Today’s News August 13, 2015

  • Ireland Refuses To Extradite Man To US Because Prison System Is Too Inhumane

    Submitted by Cassius Methyl via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Throughout the world, the U.S. prison system is often seen as inhumane and excessively large.

    The American prison system is so reviled, in fact, that Irish officials recently refused to extradite an alleged terrorist to the U.S. The court cited concerns that if he were sent to the U.S., he would probably be placed in Colorado’s “Supermax” prison, ADX Florence (Administrative Maximum Facility). The prison is nicknamed Colorado’s “Alcatraz of the Rockies.”

    Irish High Court Justice Aileen Donnelly went as far as to write a 333-page report about why the suspect shouldn’t be extradited. One highlight from the court’s ruling was that incarceration at ADX Florence prison would amount to “cruel and unusual punishment.”

    Donnelly said the prison “amounts to a breach of the constitutional requirement to protect persons from inhuman and degrading treatment and to respect the dignity of the human being.”

    “[P]rolonged exposure to involuntary solitary confinement exacts a significant physiological toll, is damaging to the integrity of the mind and personality, and is damaging to the bodily integrity of the person,” she continued.

    According to the Los Angeles Times, “An Irish resident originally from Algiers, Damache, 50, [is]accused of using online chat rooms to recruit American women into a would-be terrorist cell operating in this country and Europe.

    One man and two women, including Damache’s wife, have already been convicted in U.S. courts of providing material support to terrorists. And Damache was captured by Irish authorities in 2010 in Dublin on a separate charge of making a telephone death threat and held without bail.”

    In 2011, Damache was indicted from a distance in a Philadelphia court on “charges of plotting to assassinate a Swedish cartoonist who depicted the prophet Muhammad as a dog.”

    Damache was released in May after serving his time, but the U.S. is still pushing for his extradition.

    “I always had faith in the Irish legal system,” he said in a statement presented by his lawyers. “After more than five years in jail, I am looking forward to moving on with my life here.”

    The Colorado prison has held some of the most well-known criminals in American history, keeping them in solitary confinement with extremely limited access to outside communication. Notorious inmates include Timothy McVeigh and other people accused of high level terrorism—such as Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person convicted in a civilian court for involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

    Lawyers have even argued that incarceration at ADX Florence is worse than the death penalty. Defense expert Mark Bezy called it “a mechanism to cut off an inmate’s communications with the outside world.”

    *  *  *

    The Irish court’s refusal to extradite Damache adds to a growing trend of nations that opt to exercise their own sovereignty amid pressure from powerful American influence.

    Such nations are increasingly moving to decide issues for themselves as they refuse to be persuaded into following the orders of a more powerful empire.

  • Japan-Korea Tensions Rise – 80 Year-Old Veteran Self-Immolates In Anti-Japan Protest

    With China already stoking fears in The South China Sea (and now entering the currency war) and Japan re-militarizing (and having led the currency war for years) it appears tension within Asian nations is escalating. The latest egregious example of these tensions is evident, as Reuters reports, an 80-year old South Korean set himself on fire on Wednesday during a protest calling for Japan to apologize for forcing Korean girls and women to work in military brothels during World War Two, days ahead of the anniversary of the end of hostilities.

    Warning: Graphic

    As Reuters reports,

    The self-immolation occurred during a regular weekly demonstration outside the Japanese embassy ahead of the Aug. 15 anniversary marking 70 years since the end of Japan's colonial occupation of the Korean peninsula.

     

    With the anniversary looming, Wednesday's protest was larger than usual, with about 2,000 demonstrators, including three of the 47 known surviving Korean "comfort women", as they were euphemistically called by Japan, organizers said.

     

    Bystanders covered the man with protest banners to put out the flames and paramedics took him to hospital.

     

     

    The man, identified as Choi Hyun-yeol by a civic group with which he was affiliated, was in critical condition with burns to his neck, face, and upper torso, a hospital professor said.

     

    "The patient is old and has severe burns so his survival can't be guaranteed," the professor told reporters.

     

     

    South Korea's ties with Japan have long been strained by what Seoul sees as Japanese leaders' reluctance to atone for the country's wartime past, including a full recognition of its role in forcing Korean girls and women to work in brothels.

    *  *  *

    With old war tensions mixing with new war tensions, Asia is quickly becoming yet another tinderbox in the centrally planned world.

  • Did The EPA Intentionally Poison Animas River To Secure SuperFund Money?

    A week before The EPA disastrously leaked millions of gallons of toxic waste into The Animas River in Colorado, this letter to the editor was published in The Silverton Standard & The Miner local newspaper, authored by a retired geologist detailing verbatim, how EPA would foul the Animas River on purpose in order to secure superfund money

    "But make no mistake, within seven days, all of the 500gpm flow will return to Cememnt Creek. Contamination may actually increase… The "grand experiment" in my opinion will fail.

     

    And guess what [EPA's] Mr. Hestmark will say then?

     

    Gee, "Plan A" didn't work so I guess we will have to build a treat¬ment plant at a cost to taxpayers of $100 million to $500 million (who knows).

     

    Reading between the lines, I believe that has been the EPA's plan all along"

     

    Sound like something a government entity would do? Just ask Lois Lerner…

    As we concluded previously,

    The EPA actually has no concern for the environment, they just happen to use the environment as a cover story to create laws and gain an advantage for the companies that lobbied for exemptions to the agency’s regulations, and to collect money in fines. There are solutions outside the common government paradigm, and that is mainly the ability for individuals, not governments, to hold polluters personally and financially accountable.

    h/t Stephen

  • Understanding Why The Clinton Emails Matter

    Submitted by Peter van Buren via WeMeantWell.com,

    In the world of handling America’s secrets, words – classified, secure, retroactive – have special meanings. I held a Top Secret clearance at the State Department for 24 years and was regularly trained in protecting information as part of that privilege. Here is what some of those words mean in the context of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails.

    The Inspectors General for the State Department and the intelligence community issued a statement saying Clinton’s personal email system contained classified information. This information, they said, “should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.” The same statement voiced concern that a thumb drive held by Clinton’s lawyer also contains this same secret data. Another report claims the U.S. intelligence community is bracing for the possibility that Clinton’s private email account contains multiple instances of classified information, with some data originating at the CIA and NSA.

    A Clinton spokesperson responded that “Any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted.” Clinton claims unequivocally her email contained no classified information, and that no message carried any security marking, such as Confidential or Top Secret.

    The key issue in play with Clinton is that it is a violation of national security to maintain classified information on an unclassified system.

    Classified, secure, computer systems use a variety of electronic (often generically called TEMPESTed) measures coupled with physical security (special locks, shielded conduits for cabling, armed guards) that differentiate them from an unclassified system. Some of the protections are themselves classified, and unavailable in the private sector. Such standards of protection are highly unlikely to be fulfilled outside a specially designed government facility.

    Yet even if retroactive classification was applied only after Clinton hit “send” (and State’s own Inspector General says it wasn’t), she is not off the hook.

    What matters in the world of secrets is the information itself, which may or may not be marked “classified.” Employees at the highest levels of access are expected to apply the highest levels of judgment, based on the standards in Executive Order 13526. The government’s basic nondisclosure agreement makes clear the rule is “marked or unmarked classified information.”

    In addition, the use of retroactive classification has been tested and approved by the courts, and employees are regularly held accountable for releasing information that was unclassified when they released it, but classified retroactively.

    It is a way of doing business inside the government that may at first seem nonsensical, but in practice is essential for keeping secrets.

    For example, if an employee were to be handed information sourced from an NSA intercept of a foreign government leader, somehow not marked as classified, she would be expected to recognize the sensitivity of the material itself and treat it as classified. In other cases, an employee might hear something sensitive and be expected to treat the information as classified. The emphasis throughout the classification system is not on strict legalities and coded markings, but on judgment. In essence, employees are required to know right from wrong. It is a duty, however subjective in appearance, one takes on in return for a security clearance.

    “Not knowing” would be an unexpected defense from a person with years of government experience.

    In addition to information sourced from intelligence, Clinton’s email may contain some back-and-forth discussions among trusted advisors. Such emails are among the most sensitive information inside State, and are otherwise always considered highly classified. Adversaries would very much like to know America’s bargaining strategy. The value of such information is why, for example, the NSA electronically monitored heads of state in Japan and Germany. The Freedom of Information Act recognizes the sensitivity of internal deliberation, and includes a specific exemption for such messages, blocking their release, even years after a decision occurred. If emails discussing policy or decisions were traded on an open network, that would be a serious concern.

    The problem for Clinton may be particularly damaging. Every email sent within the State Department’s own systems contains a classification; an employee technically cannot hit “send” without one being applied. Just because Clinton chose to use her own hardware does not relieve her or her staff of this requirement.

    Some may say even if Clinton committed security violations, there is no evidence the material got into the wrong hands – no blood, no foul. Legally that is irrelevant. Failing to safeguard information is the issue. It is not necessary to prove the information reached an adversary, or that an adversary did anything harmful with the information for a crime to have occurred. See the cases of Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Jeff Sterling, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou or even David Petraeus. The standard is “failure to protect” by itself.

    None of these laws, rules, regulations or standards fall under the rubric of obscure legalities; they are drilled into persons holding a security clearance via formal training (mandatory yearly for State Department employees), and are common knowledge for the men and women who handle America’s most sensitive information. For those who use government computer systems, electronic tools enforce compliance and security personnel are quick to zero in on violations.

    A mantra inside government is that protecting America’s secrets is everyone’s job. That was the standard against which I was measured throughout my career and the standard that should apply to everyone entrusted with classified information.

  • 19-Year Old Sets Own Ferrari On Fire Because He Wanted A New One

    On October 24, 2014, the 19-year old son of a wealthy Swiss businessman walked into a brothel in the Bavarian town of Augsburg.

    Although by almost any standard he led a rather splendid existence, on this particular night he had reached his breaking point. The problem: he drove a 2011 Ferrari 458 Italia.

    That may look nice enough, but the issue is that there’s a 2014 Ferrari Italia, and let’s face it, no one – and we mean no one – would want to be caught dead in the vehicle shown above when the one shown below is just waiting to be driven off the lot. 

    Of course this is exactly the type of situation that insurance – or, more acurately, insurance fraud – is for.

    And so this young man – allegedly with the help of the Ferrari dealer – did what anyone would do in this situation: he drove to Bavaria, went to see a prostitute (one needs an alibi), and paid two accomplices $15,000 to douse the old junker in gasoline and light it on fire. 

    Part of the plan worked. From Tages-Anzeiger (Google translated): 

    He visited the neighboring brothel with other colleagues. Meanwhile, the two helpers poured a gasoline-nitro-mixture to the leather seats of the black sport car and set it on fire. The car exploded with a loud bang and burned out.

    He even remembered to remove “the expensive specialty rims and carbon fiber parts.” 

    Initially, authorities came to the conclusion that the incident was retaliation for unpaid hooker fees. From 20 Minutes (Google translated from French):

    Initially, the Bavarian authorities believed a settlement account in prostitution.

    Yes, a “settlement account in prostitution,” but security camera footage and phone records told a different story. Ultimately, investigators concluded that this was all a not-so-elaborate ploy to collect the insurance money on the way to buying the newer model. 

    Asked by a judge why he had gone to such lengths given that his father had bought him 14 other cars (including a Lamborghini) as well as “several properties” worth in excess of $25 million, he confessed that although his monthly allowance (between CHF5,000 and CHF10,000) was generous enough, it wasn’t sufficient to cover the difference between the 2011 and the 2014 458s and he didn’t feel comfortable telling his father the truth – namely, that the 2011 458 “no longer pleased him.” 

    For his troubles, the young man received 30 months of probabtion and a €30,000 fine. There was no word on whether he was able to get the 2014 Speciale

    So although we think the moral of the story is quite obvious here, we’ll spell it out for you anyway: for anyone who thinks they’re having a bad day just remember that it could always be worse. You could be driving a 2011 Ferrari 458 Italia.

  • Chinese Devaluation Extends To 3rd Day – Yuan Hits 4 Year Low, Japan Escalates Currency Race-To-The-Bottom Rhetoric

    The "one-off" adjustment has now reached its 3rd day as The PBOC has now devalued the Yuan fix by 4.65% back to July 2011 lows.

    Even before this evening's date with debasement history, Japan felt the need to step up the currency war rhetoric. Following disappointing Machine Orders data, Abe advisors Hamada warned that "Japan can offset Yuan devaluation by monetary easing," and so the race to the bottom escalates. China has its own problems as BofAML's leading economic indicator showed "the foundation for a growth recovery is not solid, facing more downward pressure," and while confusion reigns over why The PBOC would intervene at the close to strengthen the Yuan last night, the reality is the commitment isn’t to a devaluation for China’s exports, but undoubtedly its actions are directed toward trying to keep the wholesale finance interfaces somewhat orderly.  Finally, China’s devaluation couldn’t come at a worse time for Argentina – about a quarter of the country’s $33.7 billion of foreign reserves are now denominated in yuan, which suffered its biggest loss since 1994 on Tuesday.

    Having devalued the (onshore) Yuan fix by 3.5% in the last 2 days, China did it again… shifting Yuan to 4 year lows

    • *CHINA SETS YUAN REFERENCE RATE AT 6.4010 AGAINST U.S. DOLLAR

     

    Offshore Yuan dropped back to 6.50…

     

    And China Stocks have opened lower…

    • *CHINA'S CSI 300 STOCK-INDEX FUTURES FALL 1% TO 3,975.2

    S&P  Futures are fading…

    Some more liquidity needed…

    • *PBOC TO INJECT 40B YUAN WITH 7-DAY REVERSE REPOS: TRADER

    And sure enough, not be outdone, Japan threatens to re-escalate the currency war…

    • *ABE ADVISER HAMADA SAYS CHINA'S FX MOVE WILL TEND TO BOOST YEN
    • *HAMADA: JAPAN CAN OFFSET YUAN DEVALUATION BY MONETARY EASING
    • *HAMADA:BOJ MAY EASE IF CHINA MOVE HITS EXTERNAL DEMAND TOO MUCH

    But China has it's own problems, as BofAML notes, China LEAP (leading economic activity pulse) fell to-3.9% YoY in July from -2.6% in June, as five of the seven LEAP components weakened.

    Similarly, other macro activity data released in July worsened from a surprisingly strong June and disappointed the market. It suggests the foundation for a growth recovery is not solid, and economic growth faces more downward pressure as financial sector activity has slowed after the recent stock market slump.

     

     

    On the demand side, housing starts further declined to 16.4% yoy in July after dropping 14.3% in June. We think destocking could still be ongoing in tier 3-4 cities and the housing market recovery has yet to drive acceleration in housing starts. Auto sales growth slumped to -7.1% YoY from -2.3%, likely due to weakening consumer demand for some big-ticket items amid stock market turmoil while staple good sales remained resilient.

     

    Production-side components were mixed, with weaker power and steel output growth but slightly better cement output growth. Power and steel output growth was particularly poor in July, likely due to plummet in commodity and raw material prices on a bearish growth outlook amid stock market turmoil.

     

    Medium- to long-term loan growth edged down by 0.8pp, but if taking into account local government debt swap, the decline would be 0.3pp instead.

    *  *  *

    The fallout from China's decision is going global…

    China’s devaluation couldn’t come at a worse time for Argentina.

     

    About a quarter of the country’s $33.7 billion of foreign reserves are now denominated in yuan, which suffered its biggest loss since 1994 on Tuesday.

    *  *  *

    And finally, here is Jeffrey Snider of Alhambra Investment Partners discussing the other reality of what is occurring in China – as opposed to the paint-by-numbers version spun on TV – explaining why the PBOC would seemingly “allow” devaluation one day and then act against it the very next. They are just trying to hold on for dear life, managing imbalances that are beyond their grasp.

    While everyone remains sure that the PBOC is actively trying to “allow” the yuan to depreciate as some kind of export catalyst, the “dollar” continues to show (not suggest) otherwise. Liquidity and “dollar” markets are still roiled rather than soothed, especially the US treasury market where the bid right at the open (what look very much like continued collateral calls) pushes more like a combination of October 15 and January 15.

     

    ABOOK Aug 2015 Yuan USt

     

    As if to underscore the runaway nature, the PBOC apparently intervened against this “devaluation” just last night. From the Wall Street Journal:

     

    Tuesday, the People’s Bank of China surprised global markets with what looked like a win-win currency depreciation for the country—appearing to cede more control of its exchange rate to market forces, which the International Monetary Fund and others have long urged it to do, while also helping Chinese exporters.

     

    Its intervention only one day later raised questions about its commitment to an exchange rate driven more by supply and demand and less by government direction.

     

    The Journal’s confusion here is demonstrated by what is a mistaken assumption in the first paragraph leading to the mystery of the second. The PBOC’s commitment isn’t to a devaluation for China’s exports, but undoubtedly its actions are directed toward trying to keep the wholesale finance interfaces somewhat orderly. When the yuan was trading exactly sideways for nearly five months, that was the same setup; the PBOC was keeping the yuan stable so that it wouldn’t devalue and thus signal the depth of the “dollar” financing strain.

     

    That is the problem orthodox commentary and theory has with wholesale finance, they just don’t get it. Devaluation of currency doesn’t mean that in this context just as a “strong dollar” isn’t anything like the term. Both are forms of internal disruption, the direction of that is just an expression of what manner of wholesale finance is becoming most unruly. Credit-based “money” systems do not operate like the currency systems from before 1971. Floating currencies aren’t really that, so much as they are just another form of traded liabilities in global banking.

     

    ABOOK Aug 2015 Yuan Again

     

    The Chinese have a “dollar” problem just the same as the Swiss, Brazilians and the rest (including the dollar). There is a global retreat in eurodollar funding that is wreaking havoc, expectedly, globally. And in China that is particularly true as the Chinese banks through external corporates joined the “dollar short” several years back. Joined now under PBOC “reform”, there has been an almost hostility if not at least disfavor over the “dollar” intrusion as it has been taken as one primary element of the bubbles (what mainstream mistakes for “hot money”). As a result, the PBOC has been almost chasing “dollars” out of the system in an attempted orderly purge.

     

    That led to what looked like historic “outflows” in 2015 as “dollar” conditions for the Chinese “short”, so it is absolutely no surprise to see this occurring now. The only mystery has been, as I have been writing for some time, what the PBOC was doing to counteract it during those five months. That would tell us both how serious the turmoil was and how ineffective whatever intervention would ultimately be.

     

    From July 22:

    The yuan has suddenly, right at the March FOMC meeting, gone limp. Trading has been confined, except for very brief, intraday outbursts, to an increasingly narrow range. Given its behavior particularly as a full part of the reform agenda to that point, this amounts to what can only be hidden and inorganic factors. Whether that means PBOC intervention is unclear, though suggested by even TIC, but this is the most important and unexplained dynamic in the “dollar” world at present.

     

    Perhaps the June TIC updates will help shed some light on what has been going on with China’s “dollar short”, but I doubt it. The nature and especially the scale of what might be happening in the money markets has global implications, and may (conjecture on my part) start to explain the reversal in the Chinese stock bubble and ultimately even relate to the “dollar’s” renewed disruption in July so far.

     

    Earlier July 8:

    It’s not enough to notice how this [zero yuan volatility] is odd, as it appears, given wider circumstances, to be almost odd with a purpose. Whenever uncertainties grew about China’s reform, especially “allowing” defaults, “dollar” supplies tightened significantly and the yuan devalued. Given the fragility of the current situation, you can understand why, possibly, the PBOC might not want too much to get so far out of hand and so they may be supplying “dollars” to maintain orderly money markets both onshore and off. Given the plunge in import activity they may not really need to supply all that much, particularly in combination with prior and intended outflows as they effectively tried to chase speculators out of the country. Perhaps they did too much?

     

    Whatever the case may ultimately be, it bears close scrutiny for several reasons. First, if this is correct (a very big “if”) then the financial system in China is worse, far worse, than it appears. Second, central bank attempts such as this are extremely finite as they are, over time, hugely inefficient. The PBOC might just be throwing everything in its arsenal at the financial system short of open “flood” declarations (which are themselves destabilizing; declaring an open emergency is as much confirmation of how bad everything is) trying to calm everything down in order to reassess. [emphasis added]

     

    That is why the PBOC would seemingly “allow” devaluation one day and then act against it the very next. They are just trying to hold on for dear life, managing imbalances that are beyond their grasp. That is what occurred last night, as the Wall Street Journal confirms that Chinese banks were “selling” dollars on the PBOC’s behalf; which is, in the wholesale context, supplying “dollars.” The currency translation is just the recognition of that imbalance, which is in many forms like this kind of convertibility almost a “run.”

     

    The PBOC then instructed state-owned Chinese banks to sell dollars on its behalf in the last 15 minutes of Wednesday’s trading, according to people close to the state banks.

     

    The central bank took it as far as it could and then the “dollar” dam just burst on really bad economic data that was expected instead to confirm the bottom. At this point, it looks like they are left only to try to mitigate the damage they had been for five months hoping would never occur as the global economy was supposed to have healed on its own long before then (which was nothing more than FOMC and orthodox pipe dreams).

    Another central bank has fallen prey to the decomposing “dollar”, as the global tremors of such central bank upsets ripple further and further.

     

  • 6 Years And One Witch Hunt Later, Goldman Changes Its Mind On "Secret Sauce" Software

    For anyone who didn’t read Flash Boys or who hasn’t otherwise apprised themselves of the history behind the proliferation of the parasitic, vacuum tubes that have embedded themselves between real buyers and sellers in order to extract a tax on each and every trade in the name of “providing liquidity”, you might have missed out on the sad story of Sergey Aleynikov, the Russian computer programmer and target of a six-year Goldman witch hunt.

    In 2010, a federal court convicted Aleynikov of stealing trading code from Goldman. As WSJ notes, Aleynikov was “acquitted of those charges on appeal, then charged again by the Manhattan District Attorney and convicted a second time, [before] a state judge dismissed the case last month on grounds that prosecutors failed to show enough evidence to support the verdict.”

    And while the Manhattan DA is appealing the ruling, Goldman is busy doing the exact same thing that Aleynikov is supposedly “guilty” of – distributing open source code. Here’s WSJ with the story:

    Goldman will soon offer clients access to more of its in-house tools, such as high-powered databases that analyze markets and manage risk, according to the firm’s executives. Those proprietary systems have long been key elements enabling Goldman to sidestep market turmoil and ring up outsized profits in better conditions.

     

    Given direct access to these tools, Goldman clients could use the technology to build their own trading systems and potentially make purchases independent of the firm.

     

    But the firm’s executives believe the upside outweighs those concerns. Goldman is betting that its clients, such as hedge funds and other money managers, will use the individual applications, or apps, to develop strategies and then execute their trades with the firm.

     

    By deepening ties with those clients, Goldman hopes it will pick up other business from them as well.

    The development has been a centerpiece of a new technology strategy developed by R. Martin Chavez, the firm’s chief information officer.

     

    “We’re constantly asking ourselves about all of it,” Mr. Chavez said. “Is this software better for clients and the planet if it’s inside Goldman? Or is it better if we extend the platform to clients, or in some cases does a spinout into open source or a company make more sense?”

    Now clearly, there are all kinds of amusing things about that last statement, including the notion that anything going on over at 200 West is good “for the planet” (they’re just “doing God’s work” over there, you know), but the idea that the firm now sees the utility in actively distributing open source code when by all accounts what Aleynikov took with him on the way out the door wasn’t proprietary at all, is evidence of blatant hypocrisy on the part of current management or complete incompetence on the part of those who came before – or both. 

    Furthermore, one wonders what happened to the notion that allowing this type of code to fall into the “wrong” hands, would be the capital markets equivalent of giving al-Qaeda a suitcase nuke. Remember, Goldman’s contention when Aleynikov was arrested was that the code he allegedly stole (the open source code) could be used to “manipulate markets in unfair ways.” Does that, by extension, mean that Goldman will now equip its most important clients with the tools to manipulate markets? 

    Well yes, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t already doing that. Here’s the Journal again:

    The concept of giving clients potentially valuable information in hopes of winning business isn’t unprecedented: Goldman and other investment banks have for years given clients trading ideas and market research on the same presumption.

    Of course given what we know about the tendency for Goldman to “muppetize” clients who take the firm’s “recommendations” at face value, we can’t help but wonder if the same fate isn’t in store for anyone who buys what the bank is selling (or giving away) in terms of software. 

    In any event, one thing we’re quite sure of is that Goldman won’t be trying to convince the Manhattan DA that given the firm’s enlightened stance on open source software, the torment of Sergey Aleynikov should finally come to an end.

  • Albert Edwards: "Prepare For Sub-1% Treasury Yields And Another Financial Crisis"

    Make no mistake, warns SocGen's Albert Edwards, this is the start of something big, something ugly. For while the west has been heaving a sigh of relief over the past few months that deflation pressures have abated somewhat – especially at the core level – we have been emphasising that deflation has only been intensifying in Asia and that like any puss-filled boil, this deflationary pressure would soon need to be lanced…

    We have long believed that we are only one misstep from outright deflation in the west with core inflation in both the US and eurozone at just 1%. We expect the acceleration of EM devaluations to send waves of deflation to the west to overwhelm already struggling corporate profitability and take us back into outright recession. As investors realise yet another recession beckons, without any normalisation of either interest rates or fiscal imbalances in this cycle, expect a financial market rout every bit as large as 2008.

    *  *  *
    Aside from the relentlessly weak economic and inflation data out of China in recent months (notwithstanding the surge in pork prices), the one thing that has changed dramatically over the last 18 months is China’s huge swing into a Balance of Payments deficit. This has exerted chronic downward pressure on the renminbi, forcing the Peoples Bank of China (PBoC) to start selling its vast foreign exchange reserves to prop up the beleaguered currency (FX reserves have slid $300bn over the last four quarters). Now, though it was only a little over two months ago the IMF declared the renminbi to be no longer undervalued, many of us felt the situation had gone far beyond that stage and that indeed, the currency was substantially overvalued, especially with the rest of Asia devaluing alongside the Japanese yen. The most shocking illustration of China’s loss of competitiveness in recent years is the 50% surge in its Real Effective Exchange Rate (REER) against the US (see chart below).

    In some ways the question is not whether the renminbi is competitive or uncompetitive. The problem is that the renminbi is unambiguously less competitive than it was. This comes at a time when the Chinese economy is struggling and the stock market bubble is bursting. We have always said renminbi devaluation would not be a preferred policy lever, but it was one that would be yanked vigorously if needed – viz FX intervention to stop the renminbi falling is effectively a monetary tightening, the last thing China needs at present! Many had felt it would continue to keep the renminbi stable while the IMF was still deliberating whether to admit the renminbi into the IMF’s basket of reserve currencies (SDR). But the IMF’s announcement last week to defer a decision until the autumn of 2016 may well have been sufficient reason for the PBoC to stand aside from FX intervention and bow to the inevitable. 

    The key thing here is that Tuesday’s devaluation is not just a one-off – you will see persistent weakness from hereon in. For although the PBoC said the move was a one-time adjustment to reflect changes in the way it calculates the daily fix, it also said that the price would be set “in conjunction with demand and supply conditions in the foreign exchange market and exchange rate movements of the major currencies”. To all but the most PollyAnna’ish of observers that means this is the start of a major renminbi devaluation because of the massive downward market pressure the currency is under via the BoP deficit.

    This move will transform perceptions about the resilience of the US economy. The recent strength of the trade-weighted US dollar has already contributed to deflation being imported into the US (see right-hand chart above), at a time when core consumer price inflation is already too low. Up until now Japanese yen devaluation has been the main driver of falling US import prices (see top right-hand chart above). Another way to view this is to look at the level of US import prices from various countries/regions since the start of this recovery (see chart below). Despite much talk of Japanese exporters maintaining dollar prices to expand margins and profits, dollar import prices have definitely slumped and China is about to catch up with Japan! For although the renminbi Is not actually included in the trade-weighted DXY calculation, the Fed estimate China’s importance to be 21% of their own broad tradeweighted dollar index – a steep rise from only 15% a decade ago. Japan by contrast currently accounts for 7% of the index, but it has been yen devaluation that has helped heap pressure on China to devalue. Watch that dark blue line below closely.

    Many observers, such as myself, believe the US dollar has now entered a secular bull market irrespective whether the Fed raises interest rates in September or not. But in any case, with an ongoing renminbi (read EM …) currency devaluation now underway, the US will import even more of the world’s unwanted deflation. We see this as the end-game in this cycle. With US profits already falling (sharply in the case of whole economy profits), the cycle is already very vulnerable indeed, as it is the business investment component of GDP that causes recessions.

    While investors have already talked about the eurozone looking similar to Japan, a deflationary recession also beckons for the US. Core inflation on the Fed’s preferred measure (core PCE) is hovering around the 1% level and a new round of in the currency war will see a move in core inflation below zero to accompany the headline rate.

    Prepare for sub-1% 10y Treasury yields and another financial crisis as policy impotence is soon revealed to all. 

    Source: SocGen

  • There's More To Come – Offshore Yuan Signals Further Devaluation Tonight

    Despite 2 significant interventions to stall what is likely an avalanche of wrong-way carry trade unwinds (or perhaps to stop the boat swinging to the other side too much), offshore Yuan has continued to depreciate since China closed and now implies another 1% devaluation is looming (having been up to a 2.6% discount earlier in the day).

     

    PBOC intervened in CNY overnight…

     

    But CNH remains adamant that more devaluation is coming…

     

    CNH nailed it overnight… will it be right again tonight?

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Mysterious Dip Buyer Found – Goldman Buyback Desk Has Busiest Day Since 2011

    On Tuesday, in “Even The Dumb Money Is Dumping Stocks Now,” we highlighted weekly flows data from BofAML which showed that not only were hedge funds and institutional clients (still) selling in the five days ended 8/07, but private clients were net sellers for a second consecutive week, dumping the most equities in a year. 

    But not everyone was selling last week.

    Stocks still benefited from the perpetual corporate management bid that’s helped to sustain the equity rally since the flow from that other price insensitive buyer (the Fed) tapered off. 

    Given the above – and given everything we’ve said this year about debt-funded corporate buybacks buoying equities – no one should be surprised that Wednesday’s magical levitation came courtesy of US corporations. Here’s Bloomberg with more

    Who did the buying as U.S. stocks staged the biggest turnaround in three years? The companies that issued them.

     

    The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. unit that executes share buybacks for clients had its busiest day since 2011 on Wednesday, according to a note from the firm’s corporate agency desk. Based on the value of equities repurchased, volume handled by the bank set a record. The note was confirmed by spokeswoman Tiffany Galvin.

     

    Corporations have emerged as one of the biggest sources of fresh cash in the stock market, eclipsing even mutual funds with more than half a trillion dollars spent last year, according to data compiled by S&P Dow Jones Indices. They swooped in and bought again on Wednesday as the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index flirted with its largest two-day selloff since January.

    In short, today should serve as a real-world example of what GMO’s Ben Inker said in the firm’s latest quarterly letter: “…in order to see massive changes in the price of a security, you don’t need the price-insensitive buyer to become a seller. You merely need him to cease being the marginal buyer. If price-insensitive buyers actually become price-insensitive sellers, it becomes possible that price falls could take asset prices significantly below historical norms.”

    Oh, and by the way, here’s what we said early in the session:

  • Why More Conflict Is Inevitable In The Middle East

    Submitted by Erico Matias Tavares via Sinclar & Co.,

    We all know how sectarian, religious and political differences have thrown many Middle Eastern countries into chaos and armed conflict. But there is a deeper factor at play which deserves greater recognition: severe water scarcity.

    This scarcity will not be addressed overnight, no matter who ends up prevailing in those conflicts. As such, the region will very likely continue to suffer from significant turmoil for many years to come.

    Using satellite data, scientists from the University of California (Irvine), NASA and the National Center for Atmospheric Research found that large parts of the arid Middle East region saw a dramatic loss of freshwater reserves over a seven-year period starting in 2003. This is shown in the following map:

    Parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran along the Tigris and Euphrates river basins lost some 144 cubic kilometers of total stored freshwater – almost the total amount of water in the Dead Sea. The scientists attributed the majority of this loss to pumping from underground reservoirs.

    Indeed, Syria and Iraq are facing severe water availability issues, compounded by the fact that the majority of their renewable water resources comes from other countries. As such, the Euphrates River – which has sustained Mesopotamian civilization from its very start – is critically important for them.

    However, rampant demand, wasteful government policies, intensive agriculture, pesticides and industrial use have all substantially reduced both the quality and the quantity of water available. According to a Chatham House study, this overexploitation has curtailed the flow of the Euphrates from Turkey to downstream countries by at least 40% since 1972.

    This is a major concern for the 27 million people across these three countries who depend on these water supplies directly, and many millions more reliant on the food and energy coming out of that region. All the wars since 2003 have only made matters worse.

    It is not surprising then that the Islamic State is securing strongholds along the river and using them to exert pressure on their enemies. But there is one thing that the opposing factions in the brutal war raging across Syria and Iraq agree on, and that is accusing Turkey of further reducing their fair share of water supplies from the Euphrates. The latter will soon complete an ambitious US$35 billion dam and irrigation works program, which will put further pressure downstream.

    Other countries in the region are facing even more severe water problems. Take Yemen for instance, a country with 24 million people and one of the lowest per capita water availability levels in the world. Critical water supply sources are being depleted so rapidly that they will become exhausted before the end of the decade. Dwindling oil production has hit the economy hard, at a time when big investments in infrastructure are needed to tackle the issue. And now there’s a conflict raging between Yemeni factions, internally and against Saudi Arabia.

    So we can see another pattern emerging beyond the sectarian power play across the region… and arguably even more significant: where water supplies become acutely scarce, armed conflict rapidly follows.

    An Explosive Mix

    The population growth rate in the Middle East is one of the highest in the world. From 1990 to 2010, population in that region as a whole increased by 50% – 124 million people in absolute terms, more than four times the increase in the European Union over the same period. In some of the most parched countries that increase has been absolutely staggering, as shown in the following table:

    Population (MM) and Military Expenditures (constant 2011 US$) in Selected Middle East Countries: 1990 – 2010

    Source: World Bank, OECD, SIPRI.
    (a) Yemen is from 1990 to 2008 and UAE from 1997 to 2010.

    These are quite young populations as most of the growth has been organic. And it’s always the young who tend to get really agitated when a problem emerges. Military expenditures in most of these countries have increased at rates even higher than population. So not only there is a rapidly expanding number of people facing a dire water situation; they also have more weapons at their disposal.

    Accordingly, the world and its superpowers should not be surprised by the expansion of armed conflict across the Middle East we have witnessed in recent years. And unfortunately things might get even worse from here.

    Policy Implications

    There is no civilization without water. If current water trends persist, pardon the hyperbole but large parts of the Middle East may turn into one of the worst humanitarian disasters the world has ever seen, particularly given the large size of those populations.

    The immediate consequence is of course a continuation if not expansion of armed conflicts across the region, as people fight over the remaining drops of water.

    Desperate civilians will try to get out any way they can. Italy and especially Greece are already overwhelmed by the flood of migrants crossing the Mediterranean. Just imagine those flows increasing by many multiples over the coming years.

    And it’s not only civilians who are looking to come across. The map above shows the ultimate territorial ambitions of the Islamic Caliphate. Seems farfetched particularly as many of those countries are NATO members or part of China, but this will not dissuade them from trying by any means. Time and demographics are on their side, with large pools of disillusioned young people at their disposal (with relatives and sympathizers already in Europe), as well as potential access to advanced weaponry manufactured in the West, Russia and China.

    In light of all of this, the lack of a concrete strategy and response thus far by European Union leaders is truly baffling. It is becoming increasingly obvious that they will not be able to solve this problem just by throwing some money at it and moving a few refugees around; not when its scale can dramatically increase in magnitude.

    What will this do to the Middle East’s main export, crude oil? Our guess is that producing countries will continue to expand production, even if prices in the world markets correct further. After all they have big bills to pay: fighting insurgents, ramping up their defenses, investing in infrastructure, importing food (to mitigate domestic production declines)… But if any slack in capacity is exhausted, or worse, conflict expands to the point where their upstream or logistical infrastructure is impaired, then supply could quickly go the other way.

    While conventional, tar sands and tight oil producers in North America may get the last laugh, it is clear that the world economy needs the abundant reserves of the Middle East.

    It is also curious to note how ill equipped Western central banks would be to deal with the inflationary consequences of an oil supply shock. Why? Because any material increase in interest rates would blow up government budgets in many developed countries, given the high debt loads that they have taken on since the 2008 financial crisis.

    Rather than adding more fuel to the Middle Eastern fire, it seems that the world’s superpowers have a vested interest to negotiate and implement credible solutions to the unfolding catastrophe in the region.

    Unfortunately, such vision and leadership seem to be in even shorter supply than water in the Middle East.

  • Why Credit Market Moves Are Now "Hyperbolic," Citi Explains

    We’ve made no secret of our views on just how precarious corporate credit markets have become. 

    For anyone in need of a refresher, the dynamic is very simple. The ZIRP-induced hunt for yield has driven investors away from risk-free assets and into anything that promises to generate at least some semblance of income. Corporate management teams have taken advantage of the situation to issue record amounts of debt, the proceeds from which have either been plowed into EPS-inflating, stock-boosting buybacks, or used to keep struggling businesses (like heavily indebted drillers, for instance) in business. The proliferation of fixed income ETFs and mutual funds have helped funnel retail money into areas of the bond market where it might normally have never penetrated. Meanwhile, Wall Street has pulled back from its traditional role as warehouser (i.e. liquidity provider). The result: record issuance of corporate credit and record low liquidity in the secondary market. In other words, a very crowded theatre, and an ever shrinking exit. 

    Making matters worse is the fact that retail money tends to chase returns, resulting in a “positive” rather than a “negative” feedback loop, where mean reversion simply falls by the wayside.

    With that in mind, we present the following graphic which, while simple, has quite a bit of explanatory value. 

    Via Citi’s Matt King: 

  • Charting A Decade Of Yuan Moves

    China’s central bank has taken global markets by surprise with a historic shift in its management of the yuan. As Bloomberg's Tom Orlik notes, The PBOC also signaled that going forward it would adopt a more hands-off approach to the exchange rate. Given the current direction of market pressure, that likely means depreciation. The yuan has already fallen to 6.3858 at the close of trading on Wednesday afternoon, from 6.2097 at Monday's close — a level last seen in the summer of 2012. In this chart, we map out the history of moves in the yuan in the decade since the PBOC broke the dollar peg in 2005… and all the rhetoric that will now be undone…

     

    Source: Bloomberg Briefs

  • 12 Signs That An Imminent Global Financial Crash Has Become Even More Likely

    Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

    Did you see what just happened?  The devaluation of the yuan by China triggered the largest one day drop for that currency in the modern era.  This caused other global currencies to crash relative to the U.S. dollar, the price of oil hit a six year low, and stock markets all over the world were rattled.  The Dow fell 212 points on Tuesday, and Apple stock plummeted another 5 percent.

    As we hurtle toward the absolutely critical months of September and October, the unraveling of the global financial system is beginning to accelerate.  At this point, it is not going to take very much to push us into a full-blown worldwide financial crisis.  The following are 12 signs that indicate that a global financial crash has become even more likely after the events of the past few days…

    #1 The devaluation of the yuan on Tuesday took virtually the entire planet by surprise (and not in a good way).  The following comes from Reuters

    China’s 2 percent devaluation of the yuan on Tuesday pushed the U.S. dollar higher and hit Wall Street and other global equity markets as it raised fears of a new round of currency wars and fed worries about slowing Chinese economic growth.

    #2 One of the big reasons why China devalued the yuan was to try to boost exports.  China’s exports declined 8.3 percent in July, and global trade overall is falling at a pace that we haven’t seen since the last recession.

    #3 Now that the Chinese have devalued their currency, other nations that rely on exports are indicating that they might do the same thing.  If you scan the big financial news sites, it seems like the term “currency war” is now being bandied about quite a bit.

    #4 This is the very first time that the 50 day moving average for the Dow has moved below the 200 day moving average in the last four years. This is known as a “death cross”, and it is a very troubling sign.  We are just about at the point where all of the most common technical signals that investors typically use to make investment decisions will be screaming “sell”.

    #5 The price of oil just closed at a brand new six year low.  When the price of oil started to decline back in late 2014, a whole lot of people were proclaiming that this would be a good thing for the U.S. economy.  Now we can see just how wrong they were.

    At this point, the price of oil has already fallen to a level that is going to be absolutely nightmarish for the global economy if it stays here.  Just consider what Jeff Gundlach had to say about this in December…

    And back in December 2014, “Bond King” Jeff Gundlach had a serious warning for the world if oil prices got to $40 a barrel.

    “I hope it does not go to $40,” Gundlach said in a presentation, “because then something is very, very wrong with the world, not just the economy. The geopolitical consequences could be — to put it bluntly — terrifying.”

    #6 This week we learned that OPEC has been pumping more oil than we thought, and it is being projected that this could cause the price of oil to plunge into the 30s

    Increased pumping by OPEC as Chinese demand appears to be slackening could drive oil to the lowest prices since the peak of the financial crisis.

     

    West Texas Intermediate crude futures skidded through the year’s lows and looked set to break into the $30s-per-barrel range after the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries admitted to more pumping and China devalued its currency, sending ripples through global markets.

    #7 In a recent article, I explained that the collapse in commodity prices that we are witnessing right now is eerily similar to what we witnessed just before the stock market crash of 2008.  On Tuesday, things got even worse for commodities as the price of copper closed at a brand new six year low.

    #8 The South American debt crisis of 2015 continues to intensify.  Brazil’s government bonds have been downgraded to just one level above junk status, and the approval rating of Brazil’s president has fallen into the single digits.

    #9 Just before the financial crisis of 2008, a surging U.S. dollar put an extraordinary amount of stress on emerging markets.  Now that is happening again.  Emerging market stocks just hit a brand new four year low on Tuesday thanks to the stunt that China just pulled.

    #10 Things are not so great in the United States either.  The ratio of wholesale inventories to sales in the United States just hit the highest level since the last recession.  What that means is that there is a whole lot of stuff sitting in warehouses out there that is waiting to be sold in an economy that is rapidly slowing down.

    #11 Speaking of slowing down, the growth of consumer spending in the United States has just plummeted to multi-year lows.

    #12 Deep inside, most of us can feel what is coming.  According to Gallup, the number of Americans that believe that the economy is getting worse is almost 50 percent higher than the number of Americans that believe that the economy is getting better.

    Things are lining up perfectly for a global financial crisis and a major recession beginning in the fall and winter of 2015.

    But just because things look like they will happen a certain way does not necessarily mean that they will.  All it takes is a single “event” of some sort to change everything.

  • Emerging Market Currencies To Crash 30-50%, Jen Says

    Less than 24 hours ago, we argued that although it might have seemed as though Brazil hit rock bottom in Q2 when it suffered through the worst inflation-growth mix in over a decade, things were likely to get worse still.

    The country, which is also coping with twin deficits and a terribly fractious political environment, is at the center of what Morgan Stanley recently called “a triple unwind of EM credit, China’s leverage, and US monetary easing” and now that its most critical trading partner has officially entered the global currency war, all roads lead to further devaluation of the faltering BRL. 

    And it’s not just the BRL. As Bloomberg reports, former IMF economist Stephen Jen (who called the 1997 Asian crisis while at Morgan Stanley) thinks EM currencies could fall by an average of 30% going forward on the back of the PBoC’s move to devalue the yuan. Here’s more

    [The] devaluation of the yuan risks a new round of competitive easing that may send currencies from Brazil’s real to Indonesia’s rupiah tumbling by an average 30 percent to 50 percent in the next nine months, according to investor and former International Monetary Fund economist Stephen Jen.

     

    Volatility measures were already signaling rising distress in emerging markets even before China’s shock move. An index of anticipated price swings climbed above a rich-world gauge at the end of July, reversing the trend seen for most of the past six months.

     


     

    “If this is the beginning of a new phase in Beijing’s currency policy, it would be the biggest development in the currency world this year,” said Jen, founder of London-based hedge fund SLJ Macro Partners LLP. “The emerging-market currency weakening trend is now going global.”

     

    Latin America is a particular concern because of the region’s high levels of corporate debt, said Jen

     

    Jen recommends selling the real, rupiah and South African rand — all currencies of commodity exporters, which rely on China for a large chunk of their foreign earnings. 

     

    As well as the drop in raw-materials prices, the prospect of higher interest rates in the U.S. has also drawn away investment, pushing a Bloomberg index of emerging-market exchange rates down 20 percent in the past year. A Latin American measure headed for its 13th monthly loss out of 14, while an Asian gauge plunged Tuesday to its lowest in six years.

    And a bit more color from WSJ:

    If China’s devaluation deepens, pressure to weaken currencies could become particularly intense in other Asian nations that export large amounts to China or compete with Beijing in other markets. Asian currencies tumbled on Tuesday, notably the South Korean won, Australian dollar and Thai baht, as investors bet China’s move could lead to further monetary easing in those nations. Many Asian nations have cut rates this year and could be forced to take further action in coming months.

     

    “A new theme has emerged—one of Asian currency weakness,” said Wai Ho Leong, an economist in Asia at Barclays.

    To be sure, it’s all down hill from here, and on that note, we’ll reprise our conclusion from last week’s “Emerging Market Mayhem” piece: Between an inevitable (if now delayed) Fed hike, stubbornly low commodities prices, the entry of the world’s most important economy into the global currency wars, and, perhaps most importantly from a big picture, long-term perspective, a seismic shift in the pace of global demand and trade, we could begin to see a wholesale shift in which the markets formerly known as “emerging” quickly descend into “frontier” status and after that, well, cue the “humanitarian aid” packages.

    *  *  *

    Here’s a look at the damage since Monday, right before the devaluation:

  • "Severe Correction Or Cyclical Bear" Ahead: Leuthold Major Trend Index Turns Negative

    Courtesy of The Leuthold Group,

    Based on data for the week ended August 7th, the Major Trend Index dropped to a NEGATIVE reading of 0.90, led by declines in both the Attitudinal and Momentum/Breadth/Divergence work. The topping action evident in the MTI and other disciplines is consistent with either a severe correction, or a cyclical bear in the near future. We’ve therefore cut net equity exposure in both the Leuthold Core and Leuthold Global Funds to 38%, down from 48% in late July, and 61-62% in late June. A further reduction is possible in the days ahead.

    Sentiment has clearly cooled off from the ebullience seen throughout 2014 and early this year, and some analysts contend there’s a new “wall of worry” for the stock market to climb (concerns over China’s market air pocket, crude’s retest of March lows, and the weak quarterly earnings season now in progress). But the MTI’s Attitudinal category staged a sharp drop last week, reflecting bearish flips in three models tracking investor preferences between stocks and bonds.

    The Momentum/Breadth/Divergence category also recorded a small loss on the week, reflecting further weakness in market breadth and small losses in the chart scores. Yet the net reading for this category is still positive at +92; the weakness to date has largely been concentrated in “anticipatory” indicator groupings related to momentum, breadth, and industry leadership. We obviously prefer acting on this type of evidence rather than waiting for formal bear signals from indicators based on the major indexes, but the markets don’t always afford us that opportunity.

    The Supply/Demand category carries the smallest potential weight of the five categories but can be an important swing factor at major turning points. The current category reading is a bearish –93, reflecting evidence of increasing institutional selling across three measures.

    *  *  *

    Full August letter below…

    Leuthold Group – From August 2015 Green Book

  • Solyndra 2.0 Nears Bankruptcy As Bonds Collapse To Record Lows

    Two weeks ago we introduced you to Abengoa – the Spanish renewable-energy company – that received over $230 million in US taxpayer subsidies and loos set to become Solyndra 2.0. While all the politicians have taken their pound of flesh, Abengoa bonds have collapsed for five days in a row, now trading at record lows around 45 cents on the dollar – flashing the bankruptcy imminent light. Solyndra 2.0?  

    Abengoa 2020s fell over 5 points today to around 45 cents on the dollar…

     

    As we concluded previously, the company’s political connections are emblematic of an industry that remains reliant on taxpayer subsidies, according to William Yeatman, a senior fellow specializing in energy policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

    “It could not be more clear that this company could not survive without access to government favors from political friends,” Yeatman said, citing its reliance on the Renewable Fuels Standard and continued financial support from DOE.

     

    “Alas, the same can be said for the green energy industry as a whole, which would fast wither and die absent a steady diet of taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies,” Yeatman said.

     

    In addition to its DOE subsidies, Abengoa received $185 million in financing in 2012 and 2013 through the U.S. Export-Import bank as former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) sat on the boards of both the federal agency and the company it was subsidizing.

     

    Despite extensive federal support for the company, Alhalabi described a culture of disregard for workplace safety and environmental contamination. Concern over high costs has led to lackluster engineering work at the company’s Mojave facility that could result in an “environmental disaster,” he said.

    Solyndra 2.0? Another one off? Or another symptom of the Oligrachic ignorance of where the money comes from…It appears US taxpayers can kiss that money goodbye…

    “The equity increase gives the impression that the company urgently needs cash,” said Fischer. “They’ve not done enough to win back investors’ trust.”

  • Asset-Price Inflation Enters Its Dangerous Late Phase

    Submitted by Brendan Brown via The Mises Institute,

    Asset price inflation, a disease whose source always lies in monetary disorder, is not a new affliction. It was virtually inevitable that the present wild experimentation by the Federal Reserve — joined by the Bank of Japan and ECB — would produce a severe outbreak. And indications from the markets are that the disease is in a late phase, though still short of the final deadly stage characterized by pervasive falls in asset markets, sometimes financial panic, and the onset of recession.

    Global Signs of Danger

    A key sign of danger, recognizable from historical patterns of how the disease progresses, is the combination of steep speculative temperature falls in some markets, with still-high — and in some cases, soaring — temperatures in other markets. Another sign is some pull-back in the carry trade, featuring, in particular, the uncovered arbitrage between a low (or zero) interest rate, and higher rate currencies. For now, however, this is still booming in some areas of the global market-place.

    Specifically, we now observe steep falls in commodity markets (also in commodity currencies and mining equities) which were the original area of the global market-place where the QE-asset price inflation disease attacked (back in 2009–11).

    Previously hot real estate markets in emerging market economies (especially China and Brazil) have cooled at least to a moderate extent. Most emerging market currencies — with the key exception of the Chinese yuan — once the darling of the carry traders, are in ugly bear markets. The Shanghai equity market bubble has burst.

    Yet in large areas of the high-yield credit markets (including in particular the so-called covenant-lite paper issued by highly leveraged corporations) speculative temperatures remain at scorching levels. Meanwhile, Silicon Valley equities (both in the public and private markets), and private equity funds enjoy fantasy valuations. Ten-year Spanish and Italian government bond yields are hovering below 2 percent, and hot spots in global advanced-economy real estate — whether San Francisco, Sydney, or Vancouver — just seem to get hotter, even though we should qualify these last two observations by noting the slump in the Canadian and Australian dollars. Also, there is tentative evidence that London high-end real estate is weakening somewhat.

    How to Identify Late Stages of Asset Inflation

    We can identify similar late phases of asset price inflation characterized by highly divergent speculative temperatures across markets in past episodes of the disease. In 1927–28, steep drops of speculative temperature in Florida real estate, the Berlin stock market, and then more generally in US real estate, occurred at the same time as speculative temperatures continued to soar in the US equity market. In the late 1980s, a crash in Wall Street equities (October 1987) did not mark the end-stage of asset price inflation but a late phase of the disease which featured still-rising speculation in real estate and high-yield credits.

    In the next episode of asset price inflation (the mid-late 1990s), the Asian currency and debt crisis in 1997, and the bursting of the Russian debt bubble the following year, accompanied still rising speculation in equities culminating in the Nasdaq bubble. In the episode of the mid-2000s, the first quakes in the credit markets during summer 2007 did not prevent a further build-up of speculation in equity markets and a soaring of speculative temperatures in winter 2007–08 and spring 2008 in commodity markets, especially oil.

    What insights can we gain from the identification of the QE-asset price inflation disease as being in a late phase?

    The skeptics would say not much. Each episode is highly distinct and the disease can “progress” in very different ways. Any prediction as to the next stage and its severity has much more to do with intuition than scientific observation. Indeed some critics go as far as to suggest that diagnosis and prognosis of this disease is so difficult that we should not even list it as such. Historically, such critics have ranged from Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz (who do not even mention the disease in their epic monetary history of the US), to Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke who claimed throughout their years in power — and these included three virulent attacks of asset price inflation originating in the Federal Reserve — that it was futile to try to diagnose bubbles.

    We Can’t Ignore the Problem Just Because It’s Hard to Measure

    Difficulties in diagnosis though do not mean that the disease is phantom or safely ignored as just a minor nuisance. That observation holds as much in the field of economics as medicine. And indeed there may be a reliable way in which to prevent the disease from emerging in the first place. The critics do not engage with those who argue that the free society’s best defense against the asset price inflation disease is to follow John Stuart Mill’s prescription of making sure that “the monkey wrench does not get into the machinery of money.”

    Instead, the practitioners of “positive economics” demonstrate an aversion to analyzing a disease which cannot be readily identified by scientific measurement. Yes, the disease corrupts market signals, but by how much, where, and in what time sequence? Some empiricists might acknowledge the defining characteristic of the disease as “where monetary disequilibrium empowers forces of irrationality in global markets.” They might agree that flawed mental processes as described by the behavioral finance theorists become apparent at such times. But they despair at the lack of testable propositions.

    Mis-Measuring Increases in Asset Prices

    The critics who reject the usefulness of studying asset price inflation have no such qualms with respect to its twin disease — goods and services inflation. After all, we can depend on the official statisticians!

    In the present monetary inflation, a cumulative large decline in equilibrium real wages across much of the labor market, together with state of the art “hedonic accounting” (adjusting prices downward to take account of quality improvements) has meant that the official CPI has climbed by “only” 11 percent since the peak of the last business cycle (December 2007). The severity of the asset price inflation disease makes it implausible that the official statisticians are measuring correctly the force of monetary inflation in goods and services markets.

    What Is the Final Stage?

    A progression of the asset price inflation disease into its final stage (general speculative bust and recession) would mean the end of monetary inflation and also inflation in goods and services markets. What could bring about this transition? Most plausibly it will be a splintering of rose-colored spectacles worn by investors in the still hot speculative markets rather than Janet Yellen’s much heralded “lift-off” (raising official short-term rates from zero). What could cause the splinter?

    Perhaps it will be a sudden rush for the exit in the high-yield credit markets, provoked by alarm at losses on energy-related and emerging market paper. Or financial system stress could jump in consequence of the steep falls of speculative temperature already occurring (including China and commodities). Perhaps there will be a run from those European banks and credit funds which are up to their neck in Spanish and Italian government bonds. Or the Chinese currency could tumble as Beijing pulls back its support and the one trillion US dollar carry trade into the People’s Republic implodes. Perhaps scandal and shock, accompanied by economic disappointment will break the fantasy spell regarding US corporate earnings, especially in Silicon Valley. As the late French President Mitterrand used to say, “give time to Time!”

     

  • Schizo Stocks Shrug Off China, Europe Fears As Dow Roundtrips 700 Points In Giant Stop Hunt

    Translating every mainstream business media channel this week…

     

    The Dow gave up all of its post-QE3 gains…

     

    Which leaves this – Fed 'flow' vs stock performance – once again the most important chart in US equity investing…

    h/t @Not_Jim_Cramer

    It appears the market is threatening (or calling the bluff of) The Fed… QE or else…

    Across asset classes the day broke down into 3 sections – China (gappy pressure), Europe (carry unwinds escalate) and post-Europe US session (buy stocks and STFU!!)…

     

    US equities gapped lower on China's double whammy devaluation overnight and kept tumbling through the European close.. then levitated magically to get the S&P just green for the week (algos running stops)

     

    But cash indices all ended the day in the green for the week…

     

    The S&P and Nasdaq managed to hold green for the day… and Dow closed unch…

     

    Almost 700 point roundtrip in The Dow…

     

    Humpday Humor… come on!!!

     

    VIX was demolished after surging up to recent highs over 16… The Twin Peaks Of Vol…

     

    Stocks keep rallying away from and then plunging back towards HY credit…

     

    Treasury yields were mixed with all but the long-end very modestly lower in yield on the day after a mini-meltup in yields after Europe closed…

     

    The dollar tumbled further as EURCNH cary trades unwound en masse…

     

    Note – it appears hope today was driven by the fact that the PBOC appeared to step in and support onshore Yuan towards the close..

     

    Commodities were mixed today with crude and copper flat (after early weakness) and gold and silver surging…

     

    Summing it all up…

     Charts: Bloomberg and @Not_Jim_Cramer 

    Bonus Chart: Deja Vu – time speeding up…

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 12, 2015

  • The FBI Considers The IRS & DOJ, Domestic Terrorists

    Submitted by Thad Beversdorf via FirstRebuttal.com,

    Eventually it was bound to happen.  The ever increasing ambiguous laws that allow the government to prosecute, or worse, simply negate all Constitutional protections of its citizens would come back to hang them.  In an unusual circumstance, what is essentially one party in D.C. when it comes to matters of covering up governmental criminality, has split into a two party system.  Specifically, a sect of the Republican party known as Tea Partiers pushed unrelentingly to expose the criminality acted upon members of its own tribe by various government agencies.

    The Tea Party was formed by a group of individuals around the country who wanted to get back to the ideals of the Constitution i.e freedom.  But the Constitution is kryptonite to the system.  And so those who organize to promote the Constitution were targeted by the highest levels of government.  What better weapon to attack those whose intention is to defend the Constitution than an unconstitutional agency that has essentially unquestioned authority.  After all it is always unclear who watches the watchman.  Well in this particular case, the FBI and DOJ would seem to have jurisdiction over actions consistent with those of the IRS.

    Under the FBI’s own definition of a ‘Domestic Terrorist’ one MUST consider the IRS to be a terrorist organization as evidenced by the very recent discoveries surrounding the IRS’s own actions.

    “Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

    • Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
    • Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
    • Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. …”

    While the first characteristic seems to imply violence is necessary it should be noted that under the FBI’s definition of ‘International Terrorism’ they explicitly include ‘Violent acts’ within the definition.

    “International terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

    • Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
    • Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
    • Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

    The distinction of violence within the international but not domestic definition is surely not an oversight.  But by doing so it leaves open the opportunity to define a non violent act to be construed as indirectly dangerous to human life (e.g. Snowden’s actions).  But certainly wrongfully putting someone inside a federal prison for tax evasion would be considered dangerous to human life.  According to the following revelations through emails obtained via court orders by Judicial Watch (a nonpartisan government watchdog), that is exactly what the IRS, DOJ and FBI were conspiring to do.

    “These new documents show that the Obama IRS scandal is also an Obama DOJ and FBI scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The FBI and Justice Department worked with Lois Lerner and the IRS to concoct some reason to put President Obama’s opponents in jail before his reelection. And this abuse resulted in the FBI’s illegally obtaining confidential taxpayer information. How can the Justice Department and FBI investigate the very scandal in which they are implicated?”

     

    On April 16, 2014, Judicial Watch forced the IRS to release documents revealing for the first time that Lerner communicated with the DOJ in May 2013 about whether it was possible to launch criminal prosecutions against targeted tax-exempt entities. The documents were obtained due to court order in an October 2013 Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit filed against the IRS.

     

    Those documents contained an email exchange between Lerner and Nikole C. Flax, then-chief of staff to then-Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller discussing plans to work with the DOJ to prosecute nonprofit groups that “lied” (Lerner’s quotation marks) about political activities…”

    But it begs the question then again, if the DOJ and FBI are also implicated in the domestic terrorism (according to the FBI’s own definition) who is left to prosecute?

    Well it is we the people.  It shouldn’t matter if you are Democrat or Republican.  We have a clear and identifiable gross abuse of government at the highest levels.  The abuse falls under the FBI’s own definition of domestic terrorism, a definition they would not hesitate to use against you or your family if it suited their objectives.  And so call it the Golden Rule or Kantian Categorical Imperatives or simple justice, but it is imperative to the people’s rule over its representative governing body to prosecute all involved to the highest levels and to the maximum penalty of the law.

    The abuse by those who have been granted incredible powers under the trust of the nation need to be dealt the most severe consequences.  Our very response to this matter will underpin the relationship between the people and its government for generations.  

    If we allow such astonishing government abuses, which have now been overtly evidenced and confessed by at least some of the guilty parties, to be lightly dealt with then we blatantly fail to defend every subsequent generation of Americans from ever worse abuses.  We fail as Americans.  The result of this investigation over the coming months will likely show that we the people have lost all sense of what it means to be an American.  That said, I remain doubtingly hopeful that I am proven wrong.

  • Mapping 1083 People Killed By Cops In The Last Year

    One year ago, an 18-year old black man was fatally shot in Ferguson, Missouri by a police officer. Michael Brown’s death ignited a country-wide debate about the excessive amount of violence that occurs at the hand of police – particularly to African-Americans. Since then, at least 1,083 people have been killed by police in America…

    California has been at the forefront of police violence, with at least 176 deaths alone. Five cities in the United States have had more than ten deaths over this time period: New York, Houston, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, and Los Angeles.

    All but two states (Vermont and Rhode Island) have had fatal incidents involving police.

     

     

    h/t VisualCapitalist

    Source: VICE News

  • John Kerry Warns "Dollar Will Cease To Be Reserve Currency Of The World" If Iran Deal Rejected

    Scaremongery… or maybe the whole point, as Obama's former chief economist noted, is to lose reserve status. Take That China!!

     

     

    As Jared Bernstein previously explained…

    There are few truisms about the world economy, but for decades, one has been the role of the United States dollar as the world’s reserve currency. It’s a core principle of American economic policy. After all, who wouldn’t want their currency to be the one that foreign banks and governments want to hold in reserve?

    But new research reveals that what was once a privilege is now a burden, undermining job growth, pumping up budget and trade deficits and inflating financial bubbles. To get the American economy on track, the government needs to drop its commitment to maintaining the dollar’s reserve-currency status.

    The reasons are best articulated by Kenneth Austin, a Treasury Department economist, in the latest issue of The Journal of Post Keynesian Economics (needless to say, it’s his opinion, not necessarily the department’s). On the assumption that you don’t have the journal on your coffee table, allow me to summarize.

    It is widely recognized that various countries, including China, Singapore and South Korea, suppress the value of their currency relative to the dollar to boost their exports to the United States and reduce its exports to them. They buy lots of dollars, which increases the dollar’s value relative to their own currencies, thus making their exports to us cheaper and our exports to them more expensive.

    In 2013, America’s trade deficit was about $475 billion. Its deficit with China alone was $318 billion.

    Though Mr. Austin doesn’t say it explicitly, his work shows that, far from being a victim of managed trade, the United States is a willing participant through its efforts to keep the dollar as the world’s most prominent reserve currency.

    When a country wants to boost its exports by making them cheaper using the aforementioned process, its central bank accumulates currency from countries that issue reserves. To support this process, these countries suppress their consumption and boost their national savings. Since global accounts must balance, when “currency accumulators” save more and consume less than they produce, other countries — “currency issuers,” like the United States — must save less and consume more than they produce (i.e., run trade deficits).

    This means that Americans alone do not determine their rates of savings and consumption. Think of an open, global economy as having one huge, aggregated amount of income that must all be consumed, saved or invested. That means individual countries must adjust to one another. If trade-surplus countries suppress their own consumption and use their excess savings to accumulate dollars, trade-deficit countries must absorb those excess savings to finance their excess consumption or investment.

    Note that as long as the dollar is the reserve currency, America’s trade deficit can worsen even when we’re not directly in on the trade. Suppose South Korea runs a surplus with Brazil. By storing its surplus export revenues in Treasury bonds, South Korea nudges up the relative value of the dollar against our competitors’ currencies, and our trade deficit increases, even though the original transaction had nothing to do with the United States.

    This isn’t just a matter of one academic writing one article. Mr. Austin’s analysis builds off work by the economist Michael Pettis and, notably, by the former Federal Reserve chairman Ben S. Bernanke.

    A result of this dance, as seen throughout the tepid recovery from the Great Recession, is insufficient domestic demand in America’s own labor market. Mr. Austin argues convincingly that the correct metric for estimating the cost in jobs is the dollar value of reserve sales to foreign buyers. By his estimation, that amounted to six million jobs in 2008, and these would tend to be the sort of high-wage manufacturing jobs that are most vulnerable to changes in exports.

    Dethroning “king dollar” would be easier than people think. America could, for example, enforce rules to prevent other countries from accumulating too much of our currency. In fact, others do just that precisely to avoid exporting jobs. The most recent example is Japan’s intervention to hold down the value of the yen when central banks in Asia and Latin America started buying Japanese debt.

    Of course, if fewer people demanded dollars, interest rates – i.e., what America would pay people to hold its debt – might rise, especially if stronger domestic manufacturers demanded more investment. But there’s no clear empirical, negative relationship between interest rates and trade deficits, and in the long run, as Mr. Pettis observes, “Countries with balanced trade or trade surpluses tend to enjoy lower interest rates on average than countries with large current account deficits, which are handicapped by slower growth and higher debt.”

    Others worry that higher import prices would increase inflation. But consider the results when we “pay” to keep price growth so low through artificially cheap exports and large trade deficits: weakened manufacturing, wage stagnation (even with low inflation) and deficits and bubbles to offset the imbalanced trade.

    But while more balanced trade might raise prices, there’s no reason it should persistently increase the inflation rate. We might settle into a norm of 2 to 3 percent inflation, versus the current 1 to 2 percent. But that’s a price worth paying for more and higher-quality jobs, more stable recoveries and a revitalized manufacturing sector. The privilege of having the world’s reserve currency is one America can no longer afford.

    *  *  *

    In the global race to debase, Reserve currency status is a curse!

  • An Economic Earthquake Is Rumbling

    Submitted by Bob Livingston Via Personal Liberty Digest,

    While the people sleep, an economic earthquake rumbles underneath. The day that they begin to feel the quake draws near.

    History will record that in this decade more people will lose more money (forget about the trillions of dollars already lost) than at any time in our history, including during the Great Depression.

    At the same time, a very small group has made and will make huge sums of money.

    During the Y2K scare (a real hoax) many people stored food. Then, after Y2K, many people wanted to dump their cache; and some did.

    We advised readers at the time to store food simply because of the crisis world we live in, but to store those foods that you could rotate and consume. Stored food is a hedge against inflation. It’s a hedge against natural disaster. It’s a hedge against economic collapse. It was our advice before, and it has been our advice since.

    This advice is still valid. People who don’t have some stored food don’t realize how dependent they are on the system and government. Of course, the system was designed and created to make the people dependent on government. That makes them easier to control.

    Many people have been in hard times since 2008, thanks to bursting housing and derivatives bubbles — both fueled by the Federal Reserve’s money printing and both predicted by meand by many other writers. For those of us who are not well-connected (those of us who are not in the 1 percent), there has been no relief. While the banksters got bailouts and Wall Street and the banksters benefited from the money printers, the middle class was impoverished. Savings were wiped out.

    More working-age people than ever before are not working. More young workers than ever before are still living with their parents because they are either out of work or working at low-paying jobs. More people than ever before are on the government dole. Welfare pays more than most jobs. Retirement funds have been cashed out and spent on living expenses.

    Wages have not kept up with inflation — not the phony inflation numbers peddled by the Fed and the propaganda media, but real inflation.

    Printing-press money is fertile ground for expanding world crisis. Crisis is excellent cover for national and international chicanery. Boy, we have it!

    How can anyone who is paying attention not recognize these tremors for what they are?

    The default rate of companies with the lowest credit rating is at its highest level since 2013.

    The auto loan debt bubble is at $900 billion, fueled by easy credit and long-term loans (more than 60 months on even used cars) that put the car buyer upside down as he drives off the lot and keeps him there. U.S. mortgage holders are carrying the most non-mortgage debt they’ve had in more than 10 years; 81 percent of that is automobile debt. Student-loan debt held by mortgage holders is the highest it’s ever been, with the average balance owed at nearly $35,000. Almost 5.7 million homeowners remain underwater on their mortgages.

    We see bad inflation in the immediate future. Inflation in housing and consumer goods exceeds the Fed’s stated inflation goal of 2 percent, but Fed Chair Janet Yellen is talking about raising interest rates to kick-start more inflation. But a deflationary collapse has started in commodities, oil and gold. The dollar is rising. Today’s dollar index chart mirrors the dollar index chart pre-2008 collapse.

    U.S. dollar assets are in a slow-motion crash. A financial asset is any paper asset, such as CDs, bank accounts, U.S. government bonds, etc. While we sleep, we are losing our savings. The U.S. stock market is in a QE-driven bubble that will soon burst.

    Inflation and deflation are both forms of wealth destruction and impoverishment. Now think about this: The U.S. government has an official and stated policy of currency destruction through inflation. This is voluntary destruction of the currency. If instead we have deflation because of the collapse of debt, we still have currency destruction.

    Besides, the U.S. dollar and U.S. financial assets pay almost no interest. Plus, it’s now official U.S. and World Bank policy to take your money in the event of another collapse as we saw in 2008. They call it a “bail in.” That is a code word for “what’s yours is really theirs.”

    Wisdom dictates getting out of dollar assets ASAP! I long ago, way before the 2008 crash, cashed out my IRA and took the penalty. Many of the readers of my Letter did, too. It was well worth it. The government is also eyeballing your IRA, 401(k) and pension even now. Stealing it from you and replacing it with government paper would knock a big hole in the so-called “government debt” and prop up the system for a while longer.

    The Greeks ignored the warning signs of their failing economy to their detriment. They were left standing in long lines, waiting to withdraw meager amounts of their own rationed cash, and diving in dumpsters for food because the shelves were bare.

    Sooner or later, inflation skyrockets. Paper money economies always crash in the end, and their currencies end up worthless.

    At some point, there will be a panic. Many people will realize that the debt pyramid is collapsing. Most who see what’s happening will not act. The herd instinct suggests that only a few will bail out in time; but the majority will act in panic, too late. We saw it in Greece. We saw it in Cyprus.

    “Oh, yes,” you say. “It cannot happen here in the U.S.; or if it does, it won’t be for some time.” But it has awesome potential at any time. Why in the world take the chance? Prudent and wise people always plan for eventualities that the crowd can’t see.

    In hyperinflation, there is actually a shortage of paper money. The paper money production cannot keep up with prices. Now that we have electronic money, prices and inflation can go higher than the mind can imagine. The Fed is manipulating the consumer price index to cover inflation. This allows them to maintain zero interest rates on U.S. debt, but it also means zero interest on savings.

    Things are in place for huge inflation now. They think the people won’t know if they just kill the indicators. This is really a fantasy world. Since the money creators own the mass media, it seems that they can make the people believe anything, more fiction than fact.

    When we tell you to buy gold and silver coins and gold stocks; to store some food, water and ammo; and to buy Swiss annuities in Swiss francs, we are talking preservation of your assets, as well as survival financially and physically.

    Don’t trust the banks. Most are bankrupt. Don’t put your gold and silver coins in the safe deposit box. Keep them at home and keep them secret. Don’t keep more cash in the bank than is necessary to cover about a month’s worth of bills. This is a flashing red alert.

    Many tens of thousands of people who have their trust in the government system (U.S. currency) are headed dead ahead into impoverishment.

  • Global Markets Turmoil After China Extends Currency War To 2nd Day – Devalues Yuan To 4 Year Lows

    Chinese stocks opened lower, extending yesterday's losses, after The PBOC weakened its Yuan FIX dramatically for the 2nd consecutive day (from 6.1162 Monday to 6.2298 last night to 6.3306). Offshore Yuan fell another 9 handles against the USD after China closed but was hovering at 6.40 as the market opens (now at 11 hnadles weaker at 6.51). Bear in mind the utter devastation in Chinese credit markets that data showed occurred in July, it remains ironic that for the 3rd days in a row, Chinese margin debt balances grew. Before the real fun and games started, Chinese officials once again exclaimed that their data is real (denying any mismatches between GDP Deflator and CPI) as China CDS spiked to 2 year highs. US equity futures are tumbling, bonds bid, and gold bouncing off the initial jerk lower.

    PBOC makes some comments (like last night's)…

    • *PBOC SAYS NO ECONOMIC BASIS FOR YUAN'S CONSTANT DEVALUATION
    • *PBOC SAYS YUAN WON'T CONTINUOUSLY DEVALUE
    • *PBOC SAYS MOVE OF YUAN REFERENCE PRICE IS NORMAL
    • *CHINA YUAN MECHANISM CHANGE MAKES FIXING RATES MORE REASONABLE

    And then there is this (from Xinhua):

    China's state-owned news 4-year lowsagency Xinhua said: "China is not waging a currency war; merely fixing a discrepancy."

     

    "The central parity rate revision was designed to make the yuan more market-driven and in line with market expectations," it said in a comment piece published on its web site.

     

    "The lower exchange rate was just a byproduct, not the goal."

    The "one-off" adjustment has now become two… some context for the size of this move…

    • *MNI: CHINA PBOC WED YUAN FIXING LOWEST SINCE OCT 11, 2012

     

    Onshore Yuan breaks above 6.41 – trades to 4 years lows against the USD…

     

    US markets are reacting dramatically…

     

    US Treasury yields are collapsing…

     

    Offshore Yuan is collapsing…

    • *CHINA SETS YUAN REFERENCE RATE AT 6.3306 AGAINST U.S. DOLLAR
    • *OFFSHORE YUAN TUMBLES 1.6% AFTER PBOC SETS FIXING LOWER

     

    War is begun… (via Ransquawk)

     

    Offshore Yuan has been leaking lower since China closed…

     

    Yesterday was mixed with the broadest indices all ending in the red…

     

    • *CHINA'S CSI 300 STOCK-INDEX FUTURES FALL 0.8% TO 3,982.8
    • *CHINA FTSE A50 STOCK-INDEX FUTURES EXTEND LOSSES TO 2.6%

    But…

    • *SHANGHAI EXCHANGE MARGIN DEBT RISES FOR THIRD DAY (will they never learn?)
    • *CHINA STATS OFFICIAL DENIES MISMATCH OF GDP DEFLATOR AND CPI (if you just keep saying evcentually everyone will believe)

    GDP deflator index reflects prices of all final goods and services produced in China, much broader than that of CPI which only reflects consumer prices, Xu Xianchun, a deputy head at National Bureau of Statistics, writes in an article in People’s Daily.

    We think they do protest too much.

    China Credit Risk surged to 2 year highs…

    *  *  *

    There’s been plenty of talk about what China’s "unexpected" (to everyone but us, apparently) move to devalue the yuan will mean for the country’s flagging economy and for Beijing’s efforts to promote the internationalization of the renminbi via a bid for SDR inclusion, but as Chinese stocks open for trading on the "day after" (so to speak) we thought it worth previewing what the move might mean for Chinese equities.

    We present the following breakdown from Goldman with the obvious caveat that, as Tuesday’s farcical data from the PBoC on loan growth in July made abundantly clear, when it comes to China’s equity markets, one must always factor in the plunge protection "national team." 

    *  *  *

    From Goldman

    Our framework to think about FX depreciation on equities – Three main transmission mechanisms

    We try to assess the potential impact of RMB depreciation on the equity markets through various micro and macro channels. In general, we think the macro-to-market transmission mechanisms (especially an unexpected one as in this case) could be summarized as follows:

    Translation exposure—Universally, offshore-listed Chinese companies’ book values and earnings (if CNY-denominated) will be deflated when they are being converted into HKD or USD for financial reporting purposes. Lower book values and earnings would increase the P/B and P/E ratios, effectively making Chinese companies less attractively valued to USD-based investors.

     

    Transaction and economic exposure— Assuming other non-USD currencies did not move along with the CNY, export-oriented companies would likely benefit due to a more competitive exchange rate and a mostly RMB cost base.

     

    Impact on equity risk premium (ERP)—Using the exchange rate as a policy tool to manage the cycle should render a higher level of domestic monetary policy independence for policymakers and should partly ease investor concern about further domestic imbalances (e.g. over-investment, overcapacity, debt buildup, etc). Barring an abrupt depreciation case, the higher FX flexibility may shore up investor confidence on China's short-term growth outlook, thereby helping to suppress the currently-high equity risk premium, which seems to have priced in significant macro and micro growth risks, in our view.

    That said, the consequential uncertainty regarding capital outflows could offset some of the positives. 

    Impact on equities: Not all depreciations are created equal

    The abovementioned transmission mechanisms do not take into account the magnitude of and the speed at which the depreciation may take place. We aim to better quantify the market ramifications based on the following hypothetical scenario:

    – One-off reset for now, and moderate depreciation leading up to and post the SDR decision: Assuming the RMB doesn't significantly further depreciate by the end of this year, we believe the macro growth impact will be modest, and the ramifications will likely manifest primarily in the stock markets through the translation and transaction/ economic channels.

    At the stock level, we identify stocks which may be disproportionately impacted from a few different angles and approaches:

    1) GS/GH covered stocks for which our analysts see highest positive and negative earnings sensitivity to 1% of RMB depreciation vs. the USD

    2) Export-oriented companies (not only GS covered names) which have high US revenue exposure

    3) Stocks (not only GS covered names) which have relatively high USD-denominated debt and financial leverage

    (ZH: And here's a look at the bigger picture based on historical episodes of depreciation):

    *  *  * 

    And by the look of it, FX carry traders are expecting more volatility to remain the norm… Last time we saw this – in 2011, it too a year for vol to normalize…

    • *VOLATILITY OF YUAN FIXING COULD RISE TEMPORARILY: PBOC

     

    As mentioned earlier this devaluation is likely not a one-time event but rather the beginning of an ongoing and persistent depreciation of the CNY versus the USD. The embedded USD short position within the carry trades will begin to result in losses and margin calls as the USD appreciates versus the CNY, thus forcing investors to liquidate some of their positions. These trades, which took years to amass, could unwind abruptly and exert an influence of historic magnitude on markets and economies.

     

    Charts: Bloomberg and Goldman Sachs

  • How Much More Faith In Central Banks Is Left?

     

    Carry traders just got their fingers burnt by central bankers, again.

    As Bloomberg reports,

    The People’s Bank of China’s decision to cut its daily reference rate by 1.9 percent triggered the yuan’s biggest one-day drop since the nation ended a dual-currency system in January 1994. That’s bad news for carry traders, drawn to the yuan by its stability. Until Tuesday’s surprise move, the central bank kept it in a tight range of 6.1887 to 6.2205 against the dollar since the start of April, according to prices compiled by Bloomberg.

     

     

    The PBOC’s decision is just the latest misfortune for these traders.

     

    A Deutsche Bank index of carry trades had already dropped to 510.31 Monday, from 546.71 at the end of last year, after the Swiss National Bank ditched its exchange-rate cap in January, sending the franc soaring and wiping out returns.

     

     

    “There are people who have seen the implausibility of China devaluing — because they said they wanted stability — as justifying owning the currency in one form or another, simply for carry,” said Kit Juckes, a London-based strategist at Societe Generale SA. “It’s another domino that has fallen.”

     

    Investors in carry trades borrow in one currency to invest in another where interest rates are higher. They profit both from the rate differential and any appreciation in the purchased asset. Higher volatility can hurt returns because adverse price moves can wipe out the benefit from the pick-up in rates.

    Twice in eight months is enough to shatter anyone's illusion that central banks really have control. But perhaps just as worrisome for the central-bank-omnipotence meme, is how last night's action was translated to the masses (as Epsilon Theory's Ben Hunt explains)

    Everything under heaven is in chaos; the situation is excellent.
     ? Mao Zedong (1893 – 1976)

     

    A quick email on China’s currency devaluation last night. The news itself is big enough, but it’s the Narrative that’s developing around the devaluation that has my risk antennae quivering like crazy. What do I mean? I mean that initial media efforts to portray the devaluation as a one-time “adjustment” that’s in-line with prior policy have been overrun by stories of “shock” and disjuncture. This is true even within Rupert Murdoch’s various media microphones, which tend strongly to toe the Beijing party line. Moreover, the devaluation is not being described in Western media as Chinese “stimulus”, which it surely is and would send markets higher if portrayed in this light, but as Chinese “currency competition” and as a sign that the growth problems in China are more severe than Western central bankers would like to believe. Or more precisely, would like to have YOU believe.

     

    What’s the Truth with a capital T about Chinese growth, Fed intentions, and the future price of growth-sensitive assets like oil? I have no idea and neither does anyone else. Seriously.

     

    But what I do know is that the Common Knowledge about Chinese growth – what everyone thinks that everyone thinks about Chinese growth – is dramatically changed for the worse today, and it’s a change that will accelerate unless the Narrative shifts. That could happen. I still have nightmares about how the Narrative around the ECB’s OMT program shifted from “Draghi’s Blunder” to “Draghi’s Bold Move” within a single day in the pages of the Financial Times in the summer of 2012. But unless and until that Narrative shifts, the path forward for the Fed just got much more perilous.

     

    And that’s why the 10-year US Treasury is at 2.12% as I write this note. Unless and until that Narrative shifts, the path forward for oil and any other global growth-sensitive asset or security just got much more perilous. And that’s why oil is at $43 as I write this note. 

     

    One last point, focused on what’s next for China. As with everything else here in the Golden Age of the Central Banker, my crystal ball is broken. But I think that I’ve got the right lens for viewing China and its political dynamics, and you can read about it in two Epsilon Theory notes: “The Dude Abides: China in the Golden Age of the Central Banker” and “Rosebud”.

    As mentioned earlier this devaluation is likely not a one-time event but rather the beginning of an ongoing and persistent depreciation of the CNY versus the USD. The embedded USD short position within the carry trades will begin to result in losses and margin calls as the USD appreciates versus the CNY, thus forcing investors to liquidate some of their positions. These trades, which took years to amass, could unwind abruptly and exert an influence of historic magnitude on markets and economies.

    *  *  *

    Change is afoot.

  • The Fed Is Out Of Options, "QE Is All It Can Do Here" Art Cashin Predicts

    Weakness in commodities "is not transitory," Art Cashin tells CNBC, if you look at things like copper, "this is really a deflationary push… where things can get a little out of control." The Fed says they must get off zero interest rates because,, as Cashin notes, "they can't do anything else." However, as the venerable floorman who has seen it all explains, "they're in a kind of silly loop where they did QE expecting a reaction… didn't get it.. and then they did QE again because it didn't live up to their expectations… but I think they have no other options, if things get negative on the economy, QE is all they can do."

    Which is exactly what we said a month ago…

    Even the CNBC anchors realize the folly of Fed ways now, noting "but aren't they just pushing on a string?" Indeed they are and as Scotiabank's Guy Haselmann noted earlier, it will cost us…

    Fed policy today and over the past several years may prove to be counter-productive in the long-run.

     

    Sustainable growth is best served by an interest rate where capital is deployed efficiently.  The long-run consequences of policy during the past few years could easily mean lower long-run potential growth and inflation.  Today’s consumption and market speculation was paid for with huge amounts of accumulated debt. 

     

    Tomorrow’s revenues will have to be steered toward servicing that debt.  Future revenue will also have to replenish the deficient levels of R&D and infrastructure investment of the past few years.

    Cashin explains The Fed's bind…

     

    h/t Lesley M

  • The Cable Industry's Scariest Chart

    Recent price volatility in the media sector got us wondering: is “Cord cutting” the home cable box in favor of online entertainment really hitting critical mass?  To answer that question, ConvergEx's Nick Colas turned to our old friend Google Trends.

    This resource allows you to track how many Americans are searching the Internet for terms like “Cancel cable” or “Netflix” and see multiyear trends in such activity.  In a representative cross section of 9 key searches we find that yes, consumers are exploring their options but it is early days yet.  “Cancel cable” is hitting new highs in terms of search volume, but “Get cable” searches still outnumbers it by 9.9x.  The bad news: 5 years ago the ratio was 14x. 

     

     

    As for content searches, the search data shows a mixed bag. “HBO” searches are ramping higher, but “ESPN” and “Nickelodeon” are solidly lower.

     

    The big three traditional networks – ABC, NBC, and CBS – are all lower as well.  The upshot is that the media landscape has been in flux for several years – Wall Street is only beginning to catch up now.  That means more volatility to come as investors begin to discount a distinctly more uncertain future for these names.

    You can date the modern era for entertainment to a very specific date: October 23, 2001. That is when Steve Jobs announced the launch of the iPod to a cluster of obviously skeptical (and occasionally bored) journalists. The presentation is vintage Jobs, but without the fanboy hype and spontaneously raucous applause that would be hallmarks of later Apple product launches.  Indeed, Jobs sounds at times to be a tad uncomfortable, even as he walks through the merits of a hard drive based music player. Customer acceptance was slow.  It took Apple three years to sell 3 million units. Things finally started to click in 2004, with Jobs making it to the cover of Newsweek flashing a fourth generation iPod with the words “iPod, Therefore i Am”.

    The rest is pretty much history.  The iPod led to the iPhone – that launch presentation was a good deal better received – in 2007 and the iPad in 2010.  The point here is that even in the supposedly fast-paced world of consumer technology, mass adoption takes time.  Years, not days or months.  But when the momentum starts to build, you know it.

    Such is the case with the seemingly sudden consumer interest in “Cord cutting” – shorthand for people cancelling their cable TV subscriptions in favor of online entertainment resources.  For the better part of the last 30 years, cable has been one of the “Stickiest” items in a household budget.  During recessions, cable TV companies barely skipped a beat as customers would – if necessary – delay a mortgage payment or a credit card bill in favor of keeping uninterrupted access to television entertainment. The stability of those cash flows allowed many cable companies to grow with debt-financed capital, giving shareholders outsized returns. Now the news that some cable companies are losing customers is forcing capital markets to reconsider just how loyal cable customers might be and what that means for every company in the entertainment industry ecosystem.

    To analyze some of the underlying consumer behaviors, we turn to Google Trends.  This tool, available for free online, allows you to track how many times Google users have searched for a specific term over time.  For example, enter “Get a dog” into Trends and specify US users, and you’ll see that interest in dog ownership is on the rise in the U.S. and the most pooch-friendly states are West Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas.  The search term “Get a cat” is only about half as popular on Google, in case you were wondering…

    Turning back to cable TV and entertainment trends, here are 9 sample Google Trends analyses that seem to tell the story…

    1.    “Cancel cable”.  As you would expect, Google search interest in this term is rising rapidly.  Indexed to the number of such searches in July 2010, for example, there are 1.6x more such queries now.  One noticeable seasonal factor: searches for cancelling cable peak at this time of year since households tend to move during the summer.  Also worth noting: the search “Get cable” still outnumbers “cancel cable” by 89:9, or  9.9x.  Still, “Get cable” as a search query hasn’t grown in 2 years, where “cancel cable” certainly has.  Also worrisome: New York and California, two large markets, are also in the top 5 states where “Cancel cable” is most popular.

     

    2.    “Cable TV”.  Overall interest in cable tv is on the wane, according to the Google Trends data.  The graph of search volumes looks like a gentle range of hills, with each peak through time slightly lower than the previous one.  Over the last decade, searches for “Cable TV” are down 24%.

     

    3.    “Netflix”.  On a global basis, Google searches for Netflix continue to climb and have doubled since 2011.  In the U.S. the story is different, with searches for the company flat since 2011.  Interestingly, the domestic markets that search the most for the online entertainment company are predominantly rural: Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Mexico and Utah.

     

    4.    “HBO”.  This granddaddy of cable content has seen dramatic growth in search volumes since 2011.  Since that time, four times the number of Google search users have queried for “HBO”.  We suspect the April 2011 launch of “Game of Thrones” might have something to do with that pickup and highlights what desirable content can do for interest in a given distribution channel.

     

    5.    DirecTV and Dish TV.  Satellite TV still seems to be a growth business according to the Trend data.  DirecTV gets roughly 4x the number of searches as Dish and is seeing more growth in Google searches of late.  Search interest in Dish is, however, stable to up modestly.

     

    6.    The Big Three Networks – ABC, NBC, and CBS.  The long term trend lines for all three major networks are slowly moving lower, as you would expect.  ABC still has the lead, with NBC and CBS currently even.  Interestingly, “HBO” searches now tie those for NBC and CBS.

     

    7.    ESPN and Nickelodeon.  Google search interest in ESPN peaked in September 2012 and was down 16% from those highs two years later in September 2014.  Measure from July 2014 to July 2015, the drop is 34%.  Nickelodeon’s drop in Google search volumes over the last year is 29%.

     

    8.    “Buy TV” versus “Buy iPhone”.   A phone screen and earbuds is now as viable a video system as an old wooden console television was to the Baby Boom generation. The Google Trend data shows this well, with searches related to TV purchases now as numerous as those related to iPhone purchases.  Layer in the other smartphone makers and more people search for purchase information about phones than televisions.

     

    9.    “HDMI”.  OK, this one is a little nerdy, but it really tells the whole story.  In order to take advantage of online entertainment while still using your regular television, chances are you’ll need an HDMI (High Definition Multimedia Interface) plug and a device like Apple TV or Google Chromecast. The number of Google searches for HDMI in the U.S. climbed steadily through 2012 and have leveled off since. That means that consumers already knew about (and had likely purchased a TV with) the necessary hardware to take advantage of online offerings long before the recent “Cord cutting” concerns.  When the cable tv cord gets cut physically, it is the HDMI port that takes up the virtual slack.

    The upshot of these results is clear: the change in consumer attention away from cable and to other sources of entertainment has been a long time in the making.  Interest in everything from ESPN to broadcast channels has been on the wane for years.  Compelling content like HBO’s Game of Thrones drives search eyeballs and, it seems, viewers as well.  And consumers were upgrading their hardware long before they knew they wanted to watch Netflix or Amazon original programming streaming on the Internet.

    Does this mean cable TV is doomed or no one will watch broadcast TV again?  Of course not.  Consumers largely stopped buying Compact Discs when iTunes really hit, but they didn’t stop listening to music. Even the “Original” iPod design that Jobs showed back in 2001 wasn’t exactly new, with inspirations from a 1950s transistor radio and a more modern land line phone. And that worked out pretty well…

  • "It's A Friggin' Mess": The Pentagon Sums Up Syria Fight

    On Monday, nine people were killed across Turkey in a wave of attacks that included a shooting at the US Consulate, a bombing at a police station, a gun battle at the same police station, an attack on a military helicopter by “Kurdish rebels”, and a roadside bombing. 

    The violence is the latest escalation in hostilities between Ankara and various “extremist” groups and for President Tayyip Erdogan, each new attack serves as still more evidence of the incipient threat posed by the PKK and other “terrorists” he says are operating within and around the country’s borders. 

    Of course what Erdogan really cares about is undermining the pro-Kurdish HDP prior to snap elections which he hopes will restore his absolute majority in parliament. Lumping the PKK in with ISIS has allowed Ankara to obtain NATO’s blessing for an offensive which has so far been focused on the Kurds but which Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu swears will shift towards ISIS as soon as newly-arrived US F-16s are prepared to fly missions from Incirlik which, as noted here last week, will supposedly serve as the hub for a new comprehensive fight against Islamic State. It’s been suggested that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan may contribute to the effort. 

    All of this is of course designed to provide everyone involved (the US, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia) with an excuse to remove Bashar al-Assad from Damascus. Russia isn’t so keen on this, as removing Assad threatens to undermine Moscow’s influence in the region but more importantly, could clear the way for the long-delayed Turkey-Qatar natural gas pipeline which would be an outright disaster for Gazprom and could serve to break the Kremlin’s leverage over Europe by freeing it from its dependence on Russian energy. 

    Realizing that Assad’s badly depleted forces are likely to face defeat sooner or later, either at the hands of the various militants “freedom fighters” vying for control of the country or else at the hands of the US military which we imagine could “accidentally” end up engaging Assad’s forces directly once the air campaign against ISIS picks up, Moscow has gone back and forth between suggesting that it’s willing to negotiate for an “alternative” to Assad and saying that Russia is willing to lend military support to Damascus if it means helping to eradicate “terrorists.” Again we see that both sides are prepared to use ISIS as an excuse to turn what has so far been a thinly-veiled proxy war into an actual confrontation between East and West and although Russia may be willing to “go there” if all options are exhausted, the economic realities of collapsing crude and Western sanctions are all too real which is presumably why the Kremlin entertained Saudi foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir in Moscow on Tuesday to discuss next steps for Syria. In the end, it all came down to the fate of Assad and both sides are apparently willing to stand their ground – for now. Here’s Al Jazeera:

    Russia and Saudi Arabia have failed in talks held in Moscow to overcome their differences on the fate of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a central dispute in Syria’s civil war that shows no sign of abating despite renewed diplomacy.

     

    Moscow has called for coordination between the Syrian government and members of an international coalition fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), which controls swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq.

     

    Speaking after talks in Moscow on Tuesday, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir reiterated Riyadh’s stance that Assad must go.

     

    “A key reason behind the emergence of Islamic State was the actions of Assad who directed his arms at his nation, not Islamic State,” Jubeir told a news conference after talks with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

     

    “Assad is part of the problem, not part of the solution to the Syrian crisis. There is no place for Assad in the future of Syria,” he said.

     

    Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said anti-ISIL forces united on the ground should have wide international backing. But Jubeir specifically ruled out any coalition with Assad and tension between the ministers was often visible during the conference.

    Here’s Lavrov (translated):

    For anyone not willing to sit through the audio, here is the operative quote: “I would not want any powerful state involved in attempts to solve the Syrian crisis to believe that Assad issue may be solved militarily, because the only way of such a military solution is the seizure of power [in Syria] by Islamic State and other terrorists.”

    Of course Lavrov surely realizes that ISIS seizing power in Syria would likely be just fine with the US and its regional allies. After all, when it comes to “boots on the ground” excuses that will fly with the American voter, “ISIS captures entire country” has to be right near the top of the list. 

    Meanwhile, the US and Turkey are pressing ahead with efforts to establish a so-called “ISIS-free zone” along what is virtually the only stretch of the latter’s border with Syria not under the control of the Kurdish YPG. As we discussed at length in “Why Turkey’s ‘ISIS-Free Zone’ Is The Most Ridiculous US Foreign Policy Outcome In History,” this swath of territory would likely fall under the control of the Syrian Kurds in relatiely short order (which, at least in the context of fighting ISIS, would be a good thing), were it not for the fact that they are affiliated with the PKK which means that Turkey (and by extension, the US) will have no part of it.

    Another group who won’t be helping to rout ISIS in the north is al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra, which apparently thinks the effort to prevent the Kurds from capturing the remaining terriroty along the northern border with Turkey is just as absurd as we do. Here’s The New York Times:

    The Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda has announced its withdrawal from front-line positions against the Islamic State extremist group in northern Syria, saying that it disagrees with plans by Turkey and the United States to clear the extremists from an area along the Turkish border.

     

    In a statement on Monday, the Qaeda group, the Nusra Front, said the proposed plan was intended primarily to protect “Turkish national security” and not to advance the Syrian rebel cause.

     

    Syrian activists in the area reported the withdrawal of the Nusra Front in recent days, saying that other rebel groups had taken up their vacated positions to prevent an advance by Islamic State forces.

     

    The Nusra Front’s withdrawal from rural positions northeast of the Syrian city of Aleppo came amid newly announced steps by Turkey and the United States to fight the Islamic State in Syria.

     

    American and Turkish officials last month described plans to provide military support to Syrian rebels to clear the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, from a roughly 60-mile strip of territory along the Turkish border. Nusra said that Turkey was interested in what its officials call a “safe zone” because it was worried about Kurdish forces that have seized much of the land across its border in Syria.

    As The Times goes on to note, one thing Nusra did not mention in the purported statement is whatever happened to all of the US-trained “freedom fighters” the group has captured over the past month or so, including those form Division 30 and, more recently, the commander and deputy of the newest group of Pentagon trainees. On that note, we’ll close with the following bit from CBS because … well … because it underscores how comically absurd this has all become.

    Late last month, the Nusra Front battled the U.S.-backed rebel faction known as Division 30 and killed, wounded or captured dozens of its fighters.

     

    Last week, U.S. officials said five Pentagon-trained fighters had been captured, probably by the Nusra Front branch in Syria. The Pentagon has lost track of some of the fighters who apparently have scattered, reported CBS News’ David Martin.

     

    “It’s a friggin’ mess,” one official said.

    *  *  *

    Bonus: summing up the above in four seconds

  • Families Of 9/11 Victims On Verge Of Proving Government Cover-Up In Court

    Submitted by SM Gibson via TheAntiMedia.org,

    For many years, rumors have circulated regarding the U.S. government’s involvement in an active cover-up of a sinister connection between Saudi Arabia and the terrorist attacks of 9/11. In fact, 28 redacted pages from a congressional intelligence report  are said to contain damning information that implicates the Saudis in the 2001 mass murder of American citizens. Despite a bipartisan effort to release the information, the now notorious 28 pages are still being withheld from the public under the predictable guise of “national security.”

    Now, thanks to a federal lawsuit in a Manhattan court, there may be a light at the end of the tunnel.

    Two authors of the concealed pages may soon be called to testify in a court case currently pending against the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Former FBI investigator Michael Jacobson and former Justice Department attorney Dana Lesemann, both of whom investigated the terror strikes for the FBI, were given the assignment to track down possible leads connecting Saudi officials to the hijackers and then document their findings. The evidence they compiled was recorded in the infamous 28 pages.

    The duo also went on to work with the independent 9/11 Commission, where they unveiled even more corroboration. They uncovered an association between the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles, the Saudi Embassy in Washington D.C., and the the tragic events in 2001.

    At a court hearing on July 30, lawyers for the victims’ families stated that the most major of allegations against the Saudis were purposefully left out of the final draft of the 9/11 Commission report.

    “They were removed at the 11th hour by the senior staff,” said attorney Sean Carter, who called the decision a “political matter.”

     

    “[T]hey had documented a direct link between the Saudi government and the Sept. 11 plot based on the explosive material they had uncovered concerning the activities of Fahad al-Thumairy and Omar al-Bayoumi,” explained Carter.

    Thumairy worked as a religious cleric and Saudi diplomat in Los Angeles at the time, while Bayoumi was employed by the Saudi Arabian Civil Aviation Authority in San Diego.

    The judge presiding over the case now has a 60-90 day window to either dismiss the case or proceed on behalf of the victims’ families.

    Jerry Goldman, an attorney for the plaintiffs, feels good about the future of the proceedings.

    “(The Judge) wasn’t buying their spin,” Goldman said. “The burden is on the kingdom to prove we are wrong, and they didn’t do that.”

    With so many unanswered questions surrounding 9/11, there is no telling what may be disclosed if the case is allowed to move forward.

    The terrifying reality is that if the Saudis are found guilty of involvement in the events of 9/11, such a conclusion would only raise more questions than it would answer. Who inside the United States government would be covering for the kingdom of Saudi Arabia for so many years— and more importantly, why?

  • Wendy's Explains What Happens When Fry Cooks Make $15/Hour

    By now, it should be abundantly clear – even to the most vocal proponents of a higher minimum wage – that across-the-board raises have very real, and sometimes unpredictable consequences. 

    At Wal-Mart for instance, a move to hike the pay floor for the retailer’s lowest paid workers hurt morale among higher paid employees, may have led to discussions to cut up to 1,000 jobs at the company’s home office in Bentonville, and quite possibly contributed to a decision to close five stores for “plumbing problems.”

    Meanwhile, at Seattle-based payments processor Gravity Payments, one CEO’s quest to create a better life for his 120 employees backfired when a move to raise the company-wide pay floor to $70,000 was accompanied by a myriad of far-reaching and unintended consequences. 

    At the most basic level, the argument against hastily construed wage hikes is that forcing employers to pay everyone more will simply prompt companies to fire people or at the very least, curtail hiring. As one Burger King franchisee recently told CBS, “[fast food] businesses are not going to pay $15 dollars an hour [because] the economics don’t work in this industry. There is a limit to what you’re going to pay for a hamburger.”

    With that in mind, we present the following commentary from Wendy’s most recent conference call with no comment:

    Todd A. Penegor – Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President

    Yeah. So we continue to see pressure on wages two fronts, one is minimum wages at the state level continue to increase, and as there is a war on talent to make sure that we’re competitive in certain markets. So we’ve made some adjustments to that starting wage in certain markets. The impact hasn’t been material at the moment, but we continue to look at initiatives on how we do work to offset any impact to future wage inflation through technology initiatives, whether that’s customer self-order kiosks, whether that’s automating more in the back of the house in the restaurant, and you’ll see a lot more coming on that front later this year from us.

     

    John William Ivankoe – JPMorgan Securities LLC

    Okay, understood. I mean there is obviously a lot of discussion of wage prices, wage costs and that there would be increased pricing at the franchise level to offset those increased wages, especially in markets like New York for example that are going to see some very severe increases in wage costs. So can you juxtapose the franchisees’ desire and/or need to take pricing at the store level with what sounds like an increased focus overall for the brand on value, can those two things be achieved simultaneously?

     

    Emil J. Brolick – President, Chief Executive Officer & Director

    Yeah, John, this is Emil. And our franchisees, I find them to be very astute business people, and they have a great sense of their trade areas where their restaurants are and a great I think understanding of what the competitive environment is in terms of their capacity to price. I think the reality is that what you will see in like some of these markets, the New Yorks, where there is these very significant increases, is that they will be – our franchisee will slightly likely look at the opportunity to reduce overall staff, look at the opportunity to certainly reduce hours and any other cost reduction opportunities, not just price. There are some people out there who naively say that these wages can simply be passed along in terms of price increases. I don’t think that the average franchisee believes that, and there will have to be other consequences, which is why we have pointed out that unfortunately we believe the some of these increases will clearly end up hurting the people that they are intended to help.

     


  • How Economic Growth Fails

    Submitted by Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World blog,

    We all know generally how today’s economy works:

    Figure 1

    Figure 1

    Our economy is a networked system. I have illustrated it as being similar to a child’s building toy. Ever-larger structures can be built by adding more businesses and consumers, and by using resources of various kinds to produce an increasing quantity of goods and services.

    Figure 2. Dome constructed using Leonardo Sticks

    Figure 2. Dome constructed using Leonardo Sticks

    There is no overall direction to the system, so the system is said to be “self-organizing.”

    The economy operates within a finite world, so at some point, a problem of diminishing returns develops. In other words, it takes more and more effort (human labor and use of resources) to produce a given quantity of oil or food, or fresh water, or other desirable products. The problem of slowing economic growth is very closely related to the question: How can the limits we are reaching be expected to play out in a finite world? Many people imagine that we will “run out” of some necessary resource, such as oil, but I see the situation differently. Let me explain a few issues that may not be obvious.

    1. Our economy is like a pump that works increasingly slowly over time, as diminishing returns and other adverse influences affect its operation. Eventually, it is likely to stop.

    As nearly as I can tell, the way economic growth occurs (and stops taking place) is as summarized in Figure 3.

    Figure 3. Overview of our economic predicament

    Figure 3. Overview of our economic predicament

    As long as (a) energy and other resources are cheap, (2) debt is readily available, and (3) “overhead” in the form of payments for government services, business overhead, and interest payments on debt are low, the pump can continue working as normal. As various parts of the pump “gum up,” the economic growth pump slows down. It is likely to eventually stop, once it becomes too difficult to repay debt with interest with the meager level of economic growth achieved.

    Commodity prices are also likely to drop too low. This happens because the wages of workers drop so low that they cannot afford to buy expensive products such as cars and new homes. Growing purchases of products such as these are a big part of what keep the economic pump operating.

    Let me explain some of the pieces of the problem that give rise to the slowing economic growth pump, and the difficulties it encounters as it slows down.

    2. “Promises,” such as government pension programs for the elderly, and promises to repair existing roads, tend to get bigger and bigger over time.

    We can understand how promises tend to grow by looking at an example I constructed:

    Figure 4

    Figure 4

    Suppose a pension program begins in 2010 and gradually adds more retirees. Or suppose a road repair program starts out in 2010 with more roads gradually being added.

    The payments made each calendar year, whether for the pensions or the road repairs, are the totals at the bottom of the column. These totals keep growing, even if each retiree gets the same amount each year, and even if each road costs the same amount to repair each year. Admittedly, using 100 for all amounts is unrealistic–this is done to keep the math simple–but regardless of what numbers are used, the sum of the payments each calendar year tends to rise.

    If we look at US government expenditures as a percentage of wages, the pattern is as we might expect: government spending rises significantly faster than wages.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5

    3. At least partly because of growing “promises,” it is very difficult for an economy to shrink in size without collapsing.

    We can think of many kinds of promises in addition to pensions and road repairs. One such promise is the promise by banks that they will allow depositors to withdraw funds held on deposit in the bank. Another kind of promise is the promise of debtors to repay debt with interest. All of these promises tend to grow in total quantity over time, at least in part because population grows.

    If an economy shrinks, all of these promises become very difficult to fulfill. This is the problem that Greece and other countries in financial difficulty are encountering. There is a need to reduce some program or to sell something so that the calendar year payments are not too high, relative to revenue for the year. These payments really represent a flow of goods and services to the individuals to whom the promises were made. “Printing money” does not really substitute for goods and services: pensioners expect that they will be able to buy food, medicine and housing with their pensions; those withdrawing money from a bank expect that the money will actually buy goods and services needed to live on.

    If there is a major problem with “making good” on promises, it is difficult to have an economy. It is hard to operate an economy without functioning bank accounts. Even cutting off pensions or road repairs becomes a problem.

    4. The over-arching problem as we reach diminishing returns is that workers become less and less efficient at producing desired end products.

    When an economy starts hitting diminishing returns, we find that the economy produces goods less and less efficiently. It takes more worker-hours and more resources of various kinds (for example, fracking sand and deep sea drilling equipment) to produce a barrel of oil, causing the cost of producing a barrel of oil to rise. Usually this trend is expressed as a rising cost of oil production:

    Figure 6

    Figure 6

    Looked at a different way, the number of barrels of oil produced per worker starts decreasing (Figure 7). It is as if the worker is becoming less efficient. His wages should be reduced, based on his new lack of productivity.

    Figure 7. Wages per worker in units of oil produced, corresponding to amounts shown in Figure 6.

    Figure 7. Wages per worker in units of oil produced, corresponding to amounts shown in Figure 6.

    There are many types of diminishing returns. They tend to lead to a smaller quantity of  end product per worker. For example, if the population of a country increases, but arable land stays the same, adding more and more farmers to a plot of arable land eventually leads to less food produced on average per farmer. (Some might say that each additional farmer adds less marginal production.) Similarly, mining ores of lower and lower concentration leads to a need to separate more and more waste material from the desired mineral, leading to less mineral production per worker.

    As another example, if a community finds itself short of fresh water, it may need to begin using desalination to produce water, instead of simply using relatively inexpensive wells. The result is a steep rise in the cost of water produced, not too different from the steep rise in the cost of oil in Figure 6. Viewed in terms of the amount of fresh water produced by each worker, the return per worker falls, as happens in Figure 7.

    If workers get paid for their work, the logical result of diminishing returns is that after a point, workers should get paid less, because what they are producing as an end product is diminishing in quantity. Workers may be making more intermediate products (such as desalination plants or fracking sand), but these are not the end products people want (such as fresh water, electricity, or oil).

    In some sense, fighting pollution leads to another form of diminishing returns with respect to human labor. In this case, increasing human effort and other resources are used to produce pollution control equipment and to produce workarounds, such as alternative higher-priced fuels. Again, wages per worker are expected to decline. This happens because, on average, each worker produces less of the desired end product, such as electricity.

    Admittedly, less pollution, such as less smog, is desired as well. However, if it is necessary to pay extra for this service, the effect is recessionary because workers must cut back on purchasing discretionary goods and services in order to have sufficient funds available to purchase the higher-priced electricity. Thus, fighting pollution using approaches that raise the price of end products is part of what slows the world’s economic growth pump.

    5. When civilizations collapsed in the past, a major cause was diminishing returns leading to declining wages for non-elite workers.

    We know how diminishing returns played out in a number of past civilizations based on the analysis conducted by Peter Turchin and Surgey Nefedov for their book Secular Cycles. They found that typically a period of rapid population growth took place after some change occurred that increased the total amount of food an economy could provide. Perhaps trees were cut down on a large plot of land, or irrigation was introduced, or a war led to the availability of land previously farmed by others. When the original small population encountered the newly available arable land, rapid growth became possible for a while–very often, for well over 100 years.

    At some point, the carrying capacity of the land was reached. Then the familiar problem of diminishing returns on human labor occurred: adding more farmers to the plot of land didn’t increase food production proportionately. Instead, the arable land needed to be subdivided into smaller plots to accommodate more farmers. Or the new farmers could only be “assistants,” without ownership of land, and received much lower wages, or went to work for the church, again at low wages. The net result was that at least part of the workers started receiving much lower wages.

    One contributing factor to collapses was the fact that required tax levels tended to grow over time. Some reasons for this growth in tax levels are described in Items (2) and (3) above. Furthermore, the pressure of growing population meant that groups needed access to more arable land–a problem that might be overcome by a larger army. Paying for such an army would require higher taxes. Joseph Tainter in The Collapse of Complex Societies writes about the problem of “growing complexity,” with rising population. This, too, might give rise to the need for more government services.

    Raising taxes became a problem when wages for much of the population were stagnating or falling because of diminishing returns. If taxes were raised too much, low-paid workers found themselves unable to buy enough food. In their weakened condition, they tended to succumb to epidemics. If taxes couldn’t be raised enough, governments had different problems, such as not being able to support a large enough army to fend off attacks by neighboring armies.

    6. The United States now has a problem with declining wages of non-elite workers, not too different from the problem experienced by civilizations that collapsed in the past.

    Figure 8 shows that on an inflation-adjusted basis, US Median Family Income has been falling in recent years. In fact, the latest value is between the 1996 and 1997 value. In a sense, this represents diminishing returns on human labor, just as has occurred with agricultural civilizations that collapsed.

    Figure 8

    Figure 8

    Wages have been falling to a much greater extent among young people in the United States. Figure 9 from a report by Dettling and Hsu in the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review shows that median wages have dropped dramatically since 1989, both for young people living with parents and for young people living independently. To make matters worse, the report also indicates that the share of young people living with parents has risen during the same period.

    Figure 9

    Figure 9

    In some sense, the loss of efficiency of the economy (or diminishing returns) outlined in Item 4 is making its way through to wages. The wages of young people are especially affected.

    7. Demand for goods and services comes from what workers can afford. If their wages are low, demand for goods of many kinds, including commodities, is likely to fall.

    There are many rich people in the world, but most of their wealth sits around in bank accounts, or in ownership of shares of stock, or in ownership of land, or in other kinds of investments. They use only a small share of their wealth to buy food, cars, and homes. Their wealth has relatively little impact on commodity prices. In contrast, the many non-elite workers in the world tend to spend a much larger share of their incomes on food, homes, and cars. When non-elite workers cut back on major purchases, it is likely to affect total purchases of goods like homes and cars. Other related goods, such as gasoline, home heating fuel, and the building of new roads, are likely to be affected as well.

    When the demand for finished goods falls, the demand for the commodities to produce these finished goods falls. Because of these issues, when the wages of non-elite workers fall, we should expect downward pressure on commodity prices. Commodity prices may fall back to a more affordable range, after they have spent several years at higher levels, as has happened recently.

    There is a common belief that as we approach limits, the price of oil and other commodities will spike. I doubt that this can happen for any extended period. Instead, the low wages of non-elite workers will tend to hold commodity prices down. Because of this issue, we should expect predominately low oil prices ahead, despite the continuing pressure of rising costs of production because of diminishing returns.

    The mismatch between the rising cost of commodity production and continued low commodity prices is likely to lead to a sharp drop in the supply of many types of commodities. Thus, the slowing operation of our economic growth “pump” is likely to lead to a situation where the production of commodities, including oil, falls because of low prices, not high prices. 

    8. What is needed to raise the productivity of workers is a rising quantity of energy to leverage human labor. Such energy supplies are affordable only if the price of energy products is very low.

    The amount a person can produce reflects a combination of his own labor and the resource he has to work with. If energy products are available, they act like energy slaves. With their assistance, humans can do things that they could not do otherwise–move goods long distances, quickly; operate machines (including computers) that can help a worker do tasks better and more quickly; and communicate long distance by means of the telephone or Internet. While technology plays a major role in making energy products useful, the ultimate benefit comes from the energy products themselves.

    We have been using a rising amount of energy products since our hunter-gatherer days (Figure 10). In fact, the use of energy products seems to distinguish humans from other animals.

    Figure 10

    Figure 10

    Clearly, cheaper is better when it comes to the affordability of energy products since available money goes further. If gasoline costs $5 per gallon, a worker with $100 can buy 20 gallons. If gasoline costs $2 per gallon, a worker with $100 can buy 50 gallons.

    In recent years, with the high prices of energy products, world growth in energy consumption has lagged. It should not be surprising that world economic growth seems to be lagging during the same period.

    Figure 11. Three year average growth rate in world energy consumption and in GDP. World energy consumption based on BP Review of World Energy, 2015 data; real GDP from USDA in 2010$.

    Figure 11. Three year average growth rate in world energy consumption and in GDP. World energy consumption based on BP Review of World Energy, 2015 data; real GDP from USDA in 2010$.

    In fact, Figure 11 seems to indicate that changes in energy consumption precede changes in world economic growth, strongly suggesting that growth in energy consumption is instrumental in raising economic growth. The recent steep drop in energy consumption suggests that the world is approaching another major recession, but this has not yet been recognized in international data.

    9. One way of describing our current problem is by saying that the economy cannot live with the high commodity prices we have been experiencing in recent years and is resetting to a lower level that is affordable. This reset is related to low net energy production. 

    If oil and other commodities could be produced more cheaply, they would be more affordable. We would not have the economic problems we have today. Energy use in Figure 11 could be rising more quickly, and that would help GDP grow faster. If GDP were growing faster, we would have more funds available for many purposes, including funding government programs, repaying debt with interest, and paying the wages of non-elite workers. We perhaps would not have the problem of falling wages of non-elite workers.

    The current “fad” for solving our energy problem is to mandate the use of intermittent renewables, such as wind and solar PV. A major problem with this approach is that such renewables make the cost of electricity production rise even faster, exacerbating our problems, instead of making them better.

    Figure 12 by Euan Mearns

    Figure 12 by Euan Means. Installed capacity is in Watts (W) per capita.

    To make matters worse:

    1. The way our economy works, energy flows in a given year (not on a net present value basis) are what are important, because this is the way we use energy to make goods such as foods, metals, and homes. The energy flows of renewables are very much front ended. Thus, the disparity in energy use on an energy flow basis is likely to be greater than reflected in Figure 12.
    2. What we really need from energy products is the ability to stimulate the economy in a way that adds tax revenue. Either the energy products must produce high tax revenue directly, or they must indirectly produce high tax revenue by stimulating demand for new cheaper goods, produced with the new inexpensive form of energy. This is what I think of as “adding net energy”. Wind and solar PV clearly do the opposite. Thus, they behave like “energy sinks,” rather than as products that add net energy.
    3. Modern renewables that are connected to the grid can be expected to stop working when the grid stops working. This may not be too far in the future because we need oil to operate the trucks and helicopters that maintain the electric grid. If this problem were considered in the pricing of electricity from wind and solar PV, their required prices would be higher.

    As I see it, one of the major roles of energy products is to support the growing overhead of our economy; this is what the discussion about the need for “net energy” is about. Thus, we need energy products that are cheap enough that they can be taxed heavily now, and still produce an adequate profit for those producing the energy products. If we find ourselves mostly with energy products that are producing cash flow losses for their producers, as seems to be the case today, this is an indication that we have a problem. We don’t have enough “net energy” to run our current economy.

    10. Debt and other paper assets are likely to “have a problem” as the economic growth pump falters and stops.

    Debt is absolutely essential to making an economy work because it allows businesses to “bring forward” future profits, so that they don’t have to accumulate a high level of savings prior to building a new factory or opening a new mine. Debt also allows potential buyers of expensive products such as homes, cars, and factories to pay for them on an affordable monthly payment plan. Because more buyers can afford finished goods with the use of debt, debt raises the demand for goods, and indirectly raises the prices of commodities. With these higher prices, a greater quantity of commodity extraction is encouraged.

    At some point, it becomes very difficult to support the very large amount of debt outstanding. In part, this happens because of the large accumulated amount of debt. Falling inflation-adjusted wages of rank and file workers add to the problem. In such a situation, interest rates need to be kept very low, or it becomes impossible to repay debt with interest. Even with continued low rates, defaults can eventually be expected.

    Once debt defaults begin, commodity prices are likely to drop even further. Such a drop is likely to lead to even more loan defaults, especially by commodity producers (such as oil companies) and commodity exporters. Prices of equities can be expected to drop as well, because the problems of the debt system will affect businesses of all kinds.

    Once debtors start defaulting, it will become very difficult to keep financial institutions from collapsing. International trade is likely to become a problem because financial institutions are needed to provide debt-based financial guarantees for long-distance transactions.

  • Biggest US Dark Pool Busted For Rigging Markets, Engaging In Precisely The Manipulation It Warned Against

    One year ago, in the first ever crack down on market manipulation and rigging in HFT-infested dark pools and ATS venues, the NY AG crushed Barclay’s dark pool LX with just one lawsuit alleging the bank had misrepresented and taken advantage of gullible clients to benefit well-paying HFT parasitic scalpers who not only have never “provided liquidity” but merely frontrun whale orders and completely shut down any time the market turns against the prevailing momentum wave, in the process crushing liquidity.

    Following the Barclays debacle, which confirmed not only what Michael Lewis had said earlier in 2014 about HFT manipulation, but everything we had said about HFT manipulation since 2009, the paid defenders of the HFT criminal syndicate scrambled to prove that it was “only” one bad sheep in a herd of well-meaning, tame and well-behaved liquidity providing animals.

    A year later, enough time had passed since the Barclays bust that the more gullible elements almost believed these paid defenders of market-rigging. Then the best laid plan of vacuum tubes and men went horribly wrong when at the end of July, none other than the original dark pool, ITG, was busted for using a prop trading silo to frontrun client order flow using an HFT architecture.

    Worse, as we revealed and as was confirmed later, the person behind this latest HFT manipulation charge was none other than Hitesh Mittal, the current head trader of mega quant fund AQR, the 4th largest in the world, whose boss Cliff Asness has over the years become one of the most vocal advocates of HFT. Now we know why.

    And then, earlier today, the WSJ reported that none other than the operator of the biggest dark pool in the US by volume, Credit Suisse and its massive Crossfinder dark pool, “is in talks with regulators to settle allegations of wrongdoing at its “dark pool” with a record fine in the high tens of millions of dollars, according to people familiar with the matter.”

    From the WSJ:

    The Swiss bank is negotiating a joint settlement with the New York Attorney General and the Securities and Exchange Commission. A deal could come as soon as the next several weeks, though talks could still fall apart, the people said. The settlement under discussion would lead to the largest fine ever levied against an operator of a private trading venue.

     

    The case against Credit Suisse includes allegations that it provided unfair advantages to some traders, violated rules against pricing of stocks and didn’t adequately disclose to investors how CrossFinder works, according to the people familiar with the matter.

    What is grotesque about this story is not that yet another dark pool has been found to cater solely to HFTs i.e., the best paying clients who will always get priority treatment by banks such as Credit Suisse and Barclays simply because that’s all they do: pay to frontrun others because in a market which is rigged to the core, HFT and dark pool manipulation is now the rule. What is grotesque, is that back in December 2012, it was none other than Credit Suisse which conveniently explained and laid out all those forms of HFT manipulation which we accused virtually every HFT firm of employing since 2009… and which Credit Suisse itself is now accused of engaging in!

    This is how Credit Suisse summarized all the predatory strategies of HFT algos in the market as of 2012:

    • Quote Stuffing: the HFT trader sends huge numbers of orders and cancels
    • Layering: multiple, large orders are placed passively with the goal of “pushing” the book away
       
    • Order Book Fade: lightning-fast reactions to news and order book pressure lead to disappearing liquidity
       
    • Momentum ignition: an HFT trader detects a large order targeting a percentage of volume, and front-runs it.

    And the punchline: Credit Suisse’s Advanced Execution Services (i.e., the group behind its dark pool) was putching itself as the one venue where trading participants are immune from such abuse. From “High Frequency Trading – Measurement, Detection and Response” (which can be found on the website of edge.credit-suisse.com with a cursory title-based google search):

    Dark pools using a synthetic EBBO (consolidated book) for their reference price are at higher risk of being gamed by quote stuffing. Exhibit 10 shows an example in Ashmore Group, where the Primary Bid and Ask (represented by the outer dark red and light blue lines at 356.2 and 355.7) are static, but the Chi-X bid moves (dark blue line). The consolidated EBBO shows a locked book, with the bid equal to the ask at 356.2.

     

    This scenario could be exploited in EBBO-referenced dark pools. A gamer could place a sell order in the pool with a 356.2 limit, then place (and rapidly cancel) a Chi-X bid, also at 356.2. Any buy order pegged to mid would trade at the temporary gamed “mid” of 356.2 (as the EBBO bid and offer are both temporarily 356.2), paying the whole spread rather than half.

     

    Crossfinder (Credit Suisse’s dark pool) does not use the EBBO, preferring to use primary-only data to help minimise the chance of midpoint gaming. Furthermore, when AES detects any quote stuffing, it may add extra protections across its orders (both lit and dark) to further reduce the risk of being gamed, more details of which are discussed later from page 7.

     

    * * *

     

    Dark-only flow traded through AES (e.g. in tactics such as Crossfinder+) can minimise the chance of being affected by ‘mid-point gaming’ with by withdrawing from certain venues, raising MAQs and using tighter limits. These protections will allow the midpoint to come towards the order – enabling the strategy to participate at a temporarily more favourable price – but restrict it from moving away. 

     

    If apparent gaming occurs consistently on a particular venue or with a particular counterparty in Crossfinder, the AES Alpha Scorecard will pick this up and highlight that venue or that counterparty as exhibiting excessive “opportunistic” behaviour. Credit Suisse’s clients then have the ability to decide whether to trade on those venues or against that group of counterparties.

     

    Flow that reaches Credit Suisse’s dark pool (Crossfinder) via aggregators does not receive such protections, as Crossfinder is simply an execution venue for this flow. When interacting through AES algorithms, these additional protections are available.

    Turns out they weren’t, and that anyone who believed the Credit Suisse reps and warrants was lied to, just like in Barclays’ case, and quite likely all those parasitic HFT strategies, quote stuffing, layering, orderbook fading and momentum ignition, Credit Suisse raged against were being used against CS’own clients.

    And, just like in Barclays case, these lies will now cost the Swiss bank tens of millions, or a fraction of the profits it made abusing its clients’ trust. 

    But the biggest question, just like in the Barclays case, is whether the bulk of its carbon-based clients – we know the HFTs will never leave – will depart the Crossfinder dark pool, and send the orderflow volume on the Credit Suisse market plunging, which like with LX, will start a self-fulfilling prophecy of dark pool collapse since once the key clients leave there is no reason for anyone else to stay.

    Finally, if this is what happens, who will be winner: upstart AEX, or Goldman Sachs, which as we reported recently is back in the HFT arena and as we reported in “Why Goldman Is About To Become The Biggest HFT Firm In The World“, is likely the firm that is ordering the regulatory hits on its biggest competitors until it takes them all down one by one, in a New Normal replica of how Goldman destroyed Lehman back in 2008.

  • 1997 Asian Currency Crisis Redux

    Submitted by Michael Lebowitz via 720Global.com,

    Second Verse, Same as the First, a Little Bit Louder and a Little Bit Worse

    China surprised the financial markets on August 11, 2015 by devaluing their currency, the Renminbi (CNY), the equivalent of 2% versus the U.S. Dollar (USD). This is the largest daily move in the CNY in over 10 years and likely the first in a series of devaluations by the Chinese government. Since 2014, the Chinese had pegged their currency to the strengthening USD and watched it appreciate against many of the world’s currencies just as the USD was doing. Over the past year for example, the USD and CNY appreciated 20%, 25% and 12% against the euro, yen and South Korean won respectively. It just so happens that these currencies are the ones used by 3 of Chinas largest trade partners. Thus, maintaining a peg to the USD eroded export growth as China’s products became more expensive for countries other than the U.S to import. Conversely, in China the rising CNY brought further deflationary pressure as goods imported from countries that use currencies other than the USD became less expensive. Now, in an effort to level the global trade playing field, China has decided that the economic harm produced by pegging to the dollar outweighs the benefits produced by a strong domestic currency.

    In December 2014 the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) warned of the growing risks associated with the global carry trade. They estimated that since 2000 the amount of such trades quadrupled in size to $9 trillion and grew 5.5x faster than global growth over the same period. The massive amount of these trades outstanding dwarfs anything seen in the past, leading the BIS to repeatedly warn of potential financial repercussions if these trades suddenly and simultaneously unwound. The Asian currency crisis of 1997, for instance, was greatly magnified due to the unwinding of an estimated $300-$500 billion of these types of carry trades.

    The carry trade that is so concerning to the BIS involves borrowing USD (typically on a leveraged basis) and investing those funds in a foreign country. This trade possesses all of the risks of a typical investment but it also layers on substantial currency risk as the borrower/investor must first convert the borrowed dollars to the currency of the country where the investment takes place. By default a USD short is created when the currency is converted.

    It is estimated that carry trades involving USD loans invested in China could represent a quarter to a third of the BIS estimated $9 trillion global carry trade. The popularity of this trade grew steadily since 2006 as strong Chinese economic growth and an appreciating CNY versus the USD made this trade lucrative on both the investment front but also from a currency perspective. The graph below shows the CNY appreciation from 2006-2013 (green arrow), the pegging of CNY to the USD in 2014-2015 (blue arrow) and last night’s 2% devaluation (circled yellow).

    As mentioned earlier this devaluation is likely not a one-time event but rather the beginning of an ongoing and persistent depreciation of the CNY versus the USD. The embedded USD short position within the carry trades will begin to result in losses and margin calls as the USD appreciates versus the CNY, thus forcing investors to liquidate some of their positions. These trades, which took years to amass, could unwind abruptly and exert an influence of historic magnitude on markets and economies.

    The Asian currency crisis of 1997 could prove to be a worthy example of the effects to be felt from a massive unwind of carry trades of this sort, albeit of a much lesser magnitude. Therefore, caution is urged and investorsshould prudently monitor their positions and risk tolerances. During the Asian crisis of 1997 and 1998 the following effects were felt:

    • South Korean Won declined 34% against the USD
    • Thai Baht declined 40% against the USD
    • South Korean Gross National Product (GNP) declined 34%
    • The USD index rose 13% versus a basket of other major world currencies
    • The S&P 500 fell 15% in 1997, rallied, and then dropped another 20% in 1998
    • The Japanese Nikkei index declined 36%
    • South Korean share prices declined 58%
    • The 30 year US bond yield fell from 7.0% to 4.2%
    • Crude oil prices declined 62%
    • The Asian crisis contributed to the Russian default in 1998. This in turn led to the collapse of Long Term Capital which required a $3.625 billion bailout organized by the Federal Reserve as well as a 1% reduction in the Federal Funds Rate to contain the fallout.

  • Nassim Taleb Explains The One Thing An Investor Should Never Fail To Do

    Authored by Nassim Taleb via Absolute Return,

    Uncertainty should not bother you. We may not be able to forecast when a bridge will break, but we can identify which ones are faulty and poorly built. We can assess vulnerability. And today the financial bridges across the world are very vulnerable. Politicians prescribe ever larger doses of pain killer in the form of financial bailouts, which consists in curing debt with debt, like curing an addiction with an addiction, that is to say it is not a cure. This cycle will end, like it always does, spectacularly.

    When it comes to investing in this environment, my colleague Mark Spitznagel articulated it well: investors are left with a simple choice between chasing stocks that have an increasing chance of a crash or missing out on continued policy effects in the short term. Incorporating a tail hedge minimizes the risk in the tail, allowing investors to remain invested over time without risking ruin. Spitznagel put together a video explaining the point.

     

    To be robust, one must construct a portfolio as an engineer would a bridge and ask what your managers expect to lose should the market fall by 10%. Then ask them again what they’d expect to lose in the down 20% scenario. If that second number is more than two times more painful emotionally than the first, your portfolio is fragile. To fix the problem, add components to your portfolio that make the portfolio stronger in a crash, like actively managed put options. You will be able to build stronger, better bridges, with better returns, that will last for the long term.

    By clipping the tail, you can own more risk, the good type of risk: upside with limited downside. And rather than helplessly watching your bridge collapse, you can be opportunistic in a crash, and take the pieces from others at bargain prices to increase the size of yours.

  • And the Renminbi Bloodletting Begins…

    By Chris at www.CapitalistExploits.at

    Last week at my son’s football game, a fellow parent remarked to me that bald heads are cool. I actually thought the guy may be off his rocker a bit, but then I figured that maybe he was trying to be nice as I’ve got more hair on my big toe than on my shaved head. Then realization struck….

    This guy was trying to comfort himself as he was trying unsuccessfully to cover his own balding pate.

    Hiding balding can drive men nuts. You can look like Donald Trump, though someone needs to tell him he looks completely ridiculous. With all the money in the world, it’s clearly not possible to get a decent looking rug, and then you’ve got to ask yourself the question, who on earth could be bothered with putting up with all the rigmarole of sticking the thing to your head all the time? And what happens when you dive in a swimming pool or venture out on a windy day?

    If rugs aren’t your thing you could shoot for a hair transplant and end up with something that looks like a seed tray in a high school science lab experiment. Or you can look like your mad uncle George – don a stripy cardigan and do the comb over.

    Let’s face it: all options at hiding it are outright terrible. There are therefore only two realistic solutions to the problem. One is to hide indoors and never come out, and the other is to reveal it, get a grip and get on with life.

    This brings me to China who have been using all means and measures to hide the true situation in their financial markets.

    Blowing through $800 billion in public and private money in an attempt to prop up their ailing stock market has produced a muted response. Based on public statements, media reports and market data, we know that Beijing has just blown through at least 5 trillion yuan. This is an unprecedented amount, equivalent to nearly 10 percent of China’s GDP, and a trillion more than they committed in response to the global financial crisis in 2008. All this to calm a stock market sell-off. I say “at least” since we don’t really know how much Beijing has done under the covers and the opacity in China is legendary.

    Reuters article described it well:

    While the market stabilised, with the Shanghai Composite Index SSEC recovering about 20 percent by Thursday’s close from a low point around 3,300 points struck on July 8, it is still below the semi-official recovery target of 4,500 points.

     

    Beijing has thus produced the equivalent of around 1 index point gain for every $1 billion committed.

    The selling pressure is clearly not of the garden variety. The problem is that the fundamentals don’t support the still lofty valuations.

    As interesting as the stock market is, our interest lies in the currency, something we’ve been writing about since late 2014. We believed that the big move was to be in the RMB and while every man and his dog was trumpeting the end of the dollar and the rise of the yuan we felt that, while this certainly was getting investors giddy, it was plain wrong.

    Back in December in an Brad was wondering about what China’s banking system was telling us?

    I’d like to share some important excerpts:

    The behavior of the interbank lending market can provide one with a good appreciation for the liquidity of the banking system as a whole. If there is a lot of liquidity in the system (more short term assets than liabilities) the interbank rate will fall, if there is scarcity of short term assets relative to liabilities then rates will rise. So a rising interbank rate is generally associated with contracting liquidity conditions. Rapid rises in interbank lending rates are often associated with banking or credit crisis. This happened in the lead up to the GFC.

    Brad dug in and looked at interbank lending markets for a host of emerging market currencies and showed how China’s HIBOR rate was going parabolic, indicating stress in this market.

    Fast forward till today and it’s no surprise to us that the PBOC has devalued.

    USDCNH

    “One Off Depreciation”

    This is what the PBOC have officially called it. Ha!

    An export driven economy with a rising currency in the midst of a global currency war has created a gigantic USD carry trade with its epicentre in the Middle Kingdom. Beijing needs a strong economy to support a strong currency and signs are everywhere that growth is falling.

    What many people don’t realise is the self-reinforcing nature of an unwinding carry trade. Each tick down in the cross rate between the funding currency (USD) and the funded currency (RMB) acts as reverse leverage and forces additional participants who are short USD to cover and buy back their USD positions.

    Just over 30 days ago when I suggested that the market was making a mistake in pricing volatility in the USD/CNH cross pair this allowed us a rare opportunity to position for a move either way for a stupidly cheap cost. While we’ve been bearish we actually had the ability to take on both positions for just 2.8% premium. I called it a gift…and it was.

    Buying both is what traders term a “straddle” but don’t get hung up on terminology. The point is that for a 2.8% premium (2.5% + 0.3%) we can hold both positions. We don’t much care which way it moves but simply that it MOVES!

    We may be looking at the last chance salon to putting on a short RMB trade before this gets out of control. When a central bank tells you it’s a “one off” event you may as well take that as a green light.

    – Chris

     

    “It’s hard to believe this will be a one-off adjustment. In a weak global economy, it will take a lot more than a 1.9 percent devaluation to jump-start sagging Chinese exports. That raises the distinct possibility of a new and increasingly destabilizing skirmish in the ever-widening global currency war. The race to the bottom just became a good deal more treacherous.” – Stephen Roach, former Chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia

  • How One Hedge Fund Is Betting Against The $1.2 Trillion Student Loan Bubble

    On Monday, we got some color on Hillary Clinton’s $350 billion plan to make college more affordable. Students and former students across the country owe more than $1.2 trillion in college loans, and as Bill Ackman so eloquently put it earlier this year, “there’s no way they’re going to pay it back.”

    The fact that America’s student loan bubble is the focus of what may well end up being one of Clinton’s most expensive policy proposals speaks volumes about the urgency of the problem. 

    Of course there are some other folks who understand how quickly the situation is deteriorating. Chief among them are Moody’s and Fitch and a few sell-side strategists who are having quite a bit of trouble figuring out how to incorporate the various IBR plans being promoted by the Obama administration into their ratings models.

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

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

      Here’s Bloomberg with more:

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

     

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

     

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

     


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

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

  • Manic Monday Becomes Turmoil Tuesday As China Rocks The Global Boat

    In honor of China's historic devaluation, today seemed like a two-clip day… For the Traders…

    and of course… for the news media after yesterday's celebrations…

     

    Ok, having got that off our chest we start with… USDCNH's collapse (utterly destroying carry traders as implying vol exploded) has continued after China's close…

     

    Is it any wonder that carry trades worldwide exploded?

    US equities roundtripped all of yesterday's gains… then bounced…

     

    Leaving only Nasdaq red on the week though…but they did try to ramp that too…

     

    Weighed down by AAPL..down 5% – worst since Jan 2014…

     

    Dow Death Crosses…

     

    VIX rollercoaster continues – VIX up 13% breaking above 14…

     

    With a late day slam in VIX to ramp the S&P perfectly to VWAP… NOTE the institutional selling at VWAP on each bounce…and the volume difference!!

     

    File these two charts under the WTF folder… Energy credit spiked to 1028bps and WTI crude collapsed to a $42 handle… so it makes perfect sense that energy stocks would surge…

     

    Because buying Energy stocks at 22.85x is definitely a great call as credit and crude collapse…

     

    Submerging markets collapse to 4 year lows…

     

     

    Treasury yields collapsed around 9bps across the complex… The 5Y, 7Y, 10Y, and 30Y all closed below their 200DMAs

     

    FX markets turmoiled… commodities currencies were monkey-hammered and EUR strengthened as the most popular CNH carry pair (which led to modest USD strength)..

     

    Commodities were mixed with PMs up and industrials/base down…

     

    Precious Metals appeared to get a nod that things were coming…

     

    Crude Carnaged to fresh 6 year lows today… with a $42 handle… increased OPEC production (Supply) along with China growth (Demand) fears

     

    And Copper closed at fresh 6 year lows…

     

    Finally – a message from your friendly CNBC correspondent: "Flat Is The New Up"

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Just As Brazil Hits Rock Bottom, Things Are About To Get Even Worse

    For anyone who might have missed it, Brazil is in trouble.

    The country is “at the center of a triple unwind of EM credit, China’s leverage, and US monetary easing” (to quote Morgan Stanley) and as Goldman recently pointed out, faces a stagflationary nightmare.

    Last quarter, Brazil suffered through the worst growth-inflation mix in over ten years. As Goldman put it, “since 1Q2004 there has not been a single quarter in which we had simultaneously higher inflation and lower growth than during 2Q2015.”

    And then there’s the twin deficit problem. Here’s Goldman again:

    Over the last 11.5 years, we cannot identify a month with a strictly-worse fiscal-CA deficit outcome than that of May-15 (lower left quadrant is empty). In fact, at 7.9% of GDP the fiscal deficit is now the widest it has ever been since Jan-04, and there were only a few months (5 out of 137 months in the sample) were the current account deficit was marginally wider than currently.


    Meanwhile, as we mentioned on Monday, Dilma Rousseff is now the most unpopular democratically elected president since a military dictatorship ended in 1985, with an approval rating of just 8%. In a recent poll, 71% said they disapprove of the way Rousseff is doing her job… and two-thirds would like to see her impeached. Here’s Bloomberg summing up the situation

    To be sure, the president faces a host of challenges this month, not least of which is a nationwide protest planned for Aug. 16.

     

    The country’s audit court also must decide whether the government broke the fiscal law by doctoring budget results last year. A ruling against the government could provide the legal foundation to start impeachment hearings, opposition lawmakers say. Her administration says previous presidents used the same practices.

     

    Investors are concerned that the political instability will push Brazil into a deeper recession and make it increasingly vulnerable to a sovereign-credit downgrade. The real has depreciated 8.1 percent in the last month, the biggest decline among 16 major currencies tracked by Bloomberg.

     


    Given all of this, just about the last thing Brazil needed was for China to officially enter the global currency wars, which is of course exactly what happened overnight. Our response:

    And the response from Brazil’s trade ministry (via Reuters):

    Brazil’s Trade Minister Armando Monteiro on Tuesday said China’s decision to devalue the yuan could hurt the country’s manufacturing exports. 

    So what lies ahead for Brazil given all of the above? Well, further BRL weakness – or at least according to Goldman. Here’s more:

    We are moving our BRL forecasts to show further downside – we expect $/BRL to reach 4.00 in 12 months (relative to 3.55 previously). A weaker BRL is part of a necessary adjustment to address the macro imbalances in Brazil; and the combination of a weak and increasingly back-loaded path of fiscal adjustment and a central bank that appears to be done with tightening policy for now suggests that the exchange rate is likely to bear more of the overall burden of absorbing the impact of the commodity price downdraft, restoring competitiveness and correcting the current account deficit. 

     

    Brazil stands at a crossroads – both roads involve currency depreciation. The combination of significant macro challenges (economic contraction, elevated inflation and large fiscal and current account deficits) and a deteriorating political and institutional backdrop means that Brazil stands at a pivotal crossroads. One road involves the risk of a further deterioration in the political backdrop morphing into a full-fledged governability and institutional crisis (potentially including the departure of key policymakers) and a further deterioration in investor (and rating agency) confidence, with an associated additional hit to an already contracting economy. The other road involves a potential stabilisation in the political picture, which in turn would provide the authorities with room to undertake necessary short- and medium-term fiscal consolidation measures, coupled with monetary easing further down the line. In either case, we think the BRL is likely to depreciate further because it is hard for us to see a route back to a more balanced set of macro outcomes in Brazil that do not involve currency weakness. Along the first road, the depreciation is likely to be sharper and disruptive, with scope for overshooting and an eventual rebound; the alternative scenario would likely involve a grinding, more controlled move, potentially encouraged by policymakers.

     

    Macro imbalances in Brazil are large, the worst in almost a decade…We have developed a simple scoring algorithm to assess the scale of internal (inflation relative to target) and external imbalances (current accounts relative to sustainable levels) and, as Exhibit 1 shows, in Brazil these imbalances are at their widest combined level in a decade. The fiscal deficit at -8.1% of GDP is also at its widest in more than 20 years, with the combined twin deficits now tracking at a disquieting 12.5% of GDP.

     

     

    Of course as we said late last month, the simple fact is that whether it’s China, runaway stagflation, or simple politician greed and corruption, Brazil has passed the recession phase and its economy is in absolute free fall and against a backdrop of an escalating currency war (which the country’s most important trading partner has just officially entered), unattainable fiscal targets, and protracted weakness in commodity prices, the path to stabilization and rebalancing is anything but clear, but what does seem virtually certain is that Brazil has a date with junk status in the not-so-distant future. 

    And on cue, just moments ago:

    • BRAZIL CUT TO Baa3 FROM Baa2 BY MOODY’S; OUTLOOK TO STABLE

    So that’s one step up from junk for Moody’s and one step from junk for S&P – it shouldn’t be long now, because no matter what Moody’s says, there isn’t anything “stable” about this situation.

    We suppose the only lingering questions are whether Rousseff will be impeached and whether economic decay, a dangerously unstable political situation, and problems of a more, shall we say, “putrid” nature, will conspire to make Rio a veritable ghost town for next summer’s Olympic games.

    Then again, this young lady doesn’t seem particularly concerned…

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 11, 2015

  • Don't Be Fooled By The Political Game: The Illusion Of Freedom In America

    Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “The shaping of the will of Congress and the choosing of the American president has become a privilege reserved to the country’s equestrian classes, a.k.a. the 20% of the population that holds 93% of the wealth, the happy few who run the corporations and the banks, own and operate the news and entertainment media, compose the laws and govern the universities, control the philanthropic foundations, the policy institutes, the casinos, and the sports arenas.”—Journalist Lewis Lapham

    Being a citizen in the American corporate state is much like playing against a stacked deck: you’re always going to lose.

    The game is rigged, and “we the people” keep getting dealt the same losing hand. Even so, most stay in the game, against all odds, trusting that their luck will change.

    The problem, of course, is that luck will not save us. As I make clear in my book, Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the people dealing the cards—the politicians, the corporations, the judges, the prosecutors, the police, the bureaucrats, the military, the media, etc.—have only one prevailing concern, and that is to maintain their power and control over the citizenry, while milking us of our money and possessions.

    It really doesn’t matter what you call them—Republicans, Democrats, the 1%, the elite, the controllers, the masterminds, the shadow government, the police state, the surveillance state, the military industrial complex—so long as you understand that while they are dealing the cards, the deck will always be stacked in their favor.

    Incredibly, no matter how many times we see this played out, Americans continue to naively buy into the idea that politics matter, as if there really were a difference between the Republicans and Democrats (there’s not).

    As if Barack Obama proved to be any different from George W. Bush (he has not). As if Hillary Clinton’s values are any different from Donald Trump’s (with both of them, money talks). As if when we elect a president, we’re getting someone who truly represents “we the people” rather than the corporate state (in fact, in the oligarchy that is the American police state, an elite group of wealthy donors is calling the shots).

    Politics is a game, a joke, a hustle, a con, a distraction, a spectacle, a sport, and for many devout Americans, a religion.

    In other words, it’s a sophisticated ruse aimed at keeping us divided and fighting over two parties whose priorities are exactly the same. It’s no secret that both parties support endless war, engage in out-of-control spending, ignore the citizenry’s basic rights, have no respect for the rule of law, are bought and paid for by Big Business, care most about their own power, and have a long record of expanding government and shrinking liberty.

    Most of all, both parties enjoy an intimate, incestuous history with each other and with the moneyed elite that rule this country. Don’t be fooled by the smear campaigns and name-calling. They’re just useful tactics of the psychology of hate that has been proven to engage voters and increase voter turnout while keeping us at each other’s throats.

    Despite the jabs the candidates volley at each other for the benefit of the cameras, they’re a relatively chummy bunch away from the spotlight, presenting each other with awards (remember when Jeb Bush presented Hillary Clinton with a Liberty Medal for her service to the country), attending each other’s weddings (Bill and Hillary had front-row seats for Trump’s 2005 wedding), and embracing with genuine affection.

    Trump’s various donations to the Clintons (he donated to Hillary’s Senate campaigns, as well as the Clinton Foundation) are not unusual. Remember, FOX News mogul Rupert Murdoch actually hosted a fundraiser for Hillary’s Senate reelection campaign back in 2006 and contributed to her presidential campaign two years later. In fact, FOX News has reportedly been one of Hillary’s biggest donors for the better part of two decades.

    Are you starting to get the picture? It doesn’t matter who wins the White House, because they all work for the same boss: Corporate America. In fact, many corporations actually hedge their bets on who will win the White House by splitting their donations between Democratic and Republican candidates.

    We’re in trouble, folks, and picking a new president won’t save us.

    We are living in a fantasy world carefully crafted to resemble a representative democracy. It used to be that the cogs, wheels and gear shifts in our government machinery worked to keep our republic running smoothly. However, without our fully realizing it, the mechanism has changed. Its purpose is no longer to keep our republic running smoothly. To the contrary, this particular contraption’s purpose is to keep the corporate police state in power. Its various parts are already a corrupt part of the whole.

    Just consider how insidious, incestuous and beholden to the corporate elite the various “parts” of the mechanism have become.

    Congress. Perhaps the most notorious offenders and most obvious culprits in the creation of the corporate-state, Congress has proven itself to be both inept and avaricious, oblivious champions of an authoritarian system that is systematically dismantling their constituents’ fundamental rights. Long before they’re elected, Congressmen are trained to dance to the tune of their wealthy benefactors, so much so that they spend two-thirds of their time in office raising money. As Reuters reports, “For many lawmakers, the daily routine in Washington involves fundraising as much as legislating. The culture of nonstop political campaigning shapes the rhythms of daily life in Congress, as well as the landscape around the Capitol. It also means that lawmakers often spend more time listening to the concerns of the wealthy than anyone else.”

     

    The President. With the 2016 presidential election shaping up to be the most expensive one in our nation’s history, with estimates as high as $10 billion, “the way is open for an orgy of spending by well-heeled interest groups and super rich individuals on both political sides.” Yet even after the votes have been counted and favors tallied, the work of buying and selling access to the White House is far from over. President Obama spends significant amounts of time hosting and attending fundraisers, having held more than 400 fundraising events over the course of his two terms in office. Such access comes with a steep price tag. It used to be that $100,000 got you an overnight stay at the White House. Now it will cost you $500,000 for four meetings a year with President Obama. Yet as Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig asks, “[H]ow does a man, as a person, run the nation when he’s attending 228 fundraisers? And the answer is not very well. It's pretty terrible for your ability to do your job. It's pretty terrible for your ability to be responsive to the American people, because—let me tell you—the American people are not attending 228 fundraisers. Those people are different.”

     

    The Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court—once the last refuge of justice, the one governmental body really capable of rolling back the slowly emerging tyranny enveloping America—has instead become the champion of the American police state, absolving government and corporate officials of their crimes while relentlessly punishing the average American for exercising his or her rights. Like the rest of the government, the Court has routinely prioritized profit, security, and convenience over the basic rights of the citizenry. Indeed, law professor Erwin Chemerinsky makes a compelling case that the Supreme Court, whose “justices have overwhelmingly come from positions of privilege,” almost unerringly throughout its history, sides with the wealthy, the privileged, and the powerful. For example, contrast the Court’s affirmation of the “free speech” rights of corporations and wealthy donors in McCutcheon v. FEC, which does away with established limits on the number of candidates an entity can support with campaign contributions, and Citizens United v. FEC with its tendency to deny those same rights to average Americans when government interests abound, and you’ll find a noticeable disparity.

     

    The Media. Of course, this triumvirate of total control would be completely ineffective without a propaganda machine provided by the world’s largest corporations. Besides shoving drivel down our throats at every possible moment, the so-called news agencies which are supposed to act as bulwarks against government propaganda have instead become the mouthpieces of the state. The pundits which pollute our airwaves are at best court jesters and at worst propagandists for the false reality created by the American government.

     

    The American People. “We the people” now belong to a permanent underclass in America. It doesn’t matter what you call us—chattel, slaves, worker bees, drones, it’s all the same—what matters is that we are expected to march in lockstep with and submit to the will of the state in all matters, public and private. Through our complicity in matters large and small, we have allowed an out-of-control corporate-state apparatus to take over every element of American society.

    Our failure to remain informed about what is taking place in our government, to know and exercise our rights, to vocally protest, to demand accountability on the part of our government representatives, and at a minimum to care about the plight of our fellow Americans has been our downfall.

    Now we find ourselves once again caught up in the spectacle of another presidential election, and once again the majority of Americans are acting as if this election will make a difference and bring about change—as if the new boss will be different from the old boss.

    When in doubt, just remember what comedian and astute commentator George Carlin had to say about the matter:

    The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls. They got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying. Lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want. They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests.

     

    They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork…. It’s a big club and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club. …The table is tilted, folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice…. Nobody seems to care. That’s what the owners count on…. It’s called the American Dream, 'cause you have to be asleep to believe it.

  • Trainwreck? US Freight Carloads Collapse, Flash Recession Warning

    Trainwreck? Rail traffic fell in July from a year ago as WSJ reports an increase in container volumes couldn’t offset a steep decline in oil and coal shipments according to the Association of American Railroads. Despite almost constant reassurance that plunging oil prices are 'unequivocally good" for America, AAR analysts warn "railroads are overexposed, relative to the economy in general, to the energy sector," adding that traffic data indiates "growth is slow and the recovery could be threatened by an interest-rate increase by the Fed."

    We have seen this kind of slide before…

     

    As The Wall Street Journal reports,

    Rail traffic fell in July from a year ago as an increase in container volumes couldn’t offset a steep decline in oil and coal shipments, the Association of American Railroads said in its monthly report Friday.

     

    The number of carloads carrying oil and petroleum products dropped 13.6% from a year ago to 67,909 last month, while coal volumes sank 12.5%. Container shipments rose 3.8% to 1.2 million. Traffic overall fell 1.8% to 2.7 million, the association said.

     

    Oil-train shipments have tumbled this year, hurt by plunging prices for crude and concerns about the safety of transporting petroleum by rail. That, plus declining demand for coal from power plants and overseas buyers, has hit railroad operators’ earnings.

     

     

    “Railroads are overexposed, relative to the economy in general, to the energy sector,” analysts with the AAR said in the traffic report.

    The intermodal transport of containers and trailers was a bright spot for the railroads in July, reflecting an expanding economy. Still, the AAR report cautioned that growth is slow and the recovery could be threatened by an interest-rate increase by the Federal Reserve, which is widely expected this fall.

  • China Enters Currency War – Devalues Yuan By Most On Record

    Chinese stocks are holding on to modest losses in the pre-open as, just as we have been warning, the PBOC weakens the Yuan fix by the most on record.

    As we first warned in March, and as became abundantly clear over the weekend when weaker than expected export data as well as the steepest decline in factory gate prices in six years underscored the extent to which the engine of global growth and trade has officially stalled, Beijing has no choice but to join the global currency wars, as the yuan’s dollar peg will ultimately prove to be too painful going forward. The renminbi has appreciated on a REER basis by double digits over the past 12 months, weighing heavily on already depressed exports. With multiple policy rate cuts having proven to be largely ineffective at resurrecting the flagging economy, the PBoC, despite the notion that this represents a “one-off”move, has been left with little choice. The bottom line: the danger posed by the country’s deepening economic slump now definitively outweighs the risk of accelerating capital outflows – especially after the latter moderated slightly in Q2.

    As we noted over the weekend, “one can repeat that the PBOC will have to lower rates again until one is blue in the face (even as out of control soaring pork prices make it virtually impossible for the local authorities to ease any more), the realty is that Chinese QE is now inevitable. Why? Because while the government is already clearly buying stocks thereby validating the “other” transmission mechanism, the only thing the PBOC still hasn’t tried is to devalue the yuan. As global trade continues to disintegrate, and as a desperate China finally joins the global currency war, it will have no choice but to devalued next.”

    Recall also what SocGen’s Albert Edwards said some five months ago

    We have long believed that China’s growth and deflation problems will necessitate a devaluation of the renminbi in a strong dollar environment. There is mounting evidence that this process may already be underway as the currency falls to a 28-month low against the dollar…

     

    In the current deflationary environment the Chinese authorities simply can no longer tolerate the continued appreciation of their real exchange rate caused by the dollar link. 

    The 1.9% devaluation sends the Yuan to its weakest since April 2013. Gold is leaking lower as the offshore Renminbi collapses by the most since Oct 2011.

    PBOC weakens Yuan fix by 1.9% – the most ever…

     

    Offshore Renminbi is plunging..

     

    Quite a shocking move, clearly aimed at regaining some competitiveness, one must wonder, given the lackluster response in stocks whether this will merely exacerbate capital outflows… though it does make one wonder who was buying yesterday ahead of the news…

     

    Given The IMF’s delay decision, it seems that PBOC has decided maintaining a stable FX rate in the face of collapsing stock market is no longer in its best interest. Although the spin is already out…

    • *PBOC SAYS YUAN EFFECTIVE FX RATE STRONGER THAN OTHER CURRENCIES
    • *PBOC SAYS TODAY’S YUAN FIXING IS ONE-OFF ADJUSTMENT
    • *CHINA TO KEEP YUAN STABLE AT REASONABLE, EQUILIBIRIUM LEVEL
    • *PBOC SAYS YUAN EXCHANGE RATE DEVIATED FROM MARKET EXPECTATION

     

    Officials say this is a one-off adjustment and we note that USDCNY has been trading 1t around 10 points cheap to the fix for 6 months.

    • *PBOC PROPOSES TO EXTEND CNY TRADING HOURS
    • *CHINA PBOC SAYS TO STRENGTHEN MARKET ROLE IN YUAN FIXING
    • *PBOC TO PROMOTE CONVERGED ONSHORE, OFFSHORE YUAN EXCHANGE RATE
    • *PBOC SAYS TO CONVERGE ONSHORE, OFFSHORE YUAN EXCHANGE RATES

    And the reaction in gold:

    *  *  *

    Full PBOC Q&A

    1.Why choosing the current time to improve quotation of the central parity of RMB against US dollar?

    Currently, the international economic and financial conditions are very complex. The U.S. economy is recovering and markets are expecting at least one interest rate hike by the FOMC this year. As such, the U.S. dollar is strengthening, while the Euro and Japanese Yen are weakening. Emerging market and commodities currencies are facing downward pressure, and we are seeing increasing volatilities in international capital flow. This complex situation is posing new challenges. As China is maintaining a relatively large trade surplus, RMB’s real effective exchange rate is relatively strong, which is not entirely consistent with market expectation. Therefore, it is a good time to improve quotation of the RMB central parity to make it more consistent with the needs of market development.

    Since the reform of the foreign exchange rate formation mechanism in 2005, the RMB central parity, which serves as the benchmark of China’s exchange rate, has played an important role in market expectation and stabilizing RMB exchange rate. Recently, however, the central parity of RMB has deviated from the market rate to a large extent and with a larger duration, which, to some extent, has undermined the market benchmark status and the authority of the central parity. Currently, the foreign exchange market is developing in a sound manner, and market participants are increasingly strengthening their pricing and risk management capacities. The market expectation of RMB exchange rate is diverging, and the preconditions for improving quotation of the RMB central parity are becoming mature. Improving the market makers’ quotation will help enhance the market-orientation of RMB central parity, enlarging the operation room of market rate and enabling the exchange rate to play a key role in adjusting foreign exchange demand and supply.

    2.Why did the central parity of RMB against US dollar of 11 August change by nearly 2% compared to that of 10 August?

    We noticed that the central parity of RMB against US dollar of 11 August changed(in the depreciation direction) by nearly 2% compared to that of 10 August. The following two factors may be relevent. First, after the improvement of the quotation of the RMB central parity, the market makers may quote by reference to the closing rate of the previous day and, therefore, the accumulated gap between the central parity and the market rate received a one-time correction. Second, a series of macro economic and financial data released recently made the market expectation diverge. Market makers paid more attention to the changes of market demand and supply. Compared with the closing rate of 6.2097 Yuan per dollar in the previous day, today’s central parity depreciated by about 200 bps. The market still needs some time to adapt. The PBC will monitor the market condition closely, stabilizing the market expectation and ensuring the improvement of the formation mechanism of the RMB central parity in an orderly manner.

    3.RMB exchange rate reform: what’s next?

    Next, the reform of RMB exchange rate formation mechanism will continued to be pushed forward with a market orientation. Market will play a bigger role in exchange rate determination to facilitate the balancing of international payments. Foreign exchange market development will be accelerated and foreign exchange products will be enriched. In addition, the PBC will push forward the opening-up of the foreign exchange market, extending FX trading hours, introducing qualified foreign institutions and promoting the formation of a single exchange rate in both on-shore and off-shore markets. Based on the developing condition of foreign exchange market and the macroeconomic and financial, the PBC will enhance the flexibility of RMB exchange rate in both directions and keep the exchange rate basically stable at an adaptive and equilibrium level, enabling the market rate to play its role environment, retiring from the routine FX intervention, and improving the managed floating exchange rate regime based on market demand and supply.

    Currently, under the complex international economic and financial condition, we are seeing increasingly large and volatile cross-border capital flow. As such, the PBC and SAFE will strengthen the examination of banks’ FX transactions according to relevant laws and regulations, adopt effective measures to fight money laundering, terrorist financing and tax evasion activities, and improve the monitoring of suspicious cross-border capital flow. The PBC and SAFE will severely punish illegal FX transactions, including underground banks, and maintain a compliant and orderly capital flow.

    *  *  *

    It is unclear what the potential losses for hedging/trading vehicles will be in the ‘most stable carry currency’ but as we noted in April 2014, TRF losses would be the 10s of billions… 

    The total size of the carry trade is hard to estimate although even just looking at some of the onshore CNY positions accumulated, DB Asia FX strategist Perry Kojodjojo estimates that corporate USD/CNY short positions are around $500bn. The size of the carry trade and the fact that China saw significant capital outflows during the last period of substantial Renminbi depreciation in the summer of 2012 has led to concerns over what this might mean for both the Chinese economy and financial markets as well as broader global financial implications.

    Morgan Stanley believes that one such carry-trade structured product that will be the “pressure point” for this – should the Yuan continue to depreciate – is the Target Redemption Forward (TRF) which has a payoff that looks as follows…

    While this is just an example of a product payoff matrix to the holder, the broader point is that the USD/CNH market has a particular level (or range of potential levels) at which three factors can create non-linear price action. These are:

     

    1. Losses on TRF products will (on average) crystallize if USD/CNH goes above a certain level. This has implications for holders of TRF products, who are mostly corporates;

     

    2. The hedging needs of writers of TRF products (banks) mean that there is a point of maximum vega for banks in USD/CNH. Below this level banks need to sell USD/CNH vol; above this level banks need to buy USD/CNH vol;

     

    3. The delta-hedging needs of banks are complex. As we approach the average strike (the 6.15 in the theoretical point of Exhibit 1), banks need to buy spot USD/CNH. Above this point but below the European Knock-in (EKI) (i.e., between 6.15 and 6.20 in Exhibit 1), banks need to sell spot. Then above the EKI, banks don’t need to do anything in spot.

    From internal Morgan Stanley data, we estimate that the point of maximum vega is somewhere in the range of 6.15-6.20, and that the 6.15-6.20 in Exhibit 1 is reasonably indicative of the average strikes and EKIs in the market.

     

    In other words, so long as the TRF products remain in place (i.e., are not closed out) and we remain below the maximum vega point (somewhere between 6.15 and 6.20), there is natural selling pressure by banks in USD/CNH vol. When we get above that level, there is natural vol buying pressure.

     

    Of course, in the scenario that USD/CNH keeps trading higher and goes above the average EKI level, the removal of spot selling flow by banks and the need to buy vol means the topside move may accelerate.

    Simply put, if the CNY keeps going (whether by PBOC hand or a break of the virtuous cycle above), then things get ugly fast…

    How Much Is at Stake?
    In their previous note, MS estimated that US$350 billion of TRF have been sold since the beginning of 2013. When we dig deeper, we think it is reasonable to assume that most of what was sold in 2013 has been knocked out (at the lower knock-outs), given the price action seen in 2013.

    Given that, and given what business we’ve done in 2014 calendar year to date, we think a reasonable estimate is that US$150 billion of product remains.

    Taking that as a base case, we can then estimate the size of potential losses to holders of these products if USD/CNH keeps trading higher.

     

    In round numbers, we estimate that for every 0.1 move in USD/CNH above the average EKI (which we have assumed here is 6.20), corporates will lose US$200 million a month. The real pain comes if USD/CNH stays above this level, as these losses will accrue every month until the contract expires. Given contracts are 24 months in tenor, this implies around US$4.8 billion in total losses for every 0.1 above the average EKI.

    Deutsche Bank concludes…

    Looking forward it’s possible that the PBOC is not attempting to actively engineer a sustained depreciation of the Renminbi but rather is attempting to increase the level of two-way volatility in the market to discourage the carry trade and also excessive capital inflows. In terms of the broad risk going forward the sheer scale of the challenge the PBOC has set out to tackle likely means they will have to move with restraint. This is certainly a story to watch…

    As Morgan Stanley warns however, this has much broader implications for China

    The potential for US$4.8 billion in losses for every 0.1 above the average EKI could have significant implications for corporate China in its own right, as could the need to post collateral on positions even if the EKI level is not breached.

     

    However, the real concern for corporate China is linked to broader credit issues. On that, it’s worth reiterating that the corporate sector in China is the most leveraged in the world. Further loss due to structured products would add further stress to corporates and potentially some of those might get funding from the shadow banking sector. Investment loss would weaken their balance sheets further and increase repayment risk of their debt.

     

    In this regard, it would potentially cause investors to become more concerned about trust products if any of these corporates get involved in borrowing through trust products. In this regard, this would raise concerns among investors, given that there is already significant risk of credit defaults to happen in 2014.

    Remember, as we noted previously, these potential losses are pure levered derivative losses… not some “well we are losing so let’s greatly rotate this bet to US equities” which means it has a real tightening impact on both collateral and liquidity around the world… yet again, as we noted previously, it appears the PBOC is trying to break the world’s most profitable and easy carry trade – which has created a massive real estate bubble in their nation (and that will have consequences).

    *  *  *

    As we noted then, and seems just as applicable now, The Bottom Line is the question of whether the PBOC’s engineering this CNY weakness is merely a strategy to increase volatility and thus deter carry-trade malevolence (in line with reform policies to tamp down bubbles) OR is it a more aggressive entry into the currency wars as China focuses on its trade (exports) and keeping the dream alive? (Or, one more thing, the former morphs into the latter as a vicious unwind ensues OR the market tests the PBOC’s willingness to break their momentum spirit).

    Finally, putting aside speculative trader P&L losses, many of which are said to be of Japanese origin and thus will hardly enjoy much or any PBOC sympathies, here is CLSA’s Russel Napier on what the long-term fate of the Renminbi will be:

    “Mercantilist alchemy transmutes China’s external surpluses into foreign exchange reserves and renminbi. But with capital outflows from China at record highs, those surpluses are only maintained due to its citizens’ foreign-currency borrowing. Bank-reserve and M2 growth are already near historical lows and are driving tighter monetary policy. This will lead to severe credit-quality issues and force the authorities to accept a credit crunch or opt for a major devaluation of the renminbi. They will do the latter; and despite five years of QE, the world will get deflation anyway.”

    One now wonders how the Bank of Japan and The Bank of Korea will respond.. especially as protectionism rears it ugly head also…

    • RTRS – CHINA TO RESUME 13 PCT VALUE ADDED TAX RATE ON FERTILISER IMPORTS AND SALES FROM SEPT 1 – GOVT

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • This Wasn't Supposed To Happen: Household Spending Expectations Crash

    One of the biggest drivers of the so-called recovery (in addition to the Fed’s $4.5 trillion balance sheet levitating te S&P500 and the offshore bank accounts of 1% of the US population) has been the US consumer: that tireless spending horse who through thick, thin, recession and depression is expected to take his entire paycheck, and then some tacking on a few extra dollars of debt, and spend it on worthless trinkets.

    Sure enough, for the past 8 years, said consumer has done just that and with the help of the endless hopium and Kool-Aid dispensed by the administration (who can forget Tim Geithner’s August 2010 op-ed “Welcome to the Recovery“), and by the political and financial propaganda media, spent, spent and then spent some more hoping that “this time it will be different.”

    This all came to a screeching halt earlier today when courtesy of the latest New York Fed Survey of Consumer Expectations, we learned that the US consumer has finally tapped out.  Households reported that they expected to increase their spending by just 3.5% in the next year, a major drop from the 4.3% the month before. This was the lowest reading in series history.

    Worse, when adjusting for household inflation expectations, which have been relatively flat if modestly declining around 3%, real spending intentions, when adjusted for inflation, just crashed to a barely positive 0.5%, down over 60% from the prior month. This too was the lowest print in series history.

     

    Think America’s poor have finally revolted, and refuse to spend any more? Think again: the biggest culprit in the collapse in spending intentions was the middle class (those making between $50 and $100K) but mostly the wealthy, those with incomes over $100K. It was the latter whose spending expectations dropped to, you guessed it, the lowest in series history.

    Needless to say, this was not supposed to happen.

    Worse, in an economy where 70% of the GDP is in the hands of consumer spending, a collapse in spending intentions to multi-year low levels means just one thing: recession.

    The only silver lining is that since the source of this data is the Fed itself, then Yellen will surely be aware of the dramatic shift taking place within the biggest drive of US economic growth. Which is why for all those wondering just what caused today’s market surge which was driven not by China’s collapsing economy, but by the realization that the Fed will not only not hike in September, but probably won’t hike in December, or ever, just look at the first chart above.

    Source: NY Fed

  • Escaping Serfdom

    Submitted by Jeff Thomas via InternationallMan.com,

    The concept of government is that the people grant to a small group of individuals the ability to establish and maintain controls over them. The inherent flaw in such a concept is that any government will invariably and continually expand upon its controls, resulting in the ever-diminishing freedom of those who granted them the power.

    When I was a schoolboy, I was taught that the feudal system of the Middle Ages consisted of serfs tilling small plots of land that belonged to a king or lord. The serfs lived a meagre life of bare subsistence and were subject to the tyranny of the king or lord whose men would ride into their village periodically and take most of the few coins the serfs had earned by their toil.

    The lesson I was meant to learn from this was that I should be grateful that, in the modern world, I live in a state of freedom from tyranny, and as an adult, I would pay only that level of tax that could be described as “fair”.

    Later in life, I was to learn that, in the actual feudal system, some land was owned by noblemen, some by common men. The commoners typically farmed their own land, whilst the noblemen parcelled out their land to farmers, in trade for a portion of the product of their labours.

    As a part of that bargain, the nobleman would pay for an army of professional soldiers to protect both the farms and the farmers. Significantly, unlike today, no farmer was required to defend the land himself, as it was not his.

    There was no exact standard as to what the noblemen would charge a farmer under this agreement, but the general standard was “one day’s labour in ten”.

    This was not an amount imposed or regulated by any government. The nobleman could charge as much as he wished; however, if he raised his rate significantly, he would find that the farmers would leave and move to another nobleman's farm. The 10% was, in essence, a rate that evolved over time through a free market.

    Modern Serfdom

    Today, of course, if most countries levied an income tax of a mere 10%, there would be dancing in the streets. And the days of one simple straightforward tax are long gone.

    Today, the average person may expect to pay property tax (even if he is a renter), sales tax, capital gains tax, value added tax, inheritance tax, and so on. The laundry list of taxes is so long and complex that it is no longer possible to compute what the total tax level actually is for anyone.

    And to this, we add the hidden tax of inflation. In the US, for example, the Federal Reserve has, over the last hundred years, devalued the dollar by 98%, a hefty tax indeed. And the US is not alone in this.

    Only 50 years ago, the average man might work a 40-hour week to support a wife who remained at home raising the children. He often had a mortgage on his home but might have it paid off in ten years. He paid cash for nearly everything else that he and his family owned or consumed.

    Today, both husband and wife generally must be employed full time. In spite of this, they can’t afford as many children as their parents could, and they generally remain in debt their entire lives, even after retirement. This is significant inflation by any measure.

    In contrast, in the Middle Ages, the cost of goods might remain the same throughout the entire lifetime of an individual.

    In light of the above, the 10% that was paid by the serfs is beginning to look very good indeed.

    However, the great majority of people in the First World are likely to say, “What can you do; it’s the same all over the world. You might as well get used to it.”

    Well, no, actually, it’s not. There are many governmental and economic systems out there and many are quite a bit more “serf friendly” than those in the major countries.

    No Serfdom

    Countries such as the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the Bahamas have no income tax. Further, some have no property tax, sales tax, capital gains tax, value added tax, inheritance tax, and so on.

    So how is this possible?

    The OECD countries state that it is largely accomplished through money laundering, but this is not the case. In fact, low-tax jurisdictions are known to have some of the most stringent banking laws in the world.

    The success of these jurisdictions is actually quite simple. Most of them are small. They have small populations and therefore need only a small government. Yet each jurisdiction can accommodate large numbers of investors from overseas. This results in a very high level of income per capita.

    But unlike large countries, the money that is deposited or invested there is overseas money, so it is not captive. Investors can transfer it out overnight if need be.

    So, even if the politicians are no better than those in larger countries (generally, they are of the same ilk), they’re aware that, like the noblemen of old, if they attempt to impose taxation, the business will dry up quickly.

    In fact, such a free market dictates that the jurisdictions keep on their toes and keep trying to outdo their competitors by being more investment friendly.

    Therefore, the politicians in these countries, who might be only too happy to promise entitlements to their constituents, then tax them to the hilt in order to pay for the entitlements, are kept restrained by their own system.

    Are there downsides to living in a low-tax jurisdiction? Yes.

    As most of them are small but require a very high standard of living in order to attract investors, they must import virtually all goods needed by residents. This means a higher cost of all goods, as compared to the cost in a country that produces such goods. However, the wage level is also higher, which tends to balance out the equation.

    But there are also upsides.

    Those who move to such a jurisdiction find that after the first year there (when the basics such as cars, televisions, etc., have been paid for), all further income that has been saved from taxation is beginning to get deposited in the bank.

    At some point, the deposit level becomes great enough that investment becomes advisable. And as low-tax jurisdictions tend to be naturally prosperous, there is generally no limit to the opportunities for investment within the jurisdiction.

    There is a further benefit to living in a low-tax jurisdiction that tends to become apparent over time. Any government that depends on major investments from overseas parties must, of necessity, be non-intrusive and non-invasive. Such a government stays out of people’s business, eschews electronic monitoring and most certainly is not given to SWAT teams crashing down doors for imagined wrongdoing.

    Benjamin Franklin famously said, “Nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”

    He was correct, but the level of tax can vary greatly from one country to the next. And just as important, the level of government intervention into the affairs of its citizenry varies considerably. In a country where the level of tax is low, the quality of life is generally correspondingly high.

    A thousand years ago, noblemen, from time to time, became overly confident in their ability to keep the serfs on the farmland and demanded taxes beyond the customary “one day’s labour in ten”. When they did, the serfs of old often voted with their feet and simply moved. Today, this is still possible.

    If the reader presently contributes more than one day’s labour in ten to his government, he may wish to consider voting with his feet.

    You can find out more about our favorite jurisdictions in our free documentary video. Click here to watch it now.

  • If You Are A Chinese TV Host, Do NOT Call Mao Zedong An "Old Son Of A Bitch"

    When China’s equity bubble burst and the SHCOMP tumbled unceremoniously back to earth on the back of a harrowing unwind in the half dozen or so backdoor margin lending channels that had served to pump CNY1 trillion into an already inflated stock market, Beijing went looking for scapegoats. The ensuing crackdown on “malicious” sellers and “hostile foreigners” as well as a directive to reporters to avoid using certain phrases such as “rescue the market” served as poignant reminders to the world that although China is indeed making small steps towards liberalizing its markets, outcomes deemed undesirable by the Politburo will be “corrected” – and right quick. 

    Similarly, when a viral documentary about the country’s pollution problem began making the rounds back in March, the government moved quickly to suppress discussion as FT reported that “propaganda authorities directed news outlets not to publish stories about Under the Dome, the emotional first-person documentary by a former state television anchor.”

    Given the above, and given everything we know about China’s propensity for censorship in all its forms, you can imagine that one thing you would not want to do in China if you were, say, “one of the most recognizable faces” on a state-run television station, is call Mao Zedong “an old son of a bitch,” but that’s exactly what Bi Fujian did back in April, and now Beijing’s media watchdog has “recommended” that Bi be “severely punished.” Here’s more from The Guardian:

    One of China’s best known television presenters is to face “severe punishment” after being caught on camera referring to his country’s Great Helmsman, Mao Zedong, as an “old son of a bitch”.

     

    As the host of “Star Boulevard” – a Britain’s Got Talent style variety show – Bi Fujian was one of the most recognisable faces on state broadcaster CCTV. 

     

    The 56-year-old had worked for the channel since 1989.

     

    However, Bi’s future at the channel was cast into doubt in April after he was filmed at a private dinner mocking Chairman Mao, who founded the People’s Republic of China in 1949 and ran it until his death in 1976.

     

    The video – which has been viewed more than 480,000 times on Youtube – shows Bi entertaining fellow diners with a rendition of a song from a Cultural Revolution era opera called Taking Tiger Mountain by Strategy.

     

    The television host peppers his table-side performance with a series of sarcastic asides about Mao, including: “Don’t mention that old son of a bitch – he tormented us!”


    While Bi and his dinner guests may have gotten a good laugh out of what looks to be a generally good natured joke, it’s “that old son of a bitch” that will likely have the posthumous last laugh, because the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television has deemed Bi’s behavior “a serious violation of political discipline” for which there is “zero tolerance.” Here’s The Guardian again: 

    News of Bi’s punishment was splashed onto the front pages of many Chinese websites on Sunday with readers weighing in on the episode with thousands of comments.

     

    “It is really pathetic and disgusting that after all these decades Mao is still a taboo,” wrote one. Another commented: “Bi should be seriously punished and expelled from the party for insulting Chairman Mao.”

    And even though Bi has already said he feels “extremely pained” about his behavior, we suspect, based on the State Administration’s comments on Monday, that the “pain” may just begun.

  • A Message From Generation Z: Thanks For Nothing

    Submitted by Lance Roberts via STA Wealth Management,

    This past weekend, I was reminded by my 9-year old son of the following passage in the Bible:

    "Out of the mouth of babies and infants, you have established strength because of your foes, to still the enemy and the avenger." – Psalm 8:2

    That verse has been shortened over time to become a colloquialism used when children have said something humorous in front of adults – "Out of the mouths of babes."

    It was on our drive to Bible study that my son asked for my phone to play a new song he liked. (Note: This is also the reason traditional "terrestrial" radio stations are dying a slow painful death. If it ain't "on demand" – it's dead.) After a moment of scrolling on a music download app, the following words begin to stream through the cabin:

    "We are the ones, the ones you left behind.
    Don't tell us how, tell us how to live our lives.
    Ten million strong we're breaking all the rules.
    Thank you for nothing, 'cause there's nothing left to lose."

    I was immediately struck by the lyrics and paused the song to ask my son if he understood the meaning of the lyrics. He replied simply – "no…but I like the song." 

    The song opened up the ability for my son and I to have an important dialog about the future of "Generation Z" (those born after 1995) and the challenges that they will have to face. More importantly, the reasons why "Generation Z'ers," those "10 million strong," feel like they have been "left behind" by the generations before them.

    What is interesting is that this was not a new song at all. In fact, the song debuted very quietly in 2013 by a band called MKTO (Misfit Kids and Total Outcasts) which was founded by two real life friends Tony Oller (21) and Malcolm Kelly (20). According to an interview with with Celebuzz the duo stated:

    "We wanted to have a song that described our views of our generation, and to describe how we feel about being in the circumstances we are in, thanks to previous generations making mistakes."

    However, it is not surprising that two twenty-somethings may be feeling the way they do. Let's take a look at some of the issues that they are growing up with.

    Job Growth

    As I have discussed often, the structural shift in employment, has had a negative impact on both total employment and particularly that of Generation Z. Currently, the number of individual working full time, between the ages of 16 and 24, has only seen a modest recovery since the end of the financial crisis.

    Employed-16-24-081015

    However, the story is substantially worse as the majority of those jobs were taken by immigrant workers. As recently discussed by the Center For Immigration Studies:

    "It's frustratingly common: The mainstream media discusses a social problem obviously impacted by immigration — overcrowding, low wages, increasing poverty, etc. — but assiduously avoids any mention of immigration."

    Native-Summer-Employment-july-12

    The importance of youth employment is extremely critical to that generation. As the CIS explains:

    "The decline in youth employment is a serious problem that deserves a serious examination. After all, a number of studies have found that the lack of early labor market experience can have a significant negative impact on employment and wages later in life."

    Student Debt

    The next problem is the mountain of personal debt weighing on both the Millennial and Z generations. As shown in the chart below, over the last 6-years student debt has skyrocketed.

    Student-Loans-081015

    The problem, as discussed previously, is not all student loans went to higher educations. Student loans are sources of cheap and easy capital to support spending requirements. The WSJ confirmed the same:

    "The Education Department's inspector general warned last month that the rise of online education has led more students to borrow excessively for personal expenses.

     

    The report also found the schools disbursed an average of $5,285 in loans each to more than 42,000 students who didn't log any credits at the time."

    The problem, of course, is that only about 1/3 of those that enroll in college actually graduate. This leaves a large number of individuals heavily debt burdened without the college degree needed to obtain a higher wage level to support the debt. Its a vicious cycle that now weighs on a large group of the younger generation and negatively impacts future consumption trends in the economy.

    Government Debt

    Of course, it isn't just consumers that have over borrowed to the point that it now negatively impacts economic growth. Since 2009, the government itself has went on an unprecedented spending binge that has doubled the amount of Federal Debt outstanding.

    GDP-Debt-Ratio-081015

    The problem, as shown, is that increases in the debt/GDP ratio has a long-term negative consequence to economic growth. Rising debt levels detract revenue obtained through taxation into the service of debt rather than reinvestment back into the economy via infrastructure development and other revenue positive projects. Such investments create jobs and increase production that supports stronger levels of consumption which comprises more than 2/3rds of economic growth.

    Unfortunately, with debt currently capped at the debt-ceiling limit, the prospects of stronger GDP growth in the next decade is likely to remain just as elusive as it has been over the last.

    Wage Growth

    Of course, the problem for both Millenials and Generation Z is that lower rates of economic growth are directly correlated to lower rates of wage growth. As shown below the correlation between the two is extremely high.

    Wage-GDP-Growth-081015

    Given the structural shift in employment, the impact of immigration and the continued burden of excessive debt on the individual, the trends of both economic and wage growth are unlikely to change anytime soon.

    Economic Growth

    The problem for Generation Z is not a transient one. As shown in the final chart below, the generations following the "baby boomers" have very little to be excited about. With the lowest average economic growth cycle currently in progress, there is little ability to "grow" out of the current debt problem.

    GDP-Annual-Growth-81015

    While Central Banks globally intervened to offset the impact of the financial crisis, they also impeded the "reset" process from occurring to clear the excesses built up in the financial and economic system. Furthermore, the inflation of asset prices simply created a burgeoning "wealth gap" which has largely bypassed the 90% of Americans that have little or no invested assets.

    The up and coming generations have plenty to blame on the "baby boomer" generation and the scores of bad fiscal and monetary policy decisions that has robbed them of their future. The job of each generation is to leave the world in a better place than they found it. It is clear, we failed.

     "Thank you for feeding us years of lies.
    Thank you for the wars you left us to fight.
    Thank you for the world you ruined overnight.
    But we'll be fine, yeah we'll be fine."

    However, for now, let the music play.

  • New Study Exposes The "Dark Side" Of ETFs

    Ever since we heard that some of the largest ETF issuers were lining up emergency liquidity lines to tap in the event all the retail money that’s piled into things like HY debt suddenly decides to head for the exits, we’ve gone out of our way to explain just why it is that the likes of Vanguard would consider paying out redemptions with borrowed money as opposed to selling the underlying assets. 

    The problem is that in the context of the post-crisis regulatory regime, banks are no longer willing to hold large inventories of securities and so, when a bond fund manager facing large outflows tries to transact in size, he or she will likely be confronted with an extremely thin secondary market. Rather than risk dumping a large amount of assets into a market with few buyers and thus facilitating a fire sale atmosphere, fund managers are considering paying out investors who sell with borrowed cash and selling off the underlying assets slowly as the market permits. 

    ETFs and other portfolio products mask this problem as long as flows are diversifiable. That is, if fund manager A is experiencing outflows, that’s ok as long as portfolio manager B is seeing inflows. However, once flows become unidirectional (i.e. everyone is selling), then managers will need to go and sell the underlying assets and that, in today’s market, is a big problem. Thus, ETFs give the illusion of liquidity – that is, investors assume there’s no problem because they can trade in and out easily, but should the flows suddenly all head in the same direction everyone will quickly discover that, as Howard Marks put it, an ETF “can’t be more liquid than the underlying.”

    Amusingly, a new academic study from researchers at Stanford, UCLA, and the Arison School of Business in Israel suggests that ETFs themselves are contributing to a lack of liquidity for the stocks they hold. Essentially, the argument is that increased ETF ownership leads to wider bid-asks, less analyst coverage, and higher correlations with broad market moves.

    Specifically, the hypotheses the researchers tested were: “1) An increase in ETF ownership is associated with higher trading costs for the underlying component securities, and 2) An increase in ETF ownership is associated with a deterioration in the pricing efficiency of the underlying securities.”

    On the first hypothesis, the authors looked at “the relation between ETF ownership and two proxies of liquidity that capture trading costs: (1) bid-ask spreads, and (2) price impact of trades.” On the second, they looked at “the extent to which stock prices reflect firm-specific information.” 

    The results: 

    We first demonstrate that an increase in ETF ownership is associated with an increase in firms’ trading costs. This is consistent with the idea of uninformed traders exiting the market of the underlying security in favor of the ETF. As uninformed traders exit and trading costs rise, we posit that pricing efficiency will decline. Consistent with this prediction, we find that higher levels of ETF ownership are associated with an increase in stock return synchronicity and a reduction in future earnings response coefficients. We also observe a negative association between ETF ownership and the number of analysts covering the firm. Collectively, the evidence presented in this paper suggests increased ETF ownership can lead to weaker information environments for the underlying firms. 

    And here’s WSJ summarizing:

    ETFs divert many individual and institutional investors from trading directly in certain stocks. And that means fewer opportunities for professional traders to profit from trading those stocks. Ownership of U.S. stocks by ETFs has grown from 0.1% of shares outstanding in 2000 to 7% in 2014, according to the paper.

     

    The diminished profit potential leads to less competition for shares among traders, and that, in turn drives up the cost of trading the shares for everyone, as measured by the so-called bid-ask spread, the authors say. This spread is the difference between the price a stock can be sold at on the market and the (higher) price it can be bought for at any given moment.

     

    The bid-ask spread is 6% wider on average when a big chunk of a company’s shares—more than 3% of the shares outstanding—is held by ETFs, compared with the spread when a stock has lower or no ownership by ETFs, the study found. 

     

    Wider bid-ask spreads not only increase the costs of trading, they also further reduce profit potential for traders. That gives traders less incentive to bid for stocks in anticipation of future earnings increases at the issuing companies. So stocks become less responsive to projected earnings, the report says.

     

    There also is less financial incentive for analysts to provide company-specific analysis for stocks with less profit potential. The study found that the number of analysts covering a stock falls as ETF ownership of the company increases. 

     

    Finally, less company-specific analysis also means that a greater proportion of a stock’s price moves are likely to be driven by industrywide or general market movements.

    Obviously, some of this is self-evident, but the important thing to note is that this looks to be still more evidence of a wholesale shift away from trading underlying asset classes in favor of trading derivatives.

    And while we might be able to distinguish between those who are intentionally avoiding the underlying markets due to perceived illiquidty (i.e. fund managers trading portfolio products to meet redemptions and satisfy inflows and traders resorting to futures to avoid illiquid cash Treasury markets) and those who are simply not trading the underlying because trading the alternative is easier (i.e. retail investors opting for ETFs over invdividual stocks because they don’t feel they have the “sophistication” to trade the individual names) the effect is the same: the market for the underlying assets becomes ever more illiquid. 

    Etf Paper

  • The Assault On Donald Trump Shows That The "2 Party System" Is Really A "1 Party System"

    Submitted by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

    Were you sickened by the Republican debate the other night? The hype leading up to the debate was unbelievable. Never before had there been so much interest in a debate this early in an election season, and it turned out to be the most watched program on Fox News ever. A record-shattering 24 million Americans tuned in, and what they witnessed was an expertly orchestrated assault on Donald Trump. From the very first moments, every question that was launched at Trump was an “attack question”. And then the laughable “focus group” that followed was specifically designed to show that “ordinary people” were “changing their minds” about Trump. By the end of the evening, it was abundantly clear that Fox News had purposely intended to try to destroy Trump’s candidacy.

    And of course Fox News is far from alone. Every mainstream news outlet in the entire country is running anti-Trump news stories every single day. Virtually every other presidential candidate in both parties is attacking him, and virtually every “political expert” from across the political spectrum is trashing his chances of success.

    So why is this happening?

    Normally, candidates that are not part of the “establishment” do not pose much of a threat. In order to win elections in this country, especially on a national level, you need name recognition and you need lots and lots of money.

    Donald Trump has both, and no matter what you may think of him you have to admit that he has star power.

    And he was never supposed to run for president. You see, the truth is that only members of “the club” are allowed to play. The elite very carefully groom their candidates, and they are usually able to maintain a very tight grip on both major political parties.

    This two-headed abomination that we call a “two party system” is in reality just a one party system. Yes, many Democrats and many Republicans really do hate one another, but at the end of the day there is very little difference between the two parties. That is why nothing ever really seems to change no matter who gets elected. George W. Bush continued almost all of Bill Clinton’s policies, and Barack Obama has continued almost all of George W. Bush’s policies. When they are running for office, they tell us what they think we want to hear, but once they get to D.C. they do exactly what the establishment wants them to do.

    Donald Trump, whether you love him or you hate him, is a threat to this system. He is not controlled by the elite, and he does and says all sorts of things that drive the elite absolutely nuts.

    If he was polling below 5 percent that wouldn’t be a problem. At first, the mainstream media attempted to portray him as a joke that would never get any real support.  But since then, Trump has proven that he is a serious candidate with some very serious ideas about how to fix this country.  Now that he is receiving far, far more support than the establishment choice (Jeb Bush), he must be destroyed.

    I can promise you right now that the Republican establishment will pull out every dirty trick in the book to keep Donald Trump from getting the Republican nomination.

    And if Donald Trump runs as an independent, the elite will move heaven and earth to keep him out of the White House.

    This isn’t even just about Trump.  If Ben Carson starts getting too much support, he will be destroyed too. This is how presidential elections in America work.

    What we witnessed during the Fox News debate the other night was not an accident. The goal was to make Jeb Bush look good and to make Donald Trump look bad. The following comes from Mike Adams

    But the one thing that really stood out was the total fraud of what Fox News pulled off. It was clear from the first five minutes that Fox News had pre-arranged softball questions for Jeb Bush to highlight his “heroic actions” and accomplishments. Meanwhile, the kinds of questions directed to Donald Trump were all thinly veiled accusations and insults, designed to attack Trump on issues that had nothing to do with running the country.

     

    The typical questions went something like this: (paraphrased)

     

    Fox News: “Jeb Bush, how did you get to be such an amazing leader?”

     

    Fox News: “Donald Trump, why do you hate women?”

     

    As if a debate with totally contrived questions wasn’t enough, Fox News also had a pre-arranged assembly of apparently “ordinary citizens” who were asked, after the debate, how many of them now hated Donald Trump.

    And even when “the debate” was over, the assault continued. If you have not seen the disgraceful “focus group interview” which Frank Luntz orchestrated, you can check it out below…

    I just about fell out of my chair when I saw that.

    Virtually everyone in the “focus group” that Frank Luntz put together supposedly had a positive view of Donald Trump before the debate, and then almost every single one of them supposedly become Trump haters during the course of the two hour debate.

    I am sure that they were hoping that everybody in the viewing public would “come to their senses” and become Jeb Bush supporters.

    But of course post-debate polling shows that is not happening at all.

    The Drudge Report conducted a flash poll immediately following the debate, and a whopping 44.67 percent of those that responded said that Trump won the debate.

    Ted Cruz was in second place with 14.31 percent.

    Jeb Bush got a measly 2.07 percent.

    A Newsmax survey came up with similar results…

    • Donald Trump: 38 percent
    • Ted Cruz: 15.5 percent
    • Neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson: 10.2 percent
    • Florida Sen. Marco Rubio: 9.7 percent
    • Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul: 9.3 percent
    • Ohio Gov. John Kasich: 4.9 percent
    • Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: 4.5 percent
    • Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: 3.5 percent
    • Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush: 2.5 percent
    • New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: 1.4 percent

    And a survey conducted by Time Magazine also produced similar findings. Donald Trump got 47 percent, Ben Carson was in second place with 11 percent, and Jeb Bush got 4 percent.

    But Donald Trump is not going to be the Republican nominee.

    Unless something goes horribly, horribly wrong for the Republican establishment, Jeb Bush is going to be the nominee.

    We have a system that is deeply, deeply broken and that does not reflect the will of the people.

    This was illustrated by one of the questions that Trump was asked during the debate

    BAIER: Mr. Trump, it’s not just your past support for single-payer health care. You’ve also supported a host of other liberal policies….You’ve also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton included, and Nancy Pelosi. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business-related favors. And you said recently, quote, “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”

     

    TRUMP: You’d better believe it.

     

    BAIER: — they do?

     

    TRUMP: If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage I’ve given to, just so you understand, a lot of money.

     

    TRUMP: I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people, before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me. And that’s a broken system.

    The really amazing thing is that nobody up on that stage disputed that what Trump was saying was true.

    It is very well understood by our politicians that when they get big checks from the elite for their campaigns that certain things are expected from them in return.

    Our government does not reflect the will of the people and it hasn’t for a very long time.

    Instead, it reflects the will of the elite, and the American people are getting sick and tired of it.

    Right now, surveys show that Donald Trump has far more support than any other Republican candidate.

    But he is not going to be the Republican nominee. The Republican establishment will make sure of that.

    There is still the possibility that Trump could run as an independent. That would be an extremely tough road, but on Sunday he sounded very open to the possibility

    The political hurricane that is Donald Trump didn’t recede over the weekend, even in the face of a rising tide of criticism from Republican rivals about his attack on Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly.

     

    Instead, the celebrity billionaire insisted in a string of interviews on Sunday TV shows that he had done nothing wrong, that “only a deviant” would interpret his words in an offensive way, and that he is leaving open the possibility of running an independent campaign for the White House if the GOP doesn’t treat him “fairly.”

     

    “I do have leverage and I like having leverage,” Trump declared on CBS’ Face the Nation on a morning that also included interviews with ABC’s This Week, CNN’s State of the Union and NBC’s Meet the Press.

    This is a scenario that I discussed in my previous article entitled “Republican Operatives Plot To Sabotage Trump – But That Could Turn Him Into Their Worst Nightmare“.  Personally, I believe that Donald Trump will decide to run as an independent when it becomes clear to him that the Republican establishment is going to prevent him from winning the nomination at all costs.

    But I could be wrong.

  • Why China Can't Unleash Major Stimulus (In 3 Simple Charts)

    It appears – according to the narrative assigned by the mainstream media – that any weakness in asset prices should be bought because China will inevitably have to unleash pure QE (as opposed to the modestly watered down version currently underway) or some combination of RRR cuts. This is 'western' thinking as the go to policy of the rest of the world's central banks has been – put on pants, print money, paper over cracks, proclaim victory. However, in China there is one big problem with this… stoking inflation… and most crucially the social unrest concerns when suddenly a nation of newly minted equity losers can no longer afford their pork (which is facing record shortages)

     

    As SocGen notes, the infamous pork cycle is heating up again

    Pork prices in the CPI basket have risen 17.4% since May and were up 16.7% yoy in July, which accounted for half of the headline CPI reading of 1.6% yoy.

     

     

    The current cycle is similar to the previous two disruptive cycles in terms of supply shortages[ZH – but considerably worse!!!]

     

     

    Pork prices will probably keep rising and push CPI above 2% yoy in the coming months, but the chance of CPI going much beyond 3% is limited in our view.

     

    Nevertheless, this inflation outlook is still likely to restrain the central bank’s scope for policy rate cuts.

     

     

    So, as SocGen concludes, judging from recent activity data, the economy is still under immense downward pressure. Furthermore, supply-driven inflation is by nature deflationary, as higher pork prices can squeeze other consumption in the absence of any acceleration in income growth.

     

    Therefore, fiscal policy has to step up, and monetary policy is likely to play an assisting role by providing targeted liquidity. It seems that the focus at the moment is on the indirect channels of policy bank funding support to infrastructure investment.

    * * *
    In other words, do not expect some broad based liquidity infusion (RRR cuts or QE) – policy reaction, just as we have seen in the stock market manipulation, will be piecemeal and focused.

  • The US Economy Continues Its Collapse

    Submitted by Paul Craig Roberts,

    Do you remember when real reporters existed? Those were the days before the Clinton regime concentrated the media into a few hands and turned the media into a Ministry of Propaganda, a tool of Big Brother. The false reality in which Americans live extends into economic life. Last Friday’s employment report was a continuation of a long string of bad news spun into good news. The media repeats two numbers as if they mean something—the monthly payroll jobs gains and the unemployment rate—and ignores the numbers that show the continuing multi-year decline in employment opportunities while the economy is allegedly recovering.

    The so-called recovery is based on the U.3 measure of the unemployment rate. This measure does not include any unemployed person who has become discouraged from the inability to find a job and has not looked for a job in four weeks. The U.3 measure of unemployment only includes the still hopeful who think they will find a job.

    The government has a second official measure of unemployment, U.6. This measure, seldom reported, includes among the unemployed those who have been discouraged for less than one year. This official measure is double the 5.3% U.3 measure. What does it mean that the unemployment rate is over 10% after six years of alleged economic recovery?

    In 1994 the Clinton regime stopped counting long-term discouraged workers as unemployed. Clinton wanted his economy to look better than Reagan’s, so he ceased counting the long-term discouraged workers that were part of Reagan’s unemployment rate. John Williams (shadowstats.com) continues to measure the long-term discouraged with the official methodology of that time, and when these unemployed are included, the US rate of unemployment as of July 2015 is 23%, several times higher than during the recession with which Fed chairman Paul Volcker greeted the Reagan presidency.

    An unemployment rate of 23% gives economic recovery a new meaning. It has been eighty-five years since the Great Depression, and the US economy is in economic recovery with an unemployment rate close to that of the Great Depression.

    The labor force participation rate has declined over the “recovery” that allegedly began in June 2009 and continues today. This is highly unusual. Normally, as an economy recovers jobs rebound, and people flock into the labor force. Based on what he was told by his economic advisors, President Obama attributed the decline in the participation rate to baby boomers taking retirement. In actual fact, over the so-called recovery, job growth has been primarily among those 55 years of age and older. For example, all of the July payroll jobs gains were accounted for by those 55 and older. Those Americans of prime working age (25 to 54 years old) lost 131,000 jobs in July.

    Over the previous year (July 2014 — July 2015), those in the age group 55 and older gained 1,554,000 jobs. Youth, 16-18 and 20-24, lost 887,000 and 489,000 jobs.

    Today there are 4,000,000 fewer jobs for Americans aged 25 to 54 than in December 2007. From 2009 to 2013, Americans in this age group were down 6,000,000 jobs. Those years of alleged economic recovery apparently bypassed Americans of prime working age.

    As of July 2015, the US has 27,265,000 people with part-time jobs, of whom 6,300,000 or 23% are working part-time because they cannot find full time jobs. There are 7,124,000 Americans who hold multiple part-time jobs in order to make ends meet, an increase of 337,000 from a year ago.

    The young cannot form households on the basis of part-time jobs, but retirees take these jobs in order to provide the missing income on their savings from the Federal Reserve’s zero interest rate policy, which is keyed toward supporting the balance sheets of a handful of giant banks, whose executives control the US Treasury and Federal Reserve. With so many manufacturing and tradable professional skill jobs, such as software engineering, offshored to China and India, professional careers are disappearing in the US.

    The most lucrative jobs in America involve running Wall Street scams, lobbying for private interest groups, for which former members of the House, Senate, and executive branch are preferred, and producing schemes for the enrichment of think-tank donors, which, masquerading as public policy, can become law.

    The claimed payroll jobs for July are in the usual categories familiar to us month after month year after year. They are domestic service jobs—waitresses and bartenders, retail clerks, transportation, warehousing, finance and insurance, health care and social assistance. Nothing to export in order to pay for massive imports. With scant growth in real median family incomes, as savings are drawn down and credit used up, even the sales part of the economy will falter.

    Clearly, this is not an economy that has a future.

    But you would never know that from listening to the financial media or reading the New York Times business section or the Wall Street Journal.

    When I was a Wall Street Journal editor, the deplorable condition of the US economy would have been front page news.

  • Mapping The "Not Donald Trump"-ness Of GOP Candidates

    Ever aware of the potential for change, GOP Presidential candidates face a tough balance currently. As The Washington Post explains, should Trump's 'burn-it-down' aggression ever cross one too many lines, around 20% of Republicans will be looking for someone else to support – someone who didn't think they were a total idiot for supporting Trump in the first place. Based on their responses and statements, WaPo has quantified the "Trumpness Factor" for each of the GOP candidates…

     

     

    An important note on these rankings… expect them to change…

    Read more here…

     

    Source: The Washnigton Post

  • Inside The Swiss Franc LIBOR Rate Rigging Chatroom: 6 Years Of Manipulation

    One of the nice things about the multitude of lawsuits and settlements surrounding the concerted effort by Wall Street’s largest banks to manipulate the world’s most important benchmark rates is they’ve produced a litany of hilarious chat transcripts that include such gems as “mess this up and sleep with one eye open at night” and the always popular, “if you ain’t cheatin, you ain’t tryin.

    Now, courtesy of the appendix attached to the latest LIBOR-related suit brought against Wall Street (and one hedge fund), we bring you six years of Swiss franc LIBOR manipulation presented in chronological order. Highlights here include:

    • It is our natural right to reflect our interest in the libor fixing process”
    • “Can’t you ask your fft to contribute 1m chf libor very low today? I have 10yr of fix, 8 of which against ubs and they’re getting on my nerves.”
    • “yes, ok mate, I am heading out for a run, enjoy, talk tom, get those fixings down”
    • “whoooooohooooooo 0.01%? that’d be awesome”

    Bluecrest Lawsuit 2

  • All The S&P 500 Support And Resistance Levels That Matter

    Given today’s extremely technical trading, we thought it appropriate to lay out exactly where the next stop hunts (up and down) will be…

     

     

    Trade Accordingly…

     

    Source: BofAML

  • Google Renames Itself "Alphabet", Stock Soars

    It’s long been difficult to catalogue everything that Google does, and apparently Google couldn’t keep up with anymore either because the company has unveiled a somewhat bizarre restructuring effort that will see “Google” become a wholly-owned subsidiary of a new holding company called “Alphabet.”

    Google directors will become Alphabet directors, Larry Page will be the holding company’s CEO, and Page’s deputy Sundar Pichai will now be CEO of Google. Alphabet will replace Google as the publicly traded entity, Google shares will become Alphabet shares, but the tickers will remain as is – or something. Here’s Bloomberg trying to put it in perspective

    Google is adopting this structure in order to make clearer the difference between its main business and longer-term endeavors, as Page and Brin take on more strategic roles, while leaving operational management to trusted deputies.

    Of course in today’s market, all news is good news even if it’s almost impossible to digest and evaluate, or maybe traders presume the move will be somehow “tax advantaged”, but whatever the case, the stock is soaring in AH trading.

    Here’s the full statement from Google.. err.. Alphabet:

    Google Announces Plans for New Operating Structure

    August 10, 2015

    G is for Google.

    As Sergey and I wrote in the original founders letter 11 years ago, “Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one.” As part of that, we also said that you could expect us to make “smaller bets in areas that might seem very speculative or even strange when compared to our current businesses.” From the start, we’ve always strived to do more, and to do important and meaningful things with the resources we have.

    We did a lot of things that seemed crazy at the time. Many of those crazy things now have over a billion users, like Google Maps, YouTube, Chrome, and Android. And we haven’t stopped there. We are still trying to do things other people think are crazy but we are super excited about.

    We’ve long believed that over time companies tend to get comfortable doing the same thing, just making incremental changes. But in the technology industry, where revolutionary ideas drive the next big growth areas, you need to be a bit uncomfortable to stay relevant.

    Our company is operating well today, but we think we can make it cleaner and more accountable. So we are creating a new company, called Alphabet. I am really excited to be running Alphabet as CEO with help from my capable partner, Sergey, as President.

    What is Alphabet? Alphabet is mostly a collection of companies. The largest of which, of course, is Google. This newer Google is a bit slimmed down, with the companies that are pretty far afield of our main internet products contained in Alphabet instead. What do we mean by far afield? Good examples are our health efforts: Life Sciences (that works on the glucose-sensing contact lens), and Calico (focused on longevity). Fundamentally, we believe this allows us more management scale, as we can run things independently that aren’t very related.

    Alphabet is about businesses prospering through strong leaders and independence. In general, our model is to have a strong CEO who runs each business, with Sergey and me in service to them as needed. We will rigorously handle capital allocation and work to make sure each business is executing well. We’ll also make sure we have a great CEO for each business, and we’ll determine their compensation. In addition, with this new structure we plan to implement segment reporting for our Q4 results, where Google financials will be provided separately than those for the rest of Alphabet businesses as a whole.

    This new structure will allow us to keep tremendous focus on the extraordinary opportunities we have inside of Google. A key part of this is Sundar Pichai. Sundar has been saying the things I would have said (and sometimes better!) for quite some time now, and I’ve been tremendously enjoying our work together. He has really stepped up since October of last year, when he took on product and engineering responsibility for our internet businesses. Sergey and I have been super excited about his progress and dedication to the company. And it is clear to us and our board that it is time for Sundar to be CEO of Google. I feel very fortunate to have someone as talented as he is to run the slightly slimmed down Google and this frees up time for me to continue to scale our aspirations. I have been spending quite a bit of time with Sundar, helping him and the company in any way I can, and I will of course continue to do that. Google itself is also making all sorts of new products, and I know Sundar will always be focused on innovation—continuing to stretch boundaries. I know he deeply cares that we can continue to make big strides on our core mission to organize the world’s information. Recent launches like Google Photos and Google Now using machine learning are amazing progress. Google also has some services that are run with their own identity, like YouTube. Susan is doing a great job as CEO, running a strong brand and driving incredible growth.

    Sergey and I are seriously in the business of starting new things. Alphabet will also include our X lab, which incubates new efforts like Wing, our drone delivery effort. We are also stoked about growing our investment arms, Ventures and Capital, as part of this new structure.

    Alphabet Inc. will replace Google Inc. as the publicly-traded entity and all shares of Google will automatically convert into the same number of shares of Alphabet, with all of the same rights. Google will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alphabet. Our two classes of shares will continue to trade on Nasdaq as GOOGL and GOOG.

    For Sergey and me this is a very exciting new chapter in the life of Google—the birth of Alphabet. We liked the name Alphabet because it means a collection of letters that represent language, one of humanity’s most important innovations, and is the core of how we index with Google search! We also like that it means alpha?bet (Alpha is investment return above benchmark), which we strive for! I should add that we are not intending for this to be a big consumer brand with related products—the whole point is that Alphabet companies should have independence and develop their own brands.

    We are excited about…

    • Getting more ambitious things done.
    • Taking the long-term view.
    • Empowering great entrepreneurs and companies to flourish.
    • Investing at the scale of the opportunities and resources we see.
    • Improving the transparency and oversight of what we’re doing.
    • Making Google even better through greater focus.
    • And hopefully… as a result of all this, improving the lives of as many people as we can.
    • What could be better? No wonder we are excited to get to work with everyone in the Alphabet family. Don’t worry, we’re still getting used to the name too!

  • Towards A State Of Near Chaos…

    Submitted by James H. Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

    Yes, there is such a thing as “the public,” a term that derives from the ancient Latin, populous (the people), via publicus (of the people), via old French, public — pertaining generally to the mass of adults dwelling in a polity, a society under (political) governance. In the USA, government is vested as a republic, also from the Latin, res publica, meaning the public thing, the vessel that contains the public.

    I present these terms to clarify how our society is cracking up. The American public, we the people, lately swoon into a morass of multi-dimensional failure: failure to control their economic lives, to regulate their appetites and their bodies, to understand what is happening to them, to fend off the propaganda and distractions that disable them, and to properly express and direct their wrath at those elements of the polity who deserve it.

    True, their awful, epic failures at this moment in history are largely engineered and aggravated by those who have captured the polity and turned it into a looting and racketeering engine. The net result, though, is a self-reinforcing circle of degradation that rots the collective ethos of the public while it destroys the vessel of the republic that contains it.

    Societies that act as though they are hostage to these forces of degradation are able to pretend that they are helpless in the face of them; that the public bears no responsibility for its own choices or for the disintegration of the polity they live under. Hence, the current condition of the American public and its disgraceful government.

    It’s not difficult to understand how Donald Trump becomes the instrument for the public’s wrath. Whatever his checkered career in land development amounts to, he is at least a freely-functioning and unfettered actor in the political arena. The public enjoys most of all his assertion of independence from the tremendous engine of grift that the republic has become. His arrant contempt for his rivals, and for the disgusting political process erected for the election contest, also thrills a big wad of the public. So far, his actual ideas for governing lack coherence, except for the rather general notion that uncontrolled immigration, and all the mendacious fakery associated with it, is a bad thing for the republic. Beyond that he offers only blustering claims that he is “very smart,” an “artist of deal-making,” a “patriot.”

    Almost nothing so far can knock him down or take him out. Fox News tried in last week’s “debate” — which was not a debate at all, really, but a half-assed interrogation — by trying to set the female half of the public against him for his nasty remarks about women over the years. Of course, the dirty secret of both politics and the media is that the common backstage chatter among pols and TV news producers is every bit as vulgar and hateful as anything Trump said. In case you haven’t noticed, all of America has turned into a verbal sewer, especially the virtual public realm of television. I don’t remember anyone complaining about the comportment of the characters in Tony Soprano’s Badda-Bing Lounge. In fact, awards were heaped on the depiction of that behavior. That’s who we are now.

    The rise and persistence of Trump raises a more pertinent question: why are all the other candidates such obvious shills for the implacable engine of grift that is destroying the Republic? Why has nobody with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, called bullshit on the basic operations of the machine? Why have no other persons of real stature stepped forward to challenge the suicidal dynamic of the age?

    There are many cycles in history, politics, and economics. One in particular afflicts the American public today: we’re at a cycle low for comprehending what is happening to us. Sometimes societies know very well what is going on and communicate it superbly. Such was the case in the late 1700s when American leaders filed divorce from Great Britain. Can you imagine any of the clowns onstage for the Fox News “debate” playing a role in writing the Federalist Papers? Obviously, the public and its putative representatives today don’t have a clue what is happening. And then, necessarily, they don’t have a clue what to do about it.

    The foregoing assumes that they are honorable persons, though, which may not be the case. This is the chief gripe against Hillary Clinton, of course: that she is an unprincipled monster of ambition and little more. That would be my take on her, for instance. Among the Republicans (as in party) only Rand Paul stands out as not appearing to be some kind of puppet shilling for the grift machine. After all, the party is the very embodiment of that machine. And by trying to play nicely in its arena, Rand Paul may lack the fortitude to attack it.

    I’m with those who think that the 2016 election campaign is going to be a wild spectacle beyond the current imaginings of news media. I’m serenely convinced that, among other things, the banking system is going to implode so hard and fast well before the nominating conventions that the nation will be in a state of near chaos. What’s out there now is just a tired dumb-show replaying the shopworn themes of an era that is about to slam to a close.

  • Stocks Volumelessly Surge On Biggest Short Squeeze Of The Year

    Today was very reminiscent of last Wednesday's NO REASON meltup… and that did not work out so well… So this seemed appropriate

     

    Today was the biggest short squeeze of 2015…

     

    No volume – you hear that!!

     

    Stocks did what stocks do – because as Bob Pisani said "a rally was overdue" – S&P 500 pushed back above its 50- and 100-DMA having bounced off the 200DMA on Friday…Nasdaq surges off 50DMA…

     

    The S&P 500 retraced all of last week's losses today…

     

    Because… AAPL…? Best day since January

     

    Small Caps – Russell 2000 – made it back above its 200DMA at 1221…but then fell back…

     

    Today's surge in The Dow managed to stave off the death cross and avoided the 8th day in a row of losses which would have stumped Pisani…NOTE: a close below 17850 tomorrow will trigger a death cross

     

    VIX was managed down to close to a 11 handle once again…

     

    Credit markets were not playing along fully…

     

    With energy credit risk surging well above 1000bps…but energy stocks don't care today.!!

     

    As the energy sector outperformed…

     

    Treasury yields bled higher from the early morning… biggest yield spike in a month… very notable steepening today…

     

    The dollar was monkey-hammered as Lockhart forgot to say "September" – biggest drop in 2 weeks… notice swissy weakness early which sponsored the equity rally in the US for a while…

     

    And Goldman notes we posted a bearish key reversal on Friday…

     

    Commodities surged with Copper and Crude jumping and gold and silver surging on hopes of China QE… or PBOC buying rumors… or algos gone manic…

     

    Crude's chaos today…

     

    Don't get too excited in Copper as Goldman warns this is abunce in a downtrend…

     

    Silver had its best day in 3 months… Gold's best day in 2 months…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • EPA Admits Spilling Millions Of Gallons Of Toxic Waste Into Colorado River – Stunning Aerial Footage

    By John Vibes via TheAntiMedia.org,

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal organization in charge of fining and arresting people and companies for damage done to the environment, spilled over a million gallons of toxic waste into the Animas river in Colorado this week. The waste came from an abandoned mining operation and turned the entire river a disgusting shade of bright orange.

    The EPA admitted earlier this week that the spill occurred while workers from the agency were using heavy machinery to open the Gold King Mine, an operation that was shut down some time ago. While trying to enter the mine, the machines busted a shaft that was filled with wastewater, creating a leak into the river.

    At first, the EPA attempted to downplay the spill and act like there was nothing wrong, but they were heavily criticized for those initial statements.

    Dave Ostrander, the EPA’s regional director told reporters in a later statement that “It’s hard being on the other side of this.”

    “We are very sorry for what happened. This is a huge tragedy. It’s hard being on the other side of this. Typically we respond to emergencies; we don’t cause them. … It’s something we sincerely regret,” he said.

    However, some people are not willing to let the EPA off that easily, even some politicians have rightly pointed out that the EPA should be treated in the same way that any company or private individual would be treated if they poisoned the river.

    U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton, who is from the area where the spill occurred said the EPA must pay for their mistake.

    “If a mining operator or other private business caused the spill to occur, the EPA would be all over them. The EPA admits fault and, as such, must be accountable and held to the same standard,” Tipton said.

    In a statement released this Thursday, Taylor McKinnon, of the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity, said that

    Endangered species downstream of this spill are already afflicted by same toxic compounds like mercury and selenium that may be in this waste.  Taylor McKinnon, of the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement Thursday. “These species are hanging by a thread, and every new bit of toxic exposure makes a bad situation worse. EPA’s downplaying of potential impacts is troubling and raises deeper questions about the thoroughness of its mine-reclamation efforts.”

    Aerial footage below:

    The EPA actually has no concern for the environment, they just happen to use the environment as a cover story to create laws and gain an advantage for the companies that lobbied for exemptions to the agency’s regulations, and to collect money in fines. There are solutions outside the common government paradigm, and that is mainly the ability for individuals, not governments, to hold polluters personally and financially accountable.

  • Artist's Impression Of The Next GOP Debate

    “When work is punished” bread, meet Presidential Campaign ‘circus’…

     

     

    Source: Townhall.com

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 10, 2015

  • Gunmen Attack US Consulate In Turkey After Explosion Kills Three

    Just as the Ferguson night turned violent, again, and at least two people were struck by gunfire during the latest riot to “commemorate” the death of Michael Brown, reports of violence came from another part in the world, Turkey where moments ago CNN Turk reported that two attackers, a man and a woman, opened fire on the U.S. consulate building in Turkey’s biggest city, Istanbul, on Monday and fled when police shot back.

    The Cihan news agency said those involved in the attack on the building in Istanbul’s Sariyer district included one man and one woman.  CNN Turk said there were no casualties.

    Al Jazeera has more:

    A gun attack targeted the US Consulate in Istanbul leading to an exchange of fire between assailants and security personnel, according to local media reports.

    The reports said that one attacker was male and the other one was female, adding that the police was searching for the suspects.

    Turkey has been in a heightened state of alert since it launched what officials described as a “synchronized war on terror” last month, including air strikes against Islamic State fighters in Syria and Kurdish militants in northern Iraq, and the detention of hundreds of suspects at home.

    U.S. diplomatic missions have been targeted in Turkey in the past.

    The far-leftist Revolutionary People’s Liberation Army-Front (DHKP-C), whose members are among those detained in recent weeks, claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing at the U.S. embassy in Ankara in 2013 which killed a Turkish security guard.

    This follows more local violence when a bomb attack at an Istanbul police station early on Monday morning killed three people and injured at least 10, the Dogan news agency said on Monday. Istanbul police headquarters confirmed in a statement that three police officers and seven civilians were wounded in the blast, but gave no death toll.

    The attack targeted the police station in Istanbul’s Sultanbeyli neighbourhood early on Monday morning and caused a fire that collapsed part of the three-storey building, the agency reported. The explosion also damaged neighbouring buildings and around 20 cars parked nearby, the private Dogan news agency reported.

    One of the police officers injured in the explosion is reportedly in critical condition.

    Al Jazeera’s Bernard Smith, reporting from Istanbul, said the blast struck at about 1am local time on Monday morning. “The neighbourhood is right on the outside edge of Istanbul in what could be called a ‘conservative’ area, way away from the central part of the city,” he said.

    He said that there was no immediate claim for the attack, which comes at a time of a sharp spike in violence between Turkey’s security forces and fighters from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK.

    The attacks also come at a time when Turkey is taking a more active role against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) fighters.

    In fact, as described in detail in “We Have A Civil War”: Inside Turkey’s Descent Into Political, Social, And Economic Chaos, things in the country located at the nexus between Europe and Asia are about to get a whole lot worse:

    Deflecting criticism surrounding Ankara’s anti-terror air campaign, Turkey’s foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu last week told state television that strikes against ISIS targets would pick up once the US had its resources in place at Incirlik which will supposedly serve as a hub for a new “comprehensive battle.”

    As of yesterday, the next phase in Turkey’s NATO-blessed war against the PKK ISIS is about to unfold when yesterday six F-16 jets and about 300 personnel arrived in Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, the U.S. military said, after Ankara agreed last month to allow American planes to launch air strikes against Islamic State militants from there.

    Prepare for much more violence, both real and false flagged, out of Turkey as the “war of Syrian invasion and Qatari gas pipeline liberation” unwinds with increasingly faster speed.

  • CouNT TRuMPuLa…

    GOP TRUMPULA

    Beware of wigs dressed as sheeple…

     

    .
    TRUMP ON SNOWDEN

     

    Sadly, he is no different from the rest of the statist shithead pack when it comes to a real issue.

  • Goldman Hires Former Head Of NATO To Deal With DONG Scandal

    Back in January 2014, we reported that Goldman’s merchant banking unit rushed to buy an 18% in Denmark’s DONG Energy (that would be Danish Oil & Natural Gas) company for $1.5 billion. The result was an immediate grassroots resistance campaign, as hundreds of thousands of Danes refused to hand over their DONG to the vampire squid for various reasons, not the least of which was granting Goldman veto rights over changes to DONG’s leadership and strategy, a right usually reserved for buyers of 33% of an entity. A bigger reason for the Danish anger at the Goldman DONG deal, was that as The Local reported a few months later, the sale “did not include a massive deal that both parties knew was imminent, shortchanging the company’s value by as much as 20 billion kroner.”

    Which was to be expected: as we further said in January 2014, “if Goldman is involved, it guarantees future benefits for the Vampire Squid”. Sure enough:

    Denmark lost out on billions of kroner when it sold partial ownership of Dong Energy to American investment firm Goldman Sachs in January 2014, Politiken reported Wednesday.

     

    When the Danish government sold an 18 percent stake of Dong to Goldman Sachs, the Finance Ministry calculated the company’s value at 31.5 billion kroner ($4.6 billion).

     

    But just three months later, Dong was granted the rights to instal a massive offshore wind park supported by the United Kingdom. According to Politiken, that deal shot Dong’s value up to over 50 billion kroner but was not calculated into the Goldman Sachs sale despite both Dong and the investment firm being fully aware of it.

     

    Politiken also reports that the looming deal was common knowledge throughout the wind industry. 

    As a result, the locals were less than delighted to learn the details of yet another Goldman pillaging of taxpayers, one which allowed Goldman to make a substantial return on its investment in just months courtesy of what was information which the government either did not have access to, or simply refused to notice.

    Bloomberg further reports that “the Goldman deal left an indelible mark on Danish politics. Disagreement over the Wall Street bank’s investment in state assets prompted a junior party in the former Social Democrat-led administration to quit the coalition in protest. Danes gathered in their thousands in front of the parliament to protest against the sale.”

    Indeed, the deal caused a rift in the former Social Democrat-led coalition, culminating in the departure of a junior member, the Socialist People’s Party. The government of Helle Thorning-Schmidt that oversaw the Goldman deal was ousted in the June 2014 elections, paving the way for a Liberal government led by Lars Loekke Rasmussen. He served as finance minister under Fogh Rasmussen and was also prime minister from 2009 until 2011.

    Fast forward over a year, and a shaken Denmark still refuses to let Goldman fully off the hook when recently the government decided to let lawmakers see secret documents on Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s purchase of the 18% stake in DONG. However, as Goldman reports, this glimpse into the fine details of the Goldman decision making process will probably be a one-off. To wit: “The government says it’s making an exception in the case of Goldman’s 2014 investment in Dong Energy A/S after lawmakers on a committee overseeing the sale complained they weren’t given full access to the relevant files. Bjarne Corydon, who was finance minister at the time, said the information contained in the transaction papers was too sensitive even for the parliament committee.

    Almost as “sensitive” as when Goldman’s former employee and then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson tried to pass an open-ended “three-page termsheet”bailout of, well, Goldman Sachs through Congress in 2008… and ultimately succeeded.

    But while Goldman’s domination of all legislative matters in the US is well known and nobody will dare to make much of a fuss over it, in Denmark things are different.

    Finance Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen said this month he will release the documents more than a year after the transaction went through as lawmakers continue to argue over the deal. Goldman and PFA have said they have no objection to the files being made public.

    Would the deal be unwound if it is discovered that Goldman had conspired and manipulated (with significant kickbacks) the government of Helle Thorning-Schmidt to fast track the deal which Goldman knew would be a huge IRR in just a few short months? It is unlikely:

    Rene Christensen, a spokesman for the Danish People’s Party which lobbied to have the documents released, said there’s no risk their contents might trigger political demands that a new deal be negotiated.

     

    “Altering the deal isn’t really what it’s about,” Christensen said by phone. “It’s about having had a finance minister who said he couldn’t trust the committee.” Denmark’s lawmakers deserve to know “what was so important about this deal that we weren’t allowed to see more details,” he said.

     

    Martin Hintze, a partner at Goldman who sits on the board of Dong, was quoted by Berlingske as saying the bank has no objections to having the documents made public.

    Of course it wouldn’t – any objections would be seen as confirmation the sale process was improper.

    Which is why Goldman decided to go for the “sure thing” jugular, and just to make absolutely sure it controls the DONG process, Goldman hired none other than Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Danish prime minister who governed Denmark from 2001 until 2009 “to help tackle the political hurdles the bank has encountered since buying into a state utility last year.”

    Why hire him? Because the current Danish prime minister, Lars Loekke Rasmussen, just happened to be the subordinate and finance minister under the “other” Rasmussen, the one Goldman just hired: Anders Fogh. 

    Because if buying current and former government leaders to control the decision-making process works in the US and every other developed nation, why not in Denmark.

    But that’s not all: in this particular case, Goldman gets bonus influence points because in addition to purchasing the former Danish PM, and by implication, the current PM and his former fin-min protege, and assuring the DONG scandal quietly goes away, Goldman just hired the former head of NATO: from 2009 to 2014 Anders Fogh Rasmussen served as  the 12th Secretary General of NATO.

    In other words, with one hiring decision, Goldman not only assured its financial dominance over Denmark, but is now sure to capitalize on whatever military developments NATO unleashes in the coming weeks, which by the looks of things will involve Goldman funding every group in the upcoming Syrian invasion and the resulting latest and greatest war in the middle east.

  • The Rich, The Poor, & The Trouble With Socialism

    Authored by Bill Bonner (of Bonner & Partners), illustrated by Acting-Man's Pater Tenebrarum,

    Rich Man, Poor Man

    Poverty is better than wealth in one crucial way: The poor are still under the illusion that money can make them happy. People with money already know better. But they are reluctant to say anything for fear that the admiration they get for being wealthy would turn to contempt.

    “You mean you’ve got all that moolah and you’re no happier than me?”

    “That’s right, man.”

    “You poor S.O.B.”

    We bring this up because it is at the heart of government’s scam – the notion that it can make poor people happier. In the simplest form, government says to the masses: Hey, we’ll take away the rich guys’ money and give it to you. This has two major benefits (from an electoral point of view). First, and most obvious, it offers money for votes. Second, it offers something more important: status.

     

    moping

    …and ending up moping.

    After you have food, shelter, clothing, and a few necessities, everything else is status, vanity, and power. Extra money helps us feel good about ourselves… and attract mates. It’s not just the money that matters. It’s your relative position in society. From this point of view, it does as much good to take away a rich person’s money as it does to give money to a poor person.

    Either way, the gap closes. Never, since the beginning of time up to 2015, has government ever added to wealth. It has no way to do so. And no intention of doing so. All it can do is to increase the power, wealth, or status of some people – at others’ expense.

     

    The Trouble with Socialism

    That is a perfectly satisfactory outcome for most people, at least in the short term. But the more this tool is used – the more some people’s power, status, and wealth is taken away – the more the wealth of all of them declines.

    The trouble with socialism, as Maggie Thatcher remarked, is that you run out of other people’s money. You run out because there is only so much wealth available… and because the redistribution of that wealth distorts the signals and incentives needed to create new wealth.

     

    stalin, moscow dacha

    Joseph Stalin’s modest little dacha in Moscow – highly appropriate for a the global leader of the proletarians

     Photo credit: RIA Novosti

    This means that society gets poorer relative to other societies that are not stealing from one group to give to another. After a while, the difference becomes a problem.

    The meddlers see that they are falling behind and change their policies to try to get back in the race. (This is more or less what happened in Britain and China in the 1970s and the Soviet Union in the 1980s.) Or the poorer society is conquered by the richer one (which has more money to spend on weapons). There is one other wrinkle worth mentioning…

     

    stalin-summer-home-sochi-woe1

    Stalin’s summer residence in Sochi – the leader of the proletarians after all needed to rest now and then.

     Photo credit: Miracle Maker

     

    Although it is true that “leveling” may have a pleasing aspect to the masses (bringing the rich down so there is less difference between the two groups)… it is also true that leveling is just what powerful groups do not want to happen. Even when the elite go after “the rich” with taxes, confiscations, and levies, they tend to look out for themselves in other ways.

     

    swimming pool, stalin

    Stalin’s private indoor swimming pool in Sochi – a marble-quiet place of contemplation, perfect for hatching out the new plans to improve the happiness of the proletarians.

     Photo credit: Miracle Maker

     

    They allow themselves special rations – special medical care… special pensions… special parking places… and various drivers, valets, and assistants. One study found that there was more difference between the way Communist Party members and the masses lived in the Soviet Union than there was between the rich and poor in Reagan’s America.

     

    _brezhnev3

    Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev photographed during a hunt in the GDR with his buddy Erich Honecker. Only the “dear leaders” could indulge in such luxuries in the socialist Utopia.

     Photo credit: Wladimir Musaelian / TASS

     

    hon, gromyko g. mittag pjotr abrassimov

    About to go deer hunting in the GDR’s hunting grounds for comrades that were slightly more equal than the rest of the population (from left to right): Günter Mittag, Secretary for the Economy of the Socialist Unity Party’s central committee, Erich Honecker, General Secretary of the central committee of the Socialist Unity Party, Andrei Gromyko, Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union of Socialist Republics, and Pyotr Abrassimov, the Soviet Union’s ambassador to the GDR

    Photo credit: Bundesarchiv

     

    Alan Greenspan Was Right

    All of this brings us to here and now… and to gold. Traditionally, gold is a form of money. Money has no intrinsic value. It is the economy that gives money its value. The more an economy can produce the more each unit of money is worth. It doesn’t matter whether it is gold, paper, or seashells.

    But just as the common man is deceived by money (he thinks more of it will make him happier), so are policymakers. Their belief is a little more sophisticated. They know it is the economy, not money, that creates wealth. But they believe that adding money (and more demand) will make the economy function better… and make people wealthier.

     

    debt, debt and little growth

    Digital credit galore: total US credit market debt (black line), gross federal public debt (green line) and GDP (red line). Somehow, adding more and more debt hasn’t really made us a lot richer. It has however created a great mass of debt slaves – click to enlarge.

    And in today’s post-Bretton Woods monetary system, they don’t add physical money (gold, paper, or coins); they add digital credit. This new form of money takes the scam to a new level. We have been trying to understand (and explain) how the system works and why it is doomed to failure.

    But Alan Greenspan – bless his corrupted little heart – was on the case even before the credit bubble began:

    “Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy’s tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government’s promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets.

     

    A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit.”

     

    gspg

    Alan Greenspan, here photographed during a poker game as he announces a raise by ten dimes.

  • Is The "Smart Money" Ready To Bet On Gold?

    For the last three weeks, gold has experienced something that has never happened before – hedge funds aggregate net position has been short for the first time in history.

     

    However, as Dana Lyons notes, this week saw another 'historic' shift in gold positioning as commercial hedgers shifted to the least hedged since 2001… so the 'fast' money is chasing momentum and the 'smart' money is lifting hedges into them.

    Via Dana Lyons' Tumblr,

    It’s no secret that commodities have taken a drubbing during the deflationary spiral over the past year. And precious metals have been right up front in this beating. This includes gold, which has lost over 40% of its value the past 4 years.  So needless to say, there has not been much good news on that front. However, as we touched on in a piece two weeks ago, there are signs beginning to pop up that may provide a glimmer of hope for gold bugs. In dollar terms, the price of gold continues to leak, offering very little evidence of any impending stability or bounce. On the other hand, in Euro terms, gold prices reached a key juncture a few weeks ago, as outlined in that previous post. And while no bounce has materialized as of yet, gold has at least held at the level we noted.

    Today’s Chart Of The Day offers another hopeful data point for gold bulls. The CFTC tracks the net positioning of various groups of traders in the futures market in a report called the Commitment Of Traders (COT). One such group is called Commercial Hedgers. As their name implies, their main function in the futures market is to hedge. And while the Non-Commercial Speculators tend to be trend-following funds, the Commercial Hedgers’ postions tend to move contrary to price trends. Thus, it is almost always the case that these Hedgers will be correctly positioned – and to an extreme – at major turning points in a market.

    How is that relevant for gold? As of this week, Commercial Hedgers are holding the lowest net short position in gold futures since the launch of the gold bull market in 2001.

     

     

    Does this mean that a reversal higher is imminent in gold? Not necessarily. The thing with COT analysis is that it is difficult to correctly determine when an “extreme” in Hedgers’ positioning will actually result in a price reversal. As is said regarding all sorts of market metrics, an extreme in COT positioning can always get more extreme. Plus, the COT positioning can peak well in advance of the turn. Consider the Hedgers’ maximum net short positioning in gold futures which occurred in December 2009, 21 months – and another 50% gold rally – before prices topped.

    Thus, it is tough to time trades with accuracy based on the COT report. However, one thing we can say in the gold bugs’ favor: what had mostly been a headwind for gold for the past decade or so is no longer the case. While it may not make an immediate impact, the “smart money” Commercial Hedgers are now more aligned with them than at any point since the bull market began in 2001.

    *  *  *

    More from Dana Lyons, JLFMI and My401kPro.

  • Never Forget – "Worthlessness" Happens

    It could never happen here, right? Again…

     

     

    h/t @Not_Jim_Cramer

  • When Hindenburg Omens Are Ominous

    Excerpted from John Hussman's Weekly Market Comment,

    I’ve frequently noted that Hindenburg “Omens” in their commonly presented form (NYSE new highs and new lows both greater than 2.5% of issues traded) appear so frequently that they have very little practical use, especially when they occur as single instances. While a large number of simultaneous new highs and new lows is indicative of some amount of internal dispersion across individual stocks, this situation often occurs in markets that have been somewhat range-bound.

    Still, when we think of market “internals,” the number of new highs and new lows can contribute useful information. To expand on the vocabulary we use to talk about internals, “leadership” typically refers to the number of stocks achieving new highs and new lows; “breadth” typically refers to the number of stocks advancing versus declining in a given day or week; and “participation” typically refers to the percentage of stocks that are advancing or declining in tandem with the major indices.

    The original basis for the Hindenburg signal traces back to the “high-low logic index” that Norm Fosback created in the 1970’s. Jim Miekka introduced the Hindenburg as a daily rather than weekly measure, Kennedy Gammage gave it the ominous name, and Peter Eliades later added several criteria to reduce the noise of one-off signals, requiring additional confirmation that amounts to a requirement that more than one signal must emerge in the context of an advancing market with weakening breadth.

    Those refinements substantially increase the usefulness of Hindenburg Omens, but they still emerge too frequently to identify decisive breakdowns in market internals. However, one could reasonably infer a very unfavorable signal about market internals if leadership, breadth, and participation were all uniformly negative at a point where the major indices were still holding up. Indeed, that’s exactly the situation in which a Hindenburg Omen becomes ominous. The chart below identifies the small handful of instances in the past two decades when this has been true.  

    While the measures of market internals that we use in practice are far more comprehensive, the evidence from leadership, breadth and participation above provides a fairly obvious signal of internal dispersion in the market. In our view, that dispersion is a strong indication that investors are shifting toward greater risk aversion. In an obscenely overvalued market with razor-thin risk premiums, a shift in the risk-preferences of investors has historically been the central feature that distinguishes a bubble from a collapse.

    In my view, dismal market returns over the coming decade are baked in the cake as a result of extreme overvaluation at present. An improvement in market internals, however, would reduce the immediacy of our downside concerns.  While a decision by the Federal Reserve to postpone the first interest rate hike might prompt a shift to more risk-seeking speculation, this outcome is not assured. The key indicator of risk-seeking would still be the behavior of market internals directly, not the words or behavior of the Fed. So we remain focused on market internals. In any event, waiting to normalize monetary policy may defer, but cannot avoid, a market collapse that is already baked in the cake. The Fed has only encouraged the completion of the current market cycle to begin from a more extreme peak. As we saw in 2000-2002 and again in 2007-2009, until and unless investors shift toward risk-seeking, as evidenced by the behavior of market internals, monetary easing may have little effect in slowing down a collapse.

    Read Hussman's full letter here…

    *  *  *

    Interesting…

  • China Plunges 13% Since July Despite The Following 24 Market Manipulation Measures

    "The greatest trick the central planners ever pulled was convincing the world omnipotence existed…" until now!

     

    Since July 1st, China has unleashed at least 24 separate "measures" aimed purely and simpy at manipulating the stock market higher than prevailing market forces would warrant…

     

    And the result is…

     

    A 12.5% decline exposing the un-omnipotence of central planners when the fecal matter strikes the rotating object.

  • Guest Post: Will Trump Save The World (By Doing A Deal With Putin)?

    Authored by Edward Lozansky via Sputnik News,

    For the past few weeks we have heard plenty of statements from Washington about the huge threat to U.S. National Security coming from Russia. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and top Pentagon brass are convinced — or say they are — that the Russian threat is an absolute reality. The latest in this row is the statement by the Head of the US Special Operations Command General Joseph Votel, who also views Russia as an "existential threat" to the United States, repeating accusations against Moscow over the Ukrainian crisis.

    In Congress, the party of war keeps pushing the same line but If this were only related to the upcoming budget sequestration discussion — which, among other things, can affect the Pentagon — one could dismiss this incessant talk of an imminent Russian threat as a simple money extortion exercise. However, I am afraid it is not just about money.

    Washington hawks want regime change in Russia, no more and no less. Their hatred of Putin, who has the guts to have his own opinion of world affairs, and who stands firm for his country's right to look after its security interests, makes him the ultimate evil — someone who has to go and be replaced by a more malleable character. A person like Boris Yeltsin, who knew who is running the show on the world stage and humbly accepted this sober fact.

    It's a different question how to achieve Putin's overthrow without a major military confrontation with Russia, a conflict that can well end in a conflagration engulfing the whole planet. It is one thing to perform regime change in Iraq, Libya or Ukraine but dealing with nuclear-armed Russia is quite a different matter.

    Presently the hawks' thinking is still at the stage where they believe they can get rid of Putin through economic sanctions and by using the conflict in Ukraine to exhaust Russia's strength, ruin its economy and undermine its stability. There is no question that substantial damage to Russian economy has been done. It is not "in tatters," as Mr. Obama recently gloated, but is definitely shrinking and the number of people living below the poverty line has indeed increased. However, Putin's popularity is not heading south; on the contrary, his ratings jump a point or two every time another angry anti-Putin rebuke from Washington hits the airwaves.

    Instead of accepting the failure of the current policy of sanctions and start searching for some kind of reasonable compromise, the party of war is pushing for escalation in tensions which can end up really badly for everyone. Any incident, however unintentional and insignificant in itself, can grow into something that we all — or rather those who will have survived — will remember with a sense of everlasting wonder at human stupidity.

    What we see now resembles the hysteria in 2003 prior to and during the Iraq invasion. The party of war is so hell-bent on its perilous course that it can hardly be swayed by any reasonable arguments of those against warmongering. Nowadays even the most ardent supporters of the Iraq and Libya wars admit that they were huge mistakes which resulted in hundreds of thousands dead and wounded, millions of refugees, trillions of dollars wasted and the rise of ISIS on top of that.

    Besides, there is another question that needs to be considered coolly and factually. Does Russia really represent the great or even greatest threat to America or for that matter to any NATO country?

    Many Russians believe that actually it is America that represents the greatest threat to their country. Was it Russia that instigated a military coup in Mexico and installed an anti-American corrupted oligarch as its president? Was it Russia that imposed devastating economic sanctions on America — or is it the other way round? Is it Russia that supplies weapons and trains Mexican nationalists who are thinking of getting back territories lost during an armed conflict between the United States and the Centralist Republic of Mexico in the wake of the 1845 US annexation of Texas, which Mexico regarded as its inalienable part. Is it Russia that funds and supports American protest groups, something that we do around the world through the democracy promotion crusade?

    As for the military threat, Putin and his generals are well aware that NATO armed forces are ten to fifteen times stronger than Russia's. You can call Putin any names but he is definitely not insane or suicidal. However, if you try to back the bear into a corner, anything can happen.

    At this point it looks like the only and lonely sane voice in Washington belongs to the Secretary of State John Kerry who recently stated that he "doesn't agree with the assessment that Russia is an existential threat to the United States…. Certainly we have disagreements with Russia…but we don't view it as an existential threat."

    As for the huge crowd of presidential candidates, it looks like so far the only one who promises to fix the US-Russia relations thus avoiding a looming disaster is Donald Trump. In his recent interview on CNN he said that he would be able to work well with the Russian president.

    No matter how the media and Republican Party establishment are trying to humiliate Trump, I for one would give him a chance.

     

  • Hillary Makes Her First Ad Buy

    Fact… or Fiction…?

     

     

    Source: Townhall.com

  • "They'll Blame Physical Gold Holders For The Failure Of Monetary Policies" Marc Faber Explains Everything

    Submitted by Johannes Maierhofer and Peter Matay via Marcopolis.net,

    In this exclusive interview with Marcopolis.net Marc Faber covers it all: from commodities and China to the outlook on inflation, the Euro and gold. According to him the global economy is not healing. To the contrary, we might find ourselves back into recession within six months or a year. In that case he expects more money printing by central banks, which eventually could lead to high inflation rates and renewed strength in commodity prices.

     

    On the bright side, he sees great economic potential in Vietnam. Also, the Iraqi stock market has good potential now that a deal with Iran has been reached. While mining stocks are extremely depressed we might see defaults before any meaningful recovery.

    *  *  *
    In your 2002 book “Tomorrow’s gold” you identified two major investment themes: emerging markets along with commodities. That was a great call. As for commodities, they had a great run up until 2008. Then they crashed sharply along with everything else just to recover strongly into 2011. Since then they have acted weakly, and recently commodities even reached a 13-years low. Is this the end of the commodities-super-cycle, as some have claimed, or is it more like a correction?

    Well that’s a very good question because obviously the weakness in commodities this time is not due to, like, contraction in liquidity as we had in 2008. 2008 commodities ran up very quickly in the first half until July. The oil prices in 2007, just before they started to cut interest rates in the US were still at 78 dollars a barrel and then by July 2008 they ran up to 147 dollars a barrel. Afterwards they crashed within six months to 32 dollars a barrel and then as you said in 2011-2012, they recovered and were trading around 100 dollars a barrel. Now they have been weak again as well as all other industrial commodities and precious metals.

     

    My sense is that this time around, commodity prices are weak because of weakness in the global economy, specifically weakening demand from China, because if you look at the Chinese consumption of industrial commodities, in 1970 China consumed 2% of all industrial commodities, by 1990 it was 5% of global commodity consumption for industrial commodities and by the year 2000 it was 12% and then it went in 2011-2012 to 47%, in other words almost half of all industrial commodities in the world were consumed by China.

     

    Therefore a slowdown in the Chinese economy has a huge impact on the demand for industrial commodities and on the wellbeing of the commodity producers, whether that is the commodity producers in Latin America, in Central Asia, Middle East, Australasia, Africa and Russia.

     

    And so because of the reduced demand from China, the prices have been very weak and I think that may last for quite some time because the Chinese economy will not go back and grow at 10% per annum any time soon. My view is that at the present time, there is hardly any growth in China. In some sectors there is a contraction and in some sectors, and don’t forget China is a country with 1.3 billion people, so some provinces may still grow and other provinces may contract, as well as some sectors may grow and others may contract. But in general I think the economy is weak.

     

    My estimate is that at the very best the Chinese economy is growing at the present time at say 4% per annum and not at 7.8 or 8% as the government claims. We have relatively reliable statistics like auto sales and freight loadings that are down year on year, electricity consumption, exports, imports and so forth. So there has been a remarkable slow down and to answer your question about commodity prices, if the global economy slows down as much as I do believe, because other economists predict an acceleration of global growth, a healing of global growth, my sense is that it is the opposite, that within 6 months to one year we are back into recession and then it will depend on central banks and what they will do. Up until now, they have always printed money and I suppose they will continue to do that.

     

    Now from a longer term perspective, commodity cycles last 45 to 60 years roughly, from trough to trough or peak to peak. In other words we had a peak in 1980 and then commodity prices were weak throughout the 1980s and 1990s, then in 1999 they started to pick up and went and made a peak for most commodities in 2008 and for the grains 2011-2012. Since then everything has been weak. I could argue that well, maybe this is a major correction in the commodities complex within still an upward wave of commodity prices and that the final peak prices are not yet seen.

    As for Chinese stocks, they went up very strongly over the last year, but recently they crashed just as hard. Is this a precursor to something worse or is it merely a bump on the road towards a still ascendant China?

    Well I think that a year ago in June/July 2014, Chinese stocks were very inexpensive compared to other markets in the world. They had been going down relative to the S&P since 2006 and compared to other Asian markets like the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand… they had performed very poorly.

     

    So a year ago my view was that a) because of the crackdown on visitors to Macau and more importantly because the property market in China was beginning to show cracks, prices were no longer going up and many markets were over supplied so my sense was that domestic money would shift out of the property market or de-emphasise property investments and go into equities, at the same time international investors were grossly underweight Chinese stocks and my sense was that as an international investor you look around the world and see all of these markets, the S&P is up at an all-time high last year already and then you see a market like Japan that two years ago was very depressed compared to other markets, so money went into there.

     

    A year ago what was very depressed relative to everything else was the Chinese stock market. So money flowed also internationally into Chinese stocks and the market in China is relatively illiquid. You have to see. Because most blocks of shares are owned by the government or by large Chinese groups so what is available for trading is not that large.

     

    Then the money flowed into Chinese stocks and they went up by more than 100% within a year and the whole thing became very speculative because in China people borrow a lot of money against what they buy whether it is properties or stocks and so the margin accounts increased dramatically and the margin debt reached almost 4% of GDP whereas in the US it is around 2% of GDP and it is at its highest level ever. So 4% was a very big figure. I think the government´s measure to support the market will largely fail and that eventually there will be more selling pressure and stocks will retreat somewhat more.

     

    Do they go back to the levels of a year ago, to the 2014 lows? I don’t think so. I think this may be the beginning of a new bull market in China, but after a 100% rise we could have, like, from peak to trough a 40% correction. Or even 50%.

    China has established the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and went ahead with plans for a so called “New Silk Road”, a huge infrastructure project, connecting China with Europe via a new land route and a maritime equivalent. Steen Jakobsen from Saxo Bank mentioned a while ago that this could be a game-changer – particularly in regards to the demand for commodities as much of the work and investment needed is in infrastructure, buildings and railroads. What do you think?

    Well I think there may be some euphoria about this infrastructure building and the ´New Silk Road´. My sense is that yes, some investments will take place but we have to recognise that first of all it will take time. It is not going to be built overnight. Whether it will be really so profitable is another question and the other question is will China have the money to do it?

     

    We are moving here into geopolitics, basically, because of the antagonism of the Western world towards Russia specifically Mr Putin, whom they portray as a villain when in fact he wasn’t the aggressor, it is NATO and the Neocons that essentially pushed the existing government out in Ukraine and began to create the whole problem that we have. If you look at the map of Europe and Eastern Europe it is very clear that Russia will not allow NATO to be east of the Dnieper River, in other words in eastern Ukraine nor will they give up the Crimea, this is strategically of great importance for Russia, has no strategic value for anybody else except for Russia. So the tensions have arisen and because of this hostility of the West towards Russia, Russia has been pushed closer to China.

     

    They share very substantial borders areas with each other and because of the proximity of the two countries and the nature of their economies, Russia possessing the resources and China largely technology and consumer goods which Russians don’t necessarily produce, there is a symbiotic relationship going on. The Chinese and the Russians want to exploit this strength, what they call the hinterland essentially and the rim land in geopolitics.

     

    Of course the US is completely against it because the containment policy was precisely directed against the major power emerging again in Central Asia and Far East Russia and in Russia. So this Silk Road initiative in my view is far from being a certain thing that it will succeed because there are also political obstacles and you know, when the Americans want to create trouble, that they excel at, they are very good at doing that.

     

    Instead of building nations they destroy nations, from Libya to Egypt to Syria to Iraq and Afghanistan. Whatever they touch, they mess it up or in good English F* up!

    What about Europe and Russia? E.g. many German industrialists don’t seem too happy with the current sanctions regime.

    Not at all. Actually, you ask ordinary people in the whole of Europe about the policies of the governments towards Russia, 90% of ordinary people disapprove of the politics and policies that have been implemented and with the way European governments behave as if they were feudals of the United States and vassals of the US.

     

    The reality is that Europe should be very close to Russia as it was in the 19th and 18th century, with very few exceptions like for example when Napoleon attacked Russia or when Hitler attacked Russia, but ordinarily the two regions, western Europe and Russia were much closer than say western Europe and the US because of the proximity and also culturally they were quite close.

    You already mentioned commodity cycles. Economists have long debated the existence of long term waves in economics – the most prominent concept of which is the so called Kondratieff cycle. In your 2002 book you pick up on the idea by guessing where we might find ourselves in the current Kondratieff wave. If you did the same today, what do you think? Are we still in a falling wave? What are the important characteristics to look at? And most importantly, what does it mean for the medium to long-term outlook?

    I mean, Irving Fisher the economist who essentially became famous because of his book Booms and Depressions in the 30s, said well this is a very difficult issue with knowing where in the cycle you are because basically it is like you are sitting on a ship and there are waves that will move the ship but then there is also wind that may come from another direction and the waves are not all regular and so forth, so the ship can have many different motions.

     

    My view regarding the Kondratieff is that first of all it is important to understand that it is not really a business cycle but a price cycle. The price cycle obviously in the 19th century when economies were much more commodities related because agriculture until the beginning of the 20th century was the largest employer, so when agricultural prices went up, the farmers had more money and it benefitted the farming population and so the economy picked up and when the farm prices went down especially in the US with cotton obviously the economies that were producing these commodities suffered.

     

    So in the 19th century we had several cycles, upcycles and down cycles. Basically the last down cycle as I mentioned would have been in essentially 1980 to around 1998-1999, so approximately twenty years. The up cycle before was between the 1940s and 1980s. You can’t measure it precisely. My sense is that one missing element in the Kondratieff in the late 1990s and early part of 2000-2005 was that normally when the Kondratieff bottoms out, Schumpeter, he built his business cycle theory around the Kondratieff and he explained that usually in the trough of the Kondratieff, in the depression, you have a massive liquidation of debts, and that hasn’t happened, it hasn’t happened.

     

    And so it is conceivable that we were in a downward wave of the Kondratieff after 1980 and then we had within the downward wave this upward wave because of the opening of China, between 2000 and 2008. And as the Chinese economy weakens and as the debt level today is globally as a percent of the global economy 30% higher than it was in 2007.

     

    So we can´t say that there has been deleveraging, on the contrary! The debt level is even more burdensome today than it was in 2007. Therefore it is possible that the big debt deleveraging is yet to occur and when it occurs then obviously commodity prices will still be weak for a while.

     

    The question is then, if we follow through and say ok, the price of copper went from 60 cents a lb to over 4 dollars a lb and now we are around 2 dollars a lb, if it goes back down to 60 cents a lb, which I don’t believe it will, but say if it did, or if gold went back to 300 dollars and oz., if it did, what about financial assets?

     

    Where would they be? Because that decline in commodity prices would signal a huge problem in the global economy and under those conditions I doubt that financial assets would do well, there would be massive bankruptcies among governments and massive write offs in sovereign debts. Greece should write off at least 50% of their debts and even then the debt would probably be too burdensome for an economy that hardly produces anything! So these are signals that I take very seriously and I quite frankly given the recent weakness in commodity prices, I can´t see how the global economy is getting stronger. I just can´t see it.

    What was still in place until recently is this long term down trend in interest rates.

    Yes, sure. You see, traditionally the Kondratieff is a price cycle and interest rates follow the Kondratieff very closely. So if you take the last cycle, the peak 1980 for commodity prices and at the same time you had the interest rate peak in September 1981 when long term US treasuries were yielding over 15%.

     

    Then we have the down trend in the Kondratieff until 1999 -2000, the commodity prices start to go up but interest rates continue to go down. So that would again suggest that there is a possibility that this entire boom in commodities in 2000-2008 was actually a bull market within still a downward wave in the Kondratieff, it is possible.

    In regards to the colossal amounts of debt there are two major schools of thought: Inflationists and Deflationists. According to the first, all the money printing will lead to high levels of inflation, devaluing the currency and with it the debt will be inflated away. Deflationists would hold against, that, even if central banks wanted to, they ultimately cannot stop deflation. Where do you stand in that debate?

    Well you know it is like in a bubble. The bears are right and the bulls are right but at different times. Every bubble will go up and then eventually the bubble will burst and then you know prices collapse. So during the bubble stage the bullish people are right and during the collapse the bears are right, but at different times. This is the same with deflation and inflation; I think both will be right, but at different times. I believe that most people have a misconception of what inflation is. In other words most people, they think of inflation as an increase in price of goods they go and buy in the shop over there and over there, at the butcher and at the baker and in the grocery store and so forth when in fact this is just one of the symptoms of inflation.

     

    You can have inflation that manifests itself in sharply rising wages, this hasn’t taken place but if you look globally, say in China, wages have gone up substantially or you take Thailand, wages have gone up substantially. Or it can manifest itself in rising commodity prices. Well I mean commodity prices have been weak lately but the oil price is still close to 50 dollars a barrel and it was at 12 dollars a barrel in 1999 and gold is still around 1000 dollars and it was at 300 dollars and below in the 1990s, the low was at 255 dollars. You understand? A lot of things have been weak recently but they are still up substantially compared to the past.

     

    Or you take bond prices, in other words bond prices go up when interest rates go down. Bond prices in the last hundred years have never been this high; in other words interest rates have never been this low on sovereign debts. Or you take equity prices, ok some markets are down, mostly the emerging markets whether it is Russia or Brazil or the Asian markets, they are down from the peak but they are still much higher than say ten or fifteen years ago. Or you take property prices, it depends which properties but most property prices, for example if you look around here in Switzerland, the prices are much much higher than they were fifteen, twenty years ago.

     

    Even in some areas, they may have come down a bit but in luxury areas there are record prices. Or you take the Hamptons, or Mayfair in London, or Chelsea in London, Kensington and so forth, prices are very high compared to say twenty years ago. Or you take paintings, art… I mean when I grew up and I started to work in 1970 in New York, in New York at that time a Rothko painting was offered to me for 30,000 dollars. I didn’t buy it because I thought why would I pay 30,000 for something like this! Now a Roscoe is maybe ten, twenty, thirty million dollars and I have a Warhol, it is not a big painting but nevertheless I bought it for 300 dollars in the 1970s. You understand? Prices have gone up dramatically, so if someone says to me, well there is deflation, I tell him, well tell me in what? You know, Hong Kong property prices, Singapore property prices, even Bangkok, Jakarta and so forth, all have been grossly inflated.

     

    Therefore I think we have to re-examine the definition of inflation whereby maybe we have some sectors of the economy that are deflating, like if we measure wages inflation adjusted, they are all going down in the western world because a) the consumer price inflation that the Federal Reserve and Europeans report has nothing to do with the cost of living increase, the cost of living increases and we have studies about this, in most American cities are rising at between 5 and 10% per annum and if you include insurance premiums, health care costs, education costs and so forth.

     

    So these prices are going up strongly. Or taxes, indirect taxes like tunnel fees or bridge tolls and so forth, all that is going up much more than the CPI and this is where people have to pay for to actually go to work and live. This is then reflected, this kind of inflation is reflected in a diminishing purchasing power of people, that’s why retail sales are relatively poor in the US despite of the fact that we are six years into an economic expansion. I am always telling people, you know when I started to work I didn’t have to be smart because if I put my money on deposit with the banks or bought government bonds they were yielding 6%.

     

    Then from 1970 to 1981 interest rates continuously went up, so the compounding impact was very high. Now if I am a young guy, say your age; then I want to put my money on deposit, I am being F*d essentially by the banks because they are not paying me anything. If I buy ten years US treasury notes I am getting a yield of less than 3%; 2.3% at the present time and it was below 2% six months ago. So how can I really save? How can I make money? I want to buy a house ok?

     

    Then you have to pay a huge price and the mortgage rate may still be around 4% you understand? So it is still relatively high interest rates on mortgages and one of the reasons that new home sales are not particularly strong is that young people just don’t have the money to buy it because a) they are also burdened with student debts. So I mean these are all issues that are very complex.

     

    My sense is that knowing the central banks, and knowing the way that they think, what will come up when they realise that the global economy is not healing but actually back into contraction under the influence of the neo-Keynesians like Krugman, they will say, you know what?

     

    We haven’t done enough, we have to do much more, and then they will print again and that is why I think that eventually we could have high inflation rates and a renewed increase in commodity prices.

    A major argument by deflationists is that ultimately social mood might change. So while in 2008 everybody applauded the Fed for having saved the system, next time around it could be different. All the extraordinary measures might become too controversial, and all of a sudden we could see defaults happening in earnest. Is that a real possibility?

    Yes. I mean I have read a lot about inflationary periods in history which we have experienced from time to time, under John Law in France and then later during the French revolution and in Latin America. I also experienced periods of high inflation myself in the sense that during the very high inflationary period in Latin America in the 1980s I visited most Latin American countries because I was interested in the fact that when you have high inflation in a country, usually the currency tumbles and so although there is high inflation in local currency, in a strong currency unit, like in the 80s the dollar was strong, the price level actually went down very substantially so investment opportunities were fantastic.

     

    You could buy buildings in Buenos Aires, the stock market in the late 1980s in Argentina… the whole stock market was worth 750 million US dollars, 750, less than a billion. So you could essentially have bought the whole of Argentina for less than a billion dollars!! What happens in these periods of high monetary inflation is it is highly beneficial for a few families and a few well to do people because they know how to move their money between local currency and foreign currency and they know how to accumulate assets.

     

    The people that get hurt are the masses, the middle class, the lower classes because their wages go up much less than the cost of living increases. Then what usually follows is a kind of political change of wind and you have new governments coming in and sometimes you have revolutions and sometimes you have an entire new leadership.

     

    We had hyper-inflation in Germany and by the way there is a very good book out about the economics of inflation during the Weimar period, but in each instance it led to a polarisation of wealth and this is precisely what is happening now. You have huge merger and acquisition activity and you have stock buy-backs and if you look at the wealth inequality it is not between 1% of the population and 99, it is between 0.01%, the Carl Icahns of this world and the big assets holders and then the masses that do not have assets so they don’t benefit from rising asset prices.

     

    In my view, you know you look at Trump, Donald Trump is no genius or anything, and he is not a particularly honest person either because his investors that bought bonds that were issued by his companies, most of them lost money, but he touches on one point, and this is a great dissatisfaction of the American of the typical American with his government.

     

    I can tell you also that here in Switzerland, 90% of the people, they think the government is no longer looking after the interests of the people but after their own interests. It is the same in Europe. I think this is a huge failure of democracy, that democracy instead of having been able to elect leaders that look after the interests of the people, they actually look after their own interests. I mean you look at the Clintons, the Bush families and so forth, do you think they care about the ordinary Americans? They don’t care, they care about themselves, it is a power game. They care about money that is for sure.

    When the German finance minister recently proposed a temporary Greek exit from the Euro it was perceived as a breach of what was long held as the sanctity of Monetary Union. For the first time a leading European politician departed from the line “to save the Euro no matter what”. Could this have been a watershed moment? What do you think, five or ten years from now, will there still be a euro, will it still be in the same composition or will it simply fall apart?

    Nobody knows that. We don’t know how the world will look in five or ten years´ time but I would say that I believe the euro will survive. Now the question is, in what form? Maybe there will be a euro like a US dollar, we have a US dollar, and maybe some countries like Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain will no longer use the euro and will have essentially gone back to their local currencies. It could be, maybe not. Because you understand, the typical Italian, Spaniard and Greek, he knows very well: we leave the EU, our pensions will be paid in local currency and that will be much less than what we get now.

     

    So on the one hand, from a nationalistic point of view, most Europeans would like to leave the EU but when they look at their pocket book, it is like when Scotland, when the vote came up to exit Britain, Great Britain, the young people, most of them voted for the exit, but the elderly people, the pensioners, they were threatened, again because as you say the media said well you leave the EU, your pensions will be cut… so if you are an elderly pensioner, what do you prefer, to get your pension and be part of the UK or leave the UK and get lower payments?

     

    This is one reason I think the EU may stay together but of course if the economic conditions in the southern countries, Greece, Italy, Spain… do not improve, if they actually worsen again then maybe the move towards leaving the EU will become very strong. Number two, I have been writing about this, you know if you look at history, we had great empires, the Greek empire and the Roman empire and the Ottomans and the Spanish empire and the British empire and now we have the supremacy of America that I probably waning but it was certainly there after the Second World War, the point is usually if you had empires in the past, it was very costly because you had to keep armies in the so called colonies in your territories, and if there were problems you would have to send in the troops and the ships and so forth to essentially enforce your empire.

     

    In the modern empires, like the EU, you may have to pay. It is not sending armies to Greece but basically you have to pay so that Greece stays in the empire and then comes the questions the Germans ask, how long are they going to be willing to pay for it? Because it comes out of tax payers´ money, you understand, the politicians, they don’t pay it. Most politicians don’t even pay taxes because they are with the EU in Brussels or with the IMF or the OECD, all these clowns they don’t pay tax and then they go and propose wealth taxes on the others, on us, who work. They don’t work, they don’t pay tax but the others should pay tax.

     

    Basically the tax payer in Germany one day he will say well we don’t like the policies of Mrs Merkel and this is happening in America, they don’t particularly like Donald Trump but they like the fact that he points the finger at all these others that have abused the system so badly. My sense is that we could have not necessarily revolutions in the sense that you have armies fighting against each other in Germany and France like in the French revolution and so forth but what we could have is through the democratic process people saying we are just fed up with these bureaucrats in Brussels and the ones in Berlin and the policies that always lean on America. We are sovereign nations; we want to be free, even if it costs us something.

     

    We in Switzerland, we are not part of the EU but de facto, through the back door, Switzerland has essentially become an EU member.

    Via regulations…

    Yes. Absolutely. The Swiss fought for independence for the last 800 years and now suddenly they accept everything! They have no fighting spirit anymore!

    But let´s assume some countries are ready to leave the euro zone. In the case of Greece this would go along with a major haircut or an outright default…

    Yes, but a haircut and the default will occur regardless. I mean, even the IMF accepts the fact that the Greek debt has to be reduced somewhat. What they have done lately is the EU lends money to Greece and Greece then can pay the ECB and the IMF. It is a complete joke! It is a complete joke! It is like if you borrowed money from me, a thousand dollars, after one year you say, Marc look I can´t repay you and I can´t pay the interest, but if you lend me another thousand, then I can pay you the interest on the first thousand. But then you owe me two thousand!

     

    And after the third year you come back and say Marc I´m very sorry, I can´t pay you the two thousand maybe you will lend me another thousand so I can at least pay you the interest on the two thousand! And so the game goes on. When you look at Greece objectively, private investors would never have lent all together 300 billion dollars to Greece, never! But governments are the peoples´ money you understand?

     

    The ECB and the ESM and so forth are other peoples´ money, they don’t care.

    When you say the defaults will come anyway, it would have huge implications, after all over the last 40-50 years it was inconceivable that a Western country would actually go bankrupt.

    Well actually Greece has defaulted before and repeatedly.

    Greece is relatively small compared to, let’s say, Italy. For a country like that to go bankrupt it would have huge consequences…

    Yes sure, I agree with you that’s why we were discussing before that the debt liquidation hasn’t occurred yet. I mean I am less concerned about say Spain, Italy, France, and Greece defaulting than a big one defaulting. You understand? The US is not in a very good position either, if you look at their unfunded liabilities.

     

    In America many cities are basically bankrupt as well as some states or semi states like Puerto Rico. Then, have a look at Japan, the Japanese situation is very serious in the long run because if interest rates, they are now on 10 years JGBs 0.03% but already at these very very low rates, Japan pays, I think close to 45% of tax revenues go to payment of interest on the debt. Now if the interest rates went up on JGBs to say 1%, all the tax revenues would have to be used to pay the interest on the debt! In my view, Japan has no other option but to print money or default and that will then imply that the Yen will then become weaker and so forth.

     

    I mean the whole system in the world is in a complete mess.

     

    But so far the central banks and the authorities were able to paint fresh paint on the cracks and so they are not that visible. And don’t forget; who actually has something to say in economics? Most of the people are university professors but they are somewhat linked to the Federal Reserve or to another central bank through consultancy arrangements and so forth.

     

    Basically they are bribed to support the system. Number two, the financial system consists of money managers, hedge funds, the large long bonds, long equities funds like Fidelity and PIMCO and so on, all these guys are interested in money printing because it lifts the asset values and with rising asset values the fees go up and the performance fees go up so nobody has interest actually in an honest economic policy, they all are in favour of Bernanke´s bailout of problems that occurred in 2008.

    What about QE being counterproductive in the sense that it actually increases deflationary pressures? The premise is that by keeping rates artificially suppressed, central banks make it impossible for the market to purge itself of inefficient actors. As a result, otherwise insolvent companies remain operational, adding even more to excess capacity. What do you think?

    Yes. I think that is a very good point. That if you print money, the money will not flow evenly into the economic system and this has already been observed by Copernicus who wrote about money and it was later also observed by David Hume and by Irving Fisher that when you print money, the money flows do not benefit all classes of society and all industries equally at the same time.

     

    What then happens is that you look for instance at commodity prices, ok, we had money printing and then prices rose but not only because of money printing, they rose mostly because of the incremental demand from China, but the Chinese boom came to some extent from money printing in the US which led to rising trade and current account deficits until 2008, until the crisis. Since then actually in terms of goods, the trade balance in the US has worsened again, further, but because of the oil industry the overall trade and current account deficit has been diminishing.

     

    The point is simply this, the over capacities that we have in some industries like steel in China, cement and in resources, iron ore, this was made possible by money printing. I am not saying only, by to some extent money printing was responsible. The housing bubble, the housing inflation in the US was made possible by money printing and keeping interest rates artificially low. Now we have a bubble in sovereign debt and we have a bubble in equities, certainly in US equities.

     

    When that bubble deflates eventually in sovereign debt and in equities, what the impact will be on the economy will be interesting to watch because the markets are not prepared for rising interest rates.

    You already mentioned shrinking trade deficits in the US. As for the US dollar, it has considerably strengthened and at the same time treasury yields are really low…

    Yes.

    … and, if we understand correctly, you have been relatively positive on treasuries recently…

    Yes.

    … at the same time you mentioned that the long term outlook for the US is very bad…

    Yes. Well you know it is like you have a wife and you have girlfriends! And the wife is maybe permanent but the girlfriends come and go! Optically, long term I would say ten years treasury or thirty years US treasury is of course unattractive, that we all agree because interest rates have been trending down since 1981 so we are more than 35 years into a declining interest rate structure, so we must be close to a low in interest rates.

     

    The only question here is, the economic recovery in the US began in June 2009, so we are six years into an economic expansion, and this is historically the third longest expansion. We have been six years, March 2009 low S&P 666, where it went over 2100 so we are over 6 years into bull market, then I say to myself, I see the global economy weakening and I see French, Italian and Spanish bond yields lower than US treasury yields so with the view that most people have that the US dollar will remain relatively strong, I say to myself everybody is bullish about stocks in the US and everybody is bearish about bonds.

     

    I say to myself maybe treasury notes, the ten years and the thirty years as an investment for the next 3 to 6 months is maybe not so bad. Then I also advocate in my investment strategy, always diversification between real estate, equities, bonds, cash and precious metals. And if someone comes to me and says Marc you are bearish about the world, shouldn’t you be all in cash?

     

    I say yes, maybe that is correct except if I put all my money in cash with the banking system I take a huge risk because we have seen it in the case of Greece, we have seen it in the case of Cyprus and now they have announced that basically investors if there is again a crisis they will also have to pay something so if you have say 20 million dollars with the banks, and they have a problem, maybe you will only get 50% back. So I say to myself, rather than have the money in the banks I would have it in treasuries.

    What about gold? Being in a correction mode for a couple of years already, it recently has broken down some more.

    Well as you know there are so many explanations ranging from manipulation to essentially Chinese selling which could have been the case you know that margin calls went out for stock accounts, the margin buyers may not have been able to sell their shares because still about 20% are not trading.

     

    Number two, they can’t sell their properties because you can’t sell overnight the properties so the margin call has to be met the next day and property transactions may take, I don’t know three months until you close and maybe there were some corporations or individuals that were holding gold and so that they could liquidate, that is an explanation that I could sympathise with.

     

    Or you could say because of the strong dollar people became, or had hesitations of owning gold because they said if the dollar is strong why would I own gold? I mean there are lots of explanations. The simple explanation is of course that there were more sellers than buyers at that particular time. Now if you look at the pole market in gold, 1999 255 dollars went to 1921 dollars in September 2011 and then we had this correction which now we are in 2015, four years on and the price was always holding around 11 or 12 hundred and now it looks like it has broken down on the downside and then you have to ask yourself well is it a breakdown that will lead to further selling in other words, prices would move lower and find the low at, I don’t know, maybe 700, 800, 900 dollars, a thousand or is it a final liquidation from which prices will start to move up.

     

    I really don’t know, all I know is that I own gold and it doesn’t worry me that it went down because as I mentioned to you I have this diversification, the bonds in US dollars and the cash in US dollars has been a good investment essentially over the last twelve months. Then I own equities and I own properties in Asia that have been reasonably good investments so the fact that gold is going down doesn’t worry me and I buy every month a little bit but I think on this weakness I will increase the position substantially because I had maybe say 25% in gold but because equities and properties went up, the dollar went up and gold went down, the allocation to gold is no longer 25% but maybe only 10 or 15%.

     

    So then I have to stock it up again. But I would say an individual should definitely own some physical gold.

     

    The bigger question is where should he store it? because I think if we think it through, the failure of monetary policies will not be admitted by the professors that are at central banks, they will then go and blame someone else for it and then an easy target would be to blame it on people that own physical gold because they can argue, well these are the ones that do take money out of circulation and then the velocity of money goes down, we have to take it away from them.

     

    That has happened in 1933 in the US. With our brilliant governments in Europe that follow US policies and with the ECB talking every day to the Federal Reserve, they would do the same in Europe, take the gold away from people.

    Back to where we started: major investment themes. Which ones are you seeing on the horizon, if any at all?

    Yes, I mean first of all some investment themes are not easy to implement for individuals. In Asia, one country that stands out as having great economic potential is Vietnam.

     

    And by the way the whole Indochinese region with Vietnam in the east and then north west with Laos, south west with Cambodia and then Thailand, Myanmar, India, Bangladesh and in the north China, and in the south Malaysia, Singapore… that whole region with over 500 million people has tremendous growth potential and Cambodia at the present time is a boom town, a boom country because it is also politically related, the Japanese and Koreans invest a lot of money as well as the Americans and the Chinese so they all compete essentially because Cambodia is strategically important.

     

    Vietnam has a very strong export performance, the stock market has performed very badly for the last few years like China, until a year ago, properties have come down but in my view they are now bottoming out. The Vietnamese people are hardworking people not like say easy going like the Thais or the Indonesians or Philipinos, so I believe the country has a great potential.

     

    Number two with the agreement with Iran, I think the future of southern Iraq is guaranteed in other words, from Bagdad south, that whole region where the oil is, Basra, that is Shia, their political future is essentially guaranteed because the Shias of Iran will not let ISIS capture that territory nor let Saudi Arabia invade. The Iraqi stock market is very inexpensive, it is very cheap. It is very difficult to invest now in Iran but in Iraq it is much easier and there are funds so that is an opportunity in my view. For the last few years emerging markets have underperformed say the US grossly, but if I look at the next ten years and in the immediate future, I don’t think that the emerging markets will perform well, they will come off further in my view but they are markets that offer relative good value in the sense that you have many shares say in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand…that have a dividend yield of say 5-6% so at least you paid to wait. It is not yet at a very attractive valuation level but it´s reasonable. It is a world of inflated assets. Mining stocks are extremely depressed, I mean if someone says what is cheap in the market place then I would say the miners are incredibly low, next station is bankruptcy and maybe one of the big ones still goes bust and that would probably signal the end of the bear market in precious metals. Possible.

     

    The future is unknown and we are not dealing with markets that are free markets anymore. A free market is defined as a market when no market participant has a dominant influence and can manipulate the market. Now we have government interventions everywhere and you don’t know what they will buy next. They bought bonds and mortgage backed securities to depress the yields on these securities, they pushed interest rates essentially everywhere to 0, and by doing that they basically expropriate savers because money, one of the functions of paper money is to store value but at zero interest rates there is no store of value.

     

    They may through sovereign funds, they have done it already and the Swiss National Bank already bought shares, the Swiss National Bank they own over a billion dollars in Apple stock! You can be sure that Apple will go down because whatever the Swiss National Bank does is a disaster!

     

    That is a very good sell signal! The other sovereign funds have also bought equities. Now the sovereign funds are not going to increase anymore because most of them are oil related so they have to actually liquidate and that is a game changer from one trillion dollars in assets, sovereign funds in year 2002, they went to over seven trillion, I think they are going to come down to maybe three trillion, that will have an impact on liquidity and on yields.

    As for the long-term outlook, if the current set-up fails, what could replace it?

    That’s why I think they will take the gold away and go back to some gold standard by revaluing the gold say from now 1000 dollars an oz. to say 10,000 dollars an oz.

    This sounds rather far-fetched; at least when listening to professionals and people in academia.

    Yes but I want to tell you, just in the last say twelve months, I have observed an increasing number of academics who are questioning monetary policies.

     

    I mean some academics that have been quite mainstream in the past. I mean John Taylor has been critical for a long time as well as Ana Schwartz but she passed away and as Milton Freedman who also passed away a long time ago. But basically now I see more and more academics and influential people, also among the Republicans that are actually questioning the Fed and also the integrity of the Fed. That is a crack and as you said the credibility of the ECB is in my view badly tarnished already because people say how could they lend so much money to Greece?

     

    But you understand, they never ask ordinary people, they ask academics, or economists and they all also get paid somewhere because they are either in the one or the other commission, so they are not going… it’s like if you go into a hospital and a doctor has killed a few patients unintentionally, another doctor will never testify against him. He will shut up because he is afraid one day other people will turn against him. Mistakes happen. And so among academic circles you will very seldom find criticism of central banks.

    *  *  *

  • Startups Getting Trashed

    Well, the San Francisco Bay Area startup-for-everything economy has now reached a new low:

    0809-trashday

    Interested, eh? Well, there are plenty of details. I personally take comfort from the pledge that the people paid to drag my trash can will be rated by the community (“‘A+++++++ Would let drag my recycling to the curb again.”)

    0809-trashsec 

    Of course, none of this is free, ya know.

    0809-trashprice

    Happily, Silicon Valley hasn’t lost its sense of humor. Not to be outdone, this parody site has appeared:

    0809-silver

  • "Teflon" Trump Remains Double-Digit Leader In Post-Debate Poll

    Despite rumors, spin, Koch Brothers’ spending, and FOX News’ efforts, “Teflon” Donald Trump remains the clear leader in the first post-debate poll.

    As NBC News reports,

    According to the latest NBC News Online Poll conducted by SurveyMonkey, Trump is at the top of the list of GOP candidates that Republican primary voters would cast a ballot for if the primary were being held right now.

     

    The overnight poll was conducted for 24 hours from Friday evening into Saturday. During that period, Donald Trump stayed in the headlines due to his negative comments about Kelly and was dis-invited from a major conservative gathering in Atlanta.

     

    None of that stopped Trump from coming in at the top of the poll with 23 percent.

    * * *

     

    Carly Fiorina has surged into 4th place after her undercard victory this week and perhaps most stunningly for the ‘establishment’, Jeb Bush has dropped out of the Top 5.

  • Cop Acquitted In Murder Of Kelly Thomas Just Arrested For Domestic Violence

    Submitted by Sydney Barakat via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Manuel Ramos, 41, the former Fullerton police officer who was ultimately acquitted after being tried for the beating and killing of Kelly Thomas, has been arrested once more—this time for domestic violence.

     

    Thomas—an unarmed, mentally-ill homeless man—was brutally beaten to death by Ramos and two fellow officers in the summer of 2011. Two of the officers—Ramos, as well as Jay Cicinelli—were tried and acquitted of the murder. From the beginning, the case received nationwide coverage. A slew of peaceful protests resulted from the several injustices that were committed in this gut-wrenching case of excessive violence and abuse of power.

    Now, Ramos has been arrested again. As ABC7 news reported,

    “Police respond[ed] to a report of a family disturbance [and] arrested Manuel Ramos on July 16 after he allegedly assaulted a woman in the 3600 block of W. Oak Avenue.”

     Ramos was then booked on the charge of misdemeanor domestic violence, but soon after posted bail and was released. According to the report, the case still remains under investigation.

    This goes to show that when violent criminals are granted impunity, when they are let off the hook without even a slap on the wrist, they will continue their horrendous cycle of abuse of power and violence. When these murderers are exonerated without consequence, they are assisted in committing further assaults—in this case, domestic violence.

    Manuel-Ramos-mugshots

    Mugshots of former officer Manuel Ramos.

    Does Ramos lack so much compassion that he must beat the defenseless? First a mentally-ill man who was small in stature, then a woman.

    What is more ridiculous is that journalists and live-streamers who covered the Kelly Thomas case are being dragged through a long and tedious court ordeal. They are facing charges, trials, and time in prison for simply filming and documenting the protests that occurred as result of the officers’ acquittals. Our own Patti Beers—also known as “P.M.” on her social media accounts—is facing such absurd charges for filming the acquittal protests. Patti’s trial has been covered by the Anti-Media, The Fifth Column, OC Weekly, AnonHQ, and more.

    This case of police brutality and major injustices committed by law enforcement force us to ask:

    when will this horrendous cycle of violence end? When will the law be lawful? When will the justice system deliver justice?

    The issues extend far beyond Manuel Ramos, but if we let this cowardly badged thug go without consequence again, we are allowing for more of his kind to continue coming out of the woodworks. Additionally, if we allow journalists— real journalists like Patti Beers—to be tried for performing her civic duty—well, that’s just pouring salt in an already gaping wound.

  • Luxury Goods And Status Symbols In Trouble In China

    Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum via Acting-Man blog,

    A friend recently mailed us an article from the Hong Kong Standard which describes how extremely high retail shop rents in Hong Kong can no longer be paid even by retailers of luxury brands.

    Not only is this testament to the fact that Hong Kong’s real estate bubble has gotten out of hand quite a bit, but the waning demand for luxury goods is also highly interesting from a sociological and economic perspective. As the Standard reports:

    Business is getting tougher for Hong Kong’s retailers with the value of total retail sales dipping 1.6 percent in the first half of 2015 from a year back, according to the Census and Statistics Department’s latest data.

     

    Valuable gifts, including jewelry, watches and luxury goods, were hardest hit, with sales falling for 10 consecutive months. Sales value slumped 10.4 percent in June compared with a year earlier, despite efforts by several luxury brands – including Italian fashion house Prada – to boost sales by cutting prices. Squeezed by slimmer pickings in Hong Kong and the mainland market, top global luxury brands are looking to renegotiate store rents to cut costs.

     

    The latest to plead for landlords’ mercy was French luxury goods conglomerate LVMH. Revenue from its signature brand Louis Vuitton slumped 10 percent year- on-year in Hong Kong, Macau and China for the first half while Europe and the United States saw stronger sales of fashion and leather goods. It is also planning to close a directly operated shop of its biggest watch brand, Tag Heuer, in Causeway Bay.

     

    […]

     

    British high-end fashion house Burberry, which has 16 shops in the SAR, said it may trim its local store network and negotiate for lower rents after the Hong Kong market, which accounts for about one-tenth of the brand’s total sales, saw a double-digit percentage fall in sales over the period.

     

    Meanwhile, Gucci owner Kering said it will consider closing its Hong Kong and Macau outlets if rents stay high.

     

    […]

     

    Waning sales and whopping rents have sent Italian fashion label Baldinini packing. It shut its first and only flagship boutique in Hong Kong after just four months in operation, ending its three- year contract.

     

    In June, visitor arrivals from the mainland were down 1.8 percent year- on-year. Adding to the woes of luxury goods vendors are the changing spending patterns of mainland visitors, who are now looking for more mid-priced products.

    We don’t believe this is happening because prospective clients can no longer afford these goods. While Chinese consumers of ostentatious luxury items have probably taken a hit from China’s economic weakness and its wobbling real estate and stock market bubbles, they can surely still afford to buy Gucci bags and Tag Heuer watches. We believe that they rather no longer want to be seen adorned with such items.

    Typically a decline in the desire to own products conferring and announcing one’s high social status happens close to, or hand in hand with fairly severe economic downturns. People no longer want to stand out as rich when times are getting tough. This effect can be observed in numerous areas, even in the colors and shapes people choose when buying cars. The colors tend to change from loud ones such as red, to inconspicuous/conservative ones such as gray and brown. Car shapes tend to go from sportive and sleek to boxy and inconspicuous.

    Of course there is an additional reason for this development in China as our friend reminded us:

    “Your point they no longer want to be seen with them is especially acute today with mainland Chinese, who are (were) the big buyers of luxury goods, property and services here.

     

    […]

     

    The mainland’s corruption clampdown is deterring a lot of PRC citizens from exhibiting any wealth these days, a continuing crackdown that has lasted far longer than any Hong Kong businesses suspected and which has changed the dynamics of mainlander’s inward and outward spending.”

    To this we would point out that China’s relentless crackdown on corruption is informed by the same “social mood” that is driving the reluctance to buy luxury items, and is driving capital outflows from China as well as the increasing unwillingness of businesses to invest. These developments are simply manifestations of an environment that has soured: They signal that China’s entire society is increasingly infested with a bearish outlook.

    Recently China’s government has managed to halt the decline in the Shanghai stock market at what has reportedly been a huge cost. Zerohedge has published an article on a Goldman Sachs estimate of the amounts of money thrown at the market through government intervention. Apparently nearly 900 billion yuan have been spent merely to keep the market from cratering further.

    The Shanghai Composite Index – a triangle has now formed in the index in the wake of unprecedented government intervention. Unfortunately, triangles are usually trend continuation formations – click to enlarge.

    Our hunch is actually that this market will soon resume its decline in spite of the government’s frenetic antics. If China’s social mood has indeed turned bearish, nothing will keep the market from falling further.

    The Social Mood is Changing Everywhere

    In the US and Europe, sales of luxury goods appear to be in trouble as well. As a recent report in the Washington Post noted:

    “[…] experts say the penchant for more discreet luxury goods is also partly being fueled by the simmering political debate about income inequality, which is leaving some big spenders worried that it is tacky to carry a purse that practically announces its four-figure price tag.

     

    “We clearly can see that this is something where people are not wanting to show their wealth quite so conspicuously,” said Sarah Quinlan, who studies consumer spending patterns as the head of market insights for MasterCard Advisors.

     

    This new attitude has helped create a rough patch for some of the titans of the luxury retail industry. Louis Vuitton, Gucci and Prada ascended as icons of global wealth as their $5,500 handbags and $695 silk scarves became status symbols from New York to Shanghai.

     

    But today’s luxury shopper has soured on such obvious signs of affluence, in particular the logo-emblazoned goods that these brands became known for as they aggressively opened stores in emerging markets and in smaller cities in the United States and Europe.

     

    “This is really what keeps me up at night,” Johann Rupert, the chief executive of Richemont, which owns Cartier and other big luxury brands, said at a business conference last week. “Because people with money will not wish to show it. If your child’s best friend’s parents go unemployed, you don’t want to buy a car or anything showy.”

    We certainly wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of a manager of a luxury brand company right now. However, what is important here from our perspective is what this change in attitudes is saying about society as a whole and what its likely impact on financial markets and the economy is going to be. Luxury goods are typically doing best during bull markets, when people are suffused with optimism and are actually eager to show of their riches and success.

    When this mood changes, it is a sign that the bullish trend in “risk assets” is likely to reverse. In fact, it signals a decline in people’s willingness to take risk more generally, which obviously has negative implications for the economy as well.

    Conclusion

    This is a trend one should definitely keep an eye on. It represents yet another subtle warning sign for the economy, stocks and other risk assets.

  • Shots Fired In Ferguson On Brown Death Anniversary, Day After Hillary Says "Police Bias Is Clear"

    Four days after we showed a video in which Nation of Islam leader urged black Americans to “rise up and kill those who kill us”, two days after we reported that “Black-White Race Relations Under Obama are the Worst In The 21st Century“, shots were fired, according to Reuters, on Sunday during a march in Ferguson, Missouri to mark the one year anniversary of the fatal shooting of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown, police said.

    It was unclear who fired the shots or the extent of any injuries, a police spokesman told reporters, but initial reports suggested they were not aimed at the marchers. About six shots were heard as 300 people made their way to a church on the outskirts of Ferguson as part of events to mark the death of Brown at the hands of a white police officer one year ago.

     

    St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said he was angry that a shooting had marred the weekend’s events in Ferguson, which have so far gone off without major incidents or arrests.

     

    “These are the exact kind of events we try to avoid. I think it’s unfortunate. We are trying to keep everybody as safe as we can,” Belmar told reporters.

    More troubling is that none other than the potential future president of the US was adding gasoline to the fire yesterday, when in an interview with Al Sharpton – her second national broadcast interview since she declared her candidacy in April – Hillary Clinton discussed “criminal justice reform” and said the following:

    If you compare arrest records in, you know, charging of crimes, in convicting of crimes, in sentencing of crimes, you compare African-American men to white men. It is unfortunately clear as it could be that there is a bias in favor of white men…

    The exchange takes place around 25 minutes 40 seconds into the video recording below:

    Well, yes, there are certainly problem cases such as the “Police Officer Caught On Tape Discussing “Ways To Kill A Black Man And Cover It Up.” However, when a presidential candidate goes openly on record to state that she implicitly backs all those who say all the US police is problematic, is it any wonder Louis Farrakhan will that “if the federal government will not intercede in our affairs, then we must rise up and kill those who kill us. Stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling.” In fact, he may well say that Hillary Clinton herself is supportive of his cause and, sure enough, her words would be sufficiently open for interpretation to permit such a take.

    Finally, today’s Ferguson anniversary protest (and shooting) comes a day after the grotesque if not surreal took place for another democratic presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders in Seattle, when several visibly angry young “Black Lives Matter” activists stormed his stage, and whose beef with the mild-mannered 73-year-old socialist was not exactly clear neither was their intention (just like all the “#OccupyWallStreet “activists”) but who got to scream for a few minutes regardless. Bernie was literally speechless through the unscripted commotion, and ultimately decided to just leave without giving his speech.

  • Summer Jobs Disappear; Lazy Teens, Immigrants Blamed

    Back in May, we highlighted a report which showed that across OECD countries, 35 million people between the ages of 16 and 29 are jobless. “Overall, young people are twice as likely as prime-age workers to be unemployed,” the OECD said. 

    As anyone who follows the slow motion trainwreck that is the EMU knows, youth joblessness across the periphery is a disaster, with unemployment rates between 40% and 50%. And things aren’t great in America either. As nonprofit Generation Opportunity recently noted, “the effective (U-6) unemployment rate for 18-29 year olds, which adjusts for labor force participation by including those who have given up looking for work, is 13.8 percent (NSA).”

    Against this backdrop, consider the following from Bloomberg, who bemoans the demise of the legendary “summer job” in America and offers three explanations for its disappearance. 

    Via Bloomberg:

    At 41.3 percent, the July labor force participation rate of teens was the lowest for the month in the post-World War II period.

     

    The teenage summer job has been going the way of telephone booths and the cassette tape for decades. The length of the downward trend has been masked by the fact that it’s hard to tease apart teen summer jobs from teen employment more generally.

     

    Looking at the jump in the labor-force participation of teens in July over the average for the school months, it’s clear that summer jobs peaked in the mid-1960s and have been sliding since.

     

     

    What gives?

     

    1. This generation is lazy

    Or, as Northeastern University labor economist Alicia Modestino puts it: “Some teens are doing other stuff” like coding camp, foreign travel or beaching it.

     

    2. Typical teen jobs are drying up

    “Think Blockbuster,” said Modestino. 

     

    3. Teens face competition

    Modestino and other labor economists believe that the single-biggest explanation for the decline is that teenagers face stiff competition for what were once summer jobs from other workers, especially immigrants.

    So basically, the excuses for the demise of the summer job are i) laziness, ii) lack of available employment, and iii) immigrant competition. 

    Come to think of it, those three excuses are a pretty good explanation for all joblessness in America. 

  • The Canaries Continue To Drop Like Flies

    Submited by Mark St.Cyr,

    One would think as “canary” after “canary” falls silent either sickened with laryngitis, or worse – completely comatose, that those on Wall Street as well as the financial media itself would not only have seen, but heard, many of the warning calls that have been obvious for quite some time. Yet, history always shows; not only do they not see, but more often than not – they don’t want to see, nor hear the warning calls.

    Even when all the warning signs are screaming danger – not only are they ignored, they’re explained away as if those which saw or heard them, should be ignored as they’ll contend not only did one not see; but couldn’t see.

    What they’ll propose is: “That was not a “canary” but rather a  “dodo.”  After all, with a Fed that’s as interactive as this one currently is, surely what they believe they heard, or saw is impossible. For people say they’ve spotted warning signs in these ‘markets’ for years, and none have yet produced a crisis because – they’re now extinct! ” Yet, the wheezing sounds of many a Wall Street songbird has been apparent for quite a while. Again: If only one would care to look or listen.

    Back in April of 2014 in an article titled “The Scarlet Absence Of A Letter of Credit” I opined a few scenarios as to why this seemingly dismissed revelation by the so-called “smart crowd” should not go unnoticed. For the implications may very well portend far greater reasons too worry in the coming future. Below is an excerpt. And let’s not forget this is some 16 months ago. When the financial media et al were still reciting in unison the wonders to which, “China will be the economy that leads us out of this current malaise.”

    “Over the last few years since the financial melt down of 2008, we have seen what many have believed are precursors that may tip the hand of markets as to show just how unhealthy this levitating act fueled by free money has become.

     

    And yes there are always false indicators, and we all know correlation doesn’t equal causation. And even more may shrug and think, “No letter of credit, so what.” However, if there were ever a canary in a coalmine worth noting this is one not to let one’s eyes to divert from.

     

    The issue at hand is not just the foolishness of the absence contained in a one-off LOC gamble some company would take. Far from it.

     

    It’s the desperation that could be hidden that’s a precursor one has to watch for. For the amount of desperation, or the degree that might be hidden beneath the surface to which a commodity will be sent overseas to another country, a country for all intents and purposes is using that very product as a pseudo currency to back other financial obligations without the requisite document to be paid. Is mind numbingly dangerous in its implications in my view.”

    Fast forward to today and what is the current state of the commodity sector? If your answer resembled something along the lines of catastrophe, falling knife, broke or busted; you would be closer to reality than the “everything is awesome” spin you used to hear when the price of another commodity: oil, dropped again, and again signalling the cue for analysts to take to the airwaves or keyboards and herald “More money in consumers pockets via a reduction in gas prices equals more consumer spending!” Yet, you don’t hear that tune any longer do you?

    Consumer spending, the metric that’s been trumpeted as “the” supposed songbird for the chorus of data points as to prove there’s an ever burgeoning economy. Not only hasn’t shown signs of growth when it comes to retail spending. It too has contracted. The most recent U.S. Dept. of Commerce release in July showed June with a decrease of 0.3% from the previous month, while April and May were also revised downward.

    During this period oil (e.g., Brent) has precipitously dropped from over $100 per barrel to where it now sits and bounces under $50. However, just to give a little more context. The first fall was over a year ago where it initially free-fell cutting its price in half just when it should have had the greatest impact. e.g., The Christmas holiday shopping season. And the result? Dismal holiday sales returns. So dismal all one heard or read was the excuse of “the weather.”

    So now with reports for April, May, and June in the books during another precipitous oil drop. This time albeit from a far lower bar ($65-ish.) falling once again below the $50 mark and not only remaining, but seeming to threaten falling even further to even lower lows. It’s now hard to ignore the fact, all that presumed “money in consumers pockets” made possible to spend is either lost in the sofa cushions or, never materialized in the way many on Wall Street were convinced it would. For if it did – than why would numbers be revised down?

    Once again, let’s not forget this is during another of what many see as the “get out and hit the open road fun-time” officially kicked off via the Memorial Day holiday. And May of June’s number couldn’t even hold to unchanged status? What does that scream let alone “sing?”

    What happened to the “pent-up demand” that must have surely been burning holes in consumers pockets with all that gas savings we were told was taking place across the nation? Surely one must construe if it didn’t take place during the holiday shopping it therefore must at least show signs when the weather broke. Unless the consumer is what many of us have argued: Broke. It would seem the “numbers” are showing that’s far more the case.

    Another canary that seems to have fallen silent is the one that sang the tune “This Qtr. just you watch, earnings will need to be revised up!” And they have, only not from a level that would suggest a healthy start to begin with.

    The game of “bait and switch” metric announcements or reporting is not only laughable it borders on obscene. So much so I would envision if one asked a street-hustling 3-card-Monte player what they thought of today’s earnings reporting. They would throw down their cards in disgust and ask how they missed such a money-making racket opportunity. For if you can start by saying 4, then lower it to 1, where they come in at 2 – only on Wall Street can one state with a straight face (as well as duck any jail time for outright fraud) “This earnings season not only beat expectations, but was double the consensus!”

    Only a street hustler can fully appreciate, as well as be left envious to this ingenious sleight of hand.

    Then there’s the “Greece is solved” and “Greece doesn’t matter” chorus that was proclaimed before, during, and after the first indications of trouble. And once again we are waking to the tune near daily, not only is Greece still not solved – it sits on a perch so precariously swinging too-and-fro between further calamity into an outright civil chaos and catastrophe. So much so the greater media at large seems exhausted as to vocalize any further developments.

    And who can forget that other tune that suddenly has also fallen silent: “The economy is not only ready to take off once QE has ended, and we expect GDP to not only signal but print 4%+ in the coming Qrts. After all, we just went from our previous upward revised call which was just under 4 – where we just printed 5% for Q3!”

    All sounds great except for one thing. That Q3 was Q3 2014. What happened next? Lest I remind you to look back on some of the preceding paragraphs?  For that’s where I reminded you about “weather” and the dismal revisions to a lower Q1, and Q2 spending reports, let alone where GDP prints are proposed to print next. However, if one listens carefully, what seems abundantly clear for the next print will be a tune that sounds familiar. Only this time  – 3 is now the new 5!

    Even if one tries to shield their eyes and ears away from these harbingers in ways we’ve all been reminded countless times by Disney™ movies spanning generations as: “not too worry and sing a happy tune.” The problem there? Disney’s own dulcet tones were met this earnings season with a far different reception, as its shares like many others of the media space that were once considered “bank” were tarred and feathered as its stock was treated more like the paper found in the bottom of the bird’s cage.

    If there’s one note that’s been ringing louder and louder it’s this…

    It’s getting harder and harder for even the most vocal among Wall Street as they try to sing the “everything is awesome” song when the ground around them continues to be littered with an ever-increasing amount of sprawled out – motionless – canaries.

  • "We Should Admit This Isn’t Going To Work": One Country's Grim Assessment Of Greece's Future

    On Saturday, Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung reported that Greece’s creditors – the “quadriga” as it were – had agreed on the terms to be imposed on Athens in return for an ESM rescue package worth some €86 billion. The 27-page draft MOU is “substantial and far reaching,” and includes cuts to defense spending and subsidies for farmers, Bloomberg says, summarizing the FAZ report. 

    Greece desperately needs to close the deal next week. If the new program isn’t formally in place by August 20, a €3.2 billion payment to the ECB won’t be possible – a default to the central bank would likely be catastrophic, as Greece’s banking sector would collapse entirely in the absence of the ELA liquidity drip.

    Once Greek officials agree to the conditions, the draft will be circulated to EMU member countries for approval and Alexis Tsipras will need to go once more to parliament where he hopes the Syriza rebellion which imperiled the first two votes on bailout prior actions will have died down in the wake of a dramatic party meeting late last month in which the Greek Premier insisted that for the time being, “opposing voices must stop.” Here’s Reuters:

    Greece is on track to complete a draft deal on a third bailout by Tuesday and possibly get a first disbursement by Aug. 20 to meet a key payment, sources familiar with a conference call of senior EU finance officials late on Friday said.

     

    Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has tried to force the pace of the talks, keen to wrap up agreement on sensitive economic reforms by mid-August, while many Greeks are on holiday, and receive an initial aid disbursement by Aug. 20 in time to make a bond payment to the European Central Bank.

     

    If a draft memorandum of understanding and an updated debt sustainability analysis are ready as planned on Tuesday, the Greek government and parliament would be expected to approve them by Thursday.

    And more from Kathimerini:

    Greece will aim to finalize an agreement with lenders next week in the hope of being in a position to pass the deal through Parliament by next Thursday.

     

    There are a number of issues that need to be ironed out in the next couple of days if the government is to be able to keep to a timetable that would allow the European Stability Mechanism to disburse money before Greece has to repay 3.2 billion euros to the European Central Bank on August 20.

     

    Some of the issues on which there is yet to be agreement include changes to farmers’ taxation, scrapping nuisance taxes, further product market liberalization, deregulating some professions and allowing Sunday trading.

     

    The other issues that must be settled are which prior actions have to be approved now and how much fresh funding Greece will receive on approval of the third bailout.

     

    If the new agreement is approved by the Greek Parliament on Thursday, eurozone finance ministers are likely to convene the next day to give their green light as well. 

    Of course not every EMU finance minister is convinced that the ad hoc, rushed effort to disburse aid to Greece is prudent. As Reuters goes on to note, German FinMin Wolfgang Schaeuble (who, you’re reminded, would much prefer that Greece simply leaves the currency bloc so that Berlin can send a message to Rome and, more importantly, to Paris) favors a second bridge loan from the EFSM so as to allow for futher deliberation:

    Some countries, led by Germany, were keen to nail down more specific long-term reform commitments in addition to the immediate actions to be implemented, the source added.

     

    Germany, keen on fiscal discipline and far-reaching economic reforms, is sceptical of any early deal and doubts a multi-billion-euro bailout can be agreed by mid-August.

     

    “It remains completely open,” said one politician from the ruling coalition government, adding that Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble was taking a cautious view of comments by commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker on the chances of a deal.

     

    Greece would not get a free ticket to new aid, the coalition politician added.

     

    The Sueddeutsche Zeitung said the German Finance Ministry favoured another bridge loan to give Greece and its creditors time to negotiate a comprehensive reform programme.

     

    The ministry says a range of issues remain to be settled.

    Yes, a “range of issues” are still up for debate, the most pressing of which is the simple question of whether the entire effort is ultimately for naught, something the IMF has suggested on a number of occasions. One person who thinks the new bailout is an exercise in futility is Finnish Foreign Minister Timo Soini who, as Bloomberg reports, thinks Europe should simply admit “that this isn’t going to work.”

    A third Greek bailout won’t work and will only prolong the difficulties plaguing the euro area, according to Finnish Foreign Minister Timo Soini.

     

    But his party, the euro-skeptic the Finns, is ready to discuss another rescue package because allowing Greece to fail would only add to Europe’s costs, he said.

     

    The Finns party, which in April became part of a ruling coalition for the first time, has no choice but to support a bailout since not doing so would cause the three-party government to collapse. That would only open the door for the left-wing opposition, Soini said.

     

    “I kept my party in the opposition for four years because of this subject,” he said. “But with this government structure we can’t block the program alone and we’d be replaced.”

     


     

    While Finland drove a hard bargain during Greece’s second bailout, it may no longer have the clout to block a deal. Finland has already made its 1.44 billion-euro contribution to the permanent European Stability Mechanism. Should Europe decide that the future of the euro zone is at stake, a bailout won’t require unanimous backing from members; 85 percent is enough.

     

    Even without an imminent bailout agreement, a European fund deployed in July to help Greece clear arrears contains about 5 billion euros and could be tapped again for a bridge loan.

     

    According to Soini, bridge financing will do little to solve the long-term fiscal plight Greece faces.

     

    “This bridge funding isn’t going to be final solution,” he said. “There’s no solution for this particular problem that doesn’t cost Finnish taxpayers.” 

    Unfortunately, Soini’s assessment applies to a number of EMU governments and in the end, the paradox of the Greek tragicomedy may well be that no one (including Greece) wants to keep Greece in the EMU but everyone will endeavor to preserve the status quo because changing things is simply too painful. With that in mind, we’ll leave you with the following quote from Soini:

    “If Greece collapsed and Grexit would be tomorrow’s reality, we would lose 3-4 billion euros more or less at once. So I hope that the EU and euro zone, that in due course, we can face the facts and say enough is enough and that we must do something else.”

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 9, 2015

  • "Orwellian" FBI Says Citizens Should Have No Secrets That The Government Can't Access

    Submitted by J.D. Heyes via NaturalNews.com,

    The police and surveillance state predicted in the forward-looking 1940s classic “1984” by George Orwell, has slowly, but steadily, come to fruition. However, like a frog sitting idly in a pan of steadily-warming water, too many Americans still seem unaware that the slow boil of big government is killing their constitutional liberties.

    The latest sign of this stealth takeover of civil rights and freedom was epitomized in recent Senate testimony by FBI Director James Comey, who voiced his objections to civilian use of encryption to protect personal data – information the government has no automatic right to obtain.

    As reported by The New American, Comey testified that he believes the government’s spy and law enforcement agencies should have unfettered access to everything Americans may store or send in electronic format: On computer hard drives, in so-called i-clouds, in email and in text messaging – for our own safety and protection. Like many in government today, Comey believes that national security is more important than constitutional privacy protections or, apparently, due process. After all, aren’t criminals the only ones who really have anything to hide?

    In testimony before a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee entitled “Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and the Balance Between Public Safety and Privacy” Comey said that in order to stay one step ahead of terrorists, as well as international and domestic criminals, Uncle Sam’s various spy and law enforcement agencies should have access to available technology used to de-encrypt protected data. Also, he believes the government should be the final arbiter deciding when decryption is necessary.

    What could go wrong there?

    Government, at all levels, is responsible

    During the hearing, TNA reported, technology experts warned the panel that giving the FBI limitless access to the personal electronic data of Americans would open it up to exploitation by “bad actors.” But Comey was having none of that.

    “It is clear that governments across the world, including those of our closest allies, recognize the serious public safety risks if criminals can plan and undertake illegal acts without fear of detection,” he told the committee.

     

    “Are we comfortable with technical design decisions that result in barriers to obtaining evidence of a crime?”

    So, in essence, Comey like many before him, especially since the global war on terror was launched – believes that, in the name of national security Americans ought to give up more of their individual and constitutional rights because that’s the only way we can be adequately protected.

    Perhaps realizing that his Senate hearing testimony was public, Comey gave the Constitution a passing glance, noting that the government should respect the “requirements and safeguards of the laws” and the country’s founding document. However, as Americans now know, spy agencies during the past two presidential administrations have been tasked increasingly with conducting warrantless, unchecked surveillance of Americans’ electronic data and communications.

    But all of this is not on men like Comey and Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Congress bears its share of responsibility, too.

    This is the way it is – shut up and take it

    When such activities of the National Security Agency were exposed in 2013 by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, many in the media and among the American electorate were quick to blame the agency, as if it was somehow acting out of rogue instinct.

    The reality is, however, that the agency is tasked to perform its duties either by statutory law (think the USA Patriot Act) or by presidential directive (think Bush’s order after 9/11 to conduct warrantless surveillance).

    “We are not asking to expand the government’s surveillance authority, but rather we are asking to ensure that we can continue to obtain electronic information and evidence pursuant to the legal authority that Congress has provided to us to keep America safe,” Comey said during the Senate hearing.

    What does all this mean? It simply means that at every level, government considers its own citizens hostile.

    Oh, and there’s nothing we can do about it.

  • Something's Up with Elon

    Although I’m a dyed-in-the-wool chartist, I appreciate when people make thoughtful conjectures about what’s going to happen to a company, a financial instrument, or a country based on their broad observations. Remember, “speculate” is derived from the Latin verb speculare, which means to observe. Successful investors notice things.

    As such, I’d like to share something I’ve noticed. It first started back on July 29th, when I got an email from Elon Musk (errr, not personally, but it a spammy kind of way). It started off like this:

    0808-tslamailtwo

    It went on to say, at some length, that for every person I’d refer that bought a Tesla Model S, they’d get $1,000 off, and I would likewise get $1,000 off my next car. Not a bad deal! But it did strike me as a little surprising to get an email like this, since Tesla really never seemed to be hurting for interest in their cars before. And besides, Musk is reported to have a net worth of something like $13 billion, so why is he stooping to use his name on an all-text email solicitation?

    Then, about a week later, this showed up:

    0808-tslamail

    In this email, it described the same offer, but it kindly included a spammy email that I could send on my own to my friends. So now, not only was I getting spammed, but I was being provided with ready-to-use junk mail I could use as well.

    My puzzlement reached critical mass when my Tesla app was updated. I noticed a button I had never seen before:

    0808-fromelon

    Ummm……….so precious screen real estate is being used on a button called From Elon? (And, to be clear, this isn’t temporary; it apparently is there forever). I clicked it, and, yep, there was something resembling the original email. However, there was something extra: I could click on a Find Friends button, and voila:

    0808-contacts

    It was ready to go through all the contacts in my iPhone so I could start spamming them quickly and easily!

    Now this is all getting to be a bit much. In March of 2013, I wrote an over-the-top review of the Tesla S, praising it to the skies (I did not have the intelligence to actually buy a bunch of TSLA, however, which was a mere $38 at the time). Back then, every touchpoint of the Tesla experience was amazing.

    For instance, if you needed to bring your car in for service, you could get an appointment immediately, and they would give you another Tesla S to use for whatever time they needed your car. I was accustomed to having to rent a piece-of-crap vehicle from Enterprise whenever I had cars serviced in the past. At Tesla, they’d just hand you a new $100,000 car for free to enjoy while your own car was being fixed. Sweet!

    Since then, though, things have started to slip……….badly. First off, Tesla remains a one product company. They sell just one thing – the Model S –  and even though they keep coming up with goofy versions of it (with ‘Insane” mode……….and “Ludicrous” mode………) they have yet to ship their long-promised Model X, a fact I griped about in this post.

    Tesla has taken pains to say they are finally going to release it in “Q3” – – and now they are saying that they will ship their first Model X on September 30th. Look, guys, I know that shipping a single car on the very last day of the quarter strictly qualifies as Q3, but this is a bit disingenuous. I’m also predicting, based on all the public whining Musk has done about what a bitch the gull-wing doors have been to get working, that a bunch of the early X’s shipped have problems. We’ll see.

    In addition, service doesn’t seem what it used to be. Things are starting to go wrong with my Model S, the worst of which is that one of the fancy automatically-receding door handles no longer comes out. In other words, it’s totally unusable. It feels a little strange having a $100,000 car and explaining to a passenger that they have to walk around to the other side, since the goddamned handle doesn’t function. I might as well have a 1974 AMC Pacer.

    So, when calling for a service appointment in July, I was told they could see me…………in September. Umm, gosh, I’m glad it’s not something serious.

    Perhaps these festering problems explain why TSLA peaked eleven months ago, losing one third of its entire value afterward, and then (oddly) clamoring back to roughly its prior high. It is weakening again now, and based on my first-hand experiences, I’m starting to think this is a trend that is going to persist.

    0808-tsladrop

    Don’t forget that only two years ago, Tesla was (secretly) approaching bankruptcy and was close to a deal with Google to sell itself. Tesla has been propped up with government loans and “green” credits of various kinds for all these years, and let’s face it, with gas prices collapsing, the appeal of an expensive all-electric car is diminishing.

    The Model S is still the best car I’ve ever owned, and I’d still recommend it. But if Tesla doesn’t start to get its act together with respect to delivering new products and getting their service back into its former tip-top shape, I suspect the symbol TSLA will make a long, tortured trip back down to the double digits.

  • Peak Insanity: Chinese Brokers Now Selling Margin Loan-Backed Securities

    One of the reasons why the Chinese dragon quite often appears to be chasing its own tail is that the country is trying to re-leverage and deleverage at the same time. 

    Take China’s local government debt refi effort for instance. Years of off-balance sheet borrowing left China’s provincial governments to labor under a debt pile that amounts to around 35% of GDP and thanks to the fact that much of the borrowing was done via LGFVs, interest rates average between 7% and 8%, making the debt service payments especially burdensome. In an effort to solve the problem, Beijing decided to allow local governments to issue muni bonds and swap them for the LGFV debt, saving around 400 bps in interest expense in the process. Of course banks had no incentive to make the swap (especially considering NIM may come under increased pressure as it stands), and so, the PBoC decided to allow the banks to pledge the new muni bonds for central bank cash which could then be re-lent into the real economy. So, China is deleveraging (the local government refi effort) and re-leveraging (banks pledge the newly-issued munis for cash which they then use to make more loans) simultaneously. 

    We can see similar contradictions elsewhere in China’s financial markets. For instance, Beijing has shown a willingness to tolerate defaults – even among state-affiliated companies. This is an effort (if a feeble one so far) to let the invisible hand of the market purge bad debt and flush out failed enterprises. Meanwhile, Beijing is enacting new policies designed to encourage risky lending. In April for instance, the PBoC indicated it was set to remove a bureaucratic hurdle from the ABS issuance process, which means that suddenly, trillions in loans which had previously sat idle on banks’ books, will now be sliced, packaged, and sold. Specifically, the PBoC said regulatory approval would no longer be required to issue ABS (hilariously, successive RRR cuts have served to reduce banks’ incentive to package loans, but we’ll leave that aside for now). Once again, deleveraging (tolerating defaults) and re-leveraging (making it easier for banks to get balance sheet relief via ABS issuance), all at once. 

    There’s a parallel between this dynamic and what’s taking place in China’s equity markets. That is, a dramatic unwind in the half dozen or so backdoor margin lending channels (a swift deleveraging) has been met with a government-backed effort to prop up the market via China Securities Finance Corp., which has been transformed into a state-controlled margin lending Frankenstein that could ultimately end up with some CNY5 trillion in dry power (a mammoth attempt at re-leveraging). 

    Now, the PBoC will look to supercharge efforts to re-engineer a stock market bubble via leverage by pushing brokerages to issue ABS backed by margin loans. Here’s The South China Morning Post:

    Huatai Securities is selling 500 million yuan of the country’s first asset-based securities product built on margin-financing loans as underlying assets.

     

    The product is due to be listed and sold to investors through the Shanghai Stock Exchange.

     

    The minimum investment for the product is 100,000 yuan, with exposure of a single borrower capped at 5 per cent. Investors will bear the risks for gains and losses in the underlying portfolio.

     

    Approval to mainland brokerages to securitise margin loans was given by the China Securities Regulatory Commission on July 1. Brokerages have been encouraged to raise capital via securitisation to help them recapitalise.

    A couple of things should be obvious here. First, this sets up the possibility that a perpetual motion margin doomsday machine is being created. That is, if brokerages simply offload the margin loan risk to investors and use the proceeds to fund still more margin lending which can also be turned into still more ABS, and so, then the effect will be to pile leverage on top of leverage on the way to constructing a monumental house of cards. Beyond that though, one certainly wonders what happens in the event the underlying stocks become completely illiquid (i.e. Beijing decides to suspend trading on three quarters of the market again). Here’s a bit more from Bloomberg:

    China’s first asset-backed security tied to stock margin loans is raising concern that authorities are fueling new risks as they attempt to reverse an equities slump.

     

    Guotai Junan Securities Co., the nation’s second-biggest listed brokerage, plans to sell 500 million yuan ($80.5 million) of bonds Friday backed by margin facilities it extended to stock investors, according to a company statement. The offering comes after a stock rout last month that prompted regulators to allow brokerages to securitize margin loans.

     

    China is increasingly opening to ABS, having reversed course in 2012 to allow sales regulators had banned in 2009 after the products helped spark the global financial crisis. Investor concern has mounted that unintended risks could spread after unprecedented state intervention to help staunch the stock slide that wiped out as much as $4 trillion.

     

    “The risk could be that brokers may not be able to execute forced liquidations in case of sharp declines in the overall stock market,” said Shujin Chen, a banking analyst at DBS Vickers Hong Kong Ltd. “Liquidity risk can also be a problem if there are too many stocks that suspend trading, as happened in July.”

     

    “So far we don’t know how the brokerages are going to use the proceeds,” said Gao Qunshan, an analyst at Tianfeng Securities Co. “It can be positive if they are using the funds to develop new businesses but negative for China’s financial market if they keep lending out for margin financing.”

    Yes, it certainly “could be a negative if they keep lending out for margin financing,” which they most certainly will if not of their own accord then by PBoC decree. 

    And the punchline: the senior tranche (which accounts for CNY475 million of the total CNY500 million deal) is rated AAA.

  • You Live In A Country Run By Idiots If…

    Via Monty Pelerin's World blog,

    We truly live in a country run by idiots. The contradictions between common sense and government actions are just too many to have happened by accident or chance. But perhaps the leaders are not the idiots. Maybe the people tolerating such leaders and laws are the true idiots.

    What follows is a contrast between common folk wisdom and what Washington considers wisdom. These contradictions are inconvenient for government, threatening to reveal their incompetence or hidden agenda. The author of this piece is unknown although it sounds like something that could have come from Jeff Foxworthy who popularized this presentation style.

    Oh, and regarding the image above – we are the idiots for accepting this nonsense.

    If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally, you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If you have to get your parent’s permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion, you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor or check out a library book, but not to vote who runs the government, you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy leaders in Egypt , you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If, in the largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat, you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If an 80-year-old woman can be strip-searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched, you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more, you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is cute, but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable, you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, Subsidized Housing and Free Cell Phones, you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize NOT working with 99 weeks of unemployment checks and no requirement to prove they applied but cannot find work, you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more safe according to the government, you live in a country run by idiots.

     

    If you are offended by this article, I’ll bet you voted for the idiots who are running our great country into the ground.

    *  *  *

    idiots stooges

    GOD BLESS AMERICA

  • Is China's 'Black Box' Economy About To Come Apart?

    Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

    After 30 years of torrid expansion, perhaps the single most consequential factor in China’s economy is how much of it is a “black box”: a system with visible inputs and outputs whose internal workings are opaque.

    There are number of reasons for this lack of transparency:

    1. Official statistics reflect what officials want to project, not the unfiltered data.
    2. Policy decisions are made behind closed doors by a handful of leaders.
    3. There is little institutional history of transparency.
    4. Many important statistics are self-reported and prone to distortion.
    5. Large sectors of the economy are informal and difficult if not impossible to measure accurately.
    6. Endemic corruption distorts critical economic yardsticks.
    7. There is little historical precedent to guide policy makers and individual investors.

    None of these is unique to China, of course, with the possible exception of #7: few nations in history (if any) have experienced an equivalent boom in infrastructure, credit, housing and wealth in such a short span of time.

    Saving Face By Editing Data

    As anyone who has lived and worked in Asia can attest, public perception (i.e. "face") is of paramount concern.  There is tremendous pressure to put a positive spin on everything in the public sphere.  Negative publicity causes not just the individual to lose face, but his boss, agency, company and family may also be tarnished.

    For this reason, reporting potentially negative numbers accurately may put careers and hopes for advancement at risk.

    This accretion of fear of reprisal/disapproval builds as it moves up the pyramid of command.  This process can lead to tragic absurdities being taken as truth.  In one famous example in Mao-era China, officials ordered rice planted in thick abundance along a particular stretch of road, so that when Chairman Mao was driven along this roadway, he would see evidence of a spectacular rice harvest.

    In reality, China was in the grip of a horrific famine resulting from disastrous state policies (The Great Leap Forward). But since everyone feared the consequences of telling Mao his policies were starving millions of Chinese people, the fields along the highway was planted to mask the unwelcome reality.

    Even the most honest reports reflect the biases of those summarizing feedback for their superiors. As a result, when the feedback finally reaches the top leadership, it may be inaccurate or misleading in ways that are difficult to detect.

    The Dangers Of Opaque Leadership Decisions

    All leaders have their own biases and experiential limits, and left unchecked by accurate feedback and honest dissent, these have the potential to generate disastrous decisions.

    Perhaps the top leadership in China is soliciting honest dissent, but without a vigorously free media and multiple unedited feedback loops, this is unlikely for systemic reasons.

    Most people—leaders and followers alike—seek to confirm their own views (i.e. confirmation bias). A system in which key decisions are not aired publicly and the trustworthiness of the data being considered behind closed doors is also unknown is a system designed to reinforce confirmation bias and yes-men.

    In this environment, destructive policies may be supported by the chain of command despite the consequences.

    Lack Of Institutional History of Transparency

    Institutions with a long history of independence and a policy of priding transparency have the potential to counter the tendency of hierarchies to encourage confirmation bias and fudged feedback.

    But China’s tumultuous history in the 20th century—invasion, foreign occupation, civil war, revolution, mass famines, the Cultural Revolution’s mass disruptions and purges, the end of Mao’s Gang of Four and Deng Xiaoping’s “to get rich is glorious” reforms—has not been conducive to the establishment of independent institutions.

    Developing the independence of institutions in the midst of such unprecedented political, social and economic turmoil is a long-term work in progress. Though no comparison is entirely analogous, we can look at the first equally tumultuous 30 years of the American Republic (1790 – 1820) and the French Republic (1789-1819) for historical examples of the difficulties in establishing enduringly independent institutions.

    Self-Reported Statistics

    Self-reported data plays a significant role in any economic snapshot that measures sentiment and expectations. But when it comes to income, outstanding loans and other data, there’s no substitute for accurate numbers.

    As a general rule, the larger the informal cash economy and the greater the leeway and the incentives to under-report, the lower the quality of self-reported statistics.

    Take income as an example. In the U.S., the vast majority of non-cash income is reported directly to the tax authorities: wages, 1099s, sales of securities, etc.  The leeway to fudge income is low, which pushes the incentives to fudge onto the expense/deduction side of the ledger.  For this reason, IRS income data is more trustworthy than self-reported measures of income and employment.

    Consider this chart of household income in China.  A survey of households found incomes were much higher than the officially collated numbers. In the case of the top earners, the difference was significant enough to skew a variety of key numbers such as household income as a percentage of GDP.

    (Source)

    The differences between official data and data collected by surveys is troubling for a number of reasons. Given the incentives to under-report (to avoid paying higher taxes), why should we trust the accuracy of self-reported income? Who’s to say that wealthy households don’t habitually under-report their true income even to surveys?

    Given the ubiquity of the informal economy and shadow banking system in China, official data cannot accurately reflect peer-to-peer lending, private loans outstanding and many other data points that are critical to understanding income, risk and credit flows.

    The Informal Economy & Shadow Banking

    These discrepancies between actual debt and what’s reported could have monumental consequences should expansion turn to contraction and debts become uncollectible.

    It’s been estimated that a third of all Chinese households engage in informal lending to friends and family, as well as to enterprises that pay high rates of interest due to the risky nature of their investments.

    Interest can run as high as 34% — loan-shark rates.

    Even the slices of the credit/investment sector that are reported—for example, Wealth Management Products (WMPs)—are more Wild West than staid banking. WMPs are managed off-balance sheet and don’t require any reserves:

    “Legally WMPs are not deposits. They are investment products that are managed ‘off-balance-sheet’ by banks, and there is little transparency about where the funds are going,” said Stephen Green, head of Greater China research at Standard Chartered in Hong Kong, in a note.

    According to Green, the funds from different WMP products are often mixed and deployed to finance a broad pool of assets that more often than not fall into the sectors of the economy that regulators have attempted to fence off from normal bank lending (real estate, local government infrastructure, etc.), partly because these sectors are deemed to be particularly risky. In addition, the banks hold neither reserves of WMP deposits nor capital against the assets.

    (Source)

    In other words, transparency is low while risk is unknown but possibly high.  This volatile mix of opacity and risk is the perfect recipe for cascading defaults and catastrophic losses.

    Endemic Corruption Distorts Data

    In China, as in many developing economies, problems such as permit applications, tax bills or development rights are solved by greasing the skids of officialdom.  Just received a big tax bill? Maybe a friendly tax official can help reduce the tax in return for promises of favors and an envelope of cash.

    While the central government is cracking down on highly visible corruption, the system of buying privileges with influence, favors and cash is too deeply entrenched to be eliminated in a few months or years by high-level policies.

    As with all the factors listed here, the impact of corruption is difficult to assess — and that’s what makes China’s economy such a black box: if what’s known is untrustworthy, and what’s not known is potentially destabilizing, then how reliable is any projection?

    Few Historical Precedents to Guide Policy Makers and Individuals

    In the U.S., analysts and policy makers can draw upon a long history of economic policies and debate their applicability to the present.  Rising income disparity, for example, is often compared to the Gilded Age of the late 19th century. The financial crisis of 2008 is often viewed as an analog of the 1929 crash that triggered the Great Depression.

    China’s recorded history stretches back thousands of years, but in terms of applicable financial and economic parallels to the current economy, there is no precedent.  China’s leadership is truly in uncharted waters.  This in itself heightens the risk of miscalculation and basing policies on faulty premises.

    In Part 2: Why China Is Extremely Vulnerable Now, we zero in on China’s real estate bubble, and the outsized risks it poses to China’s economy — and the world.

    As the housing bubble bursts, alongside the trillions of losses already experienced in the Chinese stock market, the flood of capital from China into world assets is going to be substantially compromised. Asset prices are set at the margin: what the highest buyer is willing to pay. For many years now, the world has become accustomed to China's dependable willingness to pay well in excess of everyone else. When China is no longer the highest buyer, how far will prices need to fall in order to match the next highest buyer's ability to pay?

    Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

  • The Story Of America's Debt In 6 Easy Graphics

    Despite incessant pundit parroting of the “deleveraging households” meme, America is and probably always will be, addicted to debt. If you need proof, have a look at the latest statistics on non-mortgage debt, which, thanks to America’s twin trillion-dollar bubbles, recently soared to its highest level in a decade. To wit, from HousingWire, citing Black Knight Financial: 

    What we’ve found is that mortgage holders today are carrying more non-mortgage debt than at any point in the past 10 years, with an average of $25,000 per borrower. That’s $1,400 more on average than one year ago, and nearly $2,600 more than in 2011. The primary driver of this increase is a rise in auto-related debt, which accounted for 81% of the overall non-mortgage debt increase over the past four years [and] student loan debt [which] is at all-time high.

    Now, Pew is out with a new study entitled “The Complex Story Of American Debt” and as you might have imagined, the non-profit found that the past three decades have witnessed an unprecedented shift in Americans’ propensity to leverage household balance sheets. This tendency has not been accompanied by a concurrent and proportional increase in household income. Here is the story of America’s debt addiction in six graphics:

    More, from Pew:

    One of the biggest shifts in American families’ balance sheets over the past 30 years has been the growing use of credit and households’ subsequent indebtedness. In the years leading up to the Great Recession, the average household at the middle of the wealth ladder more than doubled its mortgage debt. Although Americans’ debt has decreased since then, housing—which still is the largest liability for most households—and other debt remain higher than they were in the 1990s, and student loan obligations have continued to grow.

     

    And this rise in debt has not corresponded to a similar increase in household income. Debt is particularly problematic for low-income households, whose liabilities grew far faster than their income in the aftermath of the recession: Their debt was equal to just one-fifth of their income in 2007, but that proportion had ballooned to half by 2013. Even middle-wealth households held over $7,000 more debt, on average, in 2013 than in 2001 and previous years.


    Reach of Debt Report_ARTFINAL

  • When A Train Wreck Is No Accident

    Submitted by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

    “In spite of all the rhetoric, we will go deeper in debt, the Fed will print more money, and the value of the dollar will continue to plummet.” – Ron Paul

    Never in history have the economic and political structures been so manipulated by those who are responsible for their safekeeping; never has so much been at stake, in so many countries, and facing collapse, all at the same time.

    The great majority of people in the First World recognise that the world is passing through an economic crisis. However, most are under the impression that there are some pretty smart fellows running the show and all they need to do is tweak the system a bit more and we’ll return to happy days.

    Not so. The “smart fellows” who are in charge of fixing the problem are in fact the very same people who created it.

    Understandably, this a hard concept for most people to even consider, let alone accept, as the very idea that those in charge of the system might consciously collapse it seems preposterous. So, we might wish to back up a bit here and present a very brief history of the system itself, in order to understand that the eventual collapse of the economic system was baked in the cake from the very beginning.

    Creating a Central Bank

    From the very earliest days of the formation of the American republic, bankers (along with inside help from George Washington’s secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton) sought to create a banking monopoly that would create the country’s currency and become the central banking system.

    The first attempt at a central bank was a failure, and strong opponents, including Thomas Jefferson, prevented a second central bank for a time. Later, further attempts were made by bankers and their political cronies, and each central bank was either short-lived or defeated in its planning stages.

    Then, in 1913, the heads of the largest banks met clandestinely on Jekyll Island, Georgia, to make another try. Having recently lost yet another bid to create a central bank, due to the public’s understandable concern that the big bankers were already too powerful, a new spin was placed on the idea. This time, they decided to present the idea as a government body that would be decentralised and would have the responsibility of restricting the power of the banks.

    However, the new bill was in fact the same old bill, with a new title and some minor changes in wording. But this time, it would be presented by the new president, who was a liberal.

    The president, Woodrow Wilson, had in fact been handpicked by the banks. The banks then scuttled their own conservative party’s candidate, got the Democrat Wilson elected, then installed a secretary of the Treasury whose job it would be to ensure that the Federal Reserve was created.

    The bill was widely supported by the public, even though, in truth, it was not a federal agency, but a privately owned conglomerate, controlled by the banks. Neither was it a reserve. It was never intended to store money; it was intended to give the biggest bankers control of the economy. They followed the central principle of uber-banker Mayer Rothschild: “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”

    From the start, the new institution peddled itself as the protector of the people’s interests, but it was quite the opposite. Its purpose from its inception was to control the economy and the government by controlling the issuance of the currency. In addition, it was to be a system of taxation.

    Typically, a population accepts a certain amount of direct taxation but has its limits of tolerance. Yet, the bankers understood that a less direct method of taxation was infinitely more profitable and infinitely safer from criticism.

    Inflation as a Profit System

    Inflation was not always the norm. At one time, prices were relatively static from one generation to the next. But the Federal Reserve touted the idea that “controlled” inflation was in fact necessary for a prosperous economy.

    Of course, the greater the debasement of the currency through inflation, the more the central bankers profited. But at some point, the currency would have lost virtually all its value and it would be time for a reset. The currency would need to collapse and a new one created.

    And so, the Fed set about its hundred-year programme of continuous inflation. Although there have been periods of lower inflation (and even deflation), the programme stayed more or less on course, and now, its hundred-year life has all but ended: the dollar has been devalued almost 100%.

    And so, we find ourselves at the day of reckoning. The economic crisis we are now facing (not only in the US; it will be felt, to a greater or lesser extent, worldwide) is not a mere anomaly that we need to “push past”. It’s a systemic crisis. It’s been created by design and the system must collapse.

    Of course, the central banks are in the process of protecting their interests, to make sure that, whilst this will be a major economic calamity, they themselves will continue to profit. The damage will be borne by the general public.

    This began in earnest in 1999, with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, allowing banks to create a massive, reckless mortgage spree. It was backed by the government’s “too big to fail” policy that guaranteed that, when the banks predictably became insolvent as a result of the loans, government would bail them out. (And by “government” we mean “the taxpayer”; it was he who picked up the bill for the banks’ recklessness.)

    The End Game

    The next step in getting ready for the collapse is an all-out effort to confiscate the wealth of the public. This can be seen in the effort to push investors away from solid forms of wealth protection such as gold and silver and into stocks, bonds and bank deposits. More recently, we’ve seen the emergence of an effort to end the use of safe deposit boxes and a push to end the use of paper currency in making transactions.

    The end objective is to force as much money as possible into deposits in banks, then take it. The US, EU and a few other countries have passed confiscation legislation, allowing the banks carte blanche to confiscate and/or refuse to release deposits.

    Of course a reset of these proportions will not be without its fallout. The public will be horrified at the outcome, at the realisation that the very institutions they thought had been created to protect them had never been intended to serve their interests at all.

    Once they realise that the world’s greatest Ponzi scheme has been foisted on them, they will be hopping mad and justifiably so. Those who had not had the foresight to internationalise themselves, to remove themselves as much as possible from the system, will most certainly want to get even in some way.

    And this makes clear why governments, particularly that of the US, are working so hard to create a police state. Unless a totalitarian state can be created, those who are presently taking the wealth may not be able to fully realise their objectives.

    The coming train wreck is no accident. It has long been planned. That the “smart fellows in charge” will somehow save the day is therefore a vain hope indeed.

    It’s still possible to back out of the system, but it’s getting more difficult every day. The window is closing, and the time to internationalise is now.

  • The $12 Trillion Fat Finger: How A "Glitch" Nearly Crashed The Global Financial System – A True Story

    For all the talk of how the financial world nearly ended in the aftermath of first the Lehman bankruptcy, then the money market freeze, and culminating with the AIG bailout, and how bubble after Fed bubble has made the entire financial system as brittle as the weakest counterparty in the collateral chain of some $100 trillion in shadow liabilities, the truth is that despite all the “macroprudential” planning and preparations, all the world’s credit, housing, stock, and illiquidity bubbles may be nothing when compared to the oldest “glitch” in the book: a simple cascading error which ends up taking down the entire system.

    Like what happened in the great quant blow up August 2007.

    For those who may not recall the specific details of how the “quant crash” nearly wiped out all algo and quant trading hedge funds and strats in a matter of hours if not minutes, leading to tens of billions in capital losses, here is a reminder, and a warning that the official goalseeked crisis narrative “after” the fact is merely there to hide the embarrassment of just how close to total collapse the global financial system is at any given moment.

    The following is a true story (courtesy of b3ta) from the archives, going all the way back to 2007:

    I.T. is a minefield for expensive mistakes

    There’s so many different ways to screw up. The best you can hope for in a support role is to be invisible. If anyone notices your support team at all, you can rest assured it’s because someone has made a mistake. I’ve worked for three major investment banks, but at the first place I witnessed one of the most impressive mistakes I’m ever likely to see in my career. I was part of the sales and trading production support team, but thankfully it wasn’t me who made this grave error of judgement…

    (I’ll delve into obnoxious levels of detail here to add color and context if you’re interested. If not, just skip to the next chunk, you impatient git)

    This bank had pioneered a process called straight-through processing (STP) which removes the normal manual processes of placement, checking, settling and clearing of trades. Trades done in the global marketplace typically have a 5-day clearing period to allow for all the paperwork and book-keeping to be done. This elaborate system allowed same-day settlement, something never previously possible. The bank had achieved this over a period of six years by developing a computer system with a degree of complexity that rivalled SkyNet. By 2006 it also probably had enough processing power to become self-aware, and the storage requirements were absolutely colossal. It consisted of hundreds of bleeding edge compute-farm blade servers, several £multi-million top-end database servers and the project had over 300 staff just to keep it running. To put that into perspective, the storage for this one system (one of about 500 major trading systems at the bank) represented over 80% of the total storage used within the company. The equivalent of 100 DVD’s worth of raw data entered the databases each day as it handled over a million inter-bank trades, each ranging in value from a few hundred thousand dollars to multi-billion dollar equity deals. This thing was BIG.

    You’d think such a critically important and expensive system would run on the finest, fault-tolerant hardware and software. Unfortunately, it had grown somewhat organically over the years, with bits being added here, there and everywhere. There were parts of this system that no-one understood any more, as the original, lazy developers had moved company, emigrated or *died* without documenting their work. I doubt they ever predicted the monster it would eventually become.

    A colleague of mine one day decided to perform a change during the day without authorisation, which was foolish, but not uncommon. It was a trivial change to add yet more storage and he’d done it many times before so he was confident about it. The guy was only trying to be helpful to the besieged developers, who were constantly under pressure to keep the wretched thing moving as it got more bloated each day, like an electronic ‘Mr Creosote’.

    As my friend applied his change that morning, he triggered a bug in a notoriously crap script responsible for bringing new data disks online. The script had been coded in-house as this saved the bank about £300 per year on licensing fees for the official ‘storage agents’ provided by the vendor. Money that, in hindsight, would perhaps have been better spent instead of pocketed. The homebrew code took one look at the new configuration and immediately spazzed out. This monged scrap of pisspoor geek-scribble had decided the best course of action was to bring down the production end of the system and bring online the disaster recovery (DR) end, which is normal behaviour when it detects a catastrophic ‘failure’. It’s designed to bring up the working side of the setup as quickly as possible. Sadly, what with this system being fully-replicated at both sites (to [cough] ensure seamless recovery), the exact same bug was almost instantly triggered on the DR end, so in under a minute, the hateful script had taken offline the entire system in much the same manner as chucking a spanner into a running engine might stop a car. The databases, as always, were flushing their precious data onto many different disks as this happened, so massive, irreversible data corruption occurred. That was it, the biggest computer system in the bank, maybe even the world, was down.

    And it wasn’t coming back up again quickly.

    (OK, detail over. Calm down)

    At the time this failure occurred there was more than $12 TRILLION of trades at various stages of the settlement process in the system. This represented around 20% of ALL trades on the global stock market, as other banks had started to plug into this behemoth and use its capabilities themselves. If those trades were not settled within the agreed timeframe, the bank would be liable for penalties on each and every one, the resulting fines would eclipse the market capital of the company, and so it would go out of business. Just like that.

    My team dropped everything it was doing and spent 4 solid, brutal hours recovering each component of the system in a desperate effort to coax the stubborn silicon back online. After a short time, the head of the European Central Bank (ECB) was on a crisis call with our company CEO, demanding status updates as to why so many trades were failing that day. Allegedly (as we were later told), the volume of financial goodies contained within this beast was so great that failure to clear the trades would have had a significant negative effect on the value of the Euro currency. This one fuckup almost started a global economic crisis on a scale similar to the recent (and ongoing) sub-prime credit crash. With two hours to spare before the ECB would be forced to go public by adjusting the Euro exchange rate to compensate, the system was up and running, but barely. We each manned a critical sub-component and diverted all resources into the clearing engines. The developers set the system to prioritise trades on value. Everything else on those servers was switched off to ensure every available CPU cycle and disk operation could be utilised. It saturated those machines with processing while we watched in silence, unable to influence the outcome at all.

    Incredibly, the largest proportion of the high-value transactions had cleared by the close of business deadline, and disaster was averted by the most “wafer-thin” margin. Despite this, the outstanding lower-value trades still cost the bank more than $100m in fines. Amazingly, to this day only a handful of people actually understand the true source of those penalties on the end-of-year shareholder report. Reputation is king in the world of banking and all concerned –including me– were instructed quite explicitly to keep schtum. Naturally, I *can’t* identify the bank in question, but if you’re still curious, gaz me and I’ll point you in the right direction…

    Epilogue… The bank stumped up for proper scripts pretty quickly but the poor sap who started this ball of shit rolling was fired in a pompous ceremony of blame the next day, which was rather unfair as it was dodgy coding which had really caused the problem. The company rationale was that every blaze needs a spark to start it, and he was going to be the one they would scapegoat. That was one of the major reasons I chose to leave the company (but not before giving the global head of technology a dressing down at our Christmas party… that’s another QOTW altogether). Even today my errant mate is one of the only people who properly understands most of that preposterous computer system, so he had his job back within six months — but at a higher rate than before 🙂

    Conclusion: most banks are insane and they never do anything to fix problems until *after* it costs them uber-money. Did I hear you mention length? 100 million dollar bills in fines laid end-to-end is about 9,500 miles long according to Google calculator.

    * * *

    And here is Zero Hedge’s conclusion: the next time you think all those paper reps and warranties to claims on billions if not trillions of assets, are safe and sound in some massively redundant hard disk array, think again.

  • Gibson's Paradox: The Consequences For Gold

    Submitted by Alasdair Macleod via GoldMoney.com,

    We now have an explanation for Gibson's paradox (posted here), a puzzle that has defeated mainstream economists from Fisher to Keynes and Friedman.

    The best way to illustrate the puzzle is through two charts, the first showing empirical evidence that interest rates correlate with the price level.

    Chart 1 Gibson

    And the second, showing no correlation between interest rates and the annual change in the price level, i.e. the rate of inflation.

    Chart 2 Gibson

    The solution to the puzzle is simple: in free markets, interest rates are set by the demands of investing businesses which at the margin will pay a rate of interest based on whether their product prices are rising or falling: hence the correlation.

    The second chart shows that central bank policies, which seek to control prices by setting interest rates, have no theoretical justification behind them. They are the consequence of blindly accepting the quantity theory of money, upon which macroeconomics is based.

    A mistake made by central bankers is to believe that the price of money is its interest rate, instead of the reciprocal of the price of the products for which it is exchanged. Interest rates are money's time preference, which in free markets broadly reflects the average time preference of all the individual goods bought with money. The problem with monetarism is that it ignores this temporal aspect of exchange.

    It is worth bearing in mind that tomorrow's prices, and therefore the purchasing power of money, are wholly subjective, or put another way cannot be known in advance: if they were, we would be able to buy or sell something today in the certain knowledge of a profit tomorrow, which is obviously untrue. It therefore follows that the relative quantities of money and goods are not the key factors in determining price relationships. Far more important are consumer preferences for money against goods, which taken to an extreme can render the purchasing power of a currency to be worthless, irrespective of its quantity. This insight is necessary to put monetary theory into its proper context.

    Through monetary policy the Bank of England has overridden free market relationships since the mid-1970s, the Gibson relationship being apparent in the 240 years up to then. Chart 3 continues where Chart 1 left off.

    Chart 3 Gibson

    The relationship ended when the Bank of England raised interest rates to 17.1% in 1974 to stop the hyperinflation of prices. For the first time the BoE set interest rates higher than the rate would have been in free markets relative to price levels, and the Fed did the same thing five years later. Since then prices have continued to rise, albeit at a declining pace, and sterling has lost a further 88% of its purchasing power and the US dollar 76%. Since that time interest rate management by these central banks has continued to suppress the Gibson relationship, as we should now call it.

    Monetary policy impairs the market between borrowers and savers. We see this today, with zero interest rates suppressing the relationship between savers and investing businesses creating an economic stasis. This brings us to a second error exposed by Gibson. The Fed is expected to raise interest rates from the zero bound in a few months' time in an attempt to return to some sort of normality.

    A rising interest rate trend would, according to Gibson, encourage prices to rise towards and likely through the Fed's 2% target inflation rate. This is not how financial traders see it, nor does the Fed. They expect the exact opposite, believing that rising interest rates are bad for demand and commodity prices, which is why the decision has been deferred for so long.

    The evidence tells us this view is mistaken and that rising interest rates will be accompanied by rising commodity prices. For example, between 1970 and 1980 gold rose from $36 to $800, and US interest rates from 9% to 17% as shown in Chart 4.

    Chart 4 Gibson

    This is a slightly different point, but is graphically illustrates the mistake of thinking the price of anything can be suppressed through higher interest rates.

  • Greece's Collapse Was a Reversion to the Mean… Who's Next?

    Because of the rampant fraud and money printing in the financial system, the real “bottom” or level of “price discovery” is far lower than anyone expects due to the fact that the run up to 2008 was so rife with accounting gimmicks and fraud.

     

    The Greek debt crisis, like all crises in the financial system today, can be traced to derivatives via the large investment banks. Indeed, we now know that Greece actually used derivatives (via Goldman Sachs) to hide the true state of its debt problems in order to join the Euro.

     

    Creative accounting took priority when it came to totting up government debt. Since 1999, the Maastricht rules threaten to slap hefty fines on euro member countries that exceed the budget deficit limit of three percent of gross domestic product. Total government debt mustn't exceed 60 percent.

     

    The Greeks have never managed to stick to the 60 percent debt limit, and they only adhered to the three percent deficit ceiling with the help of blatant balance sheet cosmetics…

     

    "Around 2002 in particular, various investment banks offered complex financial products with which governments could push part of their liabilities into the future," one insider recalled, adding that Mediterranean countries had snapped up such products.

     

    Greece's debt managers agreed a huge deal with the savvy bankers of US investment bank Goldman Sachs at the start of 2002. The deal involved so-called cross-currency swaps in which government debt issued in dollars and yen was swapped for euro debt for a certain period — to be exchanged back into the original currencies at a later date.

     

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/greek-debt-crisis-how-goldman-sachs-helped-greece-to-mask-its-true-debt-a-676634.html

     

    The above story for Greece is illustrative of the story for all “emerging markets” starting in 2003: tons of easy money, rampant use of derivatives for accounting gimmick, and the inevitable collapse.

     

    From a big picture scenario, in 2003, the global Central Banks abandoned a focus on inflation and began to pump trillions in loose money into the economy. Because large banks could loan well in excess of $10 for every $1 in capital on their balance sheets, global credit went exponential.

     

    The effect was sharply elevated asset prices that greatly benefitted tourism-centric economies such as Greece.

     

    As I stated in our issue Price Discovery:

     

    If the foundation of the financial system is debt… and that debt is backstopped by assets that the Big Banks can value well above their true values (remember, the banks want their collateral to maintain or increase in value)… then the “pricing” of the financial system will be elevated significantly above reality.

     

    Put simply, a false “floor” was put under asset prices via fraud and funny money.

     

    Take a look at the impact this had on Greece’s economy.

     

    Below is Greek GDP dating back to the 1960s. Having maintained a long-term trendline of growth the country suddenly saw its GDP MORE THAN DOUBLE in less than 10 years after joining the EU?

     

     

    In many regards, this “growth” was just a credit binge, much like housing prices, stock prices, etc. By joining the Euro, Greece was able to borrow money at much lower rates (2%-3% vs. 10%-20%).

     

    Rather than using these lower rates to pay off its substantial debts, Greece funneled as much money as possible towards Government employees (nearly one in three Greek workers).

     

    As a result, Government wages nearly doubled to the point that your typical Government employee was paid 150% more than his or her private sector counterpart. Add to this a pension system in which retirees are paid 92% of their former salaries and you have a debt bomb of epic proportions.

     

    In simple terms, Greece from 2003-2010 was an economic boom driven by incomes, which were in turn driven by cheap debt NOT real organic growth. Thus, the collapse in GDP was yet another case of “price discovery” in which asset prices fall to economic realities…

     

    Another Crisis is brewing. It’s already hit Greece and it will be spreading throughout the globe in the coming months. Smart investors are taking steps to prepare now, before it hits.

     

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

     

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

     

    We are currently down to the last 25.

     

    To pick up yours, swing by….

     

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

     

    Best Regards

     

    Phoenix Capital Research

     

     

     

  • What China Thinks Of Donald Trump

    Donald Trump hates “losers” and he pretty clearly thinks there are too many of them in America.

    “This country is in big trouble. We don’t win anymore. We lose to China. We lose to everybody,” the bellicose billionaire told a raucous audience at the first debate of the GOP Presidential primary on Thursday. 

    While it wasn’t clear what specific “losses” Trump was referring to or even whether he could cite any meaningful examples if pressed, he’s correct to say that when it comes to China, the US has suffered some serious setbacks of late, not the least of which is Beijing’s successful membership drive for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. 

    There’s no question that the bank’s very existence represents something of an economic coup in that it, along with the BRICS bank and to a lesser extent, the Silk Road Fund, are a response to the perceived inadequacies of the US-dominated multilateral institutions that have dominated the post-war world. But the more immediate and palpable “loss” (to use Trump-speak) came courtesy of The White House’s failed attempt to dissuade Washington’s allies from joining the bank. 

    In addition to the AIIB, Beijing’s land reclamation efforts in disputed waters China shares with US allies in the region has also been portrayed by some analysts and commentators as evidence of America’s waning global influence. And then there are the standard arguments around trade and offshoring, to which Trump alluded on Thursday.  

    So Trump’s characterization of the US as a “loser” when it comes to the country’s relationship with China is probably accurate, even as it lacks nuance and any semblance of serious analysis. And while we know what Trump thinks of China, what we don’t yet know is what China thinks of Trump, and although we’re reasonably sure that Trump could care less what the Politburo (let alone the Chinese people) have to say, The Washington Post has nevertheless endeavored to offer a bit of insight which we think is worth highlighting as Trump attempts to hold on to his lead in the GOP polls. Here’s WaPo’s Ana Swanson:

    The Chinese are not exactly the only people that Donald Trump has insulted. But China is a favorite punching bag of Trump’s, a jumping-off point for the Republican presidential candidate to emphasize his tough-minded negotiating skills and criticize Obama for having a feeble foreign policy. (“I beat China all the time,” Trump has said.)

     

    In campaign speeches, Donald Trump has blamed China for stealing American jobs and breaking the rules. He has criticized China for currency manipulation and espionage, and proposed raising taxes on China “for each bad act” they commit. In July, he rebuked the White House for giving Chinese diplomats state dinners, saying they should be taken to McDonald’s instead.

     

    The Chinese have begun taking notice. While most Chinese people still seem to be unaware of who Trump is, a growing number of people in the Chinese media and on social media are discussing the baffling political figure.

     

    The Chinese foreign ministry also defended against Trump’s allegations that China is “ripping” the U.S. After Trump vowed to retake millions of jobs that China had stolen, Chinese media picked up on and translated criticisms of Trump’s statement by Alan Blinder, the former Federal Reserve vice chairman and a Princeton University economist. “It’s completely implausible,” Blinder had said of Trump’s plan.

     

    Much of the reporting in the Chinese media has focused on explaining why America is entertaining Trump’s presidential aspirations.

     

    In June, the Global Times, a mouthpiece of the Communist party, published an article titled:  “The theme of Trump’s speech for running for president: I am really very rich.”

     

    Other articles focus on the reasons Trump might be running for president, besides a desire to win. Some have commented that his campaign is just an effort to get more publicity before going back to being a business tycoon.

     

    Yicai.com, the Web site of China Business Network, a financial media group, ran an article that said: “One of the purposes of running for president is to promote oneself, to become more famous, like Trump. …  The nationwide exposure he gained is hard to measure in monetary terms.”

    Of course all of the above really fails to touch on the most pressing issue when it comes to Trump and on that note, we’ll give the last word to an unnamed Chinese social media user quoted by WaPo:

    “This guy’s hair so strange. I thought it was Photoshopped at first.”

  • Chinese Trade Crashes, And Why A Yuan Devaluation Is Now Just A Matter Of Time

    Two weeks ago we showed something very disturbing (something even the IMF is now figuring out): global trade is grinding to a halt…

     

    … and in a dollar-denominated cases, has even gone into reverse.

    World-Trade-Monitor-Unit-Price-2012-2015_05

     

    Nowhere has this trend been more visible than in the IMF’s own admission that global trade, growing at 7% in 2011, has nearly halved its growth rate, and in 2016 global commerce is expected to rise at the slowest pace since the financial crisis.

     

    Overnight we got another acute reminder of just who is lying hunched over, comatose in the driver’s seat of global commerce: the country whose July exports just crashed by 8.3% Y/Y (and down 3.6% from the month before) far greater than the consensus estimate of only a 1.5% drop, and the biggest drop in four months following the modest June rebound by 2.8%: China.

     

    It wasn’t just exports, imports tumbled as well by 8.1%, fractionally worse than the -8.0% consensus, and down from the -6.1% in June as China’s commodity tolling operations are suddenly mothballed.

    Goldman breaks down the geographic slowdown:

    • Exports to the US contracted 1.3% yoy, down from the +12.0% yoy in June.
    • Exports to Japan fell 13.0% yoy in July, vs -6.0%yoy in June
    • Exports to the Euro area went down 12.3% yoy, vs -3.4% yoy in June.
    • Exports to ASEAN grew 1.4% yoy, vs +8.4% yoy in June
    • Exports to Hong Kong declined 14.9% yoy, vs -0.5% yoy in June.

    Slower sequential export growth likely contributed to the slowdown in industrial production growth in July. Weaker export growth is likely putting more downward pressure on the currency, though whether the government will allow some modest depreciation to happen remains to be seen.

    As CA’s Valentin Marinov summarizes:

    “the collapse in exports seems to be driven by renewed weakness in the EU demand. Not great overall and highlights one distinct risk for the global asset markets we have been highlighting repeatedly of late. In particular, we were stressing the link between slowing global trade (both in manufacturing goods as well as commodities) and the recent sharp drop in central bank FX reserves. That drop should over time erode the sovereign demand for stocks and bonds. The resulting imbalance between supply and demand for global stock and bonds is still not fully reflected in equity risk premia (VIX is still quite law) as well as bond term premia (these are still low for the UST). A correction higher, presumably on the back of Fed liftoff, should weigh on a broad range of risk-correlated currencies.”

    All of the above, of course, is something Zero Headers have known since last November when we wrote “How The Petrodollar Quietly Died, And Nobody Noticed.” More are starting to notice.

    And while the above should not be news, neither should anyone be surprised that such ongoing trade collapse for the world’s largest mercantilist, spells doom for the Politburo’s 7% GDP target. From Bloomberg:

    Along with weak domestic investment, subdued global demand is putting China’s 2015 growth target of about 7 percent at risk. The government has rolled out fresh pro-expansion measures, including special bond sales to finance construction, but has held off weakening the yuan as China seeks reserve- currency status.

     

    Exports are no longer an engine for China growth — no matter what the government does, it’s just impossible to see strong export growth as in the past,” said Bank of Communications economist Liu Xuezhi. “It means additional slowdown pressure, and it requires the government to be more aggressive in the domestic market.”

    So while one can repeat that the PBOC will have to lower rates again until one is blue in the face (even as out of control soaring pork prices make it virtually impossible for the local authorities to ease any more), the realty is that, as we warned in March, a Chinese QE is now inevitable. Why? Because while the government is already clearly buying stocks thereby validating the “other” transmission mechanism, the only thing the PBOC still hasn’t tried is to devalue the Yuan.  As global trade continues to disintegrate, and as a desperate China finally joins the global currency war, it will have no choice but to devalued next.

  • Flushing Cash Into The Casino – The Media Stock Swoon Shows That It Works Until It Doesn't

    Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

    If you don’t think the Fed and other central banks have transformed financial markets into debt besotted gambling casinos, consider the last few days of carnage in the media stocks. That sector is rife with bubble finance infections.

    To wit, hedge fund speculators feasting on zero interest carry trades and cheap options own 10% of the 15 companies which comprise the S&P Media index. That happens to be the highest hedge fund ownership ratio among all 23 S&P industry sectors.

    So given that the essential modus operandi of hedgies is leveraged gambling, not hedging risk, it is not surprising that they have ganged-up on the media stocks. Indeed, as Zero hedge noted with respect to this week’s sharp and unexpected sell-off:

    The love affair between hedge funds and media stocks is being tested. As Bloomberg reports, hedge funds have been near-constant champions of the industry, drawn in by its high cash generation and buybacks, takeover speculation and the straight-up momentum of the stocks themselves. This week’s retreat represents the sharpest rebuke to that thesis — and one of its only setbacks in a bull market well into its seventh year.

    Indeed, it has been a perfect fit. These companies—–such as Disney, Time Warner Inc., Fox, CBS and Comcast——are notorious financial engineers, using massive amounts of the dirt cheap debt enabled by the Fed to fund incessant M&A takeovers and prodigious stock buybacks. That’s exactly the kind of financial milieu in which hedge funds thrive; and one, by the same token, that would not even exist in an honest free market.

    Not surprisingly, therefore, the S&P media index went parabolic in response to the Fed’s post-crisis money printing spree. From an aggregate market cap of about $135 billion at the March 2009 bottom, the index had soared by 520% to nearly $700 billion before this week’s $50 billion or 8% loss.  Needless to say, it wasn’t the geniuses who inhabit Mickey’s house or the machinations of Rupert Murdoch that made all the difference.

    No, the S&P media index was propelled upward during the last six years by an endless flood of fresh cash into the Wall Street casino that kept hedge funds and robo-traders upping their bets on the next M&A deal or stock buyback announcement. Viacom (VIA) is a poster boy for the latter.

    As shown below, this week’s body slam—triggered by the belated realization that the cable companies’ long suffering customers are now “cutting the chord”—— has taken VIA’s share price all the way back to its late 2010 levels.

    But since customer defection has been a long-standing risk and wasn’t exactly new news, the question recurs. Exactly what was it that caused Viacom’s stock price to double in the interim and thereby shower upwards of $20 billion in market cap gains on the hedge fund gamblers who chased it?

    The cause for the rip pictured below would most definitely not be growth of earnings or free cash flow. In the fiscal year ending in September 2011, Viacom posted $8.7 billion of EBITDA and that turned out to be the high water mark. Even as its stock price was soaring in the next two years, its EBITDA slithered downward to $8.2 billion in its most recent (June) LTM report.

    Likewise, net income of $2.12 billion in 2011 has now slide to $1.77 billion on an LTM basis.
    VIA Chart

    VIA data by YCharts

    In fact, Viacom levitated its stock the new fashioned way. During the last 19 quarters it has plowed $17.6 billion back into the casino in the form of stock buybacks ($15.1 billion) and dividends ($2.5 billion). But before you praise VIA for its seemingly shareholder friendly ways, consider this: During the same period it only earned $10.2 billion of net income.

    That’s right. It distributed 175% of its net income!

    Under the rules of old-fashioned finance that kind of reckless self-liquidation would have been considered a flashing red warning signal to hit the sell button. That would have been especially appropriate in this case since Viacom’s business model has always depended upon the improbable capacity of its cable distributors to extract punitive monopoly prices from their residential customers indefinitely.

    Yet when the fundamentals reared their ugly head in this quarter’s round of media company earnings releases, the gamblers professed to be downright shocked, Why the resulting sell-off, which lopped $8 billion off VIA’s market cap in a flash, was purportedly not on the level, at all:

    People are shooting first and asking questions later…this indiscriminate selling, to me, is just nuts,” exclaims on billion-dollar AUM hedge fund CIO as media stocks faced a bloodbath this week.

    Well, this week’s action wasn’t exactly shooting first; it was more like asking questions way too late. In fact, the entire $20 billion market cap bubble that the most nimble-footed hedge funds feasted upon was just the result of a leverage trick. Nearly the entire $7 billion gap between what Viacom earned and what it distributed to shareholders over the last 29 quarters was borrowed!
    VIA Chart

    VIA data by YCharts

    But here’s the thing. Viacom’s fundamentals are visibly deteriorating. Its $3.05 billion of revenue in Q2 2015 was down 10.6% from prior year and 17% from the June quarter two years ago.

    Stated differently, Viacom’s peak price of $90 per share, which equated to about $40 billion of market cap one year ago, had nothing to do with “price discovery” in the equity capital markets. It was a pure case of debt-fueled speculation in the casino.

    But VIA is a piker compared to most companies in the media index. Take Time Warner (TWX). Looking at the stock chart from March 2009 forward you would think that the company was a found of earnings growth and value creation. Alas, you would be wrong.

    Time Warner’s pre-tax income was $4.5 billion in its most recent 12 month period—–compared to $4.4 billion way back in 2011. While 2% growth in three and one-half years is not much to write home about, the casino gamblers were not slowed in the slighted.  Perhaps they were impressed with the 25% growth in its net income line, but if so they were capitalizing a one-time reduction in its tax rate—-from 34% to 19.4% over the period—-as if it represented permanent growth of earnings.

    In either case, gamblers have been in a rambunctious mood. The companies stock price had rebounded by 6X from the March 2009 low. And even with this week’s sell-off, the TWX stock price had risen at a 35% compound rate during the last three years at a time when its actual pre-tax income was up by 2%.
    TWX Chart

    TWX data by YCharts

    Needless to say, there is no mystery as to how this disconnect occurred. The company simply pumped cash into the casino like there was no tomorrow. To wit, during the last six and one-half years, TWX distributed $29 billion in dividends and stock repurchases to shareholders compared to net income of just $20 billion.

    So it was the same formula as Viacom’s. Distribute every dime of earnings, and then top it up with a big heap of money that could be borrowed on the cheap.

    In TWX’s case,  its net debt grew from $11.5 billion in 2009 to $20.7 billion in the quarter just ended. That is, it borrowed every single dime of its $9 billion of distributions over and above its earnings during the period.

    The bottom line is pretty straight-forward. Just prior to this week’s correction TWX was valued at $90 billion versus operating free cash flow of $2.8 billion in the LTM period just posted. It could be said that 26X free cash flow is a pretty sporty valuation for a no-growth company.

    But then you should try CBS. It too has been a stock market rocket, and it too flushed $11 billion into the casino in the last four and one-half years in the form of stock buybacks and dividends. That was 140% of it net income during the period.

    Likewise, another member of the S&P Media index, Comcast, distributed $28 billion in stock repurchases and dividends during the last four and one half-years or just slightly less than its cumulative net income of $31 billion over the period. Needless to say, it made ends meet after hefty investments by borrowing; its net debt soared from $25 billion in 2010 to $45 trillion in the most recently ended quarter.

    Even the mighty Disney had little use for its $31 billion of net income during the same four and one-half year period ending the recent June quarter. It flushed fully $27 billion or 88% of it net income back into the casino.

    During the most recent quarter debt issuance by US companies reached an all-time high, raising a question as to why companies still need to borrow so much after selling $7 trillion of U.S. debt securities since 2008.

    This weeks S&P Media index swoon leaves no doubt as to the answer. Companies have not been borrowing to grow; they have been borrowing in order to flush cash into the casino.

    Charles Ponzi once had a scheme that was not essentially different. Yes, and it worked until it didn’t.

  • Obamanomics Explained (In 1 Cartoon)

    Peak-er Debt… or redistribution… or both?

     

     

    Source: Investors.com

  • China's Secret Gold Hoarding Strategy

    Submitted by Stefan Gleason via MoneyMetals.com,

    China’s recent stock market gyrations have some analysts now calling China the biggest bubble in history. But those who write off China because of market volatility are missing a more important long-term trend of Chinese geopolitical and monetary ascendancy. That trend shows no signs of abating.

    China’s leaders have a clever strategy, and Western financial powers may someday wake up in shock when they realize what has occurred.

    It’s true that the Chinese government has helped fuel artificial demand for property and equities. China skeptics who argue that these artificially inflated markets will crash to much lower levels could well prove to be correct. Some China doubters also argue that a downturn in China’s economy will put downward pressure on commodity prices.

    Commodities – from crude oil to copper to gold and silver – have already suffered a severe cyclical downturn. Commodity markets tend to be leading indicators, moving in advance of whatever economic story of the day the financial media are telling.

    But single-day drawdowns of more than 8% in the Chinese stock market this summer certainly caused some forced liquidations of precious metals positions.

    The very fact that booms and busts in China’s markets and economy can now exert heavy influence in globally traded markets such as commodities proves the point that China’s influence isn’t on the wane. Not by a long shot. Even if China’s double-digit rates of growth in the early 2000s prove fleeting and never return, China’s economy still remains on track to eclipse the U.S. economy in the years ahead as the world’s largest.

    China, Russia Are Quietly Emerging as World’s Gold Buyers

    Chinese officials aim to ultimately to challenge the America’s standing as the world’s superpower. That’s why they’re forming a strategic alliance with Russia, an adversary of the U.S. That’s why both the Russian and Chinese central banks have quietly emerged as the world’s largest gold buyers.

    In July, the People’s Bank of China reported that it has added more than 600 tons of gold bullion to its stockpiles since 2009, taking the total to 1,658 tons. That represents a 60% jump in gold assets in just six years.

    In fact, all of that new metal was added to central bank’s ledger in June 2015.

    With gold prices down in June, there's no way the actual buying had occurred then. It appears central bank officials simply moved that metal over from the books of China's state-owned banks which can hold metal secretly.

    So that’s just what the Chinese are reporting officially.

    Unofficially, according to MarketWatch columnist David Marsh, “China probably has a lot more gold than it admits.” That’s because the Chinese government regularly acquires gold directly from China’s mining industry.

    The transactions are settled in yuan rather than dollars, so most or all of these “internal” gold purchases can avoid showing up as foreign reserve assets.

    In examining gold flows into China as well as Chinese gold production, some experts believe that China actually holds more than 10,000 tons of gold, not the “paltry” 1,658 tons the People’s Bank of China is disclosing.

    China Has an Incentive to Understate Its Gold Hoard

    It makes logical sense that China would understate its gold aspirations. If you had the means to acquire hundreds, or even thousands, of tons of gold, you’d want to do so as stealthily as possible in order to avoid tipping off the market.

    If your strategic objective was to dramatically boost gold reserves over a period of several years, you wouldn’t want to see the price rise – at least not while you’re still accumulating. And if you had no ethical qualms about interfering in the market, you’d want to rig prices lower so you could obtain more ounces.

    Chinese officials are more than willing to manipulate markets, whether through subterfuge, deceit, or outright force. Recently, in an effort to prop up the stock market, they tried to forbid people from selling shares of stocks. How heavily involved China is in managing the gold market is impossible for an outsider to know.

    But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that China is covertly buying gold while dumping U.S. Treasuries. JP Morgan analyst Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou calculated that China’s foreign exchange assets got depleted by $520 billion over the past five quarters. Most of that $520 billion in paper asset dumping comes, presumably, from China’s massive holdings of Treasury securities.

    China Wants Admission to the Global SDR Club

    If China continues to unload U.S. bonds at a feverish pace, the Federal Reserve might be forced to launch a new bond-buying campaign. That, in turn, would diminish the credibility of the U.S. dollar as China seeks inclusion of its yuan into the International Monetary Fund's Special Drawing Rights (SDR) currency basket.

    As Reuters reported, China “is pushing for the increased use of the yuan for trade and investment as part of a long-term strategic goal to reduce dependence on the dollar.” The yuan’s ascendancy to the status of a top-tier SDR currency would go a long way toward making the Chinese currency a serious global competitor to the U.S. dollar.

    However, if it were known that China actually had 10,000+ tons of gold on hand, other countries would more likely balk at China’s pending petition to join the International Monetary Fund’s exclusive SDR club. (A decision is expected this fall.)

    China’s gold-accumulation strategy will go a long way toward making China more independent of the dollar and other fiat currencies.

    If you actually believe what the People’s Bank of China reports as its gold reserves, then it has a long way to go to catch up with other countries. While China’s official stash is the world’s sixth largest in absolute terms, it ranks much lower in relation to its economy and its total foreign reserves.

    China’s admitted gold hoard represents just 1.6% of its foreign exchange holdings. By comparison, Russia’s gold bullion accounts for 13.4% of reserves.

    Whether it owns 1,658 tons or upwards of 10,000 tons, China’s appetite for gold is far from being satisfied. The Chinese government will continue to buy, both officially and unofficially.

    China may never establish a model sound money system; nor is that its goal. China simply appreciates the universality of gold. And, as the saying goes, “gold goes where it’s most appreciated.”

    Whether you’re a Communist or a capitalist, whether you speak Mandarin or English, gold remains the one permanent, immutable common denominator. Gold’s value has been recognized universally for hundreds of years and will continue to be recognized universally regardless of whatever market gyrations or economic or political strife the future may bring.

  • "We Have A Civil War": Inside Turkey's Descent Into Political, Social, And Economic Chaos

    Deflecting criticism surrounding Ankara’s anti-terror air campaign, Turkey’s foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu last week told state television that strikes against ISIS targets would pick up once the US had its resources in place at Incirlik which will supposedly serve as a hub for a new “comprehensive battle.”

    Turkey has had a difficult time explaining why, after obtaining NATO support for a new offensive campaign to root out “terrorists”, its efforts have concentrated almost solely on the PKK and not on ISIS. As we’ve discussed in great detail (here, here, and here), and as the entire world is now acutely aware, Ankara’s newfound zeal for eradicating ISIS is nothing more than a cover for its efforts to undermine support for the PKK ahead of snap elections where President Tayyip Erdogan hopes to win back AKP’s absolute majority in parliament which it lost last month for the first time in 12 years.

    Cavusoglu was effectively suggesting that the reason it appears as though Ankara is overwhelmingly targeting the PKK at the possible expense of efforts to weaken ISIS is because Turkey must wait for the US to show up first, at which point the “real” fight will begin with the possible assistance of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Qatar. In the meantime, the country is descending into civil war and for many Kurds, the frontlines are all too familiar. Here’s Al Jazeera

    Located on the Tigris River just upstream from Turkey’s Iraqi and Syrian borders, Cizre has been shaken by nocturnal gun battles between police and residents in recent days.

     

    Its streets remain deserted after sunset, while families sleep in the innermost rooms of Cizre’s squat, cinderblock homes to protect themselves from gunfire.

     

    Hostilities have smouldered here since Turkey’s government and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) abruptly ended a two-year ceasefire in late July, imperilling the hard-won gains of Kurdish politicians and reversing prospects for a historic peace deal nearly achieved in March.

     

    Since July 23, Ankara has launched hundreds of bombing missions against the PKK’s strongholds in northern Iraq, while the PKK has killed at least 18 members of Turkey’s security forces in guerrilla attacks throughout the country’s east.

     

    Those attacks have put Cizre, a long-defiant bastion of pro-Kurdish sentiment, back on the front lines of a conflict that has cost more than 30,000 lives since 1984.

     

    “They say war is coming, but it’s already here in Cizre,” said Rasid Nerse, a 26-year-old construction worker.

     


     

    The ending of the ceasefire came less than two months after Turkey’s Kurdish-rooted People’s Democracy Party (HDP) scored a historic victory in national elections.

     

    Though Kurdish deputies usually run for parliament as independents, the HDP cleared a daunting 10 percent electoral threshold to become the first pro-Kurdish bloc to formally enter parliament under its own name. 

     

    Though the HDP has called on both sides to end the subsequent hostilities, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has attacked the political party, requesting last week that parliament strip Kurdish lawmakers of their legal immunity from prosecution.

     

    Our citizens see the police as a threat to their security, not a provider of it said Kadir Kunur, HDP mayor of Cizre.

     

    Ankara has ordered the detention of more than 1,000 HDP members in a national “anti-terror” probe that has focused on the PKK. 

     

    The PKK is listed as a “terrorist group” by Turkey, the European Union and the US.

     

    In Cizre, that crackdown has helped bring about the present security crisis.

     

    As mourners returned to their homes after Nerse’s funeral, many struggled past a series of makeshift walls and ditches that have recently been erected to encircle their neighbourhoods.

     

    Armed members of the PKK youth wing (YDG-H) began setting up the improvised barriers on July 26, when 21-year-old resident Abdullah Ozdal was killed during a protest.

     

    The vigilante youth group grew out of previous security crackdowns, which saw hundreds of Cizre youths radicalised while in Turkish prisons.

     

    Operating at night and frequently armed, the YDG-H similarly encircled the town during anti-government riots across the region last year.

     

    “Our citizens see the police as a threat to their security, not a provider of it,” said Kadir Kunur, the town’s HDP mayor. Kunur pointed to the dozens of bullet holes that pockmark the HDP’s building in Cizre, remnants from one of many deadly raids police launched here in the early 1990s.

    And more from Vice:

    The trenches have been dug in Cizre. Several feet wide and paired with mounds of earth and torn-up building material, they appeared blocking roads in this Kurdish enclave in southeastern Turkey after Ankara launched an intensive air campaign against the banned Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in July. 

     

    Children play on them during daylight hours. But at night, when police move in, they’re patrolled by groups of armed youths, who attempt to repel these official incursions in fierce clashes that have left at least one dead and many injured.

     

     

    Cizre has spent years on the fringes of war. The unremarkable-looking town of just over 100,000 lies on the Tigris River, around 30 miles from the tripoint where Turkey meets conflict-ravaged Syria and Iraq, and violence regularly strays over the national boundaries. Now, the cycle of airstrikes and renewed PKK attacks on Turkish troops threaten a return to the three-decade-long struggle between the two sides that claimed more than 40,000 lives. And here, residents feel like they’re at the heart of the fight.

     

    “There’s a saying, ‘if there’s peace, it will start from Cizre, and if there’s war, it will start from here as well,'” the town’s co-mayor Leyla Imret, 28, told VICE News recently. “And we can say we have a civil war in Turkey.” 

    While the most tragic consequence of the renewed violence will unquestionably be the human toll, there are real implications for the country’s economy and indeed, the political uncertaintly (and the war that’s come with it) threaten to undermine Turkey’s investment grade credit rating. Although Moody’s took no action on Friday, the risk of downgrade is very real. Here’s Goldman:

    Turkey’s rating outlook has been “negative” since early 2014, which means there is a real (and arguably increasing) risk of a formal downgrade within the coming 6 months.

     

    Our previous research on the impact of rating changes (from junk to IG status) suggest that a potential downgrade could result in a material widening in Turkey’s CDS spreads, by as much as 60bp cumulatively (20-100bp range for +/- 1 standard deviation; Exhibit 1-2), with the first downgrade instantly prompting a c. 20bp widening. Of course, this estimate is based on a stylised econometric model, and it is possible that the downgrade could lead to a more significant market impact given that it is not widely anticipated by market participants.

     

     

    And Barclays has more on the intersection of war, politics, and financial conditions in Turkey:

    Heightened geopolitical risk arising from the terror attack in Suruc is no accompanied by rising domestic risks from the renewed terror attacks by the PKK. These have inflamed political rhetoric and already tense coalition talks between the AKP and CHP, raising significantly the risks of a snap election and political instability. It remains to be seen whether the heightened tension will push the AKP and CHP further apart or bring together the AKP and MHP.

     

    Escalating security risks may work in favour of the AKP in a snap election: The argument is that the perception of rising internal and external threats (PKK and ISIS) could increase the electorate’s preference for strong leadership and hence a singleparty government. It is also possible that AKP may attract some votes from MHP as a result of adopting a tougher stance against PKK (including the use of military force), ramping up the rhetoric against HDP and abandoning the Kurdish peace process.

     


     

    Risk of HDP remaining below 10% is low for now: We do not see a significant likelihood that the HDP would score below the 10% national threshold in the event of a snap election, barring possible turbulence in the party caused by a potential ban on prominent politicians or party closure. The migration of votes from AKP to HDP appears to be a structural shift and unlikely to reverse in the near term, considering AKP’s increasingly nationalistic rhetoric and its stance on the Kurds in Syria.

     


     

    Economic implications of recent developments are negative: We think: 1) the risks to the sovereign rating outlook have risen; 2) downside risks to growth are higher; 3) the perception of higher rising political/geopolitical risks could increase dollarization; and 4) corporate sector’s FX mismatches will be exposed.

     

    Risks to the sovereign rating outlook have increased: Turkey’s gross external financing requirement remains large at c.USD200bn (or 25% of GDP), regardless of the improvement in the current account deficit. Needless to say, any rollover of this debt and/or the extent of re-pricing not only depend on global financial conditions but also investors’ perceptions of Turkey-specific risks. This naturally ties into the sovereign ratings outlook and associated risks to Turkey’s IG status, which moved back into focus during the election. The rating outlook revolves around whether political risks, policy uncertainties and government effectiveness could discourage capital inflows, thereby exposing Turkey’s external vulnerabilities. Rating agency commentary has generally been negative since the elections, highlighting rising political uncertainty and likely delay in structural reforms.

    As for what happens next, expect Washington and Ankara (who, you’re reminded, both want Assad out of Damascus) to begin launching joint strikes against ISIS targets. Tragically, the plight of the Kurds in Turkey will fade into the background and Erdogan will be free to exterminate his political opposition with NATO’s blessing. Once US missions from Incirlik become a regular occurrence, expect Saudi Arabia (which was hit with another suicide bombing this week) and Qatar to enter the fray and from there, the excuses to put American (and Saudi) boots on the ground will mount until eventually, a full scale invasion will be undertaken on the excuse that it’s the only way to neutralize the ISIS threat.

    On cue, Fox News reported on Friday that the US army is sending F-16s to Turkey, but perhaps more telling is the postioning of “a search-and-rescue team of elite Air Force pararescuemen, with their support helicopters and crews” which will stand ready to assist the Pentagon’s “elite” troop of Syrian freedom fighters in case they, like their commander and deputy, are prompty captured by militants the second they set foot on Syria’s (formerly) sovereign soil:

    The U.S. Air Force is planning to send six F-16s from an undisclosed location in Europe to Turkey after the Turks agreed to allow manned flights from Incirlik Air Base and others last week. This would put U.S. jets only a 30-minute flight from ISIS targets in Syria.

     

    The new jets are expected to arrive in the next few days. Strike missions against ISIS will begin shortly after their maintenance crews can get set up. Part of the mission of the new jets will be to support the fledgling U.S.-trained Syrian fighters.

     

    Additionally, a search-and-rescue team of elite Air Force pararescuemen, also known as “PJs,” with their support helicopters and crews will be moved into position after the fighters arrive. 

  • Be Afraid: Japan Is About To Do Something That's Never Been Done Before

    When the words "mothballed", "nuclear", and "never been done before" are seen together with Japan in a sentence, the world should be paying attention…

    As TEPCO officials face criminal charges over the lack of preparedness with regard Fukushima, and The IAEA Report assigns considerable blame to the Japanese culture of "over-confidence & complacency," Bloomberg reports,

    Japan is about to do something that’s never been done before: Restart a fleet of mothballed nuclear reactors.

     

    The first reactor to meet new safety standards could come online as early as next week. Japan is reviving its nuclear industry four years after all its plants were shut for safety checks following the earthquake and tsunami that wrecked the Fukushima Dai-Ichi station north of Tokyo, causing radiation leaks that forced the evacuation of 160,000 people.

     

    Mothballed reactors have been turned back on in other parts of the world, though not on this scale — 25 of Japan’s 43 reactors have applied for restart permits. One lesson learned elsewhere is that the process rarely goes smoothly. Of 14 reactors that resumed operations after four years offline, all had emergency shutdowns and technical failures, according to data from the World Nuclear Association, an industry group.

     

    “If reactors have been offline for a long time, there can be issues with long-dormant equipment and with ‘rusty’ operators,” Allison Macfarlane, a former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said by e-mail.

    In case you are not worried enough yet…

    As problems can arise with long-dormant reactors, the NRA “should be testing all the equipment as well as the operator beforehand in preparation,” Macfarlane of the U.S. said by e-mail. Although the NRA “is a new agency, many of the staff there have long experience in nuclear issues,” she said.

     

    Kyushu Electric has performed regular checks since the reactor was shut to ensure it restarts and operates safely, said a company spokesman, who asked not to be identified because of company policy.

     

    “If a car isn’t used for a while, and you suddenly use it, then there is usually a problem. There is definitely this type of worry with Sendai,” said Ken Nakajima, a professor at Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute. “Kyushu Electric is probably thinking about this as well and preparing for it.”

    It's not the first time a nation has tried this..

    In Sweden, E.ON Sverige AB closed the No. 1 unit at its Oskarshamn plant in 1992 and restarted it in 1996.

     

    It had six emergency shutdowns in the following year and a refueling that should have taken 38 days lasted more than four months after cracks were found in equipment.

    *  *  *

    Good luck Japan

  • Peter Schiff: What Kind Of "Improvement" Does The Fed Want?

    Submitted by Peter Schiff via Euro Pacific Capital,

    Over the past few years observing changes in Federal Reserve interest rate policy has been a little like watching paint dry or grass grow…only not as exciting. That's because the Fed has not changed its benchmark Fed Funds rate since 2008 (Federal Reserve, FOMC). So with nothing else to talk about, Fed observers have focused on the minute changes in language that are included in Fed Policy statements. The minuscule revision in the July statement was the inclusion of the word "additional" to the "labor market improvements" that the Fed wants to see before finally pulling the trigger on its long-awaited rate increases. That should lead to a discussion of what kind of "additional" improvements those could be.

    According to a good many of Main Street analysts, the labor market has already improved significantly over the past 5 years. During that time the unemployment rate has declined from 9.8% to just 5.3% (Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED), St. Louis Fed). In the FOMC's June 2015 Summary of Economic Projections, Committee participants' estimates of the longer-run normal rate of unemployment had a central tendency of 5.0 to 5.2 percent. But that's not the kind of labor market success that has spurred Janet Yellen to action. She is looking for "additional improvements."  Since it is very unusual for the unemployment rate to fall below 5% (having done so in only ten years in the 45 years since 1970), it must be that she is looking for improvements in other employment metrics, like wage growth, labor force participation, and the ratio of full time to part time job creation. On those fronts there is very little to inspire confidence.
     
    In late July the Dept. of Labor released the Employment Cost Index, which is considered the broadest measure of labor costs, that showed an increase of just .2% in the second quarter. Incredibly, this was the index's smallest quarterly increase since it was created back in 1982. The result came in far below the consensus expectation for an increase of .6%. If you believe as I do that the inflation measures that the government uses to calculate GDP growth are understated (its last GDP report assumed zero percent inflation) then such a minuscule change in wages would suggest that workers are losing ground, not gaining.
     
    But last week the Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Hilsenrath, who is by many considered the most well-connected reporter to the Fed's inner decision makers, posted an article citing recent Fed studies that show how wage movements have an uncertain effect on consumer prices. And given the Fed's consistent concern about "too low inflation", this leads him to the conclusion that wage growth may not be considered an important driver of monetary policy.
     
    So perhaps Yellen would be spurred to act by improvements in the labor participation rate, a metric that she has always talked about in reverential terms. But on that front she won't find much to cheer about either. Today's jobs report, though widely reported as a positive one, saw no change in the unemployment or participation rates. In fact, seasonally adjusted, July set a new record for those not in the labor force at almost 94 million people. And the headline number of 215k jobs was one of the weaker reports of recent years, all of which have not, as of yet, prompted a rate hike.
     
    As the unemployment rate has crept steadily downward, the participation rate has moved down with it. In fact, more people have dropped out of the labor force in recent years than have actually found jobs. In June, a staggering 640,000 Americans gave up on job hunting (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 7/2/15), pushing the participation rate down to 62.6%, the lowest figure since 1977 (FRED, St. Louis Fed). And contrary to the spin put on by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, these are not retiring baby boomers. Older people are actually staying in the workforce longer. Rather, these are prime age workers who have simply given up looking for work.

    In 2014 the Labor Department estimated that in June of this year 6.4 million workers who wanted full time work were just working part time jobs. This "involuntarily underemployed" category includes 56% more workers than it did in 2006. 
     
    Such labor weakness would help to explain another recently released data set that shows that the economy remains much weaker than economists have expected. Last week we got the first look at Second Quarter GDP figures, which everyone hoped would confirm that the near-recession level figures of the first quarter were just a speed bump rather than a serious ditch. In fact, the numbers in the first quarter were so bad that they convinced government statisticians to go back to the drawing board to reformulate their GDP calculation methodology in order to eliminate the "residual seasonality" that many claimed was behind the disappointingly low Winter GDP results.
     
    The good news is that the new formula did revive First Quarter (it's now positive .6% instead of negative), and also showed that the second quarter rebounded modestly to 2.3% annualized growth (Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)). The results were enough to generate happy headlines from the pushover media establishment that declared the economy was back on track. But most reports failed to mention that most observers had expected First Quarter to be revised much higher (the Fed itself had estimated that Q1 GDP could be as high as 1.8% annualized if better seasonal adjustments were used) and that the 2.3% for Second Quarter was well below the consensus forecast.

     
    But the reduction in residual seasonality, which boosted First Quarter results, compelled the government to revise down other quarterly figures for the prior two years. The net result is that since 2012, the economy has not grown by an average of 2.3% per year as originally reported, but by just 2.0% (BEA). This makes what was already the weakest post-War expansion considerably weaker than economists believed. Maybe they will call for the revival of residual seasonality?
     
    So barring any further revisions to First Half 2015 GDP, (which are much more likely to be revised down not up), our economy is running at an annualized pace of just 1.45%. To even get to the 2.3% annual growth rate, which represents the extreme low end of the Fed's "central tendency" for 2015, the economy would have to grow at 3.15% annualized in the Second Half. That is looking extremely unlikely. If we fail to hit those numbers, 2015 will be the ninth consecutive year in which the economy failed to reach or exceed the low end of its forecasts
     
    The weak labor market and the weakening economy may explain a couple of trends that should not be occurring in a strengthening economy: Americans' growing love for old cars, and the high rate in which young people of working age remain living with their parents.
     
    Recent statistics show that the average age of America's fleet of 257.9 million working light vehicles had an average age of 11.5 years, the oldest on record. The IHS Automotive survey (7/29/15) also showed that new car buyers were holding on to their vehicles for an average of 6.5 years, up from 4.5 years in 2006. When workers are doing well they tend to buy new cars more often. When things are lean they hold onto their rides longer. Interestingly, this trend has occurred while Americans are taking on more leverage in car loans.
     
    Similarly a recent study by Goldman Sachs, from Dept. of Commerce data, shows that the percentage of 18-34 year olds who live at home, which had shot up during the recession of 2008, finally began to decline slightly in 2014, but that declinestopped at the beginning of 2015. USA Today (8/5/15) noted that the number of Millennials living at home increased from 24% in 2010 to 26% in the first third of 2015, according to a Pew Research Center report, based on Census Data. Why would this be happening if the economy was really growing? 
     
    Since the unemployment rate seems unlikely to drop and both wage growth and increased labor participation show no signs of life, and the percentage of those who want to work full time, but can't, is still highly elevated, should we conclude that the Fed will move forward with its rate hike plans this year? If Janet Yellen is being honest that the Fed will not raise rates until we have further improvements in the labor market and those improvements seem to be nowhere in sight, then why doesn't she just admit that the Fed will not be raising rates any time soon?

     
    If GDP growth only averages 2.0% in the Second Half (which I think is likely), then 2015 growth will only be about 1.7% annually. Given that the Fed didn't raise rates in 2012, 2013, and 2014, when growth was well north of 2%, why would they do so now? Yet Wall Street and the media stubbornly cling to the notion that 3% growth and rate hikes are just around the corner. Old notions die hard, and this one has taken on a life of its own.

  • The political class and Central Banks are unable resolve debt issues in any meaningful way

    Yesterday we assessed how elements of the financial media are either unbelievably lazy or completely complicit in helping to maintain the illusion of success for the Centralized powers (large governments and Central Banks).

     

    Today we move on to addressing how the political class and Central Banks are unable resolve debt issues in any meaningful way.

     

    Going into its financial crisis in 2009, Greece had a GDP of $341 billion. To put this into perspective, it’s roughly the size of the state of Maryland. Greek debt was roughly $370 billion that year, giving Greece a Debt to GDP ratio of about 108%.

     

    It’s a strikingly small amount of money for a collective economy of nearly $18 trillion (the EU). Indeed, Greece contributes only 2% of the EU’s total GDP. And yet, the ECB working with the IMF has not been able to resolve Greece’s issues.

     

    Let’s let that simmer for a bit…

     

    A Central Bank, working with the IMF was unable to resolve a debt issue for a country that comprises less than 2% of the economy of which the Central Bank is in charge.

     

    How is this possible?

     

    First and foremost, the ECB had little if any interest in Greece’s well-being as an economy. For the ECB, the “Greek issue” was really more of a “large European bank issue.” In that regard, the ECB was focused on one thing.

    That issue is collateral.

    What is collateral?

    Collateral is an underlying asset that is pledged when a party enters into a financial arrangement.  It is essentially a promise that should things go awry, you have some “thing” that is of value, which the other party can get access to in order to compensate them for their losses.

    For large European banks, EU nation sovereign debt (such as Greek sovereign bonds) is the senior-most collateral backstopping hundreds of trillions of Euros worth of derivative trades.

    This story has been completely ignored in the media. But if you read between the lines, you will begin to understand what really happened during the last two Greek bailouts.

    Remember:

    1)   Before the second Greek bailout, the ECB swapped out all of its Greek sovereign bonds for new bonds that would not take a haircut.

    2)   Some 80% of the bailout money went to EU banks that were Greek bondholders, not the Greek economy.

    Regarding #1, going into the second Greek bailout, the ECB had been allowing European nations and banks to dump sovereign bonds onto its balance sheet in exchange for cash. This occurred via two schemes called LTRO 1 and LTRO 2, which were launched on December 2011 and February 2012 respectively.

    Collectively, these moves resulted in EU financial entities and nations dumping over €1 trillion in sovereign bonds onto the ECB’s balance sheet.

    Quite a bit of this was Greek debt, as everyone in Europe knew that Greece was totally bankrupt.

    So, when the ECB swapped out its Greek bonds for new bonds that would not take a haircut during the second Greek bailout, the ECB was making sure that the Greek bonds on its balance sheet remained untouchable and as a result could still stand as high grade collateral for the banks that had lent them to the ECB.

    So the ECB effectively allowed those banks that had dumped Greek sovereign bonds onto its balance sheet to avoid taking a loss… and not have to put up new collateral on their trade portfolios.

    Which brings us to the other issue surrounding the second Greek bailout: the fact that 80% of the money went to EU banks that were Greek bondholders instead of the Greek economy.

    Here again, the issue was about giving money to the banks that were using Greek bonds as collateral, to insure that they had enough capital on hand.

    Piecing this together, it’s clear that the Greek situation actually had nothing to do with helping Greece. Forget about Greece’s debt issues, or protests, or even the political decisions… the real story was that the bailouts were all about insuring that the EU banks that were using Greek bonds as collateral were kept whole by any means possible.

    This is why the ECB and the IMF failed to “fix” Greece. Indeed, the below chart makes it plain that all of the bailouts didn’t actually do anything to solve Greece’s debt problems: the country’s external debt has actually barely budged since 2010!

     

    Note that after a brief dip in 2011-2012, Greece’s external debts rose right back to where they were in 2010 at the beginning of the debt crisis. Moreover, because Greek GDP dropped along with its debt levels in 2011-2012, the country’s Debt to GDP ratio has effectively flat-lined.

    In short… neither of the first two bailouts actually solved ANYTHING for Greece from a debt perspective. Between this and the collateral discussion from earlier, the evidence is clear: the ECB has no interest in fixing Greece’s problems. Both bailouts were nothing but a backdoor means of funneling money to the large European banks using Greek debt as collateral on their derivatives trades!

    Another Crisis is brewing. It’s already hit Greece and it will be spreading throughout the globe in the coming months. Smart investors are taking steps to prepare now, before it hits.

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

     

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

     

    We are currently down to the last 25.

     

    To pick up yours, swing by….

     

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

     

    Best Regards

     

    Phoenix Capital Research

     

     

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 8, 2015

  • Economic Reality Now Catching Up To Market Fantasy

    Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    In the mind of a schizophrenic person, internal elements of fantasy (negative and positive) are made manifest in the psyche and projected out onto the real world. Often, the daydream images of the mind are not merely images to them. Rather, what they imagine subconsciously becomes reality. Their faculties of observation become so limited, either due to a reaction to trauma or merely an inherent inability to cope, that they cannot decipher between fact and fiction. A person could go on like this for quite some time if all his needs are provided for by someone else. But the moment that support ends (and it will), the realities of necessity, not to mention supply and demand, take hold. One cannot live in a schizophrenic world indefinitely.

    The current global mishmash of interdependent and socialized economies are, at bottom, schizophrenic. Our markets are not based in any fundamental reality. There is very little tangible foundation left to stand on, and this has been the case for several years. Yet some people might argue that since the derivatives crash of 2008, most of the world has continued to walk on air and there is little for us to worry about.

    The power of fantasy is that it is self-perpetuating. Fantasies are fueled most commonly by misplaced hopes and unhealthy or unrealistic desires, and such things are darkly and grotesquely energizing. Fantasies can indeed keep economies around the world functionally alive even when they are clinically dead. But again, there is always an end.

    Equities and commodities markets in particular have levitated despite economic fact, making their eventual fall ever more spectacular. That fall has now begun halfway through 2015.

    Let’s look at the cold hard truths of our current situation.

    New signals of market crisis are generating every two to four weeks as we grind on into the third quarter. This is in stark contrast to the relatively predictable and "stable" market behavior of the past three years. I realize that we are experiencing a “slow boil” and that many people may not even be taking note of the exponential increase in negative economic signs, but really, think about it – at the beginning of 2014, what was the general financial sentiment compared to today?

    Europe has just experienced the worst “near miss” yet with the Greek crisis, a crisis that is still not over and will likely end in chaos as the last-minute deal with the European Central Bank is derailed by International Monetary Fund intervention.

    Keep in mind that Europe is overwhelmed with debt as peripheral countries border collapse and core nations like France float in a recessionary ether they refuse to openly acknowledge.

    Asia is the biggest story right now, with Chinese markets in veritable free fall despite all attempts by the communist government to quell stock selling and shorting, to the point of threatening arrest and imprisonment for some net short sellers.

    China’s Shanghai Stock Exchange has experienced a 30% drop in market value in a month's time. The mainstream argument meant to marginalize this fact is that less than 2% of China’s equities are owned by foreign investors; therefore, a crash there will not affect us here. This is, of course, pure idiocy.

    China is the largest importer/exporter in the world; and it’s set to become the world’s largest economy within the next two years, surpassing the United States. China’s economy is a production economy, and the nation is a primary supplier for all consumer goods everywhere. Thus, China is a litmus test for the fiscal health of the rest of the world. When Chinese companies are struggling, when exporters are seeing steady overall declines and when manufacturing begins to crawl, this is not only a reflection of China’s economic instability, but also a reflection of the collapsing demand in every other nation that buys from China.

    Collapsing demand means collapsing sales and collapsing market value. For a global economic system so dependent on ever growing consumption, this is a death knell.

    In the U.S., markets have experienced a delayed reaction of sorts, due in great part to the Federal Reserve’s constant injections of fiat fantasy fuel since the credit crisis began. This kind of artificial support for markets has become an expected and essential part of market psychology, resulting in utter dependency on easy money siphoned into big banks that then use it to bolster equities through massive stock buybacks (among other methods). Now, however, quantitative easing has been tapered and zero interest-rate policy is nearing the chopping block.  The stock buyback scam is nearing an end.

    Already, U.S. stocks are beginning to feel the pain as reality slowly nibbles away once dependable gains. There is a good reason for this – Wages are in constant decline; manufacturing is in steady decline; retail sales are in decline, and government and personal debts continue to rise. We are not immune to the financial chaos of other nations exactly because we have been railroaded into a highly interdependent global economic system. In fact, much international fiscal uncertainty is tied directly to the fall of the American consumer as a reliable cash cow and economic engine.

    So where is this all headed?

    Commodities tell part of the story, with oil sliding steadily, signaling what we in the alternative economic community have been saying for years: Fiat stimulus propped up markets (including energy markets) that should have been allowed to deflate long ago, and now we are suffering the consequences. Crude oil prices fell 19 percent in July alone as energy companies the world over scramble to adapt. Gold and silver have taken considerable hits to their paper value while physical purchases continue to skyrocket, meaning the street price of metals may soon decouple from illegitimate and manipulated market prices.

    Smaller and some medium-sized economies will continue to “surprise” markets with volatile debt issues, like Puerto Rico (nearing possible default) and Venezuela (nearing certain doom). These are more canaries in the coal mine to watch carefully.

    It is also important to keep in mind that prices on necessities including food and housing remain high despite deflation in other areas (like wages).  This suggests we are in the midst of a stagflationary fiscal environment.

    Centralization is the key to every single economic development we’ve seen since the 2008 crash. Venezuela, in particular, is a marker for where we are all headed: total price controls, food confiscation from farms, rationing and even computer-chipped ration cards in order to thwart any attempts by citizens to stockpile essentials.  Do not assume that such draconian measures are limited to third world socialist hellholes.  Or, at the very least, do not assume that a country like the U.S. is not on the verge of becoming a third world hellhole.

    As for Europe, French president Francois Hollande has openly called for a centralized “eurozone government” in order to deal with the ongoing economic crisis there (something I have been warning about for several years).  Supranational government is the endgame for sovereign humanity, and the EU is on the fast track.

    In China, the march continues toward the inclusion of the yuan in the IMF’s SDR currency basket, the greatest economic centralization scheme of all time. The recent suggestion by an IMF panel to "delay" inclusion until 2016 only reinforces the likelihood that the Yuan will be entered into the basket.  If the IMF had no intention to bring China into the fold, they would have suggested a 5 year delay just as they did back in 2010.  For those who think China’s recent market crisis will somehow thwart their inclusion into the SDR, think again. The IMF has already announced that the market route in China will have no bearing on the SDR conference, which is set to end in November.

    In the U.S., the markets wait for the Federal Reserve’s rate hikes. The rate hike issue is an underestimated one by some analysts, who seem to think that initial hikes will be "minor" and will result in little to no reverberations.  Interest rates affect more than just overnight bank lending; they are the primary pillar supporting current market psychology.  There is NO other financial element giving positive influence to investor psychology.  There is no good economic news out there to warrant the bull market of the past few years.  There is no open form of QE (and future QE seems unlikely as renewed stimulus would only be an admission that the first three attempts at QE failed miserably, derailing any point to new easing).  There is no recovery.  And when any even minor or engineered "good news" is presented in the mainstream, markets have reacted NEGATIVELY for fear that this will hasten higher interest rates.

    Beyond psychology and false hopes, even minor increases in interest rates will essentially kill most large scale bank lending.  We know through the limited audit of the TARP bailouts that trillions in fiat was created simply to feed international banks and corporations through ZIRP and that this kind of free money lending has been a mainstay ever since.  ZIRP is the primary driver of stock buybacks and the equities bull market.  But this will only continue as long as the Fed loans remain free (or almost free).  Trillions in loans can equal billions in interest even with a minor rate rise, meaning, with the end of ZIRP and free money, banks and corporations will stop borrowing, stock buybacks will dissolve, and equities will lose the artificial support they have so far enjoyed.

    Even mainstream financial news outlets are beginning to question why the Fed would push at all for rate hikes and pretend that the American fiscal system is in recovery, when ALL other information would lead the rational person to the contrary conclusion. I would point out that in order to understand central planners and globalist motives, you need to look at what they chase.

    The Fed’s job is to destroy the U.S. economy and the dollar, not save them, which is why the Fed continues to deny economic turmoil and charges headlong into a rate hike scenario even though no one in the mainstream asked them to. The Chinese central bank’s job is to make all arrangements for Yuan inclusion in the SDR, despite the fact that China is supposedly in conflict with Western banks. The ECB and Europe are obsessed with centralized government even if they have to break several eggs to get it. And the IMF and Bank of International Settlements are set up to be the economic heroes of the day, warning us all (too late, of course) of the potential downfall of central bank stimulus policies and government debt obligations.

    In a murky world of market fantasy, our first guideposts are the fundamentals themselves. Supply and demand can be misrepresented for a time through manipulated statistics, but the tangible effects of decline cannot be. Our secondary guideposts are the paths that internationalists and central banks bulldoze through the fiscal forest. To anyone with any sense, the endgame is clear: Total centralization is the goal, and economic fear is the tool they hope to use to get there. I have written on numerous solutions to this threat in past articles; but the first and most important action is for each of us to acknowledge, wholeheartedly, that the system we know is ending. It is over. What replaces that system will either be up to us or up to them. Only by admitting that there is an end to the fantasy, a painful end, will we then be able to help determine our future reality.

  • Black-White Race Relations Under Obama: The Worst In The 21st Century

    If there were any lingering questions about the state of race relations in America in the wake of the riots which reduced parts of Baltimore to smoldering ashes in April, they were answered rather emphatically when in June, 21-year old Dylann Roof killed nine black worshippers at the Emanuel AME church in Charleston, South Carolina. 

    And although Roof’s actions did not start a “race war” (his professed intent), they did raise fresh questions about black-white relations, questions which played a role in the removal of the Confederate flag from the South Carolina capitol.

    Since then, we’ve gotten multiple noteworthy (if alarming) sound bites from the likes of Louis Farrakhan who said in a speech this week that blacks may need to “rise up and kill those who kill [them],” and the Ku Klux Klan’s Grand Dragon who in June suggested that “a lot of the whites in the U.S. are starting to wake up.”

    As we noted on Tuesday, the US has had its share of deadly social violence over the past year, much of split along along racial lines, but it’s mercifully avoided a full-blown racial war.

    However, in recent weeks there has been a troubling increase in invocations toward even more violence, and even more deaths, which seek to achieve just that: a United States gripped in racial warfare. 

    It’s against that rather disturbing backdrop that we present the following results from Gallup, whose latest Minority Rights and Relations poll shows that “Americans rate black-white relations much more negatively today than they have at any point in the past 15 years.”

    More color from Gallup:

    Americans rate black-white relations much more negatively today than they have at any point in the past 15 years. Currently, 47% say relations between blacks and whites are “very good” or “somewhat good,” a steep decline from 70% in 2013. Whites’ positive ratings of black-white relations since 2013 have nose-dived by 27 percentage points, from 72% to 45%, while blacks show a smaller but still sizable drop of 15 points, from 66% to 51%.

     

    The results are based on Gallup’s Minority Rights and Relations poll, which interviewed more than 2,000 Americans, including more than 800 non-Hispanic whites and more than 800 non-Hispanic blacks from June 15 through July 10.

     

    Americans have generally been quite positive about black-white relations in the 15 years Gallup has asked this question. Prior to this year, between 63% and 72% of Americans rated relations between blacks and whites as very good or somewhat good.

     

    Whites and blacks are generally in accord on the state of relations, with 45% of whites and 51% of blacks rating them as good. Whites and blacks have generally had similar and quite positive views over the past 15 years, with a notable gap only in 2007, a year in which blacks’ ratings on a variety of measures were more negative.

     

    The most likely explanation for the deterioration in Americans’ perceptions of the health of black-white relations since 2013 are the multiple widely reported incidents in which black citizens were killed by the actions of white police officers. Several of those incidents sparked protests or riots.

     

    As a result, Americans are now the most negative in their evaluations of black-white relations since Gallup began tracking this measure.

  • American Whirl

    I’ve written about American Girl before, such as this post. For those unacquainted with American Girl, it started off as a doll-based means for girls to learn about different periods of U.S. history, but it has developed into a phenomenal retail success story of overpriced Chinese-made junk sold in branded stores in high-end shopping malls (like, oh, say, the Stanford Shopping Center). It’s a big deal for the 9-12 year old crowd.

    I don’t make a habit of creating posts about girls’ dolls on Slope, but recently I treated my daughter to some (rare) television time so she could enjoy two different A.G. movies. One of them, Chrissa Stands Strong, came out in 2009 (meaning it was written and produced in 2008, during the throes of the financial crisis), and the one she watched the next night, Grace Stirs Up Success, came out only weeks ago (meaning it was written and produced in 2014, during the peak bullish mania).

    Lest you think I threw on my footie pajamas, curled up in a blanket, and watched both of these insipid things………..I didn’t. But I was in the room and saw enough to get the jist of each movie (which doesn’t take a lot, given the one-dimensional characters and plot lines offered to children).

    What struck me, having semi-witnessed both of these things over a 24 hour period, is how sharply different they were. The Chrissa one was relatively brutal: it featured a girl who moved into a new town who was subjected to the cruelty of the tall, pretty blonde girls in her class (which is a story that’s only been done several thousand times, most recently in Pixar’s Inside Out) and had a side-story about a girl who was homeless that managed to hide her homelessness from the others until she was “outed” by the bitchy blonde and brought to bitter tears.

    Exhibit A: Bitchy Girls

    I was kind of stunned watching this, because the nastiness seemed unrelenting. We’ve all had encounters with bullies before, but the emotional ugliness foisted on poor Chrissa never let up, and having upper-middle-class be-atches-in-training laugh and taunt an impoverished girl struck me as over-the-top, even for an American Girl movie.

    None of this really sunk in until the next movie, which was so sickly-sweet that I probably have type 2 diabetes now. Throughout the entire piece, the most violent “conflict” came when one of Grace’s friends suggest that maybe she not be so bossy. But that was it. It was 99% sweetness and light, and it ended with the kid (Grace) winning $100,000 from a baking contest held on Food Network (one of the many, many product tie-ins during the movie) and, naturally, giving the money to her grandparents to upgrade their bakery.

    Grace is Latina, even though her parents and grandparents are lily white. This is never explained.

    Now I don’t normally put huge amounts of faith in the nascent realm of Socionomics (championed by Elliott Waver Bob Prechter), but I’ve always thought that, yes, there is some crude correlation between social mood and financial markets. During the 2009 Academy Awards (held early in 2009, very near the bottom of the financial crisis), I remember Jon Stewart marveling that the two huge winners that year were There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men by saying “Does this country need a hug?” Well, Jon, actually, yeah, it kinda did.

    It’s the same story with these two movies: the one made in 2008 is packed with meanness, financial insecurity, shame, and back-stabbing. The one that just came out is nonstop saccharine (which, for a chap like me, is a bit hard to take). I guess it helps illustrates the times we live in, and the mindset of the populace…………including the consumers-in-training known as eleven year old girls.

  • Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Of Peace Is Central To The Message Of Freedom

    Submitted by Llewllyn Rockwell via The Mises Institute,

    Ronald Reagan used to be called the Teflon president, on the grounds that no matter what gaffe or scandal engulfed him, it never stuck: he didn’t suffer in the polls. If Reagan was the Teflon president, the military is America’s Teflon institution. Even people who oppose whatever the current war happens to be can be counted on to “support the troops” and to live by the comforting delusion that whatever aberrations may be evident today, the system itself is basically sound.

    To add insult to injury, whenever the US government gears up for yet another military intervention, it’s people who pretend to favor “limited government,” and who pride themselves on not falling for government propaganda, who can be counted on to stand up and salute.

    I had the rare honor of serving as Ron Paul’s congressional chief of staff, and observed him in many proud moments in those days, and in his presidential campaigns. But Ron’s new book Swords into Plowshares: A Life in Wartime and a Future of Peace and Prosperity, a plainspoken and relentless case against war that ranks alongside Smedley Butler’s classic War Is a Racket, is possibly the proudest Ron Paul moment of all.

    It’s been calculated that over the past 5,000 years there have been 14,000 wars fought, resulting in three and a half billion deaths. In the United States, between 1798 and 2015 there have been 369 uses of military force abroad. We have been conditioned to accept this as normal, or at the very least unavoidable. We are told to stifle any moral qualms we may have about mass killing on the question-begging grounds that, after all, “it’s war.”

    Ron, on this as on a wide array of other topics, isn’t prepared to accept the conventional platitudes, and a recurring theme in his book involves speculating on whether, in the same way the human race has advanced so extraordinarily from a technological point of view, we might be capable of a comparable moral advance as well.

    There is much in this book for libertarians and indeed all opponents of war to enjoy – for starters, a refutation of the claim that war is “good for the economy,” a discussion of the dangers of “blowback” posed by foreign interventionism, and an overview of the War on Terror from a noninterventionist perspective. But there is a profoundly personal dimension to this book as well, as we follow Ron’s life from his childhood to the present and the evolution of his thought on war. I’ll leave readers to discover these gems for themselves.

    Likewise, Ron relates some little-known stories of war. In one, it’s two weeks after D-Day, and Captain Jack Tueller decided to play his  trumpet that evening. He was instructed not to do so: his commander explained that a German sniper had still not been captured from the day’s battle. Figuring the sniper was a frightened young man not unlike himself, he played the German song “Lili Marleen.” The sniper surrendered to the Americans the next day.

    Before being sent off to prison, the sniper asked to meet the trumpet player. He said, through tears, “When I heard that number that you played I thought about my fiancée in Germany. I thought about my mother and dad and about my brothers and sisters, and I could not fire.”

    “He stuck out his hand and I shook the hand of the enemy,” Tueller recalls. “He was no enemy. He was scared and lonely like me.”

    Another story takes place just before Christmas 1943. Charlie Brown, a 21-year-old farm boy from West Virginia was on his first combat mission as a pilot when his B-17 was seriously damaged over Germany. With half his crew dead or wounded, he was struggling to get his plane back to England when a German fighter came within three feet of his right wingtip. But Franz Stigler, the German pilot, did not fire. Instead, he simply nodded, pointed, and flew off, allowing Brown to make his way back to England.

    Some 46 years later, the two men met again. Brown finally got to ask Stigler why he had been pointing. Stigler replied that he was trying to tell Brown to fly to Sweden, which was closer. But since Brown knew only how to get back to England, that’s where he went.

    The two men became close friends, even fishing buddies. Stigler said that saving Brown’s life was the only good thing that came out of the whole war for him.

    You won’t be surprised to learn that in addition to human-interest anecdotes like these, Ron spends time in Swords into Plowshares linking central banking and war, one of his perennial themes over the years. It isn’t for nothing that again and again, countries abandoned the gold standard when they went to war.

    We rarely pause to consider what that tells us. If they needed to abandon the gold standard to go to war, that means the gold standard was a barrier against war. Of course, the ease with which governments could abandon the gold standard serves to remind us of the need to separate money and state altogether, and that the state cannot be trusted to maintain a sound money standard.

    As always, Ron is at his fiery best when he unleashes on the neoconservatives, whose every overseas fiasco becomes a justification for still another fiasco six months later. He invites us to consider a typical remark by neoconservative Michael Ledeen: “Paradoxically, peace increases our peril, by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, and depriving us of some of our best leaders.”

    Note that it is peace, according to Ledeen, and not war, that encourages our worst instincts. This was the view of Theodore Roosevelt, loved and admired by progressives and neoconservatives alike, who considered prolonged peace a deplorable state that made a people flabby and otiose.

    Neocons complain when libertarians describe them as “pro-war” – why, they favor war only as a last resort, they assure us, and only because there are bad people in the world – but how else can we describe the views of Ledeen, who to my knowledge has never been publicly taken to task by any other neocon?

    (Perhaps my favorite of Ron’s collection of ghoulish neocon quotations, though, if only for its obliviously Orwellian quality, is George W. Bush’s remark from June 2002: “I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace.”)

    Meanwhile, the American people have been indoctrinated into a cult of the veteran, whom evangelicals blasphemously compare to Jesus Christ, and whereby everyone is expected to salute, applaud, and offer ostentatious thanks for the veteran’s “service.”

    Here, by contrast, is Ron:

    “Service” in our military to invade, occupy, and oppress countries in order to extend [the] US Empire must not be glorified as a “heroic” and sacred effort. My five years in the Air Force during the 1960s did not qualify me as any sort of hero. My primary thoughts now about that period of time are: “Why was I so complacent, and why did I so rarely seriously question the wisdom of the Vietnam War?”

    Ron calls upon the peoples of the world to resist their governments’ calls to war and to refuse to take part in violent conflict. “If the authoritarians continue to abuse power in spite of constitutional and moral limits,” he writes, “the only recourse left is for the people to go on strike and refuse to sanction the wars and thefts. Deny the dictators your money and your bodies…. The more this is a worldwide movement, the better.”

    This is why Ron is such a fan of the song “Universal Soldier,” which he asked singer Aimee Allen to perform at his dramatic Rally for the Republic in 2008. The man who enlists in the military and simply goes along with the prevailing current of opinion is the universal soldier. If he refused to “serve” and to fight, there could be no wars. Even Ron, a flight surgeon who never fired a shot, looks back on his time in the military and asks himself: why did I not resist? Why did I go along?

    Needless to say, few among our political class – people who, generally speaking, have rather more to repent of than mild Ron Paul – reflect seriously on their moral choices, or rebuke themselves publicly.

    When people read Swords into Plowshares generations from now – and they will – they will marvel that such a man actually served in the US Congress, and defied every campaign of war propaganda right on the House floor. But what’s great about Ron is not just his honesty, but also his constant intellectual growth – with the passage of time he has become an ever-more radical champion of freedom. His evolution is especially plain in this book, as you’ll discover for yourself.

    One of the most important things Ron accomplished in public life was to show that it’s possible to oppose war without being a leftist. He likewise explained that a foreign policy of peace and nonintervention was a central, indispensable feature of the message of freedom, and not just an odd personality quirk of Ron Paul – as the many people who said “I like Ron Paul except his foreign policy” seem to have believed.

    Bernie Sanders pretends to be antiwar, but as usual with socialists, a closer look shows he doesn’t really mean it. But even if he did, as a socialist he simply wants to point the guns at different targets – the undifferentiated aggregates like “the rich” to whom he urges his followers to direct their uncomprehending hate. Ron, on the other hand, is calling on us to put the guns down, and for peaceful interaction both between nations and among individuals.

    It is a position most people had never heard of before 2008, since election campaigns are all about grabbing the machinery of state and pointing its guns at whatever group the eventual victor despises. But Ron captured the imaginations of millions of intelligent young people, whose brains hadn’t yet been deformed by an American political culture designed to deprive them of humane possibilities.

    Ron turns 80 this month, and continues his life’s work of truth-telling. Wish Ron a happy birthday by joining us for a celebration in Lake Jackson on August 15, and by reading this extraordinary book.

     

  • "The Top's In" David Stockman Warns Of "Epochal Deflation"

    The truth hurts… especially permabullish CNBC anchors. But when David Stockman explained why “the top is in,” and warned that the world is overdue for an “epochal deflation, like nothing it has ever seen,” one should listen. The “debt supernova” of the last decade or two has created massive over-capacity and this commodity deflation “is not temporary, it’s the end of the central bank bubble.” The catalyst has already happened -“It’s China,” Stockman exclaims, “China is the most lunatic pyramid of credit and speculation.. and capital is now fleeing the swaying towers of the China ponzi.”

     

    Well worth the price of admission…

  • High-Level U.S. Military Official: U.S. Made a "Wilful Decision" to Support Al Qaeda and Other Terrorists

    An internal Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document produced recently shows that the U.S. knew that the actions of "the West, Gulf countries and Turkey" in Syria might create a terrorist group like ISIS and an Islamic caliphate.

    While the powers-that-be have tried to downplay the significance of the document, the former head of the DIA (Michael Flynn) just confirmed its importance.

    By any measure, Flynn was a top-level American military commander. Flynn served as:

    • The Director of the U.S. Intelligence Agency
    • The Director of intelligence for Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the main military agency responsible for targeting Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists
    • The Commander of the Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
    • The Chair of the Military Intelligence Board
    • Assistant director of national intelligence

    Flynn confirmed the authenticity of the document in a new interview, and said:

    [Interviewer] So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?

    [Flynn] I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.

    [Interviewer] A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?

    [Flynn] It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.

    Background here.

    Postscript: We did the same thing in Libya, Chechnya, and many other countriesSad, it is …

  • Dropping "The Bomb" On Hiroshima And Nagasaki Was Never Justified

    Submitted by Naji Dahi via TheAntiMedia.org,

    August 6th and 9th of 2015 mark the 70th anniversary of the U.S. dropping two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was the first and only time a state used a nuclear device on cities (or civilians) of another state. Some conservative estimates put the immediate death toll of the two bombs at 200,000 people. This is more than the total number of American soldiers killed in the Pacific front of World War II.

    Since the bombs were dropped, the U.S. government, U.S. high school history texts, and the American public have asserted that dropping the bombs was necessary. According to one review of American textbooks by Satoshi Fujita, an assistant professor of U.S. modern history at Meiji University,

    “…most of the textbooks published by the early 1980s carried the U.S. government’s official view that the nuclear attacks allowed the U.S. troops to avert the invasion of Japan’s mainland and minimize American casualties, thus contributing to an early conclusion of the war.”

    American politicians have continued to espouse this view. Primary among them was Harry S. Truman, the one-term president responsible for making the decision to drop the bombs in August of 1945. In his 1955 memoirs, Truman claimed the bombs saved half a million American lives. Truman insisted he felt no remorse and bragged that “he never lost any sleep over that decision,” while simultaneously referring to the Japanese as “savages, ruthless, merciless, and fanatic.” By 1991, George H.W. Bush claimed dropping the bombs saved millions of American lives. Historian Peter Kuznick sums up the ever-increasing number of American lives saved due to these actions:

    “…from the War Department’s 1945 prediction of 46,000 dead to Truman’s 1955 insistence that General George Marshall feared losing a half million American lives to Stimson’s 1947 claim of over 1,000,000 casualties to George H.W. Bush’s 1991 defense of Truman’s ‘tough calculating decision, [which] spared millions of American lives,’[11] to the 1995 estimate of a crew member on Bock’s Car, the plane that bombed Nagasaki, who asserted that the bombing saved six million lives—one million Americans and five million Japanese.”

    Twenty years ago (the 50th anniversary of the bombings) when the Smithsonian Museum tried to create a thought-provoking display about Enola Gay (the plane that dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima), the Senate threw a temper tantrum and passed a resolution condemning the move. The resolution stated that

    “…the Enola Gay during World War II was momentous in helping to bring World War II to a merciful end, which resulted in saving the lives of Americans and Japanese.”

    Of course, none of these figures about saved American lives are true. When President Truman was contemplating dropping the bomb, he consulted a panel of experts on the number of American soldiers that would be killed if the U.S. launched an invasion of the two main Japanese islands. According to historian Christian Appy,

    “[Truman] did…ask a panel of military experts to offer an estimate of how many Americans might be killed if the United States launched the two major invasions of the Japanese home islands…Their figure: 40,000 – far below the half-million he would cite after the war. ”[emphasis added]

    Americans are socialized to believe that dropping the bombs was necessary to end the war. As recently as January 2015, a Pew poll found that 56% of Americans believed dropping the two atomic devices was justified. Only 34% said it was not justified. This American attitude is understandable given the downplaying of Japanese deaths and the exaggeration of American lives saved in high school history books.

    In spite of this public perception, dropping the nuclear bombs was totally unnecessary from a military standpoint. America’s leading generals voiced their concerns before and after the bombs were dropped. General Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Western Europe, reacted to the news in a way that contradicts politicians’ narratives:

    “During his [Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives ,” he said. [emphasis added]

    General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in the Pacific, was not even consulted about the use of the bomb. He was only notified two days before the first bomb was dropped. When he was informed he thought “‘…it was completely unnecessary from a military point of view.’ MacArthur said that the war might ‘end sooner than some think.’ The Japanese were ‘already beaten.’”

    Tough, cigar-smoking “hawk,” General Curtis LeMay—who was responsible for the firebombing of Japanese cities—was also disappointed with the decision to drop the bomb. In an exchange with reporters he said,

    “The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. [emphasis added]”

     

    “You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb?” one journalist asked.

     

    “The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all,” LeMay replied.

    Admiral Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, sent out the following public statement: The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan [emphasis added].”

    While Eisenhower, MacArthur, LeMay, and Nimitz believed the dropping of the bombs to be unnecessary, Chief of Staff Admiral William D. Leahy went even further, insisting that even the contemplated invasion of Japan was unnecessary to end the war. He said,

    “I was unable to see any justification…for an invasion of an already thoroughly defeated Japan. My conclusion, with which the naval representatives agreed, was that America’s least expensive course of action was to continue to intensify the air and sea blockade…I believe that a completely blockaded Japan would then fall by its own weight. [emphasis added]”

    At the conclusion of the war in the Pacific, President Truman appointed a panel of 1000 experts to study the conflict. One third of the experts were civilians and two-thirds were military. The panel issued its report, entitled “United States Strategic Bombing Survey”—a 108 volume publication on the Pacific front. The survey makes the following damning conclusion about the necessity of dropping the the atomic bombs and invading Japan:

    “Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945,…Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. [emphasis added]”

    Even the Japanese leaders knew they were defeated. They were even secretly willing to negotiate an unconditional surrender. According to the survey, there was

    “…a plan to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special emissary with instructions from the cabinet to negotiate for peace on terms less than unconditional surrender, but with private instructions from the Emperor to secure peace at any price.”

    If dropping the bombs was not necessary, and if Japan was even willing to contemplate an unconditional surrender, then why were the bombs dropped at all? One reason referenced by several historians was to project American power against the future enemy in the Cold War, the U.S.S.R. As the Christian Science Monitor noted in 1992,

    “Gregg Herken…observes…that ‘responsible traditional as well as revisionist accounts of the decision to drop the bomb now recognize that the act had behind…’a possible diplomatic advantage concerning Russia.’ Yale Prof. Gaddis Smith writes: ‘It has been demonstrated that the decision to bomb Japan was centrally connected to Truman’s confrontational approach to the Soviet Union.’”[emphasis added]

    Secondly, there was a rather large incentive to use the bomb—to test its effectiveness. On that subject, the most succinct quote comes from Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet. He said, “[The scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before.”

    According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Manhattan Project (the project to build the bomb) cost the U.S. an estimated $1,889,604,000 (in 1945 dollars) through December 31, 1945. That comes out to $25,051,739,964.00 in today’s dollars. The Center goes on to add:

    “Weapons were created to be used. By 1945, the bombing of civilians was already an established practice. In fact, the earlier U.S. firebombing campaign of Japan, which began in 1944, killed an estimated 315,922 Japanese, a greater number than the estimated deaths attributed to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”

    From a purely numbers perspective, the detonation of the atomic bombs killed fewer people than the firebombing of the 67 Japanese cities with napalm. The sick logic of war is this: having killed close to 316,000 Japanese people by firebombing cities, killing 100,000-200,000 more is just as justifiable.

    It is clear from the recitation of some of the evidence that the dropping of the atomic bombs was not necessary to end the war. It was not necessary to obviate the U.S. invasion of Japan (which in and of itself was not necessary) and it was not necessary for an unconditional surrender.

    It is time for the United States to stop believing that the infamous nuclear attacks were justified. On that front, there is some hope. Back in 1991, 63% of Americans believed dropping the bombs was justified, compared to 56% today. Clearly, the numbers are heading in the right direction.

    The U.S. government could easily nudge public opinion in the appropriate direction by issuing a public apology for the dropping of these weapons of mass destruction on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The U.S. is capable of doing this. In 1988, the U.S. Senate voted to compensate Japanese Americans for interning them during WWII. In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed a formal letter of apology. The U.S. did the right thing by apologizing to Japanese Americans. It is time to extend this apology to the entire Japanese nation.

  • An Ex-Con's Advice To A Libor Rigger

    Earlier this week, something strange happened. 

    A real person – or at least he looks real – was found guilty by a jury of conspiring to manipulate LIBOR. 

    Then, something even stranger took place. 

    This real person – Tom Hayes, or “Rain Man” as he was affectionately known in rate-rigging circles – was sentenced to 14 years in jail for his role as the supposed “connective tissue” that held the global fix fixing infrastructure together. 

    The reason this is so out of the ordinary is that we’re not used to seeing human beings prosecuted for the various schemes Wall Street perpetrates on a daily basis.

    Since the crisis, regulators have been at pains to convince the public they’re serious about cracking down on the conspiratorial culture that’s been proven to pervade nearly every corner of global capital markets. This quest is made exceedingly difficult by the fact that, well, they’re not at all serious, which is why no actual people (and certainly no senior executives) are ever held accountable for anything, leaving bank logos as the only fall “guys”.

    This was on full display when several Wall Street firms pleaded guilty to FX rigging charges earlier this year. The punishment: fines that represented a mere fraction of the proceeds derived from the crimes themselves. 

    Having said all of that, occasionally prosecutors must produce a head and unfortunately for Hayes (and Nav Sarao), his will now be proudly displayed to the angry mob as proof that justice has been served. For the Rain Main, “justice” means 14 years in HM Prison Wandsworth, which Bloomberg describes as “a Victorian fortress south of the Thames known for its poor conditions and violent residents.”

    And while one might well argue that bulge bracket banks are also known for having “poor conditions and violent residents,” we suspect Hayes might have a bit of trouble adjusting to his new home. Never fear though, because Prison Consultants and its co-founder Steve Dagworthy are here to help. Here’s more from Bloomberg:

    Don’t rush to make friends and don’t get into debt. That’s the advice of an ex-convict for Tom Hayes as he adjusts to life behind bars.

     

    Hayes started a 14-year jail sentence this week after a jury found him guilty of conspiring to rig Libor, the interest-rate benchmark used to value more than $350 trillion of financial contracts.

     

    “In prison, it’s not about making friends,” said Steve Dagworthy, an ex-convict and co-founder of Prison Consultants, a London-based agency that gives advice to prospective inmates. “It’s about not making enemies.”

     

    Dagworthy set up the firm in 2013 after being convicted of fraud and realizing how little preparation there was for defendants facing prison time. 

     

    Hayes joins another recent financial crime casualty at Wandsworth. Magnus Peterson, founder of collapsed hedge fund Weavering Capital (UK) Ltd., is in the first of a 13-year stretch for fraud. And Navinder Singh Sarao, the British trader accused of contributing to the 2010 flash crash, is being held at Wandsworth as he fights extradition to the U.S.

     

    Known as “Wanno,” the high-security prison is the largest in the U.K., with more than 1,600 inmates. According to a July report from HM Inspectorate of Prisons, “overcrowding and severe staff shortages” mean almost every service there is insufficient.

     

    “You wake up one morning and think ‘I’m in prison,'” said Dagworthy, who hasn’t advised Hayes. “And that’s when it hits you, and you suddenly realize that you are no longer in control of your life.”

     

    Since arriving at the prison on Monday night, Hayes will have had his possessions cataloged, fingerprints taken and been fitted out with a standard-form gray tracksuit and bedding. He’ll shortly be moved from the induction wing to a house block, where he’ll meet his cell mate, a man he’ll share an open toilet with every day.

     

    “You have to come to terms with the fact that you’re in this new world and you have to understand the rules of this new world,” said Dagworthy.

     

    His advice? “Keep yourself to yourself.”

    We only hope that regulators have thought about whether it’s a good idea to lock Hayes up alongside Nav Sarao because after all, if the charges are to be believed, these two criminal masterminds were together responsible for rigging the most important benchmark rate on the planet and sending stocks on their most harrowing intraday rollercoaster ride in history.

    One can only imagine what they might dream up if left alone together in a dark prison to commiserate and plot for more than a decade. 

  • Guest Post: Is Donald Trump Broke?

    Doug Litowitz raises a speculative contrarian position on Donald Trump's exact worth, based on what was released to the FEC. The bottom line is that no one knows Trump's net worth, but the speculation usually starts in the billions. Doug Litowitz explores the opposite possibility, namely that Trump is, in relative terms, broke. This is solely his speculation and is not meant as a factual statement but a possibility that has been ignored in the mainstream press.

    Submitted by Doug Litowitz via TheAlphaPages.com,

    I’ve just slogged through all ninety-two pages of Donald Trump’s financial disclosure submission to the Federal Election Commission, and I can’t make heads or tails of it. 

    I cannot tell how much Trump is worth, if anything. His empire, if he has one, is as mysterious as his haircut, and as impervious as his skyscraper in Chicago – a gigantic phallic mirror named after himself.

    In terms of real, lasting assets – is Donald Trump worth roughly $10 billion?

    The mainstream press erred horrendously by taking seriously Trump’s disclosure to the FEC, by asking reporters to sit down with the document and try to understand it on its own terms, so to speak. This approach yielded nothing but exhaustion and bewilderment. No one dared speculate that Trump’s purpose in disclosing so much was to disclose so little. It was a 52-Card Pickup, a maze of trees without a forest. The assets – some as small as the single-digit thousands – pile up like obsessive compulsive do-dads in the claustrophobic home of a hoarder. The range of projects goes beyond greed and passes into desperation. High rise buildings and golf courses are one thing, but the list of assets quickly degrades into obscure wineries, Israeli vodka and energy drinks, a mattress and clothing line, television shows, a pension from the screen actors guild, bottled water, book royalties, speaking gigs, and endless inchoate and impossible to value ‘marks’ (i.e. trademarks) and positions in partnerships that have his own name.

    This is why the New York Times threw up its hands and proclaimed with cool intrigue that Trump’s income and wealth were “hard to pinpoint.”

    The Wall Street Journal punted, saying tautologically that Trump’s disclosures contain disclosures totaling at least $1.5 billion, but conceding that the actual numbers are not known.

    Forbes puts his wealth at $4 billion, Bloomberg at $2.9 billion. Trump said recently that he is worth $10 billion and that his wealth has increased by more than $1 billion in the last year due to spiraling real estate prices (this was probably supposed to impress people, but it actually shows a dangerous volatility). The FEC form allows the filing party to value assets and liabilities within a range or at an upper limit, and most of Trump’s assets are vague interests of indeterminate worth and undisclosed indebtedness.

    Trump’s illiquid assets and unknown liabilities may or may not offset each other – and he isn’t telling.

    What does that leave?

    Not much. A relatively small amount of money in a couple of hedge funds, and brokerage portfolios of garden-variety stocks, a couple hundred thousand in gold, and other ho-hum assets consisting almost entirely of his ‘marks.’ He could be worth hundreds of millions, theoretically, but if leveraged, his worth could be negative. Who knows?

    This ambiguity plays into Trump’s hands: he loves a playing field where there is no difference between reality and fantasy, where the majestic paneled board room is really a stage set, where he is Making America Great by manufacturing clothes in Bangladesh, where he insults Mexicans and then sues a Spanish television network for not showing the Miss USA pageant, a paean to female innocence brought to us by a womanizer on his third marriage. This is Trump-territory: a nowhere land in which he threatens to sue anyone who disparages the size of an empire that he refuses to disclose. 

    You will never figure out Trump’s worth by looking at numbers. He’s far too slick for that, he can hide the ball forever.

    So let’s put aside the numbers. Instead, let’s look at his FEC submission as a psychological document, a testament, a confession. 

    Here we are faced with a paradox: Trump does not speak, act, or behave like a normal billionaire, nor even like a renegade or eccentric billionaire. He behaves like someone who is desperately broke.

    I know that sounds odd. Improbable. Counterintuitive. And I don’t – I can’t – I won’t – say for certain whether he is broke. But I think it is a very distinct possibility.

    I base this judgment on many years of working closely with very rich people. I’ve had the pleasure – though that is not quite the right word – of spending a lot of time around people who are extremely wealthy, and none of them behaves remotely like Trump.

    For one thing, true billionaires hate seeing their name in the papers or being discussed in public. They don’t want people stealing their ideas, they don’t want scrutiny from regulators, they don’t want others to control the narrative about their business dealings, and frankly there is no financial advantage to being well known among ordinary people who don’t have money to invest.

    The truly wealthy seek to be known in the right circles and not to the general public. It’s a fair bet that if the richest twenty hedge fund managers walked down the street, no one in the general public would turn their head; conversely, it is a also a fair bet that the twenty guys at the airport talking loudly into their cell phones about how they are returning to the head office after closing a big deal in Baltimore are actually worth next to nothing. Powerful people have secrets, barriers, walls. If Trump really had special ideas or assets, he would crave secrecy, not publicity.

    Second, the truly wealthy do not brand themselves. Whatever you may think of how Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or Steven Cohen made their fortunes, they did not get into the bottled water industry to compete with “Trump Ice,” nor do them sponsor beauty pageants or have television shows where they send out contestants to make ice cream cones and then berate them mercilessly for choosing $1.45 as a price point. There is a very revealing type of bullying taking place on Trump’s show The Apprentice.

    He never puts himself up against equals in world of finance, but surrounds himself with childlike sycophants whose fate he controls with an iron hand. By demonstrating so much power against unequal opponents, and by expressing this power in an artificial setting, he actually conveys his own powerlessness in the real world. In attempting to come off as patrician, he devolves into sanctimonious self-aggrandizement while flanked by his robotic and obedient offspring who are displayed like products.

    Third, billionaires do not announce how much money they have. It’s déclassé. And they don’t want to boast because it gives the Internal Revenue Service, the SEC, and regulators another bite at the apple. If someone says you are worth $1 billion and you are really worth $10 billion that can be great news! Use it to your advantage.

    Finally, real billionaires also choose their deals carefully, weighing risk and return. They don’t start clothing lines or energy drinks because the risks (bad reviews, parodies, lawsuits) outweigh the rewards. What kind of person starts their own Trump University and then lets it dissolve a few years later amid lawsuits and investigations by the New York State Attorney General that the students were being defrauded. What is the economic advantage to a billionaire 10 times over of having a brand of bottled water that brings in $280,000, or a beauty pageant, or a line of cheap clothing, or a modeling agency, when the money can just sit in an account that mirrors the market and makes double digit growth? Some of these eponymous projects can be dismissed as flights of narcissism; but there are so many that something other than narcissism is at work here.

    It smells of overreach, desperation, and pettiness.

    Fourth, consider how Trump reacts with vituperative indignation when anyone has the temerity to question his supposed wealth. When comedienne Rosie O’Donnell claimed that Trump was a “snake oil salesman” who had been bankrupt, he threatened to sue her for defamation (presumably because the bankruptcy of Trump casino was not a personal bankruptcy for Trump himself). When MSNBC reporter Lawrence O’Donnell suggested that Trump was worth less than $1 billion, Trump threatened to sue. A decade ago he sued the author of a book about him for claiming that he was only worth a few hundred million instead of the nearly $3 billion that he claimed to be worth at the time. He even threatened to sue his ex-wife Ivana for talking too much about his finances, in violation of her agreement to keep quiet. 

    Methinks he doth protest too much.

    Why threaten to sue someone for underestimating your wealth . . . unless . . . unless . . . unless the sole valuable asset that you have is the general belief that you are worth $10 billion? Unless, that is, if you are really much poorer, and you have nothing to fall back on besides your reputation, and your main asset is the impression you convey. In that case, you might consider doing precisely what Trump does.

    Here is where I am heading: Could it be the case that Trump is an empty suit with no meaningful net assets other than his persona, his brand? That like a shark, he has to keep moving and keep projecting the image of great wealth, or else his empire will sink? This is consistent with the FEC disclosure document where so many of his assets are ‘marks’; in other words, he makes money by lending his name.

    Trump’s FEC document impresses me as the statement of a person who does not have much of anything other than himself – he is his own product. He is the professional wrestler of the financial world – a person who is famous for being famous, the tragic product of a society that produces images instead of actual things.

    Yes, he has built a few golf courses and buildings, but so have others – on a bigger scale; what he has really built is himself, or rather a caricature of himself. My suspicion is that Trump has nothing other than himself. He invented himself. He is his own brand, and that is all he is. Any crack in the mask will cause the whole thing to crumble down. 

    It is fitting that he gets a pension from the Screen Actors Guild.

    He is an actor who plays a man worth $10 billion.

  • Buffett Bailout 2.0? Berkshire Hathaway Misses Earnings By Most Since Lehman

    It looks like it is time for Warren to get on the Obamaphone and make it clear this is unacceptable…  

    Berkshire Hathaway announced (a 10% decline) $2,367 (Adjusted) EPS, missing estimates of $3,038 by 22.09% – the biggest disappointment since Nov 2008…

     

     

    Worst still, Net income for the Omaha, Nebraska-based insurance and investment company fell to $4.01 billion, or $2,442 per share, from $6.4 billion, or $3,889 per share, a year earlier – a stunning 37% plunge.

    The driver of the weakness appears to be a fall in the paper value of its investments and its insurance companies reported an underwriting loss.

    Berkshire's insurance underwriting business, which includes Geico, swung to a $38 million loss.

     

    In the same period a year earlier the business had posted a $411 million after-tax profit.

    *  *  *

    Perhaps, as David Stockman previously noted, Warren's ride on the coat-tails of Fed exuberance is over…

    During the 27 years after Alan Greenspan became Fed chairman in August 1987, the balance sheet of the Fed exploded from $200 billion to $4.5 trillion. Call it 23X.

    Let’s see what else happened over that 27 year span. Well, according to Forbes, Warren Buffet’s net worth was $2.1 billion back in 1987 and it is now $73 billion. Call that 35X.

    During those same years, the value of non-financial corporate equities rose from $2.6 trillion to $36.6 trillion. That’s on the hefty side, too—- about 14X.

    Corporate Equities and GDP - Click to enlarge

    Corporate Equities and GDP – Click to enlarge

    When we move to the underlying economy that purportedly gave rise to these fabulous gains, the X-factor is not so generous. As shown above, nominal GDP rose from $5.0 trillion to $17.7 trillion during the same 27-year period. But that was only 3.5X

    Next we have wage and salary compensation, which rose from $2.5 trillion to $7.5 trillion over the period. Make that 3.0X.

    Then comes the median nominal income of US households. That measurement increased from $26K to $54K over the period. Call it 2.0X.

    Digging deeper, we have the sum of aggregate labor hours supplied to the nonfarm economy. That metric of real work by real people rose from 185 billion to 235 billion during those same 27 years. Call it 1.27X.

    Further down the Greenspan era rabbit hole, we have the average weekly wage of full-time workers in inflation adjusted dollars. That was $330 per week in 1987 and is currently $340 (1982=100). Call that 1.03X

    Finally, we have real median family income. Call it a round trip to nowhere over nearly three decades!

    OK, its not entirely fair to compare Warren Buffet’s 35.0X to the median household’s 0.0X. There is some “inflation” in the Oracle’s wealth tabulation, as reflected in the GDP deflator’s rise from 60 to 108 (2009 =100) during the period. So in today’s dollars, Buffet started with $3.8 billion in 1987. Call his inflation-adjusted gain 19X then, and be done with it.

    And you can make the same adjustment to the market value of total non-financial equity. In 2014 dollars, today’s aggregate value of $36.7 trillion compares to $4.5 trillion back in 1987. Call it 8.0X.

    Here’s the thing. Warren Buffet ain’t no 19X genius nor are investors as a whole 8X versions of the same. The real truth is that Alan Greenspan and his successors turned a whole generation of gamblers into the greatest lottery winners in recorded history.

    That happened because the Fed grotesquely distorted and financialized the US economy in the name of Keynesian management of the purported “business cycle”. The most visible instrument of that misguided campaign, of course, was the Federal funds or money market rate, which has been pinned at the zero bound for the last 78 months.

    *  *  *

    With The Fed on the verge of raising rates, perhaps the days of the Warren Buffet economy are indeed numbered.

  • "Markets In Turmoil" Dow Suffers Worst Streak Since 2011, Yield Curves Collapse

    Nail-biter… or Cliff-hanger? (Stallone is The PPT, the girl is the market, the carabiner is The Fed, the guy in the other chopper is CNBC)

    *  *  *

    Post-Payrolls reaction…

     

    Despite reassurances that a) rate-hikes are priced-in, 2) rate-hikes are bullisher for stocks than rate-cuts (why would The Fed raise rates if everything was not awesome?), and thirdly) buy the dip! It appears the rising rate-hike probability is 'coincidental' with markets turmoiling…

    But don't forget…

    Equity markets in turmoil… Small Caps broke…

     

    And Futures show the big drops…but Europe-based drift higher…

    • Dow down 7 days in a row – first time since Aug 2011
    • Dow down 800 points in 3 weeks – worst run since Aug 2011

    Note – Death cross (50DMA crossing below 200DMA) looms…

     

    The S&P was held above its 2014 close and the 200DMA (2073) was very aggressively defended… thanks to a VIX clubbing…VIX ended the day lower!!! bwuahahahah!!!

     

    The ramp effort broke the markets…

     

    • Biotechs down 9.2% – biggest weekly drop since Aug 2011
    • Media down 8.4% – worst week since Aug 2011
    • Energy down 2.7% – down 13 of last 14 weeks
    • AAPL down 5.1% – worst week since Jan 2014; worst 3 weeks (-11%) since Jan 2013

     

    Catching down to credit…

     

    VIX up 19% – biggest weekly jump since Jan 2015 before the gapping effort down at the close to rescue stocks…

     

     In Bond land…

    • 2Y Yield rose 6bps – biggest jump since June 2015 (near 4 year highs)
    • 30Y Yield down 5 of last 6 weeks (40bps biggest drop since Jan 2015)

    • 2s30s Curve down 14bps – biggest weekly flattening since April 2013
    • 5s30s Curve down over 9% – biggest weekly flattening since Sept 2011

     

    The Corporate (IG and HY) Bond market is not happy… 

    • HYCDX +40bps in 3 weeks – worst run since Dec 2014, highest risk since Dec 2014

     

    • HYG down 1.25% to lowest since Nov 2011 (worst 3 week run since Dec 2014)

     

    Commodity Carnaged…

    • Crude down 7.0% – down 6 weeks in a row (28% drop) to 5mo lows
    • Copper down 11 of last 12 weeks – lowest since July 2009
    • Silver Up 0.6% (before post-close slide) – best week in 3 months, breaks 5 week losing streak
    • Gold could not hold green – extends losing streak to 7 weeks

     

    But not everything was down…

     

    Note that Oil and stocks have become highly correlated once again…

     

    As Crude was clubbed back to a $43 handle close…

     

    Ironically, FX markets were actually relatively quiet (at least in the majors)…

     

    Although EM saw some pain (from Ruble to Real…)

     

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

    Bonus Chart: VIX under 14 and CNN Fear-and-Greed Index collapses to 10!!

  • The U.S. Is Destroying Europe

    Authored by Eric Zeusse via Strategic-Culture.org,

    In Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and other countries at the periphery or edges of Europe, U.S. President Barack Obama has been pursuing a policy of destabilization, and even of bombings and other military assistance, that drives millions of refugees out of those peripheral areas and into Europe, thereby adding fuel to the far-rightwing fires of anti-immigrant rejectionism, and of resultant political destabilization, throughout Europe, not only on its peripheries, but even as far away as in northern Europe.

    Shamus Cooke at Off-Guardian headlines on 3 August 2015, “Obama’s ‘Safe Zone’ in Syria Intended to Turn It into New Libya,” and he reports that Obama has approved U.S. air support for Turkey’s previously unenfoceable no-fly zone over Syria. The U.S. will now shoot down all of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s planes that are targeting the extremist-Muslim groups, including ISIS, that have taken over huge swaths of Syrian territory.

    Cooke reports:

    “Turkey has been demanding this no-fly zone from Obama since the Syrian war started. It’s been discussed throughout the conflict and even in recent months, though the intended goal was always the Syrian government. And suddenly the no-fly zone is happening — right where Turkey always wanted it — but it’s being labeled an 'anti-ISIS' safe zone, instead of its proper name: 'Anti Kurdish and anti-Syrian government' safe zone.”

    The New York Times reported on July 27th, that, "the plan calls for relatively moderate Syrian insurgents to take the territory, with the help of American and possibly Turkish air support.” However, the Times, stenographically reporting (as usual) from and for their U.S. Government sources (and so propagandizing for the U.S. Government), fails to define “relatively moderate,” but all of the “relatively moderate insurgent” groups in Syria cooperate with ISIS and help them to find and decapitate, or sometimes hold for ransoms, any non-Muslims there. Under Assad, Syria has been a non-clerical state, and has enjoyed freedom of religion, but all of the Syrian opposition to Assad’s rule is alien to that. The U.S. is now, even more clearly than before, anti-Assad, pro-Islamist.

    Seymour Hersh reported in the London Review of Books on 17 April 2014, that the Obama Administration’s Libyan bombing campaign in 2011 was part of a broader program to bring sarin gas from Libya to the al-Nusra Front in Syria, in order to help produce a gas-attack upon civilians, which the U.S. Administration could then blame upon Assad, as being an excuse to bomb there just as Obama had already so successfully done in Libya. Both dictators, Gaddafi and Assad, were allied with Russia, and Assad especially has been important to Russia, as a transit-route for Russia’s gas supplies, and not for Qatar’s gas supplies — Qatar being the major potential threat to Russia’s status as the top supplier of gas into Europe.

    Obama’s top goal in international relations, and throughout his military policies, has been to defeat Russia, to force a regime-change there that will make Russia part of the American empire, no longer the major nation that resists control from Washington.

    Prior to the U.S. bombings of Libya in 2011, Libya was at peace and thriving. Per-capita GDP (income) in 2010 according to the IMF was $12,357.80, but it plunged to only $5,839.70 in 2011 — the year we bombed and destroyed the country. (Hillary Clinton famously bragged, “We came, we saw, he [Gaddafi] died!”) (And, unlike in U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, that per-capita GDP was remarkably evenly distributed, and both education and health care were socialized and available to everyone, even to the poor.) More recently, on 15 February 2015, reporter Leila Fadel of NPR bannered “With Oil Fields Under Attack, Libya’s Economic Future Looks Bleak.” She announced: “The man in charge looks at production and knows the future is bleak. 'We cannot produce. We are losing 80 percent of our production,' says Mustapha Sanallah, the chairman of Libya's National Oil Corporation.” Under instructions from Washington, the IMF hasn’t been reliably reporting Libya’s GDP figures after 2011, but instead shows that things there were immediately restored to normal (even to better than normal: $13,580.55 per-capita GDP) in 2012, but everybody knows that it’s false; even NPR is, in effect, reporting that it’s not true. The CIA estimates that Libya’s per-capita GDP was a ridiculous $23,900 in 2012 (they give no figures for the years before that), and says Libya’s per-capita GDP has declined only slightly thereafter. None of the official estimates are at all trustworthy, though the Atlantic Council at least made an effort to explain things honestly, headlining in their latest systematic report about Libya’s economy, on 23 January 2014, “Libya: Facing Economic Collapse in 2014.”

    Libya has become Europe’s big problem. Millions of Libyans are fleeing the chaos there. Some of them are fleeing across the Mediterranean and ending up in refugee camps in southern Italy; and some are escaping to elsewhere in Europe.

    And Syria is now yet another nation that’s being destroyed in order to conquer Russia. Even the reliably propagandistic New York Times is acknowledging, in its ‘news’ reporting, that, "both the Turks and the Syrian insurgents see defeating President Bashar al-Assad of Syria as their first priority.” So: U.S. bombers will be enforcing a no-fly-zone over parts of Syria in order to bring down Russia’s ally Bashar al-Assad and replace his secular government by an Islamic government — and the 'anti-ISIS' thing is just for show; it’s PR, propaganda. The public cares far more about defeating ISIS than about defeating Russia; but that’s not the way America’s aristocracy views things. Their objective is extending America’s empire — extending their own empire.

    Similarly, Obama overthrew the neutralist government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine in February 2014, but that was under the fake cover of ‘democracy’ demonstrations, instead of under the fake cover of ‘opposing Islamic terrorism’ or whatever other phrases that the U.S. Government uses to fool suckers about America’s installation of, and support to, a rabidly anti-Russia, racist-fascist, or nazi, government next door to Russia, in Ukraine. Just as Libya had been at peace before the U.S. invaded and destroyed it, and just as Syria had been at peace before the U.S and Turkey invaded and destroyed it, Ukraine too was at peace before the U.S. perpetrated its coup there and installed nazis and an ethnic cleansing campaign there, and destroyed Ukraine too.

    Like with Libya before the overthrow of Gaddafi there, or Syria before the current effort to overthrow Assad there, or the more recent successful overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych, it’s all aimed to defeat Russia.

    The fact that all of Europe is sharing in the devastation that Obama and other American conservatives — imperialists, even — impose, is of little if any concern to the powers-that-be in Washington DC, but, if it matters at all to them, then perhaps it’s another appealing aspect of this broader operation: By weakening European nations, and not only nations in the Middle East, Obama’s war against Russia is yet further establishing America to be “the last man standing,” at the end of the chaos and destruction that America causes.

    Consequently, for example, in terms of U.S. international strategy, the fact that the economic sanctions against Russia are enormously harming the economies of European nations is good, not bad.

    There are two ways to win, at any game: One is by improving one’s own performance. The other is by weakening the performances by all of one’s competitors. The United States is now relying almost entirely upon the latter type of strategy.

    *  *  *

    Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

     

  • When Work Is Punished: The Ongoing Tragedy Of America's Welfare State

    Wage growth – or a persistent lack thereof – has become something of a hot topic in America. 

    Thanks to the nationwide push for a higher pay floor (personified by mobs of angry fry cooks demanding $15/hour and Democrats on Capitol Hill who are pushing hard for “$12 by ‘20“) and wage growth’s role as an input in Janet Yellen’s mental “liftoff” model, everyone from Main Street to Wall Street feels compelled to weigh in. 

    The standard criticism of hiking the minimum wage is that forcing employers to pay more will simply result in layoffs and/or a reduced propensity to hire, but as we saw with Dan Price and Gravity Payments, there are a whole lot of other things that can go wrong. For instance, higher paid employees may not understand why everyone under them in the corporate structure suddenly makes more money and if people who are higher up on the corporate ladder don’t receive raises that keep the hierarchy proportional they may simply quit. 

    But while politicians, pundits, and economists run in circles perpetuating a debate that’s better suited for an undergrad introductory economics course than it is for the national stage (it’s really quite simple, as New York Burger King franchisee David Sutz made clear when he told CBS that “businesses are not going to pay $15 dollars an hour [because] the economics don’t work in this industry [given that] there is a limit to what you’re going to pay for a hamburger”), there’s a far more troubling situation unfolding behind the scenes and it harkens back to an issue we discussed at length almost three years ago. 

    In short, the welfare system punishes work and incentivizes dependency. More concretely, the structure is such that rational actors will eschew hard work, because the more they earn, the poorer they will effectively be in terms of total resources (calculated as welfare benefits plus earnings). 

    In the simplest possible terms: for many Americans, wage growth is a very, very bad thing.

    We encourage readers to go back and read “When Work Is Punished: The Tragedy Of America’s Welfare State,” and not only because it serves as a helpful primer, but because it also underscores the degree to which exactly nothing has changed in the 30 or so months since it was written. At issue is the so-called “welfare cliff” beyond which families will literally become poorer the higher their wages, as the drop off in entitlements more than offsets the increase in earnings.

    A study by the Illinois Policy Institute shows just how dramatic the effect of “falling off the cliff” (so to speak) can be. In one of the most startling findings for instance, if a single mother raising two children were to accept a pay raise from $12 to $18 per hour, her total resources would fall by nearly 33%. Here’s more:

    From: “Making work pay in Illinois: how welfare cliffs can trap families in poverty

     

    For single-and two-parent households in Illinois, there is a significant welfare “cliff” where the household may become worse off financially as they work more hours or as their wages increase. That is because the available welfare benefits decline by a greater amount than the increase in earned income.

     

    This study analyzed a potential welfare benefits package for single- and two-parent households, both with two young children, in Cook, Lake and St. Clair counties. The potential means-tested benefits included tax credits, cash assistance, food assistance, housing assistance, child-care subsidies and health care.

     

    The study’s findings for Cook County include: 

    • A wide range of benefits provides a large magnitude of support. The potential sum of welfare benefits can reach $47,894 annually for single-parent households and $41,237 for two-parent households. Welfare benefits will be available to some households earning as much as $74,880 annually. 
    • Welfare cliffs are significant and can trap families. A single mom has the most resources available to her family when she works full time at a wage of $8.25 to $12 an hour. Disturbingly, taking a pay increase to $18 an hour can leave her with about one-third fewer total resources (net income and government benefits). In order to make work “pay” again, she would need an hourly wage of $38 to mitigate the impact of lost benefits and higher taxes. 
    • The system is inequitable. A minimum wage increase to $10 an hour would push a household where both parents work for minimum wage over the welfare cliff. They would suffer a net loss in household resources of about $9,000 as reduced government benefits more than cancel out the higher wages.

    As bad as this sounds on paper, it’s even more stunning visually. The following graphic for Cook County shows just how financially destructive it can be for low-paid workers to try and break free of their dependence on the public purse:

    There are several things to note here. First, as mentioned above, for a single mother of two, going from $12/hour to $18/hour would be a disaster, economically speaking. Her total resources (net income plus benefits) would collapse $24,840 from a peak of $63,597 to just $38,757. But perhaps the most distrubing part of the entire equation is that in this case, the single parent would have to make $38/hour before “recovering” from the welfare cliff. 

    And this isn’t confined to Cook County:

    In all cases, net earned income and welfare benefits climb quickly from no income through part-time work at minimum wage until full-time at minimum wage ($8.25 per hour). Net earned income and benefits then plateau until a peak of $12 per hour, which is only slight greater — and probably unnoticeable — than at minimum wage. Thereafter, net earned income and benefits begin to decline until they reach a trough at $18 per hour. The drop from peak to trough is highly significant, reducing disposable income resources by more than one-third. Table 6 provides the values for each locality for the drop. For Cook County, net earned income and benefits drop $24,840, from a peak of $63,597 to a trough of $38,757. The values are nearly identical for the city of Chicago: a drop of $24,830 from a peak of $63,586 to a trough of $38,757. Although the values are lower for Lake County and St. Clair County, the drop is relatively the same, i.e., more than one-third. For Lake County, the drop is $23,396, from a peak of $61,655 to a trough of $38,259. For St Clair County, the drop is $19,408, from a peak of $58,473 to a trough of $39,065.

     

    For Cook County and the city of Chicago, the parent would have to earn $38 per hour before she would make up for loss of benefits when she earned only $12 per hour.

    In other words: in Illinois, a rising minimum wage is actually negative (and severely so) unless it’s hiked enough to make total compensation around $80,000!

    For the purpose of simplification, here is a generalized illustration of welfare cliff dynamic: 

    The full report is below and you’re encouraged to have a look as it goes into quite a bit of detail on the perverse incentives that emanate from the current system. For our part, we’ll close with what we said on the subject in November of 2012: 

    We realize that this is a painful topic in a country in which the issue of welfare benefits and cutting (or not) the spending side of the fiscal cliff have become the two most sensitive social topics. Alas, none of that changes the matrix of incentives for Americans who find themselves facing a comparable dilemma: either remain on the left side of minimum US wage and rely on benefits, or move to the right side at far greater personal investment of work, and energy, and… have the same (or much lower) disposable income at the end of the day.

    Welfare Report Final

  • Carl Icahn "Accepts Donald Trump's Offer For Secretary Of Treasury"

    Has Carl been drinking?

    Of course, no mention that he was the main creditor who ended up owning The Trump Hotel in Atlantic City, of course…

  • Weekend Reading: Serious Indigestion

    Submitted by Lance Roberts via STA Wealth Management,

    Another week of market volatility with no ground gained. It's enough to give you indigestion. I made an assessment earlier this week in reference to the markets rally attempt stating:

    "Any rally that occurs over the next few days from the current oversold condition should be used as a "sellable rally" to rebalance portfolios and related risk. (Chart updated through Thursday's close)

    SP500-Technical-Analysis-080615

    • "While the market did rally over the last week as expected, it failed to rally above the current downtrend that has confined the market since mid-May.
    • The failure of the market to rise back towards new-highs, given the "oversold" condition discussed last week, continues to confirm the underlying weakness in the market.
    • While overhead resistance has kept the markets from rising in recent months, downside support at the 150 and 200-day moving averages has kept the "bullish trend" alive for now.
    • Lastly, the oversold condition that existed last week has been primarily worked off. However, the market has not returned to an overbought condition that has previously marked the end of bull rallies. The market must close above 2180 by Friday's close to reverse the current weakness.

    This short-term analysis suggests, especially when combined with the ongoing deterioration of internal measures, that rallies remain useful opportunities to rebalance portfolio risk as discussed last week."

    As suspected, the rally failed at the current downtrend resistance and is currently testing support at the 200-dma. Importantly, the market is NOT oversold currently which could potentially fuel further selling. 

    I discussed yesteday's that more warning signs have emerged suggesting there may be more to the recent consolidation than just a pause. This weekend's reading list will delve into a variety of views on the current market action.

    Is this just a simple case of indigestion or is it something more viral? 


    1) US Stocks Can't Keep Shrugging Off Global Pressures by Anthony Mirhaydari via Fiscal Times

    "Yet a better indication of what's happening in world markets comes from the MSCI World (ex USA) Index, which is down more than 7 percent from its high set last summer. Or the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets (EEM), which is down 19 percent from last summer's highs. Or the DB Commodities Tracking Index Fund (DBC), which is down 43 percent.

     

    Something is slipping. Factory orders here have expanded on a monthly basis only twice in the last 11 months. Excluding transportation, factory orders collapsed at a 7.5 percent annual rate in July, the worst since the maw of recession in 2009. With America's manufacturing sector looking shaky, the risk is that a global stalling pulls us down, too."

     

    CRB-Fwd-earnings

    Read Also: Too Early To Worry About The Bear by Chris Puplava via Financial Sense

    Also Read: 3 Warning Signs For Market Bulls by Lance Roberts via Streettalklive

     

    2) The Wizard Of Odds For The USD by Erik Swarts via Market Anthropology

    "From our perspective – and represented by the Fed's arduous task of administrating policy from ZIRP and within the trough of the long-term yield cycle, the conditions in the economy that were reflected in the markets of the 70's, 80's and 90's – are not remotely similar with today or have the potential reach and trend capacity that was fundamentally set in motion and sustained by the rise and fall in yields, from their secular icarus heights of the early 1980's.

     

    Although anythings possible – and admittedly the bulls continue to hold the fort and battle for now, we feel it would behoove such lofty expectations to approach the dollar with the aforementioned long-term intermarket cycles in mind. Moreover, from a performance point-of-view, the magnitude and pace of gains over the past year is in fact rare and more representative of culminating blowoff extremes – rather than the early headwaters of a longer trend."

    USD-40-Years

    Read Also: The Great Tragedy by Joe Calhoun via Alhambra Partners

     

    3) Things Are About To Get Bumpy  by Russ Koesterich via BlackRock

    "Investors should be aware, however, that the good times may not last for long. Higher volatility should be expected given the recent evidence of slowing global growth and less benign credit conditions. This suggests to us that so-called momentum stocks, which have rallied strongly this year, could falter."

    Read Also: The Stock Market Is Weaker Than It Looks by J C Parets via Business Insider

    SP500-Technical-080615

     

    4) The "Big Short" Opportunity May Be At Hand by Doug Kass via Kass' Corner 

    "Too little attention has been placed on the continued subpar growth that's been the consistent feature of the U.S. economy since "The Generational Low" in March 2009.

     

    It's worth noting that recoveries out of severe U.S. recessions like the 2007-2009 one have historically been V-shaped. But this time around, gross domestic product has only expanded at a 2.1% real annual rate from the recession's bottom – well below the historical trend line of slightly more than 3%.

     

    This fact, coupled with the more-sluggish corporate-profit growth than has emanated from a weaker economy, has formed my cautious market view over the last two years. I also think this slow-growth condition has generated a dependency on aggressive monetary tactics from the Federal Reserve and the world's other central banks."

    Read Also: 2015 Recession Probabilities And Bear Markets by Chris Ciovacco via Ciavocco Capital

     

    5) Coming Out As A Bear by Axel Merk via Merk Investments

    "Increasingly concerned about the markets, I've taken more aggressive action than in 2007, the last time I soured on the equity markets. Let me explain why and what I'm doing to try to profit from what may lie ahead.

     

    I started to get concerned about the markets in 2014, when I heard of a couple of investment advisers that increased their allocation to the stock market because they were losing clients for not keeping up with the averages.

     

    Earlier this year, as the market kept marching upward, I decided that buying put options on equities wouldn't give me the kind of protection I was looking for. So I liquidated most of my equity holdings. We also shut down our equity strategy for the firm.

     

    Of late, I've taken it a step further, starting to build an outright short position on the market. In the long-run, this may be losing proposition, but right now, I am rather concerned about traditional asset allocation."

     

    2015-08-04-yellen-bear

    Read Also: Short Seller Who Called Financial Crisis See Calamity Ahead  by Michael Newberg via CNBC


    Other Interesting Reads

    The Revenue Recession by Charlie Bilello via Pension Partners

    Fed Policy Keeps Introducing Distortions by Dr. John Hussman via Hussman Funds

    The Fed Is Cornered by Guy Hasselmann via ZeroHedge

    A Compendium Of Awesome Observations by Meb Faber via Meb Faber Research


    "These are the cards we've been dealt. We can't trade the market we want, we have to trade the market we have." – J C Parets

    Have a great weekend.

  • Something Doesn't Add Up…

    Away from the utter farce of the rigged close in today's manipulated, volatility-crushing market

     

    We could not help but notice that with CNN's Fear & Greed Index at 10 – Extreme Fear…

     

    …and 6 of the 7 underlying factor at 'Extreme Fear', something doesn't add up that the VIX 'factor' is "neutral"…

    Spot The Odd One Out…

     

    Or more clearly…

     

    Anything China can do, "we" can do better!

     

    Source: CNN

  • Artist's Impression Of Obama's 'Clean Power Plan'

    Just shut up, smile, and nod…

     

     

    Source: Investors.com

  • The Big "Earnings Beat Expectations" Lie Exposed (In 2 Simple Posts)

    Quarter after quarter, we are spoon-fed statistics 'proving' that everything is awesome trotting out the percentage of companies 'beating expectations'. However, as is widely-known 'inside' Wall Street, this is simply all smoke and mirrors. As the following two charts prove: every quarter, 'hockey-stick' hope starts off high, is then drastically reduced into the actual earnings period…

     

     

    …which then rises during earnings to a level still lower than the pre-earnings period hope-fest…

     

    and once again, hope is pushed off into the next quarter… just one more quarter.

    And sure enough you can buy stocks safely on forward earnings expectations that the hockey stick is just around the corner!!

    How many more quarters do we have to see this 'game' play out before there are no greater fools left?

     

    Source: Deutsche Bank

  • Here Comes The Next Crisis "Nobody Saw Coming"

    Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

    When borrowing become prohibitive (or impossible) and raising taxes no longer generates more revenues, state and local governments will have to cut expenditures.

    Strangely enough, every easily foreseeable financial crisis is presented in the mainstream media as one that "nobody saw coming." No doubt the crisis visible in these three charts will also fall into the "nobody saw it coming" category.

    Take a look at this chart of state and local government debt. As we noted yesterday, nominal GDP rose about 77% since 2000. So state and local debt rose at double the rate of GDP. That is the definition of an unsustainable trend.

    As noted earlier in the week, state and local taxes have soared 75%. While this would be no big deal if wages and salaries had risen by 75% in the same time frame, but earnings have barely kept pace with inflation (38% since 2000).

    So state and local taxes have risen at a rate twice that of wages/salaries. State and local governments can keep raising taxes, but where's the money going to come from?

    State and local government expenditures have risen faster than inflation or GDP.

    Here is the context that matters: household income. This is median real income, i.e. adjusted for inflation.

     

    Wages and salaries are barely keeping up with inflation, real household incomes are down 8.5% since 2000 and state and local government taxes and spending are rising at twice the rate of inflation–where does this lead to?

    1. The bond market may choke if state and local governments try to "borrow our way to prosperity" as they did in the 2000s.

    2. If state and local taxes keep soaring while wages stagnate and household income declines, households will have less cash to spend on consumption.

    3. Declining consumer spending = recession.

    4. In recessions, sales and income taxes decline as households spending drops. This will crimp state and local tax revenues.

    5. This sets up an unvirtuous cycle: state and local governments will have to raise taxes to maintain their trend of higher spending. Higher taxes reduce household spending, which reduces income and sales tax revenues. In response, state and local governments raise taxes again. This further suppresses disposable income and consumption. In other words, raising taxes offers diminishing returns.

    At some point, local government revenues will decline despite tax increases and the bond market will raise the premium on local government debt in response to the rising risks.

    When borrowing become prohibitive (or impossible) and raising taxes no longer generates more revenues, state and local governments will have to cut expenditures. Given their many contractual obligations, these cuts will slice very quickly into sinews and bone.

    If this doesn't strike you a crisis, please check back in a few years. It is easily foreseeable, but very inconvenient. As a result, it too will be a crisis that "nobody saw coming."

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 7, 2015

  • GOP Debates Post-Mortem: Fiorina Wins Undercard; Trump Takes Title, Threatens Independent Run

    17 Entered… Despite the onslaught of attacks from the other 16 GOP Presidential nominee candidates, Donald Trump came out the 'winner' in his usual brash manner threatening to run as an independent and able to dominate the conversation, pitbull back at any jibes, and shrug off cozy Clintonite comments. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul appeared to have a strong showing but "had a tough night" in Trump's words. Rick Perry blew up again, calling the former President Ronald 'Raven' – which his team vehemently denied the entire FOX watching audience heard. Carly Fiorina easily won the undercard against a field of has-beens and wannabes and surely deserves some more top-billing in the next Republican death-match. In the immortal words of Kenny Rogers, we hope a few of the 17-strong gaggle now "know when to fold 'em," and can we suggest Rick Perry's corner "throws in the damn towel."

     

     

    The Main Event..

    Trump came out swinging hard…

    • *TRUMP ONLY CANDIDATE WHO DOESN'T PLEDGE TO BACK GOP NOMINEE
    • *TRUMP SAYS WON'T RULE OUT INDEPENDENT BID FOR PRESIDENT

    As AP reports,

    The first Republican primary debate got off to a contentious start Thursday, with billionaire businessman Donald Trump declaring he could not commit to supporting the party's eventual nominee — unless it's him — and would not rule out running as a third-party candidate.

     

    "I will not make the pledge at this time," Trump said. He also refused to apologize for making insulting comments about women, saying, "The big problem this country has is being political correct."

     

    Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul immediately jumped in to challenge Trump on his answer to the question about supporting the nominee.

     

    "He's already hedging his bets because he's used to buying politicians," Paul said.

    *  *  *

    Trump spoke the most…

     

     

    • *TRUMP, ASKED ON COMMENTS ON WOMEN, SAYS NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT
    • *TRUMP REITERATES NEED TO BUILD A WALL ON U.S.-MEXICO BORDER
    • *TRUMP: MEXICO SENDS `THE BAD ONES OVER' TO THE U.S.
    • *TRUMP SAYS HAS USED U.S. BANKRUPTCY LAWS TO HIS ADVANTAGE
    • *TRUMP: `I HAD THE GOOD SENSE TO LEAVE ATLANTIC CITY'
    • *TRUMP: `I'VE EVOLVED ON MANY ISSUES' OVER YEARS
    • *TRUMP: IF IRAN WAS A STOCK, YOU SHOULD GO OUT AND BUY IT
    • *TRUMP: IRAN IS A `DISGRACE'; SAYS WOULD BE STRONGER THAN OBAMA

     

    Headlines for rest of field… (based on Bloomberg Politics)

    • *CHRISTIE, ASKED ON NJ DOWNGRADES, SAYS WORSE BEFORE HIS TENURE
    • *KASICH DEFENDS MEDICAID EXPANSION IN OHIO AS COST-SAVING

     

    • *RUBIO: U.S. NEEDS E-VERIFY SYSTEM TO BOLSTER IMMIGRATION LAWS
    • *SCOTT WALKER SAYS IMMIGRATION SYSTEM SHOULD FAVOR U.S. WORKERS
    • *PAUL SAYS CHRISTIE FUNDAMENTALLY MISUNDERSTANDS BILL OF RIGHTS
    • *CHRISTIE SAYS RAND PAUL BLOWS `HOT AIR' ON PRIVACY, TERRORISM
    • *BUSH: KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW NOW, STARTING WAR IN IRAQ A MISTAKE
    • *WALKER: U.S. NEEDS TO STOP `LEADING FROM BEHIND' IN MIDDLE EAST
    • *HUCKABEE: COULD GET RID OF IRS WITH TAX ON CONSUMPTION
    • *CARSON: U.S. TAX CODE SHOULD BE MODELED ON 10% BIBLICAL TITHE
    • *HARPER SAYS OPPOSITION PLANS WILL LEAD TO PERMANENT DEFICITS
    • *JEB BUSH ON KEYSTONE PIPELINE: `OF COURSE WE'RE FOR IT'
    • *BUSH SAYS 2% U.S. GROWTH A DANGEROUS `NEW NORMAL'; HE SEEKS 4%
    • *CHRISTIE: RAISE U.S. RETIREMENT AGE 2 YRS PHASED OVER 25 YRS
    • *CHRISTIE SAYS SOCIAL SECURITY SHOULD BE MEANS-TESTED
    • *RUBIO: NEVER ADVOCATED FOR ABORTION IN VIOLENT CASES
    • *BUSH: NOT TRUE THAT HE CALLED TRUMP `BUFFOON'
    • *KASICH: IF MY KIDS WERE GAY, WOULD `LOVE AND ACCEPT' THEM
    • *WALKER SAYS PUT FORCES ON EASTERN BORDER OF UKRAINE, BALTICS
    • *WALKER SAYS WOULD SHOW `STEEL' TO RUSSIA, NOT `MUSH' SOFTNESS
    • *RAND PAUL SAYS HE'S ONLY CANDIDATE W/ 5-YR BALANCED BUDGET PLAN
    • *PAUL: U.S. MUST STOP BORROWING MONEY TO AID OTHER COUNTRIES
    • *PAUL: U.S. COULD AID ISRAEL FROM SURPLUS, NOT BORROWED FUNDS

     

     

     

     

    The attacks were varied…

     

    The result…

     

    Candidate Mentions (by minute)…

    *  *  *

     

    The Undercard….

    Carly Fiorina's coming out party but the pre-debate debate was summarized as an attack on Trump and Clinton…

     

    The 'biggest losers" debate was won by a landslide by Carly Fiorina…

    Though Santirum spoke the most…

     

    Artist's impression of Rick Perry's team…"Throw the damn towel!!"

     

    And The Other Not-So-Magnificent-Seven… (via Bloomberg)

    Here’s a look at how each candidate fared under circumstances like nothing they’ve ever faced before, and like nothing they hope to ever go through again.

    Carly Fiorina 

    Easily the most polished of anyone on the stage; you can see why she’s been impressing early audiences, and just how much of a difference she could make if she ever gets promoted to the adult’s table. She was assured and strong throughout, even when she connected Donald Trump to Bill Clinton. Moderator MacCallum mocked her for comparing herself to the “Iron Lady” Margaret Thatcher, but if you had no context for either woman and were just tuning in, you could almost see it. She also has the vital political skill of being able to deliver a shiv with a smile, even making an angry phone call to the Supreme Leader of Iran–“on Day One of the Oval Office!”–sound like a phone call you’d look forward to, even while you were shaking. Interestingly: She was the only candidate to consistently reference God. Though should be more careful about where she leaves her notes.

    Jim Gilmore 

    He hasn’t even been in the race a week, so, understandably, he spent his first question just rattling off his biography. He did it a little too fast, though; he actually ran out of factoids three-quarters of the way through his answer, which was a bit awkward. Every question directed toward him had an audible sigh before it, like a Little League coach who has to give an at-bat to every kid, even when they know the other kids are the only ones who can hit the ball. He didn’t embarrass himself, but he didn’t do anything to distinguish himself either, which adds up to a big net negative. Also, his suit looked too big for him.

    Lindsey Graham 

    You won’t find many Republican presidential candidates answering their first question at a Republican primary by going into extensive detail on fossil fuels, but hey, he’s been a Senator for a long time. Graham attempted to make up for by turning into the world’s most polite hawk the rest of the way: Graham turned every question after that into a diatribe against ISIS and Al Qaeda and our need to be aggressive in the Middle East. (No man has ever looked so genteel while vowing to secure the violent deaths of his enemies.) He even batted away a Planned Parenthood question, saying that the Middle East is the real “War on Women.” He remains a party attack dog to the end, particularly when it comes to Bill and Hillary, saying he’s “fluent in Clinton-speak; I’ve been dealing with it for 20 years.” Were you excited to hear the revival of the “definition of what ‘is” is” Clinton chestnut in the year 2015? If so, Lindsey Graham was here for you tonight. 

    Bobby Jindal 

    If anything, he succeeded in being a lot less Kenneth Parcell than in his infamous response to President Obama’s State of the Union, which is a start. It’s still disconcerting seeing such sharp rhetoric coming out of the mouth of such a friendly looking guy; he says he’s “taking the handcuffs off the military” to go after ISIS, but it feels more like the waterboy giving a big speech rather than the coach. (His “Obama and Hillary want to turn the American Dream into the European night” felt decidedly unapocalyptic.) He definitely scores points for being the only person in the debate to go after Jeb Bush, both a sign of the strength of Donald Trump and the weakness of Bush at this point; two months ago, this debate would have been seven people a race to call Bush the “establishment” the way Jindal, and Jindal alone, did this time. On the whole, though, he spoke the way a lot of voters in his party think, even if he doesn’t seem like the candidate they imagine speaking for them. Also, if elected, he is absolutely going to waste his first Executive Order, saying, he’d sign one “protecting religious liberty.” Who wants to tell him?

    George Pataki

    Well, George Pataki was here. He hasn’t really done anything, or even been in the public eye, since he was governor of New York, so he kept bringing that up like a middle-aged soft-in-the-middle jock who can’t stop telling you about the time he hit the game winner against Hickory South back in high school. Did you know Pataki was the governor on September 11? Pataki is happy to remind you several times. It was probably wise for him to focus on that, because his handling of the abortion question–he’s the only pro-choice candidate running for the Republican nomination–was muddled, defensive and weak, though, really, in this primary, and with those recent Planned Parenthood tapes, how could it not be? He was also the only candidate who consistently talked longer than the buzzer. It’s difficult to blame him.

    Rick Perry 

    No one knows the perils of a poor debate showing better than Perry, so he seemed determined, almost over-determined, to show off his debate bona fides here. He stiffened his jaw, he dialed back the Texas homespunisms, he even threw in a “I’d say HELL NO” for good measure. (To the Ayatollah of Iran, no less, a guy who knows, in conservative minds, from Hell.) He may have been a little too fired up for the room; it’s difficult to be too much of a tough guy when there are more people on stage than in the audience. It was particularly strange to see him go so aggressively after Donald Trump, considering Trump wasn’t in the room; it’s odd to stand up to a guy who doesn’t even need to bother to show up yet. He definitely wanted Trump’s mojo, though. His answers on immigration were as forceful as anyone said on stage all night, tripling down to the point that he actually claimed his primary purpose in office would be to enforce the fight against illegal immigration, getting into so much detail that he even mentioned specific helicopters. Also: Good to know someone still uses Wite-Out

    And then there's this…

    Rick Santorum 

    Santorum, who was as angry as anyone about these debate rules, went after them even further, pointing out (while inexplicably lapsing into the first person plural) that “we were even further behind four years ago than we are today.” (A salient point for a guy who won Iowa last time.) His answer on immigration—pointing to how his own father, an Italian immigrant, was separated from his father under Mussolini, said “America was worth the wait”—was personal but also underlined that he’s for separating families if it means following the letter of the law. Interestingly, Santorum, the supposed holy roller, didn’t say the word “God” once. He also brought up his “20-20 Perfect Vision of America” plan, which, when it comes to catchiness, isn’t quite 9-9-9.

    *  *  *

    So in summary.. Fiorina #winning… Perry #RonaldRaven… and this…

    Finally where the moneyis being bet… (via PaddyPower)

  • America's Biggest Lie – Dictatorship Or Democracy?

    Authored by Eric Zuesse,

    The Deceit About Being A 'Republic' Versus A 'Democracy'

    One of my recent articles at several sites, "Jimmy Carter Is Correct That the U.S. Is No Longer a Democracy” generated many reader-comments (such as here) saying things like, "The US has always been a republic. There are no true democracies in the modern world.” This will be my response to all who expressed that view:

    You miss the point that Carter made, and that I there documented to be true, which is no semantic issue (“democracy” versus “republic”), but which instead concerns the basic lie about what the United States of America really is now:

    Is this a representative democracy, such as its Founders intended and such as it was famous and honored throughout the world for being, until at least around 1980?

     

    Or, is it instead a nation that’s ruled by a tiny elite, an aristocracy, which in this country consists of its 500 or so billionaires, who buy the politicians whom ‘we’ ‘elect’?

    Is the U.S. now, basically, a fraud? Is it a dictatorship, instead of a democracy? Is it some kind of aristocracy, which controls the government here?

    That’s not a semantic issue, at all. America’s first political party was called the “Democratic Republican Party,” but could as well have been called the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, because those two terms are essentially synonymous in any nation that has a large population, in which the public elect representatives to represent them, instead of directly vote on the policies that the government is to pursue — to place into its law, and to enforce by its duly authorized police or otherwise, and to adjudicate by democratically appointed judges and/or juries.

    The only democracies that can exist, except for tiny ones, are representative democracies: they are republics. Republics are the only type of democratic nations that exist, practically speaking.

    Where, then, does the apparently common misconception that there is a difference between the two terms arise?

    I shall here present a theory about that: This widespread misconception arises because the rulers in a dictatorship — i.e., in an elite-controlled or “aristocratic” government, as opposed to in a government that authentically does  represent the public — can thereby fool many people into misconceiving what the real issue, the real problem, there is. 

    The real issue is whether the country is controlled by its aristocracy (a dictatorship), or instead by its public (its residents).

    Let’s be frank and honest: an aristocratically controlled government is a dictatorship, regardless of whether that “aristocracy” is in fascist Italy, or in Nazi Germany, or in Communist USSR, or in North Korea, or in the United States of America.

    That’s what Jimmy Carter was talking about, and it's what I was documenting to be true.

    To varying and rather extraordinary degrees throughout earlier U.S. history, this nation really was a democracy; that is to say, a republic. But we’re not actually like that any more (as I documented there).

    If this problem is not faced — and honestly, not by means of semantic games and misdirections — then surely there will be not even a possibility to restore the democracy, the republic, the democratic republic, or whatever one prefers to call it, which our Founders had intended, and which lasted for around two centuries on these shores, and was widely admired and even (by some) envied throughout the world.

    The aristocracy and its many fools might not want this enormous problem to be addressed, but Jimmy Carter clearly does. And so do I.

    One of the ways to misdirect about this problem is to obsess about “good residents” (“citizens”) versus “bad residents” (“aliens”), because that nationalistic way of viewing things enables the aristocracy to split the public against itself and thereby to maintain its own grip on power against, actually, that entire public. Nazi Germany did this.

    Another way they misdirect it is to buy control over all of the political parties that stand a chance of dominating the government, and so to create basically a ‘democratic’ or ‘republican’ controlled government which, in any case, is actually controlled by that aristocracy, even if, perhaps, by a different faction within it. Even if a different faction within the aristocracy takes control, it’s still the same dictatorship. Because the public is not  in control.

    There are many ways to deceive the public. There are many ways to rule the public. But all of them are aristocratic; all of them are elite — and typically monied-elite — dictatorships.

    In a democracy (or republic) the government does not rule, the government represents. It represents honestly, because it doesn’t need to do so by misdirection, by deceits.

     

    In an aristocracy (or dictatorship) the government does not represent — at least not honestly — because they don’t want the people to see how their sausages are made

    Will a violent revolution be required to overthrow it? If so, then won’t the likelihood be high that it will merely replace one group who rule by force, by a different group who rule by force? For example: isn’t that what happened in the Russian Revolution and its aftermath?

    Jimmy Carter challenged America to restore democracy. And he was right to do so. But can it be done? And, if so, then how?

    It’s the great issue in 2016. Because if it’s not dealt with then, the dictatorship, the aristocracy that controls it, will become so deeply lodged that it won’t be able to be dislodged without great violence. And the outcome of that would not solve the problem, at all. It would be hell. But avoiding that hell by means of accepting continuance of aristocratic control would also be hell, because aristocracy would then become even more deeply entrenched.

    America needs to deal with it, not postpone solving it.

    *  *  *

     

  • $60 Trillion Of World Debt In One Visualization

    Today’s visualization breaks down $59.7 trillion of world debt by country, as well as highlighting each country’s debt-to-GDP ratio using colour. The data comes from the IMF and only covers external government debt.  

    It excludes the debt of country’s citizens and businesses, as well as unfunded liabilities which are not yet technically incurred yet. All figures are based on USD.

     

     

    Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

     

     

    The numbers that stand out the most, especially when comparing to the previous world economy graphic:

    • The United States constitutes 23.3% of the world economy but 29.1% of world debt. It’s debt-to-GDP ratio is 103.4% using IMF figures.
    • Japan makes up only 6.18% of total economic production, but has amounted 19.99% of global debt.
    • China, the world’s second largest economy (and largest by other measures), accounts for 13.9% of production. They only have 6.25% of world debt and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 39.4%.
    • 7 of the 15 countries with the most total debt are European. Together, excluding Russia, the European continent holds over 26% of total world debt.

    Combining the debt of the United States, Japan, and Europe together accounts for 75% of total global debt.

    Source: Visual Capitalist

  • What Kind Of Investor Are You? The Market Doesn't Care!

    Via ConvergEx's Nick Colas,

    Our monthly look at asset price correlations finds it’s getting just a little bit easier to beat the U.S. stock market with savvy sector bets. OK, not by a lot: average correlations for the 10 sectors of the S&P 500 to the index itself are down to 79.9% versus the year’s typical reading of 80.7%. The best hunting grounds have been in Technology (84.9% correlation, down from +90% the last three months) and, surprisingly, Utilities (32.9% correlation, down from 47-77% in the last three months).  Both have beaten the overall market over the last month as well. Looking forward, the quickest way to even lower correlations (which are good for active managers and passive investors alike) is for the Federal Reserve to move on rates sooner rather than later.  By our reckoning, the currently still-high correlations show that markets don’t quite think the Fed is moving in September.  If they did, correlations would be dropping more quickly.

    In my 25 years doing just about every job in finance I have had the chance to meet a wide array of money managers. This experience has taught me that there are only three kinds of people that can reliably “Beat” the market once you put aside obvious inputs like competent risk management and a stress-resistant personality. These are:

    The savant.  There is a certain type of person that can read price movements and consistently extrapolate signal from noise.  You could plop them on a desert island with little more than a Bloomberg machine, some dip, a Chinese takeout menu and some way to make trades and they would still make money.  A lot of it.  They tend to read to the New York Post, never miss a free meal, and will die between 4pm and 9:30am because during trading hours nothing will deter them from seeing the close.

     

    The information hound.  This breed makes it their business to know every single important source of knowledge about the companies in which they invest.  They don’t know everything, but they know where to find any piece of information necessary to price a security.  Twenty years ago this type of investor visited every single company they followed every quarter. Now, they do that AND they hire satellites to fly over production facilities AND use online tracking software to monitor company fundamentals in real time.  Effective activists fall into this camp, by the way.

     

    The big picture thinker. Some people are just better than the population as a whole at assimilating large quantities of information and synthesizing it into profitable action.  The advent of computerized trading over the last decade has pushed a lot of these individuals into routinizing their approach into systematic algorithms, of course.  But the best of the bunch see linkages through the capital markets the way spiders feel their webs – in analog waves, not digital bits and bytes. If the butterfly flaps its wings in Thailand, they know to get short insurers in Texas.

    All three types of investors/traders need the same thing to deliver the best results: asset prices that move at least somewhat independently of each other.  After all, their special set of skills is in separating the wheat from the chaff, the good from the bad, or the stars from the airplane lights. The more those differences cause divergent prices, the higher the potential profit.  For example, consider the S&P 500 – how many names in this index are up more than 20% on the year?  The answer is 70 by our count, or just over 1 in 7.  Only one name is a clean double in 2015: Netflix. Conversely, there are 60 names in the index that are down more than 20% but only three – Freeport-McMoRan, Consol Energy and Chesapeake Energy – are down by 50% or more. That leaves 372 names in the S&P 500 in a performance band of +20% to -20%.  Close down the range to +10/-10%, and we count 197 names in that range.  That’s 40% of the entire S&P 500 clinging to a pretty narrow band around the “Unchanged on the year” line.

    Another way to consider the question of how much opportunity there is in the S&P 500 and other asset classes is to look at stock price correlations – how much the individual sectors of the index move in tandem with the market as a whole.  We look at this data on a monthly basis, and there are several tables and charts at the end of this note.  Here’s our summary of this month’s numbers:

    The average price correlation of the 10 sectors of the S&P 500 to the index was 79.9% last month.  On the good news front, that’s less than the YTD average of 80.6% so asset prices have been moving a touch more independently over the last 30 days than the year as a whole.  As for the bad news, that’s still far higher than the textbook 50% correlation a sector “Should” have to the market as a whole.

     

    The two standout sectors last month were technology and utilities. Tech saw its correlation to the S&P 500 drop from 93.4% to 84.9% and the group also outperformed the broad market (+1.8% versus 1.1%).  The utilities group, left for dead on the thesis of ever-rising interest rates, also outperformed last month (+3.3% versus 1.1%) and managed to cut their correlation to the market to 32.9% from 47.6% at the same time.

     

    Emerging markets had a tough time over the last month, down 7.9%, but as any trader will tell you the moves between the U.S. market and far flung bourses were tied at the hip.  As a result, the correlation between the two was quite high – 71.7% – but no higher than the last few months combined. Developed markets, as represented by the MSCI EAFE (Europe, Asia, Far East) index also showed high correlations to the S&P 500 at 83.6%.

     

    Correlations between the high yield corporate bond market and equities have been tightening up over the last three months, an unwelcome development for those who worry about the structure of that market if general asset price volatility picks up.  Correlations between “Junk” bonds and U.S. stocks were 66.5% last month, up from 55.7% the month before and 49.7% the month before that.

     

     

    Gold has been a brutally tough investment over the last month, sinking to multi-year lows.  The best thing you can say about this trend is that at least the yellow metal still hews to its own path. Correlations to stocks here were -25.3% last month.

    Now, the #1 question we get after we review correlations every month is “Why are they so high relative to long term historical norms?”  Our answer is that Federal Reserve policy has been an unusually important factor in asset prices since 2009. The unusually easy monetary policy since that time (and its planning, implementation, and effect on the economy) has been a powerful unifying story in capital markets. Now, as the Federal Reserve moves to return the economy to a more “Normal” policy stance, correlations should drop. That they have not yet moved convincingly lower is a sign that equity markets may want to see the Fed actually pull the trigger. 
     

  • "Teflon Don" Holds Court – GOP Debates Begin

    (Click picture to watch live. Note that Fox requires a cable subscription log-in)

    Now that Carly Fiorina has thoroughly dominated the “B-team” GOP roster, all eyes will now turn to the prime time event where Donald Trump, the surprise frontrunner whose vitriolic campaign rhetoric has inexplicably translated into ever stronger poll numbers, will make his debate debut and attempt to dismiss critics who question how long the flamboyant billionaire’s popularity can last once the proverbial rubber meets the road. 

    And while some are expecting plenty of fireworks on Thursday evening, Trump himself is looking to play down the hype. “Maybe my whole life is a debate in a way, but the fact is I’m not a debater, and they are,” Trump told ABC News.

    And if you can’t make sense of that, here’s something less convoluted: “I don’t think I’m going to be throwing punches.”

    So it looks like we can scratch “fist fight” off the list of possible debate outcomes, but there’s still plenty of fun to be had, and for those wondering what to expect from each candidate, here’s a simple preview from NBC:

    • Donald Trump: With all eyes on him, he’s smartly downplayed expectations and has emphasized that he intends to play nice. But he also has to deliver the same toughness and channel the same anger fueling his rise in the GOP polls.
    • Jeb Bush: As we wrote yesterday, maybe no one has more on the line than Bush does. He’s had a rough last week — especially as Hillary Clinton has used him as a punching bag. And here’s the thing: He’s the most well-known unknown person (due to his last name) on that debate stage.
    • Scott Walker: He has the buzz and the record, but does he look the part? That will be his biggest challenge of the night.
    • Marco Rubio: Ditto. And he can’t afford to disappear at the debate — as he has disappeared from the 2016 scene these past few weeks.
    • Mike Huckabee: If you want to place an early bet on the best performer of the night, Huckabee would be a smart call. He is the only one of the 10 who has actually participated in a presidential debate before. And he was routinely the best performer in the 2007-2008 debates.
    • Ted Cruz: Can he handle the 60-second time limits and come across a bite more likeable than his perception, especially in DC?
    • Ben Carson: His low-key demeanor could be a weakness. Can he display some fire and passion that don’t come across in his interviews?
    • Chris Christie: He’s used to being the center of attention, but can he handle being on the outside looking in? How does he assert himself?
    • John Kasich: Ditto.
    • Rand Paul: Make no mistake: The Jesse Benton indictment has rocked the Ron/Rand Paul World, and the campaign needs a major pick-me-up from this debate.

    And here’s a Bingo card which should serve as a nice primer on the issues:

    Finally, here’s a bit of color from Bloomberg’s Joshua Green on Trump’s transformation from belicose billionaire to Republican frontrunner: 

    When Donald Trump takes center stage at Thursday’s Fox News debate in Cleveland, it will be a critical moment for the Republican Party. Until recently, Americans mentally categorized Trump as a celebrity entertainer and interpreted his madcap antics and controversial pronouncements accordingly. But on Thursday, voters will experience Trump in a much different context: as the standard-bearer of the Republican Party, who not only leads the presidential field by a wide margin but, as a new Bloomberg Politics poll shows, has a powerful appeal to every segment of the Republican electorate.

     

    Not every Republican worries about a “Trump effect” harming the GOP’s electoral fortunes. “Trump is a flash in the pan,” says Republican strategist John Feehery. “He’s not a serious candidate, no matter what the polls say. He will self-implode.”

     

    Others are hopeful that Trump will “grow into the role” and comport himself in a manner more befitting a presidential frontrunner. “The question is,” says Norquist, “is he capable of turning on a dime when the camera shines on him and saying, ‘Here are my standard, boring traditional Republican views’ with maybe a couple of colorful additions?”

     

    But Trump’s broad popularity and enduring strength among Republicans lend credence to a different interpretation: that his candidacy has become the preferred vehicle for Republican voters to express maximal outrage at their own party’s leaders for failing to carry out the agenda they keep promising. It’s one that many conservatives ardently desire: to deport undocumented immigrants, kill Obamacare, overturn Roe v. Wade, and return the GOP to a position of primacy in American politics.

     

    “If you look at the whole Republican Party, from libertarians to evangelicals to the Tea Party,” says Steele, “you have a group of people who’ve been lied to for 35 years. Republican [presidential candidates] have said, ‘Elect us and we’ll do these things.’ Well, they haven’t. And that frustration is manifesting itself in Trump.”

     

    Bonus: BBC’s “Fun Guide” to the debate

    Donald Trump

    Who is he? Billionaire, reality television star, golf and real estate mogul, rider of golden escalators. The Donald is the one man who really needs no introduction. He exists whether you acknowledge him or not. He’s at the top of the polls in the Republican Party, and the establishment’s attempts to strike him down have only made him more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

    Expected strategy: Trump will be Trump. If he’s attacked by one of the other candidates, expect him to hit back. Donald says he doesn’t start fights, he finishes them. Maybe he’ll say something crazy, and everyone will laugh. Maybe he’ll stay serious, and everyone will be impressed with his gravitas. Either way, he comes out ahead.

    Win a point if: He promises to “make America great again”. He believes he’s the man to do it, and he’s got the hat to show it.

    Win a million points if: He wears the hat on stage.

    Lose a point if: He says “you’re fired”. That Apprentice catchphrase is so 2004.

    Jeb Bush

    Who is he? Former governor of Florida, son of one president and brother to another, the man with 99 problems but having enough campaign money isn’t one. Bush started the year expected by many to emerge as the clear frontrunner, but that hasn’t happened. Jeb! – as his logo exclaims – is just one of several upper-tier candidates getting lapped in the polls by Trump.

    Expected strategy: Bush will likely try to be the grown-up in the room. If other candidates get mired in a slug-fest with Trump, he can try to stay above the fray and pitch himself as the mature, presidential alternative. It was a plan that worked (eventually) for Mitt Romney in 2012.

    Win a point if: He vows to boost US growth from 2% to 4% as president. Call it the “seven-minute abs” campaign promise. Who wants two when you can have four?

    Win a million points if: He says he agrees with his brother on anything. “George W Jeb” is getting hammered on his familial ties to the 43rd president, and proving he’s “his own man” has been one of his most daunting tasks.

    Lose a point if: He mentions his campaign “swag store”, as he did in New Hampshire Monday night. There are a lot of words that can sound presidential. “Swag” isn’t one of them.

    Scott Walker

    Who is he? Governor of Wisconsin, Kohl’s discount store shopper, bane of public employee unions everywhere. Walker made a big splash in an Iowa presidential forum back in January, and he’s become a popular pick as a candidate who can appeal to both conservative activists and the Republican establishment.

    Expected strategy: This will be a big test for Walker as a top-tier candidate. He’s been criticised in the past for lacking presidential timbre, so his goal will be to look and act like a serious, informed politician, while avoiding any major gaffes.

    Win a point if: He mentions Ronald Reagan. He got married on the late president’s birthday and every year throws a Reagan-themed anniversary party. He’s a big fan.

    Win a million points if: He talks about his fitness tracker. He wears one all the time and credits it with keeping him in shape. You may not see it under the sleeve of his debate-night suit jacket, but trust us, it’s there.

    Lose a point if: He cites heading the Wisconsin National Guard in a foreign policy answer. Every time governors trot this line out they sound only slightly less ridiculous than when Sarah Palin mentioned how close Alaska is to Russia.

    Mike Huckabee

    Who is he? Ordained minister, former Arkansas governor, former conservative radio and television talk host, model for awkward family photos. Huckabee was the surprise of the 2008 presidential race after winning the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses. Now he hopes to recapture that old campaign magic.

    Expected strategy: Eight years ago Huckabee ran as a conservative with a heart. After years as a Fox talking head, he now seems to be running as a conservative who eats hearts. Expect lots of blanket condemnations of liberal orthodoxy, particularly when it comes to Barack Obama’s foreign policy.

    Win a point if: He doesn’t make a reference to Nazi Germany. The candidate is a walking embodiment of Godwin’s law.

    Win a million points if: He bursts out into song. He and Democrat Martin O’Malley are the only presidential hopefuls who front rock bands.

    Lose a point if: He makes a joke that bombs. He styles himself as a good-natured cut-up, but as the old saying goes: “Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.”

    Marco Rubio

    Who is he? Florida senator, son of Cuban immigrants, former college football player, parched-mouth sufferer. Rubio is considered a rising star in Republican circles, but many were surprised that he decided to eschew a sure-thing second term in the US Senate for a presidential bid, particularly with Floridian Bush already in the race.

    Expected strategy: Rubio became a popular pick as a campaign dark horse, but after an early bounce in the polls he’s become mired in the crowded middle of the pack. He’s the youngest candidate on the stage, so he’ll have to project maturity and remind everyone of his potential.

    Win a point if: He mentions the American Dream. His child-of-immigrants story is compelling and he isn’t shy about recounting it, so you can probably go ahead and pencil this in the plus column.

    Win a million points if: He gets caught on camera drinking water. For a long time Rubio’s awkward attempt at hydration during a 2013 State of the Union response was all anyone knew about him.

    Lose a point if: He talks about immigration. He supported Senate immigration reform in 2013 before it became radioactive among much of the conservative base. Any time he spends on the subject will remind Republicans of this.

    Ben Carson

    Who is he? Paediatric neurosurgeon, best-selling author, child of urban poverty, separator of conjoined twins. Carson was in double digits in opinion polls for much of the year but has slipped of late. He has a loyal following that’s helped him nab several conservative straw poll victories.

    Expected strategy: This is the first time Carson has been in a political debate, so his goal is to prove he belongs there – which is a pretty low bar among this crowded field. He’s the “other” non-politician on the stage and could seek to offer himself as a less abrasive, more thoughtful choice for disaffected Trump supporters.

    Win a point if: He tells the story about the patient who mistook him for a hospital orderly.

    Win a million points if: He compares Obamacare to slavery. It wouldn’t be the first time, but he’s toned down his bombastic rhetoric recently.

    Lose a point if: He says progressive taxation is socialism. If it is, then the US has been a socialist state since 1913.

    Ted Cruz

    Who is he? Senator from Texas, former Supreme Court clerk, Canadian-American, aspiring Simpsons voice actor. Cruz beat a heavily favoured Republican in his 2012 Senate race and quickly made waves in Washington, spearheading multiple high-profile filibusters and government shut-downs

    Expected strategy: Cruz is a former college debate national champion, so he enters Thursday night with rhetorical knives sharpened and high expectations. He’s pitching his campaign to evangelical conservatives and grass-roots Tea Party true-believers, so expect him to spend plenty of time throwing them chunks of fresh red meat.

    Win a point if: He attacks “the Washington cartel”. Although it sounds like a minor-league soccer franchise, it’s his term for the insiders and establishment politicians he’s made life difficult for during his Senate tenure

    Win a million points if: He attacks Donald Trump. While other candidates have been going after the top dog, Cruz has showered him with praise, perhaps hoping to pick up the pieces if the billionaire flames out.

    Lose a point if: He talks about cooking bacon on the barrel of a machine gun. OK, he likes guns and he likes bacon. But his latest attempt at creating a viral video was just cringe-worthy.

    Rand Paul

    Who is he? Senator from Kentucky, opthalmologist, son of former presidential candidate Ron Paul, libertarian (sort of), enemy of hairbrushes everywhere. Paul launched his campaign as the candidate who could combine the grass-roots support of his father’s libertarian true believers with a more mainstream Republican appeal. So far, however, it seems he’s alienated both groups.

    Expected strategy: Paul will likely play up the anti-big government, surveillance-state positions that prompted Time magazine to once label him “the most interesting man in politics”. Given how his campaign has struggled in the past few months, he could come out swinging at the other candidates. At this point, he has little left to lose.

    Win a point if: He mentions the “Washington machine”. Like Cruz’s Washington cartel, Paul’s machine is the windmill he tilts at.

    Win a million points if: He’s wearing cowboy boots. The Texan has a penchant for fancy footwear, but such a debate fashion statement may be a bit too unorthodox even for Paul.

    Lose a point if: He has to talk about the Iran nuclear deal. It’s the kind of foreign policy topic that will only hurt him, no matter how he answers it.

    Chris Christie

    Who is he? Governor of New Jersey, former US attorney, bellicose YouTube star, Dallas Cowboys superfan. Christie could have presented a serious challenge to Romney in 2012, but he chose to sit out the race. He may have missed the presidential boat, as his popularity both in New Jersey and nationwide has precipitously dropped since then.

    Expected strategy: Donald Trump has stolen Christie’s “tell it like it is” mojo, so the debate may be his chance to win some of it back. Look for him to try to be blunt but not blustery, touting his ability to get things done in liberal-leaning New Jersey.

    Win a point if: He talks about his late Sicilian mother. He cites her as his “moral compass” – the way he tries to soften his brash image.

    Win a million points if: He mentions Bruce Springsteen. He used to be a huge follower, but the New Jersey musician very publicly skewered the governor in a January 2014 Tonight Show musical satire.

    Lose a point if: Hurricane Sandy comes up. The only thing Republicans remember from the natural disaster is Christie’s pre-2012 election embrace of Mr Obama – and they have never forgiven him for it.

    John Kasich

    Who is he? Ohio governor, former congressman, friend of U2’s Bono, 2000 presidential candidate who was beaten by a guy named Bush. Kasich is a late entry into the Republican field, but his post-announcement bounce was enough to sneak him into the final spot on the debate stage.

    Expected strategy: Kasich’s goal will be to appeal to the moderate, establishment Republican crowd, which puts another Bush squarely in his cross-hairs. If he contrasts favourably with the Floridian, and he could become the choice as the anti-Trump.

    Win a point if: He talks about finding God after his parents were killed by a drunk driver. It’s Kasich at his most heartfelt.

    Win a million points if: He leads the home-state Cleveland crowd in an O-H-I-O football chant.

    Lose a point if: Someone mispronounces his last name. The ch in Kasich is a hard k.

  • One Third Of All Chinese 'Gamblers' Have Shut Their Equity Trading Accounts

    It turns out making money trading stocks is not "easier than farmwork" and, as China Daily reports, a stunning 24 million Chinese 'investors' have shuttered their trading accounts since the end of June. Unlike in the U.S., where institutions dominate stock trading, retail investors are king in China, owning around 80% of listed stocks’ tradable shares, according to investment bank CICC. With the number of small investors holding stocks in their accounts sliding to 51 million at the end of July from 75 million at the end of June, it appears some grandmas and farmers have learned their lesson (for now).

     

    A-Share accounts with transactions have plunmged over 20% in the last few weeks…

     

    But, as The Wall Street Journal reports, China’s market selloff can safely be declared a rout.

    Nearly a third of the country’s individual investors—more than 20 million people—fled the plunging stock markets last month.

     

    The number of retail investors holding stocks in their accounts slid to 51 million at the end of July from 75 million at the end of June, according to China Securities Depository & Clearing Corp., the government agency that tracks accounts.

    But bank deposit is still the favorite investment tool for Chinese families. As China Daily notes,

    Up to 50 percent of disposable income will end up in families' saving account, according to data from World Bank. Due to recent volatility, it is unlikely that many families will move their money from saving account to stock market.

    As one newly minted stock trader explained…

    “Now I realize I can lose a lot of money very quickly,” he said, noting that threats to stocks include China’s slowing growth and the eventual end of government rescue efforts.

    But – there remains some who will never learn…

    “Where else can I put my money?” said Helen Lu. “Real estate is so expensive and beyond our reach, and there are no other good investment channels.”

    Sound familiar?

  • Participation Trophy Nation

    Submitted by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

    What a pathetic nation of entitled whiners we’ve become. When did participation in a sport or any competition deserve a trophy?

    Trophies are for winners. Trophies are for the people who excelled. Trophies are for the people who worked harder than their competitors and won. The bullshit about every child being a special snowflake has permeated our society and created generations of momma’s boys and girls. They think they deserve a trophy for showing up at their jobs now. They think they deserve automatic B’s for showing up at college classes. They think they deserve pay raises because they came to work.

    You get ahead in life by hard work, using your brain, and refining your social skills. The free shit army mentality permeating our culture drives the participation trophy bullshit. Real free market capitalism (not the crony capitalism/socialism) has winners and losers. Losers need to work harder to become winners. Not in America today. The losers have a million excuses and think they deserve exactly what the winners have achieved. 

     

     

    Via The Daily Caller's Alex Pfeiffer,

    On HBO’s return of “Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel” Tuesday night, Bernard Goldberg looks into the current culture of handing out trophies to children just for showing up, and how this trend potentially leads to damaging psychological effects.

     

    “We want to make each child feel special,” says Brian Sanders, president of i9 Sports, the largest youth sports franchise in the nation.

     

    How does he make them feel special? By giving them all trophies.

     

    At an event outside Tampa, Fla. with 650 kids in attendance all will receive trophies, there is a division champion award and everyone else receives an “All-Star” trophy, both prizes are the same size.

     

    This isn’t just a phenomenon with his sports league. Janet Anderson is the regional commissioner in Los Angeles for AYSO Soccer and she told Goldberg for her 1,200 under-eight players, “If there name is on the roster, they get a trophy.”

     

    This means that players who don’t even show up can receive an award. On top of that, her league doesn’t keep score, no one is a loser.

     

    And what happened when Anderson decided to stop giving trophies to all participants for players over age eight? “Some parents went out and bought their own trophies for the whole team,” explained Anderson to Goldberg.

     

    It isn’t just children who are winners. The trophy industry now has sales around $2 billion at the retail level, says Scott Sletten of JDS Industries, one of the world’s largest trophy wholesalers. Sletten’s parents started the South Dakota business in 1972. Then, the mom-pop shop had sales of $20,000 to $40,000 a year. JDS now has sales of over $50 million a year.

     

    This culture arises out of a movement beginning in the late 20th Century to push the importance of self-esteem in education. “The state of California had a task force in the 1980s to study self-esteem, and we thought especially for kids in struggling communities if we just told them they were great, they would believe it, and then they could achieve more because they were certain they were great,” said researcher Ashley Merryman.

     

    This movement has apparently spiraled out of control. “Preschoolers sometimes now sing a song to the tune of ‘Frère Jacques’ that goes like this, ‘I am special I am special look at me look at me,’” according to San Diego State University professor Jean Twenge.

     

    This push to make every child feel special leads to problems in college. A study highlighted in Goldberg’s report shows that a third of college students say they deserve a B grade as long as they attend most classes in a course.

     

    Dr. Robert Cloninger, professor of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine has been studying the effects of rewards with rats in mazes. He found that rats that received food just for working their way through the maze were lazy. “They will not be fast runners to get to the trophy, and they will quit easily the moment they are no longer getting rewarded.”

     

    He concludes that children won’t be able to succeed if we pretend that they don’t fail. Cloninger says, “We have to get over the notion that everyone has to be a winner in the United States, it just isn’t true.”

    *  *  *

    Trophies for all. Do it for the chilrun. We must boost the self-esteem of losers so they think they are winners.

  • Payrolls Preview: Goldman Expects Seasonal Bounce In Jobs But Warns Wage Growth May Disappoint

    Via Goldman Sachs' Karen Heichgott,

     We forecast nonfarm payroll growth of 225k in July, in line with consensus expectations. Many labor market indicators were softer in July, but some important service sector indicators, such as ISM nonmanufacturing employment, were significantly stronger. On balance, we expect job growth roughly consistent with the 223k increase in June.

     

     

    We expect the unemployment rate to hold steady at 5.3%. Participation should at least partially rebound following an unexpected dip in June that likely reflected calendar effects. Finally, average hourly earnings are likely to rise 0.2% month-over-month in July.

    We forecast nonfarm payroll job growth of 225k in July, in line with consensus expectations. Reported job availability, the employment components of most manufacturing surveys, and ADP employment growth softened, but the employment components of most service sector surveys improved, particularly the ISM nonmanufacturing survey, which surged to its strongest level since 2005. Overall, the July data point to a gain roughly in line with the 223k increase in June.

    Arguing for a stronger report:

    •     Service sector surveys. The employment components of service sector surveys were broadly positive in July. The employment components of the ISM nonmanufacturing (+6.9pt to 59.6), Dallas Fed (+4.5pt to +10.1), Richmond Fed (+2.0pt to +12.0), and Markit PMI surveys rose, while the employment component of the New York Fed index (-2.9pt to +17.2) declined. Service-sector employment gains rose to 222k in June and averaged 195k over the last year.

    Arguing for a weaker report:

    •     Manufacturing employment indicators. The employment components of almost all of the major manufacturing surveys weakened in July. The employment components of the ISM manufacturing (-2.8pt to 52.7), New York Fed (-5.5pt to +3.2), Richmond Fed (-5.0pt to +1), Kansas City Fed (-10.0pt to -19), Dallas Fed (-2.1pt to -3.3), Philly Fed (-4.2pt to -0.4), and Markit PMI surveys declined, while the employment component of the Chicago PMI survey improved slightly. Payroll employment growth in the manufacturing sector picked up a bit to 4k in June, just below the average gain of 6k per month seen over the last year. Given that the manufacturing sector is more exposed to international trade than the services sector, the recent softness in manufacturing indicators could in part reflect the appreciation of the dollar.
    •     Job availability. The Conference Board's labor differential—the net percent of households reporting jobs are plentiful vs. hard to get—worsened by 1.2pt to -6.0 in July but remains near its post-recession high.
    •     ADP report. ADP employment rose 185k in July, below consensus expectations. In general, initial print ADP estimates have not been strong predictors of initial print totalpayroll gains reported by the Labor Department. However, we have found somewhat stronger correlations between ADP and nonfarm payrolls for some industries, in particular trade, transportation and utilities, which saw a relatively small gain of 25k in the July ADP report.

    Neutral factors:

    •     Jobless claims. The four-week moving average of initial jobless claims in the payrolls reference week remained roughly unchanged at 279k.
    •     Online job ads. According to the Conference Board's Help Wanted Online (HWOL) report, which we mainly see as a leading indicator, both new and total online job ads rebounded in July following large decreases in June. Although online job ads have risen over the past year, the trend over the past three months has slowed.

    We expect the unemployment rate to hold steady at 5.3% in July, from an unrounded 5.285% in June. The headline U3 unemployment rate declined by 0.2pp in June, while the broader U6 underemployment rate declined by 0.3pp to 10.5%. Looking further ahead, we expect U3 to reach 5% by early 2016 and U6 to reach our 9% estimate of its full employment rate by the end of 2016. The participation rate showed a surprising drop of 0.3pp in June to 62.6%. However, the decline likely resulted in large part from a calendar effect caused by the timing of the reference week relative to the end of the school year (Exhibit 1), and we therefore expect an at least partial rebound in July.

    Exhibit 1: Calendar Effects Probably Depressed Participation in June

    We expect a 0.2% increase in average hourly earnings for all workers. While the July print should reflect some bounce-back from the flat read in June, this will likely be offset by the late timing of the reference week within the month. Average hourly earnings for all workers rose 2.0% over the year ending in June, while average hourly earnings for production & nonsupervisory workers rose 1.9%. Our Wage Tracker also stands at 2.0% year-on-year as of 2015Q2. While we expect wage growth to pick up somewhat by year-end, it will likely remain well below our 3.5% estimate of the full employment rate.

    Recent data on wage growth have disappointed expectations. Our GS Wage Tracker stands at 2.0% year-on-year, showing no improvement from its average value over the past six years. Although some special factors in recent ECI and average hourly earnings data might have resulted in an unduly pessimistic view of wage growth in Q2, the broader trend remains quite subdued. We think the Fed would take comfort from a pickup in wages, as the level of wage growth provides a useful cross-check on the amount of slack remaining in the labor market. Fundamentals argue for at least a modest improvement in wage growth in coming quarters, in our view. Upcoming changes to state minimum wage laws will probably not move the needle on national aggregate wage metrics.

  • Let The Kool Aid Flow: Bank Of America "Predicts" No Recession In The Next Decade

    One year ago, as part of its always entertaining long-run forecasting exercise, Bank of America predicted that GDP growth in 2015 and 2016 would be 3.3% and 3.4% respectively.

    Fast forward one year, when in its updated “long-run” forecast, Bank of America’s crack economist Ethan Harris admits he was off by “only” 30% in his prediction of next year’s GDP, and instead of 3.3%, he now “forecasts” 2015 GDP to be… 2.3%.

    Not only that, but BofA has now also taken down all over its medium-term GDP forecasts lower by 0.4% and its terminal growth rate is now down 10% from 2.2% to 2.0%. Expect next year to see the first sub 2% potential growth rate of the US.

    This is how he justified his dramatic overestimation of US growth in just 12 months:

    1.We expect real GDP growth to converge to potential growth after 2016, which we expect to be around 2.0%.
    2. We expect that the long-run unemployment rate (the NAIRU) resides around 5.0%, due in part to demographic factors.
    3. We expect the Fed to hit its 2% target for the PCE deflator by 2018.
    4. We expect interest rates to converge to slightly lower long-run levels due to ongoing fiscal headwinds and lower potential growth.

    Compare these revised assumptions to what he penned just one year ago here.

    But the biggest laugh line, like last year, is the following:

    Obviously, there is considerable uncertainty in forecasting many years out, so these should be viewed as rough baseline numbers. For example, if history is our guide, at some point in the next decade the US will experience a recession, but predicting a recession far in advance is almost impossible. We plan to update this table on a regular basis.

    So to summarize, the chief economist of a TBTF bank was off in his one year forward “forecast” by 30%, but because prediction a recession “far in advance”, even if in reality one may very well already be taking place, he would rather just assume 2% or greater growth for the next decade, and just leave it at that.

    Because clearly Bank of America’s clients don’t pay with millions of soft dollars for someone to actually tell them the truth.

  • Mapping The Rising Poverty Of The U.S.

    Concentrated poverty in the neighborhoods of the nation's largest urban cores has exploded since the 1970s.

    The number of high poverty neighborhoods has tripled and the number of poor people in those neighborhoods has doubled according to a report released by City Observatory

    As Gizmodo explains, the following maps created by Palmer use red and green arrows to indicate growth in wealth and poverty between 1970 and 2010. Green lines point down to indicate a decrease in poverty, while red lines slope up to represent a growth in poverty. Their length indicates the size of the change.

    Map source: LabratRevenge.com

    As City Observatory concludes,

     To be poor anywhere is difficult enough, but a growing body of evidence shows the negative effects of poverty are amplified for those who live in high-poverty neighborhoods – places where 30 percent or more of the population live below the poverty line. Quality of life is worse, crime is higher, public services are weaker, and economic opportunity more distant in concentrated poverty neighborhoods.

     

     

    Critically, concentrated poverty figures prominently in the inter-generational transmission of inequality: children growing up in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty have permanently impaired economic prospects.

    *  *  *

    Read the full dismal report here (and remember stocks are at record highs and initial jobless claims at 40 year lows)…PDF here

    *  *  *

    While there are obvious patterns of green and red in very city, the overall trend is telling: poverty is very much on the rise.
     

  • The Sweet, Sickly Stench Of QE 'Success'

    Submitted by Grent Williams via TTMYGH.com,

    Six years ago, hardly anybody outside financial circles had any idea what Quantitative Easing was – hell, many within financial circles had no idea what QE entailed.

    The Fed, and the BoE did the heavy lifting in explaining it to Western audiences (Japan had been doing it so long that its citizens were bored of it and paid little attention when iterations 16, 17 and 18 were rolled out in recent years) with then-Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, leading the way as only he could:

    (Jackson Hole Speech, 2010): The channels through which the Fed’s purchases affect longer-term interest rates and financial conditions more generally have been subject to debate. I see the evidence as most favorable to the view that such purchases work primarily through the so-called portfolio balance channel, which holds that once short- term interest rates have reached zero, the Federal Reserve’s purchases of longer-term securities affect financial conditions by changing the quantity and mix of financial assets held by the public.

    Specifically, the Fed’s strategy relies on the presumption that different financial assets are not perfect substitutes in investors’ portfolios, so that changes in the net supply of an asset available to investors affect its yield and those of broadly similar assets. Thus, our purchases of Treasury, agency debt, and agency MBS likely both reduced the yields on those securities and also pushed investors into holding other assets with similar characteristics, such as credit risk and duration. For example, some investors who sold MBS to the Fed may have replaced them in their portfolios with longer-term, high-quality corporate bonds, depressing the yields on those assets as well.

    Yeah, I know.

    Others took a swing at explaining QE in terms more accessible to the layman (and woman):

    (The Economist): To carry out QE central banks create money by buying securities, such as government bonds, from banks, with electronic cash that did not exist before. The new money swells the size of bank reserves in the economy by the quantity of assets purchased—hence “quantitative” easing. Like lowering interest rates, QE is supposed to stimulate the economy by encouraging banks to make more loans. The idea is that banks take the new money and buy assets to replace the ones they have sold to the central bank. That raises stock prices and lowers interest rates, which in turn boosts investment.

    But the general narrative that the general public was beaten over the head with by central bankers and politicians was, essentially this:

    We are going to pull a few levers and create money which is going to solve all the problems we face. Don’t worry, there will be no negative effects as a result of this policy. We will be able to maintain full control of everything and, when the time comes, we will gracefully exit the program and go back to the way things used to be just as soon as everything is fixed. In the meantime, carry on with your lives, go out, spend money, borrow more and leave the worrying to us.

    The campaign to take a complicated concept and dumb it down sufficiently for a public that really didn’t want to have to do the mental gymnastics required to understand its implications had one significant tailwind – complicity on the part of the public. They wanted to be told it was all going to be OK and they were positively inclined towards the idea of ‘free’ money being printed which would, in turn, lessen their own chances of being directly impacted by the economic downturn which had come so perilously close in 2008.

    Those in charge of designing and implementing QE programs knew that it was all too hard for the public to understand and they played that knowledge brilliantly.

    Unfortunately for them, they were wildly successful.

    The public neither knows nor cares what QE actually is. All they know is that, optically at least, it has worked because a) they are being told it has and b) the stock market is going up.

    That’s essentially been the extent of the burden of proof.

     

    They don’t understand this:

    Or this:

    But here’s where the success in creating the narrative that free money does no harm and has no unintended consequences turns into a potential disaster.

    In the UK, left-winger Jeremy Corbyn was a last-minute addition to the leadership ballot for the Labour Party (US readers can think in terms of the Democratic Party nomination) – thrown into the mix to supposedly ‘broaden the debate’.

    Well he’s broadened it alright:

    (UK Daily Telegraph): the joke has backfired. Mr Corbyn is now the clear front-runner, and on Thursday the bookies installed him as the favourite.

    Oops!

    Corbyn’s own understanding of economics is on par with that of the average British citizen – which is perfectly fine – however, it’s what he’s doing with that knowledge that makes him far more dangerous.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I give you; People’s QE:

    (UK Independent): Jeremy Corbyn said that future rounds of the monetary stimulus should be redirected from the financial sector to brick-and-mortar projects.

    I am calling for a people’s quantitative easing – and asking my fellow candidates to join me in that call,” he wrote in an article for Huffington Post UK.

    “The Bank of England must be given a new mandate to upgrade our economy to invest in new large scale housing, energy, transport and digital projects.

    Jeremy Corbyn, MP for Islington North“This would give our economy a huge boost: upgrading our outdated infrastructure and creating over a million skilled jobs and genuine apprenticeships.”

    Corbyn has been convinced that QE is a free ride, just like the majority of the electorate and so, of course, he will promise them more of what he knows appeals to them.

    And, if they get the chance, they will vote for him. Of course.

    (Jeremy Warner): …It sounds a bit like The X Factor – perhaps we could get Simon Cowell to chair the MPC live on TV and we could all text in to say how much cash we want the Bank of England to print this month. It turns out, however, that the idea is for the Bank to “be given a new mandate to upgrade our economy to invest in new large-scale housing, energy, transport and digital projects”. 

    Mark Carney might well feel he has enough to do already, what with controlling interest rates, inflation and regulating the City. But, heck, in a few spare hours on a Friday afternoon, he could just print a couple of hundred extra billion, and use the money to start building publicly-owned housing estates. Yet a few hundred years of history suggest that central banks financing governments directly creates inflation, and another few hundred suggest that state-owned companies don’t usually work well.

    Jeremy Warner’s warning was stark – its implications terrifying:

    (Jeremy Warner): Everything about “Corbyn-omics” is delusional. Unfortunately, that does not mean it does not have an audience. By September, Mr Corbyn might well be leading the Opposition – or at least be shadow chancellor under Mr Burnham.

    The success of the narrative created around QE; that it is the mythical ‘free lunch’ that we all intuitively know can’t exist but secretly hope does, has played perfectly to the public and now, having endured for two electoral cycles, the next wave of politicians also believe it will have no consequences and are actually using it when planning the message they feel will endear them to the electorate.

    What plays better than free money?

    The same phenomenon will be front and center again tonight when the first GOP debate takes place with billionaire reality TV star, Donald Trump front and centre.

    Nobody is better equipped to pander to a public who desire impressive promises of handouts which bear little or no scrutiny, as this remarkable excerpt from The Guardian demonstrates:

    (UK Guardian): “Asked recently what he would replace Obama’s signature healthcare law with, [Trump] replied: “Something terrific.”

    Who wouldn’t vote for something terrific?

  • Oil Trading "God" Loses $500 Million In July On Commodity Rout

    Back in December 2014, when crude oil first crashed into a bear market and traders were desperately looking under nook and cranny for the first casualty of the commodity collapse, they found it in the face of oil trading “god”, Andy Hall, best known for seeking $100 million in compensation in 2008 from Phibro’s then-owner Citigroup, who would leave his long-term employer Phibro by the end of 2014 for the simple reason that after 113 years of operation, Phibro would liquidate in the US, having been unable to find a buyer (with rumors circulating that Hall’s trading P&L did not exactly help the company’s long or short-term prospects).

    While Hall did sever his relationship with the liquidating Phibro (and may have accelerated its collapse with his bullish oil bets), he would keep running his own personal hedge fund, the $3 billion Astenbeck Capital, which may have been Hall’s Phibro bearish oil “hedge” and emerged largely unscathed from the 2014 commodity rout because “Hall curtailed bets and shifted to holding cash.”

    However, 8 months later, with oil crashing again, and without Phibro to serve as a natural hedge, suddenly Andy Hall is in trouble. Again.

    It appears that after the great collapse of 2014, the oil trading “god” refused to learn from his mistakes, and was convinced that oil would promptly rebound up to its historic levels. His bullishness was evident in his latest letter to investors (attached below) in which we found that both his long-term oil price outlook…

    The U.S. shale oil resources which are profitable at $65 WTI simply are not large enough to offset the declining production in these other areas that will result from oil being at that level. At $65 WTI, the economically recoverable oil resource of the lower 48 states in the U.S. is about 70 billion barrels of oil. This would support production of between 9 and 9.5 million bpd – about today’s level. To grow production meaningfully would require prices closer to $80. (Interestingly though, prices much higher than $80 do not significantly increase the economically recoverable resource.)

     

    In summary, global oil prices will not be capped by the average cost of producing U.S. shale oil. U.S. shale oil production costs lie along a spectrum and while the best producers can make adequate returns at $65 WTI many others cannot. Furthermore, in the longer term a significant proportion of non-U.S. shale oil production require prices higher than $65 WTI to sustain investment. Finally, U.S. shale oil producers cannot produce enough oil at $65 to offset the production decline that would occur elsewhere in the world over time at that price.

    … as well as short-term…

    The second half of the year will see a strong seasonal uptick in global oil demand. Oil demand in Q3 and Q4 of 2015 should be some 1.7 and 2.9 million bpd higher respectively than in Q2. Meanwhile year over year U.S. production growth has slowed and production is now starting to decline sequentially. It will continue to decline through the balance of the year (barring significantly higher prices). Non-OPEC production growth elsewhere in the world will also slow through the balance of 2015. By December of 2015 year over year non – OPEC production growth will be a negative 1.7 million bpd compared to a positive 2.7 million bpd in December of 2014.

     

    With global oil consumption rising through the second half of the year at the same time as non-OPEC supply growth is stalling and with OPEC essentially at full capacity, the call on OPEC production will exceed their ability to meet it. This will result in falling global oil inventories during the balance of 2015 and in 2016.

     

    Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is fighting a proxy war with Iran in neighboring Yemen. It is also facing an existential threat from ISIS which is endeavoring to stir up sectarian unrest in the oil producing east of the country – home to most of Saudi Arabia’s large Shiite minority. Much of the rest of MENA is in turmoil. It’s not unreasonable to say that the geopolitical risks in the major oil exporting region have  seldom been higher. Yet oil prices currently have little or no risk premium and are – furthermore – below the longer run marginal cost of production. Because of this and given that the underlying fundamentals continue to improve, price risks are skewed to the upside in our view.

    … were quite bullish. They have also been, so far, dead wrong. And as Reuters reports, after two consecutive months of 3% losses in May and June at which point he was up just 2% for the year, July was by far the cruelest month in history for the oil trader, a month in which he suffered a whopping 17% loss. To wit:

    Oil trader Andy Hall’s hedge fund lost about 17 percent in July after failing to anticipate sliding crude prices as U.S. inventories piled up, a letter to its investors showed on Thursday.

     

    The monthly loss was the second largest in the history of his Connecticut-based Astenbeck Capital Management firm, performance data accompanying the letter showed. The decline cut total assets under management at Astenbeck to about $2.8 billion, down about $500 million from June.

    So after being up just barely up for the year in June and suddenly down 15% for 2015 a month later, having lost half a billion in just one month, it is a virtual certainty that the redemption requests are coming in. Worse, with Hall no longer having any hedges to cushion the ongoing oil crash (and in fact, it appears he is levered to the upside), his fund may be margin called to death soon enough even in the absence of major redemptions.

    Which begs the questiton: will Hall no longer be seen as an oil trading “god” if Astenbeck is promptly shut down, and the “god” blows up twice in less than a year? Perhaps instead of “god”, a more appropriate animalistic comparable is “pony” with an undiversified bag of tricks.

    His June letter to investors is below.

  • Is Trump The Democrat 'Wolf' In GOP Clothing?

    When we earlier noted the change of course for the GOP as RNC Chair Riebus showed Donald Trump much love, we wondered why the sudden shift of attitude and comment on being a Republican nominee? Well, perhaps, just perhaps, there is a reason why Republican leadership is vying for Trump's 'support'… As WaPo reports, former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump as he neared a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men. While there are no specifics about the call, we are reminded that Trump has also donated to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaigns and to the Clinton Foundation.

    Trump, a longtime acquaintance of the Clintons, both of whom attended the businessman’s third wedding in 2005, reportedly had a private telephone conversation in late spring with former President Bill Clinton at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men. As The Washington Post reports,

    The talk with Clinton — the spouse of the Democratic presidential front-runner and one of his party’s preeminent political strategists — came just weeks before Trump jumped into the GOP race and surged to the front of the crowded Republican field.

     

    The revelation of the call comes as many Republicans have begun criticizing Trump for his ties to Democrats, including past financial donations to the Clintons and their charitable foundation.

     

     

    “Mr. Trump reached out to President Clinton a few times. President Clinton returned his call in late May,” a Clinton employee said. “While we don’t make it a practice to discuss the president’s private conversations, we can tell you that the presidential race was not discussed.”

     

    One Trump adviser said Clinton called Trump, but the adviser did not provide specifics about how the call came about.

     

    People with knowledge of the call in both camps said it was one of many that Clinton and Trump have had over the years, whether about golf or donations to the Clinton Foundation. But the call in May was considered especially sensitive, coming soon after Hillary Rodham Clinton had declared her own presidential run the month before.

     

     

    Clinton has reserved her sharpest attacks for former Florida governor Jeb Bush and other candidates she has called out by name for their policies on immigration, abortion and other issues.

     

    For his part, Trump said little about Clinton until recent weeks.

    *  *  *

    The Hill's Brent Budowsky also noted…

    What could Trump do in the campaign that would help the Clintons the most? First, he would personally attack leading GOP candidates in 2016, using derisive language that would almost surely find its way into Hillary Clinton campaign ads if she were to become the Democratic nominee. Check that box, right? Next, Trump could deeply offend Hispanic voters who widely respect Hillary Clinton already. Check that box, too!

     

    Similarly, if Trump tied the GOP in knots by prolonging the Republican nominating process, and prolonged the process of Republicans attacking Republicans, that would be a huge benefit for Hillary Clinton. Check that box. And to the degree that newer faces in the Republican Party who could become the strongest challengers to the Democratic nominee in November, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), found their message drowned out by Trump, the big winner would be Hillary Clinton! Check that box, too.

     

    Of course the grand slam for Hillary Clinton would be if Donald Trump were to run as a third-party candidate in 2016. Remember how H. Ross Perot running in 1992 was vital to the election of Bill Clinton and set the stage for his highly successful and fondly remembered two-term presidency? It would be highly unlikely that this box will ultimately be checked by Team Clinton, but stranger things have happened.

     

    Does this suggest that Donald Trump is a Clinton plant in the current campaign? Of course not, but my tongue is only halfway planted in my cheek by raising this thought, which is delightful for Democrats and deep down must be scary for Republicans.

    *  *  *

    With Hillary facing plunging poll numbers and FBI probes, is The Donald the Democratic nominee in waiting?

  • Republican "Losers" Debate Pits Rick Perry Against Other "B List" GOP Hopefuls

    (Click picture to watch live. Note that Fox requires a cable subscription log-in)

    The “main event” GOP debate isn’t until 9 p.m. ET on Thursday, but for some, the anticipation surrounding Donald Trump’s debate debut will be too much to handle.

    For those folks, there’s the so-called “undercard”, which kicks of four hours earlier and should suffice as an appetizer until the Trump-sized entree is served up piping hot on Fox later this evening. The candidates below the blue cut-off point in the following chart will be participating.

    (Chart: National Journal)

    And while they’ll be no Donald in the “losers’ debate”, they’ll be plenty of Rick (actually there’s two of them), and for those who remember Governor Perry’s famous “oops” moment, that should be enough to guarantee that the consolation round of the first Republican debates of the 2016 election cycle still provides for plenty of entertainment. 

    Here’s a preview from Politico:

    How can you not feel a little bit sorry for Rick Perry? Arguably the most successful governor—certainly the longest serving—of a major state crucial to whatever presidential electoral prospects the GOP has left, and he’s relegated to the losers’ round of the 2016 debates, a forum undoubtedly sponsored by Tyrion Lannister and the Bad News Bears.

     

    But the former Texas governor is not alone.  An impressive array of talent will be alongside him, trying to pretend that they don’t feel like the kid picked last for the dodge ball team.  (Some people still haven’t gotten over it these days—but we try.) 

     

    There’s the only woman in the race, and one of the few with practical business experience that does not include firing Dennis Rodman on TV: Carly Fiorina. There’s Gov. Bobby Jindal, another accomplished governor and a onetime top-tier vice presidential contender whose staunch conservatism and moving son-of-immigrants story should stand out in a political party that’s knocked for being whiter than a Kenny Rogers concert in Vermont.  And next to him will be Sen. Lindsey Graham,  a seasoned legislator and John McCain clone, joined by his now famous cellphone and his bizarre Bill-Clinton-wishes-he’d-thought-of-that rotating first lady proposal. 

     

    Then there’s Rick Santorum, a finalist in 2012, who is about a point away from former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, whose poll numbers for the moment suggest he’d have a hard time beating Bill Cosby.  And let’s not forget New York’s George Pataki—one of the few if not the only Republican ever elected statewide in New York since the invention of the iPhone. No, there’s nothing to be embarrassed about by being in this crowd.

     


     

    Meanwhile in the “winners circle” are two guys who’ve never worked a single day in public office, a senator who wears baseball uniforms to display his qualifications for the White House and a former governor best known these days for writing about his yo-yo dieting and his love of gravy (I think there may be a connection there.)

     

    As you can see from the following graphic, the difference between making the prime time debate versus the “dinner time” version came down to the thinnest of margins for some participants:

    (Graphic: National Journal)

    *  *  *

    Bonus: “Oops

  • 3 Warnings For Market Bulls

    Submitted by Lance Roberts via STA Wealth Management,

    Lowry Sees Bull Market Ending 

    There is a very interesting podcast at Financial Sense with Richard Dickson, who is the Senior Market Strategist at Lowry Research. The reason that this particular interview is so interesting is that Lowry Research has been one of the primary supports for Jeff Saut's uber bullish view on the markets over the last couple of years. To wit:

    "[May 2, 2014] In fact, the SPX has been in a flat-line pattern for almost two months, having only gained 0.03% since March 7th, causing many Wall Street wags to proclaim a major "top" is at hand. However, as Lowry's writes:

     

    'The 88-year history of the Lowry Analysis shows that such stalemates are relatively common developments during most bull markets. They simply reflect periods in which investor buying enthusiasm is temporarily fatigued, at the same time that sellers are reluctant to part with their stocks, in anticipation of eventually higher prices. Thus, there is not enough Demand to push prices up to new bull market highs, and there is not a strong enough desire to sell to drive prices sharply lower. Eventually, sideways trading patterns are usually resolved through the process of a short-term correction, in which investors become impatient and sell, pushing prices low enough to revitalize buying enthusiasm and launch the next leg of the bull market.'

     

    Obviously I agree with the astute Lowry's organization, and I will say it again, 'It is too early to know if this is the beginning of a 10%-12% correction.'"

    That was so last year. However, very similarly this year, markets have once again been locked in a stalemate with "buyers" fatigued and "sellers" unwilling to part with stocks from fear of missing the next leg higher. 

    So what is Mr. Dickson saying now? 

    Dickson says when the broader indexes are approaching a top, the advance is led by fewer and fewer stocks, which has been seen at every major market peak they've studied.

     

    This phenomenon registers in the market's widely followed advance-decline line, however, Dickson points out that relative under-performance by small-cap stocks often provides an earlier warning signal to potential trouble ahead. He notes that small-cap stocks began to deteriorate almost a year ago, and many have already entered bear market territory. This is not healthy action, he says.

     

    Based on research conducted at Lowry, this predicts a market top within 4 to 6 months. In the interim, Dickson will be watching a variety of other technical indicators for confirmation, such as buying power and selling pressure.

    Here is a chart of the advance-decline line and small-cap performance relative to the S&P 500. 

    SP500-Adv-Decline-080615

     

    McClellan: Market Lacking "Escape Velocity"

    Tom McClellan, a family famous for the "McClellan Oscillator" recently issued a note discussing the importance of the number of advancing and declining issues and "escape velocity." To wit:

    "To understand this important point, we need to explore and define a principle of rocketry known as 'escape velocity.' This term is variously (and sometimes confusingly) defined as the velocity which a projectile needs in order to escape the gravitational field of a planet or other body, and/or the velocity needed to achieve stable orbit as opposed to falling back down to Earth. My purpose here is not to defend either definition; for our purposes, the idea is the same, that there needs to be sufficient energy to keep from falling back down.

     

    The Summation Index can show us that. For this discussion I will be using the Ratio-Adjusted Summation Index (RASI), which factors out changes in the number of issues traded… the RASI gives comparable amplitude levels with which to evaluate available financial market liquidity."

    RASI July2015

    "The +500 level for the RASI is the important go/no-go threshold for this concept of 'escape velocity.'

     

    Since the 2009 bottom, the Federal Reserve has made sure that there was liquidity available to the financial markets, at least for the most part. The cutoffs of liquidity after both QE1 and QE2 led to vacuums in the banking system, and stock prices fell into those vacuums. The question for 2015 is whether Fed actions are going to take away the liquidity punch bowl, and create a problem for the next rally's ability to achieve escape velocity.

     

    We saw this principle of diminished liquidity back in 1998-2000, and again in 2007-08, as highlighted in this historical chart. When the RASI failed to climb back up above +500, it said that there were liquidity problems which ended up keeping the stock market from being able to continue itself higher."

    RASI 1998-2008bb

    "My leading indication from the eurodollar COT data says that we should expect a major top in August 2015, and so there is not all that much time left for the RASI to get back up above +500. An upturn from this oversold condition should be able to produce a marginally higher price high, but if it cannot produce a RASI reading above +500, then we will know that the end has arrived for the bull market."

    Effron: M&A Activity Looks A Lot Like 2007

    In a recent interview on CNBC, Blair Effron, co-founder of Centerview Partners and one of Wall Street's biggest dealmakers, highlighted the similarities between the current M&A environment to that of 2007. 

    Currently, M&A activity is at its highest level since 2007 with global volumes hitting $2.9 Trillion since the beginning of 2015. According to data from Dealogic, that is a surge of 38% as compared to the same period in 2014. 

    Importantly, Effron also notes that the high valuations paid for M&A deals are, in large part, being driven by the current low interest rate environment.

    Of course, with low interest rates, that means the majority of those deals are being funded by debt issuance. via WSJ:

    "According to Dealogic, the Americas accounts for 83% of global acquisition related bonds, with a record $241.7 billion issued so far this year, compared with just $62.6 billion this time last year. In Europe, 38% of all high-yield bond issuance in the first half of the year has been related to M&A activity, according to Credit Suisse."

    MA-DebtFinancing-080615

    That is an interesting point since that is the same argument for high stock valuations, stock buy backs and dividend issuance and the housing market. Given that the vast majority of analysts currently believe interest rates are on the verge of rising, logic would suggest that such will likely be a negative for the bullish mantra. 

    While we have seen this same game play out repeatedly before, this time is surely different…right?

  • Last Daily Show with Jon Stewart Airs Tonight

    Whether you love him or hate him, tonight marks Jon Stewart’s final taping of The Daily Show as he steps down as host – a position he’s held for 16 years. During that time, the show has won 20 Emmy Awards, two Peabody Awards, and Stewart even managed to win a Grammy for himself in 2005 for the recording of his audiobook, America, A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction.

    Despite the fact Stewart has always claimed The Daily Show is just a fake news show, the influence he’s had on politics and the media cannot be denied. 

    In October of 2004, Stewart appeared on CNN’s Crossfire where he heavily criticized the state of journalism and called the show’s hosts, Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, “partisan hacks.” Stewart commented that the show failed to educate and inform its viewers by not taking politics seriously, stating that calling Crossfire a debate show is like “saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition.” In January of 2005, CNN announced the cancelation of Crossfire with CNN’s then-incoming president, Jonathan Klein stating, “I think he [Stewart] made a good point about the noise level of these types of shows, which does nothing to illuminate the issues of the day.”

    Stewart also announced a fake crowdfunding campaign to buy CNN back in July of 2014 after Rupert Murdoch offered $80 billion to buy its parent company, Time Warner. Stewart claimed that for a donation of $5 million, CNN would air a “24-hour, two-week hunt for your lost car keys.” 

    In March of 2009, The Daily Show lambasted CNBC for its shoddy reporting of the financial crisis of 2008. Stewart claimed the network dodged its journalistic duty by merely accepting information from corporations without bothering to investigate further into matters at hand. On March 12, Jim Cramer appeared on The Daily Show where Stewart told him, “I understand you want to make finance entertaining, but it’s not a fucking game. And when I watch that, I get, I can’t tell you how angry that makes me. Because what it says to me is: you all know. You all know what’s going on. You know, you can draw a straight line from those shenanigans to the stuff that was being pulled at Bear, and AIG, and all this derivative market stuff that is this weird Wall Street side bet.” That episode of The Daily Show garnered 2.3 million total viewers, and the next day The Daily Show website saw its highest day of traffic year-to-date.

    Stewart has also been an advocate for veterans and 9/11 first responders. He’s credited with breaking a Senate deadlock over a bill that would offer healthcare for 9/11 first responders, which passed three days after he featured a group of responders on the show. He also criticized a White House proposal to remove veterans with private insurance plans from the Department of Veterans Affairs rolls. The White House dropped the plan the next day.

    South African comedian, Trevor Noah, who has been a regular contributor to The Daily Show since December of 2014, will replace Stewart. He will begin his hosting duties on September 28. On Wednesday it was announced that Stewart’s Daily Show set will be put on display at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. 

    [original]

    EquityNet | The Leading Equity Crowdfunding Platform

  • Dow Dumps Almost 1000 Points From Highs To 6-Month Lows, Crude Carnage Continues

    Seemed appropriate…

    With 121 S&P 500 members now trading more than 20% off their highs…

    No real catalysts today – aside from Hilsenrath talking back Powell's dovishness, a terrible Challenger Jobs data point, moar crude carnage, and all the story stocks and media firms getting Baumgartner'd… Nasdaq was worst, Dow best but still a loser…

     

    The plunge was initially protected by a mysterious bid which failed and then anchored off JPY and WTI Crude…

     

    Desperate to get back to VWAP…

     

    Which left cash ugly on the day…Dow tested to 6mo lows – just short of 1000 points off the highs… Nasdaq worst on the day…

     

    And on the week… Small Caps are the biggest loser…

     

    Russell 2000 briefly went red for 2015

     

    Energy stock dip-buyers were out en masse….

     

    But credit was being dumped…

     

    Even as Energy credit risk is soaring – back near 2015 highs…almost 1000bps!

     

    VIX Soared on the day back above 14… (after an 11 handle just 2 days ago)

     

    Treasury yields tumbled today…leaving 30Y yields lower on the day…

     

    The US Dollar drifted very modestly lower… Cable saw a quick dump on BoE comments this morning….

     

    Commodities were mixed with gold and silver drifting higher and copper lower…

     

    Crude was clubbed again…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

    Bonus Chart: Explain this 'signalling'!!

    h/t Jim A

    Bonus Bonus Chart: You Are Here…

  • TBTF Banks Lowering Down-Payments & Credit Standards To Keep High-End Housing Market Alive

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    What do you do when even wealthy people begin to face an increasingly hard time purchasing a home in a vertical market completely disconnected from income trends? You reduce downpayments and lower credit standards, of course.

    Where have we seen this story before…

    From the Wall Street Journal:

    The nation’s largest bank by assets plans to announce Wednesday that it is lowering the minimum credit score and down payment it requires for mortgages as big as $3 million.

     

    The New York firm’s moves follow similar steps at Bank of AmericaCorp.Wells Fargo & Co. and other banks on requirements for “jumbo” mortgages—those that exceed $417,000 in most parts of the country or $625,500 in pricier markets. At the same time, some big banks are backing away from smaller loans where they see higher regulatory costs and litigation risks.

    Guess it’s gonna be shipping container apartments for everyone else.

     

    Since the financial crisis, a recovery in the mortgage market has faced several challenges, but the jumbo market—popular with well-heeled borrowers—has bounced back along with sales of higher-priced homes. In the second quarter, overall jumbo originations rose to an eight-year high of $93 billion, up 58% from a year ago, according to a preliminary estimate from industry newsletter Inside Mortgage Finance.

     

    By dollar volume, jumbo mortgages given out by lenders last year accounted for about 20% of all first-lien mortgages, used mostly to purchase or refinance a home, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. That is up from 5.5% in 2009. The last time jumbo mortgages accounted for a larger share was in 2005.

    2005…got it.

    For jumbo mortgages, J.P. Morgan plans to lower the minimum FICO credit scores it requires to 680 from 740 for loans on primary single-family purchases, second homes and certain refinances on those properties.

     

    The increase in jumbo lending underscores a housing recovery concentrated in higher-priced homes. Sales of existing single-family homes priced between $750,000 and $1 million, for example, increased 21% in June from a year prior, according to the National Association of Realtors.

     

    Sales of homes priced between $100,000 and $250,000, in contrast, increased 12.5%, while those priced lower fell 3%.

    I don’t call this the oligarch recovery for nothing.

    Rising home values have helped give lenders confidence that lower down payments won’t leave borrowers at risk of owing more on their homes than they will eventually be worth.

     

    J.P. Morgan’s changes, which go into effect Wednesday, will reduce minimum down payments for some borrowers to 15% of the purchase price for single-family homes serving as the borrower’s primary residence, down from 20% currently. That change applies to mortgages between $1.5 million and $3 million; the bank last year made the same change for jumbo mortgages up to $1.5 million.

     

    The bank also is lowering down-payment thresholds for jumbo mortgages used for second homes, such as vacation homes, and certain two- to four-unit properties. The bank says the changes simplify its offerings.

     

    Several large banks have recently lowered their jumbo-mortgage requirements. Wells Fargo last year cut the minimum down payment it requires to 10.1% from 15% for jumbo mortgages of up to $1 million.

     

    In June, Bank of America began allowing first-time home buyers, which it defines as people who haven’t owned a home for at least three years, to make 15% down payments for jumbo mortgages of up to $1 million. The bank previously excluded this group of buyers from its 15% down-payment option, which it rolled out in 2013.

    Gotta love these banks. They just make shit up. Somehow “not owning a home for three years” = first time homeowner. Aren’t you glad we bailed them out?

  • Analysts Give Up On "Man-Made" China Data: It's "A Fantasy" That "No One Believes"

    When China reported that its economy grew 7% in Q2 – spot-on Beijing’s target – virtually no one believed it.

    The veracity of the country’s economic data has long been the subject of debate and when FT called out the country’s National Bureau of Statistics for employing what we called “deficient deflator math” on the way to understating inflation and overstating output, China’s statistics bureau responded, saying that although there was “room for improvement,” the deflator wasn’t underestimated, GDP growth wasn’t overstated, and “both reflect the real situation.” 

    One could certainly be forgiven for insisting that the NBS is simply lying, because after all, the “real situation” looks like this:

    Charts: A. Gary Shilling’s Insight

    Given the above, it should come as no surprise that some analysts believe the actual rate of growth in China is closer to zero than it is to 7%. Here’s Reuters:

    China’s economy is growing only half as fast as official data shows, or maybe even slower, according to foreign investors and analysts who increasingly challenge how the world’s second largest economy can be measured so swiftly and precisely.

     

    But perhaps the biggest question is how a developing country of 1.4 billion people can publish its quarterly gross domestic product (GDP) statistics weeks before first drafts from developed economies like the United States, the euro zone or Britain, and then barely revise them later.

     

    “We think the numbers are fantasy,” said Erik Britton of Fathom Consulting, a London-based independent research firm and one of the more vocal critics of official Chinese data. “There is no way those numbers are even close to the truth.”

     

    The uncanny official calm in China GDP data may well be contributing to sceptics’ exit from Chinese assets just as the authorities struggle to manage a volatile stock market.

     

    Fathom, which decided last year to stop publishing forecasts of the official GDP release and instead publish what it thinks is really happening, reckons growth will be 2.8 percent this year, slowing to just 1.0 percent next year.

     

    Li Keqiang, now Chinese Premier, was cited in leaked U.S. diplomatic cables years ago from when he was Communist Party head in Liaoning province calling GDP figures “man-made” and unreliable. This remains a buttress for widespread scepticism.

     



    Fathom publishes a simple indicator based on three variables that Li said at the time he watched for a better view of how his local economy, and by extension the national one, was faring: electricity consumption, rail cargo volume, and bank lending.


    That implies a growth rate of 3.2 percent, and shows a significant decoupling from the official rate since late 2013 based on a plunge in rail freight volumes and below-trend growth in electricity production.


    “Clearly nobody believes the data,” said Sushil Wadhwani, a former Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee member and founder of Wadhwani Asset Management LLP.


    Wadhwani says he also looks at various proxies of China’s growth rate, which he deems are “pretty unreliable” as well and which suggest anywhere from 1.5 percent to about 5 percent growth.


     

    “I truly don’t know where we are in that range”, he said.

    Neither do we, but we suspect it’s closer to the low end and indeed, if the 35% rise in NPLs cited last week by Shang Fulin, chairman of China Banking Regulatory Commission, is any indication, things are getting a lot worse under the hood as the slumping economy causes loans to the manufacturing sector to sour at an unprecedented rate. 

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 6, 2015

  • Paul Craig Roberts: A Prescription For Peace & Prosperity

    Submitted by Paul Craig Roberts,

    The question is often asked: “What can we do?” Here is a prescription for peace and prosperity.

    We will begin with prosperity, because prosperity can contribute to peace. Sometimes governments begin wars in order to distract from unpromising economic prospects, and internal political stability can also be dependent on prosperity.

    The Road to Prosperity

    For the United States to return to a prosperous road, the middle class must be restored and the ladders of upward mobility put back in place. The middle class served domestic political stability by being a buffer between rich and poor. Ladders of upward mobility are a relief valve that permit determined folk to rise from poverty to success. Rising incomes throughout society provide the consumer demand that drives an economy. This is the way the US economy worked in the post-WWII period.

    To reestablish the middle class the offshored jobs have to be brought home, monopolies broken up, regulation restored, and the central bank put under accountable control or abolished.

    Jobs offshoring enriched owners and managers of capital at the expense of the middle class. Well paid manufacturing and industrial workers lost their livelihoods as did university graduates trained for tradable professional service jobs such as software engineering and information technology. No comparable wages and salaries could be found in the economy where the remaining jobs consist of domestic service employment, such as retail clerks, hospital orderlies, waitresses and bartenders. The current income loss is compounded by the loss of medical benefits and private pensions that supplemented Social Security retirement. Thus, jobs offshoring reduced both current and future consumer income.

    America’s middle class jobs can be brought home by changing the way corporations are taxed. Corporate income could be taxed on the basis of whether corporations add value to their product sold in US markets domestically or offshore. Domestic production would have a lower tax rate. Offshored production would be taxed at a higher rate. The tax rate could be set to cancel out the cost savings of producing offshore.

    Under long-term attack by free market economists, the Sherman Antitrust Act has become a dead-letter law. Free market economists argue that markets are self-correcting and that anti-monopoly legislation is unnecessary and serves mainly to protect inefficiency. A large array of traditionally small business activities have been monopolized by franchises and “big box” stores. Family owned auto parts stores, hardware stores, restaurants, men’s clothing stores, and dress shops, have been crowded out. Walmart’s destructive impact on Main Street businesses is legendary. National corporations have pushed local businesses into the trash bin.

    Monopoly has more than economic effect. When six mega-media companies have control of 90 percent of the American media, a dispersed and independent press no longer exists. Yet, democracy itself relies on media helping to hold government to account. The purpose of the First Amendment is to control the government, but today media serves as a propaganda ministry for government.

    Americans received better and less expensive communication services when AT&T was a regulated monopoly. Free trade in communications has resulted in the creation of many unregulated local monopolies with poor service and high charges. AT&T’s stability made the stock a “blue-chip” ideal for “widow and orphan” trust funds, pensions, and wealth preservation. No such risk free stock exists today.

    Monopoly was given a huge boost by financial deregulation. Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan’s claim that “markets are self-regulating” and that government regulation is harmful was blown to pieces by the financial crisis of 2007-2008. Deregulation not only allowed banks to escape from prudent behavior but also allowed such concentration that America now has “banks too big to fail.” One of capitalism’s virtues and justifications is that inefficient enterprises fail and go out of business. Instead, we have banks that must be kept afloat with public or Federal Reserve subsidies. Clearly, one result of financial deregulation has been to protect the large banks from the operation of capitalism. The irony that freeing banks from regulation resulted in the destruction of capitalism is lost on free market economists.

    The cost of the Federal Reserve’s support for the banks too big to fail with zero and negative real interest rates has been devastating for savers and retirees. Americans have received no interest on their savings for seven years. To make ends meet, they have had to consume their savings. Moreover, the Federal Reserve’s policy has artificially driven up the stock market with the liquidity that the Federal Reserve has created and also caused a similar bubble in the bond market. The high prices of bonds are inconsistent with the buildup in debt and the money printed in order to keep the debt afloat. The dollar’s value itself depends on quantitative easing in Japan and the EU.

    In order to restore financial stability, an obvious precondition for prosperity, the large banks must be broken up and the distinction between investment and commercial banks restored.

    Since the Clinton regime, the majority of the Treasury secretaries have been top executives of the troubled large banks, and they have used their public position to benefit their banks and not the US economy. Additionally, executives of the large banks comprise the board of the New York Fed, the principal operating arm of the Federal Reserve. Consequently, a few large banks control US financial policy. This conspiracy must be broken up and the Federal Reserve made accountable or abolished.

    This requires getting money out of politics. The ability of a few powerful private interest groups to control election outcomes with their campaign contributions is anathema to democracy. A year ago the Republican Supreme Court ruled that the rich have a constitutional right to purchase the government with political campaign contributions in order to serve their selfish interests.

    These are the same Republican justices who apparently see no constitutional right to habeas corpus and, thus, have not prohibited indefinite detention of US citizens. These are the same Republican justices who apparently see no constitutional prohibition against self-incrimination and, thus, have tolerated torture. These are the same Republican justices who have abandoned due process and permit the US government to assassinate US citizens.

    To remove the control of money over political life would likely require a revolution. Unless prosperity is to be only for the One Percent, the Supreme Court’s assault on democracy must be overturned.

    The Road to Peace is Difficult

    To regain peace is even more difficult than to regain prosperity. As prosperity can be a precondition for peace, peace requires both changes in the economy and in foreign policy.

    To regain peace is especially challenging, not because Americans are threatened by Muslim terrorists, domestic extremists, and Russians. These “threats” are hoaxes orchestrated in behalf of special interests. “Security threats” provide more profit and more power for the military/security complex.

    The fabricated “war on terror” has been underway for 14 years and has succeeded in creating even more “terror” that must be combated with enormous expenditures of money. Apparently, Republicans intend that monies paid in Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes be redirected to the military/security complex.

    The promised three-week “cakewalk” in Iraq has become a 14 year defeat with the radical Islamic State controlling half of Iraq and Syria. Islamist resistance to Western domination has spread into Africa and Yemen, and Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the oil emirates are ripe fruit ready to fall.

    Having let the genie out of the bottle in the Middle East, Washington has turned to conflict with Russia and by extension to China. This is a big bite for a government that has not been able to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan after 14 years.

    Russia is not a country accustomed to defeat. Moreover, Russia has massive nuclear forces and massive territory into which to absorb any US/NATO invasion. Picking a fight with a well-armed country with by far the largest land mass of any country shows a lack of elementary strategic sense. But that is what Washington is doing.

    Washington is picking a fight with Russia, because Washington is committed to the neoconservative doctrine that History has chosen Washington to exercise hegemony over the world. The US is the “exceptional and indispensable” country, the Uni-power chosen to impose Washington’s will on the world.

    This ideology governs US foreign policy and requires war in its defense. In the 1990s Paul Wolfowitz enshrined the Wolfowitz Doctrine into US military and foreign policy. In its most bold form, the Doctrine states:

    “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

    As a former member of the original Cold War Committee on the Present Danger, I can explain what these words mean. The “threat posed formerly by the Soviet Union” was the ability of the Soviet Union to block unilateral US action in some parts of the world. The Soviet Union was a constraint on US unilateral action, not everywhere but in some places. This constraint on Washington’s will is regarded as a threat.

    A “hostile power” is a country with an independent foreign policy, such as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) have proclaimed. Iran, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Argentina, Cuba, and North Korea have also proclaimed an independent foreign policy.

    This is too much independence for Washington to stomach. As Russian President Vladimir Putin recently stated, “Washington doesn’t want partners. Washington wants vassals.”

    The Wolfowitz doctrine requires Washington to dispense with governments that do not acquiesce to Washington’s will. It is a “first objective.”

    The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in Boris Yeltsin becoming president of a dismembered Russia. Yeltsin was a compliant US puppet. Washington became accustomed to its new vassal and absorbed itself in its Middle Eastern wars, expecting Vladimir Putin to continue Russia’s vassalage.

    However at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy, Putin said: “I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world.”

    Putin went on to say: “We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?”

    When Putin issued this fundamental challenge to US Uni-power, Washington was preoccupied with its lack of success with its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Mission was not accomplished.

    By 2014 it had entered the thick skulls of our rulers in Washington that while Washington was blowing up weddings, funerals, village elders, and children’s soccer games in the Middle East, Russia had achieved independence from Washington’s control and presented itself as a formidable challenge to Washington’s Uni-power. Putin and Russia have had enough of Washington’s arrogance.

    The unmistakable rise of Russia refocused Washington from the Middle East to Russia’s vulnerabilities. Ukraine, long a constituent part of Russia and subsequently the Soviet Union, was split off from Russia in the wake of the Soviet collapse by Washington’s maneuvering. In 2004 Washington had tried to capture Ukraine in the Orange Revolution, which failed to deliver Ukraine into Washington’s hands. Consequently, according to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, Washington spent $5 billion over the following decade developing NGOs that could be called into the streets of Kiev and in developing political leaders who represented Washington’s interests.

    Washington launched its coup in February 2014 with orchestrated “demonstrations” that with the addition of violence resulted in the overthrow and flight of the elected democratic government of Victor Yanukovych. In other words, Washington destroyed democracy in a new country with a coup before democracy could take root.

    Ukrainian democracy meant nothing to Washington intent on seizing Ukraine in order to present Russia with a security problem and also to justify sanctions against “Russian aggression” in order to break up Russia’s growing economic and political relationships with Europe.

    Having launched on this reckless and irresponsible attack on a nuclear power, can Washington eat crow and back off? Would the neoconservative-controlled mass media permit that? The Russian government, backed 89% by the Russian people, have made it clear that Russia rejects vassalage status as the price of being part of the West. The implication of the Wolfowitz Doctrine is that Russia must be destroyed.

    This implies our own destruction.

    What can be done to restore peace? Obviously, the EU must abandon NATO and declare that Washington is a greater threat than Russia. Without NATO Washington has no cover for its aggression and no military bases with which to surround Russia.

    It is Washington, not Russia, that has an ideology of “uber alles.” Obama endorsed the neoconservative claim that “America is the exceptional country.” Putin has made no such claim for Russia. Putin’s response to Obama’s claim is that “God created us equal.”

    In order to restore peace, the neoconservatives must be removed from foreign policy positions in the government and media. This means that Victoria Nuland must be removed as Assistant Secretary of State, that Susan Rice must be removed as National Security Adviser, that Samantha Power must be removed as US UN ambassador.

    The warmonger neoconservatives must be removed from Fox ‘News,’ CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, and in their places independent voices must replace propagandists for war.

    Clearly, none of this is going to happen, but it must if we are to escape armageddon.

    The prescription for peace and prosperity is sound. The question is: Can we implement it?

  • "I Sure Am Glad There's No Inflation"

    Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

    I sure am glad there's no inflation, because these "stable prices" the Federal Reserve keeps jaw-jacking about are putting us in a world of hurt.

    We are constantly bombarded with two messages about inflation:

    1. Inflation is near-zero

    2. This worries the Federal Reserve terribly, because stable prices are deflationary and deflation is (for reasons that are never explained) like the financial Black Plague that will wipe out humanity if it isn't vanquished by a healthy dose of inflation (i.e. getting less for your money).

    Those of us outside the inner circles of power are glad there's no inflation, because we'd rather get more for our money (deflation) rather than less for our money (inflation). You know what I mean: the package that once held 16 ounces now only holds 13 ounces. A medication that once cost $79 now costs $79,000. (This is a much slighter exaggeration than you might imagine.)

    Our excellent F-18 Super Hornet fighter aircraft cost us taxpayers $54 million a piece. Now the replacement fighter, the wallowing collection of defective parts flying in close proximity known as the F-35 costs $250 million each–unless you want an engine in it. That'll cost you extra, partner.

    Despite all these widely known examples of rampant inflation, every month we're told there's no inflation. Just to reassure myself there's no inflation, I looked up a few charts on the St. Louis Fed's FRED database.

    I have to say, I'm scratching my head here because the cost of things has gone up a lot since 2000.

    The consumer price index is up 38% from 2000. Now if somebody were to give me a choice between getting 10 gallons of gasoline and 10 gallons minus 3.8 gallons of gasoline, I'd take the 10 gallons. So how the heck can a 38% increase be near-zero inflation?

    If I took $38 of every $100 you earned, would you reckon I'd taken next to nothing from you? Do you earn 38% more than you did in 2000? If so, congratulations; most people can't answer "yes."

    Urban-area rents are up 56% from 2000. Now this is even worse inflation, because you just paid $156 for what used to cost you only $100.

    State and local government taxes are up 75% since 2000. And this doesn't even include the rip-off fishing license fees that have gone through the roof, the boat registration fees that have shot to the moon, and the legal-looting parking ticket that used to be $12 and is now $60.

    Taxes naturally rise with the economic expansion due to rising population, which has gone up about 13.8% since 2000: from 281 million residents of the USA to 320 million in 2015. So taxes rising a few percentage points each year along with growth and population would make sense. But 75%?

    I've got a real treat for all you parents, uncles, aunts and grandparents who are planning to put the kids through college: the costs have only risen about 100% since 2000. That means instead of scraping up $80,000 per kid (assuming they can get all their required classes and grind the thing out in four years) you now need to scrape up $160,000 per kid.

    The price index for college tuition grew by nearly 80 percent between August 2003 and August 2013. Now to make this apples to apples with the rest of the data here, we need to add in the nearly 5 missing years: from 1/1/2000 to 8/1/2003 and from 8/1/2013 to 8/1/2015. I'd say putting the increase at 100% is being conservative.

    I sure am glad there's no inflation, because these "stable prices" the Federal Reserve keeps jaw-jacking about are putting us in a world of hurt. If we had honest-to-goodness inflation, that would push us right over the edge.

  • Hillary Clinton's FBI Investigation Is A "Criminal Probe": Post

    Following the embarrassing Snafu two weeks ago, in which the NYT reported, then unreported, that Hillary Clinton had sent at least four emails from her personal account containing classified information during her time heading the State Department and as a result both the DOJ and FBI had gotten involved (with lots of confusion over what is active and what is passive voice) many were confused: was or wasn’t the DOJ or FBI involved, and if not, why not? After all, there was sufficient evidence of enough negligence to merit at least a fact-finding mission.

    Last night we got a part of the answer, when WaPo reported that what the NYT reported, then unreported, was in fact accurate: “The FBI has begun looking into the security of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private e-mail setup, contacting in the past week a Denver-based technology firm that helped manage the unusual system, according to two government officials.

    Also last week, the FBI contacted Clinton’s lawyer, David Ken­dall, with questions about the security of a thumb drive in his possession that contains copies of work e-mails Clinton sent during her time as secretary of state.”

    As a reminder, David Kendall is “a prominent Williams & Connolly attorney who defended former CIA director David Petraeus against charges of mishandling classified information.” That Clinton has resorted to using him reveals just how far she thinks this could escalate.

    As the WaPo further added, “the FBI’s interest in Clinton’s e-mail system comes after the intelligence community’s inspector general referred the issue to the Justice Department in July. Intelligence officials expressed concern that some sensitive information was not in the government’s possession and could be “compromised.” The referral did not accuse Clinton of any wrongdoing, and the two officials said Tuesday that the FBI is not targeting her.”

    Maybe that’s true, or maybe that’s how the Amazon Post was told to spin the narrative. However, moments ago a far less liberal outlet, came out with its own interpretation of the ongoing FBI escalation involving Hillary, and according to the NY Post, “the FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsecured e-mail account is not just a fact-finding venture — it’s a criminal probe, sources told The Post on Wednesday.”

    The feds are investigating to what extent Clinton relied on her home server and other private devices to send and store classified documents, according to a federal source with knowledge of the inquiry.

     

    “It’s definitely a criminal probe,” said the source. “I’m not sure why they’re not calling it a criminal probe.

    Well, there are several reasons, one of which is that a presidential candidacy would be all but scuttled if they had to fight a criminal probe at the same time as they were trying to convince the rest of the US of their pristine moral character.

    The DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances,” but that’s not what this is, the source stressed. “In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.”

    Clinton’s camp has downplayed the inquiry as civil and fact-finding in nature. Clinton herself has said she is “confident” that she never knowingly sent or received anything that was classified.

    As reported on July 24, the inspector general told Congress that of 40 Clinton e-mails randomly reviewed as a sample of her correspondence as secretary of state, four contained classified information. Post adds that “if Clinton is proven to have knowingly sent, received or stored classified information in an unauthorized location, she risks prosecution under the same misdemeanor federal security statute used to prosecute former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, said former federal prosecutor Bradley Simon.”

    Which also explains why she hired his lawyer.

    The statute — which was also used to prosecute Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, in 2005, is rarely used and would be subject to the discretion of the attorney general.

     

    Still, “They didn’t hesitate to charge Gen. Petraeus with doing the same thing, downloading documents that are classified,” Simon said. “The threshold under the statute is not high — they only need to prove there was an unauthorized removal and retention” of classified material, he said.

     

    “My guess is they’re looking to see if there’s been either any breach of that data that’s gone into the wrong hands [in Clinton’s case], through their counter-intelligence group, or they are looking to see if a crime has been committed,” said Makin Delrahim, former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, who served as a deputy assistant secretary in the Bush DOJ.

     

    “They’re not in the business of providing advisory security services,” Delrahim said of the FBI. “This is real.”

    To be sure, this may just be the Post trying to stir the pot with its “sources” ahead of what promises to be the most watched republican primary debate in history. But on the off chance Rupert Murdoch’s outlet is accurate, then one wonders why and how did Obama greenlight such an investigation, whose blessing could only come from the very top.

    And if the administration has decided to sacrifice Hillary, whose favorability numbers just plunged to the point she may not need outside help to prematurely end her presidential run, just who does the current regime have in mind for the next US president?

  • US Allows Ally Turkey to Bomb Only Group Effectively Fighting ISIS

    Submitted by Naji Dahl via Anti-Media,

    Late in July, the Anti-Media reported that Turkey joined the U.S. led coalition conducting airstrikes against the Islamic State (IS, ISIS, ISIL). Since then, it has become clear that Turkey’s strategy is part of a larger agreement with the U.S. to conduct a war against “extremism” in the region.

    The deal between the U.S. and Turkey has the following contours: Turkey will allow the U.S. to use its military base at Incirlik to conduct airstrikes against the Islamic State. In exchange, the U.S. will allow Turkey to create a buffer zone on Syrian soil free of Islamic State and Kurdish fighters. The stated aim of the “safe zone” is to create a refuge for internally displaced Syrian civilians inside Syria. According to the New York Times,

    “The plan would create what officials from both countries are calling an Islamic State-free zone controlled by relatively moderate Syrian insurgents, which the Turks say could also be a ‘safe zone’ for displaced Syrians.”

    For Turkey, however, the real aim is to prevent the YPG Kurdish fighters from linking up their three zones of control (Efrin, Kobani, and Cizir pictured below; Tal Abyad is already under YPG control) in northern Syria with each other. These Kurdish fighters also happen to be the sole force that has shown the ability to effectively defeat ISIS in battle. However, the real aim of Turkey was voiced by the leader of the Kurdish opposition party—HDP— in the Turkish parliament, Selahattin Demirtas:

    “‘Turkey doesn’t intend to target IS with this safe zone. The Turkish government was seriously disturbed by Kurds trying to create an autonomous state in Syria,’ he said, adding that ‘the safe zone is intended to stop the Kurds, not IS.'”

    It is a poorly-kept secret that the YPG intends to create an independent state in northern Syria, known as Rojava. The YPG has already been accused of ethnically cleansing the non-Kurds from that region as a precursor for a Kurdish state. The YPG—and its civilian arm, the PYD—are linked to the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party), a Kurdish separatist group that Turkey, the U.S., and the E.U. consider a terrorist organization. At 14.5 million, Turkey has the largest population of Kurds in the southeastern part of its territory. The PKK waged a long war with the Turkish state during the 1980s and the 1990s that killed about 30,000 people.

    Encouraged by the gains of the YPG in northern Syria, the PKK seems to have re-started its war with Turkey. This new war started when on July 2oth, an IS suicide bomber blew herself up in the southern Turkish border town of Suruc. The attack killed 32 Kurdish youths and left more than 100 wounded. The Kurdish youths were meeting to organize a rebuilding effort of the town of Kobani in Syria. Suruc played a pivotal role in helping YPG rebels take control of Kobani and Tal Abyad from IS.

    The PKK blamed the IS attack on the indifference the Turkish state has shown towards IS. The PKK retaliated against the Turkish state by killing two Turkish police officers. These attacks were followed by another that killed three Turkish soldiers, a police officer, and a civilian. On August 2nd, a car bomb killed two Turkish soldiers and injured 31 when it blew up close to a police station in the Southeastern Turkish town of Dogubayazit.

    For its part, the Turkish military responded by attacking PKK positions in northern Iraq (the Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq has allowed the PKK to have bases there). There are also reports that the Turkish military attacked YPG positions in northern Syria. Not only that, the Turkish state has initiated a crack-down on PKK and other militants, arresting 590 people on terror charges inside Turkey. Even more sinister is president Erdogan’s call to strip the immunity of parliamentarians with alleged ties to the PKK.

    According to sociologist Max Weber, a state is an entity that has a boundary, has sovereignty (controls what happens within its boundary), has the ability to legitimately use force, and the ability to tax and borrow. Whenever any of these functions are threatened, a state responds with violence towards the source of the threat.

    The PKK poses a serious threat to Turkey’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. It is hard to fathom a situation where Turkey will ever allow an independent Kurdish state, whether in northern Iraq, in Syria, or in Turkey. For the Turkish state, the Kurdish threat is far more serious than the threat from ISIS. If the Kurds are successful in their bid for their own state, they will detach about a third of Turkey’s territory (to understand the seriousness of the Kurdish challenge to the Turkish state, just imagine what the American government would do if a separatist Mexican movement sought to detach the southwest from the United States and create an independent state). The seriousness is underscored by the declarations of the president of Turkey regarding a Kurdish state. In contrast, the Islamic State has no such aims on Turkey and does not have the wherewithal to undertake such an enterprise—even if it wanted to. Turks have a long history of secularism and are not receptive to the strict Islamism of ISIS. For the time being, therefore, the Turkish state will pretend to be fighting ISIS while directing its violence towards the PKK and the YPG.

    If the violence between the PKK and YPG and the Turkish state spirals out of control, it is highly likely that a military coup d’etat will take place against the AKP (the Islamic-based Justice and Development party of Erdogan). The military will jail leading government politicians, end democratic rule, wage war against the PKK/YPG, restore order, and then return power to civilian hands. This has happened three times in modern Turkish history—in 1960, 1971, and 1980. If conditions continue to deteriorate inside and outside Turkey, a coup is likely to happen again.

  • Iran Refuses UN Inspector Access To Scientists, Caught Trying To "Clean Up" Suspected Nuclear Site

    Surprise! In what must be the most predictable geopolitical event in recent days, WSJ reports that Iran has refused to let United Nations inspectors interview key scientists and military officers to investigate allegations Tehran maintained a covert nuclear-weapons program. This comes hours after CNN reported that the intelligence community believes Iran has been attempting to clean up the suspected nuclear site at Parchin prior to the arrival of international inspectors based on new satellite imagery. While the administration attempts to 'clear up' any misunderstandings, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker told reporters. "It was not a reassuring meeting…I would say most members left with greater concerns about the inspection regime than we came in with."

    For now, the landmark nuclear agreement forged between world powers and Iran on July 14 in Vienna is on hold. As The Wall Street Journal reports, Iran’s stance complicates the International Atomic Energy Agency’s investigation into Tehran’s suspected nuclear-military program—a study that is scheduled to be finished by mid-October, as required by the treaty.

    The IAEA and its director-general, Yukiya Amano, have been trying for more than five years to debrief Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi, an Iranian military officer the U.S., Israel and IAEA suspect oversaw weaponization work in Tehran until at least 2003.

     

    Mr. Amano said Tehran still hasn’t agreed to let Mr. Fakhrizadeh or other Iranian military officers and nuclear scientists help the IAEA complete its investigation. The Japanese diplomat indicated that he believed his agency could complete its probe even without access to top-level Iranian personnel.

     

    Tehran has repeatedly denied it ever had a secret nuclear weapons program.

     

    But Mr. Amano said in a 25-minute interview in Washington that Iran still hasn’t agreed to provide access to Mr. Fakhrizadeh or other top Iranian military officers and nuclear scientists to assist the IAEA in completing its probe.

     

    “We don’t know yet,” Mr. Amano said about the agency’s interview requests. “If someone who has a different name to Fakhrizadeh can clarify our issues, that is fine with us.

    But, as CNN reports, the intelligence community believes Iran has been attempting to clean up the suspected nuclear site at Parchin prior to the arrival of international inspectors based on new satellite imagery, a senior intelligence official told CNN on Wednesday.

    The commercial imagery shows that Iran has moved heavy construction equipment to the area. But the senior intelligence official, who is familiar with the imagery in question, said the U.S. is confident that such sanitization efforts cannot succeed because radioactive materials, if present, are extremely difficult to conceal.

     

    "The (International Atomic Energy Agency) is familiar with sanitization efforts and the international community has confidence in the IAEA's technical expertise," the official said.

     

    Sen. Chris Coons, D-Delaware, told reporters on Tuesday that he has "concerns about the vigorous efforts by Iran to sanitize Parchin."

     

    A furious lobbying effort by both supporters and foes of the Iran nuclear deal continues in the Senate ahead of a mid-September vote on the agreement. On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Iran debate will begin on the Senate floor on Sept. 8 after the August recess is over.

    As The Journal concludes,

    Mr. Amano visited Capitol Hill on Wednesday in a bid to assure skeptical U.S. lawmakers the IAEA is capable of implementing a vast inspections regime of Iran’s nuclear facilities and clarifying the weaponization issue.

    Senate Republicans and skeptical Democrats, however, left the 90-minute closed-door meeting frustrated that Mr. Amano refused to share the agency’s classified agreements on access to Iranian military sites, scientists and documents.

    “I would say most members left with greater concerns about the inspection regime than we came in with,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) told reporters. “It was not a reassuring meeting.”

    *  *  *
    Somewhere Benjamin Netanyahu is doing "the told you so" dance… as Kerry's deal and Obama's legacy hang by a thread.

  • Chinese Stocks Tumble Despite Margin Debt Rises As Virtu Is Unleashed To Provide "Liquidity" After Citadel Ban

    No lesser liquidity-providing high-frequency-trading never-a-losing-trade shop than Virtu financial has been 'allowed' to trade Chinese capital markets. Coming just days after Citadel's ban, one can only assume that Chinese regulators made a deal with the devil CEO Doug Cifu to levitate markets at any and every cost in order to pick up pennies in front of de-leveraging, over-margined army of farmers and grandmas now seeking exits. Sure enough for the second day in a row margin debt is on the rise again. The retail-dominated Chinese stock market will be ripe picking for the HFTs, as long as not to many are allowed and a tail-chasing flash-crash ensues… but for now its appears yesterday afternoon's selling pressure continues with CSI-300 down almost 2% at the open.

    Each bounce yesterday saw immediate selling pressure..

     

    All that matters for now is keeping Shanghai Composite above the 200-day moving average…

     

    So today's key level will be what happens when SHCOMP hits 3574?

     

    And it appears the 200DMA will be tested again…

    • *CHINA'S CSI 300 INDEX SET TO OPEN DOWN 1.7% TO 3,802.93
    • *CHINA SHANGHAI COMPOSITE SET TO OPEN DOWN 1.9% TO 3,625.50

     

    As Bloomberg reports, Virtu Financial Inc., one of the world’s biggest high-speed trading firms, has started trading in its 35th country: China.

    The company reached an agreement during the second quarter with a Chinese brokerage house to provide liquidity on “a very limited basis,” according to Virtu Chief Executive Officer Doug Cifu. Virtu is using automated market-making strategies to buy and sell commodities listed in mainland China. In other markets, it trades other assets including stocks and currencies.

     

    “This agreement is the first step in what we view as a very long process,” Cifu said in a conference call on Wednesday. He did not identify the firm’s Chinese partner.

     

     

    Mainland exchanges have frozen 38 accounts, including one owned by Citadel Securities, as the local authorities investigate algorithmic traders.

     

    “We are certainly cognizant of the recent market volatility in China, and the regulatory scrutiny being placed on electronic trading by the local regulator,” Cifu said. “Long term, we view China as an established capital market with volumes comparable to the largest markets in which we operate.”

     

    Virtu will confine its presence to Chinese data centers. It won’t be opening offices or “putting boots on the ground,” he said.

    What does it take for famers to learn?

    • *SHANGHAI EXCHANGE MARGIN DEBT RISES FOR SECOND DAY

    Another crash it would appear…

    *  *  *

    Having tried (and failed) with everything so far, it seems China is willing to unleash HFT hell on their retail citizens… we suspect Virtu's agreement will be torn up if stocks drop any more..

  • Japan's Dire Message To Yellen: "Don't Raise Rates Soon"

    Originally posted at KesslerCompanies.com,

    We think it is more useful to compare economics and interest rates in

    • the period since 2007 in the U.S. (The Great Recession) with
    • the period since 1990 in Japan (Japan’s 2+ lost decades) as well as
    • the period after 1929 in the US (The Great Depression)

    ...because they are all periods of a ‘balance-sheet recession’ (or similarly, ‘secular stagnation’).

    Many commentators and policy makers don’t fully appreciate or acknowledge this distinction from the more frequent ‘inventory-cycle’ type recessions.

    There are so many parallels between these three that it is next to impossible to dismiss the comparison. (note: for a previous writing of ours on this topic, click here) Using this, there is an important lesson for the Fed to consider now in weighing whether to raise rates.

    In the two charts below, we’ve offset US interest rates to Japan’s interest rates by 16 years to roughly align the major peaks in their respective main stock markets. The charts each cover a 27 year period. Other than the US lowering rates quicker than in Japan (Ben Bernanke’s main legacy), and Japan’s term rates starting the cycle in the 8%+ range, these charts are quite similar; interest rates steadily grind lower over a long period of time.

    Soon after the ‘NOW’ line in the comparison below, Japan raised rates one time in August 2000 (top chart) from 0.0% to 0.25%, yet almost immediately, term interest rates crashed as the economy faltered. Within 7 months, the Bank of Japan had to lower short-term rates back to 0.15% in February 2001 (note: the US interest rate target is already at 0.125%, not 0%). As US short-term interest rate expectations are priced now (dotted blue line in lower chart), the market expects a continuous Fed raising cycle to about 3% in 2024. We continue to think that the Fed Funds rate will be forced to stay much lower than that over the next 10 years, and all rates across the yield curve will need to drop to reflect that.

    But there is a more specific issue that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) faces at their next few meetings. The FOMC have, for a very long time, predictably moved their policy levers in opposition to the state of macroeconomics. In taking a survey of economics now, the US economy could easily warrant a further easing of policy. Wage stagnation, output gap slack, global recession-level commodity prices, sub-target inflation, China’s slowdown in its early stages, the rest of the world’s central banks in an easing mode, and US production indicators showing weakness are each, by themselves, a good reason not to raise rates. 

    Yet, part of the FOMC is contemplating a ‘philosophical’ rate rise this year simply because the Fed funds rate has been near 0% for close to 7 years, and it somehow seems reckless to them to leave the rate low indefinitely.

    Our suggestion to the FOMC as we approach these dates is to be extra careful, look at the historical comparisons, and don’t underestimate the trust the markets have for the FOMC to act rationally. We all expect the FOMC to act counter-cyclically; a rate rise now would be pro-cyclical, or making the problem worse. Anything FOMC members say after a ‘philosophical’ rate rise would greatly diminish its value. This comparison with Japan suggests that raising rates prematurely is detrimental and avoidable.

     

  • Cash-Strapped Saudi Arabia Hopes To Continue War Against Shale With Fed's Blessing

    Two weeks ago, Morgan Stanley made a decisively bearish call on oil, noting that if the forward curve was any indication, the recovery in prices will be “far worse than 1986” meaning “there would be little in analysable history that could be a guide to [the] cycle.”

    As we said at the time, “those who contend that the downturn simply cannot last much longer are perhaps ignoring the underlying narrative that helps to explain why the situation looks like it does.”

    “At heart,” we continued, “this is a struggle between the Fed’s ZIRP and the Saudis, who appear set to outlast the easy money that’s kept US producers alive.” This is an allusion to the fact that the weakest players in the US shale industry – which the Saudis figure they can effectively wipe out – have been able to hold on thus far thanks largely to accommodative capital markets.

    But persistently low crude prices – which, if you believe Morgan Stanley, are at this point driven pretty much entirely by OPEC supply – are taking their toll on producers the world over. That is, the damage isn’t confined to US producers.

    In fact, the protracted downturn in prices is slowly killing the petrodollar and exporters sucked liquidity from global markets for the first time in 18 years in 2014. To let Goldman tell it, a “new (lower) oil price equilibrium will reduce the supply of petrodollars by up to US$24 bn per month in the coming years, corresponding to around US$860 bn” by 2018.

    As Bloomberg noted a few months back, the turmoil in commodities has produced a “concomitant drop in FX reserves … in nations from oil producer Oman to copper-rich Chile and cotton-growing Burkina Faso.”

    And don’t forget Saudi Arabia which, as you can see from the chart below, isn’t immune to the ill-effects of its own policies.

    The financial strain comes at an inopportune time for the Saudis and indeed, as we noted when the country moved to open its stock market to foreign investment in June, “the move to allow direct foreign ownership of domestic equities [may reflect the fact that] falling crude prices and military action in Yemen have weighed on Saudi Arabia’s fiscal position.”

    “Our forecast is for Brent to average US$54 per barrel in 2015 [and] at this price, we expect total Saudi government revenues to fall by some 41% in 2015.[resulting] in [sharp] cuts to expenditures,” Citi said at the time.

    Now that Saudi boots are officially on the ground in Yemen (if only to provide “training“) and now that it appears the Kingdom is prepared to step up its military efforts in Syria, the financial strain from lower crude prices looks set to drive the Saudis into the bond market. Here’s FT with more:

    Saudi Arabia is returning to the bond market with a plan to raise $27bn by the end of the year, in the starkest sign yet of the strain lower oil prices are putting on the finances of the world’s largest oil exporter.

     

    Bankers say the kingdom’s central bank has been sounding out demand for an issuance of about SR20bn ($5.3bn) a month in bonds — in tranches of five, seven and 10 years — for the rest of the year.

     

    The latest plans represent a major expansion of that programme, which bankers believe could even extend into 2016, given the outlook for the oil price.

     

    Saudi Arabia’s resort to further domestic borrowing highlights the challenges facing the region’s largest economy amid one of the steepest falls in the oil price in recent decades. Brent, the international benchmark, has dropped from $115 a barrel in June last year to about $50 this week.

     

    Oil’s decline accelerated in November when Opec, the producers’ cartel, decided not to cut output, a major departure from its traditional policy of trimming production to prop up prices. Saudi Arabia said it was an attempt to defend market share against rivals such as the US shale industry.

     

    But the decision to ride out a sustained period of lower prices has put a huge strain on the finances of major oil exporters, including Saudi Arabia which requires an oil price of $105 a barrel to balance its budget.

     

    The kingdom has drained $65bn of its fiscal reserves to maintain government spending since the oil price plunge began. Sama currently has $672bn in foreign reserves, down from their peak of $737bn in August 2014.

     

    The plan to resort to capital markets, if confirmed, demonstrates the priority Riyadh is placing on maintaining government spending, despite the pressure cheap oil is putting on its budget.

     

    The monthly bond issuance plan would only cover part of the deficit, which economists estimate will reach SR400bn this year amid falling revenues and continuing high expenditure on big infrastructure projects, public sector wages and the continuing war in Yemen.

    In case the irony here isn’t clear, allow us to explain.

    Saudi Arabia has effectively kept oil prices suppressed in an effort to wipe out the US shale industry which has only managed to stay afloat this long because Fed policies have kept monetary conditions loose and driven investors into HY credit and other risk assets. Now, Saudi Arabia is set to take advantage of the very same forgiving capital markets that have served to keep its US competition in business as persistently low oil prices and two armed conflicts look set to strain the Kingdom’s finances. 

    Of course one option for keeping the cash drain to a minimum would be to avoid getting involved in multiple regional proxy wars – but where’s the fun in that? 

  • Police Officer Caught On Tape Discussing "Ways To Kill A Black Man And Cover It Up"

    Earlier this week we reported a stunning statistic: in July, the US police had killed 118 people mostly through gunfire, the highest number of police “induced” fatalities in 2015, and on pace for a record 1150 deaths for all of 2015.

    To be sure, most of these deaths took place in the “ordinary course” of police business, primarily in self-defense. However, two things are troubling:

    • first is that even after a surge in police violence and scandals involving on tape killings of innocent people, the US still has no comprehensive record of the number of people killed by law enforcement, which is why the Guardian tasked itself with its The Counted initiative;
    • second, that on numerous cases, the killings took place in “less than ordinary course”, usually involving the police officer making a rash judgment that cost the victim their life, and in many cases shooting without a clear cause.

    But the worst example of what is increasingly, and broadly, referred to as “police brutality”, are cases such as that of Alexander City officer Troy Middlebrooks, was, as NBC reports, was “caught on a secret recording discussing ways to kill a black man and cover it up” by planting bogus evidence.

    Alexander City police officer Troy Middlebrooks. The secret recording of his comments was played to police chiefs and the mayor. Photograph: Alabama state bureau of investigation

    The recording, which was first reported by the Guardian and subsequently by NBC News, captures Middlebrooks during a May 2013 visit to a home where the suspect, Vincent Bias, was visiting relatives.  At one point, the officer pulls Bias’ brother-in-law – who is white – aside and tells him he doesn’t trust Bias. Middlebrooks had arrested Bias on drug charges weeks earlier, and was clearly frustrated that he had made bail.

    Middlebrooks tells Bias’ brother-in-law, that if he were the suspect’s relative, he would “fucking kill that motherfucker” and “before the police got here I would put marks all over my shit to make it look like he was trying to fucking kill me. I god damn guarantee. What it would look like? Self-fucking defense. Fuck that piece of shit. I’m a lot different from a lot of these other folks. I’ll fucking tell you what’s on my fucking mind.”

    At another point, Middlebrooks tells the brother-in-law that Bias “needs a goddamn bullet.”

    And since this is America, and since the entire episode was recorded, a month after that incident, Bias’ lawyers told the city they intended to sue the city of 14,875 people for $600,000. They drafted a lawsuit that accused Alexander City police of harassing him, and included the contention that Middlebrooks also called Bias the N-word. Bias’ legal notice was passed to the city’s insurance company, which arranged a settlement of far smaller amount: $35,000, according to Alexander City’s attorney, Larkin Radney.

    With that agreement, Bias never sued and the incident was quietly settled out of court and ended with the officer keeping his job, according to legal documents and interviews with lawyers and officials involved in the case.

    Middlebrooks, meanwhile, remains on the job. Chief Robinson, who is black, told the Guardian that Middlebrooks was disciplined, but he declined the paper’s request for details.

    Robinson defended Middlebrooks, saying, “He was just talking. He didn’t really mean that.”

    The chief also told the paper that he personally disagreed with the city’s decision to settle with Bias. “It’s a whole lot different if you hear both sides,” Robinson said. It also makes itt seem that the Chief was happy to admit guilt and settle for the smallest possible fine.

    On the other hand, why did Bias rush to accept the judgment if he too thought he had a case? “Bias, 49, told NBC News that he took the money in hopes of moving away from Alexander City, where he claims he was unfairly targeted by police, in part because of his race.” Well, sure, but he wouldn’t have the money if he hadn’t been unfairly targeted.

    Then it got even more surreal:  Bias said that after the recording surfaced, and he threatened a lawsuit, the police added to the drug charges against him until he felt he had no choice but to plead guilty. “They forced my hand,” he said. Bias said he served 14 months in a county jail, and was released two months ago.

    * * *

    Within months of the recording, Middlebrooks was the first officer to respond to a controversial fatal shooting by a colleague of an unarmed black man in the city. He was closely involved in handling the scene and gave a key account of what happened to state investigators. His fellow officer was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing and both men continue to police the city of about 15,000 people about 55 miles north-east of Montgomery.

    * * *

    The biggest travesty in this episode is not the subsequent courtroom screw up, and who did what or why, but the fact that a cop, whether he meant it or not, made it very clear and and on the leaked record, that among the various other standard operating procedures in a policeman’s arsenal, is to kill a suspect while fabricating evidence to stage an episode of self-defense, in this case with a racial bias. Whether he did mean it or not is irrelevant because this is precisely the ammunition the Louis Farrakhans of the world need when in their violent fire and brimstone sermons, they call on those present to “rise up and kill those who kill us“, i.e., white people.

    Because they can simply claim this is in retaliation to what “that guy” did, or said. And that is how race wars really start: not with one explicit catalyst, but with countless small but very meaningful escalations, until finally the shooting starts for real.

    The Middlebrooks recording is below

  • China Responds To US Declaration Of Cyber War

    Authored Op-Ed via Government mouthpiece Xinhua,

    The United States is on the brink of making another grave mistake under the name of protecting cyber security, as it is reportedly considering retaliatory measures against China for unfounded hacking accusations.

    Senior U.S. government and intelligence officials were quoted by a U.S. newspaper as saying Friday that President Barack Obama's administration has determined to retaliate against China for its alleged theft of personnel information of more than 20 million Americans from the database of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), but the forms and specific measures of the retaliation have not been decided.

    The report added that Obama has allegedly ordered his staff to come up with "a more creative set of responses," while a U.S. official hinted that the United States will employ "a full range of tools to tailor a response."

    The decision came amid a growing chorus in the United States demonizing China as the culprit behind the massive breach of the OPM computer networks. As witnessed by most past similar cases, the U.S. government, Congress and media once again called for punishing China for this after a top U.S. intelligence official indirectly pointed a finger at China.

    Obviously, cyber security has become another tool for Washington to exert pressure on China and another barrier that restrains the further development of China-U.S. relations.

    Washington will be blamed for any adverse effects this might have on its ties with China, as all the U.S. accusations against China were made without providing concrete evidence.

    The U.S. government was also self-contradictory for declining to directly name China as the attacker on the one hand, while deciding to target China for retaliation on the other.

    By repeatedly blaming China for hacking into its government computers, Washington apparently tries to portray Beijing as the No. 1 bad guy in cyber space, but this is doomed to fail because the United States is the most powerful country with the most advanced cyber technologies.

    As exposed by former U.S. defense contractor Edward Snowden, the U.S. government has been notoriously and blatantly engaged in worldwide surveillance operations against numerous other countries. To divert criticism against its relentless espionage activities, it portrays itself as a victim of cyber attacks.

    By heating up the issue of the OPM hacking, Washington perhaps also aims to pressure China to restore the bilateral cyber work group which was suspended last year after Washington sued five Chinese military officers on so-called charges of commercial espionage despite strong protests from China.

    China has repeatedly stated that it is against all forms of cyber attacks and will crack down on them, as it has long been a major victim of such illegal activities, many of which originated from the United States.

    China has also called for conducting cooperation with the U.S. side and any other country to protect cyber security and its peaceful order.

    Just like protecting its territorial sovereignty and integrity, China is strongly determined to protect the safety of its cyber space and reserves all rights to counter any outside threats and intrusions. It will meet any form of political or economic retaliation with corresponding countermeasures.

    The United States, which made a mistake last year with its false charges against the Chinese officers, should not repeat the mistake by taking retaliatory measures against China over the OPM incident.

    If it stubbornly implements retaliatory measures against China in cyber space, it will be known for being a cyber bully and will have to shoulder responsibility for escalating confrontation and disrupting the peaceful order in the cyber space.

  • Me So Einhorny!

    Greetings from the Starbucks on the Google campus, which is cram-packed with people and laptops (these aren’t Google employees, naturally; just slobs like me; I hang out here a lot because there’s a Tesla supercharger here, and I can suck down all the electricity I want for free).

    Anyway, when I saw all the chatter about how Keurig Green Mountain was getting its balls blown off after-hours, I was reminded of a post I did way back in November. The post relayed the news that, at long last, famed hedge fund manager David Einhorn was throwing in the towel on his GMCR short position. Here’s a snippet from that post:

    0805-givesup

    Well, David Einhorn has clay feet, just like you and me, so………naturally……….this very public announcement came within days of the stock’s highest point in history. From that point, well, things looked sort of like this (including after-hours action tonight, which is why I’m using TOS Charts instead of my beloved ProphetCharts). It’s basically down nearly 70%…….

    0805-gmcr

    It just goes to show you……..sometimes you have to be just a little more patient. (And in case you think this is an oddball exception, Einhorn actually just announced his fund had its worst month since August 2008).

    A few other unrelated things on my mind……

    • Even I’ve had it up to the proverbial “here” with the Steve Jobs worship. On the radio today, while I was hearing endless coverage of the new opera based on Cold Mountain (!) they let it be known that another opera was in the works for 2017………..about the life of Steve Jobs.
    • Why do I keep getting the feeling that the Tesla X is going to suck once it’s finally released? Every time Musk talks about it (and keep in mind, this goddamned thing has been delayed over and over again, and I’m one of tens of thousands of people with a paid reservation) he whines about how challenging it is. And it always comes back to those gull-wing doors. Just you watch: those doors are going to be failing left and right. The fact they keep bringing up what a nightmare the doors are just tells you it’s going to be a problem, because even with my Model S, one of the (relatively simple!) door handles doesn’t work anymore.
    • Oh, and while I’m griping about Tesla, one other thing………..I think their success is starting to hurt them. It used to be that I could come in at once for service. These days, they are scheduling appointments nearly two months out! I frankly think Tesla has peaked, and – – how shall I say this – – there won’t be any operas commissioned about Elon Musk’s life in the coming years.

  • China's Plunge Protection "National Team" Bought 900 Billion In Stocks, Goldman Calculates

    In, “The Complete Guide To China’s CNY 4 Trillion Margin Doomsday Machine,” we presented a comprehensive look at the various backdoor channels the country has used to skirt official restrictions on leveraged stock trading. Here, courtesy of BofAML, is a breakdown of these channels and the bank’s best estimates of their size.

    The dramatic sell-off that made international headlines last month and, along with the Greek drama, dominated financial market news, was precipitated by an unwind in these unofficial margin lending channels.

    In a frantic attempt to restore the equity bubble that has for the better part of a year served as a distraction for China’s flagging economic growth and bursting property bubble, Beijing unleashed a plunge protection effort of epic proportions that included everything from threatening to arrest sellers to using China Securities Finance Corp. as a state-controlled margin lender.

    In short, the PBoC, with the help of the country’s banks, helped CSF mushroom into a multi-trillion yuan Frankenstein and now that the mentality of the retail crowd (which in China had accounted for around 80% of daily turnover) has transformed from “buy the dip and get rich” to “sell the rip and break even,”any indication that CSF is set to exit the market is greeted with panic by market participants. 

    Here with a breakdown of just how much money has been funneled into Chinese equities by the so-called “national team” and on how, just like the Fed with QE, the PBoC will find that a swift exit is effectively impossible, is Goldman.

    *  *  *

    From Goldman

    China musings: How much has the government bought in the market?

    The Chinese government’s recent measures to support the domestic equity market through the so-called ‘national team’ institution are being frequently discussed by investors and in the media. In this commentary, we estimate the amount of money the ‘national team’ has spent to support the market, the remaining capital left available for use, the sectors that have likely benefitted from government support, the potential overhang on the equity market from government support measures, and our views on the equity market over coming months.

    1. We estimate the ‘national team’ has spent around Rmb860-900bn to support the domestic equity market.

    Our estimate is based on two dimensions: (1) top-down analysis based on our liquidity model; and (2) bottom-up analysis based on fund flow changes in key investment channels based on public information released by relevant media sources.

    (1) Top-down approach: This method suggests the ‘national team’ bought approximately Rmb900bn in the market.

    (2) Bottom-up approach: The ‘national team’ has bought around Rmb860bn if we sum up each channel.

    Potential size, investment direction and the stock holders of the ‘national team’.

    (i) The potential capital available for market support is roughly Rmb2tn (including the money already spent). According to public information released by media sources including Sina and Caijing (July 24, 2015), 17 commercial banks have lent CSFC nearly Rmb1.3tn in total. CSFC’s own debt issuance plus the PBOC’s multi-channel liquidity injections imply a total of around Rmb2tn. It seems the government still has sufficient support capacity in the pipeline.

    (ii) Government support has largely focused on large-cap blue chips and certain defensive sectors. Due to insufficient high-frequency data for fund flows across sectors, we used the sectors’ performance fluctuation from end-June to July and concluded that supportive capital has mostly flowed into large-cap blue chips or certain defensive sectors, such as banks, insurance, F&B and healthcare. Admittedly, the ‘national team’ has also invested in some ChiNext stocks and SME stocks according to media reports and the listed companies’ reports, although these investments appear to have taken up only a small proportion of the total government buying.

    (iii) Which entities actually hold the stocks? Based on information from public media (Sina and Caijing), the ‘national team’ bought stock through three channels: 1) CSFC bought stocks directly (at least Rmb400bn); 2) subscribing to some major mutual funds (around Rmb200bn); and 3) CSFC provided credit lines for some brokers (around Rmb260bn).

    3. Short-term market implications

    (1) Potential index range-trading in the near term

    a. Given the ample liquidity that the ‘national team’ still has, we expect market volatility to moderate and for A shares to find support in the mid-3000 level (around the previous dip, 3400 on the CSI300 Index). Recent trading patterns suggest that government support may be forceful around this level.

    b. On the other hand, the media reports (Caijing, July 8, 2015) suggest that the regulatory authorities are dissuading institutional investors from reducing positions before the SHCOMP Index reaches 4500 (approximately 4600 for the CSI300 Index). Therefore, this level is now widely regarded as the upper range limit for near-term market performance. Once the index exceeds this level, we believe investors such as brokerage proprietary desks will be able to reduce positions.

    (2) Market concerns over the exit by the ‘national team’ from its supporting measures

    Many clients have expressed their concern over the ‘national team’s’ potential exit from the market and view this as a supply overhang. In our view, the probability of a rash exit is low as the market has not yet stabilized and the government has no pressing need for the funds. Moreover, two notable examples of exits from government direct or indirect support for equity markets show long waiting periods: The Hong Kong Monetary Authority took four years to divest stock purchased during the Asian Financial Crisis in 1998 and the Federal Reserve in the US began to taper its quantitative easing policy in 2013, five years after initiating its first round of quantitative easing in late 2008.

  • "Debt Is A Fickle Witch"

    Via The Liscio Report,

    Size matters. Just ask Roy Scheider. As incredulous as it may seem, I only recently sat myself down to watch that American scare-you-out-of-the-water staple Jaws for the first time. As a baby born in 1970, the movie at its debut in 1975 was hugely inappropriate for my always precocious, but nevertheless only five-year old self. And by the time this Texas girl and those Yankee cousins of mine were pondering breaking the movie rules during those long-ago summers in Madison, Connecticut, it was not Jaws but rather Brat Pack movies that tempted us. We started down our road of movie rebellion with St. Elmo's Fire, then caught up with a poor Molly Ringwald in Pretty in Pink and then really stretched our boundaries with Less than Zero – you get the picture.    

    And so finally during this long, hot summer of 2015, a seemingly appropriate time with our country gripped from coast to coast with real-life shark hysteria, I watched Jaws for the first time and heard Roy Scheider as Chief Martin Brody utter those words, "You're gonna need a bigger boat."     

    Prophetically, the reality might just be that the collective "we," and quite possibly sooner than we think, really will need a bigger boat. That is, as it pertains to the global debt markets, which have swollen past the $200 trillion mark this year rendering the great white featured in Jaws which can be equated with past debt markets as defenseless and small as a small, striped Nemo by comparison.

    The question for the ages will be whether size really does matter when it comes to the debt markets. It's been more than three years since Bridgewater Associates' Ray Dalio excited the investing world with the notion that the levered excesses that culminated in the financial crisis could be unwound in a "beautiful" way. A finely balanced combination of austerity, debt restructuring and money printing could provide the pathway to a gentle outcome to an egregious era. In Mr. Dalio's words, "When done in the right mix, it isn't dramatic. It doesn't produce too much deflation or too much depression. There is slow growth, but it is positive slow growth. At the same time, ration of debt-to-income go down. That's a beautiful deleveraging." 

    I'll give him the slow growth part. Since exiting recession in the summer of 2009, the economy has expanded at a 2.1-percent rate. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder but the wimpiest expansion in 70 years is something only a mother could feign admiration for. That not-so-pretty baby still requires the wearing of deeply tinted rose-colored glasses to maintain the allusion.     

    As for the money printing, $11 trillion worldwide and counting certainly checks off another of Dalio's boxes. But refer to said growth extracted and consider the price tag and one does begin to wonder. As for debt restructuring, it's questionable how much has been accomplished. There's no doubt that some creditors, somewhere on the planet, have been left holding the proverbial bag — think Cypriot depositors and (yet-to-be-determined) Energy Future Holdings' creditors. Still, the Fed's extraordinary measures in the wake of Lehman's collapse largely stunted the culmination of what was to be the great default cycle. Had that cycle been allowed to proceed unhampered, there would be much less in the way of overcapacity across a wide swath of industries.    

    Instead, as a recent McKinsey report pointed out, and to the astonishment of those lulled into falsely believing that deleveraging is in the background quietly working 24/7 to right debt's ship, re-leveraging has emerged as the defeatist word of the day. Apparently, the only way to supply the seemingly endless need for more noxious cargo to fill the world's rotting debt hulk is by astoundingly creating more toxic debt. Since 2007, global debt has risen by $57 trillion, pushing the global debt-to-GDP ratio to 286 percent from its starting point of 269 percent.    

    Of course, the Fed is not alone in its very liberal inking and priming of the presses. Central banks across the globe have been engaged in an increasingly high stakes race to descend into what is fast becoming a bottomless abyss in the hopes of spurring the lending they pray will jump start their respective economies. Perhaps it's time to consider the possibility that low interest rates are not the solution.    

    Debt is a fickle witch. When left to its own devices, which it has been for nearly seven years with interest rates at the zero bound, it tends to get into trouble. Unchecked credit initially seeps, and eventually finds itself fracked, into the dark, dank nooks and crannies of the fixed income markets whose infrastructures and borrowers are ill-suited to handle the capacity. Consider the two flashiest badges of wealth in America – cars and homes. These two big-line items sales' trends used to move in lockstep — that is until the powers that be at the FOMC opted to leave interest rates too low for too long.

    In Part I, aka the housing bubble, home sales outpaced car sales as credit forced its way onto the household balance sheets of those who could no more afford to buy a house than they could drive a Ferrari. True deleveraging of mortgage debt has indeed taken place since that bubble burst, mainly through the mechanism of some 10 million homes going into foreclosure. It's no secret that credit has resultantly struggled mightily to return to the mortgage space since.     

    Today though, Part II of this saga features an opposite imbalance that's taken hold. Car sales have come unhinged from that of homes and are roaring ahead at full speed, up 76 percent since the recession ended six years ago, more than three times the pace of home sales over the same period. It's difficult to fathom how car sales are so strong. Disposable income, adjusted for inflation, is up a barely discernible 1.5 percent in the three years through 2014. Add the loosest car lending standards on record to the equation and you quickly square the circle. Little wonder that the issuance of securities backed by car loans is racing ahead of last year's pace. If sustained, this year will take out the 2006 record. At what cost? Maybe the record 16 percent of used car buyers taking out 73-84 month loans should answer that question.    

    To be sure, car loans are but a drop in the $57 trillion debt bucket. The true overachievers, at the opposite end of the issuance spectrum, have been governments. The growth rate of government debt since 2007 has been 9.3 percent, a figure that explains the fact that global government debt is nearing $60 trillion, nearly double that of 2007. The plausibility of the summit to the peak of this mountain of debt is sound enough considering the task central bankers faced as the global financial system threatened to implode (thanks to their prior actions, mind you). In theory, government securities are as money good as you can get. Practice has yet to be attempted.    

    The challenge when pondering $200 trillion of debt is that it's virtually impossible to pinpoint the next stressor. Those who follow the fixed income markets closely have their sights on the black box called Chinese local currency debt. A few basics on China and its anything-but-beautiful leverage. Since 2007 China's debt has quadrupled to $28 trillion, a journey that leaves its debt-to-GDP ratio at 282 percent, roughly double its 2007 starting point of 158 percent. For comparison purposes, that of Argentina is 33 percent (hard to borrow with no access to debt markets); the US is 233 percent while Japan's is 400 percent. If Chinese debt growth continues at its pace, it will rocket past the debt sound barrier (Japan) by 2018. As big as it is, China's debt markets have yet to withstand a rate-hiking cycle, hence investors' angst.    

    My fear is of that always menacing great white swimming in ever smaller circles closer and closer to our shores. I worry about sanguine labels attached to untested markets. US high-grade bonds come to mind in that respect even as investors calmly but determinately exit junk bonds. Over the course of the past decade, the US corporate bond market has doubled to an $8.2 trillion market. A good portion of that growth has come from high yield bonds. But the magnificence has emanated from pristine issuers who have had unfettered access to the capital markets as starved-for-yield investors clamor to debt they deem to have a credit ratings close to that of Uncle Sam's. Again, labels are troublesome devils. Remember subprime AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities?

    We've grown desensitized to multi-billion issues from high grade companies. Most investors sleep peacefully with the knowledge that their portfolios are indemnified thanks to a credit rating agency's stamp of approval. Mom and pop investors in particular are vulnerable to a jolt: the portion of the bond market they own through perceived-to-be-safe mutual funds and ETFs has doubled over the past decade. Retail investors probably have little understanding of the required, intricate behind-the-scenes hopscotching being played out by huge mutual fund companies. This allows high yield redemptions to present a smooth, tranquil surface with little in the way of annoying ripples. That might have something to do with liquidity being portable between junk and high grade funds – moves made under the working assumption that the Fed will always step in and assure markets that more cowbell will always be forthcoming rather than risk the slightest of dramas unfolding. Once the reassurance is acknowledged by the market, all can be righted in the ledgers. It's worked so far. But investors have yet to even consider selling their high grade holdings. It's unthinkable.     It's hard to fathom that back in 1975 when I was a kindergartener, security markets' share of U.S. GDP was negligible. Forty years later, liquidity is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon. That is, until it's not.

    Nary are any of us far removed from a poor stricken soul who has suffered a fall from grace. In the debt markets, a "fallen angel" is a term assigned to a high grade issuer that descends to a junk-rated state. It could just as easily refer to any credit in the $200 trillion universe investors perceive as being risk-free. Should the need arise, will there be enough room on policymakers' boats to provide seating for every fallen angel? That is certainly the hope. But what if the real bubble IS the sheer size of the collective balance sheet? If that's the case, we really are gonna need a bigger boat.  

     

  • Six Warning Signs That The Economy Is In Trouble

    Submitted by Tony Sagami via MauldinEconomics.com,

    On July 14, I wrote about the danger developing in the transportation sector, and things are looking even worse today. Here’s what I mean:

    Look Out Below #1: Royal Dutch Shell reported its quarterly results last week—$3.4 billion, down from $5.1 billion for the same quarter a year ago—and warned that “today’s oil price downturn could last for several years.”

    In anticipation of tough times, Shell slashed its 2015 capital expenditure budget by 20% and is going to lay off 6,500 high-paying jobs (not Burger King-type jobs) this year.

    Look Out Below #2: UPS is a very good barometer of the consumer end of our economy: It’s the largest component of the Dow Jones Transportation Average both by sales and market valuation.

    And UPS isn’t very confident about the US economy. Here is what UPS CEO David Abney said in a recent conference call with analysts:

    If you just look at in [sic] January, the GDP forecast we thought was going to be about 3.1%. Now the thinking in July is about 2.3%, so let’s say a pretty significant decrease.

    Why so glum?

    The continued strength of the US dollar and I think this impending rate hike by the Fed appears to be holding back some US growth.

    Abney has good reason to complain: UPS’s revenue fell 1.2% over the last 12 months. Not good.

    Look Out Below #3: Rolls Royce may be best known for its luxury limousines, but the heart of its business is making engines for jet airplanes. Along with General Electric, the company dominates the aerospace engine business.

    Business isn’t so good. Rolls Royce just issued its fourth profit warning in the last year and a half and is shutting down its $1.56 billion share buyback, introduced a year ago, to conserve cash.

    The problem? Weak demand for its jet engines.

    Hey, if Rolls Royce doesn’t want to buy its own stock… why should you?

    Look Out Below #4: The reason Rolls Royce is suffering is that the airborne freight market is shrinking. While the passenger cabins you and I sit in may be full, the belly of the plane where the cargo freight is held is growing increasingly empty.

    The International Air Transport Association (IATA) reported that air freight load factors have dropped to lows not seen since 2009.

    “The expansion in volumes we saw in 2014 has ground to a halt, and load factors are falling… we have to recognize that business confidence is flat and export orders in decline,” said the CEO of IATA, Tony Tyler.

    Look Out Below #5: The trans-ocean freight business isn’t doing any better; the number of idle container ships has increased two months in a row.

    The number of idle ships (over 500 20-foot-equivalent units) has jumped from 82 to 108. Yup… business is so bad that the owners of 108 ships don’t have any business whatsoever.

    “The traditional peak summer season has so far failed to provide a boost to vessel demand, as the weak cargo outlook is forcing carriers to cut back on their capacity deployment plans,” reported Alphaliner, a container shipping watchdog.

    Look Out Below #6: The reason why all these transportation companies are struggling is that global trade is simply shrinking.

    Moreover, world trade is falling at the fastest pace we’ve seen since the last financial crisis. Global trade shrank 1.2% in May from the previous month, and the little-followed World Trade index (which tracks import and export volume) fell to 135.1 in May.

    Look, transportation companies prosper when the economy is rocking and rolling. However, they are among the first to feel a business slowdown when things turn downward.

    My bashing of the transportation industry is just as much of a warning about the overall economy as transportation stocks. Do you have a contingency plan to protect your portfolio when things turn ugly?

    The best time to prepare for trouble… is before trouble arrives.

  • For Commodities, It's 2008 All Over Again

    18 of the 22 components in the Bloomberg Commodity Index have dropped at least 20% from recent closing highs, meeting the common definition of a bear market.

     

    As Bloomberg details, that’s the same number as at the end of October 2008, when deepening financial turmoil sent global markets into a swoon.

    Dear Commodity Investors – Welcome back to 2008!!

    BPlayer(null, {“id”:”8pb59QgtQyKbKhY_N8MLiQ”,”htmlChildId”:”bbg-video-player-8pb59QgtQyKbKhY_N8MLiQ”,”serverUrl”:”http://www.bloomberg.com/api/embed”,”idType”:”BMMR”,”autoplay”:false,”video_autoplay_on_page”:false,”log_debug”:false,”ui_controls_popout”:false,”use_js_ads”:true,”ad_code_prefix”:””,”ad_tag_gpt_preroll”:true,”ad_tag_gpt_midroll”:true,”ad_tag_sz_preroll”:”1×7″,”ad_tag_sz_midroll”:”1×7″,”ad_tag_sz_overlay”:”1×7″,”ad_network_id_preroll”:”5262″,”ad_network_id_midroll”:”5262″,”ad_network_id_overlay”:”5262″,”ad_tag_cust_params_preroll”:””,”ads_vast_timeout”:10000,”ads_playback_timeout”:10000,”wmode”:”opaque”,”use_comscore”:true,”comscore_ns_site”:”bloomberg”,”comscore_page_level_tags”:{“bb_brand”:”bbiz”,”bss_cont_play”:0,”bb_region”:”US”},”use_chartbeat”:true,”chartbeat_uid”:”15087″,”chartbeat_domain”:”bloomberg.com”,”use_share_overlay”:true,”share_metadata”:{“canonical_url”:”http://bloom.bg/1UnprXy”},”vertical”:”business”,”ad_tag_overlay”:”business/videooverlay”,”zone”:”article”,”source”:”BBIZweb”,”module_conviva_insights”:”enabled”,”conviva_account”:”c3.Bloomberg”,”width”:640,”height”:360,”ad_tag”:””,”ad_tag_midroll”:””,”offsite_embed”:true});

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • 8 Financial Experts That Are Warning A Great Financial Crisis Is Imminent

    Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

    Will there be a financial collapse in the United States before the end of 2015?  An increasing number of respected financial experts are now warning that we are right on the verge of another great economic crisis.  Of course that doesn’t mean that it will happen.  Experts have been wrong before.  But without a doubt, red flags are popping up all over the place and things are lining up in textbook fashion for a new financial crisis.  As I write this article, U.S. stocks have declined four days in a row, the Dow is down more than 750 points from the peak of the market in May, and one out of every five U.S. stocks is already in a bear market.  I fully expect the next several months to be extremely chaotic, and I am far from alone.  The following are 8 financial experts that are warning that a great financial crisis is imminent…

    #1 During one recent interview, Doug Casey stated that we are heading for “a catastrophe of historic proportions”

    “With these stupid governments printing trillions and trillions of new currency units,” says investor Doug Casey, “it’s building up to a catastrophe of historic proportions.”

     

    Doug Casey, a wildly successful investor who’s the head of the outfit Casey Research, is predicting doom and gloom for the global economy.

    “I wouldn’t keep significant capital in banks,” he told Reason magazine Editor-in-Chief Matt Welch. “Most of the banks in the world are bankrupt.”

    #2 Bill Fleckenstein is warning that U.S. markets could be headed for calamity in the coming months

    Noted short seller Bill Fleckenstein, who correctly predicted the financial crisis in 2007, says he is one step closer to opening up a short-focused fund for the first time since 2009. In the meantime, Fleckenstein says the entire market could be heading for calamity in the coming months.

     

    The market is uniquely crash-prone,” Fleckenstein told CNBC’s “Fast Money” this week. “I think the market is very brittle because of high-frequency trading, ETFs, a lot of momentum investors. I don’t think there’s going to be any painless back door.”

    #3 Richard Russell believes that the bear market that is coming “will tear apart the current economic system”

    From my standpoint, this is the strangest period that I have gone through since the 1940s. The Industrials are declining faster than the Transports. If this continues, at some point the Industrials will touch the Transports. When that happens, I believe a bear market will be signaled, as both Industrials and Transports accelerate on the downside.

     

    I expect a brief period of higher prices which will draw in the amateurish retail public. This brief breather will be followed by an historic bear market that will tear apart the current economic system.

    #4 Larry Edelson is “100% confident” that a global financial crisis will be triggered “within the next few months”…

    On October 7, 2015, the first economic supercycle since 1929 will trigger a global financial crisis of epic proportions. It will bring Europe, Japan and the United States to their knees, sending nearly one billion human beings on a roller-coaster ride through hell for the next five years. A ride like no generation has ever seen. I am 100% confident it will hit within the next few months.”

    #5 John Hussman is warning that market conditions such as we are observing right now have only happened at a few key moments throughout our history

    In any event, this is no time to be on autopilot. Look at the data, and you’ll realize that our present concerns are not hyperbole or exaggeration. We simply have not observed the market conditions we observe today except in a handful of instances in market history, and they have typically ended quite badly (see When You Look Back on This Moment in History and All Their Eggs in Janet’s Basket for a more extended discussion of current conditions). In my view, this is one of the most important moments in a generation to examine all of your risk exposures, the extent to which you believe historical evidence is informative, your tolerance for loss, your comfort or discomfort with missing out on potential rallies even in a wickedly overvalued market, and your true investment horizon.

    #6 During a recent appearance on CNBC, Marc Faber suggested that U.S. stocks could soon plummet by up to 40 percent

    The U.S. stock market could “easily” drop 20 percent to 40 percent, closely followed contrarian Marc Faber said Wednesday—citing a host of factors including the growing list of companies trading below their 200-day moving average.

     

    In recent days, “there were [also] more declining than advancing stocks, and the list of 12-month new lows was very high on Friday,” the publisher of The Gloom, Boom & Doom Report told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

     

    “It shows you a lot of stocks are already declining.”

    #7 In a previous article, I noted that Henry Blodget of Business Insider is suggesting that U.S. stocks could soon drop by up to 50 percent

    As regular readers know, for the past ~21 months I have been worrying out loud about US stock prices. Specifically, I have suggested that a decline of 30% to 50% would not be a surprise.

     

    I haven’t predicted a crash. But I have said clearly that I think stocks will deliver returns that are way below average for the next seven to 10 years. And I certainly won’t be surprised to see stocks crash. So don’t say no one warned you!

    #8 Egon von Greyerz is even more bearish.  He recently told King World News that we are heading for “the most historic wealth destruction ever”…

    Eric, there are now more problem areas in the world, rather than stable situations. No major nation in the West can repay its debts. The same is true for Japan and most of the emerging markets. Europe is a failed experiment for socialism and deficit spending. China is a massive bubble, in terms of its stock markets, property markets and shadow banking system. Japan is also a basket case and the U.S. is the most indebted country in the world and has lived above its means for over 50 years.

     

    So we will see twin $200 trillion debt and $1.5 quadrillion derivatives implosions. That will lead to the most historic wealth destruction ever in global stock, with bond and property markets declining at least 75 – 95 percent. World trade will also contract dramatically and we will see massive hardship across the globe.

    So are they right?

    We’ll know soon.

    And of course they are not the only ones with a bad feeling about what is ahead.  A recent WSJ/NBC News survey found that 65 percent of all Americans believe that the country is currently on the wrong track.

    Also, Gallup’s Economic Confidence Index just plunged to the lowest level that we have seen so far in 2015

    Americans confidence in the US economy dropped sharply in July to its lowest level in 2015, according to a new US Economic Confidence Index rating released by Gallup on Tuesday.

     

    “Gallup’s Economic Confidence Index declined to an average of —12 in July from —8 in June. This is the lowest monthly average since last October, and is a noticeable departure from the +3 average in January,” the polling company said.

     

    Gallup said that “unsettled economic” conditions, including tumult in Chinese markets and uncertainty in Europe over a Greek debt deal, as well as US stock market volatility are factors driving lower confidence in the US economy.

    These “bad feelings” are also reflected in the hard economic data.  U.S. consumer spending has declined for three months in a row, and U.S. factory orders have fallen for eight months in a row.

    The numbers are screaming that we are heading for another major recession.

    But could it be possible that this is just another false alarm?

    Could it be possible that the blind optimists are right and that everything will work out okay somehow?

  • "I Pay $271 A Month To Schools And I Don't Have Kids": Illinois Bureaucracy Sucks Homeowners Dry

    Ever since the Illinois Supreme Court struck down a pension reform bid in May, prompting Moody’s to downgrade the city of Chicago to junk, the state’s financial woes have becoming something of a symbol for the various fiscal crises that plague state and local governments across the country. 

    The state High Court’s decision was reinforced late last month when a Cook County judge ruled that a plan to change Chicago’s pensions was unconstitutional.

    As we’ve discussed at length, these rulings set a de facto precedent for lawmakers across the country and will make it exceedingly difficult for cities and states to address a pension shortfall which totals anywhere between $1.5 trillion and $2.4 trillion depending on who you ask.

    For Illinois, the situation is especially vexing. As you can see from the following graphics, the state’s unfunded pension problem is quite severe. 

    (Charts: Chicago Tribune)

    As the New York Times explains, “pension costs in many American states and cities are growing much faster than the money available to pay them, causing a painful squeeze. Officials who try to restore balance by reducing pensions in some way are almost always sued; outcomes of these lawsuits vary widely from state to state. Some of the worst problems have been brewing for years in Illinois, particularly in Chicago, where the city’s pension contributions have long been set artificially low by lawmakers in Springfield, the state capital. With more and more city workers now retiring, a $20 billion deficit has materialized.”

    And while we’ve spent quite a bit of time discussing the various issues involved in the pension debate from overly optimistic return assumptions to the use of pension-obligation bonds as stopgap measures, even we were surprised to learn just how convoluted the fiscal situation truly is in Illinois.

    As the following excerpts from a Reuters special report make clear, Illinois is in bad shape, and fixing things isn’t going to be easy.

    *  *  *

    From Reuters

    Multitude of local authorities soak Illinois homeowners in taxes

    Mary Beth Jachec [a] 53-year-old insurance manager gets a real estate tax bill for 20 different local government authorities and a total payout of about $7,000 in 2014. They include the Village of Wauconda, the Wauconda Park District, the Township of Wauconda, the Forest Preserve, the Wauconda Area Public Library District, and the Wauconda Fire Protection District.

    Jachec, looking at her property tax bill, is dismayed. “It’s ridiculous,” she said.

    A lot has been said about the budget crisis faced by Illinois – the state government itself is drowning in $37 billion of debt, and has the lowest credit ratings and worst-funded pension system among the 50 U.S. states. But at street level, the picture can be even more troubling.

    The average homeowner pays taxes to six layers of government, and in Wauconda and many other places a lot more. In Ingleside, 55 miles north of Chicago, Dan Koivisto pays taxes to 18 local bodies. “I pay $271 a month just to the school district alone,” he said. “And I don’t have children.”

    The state is home to nearly 8,500 local government units, with 6,026 empowered to raise taxes, by far the highest number in the U.S. 

    Many of these taxing authorities, which mostly rely on property tax for their financing, have their own budget problems. That includes badly underfunded pension funds, mainly for cops and firefighters.

    A Reuters analysis of property tax data shows that the sheer number of local government entities, and a lack of oversight of their operations, can lead to inefficient spending of taxpayer money, whether through duplication of services or high overhead costs. It leads to a proliferation of pension funds serving different groups of employees. And there are also signs that nepotism is rife within some of the authorities.

    On average, Illinois’ effective property taxes are the third highest in the U.S. at 1.92 percent of residential property values.

    In many Illinois cities and towns, high taxation still isn’t enough to keep up with increasing outlays, especially soaring pension costs, and some services have been cut. For example, in the state capital Springfield, pension costs for police and fire alone will this year consume nearly 90 percent of property tax revenues, according to the city’s budget director, Bill McCarty. 

    Sam Yingling, a state representative who until 2012 was supervisor of Avon Township, north of Chicago, has become an outspoken critic of the multiple layers of local government.

    Yingling said when he left the township three years ago, the township supervisor’s office had annual overheads from salaries and benefits of $120,000. He claimed its sole mandated statutory duty was to administer just $10,000 of living assistance to poor residents.

    The large number of local governments is a legacy of Illinois’ 1870 constitution, which was in effect until 1970. The constitution limited the amount that counties and cities could borrow, an effort to control spending.

    So when a new road or library needed building, a new authority of government would be created to get around the borrowing restrictions and to raise more money. Today, for example, there are over 800 drainage districts, most of which levy taxes.

    And it isn’t only the number of authorities that is a concern. Illinois has about one sixth of America’s public pension plans – 657 out of almost 4,000.

    Local authorities in Illinois are mandated by law to keep the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, with 400,000 local government members, fully funded. They had to contribute $923 million in 2014, up from $543 million in 2005.

    However, there is no such requirement for the local pension funds. The result: Many of these funds throughout the state are woefully underfunded, and some have less than 20 percent of what they need to meet obligations.

    *  *  *

    The piece – which you’re encouraged to read in full as it contains several of the most egregious examples of government waste and inefficiency you’ll ever come across – goes on to say that reform simply isn’t an option, as the Illinois legislature is filled with lawmakers who have at one time or another themselves benefited from the state’s sprawling local bureaucracies. Reuters also says it has identified nearly a dozen instances where husbands employ wives, mothers employ daughters, and fathers hire sons,” suggesting nepotism weighs heavily on the already elephantine system. 

    Bear in mind that this is the same state whose court system refuses to allow efforts at pension reform to move forward, and while all of this may seem like a recipe for default disaster, just remember, PIMCO sees a lot of “long-term value” in Chicago’s debt.

  • Scotiabank Warns "The Fed Is Cornered And There Are Visible Market Stresses Everywhere"

    Via Scotiabank's Guy Haselmann,

    Part One, China

    An economic slowdown is underway in China.  This is reflected in the steep drop in the commodity complex and in the currencies of emerging market countries. Large imbalances are being worked off as Beijing attempts to shift the composition of its growth.  Policy decision are not always economic.

    New sources of growth are being sought by Beijing as deleveraging occurs.  Since officials care foremost about social stability, they try to preserve as many current jobs as possible during their attempt at economic transformation.  During this period, banks might be averse to calling in loans.  State owned enterprises (SOEs) are pressured to keep producing, so that workers can continue to receive a pay check.  The result is over-production and downward pressure on prices.
     
    Part Two, The Seven Year Fed Subsidy

    The Fed’s zero interest rate policy has provided a subsidy to investors for the past 7 years.  The lure of easy profits from cheap money was wildly attractive and readily accepted by investors. The Fed “put” gave investors great confidence that they could outperform their exceptionally low cost of capital.  These implicit promises by central banks encouraged trillions of dollars into ‘carry trades’ and various forms of market speculation.

    Complacent investors maintain these trades, despite the Fed’s warning of a looming reduction in the subsidy, and despite a balance sheet expected to shrink in 2016.  It has been a risk-chasing ‘game of chicken’ that is coming to an end.  Changing conditions have skewed risk/reward to the downside.  This is particularly true because financial assets prices are exceptionally expensive.

    Maybe investors do not believe ‘lift-off’ looms, because the Fed has changed its guidance so many times.  Or maybe, investors are interpreting plummeting commodity prices and the steep fall in global trade as warning signs that global growth and inflation are under pressure.  Is this why the US 30 year has rallied 40 basis points in the past 3 weeks?  (see my July 17th note, “Bonds are Back”)

    Either scenario creates a paradox for risk-seeking investors.  If the US economy continues on its current slow progress pace, then the Fed will act on its warning and hike rates in September.  However, if the Fed does not hike in September it is likely because problems from China, commodities, Greece, or emerging markets (etc) cause the global outlook to deteriorate further.  Neither scenario should be good for risk assets.
     
    Part Three, “Carry Trade”

    During the 2008 crisis, Special Investment Vehicles (SIVs) were primarily responsible for freezing the interbank lending market. SIVs were separate entities set up primarily to earn the ‘carry’ differential between short-dated loans and longer-dated assets purchased with the proceeds of the loans. This legal structure allowed banks to own billions of dollars of securities (CDOs and such) off of their balance sheets. Since the entities were wholly-owned with liquidity guarantees, the vehicles received the same attractive funding rates as the parent banks.

    When the housing crisis (and Lehman collapse) spurred loan delinquencies, banks had to place all of these hidden securities onto their balance sheets. Since the magnitude of the SIV levered assets was unknown to others, bank solvency was questioned, and interbank lending froze.  Many of these securities had to be sold at fire sale prices, i.e., prices well below their economic value.

    When the Fed begins to normalize rates, trillions in carry trades will likely begin to unwind.  The similarity to 2008 is glaring, except that banks no longer own SIVs.  Regulations have chased the ‘carry trades’ from the banking system into the shadow banking system where officials can’t see or measure the risk. The banking system today is, no doubt, far less exposed, but too many sellers could overwhelm the depth of the market, leading to asset price contagion that filters into the real economy.   

    The FOMC is probably fearful of such an outcome, and its unknown impact on the broader economy, which could explain why it has delayed ‘lift-off’.  It may also be the reason why the Fed emphasizes that the pace of rate normalization will be “gradual”, and will remain “overly-accommodative”.   Unfortunately, the Fed recognizes that speculators do not wait to retreat in an orderly manner.  They are also fully aware that regulations have impaired market liquidity; figuratively shrinking the exit doors.  This is where ‘macro-prudential’ comes in. 
     
    Part Four, Counter-Productive Policies Back the Fed into a Corner

    Few lessons have been learned by market ‘booms’, and the ‘busts’ that always follow.  ‘Booms’ occur when the Fed diverges the price of money too far below the ‘natural rate of interest’.  Easy money flows into ever less-productive assets.  As prices are pushed ever-higher, the yield drop cascades down the capital curve.  The process cannot be sustained. High prices directly infer lower future returns.  Late-stage investors receive the lowest return with the highest level of risk (game of chicken).

    These cycles are tragic because ‘busts’ have negative consequences that are worse than the ‘booms’ are beneficial.  During the ‘bust’, elevated asset prices go back down to their original or fundamental value. They may even overshoot on the downside due to the regulatory limitations that have been put in place during the ‘boom’ years.

    The ‘wealth effect’ is, at a minimum, reversed during the ‘bust’.  There is no ‘free lunch’.  More importantly, after the ‘bust’, the newly acquired higher levels of debt remain.  The result is a lower natural economic growth rate, lower levels of future investment, and more regulation, which all lead to decreased profits.

    Zero interest rates undermine market incentive structures.   Share buybacks have surpassed capital expenditures. Cheap money makes acquisitions attractive relative to new investment projects. Why not, cheap money implies high uncertainty.  Furthermore, excess liquidity encourages malinvestment and over-capacity, and acts as a headwind for both of the Fed’s dual mandates.

    Experimental monetary policy over the past seven years should reveal that attempts at artificial monetary inflation are ineffective. Yet, they give no hints of discarding this failed ideology. Unless this ideology changes, ever-greater quantities of printing just to repair the inevitable bust will be required as the chosen response.  No wonder why Bitcoin is intriguing and confidence in fiat currencies has come into question.

    ·    “Two roads converged in the woods and I took the one less traveled by and that has made all the difference.” – Robert Frost

    Part Five, Notice the Warning Signs

    There are warning signs and visible market stresses beyond those mentioned yesterday.  To list them all is beyond the scope of this note.

    Nonetheless, the impact of a slowing China is being under-estimated by markets.  The steep drop in commodities is telling us something about demand. (It’s not just oil: suppliers don’t frack copper)

    Equity market ‘internals’ are deteriorating and momentum is faltering.

    Similar to 2008, the subprime corporate sector (CCC-rated credits) are showing cracks beyond the energy sector, e.g., into chemicals and technology.  This is typically a late-stage phenomenon and a warning sign of growing risk aversion.

    FOMC members are threatening ‘lift-off’, but markets don’t believe them, because they have ‘moved the goal posts’ of their guidance so many times.  The Fed appears to want an ideal set of conditions which rarely ever materializes. Investors are inclined to stay fully invested until they actually see a hike with their own eyes.  Complacency is high.  Anyone who has entered the financial industry in the past 9 years has never witnessed a rate hike.

    Investing during ZIRP and QE has more to do with fully capitalizing on aggressive Fed policy, and less about finding value for the long run.  The investment industry is so focused on short term investment results that decisions are motivated by the necessity of beating peers and benchmarks in order to keep one’s job. 

    Yet, “lift-off” will reduce the Fed’s subsidy.  Total rate normalization is the removal of ‘the gift’ provided to the private sector.  The process in getting there will be the catalyst that begins the reduction of carry trades and market speculation.

    Positional unwinds may begin as a trickle, but morph into a cascade. Those who try to hold on will likely confront a shrinking Fed balance sheet in 2016.  Investors should do their own homework to understand what this is likely to mean for risk assets (Hint: it’s not a good result).

    *  *  *
     
    Part Six, Portfolio Adjustment Recommendations During Policy Pivot (with a few forecasts thrown in)

    Raise cash levels.  Cash has great optionality enables it to be deployed at better levels.  With rates so low, cash has never had such a low opportunity cost.

     

    Increase portfolio liquidity, while reducing portfolio volatility.

     

    Buy long-dated on-the-run Treasury securities, or the highest quality and most liquid corporate bonds.  I expect an abrupt ‘risk-off’ trade as the Fed begins ‘normalization’ that will bring UST 10’s and 30’s well thru 2% and 2.75%, respectively.  I can envision this happening prior to the September FOMC meeting.

    • If the Fed hikes it will likely help the long end.
    • If the global economy sputters due to China or due to other factors that force the Fed to remain on hold, then long Treasuries will again perform well.
    • If the Fed loses its window of opportunity to hike due to worsening financial and economic conditions then it has few tools left to provide further stimulus.  Moreover, markets might begin to question the effectiveness of past actions and not believe future ones. In such, cries of “more Fed” which have benefited financial assets over the past few years would no longer help risk assets.

    Own US Treasuries versus European debt.

     

    Investors should decrease trades that try to play the Fed subsidy too aggressively even in a world of ‘gradual’.

     

    Take down equity beta and hidden betas.  Hedge, buy puts, sell calls, and buy tail risk on equity exposures.

     

    Set up for a long term structural bull market in the US Dollar.

    • As mentioned, slowing demand for industrial commodities from China is putting significant pressure on the budgets of emerging market countries and commodity exporters. Some of these countries may be incentivized to boost revenues by selling more at discounted prices. EM currencies have been leaking lower all year and have room to fall to levels not seen since the early part of this century.  (Own USD:  EM = lower still, EUR<100, $/CAD>1.40, AUD<.6500)

    Commodities are over-sold, but have been struggling to have any bounce at all. This week the CRB commodity index fell below its 2009 low, sinking to a level last seen in 2003. In many areas, supply continues to surpass any increases in demand.  Oil risks testing the $40 support level.  Other industrial commodities risk falling to multi-decade lows. (Supply destruction takes time, and demand is slow to pick up).

    Investor outperformance in the next year will likely come from defensive strategies and reversing to risk under-weights with an emphasis on liquidity and reducing portfolio volatility.

    “Actions speak louder than words, but not nearly as often” – Mark Twain

  • Mapping The Global War On Terror

    Thanks in no small part to ISIS’ uncanny (not to mention highly suspicious) film editing capabilities, the global war on terror is back in the limelight this year as the black flag-waving, marauding militants have served notice that not only did the death of Osama Bin Laden not spell the beginning of the end for the jihadist cause, but in fact, the world has entered a new era in which the advent of the “lone wolf” attack effectively means Islamic State-inspired terror can strike anywhere, anytime.

    Or at least that’s the narrative, and if the events that have transpired in Turkey and Syria over the last several weeks prove anything, it’s that the terror narrative is just as effective today as it was 13 years ago when it comes to justifying the aggressive pursuit of narrow political and/or geopolitical agendas that might otherwise prove to be decisively unpopular. 

    And so, as the US gets set to justify another invasion of a sovereign country by claiming that the war on terror demands it, we bring you the following map from BofAML which purports to show every terrorist attack worldwide perpetrated since 2000.

    Some “highlights” from 2013 include:

    • 9,814 total attacks
    • Nearly 18,000 people killed
    • Attacks highly concentrated

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 5, 2015

  • Yield Purchasing Power: $100M Today Matches $100K in 1979

    by Keith Weiner

     

    I wrote a story about poor Clarence who retired in 1979, and even poorer Larry who retired last year. I created these characters to challenge the notion of calculating a real interest rate by subtracting inflation. The idea is that the decline of a currency can be measured by the rate of price increases. This price-centric view leads to the concept of purchasing power—the amount of stuff that a dollar can buy. It’s the flip side of prices. When prices rise, purchasing power falls.

    Recall in the story, Clarence retired in 1979. At the time, inflation was running at 14% but he could only get 11% interest. Real interest was -3%, and Clarence had a problem. He was losing his purchasing power.

    Suppose Clarence bought gold. The purchasing power of gold held steady for the rest of his life (see this chart of oil priced in gold). Gold does solve this problem. However, gold has no yield. Clarence is only jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. Sure, he escapes dollar debasement, but then he gets zero interest.

    Let’s look at how zero interest impacts Larry. He makes $25/month on his million dollars. Obviously he can’t live on that. So he gives up his nest egg, for eggs. For a year, he feasts on omelets. Since inflation was
    slightly negative, the same swap in 2015 nets him the same plus a few additional quiches.

    Through the lens of purchasing power, we don’t focus on the liquidation of Larry’s wealth. We ignore—or take it for granted—that he’s trading his life savings for bread. We only ask how many loaves he got.

    Groceries

    If you had a farm, would you consider trading it away, to feed your family for a year? I hope not. A farm should grow food forever. Its true worth is its crop yield, not the pile of bacon from a one-time deal.

    How perverse is that? It’s nothing more than what zero interest is forcing Larry to do.

    A dollar still buys about as much as it did last year. Larry’s purchasing power didn’t change much. However, debasement continues to wreak its destruction.  Steady purchasing power does not mean that the dollar is holding its value.

    It means that prices are wholly inadequate for measuring monetary decay.

    Our monetary disaster becomes clear when we look at the collapse in yield purchasing power. This new concept does not tell you how many groceries you can get by liquidating your capital. It tells how much you can buy with the return on it.

    In 1979, Clarence’s $100,000 savings earned enough to support his middle class lifestyle. In 2014, Larry’s million dollars didn’t earn enough to pay his phone bill. To live in the middle class, Larry would need over a
    hundred million bucks. That’s a pitiful income to make on such a massive pile of cash. It reveals a hyperinflation in the price of capital, which has gone up 1100X in 35 years.

    It also shows that the productivity of capital is collapsing. Back in Clarence’s day, businesses earned a high return on capital. It was high enough for Clarence to get 11% interest in a short-term CD. Unfortunately, the dollar rot is in the advanced stage now. There is scant interest to be earned. Return on capital is low, and so borrowers can’t pay much.

    Retirees suffer first, because they can’t earn wages. Normally they would depend on interest, but now they’re forced to live like the Prodigal Son. They consume their wealth, leave nothing for the next generation, and hope
    they don’t live too long. Zero interest rates has reversed the tradition of centuries of capital accumulation.

    Purchasing power may look fine, but yield purchasing power shows the true picture of monetary collapse.

     

    This article is from Keith Weiner’s weekly column, called The Gold Standard, at the Swiss National Bank and Swiss Franc Blog SNBCHF.com.

  • They Live, We Sleep: A Dictatorship Disguised As A Democracy

    Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “You see them on the street. You watch them on TV. You might even vote for one this fall. You think they’re people just like you. You're wrong. Dead wrong.”—They Live

    We’re living in two worlds, you and I.

    There’s the world we see (or are made to see) and then there’s the one we sense (and occasionally catch a glimpse of), the latter of which is a far cry from the propaganda-driven reality manufactured by the government and its corporate sponsors, including the media.

    Indeed, what most Americans perceive as life in America—privileged, progressive and free—is a far cry from reality, where economic inequality is growing, real agendas and real power are buried beneath layers of Orwellian doublespeak and corporate obfuscation, and “freedom,” such that it is, is meted out in small, legalistic doses by militarized police armed to the teeth.

    All is not as it seems.

    This is the premise of John Carpenter’s film They Live (1988), in which two migrant workers discover that the world’s population is actually being controlled and exploited by aliens working in partnership with an oligarchic elite. All the while, the populace—blissfully unaware of the real agenda at work in their lives—has been lulled into complacency, indoctrinated into compliance, bombarded with media distractions, and hypnotized by subliminal messages beamed out of television and various electronic devices, billboards and the like.

    It is only when homeless drifter John Nada (played to the hilt by the late Roddy Piper) discovers a pair of doctored sunglasses—Hoffman lenses—that Nada sees what lies beneath the elite’s fabricated reality: control and bondage.

    When viewed through the lens of truth, the elite, who appear human until stripped of their disguises, are shown to be monsters who have enslaved the citizenry in order to prey on them. Likewise, billboards blare out hidden, authoritative messages: a bikini-clad woman in one ad is actually ordering viewers to “MARRY AND REPRODUCE.” Magazine racks scream “CONSUME” and “OBEY.” A wad of dollar bills in a vendor’s hand proclaims, “THIS IS YOUR GOD.”

    When viewed through Nada’s Hoffman lenses, some of the other hidden messages being drummed into the people’s subconscious include: NO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT, CONFORM, SUBMIT, STAY ASLEEP, BUY, WATCH TV, NO IMAGINATION, and DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY.

    This indoctrination campaign engineered by the elite in They Live is painfully familiar to anyone who has studied the decline of American culture. A citizenry that does not think for themselves, obeys without question, is submissive, does not challenge authority, does not think outside the box, and is content to sit back and be entertained is a citizenry that can be easily controlled.

    In this way, the subtle message of They Live provides an apt analogy of our own distorted vision of life in the American police state, what philosopher Slavoj Žižek refers to as dictatorship in democracy, “the invisible order which sustains your apparent freedom.”

    We’re being fed a series of carefully contrived fictions that bear no resemblance to reality. The powers-that-be want us to feel threatened by forces beyond our control (terrorists, shooters, bombers). They want us afraid and dependent on the government and its militarized armies for our safety and well-being. They want us distrustful of each other, divided by our prejudices, and at each other’s throats. Most of all, they want us to continue to march in lockstep with their dictates.

    Tune out the government’s attempts to distract, divert and befuddle us and tune into what’s really going on in this country, and you’ll run headlong into an unmistakable, unpalatable truth: the moneyed elite who rule us view us as expendable resources to be used, abused and discarded.

    In fact, a 2014 study conducted by Princeton and Northwestern University concluded that the U.S. government does not represent the majority of American citizens. Instead, the study found that the government is ruled by the rich and powerful, or the so-called “economic elite.” Moreover, the researchers concluded that policies enacted by this governmental elite nearly always favor special interests and lobbying groups.

    In other words, we are being ruled by an oligarchy disguised as a democracy, and arguably on our way towards fascism—a form of government where private corporate interests rule, money calls the shots, and the people are seen as mere subjects to be controlled.

    Consider this: it is estimated that the 2016 presidential election could cost as much as $5 billion, more than double what was spent getting Obama re-elected in 2012.

    Not only do you have to be rich—or beholden to the rich—to get elected these days, but getting elected is also a surefire way to get rich. As CBS News reports, “Once in office, members of Congress enjoy access to connections and information they can use to increase their wealth, in ways that are unparalleled in the private sector. And once politicians leave office, their connections allow them to profit even further.”

    In denouncing this blatant corruption of America’s political system, former president Jimmy Carter blasted the process of getting elected—to the White House, governor’s mansion, Congress or state legislatures—as “unlimited political bribery… a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over.”

    Rest assured that when and if fascism finally takes hold in America, the basic forms of government will remain. As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, fascism will appear to be friendly. The legislators will be in session. There will be elections, and the news media will continue to cover the entertainment and political trivia. Consent of the governed, however, will no longer apply. Actual control will have finally passed to the oligarchic elite controlling the government behind the scenes.

    By creating the illusion that it preserves democratic traditions, fascism creeps slowly until it consumes the political system. And 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, criminalize virtually every form of behavior, and build enough private prisons to house all of us nonviolent criminals.

    Clearly, we are now ruled by an oligarchic elite of governmental and corporate interests. We have moved into “corporatism” (favored by Benito Mussolini), which is a halfway point on the road to full-blown fascism.

    Vast sectors of the economy, government and politics are managed by private business concerns, otherwise referred to as “privatization” by various government politicians. Just study modern government policies. “Every industry is regulated. Every profession is classified and organized,” writes economic analyst 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.”

    In other words, the government in America today does whatever it wants.

    Corporatism is where the few moneyed interests—not elected by the citizenry—rule over the many. In this way, it is not a democracy or a republican form of government, which is what the American government was established to be. It is a top-down form of government and one which has a terrifying history typified by the developments that occurred in totalitarian regimes of the past: police states where everyone is watched and spied on, rounded up for minor infractions by government agents, placed under police control, and placed in detention (a.k.a. concentration) camps.

    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. But why would a people agree to such an oppressive regime? The answer is the same in every age: fear.

    Fear makes people stupid.

    Fear is the method most often used by politicians to increase the power of government. And, as most social commentators recognize, an atmosphere of fear permeates modern America: fear of terrorism, fear of the police, fear of our neighbors and so on.

    The propaganda of fear has been used quite effectively by those who want to gain control, and it is working on the American populace.

    Despite the fact that we are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack; 11,000 times more likely to die from an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane; 1,048 times more likely to die from a car accident than a terrorist attack, and 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist, we have handed over control of our lives to government officials who treat us as a means to an end—the source of money and power.

    We have allowed ourselves to become fearful, controlled, pacified zombies.

    In this regard, we’re not so different from the oppressed citizens in They Live. Most everyone keeps their heads down these days while staring zombie-like into an electronic screen, even when they’re crossing the street. Families sit in restaurants with their heads down, separated by their screen devices and unaware of what’s going on around them. Young people especially seem dominated by the devices they hold in their hands, oblivious to the fact that they can simply push a button, turn the thing off and walk away.

    Indeed, there is no larger group activity than that connected with those who watch screens—that is, television, lap tops, personal computers, cell phones and so on. In fact, a Nielsen study reports that American screen viewing is at an all-time high. For example, the average American watches approximately 151 hours of television per month.

    The question, of course, is what effect does such screen consumption have on one’s mind?

    Psychologically it is similar to drug addiction. Researchers found that “almost immediately after turning on the TV, subjects reported feeling more relaxed, and because this occurs so quickly and the tension returns so rapidly after the TV is turned off, people are conditioned to associate TV viewing with a lack of tension.” Research also shows that regardless of the programming, viewers’ brain waves slow down, thus transforming them into a more passive, nonresistant state.

    Historically, television has been used by those in authority to quiet discontent and pacify disruptive people. “Faced with severe overcrowding and limited budgets for rehabilitation and counseling, more and more prison officials are using TV to keep inmates quiet,” according to Newsweek.

    Given that the majority of what Americans watch on television is provided through channels controlled by six mega corporations, what we watch is now controlled by a corporate elite and, if that elite needs to foster a particular viewpoint or pacify its viewers, it can do so on a large scale.

    If we’re watching, we’re not doing.

    The powers-that-be understand this. As television journalist Edward R. Murrow warned in a 1958 speech:

    We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

    This brings me back to They Live, in which the real zombies are not the aliens calling the shots but the populace who are content to remain controlled.

    When all is said and done, the world of They Live is not so different from our own. As one of the characters points out, “The poor and the underclass are growing. Racial justice and human rights are nonexistent. They have created a repressive society and we are their unwitting accomplices. Their intention to rule rests with the annihilation of consciousness. We have been lulled into a trance. They have made us indifferent to ourselves, to others. We are focused only on our own gain.”

    We, too, are focused only on our own pleasures, prejudices and gains. Our poor and underclasses are also growing. Racial injustice is growing. Human rights is nearly nonexistent. We too have been lulled into a trance, indifferent to others.

    Oblivious to what lies ahead, we’ve been manipulated into believing that if we continue to consume, obey, and have faith, things will work out. But that’s never been true of emerging regimes. And by the time we feel the hammer coming down upon us, it will be too late.

  • Chinese Stock Short Squeeze Stalls After IMF Delays Decision On Yuan SDR Inclusion

    Yesterday afternoon’s meltup short-squeeze in China – after regulators announced their latest restrictions on short-selling – has stalled in the early trading tonight following The IMF’s decision to delay inclusion of Yuan in the SDR pending a review in September 2016. Though this will be a disappointment to the Chinese, the door is still open though given waringse from BMW and Toyota over “normalizing” auto sales, the market problems may be morphing quickly into economic problems.

    Chinese stocks see a modest lift at the open…

     

    The IMF has delayed its decision on including The Yuan in The SDR…

    • *IMF ISSUES REPORT ON CRITERIA FOR YUAN RESERVE-CURRENCY STATUS
    • *IMF STAFF PROPOSES DELAYING ANY CHANGE IN SDR TO SEPT. 2016
    • *IMF SAYS `SIGNIFICANT WORK REMAINS’ ON REVIEW OF YUAN IN SDR
    • *IMF: OPERATIONAL ISSUES MUST BE RESOLVED IF YUAN PART OF SDR
    • *IMF: YUAN MADE `SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS’ ON INTL USE SINCE 2010

    As Bloomberg reports, though there is a delay the endgame remains in sight…

    The International Monetary Fund said the yuan trails its global counterparts in major benchmarks and that “significant work” in analyzing data is needed before deciding whether to grant the Chinese currency reserve status.

     

    IMF staff members also opened the door to a possible delay in any approval with a proposal to postpone by nine months, until September 2016, the implementation of a change in the basket of currencies that make up the lender’s Special Drawing Rights, according to an update on the five-yearly review released Tuesday. The IMF said postponing the change would make the transition to a new basket smoother.

     

    The report suggests that while approval by the IMF board isn’t yet assured, it’s within reach, and the decision will come down to more than just the staff’s assessment. China has been pushing for the yuan to join the dollar, euro, yen and pound in the SDR basket; while countries such as France have welcomed China’s push, the U.S. has urged the nation to keep moving toward a flexible exchange rate and undertaking financial reforms.

     

    “The ultimate assessment by the board will involve a significant element of judgment,” the IMF report said.

     

    The postponement sets the stage for the IMF to add the SDR to the yuan just before Chinese President Xi Jinping hosts a meeting of Group of 20 leaders next year, said David Loevinger, managing director of emerging-markets sovereign research at asset manager TCW Group Inc. in Los Angeles.

    “The end game is obvious,” said Loevinger, former senior coordinator for China affairs at the U.S. Treasury Department. “If the Chinese make this a priority, it’s pretty certain President Xi will have his deliverable at the G-20.”

    But problems remain…

    • *CHINA CAR SALES SLOWDOWN ‘HEADWIND’ FOR GASOLINE DEMAND: BMI

    As Bloomberg reports,

    China has gone from growth engine to source of concern for carmakers including BMW AG and Toyota Motor Corp., with both warning Tuesday that the sales slowdown in the world’s biggest market will probably last through year-end.

     

    BMW said decelerating delivery growth in China may force it to lower this year’s profitability goals, as consumers spooked by a stock-market rout and flagging economy stop spending on cars. Toyota likewise warned that higher costs and lower prices are making competition tougher.

     

    “Things may well get worse from here,” Max Warburton, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein Ltd., wrote in a note on Tuesday. “The market continues to deteriorate.”

     

    Carmakers are struggling to adjust to what BMW has called a “normalization” of a market that has grown eightfold since 2000, pushing it past the U.S. as the world’s biggest car market in 2009.

    which is neither unequivocally good for refiners or automakers.

  • Fed Lunacy Is To Blame For The Coming Crash

    Submitted by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

    This week John Hussman’s pondering about the state of our markets is as clear and concise as it’s ever been. He starts off by describing the difference between an economy operating at a low level versus a high level. He’s essentially describing a 2% GDP economy versus a 4% GDP economy. We have been stuck in a low level economy since 2008. And there is one primary culprit for the suffering of millions – The Federal Reserve and their Wall Street Bank owners. They are the reason incomes are stagnant, the labor participation rate is at 40 year lows, savers can only earn .25% on their savings, and consumers have been forced further into debt to make ends meet. Meanwhile, corporate America and the Wall Street banks are siphoning off record profits, paying obscene pay packages to their executives, buying off the politicians in Washington to pass legislation (TPP) designed to enrich them further, and arrogantly telling the peasants to work harder.

    In economics, we often describe “equilibrium” as a condition where demand is equal to supply. Textbooks usually depict this as a single point where a demand curve and a supply curve intersect, and all is right with the world.

    In reality, we know that economies often face a whole range of possible equilibria. One can imagine “low level” equilibria where producers are idle, jobs are scarce, incomes stagnate, consumers struggle or go into debt to make ends meet, and the economy sits in a state of depression – which is often the case in developing countries. One can also imagine “high level” equilibria where producers generate desirable goods and services, jobs are plentiful, and household income is sufficient to demand all of that output.

    The problem is that troubled economies don’t just naturally slide up to “high level” equilibria. Low level equilibria are typically supported and reinforced by a whole set of distortions, constraints, and even incentives for the low level equilibrium to persist. In developing countries, these often take the form of legal restrictions, price controls, weak property rights, political and civil instability, savings disincentives, lending restrictions, and a full catastrophe of other barriers to economic improvement. Good economic policy involves the art of relaxing constraints where they are binding, and imposing constraints where their absence allows the activities of some to injure or violate the rights of others.

    In the United States, observers seem to scratch their heads as to why the economy has shifted down to such a low level of labor force participation. Even after years of recovery and trillions of dollars directed toward persistent monetary intervention, the economy seems locked in a low level equilibrium. Yet at the same time, corporate profits and margins have pushed to record highs, contributing to gaping income disparities.

    Dr. Hussman presents his case against the Federal Reserve as clearly as anything I’ve ever read. Bailing out criminally negligent Wall Street banks with taxpayer money, allowing fraudulent accounting to cover up insolvency, printing $3 trillion out of thin air and handing it to the Wall Street banks, penalizing savings while encouraging consumers and corporations to go further into debt, and gearing all of your efforts towards creating stock, bond, and real estate bubbles, is the height of lunacy – unless you are a captured entity working on behalf of a corrupt status quo.

    From our perspective, the fundamental reason for economic stagnation and growing income disparity is straightforward: Our current set of economic policies supports and encourages a low level equilibrium by encouraging debt-financed consumption and discouraging saving and productive investment. We permit an insular group of professors and bankers to fling trillions of dollars about like Frisbees in the simplistic, misguided, and repeatedly destructive attempt to buy prosperity by maximally distorting the financial markets.

    We offer cheap capital and safety nets to too-big-to-fail banks by allowing them to speculate with the same balance sheets that we protect with deposit insurance. We pursue easy monetary fixes aimed at making people “feel” wealthier on paper, far beyond the fundamental value that has historically backed up that wealth. We view saving as dangerous and consumption as desirable, failing to recognize a basic accounting identity: there can only be a “savings glut” in countries that fail to stimulate investment.

    We leave central bankers in charge of our economic future because we’re too timid to directly initiate or encourage productive investment through fiscal policy. When zero interest rates don’t do the trick, we begin to imagine that maybe negative interest rates and penalties on saving might coerce people to spend now. Look around the world, and that same basic policy set is the hallmark of economic failure on every continent.

    Our leaders have failed the American people. We had an opportunity as a country in 2009 to purge our system of our unpayable debt. We could have allowed the orderly liquidation of the Too Big To Fail Wall Street banks, GM, Chrysler, and thousands of other over indebted bloated corporate pigs. We would have had a short deep depression. The excesses would have been wrung out of our economic system and we would have experienced a real recovery based upon savings and investment. Instead we allowed politicians and central bankers to do the complete opposite. We believed their lies. The system was not going to collapse if the Wall Street banks went down. Rich people and bankers would have been wiped out.

    When a country allows its central bank to encourage yield-seeking speculative malinvestment; suppresses interest rates in a way that punishes those on fixed incomes and destroys the incentive to save; allows too-big-to-fail institutions to use deposit insurance as a public subsidy to expand trading activity instead of traditional banking; focuses fiscal policy on boosting transfer payments to make up for lost income without at the same time encouraging investment – both private and public – that could create new sources of income; that country is going to keep failing its people.

    Jim Grant, Bill Gross and a number of other truth telling financial analysts have described how QE and ZIRP have done nothing but allow zombie corporations which should have gone bankrupt to survive and contribute to the low level economy we are experiencing. The creative destruction essential to produce a dynamic economy has been outlawed by the Federal Reserve. The encouragement of consumption through low interest rates has failed. Economies grow through investment, not consumption.

    Every economy funnels its income toward factors that are most scarce and useful. If a country diverts its resources toward consumption and speculation rather than productive investment, it shelters the profitability of existing companies by making their capital more scarce and therefore more profitable, while at the same time discouraging new job creation. A vast pool of unused labor also has little ability to demand more compensation. In contrast, when an economy encourages productive investment at every level, more jobs are created, and yet capital becomes less scarce – so profit margins fall back to normal. The income from economic activity is then available to both labor and capital, rather than funneling income into a basket that reads “winner-take-all.”

    It seems the Fed’s motto is: “The Lunacy Will Continue Until Moral Improves”. The Fed has accomplished only one thing over the last six years – creating multiple bubbles with no exit plan that will not pop those bubbles. The Fed has trapped themselves and there is no way out. They must either raise rates now and trigger the next market collapse or wait and trigger an even larger collapse. Hussman thinks legislation may be necessary to restrain the Fed, but he fails to realize the politicians are captured by the very banks who control the Fed.

    We need to re-think which constraints are actually binding us. With trillions of dollars sitting idly in bank reserves, and interest rates next to zero, the Federal Reserve continues to behave as if bank reserves and interest rates are a binding constraint – that somehow loosening those further might free the economy to grow. This is lunacy. Fed policy is no longer relieving constraints; it is introducing distortions. That – not the exact level of wage growth, inflation, or unemployment – is the primary reason to normalize policy, and to start along that path as soon as possible. Current Fed policy discourages saving while diverting the little saving that remains toward yield-seeking malinvestment. If the members of the FOMC cannot restrain themselves from extraordinary policy distortions on their own, it may be time for legislation to explicitly remove the discretion from their hands.

    Those who think low interest rates will forever sustain extremely overvalued financial markets are kidding themselves. First of all, the Fed can’t ease. When interest rates are at 0%, there is no place left to go. The credibility of the Fed is already declining rapidly. Once faith in their ability to elevate markets is lost, the collapse will commence. The slope of hope will become the crash of cash.

    The difficulty with creating a bubble of speculative distortion is that there is always hell to pay, and once valuations have already been driven to extreme levels, that hell is baked in the cake. It can’t be avoided, and once investors have shifted toward risk-aversion, history indicates it can’t even be managed well. Recall that the Fed was easing persistently and continuously throughout the 2000-2002 and 2007-2009 market collapses. As a reminder of how fruitless official interventions can be once investors have shifted to risk-aversion, I’ve reprinted the instructive chart that Robert Prechter of EWT published in October 2008, as the S&P 500 was on its way to the 700 level. Investors who actually believe that Fed easing creates a “put option” for stocks have a very short memory of the past two bear market collapses.

    As Sergeant Esterhaus used to say on Hill Street Blues, be careful out there. We are presently at the 2nd most overvalued point in stock market history. It’s dangerous out there. The Fed doesn’t have your back. Anyone in the stock market today has a high likelihood of losing 50% of there money in a very short time. If you think you can get out when everyone else decides to get out, you’re a lunatic. Lunacy does seem to be the primary trait amongst our financial elite, political class, and willfully ignorant masses.

    Be careful here – deteriorating internals matter. The condition of market internals is precisely the same hinge that – in market cycles across history – has separated overvalued markets that continued to advance from overvalued markets that collapsed through a trap door.

    Put simply, the recent market peak represents the second most overvalued point in history for the capitalization-weighted stock market, and the single most overvalued point in history for the broad market.

    When weak participation has been accompanied by rich valuations, scarce bearish sentiment, and recent market highs, the number of instances narrow to some of the worst points in history to invest.

    When weak participation, rich valuations and scarce bearish sentiment accompanied a record high in the same week, the handful of instances diminish to surround the precise market highs of 1973, 2000, and 2007, as well as 1929 on imputed sentiment data – and the week ended July 17, 2015.

    Understand that the present deterioration of market internals is broad-based, unusual, and historically dangerous.

    Read Hussman’s Weekly Letter

  • Russia Ready To Send Paratroopers To Syria

    As Syria’s civil war enters its fourth year, it’s become something of an open secret that ISIS, for all their bluster and Hollywood-level video editing capabilities, are at best an unhappy side effect of efforts to train and arm the Syrian resistance and at worst, are a “strategic asset” funded and supported by coalition governments. 

    In other words, there is indeed a geopolitical chess match going on here that will have far-reaching consequences when the blood and dust settle, but it has nothing to do with ISIS’ far-fetched quest to establish a Medieval caliphate and everything to do with installing a government in Syria that will be more friendly to the interests of the West and its Middle Eastern allies. 

    ISIS will remain in play as long as they are necessary, but once the time comes for the US to clean up the mess left by Syria’s three-front war once and for all, that will be all she wrote for this particular CIA asset. Until then, everyone apparently gets to use Islamic State as an excuse to pursue their own political agenda, as evidenced by Turkey’s new war on “terrorists.” Not wanting to miss an opportunity to justify what would otherwise be a rather brash declaration, Russia is reportedly ready to send in the paratroopers should Syria request Moscow’s help in battling terrorist elements. Here’s more via Tass:

    The Russian Airborne Troops are ready to assist Syria in countering terrorists, if such a task is set by Russia’s leaders, commander of the Airborne Troops Colonel-General Vladimir Shamanov told reporters on Tuesday.

     

    (USSR paratroopers ca. 1975)

     

    “Of course we will execute the decisions set forth by the country’s leadership, if there is a task at hand,” Shamanov said, in response to a Syrian reporter’s question about the readiness of the Russian Airborne Troops to render assistance to Syria’s government in its battle against terrorism.

     

    Shamanov noted that Russia and Syria have “long-term good relations.” “Many Syrian experts, including military, received education in the Soviet Union and in Russia,” Shamanov added.

     


    In other words, two (or three, or four) can play at the “use ISIS as an excuse to go to war with our real enemies” game and just like the US can send in trainers and “forward spotters” to protect its interests in Iraq, so too can Russia send in a few airborne troops to protect its interests in Damascus. 

    It’s now only a question of political will and as we’ve outlined on a few occasions recently, it’s not entirely clear how much longer Vladimir Putin is willing to support Bashar al-Assad in the face of the debilitating, Saudi-engineered slump in crude prices and the biting economic sanctions imposed on the Kremlin by Europe.

  • Dramatic Footage Of Saudi Tanks Invading Yemen

    There are competing accounts as to exactly what happened at the Al Anad airbase in Yemen on Monday, where Saudi-backed forces loyal to President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi reportedly routed Houthi rebels, marking the latest in a series of setbacks for the Iran-backed group which forced Hadi to flee to Riyadh earlier this year, plunging Yemen into a bloody civil war. 

    According to the Houthis, coalition forces were “crushed” and their vehicles destroyed, but a spokesman for the Popular Resistance said most of the base was in coalition hands. Here’s WSJ:

    Forces fighting for a Saudi-led military coalition in Yemen have defeated the country’s Houthi rebels at a strategic southern air base, the Yemeni defense ministry said Tuesday.

     

    The Houthis denied that the base had fallen. However, if it has been captured this would extend a recent turning of the tide in favor of the coalition in the four-month-old conflict.

     

    The defense ministry said the operation at Al Anad, a large complex from which the U.S. had launched drone attacks against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula before the recent instability, was “a true representation of national will and noble sacrifices that are being made to liberate Yemen from the grip of overthrowing militias.”

     

    A report Tuesday by the Houthi-run Saba news agency denied that Al Anad base had been taken, citing an unnamed military official. The Houthis had “crushed all [coalition] offensives” against the base and destroyed scores of military vehicles,  Houthi spokesman Nasruddin Amer said Monday evening.

     

    If confirmed, the turn of fortunes in favor of the coalition at Al Anad build upon a string of recent gains in the south by the allies, which include Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt and a number of other Arab states.

     

    Houthi rebels have been driven from Aden in recent weeks, setting the stage for coalition forces to make a further push northward into other Houthi-controlled areas.

    Here’s footage of the actual battle courtesy of RT:

    And here’s footage of Saudi tanks pushing north as the coalition offensive gathers steam: 

    *  *  *

    Importantly, Saudi and coalition boots are now officially on the ground in Yemen, under the guise of tank trainers. Here’s The Washington Post:

    Saudi and Emirati troops are assisting Yemeni pro-government forces at al-Anad by operating many of the tanks and sophisticated military equipment, military officials said.

     

    A Yemeni military official said thus far, few Yemeni troops have been trained in operating the tanks that have arrived by sea from Gulf allies in recent weeks. He added that the Yemeni military sought help from coalition countries in the al-Anad operation, calling them “partners in the liberation operation of Aden and other provinces.”

    Obviously, that seems like a rather transparent way of saying that the recent “turning of the tide” in Yemen may indeed be attributable to the fact that the Houthis are now fighting an open war with the Saudi army which turns out to be quite a bit more challenging than urban warfare in the backalleys of Aden with poorly trained Hadi holdouts.

    In any event, we suppose the real question is whether Iran is willing to stand by and watch as the Houthis are dismantled by Saudi Arabia, or whether Tehran decides it’s time to provide more than just “logistical support”, at which point Yemen’s proxy “conflict” will officially morph into a regional sectarian war. 

  • Inflation Nation: College Textbook Prices Soar 1000% Since 1977

    Wondering why the drop-out rate from college is so high? One reason could be that a stunning 65% of students avoided buying textbooks due to the cost. As NBCNews reports, textbook prices have risen over three times the rate of inflation from January 1977 to June 2015, a 1,041 percent increase – dwarfing the government’s official CPI data. Just as government-subsidized healthcare has ‘enabled’ dramatic rises in the costs of drugs so government-subsidized education has sparked hyperinflation-esque pricing in college textbooks

    As NBCNews reports, students hitting the college bookstore this fall will get a stark lesson in economics before they’ve cracked open their first chapter. Textbook prices are soaring. Some experts say it’s because they’re sold like drugs.

    According to NBC’s review of Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, textbook prices have risen over three times the rate of inflation from January 1977 to June 2015, a 1,041 percent increase.

     

    “They’ve been able to keep raising prices because students are ‘captive consumers.’ They have to buy whatever books they’re assigned,” said Nicole Allen, a spokeswoman for the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition.

     

    In some ways, this is similar to a pharmaceutical sales model where the publishers spend their time wooing the decision makers to adopt their product. In this case, it’s professors instead of doctors.

     

    “Professors are not price-sensitive and they then assign and students have no say,” said Ariel Diaz, CEO of Boundless, a free and low-cost textbook publisher.

     

     

    But whether individual students are paying a literal 1,041 percent more today than they were in 1977 is not the question, said Mark Perry, a professor of economics at the University of Michigan who has tracked rising textbook prices for years.

     

    “College textbook prices are increasing way more than parents’ ability to pay for them,” he said. At the extreme end, one specialized chemistry textbook on his campus costs $400 at the campus bookstore.

    How rising textbook prices mirrors rising drug costs…

  • Some Clear Thinking About The Price Of Gold

    Submitted by Simon Black via Sovereign Man blog,

    On April 2, 2001, the price of gold closed the market trading session at $255.30.

    And that was the lowest price that gold has seen ever since.

    In US dollar terms, gold closed the 2001 calendar year higher than it did in 2000. Then it did the same thing again in 2002. And again in 2003.

    In fact, after reaching its low in April 2001, gold closed higher for twelve consecutive years– something that had never happened before in ANY financial market with ANY asset.

    Then came a correction; the price started falling, and gold is now on track for 2015 to be its third down year in a row.

    What’s incredible is that, despite its history of gains, and 5,000 years of tradition behind it, gold is rapidly becoming one of the most widely despised assets.

    But before we pronounce it dead and write the final gold eulogy, however, let’s consider the following:

    1) Nothing goes up (or down) in a straight line. After 12 straight years of unprecedented gains with any asset class, it’s not unusual to have a meaningful correction.

    (Just imagine how severe the correction in stocks will be. . .)

    And like all frantic booms which go way past sustainable levels, corrections also overshoot fair value.

    This correction in the gold market could easily last for several more years, with prices potentially well below $1,000.

    But then we could just as easily see another massive surge all the way past $2,000 and beyond.

    That’s the nature of these markets– to be extremely fickle (and highly manipulated).

    Even over a period of a few years, the market can show about as much maturity as a middle school lunchroom, complete with pubescent gossip and inane popularity contests.

    But it’s rather short-sighted to completely lose confidence in an asset that has a 5,000 year track record because of a few down years.

    2) The gold price shed nearly 5% after the government of China announced recently that they owned 1,658 metric tons of gold.

    This amount was lower than what many investors and analysts had been expecting, and the price of gold dropped as a result.

    My question- since when did anyone start believing official reports from the Chinese government?

    Seriously. The Chinese have a vested interest in understating their gold holdings.

    They know that doing so will push the price of gold LOWER, which is exactly what they want.

    China is sitting on trillions of dollars in reserves right now, a portion of which they’re rapidly trying to rotate OUT of US dollars.

    So it’s clearly beneficial to the Chinese government if they can sell dollars while they’re strong and buy gold while it’s cheap.

    And if they can push gold to become cheaper, even better for them.

    3) Remember why you own gold to begin with.

    Gold is a very long-term store of value. Notwithstanding a few down years, gold has maintained its purchasing power for thousands of years.

    Paper currencies come and go. They get devalued, revalued, and extinguished altogether.

    How much would you be able to buy today with paper money issued by the 7th century Tang Dynasty? Nothing. It no longer exists.

    Or a pound sterling from 1817? Very little. It’s barely pocket change today.

    Yet the gold backing up that same pound sterling from 1817 is worth over $250 today (165 pounds).

    Even in modern history, the gold backing up a single US dollar from 1971 is worth vastly more than the paper currency that was printed 44 years ago.

    But even more importantly, aside from being a long-term store of value, gold is a hedge— a form of money that acts as an insurance policy against a dangerously overleveraged financial system.

    How much will your dollars and euros buy you in the event of real financial calamity? Or if there’s a major government default or central bank failure?

    No matter what happens in the financial system– whether it collapses under its own weight, or cryptofinance technology revolutionizes how we do business– gold ensures that you’re protected.

    4) Resist the urge to value gold in paper currency. We all have this tendency– we invest in something, and then hope it goes up in value.

    But that’s a mistake with gold. It’s a hard thing for some people to do, but try to stop yourself from thinking about gold in terms of its paper price.

    (It’s also important to remember that there’s a huge disconnect between the ‘paper price’ of gold, and the physical price of gold.)

    Remember, gold is not an investment; there are plenty of better options out there if you’re looking for a great speculation.

    So the notion of trading a stack of paper currency for gold, only to trade the gold back for a taller stack of paper currency misses the point entirely.

    5) Having said that, if you find it too difficult to do this, and you catch yourself constantly refreshing the gold price and checking your portfolio, you might own too much.

    Listen to your instincts; if you’re always feeling frantic about the daily gyrations in the market, lighten your load.

    Don’t love anything that won’t love you back. Stay rational. Own enough gold that, in the event of a crisis, you will feel comfortable that you have enough ‘real savings’… but don’t own so much that you’re constantly worrying about the paper price.

  • Peter Schiff: What If "They" Are Wrong (Again)?

    Submitted by Peter Schiff via Euro Pacific Capital,

    While the world can count dozens of important currencies, when it comes to top line financial and investment discussions, the currency marketplace really comes down to a one-on-one cage match between the two top contenders: the U.S. Dollar and the Euro.

    In recent years the contest has become a blowout, with the Dollar pummeling the Euro into apparent submission. Based on the turmoil created by the European Debt Crisis and the continuing problems in Greece and other overly indebted southern tier European economies, many investors may have come to assume that Euro boosters will be forced to ultimately throw in the towel and call off the entire experiment, thereby leaving the Dollar completely unchallenged as the champion currency, now and for the foreseeable future. This is a stunning turnaround for a currency that was seen just a few years ago as a credible threat to supplant the dollar as the world's reserve.
      
    Putting aside the fact that there are many important currency relationships besides the euro/dollar axis, economists, journalists, and investors have forgotten the 16-year history of the Euro and how the currency has survived and prospered after many had assumed it might be consigned to the dustbin of history.
      
    The Euro was created in 1992 by the Maastricht Treaty (which created the European Union) but did not come into being as an accounting unit (not a physical currency) until January of 1999. In the lead up to its launch, many had argued that the Euro would become the heir to the rock solid Deutsche Mark, the German currency that had risen to preeminence on the back of Germany's post war resurgence, high savings rate, enviable trade balance, and post-Soviet unification. With German bankers in a firm leadership position in the European Central Bank and the European Union, many had hoped that the new Euro would adopt the virtues of the Mark. As a result, the Euro debuted with a value of 1.18 dollars. But the honeymoon was short-lived.
      
    Almost immediately from the point it began freely trading the Euro began to encounter severe headwinds. The Russian debt default and the Asian currency crisis in the late 1990's caused investors to sell assets in the emerging markets and seek safe havens in the dominant economies. This provided a crucial early test for the Euro. But the new currency failed to attract much of this fast flowing transnational investment flow. On the other hand, the U.S. markets and the U.S. Dollar were beckoning as extremely attractive targets.
      
    In the second term of Bill Clinton's presidency, America, at least on paper, looked very strong. From 1998-2000, based on Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) figures, GDP growth averaged 4.4%, which is roughly four times the rate that we have seen since 2008. The expanding economy and the relative spending restraints that had been made by the Clinton Administration and the newly elected Republican Congress resulted in hundreds of billions of annual U.S. government surpluses, the first such black ink in generations. Many economists comically concluded that the surpluses would become permanent (in fact they lasted just a few years). At the same time, U.S. stock markets were notching some of the biggest gains in their history. From the beginning of 1997 to the end of 1999 the Dow Jones surged by approximately 69%. The tech heavy Nasdaq, the epicenter of the "dotcom" bubble, rallied by an eye popping 294%.
     
    As a result, international money began pouring into the Dollar, taking the wind out of the sails of the newly launched Euro. The stretched valuations that had pushed up U.S. stocks to nosebleed levels failed to dissuade investors from piling in well into the mid-point of 2000. Not only had Wall Street spread the gospel of the new economy, where negative earnings and high debt no longer mattered, but many were convinced that the interventionist tendencies of the Alan Greenspan-led Federal Reserve would protect investors against losses.

     

    As a result of these forces, the Euro first fell to below parity against the dollar on January 27, 2000 when it closed at 98.9 U.S. cents, a fall of 16% from its debut. After that psychological barrier was breached, the selling intensified. By May 8, 2000 the Euro traded at just 89.5 U.S. cents, an additional 9% decline in just three months. This prompted news stories like a BBC article entitled "Was the Euro a Mistake?" Top economists and investors began wondering if the new currency would last much longer.
     

    The Euro's reputation was further tarnished in September of 2000 when Danish voters rejected their country's plans to adopt the Euro. The distaste shown by a small country widely considered squarely in the mainstream of Western European culture was a huge black eye for the Euro experiment. The pessimism sent the currency down another 6% in just one month following the Danish election, reaching what would become an all-time low of just 82.7 U.S. cents on October 25, 2000. At that level the Euro had fallen a full 30% from its debut valuation. It looked like game over. The Euro vs. Dollar was shaping up to be a Bambi vs. Godzilla scenario.
      

    By the late 1990's gold had been in a bear market that had lasted almost 20 years. As a result, investor sentiment for the metal, which had historically been considered a safe haven asset, was at an all-time low. As a result, many Europeans moved into the dollar to seek shelter instead. At that time gold was trading below Euros 300 per ounce (FRED, FRB St. Louis). Those who had exchanged their Euros for Dollars (when the Euro was 83 cents) would have seen those holdings decline by 50% over the following eight years. On the other hand gold nearly doubled in Euro terms over the same time frame. As this article is being written, gold is now trading at 1,000 Euros per ounce (even after the recent big drop) while the Euro hovers around $1.10. So Europeans who bought and held Dollars continuouslywhen the Euro hit its low in 2000 would be down 25%, but those who bought and held gold instead would have seen those holdings triple. (Past performance does not guarantee future results).

     

    The bursting of the dotcom bubble in mid-2000 finally caused a decisive break with the investment trends that had predominated in the previous number of years (see my recent article "The Big Picture"). Just as the dotcom wealth began disappearing, taking the U.S. federal budget surpluses with it, the emerging markets began to recover, and the much-maligned Euro started getting some attention.
      
    By January 5, 2001 the Euro had hit 95.4 cents, a stunning 15.3% rally in just over two months. And although the Euro zigzagged substantially over the next year and a half (with an early retreat in 2002, causing the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to wonder whether the Euro was a "Doomed Currency"), by the second half of 2002 the uptrend was firmly in place, with the Euro reaching parity again with the Dollar by July 15, 2002, 30 months after it had fallen below that level. By April 22, 2008 the Euro traded at $1.60 to the Dollar, a price that represented a 36% increase over its debut level and a stunning 93% rally from its October 2000 low.
      

    But when the Financial Crisis of 2008 reached full flower in August, September, and October of 2008, investors once again panicked as they had eight years before. In seeking a safe haven, they once again chose the U.S. Dollar (perhaps motivated by the low valuations then assigned to the greenback). As funds began flowing out of the Euro and into the Dollar, the Euro dropped rapidly. By the end of October the Euro only fetched $1.26, a 21% drop from its April high. But when the markets stabilized in 2009 so did the Euro. It essentially traded sideways against the Dollar over the next two years, reaching back to $1.46 by June 6, 2011.
     

    Compiled by Euro Pacific Capital using data from the Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) from Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) of St. Louis

     
    When the European debt crisis really started grabbing headlines in 2011, with yields on sovereign debt of the so-called PIIGS nations (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain) widening to record territory in comparison to the sovereign bonds of Germany, scrutiny of the Euro came into question once again. The uncertainty over possible bailouts for European banks that were holding potentially toxic government debt was too much uncertainty for the market to handle. The pressure on the Euro was intensified by the slowing Eurozone economy. These forces combined helped to push the Euro down steadily during 2012 and 2013.

      
    But the straw that really broke the camel's back came at the end of 2014 when it became clear that the European Central Bank, under the new leadership of Mario Draghi, would finally succeed in short-circuiting the anti-bailout restrictions of the Maastricht Treaty and outflank the objections of the German financial and political establishment in order to bring full blown Quantitative Easing (QE) to the Eurozone. The QE program essentially involves creating Euros out of thin air in order to buy government debt and hold down long-term interest rates.
      
    Expectations about European QE came at a time when most observers concluded that the U.S. economy was finally on track for a strong recovery in 2015 and that the Federal Reserve (which has already showered the United States with almost six full years of QE) had finally done away with the program and would begin raising rates for the first time in almost 10 years. Despite a languishing economy, the U.S. markets had once again delivered stellar returns, with the S&P 500 rising 64% between 2011 and 2014, doing so without ever experiencing a correction of more than 10%.
      
    These movements provided a strong rationale for investors to sell Euros and buy Dollars. In the 12 months from May 2014 to May 2015 the Euro fell by about 20%. When it bottomed out at $1.05 on March 11, 2015, the Euro had fallen 34% from its peak seven years earlier. This revived the opinions that the Euro was dead and that the Dollar would be the only real reserve currency for the foreseeable future.
      
    But what if the assumptions about a U.S. economic recovery and Fed rate hikes were wrong? Could observers be mistaken now about the trajectory of the Dollar vs. the Euro as they were back in 2000? While some had warned that the dotcom bubble of 2000 could end badly, very few understood how deeply the mania was the root of the economic expansion and how severely the final flameout would threaten the entire economy. Similarly, very few had foreseen the dangers that the housing and mortgage bubble had presented to the wider economy in 2008. The economic and market contractions in 2000 and 2008 might have been much worse if the Fed had not been able to cut interest rates by almost 500 basis points in the face of the crises. (No such options are available if the economy contracts today). In other words, complacency can be very dangerous, especially if there is no ammunition to combat a crisis if it arrives unexpectedly .
     
    Confidence is the only thing that really undergirds modern fiat currencies. But confidence can be very ephemeral…disappearing as quickly as it arrives. The U.S. Dollar benefits from confidence that the Euro currency may just be unworkable, that the U.S. economy will continue to improve, and that the Fed will raise rates throughout the remainder of 2015 and into 2016. If these expectations are unfulfilled, there could be a Euro reversal.
      
    When a trend remains in place for a while, people tend to think it will continue forever. When it reverses, the shock can be widespread. Just as currency speculators over-estimated the strength of the U.S. economy in 2000, I believe they are making the same mistake again today. But the U.S. economy is actually much weaker and more vulnerable now than it was in 2000. If the spell of confidence surrounding the Dollar is broken, it may also reverse the fortunes of other beaten down currencies. This could present a sea change in the global investment landscape for which wise investors should be prepared.

     

  • We, The Sheeple

    Presented with no comment…

     

     

    Source: Investors.com

  • "You're Gonna Need a Bigger Boat" – Does Size Matter When It Comes To The Debt Markets

    Back in June we presented for the first time the writing of former Dallas Fed advisor to president Dick Fisher, Danielle DiMartino, who in a CNBC interview slammed The Fed for “allowing the [market] tail to wag the [monetary policy] dog,” warning that “The Fed’s credibility itself is at stake… they have backed themselves into a very tight corner… the tightest ever.”

    As she further warned in her first op-ed for the Liscio Report “the hope today is that the current era of easy monetary policy will have no deep economic ramifications. Such thinking, though, may prove to be naive… All retirees’ security is thus at risk when the massive overvaluation in fixed income and equity markets eventually rights itself.”

    Today she follows it up with another insightful piece, looking at the record stock of global debt, some $200 trillion and rising exponentially, and frames the “question for the ages” namely whether “size really does matter when it comes to the debt markets.” As she correctly observes “it’s virtually impossible to pinpoint the next stressor” in the great debt collapse game.

    And while she keeps with the theme of the piece – that the massive wall of debt will need ever bigger boats – by throwing in the occasional analogy to great white sharks, the true “animalistic” symbols relevant to the current global economy are of a more heavenly nature:

    Nary are any of us far removed from a poor stricken soul who has suffered a fall from grace. In the debt markets, a “fallen angel” is a term assigned to a high grade issuer that descends to a junk-rated state. It could just as easily refer to any credit in the $200 trillion universe investors perceive as being risk-free. Should the need arise, will there be enough room on policymakers’ boats to provide seating for every fallen angel? That is certainly the hope. But what if the real bubble IS the sheer size of the collective balance sheet? If that’s the case, we really are gonna need a bigger boat.  

    Actually, what we will need if and when the great pyramid of trillions upon trillions of claims, guarantees, promises to repay, robosigned mortgages and collateral chains in which suddenly the weakest links decide to let all inbound calls go straight to voicemail, is an asset without counterparty risk.

    There is only one such asset: the oldest one; the one which those whose job is to create artificial faith in insolvent counterparties deem neccesary to cast as a “barbarous relic” – the asset which just happens to be at the very bottom of the Exter pyramid.

    The one asset which, in the words of J.P.Morgan himself, is money. Nothing else.

    * * *

    From The Liscio Report, by Danielle DiMartino

    You’re Gonna Need a Bigger Boat

    Size matters. Just ask Roy Scheider. As incredulous as it may seem, I only recently sat myself down to watch that American scare-you-out-of-the-water staple Jaws for the first time. As a baby born in 1970, the movie at its debut in 1975 was hugely inappropriate for my always precocious, but nevertheless only five-year old self. And by the time this Texas girl and those Yankee cousins of mine were pondering breaking the movie rules during those long-ago summers in Madison, Connecticut, it was not Jaws but rather Brat Pack movies that tempted us. We started down our road of movie rebellion with St. Elmo’s Fire, then caught up with a poor Molly Ringwald in Pretty in Pink and then really stretched our boundaries with Less than Zero – you get the picture.   

    And so finally during this long, hot summer of 2015, a seemingly appropriate time with our country gripped from coast to coast with real-life shark hysteria, I watched Jaws for the first time and heard Roy Scheider as Chief Martin Brody utter those words, “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.”    

    Prophetically, the reality might just be that the collective “we,” and quite possibly sooner than we think, really will need a bigger boat. That is, as it pertains to the global debt markets, which have swollen past the $200 trillion mark this year rendering the great white featured in Jaws which can be equated with past debt markets as defenseless and small as a small, striped Nemo by comparison.

    The question for the ages will be whether size really does matter when it comes to the debt markets. It’s been more than three years since Bridgewater Associates’ Ray Dalio excited the investing world with the notion that the levered excesses that culminated in the financial crisis could be unwound in a “beautiful” way. A finely balanced combination of austerity, debt restructuring and money printing could provide the pathway to a gentle outcome to an egregious era. In Mr. Dalio’s words, “When done in the right mix, it isn’t dramatic. It doesn’t produce too much deflation or too much depression. There is slow growth, but it is positive slow growth. At the same time, ration of debt-to-income go down. That’s a beautiful deleveraging.”

    I’ll give him the slow growth part. Since exiting recession in the summer of 2009, the economy has expanded at a 2.1-percent rate. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder but the wimpiest expansion in 70 years is something only a mother could feign admiration for. That not-so-pretty baby still requires the wearing of deeply tinted rose-colored glasses to maintain the allusion.    

    As for the money printing, $11 trillion worldwide and counting certainly checks off another of Dalio’s boxes. But refer to said growth extracted and consider the price tag and one does begin to wonder. As for debt restructuring, it’s questionable how much has been accomplished. There’s no doubt that some creditors, somewhere on the planet, have been left holding the proverbial bag — think Cypriot depositors and (yet-to-be-determined) Energy Future Holdings’ creditors. Still, the Fed’s extraordinary measures in the wake of Lehman’s collapse largely stunted the culmination of what was to be the great default cycle. Had that cycle been allowed to proceed unhampered, there would be much less in the way of overcapacity across a wide swath of industries.   

    Instead, as a recent McKinsey report pointed out, and to the astonishment of those lulled into falsely believing that deleveraging is in the background quietly working 24/7 to right debt’s ship, re-leveraging has emerged as the defeatist word of the day. Apparently, the only way to supply the seemingly endless need for more noxious cargo to fill the world’s rotting debt hulk is by astoundingly creating more toxic debt. Since 2007, global debt has risen by $57 trillion, pushing the global debt-to-GDP ratio to 286 percent from its starting point of 269 percent.   

    Of course, the Fed is not alone in its very liberal inking and priming of the presses. Central banks across the globe have been engaged in an increasingly high stakes race to descend into what is fast becoming a bottomless abyss in the hopes of spurring the lending they pray will jump start their respective economies. Perhaps it’s time to consider the possibility that low interest rates are not the solution.   

    Debt is a fickle witch. When left to its own devices, which it has been for nearly seven years with interest rates at the zero bound, it tends to get into trouble. Unchecked credit initially seeps, and eventually finds itself fracked, into the dark, dank nooks and crannies of the fixed income markets whose infrastructures and borrowers are ill-suited to handle the capacity. Consider the two flashiest badges of wealth in America – cars and homes. These two big-line items sales’ trends used to move in lockstep — that is until the powers that be at the FOMC opted to leave interest rates too low for too long. In Part I, aka the housing bubble, home sales outpaced car sales as credit forced its way onto the household balance sheets of those who could no more afford to buy a house than they could drive a Ferrari. True deleveraging of mortgage debt has indeed taken place since that bubble burst, mainly through the mechanism of some 10 million homes going into foreclosure. It’s no secret that credit has resultantly struggled mightily to return to the mortgage space since.    

    Today though, Part II of this saga features an opposite imbalance that’s taken hold. Car sales have come unhinged from that of homes and are roaring ahead at full speed, up 76 percent since the recession ended six years ago, more than three times the pace of home sales over the same period. It’s difficult to fathom how car sales are so strong. Disposable income, adjusted for inflation, is up a barely discernible 1.5 percent in the three years through 2014. Add the loosest car lending standards on record to the equation and you quickly square the circle. Little wonder that the issuance of securities backed by car loans is racing ahead of last year’s pace. If sustained, this year will take out the 2006 record. At what cost? Maybe the record 16 percent of used car buyers taking out 73-84 month loans should answer that question.   

    To be sure, car loans are but a drop in the $57 trillion debt bucket. The true overachievers, at the opposite end of the issuance spectrum, have been governments. The growth rate of government debt since 2007 has been 9.3 percent, a figure that explains the fact that global government debt is nearing $60 trillion, nearly double that of 2007. The plausibility of the summit to the peak of this mountain of debt is sound enough considering the task central bankers faced as the global financial system threatened to implode (thanks to their prior actions, mind you). In theory, government securities are as money good as you can get. Practice has yet to be attempted.   

    The challenge when pondering $200 trillion of debt is that it’s virtually impossible to pinpoint the next stressor. Those who follow the fixed income markets closely have their sights on the black box called Chinese local currency debt. A few basics on China and its anything-but-beautiful leverage. Since 2007 China’s debt has quadrupled to $28 trillion, a journey that leaves its debt-to-GDP ratio at 282 percent, roughly double its 2007 starting point of 158 percent. For comparison purposes, that of Argentina is 33 percent (hard to borrow with no access to debt markets); the US is 233 percent while Japan’s is 400 percent. If Chinese debt growth continues at its pace, it will rocket past the debt sound barrier (Japan) by 2018. As big as it is, China’s debt markets have yet to withstand a rate-hiking cycle, hence investors’ angst.   

    My fear is of that always menacing great white swimming in ever smaller circles closer and closer to our shores. I worry about sanguine labels attached to untested markets. US high-grade bonds come to mind in that respect even as investors calmly but determinately exit junk bonds. Over the course of the past decade, the US corporate bond market has doubled to an $8.2 trillion market. A good portion of that growth has come from high yield bonds. But the magnificence has emanated from pristine issuers who have had unfettered access to the capital markets as starved-for-yield investors clamor to debt they deem to have a credit ratings close to that of Uncle Sam’s. Again, labels are troublesome devils. Remember subprime AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities?

    We’ve grown desensitized to multi-billion issues from high grade companies. Most investors sleep peacefully with the knowledge that their portfolios are indemnified thanks to a credit rating agency’s stamp of approval. Mom and pop investors in particular are vulnerable to a jolt: the portion of the bond market they own through perceived-to-be-safe mutual funds and ETFs has doubled over the past decade. Retail investors probably have little understanding of the required, intricate behind-the-scenes hopscotching being played out by huge mutual fund companies. This allows high yield redemptions to present a smooth, tranquil surface with little in the way of annoying ripples. That might have something to do with liquidity being portable between junk and high grade funds – moves made under the working assumption that the Fed will always step in and assure markets that more cowbell will always be forthcoming rather than risk the slightest of dramas unfolding. Once the reassurance is acknowledged by the market, all can be righted in the ledgers. It’s worked so far. But investors have yet to even consider selling their high grade holdings. It’s unthinkable.     It’s hard to fathom that back in 1975 when I was a kindergartener, security markets’ share of U.S. GDP was negligible. Forty years later, liquidity is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon. That is, until it’s not.

    Nary are any of us far removed from a poor stricken soul who has suffered a fall from grace. In the debt markets, a “fallen angel” is a term assigned to a high grade issuer that descends to a junk-rated state. It could just as easily refer to any credit in the $200 trillion universe investors perceive as being risk-free. Should the need arise, will there be enough room on policymakers’ boats to provide seating for every fallen angel? That is certainly the hope. But what if the real bubble IS the sheer size of the collective balance sheet? If that’s the case, we really are gonna need a bigger boat.  

  • TEPCO Officials To Be Tried for Role In Fukushima Meltdown

    Submitted by Andy Tully via OilPrice.com,

    A Japanese citizens’ judicial committee has overruled government prosecutors and forced them to bring three former executives of the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) to trial on charges of criminal negligence for their inability to prevent the 2011 nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. But it appears unlikely that the defendants can be convicted.

    The decision by the panel of 22 anonymous citizens, was reached July 17 but not announced until July 31. It overrules two previous decisions by the Tokyo prosecutors not to indict the former executives. The defendants are Tsunehisa Katsumata, 75, chairman of Tokyo Electric Power Co. at the time of the crisis, along with Sakae Muto, 65, and Ichiro Takekuro, 69, who were then vice presidents of the utility.

    Decisions by the prosecutors in September 2013 and in January 2015 said they lacked sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against the three men. In response, the citizens’ panel voted twice to demand the former executives’ indictment, trumping the prosecutors’ decisions.

    Such citizens’ committees became a powerful features of Japan’s judicial system after World War II in an effort to combat government abuse of power. Their members are chosen by lottery and the panelists’ identities are kept secret. While they’re powerful, these committees are seldom used.

    The committee concluded that the three defendants hadn’t taken necessary steps to reinforce the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, situated on Japan’s Pacific coast and therefore vulnerable to severe damage if it were struck by a tsunami in the earthquake-prone region.

    That fear was realized in March 2011 when a Pacific tsunami slammed into Japan, causing widespread destruction, including such heavy damage to three of the four reactors at Fukushima Daichi that they melted down and began leaking radiation. The accident forced the evacuation of tens of thousands of people from the general vicinity of the power plant.

    The decision was good news for surviving victims of the disaster. “We had given up hope that there would be a criminal trial,” said Ruiko Muto, who leads the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Plaintiffs Group, which represents about 15,000 people, including residents displaced by the accident and their supporters. “We’ve finally gotten this far.”

    But the victory may be merely symbolic because most legal observers say it’s unlikely the rigors that the defendants will face will go beyond giving public testimony at trial. There’s also little likelihood any of them will be convicted of a criminal charge because Japanese prosecutors, with 99 percent conviction rates, rarely bring charges unless they are virtually certain they can win the cases.

    Cases imposed on them by citizens’ judicial committees are generally those in which prosecutors have concluded lack enough evidence to convict. One former prosecutor, Nobuo Gohara, told The New York Times that virtually all of such cases end in acquittals.

    In the TEPCO case, for example, Gohara said the prosecutors now must prove that the defendants were guilty of criminal oversight of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant by failing to predict the huge tsunami that caused the disaster and neglecting to protect the facility sufficiently.

    Further, Gohara said, it will be extremely challenging for the prosecutors to prove that the meltdowns at three of the plant’s reactors even killed anyone. Several people died while the area was being evacuated in 2011, but most were elderly who were too weak to be moved during the chaos of moment. But he stressed that no one so far has died from radiation poisoning.

    “This is a very unusual case,” Gohara said. “The hurdles to conviction are high.”

  • Twin Trillion-Dollar Bubbles Prompt Dramatic Rise In Non-Mortgage Debt

    Don’t look now, but the US is staring down not one but two trillion-dollar bubbles, both of which have been documented here extensively. 

    The first is the US auto loan bubble which has ballooned to $900 billion on the back of loose underwriting standards. Don’t believe easy credit is behind the inexorable rise in auto loan debt? Consider the following Q1 statistics from Experian which we never tire of showing:

    • 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.

    Sitting behind the auto lending boom is Wall Street’s securitization machine which will churn out around $100 billion in auto loan-backed paper this year (for perspective, that accounts for around half of total projected consumer ABS issuance). The longer the Fed-driven hunt for yield persists, the more demand they’ll be for this paper and the more demand there is, the easier it will be to get a car loan and larger the bubble will become. 

    Meanwhile, the nation’s student debt bubble has reached epic proportions, with students and former students laboring (or perhaps “not laboring” is more appropriate given what we know about how difficult it is for degreed millennials to find good jobs) under a debt burden that averages $35,000 per student and totals a staggering $1.2 trillion in aggregate. As we’ve detailed exhaustively, debt service payments on these loans are causing delays in household formation and driving up demand for rentals in a market that’s already red hot thanks to the fact that the collapse of the housing bubble turned a nation of homeowners into a nation of renters. 

    Considering all of the above, we weren’t at all surprised to learn that US households’ non-mortgage debt is soaring and the two main drivers are student loan debt and auto loans. Here’s more from HousingWire:

    Black Knight Financial Services analyzed U.S. mortgage holders’ levels of non-mortgage-related debt and found those levels are at their highest in over 10 years.

     

    What we’ve found is that mortgage holders today are carrying more non-mortgage debt than at any point in the past 10 years, with an average of $25,000 per borrower. That’s $1,400 more on average than one year ago, and nearly $2,600 more than in 2011,” he said. “The primary driver of this increase is a rise in auto-related debt, which accounted for 81% of the overall non-mortgage debt increase over the past four years. We also noticed a clear correlation between non-mortgage debt and borrowers inquiring about a new mortgage, with those who have recent mortgage inquiries on their credit reports carrying nearly 40% more debt than borrowers who do not.”

     

    Black Knight found that the student loan debt of U.S. mortgage holders is at all-time high: 15% of mortgage holders are carrying student loan debt, with average balances of nearly $35,000. The average student loan debt for all mortgages has more than doubled since 2006, and the share of mortgage holders carrying that debt has increased by 44% over that 9-year span.

    Here are some of the key findings:

    • Black Knight found that U.S. mortgage holders are carrying the most non-mortgage debt they have – an average of approximately $25,000 each – in over 10 years
    • Student loan debt among mortgage holders is at an all time high 
    • Among mortgage holders, student loan debt has increased by roughly 56% since 2006, to an average balance of nearly $35,000 
    • The share of borrowers carrying student loan debt has increased by 44% in that same time span
    • 48% of mortgage holders have automobile debt as well
    • Auto debt accounted for 81% of the increase in overall non-mortgage debt among mortgage holders over the past 4 years
    • Nearly 15% of those with homes in the lowest 20% of values are still underwater, compared to just 1.7% of those in the top 20%
    • Some 5.7 million borrowers lack enough equity in their homes to cover the cost to sell them

  • Chart Of The Day – Americans Are Not Happy

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Readers of this site don’t need me to tell you, but the following statistics from the Wall Street Journal prove that despite record stock prices and non-stop propaganda, fewer and fewer people are believing the hype.

    We learn that:

    On a benchmark measure of Americans’ unease, 65% of those surveyed said the country is on the wrong track. That is the highest level of unease since November 2014, and nears the levels seen at other historical moments of voter discontent.

     

    In May 1992, after H. Ross Perot had launched his populist independent run for president, 71% said the country was on the wrong track. In September 2007, when frustration with President George W. Bush was peaking, wrong-track sentiment was 63%.

     

    The new poll also found increased pessimism about the economy: 24% said they thought the economy would get worse over the next year, up from 17% in December.

    Now, here’s that chart:

    Screen Shot 2015-08-04 at 2.00.55 PM

    What’s so interesting about the above, other than the elevated levels of dissatisfaction six years into an “economic recovery,” is to look at when in recent history Americans were starting to think things were on the right track. Specifically, Americans became encouraged around 2009.

    Barack Obama said all the right things, and a lot of people believed him. He had a chance to do the right thing, and people wanted him to do just that. Instead, he proved to be nothing but a shameless oligarch coddler, who essentially continued George W. Bush’s presidency without a hitch. Once that became clear, perceptions about a “wrong track” America starting surging again.

     

    So yeah, Americans are NOT happy, and they have every right to be pissed off.

  • Why Turkey's "ISIS-Free Zone" Is The Most Ridiculous US Foreign Policy Outcome In History

    The truly incredible thing about US foreign policy outcomes is that there are seemingly no limits on how absurd they can be. Indeed, Washington’s uncanny ability to paint itself into policy corners and create the most thoroughly flummoxing geopolitical quagmires in the history of statecraft knows absolutely no bounds. 

    This was on full display back in April when Iran-backed Houthi rebels armed with some $500 million in small arms, ammunition, night-vision goggles, vehicles and “other supplies” that the Defense Department “donated” and then subsequently lost track of when US-backed President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi fled to Riyadh, looked set to loot the Aden branch of Yemen’s central bank. Then there was the extremely unfortunate situation that unfolded in Mosul, Iraq last summer when militants that may well have received training from the US at some point overran the city and captured some 2,300 humvees and at least one Black Hawk helicopter which would not have been parked in Mosul in the first place were it not for Washington’s ill-advised decision to invade Iraq for the second time in barely a decade in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  

    As ridiculous as those incidents most certainly were (and there are of course countless other examples), the situation currently playing out on Syria’s border with Turkey may mark a new high (or low, depending on how you look at it) point for US foreign policy – and that truly is saying something. 

    Over the past several days, we’ve traced the escalating violence in Turkey to the ongoing conflict between Ankara and the PKK and to a landmark election outcome which saw President President Recep Tayyip Erdogan lose his absolute majority in parliament for the first time in over a decade. Here’s a brief recap

    Last week, it became abundantly clear that Turkey’s newfound zeal for accelerating the demise of Islamic State is motivated chiefly by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s desire to nullify a ballot box victory by the pro-Kurdish HDP, which grabbed 13% of the vote and won party representation in June in an election that also saw AKP lose its absolute majority for the first time in over a decade. Now, Erdogan looks set to call for new elections as “efforts” to build a coalition government have largely failed. Erdogan needs but a two percentage-point swing to restore AKP’s absolute majority, which would in turn pave the way for his push to consolidate power by altering the structure of the government. A conveniently timed suicide bombing in Suruc that killed 32 people in late July was promptly pinned on ISIS sympathizers, setting off a chain of events that would culminate in NATO backing a renewed Turkish offensive against the Kurdish PKK. The escalation of violence between PKK forces and the Turkish army should help Erdogan undermine HDP’s popularity ahead of new elections. Long story short: Turkey is essentially using a mock campaign against Islamic State to justify a renewed conflict with the PKK (they’re all “terrorists” after all) which Ankara will promptly cite as evidence of why voters should not back HDP when elections are held again in a few months. 

    In exchange for backing Ankara’s offensive against the PKK and by extension, Erdogan’s political agenda, the US gets to use Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base to launch strikes on ISIS. As noted above, Turkey is ostensibly also executing airstrikes against the group (that’s part of the deal) but it’s abundantly clear to everyone involved that Ankara – which has long been suspected of cooperating with ISIS and has provided funding to other extremist groups fighting for control of Syria – is only concerned with eradicating the PKK, and if that means weakening YPG, PKK’s Syrian affiliate in the process, then so be it. 

    The problem here – and this is where one can begin to see why this particular situation wins the blue ribbon for US foreign policy gone awry – is that YPG is extremely effective when it comes to fighting ISIS and indeed, the US has conducted airstrikes to support the group’s efforts to drive Islamic State from northern Syria. Here’s WSJ with more:

    The U.S.-led coalition fighting the extremist group has conducted numerous airstrikes over the past year to back the Kurdish YPG militia in northern Syria, which has proved to be the most effective ground force fighting Islamic State.

     

    Before Syria’s war erupted four years ago, the country’s Kurds were concentrated in three enclaves spread along the northern border. Over the past year, they have risen up to beat back advancing Islamic State fighters, most notably in the border town of Kobani.

     

    The YPG advances have allowed Kurdish forces to establish authority over more Syrian territory than before the war, according to the Institute for the Study of War, which tracks control of land in the fight against Islamic State. In recent months, backed by U.S. airstrikes, the YPG has forced Islamic State fighters out of 2,000 square miles of territory in northern Syria—an area the size of Delaware—according to the U.S. military.

     

    Since regime forces withdrew from Kurdish areas, the Syrian Kurds have secured a degree of newfound autonomy that has fueled aspirations for independence across the region. They have set up their own administration and defense forces that have started taking responsibility for security in the three Kurdish cantons. The YPG victory over Islamic State in the town of Tal Abyad this summer established a physical link between two of the three Kurdish cantons for the first time.

    So essentially, YPG has defeated ISIS in northern Syria, taken complete control of the area, and indeed, only one swath of land separates the group from commanding the entire border with Turkey.

    Great, right? Wrong. Here’s The Journal again:

    The U.S. and Turkey have reached an understanding meant to assure the Ankara government that plans to drive Islamic State militants from a proposed safe zone in northern Syria won’t clear the way for Kurdish fighters to move in.

     

    The U.S.-allied Turkish government is embroiled in a decades-old conflict with its own Kurdish minority. Turkey has resisted working with the YPG out of concern that the militants are laying the groundwork for the creation of a new Kurdish nation along Syria’s northern border with Turkey.

     

    Two weeks ago, Turkey agreed to launch airstrikes targeting Islamic State fighters in Syria and allow the U.S. to use bases on its soil for the first time to do the same. At Turkey’s urging, the U.S. agreed to use airstrikes to protect a border zone free of Islamic State and controlled by moderate Syrian rebels.

     

    The Syrian Kurdish militia has pushed toward the eastern banks of the Euphrates River, the edge of Islamic State-controlled areas on the other side. The border zone the U.S. and Turkey want to set up is on the western side of the river.

     

     

    YPG leaders said Monday they would work closely with allies, including the U.S.-led coalition and moderate rebel forces such as the Free Syrian Army or FSA, in the fight against Islamic State—also known as ISIS or ISIL.

     

    However, they said they had made no commitment not to cross the Euphrates.

     

    “The initial plan is to move to liberate the western side of the Euphrates once the areas to the east have been cleared of ISIS,” said Idres Nassan, a senior Kurdish official in Kobani. 

    That may have been the “initial plan”, and indeed it certainly sounds like a good one, especially considering that, as is clear from the map above, it would mean YPG would have succeeded in driving ISIS completely off the country’s northern border, but that plan will apparently have to change now because Washington, after supporting YPG on the battlefield for the better part of a year, will now deliberately prevent the group from doing what they do best (defeating ISIS in northern Syria) because Ankara wants to ensure that the imagined “ISIS-free zone” (that’s the actual term) is also a Kurd-free zone:

    The area where Turkey hopes to establish the border zone is filled with ethnic Turkmen and Arabs and Turkish leaders fear that the Kurdish fighters will try to drive them out.

     

    “That’s a red line,” said one Turkish official. “There are almost no Kurds in the area that would be the ISIL-free zone. Forcing the issue would trigger a new wave of ethnic cleansing, which is unacceptable to us.”

    To be sure, Washington isn’t entirely oblivious to how ridiculous this looks:

    Keeping Kurdish fighters from moving farther west restricts America’s ability to work in northwestern Syria with a Kurdish militia that has proved an effective fighting force. U.S. officials have offered Turkey reassurances that they won’t rely on the YPG in that area, but have sought to give themselves wiggle room to work with the Kurdish fighters in that area if the needs arise.

    Crystallizing the above and putting it in context is admittedly quite challenging because after all, trying to make sense of something so thoroughly nonsensical is probably an exercise in futility, but nevertheless, we’ll try to untangle the situation as best we can. Turkey has long been criticized for not taking an active role in combatting the ISIS threat that is quite literally on the country’s doorstep. Quite possibly, that reluctance stems from an amicable relationship between ISIS and Ankara and that relationship might well have remained amicable if Erdogan hadn’t lost his grip on parliament in June. Now, the country’s relationship with the militants will become a casualty of Erdogan’s ruthless politically-motivated crackdown on the Kurdish PKK which, thanks to their classification as a “terrorist” group, is now sanctioned by the US which is of course using ISIS as an excuse to facilitate the ouster of Assad, a goal Washington shares with Ankara. Lost in the shuffle is YPG who, unlike the US and Turkey, is actually concerned with defeating Islamic State and is indeed on the verge of doing just that, but will sadly be stopped in their tracks by the same US military which has so far supported them because allowing YPG to complete their sweep of northern Syria risks aggravating Turkey which is a NATO member and which the US figures it may need once Assad is gone and the Qatar-Turkey natural gas pipeline gets the go ahead. 

    So the US is now quite literally impeding the progress of the group which has so far “proven to be the most effective ground force fighting Islamic State,” and the general public is so obtuse that most people will completely miss the completely ridiculous fact that the excuse the US and Turkey are giving for their efforts to stop YPG from routing ISIS in northern Syria is that the two countries are currently working on building an “ISIS-free zone” and YPG, which has in fact made virtually the entire northern border region “ISIS-free”, is not welcome due to its fighters’ ethnicity. 

  • Politicians Seek Short-Term Advantages By Lecturing Capitalists About The Long Term

    Submitted by Gary Galles via The Mises Institute,

    Hillary Clinton’s latest campaign salvo attacked “quarterly capitalism,” the supposedly irresponsible corporate focus on short-term results at the expense of long-term growth. She promised government fixes.

    Short-Termism, Share Prices, and Incentives

    Is there too much short-termism in business firms? To answer this, let’s look at participants’ incentives.

    Shareholders own the present value of their pro-rata share of net earnings, not just present earnings. They do not want to hurt themselves by sacrificing good investments today which raise that expected present value. Owners often tarred as too selfish do not ignore those consequences. Critics also confuse short-term corporate results as the goal, when they are actually valuable indicators of the likely future course of net earnings. Just because good short-term results raise stock prices does not imply excessive short-termism.

    Since share prices are both a primary metric for managerial success and basis for their rewards, and they reflect the present value of expected future net earnings, managers’ time horizons reflect shareholders’ time horizons, stretching far beyond immediate measures.

    Bondholders, who want to be paid back, incorporate the future, where repayment risks lie, in their choices. Workers and suppliers are also sensitive to firms’ future prospects, and the prospect of those relationships being terminated if things start turning south forces consideration of the future in present choices.

    Beyond misinterpreting share price responses to good short-term results as short-term bias, Clinton’s main proof of short-termism was that firms have increased stock buybacks, supposedly sacrificing worthwhile investments by returning funds to shareholders. She ignores that those funds will largely be invested elsewhere with better prospects. But she also ignores that the buyback binge reflects the Fed’s long-term artificial cheapening of borrowed money. When debt financing gets cheaper relative to equity financing, firms substitute toward debt. But a firm substituting debt financing for an equal amount of equity controls no fewer funds for future-oriented investments.

    The Role of the Fed and Government Intervention

    Confusing business responses to artificial Fed interventions as business-caused only begins the list of government created biases toward short-termism. Constant proposals to raise corporate tax rates and worsen capital gains treatment in the future reduce the after-tax profitability of good investments. Regulatory mandates and impositions pile up, with far more put in the pipeline for the future, doing the same. Energy policy threatens huge increases in costs, reducing likely investment returns. And the list goes on.

    That government regulators will put more emphasis on the future than the private sector is also contradicted by political incentives. Owners bear predictable future consequences in current share prices, but politicians’ incentives are far more short-sighted.

    Government Is More Short-Term Oriented Than the Private Sector

    An election loser will be out of office, and capture no appreciable benefit from efforts invested. So when an upcoming election is in doubt, everything goes on the auction block to buy short-term political advantage. And politicians’ incentives drive those facing the DC patronage machine. That is why so much “reform” meets Ambrose Bierce’s definition of “A thing that mostly satisfies reformers opposed to reformation.” The mere passage of bills in the political nick of time, even largely unread ones, can be declared victorious legacies, with harmful consequences never effectively brought to bear on decision-makers.

    Not only is politics inherently more short-sighted than private ownership and voluntary contractual arrangements, there is a cornucopia of examples of government short-termism at the expense of the future, whose magnitude dwarfs anything they promise to reform.

    Unwinding Social Security and Medicare’s 14-digit unfunded liabilities will punish future generations, caused by massive government overpromising to buy earlier elections. Other underfunded trust and pension funds threaten similar future atonement for earlier short-term “sins.” Expanding government debt similarly represents future punishment for short-term political payoffs. Foreign and military policy have similarly turned away from dealing with long-term issues. But serious long-run issues like immigration escape serious attention because “public servants” are afraid of short-run interest group punishment.

    Political attacks on short-termism, and reforms to fix it, are beyond confused. They ignore financial market participants’ clear incentives to take future effects into account. They are clueless about what provides evidence of short-termism. They treat private sector responses to government impositions as private sector failures. They ignore far worse political incentives facing “reformers.” And they act as if the most egregious examples of short-termism in America, all government progeny, don’t exist.

    There is little to Clinton’s criticism and alleged solutions beyond misunderstanding and misrepresentation. We should recognize, with Henry Hazlitt, that “today is already the tomorrow which the bad economist yesterday urged us to ignore,” and that expanding government’s power to do more of the same is not in Americans’ interests.

     

  • Creditors May Have To Hire Pirates To Seize Oil Ship From "Deadbeat" Ex-Billionaire

    Sometimes it’s not worth it for creditors to seize collateral when a deal goes bad. 

    Just ask Deutsche Bank, or any of the other investment banks which would have been forced to book billions in mark-to-market losses on Canadian asset-backed commercial paper deals gone bad in 2007 had they chosen to collect the available collateral and cancel their swaps rather than negotiate a restructuring. 

    Or you could ask OSX Brasil SA bondholders who are technically entitled to take possession of an oil ship the size of the Chrysler building which is currently sitting 130 miles off Brazil’s coast.

    As Bloomberg explains, OSX effectively forfeited its claim on the ship when the company – part of former billionaire Eike Batista’s crumbled empire – defaulted in March, giving creditors the option to sail out and tow the vessel in. 

    The issue, of course, is that there are significant logistical problems associated with repossessing a giant oil ship and while creditors work on figuring those problems out, OGpar (another Batista venture) is still pumping 10,000 barrels of oil a day, because…well…because why not if no one is going to come and stop you.

    To add insult to injury, OGpar is refusing to pay the nearly $300,000/day rental fee to use the vessel, money which, considering OSX is bankrupt, presumably also belongs to creditors. Here’s more from Bloomberg:

    The clash is the latest chapter in the saga of Brazil’s once-richest man, an investor-darling-turned-pariah who sold shares in six companies in a span of six years and lost more than $30 billion even faster when his commodities and energy empire collapsed. It’s also a cautionary tale for Brazilian creditors, whose claims can get tied up for years and even decades in the nation’s maze-like legal system.

     

    [Bondholders] could try to seize the ship, but only if a court and the government approves. And the tumble in crude prices means the vessel isn’t worth what they’re owed, anyway. They could leave the rig to OGpar while waiting for asset prices to rebound, but the oil producer is refusing to pay rental fees of as much as $265,000 a day.

     

    OSX’s bondholders — including Redwood Capital Management LLC, DW Partners LP and Rimrock Capital Management LLC — are asking a Brazilian court to make OGpar pay $70 million in past-due fees.

     

    Batista and OgPar and OSX’s management “are doing what they can to abuse the Brazilian legal system to prevent investors from being paid what they are owed,” said Ruben Kliksberg, a partner at hedge fund Redwood Capital. Batista and the management teams, as well as courts, “are having a material impact on the reputation of Brazil as a foreign investment jurisdiction.”

    Maybe so, but as OGpar CEO Paulo Narcelio will patiently explain to you, the company (which is also bankrupt) is trying to squeeze out a living here, and if it is forced to pay the money it owes, then the offshore oil operation that it shouldn’t be allowed to run in the first place will cease to be economically viable.

    OGpar Chief Executive Officer Paulo Narcelio said paying the $70 million could force the Rio de Janeiro-based company to shut down and liquidate. OGPar also has been operating under bankruptcy protection since 2013.

     

    The oil company is producing only about 10,000 barrels a day — about 10 percent of capacity — from the vessel in Brazil’s offshore Tubarao Martelo field. Paying the full daily rate would make the operation unprofitable, Narcelio said.

     

    “There will only be losers if they keep insisting,” Narcelio said in an interview in Rio de Janeiro. “It’s stupidity. They’re portfolio-management kids just out of college, and they think they’re powerful.”

    Yes, these newly graduated greenhorns were under the mistaken impression that the bond covenants represented legally-binding agreements between creditors and borrowers (thanks a lot undergrad finance professors). What these “kids” don’t understand is that in a world ruled by debt, “insisting” that people pay back what they borrowed produces nothing but “losers.”

    You know, it’s the old “if I owe you a dollar that’s my problem, but if I owe you a 1,000 foot oil ship, that’s your problem” argument – or something. 

    As Bloomberg goes on to note, “disconnecting and hauling away the 284,000-ton vessel would cost millions of dollars and require approval from Brazil’s oil regulator and maybe even the Navy,” meaning there aren’t really any good options here for the bondholders.

    Well, that’s not entirely true.  

    Leonardo Theon de Moraes, a bankruptcy expert in Sao Paulo who spoke to Bloomberg did say that there was one possibly cheaper alternative creditors could pursue: 

    “The costs of executing the collateral are very high unless creditors send pirates from Algeria to go and get the vessel.”

     


  • Goldman Is Confused: If The Economy Is Recovering, Then How Is This Possible

    Following last week’s news that household formation jumped and was revised higher, the logical consequence is that young Americans living in their parents’ basement must finally be moving out.

    They are not.

    In fact, as the chart below from Goldman shows, Millennials are doing anything but moving out, a development that has left Goldman’s economists stumped.

    Below is a chart showing that the share of young people (18-34) living with parents has held steady over the last half year, and close to the highest since the financial crisis.

     

    This is how Goldman frames its confusion:

    “The share of young people living with their parents–which rose sharply during the recession and its aftermath–finally began to decline in 2014. But over the last six months, this decline seems to have stalled.

    But the economy is recovering, jobs are plenty, credit is available to all. How can this be???

    Unless… it is all baseless propaganda meant simply to inspire confidence in rigged data.

    Unpossible, right? Well, even Goldman is no longer so sure:

    We find that the share of young people living with their parents has increased relative to pre-recession rates for all labor force status groups, not just the unemployed and underemployed. Overall, above-average youth underemployment rates alone account for about one-third of the increase in the share of young people living with their parents, and lagged effects of the recession probably account for a bit more.

    Goldman tries to explain this counterintuitive… assuming the “intuitive” is that the economy is recovering.

    To what extent do current labor market conditions explain the elevated rate of young people living with their parents? To answer this question, we use the CPS micro data to calculate the share of 18-34 year olds living with their parents by labor market status (employed, voluntary part-time, involuntary part-time, unemployed, and not in the labor force). Because the data are noisy and not seasonally adjusted, we use the 12-month average ending June 2015 and then compare with the 2007 average. Our first finding, shown [below] is that the percentage living with parents is higher across all labor force status classifications. Even among the employed, the share of young people living with their parents remains about 2pp higher than in 2007.

    The Share of Young People Living with Parents Has Risen for All Labor Force Status Groups

    And then another nail in the “economy is recovering” coffin:

    What accounts for the rest? Part of the explanation is likely that the legacy of the recession wears off only gradually, and looking at current employment status therefore understates the degree to which this is ultimately a labor market problem. Indeed, using a panel of state-level data constructed from the CPS, we find that the effect of unemployment shocks on the share of young people living with their parents dissipates slowly. Why might this be? While moving into a rental unit usually presents a lower hurdle than becoming a homeowner, young people who now have jobs but struggled in recent years might not have enough savings to cover an initial deposit or might fall short of landlords’ expectations for a potential tenant’s credit score, savings, or income history.

     

    Three other factors might also have played a role. First, researchers at the New York Fed and the Fed Board have found evidence that rising student debt and poor credit scores have contributed to the elevated share of young people living with their parents. Second, the median age at first marriage has increased at a faster than usual rate since 2007 (1.8 years for men and 1.4 years for women). While economic conditions might have played a role, we have found evidence that marriage rates are an important determinant of headship rates. Third, as Exhibit 4 shows, rent-to-income ratios are at historic highs, especially for young people. The future trajectory of these three factors is less clear, suggesting that the share of 18-34 year-olds living at home might not fully return to pre-recession rates.

    Rent-to-Income Ratios Are Quite High, Especially for Young People

    It’s not just Goldman that can’t wrap its head around this most fundamental refutation that contrary to the propaganda, there is no recovery for the biggest, and most important, US generation currently alive. Here is more from USA Today:

    Despite continued signs of economic recovery, a growing number of Millennials are moving back in with Mom and Dad.

     

    The percentage of Millennials living with their parents increased from 24% in 2010 to 26% in the first third of 2015, according to a Pew Research Center report, which is based on Census data. The study, which was released last week, compared figures to 2010 because it was the beginning of the economic recovery and one of the worst years for the labor market, said Richard Fry, senior economist at Pew. This is despite a lower unemployment rate. In 2010, that rate was 12.4%; it has fallen to 7.7% so far in 2015, according to Pew.

     

    Roughly the same number of Millennials — 25 million — head their own households today since before the recession in 2007, said the report.

     

    The data are bad news for the housing industry, which is looking for a boost from young, first-time buyers.

     

    “The pattern of household formation has become unglued from the job market,” Fry says. “This is concerning because … there’s a lot of spending that goes with setting up households. Young adults are not establishing more households, and that’s proving to be one of the drags on the housing recovery and the larger economy.”

    To summarize: a terrible labor market for the young generation as a result of “sticky” elderly workers who can’t fall back on interest from their savings thanks to the Fed’s ZIRP policy and are thus unable to retire clearing the labor market for the nextt generation, an unprecedented student debt load, and soaring rents which Millennial incomes simply can not cover.

    And that is why the economy is far worse than anyone in the mainstream media will admit.

    But wait, because here comes the paradoxical punchline: as more and more Millennials are stuck in the basement for whatever reason, and refuse to be a part of the labor force, the immediate implication is that due to their inertness, and unwillingness to even try to get a job, the US labor force participation rate is crashing and artificially low as millions of young Americans remain either in their parents’ basement or in college (with the benefit of a very generous student loan from Uncle Sam). The result – a chart which looks eerily comparable to the one up top, showing the number of Millennials living with their parents: the US labor force participation rate inverted.

     

    Why is this a paradox?

    Because as the participation rate declines, so does the unemployment rate (thanks to a record 94 million Americans not in the labor force). In fact, the worse the US economy is for tens of millions of millennials, the lower the broader unemployment rate drops, sending a false signal to the Fed and economists that the economy is actually stronger!

    And the supreme irony: the worse the economy, and the lower the unemployment rate, the closer the Fed is to hiking rates. In fact, as Lockhart hinted today, the Fed may well hike rates in just one month due to one massive misinterpretation of what is really going on in an economy in which a record number of people choosing not to look for work, but to continue playing Xbox in their parents’ basement… right next to their bed.

    No wonder Goldman is confused. As for the Fed hiking right into what is by implication an economy that is grinding to a halt if not already in recession, well… just read our notes on what happened when the very same Fed woke up the “Ghost of 1937” in an almost identical scenario.

    The outcomes, one of which was the second World War, were anything but pleasant…

  • AAPLocalypse & Lockhart-nado Spoil Stock Party; Dollar & Bond Yields Surge

    The last week in stocks (and Apple and Twitter) in 19 seconds…

     

    Strength in China on new short-selling-curbs provided very littlc comfort for US investors. Early strength quickly faded as Dennis Lockhart peed in the Kool-Aid…

     

    On the day…only Trannies closed green…

     

    From Lockhart's comments, S&P and Dow were weak…

     

    And since Friday… Dow and Smal lCaps underperform

     

    The machines were in charge as AAPL selling pressure demanded index support to sustain institutional sells…

     

    With AAPL getting clubbed…

     

    VIX was as gappy as a hillbilly's teeth…

     

    Treasury yields all rose notably after Lockhart jawboned…

     

    Which drove the curve to its flattest in almost 4 months…and flattening at the fastest pace this year

     

    The Dollar Index surged after Lockhart's comments as money fled EUR and CHF…

     

    Dollar strength sparked more commodity weakness…

     

    Fed credibility remains near zero as the long-bond tracks reality and short-end tracks Fed promises… As one witty chap said "Data Dependent, my arse!!"

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

    Bonus Chart: Just a little reminder – The Fed f##ked up before…"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."

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News August 4, 2015

  • Washington's "Fifth Columns" Inside Russia And China

    Submitted by Paul Craig Roberts,

    It took two decades for Russia and China to understand that “pro-democracy” and “human rights” organizations operating within their countries were subversive organizations funded by the US Department of State and a collection of private American foundations organized by Washington. The real purpose of these non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is to advance Washington’s hegemony by destabilizing the two countries capable of resisting US hegemony.

    Washington’s Fifth Columns pulled off “color revolutions” in former Russian provinces, such as Georgia, the birthplace of Joseph Stalin and Ukraine, a Russian province for centuries.

    When Putin was last elected, Washington was able to use its Fifth Columns to pour thousands of protesters into the streets of Russia claiming that Putin had “stolen the election.” This American propaganda had no effect on Russia, where the citizen back their president by 89%. The other 11% consists almost entirely of Russians who believe Putin is too soft toward the West’s aggression. This minority supports Putin as well. They only want him to be tougher. The actual percentage of the population that Washington has been able to turn into treasonous agents is only 2-3 percent of the population. These traitors are the “Westerners,” the “Atlantic integrationists,” who are willing for their country to be an American vassal state in exchange for money. Paid to them, of course.

    But Washington’s ability to put its Fifth Columns into the streets of Moscow had an effect on insouciant Americans and Europeans. Many Westerners today believe that Putin stole his election and is intent on using his office to rebuild the Soviet Empire and to crush the West. Not that crushing the West would be a difficult thing to do. The West has pretty much already crushed itself.

    China, obsessed with becoming rich, has been an easy mark for Washington. The Rockefeller Foundation is supporting pro-American Chinese professors in the universities. US corporations operating in China create superfluous “boards” to which the relatives of the ruling political class are appointed and paid high “directors’s fees.” This compromises the loyalty of the Chinese ruling class.

    Hoping to have compromised the Chinese ruling class with money, Washington then launched its Hong Kong NGOs in protests, hoping that the protests would spread into China and that the ruling class, bought with American money, would be slow to see the danger.

    Russia and China finally caught on. It is amazing that the governments of the two countries that Washington regards as “threats” were so tolerant of foreign-financed NGOs for so long. The Russian and Chinese toleration of Washington’s Fifth Columns must have greatly encouraged the American neoconservatives, thus pushing the world closer to conflict.

    But as they say, all good things come to an end.

    The Saker reports that China finally has acted to protect itself from Washington’s subversion: http://www.vineyardsaker.co.nz/2015/07/30/chinas-ngo-law-countering-western-soft-power-and-subversion-by-eric-draitser/

    Russia, also, has acted in her defense: http://www.globalresearch.ca/kicked-out-of-russia-moscow-challenges-washingtons-orwellian-national-endowment-for-democracy/5466082

    Also: http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-russia-shut-down-national-endowment-for-democracy-ned-fronts/5466119

    We Americans need to be humble, not arrogant. We need to acknowledge that American living standards, except for the favored One Percent, are in long-term decline and have been for two decades. If life on earth is to continue, Americans need to understand that it is not Russia and China, any more than it was Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia, that are threats to the US. The threat to the US resides entirely in the crazed neoconservative ideology of Washington’s hegemony over the world and over the American people.

    This arrogant goal commits the US and its vassal states to nuclear war.

    If Americans were to wake up, would they be able to do anything about their out-of-control-government? Are Europeans, having experienced the devastating results of World War I and World War II, capable of understanding that the incredible damage done to Europe in those wars is minuscule compared to the damage from nuclear war?

    If the EU were an intelligent and independent government, the EU would absolutely forbid any member country from hosting a US anti-ballistic missile or any other military base anywhere close to Russia’s borders.

    The Eastern European lobby groups in Washington want revenge on the Soviet Union, an entity that is no longer with us. The hatred transmits to Russia. Russia has done nothing except to have failed to read the Wolfowitz Doctrine and to realize that Washington intends to rule the world, which requires prevailing over Russia and China.

  • Trump Tops Pre-Debate Polls, Slams Koch Conference Attendees As "Puppets"

    Another weekend of glad-handing and Sunday talk-shows and still The Donald dominates the GOP Presidential nominee race. With all eyes firmly glued on this week's debate, Trump had a few choice words for those who attended the Koch brothers' biannual conference (which he was not invited to), tweeting "I wish good luck to all the Republican candidates that traveled to California to beg for money etc. from the Koch Brothers… Puppets?" As WSJ reports, Mr. Trump poses a more delicate short-term challenge for the GOP, thanks to high name recognition, celebrity appeal and a populist message that taps a powerful anti-Washington vein.  "I don’t think you should underestimate how frustrated people are," Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said Sunday during a lunch at the Koch gathering. "Mr. Trump has tapped into some of that."

     

    Still ahead…

     

    As The Wall Street Journal reports,

    Mr. Trump’s unanticipated ascent coincided with the arrival of five other Republican presidential candidates at a luxury resort here over the weekend to audition for hundreds of wealthy donors convened by billionaire industrialists Charles and  David Koch. It’s a gathering that exposes both the promise and the limits of a new campaign financing system for the GOP. More money is flowing into the race, but the party and the candidates have less control over how those dollars are spent. The contenders also risk appearing beholden to deep-pocketed backers.

     

    The biannual Koch conference set the stage for the busiest week yet in the nominating contest, with a candidate forum Monday in New Hampshire and the first candidates’ debate on Thursday in Cleveland.

     

    The Koch conference is an unrivaled convergence of roughly 450 conservatives who have pledged at least $100,000 a year to various political and ideological endeavors. Many are also financing individual presidential candidates and the so-called super PACs that support them.

     

    Outside donors are taking on roles once solely performed by candidates and the party, from television ads to voter outreach. The Koch network plans to spend about $900 million in the run-up to the 2016 election, with about a third of that total devoted to influencing elections outcomes. Yet, these donors don’t always see eye-to-eye with GOP leaders in Washington and could prove nettlesome for a Republican president.

     

    The Koch network, for example, sparred with the Republican National Committee over who controls the vast repository of voter data that GOP candidates at every level of the ballot will need to turn out supporters next fall. The two sides recently reached a deal to share information, but the pact gives an entity backed by the Kochs a central role overseeing the party’s data-collection efforts for the foreseeable future. Candidates also rely increasingly on Koch-financed groups to organize their grassroots events.

    *  *  *
    It seems Jimmy Carter was right after all,

    “It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for President or being elected President. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over. …

     

    At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell.”

    *  *  *

    Mr Trump did not seem too worried…

    It's going to be a busy week…

     

  • Connecticut On Its Latest Cash Grab: It’s Not Greed When We Do It

    Submitted by Christopher Westley via The Mises Institute,

    Those possessing the anti-capitalist mentality — so ascendant in our culture today — often critique market actors as being solely motivated by “greed.” Surely economic systems based on nobler motivations, they say, would better promote the long-run interests of the planet.

    The Voluntary Marketplace Uses Greed as Motivation to Serve Others

    This is an issue I deal with in detail in my Principles of Economics classes. The fascinating point about the market system isn’t that it is based on greed, but rather that it forces those motivated by greed to act in ways that promote the social interest. If you want to get rich, say by x amount, then you better improve the lives of consumers, through voluntary transactions, by some amount greater than x.

    Such are the economic means of acquiring wealth, explained in more detail in 1922 by the German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer, writing at a time before his discipline transmogrified into an enterprise predicated on supporting greater state intervention.

    However, problems arise when those motivated by greed find ways to acquire wealth through coercion. Oppenheimer called these the political means (as opposed to the voluntary means of the marketplace), and we witness them today when (1) firms benefit from their relationships to the state as opposed to the consumer, and (2) the state itself uses its legal monopoly on violence to acquire wealth.

    A New Death Tax in Connecticut

    These ideas ran through my head when I read about the new probate court “fees” approved by the Connecticut legislature this month, reinforcing its status as being among the worst states in which to die. Whereas the maximum fee for settling estates there was $12,500, it can now go as high as $100,000, and in some cases, well over $1 million. These “fees” are in addition to estate taxes that range between 7.2 to 12 percent on estates greater than $2 million.

    The “fees” were justified on an expected budget shortfall of $32 million that the legislature wanted to fill, but I wondered: Where was the outcry from the greed-police? One can imagine the reaction if, due to poor fiscal management, Costco or Best Buy announced they were going to double or triple prices on their popular items to account for losses. Yet, governments do this all the time, and somehow, it is never considered greed when political means are used to acquire wealth.

    Adding to the irony is the fact that resources are more likely to be squandered when forced out of private hands and into the public sector, where incentives to waste today promote bigger budgets tomorrow, and where crony capitalism is fed. Resources that might have been saved and directed to productive uses are instead directed to various interest groups and well-connected firms.

    Capital Arises from Thriftiness, Not Greed

    Those who would encourage greater transfers of wealth to the public sector forget that

    [c]apital is not a free gift of God or of nature. It is the outcome of a provident restriction of consumption on the part of man. It is created and increased by saving and maintained by the abstention from dissaving. Neither have capital or capital goods in themselves the power to raise the productivity of natural resources and of human labor. Only if the fruits of saving are wisely employed or invested, do they increase the output per unit of the input of natural resources and of labor. If this is not the case, they are dissipated or wasted.

     

    The accumulation of new capital, the maintenance of previously accumulated capital and the utilization of capital for raising the productivity of human effort are the fruits of purposive human action. They are the outcome of the conduct of thrifty people who save and abstain from dissaving, viz., the capitalists who earn interest; and of people who succeed in utilizing the capital available for the best possible satisfaction of the needs of the consumers, viz., the entrepreneurs who earn profit. [Mises, The Anti-Capitalist Mentality, pp. 84–85]

    Capital is actually a gift of the thrifty, and it is not free. There’s no surprise that states with no death taxes whatsoever attract capital from places like Connecticut. Its pols are between a rock and a hard place, with the rock being the need to finance the current level of redistribution (and to never, ever reduce it), and the hard place being the increasing willingness of the pilfered to engage in tax avoidance. Its legislature must be the trust attorney’s best friend.

    Sick minds deemed the supply of death perfectly inelastic and therefore worthy of tax. But it’s not just people who die in Connecticut. Wealth does too, illustrating what happens when greed is unconstrained by market forces. Some writers might consider Connecticut’s economy something of a model worth emulating, but the fact is that Connecticut — like every other tax jurisdiction — grows its public sector at the expense of its private, and that when capital predictably flows elsewhere, economic opportunity diminishes.

  • China Stocks Open Marginally Higher As Regulators Unleash More 'Measures'

    Chinese stocks are opening flat to marginally higher – still lower from Friday’s close – despite the government unleashing yet more ‘measures’ in the name of stability. Having banned 5 accounts – reportedly including Fed-favorite Citadel – China is blaming excess market volatility on short-term short-sellers and has put in place curbs on short-selling that force traders to hold for at least one day. On the bright side, margin traders reduced exposure for the seventh day in a row, reducing outstanding balances to 5-month lows.. which leaves the median China stock trading at a remarkable 61x reported earnings (compared with 12x in Hong Kong).

     

    As Bloomberg details,

    Investors who borrow shares must now wait one day to pay back the loans, according to statements from the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges issued after the close of trading on Monday. This prevents investors from selling and buying back stocks on the same day, a practice that may “increase abnormal fluctuations in stock prices and affect market stability,” the Shenzhen exchange said.

     

    The short-selling curbs are the latest measures the government is taking to prop up share prices and prevent market manipulation after an almost $4 trillion selloff. Regulators are probing “malicious” short selling and have examined the futures trading accounts of foreign investors. They’ve also banned stock sales by major shareholders, suspended initial public offerings and compelled state-run institutions to support the market with equity purchases.

    As Reuters adds,

    “This is apparently aimed at increasing the cost of shorting and easing selling pressure on the market,” said Samuel Chien, a partner of Shanghai-based hedge fund manager BoomTrend Investment Management Co.

     

    He added, though, that short-selling was already difficult, referring to other efforts to limit the practice. These include a move by Chinese brokerages to limit short-selling business.

    *  *  *

    But for now it is having only modest impact…

     

    The more measures they apply, the higher the price of pork goes and the more squeezed by inflationary pressures – no matter how bad the economy – the PBOC is to not cut RRR.

     

    In other words, a 21% surge in pork prices – a major component of China CPI – forces the PBOC toapply piecemeal measures and not apply broad based  cuts to stimulate the economy. So while some talking heads pray for more bad data in China, they are missing the crucial panic factor – soaring food prices will mean more social unrest than plunging stock prices.

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • The Rent is Too Damn High: San Fran Residents Pay $1,000/Mth To Live In Shipping Containers

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    There’s nothing quite like a grotesquely lopsided “economic recovery” in which a handful of cities boom, while the rest of the nation stagnates. Even worse, millennials living in such chosen cities face one of two options. Either live in mom and dad’s basement, or face a standard of living far more similar to 19th tenement standards than the late 1990’s tech boom.

    With that out of the way, I want to introduce you to what a $1,000 per month rental in the San Francisco Bay area looks like. Shipping containers:

    Screen Shot 2015-08-03 at 10.41.45 AM

    Don’t worry, there’s a lovely garden out back:

     

    Screen Shot 2015-08-03 at 10.41.59 AM

    We learn more from Bloomberg:

    Luke Iseman has figured out how to afford the San Francisco Bay area. He lives in a shipping container.

     

    The Wharton School graduate’s 160-square-foot box has a camp stove and a shower made of old boat hulls. It’s one of 11 miniature residences inside a warehouse he leases across the Bay Bridge from the city, where his tenants share communal toilets and a sense of adventure. Legal? No, but he’s eluded code enforcers who rousted what he calls cargotopia from two other sites. If all goes according to plan, he’ll get a startup out of his response to the most expensive U.S. housing market.

     

    “It’s not making us much money yet, but it allows us to live in the Bay Area, which is a feat,” said Iseman, 31, who’s developing a container-house business. “We have an opportunity here to create a new model for urban development that’s more sustainable, more affordable and more enjoyable.”

     

    As many as 60,000 San Franciscans live in illegal housing, according to the Department of Building Inspection.

     

    Iseman collects $1,000 a month for each of the 11 structures parked in the 17,000-square-foot warehouse he rents for $9,100. Tenants include a Facebook Inc. engineer, a SolarCity Corp. programmer and a bicycle messenger.

    It’s not even San Francisco proper either, this is in Oakland. You could probably catch $2k per month for a cargo box in the Mission.

    Iseman used to pay $4,200 a month in San Francisco’s Mission District for a two-bedroom apartment with a slanted floor and mosquito-breeding puddles.

    He bought his metal box for $2,300, delivery included, then cut out windows with a plasma torch and installed a loft bed, shower and bamboo flooring. He estimates his all-in cost at $12,000, and plans to sell refashioned containers for about $20,000 through his company, Boxouse.

     

    “What we’re doing is converting industrial waste into a house in a couple of weeks,” said Iseman, who also founded a pedicab fleet. Meanwhile, he doesn’t plan on seeking city approval for cargotopia, whose location he asked not be identified. “I’d rather ask forgiveness than ask permission.”

    I want to be clear that I’m not knocking Mr. Iseman for starting this project. He seems to be a well-meaning, entrepreneurial guy trying to make the best out of a bad situation and solve a very real problem on his own. What I am knocking is the criminally corrupt American oligarchy, which left this legacy to our youth due to their unfathomable greed, cronyism and nearsightedness.

    Of course, I’ve covered this trend several times over the past several years…

    NYC Residents Will Pay $2-3k a Month for “Micro-Apartments” as Luxury Car Sales Outpace Regular Car Sales

    Coming to San Francisco…Tenement Sized Apartments!

    Back to 19th Century Living in NYC: Bloomberg Proposes “Tenement Sized” Apartments for $2K a Month

  • The Complete Breakdown Of Every Hillary And Bill Clinton Speech, And Fee, Since 2013

    Earlier today, when we reported that based on Hillary Clinton’s latest tax disclosure, she and her husband had made $139 million in gross income since 2007 most of its from private speaking fees, the one aspect that readers founds most fascinating was the breakdown of all the bribes better known as speeches given by the two Clintons (who in Hillary’s words came out of the White House “dead broke”) in 2013 as well as the going rate.

    So due to popular demand, we appended to the 2013 speech detail first released last week the full breakdown of Hillary’s and Bill’s 2014 and 2015 speeches which had been provided previously as part of her mandatory disclosure in May of this year.

    As Politico cautions, the disclosure omits an unknown number of speeches that the Clintons delivered while directing the payment or honoraria to the Clinton Foundation, despite instructions on the and guidance from the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, saying that honoraria directed to a charity should be reported.

    Still, as readers will note, even the “modest” data that Hillary chose to share is quite stunning.

    We hope it will surprise nobody that the bulk of speeches were bought and paid for by Wall Street and affiliated “financial entities” because that’s what hollow populist pandering is all about – pretending to be an “everyday American” while getting paid tens of millions by Wall Street and America’s biggest corporations.

    How many millions?

    Since 2013 Bill Clinton has been paid $26.6 million for 94 speeches; Hillary’s grand total is slightly less: $21.7 million for 92 private appearances.

    Below we present the full breakdown of every publicly disclosed speech event by Hillary Clinton, together with the associated fee.

    And likewise for Bill Clinton:

    And a visual way of showing the above data.

    Hillary:

     

    Bill:

    Source: Hillaryclinton.con and Politco

    Bonus footage: sometime in addition to hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeking for 50 minutes, Hillary would also get a shoe as an added bonus:

  • Comex On The Edge? Paper Gold "Dilution" Hits A Record 124 For Every Ounce Of Physical

    Over the few days, we got what was merely the latest confirmation that when it comes to sliding gold prices, consumers of physical gold just can’t get enough.

    As the Times of India reported over the weekend, India’s gold imports shot up by 61% to 155 tonnes in the first two months of the current fiscal year “due to weak prices globally and the easing of restrictions by the Reserve Bank. In April-May of the last fiscal, gold imports had aggregated about 96 tonnes, an official said.”

    This follows confirmations previously that with the price of gold sliding, physical demand has been through the roof, case in point: “US Mint Sells Most Physical Gold In Two Years On Same Day Gold Price Hits Five Year Low“, “Gold Bullion Demand Surges – Perth Mint and U.S. Mint Cannot Meet Demand“, “Gold Tumbles Despite UK Mint Seeing Europeans Rush To Buy Bullion” and so on. Indicatively, as of Friday, the US Mint had sold 170,000 ounces of gold bullion in July: the fifth highest on record, and we expect today’s month-end update to push that number even higher.

    But while the dislocation between demand for physical and the price of paper gold has been extensively discussed here over the years, most recently in “Gold And The Silver Stand-Off: Is The Selling Of Paper Gold And Silver Finally Ending?”, something unexpected happened at the CME on Friday afternoon which may be the most important observation yet.

    Recall that in the middle of 2013, in an extensive series of articles, we covered what was then a complete collapse in Comex vaulted holding of registered (i.e., deliverable) gold.  At the time the culprit was JPM, where for some still unexplained reason, the gold held in the newest Comex’ vault plunged by nearly 2 million ounces in just six short months.

    More importantly, the collapse in registered Comex gold sent the gold coverage ratio (the number of ounces of “paper” gold open interest to the ounces of “physical” registered gold) soaring from under 20 where, or roughly in line with its long-term average, to a whopping 112x. This means that there were a total of 112 ounces of claims for every ounces of physical gold that could be delivered at any given moment.

    Gradually, the Comex raid was relegated to the backburner when starting in 2014 the amount of registered gold tripled from the upper 300k range to 1.15 million ounces one year ago, at which point the slide in Comex registered gold started anew.

    Which brings us to Friday afternoon, also known as month end position squaring, when in the latest daily Comex gold vault depository update we found that while some 270K in Eligible gold had been withdrawn mostly from JPM vaults, what caught our attention was the 25,386 ounces of Registered gold that had been “adjusted” out of registered and into eligible. As a reminder, eligible gold is “gold” that can not be used to satisfy inbound delivery requests without it being converted back to registered gold first, which makes it mostly inert for delivery satisfaction purposes.

     

    Most importantly, this 25,386 oz reduction in deliverable Comex gold from 376,906 on Thursday pushed the amount of registered Comex gold to an all time low: at 351,519 ounces, or just barely over 10 tons, registered Comex gold has never been lower!

     

    Incidentally, as part of the month-end redemption requests, we saw a whopping 22% of the eligible gold in Kilo-bar format (where there is no registered, just eligible) be quietly whisked away from Brink’s vaults: unlike traditional ounce-based contracts, the kilo format traditionally serves as an indication of Chinese demand, and if withdrawals on par with those seen on July 31 persist, it will soon become clear that Chinese buyers are once again scrambling for the safety of gold now that their stock market bubble has blown up.

    This covers the sudden surge in demand for physical gold as manifested by CME data.

    Meanwhile, over in “paper gold” land, things remained unchanged: as shown in the chart below, the aggregate gold open interest rose modestly to 43.5 million ounces up from 42.9 million the day before.

     

    While on its own, gold open interest – which merely represents the total potential claims on gold if exercised – is hardly exciting, as we have shown previously it has to be observed in conjunction with the physical gold that “backs” such potential delivery requests, also known as the “coverage ratio” of deliverable gold.

    It is here that things get a little out of hand, because as the chart below shows, all else equal, the 43.5 million ounces of gold open interest and the record low 351,519 ounces of registered gold imply that as of Friday’s close there was a whopping 123.8 ounces in potential paper claims to every ounces of physical gold.

    This is an all time record high, and surpasses the previous period record seen in January 2014 following the JPM gold vault liquidation.

    Another way of stating this unprecedented ratio is that the dilution ratio between physical gold and paper gold has hit a record low 0.8%.

    Indicatively, the average paper-to-physical coverage ratio since January 1, 2000 is a “modest” 19.1x. As of Friday it had soared to more than 6 times greater.

    Which brings us to the usual concluding observations:

    First: as we have said previously, at a time when all the gold selling (and naked shorting) is in the paper markets and when demand for physical gold is once again off the charts, with soaring purchases not only in India but also in the US, where is this gold going? Clearly not into CME gold vaults, which are once again a source of physical gold, and as the above shows, have never had less deliverable gold.

    Second, total Comex gold has dropped to such precarious levels in the past and while on many occasions market observers have asked if the Comex is close to a failure to deliver, aka a default of the CME’s gold warehouse, it has always avoided such a fate. Still, one wonders: the 10+ tons of deliverable gold at the Comex are now worth a paltry $383 million. It would not be very complicated for a next generation “Hunt Brother” to buy some $400 million in Comex gold, and promptly demand delivery: after all the gold crash of two weeks ago saw some $2.7 billion in paper gold dumped in the most illiquid market – why can’t it be done in reverse. What would happen next is unknown, but unless somehow the Comex found a way of converting millions of ounces of Eligible gold into Registered, the CME would simply be unable to satisfy such a delivery request.

    Third: while there are still over 7 million ounces of Eligible gold, why the recent spike in “adjustments” of eligible to registered gold (i.e., missing a warehouse receipt)?

    Finally, we assume the mainstream press will once again start paying close attention to the total, and especially registered, gold held at the Comex: at a pace of 25K a day, the gold vaults that make up the CME’s vaulting system would be depleted in just under two weeks of daily withdrawals.

    In any case, we are very curious to see how this latest dramatic face off in the long-running war between paper and physical gold, concludes.

  • First Default By U.S. Commonwealth In History: Puerto Rico Fails To Make Required Debt Payment

    Over the weekend Puerto Rico was supposed to make a modest principal and interest payment of some $58 million due on Public Finance Corp. bonds, which however few expected would be satisfied. As a reminder, on Friday, Victor Suarez, the chief of staff for Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla, said during a press conference in San Juan that the government simply does not have the money.

    Moments ago Melba Acosta, president of the Government Development Bank, confirmed as much, when he announced that only $628,000 of the $58 million payment, or just about 1%, had been paid.

    Below is the full statement from Acosta on the service of PFC Bonds:

    Today, Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico (“GDR”) President Melba Acosta Febo issued the following statement on the service of Public Finance Corporation (PFC) bonds:

     

    Due to the lack of appropriated funds for this fiscal year the entirety of the PFC payment was not made today. This was a decision that reflects the serious concerns about the Commonwealth’s liquidity in combination with the balance of obligations to our creditors and the equally important obligations to the people of Puerto Rico to ensure the essential services they deserve are maintained.

     

    “PFC did make a partial payment of Interest in respect of its outstanding bonds. The partial payment was made from funds remaining from prior legislative appropriations in respect of the outstanding promissory notes securing the PFC bonds. In accordance with the terms of these bonds, which stipulate that these obligations are payable solely from funds specifically appropriated by the Legislature, PFC applied these funds—totaling approximately $628.000—to the August 1 payment.”

    WSJ adds that the payment to bondholders is the first skipped since Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla in June said the island’s debts were unsustainable and urged negotiations with creditors in an effort to restructure about $72 billion. “Still, analysts said it isn’t likely to provoke an acute market wide reaction from investors, many of whom have been inching away for the commonwealth for years.”

    Except for those hedge funds who haven’t, and have been BTFD in hopes of another bailout of course.

    And confirming that making just 1% of the contractual payment is not the same as making 100% of it, moments ago Moody’s confirmed what most had already known:

    • MOODY’S VIEWS PUERTO RICO IN DEFAULT

    More via CNBC:

    “Moody’s views this event as a default,” Emily Raimes, vice president at Moody’s Investors Service, said in a statement, adding that payment of “debt service on these bonds is subject to appropriation, and the lack of appropriation means there is not a legal requirement to pay the debt, nor any legal recourse for bondholders.

     

    “This event is consistent with our belief that Puerto Rico does not have the resources to make all of its forthcoming debt payments. This is a first in what we believe will be broad defaults on commonwealth debt,” she added.

    In other words, small or not, PR has failed a mandatory principal repayment and is now in default under the PFC bonds. Up next, as per Bloomberg’s preview “the default promises to escalate the debt crisis racking the island, where officials are pushing for what may be the biggest restructuring ever in the municipal market.”

    “An event like this is significant enough that it could hurt prices for Puerto Rico bonds,” said Richard Larkin, director of credit analysis at Herbert J Sims & Co. in Boca Raton, Florida. “I can’t believe a default on debt with Puerto Rico’s name will go unnoticed.”

    It is unclear if creditors will now threaten the commonwealth with a “temporary” expulsion from the dollarzone as part of their hardball negotiating tactics. Nor is it clear if Schauble is still willing to trade Puerto Rico for Greece.

    What is clear is that the first default by a US commonwealth is now in the history books.

  • Pictures Worth A Thousand Words: Coafeidian, The Chinese Eco-City That Became A Ghost Town

    Authored by Gilles Sabrie, originally posted at The Guardian,

    "As precious as gold…" That was how then-president Hu Jintao described Caofeidian during his visit in 2006. It was pledged to be "the world’s first fully realised eco-city" – yet 10 years and almost $100bn later, only a few thousand inhabitants have moved to this land reclaimed from the sea.. as yet another 'centrally planed' idea is completely FUBAR.

    China’s ‘eco-cities’: empty of hospitals, shops and people

    The leftover gate from a road construction site. The road doesn't lead anywhere.

    The leftover gate from a construction site – for a road that doesn’t lead anywhere. Caofeidian eco-city, begun in 2003, is located 200km southeast of Beijing. All photographs: Gilles Sabrie

    Locals fish for crabs in the Bohai Sea as construction sites stand idle in the background.

    Locals fish for crabs in the Bohai Sea as construction sites stand idle in the background. Caofeidian, in Hebei province, was originally a small island that has expanded using land reclaimed from the sea.

    The ‘eco-city’ was made possible through huge bank loans. Once it was half-built, these loans were halted and many projects suspended due to the rising cost of raw materials and a lack of government support.

    The ‘eco-city’ was made possible through huge bank loans. Once it was half-built, these loans were halted and many projects suspended due to the rising cost of raw materials and a lack of government support.

    The knock-on effects are also to be seen in this abandoned tourist resort by the shore of Bohai Sea.

    The knock-on effects are also to be seen in this abandoned tourist resort by the shore of Bohai Sea.

    A lone worker inside Caofeidian city’s mostly abandoned industrial park. He works for a company producing solar panels – a heavily subsidised industry in China that is plagued by over capacity.

    A lone worker inside Caofeidian city’s mostly abandoned industrial park. He works for a company producing solar panels – a heavily subsidised industry in China that is plagued by over capacity.

    Caofeidian eco-city was planned to accommodate one million inhabitants, yet only a few thousand live there today.

    Caofeidian eco-city was planned to accommodate one million inhabitants, yet only a few thousand live there today. It has joined the growing ranks of China’s ghost cities.

    A torn poster showing the original plan for Caofeidian Environmental Industries Park. Government and state owned industrial enterprises are said to have invested 561 billion yuan (US $91bn) in the area over the past decade, but the park was never completed.

    A torn poster showing the original plan for Caofeidian Environmental Industries Park. Government and state owned industrial enterprises are said to have invested 561 billion yuan (US $91bn) in the area over the past decade, but the park was never completed.

    A shopping mall modelled on a traditional Italian city was finished, but businesses haven’t moved owing to the small number of city residents.

    A shopping mall modelled on a traditional Italian city was finished, but businesses haven’t moved owing to the small number of city residents.

    Behind the empty mall, a branch of Tangshan University is under construction. The provincial government is moving it to Caofeidian to make up for the lack of businesses in the new city.

    Behind the empty mall, a branch of Tangshan University is under construction. The provincial government is moving it to Caofeidian to make up for the lack of businesses in the new city.

    Security guards by Cafofeidian harbour, where coal and iron ore are unloaded to feed the Shougang steel mill – an operation that is mired in debt.

    Security guards by Cafofeidian harbour, where coal and iron ore are unloaded to feed the Shougang steel mill. The mill was moved from Beijing to Caofeidian in 2006, but is mired in debt.

    Bridge to nowhere: a six-lane road span was abandoned after 10 support pylons had been erected.

    Bridge to nowhere: a six-lane road span was abandoned after 10 support pylons had been erected.

    An Japanese factory stands idle in the Caofeidian Sino-Japanese eco-industry park. The factory moved from Tangshan city, attracted by government incentives, but never re-started operations.

    An Japanese factory stands idle in the Caofeidian Sino-Japanese eco-industry park. The factory moved from Tangshan city, attracted by government incentives, but never re-started operations.

    Empty residential buildings in Caofeidian eco-city. Once described as the world’s first fully realised eco-city, Caofeidian is now struggling to pay daily interest rates on the billions of yuan borrowed to build it.

    Empty residential buildings in Caofeidian eco-city. Once described as the world’s first fully realised eco-city, Caofeidian is now struggling to pay daily interest rates on the billions of yuan borrowed to build it.

  • Obama's Climate Fascism Is Another Nail In The Coffin For The U.S. Economy

    Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

    Is Barack Obama trying to kill the economy on purpose?  On Sunday, we learned that Obama is imposing a nationwide 32 percent carbon dioxide emission reduction from 2005 levels by the year 2030.  When it was first proposed last year, Obama’s plan called for a 30 percent reduction, but the final version is even more dramatic.  The Obama administration admits that this is going to cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars a year and that electricity rates for many Americans are going to rise substantially.  And what Obama is not telling us is that this plan is going to kill what is left of our coal industry and will destroy countless numbers of American jobs.  The Republicans in Congress hate this plan, state governments across the country hate this plan, and thousands of business owners hate this plan.  But since Barack Obama has decided that this is a good idea, he is imposing it on all of us anyway.

    So how can Obama get away with doing this without congressional approval?

    Well, he is using the “regulatory power” of the Environmental Protection Agency.  Congress is increasingly becoming irrelevant as federal agencies issue thousands of new rules and regulations each and every year.  The IRS, for example, issues countless numbers of new rules and regulations each year without every consulting Congress.  Government bureaucracy has spun wildly out of control, and most Americans don’t even realize what is happening.

    In the last 15 days of 2014 alone, 1,200 new government regulations were published.  We are literally being strangled with red tape, and it has gotten worse year after year no matter which political party has been in power.

    These new greenhouse gas regulations are terrible.  The following is a summary of what Obama is now imposing on the entire country

    Last year, the Obama administration proposed the first greenhouse gas limits on existing power plants in U.S. history, triggering a yearlong review and 4 million public comments to the Environmental Protection Agency. In a video posted to Facebook, Obama said he would announce the final rule at a White House event on Monday, calling it the biggest step the U.S. has ever taken on climate change.

    The final version imposes stricter carbon dioxide limits on states than was previously expected: a 32 percent cut by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, senior administration officials said. Obama’s proposed version last year called only for a 30 percent cut.

    In America today, the burning of coal produces approximately 40 percent of the electrical power used by Americans each year.

    So what is this going to do to our electricity bills?

    You guessed it – at this point even the Obama administration is admitting that they are going to go up.  The following comes from Fox News

    The Obama administration previously predicted emissions limits will cost up to $8.8 billion annually by 2030, though it says those costs will be far outweighed by health savings from fewer asthma attacks and other benefits. The actual price is unknown until states decide how they’ll reach their targets, but the administration has projected the rule would raise electricity prices about 4.9 percent by 2020 and prompt coal-fired power plants to close.

     

    In the works for years, the power plant rule forms the cornerstone of Obama’s plan to curb U.S. emissions and keep global temperatures from climbing, and its success is pivotal to the legacy Obama hopes to leave on climate change. Never before has the U.S. sought to restrict carbon dioxide from existing power plants.

    And we must keep in mind that government projections are always way too optimistic.  The real numbers would almost surely turn out to be far, far worse than this.

    In addition, these new regulations are going to complete Barack Obama’s goal of destroying our coal industry.  In a previous article, I included an excerpt from a recent news article about how some of the largest coal producers in America have just announced that they are declaring bankruptcy

    On Thursday, Bloomberg reported that the biggest American producer of coking coal, Alpha Natural Resources, could file for bankruptcy as soon as Monday.

    Competitor Walter Energy filed for bankruptcy earlier this month, and several others have done the same this year.

    Barack Obama has actually done something that he promised to do.

    He promised to kill the coal industry, and he is well on the way to accomplishing that goal.

    Of course Hillary Clinton thinks that this is a splendid idea.  She called Obama’s plan “the floor, not the ceiling”, and she is pledging to do even more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  The following comes from the Washington Post

    Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged Sunday that if elected she will build on a new White House clean-energy program and defend it against those she called “Republican doubters and defeatists.”

     

    Clinton was the first 2016 candidate to respond to the ambitious plan that President Obama will debut on Monday. Details of the program, which aims to cut greenhouse-gas pollution, were released over the weekend. The new regulation will require every state to reduce emissions from coal-burning power plants.

    And you know what?

    The climate control freaks will never be satisfied.  Since just about all human activity affects the climate in some way, they will eventually demand control over virtually everything that we do in the name of “saving the planet”.  That is why I call it “climate fascism” – in the end it is all about control.

    During the month of September, the Pope is going to travel to the United Nations to give a major speech to kick off the conference at which the UN’s new sustainable development agenda will be launched.  As I have documented previously, this new agenda does not just cover greenhouse gas emissions and the environment.  It also addresses areas such as economics, agriculture, education and gender equality.  It has been called “Agenda 21 on steroids”, and it is basically a blueprint for governing the entire planet.

    Unfortunately, that is ultimately what the elite want.

    They want to micromanage the lives of every, man, woman and child on the globe.

    They will tell us that unless people everywhere are forced to reduce their “carbon footprints” that climate catastrophe is absolutely certain, but their “solutions” always mean more power and more control in their hands.

    Barack Obama promised to fundamentally transform America, and he is doing it in hundreds of different ways.  These new greenhouse gas regulations are just one example.  Our nation is being gutted like a fish, and most Americans don’t seem to care.

    What in the world will it take for this country to finally wake up?

  • Why The U.S. Is the Next Greece: Doug Casey On America's Economic Problems

    “With these stupid governments printing trillions and trillions of new currency units,” warns investor Doug Casey, “it’s building up to a catastrophe of historic proportions.” In an excellent brief interview with Reason magazine Editor-in-Chief Matt Welch, Casey expounds on the US noting that “as any institution gets larger and older it inevitably becomes corrupt and fails.” What to do? “I wouldn’t keep significant capital in banks,” he exclaimed, “most of the banks in the world are bankrupt. That didn’t stop the “brain dead” Greeks who left their money in banks as all the signs were on the wall, he notes as he addresses whether gold is a good investment in 2015, and offers back-handed bright side: Catastrophes create many opportunities to earn a profit.

     

  • Breaking Down China's $23 Trillion Debt Pile

    Back in April, we highlighted Beijing’s “massive debt problem“, noting that as of last year, total debt in China amounted to some $28 trillion when you include government debt, corporate debt, and household borrowing. 

    As Bloomberg noted at the time – and as we’ve discussed extensively – Beijing is facing the virtually impossible task of trying to de-leverage and releverage at the same time.

    “Various parts of the government don’t always seem to be working from the same playbook,” Bloomberg observed, before quoting Credit Agricole’s Dariusz Kowalczyk who pointed out the “obvious contradiction between attempts to deleverage the economy and attempts to boost growth.”

    Indeed, there are times when the scale seems to tip in favor of deleveraging. For instance, Beijing has recently shown a willingness to tolerate defaults and the case of Baoding Tianwei Group Co even suggested that in some instances, state-affiliated companies may not receive immediate government support. Nevertheless, the abrupt 180 on LGVF financing and the transformation of the local government debt restructuring initiative into the Chinese version of LTROs betrays the extent to which China is still reluctant to deleverage its economy in the face of flagging growth. 

    Against that backdrop we bring you the following graphic from Bloomberg which breaks down China’s massive debt pile and shows the degree to which it’s grown over the past decade.

  • Jimmy Carter Rages At What The U.S. Has Become: "Just An Oligarchy With Unlimited Political Bribery"

    Submitted by Eric Zeusse,

    On July 28th, Thom Hartmann interviewed former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and, at the very end of his show (as if this massive question were merely an aftethought), asked him his opinion of the 2010 Citizens United decision and the 2014McCutcheon decision, both decisions by the five Republican judges on the U.S. Supreme Court. These two historic decisions enable unlimited secret money (including foreign money) now to pour into U.S. political and judicial campaigns. Carter answered:

    “It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for President or being elected President. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over. …

     

    At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell.”

    He was then cut off by the program, though that statement by Carter should have been the start of the program, not its end. (And the program didn’t end with an invitation for him to return to discuss this crucial matter in depth — something for which he’s qualified.)

    So: was this former President’s provocative allegation merely his opinion? Or was it actually lots more than that? It was lotsmore than that.

    Only a single empirical study has actually been done in the social sciences regarding whether the historical record shows that the United States has been, during the survey’s period, which in that case was between 1981 and 2002, a democracy (a nation whose leaders represent the public-at-large), or instead an aristocracy (or ‘oligarchy’) — a nation in which only the desires of the richest citizens end up being reflected in governmental actions. This study was titled “Testing Theories of American Politics,” and it was published by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page in the journal Perspectives on Politics, issued by the American Political Science Association in September 2014. I had summarized it earlier, on 14 April 2014, while the article was still awaiting its publication.

    The headline of my summary-article was “U.S. Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy Says Scientific Study.” I reported: "The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, no democratic country, at all. American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's 'news' media).” I then quoted the authors’ own summary: “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” 

    The scientific study closed by saying: “In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes.” A few other tolerably clear sentences managed to make their ways into this well-researched, but, sadly, atrociously written, paper, such as: “The preferences of economic elites (as measured by our proxy, the preferences of ‘affluent’ citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do.” In other words, they found: The rich rule the U.S.

    Their study investigated specifically “1,779 instances between 1981 and 2002 in which a national survey of the general public asked a favor/oppose question about a proposed policy change,” and then the policy-follow-ups, of whether or not the polled public preferences had been turned into polices, or, alternatively, whether the relevant corporate-lobbied positions had instead become public policy on the given matter, irrespective of what the public had wanted concerning it.

    The study period, 1981-2002, covered the wake of the landmark 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Buckley v. Valeo, which had started the aristocratic assault on American democracy, and which seminal (and bipartisan) pro-aristocratic court decision is described as follows by wikipedia: It “struck down on First Amendment grounds several provisions in the 1974 Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. The most prominent portions of the case struck down limits on spending in campaigns, but upheld the provision limiting the size of individual contributions to campaigns. The Court also narrowed, and then upheld, the Act's disclosure provisions, and struck down (on separation of powers grounds) the make-up of the Federal Election Commission, which as written allowed Congress to directly appoint members of the Commission, an executive agency.”

    Basically, the Buckley decision, and subsequent (increasingly partisan Republican) Supreme Court decisions, have allowed aristocrats to buy and control politicians. 

    Already, the major ‘news’ media were owned and controlled by the aristocracy, and ‘freedom of the press’ was really just freedom of aristocrats to control the ‘news’ — to frame public issues in the ways the owners want. The media managers who are appointed by those owners select, in turn, the editors who, in their turn, hire only reporters who produce the propaganda that’s within the acceptable range for the owners, to be ‘the news’ as the public comes to know it.

    But, now, in the post-Buckley-v.-Valeo world, from Reagan on (and the resulting study-period of 1981-2002), aristocrats became almost totally free to buy also the political candidates they wanted. The ‘right’ candidates, plus the ‘right’ ‘news’-reporting about them, has thus bought the ‘right’ people to ‘represent’ the public, in the new American ‘democracy,’ which Jimmy Carter now aptly calls “subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors.”

    Carter — who had entered office in 1976, at the very start of that entire era of transition into an aristocratically controlled United States (and he left office in 1981, just as the study-period was starting) — expressed his opinion that, in the wake now of the two most extreme pro-aristocratic U.S. Supreme Court decisions ever (which are Citizens United in 2010, andMcCutcheon in 2014), American democracy is really only past tense, not present tense at all — no longer a reality.

    He is saying, in effect, that, no matter how much the U.S. was a dictatorship by the rich during 1981-2002 (the Gilens-Page study era), it’s far worse now.

    Apparently, Carter is correct: The New York Times front page on Sunday 2 August 2015 bannered, "Small Pool of Rich Donors Dominates Election Giving,” and reported that:

    "A New York Times analysis of Federal Election Commission reports and Internal Revenue Service records shows that the fund-raising arms race has made most of the presidential hopefuls deeply dependent on a small pool of the richest Americans. The concentration of donors is greatest on the Republican side, according to the Times analysis, where consultants and lawyers have pushed more aggressively to exploit the looser fund-raising rules that have fueled the rise of super PACs. Just 130 or so families and their businesses provided more than half the money raised through June by Republican candidates and their super PACs.”

    The Times study shows that the Republican Party is overwhelmingly advantaged by the recent unleashing of big-corporate money power. All of the evidence suggests that though different aristocrats compete against each other for the biggest chunks of whatever the given nation has to offer, they all compete on the same side against the public, in order to lower the wages of their workers, and to lower the standards for consumers’ safety and welfare so as to increase their own profits (transfer their costs and investment-losses onto others); and, so, now, the U.S. is soaring again toward Gilded Age economic inequality, perhaps to surpass the earlier era of unrestrained robber barons. And, the Times study shows: even in the Democratic Party, the mega-donations are going to only the most conservative (pro-corporate, anti-public) Democrats. Grass-roots politics could be vestigial, or even dead, in the new America.

    The question has become whether the unrestrained power of the aristocracy is locked in this time even more permanently than it was in that earlier era. Or: will there be yet another FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) to restore a democracy that once was? Or: is a President like that any longer even possible in America?

    As for today’s political incumbents: they now have their careers for as long as they want and are willing to do the biddings of their masters. And, then, they retire to become, themselves, new members of the aristocracy, such as the Clintons have done, and such as the Obamas will do. (Of course, the Bushes have been aristocrats since early in the last century.)

    Furthermore, the new age of aristocratic control is not merely national but international in scope; so, the global aristocracy have probably found the formula that will keep them in control until they destroy the entire world. What’s especially interesting is that, with all of the many tax-exempt, ‘non-profit’ ‘charities,’ which aristocrats have established, none of them is warring to defeat the aristocracy itself — to defeat the aristocrats’ system of exploitation of the public. It’s the one thing they won’t create a ‘charity’ for; none of them will go to war against the expoitative interests of themselves and of their own exploitative peers. They’re all in this together, even though they do compete amongst themselves for dominance, as to which ones of them will lead against the public. And the public seem to accept this modern form of debt-bondage, perhaps because of the ‘news’ they see, and because of the news they don’t see (such as this).

     

  • What's The Difference Between Hillary, Snowden And Manning?

    As the race for The White House heats up, it’s looking increasingly likely that the biggest threat to Hillary Clinton’s bid for the US Presidency will in fact be Hillary Clinton. 

    On the GOP side, Donald Trump has thus far proven to be “gaffe proof”, as a series of vitriolic attacks against everyone from Mexicans to war heroes has only served to increase his lead over rivals, prompting some to brand the incorrigible billionaire the “Teflon Don”, after the late New York crime boss John Gotti. Fortunately for Hillary, Trump’s popularity has further splintered an already divided Republican party, and in the eyes of some commentators, this makes the road (back) to The White House that much easier for Clinton. 

    That is unless the controversy surrounding her handling of classified e-mails mushrooms into a bigger public relations nightmare than it already is and as we noted late last month, it now looks as though it won’t be easy for the presumed Democratic frontrunner to shake accusations that she violated protocol.

    “It’s not that Donald Trump needed help in his juggernaut campaign across the GOP presidential primary, but the flamboyant billionaire got an unexpected present from the WSJ which may have just crippled the chances of his biggest democrat competitor as well, Hillary Clinton,” we wrote, introducing a WSJ piece which cited an internal government review showing that the former Secretary of State, “sent at least four emails from her personal account containing classified information during her time heading the State Department.” Here’s more from McClatchy:

    The classified emails stored on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private server contained information from five U.S. intelligence agencies and included material related to the fatal 2012 Benghazi attacks, McClatchy has learned.

     

    Of the five classified emails, the one known to be connected to Benghazi was among 296 emails made public in May by the State Department. Intelligence community officials have determined it was improperly released.

     

    Revelations about the emails have put Clinton in the crosshairs of a broadening inquiry into whether she or her aides mishandled classified information when she used a private server set up at her New York home to conduct official State Department business.

     

    While campaigning for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton has repeatedly denied she ever sent or received classified information. Two inspectors general have indicated that five emails they have reviewed were not marked classified at the time they were stored on her private server but that the contents were in fact “secret.”

    That last passage is critical. Having a security clearance comes with a certain amount of responsibility and those who are privy to potentially sensitive information are expected to exercise good judgement. 

    In other words, whether or not the information carried a giant red “top secret” stamp isn’t the relevant question, nor is “no harm no foul” a legitimate after the fact defense. 

    And that, apparently, is the difference between a Clinton and say a Manning or a Snowden – that is, holding Hillary (or any other member of what Jimmy Carter would call America’s “political oligarchy”) to the same standards as everyone else turns out to be an uphill battle. 

    Here’s Peter Van Buren writing for Reuters with more on what’s wrong with Clinton’s defense.

    *  *  *

    What everyone with a Top Secret security clearance knows – or should know

    In the world of handling America’s secrets, words – classified, secure, retroactive – have special meanings. I held a Top Secret clearance at the State Department for 24 years and was regularly trained in protecting information as part of that privilege. Here is what some of those words mean in the context of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails.

    The Inspectors General for the State Department and the intelligence community issued astatement saying Clinton’s personal email system contained classified information. This information, they said, “should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.” The same statement voiced concern that a thumb drive held by Clinton’s lawyer also contains this same secret data. Another report claims the U.S. intelligence community is bracing for the possibility that Clinton’s private email account contains multiple instances of classified information, with some data originating at the CIA and NSA.

    A Clinton spokesperson responded that “Any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted.” Clinton claims unequivocally her email contained no classified information, and that no message carried any security marking, such as Confidential or Top Secret.

    Yet even if retroactive classification was applied only after Clinton hit “send” (and State’s own Inspector General says it wasn’t), she is not off the hook.

    What matters in the world of secrets is the information itself, which may or may not be marked “classified.” Employees at the highest levels of access are expected to apply the highest levels of judgment, based on the standards in Executive Order 13526. The government’s basic nondisclosure agreement makes clear the rule is “marked or unmarkedclassified information.”

    In addition, the use of retroactive classification has been tested and approved by the courts, and employees are regularly held accountable for releasing information that was unclassified when they released it, but classified retroactively.

    It is a way of doing business inside the government that may at first seem nonsensical, but in practice is essential for keeping secrets.

    For example, if an employee were to be handed information sourced from an NSA intercept of a foreign government leader, somehow not marked as classified, she would be expected to recognize the sensitivity of the material itself and treat it as classified.

    In other cases, an employee might hear something sensitive and be expected to treat the information as classified. The emphasis throughout the classification system is not on strict legalities and coded markings, but on judgment. In essence, employees are required to know right from wrong. It is a duty, however subjective in appearance, one takes on in return for a security clearance.

    “Not knowing” would be an unexpected defense from a person with years of government experience.

    In addition to information sourced from intelligence, Clinton’s email may contain some back-and-forth discussions among trusted advisors. Such emails are among the most sensitive information inside State, and are otherwise always considered highly classified.

    The problem for Clinton may be particularly damaging. Every email sent within the State Department’s own systems contains a classification; an employee technically cannot hit “send” without one being applied. Just because Clinton chose to use her own hardware does not relieve her or her staff of this requirement.

    Some may say even if Clinton committed security violations, there is no evidence the material got into the wrong hands – no blood, no foul. Legally that is irrelevant. Failing to safeguard information is the issue. It is not necessary to prove the information reached an adversary, or that an adversary did anything harmful with the information for a crime to have occurred. See the cases of Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Jeff Sterling, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou or even David Petraeus. The standard is “failure to protect” by itself.

  • Fed Finally Figures Out Soaring Student Debt Is Reason For Exploding College Costs

    Back in May 2014, in one of its patented utterly worthless “analyses” (that cost taxpayers several tens of thousands of dollars) the San Francisco Fed, home of such titans of central planning thought as Janet Yellen, asked “is it still worth going to college.” Not surprisingly, its answer was yes after some contrived mathematics that completely forgot to include just one thing: debt.

    At the time, we had the following comment:

    Oddly enough, having perused the paper several times, and having done
    a word search for both “loan” and “debt” (both of which return no
    hits), we find zero mention of one particular hockeystick. This one:

     

     

    Perhaps for the San Fran Fed to be taken seriously one of these
    years, it will actually do an analysis that covers all sides of a given
    problem, instead of just the one it was goalseeked to “conclude” before
    any “research” was even attempted.

    An analysis, even a painfully simple one, such as the one we put together less than a month later:

    It is common knowledge that in the hierarchy of bubbles, not even the stock market comes close to the student loan bubble. If it isn’t, one glance at the chart below which shows the exponential surge in Federal student debt starting just after the great financial crisis, should put the problem in its context.

     

     

    And while we have previously reported that a shocking amount of the loan proceeds are used to fund anything but tuition payments, a major portion of the funding does manage to find itself to its intended recipient: paying the college tuition bill.

     

    Which means that with student debt being so easily accessible anyone can use (and abuse), it gives colleges ample room to hike tuition as much as they see fit: after all students are merely a pass-through vehicle (even if one which for the most part represents non-dischargeable “collateral”) designed to get funding from point A, the Federal Government to point B, the college treasury account.

     

    It should thus come as no surprise that in a world in which colleges can hike tuition by any amount they choose, and promptly be paid courtesy of the federal government, and with endless amounts of propaganda whispering every day in the ears of impressionable potential students the only way they can get a well-paying job is to have a college diploma (see San Francisco Fed’s latest paper confirming just this) there is no shortage of applicants willing to take on any amount of debt to make sure this cycle continues, that soaring tuition costs are one of the few items not even the BLS can hedonically adjust to appear disinflationary.

     

    End result: tutitions have literally expoded across the country in both public and private colleges.

    None of this was rocket science, in fact that ultra cheap, widely available government-funded student debt is the cause for soaring prices, in this case college tuitions, is so obvious even tenured economists at the Federal Reserve should be able to get it.

    Well, we are delighted to report that about 7 years after it was glaringly obvious to everyone except the Fed of course, now – with the usual half decade delay – even the NY Fed has finally figured out what even 5 year olds get.

    As the WSJ helpfully reminds us, the federal government has boosted aid to families in recent decades to make college more affordable. However “a new study from the New York Federal Reserve faults these policies for enabling college institutions to aggressively raise tuitions.”

    The implication is the federal government is fueling a vicious cycle of higher prices and government aid that ultimately could cost taxpayers and price some Americans out of higher education, similar to what some economists contend happened with the housing bubble.

    But… but… the San Fran Fed said 

    Could it be possible that the Fed itself, with its imbecilic monetary policies, and the Federal government with its resultant $1.2 trillion in cheap debt, is the cause for tuition prices which are soaring by 6% every year, some three times higher than the increase in broad wages?

    Not only is it possible, but it is precisely what has happened. And now, even the Fed has figured it out.

    The heresy continues:

    “There’s widespread concern among policy makers and college officials that it has become too easy for students to borrow large amounts of money without necessarily appreciating what they are getting into,” said Terry Hartle of the American Council on Education, a trade group representing college and university presidents.

     

    The government’s student-credit spigot burst open in recent decades as Americans sought a leg up in an increasingly sophisticated economy, and accelerated during the last recession. Annual student-loan disbursements—which include some private loans but come mostly from the federal government—more than doubled between 2001 and 2012 to $120 billion, according to the New York Fed’s David O. Lucca, Taylor Nadauld and Karen Shen.

    The math became so clear even economists, even Fed economists, finally figured it out:

    Federal student loans allow Americans to borrow at below-market rates with scant scrutiny of their credit and no assessment of their ability to repay. Meanwhile, federal Pell grants, which help low-income college students and don’t need to be repaid, more than tripled to more than $30 billion a year between 2001 and 2012. Education tax credits roughly quadrupled to about $20 billion a year.

     

    The cost of getting a degree similarly exploded. From 2000 to 2014, consumers’ out-of-pocket costs for college and graduate-school tuition rose 6% a year, on average, according to the Labor Department’s consumer-price index. By comparison, medical-care inflation looks meek at an average 3.8%. Overall consumer prices climbed 2.4% a year.

    And so on.

    What is most embarrassing about this above is not that what has been patently common sensical has finally been confirmed, but that the this was so confusing to the “smartest central planners in the room”, it took them years upon years, and not only faulty analysis (thank you San Fran Fed) to finally get it right.

    What will they figure out next: the buying E-Minis to prop up the S&P, after having monetized 30% of all 10Year equivalents, is a recipe for the greatest disaster ever? But at least also today the Fed (ironically the San Fran edition) finally admitted that the US economy can’t function without bubbles, so there…

    In fact, the only sensible thing out of this entire hodge-podge of Fed economist BS, was one of the comments to the WSJ piece, which stands on its own merit:

    Any first WEEK student of economics knows that more money begets higher prices – regardless of whether it is higher education or the housing market – and that throwing tax dollars at the problem only makes things worse.  This study was a waste of money, but what it really shows is that basic economics shouldn’t wait for “higher education” and should be taught in high school.

    The problem, dear commentator is that the Fed’s only purpose to exist, is to throw tax, or newly printed, dollars at problems.

  • Fed Admits Economy Can't Function Without Bubbles

    In short, the dot-com bust was the last chance for the Fed to pivot and liberate the American economy from the corrosive financialization it had fostered. A determined policy of higher interest rates and renunciation of the Greenspan Put would have paved the way for a return to current account balance, sharply increased domestic savings, the elevation of investment over consumption, and a restoration of financial discipline in both public and private life. Needless to say, the Fed never even considered this historic opportunity. Instead, it chose to double-down on the colossal failure it had already produced, driving interest rates into the sub-basement of historic experience. This inexorably triggered the next and most destructive bubble ever. – David Stockman, The Great Deformation

    Over the course of the roughly twelve and a half years from Black Monday to the beginning of the end for the dot-com bubble, the Fed effectively engineered a mania by facilitating the explosion of bank loans, GSE debt, and the shadow banking complex, which together grew from under $5 trillion in 1987 to $17 trillion by the beginning of 2000.

    For evidence that this expansion was indeed the work of monetary authorities and was not funded by an increase in America’s savings, look no further than the following chart which shows an accommodative Fed and an increasingly savings averse American public:

    When the Nasdaq collapsed, the Fed was given an opportunity to restore some semblance of order and discipline to a market that had learned to rely on the Greenspan put. Instead, it chose to inflate a still larger bubble and now, courtesy of Janet Yellen’s friends at the San Francisco Fed, we know precisely why. 

    *  *  *

    From the San Francisco Fed

    Interest Rates and House Prices: Pill or Poison? 

    Wild swings in asset prices over the past 20 years and the associated boom-bust cycles have sparked considerable debate about how monetary policy might play a stabilizing role. 

    We can now calculate how much interest rates would have had to increase relative to the historical record to keep housing prices in check. Figure 4 displays the historical U.S. post-World War II ratio of house prices to income, stated in log terms so that changes can be read approximately as percentage changes. That ratio had declined steadily until 2002. Using a linear approximation from 1950 to 2002, we extrapolate the trend rate through 2006. We then calculate the percent difference between actual observed house prices and this trend, which turns out to be about 40%. A similar number would result from comparing house prices to the consumer price index, so this difference is not particular to our choice of normalization. The United Kingdom suffered a similar 40% house price boom. Since a 1 percentage point increase in the short rate translates into about a 4.4% decline in house prices, keeping house prices on trend would have required about an 8 percentage point increase in the federal funds rate in 2002 according to our calculations.


    What actually happened? The federal funds rate, the Fed’s short-term policy rate, stayed between 1% and 1.25% from the end of 2002 until the middle of 2004. Starting in June 2004, the federal funds rate rose 4.25 percentage points, reaching 5.25% by June 2006. In our experiment, the rate would have been about 8 percentage points higher at the end of 2002, but would have ended at about the same level observed in June 2006. That is, preemptive interest rate policy would have been extraordinarily tight in 2002 then would have gradually abated to around the level eventually reached in June 2006. By our calculations, such a large increase in interest rates would have depressed output more than the Great Recession did, roughly speaking.

    What is the takeaway then? Slowing down a boom in house prices is likely to require a considerable increase in interest rates, probably by an amount that would be widely at odds with the dual mandate of full employment and price stability. Moreover, the Fed would need a crystal ball to foretell house price booms. In restraining asset prices, while the power of interest rate policy is uncontestable, its wisdom is debatable.

    *  *  *

    Got that? In other words, the Fed would have needed to hike rates by 800 bps in the wake of the dot-com collapse in order to prevent the housing bubble. That would have purged the system and gradually, the FOMC could have eased by around 300 bps over the next four years. That policy course would have prevented the speculative bubble that brought capital markets the world over to their knees in 2008. 

    And why didn’t the Fed do this? Because “such a large increase in interest rates would have depressed output more than the Great Recession did, roughly speaking.” In other words, thanks to Alan Greenspan, the US economy cannot function under a normalized monetary policy regime, “roughly speaking.”

    We suppose the only question now is this: if rates needed to be 9.25% in 2002 in order to completely disabuse markets of the idea that the Fed will everywhere and always move to support asset prices, how high should rates be today?

  • "The Worldwide Credit Boom Is Over, Now Comes The Tidal Wave Of Global Deflation"

    Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

    If you want a cogent metaphor for the central bank enabled crack-up boom now underway on a global basis, look no further than today’s scheduled chapter 11 filling of met coal supplier Alpha Natural Resources (ANRZ). After becoming a public company in 2005, its market cap soared from practically nothing to $11 billion exactly four years ago. Now it’s back at the zero bound.

    ANRZ Market Cap Chart

    ANRZ Market Cap data by YCharts

    Yes, bankruptcies happen, and this is most surely a case of horrendous mismanagement. But the mismanagement at issue is that of the world’s central bank cartel.

    The latter have insured that there will be thousands of such filings in the years ahead because since the mid-1990s the central banks has engulfed the global economy in an unsustainable credit based spending boom, while utterly disabling and falsifying the financial system that is supposed to price assets honestly, allocate capital efficiently and keep risk and greed in check.

    Accordingly, the ANRZ stock bubble depicted above does not merely show that the boys, girls and robo-traders in the casino got way too rambunctious chasing the “BRICs will grow to the sky” tommyrot fed to them by Goldman Sachs. What was actually happening is that the central banks were feeding the world economy with so much phony liquidity and dirt cheap capital that for a time the physical economy seemed to be doing a veritable jack-and-the-beanstalk number.

    In fact, the central banks generated a double-pumped boom——first in the form of a credit-fueled consumption spree in the DM economies that energized the great export machine of China and its satellite suppliers; and then after the DM consumption boom crashed in 2008-2009 and threatened to bring the export-mercantilism of China’s red capitalism crashing down on Beijing’s rulers, the PBOC unleashed an even more fantastic investment and infrastructure boom in China and the rest of the EM.

    During the interval between 1992 and 1994 the world’s monetary system—–which had grown increasingly unstable since the destruction of Bretton Woods in 1971——took a decided turn for the worst. This was fueled by the bailout of the Wall Street banks during the Mexican peso crisis; Mr. Deng’s ignition of export mercantilism in China and his discovery that communist party power could better by maintained from the end of the central bank’s printing presses, rather than Mao’s proverbial gun;  and Alan Greenspan’s 1994 panic when the bond vigilante’s dumped over-valued government bonds after the Fed finally let money market rates rise from the ridiculously low level where Greenspan had pegged them in the interest of re-electing George Bush Sr. in 1992.

    From that inflection point onward, the global central banks were off to the races and what can only be described as a credit supernova exploded throughout the warp and woof of the world’s economy. To wit, there was about $40 trillion of debt outstanding in the worldwide economy during 1994, but this figure reached $85 trillion by the year 2000, and then erupted to $200 trillion by 2014. That is, in hardly two decades the world debt increased by 5X.

    To be sure, in the interim a lot of phony GDP was created in the world economy. This came first in the credit-bloated housing and commercial real estate sectors of the DM economies through 2008; and then in the explosion of infrastructure and industrial asset investment in the EM world in the aftermath of the financial crisis and Great Recession. But even then, the growth of unsustainable debt fueled GDP was no match for the tsunami of debt itself.

    At the 1994 inflection point, world GDP was about $25 trillion and its nominal value today is in the range of $70 trillion—-including the last gasp of credit fueled spending (fixed asset investment) that continues to deliver iron ore mines, container ships, earthmovers, utility power plants, deep sea drilling platforms and Chinese airports, highways and high rises which have negligible economic value. Still, even counting all the capital assets which were artificially delivered to the spending (GDP) accounts, and which will eventually be written-down or liquidated on balance sheets, GDP grew by only $45 trillion in the last two decades or by just 28% of the $160 trillion debt supernova.

    Here is what sound money men have known for decades, if not centuries. Namely, that this kind of runaway credit growth feeds on itself by creating bloated, artificial demand for materials and industrial commodities that, in turn, generate shortages of capital assets like mines, ships, smelters, factories, ports and warehouses that require even more materials to construct. In a word, massive artificial credit sets the world digging, building, constructing, investing and gambling like there is no tomorrow.

    In the case of Alpha Natural Resources, for example, the bloated demand for material took the form of met coal. And the price trend shown below is not at all surprising in light of what happened to steel capacity in China alone. At the 1994 inflection point met coal sold for about $35/ton, but at that point the Chinese steel industry amounted to only 100 million tons. By the time of the met coal peak in 2011, the Chinese industry was 11X larger and met coal prices had soared ten-fold to $340 per ton.

    And here is where the self-feeding dynamic comes in. That is, how we get monumental waste and malinvestment from a credit boom. In a word, the initial explosion of demand for commodities generates capacity shortages and therefore soaring windfall profits on in-place capacity and resource reserves in the ground.

    These false profits, in turn, lead speculators to believe that what are actually destructive and temporary economic rents represents permanent value streams that can be capitalized by equity owners.

    But as shown below, eventually the credit bubble stops growing, materials demand flattens-out and begins to rollover, thereby causing windfall prices and profits to disappear. This happens slowly at first and then with a rush toward the drain.

    ANRZ is thus rushing toward the drain because it got capitalized as if the insanely uneconomic met coal prices of 2011 would be permanent.

    Needless to say, an honest equity market would never have mistaken the peak met coal price of $340/ton in early 2011 as indicative of the true economics of coking coal. After all, freshman engineering students know that the planet is blessed (cursed?) with virtually endless coal reserves including grades suitable for coking.

    Yet in markets completely broken and falsified by central bank manipulation and repression, the fast money traders know nothing accept the short-run “price action” and chart points. In the case of ANZR, this led its peak free cash flow of $380 million in early 2011 to be valued at 29X.
    ANRZ Free Cash Flow (TTM) Chart

    ANRZ Free Cash Flow (TTM) data by YCharts

    Self-evidently, a company that had averaged $50 to $75 million of free cash flow in the already booming met coal market of 2005-2008 was hardly worth $1 billion. The subsequent surge of free cash flow was nothing more than windfall rents on ANZR’s existing reserves, and, accordingly, merited no increase in its market capitalization or trading multiple at all.

    In fact, even superficial knowledge of the met coal supply curve and production economics at the time would have established that even prices of $100 per ton would be hard  to sustain after the long-term capacity expansion than underway came to fruition.

    This means that ANRZ’s sustainable free cash flow never exceeded about $80 million, and that at its peak 2011 capitalization of $11 billion it was being traded at 140X. In a word, that’s how falsified markets go completely haywire in a central bank driven credit boom.

    As it happened, the full ANZR story is far worse. During the last 10 years it generated $3.2 billion in cash flow from operations——including the peak cycle profit windfalls embedded in its reported results.   Yet it spent $5 billion on CapEx and acquisitions during the same period, while spending nearly another $750 million that it didn’t have on stock buybacks and dividends.

    Yes, it was the magic elixir of debt that made ends appear to meet in its financial statements. Needless to say, the climb of its debt from $635 million in 2005 to $3.3 billion presently was reported in plain sight and made no sense whatsoever for a company dependent upon the volatile margins and cash flows inherent in the global met coal trade.

    So when we insist that markets are broken and the equities have been consigned to the gambling casinos, look no farther than today’s filing by Alpha Natural Resources.

    Markets which were this wrong on a prominent name like ANRZ at the center of the global credit boom did not make a one-time mistake; they are the mistake.

    As it now happens, the global credit boom is over; DM consumers are stranded at peak debt; and the China/EM investment frenzy is winding down rapidly.

    Now comes the tidal wave of global deflation. The $11 billion of bottled air that disappeared from the Wall Street casino this morning is just the poster boy—–the foreshock of the thundering collapse of inflated asset values the lies ahead.

  • Despite VIX Flash-Crash, Stocks Slammed As Crude Crashes To 5-Month Lows

    "We got this…" Right up until around 55 seconds in the following clip…

    China was ugly…

     

    And Greece crashed 30% at the open…

     

    An early bounce and the ubiquitous pre-EU close ramp both failed to hold stocks which had an ugly day… notice the dump after Europ closed and the ramp after 330ET… as VIX was smashed

     

    Energy stocks led the downturn…

     

    As WTI led stocks broadly…

     

    Carnage in AAPL and TWTR…

     

    as stocks catch down to bond yields…

     

    VIX flash crashed in a desprate bid to get S&P back to VWAP… right as PR defaulted

     

    AND sure enough S&P Futs tagged VWAP and turned around…

     

    It appears hope is fading that Macro will help us…

     

    Treasury yields leaked higher overnight but plunged after weak data…

     

    The US Dollar pushed generally higher today with a retracement into the EU close that then recovered to the days highs…

     

    Commodities continueed to get clobbered…

     

    But crude was utterly carnaged today…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

    Bonus Chart: Main Street Lost!!

  • The World Explained In One Chart

    We could not have put it better – Progress indeed…

     


    Source: @Not_Jim_Cramer

Digest powered by RSS Digest