Today’s News December 12, 2015

  • Trump's Cunning Plan Revealed

    Donald Trump – Bigot, zealot, xenophobe, racist, hitler-ite? Or Donald Trump – cunning strategist who knows Americans better than the "leave us alone up here on our Hill" career politicians and their lackey liberal media partners?

    You decide…

    As YouGov reports, a majority of Americans say that they view Islam unfavorably, and even Democrats are almost twice as likely to view Islam negatively than positively.

    One week ago the United States saw the deadliest terrorist attack it has seen since 9/11, after 14 people were killed in San Bernadino by Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik. In the wake of the attack Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump took his most aggressively anti-Muslim stance so far by calling for Muslims to be barred from entry into the United States. Though the United States has millions of Muslims, anti-Muslim sentiment has become increasingly common in public discourse.

     

    YouGov/HuffPost's latest research shows that most Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Islam. 58% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Islam, and just over a third (35%) say that they have a 'very unfavorable' opinion of the religion. Only 17% of Americans view it positively. Democrats (27%) are the most likely to have a favorable opinion of Islam, but even they tend to say that they view Islam negatively. Among independents (58%) and Republicans (75%) most people have a negative view of Islam. 

     

    Americans dislike Islam

     

    Under-30s (45%) are the least likely to have unfavorable opinions of Islam, but 65% of over-65s view Islam unfavorably.

    So, is Trump merely reflective of the real American "values"?

    Finally, here is Patrick Buchanan, of Buchanan.org, explaining the odd hypocrisy in the establishment's unhinged response to Trumps' call:

    Calling for a moratorium on Muslim immigration “until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on,” Donald Trump this week ignited a firestorm of historic proportions.

     

    As all the old hate words — xenophobe, racist, bigot — have lost their electric charge from overuse, and Trump was being called a fascist demagogue and compared to Hitler and Mussolini.

     

    The establishment seemed to have become unhinged.

     

    Why the hysteria? Comes the reply: Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration tramples all over “American values” and everything we stand for, including the Constitution.

     

    But is this really true?

     

    The Constitution protects freedom of religion for U.S. citizens. But citizens of foreign lands have no constitutional right to migrate. And federal law gives a president broad powers in deciding who comes and who does not, especially in wartime.

     

    In 1924, Congress restricted immigration from Asia, reduced the numbers coming from southern and Central Europe, and produced a 40-year moratorium on most immigration into the United States.

     

    Its authors and President Coolidge wanted ours to remain a nation whose primary religious and ethnic ties were to Europe, not Africa or Asia.

     

    Under FDR, Truman and JFK, this was the law of the land.

     

    Did this represent 40 years of fascism?

     

    Why might Trump want a moratorium on Muslim immigration?

    • Reason one: terrorism. The 9/11 terrorists were Muslim, as were the shoe and underwear bombers on those planes, the Fort Hood shooter, the Times Square bomber and the San Bernardino killers. And as San Bernardino showed again, Islamist terrorists are exploiting our liberal immigration policies to come here and kill us. Thus, a pause, a timeout on immigration from Muslim countries, until we fix the problem, would seem to be simple common sense.
    • Second, Muslims are clearly more susceptible to the siren call of terrorism, and more likely to be radicalized on the Internet and in mosques than are Christians at church or Jews at synagogue. Which is why we monitor mosques more closely than cathedrals.
    • Third, according to Harvard’s late Samuel Huntington, a “clash of civilizations” is coming between the West and the Islamic world. Other scholars somberly concur. But if such a conflict is in the cards, how many more millions of devout Muslims do we want inside the gates?

    Set aside al-Qaida, ISIS and their sympathizers. Among the 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide are untold millions of followers of the Prophet who pray for the coming of a day when sharia is universal and the infidels, i.e., everyone else, are either converted or subjugated.

     

    In nations where Muslims are already huge majorities, where are the Jews? Where have all the Christians gone?

     

    With ethnic and sectarian wars raging in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria and Somalia, why would we bring into our own country people from all sides of these murderous conflicts?

     

    Many European nations — Germans, French, Swedes, Brits — appear to regret having thrown open their doors to immigrants and refugees from the Islamic world, who have now formed unassimilated clusters and enclaves inside their countries.

     

    Ought we not explore why, before we continue down this road?

     

    In some countries of the Muslim world, Americans who embrace “Hollywood values” regarding abortion, adultery and homosexuality, can get their heads chopped off as quickly as converts to Christianity.

     

    In what Muslim countries does Earl Warren’s interpretation of the First Amendment — about any and all religious presence being banned in public schools and all religions being treated equally — apply?

     

    When is the next “Crusade for Christ” coming to Saudi Arabia?

     

    Japan has no immigration from the Muslim world, nor does Israel, which declares itself a Jewish state. Are they also fascistic?

     

    President Obama and the guilt-besotted West often bawl their apologies for the horrors of the Crusades that liberated Jerusalem.

     

    Anyone heard Muslim rulers lately apologizing for Saladin, who butchered Christians to take Jerusalem back, or for Suleiman the Magnificent, who conquered the Christian Balkans rampaging through Hungary all the way to the gates of Vienna?

     

    Trump’s surge this week, in the teeth of universal denunciation, suggests that a large slice of America agrees with his indictment — that our political-media establishment is dumb as a box of rocks and leading us down a path to national suicide.

     

    Trump’s success tells us that the American people really do not celebrate “globalization.” They think our negotiators got snookered out of the most magnificent industrial machine ever built, which once guaranteed our workers the highest standard of living on earth.

     

    They don’t want open borders or mass immigration. They want people here illegally to be sent back, the borders secured, and a moratorium imposed on Muslim immigration until we fix the broken system.

     

    As for the establishment, they are saying pretty much what The Donald is saying. To paraphrase Oliver Cromwell’s speech to the Rump Parliament: You have sat here too long for any good you have done here. In the name of God, go!

    *  *  *

    And if you still need further proof.. here are the numbers…

  • Visualizing The World's "Hot" Money

    Every year, roughly $1 trillion flows illegally out of developing and emerging economies due to crime, corruption, and tax evasion. This amount is more than these countries receive in foreign direct investment and foreign aid combined.

    This week, a new report was released that highlights the latest data available on this “hot” money. Assembled by Global Financial Integrity, a research and advisory organization based in Washington, DC, the report details illicit financial flows of money from developing countries using the latest information available, which is up until the end of 2013.

     

    Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

     

    The cumulative amount of this “hot money” coming out of developing countries totaled just over $7.8 trillion between 2004 and 2013. On an annual basis, it breached the $1 trillion mark each of the last three years of data available, which is good for a growth rate of 6.5% rate annually.

    In Asia, illicit financial outflows are growing even quicker at an 8.6% clip. It’s also on the continent that five of the ten largest source economies for these flows can be found, including the largest offender, which is Mainland China.

    How does this “hot” money leave these countries? Global Financial Integrity has calculated that 83% of illicit financial flows are due to what it calls “trade misinvoicing”.

    It’s defined as the following:

    The misinvoicing of trade is accomplished by misstating the value or volume of an export or import on a customs invoice. Trade misinvoicing is a form of trade-based money laundering made possible by the fact that trading partners write their own trade documents, or arrange to have the documents prepared in a third country (typically a tax haven), a method known as re-invoicing. Fraudulent manipulation of the price, quantity, or quality of a good or service on an invoice allows criminals, corrupt government officials, and commercial tax evaders to shift vast amounts of money across international borders quickly, easily, and nearly always undetected.

    Trade misinvoicing accounted for an average of $654.7 billion per year of lost trade in developing markets over the data set covered by the report.

    Source: Visual Capitalist

  • White House Unable To Explain How Gun Control Will Stop Mass Shootings

    Authored by Steve Watson, originally posted at PrisonPlanet.com,

    The White House cannot name one single shooting incident that would have been prevented by gun control legislation.

    As President Obama prepares executive action to pass further gun control legislation, one errant reporter asked the White House press secretary exactly how such proposals would have prevented any recent mass shootings.

    Josh Earnest couldn’t directly answer the question and floundered around repeating the same talking points over and over again.

    Reporter Byron Tau referred to a statement made by Sen. Marco Rubio that no mass shootings in recent memory would have been prevented by gun legislation, which even the Washington Post fact-checked as true.

    “If not a single recent mass shooting would have been stopped by the kind of gun control measures you champion, are those the right approach to this problem?” Tau asked.

     

    “Well, Byron, I think we’ve been pretty direct and upfront,” replied Earnest, not being very direct and upfront.

     

    “…there is no piece of legislation that Congress can pass that would prevent every single act of gun violence,” Earnest added, avoiding the question.

     

    “I think the case that we have made is one that rests primarily on our concern about national security and our careful consideration of common sense.” he stated, again avoiding the question entirely.

     

    Earnest then diverted the talking point to the terrorist no-fly-list, prompting Tau to follow up, “Were any of the recent mass shooters on the ‘no-fly’ list?”

     

    “Not that I’m aware of,” Earnest admitted. “You’ll probably have to ask the director of national intelligence to confirm that.”

     

    The reporter stuck to the central issue at hand – that gun control legislation is not a fix for mass shootings.

     

    “Can the White House point to a recent mass shooting that would have been stopped by a expanded assault weapons ban or stricter background checks?” Tau asked.

     

    “The evidence seems to be that in all these recent mass shootings, these folks either passed background checks or were very determined to circumvent the strict gun laws that are already on the books.” the reporter added.

    Indeed, The shooters at Virginia Tech, the Aurora Colorado movie theater, Fort Hood, Isla Vista, the Washington Navy Yard, the attempted mass killing at Arapahoe High School ALL passed background checks.

    The shooter at Washington Navy Yard even managed to buy his firearm after the background check system was supposedly strengthened following the incident at Virgina Tech.

    The BATF has also determined that Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the two shooters in San Bernardino, also legally purchased two of the weapons at a gun shop in Corona.

    The reporter pressed Earnest, asking “Can you point to any that would have been prevented or stopped by the kind of proposals the White House is championing?”

    Earnest again repeated the “common sense” talking point without addressing the actual question and threw in a smattering of empty “national security” rhetoric.

    Last week when addressing the same line of questioning, Earnest admitted that further gun control legislation would not have prevented the San Bernardino shooting, and that it is purely “hypothetical” that terrorist incidents could be prevented with such new laws.

    While the Obama administration is seemingly hell bent on going after stricter gun control, research from Pew Research Center, the FBI, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reveals that gun violence in the US is actually on the decline, and is at its lowest since the 1960s.

    In addition, gun crime, despite an exponential increase in privately owned firearms over the same period, has steadily declined for about 20 years, except for high-profile shootings in gun-free zones.

  • Bitcoin Breaks Out Higher After China Announces Crackdown On UnionPay POS Devices

    When we first detailed the link between a devaluing currency, increasing restrictions on outflows of China capital, and Bitcoin, the virtual currency soared (driven by Chinese flows, just as predicted). The last few days, as China has once again started devaluing its currency, authorities once again moved to tighten capital outflowsthis time through caps on credit-card withdrawals (as warned here) – and sure enough, Bitcoin has been soaring recently. Specifically, a nationwide crackdown on illegal UnionPay point-of-sale devices, has sparked capital flight (on heavy volume) through the vurtual currrency.

    Having previously documented Beijing’s mad dash to tighten up capital controls in China in order to stem outflows in the wake of the PBoC’s move to transition towards a new FX regime; increasing expectations that a (much) deeper devaluation is on the horizon (blessed by The IMF) coupled with China’s efforts to manage the fallout from those expectations by liquidating hundreds of billions in FX reserves to support the onshore and offshore spots have understandably put authorities on edge, leading directly to efforts to stop the bleeding.

    As we put it a few weeks ago, “while China may succeed in maintaining an orderly pace of FX depreciation, if the local population is concerned it will lose substantial purchasing power in the coming months and years, it will accelerate the capital flight from the country, forcing even greater reserve liquidation as the government finds itself defending not only the capital but also the current account, not to mention the sheer capital flight panic resulting from the crashing stock market.”

    However, as we detailed here, one of the more straightforward ways of circumventing China’s official capital controls has been by “abusing” UnionPay cards. Roughly speaking, the process works like this (via Reuters):

    Growing numbers of Chinese are using the country's state-backed bankcards to illegally spirit billions of dollars abroad, a Reuters examination has found.

     

    This underground money is flowing across the border into the gambling hub of Macau, a former Portuguese colony that like Hong Kong is an autonomous region of China. And the conduit for the cash is the Chinese government-supported payment card network, China UnionPay.

     

    In a warren of gritty streets around Macau's ritzy casino resorts, hundreds of neon-lit jewellery, watch and pawn shops are doing a brisk business giving mainland Chinese customers cash by allowing them to use UnionPay cards to make fake purchases – a way of evading China's strict currency-export controls.

     

    On a recent day at the Choi Seng Jewellery and Watches company, a middle-aged woman strode to the counter past dusty shelves of watches. She handed the clerk her UnionPay card and received HK$300,000 ($50,000) in cash. She signed a credit card receipt describing the transaction as a "general sale", stuffed the cash into her handbag and strolled over to the Ponte 16 casino next door.

     

    The withdrawal far exceeded the daily limit of 20,000 yuan, or $3,200, in cash that individual Chinese can legally move out of the mainland. "Don't worry," said a store clerk when asked about the legality of the transaction. "Everyone does this."

    Yes, “everyone does this,” but not for long because now that the yuan deval debacle has served to accelerate the capital outflows, Beijing is set to double down on efforts to curb the degree to which capital controls are openly subverted and as WSJ reported, China “put a new annual cap on overseas cash withdrawals using UnionPay.”

    Which leads us to the past week, where, as Bloomberg reports, China is now cracking down on illegal use and manipulation of UnionPay point-of-sale devices to cirumvent the limits…

    A nationwide crackdown targets use of illegal UnionPay “point of service” devices used by retailers which have been altered to mask cash transactions to circumvent China’s strict currency control, South China Morning Post reports, citing a UnionPay internal memo.

     

    Illegal use involves customers purchase goods, only to return them to retailer and receive cash, minus retailer’s commission: report

     

    New measures require mobile POS transaction devices across China to be properly registered.

    We note this is a mainland version of the previous 'tricks' that the ultra-wealthy used in Macau and these newly reported UnionPay measures may prompt greater scrutiny on Macau pawnshop business model in which cash transactions are recorded as goods purchases, analysts led by Vitaly Umansky write in Dec. 10 note. Use of illegal POS devices in Macau pawnshops, and on some casino floors, have occurred in the past, but represent only "a minuscule fraction" of dealings in Macau’s pawnshops.

    Will this help to reverse the momentum? No, probably not. 

    The problem here – and this is something that quite a few people are still struggling to understand – is that Beijing has telegraphed a much larger devaluation, which means the pressure on the yuan will likely continue.

    So yes, as difficult as this is to come to terms with, this is a scenario where China played the deval card and is looking to ever-so-gradually move from a 3% deval to an export-boosting double-digit deval, but in the meantime, Beijing must manage the pace, which means supporting the yuan via direct interventions. But the last week it appears that The IMF's decision to include the Yuan in the SDR basket has green lit another round of devaluation…

    *  *  *

    And the result is obvious, virtual currencies are surging once again as the Chinese find another route to get their savings out of the country…

     

    It appears the moves are becoming increasingly aggressive among those wishing to get their capital out, as we detailed here, it is starting to directly correlate with Yuan movements

     

    And most clearly on increasingly heavy volume… Notice the surge in October and again now as capital controls increase once again…

    So, evidently, the last week or two suggest, perhaps more importantly, that China easing (and outflows implict from further devaluation) now appears to go straight to Bitcoin.
    As Overstock's Chairman noted previously: gold is great, but tough to transport; thus, forcing Chinese into Bitcoin as we previously explained:

    As we concluded previously, while China is doing everything in its power to not give the impression that it is panicking, the truth is that it is one viral capital outflow report away from an outright scramble to enforce the most draconian capital controls in its history, which – as every Cypriot and Greek knows by now – is a self-defeating exercise and assures an ever accelerating decline in the currency, which authorities are trying to both keep stable while also devaluing at a pace of their choosing. Said pace never quite works out.

     

    So what happens then: well, China's propensity for gold is well-known. We would not be surprised to see a surge of gold imports into China, only instead of going to the traditional Commodity Financing Deals we have written extensively about before, where gold is merely a commodity used to fund domestic carry trades, it ends up in domestic households.

     

    However, while gold has historically been the best store of value in history and has outlasted every currency known to man, it is problematic when it comes to transferring funds in and out of a nation – it tends to show up quite distinctly on X-rays.

     

    Which is why we would not be surprised to see another push higher in the value of bitcoin: it was earlier this summer when the digital currency, which can bypass capital controls and national borders with the click of a button, surged on Grexit concerns and fears a Drachma return would crush the savings of an entire nation. Since then, BTC has dropped (in no small part as a result of the previously documented "forking" with Bitcoin XT), however if a few hundred million Chinese decide that the time has come to use bitcoin as the capital controls bypassing currency of choice, and decide to invest even a tiny fraction of the $22 trillion in Chinese deposits in bitcoin (whose total market cap at last check was just over $3 billion), sit back and watch as we witness the second coming of the bitcoin bubble, one which could make the previous all time highs in the digital currency, seems like a low print.

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Kinder Morgan – Poster Boy For Bubble Finance

    Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

    The graph below belongs in the “what were they thinking category”.

    After Tuesday’s dividend massacre, it’s plain as day that Kinder Morgan (KMI) wasn’t the greatest thing since slice bread after all. That is, a “growth” business paying rich dividends out of rock solid profit margins and flourishing cash flow.

    In fact, it was just a momo stock on a borrowing spree.

    During the 27 quarters since the beginning of 2009, the consolidated entities which comprise KMI generated $20.8 billion of operating cash flow, but spent $24.3 billion on CapEx and acquisitions.

    So the “growth” side of the house ended-up in the red by $3.5 billion. Presumably that’s because it was “investing” for long haul value gains.

    But wait. It also had to finance those juicy dividends, and there was a reassuring answer for that, too. The payout was held to be ultra safe owing to KMI’s business model as strictly a toll gate operator in the oil and gas midstream, harvesting risk-free fees from gathering systems, transportation pipelines and gas processing plants.

    Accordingly, even when its stock price was riding high north of $40 per share, the yield was 5%. So over the last 27 quarters KMI paid out $17.3 billion in dividends from cash it didn’t have.

    It borrowed the difference, of course, swelling its net debt load from $14 billion at the end of 2009 to $44 billion at present. And that’s exactly the modus operandi of our entire present regime of Bubble Finance.

    Kinder Morgan is the poster boy.

    KMI Chart

    KMI data by YCharts

    Yes, you can chalk this off to another “lesson learned” in the Wall Street casino. After all, some definable group of investors and speculators thought they owned $98 billion of market cap a few months ago, and now their accounts are suddenly $60 billion lighter—–including about $7 billion of bottled air that evaporated from the net worth of its founder and indefatigable promoter, Richard Kinder.

    But in the alternative, perhaps its time to recognize that healthy, properly functioning free markets do not make egregious $60 billion “mistakes”  such as this one over and over. What surely led to the insane peak valuation of KMI is the relentless scramble for yield that has been triggered by 84 months of ZIRP and endless coddling of the stock market by the Fed and other central banks.

    The fact is, during the last 31 quarter (i.e. since Q1 2008) KMI has posted the grand total of $900 million in cumulative net income. This means that at its peak April valuation it was trading a 100X the totality of what it had earned during nearly an entire decade; and that during that period it paid out 17 times more in dividends than it earned.

    That’s right. The Wall Street gamblers and punters had followed the pied piper of Houston right out of Enron, and into an even greater bubble predicated on the same old scam.

    Indeed, KMI is a pipeline company just like Enron. It’s original building block, Enron Liquids Pipeline, was purchased by Richard Kinder and his partner for $40 million back in the late 1990s.

    Yet it had no more chance of being worth $100 billion than Enron had of being worth $60 billion before its implosion. It didn’t even have the razz mataz of a fiber optics trading business or a franchise to bring power and light to impoverished villages of India.

    The apologists are want to argue, of course, that net income doesn’t mean anything when it comes to valuation. Perhaps we should therefore dispense with the several billions spent annually by the SEC, DOJ and sundry state attorneys general hauling business executives to court and jail for violating GAAP.

    On the other hand, there is a reason why GAAP accounting statements require that asset write-offs, goodwill impairments, restructuring charges and stock option costs be charged to net income. At one point or another every one of these charges involved the waste of cash or other corporate assets.

    They are not merely “non-recurring” expenses. They always and everywhere generate a recurring loss of value because these charges reflect a business mistake or the impact of Mr. Market’s penchant for “creative destruction”.

    Even then, clamber on board with the LBO boys and consider the LTM results for KMI on a so-called cash flow basis. During the year ended September, it posted $5.89 billion of EBITDA and spent $3.9 billion on CapEx and $1 billion on acquisitions. So its free cash flow was a round $1 billion.

    Let’s see. At its April stock market peak, Kinder Morgan’s total unlevered enterprise value (TEV) was $140 billion. So the casino was valuing the company at 24X EBITDA, 70X EBITDA less CapEx and 140X free cash flow! 

    If you have another pipeline company in Houston, I’ve got some swampland in Florida that I will swap for it.

    If not, at least believe this. Two decades of Wall Street coddling by the Fed and 84 months of free carry trade money means that the casino is riddled with momo plays and debt-fueled scams like Kinder Morgan.

    Now would be an excellent time to get out of harm’s way – as any sensible KMI shareholder would have done long before Bloody Tuesday.

  • Bank of America: "Sadly, It Took World War II…"

    One week ago, we explained what happened to both the US economy and the stock market the last time the Fed tightened financial conditions back in 1936 when it, like now, erroneously thought the economy was strong enough to sustain it:

    The Fed exit strategy completely failed as the money supply immediately contracted; Fed tightening in H1’37 was followed in H2’37 by a severe recession and a 49% collapse in the Dow Jones.”

    This is what it looked like courtesy of BofA strategist Michael Hartnett:

    We concluded with the following:

    As can be seen on the above, in 1938, the stock market began to recover some. However, despite the easing stocks didn’t fully regain their 1937 highs until the end of the war nearly a decade later.

     

    It needed a world war for that.

    Alas, the sad reality that a war is what will be needed to get out of the ridiculous broken market/record debt state the world finds itself in due to the unprecedented central bank intervention over the past 7 years to make the rich richer, is spreading.

    Today we read from none other than the same Bank of America strategist who points out that while the Fed’s next step may well be the opposite of success, i.e., quantitative failure, the resulting shock to the system will have to endure the same type of catharsis, as what “saved” the US financial system from the first Great Depression.

    To wit:

    The rotation from growth to value, DM to EM and so on, could occur in a bad way, following a potential Quantitative Failure.

     

    The clash between a tightening Fed, QE in Europe & Japan, and potential devaluations in China & Saudi Arabia mean 2016 “tail risks” are high in our view. BofAML forecasts a 10% devaluation of the Chinese renminbi in 2016, and regards a de-pegging of the Saudi riyal as a potential “black swan”. Like a game of Jenga, a bull market built by central banks can collapse if further BoJ/ECB QE and Fed hikes engender US dollar spikes and EM/commodity swoons, FX-wars and volatility. 1937, 1987 & 1994 were all years of “policy divergence” and all years of market crashes.

     

    If deflation intensifies, causing bear markets and recessions, investors should ultimately anticipate a major policy shift in 2016…in US/EU/Japan from QE to fiscal stimulus. A flip to fiscal stimulus is the most likely catalyst for a Great Rotation out of “deflation plays” into “inflation plays”, undoubtedly the biggest investment decision of 2016. Sadly it took the New Deal and WW2 to end the dominance of “growth” over “value” in the 1930s.

    What Mr. Hartnett failed to mention, is that in addition to forcing the rotation out of “growth” and into “value” stocks – hardly the most important consequence of, well, a global war – it also took World War 2 to pull the US out of the Second Great Depression.

    Which may also explain why currently in the Syria proxy war there already are US, British, French, German, Saudi, Turkish, Russian, Iranian (and shortly Chinese) forces in the air and on the ground. Because if the $200 trillion in global debt will not inflate itself on its own, it may just need the “push” of a few million tons of TNT to get it rolling.

  • BRaCe YouRSeLVeS…

    BRACE YOURSELVES

  • 3 Signs We've Reached 'The Top' In The Financial System

    Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

    It was 1720, and Paris was completely mad.

    The city’s brand new stock exchange, located at the ultra-swanky Hotel de Soissons, swarmed with citizens of all stripes looking to get rich.

    Stocks were still a novel concept back then, and the allure of getting rich overnight was so appealing that people lined up for hours to buy shares.

    The most popular was the ill-fated Mississippi Company, whose share price frequently rose up to 20% in the course of a single morning.

    It was said fortunes changed so quickly that people often woke up poor and went to bed rich.

    Newfound wealth was visible everywhere. Luxury home construction boomed. Lucky speculators erected statues of themselves. The jewelry market surged.

    Of course, it didn’t last. Within a few years, the market crashed, and the Mississippi Company went down in history as one of the greatest bubbles of all times.

    Looking back it should have been obvious.

    In fact, all great financial bubbles often have watershed moments that in many ways signify the height of lunacy.

    Joseph Kennedy, for example, famously sold all of his stocks right before the great crash in 1929 after a shoeshine boy started giving him investment advice.

    Pets.com, a symbol of the 1990s tech bubble, IPO’d just two years after it was founded with a $300 million market capitalization.

    They were so flush with capital that they spent $2 million on a tacky Superbowl ad, only to go bust 268 days later.

    Duh. It’s so obvious looking back.

    I’ve long believed our entire financial system is in a similar position.

    Western banking systems are dangerously illiquid and in many cases undercapitalized.

    Meanwhile the central banks and governments meant to support them are nearly insolvent and bankrupt themselves.

    There are a lot of flashing warning signs right now that the system is quickly running out of steam.

    China’s vast, multi-trillion dollar stockpile of foreign reserves is dropping rapidly, down by $87 billion in November, the third highest decline on record.

    A whopping $1.2 trillion worth of corporate bonds in the United States has just been downgraded by rating agencies.

    Median home prices in over a third of major American cities have once again surpassed all-time highs from the last bubble.

    US government debt is at an all-time high after rising an astounding $674 billion just in the month of November.

    It’s pretty clear there’s an incredible amount of risk in the system.

    And in the future when we look back and say, “It should have been so obvious,” here are a few events that may become famous watershed moments:

    1) The $75 billion loan

     

    AB InBev just secured an astonishing $75 BILLION loan to buy rival SABMiller.

     

    This is the biggest commercial loan in the history of the world, roughly equivalent to the GDP of Azerbaijan.

     

    It’s incredible that anyone is able to borrow an amount like this, let alone at the low rate of just 1.1% above LIBOR.

     

    It’s not a stretch to think that we may look back at this and say, ‘that was the top… what an obvious example of how much money central bankers have printed.’

     

    2) The junk bond collapse

     

    Back in 2013, the yield on ‘high yield corporate bonds’ aka junk bonds dipped below 5% for the first time in history.

     

    It shouldn’t have taken a rocket scientist to figure out how absurd that was, but now that the trend is reversing and the junk bond market is stalling investors are losing their shirts.

     

    One hedge fund that had invested heavily in junk bonds just suspended redemptions for its investors, something only really done in times of crisis.

     

    This could be the historical watershed moment that signals the beginning of the end of our massive financial bubble.

     

    3) The POPPY Loan [my favorite]

     

    San Francisco Federal Credit Union wants to help its customers buy unaffordable homes in the astonishingly overpriced region of northern California.

     

    So they just rolled out a new loan program called the Proud Ownership Purchase Program for You, or POPPY for short.

     

    POPPY loans allow customers to borrow up to $2 MILLION with absolutely no money down.

     

    And no, I am not making this up.

     

    $0 down. $2 million. At 4% interest.

     

    Oh, and you don’t have to take out private mortgage insurance (PMI) either.

     

    If you’re not familiar, PMI is something that banks typically require when borrowers don’t contribute a sufficient down payment; it insures the bank against loss in case the borrower defaults.

     

    So here the bank is taking 100% of the financial risk lending against property in an overpriced market that’s near its all-time high.

     

    And they’re doing it with your money.

     

    This is a story so familiar it’s as if they ripped it from the playbook of the 2006 housing bubble.

     

    We know what happened. We know how that bubble ended.

    Central banks have printed so many trillions of dollars that there’s hardly anything that makes sense in the financial system anymore.

    This is not a consequence-free environment… it’s time to find safety.

    Gold and silver are traditionally great hedges against systemic risk.

    Physical cash, as we’ll discuss next week, may also be a good option. Especially given that there’s minimal downside in doing so.

    Private equity investments in productive, undervalued companies are also traditionally safe bets in both good times and bad.

    Most of all, don’t ignore the risks or assume everything’s going to be OK because our politicians and central bankers are so smart that they can solve anything.

    They’re not.

    And they’ve obviously missed the message that 2006 called: he wants his bubble back.

  • What Drives Gun Sales In America

    Several days after releasing a historic front-page Op-Ed calling for gun control in the aftermath of the San Bernardino shooting, the NYT decided to actually do the analysis to find out just what it is that drives gun sales.

    In an article title “What Drives Gun Sales“, the NYT tries to spread the blame around, accusing everything from loose restrictions, to higher handgun sales, to hurricanes, but the real reason is a simple one. It begins with the letter O, ends in bama, and has made the crusade for gun control one of the core prerogatives of its presidency, as the following chart from the NYT itself shows.

     

    Which, incidentally, is what we showed just a few days ago:

     

    So in case Smith & Wesson, whose stock just hit an all time high today, wants to thank someone, just thank the top gun salesman of the century.

  • "Inconvenient Truth" Chart Of The Day

    Submitted by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

    The three quotes below sum up my views on the chart below. 

    “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” – Aldous Huxley

     

    “That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.” – Aldous Huxley

     

    “Sooner or later we all sit down to a banquet of consequences” – Robert Louis Stevenson

     

     

    The stock market is the most overvalued in history.

    You’ve been warned.

  • Is This What Happens On Monday?

    Four months ago, China decided to devalue the Yuan sending a shudder up and down collateral chains globally and forcing carry trade unwinds and derisking everywhere. Friday August 21st saw notable weakness as that weakness washed ashore in US equities.. and then Black Monday struck. The ensuing debacle stalled The Fed and shocked markets.

    The last week, we have seen China devalue the Yuan very significantly, EM capital markets turmoiling, and today, that was ashore in US equities… what happens next?

    Deja vu?

     

    Deja vu?

     

    As a reminder, JPMorgan’s “seer” Marko Kolanovic warned this week that…

    As for near-term risks—we believe the most imminent market catalyst will be the December Fed meeting in which we are likely to see the first rate hike of the cycle.

    But to a market which has traded mostly on technicals and program buying (and selling) in recent months, there is something far more troubling than just what the Fed will announce:

    This important event falls at a peculiar time—less than 48 hours before the largest option expiry in many years. There are $1.1 trillion of S&P 500 options expiring on Friday morning. $670Bn of these are puts, of which $215Bn are struck relatively close below the market level, between 1900 and 2050. Clients are net long these puts and will likely hold onto them through the event and until expiry. At the time of the Fed announcement, these put options will essentially look like a massive stop loss order under the market.

    What does this mean? Considering that the bulk of the puts have been layered by the program traders themselves, including CTA trend-followers, and since the vol surface of the market will be well-known to everyone in advance, there is a very high probability the implied “stop loss” level will be triggered, and the market could trade to a level equivalent to the strike price, somewhere in the 1,800 area, or nearly 200 points below current levels.

    Which would be a tragedy for the Fed: after all, nothing is more important to Yellen, Draghi et al, than affirmative market signaling – pointing to the (surging) market’s reaction and saying “look, we did the right thing”, just as Draghi did on Friday when he explicitly talked the market higher in the aftermath of the ECB’s disastrous announcement.

    The irony will be if, regardless of what the Fed does, the subsequent move is driven not by the market’s read through of monetary policy but by the “pin” in this massive $1.1 trillion option expiry, the biggest in many years, one which if recent market action is an indicator, suggests the stop loss strike level will be taken out in the process setting the “psychological” stage for market participants who will look at the drop in the market, and equate it with a vote of no confidence in what the Fed is doing, potentially forcing the Fed to backtrack in less than 2 days!

    Whether this happens remains to be seen, and we are confident the Fed’s “arm’s length” market-moving JV partner, Citadel, is currently scrambling to prevent any imminent selloff. However, considering Kolanovic’ track record of hinting at key risk inflection risk, it is quite likely that whatever the ultimate closing price on December 16 and, more importantly, December 18, volatility may very soon have an “August 24” type event.

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Why Liberals Oppose a Gun Ban for People On Terror Watchlist

    Everyone agrees – other than ISIS and a handful of crazies – that we have to stop the epidemic of mass shootings  (mass shootings have skyrocketed under Obama; 5 of the 12 deadliest mass shootings in history took place during Obama’s first term alone).

    President Obama plans to introduce – through executive action – a gun ban on those on no-fly lists.   So does the governor of Connecticut.

    Sound like a no-brainer … stopping terrorists from having guns?

    But as Daily Beast points out, in an article called “My Fellow LIBERALS, DON’T Support Obama’s Terror Watch List Gun Ban“:

    As Americans we understand well how important due process is. No one, for instance, should be thrown in jail just on the say-so of some government official who declares they deserve it. Such is the behavior of tyrants, the Founding Fathers understood, and so we enshrined in our Constitution the right to counsel, the right against being compelled to testify against oneself, the right to trial by jury, etc.All of these rights are checks to ensure the government can’t simply pluck innocent people out of their lives and strip them of their life, liberty, or property. Only after fairly testing the charges against them can the government punish people with such deprivation.

     

    But none of these hurdles must be overcome for the government to put someone on a list, especially not a list like this, which is a watch list. It is a list of people that for whatever reason (a reason that no one outside the government knows) the government has decided deserve closer scrutiny of their actions.

     

    Is the government right to be concerned about these people? Maybe yes, but maybe not, and there is no way for ordinary citizens to know. Which means there is also no way for ordinary citizens to know whether any of them, even people who in no way intend to commit acts of terrorism, are also on that list.

     

    In other words, there is no way to know whether you are on that list. Nor is there any way to know how to get off it.

     

    That there is any list at all should give us all pause. It has not historically been the hallmark of a healthy democracy when governments have kept lists of people they didn’t like. It is hard to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people when the government keeps track of the people, including those dissidents who would challenge it (which is something that in a democracy they are allowed, and even supposed, to do).

     

    ***

     

    What this proposal calls for is the government using the list as a basis to deny the people on it a right to which they were otherwise entitled.

     

    ***

     

    Based on the plain text of the Second Amendment and subsequent jurisprudence it is clear that some right is in there somewhere, and what this proposal calls for is for the government to arbitrarily and un-transparently deny this right to certain people without any sort of the due process ordinarily required. And that’s a problem.

     

    ***

     

    With this proposal we would be authorizing the government to act capriciously and unaccountably for any reason, including—and this point cannot be emphasized enough—bad reasons or no reasons at all, and against anyone, including—and this point cannot be emphasized enough, either—people just like you. There would also be no reason why, if the government could take away this right this way today, it couldn’t take away other rights you depend on having tomorrow the same way.

    Liberal journalists Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux document:

    The Obama administration has quietly approved a substantial expansion of the terrorist watchlist system, authorizing a secret process that requires neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to designate an American or foreigner as a terrorist, according to a key government document obtained by The Intercept.

     

    The “March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance,” a 166-page document issued last year by the National Counterterrorism Center, spells out the government’s secret rules for putting individuals on its main terrorist database, as well as the no fly list and the selectee list, which triggers enhanced screening at airports and border crossings. The new guidelines allow individuals to be designated as representatives of terror organizations without any evidence they are actually connected to such organizations, and it gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to place entire “categories” of people the government is tracking onto the no fly and selectee lists. It broadens the authority of government officials to “nominate” people to the watchlists based on what is vaguely described as “fragmentary information.”

     

    ***

     

    The document’s definition of “terrorist” activity includes actions that fall far short of bombing or hijacking. In addition to expected crimes, such as assassination or hostage-taking, the guidelines also define destruction of government property and damaging computers used by financial institutions as activities meriting placement on a list. They also define as terrorism any act that is “dangerous” to property and intended to influence government policy through intimidation.

     

    This combination—a broad definition of what constitutes terrorism and a low threshold for designating someone a terrorist—opens the way to ensnaring innocent people in secret government dragnets. It can also be counterproductive. When resources are devoted to tracking people who are not genuine risks to national security, the actual threats get fewer resources—and might go unnoticed.

     

    “If reasonable suspicion is the only standard you need to label somebody, then it’s a slippery slope we’re sliding down here, because then you can label anybody anything,” says David Gomez, a former senior FBI special agent with experience running high-profile terrorism investigations. “Because you appear on a telephone list of somebody doesn’t make you a terrorist. That’s the kind of information that gets put in there.”

     

    ***

     

    In 2004, [liberal] Sen. Ted Kennedy complained that he was barred from boarding flights on five separate occasions because his name resembled the alias of a suspected terrorist. Two years later, CBS News obtained a copy of the no fly list and reported that it included [liberal] Bolivian president Evo Morales and Lebanese parliament head Nabih Berri. One of the watchlists snared Mikey Hicks, a Cub Scout who got his first of many airport pat-downs at age two. In 2007, the Justice Department’s inspector general issued a scathing report identifying “significant weaknesses” in the system. And in 2009, after a Nigerian terrorist was able to board a passenger flight to Detroit and nearly detonated a bomb sewn into his underwear despite his name having been placed on the TIDE list, President Obama admitted that there had been a “systemic failure.”

     

    ***

     

    The rulebook appears to invert the legal principle of due process, defining nominations as “presumptively valid.”

    Left-leaning Nation tells how two middle-aged, lesbian peace activists got put on the no-fly list.

    Bleeding heart Huffington Post noted last year:

    You could post something on Facebook or Twitter that raises “reasonable suspicion.”

     

    ***

     

    Or somebody else could just think you’re a potential terror threat.

     

    ***

     

    You could be a little terrorist-ish, at least according to someone.

     

    ***

     

    Or you could just know someone terrorist-y, maybe.

     

    ***

     

    Finally, you could just be unlucky.

     

    ***

     

    A federal judge ruled in June that the government must develop a new process under which individuals can challenge their inclusion on the no-fly list. The judge found the current process “wholly ineffective.”

    Progressive Salon reports:

    In fact, the rules for putting someone on the list are so weak that it’s acceptable for entire “categories” of people to be considered threats at a White House official’s choosing.

     

    ***

     

    Scahill told HuffPost Live. “The government will not tell you if you are on the list, but it will share its labeling of you as a ‘known or suspected terrorist’ with foreign governments and private contractors. These policies make it nearly impossible to challenge your secret designation. The American public has a right to understand the policies of what amounts to a shadow legal system.”

    Liberal Slate writes:

    The U.S. government’s reliance on “predictive judgments” to deprive Americans of their constitutionally protected liberties is no fiction. It’s now central to the government’s defense of its no-fly list—a secretive watch list that bans people from flying to or from the United States or over American airspace….

     

    Worse, the U.S. government launched its predictive judgment model without offering any evidence whatsoever about its accuracy, any scientific basis or methodology that might justify it, or the extent to which it results in errors. In our case, we turned to two independent experts to evaluate the government’s predictive method: Marc Sageman, a former longtime intelligence community professional and forensic psychologist with expertise in terrorism research, and James Austin, an expert in risk assessment in the criminal justice system. Neither found any indication that the government’s predictive model even tries to use basic scientific methods to make and test its predictions. As Sageman says, despite years of research, no one inside or outside the government has devised a model that can predict with any reliability if a person will commit an act of terrorism.

     

     

    ***

     

    Because the government’s predictive model results in the blacklisting of people who are not terrorists, individuals on the no-fly list need a meaningful method of redress—a fair way to demonstrate their “innocence” of crimes they will never commit. The government refuses to provide these safeguards in its current so-called redress system, which violates the due process guarantees of the Constitution. It refuses to tell our clients all the reasons the government has for predicting future misconduct, leaving them to guess. It won’t provide the evidence underlying those reasons, including government evidence that would undermine its predictions. And it refuses to provide a hearing for our clients to press their case to a neutral decision-maker and challenge government witnesses’ hearsay or biases.

    Indeed, the government has a history of labeling dissident as terroristsAny type of criticism of the fatcats may get you labeled as a terrorist in post-9/11 America.

    Are any of the government’s so-called “terrorism” programs really only focused on stopping terrorism?  Of course not.

    Liberals might remember that George W. Bush said that “you’re either with us or against us” … and stripped Americans of many of our liberties.

    One specific example: spying on Americans is all about power, control and moneynot protecting Americans from terrorists.

    Another example: indefinite detention.

    So we've got to stop mass shootings … but using a Kafkaesque, fatally flawed watchlist system is not the way.

    Postscript: What does the Daily Beast article linked above mean when it says that – while liberals may dislike the Second Amendment – it’s still a Constitutional right?

    A top liberal Constitutional law expert explains:

    Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda.

     

    ***

     

    It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.

     

    Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.

     

    ***

     

    More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

     

    Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

     

    None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that … here’s the really hard part … the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.

    And liberal icons Gandhi and the Dalai Lama accept gun ownership as moral.

  • Watch Jimmy Carter Ban Iran Immigrants And Deport Students During The Hostage Crisis

    One of Donald Trump’s recurring refrains ever since the San Bernardino shooting, ostensibly the one which prompted him to declare he would bar Muslims from entering the country – an announcement which has unleashed an unprecedented media scandal – is that the “US is at war.” Whether or not that is the case remains to be seen (we expect tens of thousands of US troops to be deployed soon, this time  without the protective cloak of CIA “covert ops”) but what is certain is that Trump is merely proposing to do what Democrat Jimmy Carter did back on April 7, 1980, when he banned Iranians from the US and deported Iranian students during the Iran hostage crisis – a time when some could argue the US was likewise in war with the Iranian regime.

    Courtesy of the Gateway Pundit, here is a screengrab from the ABC News report of President Carter’s Iran speech regarding US cutting relations with Khomeini’s regime in Iran.

     

    The full video of Carter’s speech is below:

    ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

     

    And here is the full transcript from ABC News:

    Ever since Iranian terrorists imprisoned American Embassy personnel in Tehran early in November, these 50 men and women—their safety, their health, and their future—have been our central concern. We’ve made every effort to obtain their release on honorable, peaceful, and humanitarian terms, but the Iranians have refused to release them or even to improve the inhumane conditions under which these Americans are being held captive.

     

    The events of the last few days have revealed a new and significant dimension in this matter. The militants controlling the Embassy have stated they are willing to turn the hostages over to the Government of Iran, but the Government has refused to take custody of the American hostages. This lays bare the full responsibility of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Revolutionary Council for the continued illegal and outrageous holding of the innocent hostages. The Iranian Government can no longer escape full responsibility by hiding behind the militants at the Embassy.

     

    It must be made clear that the failure to release the hostages will involve increasingly heavy costs to Iran and to its interests. I have today ordered the following steps.

     

    First, the United States of America is breaking diplomatic relations with the Government of Iran. The Secretary of State has informed the Government of Iran that its Embassy and consulates in the United States are to be closed immediately. All Iranian diplomatic and consular officials have been declared persona non grata and must leave this country by midnight tomorrow.

     

    Second, the Secretary of the Treasury will put into effect official sanctions prohibiting exports from the United States to Iran, in accordance with the sanctions approved by 10 members of the United Nations Security Council on January 13 in the resolution which was vetoed by the Soviet Union. Although shipment of food and medicine were not included in the U.N. Security Council vote, it is expected that exports even of these items to Iran will be minimal or nonexistent.

     

    Third, the Secretary of Treasury will make a formal inventory of the assets of the Iranian Government, which were frozen by my previous order, and also will make a census or an inventory of the outstanding claims of American citizens and corporations against the Government of Iran. This accounting of claims will aid in designing a program against Iran for the hostages, for the hostage families, and other U.S. claimants. We are now preparing legislation, which will be introduced in the Congress, to facilitate processing and paying of these claims.

     

    Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

  • Here Is "Gate" #2: $1.3 Billion Hedge Fund Founded By Ex-Bear Stearns Traders, Just Suspended Redemptions

    Yesterday, in the aftermath of the shocking news that the Third Avenue Focused Credit Fund was liquidating and had gated investors due to its “illiquid” portfolio, we had one simple prediction:

    “What this means is that now that the dreaded “gates” are back, investors in all other junk bond-focused hedge funds, fearing they too will be gated, will rush to pull what funds they can and submit redemption requests, in the process potentially unleashing a liquidity – and liquidation – scramble within the hedge fund community, which will first impact bonds and then, if the liquidity demands continue, equities as well.

    We had to wait just over 24 hours to be proven correct, because moments ago Dow Jones reported that the $1.3 billion Manhattan-based Stone Lion Capital, a distress-focused hedge fund, has just suspended redemptions after “substantial requests.”

    The WSJ adds:

    It is the latest example of the sudden crunch facing traders across Wall Street looking to sell beaten-down positions.

     

    Stone Lion manages around $1.3 billion and specializes in distressed debt and other risky investments that have plunged in value lately.

     

    It received “substantial redemption requests” in its oldest hedge fund, the $400 million Stone Lion Portfolio LP, precipitating the decision, the firm said.

    At least the had a pretty logo:


     

    The management team via CapIQ:

     

    And here is the punchline:

    • Alan Jay Mintz, CPA, a co-founder of Stone Lion Capital was Co-Head of the Distressed Debt and High Yield trading group at Bear Stearns
    • Gregory Augustine Hanley, a co-founder of Stone Lion Capital was Co-Head of the Distressed Debt and High Yield trading group at Bear Stearns

    One really couldn’t make this up.

  • Putin Orders Military To "Immediately Destroy" Any Threat To Russian Forces

    Russian President Vladimir Putin has ratcheted up the rhetoric in what appears to be one step closer to the potential for direct conflict with The West. While not detailing 'who' he was focued on, amid the obvious Turkey-Russia tensions, Putin told a session of the Defense Ministry's collegium that "I order to act extremely tough. Any targets that threaten Russian forces or our infrastructure on the ground should be immediately destroyed."

    During the meeting of the most senior defense officials, ITAR TASS reports that Putin also warned against "those who will again try to organize any provocations against our servicemen."

     "We have already taken additional measures to ensure security of Russian servicemen and air base. It was strengthened by new aviation groups and missile defense systems. Strike aircraft will now carry out operations under cover of fighter jets,"

    Putin said that the Russian military have caused a substantial damage to terrorists in Syria, adding that the actions of the Russian Armed Forces are worthy of praise.

    "The combined operation of the Aerospace Defence Forces and the Navy, the use of newest high precision weapons systems has caused a serious damage to the terrorist infrastructure, thus qualitatively changing the situation in Syria," the president said.

    The president also ordered the defense ministry to coordinate actions in Syria with Israel’s command post and the US-led international coalition.

    "It’s important to develop cooperation with all countries really interested in destroying terrorists. I am talking about contacts on ensuring flight safety with the command post of Israel’s air force and forces of the US-led coalition," Putin said.

    According to the official, terrorists in Syria pose a direct threat to Russia and Moscow’s actions are carried out to protect the country rather than due to abstract interests.

    "Our soldiers in Syria are, first and foremost, defending their country. Our actions there aren’t motivated by some obscure and abstract geopolitical interests or a desire to train our forces and test new weapons – which is of course an important goal as well. Our main objective is to avert a threat to the Russian Federation,"

    As we noted previously, The Kremlin looks prepared not only to stay the course, but to ramp up the deployment. Not only is Moscow hitting terrorist targets with cruise missiles from Russia’s Caspian Fleet, but now, Moscow is shooting at ISIS from a submarine in what can only be described as an effort by Putin to use Syria as a testing ground for Russia’s long dormant military juggernaut (after all, you don’t really need to shoot at a group that doesn’t have an air force or a navy from a sub). 

    On that note, we present the following update graphic prepared by Louis Martin-Vézian of CIGeography as post at The Aviationst. It documents the scope of Russia’s operation in the Mid-East and should give you an idea of just how committed Moscow is to the fight.

  • Prince Of World Beheading Champion Saudi Arabia Calls Trump "A Disgrace To America"

    You know you’ve ‘made it’ when the prince of one of the world’s biggest human rights abuser (and leading ‘beheader’) nations calls you a “disgrace to America.”

     

    From “respected investor” – just ask him about Citi and Twitter – Prince Alwaleed bin Talal…

     

     

    We wonder if all these detractors and critics realize they are all, massively boosting Trump’s case? Probably not.

    Meanwhile, we anxiously await Trump’s twitter response.

  • Stocks Slammed To Worst Week Since Black Monday Amid Crude & Credit Carnage

    Some folks were suddenly forced to sell…

    And for those "shocked" that credit markets sparked this…

    Before we start, summarizing the bloodbath…

    • Russell 2000 (Small Caps) Down 4.8% – worst week since May 2012
    • Trannies Down 4.8% – worst week in 4 months (Black Monday)
    • S&P 500 Down 3.5% – worst week in 4 months (Black Monday)
    • FANGs Down 3.75% – worst week in 3 months
    • HYG (HY Bond ETF) Down 3.75% – worst week since March 2009
    • HY CDX Up 60bps – biggest weekly spike in spreads since Dec 2014
    • USD Index Down 2.5% – worst 2-week drop in 4 months
    • JPY Stronger by 1.9% – worst week in 4 months
    • CAD Weaker by 2.75% – worst week in 5 months
    • EUR Stronger by 3.75% – best 2 week gain since Sept 2012
    • Yuan down 6 weeks in a row to weakest since July 2011 – longest losing streak in history
    • WTI Crude Down 10.9% – worst week since Dec 2014
    • 5Y Yield Drops 13bps – biggest absolute drop in 2 months
    • 30Y Yield Drops 13bps – biggest absolute drop since March 2015

     

    The biggest news of the day/week was the sudden awakening of the rest of the world that credit's collapse is real…

     

    This was the biggest weekly collapse in High-Yield Bonds since March 2009… with today's move, HYG wipes out all total return back to 12/12/2012 (assuming divs reinvested)

    (h/t @groditi)

     

    Weakness in US equities began early this morning after the IEA report sent crude crashing…Dow Futs down 400 from overnight highs!

     

    Ugly day with high beta Nasdaq and Small Caps smashed lower…

     

    On the week Trannies and Small Caps were the biggest losers…

     

    Financials and Energy were butchered this week…

     

    Dow joins S&P, Russell, and Trannies in red post-Paris… we're gonna need more radicals!!

     

    Small Caps were monkey-hammered…

     

    FANGs had their worst week in 3 months…

     

    Led by NFLX..

     

    But Guns were in great demand…

     

    VIX term structure inverted short-term…

     

    HYG had its worst day since Aug2011…

     

    Treasury yields collaped…

     

    2Y Yields dropped 6.5bps today… the biggest drop in 3 months…

     

    The FX markets also turmoiled… USD weakness against all the majors (but EM FX and commodity producers crushed)…

     

    The Yuan plunged for the 6th week in a row…

     

    EM FX crashed by most since June 2013 (Taper Tantrum)…

     

    Gold rallied today, but ended the week lower (along with silver) despite a weaker dollar. Copper rallied, crude didn't…

     

    Black Gold Baumgartner'd…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

    Bonus Chart: What Happens Next?

  • Weekend Reading: Risk – That Is All

    Submitted by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

    While the world patiently waits for Janet Yellen to raise interest rates this month, the markets have been unable to decide as of yet whether such an event is good or bad thing.

    As I discussed earlier this week, there is an ongoing belief that despite the rest of the world struggling with deflationary pressures and weak economic growth pushing Central Bankers globally toward further negative interest rate environments and more liquidity, the U.S. can remain an “island of economic prosperity.” To wit:

    “International And Emerging Market Divergence. As I stated above, there is currently a belief that the U.S. can remain isolated from the rest of the world.  Given the global interconnectedness of the world today, there is little ability for the U.S. to permanently diverge from the rest of the world. As shown below, historically when international and emerging markets have declined, the U.S. has been soon to follow.”

    SP500-vs-International-120815

    The reality is that such divergences have rarely lasted for very long and the ultimate reversion to reality have been brutally painful to investors.

    This week’s reading list is a compilation of articles and research notes dedicated to understanding more clearly the “risks” that are currently building within the financial markets and economic environment. What you choose to do with that information is entirely up to you, however, ignoring it has generally never worked out well.


    1) Give Me Only The Good News by Jeremy Grantham via GMO

    “This is more or less the best I can do to prove the point. We in the U.S. have a broad and heavy bias away from unpleasant data. We are ready to be manipulated by vested interests in finance, economics, and climate change, whose interests might be better served by our believing optimistic stuff ‘that just ain’t so.’

     

    We are dealing today with important issues, one so important that it may affect the long-term viability of our global society and perhaps our species. It may well be necessary to our survival that we become more realistic, more willing to process the unpleasant, and, above all, less easily manipulated through our need for good news.”

    But Also Read: Voters Know The American Dream Is Over by Charles Hugh-Smith via OfTwoMinds

     

    2) Reasons “Not To Hike” Pile Up by Caroline Baum via MarketWatch

    “What do Larry Summers, market monetarists, gold bugs and other hard-money types have in common?

     

    No, it’s not a trick question, but it yields a surprising answer. Three different economic philosophies are aligned in challenging the wisdom of the Federal Reserve’s stated intention to raise interest rates next week.

     

    The better question is why the Fed is determined to raise rates now. The world’s major economies are diverging, with Europe, Japan and China requiring additional stimulus from their central banks. The dollar is likely to strength further, crimping U.S. exports and restraining import prices. A renewed decline in oil prices is going to prevent inflation from moving up to the Fed’s 2% target, a premise for any Fed action.

    The 5% unemployment rate remains the only reason for starting to normalize rates, and that’s based on the Fed’s flawed Phillips-Curve thinking. A sustained increase in wages is more hope than reality at this point. And since wages lag prices, not the other way around, forecasts of higher compensation may have to wait.”

    FedBalanceSheet-121015

    But Also Read: OK Jobs Report Paves Way For $6.8B Fed Giveaway by Louis Woodhill via Real Clear Markets

     

    3) Rare Data Point Sighting Sends Warning by Tim Mullaney via CNBC

    “The S&P 500 has a big performance issue that should be a focus for investors: Too much of the index return is coming from too few of its stocks.

     

    The 10 most valuable companies in the market are up roughly 21.4 percent as a group this year, versus a loss of 2.6 percent for the rest of the stock market.

     

    That 24 percentage-point spread between the biggest stocks and the index as a whole is the widest since 1999, heading into the dot-com bust.”

     

    SP500-LeaderBoard-121015

    But Also Read: A 20-Year-Old Perversion In The Stock Market Is Ending by Sam Ro via Business Insider

    Contra-Take: Is It Time To Go Full Zero Hedge? by Cam Hui via Humble Student Of The Markets

     

    4) The Junk Bond Market’s Early Warning Signals by Ben Wright via The Telegraph

    “The relatively high global equity prices point to expectations of strong economic growth; the historically very high bond prices point to expectations of weak economic growth. How does one reconcile these two wildly inconsistent worldviews? The short answer is quantitative easing, which has pumped up asset values far beyond what the fundamentals would justify. Any bad news that comes along – and there has been a fair bit of that in recent months – merely serves to highlight that growing disconnect.

     

    With the paths of the US Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and the European Central Bank starting to diverge as we enter the new year, it is clear that, at the very least, investors are in for a bumpy ride in 2016.”

    But Also Read: Corporate Loan Charge-Offs & Delinquencies Surge by Pater Tenebrarum via Acting-Man Blog

    Charge-offs-and-Delinquencies-900x541

    And Also Read: This Time Is Not Different For Credit by David Keohane via FTAlphaville

     

    5) When Forward Guidance Leads To Misdirection by Joe Calhoun via Alhambra Partners

    “As we approach the Fed meeting expect markets to get more volatile. While the odds favor a move, it isn’t a sure thing until it is actually done. We found out last week what happens when forward guidance turns out to be forward misdirection. All those traders who thought they had a sure thing, who assumed that Draghi wouldn’t dare disappoint the market, got whipped. Whipped good.”

    But Also Read: Fed’s Decisions Really Come Down To Guessing by Alex Pollock via AEI


    MUST READS


    “There are few things more important than the preservation of capital” – Dick Davis

  • Carl Icahn Warns "Meltdown In High Yield Is Just Beginning"

    Amid the biggest weekly collapse in high-yield bonds since March 2009, Carl Icahn gently reminds investors that he saw this coming… and that it's only just getting started!

    As we warned here, and confirmed here, something has blown-up in high-yield…

     

    With the biggest discount to NAV since 2011…

     

    The carnage is across the entire credit complex… with yields on 'triple hooks' back to 2009 levels…

     

    As fund outflows explode..

    And here's why equity investors simply can't ignore it anymore…

     

    If all of that wasn't bad enough… the week is apocalyptic…

     

    Icahn says, it's only just getting started…

    He followed up with a brief appearance on CNBC:

    As we detailed previously, to be sure, no one ever accused Carl Icahn of being shy and earlier this year he had a very candid sitdown with Larry Fink at whom Icahn leveled quite a bit of sharp (if good natured) criticism related to BlackRock’s role in creating the conditions that could end up conspiring to cause a meltdown in illiquid corporate credit markets. Still, talking one’s book speaking one’s mind is one thing, while making a video that might as well be called “The Sky Is Falling” is another and amusingly that is precisely what Carl Icahn has done. 

    Over the course of 15 minutes, Icahn lays out his concerns about many of the issues we’ve been warning about for years and while none of what he says will come as a surprise (especially to those who frequent these pages), the video, called “Danger Ahead”, is probably worth your time as it does a fairly good job of summarizing how the various risk factors work to reinforce one another on the way to setting the stage for a meltdown. Here’s a list of Icahn’s concerns:

    • Low rates and asset bubbles: Fed policy in the wake of the dot com collapse helped fuel the housing bubble and given what we know about how monetary policy is affecting the financial cycle (i.e. creating larger and larger booms and busts) we might fairly say that the Fed has become the bubble blower extraordinaire. See the price tag attached to Picasso’s Women of Algiers (Version O) for proof of this.
    • Herding behavior: The quest for yield is pushing investors into risk in a frantic hunt for yield in an environment where risk free assets yield at best an inflation adjusted zero and at worst have a negative carrying cost. 
    • Financial engineering: Icahn is supposedly concerned about the myopia displayed by corporate management teams who are of course issuing massive amounts of debt to fund EPS-inflating buybacks as well as M&A. We have of course been warning about debt fueled buybacks all year and make no mistake, there’s something a bit ironic about Carl Icahn criticizing companies for short-term thinking and buybacks as he hasn’t exactly been quiet about his opinion with regard to Apple’s buyback program (he does add that healthy companies with lots of cash should repurchases shares). 
    • Fake earnings: Companies are being deceptive about their bottom lines.
    • Ineffective leadership: Congress has demonstrated a remarkable inability to do what it was elected to do (i.e. legislate). To fix this we need someone in The White House who can help break intractable legislative stalemates. 
    • Corporate taxes are too high: Inversions are costing the US jobs.

    Ultimately what Icahn has done is put the pieces together for anyone who might have been struggling to understand how it all fits together and how the multiple dynamics at play serve to feed off one another to pyramid risk on top of risk. Put differently: one more very "serious" person is now shouting about any and all of the things Zero Hedge readers have been keenly aware of for years.

    Full video below.

     

    * * *

    Finally, here is Bill Gross also chiming in:

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News December 11, 2015

  • Jeremy Grantham Urges "Easily Manipulated" Americans To "Become More Realistic" About World's Demise

    Authored by Jeremy Grantham via GMO,

    Give Me Only Good News!

    “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble.    It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

    (Attributed to Mark Twain)

    It takes little experience in the investment business to realize that investors prefer good news. As a bear in the bull market of 1999 I was banned from an institution’s building as being “dangerously persuasive and totally wrong!” The investment industry also has a great incentive to encourage this optimistic bias, for little money would be made if the market ticked slowly upwards. Five steps forward and two back are far more profitable.

    Similarly, we environmentalists were shocked to realize how profoundly the general public preferred to believe good news on our climate, even if it meant disregarding the National Academies of the world. The fossil fuel industry, not surprisingly, encouraged this positive attitude. They had billions of dollars to protect. If the realistic information were to be widely believed, most of their assets would be stranded.

    When dealing with realistic limits to growth it is also obvious how reluctant everyone is to accept the natural mathematical limits: There simply cannot be compound growth in a finite world. A modest 1% growth compounded for the 3,000 years of Ancient Egypt’s population would have multiplied its economic output by nine trillion times!1 Yet, the improbability of feeding ten billion or so global inhabitants in 50 years is shrugged off with ease. And the entire economic and political system appears eager to encourage optimism on resources for it is completely wedded to the virtues of quantitative growth forever.

    Hard realities in these three fields are inconvenient for vested interests and because the day of reckoning can always be seen as “later,” politicians can always find a way to postpone necessary actions, as can we all:  “Because markets are efficient, these high prices must be reflecting the remarkable potential of the internet”; “the U.S. housing market largely reflects a strong U.S. economy”; “the climate has always changed”; “how could mere mortals change something as immense as the weather”; “we have nearly infinite resources, it is only a question of price”; “the infinite capacity of the human brain will always solve our problems.”

    Having realized the seriousness of this bias over the last few decades, I have noticed how hard it is to effectively pass on a warning for the same reason: No one wants to hear this bad news. So a while ago I came up with a list of propositions that are widely accepted by an educated business audience. They are widely accepted but totally wrong. It is my attempt to bring home how extreme is our preference for good news over accurate news. When you have run through this list you may be a little more aware of how dangerous our wishful thinking can be in investing and in the much more important fields of resource (especially food) limitations and the potentially life-threatening risks of climate damage. Wishful thinking and denial of unpleasant facts are simply not survival characteristics.

    Let me start with one of my favorites. For the 50 years I have been in America, Business Week and The Wall Street Journal have been telling us how incompetent at business the French are and how persistently we have been kicking their bottoms. If only they could get over their state socialism and their acute Eurosclerosis. And as far as I can tell we have generally accepted this thesis. Yet Exhibit 1 shows what has actually happened to France’s median hourly wage. It has gone from 100 to 280. Up 180% in 45 years!  Japan is up 140% and even the often sluggish Brits are up 60%. But the killer is the U.S. median wage. Dead flat for 45 years! These are the uncontestable facts. So, all I can say is that it is just as well the French have not been kicking our bottoms. But how is it that we can believe so firmly in something that just ain’t so, and by such a convincing amount?

    Exhibit 2 examines the proposition that although our wages may have done poorly, we are still the place that creates jobs. The left-hand panel certainly seems to confirm that with our modest official unemployment rate for 25- to 54-year-olds of below 5% compared to 9% for the E.U. The righthand panel, though, shows the true picture. It looks at the unemployment rate adjusted for the nonparticipation rate, the percentage of all 25- to 54-year-olds who are not actually working (i.e., it includes those discouraged, uninterested, or even sitting in jail). There are now 21% not employed in the U.S. compared to 20.5% for the E.U., and our long-suggested job creating skills are looking a little thin.

    The problem lies in the so-called participation rate, as shown in Exhibit 3. The U.S. was one of the leaders in the percentage of women working, and from 1972 to a peak in 1997 the U.S. participation rate rose from 70% to 80%. From 1984 on, the U.S. spent 20 years ahead of most other countries in participation rates, but after 1997 something appears to have gone wrong: While other developed countries continued to increase their participation rate, that of the U.S. declined from first to last in fairly rapid order.

    What a far cry this reality is from the view generally accepted by our business world.

    Exhibit 4 examines our belief that we have the best health care system in the world. And why shouldn’t we, given the money we put in (left-hand bar chart), over twice the average cost paid by the E.U. But the right-hand bar chart shows what we get back. Two years less life than the median. And watch out for when the Turks, Poles, and Czechs cut back on smoking, for then we may find our way to the bottom of the list.

    But if you really want to be worried about our comparative health you should take a look at  Exhibit 5, which comes hot off the press from the guy who was just awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics (wait a minute, must be some mistake, this work seems perfectly useful). The data shows the death rate for U.S. whites between the ages of 45 and 54, which happily these days is when very few people drop off. Since 1990 there has been a quite remarkable decline for other developed countries, about a one-third reduction, as you can see, including for U.S. Hispanics. But for U.S. whites there is a slight increase!  Further analysis for that group reveals that the general increase is caused by quite severe increases in deaths related to alcoholism, drug use, and suicides. Had the rate for U.S. whites declined in line with the others there would have been about 50,000 fewer deaths a year!  (For scale, this is nearly twice the yearly number of traffic deaths in the U.S.)

    You have to be careful these days when you suggest connections. For example, people have been told off for proposing that dramatic increases in population can help destabilize societies. Syria had two and a half million people when I was born and has 29 million people now. You can guess how much worse the situation is because of this but you should not talk about it. Similarly, Prince Charles has been extensively criticized by professors in The Guardian for suggesting that a several-year drought in Syria exacerbated social tensions by ruining many farmers. As if!  (You cannot prove precisely what effect climate damage had, but you certainly cannot prove that it did not have a large effect. It certainly had a contributory effect.)

    With that caveat, let me seriously suggest a connection between Exhibit 1, which shows no increase in the U.S. median wage for over 40 years following a wonderful prior 30 years of a rise of over 3% a year, and Exhibit 5, which shows the uptick in unnecessary deaths among U.S. non-Hispanic whites aged 45 to 54. This is precisely the age group that was led to expect better for themselves and much better for their children. But those aspirations have not been generously fulfilled. The U.S. Hispanics, in contrast, mostly arrived later and had different expectations. All in all, this data is quite bleak. The point here is that it bears absolutely no similarity to the more optimistic belief set that is generally accepted.

    The data presented in Exhibit 6 examines the proposition that “more and more goes to the government and soon they will have everything.”  You have heard that many times recently in the political debate. Sorry, “bull sessions.”  You can see that the U.S. share going to the government in taxes is about the least in the developed world and that it has barely twitched for 50 years. Yet, apparently we have been steadily going to hell. How is it possible that such a view is given such credence in the face of the data, which is, after all, official and simple, not ingeniously manipulated by some perfidious Brit. (Yes, I admit it, I consider myself American or British depending on whether the context is favorable or not.)

    “At least we live in a fair society” is the proposition examined in Exhibit 7. The Gini Ratio is a measure of income inequality. Low is good. Only Turkey and Mexico outflank the U.S. as more unequal amongst the richer countries. I was a bit surprised to see how high the U.S. already was in 1980 (I had been drinking from the same culture dissemination trough after all), but it was at least importantly lower.

    “We have a democracy where people really count” is an idea that is built into the background cultural noise. Exhibit 8 (also covered last quarter) on the left shows how the probability of a bill passing through Congress is affected by the general public’s enthusiasm or horror. In a nutshell, not at all!  The financial elite, on the other hand, can double the chance of a bill passing or, much more disturbingly, can completely block passage. Clearly these facts are totally incompatible with the concept of participatory democracy and equally entirely at odds with the much more favorable and optimistic beliefs we share about our democracy. We really, really want to believe good news and to believe that we have a superior system that only needs fine-tuning. But, it ain’t necessarily so.

    “We have the best education system in the world” is a proposition that goes without saying in Boston, with Harvard, MIT, and literally dozens of other universities. But Exhibit 9 shows the more downto-earth fact: mediocrity.

    Less than mediocre, though, is the data in Exhibit 10, which shows the percentage of 3- to 4-year-olds enrolled in school. This is an area of emphasis where the returns on investment are said to be particularly high – six for one – although I would not like to guarantee such returns myself. However, our relatively low ranking at the start of the process is not heartwarming.

    Exhibit 11 moves on to our production of CO2, which per capita is the largest in the world, just ahead of Australia. The two of us also worry the least, except for one Middle Eastern oil producer. There is a nice, i.e., interesting, negative correlation here of -0.54. Not bad at all. The greater your fossil fuel intensity, the more ingenious your fossil fuel propaganda is to create doubt and the more we are encouraged to think beautiful optimistic thoughts: clean coal and clean oil. And even as more people can see the climate damage, the richer countries can convince themselves that the damage is not that serious. Poorer countries, meanwhile, do not have that luxury and about 20% more are actively concerned (about 80% vs. 60%) than are the richer countries.

    And this brings me to the last and my absolute favorite of these false propositions, which I label, “I wish the U.S. government wouldn’t give so much to foreign countries (especially when times are bad)!” Now, I do not think I have met a single American who does not believe that the U.S. government is generous in its foreign aid. Yet, it just ain’t so, and by a remarkable degree. Exhibit 12 shows what other developed countries give, with the usual goody-goody Sweden leading the way with 1.4% of their GDP and the U.K. having quite recently shot up to 0.8%, for once ahead of Japan and Germany. Dead last is the U.S. at 0.2% of GDP, which it has averaged forever. This is the item with the biggest and most permanent gap between reality and perception. And, as always, the misperception is in favor of the favorable, the data that we would wish to be true.

    Conclusion

    This is more or less the best I can do to prove the point. We in the U.S. have a broad and heavy bias away from unpleasant data. We are ready to be manipulated by vested interests in finance, economics, and climate change, whose interests might be better served by our believing optimistic stuff “that just ain’t so.”  We are dealing today with important issues, one so important that it may affect the long-term viability of our global society and perhaps our species. It may well be necessary to our survival that we become more realistic, more willing to process the unpleasant, and, above all, less easily manipulated through our need for good news.

  • China 'Stealth' Devaluation Continues – Yuan Plunges For 6th Day, Default Risk Soars, Fosun Bonds Crash

    USDCNY broke above 6.4500 for the first time since the August devaluation, extending its post-IMF plunge to 6 days. This is the largest and longest streak of weakness since March 2014 as China seems to have taken the SDR-inclusion as blessing to devalue its currency drip by drip. Default risk is once again stomping higher as CDS surge from 94bps to 112bps (2-month highs). The biggest news in China tonight is the disappearance of Fosun International's Chairman, China's 17th richest man (and the collapse in the company's bonds, since stocks are suspended).

    For the 6th day in a row (something which has not happened since March 2014), Yuan has plunged, now below the Augsut devaluation lows….

     

    The pressure on onshore Yuan (above) is being driven by even more significant selling pressure in offshore Yuan as outflows appear to be accelerating… and PBOC seems happy to "allow" the onshore Yuan to devalue alongside it

     

    to its lowest since July 2011…

     

    And Chinese default risk is on the rise…

     

    But what everyone is talking about is the disappearance of Fosun International's chairman.

    Its USD 2020 bonds plunged by a record and the company suspended its shares in Hong Kong after Caixin magazine reported that billionaire Chairman Guo Guangchang had gone missing.

     

    The shares declined for a sixth consecutive day on Thursday in Hong Kong, losing 1 percent to close at HK$13.34, and tumbled more than 11 percent to $1.55 in over-the-counter trading in New York. Fosun International dollar bonds fell by a record, with the $400 million of 6.875 percent bonds due in 2020 slumping 16.1 cents to 88.3 cents on the dollar as of 9:10 a.m. in Hong Kong.

    Closely held Fosun Group, which controls Fosun International, has “lost contact” with Guo, 48, the magazine said, citing people it didn’t identify.

    “The news that the chairman went missing will take a toll on the bond prices and until the company can clarify the situations, we’d expect further weakness in the near term,” Nuj Chiaranussati, a Singapore-based debt analyst at Gimme Credit LLC.

    Broadly speaking, Chinese stocks continue to drift lower after the rescue from carnage into month-end…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • War Is On The Horizon: Is It Too Late To Stop It?

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    One lesson from military history is that once mobilization for war begins, it takes on a momentum of its own and is uncontrollable.

    This might be what is occuring unrecognized before our eyes.

    In his September 28 speech at the 70th Anniversity of the United Nations, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that Russia can no longer tolerate the state of affairs in the world. Two days later at the invitation of the Syrian government Russia began war against ISIS.

    Russia was quickly successful in destroying ISIS arms depots and helping the Syrian army to roll back ISIS gains. Russia also destroyed thousands of oil tankers, the contents of which were financing ISIS by transporting stolen Syrian oil to Turkey where it is sold to the family of the current gangster who rules Turkey.

    Washington was caught off guard by Russia’s decisiveness. Fearful that the quick success of such decisive action by Russia would discourage Washington’s NATO vassals from continuing to support Washington’s war against Assad and Washington’s use of its puppet government in Kiev to pressure Russia, Washington arranged for Turkey to shoot down a Russian fighter-bomber despite the agreement between Russia and NATO that there would be no air-to-air encounters in Russia’s area of air operation in Syria.

    Although denying all responsibility, Washington used Russia’s low key response to the attack, for which Turkey did not apologize, to reassure Europe that Russia is a paper tiger. The Western presstitutes trumpeted: “Russia A Paper Tiger.”

    The Russian government’s low key response to the provocation was used by Washington to reassure Europe that there is no risk in continuing to pressure Russia in the Middle East, Ukraine, Georgia, Montenegro, and elsewhere. Washington’s attack on Assad’s military is being used to reinforce the belief that is being inculcated in European governments that Russia’s responsible behavior to avoid war is a sign of fear and weakness.

    It is unclear to what extent the Russian and Chinese governments understand that their independent policies, reaffirmed by the Russian and Chinese presidents On September 28, are regarded by Washington as “existential threats” to US hegemony.

    The basis of US foreign policy is the commitment to prevent the rise of powers capable of constraining Washington’s unilateral action. The ability of Russia and China to do this makes them both a target.

    Washington is not opposed to terrorism. Washington has been purposely creating terrorism for many years. Terrorism is a weapon that Washington intends to use to destabilize Russia and China by exporting it to the Muslim populations in Russia and China.

    Washington is using Syria, as it used Ukraine, to demonstrate Russia’s impotence to Europe— and to China, as an impotent Russia is less attractive to China as an ally.

    For Russia, responsible response to provocation has become a liability, because it encourages more provocation.

    In other words, Washington and the gullibility of its European vassals have put humanity in a very dangerous situation, as the only choices left to Russia and China are to accept American vassalage or to prepare for war.

    Putin must be respected for putting more value on human life than do Washington and its European vassals and avoiding military responses to provocations. However, Russia must do something to make the NATO countries aware that there are serious costs of their accommodation of Washington’s aggression against Russia. For example, the Russian government could decide that it makes no sense to sell energy to European countries that are in a de facto state of war against Russia. With winter upon us, the Russian government could announce that Russia does not sell energy to NATO member countries. Russia would lose the money, but that is cheaper than losing one’s sovereignty or a war.

    To end the conflict in Ukraine, or to escalate it to a level beyond Europe’s willingness to participate, Russia could accept the requests of the breakaway provinces to be reunited with Russia. For Kiev to continue the conflict, Ukraine would have to attack Russia herself.

    The Russian government has relied on responsible, non-provocative responses. Russia has taken the diplomatic approach, relying on European governments coming to their senses, realizing that their national interests diverge from Washington’s, and ceasing to enable Washington’s hegemonic policy. Russia’s policy has failed. To repeat, Russia’s low key, responsible responses have been used by Washington to paint Russia as a paper tiger that no one needs to fear.

    We are left with the paradox that Russia’s determination to avoid war is leading directly to war.

    Whether or not the Russian media, Russian people, and the entirety of the Russian government understand this, it must be obvious to the Russian military. All that Russian military leaders need to do is to look at the composition of the forces sent by NATO to “combat ISIS.” As George Abert notes, the American, French, and British aircraft that have been deployed are jet fighters whose purpose is air-to-air combat, not ground attack. The jet fighters are not deployed to attack ISIS on the ground, but to threaten the Russian fighter-bombers that are attacking ISIS ground targets.

    There is no doubt that Washington is driving the world toward Armageddon, and Europe is the enabler. Washington’s bought-and-paid-for-puppets in Germany, France, and UK are either stupid, unconcerned, or powerless to escape from Washington’s grip. Unless Russia can wake up Europe, war is inevitable.

    Have the totally evil, dumbshit neocon warmongers who control the US government taught Putin that war is inevitable?

  • Credit Suisse Warns On China: "Some Companies Are Having To Borrow To Pay Staff Salaries"

    During October, the credit impulse in China rolled over and died

    To be sure, the writing was on the wall before the data was released. Early in November, MNI suggested that according to discussions with bank personnel in China, data on lending for October was likely to come in exceptionally weak. As we noted at the time, that would mark a reversal from September when the credit impulse looked particularly strong and the numbers topped estimates handily.  “One source familiar with the data said new loans by the Big Four state-owned commercial banks in October plunged to a level that hasn’t been seen for many years,” MNI added. 

    Sure enough, when the numbers came in, new RMB loans to households fell 60% M/M and new loans to corporates declined nearly 40% from September. 

    To some, this was a shock. After all, multiple rate cuts and round after round of liquidity injections should have given banks plenty of dry powder to lend. But as we discussed at length (see here), liquidity isn’t the issue. 

    An acute overcapacity problem means corporates don’t need to invest and even if they did, overleveraged borrowers are beginning to have problems servicing their debt which makes banks reluctant to extend credit. Indeed, we really have no idea what the NPL picture really looks like in China thanks to the fact that lenders are encouraged to roll debt and thanks to the fact that some 40% of credit risk is carried off balance sheet or classified as something other than what it is (i.e. carried as an “investment”). 

    So what did China do? Well, they increased fiscal stimulus by a whopping 36%:

    In short, when monetary policy fails to give the economy the defibrillator shock it needs, authorities must resort to fiscal stimulus and if the likes of Citi’s Willem Buiter have their way, China will just print bonds for the PBoC to monetize (nothing like printing a liability and buying it from yourself with another liability that you also print). 

    For their part, Credit Suisse doesn’t think any of this is going to work. Not the easing, not the fiscal stimulus, nothing. In a note out out today, the bank goes point by meticulous point to explain why “the impact from stimulus is muted.”

    First there’s the big picture: 

    The government has become more active in terms of counter-cyclical measures since late summer. The PBoC has injected liquidity into the policy banks, through its selective easing program, and policy banks have invested in special infrastructure projects approved by planning agency NDRC. On top of the two batches launched at the end of August and October, NDRC is preparing another batch, probably for launch before the end of 2015. However, the impact of these stimulus measures on the real economy has been weak. 1) The private sector has not appeared enthusiastic about following Beijing’s lead. 2) Banks seem reluctant to lend. 3) Government officials and SOE executives have been demoralized by the anti-corruption campaign and salary cuts. 

    The “weak impact” of stimulus means that although the economy may “stabilize” in Q4, it will “slide again” in Q1 201

    Export order flows have been slow while export manufacturers are shutting down factories amid surging costs and the recent threat from the TPP agreement. The private sector does not seem keen to invest because of poor profitability in the manufacturing sector. Private consumption is not weak, but is by no means robust. Property developers have substantially slowed down construction activity in order to cut inventories. 

    And although Credit Suisse contends that a hard landing isn’t their base case (which is odd because frankly, the hard landing has already occurred), the bank does offer the following rather alarming account of corporate health and the read through for bank balance sheets:

    Still, we expect corporate profits to deteriorate significantly in 2016, as indicated by industrial sector nominal GDP growth. Feedback from the ground also suggests that not only are account receivables on the rise, but that some companies are now having to borrow to pay staff salaries. Corporate balance sheet deterioration may well be a theme in 2016, raising market concerns, in our view. A mirror image of that is the rise in bank non- performing loans. Our contacts among the banks seem increasingly concerned about the NPL issue in 2016.  

    Somehow, Credit Suisse’s takeaway from that assessment is that there’s no “systemic risk,” but we would beg to differ. We’re not at all surprised to learn that Chinese corporates are borrowing to pay employees. It was just three weeks ago when we reported that, just as we predicted in March of 2014, China is reaching its dreaded Minsky Moment, as companies are set to borrow some $1.2 trillion just to service the debt they already have and otherwise remain operational:

    As for what comes next, Credit Suisse says “the PBoC is likely to look at a deep cut in RRR in order to create more space for the banks combatting a rise in NPLs.” What counts as “deep” you ask? Up to 400 bps. 

    Here, courtesy of RBS’ Alberto Gallo, is a look at Chinese NPLs. Note that although the graphics also show special mention loans and doubtful accounts, the “real” numbers are still far, far higher:

    Finally, note that Credit Suisse is now “less concerned” about the possibility that Chinese corporates that have borrowed in dollars will run into trouble should a Fed hike and China’s desire to gradually let the yuan depreciate hurt the corporate sector’s ability to service its debt: “Fed tightening may create turbulence for Chinese dollar debt borrowers, but we are less concerned now than we would have been before as the domestic debt market is now available to fund the rollover.” Here’s a chart that shows Chinese corporate USD borrowings – decide for yourself if the domestic market will fund the rollover:

  • Texas Police Chief Warns Obama Of "Approaching Revolution", Urges Citizens To Arms Themselves

    Randy Kennedy, the chief of the Hughes Springs Police Department (in Texas), is the latest in a string of police chiefs across the nation urging citizens to arm themselves following the recent mass shootings in Colorado Springs and San Bernardino.

    In this brief clip, Kennedy warns President Obama that trying to take away American's guns will "cause a revolution," adding that the 2nd Amendment is "there to protect us against a government that has over-reached its power," exclaiming "you are not our potentate, sir. You are our servant."

    As AP reports, Kennedy said his call to arms was the result of his disappointment with Obama's Oval Office speech Sunday in which the president vowed the U.S. will overcome a new phase of the terror threat that seeks to "poison the minds" of people here and around the world. The police chief told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he's not asking residents to turn into vigilantes or "become super action heroes."

    He warned people in his town to prepare themselves: "Be ready when the wolf comes to the door, because it's on its way."

    Kennedy is not the first to warn his citizens…Law enforcement officials in Arizona, Florida and New York also have recently prompted citizens to arm themselves – some using similar comments aimed at terrorism.

     Wayne Ivey, the sheriff in Brevard County, Florida, said in a video post on the department's Facebook page over the weekend that political leaders appear more interested in being politically correct than protecting people. He urged residents to arm themselves as a first line of defense against an active shooter.

     

    "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," Ivey said.

     

    Another Florida sheriff, Steve Whidden in Hendry County, this week encouraged more people to carry weapons because "we as a nation are under attack by radical Islamic terrorists."

     

    Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona issued a statement Tuesday asking "legally armed citizens to take a stand, and take action during a mass shooting/terrorist event until law enforcement arrives."

     

    And last week, Ulster County Sheriff Paul Van Blarcum in upstate New York called for licensed gun owners in his county to arm themselves when leaving home, citing mass shootings in Paris and San Bernardino, California.

  • Declassified U.S. Government Report on Fukushima: “100% of The Total Spent Fuel Was Released to the Atmosphere from Unit 4”

    We reported in 2011 that the International Atomic Energy Commission knew within weeks that Fukushima had melted down … but failed and refused to tell the public.

    The same year, we reported in 2011 that the U.S. knew within days of the Fukushima accident that Fukushima had melted down … but failed to tell the public.

    We noted in 2012:

    The fuel pools and rods at Fukushima appear to have “boiled”, caught fire and/or exploded soon after the earthquake knocked out power systems. See this, this, this, this and this.

    Now, a declassified report written by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on March 18, 2011 – one week after the tidal wave hit Fukushima – states:

    The source term provided to NARAC was: (1) 25% of the total fuel in unit 2 released to the atmosphere, (2) 50% of the total spent fuel from unit 3 was released to the atmosphere, and (3) 100% of the total spent fuel was released to the atmosphere from unit 4.

    FukushimaNARAC is the the U.S. National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center, located at the University of California’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. NARAC “provides tools and services that map the probable spread of hazardous material accidentally or intentionally released into the atmosphere“.

    The fuel pools at Units 3 and 4 contained enormous amounts of radiation.

    For example, there was “more cesium in that [Unit 4] fuel pool than in all 800 nuclear bombs exploded above ground.”

  • TEPCO Admits Fukushima Radiation Leaks Have Spiked Sharply

    Just weeks after the completion (and failure) of one supposed 'containment' wall (and as the construction of the "ice wall" begins), TEPCO, the operator of the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, has admitted that the levels of radioactivity in underground tunnels has risen sharply (4000x last year's levels). As NHKWorld reports, TEPCO officials have stated that they plan to investigate what caused the spike in radiation… yes, that would seem like a good idea.

    With the newly constructed 780-meter 'containment' wall "already leaning," news that the radiation leaks are growing is a grave concern. As NHKWorld details,

    Tokyo Electric Power Company has detected 482,000 becquerels per liter of radioactive cesium in water samples taken from the tunnels on December 3rd. That's 4000 times higher than data taken in December last year.

     

    The samples also contained 500,000 becquerels of a beta-ray-emitting substance, up 4,100 times from the same period.

     

    Around 400 to 500 tons of radioactive water, including seawater washed ashore in the March 2011 tsunami, is still pooled in the tunnels.

     

    The tunnels lie next to a structure used to temporarily store highly radioactive water, which cooled melted nuclear fuel inside the damaged reactors.

     

    TEPCO officials say it is unlikely the wastewater stored in the building has seeped into the tunnels.

     

    They say the water level in the tunnels is higher than that in the building and measures are in place to stop the toxic water from leaking out.

     

    They plan to investigate what caused the spike in radiation.

    Do not panic though, since…

    They say there has been no leakage out of the tunnels as radiation levels in underground water nearby have not risen.

    Because why would they lie (again)?

  • Playing Chess With Putin

    Submitted by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

    “What’s it like playing chess with Obama?” asks a top aid of Russian president Vladimir Putin.

     

    Putin replies, “It’s like playing chess with a pigeon. First it knocks over all the pieces, then it shits on the board, and finally it struts around like it won.”

    Now, Putin hasn’t actually said this on record. It’s just a popular joke circulating in Russia.

    But I wouldn’t be surprised if he really did say it. It’s not far off base.

    Putin outmaneuvered the West in Ukraine and most recently in Syria. Most importantly, he has outflanked Western sanctions through increased financial and economic cooperation with China and other Eurasian powers.

    No matter what happens in the West, Russia’s recent power plays are creating tectonic shifts in geopolitics. This could be the largest shift in global power since World War II.

    Ultimately, this could threaten the U.S. dollar’s role as the world’s premier reserve currency. That would have huge negative implications for your personal freedom and financial prosperity.

    Will Russia End the Unipolar World?

    Actually, it’s not just Russia we have to watch. China, Iran, and other Eurasian powers are working with Russia on an ambitious goal. They’re trying to end U.S. dominance in global trade, finance, and military power.

    These countries want to create what Russian officials call a “multipolar world.” It would replace the unipolar world that’s existed since the early 1990s, when the Soviet Union collapsed. The U.S. has been the world’s sole superpower ever since.

    In short, Russia and its partners want to completely redraw the lines of global power. Here’s how they’re doing it…

    First, there’s China’s New Silk Road. It’s the biggest and most comprehensive infrastructure project in all of human history. The plan is to link Asia to Europe via modern land transit corridors.

    The project includes high-speed rail lines, modern highways, fiber optic cables, energy pipelines, seaports, and airports. Much of this new infrastructure will flow through Russia.

    If everything goes as planned, the New Silk Road will be a reality by 2025.

    This will free Russia, China, Iran, and others from dependence on ocean transport. At that point, control of the high seas, which the U.S. has had for many decades, won’t be nearly as important.

    In addition to the New Silk Road, a set of interlocking international organizations is emerging. These new organizations are supporting Russia’s plans for a multipolar world.

    Trade – The Eurasian Economic Union

    The Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) is a Russian-led trading bloc.

    The EEU allows for free movement of goods, services, money, and people through Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Armenia. It’s gradually expanding as countries along the New Silk Road remove trade barriers.

    Security – The Shanghai Cooperation Organization

    In the military and security realm, there’s the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). It could become a NATO of the East.

    Current members include Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. India and Pakistan will join by 2016. Iran is also likely to join in the future.

    A Parallel International Financial System

    China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) will provide funding for international infrastructure projects. It’s an alternative to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, which are both dominated by the U.S.

    The BRICS countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – all support Russia’s goal of creating a multipolar world. Like the AIIB, the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) is an international financial institution based in China. It’s another alternative to the IMF and World Bank.

    The NDB and AIIB will complement, not compete with, each other in financing New Silk Road projects. The NDB will also finance infrastructure projects in Africa and South America.

    It’s important to note that the NDB will use members’ national currencies, not the U.S. dollar. It won’t depend on U.S.-controlled institutions for anything. This reduces the NDB’s exposure to U.S. pressure.

    The BRICS countries are also looking to build an alternative to SWIFT, the major international payments system.

    SWIFT is truly essential to the current international financial system. Without it, it’s nearly impossible to move money from a bank in country A to a bank in country B.

    The U.S. kicked Iran out of SWIFT in 2012. This crippled Iran’s international trade. It also showed that the U.S. could use SWIFT as a political weapon. The BRICS countries want their own system so they can neutralize that power.

    AIIB, NDB, and the potential SWIFT alternative are the seeds of a parallel international financial system. Together, they will reduce the importance and demand for U.S. dollars.

    What it Means for You

    Today, most international trade is done in U.S. dollars. When one country wants to trade with another, it almost always has to buy U.S. dollars on the foreign exchange market first. This creates demand for U.S. dollars – much more than there would be otherwise. That boosts the value of the dollar.

    Imagine how much this arrangement props up the U.S. dollar. It’s incredible.

    This arrangement has allowed the U.S. government (and U.S. citizens) to live way beyond its means for decades. It also gives the U.S. unchecked geopolitical leverage. The U.S. could exclude virtually any country from the U.S. dollar-based financial system…and by extension the vast majority of international trade.

    The U.S. takes this unique position for granted. But it will disappear once the dollar loses its premier status.

    This will likely be the tipping point…

    Afterward, the U.S. government will be desperate enough to implement capital controls, people controls, nationalization of retirement savings, and other forms of wealth confiscation.

    It would be wise to prepare for the economic and sociopolitical fallout while you still can. Expect bigger government, less freedom, shrinking prosperity…and possibly worse.

    It’s probably not going to happen tomorrow. But it’s clear where the bankrupt governments of the U.S. and most of the West are headed.

    Once the dollar loses its status as the world’s premier reserve currency, you will have few, if any options, to protect yourself.

    This is why it’s essential to act before that happens.

    If Putin continues to outmaneuver the U.S. on the geopolitical chessboard, the dollar could collapse sooner rather than later.

    The sad truth is, most people have no idea how bad things could get, let alone how to prepare…

    There are straightforward steps you can start taking today to protect your savings and yourself. You don’t have to be on the losing team in this high-stakes chess match with Putin.

    This just-released video will show you where to begin. Click here to watch it now.

  • "Straddle-Up" Goldman's 'Winning' Options Strategy Into Year-End

    As 2015 draws to a close, Goldman identifies 15 straddle-buying opportunities on stocks with liquid options, reporting in December. Our studies analyzing historical earnings events show at-the-money straddles are systematically undervalued ahead of the event. Buying straddles ahead of earnings has returned 10% through early December vs. the long term average of 2%.

    As Goldman Sachs writes, our studies analyzing historical earnings events show at-the-money straddles are systematically undervalued ahead of the event.

    Buying straddles ahead of earnings has returned 10% through early December vs. the long term average of 2%.

     

    The average cost of a straddle on this list is only slightly above the historical earnings move despite capturing more than a week of trading days outside earnings. We see KMX, ACN and ORCL particularly inexpensive compared to prior earnings moves.

     

    Straddle buyers risk losing the premium paid if shares close at the strike price on expiration.

  • FT Bombshell: EU Unveils Standing Border Force That Will Act "Even If A Government Objects"

    Last weekend we wrote that in Europe’s attempt to contain the greatest refugee crisis since WWII, it would directly take control over the border control of the one country which over the summer lost its sovereignty (but at least it still has the euro), and which serves as a springboard for tens of thousands of migrants to proceed onward with their journey to Germany (where as reported earlier, they are no longer desired, as their continued arrival results in a plunging approval rating for Angela Merkel).

    We added that the deployment of additional officers will begin next week, and noted that as our friends at Keep Talking Greece wrote:

    “the masks have fallen. Hand in hand, the European Union and the Frontex want to cancel national sovereignty and take over border controls in the pretext of “safeguarding the Schengen borders”. With controversial claims, they use the case of Greece to create an example that could soon happen “in the border area near you.”  And the plan is all German.”

    Finally, we asked whether this was merely Paranoia

    or just another confirmation that the Eurozone is using every incremental, and produced, crisis to cement its power over discrete European state sovereignty and wipe out the cultural and religious borders the prevent the amalgamation of Europe into a Brussels, Berlin and Frankfurt-controlled superstate? “

    It was not paranoia, because according to blockbuster FT report released moments ago, “Brussels is to propose the creation of a standing European border force that could take control of the bloc’s external frontiers even if a government objected.

    As even the otherwise pro-EU FT cautiously notes, “The move would arguably represent the biggest transfer of sovereignty since the creation of the single currency.”

    We agree, because this is precisely what we said would happen.

    … the European Commission will unveil plans next week to replace the Frontex border agency with a permanent border force and coastguard — deployed with the final say of the commission, according to EU officials and documents seen by the Financial Times.

     

    The blueprint represents a last-ditch attempt to save the Schengen passport-free travel zone, by introducing the kind of common border policing repeatedly demanded by Paris and Berlin. Britain and Ireland have opt-outs from EU migration policy, and would not be obliged to take part in the scheme.

    Naturally, the first guniea pig wil be Greece: the state which has already lost its sovereignty courtesy of capital controls that will likely persist in some form in perpetuity, and which is most distressed and thus least equipped to say no. It will spread from there and promptly become the norm for a “project” which the European apparatchiks think is long overdue.

    Indeed, as the FT adds, “European leaders have discussed a common border force for more than 15 years, but always struggled to overcome deep-seated objections to yielding national powers to monitor or enforce borders — one of the core functions of a sovereign state. Greece, for instance, only recently agreed to accept EU offers to send border teams, after months of wrangling over their remit.”

    However now in the aftermath of the Paris suicide bombings and the indefinite emergency “pre-crime” laws instituted in France, conventional wisdom in Brussels is that Europeans’ eagerness to trade sovereignty (and thus liberty) in exchange for (border) security, is far greater.

    The result: a loss of border sovereignty, which woul effectively make the customs union one big superstate controlled by Brussels:

    One of the most contentious elements of the regulation would hand the commission the power to authorise a deployment to a frontier, on the recommendation of the management board of the newly formed European Border and Coast Guard. This would also apply to non-EU members of Schengen, such as Norway.

    And the absolute kicker:

    Although member states would be consulted, they would not have the power to veto a deployment unilaterally.

    And just like that, goodbye sovereignty… all in the name of halting the endless onslaught of Syrian refugees, which ironically was unleashed in the first place just so Europe could get its supplies of natural gas from Qatar instead of Russia.

    Europe has a prepared response, of course, saying that individual states are clearly unable to defend themselves against the barbarian refugee hordes:

    “Dimitris Avramopoulos, who is responsible for EU migration policy, said: “The refugee crisis has shown the limitations of the current EU border agency, Frontex, to effectively address and remedy the situation created by . . . the pressure on Europe’s external borders.” He said the EBCG would be a way to “protect and strengthen Schengen”.

    Actually, it would be a way to hand over all military control to a body of unelected bureaucrats. Here’s why:

    If the plan is approved by EU states, Frontex’s replacement will have a slew of new powers, including the ability to hire and control its own border guards and buy its own equipment. It will also be allowed to operate in non-EU countries — such as Serbia and Macedonia, which have become transit countries for people trying to reach northern Europe — if requested.

    One doesn’t have to even be a member of the EU any more to become a vassal state of Brussels.  But the scariest aspect is the following:

    The new agency will be able to deport people who do not have the right to remain in Europe — a power Frontex lacked.

    And just like that, the decision of who can and who can’t stay in any one European country will be delegated to some faceless bureaucrat in Brussels, circumventing all sovereign laws.

    The new force will also be able to call on a pool of border guards set aside by member states in reserve, as well as its own guards. National capitals will retain day-to-day control of their borders, but the new agency will be able to monitor their efforts and step in if it feels the protection on offer is inadequate.

    * * *

    Now we admit that some of this may come as a shock to some naive Europhiles, who still do not realize that all of this was preplanned, and predicted as long ago as 2008 when an internal AIG presentation answered the simple question: What Europe Wants. The answer:

    To use global issues as excuses to extend its power:

    • environmental issues: increase control over member countries; advance idea of global governance
    • terrorism: use excuse for greater control over police and judicial issues; increase extent of surveillance
    • global financial crisis: kill two birds (free market; Anglo-Saxon economies) with one stone (Europe-wide regulator; attempts at global financial governance)
    • EMU: create a crisis to force introduction of “European economic government”

    All have been spot on, but not even this aggressive and accurate forecast predicted that Europe would be so bold as to effectively take over border and population control sovereignty across the entire continent. It is about to do just that.

  • Trump Takes Nation By Storm: More Americans Agree With Muslim Ban Than Reject It

    In case you were confused how it is that Donald Trump's polling numbers could increase following his Muslim-ban comments (which have beeen widely denigrated by any and all talking head who can fog a mirror – from The White House down…), here is the "surely not us?" answer.

    As The Hill reports, a new post-Trump survey by Rasmussed finds that 46% of likely voters would favor a policy preventing Muslim immigrants from entering the country until tighter screening procedures can be implemented, while only 40% would oppose such a measure.

     

     

    In direct opposition to what The White House said (that Trump’s proposal is "totally contrary to our values as Americans,") it is apparent from this survey that the Obama Administration does not know its 'constituents' as well as it may have thought.

    Simply put, based on this poll, more Americans – republicans and democrats – support Trump's idea of banning the entry of Muslims into America than oppose it, and now that it is 'polling' as a populist idea, we await Hillary Clinton to jump on the bandwagon.

  • Rand Paul Backs Trump, Unleashes "Top Ten Things That Make Obama Unqualified" For Office

    Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

    The White House, which is running a blatantly unconstitutional regime, is now attempting to vet potential successors to the Oval Office, and yet again take out opposition leaders.

    First, Obama said that Assad lost all legitimacy, and should step down, and partnered with al Qaeda and ISIS to back up his opinions.

    Now, Obama’s press secretary has claimed that Donald Trump has lost all legitimacy and has been “disqualified” from running for office. Just how does the White House plan to back up its opinions this time? Trump claims that he won’t be intimidated and exit the race, but one has to wonder how far the system will go to get its way.

    “The fact is the first thing a President does when he or she takes the oath of office is to swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. And the fact is that what Donald Trump said yesterday disqualifies him from serving as President… And any Republican who’s too fearful of the Republican base to admit it has no business serving as president either,” Earnest said.

    See video and details of White House press secretary Josh Earnest’s comments here.

    Senator Rand Paul, who is also running for the GOP nomination, but who has received only a fraction of the coverage that Trump has, blasted back at the arrogance of the Obama White House, suggesting that President Obama should address his own “disqualifying” characteristics first:

    Rand Paul did make a list of his top reasons, and tweeted them out in succession. Of course, there are many more examples that should be dealt with. Here are Rand’s reasons, listed on the Washington Examiner, or here on Twitter:

    1. “Tried to take over 1/6 of the economy in Obamacare, wrecked the system and hurt patients and taxpayers.”

    2. “Thinks an executive order is legislation and how you make law.”

     

    3. “Fought an undeclared, unconstitutional war in Libya, turned it into Jihadist wonderland.”

    — Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 9, 2015

    4. “Fighting an undeclared, unconstitutional war in Syria, [and] trying to put ISIS in Damascus.”

    5. “Signed into law the indefinite detention of American citizens.” (Paul is referring to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) signed by Obama in 2011, which earned heavy criticism from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union).

    6. “His copy of the bill of rights obviously goes from 1 to 3, skipping the 2nd amendment.”

    7. [A federal appeals] Court ruled his NSA spying on every American was illegal.”

    8. “He has added more debt than anyone in history.”

    9. “Appointed an attorney general who thinks speech against Muslims is a bigger threat than terrorism.”

    10. “[Environmental Protection Agency] rules by executive FIAT trying to kill an entire American industry and way of life (coal).”

    Not sure how Rand interprets the first amendment, but it’s pretty obvious that the administration that has punished more whistleblowers than any other, and allowed the NSA, intelligence community and private business to spy on and censor anyone it wishes, has no respect for the 1st Amendment or 4th Amendment either. Due process and whole back of the original ten amendments has definitely eroded to point where the ink is no longer legible.

    Benghazi/Gaddafi, Fast and Furious and the use of drones all belong on this list as well, but it is only 10 and a good start. ISIS and the covert support of terrorism is its own giant issue that should be a nationwide scandal, with impeachments, prosecutions and a gutting of the entire staff of every major office in Washington, D.C. But it will never happen.

    Obama’s role in the bankers bailout and the failure to prosecute Wall Street executives, or end legalized derivatives are all crimes that will also escape any notion of justice, even if the criminals strike again.

    Though none of these men are perfect or trustworthy with ultimate power, President Obama and his team make Donald Trump and Rand Paul look like founding fathers.

  • Visualizing Russia's Intervention In Syria

    Earlier this week, a rather amusing piece appeared on Sputnik entitled “Ahead of the Game: Russia Moving Faster in Syria Than US Media Can Report.” In it, Russian media outlined five steps US diplomacy expert Robert Farley thinks Russia will take next in Syria. The point of the article is this: Russia had already taken four of the five steps by the time Farley produced his list. 

    That is in many ways emblematic of Moscow’s deployment in Syria. From the time a Russian three star general strolled into the US embassy in Baghdad and informed the staff that airstrikes “start in one hour,” the rapidity with which Putin’s forces have established a base, sent in equipment, and launched a coordinated campaign with the IRGC and Hezbollah has been nothing short of astonishing. 

    That said, the mission hasn’t been without setbacks. There was of course the downing of a warplane by Turkey and the subsequent destruction of a Russian search and rescue helicopter by the FSA and as Bloomberg correctly points out (although the article is absurdly biased), “many senior officials in Moscow underestimated how long the operation in support of Bashar al-Assad would take when Putin entered Syria’s civil war on Sept. 30 and no longer talk in terms of just a few months, with one saying the hope now is that it won’t last several years.”

    But Putin isn’t Obama and irrespective of how long the campaign will ultimately take, The Kremlin looks prepared not only to stay the course, but to ramp up the deployment. Not only is Moscow hitting terrorist targets with cruise missiles from Russia’s Caspian Fleet, but now, Moscow is shooting at ISIS from a submarine in what can only be described as an effort by Putin to use Syria as a testing ground for Russia’s long dormant military juggernaut (after all, you don’t really need to shoot at a group that doesn’t have an air force or a navy from a sub). 

    On that note, we present the following update graphic prepared by Louis Martin-Vézian of CIGeography as post at The Aviationst. It documents the scope of Russia’s operation in the Mid-East and should give you an idea of just how committed Moscow is to the fight.

  • The Fed's Painted Itself Into The Most Dangerous Corner In History – Why There Will Soon Be A Riot In The Casino

    Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

    The chart below crystalizes why the Fed is stranded in a monetary no man’s land. By the time of next week’s meeting the federal funds rate will have been pinned at about 10 bps, or effectively zero, for 84 straight months.

    Yet during that same period, the consumer price level has risen by 1.75% per year. And that’s if you give credit to all of the BLS gimmicks, such as hedonic adjustments for quality change, homeowners “imputed” rents and product basket substitution, which cause inflation to be systematically understated.

    On a basis that is close enough for government work, therefore, the real money market interest rate has been negative 2% for seven years. But that’s so crazy, unjustified, and unprecedented that even the Keynesian money printers who run the Fed have run out of excuses.

    Presumably, Yellen and her posse know that we did not have seven years running of negative real money market rates even during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

    So after one pretension, delusion, head fake and forecasting error after another, the denizens of the Eccles Building have painted themselves into the most dangerous monetary corner in history. They have left themselves no alternative except to provoke a riot in the casino – the very outcome that has filled them with fear and dread all these years.

    CPI and Fed Funds - Click to enlarge

    Indeed, Yellen and Bernanke before her have made a huge deal out of communications clarity and forward guidance. But how do you explain to even the credulous gamblers and day traders on Wall Street that the business cycle has not been outlawed and that free money can not last forever, world without end?

    Likewise, after all these years of saying that the dollar’s exchange rate is the responsibility of the US Treasury— and that the Eccles Building only does domestic monetary policy—– how will the Fed heads explain that they have wrapped themselves around the axle of an unrelentingly strong dollar?

    And that they are impotent to stop the gale force of global deflation and recession being imported into the domestic economy by the inexorable unwinding of the massive dollar short that they have spent years fueling?

    For years now the dollar has been a “funding” currency in the global casino—-something the gamblers borrowed or effectively sold short in order to pile into higher yielding EM debt, equities and commodities until they peaked awhile back.

    But the fantastic global credit bubble summarized below has now reached its apogee. China and the EM economies are rolling over into a debilitating deflation, thereby catalyzing the mother of all margins calls. This time subprime is lettered in Chinese and speaks with a Portuguese accent.

    This time the correction will not be in the overbuilt and over-valued domestic (and other DMs like Spain) housing market. Instead, there will be a global CapEx depression and its contractionary cascade will cause the entire global economy to shrink for the first time since the 1930s.

    In fact, it is already happening, even by the lights of the IMF. The world’s nominal GDP has dropped 5% in dollar terms during the past year, and that’s what counts because the world’s $225 trillion tower of debt is heavily denominated in dollars, or linked to it through exchange rates, most especially the Chinese RMB.

    But unlike the short-lived recessionary dips of the past, the southward turn in the graph below still has a long way to go. Brazil is plunging into its so-called hard-landing and China is not far behind—-along with its supply chain and DM materials exporters like Canada and Australia.

    Figure 1. Gross Planet Product at current prices (trillions of dollars, 1980 – 2015)

    van bergelijk fig1 4 dec

    Source: IMF World Economic Outlook Database, October 2015.

    Shrinking GPP (Gross Planet Product) is not even in the Fed’s vocabulary yet, and even when they do latch on to it, they won’t dare explain it honestly and cogently.

    That’s because contracting GPP measures the abysmal failure of the two-decade long global experiment in massive central bank money printing, and the unsustainable credit fueled economic boom it enabled. And it is a stark reminder that the world’s effective leverage ratio will be rising—even as income and cash flow sink deeper into deflation.

    So the Fed will have some heavy duty “splanin”  to do, but it will be hard-pressed to come up with words that comfort the casino, rather than spook it.

    After all, for most of this century the Fed’s post meeting statements and minutes have been progressively degenerating into embarrassingly empty pabulum; and its seemingly rock solid voting consensus was an artifact of being on the Easy Button 80% of the time.

    In that environment there was little to debate and less to explain. They simply delivered an economic weather report and urged Wall Street to hang on for the ride.

    easybutton-480x286

    But now the Fed must emerge from the shaded zone shown above for the first time on a sustained basis since the 1980s. Yet as it seeks to explain a macro-economic slump that it absolutely did not see coming, and confesses to its complete lack of policy tools to reverse the worldwide deflationary tide now lapping at these shores, its statements will be reduced to self-evident and self-contradictory gibberish.

    Likewise, the 19 members of the Board will take to noisy public quarrelling right in front of the boys and girls on Wall Street for the first time in their lives.

    The reason that there will soon be a riot in the casino, therefore, is not owing to the prospect of a 25 bps pinprick after all this time on the zero bound.

    The hissy fit will happen because the Fed’s words and actions starting next week will not say “we have your back, keep buying”.

    The message will be “we are lost and you are on your own”.

    And that’s not “priced in”. Not even close.

    Evidence that a completely new monetary policy ball game is commencing comes from JM Keynes’ current vicar on earth himself, Larry Summers. Three days ago he penned a strange op ed in which he apparently reminded himself that the business cycle has not been outlawed——something most non-PhDs presumably already knew:

    U.S. and international experience suggests that once a recovery is mature, the odds that it will end within two years are about half and that it will end in less than three years are over two-thirds. Because normal growth is now below 2 percent rather than near 3 percent, as has been the case historically, the risk may even be greater now. While the risk of recession may seem remote given recent growth, it bears emphasizing that since World War II, no postwar recession has been predicted a year in advance by the Fed, the White House or the consensus forecast.

    Well now. If you wait until month 78 of a business expansion to end the emergency policy, and then hesitate to venture more than a few basis points off the zero bound, you will indeed use up the remaining runway right quick.

    That’s because the average of ten business cycle expansions since 1948 have lasted but 61 months; and the only expansion that was appreciably longer than the present tepid affair was the 119 month stretch of the 1990s.

    Historical Length of Recoveries - Click to enlarge

    Historical Length of Recoveries

    But let’s see. Back then the Fed’s balance sheet was $300 billion, not $4.5 trillion. The world had less than $40 trillion of debt or about 1.4X GDP, not $225 trillion or nearly 3X global income.

    Global Debt and GDP- 1994 and 2014

    And, most importantly, China was still a quasi-agrarian victim of Mao’s destructrutive experiments in collectivist economics and state generated famine, not today’s towering Red Ponzi.

    That is, it was irrelevant then, but is now a bloated economic whale sinking under the weight of $30 trillion of debt and the most reckless spree of over-investment and mindless public and private construction in recorded history.

    So as this domestic business expansion cycle get long in the tooth, the US economy is confronted by a veritable engine of global deflation in the form of China and its EM supply chain. After a 20-year credit driven boom, it now payback time. All of these economies find their exports stalled, their exchange rates falling, and their debt service exploding higher.

    What this means, of course, is that Wall Street’s “decoupling” myth will soon be on the scrap heap. US exports and imports are now crumbling, and even the standard measures of goods transit are cliff diving.

    Likewise, today’s wholesale report for November was a red alert warning that a big recession inducing inventory liquidation is just around the corner.  Even if Janet Yellen won’t find this chart on her dash board of 19 lagging labor indicators, the message is unmistakable.

    According to Dr. Summers, the thing to do when recession strikes is to cut interest rates by 300 basis points. But even he admits it ain’t going to happen this time.

    Even if were technically possible to have a negative 300 bps federal funds rate, what is already a 2016 election year gong show would take on a whole new level of crazy. The brutally trod upon savers and retirees of American would well and truly revolt.

    Historical experience suggests that when recession comes it is necessary to cut interest rates by more than 300 basis points. I agree with the market that the Fed likely will not be able to raise rates by 100 basis points a year without threatening to undermine the recovery. But even if this were possible, the chances are very high that recession will come before there is room to cut rates by enough to offset it. The knowledge that this is the case must surely reduce confidence and inhibit demand.

     

    Central bankers bravely assert that they can always use unconventional tools. But there may be less in the cupboard than they suppose. The efficacy of further quantitative easing in an environment of well-functioning markets and already very low medium-term rates is highly questionable. There are severe limits on how negative rates can become. A central bank that is forced back to the zero lower bound is not likely to have great credibility if it engages in forward guidance.

    So if the endlessly clever word-splitter who currently heads the church of Keynes on earth can do not better than the above ill-disguised punt, can you imagine what blithering incoherence will be contained in the meeting statements as the recession gathers force next year?

    Yes, there will be a riot in the casino.

  • "Let's Just Hope Shipping Isn't Telling the Real Story of China"

    One of the recurring topics we have focused on extensively in the past few months has been the dramatic collapse of all shipping-related metrics when it comes to seaborne trade with China, from the recent record plunge in the Baltic Dry index

     

    … to Shanghai Containerized Freight…

     

    … both of which are taking place even as China exports record amount of commodities to the outside world…

     

    We have also repeatedly noted that the implications for both China, and the entire world, from these charts are dire because they suggest that not only is China not growing, but the entire world is now gripped in not only an earnings and GDP (in USD-denominated terms, global GDP is set to decline by several trillion dollars) recession, but also suffering its first trade contraction since the financial crisis.

     

    And now, Bloomberg has turned its attention to just these, and other comparable charts, and published an article titled “Let’s Just Hope Shipping Isn’t Telling the Real Story of China“, prudently adding that investors betting that China’s near-insatiable appetite for industrial raw materials will drive global economic growth may want to skip the shipping news.

    Here’s why:

    For the first time in at least a decade, combined seaborne imports of iron ore and coal – commodities that helped fuel a manufacturing boom in the world’s second-largest economy — are down from a year earlier. While demand next year may be a little better, slower-than-anticipated growth in 2015 has led to almost perpetual disappointment for shippers, after analysts’ predictions at the end of 2014 for a rebound proved wrong.

     

    The article notes that China accounts for two in every three iron-ore cargoes in the world, and is the largest importer of soybeans and rice. But this year, demand has slowed to the point where any speculation that China may be growing at anything near to 7% is a joke.

    Combined seaborne imports of iron ore and coal will drop 4.8 percent to 1.097 billion metric tons, the first decline since at least 2003, according to data from Clarkson Plc, the biggest shipbroker. A year ago, Clarkson was anticipating a 5.5 percent increase for 2015. The broker expects growth to increase just 0.04 percent next year.

     

    It will get worse: “The China Iron and Steel Association predicted crude-steel output will tumble by 23 million tons to 783 million tons next year. That lost output is more than a quarter of what U.S. steelmakers produce.”

    A big reason for the collapse in Chinese demand are Beijing’s attempts to crack down on excess leverage.

    Imports are weakening even as China’s economy keeps expanding because of reduced spending by local governments that are dominant players in the economy, according to Fielding Chen, a Hong Kong-based economist for Bloomberg Intelligence. The central government in January withdrew guarantees for Local Government Financing Vehicles used to finance infrastructure projects during the country’s boom years, when domestic capacity surged over the past decade, he said.

     

    “This has reduced China’s appetite for steel and copper and other commodities that are used to build roads, subways and reservoirs,” Chen said. “It is not good for the economy and is one of the main reasons China cannot import more.”

    While China has attempted to boost the economy using monetary (cutting RRR ratios and interest rates) and fiscal (boosting spending at the local government level) stimulus, for now it appears to have cut back on the traditional growth dynamo which propelled China as the focus of global growth during the financial crisis – its relentless debt creation, which has doubled its total debt/EBITDA from just over 150% in 2007 to over 300% as of this year (282% as of 2014).

    It is this slowdown in China’s debt creation that is the true reason behind the global growth slowdown experienced both in China and around the globe.

    Bloomberg offers a ray of hope when it notes that the rout in buying showed signs of easing last month. China’s iron-ore imports rose to 82.13 million tons, a jump of 22 percent compared with a year earlier. Even so, the extra shipments are mostly because of rising Chinese steel exports, or tolling, rather than the nation’s own demand, according to Andy Xie who predicted in February that iron-ore prices would sink into the $30s this year, compared with $71 at the start of the year.

    Unfortunately, there is only so much time China can buy: Chinese steel mills have been pressured by losses, low prices and overcapacity as demand drops to levels unseen since 2009, cutting profits and reducing incentive for re-stocking. Worse, as we first showed two months ago, as a result of until recently soaring debt levels and collapsing commodity prices, more than half of indebted Chinese commodity companies are facing the grim prospect of imminent bankruptcy as they can’t even cover one year of interest with their existing cash flows.

    As a result, the commentary is downright disastrous:

    “For dry bulk, China has gone completely belly up,” said Erik Nikolai Stavseth, an analyst at Arctic Securities ASA in Oslo, talking about ships that haul everything from coal to iron ore to grain. “Present Chinese demand is insufficient to service dry-bulk production, which is driving down rates and subsequently asset values as they follow each other.”

     

    “China’s slowdown has come as a major shock to the system,” said Hartland Shipping’s Prentis. “We are now caught in the twilight zone between shifts in China’s economy, and it is uncomfortable as it’s causing unexpected slowing of demand.”

    So what can one do?

    There are two options: do as the Blooomberg article sarcastically suggests, and Hope Shipping Isn’t Telling the Real Story of China, or one can prepare for the mother of all mean reversions: after all it was China that dragged the world out of the second great depression (if only temporarily) when it unleashed the biggest debt-creation spree in history (one putting the Fed and all its peers to shame as we showed previously). It will be only fitting that China’s drags it back in.

  • Czech President: Turkey “Behaves As If [It’s] An Ally of the Islamic State; Removes Oil … Which Finances [ISIS]]

    Czech President Milos Zeman said yesterday (English translation):

    I think [Turkey] is indeed a member of NATO, but sometimes behaves as if more was an ally of the Islamic Republic: removes oil from the Syrian sites, which finances the Islamic state.

     

    ***

     

    They do not like the Kurds, which are the only ones who fought effectively with the Islamic state. That is why Turkey [should be viewed] with caution and why it should not be an EU member.

    He is one hundred percent right

    Postscript: The date of the article is “9.12.2015”, which 0 in the Czech way of writing dates – means December 9, 2015.

     

  • This Is The Scariest Chart For Angela Merkel

    Having won Time’s “Person of the Year” award, German chancellor Angela Merkel may have little time, or cause, for celebration.

    The reason for that is that, as we noted yesterday when commenting on Donald Trump’s snub of Time in which he said that it “picked person who is ruining Germany”, is that according to increasingly more Germans, Trump just may be – in his trademark politically incorrect way – right.

    Recall:

    In past years, Angela Merkel has been feted like a superstar at annual meetings of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party, earning thunderous ovations for defending German interests in the euro crisis and facing down Vladimir Putin over Ukraine. But a CDU congress in the southwestern city of Karlsruhe next week is shaping up to be a very different affair. Under intense pressure from conservative allies to reduce the flood of refugees into Germany, the 61-year-old chancellor faces the biggest test of her authority from within the party in years.

     

    Her Bavarian allies, the Christian Social Union (CSU), have been pressing for a cap for months, and even some of Merkel’s own ministers are lobbying openly for a tougher stance from the chancellor, who marked 10 years in office last month and must decide by next autumn whether she will seek a fourth term in 2017.

     

    “Merkel has never endured such sharp criticism from within her own ranks since becoming chancellor,” read a front-page editorial in conservative daily newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on Monday. “Under no circumstances can she allow the congress to approve a resolution on refugee policy that includes the word ‘Obergrenze’.” 

     

    “The mood among conservative members of parliament is really catastrophic right now,” said one senior CDU lawmaker, declining to be named. “Merkel is totally isolated.” “She needs to wake up,” said another top ranking party member.

    Why this dramatic shift in opinion about a chancellor who until recently was seen as untouchable and simply indestructable, and suddenly appears to be all too fragile? The answer is shown in the simple chart below, which shows the soaring numbers of migrant arrivals in Germany.

     

    The chart has major implications for Merkel’s political career because, as the WSJ notes, the higher the number of migrants, the lower her approval rating… and the higher the rating of her conservative ally, Bavarian Premier Horst Seedorf.

     

    Suddenly invincible Angela does not seem so unshakable. For those who have missed the story, here is what happened from the WSJ:

    When refugees marched from Budapest Sept. 4, paralyzing Hungary’s main highway to Austria, Mr. Orban phoned Vienna. Mr. Faymann wouldn’t take his calls, aides to each say. Mr. Orban convened his national-security cabinet and decided to bus the migrants to the border. “If Austria wants them, they can have them,” Mr. Orban said, according to a person present.

     

    Hungary’s foreign minister told his shocked Austrian counterpart the news at an EU meeting that day. Austrian officials, unprepared for mass arrivals, urgently sought German help.

     

    The emergency caught Ms. Merkel on a day of party events in Essen and Cologne. In a volley of phone calls, she and Mr. Faymann shared a calculus, say aides to each: Only force could halt the migrants at the border; inaction could result in exhausted refugees dying on the highway. 

     

    Ms. Merkel made a snap decision that sent shock waves around Europe: Throw Germany’s doors open. Bypassing Europe’s asylum rules and skeptical members of her government, she ordered trains to carry the migrants to Munich.

     

    Her aides couldn’t reach her coalition partner, Bavaria’s premier Mr. Seehofer. He, like Mr. Orban, wanted to stop the migrants; the two men became Ms. Merkel’s most outspoken adversaries. Mr. Seehofer declined to be interviewed.

    Initially the Germans were delighted…

    As Germans greeted refugees in Munich with sweets, toys and hugs, Mr. Orban told Ms. Merkel by phone her decision undermined the fight against illegal immigration and lured migrants to Europe, aides to each say. He lambasted German and Austrian volunteers who drove into Hungary to give Syrians a lift: “Legally they are human traffickers. Is that what you want?”

     

    He told her Hungary was fencing off its southern border. If all EU countries did the same, he said, the crisis would end. “The Hungarian solution,” he said, “is the only solution.”

     

    Ms. Merkel replied that if Europe wanted a wall, it would have to be high and defended with violence against civilians, and Greece could hardly wall the Aegean Sea. A fence might work for Hungary, she told Mr. Orban, but she sought answers for all Europe.

    … But then the mood at home turned decidedly sour:

    Backlash built against Ms. Merkel at home, where pro-refugee euphoria faded while as many as 10,000 arrived daily. Local governments struggled to house and feed them. In overstretched Bavaria, Mr. Seehofer threatened to sue the federal government unless Ms. Merkel set a cap on arrivals.

     

    She dismissed the demand. “If we have to start apologizing now for showing a friendly face in emergencies,” she told reporters, “then this is not my country.” She knew she had to convince voters the situation wasn’t out of control. Immersing herself in the logistics of accommodating migrants, she learned details about heated tents and housing containers. She tightened rules on asylum-seekers’ benefits. She pushed for EU migrant-processing centers in Greece and Italy to block bogus asylum claimants.

    Merkel then did half a U-turn, doing everything in her power to court not only Turkey but Eastern European nations in hopes they would accommodate the bulk of the refugees.

    She courted Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whom she had long mistrusted but whose help she needed to reduce the migrant flow. Mr. Erdogan’s demands, EU officials say, included money for refugee camps, visa-free European travel for Turks, revitalizing stalled talks on EU membership and regular summits with EU leaders. Visiting Istanbul in October, Ms. Merkel told him she was willing to talk about everything. One problem: Her party opposes Turkey’s joining the EU.

    No problem: two weekends ago, Turkey was fast tracked for EU accession, with visa requirements set to be reduced, even as Turkey gets billions in “aid” to help with the refugee settlement

    Then it was the Balkans’ turn:

    Balkan countries struggled with the buildup of migrants south of Hungary, whose anti-migrant fence created bottlenecks elsewhere. And many governments criticized Greece for waving migrants through.

     

    At a summit of countries along the Balkan migration trail, called at Ms. Merkel’s behest, leaders warned they would build fences if Germany closed its border. Ms. Merkel said that, having grown up in communist East Germany, she opposed walling off countries but that there might be no alternative unless Greece and others helped manage the flow.

     

    Under German pressure, the Balkan countries agreed to put up 100,000 people until the EU could find long-term homes. By November, far more were entering Europe. Germany alone expects to receive a million asylum-seekers this year.

    When it came to vassal state Greece, Germany, pardon Europe, had a simple solution: threaten the country with expulsion from Schengen and an indefinite isolation from the European Union. Greece promptly threw in the towel and handed over control of its border to Brussels.

    Meanwhile, the Paris terrorist event has rendered Merkel’s initial “welcoming” stance impossible:

    The Paris attacks have made Ms. Merkel’s remedies harder to sell. Eastern European leaders are still balking at taking Muslim refugees, although the EU quota decision is binding. Mr. Orban blames Germany’s open-door policy for admitting terrorists. “We are monitoring every Muslim in our territory,” Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico said publicly after visiting the French embassy there following the Paris attacks. He declined to comment.

    In the end the biggest loser may be Europe itself, whose “union” is unraveling before our eyes. However, before Europe falls, the first casualty will be the person for whom a united Europe, at any means and at any cost, will be her one legacy, or perhaps epitaph.

    In Germany, pressure on the chancellor is mounting inside her coalition. At their Nov. 19 party congress, Mr. Seehofer’s Bavarian conservatives voted to cap migration. Ms. Merkel told the congress turning refugees away was unworkable: “Isolation is not a solution in the 21st century.” Applause was sparse.

     

    “You know we’re unrelenting,” Mr. Seehofer replied. “You haven’t heard the last of this.” He earned a thunderous ovation.

    How does this end? Keep an eye on Merkel’s “scariest chart” for hints: unless Germany can stem the influx of refugees (while making other European nations increasingly angry and unhappy with their lot in the EU) the damage to Germany’s chancellor (who once cried when faced with the prospect of a Greek default) inflicted by five years of an insolvency European periphery will seem like a walk in the park compared to what the “refugee tsunami” will unleash first in Germany and then across all of Europe.

  • Two US Military Servicemen Claim 'Doctors Without Borders' Hospital Was Intentionally Targeted

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Over the last month or so, there’s been a bit of a flurry of U.S. military members with conscience coming forward to tell the truth about incidents or practices they deem unethical.

    For example, just last month, four former drone operators came forward to denounce the program publicly, coupled with a letter addressed to President Obama. As noted in the post, Drone Whistleblower Claim – Pilots Often High on Drugs; Refer to Children as “Fun Size Terrorists”:

    The killings, part of the Obama administration’s targeted assassination program, are aiding terrorist recruitment and thus undermining the program’s goal of eliminating such fighters, the veterans added. Drone operators refer to children as “fun-size terrorists” and liken killing them to “cutting the grass before it grows too long,” said one of the operators, Michael Haas, a former senior airman in the Air Force. Haas also described widespread drug and alcohol abuse, further stating that some operators had flown missions while impaired.

     

    Haas also described widespread alcohol and drug abuse among drone pilots. Drone operators, he said, would frequently get intoxicated using bath salts and synthetic marijuana to avoid possible drug testing and in an effort to “bend that reality and try to picture yourself not being there.” Haas said that he knew at least a half-dozen people in his unit who were using bath salts and that drug use had “impaired” them during missions.

    Moving along to today’s piece, two U.S. servicemen have come forward to claim that, as opposed to the Pentagon’s official story, the military intentionally targeted the Afghan Doctors without Borders hospital, in an attack that killed 31 civilians.

    The AP reports:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Two servicemen have told Congress that American special forces called in an air strike on a hospital in Afghanistan because they believed the Taliban were using it as a command center, contradicting the military’s explanation that the attack was meant for a different building.

     

    Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, quoted the servicemen without naming them in a letter he sent Tuesday to Defense Secretary Ash Carter. The letter highlights gaps in the military’s explanation of an October air strike on a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz that killed 31 civilians.

     

    Hunter said the accounts provided to him raise the possibility that the U.S. was manipulated by its Afghan partners into attacking the hospital. If true, that would be a setback in the U.S. effort to work with and train a local force capable of securing that country.

     

    The two servicemen told Hunter the U.S. special forces soldiers who called in the air strike were not aware the Doctors Without Borders building was still being used as a hospital. Afghan forces, they say, told them it had become a Taliban command and control center.

     

    Doctors Without Borders leaders and independent witnesses insist there were no armed men in the hospital, and the military’s investigation supported that contention.

     

    The military’s official account, a summary of which was disclosed on Nov. 25 by the commanding U.S. general in Afghanistan, says the soldiers and airmen intended the air strike to hit a different building a half mile away — an Afghan intelligence facility said to be occupied by the Taliban.

     

    It was only because of technical failures and human error, Gen. John Campbell told reporters, that an AC-130 mistakenly struck and destroyed the trauma center in the Doctors Without Borders hospital.

     

    Campbell’s account didn’t address the evidence that the U.S. had been focusing on the hospital.

     

    The day before the attack, a senior special forces commander wrote in a report that the hospital was in Taliban hands and his objective was to clear it. A senior Pentagon official called Doctors Without Borders to ask whether their hospital had been overrun; he was told it had not.

     

    Hunter wrote to Carter of his concern “that inaccurate information and poor intelligence was provided by Afghan forces — including information that was both incorrect and unverified by U.S. intelligence and personnel.”

     

    Campbell said the AC-130 was sent to attack a different building, but when its sensors malfunctioned, the crew used visual cues to home in on what turned out to be the wrong building. One minute before the attack, he said, the crew passed on the coordinates of the building it was about to strike to its headquarters, which knew Doctors Without Borders was in that compound but was unable to detect the mistake in time.

     

    Hunter’s letter questioned how the military could misidentify an internationally run hospital that had been operating for years, given the billions of dollars that have been spent on technology designed to help commanders understand their battlespace.

    Mistakes happen. In war and in pretty much everything in life. That’s simply unavoidable. What is avoidable is lying after the fact, which is clearly what the U.S. military has chosen to do in this case. It is also what it chooses to do in all sorts of cases in which the truth would be embarrassing or harmful to the agenda of empire and the military-industrial complex. Which is precisely why people are increasingly distrustful of all institutions. “We the people” suspect we’re constantly lied to in the pursuit of an elitist agenda which is counter to our best interests.

    We are right.

  • Brazil Faces Disastrous Downgrade Debacle: Here's What You Need To Know

    Back on September 9, S&P threw Brazil in the junk bin. 

    “We anticipate that within the next year [another] downgrade could stem in particular from a further deterioration of Brazil’s fiscal position, or from potential key policy reversals given the fluid political dynamics, including a further lack of cohesion within the cabinet,” the ratings agency noted, explaining its negative outlook. “A downgrade could also result from greater economic turmoil than we currently expect either due to governability issues or the weakened external environment.”

    Suffice to say that the political “dynamics” have not become more favorable despite some observers’ contention that the further we move down the road to a Rousseff impeachment, the happier the market will be given her track record. House Speaker Eduardo Cunha faces an investigation by the ethics committee in connection with his alleged role in the Carwash scandal while the relationship between Rousseff and VP Michel Temer looks increasingly tenuous. Meanwhile, the arrest of Delcidio Amaral seemed to have ushered in a new era wherein sitting lawmakers aren’t above the law and may be too busy looking over their shoulders going forward to legislate. All of this casts considerable doubt on the country’s ability to overcome fractious politics on the way to adopting some semblance of fiscal rectitude. 

    As for “economic turmoil,” well, Brazil has effectively descended into a depression since S&P’s downgrade. GDP is collapsing, inflation is sitting at 10.5%, a 12-year high, and unemployment is soaring. Everything that could possibly go wrong economically is going wrong and thanks to rising prices and the incipient threat of lagged FX pass through, Copom is powerless to adopt counter-cyclical policies and will in fact be forced to hike in January. 

    Against this backdrop, Moody’s put the country’s investment grade rating on review Wednesday, suggesting it may not be long before Brazil gets junked again (don’t worry, Cunha says it’s priced in). 

    For those wondering how long it will be before the “B” in BRICS gets junked by everyone, look no further than the following slides from Credit Suisse who notes that “the continuation of unfavorable fiscal balances, prolonged recession, high inflation, and continued rise in public debt as a percentage of GDP are compatible with the expectation of additional downgrades in 2016 and 2017.” 

    And it’s not just the sovereign. Brazilian corporates are in trouble as well. As Bloomberg reports, “Fitch Ratings estimates it may slash the ratings of as many as 10 companies for every one it upgrades in 2016.” Here’s more: 

    Fitch has a negative outlook on Brazil and on the grades of more than half of the Brazilian companies it rates. Its BBB- ranking for sovereign bonds is the lowest possible investment grade. Standard & Poor’s cut the country to junk in September.

     

    Brazilian companies have accounted for 11 of 15 bond defaults in Latin America this year as a widening bribery probe into Petroleo Brasileiro SA roils the nation’s construction and banking industries.

     

    Rising yields threaten to make it harder for Brazil’s debt-laden businesses to refinance obligations as $30 billion of overseas bonds come due in the next two years.

    Needless to say, if the BRL continues to weaken in the face of still depressed commodity prices and a worsening political situation, it will become more and more difficult for Brazilian corporates that have borrowed in dollars to service their debt. Don’t forget, Brazil has some $89 billion in USD bonds trading above 9% (a large chunk is Petrobras paper). Here’s the full breakdown: Petrobras (USD37bn), USD20bn of industrials, USD15bn of banks (mostly subordinated), USD6bn of rigs, USD3bn of royalty-backed bonds and USD8bn of other sectors. 

    We’ll close with two tables. One from Deutsche Bank and one from the BIS. The first gives you an idea of what Brazil is facing in terms of USD bond maturities going forward and the second shows you the aggregate burden.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News December 10, 2015

  • Onshore Yuan Has Been In Freefall Since The IMF Added China To The SDR Basket

    For the 5th day in a row, Onshore Yuan has tumbled against the USDollar. Absent the violent devaluation in August, this is the largest drop since March 2014, leaving the Chinese currency at its weakest level against the USD since August 2011. It appears that after showing some signs of 'stability' to appease The IMF's political decision, and following the weak trade data this week, China has decided to escalate the currency wars, perhaps in anticipation of (or in an attempt to stall) any market turbulence when The Fed hikes rates next week and withdraws up to $800bn in liquidity from global markets.

     

    Onshore Yuan is now at its weakest since August 2011…

     

    As it seems, with the blessing of The IMF, China has begun its competitive devaluation efforts…slowly and under the cover of darkness from America's mainstream media…

     

    Put simply, something is going on as the world's money markets prepare for what lies ahead next week and the asset classes with the most risk (see CCC US Corps, EM FX, Oil) are the first to suffer before the effects of shortened collateral chains ripple up into mom-and-pop's 401k.

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • The Global Economic Reset Has Begun

    Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    In my last article, I outlined the deliberately engineered trend toward the forced “harmonization” of national economies and monetary policies, as well as the ultimate end goal of globalists: a single world currency system controlled by the International Monetary Fund and, by extension, global governance, which internationalists sometimes refer to in their more honest public moments as the “new world order.”

    The schematic for the new world order, according to the admissions of the internationalists, cannot possibly include the continued existence of U.S. geopolitical and economic dominance. The plan, in fact, requires the destabilization and reformation of America into a shell of its former glory. The most important element of this plan demands the removal of the U.S. dollar as the de facto world reserve currency, a change that would devastate our current financial structure.

    I outlined with undeniable evidence the reality that major governments, including the BRICS governments of the East, are fully on board with the globalist agenda. There is no way around it; the BRICS, including Russia and China, have openly called for a global monetary system centralized and dictated by the IMF using the SDR basket. This same plan was outlined decades ago in the Rothschild-owned magazine The Economist. We are witnessing that plan being implemented in front of our very eyes today.

    For the past couple of years, the current head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, has used the phrase “global economic reset” often in her speeches and interviews. There is some (deliberate) ambiguity to this notion, but after sitting through hours upon hours of her most boring and repetitive discussions in globalist think tanks such as the Council On Foreign Relations, the consistent message is pretty straightforward. If anyone can stand to listen to this woman's carefully crafted prattle and well-vetted half-truths for more than five minutes, I suggest they watch this particular speech given in January at the CFR:

    Her message on the global economic reset is essentially this: “Collective” cooperation will not just be encouraged in the new order, it will be required — meaning, the collective cooperation of all nations toward the same geopolitical and economic framework. If this is not accomplished, great fiscal pain will be felt and “spillover” will result. Translation: Due to the forced interdependency of globalism, crisis in one country could cause a domino effect of crisis in other countries; therefore, all countries and their economic behavior must be managed by a central authority to prevent blundering governments or "rogue central banks" from upsetting the balance.

    It’s interesting how the IMF’s answer to the failings of globalization is MORE globalization. In other words, Lagarde would argue that while we are in the midst of an international system, we are not centralized enough for such a system to succeed.

    The IMF points out correctly that the economic situation around the world is not stable and could revert once again to the chaos of the initial 2008 crash. The Bank for International Settlements, the primary hub of central bank control, has also given numerous warnings this year on the potential for disaster, including in its latest quarterly report.

    The warnings of the BIS in particular should not be taken lightly (some analysts are indeed taking them lightly). The BIS knows exactly when financial disasters will erupt because it wrote the central bank policies that created those same events. For example, in 2007, the BIS released a warning that perfectly predicted the elements of the derivatives and credit crisis in 2008.

    What these globalist institutions will not tell you in a direct manner are the real causes and motivations behind the inevitable next stage in the ongoing destruction of the current economic system

    The global reset is not a “response” to the process of collapse we are trapped in today. No, the global reset as implemented by central banks and the BIS/IMF are the CAUSE of the collapse. The collapse is a tool, a flamethrower burning a great hole in the forest to make way for the foundations of the globalist Ziggurat to be built. As outlined in my last article, economic disaster serves the interests of elitists.

    When you look at these actions by the Federal Reserve and the U.S. government in particular, questions arise. Is it “stupidity” that is causing them to sabotage the golden goose? Is it hubris and greed? Their actions are clearly facilitating a program of incremental implosion, yet they continue to ignore the obvious. Why?

    The people who ask these questions are operating on a false assumption; they have assumed that the international bankers and the puppet politicians they control have any interest in protecting the longevity of the U.S. The fact is they do not. They have no loyalty whatsoever to the U.S. system, nor do they see the U.S. as “too big to fail.” This is utter nonsense to globalists. Rather, they see each nation and central bank as a piece in a game, much like chess. Some pieces have to be sacrificed in order to gain a better position on the board. This is all that the U.S., the Federal Reserve and even the dollar are to them: expendable pieces in a larger game.

    The U.S. is now experiencing the next stage of the great reset. Two pillars were put in place on top of an already existing pillar by the central banks in order to maintain a semblance of stability after the 2008 crash.  This faux stability appears to have been necessary in order to allow time for the conditioning of the masses towards greater acceptance of globalist initiatives, to ensure the debt slavery of future generations through the taxation of government generated long term debts, and to allow for internationalists to safely position their own assets.  The three pillars are now being systematically removed by the same central bankers. Why? I believe that they are simply ready to carry on with the next stage of the controlled demolition of the American structure as we know it.

    Bailouts And QE:  The First Pillar Removed

    The bailout bonanza was in part a direct intervention in the deflationary avalanche of the derivatives bubble, but also an indirect intervention in that it changed the psychological dynamics of the markets. As former Fed chairmans Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke have both hinted at in interviews and op-eds, one of the primary concerns of the central bank was the psychology behind higher stock prices.

    Stock prices could be propped up by the Fed itself through proxy buyers using the printing press. Or the Fed could inject billions, if not trillions, of dollars into banks and allow them to run wild, artificially boosting investment while doing nothing to solve the existing dilemma of negative fundamentals.  Beyond this, the markets began to move on the mere words or edicts of Fed officials as algo-computers and the general investment world placed bets on rhetoric rather than reality; a dynamic which is now ending.

    The bailouts also reanimated the cadavers of large corporations and banks, not just in the U.S. but in Europe, giving the illusion of life to the financial system while leaving Main Street to rot. In the meantime, quantitative easing measures provided a way to continue financing U.S. government debt at the expense of generations of taxpayers as numerous primary lenders began to abandon typical long-term bond purchases.

    Furthermore, oil markets appear to have been directly inflated by QE intervention. It is important to take note that oil prices remained extraordinarily high despite the continuous fall in global demand UNTIL the moment the Federal Reserve instituted the taper of QE3. Then, prices began to plunge.

    In a September 2013 article, I predicted that the Fed, despite all common sense and the claims of banks like Goldman Sachs, would indeed follow through with the taper: a removal of the first pillar levitating the U.S. system.

    I was, of course, called crazy at the time for this prediction by some people within the alternative economic community.

    “Why in the world” they asked, “would the Fed taper QE when they can simply print to infinity and kick the can down the road perpetually?” Again, these people do not understand that America is under scheduled demolition by the international banks; it is not being protected by them.

    The taper occurred in December of that year.

    Near Zero Interest Rates:  The Second Pillar Nearly Removed

    After the taper of QE, volatility not seen since 2008/2009 returned to the markets. And the public once again was reminded in sporadic moments that the recovery might not be real after all. Europe and Japan quickly stepped in with their own renewed stimulus measures, and Fed officials began using strategic media interviews to “hint” falsely that QE might return. Markets rallied, then fell dramatically, then rallied again, then fell again in a shocking manner. And this volatility has been the trend up until recently, when the question of the end of zero interest rate policy arose.

    Again, very few people have ever asked or demanded the Fed end QE or ZIRP. There was never any legitimate public pressure on the fed to remove these pillars. The investment world has been essentially addicted like heroin junkies to assured gains for three years.  The war cry of the investment world has been BTFD! (Buy the f'ing dip) for quite some time; investors have come to expect and demand inevitable central bank intervention and fiat driven stock market rallies.  Yet, the Fed is ending the party anyway.

    ZIRP is the only pillar left holding stocks in place. Without zero interest rates, and with even the most minor of .25 basis points added, cost-free overnight lending to banks and corporations will end. They will not be able to afford continued lending on the massive scale seen since 2009/2010. This means no more stock buybacks for dying companies like IBM or General Motors, among others. This means a considerable decline in the markets, declines which we have had a taste of in recent plunges in equities at the mere mention of interest rate increases.

    In August in an article entitled 'Economic Crisis Goes Mainstream: What Happen's Next?', I wrote:

    "The Federal Reserve push for a rate hike will likely be determined before 2015 is over. Talk of a September increase in interest rates may be a ploy, and a last-minute decision to delay could be on the table. This tactic of edge-of-the-seat meetings and surprise delays was used during the QE taper scenario, which threw a lot of analysts off their guard and caused many to believe that a taper would never happen. Well, it did happen, just as a rate hike will happen, only slightly later than mainstream analysts expect.

     

    If a delay occurs, it will be short-lived, triggering a dead cat bounce in stocks, with rates increasing by December as dismal retail sales become undeniable leading into the Christmas season."

    You can also read my analysis on the motivations behind a Fed rate hike as well as the theater surrounding their policies.

    The cat seems to have finished its bounce and stocks are returning to volatility.  Retail sales so far for Black Friday weekend (including Thanksgiving) have posted a staggering 10% drop with online sales below expectations. Chain Store sales have recently crashed 6.3% week over week.  Plunging freight rates and global shipping indicate a severe lack of global demand and a terrible sales season ahead.  Janet Yellen, ignoring all negative economic signals as predicted, has all but declared a rate hike a given by Dec. 16.

    I was, yet again, called crazy for this assertion by some at the time; and to be clear, I could still be wrong. The Fed could pull a fast one and not raise rates, though the rhetoric coming from the fed today almost guarantees they will take action. Not raising rates doesn’t match with their past habits; they seem to be following the timing of the taper model perfectly. The point is, despite common assumptions within the alternative media, the Fed is not “trapped” and can do whatever it wants, including killing the markets if it benefits the greater goal of a global economic authority. With the ZIRP pillar gone, expect even more violent swings in stocks and general uncertainty and panic among day-traders and the public.

    U.S. Dollar's World Reserve Status:  The Third Pillar In Progress Of Removal

    I’ve been writing about the loss of the dollar’s reserve status since 2008. And as I have always said, the removal of this final pillar is a process, not an overnight affair. The BRICS nations have been positioning themselves for years — China since 2005, the rest of the BRICS since at least 2010.

    The delusion that some economic analysts have been under is that the BRICS were strategically vying for power by building their own unified banking institution in “opposition” to the IMF and the West. As I presented in my last article, this has proven to be completely false. They were in fact positioning to take their place as puppets within the new global paradigm taking shape. China has now joined the IMF’s SDR basket (as predicted); and Russia, along with the other BRICS, has openly called for the IMF to take control of the global monetary system.

    China’s inclusion, I believe, will hasten the loss of the dollar’s market share of reserve status over the next year, along with other factors. Saudi Arabia has also brought the idea of a depeg from the U.S. dollar into the mainstream discussion. This action, which mainstream economists are calling a possible Black Swan, would end the dollar’s petro-status and result in catastrophe for the U.S. economy. The removal of the final pillar is well underway.

    As I have stated in the past, the U.S. system as it stands does not necessarily deserve to survive, but then again, this does not mean that it should be sacrificed in order to breathe life into the monstrosity of global economic governance. Such a trade-off only serves the interests of a select group of elites, with the global reset ending in the mechanized multicultural suicide of sovereignty, leeching prosperity from the rest of us in the name of “collective progress.” Globalists want us to believe there is no other option but their leadership, and they will create any measure of chaos in order to convince us of their necessity.

  • In Lehman Rerun, Banks Are Buying Protection Against Their Own Systemic Demise Again

    At the peak of the craziness of the last cycle, banks took to protecting themselves by buying (credit) protection on other banks as a 'hedge' for systemic risk (which instead exacerbated contagion concerns, seemingly missing the facts that their bids drove risk wider, increaing counterparty risks, and that the inevitable collapse required to trigger these trades would also mean the payoffs to the 'hedges' would never be realized). Fast forward 8 years and it appears once again, as Bloomberg reports, that banks are buying (equity) protection in order to hedge the stress-test downside scenarios enforced by The Fed.

    For more than a year, dealers in the U.S. equity derivatives market have noted a widening gap in the price of certain options. (chart below shows the absolute premium for downside protection over upside protection)

     

    If you want to buy a put to protect against losses in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, often you’ll pay twice as much as you would for a bullish call betting on gains. (chart below shows the relative premium for downside protection over upside protection)

     

    New research suggests the divergence is a consequence of financial institutions hoarding insurance against declines in stocks. As Bloomberg details,

    While various explanations exist including simply nervousness following a six-year bull market, Deutsche Bank AG says in a Dec. 6 research report that the likeliest explanation may be that demand is being created for downside protection among banks that are subject to stress test evaluations by federal regulators. In short, financial institutions are either hoarding puts or leaving places for them in their models should markets turn turbulent.

     

    “Since so many banking institutions are facing these stress tests, the types of protection that help banks do well in these scenarios obtain extra value,” said Rocky Fishman, an equity derivatives strategist at Deutsche Bank.

     

    “The way the marketplace has compensated for that is by driving up S&P skew.”

    The Federal Reserve’s Comprehensive Capital Analysis & Review, or CCAR, has become one of the most important annual events for the largest banks. It determines whether trading units, including equity derivatives, can handle a market shock and pay out capital to shareholders. In the test, banks must demonstrate that they can weather a crisis and stay above minimum capital ratios even as their amount of equity is reduced by losses and the planned dividends and buybacks.

    One aspect of the stress test is gauging how banks respond to what’s the Fed describes as a “severely adverse” scenario. It’s the most extreme of three situations laid out by the central bank during the annual CCAR.

     

    “One of the reasons S&P puts have been so expensive relative to at-the-money options this year is that the severely adverse scenario prescribed by CCAR program implies a very negative shock to the S&P,” said Fishman. “It creates value for the downside options.”

    Of course, we have seen this kind of systemic hedging by banks before. When banks bought credit protection against other banks during the last crisis. Still, the Fed stress tests remain the cornerstone of the U.S. central bank’s efforts to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis and to gauge the ability of banks to withstand economic turmoil. To Dan Deming of KKM Financial LLC, their presence will have a lasting effect on risk tolerance.

    “Risk requirements have ramped up to a point where market participants are forced to buy downside puts as an insurance policy against open option positions,” said Deming. “What was perceived as reasonable risk five years ago is no longer seen as reasonable amid all the new requirements.”

    But what regulators (since we are sure the banks know) miss in their math is that these so-called hedges only payoff when a systemic collapse happens and, in the case of the last crisis, the actual assumed payoff disappears as counterparty collateral chains dry up, banks implode, and just when you needed the hedge the most… there is no one left to pay you.

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Does Fear Lead To Fascism?

    Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.”—Edward R. Murrow, broadcast journalist

    America is in the midst of an epidemic of historic proportions.

    The contagion being spread like wildfire is turning communities into battlegrounds and setting Americans one against the other.

    Normally mild-mannered individuals caught up in the throes of this disease have been transformed into belligerent zealots, while others inclined to pacifism have taken to stockpiling weapons and practicing defensive drills.

    This plague on our nation—one that has been spreading like wildfire—is a potent mix of fear coupled with unhealthy doses of paranoia and intolerance, tragic hallmarks of the post-9/11 America in which we live.

    Everywhere you turn, those on both the left- and right-wing are fomenting distrust and division. You can’t escape it.

    We’re being fed a constant diet of fear: fear of terrorists, fear of illegal immigrants, fear of people who are too religious, fear of people who are not religious enough, fear of Muslims, fear of extremists, fear of the government, fear of those who fear the government. The list goes on and on.

    The strategy is simple yet effective: the best way to control a populace is through fear and discord.

    Fear makes people stupid.

    Confound them, distract them with mindless news chatter and entertainment, pit them against one another by turning minor disagreements into major skirmishes, and tie them up in knots over matters lacking in national significance.

    Most importantly, divide the people into factions, persuade them to see each other as the enemy and keep them screaming at each other so that they drown out all other sounds. In this way, they will never reach consensus about anything and will be too distracted to notice the police state closing in on them until the final crushing curtain falls.

    This is how free people enslave themselves and allow tyrants to prevail. 

    This Machiavellian scheme has so ensnared the nation that few Americans even realize they are being manipulated into adopting an “us” against “them” mindset. Instead, fueled with fear and loathing for phantom opponents, they agree to pour millions of dollars and resources into political elections, militarized police, spy technology and endless wars, hoping for a guarantee of safety that never comes.

    All the while, those in power—bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporations—move their costly agendas forward, and “we the suckers” get saddled with the tax bills and subjected to pat downs, police raids and round-the-clock surveillance.

    Turn on the TV or flip open the newspaper on any given day, and you will find yourself accosted by reports of government corruption, corporate malfeasance, militarized police and marauding SWAT teams.

    America has already entered a new phase, one in which children are arrested in schools, military veterans are forcibly detained by government agents because of the content of their Facebook posts, and law-abiding Americans are having their movements tracked, their financial transactions documented and their communications monitored

    These threats are not to be underestimated.

    Yet even more dangerous than these violations of our basic rights is the language in which they are couched: the language of fear. It is a language spoken effectively by politicians on both sides of the aisle, shouted by media pundits from their cable TV pulpits, marketed by corporations, and codified into bureaucratic laws that do little to make our lives safer or more secure.

    Fear, as history shows, is the method most often used by politicians to increase the power of government. Even while President Obama insists that “freedom is more powerful than fear,” the tactics of his administration continue to rely on fear of another terrorist attack in order to further advance the agenda of the military/security industrial complex.

    An atmosphere of fear permeates modern America. However, with crime at a 40-year low, is such fear of terrorism rational?

    Even in the wake of the shootings in San Bernardino and Paris, statistics show that you are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack. You are 11,000 times more likely to die from an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane. You are 1,048 times more likely to die from a car accident than a terrorist attack. You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack. You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocating in bed than from a terrorist attack. And you are 9 more times likely to choke to death in your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack.

    Indeed, those living in the American police state are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist. Thus, the government’s endless jabbering about terrorism amounts to little more than propaganda—the propaganda of fear—a tactic used to terrorize, cower and control the population.

    So far, these tactics are working.

    The 9/11 attacks, the Paris attacks, and now the San Bernardino shooting have succeeded in reducing the American people to what commentator Dan Sanchez refers to as “herd-minded hundreds of millions [who] will stampede to the State for security, bleating to please, please be shorn of their remaining liberties.”

    Sanchez continues:

    I am not terrified of the terrorists; i.e., I am not, myself, terrorized. Rather, I am terrified of the terrorized; terrified of the bovine masses who are so easily manipulated by terrorists, governments, and the terror-amplifying media into allowing our country to slip toward totalitarianism and total war…

     

    I do not irrationally and disproportionately fear Muslim bomb-wielding jihadists or white, gun-toting nutcases. But I rationally and proportionately fear those who do, and the regimes such terror empowers. History demonstrates that governments are capable of mass murder and enslavement far beyond what rogue militants can muster. Industrial-scale terrorists are the ones who wear ties, chevrons, and badges. But such terrorists are a powerless few without the supine acquiescence of the terrorized many. There is nothing to fear but the fearful themselves…

     

    Stop swallowing the overblown scaremongering of the government and its corporate media cronies. Stop letting them use hysteria over small menaces to drive you into the arms of tyranny, which is the greatest menace of all.

    As history makes clear, fear leads to fascistic, totalitarian regimes.

    It’s a simple enough formula. National crises, reported terrorist attacks, and sporadic shootings leave us in a constant state of fear. Fear prevents us from thinking. The emotional panic that accompanies fear actually shuts down the prefrontal cortex or the rational thinking part of our brains. In other words, when we are consumed by fear, we stop thinking.

    A populace that stops thinking for themselves is a populace that is easily led, easily manipulated and easily controlled.

    As I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the following are a few of the necessary ingredients for a fascist state:

    • The government is managed by a powerful leader (even if he or she assumes office by way of the electoral process). This is the fascistic leadership principle (or father figure).
    • The government assumes it is not restrained in its power. This is authoritarianism, which eventually evolves into totalitarianism.
    • The government ostensibly operates under a capitalist system while being undergirded by an immense bureaucracy.
    • The government through its politicians emits powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
    • The government has an obsession with national security while constantly invoking terrifying internal and external enemies.
    • The government establishes a domestic and invasive surveillance system and develops a paramilitary force that is not answerable to the citizenry.
    • The government and its various agencies (federal, state, and local) develop an obsession with crime and punishment. This is overcriminalization.
    • The government becomes increasingly centralized while aligning closely with corporate powers to control all aspects of the country’s social, economic, military, and governmental structures.
    • The government uses militarism as a center point of its economic and taxing structure.
    • The government is increasingly imperialistic in order to maintain the military-industrial corporate forces.

    The parallels to modern America are impossible to ignore.

    “Every industry is regulated. Every profession is classified and organized,” writes Jeffrey Tucker. “Every good or service is taxed. Endless debt accumulation is preserved. Immense doesn’t begin to describe the bureaucracy. Military preparedness never stops, and war with some evil foreign foe, remains a daily prospect.”

    For the final hammer of fascism to fall, it will require the most crucial ingredient: the majority of the people will have to agree that it’s not only expedient but necessary. In times of “crisis,” expediency is upheld as the central principle—that is, in order to keep us safe and secure, the government must militarize the police, strip us of basic constitutional rights and criminalize virtually every form of behavior.

    Not only does fear grease the wheels of the transition to fascism by cultivating fearful, controlled, pacified, cowed citizens, but it also embeds itself in our very DNA so that we pass on our fear and compliance to our offspring.

    It’s called epigenetic inheritance, the transmission through DNA of traumatic experiences.

    For example, neuroscientists observed how quickly fear can travel through generations of mice DNA. As The Washington Post reports:

    In the experiment, researchers taught male mice to fear the smell of cherry blossoms by associating the scent with mild foot shocks. Two weeks later, they bred with females. The resulting pups were raised to adulthood having never been exposed to the smell. Yet when the critters caught a whiff of it for the first time, they suddenly became anxious and fearful. They were even born with more cherry-blossom-detecting neurons in their noses and more brain space devoted to cherry-blossom-smelling.

    The conclusion? “A newborn mouse pup, seemingly innocent to the workings of the world, may actually harbor generations’ worth of information passed down by its ancestors.”

    Now consider the ramifications of inherited generations of fears and experiences on human beings. As the Post reports, “Studies on humans suggest that children and grandchildren may have felt the epigenetic impact of such traumatic events such as famine, the Holocaust and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”

    In other words, fear, trauma and compliance can be passed down through the generations.

    Fear has been a critical tool in past fascistic regimes, and it now operates in our contemporary world—all of which raises fundamental questions about us as human beings and what we will give up in order to perpetuate the illusions of safety and security.

    In the words of psychologist Erich Fromm:

    [C]an human nature be changed in such a way that man will forget his longing for freedom, for dignity, for integrity, for love—that is to say, can man forget he is human? Or does human nature have a dynamism which will react to the violation of these basic human needs by attempting to change an inhuman society into a human one?

    We are at a critical crossroads in American history, and we have a choice: freedom or fascism.

    Let’s hope the American people make the right choice while we still have the freedom to choose.

  • Guest Post: Could Trump Become One Of America's Greatest Presidents?

    Submitted by Bill Bonner of Bonner & Partners (annotated by Acting-Man.com's Pater Tenebrarum),

    Ganging up on the Donald

    Poor Donald Trump. Everybody’s against him.

    Jeb Bush says he’s “unhinged”…

    …Chris Christie says he has “no idea what [he’s] talking about”…

    …John Kasich accuses him of “outrageous divisiveness”…

     

    love

    The Donald – in reality, they love him…

     

     

    …and Marco Rubio describes him as “offensive and outlandish.”

    And those are just his fellow Republicans!

    “Reprehensible… prejudiced…” adds Hillary Clinton.

    Piling on, Martin O’Malley says Trump is a “fascist demagogue.”

    Can a man with enemies like these really be bad?

     

    Looney Leanings

    Donald Trump brought the wrath, ire, and contempt of the mainstream political establishment down on his head yesterday. He called for a “total and complete shutdown on Muslims entering the United States.”

    Most commentators quickly condemned him, pointing out that such a ban would be unconstitutional and completely against the principles on which the nation was founded.

     

    Hair questions

    Alien anchor hair discovered…

     

    But in a spirit of pure mischief (a blustery billionaire hardly qualifies for our customary support for die-hards, lost causes, and underdogs), we rush to the defense of “The Donald.”

    Yes, his proposal is reckless, stupid, unworkable, unfair, and un-American. But it might not be unpopular. Give the man credit. He’s running for president. To win, he needs the votes of people who are at least as block-headed as he is.

    In that respect (perhaps the only respect) his latest proposal may not be a bad idea. Also, making preposterous and outrageous proposals hardly disqualifies you for the White House.

    Some of our “best” presidents – at least, according to historians and the public – were those who did the looniest things… things that were completely at odds with the Constitution, the spirit of liberty, and their own policy goals.

    President Lincoln told the crowd at Gettysburg that his war against the South was in line with the Declaration of Independence, which clearly asserted the right of a people to choose their own government.

    The war would determine, he said, whether “that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.” The answer was “no.” And he made sure of it.

     

    ColDemands12w

    Contemporary cartoon of Lincoln attack him over the human toll of the Union war effort. Columbia, wearing a liberty cap and a shirt made of an American flag, demands, “Mr. Lincoln, give me back my 500,000 sons!” At the right, Lincoln, unfazed, sits at a writing desk, his leg thrown over the chair back. A proclamation calling for “500 Thous. More Troops,” signed by him, lies at his feet – click to enlarge.

    Image credit: Joseph E. Baker

     

    President Wilson did the same thing for foreigners – invading more countries than any other president… while proclaiming the right to self-determination. Elections were fine, said Wilson, as long as they chose “good men.” If he didn’t like the men chosen… he sent in the troops.

    By the standards set by Lincoln and Wilson, Donald Trump has the capacity to be one of our greatest leaders.

     

    wilson

    Vote for Woodrow Wilson “who kept you out of war” (and didn’t saddle you with a Federal Reserve…)

    Image credit: Punch

     

    PS:

    It doesn’t really matter who wins the race for the White House, because the Deep State already controls just about every aspect of American life. From health care, to education, to the food on our tables, to the never-ending war on terror, the Deep State is pulling the strings.

  • America Crosses The Tipping Point: The Middle Class Is Now A Minority

    Americans have long lived in a nation made up primarily of middle-class families, neither rich nor poor, but comfortable enough, notes NPR's Marilyn Geewax, but this year – for the first time in US history, that changed. A new analysis of government data shows that as of 2015, middle-income households have become the minority, extending a multi-decade decline that confirms the hollowing out of society as 49% of all Americans now live in a home that receives money from the government each month. Sadly, the trends that are destroying the middle class in America just continue to accelerate.

    Back in 1971, about 2 out of 3 Americans lived in middle-income households. Since then, the middle has been steadily shrinking.

    Today, just a shade under half of all households (about 49.9 percent) have middle incomes. Slightly more than half of Americans (about 50.1 percent) either live in a lower-class household (roughly 29 percent) or an upper-class household (about 21 percent).

    As NPR explains, thanks to factory closings and other economic factors, the country now has 120.8 million adults living in middle-income households, the study found. That compares with the 121.3 million who are living in either upper- or lower-income households.

    "The hollowing of the middle has proceeded steadily for the past four decades," Pew concluded.

    And middle-income Americans not only have shrunk as a share of the population but have fallen further behind financially, with their median income down 4 percent compared with the year 2000, Pew said.

     

    Since 1970, the U.S. economy has been growing, and we all have been getting wealthier. But people who have the biggest incomes have been pulling away from the pack in a trend that shows no sign of slowing… as middle-income jobs are still 900,000 short of pre-recession employment levels…

     

    And if you’re a millennial, you’d be forgiven for being disillusioned with the American dream. As we recently noted, compared to young Americans in 1986, you’re three times as likely to think the American dream is dead and buried. As WaPo notes, "young workers today are significantly more pessimistic about the possibility of success in America than their counterparts were in 1986, according to a new Fusion 2016 Issues poll – a shift that appears to reflect lingering damage from the Great Recession and more than a decade of wage stagnation for typical workers.”

     

    While there are numerous reasons for the collapse of the American Middle Class (most appear driven by political 'fairness' or monetary policy intended consequences), though we suspect politicians learned long ago that it's easier to just import non-Americanized voters to vote for you, than, as FutureMoneyTrends notes, to get naturalized citizens who still cherish the idea of America to vote for things like national healthcare systems, higher taxes on business owners, and the catering to every little tribal group that declares themselves a minority.   

    It is only a matter of time before the middle class is wiped out and America begins to resemble the poverty, violence and tyranny so often associated with the countries from which many illegal migrants originate.

    It appears that time is drawing near as Charles Hugh-Smith recently noted, the mainstream is finally waking up to the future of the American Dream: downward mobility for all but the top 10% of households.

    Downward mobility and social defeat lead to social depression. Here are the conditions that characterize social depression:

     

    1. High expectations of endless rising prosperity have been instilled in generations of citizens as a birthright.

     

    2. Part-time and unemployed people are marginalized, not just financially but socially.

     

    3. Widening income/wealth disparity as those in the top 10% pull away from the shrinking middle class.

     

    4. A systemic decline in social/economic mobility as it becomes increasingly difficult to move from dependence on the state (welfare) or one's parents to financial independence.

     

    5. A widening disconnect between higher education and employment: a college/university degree no longer guarantees a stable, good-paying job.

     

    6. A failure in the Status Quo institutions and mainstream media to recognize social recession as a reality.

     

    7. A systemic failure of imagination within state and private-sector institutions on how to address social recession issues.

     

    8. The abandonment of middle class aspirations by the generations ensnared by the social recession: young people no longer aspire to (or cannot afford) consumerist status symbols such as luxury autos or homeownership.

     

    9. A generational abandonment of marriage, families and independent households as these are no longer affordable to those with part-time or unstable employment, i.e. what I have termed (following Jeremy Rifkin) the end of work.

     

    10. A loss of hope in the young generations as a result of the above conditions.

    If you don't think these apply, please check back in a year. We'll have a firmer grasp of social depression in December 2016.

  • China Says Turkey Needs To Respect Iraq's Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity

    “Turkey is acting recklessly and inexplicably,” Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s ambassador to the UN told the Security Council at a closed-door meeting on Tuesday.

    Churkin was not, as you might have guessed, referring to Ankara’s brazen move to shoot down a Russian warplane near the Syrian border late last month (although we’re quite sure that Moscow would classify that as “reckless and inexplicable” as well).

    Churkin was referencing Erdogan’s decision to send between 150 and 300 Turkish troops along with around two dozen tanks to Bashiqa, just northeast of the ISIS stronghold in Mosul. 

    The Russian ambassador is correct to characterize the deployment as “inexplicable” – at least in terms of Ankara being able to offer an explanation that makes sense to the general public. The official line is that it’s part of an ongoing “training mission” that Iraqi officials agreed to at some point in the past. Baghdad denies this.

    Masoud Barzani supports the Turkish effort (and how could he not, given the fact that without Turkey, the Kurds wouldn’t be able to transport crude independently of Baghdad) which serves to provide a kind of quasi-legitimacy to the Turkish presence. But as we outlined last weekend, this may simply be an attempt to secure oil smuggling routes and ensure that Turkey’s interests in Islamic State-held territory are preserved. 

    The latest from Iraq – as we outlined earlier today – is that some lawmakers are now looking to annul the country’ security agreement with the US on the way to inviting the Russians in to help fight ISIS. As for the “situation” with Turkey, Iraq’s UN ambassador Mohamed Ali Alhakim told reporters after Russia raised the issue that Baghdad and Ankara “are solving it bilaterally.”

    “We have not yet escalated it to the Security Council or to the United Nations,” he added.

    Yes, “not yet,” but it’s difficult to see how “bilateral” talks are going to solve this given the fact that Erdogan clearly had some idea of what he wanted to accomplish by sending troops and tanks to Mosul. He had to have known going in that the whole “we’re just replacing 90 troops that had been there for the better part of two years” excuse wasn’t going to fly with Shiite politicians and the various Iran-backed militias who are all hyper-sensitive now that the The Pentagon has suggested the US is set to insert ground troops to assist the Peshmerga in their efforts against ISIS. 

    Well, when you start to discuss the Security Council in the context of the conflicts raging in Syria and Iraq, it’s important to remember that Russia isn’t the lone voice of dissent among the five permanent members. Recall that back in May of 2014 Beijing voted with Moscow to veto a Security Council resolution that would have seen the conflict in Syria referred to the Hague. Here’s what China had to say at the time:

    For some time now, the Security Council has maintained unity and coordination on the question of Syria, thanks to efforts by Council members, including China, to accommodate the major concerns of all parties. At a time when seriously diverging views exist among the parties concerning the draft resolution, we believe that the Council should continue holding consultations, rather than forcing a vote on the draft resolution, in order to avoid undermining Council unity or obstructing coordination and cooperation on questions such as Syria and other major serious issues. Regrettably, China’s approach has not been taken on board; China therefore voted against the draft resolution.

    Thus far, China hasn’t involved itself directly in the latest round of Mid-East conflicts, but if Xi were to step in, it’s clear that he would side with the Russians and the Iranians which means that when it comes to Turkey and the US putting boots on the ground in Iraq against Baghdad’s wishes, Beijing would almost surely fall on the side of the Iraqis. 

    Sure enough, on Wednesday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry weighed in for the first time. Here’s an excerpt from the statement by spokesperson Hua Chunying:

    “The Chinese side believes that we should deal with state-to-state relationship in accordance with purposes and principles of the UN Charter as well as other widely-recognized basic norms governing international relations, and that Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity shall be respected.”

    That may sound like a rather generic statement, but in fact it sends a very clear message. The implication is that Turkey has violated Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and that is not something the Security Council should condone. 

    The question becomes this: what happens when Baghdad annuls its agreement with Washington and the US troop presence ends up representing a similar violation of Iraq’s sovereignty?

    If Baghdad were to go to the Security Council and claim that The Pentagon’s deployment of SpecOps to northern Iraq constitutes an illegal act, how would the five permanent members resolve an intractable dispute between the US and France on one side (don’t forget, the French are bombing Iraq as well) and Russia and China on the other? 

    In short: how long until Xi decides it’s time to awaken the sleeping dragon and enter the Mid-East fray?

    For now, Chunying says Beijing will “closely follow the development of the incident.” 

  • Amid Commodity Collapse, World's Most Resource-Driven Economy Posts Greatest Jobs Gain In 15 Years

    When Australia released its October jobs data a month ago (printing an astonishing 58k increase – almost 6 times expectations of a 10k increase), the media threw up all over the farce of the best jobs gain in 3 years (amid commodity price collapses, mining industry bankruptcy fears, and China trade implosions) saying simply "don't believe the jobs figure for October." So we cannot wait to see what the men from downunder make of November's print. With expectations of a 10k drop, Australia added a mind-numbing 71,400 jobs – the most in 15 years!! This is equivalent to the US adding almost 1.75 million jobs in 2 months… They just don't care anymore!

    Best Jobs print in 15 months…

     

    November was an 8 standard deviation beat… which followed a 6 standard deviation beat in October…

    The big surge in jobs last month, which was the largest gain since July 2000, raised renewed skepticism about the accuracy of the data, which the Australian Bureau of Statistics has acknowledged in the past.

    This is the biggest 2-month increase in jobs since January 1988…

     

    Does this look like companies that are hiring at the fastest pace in 27 years!!!

    “It’s hard to believe that employment has grown 130,000 over two months in the context of everything else,” said Michael Turner, fixed-income and currency strategist at Royal Bank of Canada in Sydney. “But there’s got to be some signal in this, not just noise.”

    No – there really doesn't. It seems Australia has figured out how to create jobs when its biggest trading partner is hemorrhaging them…

     

    And it appears the hiring has been going on "stealthily" as businesses are not reporting any improvment at all…

     

    The economic propaganda was slammed last month:

    The ABS is itself cautions against placing too much credence on the monthly figures, which are based on a changing sample, particularly the seasonally adjusted data. The statistician encourages people to focus on the trend estimate (which had the unemployment rate unchanged). 

     

    And, after a series of stuff ups, revisions and methodological changes over the past year, there is even more room for caution.

     

    Last year, the ABS was forced to abandon seasonally adjusted labour force numbers for a period after conceding they were unreliable. The former chief statistician recently said the data was not worth the paper it was written on.

    Wait, what: confidence boosting data is unreliable? Surely you jest.

    And here is the ABC's conclusion confirming at least one "developed" country still have a thinking media: "don't be surprised if the October labour market data is revised."

    Nope, no revision – just an even more ridiculous "injection" of confidence.

    * * *

    If only we could say the same about propaganda rags in the United States

  • "We Are Living Amid An Islamic Threat", French Mayor Says: "Our Country Is At War Inside Our Borders"

    Whatever one’s opinion of the Muslim attacks and the perpetrators behind them, one thing is without dispute – the French response, which has been to quickly impose unlimited emergency laws, is nothing short of the second coming of “Operation Gladio.”

    In addition to warrantless searches and raids, France’s state of emergency laws allow the government to put people under house arrest, seal the country’s borders and ban demonstrations. The laws were created during the Algerian war in 1955.

    France is currently aiming to change its constitution to allow a state of emergency to last for six months, according to government sources. The proposal, which has been slammed by many who say the government is abusing its powers, will be put to ministers on December 23, according to AFP.

    As a result of this unprecedented expansion of the French police state and the emergency legislation enacted after last month’s Paris attacks, there has been a fierce crackdown on not only France’s Islamic population but also on various tangential hotspots such as the arrest of 24 climate activists before the culmination of start of the COP21 climate change summit in Paris at the end of November courtesy of the recently introduced “pre-crime” laws.

    As the local press notes, warrantless searches and raids have become commonplace, a move which many say violates the civil liberties of all citizens, not just Muslims.

    But Muslims definitely are getting the short end of the stick.

    Case in point, Daniel Bushell, the manager of the Pepper Grill restaurant on the outskirts of Paris, who recalled a police raid at his restaurant on Saturday night.

    As the restaurant manager recounted to RT, “They blocked the roads with trucks, and up to 40 armed men stormed our restaurant…Saturday night’s the busiest time. Children were eating. The cops had shotguns, black masks, and shields, making the women tremble with fear. Several officers rushed downstairs, then suddenly…they began breaking the doors with battering rams. The door wasn’t even locked.”

    Elsewhere, the emergency laws, implemented after last month’s terror attacks which killed 130 people and left 352 others injured, have led to thousands of warrantless searches and raids.

    It it’s not just private property that is being targeted – Muslims are also being singled out on the street.

    “Police tried to pull the hood off the head of an Arab friend eating with my little brother. Then they detained him, saying it’s a state of emergency so they have the right,” a local told RT on condition of anonymity, fearing police reprisals. He added that the community is “sick of being targeted.”

    Such targeting is reportedly worse for young people, many of whom said they pull hoods over their faces as soon as they see a police car, so officers can’t see the color of their skin.

    The result: even more antagonism, even more retaliations by both sides, until an intifada-like atmosphere settles, with the two groups determined to hurt and kill each other at every opportunity, for reasons lost in the sands of time (for a historical precedent, look no further than the middle east where virtually every ethnic and religious group has been in a two thousand-year long vendetta with every other group).

    Ultimately, there is just one winner – the Police State, which gets more powerful with every passing day as people have no choice but to abdicate even more civil liberties in order to preserve the illusion of “government security.”

    And just to make sure this continues, one French mayor is willing to go the distance and is not backing down, believing that extra security is necessary because France is “living amid an Islamic threat.”

    This is what Robert Menard, mayor of the French town of Beziers, told RT:

    “I’ve already doubled the number of city policemen, but I went even further. I asked all the former policemen, firefighters and servicemen to come and help to protect our citizens. If my initiative goes against the law, we should change the law. We are living amid an Islamic threat and we should be aware of the consequences. Our country, as well as other European countries, is at war – both outside our borders, in Syria for instance, and inside our borders, because our enemies live in our own country,”

    Robert Menard used to be a journalist, a socialist and the outspoken founder of an international press group, Reporters Without Borders. But 18 months ago he caused shockwaves by winning the town hall of Beziers, a city of more than 71,000, on a far-right ticket.

    In the US, this man’s comments would lead to an unprecedented media scandal; in France they have barely registered.

    As a reminder, all of this was predicted with uncanny precision by AIG in a presentation from May 2008, in which the author answered the question “What Europe Wants“. His answer:

    To use global issues as excuses to extend its power:

    • environmental issues: increase control over member countries; advance idea of global governance
    • terrorism: use excuse for greater control over police and judicial issues; increase extent of surveillance
    • global financial crisis: kill two birds (free market; Anglo-Saxon economies) with one stone (Europe-wide regulator; attempts at global financial governance)
    • EMU: create a crisis to force introduction of “European economic government”

    The US police state wants exactly the same things, and it is coming to get them.

  • "Most Hated Man In America" Martin Shkreli Spends $2 Million On Wu-Tang Clan Album

    Back in September, Martin Shkreli became “the most hated man in America” when the Turing Pharma CEO moved to boost the price of a toxoplasmosis drug by 5000%.

    That rather egregious example of unbridled greed immediately caused the American public as well as lawmakers in Washington to begin taking a closer look at a practice that actually happens all the time in Big Pharma even if the industry’s larger players are careful to be a bit less audacious about it than Shkreli. 

    Following the Turing price hike, Democrats on the House oversight committee sent a letter demanding that serial biotech rollup Valeant Pharmaceuticals provide documents explaining hefty price increases for two heart drugs. Around two months later, Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who together lead the Senate Special Committee on Aging, opened a bipartisan investigation into pharmaceutical drug pricing.

    At that point, we thought Shkreli’s fifteen minutes of fame might have been up – we were wrong.

    Exactly two weeks after the launch of the Senate investigation, Shkreli swooped in and bought over half of the outstanding shares of KaloBios, which at the time was was trading between $1-2/share, representing a market cap between $5 and $10 million. What happened next was the stuff of market tragicomedy legend as the E-trading Joe Campbells of the world lost a small fortune after Shkreli’s purchase sparked a relentless rally that would have been impressive enough on its own had he stopped there. But he didn’t. He then pulled the borrow and “Volkswagen-ed” some folks as we documented in a series of hilarious pieces posted late last month (see here, here, and here). Summing up:

    Ok. Now, prepare yourself for something that will briefly seem like a complete non sequitur – bear with us. 

    Sometime in 2011, or 2012, or 2013, the Wu-Tang Clan began to record a double disc entitled “Once Upon A Time In Shaolin.”

    For those unfamiliar, the Wu-Tang Clan are, well, legends in the rap industry. The group features some of the most famous names to ever touch a mic including Method Man, Raekwon, and Ghostface, all three of which are institutions to hip hop heads the world over. As a team, Wu-Tang has released multiple long plays considered classics among rap aficionados and when you count the various solo offerings from the group’s 10 members, their catalogue is unparalleled in rap’s short history. 

    In March of 2014, Forbes reported that “Once Upon A Time In Shaolin” would be a different type of album. The group would mint only a single copy. It would be sold for at least $1 million and would come in a series of handcrafted boxes by British-Moroccan artist Yahya, whose works have been commissioned by royal families and business leaders around the world.”

    Last month, Forbes reported that the album had been sold in May to an American collector for a price tag “in the millions” which made it at least four times more expensive than “Jack White’s $300,000 purchase of a rare acetate recording of Elvis Presley’s first song.”

    Now you’re probably starting to see where this is going.

    According to RZA (who has always been the group’s frontman if never the Clan’s most famous member), the album attracted many bidders: “Private collectors, trophy hunters, millionaires, billionaires, unknown folks, publicly known folks, businesses, companies with commercial intent, young, old,” he told Bloomberg. “It varied.” Serious bidders got to hear the 13-minute highlights in private listening sessions arranged by Paddle8 (an upstart, angel investor-backed auction house) in New York.

    Enter America’s most hated man (via Bloomberg): 

    One of [the bidders] was a pharmaceutical company executive named Martin Shkreli. He’s 32 years old but seems much younger, with a tendency to fiddle with his hair and squirm in his seat like an adolescent. The son of Albanian immigrants, Shkreli grew up in what he describes as a tough part of Brooklyn’s Sheepshead Bay neighborhood. He skipped grades in school because he was so bright. Shkreli idolized scientists, but he was also a music fan. Primarily interested in rock as a teenager, he didn’t understand rap, but that changed when he read Shakespeare in high school. “You would get these rhyming couplets and soliloquies and stuff like that, but the couplets would really kind of jar you,” he says. “They would be really these big, soul-crushing moments that Shakespeare intended to stir your spirit. And in many ways, music does that.”

     

    Shkreli was taken by the Wu-Tang song C.R.E.A.M., which stands for “Cash Rules Everything Around Me.” It includes the often-repeated phrase “Dolla dolla bill, y’all!” Shkreli turned out to be good at making dollars himself. He founded two hedge funds that shorted pharmaceutical stocks and then started his own drug company, Retrophin, earning a reputation on Wall Street as something of a boy genius. In September 2014, however, he says he was “asked to leave” by the company’s board. Retrophin later alleged after an internal investigation that he’d abused his position and misused assets. Shkreli says that he didn’t do anything without the company’s approval. Retrophin and its former CEO are now facing off in court. “I was pretty pissed,” Shkreli says. “But I realized that it actually would be better for me, maybe not ego-wise, but financially. I could just sell my stock and build my own next company.”

     

    Now that Shkreli had more money, he started collecting music-related items. He once joked on Twitter about trying to buy Katy Perry’s guitar so he could get a date with her. He purchased Kurt Cobain’s Visa card in a Paddle8 auction and occasionally produces it to get a rise out of people when it’s time to pay a check.

     

    Shkreli heard about Once Upon a Time in Shaolin and thought it would be nice to own, too. He attended a private listening session at the Standard Hotel hosted by Paddle8 co-founder Alexander Gilkes. Shkreli, who describes himself as a bit of a recluse, recalls Gilkes telling him that if he bought the record, he would have the opportunity to rub shoulders with celebrities and rappers who would want to hear it. “Then I really became convinced that I should be the buyer,” Shkreli says. (Paddle8 declined to comment, citing their policy of client confidentiality.)

     

    He also got to have lunch with RZA. “We didn’t have a ton in common,” Shkreli says. “I can’t say I got to know him that well, but I obviously like him.”

    Yes, “obviously,” but what also seems obvious is that RZA doesn’t like Shkreli: “The sale of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin was agreed upon in May, well before Martin Skhreli’s [sic] business practices came to light. We decided to give a significant portion of the proceeds to charity,” he told Bloomberg, in a statement.

    Needless to say, Congress is not amused. “My biggest challenge today is to not lose my temper. The facts underlying this hearing are so egregious but it’s hard not to get emotional about it,” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said on Wednesday. “This is the same guy who thought it was a great idea to pay millions of dollars for the only existing album of the Wu Tang Clan,” she added, incredulous.

    Now, Claire, that’s not true. It’s not “the only existing Wu-Tang album.” In fact, the Clan has sold many millions in their day:

    What he bought was the only existing copy of “Once Upon A Time In Shaolin.” We’re sure that once the Congresswoman understands the distinction, she’ll feel a lot better about the situation. 

    So coming full circle, we can now see why the Martin Shkrelis of the world need to raise prices by thousands of percent (in the process raising healthcare premiums for all Americans as insurers pass along the soaring cost of specialty drugs, which as we reported a few weeks back, has now surpassed the median US household income). If they didn’t, how would they afford one-of-a-kind Wu-Tang albums?

    But before you’re too hard on Shkreli, ask yourself this: how different is this from the big pharma CEO who buys a Rolls Royce and a couple of $50 million Picassos after hiking drug prices? Why is one a titan of industry lauded by the mainstream financial news media and the other a pariah? Both are skewering Americans and getting rich at the expense of the sick. The fact that the public thinks one has better taste than the other is meaningless. 

    *  *  *

    Bonus: Bloomberg’s not-so-subtle tribute to deceased Wu-Tang member Ol’ Dirty Bastard…

    Bonus, Bonus: “Once Upon A Time In Shaolin” documentary from Forbes…

  • Economic Growth: How It Works, How It Fails, & Why Wealth Disparity Occurs

    Submitted by Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World,

    Economists have put together models of how an economy works, but these models were developed years ago, when the world economy was far from limits. These models may have been reasonably adequate when they were developed, but there is increasing evidence that they don’t work in an economy that is reaching limits. For example, my most recent post, “Why ‘supply and demand’ doesn’t work for oil,” showed that when the world is facing the rising cost of oil extraction, “supply and demand” doesn’t work in the expected way.

    In order to figure out what really does happen, we need to consider findings from a variety of different fields, including biology, physics, systems analysis, finance, and the study of past economic collapses. Since I started studying the situation in 2005, I have had the privilege of meeting many people who work in areas related to this problem.

    My own background is in mathematics and actuarial science. Actuarial projections, such as those that underlie pensions and long term care policies, are one place where historical assumptions are not likely to be accurate, if an economy is reaching limits. Because of this connection to actuarial work, I have a particular interest in the problem.

    How Other Species Grow 

    We know that other species don’t amass wealth in the way humans do. However, the number of plants or animals of a given type can grow, at least within a range. Techniques that seem to be helpful for increasing the number of a given species include:

    • Natural selection. With natural selection, all species have more offspring than needed to reproduce the parent. A species is able to continuously adapt to the changing environment because the best-adapted offspring tend to live.
    • Cooperation. Individual cells within an organism cooperate in terms of the functions they perform. Cooperation also occurs among members of the same species, and among different species (symbiosis, parasites, hosts). In some cases, division of labor may occur (for example, bees, other social insects).
    • Use of tools. Animals frequently use tools. Sometimes items such as rocks or logs are used directly. At other times, animals craft tools with their forepaws or beaks.

    All species have specific needs of various kinds, including energy needs, water needs, mineral needs, and lack of pollution. They are in constant competition with both other members of the same species and with members of other species to meet these needs. It is individuals who can out-compete others in the resource battle that survive. In some cases, animals find hierarchical behavior helpful in the competition for resources.

    There are various feedbacks that regulate the growth of a biological system. For example, a person or animal eats, and later becomes hungry. Likewise, an animal drinks, and later becomes thirsty. Over the longer term, animals have a reserve of fat for times when food is scarce, and a small reserve of water. If they are not able to eat and drink within the required timeframe, they will die. Another feedback within the system regulates overuse of resources: if any kind of animal eats all of a type of plant or animal that it requires for food, it will not have food in the future.

    Energy needs are one of the limiting factors, both for individual biological members of an ecosystem, and for the overall ecosystem. Energy systems need greater power (energy use per period of time) to out-compete one another. The Maximum Power Principle by Howard Odum says that biological systems will organize to increase power whenever system constraints allow.

    Another way of viewing energy needs comes from the work of Ilya Prigogine, who studied how ordered structures, such as biological systems, can develop from disorder in a thermodynamically open system. Prigogine has called these ordered structures dissipative systems. These systems can temporarily exist as long as the system is held far from equilibrium by a continual flow of energy through the system. If the flow energy disappears, the biological system will die.

    Using either Odum’s or Prigogine’s view, energy of the right type is essential for the growth of an overall ecosystem as well as for the continued health of its individual members.

    How Humans Separated Themselves from Other Animals

    Animals generally get energy from food. It stands to reason that if an animal has a unique way of obtaining additional energy to supplement the energy it gets from food, it will have an advantage over other animals. In fact, this approach seems to have been the secret to the growth of human populations.

    Human population, plus the domesticated plants and animals of humans, now dominate the globe. Humans’ path toward population growth seems to have started when early members of the species learned how to burn biomass in a controlled way. The burning of biomass had many benefits, including being able to keep warm, cook food and ward off predators. Cooking food was especially beneficial, because it allowed humans to use a wider range of foodstuffs. It also allowed bodies of humans to more easily get nutrition from food that was eaten. As a result, stomachs, jaws, and teeth could become smaller, and brains could become bigger, enabling more intelligence. The use of cooked food began long enough ago that our bodies are now adapted to the use of some cooked food.

    With the use of fire to burn biomass, humans could better “win” in the competition against other species, allowing the number of humans to increase. In this way, humans could, to some extent, circumvent natural selection. From the point of the individual who could live longer, or whose children could live to maturity, this was a benefit. Unfortunately, it had at least two drawbacks:

    1. While animal populations tended to become increasingly adapted to a changing environment through natural selection, humans tend not to become better adapted, because of the high survival rate that results from more adequate food supplies and better healthcare. Humans might eventually find themselves becoming less well adapted: more overweight, or having more physical disabilities, or having more of a tendency toward diabetes.
    2. Without a natural limit to population, the quantity of resources per person tends to decline over time. For example, such a tendency tends to lead to less farmland per person. This would be a problem if techniques remained the same. Thus, rising population tends to lead to constant pressure to raise output (more food per arable acre or technological advancements that allow the economy to “do more with less”).

    How Humans Have Been Able to Meet the Challenge of Rising Population Relative to Resources

    Humans were able to meet the challenge of rising population by taking the techniques many animals use, as described above, and raising them to new levels. The fact that humans figured out how to burn biomass, and later would learn to harness other kinds of energy, gave humans many capabilities that other animals did not have.

    • Co-operation with other humans became possible, through a variety of mechanisms (learning of language with our bigger brains, development of financial systems to facilitate trade). Even as hunter-gatherers, researchers have found that economies of scale (enabled by co-operation) allowed greater food gathering per hectare. Division of labor allowed some specialization, even in very early days (gathering, fishing, hunting).
    • Humans have been able to domesticate many kinds of plants and animals.  Generally, the relationship with other species is a symbiotic relationship–the animals gain the benefit of a steady food supply and protection from predators, so their population can increase. Chosen plants have little competition from “weeds,” thanks to the protection humans provide. As a result, they can flourish whether or not they would be competitive with other plants and predators in the wild.
    • Humans have been able to take the idea of making and using tools to an extreme level. Humans first started by using fire to sharpen rocks. With the sharpened rocks, they could make new devices such as boats, and they could make spears to help kill animals for food. Tools could be used for planting the seeds they wanted to grow, so they did not have to live with the mixture of plants nature provided. We don’t think of roads, pipelines, and lines for transmitting electricity as tools, but as a practical matter, they also provide functions similar to those of tools. The many chemicals humans use, such as herbicides, insecticides, and antibiotics, also act in way similar to tools. The many objects that humans create to make life “better” (houses, cars, dishwashers, prepared foods, cosmetics) might in some very broad sense be considered tools as well. Some tools might be considered “capital,” when used to create additional goods and services.
    • Humans created businesses and governments to enable better organization, including division of labor and hierarchical behavior. A single person can create a simple tool, just as an animal can. But there are economies of scale, such as when many devices of a particular kind can be made, or when some individuals learn specialized skills that enable them to perform particular tasks better. As mentioned previously, even in the days of hunter-gatherers, there were economies of scale, if a larger group of workers could be organized so that specialization could take place.
    • Financial systems and changing systems of laws and regulations provide additional structure to the system, telling businesses and customers how much of a given product is required at a given time, and at what prices. In animals, appetite and thirst determine how important obtaining food and water are at a given point in time. Financial systems provide a somewhat similar role for an economy, but the financial system doesn’t operate within as constrained a system as hunger and thirst. As a result, the financial system can give strange signals, including prices that at times fall below the cost of extraction.
    • Humans have tended to put resources of many kinds (arable land, land for homes and businesses, fresh water, mineral resources) under the control of governments. Governments then authorize particular individuals and business to use this land, under various arrangements (“ownership,” leases, or authorized temporary usage). Governments often collect taxes for use of the resources. The practice is in some ways similar to the use of territoriality by animals, but it can have the opposite result. With animals, territoriality is used to prevent crowding, and can act to prevent overuse of shared resources. With human economies, ownership or temporary use permits can lead to a government sanctioned way of depleting resources, and thus, over time, can lead to a higher cost of resource extraction.

    Physicist François Roddier has described individual human economies as another type of dissipative structure, not too different from biological systems, such as plants, animals, and ecosystems. If this is true, an adequate supply of energy is absolutely essential for the growth of the world economy.

    We know that there is a very close tie between energy use and the growth of the world economy. Energy consumption has recently been dropping (Figure 1), suggesting that the world is heading into recession again. The Wall Street Journal indicates that a junk bond selloff also points in the direction of a likely recession in the not-too-distant future.

    Figure 1. 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 1. 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$.

    What Goes Wrong as Economic Growth Approaches Limits?

    We know that in the past, many economies have collapsed. In fact, if Roddier is correct about economies being dissipative structures, then we know that economies cannot be expected to last forever. Economies will tend to run into energy limits, and these energy limits will ultimately bring them down.

    The symptoms that occur when economies run into energy limits are not intuitively obvious. The following are some of the things that generally go wrong:

    Item 1. A slowdown in economic growth.

    Research by Turchin and Nefedov regarding historical collapses shows that growth tended to start in an economy when a group of people discovered a new energy-related resource. For example, a piece of land might be cleared to allow more arable land, or existing arable land might be irrigated. At first, these new resources allowed economies to grow rapidly for many years. Once the population grew to match the new carrying capacity of the land, economies tended to hit a period of “stagflation” for another period, say 50 or 60 years. Eventually “collapse” occurred, typically over a period of 20 or more years.

    Today’s world economy seems to be following a similar pattern. The world started using coal in quantity in the early 1800s. This helped ramp up economic growth above a baseline of less than 1% per year. A second larger ramp up in economic growth occurred about the time of World War II, as oil began to be put to greater use (Figure 2).

    Figure 2. World GDP growth compared to world energy consumption growth for selected time periods since 1820. World real GDP trends for 1975 to present are based on USDA real GDP data in 2010$ for 1975 and subsequent. (Estimated by author for 2015.) GDP estimates for prior to 1975 are based on Maddison project updates as of 2013. Growth in the use of energy products is based on a combination of data from Appendix A data from Vaclav Smil's Energy Transitions: History, Requirements and Prospects together with BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015 for 1965 and subsequent.

    Figure 2. World GDP growth compared to world energy consumption growth for selected time periods since 1820. World real GDP trends for 1975 to present are based on USDA real GDP data in 2010$ for 1975 and subsequent. (Estimated by author for 2015.) GDP estimates for prior to 1975 are based on Maddison project updates as of 2013. Growth in the use of energy products is based on a combination of data from Appendix A data from Vaclav Smil’s Energy Transitions: History, Requirements and Prospects together with BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015 for 1965 and subsequent.

    Worldwide, the economic growth rate hit a high point in the 1950 to 1965 period, and since then has trended downward. Figure 2 indicates that in all periods analyzed, the increase in energy consumption accounts for the majority of economic growth.

    Since 2001, when China joined the World Trade Organization, world economic growth has been supported by economic growth in China. This growth was made possible by China’s rapid growth in coal consumption (Figure 3).

    Figure 3. China's energy consumption by fuel, based on data of BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015.

    Figure 3. China’s energy consumption by fuel, based on data of BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015.

    China’s growth in energy consumption, particularly coal consumption, is now slowing. Its economy is slowing at the same time, so its leadership in world economic growth is now being lost. There is no new major source of cheap energy coming online. This is a major reason why world economic growth is slowing.

    Item 2. Increased use of debt, with less and less productivity of that debt in terms of increased goods and services produced.  

    Another finding of Turchin and Nefedov is that the use of debt tended to increase in the stagflation period. Since growth was lower in this period, it is clear that the use of debt was becoming less productive.

    If we look at the world situation today, we find a similar situation. More and more debt is being used, but that debt is becoming less productive in terms of the amount of GDP being provided. In fact, this pattern of falling productivity of debt seems to have been taking place since the early 1970s, when the price of oil rose above $20 per barrel (in 2014$). It is doubtful that that economic growth can occur if the price of oil is above $20 per barrel, without debt spiraling ever upward as a percentage of GDP. It is supplemental energy that allows the economy to function. If the price of energy is too high, it becomes unaffordable, and economic growth slows.

    Figure 4. Worldwide average inflation-adjusted annual growth rates in debt and GDP, for selected time periods. See post on debt for explanation of methodology.

    Figure 4. Worldwide average inflation-adjusted annual growth rates in debt and GDP, for selected time periods. See author’s post on debt for explanation of methodology.

    China has been using debt to fund its recent expansion. There is evidence that it, too, is encountering falling productivity of additional debt.

    We mentioned that appetite controls how much an animal eats. Debt helps control demand for energy products, and in fact, for products of all kinds in the economy. Appetite is different from debt as a regulator of demand. For one thing, debt can be used for an almost unlimited number of purposes, whether or not these purposes have any real possibility of adding GDP to the economy. (This is especially true if interest rates are close to 0%, or even negative.) There are few controls on debt. Governments have discovered that in some instances, debt stimulates an economy. Because of this, governments have tended to be very liberal in encouraging growth in debt. Often, when a debtor is near default, this problem is hidden by extending the term of the loan and pretending that no problem exists.

    With respect to biological organisms, energy is often stored up as fat and used later when there is a shortfall of energy. This is the opposite of the way financing for human “tools” generally works. Here financing is often obtained when a tool is put into operation, with the hope that the new tool will pay back its worth, plus interest, over the life of the tool. Much debt doesn’t even have such a purpose; sometimes it is used simply to make an expensive object easier to purchase, or to give a young person (perhaps with poor grades) an opportunity to attend college. When debt has such poor regulation, we cannot expect it to work as reliably as biological mechanisms in feeding back information regarding true “demand” through the price system.

    Item 3. Increased disparity of wages; non-elite workers earning less.

    Item 3 is another problem that Turchin and Nefedov encountered in reviewing economies that collapsed. One of the reasons for the increased disparity of wages is the increased need for hierarchical relationships if an economy wants to work around a shortfall in goods and services by adding new “tools”. Businesses and governments need to grow larger if they are to accommodate these more complex processes. In such a case, the natural tendency is for these organizations to become more hierarchical in nature. Also, if there is growth, followed by a temporary need to shrink back, the cutbacks are likely to come disproportionately from the lower ranks of workers, reinforcing the hierarchical structure.

    Figure 5. Chart by Pavlina Tscherneva, in Reorienting Fiscal Policy, as reprinted by the Washington Post.

    Figure 5. Chart by Pavlina Tscherneva, in Reorienting Fiscal Policy, as reprinted by the Washington Post.

    Funding arrangements for the new “tools” to work around shortages add to the hierarchical behavior. Typically, businesses must expand to fund the development of the new tools. This expansion may be funded by debt, or by stock programs. Regardless of which approach is used for funding, the programs tend to funnel an increasing share of the wealth of the economy to the wealthier members of the economy. This happens because interest payments and dividend payments both go disproportionately to benefit those who are already high up on the wealth hierarchy.

    Furthermore, the inherent problem of fewer resources per person is not really solved, so an increasingly large share of jobs become “service” jobs, using only a small quantity of energy products, but also providing little true benefit to the economy. The wages for these jobs are thus low. The addition of these low-paid jobs to the economy further reinforces the hierarchical nature of the system.

    In a sense, what is happening is that the economy as a whole is growing very little in output of goods and services. An ever-larger share of the output is going to the wealthier members of the economy, because of increased hierarchical behavior and because of growth in debt and dividend payments. Non-elite members of the economy find their wages falling in inflation adjusted terms, because, in a sense, the productivity of their labor as leveraged by a falling amount of energy resources is gradually contracting, rather than increasing. It becomes increasingly difficult for the low-paid members of the economy to “pay the wages” of the high-paid members of the economy, so overall demand for goods and services tends to contract. As a result, the increasingly hierarchical behavior of the economy pushes the economy even more toward contraction.

    Item 4. Increased difficulty in obtaining adequate funding for government programs.

    Governments operate on the surpluses of an economy. As an economy finds itself in a squeeze (job loss, more workers with lower wages, fewer goods and services being produced), governments find themselves increasingly called upon to deal with these problems. Governments may need larger armies to try to obtain resources elsewhere, or they may be needed to build a public works project (like a dam, to get more water and hydroelectric power), or they may need to make transfer payments to displaced workers. Here again, Turchin and Nefedov found governmental funding to be one of the problems of economies reaching limits.

    Energy products are unique in that their value to society can be quite different from their cost of extraction. A third value, which may be different from either of the first two values, is the selling price of the energy product. When the cost of producing energy products is low, the wide difference between the value to society and the cost of extraction can be used to fund government programs and to raise the wages of workers. In fact, this difference seems to be a primary reason why economic growth occurs. (This difference is not recognized by most economists.)

    As the cost of extraction of energy products rises, the difference between the value to society and the cost of extraction falls, because the value to society is pretty close to fixed (except for changes taking place because of energy efficiency changes), based on how far a barrel of oil can move a truck or how many British thermal units of energy it can provide. As the cost of energy extraction rises, it becomes increasingly difficult to obtain enough tax revenue, either from taxing energy products directly, or from taxing wages. Wages tend to reflect the energy consumption required to support each job because supplemental energy acts to leverage the abilities of workers, and thus improves their productivity.

    Energy selling prices may behave in a strange manner, as an economy increasingly reaches limits. Falling prices redistribute what gain is available, so that energy importers get more, while energy exporters get less. Of course, the problem we are now seeing is that oil exporting countries are having difficulty obtaining sufficient revenue for their programs.

    Debt is different this time

    This time truly is different. We should have learned from past experience that debt tends not to be very permanent; it often defaults. We should therefore expect huge periods of debt defaults, and we should expect to need frequent debt jubilees. Economist Michael Hudson reports that the structure of debt was very different in the past (Killing the Host or excerpt). In early times, he found that by far the major creditors were the temples and palaces of Bronze Age Mesopotamia, not private individuals acting on their own. Because of the top-down nature of the debt, it was easy for the temples and palaces to forgive debt and restore balance to the social structure.

    Now, especially since World War II, there is a new belief in the permanency of debt, and about its suitability for funding insurance companies, banks, and pension plans. The rise in economic growth after World War II was important in this new belief in permanency, because without economic growth, it is extremely difficult to pay back debt with interest, unless debt is used for a truly productive purpose. (See also Figures 2 and 4, above)

    FIgure 6. Ngram showing frequency of words over a period of years, by Google searches in books.

    Figure 6. Ngram showing frequency of words over a period of years, by Google searches of a large number of books. Words searched from top to bottom are “economic growth, IRA, financial services, MBA, and pension plans.”

    The Ngram chart above, showing the frequency of word searches for “economic growth, IRA (Individual Retirement Accounts), financial services, MBA (Master of Business Administration), and pension plans” indicates that economic growth was essentially a new concept after World War II. Once it became clear that the economy could grow, financial services began to grow, as did the training of MBAs. Pension plans grew at first, but once companies with pension programs found that it was difficult to keep them adequately funded, there was a shift to IRAs. With IRAs, employees are expected to fund their own retirements, generally using a combination of stock and debt purchases.

    Now that debt is “reused” and integrated into the economy, it becomes much more difficult to forgive. We have a situation where insurance companies, banks, and pension plans are all tied together. They all depend on the current economic growth paradigm, including use of debt with interest, continued dividend plans, and rising stock market prices. We have a major problem if widespread debt defaults start.

    Demographic Bubble

    The other problem we are up against, making government funding even more difficult than it would otherwise be, is the retirement of the baby boomers, born soon after World War II. This by itself would be a problem for maintaining adequate government funding. When it is added to multiple other problems, including bailing out banks, insurance companies, and pension plans if there are debt defaults, the demographic bubble leaves us in much worse shape than economies that reached limits in the past.

    Note that High Energy Prices Are Not on the List of Expected Problems

    The idea that as we approach limits, we should expect ever-higher energy prices, is simply not true. It should be viewed as a superstition, or as an erroneous understanding of our current situation, based on a poor model of energy supply and demand. Turchin and Nefedov found evidence of spiking food prices, perhaps similar to the spiking we saw in energy prices as we approached the peak in prices in 2008. But with wages of non-elite workers falling too low, especially on an after-tax basis, it was hard for prices to continue to spike.

    The idea that collapse can come from low prices, rather than high, is something that is not obvious, unless a person thinks through the situation carefully. Prices seem to be primarily influenced by two factors:

    (1) Wages of non-elite workers. These wages are important because there is such a large number of them. If their wages are high enough, they buy homes, cars, and other products that are big users of commodities, both when they are made, and as they are operated.

     

    (2) Increases or decreases in the amount of debt outstanding. If debt defaults start to rise, it is very easy for growth in the quantity of debt outstanding to slow, or even to fall. In such a case, low commodity prices, rather than high, become a problem. As economic growth slows, we should expect more debt defaults, not fewer. There is also a limit to how high Debt/GDP ratios can rise before many suspect that the world economy functions much like a Ponzi Scheme.

    Mark Twain wrote, “It ain’t what you know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure, that just ain’t so.” This is especially a problem for academic researchers who depend on the precedents of past academic papers. A researcher may have come to a conclusion years ago, based on a narrow set of research that didn’t cover today’s conditions. The belief can get carried forward endlessly, even though it isn’t really true in today’s situation.

    If we are going to figure out the real answer to how the economy operates, we need to look closely at indications from many areas of research. Such an approach can allow us to see the situation in a broader context and thus “weed out” firmly held beliefs that aren’t really true.

  • Mark Zuckerberg Storms Into The Trump 'Muslim Ban' Scandal, Tells Muslims "You Are Always Welcome Here"

    Moments ago, the latest high profile media figure to boldly go into the rapidly spreading Trump “ban Muslims” scandal, was none other than Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who in a post on his social network, took the other side of Trump declaring that “Muslims are always welcome here” and that Facebook will “fight to protect your rights and create a peaceful and safe environment for you.” It was not immediately clear if the “community” he was welcoming Muslims to is the United States or the online world of Facebook ad clickers. 

    His full Facebook post (which has so far been “liked” over 215K times) is below:

    I want to add my voice in support of Muslims in our community and around the world.

     

    After the Paris attacks and hate this week, I can only imagine the fear Muslims feel that they will be persecuted for the actions of others.

     

    As a Jew, my parents taught me that we must stand up against attacks on all communities. Even if an attack isn’t against you today, in time attacks on freedom for anyone will hurt everyone.

     

    If you’re a Muslim in this community, as the leader of Facebook I want you to know that you are always welcome here and that we will fight to protect your rights and create a peaceful and safe environment for you.

     

    Having a child has given us so much hope, but the hate of some can make it easy to succumb to cynicism. We must not lose hope. As long as we stand together and see the good in each other, we can build a better world for all people.

    To some online commentators, the statement rings of hollow cynicism, since the gentrified Palo Alto enclave for uber wealthy tech millionaires where Zuckerberg lives is hardly the diverse melting pot of social, ethical and religious strife and tensions, which have come to characterize many of the world’s geographic areas where cohabitation between Muslims and other religions has in recent months unleashed an unprecedented backlash – especially in Europe – against Muslims.

    To others, Zucherberg’s statement comes as a surprise that the social media mogul, who has until now resisted involvement in any openly political debates, has decided to so loudly wage right into this one.

    The reason is that according to a just released poll, nearly two-thirds of likely GOP primary voters support Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from coming into the country. The latest Bloomberg Politics/Purple Strategies PulsePoll released Wednesday reveals that the real estate mogul’s latest remarks are backed by 65 percent of likely GOP voters. When told both sides of the argument, support for Trump’s proposal remained relatively unchanged at 64 percent.

    The online poll conducted Wednesday also found that about 37 percent of those surveyed would be more likely to vote for the businessman after his call to temporarily halt Muslims from entering the United States until elected leaders can “figure out what’s going on.”

    The risk that Zuckerberg is taking is that by openly endorsing the other side of the argument, while making an ethical stand he is also jeopardizing a business model which relies on the goodwill of its users, many of whom may be openly antagonized by Zuckerberg’s moral stance. And since that 65% of GOP potential GOP voters, whose ideological position is now diametrically opposed to that of the Facebook CEO, is in the tens of millions of Americans, one wonder just how many of the 167 million in North American Daily Active Users…

    … Zuckerberg is willing to sacrifice in order to make his stand?

    Meanwhile, even as support for Trump’s proposal appears to be widespread within the republican constituency, others don’t share that view as can be seen by what Atlanta police have dubbed to be “Trump Swastika” which have been reported in various locations in Atlanta.

     

    Finally, taking a campaign that has been unorthodox, to say the least, from the start, late yesterday one of the biggest losers from Trump’s relentless popularity, Jeb Bush, went on twitter to speculate that Trump’s campaign is nothing but a conspiracy with Hillary, one which will “put here in the White House”

    The Telegraph had some thoughts on the matter:

    Could Donald Trump be doing all this to wreck the Republican Party and clear the path for his old friend Hillary Clinton to take the White House. Here’s the supporting evidence, such as it is:

    1. As recently as 2012 Trump said this of Mrs Clinton: “Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman. I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard.”
    2. Trump previously donated money to Mrs Clinton in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007.
    3. Trump has donated more than $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
    4. Trump’s daughter Ivanka is close friends with Chelsea Clinton.
    5. In 2005 Hillary Clinton attended Mr Trump’s wedding to Melania Knauss, his current wife, in Florida.
    6. Trump was a registered Democrat between 2001 and 2009 before switching to the Republican Party.
    7. It all adds up for Jeb Bush, whose campaign has been killed by Trump’s popularity. Bush said: “Maybe Donald negotiated a deal with his buddy Hillary Clinton. Continuing this path will put her in the White House.”

    Or perhaps, the conspiracy is even greater.

    According to the Chief Investment Officer of CalSTRS, “a presidential matchup between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton could sap a full percentage point from anticipated growth in the gross domestic product, the chief investment officer of the second-largest U.S. pension fund said.

    Can you imagine a whole year of Trump and Hillary going at each other?” Christopher Ailman, who manages the California State Teachers’ Retirement System’s $184 billion portfolio, said Tuesday on Bloomberg Television. “It’s going to be a drag on the economy.”

    Ailman said 70 percent of the U.S. economy is based on consumer sales, and a divisive presidential campaign is likely to depress consumer confidence. He didn’t comment on Clinton but said Trump’s statements “reverberate” across the global economy. The Republican real-estate mogul, who leads in all national polls for his party’s nomination, this week called for a ban on Muslims entering the U.S.

     

    “I’m worried about 2016,” said Ailman, who has a degree in business economics. “If you took everybody’s GDP projections of 2 to 3 percent growth, I’m sad to say you could probably take a full percentage point off of that.”

    In a year in which a record El Nino is expected to make the GDP-crushing “harsh winter” a distant memory, perhaps a Trump vs Clinton campaign is precisely what the soon to be much weaker US economy needs as the Fed is in urgently need of an alibi when the “expected” growth resulting from the December 16 rate hike fails to materialize – and in fact leads to just the opposite outcome – and the Fed is forced to backtrack instead, launching either NIRP or more QE or both. Thanks to Trump and Hillary going “at each other”, of course.

    What the answer is we don’t know, although as US society appears ready to split along racial, social, cultural and religious lines, we have somehow never felt quite so entertained even as society is quietly tearing itself apart.

  • How Many People Were Shot Near Your Home This Year: Find Out With This Interactive Map

    In the wake of last week’s massacre in San Bernardino, gun violence is once again the topic du jour in America. 

    Gun control crusaders claim the problem is easy access to firearms while gun advocates say America would actually be safer if more responsible citizens obtained concealed carry permits. In between the two extremes are those who support tougher background checks and/or limits on what type of firearms citizens should legally be allowed to purchase. 

    And the debate doesn’t just center around the string of mass shootings that have unfolded across the US over the past several years. There are also very real concerns about the proliferation of gun violence in cities like Chicago and Baltimore.

    The debate reaches to the highest levels of government with politicians on both sides of the aisle weighing and indeed, just two days ago The Supreme Court came down on the side of limiting access to “assault weapons”, a classification which one Illinois resident called “pejorative” in a complaint. 

    Given all the attention the issue has received of late, you might be curious to know just how prevalent gun violence actually is where you live. Fortunately, there’s a map for that courtesy of Slate and The Trace, an independent, nonprofit news organization dedicated to expanding coverage of guns in the United States.

    Utilizing data from the Gun Violence Archive, The Trace has developed an interactive map which allows you to discover how many fatal and non-fatal shooting have occurred in a particular area. Essentially, the map uses location data to find where you are, and tells you if anyone has been shot there recently.

    (click for interactive version)

    *  *  *

    Excerpts from “How Many People Have Been Shot Near You This Year“, by Alex Yablon and Chris Kirk, as published in The Trace

    In relentless succession, a parade of towns and cities have this year joined the bloodstained ranks of American mass shooting locations. The mere mention of the places — Charleston, Chattanooga, Colorado Springs, San Bernardino — evokes images made familiar at Columbine and Virginia Tech and Tucson and Newtown: the police battalions rushing to respond, the shocked survivors and bereft loved ones, the eerie portraits of newly infamous killers.

    But the truth is that these cities and towns and the events that now define them, however lethal they were and however large they understandably loom, comprise just a small fraction of the gun violence recorded in America during this or any year. In 2013, the last year for which government statistics are available, less than 2 percent of more than 33,000 gun deaths in the country were due to mass shootings. Tallies of gun-related fatalities are in turn dwarfed by totals for gun injuries. Every 12 months, more than 130,000 people are shot; many are left with devastating physical impairments and crippling health care bills.

    Thanks to a nonprofit, nonpartisan project known as the Gun Violence Archive, data on gun homicides and non-fatal shootings is now available well before the federal government releases its statistics. That data includes location information that makes it possible to plot those shootings on a map showing how many have taken place in your vicinity. Where someone was killed, the shooting is coded in red (this includes multiple victim incidents with a mix of fatalities and injuries). Shootings resulting in injuries but not deaths are coded in yellow.

    In all, the map contains 30,284 incidents recorded by the Gun Violence Archive from December 5, 2014 to December 5, 2015. As comprehensive as it is, it’s also incomplete: Guns are used in twice as many suicides as homicides (and are the most lethal means of suicide). But because many suicides are not reported in real time by the law enforcement sites and news outlets that the GVA mines in compiling its database, they are missing from this visualization. 

    What you’re seeing, then, is gun violence in all its other forms: homicides, attempted murders, assaults, self-defense shootings, and accidents. For 80 percent of cases, location information for the shooting is available down to the block level. Another 18 percent of locations are exact to the street level, with the remaining 2 percent limited to the city level.

  • How Hillary Clinton Abused Her State Department Role To Help Her Hedge Funder Son-In-Law

    While Hillary Clinton may have had some entertaining problems when using her Blackberry (or was that iPad) as US Secretary of State, one thing she excelled at was nepotism.

    According to the latest set of emails released by the State Department, and first reported by the Daily Caller, Hillary intervened in a request forwarded by her son-in-law, Marc Mezvisnky, on behalf of a deep-sea mining firm, Neptune Minerals, to meet with her or other State Department officials.

    One of the firm’s investors, Harry Siklas who was Mezvinsky’s coworker at Goldman (which donated between $1 and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation) had asked Mezvinsky, who married Chelsea Clinton in 2010 and who currently runs his own hedge fund (in which Goldman CEO Blankfein is also an investor) for help setting up such contacts, an email from May 25, 2012 shows.

    Siklas told Mezvinsky that Neptune Minerals (a company founded by one of Siklas’ close friends) was poised for great things. He also touted an investment that Goldman Sachs –  had made in the company, which had underwater tenements in the South Pacific.

    Siklas said that he and Adam hoped to meet with State Department officials, including Clinton, to discuss deep sea mining “and the current legal issues and regulations” surrounding it.

    “I introduced them to GS and the bankers took them on as a client,” Siklas wrote.

    “There is a favor I need to ask, and hopefully it will not put you out, as I’m not one to ask for favors typically,” Siklas wrote to Mezvinsky. “I need a contact in Hillary’s office.”

    “Siklas said that he and Adam hoped to meet with State Department officials, including Clinton, to discuss deep sea mining “and the current legal issues and regulations” surrounding it.

    As AP adds, the lobbying effort on behalf of Neptune Minerals  came while Hillary Clinton — now the leading Democratic presidential candidate — was advocating for an Obama administration push for Senate approval of a sweeping Law of the Sea Treaty. The pact would have aided U.S. mining companies scouring for minerals in international waters, but the Republican-dominated Senate blocked it.

    Clinton then ordered a senior State Department official, Thomas Nides and now a vice chairman at Morgan Stanley, to look into the request in August 2012.

    “Could you have someone follow up on this request, which was forwarded to me?” Clinton asked Nides.

    Nides replied: “I’ll get on it.”

    The emails do not show whether Clinton or other State Department officials met with Harry Siklas or with executives from the Florida-based firm. Clinton’s official calendars, recently obtained by The Associated Press, also do not show any meetings between Clinton and Neptune representatives.

    Clinton’s campaign declined through a spokesman to discuss the issue, despite AP asking detailed questions about the matter since Nov. 30. The AP attempted to reach Siklas and a Neptune executive, Josh Adam, by phone, email and in-person visits to their homes last week but received no replies.

    As noted above, Siklas had said in his email that his then-employer, Goldman Sachs, was representing Neptune.

    Unperturbed by the State Department’s stonewalling, AP then dug deeper into its quest to see just how extensive the nepotism ran:

    A spokesman for Eaglevale said Mezvinsky would not comment on his role. Emails to a spokeswoman for Chelsea Clinton went unreturned. Morgan Stanley officials did not respond to an AP request to interview Nides. The AP also left three phone messages with Neptune Minerals’ office in St. Petersburg, Florida, and also left several phone and email messages with Hans Smit, the firm’s current president, also with no reply.

     

    Federal ethics guidelines warn government employees to “not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual,” but there are no specific provisions prohibiting officials from considering requests prompted by relatives.

    As the AP then notes, “Clinton’s willingness to intercede as a result of her son-in-law’s involvement is the latest example of how the Clinton family’s interests cut across intersecting spheres of influence in American politics, commerce and charity.”

    There’s more:

    A lawyer for an environmental group opposing deep-sea mining said Clinton’s action was “cause for concern that the State Department might take any action that could encourage such activity.” Emily Jeffers, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, a group opposing deep-sea mining, filed suit against Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration last May, accusing the agencies of failing to conduct comprehensive environmental tests before licensing Lockheed Martin Corp. to mine for minerals in U.S. territorial waters in the Pacific Ocean.

     

    Jeffers said her organization supports the Law of the Sea Treaty that Clinton championed during her tenure at the State Department. She said the proposal would give the U.S. and other countries roles in establishing standards to explore for oil, gas and minerals. Jeffers said her group worries that the U.S. and other commercial nations will encourage deep-sea mining once the treaty is adopted.

     

    One provision of the treaty, backed by corporate interests, would allow nations, including the U.S., to sponsor mining companies seeking to scour deep seas for minerals. Clinton told senators in May 2012 that American mining firms would only be able to compete freely against foreign rivals under standards set by the treaty.

     

    Seabed mining is “very expensive, and before any company will explore a mine site, it will naturally insist on having a secure title to the site and the minerals it will recover,” she said.

    Clinton’s public push for a U.S. role in securing deep sea mining rights quickly hit home at Neptune Mining. Three days after her Senate appearance, Siklas, who described himself as a “passive investor” in Neptune, emailed Mezvinsky.

    As Siklas explained to Clinton’s son in law, Neptune was pursuing sea-floor massive sulfide (SMS) mining in the South Pacific and had just bought out two other mining firms. Siklas said that he and Adam needed “a contact in Hillary’s office: someone my friend Josh (and I perhaps) can reach out via email or phone to discuss SMS mining and the current legal issues and regulations.” Siklas, then registered as a stockbroker at Goldman Sachs in New York, had contributed $2,000 to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 unsuccessful presidential bid.

    Siklas said the State Department would be interested in the subject following Clinton’s Senate testimony. He said he and Adam “would feel very fortunate to have someone’s ear on this topical issue, with the hope that at some point we get in front of the secretary herself.”

    And since the emails do not show how Clinton became directly aware of Siklas’ email to Mezvinsky or why it took three months for her to act after Mezvinsky became involved, it also raises questions how many emails in the chain had been illegally deleted, and what may be contained in them. As the Daily Caller observes:

    … it is unclear why there is no record of Clinton being forwarded the email that Siklas sent to Mezvinsky. Clinton wrote in her email to Nides that she was forwarded the email from Siklas to her son-in-law. If Clinton had turned over all work-related emails that she has sent or received — as she has repeatedly claimed — it would be expected that she had an email sent directly to her inbox with Siklas’s email attached.

    The answer is simple: Clinton did not in fact produce all emails as had been demanded. But while the emails do not show a reply from Mezvinsky, Hillary Clinton eventually obtained a copy and sent it to Nides that August, ordering a follow-up.

    Most importantly, as DC concludes, the email shows that people close to Clinton had the inside track in pushing her their pet projects — a pattern that has been on display with nearly every monthly release of Clinton emails. 

    For those who are shocked, feel free to read what little evidence Clinton did provide of just that, shown below.

  • The Screaming Fundamentals For Owning Gold

    Submitted by Chris Martenson via PeakProsperity.com,

    Every year or two we update this report, which lays out the investment thesis for gold. Here is this year's version.

     

    Silver is touched upon only as necessary; as a separate report of equal scope is required for that precious metal.

     

    Gold is one of the few investments that every investor should have in their portfolio. We are now at the dangerous end-game period of a very bold but very reckless & disappointing experiment with the world's fiat (unbacked) currencies. If this experiment fails — and we observe it's in the process of failing — gold will provide one of the best forms of wealth insurance. But like all insurance products, it only works if you buy it before you need to rely on it.

    Risky Markets

    As the world’s central banks perform increasingly bizarre and desperate maneuvers to keep the financial system from falling apart, the most frequently asked question we receive is: What should I do?

    Unfortunately, there’s no simple answer to that question. Even seasoned pros running gigantic funds are baffled by the unusual set of conditions created by 4 decades of excessive borrowing and 7 years of aggressive money printing by central banks.  We expect market conditions to be even more perilous in 2016 as they are here in December 2015. Worse, we fear a major market correction — if not a financial/banking accident of historic proportions — could easily happen in the not too distant future.

    In short: this is a dangerous time for investors. At a time like this, we believe it's prudent to focus more on protecting one’s wealth rather than gambling for capital gains.

    The Opportunity In These Strange Times

    In 2001, as we witnessed the painful end of the long stock bull market, like many of you I imagine, I began to grow quite concerned about my traditionally-managed stock and bond holdings. Other than a house with 27 years left on a 30-year mortgage, these paper assets represented 100% of my investing portfolio.

    So I dug into the economic data to discover what the future likely held. What I found shocked me. The insights are all in the Crash Course, in both video and book form, so I won't go into all of that data here. But one key takeaway for me was: the US and many other governments around the world are spending far more than they are taking in, and are supporting that gap by printing a whole lot of new money.

    By 2002, I had investigated enough about our monetary, economic, and political systems that I came to the conclusion that holding gold and silver would be a very good idea for protecting the purchasing power of my financial wealth from all this money printing. So took an extreme step: I poured 50% of my liquid net worth into precious metals at that time, and sat back and waited.

    Despite the ups and downs in the years that followed — years of ups until 2011, years of down since — that move has still turned out to be a very sound investment for me. And I forecast the best is yet to come for precious metals holders like me. 

    But part of my is depressed by that conviction. Why? Because the forces that are going to drive the price of gold (and silver) higher are the very same trends that are going to leave most people on the planet financially much worse off than they are now.

    Here at PeakProsperity.com, we admit that we initially were utterly baffled that the vicious secular decline in the price of gold began at almost the exact same time that the US Federal Reserve announced the largest and most aggressive money printing operation in all of history – known as QE3 – which pumped over $1.7 trillion into the financial system between 2012-2014, throwing an astonishing $85 billion dollars of newly created 'thin air' money into the financial system every month!

    Such an unprecedented and excessive act of monetary desperation should have sent gold's price to the moon; but in fact, the opposite happened. Strange times.

    As we’ll soon explain, even as the price of gold futures were being relentlessly driven down in the US paper markets, the purchase of physical gold by China exploded. It's as if the West suddenly decided gold wasn't worth owning. Strange times, indeed.

    As we'll now explain in detail, we are witness to an incredibly aberrant moment in financial history — one where the price of gold is extremely undervalued relative to its true value. And similarly, many paper assets are overvalued well-above their intrinsic worth. The dichotomy of this moment in time is likely not to be repeated in our lifetimes; and those who understand the fundamentals accurately have the opportunity to position themselves now to benefit greatly (or at least, to not be impoverished) as this extreme imbalance corrects, as it must. 

    Why Own Gold?

    The reasons to hold gold (and silver) — I mean physical bullion here — are pretty straightforward. Let’s begin with the primary ones:

    1. To protect against monetary recklessness
    2. As insurance against the possibility of a major calamity in the banking/financial system
    3. For the embedded 'option value' that will pay out handsomely if gold is re-monetized

    Reason No. 1: To Protect Against Monetary Recklessness

    By ‘monetary recklessness,’ we mean the creation of more money out of thin air than the productive economy actually needs or can use. The central banks of the world have been doing this for decades, but it has kicked into high gear ever since the onset of the 2008 financial crisis.

    In our system money is created out of thin air.  It is created when a bank lends you money for a mortgage and it is created when the Federal Reserve buys a trillion dollars’ worth of mortgages from the banks.  If you didn’t know that money was ‘loaned into existence’ then you should really watch (or read) those parts of the Crash Course that explain the significance of this process.

    Since 1970 the US has been compounding its total credit market debts at the astounding rate of nearly 8% per annum which gives us a chart that swoops into the air, and which reveals an astonishing 39-fold expansion since 1970 to nearly $60 trillion dollars:

    Why is this astonishing? Isn’t it true that our economy has expanded tremendously since 1970, as well? After all, if our economy has expanded by the same amount, then the advance is not astonishing at all.

    But sadly, the economy, as measure by Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, has grown by less than half as much over the same time frame:

    Where credit zoomed from $1.5 trillion to $59 trillion, GDP only advanced from $1.1 trillion to $18 trillion. In other words, debt has been growing far faster than real things that have real value. (And to make things worse, as we explain in Chapter 18 of the Crash Course, GDP numbers are artificially overstated. The debt figures, sadly, are not.)

    The crazy part of this story is that the financial and monetary system are so addicted to exponential expansion that they literally threaten to collapse violently if that growth ceases or even slows.  Remember 2008 and 2009, back when the financial world seemed to be ending?  Well, collapse was a very real possibility and here’s what almost caused that:

    Anything other than smooth, continuous, exponential growth at a pace faster than GDP seems to be a death knell for our current over-indebted system of finance.  If you are like us, you see the problem in that right away.

    The short version is this: Nothing can grow exponentially forever. But our credit system not only wants to, but has to. Or else it will collapse. 

    This desperate drive for continuous compounding growth in money and credit is a principal piece of evidence that convinces us that hard assets — of which gold is perhaps the star representative for the average person — are an essential ingredient in a crash-proof portfolio.

    Back to our main narrative: because all money is loaned into existence, the next thing we should be wondering is where’s all the money that was created when those loans were made?  We’d expect it to mirror credit creation in shape.

    What we find, unsurprisingly, is another exponential chart. This time of the money supply (of zero maturity, or MZM in banker parlance):

    Money is a claim on real things, which you buy with it. Money is no good all by itself; it’s useful because you can buy a car with it, or land, or groceries, or medical services.  Which is why we state that money is a claim on goods and services.

    Debt, on the other hand, is a claim on future money. Your mortgage is your debt, and you satisfy that debt by paying out money, in the future.  That’s why we say that debt is a claim on future money. 

    By now you should be thinking about how important it is that money and debt grow at the same rate as goods and services. If they grow at a slower rate, then there won’t be enough money and credit to make purchases, and the economy would thus contract. 

    But it's equally important that money and credit do not grow faster than goods and services. If they do, then there will be too much money chasing too few real things, which causes prices to rise. That’s inflation.

    Here’s the punch-line: Since 1980, money and credit have been growing at more than twice the rate of real things. There’s far more money and debt in the economy than there is real "stuff" all that paper is laying claim to.  Worse, the system seems addicted to forever growing its debts faster than its income (or GDP) — a mathematical impossibility any 4th grader can point out.

    This is a dangerously unstable system. And it’s going to either crumble slowly for a long time  — or violently explode at some point. This isn't an opinion, it’s just math. 

    The Federal Reserve has created and nourished a monster. It simply does not know how to begin starving the beast without it turning on the hand that feeds it, and thus destroying huge swaths of so-called paper "wealth" along with the actual economy. 

    So the Fed and its central bank brethren just keep pumping more and more money into the syste, fueling ever-higher levels of debt while hoping for an outcome that is simply impossible. 

    Negative Real Interest Rates

    Real interest rates are deeply negative (meaning that the rate of inflation is higher than Treasury bond yields). Even more startling, there are trillions of dollars worth of sovereign debt that has negative nominal yields.  This means that investors pay various governments to take their money from them for periods as long as seven years. For example, at the time of this writing in late 2015, $1,000 loaned to the German government for 5 years will pay back $980 at the end of those five years.  That’s insane. Or at least, a very new wrinkle that we have yet to determine how it will alter investor decisions and psychology. 

    Negative interest rates are a forced, manipulated outcome courtesy of central banks. Of course, the true rate of inflation is much higher than the officially-reported statistics by at least a full percent or possibly two; and so I consider real bond yields to be far more negative than is currently reported. 

    Historically, periods of negative real interest rates are nearly always associated with outsized returns for commodities, especially precious metals. If and when real interest rates turn positive, I will reconsider my holdings in gold and silver but not until then. That's as close to an absolute requirement as I have in this business.  Recently commodities have been hard-hit, declining in price by large amounts. So negative interest rates are giving us different results this time than we'd expect…so far. 

    Dangerous Policies

    Monetary policies across the developed world remain as accommodating as they’ve ever been. Even Greenspan's 1% blow-out special in 2003 was not as steeply negative in real terms as what Bernanke engineered over his more recent tenure. Janet Yellen has extended those polices along with the help of foreign central banks into extreme, never-before-seen territory that now includes negative nominal interest rates!  As mentioned above, this means people are paying governments for the ‘privilege’ of lending those same governments their money.

    But it is the highly aggressive and ‘alternative’ use of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet to prop up insolvent banks and to sop up extra Treasury debt that really has me worried. There seems to be no end to these ever-expanding programs, and they seem to have become a permanent feature of the economic and financial landscape. In Europe, the European Central Bank (ECB) is aggressively expanding its balance sheet. In Japan we have Prime Minister Abe's ultra-aggressive policy of doubling the monetary base in just two years. Suffice it to say that such grand experiments have never been tried before, and anyone that has the vast bulk of their wealth tied up in financial assets is making an explicit bet that these experiments will go exactly as planned. Who in their right mind thinks it will?

    Reason No 2: To Protect Against a Major Banking Failure

    Reason #2, insurance against a major calamity in the banking system, is an important part of my rationale for holding gold.

    And let me clear: I’m not referring to “paper" gold, which includes the various tradable vehicles (like the "GLD" ETF) that you can buy like stocks through your broker. I’m talking about physical gold and silver (coins, bars, etc). Its their unusual ability to sit outside of the banking/monetary system and act as monetary assets that appeals to me.

    Literally everything else financial, including the paper US bills in our wallets and purses, is simultaneously somebody else’s liability. But gold and silver bullion are not. They are simply — boringly, perhaps — just assets. This is a highly desirable characteristic that is not easily replicated in today's world of ‘money.’

    Should the banking system suffer a systemic breakdown — to which I ascribe a reasonably high probability of greater than 1-in-3 over the next 5 years — I expect banks to close for some period of time. Whether it's two weeks or six months is unimportant. No matter the length of time, I'd prefer to be holding gold than bank deposits if/when that happens.

    What most people don’t know is that the banking crisis in Cyprus in 2013 ushered in an entirely new set of rules as well as a new financial term: the “bail-in.”   Where a bail-out uses taxpayer funds to re-capitalize a failed bank, a bail-in uses internal assets to accomplish that task.  Which ‘internal assets?’  Bank deposits, as in the accounts regular people like you hold at your bank. Even worse, the new rules adopted within the US specifically call for the derivative bets made between banks to have seniority over bank deposits when it comes to a bail-in restructuring event.  That means that the money you hold in your bank account will be used to pay off any and all reckless bets your bank may have made with another financial entity via derivative bets. And US banks hold a LOT of derivatives on their books right now.

    During a banking holiday, your money will be frozen and left just sitting there, even as everything priced in money (especially imported items) rockets up in price. By the time your money is again available to you, you may find that a large portion of it has been looted by the effects of a collapsing currency. How do you avoid this? Easy: keep some ‘money’ out of the system to spend during an emergency. We advocate three months of living expenses in cold, hard cash; but you owe it to yourself to have at least a little gold and silver in your possession as well.

    The test run for such a bank holiday recently played out in Cyprus where people woke up one day and discovered that their bank accounts were frozen. Those with large deposits had a very material percentage of those funds seized so that the bank's more senior creditors, the bondholders, could avoid the losses they were due. Sound fair to you? Me neither.

    Most people, at least those paying attention, learned two things from Cyprus:

    1. In a time of crisis, those in power will do whatever it takes to assure that the losses are spread across the population rather than be taken by the relatively few institutions and individuals responsible for those losses.
    2. If you make a deposit with a bank, you are actually an unsecured creditor of that institution. This means you are legally last in line for repayment should that institution fail.

    Reason No. 3 – Gold May Be Re-monetized

    The final reason for holding gold, because it may be remonetized, is actually a very big draw for me. While the probability of this coming to pass may be low, the rewards would be very high for those holding gold should it occur.

    Here are some numbers: the total amount of 'official gold', that held by central banks around the world, is 31,320 tonnes, or 1.01 billion troy ounces. In 2013 the total amount of money stock in the world was roughly $55 trillion.

    If the world wanted 100% gold backing of all existing money, then the implied price for an ounce of gold is ($55T/1.01BOz) = $54,455 per troy ounce.

    Clearly that's a silly number (or is it?). But even a 10% partial backing of money yields $5,400 per ounce. The point here is not to bandy about outlandish numbers, but merely to point out that unless a great deal of the world's money stock is destroyed somehow, or a lot more official gold is bought from the market and placed into official hands, backing even a small fraction of the world's money supply by gold will result in a far higher number than today's ~$1,080/oz.

    The Difference Between Silver & Gold

    A quick word on silver: often people ask me if I hold "goldandsilver" as if it were one word. I do own both, but for almost entirely different reasons.

    Gold, to me, is a monetary substance. It has money-like qualities and it has been used as money by diverse cultures throughout history. I expect that to continue.

    There is a slight chance that gold will be re-monetized on the international stage due to a failure of the current all-fiat regime. If or when the fiat regime fails, there will have to be some form of replacement, and the only one that we know from the past that works for sure is a gold standard. Therefore, a renewed gold standard has the best chance of being the ‘new’ system selected during the next bout of difficulties.

    So gold is money.

    Silver is an industrial metal with a host of enviable and irreplaceable attributes. It is the most conductive element on the periodic table, and therefore it is widely used in the electronics industry. It is used to plate critical bearings in jet engines and as an antimicrobial additive to everything from wall paints to clothing fibers. In nearly all of these uses, plus a thousand others, it is used in vanishingly-small quantities that are hardly worth recovering at the end of the product life cycle — so they often aren't.

    Because of this dispersion effect, above-ground silver is actually quite a bit less abundant than you might suspect. When silver was used primarily for monetary and ornamentation purposes, the amount of above-ground, refined silver grew with every passing year. After industrial uses cropped up, that trend reversed. Today it's calculated that roughly half of all the silver ever mined in human history has been irretrievably dispersed.  

    Because of this consumption dynamic, it's entirely possible that over the next twenty years not one single net new ounce of above-ground silver will be added to inventories. In contrast, a few billion ounces of gold are forecast to be added.

    I hold gold as a monetary metal. I own silver because of its residual monetary qualities, but more importantly because I believe it will continue to be in demand for industrial uses for a very long time, and it will become a scarce and rare item.

    The Fed Indeed Cares About Gold

    Gold, when unfettered, has a habit of sending signals that the Fed very much doesn’t like. Therefore the Fed is at the top of everyone’s suspect list when it comes to wondering who might be behind the suspicious gold slams seen almost daily in today's markets. Whether the Fed does this directly is doubtful; but it has a lot of proxies out there in its cartel network who likely are doing its dirty work.

    To reveal the extent to which gold sits front and center in the Fed’s mind, and how the Fed thinks of gold, here’s an excerpt from a 1993 FOMC meeting’s full transcript. Note that the full meeting notes from Fed meetings are only released many years after the fact, long after many or all of the voting members are no longer serving. (The most recent ones available are only from 2009.) Listen to what this FOMC voting member had to say about gold:

    At the last meeting I was very concerned about what commodity prices were doing. And as you know, they got lucky again and told us that the rate of inflation was higher than we thought it was.

     

    Now, I know there's nothing to it but they did get lucky. I've had plenty of econometric studies tell me how lucky commodity prices can get. I told you at the time that the reason I had not been upset before the March FOMC meeting was that the price of gold was well behaved.

     

    But I said that the price of gold was moving. The price of gold at that time had moved up from 328 to 344, and I don't know what I was so excited about! I guess it was that I thought the price of gold was going on up. Now, if the price of gold goes up, long bond rates will not be involved.

     

    People can talk about gold's price being due to what the Chinese are buying; that's the silliest nonsense that ever wasThe price of gold is largely determined by what people who do not have trust in fiat money system want to use for an escape out of any currency, and they want to gain security through owning gold.

     

    A monetary policy step at this time is a win/win. I don't know what is going to happen for sure. I hope Mike is correct that the rate of inflation will move back down to 2.6 percent for the remaining 8 months of this calendar year. If we make a move and Mike is correct, we could take credit for having accomplished this and the price of gold will soon be down to the 328 level and we can lower the fed funds rate at that point in time and declare victory.

    (Source – Fed)

    There it is, in black and white from an FOMC member’s own mouth spelling out the primary reason why I hold gold: I lack faith in our fiat money system. He nailed it.  Or rather, I have very great faith that the people managing the money system will print too much and ultimately destroy it. Same thing, said differently.

    And of course the people at the Fed are acutely aware of gold's role as a barometer of people’s faith in ‘fiat money.’ Of course they track it very carefully, discuss it, and worry about it when it is sending ‘the wrong signals.’ I would, too, if in their shoes.

    The Federal Reserve Note (a.k.a. the US dollar) is literally nothing more than an idea. It has no intrinsic value. America's money supply is just digital ones and zeros careening about the planet, accompanied by a much smaller amount of actual paper currency. The last thing an idea needs is to be exposed as fraudulent. Trust is everything for a currency — when that dies, the currency dies.

    The other thing you can note from these FOMC minutes is that gold pops up 19 times in the conversation. The Fed members are actively and deliberately discussing its price, its role in setting interest rates, and the psychological impact of a rising or falling gold price.

    Later in that same meeting Mr. Greenspan says:

    My inclination for today–and I'm frankly most curious to get other people's views–would be to go to a tilt toward tightness and to watch the psychology as best we can. By the latter I mean to watch what is happening to the bond market, the exchange markets, and the price of gold…

     

    I have one other issue I'd like to throw on the table. I hesitate to do it, but let me tell you some of the issues that are involved here. If we are dealing with psychology, then the thermometers one uses to measure it have an effect. I was raising the question on the side with Governor Mullins of what would happen if the Treasury sold a little gold in this market.

     

    There's an interesting question here because if the gold price broke in that context, the thermometer would not be just a measuring tool. It would basically affect the underlying psychology. Now, we don't have the legal right to sell gold but I'm just frankly curious about what people's views are on situations of this nature because something unusual is involved in policy here. We're not just going through the standard policy where the money supply is expanding, the economy is expanding, and the Fed tightens. This is a wholly different thing.

    The recap of all this is that the Fed watches the price of gold carefully, frets over whether the price of gold is ‘sending the right signals’ to market participants, and pays attention to gold's impact on market psychology (with an eye to controlling it).

    In short, the Fed keeps a close eye on the "golden thermometer".

    Back to the supply story for gold.  Not long after gold began its downward price movement in 2012, the GLD ETF trust began coughing up a lot of gold, eventually shedding more than 500 tonnes; a truly massive amount.

    (Source)

    In my mind, the absolute slamming of gold in 2013 was done by a few select entities and represents one of the clearest cases of price manipulation on the recent record. While we can debate the reasons ‘why’ gold was manipulated lower or ‘who’ did it, to me, there’s no question about how it was done. Or that it was done. 

    Massive amounts of paper gold were dumped into a thin overnight market with the specific intent of driving down the price of gold.

    It’s an open and shut case of price manipulation. Textbook perfect. 

    Even if these bear raids were performed by self-interested parties that made money while doing it, you can be sure the Fed was smiling thankfully in the background and that the SEC wasn’t going to spend one minute looking into whether any securities laws were broken (especially those related to price manipulation).

    Gold's falling "thermometer" was exactly what the central planners wanted the world to see.

    Down And Out

    The paper markets for gold are centered in the US, while the physical market for gold is centered in London (and increasingly Shanghai). It’s safe to say that the paper markets set the spot price, while the physical movement of gold originates in London.

    What’s increasingly obvious is the growing disconnect between the paper and physical markets. This is exactly what we’d expect to see if the paper markets were pushing in one direction (down) while physical gold was heading in a different direction (out).

    The tension between these ‘down and out’ movements is building and, according to a senior manager of one of the largest gold refineries in the world located in Switzerland, the current price of gold “has no correlation to the physical market.”

    He notes a lot of on-going tightness in the physical market. Unsurprisingly, gold is moving from West to East with vaults in London supplying much of the physical metal that's being refined into fresh kilo bars and sent off to China and India.

    But given the astonishing amount of physical demand, why has the price of gold been heading steadily lower over the past several years? 

    The aforementioned Swiss refiner is equally perplexed:

    If I am honest, the only thing I could share now with you would be that I’m perplexed about the discrepancy between the prices and the situation of the physical market.

     

    This is something I still do not understand and is a riddle for me every day. For all people who are interested in precious metals, the physical side of this business should be given more emphasis.

    (Source – Transcript)

    There’s no mystery as to demand going up in China and India as the price of gold has moved down. Interested buyers will buy more at a lower price.

    But it’s a big mystery as to why Western “investors” seem more interested in selling gold than buying it right now.

    Go East Young Man

    The biggest untold story of the past few years has been the absolutely massive extent of the flow of gold heading from the West to the East.  Gold has been leaving London and Switzerland and heading to China and India.

    Besides the first-hand experience of the Swiss refiner, there have been numerous stories in the main stream press also pointing to tightness in the London physical gold market as well as relentless demand from China and India being the driver of that condition:

    Gold demand from China and India picks up

    Sep 2, 2015

     

    London’s gold market is showing tentative signs of increased demand for bullion from consumers in emerging markets, after the price of the precious metal fell to its lowest level in five years in July.

     

    The cost of borrowing physical gold in London has risen sharply in recent weeks. That has been driven by dealers needing gold to deliver to refineries in Switzerland before it is melted down and sent to places such as India, according to market participants

     

    “[The rise] does indicate there is physical tightness in the market for gold for immediate delivery,” said Jon Butler, analyst at Mitsubishi.

     

    The move comes as Indian gold demand picked up in July, with shipments of gold from Switzerland to India more than trebling. Most of that gold is likely to originally come from London before it is melted down into kilobars by Swiss refineries, according to analysts.

     

    In the first half of this year, total recorded exports of gold from the UK were 50 per cent higher than the first half of 2014, on a monthly average basis, according to Rhona O’Connell, head of metals for GFMS at Thomson Reuters. More than 90 per cent was headed for a combination of China, Hong Kong and Switzerland.

     

    London remains the world’s biggest centre for trading and storing gold.

    (Source)

    (Source)

    Shipments and exports are up very strongly and nearly all of that gold is headed to just two countries; China and India. 

    India Precious Metals Import Explosive – August Gold 126t, Silver 1,400t

    Sept 10, 2015

     

    In the month of August 2015, India imported 126 tonnes of gold and 1,400 tonnes of silver, according to data from Infodrive India. Gold import into India is rising after a steep fall due to government import restrictions implemented in 2013.

     

    Year-to-date India has imported 654 tonnes of gold, which is 66 % up year on year. 6,782 tonnes in silver bars have crossed the Indian border so far this year, up 96 % y/y.

     

    Gold import is set to reach an annualized 980 tonnes, which would be up 26 % relative to 2014 and would be the second highest figure on (my) record – my record goes back to 2008.

     

    Silver import is on track to reach an annualized 10,172 tonnes, up 44 % y/y! This would be a staggering 37 % of world mining.

    (Source)

    To summarize, the gold and silver imports into India have been absolutely on a tear lately as that country tends to buy more and more as the price drops lower and lower. 

    While the paper games setting the price of gold and silver in the West continue to support lower and lower prices, for whatever reasons, this only stimulates more demand from China and India.

    Seen collectively, there’s what gold demand looks like for “Chindia.”

    (Source)

    To make things even more interesting, the world’s central banks have been increasingly strong net buyers, not sellers, of gold for the past 5 years.

    Central Banks

    Another factor driving demand has been the reemergence of central banks as net acquirers of gold. This is actually a pretty big deal. Over the past few decades, central banks have been actively reducing their gold holdings, preferring paper assets over the 'barbarous relic.' Famously, Canada and Switzerland vastly reduced their official gold holdings during this period (to effectively zero in the case of Canada), a decision that many citizens of those countries have openly and actively questioned.

    The UK-based World Gold Council is the primary firm that aggregates and reports on gold supply-and-demand statistics. Here's their most recent data on official (i.e., central bank) gold holdings:

    (Source)

    After more than a decade of selling gold to suppress the price, central banks turned into net acquirers right as gold began its plummet from its 2011 highs.  2015 looks to be an even stronger year for central bank purchases.

    With China and India’s combined appetite for gold being higher than total world mining output, and central banks on a buying spree, it only stands to reason that somebody has to be parting with their physical gold — and those selling entities appear to be substantially located in the US and UK.

    An interesting piece of detective work was done by Ronan Manly at Bullionstar.com where he noted that the LBMA reported pronounced drops in the amount of gold stored in London vaults, which includes both gold held at the Bank of England as well as non-official vaults within the LBMA system.

    To summarize his report, here’s the amount of gold reportedly held in London:

    • April 2014 – 9,000 tonnes
    • Early 2015 – 7,500 tonnes
    • June 2015 – 6,250 tonnes

    That means that 2,750 tonnes left London over the past 1+ year.

    Does such a large number even make sense?

    Well, sure, if we consider that just these four countries cumulatively imported (or increased reserves) by ~4,500 tonnes since the beginning of 2014.

    (Source)

    Confirming this is this handy chart of UK gold flows as compared to Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE) withdrawals:

    (Source)

    Quite interestingly, the highest flows out of the UK were during the months of the gold price bloodbath in early 2013 (a coincidence?), but the flows had picked up in earnest in the months prior.  Without the ‘liberation’ of gold from GLD, it’s quite possible that physical shortages would have appeared much earlier.  Again, the price smash of gold seems to have been a stroke of good luck for the central planners in the West, both for the psychological impact but also for liberating so much physical gold from weak hands.

    What we can also see is that, generally speaking, the UK has been steadily losing gold month in and month out for the past 2.5 years. Also interestingly, the gold that the UK does import has mainly come, of late, from the US and Canada. 

    The only question is: How much longer can this continue?

    Ronan Manly took a stab at estimating how much of the remaining 6,250 tonnes of gold in the UK was available for export and the answer was ‘not very much.’  He estimated that, of the gold that did not belong to the BoE, that perhaps ~120 tonnes was not spoken for by various gold ETFs and other allocated accounts. To put that in context, 120 tonnes is a couple of weeks of demand at China's Shanghai Exchange, or a month of Indian demand.

    Warning Signs At The COMEX

    While I used to be among the people that expected the eventual default on gold to happen in the COMEX warehouse, I no longer think that.  In fact, should things ever get to the point that COMEX cannot deliver on a physical contract, the rules will almost certainly be changed to force a cash settlement and that will be that.

    When things get serious, they lie. Or change the rules. Or both.

    However, the internet has been abuzz lately with some very interesting oddities coming out of the COMEX, notably a sharp decline in the amount of gold that is ‘registered’ to be delivered to settle a futures contract that has matured and declared for physical delivery.

    (Source)

    When compared to the number of contracts outstanding, the ratio of open contracts to registered gold has never been higher.

    This means that, if just 0.5% of the futures contracts stood for delivery, the COMEX warehouse would be wiped out of registered gold.

    The reason this is not actually a big concern is that new gold can and would be moved out of the ‘eligible’ category and over to the registered category to satisfy whatever shortfall existed.

    For those interested, here’s a quick primer on the distinction between ‘eligible’ and ‘registered’:

    Eligible Silver

     

    To be eligible for storage in a CME-authorized depository, silver must be 99.9 percent pure. For the standard 5,000-ounce futures contract, the silver must be cast into bars weighing 1,000 troy ounces, give or take 6 percent. Each silver bar must be marked with its weight, purity, a serial number and the brand of the refiner. Only brands officially listed by the CME can be eligible for storage. Should a refiner deliver silver that is below standard, the metal is rejected or sold, and the refiner risks losing its authorization to warehouse silver for Comex futures.

     

    Registered Silver

    Eligible silver stored at a CME-authorized depository is not available for sale unless it is registered. An owner can register eligible silver deposits by having the depository issue a warrant that certifies the details of ownership. Silver warrants were once printed on paper, but were converted to electronic form in 2011. Not all eligible silver is registered for sale, but all registered silver must first be eligible. Silver owners frequently extend or withdraw registration depending on whether or not they wish to sell their holdings at current prices.

    (Source)

    The real question is whether there’s enough total gold at the COMEX to cover any physical buying demand that might arise and the answer, for now, is ‘yes’:

    The reason I don’t worry about (or hope for) a COMEX default is that it’s not really a place where players show up to get physical gold (or silver). It's merely a depository that provides the necessary optics for paper speculators to place bets against each other.

    Yes, it’s the place that ends up setting the price of gold and silver for the world, but the number of shenanigans that can be pulled to manipulate prices higher or lower are numerous and routinely used.

    When I Would Worry About (or Hope For) A Default

    My view is that the first stage of a sharp rebound in the price of gold will begin with increasing tightness and eventually shortages in the London bullion market.

    Needing to secure more gold, on a reasonable time frame, refiners would then turn to the COMEX market, but with the intention of taking delivery. If/when that happens it won’t take long for COMEX to be stripped clean of both categories of gold.

    There’s ~220 tonnes of gold in COMEX and, again, that’s just a month or two of current demand (that is in excess of total world mining output).

    As soon as it’s recognized that COMEX is being drawn upon to satisfy Eastern demand, the price fireworks will start.  Or the rules will be changed.  But I’m betting on price being the chosen mechanism to align supply and demand.

    The summary of the fundamental analysis of gold demand is

    • there is a huge and pronounced flow of gold from the West to the East
    • there is rising demand from all quarters except for the 'hot money' GLD investment vehicle (which I have never been a fan of)
    • all of this demand has handily outstripped mine supply which means that someone's vaults are being emptied (the West's) as someone else's are rapidly filling (the East's)

    Now about that supply…

    Gold Supply

    Not surprisingly, the high prices for gold and silver in 2010 and 2011 stimulated a lot of exploration and new mine production. Conversely, the bear market from 2012 though 2015 has done the opposite.

    However, the odd part of the story for those with a pure economic view is that, with more than a decade of steadily rising prices, there has been relatively little incremental new mine production. But for those of us with an understanding of resource depletion, it's not surprising at all.

    In 2011, the analytical firm Standard Chartered calculated a subdued 3.6% rate of gold production growth over the next five years based on lowered ore grades and very high cash operating costs:

    Most market commentary on gold centers on the direction of US dollar movements or inflation/deflation issues – we go beyond this to examine future mine supply, which we regard as an equally important driver. In our study of 375 global gold mines and projects, we note that after 10 years of a bull market, the gold mining industry has done little to bring on new supply. Our base-case scenario puts gold production growth at only 3.6% CAGR over the next five years.

    (Source – Standard Chartered)

    Since then, the trends for lower ore grade and higher costs have only gotten worse. But the huge drop in the price of gold in 2011 and 2012 was the final nail in the coffin and resulted in the slashing of CAPEX investment by gold mining companies.

    Of course, none of this is actually surprising to anyone who understands where we are in the depletion cycle, but it's probably quite a shock to many an economist. The quoted report goes on to calculate that existing projects just coming on-line need an average gold price of $1,400 to justify the capital costs, while green field, or brand-new, projects require a gold price of $2,000 an ounce.

    This enormous increase in required gold prices to justify the investment is precisely the same dynamic that we are seeing with every other depleting resource: energy costs run smack-dab into declining ore yields to produce an exponential increase in operating costs. And it's not as simple as the fuel that goes into the Caterpillar D-9s; it's the embodied energy in the steel and all the other energy-intensive mining components all along the entire supply chain.

    Just as is the case with oil shales that always seem to need an oil price $10 higher than the current price to break even, the law of receding horizons (where rising input costs constantly place a resource just out of economic reach) will prevent many an interesting, but dilute, gold ore body from being developed. Given declining net energy, that's that same as "forever" as far as I'm concerned.

    Just like any resource, before you can produce it you have to find it. Therefore the relationship between gold discoveries and future output is a simple one; the more you have discovered in the past, the more you can expect to produce in the future, all things being equal. 

    This next chart should tell you everything you need to know about where we are in the depletion cycle for gold, as even with the steadily rising prices between 1999 and 2011 (going from $300 an ounce to $1,900), gold discoveries plummeted in 1999 and remained on the floor thereafter:

    (Source)

    Here we see that the 1990's decade saw quite a number of large discoveries that are currently still in production but which were not matched in later years. Since it takes roughly ten years to bring a mine into full production following discovery, it's fair to say that we are currently enjoying production from the discoveries of the 1990's. Future gold production will largely be shaped by the discoveries made since then.

    In other words: Expect less gold production in the future.

    Meanwhile, there will be more money, more credit, and more people (especially in the East) competing for that diminished supply of gold going forward.

    Let's take another angle on gold supply, one which circles back and supports the above chart showing fewer and smaller discoveries in recent years.

    The United States Geological Survey, or USGS, keeps a mountain of data on literally every important mined substance. I think it's staffed by credible people, doing good work, and I've yet to detect overt political influence in their reported statistics.

    At any rate, the latest assessment on gold reveals that their best guess for world supply is that something on the order of 52,000 tonnes of reserves are left. Which means that, at the 2012 mining rate of 2,700 tonnes, there are 19 years of reserves left:

    (Source)

    This doesn't mean that in 19 years there will be no more new gold to be had, as reserves are always a function of price; but it gives us a sense of what's out there right now at current prices.

    As much as I like the folks at the USGS, I will point out one glaring discrepancy in their data as a means of exposing why I think these reserves, like those for many other critical things like oil, are probably overstated.  And that story begins with South Africa.

    There you'll note that, at 6,000 tonnes, South Africa has the second largest stated country reserves. However, according to official South African data, they claim to have an astonishing 36,000 tonnes of reserves.  Which is right? 

    Neither as it turns out.

    First, the true story of South African gold production is completely obvious from the production data. It's a story of being well and truly past the peak of production:

    (Source)

    And not just a little bit past peak, but 44 years past; down a bit more than 80% from the peak in 1970. The above chart is simply not even slightly in alignment with the claims of the South African government to have 36,000 tonnes of reserves. But pity the poor South African government, which knows that gold exports represent fully one third of all their exports. Of course they will want to loudly proclaim massive reserves that will support many future years of robust exports.

    Instead, the South African production data can be modeled by the same methods as any other depleting resource and one such analysis has been done and arrived at the conclusion that there are around 2,900 tonnes left to be mined in South Africa.

    (Source)

    The analysis is quite sound; and the authors went on to point out that the social, economic, energy, and environmental costs of extracting those last 2,900 tonnes are quite probably higher than the current market value of those same tonnes. If they are extracted, South Africa will be net poorer for those efforts. This is the same losing proposition as if it took more than one barrel of oil to get a barrel of oil out of the ground — the activity is a loss and should not be undertaken.

    For lots of political and economic reasons, however, gold mining will continue in South Africa. But, realistically… someone in government there should be thinking this through quite carefully.

    The larger story wrapped into the South African example is this: Perhaps there are 19 years of global gold reserves left (at current rates of production), but I doubt it.

    Instead, the story of future gold production will be one of declining production at ever higher extraction costs — exacerbated by the 80,000,000 new people who swell the planet's population every twelve months, the hundreds of millions of people in the East who enter the ranks of the middle class annually, and the trillions of new monetary claims that are forced into the system each year.

    And this brings me to my final point of the public part of this report.

    Scarcity

    If we cast our minds forward ten years and think about a world with oil costing 2x to maybe 4x more than today, we have to ask ourselves some important questions:

    • How many of our currently-operating gold and silver mines, or the base metal mines from which gold and silver are by-products, will still be in operation then?
    • How many will simply shut down because their energy and associated costs will have exceeded their marginal economic benefits?

    After just 100 years of modern, machine-powered mining, all of the great ore bodies are gone, most of the good ones are already in operation, and only the poorest ones are left to be exploited in the future.

    By the time you are reading stories like this next one, you should be thinking, man, we’re pretty far along in the story of depletion, aren’t we?

    South African Miners Dig Deeper to Extend Gold Veins' Life Spans

    Feb, 2011

     

    JOHANNESBURG—With few new gold strikes around the world that can be turned into profitable mines, South Africa's gold miners are planning to dig deeper than ever before to get access to rich veins.

     

    Mark Cutifani, chief executive officer of AngloGold Ashanti Ltd., has a picture in his office of himself at one of the deepest points in Africa, roughly 4,000 meters, or 13,200 feet, down in the company's Mponeng mine south of Johannesburg. Mr. Cutifani sees no reason why Mponeng, already the deepest mining complex in the world, shouldn't in time operate an additional 3,000-plus feet deeper. Deep mining isn't easy, nor pleasant. The deeper a mine goes, the more at risk it is from underground earthquakes, rock bursts, gas discharges and flooding. And for workers, conditions themselves get progressively more uncomfortable from heat and cramped spaces.

     

    South Africa is at the forefront of deep mining. Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd.'s LaRonde mine in northwestern Quebec, one of the deepest mines outside South Africa, operates at about 7,260 feet below the surface. Before closing in 2002, Homestake Gold Mine in South Dakota was considered the deepest mine in the Western Hemisphere at about 8,045 feet. 

    (Source)

    The above article is just a different version of the story that led to the Deepwater Horizon incident. Greater risks and engineering challenges are being met by hardworking people going to ever greater lengths to overcome the lack of high quality reserves to go after.

    By the time efforts this exceptional are being expended to scrape a little deeper, after ever smaller and more dilute deposits, it tells the alert observer everything they need to know about where we are in the depletion cycle, which is, we are closer to the end than the beginning.  Perhaps there are a few decades left, but we're not far off from the day where it will take far more energy to get new metals out of the ground compared to scavenging those already above ground in refined form.

    At that point we won't be getting any more of them out of the ground, and we'll have to figure out how to divvy up the ones we have on the surface. This is such a new concept for humanity — the idea of actual physical limits — that only very few have incorporated this thinking into their actions.  Most still trade and invest as is the future will always be larger and more plentiful, but the data no longer supports that view. 

    We are at a point in history where we can easily look forward and make the case for declining per-capita production of numerous important elements just on the basis of constantly falling ore grades. Gold and silver fit into that category rather handily. Depletion of reserves is a very real dynamic. It is not one that future generations will have to worry about; it is one with which people alive today will have to come to terms.

    Protecting Your Wealth With Gold

    For all the reasons above, it's only prudent to consider gold an essential element of a sound investment portfolio.

    In Part 2: Using Gold to Protect Yourself In Advance of the Greatest Wealth Transfer of Our Lifetime we detail out the specifics of how much of your net worth to consider investing in gold, in what forms to hold it, which price targets are gold and silver most likely to reach, and which eventual indicators to look for that will signal that it's time to sell out of your precious metal investments.

    The battle to keep gold's price in check is truly one for the ages. Not because gold deserves such treatment, but because the alternative is for the world's central planners to admit that they've poorly managed an ill-designed monetary system of their own creation. 

    Make sure you're taking steps today to ensure that the purchasing power of your wealth is protected, if not enhanced, when the trends identified above arrive in full force.

    Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

     

  • Australian Police Storm Home Of Outed Bitcoin "Founder"

    On Tuesday, Wired and Gizmodo revealed the identity of the man they say is Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin. 

    Although they stop short of saying that the “trove” of evidence obtained from Gwern Branwen (another pseudonym), an independent security researcher and dark web analyst is conclusive, they seem all but certain that Nakamoto is actually a 44-year-old Australian named Craig Steven Wright. 

    In the world of bitcoin enthusiasts Wright was, until yesterday anyway, a “nobody.” When he spoke via Skype at the Bitcoin Investor’s Conference in Las Vegas, the moderator had to ask him who he was.

    Branwen allegedly began receiving leaked documents from a source close to Nakamoto last month – he then passed along the information to Wired. According to Wired’s detailed account, the documents immediately led to several direct, publicly visible connections between Nakamoto and Wright. Here they are: 

    • An August 2008 post on Wright’s blog, months before the November 2008 introduction of the bitcoin whitepaper on a cryptography mailing list. It mentions his intention to release a “cryptocurrency paper,” and references “triple entry accounting,” the title of a 2005 paper by financial cryptographer Ian Grigg that outlines several bitcoin-like ideas.
    • A post on the same blog from November, 2008. It includes a request that readers who want to get in touch encrypt their messages to him using a PGP public key apparently linked to Satoshi Nakamoto. A PGP key is a unique string of characters that allows a user of that encryption software to receive encrypted messages. This one, when checked against the database of the MIT server where it was stored, is associated with the email address satoshin@vistomail.com, an email address very similar to the satoshi@vistomail.com address Nakamoto used to send the whitepaper introducing bitcoin to a cryptography mailing list.
    • An archived copy of a now-deleted blog post from Wright dated January 10, 2009, which reads: “The Beta of Bitcoin is live tomorrow. This is decentralized… We try until it works.” (The post was dated January 10, 2009, a day after Bitcoin’s official launch on January 9th of that year. But if Wright, living in Eastern Australia, posted it after midnight his time on the night of the 9th, that would have still been before bitcoin’s launch at 3pm EST on the 9th.) That post was later replaced with the rather cryptic text “Bitcoin – AKA bloody nosey you be…It does always surprise me how at times the best place to hide [is] right in the open.” Sometime after October of this year, it was deleted entirely.

    Of course this isn’t the first time Nakamoto has been “found” and we’ll leave it to readers to review the Wired piece and evaluate the evidence in its entirety, but it seems fairly clear that Wired managed to convince the Australian Federal Police because on Wednesday, they broke into what Reuters describes as “a modest brick house in the leafy middle class suburb of Gordon” in an apparent raid on Wright’s property. 

    “Locksmiths broke open the door of the property, in a suburb on Sydney’s north shore,” Reuters writes, adding that “when asked what they were doing, one officer told a reporter they were ‘clearing the house.'”

    “More than 10 police personnel arrived at the house in the Sydney suburb of Gordon at about 1.30pm. Two police staff wearing white gloves could be seen from the street searching the cupboards and surfaces of the garage. At least three more were seen from the front door,” The Guardian adds.

    Authorities then proceeded to “clear” Wright’s businesses as well. Again, from Reuters: “A reporter who approached an office listed as the location of two of Wright’s registered businesses, DeMorgan Ltd and Panopticrypt Pty Ltd, in another Sydney suburb, was turned away by police with one officer saying: ‘There’s an operation going on at the moment, I can’t answer any questions.'” 

    Yes “an operation” was going on and although you’d have to be completely naive to believe that the raids aren’t connected with the revelation that Wright may be Nakamoto, that was the official line: “Officers’ presence at Mr. Wright’s property is not associated with the media reporting overnight about bitcoins”.

    Of course not – it’s a complete coincidence.

    As Reuters goes on to remind readers, “the treatment of bitcoin for tax purposes in Australia has been the subject of considerable debate [and] the ATO ruled in December 2014 that cryptocurrency should be considered an asset, rather than a currency, for capital gains tax purposes.”

    Police referred all inquiries to the Australian Tax Office, which in turn said it wouldn’t comment due to legal confidentiality of individuals’ tax affairs.

    Wright lived at the home with his wife Ramona Watts, who landlord Gary Hayres described as “a lovely lady,” “They didn’t seem bad,” he added.

    Amusingly, one neighbor said Wright had a nickname: “Cold fish Craig.” 

    Gizmodo published a transcript of an interview Wright allegedly conducted with Australian Tax authorities (embedded below). “I did my best to try and hide the fact that I’ve been running bitcoin since 2009 but I think it’s getting – most – most – by the end of this half the world is going to bloody know,” the document quotes Wright as saying. 

    As Gizmodo goes on to recount, “Wright appears to have been trying to persuade the Australian government to treat his Bitcoin holdings as currency, as opposed to an asset subject to greater taxation. Without this regulatory move, his business interests would be scuttled.”

    John Chesher, Wright’s accountant, who attended one of the ATO meetings told Gizmodo that he “may have” told autorities that Wright was in possession of a Satoshi-sized Bitcoin sum. For the uninitiated, a “Satoshi size sum” is rumored to be somewhere in the neighborhood of nine figures worth of the cryptocurrency. 

    So clearly, the idea that the raids and the revelations published by Wired and Gizmodo aren’t related is patently absurd, but hey, it’s the governement so what do you expect? 

    Regardless of whether Wright is Satoshi (and we wouldn’t be entirely surprised to see this story fade away like those that came before it), the bottom line here seems to be that the Australian Tax authority thinks this is a guy who may be sitting on a rather sizeable fortune that isn’t getting taxed “properly” and we all know what happens when the government thinks it might not be getting its cut.

    *  *  *

    20140218 Transcript Redacted

  • Carnage In Currency-Land – Dollar Dump Sparks Stock Slump

    Well that escalated quickly…

     

    The big story of the day – as long as you don't watch CNBC – was the bloodbath in currencies. China's devaluation to 4 year lows overnight…

     

    Appears to have acccelerated a shift away from the USDollar across all the majors… (biggest USD drop ex-ECB since the post-China devaluation collapse) – the only thing saving the USD modestly was weakness in commodity currencies (AUD and CAD)…

     

    Slamming the USD to 6-week lows… with the biggest 5-day drop since China devalued

     

    Some context for that move are evident in the world's most used carry currency – USDJPY crashed…

     

    And in EURUSD, which had its biggest (ex ECB) jump since the China devaluation….

     

    In case you were wondering what "fundamentals" were weighing on stocks…

     

    Focusing on stocks, futures provides the cleearest view of the last few days/weeks…

     

    On the day, it was extremely volatile… with stocks ending up back to pre-payrolls levels…

     

    Nasdaq was the worst on the day… Dow was saved by DuPont which added 50 points…

     

    S&P broke below its 50- and 200-DMA…

     

    As FANGs faded…

     

    With Trannies worst on the week…

     

    Leaving all the major indices back in the red for 2015 (apart from Nasdaq)…

     

    Since The ECB let the world down (and implicitly left The Fed set to remove up to $800 bn of liquidity next week)… Gold and EUR are the winners, stocks and Crude the losers…

     

    Stocks played nicely with crude all day…

     

    What happens next?

     

    Treasury yields were mixed today with the short-end rallying, long-end flat (dragging yields below pre-ECB levels…

     

     

    Commodities ignored the USD dump as once again the 8ET to 12ET period saw dramatic volatility across all…

     

    The post-DOE data ramp perfectly tagged $39 stops and then dumped back below $37 finding support there again…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

    Bonus Chart: What happens next?

  • The "American Dream" Is Over… And Voters Know It

    Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

    If the American Dream depends on skyrocketing debt built on a weakening foundation of stagnant productivity and income, then it is indeed over.

    Despite a ceaseless propaganda campaign declaring all is well with the U.S. economy, the Status Quo is fragile – and voters know it. Not only do they know the economy–and their financial security–is one crisis away from meltdown, they're also fed up with all the official gerrymandering of data to make the economy appear healthy.

    The Economy Is Better — Why Don’t Voters Believe It?

    The American Dream–characterized by plentiful jobs offering living wages, security and opportunities to get ahead–is over, and voters know this, too. People are realizing the U.S. economy has changed qualitatively in the past 20 years, and claims that it's stronger then ever ring hollow to people outside Washington D.C., academic ivory-towers and ideologically driven think-tanks.

    Many econo-gurus lay the blame for the Great Depression on the Federal Reserve tightening too soon, or not loosening credit enough, but this is nonsense: The Great Depression was the result of credit/borrowing (i.e. debt) outrunning the foundation that supports debt: productivity and income.

    Piling more debt on a base that isn't expanding fast enough to support skyrocketing debt leads to a collapse of the feebly supported debt: borrowers default, asset prices crash as buyers vanish and lenders go bankrupt as the assets held as collateral are repriced.

    To suggest that policy tweaks could have averted the collapse of unsupportable debt is absurd. Farmers were leveraging farmland that was already mortgaged to the hilt to buy more land to increase production. When grain prices softened, the debt bubble burst. No policy tweak could reverse the supply-demand imbalance or magically force marginal farmland to suddenly be worth a fortune.

    When credit expansion gets ahead of productivity and the production of goods, services and income that support all borrowing, the only possible result is a repricing of debt, risk, collateral and assets–that is, a crash. The global central banks have pushed that repricing forward seven years by lowering interest rates to near-zero (or less than zero), enabling borrowers to add more debt even though their incomes have stagnated or declined.

    But enabling more debt does not reverse supply-demand imbalances or create income out of thin air. As a result, piling on more debt is not a solution; it's simply a politically expedient method to forestall the crisis, while guaranteeing the eventual repricing will be even more severe because the debt load is now so much larger.

    Unsurprisingly, adding more debt to a weakening base of real productivity and income yields diminishing returns. Seven years of strong, widely distributed global growth before the 2008 Global Financial meltdown required $15 trillion in additional non-financial global debt. Seven years of tepid, fragile expansion since 2008 required $40 trillion in additional debt.

    That is the definition of diminishing returns:

    In the U.S., debt has completely outpaced the expansion of goods, services and income for years: look how debt has soared while GDP has expanded only modestly:

    GDP (not adjusted for inflation) is up 282% since 1990, while total credit skyrocketed 444%. The tiny decline in credit in the 2008 Global Financial Meltdown almost destroyed the entire credit-bubble dependent economy:

    Meanwhile, earned income as a percentage of GDP has been falling for decades. How can an economy support additional debt if earned income is declining as a percentage of economic activity? It can't.

    Here's another look at wage stagnation:

    Does the trendline of federal debt look remotely sustainable to you? if so, I strongly recommend reducing your dosage of Delusionol. The New Drug of Choice in the White House, Federal Reserve and Treasury: Delusionol

    At long last, credit growth is rolling over. The trick of enabling more debt by weakening lending standards and lowering interest rates has now reached diminishing returns.

    If the American Dream depends on skyrocketing debt built on a weakening foundation of stagnant productivity and income, then it is indeed over. Voters sense this fragile, debt-dependent economy is one repricing away from implosion, and they're uneasy for good reason. Voters are rightly angry that the official statistics mask or manipulate this reality, for if we can't face reality then we have zero hope of solving any problems.

    *  *  *

    My new book is in the top 10 of Amazon's category of international economics: A Radically Beneficial World: Automation, Technology and Creating Jobs for All. The Kindle edition is $8.45, a 15% discount from its list price of $9.95.

  • Credit Card Data Reveals First Core Retail Sales Decline Since The Recession

    While we await the government’s retail sales data on December 11, the last official economic report the Fed will see before its December 16 FOMC decision, Bank of America has been kind enough to provide its own full-month credit card spending data.

    And while a week ago the same Bank of America disclosed the first holiday spending decline since the recession, in today’s follow up report BofA reveals that if one goes off actual credit card spending – which conveniently resolves the debate if one spends online or in brick and mortar stores as it is all funded by the same credit card – the picture is even more dire.

    According to the bank’s credit and debit card spending data, core retail sales (those excluding autos which are mostly non-revolving credit funded) just dropped by 0.2% in November, the first annual decline since the financial crisis!

    At this point, BofA which recently laid out its bullish 2016 year-end forecast which sees the S&P rising almost as high as 2,300, and is thus conflicted from presenting a version of events that does not foot with its erroenous economic narrative, engages in a desperate attempt to cover up the ugly reality with the following verbiage, which ironically confirms that a Fed hike here would be a major policy error and lead to even more downside once it is digested by the market.

    • Retail sales ex-autos are down 0.2% yoy. However, part of this weakness owes to a decline in prices. After controlling for deflation, real retail sales ex-autos are up 1.3% yoy in November, revealing a slowing trend but not an outright decline.
    • Much of the decline in the deflator is due to the drop in gasoline prices. The most recent drop in oil prices could imply there is another leg lower in gasoline prices as well.
    • Moreover, there are disinflationary pressures elsewhere, presumably reflecting pass-through from the stronger dollar, which could continue.

    In other words, nominal spending down for the first time, and while “much” of the decline is due to gas prices, these are a tiny fraction of the overall spending basket. And then the punchline BofA throws in: “disinflationary pressures elsewhere.”

    To sum up: retail spending is now negative, and one can add deflation on top.

    Can someone please explain to us again just what “data” the “data” dependent Fed is looking at, because we are lost…

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News December 9, 2015

  • Putin Hopes "There Will Be No Need To Nuke" The Islamic State

    Earlier today, in a clear advance notice to the French and US navies which are both set to arrive just off the coast of Syria in the coming weeks, Russia for the first time targeted Islamic State targets in Syria with Kalibr land-attack cruise missiles launched from a submarine in the Mediterranean Sea off the Syrian coastline, according to Russia’s Defense Minister.

    According to RT, the 3M-54 Kalibr missiles were launched from the Kilo-class diesel-electric submarine “Rostov-on-Don”, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu told President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday.

    While as reported here before, Russian warships based in the Caspian and Mediterranean seas had launched similar missiles targeting ISIS positions in late November, this was the first time that Russia has targeted IS in Syria from a submarine.

    The submarine cruise missile launch and subsequent strikes are shown in the clip below:

    According to a Kremlin transcript of the conversation, Shoigu told Putin that the missiles successfully targeted two major terrorist positions in the territory of Raqqa, adding that “we can say with absolute confidence that significant damage has been inflicted upon ammunition warehouses and a mine production plant, as well as the oil infrastructure.”

    In addition to the submarine, a Russian Ministry of Defense source revealed that the Rostov-on-Don, equipped with modern Russian Kalibr cruise missiles, had appeared near the Syrian coast. Additionally, just before the USS Harry S. Truman carrier arrives, the Russian cruiser Varyag, which is currently off India’s coast for Exercise Indra till Dec. 12, will set sail for the Mediterranean to replace the cruiser Moskva.

     

    However, what was most notable in today’s update by the Russian defense ministry was neither the news about the sub, or the second ship deployment, but what Putin told Shoigu during their conversation according to the Kremlin’s transcript. Which is as follows:

    Regarding the submarine strikes we must, of course, analyze everything that happens on the battlefield, how the weapons acts. Both the “Kalibrs” and the X-101 rockets as a whole proved to be very good. This new, modern, highly efficient, and highly precise weapon can be equipped with both a conventional warhead as well as a special, nuclear warhead.  Naturally, in the fight against terrorism that is unnecessary, and I hope there will be no need [to use nukes against the Islamic State].

    But, if it is…. which of course was the unsaid message: Russia not only can deploy tactical nuclear warheads to Syria overnight, but it may, “not now”, but eventually be forced to use them against “the Islamic State.”

    And just like that Putin hinted that the Syrian proxy war, as it escalates ever wider and drags in increasingly more countries in true “world war” fashion, may just have one or more mushroom clouds in its near future; clouds which will will target none other than the CIA’s pet project designed to take down Assad – the Islamic State. We are not sure if this particular cloud will have a silver lining, but we are confident that not even Turkey will want to buy ISIS oil if it happens to have the same radioactivity profile as Fukushima.

  • Behold The Deflationary Wave: How China Is Flooding The World With Its Unwanted Commodities

    Between commodity-backed financing deals and the centrally-planned mal-investment boom-driven excess capacity, China has a lot of 'liquidation' to do to normalize from a credit-fueled smoke-and-mirrors world to a painful reality. As Bloomberg notes, there’s no let-up in the onslaught of commodities from China. While the country's total exports are slowing in dollar terms (as we noted last night), shipments of steel, oil products and aluminum are reaching for new highs, flooding the world with unwanted inventories. China's de-glutting is now the rest of the world's problem as the deflationary tsunami grows ever higher.

     

    Chinese trade data was ugly with exports down 5 straight months…

     

    But, as Bloomberg notes, shipments of steel, oil products and aluminum are reaching for new highs, according to trade data from the General Administration of Customs.

    That’s because mills, smelters and refiners are producing more than they need amid slowing domestic demand, and shipping the excess overseas.

     

     

    The flood is compounding a worldwide surplus of commodities that’s driven returns from raw materials to the lowest since 1999, threatening producers from India to Pennsylvania and aggravating trade disputes. While companies such as India’s JSW Steel Ltd. decry cheap exports as unfair, China says the overcapacity is a global problem.

     

    The flood of Chinese supplies is roiling manufacturers around the world and exacerbating trade frictions. The steel market is being overwhelmed with metal from China’s government-owned and state-supported producers, a collection of industry associations have said. The nine groups, including Eurofer and the American Iron and Steel Institute, said there is almost 700 million tons of excess capacity around the world, with the Asian nation contributing as much as 425 million tons.

     

    Low-cost supply from China in Europe prompted producer ArcelorMittal to reduce its profit forecast and suspend its dividend. India’s government has signaled it’s planning more curbs on steel imports while regulators in the U.S. are planning to lift levies on shipments from some Chinese companies.

    And finally, if offshore Yuan rates are to be believed, a devaluation looms (again)…

     

    Finally, as The Automatic Earth's Raul Ilargi Meijer notes, there’s another side to this, one that not a soul talks about, and it has Washington, London and Brussels very worried. Here goes:

    These large mining -including oil- corporations most often operate in regions in the world that are remote and located in countries with at best questionable governments (the corporations like it like that, it’s how they know who to bribe to be able to rape and pillage).

     

    The corporations de facto form a large part of the US/UK/EU political/military control system of these areas. They work in tandem with the CIA, MI5, the US and UK military, to keep the areas ‘friendly’ to western industries and regime.

     

    This has caused unimaginable misery across the globe, in for instance (a good example) the Congo, one of the world’s richest regions when it comes to minerals ‘we’ want, but one of the poorest areas on the planet. No coincidence there.

     

    Untold millions have died as a result. ‘We’ have done a lot more damage there than we are presently doing in Syria, if you can imagine. And many more millions are forced to live out their lives in miserable circumstances on top of the world’s richest riches. But that will now change.

     

    Thing is, with the major miners going belly up, ‘our’ control of these places will also fade. Because it’s all been about money all along, and the US won’t be able to afford the -political and military- control of these places if there are no profits to be made.

     

    They’ll be sinkholes for military budgets, and those will be stretched already ‘protecting’ other places. The demise of commodities is a harbinger of a dramatically changing US position in the world. Washington will be forced to focus on protecting it own soil, and move away from expansionist policies.

     

    Because it can’t afford those without the grotesque profits its corporations have squeezed out of the populations in these ‘forgotten’ lands. That’s going to change global politics a lot.

     

    And it’s not as if China will step in. They can’t afford to take over a losing proposition; the Chinese economy is not only growing at a slower pace, it may well be actually shrinking. Beijing’s new reality is that imports and exports both are falling quite considerably (no matter the ‘official’ numbers), and the cost of a huge expansion into global mining territory makes little sense right now.

     

    With the yuan now part of the IMF ‘basket‘m Beijing can no longer print at will. China must focus on what happens at home. So must the US. They have no choice. Other than going to war.

     

    And, granted, given that choice, they all probably will. But the mining companies will still be mere shells of their former selves by then. There’s no profit left to be made.

    This is not going to end well. Not for anybody. Other than the arms lobby. What it will do is change geopolitics forever, and a lot.

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Meet The Peer 2 Peer Lending Website That Funded The San Bernardino Shooters

    Over the course of the past nine months or so, we’ve documented the rise of online P2P lending. 

    Back in May, for instance, we highlighted a Bloomberg piece which suggested the volume of P2P loans is set to hit nearly $80 billion in 2015. “LendingClub, the No. 1 player worldwide, is trading at a market value of about $7 billion even though it lost $33 million last year,” Bloomberg said, before warning that “in a flashback to the subprime mortgage boom, P2P startups have begun bundling and selling off loans through securitizations.”

    Well of course they have. When it comes to new, potentially lucrative markets, Wall Street is a bit like Christopher Walken’s character Frank White from the 1990 cult classic “King Of New York”: “Nothing goes down unless I’m involved.” The more demand there is for P2P loans to securitize, the lower will be P2P lenders’ underwriting standards creating a repeat of the originate to sell dynamic that helped create the housing bubble and is now playing out across the auto loan space. But when it comes to P2P loans, there’s another problem. P2P loans create the conditions whereby borrowers can refi high-interest debt via personal loans, transferring credit risk from large financial institutions to private lenders in the process. It’s not entirely clear what the implications of that shift might ultimately be, especially if the market continues to grow rapidly, but one thing is clear: using a relatively low-interest P2P loan to pay off a high-interest credit card is no different in principle than using a new credit card that comes with a teaser rate to pay off an old credit card.

    As sinister as all of that sounds, it turns out P2P lending may have an even darker side. Those who follow trends in the ABS market – and let’s face it, who doesn’t, right? – might recall that back in January, BlackRock put together a $327 million deal dubbed “Consumer Credit Origination Loan Trust 2015-1.” The loans in the collateral pool were made through Prosper, the world’s second-biggest P2P lender. In an unprecedented move, Moody’s actually rated the damn thing, giving the senior tranche an investment-grade mark of “Baa3”. Here’s what Bloomberg said at the time

    The company, on behalf of its clients, scooped up more than $330 million of consumer debt arranged since November 2013 by Prosper Marketplace Inc., the so-called peer-to-peer lending platform that finds investors to fund borrowers, according to bond-offering documents. New York-based BlackRock is seeking to sell most of that debt to other institutions while retaining a risky slice.

     

    The purchases represent about a sixth of debt obtained through Prosper during that period, showing how the platform has moved beyond funding from mom-and-pop investors. BlackRock’s bond sale, known as a securitization, could be a harbinger for more such deals, said Matt Burton, chief executive officer of Orchard Platform, a data provider to clients investing through online markets like Prosper’s and one run by LendingClub Corp.

     

    “One of the large bottlenecks in this space for institutional investors has been volume,” he said. “That’s all changing.”

    Yes, “that’s all changing,” thanks to the proliferation of P2P lending. In fact, loans originated through San Francisco-based Prosper jumped to $1.6 billion, last year, up some 350 percent. 

    If you aren’t familiar with P2P, you might be asking yourself: “what kind of loans does Prosper make?” Well, according to their website, they arrange debt consolidation loans, home improvement loans, special occasion loans, and personal loans for business.

    We’re not sure which of those categories “jihadist massacre” falls under (we assume “special occasion”), but as Reuters reports, San Bernardino mass shooters Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, obtained a $28,500 loan through Prosper not long before killing 14 and injuring nearly two dozen in a bloody rampage last Wednesday. From Reuters

    Online lender Prosper recently made a $28,500 loan to Syed Rizwan Farook who, along with his wife, killed 14 people at a holiday party last week in San Bernardino, California, according to a source familiar with the matter.

     

    One of the Reuters government sources said Farook and Malik apparently pursued a scenario previously followed by U.S.-based militants by draining their bank accounts and maxing out credit lines before embarking on what they believe to be a suicide mission, knowing that they would not have to pay off the debts.


    Prosper evaluates borrowers for loans, which are originated by third-party bank WebBank. Prosper then sells the loans off to investors.

    As Prosper puts it in the “How It Works” section of its website, “Prosper is the market leader in peer-to-peer lending-a popular alternative to traditional loans and investing options. Prosper allows people to invest in each other in a way that is financially and socially rewarding. We cut out the middleman to connect people who need money with those who have money to invest…so everyone prospers!” 

    Well, “everyone” didn’t exactly “prosper” here and because this didn’t turn out to be one of the site’s more “socially rewarding” ventures you can bet the FBI is taking a hard look at just how the company went about evaluating this particular loan prior to approval. More from Prosper: 

    Here’s how it works:

    • Borrowers choose a loan amount, purpose and post a loan listing.
    • Investors review loan listings and invest in listings that meet their criteria.
    • Once the process is complete, borrowers make fixed monthly payments and investors receive a portion of those payments directly to their Prosper account.

    We’re reasonably sure Farook didn’t list “general terrorist purposes” as the reason for his loan request which begs the question of whether the person who provided the funding was complicit in the plot or whether it was merely some innocent benefactor who bought the story that Farook posted (indeed, given his occuption as an employee of the state, he probably looked, on paper, like a good credit). 

    In any event, they’ll surely be much more on this story in the very near future but for the time being, we’ll simply leave you with two images, the first from Prosper’s website, and the second from the aftermath of Farook and Malik’s shootout with police. Here’s what the pictures have in common: a husband, a wife, a car, and Prosper. We’ll leave it to readers to spot the differences.

     

  • Canada Just Warned That Negative Interest Rates Are Coming

    Moments ago, the Bank of Canada’s chief finally said what we had been patiently waiting for over the past several months: admission that Europe’s experiment with negative rates is about to cross the Atlantic. From Market News:

    • BOC POLOZ: NOW SEES EFFECTIVE LOWER BOUND FOR POLICY RATE AROUND -0.5%
    • BOC POLOZ: CANADN FIN MKTS COULD FUNCTION IN A NEG INT RATE ENVRIONMNT
    • BOC POLOZ: ‘SHOULD THE NEED ARISE’ FOR UNCONVENTIONAL MONETARY POLICY, ‘WE’LL BE READY’

    That, as they say, is “forward guidance” of what is coming.

    And what is coming, is also precisely what Keith Dicker from IceCap Asset Management said in his latest monthly letter, would happen in Canada in the very near future. To wit:

    Canada

    Now that the election is over, the new government can quickly get down to work to missing all of their economic forecasts and budgets.

    IceCap is apolitical – we support neither the left, the center or the right. Instead, we see the world with our global goggles and can confirm that despite any and all economic policies from the new (or old) government – the Canadian economy will continue it’s downward trend.

    This negative outlook for Canada isn’t driven by an insular view or perspective. Rather, the global trend is downward. The economic and monetary foundation for the global economy has shifted and this is the reason for our downward view for the Great White North.
    During the election campaign, we shared this view with the eventual winning party. The response was a slow yawn and disapproving look which suggested either we didn’t know what we were talking about or they were not really interested in our answer to their question.

    This lack of empathy for the escalating global government debt crisis is also shared by many in the financial sector as well. Yes, increasingly more and more investment managers are echoing concerns similar to ours – but make no mistake, the majority, and especially the really big investment and mutual fund companies continue to see a recovery right around the ole corner.

    Of course, this mythical corner continues to be just as elusive as unicorns, trolls, elves and dragons. In 2014, Canada’s top Bay Street economists were all clamouring for the Bank of Canada to begin raising rates – after all, these economists had very big spreadsheets, with all kinds of neat formulas and corporate logos that predicted the Canadian economy was about to shoot to the moon.

    Yes, the good times were back.

    But they weren’t.

    At the time, IceCap stated that the global economy was beginning to roll over and that the Canadian economy would begin shooting in the opposite direction. As well, based upon our outlook for declining growth, we also expected the Bank of Canada to REDUCE interest rates, not INCREASE interest rates as predicted by Bay Street.

    Naturally, our view meant that the Canadian Dollar would decline significantly relative to the US Dollar. This provided us with a great opportunity to add a significant USD currency strategy within every Canadian Dollar Client Portfolio.

    Now here we are in 2015, and the Canadian Dollar (and other currencies) has in fact declined significantly, and the Bank of Canada has in fact REDUCED interest rates not once, but twice.

    We share this investment success story for 2 reasons:

    • Taking an insular view of your Country’s economy will lead you to losing money.
    • The global economy and financial markets continue to move in the direction which we expect. And this direction is going to produce outcomes that are being completely missed by many in the investment community.

    Which brings us back to Canada. Currently, both the Bank of Canada and Bay Street economists predict the Canadian economy to recover in 2016, and then to accelerate in 2017.

    The ONLY way for this to occur is if the global economy sheds it’s government debt problem. IceCap places a 0% probability of this occurring.

    Instead, everyone should expect:

    1. Canadian economy to be in recession in 2016
    2. Bank of Canada will be at 0% interest rates in 2016
    3. Bank of Canada will be at NEGATIVE interest rates in later 2016
    4. Bank of Canada will be PRINTING MONEY in later 2016

    And for the Canadian Dollar? It’s headed lower, a lot lower. If you are not Canadian, just know that you are in a similar boat. And when it comes to boating, there is one simple rule – going against the flow is difficult, it’s exhausting, and it can be humbling.

    * * *

    So, in order to force the Bank of Canada’s hand, is this what’s coming next?

  • America's Reckless Fight Against Evil: Six Mistakes On The Road To Perpetual War

    Authored by Ira Chemus via TomDispatch.com,

    Oh, no! Not another American war against evil!

    This time, it’s the Islamic State (IS). After the attacks in Paris, Barack Obama, spokesman-in-chief for the United States of America, called that crew “the face of evil.” Shades of George W. Bush. The “evildoers” are back. And from every mountaintop, it seems, America now rings with calls to ramp up its war machine.

    By the way, George W., how did that last war against the “evildoers” work out for you? Not quite the way you expected, right? I bet you didn’t imagine that your Global War on Terror would plant the seeds of an Islamic State and turn significant stretches of Iraq (and Syria) into fertile soil in which IS would grow into a brand new, even more frightening enemy.

    But that’s the way wars against evil always seem to work.

    Pardon me if I vent my exasperation with all the Washington policymakers, past and present, surrounded by their so-called experts and those war-drum-beating pundits in the media. I know I shouldn’t be shocked anymore. I’ve seen it often enough as a historian studying wars against evil in the past — ever since biblical times, in fact — and as a citizen watching wars in my own lifetime, ever since the one that tore Vietnam (and, incidentally, America) apart.

    Still, it drives me crazy to watch policymakers and experts making the same dumb mistakes time after time, several mistakes, actually, which synergistically add up to one self-defeating blunder after another.

    What’s worse, the dominant trend in public opinion is so often on the side of just those mistakes. You’d think someone would learn something. And in that someone I include “we, the people,” the nation as a whole.

    Yet now, facing the Islamic State, you guessed it: we’re doing it all over again.

    Let me try to lay out our repetitive mistakes, all six of them, one by one, starting with…

    Mistake Number One: Treating the enemy as absolute evil, not even human.

     

    Barack Obama called the Paris tragedy “an attack on all of humanity,” which means that, even for the president, IS fighters stand outside that category. They are evidently some other species and merely appear to be human. And this was the mildest of descriptions in this overheated political season of ours. “The face of evil” sounds modest indeed compared to the vivid images offered by the Republicans vying to replace him. For Ben Carson, IS are a bunch of “rabid dogs”;  for Ted Cruz, “scorpions.”  Donald Trump calls them "insane," "animals."

     

    All point to the same dangerous conclusion: Since we are human and they are not, we are their opposite in every way. If they are absolute evil, we must be the absolute opposite. It’s the old apocalyptic tale: God’s people versus Satan’s. It ensures that we never have to admit to any meaningful connection with the enemy. By this logic, it couldn’t be more obvious that the nation our leaders endlessly call “exceptional” and “indispensable,” the only nation capable of leading the rest of the world in the war against evil, bears no relationship to that evil. 

     

    That leads to…

     

    Mistake Number Two: Buried in the assumption that the enemy is not in any sense human like us is absolution for whatever hand we may have had in sparking or contributing to evil’s rise and spread. How could we have fertilized the soil of absolute evil or bear any responsibility for its successes?  It’s a basic postulate of wars against evil: God’s people must be innocent.

     

    As a result, we don’t need to look at all the ways in which the U.S., even in battle mode, continues to contribute to the successes of Islamic State fighters in Sunni Arab lands by, for instance, supporting an Iraqi Shi’ite regime in Baghdad that has a grim history of oppressing Sunnis, a history that drives many of them to tolerate, or even actively support IS.

     

    By refusing a future role of any sort for Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad, we have hindered the diplomatic process that might heal the civil war in that country. Instead we let the Syrian chaos continue as a breeding ground for IS expansion (though perhaps this policy is just beginning to change). Our long-term alliance with Saudi Arabia is equally counterproductive, protecting funding networks that feed a burgeoning caliphate.

     

    Just as we don’t look at all this in the present, so we blind ourselves to what the U.S. has done in the past. Consider this…

     

    Mistake Number Three: Call it blotting out history. We lose the ability to really understand the enemy because we ignore the actual history of how that enemy came to be, of how a network of relationships grew up in which we played, and continue to play, a central role.

     

    The historical record is clear for all who care to look: The U.S. (the CIA in particular) was a key to the creation, funding, and arming of the mujahidin, the rebel fighters in Afghanistan who took on the Soviet army there in the 1980s, the men (often extreme Islamists) whom President Ronald Reagan compared to our founding fathers. From that situation came al-Qaeda.

     

    George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq cracked the region open and paved the way for the Islamic State. The Bush administration tore Iraq to shreds and then demobilized Saddam Hussein’s army and dispatched its members to the unemployment lines of a wrecked country.

     

    One of those shreds, al-Qaeda in Iraq, populated by disaffected officers from that disbanded army, would later transform itself into the nucleus of the new Islamic State movement. Indeed the U.S. nurtured the present leadership of that movement in American military prisons in Iraq, where we introduced them to each other, so to speak. The process was at least hastened, and perhaps ultimately caused, by the vehement anti-Sunni bias of the Shi’ite Iraqi government, which the U.S. installed in power and also nurtured.

     

    To sustain our image of ourselves as innocents in the whole affair, we have to blot out this empirical history and replace it with a myth (not so surprising, given that any war against evil is a mythic enterprise). That’s not to say that we deny all the facts. We just pick and choose the ones that fit our myth best.

     

    In that tale, the enemy is simply what Christians for centuries have called the devil, which brings us to…

     

    Mistake Number Four: We assume that the enemy, like Lucifer himself, does evil just for the sake of doing it. Even the most liberal parts of the media often can’t see IS fighters as more than “lunatics” bent on “slaughter for its own sake.”

     

    Under such circumstances, what a foolish task it obviously is even to think about the enemy’s actual motives. After all, to do so would be to treat them as humans, with human purposes arising out of history. It would smack of sympathy for the devil.

     

    Of course, this means that, whatever we might think of their actions, we generally ignore a wealth of evidence that the Islamic State’s fighters couldn’t be more human or have more comprehensible motivations.  In fact, if you look hard enough, you can find evidence of just that.

     

    The Atlantic, for instance, gained some attention for publishing an article by Graeme Wood that explored the complex religious ideas of the IS movement. In the New York Review of Books, Scott Atran and Nafes Hamid offered insights from people who had taken the time to actually talk with IS fighters or former fighters about its strategy and their own motives in becoming part of it. In this manner, Atran and Hamid helped explain the great mystery of IS (if you believe it is an inhuman organization): How can it attract so many young followers, especially from the U.S. and Europe?  Why do some disaffected young men and women find the movement “profoundly alluring”?

     

    Olivier Roy, a leading scholar of political Islam, has answered that many of these youth, full of “frustration and resentment against society,” are lured by the fantasy of joining a “small brotherhood of super-heroes.”  But a recent study by the Program in Extremism at George Washington University, full of rich details on American IS supporters, concluded that “their motivations are diverse and defy easy analysis.”

     

    Add up this sort of evidence and you’re likely to come to a startling and, in our present context, deeply unsettling conclusion. It’s not just that IS fighters are distinctly human, but that in some ways they are eerily like us. After all, we, too, have a military that uses an ideological narrative to recruit young people and prepare them to be willing to die for it. Our military, too, is savvy in using social media and various forms of advertising and publicity to deploy its narrative effectively. Like IS recruits, youngsters join our military for all sorts of reasons, but some because they are rootless, disaffected, and in search of a belief system, or at least an exciting adventure (even one that may put them in danger of losing their lives). And don’t forget that those young recruits, like the IS fighters, often have only the sketchiest grasp of what exactly they are signing up to die for or of the nature of the conflicts they may be involved in.

     

    Our state ideology is, of course, secular. But most of us are certainly familiar personally (or at one remove) with American religious fundamentalists whose beliefs share much with the IS narrative. On both sides, people want to turn back the clock of history and live according to a sacred plan supposedly etched in stone many centuries ago.

     

    There are, in fact, striking parallels — and I say this as a professor of religious studies — between the evangelical mood and methods of our fundamentalists and those of the Islamic State.  Both agree that one must choose between God’s truth (derived from an ancient text) and the devil’s. Both offer the psycho-social comfort of a community supposedly living by immutable laws. Some of our fundamentalists, like the Christian Reconstructionists, would be happy to see this nation governed under religious law, as long as it’s their religion we’re talking about.

     

    Whatever any of us think of our homegrown fundamentalists, we would hardly deny them their humanity, even if we often wonder what leads them to such (to many of us) strange beliefs. So here’s the question: Why shouldn’t we be just as curious about the believers of the Islamic State, even if they are our enemies?

     

    Remember, to understand is not to justify. Quite the opposite, understanding often opens up ways of thinking more constructively and creatively about how to respond to such a challenge. It’s clear that Islamic State strategists understand American and European political cultures well indeed and, as they’ve repeatedly shown, they use that understanding to their grim advantage. They know just how to provoke us into anti-Muslim rhetoric and belligerent policies, which they find most useful to their project and their movement. Like classic judo warriors, they employ our immense strength remarkably effectively against us.

     

    Every one of Washington’s words and acts of war, every ally like Great Britain that joins the bombing campaign against IS, only confirms the Islamic State’s message that Muslims are under attack by the West. All of it only plays into the IS’s own apocalyptic worldview.  Every step in the process makes the IS more attractive to Muslims who feel oppressed and marginalized by the West. So think of every threat uttered in the presidential campaign here and every bomb now being dropped as yet more global recruitment posters arriving “like manna from heaven” for that movement.  Each is an invitation to launch yet more Paris-style attacks.

     

    Our blindness to them as human beings, and to all the ways we have influenced them, increases their power and undermines our power to shape the outcome of events in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere in the Greater Middle East. Ironically, we accept this loss of power willingly, even eagerly, because it allows us to hold on to what seems to matter most to us: our vision of a war against inhuman evildoers, which brings us to…

     

    Mistake Number Five: To convince ourselves that the Islamic State is evil incarnate, we imagine that the enemy is as relentless, intractable, and implacable as the devil himself. As a result, we also imagine that nothing we could do might diminish their will to evil. Since, as we see it, we had nothing to do with creating these monsters, no changes in our policies or actions could possibly influence their behavior.  And since they are just crazy — not capable of normal rationality — there is no point in trying to talk with them.

     

    By this route we finally, inevitably, arrive at…

     

    Mistake Number Six: The belief that we have only one option: annihilation. Or if that proves impossible, despite the military forces at our disposal, then at least containing them forever.

     

    In fact, the presidential candidates of this moment all demand annihilation and nothing less. In Donald Trump’s words, “bomb the shit out of ‘em.” In Hillary Clinton’s more demure formulation, “crush ISIS… break the group’s momentum and then its back.”  Even Bernie Sanders agrees: “Our priority must be… to destroy the brutal and barbaric ISIS regime.”

     

    The dream of a war of annihilation against evil has a long, long history in white America.  It began in 1636 when Puritans in New England wiped out the Pequot tribe, promising that such a lesson would prevent further attacks by other tribes. In fact, it created a spiral of violence and counter-violence, and a war-against-evil template that the country still follows nearly four centuries later in its “war on terror.” The current conflict in Iraq and Syria seems only to be locking us into that template and its guaranteed cycle of violence ever more firmly.

    Why do we as a nation keep on playing into the same dismal scenario and committing the same mistakes? Why this seemingly irresistible urge to fight yet another war against evil?

    I worry that the answer to such questions may lie in what I’ve called an American myth of national insecurity. It tells us that we will always be at war with evildoers bent on destroying us; that this war (whichever the latest one may be) is the mission and the meaning of our nation; and that the only way to feel like a real American is to enlist permanently in permanent war.

    In other words, even as we stoke the Islamic State, we stoke ourselves as well. The longer we fight, the more deeply we are seized by fear. The more we fear, the more fiercely we are determined to fight. Perhaps the point is not to win the war but to remain trapped in this vicious circle, which feels perversely comforting because it offers a sense of unified national identity as nothing else can in our otherwise deeply divided nation.

    National myths are, however, invented by human beings, and we are always capable of changing our minds. Who knows? Maybe someday the Islamic State will figure out that brutal killing and other acts of horror in the name of the caliphate are not such a good idea after all. And maybe the United States will figure out that depending on an eternal, self-defeating war against evil for our national identity is a huge mistake after all. Maybe.

  • Turkey Puts Medical Doctor On Trial For Comparing Erdogan To Gollum

    If there’s one thing you’d think Turks would have learned by now, it’s that you do not, under any circumstances, insult President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. 

    Nor in fact, do you suggest that the government is corrupt, that the PKK may not be “terrorists” after all, that elections may be rigged, or that the MIT is smuggling guns to militants in Syria. All of these things can and will get you arrested or much, much worse. 

    In the last two weeks alone we’ve witnessed the arrest and detention of two high profile journalists from Cumhuriyet, the arrest of the generals who were responsible for the investigation the Cumhuriyet journalists were arrested for reporting on, and the resignation of Today’s Zaman chief Bulent Kenes. 

    Cumhuriyet’s Can Dundar and Erdem Gul, were charged with spying and aiding a terrorist group, the gendarmerie with “forming and leading an armed terrorist organization,” and as for Bulent Kenes, he cited ongoing legal battles with the government for his resignation.

    This is all par for the course in Turkey. Indeed, it was just three months ago that three Vice News journalists (two British citizens and an Iraqi) were arrested for allegedly “engaging in terror activity” on behalf of ISIS. Their real “crime”: reporting on the conflict with the PKK.

    Well as those who frequent these pages are no doubt acutely aware, Erdogan has for all intents and purposes lost his mind since AKP put on a better showing at a re-run election the President engineered in early November. In addition to the renewed media crackdown, he’s shot down a Russian warplane and invaded Iraq.

    Well, just when you thought things couldn’t get any more surreal in Turkey, Dr. Bilgin Ciftci, a physician with the the Public Health Institution of Turkey has lost is job and now faces two years in prison for sharing the following on social media:

    Yes, that’s right, Erdogan is about to put a medical doctor in jail for comparing him to Gollum. 

    But it gets better.

    As The New York Times notes, “a judge said he did not know enough about the Tolkien creature to make an appropriate decision, five experts were ordered to conduct an investigation into Gollum’s moral character before the next phase of the trial begins in February.” 

    In what certainly comes across as a kind of slightly condescending (if you’re a Tolkein fan) attempt to make light of the situation without just coming out and calling the whole thing ridiculous, The Times went to the trouble of interviewing and quoting Michael D. C. Drout, an English professor at Wheaton College who edits an annual review of Tolkien’s works. 

    “I don’t think there’s any consensus that Gollum is evil. He is the most tragic character in ‘The Lord of the Rings.’ The context is this: Gollum accidentally, not intentionally, saves the entire world. [Tolkein] didn’t see him as irredeemably evil. He saw him as someone who had been destroyed by this evil ring.”

    Meanwhile, Peter Jackson – who directed the famous big screen adaptations of Tolkein’s trilogy, weighed in as well. “If the images are in fact the ones forming the basis of this Turkish lawsuit, we can state categorically: None of them feature the character known as Gollum. All of them are images of the character called Smeagol. Smeagol would never dream of wielding power over those weaker than himself. He is not a bully. In fact he’s very loveable. This is why audiences all over the world have warmed to his character.”

    Hilariously, Ciftci’s lawyer Hicran Danisman told the AP that the reason it came to this in the first place is that a common sense, freedom of expression defense didn’t fly in the face of the government’s accusations, so she was effectively forced to argue that Gollum isn’t all bad. Here’s a bit more on the history of the case from al-Monitor:

    Initially, almost everyone involved thought the case would be promptly dismissed. However, the case took an unusual turn. The Gollum meme was declared “ideological” and banned at the Public Health Institution, where Ciftci worked. The investigation prepared several reports, one of which claimed that this sort of offensive memes goes against the will of the Turkish people. In a nutshell, the report argued that it should be remembered that such memes target a man who has been elected president by 52% of the vote, about 21 million Turks. The report claimed, “These sorts of memes have no positive impact and … [are] part of an operation to tarnish the elected government’s reputation.”

     

    Article 299 of the Turkish penal code says that anyone who insults the president can face up to four years in prison, and the prison term goes up if the crime is committed publicly. If found guilty, Ciftci may be imprisoned for his Facebook post.

     

    If Gollum is found to be evil, then the meme will be considered “offensive” and Ciftci would be guilty of offending Erdogan. Yet the judge was not familiar with the Tolkien series, and could not independently decide on the character of Smeagol or Gollum. So he asked for an expert council to gather. The court-appointed council contains two academics, a “TV expert” and two behavioral scientists. The absurdity of putting Gollum on trial has sparked a domestic and international uproar.

    “What if the meme is found to depict Smeagol? Would there then be a new court-appointed council to investigate the character of Smeagol the hobbit?,” al-Monitor goes on to ask, incredulous. Ciftci’s lawyer is apparently set to inlcude Peter Jackson’s statement in the case file which means that it’s at least possible a Turkish court could end up analyzing Gollum and Smeagol as two separate beings on the way to determining whether the good doctor was actually comparing Erdogan to a vile, murderous creature driven mad by the powers of a magical ring, or a tormented, largely misunderstood anti-hero with a good heart.

    This, ladies and gentlemen, is what’s going on in Turkey, a NATO member and an ally that’s apparently so valuable to Washington, that the US is prepared to appease Erdogan even if it means risking open warfare with Russia and alienating any friends America still has in Baghdad.

    Although we wish Dr. Ciftci the best, we’d argue that Erdogan is a lot closer to Gollum than Smeagol. Decide for yourself:

  • China Fixes Yuan At Weakest Since August 2011 After 45th Consecutive Month Of Deflation

    Chinese Producer Prices have now fallen YoY for 45 consecutive months and November's 5.9% YoY drop is the largest since the crisis in 2009. Following weak trade data overnight (and with The IMF having blessed any and all currency movements), it appears Chinese authorities have decided to do something about and continue the slowest, quietest, stealthiest currency war in the world. With today's Yuan fix, PBOC has weakened the Yuan back below the August devaluation lows, back to its weakest against the USD since August 2011. Judging by Offshore Yuan, there is a lot more weakening to come.

    PPI dropped the most since 2009…

     

    So China 'devalued' the Yuan a little more… to August 2011 lows…

     

    But judging by Offshore Yuan weakness, there's more 'devaluation' to come…

     

    And all with the new blessing of The IMF…

     

    Because if Japan can, then China can too.

     

    Charts: bloomberg

  • Here Are HSBC's Top Risks For 2016

    With the end of the fiscal and calendar year upon us, sellside research rushes to put to print its latest forecasts about the coming year, and HSBC – which recently made headlines when it slashed its 2016 year-end forecast on 10-Year yields from 2.8% to 1.5% – is no exception.

    Earlier today, the firm’s research team issued a report laying out the top 10 risks for 2016, which had a peculiar caveat suggesting some at the bank is not in a rush to get arrested…

    … in which it laid out what it believes are the 2 “good” risks to the economy – a US capex recovery and a return to EM capital inflows – as well as the 6 “bad” risks such as policy paralysis, supply-led oil price increase, a UK vote for Brexit, political crises in Europe’s periphery, more frequent flash crashes, and an increase in China’s corporate defaults, as well as HSBC’s two “ugly” tail-risks: a US recession and Fed policy error.

    We will focus on the negative ones. This is how HSBC prefaces its risk packet:

    The “bad” category dominates, filling six of the 10 slots. This is not because we are particularly gloomy; on the contrary, our base case is for continued slow growth in 2016. But “bad” risks often have a more immediate impact than “good” ones, and our focus here is on 2016. Indeed, upside risks tend to be gradual in nature. Global trade agreements such as the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and technological improvements should add to global growth beyond next year. It is rare that a growth positive shock surprises markets.

     

    We don’t want to cry wolf about any of these risks. But in a world that remains highly leveraged and with limited policy ammunition to offset any new downturn, markets will be sensitive to any shift in consensus. The global economy and markets are more exposed to downside risks today than they would have been if the expansion had been more robust, or we were earlier in the global business cycle.

    With that caveat, here are the key downside risks:

    1. Policy paralysis

    Policymakers appear to run out of policy options, or are either unwilling or unable to adopt new policy to stimulate growth

    Policymakers may wish to try something else to stimulate growth but what happens when there are no obvious viable options? A number of unconventional and conventional policies have been tried in recent years, all with the objective of boosting nominal GDP. Quantitative easing, negative rates and fiscal policy have been put in place. Helicopter money is for now just a theoretical concept but it could be tested.

    What happens when policies appear not to work? Between lurching from one type of policy to another or when absolutely everything appears to have been tried, perceptions of policy paralysis may set in. This may be a direct consequence of the lack of ability or willingness to try something new at a time when existing policies are not effective. Policymakers are seen as impotent, either unable or unwilling to take the bold steps necessary.

    In the Eurozone this might apply to the ECB if it reaches the outer limits of what is technically and legally feasible, whilst governments fail to forge ahead with the necessary integration and supply-side reform. It is already controversial that the ECB is expanding its balance sheet and paying a negative rate on deposits. We wonder how much further the ECB can go before exhaustion (see our report Quantitative Exhaustion, 4 November 2015) is followed by policy paralysis.

    Faced with another downturn, just as the US presidential election approaches, it is hardly the right time for the US to unleash fiscal loosening, especially given the starting point for debt levels. And it is difficult to imagine the Fed starting QE4. The US could be much closer to the policy buffers than central bankers and politicians would care to admit.

    Investment implications

    • Flatter yield curves
    • Wider credit spreads
    • Equities suffer – particularly in EM

     

    2. Supply-Led Oil Price Increase

    Oversupply should fall and low spare capacity in OPEC offers limited buffers to supply disruptions, meaning oil could move sharply higher

    Following the 60% drop in crude prices since mid-2014, the market seems to be fixated on the risk of further falls. This is understandable given a backdrop of firm supply pressure from OPEC, large inventory overhangs and the potential for increased Iranian exports next year. However, we believe investors should be increasingly concerned about the risks of a sharp move higher in crude prices. Not only should the extent of oversupply fall dramatically in 2016, but low spare capacity within OPEC means that buffers against unexpected supply disruptions are very limited. Moreover, if OPEC abandons its policy and reduces output, prices could well rally considerably. As far as tail risks go, they seem skewed firmly to the upside, in our view.

    Producers outside OPEC have responded much more quickly to lower oil prices than the market was expecting. The most striking evidence of this is the relentless series of downgrades to non-OPEC supply growth estimates. Looking at the monthly evolution of the US Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) forecasts, 2016 non-OPEC supply growth was seen at 0.8mbd in February. Just nine months later, the forecast points to a y-o-y decline of 0.3mbd. The International Energy Agency (IEA) sees an even larger fall of 0.6mbd, which would be the largest annual decline in non-OPEC output since 1992 (when the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in a 1mbd contraction). According to the IEA, non-OPEC volumes grew 2.5mbd as recently as 2014.

    The biggest supply response thus far has come from US tight oil production, which has a much shorter production cycle than conventional oil extraction. The US onshore rig count has fallen sharply by 66% since the peak in Q4 2014, and the full effects of this have only recently started to translate into falling production. On our estimates, liquids output from the main US onshore plays should fall around 650kbd y/y in 2016. However, it’s important to remember that US tight oil only accounts for around 5mbd out of total non-OPEC supply of nearly 60mbd. Large project deferrals and cancellations will only impact supply some years down the line, but decline rates from existing production are likely to rise in the near term as the industry cuts back on maintenance capex such as infill drilling.

    While this risk would present a drag to global growth it would be beneficial for a number of oil producing nations. As such, the investment implications are quite clear. Firstly, markets will be looking for direct oil exposure. This should lead MYR and RUB to appreciate and IND and JPY to depreciate. The global equity energy sector is also likely to be well bid. In particular, we believe the Russian market should rally. Furthermore, oil services companies should outperform the majors in the integrated sector. USD high yield debt is also likely to benefit due to diminished credit risks in the shale oil sector which makes up roughly 15% of the market. In addition, any concerns about GCC currency pegs are likely to evaporate; hence, 5-year Saudi Arabian CDS should come down from today’s elevated level. We would also expect US high yield to be of particular interest. Spreads in the USD high yield energy sector would tighten significantly.

    Investment implications

    • Positive for USD high yield debt markets and oil exporter currencies
    • Saudi Arabia 5-year CDS should come down
    • Saudi and Russian equity markets rally most

     

    3. UK votes for Brexit

    Repercussions would be felt across Europe but terms of the exit would be key

    David Cameron, the UK prime minister, has promised that by the end of 2017 at the latest there will be a referendum on whether the UK should remain in the European Union. But it is clear he would like to hold the vote in 2016, if at all possible, not least to reduce the uncertainty the event will engender.

    There would be significant uncertainty in the immediate aftermath of a “leave” vote. The UK cannot negotiate the terms of its exit on a hypothetical basis, so there would be no clarity on what the post-EU arrangement would look like. If the UK remained a member of the European Economic Area, alongside countries such as Norway and Iceland, the economic implications would be very different to those of a complete withdrawal.

    The UK’s transition to non-EU member status could take up to two years, at which point its membership would end automatically, if no agreement has been ratified by the European Council. The longer the period of uncertainty, the greater the likely impact on investment and growth. Untangling European laws and replacing them with domestic legislation could be a very long process, requiring government resources to be diverted from other areas of policymaking.

    Also, the future of the UK itself could once again be called into question. If the regional breakdown of the referendum voting showed a majority of Scottish people had voted to stay in the EU, calls for a second Scottish independence referendum would intensify.

    If there is a “leave” vote, it is highly likely that the UK would seek to preserve the extensive and mutually advantageous goods trade between it and the other EU members. The impact on services trade, which is very important to the UK, is harder to call. For example, some financial services may opt to leave the UK in order to retain full access to EU markets. Depending on the exit agreement, migration flows could be restricted which could reduce the labour supply and risk a loss of competitiveness.

    From the EU’s perspective, a UK exit would send out the message that EU membership is not a one-way street, raising concerns about other potential withdrawals and denting investor confidence across the region. If the UK were to impose restrictions on migration, it would also be negative for countries that benefit from employment opportunities for their citizens and remittances from the UK.

    Investment implications

    • GBP would sell off…
    • This would shelter the FTSE 100 given the large share of overseas revenues
    • The possibility of contagion could put peripheral rates under pressure

     

    4. Periphery issues rise again

    2016 is shaping up to be an important year from a political perspective in the eurozone periphery:

    • After the inconclusive elections on 4 October, the leader of the Portuguese Socialist Party Antonio Costa was officially named Prime Minister on 26 November, securing the support of other left-wing parties for his minority government. However, the government faces many challenges ahead. This will start with the approval of the 2016 budget – which will then have to go under the scrutiny of the European Commission – as the parties supporting the government have been arguing for a relaxation of austerity and a U-turn on key reforms in the labour market and on pensions (see our report Portugal’s new government: Are markets right to be relaxed, 27 November 2015)
    • Spain also has general elections on 20 December, with an increasingly fragmented electorate. The latest polls show a close race between the ruling Partido Popular, socialist PSOE and reformist Ciudadanos, with leftist radical Podemos a more distant fourth. The electoral law complicates things, but in a nutshell it is unlikely any party will obtain an absolute majority and even a two-party coalition might fall short. This could result in delays before a government can be formed and prolonged uncertainty. Meanwhile, the pro-independence platform of parties that won the Catalonia election on 27 September has formally started the process towards  declaring independence – defying a ruling by the Spanish constitutional court – and uncertainty could continue well beyond 20 December (see our report Notes from Madrid, signs of economic rebalancing, political uncertainty dominates, 5 November 2015)
    • In Greece, progress on the implementation of the third programme of financial assistance of up to EUR86bn agreed in August has been slow. Further delays can be expected in the first programme review – due to start in the coming weeks – which will tackle politically-sensitive issues such as pension reform and privatisations. Debt relief, which is the key precondition for the IMF to be on board, will only be discussed on completion of the review. The prospect of a successful review completion is also a condition for the ECB to accept Greek bonds as collateral in its refinancing operations, and buy them under QE (see our report Greece and its creditors: Today’s deal is just the first step, expect delays in negotiations, 19 November 2015)

    So far, the ECB QE programme has helped contain the market reaction to some of the political uncertainty that has been building up in these countries, even if we have seen a widening of the spreads in the sovereign bonds space, for example compared to Italy which is experiencing a period of relative political stability. Yet, there is the potential for things to go wrong, and if this was the case, even an expansion of the ECB QE programme might not be enough to avoid a further widening of spreads, renewed escalation of the eurozone sovereign crisis and fears of a possible exit by a country from the union. Such a scenario could be triggered by a combination of the following events:

    • In Portugal, the new government puts forward a very expansionary 2016 budget, which is rejected by Brussels. This simultaneously triggers a downgrade by the DBRS agency, making Portuguese debt ineligible for QE and no longer accepted as collateral in the ECB refinancing operations, leading to a spike in spreads and rising concerns for the banking sector. The government loses the support of the radical left-wing parties and elections are called for the end-April 2016 – the earliest they can be called – and the prolonged period of political uncertainty starts weighing on the already weak economic recovery
    • Inconclusive elections in Spain, with parties unable to form a governing coalition, lead to a prolonged period of uncertainty. The country is unable to pass a revised 2016 budget as requested by the European Commission to meet EU fiscal targets and therefore Brussels formally starts a procedure to sanction the Spanish government. Meanwhile, the escalation of tensions between Catalonia and Madrid on the issue of independence starts to hit consumer and investor confidence – Catalonia accounts for almost 20% of Spanish GDP – leading to a marked slowdown in the economy, which together with the fiscal slippages and rising debt triggers a rating downgrade. As a result, the spread widens significantly
    • Greek negotiations with its creditors, including on debt relief, prove difficult as the continuous delays end up harming the level of trust between the parties. Syriza MPs split on the issues of pension reform and privatisations and the government – already relying on a thin majority by only three MPs in the 300-seat parliament – loses its majority. Opposition parties decide not to support the government in passing the necessary reforms, which leads to a stall in the programme negotiations and new elections being called, amid rising fears of a possible Grexit in the markets

    The potential for one or more country to leave the Eurozone and the net effect on peripheral (and other) asset markets has been hotly debated since the Eurozone crisis of 2011. The potential for erratic cross border capital flows and contagion across the periphery, and potentially core countries, are the most feared outcomes of a Eurozone break up or country exit scenario.

    Investment implications

    • Periphery spreads widen and Bunds enjoy safe-haven flows
    • European equities fall
    • EUR sells off

     

    5. More frequent flash crashes

    What if a combination of regulation, dealer balance sheet constraints and electronic trading leads to further declines in liquidity?

    On many days, the markets function well, with investors and dealers able to buy and sell what they want to without significantly moving prices. But, on some days, a market nearly stops functioning – and prices can swing dramatically, impact the value of assets significantly, and make it difficult to buy or sell. This was seen in the October 2014 US Treasury market flash crash and the August 2015 equity flash crash.

    We see two main reasons for the changes in market behaviour. First is the shift from human to automated trading. Second is the reduction in the size of dealer balance sheets, a reflection of shifts in financial regulations introduced after the 2008 financial crisis.  Dealer balance sheet size has fallen by 40% from its peak to June 2015 and repurchase agreements fell by over 50%.

    Historically, dealers had incentives to moderate market reactions to flows and thus maintain profitable relationships with their customers. The market structure meant that dealers often had better flow information than customers, which facilitated liquidity. Changes in market structure, such as the widespread use of automated trading, and higher costs of maintaining large balance sheets on the back of regulatory changes, have, in some cases, changed the market reaction to flows. There are now fewer incentives for dealers to step in and moderate market reactions to flows and, in some cases, dealers do not have as much information about flows  as before.

    We expect the impact of these shifts to continue to be felt. What is unclear is just how much market trading patterns and liquidity in recent decades will change, or whether the way assets are priced will be affected on a temporary or even permanent basis.

    Until recently, the impact of reduced liquidity has been most visible in short-term “flash crash” events. However, the effects could be longer term. For example, the higher cost of maintaining large balance sheet seems to be causing a shift in the pricing of US interest rate swaps. The swap spread, representing short-term bank borrowing costs, is negative from five- to 30-year maturities. Financial theory suggests this spread inversion should only occur if the banking system was less risky than US Treasury securities. This is clearly not the case, as seen by the positive spread in the corporate bond market for financial credits. In our view, the swap spread  shifts are best explained by the high cost of balance sheet for US banks and dealers. If this is a long-term change in market structure, then spread shift may be long term as well, with implications for asset values and investment strategies going forward.

    Less liquidity may affect the structure of markets over time. The shift to lower yields and more competitive bond markets since the 1980s illustrates this. The number of primary Treasury dealers fell by half as the bid-to-offer spread narrowed and yields fell. There was even more consolidation in the buy side of the bond market as market liquidity encouraged consolidation.

    With automated trading, the bid-to-offer spread will likely remain narrow in the most liquid markets. Potential market effects from this, combined with smaller balance sheets, are:

    1. Further drops in market liquidity to reflect the risk of a flash crash on dealer capital and investor performance
    2. Increased buy-side focus on capacity constraints in an uncertain liquidity environment. This favours a trend towards a more boutique style trading set-up, even within larger firms
    3. Trading activity migrating to less constrained venues and a further reduction in the liquidity of the most-affected areas
    4. Wider bid-to-offer spreads in less automated markets to reflect the true liquidity risk or an increase in the market impact of trades in all markets

    Investment implications

    • Buy volatility on dips
    • Bonds tend to outperform equities in these events
    • 2-year US Treasury yield should drop

     

    6. China corporate defaults rise

    Credit stress is rising especially amongst industrial sectors that suffer from overcapacity and output price deflation

    2016 will see a continued rise in credit stress especially amongst the traditional industrial players, led by State-Owned-Enterprises (SOEs). There is a risk that a rise in defaults amongst these issuers has the potential to have wider implications.

    Identifying the fragile issuers

    We conducted credit tests on the universe of onshore Chinese credit bonds maturing within H1 2016. Based on a combination of liquidity, earnings and debt coverage criteria, we identified 30 issuers (with 43 bonds outstanding) that we think are vulnerable to potential debt servicing issues in H1 2016. Without external intervention or support, we think these issuers are particularly fragile against refinancing risks and may face potential creditor actions (especially banks) if financial profiles weaken further.

    By maturity breakdown, the first half of next year is particularly heavy in vulnerable bonds coming due, with nearly 30% (or RMB16.7bn) concentrated in April alone (Chart 10).

    Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of the vulnerable issuers/bonds fall in the coal mining (75% by bond notional), chemicals (9%) or steel (8%) sectors (Chart 11). In terms of company types, the risk group is dominated by provincial-level SOEs (73% by bond notional), followed by Central SOEs (Chart 12). POEs have the lowest percentage in our fragile list, probably due to a biased selection effect of onshore capital markets. These conclusions are consistent with our findings highlighted in our report China Onshore Monthly: Look out for a correction, 4 November 2015, where we screen for the weaker links in a bigger universe.

    Given, however, that borrowers are heavily concentrated at the provincial level of local government (there are 33 of them, see Chart 12), Beijing should have quite strong direct control over potential defaults. So, whilst we believe a credit-led risk scenario is a significant tail risk, it is a low likelihood event, to which we attribute a less than 5% probability.

    Clearly, a deterioration of the Chinese credit environment would have a significant impact on Chinese assets. As SOEs would have the support of the central government it is fairly likely that the private sector would suffer more and earlier than the state-owned sector. From that perspective, it is likely that Chinese equity markets would suffer most. That said, dim sum markets would also face significant selling pressure.

    Investment implications

    • Chinese equities and dim sum bonds directly impacted
    • Policy action from Beijing limits downside risks
    • Global assets would be exposed towards any CNY weakness

     

    7. US recession

    Slumping profits leads to downturn in business investment

    A protracted slump in profitability can make companies more uncertain about the future and often leads to a downturn in business investment spending. Once the contraction in investment is severe enough, a recession is usually the result.

    Continued strength in the US dollar is one factor that might pressure corporate profits, reducing export demand and boosting import competition. Sluggish global growth would exacerbate the drag from net exports.

    A drop in the stock market as profits disappoint would impact business and consumer sentiment and further restrain spending. Even if interest rates were to hold steady or decline, businesses would still refrain from making new investments due to a lack of confidence in final demand.

    A full-fledged recession would involve firms making cutbacks in their workforces in addition to reductions in capital expenditures. Accelerating layoffs would lead to a drop in personal incomes and additional weakness in household spending.

    Corporate profits as measured in the national accounts have slumped in the past year, and real growth in business fixed investment has been sluggish. A US recession is a possible risk in 2016 if growth in profits does not improve.

    A sharp slowdown in US growth leading to a recession is likely to precipitate a broad “risk off” move. We believe the main beneficiaries of this shift would be the US dollar and Treasuries. A strong USD could thus be both the cause and the effect of a US recession, with dollar strength first driving a reduction in corporate profits and then benefiting from safe-haven flows in the ensuing downturn. These flows should also drive 10-year US Treasury yields lowers. The HSBC Fixed Income Strategy sees 10-year yields falling to 1.5%. But, a US recession should push yields even lower.

    Equity markets are likely to sell-off fairly sharply as weakness in the US economy is exacerbated by sluggish global growth. Perhaps counterintuitively though, we would expect the relative safe-haven status of US equities to mean that it outperforms the wider equity market, with emerging-market equities likely to be the hardest hit. Within the US, we believe the sectors which are mostly dependent on exports would suffer given further USD strength. As such, we would expect IT, materials, energy and industrials to be the biggest underperformers.

    Investment implications

    • Broad “risk off” move, with USD and US Treasuries rallying
    • IT, materials, energy and industrials equity sectors likely to suffer
    • Brazil, Russia, South Africa, Turkey and Mexico would be the big losers in EM

     

    8. Fed policy error

    An uptick in inflation could convince the Fed to speed up its pace of tightening, which could act as a drag on economic activity

    In September, the median FOMC policymaker projected a rise in the federal funds rate to nearly 1.5% at the end of 2016 and to over 2.5% at the end of 2017. The real federal funds rate, according to the FOMC’s projections for core inflation, would rise from around -1.0% currently up to 0.7% at the end of 2017.

    There is a risk that following this path of rate increases could slow the growth of aggregate demand in the economy by more than anticipated. The equilibrium real rate of interest appears to have declined compared to the past and may not rise very much in the near future if labour force and productivity growth remain low.

    Uncertainty about the equilibrium rate of interest may lead Fed policymakers to react even more strongly to actual inflation outcomes than would otherwise be the case. Any uptick in core inflation could convince the FOMC to speed up its pace of policy tightening.

    In this scenario, the lagged effects of monetary tightening could end up slowing economic activity more rapidly than expected, leading to a stop-and-go policy and increased volatility in financial markets.

    Emerging markets investors have adapted to the idea of Fed lift-off at the end of this year and have moved to focus on the pace and duration of tightening. The overwhelming consensus in the market is that the Fed will revise down its dot-plot towards lower market expectations, as it has repeatedly done so throughout 2015. The improvement in EM risk appetite since October, following a dismal third quarter, rests on the idea that this is going to be the most ‘dovish’ tightening cycle ever with potential long pauses, even reversals of the hike(s).

    In our recent report, our base-case entails near zero US real interest rates on 10-Y Treasury for 2016, which, everything else held constant, gives us stable non-resident capital flow at around 2015 level of 1.8% of GDP, or nearly USD500bn. If we were to increase US real interest rate assumption to slightly over 1.0%, this would nearly halve EM capital flows to around USD280bn or c1.2% of GDP, the slowest capital flow since 1990. Assuming the same extent of capital outflows by residents (such as external asset acquisition and external debt repayments), this might give even deeper net negative capital flows (net of resident and non-residents).

    This scenario is problematic for most assets. The key theme of the market would be one of asset depreciation – where most assets would sell off. This sets this risk apart from other ‘Risk-Off’ events as the impact would be felt in both equity and bond markets. Given that market returns have predominantly been driven by valuation expansions since the great recession this presents most markets with fairly large downside risks. Bond markets would struggle initially which would raise discount rates and make current equity market valuations unsustainable.

    Investment implications

    • General ‘asset deflation’ scenario. Both bonds and equities sell off.
    • US dollar likely to strengthen as EM currencies and assets sell off materially
    • Assets in Brazil, Colombia, South Africa, Mexico and Turkey would suffer disproportionally

  • Declassified CIA Manual Shows How US Uses Bureaucracy to Destabilize Governments

    Submitted by Jake Anderson via TheAntiMedia.org,

    When most people think of CIA sabotage, they think of coups, assassinations, proxy wars, armed rebel groups, and even false flags – not strategic stupidity and purposeful bureaucratic ineptitude. However, according to a declassified document from 1944, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which later became the CIA, used and trained a curious breed of “citizen-saboteurs” in occupied nations like Norway and France.

    The World War II-era document, called Simple Sabotage Field Manual, outlines ways in which operatives can disrupt and demoralize enemy administrators and police forces. The first section of the document, which can be read in its entirety here, addresses “Organizations and Conferences” — and how to turn them into a “dysfunctional mess”:

    • Insist on doing everything through “channels.” Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.
    • Make “speeches.” Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your “points” by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences.
    • When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committee as large as possible — never less than five.
    • Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
    • Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
    • Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.
    • Advocate “caution.” Be “reasonable” and urge your fellow-conferees to be “reasonable” and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.

    On its official webpage, the CIA boasts about finding innovative ways to bring about sabotage, calling their tactics for destabilization “surprisingly relevant.” While they admit that some of the ideas may seem a bit outdated, they claim that Together they are a reminder of how easily productivity and order can be undermined.”

    In a second section targeted at manager-saboteurs, the guide lists the following tactical moves:

    • In making work assignments, always sign out the unimportant jobs first. See that important jobs are assigned to inefficient workers.
    • Insist on perfect work in relatively unimportant products; send back for refinishing those which have the least flaw.
    • To lower morale and with it, production, be pleasant to inefficient workers; give them undeserved promotions.
    • Hold conferences when there is more critical work to be done.
    • Multiply the procedures and clearances involved in issuing instructions, paychecks, and so on. See that three people have to approve everything where one would do.

    Finally, the guide presents protocol for how saboteur-employees can disrupt enemy operations, too:

    • Work slowly.
    • Contrive as many interruptions to your work as you can.
    • Do your work poorly and blame it on bad tools, machinery, or equipment. Complain that these things are preventing you from doing your job right.
    • Never pass on your skill and experience to a new or less skillful worker.

    The CIA is proud of its Kafkaesque field manual and evidently still views it as an unorthodox but effective form of destabilizing enemy operations around the world. Of course, so too might an anarchist or revolutionary look at such tactics and view them in the context of disrupting certain domestic power structures, many of which are already built like a bureaucratic house of cards.

    It seems if any country should refrain from showcasing how easy it is to disrupt inefficient federal agencies, however, it would be the United States.

  • "We're At War, Get It Through Your Head", Trump Doubles Down During Combative Follow Up Interviews

    12 hours after his dramatic campaign statement to shut out Muslims arrivals into the US, Donald Trump doubled down and in a series of interviews early on Tuesday, he repeatedly told anchors such as CNN’s Chris Cuomo that “we’re at war – get it through your head” in his latest heated exchange, during which he reminded America how quickly people have forgotten “World Trade Center #1 and World Trade Center #2.

    One thing that Trump did stress throughout the media blitz is that his plan to prevent Muslims from entering the U.S. was “temporary.” and in a follow up interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America” he clarified that American Muslims living abroad could return to the U.S., following conflicting statements by his campaign yesterday: when asked if Trump’s proposal applied to U.S. citizens living abroad, a Trump spokesperson had told The Hill on Monday that Trump’s proposal applied to “everyone.”

    In the aftermath of yesterday’s announcement, there has been a surge of media outlets comparing Trump to Hitler (as seen below).

    George Stephanopoulos asked Trump during the ABC interview whether the candidate was bothered by the increasing number of such comparisons, to which Trump responded with a simple, “No.” 

    As could have been expected, Trump’s interview  on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” turned combative when co-host Joe Scarborough tried to interject a question, while the real estate mogul continued to speak during the phone call-in interview.  As the Hill reports, Scarborough threatened to send the interview to a break if Trump didn’t allow him to ask a question. After Trump didn’t relent, Scarborough instructed producers to cut to commercials.

    After the break, Trump discussed comparisons to former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Questioned about whether he was proposing internment camps like the ones FDR created for the Japanese, Trump said, “I am not proposing that. This is a whole different thing,” he added later during another combative exchange.

    It wasn’t just the leftist media that attacked Trump – so did the GOP, where rivals blasted Trump, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush who called it “unhinged,” as well as the Republican party chairs in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. The White House and Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton also panned the idea as un-American and unconstitutional.

    Despite the condemnations, Trump said on MSNBC that “we have to get our hands around a very serious problem” adding that “not everybody has condemned” his comments.

    Full CNN clip below:

  • What Happens When Yellen Raises Rates?

    “The world’s central bankers will print until deflation gives way,” warns Mike Maloney, “they have the arrogance to just think they can control it.” They can’t. With Janet Yellen on the verge of what many believe will be a policy error in the face of overwhelmingly weak data (and global turmoil once again), it’s never been more important to understand the limits of how much ‘actual’ control the central banks have over the economy. There’s one force moving our economy they can not influence, and Maloney explains it in this brief clip…

     

  • Blowing Up The Death Star Didn't Destroy The Empire, Building It Did

    Submitted by Tho Bishop via The Mises Institute,

    A paper written by Zachary Feinstein discussing the economic consequences of blowing up the Death Star has been making the rounds on social media. While I’m a fan of using Star Wars to teach economics, Feinstein makes a very basic economic mistake in his focus on the Death Star’s destruction.

    The paper actually starts out strong. Feinstein notes that, “Economics and finance, much like the Force as explained by Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi, is ‘created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.’” Unfortunately, the author shifts from looking at the organic economy towards the dark side of economic models and aggregates – in this case Gross Galactic Product. The paper goes on to outline the quintillions that would be spent in the construction of the Death Star, the estimated size of the galactic banking system and the bailout that would be needed to restore financial confidence after the collapse of the Empire.

    While some of the points made are interesting, the paper overlooks that the real economic problem with the Death Star is that a genocidal government built it at all.

    I would point both Feinstein (and Emperor Palpatine) to Henry Hazlitt’s Economic in One Lesson. In the words of Hazlitt:

    The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

    By simply focusing on the seen – the Death Star – Feinstein fails to consider the opportunity costs involved in the creation of the vessel in the first place. For example, the paper notes that the steel required to build the Death Star would be valued in the equivalent of hundreds of quintillions of dollars. Imagine the number of sometimes-helpful droids that could have been built by that same steel on a free galactic market if it were not reallocated to the diabolical plans of the government!

    While noted science fiction fan Paul Krugman may point to the number of jobs that the Death Star created, Hazlitt is also ready with a response. Using the example of government building an unnecessary bridge:

    [F]or every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else. We can see the men employed on the bridge. We can watch them at work. The employment argument of the government spenders becomes vivid, and probably for most people convincing. But there are other things that we do not see, because, alas, they have never been permitted to come into existence.

    The paper also doesn’t look at the impact the Death Star’s construction would have on the galaxy’s tax burden. As Rothbard notes in War, Peace and the State, “State wars can only be waged through aggression against the taxpayer.” Since we know George Lucas’s fictional galaxy has its own version of the IRS, I believe it is safe to assume that the same aggression applies to star wars.

    In fact, a closer look at Star Wars economics highlights that any hope for Galactic harmony does not come from the return of the Jedi, but from embracing capitalism. After all, a true market economy would make the construction of a Death Star nearly impossible in the first place. As Ludwig von Mises explained in The Causes of the Economic Crisis:

    It is inherent in the nature of the capitalistic economy that, in the final analysis, the employment of the factors of production is aimed only toward serving the wishes of consumers.

    If the Galaxy had free enterprise, is it likely that consumer demand would lead to the creation of a moon-sized battle station designed to destroy inhabited planets? Further, would anyone without the taxation powers of the Empire be able to afford such a monstrosity? Highly doubtful. In fact, the whole chain of events that led to the rise of Darth Vader and the eventual election of Jar Jar Binks was all set in place due to a dispute over burdensome tariffs!

    Perhaps when the world is treated to the release of The Force Awakens, we will see Princess Leia call out, "Help Me, Ludwig von Mises. You're My Only Hope." After all, if a Mises reference is good enough for Batman – it’s good enough for Star Wars. 

  • Is It Time To Make Saudi Arabia Pay For Underwriting International Terrorism?

    In the wake of the carnage that left 14 dead and nearly two dozen injured at a San Bernardino holiday party last week, we learned that Tashfeen Malik – Syed Farook’s wife and female accomplice in the massacre – lived in Saudi Arabia for some 25 years after moving to the kingdom from Pakistan with her father. 

    According to Malik’s uncle, one Javed Rabbani, Tashfeen’s father “changed a lot” when he moved to Saudi Arabia. “When relatives visited him, they would come back and tell us how conservative and hardline he had become” (read more here).

    Needless to say, we weren’t surprised.

    “Now clearly there are no smoking guns here, but it’s worth noting that when it comes to radicalization, no one does it quite like the Saudis,” we said, the day after the attacks once the media revealed that Farook traveled to Saudi Arabia to marry Malik.

    We continued: “Although we would urge caution when it comes to drawing conclusions around the sectarian divide, we’d be remiss if we didn’t note that ISIS, al-Qaeda, and many of the other groups the public generally identifies with extremism, are Sunni and Saudi Arabia (where Farook allegedly found his wife) promotes puritanical Wahhabism.”

    That echoes the sentiments of Kamel Daoud, a columnist for Quotidien d’Oran, and the author of “The Meursault Investigation” who, in a New York Times Op-ed published earlier this month, called Saudi Arabia “an ISIS that made it.” Here’s an excerpt:

    Black Daesh, white Daesh. The former slits throats, kills, stones, cuts off hands, destroys humanity’s common heritage and despises archaeology, women and non-Muslims. The latter is better dressed and neater but does the same things. The Islamic State; Saudi Arabia. In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other. This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on.

    For those who prefer a visual representation, this should help:

    Screen Shot 2015-11-29 at 10.18.16 AM

    It now appears that the world may finally be waking up to what’s going on. While it’s undoubtedly important to understand the role the Saudis and Qatar have played in funding, arming, and training Sunni extremists across the region, it’s perhaps even more critical that public begins to come to terms with the fact that it’s the ideology Riyadh pushes that’s perhaps more dangerous than anything else. Note that this isn’t a comment on Islam or Muslims. It’s a comment on the Saudi’s brand of puritanical Islam that frankly, is poisonous. 

    Here with some fresh commentary on all of the above and on why it’s time for the US to reevaluate its relationship with Riyadh, is Politico. 

    *  *  *

    From “Saudi Arabia Is Underwriting Terrorism. Let’s Start Making It Pay,” by Charles Kenny as originally published in Politico

    We don’t know yet what happened to San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik during her many years living in Saudi Arabia, or what her U.S.-born husband and accomplice, Syed Farook, might have experienced during his two recent visits to the country. But it isn’t news that Saudi Arabia, a supposed U.S. ally, has a long record of promoting religious extremism at home and exporting it abroad. According to a Reuters report, relatives of the Pakistani-born Malik say she and her father appeared to have become more radicalized during years they spent in Saudi Arabia. Between 1,500 and 2,500 Saudis have joined the fighting in Iraq and Syria in part thanks to the close relationship between the ideology of the Islamic State and of Saudi Wahabism. In the last month alone, Saudi Arabia has declared its intent to behead 50 people across the country and has threatened legal action against any who suggest beheading is “ISIS-like.”

    For years since 9/11, U.S. and Western officials have mostly looked the other way at all this ideological support for extremism: Saudi oil was just too important to the global economy, even though many of these Saudi petro-dollars were underwriting repression at home and the growth of Salafist fundamentalism abroad. But today, two things have changed: first, the global cost of Saudi-backed extremism has continued to climb—with the rise of ISIS and Boko Haram, the bombings in Beirut and Paris and the shootings in San Bernardino.

    The other factor that has changed is that there is no longer as much economic justification for America to kowtow to the Saudi regime. With Saudi Arabian dominance of the global oil market declining, and the United States moving itself closer to energy independence—and the deal to halt Iranian nuclear weapons technology moving ahead, neutralizing for the moment at least the threat of a Mideast arms race—there has never been a better time to reconsider America’s close relationship with the House of Saud.

    It’s long past time, in other words, to make Saudi Arabia pay for its ideological support of extremism. The United States should be pressuring Saudi Arabia to reform and—if necessary—move on to targeted sanctions modeled on those the United States has applied to Russia, Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

    Saudi Arabia, of course, denies that it is involved in underwriting extremism; it maintains, on the contrary, that it is part of the coalition against Islamic State and it has been a victim of extremist terror attacks. But the record of Saudi Arabia’s global support for extremists suggests it should be on the shortlist for inclusion on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list, at the least. 

    This support for radicalism abroad should come as little surprise given that Islamic State is an ideological cousin of Saudi Arabia’s own state-sponsored extremist Wahhabi sect—which the country has spent more than $10 billion to promote worldwide through charitable organizations like the World Assembly of Muslim Youth. The country will continue to export extremism as long as it practices the same policies at home.

    In fact, the country’s domestic human rights abuses are enough reason to impose sanctions alone. Venezuela is under U.S. sanctions at the moment for “erosion of human rights guarantees, persecution of political opponents, curtailment of press freedoms, use of violence and human rights violations.” It might be shorter to list the human rights Saudi Arabia upholds than those it abuses. 

    Beyond the floggings and beheadings meted out to those who dare suggest reform, Saudi Arabia’s record on women is a sick form of gender apartheid. They are banned from obtaining a passport, marrying, traveling or going to college without the approval of their husband or other male guardian. 

    Yet we haven’t really even started this discussion about Saudi Arabia in America. Indeed, the United States is still deeply implicated in Saudi Arabia’s abuses. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the U.S. exported $934 million in arms to Saudi Arabia from 2005 to 2009. From 2010 to 2014, it exported $2.4 billion more. This month, it approved another billion-dollar shipment. The U.S. provides training, shares intelligence and gives logistics support to Saudi Arabia’s military. And President Barack Obama rushed to Riyadh to pay obeisance to the country’s new king, Salman, early in 2015, only days after the death of his predecessor, Abdullah.

    *  *  *

    In short, if the US wants to dial back the “crazy”, Washington should consider the fact that despite incessant Ayatollah trolling, an admittedly insane judicial system, and valid charges that the Quds have, at times, engaged in acts that can only be described as “terrorism”, the world would benefit from a little more of this…

    … and a whole hell of a lot less of this…

  • Jeff Gundlach's Most Bearish Presentation Yet: The Complete Slide Pack

    In what may have been Jeff Gundlach’s most bearish presentation to date, explainably under the theme of “Tick, Tick, Tick“, and with references to such board games as “Kaboom – Baloon Busting Game”, “Sorry”, “Dynamite Shack”, “Trouble” and “Twister“, DoubleLine’s (with an AUM of $80 billion set to surpass Pimco’s TRF quite soon) founder was at a loss for words trying to explain just why Yellen is hell bent to hike rates in one week, just when the global economy is not only clearly not in the required shape, but warning that the outcome from a Fed rate hike will lead to a dramatic repricing (lower) across all asset classes.

    As Reuters notes, despite soft growth in the U.S. and weakening global growth, the Fed is “hell bent” on raising interest rates because it has said in many speeches that it would do so, Gundlach says. “It’s possible the Fed pulls another Lucy and the football,” Gundlach said, referring to peanut character Lucy yanking a football away from Charlie Brown.

    Gundlach, who has been warning that the U.S. Federal Reserve should not tighten monetary policy in December, cited a number of other asset classes that are signaling deteriorating conditions. The commodities market has been facing monstrous declines with copper prices, as an example, down 37 percent since July 2014 while “the breadth of the equity market may be the worst ever.” Gundlach characterized commodities as the “widow maker” of the markets.

     

    Overall, Gundlach said it is “unthinkable” to raise rates with junk bonds and leveraged loans struggling so much.

    Gundlach predicts that the Fed could end up looking like Sweden’s Riksbank, which hiked back in 2010 and 2011 only to have to quickly reverse and quickly slash rates. The Fed “philosophically” wants to raise interest rates and will use “selectively back-tested evidence” to justify an increase in rates, he added.

    His most dire warning: “If the Fed hikes it will be a different world; everyone will have to unwind at the same time. If you think junk bonds are bad now, just wait.”

    As to whether he is buying any beaten down assets here, the answer is probably not: “we are looking at real carnage in the junk bond market,Gundlach said. Gundlach also said it was too early to buy high-yield junk bonds and energy debt. “I don’t like things when they go down every single day.”

    As for equities: “The breadth of the equity market may be the worst ever” and no, he is not a fan of the overall market either: “The S&P500 has been whistling through the graveyard.”

    Finally, what could prevent a rate hike: “market turmoil would be the main factor that delays a hike by the Fed next week.”

    In that case, the market has exactly one week in which to “turmoil”…

     

  • Did Merrill Lynch Just Cancel Christmas?

    From "Thundering Herd" to thundering-mad. Having recently laid off 100s of staff and cut compensation plans, AdvisorHub reports that Mother Merrill may be canceling Christmas for its roughly 14,500 brokers – "we’re hearing that in many regions the Bank of America-owned brokerage firm has sent out word that there will be no Merrill-financed holiday parties this year." Such Grinch-like moves have little precedent, and brokers in some areas have retaliated.

    One large office in the New York area quietly arranged a party but was so cautious that it issued no email invitations and kept it so far below the radar “for fear of Big Brother ‘catching them” that a good number of people “missed the event amidst general disarray,” a well-connected source tells us.

     

    “In the old days, we’d just do one [party] and deal with the consequences, but now managers are just too scared,’” he writes.

     

    One branch manager in another New York-area branch with about two dozen advisors is getting kudos for throwing a holiday event for staff, spouses and significant others – and paying for it out of his own pocket, according to our source.  We are eager to hear what happens when management gets wind of the manager’s winning audacity.

     

    What’s the holiday spirit in your shop this season?  Is the sobering increase in mass shootings and terrorism eroding the urge to celebrate?  Are robo-advisors, regulatory fears and mediocre investment outlooks casting cold water on the holiday spirit?

     

    We hardly think that these times are comparable to 2001, when many holiday parties were canceled in the wake of 9/11, or even in the aftermath of the 2008-2009 credit crisis when partying again seemed unseemly when so many Americans were losing jobs and homes.

    *  *  *

    Interestingly, Bank of America’s wealth management business is having a very good year, booking a profit margin of 24% last quarter, better than archrival Morgan Stanley’s 22%. Perhaps what’s changed is parent company expectations.

  • Has The Fed Ever (Accurately) Predicted A Recession?

    Submitted by Peter Diekmeyer via SprottMoney.com,

    In a recent survey not a single major central bank could provide an example of an accurate “a priori” recession forecast. The silence from the Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, BOE, BOJ and the Bank of Canada is deafening.

    Precious metals investors rely heavily on economic projections when deciding where to put their money. But there’s something fishy in the land of mainstream forecasting. The US economy is now in its seventh year of recovery; however, Fed officials project growth as far ahead as the eye can see.

    The Fed isn’t alone. Despite the fact that the US economy contracts for two consecutive quarters every six or seven years and is on schedule to do so again soon, not a single major central bank is forecasting a US recession as its baseline scenario. Why is that?

    A miserable forecasting record

    The Fed’s lousy forecasting record is well known. The US central bank completely missed predicting the 2008–2009 financial crisis and ensuing recession. Worse, it has consistently issued over-optimistic projections since then. Less well known is the fact that the US central bank appears to have never accurately forecast a recession before the country was already in one.

    Two weeks ago I surveyed five major central banks, and not a single one could provide an example of an accurate “a priori” recession forecast. The silence from the US Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and the Bank of Canada was deafening.

    Signs of a slowdown abound

    The lousy forecasting records of major banks is of particular concern these days because signs of imminent trouble are everywhere. According to the Bank for International Settlements global personal, business and government debt has risen by more than 40% since the 2008 recession. Central banks have been printing money at their fastest pace since the Weimar Republic. The S&P 500 index continues to flirt with record highs.

    Trade barriers, which caused immense damage during the Great Depression, are popping up everywhere, a sign of worse things to come. These include “Buy America” and other similar policies, as well as investment and capital flow restrictions.

    For example, the office of Jeff Sessions, a US senator, printed out a copy of the recently signed Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. The 5,544-page document stood over two feet tall. The TPP is so filled with fine print that even its writers didn’t use the words “free trade” in its title. “Managed trade” (by bureaucrats) would be a better term.

    Consulting a range of opinions

    According to one of Canada’s top economists, who I spoke to at a recent symposium held by the Association of Quebec Economists, governments worry that if central banks issue a recession forecast, businesses and consumers will pare back their investing and purchasing; this alone could cause a recession even if one weren’t already on the way. Large financial institutions have similar worries. If they predict a recession, their borrowing business will drop.

    There is a good argument to be made that the more independent the forecaster, the better they are able to “call a spade a spade.” For example, Glen Hodgson of the Conference Board of Canada (a mainstream organization, but one that is outside the financial sector) was one of the first economists to suggest that Alberta had entered its most recent recession.

    In short, if precious metals investors are relying on central bank forecasts to guide their investment decisions, they may be in for a rude surprise. By the time the Fed “projects” the next recession, there is a good chance that the US economy will already be in one.

  • HoW ABouT A NiCe CuP OF…

    WARM CUP

  • Something Snaps In China As Bitcoin Takes Out Stops, Soars Higher

    At 1815ET, after trading in a very narrow $1 range for hours, Bitcoin suddenly exploded $17 higher on very heavy volume. Normally this wouldn't warrant an explicit mention, but this time… something odd happened in Chinese currency markets

    Offshore Yuan suddenly snapped 12 pips lower after noise trading in a 1 pip range for hours… just as Bitcoin spiked…

     

    On heavy volume…

     

    Both moves signal a move away from the USDollar with Bitcoin and Yuan strengthening.

    The last time Bitcoin spiked notably like this was at the start of the Chinese crackdown on capital controls.

    But… with the spread between Offshore and Onshore Yuan (the former dramatically weaker than the latter), it appears the market is expecting a devaluation sooner rather than later…

     

     

    Perhaps, just perhaps, that is what Bitcoin is 'hinting' at. For sure, a Yuan devaluation now would be enough to spook global markets once again, and force The Fed to put a rate hike on hold… only this time, everyone and their pet rabbit is neck-deep in "priced in" liftoff expectations.

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Watch As The White House Says "Fake Hair" Trump's Comments "Disqualify Him From Serving As President"

    White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest lambasted Donald Trump's "carnival barker routine" Tuesday, as Mediaite.com reports Earnest proclaiming the Republican presidential candidate's recent proposal to ban Muslims from the United States is "disqualifying." But the bastion of respectability did not stop there… "The Trump campaign, for some time now, has had a 'dustbin of history'-like quality to it, from the vacuous sloganeering, to the outright lies; even the fake hair," Earnest said, adding the pertinent question is whether Republicans are "going to be dragged into the dustbin of history" with the Trump campaign.

     
    Earnest told reporters that Trump’s proposal shows the business mogul is incapable of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution, and thus “disqualifies him from serving as president.”

    Earnest – reading this straight from his notes – explains…

    However, lying to the American public time and time again makes the current (and prospective Democrat nominee) President highly qualified?

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News December 8, 2015

  • George Orwell, Edward Bernays & Perpetual War

    Submitted by Zero Hedge reader "Ferrari",

    Another horrific act of terror, another shrill chorus calls the faithful to war. It’s a recurring phenomenon in this early Twenty-first Century. The horrible news crashes from the heavens like a meteor, violently jolting us from the Saint Vitus Dance of our produce-consume existence. Our screens with all the answers flash between splattered blood on the pavement and the victims’ smiling faces as they were in life. From the Middle East we hear little and see less of the shattered lives on the receiving end of our vengeance. Like giving a fifth of bourbon to a drunk prostrate on the pavement, our leaders advocate more slaughter as the solution to the world’s problems. Mass civilian casualties is the global order of the day, the constant in our lives.

    Orwell’s essay on Perpetual War in “1984” is currently enjoying a revival in certain circles. Through the novel’s mysterious bogey man, Emmanuel Goldstein, Orwell avers that technological innovations have brought industry to such a level of efficiency that material abundance and leisure should be attainable to all. Widespread material comfort and spare time would allow the populace to develop intellectually and spiritually, and thus to achieve a kind of universal enlightenment. Orwell argues that with such leisure-based understanding, humanity would question the necessity for hierarchy and begin to threaten the arrangement that so benefits those at society’s pinnacle.

    During the first half of the Twentieth Century those atop “1984”’s pyramid perceived this eventuality and identified a leisured, enlightened public as a threat to social stability and their dominant position. The ruling caste devised Perpetual War as a way of keeping industrial production humming. Orwell plainly states, “The primary aim of modern warfare… is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living.”           Rather than distribute the fruits of modern industry to the masses, produced goods are blown up and sent to the bottom of the ocean, thus artificially maintaining scarcity. According to Orwell, both the terror and material scarcity attendant to such engineered, continuous conflict deprives humanity of the security and leisure necessary for the political awareness necessary to question society’s hierarchical arrangement. Perpetual War keeps the population struggling to eke out its meager existence and thus remain both ignorant and docile.

    The hypothesis of Perpetual War has been blowing around the sentient class for decades. Author Chalmers Johnson, said it was the failed promise of the promised peace dividend at the end of the Cold War that lead him to question motives behind the American Empire. Going back further, Col. Fletcher Prouty argued that the Vietnam War was engineered as early as 1945 to be a profit-making, interminable war. Vietnam, Korea, The Cold War, The War on Drugs, and now The Global War on Terror were all virtually unending with exorbitant price tags, driving nations–particularly our own–deeply into debt. Our leaders constantly cry public poverty when it comes to rebuilding our infrastructure or keeping the lights on in our cities, yet there’s always funds for new carpet bombing, furtive drone campaigns, or boots on the ground abroad.

    Orwell’s hypothesis of Perpetual War as a bulwark to maintain the status quo works quite well, up to a point. What he did not seem to recognize was the far more effective silencing mechanism, not of material scarcity, but of consumer abundance. Long before Orwell envisioned his “1984” nightmare, a small group of virtually anonymous men devised and implemented consumerism in a mere decade, the 1920’s.

    With industrial Europe transformed into a battlefield during World War I, America became the manufacturing base for the Western Powers. After the war, U.S. industrialists and Wall Street bankers feared the loss of demand for elevated wartime capacity would plunge the national economy into ruin. At that time the American public purchased items based on need. Paul Mazur of Lehman Brothers decided to change that, and with Edward Bernays’ adroit effort in public relations, they conceived and gave birth to the American Consumer by creating, molding, and then catering to the individual’s desires.

    The nephew of Sigmund Freud, Bernays was fascinated with his uncle’s work on the human subconscious and its applicability to commerce. For example, when tobacco industry executives came to him with the problem that half the population wouldn’t buy cigarettes, Bernays devised a scheme making it acceptable for women to smoke. Basing his research on psychoanalysis, he identified cigarettes as a phallic symbol. Bernays arranged for a group of young socialites to interrupt the New York Easter Day Parade by lighting up, declaring them “Torches of Freedom” for the whirring cameras and reporters. By portraying smoking as an act of women’s liberation, Bernays turned the tide, and Big Tobacco soon captured the other half of American market. Bernays and his cohorts continually repeated such manipulative feats for the next fifty years, and in the process supplanted the American citizen with the American consumer.

    The ramifications of the shift away from a needs-based culture cannot be overestimated. Acting on rational thought, the citizen who bought only what he needed merely did his job to sustain life and got on with his day. But desires emanate from emotion rather than reason, so the consumer driven by impulse becomes a puppet in the hands of those controlling the media. Fearing the herd, the powers that be have instilled in us a false belief in our own significance and made us slaves to our ethereal, artificial and irrational whims.

    The individual consumed and lead by base impulses ceases to think rationally, much less critically. Most importantly he sees himself, if he ever looks at himself beyond the bathroom mirror, as the embodiment of “product choice,” rather than the citizen of a republic obligated to being informed and participating in the public debate. The consciousness of the modern consumer is a passive, empty vessel, defined by corporate brands rather than a more autonomous self.

    An entire culture of such unquestioning individuals consumed by their own fickle desire forms a docile, in-cohesive herd of chattel, incapable of debate, unifying, or demanding a redress of grievances. “We are silenced by our greed,” as Christopher Hedges so succinctly defines it.

    A lively, engaged electorate might steady power’s hand, but the U.S. electorate, as well as the rest of Western society, have been distracted and in the end lobotomized by an ever-increasing workload, fueled by the febrile chase of gewgaws and numbing mass entertainment. As Orwell observed in “1984,” modern technological marvels should liberate humanity to reach a higher form of living, but instead have been bent by men in the shadows to enslave us. One of those men, Edward Bernays, brazenly opened his book, “Propaganda,” with the declaration:

    The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.

    Bernays and his cohorts manipulated the American electorate and shaped public opinion. Men like spymaster Allan Dulles, and the apostles of University of Chicago academic, Leo Strauss, ran foreign policy from behind the curtain and engineered decades of unending wars. All the while Americans have stood by idly cowed and duped into approving the global carnage, as those on top amassed more power.

    The owners of humanity’s wealth have always held undue sway over government. At times during the Twentieth Century it seemed as if Western society might reach a more sustainable balance between top and bottom, but towards the new millennium the scales tipped radically toward the top. Transfer of production to the virtual slave nations of Asia, as well as public and private skyrocketing debt worked to shift earlier material gains away from the masses to society’s owners. Consumerism is the opiate to calm us while the doctors in the shadows kill us with endless global war and its concomitant debt.

    Those on high profit immensely from the mayhem which embroils the globe. How we wound up killing in these far places and what exactly the policy is are questions we rarely ask. The carnage in the Middle East–much of it engineered by the Western powers–has been a bonanza for the for-profit Military Industrial Complex and the bankers enriched by the ballooning debt it generates. Every cruise missile or drone strike forges a new link in the public’s chains of debt-servitude. We should be asking, “Is there another way?” and collectively making life difficult for public officials who cannot answer.

  • China Chokes As Beijing Issues "Red Pollution Alert" For First Time Ever

    Just a week after Beijing's major literally had his head saved, thanks to a cold front which swept away some of the worst pollution ever, the city has raised the alarm once again.. but this time to a record level. For the first time ever, the municipal government has issued a so-called red pollution alert – imposed car bans and suspending schools – after acrid-smelling haze returned to the Chinese capital.

     

    Beijing mayor, Wang Anshun, vowed last year, as JapanTimes reports, that if pollution wasn’t brought under control by 2017, he would cut off his own head and present it to the country’s leadership.

    Time to sharpen up that ax again…

     

    The "airpocalypse" of smog swirling over Chinese cities has reached its most dangerous levels yet. Gizmodo explains…

    And here are some stills…

     

    Now you see it…

     

    Now you don't…

    As Bloomberg reports,

    Local authorities upgraded the air pollution alert to red from orange, effective from 7 a.m. Dec. 8 to noon Dec. 10, according to a statement on Beijing Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau’s official Weibo Monday.

     

    Some industrial companies must stop or limit production, outdoor construction work will be banned and primary schools and kindergartens are advised to cancel classes, the statement said. Even healthy people should try to avoid outdoor activity and choose public transportation.

     

    “The red alert shows the local government has stepped up efforts to protect citizens from pollution,” said Dong Liansai, climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace East Asia. “It’s probably because of pressure from the central government.”

     

    Clear skies aren’t expected again until after the smog peaks Wednesday, according to the China National Environment Monitoring Center.

     

    Monday’s bad air, coupled with five days of hazardous pollution on Nov. 27-Dec. 1, raised fresh concern about the government’s ability to tackle air quality despite repeated statements from leaders that cleaning up the environment in the country is a top priority. Last week, the concentration of fine particulates that pose the greatest risk to human health rose to 666, more than 25 times World Health Organization-recommended levels.

    But who was to blame?

    The latest round of bad air was the result of “factory discharges and unfavorable weather conditions,” the state-run China Daily reported, citing National Meteorological Center Senior Engineer Xue Jianjun. China will strengthen inspections of polluting factories, Environmental Protection Minister Chen Jining said, according to China Daily.

     

    China urged local governments to start emergency measures to cope with the pollution, according to a statement on the Ministry of Environmental Protection on Sunday. Emissions from automobiles are the main contributor to Beijing’s smog, the ministry said on Dec. 1.

    Some foreign firms let staff work from home…

    Today appears no better either as at 7am, the air quialityindex is already at extreme highs…

    And finally, as we have expressed numerous times, SCMP's George Chen raises a very valid question…

     

     

    Because who can blame them for weak economic performance when they are "saving the world… from its deadliest threat.

  • Weimar Greece – The Effects Of A Currency Collapse

    Submitted by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

    Cash is a scarce commodity in Greece.

    In June, Greek banks declared a surprise limitation on how much could be withdrawn from an account. At present, the government still limits the cash withdrawals of Greeks.

    And, of course, this is just the most recent in a series of events that make up the cash squeeze. In response, Greeks have done what all people do when they cannot get enough currency – they improvise.

    Several alternate systems for payment of goods and services have cropped up in Greece since 2010. One is TEM, which allows people to gain monetary credit on an internet site, which may then be used to pay others. Another system is the Athens Time Bank, which logs time units, allowing individuals to pay each other with their time. The services provided can be anything from language lessons to medical consultation. Other systems are popping up, as Greeks seek out any method of payment other than the euro, since they’re closed off from their own savings at the banks. As can be expected, barter is becoming more commonplace.

    Greece is right where Weimar Germany was in late 1922. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles required Germany to pay reparations for WWI. At the time, Germany, having lost the war, was already on the ropes economically. The conditions of the treaty amounted to an unpayable level of debt. As it became apparent that it was impossible to pay, the allies squeezed harder. Economic conditions in Germany worsened dramatically, not unlike Greece today, and for the same reason.

    Germans did their best to sidestep the economic squeeze. As the cost of goods and services was rapidly rising (on a daily basis), Germans learned that it was best to spend Reichsmarks as quickly as possible on virtually anything that was holding its value better than banknotes.

    Interestingly, in 1922, virtually no one felt that currency was the problem. German politicians blamed the allies, particularly the French, for demanding that Germany live up to the treaty they had signed. Bankers often blamed foreign currencies for rising against the mark. And the people of Germany generally placed the blame on the most immediate symptom – that costs were rising more quickly than wages. Although they were pleased when their own wages went up, they wanted the prices of commodities to remain the same. They therefore blamed the merchants (particularly the many Jewish merchants) for raising the prices of their goods every time wages increased. They blamed this on Jewish greed, failing to understand that, every time wages increased, the cost of production increased and that increase was passed to the merchants.

    In 1922, as in 2015, virtually everyone failed to recognise that monetary movement is circular in nature, not linear. All payments, for all goods and services, impact each other, in a domino effect.

    The provision of goods and services is the lifeblood of any economy. Those who offer them and those who pay for them create wealth by doing so. This is the natural order of economics. However, if currency is artificially pumped into an economic system, either through the printing of bank notes, as in Germany in 1922, or the provision of bailouts, as in Greece in 2015, no goods have been created, no services have been performed. The injection of currency fails to improve the economy; it makes the situation worse. At some point, the money tap must be shut off, and, when it is, a crash takes place. The severity of the crash is directly proportional to the degree of currency injection.

    So, as long as we’re comparing parallel events, what else happened back then? Well, one interesting development was that, although most everyone in Germany was experiencing a steady decrease in their standard of living, farmers seemed to be holding their own. This, of course, was because they remained productive. They created essential goods for sale to others, so they maintained their living standards. In the autumn of 1922, most Bavarians could not afford to attend Oktoberfest, but the beer halls did an acceptable business with the farmers who came to town for the celebration. They were deeply resented by city dwellers for being able to afford beer that they themselves could not afford.

    Such was the resentment that the prime minister of Bavaria submitted a bill to the Reichsrat to make gluttony a public offense.

    In 1923, as the Weimar inflation grew to the point that city dwellers were starving, many of them went out to the country to steal the produce the farmers had worked to grow. Resentment was so high against the farmers that many raiders killed the farmers out of hatred. Further, since they couldn’t take the farmers’ cattle back to the city with them, they slaughtered them in the fields, out of spite. Of course, by destroying the source of the food, they assured that they would receive even less in future. Many starved.

    As stated by British Author Adam Fergusson in When Money Dies:

    It brought out the worst in everybody… It caused fear and insecurity among those who had already known too much of both. It fostered xenophobia. It promoted contempt for government and the subversion of law and order.

    As stated at the time by Sir Basil Blackett, controller of finance of the British Treasury, “Each class in Germany thinks that the burden of taxation should fall on some other class.” (Does any of this sound familiar?)

    If Greece in 2015 mirrors Germany in 1922, then we might expect Greece in 2016 to come to resemble Germany in 1923.

    But how about the rest of us? We’re not in the state that Greece is in – at least not yet. But the EU as a whole, and the U.S., Canada, and many other “First World” countries, are following the same destructive economic path. (They just aren’t quite as far along as Weimar Germany, 1923.)

    So, we might be interested to know what came next in Germany.

    • Demands increased by the public for a mandatory redistribution of wealth.

    This has become a common cry, particularly in the U.S., where a presidential election will take place in a year and some candidates are fanning the flames on this issue.

    • Movement of currency had to notified, then authorised.

    Currency controls are being implemented, one after the other, to limit the people’s ability to move their own money. Most threatening is a plan to eliminate cash, so that money cannot be transferred without the permission of the banks.

    • Importation was regulated.

    Politicians in the EU and U.S. are speaking increasingly of the need for protective tariffs.

    Political leaders have, for decades been squeezing the economy for all they can get and, as they’ve reached the point of diminishing returns, they’ve done what politicians always do, increase debt in order to prolong and increase their intake of wealth.

    This can be likened to a farmer who, wanting more milk than a cow can produce, milks it dry, then, refusing to admit his folly, starts draining the cow of its blood. He may say to both himself and others that the increasing need may be satisfied by increasing the removal of blood and, on a temporary basis, this will allow him to continue making use of the cow. However, once he has done so, it is a certainty that, at some point very soon, the cow will collapse.

    This was the case in Germany in 1923…and is the case in much of the world now.

  • China Trade Plunges, Yuan Tumbles Near Lowest Level In 4 Years

    With just nine days until The Fed – which has prepared the world, apparently – will raise rates for the first time in years (and potentialy suck up to $800 billion of liquidity from the global collateral chains of shadow stability), it appears China is doing its best to start some destabilizing efforts (which worked last time). None of this is helped by the collapse in China trade (with imports down YoY for a record 13th month, and exports falling for 5 straight months).

     

    Onshore Yuan ands Shanghai Composite volatility is rising notably as the Chinese currency continues to be allowed to tumble, set for its weakest close against the USDollar in 4 years…

     

    And Chinese equity markets remain supported for now, but underlying selling pressure keeps reappearing…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Suicides In Alberta Soar In Wake Of Canada's Oilpatch Depression

    Over the past year, we have extensively chronicled the tragic story of Alberta – Canada’s once booming oilpatch – disintegrate slowly at first, then very fast, into an economic and financial wasteland:

    And, in the last article in this sad series describing the Alberta “bloodbath”, we said that the biggest casualty of Canada’s recession has been the local commercial real estate market, where office vacancies are about to surpass the aftermath of the (first) great financial crisis.

    We were wrong: the biggest casualty of Canada’s recession, which unless oil rebounds strongly soon will follow Brazil into an all out depression, are people themselves. As CBC reports the suicide rate in Alberta has increased dramatically in the wake of mounting job losses across the province.

    According to the Canadian media, the most recent data only goes to June, but according to the chief medical examiner’s office, 30 per cent more Albertans took their lives in the first half of this year compared to the same period last year. 

    That’s how bad Canada’s economic recession is: the real casualties are no longer metaphorical economic objects, but the very people who until recently enjoyed comfortable lives only to succumb to an unprecedented collapse in the local economy.

    Here are the statistics as reported by CBC:

    • From January to June 2014, there were 252 suicides in Alberta.
    • During the same period this year, there were 327.
    • If the trend continues, Alberta could be on track for 654 suicides this year.
    • In an average year, there are 500, according to the Centre for Suicide Prevention.

    “This is staggering,” said Mara Grunau, who heads the Centre for Suicide Prevention.  “It’s far more, far exceeds anything we would ever have expected, and we would never have expected to see this much this soon.”

    What is taking place is hardly surprising: in this year of mass layoffs in the energy sector, calls to the Calgary Distress Centre have changed tone and have become more frequent, says counsellor David Kirby.

    Unfortunately, when one can no longer slide the tragic reality under the rug of double seasonal adjustments and media propaganda meant to boost confidence despite economic collapse, human tragedy is what always follows.

    “For me it says something really about the horrible human impact of what’s happening in the economy with the recession and the real felt effect, the real suffering and the real struggle that people are experiencing,” he said.

    Kirby says demand for counselling services has increase by 80 per cent — and the problems people are struggling with are more complex. “There might be substance abuse issues. There might be imminent financial collapse,” he said.

    “Anxiety, depression. Relationship conflict, maybe concurrent domestic violence. So there are many more things that people are trying to juggle I think at the same time.”  Nancy Bergeron, who has answered distress centre phone lines for a few years, says this year has been the hardest.

    “People are just at wit’s end and they’re contemplating it, right?”

    Why? Simply because the price of a commodity has dropped to a third of what it was just over a year ago, and the shocking impact has been a paralysis of every aspect of financial, economic and social life, first in Alberta, and soon everywhere else across Canada, as the local recession (on its way to a depression) spreads across the country and eventually crosses the U.S. border.

  • Will The IRS Take Your Passport?

    Submitted by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

    A little-noticed provision in the highway funding bill Congress passed this week threatens a right most Americans take for granted: the right to travel abroad. The provision in question gives the Internal Revenue Service the authority to revoke the passport of anyone the IRS claims owes more than $50,000 in back taxes.

    Congress is giving the IRS this new power because a decline in gas tax receipts has bankrupted the federal highway trust fund. Of course, Congress would rather squeeze more money from the American people than reduce spending, repeal costly regulations, or return responsibility for highway construction to the states, local governments, and the private sector. On the other hand, most in Congress fear the political consequences of raising gas, or other, taxes. Giving the IRS new powers allows politicians to increase government revenue without having to increase tax rates. Some even brag about how they are “cracking down on tax cheats.”

    Pro-IRS politicians ignore how this new power will punish Americans who have actually paid all the taxes they are legally obligated to pay. This is because the provision does not provide taxpayers an opportunity to challenge a finding that they owe back taxes in federal court before their passport is revoked. Because IRS employees are not infallible, it is inevitable that many Americans will lose their right to travel because of a bureaucrat’s mistake.

    It is particularly odd that a Republican Congress would give this type of power to the IRS considering the continuing outrage over IRS targeting of “Tea Party” organizations. This is hardly the first time the IRS has been used to intimidate its opponents and/or powerful politicians. Presidents of both parties have used the IRS to target political enemies.

    For example, one of the articles of impeachment brought against Richard Nixon dealt with his attempt to have the IRS audit those Nixon perceived as political enemies. During the 1990s, an IRS agent allegedly told the head of an organization supporting then-President Bill Clinton's impeachment, “What do you expect when you target the President?” Can anyone doubt that some Americans will be targeted because an IRS bureaucrat does not approve of their political beliefs and activities?

    Some support giving the IRS new powers because they think that those who underpay their taxes somehow raise everyone else’s taxes. This argument assumes that the federal government must collect the maximum amount of taxes because the people cannot do without big government. Of course the truth is that the people would be better off without the welfare-warfare state. Wouldn't we be better off without a national health care program that increases health care costs, or without a war on terrorism that led to the rise of ISIS? Freeing the people from taxation, including the regressive and hidden inflation tax, is just one of the many ways the people will benefit from restoring constitutionally limited government.

    As the federal debt increases and the American economy declines, an increasingly desperate Congress will look for new ways to squeeze more revenue from taxpayers. Thus, the IRS will increasingly gain new and ever more tyrannical powers over Americans, including new restrictions on the right to travel or even move capital out of the country. The only way to end the IRS's assault on our liberties is for the people to force Congress to stop looking for new ways to pick our pockets, and instead usher in a new era of liberty, peace, and prosperity by demolishing the welfare-warfare state.

  • China "Disappears" More Bank Executives As Witch Hunt Intensifies

    “Chairman of Guotai Junan Int’l, 1 of China’s largest brokerages, is “missing”; company said can’t find him”

    Regular readers are likely familiar with the quote excerpted above, but for anyone who might have missed the original story, that’s from George Chen and when it hit Twitter late last month we couldn’t help but laugh because after all, it’s not every day that a publicly traded company comes out and says they can’t find their CEO. 

    As strange as the statement might have seemed to the uninitiated, for those who’ve followed China’s equity markets this year it wasn’t hard to imagine what might have happened to Yim Fung. 

    Beijing is the midst of a truly epic witch hunt aimed at tracking down and detaining what officials say are “malicious” short sellers and market manipulators who allegedly played a part in the meltdown the hit Chinese stocks at the end of the summer. The campaign – dubbed “kill the chicken to scare the monkey” after a Chinese proverb – is really nothing more than an attempt to coerce market participants into acting in a way that’s conducive to stock charts that go “up and to the right.”

    As it turns out, Yim was indeed ensnared by authorities in connection with the arrest of CRSC vice chairman Yao Gang. Well, less than a week later, a number of media outlets reported that Beijing had launched a new round of investigations into at least three brokerages. Here’s what we said at the time

    It appears that after a period of relative calm, the Politburo is set to once again crackdown on any type of “malicious” behavior that Beijing thinks contributed to declining stock prices (remember, China isn’t a big fan of the whole “stocks can go down as well as up” thing, which means arresting anyone suspected of selling or, in extreme cases, halting the entire market). On Friday, the SHCOMP plunged nearly 6% after Citic Securities and Guosen Securities disclosed regulatory probes. Shares in both brokerages traded limit down on the news. Haitong Securities’, which is also facing an investigation, had its shares suspended. 

     

    Both Citic and Guosen said the new probes centered on alleged “rule violations.” “The finance crackdown has intensified in recent weeks and ensnared a prominent hedge-fund manager and a CSRC vice chairman,” Bloomberg notes, adding that “Citic Securities President Cheng Boming is among seven of the company’s executives named by Xinhua News Agency as being under investigation.”

    That was on November 27. Over the weekend (so just over a week later), two Citic executives apparently suffered the same fate as Yim Fung because as Reuters reports, the broker can’t find two of its top bankers. 

    “CITIC Securities is not able to contact two of its top executives, China’s biggest brokerage said on Sunday, following media reports that they had been asked by authorities to assist in an investigation,” Reuters says, adding that Jun Chen – Citic’s head of investment banking – and Jianlin Yan – who runs investment banking at the company’s overseas unit – have been unreachable since at least Friday. 

    As is usually the case when Beijing “disappears” some folks, no one is sure whether Jianlin and Jun are implicated in the probe or whether they are merely “assisting” authorities. Here’s Reuters again: “Chinese business publication Caixin said on Friday the pair had been detained, although it was not clear whether they were subjects of an investigation or merely being asked to assist with it.”

    Late last month, Citic announced that chairman Wang Dongming would step down “in consideration of his age,” but the ubiquitous “people familiar with the matter” say he was forced out for failing to stop insider trading. “Citic used its own balance sheet to buy stocks as part of the rescue effort and also executed trades on behalf of other national team entities,” FT reports, referencing China’s so-called “national team” which the PBoC used to pump some CNY1.5 trillion into the market. “Citic executives are alleged to have used information about which stocks the national team intended to ‘front-run’ for their own accounts.”

    So who knows where Citic’s executives are being held or why they’re being detained, but what seems clear from Fu Zhenghua’s (read more about Fu, the man at the heart of Xi’s crackdown, here) increasingly aggressive campaign is that the Politburo fully intends to make an example of quite a few people that were involved in the sweeping effort to prop up the market.

    Whether this represents an honest attempt to root out corruption or whether the idea is simply to intimidate the market on the way to ensuring that everyone toes the line going forward is unclear but one thing we do know is this (to quote a director at an international brokerage in Hong Kong quoted by Reuters last week): “At the moment, if you don’t do what the CSRC asks you to do, there will be blood.”

  • NYT: Americans With Assault Rifles Should "Give Them Up For The Good Of Their Fellow Citizens"

    Submitted by Matt Vespa via Townhall.com,

    Well, it seems the media’s horrific campaign of inaccuracy hasn’t stopped. According to Reuters, for the first time in nearly a century, The New York Times editorial board took their plea for gun bans to the front page on Saturday, calling our nation’s inaction on gun control a “moral outrage and a national disgrace.” No, we shouldn’t be surprised that they decided to follow the likes of the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times with their own inane call to arms for gun control. And we shouldn’t be shocked that they want policies that employ confiscatory measures, while also banning an entire class of firearms, specifically assault rifles and certain types of ammunition [emphasis mine]:

    It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.
    America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

     

    […]

     

    It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

     

    Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

    First, let’s give it up for the New York Times, and their like-minded colleagues in the media–and in politics–for driving up gun sales. Undoubtedly, after all of this nonsensical discussion about gun control, gun and ammo sales will go up (that’s a good thing). The irony never ceases to amaze me how the very faction of this country what wants to deploy unconstitutional gun control measures, only end up becoming better gun salespersons.

    Moreover, every mass shooting is an act of terror? They’re not. Mass shootings can be part of a terrorist’s arsenal of carnage to push whatever agenda they have in mind, but not every mass shooting is terrorism. The same logic is applied to defining genocide. Genocide is mass killing, but not all mass killings are genocides. What happened in Paris was a horrific terrorist attack perpetrated by ISIS. They had an agenda. They deployed suicide bombers and shooters to target scores of innocent Parisians, which they thought could influence the nation’s policy in the Middle East. The Islamic State attacked France for insulting the prophet Muhammad; they called Paris “the capital of abomination and perversion;” and–perhaps the most important part–the French were attacked due to their intervention in Syria. There are multiple definitions of terrorism; almost every singe one includes some form of political goal. There was no such goal when Adam Lanza senselessly murdered 20 schoolchildren in Newtown in 2012, hence why it was called a mass shooting, and not an act of terrorism. Concerning the San Bernardino shooting, it’s now a federal terrorism investigation. We’ll know in due time the motives and aims behind this attack.

    The Times says that it’s easy to define “combat rifles,” though they apparently didn’t know the definition of terrorism–and the left has tried to do this back in the early 1990s with the Assault Weapons Ban. It was a laughable piece of comedy that was attached to the overall Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994, that was partially responsible for historic Democratic losses in the midterm elections. When it expired in 2004, the data showed that these weapons are a) rarely used in crimes, which remains so to this day and b) did next to nothing to reduce violent crime. Oddly enough, the New York Times ran a piece in September of 2014 highlighting that fact:

    …[I]n the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.

     

    It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do[*].

     

    In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.

     

    […]

     

    The policy proved costly. Mr. Clinton blamed the ban for Democratic losses in 1994. Crime fell, but when the ban expired, a detailed study found no proof that it had contributed to the decline.

     

    The ban did reduce the number of assault weapons recovered by local police, to 1 percent from roughly 2 percent.

     

    “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement,” a Department of Justice-funded evaluation concluded.

    Lastly, the “it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens” part. Why? The vast majority of gun owners–99.9 percent according to Sen. Bernie Sanders–are law-abiding. They have to turn them over because the liberal political class is egregiously ignorant on this issue? They have to turn them over because while they aren’t used often in gun crimes, liberals are afraid of them? The Times has shown that the left is getting closer to outright saying having assault rifles in one's home warrants the National Guard, FBI, ATF, and local law enforcement busting down your door, terrifying your family, and confiscating constitutionally protected items.

    Any rational person should balk at this proposal. Any Second Amendment supporter would, as in other counties, should (and probably would) completely ignore the call to hand over their firearms. But if you’re a liberal–in keeping with their principle that government power should be controlled by the few in order to be dictated to the rest of us–you must believe this is a good policy. If ending gun violence enhances the public good, then by all means strip law-abiding Americans of their rights; the end result will pay off. It’s a perverse notion.

    This is where this debate is heading–and it’s getting messier with each horrific mass shooting. The left is now mixing terrorism and mass shootings to push a narrative to eviscerate the Second Amendment. We once again have rehashed stories about the AR-15 rifle, which isn’t as powerful as a hunting rifle and rarely used in crimes. And we have the media endorsing gun control policies that would require gun bans and confiscation. They’re insinuating parts of it, but the brash call to ban guns entirely is coming.

    Yes, not every right is absolute. There are restrictions, but government and active citizenry should work to maximize these rights to their fullest extent. The pre-existing laws on guns are fine. We need to have a debate on how to revamp our mental health system, and integrate it into our background check system. The problem is that it doesn’t accomplish the left’s goal of destroying gun rights, so they’ll do everything in their power to prevent that debate.

    *Support for a handgun ban is insanely low

  • Beware The "Massive Stop Loss" – JPM's Head Quant Warns This Unexpected Downside Catalyst Looms Next Week

    The uncanny ability of JPM’s head quant, Marko Kolanovic – the man Bloomberg recently called “Gandalf” due to his predictive success – to call key market inflection points has been extensively documented on these pages, most recently a month ago when we showed that just after he said the “rally drivers are gone with downside risk ahead”, the market proceed to swoon, two months after the same Kolanovic correctly predicted that the “technical buying begins.”

     

    We bring up Kolanovic because earlier today he released a new note in which he together with JPM’s Global Equity Strategy team lays out both the longer-term, as well as the immediate risks facing the market.

    First, we lay out JPM’s longer-term concerns for the S&P500, starting with the same one noted previously by everyone from Zero Hedge, to Goldman, to Credit Suisse to Citi: profit margins, and specifically their lack of future growth as a result of relentless dollar strength. Here are some of the main ones:

    Negative earnings effect from energy is likely to fade away, but strong USD will continue to exert some drag causing further negative revisions to current 2016 earnings growth estimates of 8.5%. Equity multiple will be limited from re-rating higher, in our view. The market is of age, already trading at close to 18x (NTM) P/E and we expect higher volatility going forward.

     

     

    The current year is likely looking to print flat earnings growth—negative revenue growth roughly offset by some margin expansion and significant share repurchases. While buyback activity should continue to synthetically boost earnings growth in this lackluster economic environment, margin expansion is near full exhaustion and in 2016 will possibly turn negative for the first time in this recovery. This suggests that we need at least some top-line growth in order to avoid a possible earnings recession next year. In that vein, one of the biggest risks equities face is a continuation in the strengthening of the US dollar and the Fed getting ahead of the curve (“policy error”). We estimate that a 5-6% change in the USD TWI corresponds to ~3% change in S&P 500 EPS.

    Then there is the question of the what a rising rate environment will do to equity returns. Here, JPM tries to walk a fine line and spin a contraction in financial conditions as if not bullish for stocks than hardly bearish…

    Historically, higher rates have meant lower but not necessarily negative equity returns. Correlations between rising short-term rates and S&P 500 performance imply a negative relationship, especially in a lower growth environment like today. During previous liftoffs equity markets have typically fared well, but the macro environment was also more supportive—GDP is less impressive now at +2.25% y/y vs. +3.4% y/y during previous episodes and the USD has increased +10% y/y on a trade-weighted basis vs. basically unchanged previously.

    Which brings us to another topic covered extensively here previously: the possible inversion of the yield curve as the Fed hikes the short-end while the long-end prices in policy error, or a failure to stoke inflation. Indicatively, the 2s30s is now the flattest it has been since February.

    More so, the slope of the yield curve is also a factor to consider, with the worst case for equities being a rising rate scenario with a flattening/inverting yield curve. We are not there yet, with 10s/2s spread having averaged near 140bps. 

    And then it gets interesting: Kolanovic’ first prediction – expect not only higher volatility but higher levels of tail risk.

    Also, higher rates have typically resulted in higher market volatility. While it may be difficult to quantify, certain parts of the market could be highly levered to the prolonged zero interest rate policy (i.e., long/short, distressed funds) which may require risk to be re-priced.  

     

    In our 2015 Outlook published last year, we forecasted that the average VIX level would increase from the 2014 average level of 14 to 16 this year. The average VIX level ended up at 16.5, very close to our forecast. While historically periods of falling volatility lasted much longer than periods of rising volatility, we again forecast an increase in volatility for 2016. Our forecast is for the average VIX levels to rise from the current level of ~15 to an average of 16-18 next year. We also forecast higher levels of tail risk.

    What does this mean in practical terms:

    Tail risk is a measure of volatility of volatility, so we expect both quiet periods and periods of volatile selloffs such as the one we saw in August this year. Our forecast of higher volatility is primarily based on the rates cycle and uncertainty around central bank policy, as well as extremely low levels of market liquidity.

    JPM also warns about a market which has lost more than half of its orderbook depth as a result of collapsing liquidity over the past decade courtesy of Reg NMS and the advent of predatory, order frontrunning HFT algos. As a result, the market no longer has any capacity to “absorb large shocks

    While equity volumes look robust, market depth has declined by more than 60% over the last 2 years. With market depth so low, the market does not have capacity to absorb large shocks. This was best illustrated during the August 24th crash.

     

     

     

    Additionally, high levels of geopolitical risk are likely to add to  market volatility. These risks include increased tensions in the Middle East (e.g., between Russia and NATO allies), increased risk of terrorist attacks in the US and Europe, as well as strains in the Eurozone related to the immigration crisis. Furthermore, levels of equity volatility appear to be below the volatility levels of other asset classes. Following the August spike in volatility, equity volatility dropped below the levels of volatility implied by other asset classes. Most notable is the divergence of equity volatility to levels of credit spreads that kept on rising during H2

    * * *

    Which then brings us to what Kolanovic believes is the key near-term risk.

    Not surprisingly, the biggest potential selloff catalyst is the Fed itself and specifically the Dec. 16 FOMC announcement, which the Fed is desperate to guide as being “priced in” by the market, but considering the Fed’s track record with getting any forecast right, concerns are starting to grow. “As for near-term risks—we believe the most imminent market catalyst will be the December Fed meeting in which we are likely to see the first rate hike of the cycle.

    * * *

    So far so good, but to a market which has traded mostly on technicals and program buying (and selling) in recent months, there is something far more troubling than just what the Fed will announce:

    This important event falls at a peculiar time—less than 48 hours before the largest option expiry in many years. There are $1.1 trillion of S&P 500 options expiring on Friday morning. $670Bn of these are puts, of which $215Bn are struck relatively close below the market level, between 1900 and 2050. Clients are net long these puts and will likely hold onto them through the event and until expiry. At the time of the Fed announcement, these put options will essentially look like a massive stop loss order under the market.

    What does this mean? Considering that the bulk of the puts have been layered by the program traders themselves, including CTA trend-followers, and since the vol surface of the market will be well-known to everyone in advance, there is a very high probability the implied “stop loss” level will be triggered, and the market could trade to a level equivalent to the strike price, somewhere in the 1,800 area, or nearly 200 points below current levels.

    Which would be a tragedy for the Fed: after all, nothing is more important to Yellen, Draghi et al, than affirmative market signaling – pointing to the (surging) market’s reaction and saying “look, we did the right thing”, just as Draghi did on Friday when he explicitly talked the market higher in the aftermath of the ECB’s disastrous announcement.

    The irony will be if, regardless of what the Fed does, the subsequent move is driven not by the market’s read through of monetary policy but by the “pin” in this massive $1.1 trillion option expiry, the biggest in many years, one which if recent market action is an indicator, suggests the stop loss strike level will be taken out in the process setting the “psychological” stage for market participants who will look at the drop in the market, and equate it with a vote of no confidence in what the Fed is doing, potentially forcing the Fed to backtrack in less than 2 days!

    Whether this happens remains to be seen, and we are confident the Fed’s “arm’s length” market-moving JV partner, Citadel, is currently scrambling to prevent any imminent selloff. However, considering Kolanovic’ track record of hinting at key risk inflection risk, it is quite likely that whatever the ultimate closing price on December 16 and, more importantly, December 18, volatility may very soon have an “August 24” type event.

  • Amid FX Reserve Liquidation, These Are The Countries JP Morgan Says Are Most Vulnerable

    On Friday in, “Correlation May Not Equal Causation, But This Divergence Looks Like Bad News,” we highlighted the following two charts from Credit Suisse:

    As you can see, equities and global growth have tracked global FX reserves with some degree of consistency going back at least fifteen years. Now that the so-called “great accumulation” has come to a rather unceremonious end thanks to slumping commodity prices, the incipient threat of a Fed hike, and China’s yuan deval, the amount held in FX war chests has decoupled markedly from stocks and economic output. That, we contend, probably doesn’t bode well. 

    Falling FX reserves should, all else equal, amount to a drain on global liquidity. That is, for years commodity producers were net exporters of capital, snapping up billions upon billions of USD assets to hold for a rainy day.

    Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but EM now has a deluge on its hands and a long list of country-specific, idiosyncratic political factors are making the situation immeasurably worse in certain markets by putting even more pressure on local currencies (see Brazil and Turkey for instance) and hence on reserves. 

    To be sure, each country has its own set of problems and each situation is unique, but generally speaking, it’s time to start asking the hard questions about reserve adequacy.

    While EM sovereigns as a group may be in better shape now in terms of “original sin” (i.e borrowing heavily in foreign currencies) than they were during say, the Asian Currency Crisis,  the confluence of factors outlined above means no one is truly “safe” in the current environment as moving from liquidation back to accumulation will entail a sharp reversal in commodity prices and a pickup in the pace of global growth and trade. 

    For those curious to know which countries are running dangerously low relative to their liabilities and other important metrics, we present the following from JP Morgan. 

    *  *  *

    From JP Morgan

    A common metric to assess the adequacy of foreign exchange reserves is to look at external debt. Reserves of countries with a higher proportion of external liabilities in foreign currency are perceived to be more vulnerable, particularly if these liabilities have short-term maturity given rollover risks. Our colleagues in EM research highlighted that on aggregate the short term external debt profile looks manageable relative to FX reserves. Do some countries appear riskier than other?

    The IMF provides the split between domestic and foreign currency debt by maturity for most countries. Typically, the majority of external debt is denominated in foreign currency. Countries with proportionally high local currency external debt (more than 30%) include India, Czech Republic, Mexico, Poland, Thailand, and South Africa. In Figure 6, we look at reserves as a proportion of both short and long term external debt, in foreign currency where available. This proportion is high for short-term debt (i.e. more than 100%) in Argentina and Turkey. Countries that appear vulnerable on total external debt including long term debt are Argentina, Turkey, Hungary, Indonesia, Poland, Mexico, South Africa, and Brazil.

    The IMF proposed a framework (IMF, Assessing Reserve Adequacy, Apr 2015) to compare FX reserve adequacy across countries. In addition to short-term external debt, to capture short term refinancing needs, they augment their metric with exports, to reflect potential losses from drop in external demand or a terms of trade shock, broad money supply, to capture the risk of deposit flight, i.e. dollarization of deposits, and portfolio and other bank-related liabilities to capture the risk of capital outflows by foreign investors. We can see this reserve adequacy ratio in Figure 7, which presents the ratio of reserves to a weighted average of short-term debt, export income, broad money supply and certain foreign liabilities. Reserves in the range of 100-150 percent of the composite metric are considered broadly adequate for precautionary purposes. On their measure, countries that appear below the recommended band are Malaysia, South Africa and Turkey. 

    Where is dollarization of deposits a problem? As mention above the reason the IMF included broad money supply in its FX reserve adequacy metric is to capture the risk that deposits are converted into foreign currency. This is because previous EM capital account crises had been accompanied by “dollarization of deposits”. We look at the proportion of foreign currency deposits to broad money supply or M2 to see where dollarization of deposits is most extensive (with the caveat that some of these countries’ impose restrictions on foreign currency deposits). The countries that appear to hold a high proportion of foreign currency deposits relative to M2 are Turkey, Philippines, Indonesia and Taiwan. The biggest change in this ratio since last year has been in Turkey, Hungary, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Philippines (Figure 8). It is thus these countries that have been facing most intense “dollarization of deposits” currently (with the caveat that we only have data for Brazil and South Africa up until Q2). 

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News December 7, 2015

  • Get Rid of ISIS Using This 'One Weird Trick'

    Submitted by Dan Sanchez via DanSanchez.me,

    You’ve seen those internet ads that offer “one weird trick” for eliminating belly fat or boosting testosterone, right? Well, here’s one weird trick for getting rid of ISIS and boosting our security from terrorism. The “trick” is non-intervention. And it is only weird in the sense that it is so uncommon in this age of war. Nonetheless, it works.

    And it will work against ISIS because it was intervention that propelled its rise and it is intervention that sustains it. Non-intervention would eliminate ISIS by simply withholding its fuel and withdrawing its props.

    The “one weird trick” has three easy steps. These steps are only “easy” for Westerners, because they basically amount to us refraining from constantly fucking things up. Once we get out of their way, the hard work will be done by locals, which is as it should be.

    Step 1: The West should stop supporting the jihadist-led Syrian insurgency and stop supporting the regional allies (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc) that are also supporting it. With the flow of weapons and money cut off, rebels will defect and the ground forces of the secular Syrian regime that the U.S. has been idiotically trying to overthrow will be able to push ISIS and Syrian Al Qaeda out of Syria.

     

    Step 2: The U.S. should stop supporting the sectarian Shi’ite government in Iraq. Only when that flow of weapons and money is also halted will Baghdad be forced to compromise with the Iraqi Sunnis they have been brutally persecuting for a decade. And only then will the Sunni tribes feel they can afford to turn against ISIS again, as they did in 2006. This will give the terrorists fleeing Syria nowhere to run.

     

    Step 3: The West should stop directly bombing Syria and Iraq. Such attacks inevitably massacre civilians, and thereby only strengthen ISIS. Civil society is thus weakened and less capable of resisting the hardened extremists. Plus, more Muslim youth are thus radicalized by atrocity and more susceptible to extremist recruitment.

    More American bootsEuropean bombsTurkish guns, and Saudi money will only feed the fire that fuels ISIS and make our cities more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Just stop constantly subsidizing and contributing to the war and chaos that ISIS thrives on. That alone can starve and weaken that death cult enough for the non-psychotic elements of Syria and Iraq to unite and finally destroy it.

    We have tolerated and enabled our governments’ bloody misadventures long enough. Get the West out of the Middle East, now.

  • It Begins: Desperate Finland Set To Unleash Helicopter Money Drop To All Citizens

    With Citi's chief economist proclaiming "only helicopter money can save the world now," and the Bank of England pre-empting paradropping money concerns, it appears that Australia's largest investment bank's forecast that money-drops were 12-18 months away was too conservative.

    Over the last few months, in a prime example of currency failure and euro-defenders' narratives, Finland has been sliding deeper into depression. Almost 7 years into the the current global expansion, Finland's GDP is 6pc below its previous peak. As The Telegraph reports, this is a deeper and more protracted slump than the post-Soviet crash of the early 1990s, or the Great Depression of the 1930s. And so, having tried it all, Finnish authorities are preparing to unleash "helicopter money" to save their nation by giving every citizen a tax-free payout of around $900 each month!

    Just over two years ago, when the world was deciding who would be Bernanke Fed Chair replacement, Larry Summers or Janet Yellen (how ironic that Larry Summers did not get the nod just because a bunch of progressive economists thought he would not be dovish enough) we wrote about a different problem: with the end of QE3 upcoming and with the inevitable failure of the economy to reignite (again), we warned that there remains one option after (when not if) QE fails to stimulate growth: helicopter money.

    While QE may be ending, it certainly does not mean that the Fed is halting its effort to "boost" the economy. In fact… the end of QE may well be simply a redirection, whereby the broken monetary pathway, one which uses banks as intermediaries to stimulate inflation (supposedly a failure according to the economist mainstream), i.e., "second-round effects", is bypassed entirely and replaced with Plan Z, aka "Helicopter Money" mentioned previously as an all too real monetary policy option by none other than Milton Friedman and one Ben Bernanke. This is also known as the nuclear option.

    Today Finland needs the nuclear option. As The Telegraph explained, nobody can accuse Finland of being spendthrift, or undisciplined, or technologically backward, or corrupt, or captive of an entrenched oligarchy, the sort of accusations levelled against the Greco-Latins.

    The country's public debt is 62pc of GDP, lower than in Germany. Finland has long been held up as the EMU poster child of austerity, grit, and super-flexibility, the one member of the periphery that supposedly did its homework before joining monetary union and could therefore roll with the punches.

     

     

    Finland tops the EU in the World Economic Forum’s index of global competitiveness. It comes 1st in the entire world for primary schools, higher education and training, innovation, property rights, intellectual property protection, its legal framework and reliability, anti-monopoly policies, university R&D links, availability of latest technologies, as well as scientists and engineers.

     

    Its near-perfect profile demolishes the central claim of the German finance ministry – through its mouthpiece in Brussels – that countries get into bad trouble in EMU only if they drag their feet on reform and spend too much.

     

    The country has obviously been hit by a series of asymmetric shocks: the collapse of its hi-tech champion Nokia, the slump in forestry and commodity prices, and the recession in Russia.

     

    The relevant point is that it cannot now defend itself. Finland is trapped by a fixed exchange rate and by the fiscal straightjacket of the Stability Pact, a lawyers' construct that was never intended for such circumstances. The Pact is being enforced anyway because rules are rules and because leaders in the Teutonic bloc have an idee fixee that moral hazard will run rampant if any country in the EMU core sets a bad example.

     

    Finland's output shrank a further 0.6pc in the third quarter and the country's three-year long recession is turning into a fourth year. Industrial orders fell 31pc in September. "It's spooky," said Pasi Sorjonen from Nordea.

    Finland is digging itself into an ever deeper hole. The International Monetary Fund warned this week against austerity overkill and “pro-cyclical” cuts before the economy is strong enough to take it.

    The IMF spoke softly but the message was clear. Finland should not even be thinking of a “front-loaded” fiscal contraction or slashing investment at a time when its output gap is 3.2pc of GDP.

     

    The Finnish authorities admitted in their reply to the IMF's Article IV report that they had no choice because they had to comply with the Stability Pact. This is what European policy-making has come to.

     

    Some in Finland were quick to throw stones at Greece during the debt crisis, seemingly unaware at the time that they too lived in a glass house. Their own story is not really that different from the EMU disasters that unfolded in the South.

     

     

     

    Interest rates were too low for Finland’s needs during the commodity boom, causing the economy to overheat. Unit labour costs spiralled up 20pc from 2006 onwards, leaving the country high and dry when the music stopped. Public debt was low but private debt was high (somewhat like Spain and Ireland). The crisis hit later merely because the commodity bubble did not burst until 2012.

     

    Sweden was able to navigate similar shocks by letting its currency take the strain at key moments over the last decade. Swedish GDP is now 8pc above its pre-Lehman level.

     

     

    The divergence between Finland and Sweden is staggering for two Nordic economies with so much in common, and it has rekindled Finland’s dormant anti-euro movement.

    And that 'political' crisis may have been just the kick the authorities needed to unleash the nuclear money drop option, as The Telegraph continues,

    Authorities in Finland are considering giving every citizen a tax-free payout of €800 ($900) each month.

     

    Under proposals being draw up by the Finnish Social Insurance Institution (Kela), this national basic income would replace all other benefit payments, and would be paid to all adults regardless of whether or not they receive any other income.

     

    Unemployment in Finland is currently at record levels, and the basic income is intended to encourage more people back to work. At present, many unemployed people would be worse off if they took on low-paid temporary jobs due to loss of welfare payments.

     

    Detractors caution that a basic income would remove people's incentive to work and lead to higher unemployment. Those in favour point to previous experiments where a basic income has been successfully trialed.

     

     

    Finnish Prime Minister Juha Sipilä supports the idea, saying: “For me, a basic income means simplifying the social security system.”

     

    The basic income will cost Finland roughly €46.7 billion per year if fully implemented. Kela's proposals are due to be submitted in November 2016.

    That's around 20% of GDP annually… and while politicians will claim it is temporary, these 'initiatives' never are – just ask Japan!

    *  *  *

    As we previously detailed, support is growing around the world for such spending to be funded by “People’s QE.” The idea behind “People’s QE” is that central banks would directly fund government spending… and even inject money directly into household bank accounts, if need be. And the idea is catching on.

    Already the European Central Bank is buying bonds of the European Investment Bank, an E.U. institution that finances infrastructure projects. And the new leader of Britain’s Labor Party, Jeremy Corbyn, is backing a British version of this scheme.

     

    That’s the monster coming to towns and villages near you! Call it “overt monetary financing.” Call it “money from helicopters.” Call in “insane.” 

     

    But it won’t be unpopular. Who will protest when the feds begin handing our money to “mid- and low-income households”?

    Simply put, The Keynesian Endgame is here… as  the only way to avoid secular stagnation (which, for the uninitiated, is just another complicated-sounding, economist buzzword for the more colloquial “everything grinds to a halt”) is for central bankers to call in the Krugman Kraken and go full-Keynes.

    Rather than buying assets, central banks drop money on the street. Or even better, in a more modern and civilised fashion, credit our bank accounts! That, after all, may be more effective than buying assets, and would not imply the same transfer of wealth as previous or current forms of QE. Indeed, ‘helicopter money’ can be seen as permanent QE, where the central bank commits to making the increase in the monetary base permanent.

     

    Again, crediting accounts does not guarantee that money will be spent – in contrast to monetary financing where the newly created cash can be used for fiscal spending. And in many cases, such policy would actually imply fiscal policy, as most central banks cannot conduct helicopter money operations on their own.

     

     

    So again, the thing to realize here is that this has moved well beyond the theoretical and it's not entirely clear that most people understand how completely absurd this has become (and this isn't necessarily a specific critique of SocGen by the way, it's just an honest look at what's going on). At the risk of violating every semblance of capital market analysis decorum, allow us to just say that this is pure, unadulterated insanity. There's not even any humor in it anymore.

     

    You cannot simply print a piece of paper, sell it to yourself, and then use the virtual pieces of paper you just printed to buy your piece of paper to stimulate the economy. There's no credibility in that whatsoever, and we don't mean that in the somewhat academic language that everyone is now employing on the way to criticizing the Fed, the ECB, and the BoJ.

    And it will end only one way…

    The monetizing of state debt by the central bank is the engine of helicopter money. When the central state issues $1 trillion in bonds and drops the money into household bank accounts, the central bank buys the new bonds and promptly buries them in the bank's balance sheet as an asset.

     

    The Japanese model is to lower interest rates to the point that the cost of issuing new sovereign debt is reduced to near-zero. Until, of course, the sovereign debt piles up into a mountain so vast that servicing the interest absorbs 40+% of all tax revenues.

     

    But the downsides of helicopter money are never mentioned, of course. Like QE (i.e. monetary stimulus), fiscal stimulus (helicopter money) will be sold as a temporary measure that quickly become permanent, as the economy will crater the moment it is withdrawn.

    The temporary relief turns out to be, well, heroin, and the Cold Turkey withdrawal, full-blown depression.

     

  • "Don't Believe The Hope" – When Forward Guidance Becomes Forward Mis-Direction

    Submitted by Joseph Calhoun via Alhambra Investment Partners, 

    When a problem comes along

    You must whip it

     Before the cream sets out too long
    You must whip it

    When something’s goin’ wrong

    You must whip it – Devo

    Did anyone get the license plate of the truck that hit the bulls last Thursday? If not, maybe you managed to catch a glimpse of it when it backed over the bears on Friday. I have it on good authority the driver was an Italian by the name of Mario Draghi. Mario’s German buddies managed to sober him up for a press conference Thursday but by Friday he was in New York and back on the sauce. Meanwhile, Janet Yellen spent the week explaining why she was going to take the ladle out of the punchbowl before Santa gets down the chimney. By the end of the week, traders were getting whiplash treatment and stocks were right back where they started.

    The market came into last week positioned for a big new dollop of monetary easing from the ECB. With the Fed poised to hike and the ECB ready to ease, the obvious trade was short Euros and long US dollars, most often in the form of US Treasuries but with a few FANG stocks and a call on the DAX thrown in for good measure. After last month’s meeting Draghi hinted that more easing was on the way and traders took him at his word. One wonders, with the benefit of hindsight, why he wasn’t questioned more about why he didn’t just ease at that last meeting. It seems obvious now that he wasn’t having any luck convincing the rest of the ECB to go along with his punchbowl spiking ways. And by the rest of the ECB, I mean the Germans who have an innate bias against anything that might turn into too much fun.

    So, when Draghi offered up his weak tea of slightly more negative interest rates and a six month extension of QE, all those short Euro/long Dollar trades suddenly looked rather crowded, foolish and not such a sure thing after all. And just like that, with visions of their already reduced bonuses dancing in their heads, traders started buying Euros, selling Treasuries and basically getting the heck out, price be damned. By the end of the day, the Euro was up four handles from 105 to 109, Treasuries were sucking for air and the Dow was down 250 points because…well just because.

    As Friday dawned all awaited the November employment report to gauge whether the FOMC would still be in a hiking mood come December 16th. Earlier in the week, the manufacturing ISM posted at 48.6 – sub 50 means the manufacturing sector is contracting – and combined with some dovish cooing from a couple of FOMC members had people wondering if the Fed would really get off zero this month. The employment report was typical of the series lately, posting an as expected or so 211k; not great, not bad but nothing that the labor market watching Yellen would fret about. That wasn’t enough for more than a mild rebound until Draghi’s speech to the Economic Club of New York. He averred that, “no doubt” the ECB would step up stimulus if needed. He didn’t define “needed” but stock traders didn’t wait for clarification. I guess, more accurately, the algorithms that do all the trading today didn’t wait for clarification. Who or whatever heard Draghi’s monetary dog whistle knew what it meant or what they wanted or hoped it to mean and stood on the buy button all afternoon.

    After all the central banker drama was complete the Dow had traversed a nearly 500 point range to end up less than 50 points from where it started. Which seems quite appropriate since there wasn’t much change in the fundamental backdrop of the markets. That ISM report earlier in the week did nothing but confirm what we all knew already. The manufacturing/industrial side of the US economy is weakening. That trend isn’t news to us and hopefully not to the FOMC but the ISM’s predictive track record isn’t that great and it was unlikely to change Yellen’s mind.

    The other data released last week did nothing to change the trends that have persisted all year. The auto sector reported another gangbuster month. The service sector continued to expand. Manufacturing data was weak. Imports and exports continued to contract and employment was positive but uninspiring. There was no change in the economic outlook for Europe either where a nascent cyclical recovery likely has little to do with the ECB’s actions, past, present or future.

    The market volatility last week was a byproduct of the open mouth policies of the world’s central banks. Forward guidance, intended to make monetary policy predictable and markets less volatile, creates confusion. Traders hang on every word, position themselves accordingly and get whipsawed when reality doesn’t align with expectations. Investors don’t know whether they should pay attention or not. The idea that monetary policy should be predictable was always based on a false premise. Forward guidance only works if central banks can predict the future course of the economy. Absent a working crystal ball, forward guidance adds to the considerable uncertainty that is inherent in all markets.

    As hard as it is sometimes, investors need to tune out the central bankers. Concentrate on the indicators that have provided accurate guidance in the past. As stated above the ISM isn’t one of those and while it does provide some extra information it isn’t anything on which to base investment or monetary policy. There are instances of recessions starting with the ISM above the 50 level that divides expansion and contraction. There are also plenty of instances of readings below 50 being nothing more than transitory noise. Having said that, a reading below 49 such as we got last week, has led to, about 1/3 of the time, a recession in short order. So, one shouldn’t ignore it but context is important.

    Of more importance is the developing credit crunch. It is notable I think that junk bonds did not join the stock rally Friday. Credit spreads did narrow a bit last week as Treasuries took a hit on the ECB disappointment but the trend is still wider. More meaningful, I think, is that the damage in credit markets has spread well beyond the energy sector. S&P reported $180 billion of distressed junk bonds from 228 companies in November and a distress ratio of 20.1%, the highest since 2009. (Distressed bonds’ yield 1000 basis points than comparable Treasuries.) The oil and gas sector represents just 37% of the total. Metals and mining is second and together those two sectors represent 53% of the total. Restaurants, media, technology, chemicals, consumer products and financials make up the rest of the top 8. As I said, it isn’t just energy.

    We can see the stress in dividends as well. Dividend cuts in November were 50% oil and mining, 23% finance, 18% manufacturing and 9% shipping. That’s a pretty diverse group affected not just by falling oil prices but global economic weakness.

    The Fed seems set on hiking rates this month and there are good arguments in favor of doing so. But we shouldn’t pretend that there will be no cost, no economic or market consequence for doing so. Market liquidity has already waned starting with the taper tantrum and continuing through the actual tapering and end of QE. Believe what you want but markets have spoken; the tightening cycle started long ago and the first rate hike is just the latest move. It seems inconsequential, a mere 25 basis points, but then the last hike in the last tightening cycle, in the fall of 2006, was only a quarter point too. Not only that but we have no idea how effective the Fed’s plan for hiking rates will be. We have to assume that if they are successful in raising the Fed Funds rate that it will reduce liquidity further. How much is anyone’s guess.

    As we approach the Fed meeting expect markets to get more volatile. While the odds favor a move, it isn’t a sure thing until it is actually done. We found out last week what happens when forward guidance turns out to be forward misdirection. All those traders who thought they had a sure thing, who assumed that Draghi wouldn’t dare disappoint the market, got whipped. Whipped good.

    *  *  *
    ZH: Just remember what happened the last time The Fed hiked into a recessionWe are talking of course, about the infamous RRR-hike of 1936-1937, which took place smack in the middle of the Great Recession. Here is what happened then, as we described previously in June.

    [No episode is more comparable to what is about to happen] than what happened in the US in 1937, smack in the middle of the Great Depression. This is the only time in US history which is analogous to what the Fed will attempt to do, and not only because short rates collapsed to zero between 1929-36 but because the Fed’s balance sheet jumped from 5% to 20% of GDP to offset the Great Depression.

    Just like now.

    Then, briefly, the economy started to improve superficially, just like now, and as a result the Fed tightened in a series of three steps between Aug’36 & May’37, doubling reserve requirements from $3bn to $6bn, causing 3-month rates to jump from 0.1% in Dec’36 to 0.7% in April’37.

    Here is a detailed narrative of precisely what happened from a recent Bridgewater note:

    The first tightening in August 1936 did not hurt stock prices or the economy, as is typical.

     

    The tightening of monetary policy was intensified by currency devaluations by France and Switzerland, which chose not to move in lock-step with the US tightening. The demand for dollars increased. By late 1936, the President and other policy makers became increasingly concerned by gold inflows (which allowed faster money and credit growth).

     

    The economy remained strong going into early 1937. The stock market was still rising, industrial production remained strong, and inflation had ticked up to around 5%. The second tightening came in March of 1937 and the third one came in May. While neither the Fed nor the Treasury anticipated that the increase in required reserves combined with the sterilization program would push rates higher, the tighter money and reduced liquidity led to a sell-off in bonds, a rise in the short rate, and a sell-off in stocks. Following the second increase in reserves in March 1937, both the short-term rate and the bond yield spiked.

     

    Stocks also fell that month nearly 10%. They bottomed a year later, in March of 1938, declining more than 50%!

    Or, as Bank of America summarizes it: "The Fed exit strategy completely failed as the money supply immediately contracted; Fed tightening in H1’37 was followed in H2’37 by a severe recession and a 49% collapse in the Dow Jones."

    As can be seen on the above, in 1938, the stock market began to recover some. However, despite the easing stocks didn't fully regain their 1937 highs until the end of the war nearly a decade later.

    It needed a world war for that.

    But wait, the Fed hiked only to ease? That's right: in response to the second increase in reserves that March, Treasury Secretary Morgenthau was furious and argued that the Fed should offset the "panic" through open market operations to make net purchases of bonds. Also known now as QE. He ordered the Treasury into the market to purchase bonds itself.

  • A Beleaguered Wal-Mart Sues A Broke Puerto Rico For "Astonishing" Tax Hike

    It’s always amusing when unforeseen circumstances conspire to bring two previously disparate stories together in one hilarious boondoggle. 

    As regular readers are no doubt aware, Puerto Rico is broke. “Let us be clear: We have no cash left,” governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla told Congress last week, after the commonwealth used an absurd revenue clawback end-around to avoid defaulting on some $345 million in debt that came due on Tuesday. 

    The island owes another $300 million on January 1st and what might this week’s payment so important was that of the $354 million coming due, around $273 million was GO debt, and defaulting on that would mean a cascade of ugly litigation. 

    Of course the use of the clawback – which effectively allows the island to divert revenue earmarked for other bonds to GO debt repayments – is a bit like Greece tapping its IMF reserves to pay the IMF. That is, there’s a palpable sense of desperation here and the situation is going to get immeasurably worse without some manner of federal intervention. 

    Ok, so that’s Puerto Rico. 

    Regular readers are also no doubt aware that Wal-Mart has gotten itself into trouble this year after bowing to calls for increased wages for its lowest-paid employees. Those wage hikes (which are set to cost the retailer around $1.5 billion over two years) pinched margins, prompting the company to tighten the screws on suppliers with a series of measures that culminated in Wal-Mart demanding that its vendors pass on any savings they might have derived from the yuan deval. 

    The company also learned that when you hike wages for some employees but not others, the wage hierarchy gets thrown out of whack prompting workers higher up the ladder to either quit, or demand more money to restore the compensation pecking order. 

    Unable to cope and unable to squeeze anything else out of the supply chain without triggering a veritable vendor mutiny, Wal-Mart was forced to cut hours and then, to cut jobs at the Bentonville office. 

    It all fell apart in October when the retailer slashed its guidance, triggering a harrowing decline in the stock. 

    Well don’t look now, but a beleaguered Wal-Mart is suing a beleaguered Puerto Rico after the latter’s attempt to lift government revenue by raising taxes pushed the company’s tax burden in the commonwealth to nearly 92% of net income.

    As Bloomberg reports, “Puerto Rico’s Act 72-2015 increases to 6.5 percent from 2 percent the tax on goods imported from offshore affiliates to local companies with gross revenues of more than $2.75 billion.” 

    Wal-Mart “biggest private employer and hands over more sales tax to the island government than any other business,” Bloomberg continues, before noting that the company is “asking a federal judge to declare the new measure unconstitutional and block its enforcement.”

    “The new levy raised the estimated cumulative income tax on Wal-Mart Puerto Rico Inc. to an astonishing and unsustainable 91.5% of its net income!”, the company exclaimed, in a complaint filed Friday in San Juan.

    We’re sure they’ll be any number of amusing anecdotes to report once this case gets going, but for now we’ll simply close by saying that if you work at a Wal-Mart in Puerto Rico, you probably shouldn’t expect much in the way of wage gains from this point forward because apparently, the island is so broke that it now needs the company to turn over nearly all of its profits in order to make sure you have public services.

  • What Polarized Politics Teaches Us About Stock Market Uncertainty

    Excerpted from Ben Hunt's Epsilon Theory blog,

    It’s important to respect the power of econometric models. It’s important to work with econometric models. But I don’t care who you are … whether you’re the leader of the world’s largest central bank or you’re the CIO of an enormous pension fund or you’re the world’s most successful financial advisor … it’s a terrible mistake to trust econometric models. But we all do, because we’ve been convinced by modeling’s henchman, The Central Tendency.

    What is the The Central Tendency? It’s the overwhelmingly widespread and enticing idea that there’s a single-peaked probability distribution associated with everything in life, and that more often than not it looks just like this:

    It’s our acceptance of The Central Tendency as The Way The World Works that transforms our healthy respect for econometric modeling into an unhealthy trust in econometric modeling. It’s what creates our unhealthy trust in projections of asset price returns. It’s what creates our unhealthy trust in projections of monetary policy impact.

    It also creates an unhealthy trust in the mainstream tools we use to project risk and reward in our investment portfolios.

    I’m not saying that The Central Tendency is wrong. I’m saying that it is (much) less useful in a world that is polarized by massive debt and the political efforts required to maintain that debt. I’m saying that it is (much) less useful in a market system where exchanges have been transformed into for-profit data centers and liquidity is provided by machines programmed to turn off when profit margins are uncertain.

    Polarized Politics

    The world is awash in debt, with debt/GDP levels back to 1930 levels and far higher than 2007 levels prior to the Great Recession. What’s different today in 2015 as compared to the beginning of the Great Recession, however, is that governments rather than banks are now the largest owners (and creators!) of that debt.

    Governments have more tools and time than corporations, households, or financial institutions when it comes to managing debt loads, but the tools they use to kick the can down the road always result in a more polarized electorate. Why? Because the tools of status quo debt maintenance, particularly as they inflate financial asset prices and perpetuate financial leverage, always exacerbate income and wealth inequality. I’m not saying that’s a good thing or a bad thing. I’m not saying that some alternative debt resolution path like austerity or loss assignment would be more or less injurious to income and wealth equality. I’m just observing that whether you’re talking about the 1930s or the 2010s, whether you’re talking about the US, Europe, or China, greater income and wealth inequality driven by government debt maintenance policy simply IS. 

    Greater income and wealth inequality reverberates throughout a society in every possible way, but most obviously in polarization of electorate preferences and party structure. Below is a visual representation of increased polarization in the US electorate, courtesy of the Pew Research Center. Other Western nations are worse, many much worse, and no nation is immune.

    There’s one inevitable consequence of significant political polarization: the center does not hold. Our expectation that The Central Tendency carries the day will fail, and this failure will occur at all levels of political organization, from your local school board to a congressional caucus to a national political party to the overall electorate. Political outcomes will always surprise in a polarized world, either surprisingly to the left or surprisingly to the right. And all too often, I might add, it’s a surprising outcome pushed by the illiberal left or the illiberal right.

    The failure of The Central Tendency occurs in markets, as well.

     
    Below is a chart of 3-month forward VIX expectations in December 2012, as the Fiscal Cliff crisis reared its ugly head, as calculated by Credit Suisse based on open option positions. If you calculated the average expectations of the market (the go-to move of all econometric models based on The Central Tendency), you’d predict a future VIX price of 19 or so.
     
     
    But that’s actually the least likely price outcome! The Fiscal Cliff outcome might be a policy surprise of government shutdown, resulting in a market bearish equilibrium (high VIX). Or it might be a policy surprise of government cooperation, resulting in a market bullish equilibrium (low VIX).
     
    But I can promise you that there was no possible outcome of the political game of Chicken between the White House and the Republican congressional caucus that would have resulted in a market “meh” equilibrium and a VIX of 19.

    If you want to read more about the Epsilon Theory perspective on polarized politics and the use of game theory to understand this dynamic, read “Inherent Vice”, “1914 Is the New Black”, and “The New TVA”.

  • Iraq May Seek "Direct Military Intervention From Russia" To Expel Turkish Troops

    Turkey just can’t seem to help itself when it comes to escalations in the Mid-East. 

    First, Erdogan intentionally reignited the conflict between Ankara and the PKK in an effort to scare the public into nullifying a democratic election outcome. Then, the Turks shot down a Russian warplane near the Syrian border. Finally, in what very well might be an effort to protect Islamic State oil smuggling routes, Erdogan sent 150 troops and two dozen tanks to Bashiqa, just northeast of Mosul in a move that has infuriated Baghdad. 

    We discussed the troop deployment at length on Saturday in “Did Turkey Just Invade Iraq To Protect Erdogan’s ISIS Oil Smuggling Routes?,” and you’re encouraged to review the analysis in its entirety, but here was our conclusion:

    The backlash underscores the fact that Iraq does not want help from NATO when it comes to fighting ISIS. Iraqis generally believe the US is in bed with Islamic State and you can bet that Russia and Iran will be keen on advising Baghdad to be exceptionally assertive when it comes to expelling a highly suspicious Turkish presence near Najma. 

    You’re reminded that Iran wields considerable influence both politically and militarily in Iraq. The Iraqi military has proven largely ineffective at defending the country against the ISIS advance and so, the Quds-backed Shiite militias including the Badr Organisation, Asaib Ahl al-Haq and Kataib Hezbollah have stepped in to fill the void (see our full account here).

    Of course that means that the Ayatollah looms large in Iraq and when it comes to loyalty, both the militias and a number of Iraqi lawmakers pledge allegiance to Tehran and more specifically to Qassem Soleimani. The point is this: Iran is not going to stand idly by and let America and Turkey put more boots on the ground in Iraq which is why just hours after Ash Carter announced that The Pentagon is set to send in more US SpecOps, Kataib Hezbollah threatened to hunt them down and kill them. Not coincidentally, PM Haider al-Abadi rejected a larger US troop presence just moments later. 

    Now, Abadi has given Turkey 48 hours to get its troops out of Iraq or else.

    Or else what?, you might ask. Well, or else Baghdad will appeal to the UN Security Council where Russia and China would likely support the Iraqi cause.

    But that’s a little too meek of a solution for some Iraqi politicians including Hakim al-Zamili, the head of Iraq’s parliamentary committee on security and defense who said on Sunday that Iraq “may soon ask Russia for direct military intervention in response to the Turkish invasion and the violation of Iraqi sovereignty.”

    “Iraq has the ability to repel these forces and drive them out of Iraqi territory. We could also request Russia to intervene militarily in Iraq in response to Turkish violation of Iraqi sovereignty,” he told Al-Araby al-Jadeed. 

    Well guess what? Hakim al-Zamili is a somebody.

    He was arrested in 2007 by Iraqi and American troops while holding a high ranking office in the Health Ministry. Zamili was charged with sending millions of dollars to Shiite militants who subsequently kidnapped and killed Iraqi civilians. Sunni civilians. More specifically, the US suspected Zamili “of using his position to run a rogue unit of the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia that claims loyalty to the cleric Moktada al-Sadr,” The New York Times reported at the time, adding that he was accused of “flooding the Health Ministry’s payroll with militants, embezzling American money meant to pay for Iraq’s overworked medical system and using Health Ministry ‘facilities and services for sectarian kidnapping and murder.”

    Here’s an interesting account from NPR ca. 2010, after parliamentary elections: 

    At Friday prayers yesterday in Baghdad’s Sadr City slum, one man in a gray suit seemed to attract as much attention as the preachers speaking over the P.A.

     

    After a sermon that praised both armed and political resistance to the occupation of Iraq, many from the crowd of thousands rushed up to the front to congratulate Hakim al-Zamili, who appears to have won a resounding mandate as a member of parliament from Baghdad.

     

    Though a celebrity here in Sadr City, many Iraqis call him a war criminal. Zamili was the deputy health minister during the ramp-up to Iraq’s civil war, and he’s accused of turning the ministry’s guards into a Shia death squad, kidnapping and killing hundreds of Sunnis. Another ministry official who denounced Zamili disappeared and is presumed dead.

     

    After being arrested and held over a year by the Americans, an Iraqi court acquitted Zamili after a brief trial.

     

    “If I were really involved in those crimes, the courts would have convicted me,” Zamili said. 

    Right.

    Anyway, the point is that as we’ve been saying for months, Shiite politicians along with Iran-backed militias now control Iraq, which has essentially been reduced to a colony of Tehran.

    There will be no unilateral decisions on the part of the US or Turkey to place troops in the country without pushback from Baghdad and everyone involved knows that when Baghdad pushes back, it means Iran disapproves.

    As Zamili’s warning makes clear, Iraq (and thereby Iran) won’t be shy about calling in the big guns from Moscow when they feel the situation demands it – and the militas won’t be shy about targeting the “invaders.”

    “Turkish interests in Iraq will now be a legitimate target because of Turkey’s assault on Iraqi territories,” Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada, one of the Shia militias of the Popular Mobilisation said in a statement. Similarly, Harakat al-Nujaba called Turkey “a terrorist state.” You’re reminded that these groups have a reputation for fearing no one other that Khamenei himself. Not the US, not Turkey, not ISIS, no one:

    We close with what Zamili said after the establishment of the Baghdad-based joint intelligence cell comprising officials from Iran, Russia, Syria, and Iraq: 

    “The idea is to formalize the relationship with Iran, Russia and Syria. We wanted a full-blown military alliance.”

    *  *  *

    Bonus color from ISW:

    The recent deployment into northern Iraq differs from past deployments in three ways. First, Turkey does not appear to have undertaken the action in order to contain the PKK directly, as there is no significant PKK activity in or around Bashiqa. The base is also located too far from other priority territory for the PKK, including Sinjar west of Mosul, to be used as an effective staging point for future operations against the PKK. Second, the Turkish battalion, deployed to an area within the Disputed Internal Boundaries (DIBs) – areas that have substantial Kurdish populations but remain outside of Iraqi Kurdistan. Turkey likely intends to support Barzani and the KDP in securing control over the DIBs while also positioning its own forces to better influence what forces participate in the future operation to recapture Mosul, formerly an ethnically diverse city including Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmen. Third, the Turkish deployment came only four days after Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced that additional U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) would deploy to Iraq to conduct raids and intelligence-gathering in Iraq and Syria, an announcement that generated denunciations from the Shi’a political parties and threats of no-confidence votes against the Prime Minister, forcing PM Abadi to reject publicly the presence of foreign ground troops in Iraq. The Turkish troops thus deployed at a particularly sensitive time. 

    Turkey also maintains close connections with key players in northern Iraq. Turkey has cooperated with Kurdistan Regional President Masoud Barzani since 2013, particularly over crude oil exports through the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline. Barzani and Turkey share a mutual distrust of the PKK, and the KDP currently competes with the PKK for control over Sinjar district. Turkey also possesses close relations with former Ninewa Province governor Atheel al-Nujaifi, who maintains a camp of former local police and Arab fighters in Bashiqa called the “National Mobilization.” Turkish support was essential for Atheel al-Nujaifi’s elevation to the Ninewa governorship in 2009. Finally, Turkey has close relations Osama al-Nujaifi, Atheel’s brother and the leader of the Sunni Etihad bloc in the Council of Representatives (CoR). Turkey will likely leverage these connections in order to secure greater control over what armed and political actors participate in operations to recapture Mosul. In particular, Turkey will likely support the Nujaifis over Sunni Arabs with whom Turkey has not cultivated relations.

    Turkey’s deployment of troops sparked strong rejection from the full spectrum of Iraqi political actors. Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi and Iraqi President Fuad Masoum strongly condemned the deployment as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty and demanded that Turkey conduct an immediate withdrawal. All major Shi’a parties denounced the deployment as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty, with a leading Sadrist official calling for Iraqi airstrikes on the Turkish force if it did not depart the country. Another pro-Maliki CoR member suggesting that “a Russian force” could intervene to expel the Turkish battalion.

    The U.S. will not likely press Turkey on the issue, as anonymous U.S. defense sources merely indicated that the U.S. was “aware” of Turkey’s intentions. Iranian proxy militias, however, could challenge Turkey elsewhere in the country. Iran likely ordered Iranian proxy militias to kidnap 18 Turkish construction workers on September 2 in order to pressure Turkey into ordering Turkish-backed rebels to cooperate with a ceasefire around the besieged Shi’a majority towns of Fu’ah and Kifriya in northern Syria. The kidnappings provided sufficient leverage against Turkey and the kidnapped workers were released after Syrian rebels enacted a local ceasefire. Iran could pursue similar actions against Turkish assets in Baghdad or in southern Iraq.

    This situation may escalate further if Iran views the deployment as threatening its vital strategic objectives in Iraq or Syria. Iran rejects any foreign forces other than their own on Iraqi soil and backs the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), Barzani’s rival in Iraqi Kurdish politics trying to contest his control over the Kurdistan regional presidency. Iranian proxies also recently sparred violently with the Peshmerga in Tuz Khurmato in eastern Salah al-Din proxies on November 12.

    Shi’a parties will use the episode to pressure PM Abadi to strongly reject foreign intervention, particularly if reports that Turkey and Barzani signed an agreement to establish a permanent Turkish base in Bashiqa are correct. These calls could complicate U.S. plans to additional Special Operations Forces (SOF) to Iraq to as a “specialized expeditionary targeting force” that will conduct raids and intelligence-gathering in Iraq and Syria.

  • BIS Warns The Fed Rate Hike May Unleash The Biggest Dollar Margin Call In History

    Over the past several months, one of the biggest conundrums stumping the financial community has been the record negative swap spread which we profiled first in September,  and which as Goldman most recently concluded, “has been driven by funding and balance sheet strains, especially since August.”

     

    Today, in its latest quarterly report, the Bank of International Settlement focused precisely on this latest market dislocation.  According to the central banks’ central bank, “recent quarters have witnessed unusual price relationships in fixed income markets. US dollar swap spreads (ie the difference between the rate on the fixed leg of a swap and the corresponding Treasury yield) have turned negative, moving in the opposite direction from euro swap spreads (Graph A, left-hand panel).”

    Given that counterparties in derivatives markets, typically banks, are less creditworthy than the government, swap rates are normally higher than Treasury yields because of the additional risk premium. Hence, the negative spreads point to a possible dislocation. One set of factors relates to supply and demand conditions in interest rate swap and Treasury bond markets. In the swap markets, forces that can compress swap rates include credit enhancements in swaps, hedging demand from corporate bond issuers, and investors seeking to lock in longer durations (eg insurers and pension funds) by securing fixed rates via swaps.

     

    In cash markets, in turn, upward pressures on yields stemmed from the recent sales of US Treasury securities by EME reserve managers. The market impact of these Treasury bond sales may have been amplified by a second set of factors that curb arbitrage and impede smooth market functioning. First, the capacity of dealers’ balance sheets to absorb rising inventory may have been overwhelmed by the amount of US Treasury bonds reaching the secondary market in the third quarter (Graph A, centre panel), causing dealers to bid market yields above the corresponding swap rates. Second, balance sheet constraints may have made it more costly for intermediaries to engage in the speculative arbitrage needed to restore a positive swap spread. Such arbitrage is sensitive to balance sheet costs because it requires leverage, with a long Treasury position funded in the repo market.

    Meanwhile, while US swap spreads hit record negative levels, in Europe the market tensions have been of a different nature:

    Ten-year swap spreads started to widen in early 2015, around the time when the Swiss National Bank abandoned its currency peg, then increased further over subsequent months (Graph A, left-hand panel). While past episodes of widening swap spreads can be attributed to credit risk in the banking sector, the most recent developments may have more to do with hedging by institutional investors. While swap rates also fell (Graph A, right-hand panel), the swap spread widened, indicating that cash market yields fell by even more. One possible explanation is that, as yields fall amid expectations of ECB asset  purchases, institutional investors with long-duration liabilities, such as insurers and pension funds, would have been under pressure to extend their asset portfolio duration by purchasing additional longer-dated bonds, possibly compressing market yields below the swap rates.

    And with cash markets rapidly depleting of physical inventory as a result of central bank monetization, investors have had to rely on derivatives markets, especially swaptions.

    In addition to extending portfolio duration by purchasing longer-dated bonds or entering a long-term interest rate swap as a fixed rate receiver, investors may also hedge the risk of steeply falling yields by purchasing options to enter a swap contract at a future date (swaptions). Hence, swaptions tend to become more expensive in times of stress and when investors rush to hedge duration risk.

     

    As 10-year swap rates were compressed in early 2015, the cost of such options written on euro swap rates rose by a factor of three by 20 April 2015 (Graph B, left-hand panel). Steeply rising euro rate hedging costs preceded the actual correction in yields, which started rebounding around the weekend of 18 April culminating in the so-called bund tantrum. This suggests that this year’s turbulence in fixed income markets may have had its origins in derivatives and hedging activity, with reduced market depth in cash markets exacerbating the spillover.

    Why is there reduced market depth in cash markets? Simple: because of central banks intervention and soaking up of securities. So what the BIS is effectively saying is that as a result of central bank activity, investors have been forced to transact increasingly in the derivative arena as a result of which events like the Bund flash smash from April led to major market losses for those long Bund duration in either cash or derivative markets. Since then, volatility in European government bond markets has persisted culminating with the surge in yields this past Thursday in the aftermath of the ECB’s dramatic and extensively discussed here previously “disappointment.”

    The BIS’ conclusion:

    Such volatile movements in euro area interest rate derivatives markets raise questions about smooth pricing responses in the face of possibly transient order imbalances. Of question is liquidity in hedging markets and the capacity of traditional options writers, such as banks, to provide adequate counterparty services to institutional hedgers. Looking back at the events of late April, the rise in demand to receive fixed rate payments via swaps by institutional hedgers may have run into a lack of counterparties willing to receive floating (pay fixed) rates amid sharply falling market yields. The emergence of one-sided hedging demand pressures can be gleaned from the skew in swaption pricing (Graph B, centre and right-hand panels). The skew observed for euro rates approaching the bund tantrum resembled the developments in US dollar rates in December 2008, when US pension funds rushed to hedge interest rate risk via swaptions as market yields tumbled.

    But while the swap dislocation in the bond market can be attributed to anything from market illiquidity, to a shortage of cash market product, to lack of willing counterparties, to HFTs, and ultimately, to encroaching central bank intervention – something we have been warnings about since 2012 – perhaps an even more important question to emerge when observing broken swap markets are recent development in FX basis swaps.

    Recall our coverage of one particular and very prominent dislocation in the space, one which we covered first in March and then again in October when we noted that the “Global Dollar Funding Shortage Intesifies To Worst Level Since 2012“.

    This is how JPM explained most recently the phenomenon which can simply be ascribed to a global dollar funding shortage:

    continued monetary policy divergence between the US and the rest of the world as well as retrenchment of EM corporates from dollar funding markets are sustaining an imbalance in funding markets making it likely that the current episode of dollar funding shortage will persist.

    The BIS also touched on this topic in its quarterly review, when it picked up the “policy divergence” torch from JPM and describing the ongoing USD funding shortage as follows:

    The increased likelihood of policy divergence between the US, the euro area and other major currency areas also rippled through global US dollar funding markets. Historically, cross-currency basis swap spreads – a measure of tensions in global funding markets – were virtually zero, consistent with the absence of arbitrage opportunities. Since 2008, the basis has widened repeatedly in favour of the US dollar lender, ie there is a higher cost for borrowing in dollars than in other currencies even after hedging the corresponding foreign exchange risk – conventionally recorded on a negative basis (Graph 5, left-hand panel). As such, negative basis swap spreads indicate the absence of arbitrageurs to meet heightened demand for US dollar liquidity.

    Visually:

    To be sure, our readers were aware of this implication of diverging monetary policy. However, thanks to the BIS, we now can add a quantitative dimension to what until recently what mostly a qualitative problem: i.e., how much is the dollar shortage as implied by the near record negative USDJPY currency basis swap spreads.

    The US dollar premium in FX swap markets widened substantially – in particular vis-à-vis the Japanese yen – after the odds of Fed tightening reached 70%. At the end of November, the basis swap spread of the Japanese yen versus the US dollar was minus 90 basis points, possibly reflecting in part the more than $300 billion US dollar funding gap at Japanese banks.

    The BIS does its best not to sound the alarm at this stunning observation:

    While funding continued to be available, such a large negative basis indicates potential market dislocations. And this may call into question how smoothly US dollar funding conditions will adjust in the event of an increase in US onshore interest rates. Similar pricing anomalies have also emerged in interest rate swap markets recently, raising related concerns.

    Indeed, once the Fed does hike rates as it now seems almost certain it will do in 10 days time, we will find out just how profound the USD funding shortage truly is. Readers may recall that in 2009 we cited a BIS report which said that “were all liabilities to non-banks treated as short-term funding, the upper-bound estimate [of the dollar short] would be $6.5 trillion”.

     

    This time around, as a result of the dramatic increase in USD-funded debt around the globe in the past 5 years, it will certainly be far greater.

    And, as a further reminder, the last time a global USD margin call was launched with the failure of Lehman, the Fed had to unleash an unprecedented global bailout by way of virtually limitless swap lines opened with every central bank that has a shortfall in USD exposure.

     

    As a result, our only question for the upcoming Fed rate hike is how long it will take before the Fed, shortly after increasing rates by a modest 25 bps to “prove” to itself if not so much anyone else that the US economy is fine, will be forced to mainline trillions of dollars around the globe via swap lines for the second time in a row as the world experiences the biggest USD margin call in history.

  • An Open Letter Calling For The Resignation Of Saudi-Sympathizing Politicians

    Submitted by SM Gibson via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Whether you are Nobel Peace Prize recipient Barack Obama or unabashed warmonger John McCain, if you hold a federally elected office in the United States and are calling for more military action in the Middle East without first addressing the crimes against humanity carried out by Saudi Arabia, you are a fraud and should resign – effective immediately.

    I don’t mean resign next week or later today. I mean now. Stop what you’re doing, write out a letter (or get a staff member to write one for you), and give a press conference. I don’t care how you do it — just resign. Don’t put your name on the ballot for another term in Congress, don’t seek higher office, and certainly don’t run for president. Stop the charade. You do not represent your constituents. You are a disgrace. Resign.

    Why do you glorify spending our tax dollars on establishing a military presence in Syria and Iraq for your stated purpose of obliterating ISIS – a group of ‘radical Muslims’ who barbarically behead human beings — all while the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has been responsible for at least 152 public beheadings of their own since January 1, 2015? If you don’t consider a nation that sentences a man to decapitation for writing love poems (which Saudi Arabia recently did) to be “radical,” then you are deranged. Why do one group’s human rights violations warrant swift military action while another group that commits the same transgressions is heralded as an ally?

    How stupid do you think “we the people” are?

    The world can see you smiling through your scowl as we become wise to the fact that you are using the instability created by ISIS as an excuse to overthrow Assad.

    You may retort that President Obama has repeatedly stated there will be no boots on the ground in Syria (even though there have been) — and how dare I claim that ISIS is being used as a tool for American interests? Aside from the 44th president’s words not being worth much, Obama has advanced the U.S. government’s policy to train and arm “moderate” Syrian rebels in the region — while simultaneously launching airstrikes on their behalf. You and I both know this practice has undeniably resulted in the perpetual arming and strengthening of ISIS. And since it is no secret that the U.S. wants Bashar al-Assad out of power as the leader of Syria, it is glaringly obvious you are willing to tolerate a few radical jihadis running amok over in the Middle East as long as your interests are served as a result of their presence. Although we can agree Assad is a dictator who has committed many ruthless acts of his own, we both know this is not why you wish for him to be ousted, nor is it a legitimate reason to overthrow the Syrian government.

    If any of you truly cared about ending atrocity and oppression, you would be speaking out against the vicious Saudi regime. Instead, you welcomed King Salman with open arms in September when he and his entourage rented out all 222 rooms of the elegant and costly Georgetown Four Seasons during an official state visit to meet with President Obama at the White House. You allowed the Pentagon to honor King Abdullah at the time of his passing in January, when the DoD sponsored an essay contest as a “tribute to the life and leadership” of the brutal monarch. Instead, you stay quiet as Saudi Arabia is elected to chair the UN Human Rights Council (a decision beyond ludicrous). Instead, you remain silent as the U.S. State Department approves the sale of $1.3 billion worth of air-to-ground munitions, such as laser-guided bombs and “general purpose” bombs, to the kingdom just last month — not to mention the $90 billion worth of Saudi arms sales you approved between 2010 and 2015.

    What is Saudi Arabia doing with the legions of weapons you are supplying to them? They are using them on civilians. Of the 5,700 people killed in Yemen by Saudi-led forces since March 26, over 2,500 have been civilians, including 830 women and children, according to the United Nations.

    In October, KSA threatened its own citizens with the death penalty for spreading ‘rumors’ about the government on social media. The kingdom also recently sentenced multiple activists to death by crucifixion for protesting — including 20-year-old Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, who was 17 at the time of his arrest.

    Also, you know how you have used “9/11″ as an excuse to carry out every single one of your constitutional shredding whims over the past 14 years? You are aware the government says 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi nationals, right? Your response? Invade Iraq — a country that had nothing to do with the attacks. Meanwhile, the Saudi royal family enjoyed a day out on the farm with George W. Bush at his Crawford, Texas ranch.

    You have also helped block the release of 28 redacted pages from a congressional intelligence report said to contain damning information implicating Saudi complicity in the attacks on 9/11. And of course, you use the tired line of “national security” to keep those pages suppressed . . . because 9/11, of course. Can you see the irony here?

    Republicans, you love to find reasons to scold the president, but I have never once heard one of you criticize him for accepting around $1.35 million in gifts from the kingdom in 2014. That’s probably because you would have taken it, too.

    How about the front-running Democratic nominee for president of the United States, Hillary Clinton? You, too, are someone who has benefitted greatly from a relationship with Saudi Arabia.

    According to Mother Jones:

    “In 2011, the State Department cleared an enormous arms deal: Led by Boeing, a consortium of American defense contractors would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns over the kingdom’s troublesome human rights record. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation.”

    Although you don’t currently hold office, Hillary, you should hold yourself accountable (yeah, fat chance) and drop out of the race. And you should do it today.

    We both know the Saudi Arabian Embassy keeps Tony Podesta, the brother of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, on retainer. Podesta is head of one of the largest Republican Super PACs in the U.S. and chairs a law firm with deep ties to the Obama administration. Ignacio Sanchez, one of Jeb Bush’s top fundraisers, also lobbies on behalf of the Saudi Kingdom. But you don’t see a conflict of interest, I’m sure.

    During King Salman’s visit in September, the Kingdom helped sponsor lavish galas at Washington’s Ritz Carlton and the Andrew Mellon Auditorium. These affairs were attended by chief executives of Lockheed Martin and General Electric, as well as the chairman of Marriott International. Do you see a problem, yet? At all?

    How about Qorvis, the PR firm that has openly worked for the Saudis since, ironically, a few months after 9/11. They must do something for the $7 million they received from the Saudi government between April and September of this year alone. How much influence does that purchase? The $2,000 Qorvis paid to former Republican congressman Mark Kennedy for a speaking engagement is nothing compared to what is spent to garner airtime on cable news networks — something Saudi officials have been doing more and more regularly.

    Politicians who hypocritically align themselves with figures as merciless as those they publicly rebuke have shown themselves to be untrustworthy. They should represent no one. Working alongside the Saudis while bombing other countries for similar actions demonstrates your shameful willingness to go along with whatever self-serving agenda is presented to you. You were for sale but now have sold, and the time has arrived for you to pay up.

    Should you continue your flagrant support of Saudi Arabia by way of foreign aid and weapons sales, you are no longer to be trusted to hold an elected position of influence. You should therefore resign, effective immediately.

    The question is: Is your allegiance to the people of the United States, or are you beholden to another kingdom?

    A petition has been started requesting the resignation of every single federally elected U.S.official continuing to support the brutal Saudi regime. You can add your name in support here.

  • Previewing Obama's 8:00 PM Speech On Gun Control

    Two days ago we reported that in the aftermath of the San Bernardino mass shooting, two democrats had emerged with diametrically opposing proposals how to respond to the resurgent threat of domestic terrorism: one, a Sheriff in an uptown New York state county proposed that all handgun owners who are licensed to carry, should “PLEASE DO SO” in order to prevent future terrorist incidents; while another, New York City mayor de Blasio urged the city’s pension funds to divest their holdings in stocks of US gunmakers.

    As we concluded then, “these two dramatically opposing reactions to the same “terrorist” event, which one can claim the US brought on itself with the CIA’s creation of the Islamic State as a clandestine method to overthrow Syria’s president al Assad, and by two people who are both democrats, shows just how ridiculous the gun control debate is set to become in the coming days.”

    But more importantly, we said that at this point, “if we had to forecast the final outcome, we would say that just as we accurately predicted the terrorist events in Paris two months earlier, so this time the “terrorist attacks” together with comprehensive 24/7 TV coverage, in the US will get worse and worse until one of two things happen, if not both: the NSA will see all of its surveillance powers reinstated legally in the coming months, while the US will see increasingly more escalating “attacks” until ultimately Obama’s crackdown on gun sales and possession hits its breaking point and the president’s gun confiscation mandate is finally executed. We hope we are wrong.”

    Not even 24 hours later the New York Times confirmed that the push for gun control is about to take a major leg higher with its first front-page Op-Ed since 1920 in which it called to “End the Gun Epidemic in America.”

    Parallel to that, the NSA went on a “passive-aggressive” marketing campaign yesterday when the AP reported that the U.S. government‘s ability to review and analyze five years’ worth of telephone records for the married couple blamed in the deadly shootings in California lapsed just four days earlier when the National Security Agency’s controversial mass surveillance program was formally shut down.

    As the AP added, under a court order, those historical calling records at the NSA are now off-limits to agents running the FBI terrorism investigation even with a warrant.  Instead, under the new USA Freedom Act, authorities were able to obtain roughly two years’ worth of calling records directly from the phone companies of the married couple blamed in the attack. The period covered the entire time that the wife, Tashfeen Malik, lived in the United States, although her husband, Syed Farook, had been here much longer. She moved from Pakistan to the U.S. in July 2014 and married Farook the following month. He was born in Chicago in 1987 and raised in southern California.

    And while FBI Director James Comey declined to say Friday whether the NSA program’s shutdown affected the government’s terrorism investigation in California, the implications was clear: if the American people want “safety from terrorism”, they better say goodbye to privacy, and restore the NSA in the process.

    We are confident that this will happen one way or another, and that quite soon even though the most token of inquiry would reveal that the NSA’s entire premise is nothing but a lie:

    However, the biggest validation of our prediction for a major escalation in Obama’s crackdown against gun sales and ownership came from Obama himself which last night announced that Obama would hold an impromptu address to the nation at 8:00 pm on the “threat of terrorism and keeping the American people safe.” Translation: another surge in gun sales is imminent as fears of gun confiscation rise to unprecedented heights.

    What will Obama say?  In an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch gave advance hints about the remarks President Barack Obama will make when he speaks to the country Sunday evening about the recent terrorist attack in San Bernardino.

    “What you’re going to hear from him is a discussion about what government is doing to ensure all of our highest priority — the protection of the American people,” the attorney general said.

    She also said that he’ll speak on the actions the United States has taken to keep the homeland safe since the attacks in Paris last month. But there will be an element of politics to the speech. President Obama will do more than just call for calm, he will ask “Congress to review measures and take action.”

    Lynch’s staff later confirmed that the president will specifically call on Congress to review certain gun control measures.

    And since Congress has long ago given up on taking action in a world in which the Fed’s Chairman/woman is expected to “get to work“, it will again be up to an Obama executive order to restore peace to the land by continuing his crusade against the Second amendment.

    In short, the latest steps in Obama’s crusade to disarm the US and make even legal purchases of guns as difficult as possible, even though limiting the legal means of purchasing guns will have absolutely no impact on gun violence in the US – for the perpetual case study, see Chicago. That, however, does not mean that Obama won’t try or succeed.

    That said, while the content of Obama’s speech may now be well known, what will likely be the entertainment highlight of the night is not Obama as much as the man who remains the biggest “Republican” contender for the role of Obama’s successor: Donald Trump, who has promised to heckle Obama’s entire speech even before it begins.

  • Turkey Detains Russian Ships In Black Sea, Blasts Moscow For Brandishing Rocket Launcher In Strait

    Exactly a week ago, we warned that Turkey does have one trump card when it comes to dealing with an angry Russian bear that’s hell bent on making life miserable for Ankara in the wake of Erdogan’s brazen move to shoot down a Russian Su-24 near the Syrian border. Turkey, we explained, could move to close the Bosphorus Strait, cutting one of Moscow’s key supply lines to Latakia. 

    We went on to explain, that such a move would probably be illegal based on the 1936 Montreux Convention, but as Sputnik noted, “in times of war, the passage of warships shall be left entirely to the discretion of the Turkish government.” 

    Obviously, Turkey and Russia haven’t formally declared war on one another, but the plane “incident” marked the first time a NATO member has engaged a Russian or Soviet aircraft in more than six decades and given the gravity of that escalation, one would hardly put it past Erdogan to start interfering with Moscow’s warships, especially if it means delaying their arrival in Syria where the Russians are on the verge of restoring an Assad government that’s Turkey despises. 

    Well sure enough, the tit-for-tat mutual escalation that’s ensued since the Su-24 crash has spilled over into the maritime arena with Moscow and Ankara detaining each other’s ships. 

    After five Turkish vessels were held at the port of Novorossiysk for “inspections,” Turkey retaliated on Friday by holding four Russian ships at the Black Sea port of Samsun. The following table reveals a hilarious list of the Russian vessels’ alleged infractions which apparently include fire safety violations, pollution prevention violations, and problems with “life saving appliances.”:

    One of the vessels – the cargo ship Crystal – has yet to be released. 

    “Six ships with a Russian flag were checked at Samsun Port on Dec. 5. The ships were found to be in compliance with Port State Control (PSC) rules, a series of international standards that all ships are required to meet, but some problems were subsequently detected in four of the ships,” Hurriyet says, adding that “three of the ships consequently met the requirements and were permitted to leave, but the remaining vessel has not yet been permitted to depart.” 

    The Crystal apparently lacks the “required documents.”

    Obviously, Russia and Turkey are engaged in a bit of petty mutual escalation here, but it’s worth noting that Samsun isn’t far from the Bosphorus: 

    And while Turkey now appears content to harrass Russian cargo vessels, one shouldn’t discount the possibility that Erodgan will look to do something more provocative now that it looks like the UN will ultimately be dragged into the ISIS oil smuggling debate. 

    Indeed, Moscow seems to be taking the Bosphorus issue quite seriously because as Hurriyet reported just hours ago, when the Russian warship Caesar Kunikov made its way through the strait on Saturday, a Russian soldier stood on deck with a shoulder ground-to-air missile at the ready. 

    Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu’s response: “For a Russian soldier to display a rocket launcher or something similar while passing on a Russian warship is a provocation. If we perceive a threatening situation, we will give the necessary response.”” Indeed.

    And meanwhile, three NATO warships have dropped anchor off Istanbul’s Sarayburnu coast: Portugal’s F-334 NRP Francisco de Almeida, Spain’s F-105 ESPS Blaz de Lezo, and Canada’s FFG-338 HMCS Winnipeg.

    Source: Bosphorus Naval News

  • Extreme Gold Positioning Grows As Hedge Funds Add To Record Shorts

    With an all time high of 293 ounces of paper per ounce of registered physical gold

     

    …it appears hedge funds continue to ignore systemic risk and surging physical demand, following the trend lower in paper gold prices by adding to already record short positions in gold last week. With the speculative world near-record long the USDollar and record short gold, how much longer can the status quo boat can remain upright with so many on the same side.

     

    The normal market position is for speculators, such as hedge funds, to be net long, averaging about 110,000 contracts. But as GoldMoney details,

    Only twice since the Commitment of Traders disaggregated data has been made available has this condition not been true: last July and today. The market's sentiment is indeed at an extreme, making the paper markets vulnerable to a sharp correction of trend. The problem, as with all bubbles, is that we know this must end soon and violently, but we don't know at what level prices will revert.

     

    Meanwhile, demand for physical metal notches up on every markdown. The reason this can occur and prices still fall is that there is a large body of above-ground stock in vaults to draw down. However, the stock in western vaults has been depleted by accelerating Asian demand, far in excess of the sum of mine production and scrap. Since 2011, the Chinese public alone have taken delivery of 8,645 tonnes of gold, during which time annual demand has more than doubled.

     

    It is important to note that Asian buyers are savers, rather than investors. This distinction is crucial: a saver invests for the long-term and is only interested in value. Investors nowadays are interested in a shorter time horizon, are generally unconcerned with value, and will only buy into a rising trend.

    Furthermore, as Acting-Man.com's Pater Tenebrarum explains, even while gold’s fundamental price according to Keith Weiner’s calculations (in which he compares spot to futures prices) stands some $140 above the current market price (as of the end of last week), futures market speculators have turned more bearish on gold than at any time in the past 13 years.

     

    BN-ID143_0428cm_J_20150428110208

    When there is great unanimity among traders about a market’s direction, they are very often going to be proved wrong – at least in the short to medium term (i.e., over time periods lasting from weeks to months). The caveat is that even more pronounced positioning extremes have occurred in a few short time periods during the 1980s and the 1990s, and there is obviously no law that says this cannot happen again.

     

    1-Gol CoT-1

    Last week, the smallest net speculative long position since January of 2002 was reported (this chart shows the net hedger position, which is the inverse of the net speculative position) – click to enlarge.

     

    However, it is still quite noteworthy that speculators as a group are more bearish on gold today than they were at the lows of its 20 year long secular bear market in 1999-2000. This definitely means one thing: once a rally does get underway, there is going to be a lot of fuel to support it as this extreme in pessimism unwinds. Gold stocks meanwhile continue to diverge positively from gold and silver, just as they have exhibited persistent negative divergences near the 2011 – 2012 highs.

    Here are a few more charts illustrating the current situation; first different ways of charting the net positions of speculators and hedgers:

     

    2-Net Positions

    Net speculator and hedger positions, as well as open interest in bar chart form – click to enlarge.

     

    The next chart shows the very same thing, but trader positions are further dehomogenized, with small and large speculators as well as hedgers shown separately in a line chart. Open interest is charted as a line as well. Open interest in COMEX gold futures is actually historically quite large at the moment.

     

    3-Net positions and OI

    Gold futures market positioning dehomogenized further – click to enlarge.

     

    The Bullish Consensus Compared to the 1999-2000 Lows

    Sentimentrader has created the so-called Optimism Index, or Optix for short, which is an average of the most popular and well-known sentiment surveys and positioning data. From the web site’s description of the indicator:

    “To calculate this gauge of public opinion, we have created an index based on many of the established surveys currently in existence, some of which are noted below, along with other measures of sentiment, such as from the options and futures markets. The combination of that data is the foundation of the Optimism Index, or Optix.

     

    No matter what population the survey monitors, it tends to correlate very highly with all the other populations. People tend to think alike, and it’s rare to see any of the surveys diverge too far from all the others. The correlations among them are very high, and have been consistently so for many years.

     

    Like most sentiment data, this one is a contrary indicator. When optimism becomes too high, we should look for prices to stall out or decline; when it is too low, we should look for rallies.

     

    When the Optix moves above the red dotted line in the chart, it means that compared to other readings, we’re seeing a statistically extreme value. The bands are based on the past few years of trading, but you also want to look at the absolute level – if it’s at 90%, then there’s no question we’re seeing an historic level of bullish opinion. Watch for readings above 80% (or especially 90%) to spot those dangerous times when the public is overly enthusiastic about a commodity.

     

    Conversely, when the Optix moves below the green dotted line, then the public is too pessimistic about the commodity’s prospects for further gains compared to their opinion over the past year. Looking for absolute readings under 20% (or especially 10%) can lead to good longer-term buying opportunities.”

     

    4-Gold Optix

    The Gold Optix readings since mid 2013 are among the lowest in history. On average they are far more extreme than those recorded at the secular bear market lows in 1999-2000. The most recent reading showing bullish consensus of a mere 14% is only 6 points above the all time low recorded in late 1997 and lower than any of the readings of the 1999-2000 period (the absolute low in that time period was seen in late February 2001 and stood at 16%) – click to enlarge.

     

    As you can see, the recent period has been one of quite persistent and extreme pessimism. Since sentiment is largely a function of price movements, one must of course not overestimate its meaningfulness. However, one thing is certain: rare and noteworthy extremes tend to at least have short to medium term significance. Once a long string of extreme readings has been recorded, the probability that they will prove to be of long term importance rises strongly.

    This is especially so given the fact that gold is currently approaching an important technical support area in the $1,040 to $1,050 region (the March 2008 high). Moreover, there are actually many parallels to the 1999-2000 period, most notable among them a rising stock market combined with ever greater weakness in junk bonds, a tightening Fed and concomitant dollar strength, and a flattening yield curve.

     

    5-yield curve

    The flattening yield curve, illustrated by the ratio between 10 and 2 year treasury note yields. In the short term, this flattening is actually quite bearish for gold, but at the same time it is actually long term bullish. This is so because it will ultimately trip up the echo boom and the economic recovery (such as it is), and bring about a reversal of the Fed’s current monetary policy stance – click to enlarge.

     

    The next chart shows what has happened in terms of Fed policy and the dollar in 1999-2000 compared to 2014-2015. This may be helpful in terms of providing a potential road-map:

     

    6-dollar index vs. gold

    Fed policy, the dollar and gold in 1999-2000 vs. 2014-2015 – click to enlarge.

     

    Conclusion: As we have pointed out on previous occasions, it is time for both traders and investors to pay very close attention to this market. What could turn out to be a major opportunity is slowly but surely taking shape.

    *  *  *

    After this week's shake-out of USD longs courtesy of Draghi, one wonders if the gold squeeze is about to begin?

  • ISIS Makes Major Move In Yemen, Assassinates Aden's Governor After Executing Two Dozen Houthis

    One point we’ve been keen on driving home as the war in Syria intensifies is that while the sheer number of combatants and the overt involvement of at least seven world powers certainly means that among the many conflicts raging in the Mid-East, the war in Syria is the fight that matters most for the non-Arab world, it’s important not to miss the forest for the trees.

    That is, it’s critical to see the bigger picture here, and that entails understanding how Syria is related to the conflicts raging in Iraq, Yemen, and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. Iran is determined to expand its regional influence. Tehran is the power broker in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon and it’s no coincidence that the Houthis in Yemen are backed by the Iranians and neither is it a coincidence that Iran is rumored to be funneling weapons and money to its old enemy the Taliban in Afghanistan. This is about checking the spread of Sunni extremism and, concurrently, curtailing and diminishing Saudi influence. While Iran and the Taliban make for strange bedfellows (the militants are, after all, Sunni extremists), Tehran is determined to check the spread of Islamic State and with the IRGC, Hezbollah, and the Quds-controlled Shiite militias already fighting ISIS on two fronts (Syria and Iraq), the Ayatollah isn’t particularly thrilled about the prospect of an expanded ISIS presence on its eastern border. Supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan (with whom Iran nearly went to war in 1998), should help to check ISIS gains in the country and has the added benefit of keeping the US off guard which itself speaks to how quickly alliances can change as it was just 12 years ago that Iran assisted the US in picking Taliban and al-Qaeda targets (read more here).

    As for ISIS, the official line is that everyone is an enemy. The Taliban are led by “illiterate warlords,” al-Qaeda are “a bunch of donkeys”, the Houthis are heretics as are the Iranians, the Saudis are just plain in the way in Yemen, and everyone else is an infidel. Of course there’s no telling what the group’s leadership really thinks given the support they undoubtedly receive from any number of states governed by “nonbelievers,” but we’ll leave that aside for now. 

    Ok, so why are we telling you this? Because on Sunday, ISIS killed the governor of the Yemeni port city of Aden in what amounts to the group’s most brazen attack in the country to date. As WSJ reports, “in a statement distributed on social media and translated by the extremist-tracking SITE Intelligence Group, an Aden-based branch of Islamic State claimed responsibility for a suicide car bomb that killed governor Jaafar Saad and several of his guards as his convoy traveled through the city.”

    Sunday’s explosion could be heard about 10 km (seven miles) away,” Reuters reports. “Medics said the body of Saad and the others who were killed were burned beyond recognition.”

    In a statement ISIS said it detonated a car packed with explosives as Saad’s convoy drove by. The group promised more operations against “the heads of apostasy in Yemen”. Here’s the statement:

    Recall that Aden was a major battleground during the spring and it was also the site of China’s first naval rescue operation involving foreign nationals. The Houthis nearly took control of the city earlier this year after driving President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi out of the country, but a summer offensive by the Saudi-led, UAE- and Qatar- assisted coalition drove the rebels back. Now, the coalition wants to retake San’a. 

    As WSJ goes on to note, “Mr. Saad, a major general in Yemen’s army, was a prominent figure among pro-Saudi forces in Aden before his appointment as governor in October.” Here’s a bit more color: 

    Islamic State and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, have both exploited the instability to carry out attacks and make territorial gains.

     

    Numerous Islamic State branches have sprouted since the Saudi campaign began. Twin attacks by Islamic State militants on Houthi mosques in San’a killed more than 140 people in March.

     

    Islamic State attacks have targeted the Houthis and the Saudi coalition, both of which the group considers enemies.

    This comes just days after Wilayat Aden Abyan (you can identify the origin of ISIS videos by whatever comes after the word “Wilayat” in the introduction that always precedes the clip) released a video depicting the execution of around two dozen Houthis.

    We’ll spare you the footage, but here are some screenshots that should give you a decent idea of the fate that befell the men.

    What this suggests is that ISIS is now set to expand its influence in Yemen. Remember, the country’s proxy war is really no different in character to what’s going on in Syria. The distinction is that in Yemen, Iran is fighting via proxy while the Saudis and Qatar are there in person while in Syria, Iran has boots on the ground while the Saudis and Qatar are fighting via proxies.

    Of course one of Riyadh and Doha’s proxies in the Syrian conflict is ISIS, and as mentioned above, the group is now targeting the Saudi coalition’s support base in Aden which would seem to indicate – and this is a colorful metaphor we’ve used before – that this is but another example of Frankenstein breaking out of the lab and attacking its creators. Whether or not an expanded ISIS presence in Yemen will benefit the Saudi cause largely depends on whether the Houthis become Islamic State’s main target in the country, or whether they intend to wage a protracted war against pro-Hadi forces.

    Given the sectarian divide, we’re inclined to believe that the Houthis will get the worst of this and that’s just fine with Riyadh and Doha as anything that weakens Iran’s proxies helps to restore Hadi by default.

    And you never know, it could be that much like the cost of destabilizing Assad involves the loss of civilian lives in places like Paris and in the skies over the Sinai Peninsula, the cost of having one more anti-Houthi force on the ground in Yemen is that occasionally a few pro-Hadi government officials end up vaporized in a car bombing, because at the end of the day, covertly supporting groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda (who of course are also operating in Yemen) is a bit like raising tigers as pets – you can foster quite a bit of loyalty over time, but there’s always a chance they might kill you.

  • France's Far-Right Party Leads Regional Elections With Unprecedented 30%-Plus Of Votes

    As we warned last week, Europe is about to change forever, and sure enough, Marine Le Pen's National Front party is on course for a historic result in regional elections on Sunday, winning more than 30 per cent of the vote and leading the country’s two mainstream parties. Our words from the day after the Paris attacks, when Le Pen called for "eradication" of Muslims and demanded the nation "re-arm itself," seem extraordinarlity prophetic now "if there is one 'winner' from last night's terrible events in Paris, it is France's anti-EU, anti-immigration far-right wing Front Nationale party leader Marine Le Pen."

     

    As Bloomberg headlines show, exit polls have FN in a significant lead…

    • *NATIONAL FRONT LEADS FRENCH REGIONAL VOTE, IPSOS SAYS
    • *FRANCE'S NATIONAL FRONT TAKES 30.8% OF NATIONAL VOTE: IFOP
    • *FRANCE'S REPUBLICANS TAKE 27.2% OF NATIONAL VOTE: IFOP
    • *FRANCE'S SOCIALIST PARTY TAKES 22.7% OF NATIONAL VOTE: IFOP

    Le Pen is over the moon…

           As The FT reports,   in the first test of public opinion since the November 13 terrorist attacks, Marine Le Pen’s anti-immigration party looked set to notch up its best result since it was founded in 1972…

    President François Hollande’s Socialists and leftwing allies had just 22.3 per cent of the vote while former president Nicolas Sarkozy’s centre-right bloc had 26.4 per cent, according to the preliminary figures.

     

    Victory in at least one of France’s 13 regions – definitive results will only be known after next Sunday’s second-round vote – would be a first for the FN, helping to build momentum as it looks to the 2017 presidential contest.

     

    Opinion polls before the vote suggested the party could come top in as many as six of France’s 13 regions in Sunday’s first round.

     

    The election, to be completed in a second round next Sunday, will decide the make-up of regional governments, which have power over issues such as local transport, airports, ports and some schools.

    The result provides a sense of the national political mood barely 18 months before the presidential election.

    “Taking control of even a single region in these elections would be an unprecedented achievement,” said James Shields, professor of French politics at Aston University.

    “This is the first test of public political opinion since the terrorist attacks of 13 November. It’s also the last opportunity to gauge the standing of political parties and potential candidates some 16 months before the critical presidential elections of 2017.

    “Though essentially about regional governance, these elections are important as a barometer of the political climate in France as we begin to near the end of President Hollande’s term of office.”

    Mr Hollande, whose Socialist party holds 12 of the 13 regions, has seen his popularity rise from record lows since the attacks… but Le Pen's success will force an uncomfortable alliance…

    *  *  *

    Founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen in 1972, the FN has long been associated with anti-Semitism. As recently as April this year, Mr Le Pen, father of Marine, sparked a family feud as he defended a past comment that Nazi gas chambers were “a detail” of history.

    But Ms Le Pen, the party’s leader since 2011, has tried to “detoxify” the FN’s image and to bring it more into the mainstream. As part of that process, she has started to push other policies such as abandoning the euro in favour of the franc and giving the state an even bigger role as a promoter — and protector — of national industry. Those ideas have gone down well in a country where economic growth has remained sluggish in recent years, and where unemployment is at record highs. The FN’s popularity has soared in the north of the country, an industrial region particularly affected by France’s economic plight.

    As is clear below…

    Le Pen leads among France's top politicians…

     

    And she is gaining further…

  • Central Banks Continue To Rule Equity And Commodity Markets

    Submitted by Leonard Brecken via OilPrice.com,

    First, let’s review 2015 to see what could occur in 2016. What was most noteworthy was the continuation of investor focus on central bank interventions vs. fundamentals across all asset classes. That focus has continued since the 2008 crisis and if anything has gotten worse.

    The overall theme as a result has been: long high-risk, high-beta such as technology/biotech and short commodities, which accelerated beginning last year when the Fed signaled its desire to raise rates and refrain from more QE, as it allowed the EU and Japan to take lead on QE.

    The so-called China “crisis” last summer ended like every other crisis – largely seen as a day trading event that quickly became ignored as focus shifted back to what central bank polices will be. Chinese authorities basically strong armed markets from collapsing by imposing trading restrictions.

    Buy the dip theme continued to be the favored course despite deteriorating macroeconomics as U.S. retail spending, manufacturing, trade and capital expenditures all markedly slowed, as did the overall U.S. GDP and global GDP for that matter.

    Markets started the year expecting 3 percent GDP in the 2nd half of 2015 but are now likely to end below 2 percent, yet financial markets are near highs mostly driven by large cap names (FANG – Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google—45X P/E combined!).

    Credit markets largely deteriorated as well, especially in high-yield, which declined some 20 percent on an average. Access to credit became increasingly hard to come by for the energy sector as banks tightened their policies. The energy sector saw a 50 percent decline in debt issuance throughout Q3.

    We also sensed that private equity also got tighter due to the ongoing fiasco at SunEdison, which witnessed a 90 percent plunge in its share price. Investors finally realized that their debt/equity at 600 percent was unsustainable and questioned their ability to sell projects off to private equity to finance its business.

    Surprisingly enough, this event was largely ignored in the clean energy-biased media while energy default risk was all the rage. In energy we witnessed what looks like the start of an inventory and overall production decline, although the contraction has stalled a bit due to some seasonal factors.

    Demand remained at five-year highs despite focus on absolute inventory levels. OPEC added to the existing supply pressure by adding over 1 million barrels per day (mb/d) since mid-2014, and the pending return of Iran to global oil markets following the nuclear deal also raises supply questions.

    All of which translated to NYMEX futures net positions of front month remaining net-short and bearish as ever. Oil prices as a result continued to decline but hold above $40, eclipsing the longest period (even as compared to the 1986 crisis) on length of time for price recovery.

    The main driver on the price pressure comes from currency markets, as the dollar was under pressure in the first half of 2015, but recently rallied because of more QE from the EU and an expected rate hike from the Fed. The oil price plunge and the USD have tracked pretty closely (inversely) since June 2014.

    Recent terrorism events and geopolitical conflicts being largely ignored as markets rallied further on expectations of more QE in the Euro zone. All of this translated into a third quarter of 2015 where earnings slowed and revenue growth slowed even more. Some of the air in the technology/biotechnology bubbles was let out in part tied to slowing EPS and the attention brought to drug price increases and the VRX scandal.

    At this moment, the dollar appears to be poised to move higher despite weakening U.S. economic performance, not because it should, but because the Fed desires it and will continue to play the rate hike card threat. We don’t foresee a change in the macro trade of long beta and short commodities with that in mind. Goldman Sachs’ chief equity strategist agreed in a recent CNBC appearance, despite valuations being in the 96 percent valuation range historically.

    *  *  *

    So take more risk right? The recent inclusion of the Yuan in the IMF basket of currencies in 2016 should incrementally add to dollar selling. However, how many times have we seen fundamentals ignored and asset prices move in the opposite direction because of central bank policy? A lot! So don’t bet on it.

    Investors who still pay attention to fundamentals are largely sitting at the sidelines as reflected in lower market volume. Incremental volumes are from money center banks, algos and short sellers, and as a result we have a market driven by central bank interventions with asset prices becoming more and more distorted.

    One relationship I repeatedly cite in measuring this distortion is the relationship between NASDAQ and oil prices, which have NEVER diverged before by this much in the stock market’s history.

    If this doesn’t tell you what’s afoot I don’t know what does. I maintain it’s not a coincidence that this distortion is occurring and it’s born out of central bank policies vs fundamentals. My view is that the Fed is intentionally keeping the dollar strong (for a host of reasons) in part to depress commodities in lieu of more conventional QE.

    And it’s fairly clear the Fed will raise rates despite the fundamentals dictating otherwise to reinforce that view of a strong dollar policy, even though there is pressure on corporate earnings.

    In sum, the Fed has shifted from propping up Wall Street the last 7 years to propping up Main Street. QE has largely increased income disparity as the 1 percent have seen their wealth increase via asset price appreciation while Main Street suffered through inflation, decreasing wages, lower discretionary income and largely lower paying jobs in the service sector. Going into an election year do you think this shift is some coincidence?

    2016 will likely bring more back door means to prop up flailing U.S. economy through higher fiscal spending, student loan forbearance or some gimmick to reduce bank reserve requirements, all with an eye on maintaining the dollar status quo.

    Essentially what is going on is an attempt by the Fed to have their cake and eat it too by declaring victory, raising rates 0.25 percent, and maintaining all the benefits associated with lower commodity prices for Main Street as the U.S. dollar remains strong.

    I don’t foresee anything other than a complete reversal in Fed policy or an OPEC cut to derail these trends.

    Despite massaged economic statistics (overstating growth while under stating inflation) in 2016, U.S. GDP growth will likely remain slow. That will likely keep commodity prices depressed through the election cycle. In energy, I expect the U.S. supply/demand imbalance to improve dramatically. Every investor knows, whether they want to admit it or not, $40 Oil and $2.20 won’t produce free cash flow for E&P companies, especially when hedges will roll off in 2016.

    As a side note: Chesapeake Energy recently admitted that in 2012 54 percent of projects weren’t cash flow positive, so clearly this cannot be sustained. If WTI remains under $50 U.S. oil production will decline by between 5 and 10 percent as E&P companies see the effects of depletion, hedges rolling off, debt funding drying up, and highly profitable projects become increasingly scarce.

    By spring 2016 I fully expect a wave of defaults leading to a period of consolidation by oil majors and private equity. I don’t believe that this will lead to a Lehman like credit crisis when defaults begin. But it will constrain production, leading to a draw down in U.S. inventories and add to slower growth as it did in 2015. Whether that gets realized is another matter as the EIA/IEA continues to underestimate demand and over-estimate supply while OPEC continues to pump above its quotas.

    Until pro-growth, low taxation and less regulation policy changes are enacted, I don’t foresee any changes to central bank policy nor the unsustainable market divergences and asset price distortions.

    Expect more media propaganda on how great the economy is while the reality is another story. Early signs are that retail sales this holiday season are poor. Nobody can predict when reality will set in and equity markets revert back to pre QE levels in 2008/09. The longer this charade continues, the lower equity markets will eventually go, and in the short-term so will commodities. Then the super cycle in commodities will begin anew. Much this will hinge on next fall’s election cycle.

  • University President Urges Students: Carry Weapons On Campus, "End Those Muslims"

    In an age of uncontrollable political correctness and micro-aggression across America's colleges, one university has taken a different tack this week. Speaking to an estimated 10,000 strong campus community, Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. urged students, staff and faculty at his Christian school to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon on campus, so that "we could end those Muslims before they walked in." Students reportedly erupted into applause at the call to arms.

    “It just blows my mind when I see that the President of the United States [says] that the answer to circumstances like that is more gun control,” he said. 

    As AP reports, Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. urged students, staff and faculty at his Christian school to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon on campus to counter any copycat attack like the deadly rampage in California just days ago.

    "Let's teach them a lesson if they ever show up here," Falwell told an estimated 10,000 of the campus community at convocation Friday in Lynchburg. While Falwell's call to arms was applauded, his remarks also seemed to target Muslims.

     

    "I've always thought if more good people had concealed carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in .," Falwell said. The final words of his statement could not be clearly heard on a videotape of the remarks.

     

    However, Falwell told The Associated Press on Saturday he was specifically referring to Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the husband and wife who shot and killed 14 people at a holiday party in San Bernardino on Wednesday.

     

    Falwell also said he believed the campus needed to be prepared in the face of the increasing frequency of mass killings. He cited, for example, the 2007 massacre of 32 people at Virginia Tech, the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, and less than 100 miles southwest of Liberty.

     

    "What if just one of those students or one of those faculty members had a concealed permit and was carrying a weapon when the shooter walked into Virginia Tech? Countless lives could have been saved," he said.

    Falwell's remarks generated a sharp rebuke from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who called the comments "reckless."

    "My administration is committed to making Virginia an open and welcoming Commonwealth, while also ensuring the safety of all of our citizens," McAuliffe said in a statement issued late Saturday. "Mr. Falwell's rash and repugnant comments detract from both of those crucial goals."

    But Falwell's message is apparently being heeded. He said more than 100 people had asked Liberty police about a free class to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

    *  *  *

    Liberty University, an evangelical school in Lynchburg, Va., has a reputation as a conservative college; and as a reminder, Falwell is the son of the late Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell, who infamously blamed the 9/11 terrorist attacks on abortionists and homosexuals.

  • Why Some Are Questioning The Zuckerberg Charity Story

    Authored by Mark St.Cyr,

    This week not only did social media come a buzz, so too did the main stream when it was announced Mark Zuckerberg and his wife were marking the occasion of the birth of their child by starting a philanthropic organization named in their child’s honor. They also declared they pledged to give 99% of their Facebook™ shares (worth some $45 Billion) to help fund its mission. Yet, one little item or detail seemed not to go unnoticed by some (which I am of this crowd.) Rather, it stood out like a sore thumb. That detail was: rather than what is typically structured as a nonprofit (i.e., what one expects to see and is traditionally administered when charity is involved) this “Initiative” was structured as an LLC. i.e., Can be used for both profit and maybe more importantly – political influence.

    Here is a quote from the Facebook post they wrote to help illustrate their intentions. It was this passage which both caught my eye, as well as made me think deeper as to just what didn’t sit squarely in my mind at first take. To wit:

    “The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is structured as an LLC rather than a traditional foundation. This enables us to pursue our mission by funding non-profit organizations, making private investments and participating in policy debates — in each case with the goal of generating a positive impact in areas of great need. Any net profits from investments will also be used to advance this mission.”

    The line “making private investments and participating in policy debates” sounds innocuous enough. However, most (if not all) of those who spend their every waking moment glued to social media wondering if they too can keep up to this weeks misanthropic escapades of the Kardashian’s are the first to take to Facebook and any other social media outlet and bash, excoriate, and what ever else can be thrown around to pummel any Wall Street Billionaire or for that matter Billionaires in general from influencing public policy. Unless you’re deemed “their Billionaire.” Then have at it; as hard, as messy, and/or dirty as you like. Blindfolds will be supplied freely to blind-eyes everywhere.

    Do not let this point be lost. If one thinks for a nanosecond people with enormous wealth don’t factor such things into any form of estate planning as well as everyday living planning – I have some ocean front property here in Kentucky you can have at a discount.

    Why do I say such a thing? Well, I’ll use one of the most overused examples of “Look it’s not like I’m trying to skirt something I’m actually glad to pay” known to the wealthy as to show “Hey, I’m just one of you with a bigger bank balance by golly, gee whiz.” Again, from the same post as above, to wit:

    “By using an LLC instead of a traditional foundation, we receive no tax benefit from transferring our shares to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, but we gain flexibility to execute our mission more effectively. In fact, if we transferred our shares to a traditional foundation, then we would have received an immediate tax benefit, but by using an LLC we do not. And just like everyone else, we will pay capital gains taxes when our shares are sold by the LLC.”

    And there’s that inference again that I pointed out in the first that made me think deeper. Or, as some might say, “Made me go hmmm.” That inference? “…but we gain flexibility to execute our mission more effectively.” I’ll construe: in a world that is driven by politics and political donations – I bet it does. And will.

    Again, let me remind you, this is all conjecture on my part. However, like I stated earlier, I’m not the only (although one of the few) that feels there’s more to all this than what’s been bandied about by the main stream media et al.

    Two examples of such “heart-fullness” voiced were the immediate comparisons to the philanthropy of both Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. Many of the observations posited by the media was how Mark (I’m using the personal’s only for ease) has seen the value in sharing ones wealth and all the good it can do, and wants to do the same. It’s a fair point. However, I’ll posit there are a few other additional points no one likes to point out. Yet, that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

    Let’s take Warren for one. What’s lost on the general public (as well as many others) is the obvious double standard of how he is both viewed as well as reported on in the press. He too is giving all his fortune away. Makes for great press and keeps him in that almost blinding limelight of ole “Uncle Warren” when he’s doing or making any type of investment or doling out advice. He gives political causes great sound bites or quote lines similar to “I need to pay more taxes!” and more. Yet…

    When it comes to those taxes on lower wage earners or the outright cost of employing people who need to pay them. It’s a far different tune. All that you saw reported nearly ad nausea during that period was what seemed like a video loop stuck on continuous play. That or footage of him playing the ukulele surrounded by the Fruit Of The Loom™ ensemble belting out tunes at his investor meeting. What you didn’t see reported anywhere (for there was no warning as per the story) was a complete Fruit Of The Loom factory that had been the mainstay of an area in Kentucky for decades: closed and all its textile operations sent to Honduras leaving hundreds unemployed. Good jobs at good wages. Only not here, that’s too expensive. There now in Honduras.

    Another example would be how you never see ole “Uncle Warren” demonized for the sin of all sins: being connected with fossil fuels. e.g., Oil.

    Koch Brothers and a pipeline? Vilified as a scourge or pariah on the Earth. (I’m not taking a side nor endorsing one side or the other. I’m simply pointing out a demonstrable difference as viewed via the light of the media and reports – nothing more. Use you’re own insight as to ascertain any meaning or not) Warren’s investment into the trains which carry that same oil that seemed to derail weekly for a time causing environmental catastrophes? If his name was mentioned is was at a whispers breath. If that. But hey – He’s giving away all his Billions – He’s one of the good guy’s. Not some greedy capitalist. Right?

    Then there’s Bill Gates as of late. Again, his foundation may be doing great work. Yet then again, it doesn’t hurt to make sure you profess as loud and as much as possible: “Hey, I’m giving everything away, don’t think or call me some greedy capitalist.” i.e., Hey, go after those people’s money – not mine. I’m one of you! See!!”

    It has been reported that he’s publicly stated to have taken all his philanthropy cues from Warren for they have been very close friends for years now. But Gates has done something even more head scratching than even Buffett. Lately Gates has publicly stated that it’s going to take both socialism and climate change advocates favorite tax (e.g., a carbon tax) to solve the ills of the world. Calling the private sector “inept.”

    Nothing like self inoculating oneself with the right combo of political antibodies once one’s made their wealth via capitalism. Especially if one wants to keep both its use, as well as their new-found media persona intact. Kills two birds with one stone is all I’ll say. Almost like going for a political flu shot and receiving a double dose on the house. Again, all conjecture on my part, however, does one think for a moment Bill would say such things when he was developing privately what Microsoft™ was able to do for the public sector at large? That’s a decision for you to ponder and come to your own conclusions.

    Which brings us back to Zuck and his latest philanthropic proclamation. As Gates learned and emulated Warren with his own brand of philanthropy. So too must Mark be watching and learning also. I may be critical of Zuck on many differing issues , but what I would never imply is that he is not a shrewd businessman. He’s demonstrated that in spades. Which by the way is exactly the basis for why as I stated at the beginning I’m not quite buying what’s being sold.

    I also believe it is exactly for these reasons one should look for clues as to what might be on the horizon in other ways. For this could portend or, be a precursor that those “storm clouds” myself and a few others have been sighting are indeed becoming more obvious to Silicon Valley than many will let on. Here’s my reasoning…

    You know the one thing Mark Zuckerberg with all his Billions can’t do today without causing a media sensation throughout Wall Street? Hint: Sell.

    Let me express it this way: How would you think it would look to analysts, the financial media, stockholders, et al if Zuck announced he too decided to sell a Billion $dollars worth of stock when only weeks ago it was reported Mark Andreessen sold out nearly all (73%) his holdings in Facebook? This coming on the heels of the August 24th historic plunge in the markets. Think it would be seen in a “favorable” light? Neither do I.

    You know what else an observant business Silicon Valley person might contemplate?

    If we were in fact at the edge of a bubble in the Valley – how would one be able to sell at the top without bringing on some negative feedback loop in their stock price? After all, if history is any guide part of the problem for many during the dot-com burst was they never sold at the top. Many rode it all the way down to oblivion, and only a choice few (like Gates) made it through.

    However, Bill had an operating system that was needed regardless of the economy’s state. Mark only has an operating platform that needs to sell ads. And if ads go dry – so too does your stock value and personal wealth. See AOL™ for clues.

    With this newly formed “Initiative” any selling is now wrapped into a wonderful meme of “We’re not selling to profit. (or preserve) It’s for charity. And we’ve stated openly we were going to do just that. So, nothing to see here, please move along, thanks so much.”

    Are you beginning to see why something seemed “more than what meets the eye” at first blush?

    You know what else might be on the horizon that I’m more than sure will be brought up if things do begin to turn sour in the Valley? Mark’s near unrestricted power of authority to make acquisitions.

    Right now he doesn’t need Board approval to spend. He’s been very shrewd in keeping that ability solely within his own purview. However, as I’ve written many times previous, “You’ll know everything in the Valley has changed once you see Wall Street calling for that oversight.” I believe that ship has already began to sail and will be coming much sooner than later if we have more hiccups like the one’s we saw in Aug. or if Facebook shares begin going the wrong way.

    Yet, you know where that privilege will probably remain, unfettered, as well as with more influencing authority? Hint: “Initiative.”

    Look, I’m fully aware this is a lot of conjecture, as well as speculation and more on my part. I’m also of the belief that there is truly some real intention to do good with one’s wealth. Especially once one has a child for it really does change perspective on everything you never would contemplate until. That said, I’m also of fact and well aware that there is nothing wrong with capitalizing on events no matter how they present themselves in manners, and ways, as to promote or protect one’s wealth. As well as image.

    What caught my eye was, again – the structure. e.g. LLC. It was once you ask a few question and ponder “why” while looking at the event horizon that only a very few of us are stating or trying to bring attention as it nears does one look closer at what might also be driving the reasoning behind such announcements.

    Yes, it may be a wonderful vehicle for charity in the name of his daughter. And – it might also be a tell-tale vehicle for those willing to look as the first sign of a vehicle trying to “get-out-of-Dodge” before or, as fast as time will allow without causing others to panic first clogging the exits leaving themselves stuck. After all, what’s one to think about the “eyeball for ads” business when one of the other undisputed “eyeball” counted sights Yahoo™ is openly contemplating this weekend if it should sell its internet business?

    Remember, also, this year is the first year that the once Holy Grail of “IPO’s to the promised land” have been mired in quicksand. (Just look at Square™ and Match™ for the latest clues) Funny how things like this happen when there’s no longer QE to fuel it. That, and the Federal Reserve has all but declared without question that a rate hike will in fact take place (unless they don’t) nearly forsaking corporate profits to $Dollar denominated purgatory.

    Again this exercise could all be for naught and there may be nothing to ponder or, extrapolate. And Mark, Bill, and Warren may indeed have no ulterior motives to their philanthropic activities other than what they’ve stated. And that’s fine with me. Yet, there’s two sayings I’ve lived by most of my adult business life that have served me well. The first comes from Andrew Carnegie, “I no longer listen to what men say – I watch what they do.” The second I learned on my own after being blindsided by someone I thought was a friend, “It’s not what people do too you that’s the problem. It’s the way you have to treat everybody coming after that’s the problem.”

    If you think the Carnegie quote is just some antiquated insight that no longer fits today’s circumstances or maybe can’t see how the second could apply to the circumstances of today. Need I remind you of another person who had philanthropy at the core of their decisions of just “doing good” where his actions were to be taken beyond reproach? Lance Armstrong.

    Questioning is a prudent exercise regardless of the individual. Especially when they’ve proclaimed politics is going to be one of their predominate activities. For if it’s a business – I don’t have to buy or participate. When it’s political – I might not have a choice.

    Charitable or not.

  • Putin Accuses US Of ISIS Oil Coverup

    Last Wednesday, the Russian MoD delivered a lengthy presentation which contained compelling visual evidence of a connection between Islamic State’s illegal and highly profitable trade in stolen Iraqi and Syrian crude and Turkey. Here are some highlights:

    After loading up with oil, a truck convoy in east Syria heads toward Turkey in direction Al-Qamishli:

    October 18: in the Drer-ez-zor region a satellite imagte reveals 1772 oil trucks:

    November 14: in the Tavan and Zaho regions, in the zone where coalition forces are active, one can see a gathering of oil trucks:

    November 28: in the region Kara-Choh on the territory of an oil refinery one can see 50 oil trucks:

    The routes of alleged oil smuggling from Syria and Iraq to Turkey:

    A substantial part from east Syria enter a refinery in Batman, Turkey (100km from the Syria border):

    The slide show, hosted by Deputy Minister of Defence Anatoly Antonov, featured photos of oil trucks, videos of airstrikes and maps detailing the trafficking of stolen oil. It was the latest PR snafu for Erdogan who is struggling to convince Turkey’s allies that The Kremlin’s accusations are unfounded and that Ankara isn’t set to put NATO in an awkward position by effectively instigating a shooting war with Russia. 

    Washington came to Erdogan’s defense in the aftermath of Moscow’s claims as State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the US is confident that Ankara “is not complicit in Islamic State oil smuggling.” Russia seemed to take that denial in stride, but after US special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs, Amos Hochstein, said on Friday that the amount of oil smuggled into Turkey from Syria is “of no significance from a volume perspective”, Moscow appears to have had enough. 

    On Saturday, Russia accused the US of participating in a cover-up. “Our colleagues from the State Department and the Pentagon have confirmed that the photo-proof, which we presented at a briefing [on December 2], of the origin and destination of the stolen oil, coming from the areas controlled by the terrorists, is authentic. However, the US claim that they ‘don’t see the border crossings with tanker trucks crossing the border,’ raises a smile, if only, because the photos are still images,”  Major General Igor Konashenkov, a Defense Ministry spokesman said. “We advise the American side to have a look at how the tanker trucks not only drive through checkpoints at the Turkish border, but pass through them without even stopping.

    As RT notes, an unnamed US State Department official confirmed to Reuters on Friday that the Russian photos of thousands of oil tanker trucks in Syria were authentic [but] stressed that he hasn’t seen “the imagery of the border crossing with trucks crossing the border, and that’s because [the US doesn’t] believe it exists.”

    Well, here it is:

    “The declarations of the Pentagon and the State Department seem like a theatre of the absurd,” the MoD added, before noting that Washington should “watch the videos taken by its (own) drones which have recently been three times as numerous over the Turkey-Syria border and above the oil zones”. That, by the way, is an attempt to mock Washington for increasing the number of drones monitoring the situation while failing to actually conduct strikes. Earlier this week, Russia said that despite Washington’s claims, the US and its partners are actually not bombing ISIS oil infrastructure or convoys.

    In case the above isn’t clear enough, here’s more from the Russian MoD’s Facebook: “When US officials say they don’t see how the terrorists’ oil is smuggled to Turkey… it smells badly of a desire to cover up these acts.”

    We have on any number of occasions suggested that Washington has avoided striking ISIS oil convoys in an effort to ensure that the group retains the funding it needs to continue to destabilize Syria and the Assad government (see here for instance) and in order to preserve amicable relations with Ankara which appears to benefit from the trafficking of illegal crude both from Kurdistan and Islamic State.

    And so, Russia once again turns the screws on the West in an effort to expose what at this point looks to be a coordinated effort to facilitate the funding of international terrorism via the establishment and maintenance of smuggling routes for some 50,000 b/d of oil looted from fields in eastern Syria and northern Iraq. If the US is indeed complicit in this, it might be time to cut ties with Erdogan because Moscow is on the PR warpath and it’s just a matter of time before the smoking gun emerges.

  • Why To Fred Hickey These Are The "Last Gasps Of A Dying Bull Market (And Economy)"

    Once upon a time, the “Tech Strategist” Fred Hickey used to be part of Barron’s Roundtable. Alas, the famed newsletter writer, who accurately predicted the bursting of the 2000 and 2007 bubbles, was deemed too bearish and was cut from the magazine whose hyperbolic covers have long been used as contrarian inflection point signal by the markets.

    How bearish? As the following excerpt from his latest excellent monthly newsletter titled “Last Gasps of a Dying Bull Market (and economy)” reveals, the answer is “about as bearish as Hickey has ever been.”

    * * *

    Last Gasps of a Dying Bull Market (and economy)

    Deteriorating market breadth and herding into an ever-narrower number of stocks is classic market top behavior. Currently, there are many other warning signs that are also being ignored. The merger mania (prior tops occurred in 2000 and 2007), the stock buyback frenzy (after the record amount of buybacks in 2007 buybacks were less than one-sixth of that level at the bottom in 2009), the year-over-year declines in corporate sales (-4% in Q3 and down every quarter this year) and falling earnings for the entire S&P 500 index, the plunges this year in the high-yield (junk bond) and leveraged loan markets, the topping and rolling over (the unwind) of the massive (record) level of stock margin debt… and I could go on.

    It was very lonely as a bear at the tops in 2000 and 2007. I was just a teenager in 1972 so I was not an active investor, but just a few days prior to the early 1973 January top, Barron ‘s featured a story titled: “Not a Bear Among Them.” By “them” Barron ‘s meant institutional investors. I do vividly remember my Dad listening to the stock market wrap-ups on the kitchen radio nearly every night in 1973-74. It seemed to me back then that the stock market only went in one direction — and that was DOWN.

    The global economy is in disarray. It’s the legacy of the central planners at the central banks. China’s economy has been rapidly slowing despite all sorts of attempts by the government to prop it up (including extreme actions to hold up stocks). China’s economic slowdown has cratered commodity prices to multi-year lows and helped drive oil down to around $40 a barrel.

    All the “commodity country” economies (and others) that relied on exports to China are suffering. Brazil is now in a deep recession. Last month Taiwan officially entered recession driven by double-digit declines (for five consecutive months) in exports. Also last month Japan officially reentered recession. Canada and South Korea’s governments recently cut forecasts for economic growth. Despite the lift from an extremely weak euro, Germany’s Federal Statistical Office reported last month that the economy slowed in Q3 due to weak exports and slack corporate investment. The German slowdown led a slide in the overall eurozone economy in Q3 per data from the European Union’s statistics agency. The recent immigration and terrorist problems make matters worse. Tourism will suffer. ECB President Mario Draghi is expected to react later this week by providing even more QE (money printing) and driving interest rates to even deeper negative levels (unprecedented).

    Here in the U.S., the economy appears relatively healthier only because the rest of the world is so awful. That has driven the U.S. dollar skyward (DXY index over 100), hurting tourism and multinational companies exporting goods and services overseas. Last month the U.S. Agriculture Department forecast that U.S. farm incomes will plummet 38% this year to $56 billion – the lowest level since 2002. Yesterday’s ISM (Institute for Supply Management) manufacturing index for November fell into contraction territory at 48.6, the lowest reading since the 2009 recession. Economists expected a reading over 50. Industrial production fell in October from September. It was the ninth month-to-month drop in the ten months of the year.

    Ports around the country have been reporting declining exports and imports all year. Last month the nation’s busiest port (Los Angeles) reported that loaded exports were down 15% for the year and empty container volumes in October were up 13% year-over-year. Empty containers are shipped overseas to be sent back to the U.S. filled with goods. The Cass Freight Index (primarily measures truck and rail shipments) dropped 5% in October from September and 5% year-over-year. Last month trade researcher Zepol Corp. reported that for the first time in at least a decade, imports in both September and October (the peak shipping season) at each of the three busiest U.S. seaports fell. They didn’t just fall. They dropped by more than 10% between August and October. The three ports handle over 50% of the goods entering the U.S. by sea.

    With freight shipments slowing, carriers are cutting way back on capacity additions. According to the Railway Supply Institute, North American railcar orders plunged 83% year-over-year in the third quarter, the biggest drop in at least 27 years. ACT Research reported last month that trucking companies ordered 44% fewer large trucks year-over-year in October. The causes of this are falling industrial production and lower consumer demand, which has led to an unwanted buildup in inventories. American Trucking Association (ATA) chief economist Bob Costello recently said (in an ATA statement): “I remain concerned about the high level of inventories throughout the supply chain.” The gap between wholesale inventories and wholesale sales (as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau) is greater than what was seen prior to the 2009 recession.

    Despite plunging gasoline prices (below $2 a gallon in some places), sales reports from most of the major U.S. retailers have been soft for several months. The latest round of reports released last month continued the trend. Target, Macy’s. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Best Buy, Nordstrom, Kohl’s, Tiffany (in other word, the gamut) and many more reported disappointing sales results. A Nordstrom exec on the conference call: “All we can tell you is, in our business, we saw a slowdown. And it was across the board.” Wal-Mart’s existing store sales grew 1.5% in its latest quarter, but profits fell 11% due to higher costs. Macy’s and Kohl’s spoke of excess merchandise inventories at the end of their quarters that needed to be cleared. Dick’s inventories jumped 13.1% from a year earlier while sales grew just 7.6% in the quarter.

    Last week the Wall Street Journal wrote a story titled: “Retailers Ring Alarm Bells for the Holiday Season.” Two weeks earlier the Journal’s story was: “Retailers’ Full Shelves May Force Holiday Discounts.” Yesterday, the Atlanta Fed reported that its GDPNow model is forecasting just 1.4% seasonally adjusted annual GDP growth in Q4, down from the prior 1.8% forecast. Part of the reason for the Q4 slowdown is the anticipated hit to growth coming from the necessary inventory reductions.

    There are pockets of strength in the economy, namely auto sales and housing. However, auto sales appear to be peaking out at just above the 18 million annual unit mark (extremely easy credit can only take the industry so far). In general, the majority of U.S. consumers are being squeezed by a combination of higher expenses and stagnant (or lower) real incomes. Due to rapidly rising rents (renters are paying the highest percentage of their income on rent ever per Zillow), high levels of consumer debt (record auto and student loans outstanding), and for many (including my family), sharply higher (record) healthcare costs (see chart below sourced from Meridian Macro Research); it doesn’t matter if there are lots of low-paying healthcare and service industry (hamburger flipping) jobs available. The U.S. consumer is under siege.

    The Final Straw?

    When the Fed was printing money (quantitative easing) in 2008-2014, the Fed itself described QE as the equivalent of monetary easing. Therefore, stopping quantitative easing (more than $1 trillion annually at its peak) as the Fed did late last year is tightening even though Wall Streeters are loath to admit it. As the result of this tightening, we’ve watched the broad stock markets slowly break down all year and the economy steadily weaken.

    The Fed should have raised rates from the emergency zero-bound level long ago. However, since the economy never reached “escape velocity” as the Fed expected (all of the Fed’s forecasts have been wrong), they never got up the gumption to pull the trigger, despite leading people on that they were about to do it – over and over again. In 2015 there’s one last Fed meeting (December 15-16) remaining and next year there will be a presidential election, so in order to save face, it appears the Fed will try to pull off one tiny, quarter point rate hike and talk as dovishly as possible in order to minimize the damage. But remember, this is tightening on top of the prior tightening in an aging, though wretched, seven-year “recovery,” that’s worsening by the day.

    Moreover, as noted earlier, the stock market is giving every indication that it’s about to collapse. Looks like bad timing to me. The Wall Street Journal’s Jon Hilsenrath issued the following warning two months ago: “In the seven years since the world’s central banks responded to the financial crisis by slashing interest rates, more than a dozen banks in the advanced world have tried to raise them again. All have been force to retreat.” Assuming they can pull it off, the Fed will rescind this hike too — but not before there’s a lot of damage to the stock market.

  • Jordanian Man Screaming He "Wants To Join Allah" Tries To Open Lufthansa Airplane Cabin Door In Mid Flight

    Last week, the US experienced what is now widely reported to be the worst terrorism-driven mass killing in the US since 9/11; yesterday terrorism allegedly spread to London which had so far been insulated from any Islamic State-related events; just one thing was missing to push the global panic envelope to the “September 11 flashback” redzone in a month that started with the mass murder of dozens of people in Paris and has gotten progressively worse since: airplane terrorism. 

    Moments ago we may have gotten just that after a report that a Lufthansa crew and passengers overpowered a Jordanian man with a US passport, who tried to open the cabin door on a Frankfurt-Belgrade flight on Sunday, while screaming that he wished to join Allah along with all the passengers, according to Serbian TV RTS.

    However, as AFP adds, the man was promptly overpowered by crew and passengers with the German carrier insisting the safety of the plane had not been threatened. The airplane proceeded to land safely at 12:45pm local time.

    More from AFP:

    “A passenger got up and tried to do something at the door, but was stopped by crew members and other passengers,” said airline spokesman Andreas Bartels.

     

    “The passenger was then restrained for the remainder of the flight in his seat and handed over to the authorities in Belgrade,” he said.

     

    “It was a normal door, which of course cannot be opened in-flight… it was not the cockpit door,” he said. “The safety of the flight was not jeopardised and the flight landed safely in Belgrade”.

     

    Bartels declined to provide information on the identity of the passenger or his nationality, or what he said during the incident.

    Serbian state-run television provided more details on the passenger, reporting that police had arrested a Jordanian man after he tried to forced his way into the cockpit of the Lufthansa flight. The Serb press said the Jordanian was called Laken and had a US passport. He had cried out that he wished to join Allah along with all the passengers, RTS said.

    The man had suddenly got up during the flight, banged on the cockpit door and demanded to be allowed to enter, threatening to open one of the plane’s doors while it was flying over Austria, Serbia’s RTS television reported.

     

    He was overpowered by flight crew and members of a Serb handball team who subdued him until the flight landed in Belgrade where he was arrested, the report said.

    RTS adds that the coach of the Vojvodina handball team, Nikola Markovic said that during the incident on the plane there was no panic. Google translated:

    “We are all from the back of the plane saw that something was happening, but we thought that because of the extraordinary situation in each plane has someone from the security services. Nothing spectacular happened everything was all right. Most of us did not have information about what was happening, “Markovic said.

     

    According to him, the flight attendant accompanied by two players took the man who caused an accident in business class, and there they sat down with him, without any difficult situation.

     

    “After 15 minutes I called one of my players and he told me what happened. Most of the passengers did not even know what happened on the plane, until they found out later what had happened. The flight was calm, do not panic, all are well “Markovic said.

     

    The plane landed safely when the other passengers learned about the incident after they were announced to the police.

    Luckily, this time there were no consequences, however expect in light of this event, airline security checks to return to post-September 11 levels, especially if as we expect, tonight’s 8pm impromptu Obama statement seeking to “reassure the nervous nation“, achieves precisely the opposite.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News December 6, 2015

  • Cuomo Sends Investigators After Blackout Forces Shutdown Of Nuclear Reactor Near NYC

    Almost 2 years after being fined for falsifying safety records, and 7 months after a transformer exploded at the Indian Point Nuclear Reactor (just 30 miles from midtown Manhattan), Entergy – the plant's operator – has 'safely' shutdown the Unit 2 reactor due to a major outage cut power  to several control rods. Despite the company's reports that no radioactivity was released to the environment, NY Governor Cuomo has sent investigators to the site to 'monitor' the situation.

    As AP reports, officials say one of the Indian Point nuclear power plant's reactors in suburban New York has been shut down because several control rods lost power.

    Plant owner Entergy says control room operators safely shut down the Indian Point 2 reactor around 5:30 p.m. Saturday. The reactor's designed to make a safe shutdown if the control rods lose electricity.

     

    Gov. Andrew Cuomo says the company reports no radiation was released into the environment. State Department of Public Service workers are headed to the plant in Buchanan, about 30 miles north of midtown Manhattan.

     

    The Indian Point 3 reactor is running. Together, the two reactors supply about one-quarter of the power used in New York City and Westchester County.

     

    Indian Point 3 was shut down in July after a water pump problem.

    But despite the company operating the site reports that there was no radioactivity released from the reactor Unit 2.

    Statement from Governoir Cuomo:

     

    "Earlier tonight, the Unit 2 reactor at the Indian Point Nuclear Facility was forced to shut down due to a reported power loss to several control rods. The company reports that there was no radioactivity released to the environment. I have directed the Department of Public Service to investigate and monitor the situation and a team is currently en route to Indian Point to begin its work."

    *  *  *

    As a reminder, Indian Point is just 38 miles north of New York City, and produces some 25 percent of New York City’s and Westchester’s electricity. The combined power generated by the two units amounts to over 2000 megawatts. The facility employs some 1,600 people.

    The two current reactors, Indian Point 2 and 3 (Indian Point 1 was shutdown in 1974) are four-loop Westinghouse pressurized water reactors both of similar design. Units 2 and 3 were completed in 1974 and 1976, respectively.

     

    The plant has been a subject of controversy due to its proximity to NYC. Several environmental groups have been calling for Indian Point’s permanent shutdown for years. It also has a history of transformer accidents and various leaks, including a 2012 explosion in the main transformer that spilled oil into the river and caused Entergy to pay a fine of a $1.2 million.

  • "We" Don't Really Know What's Happening

    Submitted by Paul Rosenberg via FreeMansPerspective.com,

    "If you don't read a newspaper every day, you are uninformed. If you do, you are misinformed." – Mark Twain

     

    "Wars start because diplomats lie to reporters, then believe what they read in the newspaper." – Unknown

    We Don't Really Know What's Happening… And, believe it or not, this is rather good news. I’ll explain.

    We all like to know what’s happening in the world, and for good reason… understanding our surroundings is essential to survival. We instinctively seek information… we need information. There is, however, a problem that we face:

    No matter how much “news” you consume, you won’t really know what’s going on in the world.

    We can’t know, because ‘the news’ is half illusion, provided by government-dependent corporations that are paid to keep you watching and to keep you joined to the status quo.

    Granted, they are quite good at providing pictures from disaster areas, but when it comes to explaining why the disaster happened, they mislead almost every time. Yes, some truth makes its way through the news machine, but most of it is wrapped in layers of manipulation. If, for example, you watch the news feeds all day, you’ll find a good deal of truth, but you’ll find it amongst a pile of half-truths. Do you really have enough time to analyze them all?

    One Piece of Truth

    The truth about public reporting comes out from time to time, but usually well after the fact. So, here’s one piece of truth that’s worth remembering:

    For those who don’t recall the 1970s, Daniel Ellsberg was a man who worked as an analyst at the RAND Corp., moved from there to the Pentagon, spent two years in Vietnam working for the State Department, and then went back to RAND. He is the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971. These were the documents that revealed that three US presidential administrations had been plainly, knowingly, and openly lying to the public.

    Here’s what Ellsberg thought the New York Times was good for:

    … to see what the rubes and the yokels are thinking about and what they think is going on and what they think the policy is….

    Later, in 1998, he said this in an interview:

    The public is lied to every day by the president, by his spokespeople, by his officers. If you can’t handle the thought that the president lies to the public for all kinds of reasons, you couldn’t stay in the government at that level….

    And here’s what Michael Deaver, a top aide to President Ronald Reagan, said about the press:

    The media I’ve had a lot to do with is lazy. We fed them and they ate it every day.

    That’s the truth about news, my friends. The newspapers are where the yokels get informed, presidents flatly lie, and legislatures are massively corrupt. The TV stations recycle opinions from the leading newspapers. And Internet news sites primarily recycle TV and newspaper stories.

    Yes, some truth does slide through, but it looks almost the same as the other stuff. The only places we get anything close to refined truth is on a few Internet sites… and many of them have a particular axe to grind.

    And the Internet news sites that really dig through the pile are in jeopardy. The Internet is being funneled into Google, Facebook, and a few other friends of the state. If things continue as they’ve been going, the independents will be cut off soon enough, under the guise of copyright or some such.

    Sad to say, we shouldn’t accept the news as true. In my personal experience, I’ve been close enough to a few news stories to know the truth, and the networks got it wrong every time.

    More Truth

    This is what William Colby, former director of the CIA, is quoted as saying in Derailing Democracy: The America the Media Don’t Want You to See:

    The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.

    Now, since people have disputed that quotation, let’s back it up: Please consider Operation Mockingbird.

    Beginning in 1948, a CIA agent named Frank Wisner started gathering journalists and broadcasters… and started using them to ‘inform’ the public. The operation soon got so elaborate that other agents called it “Wisner’s Wurlitzer.” (Wurlitzer being the brand of organ that was played in churches.) In other words, Wisner played the media like a musical instrument.

    While the real situation is more complex than this short description, rest assured that every major news organization in every major country is manipulated by intelligence groups. Where do you think they get all those “unnamed sources”?

    If you were an intel operator, wouldn’t you do precisely that? You’d be considered derelict not to. So, you can rely upon this fact. And see here for a minor example.

    And So…

    I could continue listing facts, but there’s no real point. The crucial thing is to accept the truth:

    The news is worked over before it reaches us.

    We do know some facts, of course, and a generation from now we may learn nearly the whole truth about some of these events, but only if we wait and then go out of our way to find it.

    The good news in all of this comes when we accept the facts and stop running our brains on bad information. Yes, it would be nice to know what’s really going on, but we don’t, and there isn’t much we can do about it. So, it’s time to stop treating the news seriously.

    So long as the guv-megacorp-intel structure remains, it will enforce our ignorance. That’s what such organizations do, by their very nature. To expect differently is like expecting a dog to sprout wings and fly.

    But once we accept that fact, we stop being spun around by the talking heads and their handlers.

    After that, we can find truth in books and in other serious publications.

    So, I suggest that you start ignoring the news. Rather, use all that time and energy to start building the kind of world you’d like to live in.

  • Putin Accuses US Of ISIS Oil Coverup

    Last Wednesday, the Russian MoD delivered a lengthy presentation which contained compelling visual evidence of a connection between Islamic State’s illegal and highly profitable trade in stolen Iraqi and Syrian crude and Turkey. Here are some highlights:

    After loading up with oil, a truck convoy in east Syria heads toward Turkey in direction Al-Qamishli:

    October 18: in the Drer-ez-zor region a satellite imagte reveals 1772 oil trucks:

    November 14: in the Tavan and Zaho regions, in the zone where coalition forces are active, one can see a gathering of oil trucks:

    November 28: in the region Kara-Choh on the territory of an oil refinery one can see 50 oil trucks:

    The routes of alleged oil smuggling from Syria and Iraq to Turkey:

    A substantial part from east Syria enter a refinery in Batman, Turkey (100km from the Syria border):

    The slide show, hosted by Deputy Minister of Defence Anatoly Antonov, featured photos of oil trucks, videos of airstrikes and maps detailing the trafficking of stolen oil. It was the latest PR snafu for Erdogan who is struggling to convince Turkey’s allies that The Kremlin’s accusations are unfounded and that Ankara isn’t set to put NATO in an awkward position by effectively instigating a shooting war with Russia. 

    Washington came to Erdogan’s defense in the aftermath of Moscow’s claims as State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the US is confident that Ankara “is not complicit in Islamic State oil smuggling.” Russia seemed to take that denial in stride, but after US special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs, Amos Hochstein, said on Friday that the amount of oil smuggled into Turkey from Syria is “of no significance from a volume perspective”, Moscow appears to have had enough. 

    On Saturday, Russia accused the US of participating in a cover-up. “Our colleagues from the State Department and the Pentagon have confirmed that the photo-proof, which we presented at a briefing [on December 2], of the origin and destination of the stolen oil, coming from the areas controlled by the terrorists, is authentic. However, the US claim that they ‘don’t see the border crossings with tanker trucks crossing the border,’ raises a smile, if only, because the photos are still images,”  Major General Igor Konashenkov, a Defense Ministry spokesman said. “We advise the American side to have a look at how the tanker trucks not only drive through checkpoints at the Turkish border, but pass through them without even stopping.

    As RT notes, an unnamed US State Department official confirmed to Reuters on Friday that the Russian photos of thousands of oil tanker trucks in Syria were authentic [but] stressed that he hasn’t seen “the imagery of the border crossing with trucks crossing the border, and that’s because [the US doesn’t] believe it exists.”

    Well, here it is:

    “The declarations of the Pentagon and the State Department seem like a theatre of the absurd,” the MoD added, before noting that Washington should “watch the videos taken by its (own) drones which have recently been three times as numerous over the Turkey-Syria border and above the oil zones”. That, by the way, is an attempt to mock Washington for increasing the number of drones monitoring the situation while failing to actually conduct strikes. Earlier this week, Russia said that despite Washington’s claims, the US and its partners are actually not bombing ISIS oil infrastructure or convoys.

    In case the above isn’t clear enough, here’s more from the Russian MoD’s Facebook: “When US officials say they don’t see how the terrorists’ oil is smuggled to Turkey… it smells badly of a desire to cover up these acts.”

    We have on any number of occasions suggested that Washington has avoided striking ISIS oil convoys in an effort to ensure that the group retains the funding it needs to continue to destabilize Syria and the Assad government (see here for instance) and in order to preserve amicable relations with Ankara which appears to benefit from the trafficking of illegal crude both from Kurdistan and Islamic State.

    And so, Russia once again turns the screws on the West in an effort to expose what at this point looks to be a coordinated effort to facilitate the funding of international terrorism via the establishment and maintenance of smuggling routes for some 50,000 b/d of oil looted from fields in eastern Syria and northern Iraq. If the US is indeed complicit in this, it might be time to cut ties with Erdogan because Moscow is on the PR warpath and it’s just a matter of time before the smoking gun emerges.

  • America's 'New' Bill Of "Wrongs"

    Via Oquities,

    THE BILL OF WRONGS

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make laws respecting an establishment of religion, and may constrain the free exercise thereof; and limiting free speech and the press; and suppressing the right of the people to assemble, and to discourage the people from petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Amendment II

    A well armed Constabulary, being necessary to the subjugation of a spirit of freedom, the privilege of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be infringed and modified.

    Amendment III

    The people shall be required to compensate the Government for the cost of goods and services provided to non-citizens, and the Government may extract and disburse such in a manner to be prescribed politically.

    Amendment IV

    The right of the Government to inspect the people in their persons, houses, and effects, and if necessary without their knowledge, shall not be violated, and Warrants shall issue in secret courts without due process or support by Oath or affirmation, execution of which shall be broad and at the discetion of authorities.

    Amendment V

    Any person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, without due process of law; and any person shall be subject to prosecution by any level of Government, simultaneously or consecutively, to be put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense more than once if necessary; and be compelled to submit biological samples for any criminal case in order to be a witness against himself, and may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; and private property shall be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Amendment VI

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused may be held for lengthy periods before a trial, and tried by a jury generally unfamiliar with law in the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, with the nature and cause of the accusation to be obscured as the Government deems necessary; with the use of Government negotiated witness arrangements that may benefit the accusers and/or prosecuting attorneys; and to have qualified Assistance of Counsel for his defense based on ability to pay.

    Amendment VII

    In Suits at common law, the well provisioned litigant shall have numerous opportunites to appeal, and litigants may be compelled to utilize non-judicial forums as compelled by extra-judicial organizations to settle disputes.

    Amendment VIII

    Bail may encompass a variety of fees including, but not limited to, charges for self internment and monitoring, re-education and counseling; and private prisons may determine if and when sentencing is extended without show of cause in a court of law.

    Amendment IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall reflect the Government's ability to diminish or expand, as necessary, the rights of the people.

    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the States by the Constitution, or to the people, are reserved to the United States.  

  • Whistleblower Warned Turkey Would Attack A Russian Jet

    Society needs whistleblowers. They serve as a check on corruption and governmental overreach and in the private sector, they are often the only thing that stands between unbridled corporate greed and the otherwise clueless masses. 

    As Edward Snowden demonstrated, even the most “developed” of nations need checks on government and that goes double in places like Turkey, where an autocracy is masquerading as a largely developed democracy. 

    Despite the fact that Erdogan has managed to create an environment in which the press and the police are afraid to pursue the truth for fear of brutal reprisals from Ankara, there’s one Turkish citizen who stands against the suppression of free speech: Fuat Avni. 

    Fuat Avni is a pseudonym used by an anonymous government whistleblower. He has more than 2.3 million followers on Twitter (so, half as many as Donald Trump).

    Here are two excerpts from an interview Vocativ conducted with Fuat Avni last year: 

    Vocativ: Is there a reason why you chose the name Fuat Avni?

     

    FA: I did not open the account with this name initially. I used different names. But I did not want any other person to be hurt because of what I wrote, so I changed user names frequently. Fuat Avni means “a helping heart.” I thought it to be suitable and I continued with it.

     

    Vocativ: Do you alone control the Twitter account? 

     

    FA: There is no team behind it, only me. I don’t need to get any information from anyone because for years I have been working at in sensitive positions within the AKP [Turkey’s ruling party]. Because of my position, I have information about people at critical points. The reports and information come to my desk as well. It is ridiculous to think that an insider gets information from an outsider. Only I and Allah know who Fuat Avni is.

     

    Well, on Sunday, October 11, Fuat Avnil tweeted something interesting. 

    That, allegedly, is the tweet that foretold Ankara’s move to shoot down a Russian Su-24 near the Syrian border late last month in the first incident of a NATO member engaging a Russian or Soviet aircraft in more than six decades.

    The prediction didn’t go unnoticed. 

    Late last month, Russia’s sharp-tongued, US foreign policy critic extraordinaire Maria Zakharova cited the Fuat Avnil tweet in accusing Turkey of purposefully downing the Russian warplane. Here’s Today’s Zaman (whose editor in chief just resigned under legal pressure from Erdogan):

    In comments on Turkey’s recent downing of a Russian jet over violation of its airspace, a spokesperson from the Russian Foreign Ministry has recalled that famous Turkish Twitter whistleblower claimed back in October that the Turkish government was planning to down a Russian jet to remain in power.

     

    At a press conference on Wednesday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova claimed that Turkey “purposefully” downed the Russian Su-24 at the Turkish-Syrian border on Tuesday and said the “unprecedented” incident will have serious repercussions.  

     

    She also quoted statements of Turkish Twitter whistleblower Fuat Avni who claimed in October that the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government and President Recep Tayyip Erdo?an were  planning to down a Russian jet to bring Turkey to brink of war with Russia to ultimately keep its power. “This is very interesting,” Zakharova said.

     


    Yes, it is “very interesting” that Turkey’s most famous whistleblower and anonymous Twitter personality should predict such a dramatic event more than a month ahead of time. As Zaman goes on to note, “Fuat Avni’s identity is unknown and has prompted wide speculation, but the account has previously revealed numerous details that would appear to indicate that the user is close to or inside the government and the account has attracted a large following.”

    Fuat Avni also predicted the widespread crackdown on the media ahead of of November’s elections. The government also attempted to have his account blocked in October after he tweeted information about Bilal Erdogan’s finances (again, from Today’s Zaman):

    Fuat Avni said in a series of tweets on Oct. 4: “In Italy, Bilal will manage accounts in Switzerland and other countries. Bilal has billions of dollars to manage.” Claiming that Bilal flew to Italy on Sept. 27 and plans to remain there for a while, with family members possibly joining him later, Fuat Avni wrote: “They are planning to keep Bilal in Italy until the [Nov. 1] election. They will decide whether or not he will come back depending on the situation after the election.” The whistleblower said there is a plan in place for President Erdogan and his family to flee a possible trial on corruption charges if necessary after Nov. 1 and that Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioglu is organizing the plan.

     

    After Fuat Avni’s claims were reported by media outlets, Bilal Erdogan’s lawyer filed a complaint against Fuat Avni’s Twitter account, asking for a court to block access to it on the grounds that the tweets breach his rights. In a decision on Oct. 6, the ?stanbul 7th Penal Court of Peace decided to demand that Twitter block access to the account in Turkey, but the popular social media website has refused to implement the court decision.

    As you can see, this is a serious thorn in the side of the Erodgan regime and in case the implications of the above aren’t clear enough, we’ll close with a quote from Istanbul-based Cihan News – which is controlled by Zaman owner Feza Publications – ca. October 12: 

    Avni, who claims to be among Erdogan’s inner circle, says the president of Turkey has seen the latest polls in the run-up to the snap election in November, and is convinced that the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) cannot regain a single-party majority. 

     

    Avni purports that Erdogan is even thinking of declaring war on Russia and taking advantage of the de facto situation, consolidating his grip on power. 

  • "Hollow Markets"

    Excerpted from Ben Hunt's Epsilon Theory blog,

    Whatever shocks emanate from polarized politics, their market impact today is significantly greater than even 10 years ago. That’s because we have evolved a profoundly non-robust liquidity provision system, where trading volumes look fine on the surface and appear to function perfectly well in ordinary times, but collapse utterly under duress. Even in the ordinary times, healthy trading volumes are more appearance than reality, as once you strip out all of the faux trades (HFT machines trading with other HFT machines for rebates, ETF arbitrage, etc.) and positioning trades (algo-driven rebalancing of systematic strategies and portfolio overlays), there’s precious little investment happening today.

    Here’s how I think we got into this difficult state of affairs:

     First, Dodd-Frank regulation makes it prohibitively expensive for bulge bracket bank trading desks to maintain a trading “inventory” of stocks and bonds and directional exposures of any sort for any length of time. Just as Amazon measures itself on the basis of how little inventory it has to maintain for how little a span of time, so do modern trading desks. There is soooo little risk-taking or prop desk trading at the big banks these days, which of course was an explicit goal of Dodd-Frank, but the unintended consequence is that a major trading counterparty and liquidity provider when markets get squirrelly has been taken out into the street and shot.

     

    Second, the deregulation and privatization of market exchanges, combined with modern networking technologies, has created an opportunity for technology companies to provide trading liquidity on a purely voluntary basis. To be clear, I’m not suggesting that liquidity was provided on an involuntary basis in the past or that the old-fashioned humans manning the old-fashioned order book at the old-fashioned exchanges were motivated by anything other than greed. As Don Barzini would say, “after all, we are not Communists”. But there is a massive and systemically vital difference between the business model and liquidity provision regime (to use a good political science word) of humans operating within a narrowly defined, publicly repeatable game with forced participation and of machines operating within a broadly defined, privately unrepeatable game with unforced participation.

    Whatever the root causes, modern market liquidity (like beauty) is only skin deep. And because liquidity is only skin deep, whenever a policy shock hits (say, the Swiss National Bank unpegs the Swiss franc from the euro) or whenever there’s a technology “glitch” (say, when a new Sungard program misfires and the VIX can’t be priced for 10 minutes) everything falls apart, particularly the models that we commonly use to calculate portfolio risk.

    For example, here’s a compilation of recent impossible market events across different asset classes and geographies (hat tip to the Barclays derivatives team)… impossible in the sense that, per the Central Tendency on which standard deviation risk modeling is based, these events shouldn’t occur together over a million years of market activity, much less the past 4 years.   

    Source: Barclays, November 2015.

    So just to recap… these market dislocations DID occur, and yet we continue to use the risk models that say these dislocations cannot possibly occur. Huh? And before you say, “well, I’m a long term investor, not a trader, so these temporary market liquidity failures don’t really affect me”, ask yourself this: do you use a trader’s tools, like stop-loss orders? do you use a trader’s securities, like ETFs? If you answered yes to either question, then you can call yourself a long term investor all you like, but you’ve got more than a little trader in you. And a trader who doesn’t pay attention to the modern realities of market structure and liquidity provision is not long for this world.

    If you want to read more about the Epsilon Theory perspective on hollow markets and the use of game theory to understand this dynamic, read “Season of the Glitch”, “Ghost in the Machine”, and “Hollow Men, Hollow Markets, Hollow World”.

  • IceCap Asks If It Can It Get Any Worse In The Search For Yield? (And Answers: "You Bet")

    From IceCap Asset Management

    Can it get any worse?

    In the 1980s, term deposit investors routinely earned 15% and higher on their guaranteed savings. Yes, with inflation running sky high the real return was much lower. Yet, savers were accustomed to some pretty nice nominal returns.

    The 1990s rolled around, and so too did interest rates. In fact interest rates rolled right on down to the 7.5% range. Suddenly all term deposit investors were receiving 50% less than they did a short 10 years earlier. In other words – these savers effectively took a 50% cut in their investment income. Still, 7.5% was better than nothing.

    Then came the 2000s. And when considering the number of zero’s, it is rather ironic in that by 2010, term deposit investors were earning pretty close to 0%, or nothing to be exact.

    So, in a very short 30 years the world’s central banks have completely destroyed any chance for savers to earn anything on a safe, bank deposit.

    Can it get any worse? You betcha it can, and it already has.

     

    If central banks are able to cure the economic world, then cutting interest rates from 15% in the 1980s to 7.50% in the 1990s would have cured all economic ills. Instead the world witnessed:

    • 1987 crash
    • Savings & Loans crash
    • Mexican Peso crash
    • Asian currency crash
    • Long-term Capital Management crash And, if central banks are able to cure the economic world, then cutting interest rates from 7.50% in the 1990s to 3.50% in the 2000s would have cured all economic ills. Instead the world witnessed:
    • Tech market crash
    • Housing market crash
    • Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain government crash

    Despite this brutal record, onward they march. Today, central banks have cut interest rates to 0% and today we are witnessing:

    • Declining global growth
    • investors and savers searching the world for income

    We’ve discussed the lack of global growth before. Nothing has changed – the world continues to suffer from any acceleration in economic growth, and this is despite 0% interest rates. Investors and workers everywhere around the world need to grasp this all important fact.

    Which brings us back to understanding interest rates and predicting where they are headed.

    But first, we ask you to really think about the second point above: – investors and savers searching the world for income.

    When central banks set the price of money (setting interest rates), they do this from the perspective of the BUYER of money – not the SELLER of money. This is the key point in understanding interest rates.

    Central banks believe that reducing the cost of money will encourage and incentivize people and companies to BUY money. And when they BUY money, they will then spend the money which will create economic growth.

    This makes sense on paper and it is what universities, governments and Goldman Sachs have been telling everyone for over 30 years – therefore it MUST be true.

    But it isn’t.

    If going from 15% to 7.5% created growth, and then going from 7.5% to 3.5% created growth, then surely going from 3.5% to 0% should definitely create growth.

    That’s what both logic and linear thinking tells you.

    Now, this is the point where the main street advisors and banks stammer that things ARE improving. They whip out numerous charts and data points showing year-over-year improvements in employment, housing, real income, consumer sentiment, PE Ratios and credit spreads.

    Yes, things MUST be getting better.

    But, if things really are getting better, why have central banks all over the world continued to lower interest rates?

    And worse still – why are many lowering interest rates straight through the illogical level of 0%?

    Yes, today practically all of Europe have journeyed through this once fictional barrier and have now established NEGATIVE interest rates.

    While central bankers cannot change the direction of the global economy, they can certainly identify when things are not quite going as well as it is hope for.

    While central banks are hoping their 0% and now NEGATIVE% interest rates will stimulate a recovery; savers, and term deposit investors are hoping for something very different – a source of interest or income greater than 0%.

    Recall that the price of money has 2 sides: those who are buying money and those who are selling money.

    While central banks are hoping their 0% interest rate policies will encourage people and companies to buy money, they have simultaneously crushed the hopes of everyone who is selling money.

    Yes, instead of earning 3.5%, 7.5% or 15% on their savings as they did decades before, today savers everywhere have to either accept 0% on their money or do something different, very different.

    And in many ways, these “very different” things are creating trouble.

    Most term deposit investors are risk-averse. They cannot tolerate losses. They want safety of capital and the ability to earn interest on their savings.

    By creating 0% interest rates, central banks have thrown these savers to the wolves of wall street. And once savers enter the wolves’ den, only bad things can happen.

    And in the investment world, this means doing things you wouldn’t ordinarily do – such as investing in markets you have historically avoided.

    For example just 2 short years ago, Canadians searching for more investment income were told to invest in Energy and Pipeline stocks. These companies paid out 8% in dividends and savers were told these companies were strong, their dividends were strong and the price of oil was strong.

    Instead, the price of oil collapsed 60% which caused many of these companies to cut their dividends and the stocks fell over 40%:

    -40% loss for conservative investors

    Another favourite investment strategy for income seeking savers has been High Yield Bonds. We’ve been told that bonds are always safe, and that there’s nothing to worry about. So load up and enjoy the 7%.

    Interest payments and forever forget about 0% term deposits. Considering this group of investments has declined -3% over the last year, we wonder just how forgetful these investors really are.

    We should ask the following:

    • Why are savers investing in energy stocks and high yield bonds?
    • When central banks reduced interest rates to 0%, they effectively forced savers to become the very thing they tried to avoid – aggressive investors.

    Of course, the investment industry has to accept some of the blame as well. We see countless brochures, commercials and pop-up ads screaming at people to Search for Yield.

    Yes, these investment companies are suddenly claiming to being experts in identifying stocks and bonds from around the world that pay a nice, and sleep easy dividend.

    As investment managers ourselves, we can tell you with absolute certainty there are no free-investment meals in the world. If global interest rates are at 0%, it means every other dividend and interest rate significantly above 0% carries certain degrees of risk.

    And if you want to know the next “income seeking” strategy that will produce significant losses for investors, look no further than emerging market bonds.

    More in the full note below (link)

  • Dozens Of Global Stock Markets Are Already Crashing: "Not Seen Numbers Like These Since 2008"

    As SHTFPlan.com's Mac Slavo notes,

    The system is beyond the point where it is merely showing stresses and fractures. Things are now falling apart and there may well be no way of putting them back together again.

     

    The media will continue to claim everything is fine, until the day of panic and reckoning when it will suddenly be the ‘next Greece’ or ‘2008 all over again’… but worse.

    27 Major Global Stocks Markets That Have Already Crashed By Double Digit Percentages In 2015

    (via The Economic Collapse blog's Michael Snider)

    Anyone that tries to tell you that a global financial crisis is not happening is not being honest with you.  Right now, there are 27 major global stock markets that have declined by double digit percentages from their peaks earlier this year.  And this is truly a global phenomenon – we have seen stock market crashes in Asia, Europe, South America, Africa and the Middle East.  But because U.S. stocks are only down less than a thousand points from the peak earlier this year, most Americans seem to think that everything is just fine.

    The truth, of course, is that everything is not fine.  We are witnessing a pattern similar to what we saw back in 2008.  Back then, Chinese stocks and other major stock markets started crashing first, and then U.S. stocks followed later.

    But when you step back and look at what has been happening globally, a much more ominous picture emerges.  I spent much of the afternoon looking at stock market charts for the largest economies all over the globe.  What I discovered was financial carnage that was much worse than I anticipated.

    It turns out that there are at least 27 major global stock markets that have fallen by more than 10 percent from peaks that were set earlier this year. As you can see, many of these stock market declines have been quite impressive…

    1. China: down more than 30 percent

    2. Saudi Arabia: down 26 percent

    3. Germany: down about 13 percent

    4. United Kingdom: down close to 12 percent

    5. Spain: down 15 percent

    6. Brazil: down more than 22 percent (13,000 points overall)

    7. Malaysia: down 17 percent

    8. Turkey: down 16 percent

    9. India: down close to 12 percent

    10. Chile: down 11 percent

    11. Columbia: down about 30 percent

    12. Peru: down more than 40 percent

    13. Bulgaria: down more than 20 percent

    14. Greece: down more than 30 percent

    15. Poland: down about 19 percent

    16. Malaysia: down 10 percent

    17. Egypt: down 32 percent

    18. Indonesia: down 18 percent

    19. Canada: down 12 percent

    20. Ukraine: down 45 percent

    21. Morocco: down 13 percent

    22. Ghana: down 17 percent

    23. Kenya: down 27 percent

    24. Australia: down 13 percent

    25. Nigeria: down more than 30 percent

    26. Taiwan: down 15 percent

    27. Thailand: down 20 percent

    We have not seen numbers like these since 2008, and trillions of dollars of stock market wealth has been wiped out globally.  So the “nothing is happening” crowd is simply dead wrong.  Stocks are already crashing all over the planet. 

    [ZH: In fact 47 of the world's 93 largest stock indices are down over 10% year-to-date…]

     

    In fact 30 nations are down over 20% Year-to-date…

     

    Just because the big U.S. stock market crash has not happened quite yet does not mean that a major global financial crisis is not happening.

    But do you know what is crashing here in this country?

    Junk bonds.

    At this point, yields on the riskiest junk bonds have risen to levels that we have not seen since the last financial crisis.  As I have discussed repeatedly, yields on junk bonds spiked dramatically just before the stock market crash of 2008, and now it is happening again…

    Yield On CCC Bonds - Chart from Federal Reserve

    This is precisely the kind of behavior that we would expect to see if a major U.S. stock market crash was imminent.  Personally, I watch the junk bond market very, very closely because it is such a key leading indicator.  And according to Jeffrey Snider, it appears that “something” is starting to cause junk bonds to sell off at an alarming pace…

    There isn’t much as far as confirmation, but it increasingly appears as if “something” just hit the triple hooks (CCC) in the junk bond bubble. At least as far as one view of it, Bank of America ML’s CCC implied yield, there was a huge selloff that brought the yield to a new cycle high (low in price) above even the 2011 crisis peak.

    But just like in 2008, a lot of people will not heed the warnings because they don’t have the patience to watch long-term trends play out.

    We live in a society where we expect constant instant gratification.  We have instant coffee, video on demand and 48 hour news cycles.  If something does not happen immediately, most of us quickly lose patience.

    For months, I have been warning that conditions were perfect for another major global financial crisis, and since that time events have been unfolding in textbook fashion.

    And as you can see from the numbers above, we have already entered a new global financial crisis.  If you tried to tell someone in China, Brazil or Saudi Arabia that a financial crisis was not happening, they would just laugh at you.  We need to start learning that the world doesn’t revolve around the United States.

    Of course the U.S. is heading for tremendous difficulties as well.  This is something that I covered yesterday.  All of the fundamental economic numbers are absolutely screaming “recession”, and yet most of the “experts” are still forecasting good things for the coming year.

    Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  None of the problems that caused the crisis the last time around have been fixed, and most of our “leaders” seem blind to what is happening at this moment even though the exact same patterns that played out in 2008 are playing out once again right in front of our eyes.

     

    If you have been waiting for the next global financial crisis, you can stop, because it is already here.

    As we move toward the end of 2015, let us hope for the best, but let us also get prepared for the worst.

  • The Rise Of The Politics Of Fear

    "In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this but their power and authority came from the optimstic visions they offered their people. Those dreams failed. Today, people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly politicians are seen simply as mannequins. But now they have discovered a new role that restores that power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams… politicians promise to protect us… for life."

    As DailyMotion notes, The Power of Nightmares, subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear, is a BBC documentary film series, written and produced by Adam Curtis. Its three one-hour parts consist mostly of a montage of archive footage with Curtis's narration. The series was first broadcast in the United Kingdom in late 2004 and has subsequently been broadcast in multiple countries and shown in several film festivals, including the 2005 Cannes Film Festival.

    The films compare the rise of the Neo-Conservative movement in the United States and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and claiming similarities between the two.

     

    More controversially, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organised force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries – and particularly American Neo-Conservatives – in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies.

    11 years later and this 'strategy' has escalated.. and has never been more crucial to comprehend.

    Part 1…

    Part 2…

    Part 3…

    h/t ILLILLILLI

  • The Inside Story Why The ECB Decided "The Markets Needed To Be Disappointed" And How It All Fell Apart

    On Wednesday morning, less than 24 hours before the historic, and grossly disappointing ECB announcement, one which sent the EUR soaring the most since the Fed’s announcement of QE1, we warned that Mario Draghi may underdeliver, although in doing so he would face the risk of appearing quite weak before the ECB’s governing council where in recent months the schism between European doves and hawks has grown to epic proportions.

    As MNI noted, “Thursday’s meeting will not only be key for the euro area’s economic outlook but also decisive for the nature of Draghi’s presidency as he starts the second half of his tenure. If he gets his way without sparking a revolt, it hard to conceive a situation in which Draghi won’t prevail” to which we add that this is “correct, but the moment ECB decision-making devolves into a pissing contest, Europe has a big problem.”

    After all if Europe’s monetary politics become nothing but a contest of egos, a tragic endgame is all but assured. We concluded by saying that “the question is whether Draghi will listen to logic and reason, or if he will continue his campaign to isolate the Hawks on the ECB governing council and in the process make Europe’s monetary situation unfixable. If Draghi does relent, the EURUSD can soar as high as 1.09 tomorrow according to some estimates.”

    The next day not only was the warning of underdelivery prescient as Draghi did not prevail, but the EURUSD did soar as high as 1.09 as the ECB unveiled a “stunning” package which left Goldman’s FX strategist reeling .

    But just as we were almost ready to congratulate Draghi on “relenting” and acting rationally, we read a Reuters piece which explains that not only did Draghi not relent from his endless confrontation with the ECB governing council, he actually lost. This is what Reuters just reported:

    One source with direct knowledge of the situation interpreted Draghi’s public stance ahead of the meeting as trying to pressure the Governing Council to take bigger action.

     

    Draghi raised expectations too high, on purpose, and attempted to paint the Governing Council into a corner,” the source said. “This was problematic and he was criticized for this by several governors in private.”

    He failed, and in doing so may have emboldened the Weidmann-led hawks at the ECB whose opposition to Draghi’s ultra-easy policies has been duly noted.

    How did they win?

    Reuters says that “unlike last year, when opponents of quantitative easing made their stance public before the decision, the hawks mostly worked behind the scenes. Opponents worked to curtail proposals coming out of the ECB’s committees that prepared the decisions, ensuring that some of the more radical measures expected by market players never made it onto the table.”

    The huge market disappointment took place following weeks of public statement by Draghi which convinced traders that the Italian would unleash something short of a neutron bomb, and as a result markets also expected a 25 percent increase in monthly asset purchases and possibly even a deeper rate cut. More radical options under discussion included the purchase of corporate debt or a split deposit rate that would punish banks parking too much cash with the central bank, sources told Reuters earlier.

    None of that happened.

    Reuters then explains that the smaller than expected move is seen by some as a disappointment for Draghi, who has established a track record for promising and delivering big, as he did with his July 2012 pledge to “do whatever it takes” to preserve the euro and pushing through bigger than expected QE earlier this year.

    Like the Fed earlier this year the ECB has now managed to confuse markets and the public. From now on, markets will treat hints dropped by ECB president Mario Draghi and some of his colleagues with much more scepticism than before,” brokerage Berenberg said.

    Here, however, is where the narrative breaks:

    “the European Central Bank President and his chief economist Peter Praet stoked expectations with dovish speeches in the weeks before the meeting but the ECB’s Governing Council concluded that markets needed to be disappointed this time because the economic outlook has improved and new inflation forecasts were not as bad as feared, the sources said.”

    Now that, unfortunately, makes zero sense because as we reported, the very next day the US stock market had its biggest one day gain entirely due to Draghi appearance in New York, where he reassured the market that there is no need at all to be disappointed, when he said that “QE there to stay”, could be “calibrated” if needed and the ECB can use “further tools” if needed as there is “no limit” to the “size of the ECB’s balance sheet.”

    What happened next was a tremendous surge in the S&P which soared to pre-ECB drop levels, even as the EUR, which is at least in theory the monetary policy transmission mechanism did almost nothing.

     

    Ironically, the market’s first reaction was of course correct: yes, Draghi may have resumed his jawboning as the market breathed a sigh of relief, but what will actually happen if the Fed does hike on December 16 without a major increase in ECB liquidity, is that as much as $800 billion in liquidity will be soaked up by the Fed’s 25bps rate hike as calculated previously. The impact of a move which is the equivalent of unwinding one and a third of QE2 overnight, will certainly have dramatic consequences on risk prices unless there is a more than offsetting injection of liquidity elsewhere.

    Finally, confirming that Reuters’ attempt to smooth Draghi’s mistake is nothing but an urgently hashed out fiction meant to goalseek the deeply flawed conclusion to a broken narrative, is what Draghi said during yesterday’s Q&A.

    Recall that as we reported previously, Mervyn King asked Draghi if “today’s speech deliberately designed to try offset some of the reaction yesterday?” to which Draghi responsed shockingly honestly: “Not really… well, of course.

     

    Here is what really happened: the ECB tried to engineer a modest market selloff because the “market needed to be disappointed“, coupled with a modest rise in the EUR to give the Fed some rate-hike breathing room. Instead, since everyone was positioned exactly the same – wrong – way, the dramatic overreaction in stocks and FX forced Draghi to not only panic but to publicly come out and admit that the only purpose of his Friday speech was to offset the damage from his failure to defeat the opposition at the governing council and to send markets surging. Which they promptly did. 

    And while the markets rejoiced at this latest verbal intervention, the question is now that Draghi has challenged the governing council and lost, and furthermore, once again relented to markets, how will the hawks on the council react to any future demands by Draghi to push the S&P even higher? Lastly, if Berenberg is wrong and the ECB has lost a major portion of its credibility, how will Draghi jawbone next time when not even “whatever it takes” is sufficient any more?

  • JPMorgan Warns Of "Eye-Catching" 76% Probability Of Recession

    Just days ago Citi pronounced, much to the chagrin of the status-quo-hugging Fed faithful, that given the turn in corporate profits (and concerns over margin sustainability) that the chance of a recession in the US had risen to 65% (and on that basis had a bearish outlook for US equities). Now, as other major sell-side shops jump on the equity un-bullish narrative, JPMorgan's Michael Feroli warns that in the past, a low unemployment rate, rising compensation, falling margins, and elevated durables investment have historically signaled an elevated risk that an expansion is nearing its end… and puts the probability of a US recession within 3 years at 76%. Of course, you do not need to worry, because Janet Yellen said this is not true (though failed to provide here reasoning).

     

    As Citi recently noted the cumulative probability of a recession in the next year rises to 65%.

    In the US our chief concern is margin sustainability. Corporate profits as a share of GDP have been at all-time highs, which is just another way of saying the rewards to labour have been at all-time lows. But change may be afoot in the form of modest labour market tightening in the US.

     

     

    It is too soon to see this show up in core (ex Fins, Energy and Materials) margins in the US but that may be where things go. Modest nominal wage acceleration combined with global disinflation (price taking by US firms) and lack of productivity growth may mean margins come under pressure from labour costs.

    And now, JPMorgan's Mike Feroli raises a red flag warning that:

    Our longer-run indicators, however, continue to suggest an elevated risk that the expansion is nearing its end, and our preferred model now puts the probability of recession within three years at an eye-catching 76%.

    As he details…

    We recently developed two sets of models for assessing the risk that the next recession will start within given horizons. One was focused on high-frequency indicators and aimed to measure the probability of a recession starting within six months. The other aimed to capture longer-run cycle indicators that suggest an elevated background risk of the expansion ending within horizons of one to five years.

     

    Table 1 updates our models’ assessments of the probability of recession beginning within six months from our recent note. When we first wrote, only manufacturing sentiment was signaling an above-average probability of imminent recession. But recent weakening in the Richmond Fed services survey and the ISM nonmanufacturing index have now pushed the nonmanufacturing sentiment probability up somewhat as well. Nonetheless, estimates that combine signals from multiple indicators continue to predict little overall recession risk, and we conclude that the chance of a recession beginning within sixmonths is 5% or less.

     

     

    In our work on longer-term risks, we found that a low unemployment rate, rising compensation, falling margins, and elevated durables investment have historically signaled an elevated risk that an expansion is nearing its end.

     

    Figure 8 shows that probabilities of recession within 1, 2, and 3 years predicted by models based on these four variables have recently moved up to 23%, 48%, and 76%, respectively.

     

     

    Although all four variables have moved in the direction of increased risk in recent years, the particularly sharp moves in predicted recession probabilities since mid-2014 have been driven most prominently by our measure of the decline in margins (which we define as the decline in the 4-quarter moving average of nonfinancial corporate net operating surplus as a percent of net value added, as a fraction of its peak in the current expansion). Figure 9 shows the history of this variable over the postwar sample period. Indeed, on most (but not all) of the occasions when this variable fell to its current level, a recession began within a few years. Although continued expansion remains our baseline forecast, we will more carefully investigate the risks of recession emanating from the corporate sector.

     

    *  *  *

    So first Citi, and now JPMorgan warn that there is a significant and growing chance that the US economy contracts next year? According to Janet Yellen, who was asked precisely this question during her hearing in Congress today, there is no risk: according to her, she doesn't see the recession risk as "anything close" to 65%. She did not provide a number which she thought is more appropriate.

    She also said that the FOMC would only raise rates as long as policy makers think U.S. will "enjoy at least some above-trend growth" that would result in improving labor market.. 

    Her conclusion: if the rate hike results in "unintended consequences" the Fed can always just lower rates. Which incidentally is precisely what the Fed did in last 1936 when it, too, erroneously decided the economy was strong enough to sustain a tightening of financial conditions…

    … only to cut immediately. The collateral damage? The Dow Jones plunged 50% the next year…

    … and unleashed a severe recession in the second half of 1937, followed a few year later by the start of World War II.

    This time is not different.

  • The San Bernardino Massacre: Perceptions, Propaganda, And Blowback

    Submitted by Justin Raimondo via AntiWar.com,

    The reaction to the San Bernardino shooting in which 14 people were killed and several more wounded is a textbook case of confirmation bias. The first reactions came from the liberal wing of the Twittersphere, heavily represented by “mainstream” journalists, who immediately took the incident to be a classic “mass shooting” of the Sandy Hook-Columbine variety, and it didn’t take long for the finger-wagging to begin. At once pro-gun control and anti-religious, the meme went out into cyberspace: “thoughts and prayers” aren’t enough, we need to crack down on gun ownership in this country. The front page of the New York Daily News expressed the left-liberal party line: “GOD ISN’T FIXING THIS: As latest batch of innocent Americans are left lying in pools of blood, cowards who could truly end gun scourge continue to hide behind meaningless platitudes.”

    As it turned out, however, the guns used by Syed Farook and Tashveen Malik, the two perpetrators, were bought legally – and their weaponry consisted of a lot more than mere guns. The editors of the Daily News didn’t wait for the facts because they didn’t care about the facts. They just wanted to make a point – one which turned out to be not only wrong but also completely beside the point.

    In the same city, in the offices of a very similar – if ideologically opposite – tabloid, the editors of the New York Post were jumping the gun in an entirely different direction. As the ethnicity and religious affiliation of the attackers came out, they ran with a simple two-word headline: “MUSLIM KILLERS,” with a modifying qualifier: “Terror eyed as couple slaughters 14 in Calif.” As more information came out, however, the editors pulled back, and the final edition was quite different: “MURDER MISSION,” read the headline, with a neutral supplementary: “Shooters slaughter 14 in Calif.” These two editions were published hours after the incident, and only a few hours apart – a testament to the dangers of jumping to conclusions.

    ny-post
     

    This reversal is explained by the subsequent release of yet more information about the perpetrators: Syed Farook worked at the San Bernardino Department of Public Health, which had rented a room at the facility where the massacre took place. The event was a holiday party, which Farook attended, but left early after a reported altercation of some kind. He returned with Malik, his wife, armed to the teeth, and the slaughter commenced.

    These facts would appear to point in a different direction entirely from the scenario painted by the Post’s initial edition, and so the imagery conjured by the new headline went from that of the rampaging “Muslim Killers” to the “Murder Mission” of what appeared to be a case of workplace violence.

    That’s what I thought around midnight last night, when I tweeted my tentative opinion that the workplace violence scenario seemed to be the most likely. My main reason was the nature of the target: why, I asked, would terrorists choose the Christmas party of the San Bernardino Public Health Department as the latest object of their wrath? In addition, reports of a dispute at the event involving Farook seemed to indicate that scenario: he got angry, came back, and started shooting. There were also reports of “turmoil” inside the department where he worked; several people had left amid rumors of disputes with management, and the fact that Farooq and his accomplice were targeting a very specific group of people – and not, say, a military facility, or even a soft target like a mall – seemed to corroborate this conclusion.

    However, as more facts came out, this explanation began to make less sense. To begin with, a bomb – actually, three bombs taped together – had been left behind at the scene of the shooting. The bomb was linked to a device found in Farook’s rental car – rented three days prior – that was very similar to the jury-rigged remote-controlled IEDs recommended by al-Qaeda’s Inspire magazine, which detailed how to make an explosive device with readily available materials. We don’t yet know why the bomb failed to go off,.

    Although reports that the couple came into the venue wearing body armor and Go-Pro body cameras turned out to be false, they were wearing “tactical” clothing, i.e. vests that enabled them to carry large amounts of ammunition. And indeed they were carrying huge amounts, enough to let them reload on the scene, and continue firing up to seventy-five rounds for over 30 seconds. This accounts for the large number of casualties.

    Furthermore, the discovery of twelve “pipe-bomb type” devices, hundreds of tools for making more, and “thousands” of rounds of ammunition in the Redlands home rented by Farooq and his wife eliminates the workplace violence scenario. This was, in effect, a bomb-making factory, and neighbors indicate that a number of people were involved: packages were received throughout the day, and activity was observed into the night. One of these neighbors claims they were ready to contact law enforcement but hesitated to do so for fear of being accused of “racial profiling.” Both Farooq and his bride were of Pakistani extraction.

    Two factors indicating that this was indeed a terrorist cell carrying out a pre-planned operation, and not a disgruntled employee intent on revenge against his co-workers, are plain enough: 1) The couple dropped off their child at a relative’s house the day before the attack, claiming to have a doctor’s appointment, and 2) The tactics utilized in the shooting of the victims and the gunfight with the police — which included throwing a fake pipe bomb out of their car as the cops pursued them – are evidence of some kind of military training. Such training could have occurred during Farooq’s trips to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

    And we are beginning to hear evidence of international contacts with “more than one” terrorist suspect under surveillance by law enforcement. All that’s missing – as of this writing – is a claim of responsibility by some overseas terrorist outfit.

    Yet questions remain: again, the target – a holiday party in a small city – hardly seems like the sort ISIS or al-Qaeda would zero in on. Clearly the couple were planning on a much larger operation, but this plan was changed by something that triggered Farooq to act sooner. And we still don’t have the whole picture: there could conceivably be some new information that could alter our whole perception of what motivated Farooq and Malik.

    Which brings me to my point: our perception of the facts is shaped – and altered – by our preconceptions. In short, people believe what they want to believe – and the facts be damned. In this case, major media organizations didn’t wait for the facts to come in before they pronounced judgment. They simply rushed into print with what were little more than editorials, bereft of any responsibility to their readers or the truth.

    This is why those who proclaim that bias is inherent in all journalism, and that there’s no such thing as objective reporting, are dangerously wrong. Yes, we’re all human; yes, everyone has opinions. But some people wait for the facts to come in before giving vent to those opinions, while others don’t bother with such niceties.

    The reality, as I see it, and given what we know now, is this: San Bernardino was an act of terrorism that may or may not have been directed from overseas. The implications of that are very grave for those of us who oppose our crazed foreign policy of perpetual war, and the relentless assault on our civil liberties on the home front.

    The pressure to “destroy them over there before they strike us over here” is going to increase a hundred-fold. The advocates of universal surveillance are going to be empowered as never before. That these tactics haven’t worked in the past – and, indeed, have backfired badly – won’t deter the usual suspects from insisting that war and repression are the answers to the problem of terrorism.

    Our answer to the War Party must be that their strategy has failed: the terrorists couldn’t recruit anyone if we weren’t over there bombing what remains of their cities and seeking to impose our will on a populace that will never accept our domination, no matter how many soldiers we send and bombing sorties we launch.

    As for the authoritarians who want to use incidents like the San Bernardino attack as a pretext to abolish the Constitution and institute a regime of total surveillance and outright repression: where was their vaunted surveillance system in this case? We didn’t detect this plot – and perhaps that’s because watching everyone, and collecting everyone’s information, blinds us to the real villains hiding in our midst. Then again, perhaps ferreting out villains isn’t the real purpose of government spying.

    After the 9/11 attacks, the nation was swept by a wave of war hysteria, and concern for basic civil liberties went right out the window: we will doubtless experience a similar phenomenon in the days and months to come. Yet we are confident that when the history of our era is written, the advocates of peace and liberty will be vindicated, while the War Party will be discredited and disdained by future generations. We must live in the future, in a sense, in order to fight for the future – if there is to be one, that is.

  • "Terrorist" With Machete In London Subway Slashes Man's Throat Screaming "This Is For Syria"

    Less than a week after the San Bernardino shooting, the ghost of ISIS terrorism has finally landed in London, where moments ago news broke that a man wileding a machete screamed “this is for Syria” before slashing a person’s throat at London’s Leytonstone subway station, and attacking up to three people.

    The following video of the incident was released on Twitter hours ago, and shows a large pool of blood spattered across the ticket hall before the alleged knifeman is Tasered by a Met Police officer.

     

     

    The Express released the following pictures of what it has dubbed the “Syria revenge” stabbing:

     

    As the Telegraph reports, police were called to Leytonstone station after reports of a stabbing in the ticket hall on Saturday at around 7pm. The alleged assailant was promptly tasered by police at the scene.

    Terrified passengers, some with children, can be seen running across the east London Tube station away from the scene.

    As recounted by the Guardian, one person, who claims to have witnessed the attack, took to social media to reveal details of the horror.

    Laurynas Godvisa said: “So as I was going to Leytonstone station was dressed to go to Christmas dinner with people from work.

    “As I walked down I just saw a lot of people running but I ignored it and kept walking to get my train, but suddenly what I saw I couldn’t believe my eyes and what I saw was a guy with a knife and a dead guy on the floor.

    “I was so scared I ran for my life. After good 10-15 police came and got the guy and arrested him.

    “And as he was coming out this is what he said: ‘This is what happens when you f*** with mother Syria all of your blood will be spilled’.”

    A Met Police spokesman confirmed the incident saying that “Police were called at 19:06hrs on Saturday, 5 December, to reports of a stabbing at Leytonstone underground station. The male suspect was reportedly threatening other people with a knife.

    “Met officers attended the scene. A man was arrested at 19:14hrs and taken to an east London police station where he remains in custody. A Taser was discharged by one of the Met officers.”

    “Officers from British Transport Police are now dealing with the incident at the scene. We are aware of one man having sustained serious stab injuries. We await details of any other injuries.”

     

    So far there is little news on the condition of the victim of the attack: one victim is in a serious condition with multiple stab wounds and it is believed up to two others may also have been injured.

    A spokeswoman from London Ambulance Service said: “We were called at 7:09pm to reports of an assault at Leytonstone underground station We sent a number of resources to the including our joint response unit, an incident response officer, an ambulance crew and London’s Air Ambulance to the scene. We treated a man for stab wounds. He was taken as a priority to hospital escorted by the doctor from London’s Air Ambulance.”

    And while it is only a matter of time before a “terrorist” link is found in this latest attack meant to put another western country on edge and to justify the UK’s recent launch of air strikes against ISIS, we wonder if there will be a front page op-ed in a leading liberal UK newspaper tomorrow demanding that all machetes be henceforth banned even as local TV crews stream live from the home of the alleged terrorist.

    * * *

    Update: as expected, the “terrorist” link was just been revealed with Sky News reported that the subway incident is already being treated as an act of terrorism:

  • 'Bankrupt' Mortgage Lenders Unveil The Zero-Money-Down "Friends-And-Family" Mortgage

    Ripping straight from the pages of the "those who failed to learn from history are doomed… period" book of centrally-planned desperation to maintain American Dream 'wealth' by unsustainably levitating home prices, the government's bankruptcy mortgage guarantors have just announced "HomeReady Mortgages." These so-called 'enhanced affordable lending products – provided by the US taxpayer – enable 97%-plus Loan-to-Value loans to borrowers based not on their income (which is too low) but on "non-borrowers" like extended family or children! "Whatever it takes" to maintain the illusion of normalcy and hand out more money just reached peak Einsteinian insanity.

     

    In its latest 'offering' letter for HomeReady Mortgages, Fannie Mae offers what it calls 'innovative underwriting flexibility'…

    • Offers an innovative new feature that supports extended family households: will consider income from a non-borrower household member as a compensating factor in DU to allow for a debt-to-income (DTI) ratio >45% to 50%.
    • Allows non-occupant borrowers, such as a parent.
    • Permits rental income from an accessory dwelling unit (such as a basement apartment).
    • Allows boarder income (updated guidelines provide documentation flexibility).

    In other words, as KARE11 tries to defend…

    "It could be a credit problem, it could be an income problem, it could be an employment history problem, it could be a debt-ratio problem. There are a number of things that can affect a person's situation," said Chris O'Connell, a licensed mortgage loan officer with Nations Reliable Lending in Edina.

     

    Mortgage giant Fannie Mae recognizes these hardships, and in response will soon offer a new kind of mortgage with new rules designed to add flexibility for borrowers.

     

    "They've recognized that households have changed and our guidelines need to change with it," said O'Connell.

     

    HomeReady will consider incomes from others planning to live in the house without being a borrower on the loan.

     

    This means, if you live with parents, siblings, working children or maybe a roommate, as long as they make 30 percent of the household income, Fannie will include their money to help you qualify for a loan.

     

    These are being called "non-borrowers" by Fannie. 

    Non-borrower backed mortgages!!??

    Also, non-occupants of the home can add further income to the mortgage. Perhaps parents living elsewhere but willing to help pay the loan.

     

    "The typical household has changed now. It's not the household we used to know 20 years ago because there's a lot of extended family. Parents are living with the family, children are staying home longer, and it allows you to consider their income too," said Tousley.

    But it gets even better… If you don't have the down-payment (of 3% or less of the home's value) then there is a solution for you too

    Flexible sources of funds can be used for  the down payment and closing costs with no  minimum contribution required from the  borrower’s own funds

     

    Gifts, grants, Community Seconds®, and cash-on-hand permitted as a source of funds for down payment and closing costs.

    And what is a "Community Second" we hear you cry? Well…

    An alternative financing option for low- and moderate-income households under which an investor purchases a first mortgage that has a subsidized second mortgage behind it. The second mortgage may be issued by a state, county, or local housing agency, foundation, or nonprofit organization. Payment on the second mortgage is often deferred and carries a very low interest rate (or no interest rate at all).

     

    Part of the debt may be forgiven incrementally for each year the buyer remains in the home.

    So, to sum up – if you don't have any savings, the government will give you some to use as a down-payment (which as long as you stay poor will be forgiven over time).. and then the government will allow you to borrow 97% of the value of the home on the basis not of your income and ability to pay but of any rag-tag bunch of friends, family, or pets you can gather under your 'new' roof… and all subsidized by the good 'ol US Taxpayer… for your own good.

    And why are they doing this? Aside from the obvious desperation to keep home prices higher via unsustainable demand? Simple… because it's fair… it is everyone's right – no matter how poor, how uncreditworthy, how under-employed, how much of a drag on the rest of society, or how ignorant – to leverage themselves (at the US taxpayer's dime) at 30-40 to 1 into record high US home prices… as they explain themselves…

    (Aligned with Fannie Mae’s regulatory housing goals and may help lenders meet applicable Community Reinvestment Act goals)

    So do not claim when this all goes utterly pear-shaped that this was not the government's doing… it was! and is!

    *  *  *

    To torture an analogy to death, give a nation just enough 'rope' and it will drown itself in generational debt servitude… or perhaps that was/is the plan all along… certainly makes it 'easy' to vote for the party with all the handouts?

  • 326,000 Native-Born Americans Lost Their Job In November: Why This Remains The Most Important Jobs Chart

    Friday’s release of a “just right” jobs report, in which the US economy reportedly added 211,000 jobs, more than the 200,000 expected, solidified its position as the “most important” one in recent years, after it was broadly interpreted by economists as the sufficient condition for the Fed to hike rates on December 16, 7 years to the day after the same Fed cut rates to zero.

    As such, if indeed the Fed does hike, over the next several quarters, the US labor data will take a secondary place in terms of importance unless, of course, it plummets in which case the Fed will be forced to quickly undo its tightening policy and go back to ZIRP if not NIRP and more QE.

    However, even as the Fed’s “data (in)dependent” monetary policy takes on secondary relevance as we enter 2016, one aspect of the US jobs market is certain to take on an unprecedented importance.

    We first laid out what that is three months ago when we said that “the one chart that matters more than ever, has little to nothing to do with the Fed’s monetary policy, but everything to do with the November 2016 presidential elections in which the topic of immigration, both legal and illegal, is shaping up to be the most rancorous, contentious and divisive.”

    We were talking about the chart showing the cumulative addition of foreign-born and native-born workers added to US payrolls according to the BLS since December 2007, i.e., since the start of the recession/Second Great Depression.

    Curiously, it is precisely this data that got absolutely no mention following yesterday’s job report, about which the fawning mainstream media only noted, in passing, one negative aspect to the report: the fact that 319,000 part-time jobs for economic reasons were added in November. However, with Trump and his anti-immigration campaign having just taken the biggest lead in the republican primary race, we are confident that the chart shown below will soon be recognizable to economic and political pundits everywhere.

    And here is why we are confident this particular data should have been prominently noted by all experts when dissecting yesterday’s job report: according to the BLS’ Household Survey, while 375,000 foreign-born workers found jobs in November, a whopping 326,000 native-born Americans lost theirs.

     

    How does this data look like over the long-run: presenting, the cumulative number of job gains by foreign born workers since December 2007. At 25.5 million, it is the highest in the series.

     

    If only the chart for native-born workers was anything remotely as buoyant.

     

    And here, as we have shown previously, is the most important jobs chart for 2016: since December 2007 the US economy added just 747,000 native-born workers (a number which tumbled as much as 8 million during the depths of the crisis), compared to a 260% greater increase in foreign-born workers, to just under 2.7 million.

    We are confident that one can make the case that there are considerations on both the labor demand-side (whether US employers have a natural tendency to hire foreign-born workers is open to debate) as well as on the supply-side: it may be easier to obtain wage-equivalent welfare compensation for native-born Americans than for their foreign-born peers, forcing the latter group to be much more engaged and active in finding a wage-paying job.

    However, the underlying economics of this trend are largely irrelevant: as the presidential primary race hits a crescendo all that will matter is the soundbite that over the past 8 years, 2.7 million foreign-born Americans have found a job compared to only 747,000 native-born. The result is a combustible mess that will lead to serious fireworks during each and every subsequent GOP primary debate, especially if Trump remains solidly in the lead.

  • Will 2017 Be The Year Of The EM Corporate Debt Crisis?

    Back in October we brought you “Chinese Cash Flow Shocker: More Than Half Of Commodity Companies Can’t Pay The Interest On Their Debt,” in which we highlighted a report from Macquarie that contained the following rather disconcerting data point: “…more than half of the cumulative debt in the Chinese commodity sector was EBIT-uncovered in 2014.” 

    That’s right, “more than half,” and before you say “well, it is commodities and it is China after all,” consider that for the entire universe of CNY22 trillion in corporate debt, the “percentage of EBIT-uncovered debt went up from 19.9% in 2013 to 23.6% last year.” So, nearly a quarter. 

    In November, we revisited the idea (presented in these pages more than 18 months ago), that China may have reached its dreaded Minksy Moment, as Chinese corporates are set to take out some CNY7.6 trillion in new loans this year just to pay interest on their existing borrowings. As Morgan Stanley put it last year, China looks to be reaching “the point at which Ponzi and speculative borrowers are no longer able to roll over their debts or borrow additional capital to make interest payments.” You know what happens next, and we’re already seeing it as the number of onshore defaults accelerates. 

    This is part of a wider discussion about EM corporate debt in a world where EM FX has plunged and investor confidence in the space is rapidly deteriorating in the face of low commodity prices, a strong USD, a looming Fed hike, and a series of idiosyncratic political risk factors playing out from Brasilia to Ankara to Kuala Lumpur.

    With that in mind, Deutsche Bank is out with a new special report on EM debt which has quite a bit of useful color on exactly where things stand for corporate borrowers across a variety of emerging economies. 

    “Demands for EM debt are on a declining trend, as the outlook for both portfolio flows into EM economies and funds flows into EM debt funds remain lackluster due to slow growth, worse credit fundamentals, and expected rise in US yields,” Deutsche begins, adding that “EM corporates need to cope with continued rise in leverage and eroding cash buffers.” 

    Private capital outflows were negative this year for the first time since the crisis. “Even during the peak of the crisis in 2008, EM outflows were a small fraction of the losses we expect in 2015,” Deutsche notes.

    Next, Deutsche moves to consider the corporate debt picture, where most of the EM re-leveraging has been concentrated. Specifically, “while EM government debt levels have only moderately increased over the past few years, non- financial EM corporate debt has seen a dramatic rise [jumping] from a level of around 60% of GDP in 2008 to the current level of close to 90% of GDP.” 

    Here’s where it gets interesting. Although Deutsche (repeatedly) describes the situation as “benign”, it’s pretty clear that the trend in EBITDA coverage is moving in the wrong direction – and fast for LatAm HY and CEEMA investment grade:

    “Interest coverage has been declining among EM corporates due to lower growth and weaker commodity prices [but] EM corporates’ solvency is unlikely to be challenged as an asset class in 2016, in our view,” Deutsche says, cheerfully. Well that’s good – Deutsche Bank doesn’t think the entire EM corporate sector is likely to become insolvent in the next twelve months. See? There’s always a silver lining if you just look for it. 

    However, when we look out to 2017, the outlook worsens. In short, the space will benefit from a sharp drop in USD-denominated debt maturities in 2016, but that reverses course the following year:

    After a rather rosy assessment of the outlook for next year, here’s what Deutsche says about 2017:

    The liquidity picture for EM corporates in 2017 looks less appealing, due to a 38% yoy increase in USD bond maturities (to USD122bn) and lingering uncertainty on commodity prices (an important component of the corporate sectors’ cash flow) and FX (a headwind for domestic-oriented players). A further depletion in cash buffers and reduced appetite for certain portions of the EM corporate universe may lead to increased refinancing stress in 2017 – especially if inflationary pressures build and domestic liquidity conditions also have to be tightened. 

    When Deutsche looks at what the bank says is a representative sample of corporate borrowers across LatAm and Ceemea, they find that only 14% of the sample is “in danger” based on net debt-to-EBITDA and cash-to-short term debt. However, when the bank uses 9%+ bond yields as a proxy for “oh shit,” it turns out that a whopping 27% of the LatAm sample is in trouble. Specifically, Brazil has some $89 billion in USD bonds trading above 9% (a large chunk is Petrobras paper). Here’s the full breakdown: Petrobras (USD37bn), USD20bn of industrials, USD15bn of banks (mostly subordinated), USD6bn of rigs, USD3bn of royalty-backed bonds and USD8bn of other sectors.

    So ultimately, this is a question of where EM goes from here and as we’ve said on any number of occasions, the answer to that question is likely “nowhere good.” Turkey is at war with the PKK and is about to be at war with Russia while Erdogan is busy establishing what amounts to a police state. Brazil has descended into a depression while the government is coming apart at the seams. No one knows if China will be able to keep it together in the midst of a currency conundrum, a collapsing economy, an acute overcapacity problem, lingering equity market volatility, and a looming credit crisis. Malaysia has its own political battles still to fight, and to top it all off, the Fed is about to hike which will invariably put further pressure on EM FX and accelerate outflows. Meanwhile, the outlook for commodities is nothing short of grim.

    So it’s difficult to see how the picture improves for a universe of EM corporates that’s 50% more leveraged today than in 2008 and is likely to have more trouble servicing debt going forward especially if the dollar soars post-liftoff.

    Throw in the fact that global growth and trade are likely to be stuck in the doldrums for the foreseeable future and China may not be the only major EM to have a Minsky Moment over the next three to five years.

  • Did Turkey Just Invade Iraq To Protect Erdogan's ISIS Oil Smuggling Routes?

    On Friday, Turkey sent troops into Iraq.

    Here’s a video of the deployment shared on social media:

    Contrary to what you might have read, there’s really nothing unusual about that. 

    As you may recall, Turkey’s military entered Iraq back in September in hot pursuit of PKK “terrorists” Ankara claimed had fled over the border. And that was just par for the proverbial course.  Here’s what we said at the time: 

    In early 2008, Turkish soldiers entered Iraq in a similar effort to eradicate the PKK. “Operation Sun”, as the incursion was called, was conducted with Washington’s blessing for the most part. “Washington described the PKK as a ‘common enemy’, and only urged Ankara to keep its incursion short and closely focused,” BBC noted at the time, adding that “the positions of the UN and EU have been similar, suggesting a degree of sympathy with Turkey’s cause.”

     

    And then there was “Operation Steel” in 1995. And “Operation Hammer” in 1997.” And “Operation Dawn.” And the aplty named “Operation Northern Iraq.” 

     

    You get the idea. 

     

    So while history doesn’t repeat itself, it damn sure rhymes and here we are again watching as the Turkish military crosses the Iraqi border as though it’s not even there chasing “terrorists” up into the mountains.

    What’s different this time around, is that this isn’t a Kurd-chasing mission.

    In fact, if you believe the official line, it’s the exact opposite. Turkey has apparently had some 90 troops on the ground in Bashiqa “for two years” on a mission to “train” the Peshmerga. The new troops – around 150 personnel supported by two dozen tanks- will “take over the mission,” according to Hurriyet. “Turkey will have a permanent military base in the Bashiqa region of Mosul as the Turkish forces in the region training the Peshmerga forces have been reinforced,” the daily continues, adding that “the deal regarding the base was signed between Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) President Massoud Barzani and Turkish Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioglu, during the latter’s visit to northern Iraq on Nov. 4.” 

    Ok, so what’s important to remember here is that although Erdogan is no “fan-o’-Kurds”, Ankara is friendly with the KRG and indeed, Barzani’s 632,000 b/d oil operation (which, you’re reminded, runs independent of SOMO, much to Baghdad’s chagrin) depends heavily on a pipeline that runs from Iraq to Ceyhan. Over the summer, the PKK attacked the pipeline costing the KRG some $250 million in lost revenue. As Rudaw noted at the time, that amounts to an entire month’s worth of salaries for the Peshmerga and other security forces, underscoring the extent to which oil sales via Turkey are crucial to the government in Erbil.

    You might also remember from “ISIS Oil Trade Full Frontal: “Raqqa’s Rockefellers”, Bilal Erdogan, KRG Crude, And The Israel Connection,” that there seems to be some commingling going on when it comes to Turkish and ISIS crude. Technically, both are “illegal” and because the 45,000 or so barrels per day that ISIS pumps are so inconsequential in the large scheme of things, it’s easy for Islamic State crude to get “lost” in the shuffle once it gets to Turkey which works out great for those involved in the smuggling operation (as an aside, Russia has identified what Moscow says are other ISIS oil smuggling routes but we’ll focus on northern Iraq for now).

    You might notice that there’s a certian irony to this whole thing as it relates to the KRG. What the Al-Araby al-Jadeed report (cited in the article linked above) suggests is that the Kurds in Iraq are to some extent complicit in the entire operation which is amusing because it’s the sale of undocumented Kurdish crude that allegedly funds the Peshmerga’s fight against Islamic State. As with every other dynamic in the region, the entire thing is impossibly convoluted. 

    With that in mind, consider where these Turkish troops (who, again, are supposed to be “training” the Peshmerga) are located. 

    So they’re right next to Mosul and right between the Kurds and ISIS and, most importantly of all, right on what Al-Araby al-Jadeed claims is the smuggling route for illegal ISIS crude into Turkey from Iraq.

    The star on the map is Zakho. Araby al-Jadeed, citing an unnamed Kurdish security officials, employees at the Ibrahim Khalil border crossing between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan, and an official at one of three oil companies that deal in IS-smuggled oil, says that once Islamic State oil “is extracted and loaded, the oil tankers leave Nineveh province and head north to the city of Zakho, 88km north of Mosul [and] after IS oil lorries arrive in Zakho – normally 70 to 100 of them at a time – they are met by oil smuggling mafias, a mix of Syrian and Iraqi Kurds, in addition to some Turks and Iranians.”

    Araby al-Jadeed’s story takes a turn for the fantastic after that, but the point is that it seems extraordinarily convenient that just as Russia is making an all-out effort to expose Turkey’s role in financing Islamic State’s lucrative oil operation and also to destroy ISIS oil convoys in Syria, that Ankara would dispatch troops and two dozen tanks to the exact place in Iraq where some reports suggest the heart of ISIS’ Iraqi oil operation lies. 

    For his part, Iraqi PM Haider al-Abadi has called for Turkey to “immediately” withdraw its troops. He also calls Ankara’s incursion a “violation of sovereignty.” Here’s the full statement:

    It has been confirmed to us that Turkish troops numbering around one regiment armoured with tanks and artillery entered the Iraqi territory, and specifically the province of Nineveh claim that they are training Iraqi groups without the request or authorization from the Iraqi federal authorities and this is considered a serious breach of Iraqi sovereignty and does not conform with the good neighbourly relations between Iraq and Turkey.

     

    The Iraqi authorities call on Turkey to respect good neighbourly relations and to withdraw immediately from the Iraqi territory.

    That would seem to indicate that Baghdad has never approved the “training mission” that Ankara claims has been going on east of Mosul for two years.

    Furthermore, this underscores the fact that Iraq does not want help from NATO when it comes to fighting ISIS. As we reported last week, Iraqis generally believe the US is in bed with Islamic State and you can bet that Russia and Iran will be keen on advising Baghdad to be exceptionally assertive when it comes to expelling a highly suspicious Turkish presence near Najma. 

    Ultimately, this is yet another escalation from Erdogan and the timing, location, and vague explanation raise all sorts of questions about what exactly those 150 troops and 25 tanks are doing but you can be sure that if Baghdad rebukes Washington and green lights Russian recon and airstrikes in Iraq, we’ll find out soon enough.

  • Broken Commodities Continue To Crush Investors

    Via Dana Lyons' Tumblr,

    Since breaking key support 1 year ago, commodities have continued to drop, setting a 13-year low today.

    This post is not one that is going to spotlight a current potential investment opportunity. In fact, it actually shines the spotlight on a development we highlighted over a year ago. And no, it is not a “told-you-so” or a back-slapper of a post. Consider it more of A) an update and B) a public service announcement.

    On October 30, 2014, we posted a piece entitled “It’s Make Or Break Time For Commodities”. In the post, we included a chart (as always) that detailed what we deemed to be a major area of support for the Thomson Reuters CoreCommodity CRB Index (CRB) around 266. It was so major that we suggested it was a “make or break” spot for the key commodity index. Specifically, a “make” could produce a “substantial and durable” bounce and even potentially usher in “a resumption of the post-2001 commodity bull market”. On the other hand, a “break” would “open the index up to further (perhaps significant) weakness” and maybe even “cast a doubt on the likelihood of resuming the commodity bull market any time soon.”

    Here is that chart from over a year ago:

    image

     

    Just a few weeks later, the CRB registered a “break”, dropping below that key support level – and it has not looked back since. The break did indeed produce “further (perhaps significant) weakness” as the CRB would lose 25% of its value in just 2 months. Furthermore, the index has continued to drop for another full year which has definitively “cast a doubt on the likelihood of resuming the commodity bull market any time soon”

    Here is the update as of today:

    image

     

    We actually expanded the chart back another 9 years to include the post-1999 UP trendline that just happened to intersect the 2 lines of support in the original chart. As you can see, the CRB closed at a new 13-year low today, around 180. The index has now lost one third of its value since violating the “make or break” level that we highlighted over a year ago.

    Now, again, this post is not meant to pat ourselves on the back. In fact, it is more about identifying the point at which we would know we are wrong. If you read the post from last October, you’ll see that we actually saw ample evidence to support a bounce in the CRB from that key level. However, we also recognized that, should such a bounce not materialize and the CRB fail to hold that key level, then the index was likely broken.

    While our strategy is almost always to buy “relative strength”, i.e., things that are in strong uptrends, there are times when we will take stabs at mean-reversion, knife-catching type plays. However, we will only attempt such trades at what we consider to be major, longer-term support levels. That 266 level in the CRB would have been one of those levels.

    That said, in the event that that major level was broken to the downside, we knew it would be time to cut bait on the trade and move on. In our view, that is an important lesson to keep in mind. It is OK to attempt to catch a falling knife at a level you deem to be of utmost significance on the chart. If you are wrong, at least you know where to cut your losses and move on. At worst, you come away with one small knife cut.

    The worst thing you can do is to continuously attempt to catch the falling knife. When something is in free-fall, realize that it is normally for a good reason. Trends tend to persist so expect that something that is plummeting to continue to plummet. Just remember that there will be just 1 bottom. In the event of a multi-year collapse in a security or commodity, etc., the odds of picking the “bottom” day out of possibly hundreds of possibilities are slim. If you repeatedly try, the odds are all you will come away with are a multitude of knife holes in your hands – and your portfolio.

    Take the CRB, for example. Since breaking that key level a year ago, the index has made no less than 51 new 52-week lows. If you’ve been trying to catch the knife that whole time, your portfolio looks like swiss cheese right now. By the way, if you think that’s far-fetched because commodities sentiment was not too bad until just recently, think again. Remember that we wrote in our post last year that commodities were already despised then. They have undergone over a year of declines since then and they are still dropping.

    The point is, if you are going to attempt to catch a proverbial falling knife on a chart, at least do so only at a point you deem to be a “make or break” type level. Whether or not you can likely accurately identify a “make or break” level is another matter. The point is that, should that level fail, like it did on the CRB Index a year ago, you know the security is broken and it is time to walk away.

    *  *  *

    More from Dana Lyons, JLFMI and My401kPro.

  • How Gun Laws 'Work' In Reality

    Uncivil disobedience…

     

     

    Source: Investors.com

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News December 5, 2015

  • Nothing To Fear But The Fearful Themselves

    Submitted by Dan Sanchez via DanSanchez.me,

    When I first learned of the recent attacks in Paris, a chill went down my spine. “No,” I thought, “This is all happening too fast.”

    I was terrified. I was not terrorized, mind you. What happened in Paris was tragic, of course. But I was not so ignorant and innumerate as to think the kind of violence it represented was a statistically significant direct threat to myself and my loved ones. I was fully cognizant that, even with the recent uptick in terror attacks, the probability of my family ever being caught up in one was vanishingly minuscule. I am more likely to be felled by a deer or a bolt of lightning than by a jihadist’s Kalashnikov.

    What terrified me was the response of all the people who are incapable of such a proportional perspective: those who saw the news from France and panicked, thinking “I’m next!” As distant as it was, the Paris attacks unleashed in America a surge of fear and of calls for greater police powers, as well as an attendant wave of anti-Muslim hate and war lust.

    And as sophisticated and urbane as the French are reputed to be, they too let irrational terror wash over them. And under its sway, they permitted the State to run rampant over life and liberty. The public attitude was distilled by a young French citizen whose message to her government was, “Do whatever you want, but keep me safe.” With this mandate, France escalated its pointless and terrorist-breeding bombing of civilian-filled Syrian towns. And at home, as Truth in Media reported:

    “…the French government declared a state of emergency based on a rarely used 1955 law that allows the state to conduct warrant-less searches of private property, impose curfews, restrict public gatherings and movements of people, confiscate weapons at will and take over the press.”

    As always, the statist public perversely responded to terrorism drawn upon their heads by their government’s foreign militancy by sanctioning more such militancy. And it perversely rewarded that government for its abject failure to prevent the attacks with more resources, powers, and responsibility.

    On top of arrest sweeps and threatening to close mosques, the French government’s emergency powers were invoked to place activists under house arrest in order to squelch completely unrelated protests. This demonstrated vividly that war is indeed the health of the State, and war-spawned terrorist attacks are like an adrenaline shot for domestic tyranny.

    When I saw these responses, it fully sank in just how surrounded my family and I are by human livestock and just how acutely dangerous that position is. I realized that, when an attack of that scale and shock-value again happens on American soil, the pack-minded multitudes all around me will deafeningly bay for war. And the herd-minded hundreds of millions will stampede to the State for security, bleating to please, please be shorn of their remaining liberties.

    I am not terrified of the terrorists; i.e., I am not, myself, terrorized. Rather, I am terrified of the terrorized; terrified of the bovine masses who are so easily manipulated by terrorists, governments, and the terror-amplifying media into allowing our country to slip toward totalitarianism and total war.

    Now the result of that could be a statistically significant threat to myself and my family. Under an omnipotent government with permanent emergency powers, there would be a significant likelihood of my nephew being drafted to help occupy a foreign country; my daughter going hungry thanks to wartime economic planning; or myself being imprisoned or shot as a dissident.

    Yet I have drawn solace from the fact that libertarians like myself are not alone in pushing back against the terrorized Right. Following the Paris attacks, many excellent articles from the political Left were published wisely warning the West not to answer indiscriminate violence in kind. Such a terror-driven response is exactly what the terrorists want, in order to polarize and sharpen a “clash of civilizations.”

    And then yesterday’s San Bernardino attack happened.

    Before the fact that the alleged shooters were Muslim emerged, the Left began jumping all over it as yet another in a long series of mass shootings by whites that demonstrated the urgent need for more gun control.

    Two weeks earlier, these same progressives were calmly counseling the public to not be terrorized into giving their government more power to bomb, register, and persecute Muslims. Now they themselves were trying to terrorize the public into giving their government more power to disarm, register, and persecute gun owners.

    They point out that you are more likely to be killed by a white, homegrown terrorist than a Muslim one. That may be true, but both of those fates are still far less likely than your odds of being crushed by furniture (or being killed by a cop, for that matter). Neither of these exaggerated threats are any justification for incurring the great and underestimated dangers involved in granting government sweeping new powers.

    Progressives, who rightly support Black Lives Matter, are pining for more gun laws, while the already existing gun possession laws are one of the chief pretexts cops and courts use to brutalize and incarcerate blacks.

    And the same progressives who rightly warn of potential fascism under the divisive demagoguery of Donald Trump, want to give the institution that Trump may come to control greater power to register and disarm the public. They ignore or deny the fact that the mass human roundups we associate with such regimes are only practicable given broad civilian disarmament. And broad civilian disarmament, in turn, is only practicable given broad gun registration. For example, the German Jews and liberals were easily liquidated by the Nazis, thanks to the Weimar Republic’s gun registration lawsDo you really want every single Mexican and Muslim in America disarmed or easily disarm-able under “Chancellor” Trump?

    After San Bernardino, I am just as terrified of the terrorized and terrorizing Left as I am of the terrorized and terrorizing Right. I more fully realize that the latter can only do its worst if enabled by the former. The Left sets us up for the Right to knock us down. Call it the Weimar/Third Reich one-two punch.

    I do not irrationally and disproportionately fear Muslim bomb-wielding jihadists or white, gun-toting nutcases. But I rationally and proportionately fear those who do, and the regimes such terror empowers. History demonstrates that governments are capable of mass murder and enslavement far beyond what rogue militants can muster. Industrial-scale terrorists are the ones who wear ties, chevrons, and badges. But such terrorists are a powerless few without the supine acquiescence of the terrorized many. There is nothing to fear but the fearful themselves.

    Paris and San Bernardino taught me that my family is trapped amid a herd, completely surrounded by cattle-minded millions who can be spooked into large-scale stampedes with small-scale crimes. And there is literally no way out, because virtually the entire world is afflicted with one form of collectivist statism or another. Therefore, the only way to prevent my loved ones from being trampled is by helping as many people as I can to break the spell of terror that turns civilized men and women into rampaging beasts.

    That is why I am writing this essay: to implore you, the reader, to snap out of that spell if you have not already, and to help others do the same. Stop swallowing the overblown scaremongering of the government and its corporate media cronies. Stop letting them use hysteria over small menaces to drive you into the arms of tyranny, which is the greatest menace of all. Overthrow the reign of terror the State has installed over your mind. Else the days ahead may be terrible indeed.

     

  • Prominent Turkish Media Figure Resigns Citing Legal Battle With Erdogan

    Last week, Turkey’s NATO-backed, Washington-approved autocrat Recep Tayyip Erdogan took another step towards ensuring that the concept of a free press doesn’t exist in Turkey when Can Dundar, editor in chief of Cumhuriyet, and Erdem Gul, the newspaper’s capital correspondent were arrested on charges of spying and aiding a terrorist organization.

    When you hear “aiding a terrorist organization”, you might think the men had, say, provided weapons to extremists or perhaps assisted in the smuggling of illegal oil from which the most prominent terrorist organization on the planet derives up to a billion dollar per year in revenue.

    But no, that’s what the Turkish government does. As for the reporters, their crime was exposing the fact that Ankara was sending weapons to militants in Syria via trucks manned by Turkish intelligence agents. For those who missed it, here’s the video proof:

    Of course that was hardly the first time Erdogan has cracked down on the press. Back in September, in a move dubbed “unsubstantiated, outrageous and bizarre” by Amnesty International, Turkey arrested three Vice News journalists (two British citizens and an Iraqi) for allegedly “engaging in terror activity” on behalf of ISIS. That was just the latest example of Ankara using the NATO-backed ISIS offensive as an excuse to eradicate pro-Kurdish sentiment. According to The New York Times (and according to common sense) the reporters’ only real “crime” was “covering the conflict between Kurdish separatists and the Turkish state.” 

    And there are countless other examples. 

    Well, in the latest press casualty brought to you by America’s despotic ally in Ankara, Today’s Zaman Editor-in-Chief Bulent Kenes, a journalist who has been at the helm of Turkey’s best-selling English-language daily since it was launched in 2007, has resigned citing an ongoing legal battle with Erdogan. Here’s the full post from TZ

    Kenes said on Thursday that he cannot perform his job as the editor-in-chief of Today’s Zaman due to a series of criminal and civil lawsuits government officials have launched against him as part of the campaign of pressure on the independent media in Turkey. He has already been convicted in one defamation case and is facing many others that observers have said are nothing but intimidation and persecution of independent and critical journalists in Turkey.

     

    He also said he wanted to spend more time with his family and pay more attention to his health.

     

    “As the founding editor-in-chief of the Today’s Zaman, I have sincerely tried to fulfill my job to the best of my ability, maintained the paper’s integrity and tried to resist all kinds of pressure from the government as much as I could,” Kenes said. He wished success for his colleagues at the daily, which he said has been a leading brand name in telling Turkey’s story abroad, and thanked the readers of the daily for their valuable support for him over the years.

     


     

    Kene? was arrested by the ?stanbul 7th Criminal Court of Peace on Oct. 10 and remained behind bars until his release pending trial was ordered on Oct. 14. The charges against the journalist concern 14 tweets that allegedly insult President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He has already been convicted of insulting the president in a Twitter post and was handed a suspended prison sentence of 21 months earlier this year. However, Kenes did not even mention the president’s name in his tweet and this sentence has attracted worldwide condemnation.

     

    Kenes is facing the prospect of up to eight years and two months in prison on charges of “insulting” Erdogan in a series of tweets and statements that he has said were simply the expression of a critical opinion. He has also been hit by dozens of other pending cases launched against him by Erdogan, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and other government officials.

    So the takeaway from this travesty (well, other than to reiterate that the US should not be supporting this despot) is that you don’t “insult Erodgan” on Twitter. Especially if you happen to live in Turkey. Although amusingly, you might be able to get away with comparing the President to Gollum (from Lord of the Rings) because as it turns out, Turkish judges aren’t Tolkein fans and on that note, we close with the following from The Guardian:

    The trial of a Turkish man accused of insulting the president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, by comparing him to Gollum has been adjourned so that a group of experts can study JRR Tolkein’s Lord of the Rings character, Turkish media has reported.

     

    Bilgin Ciftci was fired from his job at Turkey’s public health service in October after sharing images comparing Erdo?an’s facial expressions to those of Gollum.

     

    According to a report in the daily newspaper Today’s Zaman, a court in Ayd?n has adjourned Ciftci’s trial as the chief judge had not seen the Lord of the Rings films. The court-appointed experts have reportedly been asked to determine whether the comparison is indeed an insult.

     


  • Do You Really Want to Raise Money From a Venture Capitalist?

    By Chris at www.CapitalistExploits.at

    When I was much younger everyone, myself included, wanted to be a hedge fund manager. And who could blame us. After seeing the kind of houses these folks lived in, any sensible bloke with aspirations of ditching the 30-year old Fiat for a Porsche wanted a hedge fund of their very own. They clearly brought only wonderful things to those who had one… except maybe Raj Rajaratnam.

    A near mythical status was attributed to these God-like people, hedge fund managers that is. Even the excessively rotund, cabbage-faced geek, with the hygiene of a garbage bag would find himself swarming with girls should he let it slip that he indeed manages a hedge fund.

    Today a similar status seems to have descended like a blanket of fog over venture capitalists. Like the aforementioned hedge fund managers, they’re largely misunderstood. Fog does that. It makes things… well, foggy.

    A conversation I had with a couple of entrepreneurs shows the thickness of the fog.

    The conversation went something like this:

    Me: So how are you financing this?

    Founder: We’ve raised some family and friends money a few months ago and now we’re looking for VC money.

    Me: Why VC money? Why not angel money? (this is a very early stage company which is nowhere near being ready for VC capital)

    Founder: Well VCs have a lot more money than angels, and we don’t want to waste our time with angels. We’re going straight to the top.

    Me: The top of what?

    Founder: Well VCs are it really. They’ve at the top. I mean they’ve got to where they’ve got to by being really good. No, we need VC money.

    Me: Really? What do you believe they’re going to bring you that angels can’t?Founder: The expertise we get from VCs is going to help us a lot.

    Me: Really, how do you figure that?

    Founder: Well, VCs have more money, they have more contacts and they can get us strategic relationships.

    Me: So you’re expecting them to be quite active in your business?

    Founder: Yes.

    This sort of thinking is complete horseshit and I told the founder so.

    Companies have different capital requirements during their life-cycle, but as I mentioned last week, it is an entrepreneur’s job to identify the most efficient and attractive source of capital at any given point in the company’s life-cycle.

    The gentleman mentioned above had an extremely early stage business. Just a few months old, and not much more than an idea. What he needs is pre-seed capital which almost never comes from VCs as the amounts in question are very small, often only a few hundred thousand dollars. He would have been better off sourcing angel money for two reasons:

    1. His business was not yet mature enough to take to VC money, and
    2. He needed additional help in his company on the skill side. This would most likely be easier for him to get from an interested angel investor who could join the board, than it would be from a VC fund.

    The problem, I realised, that this entrepreneur faced, was that he didn’t understand the nature of what venture capital was, and had lumped venture capital together with anything related to private funding.

    The trouble is if you don’t understand the person you’re trying to raise money from you land up wasting both parties time.

    And furthermore, when the time does come and your business is at the stage where it needs to secure venture capital you can pretty much write off the VC you pitched earlier; he’s already had a bad experience with you since he realised you never did your homework before talking to him.

    I’ve always felt that the relationship between entrepreneurs and investors is or should be that of a partnership. Those funding your business are partners in your business and as such you should educate yourself about who they are, what their motivations are and what they can and cannot bring to the table.

    Who, Then, Are Venture Capitalists?

    Perhaps let’s look at the structure of a typical VC fund as this will shine some light on the subject.

    What takes place is that a bunch of smart, and sometimes not so smart guys, and sometimes gals, get together and form a company with the objective to get filthy stinking rich and they intend to do this by investing in exciting early stage ventures.

    These guys are called the General Partners (GPs) and in order to leverage what they’re doing, they take in partners who wish to co-invest. These partners are passive and called Limited Partners (LPs) and they are usually charged 2% of capital and 20% of the carried interest, which in the industry is commonly known as 2:20.

    VC Fund Structure

    The more money the GPs can raise from Limited Partners the better for them. More capital means more fees and returns. For example, a VC fund with $1 million under management that generates a 2x return will only earn the GP 20% of $1 million or $200,000.

    On the other hand, a GP with $100 million who earns only 6% will earn $1.2 million or 20% of the $6 million, not to mention the 2% of fees, which on a $100 million fund amount to $2 million. Assets under management (AUM) are therefore super important to VCs.

    What Does This Mean to You As a Founder Looking to Raise VC Money?

    It means that your company should be large enough to be investable and it means that as an entrepreneur you need to understand who you’re talking to.

    As an entrepreneur, right NOW may very well be THE best time to raise money because there are those who are throwing it out like a lolly scramble at a 5-year-old’s birthday party.

    VC Throwing Money

    All that said, VCs are going to protect themselves. They understand they are investing in a risky asset class and will limit those risks as much as is possible. They’re going to demand liquidation preferences, maybe even 2x, and they’re going to take board seats.

    Realise also that VCs, evil as they may look, are not their own boss. They answer to the LPs, and if they answer to their LPs and you take their money, you now do as well. Oh, and remember, LPs are often made up of pension funds, endowment funds, funds of funds and the like. As such LPs tend to know about as much about your business as they do about the city of Ouagadougou… not so much.

    What do LPs want?

    Exits.

    If LPs want exits it means your investor want exits. Now that sounds a bit like stating the obvious but realise that one of the biggest risks behind venture capital is the lack of liquidity and there will be a push for liquidity whether you the founder like it or not.

    Everyone wants to eventually see liquidity. This is why companies will IPO even if it means, like in the recent case of Square, the valuation is lowered.

    Case Study

    Consider for a moment some of the VCs in Square who got in at the Series E financing. Many invested with a 1.3x ratchet. Some elected to waive the ratchet and they’re staring at losses as a result, but many did not. It’s the VCs who are making money and the difference comes out of, you guessed it, founders’ pockets.

     As an entrepreneur it’s important to know this early on when you’re taking VC money. Maybe you’re OK with that and you still walk away very rich, and maybe you don’t. It all depends on how much dilution you’ve already taken on and how much you can still take, and the size of the opportunity you’re hunting and how you execute on that.

    Accretive dilution is fine and everyone is happy to see it, but as you can see VCs cover the downside and that means that someone has to pay for that protection. That someone will be staring you in the face every morning as you brush your teeth.

    Now Jack Dorsey is still the largest shareholder owning over 24% of Square and we won’t be crying for him. Remember, this is one of the success stories.

    What is important to understand is that as a founder it’s entirely possible to end up in a situation where your interests are no longer aligned with those of your shareholders.

    It can happen where your VCs want that trade sale, or IPO, and you as a founder don’t. Maybe you’ve incurred too much dilution and a trade sale or IPO at the market price, based on your equity, means that VCs with a 2x liquidation preference make money, and you, after working 100-hour workweeks, losing your marriage and friends, after mortgaging your home, end up with nothing. Yep. Nada. Zilcho. It happens. I’d rather it didn’t happen to you.

    ============

    Liked this article? You can read more from us here.

    ============

  • The Pretend War: Why Bombing ISIS Won't Solve The Problem

    Authored by Andrew J. Bacevich, originally posted at The Spectator,

    Not so long ago, David Cameron declared that he was not some "naive neocon who thinks you can drop democracy out of an aeroplane at 40,000 feet." Just a few weeks after making that speech, Cameron authorised UK forces to join in the bombing of Libya – where the outcome reaffirmed this essential lesson.

    This week Cameron asked his parliament to share his ‘firm conviction’ that bombing Raqqa, the Syrian headquarters of the Islamic State, has become ‘imperative’and they did.

    At first glance, the case for doing so appears compelling. The atrocities in Paris certainly warrant a response. With François Hollande having declared his intention to ‘lead a war which will be pitiless’, other western nations can hardly sit on their hands; as with 9/11 and 7/7, the moment calls for solidarity. And since the RAF is already targeting Isis in Iraq, why not extend the operation to the other side of the elided border? What could be easier?

    But it’s harder to establish what expanding the existing bombing campaign further will actually accomplish. Is Britain engaged in what deserves to be called a war, a term that implies politically purposeful military action? Or is the Cameron government — and the Hollande government as well — merely venting its anger, and thereby concealing the absence of clear-eyed political purpose?

    Britain and France each once claimed a place among the world’s great military powers. Whether either nation today retains the will (or the capacity) to undertake a ‘pitiless’ war — presumably suggesting a decisive outcome at the far end — is doubtful. The greater risk is that, by confusing war with punishment, they exacerbate the regional disorder to which previous western military interventions have contributed.

    Even without Britain doing its bit, plenty of others are willing to drop bombs on Isis on either side of the Iraq-Syria frontier. With token assistance from Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, US forces have thus far flown some 57,000 sorties while completing 8,300 air strikes. United States Central Command keeps a running scorecard: 129 Isis tanks destroyed, 670 staging areas and 5,000 fighting positions plastered, and (in a newish development) 260 oil infrastructure facilities struck, with the numbers updated from one day to the next. The campaign that the Americans call Operation Inherent Resolve has been under way now for 17 months. It seems unlikely to end anytime soon.

    In Westminster or the Elysée, the Pentagon’s carefully tabulated statistics are unlikely to garner much official attention, and for good reason. All these numbers make a rather depressing point: with plenty of sorties flown, munitions expended and targets hit, the results achieved, even when supplemented with commando raids, training missions and the generous distribution of arms to local forces, amount in sum to little more than military piddling. In the United States, the evident ineffectiveness of the air campaign has triggered calls for outright invasion. Pundits of a bellicose stripe, most of whom got the Iraq war of 2003 wrong, insist that a mere 10,000 or 20,000 ground troops — 50,000 tops! — will make short work of the Islamic State as a fighting force. Victory guaranteed. No sweat.

    And who knows? Notwithstanding their record of dubious military prognostications, the proponents of invade-and-occupy just might be right — in the short term. The West can evict Isis from Raqqa if it really wants to. But as we have seen in other recent conflicts, the real problems are likely to present themselves the day after victory. What then? Once in, how will we get out? Competition rather than collaboration describes relations between many of the countries opposing Isis. As Barack Obama pointed out this week, there are now two coalitions converging over Syria: a US-led one, and a Russia-led one that includes Iran. Looking for complications? With Turkey this week having shot down a Russian fighter jet — the first time a Nato member has downed a Kremlin military aircraft for half a century — the subsequent war of words between Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Vladimir Putin gives the world a glimpse into how all this could spin out of control.

    The threat posed by terrorism is merely symptomatic of larger underlying problems. Crush Isis, whether by bombing or employing boots on the ground, and those problems will still persist. A new Isis, under a different name but probably flying the same banner, will appear in its place, much as Isis itself emerged from the ashes of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

    Does the West possess the wherewithal to sustain another long war? Only if the allies wage that war exclusively from the air. The British army is now the smallest it has been since the 19th century, Cameron’s government having reduced it by 20 per cent since coming to power. The French army today numbers just over 100,000. London and Paris inevitably look to the United States as the pre-eminent member of the western alliance to take up the slack (the US still spends almost twice as much on defence as all other Nato members put together). But apart from Obama’s evident reluctance to close out his presidency by embarking upon a new war, advocates of a major ground offensive against Isis should note that the United States army is also shrinking. It’s also considerably worn out by the trials of the past dozen or more years. Those who cheer from the bleachers may be eager for action. Those likely to be sent to fight, not to mention citizens who actually care about the wellbeing of their soldiers, may feel less keen.

    The fact is that Britain, France, the United States and the other allies face a perplexing strategic conundrum. Collectively, they find themselves locked in a protracted conflict with Islamic radicalism — of which Isis is but one manifestation. Prospects for negotiating an end to that conflict anytime soon appear to be nil. Alas, so too do prospects of winning it.

    In this conflict, the West as a whole appears to enjoy the advantage of clear-cut military superiority. By almost any measure, we are stronger than our adversaries. Our arsenals are bigger, our weapons more sophisticated, our generals better educated in the art of war, our fighters better trained at waging it.

    Yet time and again the actual deployment of our ostensibly superior military might has produced results other than those intended or anticipated. Even where armed intervention has achieved a semblance of tactical success — the ousting of some unsavoury dictator, for example — it has yielded neither reconciliation nor willing submission nor even sullen compliance. Instead, intervention typically serves to aggravate, inciting further resistance. Rather than putting out the fires of radicalism, we end up feeding them.

    Although the comparison may strike some as historically imprecise, the present moment bears at least passing resemblance to the last occasion when British and French leaders got all worked up about taking on obstreperous Arabs. Back in 1956, the specific circumstances differed, of course. Then, the problem attracting the ire of British and French policymakers was the Arab nationalism of Gamal Abdel Nasser, who in seizing the Suez canal had committed a seemingly unpardonable offence. And the issue was preserving imperial privilege, not curbing terrorism. But then, as today, in both London and Paris, an emotional thirst for revenge overrode sober calculation.

    The vicious Isis attacks in Paris represent another unpardonable offence. Through war, Cameron and Hollande seek to avenge the innocents who were killed and wounded. But as the humiliating outcome of the Suez war reminds us, there are some problems to which war is an unsuitable response.

    Across much of the greater Middle East today, we confront one such problem. For western governments to reflexively visit further violence on that region represents not a policy but an abdication of policy. It’s past time to think differently.

    *  *  *

    As an afterthought, we were reminded that while Hilary Benn voted for war this week, his father had a very different perspective…

  • For Citi, This Is The "Greatest Event Risk" For Markets In 2016

    There’s quite a bit of talk these days about what’s “priced in” and what’s not. 

    The market, for instance, had “priced in” an expansion (not just an extension) of PSPP and a 20bps cut from Mario Draghi this week and as it turns out, the market was wrong, leading the likes of Goldman to go the mea culpa route (“we badly misread this meeting”). 

    But while everyone is keen on trading the rumor and trying to get out ahead of central bankers, no one seems interested in pricing in the myriad geopolitical risk factors that loom large on the horizon going into 2016. 

    Perhaps the market feels as though when it comes to capital markets, nothing short of a nuclear holocaust will be sufficient to trump central bankers hell bent on keeping the party going. Or perhaps investors simply don’t understand the gravity of the innumerable risk factors at play, but whatever the case, savvy market participants keen on “getting it right”, so to speak, might be wise to start pricing in some risk other than that which stems from the possibility that a central planner might not lean quite as dovish as everyone wants them to at the next policy meeting.

    To be sure, the implications of pricing in geopolitical risk need not necessarily lead one to a bearish conclusion. A war time boost might be just what the US economy needs to finally get back to trend (lord knows the MIC would love it) from a growth perspective, and one has to think that no matter how long OPEC keeps flooding the market, crude might well spike in the event NATO decides to shoot down another Russian plane in Syria or vice versa. 

    And we cannot forget about epochal political shifts in key emerging economies (e.g. Brazil, Turkey, and Malaysia), EU periphery hot spots (e.g. Spain and Portugal), and in America (where anti-establishment candidates are capitalizing on voters’ disgust for politics as usual inside the Beltway).

    Of course the Janet Yellens, Mario Draghis, and Haruhiko Kurodas of the world will likely still dominate when it comes to explaining why markets behave the way they do on a daily basis, but recognizing the importance of analyzing geopolitics in the course of evaluating the outlook for markets is nonetheless critical.

    Recognizing this, Citi is out with some new commentary that’s worth a read for those who understand that there’s more to developing a prudent, long-term view of where asset prices are heading than parsing what a PhD economist mutters at a press conference – or at least there should be.

    *  *  *

    From Citi

    In our view, investors should be prepared for the convergence of rising “Old” geopolitical risks with “New” socio-economic risks, creating more destabilizing byproducts in the process. Such outcomes are already in evidence with the burgeoning refugee crisis and the spike in terrorist activity, symptoms of profound foreign policy failures and shortcomings in global governance in controlling their escalation. Together, these rising risks may form a toxic brew that exceeds the capacity of central bank liquidity to mask them. 

    In the year ahead, geopolitical risks likely pose the greatest potential to disrupt markets in terms of event risk. But failure to address new socio-economic risks, such as income inequality and youth unemployment, runs the arguably much greater risk of undermining the functioning of the global system, creating a negative feedback loop. There is also the potential for geopolitical risks to intersect with economic fragility in the event of a downturn, amplifying both.

    The November terrorist attacks in Paris took place in a year that saw a significant uptick in the nature and the extent of the risk of terrorism, mainly at the hands of ISIS. In our view, the Paris attacks mark a turning point with global implications. In a tactical sense, the attacks marked a new stage in ISIS approach, being a series of coordinated attacks, perhaps centrally-planned, and, crucially, outside of ISIS’s field of operations (the self-proclaimed “Caliphate”) where it has sought to establish its parallel state and expand its territorial reach. It remains to be seen whether the group has the capacity to launch other attacks in developed market capital cities. 

    Terrorism is not a new risk, but overall, levels of violent conflict are at a post-Cold War high according to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, which tracks three types: armed conflicts between states, between non-state groups, and civilian massacres. 36 ISIS’ shift away from the symbolic soft targets of Al Qaeda’s “spectaculars” to mass shooting incidents in capital cities, focusing on fairly undistinguished targets, will be difficult to combat. With the flow of foreign fighters to and from Syria continuing, the desire to maintain open borders has never seemed under greater threat in the post-Cold War era. 

    For 2016, Fewer Systemically-Significant Elections: US, Taiwan and Brexit Referendum in Focus 

    There are — perhaps mercifully — relatively few systemically-significant political signposts with the potential to influence global markets in 2016. The most impactful include US presidential elections in November and the UK referendum on EU membership (due by end-2017). Taiwanese general elections and South Korean parliamentary elections will also take place, with Taiwan especially closely-watched given the country’s relationship to China. Other government collapses and/or snap elections may also emerge of course where governments fall under pressure, with Venezuela bearing close watching. 

    Instead of the usual focus on election-watching, it may be that the political significance of 2016 will not be about election results this year, but in how economic and political conditions will influence the coming constellation of systemically significant elections in France and Germany in 2017 and the context for scheduled leadership transitions in China and Russia (see Figure 57)

    US Elections — Anti-Establishment Republican Candidates in the Lead, But For How Long? Will the US Have its First Female President? Anti-establishment candidates Donald Trump and Ben Carson continue to dominate polls for the Republican nomination, with sustained popularity for surprise Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders, a self-declared Socialist in a country where the term is typically regarded as a political insult. Candidate after candidate has made blunders that would, under other circumstances, have cost them US public support. This time, Americans seem to be rewarding candidates who depart from the usual political script. With just under a year to go, the US political establishment and markets have not been overly concerned, with most treating the race as rather colorful political theatre, but we suspect that will soon change. 

    Could the UK Vote to Leave the EU? Rising Brexit — and UK Breakup — Risk Could the UK vote to leave the European Union? Once no more than a tail risk, in our view Brexit risk is on the rise, with perhaps a 20-30% probability. The pro-EU lead has fallen in recent months to roughly 3 percentage points. Could Brexit really happen? It is far from impossible — we consider Brexit risk to be one of the top global political risks; if it transpires, it would likely prompt a wider unravelling within Europe. 

    The Refugee Crisis and EU Political Risk: Welcome Refugees, Goodbye Merkel? European policymakers are struggling to resolve the refugee and migration crisis, which follows in the wake of a list of challenges, from the Greek debt crisis, the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the broader challenge of reforming the Eurozone and EU architecture, and is emerging as a significant source of political risk. In addition to influencing election outcomes, the refugee crisis will test cohesion between EU member states, requiring burden-sharing on a topic much more unpopular with their voters than bailouts: immigration. The potential for the refugee and migration crisis to destabilize the EU could eventually overshadow Grexit (in any case a lower risk for 2016 than in previous years). Could it also be the undoing of the European politician who has done the most to help resolve it?

    Geopolitical Outlook: The Syria Conflict Enters its Fifth Year, and What Will Follow the End of Sanctions in Iran? As the Syria conflict enters its fifth year, Europe’s political imperative to stem the flow of refugees and Russia’s expanded military intervention in Syria are altering the regional political calculus, forcing Washington’s hand as the US enters an election year. The Obama Administration’s recent decision to send approximately 50 “special advisors” highlights the degree to which the security situation in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria have all worsened, compelling President Obama, who came to power promising to extricate US forces from these conflicts, to revisit the US stance. What will be the impact of these moves: will the conflict expand, or could the refugee crisis and Paris attacks provide the impetus for cooperation that will pull the Syria conflict out of its downward spiral — and potentially lead to a rapprochement between Russia and the West? Although diplomatic differences have narrowed encouragingly, it is difficult to envision a durable political solution emerging soon. The recent Turkish-Russia military incident underscores the risk of so many actors, with often competing interests, operating in an increasingly crowded military theatre.

    A key regional wildcard will be impact of the end of (much of) the sanctions regime against Iran, a rare recent example of a diplomatic breakthrough, and one fraught with controversy. Can the Iran deal withstand rigorous inspections, opposition from Iranian hardliners, and the potential for regime change in Washington? How will Tehran exert influence in the region, and how will other regional players, from Riyadh to Jerusalem, interact with it?

  • Why The Liberal Media Hate Trump

    Submitted by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

    In the feudal era there were the “three estates” – the clergy, the nobility and the commons. The first and second were eradicated in Robespierre’s Revolution.

    But in the 18th and 19th century, Edmund Burke and Thomas Carlyle identified what the latter called a “stupendous Fourth Estate.”

    Wrote William Thackeray: “Of the Corporation of the Goosequill — of the Press … of the fourth estate. … There she is — the great engine — she never sleeps. She has her ambassadors in every quarter of the world — her courtiers upon every road. Her officers march along with armies, and her envoys walk into statesmen’s cabinets.”

    The fourth estate, the press, the disciples of Voltaire, had replaced the clergy it had dethroned as the new arbiters of morality and rectitude.

    Today the press decides what words are permissible and what thoughts are acceptable. The press conducts the inquisitions where heretics are blacklisted and excommunicated from the company of decent men, while others are forgiven if they recant their heresies.

    With the rise of network television and its vast audience, the fourth estate reached apogee in the 1960s and 1970s, playing lead roles in elevating JFK and breaking Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

    Yet before he went down, Nixon inflicted deep and enduring wounds upon the fourth estate.

    When the national press and its auxiliaries sought to break his Vietnam War policy in 1969, Nixon called on the “great silent majority” to stand by him and dispatched Vice President Spiro Agnew to launch a counter-strike on network prejudice and power.

    A huge majority rallied to Nixon and Agnew, exposing how far out of touch with America our Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal had become.

    Nixon, the man most hated by the elites in the postwar era, save Joe McCarthy, who also detested and battled the press, then ran up a 49-state landslide against the candidate of the media and counter-culture, George McGovern. Media bitterness knew no bounds.

    And with Watergate, the press extracted its pound of flesh. By August 1974, it had reached a new apex of national prestige.

    In The Making of the President 1972, Teddy White described the power the “adversary press” had acquired over America’s public life.

    “The power of the press in America is a primordial one. It sets the agenda of public discussion, and this sweeping political power is unrestrained by any law. It determines what people will talk and think about — an authority that in other nations is reserved for tyrants, priests, parties and mandarins.”

    Nixon and Agnew were attacked for not understanding the First Amendment freedom of the press.

    But all they were doing was using their First Amendment freedom of speech to raise doubts about the objectivity, reliability and truthfulness of the adversary press.

    Since those days, conservatives have attacked the mainstream media attacking them. And four decades of this endless warfare has stripped the press of its pious pretense to neutrality.

    Millions now regard the media as ideologues who are masquerading as journalists and use press privileges and power to pursue agendas not dissimilar to those of the candidates and parties they oppose.

    Even before Nixon and Agnew, conservatives believed this.

    At the Goldwater convention at the Cow Palace in 1964 when ex-President Eisenhower mentioned “sensation-seeking columnists and commentators,” to his amazement, the hall exploded.

    Enter The Donald.

    His popularity is traceable to the fact that he rejects the moral authority of the media, breaks their commandments, and mocks their condemnations. His contempt for the norms of Political Correctness is daily on display.

    And that large slice of America that detests a media whose public approval now rivals that of Congress, relishes this defiance. The last thing these folks want Trump to do is to apologize to the press.

    And the media have played right into Trump’s hand.

    They constantly denounce him as grossly insensitive for what he has said about women, Mexicans, Muslims, McCain and a reporter with a disability. Such crimes against decency, says the press, disqualify Trump as a candidate for president.

    Yet, when they demand he apologize, Trump doubles down. And when they demand that Republicans repudiate him, the GOP base replies:

    “Who are you to tell us whom we may nominate? You are not friends. You are not going to vote for us. And the names you call Trump – bigot, racist, xenophobe, sexist – are the names you call us, nothing but cuss words that a corrupt establishment uses on those it most detests.”

    What the Trump campaign reveals is that, to populists and Republicans, the political establishment and its media arm are looked upon the way the commons and peasantry of 1789 looked upon the ancien regime and the king’s courtiers at Versailles.

    Yet, now that the fourth estate is as discredited as the clergy in 1789, the larger problem is that there is no arbiter of truth, morality and decency left whom we all respect. Like 4th-century Romans, we barely agree on what those terms mean anymore.

  • Correlation May Not Equal Causation, But This Divergence Looks Like Bad News

    For about three weeks, beginning on August 11, just about all anyone wanted to talk about were EM FX reserves.  

    The conversation starter was of course China’s “surprise” yuan devaluation which, contrary to the official narrative, did not in fact give more of a role to the market in determining the exchange rate. In fact, the PBoC’s hand became even heavier. As BNP so eloquently put it, “whereas the daily fix was previously used to fix the spot rate, the PBoC now seemingly fixes the spot rate to determine the daily fix, [thus] the role of the market in determining the exchange rate has, if anything, been reduced in the short term.” A reduced role for the market meant an increased role for Beijing and that, in turn, meant liquidating FX reserves to control the spot.

    Well about a week into the new FX regime, everyone began to take a look at just how much in US paper China was burning and suddenly, the world woke up to what we’d been saying for months, namely that not only was the pace of China’s UST liquidation set to increase going forward, but in fact Beijing had been a seller of USD assets for quite some time. 

    Subsequently, the market came to understand what we first began to discuss in our November 2014 classic, “How The Petrodollar Quietly Died, And Nobody Noticed”: between slumping commodity prices, FX pain, and, as of August, the China deval, the “great accumulation” (as Deutsche Bank would later call it) was over. EM had begun liquidating their UST warchests and ultimately, every analyst on the street as well as every mainstream financial media outlet would end up documenting exactly what we had been saying for the better part of a year: when EM liquidates its reserves, it’s QE in reverse and thus amounts to a drain on global liquidity as commodity producers cease to be net exporters of capital. 

    All of this figured heavily in the Fed’s decision to adopt the “clean relent” in September but because the market has a short memory, the global EM FX reserve liquidation story has been largely forgotten even as commodity prices remain in the doldrums and even as a laundry list of idiosyncratic factors are still weighing on the world’s most important emerging economies from Brasilia to Ankara to Beijing to Kuala Lumpur.

    Bear in mind that just as QE floods the market with liquidity, the liquidation of EM FX reserves sucks liquidity out and thus should exert a tightening effect even as DM central banks (minus the Fed) struggle to meet market expectations for easing. There are obviously a number of mitigating factors here, but the point is that the conditions which prompted EM to liquidate their reserves have not changed and indeed, things could get materially worse depending on how things shape up in Brazil and Turkey and depending on the trajectory of the Chinese economy (SDR-induced inflows or no, there’s still a hard landing and capital is still flowing the wrong way). 

    Against this backdrop we present the following two graphics from Credit Suisse who looks at the relationship between FX reserves and, i) global equities, and ii) global growth. While the bank’s opinion is that “the problem is GEM growth not FX reserves,” and while they caution that correlation “does not establish causation,” the graphics speak for themselves.

    Take a look at the divergence and draw your own conclusions about where we’re headed:


  • Democratic New York State Sheriff Urges Citizens To Carry Guns In Mass Shooting Aftermath

    Slowly but surely America is losing it.

    In the aftermath of the San Bernardino mass shooting, which according to the FBI is now being treated as a terrorist attack, and since ISIS is at least indirectly related makes it the biggest terrorist attack on US soil since Sept. 11, the suggestions, proposals, if not outright threats on how to respond, show just how schizophrenic US society is becoming when it comes to this most sensitive of social issues: gun violence.

    Case in point, yesterday afternoon, a sheriff from New York State’s Ulster Country, Paul Van Blarcum, asked residents in his county to carry their legal guns in the wake of a mass shooting in California that has reignited a national conversation about gun control.


    “In light of recent events that have occurred in the United States and around the world I want to encourage citizens of Ulster County who are licensed to carry a firearm to PLEASE DO SO,” Ulster County Sheriff Paul J. Van Blarcum wrote on Facebook Thursday. “I urge you to responsibly take advantage of your legal right to carry a firearm.”

     

    According to NBC, Van Blarcum’s Facebook post, which also urged active duty and retired officers to carry guns “whenever you leave your house,” had been shared more than 28,000 times by Friday afternoon. The post also drew more than 3,000 comments.

    His appeal is addressed to a very small set of people: only about 10,000 people in Ulster County are licensed to carry handguns, Van Blarcum told the AP. That’s about 5 percent of the more than 180,000 people. Which means if terrorism does strike in this otherwise sleepy country 100 miles north of New York City, it would the obligation of each gun-carrying citizen to protect 19 of their peers.

    As could be expected, the responses ranged on both sides of the spectrum with extreme opinions prevailing: some posters thanked the sheriff, saying his message would help keep the county safe. Others said more firearms would only lead to more violence. “There were more positive comments than negative, but the negative ones are very adamant,” Van Blarcum told The Associated Press. 

    What is most surprising is that Van Blacrum is, according to the AP, a democrat. In other words, he can’t be blamed of being just another gun crazy republican, hell bent on forming his own militia.

    “I’m not trying to drum up a militia of any sort,” Van Blarcum said, according to NBC New York. “It’s just a reminder that if you want to, you have a right to carry it. It might come in handy. It’s better to have it than not have it. We’re partners with the public in crime prevention.”

    Ironically, Blarcum’s post came as many, especially fellow democrat President Barack Obama, are calling for stricter gun control measures following the recent string of high-profile shootings. “We’re going to have to, I think, search ourselves as a society to make sure that we take some basic steps that make it harder — not impossible — but harder for individuals to get access to weapons,” Obama said Thursday.

    What is strange is that two ideologically similar people can have two such diametrically opposing opinions on how to deal with the threat of imported terrorism.

    However, what is beyond debate and is demonstratively factual, is that as we showed earlier today, ever since Obama’s election, gun sales have soared, mostly over concerns that the president, who has been very forthright with his anti-gun agenda, could make selling of weapons illegal with an unexpected executive order at any moment.

     

    What we also showed, is that over the past 20 years, the murder rate in the US has steadily declined even as total new gun sales have risen. While correlation does not equal causation, in this particular case the case can be made that it is Van Blacrum whose response is fundamentally right.

     

    However, where things get truly deranged, is that just 100 miles south of this update county, another democrat, this time NYC mayor Bill de Blasio is taking on gun makers directly, in a way he hopes to really make them hurt, by forcing New York pension funds to sell their shares.

    According to the NYT, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio urged the city’s pension funds on Friday to divest their holdings in stocks of gun makers after this week’s mass shooting in San Bernardino, California. This has precedent: two of the funds in the city’s $155 billion pension system dropped their holdings in gun manufacturers such as Smith & Wesson Holding Corp and Sturm Ruger & Co Inc after the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012. This time de Blasio is targeting everyone.

    Those two funds were the New York City Employees Retirement System and the New York City Teachers Retirement System. Funds for the city’s police and fire departments and the city’s board of education have not divested.

     

    “I call on all government pension funds in New York City and across the country to divest immediately from funds that include assault weapon manufacturers,” de Blasio said in a statement. De Blasio also appealed to private investors to dump gun stocks and funds that invest in them.

    This is what happens when punitive socialism meets capital markets: “the mayor urged the city comptroller “to divest as soon as possible if no verifiable assurance is given that assault weapons will not be sold to civilians.” The comptroller’s office, which oversees the funds, said it was down to the mayor to present detailed plans to pension fund board members. “We look forward to receiving that proposal,” said John McKay, a spokesman for the comptroller. “Gun violence is a real and constant threat to our children, families and communities.”

    Ironically, NY pension investments in gun makers across the three funds amounted to a paltry $2.1 million, as of Sept. 30 – in other words selling their stakes would maybe impact the stock price by 1 cent or so.

    These two dramatically opposing reactions to the same “terrorist” event, which one can claim the US brought on itself with the CIA’s creation of the Islamic State as a clandestine method to overthrow Syria’s president al Assad, and by two people who are both democrats, shows just how ridiculous the gun control debate is set to become in the coming days.

    At this point, if we had to forecast the final outcome, we would say that just as we accurately predicted the terrorist events in Paris two months earlier, so this time the “terrorist attacks” together with comprehensive 24/7 TV coverage, in the US will get worse and worse until one of two things happen, if not both: the NSA will see all of its surveillance powers reinstated legally in the coming months, while the US will see increasingly more escalating “attacks” until ultimately Obama’s crackdown on gun sales and possession hits its breaking point and the president’s gun confiscation mandate is finally executed. We hope we are wrong.

  • Indian Government Shifts Focus to Temple Stash After Failing To Get Citizens' Gold

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Screen Shot 2015-12-04 at 11.06.16 AM

    The scheme has only attracted about one kilogram in a month, prompting the government to nudge temples through banks to hand over their treasures, the sources said, but at least one temple said it was still unconvinced by the plan.

     

    “Convincing retail consumers is not an easy task, it takes time,” said a senior official with a state bank, who declined to be named. “We’re planning now to focus on institutions like temples.”

     

    A finance ministry official said if banks fail to win over temples, the government could intervene directly by talking to the temples as it is looking for a big boost to the scheme to keep both imports and the current account deficit under control.

     

    – From the Reuters article: India Targets Temple Gold Hoard to Rescue Monetization Plan

    The Indian government has been trying to get its citizenry to relinquish its gold to the bankers for a very long time. I’ve covered this saga periodically over the past several years, most recently in last month’s post, A Warning to Indian Citizens – Your Government Wants Your Gold. Here’s an excerpt:

    India’s prime minister on Thursday unveiled three state-backed plans to try to tap the stockpiles of the precious metal to trim physical demand and reduce imports by providing people with alternative avenues for investment. At an event in New Delhi, Modi announced the formal start of a gold-deposit plan, a sovereign-bond program linked to the metal’s price and introduction of locally minted coins, some bearing the face of Mahatma Gandhi.

     

    Under the gold-deposit plan, investors can deposit a minimum of 30 grams with banks to earn interest, and at maturity either redeem the gold or cash, according to a government statement in June. Banks holding the bullion will be free to sell or lend the gold to jewelers, thereby boosting supply. The planned sovereign-bond issue will be open to investors from Thursday up to Nov. 20, the Reserve Bank of India said on Nov. 3.

    So how is the scheme working out thus far? Not well. Not well at all.

    Reuters reports:

    India is trying to persuade rich temples to deposit some of their gold hoards with banks to revive a plan to recycle tonnes of the precious metal and cut gold imports, sources said.

     

    The scheme has only attracted about one kilogramme in a month, prompting the government to nudge temples through banks to hand over their treasures, the sources said, but at least one temple said it was still unconvinced by the plan.

     

    In a bid to reduce the economically crippling imports, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the much-publicised scheme to tap a pool of more than 20,000 tonnes of gold lying idle in homes and temples.

     

    "Convincing retail consumers is not an easy task, it takes time,” said a senior official with a state bank, who declined to be named. “We’re planning now to focus on institutions like temples.”

     

    But Mumbai’s two-century-old Shree Siddhivinayak temple, which is devoted to the Hindu elephant-headed god Ganesha, said it remained unconvinced about the benefits.

     

    Modi wants temples to deposit some of this with banks, in return for interest and cash at redemption. The government would melt the gold and loan it to jewelers.

     

    A finance ministry official said if banks fail to win over temples, the government could intervene directly by talking to the temples as it is looking for a big boost to the scheme to keep both imports and the current account deficit under control.

    Well sure. As is standard operating procedure with government, if voluntarism fails, use coercion.

    Despite offering slightly better interest rates than past schemes, the government is finding it difficult to break families’ attachment to their jewellery. Gold is used mainly as wedding gifts, religious donations and as an investment.

    “After melting, banks will deduct impurity that will cut the net weight,” said Narendra Murari Rane, chairman of the trust for the Siddhivinayak temple.

     

    The temple, which has 160 kg of gold and is partly plated in the precious metal, is nevertheless examining the scheme.

     

    The Tirupati temple in Andhra Pradesh state will hold a meeting soon to consider participating, an official said.

    You’ve been warned.

    *  *  *

    For prior articles on this topic, see:

    A Warning to Indian Citizens – Your Government Wants Your Gold

    India’s Central Bank Will Sell Gold on the Market in Exchange for Gold at the Bank of England

    The Times of India: “Almost Every Passenger on a Flight from Dubai to Calicut Was Found Carrying 1kg of Gold”

    Gold Smuggling Increases 7x in India and Surpasses Illegal Drug Trade

    Indian Temples Fight Back Against Government Gold Grabbing Plot

  • Caught On Tape: Russia Destroys ISIS Oil Transport Cars, Al-Qaeda Training Camp

    From a reputational perspective, this was a decisively bad week for Turkey. In the immediate aftermath of Ankara’s brazen move to shoot down a Russian Su-24 near the Syrian border, Vladimir Putin accused the country of being complicit in the funding on ISIS. 

    Those allegations stung, especially in light of the fact that Putin delivered the accusations while sitting right next to Jordan’s King Abdullah. What Turkey didn’t know, however, was that The Kremlin fully intended to launch an all-out PR campaign to implicate Erdogan and his family in the funding of international terrorism.

    In a dramatic presentation delivered on Wednesday, the Russian MoD outlined the supply routes ISIS uses to smuggle its stolen crude and as it turns out, all roads literally lead to Turkey. This is of course broadly consistent with our assessment of the situation as outlined in the following four pieces: 

    This all comes on the heels of Russian airstrikes on ISIS oil convoys which Moscow claims provoked Ankara to engage The Kremlin’s warplane late last month. 

    Well, if you thought Russia was set to let up on destroying Islamic State oil trucks and crude infrastructure, or on bombing ISIL and al-Nusra (both of which are supported by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar) you can think again, because as the following clips show, Moscow is now hell bent on proving a point to the financiers of Sunni extremism. 

    A strike on an “automobile column transporting oil products” in Aleppo:

    Russian bombers, meet al-Nusra training camp:

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News December 4, 2015

  • No, Bank Bailouts HAVEN’T Ended

     

    CNN headlines, “Fed Ends ‘Too Big to Fail’ Lending to Collapsing Banks”.

    Sounds good …

    But CNN quickly backtracks:

    “There are still loopholes that the Fed could exploit to provide another back-door bailout to giant financial institutions,” [Congresswoman Elizabeth] Warren, a Democrat, told CNNMoney.

     

    ***

     

    It’s important to note that the new rule allows the Fed to judge by its own measures whether a firm qualifies for its emergency aid.

     

    The idea is the Fed can still lend to banks during times of emergency, but the bank must be able to pay it back. Yet the true health of a bank in turmoil can be very difficult to assess.

     

    “It’s very hard to judge in real time whether a firm is insolvent or just having liquidity problems because it becomes impossible to price assets,” says Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics, a research firm.

     

    That’s why Warren wants clearer guidelines.

     

    “It’s up to Congress to close those loopholes and ensure that Fed emergency lending is limited to protecting the economy and not to saving a few favored banks,” Warren says.

     

    ***

     

    The Fed performs “stress tests” on banks to see how they perform in a mock financial crisis scenario. It’s also forced banks to increase the amount of cash they have stashed away to weather the next rainy day.

    As we reported in 2009, the stress tests are a sham:

    • Time Magazine called the previous stress tests a “confidence game” and Geithner a “con man” for running them deceptively
    • Paul Krugman called the stress tests a mere “self-esteem class” for banks that no bank would be allowed to fail
    • Nouriel Roubini said the stress tests “fail the basic criterion of a reality check”
    • William K. Black called them “a complete sham”
    • The government has more or less admitted that the stress tests were meaningless (see this and this)

    We noted in 2011 that the the heads of the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department lied about the health of the big banks in pitching bailouts to Congress and the American people:

    The big banks were all insolvent during the 1980s.

     

    And they all became insolvent again in 2008. See this and this.

     

    The bailouts were certainly rammed down our throats under false pretenses.

     

    But here’s the more important point. Paulson and Bernanke falsely stated that the big banks receiving Tarp money were healthy, when they were not. They were insolvent.

     

    Tim Geithner falsely stated that the banks passed some time of an objective stress test but they did not. They were insolvent.

    In addition, the $700 billion 2008 bailout was just one aspect of the government’s ongoing bailouts of the too big to fail banks.  A leading banking analyst says that the giant banks are receiving $780 billion dollars each and every year through various types of hidden bailouts.

    In other words, the “end”  of the type of bailout discussed by CNN doesn’t touch the other massive, ongoing bailouts of the big banks.

    Moreover, the powers-that-be may be setting us up for “bail-ins”, where banks simply grab our deposit money and use it to plug the holes in their balance sheets.

    The bottom line:  Beneath the headlines, the truth is that the financial reform legislation has NOT really ended the bailouts … and things are only getting worse.

  • 11 "Alarm Bells" That Show The Global Economic Crisis Is Getting Deeper

    Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

    Economic activity is slowing down all over the planet, and a whole host of signs are indicating that we are essentially exactly where we were just prior to the great stock market crash of 2008.  Yesterday, I explained that the economies of Japan, Brazil, Canada and Russia are all in recession.  Today, I am mainly going to focus on the United States.  We are seeing so many things happen right now that we have not seen since 2008 and 2009. 

    In so many ways, it is almost as if we are watching an eerie replay of what happened the last time around, and yet most of the “experts” still appear to be oblivious to what is going on.  If you were to make up a checklist of all of the things that you would expect to see just before a major stock market crash, virtually all of them are happening right now.  The following are 11 critical indicators that are absolutely screaming that the global economic crisis is getting deeper…

    #1 On Tuesday, the price of oil closed below 40 dollars a barrel.  Back in 2008, the price of oil crashed below 40 dollars a barrel just before the stock market collapsed, and now it has happened again.

     

    #2 The price of copper has plunged all the way down to $2.04.  The last time it was this low was just before the stock market crash of 2008.

     

    #3 The Business Roundtable’s forecast for business investment in 2016 has dropped to the lowest level that we have seen since the last recession.

     

    #4 Corporate debt defaults have risen to the highest level that we have seen since the last recession.  This is a huge problem because corporate debt in the U.S. has approximately doubled since just before the last financial crisis.

     

    #5 The Bloomberg U.S. economic surprise index is more negative right now than it was at any point during the last recession.

     

    #6 Credit card data that was just released shows that holiday sales have gone negative for the first time since the last recession.

     

    #7 As I mentioned yesterday, U.S. manufacturing is contracting at the fastest pace that we have seen since the last recession.

     

    #8 The velocity of money in the United States has dropped to the lowest level ever recorded.  Not even during the depths of the last recession was it ever this low.

    1-TMS-2, annual rate of growth

     

    #9 In 2008, commodity prices crashed just before the stock market did, and late last month the Bloomberg Commodity Index hit a 16 year low.

     

    #10 In the past, stocks have tended to crash about 12-18 months after a peak in corporate profit margins.  At this point, we are 15 months after the most recent peak.

     

    #11 If you look back at 2008, you will see that junk bonds crashed horribly. 

    Why this is important is because junk bonds started crashing before stocks did, and right now they have dropped to the lowest point that they have been since the last financial crisis.

    Bonus Alarm #12: The US Services economy is weakening in its usual lagged way to manufacturing. This is a problem as the narrative has been that Services will save the economy even as manufacturing collapses.

     

    If just one or two of these indicators were flashing red, that would be bad enough.

    The fact that all of them seem to be saying the exact same thing tells us that big trouble is ahead.

    And I am not the only one saying this.  Just today, a Reuters article discussed the fact that Citigroup analysts are projecting that there is a 65 percent chance that the U.S. economy will plunge into recession in 2016…

    The outlook for the global economy next year is darkening, with a U.S. recession and China becoming the first major emerging market to slash interest rates to zero both potential scenarios, according to Citi.

     

    As the U.S. economy enters its seventh year of expansion following the 2008-09 crisis, the probability of recession will reach 65 percent, Citi’s rates strategists wrote in their 2016 outlook published late on Tuesday. A rapid flattening of the bond yield curve towards inversion would be an key warning sign.

    Personally, I am convinced that we are already in a recession.  There is a lag in the official numbers, so often we don’t know that we are officially in one until it is well underway.  For example, we now know that a recession started in early 2008, but in the summer of 2008 Ben Bernanke and our top politicians were still insisting that there was not going to be a recession.  They were denying what was actually happening right in front of their eyes, and the same thing is happening now.

    And of course if the government was actually using honest numbers, we would all be talking about the recession that never seems to end.  According to John Williams of shadowstats.com, honest numbers would show that the U.S. economy has continually been in recession since 2005.

    But just like in 2008, the “experts” at the Federal Reserve are assuring all of us that everything is going to be just fine.  In fact, Janet Yellen is convinced that things are so rosy that she seems quite confident that the Fed will raise interest rates in December

    Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen signaled Wednesday that the Fed is all but certain to raise interest rates this month for the first time in nearly a decade, saying that gains in the economy and labor market have met the central bank’s goals.

     

    Her comments at the Economic Club of Washington amount to the strongest indication the Fed has provided so far that it will take action at a December 15-16 meeting.

    This is the exact same kind of mistake that the Federal Reserve made back in the late 1930s.  They thought that the U.S. economy was finally recovering, and so interest rates were raised.  That turned out to be a tragic mistake.

     

    But this time around, any mistake that the Fed makes will have global consequences.  The rising U.S. dollar is already crippling emerging markets all around the globe, and an interest rate hike will just push the U.S. dollar even higher.  For much more on this, please see my previous article entitled “The U.S. Dollar Has Already Caused A Global Recession And Now The Fed Is Going To Make It Worse“.

    Many people are waiting for “the big crash”, but the truth is that almost everything has crashed already.

    • Oil has crashed.
    • Commodities have crashed.
    • Gold and silver have crashed.
    • Junk bonds have crashed.
    • Chinese stocks have crashed.
    • Dozens of other stock markets around the world have already crashed.

    But the “big event” that many are waiting for is the crash of U.S. stocks.  And just like in 2008, it is inevitable that a U.S. stock crash will follow all of the other crashes that I just mentioned.

    Sometimes I get criticized for issuing these kinds of alarms.  But just think of how many people could have been helped if they would have known that the financial crisis of 2008 was going to happen ahead of time.

    The exact same patterns that we experienced back then are playing out once again right in front of our eyes, and the more people that we can warn in advance the better.

  • "But It's Just A 0.25% Rate Hike, What's The Big Deal?" – Here Is The Stunning Answer

    After today’s market plunge, the result of what even Goldman admitted may have been a major policy error by the ECB, suddenly the Fed’s determination to hike rates in two weeks lies reeling on the ropes. After all, what the ECB did was an implicit tightening of reverse QE1 proportions  (it is no accident that the EURUSD is soaring as much as it did in March 2009 when the Fed unleashed QE).

    But assuming the Fed is still intent on hiking at all costs, and does just that in two weeks time, a question many are asking is where will General Collateral repo trade in case the Fed does decided to push rates higher by 0.25%: after all the Reverse Repo-IOER corridor is the most important component of the Fed’s rate hike strategy, one which better work or otherwise the Fed will be helpless to raise rates with some $3 trillion in excess liquidity sloshing around, and what little credibility it has will be gone for good.

    And much more importantly, what are the liquidity implications from such a move.

    For the answer we go to the repo market expert, Wedbush’s E.D. Skyrm. Here are his thoughts:

    Where will General Collateral trade when the fed funds target range is moved 25 basis points higher to .25% to .50%? In the most simple method, GC has averaged about .15% for the past month, which implies a GC rate around .40% after the Fed move.

     

     

    However, given the unprecedented amount of liquidity in the financial system, there’s a belief the Fed will have problems moving overnight rates higher.

     

    We have two quantifiable events over the past few years where the Fed moved Repo rates higher or lower: quarter-end and the QE programs. Given there are so many moving parts, consider these to be very rough estimates: Beginning in 2015, when funding pressure began each quarter-end, the market, on average, took approximately $255B additional collateral from the Fed and, on average, GC rates averaged 20.5 basis points higher.

     

    In 2013 on my website, I calculated that QE2 moved Repo rates, on average, 2.7 basis points for every $100B in QE. So, one very rough estimate moved GC 8 basis points and the other 2.7 basis points per hundred billion. In order to move GC 25 basis points higher, in a very rough estimate, the Fed needs to drain between $310B and $800B in liquidity.

    If readers didn’t just have an “oops” moment, please reread the last bolded sentence until they do, because it explains precisely what the market is missing about the Fed’s rate hike cycle: according to Skyrm’s calculations, to push rates by a paltry 25 bps, the smallest possible increment, what the Fed will have to do is drain up to a whopping $800 billion in liquidity!

    Putting that in context, QE2 – which pushed the S&P higher from November 2010 until June 2011 – was “only” $600 billion.

    In other words, to “prove” to itself that it is in control and the economy is viable, the Fed will effectively conduct, via reverse repo, an overnight QE2…. only in reverse.

    For those who think this will have a positive, or even neutral, impact on risk assets, we have several bridges located in Brooklyn that we are looking to offload at 150% of par. Please send your BWICs to the usual address.

  • Money Is Becoming Unmanageable

    Submitted by John Rubino via DollarCollapse.com,

    Some of the money managers who made names (and billions of dollars) for themselves in the past decade are suddenly failing:

    Hedge Funds Brace for Redemptions

     

    (Bloomberg) – When BlueCrest Capital Management told investors Tuesday it would no longer oversee money for outsiders, one thing founder Michael Platt didn’t mention was that clients had already pulled billions of dollars this year.

     

    Platt, who cited client demands and pressure on fees as a reason for his decision, isn’t alone in feeling the heat from investors. Firms including Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC and Mason Capital Management have seen cash flee this year, and others such as Fortress Investment Group LLC’s macro funds business shut down after redemptions and losses.

     

    Hedge fund investors are losing patience even with marquee firms as many of them struggle this year, especially those that offer macro strategies or stock funds heavily weighted to rising shares. Some managers have lost money for two years running, while others such as David Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital are suffering declines that rival their worst year. After the weakest third-quarter inflows in six years, the industry could see outflows in the fourth quarter, said investors and bankers who watch the ebb and flow of hedge fund assets.

     

    “The fourth quarter will be flat and possibly negative,” said Peter Laurelli, head of research at Evestment Alliance, which tracks hedge fund investments.

     

    Among the most prominent losers in the second half is Bill Ackman, whose Pershing Square Capital Management is down more than 17 percent in 2015 through November. The firm has been hurt by its investment in Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc., whose shares have slumped 31 percent this year amid scrutiny over drug prices.

     

    Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital has declined 21 percent this year, as positions such as SunEdison Inc., Consol Energy Inc. and Micron Technology Inc soured. Einhorn’s worst annual loss was in 2008, when his fund fell 23 percent.

     

    Others firms have been losing money for more than a year. Mason Capital, an event-driven fund based in New York, was down about 20 percent from the start of 2014 through this year’s third quarter, according to investors. Assets fell to about $5.6 billion from about $9 billion at the end of last year.

     

    Fortress Investment Group LLC said in October it was closing its $2.3 billion macro business run by Michael Novogratz after posting losses for almost two years. Earlier that month, Bain Capital decided to shutter its Absolute Return Capital fund after more than three years of declines.

     

    At BlueCrest, assets have shrunk by more than 40 percent this year to $7.9 billion, mostly from withdrawals after years of lackluster returns in what was once its biggest fund. New Jersey’s public pension plan decided to pull $284 million from one international fund as of June 30, citing “disappointing” returns just over a year after adding to its investment.

    Why are the worlds’ most successful investors having so much trouble lately? The short answer is that the markets they used to understand have been replaced by something very different. Consider:

    Starting in the late 1990s, every crisis with even a hint of systemic import – which would have provided information for market participants about what not to do – has been short-circuited with easy money, lower interest rates and directed bail-outs. Where a properly-functioning financial market would have signaled banks and leveraged speculators to ease up on the risk taking, the “Greenspan put” said “do whatever you want, we’ll fix it if you fail.” The result was a massive increase in leverage across the board, to the point where virtually every government and many corporations and individuals now carry unprecedented amounts of debt.

     

    While the world was leveraging itself to the hilt, governments and big banks were manipulating virtually every major market for, respectively, political gain and trading profits. The list of indexes and instruments that are or have been messed with include LIBOR, long and short-term sovereign interest rates, blue chip equities, gold, developed world currencies, emerging market currencies, mortgage backed bonds and various kinds of swap contracts. In each of these (and many other) sectors, fundamentals no longer matter, leaving investors with no tea leaves worth reading.

     

    Last but not least, financial crises lead to geopolitical turmoil. With the Middle East engulfed in end-to-end war, the US butting heads with Russia and China in, respectively, Syria and the South China Sea, and Europe being swamped by millions of Middle Eastern refugees and the rise of anti-euro political parties, market price signals, to the extent they exist at all, are being drowned out by geopolitical noise, which is another way of saying that political risk now trumps economic/financial fundamentals.

    In this new, post-market world, money managers can’t separate signal from noise and end up on the wrong end of wild swings in commodities, currencies and interest rates. And now their clients are figuring this out.

  • Auto Loan Madness Continues As US Car Buyers Take On Record Debt, Lunatic Financing Terms

    Way back in June, we noted that auto sales had reached 10-year highs on record credit, record loan terms, and record ignorance. We based that assessment on the following set of Q1 data from Experian: 

    • 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.

    In short, the “renaissance” in US auto sales is being driven (no pun intended) by increasingly risky underwriting practices and this is leading directly to the securitization of shoddier and shoddier collateral pools in a return to the “originate to sell” model that drove the housing bubble over a cliff in 2008.

    As Comptroller of the Currency Thomas Curry recently put it, “what’s happening in the auto loan market reminds me of what happened in mortgage-backed securities in the run-up to the crisis.” 

    Of course you can count on Experian and its incomparable senior director of automotive finance Melinda Zabritski (who never saw a subprime loan with ridiculous terms she didn’t like) to let you know that as dangerous as this dynamic most certainly is, everything will be fine. 

    On Wednesday, Experian released data for Q3 and well, let’s just say that the trend we’ve observed and documented over the past two quarters is still intact. 

    First, the percentage of new and used vehicles with financing rose to 86.6% and 55.3%, respectively. The trend is readily apparent: 

    Next, the number of leased vehicles as a percentage of the total continues to rise: 

    The percentage of subprime and nonprime in the leasing category rose meaningfully Y/Y:

    And the average credit score on loans for new vehicles just hit its lowest level since before the crash:

    While the average amount financed is up across the board:

    As are average payments:

    And loan terms:

    “As the price for a new or used vehicle continues to rise, leasing has become a more viable financing option for consumers looking to maintain an affordable monthly payment,” the aforementioned Melinda Zabritski said on Wednesday.

    Well yes Melinda, leasing has become a “more viable financing option” for people who otherwise couldn’t afford a car as has acquiescing to the extension of loan terms. On the lender side of the equation, continuing to feed Wall Street’s securitization machine means constantly expanding the finite pool of eligible borrowers and that means lower underwriting standards. 

    What’s incredible here is that Experian should be shouting about this from the rooftops and instead they’re making up excuses for why it isn’t a disaster waiting to happen. Auto loan ABS supply is set to rise by a quarter this year to around $125 billion and keeping that party going means making more loans. For those who missed it, here’s a look at the latest data from the NY Fed on originations by FICO:

    See a problem there? 

    Of course the bigger question for the US economy is this: what happens when this bubble bursts just as auto inventories hit their highest levels relative to sales since 2009?

     

  • General Wesley Clark: ISIS Serves Interests Of US Allies Turkey And Saudi Arabia

    Submitted by Claire Bernish via TheAntiMedia.org,

    "Let’s be very clear: ISIS is not just a terrorist organization; it is a Sunni terrorist organization. That means it blocks and targets Shi’a. And that means it’s serving the interests of Turkey and Saudi Arabia – even as it poses a threat to them." – Retired Gen. Wesley Clark

    Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General and retired U.S. General Wesley Clark revealed in an interview with CNN that the Islamic State (Daesh, ISIS) remains geostrategically imperative to Sunni nations, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, as they clamor for strategic power over Shi’a nations, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. He explained that “neither Turkey nor Saudi Arabia want an Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon ‘bridge’ that isolates Turkey, and cuts Saudi Arabia off.”

    When asked by the CNN host if Russian President Vladimir Putin’s suggestion that Turkey was “aiding ISIS” had any validity, he responded:

    “All along there’s always been the idea that Turkey was supporting ISIS in some way. We know they’ve funneled people going through Turkey to ISIS. Someone’s buying that oil that ISIS is selling; it’s going through somewhere – it looks to me like it’s probably going through Turkey – but the Turks haven’t acknowledged that.”

    After explaining this virtual gateway for the Islamic State’s oil, Clark was quick to emphasize that Putin’s allegations about Turkey’s support for terrorist organization, ISIS, aren’t without their own hypocrisy. Russia, of course, has been upholding President Bashar al-Assad’s administration in Syria against rebel groups backed by the U.S. — despite continuing denials by U.S. officials that that particular theater is its primary interest in the region.

    He said, “Putin would like to dirty Turkey by saying it’s supporting terrorists, but the truth is that he’s supporting terrorists. I mean, the tactics used by the Assad regime have been terror tactics. They’re dropping barrel bombs on innocent civilians.”

    Clark concludes the interview with a statement that encapsulates growing sentiment of many Westerners who’ve grown war-weary with such geopolitical wrangling overseas:

    “There’s no good guy in this – this is a power struggle for the future of the Middle East.”

  • Off-Balance Volume

    “Buying” versus “selling” volume has diverged dramatically in the last few weeks creating a dangerous sense of pre-Black-Monday deja-vu.

     

    We’ve seen this before.. very recently…

     

    Bigger picture, since the end of QE3, this pattern of divergence has been building…

     

    Is an imminent market crash just what The Fed needs to avoid making the same mistake it made in 1937

     

    h/t @Not_Jim_Cramer

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • 3 Things: Expected Returns, Returns, & Net Returns

    Submitted by Lance Roberts via STA Wealth Management,

    What Drives Returns

    John Coumarianos, via MarketWatch, penned a very interesting note recently with respect to the view that it is just "volatility" is driving prices.

    "The great economist John Maynard Keynes once said: 'Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.'

     

    Few recent writings display this phenomenon better than a blog post by Josh Brown, aka The Reformed Broker, the title of his well-read (usually deservedly so) website.

     

    Brown's post, cleverly titled "Why the stock market has to go down," incorrectly asserts that volatility is ultimately what rewards stock investors who have the ability to withstand it.

     

    This is the standard talk that most advisers give their clients. It comes from the academic 'efficient markets' or 'random walk' school of thought. And it is totally wrong.

     

    The truth is that the stock market doesn't owe you anything, no matter how volatile it is and no matter how long you wait."

    This is absolutely true. What drives stock prices (long-term) is the value of what you pay today for a future share of the company's earnings in the future. Simply put – "it's valuation, stupid." As John aptly points out:

    "Stocks are not magical pieces of paper that automatically deliver gut-wrenching volatility over the short run and superior returns over the long run. In fact, we've just had a six-year period with 15%-plus annualized returns and little volatility, but also a 15-year period of lousy (less than 5% annualized) returns.

    It's not just volatility; it's valuation.

     

    Instead of magical lottery tickets that automatically and necessarily reward those who wait, stocks are ownership units of businesses. That's banal, I know, but everyone seems to forget it. And it means equity returns depend on how much you pay for their future profits, not on how much price volatility you can endure."

    MW-DW475 Coumar 20151015091747 MG (1)

    "And stocks are not so efficiently priced that they are always poised to deliver satisfying returns even over a decade or more, as we've just witnessed for 15 years. A glance at future 10-year real returns based on the starting Shiller PE (price relative to past 10 years' average, inflation-adjusted earnings) in the chart above tells the story. Buying high locks in low returns and vice versa.

     

    Generally, if you pay a lot for profits, you'll lock in lousy returns for a long time."

    Volatility is simply the short-term dynamics of "fear" and "greed" at play. However, in the long-term as stated it is simply valuation. As I showed earlier this week in "4 Warnings And Why You Should Pay Attention" I discussed valuation specifically stating:

    "Valuations are a very poor market timing device for short-term investors. However, from a long-term investment perspective, valuations mean a great deal as it relates to expected returns. Chris Brightman at Research Affiliates recently noted this exact point.

     

    'As a long-term investor, we experience short-term price volatility as opportunity, and high prices as risk.'

     

    With earnings growth deteriorating, and valuation expansion having ceased, the risk of high-prices has risen sharply."

    Shiller-5Yr-Cape-101215

     

    Nothing But "Net"

    One of the biggest myths perpetrated by Wall Street on investors is showing individuals the following chart and telling them over the "long-term" the stock market has generated a 10% annualized total return.

    SP500-LongTerm-Nominal

    The statement is not entirely false. Since 1900, stock market appreciation plus dividends have provided investors with an AVERAGE return of 10% per year. Historically, 4%, or 40% of the total return, came from dividends alone. The other 60% came from capital appreciation that averaged 6% and equated to the long-term growth rate of the economy.

    However, there are several fallacies with the notion that the markets long-term will compound 10% annually.

    1) The market does not return 10% every year. There are many years where market returns have been sharply higher and significantly lower.

     

    2) The analysis does not include the real world effects of inflation, taxes, fees and other expenses that subtract from total returns over the long-term.

     

    3) You don't have 145 years to invest and save.

    The chart below shows what happens to a $1000 investment from 1871 to present including the effects of inflation, taxes, and fees. (Assumptions: I have used a 15% tax rate on years the portfolio advanced in value, CPI as the benchmark for inflation and a 1% annual expense ratio. In reality, all of these assumptions are quite likely on the low side.)

    SP500-LongTerm-Real-052915

    As you can see, there is a dramatic difference in outcomes over the long-term.

    From 1871 to present the total nominal return was 9.07% versus just 6.86% on a "real" basis. While the percentages may not seem like much, over such a long period the ending value of the original $1000 investment was lower by an astounding $260 million dollars.

    Importantly, the return that investors receive from the financial markets is more dependent on "WHEN" you begin investing as noted above. 

     

    Too Optimistic

    Following on with the point above, with valuations currently at the second highest level on record, forward returns are very likely going to be substantially lower for an extended period. Yet, listen to the media, and the majority of the bullish analysts, and they are still suggesting that markets should compound at 8% annually going forward as recently stated by BofA:

    "Based on current valuations, a regression analysis suggests compounded annual returns of 8% over the next 10 years with a 90% confidence interval of 4-12% (Table 2). While this is below the average returns of 10% over the last 50 years, asset allocation is a zero-sum game. Against a backdrop of slow growth and shrinking liquidity, 8% is compelling in our view. With a 2% dividend yield, we think the S&P 500 will reach 3500 over the next 10 years, implying annual price returns of 6% per year."

    However, there are two main problems with that statement:

    1) The Markets Have NEVER Returned 8-10% EVERY SINGLE Year.

    Annualized rates of return and real rates of return are VASTLY different things. The destruction of capital during market downturns destroys years of previous capital appreciation. Furthermore, while the markets have indeed AVERAGED an 8% return over the last 115 years, you will NOT LIVE LONG ENOUGH to receive the same.

    The chart below shows the real return of capital over time versus what was promised.

    Real-vs-Promised-Returns-101615

    The shortfall in REAL returns is a very REAL PROBLEM for people planning their retirement.

    2) Net, Net, Net Returns Are Even Worse

    Okay, for a moment let's just assume the Wall Street "world of fantasy" actually does exist and you can somehow achieve a stagnant rate of return over the next 10-years.

    As discussed above, the "other" problem with the analysis is that it excludes the effects of fees, taxes, and inflation. Here is another way to look at it. Let's start with the fantastical idea of 8% annualized rates of return.

    8% – Inflation (historically 3%) – Taxes (roughly 1.5%) – Fees (avg. 1%) = 3.5%

    Wait? What?

    Hold on…it gets worse. Let's look forward rather than backward.

    Let's assume that you started planning your retirement at the turn of the century (this gives us 15 years plus 15 years forward for a total of 30 years)

    Based on current valuation levels future expected returns from stocks will be roughly 2% (which is what it has been for the last 15 years as well – which means the math works.)

    Let's also assume that inflation remains constant at the current average of 1.5% and include taxes and fees.

    2% – Inflation (1.5%) – Taxes (1.5%) – Fees (1%) = -2.0%

    A negative rate of real NET, NET return over the next 15 years is a very real problem. If I just held cash, I would, in theory, be better off.

    However, this is why capital preservation and portfolio management is so critically important going forward.

    There is no doubt that another major market reversion is coming. The only question is the timing of such an event which will wipe out the majority of the gains accrued during the first half of the current full market cycle. Assuming that you agree with that statement, here is the question:

    "If you were offered cash for your portfolio today, would you sell it?"

    This is the "dilemma" that all investors face today – including me.

    Just something to think about.

  • Markets In Turmoil – Bonds, Stocks, & Dollar Dumbstruck After Disappointing Draghi & Dire Data

    Draghi has one message for everyone today…

     

    US equities had their worst day since September 28th…

     

    US Treasuries were a bloodbath…

     

    European equities were an even bigger bloodbath…

     

    As DAX gave back all its Paris gains… (down over 500 points and back below 10,700)

     

    As European bonds utterly crashed… (Bunds seen here across the curve were massive percentage moves)

     

    All driven by The 3 'D's…

    • Domestic Terrorism hinted at… and the use of the word 'radicalized' spooked a number of markets
    • Draghi Disappointed – grossly over-promised and under-delivered, trapped in a corner of QE limitations and admitt8ing it failed.
    • Dire Data – US macro plunged to its lowest level in 6 months… (bonds seem to get it)… with durable goods, factory orders, and ISM Services all crushing The Fed's narrative.

     

    *  *  *

    On the day, Trannies were worst but broadly speaking, the entire equity market dumped in a highly correlated manner… (notthe bounce into the EU Close then dump)

     

    FANGs are not helping…

     

    Futures show it's been quite a week and now all major indices are red post-Russia-Turkey…

     

    After Europe closed, stocks kept falling…

     

    Some notable breaks:

    • All major US equity indices are now negative year-to-date (aside from NASDAQ)
    • S&P 500 broke below its 200DMA (also got close to it 50DMA before bouncing)
    • Dow broke below its 200DMA
    • Small Caps (Russell 2000) broke below its 100DMA
    • Trannies broke below all technical support to 2 month lows

    Biotechs plunged  from the 100DMA to break the 50DMA…

     

    Commentators were confused why Energy stocks dropped while oil rose… this is why – they had decoupled from raw reality a month ago…

     

    VIX soared over 3 handles – almost touching 20 and breaking above its 50, 100, and 200DMA… This was thebiggest percentage rise in VIX since Black Monday

     

    Treasuries were a disaster, extending losses after Europe closed…

     

    Credit markets have been crushed with the junkiest junk now at 6 year high yields…

     

    The USD Index crashed 2.25% – its biggest single-day drop since March 2009…. (having hit 12 year highs yesterday) Put another way – today's lack of ECB action had the same effect on the USD as The Fed's unleashing of QE in 2009!

     

    Led by Swissy and EUR strength…

     

    Gold is now the week's biggest gainer in the commodity space (crude the loser) as the entire space picked up on USD weakness…

     

    Crude's been volatile heading into tomorrow…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • How Bull Markets End

    Submitted by Jared "The 10th Man" Dillian via MauldinEconomics.com,

    Many people think that they ring a bell at the top of a bull market. Ding-a-ling-a-ling.

    That is indeed often the case. The bell was rung in 2000 at the top of the dot-com bubble—I like to think it was 3Com spinning off Palm that broke its back.

    But sometimes there is no bell, no catalyst, no story to tell. A bull market becomes a bear market, and it happens just like that.

    Silicon Valley has been in a food fight for about three years now. Everyone knows it’s going to end, except for the folks in Silicon Valley. These guys are funny. I met a few of them in the last cycle. They really thought it was going to go on forever.

    There are now 145 unicorn companies (private companies with a valuation of $1 billion or more), with a total combined valuation of $506 billion.

    We are watching the top happen right before our eyes.

    Square

    If you were paying attention a couple of weeks ago, you might have read the news about a company called Square going public. Jack Dorsey is the CEO of Square. He is also the CEO of Twitter. I think of this sometimes whenever I complain that I’m too busy.

    Square got a round of financing in 2014 at a $6 billion valuation, and now it’s a public company. If you pull up SQ on Yahoo! Finance, you will see that the market cap is $4 billion.

    As Square was making the rounds in the roadshow, investors decided they didn’t want to overpay just to make the mezzanine round investors rich. So there wasn’t much demand for Square at a $6 billion market cap. It eventually went public at a $3 billion market cap, or $9/share. (The deal performed well in the aftermarket, at least. The stock is trading at $12.)

    No catalyst. No bell ringing. The price simply got too high, and people pulled back. But you know what this means. If one deal can trade below private valuations, they can all trade below private valuations.

    On to the next data point…

    Fidelity

    You may not know this, but Fidelity owns shares of private companies in some of its funds (like Contrafund). Fidelity has to figure out how to value these things.

    In general, venture capital firms have to mark their investments to “market,” whatever that means. To do this, they use the services of third party valuation firms. Those valuation guesses are probably subject to mood or opinion, and as you can imagine, there are a lot of bad guesses. The valuations don’t mean much—if you’re an LP (limited partner), at the end of the day, you care about cash in and cash out. But mark-to-market creates some interesting short-term incentives.

    As for Fidelity, they also have to mark things to market, and they also use valuation firms. But valuation firm A that Sequoia is using is different than valuation firm B that Fidelity is using. And Fidelity perhaps wants its valuation firm to be more conservative.

    So Fidelity has been marking its private investments to market at levels that are below the most recent funding rounds. This puts the VCs in a bit of a pickle. Do they copy Fidelity or do they press on with their own, higher valuations in the face of dissenting opinions?

    None of this makes people very bullish on startups.

    Uber

    Uber is the biggest unicorn of all, with a $50 billion valuation. Side note: they don’t make any money.

    Uber is trying to raise another billion—at a $70 billion valuation.

    Now, the only reason you would invest in Uber at a $70 billion valuation is if you thought they would go public at $80 billion or more. But looking at what happened to Square, that will almost definitely not happen.

    And why would you pay $70 billion for Uber when Fidelity is going to mark it in your mush? Another great question.

    I don’t think anyone is in the mood to pay $70 billion for Uber. Uber is stuck. They will have to go public or take a down round if they really need the cash.

    And this, folks, is how bear markets start.

    Brainstorming Session

    So let’s do some brainstorming on what this could mean if it really were the end of the line for Silicon Valley (at least in the medium term).

    • Since tech has been going up while energy/mining has been going down, could this trend reverse?
    • Could value start to outperform growth? (If I’m not mistaken, it already is.)
    • Could large cap start to outperform small cap? (Boy, is it ever.)
    • If you lived in the Bay Area, would you want to sell your house and rent?
    • As new tech is in the process of topping, have you seen what old tech has been doing? Check out the chart of Microsoft, at 15-year highs:

    For full disclosure, I started calling the top (or at least asking hard questions) on Silicon Valley about a year and a half ago. But I think most dedicated observers saw what happened with the Square IPO and said, “Yep, that might be the top.”

    The other thing I’ve learned is that even when people recognize the top, they vastly underestimate how bad the pain is going to be on the downside. “Oh, it’ll just be a quick correction.” Never is.

    One last riposte: Anyone who invested at these valuations will richly deserve what’s coming to them. Those prices were cuckoo.

  • In Addition To Swimming In Feces, Olympians Will Have To Pay For AC In Brazil

    In late July we said Brazil was sliding into a depression.

    We based that assessment, in part anyway, on the following graphic from Goldman:

    It would only take the bank four months to agree with our summary of their own analysis (Alberto Ramos called it a “depression” on Tuesday after a decidedly abysmal GDP print). 

    Accompanying our depression call was the following assessment of Brazil’s preparations for the upcoming Olympic games in Rio: 

    The Brazilian economy hit its metaphorical, and literal, bottom earlier today when AP reported that, with the Brazil Olympics of 2016 just about 1 year away,“athletes in next year’s Summer Olympics here will be swimming and boating in waters so contaminated with human feces that they risk becoming violently ill and unable to compete in the games.” 

     

    In other words, competitors in Brazil’s olympic games will be swimming in shit.

    Brazil was, and still is, literally up shit creek without a paddle. 

    Well as you might have surmised based on the release of a series of economic data so bad that analysts are having trouble coming up with new ways to describe the situation, the outlook for next year’s summer games hasn’t improved. In fact, things have worsened materially to the point that now, athletes will be asked to pay for their own air conditioning. 

    As Bloomberg reports, “following a new round of cost-cutting by the Rio 2016 organizers, athletes will be asked to pay for the air conditioning in their dorm rooms, stadium backdrops will be stripped to their bare essentials, and fancy cars and gourmet food for VIPs are out.”


    In short, organizers can no longer depend on the government (and who knows what the government will look like by the time the games commence) to fund cost overruns. That means spending only as much as Brazil expects to take in from sponsorships, ticket sales, and a grant from the International Olympic Committee. 

    Apparently, the games were already some $520 million over budget. The government was supposed to cover that (and more) but obviously that’s out of the question given Brazil’s worsening fiscal crisis. “By the time the Games begin, the committee plans to have 500 fewer paid staff than the 5,000 it originally expected,” Bloomberg notes, adding that “the deepest cuts will probably come from operational areas like catering, transportation and cleaning services.”

    As for the athletes, well obviously they’re a bit concerned. 

    “The world wants to tune in and watch the world’s greatest athletes compete at the absolute highest level,” Nick Symmonds, a two-time Olympic runner said. “If you don’t provide them with good food, a good place to sleep and comfortable temperature, they won’t be able to recover and bring the A-plus product that the world is demanding. To cut the budget on athletes’ hospitality and comfort, that’s just going to cheapen the games.”

    Brazil has also abandoned a plan to put TVs in Olympic Village rooms. 

    Meanwhile, there was no respite on Thursday from still more abysmal economic data. Industrial production contracted by 0.7% M/M in October (-11.2% Y/Y). That’s the fifth consecutive monthly decline. “The industrial sector (which has been reducing headcount at an increasingly fast pace) contracted 0.9% in 2014 and is expected to contract at a much higher rate in 2015 as it continues to face strong headwinds from high levels of inventories, record low confidence indicators, a high and rising tax burden, rising energy costs, and weak external demand (particularly from Argentina for durable goods),” Goldman writes.

    Oh, and for anyone still holding out hope that the central bank might throw caution to the wind – pass through inflation be damned – and cut to save the economy, well, you probably shouldn’t read the Copom minutes. Here’s one passage from Goldman that pretty much sums it up: “Specifically, the Copom is now committed to adopt the necessary measures to keep inflation under the 6.50% upper limit of the inflation target band by end-2016, and to make inflation converge to the 4.50% target in 2017. Hence, based purely on a strict interpretation of the new guidance, the probability of a rate hike at the January meeting rose significantly.”

    There is, however, a silver lining. Rich NBA players will not be affected by the Olympic cutbacks (via Bloomberg): 

    Others worry that the cuts will further underscore the chasm between athletes from wealthy countries and those from poorer ones. (Already some top athletes, including the NBA players who join the USA Basketball squad, choose luxury hotels over accommodations in the Olympic Village.) Those who can afford extra for air conditioning or who travel with laptops or iPads will have it; others may not.


  • California Terror Attack PROVES Mass Spying Doesn’t Keep Us Safe

    Top security experts agree that mass surveillance is ineffective … and actually makes us MORE vulnerable to terrorism.

    For example, the former head of the NSA’s global intelligence gathering operations – Bill Binney – explained to Washington’s Blog that the mass surveillance INTERFERES with the government’s ability to catch bad guys, and that the government failed to stop 9/11, the Boston Bombing, the Texas shootings and other terror attacks is because it was overwhelmed with data from mass surveillance on Americans.
     

    Binney told Washington’s Blog:

    A good deal of the failure is, in my opinion, due to bulk data. So, I am calling all these attacks a result of “Data bulk failure.” Too much data and too many people for the 10-20 thousand analysts to follow. Simple as that. Especially when they make word match pulls (like Google) and get dumps of data selected from close to 4 billion people.

     

    This is the same problem NSA had before 9/11. They had data that could have prevented 9/11 but did not know they had it in their data bases. This back then when the bulk collection was not going on. Now the problem is orders of magnitude greater. Result, it’s harder to succeed.

     

    Expect more of the same from our deluded government that thinks more data improves possibilities of success. All this bulk data collection and storage does give law enforcement a great capability to retroactively analyze anyone they want. But, of course,that data cannot be used in court since it was not acquired with a warrant.

     
    Binney also told us:

    I always like to point to the obvious. Look at what is happening in France and Belgium after the attack in Paris. They are going after targeted individuals, who they knew were related to the killers before the attack. And, it’s working!!! So, this is what I have been saying they should do all along.

     

    Do a targeted selection of data from the communications based on known people and their attributes and you can succeed (as now in France and Belgium) instead of the bulk collection on everyone which buries them in data and they fail. After the attack and people die, they do the right thing. This should make it obvious what route to take.

    The same is true in California … As CNN notes:

    Syed Rizwan Farook — who along with his wife, Tashfeen Malik, carried out the  San Bernardino shooting massacre — apparently was radicalized and in touch with people being investigated by the FBI for international terrorism, law enforcement officials said Thursday.

    After the Paris terror attack, the New York Times correctly pointed out in a scathing editorial that mass surveillance won’t help to prevent terrorism:

    As one French counterterrorism expert and former defense official said, this shows that “our intelligence is actually pretty good, but our ability to act on it is limited by the sheer numbers.” In other words, the problem in this case was not a lack of data, but a failure to act on information authorities already had.

     

    In fact, indiscriminate bulk data sweeps have not been useful. In the more than two years since the N.S.A.’s data collection programs became known to the public, the intelligence community has failed to show that the phone program has thwarted a terrorist attack. Yet for years intelligence officials and members of Congress repeatedly misled the public by claiming that it was effective.

    Binney and other high-level NSA whistleblowers noted last year:

    On December 26, for example, The Wall Street Journal published a lengthy front-page article, quoting NSA’s former Senior Technical Director William Binney (undersigned) and former chief of NSA’s SIGINT Automation Research Center Edward Loomis (undersigned) warning that NSA is drowning in useless data lacking adequate privacy provisions, to the point where it cannot conduct effective terrorist-related surveillance and analysis.

     

    A recently disclosed internal NSA briefing document corroborates the drowning, with the embarrassing admission, in bureaucratize, that NSA collection has been “outpacing” NSA’s ability to ingest, process, and store data – let alone analyze the take.

    Indeed, the pro-spying NSA chief and NSA technicians admitted that the NSA was drowning in too much data 3 months BEFORE 9/11:

    In an interview, Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden, the NSA’s director … suggested that access isn’t the problem. Rather, he said, the sheer volume and variety of today’s communications means “there’s simply too much out there, and it’s too hard to understand.”

     

    ***

     

    “What we got was a blast of digital bits, like a fire hydrant spraying you in the face,” says one former NSA technician with knowledge of the project. “It was the classic needle-in-the-haystack pursuit, except here the haystack starts out huge and grows by the second,” the former technician says. NSA’s computers simply weren’t equipped to sort through so much data flying at them so fast.

    And see this.

    If more traditional anti-terror efforts had been used, these terror plots would have been stopped.

    So why does the NSA collect so much information if it admits that it’s drowning in info?

    Here are a few hints.

    Postscript: Sadly, our government is not serious about stopping terrorism.

  • Potential OPEC Cut? It Depends On Non-OPEC Nations Now

    Submitted by Matt Smith via OilPrice.com,

    Eighty-five years after the birth of French filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard, and the crude complex is acting suitably surreal today. As expected, rhetoric is ratcheting up out of Vienna ahead of tomorrow’s OPEC meeting, with the crude market shaken up like a snowglobe.

    Today’s quote of the day is from an unnamed delegate in Vienna, who has summed up the situation pretty much perfectly: ‘In order for there to be a cut in production non-OPEC must participate, Iraq has to participate and the Iran output picture has to be clear’, the delegate said.

    Hence the reason why no cut will be forthcoming; Saudi says it is willing to cut production if its cartel cohorts – Iraq, Iran, et al – are willing to do so, as well as key non-OPEC producers such as Russia and Mexico. This is because Saudi knows full well these nations are unwilling to cut production – we have already been told us as much by them.

    From one OPEC-focused tidbit to another, and Saudi Arabia has announced its OSP (official selling price) for January, further discounting Arab Light into Asia by $1.40 a barrel (versus the Oman/Dubai average), 10 cents more than December’s discount. It also cut its January Arab Light OSP to the US by $0.30 a barrel, but raised it to Northwest Europe by $0.50.

    As our #ClipperData show below, the U.S. has imported just over one million barrels per day from Saudi Arabia this year, of which Arab Light is basically half of that volume. Imports from Saudi are averaging 20% less in 2015 than last year, although Arab Light imports have dropped at a lesser pace. Nonetheless, as US production slows and Saudi OSPs are cut, more oil has found its way to US shores in recent months:

     

    Saudi Arabia crude imports to US (source: ClipperData, Datamyne)

    Another interesting OPEC-related tidbit comes in the form of drilling activity. Oil rigs are being idled across Latin American nations such as Columbia and Mexico, where 57% and 42% of rigs have been idled this year, respectively. In Venezuela, however, the rig count is rising, up 19% this year, as the OPEC member tries to slow a decline in production:

    In terms of overnight economic data, we have seen the China Caixin services PMI come in well below consensus (53.1), but still showing expansion (at 51.2). For an economy which is shifting away from being driven by industry and exports, and towards being driven by domestic demand, we need to see the service sector picking up the slack as industrial production continues to slow.

    The rippling effect of a slowing Chinese economy continues to cripple Brazil, as it is their largest trade partner. Industrial production year-over-year in Brazil has dropped to -11.2% in October, the lowest level since May 2009 (think: belly of the Great Recession).

    Brazil industrial production, YoY % (source: investing.com)

    From one sign of worry to another, the Eurozone services PMI also came in weaker than expected, as did retail sales (negative for a second consecutive month). Meanwhile, the European Central Bank has pushed the deposit facility rate (aka, bank rates for overnight deposits) further into negative territory to -0.30% in an effort to stoke inflation, while extending quantitative easing for another six months – keeping purchases at 60 billion euros per month through until March 2017.

    Mr. Market has responded emphatically to this announcement, and the euro is rallying like an absolute mad thing, in a bad-is-good kind-of-way. Correspondingly, the crude complex is being propelled higher as the US dollar softens; there are plenty more shakes left in the tail for today’s crude price action it would seem.

  • Meet Syed Farook And Tashfeen Malik, The Husband And Wife San Bernardino Shooters

    “Was there a link to terror?” 

    That’s the question Americans are asking themselves the morning after a husband and wife opened fire with assault rifles killing 14 and wounding 21 at a San Bernardino County employee holiday party. 

    The shooters, Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, left their young child with Farook’s mother in nearby Redlands on Wednesday morning before dressing in “assault clothing,” and crashing the party (literally). A subsequent shootout with authorities left both suspects dead. The couple used a DPMS model and a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 along with two handguns, a llama and a Smith & Wesson. The rifles, two .223s, are capable of piercing bulletproof vests. The weapons were purchased legally.

    Here’s what we know about Farook and Malik so far. 

    Farook, whose family was originally from Pakistan, was born in America and was employed as an environmental health specialist for San Bernardino County. He did what health specialists do: inspect restaurants and other facilities for health violations.

    Reuters was able to obtain some on-the-ground intelligence from a SusAnn Chapman, who’s described as “a cashier and waitress at China Doll Fast Food.” Apparently, Farook inspected the China Doll earlier this year. “He was real quiet,” Chapman said. “He checked the food and said he was here because somebody complained. … He looked completely normal.” 

    Ok, not helpful.

    However, some clues as to what might (and we emphasize “might”) be going on here emerge when we take a closer look at Malik. According to Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Los Angeles chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations who, like SusAnn, spoke to Reuters, Malik “was believed to be from Pakistan and had lived in Saudi Arabia before coming to the United States.” 

    “Farook traveled to Saudi Arabia earlier this year and returned with a wife,” AP reports, citing co-worker Patrick Baccari, who said Farook “was gone for about a month in the spring, and when he returned word got around [he’d] had been married.” His new wife was described as “a pharmacist.” 

    Now clearly there are no smoking guns there, but it’s worth noting that when it comes to radicalization, no one does it quite like the Saudis. But as we read further, AP uncovers the smoking gun: “Several months ago Farook grew out his beard.” There you go – excessive beard action. The terrorist hallmark. 

    All sarcasm aside, AP goes on to say that according to coworkers, Farook was “a devout Muslim,” and according to a profile posted on the dating site iMilap, Farook enjoyed “reading religious books and target practice with younger sister and friends.”

    A separate profile on Dubaimatrimonial.com (which describes itself as the “first and only legal marriage service provider in the UAE), shows Farook identifying himself as a Sunni:

    Although we would urge caution when it comes to drawing conclusions around the sectarian divide, we’d be remiss if we didn’t note that ISIS, al-Qaeda, and many of the other groups the public generally identifies with extremism, are Sunni. Saudi Arabia (where Farook allegedly found his wife) promotes puritanical Wahhabism. 

    In the wake of the tragedy, Muzammil Siddiqi, religious director of The Islamic Society of Orange County, reminded Americans that Islam is not synonymous with terror: “Please do not implicate Islam or Muslims. Our faith is against this kind of behaviour.”

    Here’s Patrick Baccari’s (quoted above) account of the shooting, again, via AP:

    Baccari, who was sitting at the same table as Farook, said employees at the holiday party were taking a break before snapping group photos when Farook suddenly disappeared, leaving a jacket draped over his chair. Baccari stepped out to the bathroom when he heard explosions.

     

    “I’m getting pelted by shrapnel coming through the walls,” he said. “We hit the ground.”

     

    The shooting lasted about five minutes, he said, and when he looked in the mirror he realized he was bleeding. He was hit by fragments in the body, face and arms.

     

    “If I hadn’t been in the bathroom, I’d probably be laying dead on the floor,” he said.

    Clearly, quite a bit hinges on whether or not this gets tied to radical Islam. If authorities “prove” (or create) a link to extremists, the backlash against Syrian immigrants and against American Muslims more generally, will only grow. 

    Additionally, public support for American boots on Syrian ground will rise as any link to terrorist ideology will invariably be trotted out as “proof” that “lone wolf” or not, attacks have now crossed the pond to reach American soil.

    Of course at the end of the day, two people opening fire with assault rifles on a holiday party seems pretty “terrifying” to us regardless of what inspired the shooters, but remember, crises like these are only “useful” in today’s world if they serve someone’s geopolitical ends so don’t be surprised if the mainstream media soon turns up the San Bernardino equivalent of the forged Syrian passport found in Paris three weeks ago.

  • A Crushed Goldman FX Strategist Speaks: "We Badly Misread This Meeting"

    Of all the mea culpas by the sellside penguin crew, the one post ECB mortem we were expecting above all, was that of Goldman FX strategist Robin Brooks who infamous, perhaps legendarily, opined just yesterday that “it remains the case that downside skew in EUR/$ is modest compared to the run-up to the Jan. 22 meeting. In short, we think risk-reward to short EUR/$ into tomorrow’s meeting remains compelling and we anticipate a 2-3 big figure drop on the day.

    Well, Goldman was right about the 2-3 figure move… only it wasn’t a drop. Actually make that 4-5 figure move in the wrong direction, in fact the biggest surge in the EUR since the announcement of the Fed’s QE1!

    So after waiting for a few hours, we were delighted to see that Robin is still ok, and sharing more muppet-crushing wisdom. Here is GOldman’s just released note on the ECB’s “shocker” titled “Dry powder, lost credibility.” It is unclear just who lost credibility however.

    From Goldman’s Robin Brooks:

    We badly misread this meeting.

     

    Given the mixed messages from the ECB over QE, starting with the Bund sell-off in May, we had thought there were bigger stakes at play than the usual considerations around growth and inflation. Indeed, we expected President Draghi to deliver a forceful message, in part to fix some of the damage wrought over the summer. But today badly wrong-footed us and, in our view, further damaged the credibility of ECB QE.

     

    As Exhibit 1 shows, the smaller-than-priced deposit cut was relatively minor in the scheme of things, moving EUR/$ higher by about one big figure (from 1.0550 to 1.0650), in line with our view that a 10 bps surprise maps into two big figures. The bigger disappointment came in the press conference, when a smaller-than-expected extension of QE, upward revisions to growth, and a stand-offish message on further deposit cuts took EUR/$ near 1.09.

     

    Our impression from the press conference was that this message was deliberate, so that the Governing Council seems far less willing to ease aggressively than we had expected. At current levels, meaning around 1.09, EUR/$ prices only the 10 bps deposit cut, given that a good part of the decline from 1.13 prior to the Oct. 22 meeting was driven by the hawkish FOMC (Oct. 28) and strong payrolls (Nov. 6). That might be a reason to remain optimistic about further declines in EUR/$, especially with Fed lift-off around the corner. But the stakes for EUR/$ and the ECB are higher.

     

     

     

    The big question today raises is whether the ECB is serious about QE. That question also arose over the summer, when the volatility in Bund yields raised questions over whether the ECB is willing to stabilize yields in Europe’s safe haven asset to encourage portfolio shifts into risk assets. Today’s sell-off in Bund yields (Exhibit 2) and the bounce in EUR/$ rivals those seen in April and May and again puts the question of ECB commitment to QE firmly on the table.

     

    From an FX perspective, this matters a great deal, as today’s price action shows. The Euro rallied, driven by declining inflation break-evens and rising nominal yields, i.e., rising real yields. This price action has all the hallmarks of the Yen under Governor Shirakawa, as opposed to Governor Kuroda, raising for us the unpleasant possibility that the idiosyncratic Euro weaker story has been compromised. Even in the unlikely event that today’s disappointment was a mistake, we think it has cost enough credibility that the Euro down story we had envisaged is now less likely to play out. We are placing our forecasts under review.

    * * *

    For those who skiped through all that here is the now traditional one picture summary:

  • Did the Bull Market Begun March 2009 Just End?

    For weeks we have been warning not to trust the bounce in stocks.

     

    The most critical item we were concerned with was the fact that the S&P 500, despite its massive bounce, had failed to regain its former trendline.

     

    As we first noted back in early September, Bear Markets do not happen all at once. EVERY time a major top has formed and stocks have taken out their Bull Market trendline, we’ve had a bounce to “kiss” the line before the Bear Market really took hold.

     

     

    This is precisely what has happened with the October bounce: stocks rose to “kiss” the former trendline, but failed to reclaim it.
     

     

    Having failed to reclaim this line twice, the S&P 500 is now turning sharply down.  The financial media sees this as a reaction to ECB President Mario Draghi’s failure to do “enough” this morning, but the reality is that this was not to be trust, driven primarily by manipulation with little carry through from REAL buy orders.

     

    In the near term stocks could crater to 1900 in short order. However, what happens in the next few days or even weeks is not the real concern.   

     

    The REAL concern pertains to the BIG PICTURE for the markets: the massive monthly rising wedge pattern stocks have been forming since the 2009 bottom.

     

    As you can see in the chart below, the August-September collapse broke this formation. That, in of itself, is not the be all end all. But the fact that stocks have failed to reclaim their former bull market trendline is a MAJOR concern indicating that it is highly likely that the bull market begun March 2009 is OVER.

     

     

    If this is the case, the next Crash has already begun. This would put us at the equivalent of where the markets were in late 2007: just before the whole mess came crashing down in 2008.

     

    Smart investors are preparing now. The August-September correction was just a warm up. The REAL drop is coming shortly.

     

    We just published a 21-page investment report titled Stock Market Crash Survival Guide.

     

    In it, we outline precisely how the crash will unfold as well as which investments will perform best during a stock market crash.

     

    We are giving away just 1,000 copies for FREE to the public.

     

    To pick up yours, swing by:

    https://www.phoenixcapitalmarketing.com/stockmarketcrash.html

     

    Best Regards

     

    Graham Summers

    Chief Market Strategist

    Phoenix Capital Research

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Dow Futures Dump 450 Points From Pre-Draghi Highs

    From hope to nope…

    From 17,870 highs as investors bought the hope in the early European markets (after weak data affirmed the assumption that Draghi would act). Then… he didn’t… and Dow Futures are hitting 17,410 lows…

  • US Aircraft Carrier Harry Truman Is Now In The Mediterranean, Approaching Syria Coast – Full US Naval Map

    Days before the dramatic military escalation between Turkey and Russia, we reported that in order to assure that the Syria proxy war has all the naval support the US-led alliance will need in the coming weeks, both a French and a US aircraft carrier were “steaming” full speed toward the Mediterranean sea, just off the coast of Syria.

    As we noted, “the Truman is expected to reach the Persian Gulf before the year’s end. The U.S. has been launching air strikes into Iraq and Syria from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf — at least until last month, when the USS Theodore Roosevelt left the area after an extended deployment. The two-month gap is the first in nearly a decade that the U.S. has had no carrier in the region.”

    Specifically, we emphasized the ETA, to wit “Once again, here is the ETA: Carrier Theodore Roosevelt left 5th Fleet in mid-October, leaving that region without a carrier until the Truman CSG gets there, which should be about six weeks, or just around the New Year” and pointed out just how busy the “parking lot” would be when the US aircraft carrier arrived. According to the Navy Times, whom we cited”

    ISIS is not the only challenge that awaits the flotilla, which includes the cruiser Anzio, Carrier Wing Air 7, and destroyers Bulkeley, Gravely and Gonzalez. Russian, Chinese and Iranian marines have established their presence in Syria, and Russian warships from the Black Sea have relocated to the eastern Mediterranean to protect fighter jets conducting airstrikes in support of Syria’s Assad regime. In preparation, the strike group’s Composite Training Unit Exercise focused on adversaries that more closely resembled those of the Cold War.

    We now know that there is also at least one Russian missile cruiser operating off the Syrian coast and providing air cover for Russian jets operating above the country. 

    In other words, the Mediterranean Sea surrounding Syria is getting more crowded by the day.

    And the bottom line is that now that UK (and shortly German) planes are flying above Syria, and “striking ISIS”, having joined jets from the US, Syria, Iran, Turkey, Russia and France, the same is about to happen to the sea next to Syria.

    Which, in our opinion, will also reveal the catalyst for the next, and even more serious, military escalation as one or more ships mysteriously suffer a Gulf of Tonkin incident in a proxy war in which the primary directive so far has clearly been the planting of false flags.

    How long? According to the latest US naval map update from Startfor, the Truman is now off the Libyan coast, rapidly approaching Italy, and we expect is ahead of scheduled year-end ETA to its final destination, a few miles off the Syrian coast.

  • Citi Turns Bearish On Stocks On "Richer And Richer" Markets, Sees 65% Recession Probability; Janet Yellen Disagrees

    First it was Goldman, then JPM, then Credit Suisse, and now it is Citi’s turn to turn decidedly downbeat on stocks for next year and just cut its weighing on global equities to neutral. The main reason for Citi’s bearishness, it is the same as the one we noted two months ago, and again last night: margin sustainability, and rather the dramatic drop in corporate profits in recent months.

    As a reminder, overnight we pointed out that according to Credit Suisse, “equities peak 12-18 months after a peak in margins” and “we are now 15 months after the peak in margins.”

     

    Cue Citi:

    In the US our chief concern is margin sustainability. Corporate profits as a share of GDP have been at all-time highs, which is just another way of saying the rewards to labour have been at all-time lows. But change may be afoot in the form of modest labour market tightening in the US. It is too soon to see this show up in core (ex Fins, Energy and Materials) margins in the US (Figure 13, LHS) but that may be where things go. Modest nominal wage acceleration combined with global disinflation (price taking by US firms) and lack of productivity growth may mean margins come under pressure from labour costs.

     

    Citi’s contention – the pendulum is swinging away from Wall Street and back to Main Street:

    US business surveys increasingly seem to be highlighting labour costs as a factor affecting future prices (Figure 14, LHS). Non-labour related costs don’t seem problem for businesses, which stands to reason given commodity price trends. It is also true that 2014/15 optimism regarding sales and margins seems to have waned (Figure 14, RHS), quite materially so in the case of sales.

    Alas, one can’t pay workers with expectations of margin increase and goodwill. Whether these “expectations” actually materialize in higher wages remains to be seen, but Citi does not plan to hang around and find out:

    Given the surge back towards the all-time highs in the S&P 500, we think that the best might be over for US equities and that indices might range trade more in 2016. We have downgraded US equities to neutral. This takes our overall equity weighting down to neutral, in many respects an extension of what we’ve been doing for most of this year as richer and richer asset markets, against a global background of economic risks, have made us more cautious.

    As a reminder, Citi’s equities downgrade follows a report by Citi’s rates team according to which the probability of a recession in 2016 has soared to 65%. Here’s why:

    If this were a typical policy cycle after a typical economic cycle, the Fed would have already raised rates 2-3 years ago. Instead, the US recovery is set to enter its seventh year while the European recovery is still embryonic. So in addition to China sneezing, FI markets need to price the longevity of the cycle. There are two approaches.

     

    1. Cycle probabilities

     

    Firstly, a statistical approach is shown in Figure 46 and highlights the cumulative probability of a recession based on data from 1970-14 across US, UK, Germany and Japan. As the U.S. economy enters year seven, the cumulative probability of a recession in the next year rises to 65%.

     

     

     

    2. The economy continues to expand ….

     

    The sub-title above would seem to contradict recession risk – but that is not the case – as an ongoing improvement in unemployment risks recession unless we are to believe in a soft landing. Consider the extrapolation of the U.S. unemployment rate drop on the trend since 2012.

    • That would take the US U-3 unemployment below 4% by end 2016. Unless, there is a soft landing, the market will price both front end hikes but also a major flattening of the curve, to augur higher recession risk. Watch for flat forwards initially and then some inversion quicker than consensus prices.

    How does this stack up in outright rates? The historical record is shown below for Treasury implied 5y5y rates.

    • The median line shows that even against a time trend to account for the secular bond market rally that 5y5y Treasury yields move lower.

    So is there a two-thirds chance the US economy contacts next year? According to Janet Yellen, who was asked precisely this question during her hearing in Congress today, there is no risk: according to her, she doesn’t see the recession risk as “anything close” to 65%. She did not provide a number which she thought is more appropriate.

    She also said that the FOMC would only raise rates as long as policy makers think U.S. will “enjoy at least some above-trend growth” that would result in improving labor market.. 

    Her conclusion: if the rate hike results in “unintended consequences” the Fed can always just lower rates. Which incidentally is precisely what the Fed did in last 1936 when it, too, erroneously decided the economy was strong enough to sustain a tightening of financial conditions…

    … only to cut immediately. The collateral damage? The Dow Jones plunged 50% the next year…

    … and unleashed a severe recession in the second half of 1937, followed a few year later by the start of World War II.

    This time is not different.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News December 3, 2015

  • Chairman of U.S. House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee: “Either [Turkey] Shouldn’t Be in NATO or We Shouldn’t”

    Congressman Dana Rohrabacher – Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats – wrote last week:

    Not radical Islam, but the Russians have been portrayed to us as the villains in this chapter of history. Yet our government demonstrates a lack of will, incompetence, or both, in confronting the most monstrous of the radical Islamic marauders now spilling vast quantities of innocent blood in the Middle East – as well as in Africa and France.

     

    When Russia courageously stepped into the breach we should have been applauding its willingness to confront ISIS. Instead, we continue to denigrate Russians as if they were still the Soviet Union and Putin, not Islamic terrorists, our most vicious enemy.

     

    So now we see the travesty of a harsh condemnation of the Russians for introducing air strikes against terrorists who will murder Americans if they get the chance.

     

    Yes, Russia does this to protect Syria’s authoritarian Assad regime, which has close ties to Moscow. So what?

     

    Assad, like Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, is no threat to the United States or the Western world. If Assad is forced out of power he will eventually be replaced by an Islamic terrorist committed to raining down mayhem on Western countries.

     

    Today we witness the spectacle of American decision- makers, in and out of the Obama administration, joining forces with a Turkish regime that grows more supportive of the radical Islamist movement. There is ample evidence of President Erdogan’s complicity in ISIS’s murderous rampage through Syria and Iraq.

     

    Yet, we hold our public rebukes for the Russians, who are battling those terrorists. A Russian plane on an anti-terrorist mission did violate Turkish airspace, just as Turkish planes have strayed into Greek airspace hundreds of times over the last year. This overflight was no threat to Turkey. Still, it was shot down, as was a Russian helicopter on the way to rescue the downed Russian pilot.

     

    Why do Americans feel compelled to kick Russia in the teeth? Russia’s military is attacking an enemy that would do us harm. Why ignore the hostile pro-terrorist maneuvering of Turkish strongman Erdogan?

     

    President Obama is wrong. American politicians who try to sound tough at Russia’s expense in this case are not watching out for the long-term interests of the United States by undermining those fighting our primary enemy, Islamic terrorists.

     

    Russia should be applauded. Instead, it is being castigated for doing what our government is unwilling to do to confront the terrorist offensive now butchering innocent human beings from Africa, to the Middle East, to the streets of Paris.

     

    If being in NATO means protecting Erdogan in this situation, either he shouldn’t be in NATO or we shouldn’t.

    Rohrabacher is actually 100% right on this one …

    Related:

    Turkey Tries to Lure NATO Into War Against Russia

  • The Fall Of America Signals The Rise Of The New World Order

    Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    “The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another.”Henry Kissinger, “Henry Kissinger On The Assembly Of A New World Order”

     

    “[P]art of people’s concern is just the sense that around the world the old order isn’t holding and we’re not quite yet to where we need to be in terms of a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity, that’s based on economies that work for all people.” Barack Obama

     

    “We reiterate our strong commitment to the United Nations (UN) as the foremost multilateral forum entrusted with bringing about hope, peace, order and sustainable development to the world. The UN enjoys universal membership and is at the center of global governance and multilateralism.”Fifth BRICS Summit Declaration

     

    “We support the reform and improvement of the international monetary system, with a broad-based international reserve currency system providing stability and certainty. We welcome the discussion about the role of the SDR in the existing international monetary system including the composition of SDR’s basket of currencies. We support the IMF to make its surveillance framework more integrated and even-handed.” Fifth BRICS Summit Declaration

    Here is where many political and economic analysts go terribly wrong in their examination of current global paradigms: They tend to blindly believe the mainstream narrative rather than taking into account conflicting actions and statements by political and financial leaders. Even in the liberty movement, composed of some of the most skeptical and media savvy people on planet Earth, the cancers of assumption and bias often take hold.

    Some liberty proponents are more than happy to believe in particular mainstream dynamics. They are happy to believe, for example, that the growing “conflict” between the East and West is legitimate rather than engineered.

    You can list off quotation after quotation and policy action after policy action proving that Eastern governments, including China and Russia, work hand in hand with globalist institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the Bank of International Settlements, the World Bank and the U.N. toward the goal of global governance and global economic centralization. But these people simply will not listen. They MUST believe that the U.S. is the crowning villain, and that the East is in heroic opposition. They are so desperate for a taste of hope they are ready to consume the poison of false dichotomies.

    The liberty movement is infatuated with the presumption that the U.S. government and the banking elites surrounding it are at the “top” of the new world order pyramid and are “clamoring for survival” as the U.S. economy crumbles under the facade of false government and central banking statistics. How many times have we heard over the past year alone that the Federal Reserve has “backed itself into a corner” or policy directed itself “between a rock and a hard place?”

    I have to laugh at the absurdity of such a viewpoint because central bankers and internationalists have always used economic instability as a means to gain political and social advantage. The consolidation of world banking power alone after the Great Depression is a testament to this fact. And even former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has admitted (at least in certain respects) that the Federal Reserve was responsible for that terrible implosion, an implosion that conveniently served the interests of international cartel banks like JPMorgan.

    But the Federal Reserve is no more than an appendage of a greater system; it is NOT the brains of the operation.

    In his book “Tragedy And Hope,” Carroll Quigley, Council on Foreign Relations member and mentor to Bill Clinton, stated:

    "It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called “international” or “merchant” bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks."

    In “Ruling The World Of Money,” Harper’s Magazine established what Quigley admitted in “Tragedy And Hope” — that the control of the global economic policy and, by extension, political policy is dominated by a select few elites, namely through the unaccountable institutional framework of the BIS.

    The U.S. and the Federal Reserve are mere tentacles of the great vampire squid that is the new world order. And being a tentacle makes one, to a certain extent, expendable, if the trade will result in even greater centralization of power.

    The delusion that some people within the liberty movement are under is that the fall of America will result in the fall of the new world order. In reality, the fall of America is a necessary step towards the RISE of the new world order. The Rothschild-owned financial magazine The Economist reaffirmed this trend of economic “harmonization” in its 1988 article “Get Ready For A World Currency By 2018,” which described the creation of a global currency called the “Phoenix” over three decades:

    "The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF. The world inflation rate — and hence, within narrow margins, each national inflation rate — would be in its charge. Each country could use taxes and public spending to offset temporary falls in demand, but it would have to borrow rather than print money to finance its budget deficit. With no recourse to the inflation tax, governments and their creditors would be forced to judge their borrowing and lending plans more carefully than they do today. This means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case."

     

    "…The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power."

    We are now on the cusp of the “prediction” set forth by The Economist over 27 years ago. The BRICS nations, including Vladimir Putin’s Russia, have all consistently called for the formation of a global reserve currency system under the direct control of the IMF and predicated on the basket methodology of the SDR. This new global system, as The Economist suggested, requires the marginalization of existing power structures and the end of sovereign economic control. Governments around the world including the U.S. would be at the fiscal mercy of the new financial high priests through the use of insidious debt based incentives given or withheld at the whim of the IMF.

    China is set to be inducted into the SDR basket in 2015, with specific economic changes to be made by September 2016, a development I have been warning about for years. The "vote" is in and the decision has been finalized.  While some in the mainstream media are playing off the rise of the Yuan as meaningless, IMF head Christine Lagarde presents the shift as a major event, not for China, but for the IMF and the SDR which she proudly refers to as the "currency of currencies".

     

    The addition of China to the SDR, I believe, is the next trigger event for the continuing removal of the dollar as the world reserve currency. The monetary shift may explode with speed if Saudi Arabia follows through with a possible plan to depeg from the dollar, effectively ending the petrodollar status the U.S. has enjoyed for decades.

    This is, of course, the same IMF-controlled SDR system that Putin and the Kremlin have called for, despite the running fantasy that Putin is somehow an opponent of the globalists.

    Putin continues to press the “U.S. as bumbling villain” narrative, while at the same time supporting globalist institutions and the internationalization of economic and political governance. While many people were overly focused on his “calling out” of the U.S. and its involvement in the creation of ISIS in his recent speech at the U.N., they seemed to have completely overlooked his adoration of the United Nations and the development of a global governing body. Putin often speaks at cross purposes just as Barack Obama does — one minute supporting sovereignty and freedom, the next minute calling for global centralization:

    "Russia is ready to work together with its partners to develop the UN further on the basis of a broad consensus, but we consider any attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They may result in the collapse of the entire architecture of international relations, and then indeed there will be no rules left except for the rule of force."

     

    "Dear colleagues, ensuring peace and global and regional stability remains a key task for the international community guided by the United Nations. We believe this means creating an equal and indivisible security environment that would not serve a privileged few, but everyone."

    Putin also proclaimed his support for the UN's fight against "climate change", the same climate change which Secretary of State John Kerry argued was a "contributing factor" in the crisis in Syria and the rise of ISIS.  I have written in the past on the fraud of "man made climate change (global warming)" and will not enter that tangent here now, but the point remains that Putin is fully on board with said fraud like all other puppet politicians around the globe:

    "…One more issue that shall affect the future of the entire humankind is climate change. It is in our interest to ensure that the coming UN Climate Change Conference that will take place in Paris in December this year should deliver some feasible results. As part of our national contribution, we plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 70–75 percent of the 1990 levels by the year 2030."

     

    "It is indeed a challenge of global proportions. And I am confident that humanity does have the necessary intellectual capacity to respond to it. We need to join our efforts, primarily engaging countries that possess strong research and development capabilities, and have made significant advances in fundamental research. We propose convening a special forum under the auspices of the UN to comprehensively address issues related to the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, and climate change. Russia is willing to co-sponsor such a forum."

    one more issue that shall affect the future of the entire humankind is climate change. It is in our interest to ensure that the coming UN Climate Change Conference that will take place in Paris in December this year should deliver some feasible results. As part of our national contribution, we plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 70–75 percent of the 1990 levels by the year 2030. – See more at: http://www.russianmission.eu/en/news/president-vladimir-putin-addresses-…
    It is indeed a challenge of global proportions. And I am confident that humanity does have the necessary intellectual capacity to respond to it. We need to join our efforts, primarily engaging countries that possess strong research and development capabilities, and have made significant advances in fundamental research. We propose convening a special forum under the auspices of the UN to comprehensively address issues related to the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, and climate change. Russia is willing to co-sponsor such a forum. – See more at: http://www.russianmission.eu/en/news/president-vladimir-putin-addresses-…

    Indeed, it has been Putin’s intention all along to support and defend the internationalist framework while at the same time participating in the theatrical East versus West false paradigm:

    "In the BRICS case we see a whole set of coinciding strategic interests.

     

    First of all, this is the common intention to reform the international monetary and financial system. In the present form it is unjust to the BRICS countries and to new economies in general. We should take a more active part in the IMF and the World Bank’s decision-making system. The international monetary system itself depends a lot on the US dollar, or, to be precise, on the monetary and financial policy of the US authorities. The BRICS countries want to change this."

    The Chinese support the same agenda of an IMF managed economic world:

    The world economic crisis shows the "inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system," Gov. Zhou Xiaochuan said in an essay released Monday by the bank. He recommended creating a currency made up of a basket of global currencies and controlled by the International Monetary Fund and said it would help "to achieve the objective of safeguarding global economic and financial stability."

    It is rather interesting how the desires of the BRICS seem to directly coincide with the designs of international bankers. This Hegelian dialectic is perhaps the most elaborate public distraction of all time, with the ultimate solution to the artificially engineered problem being a single “multilateral” but centrally dictated world economic system and world government, i.e., the new world order.

    Again, the globalists at the BIS and the IMF require a diminished U.S. dollar, greatly reduced U.S. living standards and a much smaller U.S. geopolitical footprint before they can establish and finalize a single publicly accepted global elitist oligarchy.

    If you cannot understand why it seems that the Federal Reserve and U.S. government appear hell-bent on self-destruction, then perhaps you should consider the facts and motivations at hand. Then, you’ll realize it is THEIR JOB to destroy America, not save America. When you are finally willing to accept this reality, every disastrous development since the inception of the Fed a century ago, as well as all that is about to happen in the next few years, makes perfect sense.

    This is not to say that the ultimate endgame of the new world order will result in victory. But the cold, hard, concrete evidence shows that internationalists do have a plan; they are implementing that plan systematically; and all major governments around the world are participating in that plan. This plan involves the inevitable collapse and reformation of America into a Third World enclave, a goal that is nearly complete, as I will outline in my next article.

    As the U.S. destabilizes, we are not escaping the clutches of the Federal Reserve system, only trading out one totalitarian management model for another. It is absolutely vital that the liberty movement in particular finally and fully embrace this reality. If we do not, then there will truly be no obstacle to such a plan’s success and no end to the tyrannies of the old world or the new world.

  • Did Something Blow Up in Junk?

    Submitted by Jeffrey Snider of Alhambra Investment Partners

    Did Something Blow Up in Junk?

    There isn’t much as far as confirmation, but it increasingly appears as if “something” just hit the triple hooks (CCC) in the junk bond bubble. At least as far as one view of it, Bank of America ML’s CCC implied yield, there was a huge selloff that brought the yield to a new cycle high (low in price) above even the 2011 crisis peak.

    Now, this had occurred before on August 13 amidst the growing carnage in the “dollar” run through the PBOC and China. The published rate for that day was just over 16% and a similarly huge jump, but that was quickly revised (no reason given) to actually less than the day before. Further, that pricing revision applied to BofAML’s Master II HY index, as well, which had also been initially published in an explosion that day only to erased quickly after.

    This time, the CCC index is by itself in showing “something.” Neither the Master II nor the S&P/LSTA Leveraged Loan 100 are following suit. Whether or not that suggests another pricing problem isn’t clear, but the fact that the CCC index actually surged Monday to 16.61% and was reported again yesterday at 16.60% begins to indicate this was an actual trading outcome. In other words, as junk bonds have been the leading edge to the domestic end of the “dollar” run, this demands close and ongoing scrutiny in light of a potential escalation.  After all, this is just another indication of how advanced the deterioration has become, when the “usual” carnage and selloff is no longer noteworthy, giving way to only the (possibly) spectacular.

  • Leaked Memo Reveals EU Plan To Suspend Schengen For Two Years

    Earlier today we reported that in a dramatic and, what to many may seem unfair variation of “carrot and stick” negotiations conducted by European bureaucrats, the EU threatened Greece with indefinite suspension from the Schengen passport-free travel zone unless it overhauls its response to the migration crisis by mid-December, as frustration mounted over Athens’ reluctance to accept outside support.

    The slap on the face of the Greeks was particularly painful because this warnings of an temporary expulsion from the EU happens just days after Turkey not only got a €3 billion check from Europe because it has been far more “amenable” in negotiating the handling of the hundreds of thousands of refugees that exit its borders in direction Europe, but also was promised a fast-track status in negotiations to be considered for EU accession and visa free travel. Ironically, it is also Turkey which is the source of virtually all Greek refugee headaches as the following map shows.

     

    We summarized the situation earlier as follows:

    “not only do the Greeks suffer under the weight of 700,000 refugees crossing into its borders from Turkey and headed for a “welcoming Germany” which is no longer welcoming, now they have to suffer the indignity of being ostracized by their own European “equals” who are being remarkably generous with non-EU member Turkey, which may very well be funding ISIS by paying for Islamic State oil and thus perpetuating the refugee crisis, while threatening to relegate Greece into the 4th world, and with visa requirements to get into Europe to boot!”

    However, it appears there is much more to this story than merely a case of vindication against the Greeks.

    As Steve Peers from EU Law Analysis writes, according to a leaked Council memo, Europe’s intention is to put the framework in place for a comprehensive suspension of Schengen for all countries, for a period as long as two years, not just Greece in the process effectively undoing the customs union aspect of the European Union, which also happens to be its backbone.

    The following is Council document 14300/15, dated 1 December 2015. It’s entitled ‘Integrity of the Schengen area‘, and addressed to Coreper (the body consisting of Member States’ representatives to the EU) and the Council – presumably the Justice and Home Affairs ministers meeting Thursday 3 and Friday 4 December.

    The first three parts aren’t exceptional, but part 4 calls for the start of a process to officially allow the reimposition of internal border controls in the Schengen area for up to two years. Legally, this has to be triggered by ‘serious deficiencies’ in the border control of a particular Member State.

     

    This has been reported as a plan to suspend Schengen as regards Greece. But the wording of the document suggests a much broader intention – applying to the whole of Schengen. This intention is clear from the reference to continuing in force the border controls that many Member States have imposed this autumn, which can only be imposed for a maximum period of six months. The purpose of using the ‘serious deficiencies’ clause, instead of the normal clause on suspending Schengen, is clearly to allow a much longer suspension period. It may be that not every internal border would be subject to checks, but the intention seems to be to issue a blank cheque to this effect.

    Document follows:

    INTRODUCTION

    The migratory and refugee crisis has put the application of the Schengen acquis and of the asylum acquis under severe pressure during the last years, with an unprecedented influx of migrants over the last months. In this context, several Member States have temporarily reintroduced border control at their internal borders, with reference to a serious threat to public policy or internal security as provided for by the Schengen Borders Code. Temporary controls at internal borders have also been carried out by a Member State for reasons related to terrorism, following the attacks in Paris on 13 November 2015. In addition, some Member States have taken specific measures to reinforce the control at their external borders.

    In its Conclusions of 9 November 2015 on measures to handle the refugee and migration crisis, the Council has identified a number of measures to implement fully the orientations already agreed by the European Council [1]. These measures address a wide range of issues, including in particular reception capacities, hotspots, relocation, return, readmission, resettlement,  lack of cooperation of migrants, contingency planning, the functioning of the Schengen area, external and internal borders, smuggling in human beings, visa policy, a common information strategy and the use of the Integrated Political Crisis Response (IPCR).

    In the Conclusions adopted on 20 November 2015 on Counter-Terrorism after the Paris terrorist attacks by the Council and Member States meeting within the Council it was agreed to implement reinforced measures for the purpose of fighting terrorism, including strengthening controls at external borders[2].

    Under point 9 of its Conclusions of 9 November 2015, the Council decided “to conduct at the December Justice and Home Affairs Council, on the basis of the 8th bi-annual reporting by the Commission, a thorough debate on the functioning of the Schengen area (1 May 2015 – 31 October 2015) and on the lessons learned from temporary reintroductions of controls at internal borders”.
    In Coreper on 26 November 2015 the Commission indicated, however, that the said 8th bi-annual report would not be ready for the meeting of the JHA Council in December 2015, but would be integrated in the future border package. The Presidency concluded that Ministers would be invited to hold a debate on the functioning of the Schengen area on the basis of a Presidency paper.

    With a view to preparing this debate, the Presidency issued a questionnaire on lessons learned from temporary introductions of controls at internal borders [3]. The Presidency has prepared the present paper in the light of replies from Member States, having in mind also major issues that have been raised during recent months regarding the functioning of the Schengen area, with a focus on border controls.

    ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION

    The Presidency invites the Council to hold a debate on the functioning of the Schengen area and to address in particular the following issues related to internal and external border controls.

    1. Consultations between Member States – Based on the information available to the Presidency, it appears that, in situations where some Member States have applied recently Article 25 of the Schengen Borders Code to reinstate temporarily controls at internal borders, there has not been sufficient prior consultation with other Member States.  The same has been noticed for technical reinforcement of borders between border crossing points, for changes in national policies leading to filter migrants at border crossing points and for organizing the transit of migrants from one border to next.  This has severely hindered the possibility for neighbouring countries to prepare themselves for changes in migratory routes and for all Schengen countries to handle migratory flows in a coherent manner.

    In addition, procedures approved by Coreper in March 2015 for improved information sharing on temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal borders have not been fully respected in all cases.

    The Presidency proposes that:

    • even in emergency situations falling under Article 25 of the Schengen Borders Code and requiring immediate action, a Member State deciding to temporarily reintroduce internal border controls should make all efforts to inform neighbouring Member States sufficiently in advance to allow neighbouring Member States to adjust to the new situation and, where possible, to cooperate to reduce the negative impact of the reintroduction of internal border controls;
    • Member States reconfirm their commitment to fully apply the procedures for improved information sharing on temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal borders agreed in Coreper in March 2015. [4]

    2. Securing external borders – A number of irregular migrants entering the EU, or exiting an EU country to re-enter later in the EU, pass through the so-called “green land borders” (the parts of the land borders between border crossing points). According to Frontex, more than 1,2 million illegal border crossings have been detected at the EU external borders for January – October 2015, an increase of 431% compared with the corresponding period in 2014. In addition, a number of illegal crossings have not been registered. The exact figure is unknown.

    Also in the context of the fight against terrorism, the Council concluded on 20 November 2015 that control at the external borders which are most exposed should be strengthened “in particular by deploying, when the situation so requires, rapid border intervention teams (RABITs) and police officers in order to ensure systematic screening and security checks”.

    In view of the critical situation that the EU is currently confronted with, the Presidency proposes that:

    • considerably more efforts should be made to prevent illegal border crossings (entry and exit) through the external “green land borders” and to ensure that external borders are crossed only at the border crossing points referred to in Article 4, subject to the exceptions in Article 4(2), of the Schengen Borders Code;
    • RABITs are deployed as necessary for that purpose. This is at present  particularly relevant for external land borders in relation to the Western Balkan countries route;
    • A Frontex operation at the northern borders of Greece be deployed without delay to address severe difficulties encountered with neighbouring countries.

    3. Increasing checks regarding illegal migration – Irregular migrants who have entered the Schengen area and have not been registered at their arrival should not be able to stay in that area undetected for long periods of time.

    The Presidency proposes that:

    • the possibilities for checking persons inside the Schengen area, including by the use of relevant databases, are fully exploited to ensure that irregular migrants are detected and registered and their cases processed.

    4. Addressing serious deficiencies in external border controls – Several Member States have recently reintroduced temporarily internal border control pursuant to Articles 23-25 of the Schengen Borders Code. Under these provisions, a Member State may not implement such controls for more than a total period of six months. A prolongation of this situation would require the adoption by the Council, upon a proposal from the Commission, of a recommendation in accordance with Article 26 of the Schengen Borders Code. Such recommendation may be adopted in exceptional circumstances to address a situation where a Schengen evaluation has identified persistent serious deficiencies relating to external border control and the measures referred to in Article 19a of the Schengen Borders Code are not effective. Where in such cases the overall functioning of the area without internal border control is put at risk, and insofar as the exceptional circumstances constitute a serious threat to public policy or internal security within the area without internal border control or within parts thereof, the period for the reintroduction of internal border control may be extended up to a total maximum of two years.

    On this basis, the Presidency:

    • proposes that the Council invites the Commission to consider presenting a proposal as appropriate pursuant to Article 26 of the Schengen Borders Code for a Council recommendation that one or more Member States decide to reintroduce border control at all or at specific parts of their internal borders;
    • considers that, at the same time, all possible measures should be taken aimed at strengthening the normal functioning of the Schengen area, in particular by reinforcing the control of external borders.

  • China Captures Its "Victory Over Smog" With Dramatic Time Lapse Video

    After days of hazardous pollution forced people to wear masks and huddle indoors, residents of Beijing turned their attention to the mayor, Wang Anshun, and his bold vow last year to clear the air. As JapanTimes reports, Wang said, if pollution wasn’t brought under control by 2017, he would cut off his own head and present it to the country’s leadership. So, imagine his relief, when after pollution levels hit 20x WHO's risk limit, a cold front – as caught on tape below –  swept away the choking smog (and saved his neck).

     

     

    The smog surged in northern China on Monday during President Xi Jinping’s visit to Paris, where he vowed to work with U.S. counterpart Barack Obama and other world leaders to stem carbon emissions and fight climate change. The capital raised its pollution alert to orange — the second-highest level — for the first time in 13 months on Sunday, the same day that the Chinese government said it had met pollution-reduction targets for the year.

    Late Tuesday, winds began to flush the smog from the region and, by Wednesday morning, PM2.5 levels in Beijing had plunged to single digits. But the skies couldn’t clear before people began mocking local officials who had so frequently vowed to control the pollution.

    “The mayor has vowed on his own head to control the smog, but we still have to rely on the wind to control it,” Sichuan People’s Radio wrote on its official Weibo account.

  • JeB SaNTa…

    JEB SANTA

  • Here's Why "Philanthropic" Mark Zuckerberg Will Place Facebook Shares In A For-Profit LLC

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Yesterday, all the media hoopla over Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement to “give away” 99% of his Facebook shares to philanthropic causes, came and went in the expected torrent of internet commentary. However, what you might have missed are the specifics around how he decided to safeguard those shares, and how unusual the for-profit LLC structure is for a charity.

    Bloomberg reports:

    The decision by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, to gradually give away 99 percent of their Facebook fortune is big news not just for the huge sum involved—about $46 billion—but for how the couple chose to achieve their philanthropic goal. Rather than set up a private foundation or charitable trust as Bill and Melinda Gates did, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative will be structured as a limited liability corporation.

     

    It’s a highly unusual step for a massive philanthropy. “I’ve never seen someone set up an LLC exclusively for a philanthropic purpose before,” says Jane Wales, vice president of philanthropy and society at the Aspen Institute. “Normally they set up a foundation for the tax advantages of doing so.” Here are some significant ways that LLC status will shape what Zuckerberg and Chan do with their wealth.

     

    1. There won’t be limits on lobbying

     

    It seems clear the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative will put money to work in politics. Facebook, in its official description of its founder’s new LLC, noted that “making private investments and participating in policy debates” will be part of the mission. In a public letter Zuckerberg wrote to his newborn daughter, Max, he likewise emphasized an appetite for pushing a policy agenda: “We must participate in policy and advocacy to shape debates.” If the charitable venture had been set up as a traditional tax-exempt foundation—what is called a 501(c)(3)— it wouldn’t have freedom to lobby lawmakers or engage in other political activities. The Internal Revenue Service prohibits tax-exempt groups from “directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”

    There you go. As many expected, it appears this move is less about charity, and more about ensuring that Zuckerberg, the oligarch, is able to frame U.S. government policy in any way that he, and his billions, so desire.

    It appears Zuckerberg has carefully studied the Warren Buffet playbook.

  • China Services PMI Jumps To 4-Month High (And Drops Near 2015 Lows)

    Just like Chinese Manufacturing, the Services PMI surveys from official sources and Caixin contradict each other. Providng hope for every bull, bear, and greater fool, official government data suggests the services economy is doing great and stimulus is working as it jumps to 4-month highs. However, Caixin’s Services PMI shows a sudden drop near 2015 lows suggesting the need for moar stimulus now… take your pick, it’s all farce!

     

     

    Yuan (on- and off-shore) are both flat following the fixing but stocks are reversing yesterday’s divergence (CSI-300 and Shanghai flat to lower, ChiNext and Shenzhen jumping higher).

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Mexico Faces Its Biggest Corporate Default In Two Decades As Construction Giant Misses Bond Payment

    Back in August, we said that “Something Is Very Wrong At Mexico’s Largest Construction Company…” 

    “Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that you’re a big company in an emerging market and suddenly, a commodities crash for the ages and a “surprise” devaluation by the world’s engine for global growth and trade sends your country’s currency into a veritable tailspin,” we wrote. “If that were the case, just about the worst possible situation you could find yourself in would go something like this (adapted from Bloomberg): “Eighty-five percent of [your] backlog is denominated in the [home currency], which plunged to a record low this week [and] almost half of [your] debt is in foreign currencies, mostly dollars.”

    That was the situation facing Empresas ICA SAB which had just spooked bond investors by selling a key 3% stake in an airport operator for $56 million in order to pay down debt.

    Well, after turning in its worst quarter in nearly a decade and a half in October, Empresas ICA SAB missed an interest payment this week in what Bloomberg says is “just a prelude to what’s likely to be the biggest default in Mexico in at least two decades.” Some $31 million in debt service payments came due on Monday and the company elected to utilize a 30-day grace period to try and make the payment.

    “Under the terms of the indenture governing the 2024 Notes, the use of the 30-day grace period does not result in an event of default,” the company said, cheerfully. 

    Carlos Legaspy, a money manager who holds ICA bonds due in 2017, 2021 and 2024, wasn’t as optimistic: “Do I think they’re going to pay within 30 days? No. The 30 days are not going to make any difference.” Here’s a look at the 2024s:

    And the 2021s and 2017s:

    And as for the equity, well, no luck there either: 

    Moody’s is disgusted. “The use of the 30-day grace period does not constitute an event of default in itself, however, it reflects the precarious liquidity of the company and is a likely precursor to more formal refinancing process or distressed exchange,” the ratings agency said on Wednesday, on the way to downgrading ICA to Caa3, from B3. Here’s more: 

    The negative outlook reflects the ongoing uncertainty as the company enters this new phase of negotiations with its creditors, payment risk on upcoming interest and debt maturity payments, and the possibility that missed coupon payments beyond grace period results in a more formal debt restructuring filing. The outlook also entails the possibility that recovery for bondholders will not be commensurate within the Caa3 rating, leading to further downgrades. For example, recovery could be affected if the company launches a distressed exchange resulting in lower than anticipated recovery or if as a result of a distressed sale of assets the company is not able to raise cash enough to cover outstanding debt.

    S&P, who apparently concurs with Carlos Legaspy’s assessment of ICA’s prospects, also cut the company by three levels on Wednesday, noting that there’s a “high probablity” that the 30-day grace period will not help when it comes to avoiding default. 

    “The Mexico City-based builder, which hired Rothschild & Co. as a financial adviser in October, has struggled to shore up its finances as a collapse in oil prices prompted the government to cut spending,” Bloomberg goes on to say, adding that “the peso’s slide has swelled the company’s obligations.” Here’s how ICA compares to previous defaults in Mexico:

    “If ICA does not make payment within 30 days, it would be considered an event of default,” BoAML reminds us, before noting that what you’re likely to get is a cross-default on the 2017s and 2021s (shown above). For any BofA clients who may be concerned, don’t worry, your broker apparently has enough sense to avoid defaulted bonds: “we’re underweight on ICA’s bonds on liquidity concerns.”

    In the end, it will be haircut time for creditors and this will go down as just one more example of what happens when the EM growth story shrivels up and dies. We’ll close with another quote from Carlos Legaspy, who is aggravated at ICA’s handling of the liquidity crunch: 

    “It’s extremely frustrating. It shows that they’re kind of flying a little bit by the seat of their pants and that’s always not comforting.”

  • Visualizing The Greatest Economic Collapses In History

    The very first major economic collapse in recorded history occurred in 218-202 BC when the Roman Empire experienced money troubles after the Second Punic War. As a result, bronze and silver currencies were devalued. As HowMuch.net depicts in the video below economic collapses date back thousands of years. While many countries today still feel the effects of the most recent Global Financial Crisis, it is important to note that economic troubles are not unique to the present-day, but rather date back to some of the oldest civilizations.

     

     

    Crisis by Type

    While no two crises are exactly the same, economic collapses can be categorized into the following types:

    • Fiscal: inability of the government to finance its regular activities

    • Credit: reduction in the general availability and accessibility of loans

    • Financial: value of financial institutions or assets suddenly drop

    • Currency: doubt as to whether a country’s central bank has enough reserves to maintain the country’s fixed exchange rate

    • Economic: country experiences sudden downturn brought on by a financial crisis

    • Hyperinflation: extremely rapid period of inflation, usually caused by fast printing of money

    • Supply Side Shock: unexpected event that changes supply of product, resulting in a sudden change in price

    • Speculative Bubble: spike in asset value with a particular industry caused by exaggerated expectations of future growth

    • Stock Market Crash: sudden decline of stock prices across a large part of the market

    The first collapse that occurred in the Roman Empire in the year 202 BC would be classified as a currency collapse. 235 years later, the Roman Empire experienced a financial crisis, caused by the decrease in land prices thereby making difficult for borrowers to pay back loans. As a result, interest loans from the wealthy became scarce.  

    Below is a look at some instances in which each of the other seven types of crisis above were experienced either globally or by a specific country.

    Fiscal: The European debt crisis has been ongoing since 2009 when Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Cyprus had trouble repaying their government debt.

    Credit: The Crisis of 1763 began in Amsterdam with the collapse of Leendert Pieter de Neufville and spread to Germany and Scandinavia.

    Economic: From 1050-1100, Europe experienced economic decline, mainly due to the Great Invasions. This economic collapse ends in the 12th century with innovations in agriculture and textiles.  

    Hyperinflation: From 235-285 AD, emperors in the Roman Empire devalued currency rather than make unpopular budget cuts.

    Supply Side Shock: In 1970, the world’s major industrial countries entered into an energy crisis, with countries facing substantial petroleum shortages, real and perceived, as well as elevated prices.

    Speculative Bubble: After several years of a booming internet industry, stocks began to sharply decline in 1999, affecting major economies, including U.S., Germany, Great Britain, and Italy.  

    Stock Market Crash: The Wall Street Crash of 1929, or Black Tuesday, was the most devastating stock market crash in the history of the U.S.

     

    Surviving Collapses

    Despite the devastating effects throughout time, economies were able to recover from multiple collapses. For instance, the Roman Empire experienced currency and hyperinflation crises over five centuries while various countries in Europe have endured a number of crises over the last millennium. Below is a list of countries ranked by the amount of crises survived per country.

    • 1 crisis: South Africa, Israel, Mexico, Indonesia

    • 2 crises: India, Chile, Thailand, New Zealand

    • 3 crises: Australia, Canada, Japan, Brazil, Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania

    • 4 crises: Argentina, Andorra

    • 5 crises: China, Russia, Romania

    • 6 crises: Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, Sweden, Norway

    • 7 crises: Finland

    • 8 crises: Ireland

    • 9 crises: Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Turkey, Bulgaria, Serbia

    • 10 crises: Croatia, Switzerland, Germany, Croatia, Cyprus, Slovenia

    • 11 crises: Austria, Greece, Netherlands

    • 13 crises: Spain, Italy, Portugal

    • 26 crises: United States

    With only 239 years of existence as a country, the United States has experienced double the number of crises as Spain, Italy, and Portugal, which are much older societies. This equates to approximately one crisis every 9 years! Over time, the United States developed a boom-to-bust economic cycle, commencing with the Panic of 1819 when a depression was caused by bank failures. These cycles vary with time and severity. Given the strength of the U.S. economy and sophistication of its capital markets, the U.S. is able to have shorter cycles by effectively adjusting policy when the economy expands and contracts. Under this cycle theory, one would expect the next U.S. economic collapse to occur in 2025, probably much sooner.   

    Patterns of the Past

    When the Industrial Revolution began in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, timing between economic collapses became notably shorter. Instead of having over 100-200 years of crisis-free periods, the 19th century began to see a sharp decline in the length of time, with a crisis occurring approximately once every decade. While the length of time has varied between collapses, it is evident that economic collapses became not only more frequent, but also more widespread. The first instance of a global crisis was experienced across Europe and the U.S. in 1873-1879 in which multiple countries experienced a worldwide price recession called the Long Depression. Over one hundred years later, stock markets around the world crashed during Black Monday, beginning in Hong Kong. Progress in technology and telecommunications has created greater accessibility among countries in the present-day. As a result, the ripple effects of events, both good and bad, spread faster and are sometimes unavoidable.

    Source: HowMuch.net

  • Turkey's Geopolitical Value

    Submitted by Guillermo Valencia, founding partner of MacroWise

    Turkey’s Geopolitical Value

    “Who controls the food supply controls the people? who controls the energy can control whole continents? who controls money can control the world.”

          – Henry Kissinger

    Europe’s energy dependency

    Gas distribution is a powerful motive behind the Syrian war.

    The biggest gas importer in the world is the European Union (EU), which invests around 263 billion dollars a year in this energy resource. Main exporters to Europe are Russia and Norway.

    Due to the current Ukrainian conflict, dependency on Russia as the main gas supplier has become a risk for the national safety of the countries that comprise this political community.

    Avoiding dependence of gas coming from Russian is a top priority for the European Union

    The latter has exposed the need to build gas pipelines that are not under Russian control, reason why the European Union has been exploring alternatives to diversify the supply. Among their options, there are countries that have the world’s greatest gas reserves. On one hand, there are Eurasian countries like Iran and Qatar? on the other hand, there is the Caucasian region with territories such as Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan.

     

    The gas pipelines that would connect the Caucasus and Iran, and that are priority for the European Union are the following:

    Nabucco and Transcaspia: It connects Azerbaijan with Eastern Europe, passing through Turkey. This gas pipeline exists, but Azerbaijan’s reserves are not enough to cover the energy demand of the European Union. The construction of the transoceanic gas pipeline through the Caspian Sea would connect the supply from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan with Europe. These countries barely make up 3% of global gas exports.

    Qatar-Saudi Arabia-Syria-Turkey: Qatar exports 11% of global gas. Building this gas pipeline will be a direct threat to Russia’s supremacy over the control of gas. Syria and Russia have been military allies since the Cold War. Furthermore, Syria’s government’s circle of power is comprised of Alawites, a Shiite sect. Iran is not only the Shiite epicenter, but also provides military support to Syria.

    Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United States, the European Union and other Gulf countries have supported several rebel groups against the regime of Bashar al-Asad, indirectly contributing to the strengthening of the Islamic State within the region.

    Islamic (Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon): Iran has gas reserves comparable to Russia. Building a gas pipeline that goes through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and ends in the Mediterranean is a diversification alternative for the European Union. The motives for the United States and the European Union to lift the economic embargo on Iran lies in its strategic value. In turn, the country has been asked not to enrich nuclear power plants.

    After the fall of Saddam Hussein (Sunni dictator), and the withdrawal of the United States’ troops from Iraq, a power void was left in this mostly Shiite country. Said void allowed for Iran’s geopolitical expansion and the creation of the Islamic State as a reactionary Sunnite force to the Shiite expansion in the region.

    The consequences of power’s hidden snag

    One of the consequences of these power struggles was the strengthening of the Islamic State, a Frankenstein that is out of its creators’ control, and is now a common enemy to the U nited States, the European Union, Russia and Iran. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Persian Gulf countries have been pressured by their western allies to fight this group. Nonetheless, these countries have common interests with the Islamic State within Iraq and Syria.

    Low oil prices and geopolitical + Iranian deal could make the Gulf countries currency pegs very fragile.

    Turkey is the next key region in this conflict, since the only alternative gas pipeline that supplies Russia, and comes from Asia (Nabucco), passes through Turkey. Future conflicts between Turkey and Russia will be part of the Russian strategy within the region. The only difference is that Turkey belongs to NATO and scaling the conflict will have global repercussions. Beyond predicting the next conflict, the key point is that the geopolitical risk is not priced in the region. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, credit default swaps (CDS) below 100 bps and Turkey and Russia CDS at 270 bps levels are not reflecting the geopolitical tension in the region.

  • "Equities Peak 12-18 Months After A Peak In Margins; We Are Now 15 Months After The Peak In Margins"

    Two months ago, we looked at historical examples of what happens with the US economy any time corporate profit margins suffer a drop as large as the one experienced over the past 12 months when margins have plunged by (at least) 60 bps. The outcome: a recession on 5 out of 6 prior occasions.

     

    And while the economy is already feeling the recessionary impact of sliding margins as predicted in early October, with the manufacturing ISM printing at its lowest level since the recession, an even more important question is what happens to the stock market now that margins have peaked. On this topic, most have been mum with the usual “answer” being that margins will keep rising. Alas, as even Goldman recently showed they won’t.

    So assuming margins have peaked in this cycle, what does that mean for stocks? For the very simple answer we go to Credit Suisse according to which “equities peak 12-18 months after a peak in margins.” 

    Where are we now? “we are now 15 months after the peak in margins.”

    So, give or take three more months?

  • The One Record That Was Broken On Black Friday That Mainstream Media Will Not Be Excited About

    While overall retail sales disappointed following President Obama's impassioned plea to Americans that the world is in grave danger from terrorists but they should go about their usual business of spend-spend-spend-ing on Black Friday, it appears they did buy one thing. As USA Today reports, more Americans had their backgrounds checked purchasing guns on Black Friday than any day on record, according to data released by the FBI this week.

    Friday's purchases came the same day as the mass shooting incident in Colorado Springs that killed three people and injured nine others.

    On Saturday, President Obama called for tighter controls of "weapons of war" in the wake of the Planned Parenthood shooting.

    "This is not normal," Obama said. "We can't let it become normal. If we truly care about this — if we're going to offer up our thoughts and prayers again, for God knows how many times, with a truly clean conscience — then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them. Period. Enough is enough."

    As USA Today reports,

    The National Instant Criminal Background Check System processed 185,345 requests on Nov. 27, one of the largest retail sales days in the country.

     

    "This was an approximate 5% increase over the 175,754 received on Black Friday 2014," wrote Stephen Fischer, the FBI's chief of multimedia productions. "The previous high for receipts were the 177,170 received on 12/21/2012."

     

    Previous spikes for background checks, conducted before a gun buyer can obtain a firearm, occurred after prominent mass shootings, like in December 2012 in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

    *  *  *

    It appears Thanksgiving is a popular time in America to reaffirm the right to bear arms as other Black Friday shopping days in 2014, 2013 and 2012 occupied the FBI's "top 10" list of the most background checks processed in a 24-hour period.

     

    But the overall trend of rising background checks continues…

     

    *  *  *

    Of course, today's mass shooting in San Bernardino, CA already brought comments from Hillary…

  • The Deep State & The War On Cash

    Submitted by Bill Bonner of Bonner & Partners (annotated by Acting-Man.com's Pater Tenebrarum),

    An Attention-Grabbing Headline

    “The first shot in the War on Cash?”

    The headline caught our attention. We’d just finished researching and writing about the “Deep State” for the latest issue of our monthly publication, The Bill Bonner Letter.

    This is something you’re likely to hear more about. The Deep State describes the way the U.S. government really works, rather than the way it’s supposed to work.

    Over the years – hardly noticed by the press or the public – a group of insiders has taken control of Washington.

     

    DeepGovernment_SocialCard_BW

    Originally the term “Deep State” was coined to describe various anti-democratic coalitions within the political system of Turkey (Turkish: derin devlet). In them meantime the term is widely used to describe all types of “state-within-the-state” type arrangements, the real power behind the throne, so to speak.

     

    Some of them are familiar government hacks and politicians. Some, largely anonymous, are in the private sector. And some represent foreign governments, foreign businesses (notably banks), and foreign organizations.

    These zombies and cronies – who number in the thousands – have much more power and authority than 100 million voters. Research shows that if they want legislation, they get it.

    Voters, on the other hand, get what they want only rarely… and probably only because the insiders want the same thing. The insiders get the money, too. The tens of trillions of dollars diverted into boondoggle bailouts, QE, and ZIRP, for example – they had to go to someone.

    And now the Deep State is setting itself up to get even more…

     

    WOLF-IN-SHEEPS-CLOTHING-2

    Now you know why it had such large eyes and such big teeth …

     

    Two Kinds of “Cash”

    Dr. Matthew Partridge in our London office reports for Money Week magazine that a small Swiss bank has become the first retail bank in the world to charge customers negative interest on their deposits.

    A number of central banks – including the Swiss National Bank – have already taken benchmark interest rates below zero. But, beginning next year, Alternative Bank Schweiz (ABS) will be the world’s first bank to pass those negative rates on to customers.

     

    hauptsitz-der-alternative-bank

    Alternative Bank Schweiz is a so-called “sustainable” bank that tries to save the planet by funding all sorts of “green” and “ethical” investments. The “ethical investment” fad is in our opinion largely based on exploiting people’s gullibility (the same principle is at work in expensive bottled water and many “bio food” items). This is not meant to cast aspersions on ABS specifically, since there exist of course also organizations and individuals in this field who are genuinely trying to do good. We are instinctively wary of do-gooders and world improvers though, as they usually either strive to enlist the coercive power of the State or thrive on exploiting the innate guilt of first world populations (guilt over having it better than others and allegedly destroying the planet in the process).

     

    In a letter to its customers, ABS said it would charge account holders 0.125% a year to hold their “cash” deposits to protect its profit margins. And anyone with 100,000 Swiss francs ($97,316) or more on deposit will have to pay 0.75% a year. Let’s stop here for a moment and clarify…

    There are “cash deposits” and there is “cash.” Cash deposits are an oxymoron. If you say you have cash in the bank, you are mistaken. The bank doesn’t really hold “your” cash. It owes you money. If it goes broke, you’ll stand in line with other creditors to get it (subject to whatever guarantees may be in place… and however well they may work).

    Cash in hand is different. It is physical. Paper. You can do what you want with it. And you don’t pay a negative interest rate. Which is why the feds want to ban cash. They say it will make it easier for them to stimulate the economy.

    As long as you can hold physical cash, you have an easy way to escape negative interest rates: You just take the money out of the bank and put it in your home safe. But if physical cash is illegal, you have no choice. You have to keep “your money” on deposit at the bank… and take whatever negative rate the bank imposes on you.

     

    switzerland-interest-rate

    Sheer insanity: the Swiss National Bank has set three month LIBOR at an average of minus 75 basis points.

     

    Total Control

    Of course, the idea that taking away your money will stimulate economic growth is ridiculous. As former banker, hedge fund manager, and expert on the fiat money system Warren Mosler recently told Bonner & Partners Investor Network subscribers:

    First, central bankers have got the interest rate thing backward. They think lowering rates will somehow stimulate the economy.

     

    But negative interest rates are just a tax. You start off with a certain amount of money – say, $100. If the rate is negative 1%, then you have $99 at the end of a year.

    Isn’t there some theory that says when people’s money goes away, and they have less, they spend less?”

    If negative rates don’t really encourage spending, why bother? This brings us to the real danger of banning cash… and perhaps the real reason the feds want to do it – more control.

    Reports William N. Griggs at The Free Thought Project under the headline “Drone Pilots have Bank Accounts and Credit Cards Frozen by Feds for Exposing U.S. Murder”:

    “For having the courage to come forward and expose the drone program for the indiscriminate murder that it is, four vets are under attack from the government they once served.

    The U.S. Government failed to deter them through threats of criminal prosecution, and clumsy attempts to intimidate their families. Now, four former Air Force drone operators-turned-whistleblowers have had their credit cards and bank accounts frozen, according to human rights attorney Jesselyn Radack.

     

    ‘My drone operators went public this week and now their credit cards and bank accounts are frozen,’ Radack lamented on her Twitter feed. This was done despite the fact that none of them has been charged with a criminal offense – but this is a trivial formality in the increasingly Sovietesque American National Security State.”

     

    Radack

    The four former drone pilots and whistle-blowers whose electronic financial life was simply erased as punishment for their audacity to inform the public about the murderous practices of the drone program. No court order or indictment was required – the State simply flipped a switch, depriving them of the means to defend themselves. Land of the Free, indeed.

     

    If we are forced to keep our money in the bank… and cash is outlawed… the Deep State will have total economic control over us all.

     

  • UK Passes Vote To Begin Syria Airstrikes

    And just like that another country has decided it would send its fighter planes in the already congested skies above Syria, when moments ago the UK parliament decided, in a 397 to 223 vote, to begin airstrikes on Syria.

    According to the vote, U.K. lawmakers backed Prime Minister David Cameron’s plan to extend air strikes against Islamic State from Iraq into Syria, after the opposition Labour Party split over whether to support military action.

    The House of Commons in London voted in favor of a motion by Cameron’s government authorizing action. Lawmakers had earlier rejected an amendment that would have blocked the use of military force.

    The 10 1/2 hours of debate saw many tetchy speeches and interventions, but the best received came from Labour foreign-affairs spokesman Hilary Benn, ending the debate by taking the opposite side of the argument from his leader, Jeremy Corbyn, a career-long opponent of military interventions.

    “We must now confront this evil,” Benn said, as Corbyn sat in silence beside him. “It is now time for us to do our bit in Syria.”

    What the RAF’s fighters will instead confront upon their campaign, which is set to begin imminently, is a lot of Russian dogfighters, each armed with Air to Air missiles thanks to Turkey, making the probability of a deadly chance encounter above Syria that much higher.

  • 2 Suspects Dead (1 Male, 1 Female), 3rd Detained After Mass Shooting Leaves 14 Dead, 17 Wounded In San Bernardino

    Update 10: AP reports, a law enforcement official says a workplace dispute probed as possibility in California shooting. Officials say gunmen were probably American citizens "not terrorists."

    NY Daily News has a few thoughts…

    Update 9: Police confirm an explosive device was found inside the building where the shooting took place. 2 suspects dead (1 male, 1 female), 3rd person detained after running from SUV shootout scene (unclear if involved in shooting). 1 officer wounded.

    Update 8: Authorities are serving search warrants at a building in Redlands, where on of the suspects may be originally from.

    Update 7: The San Bernardino Police chief Burguan tweets that "suspects are down" and one officer is wounded. Unclear if any are still on the loose.

    And here is an audio recording of the gun battle which took place earlier:

     

    Update 6: Still more conflicting information, this time from the chief of police according to whom while 2 suspects are being "dealt with" (which supposedly means one killed and one down), while one is still possibly at large. The police is currently searching for the third suspect.

    Update 5: the latest from NBC confirms that while one suspect in custody, the number of suspects shot has grown to two which may account for all three of the original suspects reported at the original crime scene.

    There is a conflicting report according to which one suspect is still at large and has barricaded in a nearby home.

    According to a third report, a pipe bomb was recovered from the suspect SUV.

     

    Update 4: According to CBS, one of the suspects is now down and another one is in custody, while a SWAT team prepares to search the suspect's bullet-ridden SUV

     

    Here's Obama:

    Update 3: High speed chase underway on freeway and reports of arrests made. This has culminated with a shoot out with the police, in which a black SUV probably belonging to the suspect has been perforated by gunfire with helicopter cameras showing that at least on suspect has been shot while an officer is also down after the suspect ran away.

     

    Heavily shot-up SUV…

     

    Someone is down:

    Police  described the case as "a domestic terrorist type situation" at the moment, and a Bomb Threat Reported at Loma Linda University Medical Center in San Bernadino.

    Update 2: Police confirm:

    • *POLICE SAY UP TO THREE PEOPLE OPEN FIRE IN CALIF.
    • *POLICE SAY UP TO 14 PEOPLE MAY BE DEAD IN CALIF.
    • *POLICE SAY UP TO 14 PEOPLE MAY BE WOUNDED

    Update 1: The three suspects are believed to be armed with AK-47-type weapons, a local law enforcement official told CNN

    Police storming Inland Center earlier…

     

     

    As we previously noted,

    Police are investigating a report of shots fired in San Bernardino. As CBS LA reports, San Bernardino Fire officials are reporting at least 20 victims and 12 reported casualties in a shooting in the 1300 block of South Waterman. Authorities are advising all motorists to stay away from the area around the Inland Regional Center, a center serving people with developmental disabilities in San Bernardino and Riverside counties.

    The Inland Regional Center is a sprawling three-story center serving people with developmental disabilities in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. The non-profit private agency, whose site crashed due to traffic due to news of the shooting, employs nearly 700 people and serves more than 30,000 residents with developmental disabilities for ages ranging from infants to seniors 60 years and older, according to the center’s Facebook page.

    Investigators were searching the building and have yet to clear it. Police said there were reports of one to three shooters involved.

    Marcos Aguilera's wife was in the building when the gunfire erupted. He said a shooter entered the building next to his wife's office and opened fire.

    "They locked themselves in her office. They seen bodies on the floor," Aguilera said, adding that his wife saw ambulances taking people out of the building on stretchers.

    According to the latest update, police confirm three shooters at large wearing masks, body armor and armed with rifles.

    The ATF and the FBI have arrived on the scene of the shooting.

    San Bernardino is deploying heavily armed cops to universities, hospitals, and Planned Parenthood.

    According to the latest news, the Waterman discount mall in San Bernardino, CA has been evacuated.

    *  *  *

    Live Feeds…

    ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

    Police looking for 3 white males dressed in military gear. At least 20 injured (and latest reports say 12 dead).

     

    The scene of the crime

     

    Police presence is building…

    Putting today's shooting in context, there have been 334 days and 351 mass shootings so far this year, not including this one.

     

    And here is Hillary

     

     

  • Syria Decoded: Explaining The Conflict In One Infographic

    Decoding the war in Syria is not for the faint of heart. 

    The situation on the ground is, and always has been, impossibly convoluted. The hodgepodge of rebels, militants, and jihadists battling Assad’s army for control of the country would be confusing enough on its own without having to take into account the myriad state sponsors that fund, arm, and train the opposition. 

    In addition to covert (and we use that term loosely because at this juncture, the fact that the US and its regional allies are backing the Sunni extremists operating in the country is just about the worst kept secret in the geopolitical universe) support, numerous world powers are engaged in overt military ops. Russia is in the skies above western Syria while the US, France, and (soon) Britain are flying in the east. Turkey conducts bombing runs along its border with Syria and Iran has a heavy troop presence operating under cover of Russian airstrikes. 

    Meanwhile, Ankara has been accused of enabling the Islamic State crude trade and it seems at least possible that ISIS oil eventually ends up in Israel as part of the same cargoes that contain Kurdish oil.

    Finally, the YPG is waging an honest war against Islamic State and would probably be even more successful than they already are if their “allies” in Washington were serious about the fight. 

    Oh, and al-Qaeda is around too, surviving off aid to al-Nusra from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. 

    For those looking to make sense of it all, we present the following infographic which should go some ways towards untangling what has become one of the most complex, convoluted wars in recent memory.

  • Stocks Plunge Back To Bonds' Reality Amid Crude Carnage

    "Do Not Panic"…

    It appears 20 victims is just not enough to warrant a massive short-squeeze like Paris!!

    Stocks caught down to bonds' reality…

     

    And some longer-term (post-FOMC) context…

     

    Before the US opened though, China saw massive divergence in performance…

     

    This was the worst day for stocks in 3 weeks with high-flyer Trannies the biggest loser (as crude collapsed)…

     

    Futures show the action a little clearer…

     

    Leaving all major indices (apart from the NASDAQ's late save) in the red on the week…

     

    Stocks decoupled from USDJPY as ADP hit and tumbled with Crude…

     

    Treasury yields were mixed with the long-end flat and short-end higher (the belly was worst with 5Y +4.5bps, 30Y unch, 2Y +3bps)

     

    The USD jumped to 12 year highs after ADP hit but rapdily slipped lower during Crude's collapse, Yellen's speech, and the mass shooting…

     

    Commodities saw a gap down after ADP reported and the USD surged…

     

    This was WTI's worst day in 2 months and lowest close since August 27th…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • The End Of Keynesian Orthodoxy

    Submitted by Jeffrey Snider via Alhambra Investment Partners,

    On November 9, the OECD issued its twice-yearly Economic Outlook statbook, updated for projections into Q3 for most national economic accounts. Despite past enthusiasm for global prospects in 2015, the narrative has not-so-subtly shifted, a major transformation coming from an orthodox bastion like the OECD.

    Global growth prospects have clouded this year. Global growth has eased to around 3%, well below its long-run average. This largely reflects further weakness in emerging market economies (EMEs). Deep recessions have emerged in Brazil and Russia, whilst the ongoing slowdown in China and the associated weakness of commodity prices has hit activity in key trading partners and commodity exporting economies, and increased financial market uncertainty.

     

    Global trade growth has slowed markedly, especially in the EMEs, and financial conditions have become less supportive in most economies.

    It is difficult to simply accept these limitations lacking comprehensive causative processes put forth, but the fact that they are at least being recognized represents a (small) step forward. These are portrayed as if they are “things” of themselves; commodity price collapse, “financial market uncertainty”, global trade growth collapse, etc. Despite the unexamined “mystery” of all those, or maybe because of that intentional obtuseness, the OECD still expects global growth to accelerate in 2016 and really 2017. That is, of course, the same pattern that plays out year after year after year, only 2015 has already held more than the typical amount of setbacks and “unconnected” financial mysteriousness.

    To this point, the organization is unwilling to see anything more than a visible economic problem for EM’s alone. Brazil and Russia have their recessions, and China its unexplained slowdown, but the rest of the “developed” world is expected to remain rather steady in growth (well, except Canada perhaps?) no matter all the global turmoil. It is the stated “risks”, however, that suggest much about the inner turmoil at these economic outposts:

    Growth would also be hit in the euro area, as well as Japan, where the short-run impact of past stimulus has proved weaker than anticipated and uncertainty remains about future policy choices.

     

    There are increasing signs that the anticipated path of potential output may fail to materialise in many economies, requiring a reassessment of monetary and fiscal policy strategies.

    So while the OECD isn’t quite ready to throw in the towel globally, they are, significantly, at least contemplating how much of their baseline is already wrong and inapplicable. This is a marked and remarkable shift from the OECD position from just before the “dollar’s” mid-2014 turn. From the May 2014 version:

    On the other hand, the pace of growth in the major emerging market economies has slowed. Part of this deceleration is benign, reflecting cyclical slowdowns from overheated starting positions – the growth rates now seen in China are undoubtedly more sustainable from both economic and environmental perspectives than the double-digit pace of a few years ago. However, managing the credit slowdown and the risk that built up during the period of easy global monetary conditions could be a major challenge.

     

    The likelihood of some of the most worrisome events that have preoccupied markets and policymakers in recent years has diminished. Risks are overall better balanced although still tiled to the downside. Financial tensions in emerging markets are one risk that could blow the global recovery off course and have bigger spillovers than anticipated It is not the only one. Falling inflation in the euro area could turn into deflation. Geopolitical risks have also increased since the start of the year.

    Despite suggesting those “risks” to the global economic forecast, and thus providing again recognition that even the OECD saw the unifying financial or monetary element, the “dollar”, as early as then, they went on, as always, to just dismiss them in their projections.

    Global growth and trade are projected to strengthen at a moderate pace through 2014 and 2015.

     

    Activity in the OECD economies will be boosted by accommodative monetary policies, supportive financial conditions and a fading drag from fiscal consolidation

     

    Growth in many of the large emerging market economies (EMEs) is expected to remain modest relative to past norms, with tighter financial and credit conditions and past policy tightening taking effect and supply-side constraints also damping potential ouput.

    And worst of all, the usual orthodox nonsense and buzzwords:

    Normal demand-side accelerator-type mechanisms, healthier corporate balance sheets and reduced uncertainty should help business investment to strengthen gradually, and thereby push up trade intensity.

    Needless to say, there is far too much of financial and economic nightmare in 2015 to be so complacent about not just 2017 but just the rest of this year – Canada, Brazil and Japan already fraying the ragged edges of even the latest outlook. That also includes the US as it has almost assuredly fallen into a manufacturing recession already. From this, we are supposed to ignore just how well that fits within this damning global economic context. The only way to project gradual global recovery is if the US manufacturing recession is a “thing” all its own, unrelated to any of the innumerable other “things” that have shown up this year; commodity price collapse, “financial market uncertainty”, global trade growth collapse, etc.

    Recent manufacturing readings for the US have only confirmed the recessionary presence, meaning it is left to individual subjectivity as to how to place it within meaningful context.

    The U.S. manufacturing sector contracted in November, falling to its worst levels since June 2009, when the economy was still in the midst of a recession, according to an industry report released on Tuesday.

     

    The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) said its index of national factory activity fell to 48.6, the first time the index has been below 50 since November 2012, after reading 50.1 in October. The reading was for expectations of 50.5, according to a Reuters poll of 77 economists.

    And how does CNBC provide said meaning?

    Frugal consumers are also holding back growth.

    ABOOK Dec 2015 Manu ISM

    From the OECD’s perspective, these were all just “risks” in 2014 and downplayed at that. Now that they are no longer risks but reality, and much worse reality than when even contemplated as risk, they are still treated as just risks? Such confusion stems from the anti-scientific process at the heart of economics. The discipline starts with a predetermined endpoint and then works backwards to fill in commentary and meaning. In other words, Janet Yellen says the economy will be terrific next year (after saying the same last year) and that is the defining quality for everything from there to now. Anything that gets in the way of reaching that future goalpost is “transitory” or an anomaly – no matter how regular these aberrations have become.

    In fact, they are everywhere all over the globe and demonstrate what should be a quite alarming coincidence and even coordination. How is it that the US PPI would so closely track the Chinese version if everything contained within each are nothing more than isolated variances of no particular concern, especially in the global context? If nothing else, it is just blind common sense that would realize even generically the desperate coincidence of so many financial irregularities this year as the global economy, and especially global trade, follows them. Again, these are no longer just risks.

    The resistance to such an awakening is understandable if still lamentable. If recession is truly the looming assurance, as it increasingly appears, that would mean not just the end of the recovery but the end of “accommodation” as a given force. In other words, Janet Yellen and the OECD start backwards from their endpoint because of their unshakable faith in monetarism, a faith that actually defines how they think an economy does work (and how they produce the core assumptions in their models); should that path from here to there completely unravel, so, too, does their assumed power and philosophy. So they and the media look upon what has already unraveled and claim instead that it has not; the recovery remains intact even though it has ended in a larger and larger portion of the world, including the US.

Digest powered by RSS Digest