Okay, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this session, and to those who are viewing online, welcome. We have the rare privilege of being with Dr. Mario Molina, who won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for discovering the causes of the ozone hole, and he actually discovered the causes of the ozone hole before the ozone hole appeared. And welcome, Dr. Molina. I have the privilege of calling Dr. Molina a friend, and his esposa, Guadalupe, is here. And so let me briefly start at the beginning. As a small boy growing up in Mexico, Mexico City, what led you to build a little chemistry lab in a closet in your home? I was fascinated with science since I was a boy, nine, ten years old. And perhaps the way that started that I like to read, I was reading novels, pirates and so on, but eventually came across biographies of scientists. And so that somehow I found that extremely interesting. So I began to play with chemistry sets and things like that, but then took it more and more seriously. So it was just fascinating. You had an aunt who was a chemist, right? That's right. And so once she found out this descent, being a chemist, that I like to do experiments, then she started to work with me. And I was about eleven, twelve years old at most. And we started doing the experiments that first-year college students were doing. Much more interesting than chemistry. At age eleven. So that was very nice. And then your path through the educational establishment, you were a distinguished student all along the way, and it took you to Germany, to Freberg, right? That's right. The center of chemistry. That's right. I was trying to get the graduate studies. I just got a master's in Germany, but I decided to actually do it in the United States. Part of the reason is my studies were in chemical engineering, actually, because physical chemistry was not well-established in Mexico at that time. And I realized I would have a better chance to sort of widen my studies in the United States. And that turned out to be the case. I certainly learned a lot in Germany, but the American system is more flexible. And you had the good fortune of working with the late Dr. Sherwood Rowland. That's right. That came later. My PhD I did with George Pimentel, who was a wonderful mentor and also an expert on education. But I was just doing basic science at that time. And then with Sherwood Rowland, I started to work after finishing my PhD. We were both doing fundamental science, and we both decided let's do something more applied, say atmospheric chemistry. How do we go about it? Let's find a problem, some interesting problem that would teach us about the atmosphere. And that's how we chose this question, what happens to these industrial compounds that are accumulating in the atmosphere? So in 1974, you and Sherwood Rowland jointly authored, published a paper that served as a warning to the world that a particular family of industrial chemical compounds, chlorofluorocarbons, were changing the chemistry in the stratosphere by eating up the stratosphere ozone. That's right. And that resulted in not a lot of public notice, but the industry group that was making a lot of money from these chemicals actually started going after you and Dr. Rowland, correct? That's correct. What started out as a curiosity question, what happens to these compounds ended up with an environmental issue. We were not environmentalists at that time, Sherwood and myself. And the industry thought, well, this is just speculation. We're not going to change our manufacture of these chemicals just based on the theory and so on. And we sort of agreed that we had a hypothesis at that time, and that we had to work with the scientific community to better establish it. And that's what happened. Some of that science was in fact funded by industry. And then the money was cut off. And Dr. Rowland was at a more advanced point in his life and his career. So he was more visible, but he started being disinvited from conferences. Here's what happens. At that time, it was not sort of fashionable, I would say, for a scientist to publish a newspaper. So even to appear, it was something that was seen as in poor taste, that your work should be something known to society. But of course, now, fortunately, things have changed. If you have something to say that can help society and so on, it is perfectly advisable to do that. But not in the academic world at that time, that that's sort of surprising. But Sherry and I did a very conscious, took a very conscious step. Look, we know we have this pressure to let somebody else worry about it, some environmental organizations. But that was not the case. We decided we had to do it ourselves and we had to do it at that time, because of the responsibility we thought we had. Yeah. In a very different way, at a young age, when I was exposed to Roger Ravel's science in the 1960s, showing the impact of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, I had the same impression of somebody's going to take care of this, if this is how this works. And then when I went to Congress, I organized the first hearing and asked Dr. Ravel to be the leadoff witness. And I thought they would, my colleagues would have the same epiphany that I had had. And there was in the current phrase crickets. No reaction. And over a period of time, I came to the conclusion, oh, my gosh, I've got to do something about that. That's right. Yeah. But something happened in your case. Something happened with global warming, too, with the extreme weather events. But in the case of ozone depletion, in 1986, in Antarctica, the Americans and the British and some others, but the two large science facilities there at that time, at least, were the Americans and the British. And the British were looking up at the atmosphere and all of a sudden, there was no ozone. That's right.  And the British said, are you seeing this? And the Americans said, no, what? And they explained it. And then they went back and undid the programming. Oh, no. And it was a global emergency. Right. So, and it was an emergency because the ozone in the stratosphere is confusing because ozone at the low levels is kind of smogging. You don't want it. But at the, in the stratosphere, we got to have it because it filters out ultraviolet radiation and that filter makes life on Earth possible. That's right. That's right. So, when the alarm bells went off, first just a brief discussion of the mechanics, here's my understanding of it, which comes from you and Sherry. This problem occurred in Antarctica because the air above the ice mass two to three kilometers high, so cold, ice crystals form much higher in the atmosphere, so far so good. So far so good. Okay. So the mechanism that you discovered required a number of elements, ice crystals on the surface of which ozone and the chlorofluorocarbons mix and the chlorofluorocarbons destroy the ozone. But the other element needed is sunlight. That's right. To catalyze the reaction. But in Antarctica, it's six months of darkness, six months of light. So during the darkness, the circular wind patterns above Antarctica form a kind of a whirlpool that creates a kind of a bowl, if you will. That's right. Where the ice crystals are held in place. And then in the middle of September, when the first rays of the sun strike above the South Pole, it starts that catalytic reaction and the CFCs eat up all the ozone. That's right. Yes. But then after the heat from the sun is absorbed for two, three months, then the warmer, slightly warmer temperatures break up the wind and the bowl falls apart. That's right. And the depleted, the air depleted of ozone starts spreading to the higher latitudes. Correct so far? It's correct. Yes. Okay. Go ahead. The only thing I would add is that it was all surprising that the expert in the scientific community, most of them except a few chemists like ourselves, they thought this had to be a natural phenomenon. It was too big. Sort of like they think global warming has to be a natural. Exactly. But we were able to work with the community to design experiments that involve this ER2 that used to be the U2 spy plane flying over Antarctica and making measurements that were definitive. It was very clear the science became just like a smoking gun. It had to be the chlorine coming from the CFCs. And the chemistry with the ice crystals and so had not been, was not known before. So that's additional work we did in our labs to really understand the nature of these sort of strange chemical reactions. So it all fell into place and so the science became a very strong component. So the world community, here we have the first crisis of the global atmosphere. Right. Global warming is the second crisis of the global atmosphere. They have a lot of things in common. Right. The atmosphere is so thin, our visceral impression when we walk outside this building and look up at the sky, is that the sky is a vast and limitless expanse. But the pictures from space make clear that it's a very thin shell around the earth. That's right. I make the analogies like the skin of an apple. Okay. But this was the first time that society realized that it was possible through human activities to have not just environmental consequences that was already known some years before, but really consequences on a global scale. It didn't matter who was emitting these chemicals. But there were not many people in Antarctica. That's right. We were very lucky. We were very lucky. But I remember from my college days they used to have these things called lava lamps. And the ozone-depleted air is a little bit like those bubbles in lava lamps and they started coming up over Patagonia and Australia. Right. And some populations began to be threatened. That's right. But in terms of the science, it became possible to actually see the effects on life on the oceans surrounding Antarctica. But perhaps the most important component of this was to validate the science because the projections that had society continued to release these chemicals, then we would have effects at many other latitudes as well. And that's what we were able to stop. I went fly fishing in Patagonia not too long ago and the guides there say they started encountering blind trout in the streams. So that's possible. That's one of the effects. Occasionally the ozone hole moves over the southern part of South America and so that begins to be dangerous for people as well. But if it hadn't been addressed, it would have progressed to the point where this dangerous UV radiation would threaten life in all of the populated areas of the world. That's right. At least the projections where the skin cancer would have increased a lot. But if we really had done nothing, recent studies, we were not daring to do those initially. But recent studies tell us we would have a disaster nowadays because it's such an important component of the atmosphere that climate would also be highly disrupted. So we know that we had really a crisis. Fortunately, we know it can be solved. And the world's political community reacted. That's right. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan among them. And there was a meeting in Montreal in 1987, only one year after this discovery, because they were able to take your scientific work that had been done a decade and a half earlier and fully understand exactly what the problem was. As soon as the emergency alarm bells went off, they said, oh, Dr. Molina has told us how this works. So we have to eliminate these chemicals. Right, right, right. The first step was just to eliminate half the industrial production and all the countries of the planet agreed. But with the science becoming so clear, the second step was to eliminate the production entirely, except allowing for developing countries a few additional years. But that's really a success story. First, there were the industry initially was worried that it was going to be a huge economic crisis that we're going to lose jobs. None of that happened. Society was able to find other chemicals. We still use spray cans, refrigerators, and so on, but with compounds that do not harm the ozone layer. So society is quite capable of addressing these sort of issues. But it would not have happened. It would not happen without this international agreement, the Montreal Protocol, which is a very important president. And there are a lot of lessons that come out of it. I was in the United States Senate at that point in my career and sponsored the push to the ratification of that treaty. And I remember when so many in the environmental community said, oh, this is not enough. It's only half. And it doesn't really solve the problem. And they were right about that. But once the process of adjustment began in governments and in business, then they found pathways to go farther. Just three years later in London, 1990, there was another treaty to go even farther. Exactly. They got strung further and further. But now we have the second crisis of global atmosphere. So one of the lessons of the first crisis is that these compounds, the volume was not that large, was it? But actually, one way to think about this, chlorine is a trace gas, a gas found in very small percentages in the atmosphere. But with a family of chemicals that were not invented until the 1930s and not used in any significant way until after World War II, within a few decades, this human activity was able to change the global composition of the atmosphere by magnifying the presence of chlorine six times over, six or seven times. Am I right about that? Well, it's even more what we call a catalytic effect is that the single chlorine atom coming from a molecule, a free molecule, as it was called by the point at that time, the single chlorine atom is recycled. So it can destroy tens of thousands of fossil molecules. That's why we have this huge amplification factor. But it's something commonly known in industry, catalysis. But the very important message is that the environment is vulnerable and it doesn't take much for human activities to do a lot of damage. We've been lucky, we have been identifying some of those possibilities, but it's not that like many people think, oh, the atmosphere is so big or the planet is so robust that we cannot do anything. No, it's so clear that the activities of mankind have already changed the landscape enormously. So we have to be very aware of that. Before asking you to apply the lessons of this drama to the second crisis of the global atmosphere, I want to share briefly for the business people in the room a story about what happened in Montreal with the business community. One of the members of the host committee in Montreal was the chairman of the largest user of fluorocarbons for the cleaning of circuit boards. It was in spray cans, refrigerants, clean circuit boards. And I know about it because his company had facilities in my home state of Tennessee. And he said, we're going to be the first company to completely eliminate these chemicals. And that was followed by applause until the following Monday morning he went to his business and met with his engineers and they said they had long faces. And they told him, we have no idea how to do this. And they searched and searched for substitutes and they couldn't find them. But the business leader kept the pressure on. It's the right thing to do. We're going to do it. How can we do it? And then one day, one of his engineers asked a brand new question. We used these to clean circuit boards. He said, how do the circuit boards get dirty in the first place? And that led to an initiative in which they redesigned the entire process starting to use clean rooms. They named it the no clean process. And guess what? The circuit boards produced were cheaper and better, improved the company's competitive position, improved their profits, and then he went further. He said, we're going to donate the patents to this new process to all of our competitors so that the entire industry can make this change. What a great success story. So now, just as the atmosphere is vulnerable to this one family of chemicals, it's also vulnerable when we change the chemical composition to the point where much more heat is trapped in the earth system. We're putting 110 million tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere every day. And our global policy is the atmosphere, it's an open sewer free for you to use it. Just dump all your waste there. But actually, that's not a good thing to do. Not at all. Here again, what is surprising is the amplification factor because carbon dioxide makes less than a quarter of a percent of the atmosphere. So it's also a trace gas. But what is very well established by science, fundamental science, what we teach in graduate school the first year or even in high school is that that small amount of carbon dioxide coupled with water vapor as a feedback is responsible for changing the surface temperature of the planet by 33 degrees centigrade without the so-called natural greenhouse effect. We would not be here. Okay, so if the atmosphere were really clean without this gas, we would be frozen. So the natural greenhouse effect is essential to life. That's right. That's why they call the earth the Goldilocks planet. We don't have too little like Mars or too much like Venus. We have just the right amount and life as we know, including humans, has evolved, developed, appeared, been created in these precise conditions. But the point is that's well understood. That's a natural atmosphere. So it's not all that surprising. If we have now 40 or 50 percent more of this gas, that the climate should do something.  No, it's very vulnerable. And this is just a very good example of which follows from the basic science. And the effect of trapping enough extra heat each day to be the equivalent of the heat energy released by 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs going off every day. It's a big planet, but that's a big effect, isn't it? It is. It certainly is, of course. And it not only raises temperatures, it disrupts the water cycle. That's right. And what is again very important to be aware of is how vulnerable the planet is for the climate, because changing just one or two degrees appears to not to be very much. But we have all these extreme climate events. Things begin to change in society, but the human society has evolved particularly in the holos in the last 10,000 years with a very stable climate. So if we suddenly get these changes, it's just very damaging, very costly for society. And we're not longer just talking about what will happen at the end of the century. As you pointed out in your presentation, it's already happening. You can see all these things. It's already happening. In Malawi this week, 200,000 refugees from this huge downpour right in the bread basket of Malawi's agricultural production. So all of the work to build up sustainable agriculture there and to help them get a better quality of life, what a setback. And this is happening all over the world now. Yes. And from the science perspective, scientists are very cautious. So until just a few years ago, they were not quite sure. They were not stating very clearly whether these extreme events were connected with climate change, always acknowledging the possibility. But in the last few years, there has been a lot of additional research. What is very clear is that there is a statistical connection. You cannot tell for sure that any particular flood or event was caused by climate change, but that its intensity was increased. That's very likely. And so that's what's happening. We know that these events are happening much more frequently than they were happening before. And if we did not, you told us what would have happened if we did not address the ozone depletion problem. What would happen if we did not address the climate, the global warming problem? Here is a point. Let me first stress the scientific community. The consensus is practically everybody agrees more than 97% according to service. Over the last year, incidentally, 99.99% of all peer-reviewed papers. Well, they agree climate is changing. That's now even Congress agree with that. No, no, no. That it's changing. That it's changing. But scandalously, a majority of the United States Senate voted this week to say that human beings have nothing to do with global warming. That's why I was stating they agree. Finally, it's changing, but they don't agree that it's human. Well, maybe, you know, Upton Sinclair wrote 100 years ago in my country, it's difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon him not understanding it. You could modify the phrase to say it's difficult to get a senator to understand something if his campaign contributions depend upon him not understanding it. That's right. But here's a point that perhaps complicates things a little bit. Even though the science is that certain, climate is a complex system. So what science can not tell us for sure is how will the system respond if we continue with these emissions? Not in not in detail, but we can certainly talk about probabilities and the concept of risk is crucial here. So what the scientific community basically agrees is that there is a very significant risk that if we do nothing, we will cause enormous damage and economic with economic consequences that are huge and so on. If we're very lucky, maybe not that much would happen. But we're talking about a one in five, one in 10 probability that we will have huge disasters. Sort of like playing Russian roulette. One chamber in six has a loaded bullet. Yeah. Who of you would have flown here to Switzerland if they tell you the plane you're about to fly with? Oh, it has a mechanical failure. But don't worry. There's only a one in 10 probability that you won't make it. Actually, Johan Rockstrom and his colleague have this exhibit out here that shows that even at present concentrations of CO2, there's a 1.6% chance of a six degree centigrade raise. If you applied that to the airline industry, it would mean that several hundred jumbo jets would go down every week. That's right. CNN would be catatonic. We're still looking for the one. God rest their souls. Take the lessons from the ozone depletion crisis and again, apply them. You were able to overcome the resistance of industry. At first, they persecuted you and Sherry, particularly Sherry. But then when the crisis was so obvious, they had to acknowledge it, they said, okay, we'll do what we need to do to adapt. That's in the process of happening now with global warming. But the industry group with CFCs was pretty small as part of the global economy. That's correct, yes. 85% of all our energy in the world comes from carbon-based fuels. But here's a very big difference. Because energy is such an important component of economic growth and so on. It's so pervasive, the problem is much more complicated. But there's an additional factor that came into play with the politics, because climate change became politicized. And that's because there were interest groups very cleverly, with a lot of investment, but they managed to manipulate the media just like with the tobacco industry. So that's why there is a perception in the public in general, oh, that it's not so well-established. Some scientists think it's this way, but many other things it's really not something to worry about. That's really a myth. It's a misconception. The second myth is that even if we acknowledge it's a problem, it will be so costly. Forget it. No, working with economists, it's clearly very much cheaper to address a problem than not to address it. And it's surprisingly cheap if we do it cleverly in a creative way, because we can build the infrastructure needed to use energy without such a huge carbon. And we can create a lot of jobs in the process. That's right. And we'll be able to tell our children we didn't destroy their future. Exactly. And there were a couple of forums here in Davos pointing that very clearly. On the other hand, in most boardrooms, it's not quite yet recognized as a significant change. Now, you now spend a lot of your time trying to lead the scientific community in efforts to communicate clearly about global warming. What website can people go to to get the report you wrote for the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, AAAS? Yeah, it's a AAAS website. The document Mario pulled together and drafted is called What We Know. Is that right? You're working on another one now. It's the best summation of the scientific evidence. I read them all that I can find. It's the best one and congratulations on doing that. What do you recommend for a path forward as a way to communicate the gravity and urgency of this crisis and how we can solve it? Well, I'm involved with at least two different lines of work. Continuing with the AAAS project, we are working with professional communicators. And what we need to do to the public is convey very short messages, but very clear. But you have to do research. You have to see what do people understand. We scientists are not very good at that. You have to do it in a professional way. You're getting better. But it can be done. That hasn't been done. That's a counteract this public relations campaign. The other thing I'm doing, and it's sort of working, I'm trying to communicate directly with Republicans in Congress. Of course, former Republicans that were in... They don't need campaign contributions anymore. That's right. Many of them are very green, as we call them. They are trying very actively to work to solve the problem. But in Congress at the moment in the United States, why is that important? Because it's a bit of a bottleneck for a global agreement because U.S. Congress at the moment would not ratify such an agreement. But I think that's also beginning to change. I think it is beginning to change. And luckily, a previous Congress passed a law called the Clean Air Act that gives the sitting president the authority without congressional further action to regulate dangerous air pollution. And CO2 is a dangerous air pollutant. So the U.S. is beginning to move. It's very... I'm optimistic about it, but we have a lot of work to do. It's still a lot of work. But what I'm trying to do with Congress is I sent them a letter communicating with them. I've already started. But just explain to them, look, this is not rational. Maybe you're right. I'm willing to listen if you have a very good argument. I could be wrong. But the other side of the coin is you have to be able to listen to me as well. This idea, I'm not a scientist since I don't need to know about this. That's not acceptable. Now, it's not just the fact that some within the affected industries are behaving unethically by putting false messages out. It's also the fact that all of us are vulnerable to wanting to believe the myth that nothing needs to be done. Sure. That's right. That's right. And the way we're wired, so to speak, it's harder to think about these global challenges that are so massive. And if it looks like it's going to be hard to solve, maybe we just don't think about it. But now that the solutions are coming into view, it's an exciting set of changes that can make life much better. That's right. If you couple that to the idea that, oh, it's in the future, and it's very costly, then you get this response you're talking about. So that's the sort of thing we're trying to change because we believe society can actually solve the problem. And it's now in the present. That's right. As we saw with Superstorm Sandy in the U.S. and Super Typhoon Haiyan and the Philippines and the drought in Brazil right now and the flooding in Malawi right now, et cetera, et cetera. One final question. Sure. The last time temperatures were as high on the earth as they're projected with current levels to go, how much higher was sea level? That's a tough question, but at least several meters, okay, many feet. But it depends, again, on the projections. If you take the one in five chance, then we're talking about 10 meters or whatever. 10 meters. But that's a huge temperature change. It's not necessarily the most likely one, but the planet has been there before 55 million years ago. It's a very different planet. Crocodiles in the North Pole. No people. So we know it would be, if this happens in just one, a few decades or centuries, it would be disastrous. And it's the pace of change again. It's very fast. When it happened before, it took tens of thousands of years. And that is considered to be very fast on the geological time scale. But just a century or two, that's really very worrisome. So when is your next report coming out on this topic? Well, we are expecting to do it in the next few months, just to, again, to begin to better communicate to the public. And particularly this concept of risk. Many of us working with economists are trying to convey this message. This is not an acceptable risk. And we don't have to be certain. It doesn't even have to be the most likely thing. Let me open it up before we run out of time. Yes. So from a policy perspective, would you suggest we pass? Well, the most important thing Congress could do, if they give the message, is to approve and to work towards a planetary solution. It's likely to begin to happen in Paris, but we know Congress at the moment would not ratify an agreement which would impose a price on emissions. It doesn't have to be the actual price of what it costs to do the damage. That's very hard to calculate and it's very high. All you need is a price which is large enough for it to be an incentive to begin to use much more frequently clean energy, renewable energy and so on. It doesn't have to be huge. This December in Paris is the negotiation. This is the year of climate because at the end of the year, every nation in the world will meet in Paris to come up with a global agreement. That global agreement has to cap and reduce the emissions of global warming pollution. Countries can accomplish those reductions in different ways. Putting a price on carbon is the most effective way. An emissions trading system is an effective way. Regulations like under the Clean Air Act in the U.S. requiring emissions is a third way. But this is the year we have to take action on climate now. Ladies and gentlemen, it has been wonderful to share this time with Dr. Mario Molina. Please join me in thanking him for being here and his entire career. Thank you so much.


ignored the video is all about looking back to the future yet we're going to be talking about 20 20 driver releases. It's always the big one on the agenda in maybe ten to fourteen days you're going to see a whole host of videos from people like me analyzing reviewing, giving you data on the new drivers that some all the major manufacturers for 2020.  Y dyma'r cwestiynau wrth gwerthu, faint rydych yn eich beth ddych chi'n gwybod y prosie Jeremyunning in2020? Ys ddau'n cymdeithasol iddyn y dyma eich prosie, ac mae hyn yn ei ddisgrifnad uch yn ei ddysgu'r gwybion, mae'n ddysgu'r gwybod yn ysgrifennu, mae'n ddysgu'r gwybod ddych yn ei chysgiedig, Felly mae'r rydyn ni'n gyflym cofant i'w rhaid i'r tymp am bai'r wrth gwrs gynnig chi yn gwyllgor ar eu cyfleoedd. Felly mae'r pwysig y gallwn ymdill ni yn ddysgu'r gwylltr fel ffarn fyddo at ei fod yn gweithio 450 quyd. Mae'r ystafell, y bydd y gyrddoss yn y gyrdd yma mae c chick i ddweud yn gallu gwoldod hwnnw, a ymddindwch yn hynny, ychThe Driver a'r gwrs. I'll look at numbers, I'll look at dispersion and track manual, tell me what improvements have been made by the manufacturers, are the claims being backed up in terms of numbers. And I've got to be honest, have I seen major differences in the last few years? Probably not. But there's one driver for me that has stood out an absolute mile in terms of being a game changer for me on a personal level. And I still think it's the driver that every manufacturer's got to beat in 2020. Right, so before I reveal what I consider the driver to beat in 2020, I want your feedback, your comments down below. I got into a situation with this particular driver that I want to refer to by where it just seems to be a marriage made in heaven, if you like, and straight away the driver shaft combination really did work for me. And in all the testing I've done, I've still not managed to find anything that really suggests I should have changed to anything different. Now for the record at the moment, I'm playing a tailor made mini driver, but that's not in this equation, not referring to that product, I chose that product because of control, because of the shorter shaft length and that's why I went to it. But in terms of driver, I played this particular driver for a year or two, it was never ever going to come out of the bag other than the fact of like it said, the element of control from the mini driver. But if I want to stick another driver in my hand with a 45 inch shaft in it, then someone's going to have to come up with something pretty special in 2020. And what I want to know is what's in your bag right now? What are you playing and will you be looking to change at all?  Now I think I've said enough and I'm going to reveal the driver and for those of you who have watched the channel for quite some time, you'll have seen this in my bag, you'll have seen this reveal, you'll know what the reveal is. And it's the Ping G 400 Max.  And I suppose still to this day there the struggles that every average golfer is going to have. But what the G 400 Max did in terms of MOI, in terms of forgiveness, it moved the bar to a whole new level. Now I'm not disputing the fact that maybe some of the latest drivers that have came out since this have caught up and they've all upped their game in terms of MOI, but not to a level ever surpassed the G 400 Max. And I think that's the big deal for me is what is going to happen in 2020 where they're going to able to move the bar forward again to distance I think has gone as far as we can go. Yes they might be able to improve a bit of clubhead speed with one thing or another which I think they're perhaps looking at. And MOI is a massive deal and the biggest deal for me when choosing a driver. But this now must be 18 months old, maybe a little bit more. Ironically it is still for sale at a pretty hefty price as well. It still can buy this driver for around the sort of £300 mark. So I think that just goes to show that it has very much stood the test of time in terms of the quality of product it is. But I don't know whether it's a case of, I tried the G410 last year and whether or not the G410 was, I was a little harsh on it I think looking back. But I think it's because I just didn't find it that much different than the G400 Max and I was so overwhelmed I suppose with how good this product performed that the G410 did nothing additional for me in that sense. So I was maybe a little bit harsh on that at the time. The kind of things that they will struggle with.  In the box down below there I don't know if you can see it. That's some 2020 product there and I'll be testing those drivers later on today. And I want something to measure up against and seeing is it that much better than what I've got in my hand right now, the G400 Max. So I will be hitting this. One of the things that I think can be improved and we spoke about it before and I will hit a ball because I don't like talking for too long. Let's see if we can get a ball out there. It's a solid ball. I mean like I said when I got it back out to do this video I thought why did I drop it out the bag and go for the mini driver and like I said that's a different story altogether. But it's a really solid performer. The one issue I had with it and I still had with the G410 range, all told, is the sound. Not a big deal for a lot of golfers, I know. But for me it's the only negative that I would put onto this. I would prefer a smoother looking crown but again these are very much minor, minor details. And when you strip them away and look at performance then I think it will be hard pushed for anyone still to beat this driver in 2020.  But the important part of this question is what is it going to take, what have you got in the bag right now in terms of driver? What are you thinking is going to happen in 2020 and how many of you are looking to change and what's going to make that investment and jumping for a new driver? Well I'm pretty interested in this data to be honest and it will be a good barometer moving forward because the big deal that we've got to consider is how much is technology moving forward and how many increases or more increases can they make in terms of driver technology. And it's always the one where I think is the biggest issue is how do you make these drivers better. This product now is two years old. I think it was pretty much February, that would have been 2018. So yeah, it's by no means new. It's not that old either but let's look at this data. Swinging relatively, I've only been a half an hour a bit of a warm-up so it's slower swing speeds in terms of club head speed between 95 and 97 at that top end. Great consistency in terms of ball speed though, I've got to say that and this is where this product always performed really well. Across the club face don't forget is what I would be thinking. Two five spin, almost perfect spin number. Two three eight carry, two in and out, two forty and the one two three four just drops it out a little bit. So in and around that two forty carry is bang on for me. 12.9 in terms of launch angle and peak height 86 and they give you the sort of run out distances in and around the sort of 260 to 270 mark with that kind of spin number. But I mean the point is this, if I can hit a driver, in fact the point is this actually, let's have a look at dispersion first of all, see where those shots actually went. And again the grouping really really good indeed, slightly off target in terms of the right hand side, just slightly off centre but I mean for me if I can hit a grouping like that and into fairways and that's exactly what I want it to do. The point I'm making is this, this driver carries in around the two forty mark running out to a suggested 260 to 270 with that spin number. The grouping is very very good. The ball speed seemed to be consistent across the club face because there's no way I'll have hit all those shots out of the middle. So it launches at a good launch angle, it spins at a good number, carries at a good number. What else is there that I want it to do? And that's the question when you're buying yourself up, considering any new product and I've no interest how people spend their money if you want to buy it for enjoyment's sake then by all means go out and do exactly that. But in terms of numbers make sure that you have a good look at what it is that you're comparing to and that you're seeing very much a like for like situation when you're making your comparisons because for me there's going to have to be some big leaps forward for me to consider. Like I said earlier, if I want to stick a 45 inch shaft back in my hands in terms of a driver then this G400 max takes some beating in my mind. But anyway, like I said, that's my situation. Maybe that head combination is one that I just got lucky with and I'll always struggle to beat, I don't know. But for you, again, the question is what are you going to change? Why would you change? And what's your current setup? Have you got pretty much that perfect setup that you'd never think of changing your driver? And it's the one club that's staying in a bag. Right, that's me done. As ever, I hope keep on enjoying your Christmas because this should have gone out a couple of days just after. And if I don't see you before, happy new year and we will be speaking very soon because like I said, there's an absolute rock of videos on the way.


Hi, everyone. This is Ms. Schneider, Chief Strategist of MarketGauge.com. I'm recording this on July 11 in the US, 2023. And by the time you hear this, obviously, you will already be into your trading day, waiting to see what happens as I wake up for the CPI numbers. And so as such, the expectation is for it to be cooler. And that certainly makes sense, since it's a measure that goes back. And if we look back, oil prices have actually decreased. They've gone back up again. Housing prices decreased a little bit, although they've come back again. Rent prices have certainly decreased. Use car prices have decreased. So these are the areas that people are focusing on to say, ah, consumer price is weak. That means no inflation. Of course, we are looking at other areas of inflation and have all along. But to start for today, I want to examine the dollar, because the dollar is obviously down a little bit here. And I don't believe it has anything to do with CPI. Just think it's the trajectory of the dollar against the euro and also against the yen. And we'll look at it against the British pound. And so that 101.7 level that I've been looking at just on the pure dollar basis, which is the 23-month moving average, which is basically a two-year business cycle. Clearly at this point in time, we are beneath trading at around 101.6. We were as low as right around 105 earlier today. Now, is that very significant right here and right now? Not necessarily from a monthly standpoint, because we still have a long way to go when it comes to the month of July, with a lot of things that could possibly happen within the month. But for right now, what we're looking at here is very interesting. If you just look at the chart, and remember now this is the dollar versus the euro, so it starts with the lead of the dollar. When we spoke last week, we said it's amazing how it was not able to get through that 50-day moving average. And so what you're seeing right now, obviously, is the sell-off once it could and clear. Of course, we're nowhere yet near the bottom here, which would be around 0.90 in change. So that would be a breakdown to a degree, but not necessarily the ultimate breakdown. And what is interesting here is you do have a little bit of a head and shoulders top. If you look at this is the shoulder, this is the head, and this is the other shoulder. Five, if we just look again, you know how I like to look, this is a candlestick chart. We have some of our indicators on here. But obviously, if we get through 0.91, then I would say that at this point now, I would probably think maybe a little bit of a bounce to the dollar, maybe back up to 0.915, maybe even a little bit higher, up to 0.917. And of course, if we gap even lower tomorrow and break down under this 0.907, then again, I would be looking for a move at least to 0.903 until we then see what happens with the CPI. But know this, we are trending lower. The momentum here is below the 50-day moving average and so far, not necessarily close to the Bollinger Band, which means we're really not at a mean reversion place yet to the buy side. Also, we have here something you haven't seen before. These are the six phases that we like to look at. And right now, even though red is depicted here as bearish and it looks more pink here, essentially what we're seeing right now is that we've had a couple of times where it's cleared the 50. But remember, those two days in a row that we like to look for did not happen. So we've had a couple of attempts at a recuperation phase, but here we are back in a bearish phase, as we can see here with the moving averages. Bad momentum, but that doesn't necessarily mean we can't see a little bit of a pop. Now moving over to gold, we actually got into some gold yesterday. That would be the 10th for a couple of reasons. Number one is I like the bottoming pattern here. We've talked a lot about a new 60-plus day low when it gets followed through the next day. That certainly happened. And even though it's going sideways, right now it also seemed obvious to us that gold was gonna hold around that 1900. And remember, we talked about that being the extremely important level of support. Now on the flip side, now that we've gotten this move, you can see we've gotten some sticks above this 1938, but that has now turned out to be some resistance. And right now, as the gold futures are getting ready to close here in the U.S., they're gonna close right around that resistance, which actually, of course, makes sense coming into the CPI. So for right now, I would say that today's range is probably a good range to gauge. So we're looking at around that 1930 level to hold. And if you come in tomorrow and it's trading below, then you might start to see a little bit of selling coming in with your real area of support being around 1915. And if it's above 1938, then I think you would be thinking now that this does look like a little bit of a bottoming formation, in which case we'd have to get through these sticks 1945. And then we really start to see some fun as we get closer into 1915, 1960. That's very short term. Now what's interesting here in the real motion indicator is we broke down under the 200 and we popped it back through it. And gold is in a caution phase, which means it's trading between the 200 day moving average and the 50 day moving average. So caution is caution. This actually did not get into a bearish phase. So with all the bearish talk about gold, it never really materialized. It's kind of more consolidating at this point. So let's move on to some of the other dollar pairs. So fascinating right now is the dollar to the end. Again, dollar being the lead currency here in this particular ratio. And we talked about this, right? 145 was so key for the dollar to take out against the end. It consolidated for days. That's why it's so important to not necessarily trade off in anticipation, but sometimes just wait for the actual signal. And it gave you some really good money. This is exactly what we talked about once it broke under 144 that it wouldn't find support until about the 50 day moving average. And clearly that has happened. So if you look strictly at the end to the dollar, to me it seems like unless we really get a hard gap lower underneath this 50 day moving average, we may have seen a good decline and may actually see a pop back with the dollar versus the end. Amy, so this is in a bullish phase. We have a lot of support down here. We've come off and had a mean reversion trade here in terms of the momentum, but we're holding right now also on its 50. So there's no divergence between price and momentum, which means that's a clean chart. Anything can happen. So here's how I would look at this as we're coming into pre-CPI and post-CPI. At this point right now, you really want to see 139.88 at the 50 day moving average. That would be your risk point. Anything that's trading above, and particularly if it's trading above these levels right here, if we connect these two highs, the body of this candle and the lower body of this candle, we're talking about 140.30. If 140.30 clears and we're just right there or holds even, then I would say it's possible that we're going to see the dollar pop against the end. And of course, if it gaps lower, then that's something else. And again, I would probably stay away between this and this level. So between 140.30 and 139.90, that might be very choppy, but under 130.990, then of course we're looking at a move lower to about 138.90. So that's one relationship. Let's take a look at yet another relationship. Now, of course, we're looking at the pound first versus the dollar. So you can see the pound is killing it. So here's your real breakout point, 1.285. So I would keep that in my mind as the pivotal area for trading tomorrow. We keep 1.285 intact. Then I see no reason why this can't go up higher. If we just scroll back in time, we are really having to look back from this time, really, from 2022, April, 2022, where we were at these levels. We're in an uptrend. We are over the Bollinger Band. This green here is the bullish phase, clearly. And so as long as we stay, like I said, above that 1.285, and I'm just, you know, it's a rough area. It's always hard to exactly pinpoint, but I like this 1.285 as the number that I think now on a short-term trading has to hold. So moving on to crude oil. I kind of feel like we nailed this, and I hope you guys made money off of it because we talked about the fact that the institutions were getting bearish down here, and we were actually starting to get bullish for mainly momentum reasons. So if we look right now, that's 75 to 76 level is key resistance. And of course, here we have our 200 day moving average a little higher at 77.50. But if we just look at the power of the base, we haven't quite taken out that base yet. So that kind of makes it pretty simple. We really have to take out the highs from right here at around 74.9, let's call it 75. In which case, if we just look at the amount of time that goes back, I mean, we can even take it back from here, but let's be more conservative. And say from early May, we've had a big base forming now, so over a couple of months. And that means if we can get this momentum going even further, then we could see this take a move up to around 83. $83 a barrel and people are going to start to get nervous, especially since we're seeing a decline in supply, not only with the cuts of OPEC, Russia, Saudis, but also with our own in the US strategic reserves being really low in terms of being able to release more in case the prices go much higher, because we didn't buy it back where we were supposed to, but that's another story. In the meanwhile, this is how I would look at it. We actually have been in the oil market for a while now since I've been actually pointing it out to you. If we get through 75, then I think that it would be a good situation to buy it. I think depending on the momentum, and of course it could even be a gap, we would have to say 77.20 would be a good place at least for a first stop. On the flip side, and this is what I'm going to be looking for tomorrow, if we take a look again, let's go through some of the recent activity, looking at candle wicks and candle hops, and everything lines up very well at the 72.92 level. So in essence, if we break down under $72.92 in the oil, then I would be more inclined to say either get out of my longs or look for a move back down to test that 50 at about $1.70 lower or $71.26. This is natural gas. Now to me, the most interesting thing about the natural gas chart really happens down here in the momentum indicator, our real motion indicator. And what this is telling you is a real bullish divergence. And by very simply, we have cleared the 50, and obviously we've cleared the 50 here in momentum. But look at the 200 day moving average, where it's well up here on the price chart, it's actually cleared in the momentum chart. Now, we don't necessarily mean that that's so screaming by for the natural gas, but that combined with the fact that it's held two, and combined with the fact that the momentum is so good and we are in a recuperation phase, tells me that we would want to be seeing now this holder around the 2.57. Holds around 2.57, we can get back above, let's say these highs here at 2.8. I see no reason why we can't get closer to three, and then re-evaluate from there. Underneath that 2.57, then I would start to be a little bit more cautious. Now just the opposite of what we saw in oil, sugar actually has a bearish divergence in the momentum versus the price. Why? It's above the 50, excuse me, above the 200 here in price, well above it, but not quite clearing it here even on the momentum indicator, which tells me right now that this has to really do something spectacular from this point. And we talked about that 24 level, right? Gets through 24, I think that we're gonna see higher prices in sugar. It certainly would fit with a new inflation wave based more on other factors than obviously post COVID. And also, I would imagine at that point we would start to see this take out its 200 and the Bollinger band. So you would get both a mean reversion, a clearance of the 200 on the momentum and also then a price breakout over 24, which I believe could take us at least back up to 25, which is where the 50 day moving average before we reevaluate. And of course, where would I say no way? Forget it, this is actually this bearish momentum divergence is showing that this is running out of steam. That would be a move under 23.15. Okay, that's it for now. Hope you have a great day. Thanks so much for watching. Bye for now.


Previously, on Bobby's perspective, the bomb shall hit. His team was forced to change their Wikipedia page. What happened to little Edward Gond? How did he become Earthling Ed? Television, film and moving image. Now, why would they want to keep that a secret? Edward Gond. Underneath, script supervisor Lorna Knott. Meet beautiful Lorna. Lorna is Luna. As we established in the first episode of the series, Twix and Grass LTD is a private company. We can see on the company's house register that Ed knows exactly what he's doing. Why is his girlfriend even a director and a shareholder? Total share capital is 100 shares. Ed has 25 shares, his girlfriend has 25 as well. The other 50 are owned by Kirsty Adams. Most people don't understand company formation. Those shares are for profit. They can be sold as they own half the company between them. It is highly unlikely that the third director could even block the sale. It makes no sense whatsoever why a private investor would give them such a massive shareholding, especially in a not-for-profit business. Having half the company is indicative of them putting up half of the investment. This is highly likely and his claim about a private investor is covering up them pocketing donations. The scam loop is very obvious. Money from Unity Diner allegedly go into search, which is not even a registered company or charity. I was approached by an individual who had seen the work that we had done through Surge. He said that he wanted to help us and he saw a lot of potential in what we were doing. He thought that what we were doing was effective and had a lot of potential for the future. He said that he wanted to help us, but in particular he wanted to help us get to a point where he could be financially sustainable. We came up with this idea and this is where I am today. This idea was manifested into this tangible place that's real. The idea that we had was that we were going to open up an entirely non-profit vegan diner. Where we'd serve delicious vegan food, but all the profits made from the establishment would be put into Surge to mean that we could really just take on all the projects we wanted to take on and do all the things that we talked about and dreamt of and wrote about and thought about. We could actually make them achievable and accomplishable projects. That's exactly where I am today. I'm in that 100% non-profit vegan diner. It's called Unity Diner. You just heard Edward Gond talk about the private investor, but gives us no further information, other than referring to them as he. Edward Gond keeps on saying, it's 100% not-for-profit. Oh really? So why do you have shares in it, Ed? If that was true and a private investor wanted to set up a not-for-profit vegan restaurant, they would not give Ed and his girlfriend a directorship along with shares in the business. They are not minor shareholders. They own half of the company, which entitles them to half of the profit. No philanthropist would do that. They had no intention of making it not-for-profit. A private investor would know that they could not get those shares back of Ed and his girlfriend. The investor would know that they could not suddenly switch to a charity or a non-profit company. Ed has never revealed who the investor is. Could it be moving mountains? Why else would Unity Diner use that supplier? They are not KFC or McDonald's who now have vegan options. Customers know the link those outlets have to the meat industry. Unity Diner, on the other hand, is meant to be an ethical vegan restaurant. It has total control over its supply chain. Therefore, it's inexcusable to use moving mountains. Unity Diner was incorporated over a year ago. Ed had all the time to register it as a not-for-profit, which also gives them tax relief and deductions. If you were truly raising money for animal activism, you would be losing out having it as a private limited company. You would be hit with high corporation tax on the profits. Not great for those poor animals. On the Search Animal Activism homepage which Ed Gaunt set up in 2016, we can see the donation button. On the donation page, as you can see, it claims the company is pursuing status as a UK registered charity. How contrived and convenient that they make that statement on the donations page. It takes on average 40 days to register as a charity in the UK. The statement has been there for several months at least. Putting it on the donation page just shows you how calculated they are. Search is not even registered at company's house. Therefore, there are no accounts available, no records, no way of knowing what the donations are used for. From just one Patreon page alone, he receives over $7,000 per month. His blind followers think their money is being used for animal activism. No one is going to question saintly Ed, the vegan Jesus. Since 2016, he had three years to register as a charity, but hasn't. Bottom line is, there is no way of knowing what the profit is or how the funds are used. The website doesn't even reveal who the mystery team is. When you ask for donations for animal activism, those donations are not your money. That's why charities register and are given a charity number. The public can then verify that they are a genuine charity with accounts. They have had three years to do this. On this homepage, we can take a closer look. Non-profit organizations are formed to pursue a goal, not for profit or for any of the proceeds to go to its members or leaders. These organizations don't have commercial owners and must rely on funds from contributions, membership fees, events and investment income, among other things. The money made is spent solely on the organization's aims and running costs. Non-profit organizations don't have owners and so there is no owner's equity, stockholders' equity and no distribution to owners. Here you can clearly see the benefits, exemption from state and local income taxes, property taxes, franchise taxes or sales taxes. A charity, of course, has to be transparent. The statement reports the revenue, expenses, gains and loss of an NFP for a specified period, usually one year. This statement is mandatory since the aim of a non-profit organization is to provide for society. The summarized transaction accounts are declared in the revenues and expenses part of the statement. Membership fees, program fees, fundraising events, grants and contributions all count as revenues. That should be reported in the accounting period that they were earned, not when they were received. Now let's talk about Ed's mystery animal sanctuary. We also know that they're supporting a good cause and a good movement and their money has been put towards effective campaigns and spreading this message as much as surge and myself possibly can, but we've often spoken about the creation of a surge animal sanctuary, sanctuary for rescued animals and so the profits from Unity Diner will also go towards the creation and funding of the surge sanctuary, a new sanctuary here in England. So at Surge we want to create a new sanctuary and Unity Diner will give us the ability to actually do that and so every time that you eat here and you eat the vegan, the delicious vegan food that we'll be serving not only will you be supporting kind of grassroots activism all other things, you'll also be supporting the creation of a new sanctuary here in the UK. That was back in 2018. There has not been a single update on this, despite there being donation platforms. We've often spoken about the creation of a new sanctuary, a sanctuary for rescued animals and so the profits from Unity Diner will also go towards the creation and funding of the surge sanctuary in the new sanctuary here in England. So at Surge we want to create a new sanctuary and Unity Diner will give us the ability to actually do that and so every time that you eat here and you eat the vegan, the delicious vegan food that we'll be serving not only will you be supporting the grassroots activism all other things, you'll also be supporting the creation of a new sanctuary here in the UK. Surge website says more information coming in mid 2019. Sure. Why is he opening a new sanctuary rather than supporting an existing one? Especially as most sanctuaries are seriously underfunded. Well if he supported an existing one he would have to provide them with actual money. Edward Gaunt and his girlfriend Lorna Note claimed they filmed abuse UK farms. Everyone in the UK knows who the RSPCA is. It defies belief that someone would film animal abuse and would not immediately call the RSPCA. The RSPCA would have been there within hours to rescue the animals and would probably have shut down the farm too. That wouldn't have been great for film footage though, right? There is a rumor cursing among ex-vegans and animal rights dropouts. There are underground reports of so-called vegans paying workers to commit the abuse so that they can film it. This might sound ridiculously far-fetched, but reading the statement from the RSPCA does make one wonder. This film is clearly very upsetting and we are concerned about the footage, particularly given claims some of it was taken on an RSPCA assured farm. If Edward Gaunt or Lorna Note had an ounce of compassion for the animals they would have called the RSPCA right away. His deception seems so blatant but people are blindsided when someone waves the animal rights flag. People need to understand that Earthling Ed does not care about animals or ethics. What kind of lunatic films animal abuse and does not report it to the relevant authorities? The vast majority of the population eats meat and would immediately report animal abuse in a heartbeat but not ethical Ed. If he had called the police or RSPCA they could have within hours to stop further abuse and rescue the animals. His only concern was getting footage to manipulate people's emotions and get more donations rather than stop the abuse and get the animals rescued. Both Ed and his girlfriend were complicit to the abuse. That is the law. you


Another week of trading is over at the New York Stock Exchange. It was a tumultuous day for the market. The Dow closed down roughly 1,000 points following a massive sell-off. The S&P 500 and the Tech Heavy Nasdaq suffered losses as well. Both indexes fell more than 3 percent. Investors are of course reacting to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell's remarks at an economic conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. He signaled the Fed would likely continue to raise interest rates. Melissa Armo joins us now. She is owner and founder of the Stock Shrews. Now, Melissa, thanks for joining us. Jerome Powell acknowledges that fighting inflation is going to cause some economic pain to American families. So what's your reaction to his remarks today? Did anything surprise you? I think the market was very surprised because there was a possibility. I think people thought that maybe they would only bump rates up maybe a half a percent in the next quarter. And as it seems, his statements today were very, very strong that they're going to do everything they can in order to curb inflation, even if it means raising rates all the way up to 4 percent, which essentially for consumers would mean, just for an example, today's 30-year mortgage rate is around 6.8. So if they continue to raise rates where the federal funds rate is at 4, mortgage rates could be 8.5 percent for people within the next 6 to 12 months. And that will be shocking to people. I mean, some people who are adults that are working people, paying bills right now, have never seen interest rates like this. Well, as economists debate whether we are already in a recession or just close to one, if the Fed does raise interest rates in September, are you concerned about a sustained economic downturn in the near future? I definitely think that it's going to halt some of the economic growth. He also, Fed Chairman Powell, also mentioned that today. He said, be prepared, the economy is slowed down. Again, the Fed's job is to control inflation and also look at unemployment. Well, unemployment has been low. Remember, there's more jobs out there right now than we have people to fulfill them. I don't understand why anyone thinks it would be good to have lower productivity, but apparently the Fed thinks this is the only way to get a handle on inflation. Personally, I think it's going to make the problem worse. What happened really is we kept interest rates too low for too long. Now they're going to go the opposite direction and go too far and raise them too fast, too quickly. I think they should temper it a bit, slow it down, maybe a quarter or a half a bump between now and the end of the year. Instead, if they raise at 75 basis points or even a point, again, it could push into a problem where people are going to have a problem paying their bills. People are not going to go out and refinance. People are not going to buy homes. Again, all of these things affect the economy. He's preparing basically in the statement today, he prepared for the fact that companies may need to lay people off. We may have a problem where we don't have as many job openings. That's actually not good for businesses.  We don't want people to pay more for stuff. Part of the reason we have high cost for things is really down to one thing. And one thing only, it's the cost of diesel fuel, oil. Everything that we buy gets to us in trucks and cars. And so food prices are up because the cost of fuel is up. And until we get the cost of fuel down, they can raise interest rates to 10% if they want. It's not going to stop the cost of inflation of all these things that we buy on a regular basis, and particularly the gas that we used to get around every day. Well, you talk about fuel costs. Powell also said that he wants to bring inflation down to 2% in the long term. Is that a realistic goal in your opinion? And if so, how long is it going to take for us to get there? Sure, it's a realistic go long term. I mean, it could be three to five years. Three to five years is a long time for people that need jobs, need to pay their bills. And remember, we're coming out of COVID. We're coming out of this terrible time. People want to get out. People want to do things. People do want to spend money. People need to go to work. We don't want to overpay for stuff. And you don't want people living paycheck to paycheck. So sure, that's a great goal. It's a fabulous goal. But again, he's trying to get there too quick, too fast. It's not necessary. We could be hurting the problem and hurting the economy even more so when we are ready to hurt the economy, when we shut it down in 2020 because of COVID. Let things just get back to normal a little bit. They're so worried about preventing a recession. Of course, some people say we are in one. I don't think it matters if people say we're in one or we're in one or we're not in one. Everybody knows if you go to the store, you know and you see what you're paying for stuff right now. And it looks like things could potentially cost more. And I think that that's problematic. And I think that, again, five years out is great. The next presidential election is 2024. Things always turn around when you have a new person in the White House unless, of course, Biden runs again, which is an unknown factor. That's a long time right now, though, for everyday people. It's just too far off. His goal is realistic, but he's trying to get there in 12 months by the end of 2023. And I think that's crazy. All right, Melissa Armo. Thanks for joining us. Many Instagram users are concerned about their privacy after an I-


So I look at deaths as human spaceflight endeavors into deep space is not so much about destinations whether it's Mars or the moon What drives me and I think is important is about how do we as a species learn to live off the planet for longer and longer and of Course go to exciting places like Mars It's more about the journey than the destination by the mid 2030s I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth Lunar exploration plays a key aspect into our overall setting humans into deep space The moon is our nearest neighbor. It's rich in resources, namely water Water and water ice are the fuel for rockets. The moon could be literally a lunar gas station The moon plays an incredible role in any kind of future exploration endeavors It is our test case of how we actually learn to live off the land This experiment would show the moon an ideal base for future astronomical observations But think about it as the dry dock of the future And you don't need to refuel it to keep it there as a staging point The moon is a very interesting body for us to actually build our spaceships that will send us out into Mars Being able to be a multi planetary species in the long term is really our goal And how do we extend those capabilities to live off the planet and go to faraway places? 13 Houston we'd like you to open circuit fuel cell one Mars is kind of the furthest most point where we believe our technology can reach within the next couple decades So it's that hardest point out there Whether it's keeping the crews alive in a habitat the propulsion systems to get you there back Or the fiery kind of injury to sent in landing out of the surface of Mars or the entire return trip all the way back All those things are challenging aspects of it, but Mars it's just hard enough where we might have a chance of actually doing


Good day, fellow investors. Let's continue with our China growth stock analysis. And this time we'll discuss ZTO Express. Alibaba just invested 10% 1.3 billion into the company. So you would invest in this company at the same price Alibaba just invested an equity investment. So Alibaba sees a lot of potential here. Let's see what the stock is about. It's an express delivery company, logistics company in China. So let's see what it is about, what is the valuation, what is the expected growth rate and what would be an undervalued or overvalued price for the company. As I said, ZTO is a nationwide express delivery company in China and has built the infrastructure really early with the highest capital expenditure among peer players in the past five years. So securing land use rights, constructing two unique designs. So first player advantage, ZTO, they say they have it. The online growth retail sales is 20% over the last years. 39% has been over the last six, seven years and it's expected to grow at 20% up till 2020. This bodes well for all the companies in the delivery sector, which ZTOs makes part of it. It's very interesting that ZTO earned market share since 2011 from 7.6% to 15.5% so they doubled their market share but there are a lot of competitors, YTO, STO, BEST, etc. Something to keep in mind because competition is tricky with these growth stocks. The milestones, normal companies started with venture capital investments, Sequoia Capital invested in 2013, now 2018 as I said 10% strategic equity investment of 1.48 billion on the market cap of around 13 billion, if I'm not mistaken now, by Alibaba and their subsidiary now consolidated, Kainia. What is distinctive with them? They have the network delivery network but they have network partners for the pickup and the last mile delivery. This network partnering system is what is growing in China and is gaining more and more market share so only 14% of distributors have direct models without the network partners for the last and first mile. Nationwide web growing so 98% country level city coverage, 83 sorting hubs, 29,500 service outlets. The growth has been staggering, the market has been growing at 20 something percent, they are growing at 15 percentage points higher, 41% year-of-year parcel volume, operating profit 30% net income up 108% and 35% margin. Staggering margin is such a high competitive environment like deliveries so this margin is what I would say okay this is the biggest risk, if this margin starts contracting then ZTO might be in trouble. However as long as there is the 20% market growth tailwind it's hard to miss the growth rate. As I said the margins are extremely high, adjusted net margins are 26%, always have been there around and above 20% so very very strong. The cash flows are there, positive cash flows, capital expenditures are relatively fat which is good as a company is scaling, the cash and cash equivalents are growing and Alibaba's investments certainly helps. As I always like to listen to the story of the management their goal is from the conference goal to grow their parcel volume faster than the industry by an average of 10 percentage points each year so hence they should grow from around the expected growth, market 20% they will grow 40% if the market slows down to 17 they will grow 27 that's something to imply in the models. The guidance higher growth 45 to 48% growth really amazing. They will actively continue to expand signed contracts to develop sorting capabilities, automation, automation, dynamic weighing machines etc etc to make everything faster. On competition this is very important they did notice that with a large outbound outbound volume the competition is increasing and that's very very important because as the competition increases there is there is slow a slowdown you can see very big trouble in pricing and lower margins. However they say they also notice that some of the smaller express delivery companies are falling behind in terms of additional scale and they will lose their competitiveness and most likely lose out their market share and fade out so that's something very interesting. The new companies also using them that's an IPO we'll discuss that into the recent IPOs pin duo duo so that represents 30% of the total volume. When I put all this into my models if ZTO grows at 20% over the next five years and I put the price earnings ratio of 10 in 2023 we're not far now especially the forward price earnings ratio then the value of the company is 8.66 the current stock price is 16 so that's extremely overvalued. To justify the current stock price the company should grow earnings at 0.25% growth of earnings over the next five years and have a valuation of 15 in 2023 this is possible I'm not saying it's not possible so then the present value at an expected 15% discount rate would be 15.53 compared to the price of around 16 so that would make it fairly priced 25% growth and a valuation of 15. Is that possible I think it is? Is the negative scenario possible also if there is more trade wars a contraction into the buying power of the Chinese consumer then all those pricing power the pricing power that all those delivery companies for now have and I'm going to analyze a little bit more of them to see what's going on and what's the real value behind this then all that pricing power will become a pricing disadvantage and all those margins might shrink extremely fast and then you can forget the 25% growth you're just hoping the company survives and that's something that will be there that will be cyclicality they are investing with every normal business when you invest so much there will come a time when okay you have idle capacity and that cost that puts down margin so nothing can it can be linear as it is so I also approach that from of course a conservative perspective so I don't expect ZTO to grow linearly over the next 10 years to 20-30% there will be ups and downs so it is a company to follow if you want to be exposed to that sector for now it's a little bit overvalued if it hits 9 what is always possible with Chinese stocks that go up and down like crazy then I'll take another look and see how it fits and compare it to all the other Chinese companies we are looking to you in the next video


Here's Jordan Ayu, left corner of the penalty here, driving towards goal. And that one has to be tipped over by Netto, who put up his right hand as the ball arrow towards the top left corner. And Jordan Ayu already, inside the first five minutes, has had two notable sides of goal. Plays it out to this near-side where Clive, it tries to hold his run. The linesman says he was on. Clive at right side of the box, into the ear he comes, tackled by Gay. Sabinia on the run, palmed away by Johnston, down to his left-hand side. He had to save it because no flag ever came. Terry's first side of goal comes from Antoine Sabinia, right-hand side, into the six-yard box. That causes more problems and ends up in the back of the net, off the head of Mark of Sinesi. Across the face of the six-yard box, it was flicked on. And Sinesi reacted strongly to head home, his first Premier League goal of the season, from close range. The flick on at the near post, it looks like there shouldn't be any off-side issues. And Sinesi had the simplest of tasks to open his account for the season and Bournemouth for the evening. Still running into D, Jordan Ayu shoots, that's a good save from Netto.  Unbelievable defending there as Odson Edwards shot was saved and Jordan Ayu came in for the tap-in and Zabani launched himself and blocked away a goal-bound shot. Here come Pallis down the inside right-hand, that's a good ball. Jefferson, Lerma switch for goal and that's tipped away by Netto to this right-hand side. Lerma picks it up again, that came from nothing. And Moore's away from Gae and he's put Tavenir through, out comes Johnston, Tavenir driven wide, he's still got it, needs someone to pull it back to in the area, comes back to the billing, across the face of goal and there's Keefer Moore. Super sub in the six-yard box, another diving header and Keefer Moore's contribution is a key one and he's booked the points for the Cherries in added time at the end of the game. It's Crystal Pallis-Dale, form of two.


The DuPont Company of Wilmington, Delaware, makers of better things for better living through chemistry, presents the Cavalcade of America. Tonight's star, Ginger Rogers. Tonight's story, 700 boiled shirts. Do you know what it's like to be in love with a seafaring man?  The little staff fenced in flat pace atop the cop-caped Cape Cod houses called a widow's walk.   And then, if you're lucky and you do see that sail at last, you hurry, hurry with your heart pounding down to the wharf where he'll come in. Where's your severance? Here I am, Mr. Locke. Oh, India. Greetings, little one. Let me look at you. Oh, Mr. Locke. It was such a long wait. Oh, it was no tea party, I can tell you, but I've got good news for us anyway. Not till tonight is Jeb Pollard's turn to give the welcome home for the crew and the atmosphere will be more appropriate to the teller. Oh, please, tell me now.  Oh, your crew. Did you bring me a present? What's in your duffel bag? Still a little girl. Look, I'm afraid all that's in here is 25 shirts to be voyaged. Poor bachelor. Give them to me. I'll do them up for you. You'll do no such thing. Why, it wouldn't be proper to laugh till we're married. I suppose then it will be perfectly proper leading me, loading me down after a voyage with hundreds of shirts.  I'm the daughter and the sister of sea captains, and don't you forget it.  You have to wait till the night. I'm a man that likes things properly done and told. Well, I warn you, Mr. Locke, it's the very last time I'll wait for anything.  All right, but try not to make it too obvious. Pardon me? Say, we're going you to... Oh, let them go. They're not interested in crowds tonight. Excuse me? When's the wedding, Mr. Locke? Wednesday, Mrs. Baxter, and you're all invited. Come on, Ninja. Excuse me, I'm sorry.  You'd think I hadn't managed to climb up here all by myself while you were gone. Say, did you really come up here to watch for me? Oh, Zachary, if you only knew what it's like just to wait and wait, never knowing. Well, darling, this isn't helping me to tell you. Your news? Are you going to tell me now? Look out there to the harbor. You see that schooner? Which one? The handsome one with her masts against the moon. Oh, isn't that the Bella Cadiz? The Bella Cadiz. She's going to be bound for Portugal and Africa and the West Indies with Vermont maple sugar and New Hampshire cotton cloth and sandwich glass. And she's going to carry America to the world. Oh, it's wonderful. What's that got to do with... With us? Yes. Well, Bella Cadiz and I will go out and trade for spices and sugar and... With the bell of Cadiz and you? That's my news, little one. I've signed on as the captain. Captain, your first real command. Oh, I'm so happy for you. There's only one thing wrong, India. What's that? I'm sailing Thursday morning. The day after our wedding? I'm sorry, but, well, we'll have to take our honeymoon when I come back. I'm going with you. You understand that I can't... What did you just say? I'm sailing with you. What kind of nonsense is this? Is it such nonsense? Other captains take their wives along on voyages. India, India, believe me, I'll be lonely too. Well, you don't have to be except that you were born stubborn. And brought up strict. My mother always stayed home. Or she properly belonged? Yes. And she was a lonely woman for 30 years. Finally died alone. There are 400 widows in the Cape today, and I'm not going to be one of them.  Is that quite clear? You'll marry me and stay at home where you belong. Is that quite clear? Quite. And I'm sure you'll find someone else. Jane Lovett, perhaps, who'd adore to be your wife. Finn, waiting. Good evening, Captain Locke. India, come back, India. You're such a lovely bride. So radiant. Isn't she? Poor girl, though I feel so sorry for her. I understand he told her he wouldn't marry her at all unless she obeyed him. Oh, really? Yes, the poor innocent child is completely taken in while she's even going to see with him tomorrow morning. Beautiful ship, Mr. Locke. She's all that. Come on, let's go for it. Oh, dear, here. Let me brush you off a bit. Oh, wait. There's lint on your shoulders, and you're starving. Oh, now, now, don't. I'm all right. Come on now.  But your first command, you don't want to.  Like a wife? All right. I'll be good. When we're on deck, listen, just stand there beside me and don't say anything. Oh, of course. Pension on deck. Good morning, Mr. Baxter. Welcome to the bell of Cadiz, Captain Locke and Mrs. Mrs. Locke, may I present Mr. Baxter, first officer. Ma'am. Mr. Joyce, second officer. How do you do, ma'am? Hosanore. And the ship's company. How do you do, ma'am? Ma'am, I trust we shall dispose of our cargo to our mutual profit and honor. I wish us all blue skies, fair winds and calm seas. Thank you very much, sir. And now, Mr. Baxter. If you'll await me on the quarter deck for instructions. Hosanore, please show Mrs. Locke to her quarters. Mrs. Locke. Yeah, pardon, Captain. Mrs. Locke is saving with us. That she is? Then, sir, I'm not. Mr. Orr, you signed on as Boson, agreeing to fulfill your duties. I accept. Then you'll make good your contract. My papers said nothing about a woman. Boson, I gave you your orders. Be good enough.  That goes for all of you. My wife stays. Now, we're going to stand here all day. Miss, wait here quarters, Mrs. Locke. As the schooner gets underway and moves off from the wharf, you stand on the deck knowing how unwelcome you are. And you watch the man you love up there on the quarter deck, seeing his ship through the treacherous channels of the bay. You catch your breath once or twice in fear, knowing that the crew is watching him too. And suddenly you know he's met his first challenge. And now you're facing the wide, wide sea. The day after day of it, the nothing to do. Last night down the rally came a tough night. Good morning. Oh, good morning. That smells rather good. What is it? Eel stew, Mrs. Eel? Oh, it's, uh, fragrant, isn't it? You're, uh, you're, uh... Oh, kind of the cookess. I, uh, I'm afraid there ain't much space in this gallery. Oh, I'm not going to interfere if that's what you're worried about. I just couldn't help being curious. You know how women are about kitchens and cooking. As a matter of fact, Mrs. Locke, my cabin boy Ceasey can no worth to me at all. So I wish it would see fit to give me a hand. Well, if you really want me to, what can I do first? Uh, this battle of potatoes. Uh, peel them? Uh, here's the knife. Put them in the pot with the stew. Here, I'll leave the lid on. All right. Last night down the rally came a tough night. So Giza with his kid... We're swaying a bit this morning, aren't we, Mr. O'Connor? Always seems I'd win here. But I mean more than usual somehow. No, I wouldn't say. Since. You're not Ceasey. Oh, certainly not. I'm not Ceasey. It's just that stew. Hey, you! Cook! Hey, boss. Left a hand here. Mr. Backes has been hurt. What are you doing here, Mrs. Locke? Well, I came down to help out. Well, you'd better leave. This man's been cut bad and he's losing a lot of blood. Better get out, ma'am, so you don't have to look. Well, I'm not afraid of a little blood here. Here, let me. Maybe I can help you. I know how to... Oh, oh, dear. Mrs. Locke. She said she swooned it away. Mrs. How y'all right? Sure, she's all right. It's Mr. Backes that I'm worried about. Break out a length of muslin. Leave her be. The days pass by and you try to forget the shame of your weakness and seasickness. And there's still nothing to do. All but there is. The captain of the Bell of Cadiz is a proper captain. And he must wear a clean white shirt every day. And you see the soiled ones piling up and you think of the job at the end of the voyage. And so... That's what he said to me! And then what... And then what did you do? You should have seen him. Oh, oh, oh. Change the subject. Mr. Captain's Mrs. Oh, good afternoon, gentlemen. Hey, ma'am. Let me help you with that basket. Oh, that's all right. I just... I just thought if none of you minded, I'd put a line here and hang out some more. Oh, gosh. This is the only sunny place there is. What? Well, how do you like that? Well, I... I don't want to chase you away. Go ahead and hang up your wash. We'll go below. It's real nice and sun-shiny. Down in a hole. Captain Locke? Yes. Steady as she goes. What is it, Bosun? A complaint from the men, sir. It's about Mrs. Locke, sir. And it's legitimate, sir. They have only so much time to themselves, and the furrowed deck is their territory. I give up. What's she done now? Well, she's been hanging her wash on the deck. Hanging her wash? I serve. All right. Send one of the men for Mrs. Locke. Have her come to the quarter deck immediately. Is there something wrong, Mr. Locke? No. No, not a thing. What took you so long? Where were you? In the cabin, sewing. Why? Sewing what? Curtains. Curtains. They're so bare. But the captain's cabin doesn't need curtains. Leave it alone. This is a sailing ship, not a Cape Cod-Cod-Hill. I know that, but I'm only trying to keep busy and be useful. I can't spend all of my time working samplers. You insisted on coming along, remember? You think I can throw that in my face now? I am only stating a fact. You've brought nothing but trouble ever since you came aboard. Let us know. What happened to you, Zachary? We've had crows before, but they weren't like this. They were so stern and cold. A trading ship is a world all its own. It's no place for a woman. I'd hoped you didn't really believe that, like the others do. Oh, no. Look. Oh, please, don't cry. Please don't cry. Listen. Listen, India, when we put in it, Lisbon, I'll find a nice place for you to stay. And the next Boston packet will pick you up and take you back home. No. No, I won't do it. Stubborn, aren't you? So are you. I wonder which one of us is more stubborn. You or me? That's simple. I am. And I'm staying aboard for the entire voyage. You are listening to the Cavalcade of America starring Ginger Rogers as India and featuring Sy Harris as Captain Zachary Locke, sponsored by the DuPont Company of Wilmington, Delaware, makers of better things for better living through chemistry. Tonight on the Cavalcade of America, Ginger Rogers is starring as India Locke, wife of a Cape Cod sea captain in the days when New England sailing vessels roamed the seven seas.   And at last, when it seems that the whole world is water, you sight land and suddenly you're walking with wobbly legs in the streets of a faraway port where everything is foreign and strange. And then before you've even begun to get accustomed to the sights and smells and people, your white sail schooner is moving out again into the wide sea lanes, on, on, down towards the wild western coast of Africa. And then because you're blown off your course many days. Let's try putting in a Cape San Luis, Mr. Baxter. See if we can't get some fresh water. Aye, sir. Please go ashore with you. We're only going in for water, India. There's nothing but a beach. Oh, please, please. I've got to seal the ground under my feet for just one minute. Please. Well, I don't... Thank you. May I go the way I'm dressed? But this is no social visit. Just get in the boat. Come on, Mr. Baxter. It's not wasting any more time. Don't wander away, India. Oh, don't worry. I won't. Man'll be back from the river in just a minute. As soon as we get the water, we'll go out to the ship. Oh, it won't be too soon for me. This isn't the coziest-looking place in the world. Zachary, listen. Sounds like visitors. Mr. Baxter, come on with that water. Hurry it up. Aye, sir. Zachary, there's somebody behind you. Coming through the trees. Yes. It looks like a whole tribe in full war again. Mr. Baxter, can't we get on the way? I'm going to load the cast right away, sir. We may manage if we're quiet and don't panic. India, if anything happens, I want you to stand right... Oh, I'm all right. I'm not afraid. Try to look calm. Here they come. Englishy. American, friends. Friend, trade. Captain Locke, they've got ivory. Look at that ivory. I see it. Trade cloth? Cotton cloth from America for ivory? No. No cloth. Woman. What do they want? What do they mean? Darling, I think they want me. What? No. No trade. Woman, not for sale. Two. Just your captain. Show him she's your wife. Put your arm around her. Stand close to her. Point to her. Enter yourself. Close your hand over hers. That's it. Trade. Ivory. Woman. My wife. No-cell wife. Guess there's no use, captain. They're closing in. Zack, these beads you gave me here. They're shiny and bright. Maybe if I offer them. Look! Look! American lady gives these to friends. Lady. Friend. Good. Good. That's doing it. I think maybe that's doing it. Let's see how this does. Lady has more beads on ship. Out there. Trade for ivory. We come sundown. Bring ivory, lady. Trade. Come on. Come on. They're going. That was a close one. Worth it, though, for ivory like that. Did you get a close look at it, captain? That'll be a bonus for the whole crew. Hadn't we better go back to the ship before they change their mind? They won't. You're like some kind of goddess to the Mrs. Locke. They wouldn't harm you for the world. Here they come, captain. Officer, starboard bow. What are your orders? All hands to standard attention when they board us. Some of them may be native royalty and they'd probably rile easy. Aye, sir. Where's Mrs. Locke? She must be ready to come on deck to greet them. She's ready, sir. Captain, their canoes are loaded to the gunnels with ivory. And they... Wait a minute. Captain Locke, the men in that lead canoe. What about them? Give me the glass. Wait. They can't be the same ones. They're all painted up. Paint is right. They're not a stitch of clothes on them. Mr. Bexter, see that Mrs. Locke stays below. She's not to leave her cabin. But, captain, that ceremonial paid of some kind. They think of Mrs. Locke as a goddess. They'd be insolent if she weren't here. I can't help it. We just have to do the best we can without her. But the ivory, the men want that ivory. They'll all have a share of it and it fetches the highest price. I know, but I'm sorry, Mr. Bexter. We'll have to trade here without Mrs. Locke. If we lose the ivory, well, it can't be helped. So the men didn't get their ivory and you find out why. And you feel once again you've let your husband down. But you sail on down the African coast and trade cloth for mahogany. In the West Indies you trade for palm leaf and sugar. And at last you know you're on your way home. Then suddenly a storm hits. Borson, don't need a hand here. Right, Mitchell. Mr. Orr. No time to talk now, Mrs. Locke. Everybody's got his hands full.  He's out called, man. His arm's broken. Look at it. Here's him. But I don't know nothing about touch and broken bones. Oh, I do. Come on. Now, Mr. Mitchell, hold the splint in place. That's it. Well, I've finished wrapping the bandaging. Oh. There. Oh. Oh, he's coming too. Oh, watch it. Watch it now. Oh, my arm. It's all right, Mr. Orr. Mrs. Locke. Please don't move. I think the bone's in place now, but I don't want to take chances. You set the bone for me? You? I did the best I could. Mrs. Locke. Don't move. Please don't. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Locke. You're more than welcome. Mr. Orr. After the storm dies down and the days pass during the rest of the voyage, you notice that the crew seems friendlier.  Then it lasts. The bell of Cadiz lies at anchor in the harbor on Cape Cod. You've been away a long time and everything on the cape seems strange and somehow smaller than it was when you left. Jane Lovett's bonnets aren't any smaller, though. When you spy her coming into the Baxter's welcome party under full sail with a couple of flying jibs to boot, you suddenly realize how sunburnt you are, how dowdy and thin and unwomanly after five months at sea.  You'll simply die. I can't hear a word you're saying. Let's get out of here topside. Up to the widow's walk on the roof? Why not? Come on. Let me help you up the ladder. You'll forget. I've been climbing ladders for five months. I'm pretty good at it now. I haven't forgotten. Beautiful knife. Look, Mr. Locke. How lovely the bell of Cadiz looks down there with her mask against the moon. India? Yes. You understand a little why I was so stern with you? I know just one thing. I want a new bonnet. Not that it'll help me. It'll take me a long time to get peaches and cream and plump and pretty again for you.  Oh, Zachary. Next voyage, you'll be gone so long. Yes, two long years, little one. Two years. Round the Horn to San Francisco, cross to China, and then Malaya and Zanzibar. We'll be shipping furs and loading on tea and trading cotton for ginger and glass for clothes. What about ivory?   India, the captain of a ship making an important voyage like this has to dress properly. It means a clean white shirt every single day. In two years, that's a... oh, Mr. Locke, that's more than 700 boiled shirts.  I'm a quarter-deck if it has to be. Oh, darling, how could I ever be jealous of Jane Lovett? She has a bonnet and she's plump and pretty, but I've got Captain Zachary Locke 700 boiled shirts and the best life of all, a captain's wife at sea. Thanks to Jim Girogers, Cy Harris, and the Cablecade players for tonight's story. Next week, the star of the depart Cablecade will be Douglas Fairbanks. Our play, The New Commandment, tells an exciting story of the founding of a very familiar organization of American youth. Tonight's depart Cablecade 700 boiled shirts was written by Virginia Radcliffe based on incidents in women who went to sea by Ora Hickley, late librarian of the Hyannis, Massachusetts free public library. Music was composed by Arden Cornwell and conducted by Donald Voorhees. The program was directed by John Zoller. Ginger Rogers is currently starring in person in the new Broadway play Love and Let Love. This is Bill Hamilton speaking. Don't forget next week, our star, Douglas Fairbanks. The depart Cablecade of America comes to you from the Belasco Theater in New York and is sponsored by the depart company of Wilmington, Delaware, makers of better things for better living through chemistry. Next, it's Hollywood Theater on NBC.