- Most Dangerous Person On The Planet Today: Hillary Clinton
Submitted by Michael Shedlock via MishTalk.com,
On Monday, Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump of giving “aid and comfort” to Islamic terrorists, and that terrorists use his rhetoric to recruit fighters.
On fighting terrorism, she chastised Trump “I Know How to Do This“.
“I’m the only candidate in this race who’s been part of the hard decisions to take terrorists off the battlefield. I have sat at that table in the Situation Room,” said Clinton.
Here’s my counterclaim: Hillary Clinton not only sponsors terrorism, she is a terrorist.
I sent this as an Op-Ed to the New York Times. Rejected as expected.
Irony of the Year
The irony of the day, week, month and year is Hillary’s statement “I Know How to Do This“.
- Hillary supported Bush’s inane war in Iraq.
- Hillary supported Bush’s inane war in Afghanistan.
- Hillary was the mastermind of US failed strategy in Libya.
- Hillary is the single person most responsible for Benghazi.
- Hillary supports president Obama’s drone policy.
- There has never been a war Hillary did not support.
The most surefire way to make a terrorist out of a non-terrorist is to kill an innocent child or bomb an innocent person’s home. Doing so is sure to radicalize friends and family.
String of US Terrorism
There is nothing more un-American or unconstitutional than bombing other countries indiscriminately with no declaration of war, and with little or no regard to the lives of innocent victims.
Hillary Clinton supported those policies as Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton, like George Bush, like Dick Cheney, and like president Obama are all guilty of terrorism.
If you disagree, please put yourself in the shoes of a mother whose 4-year old daughter was “accidentally” killed by a US drone. Envision your neighbor’s house “accidentally” blown to smithereens by drones.
Is it not terrorism because it’s an accident? What practical difference does it make?
In the eyes of the families of innocent victims, no words better describe such actions than “US terrorism“. I guarantee that is precisely how you would feel if it was your son or daughter killed, or it was your house blown up.
On April 23, 2015 the New York Times reported Drone Strikes Reveal Uncomfortable Truth: U.S. Is Often Unsure About Who Will Die.
“Mr. Obama and his top aides have repeatedly promised greater openness about the drone program but have never really delivered on it,” said the Times, quoting Rachel Stohl, of the Stimson Center, a Washington research institute.
On October 20, 2015, the Huffington Post reported Nearly 90 Percent Of People Killed In Recent Drone Strikes Were Not The Target.
“U.S. drone strikes have killed scores of civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia,” said the article, emphasis mine.
US Policy Radicalizes Terrorists
How many terrorists did the US radicalize in the process?
How many innocent civilians died? How much compensation did the US pay? Sorry, that’s classified information.
Given US drone policy, it’s a wonder there has not been more terrorists incidents in the US. One surefire way to have more incidents in the US is to accept Obama’s plan to take in 65,000 Syrian refugees.
Hillary Promises More of the Same
Hillary’s refugee policies would ensure we would have more terrorist attacks in the US.
Globally, her statements prove she will continue the disastrous, counterproductive, and illegal policies of the Bush and Obama administration.
Logically speaking, Hillary Clinton is the biggest threat to world peace and the most dangerous person on the planet.
That’s what I will take with me to the election booth on November 8. What about you?
- It's Official: America Is Not The Greatest Country On Earth… It's 28th!
Violence, alcoholism, and obesity pose the biggest risks in the U.S.
But the rest of the world isn’t doing much better.
As Bloomberg reports, Iceland and Sweden share the top slot with Singapore as world leaders when it comes to health goals set by the United Nations, according to a report published in the Lancet. Using the UN’s sustainable development goals as guideposts, which measure the obvious (poverty, clean water, education) and less obvious (societal inequality, industry innovation), more than 1,870 researchers in 124 countries compiled data on 33 different indicators of progress toward the UN goals related to health.
The massive study emerged from a decadelong collaboration focused on the worldwide distribution of disease.
About a year and a half ago, the researchers involved decided their data might help measure progress on what may be the single most ambitious undertaking humans have ever committed themselves to: survival. In doing so, they came up with some disturbing findings, including that the country with the biggest economy (not to mention, if we’re talking about health, multibillion-dollar health-food and fitness industries) ranks No. 28 overall, between Japan and Estonia.
Bloomberg notes that the U.S. scores its highest marks in water, sanitation, and child development. That’s the upside. Unsurprisingly, interpersonal violence (think gun crime) takes a heavy toll on America’s overall ranking. Response to natural disasters, HIV, suicide, obesity, and alcohol abuse all require attention in the U.S. Also noteworthy are basic public health metrics that America. doesn’t perform as well on as other developed countries. The U.S. is No. 64 in the rate of mothers dying for every 100,000 births, and No. 40 when it comes to the rate children under age five die.
“The U.S. isn’t doing as well as it perhaps should compared with some countries in Western Europe,” Murray said.
Finally, it's an oldie, but a goodie…
- Caught On Tape: Did The US Target Syrian Aid Convoy With Hellfire Missile?
Hellfire Signature?
Footage of the nighttime attack on the Syrian aid convoy in Aleppo has surfaced. But there's something curious about how the footage has been appearing on Western news reports. A commenter on the Moon of Alabama blog, PavewayIV, made the following observations about what appears in the video, and what it suggests. First, however, here's an unedited version of the blast, courtesy of ABC:
In the screen cap above, you can see what looks to be a cloud of sparks following an initial explosion. According to PavewayIV, this is a signature of the Metal-Augmented Charge (MAC) Hellfire AGM-114N, the Predator drone's typical payload.
The fiery cloud is produced by the residue of the fine-mesh fluorinated aluminum particles (the "metal augmentation"). Aside from the ABC footage, most other networks have shown edited versions that make this signature difficult to detect.
For example, here's AP's version:
'
Shakey-cam added for jihadi-vision effect? Why would they do this?
Thermobaric Hellfire air-blasts don't leave craters, and they typically start fires. No craters are visible in footage of the burned convoy.
The Russians have thermobaric bombs, too, according to PavewayIV, but they use different particles and their blast patterns are different: either no "sparkles" or long-duration "sparkles", not the fast-duration flash as seen in the video of the Aleppo blast.
As we reported yesterday, the Russians detected a Predator drone which took off from Incirlik airbase in Syria, flew to the precise location of the convoy, arrived before the strike, stayed for a while, then left after the damage was done.
Surely just a coincidence…
- The Black-White Wage Gap Continued To Expand Under Obama
According to a new report from the Economic Policy Institute, the wage gap between white and black Americans was 18.1%in 1979. Astonishingly, as Statista’s Niall McCarthy reports, it has continued to expand ever since. By 2015, whites earned an average hourly real wage of $25.22 compared to $18.49 for blacks, making for a 26.7% wage gap.
You will find more statistics at StatistaEPI cited discrimination and growing earnings inequality in general as the primary reasons for America’s huge racial pay gap. Which is odd considering that after 8 years of a black president things got worse faster… with the biggest jump (2.8 percentage points) in 36 years.
Chart: Bloomberg
- Why Europe Secretly Roots For Donald Trump
Submitted by Matthew Karnitschnig via Strategic-Culture.org,
Careful observers of European politics might be forgiven for asking if — behind the exclamation of shock and horror over the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency — they don’t detect the occasional wry smile or hint of giddiness when the conversation turns to the U.S. Republican presidential candidate.
To be sure, hardly a day goes by without some senior European official voicing grave concerns over the possibility that Trump might win the elections. European Parliament President Martin Schulz warned recently that Trump “would be a problem not just for the EU but for the whole world.”
And yet, in some quarters at least, the Trump cloud carries with it at least a sliver of silver lining. No European politician will say so publicly, but to some on the Continent, Trump presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity for emancipation from American influence.
To varying degrees, America-bashing has been a mainstay on both the Right and Left of European politics for decades. From GMOs to Guantanamo, from the drone war to the death penalty, European politicians have rarely had difficulty finding reasons to rail against the U.S.
In fact, the evils of U.S. influence is one of the few things that European politicians from nearly every slice of the political spectrum can agree upon. In Germany, for example, one is just as likely to see an “Ami Go Home” (Ami is German slang for American) poster at a rally for the Left party as at a gathering of the far-right Alternative for Germany.
Just as the EU served as a convenient whipping post for British politicians of all stripes in recent decades, culminating in the Brexit vote, the U.S. serves a similar purpose for many European politicians. Even those who profess a deep commitment to the transatlantic relationship often can’t resist using the U.S. as a rhetorical foil to deflect attention from their own vulnerabilities.
As long as moderate politicians occupy the White House, anti-American politicians will find it difficult to turn their rhetoric into reality. A Trump presidency would force a rethink.
Just last week, Jean-Claude Juncker, hailing the Commission’s crackdown on Apple’s Irish tax penalty in his State of the Union speech, declared: “Europe is not the Wild West.” Anyone listening knew that “Wild West” means America. “We are not the United States of Europe,” Juncker added, to applause from the assembled MEPs. “We are much more diverse in Europe and stronger.”
Most Europeans at the center of Europe’s political spectrum genuinely fear the consequences of a Trump victory and a weakening of the Transatlantic relationship. But others smell an opportunity too good to be allowed to pass.
As long as moderate politicians like President Barack Obama or U.S. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton occupy the White House, anti-American politicians will find it difficult to turn their rhetoric into reality. A Trump presidency would force a rethink.
Here are five reasons some European politicians are secretly rooting for Trump:
The end of free trade: From the outset, European trade negotiators warned that anti-Americanism posed the biggest threat to a sweeping transatlantic trade deal. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the free-trade pact being negotiated by the U.S. and Europe, has been on life support for months. A Trump victory wouldn’t just douse any remaining hope for success, it would put a stake through the heart of the negotiations.
Opponents of the deal see it as the Trojan Horse of trade, designed to give U.S. companies even more influence in Europe. Trump has argued the opposite, that free-trade deals hurt American workers. The bottom line: a Trump victory would put a free-trade pact between the U.S. and Europe of any kind firmly off the table.
The birth of an EU army: The U.S. has guaranteed Europe’s security for decades through NATO, effectively placing a giant security umbrella over most of the Continent. That reliance doesn’t sit well with everyone.
Though Europe doesn’t have anywhere near the military resources of the U.S. (American military spending accounts for about 75 percent of the NATO total), politicians in France and Germany are eager to get to work on a European defense force. The idea isn’t new and faces myriad hurdles, mainly the question of how to finance it on Europe’s shoestring budget.
Nevertheless, a Trump victory would give the initiative a major boost. As with the trade deal, Trump would likely be happy to let the Europeans fend for themselves. He has made no secret of his distaste for Europe’s reliance on the U.S. military. Conversely, few Europeans would welcome Trump as commander-in-chief. If he wins, proponents of a European army would finally have the compelling argument they’ve been looking for.
Breaking up big brother surveillance: Europe’s most emotional gripe about American influence in recent years has revolved around mass surveillance. Edward Snowden’s revelations have convinced Europe that nobody — be it Angela Merkel or the man on the street — is safe from the NSA’s digital dragnet.
Though the reality is somewhat less dramatic, that narrative has carried the day and many Europeans are convinced the U.S. is listening to their phone calls. Snowden, a man Trump argues should be executed, has become a modern-day Che Guevara for Europe’s youth. For all the transatlantic tensions around mass surveillance, Europe still cooperates with the U.S., mainly to get access to intelligence on Islamic terrorists. A Trump victory would be welcome news to those opposed to such cooperation.
Cracking down on Wall Street: The influence of Wall Street banks in Europe has long been a bee in the bonnet of Europe’s anti-American elites and populists alike. No conspiracy theory about the eurozone debt crisis, for example, is complete without dark hints about suspected machinations in New York’s financial district.
The recent brouhaha about former Commission president José Manuel Barroso joining Goldman Sachs illustrates the depth of the distrust. “Goldman Sachs was one of the organizations that contributed to the financial crisis in 2007-2009, so we wonder about this particular bank,” Juncker last week, explaining why he called for an investigation into Barroso’s move. Never mind that the EU has no specific ban on officials working for Goldman or that plenty of European banks, such as Deutsche Bank, also had a hand in the turmoil.
Justified or not, the bottom line is that Wall Street is considered a toxic force in Europe. Politicians on the Left have had Wall Street banks in their sights for some time. A Trump win would present a good opportunity for a crackdown.
Schadenfreude: The most powerful force driving Europe’s secret hopes for a Trump victory is simple schadenfreude. Most Europeans never bought the U.S.’s “city on a hill” claims of exceptionalism. And yet for decades, they’ve been subjected to American claims of moral superiority.
Not only did the U.S. liberate Europe from fascism, it also freed the Continent from the clutches of communism, goes a common refrain. To more than a few Europeans, President Trump would prove that the U.S. is really no different than the Continent: just as dysfunctional, just as vulnerable to its basest instincts and just as susceptible to the false promises of a demagogue.
- New DHS Emails Reveal Efforts To Rush Citizenship Grants "Due To Election"
Just a couple of days ago we noted that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had “mistakenly” granted citizenship to over 850 immigrants from “countries of concern to national security” even after they had been flagged for deportation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (see “DHS Admits “Mistakenly” Granting Citizenship To 858 Immigrants From ‘Countries Of Concern To National Security’“). Now, newly disclosed DHS emails, indicating a rush to “process as many [citizenship] cases as possible due to the election year,” may help explain why so many “mistakes” were made.
A recent letter from Senator Chuck Grassley (R – Iowa) to the DHS, expressed concerns over the newly revealed emails and whether there may be efforts within U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) to naturalize as many potential voters as possible before election day. Per Grassley’s letter (which can read in it’s entirely below), someone in the Houston USCIS field office sent the following email to office staff asking employees to consider working overtime in order to process as many naturalization applications as possible before the election:
“The Field Office due to the election year needs to process as many of their N-400 cases as possible between now and FY 2016.”
“If you have cases in this category or other pending, you are encouraged to take advantage of the OT if you can. This will be an opportunity to move your pending naturalization cases. If you have not volunteered for OT, please consider and let me know if you are interested.”
Another person within the Houston field office forwarded the message saying “it’s the end of the year crunch time!”
“I couldn’t have said it better! It’s the end of the year crunch time, so let’s get crunchy! Go Team Houston! Thanks for all your hard work!”
Grassley’s letter to Jeh Johnson of the DHS, blasts efforts to hastily grant citizenship as “an attempt to create as many new citizen voters as possible.“
“We write to express serious concern about an apparent push by your department to rush the adjudication of naturalization applications before the upcoming presidential election, presumably in an attempt to create aa many new citizen voters as possible.“
Grassley also points out that this is not the first time efforts have been taken to rush the approval of citizenship applications for election purposes. Apparently similar efforts were made ahead of the 1996 election when citizenship grants soared by nearly 4x.
“Unfortunately, we have been down this road before. In the year preceding the 1996 presidential election the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the predecessor agency for USCIS, established the notorious “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) initiative. Previously, the INS had been granting citizenship to 300,000 to 400,000 aliens per year, but under CUSA that increased to 1.1 million cases. The apparent push to naturalize as many aliens as possible in time for them to vote in the election resulted in cut corners that endangered national security and public safety.”
Any other election year this news might be shocking but this year, for some reason, we’re not terribly surprised.
Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com
Senator Chuck Grassley’s letter to the Department of Homeland Security
- State Street: "Move Over Zero Hedge, There Is A New Bear In Town"
By Mr. Risk – State Street Global Markets
Unleash Volatility Beast
Thanks for nothing, central banks!
- If central banks provided the prototypical inflection point, risk assets should get destroyed next week.
- Feast your eyes on a compendium of volatility charts. The beast wants out.
- Keys to watch: DXY, EURAUD, and 10-year yields. Move over ZEROHEDGE. There is a new BEAR in town,
* * *
Ahead of the BOJ and Fed meetings, volumes slowed to a trickle, traders got back to flat, and algos reached for the offswitch. Now that event risk is in the rear view mirror, it is time to vote. Buy-the-dip or ‘‘sell everything?’’ If classic market reflexes are in play, a market meltdown following the passing of event risks is by far the more likely outcome. That US equities launched higher is nothing, because it always does that on Fed day. The obligatory central bank forensic is a good place to begin.
Expectations as measured by overnight volatility ahead of the BOJ were the third highest in 3-years. Notably, 7 out of the 10 highest readings have occurred in 2016, which says something about the growing perception about policy failure. Expanding monetary base has not delivered higher inflation expectations or a weaker currency. Just about every 2016 meeting USDJPY sunk like the proverbial stone.
The ‘‘monetary assessment’’ conducted by the BOJ was an admission that QQE was unsustainable, and needed to be tweaked. Plan B is ‘‘QQE with yield curve control.’’ No, that is not a new shampoo. Here is the stripped down ghetto-economist version.
- Negative interest rate
- Stabilize 10-year yields at 0%
- Keep asset purchases at ¥80 tn/year
- Abandon monetary base target
- Aim to overshoot the 2.0% inflation target
- Rebalance ETF by buying less Nikkei 225 linked ETFs and more Topix, removing a well-flagged distortion.
On the day, Topix banks were big winners (6.97%) versus Topix (2.7%). Not going negative and signalling a steeper curve was reasons to celebrate. As for yen it was rinse, repeat. Ostensibly ease, watch the currency weaken for a nanosecond before a violent reversal. Collectively, it was along the lines of ‘‘hey, its BOJ day, aren’t we supposed to sell USDJPY? What the heck is it doing above 102? Sell it.’’ As for the boldness of the policy these are Mr Risk’s conclusions:
- Policymakers have not lost their appetite for untested monetary experimentation.
- Pure Krugman — credibly promise to be irresponsible.’’
- It’s radical. The question is how credible.
- On the flipside: BOJ opens the door to ‘‘stealth tightening’’, as one commentator worries.
Inviting an inflation overshoot when not a single economist believes that the BOJ will achieve its 2.0% inflation target in FY 2017 sounds like a sick joke, but really it is a radical. Even more radical is the commitment to hold JGB 10-year yields at zero. If inflation is rising as the economy heats up, they are pledging to cap nominal 10-year yields and thus keep lowering real rates, adding juice to the inflation trend. Alternatively, what happens if the global factor driving all global bond yields goes even lower? Then BOJ has committed to selling JGBs, thereby tapering and draining liquidity. This could get interesting.
In the Q&A, Kuroda talked about the unwanted negative impacts on credit creation from yield curve flattening. It hurts banks NIM and threatens pension funds ability to deliver on promises. The BOJ wants to steepen the curve, but not by increasing longer yields because that is a monetary tightening. By deduction the market factors in a lower deposit rate going forward. FX traders don’t like it, but bank stocks might. Perhaps that links the two different outcomes.
Confused? Tim Graf says the BOJ embraces uncertainty. That nails the zeitgeist. The world just got a little crazier and a little more dangerous. Central banks need to learn that when you are in a hole, stop digging.
Mr Risk’s takeaway is in line with Greg Ip’s who said ‘‘central banks have shown the will to hit their growth and inflation targets but do they have the way?’’ Read his article. Central bank tools are losing their edge. The BOJ gets full marks for monetary experimentation, but investors are increasingly set to question why previous innovations have fallen short. This marks the most worrying thing possible, namely, the popping of the central bank bubble.
YELLEN: NOTHING TO SEE HERE
The headline is ‘‘open warfare’’ at the Fed with three Fed Presidents voting for a hike, the first time that three members have dissented in favour of tighter policy since September 2011 under previous Chairman Bernanke, before that it was 1990. Lee Ferridge pens the analysis with a cheeky title: We will hike in December; honest we will. In the most simplistic terms it appears as if the Brainard stock went up. Let the labour market run hot carried the day.
Forget the ‘‘dots.’’ Put no stock in the idea that the Fed makes the case for a year-end hike, as argued by Hilsenrath. Uncertainty ahead of the election is the real reason the Fed stood pat, fearing what might happen to financial markets and economic data if ‘‘the Donald’’ wins.
In the medium term, the issue with the ‘‘dots’’ boils down to a credibility problem. Michael Metcalfe writes that the ‘‘FOMC is caught in a potentially vicious circle. The market has had a run where it appears to be a better forecaster of the policy rate than the FOMC. This limits the ability of FOMC to guide market expectations because the market believes it knows better. If policy makers are then unwilling to surprise the market, as they have been historically, this reinforces the market’s better run at forecasting the policy rate and makes it even harder for the policy makers to guide expectations.’’
Now something interesting that many may not know. While a dissent from Fed Presidents happens quite a lot, only three times have Fed Governors dissented. Even more interesting is the power to change rates rests with the 5 Governors — Yellen, Fischer, Tarullo, Powell and Brainard. That is not a typo. Yes just these five. The Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 amended the 1913 Federal Reserve Act to give the Fed the authority to pay interest on reserves beginning Oct 1, 2011. Did you know that it is only these 5 Fed Governors who have the power to set the rate of interest of excess reserves? Now that is interesting right?
After a press conference with plenty of the usual waffle, financial markets do what they always do on Fed day; they rallied. So far it’s carrying on today, giving the buy-the-dip crowd something to crow about.
TECHNICAL DOLLAR
DXY is setting up for a monster move. It can go either way, but there is an excellent chance this launches higher. It’s not like the Fed can do anything more on the policy front to crush it. Moreover, the a-b-c-d-e triangle may resolve higher in an explosion of volatility. Mr Risk is in wait mode. Let market forces tell us which way it breaks.
BULL LOGIC
While trolling Twitter, Mr Risk came across the following from Anil@anilvohra69. You just have to laugh at fitting the facts to the story or is it the story to the facts, Mr Risk forgets.
Yields
• High yields signal stronger growth
• Low yields make stocks more attractive via a lower-discount rate.
• Either way, buy stocksVolatility
• Low volatility is good — it reflects confidence
• High volatility is good — as it declines stocks rally
• Either way, buy stocksOil
• Low oil is a tax cut for consumers
• Higher oil boosts investment
• Either way, buy stocksDISTURBING FUN FACTS
• Factset reports S&P500 quarterly buybacks declined 6.8% y-o-y% in Q2 to $125 billion. This is uber-positive for volatility as buybacks are one of the key variables suppressing it.
• The last day of summer (21 Sept, or if a weekend, the previous trading day) has only 4 previous times since 1994 been an up day. Yesterday made it 5.
• The week after September options expiration has only been higher 4 times in the last 26 years or (15% of the time). It is down 1.1% on average. That does not bode well for Friday.
• What does 2016 have in common with 1986, 1990, 2001, and 2008? Bloomberg story says: falling profit margins, LMCI negative 12-month change, Capex negative, and Speculative grade defaults above 5.5%. Only 1986 escaped recession, but remember that energy consumption share was larger and we did not have shale production.
• The $400bn risk parity is in the crosshairs. It is estimated that there could be ‘‘$50bn of bond selling from risk parity type investors.’’ Read this: is the latest risk-parity blow up just starting and is a VaR shock just starting: here is the checklist. Honestly, this is one of the hottest topics right now.UNLEASH THE VOLATILITY BEAST
If central bank bubble is popping then all of these following charts might actually mean something. If not, they are just a bunch of charts that look incredible but mean nothing. Let the reader decide.
Let’s begin with the 1-year average of the VIX which catches the long cycle. It shows the two phases. Below 16, is benign, above 16 is disturbing. It has popped above the threshold and if history repeats is in the beginning of the high volatility phase which can last for the next year.
The 3-month change in S&P 12-month forward earnings peaked in July (2.76%), turning down in August (2.20%). ISM points to a further decline. This is pointing to a higher VIX reading.
Profit margins have declined 8 quarters on the trot. Consequently, the corporate financing gap has turned south which means increased dependence on external sources of liquidity, aka, debt. In the past such moves in the financing gap signal a downturn as well as boost the VIX.
What is absolutely critical for unleashing volatility is a US or global recession. Expansions are not supposed to die of old age, but nonetheless the current expansion is the 4th longest based on NBER dating. There is a plethora of economic and financial series pointing towards recession. A full piece on that is on the ‘‘to-do’’ list.
The yield curve slope adjusted for the level of yields warns of recession. Keen followers of demographics like Mr Risk’s pal Michael Green (Ice Farm Advisors) argue that the incentives are set to disappear to work past 70.5 years from a Social Security benefits standpoint. This is critical. The baby boom began in 1946. Do the math. Add 70.5 to 1946 and you get 2016.5. What do retirees not do? They don’t work. They don’t spend. Still not convinced? Consider the Social Security Act was passed August 14, 1935. While not the primary reason for the 1937-38 recession, payroll taxes were first collected in 1937. These things matter.
The flattening yield curve slope (3m-10y) is another useful indicator when advanced 2-years against the VIX.
The Fed’s Senior Loan Survey percent of banks tightening lending standards points to the beginnings of a credit crunch. Wait, are you saying that we should worried about not just energy loans, but car loans and commercial property loans? Oh, this is starting to get interesting.
If that chart did not get the visceral juices flowing, wait for this next one. C&I delinquency rates deviation from its 12- month average not only is ripping higher but in fact hit the worst readings of all time. When will the VIX wake up?
Markets are interconnected. Positive SPY/TLT says there is little diversification value, which adds to pressure to deleverage positions.
SEXY SEPTEMBER SEASONAL
2016 Dow price action is tracking the 1900-2012 Presidential-cycle September returns like a glove. Note that the real serious waterfall style declines are historically next week, which by the way coincides with the Trump-Clinton first debate. Also note that the incredible fit to the historical trend so far this month.
USDJPY — GET A GRIP
Normally, we expect USDJPY to behave in line with US 10-year yields, the Nikkei and volatility. For one of the longest stretches in a while, this currency pair has misbehaved. Mr Risk is sending it to its room with no dinner, no Facebook, and taking away its stash of Cohibas. More seriously, this persistence dislocation speaks to positioning, top side export sellers, and ultimately a lack of faith in the BOJ to deliver a weaker currency. Hope springs eternal for this USDJPY bull!
- "FBI Is Handing Out Deals Like Candy" – Cheryl Mills And 2 Other Clinton Aides Get Immunity
We’re beginning to think the entire FBI investigation into Hillary’s private email servers was just a ruse to grant immunity to her entire staff. According to the AP, the House Oversight Committee has just learned that Hillary’s top aide, Cheryl Mills, was also granted immunity along with John Bentel (Director of the State Department’s Office of Information Resources Management) and Heather Samuelson (Clinton aide).
For those of you keeping count, we are now aware of a total of 5 immunity deals offered to people directly involved in the Hillary email scandal:
Cheryl Mills – Clinton’s top aide
Heather Samuelson – Clinton aide
John Bentel – Director of the State Department’s Office of Information Resources Management
Bryan Pagliano – Clinton technology aide
Paul Combetta – Platte River Networks
The Chair of the House Oversight Committee, Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), expressed his complete disbelief over the number of immunity deals granted in this investigation. Per The Hill, Chaffetz said that he has “lost confidence in this investigation” noting that “immunity deals should not be a requirement for cooperating with the FBI.”
“This is beyond explanation. The FBI was handing out immunity agreements like candy,” House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said in a statement.
“I’ve lost confidence in this investigation and I question the genuine effort in which it was carried out. Immunity deals should not be a requirement for cooperating with the FBI.”
The latest immunity discoveries were first revealed by the AP in the following tweet:
Congressman: FBI gave immunity to Hillary Clinton’s ex-chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, in now-closed email case. https://t.co/gDb60PH2Gt
— The Associated Press (@AP) September 23, 2016
For those of you who “do not recall” the specific involvement of Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson in the Hillary email scandal, here is brief recap.
Shortly after providing the initial set of Hillary’s emails to the State Department, in “December 2014 or January 2015,” both Heather Samuelson and Cheryl Mills requested that all emails be removed from their computers using “a program called BleachBit to delete the e-mail-related files so they could not be recovered.”
Per the excerpt below from the FBI’s investigation notes, Mills was also the Clinton aide who instructed Paul Combetta (the “Oh Shit” guy) to “modify [Hillary’s] e-mail retention policy” to 60 days…in other words get rid of everything.
Can the FBI just save us all some time and admit that literally everyone interviewed in this case received an immunity deal from the DOJ?
- How Trump Wins The Debate
Having earlier heard president Obama's advice for how Hillary Clinton can win the debates, Patrick Buchanan offers his advice to Donald Trump…
On one of my first trips to New Hampshire in 1991, to challenge President George H. W. Bush, I ran into Sen. Eugene McCarthy.
He was returning to the scene of his ’68 triumph, when he had inflicted the first crippling wound on Lyndon Johnson.
“Pat, you don’t have to win up here, you know,” he assured me. “All you have to do is beat the point spread.”
“Beat the point spread” is a good description of what Donald Trump has to do in Monday night’s debate.
With only a year in national politics, he does not have to show a mastery of foreign and domestic policy details. Rather, he has to do what John F. Kennedy did in 1960, and what Ronald Reagan did in 1980.
He has to meet and exceed expectations, which are not terribly high. He has to convince a plurality of voters, who seem prepared to vote for him, that he’s not a terrible risk, and that he will be a president of whom they can be proud.
He has to show the country a Trump that contradicts the caricature created by those who dominate our politics, culture and press.
The Trump on stage at Hofstra University will have 90 minutes to show that the malicious cartoon of Donald Trump is a libelous lie.
He can do it, for he did it at the Mexico City press conference with President Pena Nieto where he surprised his allies and stunned his adversaries.
Recall. Kennedy and Reagan, too, came into their debates with a crucial slice of the electorate undecided but ready to vote for them if each could relieve the voters’ anxieties about his being within reach of the button to launch a nuclear war.
Kennedy won the first debate, not because he offered more convincing arguments or more details on the issues, but because he appeared more lucid, likable and charismatic, more mature than folks had thought. And he seemed to point to a brighter, more challenging future for which the country was prepared after Ike.
After that first debate, Americans could see JFK sitting in the Oval Office.
Reagan won his debate with Carter because his sunny disposition and demeanor and his “There you go again!” airy dismissal of Carter’s nit-picking contradicted the malevolent media-created caricatures of the Gipper as a dangerous primitive or an amiable dunce.
Even George W. Bush, who, according to most judges, did not win a single debate against Al Gore or John Kerry, came off as a levelheaded fellow who was more relatable than the inventor of the internet or the windsurfer of Cape Cod.
The winner of presidential debates is not the one who compiles the most debating points. It is the one whom the audience decides they like, and can be comfortable taking a chance on.
Trump has the same imperative and same opportunity as JFK and Reagan. For the anticipated audience, of Super Bowl size, will be there to see him, not her. He is the challenger who fills up the sports arenas with the tens and scores of thousands, not Hillary Clinton.
If she were debating John Kasich or Jeb Bush, neither the viewing audience nor the title-fight excitement of Monday night would be there. Specifically, what does Trump need to do? He needs to show that he can be presidential. He needs to speak with confidence, but not cockiness, and to deal with Clinton’s attacks directly, but with dignity and not disrespect. And humor always helps.
Clinton has a more difficult assignment.
America knows she knows the issues. But two-thirds of the country does not believe her to be honest or trustworthy. As her small crowds show, she sets no one on fire. Blacks, Hispanics and millenials who invested high hopes in Barack Obama seem to have no great hopes for her. She has no bold agenda, no New Deal or New Frontier.
“Why aren’t I 50 points ahead?” wailed Hillary Clinton this week.
The answer is simple. America has seen enough of her and has no great desire to see any more; and she cannot change an impression hardened over 25 years — in 90 minutes.
But the country will accept her, if the only alternative is the Trump of the mainstream media’s portrayal. Hence, the strategy of the Democratic Party for the next seven weeks is obvious:
Trash Trump, take him down, make him intolerable, and we win.
No matter how she performs though, Donald Trump can win the debate, for he is the one over whom the question marks hang. But he is also the one who can dissipate and destroy them with a presidential performance.
In that sense, this debate and this election are Trump’s to win.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...