• run with the bulls

    get your first month

    of hedgeye free


[From The Vault] Cartoon of the Day: Bull Bomb

[From The Vault] Cartoon of the Day: Bull Bomb - Bull bomb cartoon 09.01.2015


Our inimitable, in-house cartoonist Bob Rich is on a much-deserved summer vacation. While he kicks back and relaxes, we're going into the Hedgeye Vault and highlighting some of his best work. As U.S. equity indices hang out near all-time highs, we bring you another audience favorite.


Click here to receive our daily cartoon for free.

The Last Picture Show

Takeaway: The film industry is no longer getting top billing. Consumers have plenty of cheap, quality entertainment alternatives at their fingertips.

I think you'll enjoy this issue of "About Everything." It's on the decline of movies as an economic industry and as a cultural institution. Just last week, Variety published the latest--and one of the best--examinations of why movies are in trouble. Box office revenues are stagnant, movie-goers are declining, and a growing share of all revenues go to a declining number of mega-blockbusters. Fun fact: In 2015, the five top movies accounted for 25% of all box office revenue, up from just 16% from 2000 to 2013. 


You may also like the Hedgeye Q and A on this piece that I did on Juky 21st, CLICK HERE to watch.




The film industry is struggling. Ticket sales have been on a downward tilt since 2002, and this year U.S. theaters are on pace to sell the fewest tickets per capita of any year since before the 1920s.


The Last Picture Show - Chart1


If it were just a matter of disappointing ticket sales, that would be bad enough. But other important metrics also paint a picture of an industry in decline.


For one, an ever-smaller share of movies accounts for an ever-larger portion of box office sales. Plus, films make up a shrinking share of sales for most top media companies. Walt Disney (DIS) now earns just 13% of its revenue from movies, down from roughly a quarter in 2005. Viacom (VIAB), which owns Paramount Pictures, gets 22% of its revenue from movies, down from 36% as recently as 2010. That share could decline even further if the company’s talks to offload a 49% stake in Paramount go through.


The Last Picture Show - Chart2


The Last Picture Show - Chart3


Meanwhile, sales have stagnated over the past three years for 20th Century Fox (FOXA), Columbia Pictures (SNE), and Warner Bros. Pictures (TWX). Smaller players that specialize in film like Lionsgate Films (LGF) and DreamWorks Animation (DWA) have seen their sales slide as well.


All told, forecasters and media outlets are bearish on the industry, saying that 2016 may end up being the worst year ever for movies. Yikes.




Better competition from TV. Back in 1961 when TV programming was considered a “vast wasteland” (in the famous words of FCC Chairman Newton Minow), there was a vast quality gap between television and movies. But that gap has narrowed dramatically in recent decades. Some might even say the gap has reversed.


Additionally, high-end networks now upload an entire season’s worth of shows all at once. Which means that these shows are meant to be binge-watched—and thus are even designed more like movies. In 40 continuous hours, a TV show can boast more complex plotting and deeper subtext than would be possible in any single movie.


More competition from other media. The slate of players vying for people’s attention is constantly expanding. Movies have got mobile apps, video games, and the vast universe of screened entertainment as a whole to contend with. (Video game industry sales overtook box office sales roughly a decade ago. Today, the margin is more than 2 to 1.)


Paid subscription services like Netflix and Hulu have created a whole new world where would-be theatergoers can find the same high-quality entertainment at a low price from the comfort of their bedrooms. Not to mention the countless free options—think YouTube and Snapchat (yes, Snapchat has its own scripted programming)—that provide hours of entertainment for just the price of an Internet connection.


Generational change. Call it the great age divide: Theatergoing has been falling most among younger age brackets. Indeed, over the last few years, more than the entire decline has occurred among the younger age brackets that have historically fueled box office sales. From 2012 to 2015, the total number of “frequent” moviegoers (those who attend once a month or more) decreased among 12- to 17-year-olds, 18- to 24-year-olds, and 25- to 39-year-olds. Attendance among older audiences, meanwhile, is up: Over the same period, the number of frequent moviegoers grew among 50- to 59-year olds and the 60+.


The Last Picture Show - Chart4


Aftermarket cannibalizing of the box office. Originally, filmmakers used video sales to grab an extra slice of revenue from consumers who weren’t willing to pay to see a movie in theaters. But now, this strategy works against the film industry. Today’s consumers expect to see a movie on store shelves (or in their Netflix queues) within weeks of it leaving theaters. With the exception of the very biggest blockbuster hits, most big-screen releases now register a resounding “meh, I’ll just wait” from consumers. Media expert Todd Juenger sums up this moviemaker dilemma by saying, "People are still watching the same amount of movies that they did a few years ago. They’re just spending $6 billion less a year to do it."




Going old. Many moviemakers are catering to graying audiences by producing high-quality, thoughtful, and often transgressive films—usually about older people. Boomers have been avid media consumers their entire lives. As they moved into middle age, they fueled a golden age of G-rated cartoons for their kids. Today, these aging film connoisseurs are buying tickets to see grittier, introspective films starring older actors whose characters’ lives are in shambles (à la Youth, featuring Michael Caine). According to GfK MRI, the number of 65+ movie-goers is up 67% since 1995. And you wonder why richly meaningful films that might have been directed by Coppola, Altman, Lumet, or Polanski are still box office draws?


The Last Picture Show - Chart5


Going young: reboots and sequels. While many Boomers consider remakes uncreative and formulaic, plenty of Millennials don’t mind the lack of originality. Over the past decade, series like Transformers have dominated the top box office spots. And with studios creating fewer, more expensive films (with more explosions than intellectual content), these crowd-pleasers with built-in audiences reduce some of filmmaking’s risks.


But beware: Even sequels are not a guaranteed proposition. Over the past six months, high-profile titles like X-Men: Apocalypse and Allegiant have tanked at the box office.


Going young: whiz-bang technology at the theater. Some film giants are using cutting-edge tech to draw Millennials to the movies. Paramount is reportedly in talks with IMAX to create VR movies. (Care to watch the action from any angle?) Meanwhile, Lions Gate Entertainment and 21st Century Fox have agreed to sell movies via Oculus’s online store.


However, it’s too early to tell whether VR moviemaking is a promising growth strategy or a passing fad. Remember 3-D movies? Plenty once picked that as the “next big thing.”


Going abroad. This may be the safest bet for today’s moviemakers. From 2010 to 2015, the U.S./Canadian share of global box office revenues slid from 33% to 28%. While this may not seem like much of a decline, it leaves China in line to become the largest movie market in the world by 2017.


The Last Picture Show - Chart6


Walt Disney Pictures is leading the way in overseas markets. The film giant accounts for four of the five highest-grossing films imported to China in 2016. This accomplishment puts Disney on track to be the first Hollywood studio to make $1 billion in one year at the (highly regulated) Chinese box office. Disney even plans to have a branded film in production in China by the end of the year.


Meanwhile, India’s movie audience is also growing at a breakneck pace. In 2015, the top 10 Hollywood releases in India collected about $98 million at the box office—a single-year jump of 34%.


To be sure, even this strategy has its ceiling. High-speed Internet is already beginning to reach these foreign moviegoers. Over time, films will have to compete with the same low-priced, high-quality alternatives that have been hurting the U.S. box office. Netflix is now available in 190 countries worldwide. As the company stocks up on foreign-language movies—and as competitors follow suit—it will mean trouble for the movie industry.




Go long on companies that can synergize many media. Once upon a time, a successful movie stood on its own. Today, it is only one avenue by which a branded character or story is delivered to audiences: Along with the movie, there is the book, the song, the videogame, the theme park, the clothing, the toy merchandise, and so on. In the movie industry, the biggest players own the most successful movie franchises. Universal has Harry Potter. Disney has Pixar, Lucasfilm, and Marvel Comics. Warner Bros. has DC Comics. And Lionsgate has The Hunger Games and Divergent series.


Major players like Universal and Disney thus have the edge over smaller players like Columbia and 20th Century Fox that don’t have successful franchises or theme parks. And in a world where standalone films aren’t selling, the biggest losers will be independent filmmakers. Inevitably, these smaller shops will have to transition to TV production and on-line branded entertainment—taking a hit on their market value as they go. And some will be gobbled up, leading to more concentration in the industry. NBCUniversal, for example, plans to acquire DreamWorks Animation by the end of the year.


Expect movie theater operators to be hit hardest. While studios are still able to profit when movies hit pay-per-view, movie theater operators miss out entirely. To stay afloat, many of the larger ones are buying up smaller competitors to enhance economies of scale.


These companies are also doubling down on amenities. Regal has invested in 4DX technology, which gives younger audiences an immersive experience complete with bumps, wind, and fog.


But at this point, there’s probably more money to be made chasing older audiences. Many theater chains are trying to woo Boomers with a deluxe high-margin, high-touch theatergoing experience. In 2014, AMC Theaters announced that it would be spending $600 million to install reclining leather seats in some of its theaters. Others are offering dine-in services for a lavish (hors d’oeuvres and vintage wine) “dinner and a movie” experience.



  • By any measure, the film industry is hurting. Thanks to the massive amount of quality content available to today’s consumers at low (or no) cost, many would-be theatergoers—especially Millennials—are staying home.
  • Studios are trying everything to remain viable. But most of their strategies—whether rolling out sequels or searching abroad for profits—have downside risk. Bet on the largest companies to ride the wave of their star franchises and outlast their smaller competitors.

FY2017 Hospice Payment Update Finalized – Structural Changes in the Offing <AMED> <LHCG> <KND> <HLS>

Takeaway: Lots of hints about what could change in the future but no concrete proposals yet. Investors should be wary

On Friday, CMS released the FY 2017 Hospice Payment update. As we discussed in our analysis of the proposed rule, the reimbursement rate will increase 2.1 percent. This amount is based on a market basket adjustment of 2.7 percent, less a productivity adjustment of 0.3 percent less an ACA mandated reduction of 0.3 percent. Tables 1 and 2 list the FY 2017 per diem payment rates for hospice providers that submit quality data. The payment rate will be reduced by 2.0 percent for hospice providers that do not report quality data.


Table 1: FY 2017 Hospice per Diem Payment Rates


FY2017 Hospice Payment Update Finalized – Structural Changes in the Offing <AMED> <LHCG> <KND> <HLS> - RHC Care FY 2017

FY2017 Hospice Payment Update Finalized – Structural Changes in the Offing <AMED> <LHCG> <KND> <HLS> - Hospice er diem FY 2017


In this final rule, CMS also finalized the hospice aggregate payment cap. For accounting years that begin after September 30, 2016 and end before October 1, 2025, the payment cap is to be updated using the annual reimbursement increase – in this case 2.1 percent – instead of CPI-U which currently stands at about 1.0 percent. The cap year is also being aligned with the federal fiscal year which means that FY 2017 should be the first year that the new cap calculation method is effective for the entire fiscal year for all providers.


The aggregate payment cap is one of the few fiscal restraints on hospice spending and Medicare expenditures in general. In recent years, the growth rate of the aggregate payment cap has been on the decline due to a low rate of inflation. With the substitution of CPI-U for what is essentially the market basket of goods and services used by inpatient hospitals, the aggregate payment cap’s growth rate has increased for FY 2017. Going forward, at least until 2025, the aggregate cap should grow more in line with inpatient hospital costs. Chart 1 illustrates the growth rate for the aggregate payment cap for the last five years.


Chart 1: Growth Rate for Hospice Aggregate Payment Cap 2013 to 2017


FY2017 Hospice Payment Update Finalized – Structural Changes in the Offing <AMED> <LHCG> <KND> <HLS> - Cap Growth Rate


An increase in the aggregate payment cap is important for hospice providers with long average lengths of stays as these patients are the most likely to contribute heavily to a hospice provider exceeding the aggregate payment caps. The change in the aggregate payment cap formula is a small positive for providers with a large population of patients that have long stays like CHE.


Sometime next summer, hospice providers will join the Medicare Compare universe with public release of reported quality data. The measures that will be reported, at least initially are:


  • NQF #1634 - Percentage of hospice or palliative care patients who were screened for pain during the hospice admission evaluation / palliative care initial encounter.
  • NQF #1637 - Percentage of hospice or palliative care patients who screened positive for pain and who received a clinical assessment of pain within 24 hours of screening.
  • NQF #1639 - Percentage of hospice or palliative care patients who were screened for dyspnea during the hospice admission evaluation / palliative care initial encounter.
  • NQF #1638 - Percentage of patients who screened positive for dyspnea who received treatment within 24 hours of screening.
  • NQF #1641 - Percentage of patients with chart documentation of preferences for life sustaining treatments.
  • NQF #1647 - Percentage of hospice patients with documentation of a discussion of spiritual/religious concerns or documentation that the patient/caregiver/family did not want to discuss.
  • NQF #1617 - Percentage of vulnerable adults treated with an opioid that are offered/prescribed a bowel regimen or documentation of why this was not needed

Eventually, these quality ratings will be used to assign star ratings for each hospice provider. We have noted repeatedly that star ratings are increasingly making their way into the Medicare reimbursement system. In the new CCJR bundled payment for hip and knee replacements, the three day hospital stay can be waived for Skilled Nursing Facility admission provided the SNF received three stars or more.


Finally, CMS released comments from the proposed rule on its monitoring of hospice reform. The proposed rule included analyses of pre-hospice spending, non hospice spending, live discharge rates and skilled nursing visits in last days of life. CMS’s focus on these four issues indicates additional potential areas of reform and/or new program integrity efforts. As we have noted several times, the continued “musings” of CMS on topics of concern with respect to hospice payment adequacy and beneficiary access, limits the regulatory visibility and makes investment in stand-alone hospice providers a difficult proposition. We note also that, despite CMS’s clear contemplation of additional changes to the hospice payment structure, only 56 comment letters were submitted suggesting the industry may, once again, be taken by surprise.


Pre-hospice spending. CMS’s analysis of pre-hospices spending was expressly a pre-curser for consideration of a case-mix system for hospice care. CMS’s analysis, summarized in Chart 2 below, indicates that Hospice patients with the longest length of stay had lower pre-hospice spending relative to short stay patients.


Chart 2: Median Pre-hospice Daily Spending


FY2017 Hospice Payment Update Finalized – Structural Changes in the Offing <AMED> <LHCG> <KND> <HLS> - Pre hospice spending


Hospice is one of the few areas of Medicare that does not use some sort of payment system that takes into account patient characteristics. CMS acknowledges several negative reactions to the suggestion that they adopt a case mix system for hospice. Commenters seem to believe that hospice is such a unique service that a case mix system is not appropriate. We doubt that argument will be compelling. Other commenters identified the high cost of short stay patients for which reimbursement is not adequate – by implication subsidized by the longer stay patients. We believe CMs could address this concern by shifting reimbursement from long stay to short stay patients and are not likely to be deterred by this argument.


CMS is not proposing any concrete changes to the hospice payment system at this point. However, the entire drive toward post-acute reform is centered on payment that reflects the needs of the patient rather than the care setting in which they find themselves. That overarching policy goal makes some sort of case mix system for hospice inevitable. Such a change would likely be budget neutral, at least initially, thus muting the impact of a change. Nonetheless, hospice providers, especially pure play providers that depend on long stay patients for EBITDA will have to make some adjustments.


Not included in the discussion is a possible change in reimbursement for the care of patients in an institutional setting. During the first phase of hospice payment reform announced in 2015, CMS considered and then withdrew a proposal that would prohibit payment of the Service Intensity Adjustment for care delivered in nursing facility. CMS and the Office of the Inspector General continued to be concerned about providers “double dipping” by delivery of care that is otherwise available from the institution in which that patient resides.


The absence of a discussion on this topic does not, to us anyway, indicate that CMS has dropped the issue. The original proposal, to withhold SIA reimbursement got sidelined by equal protection issues. A more acceptable iteration is likely to be a tiered SIA payment with a lower rate for care delivered in an institutional setting.


Non-hospice spending. In the proposed rule, CMS analyzed non-hospice spending on hospice patients. The hospice benefit is intended to be a bundle payment where all care, goods and services are covered by the per diem payment. In recent years, the OIG has noted payments under Part D for drugs associated with palliative care that should be included in the hospice per diem payment. In the proposed and final rule, CMS does not appear to be contemplating any changes to the payment structure to address this problem. Instead they are calling for greater oversight and program integrity efforts (read: auditing) to discourage inappropriate billing. Commenters seem to support this direction.


Live Discharge Rates. In the proposed rule, CMS analyzed live discharge rates and raised the possibility that providers were inappropriately using hospice as a custodial or long term care service. The direction that they appear to be heading in is a regulatory proposal to correct this problem. However, it seems to us more a question of medical necessity and is already the focus of False Claims lawsuits. Unlike the discussion about pre-hospice spending, CMS does not appear to be offering much in the way of direction on this one.


Skilled Nursing Visits in the Last 7 Days of Life. The implementation of the SIA payment is intended to encourage skilled visits in the last seven days of life. Since this payment change was just initiated at the beginning of 2016, it is too early to tell if it has had an impact so CMs appears to be taking a wait and see approach.


We remain convinced time has come around at last for hospice spending to recieve greater and possibly unwelcome attention from regulators and program integrity contractors. Beware. 


(Still) Short Rich People | Chart(s) of the Day

Rich In Retreat:  Estimates on the impact of the wealthy on consumer spending vary but all put the share of consumer outlays by the top quintile at greater than 40%.  In short, and regardless of estimate precision, it's significant.


We use spending on Luxury Goods  - a composite of series from the underlying PCE data - as a proxy for the state of high end consumerism.  The updated June detail data released this morning suggest the rich remain in retreat or, at the least, reluctant to accelerate high-ticket discretionary purchasing.    


Luxury Goods consumption fell -0.2% YoY in June following the -1.3% YoY decline recorded in May with the duo of negative prints marking the first months of negative growth since 2011.  With spending up just +1.0% YTD, 2016 represents the slowest pace of expenditure growth for the composite since 2010.   


(Still) Short Rich People | Chart(s) of the Day - Luxury Goods YoY


(Still) Short Rich People | Chart(s) of the Day - Luxury Goods Annual 2


(Still) Short Rich People | Chart(s) of the Day - High End Consumer TIF


Volatility Sensitivity:  High-end Consumption (unsurprisingly) carries a higher sensitivity to asset market volatility than does total consumption.  To the extent wealth effect benefits have crested alongside the multi-year middling in global equities performance and/or recurrent bouts of elevated volatility continue to characterize late-cycle conditions and the diminished effectiveness of monetary policy, high end consumption growth is likely to remain constrained.   


(Still) Short Rich People | Chart(s) of the Day - PCE Lux Spending vs PCE Total Scatter


(Still) Short Rich People | Chart(s) of the Day - Wealth Effect


VIX Model for Dummies (like us):  The simple, prevailing reality since cross asset class volatility troughed in 2014 is that VIX <13 is always (and closely) followed by VIX >13 and equity performance hiccups.  A gradual reduction in exposure as VIX moved towards sub-13 has, almost universally, provided the opportunity to buy back that exposure lower.    At the least, it’s proved prudent to not be ramping exposure at VIX 10/11/12. 


NIRP, China, Brexit and the breakdown of the central bank #BeliefSystem in Japan are separate events but are all outcroppings of the same slow growth reality and similar types of events will continue to manifest.   Increasing net/gross exposure at VIX 11 implicitly embeds an assumption that those events either won’t happen, won’t matter in terms of impact on prices, or won’t matter until there has been some latent build-up of stress to some critical threshold that the market decides that it cares.   


We don’t advocate myopic, 1-factor model decision-making but calibrating exposure in counter-VIX fashion has proven to be about as tractable a low-intensity, common sense risk management strategy as there’s been the last couple years.     


(Still) Short Rich People | Chart(s) of the Day - VIX 1 factor Model




Christian B. Drake


New Rule Requires Federal Agencies to Consider GHG and Climate Change Impacts in Decisions

Takeaway: New Potential Risks and Delays for Federal Approvals of Energy Infrastructure Projects – Pipelines, LNG, Coal Export Terminals, Transmission

The Obama Administration’s Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) released late Tuesday new guidance for all federal agencies to consider for the first time impacts of greenhouse gases and climate change into federal decisions on infrastructure projects.


CEQ, has been working on the new policy for the last six years. In a memorandum to agency heads dated August 1 (available here), CEQ said its guidance applies to “all Federal actions subject to NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act), including site-specific actions, certain funding of site-specific projects, rulemaking actions, permitting decisions, and land and resource management decisions.”


The rule creates new potential risks, costs and delays for federal reviews and approvals of proposed energy infrastructure projects including pipelines, LNG export terminals, transmission projects and coal export facilities.


While the rule does not apply retroactively to already approved projects, CEQ’s memorandum said “agencies should apply this guidance to all new proposed agency actions when a NEPA review is initiated” as well as “to the extent practicable” to those projects involved in an “on-going NEPA process.”


CEQ said its guidance was issued “to assist federal agencies in their consideration of the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change when evaluationing proposed federal actions” in accordance with NEPA.


CEQ downplayed the wide reaching consequences of the administration’s new climate action to energy projects by including a footnote in the memorandum that emphasizes it “is not legally enforceable.” But for all practical purposes, federal agencies will treat the guidance as law and give it the highest priority. To that end, CEQ in its guidance “recommends that agencies review their NEPA procedures and propose any updates they deem necessary or appropriate to facilitate their consideration of GHG emissions and climate change.” Moreover, the memorandum adds that “CEQ will review agency proposals for revising their NEPA procedures…in light of this guidance.”


In addition, the guidance requires agencies to consider both direct and indirect impacts of the GHG emissions and climate change impacts and provide a quantitative analysis. 



Upstream & Downstream GHG Impacts vs. “Reasonably Foreseeable” Impacts


The most significant difference in the new final guidance from the draft 2014 guidance is the removal of specific language that required consideration of upstream and downstream GHG emissions in NEPA analysis. CEQ’s new guidance instead emphasizes “reasonably foreseeable” impacts on GHG emissions and climate change.


The new guidance comes on the heels of a June 28 DC Circuit appellate court decision that rejected Sierra Club claims that FERC should have considered upstream and downstream GHG emissions in its NEPA analysis and approval of LNG projects in Texas and Louisiana. The Sierra Club asserted that FERC should have applied the 2014 draft CEQ guidance.


For its part, FERC has repeatedly rebuffed efforts by environment groups to consider climate change impacts in its regulatory approvals. FERC, which is led by an Obama Administration appointed Chairman, has specifically said that GHG impacts are not reasonably foreseeable and need not be considered as either direct or cumulative impacts in NEPA analysis.


So while the new guidance removed the draft guidance language requiring analysis of upstream and downstream GHG impacts, it does require FERC and other agencies to now consider direct and indirect “reasonably foreseeable” impacts – something FERC has said it cannot do.


The DC Circuit decision did not address the “reasonably foreseeable” standard but suggested that the Sierra Club could raise the issue in the upcoming Freeport LNG case (Sierra Club v. DOE) when oral arguments occur sometime this fall.



No Current CEQ Chair Raises Concerns About Legality of New Guidance


CEQ has been without a chairperson since Nancy Sutley stepped down in 2014, and the Obama Administration has not nominated a replacement. The position of CEQ Chair is Senate-confirmed position, and as a result, there are serious questions raised in Congress regarding the legality of CEQ actions in the absence of a Chair. 


Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, sent a letter to the President Obama last year stating that “CEQ is no longer a lawfully functioning government agency and any actions purporting to have been taken on behalf of the Council during this vacancy period are ultra vires." (Senator Inhofe’s letters to President Obama and CEQ are available here.)



Election Impact


The outcome of the November Presidential election will certainly have a major impact on the future of the new CEQ guidance. Donald Trump would likely repeal the CEQ guidance on consideration of GHG and climate impacts in NEPA analysis.  On the other hand, Hillary Clinton will not only uphold the guidance but could potentially issue a stronger policy to burnish her early environmental credentials.


A Disconcerting Trend In Auto Loans… Watch Out General Motors & Ford!

Takeaway: Auto loans tightened in 3Q16 for the first since the survey broke out the category in 2Q11.

Editor’s Note: Looking to better understand why General Motors (GM) and Ford (F) auto sales came in light this week? Below is a brief excerpt from an institutional research note written by Hedgeye Financials Analyst Josh Steiner and U.S. Macro analyst Christian Drake. To access our institutional research email sales@hedgeye.com.


A Disconcerting Trend In Auto Loans… Watch Out General Motors & Ford! - ford


"Auto Loans:  With concerns rising over auto loans, especially in the subprime space, banks have begun to tighten standards for the first time since the Senior Loan Officer Survey introduced this category.  Although the introduction of the auto loan category post-dates the GFC, the implications of consumer credit tightening are fairly straightforward vis-à-vis the capacity for Main Street credit and consumption. On net, 8.1% of banks reported tightening standards for Auto loans."


A Disconcerting Trend In Auto Loans… Watch Out General Motors & Ford! - auto loans

the macro show

what smart investors watch to win

Hosted by Hedgeye CEO Keith McCullough at 9:00am ET, this special online broadcast offers smart investors and traders of all stripes the sharpest insights and clearest market analysis available on Wall Street.