It’s the largest infrastructure investment since Eisenhower’s Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which created the U.S. interstate highway system.

Infrastructure investment – under-funded since the 1960s – will be unprecedented over the next three to five years, and let’s face it: the need is huge.

According to the National Surface Transportation Policy Review Study Commission, $225 billion needs to be spent annually for the next 50 years… that’s over $11 trillion, and that’s just for the transportation sector.

Of course, public infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges and water and sewer systems are by their very nature huge, expensive undertakings, requiring massive amounts of capital and manpower.

But very little actual construction activity is getting underway. Here’s why, and what you can do about it in the meantime.

What’s Going on in Big Infrastructure Project Financing?

So, why is little construction happening? Simple.

The current economic environment has upset the applecart with regards to funding these capital-intensive projects. As tax revenue continue to plummet, over 30 states have serious budget shortfalls, and most have shutdown funding for large capital projects. Most municipalities aren’t in any better shape.

At the Federal level, Congress is transfusing the Highway Trust Fund every year – last year it was $8 billion – as consumers drive less and switch to more fuel-efficient cars and trucks.

Clearly, new and innovative ways to fund infrastructure projects are needed. Last week, the fourth annual U.S. Infrastructure Investment Summit was held in New York to address this issue, and I was delighted to be in attendance at this important two-day event.

This high-level gathering annually brings together a small, but influential group of individuals in the world of infrastructure finance and investing.

In addition to yours truly, attendees included directors and managers of a number of infrastructure investment funds, together with those from Barclays Capital, UBS, the Blackstone Group, Jolene Molitoris (Ohio DOT). Several managers of large pension funds rounded out the group.

This year, the discussions and panel sessions focused on several key areas. Below are a few of the highlights:

• The Federal Infrastructure Spending Bill

Besides the $120 billion earmarked for infrastructure in the stimulus bill, the Federal Transportation Authorization bill provides for an additional $450 billion of funding over six years, in the form of a national infrastructure bank.

It accomplishes two things: It relies on bonds to provide the necessary funding for major infrastructure projects and it eliminates the huge, upfront payments. Clearly, there will be plenty of capital available from the government for infrastructure projects.

• The Impact of the Global Financial Crisis on Infrastructure Spending

The global financial crisis has changed the financial landscape for the foreseeable future. Retail lenders are far more conservative, warning potential homebuyers that they will need “serious skin in the game” in order to qualify for a mortgage.

The same thing is happening with infrastructure, according to Ben Heap, Executive Director of Infrastructure Asset Management at UBS, and Stephen Howard, a Director at Barclays Capital.

Most of the deals being done right now are more like partnerships with other investors and pension funds. And they have much more equity in them today as opposed to those done several years ago. The reason is that traditional debt financing is hard to come by with state budgets in crisis mode.

As a result, political acceptance of private funding deals is warming fast (money talks) – especially at the municipal level – where partisan politics is often non-existent. At the local level, most deals are small, bottom-up deals involving a few million dollars.

• The Current Lending Environment and Infrastructure Valuation

“Not all infrastructure is the same… many perform differently from an investment standpoint”, says Michael Dorrell, Senior Managing Director of Blackstone Group. Toll roads have very low earnings volatility, airports are higher and seaports are the highest.

According to Dorrell, earnings for infrastructure are off only 3% to -5%, versus the S&P index that’s off nearly 85%. Even infrastructure stocks are off 35% to 40% from their highs. His main criteria for valuing good infrastructure assets?

Making sure the capital structure of the underlying asset is durable and robust. In the past, over-enthusiasm on the capital structure side has had a significant impact on asset valuation.

• What it Takes to Create Public-Private Partnerships (P3s)

People don’t want to pay twice for infrastructure. They think it should be free, given that they’ve already paid taxes. The federal gas tax – due to its fixed nature – has lost much of its value as a proxy for the use of roads and bridges.

Paying for use is coming as a result of all of this. Proper tolling is a way for people to understand the value of the asset they are using. Expect toll roads to proliferate across the country.

States and municipalities will partner with private equity funds and pension funds as a means of raising capital and reducing annual budgets. These P3s will proliferate at the local level, where partisan politics is relatively absent. Some state deals will happen, particularly in those states with budgetary crises, where raising capital by any means is paramount.

What it All Means for Investors

The bottom line is this: The funding issues are being solved, albeit slower than initial expectations.

Dorrell said it best: “Now is a terrific time to buy infrastructure assets. They are extremely undervalued.” Of course infrastructure stocks are good buys as well… and for all the same reasons: nobody likes them.

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (NYSE: JEC), Fluor (NYSE: FLR) and Foster Wheeler AG (Nasdaq: FWLT) are three great examples of companies that stand to benefit as the infrastructure cash gets deployed this year and next.

As credit markets loosen, it will begin to free up billions in capital that will be put to work on infrastructure projects all across America, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process.

As most of you know, I’ve been following the energy and infrastructure sectors for some time now for both Investment U and The Oxford Club – I believe that in the next three to five years there will be incredible investment opportunities in these two sectors.

And the prospects are exciting enough that we’re looking to devote an entire service to profiting from them. So stay tuned for more information as things unfold.

Source: Stalled Infrastructure Projects: What it Means for Investors

So here we are in a shaky economy tottering on a ledge and along comes the EPA ready to shove it right off. As The Wall Street Journal reported: “The landmark decision lays the groundwork for federal efforts to cap carbon emissions – at a potential cost of billions of dollars to businesses and government.”

In other words, the war on the so-called greenhouse gases is officially under way – and it is going to be expensive. Each passing month brings us closer to capping, taxing or cutting the gases thought to cause global warming.

I don’t think investors appreciate how far-reaching such efforts could be. And there will be definite winners and losers as a result. Some of these are far from obvious and some are in plain sight.

The first obvious big loser is American coal, from which we get half about of our electricity needs. Already, you see companies reacting to this news. Consol Energy (NYSE:CNX), a big coal company, said it halted two big mines in Appalachia because of uncertainty over the costs of pending new regulations. If you own a U.S. coal miner, I’d fold the hand, so to speak.

Coal-fired power plants look like big losers, too. And the utility AES, the biggest user of coal in North America, is looking to shutter some of its coal plants. It is also looking at how high rates would have to go to comply with possible rule changes. In some places, rates could rise as high as 50%. It is no sure thing that AES could get such rate increases.

Natural gas-fired plants, though, may be one winner relative to coal, because natural gas burns cleaner than coal. Already, in just the last few months, as the market ponders talk of new emissions caps, you could see gaps opening up between coal utilities and natural gas utilities.

Though the new rules could be a year or more away, those gaps may well widen over time as investors anticipate the likely bad ending for coal. So I would not own a U.S. coal utility right now, either. It is no fun wearing a target on your back – especially since the guy throwing the darts makes all the rules.

Instead, I’d rather be the guy who gets to make and sell the new equipment that helps utilities “clean up.” The demand for cleaner-burning fuels will boost the need for its high-quality pumps, valves and seals. These products work to improve efficiency and emissions. Two similar companies I’m keeping an eye on include Fluor Corp. (NYSE:FLR) and Foster Wheeler (NASDAQ:FWLT).

But there is much more…

Besides carbon dioxide, the EPA also named five other industrial gases to its hit list, including methane. This could have an impact on landfills, which emit methane and carbon dioxide. One of the companies I am following is Covanta (NYSE:CVA), which turns waste into energy, essentially replacing landfills. For every one ton of trash burned in a waste-to-energy facility, one ton less of carbon dioxide is released into the air. It also captures the methane gas.

So again, big penalty for those who run landfills – but potentially a boon to those with solutions, like Covanta.

There are many other ways the EPA’s ruling could affect the lay of the land. The EPA could raise fuel-efficiency requirements on cars. It could require more hybrids and electric cars. This would be good for makers of car batteries. It would also be good for the things that go into making more efficient car batteries – such as lithium or cobalt, which are ideas I prefer over the battery makers themselves.

The war on greenhouse gases could also dramatically affect our homes and offices. Worldwide, the energy we use to build, heat, cool and light buildings makes up about 40% of energy demand. This is even more energy than the world’s transportation networks guzzle.

Better insulation, new windows and even more efficient water heaters can make a big difference on the carbon footprint of a building. Just heating water alone can make up 15% of the energy used in a home.

Another company I am following is A.O. Smith (NYSE:AOS). This company has a dominant position in water heaters, as well as a rapidly growing business in China – where the need is more acute. It also makes heating and air conditioning systems. A good chunk of A.O. Smith’s sales come from replacement markets – just fixing what is in place. Stricter building codes and a need to cut energy use could be good for businesses like Smith’s.

However, this is not all driven by government’s iron hand. In fact, in some cases, it is just good business sense. The Empire State Building, for instance, is undergoing a major makeover. But it is one you can’t see from the outside. Instead, it’s all about the insulation, smart meters, new boilers and more. According to the Financial Times: “The retrofit of the Empire State Building will cost about $20 million, but its annual energy savings will be $4.4 million when it is complete.” That’s not a bad payback.

In any event, the efforts to save energy and reduce greenhouse gases – whatever their source – is an important story and sets up a lot of things for us to look deeper into in future letters. We are still early in this game.

Sincerely,
Chris Mayer

Source: How to Profit from the War on Greenhouse Gasses

This from Investors Daily Edge:

From the government that brought you $1,000 toilet seats and $500 hammers comes the “Great Economic Stimulus Boondoggle of 2009″. Okay, while it might be an appropriate title, that’s not what it is called. President-Elect Obama’s stimulus plan is actually called the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.”

In my article last week, I brought up the distinct parallels to Ayn Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged and what is happening in the financial and political world today. In a Wall Street Journal article highlighting these startling similarities, Stephen Moore tells how Rand pilloried various acts of government futility and their “benevolent-sounding titles”.

There is the:

• “Anti-Greed Act” which is meant to redistribute income
• “Equalization of Opportunity Act” to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give others a fair chance) and the
• “Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act” to restrict competition between firms and slow the wave of business bankruptcies.

While these acts sound far-fetched, they are not too far removed from what we have seen from Washington in recent months, such as the $700 billion “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act” and the “Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act” which followed.

And now we look forward to what will certainly be one of the biggest government-spending programs in history – Obama’s “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan”.

Will it work? Will it help America to “recover”? Of course not. Let us count the flaws and discuss why this plan not only will not help America to “recover”, but will make the sick patient even sicker.

In a speech before the student body at George Mason University on January 8, 2009, President-Elect Obama stated:

“It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe.”

I won’t even go into the assumption that what Obama is looking to do is provide a “short-term boost.” Do you really think this will be a quick in and out procedure? Not hardly.

But the bigger flaw is Obama’s Keynesian assumption that government can fix this economic downturn by increasing spending. In some cases, government spending can boost the economy. But most economists agree that too large an infusion of government spending ultimately slows growth, raises interest rates, and makes tax increases a certainty.

Federal government spending already accounts for one out of every four dollars in U.S. economic activity. This is the highest rate since World War II and it’s only going higher.

Let’s return to Obama’s recent speech:

“Only government can break the cycle that is crippling our economy – where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs, which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit.”

Now we’re getting somewhere. According to Obama, what is crippling our economy is a “lack of spending” and “an inability to lend and borrow”. So our economic problems have nothing to do with loose monetary policy, the systematic dismantling of prudent regulations by crony capitalist bankers and legislators, and the parasitic expenses of an out-of-control government.

None of those things had anything to do with our current situation. Instead, we got here by not spending enough, not consuming enough and not borrowing enough. Debt is a large part of what got us into this mess. More debt will not get us out.

The President-Elect continues:

“[...] we need to put money in the pockets of the American people, create new jobs, and invest in our future.”

Obama has stated that he plans to create over 2.5 million jobs. But artificially created jobs will not boost the economy. What we need is increasing productivity. And you don’t get that through government programs.

---

INTERNAL ENDORSEMENT The Coming Gold Rush of 2009 Could Hand You Safe Gains of 408% If you think it’s too late to make big money in the precious metals bull market, it’s time to think again. The financial crisis has caused tremendous pain… but the “solutions” are likely to make the situation even worse in the long run. But there is a way to protect and grow your wealth… with inflation proof, depression proof gold! Click here to learn how to turn the gold rush of 2009 into safe gains of 408%

---

In a recent essay, Ron Paul wrote:

“A ‘job’ could be to dig a hole one day, and fill it back up the next, or perhaps the equivalent at a desk. This does no one any good. The value in that paycheck ultimately has to come from taxing someone productive.”

It doesn’t take much thinking to reach the conclusion that this closed-circle economic model won’t get us anywhere, and is, in fact totally counter-productive in the long-run.

But the bigger question – one that very few in Washington seem to be asking – is where is all this money going to come from?

On January 6,  the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released the government’s latest budget forecast. The CBO estimates that the U.S. deficit for fiscal 2009 will be nearly $1.2 trillion!

This level of deficit spending is entirely unsupportable, especially for a nation as far in debt as we are already are. But this figure is not even the half of it… literally.

The CBO estimate does not factor in the spending increases and tax cuts proposed in Obama’s stimulus package. Nor does it include new healthcare promises. And that’s not all. The CBO estimate also includes numerous unlikely assumptions. To wit, that:

• There will be no more bank failures or bailouts (just yesterday Bank of America rattled the cup for a few more billion)
• Federal revenues will remain stable (no rising unemployment or corporate losses leading to falling tax revenues)
• The government will get most of its bailout money back (the assumption is that 75% of the TARP program funds will be paid or earned back)
• Interest rates on government debt will continue to decline (these interest rates are already at more than 50-year lows, and in a recent report I sent to 20th Century Prosperity subscribers, I showed why they will inevitably rise and how to profit)

When Casey Research analyst Bud Conrad accounted for what is not included in the budget deficit along with the goldilocks assumptions, he came up with a 2009 deficit of $3 trillion!

Thankfully, besides Ron Paul, there is at least one other politician in Washington asking the question, where is all this money going to come from. Speaking to the Washington Times, Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) said:

“[...] someone has to pay for [the stimulus package] whether it’s today’s taxpayers or their children and grandchildren. There comes a time when government simply cannot provide enough government jobs to bolster the economy. There comes a time when the taxpayers’ burden to pay for all of the projects is too heavy to carry. With the trillions in bailouts and stimulus packages that have already been passed and that are in the works, that time may be sooner than we think.

“Government should not take on the role of creating the jobs and buying the goods. Government should be in the business of establishing an environment in which businesses can thrive and play those roles themselves. Americans need a stimulus proposal that actually stimulates the economy.”

I heartily agree. But I am also realistic enough to understand that that is not what we are going to get. What we will get is a massive “stimulus” program with an emphasis on infrastructure, similar to the public-works projects of the Great Depression.

If you’re looking for a way to capitalize on the government-sponsored bull market in infrastructure, I expect there will be some upside to the usual cast of companies that benefit from government construction and engineering projects. Companies like Fluor (NYSE:FLR), Shaw Group (NYSE:SGR) and Jacobs Engineering Group (NYSE:JEC).

But the real winners – in the long-term – will be those investments that benefit most from rising inflation… precious metals and precious metals mining stocks.

Source: The Great Stimulus Boondoggle (And How to Profit)

This from Taipan Daily:

If you drive on U.S. roads, you probably don’t need to be told – the country’s infrastructure is in pretty bad shape.

As a nation, Americans like to look forward. We prefer to spend our money building new things (rather than fixing up old things). Issues like repair and maintenance are back-burnered for other priorities in state and federal budgets. Over time, the cost of neglect rises.

In 2007 we were hit with a long overdue wake-up call: a Minneapolis bridge collapsed. Thirteen drivers were killed.

A Serious Problem

I don’t know about you, but I routinely drive over bridges and interpasses without worry (just as 200 million other U.S. drivers do). The bridge collapse was seen as a freak occurrence, a one-off… but imagine if that changed. The climate of fear could cripple our roadways, and that would be disastrous.

Dale Reiss, vice chairman of the Urban Land Institute in Washington, believes that “at some point, the system could grind to a halt” if we don’t do something about the crumbling state of our highways, roads and bridges.

In Atlanta, Ga., for example – the city where your humble editor went to high school – rush-hour trips are projected to take 75% longer by the year 2030. (If you’ve ever braved Atlanta traffic, you know that’s no joke.)

The estimated repair bill is staggering. A report titled “Infrastructure 2007: A Global Perspective” argues that the U.S. faces a $1.6 trillion deficit for repair and maintenance through the year 2010.

It may not seem like it these days, but $1.6 trillion is still a serious chunk of change. (Unless your name is Hank Paulson or Ben Bernanke, that is.)

Keep in mind, too, that the $1.6 trillion repair bill estimate is only through 2010. When you look at the long-term estimates for needed infrastructure and repair costs – stretching out into decades – you get a repair bill in the tens of trillions.

Keynes to the Rescue!

So, given the above news, the logical John Q. Taxpayer reaction would be something like, “Holy smokes, that’s a lot of dough to spend on repairs.”

But in Washington, D.C. – where everybody and their brother is a John Maynard Keynes fan – the reaction is “Hooray! Something huge to throw money at!”

Deflation fears are all the rage now as you know… the Fed just cut rates to zero… Chrysler is hurting so bad it’s shutting down operations for a month… and President-elect Obama is getting ready to swoop in with the mother of all stimulus plans. Money needs to be spent… and by gum, we’re gonna spend it on infrastructure.

The total amount of “Obama stimulus” seems to yo-yo up and down, like a mood ring attuned to the general anxieties of U.S. taxpayers. The initial amount being bandied about was $600 billion. In recent days the whispers have expanded it to a cool trillion – the big T word – or maybe even more.

On Dec. 6, President-elect Obama put some flesh on the bones of his stimulus plan, pledging “the largest new investment in roads and bridges since President Dwight D. Eisenhower built the interstate system in the 1950s” (according to the Wall Street Journal).

President-elect Obama also promised, in his own words, to “launch the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade school buildings that this country has ever seen.”

(Side note: why do most public schools look like prisons? Have you ever noticed that? I don’t get it.)

“Use It or Lose It”

When Obama unveiled his five-point plan earlier this month – encompassing energy, roads and bridges, schools, broadband and electronic medical records – the thing that really made my ears perk up was the “use it or lose it” provision.

Here is the President-elect, again in his own words:

We’ll invest your precious tax dollars in new and smarter ways, and we’ll set a simple rule – use it or lose it. If a state doesn’t act quickly to invest in roads and bridges in their communities, they’ll lose the money.

Have you ever seen the movie Brewster’s Millions? It’s a classic 80s comedy in which Richard Pryor, a minor league baseball player, has to blow 30 million dollars in thirty days – without telling anyone why – in order to inherit $300 million more from an eccentric relative.

The use-it-or-lose-it provision made me think of Brewster’s Millions… perhaps updated here as Obama’s Trillions. In order to meet the stimulus-driven desires of Washington, the states are going to have to shovel this road-and-bridge cash out the door, pronto.

You can almost hear the CEOs of the big construction companies doing a Homer Simpson: Woo-Hoo!

How to Play It?

So we know that the state of America’s infrastructure is a real and serious problem – one that will take years, if not decades, to fully put right.

We also know that Washington is bound and determined to drop a money bomb on that problem, in order to stimulate our sagging economy and create millions of new jobs.

So the obvious question is, how to play it?

Here’s a quick look at some of the major players that could benefit (all traded on the New York Stock Exchange).

Name	Symbol (all NYSE)	P/E Ratio	Market Cap
Fluor Corporation	FLR	11.52	8.98B
Jacobs Engineering Corp.	JEC	14.35	5.98B
Caterpillar Inc.	CAT	7.16	26.16B
The Shaw Group Inc.	SGR	12.47	1.74B
Chicago Bridge & Iron	CBI	n/a	1.13B
URS Corporation	URS	16.03	3.34B
McDermott International	MDR	4.20	2.27B
Perini Corporation	PCR	6.10	1.16B

If you pull up charts for the above names, you’ll see that every single one is in some form of uptrend – as is wholly to be expected, given the Obama news and the longer-term prospects for fattened construction company coffers.

Which of them to buy, though? Another option is just to go with an ETF, like the PowerShares Dynamic Building & Construction ETF (NYSE:PKB).

As you can see, PKB is headed in the right direction. The ETF saw a surge in volume on the “Obama breakout” when the stimulus plans were announced, and the price action is strong.

But PKB has a few problems that make it a less than ideal choice.

For one, PKB’s average volume isn’t so hot at less than 100K shares per day. The volume is doable from a trading standpoint, but getting down to where lack of liquidity starts to be a concern.

Even more of a concern, from our perspective, is the fact that PKB’s top 10 holdings include Home Depot (NYSE:HD) and Lowe’s (NYSE:LOW). We’re not interested in DIY (do-it-yourself) retail or anything aimed at the consumer here, so that’s a real drawback.

Here’s where I turned to the man with the micro plan, Zach Scheidt (a.k.a Cash McDash), to get his take on how to play the Obama infrastructure boom.

Smaller Is Better

The first thing Zach pointed out to me is that, in terms of getting the most bang for one’s trading and investing buck, smaller is better as a rule of thumb.

Here’s what he means…

The major go-to names (the ones in the list noted above) should do well as a result of Obama’s big plans. In fact, they could very well offer double-digit returns in the coming years – nothing to sneeze at.

But, in Zach’s view, most of those multi-billion-dollar market cap names are too big to see the needle really move as a result of this road-and-bridge cash flood… the way it could with some of the smaller, less well-known infrastructure names.

“Think of an 18-wheeler semi-tractor trailer versus a sports car,” Zach told me.

“You can certainly cover ground in a big rig… but you just can’t get up to speed all that fast. So just as a fully loaded 18-wheeler can’t accelerate all that quickly (even on a brand new Obama highway), the big, well-known infrastructure names aren’t set to deliver the velocity of returns that some of the smaller names can.”

This program – which I call the “13F Disbursement Plan” – allows you to legally skim money from the cutthroat Wall Street firms who’ve gotten obscenely rich at the expense of ordinary folks like you and me.

By following the detailed instructions outlined in this letter, you’ll learn how to add $4,570 to $11,450 to your bank account every month, courtesy of the U.S. Government.

Read on for more information…

“Think of a Porsche,” Zach continued, “or maybe a Corvette, out of respect for the ailing Big Three. An infrastructure play with a market cap of just a few hundred million – as opposed to billions – is like the Corvette. The Obama plan’s impact on revenues will be that much greater for these smaller players… and in terms of shareholder return, the Corvette should leave the 18-wheeler in the dust.”

I asked Zach if he had any names in mind. He responded as if I had just insulted his honor. Of course he had some names on his roster – what self-respecting trader wouldn’t want a piece of this trend?

“In particular, I’m looking at one company that has a market cap of less than $300 million,” Zach said. “I haven’t pulled the trigger on it for Taipan subscribers yet, but my preliminary research suggests it could be a double or a triple within the next 12 to 18 months.”

Lawyers and Bulldozers

I then asked Zach what readers should look for as they scout for these infrastructure “Corvettes” themselves.

His response: “One thing that’s really important is to look at the lines of business. In particular, I like names that have the ability to make money on the construction side and the consulting side.”

“You can think of the two lines – construction and consulting – as the ‘bulldozer team’ and the ‘lawyer team.’ Before a structure can be upgraded or a new bridge can be built, a number of assessments have to be made. Sometimes there’s a lot of red tape – especially when NIMBY interests (the ‘Not In My Back Yard’ people) get involved.”

“So the smaller infrastructure names with dual lines of business – like the one I’m zeroing in on for Taipan subscribers – can make money on both sides of the coin. During the assessment period, while the project is being held up by red tape, they send in the lawyers and the guys with the clipboards. This allows them to make fat profit margins on their consulting fees.”

“Then, when the project actually gets underway, the ‘lawyer team’ packs up and the ‘bulldozer team’ rolls in… allowing the company to make another big chunk of profits on the construction side. Nobody likes red tape, but it’s a beautiful racket – a way to make money coming and going.”

Source: How to Play the Obama Infrastructure Boom

NEW HIGHS OF NOTE LAST WEEK

Halliburton (HAL)… oil services
Patterson-UTI (PTEN)… oil services
Carbo Ceramics (CRR)… oil services
Atwood Oceanics (ATW)… oil services
Key Energy Services (KEG)… oil services
National Oilwell Varco (NOV)… oil services
Spectra Energy (SE)… gas pipelines
U.S. Steel (X)… you guessed it
Schnitzer Steel (SCHN)… scrap steel
Fluor (FLR)… infrastructure
Quanta Services (PWR)… infrastructure
Crude oil, Natural gas, Gasoline, Corn, Soybeans, Cocoa

NEW LOWS OF NOTE LAST WEEK

JetBlue (JBLU)… airline
US Airways (LCC)… airline
Continental Airline (CAL)… airline
MGM Mirage (MGM)… casinos
Boyd Gaming (BYD)… casinos
Wynn Resorts (WYNN)… casinos
Las Vegas Sands (LVS)… casinos
Monarch Casinos (MCRI)… casinos
Winnebago (WGO)… RVs
Thor Industries (THO)… RVs
Fleetwood Enterprises (FLE)… RVs
Goodyear Tire (GT)… tires
News Corp (NWS)… media
Hershey (HSY)… candy
Playboy (PLA)… eye candy
American Express (AXP)… credit cards
Capital One Financial (COF)… credit cards
International Gaming (IGT)… gambling machines
Circuit City (CC)… landfill stuffing continues to suffer
Veolia Environnement (VE)… world’s largest water stock
Honeywell (HON)… conglomerate
General Electric (GE)… conglomerate
United Technologies (UTX)… conglomerate
XM Satellite Radio (XMSR)… satellite radio
Legg Mason (LM)… asset management
Callaway Golf (ELY)… golf equipment
Whole Foods (WFMI)… expensive groceries
General Motors (GM)… read the letter from the Chairman
Lead, Nickel

Source: Brian Hunt’s Market Notes Monday, June 30, 2008