Obamacare: Universities Have to Cut Work Hours for Students, Profs

Obamacare signingUniversities everywhere are scaling back on
part-time work opportunities for students and adjunct professors in
order to comply with the Affordable Care Act. According to Campus Reform:

Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) is restricting student
work because of compliance issues associated with the Affordable
Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare.

In an email last week, MTSU President Sidney McPhee explained
that “due to our interpretation of the reporting requirements of
ACA,” graduate assistants, adjunct faculty members, and resident
assistants are barred from working on-campus jobs that exceed 29
hours of work per week.

Now, they cannot take on multiple campus jobs. …

Capping hours associated with on-campus employment is quickly
becoming the norm. Since 2012, at least 111 colleges and
universities have limited adjunct professor course loads, capped
student employment hours, or reduced hours for part-time faculty
according to a list compiled
byInvestor’s Business Daily
.

I mentioned previously that the 30-hour cap was
going to really hurt student journalists
unless Congress
approved some kind of exemption. But Obamacare’s ill-effects are
everywhere. Requiring employers to offer health insurance to
30-hours-a-week workers carries the same, entirely predictable
result as requiring employers to pay 30-hours-a-week workers more
money: fewer 30-hours-a-week workers.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/XPAsJp
via IFTTT

…And The Market Breaks (Again)

Surprise…

  • *BATS: ROUTING TO NASDAQ OPTIONS MKT SUSPENDED AS OF 11:06:07 ET
  • *BATS INVESTIGATING OPTIONS MKT ISSUE
  • *NOM ISSUES WITH OPRA DATA IN SYMBOL RANGE HD-HO
  • *BX OPTIONS ISSUES WITH OPRA DATA IN SYMBOL RANGE GP-HN
  • *NASDAQ OPTIONS MARKET, BX OPTIONS HAVING ISSUES ON SOME SYMBOLS

Via BATS Options Status

 

Which might help explain this…




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1mNrdz1 Tyler Durden

The Enlightened Regulators of Hanoi?

Lauren Quinn has an
interesting article
in The Guardian about Hanoi’s
approach to unlicensed, unplanned construction. Here’s an
excerpt:


Hanoi!
As the 1990s progressed, increased wealth
fuelled demand, and illegal construction grew sharply. In 1995,
there were about 1,000 illegal projects in the city—and those were
just the reported cases. The city also began to spread out,
progressively consuming villages and rice paddies to keep pace with
demand for homes. Urban planners call this “spontaneous urban
development.” Most of the world calls it “slums.” But in Hanoi,
with the unusual mixture of basic regulation and control, a strange
thing happened. “The negative side of this development was
substandard infrastructure,” says DiGregorio, “but there was also a
positive.” That positive came from the enlightened regulatory
attitude of authorities.

In the culture of semi-legal construction, if someone built a
structure that adhered to minimum standards, it became legal—and
for the most part was provided with basic services such as
electricity and sanitation. In most developing cities, those
flooding from the countryside end up living in sprawling squatter
encampments, lacking basic sanitation and vulnerable to eviction.
But in Hanoi, the new arrivals could build houses that didn’t have
official permission but often received basic services
anyway.

Read the rest
here
. For more from Reason on unlicensed building in
the Third World, go here.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1qJUhZi
via IFTTT

When ‘Preventing Rape Promotes Rape’, You’re Doing Feminism Wrong

A team of undergraduate students at North
Carolina State University has
developed a novel solution to helping women avoid “date rape”
drugs
like Rohypnol (aka “roofies”) and Gamma-Hydroxybutric
acid (GHB): nail polish that changes colors when it comes into
contact with these substances. “Our goal is to invent technologies
that empower women to protect themselves from this heinous and
quietly pervasive crime,”
the creators of “Undercover Colors” polish wrote
in their
winning submission to the school’s Entrepreneurship Initiative
competition—hardly the words of people promoting sexual
assault, would you say? 

Yet bunches of high-profile, liberal feminists* saw things
otherwise.
Maya Dusenbury at the blog Feministing
 starts with a good
point—that drugs like Rohypnol, Xanax, and GHB
are not used to facilitate rape as commonly
as we might imagine, and it’s important not to give people false
impressions of when and how assaults take place. But to Dusenbury,
that makes preventative efforts aimed at less-common circumstances
somehow suspect: 

Are you at all worried that by overstating the prevalence of
date rape drugs, your product might give its users, who are no less
likely to become victims of other kinds of sexual assault, a false
sense of security? And given that your product only addresses a
relatively tiny subsection of the sexual violence in this country,
do you have any plans to donate your profits to help protect the
remainder of the 18 percent? 

Yes, her complaint actually seems to be that the nail polish
creators are only helping prevent some rapes and not all
rapes. Meanwhile, Salon assistant editor
Jenny Kutner is skeptical
of the polish and yet still
distraught that it will be sold and not magically
subsidized and distributed freely:

… there’s room for skepticism about a rape prevention method
that aims to deter assaults through more fear and stigma — albeit
stigma attached to committing sexual assault, not to surviving it —
instead of through education. And, beyond that, tools like
Undercover Colors raise questions about the cost of profiting from
rape prevention: Is this really a market we should continue to
applaud entrepreneurs’ (notably male ones) tapping into? Or might
these resources be better allocated trying to teach people not to
rape?

At The Guardian Jessica
Valenti asserts that
“anything that puts the onus on women to
‘discreetly’ keep from being raped misses the point. We should be
trying to stop rape, not just individually avoid it.” Here’s
Jezebel writer Lindy West

Here’s Elizabeth
Plank
, a senior editor at millennial news site
Mic

And Rebecca Nagle, co-director of the group FORCE:
Upsetting Rape Culture,
told Think Progress
:

One of the ways that rape is used as a tool to control people is
by limiting their behavior. As a woman, I’m told not to go out
alone at night, to watch my drink, to do all of these things. That
way, rape isn’t just controlling me while I’m actually being
assaulted—it controls me 24/7 because it limits my behavior.
Solutions like these actually just recreate that. I don’t want to
fucking test my drink when I’m at the bar. That’s not the world I
want to live in.

At the crux of most of these complaints is the axiom that we
should teach men not to rape instead of teaching women not to
be raped
. And that’s an important message! Too much cultural
focus for too long has been on how a women’s own conduct
contributed or may contribute to her assault, in a way that winds
up absolving assailants of culpability.

But teaching men not to rape and helping women avoid rape aren’t
mutually exclusive options. It’s been said so many times already so
as to be a cliche, but no one accuses security cameras of
encouraging “theft culture”. And neither do most people blame theft
victims for getting robbed just because they didn’t have
security cameras. This sort of surveillance is simply an extra
precaution that some homeowners and businesses take, particularly
if circumstances (living in a wealthy neighborhood that’s often
targeted, living in a high-crime neighborhood, etc.) suggest a
higher likelihood of their property being robbed.

Similarly, I find it hard to believe the mere existence of
discreet date-rape detection tools would lead to the belief that
anyone not employing them deserves being drugged. No one’s gonna
start expecting all women to start slathering this stuff on all the
time. But someone who frequents crowded clubs, or a college student
going to a keg party, or someone on a first date may find that
taking this added precaution seems worthwhile. Are we supposed to
prefer they get drugged and assaulted while we’re waiting for a
perfect, rape-free culture? As writer and activist Maggie
McNeill commented
on Twitter, I’m skeptical about “solutions”
to crimes & social problems “that require establishing a Utopia
first.”

* Really want to stress that these criticisms are coming from
mainstream liberal feminists because I’ve
seen plenty of other feminist-minded women, from libertarians and
conservatives to rad-fems and writers at popular women’s
publications, mentioning the nail polish approvingly. 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1tFPyfb
via IFTTT

Hamas: Agreement Reached on Gaza Ceasefire

Palestinian officials said on Tuesday a Gaza ceasefire deal with
Israel has been reached under Egyptian mediation and a formal
announcement of an agreement was imminent.

There was no immediate confirmation from Israel, where a
spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declined to
comment.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1AR6rXH
via IFTTT

White Hawk Down – UN Helicopter Shot Down In South Sudan

Time for some more ‘humanitarian’ airtsrike non-boots-on-the-ground ‘advisors’… As AP reports, The U.N. mission in South Sudan says one of its helicopters has crashed, and a U.N. official told The Associated Press that it appears the aircraft was shot down. While not quite Mogadishu (yet), the UN is “deeply concerned” about the crew as the widespread and massive violence between rebels and the national army in South Sudan that has raged since December continues to rage.

 

As AP reports,

The U.N. mission said on Twitter that an Mi-18 cargo helicopter crashed Tuesday near Bentiu, which is hotly contested between the government and rebels.

 

The U.N. said it is deeply concerned about the fate of its crew.

 

A search and rescue team has been sent to the crash site.

 

The U.N. official, who insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press, said contact with the helicopter was lost at about 3:19 p.m. and that it was apparently shot down near Bentiu.

*  *  *

Red line?




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1qp6feA Tyler Durden

(Un)Comfortable Myths About High Yield Debt

Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum of Acting-Man blog,

Update on Global High Yield Debt Issuance Volumes

Here is a small addendum to our recent articles on the corporate debt bubble (“A Dangerous Boom in Unsound Corporate Debt”) and the associated derivatives-berg, which is intended to hedge both the credit and interest rate risk this credit boom has given rise to (“A Perilous Derivatives-Berg”).

We recently combed through John Hussman's weekly commentaries, one of which contained an up-to-date chart of global high yield debt issuance per quarter from Q1 2006 to Q2 2014. Both global issuance volume and the number of deals are depicted on the chart. As you can see, we have long left all previous records in the dust.

 

hi-yield

Global high yield debt issuance in USD billion per quarter, plus the number of offerings, via John Hussman.

 

 

How Compressed Risk Premiums Unwind

This low-grade debt bubble is undoubtedly going to prove to be the Achilles heel of the current inflationary boom period – even though many market participants strenuously deny it by relying on the 12 month default forecasts published by rating agencies (which show not even the smallest cloud on the horizon – in other words, it's all good). As the next chart shows, risk premiums have become extremely compressed. Mr. Hussman had something very interesting to say on that particular topic, namely:

“As we saw in multiple early selloffs and recoveries near the 2007, 2000, and 1929 bull market peaks (the only peaks that rival the present one), the “buy the dip” mentality can introduce periodic recovery attempts even in markets that are quite precarious from a full cycle perspective. Still, it's helpful to be aware of how compressed risk premiums unwind. They rarely do so in one fell swoop, but they also rarely do so gradually and diagonally. Compressed risk premiums normalize in spikes.

 

As a market cycle completes and a bull market gives way to a bear market, you’ll notice an increasing tendency for negative day-to-day news stories to be associated with market “reactions” that seem completely out of proportion. The key to understanding these reactions, as I observed at the 2007 peak, is to recognize that abrupt market weakness is generally the result of low risk premiums being pressed higher. Low and expanding risk premiums are at the root of nearly every abrupt market loss.

 

Day-to-day news stories are merely opportunities for depressed risk premiums to shift up toward more normal levels, but the normalization itself is inevitable, and the spike in risk premiums (decline in prices) need not be proportional or “justifiable” by the news at all.

 

Remember this because when investors see the market plunging on news items that seem like “nothing,” they’re often tempted to buy into what clearly seems to be an overreaction. We saw this throughout the 2000-2002 plunge as well as the 2007-2009 plunge.”

(emphasis added)

This is an important observations regarding the connection between news releases and financial markets. The news are actually rarely the cause of market movements (which more often than not makes the attempts in the financial press to “explain” day-to-day market movements incredibly comical).

Market participants only use news as triggers when it suits them, in other words, when they seem to confirm what they were going to do anyway. The important point is not whether news emerge that are seemingly associated with market moves; the important point is the degree of overvaluation and leverage.

 

Hi Yield, effective

Effective yield of the Merrill US high yield master II index – currently at 5.5%. Similar levels of return-free risk were on offer in 2005-2007 – click to enlarge.

 

 

Comforting Myths

Hence there rarely seems to be a “reason” for why market crashes happen. Market observers are e.g. debating to this day what actually “caused” the crash of 1987. It is in the nature of the beast that once liquidity evaporates sufficiently that not all bubble activities can be sustained at once any longer, bids begin to become scarce in one market segment after another. Eventually, they can disappear altogether – and sellers suddenly find they are selling into a vacuum.

Once this happens, the usual sequence of margin calls and forced selling does the rest. Risk premiums normalize abruptly, and there doesn't need to be an obvious reason for this to happen. Mr. Hussmann inter alia cites Kenneth Galbraith's description of the crash of 1929 in this context. Galbraith correctly remarked that when the crash occurred, no-one knew that a depression was lying dead ahead. The crash itself would have been in the cards regardless of what happened later. Anything could have broken the bubble, as Galbraith put it. The crash merely adjusted a situation that had become unsustainable.

After an extended credit boom, leverage can be assumed to have seeped into every nook and cranny of the markets.  In the stock market, we see it in record high margin debt and the tiny cash reserves held by mutual funds and other investors. In fixed interest rate securities, investors are encouraged by low volatility and the seeming absence of risk to lever up, as their returns on newly issued debt begin to shrink along with falling interest rates. In so doing, the risks are usually judged by looking at market history. In every bubble, a new myth emerges that seemingly justifies such investment decisions.

In the housing bubble, the myth of choice was that house prices could never fall on a nationwide basis. After all, history showed it had never happened before. It was held that eventually, problems may emerge in some regions or some sub-sectors of the credit markets, but they would remain localized and “well contained” (the favorite phrase employed by assorted officials when the bubble began to fray at the edges). In the current bubble the myth of choice is that “past crises have shown that defaults on high yield corporate debt never exceed certain manageable levels”.

Why is this a myth? After all, it is a historically correct view. It is a myth for one reason only: in all of history, there has never been a bigger bubble in junk debt than now (just as the real estate and mortgage credit bubble were unique in their extent). Therefore, economic history actually has little to say about the current situation, except for the general statement that compressed risk premiums have a tendency to one day readjust out of the blue and quite abruptly. Economic history can definitely not be used to assert that the risks are small. They are in fact huge and continue to grow.

 

Conclusion

Compressed risk premiums can never be sustained “forever”. They are so to speak sowing the seeds of their own demise. Most market participants believe they will be able to get out in time, but that is never the case – in fact, it is literally impossible for the majority to do so, because someone must buy what others sell (by definition, this means someone will be caught holding the bag when the tide goes out). In reality, it is ever only a tiny minority that manages to sell near the market peak, not least because investors have assimilated the lesson that “every dip is a buying opportunity”. This will be true until it one day isn't anymore (the search for reasons will then predictably yield the well-known phrase “no-one could have seen it coming”).




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1qp6eXT Tyler Durden

Doctor Fed, You Are Wanted In The San Francisco Housing Ward, Stat

We have previously explained why the San Francisco market is such an important bellwether of overall liquidity and prevailing economic euphoria, directly supported by not only the Fed’s “wealth effect” printing and the second tech bubble, but also Chinese capital flows out of the mainland and into US real-estate. Which is why the latest update on San Fran housing dynamics should make those looking for the housing inflection point somewhat nervous as said inflection point now appears to be almost a year old.

Specifically, after posting a 25.7% Y/Y increase in home prices last September, as of June the pace of home price increases is precisely half that, or 12.9%, and also a signfiicant drop from the 15.6% reported in May.

Why is this notable? Because the only three previous times when there was such a sharp contraction in the pace of San Fran home price appreciation, either the dot com bubble, the housing bubble, or the European sovereign debt bubble had just burst. For now, we leave what is going on in San Francisco as merely a question mark, because clearly the Fed’s grand “reflation at all costs” experiment is nowhere near over…




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1svMikJ Tyler Durden

Why Shouldn’t Burger King Move to Canada to Pay Lower Taxes?

Speaking as someone who has eaten there,
Burger King is one of the saddest places on earth. Abandon
digestion and pimple-free skin, all ye who enter there. To me,
Burger King isn’t just a lousy place to eat but a sort of
existential black site that drains the life out of you (well, me)
on every level: All the products are just lousier versions than
what’s offered at better fast-food joints. The ads, even those old
fake-hip ones with the weird Burger King, are awful to the nth
degree (anyone else remember the
“Where’s Herb?” campaign
?).

Yet I find the attacks on Burger King’s purchase of Tim Horton’s
“Cafe & Bake Shop”
 even more saddening. By picking up
the Canadian-owned maker of the terribly-named “Timbits
(donut holes named after the hockey player and drunk-driving
cautionary
tale who co-founded the chain), Burger King can
escape U.S. corporate taxes that are much higher than those in most
other countries. This is the so-called
tax inversion process
, by which a U.S. company picks up a
foreign one and then moves its corporate headquarters there to take
advantage of lower taxes.
“Voila, higher profits!”
clucks The Daily Beast‘s
Daniel Gross. The Department of Treasury estimates that
over the next decade such inversions could mean a loss of $20
billion in corporate taxes. To put even that self-evidently puny
amount in even clearer context, the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) figures the corporate income taxe will raise $4.5 trillion
over the same period. “In other words,”
notes Kyle Pomereau of the Tax Foundation
, “corporate
inversions are predicted to cost 0.5 percent of the corporate tax
base over ten years.”

The White House and a number of Democrats are
trying to stymie tax inversions through legislation and
the bully pulpit
.
Just earlier this month
, President Obama floated the idea of an
administrative action that could spike such deals and he’s blasted
tax inversions as “unpatriotic.”

But this is all b.s. until the U.S. gets its corporate tax
rate into line with what other countries are charging. According to
KPMG, which has a comprehensive chart of corporate tax rates
(including average state and regional rates), the U.S. total comes
to 40 percent. Canada’s comes to just 26.5 percent:

The corporate income tax rate is 26.5%. It comprises a
15.0% federal tax component and an 11.5% provincial tax component.
Depending on the province, the combined general corporate income
tax rate ranges from 25% to 31%. Lower corporate income tax rates
are available to Canadian-controlled private corporations (CCPCs)
on their first CAD$500,000 (CAN$350,000 to CAD$425,000 for certain
provinces) of taxable active business income. A 2014 representative
tax rate for a CCPC on its first CAD$500,000 of active business
income is 15.5% (an 11% federal tax component and a 4.5% provincial
tax component). Depending on the province, the 2014 combined active
business income tax rate ranges from 11% to 19%.


Read more, including a breakdown of the U.S. figure, here
.
There’s no shame or infamy in moving to where conditions are
better, whether for your family, your job, or your business. Such
freedom of mobility is, in fact, typically celebrated as one of the
things that makes America exceptional. And it goes without saying
that since tax inversions are perfectly legal, there’s not even a
hint of impropriety here.

As Gross points out in The Daily Beast, Burger
King won’t save its corporate skin simply by shuffling off to
Canada. It’s a poorly run company and it’s really kind of a miracle
it’s lasted as long as it has (did I mention how sad-inducing BK
is?). But for god’s sake, are Democrats and other economic
nativists really so dumb as to think they can gain ground in a
global economy by making it harder for all businesses to do
business in America (whether through higher taxes or ownership
rules or other regulations)? That way madness lies—and continued
economic lassitude.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1pd9CWO
via IFTTT