Рассылка Forex миллионера

Здравствуйте уважаемые трейдеры и просто читатели!

The Japanese economy continues to recover, and is expected to gain stronger momentum
Toshihiko Fukui, Bank of Japan Governor

Рассылка так долго не выходила из за множества появившихся дел. Прошу прощения. Теперь всё будет РЕГУЛЯРНО.

Наконец-то у меня на сайте появился ПОЛНЫЙ экономический календарь, который вы найдёте тут: www.omenus.ru/fx/analytics/calendar.htm

Теперь пару интересных и НУЖНЫХ статей:

Результаты ежегодного собрания МВФ

Относительно официальных решений результаты конференции МВФ и Всемирного Банка были достаточно скромны. Однако, несколько направлений были интересны:

Первое :
США больше не является всемирно открытым государством. Теперь, туристы въезжающие в США обязаны пройти длительные проверки идентификации личности. Можно подумать, что США ныне, не заинтересовано в иностранных посетителях. Для сравнения немецкие границы открыты для всей Европы, где можно свободно путешествовать из страны в страну ЕС без паспорта по Шенгенскому договору. Однако теперь в Америке вам потребуется ID даже для входа в здания. Это будет иметь экономические последствия.

Второе:
Результаты этой конференции повлияли на экономическую политику министров финансов и ЦБ-в. Мировая экономика выглядит оптимистичнее, чем в любое время 25-ти летней истории. Более скептичный прогноз, опубликованный МВФ ранее, был пересмотрен в более положительном настроении. Говорят, что "хорошие времена" пришли даже для Германии и Европы. Текущий рост оказался значительно сильнее, чем предполагалось ранее.

Третье:
Наибольшим экономическим риском является высокие цены на нефть. Все кто ссылается на старые экономические модели, согласно которым увеличение цены нефти на 10 дол. за баррель уменьшает рост и увеличивает инфляцию, а также на пол пункта процентной ставки. С другой стороны, большинство людей предполагают, что эти экономические модели больше не действуют. Внимание было обращено к многочисленным возможностям в Америке, а также в любую другую страну для разработки месторождений нефти.

Четвёртое:
На финансовых рынках всё в рамках прогноза. На них присутствуют множество ликвидных товаров, что в свою очередь означает финансирование дисбаланса текущего финансового счёта США или дефицита бюджета не является проблемой. Расширения кампаний и развитие стран находится на низком уровне. Казначейские облигации также низки. Этот избыток ликвидности, несомненно пугает. Высокая ликвидность не только поддерживает рост, но также провоцирует негативное ожидание по отношению к ценам. Я считаю, что центральные банки должны создать эту ликвидность при помощи более жёсткой монетарной политики. Многие страны уже начали этот процесс. Если экономика действительно сильна, как считают многие, тогда время поднять процентные ставки также и в Европе.

Пятое:
В любом случае каждый в Вашингтоне считает, что дефицит бюджета должен быть сокращён. Например, в следующем году благодаря налоговым поступлениям. Вебер, президент Бундес банка, предупреждает, что в Германии дефицит бюджета не должен превышать 3% ( и не только в случае выполнения бюджетного плана).

Вывод:
Как сказало МВФ: "Если не сейчас, то когда же мы должны действовать"? !!!

EUR/USD needs to hold above 1.2440 to encourage the bullish view. Very little data this week.

Mixed bag of US data caused wild day on Friday - but the USD bears have won the first round.

CORNWALL, England (AFX) - There are increasing signs that the UK economy is growing more slowly than predicted only two months ago, the governor of the Bank of England said.

In a speech at the Eden Project, Mervyn King said the rise in oil prices to 20-year highs in real terms since the central bank's last round of official forecasts in August has "moderated somewhat" the outlook for the world economy.

He also noted signs since August that the domestic economy is experiencing a "softer patch" after rapid growth in the first half of the year, though he finds it difficult to square official manufacturing data with business surveys.

In August the rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee predicted GDP growth between 3.0-3.5 pct both this year and next, with consumer price inflation around the 2.0 pct target two years out.

Despite his concerns on growth, King cautioned that the drop in the value of the pound and the "continuing rapid expansion of total money spending, broad money and credit" may drive inflation higher.

"The MPC will have to balance the impact on inflation of this evidence of weaker activity against the fall in sterling and other signs of cost pressures," he said.

"So, if you are interested in the future path of interest rates, don't read my lips, read the economic data!" he added.

King's comments come in the wake of a raft of weak economic data, which has cemented market expectations that the central bank's key repo rate may have already peaked at 4.75 pct.

The MPC has raised the cost of borrowing by quarter points on five occasions since last November in an attempt to check inflationary pressures arising primarily from strong consumer demand.

This morning, inflation as measured by the CPI index rose just 1.1 pct in Sept - the smallest year-on-year rise since March and almost half the 2.0 pct target the central bank is expected to achieve.

King sought to explain why inflation may be subdued even though the labour market remains extremely tight, with little, if any, spare capacity, left.

He said there may be three explanations for this phenomenon.

Firstly the labour market may have become more flexible alongside a fall in the share of wage settlements covered by collective bargaining and an increase in migrant labour, he said.

Second, King said it is possible productivity gains may have tempered inflationary pressures, though the lack of "compelling" evidence make this an "unlikely" explanation.

And finally, King said the new monetary policy framework, which saw the government grant the Bank of England independence in 1997, has anchored inflation expectations lower.

However, King said "this is no time for complacency or hubris" as part of the improved short-run trade-off between growth and inflation may reflect temporary factors, such as increased competition on the high street.

"What is clear is that the combination of low and stable inflation and continuously falling unemployment must come to an end at some point, and may already have done so," King said.

"Starting, as we do now, with little if any spare capacity, it is unlikely that we can expect unemployment to fall indefinitely," he added.

Overall, King said unemployment can be maintained at a lower rate than in the past though there will be inevitable shocks, such as surging oil prices, that monetary policy can do little about.

The "nice" -- non-inflationary consistently expansionary -- decade he described in an earlier speech is likely to be followed by the "not-so- bad" -- not of the same order but also desirable -- decade, King said.

Also in the same speech, King said recent data revisions have borne out the MPC's hope of a better balanced economy and noted signs that consumer demand is now growing at a more sustainable pace.

- The G7 no longer governs the world economy. Does anyone?

IN SEPTEMBER 1985, the Plaza hotel in New York was the scene of a plot to debauch the dollar. Finance ministers and central-bank governors from the United States, Japan, Germany, France and Britain conspired to narrow America's trade gap and thwart rising protectionism. They promised to curb fiscal deficits in America, cut taxes in Germany and sell dollars in the foreign-exchange markets. In the wake of the Plaza accord, as their agreement was known, the dollar lost almost 30% of its value. It was a triumph of macroeconomic diplomacy. The next year, these five nations admitted Canada and Italy to the elite. The Group of Seven, or G7, as the club was named, has met ever since.

Today the G7 is not what it was. In September 2003, it assembled in Dubai, with America's manufacturers once again bemoaning the dollar's strength. China had pegged the yuan at 8.28 to the dollar and Japan had spent more than ¥9 trillion ($76 billion) that year keeping the greenback above ¥115. The G7 issued a communiqué in effect urging Japan and China to allow more flexibility in their exchange rates. A year on, when G7 finance ministers met in Washington, DC, on October 1st, not much had changed. The yen has scarcely budged, China's peg remains firm and America's trade deficit has widened to almost $600 billion.

The G7 is but one of an “alphanumeric panoply of bodies” (the G10, G20, G24 and G77 are others) that attempt to co-ordinate the economic policies of nation states. A recent review* of these bodies, by Peter Kenen, Jeffrey Shafer, Nigel Wicks and Charles Wyplosz, makes an eloquent and considered plea for reform. Each of these groups was set up in response to some issue of the moment. But though the moments come and go, the groups, clubs and committees come and stay. The result is a disorderly scrum of bodies fighting for turf.

The authors (of whom two are academic economists and two are former officials) nonetheless find much to praise in the G7's economic statesmanship. Unencumbered by formal procedures, the politicians and governors often move with greater dispatch than the technocrats on whose turf they encroach. Whether it be financing the transition from communism, bailing out Mexico, or relieving poor countries' debts, the G7 members thrash out a joint position, then use their combined weight in the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to advance their common purpose. At last weekend's meetings of the G7, the IMF and the Bank, America and Britain urged the Fund and the Bank to cancel all their loans to poor countries. Neither country's initiative made much progress. But what the G7 proposes, the Bank and the Fund find hard to oppose for long. The converse is not true. For example, the IMF's recent initiative to set up a bankruptcy court for sovereign borrowers had much to commend it. But without the G7's support, the idea has gone nowhere.

The Fund's original mandate was to manage the orderly adjustment of the balance of payments between its members. The G7 usurped that role at the Plaza hotel, but no one performs it now. Currency misalignments and trade imbalances are natural occasions for international co-operation: no exchange rate belongs to one country alone. Some economists, such as Milton Friedman, a Nobel laureate, argue that such co-operation is redundant. Exchange rates should be left to market forces, which can co-ordinate the policies of different countries for them. Currencies free to float leave national policymakers free to concentrate on their domestic “homework,” as Bernhard Winkler of the European Central Bank puts it: keeping prices stable and budgets in balance. Mr Winkler considers the Plaza accord and the Louvre accord of 1987, which halted the dollar's fall, to be signs of failure not triumph. They were needed only because the American government could not balance its books. Co-operation abroad is necessary only because of mismanagement at home.

American intervention in the foreign-exchange markets peaked in 1989. Since then it has pursued a dollar policy of benign neglect. But other countries, such as China, have yet to heed Mr Friedman. China's peg to the dollar is a decade old. Its central bankers say they want a more flexible yuan—eventually. “China has an 8,000-year history,” one of them quipped this month. “A decade is truly a short period.”

The yuan accounts for less than 10% of the trade-weighted value of the greenback. But its peg is nonetheless an obstacle to a broad realignment of currencies. Other East Asian countries, which trade with China and compete against it, will not allow their currencies to strengthen much until China does also.

This month, the G7 finance ministers invited Chinese officials to dine with them for the first time. But the report's authors believe China warrants more than a meal. A new group is needed, comprising representatives of all the main currencies, and only them. The report recommends that America, the euro zone, Japan and China meet in a “G4”, overseeing balance of payments adjustment between these economic blocks.

The authors are right to give China a place in the highest councils of macroeconomic diplomacy. Without it, the G7 cannot hope to achieve much. But adding China to the group, or creating a G4, will not create consensus where none currently exists. Agreement at the Plaza hotel was possible only because the domestic politics of each country favoured it. Similarly, China's peg will remain until its authorities' fear of domestic inflation—or of American protectionism—outweighs their fear of floating. There is no easy alphanumeric solution to the imbalances of the world.

AT THE end of the second world war, President Franklin Roosevelt attended a summit that changed the course of world history. No, not that meeting at Yalta, with Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill. Immediately after that, Roosevelt travelled quietly to the USS Quincy, anchored near the Suez Canal. The man with whom he met had rarely set foot outside his home country, and insisted on bringing along his household slaves and royal astrologer.

That man was King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia. In the years before the war, the desert kingdom had gone from sleepy backwater to the most promising oil province in the world. Military planners in America were painfully aware of the swift decline in their own country's domestic reserves. So, in return for guaranteed access to Saudi Arabia's vast quantities of oil, Roosevelt promised the tribal chieftain America's full military support. In the decades since, the vow has proved to be one of the few fixed points of global politics—though for how much longer is an open question.

That close military relationship has helped feed a favourite current conspiracy theory, that of “blood for oil”, ie, that American blood in Iraq is being spilt for the benefit of oil interests. Another popular theory is that the oil is running out altogether. Politicians of both parties in America have latched on to these ideas, and now champion notions of “energy independence”. That blood is being spilt for oil; that oil is anyway running out; and that energy independence is therefore a magic solution: all are superficially attractive propositions. Yet they are also all wrong. Happily, three intelligent new books cut to the quick on these issues.

The biggest fallacy is that the world is about to run out of oil. A spate of recent books, with such titles as “Out of Gas”, argue that oil is scarce, and that an impending crisis will put the crises of the 1970s and early 1980s in the shade. Some see the recent rise in oil prices to $50 a barrel as a dire warning.

Nonsense, argues Peter Odell, a grand old man of oil forecasting who proved wrong the pessimists of the 1970s. In his new book, he points to two flaws in the argument that a peak in global oil production is coming, followed by decline: both technology and economics are ignored.

As experience has shown time and again, oil technology just gets better. The industry now uses tools unavailable in the 1970s—ranging from seismic imaging of reservoirs to advanced supercomputing—to tap oil from places unimaginable back then. As a result, proven reserves of oil are actually larger today than they were three decades ago.

Also, price signals matter: if there were a real scarcity of oil, prices would soar and companies would scramble to find more oil or its alternatives, while consumers would use less of it. Mr Odell argues, quite reasonably, that “non-conventional” oil—such as that made from Canada's mucky “tar sands”—will make up for an eventual decline in conventional sources of oil. His conclusion will anger some and surprise others: gas-guzzlers will have plenty to run on for the rest of this century.

The problem with oil is not its scarcity, rather its concentration. That is one powerful conclusion drawn by Michael Klare in “Blood and Oil”, a thoughtful and well-researched history of oil and geopolitics. Mr Klare is certainly critical of American policy, particularly of the way the United States has cosied up to nasty regimes because of their supplies of oil, helping prop up the House of Saud, for instance. Yet he counters the claim that the invasion of Iraq was “all about oil”.

Mr Klare provides a service when he puts America's close ties with Saudi Arabia in a historical context that mocks the charges—made by Michael Moore, for example, in his film “Fahrenheit 9/11”—that the Bush clan has done most to shape the relationship. He starts with that meeting between Roosevelt and Ibn Saud. He notes that it was the doctrine of Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, explicitly to defend America's access to oil exports from the Persian Gulf “by any means necessary”.

In short, the militarisation of America's energy policy has been a bipartisan affair. And it is Mr Klare's view that serious problems are in store. He notes that two-thirds of the world's proven reserves of conventional oil lie in the hands of five countries in the Persian Gulf, with Saudi Arabia atop one-quarter of the world's reserves. As oil gets depleted rapidly in other parts of the world, the West will come to depend ever more upon these currently undemocratic and perhaps unreliable countries.

For neoconservatives in Washington, that is one more reason for fostering, by force if necessary, liberal values and democracy in the Middle East. For many congressmen, it is a reason to call for energy independence. Yet the phrase has become misleading, for it is used to justify subsidies for pork-barrel projects or mere sops to the industry, such as drilling for oil in the Alaskan wilderness. Given that America consumes a quarter of the world's oil but has barely 3% of its proven reserves, it will never be energy-independent until the day it stops using oil altogether.

How to get there? Amory Lovins has some sharp and sensible ideas. In “Winning the Oil Endgame”, a new book funded partly by America's Defence Department, this sparky guru sketches out the mix of market-based policies that he thinks will lead to a good life after oil.

First, he argues, America must double the efficiency of its use of oil, through such advances as lighter vehicles. Then, he argues for a big increase in the use of advanced “biofuels”, made from home-grown crops, that can replace petrol. Finally, he shows how the country can greatly increase efficiency in its use of natural gas, so freeing up a lot of gas to make hydrogen. That matters, for hydrogen fuel can be used to power cars that have clean “fuel cells” instead of dirty petrol engines. It would end the century-long reign of the internal-combustion engine fuelled by petrol, ushering in the hydrogen age.

And because hydrogen can be made by anybody, anywhere, from windmills or nuclear power or natural gas, there will never be a supplier cartel like OPEC—nor suspicions of “blood for hydrogen”. What then will the conspiracy theorists do?

Oct 11th 2004
From The Economist Global Agenda

Oil is not the only commodity soaring in price. So, too, are base metals such as copper, aluminium and lead

IT IS not just the price of oil that is scaling fresh heights. Base metals are close to, or breaking, new records too. The Economist’s metals index, which tracks the prices of copper, lead, zinc, tin, aluminium and nickel, has risen to its highest level in nearly ten years. The prices of some metals have hit all-time highs lately.

Fuelled by China’s seemingly insatiable demand for raw materials and by investors’ desire for an easy profit, the price of copper is within sight of a 16-year high. Nickel is close to its January peak, which was also a 16-year record. And, at double its average level for the past ten years, the price of lead is higher than it has ever been. Unsurprisingly perhaps, the Reuters CRB index, which combines oil, metals and other commodities, has hit a 23-year high.

Some increases are easy to understand: given a shortage of supply and rampant demand, the price of anything can only go up. But how to explain aluminium’s inexorable rise? Last week, the metal reached its highest price for nine years, despite the fact that there was a stockpile of the stuff overhanging the London Metal Exchange. What is going on?

The easy answer is that, after years of under-investment by producers, particularly during the technology boom of the 1990s when most investors considered base metals dirt, the world has finally woken up to the fact that there are not enough raw materials to go round. With China’s economy growing like topsy—last year, its GDP expanded by 9.1%, and this year it is expected to grow by only slightly less—base metals are in demand as never before. In 2003, for example, China’s imports of copper jumped by 15% and those of nickel more than doubled. Until a couple of years ago, America was the world’s biggest consumer of copper, used in electrical wiring and the like. That changed in 2002 when, for the first time, China consumed more than America. Last year, China extended its lead by devouring 35% more than America.

China’s headlong growth has not only caused acute shortages of metals like copper and nickel (which is used, among other things, to make stainless steel and even types of glass). It has also increased the market’s sensitivity to upsets which during times of plenty would barely cause the price to flicker. Last week, the mere mention of a strike by workers at Codelco Norte, Chile’s state-owned mining group and the world’s largest producer of copper, caused prices to surge even higher because of fears that supplies would become shorter still.

Nickel has been in short supply for the past couple of years. The International Nickel Study Group, which represents producing countries, reckons that supply should come more into line with demand next year. So prices for delivery of nickel from 2005 may begin to soften. That is unlikely to be the case with aluminium and zinc, supplies of which could become scarcer still before they get better.

In the case of aluminium, this is partly because of industrial unrest in North America, which is threatening to disrupt supplies from at least two plants, one in the United States and the other in Canada. It is partly also because demand from manufacturers shows no signs of easing. Ingrid Sternby, a metals analyst at Barclays Capital, believes that the price of aluminium is likely to remain high for at least the next few years. “Even though car production and sales are slowing, there are other segments of the transport sector, like trucks and trailers, which are very strong,” she told Reuters news agency.

During previous booms in commodity prices, as in the 1980s, central banks jacked up interest rates in order to choke off demand and so stifle inflation. This time, argues Alan Williamson, a metals analyst with HSBC, things are likely to be different. There is, he says, more spare industrial capacity around the world than during previous metals booms, thanks partly to China’s rapid growth as an industrial power. The result is that the prices of base metals may stay higher for longer.

It is hard to predict the extent to which new mines and production facilities will come on stream because of higher prices and so increase the supply of metals, or how long it will take for that to happen. Many such facilities are small, and probably wouldn’t be viable at lower prices. Yet, taken together, they could add enough capacity to have a rapid effect on the market, says Mr Williamson.

Harder still to predict is the reaction of investors. Spotting what they saw to be a sure thing, many piled into the metals markets during the summer, in the hope of chasing prices higher still. In that they have been mostly successful. How much higher can prices go? Here, investors are split. Some think that worsening imbalances between supply and demand, as with aluminium and zinc, are likely to drive prices higher still. Others are convinced that some metals are poised for a fall. Indeed, as one analyst put it, the words “lemmings and cliff” come to mind.

Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) -- JPMorgan Chase & Co. raised its forecasts for the Canadian dollar on expectations the central bank will increase interest rates by the end of the year and after prices for its commodity exports rose.
The Bank of Canada lifted its benchmark rate Sept. 8 for the first time in 17 months and signaled it may increase borrowing costs further to keep inflation in check. Fifteen of 17 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News expect the bank to boost its rate a quarter point at its next scheduled chance on Oct. 19.

The market is still too cautious in how much it expects the Bank of Canada to hike interest rates,'' said Paul Meggyesi, a currency strategist with JPMorgan, in an interview from London. JPMorgan predicts the central bank will lift is main rate a quarter percentage point on Oct. 19 to 2.5 percent and to 4 percent by the end of September.

JPMorgan increased its forecast for the Canadian dollar to C$1.24 per U.S. dollar by the end of March from C$1.27, in a report to clients. It boosted its estimate for the end of June to C$1.27 from C$1.30 before. The Canadian dollar traded at C$1.2568 at 12:10 p.m. in London.

The big surprise to everyone's forecast has been the continued surge in oil prices,' Meggyesi said. As a commodity and energy exporter, Canada enjoys a current-account boost from any maintenance of high energy prices.'' JPMorgan is the fourth- largest trader in the daily $1.9-trillion currency market, according to an annual survey by Euromoney magazine.

Trade Surplus

Canada's trade surplus in July, the most recent month, was the third-highest on record, buoyed by a 1.9 percent increase in energy exports. Crude oil futures in New York have gained 66 percent this year.

The bank also cut its year-end forecast for the Swiss franc to 1.25 versus the dollar from 1.19. It now forecasts the franc at 1.23 a dollar by March 31, instead of 1.18, after lowering expectations for further interest-rate increases by the country's central bank. Switzerland's currency recently traded at 1.2496 per dollar.

JPMorgan expects the Swiss National Bank to lift its benchmark rate to 1.25 percent by March, down from its previous prediction of 1.5 percent. The rate is currently 0.75 percent.

Britain's currency may also decline on reduced expectations for central bank interest-rate increases, according to JPMorgan. The bank cut its forecast for the pound to $1.76 at the end of March, from $1.79. It projects the pound at $1.72 on June 30, compared with $1.74 previously.

The bank maintained its year-end forecast at $1.79. The pound was recently at $1.7995.

JPMorgan last week cut its forecasts for U.K. economic growth and the Bank of England's benchmark interest rate, after reports showed slowing growth in Britain's services industries and falling manufacturing production.

The U.K. central bank will keep its main interest rate at the current 4.75 percent through all of next year, JPMorgan predicts, after previously expecting a further increase in February to 5 percent.

The poll from the National Association For Business Economics, published on Monday, showed economists now expect U.S. gross domestic product to grow 4.3 percent, down from 4.7 percent in a survey conducted in May. Growth is then expected to slow to 3.7 percent during 2005.

That would still be an impressive rate by global standards, although analysts warn persistently high oil prices threaten to dent growth even further, as would any major terrorist attack.

Forecasters in the NABE survey predicted the price of a barrel of crude oil would drop from its current level of around $50 to $40 by year-end and $35 at the close of 2005.

If they are right, the economic impact of high oil prices should be muted. But with the energy price spike showing no sign of abating, analysts acknowledged that was a big ’if.’

“Certainly the possibility exists that we could be wrong,” said Carl Tannenbaum, chief economist at La Salle/ABN AMRO and one of the analysts responsible for compiling the findings.

“It’s very clear that energy has the potential to act as a tax on some of the components that we see in the GDP forecasts, consumer spending being chief among them,” he added.

Energy will also probably contribute to a pickup in inflation during 2005. Analysts looked for the consumer price index to close 2004 at a 3.1 percent year-on-year pace, and then cool to 2.3 percent next year.

By MARK GONGLOFF
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE

A flurry of data today formed a generally sunny picture of September's economy, but raised some warning flags about the months to come.

In the most important report, retail sales grew at a pace nearly double that expected by economists, more than erasing August's small decline. Robust demand for autos and auto parts, the strongest since October 2001, boosted sales. The bad news for auto makers, as General Motors demonstrated yesterday, was that aggressive incentives drew customers to auto lots, rather than widespread feelings of economic well-being. Still, business was also brisk at restaurants, clothing and general merchandise stores and electronics and appliance stores. A relentless chain of hurricanes boosted building-supply sales.

After that, the numbers got dicey. Output at the nation's factories, mines and power plants recovered, according to the Federal Reserve, but the gain missed Wall Street estimates and was driven entirely by utility output. Wholesale prices were also fairly benign in September, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said, but core producer prices, stripped of food and energy costs, were a bit higher than expected. Some economists are relieved that wholesale inflation hasn't made its way to consumers' wallets yet, but that may just mean producers will eat the higher costs.

And though strong retail sales could mean a boost to third-quarter gross domestic product, prices for gasoline and heating oil have climbed sharply since September, likely tempering consumer spending this month and, maybe, in the months to come. Though consumers don't always spend the way they feel, the University of Michigan's measure of consumer sentiment dropped sharply in the first half of October, well below forecasts. Finally, in what could be another early sign of an October soft spot, the New York Fed said its survey of factory activity in the Empire State slowed more than expected, with new orders, shipments, unfilled orders and employment all declining.

Также, советую прочитать обзоры и статьи, которые будут печататься на страничке www.omenus.ru/fx/analytics/articles.htm

Обновление статей проводится ЕЖЕДНЕВНО.

Текущий выпуск завершен. До встречи в субботу.

Всё что печатается в этой рассылке является или информацией из первоисточников со ссылками на них, или исключительно субъективным мнением автора.

Вопросы, критику, советы, и пожелания - посылайте на omenus@ukr.net

Успехов вам и здоровья!