Given Memorial Day, we must remember those forever loved, now lost, in the service of our Country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB2Ad04mukI
Monday, May 25, 2015
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Just last Monday, Fed Chair Yellen said equity prices are high. Yes, that seems to be a rational conclusion. After all, the S&P 500 P/E appears around 20, plus some change. Nonetheless, I hear that historically such a number isn't too high.
Reality is that in the past, even with equity bubbles, there was the prospect for increasing business propositions. Namely, the internet in early 2000's. A bubble occurred, popped and finally did realize a profound growth potential. Which by the way created super technology to create the banking bubble realized in 2008 with Lehman and others.
Now, banking is probably way too conservative on lending criteria. Yet they have to be to comply with capital requirements and the balancing of equity versus lending. That dynamic leads to stunted growth in capital development in business.
We also have a condition of net loss of jobs globally, due to automation. That obviously leads to a net loss of consumers. I've mentioned previously what Henry Ford did for his company, and the market, many decades ago.
Today, consumers remain as real as they did yesterday. So often, a corporation will automate a job once held by a human, to be replaced by a machine. Like I've said, the machine doesn't buy any products, while the human will ultimately by products, if not a Ford pickup.
To make sales, one needs buyers. Therein resides the difficulty of this present day economy. Corporate revenues, a.k.a sales, are flat to down. That does not simply imply a flat buyer of products, it screams a flat and down buyer of products.
O.K. I will play the game.....who the hell do you sell to when all jobs are gone.....How about selling to call center folks all day long. Thank God they can hire a plumber.
Tell you what, after lifting about a ton for exercise and running a few miles, there is nothing I adore more than a McDonald's hamburger and french fries. No ice cream, I save the appetite for meat and potatoes. I get my ice cream in the morning. If I wake up in time.
Reality is that in the past, even with equity bubbles, there was the prospect for increasing business propositions. Namely, the internet in early 2000's. A bubble occurred, popped and finally did realize a profound growth potential. Which by the way created super technology to create the banking bubble realized in 2008 with Lehman and others.
Now, banking is probably way too conservative on lending criteria. Yet they have to be to comply with capital requirements and the balancing of equity versus lending. That dynamic leads to stunted growth in capital development in business.
We also have a condition of net loss of jobs globally, due to automation. That obviously leads to a net loss of consumers. I've mentioned previously what Henry Ford did for his company, and the market, many decades ago.
Today, consumers remain as real as they did yesterday. So often, a corporation will automate a job once held by a human, to be replaced by a machine. Like I've said, the machine doesn't buy any products, while the human will ultimately by products, if not a Ford pickup.
To make sales, one needs buyers. Therein resides the difficulty of this present day economy. Corporate revenues, a.k.a sales, are flat to down. That does not simply imply a flat buyer of products, it screams a flat and down buyer of products.
O.K. I will play the game.....who the hell do you sell to when all jobs are gone.....How about selling to call center folks all day long. Thank God they can hire a plumber.
Tell you what, after lifting about a ton for exercise and running a few miles, there is nothing I adore more than a McDonald's hamburger and french fries. No ice cream, I save the appetite for meat and potatoes. I get my ice cream in the morning. If I wake up in time.
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Fed Did Talk Down the Dollar, But we are Bid Up All Other Assets
You got me. The Fed statements were....shall I say very dovish. In fact, I heard substantial commentary that the Fed came out unexpectedly dovish. My view is that the Fed talked down the dollar overall, with immediate market results. Perhaps the Fed took a page out of the ECB's play book, is what it looks like.
What disturbs me is how equities went wild on a fatter hog rally. Reality is, the Fed will not be pumping more cash into this system. The ECB will be pumping cash into the euro system. How does that cash translate into U.S. dollars given the current trade difference of currencies between euro and U.S. dollar? Not like it used to be.
People that make a living off this stuff will have to play the game. In the mean time, I recall Chair Yellen saying equities aren't BEYOND historical norms. Does it really take pricing beyond historical norms to prove a problem? Prevention of bubbles is the first teaching to learn. Second is deflate the apparent bubble in order to prevent an explosion.
Certainly a bubble was occurring with the U.S. dollar. That was talked down today by the Fed, and good work. That is the best thing I can take out of the historical message. Otherwise, it's bid up on other asset's high prices.
What disturbs me is how equities went wild on a fatter hog rally. Reality is, the Fed will not be pumping more cash into this system. The ECB will be pumping cash into the euro system. How does that cash translate into U.S. dollars given the current trade difference of currencies between euro and U.S. dollar? Not like it used to be.
People that make a living off this stuff will have to play the game. In the mean time, I recall Chair Yellen saying equities aren't BEYOND historical norms. Does it really take pricing beyond historical norms to prove a problem? Prevention of bubbles is the first teaching to learn. Second is deflate the apparent bubble in order to prevent an explosion.
Certainly a bubble was occurring with the U.S. dollar. That was talked down today by the Fed, and good work. That is the best thing I can take out of the historical message. Otherwise, it's bid up on other asset's high prices.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Where Will Markets be Upon Fed Remarks: Disappoint Equities and the Dollar
Tomorrow at 2:30 Eastern Time, the U.S. Federal Reserve will hold its press conference that will announce its monthly decision. This meeting is especially crucial due to whether the central bank will increase interest rates or not. Most particular in investor curiosity is guidance, or language of some sort. From the Fed suggesting when the inevitable rate increase will likely occur, to when it might not occur, are the signals. That is, will the interest rate increase happen this year or next, or this Spring or Fall. Also of note are indications of under what circumstances a rate increase might occur. These matters are of considerable import in bull/bear market debates.
Where the Fed has been using a word, being "patience", on their timing of increasing interest rates, market consensus is that the Fed will eliminate the word "patient" from their often elusive "message" to the markets. The entire question does reside in how the Fed fills the hole left behind from abandoning "patient". Does the Fed replace the idea of patience with "light this candle" and rush interest rates (unlikely, they look like s.m.art.). Or does the Fed say they are going on light throttle touching increases, to see how the ship flies. Or, do they speak with a big stick and walk lightly with a month to month review of interest rate increases. This approach would really be learning how to fly through this unprecedented valley of history.
Ultimately, given the rise in the U.S. dollar and the rise in U.S. equities, the Fed needs to disappoint both asset classes. Increases in the U.S. dollar have been untold for nearly a half century. The rise in U.S. equities produce a consensus regarding a needed correction of considerable depth outside of channel up trajectories. Look at IPO's (especially among technology companies), falling earnings projections, sustained stock pricing, and challenges to revenue quality.
Small capitalization stocks see a weakness as well. How many services do these small cap companies offer to the employees of big capitalization companies? Or, how many services do these small caps offer to the big caps? Or, how many small caps are looking to be acquired by a big cap? These are drip down feelings for small caps, if big caps get hit too hard with our global environment.
To further make the point, for a big cap company to appropriately acquire a small cap, a condition of health should exist in the big cap. Consequently, a disturbing condition would occur should a big cap start acquiring small caps to help hide global weakness produced by dollar strength and declining global demand. By the way, dollar strength and weakening global demand are trends that don't look very transitory, unless the Fed acts to arrest the dynamic in some fashion.
Looking at actual influences on Fed decision making, perhaps a look at the last CPI data will help on perspective.
Strongest perspective is to say that while the headline CPI from the BLS for January, last reported on February 26, 2015 was -.7%, and for the year ending January it was down -.1%. But the story isn't over. Food for the months of July to last December held a run rate of price increase in the area of .3% to .2% and found a flat .0% in January, 2015. Overall, for the 12 months ending this last January, the rate of price increase for food resulted in 3.2%, well above a 2% Fed mandate. Out side of energy, most elements of the CPI increased more than 2% for the 12 months ending January. The increases beyond the Fed's 2% inflation mandate are:
Home food ending 12 months January increasing 3.2%.
Away food ending 12 months January increasing 3.1%.
Medical care commodities (same period) 3.9%
Shelter (same period) 2.9%
Transportation services (same period) 2.1%
Medical care services (same period) 2.3%
How about this versus petroleum, natural
gas and coal 's substantial decline: (shocked by this)
Electricity (same period) 2.5% (increase)
Keep in mind, energy in general has declined over the last year from 20% to 35%, depending on products. The meaning to be taken is that petroleum prices are essentially the only element that prevents the Fed from exceeding its inflation target of 2%. Last Fed meeting, Chair warned of "transitory" energy prices...meaning petroleum and gas. These two elements are children on the play ground of where the reality exists.
I've heard every day for the last 3 months about a bottom for petroleum, or no bottom. Petroleum is in a transitory dynamic driven by its own market cycle, which is a new cycle given U.S. production. Consequently, petroleum's influence on inflation can, and will, change based on that sector's response to the market.
These facts show the importance of the service industry in the U.S. and its association with the real U.S. economy. Looking at BEA reports, services in the U.S. have exceeded goods in sales by about 50%. Further, most of the above GDP areas that are exceeding 2% inflation are service industry related. Consequently, most of the U.S. economy is motoring above 2% inflation. It's only when one factors in giant drops in petroleum that one sees a muted disinflationary environment. Taking out the oil influence, the U.S. is experiencing a level of inflation generally well above the target of 2%.
Why oil is transitory are common and daily debates on where, when, who and at what consequence any price of oil will be realized. These debates could finally be realized on the side of inevitable market stabilization. Any stabilization will probably be increasing petroleum costs, that add to existing inflation that already exists through other areas of the economy. Overshooting the target by the Fed is their risk at this point. After all, petroleum is going through a cycle that will be self-correcting by its own giant market, without the Fed raising or lowering rates.
Where Fed Chair Yellen mentioned transitory energy prices in terms of interest rates, it appears real. Tomorrow's announcement seems to be setting up to be more aggressive than just removing the word patient. More like, see how the motor works on an aircraft never having reached this elevation.
Reality is, the U.S. dollar needs to be disappointed by "not enough", equities need to be disappointed by "too much", and bonds need to hold ground by warming up to their month long yield increases. At least until the Fed's next review of circumstances. Perhaps, if the buck gets talked down a little, with enough doubt on movement, equities will perhaps respond. Bonds can be let down at their choosing in their own confusion. Let's see how it plays out.
Where the Fed has been using a word, being "patience", on their timing of increasing interest rates, market consensus is that the Fed will eliminate the word "patient" from their often elusive "message" to the markets. The entire question does reside in how the Fed fills the hole left behind from abandoning "patient". Does the Fed replace the idea of patience with "light this candle" and rush interest rates (unlikely, they look like s.m.art.). Or does the Fed say they are going on light throttle touching increases, to see how the ship flies. Or, do they speak with a big stick and walk lightly with a month to month review of interest rate increases. This approach would really be learning how to fly through this unprecedented valley of history.
Ultimately, given the rise in the U.S. dollar and the rise in U.S. equities, the Fed needs to disappoint both asset classes. Increases in the U.S. dollar have been untold for nearly a half century. The rise in U.S. equities produce a consensus regarding a needed correction of considerable depth outside of channel up trajectories. Look at IPO's (especially among technology companies), falling earnings projections, sustained stock pricing, and challenges to revenue quality.
Small capitalization stocks see a weakness as well. How many services do these small cap companies offer to the employees of big capitalization companies? Or, how many services do these small caps offer to the big caps? Or, how many small caps are looking to be acquired by a big cap? These are drip down feelings for small caps, if big caps get hit too hard with our global environment.
To further make the point, for a big cap company to appropriately acquire a small cap, a condition of health should exist in the big cap. Consequently, a disturbing condition would occur should a big cap start acquiring small caps to help hide global weakness produced by dollar strength and declining global demand. By the way, dollar strength and weakening global demand are trends that don't look very transitory, unless the Fed acts to arrest the dynamic in some fashion.
Looking at actual influences on Fed decision making, perhaps a look at the last CPI data will help on perspective.
Strongest perspective is to say that while the headline CPI from the BLS for January, last reported on February 26, 2015 was -.7%, and for the year ending January it was down -.1%. But the story isn't over. Food for the months of July to last December held a run rate of price increase in the area of .3% to .2% and found a flat .0% in January, 2015. Overall, for the 12 months ending this last January, the rate of price increase for food resulted in 3.2%, well above a 2% Fed mandate. Out side of energy, most elements of the CPI increased more than 2% for the 12 months ending January. The increases beyond the Fed's 2% inflation mandate are:
Home food ending 12 months January increasing 3.2%.
Away food ending 12 months January increasing 3.1%.
Medical care commodities (same period) 3.9%
Shelter (same period) 2.9%
Transportation services (same period) 2.1%
Medical care services (same period) 2.3%
How about this versus petroleum, natural
gas and coal 's substantial decline: (shocked by this)
Electricity (same period) 2.5% (increase)
Keep in mind, energy in general has declined over the last year from 20% to 35%, depending on products. The meaning to be taken is that petroleum prices are essentially the only element that prevents the Fed from exceeding its inflation target of 2%. Last Fed meeting, Chair warned of "transitory" energy prices...meaning petroleum and gas. These two elements are children on the play ground of where the reality exists.
I've heard every day for the last 3 months about a bottom for petroleum, or no bottom. Petroleum is in a transitory dynamic driven by its own market cycle, which is a new cycle given U.S. production. Consequently, petroleum's influence on inflation can, and will, change based on that sector's response to the market.
These facts show the importance of the service industry in the U.S. and its association with the real U.S. economy. Looking at BEA reports, services in the U.S. have exceeded goods in sales by about 50%. Further, most of the above GDP areas that are exceeding 2% inflation are service industry related. Consequently, most of the U.S. economy is motoring above 2% inflation. It's only when one factors in giant drops in petroleum that one sees a muted disinflationary environment. Taking out the oil influence, the U.S. is experiencing a level of inflation generally well above the target of 2%.
Why oil is transitory are common and daily debates on where, when, who and at what consequence any price of oil will be realized. These debates could finally be realized on the side of inevitable market stabilization. Any stabilization will probably be increasing petroleum costs, that add to existing inflation that already exists through other areas of the economy. Overshooting the target by the Fed is their risk at this point. After all, petroleum is going through a cycle that will be self-correcting by its own giant market, without the Fed raising or lowering rates.
Where Fed Chair Yellen mentioned transitory energy prices in terms of interest rates, it appears real. Tomorrow's announcement seems to be setting up to be more aggressive than just removing the word patient. More like, see how the motor works on an aircraft never having reached this elevation.
Reality is, the U.S. dollar needs to be disappointed by "not enough", equities need to be disappointed by "too much", and bonds need to hold ground by warming up to their month long yield increases. At least until the Fed's next review of circumstances. Perhaps, if the buck gets talked down a little, with enough doubt on movement, equities will perhaps respond. Bonds can be let down at their choosing in their own confusion. Let's see how it plays out.
Monday, February 23, 2015
Markets Now Seem Risk On, But Fundamentals Have Not changed
Did you see that market reversal? It looked so bearish, but then there was a complete pattern change. How about that. Once oil stopped its fall, everything went risk on. While I absolutely agree that American innovation is at work every day, I can't agree that the American company is an island unto itself.
The American consumer is proving tepid, except with, of all things, SUV cars. I like any vehicle with a wide foot print and a comparatively low profile. I like this feature for safety reasons. That really limits my options to a couple of companies.
Looking at the chart of the U.S dollar, we can see stability. Take a look:
From oil and the U.S. dollar, compare high risk assets, such as high yielding bonds:
We do have a risk on attitude. My posit is that two causative points exist for a rally in risk on assets. First, and for some reason, a bottom in oil has been thought to be found. Excluding fires and strikes, the fundamentals have not changed in oil. Where gas pricing can be seasonal, the fundamentals also have not changed. Even if SUV sales increased, reality is this idea of "subprime" vehicle loans. Frank reality is, versus the real estate market, those vehicles get repossessed over night and sold the next day. Second is why not buy in a bull market where any news is good news, despite U.S. multiples advancing on stock pricing.
Confusing the issue is the drop in U.S. treasury values. Stated otherwise, the spike in U.S. treasury yields. Look at the 10 year:
Any person with a conscience can see that rise in the 10 year yield, which means a drop in the price of the 10 year U.S. Treasury Bond, is a whole bunch really fast, despite trends and changes in fundamentals.
The guard to put up now is despite no real change in economic fundamentals over the last month, one should become cautious. This looks so much like a strange head fake to be caught on an over-head cross punch, if you've ever boxed. Maybe not. But look at the fundamentals.
Looking at currency markets, we are seeing in equity and debt markets, what I think is a bull's head bounce on risk assets, not a real issue that will deviate from stronger cross market trends. I could certainly be wrong.
Always remember, I offer opinions only, no investment advise. For investment advise, learn from ideas and ask of the person holding your money.
Saturday, February 7, 2015
Reality of Markets, Look at European sustainability
Equity markets were down today. I don't like to say bearish chart patterns might be gaining more conformation. If you please, see yesterday's post on this space.
I must, however, notice fundamental data. Germany"s industrial production disappointed by showing a December number of advancing .1% v. an expectation of .5%. Year over year, Germany's industrial production is down -.4%. Combine this with CPI data from Germany, and a point should be evident.
Today, France showed a growing trade deficit for December, despite a persistent decline in their currency, being the euro. France's trade deficit actually grew in December by 3.4B euro. But, to be intellectually honest, I must explain that France grew in exports by 1.8%, and this does reflect a 5th rimonth of continued gains. France needs that. But France also shows a 2.6% rise in imports. I have key chains France might like.
United Kingdom (England), similarly showed a merchandise trade (balance of trade) number of -10.2B sterling. Anticipation was only -9.1B euro.
We need to see this data for what it is. Essentially for me, I was surprised that my chart patterns proved out today. Now, more data must be considered. Any reader of this internet, or mobile communication space, must become astute and self responsible.
I write opinions. Which, in the course of how opinions develop, need to be challenged. I have to welcome all thoughts, ideas and people that want to review the previously spoken....If there is something to be said, bring it, my friend. I will treat you with respect, dignity and I will try to answer any question.
I must, however, notice fundamental data. Germany"s industrial production disappointed by showing a December number of advancing .1% v. an expectation of .5%. Year over year, Germany's industrial production is down -.4%. Combine this with CPI data from Germany, and a point should be evident.
Today, France showed a growing trade deficit for December, despite a persistent decline in their currency, being the euro. France's trade deficit actually grew in December by 3.4B euro. But, to be intellectually honest, I must explain that France grew in exports by 1.8%, and this does reflect a 5th rimonth of continued gains. France needs that. But France also shows a 2.6% rise in imports. I have key chains France might like.
United Kingdom (England), similarly showed a merchandise trade (balance of trade) number of -10.2B sterling. Anticipation was only -9.1B euro.
We need to see this data for what it is. Essentially for me, I was surprised that my chart patterns proved out today. Now, more data must be considered. Any reader of this internet, or mobile communication space, must become astute and self responsible.
I write opinions. Which, in the course of how opinions develop, need to be challenged. I have to welcome all thoughts, ideas and people that want to review the previously spoken....If there is something to be said, bring it, my friend. I will treat you with respect, dignity and I will try to answer any question.
Friday, February 6, 2015
Market Volatility: A View on Markets, Based on Bonds and Charts
Obvious for markets today is the volatility associated with price movements. My first exhibit is this chart of the S&P 500, which looks rather "whipsaw" in fashion:
Evident from the chart is how the S&P has went up and down in fast gyrations. Such movement would certainly dissuade me from having any association with this market at first glance. Yet, as one can see, a range has been set. Second observation is that a chart pattern might be proving itself. If one opens the chart, today's high of the S&P remains lower than the last high. The last high was on January 22 at 2063, today's high, on February 5, reached only 2062. That sets into place a bearish descending triangle pattern, given two essentially equal lower price points of 1992 on January 15 and January 30. One can argue a third horizontal price point on January 6 at 1992 on the lower end of the candle.
Such a set up tends to portend rather bearish. Same can be said for the Nasdaq, but not as technically precise, here's a look:
Nasdaq reveals also a falling triangle pattern. Open the screen up and one can see more clearly...being falling highs for the Nasdaq, with a February 5 close at 4,765 versus its previous high on January 26 of 4,771. Add to this the nearly equitable triple bottom of December 16, January 6 and January 16, and we have a close to perfect descending triangle.
By themselves, no one can rely on but a few chart patterns to see the tea leaves. Reality is that the Dow can look rather bullish. A cautionary tail for all stocks is the out-performance of Disney for the Dow and Apple for the S&P, and certainly for the technology space.
Consequently, I have to visit the VIX to gain a better understanding. Let's see:
What I see are higher lows and lower highs. In the chartist's form of understanding, and if I'm not mistaken, this looks to be a defining form of a bullish symmetrical triangle. Meaning the VIX could go up, based on chart patterns. When the VIX goes up, stocks go down.
Charting, I suppose, is based mostly on past behavior that has proven itself reasonably reliable over time. The question raised by that proposition is how reasonable. I looked for other indicators to spell out this issue.
I couldn't help but notice the yields for short term U.S. treasuries. Those yields have been resiliently high in anticipation of an increase in short term interest rates by the Fed, and have helped to flatten the yield curve. Because of this, we need to look at the charts and see what they say. Right below is a chart of the 5 year U.S. Treasury:
Next below is the 10 year U.S. bond, which really provides a baseline, being longer term, this chart provides dimension for our next diagrams:
Did you see the progressing drop in yield of the 10 year U.S. Treasury bond over 2014. In 2014, money liked the idea of low yield and safety. Most noted, however, is the drop in the 10 year yield at the start of 2015, steep. Does that drop in yield betray a deeper issue, perhaps of global implications?
This 10 year U.S. Treasury yield countervails, but eventually meets, sentiment in short term treasuries. Let's look again at the 5 year U.S. bond:
One can see how the five year treasury bond held its yield so well through 2014, but sacrificed so much ground at the start of this year. What do you suppose made the 5 year treasury lose so much yield? Or, stated otherwise, gain so much in value nearly over a month?
This question is confirmed in its need for an answer by taking a gander at the U.S. Treasury 2 year, we need to see:
This 2 year treasury bond increased in yield through 2014 like nobody's business. Only in the stock market "correction" of October, 2014 did it break its trajectory. Now, it has once more broken its trajectory.
My observation is that short term treasury yields fall when, in the short term, economic prospects look weak, safety is needed, and uncertainty exists. Such prospects result in a later than expected increase in rates by the Fed. Further, such increases in the price of short term treasuries typically are associated with stock market weakness. But, it is here that we are witnessing a divergence. Despite short term treasuries breaking their trend line, stocks are simply too volatile to touch.
Viewing treasury bond activity along with the activity in the stock exchanges, and VIX signals, one can expect a decline in markets. In fact, tomorrow will tell if the chart patterns for stock exchange indexes such as S&P and NASDAQ get further confirmation, or lost. The chart pattern for the VIX looks disturbingly resilient.
Overall, fundamentals need to be noticed, and these fundamentals seem to be leading indicators based on short term treasury yields.
Charting, I suppose, is based mostly on past behavior that has proven itself reasonably reliable over time. The question raised by that proposition is how reasonable. I looked for other indicators to spell out this issue.
I couldn't help but notice the yields for short term U.S. treasuries. Those yields have been resiliently high in anticipation of an increase in short term interest rates by the Fed, and have helped to flatten the yield curve. Because of this, we need to look at the charts and see what they say. Right below is a chart of the 5 year U.S. Treasury:
Next below is the 10 year U.S. bond, which really provides a baseline, being longer term, this chart provides dimension for our next diagrams:
This 10 year U.S. Treasury yield countervails, but eventually meets, sentiment in short term treasuries. Let's look again at the 5 year U.S. bond:
One can see how the five year treasury bond held its yield so well through 2014, but sacrificed so much ground at the start of this year. What do you suppose made the 5 year treasury lose so much yield? Or, stated otherwise, gain so much in value nearly over a month?
This question is confirmed in its need for an answer by taking a gander at the U.S. Treasury 2 year, we need to see:
This 2 year treasury bond increased in yield through 2014 like nobody's business. Only in the stock market "correction" of October, 2014 did it break its trajectory. Now, it has once more broken its trajectory.
My observation is that short term treasury yields fall when, in the short term, economic prospects look weak, safety is needed, and uncertainty exists. Such prospects result in a later than expected increase in rates by the Fed. Further, such increases in the price of short term treasuries typically are associated with stock market weakness. But, it is here that we are witnessing a divergence. Despite short term treasuries breaking their trend line, stocks are simply too volatile to touch.
Viewing treasury bond activity along with the activity in the stock exchanges, and VIX signals, one can expect a decline in markets. In fact, tomorrow will tell if the chart patterns for stock exchange indexes such as S&P and NASDAQ get further confirmation, or lost. The chart pattern for the VIX looks disturbingly resilient.
Overall, fundamentals need to be noticed, and these fundamentals seem to be leading indicators based on short term treasury yields.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)