Does the Culture War Have Room for Openly Gay Evangelicals?

Sex and faith keep evolving, sometimes in ways that may surprise you. Molly Worthen reports that many evangelical Christians

Every heart beats true.have absorbed secular thinkers’ ideas about the fluidity of sexual expression. This is, in part, a counterintuitive legacy of traditional ex-gay ministries. When groups like Exodus promised that sexual desire could change, they pioneered queer theory in the evangelical world. Participants often acknowledged their struggles with “relapse,” and their testimonies “point to the instability and changeability of their own identities rather than serve as a testament to heterosexuality,” the ethnographer Tanya Erzen wrote in her study of ex-gay ministries, “Straight to Jesus.”

In that context, rather than embracing an “ex-gay” identity, many gay evangelicals attempt a life of celibacy instead. “In an era when the right worships the nuclear family and the left celebrates sexual authenticity,” Worthen writes, that doesn’t give them an obvious political home. Noting that the “idealized image of the heterosexual nuclear family has become the chief conservative rallying point of the culture wars,” Worthen asks:

But does liberals’ emphasis on gay marriage effectively send the same message? “If you end up accepting the progressive position, you then have a future: Gay people, you’re supposed to get married, have romance, have children, and that’s how you get security and stave off loneliness,” said Eve Tushnet, a celibate Catholic lesbian writer who has a growing following among evangelicals. “But if you don’t change your sexual ethic, then the challenge to your cultural mind-set is very deep because you’re no longer able to offer gay people the forms of adult love that our culture recognizes.” If the ex-gay ministries ironically introduced evangelicals to more fluid ideas of sexuality, the liberal campaign for gay marriage has reinforced the grip of traditional “family values.”

And with that double paradox, I suggest you read the whole thing.

Being neither gay nor Christian myself, I have no stake in this beyond my belief that everyone involved should be free to work out their own approaches to these questions, and my hope that as many as possible end up with answers that allow them to be happy. But there’s a broader political lesson here beyond any particular ideas about sex and God: Our simple model of a two-sided “culture war” just can’t capture the dynamic diversity of the culture we actually live in. Contrary to cliché, we aren’t two Americas. We’re a big muddy mess of countless overlapping Americas, any of which might take something as significant as spirituality or sexuality in an unexpected direction.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1Lr7ruV
via IFTTT

America’s Been Committing Suicide-By-Bad-Choices For Decades

Submitted by Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

Hillary’s dumb riposte to Trump’s dumb slogan — make America great again! — was “…America never stopped being great.” I guess she’s been traveling around the strip-mall wastelands of Carolina failing to notice the carnage that lays upon this land like a mortal scrofula. America has been committing suicide by bad choices for decades.

We took the collateral winnings of World War II and poured it into a suburban sprawl alt-universe so depressing that our citizens are the most over-medicated people in the world. That alone might help to explain how Hillary and Trump lumber inevitably toward their respective nominations. The cheering “folks” marshaled out in the Piggly Wiggly parking lots are so buzzed on Klonopin and Zoloft that they can’t tell how these two odious celebrities epitomize the very forces behind their pharmaceutically-masked despair.

A nation sunk in such falsity is sure to suffer life-threatening blowback and it looks like the first thing to go will be the life of the political parties. Both Democrats and Republicans have gone full Whig, riding into the 2016 election on the garbage barge of history. Hillary went on hyper-gloat after last week’s South Carolina primary, where she stuffed her pander-bag with black votes reaped on empty promises to re-boot the Civil Rights era. It was painful to watch that get-me-outa-here smile stretched across her face as she hugged the last selfie-snapper and slouched toward the ordeal of Super-Tuesday.

I don’t care how many primary victories Trump racks up, the GOP poobahs will not support him going into the convention. They will crack the party up into warring factions before they let him hoist the gonfalon of Lincoln and the Gipper. Be warned: plans are already afoot to shove Trump aside, to derail him with some scandal easily excavated from a life spent greasing other pols and playing ball with the mob-riddled construction industry in New York, Jersey, and Nevada. Failing that, they’ll leave him with a gutted shell of the party apparatus and by-hook-or-crook get some other figure to make a well-funded run under a slightly altered  banner: Paul Ryan, Bloomberg, Romney, just maybe Kasich. The Koch brothers will organize the money mojo. Failing that, there is always the mysterious magic of the Deep State for winning friends and influencing history.

This is not to endorse the old Republican establishment, just saying that they are increasingly desperate to derail this monster of their own creation, and will go to institutionally suicidal lengths to get it done. It will be more than another election cycle, if ever, before the right-of-center portion of the US political spectrum can realign itself into something resembling a party.

Or perhaps this is America’s true imperial moment, when all party politics surrenders to the pre-tsunami undertow of events. None of the idiot network commentators or Wash-Po or NY Times columnists seem to notice that the global economy is sinking into a coma, and in so doing is igniting cluster-bombs of default through the financial system. That so far insidious destruction should effloresce exactly around the time of the nominating conventions. The tide will have visibly gone miles out just as Hillary mounts the podium like some bad joke of a national mommy and Trump sits fretting in his Cleveland hotel room wondering how his rococo dreams of glory turned into a shit sandwich from room service. Yeats’s widening gyre is upon us. The biggest surprise of all yet-to-come is that television will fail to explain it. The second coming will not be the reappearance of the celebrity known as Jesus Christ, but rather of the event called the American Civil War.


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

This Is How The Great CLO 2.0 Collapse Will Play Out

Over the past two weeks, we’ve begun to document (see here and here) what may end up being a dramatic unwind in the CLO market.

Supply all but vanished in the wake of the crisis but staged a comeback starting in 2012 and by 2014, issuance was running at a $125 billion per year clip. As we noted last week, that’s roughly the equivalent of how much auto loan-backed paper came to market last year.

The problem is that stress on US O&G occasioned by the Saudi’s quest to bankrupt America’s oil patch is contributing to what certainly looks like a HY meltdown and that, in turn, has very real consequences for CLO collateral pools. In fact, 1.4% of assets held by US CLOs have either been downgraded or placed on credit watch negative this year, according to S&P.

New issue spreads are rising, issuance is collapsing, and both S&P and Moody’s recently downgraded several CLO 2.0 tranches for the first time ever.

Unless you think the acute stress in the HY market is set to abate – and trust us, it’s not – then you can bet that things are about to get very ugly, very quickly at least for junior CLO tranches.

For those curious to know how this debacle plays out, history offers a useful guide. As Morgan Stanley notes, first come the downgrades, then come the over collateralization triggers, and it’s all downhill from there.

“From late 2007, CLO equity investors suffered from a sharp decline in loan prices followed by a rapid increase of asset downgrades. The number of US CLOs failing junior OC triggers climbed and led to an increasing number of deals missing payments to equity tranches,” the bank wrote, in a note out Friday. “The proportion of deals cutting off payments to equity tranches peaked in 2Q 2009, right after the bottoming of loan prices and the peak of loan downgrades in 1Q 2009.”

This dynamic (i.e. declining loan prices, downgrades, and missed payments in the equity tranches) is likely to repeat itself this time around. Have a look at the following, which shows that just as the preponderance of CCC+ loans peaked, things quickly went to pieces and didn’t recover for years. 

Here’s Morgan on where we stand and where we’re headed if history is any guide:

A decline in loan prices leading to a pickup in asset downgrades has already happened in the current US credit cycle, just in a more stretched fashion. US leveraged loans started a long selloff journey from 3Q 2014, when average BB/B loans bids were at 99.41 and average CCC loan index bids were at 97.23. By 4Q 2015, average bids of BB/B loans were at 95.30 and the average bids of CCC loans plunged to 80.28. About one year after loans started to sell off, in 4Q 2015, the downgrade/upgrade ratio of US loans started to increase to significantly above 1 and is currently standing at 2.29.


It is likely that US CLOs’ OC cushion will erode and/or breach the junior OC test as downgrades in loans accumulate. In our recent report, A CLOser Look at Asset Downgrades, January 29, 2016 , we introduced a framework to estimate the impact of loan issuers’ one-year rating migration on CLOs. Assuming that excess CCC assets in a CLO portfolio are carried at 60% of par value, and that defaulted assets are carried at 50% of par value, our framework projects that on average the junior OC cushion of US CLO 2.0 deals with a reinvestment period ending in 2017 or later will decline by 1.61% over the next 12 months, and 6.8% of these deals are projected to fail the junior-most OC test in 12 months.

As Morgan goes on to note, CLO tranche spreads generally lag movements in the underlying bonds: 

“In the current US credit cycle, we have already observed considerable weakness in CLOs after loans started to sell off in later 2014,” Morgan observes. “The spreads of US CLO 2.0s BB and single-B (which are rare in CLO 1.0s) widened significantly in October 2014 as loan prices first started to fall, with the BB/B loan index bid starting to drop from par in March 2014. Following suit, US CLO new issue spreads widened. From September to October 2014, they moved from an average of 650bp to 700bp for BBs and from 775bp to 830bp for single-Bs. While in the first few months of 2015 there was a short rally in loans and CLOs, CLO mezzanine tranches capitulated quickly to the second, deeper dip in loan prices in 2H2015.

So how bad are things going to get you ask? Well, probably really bad – to put it colloquially. “Both loans and CLOs have had severe peak-to-trough price losses and strong rebounds. Putting these into context, the peak-to-trough price decline of the BB/B US loan index was 38 points from par, and the peak-to- trough price declines of US CLO single-A’s, BBB’s, BB’s were 71.4 points (by 88%), 71 points (by 92%), and 64.9 points (by 96%) respectively,” Morgan warns, summing things up.

But for those who are inclined to take a glass-half-full approach (and that’s obviously us), the bright side is that CLO spreads will recover faster than the underlying loans: “…the glass-half- full view is that in percentage terms, the price recovery in CLO junior mezzanine tranches out of the credit cycle was asymmetrically higher than that of loan prices.”

So there you go BTFD-ers. If you can manage to pick a bottom in bad loan performance you can get an asymmetric risk-reward opportunity in CLO junior mezz. What could go wrong? 

In any event, we’ll close with an amusing compare and contrast exercise. 

Morgan Stanley, February 9: “We reiterate our view that the levels of distress in the US market may create ‘option-like’ payoffs in CLO equity in the secondary market, especially in deals by managers who are better ‘credit pickers'”.  

Morgan Stanley, February 26: “If the current US credit cycle lasts longer than the 2008-09 cycle, we think more vintages of US CLOs are likely to miss payments to equity tranches, and it may take longer for managers to cure the failed coverage tests.”


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/21EiZiB Tyler Durden

Valeant Bond Price Pukes As Moody’s Threatens Downgrade Over Weak Performance

With CDS markets implying around a 40% probability of default, Moody's has issued a warning over Valeant's deleveraging prospects (and ability to deliver sustainable growth) putting $31 billion of biotech debt on watch for downgrade. VRX bonds are down dramatically on the day.. not the forst day back at work Pearson was hoping for.

As Moody's writes, this rating action reflects concerns that Valeant’s underlying operating performance is weaker than Moody’s previous expectations, potentially impeding the company’s deleveraging plans, the agency said.

Valeant's Ba3 Corporate Family Rating (under review for downgrade) reflects its good scale in the global pharmaceutical industry with annual revenue above $10 billion, its strong diversity, its high profit margins, and its good cash flow. The ratings are supported by low exposure to patent cliffs, and growth from successful products like Jublia (antifungal) and Xifaxan for irritable bowel syndrome. In addition, the ratings are supported by management's commitment to reduce debt/EBITDA, using excess cash flow for debt repayment.

 

However, the ratings also reflect moderately high financial leverage (pro forma gross debt/EBITDA of 5.5x), and significant business challenges related to Valeant's pricing strategy and aggressive acquisition appetite.

 

Valeant is confronting significant scrutiny on its pricing practices, including those on products acquired through acquisitions, and uncertainty related to government investigations. In late 2015, Valeant announced it was terminating its relationship with specialty pharmacy distributor Philidor, and Valeant is transitioning to a new distribution arrangement with Walgreens.

Company’s CFR Ba3 on review for downgrade affecting about $31 billion of rated debt

Bonds are reacting… 2025s down over 2.5pts on the day…


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/21EiXam Tyler Durden

Bernie Sanders Supported Press Crackdowns, Bread Lines, and Castro’s Cult of Personality

Bernie Sanders once boasted Burlington, Vt., You don't need 14 different kinds of bread lines.the city of which he was mayor from 1981 to 1989, was the only American city of 40,000 with a foreign policy. An odd boast considering his clear discomfort discussing international affairs has been the brush Hillary Clinton has used to paint him as a naive dove not fit to serve as Commander-in-Chief. 

But as former Reasoner Michael Moynihan has uncovered by digging through troves of hiding-in-plain-sight materials, the democratic socialist senator and Democratic presidential candidate has a history of supporting some very undemocratic initiatives by some very undemocratic socialist regimes.

In an article at The Daily Beast, laid bare are Sanders’ more problematic ventures into international politics, in which The Bern eschewed his more familiar envy of Danish-style social deomocracy, and instead opined that the United States had a great deal to learn from Latin American communist dictatorships.

Moynihan writes that in the 1980s, Sanders was wont to offer a “full-throated defense of the dictatorship in Nicaraguara,” including its crackdowns on a free press:

What “made sense” to Sanders was the Sandinistas’ war against La Prensa, a daily newspaper whose vigorous opposition to the Somoza dictatorship quickly transformed into vigorous opposition of the dictatorship that replaced it. When challenged on the Sandinistas’ incessant censorship, Sanders had a disturbing stock answer: Nicaragua was at war with counterrevolutionary forces, funded by the United States, and wartime occasionally necessitated undemocratic measures. (The Sandinista state censor Nelba Blandon offered a more succinct answer: “They [La Prensa] accused us of suppressing freedom of expression. This was a lie and we could not let them publish it.”)

To underscore his point, Sanders would usually indulge in counterfactual whataboutism: “If we look at our own history, I would ask American citizens to go back to World War II. Does anyone seriously think that President Roosevelt or the United States government [would have] allowed the American Nazi Party the right to demonstrate, or to get on radio and to say this is the way you should go about killing American citizens?” (It’s perhaps worth pointing out that La Prensa never printed tutorials on how to kill Nicaraguans. And it’s also worth pointing out that in 1991, Sanders complained of the “massive censorship of dissent, criticism, debate” by the United States government during the Gulf War.)

Having already written off free expression as a bourgeois capitalist construct, Sanders actually praised what is perhaps the single most vilified optic of economic life in a communist society, bread lines:

When asked about the food shortages provoked by the Sandinistas’ voodoo economic policy, Sanders claimed that bread lines were a sign of a healthy economy, suggesting an equitable distribution of wealth: “It’s funny, sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is, that people are lining up for food. That is a good thing! In other countries people don’t line up for food: the rich get the food and the poor starve to death.” 

After returning from a trip to Cuba, Sanders declared the Green Mountain State had much to learn from the totalitarian basket case of the Caribbean, not the least of which was the island’s impoverished people’s devotion to a cult of personality:

Sanders had a hunch that Cubans actually appreciated living in a one-party state. “The people we met had an almost religious affection for [Fidel Castro]. The revolution there is far deep and more profound than I understood it to be. It really is a revolution in terms of values.”

Hillary Clinton frequently brags about her foreign policy experience, which can reliably be described as loaded with calamatious failure from which she never learns a thing. For a while it seemed Sanders’ inclination toward non-interventionism made him at least a somewhat attractive alternative for libertarian-leaning voters to Clinton’s uber-hawkishness.

But the yeoman’s work done by Moynihan provides a stark reminder that it wasn’t just Reaganites supporting the actions of ruthless Latin American regimes in the 1980s, it was the ever-authentic cuddly democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, too. 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1Qh1RdF
via IFTTT

Abortion Rights Back Before the U.S. Supreme Court This Week

The Supreme Court must go on, despite the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and the controversy surrounding his replacement. And on Wednesday, it will consider a Texas abortion law that opponents say unconstitutionally infringes on abortion access and supporters say was designed to protect women’s health. With states across the country enacting similar laws, the outcome of this case could have huge implications for abortion clinics across America.  

The Texas law, passed in 2013, says that abortion-clinic doctors must have an admitting-privileges agreement with a nearby hospital and that clinics must meet the same building standards as surgical centers, even when no surgical abortions are performed there. Since it took effect, the number of legal abortion clinics in the state dwindled from 40 to 19. If the regulations are upheld, at least nine more clinics in Texas are expected to close.

The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), a nonprofit legal advocacy group, is leading the Supreme Court challenge on behalf of Texas abortion clinic Whole Woman’s Health. (For more background on the case, see here and here.) It maintains that despite the pro-woman rhetoric of the law’s architects, the real purpose of the regulations is to shutter abortion clinics. As such, it would violate the Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

In that 1992 case—viewed by some as the case that “made a mess of abortion rights” in America—the Supreme Court held that states cannot pass “unnecessary health regulations” with the “purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion.” This sort of “undue burden,” the Court held, would represent a violation of the right to an abortion affirmed under Roe v. Wade

“When the court holds oral arguments in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt this week,” notes Nina Martin at Mother Jones, “the signs that protesters wave and the chants they chant will likely focus on Roe, but the outcome of the case will hinge on how justices interpret Planned Parenthood v. Casey.” 

Liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan are all expected to be sympathetic to CRR and the abortion clinics. Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are expected to side with the state.

That means that Justice Anthony Kennedy will be need to be persuaded to CRR’s side for it to be victorious. And how Kennedy will go is uncertain. He’s one of two current Justices, along with Thomas, to have heard Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In that case, Pennsylvania abortion regulations related to informed consent, a 24-hour waiting period, and parental notification for minors were upheld while a section requiring married women to attest that their husbands knew about the abortion was struck down. 

Justices Thomas, Scalia, Byron White, and William Rehnquist favored upholding all of the regulations. But Kennedy joined liberal justices Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens and fellow moderates Sandra Day O’Connor and David Souter in favor of striking down the spousal notification rule. 

Yet many interpreted the plurality opinion from Kennedy, O’Conner, and Souter as support for upholding judicial precedent, not necessarily belief that the precedent set by Roe was right. In many respects, their opinion “took Roe v. Wade apart, starting with its foundation, the trimester framework,” writes Martin.

Under Roe, states were almost completely banned from regulating abortion during the first trimester. They had more flexibility to pass laws protecting a woman’s health in the second trimester, and they could prohibit most abortions in the third. In contrast, Casey declared, “[T]he State has legitimate interests from the outset of pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child.” Instead of the trimester approach, Casey established viability—the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb—as the new reference point for determining whether an abortion law was valid or not. (When Roe was decided, fetuses weren’t considered viable until 28 weeks, or the third trimester; by 1992, medical advances had pushed the line to around 24 weeks.) Before viability, Casey said, states could only try to persuade a woman not to have an abortion; laws that made it difficult or impossible for her to act on her decision did not pass muster. After viability, though, states could restrict abortions pretty much however they liked.

More significantly, Casey also rejected Roe’s “strict scrutiny” test for evaluating abortion restrictions—a test that had stymied most state efforts to regulate the procedure—replacing it with the looser “undue burden” standard, which Justice O’Connor had proposed in dissents to earlier abortion rulings. An undue burden was defined as any law that had “the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.” Importantly for the pending Texas abortion case, this reasoning applied to medical rules as well as other restrictions: Although “the State may enact regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking an abortion,” the court held, “unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden.” Still, the court reiterated, just because a law had “the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion” wasn’t enough to invalidate it.

Justice Kennedy was not among the justices (Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) who spoke out against an unsigned 2014 order that temporarily blocked the Texas regulations. 

The last big Supreme Court decision on abortion was in 2007, when the Court upheld a federal ban on intact dilation and extraction procedures, more commonly known as “partial birth abortion.” In this case, Kennedy sided with Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas in support of the ban.  

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1Qh1QXd
via IFTTT

Electric Car War Sends Lithium Prices Sky High

Submitted by James Stafford via OilPrice.com,

With lithium prices skyrocketing beyond wildest expectations, talk heating up about acquisitions and mergers in this space and a fast-brewing war among electric car rivals, it’s no wonder everyone’s bullish on this golden commodity that promises to become the ‘’new gasoline”.

Moreover, land grabs, rising price predictions, and expectations of a major demand spike are leaping out of the shadows of a pending energy revolution and a new technology-driven resource era.

For once, we have agreement across the board on a commodity: Demand for lithium will continue to rise throughout the year–and beyond–spurred by the rise of battery mega/gigafactories and a burgeoning energy storage business that will change the way we live.

That’s why Goldman Sachs calls lithium the “new gasoline”. It’s also why The Economist calls it “the world’s hottest commodity”, and talks about a “global scramble to secure supplies of lithium by the world’s largest battery producers, and by end-users such as carmakers.”

In fact, as the Economist notes, the price of 99%-pure lithium carbonate imported to China more than doubled in the two months to the end of December—putting it at a whopping $13,000 per ton.

But what you might not know is that this playing field is fast becoming a battlefield that has huge names such as Apple, Google and start-up Faraday Future throwing down for electric car market share and even reportedly gaming to see who can steal the best engineers.

Apple has now come out of the closet with plans for its own electric car by 2019, putting it on a direct collision course with Tesla. And Google, too, is pushing fast into this arena with its self-driving car project through its Alphabet holding company.

Then we have the Faraday Future start-up—backed by Chinese billionaire Jia Yueting–which has charged onto this scene with plans for a new $1-billion factory in Las Vegas, and is hoping to produce its first car next year already.

Ensuring the best engineers for all these rival projects opens up a second front line in the war. They’ve all been at each other’s recruitment throats for months, stealing each other’s prized staff.

And when the wave of megafactories starts pumping out batteries—with the first slated to come online as soon as next year–we could need up to 100,000 tons of new lithium carbonate by 2021. It’s an amount of lithium we just don’t have right now.

The war is definitely on, and lithium prices are the immediate and long-term beneficiary. It all depends on batteries, so it all depends on lithium.

The Lithium Oligopoly Ends Here, In Nevada

This is where the lithium oligopoly ends. It's where new entrants to the lithium mining game step in to forge a very lucrative future.

Right now, lithium isn't even traded as a commodity; rather, it is managed through an oligopoly of three or four major global suppliers who have managed supply and demand for decades. That's why everything is priced on a contract basis.

This year could see that change, which makes it a prime time to get in on lithium.

"The few major suppliers who have so far been responsible for all lithium supply and demand are not going to be able to meet new demand. This is why 2016 will be a very interesting year for anyone with the foresight to see the end of this oligopoly and the potential decoupling of lithium from other commodities," Dr. Andy Robinson, COO of Pure Energy Minerals (OTMKTS:HMGLF), told Oilprice.com.

Producers are now working quickly to stake their claims and position themselves strategically to become key suppliers.

So far, so good. Pure Energy, for one, is the only player in Nevada that has managed a conditional agreement with a company building the world’s largest battery factory, which is located only four hours from Pure Energy’s proposed mine.

There has been other movement in this space as well–broader, global movement that gives us even more reason to be bullish on lithium.

The fourth quarter of 2015 and the beginning of this year have seen a lot of talk about Australia's mining giant Rio Tinto considering entering the hot lithium space.

A Major Long-Term Game

This is an energy revolution that is still in its early days, but it’s such a hot commodity right now that chances to get in on the long-term game are narrowing by the day. And Nevada—ground zero in this revolution–is already raking in the benefits because it is the only U.S. state that both produces lithium and holds vast new resource potential.

In 2013 alone, Nevada doubled lithium production capacity, according to the USGS–and that is just the tip of the iceberg given all of the new exploration going on and the fast and furious land-grabbing.

The next wave of battery factories are expected to increase global battery capacity by some 150% by 2020. Within this prediction, electric vehicles will have a projected 20-30% compounded annual growth rate through 2025, so the demand for lithium appears endless.

Some say the lithium market is already at a supply deficit, and the rising prices make new projects even more attractive.

The lithium oligopoly is already a dinosaur, and new lithium projects on highly prospective land forwarded by companies with lower market caps and strong management are what investors will be looking for.

The brine is the place to be, and right now Pure Energy has the only brine resource in North America. It is also directly adjacent to the only producing lithium mine in North America, Albermarle Silver Peak Mine (NYSE:ALB). Lithium sourced from brine, or salty water, is the most cost-effective out there because it is easier and cheaper to extract.

There are billions of reasons to be bullish on lithium, and bullish on Nevada. Goldman Sachs gets it. Not only will lithium feed massive portable energy storage applications, but it will be a "key enabler of the electric car revolution and replace gasoline as the primary source of transportation fuel.”

This commodity that isn't yet a commodity in trading terms is about to break free from the oligopoly. Get there first.


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

The Oil Price Ceiling Has Been Set: “Above $40 And We Start Pumping Again”

Last week we reported that in what has been Saudi Arabia’s biggest victory to date in its war against U.S. oil and gas producers, both Whiting Petroleum, which is North Dakota’s largest oil producer, and Continental Resources would indefinitely suspend fracking operations for the foreseeable future. The reason was simple: oil prices are too low to make incremental drilling and pumping profitable, and instead most shale companies are now entering hibernation, limiting cash outlays in the form of dividends and capex spending, in hopes of weathering the crude oil storm, which has already gone on far longer than even the most pessimistic mainstream pundits expected it would.

Which, of course, is the right response: as the saying goes the cure for low oil prices is low oil prices, and as more shale companies halt drilling, exploring and production, the 3 mmb/d oversupplied oil market will slowly return to equilibrium.

There is logically a flipside to that as well: as those companies which have recently mothballed operations either voluntarily or because they had to when they went bankrupt when oil was at $30, return to market the previously oversupplied market condition will promptly return as well, thereby pressuring oil lower yet again.

The question is at what “breakeven” price does it make sense for US shale companies to return. As Reuters reports, less than a year ago major shale firms were saying they needed oil above $60 a barrel to produce more; however in just one year this number has changed and quite drastically at that.

We hinted at this three weeks ago in an article which many readers had a hostile reaction to: specifically we warned of “Another Leg Lower In Oil Coming After Many Producers Found To Have Far Lower Breakevens.” As we reported then, “what many thought would be the “breaking” price point for virtually every shale play has just been lowered, and quite dramatically at that. It also means that algos and traders who had reflexively bought any dip below $30 on expectations this is close to the “sweet spot” and where the Saudis would relent, will have to drop their support levels by as much as a third.”

 

Today Reuters confirms that this assessment was stpo on with a report that some shale companies say they will settle for far less in deciding whether to crank up output after the worst oil price crash in a generation.

Among the companies which are prepared to flip the on switch at a moment’s notice are Continental Resources led by billionaire wildcatter Harold Hamm, which said it is prepared to increase capital spending if U.S. crude reaches the low- to mid-$40s range, allowing it to boost 2017 production by more than 10 percent, chief financial official John Hart said last week.

Then there is rival Whiting Petroleum which may have stopped fracking new wells, added it but would “consider completing some of these wells” if oil reached $40 to $45 a barrel, Chairman and CEO Jim Volker told analysts. Less than a year ago, when the company was still in spending mode, Volker said it might deploy more rigs if U.S. crude hit $70.”

EOG Chairman Bill Thomas did not say what price would spur EOG to boost output this year, but said it had a “premium inventory” of 3,200 well locations that can yield returns of 30 percent or more with oil at $40.

Apache Corp , forecasts its output will drop by as much as 11 percent this year, but said it would probably manage to match 2015 North American production if oil averaged $45 this year.

The reason for the plunging breakeven price? The same one we suggested on February 3: surging, rapid efficiency improvement which “have turned U.S. shale, initially seen by rivals as a marginal, high cost sector, into a major player – and a thorn in the side of big OPEC producers.”

To be sure, while many had expected low oil prices to curb output, virtually nobody had predicted that even a modest jump in oil ($40 is just $7 from here) would lead to a major portion of US shale going back on line.

The threat of a shale rebound is “putting a cap on oil prices,” said John Kilduff, partner at Again Capital LLC. “If there’s some bullish outlook for demand or the economy, they will try to get ahead of the curve and increase production even sooner.”

Which in turn will force the Saudis to immediately retaliate, breach all amusing “production freezes”, and double down their efforts to crush shale.

In fact, some producers have already began hedging future production, with prices for 2017 oil trading at near $45 a barrel, which could put a floor under any future production cuts.

Another risk factor for all those hoping the modest rebound in oil will persist is the record backlog of wells that have already been drilled but wait to get fractured to keep oil trapped in shale rocks flowing. There were 945 such wells in North Dakota compared to 585 in mid-2014, when prices peaked, according to the latest available data from the Department of Mineral Resources. Their numbers are growing as firms like Whiting keep drilling, but hold off with fracking.

Reuters’ summary:

Their latest comments highlight the industry’s remarkable resilience, but also serve as a warning to rivals and traders: a retreat in U.S. oil production that would help ease global oversupply and let prices recover may prove shorter than some may have expected.

Our observation three weeks ago was practically identical: since Saudi Arabia had expected that its FX reserve outflow would last only temporarily using $40-50 breakevens, it will have to sell many more US reserves (either TSYs or stocks) to fund the cash shortfall which will persist for far longer until oil catches down to the lowest cost US producers.

What this means is that for the Saudis to declare victory they will have to unleash a sharp downward oil spike that lasts long to put as many marginal producers out of business as possible.

As we said: “In short: the oil price war is about to enter its far more vicious, and far more lethal phase, and while it is unclear who ultimately wins, whether it is Shale or the Saudis, the loser is clear: anyone who bought into bets of an imminent oil bounce.”

But the real punchline has nothing to do with breakeven prices and efficiency and everything to do with balance sheets, because if and when the mass default wave finally hits and hundreds of U.S. corporations undergo debt-for-equity exchanges in which the bondholders end up with the equity keys, then the all-in production costs (AIPCs) will be drastically cut even lower as there will be no interest expense left to cover with operational cash flow proceeds.

As such, the stunning outcome may well be one in which U.S. shale turns Saudi’s “marginal producer” war on its head, and unleashes a massive oversupply spike, one which slowly at first then very fast, leads to the Saudi exhaustion of its FX reserves, until it is Saudi Arabia which itself is pushed out of the low-cost production bracket and is instead forced to deal with far less palatable outcomes such as social insurrection and revolution, as its already precarious welfare state fights for survival in a world in which government oil revenues have trickled to a halt.

What happens to the price of oil then is unclear, but what will need to happen before we get to that point is very clear: oil will have to trade far, far lower from its current price.

And even if it doesn’t, we now have the oil price ceiling bogey: any time a barrel of crude approaches $40, watch as the “marginal” producers do just that, and resume production on very short notice.


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

Hugh Hewitt: Of Course I’d Vote for Trump Over Hillary

In recent weeks, all sorts of Republicans and conservatives who always/only vote Republican have been ratcheting up their vitriol against the GOP frontrunner for the party’s presidential nomination, Donald Trump.

Whether it’s National Review‘s editors attacking Trump for being soft on immigration—they called his plan to forcibly remove 12 million people from America “a poorly disguised amnesty”!—or rival Marco Rubio making dick jokes over the weekend—there’s no shortage of Republicans who have vowed never to vote for Trump. Over weekend, #dumptrump and #nevertrump even trended on the Twitter, mostly emanating from right-wing circles.

Because, you know, Trump is simply not conservative enough: Like all the other remaining GOP candidates, he’s anti-abortion, anti-Muslim, pro-war, anti-Apple, pro-torture (when it’s for the right reasons), wants to screw with the Constitution (in a totally different way than, say Ted Cruz, who wants Supreme Court justices to be subject to recall votes) and on and on. But didn’t you hear!?!? Trump said nice things about Planned Parenthood, specifically that the contraceptives they hand out and gyn exams they do for women with federal dollars aren’t pure evil. What a fake conservative, even if he is right about Mexicans!

Radio show host and Republican activist Hugh Hewitt, a conservative of impeccable standing (and one who has been insulted by The Donald), is already saying what I suspect many more will say after Super Tuesday: Of course he is going to vote for Trump if and when the billionaire is running against Hillary Clinton.

If Trump is the nominee I will support him for six reasons.

The first three are the existing and probable two additional Supreme Court nominations he will get to make. Judges Diane Sykes and Bill Pryor are two fine judges that Trump has mentioned as possible nominees and he made the right commitment on religious liberty to me on stage Thursday night. He won’t screw these up. More precisely, it is a lock that Clinton would screw them up and at least a fighting chance he wouldn’t.

Fourth, Trump’s an honest-to-God builder and he will rebuild the Navy, which must be done. Soon.

Fifth, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping will at least think twice before crossing him.

And, finally, sixth: Donald’s daughter and Svengali Ivanka is a smart, smart, smart lady with an extraordinary intellect and influence on her father. We get the GOP’s own Valerie Jarrett, only this one with a sense of America’s role in the world and the same resolve to succeed as Jarrett possesses.

Read more here.

These strike me as incredibly piss-poor reasons to support anyone for any office, much less Trump for president. What is it about conservatives and the goddman Navy? As if the mechanics of war haven’t changed since World War I, they are bizarrely obsessed with the number of boats countries have (oddly, when they go on and on about our lack of ships, they never talk about, you know, how many more airplanes and bombs we have added since 1918). Supreme Court appointments are routinely overestimated as a perk of power. Not only are they far less transformative than commonly believed—legal scholar Mark Tushnet persuasively argues that SCOTUS decsions are actually “noise around zero”—they are extremely unpredictable (see Eisenhower, Dwight). When it comes to warmongering (if that’s your idea of foreign policy), you probably should vote for Hillary Clinton, the Madame Defarge of the 21st century. This is also the first time that I’ve heard Ivanka Trump, a capable business operator (I guess) who has even less experience in politics (and self-made businesses) than her father, trotted out as a secret weapon to make America great again. Seriously, WTF?

But Hewitt is at least being honest (he’s also holding out hope that his crush, Mitt Romney, will swoop in and become the nominee again). As a Republican, he is of course going to vote for the Republican in November 2016.

I’m betting that many of the high-profile folks (and low-profile folks, too) will do the same thing, and not simply because of party affiliation (though that’s a big part of it).

It’s because they will have many, many months to get their minds around what is perfectly obvious to those of us not blinded by partisan tribalism: Donald Trump is not a threat to Republican ideology. He is a near-perfect expression of everything that the GOP has been moving toward for at least the past 15 or so years, whether it’s contempt for restraints on government when it gets in the way of necessity (do you remember all those GOP conservatives attacking Bush for executive overreach in the War on Terror? neither do I), fixation of American exceptionalism, and too-Freudian-for-words obsession with masculinity. The difference with Trump is that unlike Romney and McCain and the current host of wannabes, the billionaire blowhard might just win.

That possibility, along with the uncomfortable fact that on virtually every major policy issue Trump is 100 percent on board with conservatives, will change a helluva minds. Look for something similar, too, to happen on the left side of the aisle among disappointed Sandersnistas, who will come to the late-breaking realization that Clinton isn’t a tool of Wall Street and the masters of war but one of the very most progressive politicians EVER.

The real question is for the vast plurality of us who no longer (or never did) consider ourselves Republicans or Democrats: How do we take the two-party meltdown on glorious display and use it to push an agenda that actually might advance social tolerance and fiscal responsibility? Stay tuned.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1T4lv05
via IFTTT