Today’s News August 16, 2015

  • CeNTRaL PLaNNiNG!

    CENTRAL PLANNING

  • Government Wants To "Implant Recipients Of Welfare Assistance With Satellite-Tracked Chips"

    Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

    Implantable RFID tracking chips. You know, to stop terrorism.

    And to keep tabs on all the welfare queens, in order to keep tax dollars accountable.

    There will be other rationales, too.

    But really, governments just want to do all the spying they can within their power – and right now, technology offers more power than ever before to carry out universal surveillance, track and trace every person and every thing and put civil rights in the backseat where they belong.

    The latest proposal from a politician in the Finnish government seems like a near-future dystopic film, but may not be far reality.

    It’s not much of a stretch to imagine that the U.S., Britain or other governments in Europe would do this too, if they could get away with it.

    In fact, an RFID chipped population could only be years away.

    Sputnik News reports:

    A politician from Finland’s conservative Finns Party suggested implanting welfare recipients with satellite-tracking chips following news that some recipients continued receiving payments after leaving the country to join ISIL.

    A member of Finland’s right-wing Finns Party, Pasi Maenranta, has suggested implanting all recipients of government assistance with satellite-tracked chips if they choose to leave the country.

     

    Maenranta made the proposal after Finnish media revealed that some recipients of government assistance continued to receive payments after leaving the country to join ISIL in Syria and Iraq.

     

    “The law should be changed: To receive payments from Kela [the Social Insurance Institution], one has to tell exact data about your location using your personal code, read by a satellite. It is also possible to implant electronic chips to all going abroad, who for example receive medical welfare from Kela,” Maenranta wrote on his Facebook page.

    It is true that Western governments essentially created ISIS, by agitating angry Muslims with continued aggression, while at the same time funding the “new al Qaeda” extremist group via the misguided efforts to arm and bankroll “Libyan rebels” and “Syrian rebels.”

    Really, the Pentagon and NATO have been building up our own enemy, and using its horrendous violence to frighten the public back into the War on Terror.

    Under the new twist, Muslim immigration to the West has been increased, and Western governments have been subsidizing future jihadists, too. Many are on the government dole, until and even after, they decide to leave and join ISIS/ISIL.

    Meanwhile, normal struggling citizens who accept government assistance might be tracked via an implanted chips… betraying all the rights governments in “free countries” are supposed to protect. They might not be doing anything wrong at all, but now they are under constant watch.

    But as George W. Bush famously said, “they hate us for our freedoms,” right?

  • The #1 Reason Why Donald Trump Is What America Needs (And Deserves)

    Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

    Just a few weeks ago, US talk show host Stephen Colbert was asked if he thought that Donald Trump had a chance of becoming President of the United States.

    Colbert responded sincerely. “Honestly, he could. And that’s not an opinion of Trump. That’s my opinion of our nation.”

    He’s right. The Land of the Free may very well be ready for something completely different. And Trump certainly seems able to deliver.

    He is, after all, unique in his field. Donald Trump has never served in politics, and his blunt style is almost the exact opposite of every other major candidate.

    But there’s one thing that really sets him apart, that, in my opinion, makes him the most qualified person for the job:

    Donald Trump is an expert at declaring bankruptcy.

    When the going gets tough, Trump stiffs his creditors. He’s done it four times!

    Candidly, this is precisely what the Land of the Free needs right now: someone who can stop beating around the bush and just get on with it already.

    As history shows, a default is inevitable.

    The calculus is quite simple: when governments take on too much debt, they start having to divert a huge amount of their tax revenue just to pay interest.

    This means that, at a minimum, the government has to sacrifice many of the promises they made to their citizens. They cut other programs in order to have enough money to pay interest.

    But that’s not too popular. So instead they typically just borrow more money… until they’re borrowing money just to pay interest on money they’ve already borrowed.

    This makes the problem exponentially worse.

    Debt skyrockets. And soon the government is spending more on interest payments than national defense. (The US is almost at this point).

    Eventually a bankrupt government has no choice: either default on their bondholders, or default on the obligations they made to their citizens. Or both.

    This could take the form of a ‘selective default’. For example, the US government could default on the $2.4 trillion that it owes the Federal Reserve.

    Or the $1.2 trillion that it owes China.

    These are both possibilities.

    But the prospect of default on “risk free” US government bonds would throw the global financial system into a tailspin; not to mention it would be the final nail in the coffin for the US dollar’s dominant reserve status.

    Fortunately there are easier options for Uncle Sam.

    The biggest debts that are owed by the US government are the obligations they owe to you.

    Specifically, all the benefits like Social Security and Medicare they promised to American taxpayers.

    The US government’s own numbers estimate these obligations at nearly $42 TRILLION, completely dwarfing what they owe China, or anyone else.

    Then there’s the obligation they have to preserve the purchasing power of the $12 trillion held by the American people.

    That’s the current value of the money supply in the United States right now.

    History shows that debasing a nation’s currency is one of the easiest and most effective ways for bankrupt governments to plunder their citizens’ wealth, little by little over time.

    As I explain in today’s podcast, the hard reality that most people don’t seem to get is that the US government is bankrupt.

    This isn’t some wild assertion or conspiracy theory; their own financial statements show that the government’s ‘net worth’ is NEGATIVE $17.7 trillion.

    And yes, the US is already borrowing money just to pay interest.

    In fact the combined expenses of interest on the debt plus mandatory entitlements like Social Security nearly exceed their entire tax revenue.

    In other words, you could eliminate nearly everything we think of as government– the EPA, the IRS, Homeland Security, etc. and it wouldn’t make a dent in the national debt.

    When things get this dire, it doesn’t matter who sits in the chair.

    You might as well elect a chimpanzee in the hopes that Mister Bubbles might accelerate the decline.

    Donald Trump may very well be that chimpanzee. Especially given his unparalleled experience in declaring bankruptcy.

    Nations that pass the economic point of no return can’t rebuild until they hit rock bottom.

    And the US is way past that point. So let’s get on with it already and hit the reset button.

    *  *  *
    Join me for more in today’s podcast as I break down the details of the US government’s $60 trillion in liabilities– and what you can do about it.

    click image for full podcast…

  • The Future (As Predicted By Science Fiction)

    Based on speculative fiction, the following visualization analyzes 62 ‘foretold’ future events (social, scientific, technological, or political). Many are catastrophic, but, in the end – good news – in 802,701 the world will still exist and everything will be more or less ok…

     

     

    Source: OurWorldInData.org

  • The Crisis Is Spreading: China, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Sweden…

    Earlier today, we posted an excerpt from IceCap Asset Management’s latest letter to investors focusing on the farce that is the Greek bailout #3, which can be summarized simply by the following table…

    … and Keith Dicker’s assessment which was that “for Greece, it’s mathematically impossible to repay its debt” and that the Greek “economy continues to plummet to deeper depths and is now -33% less than where it was in 2008.”

    But the truth is that for all the endless drama, Dicker continues, “the Greek debt crisis isn’t THE crisis. Rather it is simply a symptom of a much larger global debt crisis.”

    The problem is that the “larger global debt crisis” is finally metastasizing and spreading to more places, all of which are large enough that they can not be simply swept under the rug, like Greece.

    * * *

    IceCap’s Keith Dicker continues:

    We’ve written before that governments all around the world have borrowed too much money and the weight of these debts are choking economic growth.

    And to make matters worse – these very same governments and their central banks have implemented various plans that have only made matters worse.

    Our view has not changed – the global debt crisis has escalated to a point where the government bond bubble has inflated itself to become the mother of all bubbles. It’s going to burst, and when it does it wont be pretty.

    Further evidence to support our view is as follows:

    Canada – the collapse in oil and commodity markets has pushed the country into recession and the Canadian Dollar to decline to levels lower than that reached during the 2008 crisis.

    Oil dependent provinces Alberta and Newfoundland remain in deep denial. Since everyone in these provinces have only ever experienced a booming oil market, many naively believe things will bounce back – and quickly.

    Meanwhile, both Toronto and Vancouver housing markets also remain in denial as they continue to go gangbusters. Buyers today are likely buying at all-time highs.

    And as we predicted last year, the Bank of Canada has cut (not raised) interest rates twice in the last 6 months.

    We fully expect the Bank of Canada to eventually cut interest rates to 0% and start a money printing program as well. And for the stunner – NEGATIVE interest rates will not be that far behind.

    Australia – Over the last 20 years, China has been viewed as the growth engine of the world, and justifiably so. With annual growth rates between 8% to 15%, China’s economy was literally eating every rock, stalk and barrel of practically every commodity in the world.

    And naturally, any country or company that produced these commodities made a tonne of money – including Australia.

    Today, China’s growth rate has slowed to about 3% which is a dramatic slow down compared to what it achieved in the past. This slowdown and China’s effort to even maintain these rates, will have significant repercussions around the world.

    And the first up to bear the brunt of this slowdown is its closest supplier of raw materials – Australia.

    With dark clouds on the economic horizon, the Australian government and central bank is doing everything possible to prevent the unpreventable recession.

    Interest rates have been reduced to all-time historical lows, meanwhile the Australian Dollar has plummeted -25% over the last year. Yet – the negative outlook has not improved.

    Brazil – Like Australia, Brazil has benefitted immensely from China’s growth. And now, also like Australia, it too is feeling the affects of the dramatic Chinese slowdown.

    The economy has now declined for 12 consecutive months making it both the longest and deepest recession in 25 years.

    But wait – it gets worse. Despite declining growth, inflation continues to soar higher causing interest rates to rise as well.

    And if that wasn’t bad, also know that the Brazilian currency has fell off the cliff at -53%.

    Sweden – Unlike Australia and Brazil, Sweden relies very little on China as a buyer of last resort. Yet, the Swedish economy is also not very hot these days.

    In fact, instead of spectacular and dramatic declines in anything, it is doing the exact opposite – it just isn’t moving.

    While Sweden isn’t in the Eurozone, it is smack dab next to it and that in itself is reason enough for the lack of growth. We’ve written before how the debt crisis in the Eurozone is acting like a giant, slow moving tornado that is sucking the life out of the economy and everything near by. And unfortunately for Sweden, it is very near by.

    While economic growth in the Nordic state hasn’t declined, it hasn’t accelerated either – and this is what has many worried.

    So worried, that the central bank shocked everyone not once but twice, by first announcing that they would begin to print money, and then when they announced that interest rates would be NEGATIVE.

    These actions are so severe, that we need to repeat them:

    1) MONEY PRINTING
    2) NEGATIVE INTEREST RATES

    It is hoped that these actions will cause people and companies to loosen their wallets and start spending again. Yet, what the government and the central bank doesn’t understand is that these actions will actually make the problem worse.

    As the global economy continues to move as we expect, there is nothing Sweden can do to change what is coming – a global recession and a significantly weaker Krona.

    China, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Sweden – it is beyond us how anyone can declare the crisis isn’t spreading. Be prepared – there are going to be lots of opportunities to both make and lose money.

    But first, you have to recognize what is happening.

    * * *

    IceCap’s full letter below

  • Americans Are Finally Waking Up To "False Flag" Terror

    From Washington's blog via GlobalResearch.ca,

    Governments Admit They Carry Out False Flag Terror

    Governments from around the world admit they carry out false flag terror:

    • A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson
    • Soviet leader  Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939, and declared that the fire originated from Finland as a basis launching the Winter War four days later
    • Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)
    • The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister
    • As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960′s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news reportthe official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
    • 2 years before, American Senator George Smathers had suggested that the U.S. make “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.
    • And Official State Department documents show that – only nine months before the Joint Chiefs of Staff plan was proposed – the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The 3 plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals
    • The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing
    • An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author)
    • Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion)
    • According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.
    • The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings
    • As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”.
    • Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”
    • United Press International reported in June 2005:

      U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

    • Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians
    • Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this)
    • At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence
    • A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat
    • U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants
    • The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – admitted last the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists

    Painting by Anthony Freda

    So Common … There’s a Name for It

    This tactic is so common that it was given a name for hundreds of years ago.

    “False flag terrorism” is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:

    False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities.

     

    The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy’s strategy of tension.

    The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship in its own navy. Because the enemy’s flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a “false flag” attack.

    Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for navalair and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks.

    Leaders Throughout History Have Acknowledged False Flags

    Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:

    “This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
    – Plato

     

    “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
    – U.S. President James Madison

     

    “A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
    ? Friedrich Nietzsche

     

    “Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
    – Adolph Hitler

     

    “Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
    – Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

     

    “The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
    – Josef Stalin

    People Are Waking Up to False Flags

    People are slowly waking up to this whole con job by governments who want to justify war.

    More people are talking about the phrase “false flag” than ever before.

  • America's Economic Reset Will Trigger Global Recession, New Crises

    Submitted by Eugen Bohm-Bawerk

    In Episode 1 we showed how the US labour market changed dramatically from the 1970s on back of excess money printing which allowed Americans to buy tradable goods on the international market, hollowing out its own manufacturing base, and essentially creating an unsustainable consumer driven economy where the broad masses get their employment within service sector.

    We will now take that a step further and look at what this has meant for the US worker. As our first chart shows, non-supervisory real wages stagnated in the early 1970s and has essentially remained flat ever since.

    Measured labour productivity on the other hand continued upward, but its rate of growth shifted down. More on this in our next blog post.

    The American middle class, i.e. the non-supervisory workers, managed to grow their consumption in the midst of stagnating wages through

    • moving to two income households (women constitute almost 50 per cent of the labour force today)

    • by increasing debt

    It should be clear that when the share of women in the labour force has reached 50 per cent and further leverage of a shrinking household income has become counterproductive the end-game has started. The only way to increase living standards from here will be the old fashioned way; consume less than you produce and productively invest the surplus.

    This brings us back to the previous post, where we suggested the end-game will be one where global manufacturing powerhouses such as China, Japan and Germany will discover their overexposure to exports to the same extent that the US is overexposed to its service sector. As Americans start to save more, invest it domestically and rebuild their manufacturing base global exporters will be forced to do the opposite. Needless to say, this change will not come voluntarily, but through recession, financial crisis and necessity. Excesses must be liquidated at some point, no matter.

    But why did US wages stagnate? Simple, through  a Faustian bargain they traded highly productive jobs in the manufacturing sector for low productive jobs in the service sector. While it felt great at the time – we are all amazed to see the convenient lifestyle Americans live – it came with long term consequences.

    As the US employment changed toward part-time, low benefit, low paid service sector jobs the quality in the overall labour market deteriorated. We have made a job quality index to depict just this. Unsurprisingly, this index, along with so many, peaks right after Bretton-Woods collapses. And the really scary thing is how it has completely fallen off a cliff in the period after the financial crisis.

    And while we could conclude this missive here, we will repeat an argument we made in How the FOMC got institutionally corrupt because it is a direct result of the changes that has occurred in the US labour market.

    The so-called wealth effect that rules today’s macroeconomic model output brings quacks and charlatans like Greenspan to claim that stock market gains cause economic growth; perversely enough they are semi-right due to faulty concept of  GDP  and the way inflated asset values in the US can be used as leverage to purchases tradable goods on the international market. The last chart today talks volumes about what is going on in US policy circles, and why things have become as confused as they are.

  • Why the Next Round of the Crisis Will Be Exponentially Worse Than 2008

    As you know, we’ve been calling for a bond market crisis for months now. That crisis has officially begun in Greece, and will be spreading in the coming months. Currently it’s focused in countries that cannot print their own currencies (the PIIGS in Europe, particularly Greece).

     

    However, China and Japan are also showing signs of trouble and ultimately the bond crisis will be coming to the US’s shores.

     

    However, it’s critical to note that crises do not unfold all at once. The Tech Bubble, for instance, which was both obvious and isolated to a single asset class, took over two years to unfold.

     

    As terrible as the bust was, that crisis was relatively small as far as the damage. At its peak, the market capitalization of the Tech Bubble was less than $15 trillion. Moreover, it was largely isolated to stocks and no other asset classes.

     

    By way of contrast, the bond bubble is now well over $199 trillion in size. And if we were to include credit instruments that trade based on bonds, we’re well north of $600 trillion.

     

    Not only is this exponentially larger than global GDP (~$80 trillion), but because of the structure of the banking system the implications of this bubble are truly systemic in nature.

     

    Modern financial theory dictates that sovereign bonds are the most “risk free” assets in the financial system (equity, municipal bond, corporate bonds, and the like are all below sovereign bonds in terms of risk profile).

     

    The reason for this is because it is far more likely for a company to go belly up than a country.

     

    Because of this, the entire Western financial system has sovereign bonds (US Treasuries, German Bunds, Japanese sovereign bonds, etc.) as the senior most asset on bank balance sheets.

     

    Because banking today operates under a fractional system, banks control the amount of currency in circulation by lending money into the economy and financial system.

     

    These loans can be simple such as mortgages or car loans… or they can be much more complicated such as deriviative hedges (technically these would not be classified as “loans” but because they represent leverage in the system, I’m categorizing them as such).

     

    Bonds, specifically sovereign bonds, are the assets backing all of this.

     

    And because of the changes to leverage requierments implemented in 2004, (thanks to Wall Street lobbying the SEC), every $1 million in sovereign bonds in the system is likely backstopping well over $20 (and possibly even $50) million in derivatives or off balance sheet structured investment vehicles.

     

    Globally, the sovereign bond market is $58 trillion in size. 

     

    The investment grade sovereign bond market (meaning sovereign bonds for countries with credit ratings above BBB) is around $53 trillion. And if you’re talking about countries with credit ratings of A or higher, it’s only $43 trillion.

     

    This is the ultimate backstop for over $700 trillion in derivatives. And a whopping $555 trillion of that trades based on interest rates (bond yields).

     

    The significance of these developments cannot be overstated. The financial system today is even more leveraged than it was in 2008. The US alone has 30% more debt in the financial system… and even less bonds backstopping it because of the Fed’s QE programs.

     

    A new crisis is approaching. Smart investors are preparing now, BEFORE it hits.

     

    If you've yet to take action to prepare for this, we offer a FREE investment report called the Financial Crisis "Round Two" Survival Guide that outlines simple, easy to follow strategies you can use to not only protect your portfolio from it, but actually produce profits.

     

    We made 1,000 copies available for FREE the general public.

     

    As we write this, there are less than 15 left.

     

    To pick up yours, swing by….

    http://www.phoenixcapitalmarketing.com/roundtwo.html

     

    Best Regards

     

    Phoenix Capital Research

     

    Our FREE e-letter: www.gainspainscapital.com

     

     

     

  • China's Debt Load To Hit 250% Of GDP In 5 Years, IMF Says

    Anyone who follows China knows that the country faces a particularly vexing problem when it comes to debt. The way we explain it is simple: Beijing is attempting to deleverage and re-leverage simultaneously. Needless to say, this isn’t possible, but that hasn’t stopped China from trying, as is clear from the multitude of contradictory policies and directives that have emanated from Beijing over the course of the last nine months. 

    Nowhere is the confusion more apparent than in China’s handling of its local government debt problem. In an effort to skirt official limits on borrowing, the country’s provincial governments racked up an enormous amount of off-balance sheet liabilities. These loans carried higher interest rates than would traditional muni bonds and ultimately, servicing the debt became impossible. In order to help provinces deleverage, Beijing launched a program whereby high interest LGFV loans can be swapped for new local government bonds that carry substantially lower interest rates. In fact, yields on the new bonds are close to yields on general government bonds meaning provincial governments are saving somewhere on the order of 300 to 400 bps. But there’s a problem. Banks aren’t particularly keen on swapping a higher yielding asset for a lower yielding one. The PBoC’s solution was to allow the new bonds to be swapped for central bank cash which the banks could then re-lend into the real economy. The problem with this is that it transforms a deleveraging effort (the local government refi program) into a re-leveraging program (the LTRO component). Shortly after the program was launched, the PBoC effectively negated the entire effort when it moved to loosen restrictions on the very same LGVF loans that caused the problem in the first place. 

    Admittedly, lengthy discussions about fiscal mismanagement across China’s various provincial governments doesn’t make for the most exciting reading, but it’s hugely important from a big picture perspective. Why? Here’s why:

    That’s from the IMF and as you can see, local government debt will account for an estimated 45% of GDP by the end of this year. If one looks at what is classified as “general government debt”, China’s debt-to-GDP ratio looks pretty good – especially by today’s standards. Simply counting central government debt and local government bonds, the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio is just a little over 20%. Thus, if you fail to include the provincial LGVF debt burden, the effect is to dramatically understate China’s debt-to-GDP.

    Below, find two charts from the IMF, the first showing China’s actual debt-to-GDP (i.e. including LGFV financing) and another showing China’s total debt-to-GDP (which includes corporate debt and which you’ll note is set to hit 250% of GDP by 2020). We’ve also included some color from the Fund’s debt sustainability analysis.

    From the IMF:

    Without reforms, growth would gradually fall to around 5 percent in 2020, with steeply increasing debt ratios.

     

    The general government debt is slightly above 20 percent of GDP over the projection periods. Augmented debt, however, rises to about 71 percent of GDP in 2020 from less than 57 percent of GDP in 2014. Even with the favorable interest rate-growth differential, augmented debt rises over the medium term as the augmented deficit is assumed to decline gradually. 

     

    The augmented debt level is also sensitive to a contingent liability shock, which would push debt to near 100 percent of GDP in 2020. Such a shock, for instance, could be a large-scale bank recapitalization or financial system bailout to deal, for example, with a potential rise in NPLs from deleveraging. A combined macrofiscal shock would increase the debt-to-GDP ratio from about 71 percent to 78 percent in 2020.

  • Liar, Liar, Pantsuit On Fire

    But will it matter?

     

     

    Source: Townhall.com

  • Approaching A Global Deflationary Crisis?

    Submitted by Brian Davey via CredoEconomics.com,

    Anyone with any sense for global economic trends ought to be worried. The signs are everywhere of a serious deflationary crisis. It is obvious that Chinese growth is falling. The prices for energy and the raw materials that feed the growth economy keep falling. The demand for Chinese exports is down too. Stock Markets in Asia are falling, despite attempts to prop them up. Countries are being tempted to export their problems abroad – for example by competitive devaluation. In Europe its obvious that a “solution” is being cobbled together for the Euro and Greek crisis even though no one at all believes that it will work. At the same time the policy response of “quantitative easing” which has kept interest rates down very low has reached the end of the road. With interest rates at or near to zero the scope for addressing the crisis through monetary policy (low interest rates) is exhausted. Many pundits believe that low interest rates have not encouraged productive investment but speculative bubbles – the creation of capacity in fields that in the long run will not pay, or fuelled a casino style speculation, a giant bubble of bets that could soon collapse, bringing the global economy down with it.

    So what is going on? How do we explain the situation? In this paper I am going to argue that there are a number of ways of understanding and addressing what is developing into a global crisis. The desire to make the crisis understandable can convert into a temptation to make it seem simpler than it is. At its most banal we have the explanations that neo liberal German politicians are prone to – like the idea that the crisis is because of a lack of confidence and trust and that this can be resolved (in Europe) purely and simply by countries following the Eurozone rules. If the confidence and trust are restored then all will be well and the market will restore prosperity.

    A more adequate story is needed than this – and it is one that needs to focus on global trends not just in Europe but in the USA, the so-called developing world and above all in China. This story has a number of different plots and sub plots, not one. We need to understand how the sub plots interweave. The story is one of debt, competitive imbalances and an energy crisis and all need to be told. To make the story even more complicated we need to keep in mind too that an even more important story, that of climate change, has to be held in our minds too. If and when humanity has any chance of resolving these crises it will have to resolve that one at the same time. Will this be possible? I don’t know – what I do know is that there is a theory, by archeologist Joseph Tainter, that humanities’ problem solving capacities are limited by complexity. A friend is currently trying to get me to use twitter. However I am daunted by reducing complex situations to short simple messages. Understanding the global economy is like entering a labyrinth. As I get older I notice that some people become famous because of the clarity in the way that they write. What may not be noticed is that the apparent clarity in a political economic message is often the result of simplification. The popularity of neo-liberal economcs is like that.
    So lets look at the ways of describing the crisis. In summary this can be described as the interrelationship between 4 processes.

    (1) Structural policy stupidity – policy governance cannot cope with the complexity of the crisis. Politicians cannot cope with communicating complex messages to their peoples nor find the mechanisms to cope with the complexity of the issues.

     

    (2) Problems are also caused by uneven development between countries and sectors which cannot be sustained without methods for recycling purchasing power from the more competitive countries to the less competitive ones. These imbalances become most problematic when capital export from surplus to deficit countries slows which happens when growth slows in the deficit countries.

     

    (3) The crisis is both cause and effect of a rising amount of debt – personal, corporate, state and financial sector – which has acted as a drag on growth. As growth falls all kinds of debt become more difficult to service so the monetary authorities have tried to push interest rates down. Nevertheless the finance sector has tended to become both more speculative and more predatory as there is a “hunt for yield”. Interest rates rise when risk premiums are imposed on distressed borrowers (including states), money making occurs through financing arrangements based on “passing the risk parcel” exploiting the naivety of lenders about complex financial arrangements and by the promotion of asset price bubbles. The bigger players are rescued during crises but the smaller players (including tax payers and those who lose their state benefits) are made to pay.

     

    (4) The crisis is the result of reaching “the limits of economic growth” and, in particular, because of resource depletion in the energy sector. This is less obvious because of currently low and falling energy and commodity prices but we need to study the experience of the energy sector over last few years, not just the immediate situation. The immediate fall in commodity and energy prices is a result of the onset of the crisis – a crisis which very high and rising energy prices up until recently helped bring on. The high energy prices have been compatible with a high level of debt only because interest rates have been so low and because there has been a “hunt for yield”, something that would pay more than leaving money on deposit paying very little.

    Depletion of resources in the energy and mining sector means that it is taking more energy than before to extract energy (and other mined resources) and this has pushed up the costs of extraction of energy and other minerals. High energy costs act as a drag on the growth of the economy as a whole – because energy costs, like interest rates, enter into the production of virtually everything else. This is particularly acute problem in the energy sector itself as the energy sector is such a huge user of energy. The energy companies need a high price for energy otherwise they cannot actually make a profit. However, if energy prices are high for too long the economy wilts.

    The development of unconventional oil and gas has been possible because quantitative easing has made a large amount of money to Wall Street at a low interest rate and they have been “searching for yield” – looking for somewhere to put this money to earn a high rate of interest. This funded the voracious capital expenditure needs of the industry with its high drilling intensity. However it pre-supposed that prices would remain high enough for long enough to cover costs and this has not happened. The problem is set to get a lot worse as depletion speeds up.

    So, to repeat, the best way to tell the story of this crisis needs to relate ALL of these elements together – policy failure, debt, imbalances, energy. Each element is causatively connected to the others but sometimes in a time lagged way which obscures the relationships. Together these elements are bringing about what some observers are calling “secular stagnation”.

    “Stanley Fischer, vice-chairman of the US Federal Reserve, has laid out the predicament that forecasters face. Half way through each year, economists have had to explain why their global growth forecasts were too optimistic, he said, and this has happened “year after year”. While growth rates have been falling across the world, it’s not yet clear whether this is all a hangover from the 2008 crash or something more fundamental.”

    In my view it is “something more fundamental”. It is related to reaching the limits to growth – and this has to do with fossil fuel and materials depletion and the end of cheap energy. However, this does not exclude a partial truth in the other narratives that economists are using to explain low growth.

    In the reminder of this article I run through each of these themes in more depth.

    Explanation number one: “structural policy stupidity”

    First of all structural policy stupidity – all politics must be sold in one way or another to the governed. Even autocrats strive to govern with ideas as well as through simple fear. The rhetoric of politicians must to some degree match the way people think about things – that means one ingredient for successful politics is where politicians succeed in appealing to popular illusions embodied in “common sense”. One such popular illusion is that states have to arrange their finances using the same principles that ordinary households use to run their personal finances. Never mind that this is not true – the politicians who pursue policies and use a rhetoric that appeals to the “person in the street” viewpoint have a head start. As a number of economists have noted these politicians work with an ultra simple (and wrong) model of economic reality – that if governments follow rules and don’t borrow excessively this will inspire confidence and trust and economies will grow, spurred on by competition. It does not matter that this idea may actually be self defeating when an economy is slipping into recession – the important point is that collective illusions persist when they fulfil a collective purpose for those that hold them. In this case a key collective purpose of “the balanced budget illusion” is that it makes communicating with electorates so much easier. It enables a message of “we cannot afford” and “being cruel to be kind” to be directed against vulnerable groups who can be more easily scapegoated.

    Complex messages are not popular and don’t sell well even if they more accurately reflect reality. Please note here that I am saying something more than politicians are mistaken – my argument is that ideas like the balanced budget illusion is more than “a mistake”. It is an illusion that has a structural function in the political process. It is not an accident that this particular theme repeats itself in history again and again. There is no reason to believe that once an idea has been rejected by one generation after a bitter learning experience, that a subsequent generation that have not been through the same learning experience will not have to learn it the hard way all over again.

    One of the sayings of the management theorist Stafford Beer was that “the purpose of a system is what it does”. I really like this because it cuts through all the rhetorical justifications and excuses. If a system like the Eurozone is ruining its less competitive members in favour of the more competitive ones then this is the purpose of the system. Were it not the purpose of the system most powerful players in it would change it.

    In this regard the very structure of the Eurozone has proved ideal for putting the banking and financial elite of Europe out of reach of democratic political processes. The currency is managed at a level out of the reach of any one state with the finances of each state disciplined by a set of rules that enforces close to a balanced budget. Given the inevitable crises each government that becomes vulnerable then has to cede more and more economic policy to financial interests who are free to impose neo-liberal policies like privatisation quasi automatically. The “coup” against Greece was a design feature of the Euro and delivers the primacy of finance over any pretence of democratic politics.

    Given the complexity of eurozone governance, in which every state is supposed to have a say and decisions must be passed back to all of these governments, it seems as if governance requires a set of rules that governments adhere to, otherwise there would be endless re-negotiations for each new situation, and for each state, that would go on forever. In an interview in the New Statesman Yanis Varoufakis explained this when he described the viewpoint of Wolfgang Schaueble.

    “Schäuble was consistent throughout. His view was ‘I’m not discussing the programme – this was accepted by the previous government and we can’t possibly allow an election to change anything. Because we have elections all the time, there are 19 of us, if every time there was an election and something changed, the contracts between us wouldn’t mean anything.’”

    If you think about it this is not only a recipe for the negation of democracy it is the negation of any kind of economic policy discussion or policy variability. A common currency zone cannot work in these circumstances because it is paralysed by its complexity into ever being unable to adapt its economic policy. The default is then to a neo-liberal assumption of a balanced budget (or budget surplus, free market rules and privatisation). All it can do is to follow a set of pre-determined rules. In this case the policy that destroys economies like that of Greece appears as the price paid to avoid endless renegotiations.
    The problem for the Eurozone and the global economy is that this is leading to a massive deflation….or maybe from an elite viewpoint this is not so negative. Maybe this is not “policy stupidity” but a cunning plan???

    In a massive crisis in which only the super elite are rescued and everyone else ruined there would be a further massive concentration of wealth and power. Perhaps members of the super elite – the 1% of the 1% – think in this way. Or maybe I am paranoid.

    Explanation number two – too much debt

    Global stock of debt outstanding

    Some economists think that that somehow debt doesn’t matter since, supposedly, debt transfers purchasing power from debtors to creditors who will spent it instead so debt is not supposed to affect “aggregate demand”. Alas this misunderstands the mechanisms of bank credit creation. In order for money creation and demand expansion to occur in the current system there is a requirement that more bank credit creation – i.e. more borrowing from banks – takes place. If individuals and companies are maxed out (“peak debt”) and if they are reluctant to take on more debt then aggregate demand cannot be increased. In fact, even if the central bank pumps out more money through “quantitative easing” this will do little or nothing to increase demand. The central bank will create money to buy bonds from banks but the money created and paid over will remain unused by the banks and the velocity of circulation will fall. The single demand expansion influence is that interest rates are lower and this is supposed to encourage investment – something that does not happen if the conditions for expansion do not otherwise exist. What happens instead is that money goes into speculation.

    Meanwhile if companies and individuals are maxed out they will be making an effort to pay back their debts to the banks. When this happens money is destroyed and goes out of circulation. More particularly chain reactions from defaults and collapsing confidence destroys the trust and confidence on which the financial system works and leads to massive deflation. Now this situation of collapsing purchasing power in the private economy could in theory be balanced out by government spending leading to the governments running deficits – but that’s against the eurozone rules.

    Explanation number three – global imbalances/failing mechanisms to recycle purchasing power

    Another explanation for current stagnation is the breakdown of mechanisms for dealing with international trade and financial imbalances. In his book The Global Minotaur Yanis Varoufakis, describes the history of the post war economy by focusing on the story of how trade and financial imbalances were managed – particularly the imbalances between the USA and the rest of the world, but also imbalances in the Eurozone. As he explains, unless there is a mechanism for recycling surpluses from countries in trade surplus back to countries in trade deficit then purchasing power drains away from the deficit countries who are put in a deflationary squeeze as is happening to Greece currently. In the initial period after world war two the USA was dominant in the global economy and was in trade surplus to the rest of the world. It used the financial flows into America that were generated by its surplus of exports over imports by investing back into the rebuilding of countries like Germany and Japan and more generally into the American design for the postwar economy as bulwark against communism. The recycling of surpluses back into deficit countries kept the boom going. But you won’t catch Germany recycling its surpluses back into Greece now.

    The answer to an export surplus in one country which occurs over and against import surpluses in other countries is for the countries with the export surplus to use the money that they earn in capital export back to the deficit countries. They invest in those countries. However, that implies that there is something in the deficit countries that is an attractive focus for investment. It implies that those countries are growing – which brings the argument round full circle. For decades the USA was the largest economy in the world and a growing economy. This meant that when the US first went into what was to be a long running trade deficit it was still worth Germans, Japanese or Chinese parking their dollar earnings as deposits into Wall Street banks or using them to lend to the US government. The dollars earned by Germany, Japan and later by China could be invested in the US economy or they could be used to buy oil. This was also because, by agreement with countries like Saudi Arabia, oil had to be purchased in dollars. This arrangement partly broke down however when Wall Street crashed in 2007 – in large part because it was operating a criminal business model. Loans were made to people who it was known would never be able to pay them back and packaged up with other assets and then sold on across the world to pension funds and other financial institutions who picked up the risk parcel, misled by ratings agencies. The ratings agencies were paid to say that the “toxic trash” was AAA grade.

    Turning the finance explanation upside down

    So, to come back to the story – yes the current problems are due to too much debt. Yes, mechanisms for recycling global financial flows arising out of trade imbalances no longer work so well after Wall Street and other banksters in London and Frankfurt are seen to be run by crooks….but one can argue that these two phenomena are also the result of the failure to grow, as much as the cause. You can turn at least a part of the argument on its head.

    What I mean by that is that a rising amount of debt in general and troubled debt in particular is not just a cause of faltering growth – the faltering growth is a cause of the increasing amount of troubled debt.

    Debt is not usually seen to be a problem for companies and individuals where their income is rising and sufficiently secure for people to pay the interest. It is when people find that their real income is stagnating or falling that more debt becomes distressed debt and distressed debt becomes the lender business model. Prudential lending pays in a growing economy with growing investment opportunities – but the temptation to resort to predatory lending occurs when there is an awareness of, even a decision to exploit, the desperation of people in trouble. This becomes part of the model. What happens when a country, or a company, or an individual, cannot pay? The answer is that the interest rate that they are supposed to pay for any new credit rises dramatically because they are now supposed to pay the lender “a risk premium”. This is the last stage of a process of debt accumulation. When a debt pyramid comes crashing down it does so because, just before it crashes, debt servicing costs get dramatically worse as “risk premiums” are loaded onto borrowers.

    This “risk premium” might lead one to suppose that lenders actually are tolerating a higher level of risk for which they must be compensated – however this is only partly true for the biggest players. When the biggest players are deemed “too big to fail” they get backed by politicians so the “risk” is taken off – that is, after all, what happened to the German and French banks that lent to Greece. The deal stitched up by the IMF and the ECB meant that they got bailed out and the debt loaded onto the Greek people. So while risk premiums allow banks to increase their take the real risks do not rise commensurately.

    The temptation to borrow under increasingly unfavourable conditions is not like borrowing to invest or to buy an asset with the secure expectation of a rising income. As debt increases the business model for lenders becomes more and more making money with distressed debt, vulture funds, passing the risk parcel and toxic trash. It occurs because borrowing states, institutions and individuals resort to what becomes a kind of gambling considered as a last resort, as an attempt at a way out of a desperate situation. That’s one of the ideas of Prospect Theory. Normally people are risk averse, they don’t risk what little they still have if they have anything left – however they do gamble when all of their other options seem hopeless anyway. Underlying all of this is that the rising incomes are no longer there. By way of contrast the institutions lending are not taking real risks because they have friends in very high places.

    Turning the imbalance argument around

    One can turn the idea about imbalances the other way round too. In one way of looking at the situation it seems that growth falters because the mechanisms to handle imbalances by recycling surpluses break down. No doubt there is truth in this but you can turn that idea round – i.e. it is when growth falters that the mechanisms to handle imbalances by recycling surpluses dry up. As we have argued the way to recycle surpluses is through capital export – the purchasing power flows back to the deficit countries not as money to purchase their goods as imports into the surplus countries but rather as money to buy into the industries and economies of the deficit countries, as investment. But who is going to invest into a stagnant or contracting economy?

    Look what happened to the German privatisation of East Germany. The institution that was entrusted to sell off East German industry, the Treuehand, made a big loss. How could that be? When the East German economy was merged with the West German economy it was at the rate of one East German mark for one West German mark. This was an early lesson of what would happen in the eurozone except that it all happened inside Germany itself. The East Germans could not compete after reunification, just like the Greeks cannot compete now. So most East German businesses were making huge losses. However, if you want to sell off companies then you have to sell them as going concerns. You have to keep them going before you sell them….which often meant making huge losses. What they got for the sale of these companies never covered these losses.

    Wolfgang Schaueble knows this – he was involved. They will not make any money selling Greek assets either. When the Austrian Railways considered a takeover of the Greek railways they said they would only do this if the Greek railways were given away. Unless Greece is growing and prospering there will be very little capital export into Greece to actually buy privatised assets.

    So, to summarise the argument so far: slowing growth can be explained by increasing debt reaching its limits and the breakdown of mechanisms to even imbalances by recycling purchasing power from surplus to deficit countries. On the other hand the fact that debt is reaching its limits and surplus recycling limits are breaking down can be explained by slowing growth. Both are true in both directions of causation and what we are seeing here is a “vicious cycle” in operation.

    Explanation number four – the energy crisis

    Now let’s add the fourth way of looking at the issues. Let us start by making a distinction between growth of production and growth of production capacity. Growth of production can occur if there is spare capacity in an economy in the form of unemployed resources which can be brought back into utilisation – but for growth to be long term there must be a growth of the capacity of an economy.

    This depends upon expenditure in capital formation – the creation of buildings, equipment and infrastructure. Capital formation is an energy intensive business because infrastructure, buildings and equipment require energy in their production – plus they require an energy throughput for their utilisation. The point about energy is that it is required for every good or service purchased. Even a haircut requires electric light or warmth in the barbers shop and to run electric clippers. Anything that enters into the production of all goods and services is a cost of production that all share. So if the cost of energy rises so does the cost of producing everything.

    The nearest comparable example of a cost that enters into the production of all goods and services is interest rates. Virtually all individuals and companies must borrow so the interest rate enters into the cost of all production and into many everyday living expenses too. You can argue therefore that the real reason that interest rates have been driven down so low by central bankers is that energy costs have been so high. It is has not been possible for the economy to sustain BOTH high interest rates AND the higher energy prices. This is the reason for the stagnation.

    Most energy intensive of all is investment in the energy and mining sector. The amount of energy required to tap and process energy is rising as it becomes harder to find, extract, process and transport oil, gas and coal from smaller, deeper, more remote, and harder to tap geological sources.

    Slowing growth of global productive capacity is the result of the global economy running up against ecological system limits. This is particularly apparent in the climate crisis and the costs that occur as a result of this but, more immediately too, in the economics of extracting fossil fuels. The long run trend is towards rising energy costs which acts as a drag upon the growth of the productive capacity of the global economic system. The most energy intensive sector of all is the energy sector itself. We can see that if we compare the amount of energy used per hour of human activity in the energy and mining sector compared to the amount of energy used per hour of human activity in other economic sectors. (This is the so called exosomatic metabolic rate). These figures are for Catalonia in 2005 because the academics who have studied this issue are mainly at the University of Barcelona but one can expect comparable figures in other places. The rates are 2,000 Megajoules per hour of human activity devoted to energy and mining. This compares to 2.8 Megajoules per hour outside of paid work in households, 75 Megajoules per hour in services and government, 331 Megajoules per hour in the building and manufacturing sector (not including energy and mining) and 175 MJ/h in agriculture. As a matter of fact 11% of the energy throughput of society was taken by the energy sector itself – even though only 0.0945% of the time of everyone in Catalonia was devoted to energy and mining.

    With energy and mining being the most energy intensive sector one would expect the impact of rising energy costs to be felt initially and most powerfully in the energy and mining sector itself. This has indeed been the case. In a presentation by Steve Kopits of the Douglas Westwood Consultancy he shows this graph (CAGR = compound annual growth rate).

    Impact of energy costs on mining

    As can be seen the capital expenditure required per barrel of oil in the exploration and production sector has increased enormously. To extract oil is requiring greater and greater amounts of investment in exploration and production.

    We can see very clearly what is happening if we look at the statistics for fracking for shale oil in the USA. The fact that the US oil and gas industry has had to resort to fracking is a sign that American oil and gas fields are highly depleted and near to exhaustion. As an analyst called Arthur Berman puts it, fracking is the “retirement party” of the oil and gas industry. It is not a new beginning. As a matter of fact the USA, Russia and Saudi Arabia almost produce an identical amount of oil but look at the difference in the way that they produce it:

    USA = 11.7 MMBl/d, 35,669 wells, 297 million feet
    Russia = 10.9 MMbls/d, 8688 wells, 83 million feet
    Saudi Arabia = 11.4 MMBls/d, 399 wells, 3 million feet
    [2]

    In order to extract a roughly equivalent amount of oil the US industry has to drill almost 100 times the footage in wells and drill 90 times the number of wells. It is obvious that that will require an enormous amount of energy to get out an equivalent amount of oil (and gas) and that the cost will be a lot higher. But is this investment actually profitable? The answer is that it is only profitable at higher and higher oil prices. Different oil and gas companies require different prices to break even but, according to Kopits most of the oil companies require an oil price of at least $100 for new investment in conventional oil production to be profitable. High prices are needed in the unconventional sector too and most of the fracking companies in the USA have not been making money for several years. In the last year the price has fallen even lower.

    So how come that they are still around? How come they have not gone bust? There are several kinds of reply to this.

    Firstly, in economics things happen if people take a view of the future in which they believe that they will be profitable – even if subsequent experience shows this not to be the case. No one can know the future exactly so every investment is to some degree a gamble. A whole economic sector can share the same gamble and invest on the assumption that they will make money even if this turns out not to the case – and indeed they can be encouraged to. An oil sector drilling 90 times the number of wells and 100 times the footage is going to be immensely profitable for the companies selling and/or hiring out the drilling rigs, pipelines, tankers and other equipment. As the saying goes – in a gold rush sell shovels. A coalition can form around illusions that are profitable to some powerful players who make a lot of money even while others lose. A vested interest coalition pursuing a delusion is called a Granfalloon. It is important to realise that it is in the interests of the Granfalloon to keep on hyping their message in order to keep the money flowing. (This does not mean that the members of a Granfalloon are intentionally misleading – it means that there is an element of confirmation bias in the way that they interpret and describe things. We all do this to some degree – it is very difficult not to select and interpret available information in a way that confirms ones existing preconceptions, one’s faiths).

    Secondly, at this time with interest rates very low there have been very few places where businesses in the finance sector can make much money. There is a temptation to make money on a gamble and the oil and gas industry has been a place for Wall Street to make another gamble. This is especially the case as the collateral for the industry is in the ground. However, when the sub-prime mortgage boom went bust after 2007 banks were left with a lot of houses. Shifting them was not so easy – finding a use for the assets of insolvent fracking companies is likely to prove even more of a problem. How many banks have the expertise to run fracking companies?

    Thirdly in economics things happen with a time lag. Even if companies are making a loss they do not immediately go bust. They and their creditors may take the view that the unfavourable conditions are temporary and more credit may be extended to bridge them over what are assumed to be temporary hard times. If oil and gas prices have fallen they may still be able to sell at a higher price because they have insured themselves by selling their oil and gas already on the futures market. To respond to soon would be to lay off workers, and break up teams that would be difficult to reassemble. The temptation is to hang on, assume that difficulties are temporary and to tell the world that there are no problems, that everything is just fine, that the latest technologies make it possible to produce at a profit at even lower prices. If one looks at the figure however this does not appear to be what is happening. That part of the oil and gas pursuing new development, and particularly in countries where depletion is already advanced, are caught in a dilemma that unconventional oil and gas is expensive oil and gas – and the market cannot be made to pay these high prices over a long enough period to make the development of their part of the industry profitable.

    In conclusion

    The story thus described is one in which the world economy could be heading into a massive economic meltdown. The authors of the famous Limits to Growth, writing in 1972, thought it likely that unless humanity could adjust to the limits that there would be an overshoot and collapse sometime in the future. The crisis of 2007-2008 gave a preliminary taste of what that kind of collapse might look like. The after shocks in the Eurozone and what has been happening in Greece likewise give us a picture of what the future might be like for all of us.

    What this does not mean however is that there will be some general realisation, some mass epiphany or “Aha” moment when everyone realises in a blinding flash of insight that humanity has reached the limits of growth. There are also limits to the extent to which people change their basic faiths about the world. Such flashes of insight about their real situation do sometimes happen when people are thrown into troubled times and circumstances that challenge all that they believe. However, even then most people are reluctant to abandon their faiths as that could leave them even more disorientated and fearful – living in a world that suddenly appears a lot less secure, and facing a future that is a lot less rosy, than they previously believed.

    Most mainstream economists and politicians will continue to believe that the task at hand is “get growth going again” and, in the vast tangle of connected events, will privilege those connections and processes for their mental attention that confirm their viewpoint on what is wrong, the other people who are responsible for what has gone wrong – and what must be done to remove these people. To drum up support for themselves elite politicians of this type will no doubt identify favourite scapegoats and enemies to demonise.

    The worst futures would be where these kind of politicians get a mass following, sponsored financially by the elite, and lead emerging fascist movements.

    The best of all futures would be where these kind of political leaders drift into irrelevance because a popular majority gravitate to those who have positive community level responses of sharing, mutual aid and re-localisation connected to ecological design – and link this to a new approach to politics that supports the transformation at the base of society. This would go together with a new politics of finance to replace the debt based money system and a new politics of energy that keeps the carbon in the ground. A politics of this type would not be about “getting growth going again”. It would be about creating economic arrangements that create security for communities while conserving resource use. This would involve a revival of the commons and a solidarity economy, making growth unnecessary for a good life.

  • Airline Begins Weighing Passengers, Will 'Exclude' Heavy Flyers

    In 2013, Samoan Air became the world's first airline to charge passengers according to their their weight. Now, two years later, Uzbekistan Airways has gone one further than the pay-by-weight model. The Tashkent-based airline has installed special weighing machines in the departure gate zones to weigh people and their hand luggage, noting that some overweight people could be excluded from busy flights on smaller planes if limits are exceeded.

     

    As The Daily Mail reports,

    Passengers will be put in three categories – men, women and children – and the company, who are based in Tashkent, have promised not to reveal the weight of individual passengers.

    Of course, its for your own safety…

    The company said they needed to know the weights of both people and their luggage because it was important, especially with smaller planes.

     

    In a statement they said: 'Uzbekistan Airways airline is carrying out the procedure of pre-flight weighing in order to determine the average weight of passengers with hand luggage.

     

    'According to the laws of the International Air Transport Association, airlines are obliged to carry out regular procedures of pre-flight control such as weighing passengers with hand luggage in order to observe the requirements for ensuring flight safety.

     

    'After passing check-in on a flight and prior to boarding into the aircraft, we will ask you to pass the weighing procedure with a special weighing machine placed in the departure gate zone.

     

    'The weighing record will only contain the corresponding passenger category (i.e. male/ female/ children). As for the rest, the full confidentiality of results is guaranteed.

     

    'We appreciate your assistance and thank you in advance for the help in the solution of our common task of flight safety.'

    This is not the first time an airline has instituted the pay-as-you-weigh model, but Uzbekistan's plan to exclude heavier passengers is an escalation… (as CNN reports)

    "The next step is for the industry to make those sort of changes and recognize that, 'Hey, we are not all 72 kilograms [about 160 pounds] anymore and we don't all fit into a standard seat,'" Chris Langton, Samoa Air chief executive told CNN in 2013.

     

    "What makes airplanes work is weight. We are not selling seats, we are selling weight."

    The airline's motto?

    "A kilo is a kilo is a kilo!"

    Of course, the truly sad thing about the airliness need to do this is the 'growing' gurth of a global population spoiled by fake wealth.

    *  *  *

    Of course, there is always alternative travel methods…

     

    *  *  *

    Finally. there is this… (via The Guardian)

    A man is suing an airline, claiming he injured his back after sitting next to an obese man who coughed a lot.

     

    James Andres Bassos has taken Etihad Airways to court in Queensland, Australia, saying he was forced to twist and contort his body for long periods on a flight in 2011 from Sydney to Dubai.

     

    Bassos’s district court claim states the “grossly overweight” passenger was spilling into his seat, coughing frequently and had fluid coming from his mouth.

     

    After five hours he asked to be moved but airline staff allegedly refused. Half an hour later, Bassos complained again and he was moved to a crew seat.

     

    However, he had to return to his seat next to the man later for another hour, and again for the final 90 minutes of the flight for security reasons, according to court documents.

     

    Bassos is claiming damages for personal injuries, saying that being forced to twist his body for such a long time to avoid contact with the other passenger gave him a back injury and exacerbated an existing back condition.

    Seriously…

     

  • When Internet Zillions Slipped My Grasp

    From the Slope of Hope: I’ve been writing this blog for so long (over a decade), I sometimes despair that my uninteresting life will stop yielding anything worth writing about. Yes, the blog is principally about technical analysis of stocks, but I like to share anecdotes from time to time, and every time I compose a good anecdote I figure that, welp, that’s the last shareable morsel of my life. So far, though, I wind up thinking of another one, sooner or later.

    So here I am again.

    I started my company, Prophet Financial Systems, in 1992 (and, for those interested, I produced an entire video series called The Prophet’s Tale which describes its history, all the way up through when I sold it to Ameritrade).

    For the first few years, it was really just a historical data company that provided daily updates via modem; in other words, just about the least sexy high-tech outfit one could imagine. The Silicon Valley was a relatively moribund place in those days. Apple was very much on the wane, the commercial Internet didn’t exist, and most companies in this area weren’t any more thrilling to be at than, say, Johnson & Johnson, duPont, or General Dynamics.

    Things changed swiftly in the middle of 1995, however. The “big bang” was Netscape’s public offering. A much smaller event took place just one day before that, however. An electronic discussion board was launched called Silicon Investor, run by a couple of brothers (Jeff and Brad Dryer) that had moved from Kansas to the Bay Area to chase their high-tech entrepreneurial dreams.

    In a stunning example of being at the right place at the right time, Silicon Investor took off like a shot. There was nothing – – absolutely nothing – – remarkable about the web site’s design or functionality. However, it quickly became the go-to place to talk about high-tech stocks, and back in those days, there weren’t many other places to do so. The nature of communities is that once members find a home, they tend to stay there, so even as superior discussion platforms came along, the crowds still flocked to Silicon Investor.

    My own tiny company, Prophet, had built a simple charting platform, and I was looking for customers. I reached out to Brad and Jeff, and we got together at the Just Desserts coffee shop to learn about each other’s businesses and talk it over. They were good guys, and we set up an arrangement for me to provide charts to their site.

    It wasn’t really clear to me how popular their site was, though, until the news hit on April 23, 1998 that Silicon Investor had been bought by go2net for $33,000,000 in stock. Now keep in mind this was just a discussion board we’re talking about, little more sophisticated than the dial-up BBS’s I had enjoyed back in 1981 on my TRS-80. But the magic word those days was “eyeballs”, and Silicon Investor had lots of them, even though it had virtually no revenue.

    Most (if not all) of you are wondering what go2net was. Well, in those days, search engines pretty much sucked. A few companies decide to put together a “meta” search engine, the thought being that if you execute a search against a bunch of crappy search engines, maybe the consolidated results will be semi-decent. So that was pretty much what go2net did: they would submit searches to the search engines of the day and produce a list of the results.

    Of course, that was enough to create a public company (symbol GNET) which was worth hundreds of millions of dollars. (The fact that I can’t even find an image to show you what a go2net screen looked like kind of tells you how lasting and impactful the technology was). And with all that overvalued stock on hand, it was pretty simple to snap up an even smaller site like Silicon Investor for an impossibly high figure.

    Now I was watching all of this with great interest, naturally, because I had my only little business, also in the Silicon Valley, and also devoted to stock market traders, that I’d have loved to sell to go2net (or anyone!) as well. I thought, hell, my site is nicer, my technology is better, and it’s very complementary – – – why not pursue the same outcome? I’ve always had this fantasy that, in this Valley, if you work hard enough, you eventually get tapped with the magic wand, and voila, you’re suddenly rich and famous (I, errr, have dispatched this notion in my mind as of now). So i figured…………the stars had finally lined up!

    So I contacted Brad, and he said, sure, he’d tell the management at go2net about me and my business and see if there was any interest.

    A few days later, the light on my answering machine was flashing. I pressed Play, and there was a message from go2net’s CFO, suggesting I pull some information together about Prophet and mail it to him, and if it looked promising, arrange for a meeting up in Seattle. I could scarcely believe my ears. I excitedly went to press Play to listen to the message again, but in my enthusiasm, I pressed Erase instead. ARGH! I frantically emailed Brad to tell him what had happened and to try to figure out the name of the guy who called. Brad just about died laughing at my message and looped back to me shortly thereafter with the guy’s name and email.

    So I was on my own. After providing some basic financials and product background on Prophet to the CFO, he agreed it would make sense to fly me up to Seattle to meet with Russell Horowitz, go2net’s founder. I felt like I was living in a dream, because everything was happening so fast, just like I hoped it would. I imagined it wouldn’t be long before there would be a press release about Prophet and the princely sum paid for it. I would join in the glorious maelstrom of cash flying around the west coast in the late 1990s.

    “Knock ’em dead!” my wife said to me as she dropped me off at San Francisco International.

    Arriving at the high-rise tower that housed go2net, I was flush with anticipation. I met with the CFO, both of the Dryers, and was escorted in to meet the big man: Russell Horowitz, which was in his late 20s and looked cherubic with a head full of curly, lengthy hair. I was dazzled by their cool office, accustomed as I was to slumming it in a spare bedroom of my house.

    I gave Russ a demonstration of the products I had created, walked him through my patent portfolio of inventions, and discussed some of my plans for future products. He seemed satisfied with what he was hearing, so he handed me back over to the CFO.

    It was at that point I started to run out of answers, because the CFO was interested in seeing my financials. The only “financials” I had was a checking account, and my principal goal there was that it had a positive, and growing, balance at all times. This exposed the first real weakness in my tiny outfit, which was that I was completely unsophisticated about metrics. I didn’t have traffic data, financial reporting, or any of the other stuff that I considered too tiresome to bother with as a one-man shop. I promised the CFO I’d pull the information together and get it to him.

    The second weakness, and this was more severe, was Prophet’s scope. I never sought to have a “millions of eyeballs” business. Mine was in very much a niche market, and its numbers reflected that. I was hoping that wouldn’t weigh on their decision, since I was offering them was technology and, for whatever it was worth, my own vision as to where we could take it. To this day, I believe they would have been wise to make the acquisition.

    As you’ve surely gathered by now, no such acquisition took place. Although the meeting was all smiles and handshakes, it was pretty silent thereafter. I don’t know the reason they decided not to proceed. Maybe there wasn’t enough critical mass of “stuff” to interest them. But, for whatever reason, I was left on my own, slogging away in the spare bedroom, and no gigantic stock certificate was dropped into my lap.

    The irony is that, over time, Prophet kept growing, and it was a pretty good little business. I know it’s quaint, but we had real revenues, real profits, didn’t require any VC funding, and we eventually sold for $8 million in cash (as opposed to really, really, really overvalued stock.) It’s rounding error in the world of Silicon Valley, but for me, it was a great outcome on what had been a long journey.

    So what if go2net had, in fact, bought Prophet? I’m really not sure, because I don’t know (a) what the price would have been, although it certainly would have been much more than $8 million (b) what the holding period of the stock would have been (c) when I would have sold it, although knowing me, I’d probably  be anxious to convert the stock into cash as quickly as legally permitted.

    The path that go2net took, however, is plain to see. GNET stock continued to soar in value, along with all Internet companies, and it was purchased for nearly $3 billion (!) by InfoSpace (a company which itself has since fallen from grace, and which how has adopted the completely lame name of Blucora.) I’ve marked on the chart below the point when InfoSpace bought go2net:

    0816-bcor
    The arrow marks the approximate point when Infospace bought go2net

    As is plain from the chart above, InfoSpace went into a death spiral, losing something like 99% of its value. I would encourage you to read this fascinating piece of investigative journalism from The Seattle Times, published in March 2005, showing what kinds of insane shenanigans were happening with executives dumping stock through any means necessary. Here’s one particularly hilarious tidbit, illustrating (once again) the Orwellian language that investment banks use:

    Merrill Lynch had made millions as a consultant in the Go2Net merger. But Blodget had lost confidence in InfoSpace, records show. He asked a colleague to remove the stock from the brokerage house’s most-favored-stocks list.

    Can we please reset this stupid price target and rip this piece of junk off whatever list it’s on?” he wrote Oct. 20. “If you have to downgrade it, downgrade it.”

    It took seven weeks, but on Dec. 11, Merrill Lynch downgraded InfoSpace to “accumulate.” The decision pummeled the stock, which fell 16 percent that day.

    Got that? “Accumulate” means “This stock sucks” to normal people. OK, we’re clear now.

    Horowitz, of course, had made zillions of dollars through all of this. He bought a $20 million spread in one of Seattle’s ritzy neighborhoods and was featured in this bizarre report in which he fires a warning shot at a guy who he saw digging up some plants from the front of his property.

    On Sept. 24, a Saturday night around 9 p.m., Horowitz saw a man digging up the plants outside the fence and along his front curb on one of his video monitors. According to the police report, he went outside, past the front fence, taking his gun as a precaution.

    Horowitz “later explained that he has had two death threats in the last six months and he was fearful that perhaps this incident might somehow be related to the threats,” the police report states. A spokesman for Horowitz said they were less specific than death threats but a cause for concern nonetheless. The Seattle Police were unaware of any threats.

    I suspect maybe the death threats could have been from ordinary, non-rich people who had had their heads handed to them by losing big on InfoSpace stock. But I digress.

    Not wanting to sit idle, Horowitz moved on with some other original go2net people to put together a new Seattle firm named Marchex which also went public (He seems quite proficient at it!) As you can see, Marchex’s performance isn’t going to win many accolades these days, except from securities litigators:

    0816-mrcx
    Marchex isn’t exactly setting the world on fire

    You may wonder how the Dryer brothers wound up after all this. I have no earthly idea. I don’t know if they managed to dump their stock and be set for life, or if they hung on through the bitter end and wound up with pennies on the dollar. I was so disappointed at the non-sale that took place, I just fell out of touch with them completely.

    I was curious, however, to see how the site looked. I hadn’t even peeked at it since the Internet bubble, and I figured 20 years – twenty years! – after its founding, it was probably pretty slick by now. Here’s what it looks like today.

    0816-sivc
    Hey, SI. 1995 called, and they want their web design back.

    So, yes, the site above was once considered one of the hottest properties on the web. I read that it was re-sold to a firm for $250,000 in cash a few years ago. That’s still probably about $200,000 too high.

    We are, of course, in the throes of a bubble right now that makes the Internet bubble look like child’s play. There are still companies like Clinkle (which I’ve written about repeatedly) which garner tens of millions of venture capital and fizzle into nothing, and Facebook’s $22 billion acquisition of the Whatsapp mobile app (with all of $10 million of revenue behind the business) makes acquiring Silicon Investor for $33 million seem like the most prudent investment of the century.

    I enjoy my work, and I enjoy building small businesses (I am engaged in a new one at this very moment, far removed from my everyday blogging), but I’ve accepted that I’m never going to be touched by that magic wand. I’ve observed things around here long enough, though, to realize that the wand is sometimes a wand, and sometimes it’s a bludgeon.

  • Caught On Tape: Hillary Clinton Explains Why She Loves Snapchat

    Sometimes laughter is the best medicine, especially when you’re running a Presidential campaign that’s rapidly losing momentum thanks to an FBI investigation into your e-mailing habits and a suddenly popular socialist who is surging in the polls.

    And while we appreciate a good joke now and again, we think this might come across as a bit sinister to some “everyday American” folks…

  • Grossly Inflated Gargantuan Asset Prices

    Submitted by StealthFlation.org

    STEALTHFLATION: An intractable economic condition that inevitably arises as excessively issued fiat currency compulsively pursues non-productive wealth assets in a grossly over-leveraged economy, which has been artificially reflated by the Central Banking authorities, in a misguided attempt to synthetically engineer growth via extreme monetization.  (ie: Counterfeit Quantitative Easing & Interest Rate Suppression)

    This ill-advised monetary regime effectively prevents the real economy on the ground from realizing the healthy normalization of free market forces crucial to genuine capital formation, authentically derived from bona fide industrious production generating actually earned savings, the very life blood essential to inducing legitimate and sustainable economic growth.

    Under the imposition of StealthFlation, contrived asset prices are grossly inflated deliberately eliciting a vapid wealth effect, while the generative velocity of money is extinguished. Meaningless Equity Markets are pointlessly driven higher by the perverse implementation of impotent stock buybacks. Worse still, the seeds of hyperinflation are sown, as the compromised overtly financialized economy becomes increasingly dependent upon the interminable entirely destructive monetization.

    Also known as, wishful thinking and robbing Peter to pay Paul.

    Qe Cartoon 2

    This entirely synthesized approach to capital formation brings about the following disastrous conditions:

    1) Engenders dormant velocity of money, concealing embedded future inflationary risks to the economy.

    2) Produces highly unstable and recurring capital market asset bubbles.

    3) Drives superfluous misallocation of true investment capital, disregarding and disadvantaging the crucial SME sector.

    4) Generates excessive foreign exchange / capital market volatility and unpredictability, disrupting deliberate business development and planning.

    5) Delivers lethargic economic at the groundlevel activity with limited unsustainable growth.

    6) Encourages deleterious off-shoring of the manufacturing base.

    7) Facilitates fantastic fiscal deficit spending sprees.

    8) Decreases median incomes and new job creation.

    9) Spawns extreme income inequality and social discontentment.

    10) Eviscerates the essence of money by compromising the means of exchange and its crucial role as a conduit for savings.

    Visualizing the Vanishing Velocity of Money Vortex 

    Velocity-Of-Money-M1

    The inflationary risks are deliberately concealed and remain latent due to the synthetic suppression of determinant free capital market forces.  However, the grossly excessive supply of money has definitively been created, and it will debase the currency, it’s just a matter of time, same as it ever was………..

    When an economy is healthy, there is much buying and selling and money tends to move around quite swiftly. Unfortunately, the U.S. economy is manifesting the precise opposite of that these days.  In fact, the velocity of M1 & M2 has fallen to near all-time record lows. This is a very serious indication that the underlying economy has entered a period of extreme stagnation.

    In its infinite wisdom, the Federal Reserve has been attempting to counter this economic standstill by absolutely flooding the financial system with newly printed money.  As it always does, this has created monumental financial and fixed asset bubbles. However, it has not addressed what is fundamentally and structurally wrong with our economy.  On a very basic level, the amount of real economic activity that we are witnessing is not anywhere near where it should be, and the anemic flow of money through our economy is proof positive of the ongoing dilemma.

    Velocity-Of-Money-M21

    Clearly, the transmission mechanism between the relentless synthetic origination of fresh money by the monetary miracle men and the velocity at which that new money is circulating in the real underlying economy on the ground is completely disconnected, FUBAR. Why is this?  Well, it’s really not that difficult to comprehend.

    First of all, much of the supposed economic activity generated today is not being driven from the bottom up by the healthy deployment of excess savings, naturally created from genuine self-sustaining productive industrious economic activity at the fundamental level, but rather in an unnatural fashion, force fed from the top down via the easy street ZIRP/QE induced debt financing incessantly being encouraged by our misguided megalomaniac monetary authorities.

    Perhaps even more malignant, the largest capital market of them all, namely the U.S. bond market has been put down by the Fed’s activist zero bound anesthesiologist. Thus, the utterly comatose American treasury market is no longer facilitating the natural growth of traditional savings income streams generated via secure interest bearing accounts and prudential savings products throughout the financial system’s depository structure.  In short, the healthy income flows constructively generated from legitimate savings produced from genuine economic activity, namely people going to work every day, has been effectively terminated by these wizards of wanton monetary policy at the wayward central bank.

    Let’s face it, if the major pension funds can’t generate 5-6% per year holding conservative debt instruments in order to meet their massive obligations, they are up a creek without a paddle.  They require substantive returns in order to remain solvent. The Fed understands this all too well, they are most concerned on that score, and so should you be.

    Having thoroughly shut down the sound, well established and effective channels of capital formation, which have consistently engendered bona fide and constructive growth over the years through the virtuous avenues of productive savings, the foolish authorities have left themselves utterly hamstrung with only one risky road to travel down. Indeed, now that they have totally cracked the transmission on our fiscally busted and broken down American bus, they have become 100% reliant on the equity market to drive their top fuel funds into the U.S. economy via the wealth effect.   Pedal to the metal at 2,150 SPX mph.  Make no mistake my friends, we are on a crash course, and we will hit the wall.

    Got Gold?

  • How Keynes Almost Prevented The Keynesian Revolution

    Submitted by Mark Tovey via The Mises Institute,

    October 30, 1929. A brisk autumn’s day in Manhattan. The Savoy-Plaza Hotel’s thirty-three stories cast a long shadow over Central Park. At the base of the hotel a financier lies freshly fallen, motionless, while his last breath, wrenched from the lungs by force of impact, is now a red mist of gore in the air.

    Sirens and uniforms. The suicide spot quickly becomes crowded by spectators, who form a vision-impairing ring-fence of backs, much to the annoyance of elbow-throwers at the periphery. Winston Churchill stands at his hotel window looking down on the mess. To nobody’s surprise, the police will find an empty wallet and five margin calls in the dead man's pockets.1

    Churchill’s curtains flutter shut, and we are left to wonder whether anyone — Churchill included — can yet see his clumsy, cigar-wielding hand in it all; whether anyone realizes that, had Churchill as Chancellor of the Exchequer only restored the gold standard at a lower exchange rate, as Keynes had recommended, the Wall Street Crash of 1929 could have been averted (or at least ameliorated).

    Alas, by ignoring Keynes in 1925, Churchill triggered a calamity so severe that it not only inspired one man to kill himself beneath the British statesman’s very window but, more insidiously, also provided the impetus for the economics profession’s rejection of the “classical” axioms. As Keynes’s biographer Robert Skidelsky writes, Keynes “did not believe in the system of the ideas by which economists lived; he did not worship at the temple.” And while “in former times he would have been forced to recant, perhaps burnt at the stake, as it was … the exigencies of his times enabled him to force himself on his church.”

    1925: Britain’s Return to the Gold Standard

    The pound sterling’s link to gold was severed at the start of WWI. After eleven years of unfettered inflation, Chancellor of the Exchequer Winston Churchill restored convertibility at the pre-war level of 4.25 pounds per ounce of gold.

    Keynes, quite rightly, took exception to this particular detail: expecting Britain’s global customers to go on paying the same gold-price for the weakened pound was unrealistic. At this exchange rate the pound would be overvalued, and the only cure would be a sustained period of deflation — which was “certain to involve unemployment and industrial disputes.” Indeed, in 1926 a general strike crippled Britain for nine days.

    What Keynes did not predict, however, was how Churchill’s blunder would later bring about an easing of monetary policy in America. And even supposing Keynes had predicted this side effect, would he have understood its implications for long-run sustainability? (Recall that both F.A. Hayek and Keynes predicted a crash would occur in 1929: Hayek because interest rates were too low, Keynes because they were too high!)

    1927: At the Fed (With Cap in Hand)

    American sellers (in particular) were accepting British gold in exchange for goods, but were dissuaded from returning it due to the unfavorable rate of exchange. As a result, Britain’s gold supplies diminished at a rapid rate, which made the authorities understandably twitchy: how could they keep their pledge to convert pounds into gold if they had none?

    In response, the Governor of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman, set off across the Atlantic and, with much pleading, persuaded the Federal Reserve to ease monetary policy. By lowering interest rates and raising inflation, the Fed stemmed gold flows into America, giving the British a much-needed respite from the ill-effects of Churchill’s costly pound.

    With this episode of soft-hearted internationalism came an upswing in the Wall Street boom and “from that date,” wrote Lionel Robbins, “according to all the evidence, the situation got completely out of control.”

    In The Great Crash, a very popular account of the lead up to the Great Depression, John Kenneth Galbraith writes:

    the rediscount rate of the New York Federal Reserve was cut from 4 to 3.5 percent. Government securities were purchased in considerable volume with the mathematical consequence of leaving the banks and individuals who had sold them with money to spare. The funds that the Federal Reserve made available were either invested in common stocks or … they became available to help finance the purchase of common stocks by others. So provided with funds, people rushed into the market.

    Galbraith goes on to quote a member of the Federal Reserve Board who, with hindsight, called the operation “one of the most costly errors” committed by a banking system “in 75 years.”

    Galbraith finishes: “the view that the action of the Federal Reserve in 1927 was responsible for the speculation and collapse which followed has never been seriously shaken.”

    John Maynard Who?

    When Keynes wrote against returning to the gold standard at pre-war parity in 1925, he did so with the expectation that he might actually influence policy. As a younger, unknown man he had worked at the Treasury for a brief stint, leaving a legendary impression; and by 1925, six years after his best-seller The Economic Consequences of the Peace, he was a famous man whose words carried weight.

    It is not outlandish then to imagine a world in which Keynes got his way. In such a world, the Wall Street crash and ensuing depression might never have happened – without the costly pound, the Fed would have had no impetus to inflate. Keynes would subsequently have found the economics profession less rattled, less willing to abandon its “classical” axioms in favor of his new-fangled approach. Keynes might have averted Keynesianism.

  • Spot The Difference

    The two main economic systems in the world today…

     

     

    h/t @RudyHavenstein

  • Global Consumer Confidence Tumbles

    Consumer confidence deteriorated in most countries in July.

    While some of the deterioration was likely due to sentiment effects around the situation in Greece/Europe and the market volatility in China, rather than fundamental deterioration (which will be confirmed at the end of August if sentiment rebounds) it is worth paying attention to the trends in global consumer confidence, as it generally tends to reflect the prevailing global macro winds.

    Indeed, if you track the trends in consumer confidence against changes in bond yields, you can see a loose relationship (which would be logical as falling demand is consistent with falling bond yields).

     

    The further drop in oil would tend to be supportive for consumer confidence meaning we would probably would expect to see a rebound in the August numbers (which will be available in early September) – something to keep a close eye on as a warning sign for global demand.

    Source: AMP Capital

  • Guess What Happens Next

    Courtesy of Keith Dicker of IceCap Asset Management

    Well, if you’re not Greeked-out by now you should be. After all, the Greek debt crisis has been spinning in and out of control for 5 years and counting.

    Why should it be any different this time?

    Everyone knows there is no way on this earth that Greece will ever be able to repay these debts. Unless the Greek economy can grow faster and longer than it has ever grown before, AND it can avoid the political temptation to never again spend more money than it collects in taxes – then just maybe it stands a chance of paying off some of the over $400 Billion it owes.

    In today’s age of money printing, negative interest rates, and bank bailouts, many have become somewhat desensitized to “billions” and “trillions”. Yet, we assure you $400 billion for Greece is a lot of money.

    For perspective, Australia owes about $1.3 trillion in various loans. If Australia suddenly entered a debt crisis on the same scale as Greece, its debt owing would skyrocket to nearly $2.5 trillion, or put another way – about $106,000 for every man, woman and child.

    For Greece, it’s mathematically impossible to repay its debt. If anyone else tells you otherwise, it means they have no understanding whatsoever of how real economies actually work.

    The sharpest and brightest minds at the IMF, the EU and the ECB (collectively referred to as the TROIKA) all agree that the solution to the Greek crisis is for Greece to pay more in taxes, for the Greek government to spend less money, and to continue to pay off its debt.

    Let’s think about this for a very quick second:

    1. Greeks have to pay more taxes, which means less money is available for spending
    2. the Greek Government has to spend less money, which means less money is available for spending
    3. and of the money that the Greek government does spend, more of it has to be used to repay its debt, which means less of it is available for real spending;

    And considering that economic growth is a function of aggregate spending, how on earth can any sane person expect the Greek economy to recover and grow?

    The answer: they can’t. For further proof why it doesn’t work and it will never work, you just have to look at Iceland.

    Iceland was the very first country wiped out by the 2008 global debt crisis. The Icelandic government and the Icelandic banks completely mismanaged everything for which they were financially responsible.

    And when everything hit the fan – no one come running to save them, in fact, the complete opposite happened. Both Britain and the Netherlands threatened to completely wipe Iceland off the global financial map.

    At the time, Icelandic banks offered regular banking accounts in Britain and the Netherlands that paid 6% interest. Considering other global banks offered 3% and less, and also considering that the vast majority of people in the world have no idea how a bank is structured; thousands of British and Dutch savers blindly ploughed their savings into these Icelandic bank accounts.

    After all, it was a bank deposit, it was guaranteed by the bank and 6% is greater than 3%. Where was the risk with this?

    Next, when the crisis hit Iceland – all bank accounts were frozen, and the savings of many British and Dutch investors melted away.

    Suddenly, the risk with 6% was crystal clear. Naturally, the British and Dutch governments both demanded their citizens be repaid for making stupid investment decisions.

    The Icelandic government meanwhile, finally woke from their frozen state and assessed the situation. Not only did the government not have enough money to repay bank depositors, it didn’t have enough money to pay themselves.

    And since no one would lend Iceland any money – the country was officially broke. The rivers would stop running, the glaciers would stop flowing, and the thermal baths would stop steaming – or so we were told.

    Instead, Iceland allowed its banks to collapse, allowed its currency to drop by over 70%, decided not to pay back all of the money it owed, and finally – it actually imprisoned certain bank executives for putting the country into such a financially toxic position.

    A comparison between the Icelandic approach and the European approach forced upon Greece is as follows:

     

    And as for the outcome, the chart below clearly shows the economic recovery experienced by both countries, over the exact same time frame, and using completely opposite solutions.

     

    Iceland’s economy has recovered from the depths of the crisis and is now only -3% less than where it was in 2008.

    Greece’s economy continues to plummet to deeper depths and is now -33% less than where it was in 2008.

    The Icelandic recovery has not been perfect. Locals and foreign investors have been unable to get money out of the country. Originally, capital controls were expected to last 6 months. 7 years later they are finally being relaxed. That’s a long time not being able to access your money.

    In addition, prices for all things soared with inflation hitting 20% at one point. Job losses also soared with unemployment tripling.

    Yes, bad times were had – yet the country and economy survived. Greece meanwhile, continues to be subjected to a 100% guaranteed doomed strategy.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 15, 2015

  • Peddling The Corruption Of Liberty

    Submitted by Tibor Machan via Acting-Man.com,

    Liberty’s Detractors

    Ever since the idea of individual liberty has achieved some measure of credibility over the world, those who would be unseated by its limited triumph had to find some way to discredit it or trump it somehow. One way was to re-christen servitude, to make it appear like an even more important kind of liberty than what individual liberty, properly understood, amounts to.

     

    805

    Puppets and puppeteers…

    When a human being is free in the most important, political sense, he or she is sovereign. This means he or she governs his or her own life—others must refrain from intruding on this life, plain and simple. That life may be fortunate or not, rich or not, beautiful or not, and many other things or not, but what matters is that that life is no one else’s to mess with. One gets to run it, no one else does.

    Now this is a very uncomfortable idea for all those folks who see all kinds of benefits from running other people’s lives. But they cannot champion this now in so many words, what with individual liberty having gained solid standing, so the only way to remedy matters for them is to claim that their oppression brings even greater freedom to people than the respect and protection of individual liberty.

     

    The Ruse of “Positive” Freedoms

    So, we have the kind of “freedoms” propounded by Franklin D. Roosevelt, the freedoms now dubbed “positive.” These freedoms do not get rid of those who would use you, interfere with you, invade your life, rob, kill, or assault you but promise, to the contrary, to take good care of you without your having to do much by invading others, by violating their individual liberties.

    These are the entitlement rights offered up by proponents of the welfare state, all those who claim that government is best when it is generous, when it becomes the Nanny State—meaning, when it enslaves Peter to serve Paul:

     

    FDR-Radio

    Franklin D. Roosevelt: made a nanny state out of a Republic. Benjamin Franklin once noted that the founders had given US citizens a Republic, “if you can keep it”. This afterthought turned out to be prophetic.

    I am not sure about what exactly motivates this ruse—some of it is surely the thirst for power. When you want to enslave people, promise them a special kind of liberty. Castro managed to win over millions of Cubans this way, as did other Marxists in Eastern Europe and in Latin America, as well as some jihadists.

    Maybe a few folks actually honestly believed that this kind of political alternative is best for us all, but it is difficult to imagine what would persuade them of such a fraudulent notion. Giving people this “positive” freedom must always involve depriving other people of their individual liberty, their “negative” freedom, which is to say, their sovereignty and their freedom from having others interfere with their lives, from depriving them of their resources and labor and regulating (nudging) them to the hilt.

     

    Marx-Lenin-Mao

    Marxists and other ideologues of their ilk all have in common that they promise their supporters a better material life than they could achieve otherwise. Not only have they never named the price their subjects would have to pay, but their promises turned out to be false as well.

     

    Clear Thinking and Eternal Vigilance Required

    Now, there is little that can be done about this in the short run—when people put their minds to such deceptions, the only ultimate defense is clear thinking and vigilance, which is unfortunately always in short supply and needs to be slowly cultivated. Too many people are tempted by the promise of effortless living, of getting all their problems solved at the point of a gun turned on others who will be coerced to come up with the solutions.

     

    rodin

     

    This is such a sweet notion to those who are lazy, who feel left out, or who believe that they are entitled to everything all those who are better off already have going for them, so the power-hungry have a good marketing ploy here.

    Envy, maybe, or the bogus political ideologies promoted by those who just must step in to govern the world as they see fit—as I say, I am not sure what kind of mental acrobatics manages to allow people to live with themselves in peace who perpetrate such fraud.

    Despite the fact that there is little one can do in response, other than to keep spelling out just what a ruse it all is, perhaps now and then institutional barriers can also be built. Yet, since they too depend upon ideas, ideas that are so easily corrupted, the only real answer is the old one about eternal vigilance. I say, it’s worth it, so let’s go for it.

  • The Richest Zip Codes In America In One Map

    The Hamptons. Beverly Hills. Greenwich, CT. These places are the stomping grounds of the rich and famous. Today’s infographic, courtesy of Visual Capitalist, maps out all of the richest zip codes in America, leaving no country club or gated community unturned.

    For each state, the richest three cities or neighborhoods are shown along with the associated number of tax returns. This is a more in-depth version of a similar graphic we posted months ago that showed the incredible wealth in counties surrounding Washington D.C.

    Also included in today’s post is the 100 highest tax-paying zip codes throughout the United States.

  • Peter Schiff: The Shot Not Heard Around The World

    Submitted by Peter Schiff via Euro Pacific Capital,

    China’s recent move to devalue the yuan has sent shock waves through the global financial markets and has convinced most observers that a new front in the global currency wars has begun. The move has caused many observes to envision a new round of competitive devaluations around the globe in which the race to the bottom will intensify. In this scenario they envision that the U.S. dollar will solidify its standing as the only strong currency. This misses the point entirely.

     

    In the past, most of the action in the "currency wars" had been focused on the efforts that many nations undertook to prevent their currencies from rising against the U.S. dollar, which itself was being weakened by a perpetually easy Federal Reserve and persistently negative U.S. trade and budget deficits. But with the dollar now strengthening significantly, the Chinese government has become concerned that the yuan, which has remained largely tethered to the dollar, had become too strong against other currencies, particularly its primary trading partners in Asia and the Pacific. To remain competitive locally, it decided to ease the tether to the dollar and instead let its currency float more freely. The purpose and implications of this significant pivot has largely escaped the U.S. media. In reality, the move raises the likelihood that the yuan will rise significantly when the dollar resumes its long-term bear market, not that it will remain weak forever.

     

    It is surprising how quickly market observers ascribed the recent losing streak on Wall Street to jitters over the 2% yuan devaluation. The development provided a convenient excuse for those who continue to deny that any economic weakness in the U.S. is chronic and self-generated. But why should America be so concerned with a small drop in the yuan? After all, we have supposedly done quite nicely for ourselves economically even while currencies like the yen and the euro, and all the other major currencies around the world, have fallen more than 20% against the dollar since May of last year.

     

    In truth, the U.S. markets had been selling off for days before any change in policy from Beijing became remotely clear. With U.S. economic data deteriorating, corporate earnings falling, and 95% of economists forecasting a rate hike in the next few months, a sharp sell-off of already wildly valued stocks could be considered a logical development that needs no overseas explanations. But given that this is a reality that no one prefers to acknowledge, the yuan devaluation comes at a convenient time.  

     

    The last round of the currency wars began around 2010, when pronounced dollar weakness resulting from the Fed’s Quantitative easing experiment and the Federal government’s annual trillion dollar plus deficits had caused the dollar to fall sharply against most other major currencies except the yuan, which did not rise because the Chinese were enforcing a peg against the dollar. To affect the linkage, China had to accumulate trillions of U.S. dollar reserves, with the added benefit to America of keeping a lid on long-term interest rates and consumer prices, that would not have been there absent China’s help. As a result, many currencies gained value against the dollar and yuan simultaneously. Faced with such scary prospects, many countries devalued to keep things in equilibrium; hence the race toward the bottom.

     

    In contrast, I believe this time around Beijing was forced to act because the continuously surging dollar had been bringing the yuan along for an unwanted ride upward. This resulting movement against other currencies was not driven by fundamentals and put China at a disadvantage against its local trading partners.

     

    By letting their currency float more freely, their principle concern was not their exchange rate with the dollar, which had remained largely fixed, but their exchange rates with currencies like the Japanese yen, the Australian dollar, the euro, the Canadian dollar, and other emerging market currencies in Latin America and South East Asia. This shows where the Chinese are placing their priorities. 

     

    While making its devaluation announcement, Beijing said that it wanted its currency “to reflect fundamentals” and to no longer simply mirror the movement of the dollar. It acknowledged the fact that its peg to the dollar was problematic and that it wanted a better, more natural mechanism. This is the key to understanding the announcementThe Chinese are preparing for a time in which the financial world does not spin in orbit around the dollar. Such a reality must make us think about the future.

     

    Perhaps the Chinese feel as I do that the current dollar rise has all the earmarks of a classic bubble. After all, a major part of the dollar rally over the past year has been the hollow beliefs that the U.S. economy has fully recovered and that the Fed, in 2015 and 2016, will be able to raise interest rates and shrink its balance sheet substantially even while the world’s other major central banks continue to deliver stimulus. If they see the fallacies that I do inherent in these naïve assumptions, they may be sparing a thought or two as to their best course of action if the dollar bear market resumes, as it surely must.

     

    What will happen if current trends continue and the U.S. economy slips back toward recession? Any sober reading of the current economic data, which shows anemic investment, minimal productivity growth, barely positive GDP growth, wage stagnation, and falling labor participation, should allow for the strong possibility that recession is looming in the U.S. If it occurs, or to prevent it from occurring in an election year, the Fed will be forced to immediately shelve its tightening plans (if it even has any) and instead deliver another round of QE. When that occurs the confidence that inspired the dollar’s rise will prove to have been misplaced, and the rally nothing more than another Fed-induced bubble.

     

    By decoupling from the dollar now, China is sending a message that it may be prepared to let it fall later. This means that when the dollar starts to fall in earnest, China may not be there to catch it. This will also mean that the biggest foreign buyer of Treasury bonds will likely be sitting on its hands when deteriorating U.S. finances force the Treasury to begin issuing trillions of new bonds annually. So when the U.S. needs China’s help the most, it will be unwilling to provide it.

     

    In the absence of a Chinese backstop that the U.S. has for too long taken for granted, when the dollar resumes its decline, the fall will be much more pronounced. This will also generate significant upward pressure on both U.S. consumer prices and interest rates that was absent five years ago, when Chinese buying provided a huge cushion to the U.S. economy. In fact, data indicates that China is already paring the amount of Treasuries held in reserve. That means a full blown dollar crisis may not have been averted, but merely postponed, with the dire warnings of U.S. hyperinflation potentially coming true after all.

     

    The move may also rekindle to the Chinese appreciation for gold as a safe haven asset as the yellow metal has surged in yuan terms over the past few weeks. Increased buying in China indicates that this may indeed be the case.
     
     
    Given the importance of gold to the typical Chinese investor, the yuan/gold exchange rate may become more important globally than the gold/dollar rate.

  • Chinese Air Pollution Kills 4,000 People Each Day (And Why It Will Kill Many More)

    Every quasi-mushroom cloud has a silver lining. That was our cynical conclusion yesterday when we noticed that as part of China’s tragic Tianjin mega-explosion, thousands of channel-stuffed cars parked at the Chinese port which likely would have quietly rusted away into the epic nothingness of China’s unprecedented excess capacity of pretty much everything, were destroyed, thereby one-time reducing at least some of the gargantuan slack in the Chinese economy.

     

    Which got us thinking: if natural disasters, either accidental or man made, are a tangential blessing to the Chinese economy, why stop at the Tianjin explosion? What about the biggest bogeyman facing China today – its environmental catastrophe, demonstrated best by the impenetrable, carciongenic and toxic smog resulting from the accelerated industrialization of the country, and which the citizens of Beijing, Shanghai, and increasingly more cities, have to breathe in day after day?

    It has hardly been a secret that the unprecedented level of pollutants in the Chinese air would impair life expectancy and lead to extensive health problems, but even we were surprised to find out the quantification of China’s air problem: according to one study, an average of 4,000 people a day are killed in China, as a result of the dense smog.

    According to Bloomberg, “deaths related to the main pollutant, tiny particles known as PM2.5s that can trigger heart attacks, strokes, lung cancer and asthma, total 1.6 million a year, or 17 percent of China’s mortality level, according to the study by Berkeley Earth, an independent research group funded largely by educational grants. It was published Thursday in the online peer-reviewed journal PLOS One from the Public Library of Science.”

    “When I was last in Beijing, pollution was at the hazardous level: Every hour of exposure reduced my life expectancy by 20 minutes,” Richard Muller, scientific director of Berkeley Earth and a co-author of the paper, said in an e-mail. “It’s as if every man, woman and child smoked 1.5 cigarettes each hour.”

    To be sure, Chinese authorities have acknowledged the air pollution situation after heavy smog enveloped swathes of the nation including Beijing and Shanghai in recent years. As a result, they’ve adopted air quality standards, introduced monitoring stations and cleaner standards for transportation fuel while shutting coal plants and moving factories out of cities. So far, however, all the proactive measures seem to have little result.

    “The PM2.5 concentrations far exceed standards, endangering people’s health, though air quality has improved in the first half in the 358 Chinese cities,” said Dong Liansai, climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace East Asia.

    As Bloomberg further reports, Muller and co-author Robert Rohde analyzed four months of hourly data for some 1,500 ground stations in China. They then employed a model used by the World Health Organization to calculate the disease burden.

    They found that 92 percent of China’s population experienced at least 120 hours of unhealthy air during the April 5, 2014, to Aug. 5, 2015 study period. For 38 percent of the population, the average pollution level across the entire four-month period was deemed unhealthy.

    Here one may wonder whether the US DOE funded Berkley researchers were pursuing some specific, anti-coal agenda, as confirmed by the following assessment:

    “the Berkeley Earth researchers also examined where the pollutants were detected and concluded that the sources of PM2.5s matching those for sulfur dioxide suggests most of the pollution comes from burning coal.

     

    “Sources of pollution are widespread but are particularly intense in a northeast corridor that extends from near Shanghai to north of Beijing,” the researchers wrote. “Extensive pollution is not surprising since particulate matter can remain airborne for days to weeks and travel thousands of kilometers.”

     

    China gets about 64 percent of its primary energy from coal, according to National Energy Administration data. It’s closing the dirtiest plants while still planning new, cleaner ones. The country is expected to shut 60 gigawatts of plants from 2016 to 2020 though three times as many plants are scheduled to be built using newer technology, according to Sophie Lu, a Bloomberg New Energy finance analyst in Beijing.

     

    To cut reliance on coal, the nation also wants to derive 20 percent of its energy from renewables and nuclear by 2030, almost double the current share.

    But whether it is due to coal or not, is irrelevant: the truth is that China does have a problem with preserving its environment and keeping the quality of its air. Some examples shown previously:

    Pollution from a factory in Yutian, 100km east of Beijing  

     

    Smog In Beijing

     

     Fishermen clean up oil at an oil spill site near Dalian Port, Liaoning province

     

    Heavily Polluted River In Jiaxing, Zhejiang

     

    Journalist takes a sample of red polluted water in the Jianhe River in Luoyang

     

    Heavily Polluted River

    * * *

    Which got us thinking: if the Tianjin explosion unclogged the car channel stuffing problem, if only for a few days, then perhaps China pollution serves a different, more ulterior purpose.

    Recall that the US social security trust fund is going broke faster by the day since Americans refuse to die at the age they were expected to die when social security was first conceived 80 years ago. As a result, because of progress one of the biggest entitlement systems in the US is on the verga of default.

    When it comes to pension and retirement benefits, the US, with its 330 million people, is nothing compared to China with its 1.2 billion and rising. So what is the best way to “resolve” this problem? Perhaps by introducing an external agent, one that culls the population at a pace of 4000 (and rising rapidly) per day.

    Because while the number of deaths resulting from China’s smog is astounding, something else very surprising is how little progress has been achieved in the battle to clean up China’s air in the past several years, especially since any long-lasting clean up would also lead to a permanent reduction in the industrial output of China’s manufacturing heartland and lead to, drumroll, a violent drop in GDP, a drop which as the current episode demonstrates, would lead to a collapse in the Chinese stock market, an even greater pop in the housing and credit bubble, and far more violent devaluation of the local currency with the attendant negative global economic impact. Not to mention lead to an extension in the longevity of China’s population, which the local actuaries have just one word for: crisis.

    Which is why despite all the rhetoric, and all the “reform” don’t expect China’s pollution problem to get better. In fact, expect it to deteriorate substantially because in the immortal words of that other famous communist, “When there’s a person, there’s a problem. When there’s no person, there’s no problem” and China’s pollution is taking care of 4000 problem each and every day…

  • Greeks Flock To Grassroots Alternative Currencies In Affront To Euro Debt Slavery

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    When Christos Papaioannou noticed his car needed new tires, the Greek computer engineer bought them with euros—but used an alternative currency, called TEM, to pay his mechanic for the labor.

     

    His country has avoided a catastrophic exit from the common currency, at least for now. But a small but growing number of cash-strapped Greeks, who are still grappling with strict money-withdrawal limits, have found another route in TEM and other unconventional payment systems like it.

     

    Before then, Ms. Sotiropoulou said she was only aware of two such programs. No official record of the number of alternative currencies and local bartering systems appears to exist in Greece. But according to an Athens-based grass roots organization called Omikron Project, there are now more than 80 such programs, double the number in 2013. They vary in size, from dozens of members to thousands.

     

    – From the Wall Street Journal article: Alternative Currencies Flourish in Greece as Euros Are Harder to Come by

    Hundreds of millions of people throughout the Western world are being forced to admit an obvious, yet uncomfortable reality. Democracy is dead. Your vote and your voice doesn’t matter. Not at all.

    No group of people understand this as intimately as the Greeks. They voted for one thing, got something else, and in the process were unceremoniously reminded of their political irrelevance. The Greeks are now in a position to show the rest of us how it’s done. Communities need to take matters into their own hands and tackle challenges at the grassroots level. Nowhere is this more impactful and necessary than in the monetary realm, and some Greeks are already leading the charge.

    From the Wall Street Journal:

    When Christos Papaioannou noticed his car needed new tires, the Greek computer engineer bought them with euros—but used an alternative currency, called TEM, to pay his mechanic for the labor.

     

    His country has avoided a catastrophic exit from the common currency, at least for now. But a small but growing number of cash-strapped Greeks, who are still grappling with strict money-withdrawal limits, have found another route in TEM and other unconventional payment systems like it.

     

    “Money is sparse right now, but people still have the same skills and knowledge they had before the crisis,” said Mr. Papaioannou, part of a cooperative that founded TEM in the port city of Volos and one of nearly 1,000 registered users of the alternate currency there.

    “Money is sparse right now, but people still have the same skills and knowledge they had before the crisis.”

    Read that line over and over and over again until you realize how simple, elegant and accurate it is.

    TEM—a sophisticated form of barter whose name is the Greek acronym for Local Alternative Unit—was founded in 2010 in the early months of Greece’s debt crisis with less than a dozen members. Now it includes dozens of participating local businesses that use the system to sell goods and services, including prepared food, haircuts, doctor visits, or even for renting an apartment.

     

    It is a localized version of what Greece might have to turn to if a tentative bailout agreement reached this week is derailed, or ultimately fails. Before his resignation last month, former Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis floated the idea of setting up a parallel-currency system based on IOUs in the event that Greece could no longer stay afloat using euros. Without a rescue, the idea of using IOUs is seen as the country’s most likely alternative.

     

    Before then, Ms. Sotiropoulou said she was only aware of two such programs. No official record of the number of alternative currencies and local bartering systems appears to exist in Greece. But according to an Athens-based grass roots organization called Omikron Project, there are now more than 80 such programs, double the number in 2013. They vary in size, from dozens of members to thousands.

     

    “The problems that existed have only gotten worse, and the new deal is going to create problems of its own that will deepen the crisis in certain areas,” said Mehran Khalili, one of the founders of Omikron. “The logical response is to create groups to react to that and fill those gaps that are going to exist because of the unsustainable situation that Greece has found itself in.

     

    Experts say TEM and other local currencies work best side-by-side with the euro, not as a replacement. 

    “Experts” say. Yeah, the same so-called “experts” who destroyed the world economy and turned the planet into a thieving oligarchy. I think I’ve had enough “expert” economic advice for one lifetime.

    One notable example of alternative currencies used during a crisis was in the 1930s during the Great Depression, when the Austrian town of Wörgl decided to fight the economic downturn by printing its own money. Economists called the result a miracle: Employment boomed, while inflation remained subdued. During the economic depression that struck Argentina in 1998 and lasted till 2002, people formed barter networks and several provinces introduced their own currencies.

     

    The alternate currencies have their limitations: The use of TEM, for example is restricted to those people and local businesses that choose to accept them, and won’t directly help people struggling to meet their monthly utility bills.

     

    Maria McCarthy, a British woman who lives in Volos with her Greek husband and children, has earned and spent over 10,000 TEMs in four years by offering English and guitar lessons. She also sells secondhand clothes and other material goods in Volos’ biweekly marketplace, where almost everything besides euros are exchanged.

     

    Mr. Papaioannou says he has paid for renovating parts of his home as well as food and clothing with the currency, and an increasingly larger share of his computer-repair work is done through transactions with TEM.

     

    “You’re used to a method of doing things,” he said, “and suddenly, you realize there are other ways too.”

    You’ve gotta love the Greek spirit. You can knock them down, you can embarrass them, but you can’t kill their spirit. Everyone else on the planet must recognize that what is being done to Greece will be done to us all in turn. We must show totally solidarity with them against the euro-fascists.

     

  • Using Hollywood Movies To Call Market Tops

    Previously we reported on Horseman Capital’s uncanny ability to generate market-beating returns (outperforming 98% of peers since 2012) despite having a net -50% short position offset by treasury longs. Now, we take a quick detour into one of the prop investment bets used by Horseman’s CIO, Russel Clark, namely Hollywood’s ability to pull a Dennis Gartman, and make a dramatic appearnace at all the key market inflection points.

    From the July Horseman Letter:

    I notice with interest, that Hollywood still retains its unmatched ability to call market tops. 2014 film, “Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit” details a plan by Russia to crash the US dollar and destabilise the American financial system. At the time of the film’s release, 34 rubles bought 1 USD, while at time of writing you require 62 rubles to buy 1 USD. If anything, you could argue that sanctions, plus the US deal with Iran have been a plan hatched by the US to crash the ruble and destabilise the Russian financial system!

    Another 2014 film was “Interstellar” a film I enjoyed so much that I think I have seen it three or four times. Curiously, the film begins in the future, but is never explicit in dates. A search on the internet has most people suggesting the film being set in 2060s or 2070s. The film implies that in the 2030 or 40s declining natural resources causes technological progress to reverse and humans to seek a new planet to call home. Curiously, since Interstellar’s release date sugar prices have fallen 35%, milk prices by 45%, and oil prices by 35%.

    While I generally cite Hollywood for its reverse indicator power, the literature world can also work. 2014 release and Man Booker Prize nominated “Bone Clocks”, by David Mitchell of Cloud Atlas fame, also imagines a future where energy and technology becomes increasingly scarce, and that China is the dominant country globally. This comes in a story set in 2045, although we can assume that the crisis occurs in the 2030s.

    The themes in Bone Clocks seem to match up quite closely with the 2012 film “Looper” which I discussed in my Hollywood note. The film was set in 2044 and depicted a future where the US had fallen apart. The protagonists in the film solely used gold, silver and Renminbi as currency, implying that the US dollar had continued to fall in value. We can see that the creative industry views on commodities have been proven wrong. However, the assumption in Bone Clocks and Looper that China will continue to be ascendant versus the US has not been disproved. From an economic and   currency perspective, China has continued to be the one currency that has held its value versus the US dollar recently, and the economy has continued to grow at 7% a year.

    There are signs of weakness emerging from the Chinese economic growth perspective and more and more companies report slowing growth. Furthermore, the People’s Bank of China has recently suggested widening of the trading band for the Renminbi to allow more flexibility. Perhaps a first step to devaluing? Your fund remains long bonds and short equities.

    * * *

    The above letter was written just a few days before China devalued its currency by the most on record.

  • 10 Disturbing Facts Most Americans Are Too Fearful To Face

    Submitted by Bernie Suarez via ActivistPost.com,

    Sometimes you have to put out information in hopes that those who haven’t heard this will at least absorb a fraction of it. If you haven’t heard this and you absorb just one of these random points, I believe that may be enough to cause a major paradigm shift in your life or in the life of someone you know. Here are 10 random, mostly recent but some archival information that is factual and verifiable for anyone willing to look it up.

    1. Genetically Modified Foods are illegal in many countries for health and medical reasons all the while the U.S. passes laws making GMO labeling illegal.

    You may be thinking, say what? That’s right. U.S. citizens are being propagandized daily and are being practically forced to blindly consume GMOs while countries like Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Madeira, New Zealand, Peru, Australia, Russia, France and Switzerland all have booted Monsanto and their GMO crops from their countries. That’s like being booted out of a town for being a rapist and child molester only to have that same person settle into the next town over and become a grade school teacher or pastor. Now imagine the citizens of that other town having a law forced on them that says rapists and child molesters must be allowed to teach little kids and run churches. That’s what we’re talking about here.

    While humanity in other countries wakes up fully to the dangers of GMO foods, Monsanto and other GMO food producers are having a feast in the U.S. buying out politicians, distorting news, research and evidence that proves GMO foods are directly linked to cancer. Like a scene from a bad movie, only it’s not a movie. Actually it’s YOUR life if you are in the United States dealing with this nightmare.

    As bizarre as it seems, only in the U.S. do criminal corporations like Monsanto enjoy the benefits of the support of the political and legal system. A bird’s eye view of the situation clearly shows how corrupt and evil the control system in the United States really is. Sadly, most Americans have no idea that they are being lied to every day and lured into eating dangerous cancer-causing and health-destroying food just so that someone can profit from your disease later on.

    2. As a result of “Act of 1871″ by the 41st Congress, the United States “Corporation” was created to trample the original Republic.

    Shockingly, this fraudulent synthetic corporate government entity is the only “United States” most people in America know today. And this non-governmental corporate entity covering a 10-square-mile grid in Washington D.C. parades as a sovereign legitimate government and has been doing so for over 100 years.

    Of all the things that need to be repaired and reversed in the United States, this single issue is one of the most important root issues for people to wrap their heads around.

    Imagine the impact of getting a real grassroots movement of people to push awareness of the truth of the current District of Columbia U.S. Corporate Government and the corresponding imitation Constitution OF the United States (instead of “For” the United States as stated in the original organic document).

    This is one of those issues that most people don’t know where to start, how to apply this idea, and how to lead this idea in a meaningful way so they simply give up. The fact is that people are afraid to face this mega-sized issue with overwhelming implications for the average person.

    3. “7 countries in 5 years.”

    This wide open confession came straight out of the mouth of U.S. General Wesley Clark years after the illegal invasion of Iraq. The General openly spilled the beans on the U.S. military’s plan to illegally invade 7 countries in the Middle East under the lie of the war on terror. Shockingly, to this day no war crimes trials have taken place. No one has been executed, convicted or imprisoned for these massive crimes against humanity. Shockingly, the criminals even still make TV appearances and prance around the country offering their opinions and enjoying a comfortable life appearing at events and speaking.

    In fact, General Wesley Clark himself ended up being promoted to lead NATO units in the Middle East. He has even made recent propaganda appearances on TV playing into the Jade Helm “master the human domain” psyop teasing freedom lovers with Hitler-like rhetoric about caging anyone who doesn’t agree with the U.S. government!

    4. The U.S. military and its defense contractors have over 150+ live and legitimate patents for spraying the sky with nano-particles, all the while the masses are told it’s a “conspiracy.”

    Those still unaware of this may be shocked to know these patents are not even hidden from the public. You can read them all for yourself. Despite this open knowledge these programs roll on comfortably as we have observed their spraying techniques change from various forms of chemtrails to aerosolized plumes/injections or chembombs to a mixture of both.

    Astoundingly, we are now living at a time when we are surrounded by a generation of young Americans that think tic-tac-toe is normal in the sky. They think that crazy lines in the sky are part of nature. They see advertisements with lines in the sky and think nothing of it. They have no idea that not long ago there was a time when there were no lines in the sky at all. They have no concept of blue skies and clear starry nights. Shockingly and sadly an integral part of this lack of knowledge is the fear of knowing. More than any other topic, probably the spraying of our skies is cloaked in fear and anxiety of what to do if it is true. Many people would rather not know.

    5. As briefly mentioned in #3, the United States Military is currently conducting an admitted A.I. psychological operation on the human domain as people carry on as usual.

    It’s called Jade Helm and right now learning more about Jade Helm for many Americans means putting down that remote control, turning off that ballgame, pausing the video game or missing their favorite TV show. It takes work to research this and, more importantly, the insecurity that comes with knowing that our own military is studying you the individual to control you is again too profound to really understand for some. They might ask, why would the military do this? Not knowing that the new world order has been planned for over 100 years now.

    This is another issue that is too overwhelming for the average person to understand or, more importantly, face head-on. SOCOM documents exposed by researchers are clear about the intention of Jade Helm Jade 2 software and no matter how much you ignore it, it’s still here, it’s very real and it’s in motion as we speak.

    6. The entire debt-based fiat worthless paper money circulating in the U.S. is supplied and controlled by a private corporation with no legal authority to do so.

    We call them the Federal Reserve. It’s the illegal private banking system created officially in 1913 under the Federal Reserve Act which Congress gave a green light to. This single act essentially handed the United States of America to a gang of private bankers with no accountability to the people. Along with the Act of 1871, this Federal Reserve Act is also one of the most significant and horrific turning points in the history of America. An act that accounts for many of the problems and sufferings in America for now over 100 years.

    If enough people could finally wrap their heads around this single reality, that a private illegal mob of banksters have psyched out and enslaved Americans, fooling them into accepting their fake fiat currency while ensuring their perpetual enslavement, the full-on revolution would start today.

    7. Throughout the history of humanity people do things by planning it out; this simple act of organizing is considered bizarre, unlikely and improbable by a generation of brainwashed people controlled by one hypnotic phrase – “conspiracy”!

    That’s right. You may be reading this and thinking this refers to you. The simple phrase “conspiracy” or “conspiracy theory” has singlehandedly mind-controlled millions of Americans like no other word or phrase has. Unfortunately, there is no way around it. “Conspiracy” is a substitute word for an otherwise ordinary act of planning or coordinating. Something all people do, especially groups like corporations and governments. You MUST plan, organize, or “conspire” to do things. That’s how things get done!

    8. The U.S. has been caught numerous times militarily defending, arming, supplying and training ISIS fighters.

    Here we are at the one-year anniversary of the ISIS super psyop American TV marketing campaign, and today the ISIS psyop has been blown wide open more often than the amount of times the global warming movement has been exposed as lies. These reports trapping U.S. and Israeli (NATO) governments in baldfaced staged lies and capturing solid evidence of their support for ISIS have gone completely ignored and censored by U.S. mainstream media to keep the ISIS psyop narrative going in the minds of Americans.

    The situation is so controlled and so propagandized that even if every member of ISIS went on TV tomorrow exclusively expressing their partnership with the CIA and Mossad, the very next day U.S. mainstream media will present another ISIS story telling you how much they are the enemy and need to be defeated. Make no mistake, this control system is completely immune and entirely unfazed by truth, hard evidence and hard facts.

    9. Turning back the clock – 5 Israeli men were caught, arrested, fingerprinted and detained on September 11th 2001.

    After they were celebrating the destruction of the world trade center seconds after the buildings were destroyed, while the buildings burned AND while the rest of America watched in shock and tears. These men were later mysteriously released back to Israel where they bragged on camera about being in New York City to “document the event”. The history of Israeli entities’ involvement in the 9/11 attacks are particularly concrete, yet the frightening reality is that today’s U.S. mainstream media acts like none of this ever happened.

    For this reason it’s always good to remind everyone that this is very real. The individuals names are Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shonvel, Oded Ellner and Omer Gavriel Marmari and they were given a clean pass back to Israel by then Chief of Justice Department Michael Chertoff. Of course Chertoff would later become Director of George Bush’s Homeland Security and play a significant role in writing the Patriot Act. Plainly put, one of the head masterminds of 9/11 essentially singlehandedly released a handful of key 9/11 suspects and allowed them to fly peacefully and freely back to their Israel homeland to brag about what they did.

    10. In the U.S, like it was with Hitler’s Germany, propaganda is perfectly legal.

    Most Americans have no idea this is the case. They don’t realize that the U.S. corporate fraudulent government can legally lie to you every single day to get you to believe whatever they want you to believe and then turn around behind closed doors and laugh at you for believing their legal lies. Try telling that to most Americans and see how they look at you.

    This is another example of a hard-to-handle lie that is pushed on Americans every day; and the average working American has no time to truly wrap their heads around this stunning fact so they bury their heads in the sand instead, unwilling to look at the issue because they fear they won’t know what to do with the information.

    It’s no wonder that today’s TV shows and comedic rants are often shaped to put a positive slant on lying. To trivialize the seriousness and the consequences of lying. They even make lying seem like an evil necessity or even a cool trend. Most people are completely unaware of these subliminal messages that endorse the control of a government whose survival is dependent on continuous lies and deceit.

    Solutions

    Let’s keep sharing the information and forcing people to look at this information. These are just 10 random issues I felt are important, but there could be another 10 here just as easily. Information is spreading and people are getting this. Sometimes it takes hitting rock bottom before people take action and start to think differently. Whatever drives someone you can always be sure that pushing the information will help accelerate this process. Let’s keep doing that and if you agree share this information with someone and give them something to think about.

  • This Alarming Indicator Is Back At A Level Last Seen 10 Days Before The Bear Stearns Collapse

    One of the most disturbing and recurring themes highlighted on this site over the past year has been the ever greater disconnect between the worlds of equity and fixed income, whether in terms of implied volatility, or actual underlying risk.

     

    It turns out there is an even more acute, and far more concerning divergence, which was conveniently pointed out overnight by Bank of America’s Yuriy Shchuchinov, one which again looks at the spread between credit and equity. Specifically, BofA notes that in just the past two weeks, credit spreads from our HG corporate bond index have widened another 9bps to 164bps while equity volatility is down another percentage point (although technically BofA uses the 3rd VIX futures as its measure of equity volatility rather than VIX itself to get a smoother series that is less affected by the daily noises and seasonalities).

    This is how the resulting dramatic divergence looks like:

     

    Why is this notable?

    In BofA’s own words: “this spread currently translates into 10.26 bps of credit spread per point of equity vol, the level reached on March 6, 2008 – ten days before Bear Stearns was forced to sell itself to JP Morgan for $2/sh. Recall that – unlike the credit market – the equity market well into 2008 was very complacent about the subprime crisis that led to a full blown financial crisis.”

    In other words: unprecedented equity complacency matched by a state of near bond market panic.

    BofA is quick to note that it is “not predicting another financial crisis” but believes “it is important to keep highlighting to investors across asset classes that conditions in the high grade credit market are currently very unusual.”

    BofA’s conclusion:

    The key reason for this weakness is that our market has transitioned from “too much money chasing too few bonds” to “too many bonds chasing too little money”. That shift is motivated by the impending Fed rate hiking cycle as issuance, M&A and other shareholder friendly activity has been accelerated while at the same time demand has declined. Again, we are not trying to predict a crisis – only to point out that the upcoming rate hiking cycle appears to concern issuers and investors so much that they have been taking real actions that have repriced our market lower relative to equities to an extent that we have only seen during the financial crisis.

    And, of course, there is the whole deflationary commodity collapse-slash-China crash/devaluation/bursting credit/housing/market bubble, which also is a screaming read flag, but which stocks have also decided to ignore because, well, “central banks got their back.” Until they don’t.

    In the meantime, we can’t wait to find if this is the first time in the history of capital markets when it is stocks that are right, and bonds wrong. Because if not, we are confident that nobody, certainly no equity traders, is positioned in a way that another Bear Stearns-type blow up will be merely chalked away to the ever growing list of things that one should simply ignore and focus on an S&P which remains just a few percentage points below its all time record high.

  • One-In-A-Billion "Hiccups" Are Happening All The Time, Citi Warns Something Is Wrong

    Earlier this year JP Morgan’s letter to shareholders, Jamie Dimon let it slip that there are some very disturbing things going on in today’s capital markets. Prices can gap in illiquid markets, Dimon explained, and that has the very real potential to spark a panic, causing illiquidity to spread to previously liquid markets. Dimon warned that one should not be fooled by relatively tight bid-asks; it’s market depth tells the true story, and as JP Morgan’s Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou will tell you, some markets (the Treasury market for instance) are getting quite thin indeed. 

    The dangers associated with a widespread lack of market depth are of course exacerbated by the presence of HFTs. This was on full display during last October’s Treasury flash crash. Here’s what Dimon had to say on the subject: “..then on one day, October 15, 2014, Treasury securities moved 40 basis points, statistically 7 to 8 standard deviations– an unprecedented move – an event that is supposed to happen only once in every 3 billion years or so.” “Some currencies recently have had similar large moves,” Dimon added, referencing the carnage that accompanied the SNB’s abandonment of the euro peg in January (as well as countless other flash crashes and rips) and presaging precisely what we’ve seen this week on the heels of China’s move to devalue the yuan. 

    The takeaway from all of this is not, as Dimon concluded, that statistics can’t be trusted, but rather that when things that are supposed to happen once every 3 billion years start happening once every three months, or every three weeks, then something is definitively broken. 

    Here, courtesy of Citi’s Matt King, is a look at some of the major one in a billion year events that have taken place over the last four years:

    As King notes, either there’s a “widespread case of the hiccups”, or something else is very, very wrong.

  • US Military Uses IMF & World Bank To Launder 85% Of Its Black Budget

    Submitted by Jake Anderson via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Though transparency was a cause he championed when campaigning for the presidency, President Obama has largely avoided making certain defense costs known to the public. However, when it comes to military appropriations for government spy agencies, we know from Freedom of Information Act requests that the so-called “black budget” is an increasingly massive expenditure subsidized by American taxpayers. The CIA and and NSA alone garnered $52.6 billion in funding in 2013 while the Department of Defense black ops budget for secret military projects exceeds this number. It is estimated to be $58.7 billion for the fiscal year 2015.

    What is the black budget? Officially, it is the military’s appropriations for “spy satellites, stealth bombers, next-missile-spotting radars, next-gen drones, and ultra-powerful eavesdropping gear.

    However, of greater interest to some may be the clandestine nature and full scope of the black budget, which, according to analyst Catherine Austin Fitts, goes far beyond classified appropriations. Based on her research, some of which can be found in her piece “What’s Up With the Black Budget?,” Fitts concludes that the during the last decade, global financial elites have configured an elaborate system that makes most of the military budget unauditable. This is because the real black budget includes money acquired by intelligence groups via narcotics trafficking, predatory lending, and various kinds of other financial fraud.

    The result of this vast, geopolitically-sanctioned money laundering scheme is that Housing and Urban Devopment and other agencies are used for drug trafficking and securities fraud. According to Fitts, the scheme allows for at least 85 percent of the U.S. federal budget to remain unaudited.

    Fitts has been researching this issue since 2001, when she began to believe that a financial coup d’etat was underway. Specifically, she suspected that the banks, corporations, and investors acting in each global region were part of a “global heist,” whereby capital was being sucked out of each country. She was right.

    As Fitts asserts,

    “[She] served as Assistant Secretary of Housing at the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the United States where I oversaw billions of government investment in US communities…..I later found out that the government contractor leading the War on Drugs strategy for U.S. aid to Peru, Colombia and Bolivia was the same contractor in charge of knowledge management for HUD enforcement. This Washington-Wall Street game was a global game. The peasant women of Latin America were up against the same financial pirates and business model as the people in South Central Los Angeles, West Philadelphia, Baltimore and the South Bronx.”

    This is part of an even larger financial scheme. It is fairly well-established by now that international financial institutions like the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund operate primarily as instruments of corporate power and nation-controlling infrastructure investment mechanisms. For example, the primary purpose of the World Bank is to bully developing countries into borrowing money for infrastructure investments that will fleece trillions of dollars while permanently indebting these “debtor” nations to West. But how exactly does the World Bank go about doing this?

    John Perkins wrote about this paradigm in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hitman. During the 1970s, Perkins worked for the international engineering consulting firm, Chas T. Main, as an “economic hitman.” He says the operations of the World Bank are nothing less than “pure economic colonization on behalf of powerful corporations and banks that use the United States government as their tool.”

    In his book, Perkins discusses Joseph Stiglitz, the Chief Economist for the World Bank from 1997-2000, at length. Stiglitz described the four-step plan for bamboozling developing countries into becoming debtor nations:

    Step One, according to Stiglitz, is to convince a nation to privatize its state industries.

     

    Step Two utilizes “capital market liberalization,” which refers to the sudden influx of speculative investment money that depletes national reserves and property values while triggering a large interest bump by the IMF.

     

    Step Three, Stiglitz says, is “Market-Based Pricing,” which means raising the prices on food, water and cooking gas. This leads to “Step Three and a Half: The IMF Riot.” Examples of this can be seen in Indonesia, Bolivia, Ecuador and many other countries where the IMF’s actions have caused financial turmoil and social strife.

     

    Step Four, of course, is “free trade,” where all barriers to the exploitation of local produce are eliminated.

    There is a connection between the U.S. black budget and the trillion dollar international investment fraud scheme. Our government and the banking cartels and corporatocracy running it have configured a complex screen to block our ability to audit their budget and the funds they use for various black op projects. However, they can not block our ability to uncover their actions and raise awareness.

  • ISIS Unleashed Mustard Gas Attack In Iraq, US Officials Claim

    A long time ago, in a proxy war far, far away, some YouTube videos (around 100 of them apparently) “proved” that Bashar al-Assad’s regime had unleashed a horrific chemical attack on its own people.

    In a lengthy report subtly titled “Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013,” US officials laid out their reasoning for trusting the veracity of the clips, and while you can read the entire report here, the punchline is this: “We have identified one hundred videos attributed to the attack, many of which show large numbers of bodies exhibiting physical signs consistent with, but not unique to, nerve agent exposure. We assess the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos.”

    That’s right, the US very nearly started World War 3 based on Washington’s assessment of the Syrian opposition’s video editing capabilities. 

    Fast forward to March when, almost two years after the first round of YouTube chemical attack videos nearly led to US strikes on Damascus, Washington still hadn’t managed to stir up enough public support for an invasion (which may have something to do with the fact that most Americans couldn’t even identify Syria on a map let alone tell you anything about its four-year old civil war) and lo and behold Reuters reported that “a group monitoring the Syrian civil war said government forces carried out a poison gas attack that killed six people in the northwest, and medics posted videos of children suffering what they said was suffocation.”

    That prompted the John Kerry to send the following message to the Syrian regime: “Assad must be held accountable for atrocious behavior [and] military pressure may be needed to oust [him]”

    Well, five months later and the American public still doesn’t care about Syria or Assad (after all, there are more pressing issues to worry about, like Cecil), but one thing it does care about is ISIS which is why now, the West will try to tie Islamic State to chemical weapons and see if that’s effective at bolstering support for boots on the ground. Here’s CNN

    The U.S. is investigating what it believes are “credible” reports that ISIS fighters used mustard agent in an attack against Kurdish Peshmerga this week, causing several of them to fall ill, U.S. officials working in at least three separate parts of the Obama administration said Thursday.

     

    All of them strongly emphasized more intelligence is being gathered on exactly what may have happened near the town of Makhmour in northern Iraq.

     


    And here’s WSJ explaining that ISIS most likely obtained the mustard gas in Syria or maybe in Iraq where stockpiles belonging to Assad and Saddam Hussein, respectively, were supposed to have been destroyed but weren’t: 

    Islamic State militants likely used mustard agent against Kurdish forces in Iraq this week, senior U.S. officials said Thursday, in the first indication the militant group has obtained banned chemicals.

     

    The officials said Islamic State could have obtained the mustard agent in Syria, whose government admitted to having large quantities in 2013 when it agreed to give up its chemical-weapons arsenal.

     

    The possibility that Islamic State obtained the agent in Syria “makes the most sense,” said one senior U.S. official. It is also possible that Islamic State obtained the mustard agent in Iraq, officials said, possibly from old stockpiles that belonged to Saddam Hussein and weren’t destroyed.

     

    U.S. intelligence agencies are still investigating the source and how it could have been delivered this week on the battlefield, officials said.

     

    Islamic State has taken control of territory in Syria close to where President Bashar al-Assad’s forces stored chemical weapons, including mustard agent. The regime said in 2013 that all of its mustard stockpiles had been destroyed, either by Syrian forces themselves or by international inspectors.

     

    Inspectors, however, have subsequently said they weren’t able to verify claims by the Syrian government that it had burned hundreds of tons of mustard agent in earthen pits. U.S. intelligence agencies now say they believe Damascus hid some caches of deadly chemicals from the West, possibly including mustard.

    WSJ goes on the say that as of now, it’s “unclear how much mustard Islamic State might have obtained,” and the German ministry says we won’t know for sure whether any mustard was spread until a team of German experts (who are “on their way to the scene”) have had a chance to assess the situation. “What it was exactly we don’t know,” a spokesman said. 

    But that’s ok because the US does know courtesy of multiple “independent reports.” And if that’s not good enough for you, just ask Congressman Adam Schiff, a ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:

    “Did ISIS find some mustard? We think they did. We think they have used it.”

     


    And John McCain agrees, as is clear from the following tweet, in which the Senator encourages you to read a completely unbiased WSJ Opinion piece called “Islamic State Gets Mustard Gas: Assad’s stockpiles weren’t destroyed, and the jihadists have them”.

    McCain – who, you’re reminded, is the poster child for foreign policy failures in Syria and Ukraine – seems to have completely missed the irony in his retweeting an article in which the very first line reads: “foreign-policy failures have a way of compounding.” 

    In any event, we suspect it won’t be long before John Kerry tells the nation that it might be necessary to use further “military pressure” to hold ISIS accountable for their “atrocious behavior” which is now in direct contravention of another international warfare “norm”. As for seeing “proof” that Islamic State did indeed “find and use some mustard,” don’t hold your breath (unless there’s mustard gas around):

    While there have been accounts posted in social media about the incident, the officials said they have independent information that strongly led them to assess there was a use of chemical weapons. The officials would not tell CNN what evidence led them to this belief.

  • Did David Tepper Just Call The Market Top… And Is The Appaloosa Billionaire Losing His Touch

    Once upon a time, when hedge funds did not make daily TV and media appearances in hopes of finding buyers for whatever they were selling (i.e., were “bullish” on) and vice versa for shorts, 13F filings were the holy grail of alpha chasers and piggybackers everywhere. However, in recent years, hedge funds have become as media friendly as some of the biggest monopoly money talking heads to grace CNBC daily, and as a result hedge fund holdings are known far in advance of the mandatory 45 day 13F reporting date after the end of the quarter. Not only that, but with central banks dominating capital markets, what hedge fund XYZ does is hardly as exciting any more.

    Still, one name that many enjoy tracking is Appaloosa billionaire David Tepper due to his contagious bullishness for a bigger part of the centrally-planned ramp since 2009, which has also resulted in massive paydays for Tepper: he has consistently been among the top 5 best paid hedge fund managers this decade. Which is great: after all, the Fed’s wealth effect is precisely there to benefit the likes of David and his hedge fund peers. For everyone else, well, as Janet Yellen says “get some assets.

    So how did Tepper do in Q2? In a word: lousy. In another word: the man who recently was on CNBC pitching a 20x P/E multiple as the new normal, may have just called the market top.

    First, a quick flip through the names in his most recent 13F reveals that in the second quarter Tepper took notable new positions in AAPL and BABA. It is not exactly a secret that since the second quarter when AAPL stock was trading near its all time highs, both names have gone straight down, with AAPL recently entering a correction, while BABA has met obstacle after legal obstacle, and as recently as this week tumbled to all time post-IPO lows. If only it were singles week every week…

    Worse, while Tepper was building his AAPL and BABA stake, he was liquidating his exposure in GOOG (via some $190 million in Class C shares as well as GOOG calls), just before GOOG exploded to the upside.

    Most troubling, however, is that while in recent quarters Tepper had consistently carried over a levered upside bet in the market, in the form of SPY and QQQ calls (which as of March 31 were a massive $1.3 billion in share equivalents), in Q2 he unwound his entire call exposure. And not just in single name stocks, but in the two key ETFs noted above. Since the market went sideways during the second quarter, these positions certainly did not generate alpha, and if used as a hedge, they lost money vs the other revealed long equities positions (13Fs do not reveal shorts or credit positions, either cash or CDS).

    Which begs the question: having unwound his two largest positions, which at face value are nothing more than levered bullish bets on the S&P500 and Nasdaq, did Tepper, in addition to apparently losing his touch, also call the top in the market?

    Full Appaloosa 13-F breakdown.

    Source: 13F

  • Weekend Reading: Chinese Food (For Thought)

    Submitted by Lance Roberts via STA Wealth Management,

    Another week of market volatility with no real ground gained. Interestingly, that is just how I started last Friday's missive.

    As I said then, the recent market volatility has been enough to give you indigestion and this week has been much of the same due to China's recent currency moves. But, despite the back and forth action this past week, the markets have held longer-term bullish trend support which keeps the bulls in charge for now.

    SP500-Technical-081315

    However, this certainly does not suggest that investors remain complacent. The ongoing deterioration in fundamentals, economics and technicals suggest that risk currently outweighs the potential reward for now. With respect to the technical front, the ongoing deterioration in relative strength, momentum, and breadth, combined with a compression of price action, have only been witnessed at more important market peaks in the past.

    "Bull markets" do not die on their own. Their death is generally dictated by the onset of an unexpected catalyst that creates enough "panic selling" to spark a liquidation cycle. Does the current situation in China rise to such a level? Maybe. It is an issue I began discussing this past June, and there may be a danger in dismissing the issue too quickly. 

    There are many questions that remain to be answered. What does China's devaluation really say about their economy? Could this be the start of a bigger issue with the worlds 2nd largest economy? Does China pose a bigger threat to the US economy than currently believed? Does the uncertainly in the markets due to China keep the Federal Reserve rate hikes on hold in September?

    These are the questions we will try and answer this weekend. For now, "Keep Calm and Eat Chinese Food."


    1) Is The Global Economy Sinking Into Recession by Ed Yardeni via Dr. Ed's Blog

    "China's July trade figures remained on the soft side. On a seasonally adjusted basis, imports fell 2.1% m/m and 8.1% y/y. Some of that weakness reflected the drop in oil prices. However, imports excluding petroleum still fell 3.4% y/y during June, suggesting weak domestic demand. Exports declined 4.9% m/m last month and 8.3% y/y, suggesting weak global demand.

     

    Exports have been essentially flat now since early 2013."

    Yardeni-CRB-081315

    Read Also: Yuan And You, How China's Currency Affects US Consumers by Kim Hjelmgaard via USA Today

     

    2) Making Sense Of China's Currency Move by Mohamed El-Erian via Bloomberg

    "With this move, China explicitly joins other nations trying to capture economic activity outside their borders, and it is doing so as the global economy is struggling to generate sufficient growth. The decision therefore provides many signals about what ails China and the global economy, and has implications for financial markets.

     

    But by heeding this advice now, China has done more than devalue its currency by almost 2 percent, the largest single-day move in two decades. By choosing this particular moment to alter its currency system, it is also attempting to respond — via foreign-exchange policy — to one of the biggest challenges facing the global economy, that of generating growth."

    Chinese-Currency-Devaluation-081015

    Read Also: China Can't Risk Global Chaos Of Currency Devaluation by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard via The Telegraph

     

    3) 5-Things You Need To Know About China's Move  by Carlos Tejada via WSJ

    "Here are the 5-things you need to know

    • What did they do?
    • Why did they do it?
    • What does this mean for the rest of the world?
    • What does this mean for the markets?
    • What's next?"

    Read Also: China's Currency Move Could Spark A Wave Of Deflation by Heather Stewart via The Guardian

    albert-deflation

     

    4) Currency War? How China Devaluation May Impact Fed by Matthew Belvedere via CNBC

     

    Read Also: China Devaluation Brings Stocks To A Death Cross by Anthony Mirhaydari via The Fiscal Times

     

    5) China's Troubling Lurch Back To Socialism by Weifeng Zhong via Real Clear Markets

    "China reminds us of what Hayek calls "The Fatal Conceit," the belief that the government is better than markets in setting prices, that it can manage a form of "Capitalism Light." But interventions such as these will surely be counterproductive, and will rightly concern both domestic and international investors who rely heavily on economic freedoms. This means that the economic damage from the Chinese government's piecemeal attempts to be more responsive to its citizenry will be significant. We should be glad that the Chinese people are enjoying greater freedom to express their views and influence public policy. However, piecemeal pacification is no substitute for genuine political freedom, and it is in clear conflict with China's transition to a market economy. Hayek would have predicted that the process can only end in two ways: either socialism with totalitarianism, or capitalism with democracy. From today's vantage point, that means we can expect far more turmoil in the Chinese economy in the coming months."

    Read Also: Until It Makes Reforms, China's Markets Will Struggle by Doug Elliott via Real Clear Markets


    Fortune Cookies

    The Warren Buffett Way To Avoid Major Bear Markets by Jesse Felder via The Felder Report

    The New TVA – New Thoughts About Old Ideas by Dr. Ben Hunt via Epsilon Theory

    Drop In Withholding Tax Receipts Suggests Something Amiss With Employment by Lee Adler via David Stockman's ContraCorner

    Even The Fed Admits Recession Looms: Q3 GDP Slashed To 0.7% by Tyler Durden via ZeroHedge


    "In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity" – Sun Tzu

    Have a great weekend.

  • Chinado Sparks Bullion's Best Week In 3 Months; US Stocks, Bonds Shrug

    This seemed appropriate…

     

    China's stock markets had their best week since the crash began…

     

    As Yuan had its biggest weekly drop since 1994…

     

    Which meant massive EURCNH carry unwinds.. leading to European stocks 2nd worst week since December…

     

    Prior to today, the S&P has closed lower on 10 of the last 12 Fridays – this has not happened since 2007…But today – thanks to old news on AAPL and old news on Europe's bailout… we melted up…

     

    Trannies outperformed on the week, as today's panic-buying meltup saved the week

     

    In case you wondered what triggered the late-day meltup – it was AAPL, surging on news that they are further ahead with a car…WTF!?

    • *APPLE CAR PROJECT MAY BE FURTHER ALONG THAN EXPECTED: GUARDIAN

     

    Biotechs took it on the china again, down 7 days in a row and 4 weeks in a row (which follows the weakest inflows in 11 weeks)… this is the worst 4-week slide since April 2014…

     

    But energy stocks were SOMEHOW the week's best performers… After 14 straight weeks lower… this was Energy's best week in over 6 months!!

     

    Although reality is setting in the last 2 days…

     

    VIX smashed back down to a 12 handle…

     

    Treasury markets roundtripped to practically unchanged on the week – having rallied 15-20bps Monday thru Wednesday…

     

    Credit markets dumped this week.. and stocks retraced to them 3 times before the last 2 days meltups…

     

    FX marksts saw some volatility early in the week before China backed off.. leaving the USD lower against the majors (driven by EUR strength from CNH carry unwinds)… USD Index biggest weekly drop in 2 months

     

    But The USDollar had its strongest week against Asian currencies since Lehman

     

    PMs outperformed industrial commodities this week…

     

    Gold and Silver's best week in 3 months – even after the clubbing today…

     

    Front-month WTI Crude has now fallen 9 weeks in a row…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Tianjin: Before & After

    The two explosions that ripped through an industrial area in the coastal city of Tianjin, China, on Wednesday night created huge fireballs, knocked down doors and shattered windows up to several miles away. As NY Times reports, at least 50 people were killed and more than 500 injured. Here is the aftermath…

     

    Source: ABC

    Hundreds of nearby cars were incinerated and two Public Security Bureau buildings were destroyed.

    There were injuries and broken windows in several apartment buildings close to the blast site.


    Source: NYTimes

     

    Finally, this dreadful video… wrong place, wrong time…

     

    Or perhaps how 1000s of carry traders felt this week….

  • The Economissed Track Record: In January 75% Of Experts Said The Fed Would Have Hiked By Now

    If PhD economists were serious about getting things right, they would have a tough job. That goes double for PhD economists charged with making policy decisions based on their conclusions. 

    That’s because economics (like sociology and political science and astrology) isn’t a real science. It’s a pseudo-science. And as is the case with other pseudo-sciences, it’s flat out impossible to discover laws and immutable truths, no matter what anyone told you in your undergrad economics course. 

    Of course PhD economists aren’t really serious about getting things right, which means that in reality, their jobs are remarkably easy. Here’s the job description: make predictions that are almost never right and then make up any reason you want to explain away the fact that you were wrong. These explanations run the gamut from intentional obfuscation via opaque statistical tinkering (“residual seasonality”) to comically absurd attempts to turn common sense into an excuse for poor outcomes (“snow in the winter”). 

    And while economists by the very nature of their jobs are already predisposed to getting it wrong almost all the time, that tendency is amplified when economists try to predict what other economists are going to do. We might call this “stupidity squared”, and it’s readily observable in its natural habitat when economists attempt to predict when the Fed will raise rates. 

    When “forecasters” are surveyed on the timing of a Fed hike (or cut) what you get is one group of economists trying to guess at what another group of economists mistakenly thinks about the direction of the economy, and as you can see from the graph shown below, this is definitely not a case where two wrongs make a right. 

    Some color from WSJ:

    An overwhelming majority of private forecasters polled think the Federal Reserve will begin raising short-term interest rates next month, capping a historic era of unprecedented monetary stimulus.

     

    About 82% of economists surveyed Friday through Tuesday by The Wall Street Journal said the Fed’s first rate increase will come in September, versus 13% who said the central bank will wait until December.

     

    “I don’t think there’s unanimity, by any means, on the [rate-setting Federal Open Market] Committee,” said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic 

     

    Advisors, who said he expects a liftoff in September. But, he said, “I think there’s a general consensus that they need to go as soon as possible.”

     

    Last month, 82% of economists predicted a September liftoff and 15% said the U.S. central bank would wait until December.

     

    In June, 72% said the first rate increase would come in September versus 9% who expected a first move in December.

    Summing up everything discussed above is WSJ’s Ben Leubsdorf:

    And finally, a video representation of economists responding to poor “forecasting”… “I make the weather…”:

  • America (In 1 Cartoon)

    You have to believe to receive…

     

     

    Source: Townhall.com

  • China Says Plunge Protection Team Will Prop Up Stocks "For Years To Come" If It Has To

    Perhaps it’s a case of something getting lost in translation (so to speak), but Chinese authorities have a remarkable propensity for saying absurd things in a very straightforward way as though there were nothing at all odd or amusing about them.

    For example, here’s what the CSRC said on Friday about the future for China Securities Finance (aka the plunge protection team):

    “For a number of years to come, the China Securities Finance Corp. will not exit (the market).”

    For anyone who hasn’t followed the story, Beijing transformed CSF into a trillion-yuan state-controlled margin lender after a harrowing unwind in the half dozen or so backdoor leverage channels that helped inflate Chinese equities earlier this year caused stocks to plunge 30% in the space of just three weeks.

    CSF has since become something of an international joke, as the vehicle, along with an absurd effort to halt trading in nearly three quarters of the country’s stocks, came to symbolize the epitome of market manipulation – and that’s saying something in a world where everyone is used to rigged markets. 

    And because Beijing wanted to get the most manipulative bang for their plunge protection buck (err… yuan) the PBoC went on to count loans made to CSF by banks towards total loan growth in July. In other words, China acted as is if forced lending to a state-run stock buying entity represented real, organic growth in demand for credit. 

    Now, apparently, the practice of using CSF to “stabilize” stocks and artificially prop up loan “demand” will become standard procedure. Here’s more from AFP:

    China’s market regulator on Friday vowed to stabilise the volatile stock market for a “number of years”, saying a state-backed company tasked with buying shares will have an enduring role.

     

    “For a number of years to come, the China Securities Finance Corp. will not exit (the market). Its function to stabilise the market will not change,” the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) said in a statement on its official microblog.

     

    The China Securities Finance Corp. (CSF) has played a crucial role in Beijing’s stock market rescue, which was launched after Shanghai’s benchmark crashed 30 percent in three weeks from mid-June.

     

    The regulator’s comments were the first time it has given any indication of how long it would intervene to support equities.

     

    Authorities gave the CSF huge funding to buy shares and subsequent speculation the government was preparing to withdraw from the stock market has spooked investors.

     

    The statement added the CSF will only enter the market during times of volatility.

     

    ”When the market drastically fluctuates and may trigger systemic risk, it will continue to play a role to stabilise the market in many ways,” said the statement, which quoted CSRC spokesman Deng Ge.

    So essentially, the PBoC will now do precisely what the BoJ does on nearly every single day that sentiment on the Nikkei looks to be slipping. The only difference is that the BoJ doesn’t necessarily try to hide the fact that it’s amassing a $100 billion portfolio of equities whereas Beijing is keen on maintaining that because CSF’s balance sheet is technically separate from the PBoC’s, there’s “no such thing as Chinese QE.” This claim may be getting harder to justify however, because as Bloomberg noted just moments ago, the balance sheet is expanding. 

     People’s Bank of China’s balance sheet showed that its “claims on other financial corporations” increased 200b yuan in July, signaling lending to China Securities Finance, Shanghai Securities News reports.

     

     

    “Claims on other financial corporations” consist mainly of loans the central bank extended to financial cos., the report says, citing book written earlier by officials at PBOC’s statistics department.

    In any event, plunge protection is here to stay in China, and that’s probably not a good thing when it comes to supporting the country’s bid for MSCI index inclusion, which means the CSRC is caught between making sure investors don’t get the “wrong” message about the government’s willingness to prop up stocks and making sure the rest of the world gets the “right” message about market liberalization.

    Fortunately, this impossible balancing act is sure to lead to an endless flow of amusing contradictory rheotoric and with that in mind, we’ll close with the following quote, which you’ll be sure to note comes from the very same people who made the comments cited above, on the very same day.

    “With market fluctuations gradually shifting to normal, from wild and abnormal, we should let the market exercise its function of self-adjustment.”

  • Guest Post: A Trump "Morning In America"

    Submitted by starfcker via The Burning Platform blog,

    This week marks a seminal shift in the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. This is the week the establishment rolled over and began to accept that he is their front runner. The wild attacks and blatant put downs will be muted from here on out as the establishment struggles to come to grips with their new reality. Trump has proven to be an immensely popular and muscularly resilient candidate. He has survived fire that would have killed any ordinary candidate.

    His reward will be to watch a batch of the so-called serious candidates be exiled to the sidelines. The Rick Perrys of the world, the Lindsay Grahams of the world, were valuable to the establishment at 5% support. They have no value at 0%. 5%, 10 times could have allowed an unpopular Jeb Bush to win a lot of primaries with a surprisingly low percentage of the vote, as long as the minor candidates siphoned off some of the rest. With a half of dozen of them at 0%, that strategy is toast.

    Republican kingmakers are nothing if not pragmatic, they want results for their money. They aren’t getting it. They are unhappy. They are angry. But like a chameleon changing colors, they want to be on the winning side. They all know Trump, they also know they can deal with Trump, so they will. The Blitzkrieg is over. Trump survived. The establishment sacrificed many of their finest media plants this past weekend. Every one of them ended up looking like exactly what they are, cheap desperate prostitutes, willing to say whatever was required of them, as long as their paychecks kept coming .

    Media brands that took a dozen years to build, are now damaged goods. Where will Trump take this, who knows? But the man knows how to make a deal, the man knows how to win, and the man knows how to set a mark so people don’t screw with him in the future. It must suck to be Megyn Kelly, Chris Wallace, and Bret Baier, and know that you are shut out from the Trump circus for the indefinite future. May their shows suffer damage as a result? They might, and it’s certainly a fate no one else is going to risk. Lots of bazookas got laid down at their feet by the mercenary media this week. They took their best coordinated shot at him, and failed. CNN doesn’t have the ratings muscle to go after him in the next debate the way Fox did. Look for a totally different and much less confrontational take on Donald Trump starting now.

    *  *  *

    TrumpZilla strikes…

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 14, 2015

  • Freedom And Central Planning Can Never Coexist

    Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    The average person is a statist, whether he realizes it or not. It is important that liberty activists recognize and accept this fact because the truth of our limitations as a movement determines the kinds of solutions into which we should ultimately put our time and energy. The fantasy of a final grand march of an awake and aware majority on the doorsteps of power is just that: a fantasy. Some people might argue that given more time, such an event could be organized or could happen spontaneously. But these people seem to forget that the immediacy of any crisis inspires awareness and cuts the bindings of complacency for only a certain percentage of any given population. With “more time” often comes more complacency, not less.

    So, history becomes a kind of balancing act, with crisis generating the necessity of intelligent and moral action in some people but rarely, if ever, in most people (even during the American Revolution, in which patriots represented a stark minority). The reason that the culture of freedom consistently plateaus and remains stuck at underdog status is because human beings are, first, often acclimated to the idea that crises are things that only happen to other people, and, second, they are obsessed with the idea that governments should retain prohibitory and administrative power over the public as a means to "prevent" crisis from occurring (the sheepdog and sheep mentality).

    Not all people necessarily “love” their current government, but many citizens tend to see the idea of government as an inevitability of a stable society. They assume pre-eminence of the state because they have never known anything else. Not only that, but as people separate into political and ideological factions, often based on false paradigms (such as the false left/right paradigm), they covet government as a kind of tool or weapon that can be used for “the greater good” if only their side had total control of it. Very few people in this world want to shrink government down to a manageable size comparable to that which existed just after the American Revolution, and even fewer would entertain the idea of erasing central governments entirely. The allure of the federalized state as a means to impose ideological control over others is intoxicating.

    Central planning acolytes see society as a a single unit, or engine, in which all the people are parts rather than autonomous individuals.  They believe that if any part acts outside of the bounds of the engine, the entire machine could break.  According to their fuzzy logic, everything you do as an individual affects everyone else, therefore, the collective state must mold and control each individual's behavior in order to ensure that what you do as a singular person does no harm to the whole.  This philosophy is the primary rationale for EVERY push for centralization, but it is based on a faulty premise.

    Governments are run by people, people commonly more flawed and corrupt than the average citizen.  Central planners adore the use of government as a means to reign in populations and to compel conformity and "oneness", but centrally planned systems always revert to a divided structure in which a criminal minority separates itself from the collective in order to rule over that collective.  The elites actions violate the integrity of the engine as they attempt to drive the engine according to their own twisted ideals, leading to disaster and the end of the supposedly safe environment which the central planners had originally claimed was the benefit of central planning.  Thus, the central planning model is an inherently self destructive and foolish one.

    At bottom, the only viable purpose of any central government is to safeguard individual liberty. All other claims and supposed benefits are irrelevant. Infrastructure, food and water, health, education, public security, etc: All of these issues can be provided for voluntarily at a local level by common people without the aid of a central authority.  The original intent of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights was to LIMIT government to the job of ensuring the continuance of a free citizenry.  One could certainly argue that that role has been lost; not because of the constitution itself, but because of the lack of vigilance needed to defend the integrity constitution.  One could also argue that the very nature of a federal government is one of inevitable corruption; many of the founding fathers did as the document was drafted, after all.

    I will say that the constitution and the Bill of Rights are representations of natural law and inherent conscience, and it has taken elitists over two centuries to mostly dismantle them.  At this point, a complete end to any form of federalization may be called for, but the founders certainly tried their best to create a government system that could be controlled by the people.

    It was war, of course, that was used to dismantle constitutional protections…

    Most of the outside or foreign threats we face today as a nation (threats often used to rationalize centralized government and standing armies) or have faced in the past century were directly or indirectly CREATED by our own government apparatus and by the banking class through covert means.  Funding and training of Americas future enemies has been a grand pastime for the power brokers and politicians that reside in this very country.  Without such people and the structures they exploit, it is not outlandish to suggest that the past hundred years could have been a period of peace and prosperity rather than mass death through engineered war, state culling, and mass enslavement through artificial debt constructs.

    In a culture where vigilance is encouraged rather than labeled paranoia, in a culture where productivity is enabled rather than obstructed, in a culture where free thought is treated with interest rather than disdain, government holds no value.

    The only people who understand the true nature of government and still value the existence of an overreaching state are the people who would like to take advantage of the unchecked power such a state affords. We often call these people “elitists.” They often call themselves elitists. Big government serves only the interests of these elites. Everyone else is either a hapless victim of it, a useful idiot in service of it, or a revolutionary opposed to it.

    When a government becomes a power mechanism for a select few, it has lost all relevance. When a government like ours here in America violates the tenets of individual liberty despite its constitutional mandate, in the name of “protecting” individual liberty, that government no longer serves any purpose. Even further, when a government’s policies are designed only to ensure its own continued dominance rather than the freedom and prosperity of the citizenry, that government becomes separate from the people and is, by extension, an enemy to the citizenry.

    Governments and the elites behind them retain control over populations through the use of central planning. Central planning is essentially a bureaucratic structure that bottlenecks productivity, resources, academia and ideas until all progress and expression require approval. That is to say, central planning is a machine that turns rights into privileges. It also sets up bureaucracy as the final arbiter of who is considered an authority in any particular field and who is a “layman.” These designations are not based on individual ability, intelligence or accomplishment. Rather, they are based on subservience and the level of blind faith in the establishment each person is willing to display in order to attain professional status.

    Some of the most ignorant people in any given field or profession are often those deemed “experts” by establishment institutions, from politics, to law, to medicine, to economics, to science, to history, etc. The sad fact is mainstream experts are rarely the most knowledgeable, but they are the most indoctrinated.

    As central planning gains ground, it moves away from more subtle institutional dependencies into full-bore tyranny. The line between permission and despotism is razor-thin, and this is where we in the U.S. stand today. Most nations around the globe are socialized nations, with central planning as the very foundation on which their societies stand. For the most part, these cultures are disarmed and servile with a modicum of perceived freedom that is treated as a privilege granted by the state rather than an inborn right of natural law. Yes, many societies have “freedoms,” as America does; but the difference is that these societies can have their freedoms confiscated at any given moment on the whim of the political elite. They have no recourse to obstruct such an action and no power to remove the offending system that rules over them when they finally get fed up.

    In the U.S., central planning is surely prevalent and socialization is on a fast track. But Americans, whether they know it or not, still retain the ability of independent response — as we saw at Bundy Ranch, for instance, or in the defense of shopkeepers in Ferguson, Missouri, despite threats from government. We will lose our advantage of independent action if we allow the following changes to occur within our culture without a fight.

    Disarmament

    A disarmed population is utterly useless, philosophically and organizationally impotent, and easily ruled. Take a look at simpering weakling societies like the U.K., which prohibits anyone under the age of 18 to purchase plastic knives and punishes victims of crime for physically defending themselves. Governments that seek to undermine personal liberty ALWAYS disarm their respective populations if they can get away with it. In America, the only reason we have not yet been disarmed is because the establishment understands that revolution would immediately follow any attempt and that revolution would be seen as justified. I believe ultimately that disarmament in the U.S. will not be fully attempted until after a national crisis has been triggered.

    Centralized Health Standards

    The real purpose of Obamacare was not to provide universal health insurance. Such a task is utterly impossible in an economic system that is in the midst of decline with an aging population and reduced profit opportunities for the young. Socialism works only as long as there is someone from whom to steal money and resources. No, the purpose of Obamacare was to bond the healthcare industry to government in such a way as to make it an official appendage of the state.

    Already, we have seen the push for the use of doctors as government informants, the issuance of forced vaccinations regardless of religious orientation or philosophical objection, increased taxation in the name of “harmonization” of care, etc. Beyond all this, the system must continue to perpetuate its own usefulness. And, I have no doubt that one day we will see such things as mandated health appraisals of individuals up to and including psychological health, as well as restricted care based on age, life habits or even ideological orientation. If the state can have your flight status restricted merely for your political beliefs, then why not one day have your access to medical care restricted?

    Population Planning

    We have heard it said many times that people should be required to attain a “license” before they are allowed to have children, but who gets to decide who is eligible for the “privilege” of children? Well, under a population planning scenario the state and its central planners do, of course. And what makes such people so ethically competent as to deserve this power over the right to family? Not a thing. In many cases, bureaucrats are the most psychopathic and unintelligent people in any given society.

    Some people might argue that this kind of development is unthinkable in America and not a legitimate concern. But already in the U.S. we have seen instances of Child Protective Services abducting children belonging to parents with political conflicts with the existing establishment and living habits outside of the mainstream. We also live in a system in which many parents are forced by law to hand over their children to state-controlled schools for half of every weekday (as home-schoolers are attacked as aberrant child abusers). We are only a short step away from a world in which having a child invites as much government intrusion and restriction as rearing a child.

    Overt Militarization Of Police

    Yes, many people would claim that overt militarization of police has already occurred. I would say that they haven’t seen anything yet. We do not yet live in a country where jacked out cops with armor and M4 carbines stand on every street corner 24/7, but it won’t be long before this becomes our everyday environment. With politicians openly suggesting extreme measures to combat “lone wolf terrorists,” up to and including internment camps for “disloyal Americans” (thanks for at least being honest about your intentions, Wesley Clark), all it would take is one large-scale attack to inspire enough confusion in the population to provide cover for a full-blown police state. Central planning survives and thrives through fear. Fear is defeated through preparedness, planning and mindset.

    Resource Management

    A person cannot plan or prepare for crisis if he is not allowed to manage his own resources. In Venezuela today, the government has locked down all food production and is rationing out necessary supplies through sophisticated electronic tracking due to economic crisis. Make no mistake, America is just as vulnerable to financial disaster as any Third World nation, if not more so. Resource management will be the inevitable result. In fact, the Obama administration has already positioned itself for resource management through his National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order. Government officials will call preppers “hoarders” and argue that no one person should be allowed to have more than he needs.  Once again, the argument will be that the self preservation mentality of individuals actually harms the collective.

    Centralized Economy

    We already have a centralized and socialized economy for the most part, but private trade and production are still possible. Central planning is designed to wipe out alternative forms of trade and subsistence so that all people can be made dependent on the singular state. As in Venezuela, we should expect that economic declines will be used as a rationale for a clampdown on individual trade. The only way to fight these kinds of measures is for average people to become avid producers and be willing to fight back physically against confiscation and government-controlled rationing.

    Beyond trade controls, centralization will culminate in economic “harmony” through multilateral currency schemes, ending in a one-world currency. A single currency system by default calls for a single economic authority, and this by default calls for a single political authority. A one-world currency is not only a fiscal coup for central planners; it is also a stepping stone toward world government.

    Cashless Society

    A cashless system is a kind of unholy grail for central planners because it allows for total control of economic trade. Electronic-based currency systems can be dictated from the comfort of a computer, and savings can be erased or limited arbitrarily. Cashless systems also allow banking structures to operate without the normal consequences of supply and demand fundamentals. Today, even in our massively corrupt financial system, one cannot get around the concrete effects of diminishing demand, endless debt obligations and criminal fiat creation. We are seeing these effects vividly so far in 2015, just as we saw then in 2008. In a completely cashless system, though, debts can vanish, capital can be stolen and shifted away from the public in a more precise manner, taxes can be excised without waiting for taxpayers to comply, and demand can be artificially generated with digital fiat directed to the correct accounts without any trail to follow.

    Of course, there will be damages. But, those damages will be foisted upon the general public incrementally until Third World living standards become normal, and no one will be the wiser after a couple of generations. Control of the population would be absolute, while any dissent could be met with immediate financial reprisal, as activists are sentenced to starvation.

    The examples listed above may be measured as extreme, but every single one has support within our existing government structure either legally or through actual programs already being implemented. The speed at which they might occur is an unknown, but the desire for them by central planners is absolutely certain. There is no good or benevolent form of central planning. There is no scenario in which the system will not be abused because such power concentrated in the hands of any group of human beings invites abuse. Therefore, the only prudent course, the only solution to the absolute terror of complete state power, is to reduce government down to a shell of its current size or to remove its existence entirely and focus on localized systems and independent trade and infrastructure development. If the federalized state as an edifice no longer exists, then it can no longer be exploited by evil people.

  • Meet Wesley Edens, The New "Subprime King"

    In early March, something terrible happened and almost no one noticed. 

    Springleaf, the subprime lending unit of AIG (the poster child for misjudging credit risk via CDS) bought OneMain, another subprime lender that’s been relegated to Citi’s Citi Holdings trash bin for years. We called it a “match made in subprime hell.” And we were right. 

    Both Springleaf and OneMain are in the personal loan business, which means they lend relatively small amounts to borrowers who use the money for all manner of things. Some of these loans are then run through Wall Street’s securitization machine. The result: paper which generally falls into the always treacherous “other” or “esoteric” category of the consumer ABS space. So far, 2015 has seen about $10 billion in supply and total issuance of consumer ABS backed by “other” credits should come in at around $30 billion for the year – that’s up sharply from just $13.2 billion in 2014. As we discussed in detail when the deal first hit the wires, Springleaf and OneMain have together spearheaded the unlikely re-emergence of ABS backed by subprime personal loans. In 2013 for instance, Springleaf did a $604 million ABS deal backed by nearly 200,000 personal loans (average FICO 602) with maturities ranging from 2-4 years and carrying fixed rates as high as 35%. Springleaf was back at it not four months later, contemplating another $400 million ABS deal. In 2014, the company set up two VIEs for the purpose of selling almost $900 million in ABS backed by consumer loans, and in February, the company priced a $1.16 billion deal. For its part, OneMain did a $760 million deal in April of last year (backed by quite a few unsecured loans) followed by a $1.2 billion dollar deal around three months later. The company went on to do 2015’s first securitization backed by consumer loans, a January deal that was upsized to $1.2 billion. 

    The important point here is that before Springleaf and OneMain’s efforts these deals were dead. As we said more than two years ago, “one thing that was hardly ever sold even in the peak days of the 2007 credit bubble were securitizations based on personal-loans, the reason being even back then everyone’s memory was still fresh with the recollection that it was precisely personal-loan securitization that was at the core of the previous, and in some ways worse, credit bubble – that of the late 1990s, which resulted with the bankruptcy of Conseco Finance.”

    Earlier this month, Springleaf disclosed that the deal for OneMain may be delayed because unsurprisingly, the Justice Department has “expressed potential concerns.” In what might very well be an effort to put a friendly face on what otherwise looks like an attempt to create a subprime lending powerhouse with some $14 billion in possibly-toxic receivables, Wesley Edens, chairman and co-founder of Fortress Investment Group, which has a majority stake in Springleaf took advantage of a profile piece in WSJ to remind the world that it’s “not a shameful thing helping people finance themselves” – even at 26%. Below are some notable excerpts from the piece. Consider Edens’ comments along with what we’ve said above, and draw your own conclusions.

    Wesley Edens still rues his decision not to bet against subprime mortgages before the financial crisis. That left Fortress Investment Group LLC, the private-equity and hedge-fund firm where he is co-founder and co-chairman, exposed to big losses that sank its stock price below $1.

     

    On Wall Street, the best way to get over a losing trade is to bounce back with a winner. Mr. Edens is enjoying a surprising whopper: subprime loans.

     

    A resurgence in loans to Americans with scuffed or limited credit is giving Fortress one of the largest financial windfalls in the history of the private-equity industry.

     

    The New York company’s majority stake in subprime lender Springleaf Holdings Inc. has ballooned in value to $3.5 billion—putting the firm’s gain at more than 27 times Fortress’s original investment of $124 million in 2010. Buying the stake was Mr. Edens’s idea.

     

    The giant gains have helped offset recent stumbles by Fortress in its “macro” hedge-fund business—and made Mr. Edens the new subprime king.

     

     

    “It’s not how I want my epitaph to read,” he says of the label, “but it’s not a shameful thing helping people finance themselves. It’s not a bad thing.”

     

    Today’s expanding subprime-loan market is different from the last one. This boom is fueled largely by auto loans, credit cards and personal loans, which appeal to borrowers straining under the limp economic recovery and puny wage gains.

     

    More than one-third of all auto, credit-card and personal loans from the start of January to the end of April went to subprime borrowers, according to the latest available data from credit-reporting firm Equifax Inc. That is the highest percentage since 2007.

     

    Lenders made 53.7 million auto, credit-card and personal loans in the first four months of 2015, up 46% from 2010. Originations of personal loans, like those made by Springleaf, are up 22% in the same period.

     

    Mr. Edens and other Fortress executives are pushing hard to get even bigger in subprime lending. In March, Springleaf agreed to pay Citigroup Inc. about $4.25 billion in cash for the bank’s OneMain Financial unit.

     

    If the deal is completed, Springleaf would become the largest lender focused on subprime in the U.S., with about 2.5 million customers and 2,000 branches.

     

    Mr. Edens says Springleaf won’t contribute to a new subprime meltdown no matter how big it gets. The reason: Unlike lenders who sank during the financial crisis, Springleaf says it verifies each applicant’s income and won’t make the loan unless it is sure the borrower can pay it back.

     

    “Lending to people without great credit wasn’t the problem,” he says. Instead, too many Americans got too much credit from lenders based on inflated real-estate values.

     

    “A lot of people live paycheck to paycheck, and if they don’t have financing it’s not good for the country,” Mr. Edens adds. “This is a more humane way of people dealing with credit.”

     

    Springleaf makes secured and unsecured personal and auto loans of as much as $25,000. All the loans have fixed interest rates. The average loan is about $4,300 and usually is repaid in 19 months. The company sees a potential market of 120 million Americans who need cash.

     

    The average interest rate on Springleaf’s loans is 26%. Consumer advocates criticize the high rates on many subprime loans and say lenders often pile on additional fees with products such as credit insurance. Many borrowers have to get new loans to pay off old ones, consumer advocates argue.

     

    Springleaf says high interest rates are needed because about 6% of its borrowers default each year. 

     

    Springleaf has benefited from banks’ skittishness about subprime personal loans. At the end of the second quarter, the company had 958,000 customer accounts, up 11% from a year earlier.

     

    Now the company is expanding in auto lending and other areas, though it has no current plans to make mortgage loans. Springleaf has told investors it will target customers with FICO scores of 500 to 750, especially those with scores of less than 699. 

  • Is The Currency War Over? China Revalues Yuan 0.05% Stronger

    Heading into the China session, offshore Yuan signaled a 1% devaluation was on the cards. Of course, all media eyes were focused on the disaster in Tianjin but after 3 days of what was supposed to a 'one-off' adjustment, The PBOC has in fact surprised with a modestly stronger fix at 6.3975 from yesterday's 6.4010 Fix. That leaves the CNY Fix devaluation to a 4.60% loss in 4 day. Of course, its a bit hypocritical of Americans or Europeans to regard the Chinese as mean and nasty and currency warriors because they're letting their currency adjust against a constantly-devaluing dollar and euro. The US has been devaluing the dollar for years, but that's a-ok for Wesrern commentators, apparently. It appears – judging by the opening devaluation and closing intervention – that China is as set on crushing the herd of one-way carry traders as any export-enhancing currency debasement.

    • *CHINA SETS YUAN REFERENCE RATE AT 6.3975 AGAINST U.S. DOLLAR
    • *PBOC YUAN REFERENCE RATE STRENGTHENS 0.05%

    Offshore Yuan signalled some further devaluation was coming… no matter how much The PBOC denies its 10% goal…

     

    Note the last 2 days have seen intervention at the close of the day – shaking out as many carry traders as possible…

     

    Chinese stock futures are rising modestly after the week-long drift lower..

    *  *  *

    Finally, here is an interesting Austrian perspective on why China devalued the Yuan (via The Menger Center's Paul-Martin Foss),

    Taking a look at this chart of the Dollar/Yuan exchange rate, you can understand why the Chinese government took the action that it did. The chart is denominated in yuan to dollars. The more yuan per dollar, the weaker the yuan and the stronger the dollar; the fewer yuan per dollar, the stronger the yuan and the weaker the dollar. You can see that the yuan has been continuously strengthening over the past ten years. Remember that as a currency strengthens, exports from that country become more expensive. A good that cost 100 yuan back in 2005 would mean a dollar cost of a little over $12. A 100-yuan good today would cost over $16. That’s why the Chinese government originally tried to keep the yuan pegged to the dollar, so as not to make the exports it relied upon for economic growth more expensive abroad. But after much pressure from the US and other Western countries, the government depegged the yuan, allowing it to trade in a narrow band and appreciate against the dollar.

     

     

    Remember the dynamic that was going on, too. Chinese firms would export to the United States. US importers would pay Chinese firms in dollars. Those dollars would come back to China, where the exporters wanted to change them into yuan. Now what to do with all those dollars? Well, the Chinese government used them to purchase US Treasury bonds. Of course, the US wanted to take advantage of this, so the Federal Reserve created even more money out of thin air, increasing the money supply, with more and more of those dollars going overseas to purchase Chinese goods. And then the Chinese government would soak up more of the US government’s debt. Cheap goods and our debt is covered? That’s a win-win in any government’s book.

     

    Take a look at the chart of the M2 money supply, the broadest money supply measure the Fed still publishes.

     

     

    As the M2 money supply increases (devaluing the dollar), it seems that the yuan strengthens against the dollar. If you look at the actual data behind these charts, there’s a -0.91 correlation between M2 and the yuan/dollar exchange rate over the past 10 years. If you strip out the new pegging period from mid-2008 to mid-2010, there’s a -0.96 correlation from mid-2005 to mid-2008, and a -0.85 correlation from mid-2010 to today, which rises again to -0.96 if you remove the data from the interventionist period beginning in early 2014. Yes, correlation doesn’t equal causation, but these numbers aren’t mere coincidence. The US government wanted to take full advantage of the dollar’s position as the world’s reserve currency, exporting dollars to China in exchange for cheap consumer goods, while simultaneously making US exports of capital-intensive goods to China cheaper.

     

    Any American reactions to China’s devaluation moves must be seen as hypocritical. Just as the US government took advantage of the Bretton Woods system to print more dollars than it had gold, it has engaged in a similar beggar-thy-neighbor policy with respect to China, exporting devaluing dollars to China in exchange for Chinese-made goods. It is perfectly understandable that China would rather not have its monetary policy guided by decisions made in Washington. All the hand-wringing in Washington is just for show. American politicians wanted to enjoy the benefits of inflation, getting something for nothing, and they don’t want it to stop. So they try to paint China as the bad guy for reacting to loose American monetary policy. It goes without saying that none of this would be an issue if we could just get government out of the money creation business. But that’s a story for another day.

    *  *  *

    As The Mises Institute's Ryan McMaken sums up:

    China has devalued the Yuan for the third day in a row. For many, this has aroused fears of a currency war. But, its a bit hypocritical of Americans or Europeans to regard the Chinese as mean and nasty and currency warriors because they're letting their currency adjust against a constantly-devaluing dollar and euro. The US has been devaluing the dollar for years, but that's a-ok for Western commetators, apparently. Now, as Frank Hollenbeck has pointed out, devaluing the currency to favor exporters is a bad idea, but that's nevertheless what Europe, the US, and Japan have been doing for years – unofficially. The fact that China is now trying to get in on the game is just the expected outcome of the current global monetary race to the bottom…

    * * *

    So China rattled its monetary sabre… wobbled a few EMs, crushed European carry trades, and flexed its muscles by not turning up at today's 30Y auction in the US… message sent loud and clear?!

  • Neocon 'Godfather' Warns Against "Too Much Transparency" In Government

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Although he’s attempted to distance himself from it in recent years, there is little doubt about the role American political scientist, Francis Fukuyama, has played in popularizing the cancerous ideology know as neo-conservatism.

    In case you harbor any doubts, he was one of the signatories to Bill Kristol’s infamous open letter to George W. Bush on September 20, 2001, which amongst other things, argued for military involvement in Iraq. A move that ultimately manifested in 2003, and represents one of the greatest foreign policy blunders in U.S. history. Here’s the Iraq section from that letter, signed by Mr. Fukuyama:

    We agree with Secretary of State Powell’s recent statement that Saddam Hussein “is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth….” It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.

    Of course, what Mr. Fukuyama is most famous for, is the ridiculous assertion in his book, The End of History and the Last Man, that the worldwide spread of liberal democracies and free market capitalism of the West and its lifestyle may signal the end point of humanity’s sociocultural evolution and become the final form of human government.

    Not only is such a concept infantile on it’s face, but it has already been proven completely wrong. Not only have all Western liberal democracies morphed into grotesque neo-feudal, surveillance state panopticon oligarchies since he wrote the book, but we are seeing a dramatic spread of ISIS throughout the Middle East, ironically birthed from the unnecessary war he encouraged.

    I still don’t know why Mr. Fukuyama is celebrated, other than perhaps to serve as some flimsy celebrity-intellectual backing for the status quo’s favorite pastimes — war mongering and authoritarianism.

    In case you still harbor any doubts about who this guy is, and where he is coming from, he recently wrote an Op-ed in the Financial Times arguing that too much government transparency is a bad thing.

    It is clear that there are vast areas in which modern governments should reveal more. Edward Snowden’s revelations of eavesdropping by the National Security Agency has encouraged belief that the US government has been not nearly transparent enough. But is it possible to have too much transparency? The answer is clearly yes: demands for certain kinds of transparency have hurt government effectiveness, particularly with regard to its ability to deliberate.

     

    The problem with the Freedom of Information Act is different. It was meant to serve investigative journalists looking into abuses of power. But today a large number of FOIA requests are filed by corporate sleuths trying to ferret out secrets for competitive advantage, or simply by individuals curious to find out what the government knows about them. The FOIA can be “weaponised”, as when the activist group Judicial Watch used it to obtain email documents on the Obama administration’s response to the 2012 attack on the US compound in Benghazi.

     

    In Europe, where there is no equivalent to the FACA or the Sunshine Act, governments can consult citizens’ groups more flexibly. There is, of course, a large and growing distrust of European institutions by citizens. But America’s experience suggests that greater transparency requirements do not necessarily lead to more trust in government.

    Oh yes Francis, and look how well Europe has turned out.

    Given that “transparency” has such positive connotations, it is hard to imagine a reversal of these measures. But the public interest would not be served if the internal deliberations of the US Federal Reserve or the Supreme Court were put on CSPAN, as some have demanded. 

    Maintaining Federal Reserve secrecy seems to be right on the tip of his tongue. Very interesting.

    Legislators and officials must preserve deliberative space, just as families need to protect their privacy when debating their finances or how to deal with a wayward child. And they need to be able to do so without donning a straitjacket of rules specifying how they must talk to each other, and to citizens.

    What monumental nonsense. Once a neocon, always a neocon.

  • The College Bubble 2.0

    On Monday, we got some color on Hillary Clinton’s $350 billion plan to make college more affordable.  As we recently noted, students and former students across the country owe more than $1.2 trillion in college loans – doled out by our government in the name of helping high school graduates further their education, and as Bill Ackman so eloquently put it earlier this year, "there’s no way they’re going to pay it back." But at this point, extra funding is backfiring. Half of young graduates are either unemployed or only working part-time, which is a startling sign that the jig is up. In conjunction with the poor economy, new technology, developing markets killing jobs, and the massive increase in applicants with degrees, the value of college degrees is drastically falling in the economy of today. College is in a bubble, and it is going to pop soon…

    The following video should open a few more eyes to the startling crisis facing today's young adults and the American higher education system…

    *  *  *

    And as we recently noted, one hedge fund is attempting to take advantage of that, hoping for the next "Big Short."

    These worries showed up earlier this year when Moody’s put billions in student loan-backed ABS on review for downgrade. Many of the deals in question are sponsored by loan servicer Navient, which was spun off from Sallie Mae in 2014. 

    Now, one Boston-based hedge fund is building a short position on what it says is "runaway inflation in post-secondary education" by shorting the likes of Navient and other names tied to to the student loan bubble.

      Here’s Bloomberg with more:

    FlowPoint Capital Partners, the $15 million hedge fund co-founded by Charles Trafton, is betting against companies such as student-loan servicer Navient Corp. to profit from what it calls a college bubble bursting in slow motion.

     

    The Boston-based firm is building positions against stocks of textbook publishers, student lenders and real estate companies that focus on college housing, Trafton said in an interview. Changes in the more than $1 trillion student loan market could hurt companies such as Navient, Sallie Mae and Nelnet Inc., according to a July investor letter from the firm.

     

    Businesses "levered to runaway inflation in post-secondary education are susceptible to growth and margin shocks," the firm wrote in the letter.

     

    So there, ladies and gentlemen, is one way to trade the bubble if you believe expecting the nation's graduates to somehow fork over $1.2 trillion is unrealistic in a job market where landing a gig as "head bartender" is sometimes the best one can hope for if you happen to have majored in anything other than petroleum engineering

    We wonder how many hedge funds are hard at work with Wall Street creating customized deals full of the worst student loan credits they can find with the sole intention of betting against them.

  • Greek Parliament In Eleventh Hour Discussions On Bailout- Live Feed

    Greek lawmakers are now set to vote on the final draft of the country’s third bailout program. If the proposal doesn’t clear parliament, eurozone finance ministers will likely delay implementation of the ESM program, setting up the possibility that Athens will be forced to tap the remaining funds in the EFSM for a bridge loan in order to make a €3.2 billion payment to the ECB next week.

    More from Bloomberg:

    Greece will be forced to accept a bridge loan if lawmakers don’t approve the country’s bailout before a meeting of euro-area finance ministers later Friday, Finance Minister Euclid Tsakalotos says in parliament.

     

    Euro-area finance ministers late won’t sign off on plan if it hasn’t yet been passed through Greek parliament.

    As a reminder, the MOU includes around 40 new laws, including what Kathimerini describes as “a barrage of new taxes.” Here’s a rundown: 

    A diesel fuel tax for farmers going from 66 euros per 1,000 liters to 200 euros/1,000 liters from October 1, 2015, and to 330 euros by October 1, 2016. Farmers’ income tax to be paid in advance will rise from 27.5 percent to 55 percent. Income tax for farmers is set to rise from 13 to 20 percent for 2016 and to 26 percent for 2017.

     

    Freelancers will be subject to a gradual increase from 55 to 75 percent in advanced tax payments for income earned in 2015, increasing to 100 percent in 2016. The 2 percent tax break for single payments on income tax is also being abolished from January 1, 2015.

     

    Private education, previously untaxed, will be taxed at 23 percent, including the tutoring schools (frontistiria) that most Greeks send their children to but excluding preschools. Reduced value-added tax rates for islands are to be abolished completely by the end of 2016, with enforcement staggered across three groups of islands from October 1, 2015 to January 1, 2017.

    As we noted earlier, expect some MPs in Tsipras’ coalition government to vote against the deal (incidentally, Panagiotis Lafazanis announced the formation of a new “political movement” today), but between the PM’s call for an end to Syriza infighting earlier this month and the support of opposition parties, the bailout will likely pass.

    Live feed: 

    Full bailout documents

    Greek Bailout Draft

  • Don't Look Now, But The Subprime Auto Bubble May Be Bursting

    Well, it’s official: the cat is out of the bag on what’s “driving” (no pun intended) record US auto sales.

    Anyone who frequents these pages is by now well-versed in the idea of “originate to sell.” It’s the dynamic that helped create the housing bubble and it’s now in full effect in the auto loan space. 

    The concept is simple. When demand is strong for paper backed by a particular type of asset, Wall Street obliges by cranking up the securitization machine. Thanks in part to the Fed-induced hunt for yield demand for auto loan-backed ABS has been strong. Supply should come in at around $125 billion this year – that’s up 25% from 2014 and accounts for more than half of total consumer loan-backed issuance. Here are the latest projections from BofAML:

    In this environment, competition among lenders keen on getting in on lucrative securitizations heats up – the more fierce the competition, the less scrupulous the underwriting and before you know it, you’ve got tens if not hundreds of billions in paper floating around backed by loans to underqualified buyers. 

    It doesn’t take a securitized products strategist to figure out what happens next (although as Ben Bernanke showed us in 2006, it is apparently far too complex for a PhD economist). Borrowers who never should have been given loans in the first place start to default and the ABS collateral pools quickly transform from collections of pristine credits to steaming cesspools. 

    We’ve talked until we’re blue in the face about the lunatic terms being extended to buyers in the auto market, but the following bullet points (derived from Experian’s Q1 data) are always worth recapping:

    • Average loan term for new cars is now 67 months — a record.
    • Average loan term for used cars is now 62 months — a record.
    • Loans with terms from 74 to 84 months made up 30%  of all new vehicle financing — a record.
    • Loans with terms from 74 to 84 months made up 16% of all used vehicle financing — a record.
    • The average amount financed for a new vehicle was $28,711 — a record.
    • The average payment for new vehicles was $488 — a record.
    • The percentage of all new vehicles financed accounted for by leases was 31.46% — a record.

    That’s the story and it’s one we’ve told before, but just so it’s clear that everyone else is now catching up, here’s Bloomberg with a summary of a new Nomura note:

    Losses on car loans taken out by bad-credit borrowers are continuing to climb, thanks in part to the flood of rookie auto finance companies that have entered the market in recent years. You can see the rise in subprime borrowers struggling to make car payments in monthly data on bond deals sold on Wall Street. So-called subprime auto asset-backed securities (ABS) bundle together car loans and then sell them to big investors.

     

    July reports show that annualized net losses on such bonds—a measure of the cost of bad debt—rose 1.45 percentage points over the past year to reach 6.6 percent last month, according to Nomura analysts.

     

    What’s driving the rise? Nomura has an idea.

     

    “The significantly weaker performance in the subprime auto sector is being driven by an increase in issuance from the lesser established issuers,” researchers led by Lea Overby said in a report.

    Smaller, newer bond issuers fueled 37 percent of the sales of subprime bonds last year, up from 27 percent in the previous year, according to Nomura’s figures. 

     


     

    As the small upstarts fight for market share, the concern is that they’ll lower their standards too much and drag established lenders with them, inviting even greater trouble down the line. Many of the new players are backed by the biggest private-equity firms, which are under pressure to produce relatively quick returns.

    For those curious to learn more about these “small upstarts” who may be “lowering their standards too much,” look no further than “Meet Skopos Financial, The New King Of Deep Subprime,” excerpts from which are included below.

    *  *  *

    Texas-based Skopos Financial has both raised and lowered the bar at the same time by setting a new standard for what counts as questionable collateral while simultaneously proving that in a NIRP world, investors are willing to plumb the FICO depths for yield.

    Via Bloomberg:

    Skopos Financial, a four-year-old auto finance company based in Irving, Tex., sold a $149 million bond deal consisting of car loans made to borrowers considered so subprime you might call them—we dunno—sub-subprime?

     

    Details from the prospectus show a whopping 20 percent of the loans bundled into the bond deal were made to borrowers with a credit score ranging from 351 to 500—the bottom 6 percent of U.S. borrowers, according to FICO. As a reminder, the cut-off for “prime” borrowers is generally considered to be a credit score of around 620. More than 14 percent of the loans in the Skopos deal were made to borrowers with no score at all.  That means the Skopos deal has a slightly higher percentage of no-score borrowers than the recent subprime auto securitization recently sold by Santander Consumer, which garnered plenty of attentionfor its dive into “deep subprime” territory.

     


    Who is Skopos Financial you ask? We’ll let them tell the story in their own words:

    In 2011, Skopos Financial opened its doors with one goal in mind making tough, deep subprime auto loans easier to finance for dealers.

     

    Leveraging our sophisticated, patented iLender technology and visionary management team, Skopos provides a streamlined process for franchise dealers to finance customers with low credit scores.

      

    As an indirect auto lender, Skopos offers solutions for car buyers with no credit, low FICO scores, or a previous bankruptcy, repossession or foreclosure. And the best part is the speed. Skopos’ dealers enjoy fast underwriting, fast approvals and fast funding.

    Yes, the “best part is speed.” We suppose the process is quite efficient considering there appear to be no underwriting standards whatsoever. 

    As for the “visionary” management team, have a look at the following profiles which seem to indicate that at least for some industry veterans, Santander Consumer isn’t quite subprime-y enough (note that there’s a Countrywide link in there as well for good measure):

  • Gold, The Fed, Exter’s Pyramid – When John Exter Met Paul Volcker

    Submitted by GoldCore

    Gold, The Fed, Exter’s Pyramid – When John Exter Met Paul Volcker

    We have a fascinating dialogue with many readers. One of our readers living in the U.S. has first hand experience of people involved at the highest levels of the Federal Reserve. He is very concerned about the astronomical levels of debt in the U.S. and internationally and the fact that this debt continues to balloon in a completely unsustainable way.

    With his permission, we are publishing his recent email to me (mark.obyrne at goldcore.com) in its entirety. It is about a private meeting between ex-New York Fed Vice President John Exter and ex Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. We have added a few images in order to help understand the gravity of the building financial and monetary risks of today.

    Hi Mark,

     

    While reading your piece last week on the US Federal debt having reached $18 trillion, it brought back my memory of a visit John Exter and I had with Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, back in 1981.  It was a instance I’ll never forget!

     

    John and I had a mutual billionaire widow client whose husband had been a Washington DC real estate magnet. He had died suddenly and she decided she wanted to have a part of her assets in physical gold and mining stocks. I recall she set the allocation at $50 million.

     

    The widow had us travel to DC for a morning consultation followed by a luncheon. It was early April 1981 and 91 day US Treasury Bill rates were near 18%.

     

    Our luncheon ended around 1:30 PM and we had a few hours to kill before our flight back to New York.

     

    John Exter and Paul Volcker knew each other having been at the New York Fed as Vice Presidents and John decided he’d phone Volcker to see if he could see us before our return flight. Volcker took the call, said he would cancel his afternoon engagements and to come right over to the Fed. We got to the Fed and there were 36? high lumber piles of one foot long 2?X4? pieces all around Volcker’s office and the offices of his staff. Sky high interest rates had turned the construction industry down and the masses of unemployed construction workers were mailing Volcker the 2X4 pieces with nasty messages written on them in protest of the high rates.

     

    John and I were at the Fed in a private conversation with Volcker for nearly three hours and in fact we nearly missed our flight because we stayed so long.

     

    US Federal debt, in 1981 was rising through the $1 trillion level and I remember Volcker lamenting over the situation and asking John what he would recommend to get a handle on Federal spending. John gave Volcker a stern lecture on the Fed’s expansionary policies and told him the Fed would eventually end up destroying the whole American economy and the dollar because the Fed had become a prisoner of it’s own expansionism and it was something it couldn’t stop. John and Volcker discussed all the pitfalls of Keynesian and monetarism and Volcker didn’t rule out an eventual collapse of the dollar and second deflationary depression. I remember Volcker asking John when he would begin dropping short term rates and John commented that rates would have to drop soon or else the economy would fall off a cliff. It’s interesting that it wasn’t long after our session that rates started to come down.

     

    The meeting was an experience of a lifetime for me to be sitting there in Volcker’s office listening to one gold standard economist central banker conversing with a Keynesian economist central banker. John Exter spelled out his scenario for Volcker and warned him of how badly the Keynesian experiment would end if it went on for an extended period of time. Volcker just sat there and listened and showed his concern.

     

    Here we are 33 years later with US Federal Debt of $18 trillion with the country’s GDP at $17 trillion. A pretty disturbing situation, to say the least!

     

     

    Volcker has joined my old club The Pilgrims of the United States which is based out of New York. I’ve been a member for nearly 40 years but don’t get back for meetings and events because of the travel distance. I hear Volcker goes to all the events and a fellow Pilgrim friend has approached him at meetings and when the late John Exter’s name is mentioned Volcker stops and has nothing but kind things to say about him.

     

    Thought you’d be interested in learning of my anecdotal experience.

     

    Best regards,

    —————-

    When reading this, some will say that this was in the past and these are different times and may not understand this warning from our recent history. However, it offers a lesson from the past that has significant relevance for today. The debasement of currency has ended in economic debacles in every single country, in every single instance throughout history.

    Today, we see currency debasement internationally on a global scale – this has never happened before and has never been seen throughout history. The uber Keynesians attack those who warn about monetary risks and proclaim that none of the ‘goldbugs’ warnings have come to pass. Except of course, possibly the worst financial crisis that the world has ever seen and meager, unsustainable recovery.

    We would caution that ‘yet’ may be the appropriate word here and we should all be vigilant and focus on the long terms risks – not the short term panaceas, tentative recoveries and massive asset bubbles of today.

  • This Is One Way China Deals With Its Massive Auto Excess Inventory

    Inventories of US autos in China recently exploded, as sales collapsed, leaving 1000s of vehicles gathering dust in Chinese ports… such as Tianjin. With credit collapsing – except for buying stocks on margin – it appears the Chinese have found an alternative way to drawdown that inventory…

     

     

    With inventories at record levels…

     

    And inventories-to-sales flashing recession red. One wonders if Automaker management 'hopes' for some more apocalyptic scenarios in global ports to drawdown this stack of vehicles that no one is buying.

  • Oil Flash Crashes To Gundlach's Geopolitically "Terrifying Levels"

    Forced liquidation… capitulation … contract roll… or “liquidity provision” gone awry? You decide.

    As Nanex puts it “you said you needed to go faster to provide liquidity. This chart determined that was a lie.”

    *  *  * 

    And don’t forget: in a January interview with FuW, DoubleLine’s Jeff Gundlach explained his concerns about the oil market not being “unequivocally good” for everyone…

    Question: The crash in the oil market is already causing jitters in the financial markets around the globe. What is your take on that?

     

    Gundlach: Oil is incredibly important right now. If oil falls to around $40 a barrel then I think the yield on ten year treasury note is going to 1%. I hope it does not go to $40 because then something is very, very wrong with the world, not just the economy. The geopolitical consequences could be – to put it bluntly – terrifying.

    Gundlach is right historically… large and rapid rises and falls in the price of crude oil have correlated oddly strongly with major geopolitical and economic crisis across the globe. Whether driven by problems for oil exporters or oil importers, the ‘difference this time’ is that, thanks to central bank largesse, money flows faster than ever and everything is more tightly coupled with that flow.

     

     

    So is the 50%-plus YoY drop in oil prices about to ’cause’ contagion risk concerns for the world?

  • Behind The Scenes Of The Donald Trump – Roger Stone Show

    Submitted by Mark Ames, and originally published on Pando,

    It was just after liftoff on the flight from San Francisco to New York that Roger Stone’s face appeared on the back of Seat 9D, looking straight at me.

    Gah! Did my Virgin America flight crash? is Roger Stone’s satellite-fed face my eternal punishment? The power of Christ compels you! The power of Christ compels you!…

    But it was just CNN, a more familiar kind of Hell, and a deadlier one. Not what you want on your exit row TV monitor when you’re nursing a tequila hangover: Stone was giving a Big Exclusive interview to a bright white CNN bot named Poppy Harlow, a Heathers type who famously grieved on-air for the Steubenville rapists, “who had such promising futures, star football players”…

    The big story: Trump fired Roger Stone from his campaign, or Roger Stone quit, depending on whom you believed (which, if you believe either Trump or Roger Stone, please contact me—I have a new Florida Swampland real estate app to sell you).

    Somehow I’d missed the earlier news that Roger Stone—Dick Nixon’s dirty trickster, fascist fan of Roy Cohn, lobbyist for some of the worst dictators in the world—was running Trump’s campaign until last weekend. Or maybe I blocked it out—maybe I didn’t want to know, a sign of just how far I’ve reassimilated myself back into mainstream America’s comforting amnesia bubble.

    The problem is, I know the Roger Stone story a bit too viscerally well. I even had a brief brush with Mr. Stone during the last presidential election cycle. He responded to a post mortem I wrote on Gary Johnson’s fraudulent 2012 run for president on the Libertarian Party ticket—a political swindle that Stone managed, and whose presence led me to dig deeper into the cesspool of modern third party fake-politics.

    After my article came out in NSFWCORP [now owned by Pando], Roger Stone tweeted this compliment at me, calling me “asshole”:

    Now to most ordinary folks, a political operative calling a journalist “asshole” looks rather offensive, even scandalous. It’s considered part of his charm, among journalists who tend to come from a pampered class that is easy prey to the charms of a vicious DC thug whose peculiar bluff—“telling it like it is,” crude, macho, is “refreshingly reckless” by the chickenshit standards of most of today’s journalists…

    If you know where Roger Stone comes from, it’s the closest thing to a compliment his species is capable of. Imagine a real life Repo Man guy, only without any of the lower-middle-class fun or the punk rock soundtrack—a monumentally sleazy, pro-business, Republican Party/Chamber of Commerce sewer rat version of the Harry Dean Stanton character, the only version that could possibly thrive in this cheerless, unheroic version of America that we’re stuck in.

    Roger Stone’s involvement in Trump’s run for office today is good news for anyone interested in politics who’d like an early-season bullshit cleanser. The more you know about Stone’s (and Trump’s) history, the harder it is to trust the surface, and even harder to trust the margins of that surface – those spaces on the left and right where we’re told each election season are where the real politics are at –but in fact are so rotten and so easily manipulated you almost wish you didn’t know.

    The three main takeaways you need to keep in mind in the Roger Stone-Donald Trump story are:

    1. Roger Stone’s dirty tricks specialty is manipulating voter fractures, and weaponizing anti-establishment politics to serve the electoral needs of mainstream Republican candidates;
    2. Roger Stone and Donald Trump have been working together since the mid-1980s, mostly on sleazy campaigns to help Trump’s casino business, but also in politics;  
    3. Roger Stone and Donald Trump worked together in at least two major “black bag” operations manipulating anti-establishment politics to help the mainstream Republican presidential candidate;

    First let’s start with a brief history of Roger Stone’s dirty tricks—although “dirty tricks” is one of those euphemisms that makes it sound almost fun, rather than depressing and vile. Stone got his start as a hippie-bashing Young Republican college student in the early Nixon years. He eagerly volunteered to work for Nixon’s CREEP (Committee to RE-Elect the President) operatives, who set up and funded a number of illegal campaign operations in 1971-2 to make sure that Nixon won the 1972 election.

    Political spooks are a lot like government spooks and their buddies in the underworld—they boast and bullshit a lot, and some of them, like Stone, ham it up as a bluff to swooning journalists. So it’s hard to know exactly which dirty tricks the young Roger Stone was personally responsible for, but the Nixon CREEP team that he was recruited to work for definitely was responsible for destroying the 1972 candidacy of Sen. Edward Muskie of Maine, the candidate that the Nixon team feared the most.

    The way they destroyed Muskie will be useful for us today, because Muskie comes from one of the lily-white New England states vulnerable to attacks from the race-focused left, a strategy we’ll see more of in our time.

    One of young Roger Stone’s first dirty tricks for CREEP was sending a campaign check for $200 to liberal Republican congressman (and Wilson Sonsini co-founder) Pete McCloskey on behalf of the Young Socialist Alliance, and then forwarding a copy of the receipt to the publisher of the largest daily newspaper in New Hampshire, the Manchester Union-Leader. (Stone was supposed to write the check on behalf of the Gay Liberation Front, but he was too chickenshit about having his name associated with radical gays.)

    Other tricks he and his team were involved in—installing their own mole as Muskie’s personal driver, who then passed on all sorts of confidential documents back to the CREEP team, which then leaked some of them, inciting paranoia in the Muskie staff.

    The main thing is that Nixon and his team wanted Muskie out, the Democrats divided, and an unelectable leftist to emerge from the rubble as Nixon’s opponent. What’s painful to swallow is how successful they were in manipulating that outcome.

    It was Pat Buchanan who laid out the Nixon ‘72 strategy in a memo titled “Muskie Watch,” advising that the GOP attacks should “focus on those issues that divide the Democrats, not those that unite Republicans.” Buchanan argued:

     “It should exacerbate and elevate those issues on which Democrats are divided—forcing Muskie to either straddle, or come down on one side or the other.” 

    Another 1971 Buchanan memo reads,

    Maintain as guiding political principle that our great hope for 1972 lies in maintaining or exacerbating the deep Democratic rift.

    That “deep Democratic rift” referred to the far-right populist wing of the party in the South, led by George Wallace; and the left multiracial wing of the party, represented then by black congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, and by McGovern, who wound up winning the nomination.

    Buchanan argued that having Wallace—Alabama’s symbol of segregation—run from the far-right in the 1972 Democratic primaries (but not run in November as a third party candidate, which would hurt Nixon) would divide the Democratic Party, and turn voters off. Lo and behold, they succeeded in convincing Wallace to run in the Democratic primaries in a dirty quid pro quo, and Wallace was doing a good job of dirtying and dividing the Dems until a real-life Travis Bickle stuck his pistol out from a crowd and popped Wallace’s spinal cord.

    Another Nixon strategy was funding a black left run against the Democrats and against Muskie. Thanks to an amazing, deep-researched piece on Roger Stone on a site called italkyoubored.com, I came across some incredible passages that are a kind of open black box for contemporary politics—unless of course you think Nixon was an exception, and all those bad folks were punished and banished from our peaceable kingdom.

    In an October 5, 1971 memo, Pat Buchanan—co-founder of the American Conservative magazine & Nixon’s favorite killer, the kind of guy Roger Stone dreamed of becoming (and one day, destroying)—wrote:

    Top level consideration should be given to ways and means to promote, assist, and fund a Fourth Party candidacy of the Left Democrats and/or the Black Democrats….There is nothing that can so advance the President’s chances for reelection – not a trip to China, not four and a half per cent unemployment – as a realistic black…campaign….We should continue to champion the cause of the blacks within the Democratic Party.

    As luck should have it, Muskie was hounded at his Florida hotel room during the primaries there by “angry” black picketers—who were secretly under Nixon’s White House supervision—demanding, angrily, that Muskie agree to name an African-American vice presidential candidate. [Source: Rick Perlstein’s “Nixonland”] And just as Pat Buchanan and Nixon hoped – even pledging money to fulfill that hope – New York Democrat Shirley Chisholm announced her independent run for president, the first African-American woman to ever do so. In secret Nixon White House files, Chisholm’s candidacy was part of “Operation Coal”—one of several operations under the rubric “Operation Gemstone” which culminated in the bugging of Watergate, the Democratic Party campaign headquarters.

    It’s depressing to think it came out of White House conferences like this, recorded in the secret Nixon tapes:

    SEPTEMBER 14, 1971: THE PRESIDENT, HALDEMAN [CHIEF OF STAFF], AND COLSON [WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL COUNSEL], 12:37-1:32 P.M., OVAL OFFICE

     

    Nixon continues to rage about the IRS and his friends. Colson then joins the conversation, offering his special contributions to White House dirty tricks.

     

    COLSON


    Well, Bob Brown has some friends who are going to have signs around the Muskie rallies, [saying Carl] Stokes [the black mayor of Cleveland] for vice president. This raises the point—

     

    HALDEMAN

     

    I will hope the hell that Watts do go ahead with a black president candidate.

     

    PRESIDENT NIXON

     

    So do I.

     

    HALDEMAN

     

    In fact, Buchanan has come in with a suggestion that may make a lot of sense which is that — he says if we’re going to spend $50 million in this campaign, then 10 percent of it, $5 million, ought to be devoted—

     

    PRESIDENT NIXON

     

    To the fourth party.

     

    HALDEMAN

     

    —to financing a black—

     

    COLSON

     

    Shirley Chisholm and Julian Bond.

     

    PRESIDENT NIXON

     

    Do you think that the blacks will vote for a black party?

     

    HALDEMAN

     

    Some.

     

    COLSON

     

    A lot of them will especially if—

     

    HALDEMAN

     

    Just to show that the Democratic party has no one…But Pat’s point is we’ve got to get a viable candidate — only if they get a viable candidate. If they get a Julian Bond—

     

    PRESIDENT NIXON

     

    Well, let me suggest this. Might — $5 million would finance Eugene McCarthy.

     

    HALDEMAN

     

    Well, that’s Howard Stein is working on that. There’s a good story in the U.S News, Newsweek, or something. Stein has outlined the McCarthy plan which is that he is not going to enter the primaries but he’s going to do a major speaking tour next year will go to the convention as people — the Democratic convention as the people’s candidate. If, as is expected, he’s rejected by the convention, he will then go to the fourth party. The problem is that it’s too late then go to a fourth party. You have — it takes time to get a fourth party qualified…[Remember, Wallace? Wallace did a superb job. That’s why with a black party you’ve got to get started (inaudible), so they get qualified for—]

     

    PRESIDENT NIXON

     

    All right, Bob. Put that down for discussion — not for discussion but for action. They should finance and contribute both to McCarthy and to the black thing.

     

    COLSON

     

    That’s a helluva lot—

     

    PRESIDENT NIXON

     

    We’re recognizing that McCarthy — the black won’t take any votes from us. Just like the damn Democrats contributed to [George] Wallace in Alabama. They did, you know. Jesus Christ, they were praying for Wallace to win that primary.

     

    HALDEMAN

     

    Yeah.

     

    COLSON

     

    That’s a helluva lot better use of money than a lot of things.

     

    PRESIDENT NIXON

     

    Oh, we spent — waste money on all sorts of things.

     

    HALDEMAN

     

    Okey-doke. What he’s saying is, you know, instead of some television commercials—

     

    PRESIDENT NIXON

     

    Absolutely.

     

    HALDEMAN

     

    —we can do this.

     

    COLSON

     

    Or billboards.

     

    HALDEMAN

     

    Because we’re going to need the television commercials.

     

    [Excerpts from “Abuse Of Power: The New Nixon Tapes,” by Stanley Kutler; h/t to italkyoubored—M.A.]

    With bizarre attacks and pressure mounting on all sides and Muskie growing increasingly paranoid and peeved, Nixon’s dirty tricksters wound up destroying him in one of those weird insignificant little episodes that somehow get weaponized, go viral, and destroy the candidate. A Nixon CREEPer, maybe Roger Stone, sent a phony letter to the editor to the big New Hampshire newspaper on the eve of the all-important early primary there, claiming to be written by a Muskie supporter who claimed, falsely, that he’d met Muskie in Florida (where Nixon’s White House paid blacks to picket Muskie’s hotel), and asked Muskie how he could possibly understand the problems that black Americans face given the fact that his home state Maine has so few minorities.

    The fake letter, published on the front page of the Union-Leader, claimed that Muskie rudely responded that Maine did have its minorities: “Not blacks, but we have Canucks”—and at this, according to the fake letter, Muskie burst out laughing.

    As Rick Perlstein writes in Nixonland, the smear hit Muskie from two sides—pissing off blacks, but also New Hampshire’s sizable French Canadian community. As Perlstein explained, “Muskie thought of them [French Canadians], evidently, as New England’s niggers.”

    Shortly afterwards, Muskie had his alleged meltdown in front of reporters—as snow fell on his face, he lashed back at the Nixon White House, but some national reporters mistakenly described the melting snowflakes on Muskie’s face as tears, and described his anger as a “breakdown.” Muskie was finished. Sort of like how Vermont front-runner in 2004, Howard Dean, was finished off by the one-two of Dean’s screechy “woo!” gesture, and Al Sharpton accusing Dean of being anti-black during the debates.

    As it turns out, Al Sharpton entered the 2004 Democratic primaries on the payroll and orders of Roger Stone, who directed Sharpton’s attacks from the race politics-left against Howard Dean. And as the New York Times revealed that year, it was Donald Trump who took credit for introducing Al Sharpton — a one-time FBI informant — to his old friend and lobbyist, GOP dirty trickster Roger Stone.

    But I’m getting ahead of myself here. Let’s go back again to Roger Stone, young eager NixonJugend. After Nixon was tossed out, Stone found work as National Chairman for the Young Republicans, and doing black bag jobs for Reagan in the 1980 election against incumbent president Jimmy Carter. Stone’s proudest achievement in that election was working with Joe McCarthy’s henchman, Roy Cohn, and a mobster named Fat Tony Salerno to bribe New York’s biggest third party, the Liberal Party, to put on the ballot that election’s most popular third party candidate, John Anderson. Decades later, Stone still remembered Roy Cohn fondly:

    He didn’t give a shit what people thought, as long as he was able to wield power. He worked the gossip columnists in this city like an organ.

    Roger Stone wanted to get the main third-party candidate on the New York state ballot. John Anderson was one of those earnest midwestern centrist Republicans who’d pass for liberal Democrats today. Conventional wisdom at the time held that Anderson drew votes from fellow Republican Reagan, but private polling, and Roger Stone’s experience running “third party patsies” told him the real story: Anderson drained votes from the Dem Party president, Jimmy Carter.

    Stone’s problem was that John Anderson waited too long to get his name on New York state’s ballot. So working with Roy Cohn and Fat Tony, the Reagan campaign official bribed Liberal Party leaders to get them to place Anderson’s name on the ballot for them. Here is how Stone tells his story to the Weekly Standard:

    Stone, who going back to his class elections in high school has been a proponent of recruiting patsy candidates to split the other guy’s support, remembers suggesting to Cohn that if they could figure out a way to make John Anderson the Liberal Party nominee in New York, with Jimmy Carter picking up the Democratic nod, Reagan might win the state in a three-way race. “Roy says, ‘Let me look into it.’” Cohn then told him, “’You need to go visit this lawyer’—a lawyer who shall remain nameless—‘and see what his number is.’ I said, ‘Roy, I don’t understand.’ Roy says, ‘How much cash he wants, dumbfuck.’” Stone balked when he found out the guy wanted $125,000 in cash to grease the skids, and Cohn wanted to know what the problem was. Stone told him he didn’t have $125,000, and Cohn said, “That’s not the problem. How does he want it?”

     

    Cohn sent Stone on an errand a few days later. “There’s a suitcase,” Stone says. “I don’t look in the suitcase . . . I don’t even know what was in the suitcase . . . I take the suitcase to the law office. I drop it off. Two days later, they have a convention. Liberals decide they’re endorsing John Anderson for president. It’s a three-way race now in New York State. Reagan wins with 46 percent of the vote. I paid his law firm. Legal fees. I don’t know what he did for the money, but whatever it was, the Liberal Party reached its right conclusion out of a matter of principle.”

    [In retrospect, Stone] seems to feel pretty good—now that certain statutes of limitations are up. He cites one of Stone’s Rules, by way of Malcolm X, his “brother under the skin”: “By any means necessary.” “Reagan got the electoral votes in New York State, we saved the country,” Stone says with characteristic understatement. “[More] Carter would’ve been an unmitigated disaster.”

    In other words, Roger Stone is boasting about buying American democracy, using the mob and third party candidates. It’s funny, because during last week’s GOP debate, Trump bragged about buying off half the GOP candidates as well as Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, and gaining all the access he wanted by giving them cash…and he also refused to rule out running as a third party candidate.

    * * * *

    In 1988, Roger Stone was a Big DC lobbyist, working for Black, Manafort & Stone, whose list of dictator-clients included Zaire’s Mobutu, deposed dictator Ferdinand Marcos, Somalia’s deposed dictator, and the apartheid-backed Angolan death squad thug and witch burner, Jonas Savimbi. Stone got partial credit in creating the most notorious racist political ad in modern times to help elect George Bush Sr in 1988 — the Willie Horton ad, used to frighten white American voters into believing that a President Dukakis would open up the prisons and jails on weekends, allowing sexually-charged black criminals to run wild in white suburban neighborhoods, raping and strangling white women for kicks.

    By this time, Trump had already started working with Roger Stone. Both were big fans of Roy Cohn; both enjoyed talking like Goodfellas characters in public and watching the normals swoon over their macho act. But more than anything, both were interested in cashing in on the booming casino business.

    Sometimes this meant buying favors from politicians to get casinos opened; sometimes it meant running dirty campaigns to get rival casinos closed. This is what happened in 2000, when Trump and Stone were fined $250,000 for setting up a fake “family values” front group in New York, the Institute for Law and Society, to run a series of racist ads against a planned Indian casino in the Catskills that Trump feared would drain business from his casinos in Atlantic City.

    So Trump and Stone whipped up anti-Indian racism to protect Trump’s business. The ad they ran featured a dark photo of a hypodermic needle and drug gear, and the text warned:

    The St. Regis Mohawk Indian Tribe proposes to open a gambling casino at the Monticello Race Track in Sullivan County.

     

    How much do you really know about the St. Regis Mohawk Indians?

     

    Are these the new neighbors we want? The St. Regis Mohawk Indian record of criminal activity is well documented. This proposed Monticello Indian Casino will bring increased crime and violence to Sullivan County.

    That year, 2000, was a busy year for the Donald Trump-Roger Stone partnership.

    Stone had been hired by the George W. Bush campaign to carry out two major black bag jobs that we know of: Sabotaging the Florida recount vote, using a mob of “angry” Cubans and Republican “preppies” to storm a Miami-Dade recount and stop it in its tracks, which Stone — hired for the job by James Baker — succeeded in doing.

    How Roger Stone and Donald Trump destroyed George W. Bush’s potential rivals in 2000 is less well known. That year, George W. Bush faced two known threats, and Roger Stone was tasked with neutralizing them: Pat Buchanan, whose 1992 run nearly crippled Bush’s father in the primaries; and Ross Perot’s Reform Party, which drained enough votes in ’92 and ’96 to ensure Clinton victories.

    So in the lead-up to the 2000 election, Roger Stone cleverly cajoled Pat Buchanan into taking control of Perot’s Reform Party, then used his friend Donald Trump to run a rival campaign against Buchanan for the Reform Party candidacy—only to drop out of the race, and attack Buchanan’s Reform Party as a cesspool full of Hitler lovers and racists. Stone inserted moles like William Von Raab, secretly funded by Trump, into Buchanan’s campaign, according to the Village Voice.

    The operation wound up destroying the Reform Party’s brand and burying it for good, stinking it up too much for a late entry by Ross Perot. The Reform Party’s chairman, Pat Choate, called the “Trump/Stone operation” a “Republican dirty trick” meant to “disgust people and drive them away from the Reform Party. They were doing everything in their power to make a mess.”

    The point, however, is that it worked: The Reform Party and Pat Buchanan caused no damage whatsoever to George W. Bush’s election bid in 2000, unlike Ralph Nader’s effect on Al Gore’s run.

    After neutralizing the Reform Party and blocking the Florida recount with his hired “Brooks Brothers mob” Roger Stone was rewarded by President Bush by being put in charge of the Bush-Cheney 2000 transition team’s Indian Bureau Affairs appointments. Even in this, Trump did a solid for Stone, signing his name on a fake letter written by Stone in order to sink the nomination of the “wrong” Indian tribal leader who wasn’t Stone’s man. The fake Trump letter ensured that Stone’s man, Neal McCaleb, was given the job as head of Bush’s Indian Affairs Bureau instead. The Indian leader whose nomination was killed by the Trump-Stone letter later complained to the Village Voice,

    “I don’t know why Trump did that,” says Martin, who’d never spoken to Trump. “I don’t think he and I have ever been in the same city at the same time.

    In early 2004, with former Vermont governor and articulate antiwar candidate Howard Dean electrifying Democrats and antiwar voters and posing a potentially deadly threat to the Bush campaign, Roger Stone secretly funded and staffed Al Sharpton, and sent him into the Democratic Party primaries to smear Howard Dean and suck the life and joy out of his campaign. It worked.

    Again, quoting the great Village Voice reporting by Wayne Barrett from 2004:

    While Bush forces like the Club for Growth were buying ads in Iowa assailing then front-runner Howard Dean, Sharpton took center stage at a debate confronting Dean about the absence of blacks in his Vermont cabinet. Stone told the Times that he “helped set the tone and direction” of the Dean attacks, while Charles Halloran, the Sharpton campaign manager installed by Stone, supplied the research. While other Democratic opponents were also attacking Dean, none did it on the advice of a consultant who’s worked in every GOP presidential campaign since his involvement in the Watergate scandals of 1972, including all of the Bush family campaigns.

    The Times quoted Trump in 2004 taking credit for introducing Al Sharpton to Roger Stone. But it was Barrett’s merciless reporting on Sharpton’s “blackface bucks”—the legions of race-baiting Republicans who donated cash and resources to Sharpton’s anti-Howard Dean run—that is something worth re-reading today, as we’re already seeing stunts like using black Tea Party activists to play the same old racism card and thereby sabotage and suck the life out of another popular Vermont candidate, Bernie Sanders….

    The last thing white liberals and lefties want to be caught doing is criticizing any black political leader, even if that leader is a rightwing mole and FBI snitch like Al Sharpton. As Barrett reminded readers in 2004,

    Sharpton and Stone are, in a sense, brothers under the skin, outlandish personalities too large to be bound by the constraints that govern the rest of us. Stone was the registered agent in America for Argentina’s intelligence agency, sucking up spy novels; Sharpton was a confidential informant for the FBI, wiring up on black leaders for the feds. Stone is a fashion impersonator, dressing like a hip-hop dandy; Sharpton, having shed his gold medallion and jogger suits, now looks like a smooth banker. Stone was involved in Watergate at the age of 19; Sharpton was a boy-wonder preacher. Stone’s mentor from the days of his youth was Roy Cohn; Sharpton’s was James Brown. Sharpton is a minister without a church; Stone is almost as rootless, having left the powerhouse Washington firm he helped form years ago. Each reinvents himself daily, if not hourly, as if nothing in their past matters.

    In their latest incarnations, Al Sharpton is an MSNBC black liberal and Democratic Party loyalist; Roger Stone is a Libertarian prankster fighting the two-party stranglehold; and Donald Trump is a right-wing populist shaking up the system because by gum, he just doesn’t care and he doesn’t need to care.

    That’s one, very dumb, very gullible way of putting it.

    Another way of putting it is this: Donald Trump and Roger Stone have spent the past few decades conning the public by exploiting fractures — anti-establishment politics, and anti-establishment outrages. Until now, there’s been a consistent logic and purpose to every single sleazy black bag “Trump/Stone operation”: elect the mainstream Republican candidate, and enrich Trump and Stone.

    Do you really think this election is any different?

  • What Happens Next?

    The last three times Asian currencies collapsed against the US Dollar at this rate, the global financial system was shaken to the core. With China piling on this time, we wonder – what happens next, as a tsunami of deflation is exported towards the shores of the "we'll hike no matter what" Fed's American shores…

    What happens next?

    Note: USDollar strength relative to Asian currencies is indicated by a lower index – i.e this chart implies an USD per "Asian currency" rate – how many USDollars can an "asian currency" unit buy?

    A glance at the chart and one might wonder if this time is different… and we break the 18 year trendline.

    With Q3 GDP estimates tumbling, we leave it to SocGen's Albert Edwards to sum up what happens next…

    We have long believed that we are only one misstep from outright deflation in the west with core inflation in both the US and eurozone at just 1%. We expect the acceleration of EM devaluations to send waves of deflation to the west to overwhelm already struggling corporate profitability and take us back into outright recession. As investors realise yet another recession beckons, without any normalisation of either interest rates or fiscal imbalances in this cycle, expect a financial market rout every bit as large as 2008.

     

    His conclusion: "Low growth (and low inflation) to prompt more QE – everywhere!"

    h/t SocGen's Albert Edwards

    Chart: Bloomberg

  • What China's Devaluation Means For The Future Of The Dollar

    Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

    As the saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

    (… to which George W. Bush famously added after flubbing the aphorism on live TV, “can’t fool me again!”)

    For months, despite every shred of data pointing to a weaker economy, China’s currency has been strengthening.

    This was really counterintuitive. When an economy is weak, its currency tends to suffer.

    But that didn’t happen in China.

    Even when China’s stock market suffered one of the biggest crashes in history a few weeks ago, the currency barely moved.

    None of this made any sense.

    Just look at Greece– problems in that single nation, one of the smallest economies in Europe, dragged down the currency used by 18 other nations in Europe to its lowest level in more than a decade.

    But when problems broke in China, the renminbi actually got stronger. And party bosses insisted that they would not devalue their currency.

    Fool me once.

    Yesterday they showed the world what their promises really mean: nothing. And in a surprise announcement, they devalued the renminbi by roughly 2%.

    2% might not sound like very much. But in currency markets, especially for a major one like China’s, 2% is a huge move.

    Curiously, in the very same announcement, Chinese officials stated that they would not devalue the currency again, and that Tuesday’s move was a one-time thing.

    Fool me twice.

    Less than 24-hours later they did it again — a second devaluation that saw the renminbi tumble to as low as 6.57 per US dollar, a 6% decline in roughly 36 hours.

    Again, this is a steep drop for a currency, and I expect that there’s more to come.

    All of this raises an interesting question about the future of the US dollar.

    Because if an economy as large and powerful as China’s has had to concede defeat, does this mean that “King Dollar” will rule forever?

    No chance.

    Remember that the dollar’s strength is derived from its status as the primary global reserve currency.

    Nearly every government, commercial bank, and central bank in the world holds US dollars in reserve, and the dollar is used as the primary currency in global trade.

    Whether in Saudi Arabia or South Africa, a barrel of oil is priced in US dollars. Even jets manufactured in France and sold to European airlines are priced in US dollars.

    But this status is by no means written in stone. The US dollar is not the first global reserve currency, and it won’t be the last.

    We can go back in time to the Byzantine solidus, or the Venetian gold ducat, or the Spanish dollar, or the British pound, and see that no reserve currency lasts forever.

    Especially when its fundamentals are so poor.

    The US government is insolvent. Its major institutions and pension funds are insolvent. The central bank is borderline insolvent.

    These are not any wild assertions; their own financial statements admit their insolvency.

    Which means that there’s nothing underpinning the dollar’s reserve status except confidence.

    And confidence is very fickle. Like a high school popularity contest, it wanes and it booms.

    Right now that confidence is on an upswing, primarily because every other major option looks really bad.

    The euro is acting out its Oedipal complex. Japan is a complete fiscal disaster spending over 25% of tax revenue just to pay interest. And China is rapidly deteriorating.

    Sure there are some outliers like the Swiss franc that are in better shape. But the market for Switzerland’s currency is far too small to absorb trillions of dollars in global capital flows.

    In the beauty pageant of major currencies, the US dollar is clearly the least ugly at the moment.

    And I think anyone owning dollars should look at this as a gift.

    Right now we have a tremendous opportunity to sell what’s expensive and buy what’s cheap.

    The dollar hasn’t been this expensive in years. And many non-dollar assets haven’t been this cheap… ever.

    Here in Turkey, the lira is at its lowest level in history. The South African rand is at its lowest level in history. We wrote about Indonesia’s rupiah on Monday.

    I’m looking at real estate in Colombia at the moment where US dollar buyers can pick up high quality property for less than the cost of construction.

    In Chile, the cheap exchange rate and slowing economy helped our fund to recently close on a farm at $4.3 million that cost $10 million less than two years ago.

    In Australia there are a number of junior mining stocks that are trading for less than the amount of cash that they have in the bank.

    There are countless deals like this all over the world… especially if you’re buying in US dollars.

    It’s foolish to expect that any reserve currency will last forever.

    And it’s even crazier to expect a reserve currency with such pitiful fundamentals as the US dollar to last forever.

    But markets are not orderly and efficient. They are chaotic.

    Which means that, on rare occasions, enormous opportunities present themselves to buy high quality assets on the cheap.

    That opportunity is now.

  • From $1,300 Tiger Penis To $800K Snipers: The Complete Black Market Price Guide

    Late last year, we said that “hookers and blow” were set to lift Britain over France as the world’s fifth largest economy. 

    And we weren’t joking. 

    As The Telegraph noted when the figures were released, “the Centre for Economics and Business Research said Britain’s acceleration was boosted by the inclusion of sex and drugs to UK growth.”

    France, on the other hand, has taken the moral high ground by “refus[ing] to comply with EU rules because it does not consider [drug use and prostitution] to be ‘voluntary commercial activities'”.

    “Voluntary” or not, failing to include the illicit activities which drive the world’s shadow economies could lead to material miscalculations. And besides, even if one wants to argue that illegality is impossible to measure, surely making an honest attempt to come up with an accurate representation of economic output is preferable to the BEA’s now standard practice of simply “adjusting” the real data in order to get a goalseeked outcome. As WSJ put it last June, “if drug sales aren’t counted in a place where people spend half their income on drugs, one could conclude, wrongly, that the population saved half its money.” The U.N. made a similar argument back in 2008 when it contended that “accounts as a whole are liable to be seriously distorted” if governments refuse to include all transactions. 

    Fortunately for anyone looking to get a read on the going rate for the various goods and services which comprise the world’s black markets (and in some countries serve as a much needed boon for GDP), Havocscope has a price list for everything you’ve ever wanted to buy (and everything you wouldn’t touch even with Mario Draghi’s hands) from someone in a dark and smoky back alley. 

    First, a bit on Havocscope’s methodology

    Data listed within Havocscope’s website is collected from credible open-source documents such as newspapers, government reports and academic journals. The source for the figure is clearly listed on each data post. This allows users to see where the information has come from, judge the credibility of the source, and pursue further research if necessary.

    That seems fair enough, and so, without further ado, we present current price lists for a veritable smorgasbord of illegal goods and services.

    AK-47 and Other Guns on the Black Market

    • Afghanistan$1,500
    • Afghanistan-Kabul$1,500 for US issued Night Vision Googles
    • Australia$15,493 in Sydney
    • Average price of AK-47 worldwide$534
    • Canada$2,000 for handgun, $600 to rent
    • Europe$400 to $900 for Rocket Launchers and AK-47s
    • Iraq$800, with Osama Bin Laden’s favorite model for $2,000
    • Iraq-Bullets$0.15 to $0.45 per bullet
    • Iraq-Rocket Launcher$100, $50 per grenade
    • Mexico-AK-47$1,400 on US border/$3,000 in South
    • Mexico-Gernade$100 to $500 for M67 Grenade
    • Niger Delta-AK-47$75
    • Philippines$120 for .22 Caliber Magnum Black Widow
    • Profit in the U.S.$500 for selling AK-47 to Drug Cartels
    • Somalia$400 for Russian AK-47, $600 for North Korean AK-47
    • Sudan$86 for AK-47, $33 for child
    • Syria$2,100 for AK-47, $2,000 for RPG
    • Thailand$2,600 for gun
    • United States$400 in California’s black market
    • United States-Small Pistol$20 to $100 in Dallas, TX
    • United States – Straw PurchaserUp to $500 per gun

    Bribes

    • Afghanistan – Election Bribes$1 to $18 per vote
    • Afghanistan – Police Bribe$100,000 to be Police Chief
    • Afghanistan Average Bribe Amount$214 in 2012
    • Africa – Bribe Payments of Govt Officials$20 to $40 Billion
    • Amount of Bribes Paid Worldwide$1 Trillion per year
    • Bangladesh – Bribes Paid per Household$86
    • Businesses – Rise in Market Value from Bribes$11 for $1 in bribe
    • Cambodia – Bribes for Fishing Permit$50
    • Cambodia – Bribes to Operate Fake License Shop$2.50 per day
    • Cambodia – Citizens Paying Bribes to Receive Services72%
    • China – Bribe to become a City Assemblyman$44,000
    • China – Bribes to Education Officials$10,000 for School Admission
    • China – Bribes to Rail Ministry$14,897 for job as Train Attendant
    • China – Impact of Bribes on Drug Prices20%
    • Companies Asked to Pay Bribes Worldwide28%
    • Croatia – Average Bribe Payment$300
    • Czech Republic Average Bribe Amount$248 to $497
    • Education Corruption1 in 6 students pay bribes
    • Greece- Bribes Paid by Families$2,500 to Public Officials
    • Guatemala – Bribes from Drug Traffickers$2,500 to Public Officials
    • Haiti – Bribe to Border Official for Human Trafficker$400 per immigrant
    • Illegal Loggers$25,000 to $50,000 in bribes for permits
    • India – Bribe to Sell DVDs$0.18 to Police
    • India – Bribes to Police to Sell Water$0.18 to Police
    • India – Families Paying Bribes4 million families
    • Indonesia – Bribe to Chief Justice$250,000
    • Indonesia – Bribe to Oil Regulator$600,000
    • Indonesia – Bribes to Prison Guard$500 to use cell phone
    • Indonesia – Businesses Paying Bribes60%
    • Iraq – Bribes to Prison Guards$100 to Take a Single Shower
    • Ivory Coast – Bribes at Traffic Checkpoints$300 Million
    • Kenya – Bribes to Customs and Port Officials$5,797 per shipment
    • Kenya -Average Bribes Paid Per Month16
    • Mexico – Amount of Bribes Paid$2.75 Billion in 2010
    • Mexico – Average Bribe Paid$14
    • Mexico – Bribes Collected by Police65% less than $6,000
    • Mexico – Bribes Paid by Drug Cartel to Police$1.2 Billion Per Year
    • Mexico – Sinaloa Cartel Boss to Escape Prison$2.5 Million
    • Nigeria – Bribes Accepted by Government Workers$3.2 Billion
    • Nigeria – Bribes Paid by Shell$2 Million in bribes, $14 Million in profit
    • North Korea – Bribes to Border Guard by Defector$6,000
    • North Korea – Bribes to Inspectors$2,000 per visit
    • Pakistan – Bribe to Police from Artifact Smuggler$10.62 per day of digging
    • Pakistan – Bribes Paid by Smugglers$1,200 to Police Chiefs
    • Peru – Bribe to Stop Logging Investigation$5,000
    • Romania – Bribe to Receive Brain Surgery$6,500
    • Romania – Bribes Paid Per Day$1 Million
    • Romania – Bribes to Hospital For Employment$40,000
    • Russia – Average Bribe Paid$189
    • Russia – Bribes to Forest OfficialsCases of Vodka
    • Russia – Business Bribe$10,000
    • Russia – Education Admission Bribes$1 Billion
    • Russian -Amount of Bribes Paid$5.9 Billion in 2010
    • South AfricaTraffic Police Ask for Most Bribes
    • Thailand – Bribes to Police to Allow Human Smuggling$160 per migrant
    • Thailand – Kickback and Bribes to Officials25-35% of project value
    • Thailand -Impact of Bribes on Economy$3.3 Billion
    • Ukraine – Bribes to Police$1,000 from brothel owners
    • United Kingdom – People who Paid Bribes1 in 20
    • United States – Bribe to Border Agent$15,000
    • United States – Bribes to Prison Guard$5,000 to pass meth
    • United States – Bribes to TSA Screener$2,400 for each suitcase
    • United States – Corruption At Workplace60% believe common
    • Vietnam – Bribes to Forest Official$2,300

    Prices of Computer Hackers and Online Fraud

    • AdWords$1,000 to drain competitors AdWords budget
    • Botnet – Canada$270 for 1,000 computers
    • Botnet – France$200 for 1,000 computers
    • Botnet – Russia$200 for 1,000 computers
    • Botnet – United Kingdom$240 for 1,000 computers
    • Botnet – United States$180 for 1,000 computers
    • Botnet – Worldwide$35 for 1,000 computers
    • Credit Card – Premium Card with Big Balance$250
    • Credit Card and Social Security Number$5
    • DDOS a Website$911,000 for gambling website
    • Doxing Someone$25 to $100
    • Email Addresses – Gmail$200 for 1,000
    • Email Addresses – Hotmail$12 for 1,000
    • Email Addresses – Yahoo$10 for 1,000
    • Facebook Likes$15 for 1,000
    • Facebook Spam$13 for page with 30,000 fans
    • Hacked Webcam of Boy$0.01
    • Hacked Webcam of Girl$1
    • Hacking Classes$75
    • Online Bank Account – EU4 – 6% of account balance
    • Online Bank Account – USA2% of account balance
    • Online Extortion$50 to $15,000 in Sextortion Blackmail
    • Online Funds to CashCommission between 9% to 40% of Amount
    • Online Game Hackers$16,000 per month in China
    • PayPal Account6 to 20% of account balance
    • Remote Administration Tool$40 for Blackshades
    • Stolen Health Insurance Information$1,200 to $1,300
    • Twitter Followers$15 for 10,000 Fake Followers
    • Website Traffic$1 for 1,000 fake visitors

    Cost to Hire a Hitman

    • Argentina$3,749 to $5,555
    • Australia$13,610 to $83,000
    • BoliviaBetween $4,000 to $15,000
    • ColombiaBase Salary of $600: $2,000 to $4,000 per hit
    • France – Monaco$330,000
    • India – MumbaiBetween $35 to $900
    • Italy – Mafia Hitman$3,700 for kneecapping, $27,000 for hit
    • Mexico – Ciudad Juarez$85 to Minors
    • Mexico – Police Chief$20,832 to target Police Chief
    • Mexico – Sinaloa$35
    • Mexico – Teenage Boys$10,00 to $50,000 per killing
    • Mexico – Teenage Girls$1,000 for 2-Week Salary to 16 year old girl
    • Philippines Death Squad$110 per hit
    • Spain$27 to $69,000
    • United States and United KingdomFew hundred to $25,000
    • United States Soldier$5,000 by Juarez Drug Cartel
    • United States Soldier – Group of Snipers$800,000 for group of 3

    Exotic Animals for Sale

    • Abalone$52 per kilogram
    • African Grey Parrot$2,000
    • Arowana Fish$20,000
    • Australian Lizard$7,500
    • Baby Elephant in Thailand$7,000
    • Bear – Complete $4,500 in Taiwan
    • Bear Bile$200,000 per pound
    • Bear Paws$50 for set of 4
    • Black Cockatoo$31,000 in Australia
    • Butterfly (Queen Alexandra)$8,195
    • Chimpanzee (Live)$50
    • Clouded Leopard$5,700 in China
    • Dog Meat$29 in Vietnam
    • Elephant$28,200
    • Elephant Tusk$1,800 in Vietnam
    • Frog Legs$11 for a dozen pairs in France
    • Geckos from New Zealand$1,300 in Europe
    • Geckos in the Philippines$2,300
    • Gila Monster$1,500
    • Gorillas$400,000
    • Iguanas$10,600
    • Ivory$850 per kilo in Asia
    • Ivory with Carvings$3,000 per kilo
    • Komodo Dragon$30,000
    • Leopard$5,000
    • Leopard Tortoise$403
    • Monkey in Europe$123
    • Monkey in Thailand$55
    • Orangutan$45,000
    • Owl$250 in India
    • Pangolin$1,000
    • Pangolin – Meat$300 per kilogram
    • Pangolin – Scales$3,000 per kilogram
    • Panther$5,000
    • Ploughshare Tortoise$4,000
    • Polar Bear Skin$7,760 to $9,930
    • Puppies trafficked from Ireland$255 to $1,275 in the UK.
    • Rhino Horn Dagger$14,000
    • Rhino Horns$65,000 per kilogram
    • Rhino Horns (Crushed for medicine powder)$10 in Vietnam
    • Shark Fins$100 per kilogram
    • Sloths$30 in Colombia
    • Snake Venom$215,175 per liter
    • Snakes (Banded kraits)$2,190 in India
    • Snow Leopard Pelt$1,000 in Afghanistan
    • Spotted Salamander$103 on the Internet
    • Tiger (Dead)$5,000
    • Tiger (Live)$50,000
    • Tiger – Baby$3,200
    • Tiger Bone$2,000
    • Tiger Bone Wine$88
    • Tiger Penis$1,300
    • Tiger Remains$70,000 in China
    • Tiger Skin$35,000
    • Tortoises$10,000 in Madagascar
    • Totoaba Fish – Bladder$200,000 in China
    • Turtle – Chinese Golden Coin$20,000
    • Turtle Eggs$1 in Costa Rica

    Organ Trafficking Prices and Kidney Transplant Sales

    • Average paid by Kidney Buyer$150,000
    • Average paid to Seller of Kidney$5,000
    • Kidney broker in the Philippines$1,000 to $1,500
    • Kidney broker in Yemen$60,000
    • Kidney buyer in China$47,500
    • Kidney buyer in Egypt$20,000
    • Kidney buyer in Israel$125,000 to $135,000
    • Kidney buyer in Moldova$100,000 to $250,000
    • Kidney buyer in Singapore$300,000
    • Kidney buyer in South Africa$200,000
    • Kidney buyer in Thailand$10,000
    • Kidney buyer in United States$120,000
    • Kidney buyers in Saudi Arabia$16,000
    • Kidney seller in Bangladesh$2,500
    • Kidney seller in China$15,000
    • Kidney seller in Costa Rica$20,000
    • Kidney seller in Egypt$2,000
    • Kidney seller in India$1,000
    • Kidney seller in Israel$10,000
    • Kidney seller in Kenya$650
    • Kidney seller in Moldova$2,500 to $3,000
    • Kidney seller in Pakistan$10,000
    • Kidney seller in Peru$5,000
    • Kidney seller in Romania$2,700
    • Kidney seller in Thailand$3,000 to $5,000
    • Kidney seller in the Philippines$2,000 to $10,000
    • Kidney seller in Turkey$10,000
    • Kidney seller in Ukraine$200,000
    • Kidney seller in Vietnam$2,410
    • Kidney seller in Yemen$5,000
    • Kidney Traffickers in Turkey$10,000 profit
    • Kidney Transplant Operation – China$15,200
    • Kidney Transplant Operation – Europe$32,000
    • Liver buyer in China$21,900
    • Liver seller in China$3,660
    • Lung seller in EuropeAsking price of $312,650

    Fake ID Cards, Driver Licenses, and Stolen Passports

    • Average Price of a Stolen Passport for Sale$3,500
    • Black Market Driver License – New Jersey$2,500 to $7,000
    • Black Market Passport – Nepal$6,961
    • Black Market Passport – Peru$1,750
    • Black Market Passport – Sweden$12,200
    • Black Market Passport and Visa – Australia$15,000
    • Blank Stolen Passport – UK$1,642
    • Fake Green Card$75 to $300
    • Fake Birth Certificate – Cuba$10,000 to $50,000
    • Fake Car License Plate in Cambodia$4.50 to $10
    • Fake Driver License – California$200
    • Fake Driver License – Confiscated in New York1,450 in 2012
    • Fake ID Card – Malaysia$771 (includes smuggling)
    • Fake ID Card – New York$160 in 90 min
    • Fake ID Confiscated – Arizona2,064 from students in 2010
    • Fake ID Confiscated from China1,700 in 3 months at one airport
    • Fake ID from China$300 for 1, $400 for 2
    • Fake ID Papers for Residency – USA$2,500 per set
    • Fake IDs for Sale – United States$0.1 Billion ($100 Million)
    • Fake Passport – Australia$806
    • Fake Passport – China$10,000 to $25,000
    • Fake Passport – China (Alter Photo)$3,500 to $5,000
    • Fake Passport – Egypt, Germany, Morocco$6,830 to Syrian Refugees
    • Fake Passport in Thailand – Basic$245 in 2 hours
    • Fake Passport in Thailand – Higher Quality$1,000 to $1,250
    • Fake Passports in India$294
    • Fake Social Security Card$75 to $300
    • Lost or Stolen Passport Reported11 Million in 2010
    • Passport Selling – Thailand$200
    • Stolen ID to buy Health Insurance$1,250

    Cocaine Prices

    • Kuwait$330 per gram (User Submitted)
    • United States$300 to $8 (UN) |$30 (User Submitted) per gram
    • Australia$300 per gram
    • Japan$269.5 per gram
    • Egypt$205.5 per gram
    • Ukraine$189.6 per gram
    • Denmark$180 per gram (User Submitted) | $89 per gram (UN)
    • New Zealand$179.3 per gram
    • Moldova$155.4 per gram
    • Norway$154.45 per gram
    • Saudi Arabia$133.5 per gram
    • Romania$132.5 per gram
    • Estonia$127.2 per gram
    • Iran$126.3 per gram
    • Jordan$126.3 per gram
    • Cyprus$119.2 per gram
    • Philippines$119 per gram
    • Pakistan$118.7 per gram
    • Latvia $112.6 per gram
    • Montenegro$111.2 per gram
    • Sweden$110.6 per gram
    • Greece$110.3 per gram
    • China$106.9 per gram (Hong Kong)
    • Finland$106 per gram
    • Czech Republic$104.8 per gram
    • Croatia$99.4 per gram
    • Austria$97.3 per gram
    • Indonesia$96.5 per gram
    • Switzerland$95.6 per gram
    • Bulgaria$94.9 per gram
    • Ireland$92.7 per gram
    • Italy$91.6 per gram
    • Serbia$88.2 per gram
    • Germany$86.9 per gram
    • Thailand$86.0 per gram
    • Zimbabwe$80 per gram (Crack)
    • Israel$80 per gram
    • Poland$53 per gram
    • France$79.5 per gram
    • Spain$79.5 per gram
    • Albania$79.5 per gram
    • Lithuania$78.9 per gram
    • Turkey$78.2 per gram
    • Hungary$72.1 per gram
    • Belgium$67.1 per gram
    • United Kingdom$61.5 per gram
    • Portugal$61.0 per gram
    • Netherlands$58.7 per gram
    • Cuba$56.7 per gram
    • Lebanon$40.0 per gram
    • South Africa$32.7 per gram
    • Nigeria$32.5 per gram
    • El Salvador$24 per gram
    • Paraguay$20 per gram
    • Costa Rica$17 per gram
    • Guatemala$13.3 per gram
    • Brazil$12 per gram
    • Haiti$10 per gram
    • Chile$8.8 per gram
    • Venezuela$9.3 per gram
    • Honduras$9.2 per gram
    • Dominican Republic$8 per gram
    • Argentina$5.9 per gram
    • Ecuador$5.0 per gram
    • Peru$4.5 per gram
    • Bolivia$3.5 per gram
    • Colombia$3.5 per gram

    Ecstasy Pills Prices

    • Myanmar$68.1 per pill
    • South Korea$56.0 per pill
    • Norway$44.1 per pill
    • Montenegro$41.7 per gram
    • Egypt$40.2 per pill
    • United States$35.5 per pill
    • Japan$33.65 per pill
    • Vietnam$32.5 per pill
    • Australia$32.1 per pill
    • Thailand$29.65 per pill
    • New Zealand$28.7 per pill
    • Philippines$27.5 per pill
    • Chile$25 per pill
    • Costa Rica$25 per pill
    • Ecuador$25.0 per pill
    • Colombia$22.6 per pill
    • Italy$22.0 per pill
    • Dominican Republic$21 per pill
    • Singapore$20.25 per pill
    • Finland$19.9 per pill
    • Switzerland$19.1 per pill
    • Romania$18.9 per pill
    • Sweden$16.2 per pill
    • Malaysia$16.0 per pill
    • Jamaica$14.5 per pill
    • Spain$13.6 per pill
    • Greece$13.2 per pill
    • Cyprus$13.2 per pill
    • Honduras$13.0 per pill
    • Brazil$12 per pill
    • Israel$12 per pill
    • Czech Republic$10.5 per pill
    • Zimbabwe$10 per pill
    • Austria$9.7 per pill
    • Venezuela$9.4 per pill
    • Turkey$9.3 per pill
    • Indonesia$9.0 per pill
    • Denmark$8.9 per pill
    • Bulgaria$8.8 per pill
    • Germany$8.7 per pill
    • France$7.9 per pill
    • Latvia$7.5 per pill
    • Guatemala$6.6 per pill
    • Ireland$6.6 per pill
    • Estonia$6.6 per pill
    • Iran$6.2 per pill
    • South Africa$5.8 per pill
    • Belgium$5.7 per pill
    • Cambodia$5 per pill
    • Portugal$5 per pill
    • Hungary$4.8 per pill
    • United Kingdom$4.8 per pill
    • Lithuania$4.6 per pill
    • China$4.5 per pill
    • Netherlands$3.9 per pill
    • Croatia$3.3 per gram
    • Serbia$2.65 per pill
    • Poland$1.7 per pill

    Heroin Prices

    • Brunei$1330.4 per gram
    • New Zealand$717.4 per gram
    • Japan$683.6 per gram
    • Georgia$650 per gram
    • Australia$500 (User Submitted-Perth)|$50.4 per gram (UN)
    • Sweden$276.5 per gram
    • Denmark$213.6 per gram
    • United States$200 (UN) | $110 (User Submitted) per gram
    • Ireland$198.7 per gram
    • Estonia$190.75 per gram
    • Norway$169.1 per gram
    • United Arab Emirates$165.0 per gram
    • Finland$159.0 per gram
    • South Korea$140.0 per gram
    • Latvia$132.5 per gram
    • Moldova$126.3 per gram
    • Bangladesh$125.0 per gram
    • Ukraine$123.9 per gram
    • Singapore$123.9 per gram
    • Philippines$108.8 per gram
    • Cyprus$106.0 per gram
    • Indonesia$98.95 per gram
    • Austria$97.3 per gram
    • Thailand$83 per gram
    • Italy$80.6 per gram
    • Spain$80.4 per gram
    • Costa Rica$77.2 per gram
    • Lithuania$76.6 per gram
    • Croatia$72.9 per gram
    • El Salvador$69.0 per gram
    • China$66.9 per gram
    • Nepal$64.6 per gram
    • United Kingdom$61.5 per gram
    • Romania$55.05 per gram
    • Bulgaria$54.3 per gram
    • France$53.0 per gram
    • Poland$53.0 per gram
    • Czech Republic$52.3 per gram
    • Netherlands$50.8 per gram
    • Brazil$50 per gram
    • Guatemala$49.0 per gram
    • Hungary$48.1 per gram
    • Germany$48.0 per gram
    • Switzerland$47.8 per gram
    • Myanmar$47.1 per gram
    • Portugal$46.7 per gram
    • Greece$46.3 per gram
    • Saudi Arabia$42.2 per gram
    • Jordan35.1 per gram
    • South Africa$35.0 per gram
    • Belgium$31.8 per gram
    • Turkey$31.1 per gram
    • Albania$30.5 per gram
    • Israel$28.0 per gram
    • Zimbabwe$27.1 per gram
    • Serbia$26.5 per gram
    • Montenegro$23.6 per gram
    • Egypt$22.35 per gram
    • Dominican Republic$21.0 per gram
    • Iran$20.2 per gram
    • Colombia$20.1 per gram
    • Lebanon$15.0 per gram
    • Ecuador$13.0 per gram
    • Venezuela$11.6 per gram
    • India$10.93 per gram
    • Malaysia$8.88 per gram
    • Nigeria$6.8 per gram
    • Honduras$5.3 per gram
    • Cambodia$5.0 per gram
    • Pakistan$3.0 per gram
    • Afghanistan$2.4 per gram
    • Kenya$1.9 per gram

    Meth Prices per Gram

    • Australia$641.4 per gram
    • New Zealand$573.9 per gram
    • South Korea$562.0 per gram
    • Switzerland$286.7 per gram
    • Philippines$214.1 per gram
    • Indonesia$203.8 per gram
    • Saudi Arabia$199.7 per gram
    • Singapore$184.25 per gram
    • Japan$125.3 to $683.6 per gram
    • Afghanistan$105 per gram
    • Germany$89.2 per gram
    • United Kingdom$88.45 per gram
    • China$72.9 per gram
    • Malaysia$52.7 per gram
    • Czech Republic$52.3 per gram
    • Finland$45.9 per gram
    • Spain$30.5 per gram
    • South Africa$27.0 per gram
    • Sweden$25.3 per gram
    • Ukraine$25.0 per gram
    • Austria$16.7 per gram
    • Hungary$14.4 per gram
    • Myanmar$13.6 per gram
    • Latvia$13.2 per gram
    • Honduras$13.0 per gram
    • Lithuania$12.7 per gram
    • North Korea$11 per gram
    • Moldova$5.0 per gram
    • Bangladesh$4.5 per tablet
    • United States$3.0 to $500.0 per gram
    • Cambodia$1.6 per gram
    • Laos$1.0 per tablet

    Profits from the Business of Crime and Illegal Jobs

    • Afghanistan – Taliban$200 Million a year from Opium
    • Antique Looter1 percent of final sale price
    • Asian Massage Parlor – New Jersey, United States$108,000 per year
    • Asian Massage Parlor – Washington DC, United States$1.2 Million per year
    • Assassin – Colombia$600 monthly retainer, $3,000 per hit
    • Assassin – Mexico$3,000 to teenagers
    • Bootlegger – Pakistan$4,000 per year
    • Bride Trafficker Broker – Cambodia$1,500 per bride
    • Child Beggar – Pakistan$1.88 to $2.36 per day
    • Child Beggar – Thailand$20 per day
    • Child Begging Ring – China$40,000 per year
    • Child Begging Ring – Saudi Arabia$15,000 per month
    • Cigarette Smuggler – Mali$200 per trip, $2,000 if cocaine
    • Cigarette Smuggling – USA$500,000 from One Run
    • Cigarette Truck Unloader – Indian Reservation, USA$200 per truck
    • Coal Mining – Mexico$25 Million by Los Zetas
    • Coca Farmer – Peru$9,860 per year, $1,554 growing coffee
    • Cockfighting – Management of Matches$2,000 a day
    • Cockfighting – Prize Money for Winning Rooster$15,000
    • Counterfeit Dollars – Peru$20,000 for every $100,000 in fakes
    • Counterfeit Drug Seller$450,000 based on $1,000 investment
    • Crystal Meth Smuggler – Indonesia$311 per trip
    • Custom Officials – Mexico$1 Million per shipment passed through
    • Driver License Broker – Afghanistan$10,000 per year
    • Drug Dealer – Rio de Janeiro$15 Million in Favelas
    • Drug Mule – Indonesia$15,000 to swallow 76 capsules of heroin
    • Drug Mule – Panama$5,000 per trip
    • Drug Mule – Paraguay Local$200 per trip
    • Drug Mule – Paraguay Tourist$3,970 per trip
    • Drug Mule – Teen in Mexico$50 to $100 per trip across border
    • Drug Smugglers – Guatemala$600 Million to $800 Million per year
    • Extortionist – Guatemalan Prison $6,000 a week
    • Extortionist Gang – Colombia$100,000 per month
    • Fake Degrees – Europe$50 Million per year to 15,000 customers
    • Fake Degrees Online Website$5 Million in 9 years
    • Fake Viagra Seller- South Korea$0.84 per tablet
    • Football Match Fixing Syndicate$15 Billion per year
    • Gambling Runners – Singapore$1,957 per day handling bets
    • Gold Smuggler – India$33.50 for 10 grams
    • Gun Straw Purchasers – United States$500 per gun for Mexican Drug Cartel
    • Heroin Dealer – Ireland$694 per week
    • High Class Escort – Florida, United States$80,000 a month
    • Human Smugglers – Indonesia$1 Million per boat to Australia
    • Human Smugglers – South Korea$2,500
    • Human Trafficker – Canada$79,380 per year
    • Human Trafficker – New York City$100,000 per year
    • Human Trafficker – United Kingdom$77,000 per year
    • Human Trafficker – Vietnam$470 to move victim to China
    • Kidnappers – Virtual Kidnappers$1,000 to $3,000 per ransom
    • Legal Brothel Owner40 to 50 percent of sex workers earnings
    • Logger – Madagascar$1.33 per kilo for illegal timber
    • Marijuana Plant – United States$2,200
    • Meth Trafficking – Thailand$168 per trip
    • Money Launderer – Mexico15 cents to each dollar laundered
    • Money Mule – United Kingdom8 percent of cash laundered
    • Oil Thieves – Nigeria$6,098 per day
    • Online Dating Scammers – Ivory Coast$13,000 a month
    • Online Drug Dealer$3 Million for Top Seller on Silk Road
    • Online Extortion$500 to $15,000 in “sextortion”
    • Online Game Hacker$16,000 a month in China
    • Online Streaming Website$4.4 Million for largest sites
    • Opium Farmer – Afghanistan$4,900 vs $770 for wheat farmer
    • Opium Farmer – Myanmar$6 per day vs. $1.20 for rice
    • Opium Farmer – Students$15 to $20 per day during season
    • Organ Trafficker – Turkey$10,000 profit
    • Passport Seller – Thailand$200 to sell own passport
    • Pickpockets – Barcelona, Spain$6,132 per week
    • Pimp$67,200 per year
    • Pirate – Somalia$30,000 to $75,000 per hijacking
    • Pirated Book Seller – Mumbai, India$2 per book
    • Pirated DVD Seller – Los Angeles$50,000 a month
    • Pirated DVD Seller – Mexico$2 Million per day
    • Pirated Movie Uploader$1 to $2 per 1,000 views
    • Poppy Farmer – Afghanistan$10,000 per year, $120 if wheat
    • Prison Guard – United States$3,000 to $5,000 Smuggling Contraband
    • Prostitute – Brazil$100,000 (High-End Prostitute)
    • Prostitute – Calcutta, India$1.85 a day
    • Prostitute – Cannes, France$40,000 a night
    • Prostitute – Jamaica$470 per day
    • Prostitute – Java, Indonesia$952 per month
    • Prostitute – Kuwait$570 per month
    • Prostitute – Male Prostitute in LondonHigh of $49,000
    • Prostitute – Orange Country, California$700 a day
    • Prostitute – Pennsylvania, United States$20,000 a week
    • Prostitute – South Korea$70 per session
    • Prostitute – UgandaUp to $500 a night
    • Prostitute – Washington, DC$500 per day
    • Prostitutes – Filipino Women in Japan$150 Million a year
    • Ransomware$5 Million a year
    • Roma Thief$7,000 a month
    • Spam Sellers – Russia$60 Million a year
    • United States Workers$2 Trillion Not Reported to IRS

  • Navajo Nation Vows To Hold EPA Accountable As Colorado River Poisoner Identified

    Having admitted responsibility for the poisoning of Colorado's Animus River, Mining.com reports The EPA has now been forced to admit that there was 3 milion gallons of toxic wastewater – triple their previous estimates. While EPA leadership held a press conference yesterday taking responsibility, it appears they are pointing the blame finger at the contractor, who they have now chosen to identify as Missouri-based Environmental Restoration which is one of the largest EPA emergency cleanup contractors. It is the main provider for the EPA’s emergency cleanup and rapid response needs in the region that covers Colorado, as well as in several other parts of the country – awarded $381 million in federal contracts since 2007. As the river slowly returns to normal (on the surface), The Navajo Nation, with many residents along the river, declared a state of emergency this week, vowing to hold the EPA fully responsible for its spill, and have demanded that the EPA provide the affected tribes with water until the river is once again usable.

     

    The EPA Admits the Colorado River spill was three times bigger than expected… (via OilPrice.com, by Cecilia Jamasmie via Mining.com)

    EPA says that about 3 million gallons of toxic wastewater, triple previous estimates, have poured from an old Colorado gold mine into local streams since last week.

     

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Sunday the spill caused accidentally by one of its clean-up teams working at an old Colorado gold mine has tripled in volume.

     

    The leak, containing high concentrations of heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury and lead, is now estimated to have reached about three million gallons of toxic wastewater, triple than originally estimated.

     

    According to the first statement released by the EPA, the contaminated water was hiding out behind debris near the Gold King Mine entrance, where the crew was working with heavy machinery. The mine waste poured out into a nearby creek, eventually leading to the Animas River where the spill spread.

     

     

    These images, courtesy of the Environmental Protection Agency, show the mouth of the Gold King Mine tunnel (left), and the channeled runoff on the mine dump (right).

     

    The discharge was still flowing at the rate of 500 gallons per minute yesterday, four days after the spill began at the Gold King Mine, the EPA added.

     

    Image courtesy of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    The agency has been diverting the ongoing release into two newly built settling ponds where the waste was being treated with chemicals to lower its acidity and to filter out dissolved solids before being discharged to Cement Creek.

    Image courtesy of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

     

    The federal unit has also set up a website to provide constant updates on the situation.

     

    EPA reiterated the spill does not threaten local sources of drinking water and the main contaminants responsible for the leak’s mustard-like colour are unlikely to be dangerous.

    Image courtesy of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

     

    Still, recreational activity on the affected waterways has been suspended until the orange-coloured plume has fully dissipated.

     

    And now The EPA appears to be trying to distance itself from the actual event. As The Wall Street Journal reports, the previously unnamed contractor involved in the spil has now been identified (by the EPA) as Missouri-based Environmental Restoration LLC…

    The EPA, which was overseeing the servicing of the mine, had previously said an unnamed outside contractor was using heavy equipment when it accidentally triggered a breach in the abandoned Gold King Mine, letting out wastewater that had built up inside it.

     

    “Environmental Restoration LLC was working at the direction at EPA in consultation with the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety,” an EPA official said on Wednesday.

     

     

    According to various government documents, Environmental Restoration had signed an agreement to provide emergency protection from pollutants from the Gold King Mine, near Durango, Colo., in the southwestern part of the state. The spill has fouled the nearby Animas River, turning its water mustard yellow in the initial several days after the spill on Aug. 5.

     

    The money to fund the Gold King Mine cleanup comes out of EPA’s Superfund budget, according to Scott Sherman, a former deputy assistant administrator at EPA during the George W. Bush administration who oversaw Superfund and other waste programs.

     

    Environmental Restoration is one of the largest EPA emergency cleanup contractors. It is the main provider for the EPA’s emergency cleanup and rapid response needs in the region that covers Colorado, as well as in several other parts of the country. It worked on the cleanup for some of the highest-profile disasters in recent history, including the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack ground zero cleanup, and the Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico spill remediation, according to the company’s website.

     

    From October 2007 through this month, Environmental Restoration has been awarded $381 million in federal contracts, according to government procurement data compiled on USAspending.gov. The vast majority—more than $364 million—of that total was for work for the EPA.

    Which makes you wonder, when revenues are all spoonfed by the government no matter what, just how 'careful' are you going to be? As we noted yesterday, this disaster was entirely foreseeable.

    And, as TheAntiMedia.org reports, The Navajo Nation has vowed to hold The EPA accountable…

    The Navajo Nation declared a state of emergency this week after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed they were responsible for not one, but three million gallons of toxic mining wastewater spilled into the Animas River in Colorado. According to the EPA, the contamination is composed of cadmium, arsenic, lead, aluminum, and copper.

     

    Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye vowed to hold the EPA fully responsible for its spill, saying “The EPA was right in the middle of the disaster, and we intend to make sure the Navajo Nation recovers every dollar it spends cleaning up this mess and every dollar it loses as a result of injuries to our precious Navajo natural resources.” 

     

    According to Indian Country Today, “Residents along the San Juan River have been warned to stay away from the waterway. It is closed until further notice and should not be used to water crops or feed animals.”

     

    The Navajo Nation has demanded that the EPA provide the affected tribe(s) with water until the river is once again usable. It is currently unclear whether or not the agency will comply with this demand. Civil lawsuits now seem to be the restitution to recover damages from this spill since it is highly unlikely the EPA will pay any upfront fines for the leak, according to a former EPA official.

     

    Navajo Nation President Begaye has “instructed Navajo Nation Department of Justice to take immediate action against the EPA to the fullest extent of the law to protect Navajo families and resources.”

     

    Other damages to the local recreation economy and ecosystem are expected to add up, though the extent of the damages is not known at this time.

     

    This is just the most recent case where Native American land was polluted, not to mention where their basic necessities and rights were violated by the federal government. In many of these instances, little to nothing was done to compensate them for the damage.

     

    The Navajo Nation is no stranger to environmental negligence at the hands of the federal government and greedy corporations, which make their money extracting resources from native lands. For decades, uranium was mined from their land. According to the EPA,

     

    “Today the mines are closed, but a legacy of uranium contamination remains, including over 500 abandoned uranium mines (AUMs) as well as homes and drinking water sources with elevated levels of radiation. Potential health effects include lung cancer from inhalation of radioactive particles, as well as bone cancer and impaired kidney function from exposure to radionuclides in drinking water.”

     

    Despite the EPA’s claims to the contrary, this contamination is yet to be legitimately addressed even though the last uranium mines were shut down in 1986. In fact, the uranium industry is still trying to open new mines in or near Navajo land, despite the fact that the mess remains from previous mining operations. The Navajo Nation is still fighting for it to be cleaned up and to attain compensation for the countless victims who have fallen ill from radiation exposure.

     

    Currently, Native American Indians face another dire threat to their environment and resources from Big Oil interests and their in-pocket politicians, who are pushing for the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. The controversial pipeline is facing heavy opposition from indigenous groups because it would pass through reservation land in the U.S., extracting oil from prized native areas in Canada. While much is made from both the right and left about the pros and cons of the pipeline, these politicians and interest groups have so far disregarded the Native Americans’ concerns about the project.

    As Anti-Media concludes…

    The bottom line is that there are many environmental problems afflicting Native Americans and their land, and much of the time, these issues are neglected and even sustained by the people who cause them. Most times, complaints about these abuses fall on deaf government ears.

     

    The EPA’s toxic spill into the Animas River serves to highlight the continued abuses that indigenous populations in North America have suffered at the hands of governments and moneyed-interests since Europeans first “discovered” the Americas.

    *  *  *

    Summing it all up…

  • Released Hillary Clinton Emails Reveal… She Was Reading A Book On How To Delete Emails

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    As I’ve said many times before, the best part about Hillary Clinton running for President, is that she’s so unbelievably corrupt and shady, not a week goes by without a new scandal or embarrassment. It makes the insulting charade of U.S. elections at least somewhat comical.

    In the latest gaffe, we learn (through her own emails), that she asked to borrow a book titled, Send: Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better.” Chapter Six of this book is titled, “The Email That Can Land You In Jail,” which includes a section titled: “How to Delete Something So It Stays Deleted.”

    You can’t make this stuff up.

     

    From ABC News:

     

    The last batch of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department included one from Clinton asking to borrow a book called “Send: Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better,” by David Shipley and Will Schwalbe.

     

    Clinton has not said why she requested the book, but it includes some advice that is particularly interesting in light of the controversy over her unconventional email arrangement at the State Department and her decision to delete tens of thousands of emails she deemed to be purely personal.

     

    Take, for example, Chapter Six: “The Email That Can Land You In Jail.” The chapter includes a section entitled “How to Delete Something So It Stays Deleted.”

     

    The chapter advised that to truly delete emails may require a special rewriting program “to make sure that it’s not just elsewhere on the drive but has in fact been written over sixteen or twenty times and rendered undefinable.”

     

    But Shipley and Schwalbe warn that deleting emails could lead to future legal troubles.

     

    Here’s a screenshot of the email from ABC:

    Screen Shot 2015-08-13 at 2.35.07 PM

    Smell blood yet Bernie?

    Bernie Sanders Takes the Lead from Hillary in Latest New Hampshire Poll

    *  *  *

    For related articles, see:

    So Yeah, Hillary Clinton Did Send Classified Emails From Her Private Account After All

    Hillary Clinton Blasts High Frequency Trading Ahead of Fundraiser with High Frequency Trader

    Cartoons Mocking “Goldman Rats” and Hillary Clinton Appear All Over NYC

    Arizona State Hikes Tuition Dramatically, Yet Pays the Clintons $500,000 to Make an Appearance

    How Donations to the Clinton Foundation Led to Tens of Billions in Weapons Sales to Autocratic Regimes

     

  • Goldman Is Officially A Bank: Bailed Out Hedge Fund Will Allow Muppets To Give Their Savings To Lloyd Blankfein

    The last time former Goldman employee and then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson bailed out the hedge fund known as Goldman Sachs, and its closest peers (but not its biggest fixed income competitor Lehman Brothers of course), even the traditionally confused American public pushed back on the structure of the bailout which converted the Goldman holding company into an FDIC-insured company, which led many to ask: just where are Goldman’s deposits?

    The answer, of course, was nowhere, so perhaps in anticipation of the logical pushback against its second, upcoming bailout which would see the taxpayer-backed depositor insurance company once again provide trillions in cash to banks as well as the glorified hedge funds such as Goldman, the firm moments ago decided to do something it has never done before: become an actual bank with checking accounts and such.

    It did so by announcing moments ago it would acquire GE’s Capital Bank’s online deposit platform, as in online checking accounts, including $8 billion in deposits and $8 billion in brokered CDs, thereby providing Goldman with a virtually costless source of $16 billion in funds. Costless, because under ZIRP, Goldman pays precisely zero interest for the unsecured liability also known as a deposit.

    from the PR:

    Goldman Sachs Bank USA (“GS Bank”) announced today it has entered into an agreement with GE Capital Bank (“GECB”) to acquire GECB’s online deposit platform and assume GECB’s approximately $8 billion in online deposit accounts and $8 billion in brokered certificates of deposit for an expected total of approximately $16 billion of deposits at closing. GS Bank will acquire no financial assets in the transaction other than cash associated with the deposit liabilities.

     

    This transaction achieves greater funding diversification and strengthens the liquidity profile of GS Bank by providing an additional deposit gathering channel.  The establishment of this channel represents the advancement of a key funding objective for the firm,” said Liz Beshel Robinson, Treasurer of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

     

    Scott Roberts, President of GECB, said: “We are pleased to transition our depositor relationships to GS Bank, a large, stable institution with a focus on customer service. I am personally excited at the prospect of joining GS Bank, along with my team, to work towards a seamless transition of depositor accounts and to assist in managing the platform going forward.”  “We look forward to welcoming and serving GECB’s online deposit customers at GS Bank with the high standard of service they have come to expect.  We also look forward to working with our new colleagues from GECB,” said Esta Stecher, Chief Executive Officer of GS Bank.

     

    As part of the transaction, GS Bank will extend offers of employment to substantially all of GECB’s employees dedicated to supporting the online deposit platform. As GECB’s deposit platform is online only, the transaction does not include the purchase of any physical assets.

    Of course, when the next systemic crash does come, anyone holding more than the FDIC insured maximum will be promptly bailed-in alongside all other unsecured creditors, which is why we doubt Goldman will have much success in gathering zero-cost depositor capital despite the bank’s desire  for “greater funding diversification” (one may wonder why Goldman needs said diversification now… rhetorically).

    Or perhaps we are wrong: just look at Greece – instead of taking every opportunity to empty out the local banks, the domestic savers who clearly have no idea that all the Greek government has done is to buy a few months of time, are once again eager to put their money in the same banks which just a few weeks ago refused to give money to its rightful owners.

    Maybe Goldman is merely betting that when it comes to human stupidity, it truly is infinite. In which case, it probably made the right decision. Otherwise, well, step aside Spiderman Towel

    … it’s time for the Blankfein Towel.

  • Oilpocalypse Beats Buyback Bonanza – Traders Sell Everything

    Another Yuan devaluation, PBOC propaganda, dismal European data, flat US retail sales and recessionary US inventory data… everything must be awesome!! But then again…

     

    Summing up today: Sell bonds, sell emerging market stocks, sell gold, sell silver, sell US Dollars, sell crude oil, sell European bonds… and Sell VIX… BTFD In US Equities… but once the AAPL buybacks stopped… Sell Stocks too!!

     

    Still could be worse, could be SHAK management trying to dump a secondary on the greater fools…

     

    On the day, stocks tanked after the "good" retail sales news but quickly rallied back helped by weak inventories data…things went very quiet for a few hours before the late day saw a wave of selling hit stocks…

    A reminder of what the "good" news looked like…

     

    Leaving only The Dow marginally higher on the day…

     

    On the week…Nasdaq pulls back to unch with Small Caps red…

     

    Finally Energy stocks started to leak back to credit and  oil reality..

     

    Energy stocks catching down to reality…

     

    VIX picking back up again after testing 13.00…

     

    Energy credit risk hit new record highs…

     

    Credit markets were weak all day…

     

    Treasury Yields rose for the 2nd day, leaving all but 2Y higher on the week… (a weak 30Y auction with a 1.8bps tail sparked late weakness)

     

    The US Dollar index limped very modestly higher on the day as EURUSD tested back down to 1.1100 before bouncing…

     

    Commodities were mixed despite a flat dollar (copper rallied marginally as the rest were hit)…

     

    As WTI was hammered to new 6-year lows… this will be the 9th wek in a row of falling prices…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

    Bonus Chart: Offshore Yuan suggests another 1% devaluation in the Yuan Fix tonight…

  • These 11 CEOs Are The Most Overpaid Relative To Their Employees

    Earlier this month, we learned that the average employee at 10 legendary “Unicorn startups” is valued at somewhere around $8 million. These startups include Uber, Airbnb, Snapchat, Palantir, SpaceX, Pinterest, Dropbox, Wework, Theranos, and Square. 

    These “businesses” are valued at a combined $165 billion courtesy of the largely arbitrary and completely ridiculous methodologies employed by founders and their enthusiastic VC backers. Nevermind the fact that between them, they generate but $4 billion in revenue.

    Meanwhile, employees at real businesses are worth far less. Take McDonald’s for instance (which, even in its diminished state, still brings in more revenue in three months than all of the Unicorns listed above pull in over the course of a year – combined) where the enterprise value per employee is a paltry (by comparison) $200,000.  

    But while the value per employee may vary widely across corporate America and Silicon Valley, one thing is constant – a vast disparity between the average worker and the C-suite.

    As we noted at the end of June, CEOs in the US are back to making an average of 300 times what their employees make and although that’s short of the all-time high set near the peak of the dot-com bubble, we aren’t far from the top.

    Now, Bloomberg is out with a new study based on their own calculations and while it seems that their computation methods are predisposed to understating the case compared to the Economic Policy Institute’s figures (shown above), the data still suggests that for at least three American CEOs, the gap between their compensation and that of their employees is even wider than the 303:1 ratio from the preceding chart. 

    Here’s Bloomberg’s list:

    More color:

    McDonald’s might have some explaining to do.

     

    The fast-food chain has one of the highest ratios of CEO pay to that of the company’s average worker, at 644 to 1, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Under a requirement approved last week by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, public companies such as McDonald’s will have to disclose a similar metric annually, handing new ammunition to critics of C-suite pay packages.

     

    McDonald’s former chief executive officer isn’t even close to topping the list of highest-earning U.S. execs last year, but that doesn’t matter. The figure the SEC is requiring measures CEO pay against the median compensation of all employees, an unfavorable ratio when your workforce includes a lot of burger flippers and fry cooks.

     

    Some companies where top managers earned millions more last year than the $7.3 million paid to McDonald’s Don Thompson (who stepped down in March) actually have lower ratios. Examples include JPMorgan Chase and hospital operator Community Health Systems, both of which have pay gaps exceeding 200 to 1, which are still among the widest of all U.S. companies.

     

    To be sure, estimates relying on data that are currently available will probably differ from what companies report when the SEC rule kicks in two years from now. For instance, the SEC is allowing companies to omit a limited percentage of workers overseas, where wages might be lower.

     

    Bloomberg estimated average worker pay by identifying businesses’ reported salaries and benefits expenses, and dividing that by the total number of workers. 

     


Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 13, 2015

  • Ireland Refuses To Extradite Man To US Because Prison System Is Too Inhumane

    Submitted by Cassius Methyl via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Throughout the world, the U.S. prison system is often seen as inhumane and excessively large.

    The American prison system is so reviled, in fact, that Irish officials recently refused to extradite an alleged terrorist to the U.S. The court cited concerns that if he were sent to the U.S., he would probably be placed in Colorado’s “Supermax” prison, ADX Florence (Administrative Maximum Facility). The prison is nicknamed Colorado’s “Alcatraz of the Rockies.”

    Irish High Court Justice Aileen Donnelly went as far as to write a 333-page report about why the suspect shouldn’t be extradited. One highlight from the court’s ruling was that incarceration at ADX Florence prison would amount to “cruel and unusual punishment.”

    Donnelly said the prison “amounts to a breach of the constitutional requirement to protect persons from inhuman and degrading treatment and to respect the dignity of the human being.”

    “[P]rolonged exposure to involuntary solitary confinement exacts a significant physiological toll, is damaging to the integrity of the mind and personality, and is damaging to the bodily integrity of the person,” she continued.

    According to the Los Angeles Times, “An Irish resident originally from Algiers, Damache, 50, [is]accused of using online chat rooms to recruit American women into a would-be terrorist cell operating in this country and Europe.

    One man and two women, including Damache’s wife, have already been convicted in U.S. courts of providing material support to terrorists. And Damache was captured by Irish authorities in 2010 in Dublin on a separate charge of making a telephone death threat and held without bail.”

    In 2011, Damache was indicted from a distance in a Philadelphia court on “charges of plotting to assassinate a Swedish cartoonist who depicted the prophet Muhammad as a dog.”

    Damache was released in May after serving his time, but the U.S. is still pushing for his extradition.

    “I always had faith in the Irish legal system,” he said in a statement presented by his lawyers. “After more than five years in jail, I am looking forward to moving on with my life here.”

    The Colorado prison has held some of the most well-known criminals in American history, keeping them in solitary confinement with extremely limited access to outside communication. Notorious inmates include Timothy McVeigh and other people accused of high level terrorism—such as Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person convicted in a civilian court for involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

    Lawyers have even argued that incarceration at ADX Florence is worse than the death penalty. Defense expert Mark Bezy called it “a mechanism to cut off an inmate’s communications with the outside world.”

    *  *  *

    The Irish court’s refusal to extradite Damache adds to a growing trend of nations that opt to exercise their own sovereignty amid pressure from powerful American influence.

    Such nations are increasingly moving to decide issues for themselves as they refuse to be persuaded into following the orders of a more powerful empire.

  • Japan-Korea Tensions Rise – 80 Year-Old Veteran Self-Immolates In Anti-Japan Protest

    With China already stoking fears in The South China Sea (and now entering the currency war) and Japan re-militarizing (and having led the currency war for years) it appears tension within Asian nations is escalating. The latest egregious example of these tensions is evident, as Reuters reports, an 80-year old South Korean set himself on fire on Wednesday during a protest calling for Japan to apologize for forcing Korean girls and women to work in military brothels during World War Two, days ahead of the anniversary of the end of hostilities.

    Warning: Graphic

    As Reuters reports,

    The self-immolation occurred during a regular weekly demonstration outside the Japanese embassy ahead of the Aug. 15 anniversary marking 70 years since the end of Japan's colonial occupation of the Korean peninsula.

     

    With the anniversary looming, Wednesday's protest was larger than usual, with about 2,000 demonstrators, including three of the 47 known surviving Korean "comfort women", as they were euphemistically called by Japan, organizers said.

     

    Bystanders covered the man with protest banners to put out the flames and paramedics took him to hospital.

     

     

    The man, identified as Choi Hyun-yeol by a civic group with which he was affiliated, was in critical condition with burns to his neck, face, and upper torso, a hospital professor said.

     

    "The patient is old and has severe burns so his survival can't be guaranteed," the professor told reporters.

     

     

    South Korea's ties with Japan have long been strained by what Seoul sees as Japanese leaders' reluctance to atone for the country's wartime past, including a full recognition of its role in forcing Korean girls and women to work in brothels.

    *  *  *

    With old war tensions mixing with new war tensions, Asia is quickly becoming yet another tinderbox in the centrally planned world.

  • Did The EPA Intentionally Poison Animas River To Secure SuperFund Money?

    A week before The EPA disastrously leaked millions of gallons of toxic waste into The Animas River in Colorado, this letter to the editor was published in The Silverton Standard & The Miner local newspaper, authored by a retired geologist detailing verbatim, how EPA would foul the Animas River on purpose in order to secure superfund money

    "But make no mistake, within seven days, all of the 500gpm flow will return to Cememnt Creek. Contamination may actually increase… The "grand experiment" in my opinion will fail.

     

    And guess what [EPA's] Mr. Hestmark will say then?

     

    Gee, "Plan A" didn't work so I guess we will have to build a treat¬ment plant at a cost to taxpayers of $100 million to $500 million (who knows).

     

    Reading between the lines, I believe that has been the EPA's plan all along"

     

    Sound like something a government entity would do? Just ask Lois Lerner…

    As we concluded previously,

    The EPA actually has no concern for the environment, they just happen to use the environment as a cover story to create laws and gain an advantage for the companies that lobbied for exemptions to the agency’s regulations, and to collect money in fines. There are solutions outside the common government paradigm, and that is mainly the ability for individuals, not governments, to hold polluters personally and financially accountable.

    h/t Stephen

  • Understanding Why The Clinton Emails Matter

    Submitted by Peter van Buren via WeMeantWell.com,

    In the world of handling America’s secrets, words – classified, secure, retroactive – have special meanings. I held a Top Secret clearance at the State Department for 24 years and was regularly trained in protecting information as part of that privilege. Here is what some of those words mean in the context of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails.

    The Inspectors General for the State Department and the intelligence community issued a statement saying Clinton’s personal email system contained classified information. This information, they said, “should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.” The same statement voiced concern that a thumb drive held by Clinton’s lawyer also contains this same secret data. Another report claims the U.S. intelligence community is bracing for the possibility that Clinton’s private email account contains multiple instances of classified information, with some data originating at the CIA and NSA.

    A Clinton spokesperson responded that “Any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted.” Clinton claims unequivocally her email contained no classified information, and that no message carried any security marking, such as Confidential or Top Secret.

    The key issue in play with Clinton is that it is a violation of national security to maintain classified information on an unclassified system.

    Classified, secure, computer systems use a variety of electronic (often generically called TEMPESTed) measures coupled with physical security (special locks, shielded conduits for cabling, armed guards) that differentiate them from an unclassified system. Some of the protections are themselves classified, and unavailable in the private sector. Such standards of protection are highly unlikely to be fulfilled outside a specially designed government facility.

    Yet even if retroactive classification was applied only after Clinton hit “send” (and State’s own Inspector General says it wasn’t), she is not off the hook.

    What matters in the world of secrets is the information itself, which may or may not be marked “classified.” Employees at the highest levels of access are expected to apply the highest levels of judgment, based on the standards in Executive Order 13526. The government’s basic nondisclosure agreement makes clear the rule is “marked or unmarked classified information.”

    In addition, the use of retroactive classification has been tested and approved by the courts, and employees are regularly held accountable for releasing information that was unclassified when they released it, but classified retroactively.

    It is a way of doing business inside the government that may at first seem nonsensical, but in practice is essential for keeping secrets.

    For example, if an employee were to be handed information sourced from an NSA intercept of a foreign government leader, somehow not marked as classified, she would be expected to recognize the sensitivity of the material itself and treat it as classified. In other cases, an employee might hear something sensitive and be expected to treat the information as classified. The emphasis throughout the classification system is not on strict legalities and coded markings, but on judgment. In essence, employees are required to know right from wrong. It is a duty, however subjective in appearance, one takes on in return for a security clearance.

    “Not knowing” would be an unexpected defense from a person with years of government experience.

    In addition to information sourced from intelligence, Clinton’s email may contain some back-and-forth discussions among trusted advisors. Such emails are among the most sensitive information inside State, and are otherwise always considered highly classified. Adversaries would very much like to know America’s bargaining strategy. The value of such information is why, for example, the NSA electronically monitored heads of state in Japan and Germany. The Freedom of Information Act recognizes the sensitivity of internal deliberation, and includes a specific exemption for such messages, blocking their release, even years after a decision occurred. If emails discussing policy or decisions were traded on an open network, that would be a serious concern.

    The problem for Clinton may be particularly damaging. Every email sent within the State Department’s own systems contains a classification; an employee technically cannot hit “send” without one being applied. Just because Clinton chose to use her own hardware does not relieve her or her staff of this requirement.

    Some may say even if Clinton committed security violations, there is no evidence the material got into the wrong hands – no blood, no foul. Legally that is irrelevant. Failing to safeguard information is the issue. It is not necessary to prove the information reached an adversary, or that an adversary did anything harmful with the information for a crime to have occurred. See the cases of Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Jeff Sterling, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou or even David Petraeus. The standard is “failure to protect” by itself.

    None of these laws, rules, regulations or standards fall under the rubric of obscure legalities; they are drilled into persons holding a security clearance via formal training (mandatory yearly for State Department employees), and are common knowledge for the men and women who handle America’s most sensitive information. For those who use government computer systems, electronic tools enforce compliance and security personnel are quick to zero in on violations.

    A mantra inside government is that protecting America’s secrets is everyone’s job. That was the standard against which I was measured throughout my career and the standard that should apply to everyone entrusted with classified information.

  • 19-Year Old Sets Own Ferrari On Fire Because He Wanted A New One

    On October 24, 2014, the 19-year old son of a wealthy Swiss businessman walked into a brothel in the Bavarian town of Augsburg.

    Although by almost any standard he led a rather splendid existence, on this particular night he had reached his breaking point. The problem: he drove a 2011 Ferrari 458 Italia.

    That may look nice enough, but the issue is that there’s a 2014 Ferrari Italia, and let’s face it, no one – and we mean no one – would want to be caught dead in the vehicle shown above when the one shown below is just waiting to be driven off the lot. 

    Of course this is exactly the type of situation that insurance – or, more acurately, insurance fraud – is for.

    And so this young man – allegedly with the help of the Ferrari dealer – did what anyone would do in this situation: he drove to Bavaria, went to see a prostitute (one needs an alibi), and paid two accomplices $15,000 to douse the old junker in gasoline and light it on fire. 

    Part of the plan worked. From Tages-Anzeiger (Google translated): 

    He visited the neighboring brothel with other colleagues. Meanwhile, the two helpers poured a gasoline-nitro-mixture to the leather seats of the black sport car and set it on fire. The car exploded with a loud bang and burned out.

    He even remembered to remove “the expensive specialty rims and carbon fiber parts.” 

    Initially, authorities came to the conclusion that the incident was retaliation for unpaid hooker fees. From 20 Minutes (Google translated from French):

    Initially, the Bavarian authorities believed a settlement account in prostitution.

    Yes, a “settlement account in prostitution,” but security camera footage and phone records told a different story. Ultimately, investigators concluded that this was all a not-so-elaborate ploy to collect the insurance money on the way to buying the newer model. 

    Asked by a judge why he had gone to such lengths given that his father had bought him 14 other cars (including a Lamborghini) as well as “several properties” worth in excess of $25 million, he confessed that although his monthly allowance (between CHF5,000 and CHF10,000) was generous enough, it wasn’t sufficient to cover the difference between the 2011 and the 2014 458s and he didn’t feel comfortable telling his father the truth – namely, that the 2011 458 “no longer pleased him.” 

    For his troubles, the young man received 30 months of probabtion and a €30,000 fine. There was no word on whether he was able to get the 2014 Speciale

    So although we think the moral of the story is quite obvious here, we’ll spell it out for you anyway: for anyone who thinks they’re having a bad day just remember that it could always be worse. You could be driving a 2011 Ferrari 458 Italia.

  • Chinese Devaluation Extends To 3rd Day – Yuan Hits 4 Year Low, Japan Escalates Currency Race-To-The-Bottom Rhetoric

    The "one-off" adjustment has now reached its 3rd day as The PBOC has now devalued the Yuan fix by 4.65% back to July 2011 lows.

    Even before this evening's date with debasement history, Japan felt the need to step up the currency war rhetoric. Following disappointing Machine Orders data, Abe advisors Hamada warned that "Japan can offset Yuan devaluation by monetary easing," and so the race to the bottom escalates. China has its own problems as BofAML's leading economic indicator showed "the foundation for a growth recovery is not solid, facing more downward pressure," and while confusion reigns over why The PBOC would intervene at the close to strengthen the Yuan last night, the reality is the commitment isn’t to a devaluation for China’s exports, but undoubtedly its actions are directed toward trying to keep the wholesale finance interfaces somewhat orderly.  Finally, China’s devaluation couldn’t come at a worse time for Argentina – about a quarter of the country’s $33.7 billion of foreign reserves are now denominated in yuan, which suffered its biggest loss since 1994 on Tuesday.

    Having devalued the (onshore) Yuan fix by 3.5% in the last 2 days, China did it again… shifting Yuan to 4 year lows

    • *CHINA SETS YUAN REFERENCE RATE AT 6.4010 AGAINST U.S. DOLLAR

     

    Offshore Yuan dropped back to 6.50…

     

    And China Stocks have opened lower…

    • *CHINA'S CSI 300 STOCK-INDEX FUTURES FALL 1% TO 3,975.2

    S&P  Futures are fading…

    Some more liquidity needed…

    • *PBOC TO INJECT 40B YUAN WITH 7-DAY REVERSE REPOS: TRADER

    And sure enough, not be outdone, Japan threatens to re-escalate the currency war…

    • *ABE ADVISER HAMADA SAYS CHINA'S FX MOVE WILL TEND TO BOOST YEN
    • *HAMADA: JAPAN CAN OFFSET YUAN DEVALUATION BY MONETARY EASING
    • *HAMADA:BOJ MAY EASE IF CHINA MOVE HITS EXTERNAL DEMAND TOO MUCH

    But China has it's own problems, as BofAML notes, China LEAP (leading economic activity pulse) fell to-3.9% YoY in July from -2.6% in June, as five of the seven LEAP components weakened.

    Similarly, other macro activity data released in July worsened from a surprisingly strong June and disappointed the market. It suggests the foundation for a growth recovery is not solid, and economic growth faces more downward pressure as financial sector activity has slowed after the recent stock market slump.

     

     

    On the demand side, housing starts further declined to 16.4% yoy in July after dropping 14.3% in June. We think destocking could still be ongoing in tier 3-4 cities and the housing market recovery has yet to drive acceleration in housing starts. Auto sales growth slumped to -7.1% YoY from -2.3%, likely due to weakening consumer demand for some big-ticket items amid stock market turmoil while staple good sales remained resilient.

     

    Production-side components were mixed, with weaker power and steel output growth but slightly better cement output growth. Power and steel output growth was particularly poor in July, likely due to plummet in commodity and raw material prices on a bearish growth outlook amid stock market turmoil.

     

    Medium- to long-term loan growth edged down by 0.8pp, but if taking into account local government debt swap, the decline would be 0.3pp instead.

    *  *  *

    The fallout from China's decision is going global…

    China’s devaluation couldn’t come at a worse time for Argentina.

     

    About a quarter of the country’s $33.7 billion of foreign reserves are now denominated in yuan, which suffered its biggest loss since 1994 on Tuesday.

    *  *  *

    And finally, here is Jeffrey Snider of Alhambra Investment Partners discussing the other reality of what is occurring in China – as opposed to the paint-by-numbers version spun on TV – explaining why the PBOC would seemingly “allow” devaluation one day and then act against it the very next. They are just trying to hold on for dear life, managing imbalances that are beyond their grasp.

    While everyone remains sure that the PBOC is actively trying to “allow” the yuan to depreciate as some kind of export catalyst, the “dollar” continues to show (not suggest) otherwise. Liquidity and “dollar” markets are still roiled rather than soothed, especially the US treasury market where the bid right at the open (what look very much like continued collateral calls) pushes more like a combination of October 15 and January 15.

     

    ABOOK Aug 2015 Yuan USt

     

    As if to underscore the runaway nature, the PBOC apparently intervened against this “devaluation” just last night. From the Wall Street Journal:

     

    Tuesday, the People’s Bank of China surprised global markets with what looked like a win-win currency depreciation for the country—appearing to cede more control of its exchange rate to market forces, which the International Monetary Fund and others have long urged it to do, while also helping Chinese exporters.

     

    Its intervention only one day later raised questions about its commitment to an exchange rate driven more by supply and demand and less by government direction.

     

    The Journal’s confusion here is demonstrated by what is a mistaken assumption in the first paragraph leading to the mystery of the second. The PBOC’s commitment isn’t to a devaluation for China’s exports, but undoubtedly its actions are directed toward trying to keep the wholesale finance interfaces somewhat orderly. When the yuan was trading exactly sideways for nearly five months, that was the same setup; the PBOC was keeping the yuan stable so that it wouldn’t devalue and thus signal the depth of the “dollar” financing strain.

     

    That is the problem orthodox commentary and theory has with wholesale finance, they just don’t get it. Devaluation of currency doesn’t mean that in this context just as a “strong dollar” isn’t anything like the term. Both are forms of internal disruption, the direction of that is just an expression of what manner of wholesale finance is becoming most unruly. Credit-based “money” systems do not operate like the currency systems from before 1971. Floating currencies aren’t really that, so much as they are just another form of traded liabilities in global banking.

     

    ABOOK Aug 2015 Yuan Again

     

    The Chinese have a “dollar” problem just the same as the Swiss, Brazilians and the rest (including the dollar). There is a global retreat in eurodollar funding that is wreaking havoc, expectedly, globally. And in China that is particularly true as the Chinese banks through external corporates joined the “dollar short” several years back. Joined now under PBOC “reform”, there has been an almost hostility if not at least disfavor over the “dollar” intrusion as it has been taken as one primary element of the bubbles (what mainstream mistakes for “hot money”). As a result, the PBOC has been almost chasing “dollars” out of the system in an attempted orderly purge.

     

    That led to what looked like historic “outflows” in 2015 as “dollar” conditions for the Chinese “short”, so it is absolutely no surprise to see this occurring now. The only mystery has been, as I have been writing for some time, what the PBOC was doing to counteract it during those five months. That would tell us both how serious the turmoil was and how ineffective whatever intervention would ultimately be.

     

    From July 22:

    The yuan has suddenly, right at the March FOMC meeting, gone limp. Trading has been confined, except for very brief, intraday outbursts, to an increasingly narrow range. Given its behavior particularly as a full part of the reform agenda to that point, this amounts to what can only be hidden and inorganic factors. Whether that means PBOC intervention is unclear, though suggested by even TIC, but this is the most important and unexplained dynamic in the “dollar” world at present.

     

    Perhaps the June TIC updates will help shed some light on what has been going on with China’s “dollar short”, but I doubt it. The nature and especially the scale of what might be happening in the money markets has global implications, and may (conjecture on my part) start to explain the reversal in the Chinese stock bubble and ultimately even relate to the “dollar’s” renewed disruption in July so far.

     

    Earlier July 8:

    It’s not enough to notice how this [zero yuan volatility] is odd, as it appears, given wider circumstances, to be almost odd with a purpose. Whenever uncertainties grew about China’s reform, especially “allowing” defaults, “dollar” supplies tightened significantly and the yuan devalued. Given the fragility of the current situation, you can understand why, possibly, the PBOC might not want too much to get so far out of hand and so they may be supplying “dollars” to maintain orderly money markets both onshore and off. Given the plunge in import activity they may not really need to supply all that much, particularly in combination with prior and intended outflows as they effectively tried to chase speculators out of the country. Perhaps they did too much?

     

    Whatever the case may ultimately be, it bears close scrutiny for several reasons. First, if this is correct (a very big “if”) then the financial system in China is worse, far worse, than it appears. Second, central bank attempts such as this are extremely finite as they are, over time, hugely inefficient. The PBOC might just be throwing everything in its arsenal at the financial system short of open “flood” declarations (which are themselves destabilizing; declaring an open emergency is as much confirmation of how bad everything is) trying to calm everything down in order to reassess. [emphasis added]

     

    That is why the PBOC would seemingly “allow” devaluation one day and then act against it the very next. They are just trying to hold on for dear life, managing imbalances that are beyond their grasp. That is what occurred last night, as the Wall Street Journal confirms that Chinese banks were “selling” dollars on the PBOC’s behalf; which is, in the wholesale context, supplying “dollars.” The currency translation is just the recognition of that imbalance, which is in many forms like this kind of convertibility almost a “run.”

     

    The PBOC then instructed state-owned Chinese banks to sell dollars on its behalf in the last 15 minutes of Wednesday’s trading, according to people close to the state banks.

     

    The central bank took it as far as it could and then the “dollar” dam just burst on really bad economic data that was expected instead to confirm the bottom. At this point, it looks like they are left only to try to mitigate the damage they had been for five months hoping would never occur as the global economy was supposed to have healed on its own long before then (which was nothing more than FOMC and orthodox pipe dreams).

    Another central bank has fallen prey to the decomposing “dollar”, as the global tremors of such central bank upsets ripple further and further.

     

  • 6 Years And One Witch Hunt Later, Goldman Changes Its Mind On "Secret Sauce" Software

    For anyone who didn’t read Flash Boys or who hasn’t otherwise apprised themselves of the history behind the proliferation of the parasitic, vacuum tubes that have embedded themselves between real buyers and sellers in order to extract a tax on each and every trade in the name of “providing liquidity”, you might have missed out on the sad story of Sergey Aleynikov, the Russian computer programmer and target of a six-year Goldman witch hunt.

    In 2010, a federal court convicted Aleynikov of stealing trading code from Goldman. As WSJ notes, Aleynikov was “acquitted of those charges on appeal, then charged again by the Manhattan District Attorney and convicted a second time, [before] a state judge dismissed the case last month on grounds that prosecutors failed to show enough evidence to support the verdict.”

    And while the Manhattan DA is appealing the ruling, Goldman is busy doing the exact same thing that Aleynikov is supposedly “guilty” of – distributing open source code. Here’s WSJ with the story:

    Goldman will soon offer clients access to more of its in-house tools, such as high-powered databases that analyze markets and manage risk, according to the firm’s executives. Those proprietary systems have long been key elements enabling Goldman to sidestep market turmoil and ring up outsized profits in better conditions.

     

    Given direct access to these tools, Goldman clients could use the technology to build their own trading systems and potentially make purchases independent of the firm.

     

    But the firm’s executives believe the upside outweighs those concerns. Goldman is betting that its clients, such as hedge funds and other money managers, will use the individual applications, or apps, to develop strategies and then execute their trades with the firm.

     

    By deepening ties with those clients, Goldman hopes it will pick up other business from them as well.

    The development has been a centerpiece of a new technology strategy developed by R. Martin Chavez, the firm’s chief information officer.

     

    “We’re constantly asking ourselves about all of it,” Mr. Chavez said. “Is this software better for clients and the planet if it’s inside Goldman? Or is it better if we extend the platform to clients, or in some cases does a spinout into open source or a company make more sense?”

    Now clearly, there are all kinds of amusing things about that last statement, including the notion that anything going on over at 200 West is good “for the planet” (they’re just “doing God’s work” over there, you know), but the idea that the firm now sees the utility in actively distributing open source code when by all accounts what Aleynikov took with him on the way out the door wasn’t proprietary at all, is evidence of blatant hypocrisy on the part of current management or complete incompetence on the part of those who came before – or both. 

    Furthermore, one wonders what happened to the notion that allowing this type of code to fall into the “wrong” hands, would be the capital markets equivalent of giving al-Qaeda a suitcase nuke. Remember, Goldman’s contention when Aleynikov was arrested was that the code he allegedly stole (the open source code) could be used to “manipulate markets in unfair ways.” Does that, by extension, mean that Goldman will now equip its most important clients with the tools to manipulate markets? 

    Well yes, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t already doing that. Here’s the Journal again:

    The concept of giving clients potentially valuable information in hopes of winning business isn’t unprecedented: Goldman and other investment banks have for years given clients trading ideas and market research on the same presumption.

    Of course given what we know about the tendency for Goldman to “muppetize” clients who take the firm’s “recommendations” at face value, we can’t help but wonder if the same fate isn’t in store for anyone who buys what the bank is selling (or giving away) in terms of software. 

    In any event, one thing we’re quite sure of is that Goldman won’t be trying to convince the Manhattan DA that given the firm’s enlightened stance on open source software, the torment of Sergey Aleynikov should finally come to an end.

  • Albert Edwards: "Prepare For Sub-1% Treasury Yields And Another Financial Crisis"

    Make no mistake, warns SocGen's Albert Edwards, this is the start of something big, something ugly. For while the west has been heaving a sigh of relief over the past few months that deflation pressures have abated somewhat – especially at the core level – we have been emphasising that deflation has only been intensifying in Asia and that like any puss-filled boil, this deflationary pressure would soon need to be lanced…

    We have long believed that we are only one misstep from outright deflation in the west with core inflation in both the US and eurozone at just 1%. We expect the acceleration of EM devaluations to send waves of deflation to the west to overwhelm already struggling corporate profitability and take us back into outright recession. As investors realise yet another recession beckons, without any normalisation of either interest rates or fiscal imbalances in this cycle, expect a financial market rout every bit as large as 2008.

    *  *  *
    Aside from the relentlessly weak economic and inflation data out of China in recent months (notwithstanding the surge in pork prices), the one thing that has changed dramatically over the last 18 months is China’s huge swing into a Balance of Payments deficit. This has exerted chronic downward pressure on the renminbi, forcing the Peoples Bank of China (PBoC) to start selling its vast foreign exchange reserves to prop up the beleaguered currency (FX reserves have slid $300bn over the last four quarters). Now, though it was only a little over two months ago the IMF declared the renminbi to be no longer undervalued, many of us felt the situation had gone far beyond that stage and that indeed, the currency was substantially overvalued, especially with the rest of Asia devaluing alongside the Japanese yen. The most shocking illustration of China’s loss of competitiveness in recent years is the 50% surge in its Real Effective Exchange Rate (REER) against the US (see chart below).

    In some ways the question is not whether the renminbi is competitive or uncompetitive. The problem is that the renminbi is unambiguously less competitive than it was. This comes at a time when the Chinese economy is struggling and the stock market bubble is bursting. We have always said renminbi devaluation would not be a preferred policy lever, but it was one that would be yanked vigorously if needed – viz FX intervention to stop the renminbi falling is effectively a monetary tightening, the last thing China needs at present! Many had felt it would continue to keep the renminbi stable while the IMF was still deliberating whether to admit the renminbi into the IMF’s basket of reserve currencies (SDR). But the IMF’s announcement last week to defer a decision until the autumn of 2016 may well have been sufficient reason for the PBoC to stand aside from FX intervention and bow to the inevitable. 

    The key thing here is that Tuesday’s devaluation is not just a one-off – you will see persistent weakness from hereon in. For although the PBoC said the move was a one-time adjustment to reflect changes in the way it calculates the daily fix, it also said that the price would be set “in conjunction with demand and supply conditions in the foreign exchange market and exchange rate movements of the major currencies”. To all but the most PollyAnna’ish of observers that means this is the start of a major renminbi devaluation because of the massive downward market pressure the currency is under via the BoP deficit.

    This move will transform perceptions about the resilience of the US economy. The recent strength of the trade-weighted US dollar has already contributed to deflation being imported into the US (see right-hand chart above), at a time when core consumer price inflation is already too low. Up until now Japanese yen devaluation has been the main driver of falling US import prices (see top right-hand chart above). Another way to view this is to look at the level of US import prices from various countries/regions since the start of this recovery (see chart below). Despite much talk of Japanese exporters maintaining dollar prices to expand margins and profits, dollar import prices have definitely slumped and China is about to catch up with Japan! For although the renminbi Is not actually included in the trade-weighted DXY calculation, the Fed estimate China’s importance to be 21% of their own broad tradeweighted dollar index – a steep rise from only 15% a decade ago. Japan by contrast currently accounts for 7% of the index, but it has been yen devaluation that has helped heap pressure on China to devalue. Watch that dark blue line below closely.

    Many observers, such as myself, believe the US dollar has now entered a secular bull market irrespective whether the Fed raises interest rates in September or not. But in any case, with an ongoing renminbi (read EM …) currency devaluation now underway, the US will import even more of the world’s unwanted deflation. We see this as the end-game in this cycle. With US profits already falling (sharply in the case of whole economy profits), the cycle is already very vulnerable indeed, as it is the business investment component of GDP that causes recessions.

    While investors have already talked about the eurozone looking similar to Japan, a deflationary recession also beckons for the US. Core inflation on the Fed’s preferred measure (core PCE) is hovering around the 1% level and a new round of in the currency war will see a move in core inflation below zero to accompany the headline rate.

    Prepare for sub-1% 10y Treasury yields and another financial crisis as policy impotence is soon revealed to all. 

    Source: SocGen

  • There's More To Come – Offshore Yuan Signals Further Devaluation Tonight

    Despite 2 significant interventions to stall what is likely an avalanche of wrong-way carry trade unwinds (or perhaps to stop the boat swinging to the other side too much), offshore Yuan has continued to depreciate since China closed and now implies another 1% devaluation is looming (having been up to a 2.6% discount earlier in the day).

     

    PBOC intervened in CNY overnight…

     

    But CNH remains adamant that more devaluation is coming…

     

    CNH nailed it overnight… will it be right again tonight?

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Mysterious Dip Buyer Found – Goldman Buyback Desk Has Busiest Day Since 2011

    On Tuesday, in “Even The Dumb Money Is Dumping Stocks Now,” we highlighted weekly flows data from BofAML which showed that not only were hedge funds and institutional clients (still) selling in the five days ended 8/07, but private clients were net sellers for a second consecutive week, dumping the most equities in a year. 

    But not everyone was selling last week.

    Stocks still benefited from the perpetual corporate management bid that’s helped to sustain the equity rally since the flow from that other price insensitive buyer (the Fed) tapered off. 

    Given the above – and given everything we’ve said this year about debt-funded corporate buybacks buoying equities – no one should be surprised that Wednesday’s magical levitation came courtesy of US corporations. Here’s Bloomberg with more

    Who did the buying as U.S. stocks staged the biggest turnaround in three years? The companies that issued them.

     

    The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. unit that executes share buybacks for clients had its busiest day since 2011 on Wednesday, according to a note from the firm’s corporate agency desk. Based on the value of equities repurchased, volume handled by the bank set a record. The note was confirmed by spokeswoman Tiffany Galvin.

     

    Corporations have emerged as one of the biggest sources of fresh cash in the stock market, eclipsing even mutual funds with more than half a trillion dollars spent last year, according to data compiled by S&P Dow Jones Indices. They swooped in and bought again on Wednesday as the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index flirted with its largest two-day selloff since January.

    In short, today should serve as a real-world example of what GMO’s Ben Inker said in the firm’s latest quarterly letter: “…in order to see massive changes in the price of a security, you don’t need the price-insensitive buyer to become a seller. You merely need him to cease being the marginal buyer. If price-insensitive buyers actually become price-insensitive sellers, it becomes possible that price falls could take asset prices significantly below historical norms.”

    Oh, and by the way, here’s what we said early in the session:

  • Why More Conflict Is Inevitable In The Middle East

    Submitted by Erico Matias Tavares via Sinclar & Co.,

    We all know how sectarian, religious and political differences have thrown many Middle Eastern countries into chaos and armed conflict. But there is a deeper factor at play which deserves greater recognition: severe water scarcity.

    This scarcity will not be addressed overnight, no matter who ends up prevailing in those conflicts. As such, the region will very likely continue to suffer from significant turmoil for many years to come.

    Using satellite data, scientists from the University of California (Irvine), NASA and the National Center for Atmospheric Research found that large parts of the arid Middle East region saw a dramatic loss of freshwater reserves over a seven-year period starting in 2003. This is shown in the following map:

    Parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran along the Tigris and Euphrates river basins lost some 144 cubic kilometers of total stored freshwater – almost the total amount of water in the Dead Sea. The scientists attributed the majority of this loss to pumping from underground reservoirs.

    Indeed, Syria and Iraq are facing severe water availability issues, compounded by the fact that the majority of their renewable water resources comes from other countries. As such, the Euphrates River – which has sustained Mesopotamian civilization from its very start – is critically important for them.

    However, rampant demand, wasteful government policies, intensive agriculture, pesticides and industrial use have all substantially reduced both the quality and the quantity of water available. According to a Chatham House study, this overexploitation has curtailed the flow of the Euphrates from Turkey to downstream countries by at least 40% since 1972.

    This is a major concern for the 27 million people across these three countries who depend on these water supplies directly, and many millions more reliant on the food and energy coming out of that region. All the wars since 2003 have only made matters worse.

    It is not surprising then that the Islamic State is securing strongholds along the river and using them to exert pressure on their enemies. But there is one thing that the opposing factions in the brutal war raging across Syria and Iraq agree on, and that is accusing Turkey of further reducing their fair share of water supplies from the Euphrates. The latter will soon complete an ambitious US$35 billion dam and irrigation works program, which will put further pressure downstream.

    Other countries in the region are facing even more severe water problems. Take Yemen for instance, a country with 24 million people and one of the lowest per capita water availability levels in the world. Critical water supply sources are being depleted so rapidly that they will become exhausted before the end of the decade. Dwindling oil production has hit the economy hard, at a time when big investments in infrastructure are needed to tackle the issue. And now there’s a conflict raging between Yemeni factions, internally and against Saudi Arabia.

    So we can see another pattern emerging beyond the sectarian power play across the region… and arguably even more significant: where water supplies become acutely scarce, armed conflict rapidly follows.

    An Explosive Mix

    The population growth rate in the Middle East is one of the highest in the world. From 1990 to 2010, population in that region as a whole increased by 50% – 124 million people in absolute terms, more than four times the increase in the European Union over the same period. In some of the most parched countries that increase has been absolutely staggering, as shown in the following table:

    Population (MM) and Military Expenditures (constant 2011 US$) in Selected Middle East Countries: 1990 – 2010

    Source: World Bank, OECD, SIPRI.
    (a) Yemen is from 1990 to 2008 and UAE from 1997 to 2010.

    These are quite young populations as most of the growth has been organic. And it’s always the young who tend to get really agitated when a problem emerges. Military expenditures in most of these countries have increased at rates even higher than population. So not only there is a rapidly expanding number of people facing a dire water situation; they also have more weapons at their disposal.

    Accordingly, the world and its superpowers should not be surprised by the expansion of armed conflict across the Middle East we have witnessed in recent years. And unfortunately things might get even worse from here.

    Policy Implications

    There is no civilization without water. If current water trends persist, pardon the hyperbole but large parts of the Middle East may turn into one of the worst humanitarian disasters the world has ever seen, particularly given the large size of those populations.

    The immediate consequence is of course a continuation if not expansion of armed conflicts across the region, as people fight over the remaining drops of water.

    Desperate civilians will try to get out any way they can. Italy and especially Greece are already overwhelmed by the flood of migrants crossing the Mediterranean. Just imagine those flows increasing by many multiples over the coming years.

    And it’s not only civilians who are looking to come across. The map above shows the ultimate territorial ambitions of the Islamic Caliphate. Seems farfetched particularly as many of those countries are NATO members or part of China, but this will not dissuade them from trying by any means. Time and demographics are on their side, with large pools of disillusioned young people at their disposal (with relatives and sympathizers already in Europe), as well as potential access to advanced weaponry manufactured in the West, Russia and China.

    In light of all of this, the lack of a concrete strategy and response thus far by European Union leaders is truly baffling. It is becoming increasingly obvious that they will not be able to solve this problem just by throwing some money at it and moving a few refugees around; not when its scale can dramatically increase in magnitude.

    What will this do to the Middle East’s main export, crude oil? Our guess is that producing countries will continue to expand production, even if prices in the world markets correct further. After all they have big bills to pay: fighting insurgents, ramping up their defenses, investing in infrastructure, importing food (to mitigate domestic production declines)… But if any slack in capacity is exhausted, or worse, conflict expands to the point where their upstream or logistical infrastructure is impaired, then supply could quickly go the other way.

    While conventional, tar sands and tight oil producers in North America may get the last laugh, it is clear that the world economy needs the abundant reserves of the Middle East.

    It is also curious to note how ill equipped Western central banks would be to deal with the inflationary consequences of an oil supply shock. Why? Because any material increase in interest rates would blow up government budgets in many developed countries, given the high debt loads that they have taken on since the 2008 financial crisis.

    Rather than adding more fuel to the Middle Eastern fire, it seems that the world’s superpowers have a vested interest to negotiate and implement credible solutions to the unfolding catastrophe in the region.

    Unfortunately, such vision and leadership seem to be in even shorter supply than water in the Middle East.

  • Why Credit Market Moves Are Now "Hyperbolic," Citi Explains

    We’ve made no secret of our views on just how precarious corporate credit markets have become. 

    For anyone in need of a refresher, the dynamic is very simple. The ZIRP-induced hunt for yield has driven investors away from risk-free assets and into anything that promises to generate at least some semblance of income. Corporate management teams have taken advantage of the situation to issue record amounts of debt, the proceeds from which have either been plowed into EPS-inflating, stock-boosting buybacks, or used to keep struggling businesses (like heavily indebted drillers, for instance) in business. The proliferation of fixed income ETFs and mutual funds have helped funnel retail money into areas of the bond market where it might normally have never penetrated. Meanwhile, Wall Street has pulled back from its traditional role as warehouser (i.e. liquidity provider). The result: record issuance of corporate credit and record low liquidity in the secondary market. In other words, a very crowded theatre, and an ever shrinking exit. 

    Making matters worse is the fact that retail money tends to chase returns, resulting in a “positive” rather than a “negative” feedback loop, where mean reversion simply falls by the wayside.

    With that in mind, we present the following graphic which, while simple, has quite a bit of explanatory value. 

    Via Citi’s Matt King: 

  • Charting A Decade Of Yuan Moves

    China’s central bank has taken global markets by surprise with a historic shift in its management of the yuan. As Bloomberg's Tom Orlik notes, The PBOC also signaled that going forward it would adopt a more hands-off approach to the exchange rate. Given the current direction of market pressure, that likely means depreciation. The yuan has already fallen to 6.3858 at the close of trading on Wednesday afternoon, from 6.2097 at Monday's close — a level last seen in the summer of 2012. In this chart, we map out the history of moves in the yuan in the decade since the PBOC broke the dollar peg in 2005… and all the rhetoric that will now be undone…

     

    Source: Bloomberg Briefs

  • 12 Signs That An Imminent Global Financial Crash Has Become Even More Likely

    Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

    Did you see what just happened?  The devaluation of the yuan by China triggered the largest one day drop for that currency in the modern era.  This caused other global currencies to crash relative to the U.S. dollar, the price of oil hit a six year low, and stock markets all over the world were rattled.  The Dow fell 212 points on Tuesday, and Apple stock plummeted another 5 percent.

    As we hurtle toward the absolutely critical months of September and October, the unraveling of the global financial system is beginning to accelerate.  At this point, it is not going to take very much to push us into a full-blown worldwide financial crisis.  The following are 12 signs that indicate that a global financial crash has become even more likely after the events of the past few days…

    #1 The devaluation of the yuan on Tuesday took virtually the entire planet by surprise (and not in a good way).  The following comes from Reuters

    China’s 2 percent devaluation of the yuan on Tuesday pushed the U.S. dollar higher and hit Wall Street and other global equity markets as it raised fears of a new round of currency wars and fed worries about slowing Chinese economic growth.

    #2 One of the big reasons why China devalued the yuan was to try to boost exports.  China’s exports declined 8.3 percent in July, and global trade overall is falling at a pace that we haven’t seen since the last recession.

    #3 Now that the Chinese have devalued their currency, other nations that rely on exports are indicating that they might do the same thing.  If you scan the big financial news sites, it seems like the term “currency war” is now being bandied about quite a bit.

    #4 This is the very first time that the 50 day moving average for the Dow has moved below the 200 day moving average in the last four years. This is known as a “death cross”, and it is a very troubling sign.  We are just about at the point where all of the most common technical signals that investors typically use to make investment decisions will be screaming “sell”.

    #5 The price of oil just closed at a brand new six year low.  When the price of oil started to decline back in late 2014, a whole lot of people were proclaiming that this would be a good thing for the U.S. economy.  Now we can see just how wrong they were.

    At this point, the price of oil has already fallen to a level that is going to be absolutely nightmarish for the global economy if it stays here.  Just consider what Jeff Gundlach had to say about this in December…

    And back in December 2014, “Bond King” Jeff Gundlach had a serious warning for the world if oil prices got to $40 a barrel.

    “I hope it does not go to $40,” Gundlach said in a presentation, “because then something is very, very wrong with the world, not just the economy. The geopolitical consequences could be — to put it bluntly — terrifying.”

    #6 This week we learned that OPEC has been pumping more oil than we thought, and it is being projected that this could cause the price of oil to plunge into the 30s

    Increased pumping by OPEC as Chinese demand appears to be slackening could drive oil to the lowest prices since the peak of the financial crisis.

     

    West Texas Intermediate crude futures skidded through the year’s lows and looked set to break into the $30s-per-barrel range after the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries admitted to more pumping and China devalued its currency, sending ripples through global markets.

    #7 In a recent article, I explained that the collapse in commodity prices that we are witnessing right now is eerily similar to what we witnessed just before the stock market crash of 2008.  On Tuesday, things got even worse for commodities as the price of copper closed at a brand new six year low.

    #8 The South American debt crisis of 2015 continues to intensify.  Brazil’s government bonds have been downgraded to just one level above junk status, and the approval rating of Brazil’s president has fallen into the single digits.

    #9 Just before the financial crisis of 2008, a surging U.S. dollar put an extraordinary amount of stress on emerging markets.  Now that is happening again.  Emerging market stocks just hit a brand new four year low on Tuesday thanks to the stunt that China just pulled.

    #10 Things are not so great in the United States either.  The ratio of wholesale inventories to sales in the United States just hit the highest level since the last recession.  What that means is that there is a whole lot of stuff sitting in warehouses out there that is waiting to be sold in an economy that is rapidly slowing down.

    #11 Speaking of slowing down, the growth of consumer spending in the United States has just plummeted to multi-year lows.

    #12 Deep inside, most of us can feel what is coming.  According to Gallup, the number of Americans that believe that the economy is getting worse is almost 50 percent higher than the number of Americans that believe that the economy is getting better.

    Things are lining up perfectly for a global financial crisis and a major recession beginning in the fall and winter of 2015.

    But just because things look like they will happen a certain way does not necessarily mean that they will.  All it takes is a single “event” of some sort to change everything.

  • Emerging Market Currencies To Crash 30-50%, Jen Says

    Less than 24 hours ago, we argued that although it might have seemed as though Brazil hit rock bottom in Q2 when it suffered through the worst inflation-growth mix in over a decade, things were likely to get worse still.

    The country, which is also coping with twin deficits and a terribly fractious political environment, is at the center of what Morgan Stanley recently called “a triple unwind of EM credit, China’s leverage, and US monetary easing” and now that its most critical trading partner has officially entered the global currency war, all roads lead to further devaluation of the faltering BRL. 

    And it’s not just the BRL. As Bloomberg reports, former IMF economist Stephen Jen (who called the 1997 Asian crisis while at Morgan Stanley) thinks EM currencies could fall by an average of 30% going forward on the back of the PBoC’s move to devalue the yuan. Here’s more

    [The] devaluation of the yuan risks a new round of competitive easing that may send currencies from Brazil’s real to Indonesia’s rupiah tumbling by an average 30 percent to 50 percent in the next nine months, according to investor and former International Monetary Fund economist Stephen Jen.

     

    Volatility measures were already signaling rising distress in emerging markets even before China’s shock move. An index of anticipated price swings climbed above a rich-world gauge at the end of July, reversing the trend seen for most of the past six months.

     


     

    “If this is the beginning of a new phase in Beijing’s currency policy, it would be the biggest development in the currency world this year,” said Jen, founder of London-based hedge fund SLJ Macro Partners LLP. “The emerging-market currency weakening trend is now going global.”

     

    Latin America is a particular concern because of the region’s high levels of corporate debt, said Jen

     

    Jen recommends selling the real, rupiah and South African rand — all currencies of commodity exporters, which rely on China for a large chunk of their foreign earnings. 

     

    As well as the drop in raw-materials prices, the prospect of higher interest rates in the U.S. has also drawn away investment, pushing a Bloomberg index of emerging-market exchange rates down 20 percent in the past year. A Latin American measure headed for its 13th monthly loss out of 14, while an Asian gauge plunged Tuesday to its lowest in six years.

    And a bit more color from WSJ:

    If China’s devaluation deepens, pressure to weaken currencies could become particularly intense in other Asian nations that export large amounts to China or compete with Beijing in other markets. Asian currencies tumbled on Tuesday, notably the South Korean won, Australian dollar and Thai baht, as investors bet China’s move could lead to further monetary easing in those nations. Many Asian nations have cut rates this year and could be forced to take further action in coming months.

     

    “A new theme has emerged—one of Asian currency weakness,” said Wai Ho Leong, an economist in Asia at Barclays.

    To be sure, it’s all down hill from here, and on that note, we’ll reprise our conclusion from last week’s “Emerging Market Mayhem” piece: Between an inevitable (if now delayed) Fed hike, stubbornly low commodities prices, the entry of the world’s most important economy into the global currency wars, and, perhaps most importantly from a big picture, long-term perspective, a seismic shift in the pace of global demand and trade, we could begin to see a wholesale shift in which the markets formerly known as “emerging” quickly descend into “frontier” status and after that, well, cue the “humanitarian aid” packages.

    *  *  *

    Here’s a look at the damage since Monday, right before the devaluation:

  • "Severe Correction Or Cyclical Bear" Ahead: Leuthold Major Trend Index Turns Negative

    Courtesy of The Leuthold Group,

    Based on data for the week ended August 7th, the Major Trend Index dropped to a NEGATIVE reading of 0.90, led by declines in both the Attitudinal and Momentum/Breadth/Divergence work. The topping action evident in the MTI and other disciplines is consistent with either a severe correction, or a cyclical bear in the near future. We’ve therefore cut net equity exposure in both the Leuthold Core and Leuthold Global Funds to 38%, down from 48% in late July, and 61-62% in late June. A further reduction is possible in the days ahead.

    Sentiment has clearly cooled off from the ebullience seen throughout 2014 and early this year, and some analysts contend there’s a new “wall of worry” for the stock market to climb (concerns over China’s market air pocket, crude’s retest of March lows, and the weak quarterly earnings season now in progress). But the MTI’s Attitudinal category staged a sharp drop last week, reflecting bearish flips in three models tracking investor preferences between stocks and bonds.

    The Momentum/Breadth/Divergence category also recorded a small loss on the week, reflecting further weakness in market breadth and small losses in the chart scores. Yet the net reading for this category is still positive at +92; the weakness to date has largely been concentrated in “anticipatory” indicator groupings related to momentum, breadth, and industry leadership. We obviously prefer acting on this type of evidence rather than waiting for formal bear signals from indicators based on the major indexes, but the markets don’t always afford us that opportunity.

    The Supply/Demand category carries the smallest potential weight of the five categories but can be an important swing factor at major turning points. The current category reading is a bearish –93, reflecting evidence of increasing institutional selling across three measures.

    *  *  *

    Full August letter below…

    Leuthold Group – From August 2015 Green Book

  • Solyndra 2.0 Nears Bankruptcy As Bonds Collapse To Record Lows

    Two weeks ago we introduced you to Abengoa – the Spanish renewable-energy company – that received over $230 million in US taxpayer subsidies and loos set to become Solyndra 2.0. While all the politicians have taken their pound of flesh, Abengoa bonds have collapsed for five days in a row, now trading at record lows around 45 cents on the dollar – flashing the bankruptcy imminent light. Solyndra 2.0?  

    Abengoa 2020s fell over 5 points today to around 45 cents on the dollar…

     

    As we concluded previously, the company’s political connections are emblematic of an industry that remains reliant on taxpayer subsidies, according to William Yeatman, a senior fellow specializing in energy policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

    “It could not be more clear that this company could not survive without access to government favors from political friends,” Yeatman said, citing its reliance on the Renewable Fuels Standard and continued financial support from DOE.

     

    “Alas, the same can be said for the green energy industry as a whole, which would fast wither and die absent a steady diet of taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies,” Yeatman said.

     

    In addition to its DOE subsidies, Abengoa received $185 million in financing in 2012 and 2013 through the U.S. Export-Import bank as former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) sat on the boards of both the federal agency and the company it was subsidizing.

     

    Despite extensive federal support for the company, Alhalabi described a culture of disregard for workplace safety and environmental contamination. Concern over high costs has led to lackluster engineering work at the company’s Mojave facility that could result in an “environmental disaster,” he said.

    Solyndra 2.0? Another one off? Or another symptom of the Oligrachic ignorance of where the money comes from…It appears US taxpayers can kiss that money goodbye…

    “The equity increase gives the impression that the company urgently needs cash,” said Fischer. “They’ve not done enough to win back investors’ trust.”

  • Asset-Price Inflation Enters Its Dangerous Late Phase

    Submitted by Brendan Brown via The Mises Institute,

    Asset price inflation, a disease whose source always lies in monetary disorder, is not a new affliction. It was virtually inevitable that the present wild experimentation by the Federal Reserve — joined by the Bank of Japan and ECB — would produce a severe outbreak. And indications from the markets are that the disease is in a late phase, though still short of the final deadly stage characterized by pervasive falls in asset markets, sometimes financial panic, and the onset of recession.

    Global Signs of Danger

    A key sign of danger, recognizable from historical patterns of how the disease progresses, is the combination of steep speculative temperature falls in some markets, with still-high — and in some cases, soaring — temperatures in other markets. Another sign is some pull-back in the carry trade, featuring, in particular, the uncovered arbitrage between a low (or zero) interest rate, and higher rate currencies. For now, however, this is still booming in some areas of the global market-place.

    Specifically, we now observe steep falls in commodity markets (also in commodity currencies and mining equities) which were the original area of the global market-place where the QE-asset price inflation disease attacked (back in 2009–11).

    Previously hot real estate markets in emerging market economies (especially China and Brazil) have cooled at least to a moderate extent. Most emerging market currencies — with the key exception of the Chinese yuan — once the darling of the carry traders, are in ugly bear markets. The Shanghai equity market bubble has burst.

    Yet in large areas of the high-yield credit markets (including in particular the so-called covenant-lite paper issued by highly leveraged corporations) speculative temperatures remain at scorching levels. Meanwhile, Silicon Valley equities (both in the public and private markets), and private equity funds enjoy fantasy valuations. Ten-year Spanish and Italian government bond yields are hovering below 2 percent, and hot spots in global advanced-economy real estate — whether San Francisco, Sydney, or Vancouver — just seem to get hotter, even though we should qualify these last two observations by noting the slump in the Canadian and Australian dollars. Also, there is tentative evidence that London high-end real estate is weakening somewhat.

    How to Identify Late Stages of Asset Inflation

    We can identify similar late phases of asset price inflation characterized by highly divergent speculative temperatures across markets in past episodes of the disease. In 1927–28, steep drops of speculative temperature in Florida real estate, the Berlin stock market, and then more generally in US real estate, occurred at the same time as speculative temperatures continued to soar in the US equity market. In the late 1980s, a crash in Wall Street equities (October 1987) did not mark the end-stage of asset price inflation but a late phase of the disease which featured still-rising speculation in real estate and high-yield credits.

    In the next episode of asset price inflation (the mid-late 1990s), the Asian currency and debt crisis in 1997, and the bursting of the Russian debt bubble the following year, accompanied still rising speculation in equities culminating in the Nasdaq bubble. In the episode of the mid-2000s, the first quakes in the credit markets during summer 2007 did not prevent a further build-up of speculation in equity markets and a soaring of speculative temperatures in winter 2007–08 and spring 2008 in commodity markets, especially oil.

    What insights can we gain from the identification of the QE-asset price inflation disease as being in a late phase?

    The skeptics would say not much. Each episode is highly distinct and the disease can “progress” in very different ways. Any prediction as to the next stage and its severity has much more to do with intuition than scientific observation. Indeed some critics go as far as to suggest that diagnosis and prognosis of this disease is so difficult that we should not even list it as such. Historically, such critics have ranged from Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz (who do not even mention the disease in their epic monetary history of the US), to Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke who claimed throughout their years in power — and these included three virulent attacks of asset price inflation originating in the Federal Reserve — that it was futile to try to diagnose bubbles.

    We Can’t Ignore the Problem Just Because It’s Hard to Measure

    Difficulties in diagnosis though do not mean that the disease is phantom or safely ignored as just a minor nuisance. That observation holds as much in the field of economics as medicine. And indeed there may be a reliable way in which to prevent the disease from emerging in the first place. The critics do not engage with those who argue that the free society’s best defense against the asset price inflation disease is to follow John Stuart Mill’s prescription of making sure that “the monkey wrench does not get into the machinery of money.”

    Instead, the practitioners of “positive economics” demonstrate an aversion to analyzing a disease which cannot be readily identified by scientific measurement. Yes, the disease corrupts market signals, but by how much, where, and in what time sequence? Some empiricists might acknowledge the defining characteristic of the disease as “where monetary disequilibrium empowers forces of irrationality in global markets.” They might agree that flawed mental processes as described by the behavioral finance theorists become apparent at such times. But they despair at the lack of testable propositions.

    Mis-Measuring Increases in Asset Prices

    The critics who reject the usefulness of studying asset price inflation have no such qualms with respect to its twin disease — goods and services inflation. After all, we can depend on the official statisticians!

    In the present monetary inflation, a cumulative large decline in equilibrium real wages across much of the labor market, together with state of the art “hedonic accounting” (adjusting prices downward to take account of quality improvements) has meant that the official CPI has climbed by “only” 11 percent since the peak of the last business cycle (December 2007). The severity of the asset price inflation disease makes it implausible that the official statisticians are measuring correctly the force of monetary inflation in goods and services markets.

    What Is the Final Stage?

    A progression of the asset price inflation disease into its final stage (general speculative bust and recession) would mean the end of monetary inflation and also inflation in goods and services markets. What could bring about this transition? Most plausibly it will be a splintering of rose-colored spectacles worn by investors in the still hot speculative markets rather than Janet Yellen’s much heralded “lift-off” (raising official short-term rates from zero). What could cause the splinter?

    Perhaps it will be a sudden rush for the exit in the high-yield credit markets, provoked by alarm at losses on energy-related and emerging market paper. Or financial system stress could jump in consequence of the steep falls of speculative temperature already occurring (including China and commodities). Perhaps there will be a run from those European banks and credit funds which are up to their neck in Spanish and Italian government bonds. Or the Chinese currency could tumble as Beijing pulls back its support and the one trillion US dollar carry trade into the People’s Republic implodes. Perhaps scandal and shock, accompanied by economic disappointment will break the fantasy spell regarding US corporate earnings, especially in Silicon Valley. As the late French President Mitterrand used to say, “give time to Time!”

     

  • Schizo Stocks Shrug Off China, Europe Fears As Dow Roundtrips 700 Points In Giant Stop Hunt

    Translating every mainstream business media channel this week…

     

    The Dow gave up all of its post-QE3 gains…

     

    Which leaves this – Fed 'flow' vs stock performance – once again the most important chart in US equity investing…

    h/t @Not_Jim_Cramer

    It appears the market is threatening (or calling the bluff of) The Fed… QE or else…

    Across asset classes the day broke down into 3 sections – China (gappy pressure), Europe (carry unwinds escalate) and post-Europe US session (buy stocks and STFU!!)…

     

    US equities gapped lower on China's double whammy devaluation overnight and kept tumbling through the European close.. then levitated magically to get the S&P just green for the week (algos running stops)

     

    But cash indices all ended the day in the green for the week…

     

    The S&P and Nasdaq managed to hold green for the day… and Dow closed unch…

     

    Almost 700 point roundtrip in The Dow…

     

    Humpday Humor… come on!!!

     

    VIX was demolished after surging up to recent highs over 16… The Twin Peaks Of Vol…

     

    Stocks keep rallying away from and then plunging back towards HY credit…

     

    Treasury yields were mixed with all but the long-end very modestly lower in yield on the day after a mini-meltup in yields after Europe closed…

     

    The dollar tumbled further as EURCNH cary trades unwound en masse…

     

    Note – it appears hope today was driven by the fact that the PBOC appeared to step in and support onshore Yuan towards the close..

     

    Commodities were mixed today with crude and copper flat (after early weakness) and gold and silver surging…

     

    Summing it all up…

     Charts: Bloomberg and @Not_Jim_Cramer 

    Bonus Chart: Deja Vu – time speeding up…

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 12, 2015

  • The FBI Considers The IRS & DOJ, Domestic Terrorists

    Submitted by Thad Beversdorf via FirstRebuttal.com,

    Eventually it was bound to happen.  The ever increasing ambiguous laws that allow the government to prosecute, or worse, simply negate all Constitutional protections of its citizens would come back to hang them.  In an unusual circumstance, what is essentially one party in D.C. when it comes to matters of covering up governmental criminality, has split into a two party system.  Specifically, a sect of the Republican party known as Tea Partiers pushed unrelentingly to expose the criminality acted upon members of its own tribe by various government agencies.

    The Tea Party was formed by a group of individuals around the country who wanted to get back to the ideals of the Constitution i.e freedom.  But the Constitution is kryptonite to the system.  And so those who organize to promote the Constitution were targeted by the highest levels of government.  What better weapon to attack those whose intention is to defend the Constitution than an unconstitutional agency that has essentially unquestioned authority.  After all it is always unclear who watches the watchman.  Well in this particular case, the FBI and DOJ would seem to have jurisdiction over actions consistent with those of the IRS.

    Under the FBI’s own definition of a ‘Domestic Terrorist’ one MUST consider the IRS to be a terrorist organization as evidenced by the very recent discoveries surrounding the IRS’s own actions.

    “Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

    • Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
    • Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
    • Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. …”

    While the first characteristic seems to imply violence is necessary it should be noted that under the FBI’s definition of ‘International Terrorism’ they explicitly include ‘Violent acts’ within the definition.

    “International terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

    • Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
    • Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
    • Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

    The distinction of violence within the international but not domestic definition is surely not an oversight.  But by doing so it leaves open the opportunity to define a non violent act to be construed as indirectly dangerous to human life (e.g. Snowden’s actions).  But certainly wrongfully putting someone inside a federal prison for tax evasion would be considered dangerous to human life.  According to the following revelations through emails obtained via court orders by Judicial Watch (a nonpartisan government watchdog), that is exactly what the IRS, DOJ and FBI were conspiring to do.

    “These new documents show that the Obama IRS scandal is also an Obama DOJ and FBI scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The FBI and Justice Department worked with Lois Lerner and the IRS to concoct some reason to put President Obama’s opponents in jail before his reelection. And this abuse resulted in the FBI’s illegally obtaining confidential taxpayer information. How can the Justice Department and FBI investigate the very scandal in which they are implicated?”

     

    On April 16, 2014, Judicial Watch forced the IRS to release documents revealing for the first time that Lerner communicated with the DOJ in May 2013 about whether it was possible to launch criminal prosecutions against targeted tax-exempt entities. The documents were obtained due to court order in an October 2013 Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit filed against the IRS.

     

    Those documents contained an email exchange between Lerner and Nikole C. Flax, then-chief of staff to then-Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller discussing plans to work with the DOJ to prosecute nonprofit groups that “lied” (Lerner’s quotation marks) about political activities…”

    But it begs the question then again, if the DOJ and FBI are also implicated in the domestic terrorism (according to the FBI’s own definition) who is left to prosecute?

    Well it is we the people.  It shouldn’t matter if you are Democrat or Republican.  We have a clear and identifiable gross abuse of government at the highest levels.  The abuse falls under the FBI’s own definition of domestic terrorism, a definition they would not hesitate to use against you or your family if it suited their objectives.  And so call it the Golden Rule or Kantian Categorical Imperatives or simple justice, but it is imperative to the people’s rule over its representative governing body to prosecute all involved to the highest levels and to the maximum penalty of the law.

    The abuse by those who have been granted incredible powers under the trust of the nation need to be dealt the most severe consequences.  Our very response to this matter will underpin the relationship between the people and its government for generations.  

    If we allow such astonishing government abuses, which have now been overtly evidenced and confessed by at least some of the guilty parties, to be lightly dealt with then we blatantly fail to defend every subsequent generation of Americans from ever worse abuses.  We fail as Americans.  The result of this investigation over the coming months will likely show that we the people have lost all sense of what it means to be an American.  That said, I remain doubtingly hopeful that I am proven wrong.

  • Mapping 1083 People Killed By Cops In The Last Year

    One year ago, an 18-year old black man was fatally shot in Ferguson, Missouri by a police officer. Michael Brown’s death ignited a country-wide debate about the excessive amount of violence that occurs at the hand of police – particularly to African-Americans. Since then, at least 1,083 people have been killed by police in America…

    California has been at the forefront of police violence, with at least 176 deaths alone. Five cities in the United States have had more than ten deaths over this time period: New York, Houston, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, and Los Angeles.

    All but two states (Vermont and Rhode Island) have had fatal incidents involving police.

     

     

    h/t VisualCapitalist

    Source: VICE News

  • John Kerry Warns "Dollar Will Cease To Be Reserve Currency Of The World" If Iran Deal Rejected

    Scaremongery… or maybe the whole point, as Obama's former chief economist noted, is to lose reserve status. Take That China!!

     

     

    As Jared Bernstein previously explained…

    There are few truisms about the world economy, but for decades, one has been the role of the United States dollar as the world’s reserve currency. It’s a core principle of American economic policy. After all, who wouldn’t want their currency to be the one that foreign banks and governments want to hold in reserve?

    But new research reveals that what was once a privilege is now a burden, undermining job growth, pumping up budget and trade deficits and inflating financial bubbles. To get the American economy on track, the government needs to drop its commitment to maintaining the dollar’s reserve-currency status.

    The reasons are best articulated by Kenneth Austin, a Treasury Department economist, in the latest issue of The Journal of Post Keynesian Economics (needless to say, it’s his opinion, not necessarily the department’s). On the assumption that you don’t have the journal on your coffee table, allow me to summarize.

    It is widely recognized that various countries, including China, Singapore and South Korea, suppress the value of their currency relative to the dollar to boost their exports to the United States and reduce its exports to them. They buy lots of dollars, which increases the dollar’s value relative to their own currencies, thus making their exports to us cheaper and our exports to them more expensive.

    In 2013, America’s trade deficit was about $475 billion. Its deficit with China alone was $318 billion.

    Though Mr. Austin doesn’t say it explicitly, his work shows that, far from being a victim of managed trade, the United States is a willing participant through its efforts to keep the dollar as the world’s most prominent reserve currency.

    When a country wants to boost its exports by making them cheaper using the aforementioned process, its central bank accumulates currency from countries that issue reserves. To support this process, these countries suppress their consumption and boost their national savings. Since global accounts must balance, when “currency accumulators” save more and consume less than they produce, other countries — “currency issuers,” like the United States — must save less and consume more than they produce (i.e., run trade deficits).

    This means that Americans alone do not determine their rates of savings and consumption. Think of an open, global economy as having one huge, aggregated amount of income that must all be consumed, saved or invested. That means individual countries must adjust to one another. If trade-surplus countries suppress their own consumption and use their excess savings to accumulate dollars, trade-deficit countries must absorb those excess savings to finance their excess consumption or investment.

    Note that as long as the dollar is the reserve currency, America’s trade deficit can worsen even when we’re not directly in on the trade. Suppose South Korea runs a surplus with Brazil. By storing its surplus export revenues in Treasury bonds, South Korea nudges up the relative value of the dollar against our competitors’ currencies, and our trade deficit increases, even though the original transaction had nothing to do with the United States.

    This isn’t just a matter of one academic writing one article. Mr. Austin’s analysis builds off work by the economist Michael Pettis and, notably, by the former Federal Reserve chairman Ben S. Bernanke.

    A result of this dance, as seen throughout the tepid recovery from the Great Recession, is insufficient domestic demand in America’s own labor market. Mr. Austin argues convincingly that the correct metric for estimating the cost in jobs is the dollar value of reserve sales to foreign buyers. By his estimation, that amounted to six million jobs in 2008, and these would tend to be the sort of high-wage manufacturing jobs that are most vulnerable to changes in exports.

    Dethroning “king dollar” would be easier than people think. America could, for example, enforce rules to prevent other countries from accumulating too much of our currency. In fact, others do just that precisely to avoid exporting jobs. The most recent example is Japan’s intervention to hold down the value of the yen when central banks in Asia and Latin America started buying Japanese debt.

    Of course, if fewer people demanded dollars, interest rates – i.e., what America would pay people to hold its debt – might rise, especially if stronger domestic manufacturers demanded more investment. But there’s no clear empirical, negative relationship between interest rates and trade deficits, and in the long run, as Mr. Pettis observes, “Countries with balanced trade or trade surpluses tend to enjoy lower interest rates on average than countries with large current account deficits, which are handicapped by slower growth and higher debt.”

    Others worry that higher import prices would increase inflation. But consider the results when we “pay” to keep price growth so low through artificially cheap exports and large trade deficits: weakened manufacturing, wage stagnation (even with low inflation) and deficits and bubbles to offset the imbalanced trade.

    But while more balanced trade might raise prices, there’s no reason it should persistently increase the inflation rate. We might settle into a norm of 2 to 3 percent inflation, versus the current 1 to 2 percent. But that’s a price worth paying for more and higher-quality jobs, more stable recoveries and a revitalized manufacturing sector. The privilege of having the world’s reserve currency is one America can no longer afford.

    *  *  *

    In the global race to debase, Reserve currency status is a curse!

  • An Economic Earthquake Is Rumbling

    Submitted by Bob Livingston Via Personal Liberty Digest,

    While the people sleep, an economic earthquake rumbles underneath. The day that they begin to feel the quake draws near.

    History will record that in this decade more people will lose more money (forget about the trillions of dollars already lost) than at any time in our history, including during the Great Depression.

    At the same time, a very small group has made and will make huge sums of money.

    During the Y2K scare (a real hoax) many people stored food. Then, after Y2K, many people wanted to dump their cache; and some did.

    We advised readers at the time to store food simply because of the crisis world we live in, but to store those foods that you could rotate and consume. Stored food is a hedge against inflation. It’s a hedge against natural disaster. It’s a hedge against economic collapse. It was our advice before, and it has been our advice since.

    This advice is still valid. People who don’t have some stored food don’t realize how dependent they are on the system and government. Of course, the system was designed and created to make the people dependent on government. That makes them easier to control.

    Many people have been in hard times since 2008, thanks to bursting housing and derivatives bubbles — both fueled by the Federal Reserve’s money printing and both predicted by meand by many other writers. For those of us who are not well-connected (those of us who are not in the 1 percent), there has been no relief. While the banksters got bailouts and Wall Street and the banksters benefited from the money printers, the middle class was impoverished. Savings were wiped out.

    More working-age people than ever before are not working. More young workers than ever before are still living with their parents because they are either out of work or working at low-paying jobs. More people than ever before are on the government dole. Welfare pays more than most jobs. Retirement funds have been cashed out and spent on living expenses.

    Wages have not kept up with inflation — not the phony inflation numbers peddled by the Fed and the propaganda media, but real inflation.

    Printing-press money is fertile ground for expanding world crisis. Crisis is excellent cover for national and international chicanery. Boy, we have it!

    How can anyone who is paying attention not recognize these tremors for what they are?

    The default rate of companies with the lowest credit rating is at its highest level since 2013.

    The auto loan debt bubble is at $900 billion, fueled by easy credit and long-term loans (more than 60 months on even used cars) that put the car buyer upside down as he drives off the lot and keeps him there. U.S. mortgage holders are carrying the most non-mortgage debt they’ve had in more than 10 years; 81 percent of that is automobile debt. Student-loan debt held by mortgage holders is the highest it’s ever been, with the average balance owed at nearly $35,000. Almost 5.7 million homeowners remain underwater on their mortgages.

    We see bad inflation in the immediate future. Inflation in housing and consumer goods exceeds the Fed’s stated inflation goal of 2 percent, but Fed Chair Janet Yellen is talking about raising interest rates to kick-start more inflation. But a deflationary collapse has started in commodities, oil and gold. The dollar is rising. Today’s dollar index chart mirrors the dollar index chart pre-2008 collapse.

    U.S. dollar assets are in a slow-motion crash. A financial asset is any paper asset, such as CDs, bank accounts, U.S. government bonds, etc. While we sleep, we are losing our savings. The U.S. stock market is in a QE-driven bubble that will soon burst.

    Inflation and deflation are both forms of wealth destruction and impoverishment. Now think about this: The U.S. government has an official and stated policy of currency destruction through inflation. This is voluntary destruction of the currency. If instead we have deflation because of the collapse of debt, we still have currency destruction.

    Besides, the U.S. dollar and U.S. financial assets pay almost no interest. Plus, it’s now official U.S. and World Bank policy to take your money in the event of another collapse as we saw in 2008. They call it a “bail in.” That is a code word for “what’s yours is really theirs.”

    Wisdom dictates getting out of dollar assets ASAP! I long ago, way before the 2008 crash, cashed out my IRA and took the penalty. Many of the readers of my Letter did, too. It was well worth it. The government is also eyeballing your IRA, 401(k) and pension even now. Stealing it from you and replacing it with government paper would knock a big hole in the so-called “government debt” and prop up the system for a while longer.

    The Greeks ignored the warning signs of their failing economy to their detriment. They were left standing in long lines, waiting to withdraw meager amounts of their own rationed cash, and diving in dumpsters for food because the shelves were bare.

    Sooner or later, inflation skyrockets. Paper money economies always crash in the end, and their currencies end up worthless.

    At some point, there will be a panic. Many people will realize that the debt pyramid is collapsing. Most who see what’s happening will not act. The herd instinct suggests that only a few will bail out in time; but the majority will act in panic, too late. We saw it in Greece. We saw it in Cyprus.

    “Oh, yes,” you say. “It cannot happen here in the U.S.; or if it does, it won’t be for some time.” But it has awesome potential at any time. Why in the world take the chance? Prudent and wise people always plan for eventualities that the crowd can’t see.

    In hyperinflation, there is actually a shortage of paper money. The paper money production cannot keep up with prices. Now that we have electronic money, prices and inflation can go higher than the mind can imagine. The Fed is manipulating the consumer price index to cover inflation. This allows them to maintain zero interest rates on U.S. debt, but it also means zero interest on savings.

    Things are in place for huge inflation now. They think the people won’t know if they just kill the indicators. This is really a fantasy world. Since the money creators own the mass media, it seems that they can make the people believe anything, more fiction than fact.

    When we tell you to buy gold and silver coins and gold stocks; to store some food, water and ammo; and to buy Swiss annuities in Swiss francs, we are talking preservation of your assets, as well as survival financially and physically.

    Don’t trust the banks. Most are bankrupt. Don’t put your gold and silver coins in the safe deposit box. Keep them at home and keep them secret. Don’t keep more cash in the bank than is necessary to cover about a month’s worth of bills. This is a flashing red alert.

    Many tens of thousands of people who have their trust in the government system (U.S. currency) are headed dead ahead into impoverishment.

  • Global Markets Turmoil After China Extends Currency War To 2nd Day – Devalues Yuan To 4 Year Lows

    Chinese stocks opened lower, extending yesterday's losses, after The PBOC weakened its Yuan FIX dramatically for the 2nd consecutive day (from 6.1162 Monday to 6.2298 last night to 6.3306). Offshore Yuan fell another 9 handles against the USD after China closed but was hovering at 6.40 as the market opens (now at 11 hnadles weaker at 6.51). Bear in mind the utter devastation in Chinese credit markets that data showed occurred in July, it remains ironic that for the 3rd days in a row, Chinese margin debt balances grew. Before the real fun and games started, Chinese officials once again exclaimed that their data is real (denying any mismatches between GDP Deflator and CPI) as China CDS spiked to 2 year highs. US equity futures are tumbling, bonds bid, and gold bouncing off the initial jerk lower.

    PBOC makes some comments (like last night's)…

    • *PBOC SAYS NO ECONOMIC BASIS FOR YUAN'S CONSTANT DEVALUATION
    • *PBOC SAYS YUAN WON'T CONTINUOUSLY DEVALUE
    • *PBOC SAYS MOVE OF YUAN REFERENCE PRICE IS NORMAL
    • *CHINA YUAN MECHANISM CHANGE MAKES FIXING RATES MORE REASONABLE

    And then there is this (from Xinhua):

    China's state-owned news 4-year lowsagency Xinhua said: "China is not waging a currency war; merely fixing a discrepancy."

     

    "The central parity rate revision was designed to make the yuan more market-driven and in line with market expectations," it said in a comment piece published on its web site.

     

    "The lower exchange rate was just a byproduct, not the goal."

    The "one-off" adjustment has now become two… some context for the size of this move…

    • *MNI: CHINA PBOC WED YUAN FIXING LOWEST SINCE OCT 11, 2012

     

    Onshore Yuan breaks above 6.41 – trades to 4 years lows against the USD…

     

    US markets are reacting dramatically…

     

    US Treasury yields are collapsing…

     

    Offshore Yuan is collapsing…

    • *CHINA SETS YUAN REFERENCE RATE AT 6.3306 AGAINST U.S. DOLLAR
    • *OFFSHORE YUAN TUMBLES 1.6% AFTER PBOC SETS FIXING LOWER

     

    War is begun… (via Ransquawk)

     

    Offshore Yuan has been leaking lower since China closed…

     

    Yesterday was mixed with the broadest indices all ending in the red…

     

    • *CHINA'S CSI 300 STOCK-INDEX FUTURES FALL 0.8% TO 3,982.8
    • *CHINA FTSE A50 STOCK-INDEX FUTURES EXTEND LOSSES TO 2.6%

    But…

    • *SHANGHAI EXCHANGE MARGIN DEBT RISES FOR THIRD DAY (will they never learn?)
    • *CHINA STATS OFFICIAL DENIES MISMATCH OF GDP DEFLATOR AND CPI (if you just keep saying evcentually everyone will believe)

    GDP deflator index reflects prices of all final goods and services produced in China, much broader than that of CPI which only reflects consumer prices, Xu Xianchun, a deputy head at National Bureau of Statistics, writes in an article in People’s Daily.

    We think they do protest too much.

    China Credit Risk surged to 2 year highs…

    *  *  *

    There’s been plenty of talk about what China’s "unexpected" (to everyone but us, apparently) move to devalue the yuan will mean for the country’s flagging economy and for Beijing’s efforts to promote the internationalization of the renminbi via a bid for SDR inclusion, but as Chinese stocks open for trading on the "day after" (so to speak) we thought it worth previewing what the move might mean for Chinese equities.

    We present the following breakdown from Goldman with the obvious caveat that, as Tuesday’s farcical data from the PBoC on loan growth in July made abundantly clear, when it comes to China’s equity markets, one must always factor in the plunge protection "national team." 

    *  *  *

    From Goldman

    Our framework to think about FX depreciation on equities – Three main transmission mechanisms

    We try to assess the potential impact of RMB depreciation on the equity markets through various micro and macro channels. In general, we think the macro-to-market transmission mechanisms (especially an unexpected one as in this case) could be summarized as follows:

    Translation exposure—Universally, offshore-listed Chinese companies’ book values and earnings (if CNY-denominated) will be deflated when they are being converted into HKD or USD for financial reporting purposes. Lower book values and earnings would increase the P/B and P/E ratios, effectively making Chinese companies less attractively valued to USD-based investors.

     

    Transaction and economic exposure— Assuming other non-USD currencies did not move along with the CNY, export-oriented companies would likely benefit due to a more competitive exchange rate and a mostly RMB cost base.

     

    Impact on equity risk premium (ERP)—Using the exchange rate as a policy tool to manage the cycle should render a higher level of domestic monetary policy independence for policymakers and should partly ease investor concern about further domestic imbalances (e.g. over-investment, overcapacity, debt buildup, etc). Barring an abrupt depreciation case, the higher FX flexibility may shore up investor confidence on China's short-term growth outlook, thereby helping to suppress the currently-high equity risk premium, which seems to have priced in significant macro and micro growth risks, in our view.

    That said, the consequential uncertainty regarding capital outflows could offset some of the positives. 

    Impact on equities: Not all depreciations are created equal

    The abovementioned transmission mechanisms do not take into account the magnitude of and the speed at which the depreciation may take place. We aim to better quantify the market ramifications based on the following hypothetical scenario:

    – One-off reset for now, and moderate depreciation leading up to and post the SDR decision: Assuming the RMB doesn't significantly further depreciate by the end of this year, we believe the macro growth impact will be modest, and the ramifications will likely manifest primarily in the stock markets through the translation and transaction/ economic channels.

    At the stock level, we identify stocks which may be disproportionately impacted from a few different angles and approaches:

    1) GS/GH covered stocks for which our analysts see highest positive and negative earnings sensitivity to 1% of RMB depreciation vs. the USD

    2) Export-oriented companies (not only GS covered names) which have high US revenue exposure

    3) Stocks (not only GS covered names) which have relatively high USD-denominated debt and financial leverage

    (ZH: And here's a look at the bigger picture based on historical episodes of depreciation):

    *  *  * 

    And by the look of it, FX carry traders are expecting more volatility to remain the norm… Last time we saw this – in 2011, it too a year for vol to normalize…

    • *VOLATILITY OF YUAN FIXING COULD RISE TEMPORARILY: PBOC

     

    As mentioned earlier this devaluation is likely not a one-time event but rather the beginning of an ongoing and persistent depreciation of the CNY versus the USD. The embedded USD short position within the carry trades will begin to result in losses and margin calls as the USD appreciates versus the CNY, thus forcing investors to liquidate some of their positions. These trades, which took years to amass, could unwind abruptly and exert an influence of historic magnitude on markets and economies.

     

    Charts: Bloomberg and Goldman Sachs

  • How Much More Faith In Central Banks Is Left?

     

    Carry traders just got their fingers burnt by central bankers, again.

    As Bloomberg reports,

    The People’s Bank of China’s decision to cut its daily reference rate by 1.9 percent triggered the yuan’s biggest one-day drop since the nation ended a dual-currency system in January 1994. That’s bad news for carry traders, drawn to the yuan by its stability. Until Tuesday’s surprise move, the central bank kept it in a tight range of 6.1887 to 6.2205 against the dollar since the start of April, according to prices compiled by Bloomberg.

     

     

    The PBOC’s decision is just the latest misfortune for these traders.

     

    A Deutsche Bank index of carry trades had already dropped to 510.31 Monday, from 546.71 at the end of last year, after the Swiss National Bank ditched its exchange-rate cap in January, sending the franc soaring and wiping out returns.

     

     

    “There are people who have seen the implausibility of China devaluing — because they said they wanted stability — as justifying owning the currency in one form or another, simply for carry,” said Kit Juckes, a London-based strategist at Societe Generale SA. “It’s another domino that has fallen.”

     

    Investors in carry trades borrow in one currency to invest in another where interest rates are higher. They profit both from the rate differential and any appreciation in the purchased asset. Higher volatility can hurt returns because adverse price moves can wipe out the benefit from the pick-up in rates.

    Twice in eight months is enough to shatter anyone's illusion that central banks really have control. But perhaps just as worrisome for the central-bank-omnipotence meme, is how last night's action was translated to the masses (as Epsilon Theory's Ben Hunt explains)

    Everything under heaven is in chaos; the situation is excellent.
     ? Mao Zedong (1893 – 1976)

     

    A quick email on China’s currency devaluation last night. The news itself is big enough, but it’s the Narrative that’s developing around the devaluation that has my risk antennae quivering like crazy. What do I mean? I mean that initial media efforts to portray the devaluation as a one-time “adjustment” that’s in-line with prior policy have been overrun by stories of “shock” and disjuncture. This is true even within Rupert Murdoch’s various media microphones, which tend strongly to toe the Beijing party line. Moreover, the devaluation is not being described in Western media as Chinese “stimulus”, which it surely is and would send markets higher if portrayed in this light, but as Chinese “currency competition” and as a sign that the growth problems in China are more severe than Western central bankers would like to believe. Or more precisely, would like to have YOU believe.

     

    What’s the Truth with a capital T about Chinese growth, Fed intentions, and the future price of growth-sensitive assets like oil? I have no idea and neither does anyone else. Seriously.

     

    But what I do know is that the Common Knowledge about Chinese growth – what everyone thinks that everyone thinks about Chinese growth – is dramatically changed for the worse today, and it’s a change that will accelerate unless the Narrative shifts. That could happen. I still have nightmares about how the Narrative around the ECB’s OMT program shifted from “Draghi’s Blunder” to “Draghi’s Bold Move” within a single day in the pages of the Financial Times in the summer of 2012. But unless and until that Narrative shifts, the path forward for the Fed just got much more perilous.

     

    And that’s why the 10-year US Treasury is at 2.12% as I write this note. Unless and until that Narrative shifts, the path forward for oil and any other global growth-sensitive asset or security just got much more perilous. And that’s why oil is at $43 as I write this note. 

     

    One last point, focused on what’s next for China. As with everything else here in the Golden Age of the Central Banker, my crystal ball is broken. But I think that I’ve got the right lens for viewing China and its political dynamics, and you can read about it in two Epsilon Theory notes: “The Dude Abides: China in the Golden Age of the Central Banker” and “Rosebud”.

    As mentioned earlier this devaluation is likely not a one-time event but rather the beginning of an ongoing and persistent depreciation of the CNY versus the USD. The embedded USD short position within the carry trades will begin to result in losses and margin calls as the USD appreciates versus the CNY, thus forcing investors to liquidate some of their positions. These trades, which took years to amass, could unwind abruptly and exert an influence of historic magnitude on markets and economies.

    *  *  *

    Change is afoot.

  • The Fed Is Out Of Options, "QE Is All It Can Do Here" Art Cashin Predicts

    Weakness in commodities "is not transitory," Art Cashin tells CNBC, if you look at things like copper, "this is really a deflationary push… where things can get a little out of control." The Fed says they must get off zero interest rates because,, as Cashin notes, "they can't do anything else." However, as the venerable floorman who has seen it all explains, "they're in a kind of silly loop where they did QE expecting a reaction… didn't get it.. and then they did QE again because it didn't live up to their expectations… but I think they have no other options, if things get negative on the economy, QE is all they can do."

    Which is exactly what we said a month ago…

    Even the CNBC anchors realize the folly of Fed ways now, noting "but aren't they just pushing on a string?" Indeed they are and as Scotiabank's Guy Haselmann noted earlier, it will cost us…

    Fed policy today and over the past several years may prove to be counter-productive in the long-run.

     

    Sustainable growth is best served by an interest rate where capital is deployed efficiently.  The long-run consequences of policy during the past few years could easily mean lower long-run potential growth and inflation.  Today’s consumption and market speculation was paid for with huge amounts of accumulated debt. 

     

    Tomorrow’s revenues will have to be steered toward servicing that debt.  Future revenue will also have to replenish the deficient levels of R&D and infrastructure investment of the past few years.

    Cashin explains The Fed's bind…

     

    h/t Lesley M

  • The Cable Industry's Scariest Chart

    Recent price volatility in the media sector got us wondering: is “Cord cutting” the home cable box in favor of online entertainment really hitting critical mass?  To answer that question, ConvergEx's Nick Colas turned to our old friend Google Trends.

    This resource allows you to track how many Americans are searching the Internet for terms like “Cancel cable” or “Netflix” and see multiyear trends in such activity.  In a representative cross section of 9 key searches we find that yes, consumers are exploring their options but it is early days yet.  “Cancel cable” is hitting new highs in terms of search volume, but “Get cable” searches still outnumbers it by 9.9x.  The bad news: 5 years ago the ratio was 14x. 

     

     

    As for content searches, the search data shows a mixed bag. “HBO” searches are ramping higher, but “ESPN” and “Nickelodeon” are solidly lower.

     

    The big three traditional networks – ABC, NBC, and CBS – are all lower as well.  The upshot is that the media landscape has been in flux for several years – Wall Street is only beginning to catch up now.  That means more volatility to come as investors begin to discount a distinctly more uncertain future for these names.

    You can date the modern era for entertainment to a very specific date: October 23, 2001. That is when Steve Jobs announced the launch of the iPod to a cluster of obviously skeptical (and occasionally bored) journalists. The presentation is vintage Jobs, but without the fanboy hype and spontaneously raucous applause that would be hallmarks of later Apple product launches.  Indeed, Jobs sounds at times to be a tad uncomfortable, even as he walks through the merits of a hard drive based music player. Customer acceptance was slow.  It took Apple three years to sell 3 million units. Things finally started to click in 2004, with Jobs making it to the cover of Newsweek flashing a fourth generation iPod with the words “iPod, Therefore i Am”.

    The rest is pretty much history.  The iPod led to the iPhone – that launch presentation was a good deal better received – in 2007 and the iPad in 2010.  The point here is that even in the supposedly fast-paced world of consumer technology, mass adoption takes time.  Years, not days or months.  But when the momentum starts to build, you know it.

    Such is the case with the seemingly sudden consumer interest in “Cord cutting” – shorthand for people cancelling their cable TV subscriptions in favor of online entertainment resources.  For the better part of the last 30 years, cable has been one of the “Stickiest” items in a household budget.  During recessions, cable TV companies barely skipped a beat as customers would – if necessary – delay a mortgage payment or a credit card bill in favor of keeping uninterrupted access to television entertainment. The stability of those cash flows allowed many cable companies to grow with debt-financed capital, giving shareholders outsized returns. Now the news that some cable companies are losing customers is forcing capital markets to reconsider just how loyal cable customers might be and what that means for every company in the entertainment industry ecosystem.

    To analyze some of the underlying consumer behaviors, we turn to Google Trends.  This tool, available for free online, allows you to track how many times Google users have searched for a specific term over time.  For example, enter “Get a dog” into Trends and specify US users, and you’ll see that interest in dog ownership is on the rise in the U.S. and the most pooch-friendly states are West Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas.  The search term “Get a cat” is only about half as popular on Google, in case you were wondering…

    Turning back to cable TV and entertainment trends, here are 9 sample Google Trends analyses that seem to tell the story…

    1.    “Cancel cable”.  As you would expect, Google search interest in this term is rising rapidly.  Indexed to the number of such searches in July 2010, for example, there are 1.6x more such queries now.  One noticeable seasonal factor: searches for cancelling cable peak at this time of year since households tend to move during the summer.  Also worth noting: the search “Get cable” still outnumbers “cancel cable” by 89:9, or  9.9x.  Still, “Get cable” as a search query hasn’t grown in 2 years, where “cancel cable” certainly has.  Also worrisome: New York and California, two large markets, are also in the top 5 states where “Cancel cable” is most popular.

     

    2.    “Cable TV”.  Overall interest in cable tv is on the wane, according to the Google Trends data.  The graph of search volumes looks like a gentle range of hills, with each peak through time slightly lower than the previous one.  Over the last decade, searches for “Cable TV” are down 24%.

     

    3.    “Netflix”.  On a global basis, Google searches for Netflix continue to climb and have doubled since 2011.  In the U.S. the story is different, with searches for the company flat since 2011.  Interestingly, the domestic markets that search the most for the online entertainment company are predominantly rural: Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Mexico and Utah.

     

    4.    “HBO”.  This granddaddy of cable content has seen dramatic growth in search volumes since 2011.  Since that time, four times the number of Google search users have queried for “HBO”.  We suspect the April 2011 launch of “Game of Thrones” might have something to do with that pickup and highlights what desirable content can do for interest in a given distribution channel.

     

    5.    DirecTV and Dish TV.  Satellite TV still seems to be a growth business according to the Trend data.  DirecTV gets roughly 4x the number of searches as Dish and is seeing more growth in Google searches of late.  Search interest in Dish is, however, stable to up modestly.

     

    6.    The Big Three Networks – ABC, NBC, and CBS.  The long term trend lines for all three major networks are slowly moving lower, as you would expect.  ABC still has the lead, with NBC and CBS currently even.  Interestingly, “HBO” searches now tie those for NBC and CBS.

     

    7.    ESPN and Nickelodeon.  Google search interest in ESPN peaked in September 2012 and was down 16% from those highs two years later in September 2014.  Measure from July 2014 to July 2015, the drop is 34%.  Nickelodeon’s drop in Google search volumes over the last year is 29%.

     

    8.    “Buy TV” versus “Buy iPhone”.   A phone screen and earbuds is now as viable a video system as an old wooden console television was to the Baby Boom generation. The Google Trend data shows this well, with searches related to TV purchases now as numerous as those related to iPhone purchases.  Layer in the other smartphone makers and more people search for purchase information about phones than televisions.

     

    9.    “HDMI”.  OK, this one is a little nerdy, but it really tells the whole story.  In order to take advantage of online entertainment while still using your regular television, chances are you’ll need an HDMI (High Definition Multimedia Interface) plug and a device like Apple TV or Google Chromecast. The number of Google searches for HDMI in the U.S. climbed steadily through 2012 and have leveled off since. That means that consumers already knew about (and had likely purchased a TV with) the necessary hardware to take advantage of online offerings long before the recent “Cord cutting” concerns.  When the cable tv cord gets cut physically, it is the HDMI port that takes up the virtual slack.

    The upshot of these results is clear: the change in consumer attention away from cable and to other sources of entertainment has been a long time in the making.  Interest in everything from ESPN to broadcast channels has been on the wane for years.  Compelling content like HBO’s Game of Thrones drives search eyeballs and, it seems, viewers as well.  And consumers were upgrading their hardware long before they knew they wanted to watch Netflix or Amazon original programming streaming on the Internet.

    Does this mean cable TV is doomed or no one will watch broadcast TV again?  Of course not.  Consumers largely stopped buying Compact Discs when iTunes really hit, but they didn’t stop listening to music. Even the “Original” iPod design that Jobs showed back in 2001 wasn’t exactly new, with inspirations from a 1950s transistor radio and a more modern land line phone. And that worked out pretty well…

  • "It's A Friggin' Mess": The Pentagon Sums Up Syria Fight

    On Monday, nine people were killed across Turkey in a wave of attacks that included a shooting at the US Consulate, a bombing at a police station, a gun battle at the same police station, an attack on a military helicopter by “Kurdish rebels”, and a roadside bombing. 

    The violence is the latest escalation in hostilities between Ankara and various “extremist” groups and for President Tayyip Erdogan, each new attack serves as still more evidence of the incipient threat posed by the PKK and other “terrorists” he says are operating within and around the country’s borders. 

    Of course what Erdogan really cares about is undermining the pro-Kurdish HDP prior to snap elections which he hopes will restore his absolute majority in parliament. Lumping the PKK in with ISIS has allowed Ankara to obtain NATO’s blessing for an offensive which has so far been focused on the Kurds but which Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu swears will shift towards ISIS as soon as newly-arrived US F-16s are prepared to fly missions from Incirlik which, as noted here last week, will supposedly serve as the hub for a new comprehensive fight against Islamic State. It’s been suggested that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan may contribute to the effort. 

    All of this is of course designed to provide everyone involved (the US, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia) with an excuse to remove Bashar al-Assad from Damascus. Russia isn’t so keen on this, as removing Assad threatens to undermine Moscow’s influence in the region but more importantly, could clear the way for the long-delayed Turkey-Qatar natural gas pipeline which would be an outright disaster for Gazprom and could serve to break the Kremlin’s leverage over Europe by freeing it from its dependence on Russian energy. 

    Realizing that Assad’s badly depleted forces are likely to face defeat sooner or later, either at the hands of the various militants “freedom fighters” vying for control of the country or else at the hands of the US military which we imagine could “accidentally” end up engaging Assad’s forces directly once the air campaign against ISIS picks up, Moscow has gone back and forth between suggesting that it’s willing to negotiate for an “alternative” to Assad and saying that Russia is willing to lend military support to Damascus if it means helping to eradicate “terrorists.” Again we see that both sides are prepared to use ISIS as an excuse to turn what has so far been a thinly-veiled proxy war into an actual confrontation between East and West and although Russia may be willing to “go there” if all options are exhausted, the economic realities of collapsing crude and Western sanctions are all too real which is presumably why the Kremlin entertained Saudi foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir in Moscow on Tuesday to discuss next steps for Syria. In the end, it all came down to the fate of Assad and both sides are apparently willing to stand their ground – for now. Here’s Al Jazeera:

    Russia and Saudi Arabia have failed in talks held in Moscow to overcome their differences on the fate of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a central dispute in Syria’s civil war that shows no sign of abating despite renewed diplomacy.

     

    Moscow has called for coordination between the Syrian government and members of an international coalition fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), which controls swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq.

     

    Speaking after talks in Moscow on Tuesday, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir reiterated Riyadh’s stance that Assad must go.

     

    “A key reason behind the emergence of Islamic State was the actions of Assad who directed his arms at his nation, not Islamic State,” Jubeir told a news conference after talks with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

     

    “Assad is part of the problem, not part of the solution to the Syrian crisis. There is no place for Assad in the future of Syria,” he said.

     

    Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said anti-ISIL forces united on the ground should have wide international backing. But Jubeir specifically ruled out any coalition with Assad and tension between the ministers was often visible during the conference.

    Here’s Lavrov (translated):

    For anyone not willing to sit through the audio, here is the operative quote: “I would not want any powerful state involved in attempts to solve the Syrian crisis to believe that Assad issue may be solved militarily, because the only way of such a military solution is the seizure of power [in Syria] by Islamic State and other terrorists.”

    Of course Lavrov surely realizes that ISIS seizing power in Syria would likely be just fine with the US and its regional allies. After all, when it comes to “boots on the ground” excuses that will fly with the American voter, “ISIS captures entire country” has to be right near the top of the list. 

    Meanwhile, the US and Turkey are pressing ahead with efforts to establish a so-called “ISIS-free zone” along what is virtually the only stretch of the latter’s border with Syria not under the control of the Kurdish YPG. As we discussed at length in “Why Turkey’s ‘ISIS-Free Zone’ Is The Most Ridiculous US Foreign Policy Outcome In History,” this swath of territory would likely fall under the control of the Syrian Kurds in relatiely short order (which, at least in the context of fighting ISIS, would be a good thing), were it not for the fact that they are affiliated with the PKK which means that Turkey (and by extension, the US) will have no part of it.

    Another group who won’t be helping to rout ISIS in the north is al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra, which apparently thinks the effort to prevent the Kurds from capturing the remaining terriroty along the northern border with Turkey is just as absurd as we do. Here’s The New York Times:

    The Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda has announced its withdrawal from front-line positions against the Islamic State extremist group in northern Syria, saying that it disagrees with plans by Turkey and the United States to clear the extremists from an area along the Turkish border.

     

    In a statement on Monday, the Qaeda group, the Nusra Front, said the proposed plan was intended primarily to protect “Turkish national security” and not to advance the Syrian rebel cause.

     

    Syrian activists in the area reported the withdrawal of the Nusra Front in recent days, saying that other rebel groups had taken up their vacated positions to prevent an advance by Islamic State forces.

     

    The Nusra Front’s withdrawal from rural positions northeast of the Syrian city of Aleppo came amid newly announced steps by Turkey and the United States to fight the Islamic State in Syria.

     

    American and Turkish officials last month described plans to provide military support to Syrian rebels to clear the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, from a roughly 60-mile strip of territory along the Turkish border. Nusra said that Turkey was interested in what its officials call a “safe zone” because it was worried about Kurdish forces that have seized much of the land across its border in Syria.

    As The Times goes on to note, one thing Nusra did not mention in the purported statement is whatever happened to all of the US-trained “freedom fighters” the group has captured over the past month or so, including those form Division 30 and, more recently, the commander and deputy of the newest group of Pentagon trainees. On that note, we’ll close with the following bit from CBS because … well … because it underscores how comically absurd this has all become.

    Late last month, the Nusra Front battled the U.S.-backed rebel faction known as Division 30 and killed, wounded or captured dozens of its fighters.

     

    Last week, U.S. officials said five Pentagon-trained fighters had been captured, probably by the Nusra Front branch in Syria. The Pentagon has lost track of some of the fighters who apparently have scattered, reported CBS News’ David Martin.

     

    “It’s a friggin’ mess,” one official said.

    *  *  *

    Bonus: summing up the above in four seconds

  • Families Of 9/11 Victims On Verge Of Proving Government Cover-Up In Court

    Submitted by SM Gibson via TheAntiMedia.org,

    For many years, rumors have circulated regarding the U.S. government’s involvement in an active cover-up of a sinister connection between Saudi Arabia and the terrorist attacks of 9/11. In fact, 28 redacted pages from a congressional intelligence report  are said to contain damning information that implicates the Saudis in the 2001 mass murder of American citizens. Despite a bipartisan effort to release the information, the now notorious 28 pages are still being withheld from the public under the predictable guise of “national security.”

    Now, thanks to a federal lawsuit in a Manhattan court, there may be a light at the end of the tunnel.

    Two authors of the concealed pages may soon be called to testify in a court case currently pending against the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Former FBI investigator Michael Jacobson and former Justice Department attorney Dana Lesemann, both of whom investigated the terror strikes for the FBI, were given the assignment to track down possible leads connecting Saudi officials to the hijackers and then document their findings. The evidence they compiled was recorded in the infamous 28 pages.

    The duo also went on to work with the independent 9/11 Commission, where they unveiled even more corroboration. They uncovered an association between the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles, the Saudi Embassy in Washington D.C., and the the tragic events in 2001.

    At a court hearing on July 30, lawyers for the victims’ families stated that the most major of allegations against the Saudis were purposefully left out of the final draft of the 9/11 Commission report.

    “They were removed at the 11th hour by the senior staff,” said attorney Sean Carter, who called the decision a “political matter.”

     

    “[T]hey had documented a direct link between the Saudi government and the Sept. 11 plot based on the explosive material they had uncovered concerning the activities of Fahad al-Thumairy and Omar al-Bayoumi,” explained Carter.

    Thumairy worked as a religious cleric and Saudi diplomat in Los Angeles at the time, while Bayoumi was employed by the Saudi Arabian Civil Aviation Authority in San Diego.

    The judge presiding over the case now has a 60-90 day window to either dismiss the case or proceed on behalf of the victims’ families.

    Jerry Goldman, an attorney for the plaintiffs, feels good about the future of the proceedings.

    “(The Judge) wasn’t buying their spin,” Goldman said. “The burden is on the kingdom to prove we are wrong, and they didn’t do that.”

    With so many unanswered questions surrounding 9/11, there is no telling what may be disclosed if the case is allowed to move forward.

    The terrifying reality is that if the Saudis are found guilty of involvement in the events of 9/11, such a conclusion would only raise more questions than it would answer. Who inside the United States government would be covering for the kingdom of Saudi Arabia for so many years— and more importantly, why?

  • Wendy's Explains What Happens When Fry Cooks Make $15/Hour

    By now, it should be abundantly clear – even to the most vocal proponents of a higher minimum wage – that across-the-board raises have very real, and sometimes unpredictable consequences. 

    At Wal-Mart for instance, a move to hike the pay floor for the retailer’s lowest paid workers hurt morale among higher paid employees, may have led to discussions to cut up to 1,000 jobs at the company’s home office in Bentonville, and quite possibly contributed to a decision to close five stores for “plumbing problems.”

    Meanwhile, at Seattle-based payments processor Gravity Payments, one CEO’s quest to create a better life for his 120 employees backfired when a move to raise the company-wide pay floor to $70,000 was accompanied by a myriad of far-reaching and unintended consequences. 

    At the most basic level, the argument against hastily construed wage hikes is that forcing employers to pay everyone more will simply prompt companies to fire people or at the very least, curtail hiring. As one Burger King franchisee recently told CBS, “[fast food] businesses are not going to pay $15 dollars an hour [because] the economics don’t work in this industry. There is a limit to what you’re going to pay for a hamburger.”

    With that in mind, we present the following commentary from Wendy’s most recent conference call with no comment:

    Todd A. Penegor – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President

    Yeah. So we continue to see pressure on wages two fronts, one is minimum wages at the state level continue to increase, and as there is a war on talent to make sure that we’re competitive in certain markets. So we’ve made some adjustments to that starting wage in certain markets. The impact hasn’t been material at the moment, but we continue to look at initiatives on how we do work to offset any impact to future wage inflation through technology initiatives, whether that’s customer self-order kiosks, whether that’s automating more in the back of the house in the restaurant, and you’ll see a lot more coming on that front later this year from us.

     

    John William Ivankoe – JPMorgan Securities LLC

    Okay, understood. I mean there is obviously a lot of discussion of wage prices, wage costs and that there would be increased pricing at the franchise level to offset those increased wages, especially in markets like New York for example that are going to see some very severe increases in wage costs. So can you juxtapose the franchisees’ desire and/or need to take pricing at the store level with what sounds like an increased focus overall for the brand on value, can those two things be achieved simultaneously?

     

    Emil J. Brolick – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director

    Yeah, John, this is Emil. And our franchisees, I find them to be very astute business people, and they have a great sense of their trade areas where their restaurants are and a great I think understanding of what the competitive environment is in terms of their capacity to price. I think the reality is that what you will see in like some of these markets, the New Yorks, where there is these very significant increases, is that they will be – our franchisee will slightly likely look at the opportunity to reduce overall staff, look at the opportunity to certainly reduce hours and any other cost reduction opportunities, not just price. There are some people out there who naively say that these wages can simply be passed along in terms of price increases. I don’t think that the average franchisee believes that, and there will have to be other consequences, which is why we have pointed out that unfortunately we believe the some of these increases will clearly end up hurting the people that they are intended to help.

     


  • How Economic Growth Fails

    Submitted by Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World blog,

    We all know generally how today’s economy works:

    Figure 1

    Figure 1

    Our economy is a networked system. I have illustrated it as being similar to a child’s building toy. Ever-larger structures can be built by adding more businesses and consumers, and by using resources of various kinds to produce an increasing quantity of goods and services.

    Figure 2. Dome constructed using Leonardo Sticks

    Figure 2. Dome constructed using Leonardo Sticks

    There is no overall direction to the system, so the system is said to be “self-organizing.”

    The economy operates within a finite world, so at some point, a problem of diminishing returns develops. In other words, it takes more and more effort (human labor and use of resources) to produce a given quantity of oil or food, or fresh water, or other desirable products. The problem of slowing economic growth is very closely related to the question: How can the limits we are reaching be expected to play out in a finite world? Many people imagine that we will “run out” of some necessary resource, such as oil, but I see the situation differently. Let me explain a few issues that may not be obvious.

    1. Our economy is like a pump that works increasingly slowly over time, as diminishing returns and other adverse influences affect its operation. Eventually, it is likely to stop.

    As nearly as I can tell, the way economic growth occurs (and stops taking place) is as summarized in Figure 3.

    Figure 3. Overview of our economic predicament

    Figure 3. Overview of our economic predicament

    As long as (a) energy and other resources are cheap, (2) debt is readily available, and (3) “overhead” in the form of payments for government services, business overhead, and interest payments on debt are low, the pump can continue working as normal. As various parts of the pump “gum up,” the economic growth pump slows down. It is likely to eventually stop, once it becomes too difficult to repay debt with interest with the meager level of economic growth achieved.

    Commodity prices are also likely to drop too low. This happens because the wages of workers drop so low that they cannot afford to buy expensive products such as cars and new homes. Growing purchases of products such as these are a big part of what keep the economic pump operating.

    Let me explain some of the pieces of the problem that give rise to the slowing economic growth pump, and the difficulties it encounters as it slows down.

    2. “Promises,” such as government pension programs for the elderly, and promises to repair existing roads, tend to get bigger and bigger over time.

    We can understand how promises tend to grow by looking at an example I constructed:

    Figure 4

    Figure 4

    Suppose a pension program begins in 2010 and gradually adds more retirees. Or suppose a road repair program starts out in 2010 with more roads gradually being added.

    The payments made each calendar year, whether for the pensions or the road repairs, are the totals at the bottom of the column. These totals keep growing, even if each retiree gets the same amount each year, and even if each road costs the same amount to repair each year. Admittedly, using 100 for all amounts is unrealistic–this is done to keep the math simple–but regardless of what numbers are used, the sum of the payments each calendar year tends to rise.

    If we look at US government expenditures as a percentage of wages, the pattern is as we might expect: government spending rises significantly faster than wages.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5

    3. At least partly because of growing “promises,” it is very difficult for an economy to shrink in size without collapsing.

    We can think of many kinds of promises in addition to pensions and road repairs. One such promise is the promise by banks that they will allow depositors to withdraw funds held on deposit in the bank. Another kind of promise is the promise of debtors to repay debt with interest. All of these promises tend to grow in total quantity over time, at least in part because population grows.

    If an economy shrinks, all of these promises become very difficult to fulfill. This is the problem that Greece and other countries in financial difficulty are encountering. There is a need to reduce some program or to sell something so that the calendar year payments are not too high, relative to revenue for the year. These payments really represent a flow of goods and services to the individuals to whom the promises were made. “Printing money” does not really substitute for goods and services: pensioners expect that they will be able to buy food, medicine and housing with their pensions; those withdrawing money from a bank expect that the money will actually buy goods and services needed to live on.

    If there is a major problem with “making good” on promises, it is difficult to have an economy. It is hard to operate an economy without functioning bank accounts. Even cutting off pensions or road repairs becomes a problem.

    4. The over-arching problem as we reach diminishing returns is that workers become less and less efficient at producing desired end products.

    When an economy starts hitting diminishing returns, we find that the economy produces goods less and less efficiently. It takes more worker-hours and more resources of various kinds (for example, fracking sand and deep sea drilling equipment) to produce a barrel of oil, causing the cost of producing a barrel of oil to rise. Usually this trend is expressed as a rising cost of oil production:

    Figure 6

    Figure 6

    Looked at a different way, the number of barrels of oil produced per worker starts decreasing (Figure 7). It is as if the worker is becoming less efficient. His wages should be reduced, based on his new lack of productivity.

    Figure 7. Wages per worker in units of oil produced, corresponding to amounts shown in Figure 6.

    Figure 7. Wages per worker in units of oil produced, corresponding to amounts shown in Figure 6.

    There are many types of diminishing returns. They tend to lead to a smaller quantity of  end product per worker. For example, if the population of a country increases, but arable land stays the same, adding more and more farmers to a plot of arable land eventually leads to less food produced on average per farmer. (Some might say that each additional farmer adds less marginal production.) Similarly, mining ores of lower and lower concentration leads to a need to separate more and more waste material from the desired mineral, leading to less mineral production per worker.

    As another example, if a community finds itself short of fresh water, it may need to begin using desalination to produce water, instead of simply using relatively inexpensive wells. The result is a steep rise in the cost of water produced, not too different from the steep rise in the cost of oil in Figure 6. Viewed in terms of the amount of fresh water produced by each worker, the return per worker falls, as happens in Figure 7.

    If workers get paid for their work, the logical result of diminishing returns is that after a point, workers should get paid less, because what they are producing as an end product is diminishing in quantity. Workers may be making more intermediate products (such as desalination plants or fracking sand), but these are not the end products people want (such as fresh water, electricity, or oil).

    In some sense, fighting pollution leads to another form of diminishing returns with respect to human labor. In this case, increasing human effort and other resources are used to produce pollution control equipment and to produce workarounds, such as alternative higher-priced fuels. Again, wages per worker are expected to decline. This happens because, on average, each worker produces less of the desired end product, such as electricity.

    Admittedly, less pollution, such as less smog, is desired as well. However, if it is necessary to pay extra for this service, the effect is recessionary because workers must cut back on purchasing discretionary goods and services in order to have sufficient funds available to purchase the higher-priced electricity. Thus, fighting pollution using approaches that raise the price of end products is part of what slows the world’s economic growth pump.

    5. When civilizations collapsed in the past, a major cause was diminishing returns leading to declining wages for non-elite workers.

    We know how diminishing returns played out in a number of past civilizations based on the analysis conducted by Peter Turchin and Surgey Nefedov for their book Secular Cycles. They found that typically a period of rapid population growth took place after some change occurred that increased the total amount of food an economy could provide. Perhaps trees were cut down on a large plot of land, or irrigation was introduced, or a war led to the availability of land previously farmed by others. When the original small population encountered the newly available arable land, rapid growth became possible for a while–very often, for well over 100 years.

    At some point, the carrying capacity of the land was reached. Then the familiar problem of diminishing returns on human labor occurred: adding more farmers to the plot of land didn’t increase food production proportionately. Instead, the arable land needed to be subdivided into smaller plots to accommodate more farmers. Or the new farmers could only be “assistants,” without ownership of land, and received much lower wages, or went to work for the church, again at low wages. The net result was that at least part of the workers started receiving much lower wages.

    One contributing factor to collapses was the fact that required tax levels tended to grow over time. Some reasons for this growth in tax levels are described in Items (2) and (3) above. Furthermore, the pressure of growing population meant that groups needed access to more arable land–a problem that might be overcome by a larger army. Paying for such an army would require higher taxes. Joseph Tainter in The Collapse of Complex Societies writes about the problem of “growing complexity,” with rising population. This, too, might give rise to the need for more government services.

    Raising taxes became a problem when wages for much of the population were stagnating or falling because of diminishing returns. If taxes were raised too much, low-paid workers found themselves unable to buy enough food. In their weakened condition, they tended to succumb to epidemics. If taxes couldn’t be raised enough, governments had different problems, such as not being able to support a large enough army to fend off attacks by neighboring armies.

    6. The United States now has a problem with declining wages of non-elite workers, not too different from the problem experienced by civilizations that collapsed in the past.

    Figure 8 shows that on an inflation-adjusted basis, US Median Family Income has been falling in recent years. In fact, the latest value is between the 1996 and 1997 value. In a sense, this represents diminishing returns on human labor, just as has occurred with agricultural civilizations that collapsed.

    Figure 8

    Figure 8

    Wages have been falling to a much greater extent among young people in the United States. Figure 9 from a report by Dettling and Hsu in the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review shows that median wages have dropped dramatically since 1989, both for young people living with parents and for young people living independently. To make matters worse, the report also indicates that the share of young people living with parents has risen during the same period.

    Figure 9

    Figure 9

    In some sense, the loss of efficiency of the economy (or diminishing returns) outlined in Item 4 is making its way through to wages. The wages of young people are especially affected.

    7. Demand for goods and services comes from what workers can afford. If their wages are low, demand for goods of many kinds, including commodities, is likely to fall.

    There are many rich people in the world, but most of their wealth sits around in bank accounts, or in ownership of shares of stock, or in ownership of land, or in other kinds of investments. They use only a small share of their wealth to buy food, cars, and homes. Their wealth has relatively little impact on commodity prices. In contrast, the many non-elite workers in the world tend to spend a much larger share of their incomes on food, homes, and cars. When non-elite workers cut back on major purchases, it is likely to affect total purchases of goods like homes and cars. Other related goods, such as gasoline, home heating fuel, and the building of new roads, are likely to be affected as well.

    When the demand for finished goods falls, the demand for the commodities to produce these finished goods falls. Because of these issues, when the wages of non-elite workers fall, we should expect downward pressure on commodity prices. Commodity prices may fall back to a more affordable range, after they have spent several years at higher levels, as has happened recently.

    There is a common belief that as we approach limits, the price of oil and other commodities will spike. I doubt that this can happen for any extended period. Instead, the low wages of non-elite workers will tend to hold commodity prices down. Because of this issue, we should expect predominately low oil prices ahead, despite the continuing pressure of rising costs of production because of diminishing returns.

    The mismatch between the rising cost of commodity production and continued low commodity prices is likely to lead to a sharp drop in the supply of many types of commodities. Thus, the slowing operation of our economic growth “pump” is likely to lead to a situation where the production of commodities, including oil, falls because of low prices, not high prices. 

    8. What is needed to raise the productivity of workers is a rising quantity of energy to leverage human labor. Such energy supplies are affordable only if the price of energy products is very low.

    The amount a person can produce reflects a combination of his own labor and the resource he has to work with. If energy products are available, they act like energy slaves. With their assistance, humans can do things that they could not do otherwise–move goods long distances, quickly; operate machines (including computers) that can help a worker do tasks better and more quickly; and communicate long distance by means of the telephone or Internet. While technology plays a major role in making energy products useful, the ultimate benefit comes from the energy products themselves.

    We have been using a rising amount of energy products since our hunter-gatherer days (Figure 10). In fact, the use of energy products seems to distinguish humans from other animals.

    Figure 10

    Figure 10

    Clearly, cheaper is better when it comes to the affordability of energy products since available money goes further. If gasoline costs $5 per gallon, a worker with $100 can buy 20 gallons. If gasoline costs $2 per gallon, a worker with $100 can buy 50 gallons.

    In recent years, with the high prices of energy products, world growth in energy consumption has lagged. It should not be surprising that world economic growth seems to be lagging during the same period.

    Figure 11. Three year average growth rate in world energy consumption and in GDP. World energy consumption based on BP Review of World Energy, 2015 data; real GDP from USDA in 2010$.

    Figure 11. Three year average growth rate in world energy consumption and in GDP. World energy consumption based on BP Review of World Energy, 2015 data; real GDP from USDA in 2010$.

    In fact, Figure 11 seems to indicate that changes in energy consumption precede changes in world economic growth, strongly suggesting that growth in energy consumption is instrumental in raising economic growth. The recent steep drop in energy consumption suggests that the world is approaching another major recession, but this has not yet been recognized in international data.

    9. One way of describing our current problem is by saying that the economy cannot live with the high commodity prices we have been experiencing in recent years and is resetting to a lower level that is affordable. This reset is related to low net energy production. 

    If oil and other commodities could be produced more cheaply, they would be more affordable. We would not have the economic problems we have today. Energy use in Figure 11 could be rising more quickly, and that would help GDP grow faster. If GDP were growing faster, we would have more funds available for many purposes, including funding government programs, repaying debt with interest, and paying the wages of non-elite workers. We perhaps would not have the problem of falling wages of non-elite workers.

    The current “fad” for solving our energy problem is to mandate the use of intermittent renewables, such as wind and solar PV. A major problem with this approach is that such renewables make the cost of electricity production rise even faster, exacerbating our problems, instead of making them better.

    Figure 12 by Euan Mearns

    Figure 12 by Euan Means. Installed capacity is in Watts (W) per capita.

    To make matters worse:

    1. The way our economy works, energy flows in a given year (not on a net present value basis) are what are important, because this is the way we use energy to make goods such as foods, metals, and homes. The energy flows of renewables are very much front ended. Thus, the disparity in energy use on an energy flow basis is likely to be greater than reflected in Figure 12.
    2. What we really need from energy products is the ability to stimulate the economy in a way that adds tax revenue. Either the energy products must produce high tax revenue directly, or they must indirectly produce high tax revenue by stimulating demand for new cheaper goods, produced with the new inexpensive form of energy. This is what I think of as “adding net energy”. Wind and solar PV clearly do the opposite. Thus, they behave like “energy sinks,” rather than as products that add net energy.
    3. Modern renewables that are connected to the grid can be expected to stop working when the grid stops working. This may not be too far in the future because we need oil to operate the trucks and helicopters that maintain the electric grid. If this problem were considered in the pricing of electricity from wind and solar PV, their required prices would be higher.

    As I see it, one of the major roles of energy products is to support the growing overhead of our economy; this is what the discussion about the need for “net energy” is about. Thus, we need energy products that are cheap enough that they can be taxed heavily now, and still produce an adequate profit for those producing the energy products. If we find ourselves mostly with energy products that are producing cash flow losses for their producers, as seems to be the case today, this is an indication that we have a problem. We don’t have enough “net energy” to run our current economy.

    10. Debt and other paper assets are likely to “have a problem” as the economic growth pump falters and stops.

    Debt is absolutely essential to making an economy work because it allows businesses to “bring forward” future profits, so that they don’t have to accumulate a high level of savings prior to building a new factory or opening a new mine. Debt also allows potential buyers of expensive products such as homes, cars, and factories to pay for them on an affordable monthly payment plan. Because more buyers can afford finished goods with the use of debt, debt raises the demand for goods, and indirectly raises the prices of commodities. With these higher prices, a greater quantity of commodity extraction is encouraged.

    At some point, it becomes very difficult to support the very large amount of debt outstanding. In part, this happens because of the large accumulated amount of debt. Falling inflation-adjusted wages of rank and file workers add to the problem. In such a situation, interest rates need to be kept very low, or it becomes impossible to repay debt with interest. Even with continued low rates, defaults can eventually be expected.

    Once debt defaults begin, commodity prices are likely to drop even further. Such a drop is likely to lead to even more loan defaults, especially by commodity producers (such as oil companies) and commodity exporters. Prices of equities can be expected to drop as well, because the problems of the debt system will affect businesses of all kinds.

    Once debtors start defaulting, it will become very difficult to keep financial institutions from collapsing. International trade is likely to become a problem because financial institutions are needed to provide debt-based financial guarantees for long-distance transactions.

  • Biggest US Dark Pool Busted For Rigging Markets, Engaging In Precisely The Manipulation It Warned Against

    One year ago, in the first ever crack down on market manipulation and rigging in HFT-infested dark pools and ATS venues, the NY AG crushed Barclay’s dark pool LX with just one lawsuit alleging the bank had misrepresented and taken advantage of gullible clients to benefit well-paying HFT parasitic scalpers who not only have never “provided liquidity” but merely frontrun whale orders and completely shut down any time the market turns against the prevailing momentum wave, in the process crushing liquidity.

    Following the Barclays debacle, which confirmed not only what Michael Lewis had said earlier in 2014 about HFT manipulation, but everything we had said about HFT manipulation since 2009, the paid defenders of the HFT criminal syndicate scrambled to prove that it was “only” one bad sheep in a herd of well-meaning, tame and well-behaved liquidity providing animals.

    A year later, enough time had passed since the Barclays bust that the more gullible elements almost believed these paid defenders of market-rigging. Then the best laid plan of vacuum tubes and men went horribly wrong when at the end of July, none other than the original dark pool, ITG, was busted for using a prop trading silo to frontrun client order flow using an HFT architecture.

    Worse, as we revealed and as was confirmed later, the person behind this latest HFT manipulation charge was none other than Hitesh Mittal, the current head trader of mega quant fund AQR, the 4th largest in the world, whose boss Cliff Asness has over the years become one of the most vocal advocates of HFT. Now we know why.

    And then, earlier today, the WSJ reported that none other than the operator of the biggest dark pool in the US by volume, Credit Suisse and its massive Crossfinder dark pool, “is in talks with regulators to settle allegations of wrongdoing at its “dark pool” with a record fine in the high tens of millions of dollars, according to people familiar with the matter.”

    From the WSJ:

    The Swiss bank is negotiating a joint settlement with the New York Attorney General and the Securities and Exchange Commission. A deal could come as soon as the next several weeks, though talks could still fall apart, the people said. The settlement under discussion would lead to the largest fine ever levied against an operator of a private trading venue.

     

    The case against Credit Suisse includes allegations that it provided unfair advantages to some traders, violated rules against pricing of stocks and didn’t adequately disclose to investors how CrossFinder works, according to the people familiar with the matter.

    What is grotesque about this story is not that yet another dark pool has been found to cater solely to HFTs i.e., the best paying clients who will always get priority treatment by banks such as Credit Suisse and Barclays simply because that’s all they do: pay to frontrun others because in a market which is rigged to the core, HFT and dark pool manipulation is now the rule. What is grotesque, is that back in December 2012, it was none other than Credit Suisse which conveniently explained and laid out all those forms of HFT manipulation which we accused virtually every HFT firm of employing since 2009… and which Credit Suisse itself is now accused of engaging in!

    This is how Credit Suisse summarized all the predatory strategies of HFT algos in the market as of 2012:

    • Quote Stuffing: the HFT trader sends huge numbers of orders and cancels
    • Layering: multiple, large orders are placed passively with the goal of “pushing” the book away
       
    • Order Book Fade: lightning-fast reactions to news and order book pressure lead to disappearing liquidity
       
    • Momentum ignition: an HFT trader detects a large order targeting a percentage of volume, and front-runs it.

    And the punchline: Credit Suisse’s Advanced Execution Services (i.e., the group behind its dark pool) was putching itself as the one venue where trading participants are immune from such abuse. From “High Frequency Trading – Measurement, Detection and Response” (which can be found on the website of edge.credit-suisse.com with a cursory title-based google search):

    Dark pools using a synthetic EBBO (consolidated book) for their reference price are at higher risk of being gamed by quote stuffing. Exhibit 10 shows an example in Ashmore Group, where the Primary Bid and Ask (represented by the outer dark red and light blue lines at 356.2 and 355.7) are static, but the Chi-X bid moves (dark blue line). The consolidated EBBO shows a locked book, with the bid equal to the ask at 356.2.

     

    This scenario could be exploited in EBBO-referenced dark pools. A gamer could place a sell order in the pool with a 356.2 limit, then place (and rapidly cancel) a Chi-X bid, also at 356.2. Any buy order pegged to mid would trade at the temporary gamed “mid” of 356.2 (as the EBBO bid and offer are both temporarily 356.2), paying the whole spread rather than half.

     

    Crossfinder (Credit Suisse’s dark pool) does not use the EBBO, preferring to use primary-only data to help minimise the chance of midpoint gaming. Furthermore, when AES detects any quote stuffing, it may add extra protections across its orders (both lit and dark) to further reduce the risk of being gamed, more details of which are discussed later from page 7.

     

    * * *

     

    Dark-only flow traded through AES (e.g. in tactics such as Crossfinder+) can minimise the chance of being affected by ‘mid-point gaming’ with by withdrawing from certain venues, raising MAQs and using tighter limits. These protections will allow the midpoint to come towards the order – enabling the strategy to participate at a temporarily more favourable price – but restrict it from moving away. 

     

    If apparent gaming occurs consistently on a particular venue or with a particular counterparty in Crossfinder, the AES Alpha Scorecard will pick this up and highlight that venue or that counterparty as exhibiting excessive “opportunistic” behaviour. Credit Suisse’s clients then have the ability to decide whether to trade on those venues or against that group of counterparties.

     

    Flow that reaches Credit Suisse’s dark pool (Crossfinder) via aggregators does not receive such protections, as Crossfinder is simply an execution venue for this flow. When interacting through AES algorithms, these additional protections are available.

    Turns out they weren’t, and that anyone who believed the Credit Suisse reps and warrants was lied to, just like in Barclays’ case, and quite likely all those parasitic HFT strategies, quote stuffing, layering, orderbook fading and momentum ignition, Credit Suisse raged against were being used against CS’own clients.

    And, just like in Barclays case, these lies will now cost the Swiss bank tens of millions, or a fraction of the profits it made abusing its clients’ trust. 

    But the biggest question, just like in the Barclays case, is whether the bulk of its carbon-based clients – we know the HFTs will never leave – will depart the Crossfinder dark pool, and send the orderflow volume on the Credit Suisse market plunging, which like with LX, will start a self-fulfilling prophecy of dark pool collapse since once the key clients leave there is no reason for anyone else to stay.

    Finally, if this is what happens, who will be winner: upstart AEX, or Goldman Sachs, which as we reported recently is back in the HFT arena and as we reported in “Why Goldman Is About To Become The Biggest HFT Firm In The World“, is likely the firm that is ordering the regulatory hits on its biggest competitors until it takes them all down one by one, in a New Normal replica of how Goldman destroyed Lehman back in 2008.

  • 1997 Asian Currency Crisis Redux

    Submitted by Michael Lebowitz via 720Global.com,

    Second Verse, Same as the First, a Little Bit Louder and a Little Bit Worse

    China surprised the financial markets on August 11, 2015 by devaluing their currency, the Renminbi (CNY), the equivalent of 2% versus the U.S. Dollar (USD). This is the largest daily move in the CNY in over 10 years and likely the first in a series of devaluations by the Chinese government. Since 2014, the Chinese had pegged their currency to the strengthening USD and watched it appreciate against many of the world’s currencies just as the USD was doing. Over the past year for example, the USD and CNY appreciated 20%, 25% and 12% against the euro, yen and South Korean won respectively. It just so happens that these currencies are the ones used by 3 of Chinas largest trade partners. Thus, maintaining a peg to the USD eroded export growth as China’s products became more expensive for countries other than the U.S to import. Conversely, in China the rising CNY brought further deflationary pressure as goods imported from countries that use currencies other than the USD became less expensive. Now, in an effort to level the global trade playing field, China has decided that the economic harm produced by pegging to the dollar outweighs the benefits produced by a strong domestic currency.

    In December 2014 the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) warned of the growing risks associated with the global carry trade. They estimated that since 2000 the amount of such trades quadrupled in size to $9 trillion and grew 5.5x faster than global growth over the same period. The massive amount of these trades outstanding dwarfs anything seen in the past, leading the BIS to repeatedly warn of potential financial repercussions if these trades suddenly and simultaneously unwound. The Asian currency crisis of 1997, for instance, was greatly magnified due to the unwinding of an estimated $300-$500 billion of these types of carry trades.

    The carry trade that is so concerning to the BIS involves borrowing USD (typically on a leveraged basis) and investing those funds in a foreign country. This trade possesses all of the risks of a typical investment but it also layers on substantial currency risk as the borrower/investor must first convert the borrowed dollars to the currency of the country where the investment takes place. By default a USD short is created when the currency is converted.

    It is estimated that carry trades involving USD loans invested in China could represent a quarter to a third of the BIS estimated $9 trillion global carry trade. The popularity of this trade grew steadily since 2006 as strong Chinese economic growth and an appreciating CNY versus the USD made this trade lucrative on both the investment front but also from a currency perspective. The graph below shows the CNY appreciation from 2006-2013 (green arrow), the pegging of CNY to the USD in 2014-2015 (blue arrow) and last night’s 2% devaluation (circled yellow).

    As mentioned earlier this devaluation is likely not a one-time event but rather the beginning of an ongoing and persistent depreciation of the CNY versus the USD. The embedded USD short position within the carry trades will begin to result in losses and margin calls as the USD appreciates versus the CNY, thus forcing investors to liquidate some of their positions. These trades, which took years to amass, could unwind abruptly and exert an influence of historic magnitude on markets and economies.

    The Asian currency crisis of 1997 could prove to be a worthy example of the effects to be felt from a massive unwind of carry trades of this sort, albeit of a much lesser magnitude. Therefore, caution is urged and investorsshould prudently monitor their positions and risk tolerances. During the Asian crisis of 1997 and 1998 the following effects were felt:

    • South Korean Won declined 34% against the USD
    • Thai Baht declined 40% against the USD
    • South Korean Gross National Product (GNP) declined 34%
    • The USD index rose 13% versus a basket of other major world currencies
    • The S&P 500 fell 15% in 1997, rallied, and then dropped another 20% in 1998
    • The Japanese Nikkei index declined 36%
    • South Korean share prices declined 58%
    • The 30 year US bond yield fell from 7.0% to 4.2%
    • Crude oil prices declined 62%
    • The Asian crisis contributed to the Russian default in 1998. This in turn led to the collapse of Long Term Capital which required a $3.625 billion bailout organized by the Federal Reserve as well as a 1% reduction in the Federal Funds Rate to contain the fallout.

  • Nassim Taleb Explains The One Thing An Investor Should Never Fail To Do

    Authored by Nassim Taleb via Absolute Return,

    Uncertainty should not bother you. We may not be able to forecast when a bridge will break, but we can identify which ones are faulty and poorly built. We can assess vulnerability. And today the financial bridges across the world are very vulnerable. Politicians prescribe ever larger doses of pain killer in the form of financial bailouts, which consists in curing debt with debt, like curing an addiction with an addiction, that is to say it is not a cure. This cycle will end, like it always does, spectacularly.

    When it comes to investing in this environment, my colleague Mark Spitznagel articulated it well: investors are left with a simple choice between chasing stocks that have an increasing chance of a crash or missing out on continued policy effects in the short term. Incorporating a tail hedge minimizes the risk in the tail, allowing investors to remain invested over time without risking ruin. Spitznagel put together a video explaining the point.

     

    To be robust, one must construct a portfolio as an engineer would a bridge and ask what your managers expect to lose should the market fall by 10%. Then ask them again what they’d expect to lose in the down 20% scenario. If that second number is more than two times more painful emotionally than the first, your portfolio is fragile. To fix the problem, add components to your portfolio that make the portfolio stronger in a crash, like actively managed put options. You will be able to build stronger, better bridges, with better returns, that will last for the long term.

    By clipping the tail, you can own more risk, the good type of risk: upside with limited downside. And rather than helplessly watching your bridge collapse, you can be opportunistic in a crash, and take the pieces from others at bargain prices to increase the size of yours.

  • And the Renminbi Bloodletting Begins…

    By Chris at www.CapitalistExploits.at

    Last week at my son’s football game, a fellow parent remarked to me that bald heads are cool. I actually thought the guy may be off his rocker a bit, but then I figured that maybe he was trying to be nice as I’ve got more hair on my big toe than on my shaved head. Then realization struck….

    This guy was trying to comfort himself as he was trying unsuccessfully to cover his own balding pate.

    Hiding balding can drive men nuts. You can look like Donald Trump, though someone needs to tell him he looks completely ridiculous. With all the money in the world, it’s clearly not possible to get a decent looking rug, and then you’ve got to ask yourself the question, who on earth could be bothered with putting up with all the rigmarole of sticking the thing to your head all the time? And what happens when you dive in a swimming pool or venture out on a windy day?

    If rugs aren’t your thing you could shoot for a hair transplant and end up with something that looks like a seed tray in a high school science lab experiment. Or you can look like your mad uncle George – don a stripy cardigan and do the comb over.

    Let’s face it: all options at hiding it are outright terrible. There are therefore only two realistic solutions to the problem. One is to hide indoors and never come out, and the other is to reveal it, get a grip and get on with life.

    This brings me to China who have been using all means and measures to hide the true situation in their financial markets.

    Blowing through $800 billion in public and private money in an attempt to prop up their ailing stock market has produced a muted response. Based on public statements, media reports and market data, we know that Beijing has just blown through at least 5 trillion yuan. This is an unprecedented amount, equivalent to nearly 10 percent of China’s GDP, and a trillion more than they committed in response to the global financial crisis in 2008. All this to calm a stock market sell-off. I say “at least” since we don’t really know how much Beijing has done under the covers and the opacity in China is legendary.

    Reuters article described it well:

    While the market stabilised, with the Shanghai Composite Index SSEC recovering about 20 percent by Thursday’s close from a low point around 3,300 points struck on July 8, it is still below the semi-official recovery target of 4,500 points.

     

    Beijing has thus produced the equivalent of around 1 index point gain for every $1 billion committed.

    The selling pressure is clearly not of the garden variety. The problem is that the fundamentals don’t support the still lofty valuations.

    As interesting as the stock market is, our interest lies in the currency, something we’ve been writing about since late 2014. We believed that the big move was to be in the RMB and while every man and his dog was trumpeting the end of the dollar and the rise of the yuan we felt that, while this certainly was getting investors giddy, it was plain wrong.

    Back in December in an Brad was wondering about what China’s banking system was telling us?

    I’d like to share some important excerpts:

    The behavior of the interbank lending market can provide one with a good appreciation for the liquidity of the banking system as a whole. If there is a lot of liquidity in the system (more short term assets than liabilities) the interbank rate will fall, if there is scarcity of short term assets relative to liabilities then rates will rise. So a rising interbank rate is generally associated with contracting liquidity conditions. Rapid rises in interbank lending rates are often associated with banking or credit crisis. This happened in the lead up to the GFC.

    Brad dug in and looked at interbank lending markets for a host of emerging market currencies and showed how China’s HIBOR rate was going parabolic, indicating stress in this market.

    Fast forward till today and it’s no surprise to us that the PBOC has devalued.

    USDCNH

    “One Off Depreciation”

    This is what the PBOC have officially called it. Ha!

    An export driven economy with a rising currency in the midst of a global currency war has created a gigantic USD carry trade with its epicentre in the Middle Kingdom. Beijing needs a strong economy to support a strong currency and signs are everywhere that growth is falling.

    What many people don’t realise is the self-reinforcing nature of an unwinding carry trade. Each tick down in the cross rate between the funding currency (USD) and the funded currency (RMB) acts as reverse leverage and forces additional participants who are short USD to cover and buy back their USD positions.

    Just over 30 days ago when I suggested that the market was making a mistake in pricing volatility in the USD/CNH cross pair this allowed us a rare opportunity to position for a move either way for a stupidly cheap cost. While we’ve been bearish we actually had the ability to take on both positions for just 2.8% premium. I called it a gift…and it was.

    Buying both is what traders term a “straddle” but don’t get hung up on terminology. The point is that for a 2.8% premium (2.5% + 0.3%) we can hold both positions. We don’t much care which way it moves but simply that it MOVES!

    We may be looking at the last chance salon to putting on a short RMB trade before this gets out of control. When a central bank tells you it’s a “one off” event you may as well take that as a green light.

    – Chris

     

    “It’s hard to believe this will be a one-off adjustment. In a weak global economy, it will take a lot more than a 1.9 percent devaluation to jump-start sagging Chinese exports. That raises the distinct possibility of a new and increasingly destabilizing skirmish in the ever-widening global currency war. The race to the bottom just became a good deal more treacherous.” – Stephen Roach, former Chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia

  • How One Hedge Fund Is Betting Against The $1.2 Trillion Student Loan Bubble

    On Monday, we got some color on Hillary Clinton’s $350 billion plan to make college more affordable. Students and former students across the country owe more than $1.2 trillion in college loans, and as Bill Ackman so eloquently put it earlier this year, “there’s no way they’re going to pay it back.”

    The fact that America’s student loan bubble is the focus of what may well end up being one of Clinton’s most expensive policy proposals speaks volumes about the urgency of the problem. 

    Of course there are some other folks who understand how quickly the situation is deteriorating. Chief among them are Moody’s and Fitch and a few sell-side strategists who are having quite a bit of trouble figuring out how to incorporate the various IBR plans being promoted by the Obama administration into their ratings models.

    These worries showed up earlier this year when Moody’s put billions in student loan-backed ABS on review for downgrade. Many of the deals in question are sponsored by loan servicer Navient, which was spun off from Sallie Mae in 2014. 

    Now, one Boston-based hedge fund is building a short position on what it says is “runaway inflation in post-secondary education” by shorting the likes of Navient and other names tied to to the student loan bubble.

      Here’s Bloomberg with more:

    FlowPoint Capital Partners, the $15 million hedge fund co-founded by Charles Trafton, is betting against companies such as student-loan servicer Navient Corp. to profit from what it calls a college bubble bursting in slow motion.

     

    The Boston-based firm is building positions against stocks of textbook publishers, student lenders and real estate companies that focus on college housing, Trafton said in an interview. Changes in the more than $1 trillion student loan market could hurt companies such as Navient, Sallie Mae and Nelnet Inc., according to a July investor letter from the firm.

     

    Businesses “levered to runaway inflation in post-secondary education are susceptible to growth and margin shocks,” the firm wrote in the letter.

     


    So there, ladies and gentlemen, is one way to trade the bubble if you believe expecting the nation’s graduates to somehow fork over $1.2 trillion is unrealistic in a job market where landing a gig as “head bartender” is sometimes the best one can hope for if you happen to have majored in anything other than petroleum engineering

    We wonder how many hedge funds are hard at work with Wall Street creating customized deals full of the worst student loan credits they can find with the sole intention of betting against them. 

  • Manic Monday Becomes Turmoil Tuesday As China Rocks The Global Boat

    In honor of China's historic devaluation, today seemed like a two-clip day… For the Traders…

    and of course… for the news media after yesterday's celebrations…

     

    Ok, having got that off our chest we start with… USDCNH's collapse (utterly destroying carry traders as implying vol exploded) has continued after China's close…

     

    Is it any wonder that carry trades worldwide exploded?

    US equities roundtripped all of yesterday's gains… then bounced…

     

    Leaving only Nasdaq red on the week though…but they did try to ramp that too…

     

    Weighed down by AAPL..down 5% – worst since Jan 2014…

     

    Dow Death Crosses…

     

    VIX rollercoaster continues – VIX up 13% breaking above 14…

     

    With a late day slam in VIX to ramp the S&P perfectly to VWAP… NOTE the institutional selling at VWAP on each bounce…and the volume difference!!

     

    File these two charts under the WTF folder… Energy credit spiked to 1028bps and WTI crude collapsed to a $42 handle… so it makes perfect sense that energy stocks would surge…

     

    Because buying Energy stocks at 22.85x is definitely a great call as credit and crude collapse…

     

    Submerging markets collapse to 4 year lows…

     

     

    Treasury yields collapsed around 9bps across the complex… The 5Y, 7Y, 10Y, and 30Y all closed below their 200DMAs

     

    FX markets turmoiled… commodities currencies were monkey-hammered and EUR strengthened as the most popular CNH carry pair (which led to modest USD strength)..

     

    Commodities were mixed with PMs up and industrials/base down…

     

    Precious Metals appeared to get a nod that things were coming…

     

    Crude Carnaged to fresh 6 year lows today… with a $42 handle… increased OPEC production (Supply) along with China growth (Demand) fears

     

    And Copper closed at fresh 6 year lows…

     

    Finally – a message from your friendly CNBC correspondent: "Flat Is The New Up"

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Just As Brazil Hits Rock Bottom, Things Are About To Get Even Worse

    For anyone who might have missed it, Brazil is in trouble.

    The country is “at the center of a triple unwind of EM credit, China’s leverage, and US monetary easing” (to quote Morgan Stanley) and as Goldman recently pointed out, faces a stagflationary nightmare.

    Last quarter, Brazil suffered through the worst growth-inflation mix in over ten years. As Goldman put it, “since 1Q2004 there has not been a single quarter in which we had simultaneously higher inflation and lower growth than during 2Q2015.”

    And then there’s the twin deficit problem. Here’s Goldman again:

    Over the last 11.5 years, we cannot identify a month with a strictly-worse fiscal-CA deficit outcome than that of May-15 (lower left quadrant is empty). In fact, at 7.9% of GDP the fiscal deficit is now the widest it has ever been since Jan-04, and there were only a few months (5 out of 137 months in the sample) were the current account deficit was marginally wider than currently.


    Meanwhile, as we mentioned on Monday, Dilma Rousseff is now the most unpopular democratically elected president since a military dictatorship ended in 1985, with an approval rating of just 8%. In a recent poll, 71% said they disapprove of the way Rousseff is doing her job… and two-thirds would like to see her impeached. Here’s Bloomberg summing up the situation

    To be sure, the president faces a host of challenges this month, not least of which is a nationwide protest planned for Aug. 16.

     

    The country’s audit court also must decide whether the government broke the fiscal law by doctoring budget results last year. A ruling against the government could provide the legal foundation to start impeachment hearings, opposition lawmakers say. Her administration says previous presidents used the same practices.

     

    Investors are concerned that the political instability will push Brazil into a deeper recession and make it increasingly vulnerable to a sovereign-credit downgrade. The real has depreciated 8.1 percent in the last month, the biggest decline among 16 major currencies tracked by Bloomberg.

     


    Given all of this, just about the last thing Brazil needed was for China to officially enter the global currency wars, which is of course exactly what happened overnight. Our response:

    And the response from Brazil’s trade ministry (via Reuters):

    Brazil’s Trade Minister Armando Monteiro on Tuesday said China’s decision to devalue the yuan could hurt the country’s manufacturing exports. 

    So what lies ahead for Brazil given all of the above? Well, further BRL weakness – or at least according to Goldman. Here’s more:

    We are moving our BRL forecasts to show further downside – we expect $/BRL to reach 4.00 in 12 months (relative to 3.55 previously). A weaker BRL is part of a necessary adjustment to address the macro imbalances in Brazil; and the combination of a weak and increasingly back-loaded path of fiscal adjustment and a central bank that appears to be done with tightening policy for now suggests that the exchange rate is likely to bear more of the overall burden of absorbing the impact of the commodity price downdraft, restoring competitiveness and correcting the current account deficit. 

     

    Brazil stands at a crossroads – both roads involve currency depreciation. The combination of significant macro challenges (economic contraction, elevated inflation and large fiscal and current account deficits) and a deteriorating political and institutional backdrop means that Brazil stands at a pivotal crossroads. One road involves the risk of a further deterioration in the political backdrop morphing into a full-fledged governability and institutional crisis (potentially including the departure of key policymakers) and a further deterioration in investor (and rating agency) confidence, with an associated additional hit to an already contracting economy. The other road involves a potential stabilisation in the political picture, which in turn would provide the authorities with room to undertake necessary short- and medium-term fiscal consolidation measures, coupled with monetary easing further down the line. In either case, we think the BRL is likely to depreciate further because it is hard for us to see a route back to a more balanced set of macro outcomes in Brazil that do not involve currency weakness. Along the first road, the depreciation is likely to be sharper and disruptive, with scope for overshooting and an eventual rebound; the alternative scenario would likely involve a grinding, more controlled move, potentially encouraged by policymakers.

     

    Macro imbalances in Brazil are large, the worst in almost a decade…We have developed a simple scoring algorithm to assess the scale of internal (inflation relative to target) and external imbalances (current accounts relative to sustainable levels) and, as Exhibit 1 shows, in Brazil these imbalances are at their widest combined level in a decade. The fiscal deficit at -8.1% of GDP is also at its widest in more than 20 years, with the combined twin deficits now tracking at a disquieting 12.5% of GDP.

     

     

    Of course as we said late last month, the simple fact is that whether it’s China, runaway stagflation, or simple politician greed and corruption, Brazil has passed the recession phase and its economy is in absolute free fall and against a backdrop of an escalating currency war (which the country’s most important trading partner has just officially entered), unattainable fiscal targets, and protracted weakness in commodity prices, the path to stabilization and rebalancing is anything but clear, but what does seem virtually certain is that Brazil has a date with junk status in the not-so-distant future. 

    And on cue, just moments ago:

    • BRAZIL CUT TO Baa3 FROM Baa2 BY MOODY’S; OUTLOOK TO STABLE

    So that’s one step up from junk for Moody’s and one step from junk for S&P – it shouldn’t be long now, because no matter what Moody’s says, there isn’t anything “stable” about this situation.

    We suppose the only lingering questions are whether Rousseff will be impeached and whether economic decay, a dangerously unstable political situation, and problems of a more, shall we say, “putrid” nature, will conspire to make Rio a veritable ghost town for next summer’s Olympic games.

    Then again, this young lady doesn’t seem particularly concerned…

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 11, 2015

  • Don't Be Fooled By The Political Game: The Illusion Of Freedom In America

    Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “The shaping of the will of Congress and the choosing of the American president has become a privilege reserved to the country’s equestrian classes, a.k.a. the 20% of the population that holds 93% of the wealth, the happy few who run the corporations and the banks, own and operate the news and entertainment media, compose the laws and govern the universities, control the philanthropic foundations, the policy institutes, the casinos, and the sports arenas.”—Journalist Lewis Lapham

    Being a citizen in the American corporate state is much like playing against a stacked deck: you’re always going to lose.

    The game is rigged, and “we the people” keep getting dealt the same losing hand. Even so, most stay in the game, against all odds, trusting that their luck will change.

    The problem, of course, is that luck will not save us. As I make clear in my book, Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the people dealing the cards—the politicians, the corporations, the judges, the prosecutors, the police, the bureaucrats, the military, the media, etc.—have only one prevailing concern, and that is to maintain their power and control over the citizenry, while milking us of our money and possessions.

    It really doesn’t matter what you call them—Republicans, Democrats, the 1%, the elite, the controllers, the masterminds, the shadow government, the police state, the surveillance state, the military industrial complex—so long as you understand that while they are dealing the cards, the deck will always be stacked in their favor.

    Incredibly, no matter how many times we see this played out, Americans continue to naively buy into the idea that politics matter, as if there really were a difference between the Republicans and Democrats (there’s not).

    As if Barack Obama proved to be any different from George W. Bush (he has not). As if Hillary Clinton’s values are any different from Donald Trump’s (with both of them, money talks). As if when we elect a president, we’re getting someone who truly represents “we the people” rather than the corporate state (in fact, in the oligarchy that is the American police state, an elite group of wealthy donors is calling the shots).

    Politics is a game, a joke, a hustle, a con, a distraction, a spectacle, a sport, and for many devout Americans, a religion.

    In other words, it’s a sophisticated ruse aimed at keeping us divided and fighting over two parties whose priorities are exactly the same. It’s no secret that both parties support endless war, engage in out-of-control spending, ignore the citizenry’s basic rights, have no respect for the rule of law, are bought and paid for by Big Business, care most about their own power, and have a long record of expanding government and shrinking liberty.

    Most of all, both parties enjoy an intimate, incestuous history with each other and with the moneyed elite that rule this country. Don’t be fooled by the smear campaigns and name-calling. They’re just useful tactics of the psychology of hate that has been proven to engage voters and increase voter turnout while keeping us at each other’s throats.

    Despite the jabs the candidates volley at each other for the benefit of the cameras, they’re a relatively chummy bunch away from the spotlight, presenting each other with awards (remember when Jeb Bush presented Hillary Clinton with a Liberty Medal for her service to the country), attending each other’s weddings (Bill and Hillary had front-row seats for Trump’s 2005 wedding), and embracing with genuine affection.

    Trump’s various donations to the Clintons (he donated to Hillary’s Senate campaigns, as well as the Clinton Foundation) are not unusual. Remember, FOX News mogul Rupert Murdoch actually hosted a fundraiser for Hillary’s Senate reelection campaign back in 2006 and contributed to her presidential campaign two years later. In fact, FOX News has reportedly been one of Hillary’s biggest donors for the better part of two decades.

    Are you starting to get the picture? It doesn’t matter who wins the White House, because they all work for the same boss: Corporate America. In fact, many corporations actually hedge their bets on who will win the White House by splitting their donations between Democratic and Republican candidates.

    We’re in trouble, folks, and picking a new president won’t save us.

    We are living in a fantasy world carefully crafted to resemble a representative democracy. It used to be that the cogs, wheels and gear shifts in our government machinery worked to keep our republic running smoothly. However, without our fully realizing it, the mechanism has changed. Its purpose is no longer to keep our republic running smoothly. To the contrary, this particular contraption’s purpose is to keep the corporate police state in power. Its various parts are already a corrupt part of the whole.

    Just consider how insidious, incestuous and beholden to the corporate elite the various “parts” of the mechanism have become.

    Congress. Perhaps the most notorious offenders and most obvious culprits in the creation of the corporate-state, Congress has proven itself to be both inept and avaricious, oblivious champions of an authoritarian system that is systematically dismantling their constituents’ fundamental rights. Long before they’re elected, Congressmen are trained to dance to the tune of their wealthy benefactors, so much so that they spend two-thirds of their time in office raising money. As Reuters reports, “For many lawmakers, the daily routine in Washington involves fundraising as much as legislating. The culture of nonstop political campaigning shapes the rhythms of daily life in Congress, as well as the landscape around the Capitol. It also means that lawmakers often spend more time listening to the concerns of the wealthy than anyone else.”

     

    The President. With the 2016 presidential election shaping up to be the most expensive one in our nation’s history, with estimates as high as $10 billion, “the way is open for an orgy of spending by well-heeled interest groups and super rich individuals on both political sides.” Yet even after the votes have been counted and favors tallied, the work of buying and selling access to the White House is far from over. President Obama spends significant amounts of time hosting and attending fundraisers, having held more than 400 fundraising events over the course of his two terms in office. Such access comes with a steep price tag. It used to be that $100,000 got you an overnight stay at the White House. Now it will cost you $500,000 for four meetings a year with President Obama. Yet as Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig asks, “[H]ow does a man, as a person, run the nation when he’s attending 228 fundraisers? And the answer is not very well. It's pretty terrible for your ability to do your job. It's pretty terrible for your ability to be responsive to the American people, because—let me tell you—the American people are not attending 228 fundraisers. Those people are different.”

     

    The Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court—once the last refuge of justice, the one governmental body really capable of rolling back the slowly emerging tyranny enveloping America—has instead become the champion of the American police state, absolving government and corporate officials of their crimes while relentlessly punishing the average American for exercising his or her rights. Like the rest of the government, the Court has routinely prioritized profit, security, and convenience over the basic rights of the citizenry. Indeed, law professor Erwin Chemerinsky makes a compelling case that the Supreme Court, whose “justices have overwhelmingly come from positions of privilege,” almost unerringly throughout its history, sides with the wealthy, the privileged, and the powerful. For example, contrast the Court’s affirmation of the “free speech” rights of corporations and wealthy donors in McCutcheon v. FEC, which does away with established limits on the number of candidates an entity can support with campaign contributions, and Citizens United v. FEC with its tendency to deny those same rights to average Americans when government interests abound, and you’ll find a noticeable disparity.

     

    The Media. Of course, this triumvirate of total control would be completely ineffective without a propaganda machine provided by the world’s largest corporations. Besides shoving drivel down our throats at every possible moment, the so-called news agencies which are supposed to act as bulwarks against government propaganda have instead become the mouthpieces of the state. The pundits which pollute our airwaves are at best court jesters and at worst propagandists for the false reality created by the American government.

     

    The American People. “We the people” now belong to a permanent underclass in America. It doesn’t matter what you call us—chattel, slaves, worker bees, drones, it’s all the same—what matters is that we are expected to march in lockstep with and submit to the will of the state in all matters, public and private. Through our complicity in matters large and small, we have allowed an out-of-control corporate-state apparatus to take over every element of American society.

    Our failure to remain informed about what is taking place in our government, to know and exercise our rights, to vocally protest, to demand accountability on the part of our government representatives, and at a minimum to care about the plight of our fellow Americans has been our downfall.

    Now we find ourselves once again caught up in the spectacle of another presidential election, and once again the majority of Americans are acting as if this election will make a difference and bring about change—as if the new boss will be different from the old boss.

    When in doubt, just remember what comedian and astute commentator George Carlin had to say about the matter:

    The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls. They got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying. Lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want. They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests.

     

    They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork…. It’s a big club and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club. …The table is tilted, folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice…. Nobody seems to care. That’s what the owners count on…. It’s called the American Dream, 'cause you have to be asleep to believe it.

  • Trainwreck? US Freight Carloads Collapse, Flash Recession Warning

    Trainwreck? Rail traffic fell in July from a year ago as WSJ reports an increase in container volumes couldn’t offset a steep decline in oil and coal shipments according to the Association of American Railroads. Despite almost constant reassurance that plunging oil prices are 'unequivocally good" for America, AAR analysts warn "railroads are overexposed, relative to the economy in general, to the energy sector," adding that traffic data indiates "growth is slow and the recovery could be threatened by an interest-rate increase by the Fed."

    We have seen this kind of slide before…

     

    As The Wall Street Journal reports,

    Rail traffic fell in July from a year ago as an increase in container volumes couldn’t offset a steep decline in oil and coal shipments, the Association of American Railroads said in its monthly report Friday.

     

    The number of carloads carrying oil and petroleum products dropped 13.6% from a year ago to 67,909 last month, while coal volumes sank 12.5%. Container shipments rose 3.8% to 1.2 million. Traffic overall fell 1.8% to 2.7 million, the association said.

     

    Oil-train shipments have tumbled this year, hurt by plunging prices for crude and concerns about the safety of transporting petroleum by rail. That, plus declining demand for coal from power plants and overseas buyers, has hit railroad operators’ earnings.

     

     

    “Railroads are overexposed, relative to the economy in general, to the energy sector,” analysts with the AAR said in the traffic report.

    The intermodal transport of containers and trailers was a bright spot for the railroads in July, reflecting an expanding economy. Still, the AAR report cautioned that growth is slow and the recovery could be threatened by an interest-rate increase by the Federal Reserve, which is widely expected this fall.

  • China Enters Currency War – Devalues Yuan By Most On Record

    Chinese stocks are holding on to modest losses in the pre-open as, just as we have been warning, the PBOC weakens the Yuan fix by the most on record.

    As we first warned in March, and as became abundantly clear over the weekend when weaker than expected export data as well as the steepest decline in factory gate prices in six years underscored the extent to which the engine of global growth and trade has officially stalled, Beijing has no choice but to join the global currency wars, as the yuan’s dollar peg will ultimately prove to be too painful going forward. The renminbi has appreciated on a REER basis by double digits over the past 12 months, weighing heavily on already depressed exports. With multiple policy rate cuts having proven to be largely ineffective at resurrecting the flagging economy, the PBoC, despite the notion that this represents a “one-off”move, has been left with little choice. The bottom line: the danger posed by the country’s deepening economic slump now definitively outweighs the risk of accelerating capital outflows – especially after the latter moderated slightly in Q2.

    As we noted over the weekend, “one can repeat that the PBOC will have to lower rates again until one is blue in the face (even as out of control soaring pork prices make it virtually impossible for the local authorities to ease any more), the realty is that Chinese QE is now inevitable. Why? Because while the government is already clearly buying stocks thereby validating the “other” transmission mechanism, the only thing the PBOC still hasn’t tried is to devalue the yuan. As global trade continues to disintegrate, and as a desperate China finally joins the global currency war, it will have no choice but to devalued next.”

    Recall also what SocGen’s Albert Edwards said some five months ago

    We have long believed that China’s growth and deflation problems will necessitate a devaluation of the renminbi in a strong dollar environment. There is mounting evidence that this process may already be underway as the currency falls to a 28-month low against the dollar…

     

    In the current deflationary environment the Chinese authorities simply can no longer tolerate the continued appreciation of their real exchange rate caused by the dollar link. 

    The 1.9% devaluation sends the Yuan to its weakest since April 2013. Gold is leaking lower as the offshore Renminbi collapses by the most since Oct 2011.

    PBOC weakens Yuan fix by 1.9% – the most ever…

     

    Offshore Renminbi is plunging..

     

    Quite a shocking move, clearly aimed at regaining some competitiveness, one must wonder, given the lackluster response in stocks whether this will merely exacerbate capital outflows… though it does make one wonder who was buying yesterday ahead of the news…

     

    Given The IMF’s delay decision, it seems that PBOC has decided maintaining a stable FX rate in the face of collapsing stock market is no longer in its best interest. Although the spin is already out…

    • *PBOC SAYS YUAN EFFECTIVE FX RATE STRONGER THAN OTHER CURRENCIES
    • *PBOC SAYS TODAY’S YUAN FIXING IS ONE-OFF ADJUSTMENT
    • *CHINA TO KEEP YUAN STABLE AT REASONABLE, EQUILIBIRIUM LEVEL
    • *PBOC SAYS YUAN EXCHANGE RATE DEVIATED FROM MARKET EXPECTATION

     

    Officials say this is a one-off adjustment and we note that USDCNY has been trading 1t around 10 points cheap to the fix for 6 months.

    • *PBOC PROPOSES TO EXTEND CNY TRADING HOURS
    • *CHINA PBOC SAYS TO STRENGTHEN MARKET ROLE IN YUAN FIXING
    • *PBOC TO PROMOTE CONVERGED ONSHORE, OFFSHORE YUAN EXCHANGE RATE
    • *PBOC SAYS TO CONVERGE ONSHORE, OFFSHORE YUAN EXCHANGE RATES

    And the reaction in gold:

    *  *  *

    Full PBOC Q&A

    1.Why choosing the current time to improve quotation of the central parity of RMB against US dollar?

    Currently, the international economic and financial conditions are very complex. The U.S. economy is recovering and markets are expecting at least one interest rate hike by the FOMC this year. As such, the U.S. dollar is strengthening, while the Euro and Japanese Yen are weakening. Emerging market and commodities currencies are facing downward pressure, and we are seeing increasing volatilities in international capital flow. This complex situation is posing new challenges. As China is maintaining a relatively large trade surplus, RMB’s real effective exchange rate is relatively strong, which is not entirely consistent with market expectation. Therefore, it is a good time to improve quotation of the RMB central parity to make it more consistent with the needs of market development.

    Since the reform of the foreign exchange rate formation mechanism in 2005, the RMB central parity, which serves as the benchmark of China’s exchange rate, has played an important role in market expectation and stabilizing RMB exchange rate. Recently, however, the central parity of RMB has deviated from the market rate to a large extent and with a larger duration, which, to some extent, has undermined the market benchmark status and the authority of the central parity. Currently, the foreign exchange market is developing in a sound manner, and market participants are increasingly strengthening their pricing and risk management capacities. The market expectation of RMB exchange rate is diverging, and the preconditions for improving quotation of the RMB central parity are becoming mature. Improving the market makers’ quotation will help enhance the market-orientation of RMB central parity, enlarging the operation room of market rate and enabling the exchange rate to play a key role in adjusting foreign exchange demand and supply.

    2.Why did the central parity of RMB against US dollar of 11 August change by nearly 2% compared to that of 10 August?

    We noticed that the central parity of RMB against US dollar of 11 August changed(in the depreciation direction) by nearly 2% compared to that of 10 August. The following two factors may be relevent. First, after the improvement of the quotation of the RMB central parity, the market makers may quote by reference to the closing rate of the previous day and, therefore, the accumulated gap between the central parity and the market rate received a one-time correction. Second, a series of macro economic and financial data released recently made the market expectation diverge. Market makers paid more attention to the changes of market demand and supply. Compared with the closing rate of 6.2097 Yuan per dollar in the previous day, today’s central parity depreciated by about 200 bps. The market still needs some time to adapt. The PBC will monitor the market condition closely, stabilizing the market expectation and ensuring the improvement of the formation mechanism of the RMB central parity in an orderly manner.

    3.RMB exchange rate reform: what’s next?

    Next, the reform of RMB exchange rate formation mechanism will continued to be pushed forward with a market orientation. Market will play a bigger role in exchange rate determination to facilitate the balancing of international payments. Foreign exchange market development will be accelerated and foreign exchange products will be enriched. In addition, the PBC will push forward the opening-up of the foreign exchange market, extending FX trading hours, introducing qualified foreign institutions and promoting the formation of a single exchange rate in both on-shore and off-shore markets. Based on the developing condition of foreign exchange market and the macroeconomic and financial, the PBC will enhance the flexibility of RMB exchange rate in both directions and keep the exchange rate basically stable at an adaptive and equilibrium level, enabling the market rate to play its role environment, retiring from the routine FX intervention, and improving the managed floating exchange rate regime based on market demand and supply.

    Currently, under the complex international economic and financial condition, we are seeing increasingly large and volatile cross-border capital flow. As such, the PBC and SAFE will strengthen the examination of banks’ FX transactions according to relevant laws and regulations, adopt effective measures to fight money laundering, terrorist financing and tax evasion activities, and improve the monitoring of suspicious cross-border capital flow. The PBC and SAFE will severely punish illegal FX transactions, including underground banks, and maintain a compliant and orderly capital flow.

    *  *  *

    It is unclear what the potential losses for hedging/trading vehicles will be in the ‘most stable carry currency’ but as we noted in April 2014, TRF losses would be the 10s of billions… 

    The total size of the carry trade is hard to estimate although even just looking at some of the onshore CNY positions accumulated, DB Asia FX strategist Perry Kojodjojo estimates that corporate USD/CNY short positions are around $500bn. The size of the carry trade and the fact that China saw significant capital outflows during the last period of substantial Renminbi depreciation in the summer of 2012 has led to concerns over what this might mean for both the Chinese economy and financial markets as well as broader global financial implications.

    Morgan Stanley believes that one such carry-trade structured product that will be the “pressure point” for this – should the Yuan continue to depreciate – is the Target Redemption Forward (TRF) which has a payoff that looks as follows…

    While this is just an example of a product payoff matrix to the holder, the broader point is that the USD/CNH market has a particular level (or range of potential levels) at which three factors can create non-linear price action. These are:

     

    1. Losses on TRF products will (on average) crystallize if USD/CNH goes above a certain level. This has implications for holders of TRF products, who are mostly corporates;

     

    2. The hedging needs of writers of TRF products (banks) mean that there is a point of maximum vega for banks in USD/CNH. Below this level banks need to sell USD/CNH vol; above this level banks need to buy USD/CNH vol;

     

    3. The delta-hedging needs of banks are complex. As we approach the average strike (the 6.15 in the theoretical point of Exhibit 1), banks need to buy spot USD/CNH. Above this point but below the European Knock-in (EKI) (i.e., between 6.15 and 6.20 in Exhibit 1), banks need to sell spot. Then above the EKI, banks don’t need to do anything in spot.

    From internal Morgan Stanley data, we estimate that the point of maximum vega is somewhere in the range of 6.15-6.20, and that the 6.15-6.20 in Exhibit 1 is reasonably indicative of the average strikes and EKIs in the market.

     

    In other words, so long as the TRF products remain in place (i.e., are not closed out) and we remain below the maximum vega point (somewhere between 6.15 and 6.20), there is natural selling pressure by banks in USD/CNH vol. When we get above that level, there is natural vol buying pressure.

     

    Of course, in the scenario that USD/CNH keeps trading higher and goes above the average EKI level, the removal of spot selling flow by banks and the need to buy vol means the topside move may accelerate.

    Simply put, if the CNY keeps going (whether by PBOC hand or a break of the virtuous cycle above), then things get ugly fast…

    How Much Is at Stake?
    In their previous note, MS estimated that US$350 billion of TRF have been sold since the beginning of 2013. When we dig deeper, we think it is reasonable to assume that most of what was sold in 2013 has been knocked out (at the lower knock-outs), given the price action seen in 2013.

    Given that, and given what business we’ve done in 2014 calendar year to date, we think a reasonable estimate is that US$150 billion of product remains.

    Taking that as a base case, we can then estimate the size of potential losses to holders of these products if USD/CNH keeps trading higher.

     

    In round numbers, we estimate that for every 0.1 move in USD/CNH above the average EKI (which we have assumed here is 6.20), corporates will lose US$200 million a month. The real pain comes if USD/CNH stays above this level, as these losses will accrue every month until the contract expires. Given contracts are 24 months in tenor, this implies around US$4.8 billion in total losses for every 0.1 above the average EKI.

    Deutsche Bank concludes…

    Looking forward it’s possible that the PBOC is not attempting to actively engineer a sustained depreciation of the Renminbi but rather is attempting to increase the level of two-way volatility in the market to discourage the carry trade and also excessive capital inflows. In terms of the broad risk going forward the sheer scale of the challenge the PBOC has set out to tackle likely means they will have to move with restraint. This is certainly a story to watch…

    As Morgan Stanley warns however, this has much broader implications for China

    The potential for US$4.8 billion in losses for every 0.1 above the average EKI could have significant implications for corporate China in its own right, as could the need to post collateral on positions even if the EKI level is not breached.

     

    However, the real concern for corporate China is linked to broader credit issues. On that, it’s worth reiterating that the corporate sector in China is the most leveraged in the world. Further loss due to structured products would add further stress to corporates and potentially some of those might get funding from the shadow banking sector. Investment loss would weaken their balance sheets further and increase repayment risk of their debt.

     

    In this regard, it would potentially cause investors to become more concerned about trust products if any of these corporates get involved in borrowing through trust products. In this regard, this would raise concerns among investors, given that there is already significant risk of credit defaults to happen in 2014.

    Remember, as we noted previously, these potential losses are pure levered derivative losses… not some “well we are losing so let’s greatly rotate this bet to US equities” which means it has a real tightening impact on both collateral and liquidity around the world… yet again, as we noted previously, it appears the PBOC is trying to break the world’s most profitable and easy carry trade – which has created a massive real estate bubble in their nation (and that will have consequences).

    *  *  *

    As we noted then, and seems just as applicable now, The Bottom Line is the question of whether the PBOC’s engineering this CNY weakness is merely a strategy to increase volatility and thus deter carry-trade malevolence (in line with reform policies to tamp down bubbles) OR is it a more aggressive entry into the currency wars as China focuses on its trade (exports) and keeping the dream alive? (Or, one more thing, the former morphs into the latter as a vicious unwind ensues OR the market tests the PBOC’s willingness to break their momentum spirit).

    Finally, putting aside speculative trader P&L losses, many of which are said to be of Japanese origin and thus will hardly enjoy much or any PBOC sympathies, here is CLSA’s Russel Napier on what the long-term fate of the Renminbi will be:

    “Mercantilist alchemy transmutes China’s external surpluses into foreign exchange reserves and renminbi. But with capital outflows from China at record highs, those surpluses are only maintained due to its citizens’ foreign-currency borrowing. Bank-reserve and M2 growth are already near historical lows and are driving tighter monetary policy. This will lead to severe credit-quality issues and force the authorities to accept a credit crunch or opt for a major devaluation of the renminbi. They will do the latter; and despite five years of QE, the world will get deflation anyway.”

    One now wonders how the Bank of Japan and The Bank of Korea will respond.. especially as protectionism rears it ugly head also…

    • RTRS – CHINA TO RESUME 13 PCT VALUE ADDED TAX RATE ON FERTILISER IMPORTS AND SALES FROM SEPT 1 – GOVT

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • This Wasn't Supposed To Happen: Household Spending Expectations Crash

    One of the biggest drivers of the so-called recovery (in addition to the Fed’s $4.5 trillion balance sheet levitating te S&P500 and the offshore bank accounts of 1% of the US population) has been the US consumer: that tireless spending horse who through thick, thin, recession and depression is expected to take his entire paycheck, and then some tacking on a few extra dollars of debt, and spend it on worthless trinkets.

    Sure enough, for the past 8 years, said consumer has done just that and with the help of the endless hopium and Kool-Aid dispensed by the administration (who can forget Tim Geithner’s August 2010 op-ed “Welcome to the Recovery“), and by the political and financial propaganda media, spent, spent and then spent some more hoping that “this time it will be different.”

    This all came to a screeching halt earlier today when courtesy of the latest New York Fed Survey of Consumer Expectations, we learned that the US consumer has finally tapped out.  Households reported that they expected to increase their spending by just 3.5% in the next year, a major drop from the 4.3% the month before. This was the lowest reading in series history.

    Worse, when adjusting for household inflation expectations, which have been relatively flat if modestly declining around 3%, real spending intentions, when adjusted for inflation, just crashed to a barely positive 0.5%, down over 60% from the prior month. This too was the lowest print in series history.

     

    Think America’s poor have finally revolted, and refuse to spend any more? Think again: the biggest culprit in the collapse in spending intentions was the middle class (those making between $50 and $100K) but mostly the wealthy, those with incomes over $100K. It was the latter whose spending expectations dropped to, you guessed it, the lowest in series history.

    Needless to say, this was not supposed to happen.

    Worse, in an economy where 70% of the GDP is in the hands of consumer spending, a collapse in spending intentions to multi-year low levels means just one thing: recession.

    The only silver lining is that since the source of this data is the Fed itself, then Yellen will surely be aware of the dramatic shift taking place within the biggest drive of US economic growth. Which is why for all those wondering just what caused today’s market surge which was driven not by China’s collapsing economy, but by the realization that the Fed will not only not hike in September, but probably won’t hike in December, or ever, just look at the first chart above.

    Source: NY Fed

  • Escaping Serfdom

    Submitted by Jeff Thomas via InternationallMan.com,

    The concept of government is that the people grant to a small group of individuals the ability to establish and maintain controls over them. The inherent flaw in such a concept is that any government will invariably and continually expand upon its controls, resulting in the ever-diminishing freedom of those who granted them the power.

    When I was a schoolboy, I was taught that the feudal system of the Middle Ages consisted of serfs tilling small plots of land that belonged to a king or lord. The serfs lived a meagre life of bare subsistence and were subject to the tyranny of the king or lord whose men would ride into their village periodically and take most of the few coins the serfs had earned by their toil.

    The lesson I was meant to learn from this was that I should be grateful that, in the modern world, I live in a state of freedom from tyranny, and as an adult, I would pay only that level of tax that could be described as “fair”.

    Later in life, I was to learn that, in the actual feudal system, some land was owned by noblemen, some by common men. The commoners typically farmed their own land, whilst the noblemen parcelled out their land to farmers, in trade for a portion of the product of their labours.

    As a part of that bargain, the nobleman would pay for an army of professional soldiers to protect both the farms and the farmers. Significantly, unlike today, no farmer was required to defend the land himself, as it was not his.

    There was no exact standard as to what the noblemen would charge a farmer under this agreement, but the general standard was “one day’s labour in ten”.

    This was not an amount imposed or regulated by any government. The nobleman could charge as much as he wished; however, if he raised his rate significantly, he would find that the farmers would leave and move to another nobleman's farm. The 10% was, in essence, a rate that evolved over time through a free market.

    Modern Serfdom

    Today, of course, if most countries levied an income tax of a mere 10%, there would be dancing in the streets. And the days of one simple straightforward tax are long gone.

    Today, the average person may expect to pay property tax (even if he is a renter), sales tax, capital gains tax, value added tax, inheritance tax, and so on. The laundry list of taxes is so long and complex that it is no longer possible to compute what the total tax level actually is for anyone.

    And to this, we add the hidden tax of inflation. In the US, for example, the Federal Reserve has, over the last hundred years, devalued the dollar by 98%, a hefty tax indeed. And the US is not alone in this.

    Only 50 years ago, the average man might work a 40-hour week to support a wife who remained at home raising the children. He often had a mortgage on his home but might have it paid off in ten years. He paid cash for nearly everything else that he and his family owned or consumed.

    Today, both husband and wife generally must be employed full time. In spite of this, they can’t afford as many children as their parents could, and they generally remain in debt their entire lives, even after retirement. This is significant inflation by any measure.

    In contrast, in the Middle Ages, the cost of goods might remain the same throughout the entire lifetime of an individual.

    In light of the above, the 10% that was paid by the serfs is beginning to look very good indeed.

    However, the great majority of people in the First World are likely to say, “What can you do; it’s the same all over the world. You might as well get used to it.”

    Well, no, actually, it’s not. There are many governmental and economic systems out there and many are quite a bit more “serf friendly” than those in the major countries.

    No Serfdom

    Countries such as the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the Bahamas have no income tax. Further, some have no property tax, sales tax, capital gains tax, value added tax, inheritance tax, and so on.

    So how is this possible?

    The OECD countries state that it is largely accomplished through money laundering, but this is not the case. In fact, low-tax jurisdictions are known to have some of the most stringent banking laws in the world.

    The success of these jurisdictions is actually quite simple. Most of them are small. They have small populations and therefore need only a small government. Yet each jurisdiction can accommodate large numbers of investors from overseas. This results in a very high level of income per capita.

    But unlike large countries, the money that is deposited or invested there is overseas money, so it is not captive. Investors can transfer it out overnight if need be.

    So, even if the politicians are no better than those in larger countries (generally, they are of the same ilk), they’re aware that, like the noblemen of old, if they attempt to impose taxation, the business will dry up quickly.

    In fact, such a free market dictates that the jurisdictions keep on their toes and keep trying to outdo their competitors by being more investment friendly.

    Therefore, the politicians in these countries, who might be only too happy to promise entitlements to their constituents, then tax them to the hilt in order to pay for the entitlements, are kept restrained by their own system.

    Are there downsides to living in a low-tax jurisdiction? Yes.

    As most of them are small but require a very high standard of living in order to attract investors, they must import virtually all goods needed by residents. This means a higher cost of all goods, as compared to the cost in a country that produces such goods. However, the wage level is also higher, which tends to balance out the equation.

    But there are also upsides.

    Those who move to such a jurisdiction find that after the first year there (when the basics such as cars, televisions, etc., have been paid for), all further income that has been saved from taxation is beginning to get deposited in the bank.

    At some point, the deposit level becomes great enough that investment becomes advisable. And as low-tax jurisdictions tend to be naturally prosperous, there is generally no limit to the opportunities for investment within the jurisdiction.

    There is a further benefit to living in a low-tax jurisdiction that tends to become apparent over time. Any government that depends on major investments from overseas parties must, of necessity, be non-intrusive and non-invasive. Such a government stays out of people’s business, eschews electronic monitoring and most certainly is not given to SWAT teams crashing down doors for imagined wrongdoing.

    Benjamin Franklin famously said, “Nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”

    He was correct, but the level of tax can vary greatly from one country to the next. And just as important, the level of government intervention into the affairs of its citizenry varies considerably. In a country where the level of tax is low, the quality of life is generally correspondingly high.

    A thousand years ago, noblemen, from time to time, became overly confident in their ability to keep the serfs on the farmland and demanded taxes beyond the customary “one day’s labour in ten”. When they did, the serfs of old often voted with their feet and simply moved. Today, this is still possible.

    If the reader presently contributes more than one day’s labour in ten to his government, he may wish to consider voting with his feet.

    You can find out more about our favorite jurisdictions in our free documentary video. Click here to watch it now.

  • If You Are A Chinese TV Host, Do NOT Call Mao Zedong An "Old Son Of A Bitch"

    When China’s equity bubble burst and the SHCOMP tumbled unceremoniously back to earth on the back of a harrowing unwind in the half dozen or so backdoor margin lending channels that had served to pump CNY1 trillion into an already inflated stock market, Beijing went looking for scapegoats. The ensuing crackdown on “malicious” sellers and “hostile foreigners” as well as a directive to reporters to avoid using certain phrases such as “rescue the market” served as poignant reminders to the world that although China is indeed making small steps towards liberalizing its markets, outcomes deemed undesirable by the Politburo will be “corrected” – and right quick. 

    Similarly, when a viral documentary about the country’s pollution problem began making the rounds back in March, the government moved quickly to suppress discussion as FT reported that “propaganda authorities directed news outlets not to publish stories about Under the Dome, the emotional first-person documentary by a former state television anchor.”

    Given the above, and given everything we know about China’s propensity for censorship in all its forms, you can imagine that one thing you would not want to do in China if you were, say, “one of the most recognizable faces” on a state-run television station, is call Mao Zedong “an old son of a bitch,” but that’s exactly what Bi Fujian did back in April, and now Beijing’s media watchdog has “recommended” that Bi be “severely punished.” Here’s more from The Guardian:

    One of China’s best known television presenters is to face “severe punishment” after being caught on camera referring to his country’s Great Helmsman, Mao Zedong, as an “old son of a bitch”.

     

    As the host of “Star Boulevard” – a Britain’s Got Talent style variety show – Bi Fujian was one of the most recognisable faces on state broadcaster CCTV. 

     

    The 56-year-old had worked for the channel since 1989.

     

    However, Bi’s future at the channel was cast into doubt in April after he was filmed at a private dinner mocking Chairman Mao, who founded the People’s Republic of China in 1949 and ran it until his death in 1976.

     

    The video – which has been viewed more than 480,000 times on Youtube – shows Bi entertaining fellow diners with a rendition of a song from a Cultural Revolution era opera called Taking Tiger Mountain by Strategy.

     

    The television host peppers his table-side performance with a series of sarcastic asides about Mao, including: “Don’t mention that old son of a bitch – he tormented us!”


    While Bi and his dinner guests may have gotten a good laugh out of what looks to be a generally good natured joke, it’s “that old son of a bitch” that will likely have the posthumous last laugh, because the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television has deemed Bi’s behavior “a serious violation of political discipline” for which there is “zero tolerance.” Here’s The Guardian again: 

    News of Bi’s punishment was splashed onto the front pages of many Chinese websites on Sunday with readers weighing in on the episode with thousands of comments.

     

    “It is really pathetic and disgusting that after all these decades Mao is still a taboo,” wrote one. Another commented: “Bi should be seriously punished and expelled from the party for insulting Chairman Mao.”

    And even though Bi has already said he feels “extremely pained” about his behavior, we suspect, based on the State Administration’s comments on Monday, that the “pain” may just begun.

  • A Message From Generation Z: Thanks For Nothing

    Submitted by Lance Roberts via STA Wealth Management,

    This past weekend, I was reminded by my 9-year old son of the following passage in the Bible:

    "Out of the mouth of babies and infants, you have established strength because of your foes, to still the enemy and the avenger." – Psalm 8:2

    That verse has been shortened over time to become a colloquialism used when children have said something humorous in front of adults – "Out of the mouths of babes."

    It was on our drive to Bible study that my son asked for my phone to play a new song he liked. (Note: This is also the reason traditional "terrestrial" radio stations are dying a slow painful death. If it ain't "on demand" – it's dead.) After a moment of scrolling on a music download app, the following words begin to stream through the cabin:

    "We are the ones, the ones you left behind.
    Don't tell us how, tell us how to live our lives.
    Ten million strong we're breaking all the rules.
    Thank you for nothing, 'cause there's nothing left to lose."

    I was immediately struck by the lyrics and paused the song to ask my son if he understood the meaning of the lyrics. He replied simply – "no…but I like the song." 

    The song opened up the ability for my son and I to have an important dialog about the future of "Generation Z" (those born after 1995) and the challenges that they will have to face. More importantly, the reasons why "Generation Z'ers," those "10 million strong," feel like they have been "left behind" by the generations before them.

    What is interesting is that this was not a new song at all. In fact, the song debuted very quietly in 2013 by a band called MKTO (Misfit Kids and Total Outcasts) which was founded by two real life friends Tony Oller (21) and Malcolm Kelly (20). According to an interview with with Celebuzz the duo stated:

    "We wanted to have a song that described our views of our generation, and to describe how we feel about being in the circumstances we are in, thanks to previous generations making mistakes."

    However, it is not surprising that two twenty-somethings may be feeling the way they do. Let's take a look at some of the issues that they are growing up with.

    Job Growth

    As I have discussed often, the structural shift in employment, has had a negative impact on both total employment and particularly that of Generation Z. Currently, the number of individual working full time, between the ages of 16 and 24, has only seen a modest recovery since the end of the financial crisis.

    Employed-16-24-081015

    However, the story is substantially worse as the majority of those jobs were taken by immigrant workers. As recently discussed by the Center For Immigration Studies:

    "It's frustratingly common: The mainstream media discusses a social problem obviously impacted by immigration — overcrowding, low wages, increasing poverty, etc. — but assiduously avoids any mention of immigration."

    Native-Summer-Employment-july-12

    The importance of youth employment is extremely critical to that generation. As the CIS explains:

    "The decline in youth employment is a serious problem that deserves a serious examination. After all, a number of studies have found that the lack of early labor market experience can have a significant negative impact on employment and wages later in life."

    Student Debt

    The next problem is the mountain of personal debt weighing on both the Millennial and Z generations. As shown in the chart below, over the last 6-years student debt has skyrocketed.

    Student-Loans-081015

    The problem, as discussed previously, is not all student loans went to higher educations. Student loans are sources of cheap and easy capital to support spending requirements. The WSJ confirmed the same:

    "The Education Department's inspector general warned last month that the rise of online education has led more students to borrow excessively for personal expenses.

     

    The report also found the schools disbursed an average of $5,285 in loans each to more than 42,000 students who didn't log any credits at the time."

    The problem, of course, is that only about 1/3 of those that enroll in college actually graduate. This leaves a large number of individuals heavily debt burdened without the college degree needed to obtain a higher wage level to support the debt. Its a vicious cycle that now weighs on a large group of the younger generation and negatively impacts future consumption trends in the economy.

    Government Debt

    Of course, it isn't just consumers that have over borrowed to the point that it now negatively impacts economic growth. Since 2009, the government itself has went on an unprecedented spending binge that has doubled the amount of Federal Debt outstanding.

    GDP-Debt-Ratio-081015

    The problem, as shown, is that increases in the debt/GDP ratio has a long-term negative consequence to economic growth. Rising debt levels detract revenue obtained through taxation into the service of debt rather than reinvestment back into the economy via infrastructure development and other revenue positive projects. Such investments create jobs and increase production that supports stronger levels of consumption which comprises more than 2/3rds of economic growth.

    Unfortunately, with debt currently capped at the debt-ceiling limit, the prospects of stronger GDP growth in the next decade is likely to remain just as elusive as it has been over the last.

    Wage Growth

    Of course, the problem for both Millenials and Generation Z is that lower rates of economic growth are directly correlated to lower rates of wage growth. As shown below the correlation between the two is extremely high.

    Wage-GDP-Growth-081015

    Given the structural shift in employment, the impact of immigration and the continued burden of excessive debt on the individual, the trends of both economic and wage growth are unlikely to change anytime soon.

    Economic Growth

    The problem for Generation Z is not a transient one. As shown in the final chart below, the generations following the "baby boomers" have very little to be excited about. With the lowest average economic growth cycle currently in progress, there is little ability to "grow" out of the current debt problem.

    GDP-Annual-Growth-81015

    While Central Banks globally intervened to offset the impact of the financial crisis, they also impeded the "reset" process from occurring to clear the excesses built up in the financial and economic system. Furthermore, the inflation of asset prices simply created a burgeoning "wealth gap" which has largely bypassed the 90% of Americans that have little or no invested assets.

    The up and coming generations have plenty to blame on the "baby boomer" generation and the scores of bad fiscal and monetary policy decisions that has robbed them of their future. The job of each generation is to leave the world in a better place than they found it. It is clear, we failed.

     "Thank you for feeding us years of lies.
    Thank you for the wars you left us to fight.
    Thank you for the world you ruined overnight.
    But we'll be fine, yeah we'll be fine."

    However, for now, let the music play.

  • New Study Exposes The "Dark Side" Of ETFs

    Ever since we heard that some of the largest ETF issuers were lining up emergency liquidity lines to tap in the event all the retail money that’s piled into things like HY debt suddenly decides to head for the exits, we’ve gone out of our way to explain just why it is that the likes of Vanguard would consider paying out redemptions with borrowed money as opposed to selling the underlying assets. 

    The problem is that in the context of the post-crisis regulatory regime, banks are no longer willing to hold large inventories of securities and so, when a bond fund manager facing large outflows tries to transact in size, he or she will likely be confronted with an extremely thin secondary market. Rather than risk dumping a large amount of assets into a market with few buyers and thus facilitating a fire sale atmosphere, fund managers are considering paying out investors who sell with borrowed cash and selling off the underlying assets slowly as the market permits. 

    ETFs and other portfolio products mask this problem as long as flows are diversifiable. That is, if fund manager A is experiencing outflows, that’s ok as long as portfolio manager B is seeing inflows. However, once flows become unidirectional (i.e. everyone is selling), then managers will need to go and sell the underlying assets and that, in today’s market, is a big problem. Thus, ETFs give the illusion of liquidity – that is, investors assume there’s no problem because they can trade in and out easily, but should the flows suddenly all head in the same direction everyone will quickly discover that, as Howard Marks put it, an ETF “can’t be more liquid than the underlying.”

    Amusingly, a new academic study from researchers at Stanford, UCLA, and the Arison School of Business in Israel suggests that ETFs themselves are contributing to a lack of liquidity for the stocks they hold. Essentially, the argument is that increased ETF ownership leads to wider bid-asks, less analyst coverage, and higher correlations with broad market moves.

    Specifically, the hypotheses the researchers tested were: “1) An increase in ETF ownership is associated with higher trading costs for the underlying component securities, and 2) An increase in ETF ownership is associated with a deterioration in the pricing efficiency of the underlying securities.”

    On the first hypothesis, the authors looked at “the relation between ETF ownership and two proxies of liquidity that capture trading costs: (1) bid-ask spreads, and (2) price impact of trades.” On the second, they looked at “the extent to which stock prices reflect firm-specific information.” 

    The results: 

    We first demonstrate that an increase in ETF ownership is associated with an increase in firms’ trading costs. This is consistent with the idea of uninformed traders exiting the market of the underlying security in favor of the ETF. As uninformed traders exit and trading costs rise, we posit that pricing efficiency will decline. Consistent with this prediction, we find that higher levels of ETF ownership are associated with an increase in stock return synchronicity and a reduction in future earnings response coefficients. We also observe a negative association between ETF ownership and the number of analysts covering the firm. Collectively, the evidence presented in this paper suggests increased ETF ownership can lead to weaker information environments for the underlying firms. 

    And here’s WSJ summarizing:

    ETFs divert many individual and institutional investors from trading directly in certain stocks. And that means fewer opportunities for professional traders to profit from trading those stocks. Ownership of U.S. stocks by ETFs has grown from 0.1% of shares outstanding in 2000 to 7% in 2014, according to the paper.

     

    The diminished profit potential leads to less competition for shares among traders, and that, in turn drives up the cost of trading the shares for everyone, as measured by the so-called bid-ask spread, the authors say. This spread is the difference between the price a stock can be sold at on the market and the (higher) price it can be bought for at any given moment.

     

    The bid-ask spread is 6% wider on average when a big chunk of a company’s shares—more than 3% of the shares outstanding—is held by ETFs, compared with the spread when a stock has lower or no ownership by ETFs, the study found. 

     

    Wider bid-ask spreads not only increase the costs of trading, they also further reduce profit potential for traders. That gives traders less incentive to bid for stocks in anticipation of future earnings increases at the issuing companies. So stocks become less responsive to projected earnings, the report says.

     

    There also is less financial incentive for analysts to provide company-specific analysis for stocks with less profit potential. The study found that the number of analysts covering a stock falls as ETF ownership of the company increases. 

     

    Finally, less company-specific analysis also means that a greater proportion of a stock’s price moves are likely to be driven by industrywide or general market movements.

    Obviously, some of this is self-evident, but the important thing to note is that this looks to be still more evidence of a wholesale shift away from trading underlying asset classes in favor of trading derivatives.

    And while we might be able to distinguish between those who are intentionally avoiding the underlying markets due to perceived illiquidty (i.e. fund managers trading portfolio products to meet redemptions and satisfy inflows and traders resorting to futures to avoid illiquid cash Treasury markets) and those who are simply not trading the underlying because trading the alternative is easier (i.e. retail investors opting for ETFs over invdividual stocks because they don’t feel they have the “sophistication” to trade the individual names) the effect is the same: the market for the underlying assets becomes ever more illiquid. 

    Etf Paper

  • The Assault On Donald Trump Shows That The "2 Party System" Is Really A "1 Party System"

    Submitted by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

    Were you sickened by the Republican debate the other night? The hype leading up to the debate was unbelievable. Never before had there been so much interest in a debate this early in an election season, and it turned out to be the most watched program on Fox News ever. A record-shattering 24 million Americans tuned in, and what they witnessed was an expertly orchestrated assault on Donald Trump. From the very first moments, every question that was launched at Trump was an “attack question”. And then the laughable “focus group” that followed was specifically designed to show that “ordinary people” were “changing their minds” about Trump. By the end of the evening, it was abundantly clear that Fox News had purposely intended to try to destroy Trump’s candidacy.

    And of course Fox News is far from alone. Every mainstream news outlet in the entire country is running anti-Trump news stories every single day. Virtually every other presidential candidate in both parties is attacking him, and virtually every “political expert” from across the political spectrum is trashing his chances of success.

    So why is this happening?

    Normally, candidates that are not part of the “establishment” do not pose much of a threat. In order to win elections in this country, especially on a national level, you need name recognition and you need lots and lots of money.

    Donald Trump has both, and no matter what you may think of him you have to admit that he has star power.

    And he was never supposed to run for president. You see, the truth is that only members of “the club” are allowed to play. The elite very carefully groom their candidates, and they are usually able to maintain a very tight grip on both major political parties.

    This two-headed abomination that we call a “two party system” is in reality just a one party system. Yes, many Democrats and many Republicans really do hate one another, but at the end of the day there is very little difference between the two parties. That is why nothing ever really seems to change no matter who gets elected. George W. Bush continued almost all of Bill Clinton’s policies, and Barack Obama has continued almost all of George W. Bush’s policies. When they are running for office, they tell us what they think we want to hear, but once they get to D.C. they do exactly what the establishment wants them to do.

    Donald Trump, whether you love him or you hate him, is a threat to this system. He is not controlled by the elite, and he does and says all sorts of things that drive the elite absolutely nuts.

    If he was polling below 5 percent that wouldn’t be a problem. At first, the mainstream media attempted to portray him as a joke that would never get any real support.  But since then, Trump has proven that he is a serious candidate with some very serious ideas about how to fix this country.  Now that he is receiving far, far more support than the establishment choice (Jeb Bush), he must be destroyed.

    I can promise you right now that the Republican establishment will pull out every dirty trick in the book to keep Donald Trump from getting the Republican nomination.

    And if Donald Trump runs as an independent, the elite will move heaven and earth to keep him out of the White House.

    This isn’t even just about Trump.  If Ben Carson starts getting too much support, he will be destroyed too. This is how presidential elections in America work.

    What we witnessed during the Fox News debate the other night was not an accident. The goal was to make Jeb Bush look good and to make Donald Trump look bad. The following comes from Mike Adams

    But the one thing that really stood out was the total fraud of what Fox News pulled off. It was clear from the first five minutes that Fox News had pre-arranged softball questions for Jeb Bush to highlight his “heroic actions” and accomplishments. Meanwhile, the kinds of questions directed to Donald Trump were all thinly veiled accusations and insults, designed to attack Trump on issues that had nothing to do with running the country.

     

    The typical questions went something like this: (paraphrased)

     

    Fox News: “Jeb Bush, how did you get to be such an amazing leader?”

     

    Fox News: “Donald Trump, why do you hate women?”

     

    As if a debate with totally contrived questions wasn’t enough, Fox News also had a pre-arranged assembly of apparently “ordinary citizens” who were asked, after the debate, how many of them now hated Donald Trump.

    And even when “the debate” was over, the assault continued. If you have not seen the disgraceful “focus group interview” which Frank Luntz orchestrated, you can check it out below…

    I just about fell out of my chair when I saw that.

    Virtually everyone in the “focus group” that Frank Luntz put together supposedly had a positive view of Donald Trump before the debate, and then almost every single one of them supposedly become Trump haters during the course of the two hour debate.

    I am sure that they were hoping that everybody in the viewing public would “come to their senses” and become Jeb Bush supporters.

    But of course post-debate polling shows that is not happening at all.

    The Drudge Report conducted a flash poll immediately following the debate, and a whopping 44.67 percent of those that responded said that Trump won the debate.

    Ted Cruz was in second place with 14.31 percent.

    Jeb Bush got a measly 2.07 percent.

    A Newsmax survey came up with similar results…

    • Donald Trump: 38 percent
    • Ted Cruz: 15.5 percent
    • Neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson: 10.2 percent
    • Florida Sen. Marco Rubio: 9.7 percent
    • Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul: 9.3 percent
    • Ohio Gov. John Kasich: 4.9 percent
    • Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: 4.5 percent
    • Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: 3.5 percent
    • Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush: 2.5 percent
    • New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: 1.4 percent

    And a survey conducted by Time Magazine also produced similar findings. Donald Trump got 47 percent, Ben Carson was in second place with 11 percent, and Jeb Bush got 4 percent.

    But Donald Trump is not going to be the Republican nominee.

    Unless something goes horribly, horribly wrong for the Republican establishment, Jeb Bush is going to be the nominee.

    We have a system that is deeply, deeply broken and that does not reflect the will of the people.

    This was illustrated by one of the questions that Trump was asked during the debate

    BAIER: Mr. Trump, it’s not just your past support for single-payer health care. You’ve also supported a host of other liberal policies….You’ve also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton included, and Nancy Pelosi. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business-related favors. And you said recently, quote, “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”

     

    TRUMP: You’d better believe it.

     

    BAIER: — they do?

     

    TRUMP: If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage I’ve given to, just so you understand, a lot of money.

     

    TRUMP: I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people, before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me. And that’s a broken system.

    The really amazing thing is that nobody up on that stage disputed that what Trump was saying was true.

    It is very well understood by our politicians that when they get big checks from the elite for their campaigns that certain things are expected from them in return.

    Our government does not reflect the will of the people and it hasn’t for a very long time.

    Instead, it reflects the will of the elite, and the American people are getting sick and tired of it.

    Right now, surveys show that Donald Trump has far more support than any other Republican candidate.

    But he is not going to be the Republican nominee. The Republican establishment will make sure of that.

    There is still the possibility that Trump could run as an independent. That would be an extremely tough road, but on Sunday he sounded very open to the possibility

    The political hurricane that is Donald Trump didn’t recede over the weekend, even in the face of a rising tide of criticism from Republican rivals about his attack on Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly.

     

    Instead, the celebrity billionaire insisted in a string of interviews on Sunday TV shows that he had done nothing wrong, that “only a deviant” would interpret his words in an offensive way, and that he is leaving open the possibility of running an independent campaign for the White House if the GOP doesn’t treat him “fairly.”

     

    “I do have leverage and I like having leverage,” Trump declared on CBS’ Face the Nation on a morning that also included interviews with ABC’s This Week, CNN’s State of the Union and NBC’s Meet the Press.

    This is a scenario that I discussed in my previous article entitled “Republican Operatives Plot To Sabotage Trump – But That Could Turn Him Into Their Worst Nightmare“.  Personally, I believe that Donald Trump will decide to run as an independent when it becomes clear to him that the Republican establishment is going to prevent him from winning the nomination at all costs.

    But I could be wrong.

  • Why China Can't Unleash Major Stimulus (In 3 Simple Charts)

    It appears – according to the narrative assigned by the mainstream media – that any weakness in asset prices should be bought because China will inevitably have to unleash pure QE (as opposed to the modestly watered down version currently underway) or some combination of RRR cuts. This is 'western' thinking as the go to policy of the rest of the world's central banks has been – put on pants, print money, paper over cracks, proclaim victory. However, in China there is one big problem with this… stoking inflation… and most crucially the social unrest concerns when suddenly a nation of newly minted equity losers can no longer afford their pork (which is facing record shortages)

     

    As SocGen notes, the infamous pork cycle is heating up again

    Pork prices in the CPI basket have risen 17.4% since May and were up 16.7% yoy in July, which accounted for half of the headline CPI reading of 1.6% yoy.

     

     

    The current cycle is similar to the previous two disruptive cycles in terms of supply shortages[ZH – but considerably worse!!!]

     

     

    Pork prices will probably keep rising and push CPI above 2% yoy in the coming months, but the chance of CPI going much beyond 3% is limited in our view.

     

    Nevertheless, this inflation outlook is still likely to restrain the central bank’s scope for policy rate cuts.

     

     

    So, as SocGen concludes, judging from recent activity data, the economy is still under immense downward pressure. Furthermore, supply-driven inflation is by nature deflationary, as higher pork prices can squeeze other consumption in the absence of any acceleration in income growth.

     

    Therefore, fiscal policy has to step up, and monetary policy is likely to play an assisting role by providing targeted liquidity. It seems that the focus at the moment is on the indirect channels of policy bank funding support to infrastructure investment.

    * * *
    In other words, do not expect some broad based liquidity infusion (RRR cuts or QE) – policy reaction, just as we have seen in the stock market manipulation, will be piecemeal and focused.

  • The US Economy Continues Its Collapse

    Submitted by Paul Craig Roberts,

    Do you remember when real reporters existed? Those were the days before the Clinton regime concentrated the media into a few hands and turned the media into a Ministry of Propaganda, a tool of Big Brother. The false reality in which Americans live extends into economic life. Last Friday’s employment report was a continuation of a long string of bad news spun into good news. The media repeats two numbers as if they mean something—the monthly payroll jobs gains and the unemployment rate—and ignores the numbers that show the continuing multi-year decline in employment opportunities while the economy is allegedly recovering.

    The so-called recovery is based on the U.3 measure of the unemployment rate. This measure does not include any unemployed person who has become discouraged from the inability to find a job and has not looked for a job in four weeks. The U.3 measure of unemployment only includes the still hopeful who think they will find a job.

    The government has a second official measure of unemployment, U.6. This measure, seldom reported, includes among the unemployed those who have been discouraged for less than one year. This official measure is double the 5.3% U.3 measure. What does it mean that the unemployment rate is over 10% after six years of alleged economic recovery?

    In 1994 the Clinton regime stopped counting long-term discouraged workers as unemployed. Clinton wanted his economy to look better than Reagan’s, so he ceased counting the long-term discouraged workers that were part of Reagan’s unemployment rate. John Williams (shadowstats.com) continues to measure the long-term discouraged with the official methodology of that time, and when these unemployed are included, the US rate of unemployment as of July 2015 is 23%, several times higher than during the recession with which Fed chairman Paul Volcker greeted the Reagan presidency.

    An unemployment rate of 23% gives economic recovery a new meaning. It has been eighty-five years since the Great Depression, and the US economy is in economic recovery with an unemployment rate close to that of the Great Depression.

    The labor force participation rate has declined over the “recovery” that allegedly began in June 2009 and continues today. This is highly unusual. Normally, as an economy recovers jobs rebound, and people flock into the labor force. Based on what he was told by his economic advisors, President Obama attributed the decline in the participation rate to baby boomers taking retirement. In actual fact, over the so-called recovery, job growth has been primarily among those 55 years of age and older. For example, all of the July payroll jobs gains were accounted for by those 55 and older. Those Americans of prime working age (25 to 54 years old) lost 131,000 jobs in July.

    Over the previous year (July 2014 — July 2015), those in the age group 55 and older gained 1,554,000 jobs. Youth, 16-18 and 20-24, lost 887,000 and 489,000 jobs.

    Today there are 4,000,000 fewer jobs for Americans aged 25 to 54 than in December 2007. From 2009 to 2013, Americans in this age group were down 6,000,000 jobs. Those years of alleged economic recovery apparently bypassed Americans of prime working age.

    As of July 2015, the US has 27,265,000 people with part-time jobs, of whom 6,300,000 or 23% are working part-time because they cannot find full time jobs. There are 7,124,000 Americans who hold multiple part-time jobs in order to make ends meet, an increase of 337,000 from a year ago.

    The young cannot form households on the basis of part-time jobs, but retirees take these jobs in order to provide the missing income on their savings from the Federal Reserve’s zero interest rate policy, which is keyed toward supporting the balance sheets of a handful of giant banks, whose executives control the US Treasury and Federal Reserve. With so many manufacturing and tradable professional skill jobs, such as software engineering, offshored to China and India, professional careers are disappearing in the US.

    The most lucrative jobs in America involve running Wall Street scams, lobbying for private interest groups, for which former members of the House, Senate, and executive branch are preferred, and producing schemes for the enrichment of think-tank donors, which, masquerading as public policy, can become law.

    The claimed payroll jobs for July are in the usual categories familiar to us month after month year after year. They are domestic service jobs—waitresses and bartenders, retail clerks, transportation, warehousing, finance and insurance, health care and social assistance. Nothing to export in order to pay for massive imports. With scant growth in real median family incomes, as savings are drawn down and credit used up, even the sales part of the economy will falter.

    Clearly, this is not an economy that has a future.

    But you would never know that from listening to the financial media or reading the New York Times business section or the Wall Street Journal.

    When I was a Wall Street Journal editor, the deplorable condition of the US economy would have been front page news.

  • Mapping The "Not Donald Trump"-ness Of GOP Candidates

    Ever aware of the potential for change, GOP Presidential candidates face a tough balance currently. As The Washington Post explains, should Trump's 'burn-it-down' aggression ever cross one too many lines, around 20% of Republicans will be looking for someone else to support – someone who didn't think they were a total idiot for supporting Trump in the first place. Based on their responses and statements, WaPo has quantified the "Trumpness Factor" for each of the GOP candidates…

     

     

    An important note on these rankings… expect them to change…

    Read more here…

     

    Source: The Washnigton Post

  • Inside The Swiss Franc LIBOR Rate Rigging Chatroom: 6 Years Of Manipulation

    One of the nice things about the multitude of lawsuits and settlements surrounding the concerted effort by Wall Street’s largest banks to manipulate the world’s most important benchmark rates is they’ve produced a litany of hilarious chat transcripts that include such gems as “mess this up and sleep with one eye open at night” and the always popular, “if you ain’t cheatin, you ain’t tryin.

    Now, courtesy of the appendix attached to the latest LIBOR-related suit brought against Wall Street (and one hedge fund), we bring you six years of Swiss franc LIBOR manipulation presented in chronological order. Highlights here include:

    • It is our natural right to reflect our interest in the libor fixing process”
    • “Can’t you ask your fft to contribute 1m chf libor very low today? I have 10yr of fix, 8 of which against ubs and they’re getting on my nerves.”
    • “yes, ok mate, I am heading out for a run, enjoy, talk tom, get those fixings down”
    • “whoooooohooooooo 0.01%? that’d be awesome”

    Bluecrest Lawsuit 2

  • All The S&P 500 Support And Resistance Levels That Matter

    Given today’s extremely technical trading, we thought it appropriate to lay out exactly where the next stop hunts (up and down) will be…

     

     

    Trade Accordingly…

     

    Source: BofAML

  • Google Renames Itself "Alphabet", Stock Soars

    It’s long been difficult to catalogue everything that Google does, and apparently Google couldn’t keep up with anymore either because the company has unveiled a somewhat bizarre restructuring effort that will see “Google” become a wholly-owned subsidiary of a new holding company called “Alphabet.”

    Google directors will become Alphabet directors, Larry Page will be the holding company’s CEO, and Page’s deputy Sundar Pichai will now be CEO of Google. Alphabet will replace Google as the publicly traded entity, Google shares will become Alphabet shares, but the tickers will remain as is – or something. Here’s Bloomberg trying to put it in perspective

    Google is adopting this structure in order to make clearer the difference between its main business and longer-term endeavors, as Page and Brin take on more strategic roles, while leaving operational management to trusted deputies.

    Of course in today’s market, all news is good news even if it’s almost impossible to digest and evaluate, or maybe traders presume the move will be somehow “tax advantaged”, but whatever the case, the stock is soaring in AH trading.

    Here’s the full statement from Google.. err.. Alphabet:

    Google Announces Plans for New Operating Structure

    August 10, 2015

    G is for Google.

    As Sergey and I wrote in the original founders letter 11 years ago, “Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one.” As part of that, we also said that you could expect us to make “smaller bets in areas that might seem very speculative or even strange when compared to our current businesses.” From the start, we’ve always strived to do more, and to do important and meaningful things with the resources we have.

    We did a lot of things that seemed crazy at the time. Many of those crazy things now have over a billion users, like Google Maps, YouTube, Chrome, and Android. And we haven’t stopped there. We are still trying to do things other people think are crazy but we are super excited about.

    We’ve long believed that over time companies tend to get comfortable doing the same thing, just making incremental changes. But in the technology industry, where revolutionary ideas drive the next big growth areas, you need to be a bit uncomfortable to stay relevant.

    Our company is operating well today, but we think we can make it cleaner and more accountable. So we are creating a new company, called Alphabet. I am really excited to be running Alphabet as CEO with help from my capable partner, Sergey, as President.

    What is Alphabet? Alphabet is mostly a collection of companies. The largest of which, of course, is Google. This newer Google is a bit slimmed down, with the companies that are pretty far afield of our main internet products contained in Alphabet instead. What do we mean by far afield? Good examples are our health efforts: Life Sciences (that works on the glucose-sensing contact lens), and Calico (focused on longevity). Fundamentally, we believe this allows us more management scale, as we can run things independently that aren’t very related.

    Alphabet is about businesses prospering through strong leaders and independence. In general, our model is to have a strong CEO who runs each business, with Sergey and me in service to them as needed. We will rigorously handle capital allocation and work to make sure each business is executing well. We’ll also make sure we have a great CEO for each business, and we’ll determine their compensation. In addition, with this new structure we plan to implement segment reporting for our Q4 results, where Google financials will be provided separately than those for the rest of Alphabet businesses as a whole.

    This new structure will allow us to keep tremendous focus on the extraordinary opportunities we have inside of Google. A key part of this is Sundar Pichai. Sundar has been saying the things I would have said (and sometimes better!) for quite some time now, and I’ve been tremendously enjoying our work together. He has really stepped up since October of last year, when he took on product and engineering responsibility for our internet businesses. Sergey and I have been super excited about his progress and dedication to the company. And it is clear to us and our board that it is time for Sundar to be CEO of Google. I feel very fortunate to have someone as talented as he is to run the slightly slimmed down Google and this frees up time for me to continue to scale our aspirations. I have been spending quite a bit of time with Sundar, helping him and the company in any way I can, and I will of course continue to do that. Google itself is also making all sorts of new products, and I know Sundar will always be focused on innovation—continuing to stretch boundaries. I know he deeply cares that we can continue to make big strides on our core mission to organize the world’s information. Recent launches like Google Photos and Google Now using machine learning are amazing progress. Google also has some services that are run with their own identity, like YouTube. Susan is doing a great job as CEO, running a strong brand and driving incredible growth.

    Sergey and I are seriously in the business of starting new things. Alphabet will also include our X lab, which incubates new efforts like Wing, our drone delivery effort. We are also stoked about growing our investment arms, Ventures and Capital, as part of this new structure.

    Alphabet Inc. will replace Google Inc. as the publicly-traded entity and all shares of Google will automatically convert into the same number of shares of Alphabet, with all of the same rights. Google will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alphabet. Our two classes of shares will continue to trade on Nasdaq as GOOGL and GOOG.

    For Sergey and me this is a very exciting new chapter in the life of Google—the birth of Alphabet. We liked the name Alphabet because it means a collection of letters that represent language, one of humanity’s most important innovations, and is the core of how we index with Google search! We also like that it means alpha?bet (Alpha is investment return above benchmark), which we strive for! I should add that we are not intending for this to be a big consumer brand with related products—the whole point is that Alphabet companies should have independence and develop their own brands.

    We are excited about…

    • Getting more ambitious things done.
    • Taking the long-term view.
    • Empowering great entrepreneurs and companies to flourish.
    • Investing at the scale of the opportunities and resources we see.
    • Improving the transparency and oversight of what we’re doing.
    • Making Google even better through greater focus.
    • And hopefully… as a result of all this, improving the lives of as many people as we can.
    • What could be better? No wonder we are excited to get to work with everyone in the Alphabet family. Don’t worry, we’re still getting used to the name too!

  • Towards A State Of Near Chaos…

    Submitted by James H. Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

    Yes, there is such a thing as “the public,” a term that derives from the ancient Latin, populous (the people), via publicus (of the people), via old French, public — pertaining generally to the mass of adults dwelling in a polity, a society under (political) governance. In the USA, government is vested as a republic, also from the Latin, res publica, meaning the public thing, the vessel that contains the public.

    I present these terms to clarify how our society is cracking up. The American public, we the people, lately swoon into a morass of multi-dimensional failure: failure to control their economic lives, to regulate their appetites and their bodies, to understand what is happening to them, to fend off the propaganda and distractions that disable them, and to properly express and direct their wrath at those elements of the polity who deserve it.

    True, their awful, epic failures at this moment in history are largely engineered and aggravated by those who have captured the polity and turned it into a looting and racketeering engine. The net result, though, is a self-reinforcing circle of degradation that rots the collective ethos of the public while it destroys the vessel of the republic that contains it.

    Societies that act as though they are hostage to these forces of degradation are able to pretend that they are helpless in the face of them; that the public bears no responsibility for its own choices or for the disintegration of the polity they live under. Hence, the current condition of the American public and its disgraceful government.

    It’s not difficult to understand how Donald Trump becomes the instrument for the public’s wrath. Whatever his checkered career in land development amounts to, he is at least a freely-functioning and unfettered actor in the political arena. The public enjoys most of all his assertion of independence from the tremendous engine of grift that the republic has become. His arrant contempt for his rivals, and for the disgusting political process erected for the election contest, also thrills a big wad of the public. So far, his actual ideas for governing lack coherence, except for the rather general notion that uncontrolled immigration, and all the mendacious fakery associated with it, is a bad thing for the republic. Beyond that he offers only blustering claims that he is “very smart,” an “artist of deal-making,” a “patriot.”

    Almost nothing so far can knock him down or take him out. Fox News tried in last week’s “debate” — which was not a debate at all, really, but a half-assed interrogation — by trying to set the female half of the public against him for his nasty remarks about women over the years. Of course, the dirty secret of both politics and the media is that the common backstage chatter among pols and TV news producers is every bit as vulgar and hateful as anything Trump said. In case you haven’t noticed, all of America has turned into a verbal sewer, especially the virtual public realm of television. I don’t remember anyone complaining about the comportment of the characters in Tony Soprano’s Badda-Bing Lounge. In fact, awards were heaped on the depiction of that behavior. That’s who we are now.

    The rise and persistence of Trump raises a more pertinent question: why are all the other candidates such obvious shills for the implacable engine of grift that is destroying the Republic? Why has nobody with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, called bullshit on the basic operations of the machine? Why have no other persons of real stature stepped forward to challenge the suicidal dynamic of the age?

    There are many cycles in history, politics, and economics. One in particular afflicts the American public today: we’re at a cycle low for comprehending what is happening to us. Sometimes societies know very well what is going on and communicate it superbly. Such was the case in the late 1700s when American leaders filed divorce from Great Britain. Can you imagine any of the clowns onstage for the Fox News “debate” playing a role in writing the Federalist Papers? Obviously, the public and its putative representatives today don’t have a clue what is happening. And then, necessarily, they don’t have a clue what to do about it.

    The foregoing assumes that they are honorable persons, though, which may not be the case. This is the chief gripe against Hillary Clinton, of course: that she is an unprincipled monster of ambition and little more. That would be my take on her, for instance. Among the Republicans (as in party) only Rand Paul stands out as not appearing to be some kind of puppet shilling for the grift machine. After all, the party is the very embodiment of that machine. And by trying to play nicely in its arena, Rand Paul may lack the fortitude to attack it.

    I’m with those who think that the 2016 election campaign is going to be a wild spectacle beyond the current imaginings of news media. I’m serenely convinced that, among other things, the banking system is going to implode so hard and fast well before the nominating conventions that the nation will be in a state of near chaos. What’s out there now is just a tired dumb-show replaying the shopworn themes of an era that is about to slam to a close.

  • Stocks Volumelessly Surge On Biggest Short Squeeze Of The Year

    Today was very reminiscent of last Wednesday's NO REASON meltup… and that did not work out so well… So this seemed appropriate

     

    Today was the biggest short squeeze of 2015…

     

    No volume – you hear that!!

     

    Stocks did what stocks do – because as Bob Pisani said "a rally was overdue" – S&P 500 pushed back above its 50- and 100-DMA having bounced off the 200DMA on Friday…Nasdaq surges off 50DMA…

     

    The S&P 500 retraced all of last week's losses today…

     

    Because… AAPL…? Best day since January

     

    Small Caps – Russell 2000 – made it back above its 200DMA at 1221…but then fell back…

     

    Today's surge in The Dow managed to stave off the death cross and avoided the 8th day in a row of losses which would have stumped Pisani…NOTE: a close below 17850 tomorrow will trigger a death cross

     

    VIX was managed down to close to a 11 handle once again…

     

    Credit markets were not playing along fully…

     

    With energy credit risk surging well above 1000bps…but energy stocks don't care today.!!

     

    As the energy sector outperformed…

     

    Treasury yields bled higher from the early morning… biggest yield spike in a month… very notable steepening today…

     

    The dollar was monkey-hammered as Lockhart forgot to say "September" – biggest drop in 2 weeks… notice swissy weakness early which sponsored the equity rally in the US for a while…

     

    And Goldman notes we posted a bearish key reversal on Friday…

     

    Commodities surged with Copper and Crude jumping and gold and silver surging on hopes of China QE… or PBOC buying rumors… or algos gone manic…

     

    Crude's chaos today…

     

    Don't get too excited in Copper as Goldman warns this is abunce in a downtrend…

     

    Silver had its best day in 3 months… Gold's best day in 2 months…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • EPA Admits Spilling Millions Of Gallons Of Toxic Waste Into Colorado River – Stunning Aerial Footage

    By John Vibes via TheAntiMedia.org,

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal organization in charge of fining and arresting people and companies for damage done to the environment, spilled over a million gallons of toxic waste into the Animas river in Colorado this week. The waste came from an abandoned mining operation and turned the entire river a disgusting shade of bright orange.

    The EPA admitted earlier this week that the spill occurred while workers from the agency were using heavy machinery to open the Gold King Mine, an operation that was shut down some time ago. While trying to enter the mine, the machines busted a shaft that was filled with wastewater, creating a leak into the river.

    At first, the EPA attempted to downplay the spill and act like there was nothing wrong, but they were heavily criticized for those initial statements.

    Dave Ostrander, the EPA’s regional director told reporters in a later statement that “It’s hard being on the other side of this.”

    “We are very sorry for what happened. This is a huge tragedy. It’s hard being on the other side of this. Typically we respond to emergencies; we don’t cause them. … It’s something we sincerely regret,” he said.

    However, some people are not willing to let the EPA off that easily, even some politicians have rightly pointed out that the EPA should be treated in the same way that any company or private individual would be treated if they poisoned the river.

    U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton, who is from the area where the spill occurred said the EPA must pay for their mistake.

    “If a mining operator or other private business caused the spill to occur, the EPA would be all over them. The EPA admits fault and, as such, must be accountable and held to the same standard,” Tipton said.

    In a statement released this Thursday, Taylor McKinnon, of the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity, said that

    Endangered species downstream of this spill are already afflicted by same toxic compounds like mercury and selenium that may be in this waste.  Taylor McKinnon, of the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement Thursday. “These species are hanging by a thread, and every new bit of toxic exposure makes a bad situation worse. EPA’s downplaying of potential impacts is troubling and raises deeper questions about the thoroughness of its mine-reclamation efforts.”

    Aerial footage below:

    The EPA actually has no concern for the environment, they just happen to use the environment as a cover story to create laws and gain an advantage for the companies that lobbied for exemptions to the agency’s regulations, and to collect money in fines. There are solutions outside the common government paradigm, and that is mainly the ability for individuals, not governments, to hold polluters personally and financially accountable.

  • Artist's Impression Of The Next GOP Debate

    “When work is punished” bread, meet Presidential Campaign ‘circus’…

     

     

    Source: Townhall.com

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 10, 2015

  • Gunmen Attack US Consulate In Turkey After Explosion Kills Three

    Just as the Ferguson night turned violent, again, and at least two people were struck by gunfire during the latest riot to “commemorate” the death of Michael Brown, reports of violence came from another part in the world, Turkey where moments ago CNN Turk reported that two attackers, a man and a woman, opened fire on the U.S. consulate building in Turkey’s biggest city, Istanbul, on Monday and fled when police shot back.

    The Cihan news agency said those involved in the attack on the building in Istanbul’s Sariyer district included one man and one woman.  CNN Turk said there were no casualties.

    Al Jazeera has more:

    A gun attack targeted the US Consulate in Istanbul leading to an exchange of fire between assailants and security personnel, according to local media reports.

    The reports said that one attacker was male and the other one was female, adding that the police was searching for the suspects.

    Turkey has been in a heightened state of alert since it launched what officials described as a “synchronized war on terror” last month, including air strikes against Islamic State fighters in Syria and Kurdish militants in northern Iraq, and the detention of hundreds of suspects at home.

    U.S. diplomatic missions have been targeted in Turkey in the past.

    The far-leftist Revolutionary People’s Liberation Army-Front (DHKP-C), whose members are among those detained in recent weeks, claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing at the U.S. embassy in Ankara in 2013 which killed a Turkish security guard.

    This follows more local violence when a bomb attack at an Istanbul police station early on Monday morning killed three people and injured at least 10, the Dogan news agency said on Monday. Istanbul police headquarters confirmed in a statement that three police officers and seven civilians were wounded in the blast, but gave no death toll.

    The attack targeted the police station in Istanbul’s Sultanbeyli neighbourhood early on Monday morning and caused a fire that collapsed part of the three-storey building, the agency reported. The explosion also damaged neighbouring buildings and around 20 cars parked nearby, the private Dogan news agency reported.

    One of the police officers injured in the explosion is reportedly in critical condition.

    Al Jazeera’s Bernard Smith, reporting from Istanbul, said the blast struck at about 1am local time on Monday morning. “The neighbourhood is right on the outside edge of Istanbul in what could be called a ‘conservative’ area, way away from the central part of the city,” he said.

    He said that there was no immediate claim for the attack, which comes at a time of a sharp spike in violence between Turkey’s security forces and fighters from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK.

    The attacks also come at a time when Turkey is taking a more active role against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) fighters.

    In fact, as described in detail in “We Have A Civil War”: Inside Turkey’s Descent Into Political, Social, And Economic Chaos, things in the country located at the nexus between Europe and Asia are about to get a whole lot worse:

    Deflecting criticism surrounding Ankara’s anti-terror air campaign, Turkey’s foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu last week told state television that strikes against ISIS targets would pick up once the US had its resources in place at Incirlik which will supposedly serve as a hub for a new “comprehensive battle.”

    As of yesterday, the next phase in Turkey’s NATO-blessed war against the PKK ISIS is about to unfold when yesterday six F-16 jets and about 300 personnel arrived in Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, the U.S. military said, after Ankara agreed last month to allow American planes to launch air strikes against Islamic State militants from there.

    Prepare for much more violence, both real and false flagged, out of Turkey as the “war of Syrian invasion and Qatari gas pipeline liberation” unwinds with increasingly faster speed.

  • CouNT TRuMPuLa…

    GOP TRUMPULA

    Beware of wigs dressed as sheeple…

     

    .
    TRUMP ON SNOWDEN

     

    Sadly, he is no different from the rest of the statist shithead pack when it comes to a real issue.

  • Goldman Hires Former Head Of NATO To Deal With DONG Scandal

    Back in January 2014, we reported that Goldman’s merchant banking unit rushed to buy an 18% in Denmark’s DONG Energy (that would be Danish Oil & Natural Gas) company for $1.5 billion. The result was an immediate grassroots resistance campaign, as hundreds of thousands of Danes refused to hand over their DONG to the vampire squid for various reasons, not the least of which was granting Goldman veto rights over changes to DONG’s leadership and strategy, a right usually reserved for buyers of 33% of an entity. A bigger reason for the Danish anger at the Goldman DONG deal, was that as The Local reported a few months later, the sale “did not include a massive deal that both parties knew was imminent, shortchanging the company’s value by as much as 20 billion kroner.”

    Which was to be expected: as we further said in January 2014, “if Goldman is involved, it guarantees future benefits for the Vampire Squid”. Sure enough:

    Denmark lost out on billions of kroner when it sold partial ownership of Dong Energy to American investment firm Goldman Sachs in January 2014, Politiken reported Wednesday.

     

    When the Danish government sold an 18 percent stake of Dong to Goldman Sachs, the Finance Ministry calculated the company’s value at 31.5 billion kroner ($4.6 billion).

     

    But just three months later, Dong was granted the rights to instal a massive offshore wind park supported by the United Kingdom. According to Politiken, that deal shot Dong’s value up to over 50 billion kroner but was not calculated into the Goldman Sachs sale despite both Dong and the investment firm being fully aware of it.

     

    Politiken also reports that the looming deal was common knowledge throughout the wind industry. 

    As a result, the locals were less than delighted to learn the details of yet another Goldman pillaging of taxpayers, one which allowed Goldman to make a substantial return on its investment in just months courtesy of what was information which the government either did not have access to, or simply refused to notice.

    Bloomberg further reports that “the Goldman deal left an indelible mark on Danish politics. Disagreement over the Wall Street bank’s investment in state assets prompted a junior party in the former Social Democrat-led administration to quit the coalition in protest. Danes gathered in their thousands in front of the parliament to protest against the sale.”

    Indeed, the deal caused a rift in the former Social Democrat-led coalition, culminating in the departure of a junior member, the Socialist People’s Party. The government of Helle Thorning-Schmidt that oversaw the Goldman deal was ousted in the June 2014 elections, paving the way for a Liberal government led by Lars Loekke Rasmussen. He served as finance minister under Fogh Rasmussen and was also prime minister from 2009 until 2011.

    Fast forward over a year, and a shaken Denmark still refuses to let Goldman fully off the hook when recently the government decided to let lawmakers see secret documents on Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s purchase of the 18% stake in DONG. However, as Goldman reports, this glimpse into the fine details of the Goldman decision making process will probably be a one-off. To wit: “The government says it’s making an exception in the case of Goldman’s 2014 investment in Dong Energy A/S after lawmakers on a committee overseeing the sale complained they weren’t given full access to the relevant files. Bjarne Corydon, who was finance minister at the time, said the information contained in the transaction papers was too sensitive even for the parliament committee.

    Almost as “sensitive” as when Goldman’s former employee and then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson tried to pass an open-ended “three-page termsheet”bailout of, well, Goldman Sachs through Congress in 2008… and ultimately succeeded.

    But while Goldman’s domination of all legislative matters in the US is well known and nobody will dare to make much of a fuss over it, in Denmark things are different.

    Finance Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen said this month he will release the documents more than a year after the transaction went through as lawmakers continue to argue over the deal. Goldman and PFA have said they have no objection to the files being made public.

    Would the deal be unwound if it is discovered that Goldman had conspired and manipulated (with significant kickbacks) the government of Helle Thorning-Schmidt to fast track the deal which Goldman knew would be a huge IRR in just a few short months? It is unlikely:

    Rene Christensen, a spokesman for the Danish People’s Party which lobbied to have the documents released, said there’s no risk their contents might trigger political demands that a new deal be negotiated.

     

    “Altering the deal isn’t really what it’s about,” Christensen said by phone. “It’s about having had a finance minister who said he couldn’t trust the committee.” Denmark’s lawmakers deserve to know “what was so important about this deal that we weren’t allowed to see more details,” he said.

     

    Martin Hintze, a partner at Goldman who sits on the board of Dong, was quoted by Berlingske as saying the bank has no objections to having the documents made public.

    Of course it wouldn’t – any objections would be seen as confirmation the sale process was improper.

    Which is why Goldman decided to go for the “sure thing” jugular, and just to make absolutely sure it controls the DONG process, Goldman hired none other than Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Danish prime minister who governed Denmark from 2001 until 2009 “to help tackle the political hurdles the bank has encountered since buying into a state utility last year.”

    Why hire him? Because the current Danish prime minister, Lars Loekke Rasmussen, just happened to be the subordinate and finance minister under the “other” Rasmussen, the one Goldman just hired: Anders Fogh. 

    Because if buying current and former government leaders to control the decision-making process works in the US and every other developed nation, why not in Denmark.

    But that’s not all: in this particular case, Goldman gets bonus influence points because in addition to purchasing the former Danish PM, and by implication, the current PM and his former fin-min protege, and assuring the DONG scandal quietly goes away, Goldman just hired the former head of NATO: from 2009 to 2014 Anders Fogh Rasmussen served as  the 12th Secretary General of NATO.

    In other words, with one hiring decision, Goldman not only assured its financial dominance over Denmark, but is now sure to capitalize on whatever military developments NATO unleashes in the coming weeks, which by the looks of things will involve Goldman funding every group in the upcoming Syrian invasion and the resulting latest and greatest war in the middle east.

  • The Rich, The Poor, & The Trouble With Socialism

    Authored by Bill Bonner (of Bonner & Partners), illustrated by Acting-Man's Pater Tenebrarum,

    Rich Man, Poor Man

    Poverty is better than wealth in one crucial way: The poor are still under the illusion that money can make them happy. People with money already know better. But they are reluctant to say anything for fear that the admiration they get for being wealthy would turn to contempt.

    “You mean you’ve got all that moolah and you’re no happier than me?”

    “That’s right, man.”

    “You poor S.O.B.”

    We bring this up because it is at the heart of government’s scam – the notion that it can make poor people happier. In the simplest form, government says to the masses: Hey, we’ll take away the rich guys’ money and give it to you. This has two major benefits (from an electoral point of view). First, and most obvious, it offers money for votes. Second, it offers something more important: status.

     

    moping

    …and ending up moping.

    After you have food, shelter, clothing, and a few necessities, everything else is status, vanity, and power. Extra money helps us feel good about ourselves… and attract mates. It’s not just the money that matters. It’s your relative position in society. From this point of view, it does as much good to take away a rich person’s money as it does to give money to a poor person.

    Either way, the gap closes. Never, since the beginning of time up to 2015, has government ever added to wealth. It has no way to do so. And no intention of doing so. All it can do is to increase the power, wealth, or status of some people – at others’ expense.

     

    The Trouble with Socialism

    That is a perfectly satisfactory outcome for most people, at least in the short term. But the more this tool is used – the more some people’s power, status, and wealth is taken away – the more the wealth of all of them declines.

    The trouble with socialism, as Maggie Thatcher remarked, is that you run out of other people’s money. You run out because there is only so much wealth available… and because the redistribution of that wealth distorts the signals and incentives needed to create new wealth.

     

    stalin, moscow dacha

    Joseph Stalin’s modest little dacha in Moscow – highly appropriate for a the global leader of the proletarians

     Photo credit: RIA Novosti

    This means that society gets poorer relative to other societies that are not stealing from one group to give to another. After a while, the difference becomes a problem.

    The meddlers see that they are falling behind and change their policies to try to get back in the race. (This is more or less what happened in Britain and China in the 1970s and the Soviet Union in the 1980s.) Or the poorer society is conquered by the richer one (which has more money to spend on weapons). There is one other wrinkle worth mentioning…

     

    stalin-summer-home-sochi-woe1

    Stalin’s summer residence in Sochi – the leader of the proletarians after all needed to rest now and then.

     Photo credit: Miracle Maker

     

    Although it is true that “leveling” may have a pleasing aspect to the masses (bringing the rich down so there is less difference between the two groups)… it is also true that leveling is just what powerful groups do not want to happen. Even when the elite go after “the rich” with taxes, confiscations, and levies, they tend to look out for themselves in other ways.

     

    swimming pool, stalin

    Stalin’s private indoor swimming pool in Sochi – a marble-quiet place of contemplation, perfect for hatching out the new plans to improve the happiness of the proletarians.

     Photo credit: Miracle Maker

     

    They allow themselves special rations – special medical care… special pensions… special parking places… and various drivers, valets, and assistants. One study found that there was more difference between the way Communist Party members and the masses lived in the Soviet Union than there was between the rich and poor in Reagan’s America.

     

    _brezhnev3

    Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev photographed during a hunt in the GDR with his buddy Erich Honecker. Only the “dear leaders” could indulge in such luxuries in the socialist Utopia.

     Photo credit: Wladimir Musaelian / TASS

     

    hon, gromyko g. mittag pjotr abrassimov

    About to go deer hunting in the GDR’s hunting grounds for comrades that were slightly more equal than the rest of the population (from left to right): Günter Mittag, Secretary for the Economy of the Socialist Unity Party’s central committee, Erich Honecker, General Secretary of the central committee of the Socialist Unity Party, Andrei Gromyko, Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union of Socialist Republics, and Pyotr Abrassimov, the Soviet Union’s ambassador to the GDR

    Photo credit: Bundesarchiv

     

    Alan Greenspan Was Right

    All of this brings us to here and now… and to gold. Traditionally, gold is a form of money. Money has no intrinsic value. It is the economy that gives money its value. The more an economy can produce the more each unit of money is worth. It doesn’t matter whether it is gold, paper, or seashells.

    But just as the common man is deceived by money (he thinks more of it will make him happier), so are policymakers. Their belief is a little more sophisticated. They know it is the economy, not money, that creates wealth. But they believe that adding money (and more demand) will make the economy function better… and make people wealthier.

     

    debt, debt and little growth

    Digital credit galore: total US credit market debt (black line), gross federal public debt (green line) and GDP (red line). Somehow, adding more and more debt hasn’t really made us a lot richer. It has however created a great mass of debt slaves – click to enlarge.

    And in today’s post-Bretton Woods monetary system, they don’t add physical money (gold, paper, or coins); they add digital credit. This new form of money takes the scam to a new level. We have been trying to understand (and explain) how the system works and why it is doomed to failure.

    But Alan Greenspan – bless his corrupted little heart – was on the case even before the credit bubble began:

    “Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy’s tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government’s promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets.

     

    A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit.”

     

    gspg

    Alan Greenspan, here photographed during a poker game as he announces a raise by ten dimes.

  • Is The "Smart Money" Ready To Bet On Gold?

    For the last three weeks, gold has experienced something that has never happened before – hedge funds aggregate net position has been short for the first time in history.

     

    However, as Dana Lyons notes, this week saw another 'historic' shift in gold positioning as commercial hedgers shifted to the least hedged since 2001… so the 'fast' money is chasing momentum and the 'smart' money is lifting hedges into them.

    Via Dana Lyons' Tumblr,

    It’s no secret that commodities have taken a drubbing during the deflationary spiral over the past year. And precious metals have been right up front in this beating. This includes gold, which has lost over 40% of its value the past 4 years.  So needless to say, there has not been much good news on that front. However, as we touched on in a piece two weeks ago, there are signs beginning to pop up that may provide a glimmer of hope for gold bugs. In dollar terms, the price of gold continues to leak, offering very little evidence of any impending stability or bounce. On the other hand, in Euro terms, gold prices reached a key juncture a few weeks ago, as outlined in that previous post. And while no bounce has materialized as of yet, gold has at least held at the level we noted.

    Today’s Chart Of The Day offers another hopeful data point for gold bulls. The CFTC tracks the net positioning of various groups of traders in the futures market in a report called the Commitment Of Traders (COT). One such group is called Commercial Hedgers. As their name implies, their main function in the futures market is to hedge. And while the Non-Commercial Speculators tend to be trend-following funds, the Commercial Hedgers’ postions tend to move contrary to price trends. Thus, it is almost always the case that these Hedgers will be correctly positioned – and to an extreme – at major turning points in a market.

    How is that relevant for gold? As of this week, Commercial Hedgers are holding the lowest net short position in gold futures since the launch of the gold bull market in 2001.

     

     

    Does this mean that a reversal higher is imminent in gold? Not necessarily. The thing with COT analysis is that it is difficult to correctly determine when an “extreme” in Hedgers’ positioning will actually result in a price reversal. As is said regarding all sorts of market metrics, an extreme in COT positioning can always get more extreme. Plus, the COT positioning can peak well in advance of the turn. Consider the Hedgers’ maximum net short positioning in gold futures which occurred in December 2009, 21 months – and another 50% gold rally – before prices topped.

    Thus, it is tough to time trades with accuracy based on the COT report. However, one thing we can say in the gold bugs’ favor: what had mostly been a headwind for gold for the past decade or so is no longer the case. While it may not make an immediate impact, the “smart money” Commercial Hedgers are now more aligned with them than at any point since the bull market began in 2001.

    *  *  *

    More from Dana Lyons, JLFMI and My401kPro.

  • Never Forget – "Worthlessness" Happens

    It could never happen here, right? Again…

     

     

    h/t @Not_Jim_Cramer

  • When Hindenburg Omens Are Ominous

    Excerpted from John Hussman's Weekly Market Comment,

    I’ve frequently noted that Hindenburg “Omens” in their commonly presented form (NYSE new highs and new lows both greater than 2.5% of issues traded) appear so frequently that they have very little practical use, especially when they occur as single instances. While a large number of simultaneous new highs and new lows is indicative of some amount of internal dispersion across individual stocks, this situation often occurs in markets that have been somewhat range-bound.

    Still, when we think of market “internals,” the number of new highs and new lows can contribute useful information. To expand on the vocabulary we use to talk about internals, “leadership” typically refers to the number of stocks achieving new highs and new lows; “breadth” typically refers to the number of stocks advancing versus declining in a given day or week; and “participation” typically refers to the percentage of stocks that are advancing or declining in tandem with the major indices.

    The original basis for the Hindenburg signal traces back to the “high-low logic index” that Norm Fosback created in the 1970’s. Jim Miekka introduced the Hindenburg as a daily rather than weekly measure, Kennedy Gammage gave it the ominous name, and Peter Eliades later added several criteria to reduce the noise of one-off signals, requiring additional confirmation that amounts to a requirement that more than one signal must emerge in the context of an advancing market with weakening breadth.

    Those refinements substantially increase the usefulness of Hindenburg Omens, but they still emerge too frequently to identify decisive breakdowns in market internals. However, one could reasonably infer a very unfavorable signal about market internals if leadership, breadth, and participation were all uniformly negative at a point where the major indices were still holding up. Indeed, that’s exactly the situation in which a Hindenburg Omen becomes ominous. The chart below identifies the small handful of instances in the past two decades when this has been true.  

    While the measures of market internals that we use in practice are far more comprehensive, the evidence from leadership, breadth and participation above provides a fairly obvious signal of internal dispersion in the market. In our view, that dispersion is a strong indication that investors are shifting toward greater risk aversion. In an obscenely overvalued market with razor-thin risk premiums, a shift in the risk-preferences of investors has historically been the central feature that distinguishes a bubble from a collapse.

    In my view, dismal market returns over the coming decade are baked in the cake as a result of extreme overvaluation at present. An improvement in market internals, however, would reduce the immediacy of our downside concerns.  While a decision by the Federal Reserve to postpone the first interest rate hike might prompt a shift to more risk-seeking speculation, this outcome is not assured. The key indicator of risk-seeking would still be the behavior of market internals directly, not the words or behavior of the Fed. So we remain focused on market internals. In any event, waiting to normalize monetary policy may defer, but cannot avoid, a market collapse that is already baked in the cake. The Fed has only encouraged the completion of the current market cycle to begin from a more extreme peak. As we saw in 2000-2002 and again in 2007-2009, until and unless investors shift toward risk-seeking, as evidenced by the behavior of market internals, monetary easing may have little effect in slowing down a collapse.

    Read Hussman's full letter here…

    *  *  *

    Interesting…

  • China Plunges 13% Since July Despite The Following 24 Market Manipulation Measures

    "The greatest trick the central planners ever pulled was convincing the world omnipotence existed…" until now!

     

    Since July 1st, China has unleashed at least 24 separate "measures" aimed purely and simpy at manipulating the stock market higher than prevailing market forces would warrant…

     

    And the result is…

     

    A 12.5% decline exposing the un-omnipotence of central planners when the fecal matter strikes the rotating object.

  • Guest Post: Will Trump Save The World (By Doing A Deal With Putin)?

    Authored by Edward Lozansky via Sputnik News,

    For the past few weeks we have heard plenty of statements from Washington about the huge threat to U.S. National Security coming from Russia. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and top Pentagon brass are convinced — or say they are — that the Russian threat is an absolute reality. The latest in this row is the statement by the Head of the US Special Operations Command General Joseph Votel, who also views Russia as an "existential threat" to the United States, repeating accusations against Moscow over the Ukrainian crisis.

    In Congress, the party of war keeps pushing the same line but If this were only related to the upcoming budget sequestration discussion — which, among other things, can affect the Pentagon — one could dismiss this incessant talk of an imminent Russian threat as a simple money extortion exercise. However, I am afraid it is not just about money.

    Washington hawks want regime change in Russia, no more and no less. Their hatred of Putin, who has the guts to have his own opinion of world affairs, and who stands firm for his country's right to look after its security interests, makes him the ultimate evil — someone who has to go and be replaced by a more malleable character. A person like Boris Yeltsin, who knew who is running the show on the world stage and humbly accepted this sober fact.

    It's a different question how to achieve Putin's overthrow without a major military confrontation with Russia, a conflict that can well end in a conflagration engulfing the whole planet. It is one thing to perform regime change in Iraq, Libya or Ukraine but dealing with nuclear-armed Russia is quite a different matter.

    Presently the hawks' thinking is still at the stage where they believe they can get rid of Putin through economic sanctions and by using the conflict in Ukraine to exhaust Russia's strength, ruin its economy and undermine its stability. There is no question that substantial damage to Russian economy has been done. It is not "in tatters," as Mr. Obama recently gloated, but is definitely shrinking and the number of people living below the poverty line has indeed increased. However, Putin's popularity is not heading south; on the contrary, his ratings jump a point or two every time another angry anti-Putin rebuke from Washington hits the airwaves.

    Instead of accepting the failure of the current policy of sanctions and start searching for some kind of reasonable compromise, the party of war is pushing for escalation in tensions which can end up really badly for everyone. Any incident, however unintentional and insignificant in itself, can grow into something that we all — or rather those who will have survived — will remember with a sense of everlasting wonder at human stupidity.

    What we see now resembles the hysteria in 2003 prior to and during the Iraq invasion. The party of war is so hell-bent on its perilous course that it can hardly be swayed by any reasonable arguments of those against warmongering. Nowadays even the most ardent supporters of the Iraq and Libya wars admit that they were huge mistakes which resulted in hundreds of thousands dead and wounded, millions of refugees, trillions of dollars wasted and the rise of ISIS on top of that.

    Besides, there is another question that needs to be considered coolly and factually. Does Russia really represent the great or even greatest threat to America or for that matter to any NATO country?

    Many Russians believe that actually it is America that represents the greatest threat to their country. Was it Russia that instigated a military coup in Mexico and installed an anti-American corrupted oligarch as its president? Was it Russia that imposed devastating economic sanctions on America — or is it the other way round? Is it Russia that supplies weapons and trains Mexican nationalists who are thinking of getting back territories lost during an armed conflict between the United States and the Centralist Republic of Mexico in the wake of the 1845 US annexation of Texas, which Mexico regarded as its inalienable part. Is it Russia that funds and supports American protest groups, something that we do around the world through the democracy promotion crusade?

    As for the military threat, Putin and his generals are well aware that NATO armed forces are ten to fifteen times stronger than Russia's. You can call Putin any names but he is definitely not insane or suicidal. However, if you try to back the bear into a corner, anything can happen.

    At this point it looks like the only and lonely sane voice in Washington belongs to the Secretary of State John Kerry who recently stated that he "doesn't agree with the assessment that Russia is an existential threat to the United States…. Certainly we have disagreements with Russia…but we don't view it as an existential threat."

    As for the huge crowd of presidential candidates, it looks like so far the only one who promises to fix the US-Russia relations thus avoiding a looming disaster is Donald Trump. In his recent interview on CNN he said that he would be able to work well with the Russian president.

    No matter how the media and Republican Party establishment are trying to humiliate Trump, I for one would give him a chance.

     

  • Hillary Makes Her First Ad Buy

    Fact… or Fiction…?

     

     

    Source: Townhall.com

  • "They'll Blame Physical Gold Holders For The Failure Of Monetary Policies" Marc Faber Explains Everything

    Submitted by Johannes Maierhofer and Peter Matay via Marcopolis.net,

    In this exclusive interview with Marcopolis.net Marc Faber covers it all: from commodities and China to the outlook on inflation, the Euro and gold. According to him the global economy is not healing. To the contrary, we might find ourselves back into recession within six months or a year. In that case he expects more money printing by central banks, which eventually could lead to high inflation rates and renewed strength in commodity prices.

     

    On the bright side, he sees great economic potential in Vietnam. Also, the Iraqi stock market has good potential now that a deal with Iran has been reached. While mining stocks are extremely depressed we might see defaults before any meaningful recovery.

    *  *  *
    In your 2002 book “Tomorrow’s gold” you identified two major investment themes: emerging markets along with commodities. That was a great call. As for commodities, they had a great run up until 2008. Then they crashed sharply along with everything else just to recover strongly into 2011. Since then they have acted weakly, and recently commodities even reached a 13-years low. Is this the end of the commodities-super-cycle, as some have claimed, or is it more like a correction?

    Well that’s a very good question because obviously the weakness in commodities this time is not due to, like, contraction in liquidity as we had in 2008. 2008 commodities ran up very quickly in the first half until July. The oil prices in 2007, just before they started to cut interest rates in the US were still at 78 dollars a barrel and then by July 2008 they ran up to 147 dollars a barrel. Afterwards they crashed within six months to 32 dollars a barrel and then as you said in 2011-2012, they recovered and were trading around 100 dollars a barrel. Now they have been weak again as well as all other industrial commodities and precious metals.

     

    My sense is that this time around, commodity prices are weak because of weakness in the global economy, specifically weakening demand from China, because if you look at the Chinese consumption of industrial commodities, in 1970 China consumed 2% of all industrial commodities, by 1990 it was 5% of global commodity consumption for industrial commodities and by the year 2000 it was 12% and then it went in 2011-2012 to 47%, in other words almost half of all industrial commodities in the world were consumed by China.

     

    Therefore a slowdown in the Chinese economy has a huge impact on the demand for industrial commodities and on the wellbeing of the commodity producers, whether that is the commodity producers in Latin America, in Central Asia, Middle East, Australasia, Africa and Russia.

     

    And so because of the reduced demand from China, the prices have been very weak and I think that may last for quite some time because the Chinese economy will not go back and grow at 10% per annum any time soon. My view is that at the present time, there is hardly any growth in China. In some sectors there is a contraction and in some sectors, and don’t forget China is a country with 1.3 billion people, so some provinces may still grow and other provinces may contract, as well as some sectors may grow and others may contract. But in general I think the economy is weak.

     

    My estimate is that at the very best the Chinese economy is growing at the present time at say 4% per annum and not at 7.8 or 8% as the government claims. We have relatively reliable statistics like auto sales and freight loadings that are down year on year, electricity consumption, exports, imports and so forth. So there has been a remarkable slow down and to answer your question about commodity prices, if the global economy slows down as much as I do believe, because other economists predict an acceleration of global growth, a healing of global growth, my sense is that it is the opposite, that within 6 months to one year we are back into recession and then it will depend on central banks and what they will do. Up until now, they have always printed money and I suppose they will continue to do that.

     

    Now from a longer term perspective, commodity cycles last 45 to 60 years roughly, from trough to trough or peak to peak. In other words we had a peak in 1980 and then commodity prices were weak throughout the 1980s and 1990s, then in 1999 they started to pick up and went and made a peak for most commodities in 2008 and for the grains 2011-2012. Since then everything has been weak. I could argue that well, maybe this is a major correction in the commodities complex within still an upward wave of commodity prices and that the final peak prices are not yet seen.

    As for Chinese stocks, they went up very strongly over the last year, but recently they crashed just as hard. Is this a precursor to something worse or is it merely a bump on the road towards a still ascendant China?

    Well I think that a year ago in June/July 2014, Chinese stocks were very inexpensive compared to other markets in the world. They had been going down relative to the S&P since 2006 and compared to other Asian markets like the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand… they had performed very poorly.

     

    So a year ago my view was that a) because of the crackdown on visitors to Macau and more importantly because the property market in China was beginning to show cracks, prices were no longer going up and many markets were over supplied so my sense was that domestic money would shift out of the property market or de-emphasise property investments and go into equities, at the same time international investors were grossly underweight Chinese stocks and my sense was that as an international investor you look around the world and see all of these markets, the S&P is up at an all-time high last year already and then you see a market like Japan that two years ago was very depressed compared to other markets, so money went into there.

     

    A year ago what was very depressed relative to everything else was the Chinese stock market. So money flowed also internationally into Chinese stocks and the market in China is relatively illiquid. You have to see. Because most blocks of shares are owned by the government or by large Chinese groups so what is available for trading is not that large.

     

    Then the money flowed into Chinese stocks and they went up by more than 100% within a year and the whole thing became very speculative because in China people borrow a lot of money against what they buy whether it is properties or stocks and so the margin accounts increased dramatically and the margin debt reached almost 4% of GDP whereas in the US it is around 2% of GDP and it is at its highest level ever. So 4% was a very big figure. I think the government´s measure to support the market will largely fail and that eventually there will be more selling pressure and stocks will retreat somewhat more.

     

    Do they go back to the levels of a year ago, to the 2014 lows? I don’t think so. I think this may be the beginning of a new bull market in China, but after a 100% rise we could have, like, from peak to trough a 40% correction. Or even 50%.

    China has established the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and went ahead with plans for a so called “New Silk Road”, a huge infrastructure project, connecting China with Europe via a new land route and a maritime equivalent. Steen Jakobsen from Saxo Bank mentioned a while ago that this could be a game-changer – particularly in regards to the demand for commodities as much of the work and investment needed is in infrastructure, buildings and railroads. What do you think?

    Well I think there may be some euphoria about this infrastructure building and the ´New Silk Road´. My sense is that yes, some investments will take place but we have to recognise that first of all it will take time. It is not going to be built overnight. Whether it will be really so profitable is another question and the other question is will China have the money to do it?

     

    We are moving here into geopolitics, basically, because of the antagonism of the Western world towards Russia specifically Mr Putin, whom they portray as a villain when in fact he wasn’t the aggressor, it is NATO and the Neocons that essentially pushed the existing government out in Ukraine and began to create the whole problem that we have. If you look at the map of Europe and Eastern Europe it is very clear that Russia will not allow NATO to be east of the Dnieper River, in other words in eastern Ukraine nor will they give up the Crimea, this is strategically of great importance for Russia, has no strategic value for anybody else except for Russia. So the tensions have arisen and because of this hostility of the West towards Russia, Russia has been pushed closer to China.

     

    They share very substantial borders areas with each other and because of the proximity of the two countries and the nature of their economies, Russia possessing the resources and China largely technology and consumer goods which Russians don’t necessarily produce, there is a symbiotic relationship going on. The Chinese and the Russians want to exploit this strength, what they call the hinterland essentially and the rim land in geopolitics.

     

    Of course the US is completely against it because the containment policy was precisely directed against the major power emerging again in Central Asia and Far East Russia and in Russia. So this Silk Road initiative in my view is far from being a certain thing that it will succeed because there are also political obstacles and you know, when the Americans want to create trouble, that they excel at, they are very good at doing that.

     

    Instead of building nations they destroy nations, from Libya to Egypt to Syria to Iraq and Afghanistan. Whatever they touch, they mess it up or in good English F* up!

    What about Europe and Russia? E.g. many German industrialists don’t seem too happy with the current sanctions regime.

    Not at all. Actually, you ask ordinary people in the whole of Europe about the policies of the governments towards Russia, 90% of ordinary people disapprove of the politics and policies that have been implemented and with the way European governments behave as if they were feudals of the United States and vassals of the US.

     

    The reality is that Europe should be very close to Russia as it was in the 19th and 18th century, with very few exceptions like for example when Napoleon attacked Russia or when Hitler attacked Russia, but ordinarily the two regions, western Europe and Russia were much closer than say western Europe and the US because of the proximity and also culturally they were quite close.

    You already mentioned commodity cycles. Economists have long debated the existence of long term waves in economics – the most prominent concept of which is the so called Kondratieff cycle. In your 2002 book you pick up on the idea by guessing where we might find ourselves in the current Kondratieff wave. If you did the same today, what do you think? Are we still in a falling wave? What are the important characteristics to look at? And most importantly, what does it mean for the medium to long-term outlook?

    I mean, Irving Fisher the economist who essentially became famous because of his book Booms and Depressions in the 30s, said well this is a very difficult issue with knowing where in the cycle you are because basically it is like you are sitting on a ship and there are waves that will move the ship but then there is also wind that may come from another direction and the waves are not all regular and so forth, so the ship can have many different motions.

     

    My view regarding the Kondratieff is that first of all it is important to understand that it is not really a business cycle but a price cycle. The price cycle obviously in the 19th century when economies were much more commodities related because agriculture until the beginning of the 20th century was the largest employer, so when agricultural prices went up, the farmers had more money and it benefitted the farming population and so the economy picked up and when the farm prices went down especially in the US with cotton obviously the economies that were producing these commodities suffered.

     

    So in the 19th century we had several cycles, upcycles and down cycles. Basically the last down cycle as I mentioned would have been in essentially 1980 to around 1998-1999, so approximately twenty years. The up cycle before was between the 1940s and 1980s. You can’t measure it precisely. My sense is that one missing element in the Kondratieff in the late 1990s and early part of 2000-2005 was that normally when the Kondratieff bottoms out, Schumpeter, he built his business cycle theory around the Kondratieff and he explained that usually in the trough of the Kondratieff, in the depression, you have a massive liquidation of debts, and that hasn’t happened, it hasn’t happened.

     

    And so it is conceivable that we were in a downward wave of the Kondratieff after 1980 and then we had within the downward wave this upward wave because of the opening of China, between 2000 and 2008. And as the Chinese economy weakens and as the debt level today is globally as a percent of the global economy 30% higher than it was in 2007.

     

    So we can´t say that there has been deleveraging, on the contrary! The debt level is even more burdensome today than it was in 2007. Therefore it is possible that the big debt deleveraging is yet to occur and when it occurs then obviously commodity prices will still be weak for a while.

     

    The question is then, if we follow through and say ok, the price of copper went from 60 cents a lb to over 4 dollars a lb and now we are around 2 dollars a lb, if it goes back down to 60 cents a lb, which I don’t believe it will, but say if it did, or if gold went back to 300 dollars and oz., if it did, what about financial assets?

     

    Where would they be? Because that decline in commodity prices would signal a huge problem in the global economy and under those conditions I doubt that financial assets would do well, there would be massive bankruptcies among governments and massive write offs in sovereign debts. Greece should write off at least 50% of their debts and even then the debt would probably be too burdensome for an economy that hardly produces anything! So these are signals that I take very seriously and I quite frankly given the recent weakness in commodity prices, I can´t see how the global economy is getting stronger. I just can´t see it.

    What was still in place until recently is this long term down trend in interest rates.

    Yes, sure. You see, traditionally the Kondratieff is a price cycle and interest rates follow the Kondratieff very closely. So if you take the last cycle, the peak 1980 for commodity prices and at the same time you had the interest rate peak in September 1981 when long term US treasuries were yielding over 15%.

     

    Then we have the down trend in the Kondratieff until 1999 -2000, the commodity prices start to go up but interest rates continue to go down. So that would again suggest that there is a possibility that this entire boom in commodities in 2000-2008 was actually a bull market within still a downward wave in the Kondratieff, it is possible.

    In regards to the colossal amounts of debt there are two major schools of thought: Inflationists and Deflationists. According to the first, all the money printing will lead to high levels of inflation, devaluing the currency and with it the debt will be inflated away. Deflationists would hold against, that, even if central banks wanted to, they ultimately cannot stop deflation. Where do you stand in that debate?

    Well you know it is like in a bubble. The bears are right and the bulls are right but at different times. Every bubble will go up and then eventually the bubble will burst and then you know prices collapse. So during the bubble stage the bullish people are right and during the collapse the bears are right, but at different times. This is the same with deflation and inflation; I think both will be right, but at different times. I believe that most people have a misconception of what inflation is. In other words most people, they think of inflation as an increase in price of goods they go and buy in the shop over there and over there, at the butcher and at the baker and in the grocery store and so forth when in fact this is just one of the symptoms of inflation.

     

    You can have inflation that manifests itself in sharply rising wages, this hasn’t taken place but if you look globally, say in China, wages have gone up substantially or you take Thailand, wages have gone up substantially. Or it can manifest itself in rising commodity prices. Well I mean commodity prices have been weak lately but the oil price is still close to 50 dollars a barrel and it was at 12 dollars a barrel in 1999 and gold is still around 1000 dollars and it was at 300 dollars and below in the 1990s, the low was at 255 dollars. You understand? A lot of things have been weak recently but they are still up substantially compared to the past.

     

    Or you take bond prices, in other words bond prices go up when interest rates go down. Bond prices in the last hundred years have never been this high; in other words interest rates have never been this low on sovereign debts. Or you take equity prices, ok some markets are down, mostly the emerging markets whether it is Russia or Brazil or the Asian markets, they are down from the peak but they are still much higher than say ten or fifteen years ago. Or you take property prices, it depends which properties but most property prices, for example if you look around here in Switzerland, the prices are much much higher than they were fifteen, twenty years ago.

     

    Even in some areas, they may have come down a bit but in luxury areas there are record prices. Or you take the Hamptons, or Mayfair in London, or Chelsea in London, Kensington and so forth, prices are very high compared to say twenty years ago. Or you take paintings, art… I mean when I grew up and I started to work in 1970 in New York, in New York at that time a Rothko painting was offered to me for 30,000 dollars. I didn’t buy it because I thought why would I pay 30,000 for something like this! Now a Roscoe is maybe ten, twenty, thirty million dollars and I have a Warhol, it is not a big painting but nevertheless I bought it for 300 dollars in the 1970s. You understand? Prices have gone up dramatically, so if someone says to me, well there is deflation, I tell him, well tell me in what? You know, Hong Kong property prices, Singapore property prices, even Bangkok, Jakarta and so forth, all have been grossly inflated.

     

    Therefore I think we have to re-examine the definition of inflation whereby maybe we have some sectors of the economy that are deflating, like if we measure wages inflation adjusted, they are all going down in the western world because a) the consumer price inflation that the Federal Reserve and Europeans report has nothing to do with the cost of living increase, the cost of living increases and we have studies about this, in most American cities are rising at between 5 and 10% per annum and if you include insurance premiums, health care costs, education costs and so forth.

     

    So these prices are going up strongly. Or taxes, indirect taxes like tunnel fees or bridge tolls and so forth, all that is going up much more than the CPI and this is where people have to pay for to actually go to work and live. This is then reflected, this kind of inflation is reflected in a diminishing purchasing power of people, that’s why retail sales are relatively poor in the US despite of the fact that we are six years into an economic expansion. I am always telling people, you know when I started to work I didn’t have to be smart because if I put my money on deposit with the banks or bought government bonds they were yielding 6%.

     

    Then from 1970 to 1981 interest rates continuously went up, so the compounding impact was very high. Now if I am a young guy, say your age; then I want to put my money on deposit, I am being F*d essentially by the banks because they are not paying me anything. If I buy ten years US treasury notes I am getting a yield of less than 3%; 2.3% at the present time and it was below 2% six months ago. So how can I really save? How can I make money? I want to buy a house ok?

     

    Then you have to pay a huge price and the mortgage rate may still be around 4% you understand? So it is still relatively high interest rates on mortgages and one of the reasons that new home sales are not particularly strong is that young people just don’t have the money to buy it because a) they are also burdened with student debts. So I mean these are all issues that are very complex.

     

    My sense is that knowing the central banks, and knowing the way that they think, what will come up when they realise that the global economy is not healing but actually back into contraction under the influence of the neo-Keynesians like Krugman, they will say, you know what?

     

    We haven’t done enough, we have to do much more, and then they will print again and that is why I think that eventually we could have high inflation rates and a renewed increase in commodity prices.

    A major argument by deflationists is that ultimately social mood might change. So while in 2008 everybody applauded the Fed for having saved the system, next time around it could be different. All the extraordinary measures might become too controversial, and all of a sudden we could see defaults happening in earnest. Is that a real possibility?

    Yes. I mean I have read a lot about inflationary periods in history which we have experienced from time to time, under John Law in France and then later during the French revolution and in Latin America. I also experienced periods of high inflation myself in the sense that during the very high inflationary period in Latin America in the 1980s I visited most Latin American countries because I was interested in the fact that when you have high inflation in a country, usually the currency tumbles and so although there is high inflation in local currency, in a strong currency unit, like in the 80s the dollar was strong, the price level actually went down very substantially so investment opportunities were fantastic.

     

    You could buy buildings in Buenos Aires, the stock market in the late 1980s in Argentina… the whole stock market was worth 750 million US dollars, 750, less than a billion. So you could essentially have bought the whole of Argentina for less than a billion dollars!! What happens in these periods of high monetary inflation is it is highly beneficial for a few families and a few well to do people because they know how to move their money between local currency and foreign currency and they know how to accumulate assets.

     

    The people that get hurt are the masses, the middle class, the lower classes because their wages go up much less than the cost of living increases. Then what usually follows is a kind of political change of wind and you have new governments coming in and sometimes you have revolutions and sometimes you have an entire new leadership.

     

    We had hyper-inflation in Germany and by the way there is a very good book out about the economics of inflation during the Weimar period, but in each instance it led to a polarisation of wealth and this is precisely what is happening now. You have huge merger and acquisition activity and you have stock buy-backs and if you look at the wealth inequality it is not between 1% of the population and 99, it is between 0.01%, the Carl Icahns of this world and the big assets holders and then the masses that do not have assets so they don’t benefit from rising asset prices.

     

    In my view, you know you look at Trump, Donald Trump is no genius or anything, and he is not a particularly honest person either because his investors that bought bonds that were issued by his companies, most of them lost money, but he touches on one point, and this is a great dissatisfaction of the American of the typical American with his government.

     

    I can tell you also that here in Switzerland, 90% of the people, they think the government is no longer looking after the interests of the people but after their own interests. It is the same in Europe. I think this is a huge failure of democracy, that democracy instead of having been able to elect leaders that look after the interests of the people, they actually look after their own interests. I mean you look at the Clintons, the Bush families and so forth, do you think they care about the ordinary Americans? They don’t care, they care about themselves, it is a power game. They care about money that is for sure.

    When the German finance minister recently proposed a temporary Greek exit from the Euro it was perceived as a breach of what was long held as the sanctity of Monetary Union. For the first time a leading European politician departed from the line “to save the Euro no matter what”. Could this have been a watershed moment? What do you think, five or ten years from now, will there still be a euro, will it still be in the same composition or will it simply fall apart?

    Nobody knows that. We don’t know how the world will look in five or ten years´ time but I would say that I believe the euro will survive. Now the question is, in what form? Maybe there will be a euro like a US dollar, we have a US dollar, and maybe some countries like Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain will no longer use the euro and will have essentially gone back to their local currencies. It could be, maybe not. Because you understand, the typical Italian, Spaniard and Greek, he knows very well: we leave the EU, our pensions will be paid in local currency and that will be much less than what we get now.

     

    So on the one hand, from a nationalistic point of view, most Europeans would like to leave the EU but when they look at their pocket book, it is like when Scotland, when the vote came up to exit Britain, Great Britain, the young people, most of them voted for the exit, but the elderly people, the pensioners, they were threatened, again because as you say the media said well you leave the EU, your pensions will be cut… so if you are an elderly pensioner, what do you prefer, to get your pension and be part of the UK or leave the UK and get lower payments?

     

    This is one reason I think the EU may stay together but of course if the economic conditions in the southern countries, Greece, Italy, Spain… do not improve, if they actually worsen again then maybe the move towards leaving the EU will become very strong. Number two, I have been writing about this, you know if you look at history, we had great empires, the Greek empire and the Roman empire and the Ottomans and the Spanish empire and the British empire and now we have the supremacy of America that I probably waning but it was certainly there after the Second World War, the point is usually if you had empires in the past, it was very costly because you had to keep armies in the so called colonies in your territories, and if there were problems you would have to send in the troops and the ships and so forth to essentially enforce your empire.

     

    In the modern empires, like the EU, you may have to pay. It is not sending armies to Greece but basically you have to pay so that Greece stays in the empire and then comes the questions the Germans ask, how long are they going to be willing to pay for it? Because it comes out of tax payers´ money, you understand, the politicians, they don’t pay it. Most politicians don’t even pay taxes because they are with the EU in Brussels or with the IMF or the OECD, all these clowns they don’t pay tax and then they go and propose wealth taxes on the others, on us, who work. They don’t work, they don’t pay tax but the others should pay tax.

     

    Basically the tax payer in Germany one day he will say well we don’t like the policies of Mrs Merkel and this is happening in America, they don’t particularly like Donald Trump but they like the fact that he points the finger at all these others that have abused the system so badly. My sense is that we could have not necessarily revolutions in the sense that you have armies fighting against each other in Germany and France like in the French revolution and so forth but what we could have is through the democratic process people saying we are just fed up with these bureaucrats in Brussels and the ones in Berlin and the policies that always lean on America. We are sovereign nations; we want to be free, even if it costs us something.

     

    We in Switzerland, we are not part of the EU but de facto, through the back door, Switzerland has essentially become an EU member.

    Via regulations…

    Yes. Absolutely. The Swiss fought for independence for the last 800 years and now suddenly they accept everything! They have no fighting spirit anymore!

    But let´s assume some countries are ready to leave the euro zone. In the case of Greece this would go along with a major haircut or an outright default…

    Yes, but a haircut and the default will occur regardless. I mean, even the IMF accepts the fact that the Greek debt has to be reduced somewhat. What they have done lately is the EU lends money to Greece and Greece then can pay the ECB and the IMF. It is a complete joke! It is a complete joke! It is like if you borrowed money from me, a thousand dollars, after one year you say, Marc look I can´t repay you and I can´t pay the interest, but if you lend me another thousand, then I can pay you the interest on the first thousand. But then you owe me two thousand!

     

    And after the third year you come back and say Marc I´m very sorry, I can´t pay you the two thousand maybe you will lend me another thousand so I can at least pay you the interest on the two thousand! And so the game goes on. When you look at Greece objectively, private investors would never have lent all together 300 billion dollars to Greece, never! But governments are the peoples´ money you understand?

     

    The ECB and the ESM and so forth are other peoples´ money, they don’t care.

    When you say the defaults will come anyway, it would have huge implications, after all over the last 40-50 years it was inconceivable that a Western country would actually go bankrupt.

    Well actually Greece has defaulted before and repeatedly.

    Greece is relatively small compared to, let’s say, Italy. For a country like that to go bankrupt it would have huge consequences…

    Yes sure, I agree with you that’s why we were discussing before that the debt liquidation hasn’t occurred yet. I mean I am less concerned about say Spain, Italy, France, and Greece defaulting than a big one defaulting. You understand? The US is not in a very good position either, if you look at their unfunded liabilities.

     

    In America many cities are basically bankrupt as well as some states or semi states like Puerto Rico. Then, have a look at Japan, the Japanese situation is very serious in the long run because if interest rates, they are now on 10 years JGBs 0.03% but already at these very very low rates, Japan pays, I think close to 45% of tax revenues go to payment of interest on the debt. Now if the interest rates went up on JGBs to say 1%, all the tax revenues would have to be used to pay the interest on the debt! In my view, Japan has no other option but to print money or default and that will then imply that the Yen will then become weaker and so forth.

     

    I mean the whole system in the world is in a complete mess.

     

    But so far the central banks and the authorities were able to paint fresh paint on the cracks and so they are not that visible. And don’t forget; who actually has something to say in economics? Most of the people are university professors but they are somewhat linked to the Federal Reserve or to another central bank through consultancy arrangements and so forth.

     

    Basically they are bribed to support the system. Number two, the financial system consists of money managers, hedge funds, the large long bonds, long equities funds like Fidelity and PIMCO and so on, all these guys are interested in money printing because it lifts the asset values and with rising asset values the fees go up and the performance fees go up so nobody has interest actually in an honest economic policy, they all are in favour of Bernanke´s bailout of problems that occurred in 2008.

    What about QE being counterproductive in the sense that it actually increases deflationary pressures? The premise is that by keeping rates artificially suppressed, central banks make it impossible for the market to purge itself of inefficient actors. As a result, otherwise insolvent companies remain operational, adding even more to excess capacity. What do you think?

    Yes. I think that is a very good point. That if you print money, the money will not flow evenly into the economic system and this has already been observed by Copernicus who wrote about money and it was later also observed by David Hume and by Irving Fisher that when you print money, the money flows do not benefit all classes of society and all industries equally at the same time.

     

    What then happens is that you look for instance at commodity prices, ok, we had money printing and then prices rose but not only because of money printing, they rose mostly because of the incremental demand from China, but the Chinese boom came to some extent from money printing in the US which led to rising trade and current account deficits until 2008, until the crisis. Since then actually in terms of goods, the trade balance in the US has worsened again, further, but because of the oil industry the overall trade and current account deficit has been diminishing.

     

    The point is simply this, the over capacities that we have in some industries like steel in China, cement and in resources, iron ore, this was made possible by money printing. I am not saying only, by to some extent money printing was responsible. The housing bubble, the housing inflation in the US was made possible by money printing and keeping interest rates artificially low. Now we have a bubble in sovereign debt and we have a bubble in equities, certainly in US equities.

     

    When that bubble deflates eventually in sovereign debt and in equities, what the impact will be on the economy will be interesting to watch because the markets are not prepared for rising interest rates.

    You already mentioned shrinking trade deficits in the US. As for the US dollar, it has considerably strengthened and at the same time treasury yields are really low…

    Yes.

    … and, if we understand correctly, you have been relatively positive on treasuries recently…

    Yes.

    … at the same time you mentioned that the long term outlook for the US is very bad…

    Yes. Well you know it is like you have a wife and you have girlfriends! And the wife is maybe permanent but the girlfriends come and go! Optically, long term I would say ten years treasury or thirty years US treasury is of course unattractive, that we all agree because interest rates have been trending down since 1981 so we are more than 35 years into a declining interest rate structure, so we must be close to a low in interest rates.

     

    The only question here is, the economic recovery in the US began in June 2009, so we are six years into an economic expansion, and this is historically the third longest expansion. We have been six years, March 2009 low S&P 666, where it went over 2100 so we are over 6 years into bull market, then I say to myself, I see the global economy weakening and I see French, Italian and Spanish bond yields lower than US treasury yields so with the view that most people have that the US dollar will remain relatively strong, I say to myself everybody is bullish about stocks in the US and everybody is bearish about bonds.

     

    I say to myself maybe treasury notes, the ten years and the thirty years as an investment for the next 3 to 6 months is maybe not so bad. Then I also advocate in my investment strategy, always diversification between real estate, equities, bonds, cash and precious metals. And if someone comes to me and says Marc you are bearish about the world, shouldn’t you be all in cash?

     

    I say yes, maybe that is correct except if I put all my money in cash with the banking system I take a huge risk because we have seen it in the case of Greece, we have seen it in the case of Cyprus and now they have announced that basically investors if there is again a crisis they will also have to pay something so if you have say 20 million dollars with the banks, and they have a problem, maybe you will only get 50% back. So I say to myself, rather than have the money in the banks I would have it in treasuries.

    What about gold? Being in a correction mode for a couple of years already, it recently has broken down some more.

    Well as you know there are so many explanations ranging from manipulation to essentially Chinese selling which could have been the case you know that margin calls went out for stock accounts, the margin buyers may not have been able to sell their shares because still about 20% are not trading.

     

    Number two, they can’t sell their properties because you can’t sell overnight the properties so the margin call has to be met the next day and property transactions may take, I don’t know three months until you close and maybe there were some corporations or individuals that were holding gold and so that they could liquidate, that is an explanation that I could sympathise with.

     

    Or you could say because of the strong dollar people became, or had hesitations of owning gold because they said if the dollar is strong why would I own gold? I mean there are lots of explanations. The simple explanation is of course that there were more sellers than buyers at that particular time. Now if you look at the pole market in gold, 1999 255 dollars went to 1921 dollars in September 2011 and then we had this correction which now we are in 2015, four years on and the price was always holding around 11 or 12 hundred and now it looks like it has broken down on the downside and then you have to ask yourself well is it a breakdown that will lead to further selling in other words, prices would move lower and find the low at, I don’t know, maybe 700, 800, 900 dollars, a thousand or is it a final liquidation from which prices will start to move up.

     

    I really don’t know, all I know is that I own gold and it doesn’t worry me that it went down because as I mentioned to you I have this diversification, the bonds in US dollars and the cash in US dollars has been a good investment essentially over the last twelve months. Then I own equities and I own properties in Asia that have been reasonably good investments so the fact that gold is going down doesn’t worry me and I buy every month a little bit but I think on this weakness I will increase the position substantially because I had maybe say 25% in gold but because equities and properties went up, the dollar went up and gold went down, the allocation to gold is no longer 25% but maybe only 10 or 15%.

     

    So then I have to stock it up again. But I would say an individual should definitely own some physical gold.

     

    The bigger question is where should he store it? because I think if we think it through, the failure of monetary policies will not be admitted by the professors that are at central banks, they will then go and blame someone else for it and then an easy target would be to blame it on people that own physical gold because they can argue, well these are the ones that do take money out of circulation and then the velocity of money goes down, we have to take it away from them.

     

    That has happened in 1933 in the US. With our brilliant governments in Europe that follow US policies and with the ECB talking every day to the Federal Reserve, they would do the same in Europe, take the gold away from people.

    Back to where we started: major investment themes. Which ones are you seeing on the horizon, if any at all?

    Yes, I mean first of all some investment themes are not easy to implement for individuals. In Asia, one country that stands out as having great economic potential is Vietnam.

     

    And by the way the whole Indochinese region with Vietnam in the east and then north west with Laos, south west with Cambodia and then Thailand, Myanmar, India, Bangladesh and in the north China, and in the south Malaysia, Singapore… that whole region with over 500 million people has tremendous growth potential and Cambodia at the present time is a boom town, a boom country because it is also politically related, the Japanese and Koreans invest a lot of money as well as the Americans and the Chinese so they all compete essentially because Cambodia is strategically important.

     

    Vietnam has a very strong export performance, the stock market has performed very badly for the last few years like China, until a year ago, properties have come down but in my view they are now bottoming out. The Vietnamese people are hardworking people not like say easy going like the Thais or the Indonesians or Philipinos, so I believe the country has a great potential.

     

    Number two with the agreement with Iran, I think the future of southern Iraq is guaranteed in other words, from Bagdad south, that whole region where the oil is, Basra, that is Shia, their political future is essentially guaranteed because the Shias of Iran will not let ISIS capture that territory nor let Saudi Arabia invade. The Iraqi stock market is very inexpensive, it is very cheap. It is very difficult to invest now in Iran but in Iraq it is much easier and there are funds so that is an opportunity in my view. For the last few years emerging markets have underperformed say the US grossly, but if I look at the next ten years and in the immediate future, I don’t think that the emerging markets will perform well, they will come off further in my view but they are markets that offer relative good value in the sense that you have many shares say in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand…that have a dividend yield of say 5-6% so at least you paid to wait. It is not yet at a very attractive valuation level but it´s reasonable. It is a world of inflated assets. Mining stocks are extremely depressed, I mean if someone says what is cheap in the market place then I would say the miners are incredibly low, next station is bankruptcy and maybe one of the big ones still goes bust and that would probably signal the end of the bear market in precious metals. Possible.

     

    The future is unknown and we are not dealing with markets that are free markets anymore. A free market is defined as a market when no market participant has a dominant influence and can manipulate the market. Now we have government interventions everywhere and you don’t know what they will buy next. They bought bonds and mortgage backed securities to depress the yields on these securities, they pushed interest rates essentially everywhere to 0, and by doing that they basically expropriate savers because money, one of the functions of paper money is to store value but at zero interest rates there is no store of value.

     

    They may through sovereign funds, they have done it already and the Swiss National Bank already bought shares, the Swiss National Bank they own over a billion dollars in Apple stock! You can be sure that Apple will go down because whatever the Swiss National Bank does is a disaster!

     

    That is a very good sell signal! The other sovereign funds have also bought equities. Now the sovereign funds are not going to increase anymore because most of them are oil related so they have to actually liquidate and that is a game changer from one trillion dollars in assets, sovereign funds in year 2002, they went to over seven trillion, I think they are going to come down to maybe three trillion, that will have an impact on liquidity and on yields.

    As for the long-term outlook, if the current set-up fails, what could replace it?

    That’s why I think they will take the gold away and go back to some gold standard by revaluing the gold say from now 1000 dollars an oz. to say 10,000 dollars an oz.

    This sounds rather far-fetched; at least when listening to professionals and people in academia.

    Yes but I want to tell you, just in the last say twelve months, I have observed an increasing number of academics who are questioning monetary policies.

     

    I mean some academics that have been quite mainstream in the past. I mean John Taylor has been critical for a long time as well as Ana Schwartz but she passed away and as Milton Freedman who also passed away a long time ago. But basically now I see more and more academics and influential people, also among the Republicans that are actually questioning the Fed and also the integrity of the Fed. That is a crack and as you said the credibility of the ECB is in my view badly tarnished already because people say how could they lend so much money to Greece?

     

    But you understand, they never ask ordinary people, they ask academics, or economists and they all also get paid somewhere because they are either in the one or the other commission, so they are not going… it’s like if you go into a hospital and a doctor has killed a few patients unintentionally, another doctor will never testify against him. He will shut up because he is afraid one day other people will turn against him. Mistakes happen. And so among academic circles you will very seldom find criticism of central banks.

    *  *  *

  • Startups Getting Trashed

    Well, the San Francisco Bay Area startup-for-everything economy has now reached a new low:

    0809-trashday

    Interested, eh? Well, there are plenty of details. I personally take comfort from the pledge that the people paid to drag my trash can will be rated by the community (“‘A+++++++ Would let drag my recycling to the curb again.”)

    0809-trashsec 

    Of course, none of this is free, ya know.

    0809-trashprice

    Happily, Silicon Valley hasn’t lost its sense of humor. Not to be outdone, this parody site has appeared:

    0809-silver

  • "Teflon" Trump Remains Double-Digit Leader In Post-Debate Poll

    Despite rumors, spin, Koch Brothers’ spending, and FOX News’ efforts, “Teflon” Donald Trump remains the clear leader in the first post-debate poll.

    As NBC News reports,

    According to the latest NBC News Online Poll conducted by SurveyMonkey, Trump is at the top of the list of GOP candidates that Republican primary voters would cast a ballot for if the primary were being held right now.

     

    The overnight poll was conducted for 24 hours from Friday evening into Saturday. During that period, Donald Trump stayed in the headlines due to his negative comments about Kelly and was dis-invited from a major conservative gathering in Atlanta.

     

    None of that stopped Trump from coming in at the top of the poll with 23 percent.

    * * *

     

    Carly Fiorina has surged into 4th place after her undercard victory this week and perhaps most stunningly for the ‘establishment’, Jeb Bush has dropped out of the Top 5.

  • Cop Acquitted In Murder Of Kelly Thomas Just Arrested For Domestic Violence

    Submitted by Sydney Barakat via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Manuel Ramos, 41, the former Fullerton police officer who was ultimately acquitted after being tried for the beating and killing of Kelly Thomas, has been arrested once more—this time for domestic violence.

     

    Thomas—an unarmed, mentally-ill homeless man—was brutally beaten to death by Ramos and two fellow officers in the summer of 2011. Two of the officers—Ramos, as well as Jay Cicinelli—were tried and acquitted of the murder. From the beginning, the case received nationwide coverage. A slew of peaceful protests resulted from the several injustices that were committed in this gut-wrenching case of excessive violence and abuse of power.

    Now, Ramos has been arrested again. As ABC7 news reported,

    “Police respond[ed] to a report of a family disturbance [and] arrested Manuel Ramos on July 16 after he allegedly assaulted a woman in the 3600 block of W. Oak Avenue.”

     Ramos was then booked on the charge of misdemeanor domestic violence, but soon after posted bail and was released. According to the report, the case still remains under investigation.

    This goes to show that when violent criminals are granted impunity, when they are let off the hook without even a slap on the wrist, they will continue their horrendous cycle of abuse of power and violence. When these murderers are exonerated without consequence, they are assisted in committing further assaults—in this case, domestic violence.

    Manuel-Ramos-mugshots

    Mugshots of former officer Manuel Ramos.

    Does Ramos lack so much compassion that he must beat the defenseless? First a mentally-ill man who was small in stature, then a woman.

    What is more ridiculous is that journalists and live-streamers who covered the Kelly Thomas case are being dragged through a long and tedious court ordeal. They are facing charges, trials, and time in prison for simply filming and documenting the protests that occurred as result of the officers’ acquittals. Our own Patti Beers—also known as “P.M.” on her social media accounts—is facing such absurd charges for filming the acquittal protests. Patti’s trial has been covered by the Anti-Media, The Fifth Column, OC Weekly, AnonHQ, and more.

    This case of police brutality and major injustices committed by law enforcement force us to ask:

    when will this horrendous cycle of violence end? When will the law be lawful? When will the justice system deliver justice?

    The issues extend far beyond Manuel Ramos, but if we let this cowardly badged thug go without consequence again, we are allowing for more of his kind to continue coming out of the woodworks. Additionally, if we allow journalists— real journalists like Patti Beers—to be tried for performing her civic duty—well, that’s just pouring salt in an already gaping wound.

  • Luxury Goods And Status Symbols In Trouble In China

    Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum via Acting-Man blog,

    A friend recently mailed us an article from the Hong Kong Standard which describes how extremely high retail shop rents in Hong Kong can no longer be paid even by retailers of luxury brands.

    Not only is this testament to the fact that Hong Kong’s real estate bubble has gotten out of hand quite a bit, but the waning demand for luxury goods is also highly interesting from a sociological and economic perspective. As the Standard reports:

    Business is getting tougher for Hong Kong’s retailers with the value of total retail sales dipping 1.6 percent in the first half of 2015 from a year back, according to the Census and Statistics Department’s latest data.

     

    Valuable gifts, including jewelry, watches and luxury goods, were hardest hit, with sales falling for 10 consecutive months. Sales value slumped 10.4 percent in June compared with a year earlier, despite efforts by several luxury brands – including Italian fashion house Prada – to boost sales by cutting prices. Squeezed by slimmer pickings in Hong Kong and the mainland market, top global luxury brands are looking to renegotiate store rents to cut costs.

     

    The latest to plead for landlords’ mercy was French luxury goods conglomerate LVMH. Revenue from its signature brand Louis Vuitton slumped 10 percent year- on-year in Hong Kong, Macau and China for the first half while Europe and the United States saw stronger sales of fashion and leather goods. It is also planning to close a directly operated shop of its biggest watch brand, Tag Heuer, in Causeway Bay.

     

    […]

     

    British high-end fashion house Burberry, which has 16 shops in the SAR, said it may trim its local store network and negotiate for lower rents after the Hong Kong market, which accounts for about one-tenth of the brand’s total sales, saw a double-digit percentage fall in sales over the period.

     

    Meanwhile, Gucci owner Kering said it will consider closing its Hong Kong and Macau outlets if rents stay high.

     

    […]

     

    Waning sales and whopping rents have sent Italian fashion label Baldinini packing. It shut its first and only flagship boutique in Hong Kong after just four months in operation, ending its three- year contract.

     

    In June, visitor arrivals from the mainland were down 1.8 percent year- on-year. Adding to the woes of luxury goods vendors are the changing spending patterns of mainland visitors, who are now looking for more mid-priced products.

    We don’t believe this is happening because prospective clients can no longer afford these goods. While Chinese consumers of ostentatious luxury items have probably taken a hit from China’s economic weakness and its wobbling real estate and stock market bubbles, they can surely still afford to buy Gucci bags and Tag Heuer watches. We believe that they rather no longer want to be seen adorned with such items.

    Typically a decline in the desire to own products conferring and announcing one’s high social status happens close to, or hand in hand with fairly severe economic downturns. People no longer want to stand out as rich when times are getting tough. This effect can be observed in numerous areas, even in the colors and shapes people choose when buying cars. The colors tend to change from loud ones such as red, to inconspicuous/conservative ones such as gray and brown. Car shapes tend to go from sportive and sleek to boxy and inconspicuous.

    Of course there is an additional reason for this development in China as our friend reminded us:

    “Your point they no longer want to be seen with them is especially acute today with mainland Chinese, who are (were) the big buyers of luxury goods, property and services here.

     

    […]

     

    The mainland’s corruption clampdown is deterring a lot of PRC citizens from exhibiting any wealth these days, a continuing crackdown that has lasted far longer than any Hong Kong businesses suspected and which has changed the dynamics of mainlander’s inward and outward spending.”

    To this we would point out that China’s relentless crackdown on corruption is informed by the same “social mood” that is driving the reluctance to buy luxury items, and is driving capital outflows from China as well as the increasing unwillingness of businesses to invest. These developments are simply manifestations of an environment that has soured: They signal that China’s entire society is increasingly infested with a bearish outlook.

    Recently China’s government has managed to halt the decline in the Shanghai stock market at what has reportedly been a huge cost. Zerohedge has published an article on a Goldman Sachs estimate of the amounts of money thrown at the market through government intervention. Apparently nearly 900 billion yuan have been spent merely to keep the market from cratering further.

    The Shanghai Composite Index – a triangle has now formed in the index in the wake of unprecedented government intervention. Unfortunately, triangles are usually trend continuation formations – click to enlarge.

    Our hunch is actually that this market will soon resume its decline in spite of the government’s frenetic antics. If China’s social mood has indeed turned bearish, nothing will keep the market from falling further.

    The Social Mood is Changing Everywhere

    In the US and Europe, sales of luxury goods appear to be in trouble as well. As a recent report in the Washington Post noted:

    “[…] experts say the penchant for more discreet luxury goods is also partly being fueled by the simmering political debate about income inequality, which is leaving some big spenders worried that it is tacky to carry a purse that practically announces its four-figure price tag.

     

    “We clearly can see that this is something where people are not wanting to show their wealth quite so conspicuously,” said Sarah Quinlan, who studies consumer spending patterns as the head of market insights for MasterCard Advisors.

     

    This new attitude has helped create a rough patch for some of the titans of the luxury retail industry. Louis Vuitton, Gucci and Prada ascended as icons of global wealth as their $5,500 handbags and $695 silk scarves became status symbols from New York to Shanghai.

     

    But today’s luxury shopper has soured on such obvious signs of affluence, in particular the logo-emblazoned goods that these brands became known for as they aggressively opened stores in emerging markets and in smaller cities in the United States and Europe.

     

    “This is really what keeps me up at night,” Johann Rupert, the chief executive of Richemont, which owns Cartier and other big luxury brands, said at a business conference last week. “Because people with money will not wish to show it. If your child’s best friend’s parents go unemployed, you don’t want to buy a car or anything showy.”

    We certainly wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of a manager of a luxury brand company right now. However, what is important here from our perspective is what this change in attitudes is saying about society as a whole and what its likely impact on financial markets and the economy is going to be. Luxury goods are typically doing best during bull markets, when people are suffused with optimism and are actually eager to show of their riches and success.

    When this mood changes, it is a sign that the bullish trend in “risk assets” is likely to reverse. In fact, it signals a decline in people’s willingness to take risk more generally, which obviously has negative implications for the economy as well.

    Conclusion

    This is a trend one should definitely keep an eye on. It represents yet another subtle warning sign for the economy, stocks and other risk assets.

  • Shots Fired In Ferguson On Brown Death Anniversary, Day After Hillary Says "Police Bias Is Clear"

    Four days after we showed a video in which Nation of Islam leader urged black Americans to “rise up and kill those who kill us”, two days after we reported that “Black-White Race Relations Under Obama are the Worst In The 21st Century“, shots were fired, according to Reuters, on Sunday during a march in Ferguson, Missouri to mark the one year anniversary of the fatal shooting of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown, police said.

    It was unclear who fired the shots or the extent of any injuries, a police spokesman told reporters, but initial reports suggested they were not aimed at the marchers. About six shots were heard as 300 people made their way to a church on the outskirts of Ferguson as part of events to mark the death of Brown at the hands of a white police officer one year ago.

     

    St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said he was angry that a shooting had marred the weekend’s events in Ferguson, which have so far gone off without major incidents or arrests.

     

    “These are the exact kind of events we try to avoid. I think it’s unfortunate. We are trying to keep everybody as safe as we can,” Belmar told reporters.

    More troubling is that none other than the potential future president of the US was adding gasoline to the fire yesterday, when in an interview with Al Sharpton – her second national broadcast interview since she declared her candidacy in April – Hillary Clinton discussed “criminal justice reform” and said the following:

    If you compare arrest records in, you know, charging of crimes, in convicting of crimes, in sentencing of crimes, you compare African-American men to white men. It is unfortunately clear as it could be that there is a bias in favor of white men…

    The exchange takes place around 25 minutes 40 seconds into the video recording below:

    Well, yes, there are certainly problem cases such as the “Police Officer Caught On Tape Discussing “Ways To Kill A Black Man And Cover It Up.” However, when a presidential candidate goes openly on record to state that she implicitly backs all those who say all the US police is problematic, is it any wonder Louis Farrakhan will that “if the federal government will not intercede in our affairs, then we must rise up and kill those who kill us. Stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling.” In fact, he may well say that Hillary Clinton herself is supportive of his cause and, sure enough, her words would be sufficiently open for interpretation to permit such a take.

    Finally, today’s Ferguson anniversary protest (and shooting) comes a day after the grotesque if not surreal took place for another democratic presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders in Seattle, when several visibly angry young “Black Lives Matter” activists stormed his stage, and whose beef with the mild-mannered 73-year-old socialist was not exactly clear neither was their intention (just like all the “#OccupyWallStreet “activists”) but who got to scream for a few minutes regardless. Bernie was literally speechless through the unscripted commotion, and ultimately decided to just leave without giving his speech.

  • Summer Jobs Disappear; Lazy Teens, Immigrants Blamed

    Back in May, we highlighted a report which showed that across OECD countries, 35 million people between the ages of 16 and 29 are jobless. “Overall, young people are twice as likely as prime-age workers to be unemployed,” the OECD said. 

    As anyone who follows the slow motion trainwreck that is the EMU knows, youth joblessness across the periphery is a disaster, with unemployment rates between 40% and 50%. And things aren’t great in America either. As nonprofit Generation Opportunity recently noted, “the effective (U-6) unemployment rate for 18-29 year olds, which adjusts for labor force participation by including those who have given up looking for work, is 13.8 percent (NSA).”

    Against this backdrop, consider the following from Bloomberg, who bemoans the demise of the legendary “summer job” in America and offers three explanations for its disappearance. 

    Via Bloomberg:

    At 41.3 percent, the July labor force participation rate of teens was the lowest for the month in the post-World War II period.

     

    The teenage summer job has been going the way of telephone booths and the cassette tape for decades. The length of the downward trend has been masked by the fact that it’s hard to tease apart teen summer jobs from teen employment more generally.

     

    Looking at the jump in the labor-force participation of teens in July over the average for the school months, it’s clear that summer jobs peaked in the mid-1960s and have been sliding since.

     

     

    What gives?

     

    1. This generation is lazy

    Or, as Northeastern University labor economist Alicia Modestino puts it: “Some teens are doing other stuff” like coding camp, foreign travel or beaching it.

     

    2. Typical teen jobs are drying up

    “Think Blockbuster,” said Modestino. 

     

    3. Teens face competition

    Modestino and other labor economists believe that the single-biggest explanation for the decline is that teenagers face stiff competition for what were once summer jobs from other workers, especially immigrants.

    So basically, the excuses for the demise of the summer job are i) laziness, ii) lack of available employment, and iii) immigrant competition. 

    Come to think of it, those three excuses are a pretty good explanation for all joblessness in America. 

  • The Canaries Continue To Drop Like Flies

    Submited by Mark St.Cyr,

    One would think as “canary” after “canary” falls silent either sickened with laryngitis, or worse – completely comatose, that those on Wall Street as well as the financial media itself would not only have seen, but heard, many of the warning calls that have been obvious for quite some time. Yet, history always shows; not only do they not see, but more often than not – they don’t want to see, nor hear the warning calls.

    Even when all the warning signs are screaming danger – not only are they ignored, they’re explained away as if those which saw or heard them, should be ignored as they’ll contend not only did one not see; but couldn’t see.

    What they’ll propose is: “That was not a “canary” but rather a  “dodo.”  After all, with a Fed that’s as interactive as this one currently is, surely what they believe they heard, or saw is impossible. For people say they’ve spotted warning signs in these ‘markets’ for years, and none have yet produced a crisis because – they’re now extinct! ” Yet, the wheezing sounds of many a Wall Street songbird has been apparent for quite a while. Again: If only one would care to look or listen.

    Back in April of 2014 in an article titled “The Scarlet Absence Of A Letter of Credit” I opined a few scenarios as to why this seemingly dismissed revelation by the so-called “smart crowd” should not go unnoticed. For the implications may very well portend far greater reasons too worry in the coming future. Below is an excerpt. And let’s not forget this is some 16 months ago. When the financial media et al were still reciting in unison the wonders to which, “China will be the economy that leads us out of this current malaise.”

    “Over the last few years since the financial melt down of 2008, we have seen what many have believed are precursors that may tip the hand of markets as to show just how unhealthy this levitating act fueled by free money has become.

     

    And yes there are always false indicators, and we all know correlation doesn’t equal causation. And even more may shrug and think, “No letter of credit, so what.” However, if there were ever a canary in a coalmine worth noting this is one not to let one’s eyes to divert from.

     

    The issue at hand is not just the foolishness of the absence contained in a one-off LOC gamble some company would take. Far from it.

     

    It’s the desperation that could be hidden that’s a precursor one has to watch for. For the amount of desperation, or the degree that might be hidden beneath the surface to which a commodity will be sent overseas to another country, a country for all intents and purposes is using that very product as a pseudo currency to back other financial obligations without the requisite document to be paid. Is mind numbingly dangerous in its implications in my view.”

    Fast forward to today and what is the current state of the commodity sector? If your answer resembled something along the lines of catastrophe, falling knife, broke or busted; you would be closer to reality than the “everything is awesome” spin you used to hear when the price of another commodity: oil, dropped again, and again signalling the cue for analysts to take to the airwaves or keyboards and herald “More money in consumers pockets via a reduction in gas prices equals more consumer spending!” Yet, you don’t hear that tune any longer do you?

    Consumer spending, the metric that’s been trumpeted as “the” supposed songbird for the chorus of data points as to prove there’s an ever burgeoning economy. Not only hasn’t shown signs of growth when it comes to retail spending. It too has contracted. The most recent U.S. Dept. of Commerce release in July showed June with a decrease of 0.3% from the previous month, while April and May were also revised downward.

    During this period oil (e.g., Brent) has precipitously dropped from over $100 per barrel to where it now sits and bounces under $50. However, just to give a little more context. The first fall was over a year ago where it initially free-fell cutting its price in half just when it should have had the greatest impact. e.g., The Christmas holiday shopping season. And the result? Dismal holiday sales returns. So dismal all one heard or read was the excuse of “the weather.”

    So now with reports for April, May, and June in the books during another precipitous oil drop. This time albeit from a far lower bar ($65-ish.) falling once again below the $50 mark and not only remaining, but seeming to threaten falling even further to even lower lows. It’s now hard to ignore the fact, all that presumed “money in consumers pockets” made possible to spend is either lost in the sofa cushions or, never materialized in the way many on Wall Street were convinced it would. For if it did – than why would numbers be revised down?

    Once again, let’s not forget this is during another of what many see as the “get out and hit the open road fun-time” officially kicked off via the Memorial Day holiday. And May of June’s number couldn’t even hold to unchanged status? What does that scream let alone “sing?”

    What happened to the “pent-up demand” that must have surely been burning holes in consumers pockets with all that gas savings we were told was taking place across the nation? Surely one must construe if it didn’t take place during the holiday shopping it therefore must at least show signs when the weather broke. Unless the consumer is what many of us have argued: Broke. It would seem the “numbers” are showing that’s far more the case.

    Another canary that seems to have fallen silent is the one that sang the tune “This Qtr. just you watch, earnings will need to be revised up!” And they have, only not from a level that would suggest a healthy start to begin with.

    The game of “bait and switch” metric announcements or reporting is not only laughable it borders on obscene. So much so I would envision if one asked a street-hustling 3-card-Monte player what they thought of today’s earnings reporting. They would throw down their cards in disgust and ask how they missed such a money-making racket opportunity. For if you can start by saying 4, then lower it to 1, where they come in at 2 – only on Wall Street can one state with a straight face (as well as duck any jail time for outright fraud) “This earnings season not only beat expectations, but was double the consensus!”

    Only a street hustler can fully appreciate, as well as be left envious to this ingenious sleight of hand.

    Then there’s the “Greece is solved” and “Greece doesn’t matter” chorus that was proclaimed before, during, and after the first indications of trouble. And once again we are waking to the tune near daily, not only is Greece still not solved – it sits on a perch so precariously swinging too-and-fro between further calamity into an outright civil chaos and catastrophe. So much so the greater media at large seems exhausted as to vocalize any further developments.

    And who can forget that other tune that suddenly has also fallen silent: “The economy is not only ready to take off once QE has ended, and we expect GDP to not only signal but print 4%+ in the coming Qrts. After all, we just went from our previous upward revised call which was just under 4 – where we just printed 5% for Q3!”

    All sounds great except for one thing. That Q3 was Q3 2014. What happened next? Lest I remind you to look back on some of the preceding paragraphs?  For that’s where I reminded you about “weather” and the dismal revisions to a lower Q1, and Q2 spending reports, let alone where GDP prints are proposed to print next. However, if one listens carefully, what seems abundantly clear for the next print will be a tune that sounds familiar. Only this time  – 3 is now the new 5!

    Even if one tries to shield their eyes and ears away from these harbingers in ways we’ve all been reminded countless times by Disney™ movies spanning generations as: “not too worry and sing a happy tune.” The problem there? Disney’s own dulcet tones were met this earnings season with a far different reception, as its shares like many others of the media space that were once considered “bank” were tarred and feathered as its stock was treated more like the paper found in the bottom of the bird’s cage.

    If there’s one note that’s been ringing louder and louder it’s this…

    It’s getting harder and harder for even the most vocal among Wall Street as they try to sing the “everything is awesome” song when the ground around them continues to be littered with an ever-increasing amount of sprawled out – motionless – canaries.

  • "We Should Admit This Isn’t Going To Work": One Country's Grim Assessment Of Greece's Future

    On Saturday, Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung reported that Greece’s creditors – the “quadriga” as it were – had agreed on the terms to be imposed on Athens in return for an ESM rescue package worth some €86 billion. The 27-page draft MOU is “substantial and far reaching,” and includes cuts to defense spending and subsidies for farmers, Bloomberg says, summarizing the FAZ report. 

    Greece desperately needs to close the deal next week. If the new program isn’t formally in place by August 20, a €3.2 billion payment to the ECB won’t be possible – a default to the central bank would likely be catastrophic, as Greece’s banking sector would collapse entirely in the absence of the ELA liquidity drip.

    Once Greek officials agree to the conditions, the draft will be circulated to EMU member countries for approval and Alexis Tsipras will need to go once more to parliament where he hopes the Syriza rebellion which imperiled the first two votes on bailout prior actions will have died down in the wake of a dramatic party meeting late last month in which the Greek Premier insisted that for the time being, “opposing voices must stop.” Here’s Reuters:

    Greece is on track to complete a draft deal on a third bailout by Tuesday and possibly get a first disbursement by Aug. 20 to meet a key payment, sources familiar with a conference call of senior EU finance officials late on Friday said.

     

    Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has tried to force the pace of the talks, keen to wrap up agreement on sensitive economic reforms by mid-August, while many Greeks are on holiday, and receive an initial aid disbursement by Aug. 20 in time to make a bond payment to the European Central Bank.

     

    If a draft memorandum of understanding and an updated debt sustainability analysis are ready as planned on Tuesday, the Greek government and parliament would be expected to approve them by Thursday.

    And more from Kathimerini:

    Greece will aim to finalize an agreement with lenders next week in the hope of being in a position to pass the deal through Parliament by next Thursday.

     

    There are a number of issues that need to be ironed out in the next couple of days if the government is to be able to keep to a timetable that would allow the European Stability Mechanism to disburse money before Greece has to repay 3.2 billion euros to the European Central Bank on August 20.

     

    Some of the issues on which there is yet to be agreement include changes to farmers’ taxation, scrapping nuisance taxes, further product market liberalization, deregulating some professions and allowing Sunday trading.

     

    The other issues that must be settled are which prior actions have to be approved now and how much fresh funding Greece will receive on approval of the third bailout.

     

    If the new agreement is approved by the Greek Parliament on Thursday, eurozone finance ministers are likely to convene the next day to give their green light as well. 

    Of course not every EMU finance minister is convinced that the ad hoc, rushed effort to disburse aid to Greece is prudent. As Reuters goes on to note, German FinMin Wolfgang Schaeuble (who, you’re reminded, would much prefer that Greece simply leaves the currency bloc so that Berlin can send a message to Rome and, more importantly, to Paris) favors a second bridge loan from the EFSM so as to allow for futher deliberation:

    Some countries, led by Germany, were keen to nail down more specific long-term reform commitments in addition to the immediate actions to be implemented, the source added.

     

    Germany, keen on fiscal discipline and far-reaching economic reforms, is sceptical of any early deal and doubts a multi-billion-euro bailout can be agreed by mid-August.

     

    “It remains completely open,” said one politician from the ruling coalition government, adding that Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble was taking a cautious view of comments by commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker on the chances of a deal.

     

    Greece would not get a free ticket to new aid, the coalition politician added.

     

    The Sueddeutsche Zeitung said the German Finance Ministry favoured another bridge loan to give Greece and its creditors time to negotiate a comprehensive reform programme.

     

    The ministry says a range of issues remain to be settled.

    Yes, a “range of issues” are still up for debate, the most pressing of which is the simple question of whether the entire effort is ultimately for naught, something the IMF has suggested on a number of occasions. One person who thinks the new bailout is an exercise in futility is Finnish Foreign Minister Timo Soini who, as Bloomberg reports, thinks Europe should simply admit “that this isn’t going to work.”

    A third Greek bailout won’t work and will only prolong the difficulties plaguing the euro area, according to Finnish Foreign Minister Timo Soini.

     

    But his party, the euro-skeptic the Finns, is ready to discuss another rescue package because allowing Greece to fail would only add to Europe’s costs, he said.

     

    The Finns party, which in April became part of a ruling coalition for the first time, has no choice but to support a bailout since not doing so would cause the three-party government to collapse. That would only open the door for the left-wing opposition, Soini said.

     

    “I kept my party in the opposition for four years because of this subject,” he said. “But with this government structure we can’t block the program alone and we’d be replaced.”

     


     

    While Finland drove a hard bargain during Greece’s second bailout, it may no longer have the clout to block a deal. Finland has already made its 1.44 billion-euro contribution to the permanent European Stability Mechanism. Should Europe decide that the future of the euro zone is at stake, a bailout won’t require unanimous backing from members; 85 percent is enough.

     

    Even without an imminent bailout agreement, a European fund deployed in July to help Greece clear arrears contains about 5 billion euros and could be tapped again for a bridge loan.

     

    According to Soini, bridge financing will do little to solve the long-term fiscal plight Greece faces.

     

    “This bridge funding isn’t going to be final solution,” he said. “There’s no solution for this particular problem that doesn’t cost Finnish taxpayers.” 

    Unfortunately, Soini’s assessment applies to a number of EMU governments and in the end, the paradox of the Greek tragicomedy may well be that no one (including Greece) wants to keep Greece in the EMU but everyone will endeavor to preserve the status quo because changing things is simply too painful. With that in mind, we’ll leave you with the following quote from Soini:

    “If Greece collapsed and Grexit would be tomorrow’s reality, we would lose 3-4 billion euros more or less at once. So I hope that the EU and euro zone, that in due course, we can face the facts and say enough is enough and that we must do something else.”

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 9, 2015

  • "Orwellian" FBI Says Citizens Should Have No Secrets That The Government Can't Access

    Submitted by J.D. Heyes via NaturalNews.com,

    The police and surveillance state predicted in the forward-looking 1940s classic “1984” by George Orwell, has slowly, but steadily, come to fruition. However, like a frog sitting idly in a pan of steadily-warming water, too many Americans still seem unaware that the slow boil of big government is killing their constitutional liberties.

    The latest sign of this stealth takeover of civil rights and freedom was epitomized in recent Senate testimony by FBI Director James Comey, who voiced his objections to civilian use of encryption to protect personal data – information the government has no automatic right to obtain.

    As reported by The New American, Comey testified that he believes the government’s spy and law enforcement agencies should have unfettered access to everything Americans may store or send in electronic format: On computer hard drives, in so-called i-clouds, in email and in text messaging – for our own safety and protection. Like many in government today, Comey believes that national security is more important than constitutional privacy protections or, apparently, due process. After all, aren’t criminals the only ones who really have anything to hide?

    In testimony before a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee entitled “Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and the Balance Between Public Safety and Privacy” Comey said that in order to stay one step ahead of terrorists, as well as international and domestic criminals, Uncle Sam’s various spy and law enforcement agencies should have access to available technology used to de-encrypt protected data. Also, he believes the government should be the final arbiter deciding when decryption is necessary.

    What could go wrong there?

    Government, at all levels, is responsible

    During the hearing, TNA reported, technology experts warned the panel that giving the FBI limitless access to the personal electronic data of Americans would open it up to exploitation by “bad actors.” But Comey was having none of that.

    “It is clear that governments across the world, including those of our closest allies, recognize the serious public safety risks if criminals can plan and undertake illegal acts without fear of detection,” he told the committee.

     

    “Are we comfortable with technical design decisions that result in barriers to obtaining evidence of a crime?”

    So, in essence, Comey like many before him, especially since the global war on terror was launched – believes that, in the name of national security Americans ought to give up more of their individual and constitutional rights because that’s the only way we can be adequately protected.

    Perhaps realizing that his Senate hearing testimony was public, Comey gave the Constitution a passing glance, noting that the government should respect the “requirements and safeguards of the laws” and the country’s founding document. However, as Americans now know, spy agencies during the past two presidential administrations have been tasked increasingly with conducting warrantless, unchecked surveillance of Americans’ electronic data and communications.

    But all of this is not on men like Comey and Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Congress bears its share of responsibility, too.

    This is the way it is – shut up and take it

    When such activities of the National Security Agency were exposed in 2013 by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, many in the media and among the American electorate were quick to blame the agency, as if it was somehow acting out of rogue instinct.

    The reality is, however, that the agency is tasked to perform its duties either by statutory law (think the USA Patriot Act) or by presidential directive (think Bush’s order after 9/11 to conduct warrantless surveillance).

    “We are not asking to expand the government’s surveillance authority, but rather we are asking to ensure that we can continue to obtain electronic information and evidence pursuant to the legal authority that Congress has provided to us to keep America safe,” Comey said during the Senate hearing.

    What does all this mean? It simply means that at every level, government considers its own citizens hostile.

    Oh, and there’s nothing we can do about it.

  • Something's Up with Elon

    Although I’m a dyed-in-the-wool chartist, I appreciate when people make thoughtful conjectures about what’s going to happen to a company, a financial instrument, or a country based on their broad observations. Remember, “speculate” is derived from the Latin verb speculare, which means to observe. Successful investors notice things.

    As such, I’d like to share something I’ve noticed. It first started back on July 29th, when I got an email from Elon Musk (errr, not personally, but it a spammy kind of way). It started off like this:

    0808-tslamailtwo

    It went on to say, at some length, that for every person I’d refer that bought a Tesla Model S, they’d get $1,000 off, and I would likewise get $1,000 off my next car. Not a bad deal! But it did strike me as a little surprising to get an email like this, since Tesla really never seemed to be hurting for interest in their cars before. And besides, Musk is reported to have a net worth of something like $13 billion, so why is he stooping to use his name on an all-text email solicitation?

    Then, about a week later, this showed up:

    0808-tslamail

    In this email, it described the same offer, but it kindly included a spammy email that I could send on my own to my friends. So now, not only was I getting spammed, but I was being provided with ready-to-use junk mail I could use as well.

    My puzzlement reached critical mass when my Tesla app was updated. I noticed a button I had never seen before:

    0808-fromelon

    Ummm……….so precious screen real estate is being used on a button called From Elon? (And, to be clear, this isn’t temporary; it apparently is there forever). I clicked it, and, yep, there was something resembling the original email. However, there was something extra: I could click on a Find Friends button, and voila:

    0808-contacts

    It was ready to go through all the contacts in my iPhone so I could start spamming them quickly and easily!

    Now this is all getting to be a bit much. In March of 2013, I wrote an over-the-top review of the Tesla S, praising it to the skies (I did not have the intelligence to actually buy a bunch of TSLA, however, which was a mere $38 at the time). Back then, every touchpoint of the Tesla experience was amazing.

    For instance, if you needed to bring your car in for service, you could get an appointment immediately, and they would give you another Tesla S to use for whatever time they needed your car. I was accustomed to having to rent a piece-of-crap vehicle from Enterprise whenever I had cars serviced in the past. At Tesla, they’d just hand you a new $100,000 car for free to enjoy while your own car was being fixed. Sweet!

    Since then, though, things have started to slip……….badly. First off, Tesla remains a one product company. They sell just one thing – the Model S –  and even though they keep coming up with goofy versions of it (with ‘Insane” mode……….and “Ludicrous” mode………) they have yet to ship their long-promised Model X, a fact I griped about in this post.

    Tesla has taken pains to say they are finally going to release it in “Q3” – – and now they are saying that they will ship their first Model X on September 30th. Look, guys, I know that shipping a single car on the very last day of the quarter strictly qualifies as Q3, but this is a bit disingenuous. I’m also predicting, based on all the public whining Musk has done about what a bitch the gull-wing doors have been to get working, that a bunch of the early X’s shipped have problems. We’ll see.

    In addition, service doesn’t seem what it used to be. Things are starting to go wrong with my Model S, the worst of which is that one of the fancy automatically-receding door handles no longer comes out. In other words, it’s totally unusable. It feels a little strange having a $100,000 car and explaining to a passenger that they have to walk around to the other side, since the goddamned handle doesn’t function. I might as well have a 1974 AMC Pacer.

    So, when calling for a service appointment in July, I was told they could see me…………in September. Umm, gosh, I’m glad it’s not something serious.

    Perhaps these festering problems explain why TSLA peaked eleven months ago, losing one third of its entire value afterward, and then (oddly) clamoring back to roughly its prior high. It is weakening again now, and based on my first-hand experiences, I’m starting to think this is a trend that is going to persist.

    0808-tsladrop

    Don’t forget that only two years ago, Tesla was (secretly) approaching bankruptcy and was close to a deal with Google to sell itself. Tesla has been propped up with government loans and “green” credits of various kinds for all these years, and let’s face it, with gas prices collapsing, the appeal of an expensive all-electric car is diminishing.

    The Model S is still the best car I’ve ever owned, and I’d still recommend it. But if Tesla doesn’t start to get its act together with respect to delivering new products and getting their service back into its former tip-top shape, I suspect the symbol TSLA will make a long, tortured trip back down to the double digits.

  • Peak Insanity: Chinese Brokers Now Selling Margin Loan-Backed Securities

    One of the reasons why the Chinese dragon quite often appears to be chasing its own tail is that the country is trying to re-leverage and deleverage at the same time. 

    Take China’s local government debt refi effort for instance. Years of off-balance sheet borrowing left China’s provincial governments to labor under a debt pile that amounts to around 35% of GDP and thanks to the fact that much of the borrowing was done via LGFVs, interest rates average between 7% and 8%, making the debt service payments especially burdensome. In an effort to solve the problem, Beijing decided to allow local governments to issue muni bonds and swap them for the LGFV debt, saving around 400 bps in interest expense in the process. Of course banks had no incentive to make the swap (especially considering NIM may come under increased pressure as it stands), and so, the PBoC decided to allow the banks to pledge the new muni bonds for central bank cash which could then be re-lent into the real economy. So, China is deleveraging (the local government refi effort) and re-leveraging (banks pledge the newly-issued munis for cash which they then use to make more loans) simultaneously. 

    We can see similar contradictions elsewhere in China’s financial markets. For instance, Beijing has shown a willingness to tolerate defaults – even among state-affiliated companies. This is an effort (if a feeble one so far) to let the invisible hand of the market purge bad debt and flush out failed enterprises. Meanwhile, Beijing is enacting new policies designed to encourage risky lending. In April for instance, the PBoC indicated it was set to remove a bureaucratic hurdle from the ABS issuance process, which means that suddenly, trillions in loans which had previously sat idle on banks’ books, will now be sliced, packaged, and sold. Specifically, the PBoC said regulatory approval would no longer be required to issue ABS (hilariously, successive RRR cuts have served to reduce banks’ incentive to package loans, but we’ll leave that aside for now). Once again, deleveraging (tolerating defaults) and re-leveraging (making it easier for banks to get balance sheet relief via ABS issuance), all at once. 

    There’s a parallel between this dynamic and what’s taking place in China’s equity markets. That is, a dramatic unwind in the half dozen or so backdoor margin lending channels (a swift deleveraging) has been met with a government-backed effort to prop up the market via China Securities Finance Corp., which has been transformed into a state-controlled margin lending Frankenstein that could ultimately end up with some CNY5 trillion in dry power (a mammoth attempt at re-leveraging). 

    Now, the PBoC will look to supercharge efforts to re-engineer a stock market bubble via leverage by pushing brokerages to issue ABS backed by margin loans. Here’s The South China Morning Post:

    Huatai Securities is selling 500 million yuan of the country’s first asset-based securities product built on margin-financing loans as underlying assets.

     

    The product is due to be listed and sold to investors through the Shanghai Stock Exchange.

     

    The minimum investment for the product is 100,000 yuan, with exposure of a single borrower capped at 5 per cent. Investors will bear the risks for gains and losses in the underlying portfolio.

     

    Approval to mainland brokerages to securitise margin loans was given by the China Securities Regulatory Commission on July 1. Brokerages have been encouraged to raise capital via securitisation to help them recapitalise.

    A couple of things should be obvious here. First, this sets up the possibility that a perpetual motion margin doomsday machine is being created. That is, if brokerages simply offload the margin loan risk to investors and use the proceeds to fund still more margin lending which can also be turned into still more ABS, and so, then the effect will be to pile leverage on top of leverage on the way to constructing a monumental house of cards. Beyond that though, one certainly wonders what happens in the event the underlying stocks become completely illiquid (i.e. Beijing decides to suspend trading on three quarters of the market again). Here’s a bit more from Bloomberg:

    China’s first asset-backed security tied to stock margin loans is raising concern that authorities are fueling new risks as they attempt to reverse an equities slump.

     

    Guotai Junan Securities Co., the nation’s second-biggest listed brokerage, plans to sell 500 million yuan ($80.5 million) of bonds Friday backed by margin facilities it extended to stock investors, according to a company statement. The offering comes after a stock rout last month that prompted regulators to allow brokerages to securitize margin loans.

     

    China is increasingly opening to ABS, having reversed course in 2012 to allow sales regulators had banned in 2009 after the products helped spark the global financial crisis. Investor concern has mounted that unintended risks could spread after unprecedented state intervention to help staunch the stock slide that wiped out as much as $4 trillion.

     

    “The risk could be that brokers may not be able to execute forced liquidations in case of sharp declines in the overall stock market,” said Shujin Chen, a banking analyst at DBS Vickers Hong Kong Ltd. “Liquidity risk can also be a problem if there are too many stocks that suspend trading, as happened in July.”

     

    “So far we don’t know how the brokerages are going to use the proceeds,” said Gao Qunshan, an analyst at Tianfeng Securities Co. “It can be positive if they are using the funds to develop new businesses but negative for China’s financial market if they keep lending out for margin financing.”

    Yes, it certainly “could be a negative if they keep lending out for margin financing,” which they most certainly will if not of their own accord then by PBoC decree. 

    And the punchline: the senior tranche (which accounts for CNY475 million of the total CNY500 million deal) is rated AAA.

  • You Live In A Country Run By Idiots If…

    Via Monty Pelerin's World blog,

    We truly live in a country run by idiots. The contradictions between common sense and government actions are just too many to have happened by accident or chance. But perhaps the leaders are not the idiots. Maybe the people tolerating such leaders and laws are the true idiots.

    What follows is a contrast between common folk wisdom and what Washington considers wisdom. These contradictions are inconvenient for government, threatening to reveal their incompetence or hidden agenda. The author of this piece is unknown although it sounds like something that could have come from Jeff Foxworthy who popularized this presentation style.

    Oh, and regarding the image above – we are the idiots for accepting this nonsense.

    If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally, you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If you have to get your parent’s permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion, you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor or check out a library book, but not to vote who runs the government, you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy leaders in Egypt , you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If, in the largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat, you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If an 80-year-old woman can be strip-searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched, you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more, you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is cute, but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable, you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, Subsidized Housing and Free Cell Phones, you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize NOT working with 99 weeks of unemployment checks and no requirement to prove they applied but cannot find work, you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more safe according to the government, you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If you are offended by this article, I’ll bet you voted for the idiots who are running our great country into the ground.

    *  *  *

    idiots stooges

    GOD BLESS AMERICA

  • Is China's 'Black Box' Economy About To Come Apart?

    Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

    After 30 years of torrid expansion, perhaps the single most consequential factor in China’s economy is how much of it is a “black box”: a system with visible inputs and outputs whose internal workings are opaque.

    There are number of reasons for this lack of transparency:

    1. Official statistics reflect what officials want to project, not the unfiltered data.
    2. Policy decisions are made behind closed doors by a handful of leaders.
    3. There is little institutional history of transparency.
    4. Many important statistics are self-reported and prone to distortion.
    5. Large sectors of the economy are informal and difficult if not impossible to measure accurately.
    6. Endemic corruption distorts critical economic yardsticks.
    7. There is little historical precedent to guide policy makers and individual investors.

    None of these is unique to China, of course, with the possible exception of #7: few nations in history (if any) have experienced an equivalent boom in infrastructure, credit, housing and wealth in such a short span of time.

    Saving Face By Editing Data

    As anyone who has lived and worked in Asia can attest, public perception (i.e. "face") is of paramount concern.  There is tremendous pressure to put a positive spin on everything in the public sphere.  Negative publicity causes not just the individual to lose face, but his boss, agency, company and family may also be tarnished.

    For this reason, reporting potentially negative numbers accurately may put careers and hopes for advancement at risk.

    This accretion of fear of reprisal/disapproval builds as it moves up the pyramid of command.  This process can lead to tragic absurdities being taken as truth.  In one famous example in Mao-era China, officials ordered rice planted in thick abundance along a particular stretch of road, so that when Chairman Mao was driven along this roadway, he would see evidence of a spectacular rice harvest.

    In reality, China was in the grip of a horrific famine resulting from disastrous state policies (The Great Leap Forward). But since everyone feared the consequences of telling Mao his policies were starving millions of Chinese people, the fields along the highway was planted to mask the unwelcome reality.

    Even the most honest reports reflect the biases of those summarizing feedback for their superiors. As a result, when the feedback finally reaches the top leadership, it may be inaccurate or misleading in ways that are difficult to detect.

    The Dangers Of Opaque Leadership Decisions

    All leaders have their own biases and experiential limits, and left unchecked by accurate feedback and honest dissent, these have the potential to generate disastrous decisions.

    Perhaps the top leadership in China is soliciting honest dissent, but without a vigorously free media and multiple unedited feedback loops, this is unlikely for systemic reasons.

    Most people—leaders and followers alike—seek to confirm their own views (i.e. confirmation bias). A system in which key decisions are not aired publicly and the trustworthiness of the data being considered behind closed doors is also unknown is a system designed to reinforce confirmation bias and yes-men.

    In this environment, destructive policies may be supported by the chain of command despite the consequences.

    Lack Of Institutional History of Transparency

    Institutions with a long history of independence and a policy of priding transparency have the potential to counter the tendency of hierarchies to encourage confirmation bias and fudged feedback.

    But China’s tumultuous history in the 20th century—invasion, foreign occupation, civil war, revolution, mass famines, the Cultural Revolution’s mass disruptions and purges, the end of Mao’s Gang of Four and Deng Xiaoping’s “to get rich is glorious” reforms—has not been conducive to the establishment of independent institutions.

    Developing the independence of institutions in the midst of such unprecedented political, social and economic turmoil is a long-term work in progress. Though no comparison is entirely analogous, we can look at the first equally tumultuous 30 years of the American Republic (1790 – 1820) and the French Republic (1789-1819) for historical examples of the difficulties in establishing enduringly independent institutions.

    Self-Reported Statistics

    Self-reported data plays a significant role in any economic snapshot that measures sentiment and expectations. But when it comes to income, outstanding loans and other data, there’s no substitute for accurate numbers.

    As a general rule, the larger the informal cash economy and the greater the leeway and the incentives to under-report, the lower the quality of self-reported statistics.

    Take income as an example. In the U.S., the vast majority of non-cash income is reported directly to the tax authorities: wages, 1099s, sales of securities, etc.  The leeway to fudge income is low, which pushes the incentives to fudge onto the expense/deduction side of the ledger.  For this reason, IRS income data is more trustworthy than self-reported measures of income and employment.

    Consider this chart of household income in China.  A survey of households found incomes were much higher than the officially collated numbers. In the case of the top earners, the difference was significant enough to skew a variety of key numbers such as household income as a percentage of GDP.

    (Source)

    The differences between official data and data collected by surveys is troubling for a number of reasons. Given the incentives to under-report (to avoid paying higher taxes), why should we trust the accuracy of self-reported income? Who’s to say that wealthy households don’t habitually under-report their true income even to surveys?

    Given the ubiquity of the informal economy and shadow banking system in China, official data cannot accurately reflect peer-to-peer lending, private loans outstanding and many other data points that are critical to understanding income, risk and credit flows.

    The Informal Economy & Shadow Banking

    These discrepancies between actual debt and what’s reported could have monumental consequences should expansion turn to contraction and debts become uncollectible.

    It’s been estimated that a third of all Chinese households engage in informal lending to friends and family, as well as to enterprises that pay high rates of interest due to the risky nature of their investments.

    Interest can run as high as 34% — loan-shark rates.

    Even the slices of the credit/investment sector that are reported—for example, Wealth Management Products (WMPs)—are more Wild West than staid banking. WMPs are managed off-balance sheet and don’t require any reserves:

    “Legally WMPs are not deposits. They are investment products that are managed ‘off-balance-sheet’ by banks, and there is little transparency about where the funds are going,” said Stephen Green, head of Greater China research at Standard Chartered in Hong Kong, in a note.

    According to Green, the funds from different WMP products are often mixed and deployed to finance a broad pool of assets that more often than not fall into the sectors of the economy that regulators have attempted to fence off from normal bank lending (real estate, local government infrastructure, etc.), partly because these sectors are deemed to be particularly risky. In addition, the banks hold neither reserves of WMP deposits nor capital against the assets.

    (Source)

    In other words, transparency is low while risk is unknown but possibly high.  This volatile mix of opacity and risk is the perfect recipe for cascading defaults and catastrophic losses.

    Endemic Corruption Distorts Data

    In China, as in many developing economies, problems such as permit applications, tax bills or development rights are solved by greasing the skids of officialdom.  Just received a big tax bill? Maybe a friendly tax official can help reduce the tax in return for promises of favors and an envelope of cash.

    While the central government is cracking down on highly visible corruption, the system of buying privileges with influence, favors and cash is too deeply entrenched to be eliminated in a few months or years by high-level policies.

    As with all the factors listed here, the impact of corruption is difficult to assess — and that’s what makes China’s economy such a black box: if what’s known is untrustworthy, and what’s not known is potentially destabilizing, then how reliable is any projection?

    Few Historical Precedents to Guide Policy Makers and Individuals

    In the U.S., analysts and policy makers can draw upon a long history of economic policies and debate their applicability to the present.  Rising income disparity, for example, is often compared to the Gilded Age of the late 19th century. The financial crisis of 2008 is often viewed as an analog of the 1929 crash that triggered the Great Depression.

    China’s recorded history stretches back thousands of years, but in terms of applicable financial and economic parallels to the current economy, there is no precedent.  China’s leadership is truly in uncharted waters.  This in itself heightens the risk of miscalculation and basing policies on faulty premises.

    In Part 2: Why China Is Extremely Vulnerable Now, we zero in on China’s real estate bubble, and the outsized risks it poses to China’s economy — and the world.

    As the housing bubble bursts, alongside the trillions of losses already experienced in the Chinese stock market, the flood of capital from China into world assets is going to be substantially compromised. Asset prices are set at the margin: what the highest buyer is willing to pay. For many years now, the world has become accustomed to China's dependable willingness to pay well in excess of everyone else. When China is no longer the highest buyer, how far will prices need to fall in order to match the next highest buyer's ability to pay?

    Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

  • The Story Of America's Debt In 6 Easy Graphics

    Despite incessant pundit parroting of the “deleveraging households” meme, America is and probably always will be, addicted to debt. If you need proof, have a look at the latest statistics on non-mortgage debt, which, thanks to America’s twin trillion-dollar bubbles, recently soared to its highest level in a decade. To wit, from HousingWire, citing Black Knight Financial: 

    What we’ve found is that mortgage holders today are carrying more non-mortgage debt than at any point in the past 10 years, with an average of $25,000 per borrower. That’s $1,400 more on average than one year ago, and nearly $2,600 more than in 2011. The primary driver of this increase is a rise in auto-related debt, which accounted for 81% of the overall non-mortgage debt increase over the past four years [and] student loan debt [which] is at all-time high.

    Now, Pew is out with a new study entitled “The Complex Story Of American Debt” and as you might have imagined, the non-profit found that the past three decades have witnessed an unprecedented shift in Americans’ propensity to leverage household balance sheets. This tendency has not been accompanied by a concurrent and proportional increase in household income. Here is the story of America’s debt addiction in six graphics:

    More, from Pew:

    One of the biggest shifts in American families’ balance sheets over the past 30 years has been the growing use of credit and households’ subsequent indebtedness. In the years leading up to the Great Recession, the average household at the middle of the wealth ladder more than doubled its mortgage debt. Although Americans’ debt has decreased since then, housing—which still is the largest liability for most households—and other debt remain higher than they were in the 1990s, and student loan obligations have continued to grow.

     

    And this rise in debt has not corresponded to a similar increase in household income. Debt is particularly problematic for low-income households, whose liabilities grew far faster than their income in the aftermath of the recession: Their debt was equal to just one-fifth of their income in 2007, but that proportion had ballooned to half by 2013. Even middle-wealth households held over $7,000 more debt, on average, in 2013 than in 2001 and previous years.


    Reach of Debt Report_ARTFINAL

  • When A Train Wreck Is No Accident

    Submitted by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

    “In spite of all the rhetoric, we will go deeper in debt, the Fed will print more money, and the value of the dollar will continue to plummet.” – Ron Paul

    Never in history have the economic and political structures been so manipulated by those who are responsible for their safekeeping; never has so much been at stake, in so many countries, and facing collapse, all at the same time.

    The great majority of people in the First World recognise that the world is passing through an economic crisis. However, most are under the impression that there are some pretty smart fellows running the show and all they need to do is tweak the system a bit more and we’ll return to happy days.

    Not so. The “smart fellows” who are in charge of fixing the problem are in fact the very same people who created it.

    Understandably, this a hard concept for most people to even consider, let alone accept, as the very idea that those in charge of the system might consciously collapse it seems preposterous. So, we might wish to back up a bit here and present a very brief history of the system itself, in order to understand that the eventual collapse of the economic system was baked in the cake from the very beginning.

    Creating a Central Bank

    From the very earliest days of the formation of the American republic, bankers (along with inside help from George Washington’s secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton) sought to create a banking monopoly that would create the country’s currency and become the central banking system.

    The first attempt at a central bank was a failure, and strong opponents, including Thomas Jefferson, prevented a second central bank for a time. Later, further attempts were made by bankers and their political cronies, and each central bank was either short-lived or defeated in its planning stages.

    Then, in 1913, the heads of the largest banks met clandestinely on Jekyll Island, Georgia, to make another try. Having recently lost yet another bid to create a central bank, due to the public’s understandable concern that the big bankers were already too powerful, a new spin was placed on the idea. This time, they decided to present the idea as a government body that would be decentralised and would have the responsibility of restricting the power of the banks.

    However, the new bill was in fact the same old bill, with a new title and some minor changes in wording. But this time, it would be presented by the new president, who was a liberal.

    The president, Woodrow Wilson, had in fact been handpicked by the banks. The banks then scuttled their own conservative party’s candidate, got the Democrat Wilson elected, then installed a secretary of the Treasury whose job it would be to ensure that the Federal Reserve was created.

    The bill was widely supported by the public, even though, in truth, it was not a federal agency, but a privately owned conglomerate, controlled by the banks. Neither was it a reserve. It was never intended to store money; it was intended to give the biggest bankers control of the economy. They followed the central principle of uber-banker Mayer Rothschild: “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”

    From the start, the new institution peddled itself as the protector of the people’s interests, but it was quite the opposite. Its purpose from its inception was to control the economy and the government by controlling the issuance of the currency. In addition, it was to be a system of taxation.

    Typically, a population accepts a certain amount of direct taxation but has its limits of tolerance. Yet, the bankers understood that a less direct method of taxation was infinitely more profitable and infinitely safer from criticism.

    Inflation as a Profit System

    Inflation was not always the norm. At one time, prices were relatively static from one generation to the next. But the Federal Reserve touted the idea that “controlled” inflation was in fact necessary for a prosperous economy.

    Of course, the greater the debasement of the currency through inflation, the more the central bankers profited. But at some point, the currency would have lost virtually all its value and it would be time for a reset. The currency would need to collapse and a new one created.

    And so, the Fed set about its hundred-year programme of continuous inflation. Although there have been periods of lower inflation (and even deflation), the programme stayed more or less on course, and now, its hundred-year life has all but ended: the dollar has been devalued almost 100%.

    And so, we find ourselves at the day of reckoning. The economic crisis we are now facing (not only in the US; it will be felt, to a greater or lesser extent, worldwide) is not a mere anomaly that we need to “push past”. It’s a systemic crisis. It’s been created by design and the system must collapse.

    Of course, the central banks are in the process of protecting their interests, to make sure that, whilst this will be a major economic calamity, they themselves will continue to profit. The damage will be borne by the general public.

    This began in earnest in 1999, with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, allowing banks to create a massive, reckless mortgage spree. It was backed by the government’s “too big to fail” policy that guaranteed that, when the banks predictably became insolvent as a result of the loans, government would bail them out. (And by “government” we mean “the taxpayer”; it was he who picked up the bill for the banks’ recklessness.)

    The End Game

    The next step in getting ready for the collapse is an all-out effort to confiscate the wealth of the public. This can be seen in the effort to push investors away from solid forms of wealth protection such as gold and silver and into stocks, bonds and bank deposits. More recently, we’ve seen the emergence of an effort to end the use of safe deposit boxes and a push to end the use of paper currency in making transactions.

    The end objective is to force as much money as possible into deposits in banks, then take it. The US, EU and a few other countries have passed confiscation legislation, allowing the banks carte blanche to confiscate and/or refuse to release deposits.

    Of course a reset of these proportions will not be without its fallout. The public will be horrified at the outcome, at the realisation that the very institutions they thought had been created to protect them had never been intended to serve their interests at all.

    Once they realise that the world’s greatest Ponzi scheme has been foisted on them, they will be hopping mad and justifiably so. Those who had not had the foresight to internationalise themselves, to remove themselves as much as possible from the system, will most certainly want to get even in some way.

    And this makes clear why governments, particularly that of the US, are working so hard to create a police state. Unless a totalitarian state can be created, those who are presently taking the wealth may not be able to fully realise their objectives.

    The coming train wreck is no accident. It has long been planned. That the “smart fellows in charge” will somehow save the day is therefore a vain hope indeed.

    It’s still possible to back out of the system, but it’s getting more difficult every day. The window is closing, and the time to internationalise is now.

  • The $12 Trillion Fat Finger: How A "Glitch" Nearly Crashed The Global Financial System – A True Story

    For all the talk of how the financial world nearly ended in the aftermath of first the Lehman bankruptcy, then the money market freeze, and culminating with the AIG bailout, and how bubble after Fed bubble has made the entire financial system as brittle as the weakest counterparty in the collateral chain of some $100 trillion in shadow liabilities, the truth is that despite all the “macroprudential” planning and preparations, all the world’s credit, housing, stock, and illiquidity bubbles may be nothing when compared to the oldest “glitch” in the book: a simple cascading error which ends up taking down the entire system.

    Like what happened in the great quant blow up August 2007.

    For those who may not recall the specific details of how the “quant crash” nearly wiped out all algo and quant trading hedge funds and strats in a matter of hours if not minutes, leading to tens of billions in capital losses, here is a reminder, and a warning that the official goalseeked crisis narrative “after” the fact is merely there to hide the embarrassment of just how close to total collapse the global financial system is at any given moment.

    The following is a true story (courtesy of b3ta) from the archives, going all the way back to 2007:

    I.T. is a minefield for expensive mistakes

    There’s so many different ways to screw up. The best you can hope for in a support role is to be invisible. If anyone notices your support team at all, you can rest assured it’s because someone has made a mistake. I’ve worked for three major investment banks, but at the first place I witnessed one of the most impressive mistakes I’m ever likely to see in my career. I was part of the sales and trading production support team, but thankfully it wasn’t me who made this grave error of judgement…

    (I’ll delve into obnoxious levels of detail here to add color and context if you’re interested. If not, just skip to the next chunk, you impatient git)

    This bank had pioneered a process called straight-through processing (STP) which removes the normal manual processes of placement, checking, settling and clearing of trades. Trades done in the global marketplace typically have a 5-day clearing period to allow for all the paperwork and book-keeping to be done. This elaborate system allowed same-day settlement, something never previously possible. The bank had achieved this over a period of six years by developing a computer system with a degree of complexity that rivalled SkyNet. By 2006 it also probably had enough processing power to become self-aware, and the storage requirements were absolutely colossal. It consisted of hundreds of bleeding edge compute-farm blade servers, several £multi-million top-end database servers and the project had over 300 staff just to keep it running. To put that into perspective, the storage for this one system (one of about 500 major trading systems at the bank) represented over 80% of the total storage used within the company. The equivalent of 100 DVD’s worth of raw data entered the databases each day as it handled over a million inter-bank trades, each ranging in value from a few hundred thousand dollars to multi-billion dollar equity deals. This thing was BIG.

    You’d think such a critically important and expensive system would run on the finest, fault-tolerant hardware and software. Unfortunately, it had grown somewhat organically over the years, with bits being added here, there and everywhere. There were parts of this system that no-one understood any more, as the original, lazy developers had moved company, emigrated or *died* without documenting their work. I doubt they ever predicted the monster it would eventually become.

    A colleague of mine one day decided to perform a change during the day without authorisation, which was foolish, but not uncommon. It was a trivial change to add yet more storage and he’d done it many times before so he was confident about it. The guy was only trying to be helpful to the besieged developers, who were constantly under pressure to keep the wretched thing moving as it got more bloated each day, like an electronic ‘Mr Creosote’.

    As my friend applied his change that morning, he triggered a bug in a notoriously crap script responsible for bringing new data disks online. The script had been coded in-house as this saved the bank about £300 per year on licensing fees for the official ‘storage agents’ provided by the vendor. Money that, in hindsight, would perhaps have been better spent instead of pocketed. The homebrew code took one look at the new configuration and immediately spazzed out. This monged scrap of pisspoor geek-scribble had decided the best course of action was to bring down the production end of the system and bring online the disaster recovery (DR) end, which is normal behaviour when it detects a catastrophic ‘failure’. It’s designed to bring up the working side of the setup as quickly as possible. Sadly, what with this system being fully-replicated at both sites (to [cough] ensure seamless recovery), the exact same bug was almost instantly triggered on the DR end, so in under a minute, the hateful script had taken offline the entire system in much the same manner as chucking a spanner into a running engine might stop a car. The databases, as always, were flushing their precious data onto many different disks as this happened, so massive, irreversible data corruption occurred. That was it, the biggest computer system in the bank, maybe even the world, was down.

    And it wasn’t coming back up again quickly.

    (OK, detail over. Calm down)

    At the time this failure occurred there was more than $12 TRILLION of trades at various stages of the settlement process in the system. This represented around 20% of ALL trades on the global stock market, as other banks had started to plug into this behemoth and use its capabilities themselves. If those trades were not settled within the agreed timeframe, the bank would be liable for penalties on each and every one, the resulting fines would eclipse the market capital of the company, and so it would go out of business. Just like that.

    My team dropped everything it was doing and spent 4 solid, brutal hours recovering each component of the system in a desperate effort to coax the stubborn silicon back online. After a short time, the head of the European Central Bank (ECB) was on a crisis call with our company CEO, demanding status updates as to why so many trades were failing that day. Allegedly (as we were later told), the volume of financial goodies contained within this beast was so great that failure to clear the trades would have had a significant negative effect on the value of the Euro currency. This one fuckup almost started a global economic crisis on a scale similar to the recent (and ongoing) sub-prime credit crash. With two hours to spare before the ECB would be forced to go public by adjusting the Euro exchange rate to compensate, the system was up and running, but barely. We each manned a critical sub-component and diverted all resources into the clearing engines. The developers set the system to prioritise trades on value. Everything else on those servers was switched off to ensure every available CPU cycle and disk operation could be utilised. It saturated those machines with processing while we watched in silence, unable to influence the outcome at all.

    Incredibly, the largest proportion of the high-value transactions had cleared by the close of business deadline, and disaster was averted by the most “wafer-thin” margin. Despite this, the outstanding lower-value trades still cost the bank more than $100m in fines. Amazingly, to this day only a handful of people actually understand the true source of those penalties on the end-of-year shareholder report. Reputation is king in the world of banking and all concerned –including me– were instructed quite explicitly to keep schtum. Naturally, I *can’t* identify the bank in question, but if you’re still curious, gaz me and I’ll point you in the right direction…

    Epilogue… The bank stumped up for proper scripts pretty quickly but the poor sap who started this ball of shit rolling was fired in a pompous ceremony of blame the next day, which was rather unfair as it was dodgy coding which had really caused the problem. The company rationale was that every blaze needs a spark to start it, and he was going to be the one they would scapegoat. That was one of the major reasons I chose to leave the company (but not before giving the global head of technology a dressing down at our Christmas party… that’s another QOTW altogether). Even today my errant mate is one of the only people who properly understands most of that preposterous computer system, so he had his job back within six months — but at a higher rate than before 🙂

    Conclusion: most banks are insane and they never do anything to fix problems until *after* it costs them uber-money. Did I hear you mention length? 100 million dollar bills in fines laid end-to-end is about 9,500 miles long according to Google calculator.

    * * *

    And here is Zero Hedge’s conclusion: the next time you think all those paper reps and warranties to claims on billions if not trillions of assets, are safe and sound in some massively redundant hard disk array, think again.

  • Gibson's Paradox: The Consequences For Gold

    Submitted by Alasdair Macleod via GoldMoney.com,

    We now have an explanation for Gibson's paradox (posted here), a puzzle that has defeated mainstream economists from Fisher to Keynes and Friedman.

    The best way to illustrate the puzzle is through two charts, the first showing empirical evidence that interest rates correlate with the price level.

    Chart 1 Gibson

    And the second, showing no correlation between interest rates and the annual change in the price level, i.e. the rate of inflation.

    Chart 2 Gibson

    The solution to the puzzle is simple: in free markets, interest rates are set by the demands of investing businesses which at the margin will pay a rate of interest based on whether their product prices are rising or falling: hence the correlation.

    The second chart shows that central bank policies, which seek to control prices by setting interest rates, have no theoretical justification behind them. They are the consequence of blindly accepting the quantity theory of money, upon which macroeconomics is based.

    A mistake made by central bankers is to believe that the price of money is its interest rate, instead of the reciprocal of the price of the products for which it is exchanged. Interest rates are money's time preference, which in free markets broadly reflects the average time preference of all the individual goods bought with money. The problem with monetarism is that it ignores this temporal aspect of exchange.

    It is worth bearing in mind that tomorrow's prices, and therefore the purchasing power of money, are wholly subjective, or put another way cannot be known in advance: if they were, we would be able to buy or sell something today in the certain knowledge of a profit tomorrow, which is obviously untrue. It therefore follows that the relative quantities of money and goods are not the key factors in determining price relationships. Far more important are consumer preferences for money against goods, which taken to an extreme can render the purchasing power of a currency to be worthless, irrespective of its quantity. This insight is necessary to put monetary theory into its proper context.

    Through monetary policy the Bank of England has overridden free market relationships since the mid-1970s, the Gibson relationship being apparent in the 240 years up to then. Chart 3 continues where Chart 1 left off.

    Chart 3 Gibson

    The relationship ended when the Bank of England raised interest rates to 17.1% in 1974 to stop the hyperinflation of prices. For the first time the BoE set interest rates higher than the rate would have been in free markets relative to price levels, and the Fed did the same thing five years later. Since then prices have continued to rise, albeit at a declining pace, and sterling has lost a further 88% of its purchasing power and the US dollar 76%. Since that time interest rate management by these central banks has continued to suppress the Gibson relationship, as we should now call it.

    Monetary policy impairs the market between borrowers and savers. We see this today, with zero interest rates suppressing the relationship between savers and investing businesses creating an economic stasis. This brings us to a second error exposed by Gibson. The Fed is expected to raise interest rates from the zero bound in a few months' time in an attempt to return to some sort of normality.

    A rising interest rate trend would, according to Gibson, encourage prices to rise towards and likely through the Fed's 2% target inflation rate. This is not how financial traders see it, nor does the Fed. They expect the exact opposite, believing that rising interest rates are bad for demand and commodity prices, which is why the decision has been deferred for so long.

    The evidence tells us this view is mistaken and that rising interest rates will be accompanied by rising commodity prices. For example, between 1970 and 1980 gold rose from $36 to $800, and US interest rates from 9% to 17% as shown in Chart 4.

    Chart 4 Gibson

    This is a slightly different point, but is graphically illustrates the mistake of thinking the price of anything can be suppressed through higher interest rates.

  • Greece's Collapse Was a Reversion to the Mean… Who's Next?

    Because of the rampant fraud and money printing in the financial system, the real “bottom” or level of “price discovery” is far lower than anyone expects due to the fact that the run up to 2008 was so rife with accounting gimmicks and fraud.

     

    The Greek debt crisis, like all crises in the financial system today, can be traced to derivatives via the large investment banks. Indeed, we now know that Greece actually used derivatives (via Goldman Sachs) to hide the true state of its debt problems in order to join the Euro.

     

    Creative accounting took priority when it came to totting up government debt. Since 1999, the Maastricht rules threaten to slap hefty fines on euro member countries that exceed the budget deficit limit of three percent of gross domestic product. Total government debt mustn't exceed 60 percent.

     

    The Greeks have never managed to stick to the 60 percent debt limit, and they only adhered to the three percent deficit ceiling with the help of blatant balance sheet cosmetics…

     

    "Around 2002 in particular, various investment banks offered complex financial products with which governments could push part of their liabilities into the future," one insider recalled, adding that Mediterranean countries had snapped up such products.

     

    Greece's debt managers agreed a huge deal with the savvy bankers of US investment bank Goldman Sachs at the start of 2002. The deal involved so-called cross-currency swaps in which government debt issued in dollars and yen was swapped for euro debt for a certain period — to be exchanged back into the original currencies at a later date.

     

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/greek-debt-crisis-how-goldman-sachs-helped-greece-to-mask-its-true-debt-a-676634.html

     

    The above story for Greece is illustrative of the story for all “emerging markets” starting in 2003: tons of easy money, rampant use of derivatives for accounting gimmick, and the inevitable collapse.

     

    From a big picture scenario, in 2003, the global Central Banks abandoned a focus on inflation and began to pump trillions in loose money into the economy. Because large banks could loan well in excess of $10 for every $1 in capital on their balance sheets, global credit went exponential.

     

    The effect was sharply elevated asset prices that greatly benefitted tourism-centric economies such as Greece.

     

    As I stated in our issue Price Discovery:

     

    If the foundation of the financial system is debt… and that debt is backstopped by assets that the Big Banks can value well above their true values (remember, the banks want their collateral to maintain or increase in value)… then the “pricing” of the financial system will be elevated significantly above reality.

     

    Put simply, a false “floor” was put under asset prices via fraud and funny money.

     

    Take a look at the impact this had on Greece’s economy.

     

    Below is Greek GDP dating back to the 1960s. Having maintained a long-term trendline of growth the country suddenly saw its GDP MORE THAN DOUBLE in less than 10 years after joining the EU?

     

     

    In many regards, this “growth” was just a credit binge, much like housing prices, stock prices, etc. By joining the Euro, Greece was able to borrow money at much lower rates (2%-3% vs. 10%-20%).

     

    Rather than using these lower rates to pay off its substantial debts, Greece funneled as much money as possible towards Government employees (nearly one in three Greek workers).

     

    As a result, Government wages nearly doubled to the point that your typical Government employee was paid 150% more than his or her private sector counterpart. Add to this a pension system in which retirees are paid 92% of their former salaries and you have a debt bomb of epic proportions.

     

    In simple terms, Greece from 2003-2010 was an economic boom driven by incomes, which were in turn driven by cheap debt NOT real organic growth. Thus, the collapse in GDP was yet another case of “price discovery” in which asset prices fall to economic realities…

     

    Another Crisis is brewing. It’s already hit Greece and it will be spreading throughout the globe in the coming months. Smart investors are taking steps to prepare now, before it hits.

     

    If you've yet to take action to prepare for this, we offer a FREE investment report called the Financial Crisis "Round Two" Survival Guide that outlines simple, easy to follow strategies you can use to not only protect your portfolio from it, but actually produce profits.

     

    We are making 1,000 copies available for FREE the general public.

     

    We are currently down to the last 25.

     

    To pick up yours, swing by….

     

    http://www.phoenixcapitalmarketing.com/roundtwo.html

     

    Best Regards

     

    Phoenix Capital Research

     

     

     

  • What China Thinks Of Donald Trump

    Donald Trump hates “losers” and he pretty clearly thinks there are too many of them in America.

    “This country is in big trouble. We don’t win anymore. We lose to China. We lose to everybody,” the bellicose billionaire told a raucous audience at the first debate of the GOP Presidential primary on Thursday. 

    While it wasn’t clear what specific “losses” Trump was referring to or even whether he could cite any meaningful examples if pressed, he’s correct to say that when it comes to China, the US has suffered some serious setbacks of late, not the least of which is Beijing’s successful membership drive for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. 

    There’s no question that the bank’s very existence represents something of an economic coup in that it, along with the BRICS bank and to a lesser extent, the Silk Road Fund, are a response to the perceived inadequacies of the US-dominated multilateral institutions that have dominated the post-war world. But the more immediate and palpable “loss” (to use Trump-speak) came courtesy of The White House’s failed attempt to dissuade Washington’s allies from joining the bank. 

    In addition to the AIIB, Beijing’s land reclamation efforts in disputed waters China shares with US allies in the region has also been portrayed by some analysts and commentators as evidence of America’s waning global influence. And then there are the standard arguments around trade and offshoring, to which Trump alluded on Thursday.  

    So Trump’s characterization of the US as a “loser” when it comes to the country’s relationship with China is probably accurate, even as it lacks nuance and any semblance of serious analysis. And while we know what Trump thinks of China, what we don’t yet know is what China thinks of Trump, and although we’re reasonably sure that Trump could care less what the Politburo (let alone the Chinese people) have to say, The Washington Post has nevertheless endeavored to offer a bit of insight which we think is worth highlighting as Trump attempts to hold on to his lead in the GOP polls. Here’s WaPo’s Ana Swanson:

    The Chinese are not exactly the only people that Donald Trump has insulted. But China is a favorite punching bag of Trump’s, a jumping-off point for the Republican presidential candidate to emphasize his tough-minded negotiating skills and criticize Obama for having a feeble foreign policy. (“I beat China all the time,” Trump has said.)

     

    In campaign speeches, Donald Trump has blamed China for stealing American jobs and breaking the rules. He has criticized China for currency manipulation and espionage, and proposed raising taxes on China “for each bad act” they commit. In July, he rebuked the White House for giving Chinese diplomats state dinners, saying they should be taken to McDonald’s instead.

     

    The Chinese have begun taking notice. While most Chinese people still seem to be unaware of who Trump is, a growing number of people in the Chinese media and on social media are discussing the baffling political figure.

     

    The Chinese foreign ministry also defended against Trump’s allegations that China is “ripping” the U.S. After Trump vowed to retake millions of jobs that China had stolen, Chinese media picked up on and translated criticisms of Trump’s statement by Alan Blinder, the former Federal Reserve vice chairman and a Princeton University economist. “It’s completely implausible,” Blinder had said of Trump’s plan.

     

    Much of the reporting in the Chinese media has focused on explaining why America is entertaining Trump’s presidential aspirations.

     

    In June, the Global Times, a mouthpiece of the Communist party, published an article titled:  “The theme of Trump’s speech for running for president: I am really very rich.”

     

    Other articles focus on the reasons Trump might be running for president, besides a desire to win. Some have commented that his campaign is just an effort to get more publicity before going back to being a business tycoon.

     

    Yicai.com, the Web site of China Business Network, a financial media group, ran an article that said: “One of the purposes of running for president is to promote oneself, to become more famous, like Trump. …  The nationwide exposure he gained is hard to measure in monetary terms.”

    Of course all of the above really fails to touch on the most pressing issue when it comes to Trump and on that note, we’ll give the last word to an unnamed Chinese social media user quoted by WaPo:

    “This guy’s hair so strange. I thought it was Photoshopped at first.”

  • Chinese Trade Crashes, And Why A Yuan Devaluation Is Now Just A Matter Of Time

    Two weeks ago we showed something very disturbing (something even the IMF is now figuring out): global trade is grinding to a halt…

     

    … and in a dollar-denominated cases, has even gone into reverse.

    World-Trade-Monitor-Unit-Price-2012-2015_05

     

    Nowhere has this trend been more visible than in the IMF’s own admission that global trade, growing at 7% in 2011, has nearly halved its growth rate, and in 2016 global commerce is expected to rise at the slowest pace since the financial crisis.

     

    Overnight we got another acute reminder of just who is lying hunched over, comatose in the driver’s seat of global commerce: the country whose July exports just crashed by 8.3% Y/Y (and down 3.6% from the month before) far greater than the consensus estimate of only a 1.5% drop, and the biggest drop in four months following the modest June rebound by 2.8%: China.

     

    It wasn’t just exports, imports tumbled as well by 8.1%, fractionally worse than the -8.0% consensus, and down from the -6.1% in June as China’s commodity tolling operations are suddenly mothballed.

    Goldman breaks down the geographic slowdown:

    • Exports to the US contracted 1.3% yoy, down from the +12.0% yoy in June.
    • Exports to Japan fell 13.0% yoy in July, vs -6.0%yoy in June
    • Exports to the Euro area went down 12.3% yoy, vs -3.4% yoy in June.
    • Exports to ASEAN grew 1.4% yoy, vs +8.4% yoy in June
    • Exports to Hong Kong declined 14.9% yoy, vs -0.5% yoy in June.

    Slower sequential export growth likely contributed to the slowdown in industrial production growth in July. Weaker export growth is likely putting more downward pressure on the currency, though whether the government will allow some modest depreciation to happen remains to be seen.

    As CA’s Valentin Marinov summarizes:

    “the collapse in exports seems to be driven by renewed weakness in the EU demand. Not great overall and highlights one distinct risk for the global asset markets we have been highlighting repeatedly of late. In particular, we were stressing the link between slowing global trade (both in manufacturing goods as well as commodities) and the recent sharp drop in central bank FX reserves. That drop should over time erode the sovereign demand for stocks and bonds. The resulting imbalance between supply and demand for global stock and bonds is still not fully reflected in equity risk premia (VIX is still quite law) as well as bond term premia (these are still low for the UST). A correction higher, presumably on the back of Fed liftoff, should weigh on a broad range of risk-correlated currencies.”

    All of the above, of course, is something Zero Headers have known since last November when we wrote “How The Petrodollar Quietly Died, And Nobody Noticed.” More are starting to notice.

    And while the above should not be news, neither should anyone be surprised that such ongoing trade collapse for the world’s largest mercantilist, spells doom for the Politburo’s 7% GDP target. From Bloomberg:

    Along with weak domestic investment, subdued global demand is putting China’s 2015 growth target of about 7 percent at risk. The government has rolled out fresh pro-expansion measures, including special bond sales to finance construction, but has held off weakening the yuan as China seeks reserve- currency status.

     

    Exports are no longer an engine for China growth — no matter what the government does, it’s just impossible to see strong export growth as in the past,” said Bank of Communications economist Liu Xuezhi. “It means additional slowdown pressure, and it requires the government to be more aggressive in the domestic market.”

    So while one can repeat that the PBOC will have to lower rates again until one is blue in the face (even as out of control soaring pork prices make it virtually impossible for the local authorities to ease any more), the realty is that, as we warned in March, a Chinese QE is now inevitable. Why? Because while the government is already clearly buying stocks thereby validating the “other” transmission mechanism, the only thing the PBOC still hasn’t tried is to devalue the Yuan.  As global trade continues to disintegrate, and as a desperate China finally joins the global currency war, it will have no choice but to devalued next.

  • Flushing Cash Into The Casino – The Media Stock Swoon Shows That It Works Until It Doesn't

    Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

    If you don’t think the Fed and other central banks have transformed financial markets into debt besotted gambling casinos, consider the last few days of carnage in the media stocks. That sector is rife with bubble finance infections.

    To wit, hedge fund speculators feasting on zero interest carry trades and cheap options own 10% of the 15 companies which comprise the S&P Media index. That happens to be the highest hedge fund ownership ratio among all 23 S&P industry sectors.

    So given that the essential modus operandi of hedgies is leveraged gambling, not hedging risk, it is not surprising that they have ganged-up on the media stocks. Indeed, as Zero hedge noted with respect to this week’s sharp and unexpected sell-off:

    The love affair between hedge funds and media stocks is being tested. As Bloomberg reports, hedge funds have been near-constant champions of the industry, drawn in by its high cash generation and buybacks, takeover speculation and the straight-up momentum of the stocks themselves. This week’s retreat represents the sharpest rebuke to that thesis — and one of its only setbacks in a bull market well into its seventh year.

    Indeed, it has been a perfect fit. These companies—–such as Disney, Time Warner Inc., Fox, CBS and Comcast——are notorious financial engineers, using massive amounts of the dirt cheap debt enabled by the Fed to fund incessant M&A takeovers and prodigious stock buybacks. That’s exactly the kind of financial milieu in which hedge funds thrive; and one, by the same token, that would not even exist in an honest free market.

    Not surprisingly, therefore, the S&P media index went parabolic in response to the Fed’s post-crisis money printing spree. From an aggregate market cap of about $135 billion at the March 2009 bottom, the index had soared by 520% to nearly $700 billion before this week’s $50 billion or 8% loss.  Needless to say, it wasn’t the geniuses who inhabit Mickey’s house or the machinations of Rupert Murdoch that made all the difference.

    No, the S&P media index was propelled upward during the last six years by an endless flood of fresh cash into the Wall Street casino that kept hedge funds and robo-traders upping their bets on the next M&A deal or stock buyback announcement. Viacom (VIA) is a poster boy for the latter.

    As shown below, this week’s body slam—triggered by the belated realization that the cable companies’ long suffering customers are now “cutting the chord”—— has taken VIA’s share price all the way back to its late 2010 levels.

    But since customer defection has been a long-standing risk and wasn’t exactly new news, the question recurs. Exactly what was it that caused Viacom’s stock price to double in the interim and thereby shower upwards of $20 billion in market cap gains on the hedge fund gamblers who chased it?

    The cause for the rip pictured below would most definitely not be growth of earnings or free cash flow. In the fiscal year ending in September 2011, Viacom posted $8.7 billion of EBITDA and that turned out to be the high water mark. Even as its stock price was soaring in the next two years, its EBITDA slithered downward to $8.2 billion in its most recent (June) LTM report.

    Likewise, net income of $2.12 billion in 2011 has now slide to $1.77 billion on an LTM basis.
    VIA Chart

    VIA data by YCharts

    In fact, Viacom levitated its stock the new fashioned way. During the last 19 quarters it has plowed $17.6 billion back into the casino in the form of stock buybacks ($15.1 billion) and dividends ($2.5 billion). But before you praise VIA for its seemingly shareholder friendly ways, consider this: During the same period it only earned $10.2 billion of net income.

    That’s right. It distributed 175% of its net income!

    Under the rules of old-fashioned finance that kind of reckless self-liquidation would have been considered a flashing red warning signal to hit the sell button. That would have been especially appropriate in this case since Viacom’s business model has always depended upon the improbable capacity of its cable distributors to extract punitive monopoly prices from their residential customers indefinitely.

    Yet when the fundamentals reared their ugly head in this quarter’s round of media company earnings releases, the gamblers professed to be downright shocked, Why the resulting sell-off, which lopped $8 billion off VIA’s market cap in a flash, was purportedly not on the level, at all:

    People are shooting first and asking questions later…this indiscriminate selling, to me, is just nuts,” exclaims on billion-dollar AUM hedge fund CIO as media stocks faced a bloodbath this week.

    Well, this week’s action wasn’t exactly shooting first; it was more like asking questions way too late. In fact, the entire $20 billion market cap bubble that the most nimble-footed hedge funds feasted upon was just the result of a leverage trick. Nearly the entire $7 billion gap between what Viacom earned and what it distributed to shareholders over the last 29 quarters was borrowed!
    VIA Chart

    VIA data by YCharts

    But here’s the thing. Viacom’s fundamentals are visibly deteriorating. Its $3.05 billion of revenue in Q2 2015 was down 10.6% from prior year and 17% from the June quarter two years ago.

    Stated differently, Viacom’s peak price of $90 per share, which equated to about $40 billion of market cap one year ago, had nothing to do with “price discovery” in the equity capital markets. It was a pure case of debt-fueled speculation in the casino.

    But VIA is a piker compared to most companies in the media index. Take Time Warner (TWX). Looking at the stock chart from March 2009 forward you would think that the company was a found of earnings growth and value creation. Alas, you would be wrong.

    Time Warner’s pre-tax income was $4.5 billion in its most recent 12 month period—–compared to $4.4 billion way back in 2011. While 2% growth in three and one-half years is not much to write home about, the casino gamblers were not slowed in the slighted.  Perhaps they were impressed with the 25% growth in its net income line, but if so they were capitalizing a one-time reduction in its tax rate—-from 34% to 19.4% over the period—-as if it represented permanent growth of earnings.

    In either case, gamblers have been in a rambunctious mood. The companies stock price had rebounded by 6X from the March 2009 low. And even with this week’s sell-off, the TWX stock price had risen at a 35% compound rate during the last three years at a time when its actual pre-tax income was up by 2%.
    TWX Chart

    TWX data by YCharts

    Needless to say, there is no mystery as to how this disconnect occurred. The company simply pumped cash into the casino like there was no tomorrow. To wit, during the last six and one-half years, TWX distributed $29 billion in dividends and stock repurchases to shareholders compared to net income of just $20 billion.

    So it was the same formula as Viacom’s. Distribute every dime of earnings, and then top it up with a big heap of money that could be borrowed on the cheap.

    In TWX’s case,  its net debt grew from $11.5 billion in 2009 to $20.7 billion in the quarter just ended. That is, it borrowed every single dime of its $9 billion of distributions over and above its earnings during the period.

    The bottom line is pretty straight-forward. Just prior to this week’s correction TWX was valued at $90 billion versus operating free cash flow of $2.8 billion in the LTM period just posted. It could be said that 26X free cash flow is a pretty sporty valuation for a no-growth company.

    But then you should try CBS. It too has been a stock market rocket, and it too flushed $11 billion into the casino in the last four and one-half years in the form of stock buybacks and dividends. That was 140% of it net income during the period.

    Likewise, another member of the S&P Media index, Comcast, distributed $28 billion in stock repurchases and dividends during the last four and one half-years or just slightly less than its cumulative net income of $31 billion over the period. Needless to say, it made ends meet after hefty investments by borrowing; its net debt soared from $25 billion in 2010 to $45 trillion in the most recently ended quarter.

    Even the mighty Disney had little use for its $31 billion of net income during the same four and one-half year period ending the recent June quarter. It flushed fully $27 billion or 88% of it net income back into the casino.

    During the most recent quarter debt issuance by US companies reached an all-time high, raising a question as to why companies still need to borrow so much after selling $7 trillion of U.S. debt securities since 2008.

    This weeks S&P Media index swoon leaves no doubt as to the answer. Companies have not been borrowing to grow; they have been borrowing in order to flush cash into the casino.

    Charles Ponzi once had a scheme that was not essentially different. Yes, and it worked until it didn’t.

  • Obamanomics Explained (In 1 Cartoon)

    Peak-er Debt… or redistribution… or both?

     

     

    Source: Investors.com

  • China's Secret Gold Hoarding Strategy

    Submitted by Stefan Gleason via MoneyMetals.com,

    China’s recent stock market gyrations have some analysts now calling China the biggest bubble in history. But those who write off China because of market volatility are missing a more important long-term trend of Chinese geopolitical and monetary ascendancy. That trend shows no signs of abating.

    China’s leaders have a clever strategy, and Western financial powers may someday wake up in shock when they realize what has occurred.

    It’s true that the Chinese government has helped fuel artificial demand for property and equities. China skeptics who argue that these artificially inflated markets will crash to much lower levels could well prove to be correct. Some China doubters also argue that a downturn in China’s economy will put downward pressure on commodity prices.

    Commodities – from crude oil to copper to gold and silver – have already suffered a severe cyclical downturn. Commodity markets tend to be leading indicators, moving in advance of whatever economic story of the day the financial media are telling.

    But single-day drawdowns of more than 8% in the Chinese stock market this summer certainly caused some forced liquidations of precious metals positions.

    The very fact that booms and busts in China’s markets and economy can now exert heavy influence in globally traded markets such as commodities proves the point that China’s influence isn’t on the wane. Not by a long shot. Even if China’s double-digit rates of growth in the early 2000s prove fleeting and never return, China’s economy still remains on track to eclipse the U.S. economy in the years ahead as the world’s largest.

    China, Russia Are Quietly Emerging as World’s Gold Buyers

    Chinese officials aim to ultimately to challenge the America’s standing as the world’s superpower. That’s why they’re forming a strategic alliance with Russia, an adversary of the U.S. That’s why both the Russian and Chinese central banks have quietly emerged as the world’s largest gold buyers.

    In July, the People’s Bank of China reported that it has added more than 600 tons of gold bullion to its stockpiles since 2009, taking the total to 1,658 tons. That represents a 60% jump in gold assets in just six years.

    In fact, all of that new metal was added to central bank’s ledger in June 2015.

    With gold prices down in June, there's no way the actual buying had occurred then. It appears central bank officials simply moved that metal over from the books of China's state-owned banks which can hold metal secretly.

    So that’s just what the Chinese are reporting officially.

    Unofficially, according to MarketWatch columnist David Marsh, “China probably has a lot more gold than it admits.” That’s because the Chinese government regularly acquires gold directly from China’s mining industry.

    The transactions are settled in yuan rather than dollars, so most or all of these “internal” gold purchases can avoid showing up as foreign reserve assets.

    In examining gold flows into China as well as Chinese gold production, some experts believe that China actually holds more than 10,000 tons of gold, not the “paltry” 1,658 tons the People’s Bank of China is disclosing.

    China Has an Incentive to Understate Its Gold Hoard

    It makes logical sense that China would understate its gold aspirations. If you had the means to acquire hundreds, or even thousands, of tons of gold, you’d want to do so as stealthily as possible in order to avoid tipping off the market.

    If your strategic objective was to dramatically boost gold reserves over a period of several years, you wouldn’t want to see the price rise – at least not while you’re still accumulating. And if you had no ethical qualms about interfering in the market, you’d want to rig prices lower so you could obtain more ounces.

    Chinese officials are more than willing to manipulate markets, whether through subterfuge, deceit, or outright force. Recently, in an effort to prop up the stock market, they tried to forbid people from selling shares of stocks. How heavily involved China is in managing the gold market is impossible for an outsider to know.

    But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that China is covertly buying gold while dumping U.S. Treasuries. JP Morgan analyst Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou calculated that China’s foreign exchange assets got depleted by $520 billion over the past five quarters. Most of that $520 billion in paper asset dumping comes, presumably, from China’s massive holdings of Treasury securities.

    China Wants Admission to the Global SDR Club

    If China continues to unload U.S. bonds at a feverish pace, the Federal Reserve might be forced to launch a new bond-buying campaign. That, in turn, would diminish the credibility of the U.S. dollar as China seeks inclusion of its yuan into the International Monetary Fund's Special Drawing Rights (SDR) currency basket.

    As Reuters reported, China “is pushing for the increased use of the yuan for trade and investment as part of a long-term strategic goal to reduce dependence on the dollar.” The yuan’s ascendancy to the status of a top-tier SDR currency would go a long way toward making the Chinese currency a serious global competitor to the U.S. dollar.

    However, if it were known that China actually had 10,000+ tons of gold on hand, other countries would more likely balk at China’s pending petition to join the International Monetary Fund’s exclusive SDR club. (A decision is expected this fall.)

    China’s gold-accumulation strategy will go a long way toward making China more independent of the dollar and other fiat currencies.

    If you actually believe what the People’s Bank of China reports as its gold reserves, then it has a long way to go to catch up with other countries. While China’s official stash is the world’s sixth largest in absolute terms, it ranks much lower in relation to its economy and its total foreign reserves.

    China’s admitted gold hoard represents just 1.6% of its foreign exchange holdings. By comparison, Russia’s gold bullion accounts for 13.4% of reserves.

    Whether it owns 1,658 tons or upwards of 10,000 tons, China’s appetite for gold is far from being satisfied. The Chinese government will continue to buy, both officially and unofficially.

    China may never establish a model sound money system; nor is that its goal. China simply appreciates the universality of gold. And, as the saying goes, “gold goes where it’s most appreciated.”

    Whether you’re a Communist or a capitalist, whether you speak Mandarin or English, gold remains the one permanent, immutable common denominator. Gold’s value has been recognized universally for hundreds of years and will continue to be recognized universally regardless of whatever market gyrations or economic or political strife the future may bring.

  • "We Have A Civil War": Inside Turkey's Descent Into Political, Social, And Economic Chaos

    Deflecting criticism surrounding Ankara’s anti-terror air campaign, Turkey’s foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu last week told state television that strikes against ISIS targets would pick up once the US had its resources in place at Incirlik which will supposedly serve as a hub for a new “comprehensive battle.”

    Turkey has had a difficult time explaining why, after obtaining NATO support for a new offensive campaign to root out “terrorists”, its efforts have concentrated almost solely on the PKK and not on ISIS. As we’ve discussed in great detail (here, here, and here), and as the entire world is now acutely aware, Ankara’s newfound zeal for eradicating ISIS is nothing more than a cover for its efforts to undermine support for the PKK ahead of snap elections where President Tayyip Erdogan hopes to win back AKP’s absolute majority in parliament which it lost last month for the first time in 12 years.

    Cavusoglu was effectively suggesting that the reason it appears as though Ankara is overwhelmingly targeting the PKK at the possible expense of efforts to weaken ISIS is because Turkey must wait for the US to show up first, at which point the “real” fight will begin with the possible assistance of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Qatar. In the meantime, the country is descending into civil war and for many Kurds, the frontlines are all too familiar. Here’s Al Jazeera

    Located on the Tigris River just upstream from Turkey’s Iraqi and Syrian borders, Cizre has been shaken by nocturnal gun battles between police and residents in recent days.

     

    Its streets remain deserted after sunset, while families sleep in the innermost rooms of Cizre’s squat, cinderblock homes to protect themselves from gunfire.

     

    Hostilities have smouldered here since Turkey’s government and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) abruptly ended a two-year ceasefire in late July, imperilling the hard-won gains of Kurdish politicians and reversing prospects for a historic peace deal nearly achieved in March.

     

    Since July 23, Ankara has launched hundreds of bombing missions against the PKK’s strongholds in northern Iraq, while the PKK has killed at least 18 members of Turkey’s security forces in guerrilla attacks throughout the country’s east.

     

    Those attacks have put Cizre, a long-defiant bastion of pro-Kurdish sentiment, back on the front lines of a conflict that has cost more than 30,000 lives since 1984.

     

    “They say war is coming, but it’s already here in Cizre,” said Rasid Nerse, a 26-year-old construction worker.

     


     

    The ending of the ceasefire came less than two months after Turkey’s Kurdish-rooted People’s Democracy Party (HDP) scored a historic victory in national elections.

     

    Though Kurdish deputies usually run for parliament as independents, the HDP cleared a daunting 10 percent electoral threshold to become the first pro-Kurdish bloc to formally enter parliament under its own name. 

     

    Though the HDP has called on both sides to end the subsequent hostilities, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has attacked the political party, requesting last week that parliament strip Kurdish lawmakers of their legal immunity from prosecution.

     

    Our citizens see the police as a threat to their security, not a provider of it said Kadir Kunur, HDP mayor of Cizre.

     

    Ankara has ordered the detention of more than 1,000 HDP members in a national “anti-terror” probe that has focused on the PKK. 

     

    The PKK is listed as a “terrorist group” by Turkey, the European Union and the US.

     

    In Cizre, that crackdown has helped bring about the present security crisis.

     

    As mourners returned to their homes after Nerse’s funeral, many struggled past a series of makeshift walls and ditches that have recently been erected to encircle their neighbourhoods.

     

    Armed members of the PKK youth wing (YDG-H) began setting up the improvised barriers on July 26, when 21-year-old resident Abdullah Ozdal was killed during a protest.

     

    The vigilante youth group grew out of previous security crackdowns, which saw hundreds of Cizre youths radicalised while in Turkish prisons.

     

    Operating at night and frequently armed, the YDG-H similarly encircled the town during anti-government riots across the region last year.

     

    “Our citizens see the police as a threat to their security, not a provider of it,” said Kadir Kunur, the town’s HDP mayor. Kunur pointed to the dozens of bullet holes that pockmark the HDP’s building in Cizre, remnants from one of many deadly raids police launched here in the early 1990s.

    And more from Vice:

    The trenches have been dug in Cizre. Several feet wide and paired with mounds of earth and torn-up building material, they appeared blocking roads in this Kurdish enclave in southeastern Turkey after Ankara launched an intensive air campaign against the banned Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in July. 

     

    Children play on them during daylight hours. But at night, when police move in, they’re patrolled by groups of armed youths, who attempt to repel these official incursions in fierce clashes that have left at least one dead and many injured.

     

     

    Cizre has spent years on the fringes of war. The unremarkable-looking town of just over 100,000 lies on the Tigris River, around 30 miles from the tripoint where Turkey meets conflict-ravaged Syria and Iraq, and violence regularly strays over the national boundaries. Now, the cycle of airstrikes and renewed PKK attacks on Turkish troops threaten a return to the three-decade-long struggle between the two sides that claimed more than 40,000 lives. And here, residents feel like they’re at the heart of the fight.

     

    “There’s a saying, ‘if there’s peace, it will start from Cizre, and if there’s war, it will start from here as well,'” the town’s co-mayor Leyla Imret, 28, told VICE News recently. “And we can say we have a civil war in Turkey.” 

    While the most tragic consequence of the renewed violence will unquestionably be the human toll, there are real implications for the country’s economy and indeed, the political uncertaintly (and the war that’s come with it) threaten to undermine Turkey’s investment grade credit rating. Although Moody’s took no action on Friday, the risk of downgrade is very real. Here’s Goldman:

    Turkey’s rating outlook has been “negative” since early 2014, which means there is a real (and arguably increasing) risk of a formal downgrade within the coming 6 months.

     

    Our previous research on the impact of rating changes (from junk to IG status) suggest that a potential downgrade could result in a material widening in Turkey’s CDS spreads, by as much as 60bp cumulatively (20-100bp range for +/- 1 standard deviation; Exhibit 1-2), with the first downgrade instantly prompting a c. 20bp widening. Of course, this estimate is based on a stylised econometric model, and it is possible that the downgrade could lead to a more significant market impact given that it is not widely anticipated by market participants.

     

     

    And Barclays has more on the intersection of war, politics, and financial conditions in Turkey:

    Heightened geopolitical risk arising from the terror attack in Suruc is no accompanied by rising domestic risks from the renewed terror attacks by the PKK. These have inflamed political rhetoric and already tense coalition talks between the AKP and CHP, raising significantly the risks of a snap election and political instability. It remains to be seen whether the heightened tension will push the AKP and CHP further apart or bring together the AKP and MHP.

     

    Escalating security risks may work in favour of the AKP in a snap election: The argument is that the perception of rising internal and external threats (PKK and ISIS) could increase the electorate’s preference for strong leadership and hence a singleparty government. It is also possible that AKP may attract some votes from MHP as a result of adopting a tougher stance against PKK (including the use of military force), ramping up the rhetoric against HDP and abandoning the Kurdish peace process.

     


     

    Risk of HDP remaining below 10% is low for now: We do not see a significant likelihood that the HDP would score below the 10% national threshold in the event of a snap election, barring possible turbulence in the party caused by a potential ban on prominent politicians or party closure. The migration of votes from AKP to HDP appears to be a structural shift and unlikely to reverse in the near term, considering AKP’s increasingly nationalistic rhetoric and its stance on the Kurds in Syria.

     


     

    Economic implications of recent developments are negative: We think: 1) the risks to the sovereign rating outlook have risen; 2) downside risks to growth are higher; 3) the perception of higher rising political/geopolitical risks could increase dollarization; and 4) corporate sector’s FX mismatches will be exposed.

     

    Risks to the sovereign rating outlook have increased: Turkey’s gross external financing requirement remains large at c.USD200bn (or 25% of GDP), regardless of the improvement in the current account deficit. Needless to say, any rollover of this debt and/or the extent of re-pricing not only depend on global financial conditions but also investors’ perceptions of Turkey-specific risks. This naturally ties into the sovereign ratings outlook and associated risks to Turkey’s IG status, which moved back into focus during the election. The rating outlook revolves around whether political risks, policy uncertainties and government effectiveness could discourage capital inflows, thereby exposing Turkey’s external vulnerabilities. Rating agency commentary has generally been negative since the elections, highlighting rising political uncertainty and likely delay in structural reforms.

    As for what happens next, expect Washington and Ankara (who, you’re reminded, both want Assad out of Damascus) to begin launching joint strikes against ISIS targets. Tragically, the plight of the Kurds in Turkey will fade into the background and Erdogan will be free to exterminate his political opposition with NATO’s blessing. Once US missions from Incirlik become a regular occurrence, expect Saudi Arabia (which was hit with another suicide bombing this week) and Qatar to enter the fray and from there, the excuses to put American (and Saudi) boots on the ground will mount until eventually, a full scale invasion will be undertaken on the excuse that it’s the only way to neutralize the ISIS threat.

    On cue, Fox News reported on Friday that the US army is sending F-16s to Turkey, but perhaps more telling is the postioning of “a search-and-rescue team of elite Air Force pararescuemen, with their support helicopters and crews” which will stand ready to assist the Pentagon’s “elite” troop of Syrian freedom fighters in case they, like their commander and deputy, are prompty captured by militants the second they set foot on Syria’s (formerly) sovereign soil:

    The U.S. Air Force is planning to send six F-16s from an undisclosed location in Europe to Turkey after the Turks agreed to allow manned flights from Incirlik Air Base and others last week. This would put U.S. jets only a 30-minute flight from ISIS targets in Syria.

     

    The new jets are expected to arrive in the next few days. Strike missions against ISIS will begin shortly after their maintenance crews can get set up. Part of the mission of the new jets will be to support the fledgling U.S.-trained Syrian fighters.

     

    Additionally, a search-and-rescue team of elite Air Force pararescuemen, also known as “PJs,” with their support helicopters and crews will be moved into position after the fighters arrive. 

  • Be Afraid: Japan Is About To Do Something That's Never Been Done Before

    When the words "mothballed", "nuclear", and "never been done before" are seen together with Japan in a sentence, the world should be paying attention…

    As TEPCO officials face criminal charges over the lack of preparedness with regard Fukushima, and The IAEA Report assigns considerable blame to the Japanese culture of "over-confidence & complacency," Bloomberg reports,

    Japan is about to do something that’s never been done before: Restart a fleet of mothballed nuclear reactors.

     

    The first reactor to meet new safety standards could come online as early as next week. Japan is reviving its nuclear industry four years after all its plants were shut for safety checks following the earthquake and tsunami that wrecked the Fukushima Dai-Ichi station north of Tokyo, causing radiation leaks that forced the evacuation of 160,000 people.

     

    Mothballed reactors have been turned back on in other parts of the world, though not on this scale — 25 of Japan’s 43 reactors have applied for restart permits. One lesson learned elsewhere is that the process rarely goes smoothly. Of 14 reactors that resumed operations after four years offline, all had emergency shutdowns and technical failures, according to data from the World Nuclear Association, an industry group.

     

    “If reactors have been offline for a long time, there can be issues with long-dormant equipment and with ‘rusty’ operators,” Allison Macfarlane, a former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said by e-mail.

    In case you are not worried enough yet…

    As problems can arise with long-dormant reactors, the NRA “should be testing all the equipment as well as the operator beforehand in preparation,” Macfarlane of the U.S. said by e-mail. Although the NRA “is a new agency, many of the staff there have long experience in nuclear issues,” she said.

     

    Kyushu Electric has performed regular checks since the reactor was shut to ensure it restarts and operates safely, said a company spokesman, who asked not to be identified because of company policy.

     

    “If a car isn’t used for a while, and you suddenly use it, then there is usually a problem. There is definitely this type of worry with Sendai,” said Ken Nakajima, a professor at Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute. “Kyushu Electric is probably thinking about this as well and preparing for it.”

    It's not the first time a nation has tried this..

    In Sweden, E.ON Sverige AB closed the No. 1 unit at its Oskarshamn plant in 1992 and restarted it in 1996.

     

    It had six emergency shutdowns in the following year and a refueling that should have taken 38 days lasted more than four months after cracks were found in equipment.

    *  *  *

    Good luck Japan

  • Peter Schiff: What Kind Of "Improvement" Does The Fed Want?

    Submitted by Peter Schiff via Euro Pacific Capital,

    Over the past few years observing changes in Federal Reserve interest rate policy has been a little like watching paint dry or grass grow…only not as exciting. That's because the Fed has not changed its benchmark Fed Funds rate since 2008 (Federal Reserve, FOMC). So with nothing else to talk about, Fed observers have focused on the minute changes in language that are included in Fed Policy statements. The minuscule revision in the July statement was the inclusion of the word "additional" to the "labor market improvements" that the Fed wants to see before finally pulling the trigger on its long-awaited rate increases. That should lead to a discussion of what kind of "additional" improvements those could be.

    According to a good many of Main Street analysts, the labor market has already improved significantly over the past 5 years. During that time the unemployment rate has declined from 9.8% to just 5.3% (Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED), St. Louis Fed). In the FOMC's June 2015 Summary of Economic Projections, Committee participants' estimates of the longer-run normal rate of unemployment had a central tendency of 5.0 to 5.2 percent. But that's not the kind of labor market success that has spurred Janet Yellen to action. She is looking for "additional improvements."  Since it is very unusual for the unemployment rate to fall below 5% (having done so in only ten years in the 45 years since 1970), it must be that she is looking for improvements in other employment metrics, like wage growth, labor force participation, and the ratio of full time to part time job creation. On those fronts there is very little to inspire confidence.
     
    In late July the Dept. of Labor released the Employment Cost Index, which is considered the broadest measure of labor costs, that showed an increase of just .2% in the second quarter. Incredibly, this was the index's smallest quarterly increase since it was created back in 1982. The result came in far below the consensus expectation for an increase of .6%. If you believe as I do that the inflation measures that the government uses to calculate GDP growth are understated (its last GDP report assumed zero percent inflation) then such a minuscule change in wages would suggest that workers are losing ground, not gaining.
     
    But last week the Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Hilsenrath, who is by many considered the most well-connected reporter to the Fed's inner decision makers, posted an article citing recent Fed studies that show how wage movements have an uncertain effect on consumer prices. And given the Fed's consistent concern about "too low inflation", this leads him to the conclusion that wage growth may not be considered an important driver of monetary policy.
     
    So perhaps Yellen would be spurred to act by improvements in the labor participation rate, a metric that she has always talked about in reverential terms. But on that front she won't find much to cheer about either. Today's jobs report, though widely reported as a positive one, saw no change in the unemployment or participation rates. In fact, seasonally adjusted, July set a new record for those not in the labor force at almost 94 million people. And the headline number of 215k jobs was one of the weaker reports of recent years, all of which have not, as of yet, prompted a rate hike.
     
    As the unemployment rate has crept steadily downward, the participation rate has moved down with it. In fact, more people have dropped out of the labor force in recent years than have actually found jobs. In June, a staggering 640,000 Americans gave up on job hunting (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 7/2/15), pushing the participation rate down to 62.6%, the lowest figure since 1977 (FRED, St. Louis Fed). And contrary to the spin put on by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, these are not retiring baby boomers. Older people are actually staying in the workforce longer. Rather, these are prime age workers who have simply given up looking for work.

    In 2014 the Labor Department estimated that in June of this year 6.4 million workers who wanted full time work were just working part time jobs. This "involuntarily underemployed" category includes 56% more workers than it did in 2006. 
     
    Such labor weakness would help to explain another recently released data set that shows that the economy remains much weaker than economists have expected. Last week we got the first look at Second Quarter GDP figures, which everyone hoped would confirm that the near-recession level figures of the first quarter were just a speed bump rather than a serious ditch. In fact, the numbers in the first quarter were so bad that they convinced government statisticians to go back to the drawing board to reformulate their GDP calculation methodology in order to eliminate the "residual seasonality" that many claimed was behind the disappointingly low Winter GDP results.
     
    The good news is that the new formula did revive First Quarter (it's now positive .6% instead of negative), and also showed that the second quarter rebounded modestly to 2.3% annualized growth (Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)). The results were enough to generate happy headlines from the pushover media establishment that declared the economy was back on track. But most reports failed to mention that most observers had expected First Quarter to be revised much higher (the Fed itself had estimated that Q1 GDP could be as high as 1.8% annualized if better seasonal adjustments were used) and that the 2.3% for Second Quarter was well below the consensus forecast.

     
    But the reduction in residual seasonality, which boosted First Quarter results, compelled the government to revise down other quarterly figures for the prior two years. The net result is that since 2012, the economy has not grown by an average of 2.3% per year as originally reported, but by just 2.0% (BEA). This makes what was already the weakest post-War expansion considerably weaker than economists believed. Maybe they will call for the revival of residual seasonality?
     
    So barring any further revisions to First Half 2015 GDP, (which are much more likely to be revised down not up), our economy is running at an annualized pace of just 1.45%. To even get to the 2.3% annual growth rate, which represents the extreme low end of the Fed's "central tendency" for 2015, the economy would have to grow at 3.15% annualized in the Second Half. That is looking extremely unlikely. If we fail to hit those numbers, 2015 will be the ninth consecutive year in which the economy failed to reach or exceed the low end of its forecasts
     
    The weak labor market and the weakening economy may explain a couple of trends that should not be occurring in a strengthening economy: Americans' growing love for old cars, and the high rate in which young people of working age remain living with their parents.
     
    Recent statistics show that the average age of America's fleet of 257.9 million working light vehicles had an average age of 11.5 years, the oldest on record. The IHS Automotive survey (7/29/15) also showed that new car buyers were holding on to their vehicles for an average of 6.5 years, up from 4.5 years in 2006. When workers are doing well they tend to buy new cars more often. When things are lean they hold onto their rides longer. Interestingly, this trend has occurred while Americans are taking on more leverage in car loans.
     
    Similarly a recent study by Goldman Sachs, from Dept. of Commerce data, shows that the percentage of 18-34 year olds who live at home, which had shot up during the recession of 2008, finally began to decline slightly in 2014, but that declinestopped at the beginning of 2015. USA Today (8/5/15) noted that the number of Millennials living at home increased from 24% in 2010 to 26% in the first third of 2015, according to a Pew Research Center report, based on Census Data. Why would this be happening if the economy was really growing? 
     
    Since the unemployment rate seems unlikely to drop and both wage growth and increased labor participation show no signs of life, and the percentage of those who want to work full time, but can't, is still highly elevated, should we conclude that the Fed will move forward with its rate hike plans this year? If Janet Yellen is being honest that the Fed will not raise rates until we have further improvements in the labor market and those improvements seem to be nowhere in sight, then why doesn't she just admit that the Fed will not be raising rates any time soon?

     
    If GDP growth only averages 2.0% in the Second Half (which I think is likely), then 2015 growth will only be about 1.7% annually. Given that the Fed didn't raise rates in 2012, 2013, and 2014, when growth was well north of 2%, why would they do so now? Yet Wall Street and the media stubbornly cling to the notion that 3% growth and rate hikes are just around the corner. Old notions die hard, and this one has taken on a life of its own.

  • The political class and Central Banks are unable resolve debt issues in any meaningful way

    Yesterday we assessed how elements of the financial media are either unbelievably lazy or completely complicit in helping to maintain the illusion of success for the Centralized powers (large governments and Central Banks).

     

    Today we move on to addressing how the political class and Central Banks are unable resolve debt issues in any meaningful way.

     

    Going into its financial crisis in 2009, Greece had a GDP of $341 billion. To put this into perspective, it’s roughly the size of the state of Maryland. Greek debt was roughly $370 billion that year, giving Greece a Debt to GDP ratio of about 108%.

     

    It’s a strikingly small amount of money for a collective economy of nearly $18 trillion (the EU). Indeed, Greece contributes only 2% of the EU’s total GDP. And yet, the ECB working with the IMF has not been able to resolve Greece’s issues.

     

    Let’s let that simmer for a bit…

     

    A Central Bank, working with the IMF was unable to resolve a debt issue for a country that comprises less than 2% of the economy of which the Central Bank is in charge.

     

    How is this possible?

     

    First and foremost, the ECB had little if any interest in Greece’s well-being as an economy. For the ECB, the “Greek issue” was really more of a “large European bank issue.” In that regard, the ECB was focused on one thing.

    That issue is collateral.

    What is collateral?

    Collateral is an underlying asset that is pledged when a party enters into a financial arrangement.  It is essentially a promise that should things go awry, you have some “thing” that is of value, which the other party can get access to in order to compensate them for their losses.

    For large European banks, EU nation sovereign debt (such as Greek sovereign bonds) is the senior-most collateral backstopping hundreds of trillions of Euros worth of derivative trades.

    This story has been completely ignored in the media. But if you read between the lines, you will begin to understand what really happened during the last two Greek bailouts.

    Remember:

    1)   Before the second Greek bailout, the ECB swapped out all of its Greek sovereign bonds for new bonds that would not take a haircut.

    2)   Some 80% of the bailout money went to EU banks that were Greek bondholders, not the Greek economy.

    Regarding #1, going into the second Greek bailout, the ECB had been allowing European nations and banks to dump sovereign bonds onto its balance sheet in exchange for cash. This occurred via two schemes called LTRO 1 and LTRO 2, which were launched on December 2011 and February 2012 respectively.

    Collectively, these moves resulted in EU financial entities and nations dumping over €1 trillion in sovereign bonds onto the ECB’s balance sheet.

    Quite a bit of this was Greek debt, as everyone in Europe knew that Greece was totally bankrupt.

    So, when the ECB swapped out its Greek bonds for new bonds that would not take a haircut during the second Greek bailout, the ECB was making sure that the Greek bonds on its balance sheet remained untouchable and as a result could still stand as high grade collateral for the banks that had lent them to the ECB.

    So the ECB effectively allowed those banks that had dumped Greek sovereign bonds onto its balance sheet to avoid taking a loss… and not have to put up new collateral on their trade portfolios.

    Which brings us to the other issue surrounding the second Greek bailout: the fact that 80% of the money went to EU banks that were Greek bondholders instead of the Greek economy.

    Here again, the issue was about giving money to the banks that were using Greek bonds as collateral, to insure that they had enough capital on hand.

    Piecing this together, it’s clear that the Greek situation actually had nothing to do with helping Greece. Forget about Greece’s debt issues, or protests, or even the political decisions… the real story was that the bailouts were all about insuring that the EU banks that were using Greek bonds as collateral were kept whole by any means possible.

    This is why the ECB and the IMF failed to “fix” Greece. Indeed, the below chart makes it plain that all of the bailouts didn’t actually do anything to solve Greece’s debt problems: the country’s external debt has actually barely budged since 2010!

     

    Note that after a brief dip in 2011-2012, Greece’s external debts rose right back to where they were in 2010 at the beginning of the debt crisis. Moreover, because Greek GDP dropped along with its debt levels in 2011-2012, the country’s Debt to GDP ratio has effectively flat-lined.

    In short… neither of the first two bailouts actually solved ANYTHING for Greece from a debt perspective. Between this and the collateral discussion from earlier, the evidence is clear: the ECB has no interest in fixing Greece’s problems. Both bailouts were nothing but a backdoor means of funneling money to the large European banks using Greek debt as collateral on their derivatives trades!

    Another Crisis is brewing. It’s already hit Greece and it will be spreading throughout the globe in the coming months. Smart investors are taking steps to prepare now, before it hits.

    If you've yet to take action to prepare for this, we offer a FREE investment report called the Financial Crisis "Round Two" Survival Guide that outlines simple, easy to follow strategies you can use to not only protect your portfolio from it, but actually produce profits.

     

    We are making 1,000 copies available for FREE the general public.

     

    We are currently down to the last 25.

     

    To pick up yours, swing by….

     

    http://www.phoenixcapitalmarketing.com/roundtwo.html

     

    Best Regards

     

    Phoenix Capital Research

     

     

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 8, 2015

  • Economic Reality Now Catching Up To Market Fantasy

    Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    In the mind of a schizophrenic person, internal elements of fantasy (negative and positive) are made manifest in the psyche and projected out onto the real world. Often, the daydream images of the mind are not merely images to them. Rather, what they imagine subconsciously becomes reality. Their faculties of observation become so limited, either due to a reaction to trauma or merely an inherent inability to cope, that they cannot decipher between fact and fiction. A person could go on like this for quite some time if all his needs are provided for by someone else. But the moment that support ends (and it will), the realities of necessity, not to mention supply and demand, take hold. One cannot live in a schizophrenic world indefinitely.

    The current global mishmash of interdependent and socialized economies are, at bottom, schizophrenic. Our markets are not based in any fundamental reality. There is very little tangible foundation left to stand on, and this has been the case for several years. Yet some people might argue that since the derivatives crash of 2008, most of the world has continued to walk on air and there is little for us to worry about.

    The power of fantasy is that it is self-perpetuating. Fantasies are fueled most commonly by misplaced hopes and unhealthy or unrealistic desires, and such things are darkly and grotesquely energizing. Fantasies can indeed keep economies around the world functionally alive even when they are clinically dead. But again, there is always an end.

    Equities and commodities markets in particular have levitated despite economic fact, making their eventual fall ever more spectacular. That fall has now begun halfway through 2015.

    Let’s look at the cold hard truths of our current situation.

    New signals of market crisis are generating every two to four weeks as we grind on into the third quarter. This is in stark contrast to the relatively predictable and "stable" market behavior of the past three years. I realize that we are experiencing a “slow boil” and that many people may not even be taking note of the exponential increase in negative economic signs, but really, think about it – at the beginning of 2014, what was the general financial sentiment compared to today?

    Europe has just experienced the worst “near miss” yet with the Greek crisis, a crisis that is still not over and will likely end in chaos as the last-minute deal with the European Central Bank is derailed by International Monetary Fund intervention.

    Keep in mind that Europe is overwhelmed with debt as peripheral countries border collapse and core nations like France float in a recessionary ether they refuse to openly acknowledge.

    Asia is the biggest story right now, with Chinese markets in veritable free fall despite all attempts by the communist government to quell stock selling and shorting, to the point of threatening arrest and imprisonment for some net short sellers.

    China’s Shanghai Stock Exchange has experienced a 30% drop in market value in a month's time. The mainstream argument meant to marginalize this fact is that less than 2% of China’s equities are owned by foreign investors; therefore, a crash there will not affect us here. This is, of course, pure idiocy.

    China is the largest importer/exporter in the world; and it’s set to become the world’s largest economy within the next two years, surpassing the United States. China’s economy is a production economy, and the nation is a primary supplier for all consumer goods everywhere. Thus, China is a litmus test for the fiscal health of the rest of the world. When Chinese companies are struggling, when exporters are seeing steady overall declines and when manufacturing begins to crawl, this is not only a reflection of China’s economic instability, but also a reflection of the collapsing demand in every other nation that buys from China.

    Collapsing demand means collapsing sales and collapsing market value. For a global economic system so dependent on ever growing consumption, this is a death knell.

    In the U.S., markets have experienced a delayed reaction of sorts, due in great part to the Federal Reserve’s constant injections of fiat fantasy fuel since the credit crisis began. This kind of artificial support for markets has become an expected and essential part of market psychology, resulting in utter dependency on easy money siphoned into big banks that then use it to bolster equities through massive stock buybacks (among other methods). Now, however, quantitative easing has been tapered and zero interest-rate policy is nearing the chopping block.  The stock buyback scam is nearing an end.

    Already, U.S. stocks are beginning to feel the pain as reality slowly nibbles away once dependable gains. There is a good reason for this – Wages are in constant decline; manufacturing is in steady decline; retail sales are in decline, and government and personal debts continue to rise. We are not immune to the financial chaos of other nations exactly because we have been railroaded into a highly interdependent global economic system. In fact, much international fiscal uncertainty is tied directly to the fall of the American consumer as a reliable cash cow and economic engine.

    So where is this all headed?

    Commodities tell part of the story, with oil sliding steadily, signaling what we in the alternative economic community have been saying for years: Fiat stimulus propped up markets (including energy markets) that should have been allowed to deflate long ago, and now we are suffering the consequences. Crude oil prices fell 19 percent in July alone as energy companies the world over scramble to adapt. Gold and silver have taken considerable hits to their paper value while physical purchases continue to skyrocket, meaning the street price of metals may soon decouple from illegitimate and manipulated market prices.

    Smaller and some medium-sized economies will continue to “surprise” markets with volatile debt issues, like Puerto Rico (nearing possible default) and Venezuela (nearing certain doom). These are more canaries in the coal mine to watch carefully.

    It is also important to keep in mind that prices on necessities including food and housing remain high despite deflation in other areas (like wages).  This suggests we are in the midst of a stagflationary fiscal environment.

    Centralization is the key to every single economic development we’ve seen since the 2008 crash. Venezuela, in particular, is a marker for where we are all headed: total price controls, food confiscation from farms, rationing and even computer-chipped ration cards in order to thwart any attempts by citizens to stockpile essentials.  Do not assume that such draconian measures are limited to third world socialist hellholes.  Or, at the very least, do not assume that a country like the U.S. is not on the verge of becoming a third world hellhole.

    As for Europe, French president Francois Hollande has openly called for a centralized “eurozone government” in order to deal with the ongoing economic crisis there (something I have been warning about for several years).  Supranational government is the endgame for sovereign humanity, and the EU is on the fast track.

    In China, the march continues toward the inclusion of the yuan in the IMF’s SDR currency basket, the greatest economic centralization scheme of all time. The recent suggestion by an IMF panel to "delay" inclusion until 2016 only reinforces the likelihood that the Yuan will be entered into the basket.  If the IMF had no intention to bring China into the fold, they would have suggested a 5 year delay just as they did back in 2010.  For those who think China’s recent market crisis will somehow thwart their inclusion into the SDR, think again. The IMF has already announced that the market route in China will have no bearing on the SDR conference, which is set to end in November.

    In the U.S., the markets wait for the Federal Reserve’s rate hikes. The rate hike issue is an underestimated one by some analysts, who seem to think that initial hikes will be "minor" and will result in little to no reverberations.  Interest rates affect more than just overnight bank lending; they are the primary pillar supporting current market psychology.  There is NO other financial element giving positive influence to investor psychology.  There is no good economic news out there to warrant the bull market of the past few years.  There is no open form of QE (and future QE seems unlikely as renewed stimulus would only be an admission that the first three attempts at QE failed miserably, derailing any point to new easing).  There is no recovery.  And when any even minor or engineered "good news" is presented in the mainstream, markets have reacted NEGATIVELY for fear that this will hasten higher interest rates.

    Beyond psychology and false hopes, even minor increases in interest rates will essentially kill most large scale bank lending.  We know through the limited audit of the TARP bailouts that trillions in fiat was created simply to feed international banks and corporations through ZIRP and that this kind of free money lending has been a mainstay ever since.  ZIRP is the primary driver of stock buybacks and the equities bull market.  But this will only continue as long as the Fed loans remain free (or almost free).  Trillions in loans can equal billions in interest even with a minor rate rise, meaning, with the end of ZIRP and free money, banks and corporations will stop borrowing, stock buybacks will dissolve, and equities will lose the artificial support they have so far enjoyed.

    Even mainstream financial news outlets are beginning to question why the Fed would push at all for rate hikes and pretend that the American fiscal system is in recovery, when ALL other information would lead the rational person to the contrary conclusion. I would point out that in order to understand central planners and globalist motives, you need to look at what they chase.

    The Fed’s job is to destroy the U.S. economy and the dollar, not save them, which is why the Fed continues to deny economic turmoil and charges headlong into a rate hike scenario even though no one in the mainstream asked them to. The Chinese central bank’s job is to make all arrangements for Yuan inclusion in the SDR, despite the fact that China is supposedly in conflict with Western banks. The ECB and Europe are obsessed with centralized government even if they have to break several eggs to get it. And the IMF and Bank of International Settlements are set up to be the economic heroes of the day, warning us all (too late, of course) of the potential downfall of central bank stimulus policies and government debt obligations.

    In a murky world of market fantasy, our first guideposts are the fundamentals themselves. Supply and demand can be misrepresented for a time through manipulated statistics, but the tangible effects of decline cannot be. Our secondary guideposts are the paths that internationalists and central banks bulldoze through the fiscal forest. To anyone with any sense, the endgame is clear: Total centralization is the goal, and economic fear is the tool they hope to use to get there. I have written on numerous solutions to this threat in past articles; but the first and most important action is for each of us to acknowledge, wholeheartedly, that the system we know is ending. It is over. What replaces that system will either be up to us or up to them. Only by admitting that there is an end to the fantasy, a painful end, will we then be able to help determine our future reality.

  • Black-White Race Relations Under Obama: The Worst In The 21st Century

    If there were any lingering questions about the state of race relations in America in the wake of the riots which reduced parts of Baltimore to smoldering ashes in April, they were answered rather emphatically when in June, 21-year old Dylann Roof killed nine black worshippers at the Emanuel AME church in Charleston, South Carolina. 

    And although Roof’s actions did not start a “race war” (his professed intent), they did raise fresh questions about black-white relations, questions which played a role in the removal of the Confederate flag from the South Carolina capitol.

    Since then, we’ve gotten multiple noteworthy (if alarming) sound bites from the likes of Louis Farrakhan who said in a speech this week that blacks may need to “rise up and kill those who kill [them],” and the Ku Klux Klan’s Grand Dragon who in June suggested that “a lot of the whites in the U.S. are starting to wake up.”

    As we noted on Tuesday, the US has had its share of deadly social violence over the past year, much of split along along racial lines, but it’s mercifully avoided a full-blown racial war.

    However, in recent weeks there has been a troubling increase in invocations toward even more violence, and even more deaths, which seek to achieve just that: a United States gripped in racial warfare. 

    It’s against that rather disturbing backdrop that we present the following results from Gallup, whose latest Minority Rights and Relations poll shows that “Americans rate black-white relations much more negatively today than they have at any point in the past 15 years.”

    More color from Gallup:

    Americans rate black-white relations much more negatively today than they have at any point in the past 15 years. Currently, 47% say relations between blacks and whites are “very good” or “somewhat good,” a steep decline from 70% in 2013. Whites’ positive ratings of black-white relations since 2013 have nose-dived by 27 percentage points, from 72% to 45%, while blacks show a smaller but still sizable drop of 15 points, from 66% to 51%.

     

    The results are based on Gallup’s Minority Rights and Relations poll, which interviewed more than 2,000 Americans, including more than 800 non-Hispanic whites and more than 800 non-Hispanic blacks from June 15 through July 10.

     

    Americans have generally been quite positive about black-white relations in the 15 years Gallup has asked this question. Prior to this year, between 63% and 72% of Americans rated relations between blacks and whites as very good or somewhat good.

     

    Whites and blacks are generally in accord on the state of relations, with 45% of whites and 51% of blacks rating them as good. Whites and blacks have generally had similar and quite positive views over the past 15 years, with a notable gap only in 2007, a year in which blacks’ ratings on a variety of measures were more negative.

     

    The most likely explanation for the deterioration in Americans’ perceptions of the health of black-white relations since 2013 are the multiple widely reported incidents in which black citizens were killed by the actions of white police officers. Several of those incidents sparked protests or riots.

     

    As a result, Americans are now the most negative in their evaluations of black-white relations since Gallup began tracking this measure.

  • American Whirl

    I’ve written about American Girl before, such as this post. For those unacquainted with American Girl, it started off as a doll-based means for girls to learn about different periods of U.S. history, but it has developed into a phenomenal retail success story of overpriced Chinese-made junk sold in branded stores in high-end shopping malls (like, oh, say, the Stanford Shopping Center). It’s a big deal for the 9-12 year old crowd.

    I don’t make a habit of creating posts about girls’ dolls on Slope, but recently I treated my daughter to some (rare) television time so she could enjoy two different A.G. movies. One of them, Chrissa Stands Strong, came out in 2009 (meaning it was written and produced in 2008, during the throes of the financial crisis), and the one she watched the next night, Grace Stirs Up Success, came out only weeks ago (meaning it was written and produced in 2014, during the peak bullish mania).

    Lest you think I threw on my footie pajamas, curled up in a blanket, and watched both of these insipid things………..I didn’t. But I was in the room and saw enough to get the jist of each movie (which doesn’t take a lot, given the one-dimensional characters and plot lines offered to children).

    What struck me, having semi-witnessed both of these things over a 24 hour period, is how sharply different they were. The Chrissa one was relatively brutal: it featured a girl who moved into a new town who was subjected to the cruelty of the tall, pretty blonde girls in her class (which is a story that’s only been done several thousand times, most recently in Pixar’s Inside Out) and had a side-story about a girl who was homeless that managed to hide her homelessness from the others until she was “outed” by the bitchy blonde and brought to bitter tears.

    Exhibit A: Bitchy Girls

    I was kind of stunned watching this, because the nastiness seemed unrelenting. We’ve all had encounters with bullies before, but the emotional ugliness foisted on poor Chrissa never let up, and having upper-middle-class be-atches-in-training laugh and taunt an impoverished girl struck me as over-the-top, even for an American Girl movie.

    None of this really sunk in until the next movie, which was so sickly-sweet that I probably have type 2 diabetes now. Throughout the entire piece, the most violent “conflict” came when one of Grace’s friends suggest that maybe she not be so bossy. But that was it. It was 99% sweetness and light, and it ended with the kid (Grace) winning $100,000 from a baking contest held on Food Network (one of the many, many product tie-ins during the movie) and, naturally, giving the money to her grandparents to upgrade their bakery.

    Grace is Latina, even though her parents and grandparents are lily white. This is never explained.

    Now I don’t normally put huge amounts of faith in the nascent realm of Socionomics (championed by Elliott Waver Bob Prechter), but I’ve always thought that, yes, there is some crude correlation between social mood and financial markets. During the 2009 Academy Awards (held early in 2009, very near the bottom of the financial crisis), I remember Jon Stewart marveling that the two huge winners that year were There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men by saying “Does this country need a hug?” Well, Jon, actually, yeah, it kinda did.

    It’s the same story with these two movies: the one made in 2008 is packed with meanness, financial insecurity, shame, and back-stabbing. The one that just came out is nonstop saccharine (which, for a chap like me, is a bit hard to take). I guess it helps illustrates the times we live in, and the mindset of the populace…………including the consumers-in-training known as eleven year old girls.

  • Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Of Peace Is Central To The Message Of Freedom

    Submitted by Llewllyn Rockwell via The Mises Institute,

    Ronald Reagan used to be called the Teflon president, on the grounds that no matter what gaffe or scandal engulfed him, it never stuck: he didn’t suffer in the polls. If Reagan was the Teflon president, the military is America’s Teflon institution. Even people who oppose whatever the current war happens to be can be counted on to “support the troops” and to live by the comforting delusion that whatever aberrations may be evident today, the system itself is basically sound.

    To add insult to injury, whenever the US government gears up for yet another military intervention, it’s people who pretend to favor “limited government,” and who pride themselves on not falling for government propaganda, who can be counted on to stand up and salute.

    I had the rare honor of serving as Ron Paul’s congressional chief of staff, and observed him in many proud moments in those days, and in his presidential campaigns. But Ron’s new book Swords into Plowshares: A Life in Wartime and a Future of Peace and Prosperity, a plainspoken and relentless case against war that ranks alongside Smedley Butler’s classic War Is a Racket, is possibly the proudest Ron Paul moment of all.

    It’s been calculated that over the past 5,000 years there have been 14,000 wars fought, resulting in three and a half billion deaths. In the United States, between 1798 and 2015 there have been 369 uses of military force abroad. We have been conditioned to accept this as normal, or at the very least unavoidable. We are told to stifle any moral qualms we may have about mass killing on the question-begging grounds that, after all, “it’s war.”

    Ron, on this as on a wide array of other topics, isn’t prepared to accept the conventional platitudes, and a recurring theme in his book involves speculating on whether, in the same way the human race has advanced so extraordinarily from a technological point of view, we might be capable of a comparable moral advance as well.

    There is much in this book for libertarians and indeed all opponents of war to enjoy – for starters, a refutation of the claim that war is “good for the economy,” a discussion of the dangers of “blowback” posed by foreign interventionism, and an overview of the War on Terror from a noninterventionist perspective. But there is a profoundly personal dimension to this book as well, as we follow Ron’s life from his childhood to the present and the evolution of his thought on war. I’ll leave readers to discover these gems for themselves.

    Likewise, Ron relates some little-known stories of war. In one, it’s two weeks after D-Day, and Captain Jack Tueller decided to play his  trumpet that evening. He was instructed not to do so: his commander explained that a German sniper had still not been captured from the day’s battle. Figuring the sniper was a frightened young man not unlike himself, he played the German song “Lili Marleen.” The sniper surrendered to the Americans the next day.

    Before being sent off to prison, the sniper asked to meet the trumpet player. He said, through tears, “When I heard that number that you played I thought about my fiancée in Germany. I thought about my mother and dad and about my brothers and sisters, and I could not fire.”

    “He stuck out his hand and I shook the hand of the enemy,” Tueller recalls. “He was no enemy. He was scared and lonely like me.”

    Another story takes place just before Christmas 1943. Charlie Brown, a 21-year-old farm boy from West Virginia was on his first combat mission as a pilot when his B-17 was seriously damaged over Germany. With half his crew dead or wounded, he was struggling to get his plane back to England when a German fighter came within three feet of his right wingtip. But Franz Stigler, the German pilot, did not fire. Instead, he simply nodded, pointed, and flew off, allowing Brown to make his way back to England.

    Some 46 years later, the two men met again. Brown finally got to ask Stigler why he had been pointing. Stigler replied that he was trying to tell Brown to fly to Sweden, which was closer. But since Brown knew only how to get back to England, that’s where he went.

    The two men became close friends, even fishing buddies. Stigler said that saving Brown’s life was the only good thing that came out of the whole war for him.

    You won’t be surprised to learn that in addition to human-interest anecdotes like these, Ron spends time in Swords into Plowshares linking central banking and war, one of his perennial themes over the years. It isn’t for nothing that again and again, countries abandoned the gold standard when they went to war.

    We rarely pause to consider what that tells us. If they needed to abandon the gold standard to go to war, that means the gold standard was a barrier against war. Of course, the ease with which governments could abandon the gold standard serves to remind us of the need to separate money and state altogether, and that the state cannot be trusted to maintain a sound money standard.

    As always, Ron is at his fiery best when he unleashes on the neoconservatives, whose every overseas fiasco becomes a justification for still another fiasco six months later. He invites us to consider a typical remark by neoconservative Michael Ledeen: “Paradoxically, peace increases our peril, by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, and depriving us of some of our best leaders.”

    Note that it is peace, according to Ledeen, and not war, that encourages our worst instincts. This was the view of Theodore Roosevelt, loved and admired by progressives and neoconservatives alike, who considered prolonged peace a deplorable state that made a people flabby and otiose.

    Neocons complain when libertarians describe them as “pro-war” – why, they favor war only as a last resort, they assure us, and only because there are bad people in the world – but how else can we describe the views of Ledeen, who to my knowledge has never been publicly taken to task by any other neocon?

    (Perhaps my favorite of Ron’s collection of ghoulish neocon quotations, though, if only for its obliviously Orwellian quality, is George W. Bush’s remark from June 2002: “I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace.”)

    Meanwhile, the American people have been indoctrinated into a cult of the veteran, whom evangelicals blasphemously compare to Jesus Christ, and whereby everyone is expected to salute, applaud, and offer ostentatious thanks for the veteran’s “service.”

    Here, by contrast, is Ron:

    “Service” in our military to invade, occupy, and oppress countries in order to extend [the] US Empire must not be glorified as a “heroic” and sacred effort. My five years in the Air Force during the 1960s did not qualify me as any sort of hero. My primary thoughts now about that period of time are: “Why was I so complacent, and why did I so rarely seriously question the wisdom of the Vietnam War?”

    Ron calls upon the peoples of the world to resist their governments’ calls to war and to refuse to take part in violent conflict. “If the authoritarians continue to abuse power in spite of constitutional and moral limits,” he writes, “the only recourse left is for the people to go on strike and refuse to sanction the wars and thefts. Deny the dictators your money and your bodies…. The more this is a worldwide movement, the better.”

    This is why Ron is such a fan of the song “Universal Soldier,” which he asked singer Aimee Allen to perform at his dramatic Rally for the Republic in 2008. The man who enlists in the military and simply goes along with the prevailing current of opinion is the universal soldier. If he refused to “serve” and to fight, there could be no wars. Even Ron, a flight surgeon who never fired a shot, looks back on his time in the military and asks himself: why did I not resist? Why did I go along?

    Needless to say, few among our political class – people who, generally speaking, have rather more to repent of than mild Ron Paul – reflect seriously on their moral choices, or rebuke themselves publicly.

    When people read Swords into Plowshares generations from now – and they will – they will marvel that such a man actually served in the US Congress, and defied every campaign of war propaganda right on the House floor. But what’s great about Ron is not just his honesty, but also his constant intellectual growth – with the passage of time he has become an ever-more radical champion of freedom. His evolution is especially plain in this book, as you’ll discover for yourself.

    One of the most important things Ron accomplished in public life was to show that it’s possible to oppose war without being a leftist. He likewise explained that a foreign policy of peace and nonintervention was a central, indispensable feature of the message of freedom, and not just an odd personality quirk of Ron Paul – as the many people who said “I like Ron Paul except his foreign policy” seem to have believed.

    Bernie Sanders pretends to be antiwar, but as usual with socialists, a closer look shows he doesn’t really mean it. But even if he did, as a socialist he simply wants to point the guns at different targets – the undifferentiated aggregates like “the rich” to whom he urges his followers to direct their uncomprehending hate. Ron, on the other hand, is calling on us to put the guns down, and for peaceful interaction both between nations and among individuals.

    It is a position most people had never heard of before 2008, since election campaigns are all about grabbing the machinery of state and pointing its guns at whatever group the eventual victor despises. But Ron captured the imaginations of millions of intelligent young people, whose brains hadn’t yet been deformed by an American political culture designed to deprive them of humane possibilities.

    Ron turns 80 this month, and continues his life’s work of truth-telling. Wish Ron a happy birthday by joining us for a celebration in Lake Jackson on August 15, and by reading this extraordinary book.

     

  • "The Top's In" David Stockman Warns Of "Epochal Deflation"

    The truth hurts… especially permabullish CNBC anchors. But when David Stockman explained why “the top is in,” and warned that the world is overdue for an “epochal deflation, like nothing it has ever seen,” one should listen. The “debt supernova” of the last decade or two has created massive over-capacity and this commodity deflation “is not temporary, it’s the end of the central bank bubble.” The catalyst has already happened -“It’s China,” Stockman exclaims, “China is the most lunatic pyramid of credit and speculation.. and capital is now fleeing the swaying towers of the China ponzi.”

     

    Well worth the price of admission…

  • High-Level U.S. Military Official: U.S. Made a "Wilful Decision" to Support Al Qaeda and Other Terrorists

    An internal Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document produced recently shows that the U.S. knew that the actions of "the West, Gulf countries and Turkey" in Syria might create a terrorist group like ISIS and an Islamic caliphate.

    While the powers-that-be have tried to downplay the significance of the document, the former head of the DIA (Michael Flynn) just confirmed its importance.

    By any measure, Flynn was a top-level American military commander. Flynn served as:

    • The Director of the U.S. Intelligence Agency
    • The Director of intelligence for Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the main military agency responsible for targeting Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists
    • The Commander of the Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
    • The Chair of the Military Intelligence Board
    • Assistant director of national intelligence

    Flynn confirmed the authenticity of the document in a new interview, and said:

    [Interviewer] So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?

    [Flynn] I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.

    [Interviewer] A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?

    [Flynn] It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.

    Background here.

    Postscript: We did the same thing in Libya, Chechnya, and many other countriesSad, it is …

  • Dropping "The Bomb" On Hiroshima And Nagasaki Was Never Justified

    Submitted by Naji Dahi via TheAntiMedia.org,

    August 6th and 9th of 2015 mark the 70th anniversary of the U.S. dropping two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was the first and only time a state used a nuclear device on cities (or civilians) of another state. Some conservative estimates put the immediate death toll of the two bombs at 200,000 people. This is more than the total number of American soldiers killed in the Pacific front of World War II.

    Since the bombs were dropped, the U.S. government, U.S. high school history texts, and the American public have asserted that dropping the bombs was necessary. According to one review of American textbooks by Satoshi Fujita, an assistant professor of U.S. modern history at Meiji University,

    “…most of the textbooks published by the early 1980s carried the U.S. government’s official view that the nuclear attacks allowed the U.S. troops to avert the invasion of Japan’s mainland and minimize American casualties, thus contributing to an early conclusion of the war.”

    American politicians have continued to espouse this view. Primary among them was Harry S. Truman, the one-term president responsible for making the decision to drop the bombs in August of 1945. In his 1955 memoirs, Truman claimed the bombs saved half a million American lives. Truman insisted he felt no remorse and bragged that “he never lost any sleep over that decision,” while simultaneously referring to the Japanese as “savages, ruthless, merciless, and fanatic.” By 1991, George H.W. Bush claimed dropping the bombs saved millions of American lives. Historian Peter Kuznick sums up the ever-increasing number of American lives saved due to these actions:

    “…from the War Department’s 1945 prediction of 46,000 dead to Truman’s 1955 insistence that General George Marshall feared losing a half million American lives to Stimson’s 1947 claim of over 1,000,000 casualties to George H.W. Bush’s 1991 defense of Truman’s ‘tough calculating decision, [which] spared millions of American lives,’[11] to the 1995 estimate of a crew member on Bock’s Car, the plane that bombed Nagasaki, who asserted that the bombing saved six million lives—one million Americans and five million Japanese.”

    Twenty years ago (the 50th anniversary of the bombings) when the Smithsonian Museum tried to create a thought-provoking display about Enola Gay (the plane that dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima), the Senate threw a temper tantrum and passed a resolution condemning the move. The resolution stated that

    “…the Enola Gay during World War II was momentous in helping to bring World War II to a merciful end, which resulted in saving the lives of Americans and Japanese.”

    Of course, none of these figures about saved American lives are true. When President Truman was contemplating dropping the bomb, he consulted a panel of experts on the number of American soldiers that would be killed if the U.S. launched an invasion of the two main Japanese islands. According to historian Christian Appy,

    “[Truman] did…ask a panel of military experts to offer an estimate of how many Americans might be killed if the United States launched the two major invasions of the Japanese home islands…Their figure: 40,000 – far below the half-million he would cite after the war. ”[emphasis added]

    Americans are socialized to believe that dropping the bombs was necessary to end the war. As recently as January 2015, a Pew poll found that 56% of Americans believed dropping the two atomic devices was justified. Only 34% said it was not justified. This American attitude is understandable given the downplaying of Japanese deaths and the exaggeration of American lives saved in high school history books.

    In spite of this public perception, dropping the nuclear bombs was totally unnecessary from a military standpoint. America’s leading generals voiced their concerns before and after the bombs were dropped. General Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Western Europe, reacted to the news in a way that contradicts politicians’ narratives:

    “During his [Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives ,” he said. [emphasis added]

    General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in the Pacific, was not even consulted about the use of the bomb. He was only notified two days before the first bomb was dropped. When he was informed he thought “‘…it was completely unnecessary from a military point of view.’ MacArthur said that the war might ‘end sooner than some think.’ The Japanese were ‘already beaten.’”

    Tough, cigar-smoking “hawk,” General Curtis LeMay—who was responsible for the firebombing of Japanese cities—was also disappointed with the decision to drop the bomb. In an exchange with reporters he said,

    “The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. [emphasis added]”

     

    “You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb?” one journalist asked.

     

    “The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all,” LeMay replied.

    Admiral Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, sent out the following public statement: The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan [emphasis added].”

    While Eisenhower, MacArthur, LeMay, and Nimitz believed the dropping of the bombs to be unnecessary, Chief of Staff Admiral William D. Leahy went even further, insisting that even the contemplated invasion of Japan was unnecessary to end the war. He said,

    “I was unable to see any justification…for an invasion of an already thoroughly defeated Japan. My conclusion, with which the naval representatives agreed, was that America’s least expensive course of action was to continue to intensify the air and sea blockade…I believe that a completely blockaded Japan would then fall by its own weight. [emphasis added]”

    At the conclusion of the war in the Pacific, President Truman appointed a panel of 1000 experts to study the conflict. One third of the experts were civilians and two-thirds were military. The panel issued its report, entitled “United States Strategic Bombing Survey”—a 108 volume publication on the Pacific front. The survey makes the following damning conclusion about the necessity of dropping the the atomic bombs and invading Japan:

    “Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945,…Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. [emphasis added]”

    Even the Japanese leaders knew they were defeated. They were even secretly willing to negotiate an unconditional surrender. According to the survey, there was

    “…a plan to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special emissary with instructions from the cabinet to negotiate for peace on terms less than unconditional surrender, but with private instructions from the Emperor to secure peace at any price.”

    If dropping the bombs was not necessary, and if Japan was even willing to contemplate an unconditional surrender, then why were the bombs dropped at all? One reason referenced by several historians was to project American power against the future enemy in the Cold War, the U.S.S.R. As the Christian Science Monitor noted in 1992,

    “Gregg Herken…observes…that ‘responsible traditional as well as revisionist accounts of the decision to drop the bomb now recognize that the act had behind…’a possible diplomatic advantage concerning Russia.’ Yale Prof. Gaddis Smith writes: ‘It has been demonstrated that the decision to bomb Japan was centrally connected to Truman’s confrontational approach to the Soviet Union.’”[emphasis added]

    Secondly, there was a rather large incentive to use the bomb—to test its effectiveness. On that subject, the most succinct quote comes from Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet. He said, “[The scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before.”

    According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Manhattan Project (the project to build the bomb) cost the U.S. an estimated $1,889,604,000 (in 1945 dollars) through December 31, 1945. That comes out to $25,051,739,964.00 in today’s dollars. The Center goes on to add:

    “Weapons were created to be used. By 1945, the bombing of civilians was already an established practice. In fact, the earlier U.S. firebombing campaign of Japan, which began in 1944, killed an estimated 315,922 Japanese, a greater number than the estimated deaths attributed to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”

    From a purely numbers perspective, the detonation of the atomic bombs killed fewer people than the firebombing of the 67 Japanese cities with napalm. The sick logic of war is this: having killed close to 316,000 Japanese people by firebombing cities, killing 100,000-200,000 more is just as justifiable.

    It is clear from the recitation of some of the evidence that the dropping of the atomic bombs was not necessary to end the war. It was not necessary to obviate the U.S. invasion of Japan (which in and of itself was not necessary) and it was not necessary for an unconditional surrender.

    It is time for the United States to stop believing that the infamous nuclear attacks were justified. On that front, there is some hope. Back in 1991, 63% of Americans believed dropping the bombs was justified, compared to 56% today. Clearly, the numbers are heading in the right direction.

    The U.S. government could easily nudge public opinion in the appropriate direction by issuing a public apology for the dropping of these weapons of mass destruction on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The U.S. is capable of doing this. In 1988, the U.S. Senate voted to compensate Japanese Americans for interning them during WWII. In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed a formal letter of apology. The U.S. did the right thing by apologizing to Japanese Americans. It is time to extend this apology to the entire Japanese nation.

  • An Ex-Con's Advice To A Libor Rigger

    Earlier this week, something strange happened. 

    A real person – or at least he looks real – was found guilty by a jury of conspiring to manipulate LIBOR. 

    Then, something even stranger took place. 

    This real person – Tom Hayes, or “Rain Man” as he was affectionately known in rate-rigging circles – was sentenced to 14 years in jail for his role as the supposed “connective tissue” that held the global fix fixing infrastructure together. 

    The reason this is so out of the ordinary is that we’re not used to seeing human beings prosecuted for the various schemes Wall Street perpetrates on a daily basis.

    Since the crisis, regulators have been at pains to convince the public they’re serious about cracking down on the conspiratorial culture that’s been proven to pervade nearly every corner of global capital markets. This quest is made exceedingly difficult by the fact that, well, they’re not at all serious, which is why no actual people (and certainly no senior executives) are ever held accountable for anything, leaving bank logos as the only fall “guys”.

    This was on full display when several Wall Street firms pleaded guilty to FX rigging charges earlier this year. The punishment: fines that represented a mere fraction of the proceeds derived from the crimes themselves. 

    Having said all of that, occasionally prosecutors must produce a head and unfortunately for Hayes (and Nav Sarao), his will now be proudly displayed to the angry mob as proof that justice has been served. For the Rain Main, “justice” means 14 years in HM Prison Wandsworth, which Bloomberg describes as “a Victorian fortress south of the Thames known for its poor conditions and violent residents.”

    And while one might well argue that bulge bracket banks are also known for having “poor conditions and violent residents,” we suspect Hayes might have a bit of trouble adjusting to his new home. Never fear though, because Prison Consultants and its co-founder Steve Dagworthy are here to help. Here’s more from Bloomberg:

    Don’t rush to make friends and don’t get into debt. That’s the advice of an ex-convict for Tom Hayes as he adjusts to life behind bars.

     

    Hayes started a 14-year jail sentence this week after a jury found him guilty of conspiring to rig Libor, the interest-rate benchmark used to value more than $350 trillion of financial contracts.

     

    “In prison, it’s not about making friends,” said Steve Dagworthy, an ex-convict and co-founder of Prison Consultants, a London-based agency that gives advice to prospective inmates. “It’s about not making enemies.”

     

    Dagworthy set up the firm in 2013 after being convicted of fraud and realizing how little preparation there was for defendants facing prison time. 

     

    Hayes joins another recent financial crime casualty at Wandsworth. Magnus Peterson, founder of collapsed hedge fund Weavering Capital (UK) Ltd., is in the first of a 13-year stretch for fraud. And Navinder Singh Sarao, the British trader accused of contributing to the 2010 flash crash, is being held at Wandsworth as he fights extradition to the U.S.

     

    Known as “Wanno,” the high-security prison is the largest in the U.K., with more than 1,600 inmates. According to a July report from HM Inspectorate of Prisons, “overcrowding and severe staff shortages” mean almost every service there is insufficient.

     

    “You wake up one morning and think ‘I’m in prison,'” said Dagworthy, who hasn’t advised Hayes. “And that’s when it hits you, and you suddenly realize that you are no longer in control of your life.”

     

    Since arriving at the prison on Monday night, Hayes will have had his possessions cataloged, fingerprints taken and been fitted out with a standard-form gray tracksuit and bedding. He’ll shortly be moved from the induction wing to a house block, where he’ll meet his cell mate, a man he’ll share an open toilet with every day.

     

    “You have to come to terms with the fact that you’re in this new world and you have to understand the rules of this new world,” said Dagworthy.

     

    His advice? “Keep yourself to yourself.”

    We only hope that regulators have thought about whether it’s a good idea to lock Hayes up alongside Nav Sarao because after all, if the charges are to be believed, these two criminal masterminds were together responsible for rigging the most important benchmark rate on the planet and sending stocks on their most harrowing intraday rollercoaster ride in history.

    One can only imagine what they might dream up if left alone together in a dark prison to commiserate and plot for more than a decade. 

  • Guest Post: Is Donald Trump Broke?

    Doug Litowitz raises a speculative contrarian position on Donald Trump's exact worth, based on what was released to the FEC. The bottom line is that no one knows Trump's net worth, but the speculation usually starts in the billions. Doug Litowitz explores the opposite possibility, namely that Trump is, in relative terms, broke. This is solely his speculation and is not meant as a factual statement but a possibility that has been ignored in the mainstream press.

    Submitted by Doug Litowitz via TheAlphaPages.com,

    I’ve just slogged through all ninety-two pages of Donald Trump’s financial disclosure submission to the Federal Election Commission, and I can’t make heads or tails of it. 

    I cannot tell how much Trump is worth, if anything. His empire, if he has one, is as mysterious as his haircut, and as impervious as his skyscraper in Chicago – a gigantic phallic mirror named after himself.

    In terms of real, lasting assets – is Donald Trump worth roughly $10 billion?

    The mainstream press erred horrendously by taking seriously Trump’s disclosure to the FEC, by asking reporters to sit down with the document and try to understand it on its own terms, so to speak. This approach yielded nothing but exhaustion and bewilderment. No one dared speculate that Trump’s purpose in disclosing so much was to disclose so little. It was a 52-Card Pickup, a maze of trees without a forest. The assets – some as small as the single-digit thousands – pile up like obsessive compulsive do-dads in the claustrophobic home of a hoarder. The range of projects goes beyond greed and passes into desperation. High rise buildings and golf courses are one thing, but the list of assets quickly degrades into obscure wineries, Israeli vodka and energy drinks, a mattress and clothing line, television shows, a pension from the screen actors guild, bottled water, book royalties, speaking gigs, and endless inchoate and impossible to value ‘marks’ (i.e. trademarks) and positions in partnerships that have his own name.

    This is why the New York Times threw up its hands and proclaimed with cool intrigue that Trump’s income and wealth were “hard to pinpoint.”

    The Wall Street Journal punted, saying tautologically that Trump’s disclosures contain disclosures totaling at least $1.5 billion, but conceding that the actual numbers are not known.

    Forbes puts his wealth at $4 billion, Bloomberg at $2.9 billion. Trump said recently that he is worth $10 billion and that his wealth has increased by more than $1 billion in the last year due to spiraling real estate prices (this was probably supposed to impress people, but it actually shows a dangerous volatility). The FEC form allows the filing party to value assets and liabilities within a range or at an upper limit, and most of Trump’s assets are vague interests of indeterminate worth and undisclosed indebtedness.

    Trump’s illiquid assets and unknown liabilities may or may not offset each other – and he isn’t telling.

    What does that leave?

    Not much. A relatively small amount of money in a couple of hedge funds, and brokerage portfolios of garden-variety stocks, a couple hundred thousand in gold, and other ho-hum assets consisting almost entirely of his ‘marks.’ He could be worth hundreds of millions, theoretically, but if leveraged, his worth could be negative. Who knows?

    This ambiguity plays into Trump’s hands: he loves a playing field where there is no difference between reality and fantasy, where the majestic paneled board room is really a stage set, where he is Making America Great by manufacturing clothes in Bangladesh, where he insults Mexicans and then sues a Spanish television network for not showing the Miss USA pageant, a paean to female innocence brought to us by a womanizer on his third marriage. This is Trump-territory: a nowhere land in which he threatens to sue anyone who disparages the size of an empire that he refuses to disclose. 

    You will never figure out Trump’s worth by looking at numbers. He’s far too slick for that, he can hide the ball forever.

    So let’s put aside the numbers. Instead, let’s look at his FEC submission as a psychological document, a testament, a confession. 

    Here we are faced with a paradox: Trump does not speak, act, or behave like a normal billionaire, nor even like a renegade or eccentric billionaire. He behaves like someone who is desperately broke.

    I know that sounds odd. Improbable. Counterintuitive. And I don’t – I can’t – I won’t – say for certain whether he is broke. But I think it is a very distinct possibility.

    I base this judgment on many years of working closely with very rich people. I’ve had the pleasure – though that is not quite the right word – of spending a lot of time around people who are extremely wealthy, and none of them behaves remotely like Trump.

    For one thing, true billionaires hate seeing their name in the papers or being discussed in public. They don’t want people stealing their ideas, they don’t want scrutiny from regulators, they don’t want others to control the narrative about their business dealings, and frankly there is no financial advantage to being well known among ordinary people who don’t have money to invest.

    The truly wealthy seek to be known in the right circles and not to the general public. It’s a fair bet that if the richest twenty hedge fund managers walked down the street, no one in the general public would turn their head; conversely, it is a also a fair bet that the twenty guys at the airport talking loudly into their cell phones about how they are returning to the head office after closing a big deal in Baltimore are actually worth next to nothing. Powerful people have secrets, barriers, walls. If Trump really had special ideas or assets, he would crave secrecy, not publicity.

    Second, the truly wealthy do not brand themselves. Whatever you may think of how Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or Steven Cohen made their fortunes, they did not get into the bottled water industry to compete with “Trump Ice,” nor do them sponsor beauty pageants or have television shows where they send out contestants to make ice cream cones and then berate them mercilessly for choosing $1.45 as a price point. There is a very revealing type of bullying taking place on Trump’s show The Apprentice.

    He never puts himself up against equals in world of finance, but surrounds himself with childlike sycophants whose fate he controls with an iron hand. By demonstrating so much power against unequal opponents, and by expressing this power in an artificial setting, he actually conveys his own powerlessness in the real world. In attempting to come off as patrician, he devolves into sanctimonious self-aggrandizement while flanked by his robotic and obedient offspring who are displayed like products.

    Third, billionaires do not announce how much money they have. It’s déclassé. And they don’t want to boast because it gives the Internal Revenue Service, the SEC, and regulators another bite at the apple. If someone says you are worth $1 billion and you are really worth $10 billion that can be great news! Use it to your advantage.

    Finally, real billionaires also choose their deals carefully, weighing risk and return. They don’t start clothing lines or energy drinks because the risks (bad reviews, parodies, lawsuits) outweigh the rewards. What kind of person starts their own Trump University and then lets it dissolve a few years later amid lawsuits and investigations by the New York State Attorney General that the students were being defrauded. What is the economic advantage to a billionaire 10 times over of having a brand of bottled water that brings in $280,000, or a beauty pageant, or a line of cheap clothing, or a modeling agency, when the money can just sit in an account that mirrors the market and makes double digit growth? Some of these eponymous projects can be dismissed as flights of narcissism; but there are so many that something other than narcissism is at work here.

    It smells of overreach, desperation, and pettiness.

    Fourth, consider how Trump reacts with vituperative indignation when anyone has the temerity to question his supposed wealth. When comedienne Rosie O’Donnell claimed that Trump was a “snake oil salesman” who had been bankrupt, he threatened to sue her for defamation (presumably because the bankruptcy of Trump casino was not a personal bankruptcy for Trump himself). When MSNBC reporter Lawrence O’Donnell suggested that Trump was worth less than $1 billion, Trump threatened to sue. A decade ago he sued the author of a book about him for claiming that he was only worth a few hundred million instead of the nearly $3 billion that he claimed to be worth at the time. He even threatened to sue his ex-wife Ivana for talking too much about his finances, in violation of her agreement to keep quiet. 

    Methinks he doth protest too much.

    Why threaten to sue someone for underestimating your wealth . . . unless . . . unless . . . unless the sole valuable asset that you have is the general belief that you are worth $10 billion? Unless, that is, if you are really much poorer, and you have nothing to fall back on besides your reputation, and your main asset is the impression you convey. In that case, you might consider doing precisely what Trump does.

    Here is where I am heading: Could it be the case that Trump is an empty suit with no meaningful net assets other than his persona, his brand? That like a shark, he has to keep moving and keep projecting the image of great wealth, or else his empire will sink? This is consistent with the FEC disclosure document where so many of his assets are ‘marks’; in other words, he makes money by lending his name.

    Trump’s FEC document impresses me as the statement of a person who does not have much of anything other than himself – he is his own product. He is the professional wrestler of the financial world – a person who is famous for being famous, the tragic product of a society that produces images instead of actual things.

    Yes, he has built a few golf courses and buildings, but so have others – on a bigger scale; what he has really built is himself, or rather a caricature of himself. My suspicion is that Trump has nothing other than himself. He invented himself. He is his own brand, and that is all he is. Any crack in the mask will cause the whole thing to crumble down. 

    It is fitting that he gets a pension from the Screen Actors Guild.

    He is an actor who plays a man worth $10 billion.

  • Buffett Bailout 2.0? Berkshire Hathaway Misses Earnings By Most Since Lehman

    It looks like it is time for Warren to get on the Obamaphone and make it clear this is unacceptable…  

    Berkshire Hathaway announced (a 10% decline) $2,367 (Adjusted) EPS, missing estimates of $3,038 by 22.09% – the biggest disappointment since Nov 2008…

     

     

    Worst still, Net income for the Omaha, Nebraska-based insurance and investment company fell to $4.01 billion, or $2,442 per share, from $6.4 billion, or $3,889 per share, a year earlier – a stunning 37% plunge.

    The driver of the weakness appears to be a fall in the paper value of its investments and its insurance companies reported an underwriting loss.

    Berkshire's insurance underwriting business, which includes Geico, swung to a $38 million loss.

     

    In the same period a year earlier the business had posted a $411 million after-tax profit.

    *  *  *

    Perhaps, as David Stockman previously noted, Warren's ride on the coat-tails of Fed exuberance is over…

    During the 27 years after Alan Greenspan became Fed chairman in August 1987, the balance sheet of the Fed exploded from $200 billion to $4.5 trillion. Call it 23X.

    Let’s see what else happened over that 27 year span. Well, according to Forbes, Warren Buffet’s net worth was $2.1 billion back in 1987 and it is now $73 billion. Call that 35X.

    During those same years, the value of non-financial corporate equities rose from $2.6 trillion to $36.6 trillion. That’s on the hefty side, too—- about 14X.

    Corporate Equities and GDP - Click to enlarge

    Corporate Equities and GDP – Click to enlarge

    When we move to the underlying economy that purportedly gave rise to these fabulous gains, the X-factor is not so generous. As shown above, nominal GDP rose from $5.0 trillion to $17.7 trillion during the same 27-year period. But that was only 3.5X

    Next we have wage and salary compensation, which rose from $2.5 trillion to $7.5 trillion over the period. Make that 3.0X.

    Then comes the median nominal income of US households. That measurement increased from $26K to $54K over the period. Call it 2.0X.

    Digging deeper, we have the sum of aggregate labor hours supplied to the nonfarm economy. That metric of real work by real people rose from 185 billion to 235 billion during those same 27 years. Call it 1.27X.

    Further down the Greenspan era rabbit hole, we have the average weekly wage of full-time workers in inflation adjusted dollars. That was $330 per week in 1987 and is currently $340 (1982=100). Call that 1.03X

    Finally, we have real median family income. Call it a round trip to nowhere over nearly three decades!

    OK, its not entirely fair to compare Warren Buffet’s 35.0X to the median household’s 0.0X. There is some “inflation” in the Oracle’s wealth tabulation, as reflected in the GDP deflator’s rise from 60 to 108 (2009 =100) during the period. So in today’s dollars, Buffet started with $3.8 billion in 1987. Call his inflation-adjusted gain 19X then, and be done with it.

    And you can make the same adjustment to the market value of total non-financial equity. In 2014 dollars, today’s aggregate value of $36.7 trillion compares to $4.5 trillion back in 1987. Call it 8.0X.

    Here’s the thing. Warren Buffet ain’t no 19X genius nor are investors as a whole 8X versions of the same. The real truth is that Alan Greenspan and his successors turned a whole generation of gamblers into the greatest lottery winners in recorded history.

    That happened because the Fed grotesquely distorted and financialized the US economy in the name of Keynesian management of the purported “business cycle”. The most visible instrument of that misguided campaign, of course, was the Federal funds or money market rate, which has been pinned at the zero bound for the last 78 months.

    *  *  *

    With The Fed on the verge of raising rates, perhaps the days of the Warren Buffet economy are indeed numbered.

  • "Markets In Turmoil" Dow Suffers Worst Streak Since 2011, Yield Curves Collapse

    Nail-biter… or Cliff-hanger? (Stallone is The PPT, the girl is the market, the carabiner is The Fed, the guy in the other chopper is CNBC)

    *  *  *

    Post-Payrolls reaction…

     

    Despite reassurances that a) rate-hikes are priced-in, 2) rate-hikes are bullisher for stocks than rate-cuts (why would The Fed raise rates if everything was not awesome?), and thirdly) buy the dip! It appears the rising rate-hike probability is 'coincidental' with markets turmoiling…

    But don't forget…

    Equity markets in turmoil… Small Caps broke…

     

    And Futures show the big drops…but Europe-based drift higher…

    • Dow down 7 days in a row – first time since Aug 2011
    • Dow down 800 points in 3 weeks – worst run since Aug 2011

    Note – Death cross (50DMA crossing below 200DMA) looms…

     

    The S&P was held above its 2014 close and the 200DMA (2073) was very aggressively defended… thanks to a VIX clubbing…VIX ended the day lower!!! bwuahahahah!!!

     

    The ramp effort broke the markets…

     

    • Biotechs down 9.2% – biggest weekly drop since Aug 2011
    • Media down 8.4% – worst week since Aug 2011
    • Energy down 2.7% – down 13 of last 14 weeks
    • AAPL down 5.1% – worst week since Jan 2014; worst 3 weeks (-11%) since Jan 2013

     

    Catching down to credit…

     

    VIX up 19% – biggest weekly jump since Jan 2015 before the gapping effort down at the close to rescue stocks…

     

     In Bond land…

    • 2Y Yield rose 6bps – biggest jump since June 2015 (near 4 year highs)
    • 30Y Yield down 5 of last 6 weeks (40bps biggest drop since Jan 2015)

    • 2s30s Curve down 14bps – biggest weekly flattening since April 2013
    • 5s30s Curve down over 9% – biggest weekly flattening since Sept 2011

     

    The Corporate (IG and HY) Bond market is not happy… 

    • HYCDX +40bps in 3 weeks – worst run since Dec 2014, highest risk since Dec 2014

     

    • HYG down 1.25% to lowest since Nov 2011 (worst 3 week run since Dec 2014)

     

    Commodity Carnaged…

    • Crude down 7.0% – down 6 weeks in a row (28% drop) to 5mo lows
    • Copper down 11 of last 12 weeks – lowest since July 2009
    • Silver Up 0.6% (before post-close slide) – best week in 3 months, breaks 5 week losing streak
    • Gold could not hold green – extends losing streak to 7 weeks

     

    But not everything was down…

     

    Note that Oil and stocks have become highly correlated once again…

     

    As Crude was clubbed back to a $43 handle close…

     

    Ironically, FX markets were actually relatively quiet (at least in the majors)…

     

    Although EM saw some pain (from Ruble to Real…)

     

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

    Bonus Chart: VIX under 14 and CNN Fear-and-Greed Index collapses to 10!!

  • The U.S. Is Destroying Europe

    Authored by Eric Zeusse via Strategic-Culture.org,

    In Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and other countries at the periphery or edges of Europe, U.S. President Barack Obama has been pursuing a policy of destabilization, and even of bombings and other military assistance, that drives millions of refugees out of those peripheral areas and into Europe, thereby adding fuel to the far-rightwing fires of anti-immigrant rejectionism, and of resultant political destabilization, throughout Europe, not only on its peripheries, but even as far away as in northern Europe.

    Shamus Cooke at Off-Guardian headlines on 3 August 2015, “Obama’s ‘Safe Zone’ in Syria Intended to Turn It into New Libya,” and he reports that Obama has approved U.S. air support for Turkey’s previously unenfoceable no-fly zone over Syria. The U.S. will now shoot down all of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s planes that are targeting the extremist-Muslim groups, including ISIS, that have taken over huge swaths of Syrian territory.

    Cooke reports:

    “Turkey has been demanding this no-fly zone from Obama since the Syrian war started. It’s been discussed throughout the conflict and even in recent months, though the intended goal was always the Syrian government. And suddenly the no-fly zone is happening — right where Turkey always wanted it — but it’s being labeled an 'anti-ISIS' safe zone, instead of its proper name: 'Anti Kurdish and anti-Syrian government' safe zone.”

    The New York Times reported on July 27th, that, "the plan calls for relatively moderate Syrian insurgents to take the territory, with the help of American and possibly Turkish air support.” However, the Times, stenographically reporting (as usual) from and for their U.S. Government sources (and so propagandizing for the U.S. Government), fails to define “relatively moderate,” but all of the “relatively moderate insurgent” groups in Syria cooperate with ISIS and help them to find and decapitate, or sometimes hold for ransoms, any non-Muslims there. Under Assad, Syria has been a non-clerical state, and has enjoyed freedom of religion, but all of the Syrian opposition to Assad’s rule is alien to that. The U.S. is now, even more clearly than before, anti-Assad, pro-Islamist.

    Seymour Hersh reported in the London Review of Books on 17 April 2014, that the Obama Administration’s Libyan bombing campaign in 2011 was part of a broader program to bring sarin gas from Libya to the al-Nusra Front in Syria, in order to help produce a gas-attack upon civilians, which the U.S. Administration could then blame upon Assad, as being an excuse to bomb there just as Obama had already so successfully done in Libya. Both dictators, Gaddafi and Assad, were allied with Russia, and Assad especially has been important to Russia, as a transit-route for Russia’s gas supplies, and not for Qatar’s gas supplies — Qatar being the major potential threat to Russia’s status as the top supplier of gas into Europe.

    Obama’s top goal in international relations, and throughout his military policies, has been to defeat Russia, to force a regime-change there that will make Russia part of the American empire, no longer the major nation that resists control from Washington.

    Prior to the U.S. bombings of Libya in 2011, Libya was at peace and thriving. Per-capita GDP (income) in 2010 according to the IMF was $12,357.80, but it plunged to only $5,839.70 in 2011 — the year we bombed and destroyed the country. (Hillary Clinton famously bragged, “We came, we saw, he [Gaddafi] died!”) (And, unlike in U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, that per-capita GDP was remarkably evenly distributed, and both education and health care were socialized and available to everyone, even to the poor.) More recently, on 15 February 2015, reporter Leila Fadel of NPR bannered “With Oil Fields Under Attack, Libya’s Economic Future Looks Bleak.” She announced: “The man in charge looks at production and knows the future is bleak. 'We cannot produce. We are losing 80 percent of our production,' says Mustapha Sanallah, the chairman of Libya's National Oil Corporation.” Under instructions from Washington, the IMF hasn’t been reliably reporting Libya’s GDP figures after 2011, but instead shows that things there were immediately restored to normal (even to better than normal: $13,580.55 per-capita GDP) in 2012, but everybody knows that it’s false; even NPR is, in effect, reporting that it’s not true. The CIA estimates that Libya’s per-capita GDP was a ridiculous $23,900 in 2012 (they give no figures for the years before that), and says Libya’s per-capita GDP has declined only slightly thereafter. None of the official estimates are at all trustworthy, though the Atlantic Council at least made an effort to explain things honestly, headlining in their latest systematic report about Libya’s economy, on 23 January 2014, “Libya: Facing Economic Collapse in 2014.”

    Libya has become Europe’s big problem. Millions of Libyans are fleeing the chaos there. Some of them are fleeing across the Mediterranean and ending up in refugee camps in southern Italy; and some are escaping to elsewhere in Europe.

    And Syria is now yet another nation that’s being destroyed in order to conquer Russia. Even the reliably propagandistic New York Times is acknowledging, in its ‘news’ reporting, that, "both the Turks and the Syrian insurgents see defeating President Bashar al-Assad of Syria as their first priority.” So: U.S. bombers will be enforcing a no-fly-zone over parts of Syria in order to bring down Russia’s ally Bashar al-Assad and replace his secular government by an Islamic government — and the 'anti-ISIS' thing is just for show; it’s PR, propaganda. The public cares far more about defeating ISIS than about defeating Russia; but that’s not the way America’s aristocracy views things. Their objective is extending America’s empire — extending their own empire.

    Similarly, Obama overthrew the neutralist government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine in February 2014, but that was under the fake cover of ‘democracy’ demonstrations, instead of under the fake cover of ‘opposing Islamic terrorism’ or whatever other phrases that the U.S. Government uses to fool suckers about America’s installation of, and support to, a rabidly anti-Russia, racist-fascist, or nazi, government next door to Russia, in Ukraine. Just as Libya had been at peace before the U.S. invaded and destroyed it, and just as Syria had been at peace before the U.S and Turkey invaded and destroyed it, Ukraine too was at peace before the U.S. perpetrated its coup there and installed nazis and an ethnic cleansing campaign there, and destroyed Ukraine too.

    Like with Libya before the overthrow of Gaddafi there, or Syria before the current effort to overthrow Assad there, or the more recent successful overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych, it’s all aimed to defeat Russia.

    The fact that all of Europe is sharing in the devastation that Obama and other American conservatives — imperialists, even — impose, is of little if any concern to the powers-that-be in Washington DC, but, if it matters at all to them, then perhaps it’s another appealing aspect of this broader operation: By weakening European nations, and not only nations in the Middle East, Obama’s war against Russia is yet further establishing America to be “the last man standing,” at the end of the chaos and destruction that America causes.

    Consequently, for example, in terms of U.S. international strategy, the fact that the economic sanctions against Russia are enormously harming the economies of European nations is good, not bad.

    There are two ways to win, at any game: One is by improving one’s own performance. The other is by weakening the performances by all of one’s competitors. The United States is now relying almost entirely upon the latter type of strategy.

    *  *  *

    Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

     

  • When Work Is Punished: The Ongoing Tragedy Of America's Welfare State

    Wage growth – or a persistent lack thereof – has become something of a hot topic in America. 

    Thanks to the nationwide push for a higher pay floor (personified by mobs of angry fry cooks demanding $15/hour and Democrats on Capitol Hill who are pushing hard for “$12 by ‘20“) and wage growth’s role as an input in Janet Yellen’s mental “liftoff” model, everyone from Main Street to Wall Street feels compelled to weigh in. 

    The standard criticism of hiking the minimum wage is that forcing employers to pay more will simply result in layoffs and/or a reduced propensity to hire, but as we saw with Dan Price and Gravity Payments, there are a whole lot of other things that can go wrong. For instance, higher paid employees may not understand why everyone under them in the corporate structure suddenly makes more money and if people who are higher up on the corporate ladder don’t receive raises that keep the hierarchy proportional they may simply quit. 

    But while politicians, pundits, and economists run in circles perpetuating a debate that’s better suited for an undergrad introductory economics course than it is for the national stage (it’s really quite simple, as New York Burger King franchisee David Sutz made clear when he told CBS that “businesses are not going to pay $15 dollars an hour [because] the economics don’t work in this industry [given that] there is a limit to what you’re going to pay for a hamburger”), there’s a far more troubling situation unfolding behind the scenes and it harkens back to an issue we discussed at length almost three years ago. 

    In short, the welfare system punishes work and incentivizes dependency. More concretely, the structure is such that rational actors will eschew hard work, because the more they earn, the poorer they will effectively be in terms of total resources (calculated as welfare benefits plus earnings). 

    In the simplest possible terms: for many Americans, wage growth is a very, very bad thing.

    We encourage readers to go back and read “When Work Is Punished: The Tragedy Of America’s Welfare State,” and not only because it serves as a helpful primer, but because it also underscores the degree to which exactly nothing has changed in the 30 or so months since it was written. At issue is the so-called “welfare cliff” beyond which families will literally become poorer the higher their wages, as the drop off in entitlements more than offsets the increase in earnings.

    A study by the Illinois Policy Institute shows just how dramatic the effect of “falling off the cliff” (so to speak) can be. In one of the most startling findings for instance, if a single mother raising two children were to accept a pay raise from $12 to $18 per hour, her total resources would fall by nearly 33%. Here’s more:

    From: “Making work pay in Illinois: how welfare cliffs can trap families in poverty

     

    For single-and two-parent households in Illinois, there is a significant welfare “cliff” where the household may become worse off financially as they work more hours or as their wages increase. That is because the available welfare benefits decline by a greater amount than the increase in earned income.

     

    This study analyzed a potential welfare benefits package for single- and two-parent households, both with two young children, in Cook, Lake and St. Clair counties. The potential means-tested benefits included tax credits, cash assistance, food assistance, housing assistance, child-care subsidies and health care.

     

    The study’s findings for Cook County include: 

    • A wide range of benefits provides a large magnitude of support. The potential sum of welfare benefits can reach $47,894 annually for single-parent households and $41,237 for two-parent households. Welfare benefits will be available to some households earning as much as $74,880 annually. 
    • Welfare cliffs are significant and can trap families. A single mom has the most resources available to her family when she works full time at a wage of $8.25 to $12 an hour. Disturbingly, taking a pay increase to $18 an hour can leave her with about one-third fewer total resources (net income and government benefits). In order to make work “pay” again, she would need an hourly wage of $38 to mitigate the impact of lost benefits and higher taxes. 
    • The system is inequitable. A minimum wage increase to $10 an hour would push a household where both parents work for minimum wage over the welfare cliff. They would suffer a net loss in household resources of about $9,000 as reduced government benefits more than cancel out the higher wages.

    As bad as this sounds on paper, it’s even more stunning visually. The following graphic for Cook County shows just how financially destructive it can be for low-paid workers to try and break free of their dependence on the public purse:

    There are several things to note here. First, as mentioned above, for a single mother of two, going from $12/hour to $18/hour would be a disaster, economically speaking. Her total resources (net income plus benefits) would collapse $24,840 from a peak of $63,597 to just $38,757. But perhaps the most distrubing part of the entire equation is that in this case, the single parent would have to make $38/hour before “recovering” from the welfare cliff. 

    And this isn’t confined to Cook County:

    In all cases, net earned income and welfare benefits climb quickly from no income through part-time work at minimum wage until full-time at minimum wage ($8.25 per hour). Net earned income and benefits then plateau until a peak of $12 per hour, which is only slight greater — and probably unnoticeable — than at minimum wage. Thereafter, net earned income and benefits begin to decline until they reach a trough at $18 per hour. The drop from peak to trough is highly significant, reducing disposable income resources by more than one-third. Table 6 provides the values for each locality for the drop. For Cook County, net earned income and benefits drop $24,840, from a peak of $63,597 to a trough of $38,757. The values are nearly identical for the city of Chicago: a drop of $24,830 from a peak of $63,586 to a trough of $38,757. Although the values are lower for Lake County and St. Clair County, the drop is relatively the same, i.e., more than one-third. For Lake County, the drop is $23,396, from a peak of $61,655 to a trough of $38,259. For St Clair County, the drop is $19,408, from a peak of $58,473 to a trough of $39,065.

     

    For Cook County and the city of Chicago, the parent would have to earn $38 per hour before she would make up for loss of benefits when she earned only $12 per hour.

    In other words: in Illinois, a rising minimum wage is actually negative (and severely so) unless it’s hiked enough to make total compensation around $80,000!

    For the purpose of simplification, here is a generalized illustration of welfare cliff dynamic: 

    The full report is below and you’re encouraged to have a look as it goes into quite a bit of detail on the perverse incentives that emanate from the current system. For our part, we’ll close with what we said on the subject in November of 2012: 

    We realize that this is a painful topic in a country in which the issue of welfare benefits and cutting (or not) the spending side of the fiscal cliff have become the two most sensitive social topics. Alas, none of that changes the matrix of incentives for Americans who find themselves facing a comparable dilemma: either remain on the left side of minimum US wage and rely on benefits, or move to the right side at far greater personal investment of work, and energy, and… have the same (or much lower) disposable income at the end of the day.

    Welfare Report Final

  • Carl Icahn "Accepts Donald Trump's Offer For Secretary Of Treasury"

    Has Carl been drinking?

    Of course, no mention that he was the main creditor who ended up owning The Trump Hotel in Atlantic City, of course…

  • Weekend Reading: Serious Indigestion

    Submitted by Lance Roberts via STA Wealth Management,

    Another week of market volatility with no ground gained. It's enough to give you indigestion. I made an assessment earlier this week in reference to the markets rally attempt stating:

    "Any rally that occurs over the next few days from the current oversold condition should be used as a "sellable rally" to rebalance portfolios and related risk. (Chart updated through Thursday's close)

    SP500-Technical-Analysis-080615

    • "While the market did rally over the last week as expected, it failed to rally above the current downtrend that has confined the market since mid-May.
    • The failure of the market to rise back towards new-highs, given the "oversold" condition discussed last week, continues to confirm the underlying weakness in the market.
    • While overhead resistance has kept the markets from rising in recent months, downside support at the 150 and 200-day moving averages has kept the "bullish trend" alive for now.
    • Lastly, the oversold condition that existed last week has been primarily worked off. However, the market has not returned to an overbought condition that has previously marked the end of bull rallies. The market must close above 2180 by Friday's close to reverse the current weakness.

    This short-term analysis suggests, especially when combined with the ongoing deterioration of internal measures, that rallies remain useful opportunities to rebalance portfolio risk as discussed last week."

    As suspected, the rally failed at the current downtrend resistance and is currently testing support at the 200-dma. Importantly, the market is NOT oversold currently which could potentially fuel further selling. 

    I discussed yesteday's that more warning signs have emerged suggesting there may be more to the recent consolidation than just a pause. This weekend's reading list will delve into a variety of views on the current market action.

    Is this just a simple case of indigestion or is it something more viral? 


    1) US Stocks Can't Keep Shrugging Off Global Pressures by Anthony Mirhaydari via Fiscal Times

    "Yet a better indication of what's happening in world markets comes from the MSCI World (ex USA) Index, which is down more than 7 percent from its high set last summer. Or the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets (EEM), which is down 19 percent from last summer's highs. Or the DB Commodities Tracking Index Fund (DBC), which is down 43 percent.

     

    Something is slipping. Factory orders here have expanded on a monthly basis only twice in the last 11 months. Excluding transportation, factory orders collapsed at a 7.5 percent annual rate in July, the worst since the maw of recession in 2009. With America's manufacturing sector looking shaky, the risk is that a global stalling pulls us down, too."

     

    CRB-Fwd-earnings

    Read Also: Too Early To Worry About The Bear by Chris Puplava via Financial Sense

    Also Read: 3 Warning Signs For Market Bulls by Lance Roberts via Streettalklive

     

    2) The Wizard Of Odds For The USD by Erik Swarts via Market Anthropology

    "From our perspective – and represented by the Fed's arduous task of administrating policy from ZIRP and within the trough of the long-term yield cycle, the conditions in the economy that were reflected in the markets of the 70's, 80's and 90's – are not remotely similar with today or have the potential reach and trend capacity that was fundamentally set in motion and sustained by the rise and fall in yields, from their secular icarus heights of the early 1980's.

     

    Although anythings possible – and admittedly the bulls continue to hold the fort and battle for now, we feel it would behoove such lofty expectations to approach the dollar with the aforementioned long-term intermarket cycles in mind. Moreover, from a performance point-of-view, the magnitude and pace of gains over the past year is in fact rare and more representative of culminating blowoff extremes – rather than the early headwaters of a longer trend."

    USD-40-Years

    Read Also: The Great Tragedy by Joe Calhoun via Alhambra Partners

     

    3) Things Are About To Get Bumpy  by Russ Koesterich via BlackRock

    "Investors should be aware, however, that the good times may not last for long. Higher volatility should be expected given the recent evidence of slowing global growth and less benign credit conditions. This suggests to us that so-called momentum stocks, which have rallied strongly this year, could falter."

    Read Also: The Stock Market Is Weaker Than It Looks by J C Parets via Business Insider

    SP500-Technical-080615

     

    4) The "Big Short" Opportunity May Be At Hand by Doug Kass via Kass' Corner 

    "Too little attention has been placed on the continued subpar growth that's been the consistent feature of the U.S. economy since "The Generational Low" in March 2009.

     

    It's worth noting that recoveries out of severe U.S. recessions like the 2007-2009 one have historically been V-shaped. But this time around, gross domestic product has only expanded at a 2.1% real annual rate from the recession's bottom – well below the historical trend line of slightly more than 3%.

     

    This fact, coupled with the more-sluggish corporate-profit growth than has emanated from a weaker economy, has formed my cautious market view over the last two years. I also think this slow-growth condition has generated a dependency on aggressive monetary tactics from the Federal Reserve and the world's other central banks."

    Read Also: 2015 Recession Probabilities And Bear Markets by Chris Ciovacco via Ciavocco Capital

     

    5) Coming Out As A Bear by Axel Merk via Merk Investments

    "Increasingly concerned about the markets, I've taken more aggressive action than in 2007, the last time I soured on the equity markets. Let me explain why and what I'm doing to try to profit from what may lie ahead.

     

    I started to get concerned about the markets in 2014, when I heard of a couple of investment advisers that increased their allocation to the stock market because they were losing clients for not keeping up with the averages.

     

    Earlier this year, as the market kept marching upward, I decided that buying put options on equities wouldn't give me the kind of protection I was looking for. So I liquidated most of my equity holdings. We also shut down our equity strategy for the firm.

     

    Of late, I've taken it a step further, starting to build an outright short position on the market. In the long-run, this may be losing proposition, but right now, I am rather concerned about traditional asset allocation."

     

    2015-08-04-yellen-bear

    Read Also: Short Seller Who Called Financial Crisis See Calamity Ahead  by Michael Newberg via CNBC


    Other Interesting Reads

    The Revenue Recession by Charlie Bilello via Pension Partners

    Fed Policy Keeps Introducing Distortions by Dr. John Hussman via Hussman Funds

    The Fed Is Cornered by Guy Hasselmann via ZeroHedge

    A Compendium Of Awesome Observations by Meb Faber via Meb Faber Research


    "These are the cards we've been dealt. We can't trade the market we want, we have to trade the market we have." – J C Parets

    Have a great weekend.

  • Something Doesn't Add Up…

    Away from the utter farce of the rigged close in today's manipulated, volatility-crushing market

     

    We could not help but notice that with CNN's Fear & Greed Index at 10 – Extreme Fear…

     

    …and 6 of the 7 underlying factor at 'Extreme Fear', something doesn't add up that the VIX 'factor' is "neutral"…

    Spot The Odd One Out…

     

    Or more clearly…

     

    Anything China can do, "we" can do better!

     

    Source: CNN

  • Artist's Impression Of Obama's 'Clean Power Plan'

    Just shut up, smile, and nod…

     

     

    Source: Investors.com

  • The Big "Earnings Beat Expectations" Lie Exposed (In 2 Simple Posts)

    Quarter after quarter, we are spoon-fed statistics 'proving' that everything is awesome trotting out the percentage of companies 'beating expectations'. However, as is widely-known 'inside' Wall Street, this is simply all smoke and mirrors. As the following two charts prove: every quarter, 'hockey-stick' hope starts off high, is then drastically reduced into the actual earnings period…

     

     

    …which then rises during earnings to a level still lower than the pre-earnings period hope-fest…

     

    and once again, hope is pushed off into the next quarter… just one more quarter.

    And sure enough you can buy stocks safely on forward earnings expectations that the hockey stick is just around the corner!!

    How many more quarters do we have to see this 'game' play out before there are no greater fools left?

     

    Source: Deutsche Bank

  • Here Comes The Next Crisis "Nobody Saw Coming"

    Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

    When borrowing become prohibitive (or impossible) and raising taxes no longer generates more revenues, state and local governments will have to cut expenditures.

    Strangely enough, every easily foreseeable financial crisis is presented in the mainstream media as one that "nobody saw coming." No doubt the crisis visible in these three charts will also fall into the "nobody saw it coming" category.

    Take a look at this chart of state and local government debt. As we noted yesterday, nominal GDP rose about 77% since 2000. So state and local debt rose at double the rate of GDP. That is the definition of an unsustainable trend.

    As noted earlier in the week, state and local taxes have soared 75%. While this would be no big deal if wages and salaries had risen by 75% in the same time frame, but earnings have barely kept pace with inflation (38% since 2000).

    So state and local taxes have risen at a rate twice that of wages/salaries. State and local governments can keep raising taxes, but where's the money going to come from?

    State and local government expenditures have risen faster than inflation or GDP.

    Here is the context that matters: household income. This is median real income, i.e. adjusted for inflation.

     

    Wages and salaries are barely keeping up with inflation, real household incomes are down 8.5% since 2000 and state and local government taxes and spending are rising at twice the rate of inflation–where does this lead to?

    1. The bond market may choke if state and local governments try to "borrow our way to prosperity" as they did in the 2000s.

    2. If state and local taxes keep soaring while wages stagnate and household income declines, households will have less cash to spend on consumption.

    3. Declining consumer spending = recession.

    4. In recessions, sales and income taxes decline as households spending drops. This will crimp state and local tax revenues.

    5. This sets up an unvirtuous cycle: state and local governments will have to raise taxes to maintain their trend of higher spending. Higher taxes reduce household spending, which reduces income and sales tax revenues. In response, state and local governments raise taxes again. This further suppresses disposable income and consumption. In other words, raising taxes offers diminishing returns.

    At some point, local government revenues will decline despite tax increases and the bond market will raise the premium on local government debt in response to the rising risks.

    When borrowing become prohibitive (or impossible) and raising taxes no longer generates more revenues, state and local governments will have to cut expenditures. Given their many contractual obligations, these cuts will slice very quickly into sinews and bone.

    If this doesn't strike you a crisis, please check back in a few years. It is easily foreseeable, but very inconvenient. As a result, it too will be a crisis that "nobody saw coming."

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 7, 2015

  • GOP Debates Post-Mortem: Fiorina Wins Undercard; Trump Takes Title, Threatens Independent Run

    17 Entered… Despite the onslaught of attacks from the other 16 GOP Presidential nominee candidates, Donald Trump came out the 'winner' in his usual brash manner threatening to run as an independent and able to dominate the conversation, pitbull back at any jibes, and shrug off cozy Clintonite comments. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul appeared to have a strong showing but "had a tough night" in Trump's words. Rick Perry blew up again, calling the former President Ronald 'Raven' – which his team vehemently denied the entire FOX watching audience heard. Carly Fiorina easily won the undercard against a field of has-beens and wannabes and surely deserves some more top-billing in the next Republican death-match. In the immortal words of Kenny Rogers, we hope a few of the 17-strong gaggle now "know when to fold 'em," and can we suggest Rick Perry's corner "throws in the damn towel."

     

     

    The Main Event..

    Trump came out swinging hard…

    • *TRUMP ONLY CANDIDATE WHO DOESN'T PLEDGE TO BACK GOP NOMINEE
    • *TRUMP SAYS WON'T RULE OUT INDEPENDENT BID FOR PRESIDENT

    As AP reports,

    The first Republican primary debate got off to a contentious start Thursday, with billionaire businessman Donald Trump declaring he could not commit to supporting the party's eventual nominee — unless it's him — and would not rule out running as a third-party candidate.

     

    "I will not make the pledge at this time," Trump said. He also refused to apologize for making insulting comments about women, saying, "The big problem this country has is being political correct."

     

    Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul immediately jumped in to challenge Trump on his answer to the question about supporting the nominee.

     

    "He's already hedging his bets because he's used to buying politicians," Paul said.

    *  *  *

    Trump spoke the most…

     

     

    • *TRUMP, ASKED ON COMMENTS ON WOMEN, SAYS NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT
    • *TRUMP REITERATES NEED TO BUILD A WALL ON U.S.-MEXICO BORDER
    • *TRUMP: MEXICO SENDS `THE BAD ONES OVER' TO THE U.S.
    • *TRUMP SAYS HAS USED U.S. BANKRUPTCY LAWS TO HIS ADVANTAGE
    • *TRUMP: `I HAD THE GOOD SENSE TO LEAVE ATLANTIC CITY'
    • *TRUMP: `I'VE EVOLVED ON MANY ISSUES' OVER YEARS
    • *TRUMP: IF IRAN WAS A STOCK, YOU SHOULD GO OUT AND BUY IT
    • *TRUMP: IRAN IS A `DISGRACE'; SAYS WOULD BE STRONGER THAN OBAMA

     

    Headlines for rest of field… (based on Bloomberg Politics)

    • *CHRISTIE, ASKED ON NJ DOWNGRADES, SAYS WORSE BEFORE HIS TENURE
    • *KASICH DEFENDS MEDICAID EXPANSION IN OHIO AS COST-SAVING

     

    • *RUBIO: U.S. NEEDS E-VERIFY SYSTEM TO BOLSTER IMMIGRATION LAWS
    • *SCOTT WALKER SAYS IMMIGRATION SYSTEM SHOULD FAVOR U.S. WORKERS
    • *PAUL SAYS CHRISTIE FUNDAMENTALLY MISUNDERSTANDS BILL OF RIGHTS
    • *CHRISTIE SAYS RAND PAUL BLOWS `HOT AIR' ON PRIVACY, TERRORISM
    • *BUSH: KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW NOW, STARTING WAR IN IRAQ A MISTAKE
    • *WALKER: U.S. NEEDS TO STOP `LEADING FROM BEHIND' IN MIDDLE EAST
    • *HUCKABEE: COULD GET RID OF IRS WITH TAX ON CONSUMPTION
    • *CARSON: U.S. TAX CODE SHOULD BE MODELED ON 10% BIBLICAL TITHE
    • *HARPER SAYS OPPOSITION PLANS WILL LEAD TO PERMANENT DEFICITS
    • *JEB BUSH ON KEYSTONE PIPELINE: `OF COURSE WE'RE FOR IT'
    • *BUSH SAYS 2% U.S. GROWTH A DANGEROUS `NEW NORMAL'; HE SEEKS 4%
    • *CHRISTIE: RAISE U.S. RETIREMENT AGE 2 YRS PHASED OVER 25 YRS
    • *CHRISTIE SAYS SOCIAL SECURITY SHOULD BE MEANS-TESTED
    • *RUBIO: NEVER ADVOCATED FOR ABORTION IN VIOLENT CASES
    • *BUSH: NOT TRUE THAT HE CALLED TRUMP `BUFFOON'
    • *KASICH: IF MY KIDS WERE GAY, WOULD `LOVE AND ACCEPT' THEM
    • *WALKER SAYS PUT FORCES ON EASTERN BORDER OF UKRAINE, BALTICS
    • *WALKER SAYS WOULD SHOW `STEEL' TO RUSSIA, NOT `MUSH' SOFTNESS
    • *RAND PAUL SAYS HE'S ONLY CANDIDATE W/ 5-YR BALANCED BUDGET PLAN
    • *PAUL: U.S. MUST STOP BORROWING MONEY TO AID OTHER COUNTRIES
    • *PAUL: U.S. COULD AID ISRAEL FROM SURPLUS, NOT BORROWED FUNDS

     

     

     

     

    The attacks were varied…

     

    The result…

     

    Candidate Mentions (by minute)…

    *  *  *

     

    The Undercard….

    Carly Fiorina's coming out party but the pre-debate debate was summarized as an attack on Trump and Clinton…

     

    The 'biggest losers" debate was won by a landslide by Carly Fiorina…

    Though Santirum spoke the most…

     

    Artist's impression of Rick Perry's team…"Throw the damn towel!!"

     

    And The Other Not-So-Magnificent-Seven… (via Bloomberg)

    Here’s a look at how each candidate fared under circumstances like nothing they’ve ever faced before, and like nothing they hope to ever go through again.

    Carly Fiorina 

    Easily the most polished of anyone on the stage; you can see why she’s been impressing early audiences, and just how much of a difference she could make if she ever gets promoted to the adult’s table. She was assured and strong throughout, even when she connected Donald Trump to Bill Clinton. Moderator MacCallum mocked her for comparing herself to the “Iron Lady” Margaret Thatcher, but if you had no context for either woman and were just tuning in, you could almost see it. She also has the vital political skill of being able to deliver a shiv with a smile, even making an angry phone call to the Supreme Leader of Iran–“on Day One of the Oval Office!”–sound like a phone call you’d look forward to, even while you were shaking. Interestingly: She was the only candidate to consistently reference God. Though should be more careful about where she leaves her notes.

    Jim Gilmore 

    He hasn’t even been in the race a week, so, understandably, he spent his first question just rattling off his biography. He did it a little too fast, though; he actually ran out of factoids three-quarters of the way through his answer, which was a bit awkward. Every question directed toward him had an audible sigh before it, like a Little League coach who has to give an at-bat to every kid, even when they know the other kids are the only ones who can hit the ball. He didn’t embarrass himself, but he didn’t do anything to distinguish himself either, which adds up to a big net negative. Also, his suit looked too big for him.

    Lindsey Graham 

    You won’t find many Republican presidential candidates answering their first question at a Republican primary by going into extensive detail on fossil fuels, but hey, he’s been a Senator for a long time. Graham attempted to make up for by turning into the world’s most polite hawk the rest of the way: Graham turned every question after that into a diatribe against ISIS and Al Qaeda and our need to be aggressive in the Middle East. (No man has ever looked so genteel while vowing to secure the violent deaths of his enemies.) He even batted away a Planned Parenthood question, saying that the Middle East is the real “War on Women.” He remains a party attack dog to the end, particularly when it comes to Bill and Hillary, saying he’s “fluent in Clinton-speak; I’ve been dealing with it for 20 years.” Were you excited to hear the revival of the “definition of what ‘is” is” Clinton chestnut in the year 2015? If so, Lindsey Graham was here for you tonight. 

    Bobby Jindal 

    If anything, he succeeded in being a lot less Kenneth Parcell than in his infamous response to President Obama’s State of the Union, which is a start. It’s still disconcerting seeing such sharp rhetoric coming out of the mouth of such a friendly looking guy; he says he’s “taking the handcuffs off the military” to go after ISIS, but it feels more like the waterboy giving a big speech rather than the coach. (His “Obama and Hillary want to turn the American Dream into the European night” felt decidedly unapocalyptic.) He definitely scores points for being the only person in the debate to go after Jeb Bush, both a sign of the strength of Donald Trump and the weakness of Bush at this point; two months ago, this debate would have been seven people a race to call Bush the “establishment” the way Jindal, and Jindal alone, did this time. On the whole, though, he spoke the way a lot of voters in his party think, even if he doesn’t seem like the candidate they imagine speaking for them. Also, if elected, he is absolutely going to waste his first Executive Order, saying, he’d sign one “protecting religious liberty.” Who wants to tell him?

    George Pataki

    Well, George Pataki was here. He hasn’t really done anything, or even been in the public eye, since he was governor of New York, so he kept bringing that up like a middle-aged soft-in-the-middle jock who can’t stop telling you about the time he hit the game winner against Hickory South back in high school. Did you know Pataki was the governor on September 11? Pataki is happy to remind you several times. It was probably wise for him to focus on that, because his handling of the abortion question–he’s the only pro-choice candidate running for the Republican nomination–was muddled, defensive and weak, though, really, in this primary, and with those recent Planned Parenthood tapes, how could it not be? He was also the only candidate who consistently talked longer than the buzzer. It’s difficult to blame him.

    Rick Perry 

    No one knows the perils of a poor debate showing better than Perry, so he seemed determined, almost over-determined, to show off his debate bona fides here. He stiffened his jaw, he dialed back the Texas homespunisms, he even threw in a “I’d say HELL NO” for good measure. (To the Ayatollah of Iran, no less, a guy who knows, in conservative minds, from Hell.) He may have been a little too fired up for the room; it’s difficult to be too much of a tough guy when there are more people on stage than in the audience. It was particularly strange to see him go so aggressively after Donald Trump, considering Trump wasn’t in the room; it’s odd to stand up to a guy who doesn’t even need to bother to show up yet. He definitely wanted Trump’s mojo, though. His answers on immigration were as forceful as anyone said on stage all night, tripling down to the point that he actually claimed his primary purpose in office would be to enforce the fight against illegal immigration, getting into so much detail that he even mentioned specific helicopters. Also: Good to know someone still uses Wite-Out

    And then there's this…

    Rick Santorum 

    Santorum, who was as angry as anyone about these debate rules, went after them even further, pointing out (while inexplicably lapsing into the first person plural) that “we were even further behind four years ago than we are today.” (A salient point for a guy who won Iowa last time.) His answer on immigration—pointing to how his own father, an Italian immigrant, was separated from his father under Mussolini, said “America was worth the wait”—was personal but also underlined that he’s for separating families if it means following the letter of the law. Interestingly, Santorum, the supposed holy roller, didn’t say the word “God” once. He also brought up his “20-20 Perfect Vision of America” plan, which, when it comes to catchiness, isn’t quite 9-9-9.

    *  *  *

    So in summary.. Fiorina #winning… Perry #RonaldRaven… and this…

    Finally where the moneyis being bet… (via PaddyPower)

  • America's Biggest Lie – Dictatorship Or Democracy?

    Authored by Eric Zuesse,

    The Deceit About Being A 'Republic' Versus A 'Democracy'

    One of my recent articles at several sites, "Jimmy Carter Is Correct That the U.S. Is No Longer a Democracy” generated many reader-comments (such as here) saying things like, "The US has always been a republic. There are no true democracies in the modern world.” This will be my response to all who expressed that view:

    You miss the point that Carter made, and that I there documented to be true, which is no semantic issue (“democracy” versus “republic”), but which instead concerns the basic lie about what the United States of America really is now:

    Is this a representative democracy, such as its Founders intended and such as it was famous and honored throughout the world for being, until at least around 1980?

     

    Or, is it instead a nation that’s ruled by a tiny elite, an aristocracy, which in this country consists of its 500 or so billionaires, who buy the politicians whom ‘we’ ‘elect’?

    Is the U.S. now, basically, a fraud? Is it a dictatorship, instead of a democracy? Is it some kind of aristocracy, which controls the government here?

    That’s not a semantic issue, at all. America’s first political party was called the “Democratic Republican Party,” but could as well have been called the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, because those two terms are essentially synonymous in any nation that has a large population, in which the public elect representatives to represent them, instead of directly vote on the policies that the government is to pursue — to place into its law, and to enforce by its duly authorized police or otherwise, and to adjudicate by democratically appointed judges and/or juries.

    The only democracies that can exist, except for tiny ones, are representative democracies: they are republics. Republics are the only type of democratic nations that exist, practically speaking.

    Where, then, does the apparently common misconception that there is a difference between the two terms arise?

    I shall here present a theory about that: This widespread misconception arises because the rulers in a dictatorship — i.e., in an elite-controlled or “aristocratic” government, as opposed to in a government that authentically does  represent the public — can thereby fool many people into misconceiving what the real issue, the real problem, there is. 

    The real issue is whether the country is controlled by its aristocracy (a dictatorship), or instead by its public (its residents).

    Let’s be frank and honest: an aristocratically controlled government is a dictatorship, regardless of whether that “aristocracy” is in fascist Italy, or in Nazi Germany, or in Communist USSR, or in North Korea, or in the United States of America.

    That’s what Jimmy Carter was talking about, and it's what I was documenting to be true.

    To varying and rather extraordinary degrees throughout earlier U.S. history, this nation really was a democracy; that is to say, a republic. But we’re not actually like that any more (as I documented there).

    If this problem is not faced — and honestly, not by means of semantic games and misdirections — then surely there will be not even a possibility to restore the democracy, the republic, the democratic republic, or whatever one prefers to call it, which our Founders had intended, and which lasted for around two centuries on these shores, and was widely admired and even (by some) envied throughout the world.

    The aristocracy and its many fools might not want this enormous problem to be addressed, but Jimmy Carter clearly does. And so do I.

    One of the ways to misdirect about this problem is to obsess about “good residents” (“citizens”) versus “bad residents” (“aliens”), because that nationalistic way of viewing things enables the aristocracy to split the public against itself and thereby to maintain its own grip on power against, actually, that entire public. Nazi Germany did this.

    Another way they misdirect it is to buy control over all of the political parties that stand a chance of dominating the government, and so to create basically a ‘democratic’ or ‘republican’ controlled government which, in any case, is actually controlled by that aristocracy, even if, perhaps, by a different faction within it. Even if a different faction within the aristocracy takes control, it’s still the same dictatorship. Because the public is not  in control.

    There are many ways to deceive the public. There are many ways to rule the public. But all of them are aristocratic; all of them are elite — and typically monied-elite — dictatorships.

    In a democracy (or republic) the government does not rule, the government represents. It represents honestly, because it doesn’t need to do so by misdirection, by deceits.

     

    In an aristocracy (or dictatorship) the government does not represent — at least not honestly — because they don’t want the people to see how their sausages are made

    Will a violent revolution be required to overthrow it? If so, then won’t the likelihood be high that it will merely replace one group who rule by force, by a different group who rule by force? For example: isn’t that what happened in the Russian Revolution and its aftermath?

    Jimmy Carter challenged America to restore democracy. And he was right to do so. But can it be done? And, if so, then how?

    It’s the great issue in 2016. Because if it’s not dealt with then, the dictatorship, the aristocracy that controls it, will become so deeply lodged that it won’t be able to be dislodged without great violence. And the outcome of that would not solve the problem, at all. It would be hell. But avoiding that hell by means of accepting continuance of aristocratic control would also be hell, because aristocracy would then become even more deeply entrenched.

    America needs to deal with it, not postpone solving it.

    *  *  *

     

  • $60 Trillion Of World Debt In One Visualization

    Today’s visualization breaks down $59.7 trillion of world debt by country, as well as highlighting each country’s debt-to-GDP ratio using colour. The data comes from the IMF and only covers external government debt.  

    It excludes the debt of country’s citizens and businesses, as well as unfunded liabilities which are not yet technically incurred yet. All figures are based on USD.

     

     

    Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

     

     

    The numbers that stand out the most, especially when comparing to the previous world economy graphic:

    • The United States constitutes 23.3% of the world economy but 29.1% of world debt. It’s debt-to-GDP ratio is 103.4% using IMF figures.
    • Japan makes up only 6.18% of total economic production, but has amounted 19.99% of global debt.
    • China, the world’s second largest economy (and largest by other measures), accounts for 13.9% of production. They only have 6.25% of world debt and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 39.4%.
    • 7 of the 15 countries with the most total debt are European. Together, excluding Russia, the European continent holds over 26% of total world debt.

    Combining the debt of the United States, Japan, and Europe together accounts for 75% of total global debt.

    Source: Visual Capitalist

  • What Kind Of Investor Are You? The Market Doesn't Care!

    Via ConvergEx's Nick Colas,

    Our monthly look at asset price correlations finds it’s getting just a little bit easier to beat the U.S. stock market with savvy sector bets. OK, not by a lot: average correlations for the 10 sectors of the S&P 500 to the index itself are down to 79.9% versus the year’s typical reading of 80.7%. The best hunting grounds have been in Technology (84.9% correlation, down from +90% the last three months) and, surprisingly, Utilities (32.9% correlation, down from 47-77% in the last three months).  Both have beaten the overall market over the last month as well. Looking forward, the quickest way to even lower correlations (which are good for active managers and passive investors alike) is for the Federal Reserve to move on rates sooner rather than later.  By our reckoning, the currently still-high correlations show that markets don’t quite think the Fed is moving in September.  If they did, correlations would be dropping more quickly.

    In my 25 years doing just about every job in finance I have had the chance to meet a wide array of money managers. This experience has taught me that there are only three kinds of people that can reliably “Beat” the market once you put aside obvious inputs like competent risk management and a stress-resistant personality. These are:

    The savant.  There is a certain type of person that can read price movements and consistently extrapolate signal from noise.  You could plop them on a desert island with little more than a Bloomberg machine, some dip, a Chinese takeout menu and some way to make trades and they would still make money.  A lot of it.  They tend to read to the New York Post, never miss a free meal, and will die between 4pm and 9:30am because during trading hours nothing will deter them from seeing the close.

     

    The information hound.  This breed makes it their business to know every single important source of knowledge about the companies in which they invest.  They don’t know everything, but they know where to find any piece of information necessary to price a security.  Twenty years ago this type of investor visited every single company they followed every quarter. Now, they do that AND they hire satellites to fly over production facilities AND use online tracking software to monitor company fundamentals in real time.  Effective activists fall into this camp, by the way.

     

    The big picture thinker. Some people are just better than the population as a whole at assimilating large quantities of information and synthesizing it into profitable action.  The advent of computerized trading over the last decade has pushed a lot of these individuals into routinizing their approach into systematic algorithms, of course.  But the best of the bunch see linkages through the capital markets the way spiders feel their webs – in analog waves, not digital bits and bytes. If the butterfly flaps its wings in Thailand, they know to get short insurers in Texas.

    All three types of investors/traders need the same thing to deliver the best results: asset prices that move at least somewhat independently of each other.  After all, their special set of skills is in separating the wheat from the chaff, the good from the bad, or the stars from the airplane lights. The more those differences cause divergent prices, the higher the potential profit.  For example, consider the S&P 500 – how many names in this index are up more than 20% on the year?  The answer is 70 by our count, or just over 1 in 7.  Only one name is a clean double in 2015: Netflix. Conversely, there are 60 names in the index that are down more than 20% but only three – Freeport-McMoRan, Consol Energy and Chesapeake Energy – are down by 50% or more. That leaves 372 names in the S&P 500 in a performance band of +20% to -20%.  Close down the range to +10/-10%, and we count 197 names in that range.  That’s 40% of the entire S&P 500 clinging to a pretty narrow band around the “Unchanged on the year” line.

    Another way to consider the question of how much opportunity there is in the S&P 500 and other asset classes is to look at stock price correlations – how much the individual sectors of the index move in tandem with the market as a whole.  We look at this data on a monthly basis, and there are several tables and charts at the end of this note.  Here’s our summary of this month’s numbers:

    The average price correlation of the 10 sectors of the S&P 500 to the index was 79.9% last month.  On the good news front, that’s less than the YTD average of 80.6% so asset prices have been moving a touch more independently over the last 30 days than the year as a whole.  As for the bad news, that’s still far higher than the textbook 50% correlation a sector “Should” have to the market as a whole.

     

    The two standout sectors last month were technology and utilities. Tech saw its correlation to the S&P 500 drop from 93.4% to 84.9% and the group also outperformed the broad market (+1.8% versus 1.1%).  The utilities group, left for dead on the thesis of ever-rising interest rates, also outperformed last month (+3.3% versus 1.1%) and managed to cut their correlation to the market to 32.9% from 47.6% at the same time.

     

    Emerging markets had a tough time over the last month, down 7.9%, but as any trader will tell you the moves between the U.S. market and far flung bourses were tied at the hip.  As a result, the correlation between the two was quite high – 71.7% – but no higher than the last few months combined. Developed markets, as represented by the MSCI EAFE (Europe, Asia, Far East) index also showed high correlations to the S&P 500 at 83.6%.

     

    Correlations between the high yield corporate bond market and equities have been tightening up over the last three months, an unwelcome development for those who worry about the structure of that market if general asset price volatility picks up.  Correlations between “Junk” bonds and U.S. stocks were 66.5% last month, up from 55.7% the month before and 49.7% the month before that.

     

     

    Gold has been a brutally tough investment over the last month, sinking to multi-year lows.  The best thing you can say about this trend is that at least the yellow metal still hews to its own path. Correlations to stocks here were -25.3% last month.

    Now, the #1 question we get after we review correlations every month is “Why are they so high relative to long term historical norms?”  Our answer is that Federal Reserve policy has been an unusually important factor in asset prices since 2009. The unusually easy monetary policy since that time (and its planning, implementation, and effect on the economy) has been a powerful unifying story in capital markets. Now, as the Federal Reserve moves to return the economy to a more “Normal” policy stance, correlations should drop. That they have not yet moved convincingly lower is a sign that equity markets may want to see the Fed actually pull the trigger. 
     

  • "Teflon Don" Holds Court – GOP Debates Begin

    (Click picture to watch live. Note that Fox requires a cable subscription log-in)

    Now that Carly Fiorina has thoroughly dominated the “B-team” GOP roster, all eyes will now turn to the prime time event where Donald Trump, the surprise frontrunner whose vitriolic campaign rhetoric has inexplicably translated into ever stronger poll numbers, will make his debate debut and attempt to dismiss critics who question how long the flamboyant billionaire’s popularity can last once the proverbial rubber meets the road. 

    And while some are expecting plenty of fireworks on Thursday evening, Trump himself is looking to play down the hype. “Maybe my whole life is a debate in a way, but the fact is I’m not a debater, and they are,” Trump told ABC News.

    And if you can’t make sense of that, here’s something less convoluted: “I don’t think I’m going to be throwing punches.”

    So it looks like we can scratch “fist fight” off the list of possible debate outcomes, but there’s still plenty of fun to be had, and for those wondering what to expect from each candidate, here’s a simple preview from NBC:

    • Donald Trump: With all eyes on him, he’s smartly downplayed expectations and has emphasized that he intends to play nice. But he also has to deliver the same toughness and channel the same anger fueling his rise in the GOP polls.
    • Jeb Bush: As we wrote yesterday, maybe no one has more on the line than Bush does. He’s had a rough last week — especially as Hillary Clinton has used him as a punching bag. And here’s the thing: He’s the most well-known unknown person (due to his last name) on that debate stage.
    • Scott Walker: He has the buzz and the record, but does he look the part? That will be his biggest challenge of the night.
    • Marco Rubio: Ditto. And he can’t afford to disappear at the debate — as he has disappeared from the 2016 scene these past few weeks.
    • Mike Huckabee: If you want to place an early bet on the best performer of the night, Huckabee would be a smart call. He is the only one of the 10 who has actually participated in a presidential debate before. And he was routinely the best performer in the 2007-2008 debates.
    • Ted Cruz: Can he handle the 60-second time limits and come across a bite more likeable than his perception, especially in DC?
    • Ben Carson: His low-key demeanor could be a weakness. Can he display some fire and passion that don’t come across in his interviews?
    • Chris Christie: He’s used to being the center of attention, but can he handle being on the outside looking in? How does he assert himself?
    • John Kasich: Ditto.
    • Rand Paul: Make no mistake: The Jesse Benton indictment has rocked the Ron/Rand Paul World, and the campaign needs a major pick-me-up from this debate.

    And here’s a Bingo card which should serve as a nice primer on the issues:

    Finally, here’s a bit of color from Bloomberg’s Joshua Green on Trump’s transformation from belicose billionaire to Republican frontrunner: 

    When Donald Trump takes center stage at Thursday’s Fox News debate in Cleveland, it will be a critical moment for the Republican Party. Until recently, Americans mentally categorized Trump as a celebrity entertainer and interpreted his madcap antics and controversial pronouncements accordingly. But on Thursday, voters will experience Trump in a much different context: as the standard-bearer of the Republican Party, who not only leads the presidential field by a wide margin but, as a new Bloomberg Politics poll shows, has a powerful appeal to every segment of the Republican electorate.

     

    Not every Republican worries about a “Trump effect” harming the GOP’s electoral fortunes. “Trump is a flash in the pan,” says Republican strategist John Feehery. “He’s not a serious candidate, no matter what the polls say. He will self-implode.”

     

    Others are hopeful that Trump will “grow into the role” and comport himself in a manner more befitting a presidential frontrunner. “The question is,” says Norquist, “is he capable of turning on a dime when the camera shines on him and saying, ‘Here are my standard, boring traditional Republican views’ with maybe a couple of colorful additions?”

     

    But Trump’s broad popularity and enduring strength among Republicans lend credence to a different interpretation: that his candidacy has become the preferred vehicle for Republican voters to express maximal outrage at their own party’s leaders for failing to carry out the agenda they keep promising. It’s one that many conservatives ardently desire: to deport undocumented immigrants, kill Obamacare, overturn Roe v. Wade, and return the GOP to a position of primacy in American politics.

     

    “If you look at the whole Republican Party, from libertarians to evangelicals to the Tea Party,” says Steele, “you have a group of people who’ve been lied to for 35 years. Republican [presidential candidates] have said, ‘Elect us and we’ll do these things.’ Well, they haven’t. And that frustration is manifesting itself in Trump.”

     

    Bonus: BBC’s “Fun Guide” to the debate

    Donald Trump

    Who is he? Billionaire, reality television star, golf and real estate mogul, rider of golden escalators. The Donald is the one man who really needs no introduction. He exists whether you acknowledge him or not. He’s at the top of the polls in the Republican Party, and the establishment’s attempts to strike him down have only made him more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

    Expected strategy: Trump will be Trump. If he’s attacked by one of the other candidates, expect him to hit back. Donald says he doesn’t start fights, he finishes them. Maybe he’ll say something crazy, and everyone will laugh. Maybe he’ll stay serious, and everyone will be impressed with his gravitas. Either way, he comes out ahead.

    Win a point if: He promises to “make America great again”. He believes he’s the man to do it, and he’s got the hat to show it.

    Win a million points if: He wears the hat on stage.

    Lose a point if: He says “you’re fired”. That Apprentice catchphrase is so 2004.

    Jeb Bush

    Who is he? Former governor of Florida, son of one president and brother to another, the man with 99 problems but having enough campaign money isn’t one. Bush started the year expected by many to emerge as the clear frontrunner, but that hasn’t happened. Jeb! – as his logo exclaims – is just one of several upper-tier candidates getting lapped in the polls by Trump.

    Expected strategy: Bush will likely try to be the grown-up in the room. If other candidates get mired in a slug-fest with Trump, he can try to stay above the fray and pitch himself as the mature, presidential alternative. It was a plan that worked (eventually) for Mitt Romney in 2012.

    Win a point if: He vows to boost US growth from 2% to 4% as president. Call it the “seven-minute abs” campaign promise. Who wants two when you can have four?

    Win a million points if: He says he agrees with his brother on anything. “George W Jeb” is getting hammered on his familial ties to the 43rd president, and proving he’s “his own man” has been one of his most daunting tasks.

    Lose a point if: He mentions his campaign “swag store”, as he did in New Hampshire Monday night. There are a lot of words that can sound presidential. “Swag” isn’t one of them.

    Scott Walker

    Who is he? Governor of Wisconsin, Kohl’s discount store shopper, bane of public employee unions everywhere. Walker made a big splash in an Iowa presidential forum back in January, and he’s become a popular pick as a candidate who can appeal to both conservative activists and the Republican establishment.

    Expected strategy: This will be a big test for Walker as a top-tier candidate. He’s been criticised in the past for lacking presidential timbre, so his goal will be to look and act like a serious, informed politician, while avoiding any major gaffes.

    Win a point if: He mentions Ronald Reagan. He got married on the late president’s birthday and every year throws a Reagan-themed anniversary party. He’s a big fan.

    Win a million points if: He talks about his fitness tracker. He wears one all the time and credits it with keeping him in shape. You may not see it under the sleeve of his debate-night suit jacket, but trust us, it’s there.

    Lose a point if: He cites heading the Wisconsin National Guard in a foreign policy answer. Every time governors trot this line out they sound only slightly less ridiculous than when Sarah Palin mentioned how close Alaska is to Russia.

    Mike Huckabee

    Who is he? Ordained minister, former Arkansas governor, former conservative radio and television talk host, model for awkward family photos. Huckabee was the surprise of the 2008 presidential race after winning the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses. Now he hopes to recapture that old campaign magic.

    Expected strategy: Eight years ago Huckabee ran as a conservative with a heart. After years as a Fox talking head, he now seems to be running as a conservative who eats hearts. Expect lots of blanket condemnations of liberal orthodoxy, particularly when it comes to Barack Obama’s foreign policy.

    Win a point if: He doesn’t make a reference to Nazi Germany. The candidate is a walking embodiment of Godwin’s law.

    Win a million points if: He bursts out into song. He and Democrat Martin O’Malley are the only presidential hopefuls who front rock bands.

    Lose a point if: He makes a joke that bombs. He styles himself as a good-natured cut-up, but as the old saying goes: “Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.”

    Marco Rubio

    Who is he? Florida senator, son of Cuban immigrants, former college football player, parched-mouth sufferer. Rubio is considered a rising star in Republican circles, but many were surprised that he decided to eschew a sure-thing second term in the US Senate for a presidential bid, particularly with Floridian Bush already in the race.

    Expected strategy: Rubio became a popular pick as a campaign dark horse, but after an early bounce in the polls he’s become mired in the crowded middle of the pack. He’s the youngest candidate on the stage, so he’ll have to project maturity and remind everyone of his potential.

    Win a point if: He mentions the American Dream. His child-of-immigrants story is compelling and he isn’t shy about recounting it, so you can probably go ahead and pencil this in the plus column.

    Win a million points if: He gets caught on camera drinking water. For a long time Rubio’s awkward attempt at hydration during a 2013 State of the Union response was all anyone knew about him.

    Lose a point if: He talks about immigration. He supported Senate immigration reform in 2013 before it became radioactive among much of the conservative base. Any time he spends on the subject will remind Republicans of this.

    Ben Carson

    Who is he? Paediatric neurosurgeon, best-selling author, child of urban poverty, separator of conjoined twins. Carson was in double digits in opinion polls for much of the year but has slipped of late. He has a loyal following that’s helped him nab several conservative straw poll victories.

    Expected strategy: This is the first time Carson has been in a political debate, so his goal is to prove he belongs there – which is a pretty low bar among this crowded field. He’s the “other” non-politician on the stage and could seek to offer himself as a less abrasive, more thoughtful choice for disaffected Trump supporters.

    Win a point if: He tells the story about the patient who mistook him for a hospital orderly.

    Win a million points if: He compares Obamacare to slavery. It wouldn’t be the first time, but he’s toned down his bombastic rhetoric recently.

    Lose a point if: He says progressive taxation is socialism. If it is, then the US has been a socialist state since 1913.

    Ted Cruz

    Who is he? Senator from Texas, former Supreme Court clerk, Canadian-American, aspiring Simpsons voice actor. Cruz beat a heavily favoured Republican in his 2012 Senate race and quickly made waves in Washington, spearheading multiple high-profile filibusters and government shut-downs

    Expected strategy: Cruz is a former college debate national champion, so he enters Thursday night with rhetorical knives sharpened and high expectations. He’s pitching his campaign to evangelical conservatives and grass-roots Tea Party true-believers, so expect him to spend plenty of time throwing them chunks of fresh red meat.

    Win a point if: He attacks “the Washington cartel”. Although it sounds like a minor-league soccer franchise, it’s his term for the insiders and establishment politicians he’s made life difficult for during his Senate tenure

    Win a million points if: He attacks Donald Trump. While other candidates have been going after the top dog, Cruz has showered him with praise, perhaps hoping to pick up the pieces if the billionaire flames out.

    Lose a point if: He talks about cooking bacon on the barrel of a machine gun. OK, he likes guns and he likes bacon. But his latest attempt at creating a viral video was just cringe-worthy.

    Rand Paul

    Who is he? Senator from Kentucky, opthalmologist, son of former presidential candidate Ron Paul, libertarian (sort of), enemy of hairbrushes everywhere. Paul launched his campaign as the candidate who could combine the grass-roots support of his father’s libertarian true believers with a more mainstream Republican appeal. So far, however, it seems he’s alienated both groups.

    Expected strategy: Paul will likely play up the anti-big government, surveillance-state positions that prompted Time magazine to once label him “the most interesting man in politics”. Given how his campaign has struggled in the past few months, he could come out swinging at the other candidates. At this point, he has little left to lose.

    Win a point if: He mentions the “Washington machine”. Like Cruz’s Washington cartel, Paul’s machine is the windmill he tilts at.

    Win a million points if: He’s wearing cowboy boots. The Texan has a penchant for fancy footwear, but such a debate fashion statement may be a bit too unorthodox even for Paul.

    Lose a point if: He has to talk about the Iran nuclear deal. It’s the kind of foreign policy topic that will only hurt him, no matter how he answers it.

    Chris Christie

    Who is he? Governor of New Jersey, former US attorney, bellicose YouTube star, Dallas Cowboys superfan. Christie could have presented a serious challenge to Romney in 2012, but he chose to sit out the race. He may have missed the presidential boat, as his popularity both in New Jersey and nationwide has precipitously dropped since then.

    Expected strategy: Donald Trump has stolen Christie’s “tell it like it is” mojo, so the debate may be his chance to win some of it back. Look for him to try to be blunt but not blustery, touting his ability to get things done in liberal-leaning New Jersey.

    Win a point if: He talks about his late Sicilian mother. He cites her as his “moral compass” – the way he tries to soften his brash image.

    Win a million points if: He mentions Bruce Springsteen. He used to be a huge follower, but the New Jersey musician very publicly skewered the governor in a January 2014 Tonight Show musical satire.

    Lose a point if: Hurricane Sandy comes up. The only thing Republicans remember from the natural disaster is Christie’s pre-2012 election embrace of Mr Obama – and they have never forgiven him for it.

    John Kasich

    Who is he? Ohio governor, former congressman, friend of U2’s Bono, 2000 presidential candidate who was beaten by a guy named Bush. Kasich is a late entry into the Republican field, but his post-announcement bounce was enough to sneak him into the final spot on the debate stage.

    Expected strategy: Kasich’s goal will be to appeal to the moderate, establishment Republican crowd, which puts another Bush squarely in his cross-hairs. If he contrasts favourably with the Floridian, and he could become the choice as the anti-Trump.

    Win a point if: He talks about finding God after his parents were killed by a drunk driver. It’s Kasich at his most heartfelt.

    Win a million points if: He leads the home-state Cleveland crowd in an O-H-I-O football chant.

    Lose a point if: Someone mispronounces his last name. The ch in Kasich is a hard k.

  • One Third Of All Chinese 'Gamblers' Have Shut Their Equity Trading Accounts

    It turns out making money trading stocks is not "easier than farmwork" and, as China Daily reports, a stunning 24 million Chinese 'investors' have shuttered their trading accounts since the end of June. Unlike in the U.S., where institutions dominate stock trading, retail investors are king in China, owning around 80% of listed stocks’ tradable shares, according to investment bank CICC. With the number of small investors holding stocks in their accounts sliding to 51 million at the end of July from 75 million at the end of June, it appears some grandmas and farmers have learned their lesson (for now).

     

    A-Share accounts with transactions have plunmged over 20% in the last few weeks…

     

    But, as The Wall Street Journal reports, China’s market selloff can safely be declared a rout.

    Nearly a third of the country’s individual investors—more than 20 million people—fled the plunging stock markets last month.

     

    The number of retail investors holding stocks in their accounts slid to 51 million at the end of July from 75 million at the end of June, according to China Securities Depository & Clearing Corp., the government agency that tracks accounts.

    But bank deposit is still the favorite investment tool for Chinese families. As China Daily notes,

    Up to 50 percent of disposable income will end up in families' saving account, according to data from World Bank. Due to recent volatility, it is unlikely that many families will move their money from saving account to stock market.

    As one newly minted stock trader explained…

    “Now I realize I can lose a lot of money very quickly,” he said, noting that threats to stocks include China’s slowing growth and the eventual end of government rescue efforts.

    But – there remains some who will never learn…

    “Where else can I put my money?” said Helen Lu. “Real estate is so expensive and beyond our reach, and there are no other good investment channels.”

    Sound familiar?

  • Participation Trophy Nation

    Submitted by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

    What a pathetic nation of entitled whiners we’ve become. When did participation in a sport or any competition deserve a trophy?

    Trophies are for winners. Trophies are for the people who excelled. Trophies are for the people who worked harder than their competitors and won. The bullshit about every child being a special snowflake has permeated our society and created generations of momma’s boys and girls. They think they deserve a trophy for showing up at their jobs now. They think they deserve automatic B’s for showing up at college classes. They think they deserve pay raises because they came to work.

    You get ahead in life by hard work, using your brain, and refining your social skills. The free shit army mentality permeating our culture drives the participation trophy bullshit. Real free market capitalism (not the crony capitalism/socialism) has winners and losers. Losers need to work harder to become winners. Not in America today. The losers have a million excuses and think they deserve exactly what the winners have achieved. 

     

     

    Via The Daily Caller's Alex Pfeiffer,

    On HBO’s return of “Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel” Tuesday night, Bernard Goldberg looks into the current culture of handing out trophies to children just for showing up, and how this trend potentially leads to damaging psychological effects.

     

    “We want to make each child feel special,” says Brian Sanders, president of i9 Sports, the largest youth sports franchise in the nation.

     

    How does he make them feel special? By giving them all trophies.

     

    At an event outside Tampa, Fla. with 650 kids in attendance all will receive trophies, there is a division champion award and everyone else receives an “All-Star” trophy, both prizes are the same size.

     

    This isn’t just a phenomenon with his sports league. Janet Anderson is the regional commissioner in Los Angeles for AYSO Soccer and she told Goldberg for her 1,200 under-eight players, “If there name is on the roster, they get a trophy.”

     

    This means that players who don’t even show up can receive an award. On top of that, her league doesn’t keep score, no one is a loser.

     

    And what happened when Anderson decided to stop giving trophies to all participants for players over age eight? “Some parents went out and bought their own trophies for the whole team,” explained Anderson to Goldberg.

     

    It isn’t just children who are winners. The trophy industry now has sales around $2 billion at the retail level, says Scott Sletten of JDS Industries, one of the world’s largest trophy wholesalers. Sletten’s parents started the South Dakota business in 1972. Then, the mom-pop shop had sales of $20,000 to $40,000 a year. JDS now has sales of over $50 million a year.

     

    This culture arises out of a movement beginning in the late 20th Century to push the importance of self-esteem in education. “The state of California had a task force in the 1980s to study self-esteem, and we thought especially for kids in struggling communities if we just told them they were great, they would believe it, and then they could achieve more because they were certain they were great,” said researcher Ashley Merryman.

     

    This movement has apparently spiraled out of control. “Preschoolers sometimes now sing a song to the tune of ‘Frère Jacques’ that goes like this, ‘I am special I am special look at me look at me,’” according to San Diego State University professor Jean Twenge.

     

    This push to make every child feel special leads to problems in college. A study highlighted in Goldberg’s report shows that a third of college students say they deserve a B grade as long as they attend most classes in a course.

     

    Dr. Robert Cloninger, professor of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine has been studying the effects of rewards with rats in mazes. He found that rats that received food just for working their way through the maze were lazy. “They will not be fast runners to get to the trophy, and they will quit easily the moment they are no longer getting rewarded.”

     

    He concludes that children won’t be able to succeed if we pretend that they don’t fail. Cloninger says, “We have to get over the notion that everyone has to be a winner in the United States, it just isn’t true.”

    *  *  *

    Trophies for all. Do it for the chilrun. We must boost the self-esteem of losers so they think they are winners.

  • Payrolls Preview: Goldman Expects Seasonal Bounce In Jobs But Warns Wage Growth May Disappoint

    Via Goldman Sachs' Karen Heichgott,

     We forecast nonfarm payroll growth of 225k in July, in line with consensus expectations. Many labor market indicators were softer in July, but some important service sector indicators, such as ISM nonmanufacturing employment, were significantly stronger. On balance, we expect job growth roughly consistent with the 223k increase in June.

     

     

    We expect the unemployment rate to hold steady at 5.3%. Participation should at least partially rebound following an unexpected dip in June that likely reflected calendar effects. Finally, average hourly earnings are likely to rise 0.2% month-over-month in July.

    We forecast nonfarm payroll job growth of 225k in July, in line with consensus expectations. Reported job availability, the employment components of most manufacturing surveys, and ADP employment growth softened, but the employment components of most service sector surveys improved, particularly the ISM nonmanufacturing survey, which surged to its strongest level since 2005. Overall, the July data point to a gain roughly in line with the 223k increase in June.

    Arguing for a stronger report:

    •     Service sector surveys. The employment components of service sector surveys were broadly positive in July. The employment components of the ISM nonmanufacturing (+6.9pt to 59.6), Dallas Fed (+4.5pt to +10.1), Richmond Fed (+2.0pt to +12.0), and Markit PMI surveys rose, while the employment component of the New York Fed index (-2.9pt to +17.2) declined. Service-sector employment gains rose to 222k in June and averaged 195k over the last year.

    Arguing for a weaker report:

    •     Manufacturing employment indicators. The employment components of almost all of the major manufacturing surveys weakened in July. The employment components of the ISM manufacturing (-2.8pt to 52.7), New York Fed (-5.5pt to +3.2), Richmond Fed (-5.0pt to +1), Kansas City Fed (-10.0pt to -19), Dallas Fed (-2.1pt to -3.3), Philly Fed (-4.2pt to -0.4), and Markit PMI surveys declined, while the employment component of the Chicago PMI survey improved slightly. Payroll employment growth in the manufacturing sector picked up a bit to 4k in June, just below the average gain of 6k per month seen over the last year. Given that the manufacturing sector is more exposed to international trade than the services sector, the recent softness in manufacturing indicators could in part reflect the appreciation of the dollar.
    •     Job availability. The Conference Board's labor differential—the net percent of households reporting jobs are plentiful vs. hard to get—worsened by 1.2pt to -6.0 in July but remains near its post-recession high.
    •     ADP report. ADP employment rose 185k in July, below consensus expectations. In general, initial print ADP estimates have not been strong predictors of initial print totalpayroll gains reported by the Labor Department. However, we have found somewhat stronger correlations between ADP and nonfarm payrolls for some industries, in particular trade, transportation and utilities, which saw a relatively small gain of 25k in the July ADP report.

    Neutral factors:

    •     Jobless claims. The four-week moving average of initial jobless claims in the payrolls reference week remained roughly unchanged at 279k.
    •     Online job ads. According to the Conference Board's Help Wanted Online (HWOL) report, which we mainly see as a leading indicator, both new and total online job ads rebounded in July following large decreases in June. Although online job ads have risen over the past year, the trend over the past three months has slowed.

    We expect the unemployment rate to hold steady at 5.3% in July, from an unrounded 5.285% in June. The headline U3 unemployment rate declined by 0.2pp in June, while the broader U6 underemployment rate declined by 0.3pp to 10.5%. Looking further ahead, we expect U3 to reach 5% by early 2016 and U6 to reach our 9% estimate of its full employment rate by the end of 2016. The participation rate showed a surprising drop of 0.3pp in June to 62.6%. However, the decline likely resulted in large part from a calendar effect caused by the timing of the reference week relative to the end of the school year (Exhibit 1), and we therefore expect an at least partial rebound in July.

    Exhibit 1: Calendar Effects Probably Depressed Participation in June

    We expect a 0.2% increase in average hourly earnings for all workers. While the July print should reflect some bounce-back from the flat read in June, this will likely be offset by the late timing of the reference week within the month. Average hourly earnings for all workers rose 2.0% over the year ending in June, while average hourly earnings for production & nonsupervisory workers rose 1.9%. Our Wage Tracker also stands at 2.0% year-on-year as of 2015Q2. While we expect wage growth to pick up somewhat by year-end, it will likely remain well below our 3.5% estimate of the full employment rate.

    Recent data on wage growth have disappointed expectations. Our GS Wage Tracker stands at 2.0% year-on-year, showing no improvement from its average value over the past six years. Although some special factors in recent ECI and average hourly earnings data might have resulted in an unduly pessimistic view of wage growth in Q2, the broader trend remains quite subdued. We think the Fed would take comfort from a pickup in wages, as the level of wage growth provides a useful cross-check on the amount of slack remaining in the labor market. Fundamentals argue for at least a modest improvement in wage growth in coming quarters, in our view. Upcoming changes to state minimum wage laws will probably not move the needle on national aggregate wage metrics.

  • Let The Kool Aid Flow: Bank Of America "Predicts" No Recession In The Next Decade

    One year ago, as part of its always entertaining long-run forecasting exercise, Bank of America predicted that GDP growth in 2015 and 2016 would be 3.3% and 3.4% respectively.

    Fast forward one year, when in its updated “long-run” forecast, Bank of America’s crack economist Ethan Harris admits he was off by “only” 30% in his prediction of next year’s GDP, and instead of 3.3%, he now “forecasts” 2015 GDP to be… 2.3%.

    Not only that, but BofA has now also taken down all over its medium-term GDP forecasts lower by 0.4% and its terminal growth rate is now down 10% from 2.2% to 2.0%. Expect next year to see the first sub 2% potential growth rate of the US.

    This is how he justified his dramatic overestimation of US growth in just 12 months:

    1.We expect real GDP growth to converge to potential growth after 2016, which we expect to be around 2.0%.
    2. We expect that the long-run unemployment rate (the NAIRU) resides around 5.0%, due in part to demographic factors.
    3. We expect the Fed to hit its 2% target for the PCE deflator by 2018.
    4. We expect interest rates to converge to slightly lower long-run levels due to ongoing fiscal headwinds and lower potential growth.

    Compare these revised assumptions to what he penned just one year ago here.

    But the biggest laugh line, like last year, is the following:

    Obviously, there is considerable uncertainty in forecasting many years out, so these should be viewed as rough baseline numbers. For example, if history is our guide, at some point in the next decade the US will experience a recession, but predicting a recession far in advance is almost impossible. We plan to update this table on a regular basis.

    So to summarize, the chief economist of a TBTF bank was off in his one year forward “forecast” by 30%, but because prediction a recession “far in advance”, even if in reality one may very well already be taking place, he would rather just assume 2% or greater growth for the next decade, and just leave it at that.

    Because clearly Bank of America’s clients don’t pay with millions of soft dollars for someone to actually tell them the truth.

  • Mapping The Rising Poverty Of The U.S.

    Concentrated poverty in the neighborhoods of the nation's largest urban cores has exploded since the 1970s.

    The number of high poverty neighborhoods has tripled and the number of poor people in those neighborhoods has doubled according to a report released by City Observatory

    As Gizmodo explains, the following maps created by Palmer use red and green arrows to indicate growth in wealth and poverty between 1970 and 2010. Green lines point down to indicate a decrease in poverty, while red lines slope up to represent a growth in poverty. Their length indicates the size of the change.

    Map source: LabratRevenge.com

    As City Observatory concludes,

     To be poor anywhere is difficult enough, but a growing body of evidence shows the negative effects of poverty are amplified for those who live in high-poverty neighborhoods – places where 30 percent or more of the population live below the poverty line. Quality of life is worse, crime is higher, public services are weaker, and economic opportunity more distant in concentrated poverty neighborhoods.

     

     

    Critically, concentrated poverty figures prominently in the inter-generational transmission of inequality: children growing up in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty have permanently impaired economic prospects.

    *  *  *

    Read the full dismal report here (and remember stocks are at record highs and initial jobless claims at 40 year lows)…PDF here

    *  *  *

    While there are obvious patterns of green and red in very city, the overall trend is telling: poverty is very much on the rise.
     

  • The Sweet, Sickly Stench Of QE 'Success'

    Submitted by Grent Williams via TTMYGH.com,

    Six years ago, hardly anybody outside financial circles had any idea what Quantitative Easing was – hell, many within financial circles had no idea what QE entailed.

    The Fed, and the BoE did the heavy lifting in explaining it to Western audiences (Japan had been doing it so long that its citizens were bored of it and paid little attention when iterations 16, 17 and 18 were rolled out in recent years) with then-Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, leading the way as only he could:

    (Jackson Hole Speech, 2010): The channels through which the Fed’s purchases affect longer-term interest rates and financial conditions more generally have been subject to debate. I see the evidence as most favorable to the view that such purchases work primarily through the so-called portfolio balance channel, which holds that once short- term interest rates have reached zero, the Federal Reserve’s purchases of longer-term securities affect financial conditions by changing the quantity and mix of financial assets held by the public.

    Specifically, the Fed’s strategy relies on the presumption that different financial assets are not perfect substitutes in investors’ portfolios, so that changes in the net supply of an asset available to investors affect its yield and those of broadly similar assets. Thus, our purchases of Treasury, agency debt, and agency MBS likely both reduced the yields on those securities and also pushed investors into holding other assets with similar characteristics, such as credit risk and duration. For example, some investors who sold MBS to the Fed may have replaced them in their portfolios with longer-term, high-quality corporate bonds, depressing the yields on those assets as well.

    Yeah, I know.

    Others took a swing at explaining QE in terms more accessible to the layman (and woman):

    (The Economist): To carry out QE central banks create money by buying securities, such as government bonds, from banks, with electronic cash that did not exist before. The new money swells the size of bank reserves in the economy by the quantity of assets purchased—hence “quantitative” easing. Like lowering interest rates, QE is supposed to stimulate the economy by encouraging banks to make more loans. The idea is that banks take the new money and buy assets to replace the ones they have sold to the central bank. That raises stock prices and lowers interest rates, which in turn boosts investment.

    But the general narrative that the general public was beaten over the head with by central bankers and politicians was, essentially this:

    We are going to pull a few levers and create money which is going to solve all the problems we face. Don’t worry, there will be no negative effects as a result of this policy. We will be able to maintain full control of everything and, when the time comes, we will gracefully exit the program and go back to the way things used to be just as soon as everything is fixed. In the meantime, carry on with your lives, go out, spend money, borrow more and leave the worrying to us.

    The campaign to take a complicated concept and dumb it down sufficiently for a public that really didn’t want to have to do the mental gymnastics required to understand its implications had one significant tailwind – complicity on the part of the public. They wanted to be told it was all going to be OK and they were positively inclined towards the idea of ‘free’ money being printed which would, in turn, lessen their own chances of being directly impacted by the economic downturn which had come so perilously close in 2008.

    Those in charge of designing and implementing QE programs knew that it was all too hard for the public to understand and they played that knowledge brilliantly.

    Unfortunately for them, they were wildly successful.

    The public neither knows nor cares what QE actually is. All they know is that, optically at least, it has worked because a) they are being told it has and b) the stock market is going up.

    That’s essentially been the extent of the burden of proof.

     

    They don’t understand this:

    Or this:

    But here’s where the success in creating the narrative that free money does no harm and has no unintended consequences turns into a potential disaster.

    In the UK, left-winger Jeremy Corbyn was a last-minute addition to the leadership ballot for the Labour Party (US readers can think in terms of the Democratic Party nomination) – thrown into the mix to supposedly ‘broaden the debate’.

    Well he’s broadened it alright:

    (UK Daily Telegraph): the joke has backfired. Mr Corbyn is now the clear front-runner, and on Thursday the bookies installed him as the favourite.

    Oops!

    Corbyn’s own understanding of economics is on par with that of the average British citizen – which is perfectly fine – however, it’s what he’s doing with that knowledge that makes him far more dangerous.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I give you; People’s QE:

    (UK Independent): Jeremy Corbyn said that future rounds of the monetary stimulus should be redirected from the financial sector to brick-and-mortar projects.

    I am calling for a people’s quantitative easing – and asking my fellow candidates to join me in that call,” he wrote in an article for Huffington Post UK.

    “The Bank of England must be given a new mandate to upgrade our economy to invest in new large scale housing, energy, transport and digital projects.

    Jeremy Corbyn, MP for Islington North“This would give our economy a huge boost: upgrading our outdated infrastructure and creating over a million skilled jobs and genuine apprenticeships.”

    Corbyn has been convinced that QE is a free ride, just like the majority of the electorate and so, of course, he will promise them more of what he knows appeals to them.

    And, if they get the chance, they will vote for him. Of course.

    (Jeremy Warner): …It sounds a bit like The X Factor – perhaps we could get Simon Cowell to chair the MPC live on TV and we could all text in to say how much cash we want the Bank of England to print this month. It turns out, however, that the idea is for the Bank to “be given a new mandate to upgrade our economy to invest in new large-scale housing, energy, transport and digital projects”. 

    Mark Carney might well feel he has enough to do already, what with controlling interest rates, inflation and regulating the City. But, heck, in a few spare hours on a Friday afternoon, he could just print a couple of hundred extra billion, and use the money to start building publicly-owned housing estates. Yet a few hundred years of history suggest that central banks financing governments directly creates inflation, and another few hundred suggest that state-owned companies don’t usually work well.

    Jeremy Warner’s warning was stark – its implications terrifying:

    (Jeremy Warner): Everything about “Corbyn-omics” is delusional. Unfortunately, that does not mean it does not have an audience. By September, Mr Corbyn might well be leading the Opposition – or at least be shadow chancellor under Mr Burnham.

    The success of the narrative created around QE; that it is the mythical ‘free lunch’ that we all intuitively know can’t exist but secretly hope does, has played perfectly to the public and now, having endured for two electoral cycles, the next wave of politicians also believe it will have no consequences and are actually using it when planning the message they feel will endear them to the electorate.

    What plays better than free money?

    The same phenomenon will be front and center again tonight when the first GOP debate takes place with billionaire reality TV star, Donald Trump front and centre.

    Nobody is better equipped to pander to a public who desire impressive promises of handouts which bear little or no scrutiny, as this remarkable excerpt from The Guardian demonstrates:

    (UK Guardian): “Asked recently what he would replace Obama’s signature healthcare law with, [Trump] replied: “Something terrific.”

    Who wouldn’t vote for something terrific?

  • Oil Trading "God" Loses $500 Million In July On Commodity Rout

    Back in December 2014, when crude oil first crashed into a bear market and traders were desperately looking under nook and cranny for the first casualty of the commodity collapse, they found it in the face of oil trading “god”, Andy Hall, best known for seeking $100 million in compensation in 2008 from Phibro’s then-owner Citigroup, who would leave his long-term employer Phibro by the end of 2014 for the simple reason that after 113 years of operation, Phibro would liquidate in the US, having been unable to find a buyer (with rumors circulating that Hall’s trading P&L did not exactly help the company’s long or short-term prospects).

    While Hall did sever his relationship with the liquidating Phibro (and may have accelerated its collapse with his bullish oil bets), he would keep running his own personal hedge fund, the $3 billion Astenbeck Capital, which may have been Hall’s Phibro bearish oil “hedge” and emerged largely unscathed from the 2014 commodity rout because “Hall curtailed bets and shifted to holding cash.”

    However, 8 months later, with oil crashing again, and without Phibro to serve as a natural hedge, suddenly Andy Hall is in trouble. Again.

    It appears that after the great collapse of 2014, the oil trading “god” refused to learn from his mistakes, and was convinced that oil would promptly rebound up to its historic levels. His bullishness was evident in his latest letter to investors (attached below) in which we found that both his long-term oil price outlook…

    The U.S. shale oil resources which are profitable at $65 WTI simply are not large enough to offset the declining production in these other areas that will result from oil being at that level. At $65 WTI, the economically recoverable oil resource of the lower 48 states in the U.S. is about 70 billion barrels of oil. This would support production of between 9 and 9.5 million bpd – about today’s level. To grow production meaningfully would require prices closer to $80. (Interestingly though, prices much higher than $80 do not significantly increase the economically recoverable resource.)

     

    In summary, global oil prices will not be capped by the average cost of producing U.S. shale oil. U.S. shale oil production costs lie along a spectrum and while the best producers can make adequate returns at $65 WTI many others cannot. Furthermore, in the longer term a significant proportion of non-U.S. shale oil production require prices higher than $65 WTI to sustain investment. Finally, U.S. shale oil producers cannot produce enough oil at $65 to offset the production decline that would occur elsewhere in the world over time at that price.

    … as well as short-term…

    The second half of the year will see a strong seasonal uptick in global oil demand. Oil demand in Q3 and Q4 of 2015 should be some 1.7 and 2.9 million bpd higher respectively than in Q2. Meanwhile year over year U.S. production growth has slowed and production is now starting to decline sequentially. It will continue to decline through the balance of the year (barring significantly higher prices). Non-OPEC production growth elsewhere in the world will also slow through the balance of 2015. By December of 2015 year over year non – OPEC production growth will be a negative 1.7 million bpd compared to a positive 2.7 million bpd in December of 2014.

     

    With global oil consumption rising through the second half of the year at the same time as non-OPEC supply growth is stalling and with OPEC essentially at full capacity, the call on OPEC production will exceed their ability to meet it. This will result in falling global oil inventories during the balance of 2015 and in 2016.

     

    Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is fighting a proxy war with Iran in neighboring Yemen. It is also facing an existential threat from ISIS which is endeavoring to stir up sectarian unrest in the oil producing east of the country – home to most of Saudi Arabia’s large Shiite minority. Much of the rest of MENA is in turmoil. It’s not unreasonable to say that the geopolitical risks in the major oil exporting region have  seldom been higher. Yet oil prices currently have little or no risk premium and are – furthermore – below the longer run marginal cost of production. Because of this and given that the underlying fundamentals continue to improve, price risks are skewed to the upside in our view.

    … were quite bullish. They have also been, so far, dead wrong. And as Reuters reports, after two consecutive months of 3% losses in May and June at which point he was up just 2% for the year, July was by far the cruelest month in history for the oil trader, a month in which he suffered a whopping 17% loss. To wit:

    Oil trader Andy Hall’s hedge fund lost about 17 percent in July after failing to anticipate sliding crude prices as U.S. inventories piled up, a letter to its investors showed on Thursday.

     

    The monthly loss was the second largest in the history of his Connecticut-based Astenbeck Capital Management firm, performance data accompanying the letter showed. The decline cut total assets under management at Astenbeck to about $2.8 billion, down about $500 million from June.

    So after being up just barely up for the year in June and suddenly down 15% for 2015 a month later, having lost half a billion in just one month, it is a virtual certainty that the redemption requests are coming in. Worse, with Hall no longer having any hedges to cushion the ongoing oil crash (and in fact, it appears he is levered to the upside), his fund may be margin called to death soon enough even in the absence of major redemptions.

    Which begs the questiton: will Hall no longer be seen as an oil trading “god” if Astenbeck is promptly shut down, and the “god” blows up twice in less than a year? Perhaps instead of “god”, a more appropriate animalistic comparable is “pony” with an undiversified bag of tricks.

    His June letter to investors is below.

  • Is Trump The Democrat 'Wolf' In GOP Clothing?

    When we earlier noted the change of course for the GOP as RNC Chair Riebus showed Donald Trump much love, we wondered why the sudden shift of attitude and comment on being a Republican nominee? Well, perhaps, just perhaps, there is a reason why Republican leadership is vying for Trump's 'support'… As WaPo reports, former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump as he neared a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men. While there are no specifics about the call, we are reminded that Trump has also donated to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaigns and to the Clinton Foundation.

    Trump, a longtime acquaintance of the Clintons, both of whom attended the businessman’s third wedding in 2005, reportedly had a private telephone conversation in late spring with former President Bill Clinton at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men. As The Washington Post reports,

    The talk with Clinton — the spouse of the Democratic presidential front-runner and one of his party’s preeminent political strategists — came just weeks before Trump jumped into the GOP race and surged to the front of the crowded Republican field.

     

    The revelation of the call comes as many Republicans have begun criticizing Trump for his ties to Democrats, including past financial donations to the Clintons and their charitable foundation.

     

     

    “Mr. Trump reached out to President Clinton a few times. President Clinton returned his call in late May,” a Clinton employee said. “While we don’t make it a practice to discuss the president’s private conversations, we can tell you that the presidential race was not discussed.”

     

    One Trump adviser said Clinton called Trump, but the adviser did not provide specifics about how the call came about.

     

    People with knowledge of the call in both camps said it was one of many that Clinton and Trump have had over the years, whether about golf or donations to the Clinton Foundation. But the call in May was considered especially sensitive, coming soon after Hillary Rodham Clinton had declared her own presidential run the month before.

     

     

    Clinton has reserved her sharpest attacks for former Florida governor Jeb Bush and other candidates she has called out by name for their policies on immigration, abortion and other issues.

     

    For his part, Trump said little about Clinton until recent weeks.

    *  *  *

    The Hill's Brent Budowsky also noted…

    What could Trump do in the campaign that would help the Clintons the most? First, he would personally attack leading GOP candidates in 2016, using derisive language that would almost surely find its way into Hillary Clinton campaign ads if she were to become the Democratic nominee. Check that box, right? Next, Trump could deeply offend Hispanic voters who widely respect Hillary Clinton already. Check that box, too!

     

    Similarly, if Trump tied the GOP in knots by prolonging the Republican nominating process, and prolonged the process of Republicans attacking Republicans, that would be a huge benefit for Hillary Clinton. Check that box. And to the degree that newer faces in the Republican Party who could become the strongest challengers to the Democratic nominee in November, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), found their message drowned out by Trump, the big winner would be Hillary Clinton! Check that box, too.

     

    Of course the grand slam for Hillary Clinton would be if Donald Trump were to run as a third-party candidate in 2016. Remember how H. Ross Perot running in 1992 was vital to the election of Bill Clinton and set the stage for his highly successful and fondly remembered two-term presidency? It would be highly unlikely that this box will ultimately be checked by Team Clinton, but stranger things have happened.

     

    Does this suggest that Donald Trump is a Clinton plant in the current campaign? Of course not, but my tongue is only halfway planted in my cheek by raising this thought, which is delightful for Democrats and deep down must be scary for Republicans.

    *  *  *

    With Hillary facing plunging poll numbers and FBI probes, is The Donald the Democratic nominee in waiting?

  • Republican "Losers" Debate Pits Rick Perry Against Other "B List" GOP Hopefuls

    (Click picture to watch live. Note that Fox requires a cable subscription log-in)

    The “main event” GOP debate isn’t until 9 p.m. ET on Thursday, but for some, the anticipation surrounding Donald Trump’s debate debut will be too much to handle.

    For those folks, there’s the so-called “undercard”, which kicks of four hours earlier and should suffice as an appetizer until the Trump-sized entree is served up piping hot on Fox later this evening. The candidates below the blue cut-off point in the following chart will be participating.

    (Chart: National Journal)

    And while they’ll be no Donald in the “losers’ debate”, they’ll be plenty of Rick (actually there’s two of them), and for those who remember Governor Perry’s famous “oops” moment, that should be enough to guarantee that the consolation round of the first Republican debates of the 2016 election cycle still provides for plenty of entertainment. 

    Here’s a preview from Politico:

    How can you not feel a little bit sorry for Rick Perry? Arguably the most successful governor—certainly the longest serving—of a major state crucial to whatever presidential electoral prospects the GOP has left, and he’s relegated to the losers’ round of the 2016 debates, a forum undoubtedly sponsored by Tyrion Lannister and the Bad News Bears.

     

    But the former Texas governor is not alone.  An impressive array of talent will be alongside him, trying to pretend that they don’t feel like the kid picked last for the dodge ball team.  (Some people still haven’t gotten over it these days—but we try.) 

     

    There’s the only woman in the race, and one of the few with practical business experience that does not include firing Dennis Rodman on TV: Carly Fiorina. There’s Gov. Bobby Jindal, another accomplished governor and a onetime top-tier vice presidential contender whose staunch conservatism and moving son-of-immigrants story should stand out in a political party that’s knocked for being whiter than a Kenny Rogers concert in Vermont.  And next to him will be Sen. Lindsey Graham,  a seasoned legislator and John McCain clone, joined by his now famous cellphone and his bizarre Bill-Clinton-wishes-he’d-thought-of-that rotating first lady proposal. 

     

    Then there’s Rick Santorum, a finalist in 2012, who is about a point away from former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, whose poll numbers for the moment suggest he’d have a hard time beating Bill Cosby.  And let’s not forget New York’s George Pataki—one of the few if not the only Republican ever elected statewide in New York since the invention of the iPhone. No, there’s nothing to be embarrassed about by being in this crowd.

     


     

    Meanwhile in the “winners circle” are two guys who’ve never worked a single day in public office, a senator who wears baseball uniforms to display his qualifications for the White House and a former governor best known these days for writing about his yo-yo dieting and his love of gravy (I think there may be a connection there.)

     

    As you can see from the following graphic, the difference between making the prime time debate versus the “dinner time” version came down to the thinnest of margins for some participants:

    (Graphic: National Journal)

    *  *  *

    Bonus: “Oops

  • 3 Warnings For Market Bulls

    Submitted by Lance Roberts via STA Wealth Management,

    Lowry Sees Bull Market Ending 

    There is a very interesting podcast at Financial Sense with Richard Dickson, who is the Senior Market Strategist at Lowry Research. The reason that this particular interview is so interesting is that Lowry Research has been one of the primary supports for Jeff Saut's uber bullish view on the markets over the last couple of years. To wit:

    "[May 2, 2014] In fact, the SPX has been in a flat-line pattern for almost two months, having only gained 0.03% since March 7th, causing many Wall Street wags to proclaim a major "top" is at hand. However, as Lowry's writes:

     

    'The 88-year history of the Lowry Analysis shows that such stalemates are relatively common developments during most bull markets. They simply reflect periods in which investor buying enthusiasm is temporarily fatigued, at the same time that sellers are reluctant to part with their stocks, in anticipation of eventually higher prices. Thus, there is not enough Demand to push prices up to new bull market highs, and there is not a strong enough desire to sell to drive prices sharply lower. Eventually, sideways trading patterns are usually resolved through the process of a short-term correction, in which investors become impatient and sell, pushing prices low enough to revitalize buying enthusiasm and launch the next leg of the bull market.'

     

    Obviously I agree with the astute Lowry's organization, and I will say it again, 'It is too early to know if this is the beginning of a 10%-12% correction.'"

    That was so last year. However, very similarly this year, markets have once again been locked in a stalemate with "buyers" fatigued and "sellers" unwilling to part with stocks from fear of missing the next leg higher. 

    So what is Mr. Dickson saying now? 

    Dickson says when the broader indexes are approaching a top, the advance is led by fewer and fewer stocks, which has been seen at every major market peak they've studied.

     

    This phenomenon registers in the market's widely followed advance-decline line, however, Dickson points out that relative under-performance by small-cap stocks often provides an earlier warning signal to potential trouble ahead. He notes that small-cap stocks began to deteriorate almost a year ago, and many have already entered bear market territory. This is not healthy action, he says.

     

    Based on research conducted at Lowry, this predicts a market top within 4 to 6 months. In the interim, Dickson will be watching a variety of other technical indicators for confirmation, such as buying power and selling pressure.

    Here is a chart of the advance-decline line and small-cap performance relative to the S&P 500. 

    SP500-Adv-Decline-080615

     

    McClellan: Market Lacking "Escape Velocity"

    Tom McClellan, a family famous for the "McClellan Oscillator" recently issued a note discussing the importance of the number of advancing and declining issues and "escape velocity." To wit:

    "To understand this important point, we need to explore and define a principle of rocketry known as 'escape velocity.' This term is variously (and sometimes confusingly) defined as the velocity which a projectile needs in order to escape the gravitational field of a planet or other body, and/or the velocity needed to achieve stable orbit as opposed to falling back down to Earth. My purpose here is not to defend either definition; for our purposes, the idea is the same, that there needs to be sufficient energy to keep from falling back down.

     

    The Summation Index can show us that. For this discussion I will be using the Ratio-Adjusted Summation Index (RASI), which factors out changes in the number of issues traded… the RASI gives comparable amplitude levels with which to evaluate available financial market liquidity."

    RASI July2015

    "The +500 level for the RASI is the important go/no-go threshold for this concept of 'escape velocity.'

     

    Since the 2009 bottom, the Federal Reserve has made sure that there was liquidity available to the financial markets, at least for the most part. The cutoffs of liquidity after both QE1 and QE2 led to vacuums in the banking system, and stock prices fell into those vacuums. The question for 2015 is whether Fed actions are going to take away the liquidity punch bowl, and create a problem for the next rally's ability to achieve escape velocity.

     

    We saw this principle of diminished liquidity back in 1998-2000, and again in 2007-08, as highlighted in this historical chart. When the RASI failed to climb back up above +500, it said that there were liquidity problems which ended up keeping the stock market from being able to continue itself higher."

    RASI 1998-2008bb

    "My leading indication from the eurodollar COT data says that we should expect a major top in August 2015, and so there is not all that much time left for the RASI to get back up above +500. An upturn from this oversold condition should be able to produce a marginally higher price high, but if it cannot produce a RASI reading above +500, then we will know that the end has arrived for the bull market."

    Effron: M&A Activity Looks A Lot Like 2007

    In a recent interview on CNBC, Blair Effron, co-founder of Centerview Partners and one of Wall Street's biggest dealmakers, highlighted the similarities between the current M&A environment to that of 2007. 

    Currently, M&A activity is at its highest level since 2007 with global volumes hitting $2.9 Trillion since the beginning of 2015. According to data from Dealogic, that is a surge of 38% as compared to the same period in 2014. 

    Importantly, Effron also notes that the high valuations paid for M&A deals are, in large part, being driven by the current low interest rate environment.

    Of course, with low interest rates, that means the majority of those deals are being funded by debt issuance. via WSJ:

    "According to Dealogic, the Americas accounts for 83% of global acquisition related bonds, with a record $241.7 billion issued so far this year, compared with just $62.6 billion this time last year. In Europe, 38% of all high-yield bond issuance in the first half of the year has been related to M&A activity, according to Credit Suisse."

    MA-DebtFinancing-080615

    That is an interesting point since that is the same argument for high stock valuations, stock buy backs and dividend issuance and the housing market. Given that the vast majority of analysts currently believe interest rates are on the verge of rising, logic would suggest that such will likely be a negative for the bullish mantra. 

    While we have seen this same game play out repeatedly before, this time is surely different…right?

  • Last Daily Show with Jon Stewart Airs Tonight

    Whether you love him or hate him, tonight marks Jon Stewart’s final taping of The Daily Show as he steps down as host – a position he’s held for 16 years. During that time, the show has won 20 Emmy Awards, two Peabody Awards, and Stewart even managed to win a Grammy for himself in 2005 for the recording of his audiobook, America, A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction.

    Despite the fact Stewart has always claimed The Daily Show is just a fake news show, the influence he’s had on politics and the media cannot be denied. 

    In October of 2004, Stewart appeared on CNN’s Crossfire where he heavily criticized the state of journalism and called the show’s hosts, Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, “partisan hacks.” Stewart commented that the show failed to educate and inform its viewers by not taking politics seriously, stating that calling Crossfire a debate show is like “saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition.” In January of 2005, CNN announced the cancelation of Crossfire with CNN’s then-incoming president, Jonathan Klein stating, “I think he [Stewart] made a good point about the noise level of these types of shows, which does nothing to illuminate the issues of the day.”

    Stewart also announced a fake crowdfunding campaign to buy CNN back in July of 2014 after Rupert Murdoch offered $80 billion to buy its parent company, Time Warner. Stewart claimed that for a donation of $5 million, CNN would air a “24-hour, two-week hunt for your lost car keys.” 

    In March of 2009, The Daily Show lambasted CNBC for its shoddy reporting of the financial crisis of 2008. Stewart claimed the network dodged its journalistic duty by merely accepting information from corporations without bothering to investigate further into matters at hand. On March 12, Jim Cramer appeared on The Daily Show where Stewart told him, “I understand you want to make finance entertaining, but it’s not a fucking game. And when I watch that, I get, I can’t tell you how angry that makes me. Because what it says to me is: you all know. You all know what’s going on. You know, you can draw a straight line from those shenanigans to the stuff that was being pulled at Bear, and AIG, and all this derivative market stuff that is this weird Wall Street side bet.” That episode of The Daily Show garnered 2.3 million total viewers, and the next day The Daily Show website saw its highest day of traffic year-to-date.

    Stewart has also been an advocate for veterans and 9/11 first responders. He’s credited with breaking a Senate deadlock over a bill that would offer healthcare for 9/11 first responders, which passed three days after he featured a group of responders on the show. He also criticized a White House proposal to remove veterans with private insurance plans from the Department of Veterans Affairs rolls. The White House dropped the plan the next day.

    South African comedian, Trevor Noah, who has been a regular contributor to The Daily Show since December of 2014, will replace Stewart. He will begin his hosting duties on September 28. On Wednesday it was announced that Stewart’s Daily Show set will be put on display at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. 

    [original]

    EquityNet | The Leading Equity Crowdfunding Platform

  • Dow Dumps Almost 1000 Points From Highs To 6-Month Lows, Crude Carnage Continues

    Seemed appropriate…

    With 121 S&P 500 members now trading more than 20% off their highs…

    No real catalysts today – aside from Hilsenrath talking back Powell's dovishness, a terrible Challenger Jobs data point, moar crude carnage, and all the story stocks and media firms getting Baumgartner'd… Nasdaq was worst, Dow best but still a loser…

     

    The plunge was initially protected by a mysterious bid which failed and then anchored off JPY and WTI Crude…

     

    Desperate to get back to VWAP…

     

    Which left cash ugly on the day…Dow tested to 6mo lows – just short of 1000 points off the highs… Nasdaq worst on the day…

     

    And on the week… Small Caps are the biggest loser…

     

    Russell 2000 briefly went red for 2015

     

    Energy stock dip-buyers were out en masse….

     

    But credit was being dumped…

     

    Even as Energy credit risk is soaring – back near 2015 highs…almost 1000bps!

     

    VIX Soared on the day back above 14… (after an 11 handle just 2 days ago)

     

    Treasury yields tumbled today…leaving 30Y yields lower on the day…

     

    The US Dollar drifted very modestly lower… Cable saw a quick dump on BoE comments this morning….

     

    Commodities were mixed with gold and silver drifting higher and copper lower…

     

    Crude was clubbed again…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

    Bonus Chart: Explain this 'signalling'!!

    h/t Jim A

    Bonus Bonus Chart: You Are Here…

  • TBTF Banks Lowering Down-Payments & Credit Standards To Keep High-End Housing Market Alive

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    What do you do when even wealthy people begin to face an increasingly hard time purchasing a home in a vertical market completely disconnected from income trends? You reduce downpayments and lower credit standards, of course.

    Where have we seen this story before…

    From the Wall Street Journal:

    The nation’s largest bank by assets plans to announce Wednesday that it is lowering the minimum credit score and down payment it requires for mortgages as big as $3 million.

     

    The New York firm’s moves follow similar steps at Bank of AmericaCorp.Wells Fargo & Co. and other banks on requirements for “jumbo” mortgages—those that exceed $417,000 in most parts of the country or $625,500 in pricier markets. At the same time, some big banks are backing away from smaller loans where they see higher regulatory costs and litigation risks.

    Guess it’s gonna be shipping container apartments for everyone else.

     

    Since the financial crisis, a recovery in the mortgage market has faced several challenges, but the jumbo market—popular with well-heeled borrowers—has bounced back along with sales of higher-priced homes. In the second quarter, overall jumbo originations rose to an eight-year high of $93 billion, up 58% from a year ago, according to a preliminary estimate from industry newsletter Inside Mortgage Finance.

     

    By dollar volume, jumbo mortgages given out by lenders last year accounted for about 20% of all first-lien mortgages, used mostly to purchase or refinance a home, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. That is up from 5.5% in 2009. The last time jumbo mortgages accounted for a larger share was in 2005.

    2005…got it.

    For jumbo mortgages, J.P. Morgan plans to lower the minimum FICO credit scores it requires to 680 from 740 for loans on primary single-family purchases, second homes and certain refinances on those properties.

     

    The increase in jumbo lending underscores a housing recovery concentrated in higher-priced homes. Sales of existing single-family homes priced between $750,000 and $1 million, for example, increased 21% in June from a year prior, according to the National Association of Realtors.

     

    Sales of homes priced between $100,000 and $250,000, in contrast, increased 12.5%, while those priced lower fell 3%.

    I don’t call this the oligarch recovery for nothing.

    Rising home values have helped give lenders confidence that lower down payments won’t leave borrowers at risk of owing more on their homes than they will eventually be worth.

     

    J.P. Morgan’s changes, which go into effect Wednesday, will reduce minimum down payments for some borrowers to 15% of the purchase price for single-family homes serving as the borrower’s primary residence, down from 20% currently. That change applies to mortgages between $1.5 million and $3 million; the bank last year made the same change for jumbo mortgages up to $1.5 million.

     

    The bank also is lowering down-payment thresholds for jumbo mortgages used for second homes, such as vacation homes, and certain two- to four-unit properties. The bank says the changes simplify its offerings.

     

    Several large banks have recently lowered their jumbo-mortgage requirements. Wells Fargo last year cut the minimum down payment it requires to 10.1% from 15% for jumbo mortgages of up to $1 million.

     

    In June, Bank of America began allowing first-time home buyers, which it defines as people who haven’t owned a home for at least three years, to make 15% down payments for jumbo mortgages of up to $1 million. The bank previously excluded this group of buyers from its 15% down-payment option, which it rolled out in 2013.

    Gotta love these banks. They just make shit up. Somehow “not owning a home for three years” = first time homeowner. Aren’t you glad we bailed them out?

  • Analysts Give Up On "Man-Made" China Data: It's "A Fantasy" That "No One Believes"

    When China reported that its economy grew 7% in Q2 – spot-on Beijing’s target – virtually no one believed it.

    The veracity of the country’s economic data has long been the subject of debate and when FT called out the country’s National Bureau of Statistics for employing what we called “deficient deflator math” on the way to understating inflation and overstating output, China’s statistics bureau responded, saying that although there was “room for improvement,” the deflator wasn’t underestimated, GDP growth wasn’t overstated, and “both reflect the real situation.” 

    One could certainly be forgiven for insisting that the NBS is simply lying, because after all, the “real situation” looks like this:

    Charts: A. Gary Shilling’s Insight

    Given the above, it should come as no surprise that some analysts believe the actual rate of growth in China is closer to zero than it is to 7%. Here’s Reuters:

    China’s economy is growing only half as fast as official data shows, or maybe even slower, according to foreign investors and analysts who increasingly challenge how the world’s second largest economy can be measured so swiftly and precisely.

     

    But perhaps the biggest question is how a developing country of 1.4 billion people can publish its quarterly gross domestic product (GDP) statistics weeks before first drafts from developed economies like the United States, the euro zone or Britain, and then barely revise them later.

     

    “We think the numbers are fantasy,” said Erik Britton of Fathom Consulting, a London-based independent research firm and one of the more vocal critics of official Chinese data. “There is no way those numbers are even close to the truth.”

     

    The uncanny official calm in China GDP data may well be contributing to sceptics’ exit from Chinese assets just as the authorities struggle to manage a volatile stock market.

     

    Fathom, which decided last year to stop publishing forecasts of the official GDP release and instead publish what it thinks is really happening, reckons growth will be 2.8 percent this year, slowing to just 1.0 percent next year.

     

    Li Keqiang, now Chinese Premier, was cited in leaked U.S. diplomatic cables years ago from when he was Communist Party head in Liaoning province calling GDP figures “man-made” and unreliable. This remains a buttress for widespread scepticism.

     



    Fathom publishes a simple indicator based on three variables that Li said at the time he watched for a better view of how his local economy, and by extension the national one, was faring: electricity consumption, rail cargo volume, and bank lending.


    That implies a growth rate of 3.2 percent, and shows a significant decoupling from the official rate since late 2013 based on a plunge in rail freight volumes and below-trend growth in electricity production.


    “Clearly nobody believes the data,” said Sushil Wadhwani, a former Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee member and founder of Wadhwani Asset Management LLP.


    Wadhwani says he also looks at various proxies of China’s growth rate, which he deems are “pretty unreliable” as well and which suggest anywhere from 1.5 percent to about 5 percent growth.


     

    “I truly don’t know where we are in that range”, he said.

    Neither do we, but we suspect it’s closer to the low end and indeed, if the 35% rise in NPLs cited last week by Shang Fulin, chairman of China Banking Regulatory Commission, is any indication, things are getting a lot worse under the hood as the slumping economy causes loans to the manufacturing sector to sour at an unprecedented rate. 

Digest powered by RSS Digest