prove there wasn't." Hillary Clinton's defenders, including White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler, maintained throughout that she had made her own decisions, that her own money was constantly at risk, and that she made both winning and losing trades throughout the ten months.[20] Regarding suggestions that Blair had favored Clinton so that Tyson Foods could gain influence with Governor Clinton, they pointed out that Tyson had, in fact, later opposed Clinton during his 1980 re-election bid, an observation the First Lady had also made at her news conference. Clinton's defenders also stressed that Blair and others stayed in the market longer than Rodham and lost a good amount of what they had earlier made later that summer and fall, showing that the risk was real. Indeed, some reports had Blair losing $15 million and Bone was reported as bankrupt.[7] There never was any official governmental investigation into, or findings about, or charges brought regarding Hillary Rodham's cattle futures trading (as opposed to Refco practices overall). Furthermore, by the time her trading results became known, 15 years had passed and statute of limitations issues may have been pertinent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hillary Clinton Turned $1,000 Into $99,540, White House Says Stephen Labaton, The New York Times / March 30, 1994 The White House said today that in 1978 Hillary Rodham Clinton invested $1,000 in commodities futures and that the investment grew in 10 months of trading in the notoriously volatile market into a gain of nearly $100,000. Seeking to dispel suggestions that the trades were risk-free and improperly arranged by an Arkansas lawyer who represents one of the state's most powerful companies, the White House issued a statement this afternoon that said the First Lady had put up her own money and that she bore all of the financial risks in a marketplace where three out of four investors lose money. The officials also released a year's worth of brokerage statements from one of Mrs. Clinton's two accounts. They show winnings outrunning losses about three-to-one. 'Too Nerve-Racking' Senior advisers to President Clinton and his wife said in a briefing this afternoon at the White House that Mrs. Clinton based her trades on information in The Wall Street Journal, and that she stopped trading by 1980, despite her success, because, as one senior aide put it, "she did not have the stomach for it any more and found it to be too nerve-racking." The string of winning trades began in October 1978, as Mr. Clinton, then the state's Attorney General, was leading in polls in the race for Governor. The White House insisted today that Mrs. Clinton received no improper financial assistance on the trades from the lawyer, James B. Blair, a close friend who at the time was the top lawyer for Tyson Foods of Springdale, Ark., the nation's biggest poultry company. Mr. Blair has said that he had suggested that she get into the commodities market, and that he used his knowledge of trading to guide her along the way. During Mr. Clinton's tenure as Governor, Tyson benefited from several state decisions, including favorable environmental rulings, $9 million in state loans, and the placement of company executives on important state boards. Mr. Blair and the Clintons denied any favoritism or conflict of interest when the trades were first reported earlier this month. The commodities trades were the most successful investment the Clintons ever made. The nearly $100,000 profit enabled them to buy a house, invest in securities and real estate and provide a nest egg for their daughter, Chelsea. In its statement, the White House said Mrs. Clinton accumulated trading profits of $49,069 in 1978 and losses of $22,548, for a net gain of $26,541. In 1979, the White House said, she had trading profits of $109,600 and losses of $36,600, for a net gain of about $73,000. Mrs. Clinton did a small amount of commodities trading in a second account through her stockbroker at Stephens Inc. in Little Rock, Ark. In that account, according to officials, she had a net trading loss of about $1,000; she closed the account in March 1980, shortly after Chelsea was born. The release of the trading documents today and tax returns made public on Friday show that in 1978 and 1979 the Clintons took on two high-risk investments with little money down but with Arkansas business figures as advisers or partners. One was the commodities trades. The other was the Whitewater development. The tax returns released on Friday show the Clintons making a $500 investment as their total capital contribution to the Whitewater Development Company, a real estate venture in the Ozarks. Their partner in the venture was a close friend, James B. McDougal, who later became a banker whose savings and loan was subject to broad state regulation. Critics of the Clintons have asserted that Mr. McDougal, who guaranteed a $200,000 loan taken out by the partnership, carried the brunt of the risk on the Whitewater venture. The Clintons say that they ultimately lost about $42,000, mostly from interest payments, in Whitewater. But their relationship with Mr. McDougal is now being investigated by the independent counsel, Robert B. Fiske Jr., who is examining whether Mr. McDougal's savings and loan improperly diverted money into Whitewater or into Mr. Clinton's 1984 campaign for government. Mr. Fiske said today that he could not comment on whether he would look into the commodities trades. But his charter is written broadly enough to enable him to examine the trades if he decided they were relevant. 'Bull Market' in Cattle Brokers and commodities officials differed today in their assessment of the account given by the White House. Jack F. Sandner, chairman of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, a hub of commodities trading, said that such profits were not unusual during the cattle futures market of the late 1970's, which he described as one of the most booming ever. "At the time the First Lady was trading, it happened to coincide with the biggest bull market in the history of cattle," he said. "When you are lucky enough to catch a dramatic market, you can take $1,000 and scale up and you can make a million. If somebody said they made a million dollars, I wouldn't be surprised at all." But Bill Biederman, vice president of research at Allendale Inc., a research and brokerage firm in suburban Chicago, said such huge winnings are very unusual in the risky commodities market. "It is possible but it is rare," he said. "This has happened just a few times in my career, where I've made millions on a small amount of money." He said it was also unusual for a customer to abandon the markets after such a profitable run. In commodities trading, a speculator essentially bets on whether the future price of a commodity will rise or decline, and the White House said today that Mrs. Clinton's investments were in cattle, soybeans, sugar, hogs, copper and lumber. Brokers in the Refco office have said that most of her profits were in cattle futures. Many of her trades were done on margin, a common practice of investing by using borrowed funds. But regulators and traders said today that most brokers required customers trading on margin to put up additional collateral in case there are sudden losses. "They would want some kind of a minimum until such time as a customer establishes a track record," said David Gary, a spokesman for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Joseph Collins, a lawyer for Refco, said that with the passage of time it is difficult to determine whether the Springdale office had such a rule. But he said that generally the decision whether or not to take on a customer with limited resources would be up to the individual broker. Consulting Blair White House officials acknowledged today that Mr. Blair was consulted on many of the commodities trades and was viewed as an important financial adviser, but they said other people, who they could not identify, were also consulted. A senior aide to Mrs. Clinton also said today that she occasionally spoke to her broker about the trades. But brokers in the Springdale office of Refco where Mrs. Clinton executed the trades, including the one she describes as her personal broker, said in interviews in recent weeks that they have no recollection of ever talking with her about the trades. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Blair have said that they used Robert L. (Red) Bone, the broker who founded the Springdale office of Refco, a Chicago commodities firm, to execute the trades. But Mr. Bone, who worked at Tyson for 13 years until 1973, insisted in several interviews this month that he has no recollection of ever trading for Mrs. Clinton or talking to her about commodities trades. "I can't recall ever dealing with the Clintons," Mr. Bone said in an interview on March 9. After Mr. Blair suggested that Mr. Bone was trying to protect the Clintons' privacy and recommended that a reporter try to talk to the broker again, Mr. Bone again insisted that he had no recollection of ever trading for the Clintons. Mr. Bone could not be reached for comment tonight. During the 1970's, Mr. Bone had been disciplined by regulators and settled charges that he tried to corner the egg market and that he had failed to keep proper records. Those accusations did not involve Mrs. Clinton's account. Mr. Bone's lawyer in both the regulatory proceedings and other legal disputes over the last 15 years has been Mr. Blair. According to the White House, Mrs. Clinton's commodity account was a type in which the client must personally approve each trade. Thomas A. Russo, a New York lawyer who was the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's first director of trading and markets, said the only possible exception to this rule arises when a client grants power of attorney to a third party and allows them to order trades. The rules in effect at the time, Mr. Russo said, otherwise required clients to specify the commodity, the price range and the amount. The only matter that could be left to the broker in such a circumstance is the precise timing of the order, he said. Mr. Blair earlier this month said that he and Mrs. Clinton discussed potential trades; he said he gave her advice on whether to bet on prices rising or falling and she decided on the size of the trades. Omitted Details Tax returns disclosed last Friday show that the Clintons claimed about $100,000 in capital gains from the trades. The returns, which the Clintons had declined to disclose during the campaign, were made public only after a New York Times article on March 18 revealed that the Clintons had made the commodities profits. But in the tax returns the Clintons ignored Internal Revenue Service instructions to detail how much money was invested, how much was earned and on what dates the trades occurred. Today the White House released brokerage statements that show many of the trades. The statements appear on an account that spells Mrs. Clinton's first name wrong and begin with an entry for cash for $1,000 on Oct. 11, 1978. The White House said today that it released the information on Mrs. Clinton's stake in response to a Newsweek article published on Monday that quoted a Columbia University law professor as saying that Mrs. Clinton's investments were financially supported by Mr. Blair and could be considered to be a gift. The professor, Marvin A. Chirelstein, denied making such a statement. Evan Thomas, Washington bureau chief of Newsweek, said today that the report had been the result of "an honest mistake and we regret that." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hillary Clinton Futures Trades Detailed Charles R. Babcock, The Washington Post / May 27, 1994 Hillary Rodham Clinton was allowed to order 10 cattle futures contracts, normally a $12,000 investment, in her first commodity trade in 1978 although she had only $1,000 in her account at the time, according to trade records the White House released yesterday. The computerized records of her trades, which the White House obtained from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, show for the first time how she was able to turn her initial investment into $6,300 overnight. In about 10 months of trading, she made nearly $100,000, relying heavily on advice from her friend James B. Blair, an experienced futures trader. The new records also raise the possibility that some of her profits -- as much as $40,000 – came from larger trades ordered by someone else and then shifted to her account, Leo Melamed, a former chairman of the Merc who reviewed the records for the White House, said in an interview. He said the discrepancies in Clinton's records also could have been caused by human error. Even allocated trades would not necessarily have benefited Clinton, Melamed added. "I have no reason to change my original assessment. Mrs. Clinton violated no rules in the course of her transactions," he said. Lisa Caputo, Clinton's spokeswoman, said the documents were released yesterday "to give as complete a picture as possible" of her trades. She said Clinton had never before seen them. Blair, who urged Clinton to enter the high-risk futures market and ordered most of her trades, said in a recent interview that he "talked her into" her first futures trade in October 1978 before paperwork on her account was completed. It was liquidated quickly, he recalled, because "it was bigger than she wanted and required more money." A close examination of her individual trades underscores Blair's pivotal role. It also shows that Robert L. "Red" Bone, who ran the Springdale, Ark., office of Ray E. Friedman and Co. (Refco), allowed Clinton to initiate and maintain many trading positions – besides the first – when she did not have enough money in her account to cover them. Why would Bone do so? Bone could not be reached for comment, but Blair said he thought he knew why. "I was a very good customer," he said, noting he paid Bone $800,000 in commissions over the years. "They weren't going to hassle me. If I brought them somebody, they weren't going to hassle them." Besides, he added, Bone would not worry if he agreed with his clients' bet on which way the price of a given contract would go. Blair, who at the time was outside counsel to Tyson Foods Inc., Arkansas' largest employer, says he was advising Clinton out of friendship, not to seek political gain for his state-regulated client. At the time of many of the trades, Bill Clinton was governor. Hillary Clinton has said she made all the trading decisions herself and has tried to play down Blair's role. But she acknowledged in April, three weeks after her trades were first disclosed, that Blair actually placed most of the trades. Blair advised Clinton again on July 17, 1979. He recalled that she started that trading day by losing $26,460 on 10 cattle contracts she had held for more than a month, by far her worst loss as a futures player. On his recommendation, he said, she immediately went back into the market. She acquired 50 new cattle contracts – worth $1.4 million -- and when the price moved in her favor, unloaded them around noon for a quick gain of $10,550. This recouped part of her loss. Blair said Clinton and other friends he suggested trades for had lost money that spring on feeder cattle. Those trades "caused everyone some grief," he said. "I'm sure I was pressing to get everyone back above water" in recommending the quick and bold day trade. The White House defense of Hillary Clinton's preferential treatment was that other customers in the same office also were allowed to trade without having enough cash in their accounts. While Clinton's account was wildly successful to an outsider, it was small compared to what others were making in the cattle futures market in the 1978-79 period. An investigation of the cattle futures market at that time by Rep. Neal Smith (D-Iowa) found that in one 16-month period 32 traders made more than $110 million in profits from large trades -- those of 50 contracts or more. Clinton traded positions of 50 or more contracts only three times. The records the White House released yesterday were part of an investigative file from 1979, when the exchange charged Bone and Refco with violations of its record keeping and margin requirement rules. Bone was suspended for three years; Refco paid a $250,000 fine, then the largest in the exchange's history. Internal memos from that investigation cover transactions from the same period in June in which Clinton was trading, but not the same trades. In one instance, the Merc found Bone and a fellow broker were ordering 1,000 cattle contracts at a time – far over the limit allowed at the time – and then allocating them to other customers. One internal Merc memo said "there is reason to believe" that a majority of Bone's accounts were traded without the clients' permission. Blair said that Bone at times traded his personal account without permission. Blair said he doubted Bone traded Clinton's account without her permission. Melamed said it was "impossible" to determine the exact cause for the discrepancies between the Merc computer record of Clinton's trades and the trading records she received from Refco, which the White House released earlier. She said that for six trades, her initial trading position in the Refco records were not reflected in the Merc documents. On one other trade neither her purchase nor sale was included. On that trade she netted $12,150 on 15 cattle contracts she held for four days. Clinton reported a loss of $2,480 on one of the trades in question, Melamed noted. One was a "day trade" on hog contracts that netted $2,553. Melamed said "day trades" are the only way to assure profit even if favorable trading positions are allocated to a customer's account. Any position held overnight would be subject to the rise and fall in prices in the volatile futures market, he added. In commodities futures trading, an account that falls below the "maintenance margin" typically triggers a "margin call," where the trader must put up sufficient cash to cover the contracts. Although Hillary Rodham Clinton's account was under-margined for nearly all of July 1979, no margin calls were made, no additional cash was put up, and she eventually reaped a $60,000 profit. June 29 ......... $56,466 (Margin: Value account should have had to continue trading.) July 12 ........ -$24,243 July 17 ......... $22,537 (Account value: Total cash on hand plus (or minus) paper value of contracts.) July 20 ......... $61,537 July 23, 1979: She withdrew $60,000 and never traded again, closing the account in October.

http://mandersdiesel.com/ Phone: 1-800-469-1801 info@mandersdiesel.net

The KrAZ model 6511C4 6x4 tipper. .