The End Of The American Dream – Half Of US Households Are “Financially Fragile”

Submitted by Simon Wilson via MoneyWeek.com,

The middle class in America is in crisis, with incomes falling and life expectancy worsening. Why? And what can be done about it?

What’s it like to be a middle-class American?

Increasingly precarious, it seems. In an article entitled “The Secret Shame of Middle Class Americans” in this month’s issue of The Atlantic, the writer Neal Gabler – an author, film critic and academic – came out as one of the many millions of apparently middle-class Americans who are in fact living in a “more or less continual state of financial peril” – scrabbling around to make ends meet, and mostly failing.

Gabler draws attention to a regular survey by the Federal Reserve, which asks consumers a set of questions, including how they would pay for a $400 emergency. “The answer: 47% of respondents said that either they would cover the expense by borrowing or selling something, or they would not be able to come up with the $400 at all”, writes Gabler. “Four hundred dollars! Who knew? Well, I knew. I knew because I am in that 47%.”

Does the data support this?

Yes. Research into this niche area of microeconomics – day-to-day “financial fragility” – has boomed since the Great Recession, according to David Johnson, an economist at the University of Michigan who specialises in income and wealth inequality. A 2014 survey study found that only 38% of Americans would cover a $1,000 emergency medical bill or a $500 car repair bill with money they had saved.

Another academic study found that a quarter of households would definitely fail to get their hands on $2,000 within 30 days in an emergency, and a further 19% would be able to do so only by pawning possessions or taking out a payday loan.

What does this tell us?

On this basis the researchers concluded that nearly half of Americans are “financially fragile” – and that necessarily includes a sizeable chunk of the middle classes, as the details of the studies mentioned above show. Some 44% of middle-income households said they would struggle to raise the $400. Nearly half of college graduates would not cover a $500-$1,000 emergency with savings.

A quarter of people living in households earning $100,000-$150,000 a year (at the higher-income end of the middle class) claim not to be able to raise $2,000 within a month. Even if you take some of this with a pinch of salt – better off households are likely to have access to other forms of net wealth, albeit less liquid – the picture it paints of a middle-class crisis is stark.

Is this a growing problem?

It seems to be. The respected and non-partisan Pew Research Center defines “middle income households” as those whose incomes range between two-thirds the median income to double the median. In 2014, that range of incomes was between about $42,000 to $125,000. For the first time in at least four decades less than half of the population fell into this broad swathe of the “middle classes” – compared with 61% at the end of the 1960s.

Meanwhile, the lower tiers have expanded to account for just under a third of the population. The upper tiers have expanded too, and now account for just over a fifth. In other words, more people are getting poorer and more are getting richer in a gradually more unequal society, as technological change and globalisation drive a wedge between the winners and losers.

Are incomes falling?

Alas, yes. A major new analysis of income in America published by Pew earlier this month found that more than 80% of the country’s 229 metropolitan areas have seen real (inflation-adjusted) incomes fall steadily since the start of this century. Some of the steepest declines in median incomes have been seen in cities hit by industrial decline – for example a 27% drop in Springfield, Ohio and 18% in the conurbation that includes Detroit. But, ominously, even fast expanding success stories have seen incomes falling.

The area around Denver, Colorado, has seen its population grow by 600,000 since 1999, but its median income has fallen from $83,500 to less than $76,000. Similarly Raleigh, North Carolina, is a fast-growing city buoyed by a cluster of research universities and biotech firms; the population has shot up from 800,000 to 1.3 million this century. Yet its middle class has shrunk from 55% of the population to 50%, and median incomes have fallen by more than $11,000 to about $74,000.

What about the rest of the world?

In his recent book, Global Inequality, the former World Bank economist Branko Milanovic includes a fascinating chart showing how the real incomes of the world’s population have changed in recent decades according to where they stand on the global income distribution. The vast bulk of the world’s population is better off in real terms.

However, one important group is either poorer or only marginally better off – those between the 75th and the 90th percentile, meaning the lower- and middle-income populations of rich Western countries. What this suggests is that if mainstream policymakers wish to contain the rise of populists such as Donald Trump, they first need to recognise that the populists’ middle-class supporters have reason to be unhappy.

End of the American Dream – why voters turn to Trump

The rise of Donald Trump to be a contender for the US presidency may seem hard to understand, but remarkable data on American mortality rates (which are rising) and life expectancy (which is falling) hints at the middle-class problems that drive his popularity.

Princeton professors Anne Case and Angus Deaton found a sharp change in these between 1990 and 2010 among less educated,  middle-aged white people, due to drug and alcohol misuse and suicide. “It is tough to fail in a culture that worships personal success,” says Martin Wolf in the FT. “Support for Mr Trump among this group must express this despair. As their leader, he symbolises success. He also offers no coherent solutions. But he does provide scapegoats.”

via http://ift.tt/1t1rTL9 Tyler Durden

Tricky Trump: A Total Sleaze or Just Unbelievably Dishonest?

TrumpDreamstimeDanielRaustadt Yesterday, Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican Party candidate for president, held a news conference where he spewed falsehoods and invective in response to questions from the press and the public about when donations to veterans he had promised earlier were collected and distributed. Way back in Iowa, a miffed Trump skipped a candidate forum sponsored by Fox News because he thought he’d been treated too roughly by its reporters in an earlier debate. Instead, he organized a January campaign rally as a fundraiser for veterans at which he declared $6 million had been contributed. Good for him had he done so, even despite his truculent cowardice in refusing to face Fox News reporters again. 

But had Trump actually raised that amount of money, and if so, to whom did it go? These are reasonable questions that many in the press and public were asking. It turns out that Trump either lied in January about the amount of money he raised at the time in Iowa, or alternatively, that he was quite lackadaisical about asking contributors to make good on their promises and distribute funds in a timely fashion.

Thanks to persistent efforts by reporters, the public now knows that Trump himself did not cut a check for his contribution of $1 million until May 24; only after a Washington Post interview that raised questions about his fundraising claims. As the Post further points out: “On the night of the [January Iowa] fundraiser, Trump said he “gave” $1 million of his own. Earlier this month, Trump’s campaign manager said this money had already been distributed (though he would not say to whom). But this was false. Trump had not given the money.”

As NPR notes, “At least $1.9 million of the donations to veterans groups that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump reported on [yesterday] came in last week, after Trump began responding to intense media scrutiny of his earlier claims about raising in excess of $6 million for veterans.”

Again, it’s great that Trump finally fulfilled his fundraising promises to veterans, but it is certainly not unreasonable to wonder if he would have done so without media scrutiny. At the press conference yesterday, Trump said that he’d been reluctant to “take credit” for his philanthropy. Say what? Mentioning several times on the campaign trail in the hope of gaining votes that he’d raised $6 million for veterans is already taking credit.

At the press conference yesterday, Trump went after the news media, calling some reporters “unbelievably dishonest,” “unfair,” “nasty,” and “a sleaze.” Ever look in the mirror, Donald?

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1O5rK2D
via IFTTT

“A Spectacular Breach Of Trust” – Former CalPERS CEO Sentenced To Prison For Bribery

Former California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) CEO Federico Buenrostro was sentenced Tuesday by a federal judge to four and a half years in prison for accepting more than $200,000 in bribes trying to steer investments.

Buenrostro pleaded guilty to fraud and bribery charges two years ago, saying he started taking bribes around 2005 to try and get CalPERS staff members to make investment decisions that helped Alfred Villalobos, an investment manager and former board member of the fund. The judge called the case “seriously troubling”, and said it reflected a “spectacular breach of trust for the most venal of purposes, which is self-enrichment.”

From the Los Angeles Times

A federal judge Tuesday sentenced the former head of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System to 4 1/2 years in prison after the former chief executive acknowledged accepting more than $200,000 in bribes and trying to steer investments to help an associate.

 

Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer called the case against Federico Buenrostro Jr., head of the nation’s largest public pension fund, “seriously troubling” and said it reflected a “spectacular breach of trust for the most venal of purposes, which is self-enrichment.

 

Buenrostro pleaded guilty to fraud and bribery charges two years ago, saying he started taking bribes around 2005 to try to get CalPERS staff members to make investment decisions that helped Alfred Villalobos, an investment manager and former board member of the pension fund.

 

Buenrostro said he accepted cash and a trip around the world and allowed Villalobos to pay for his wedding in Lake Tahoe. Villalobos killed himself last year, weeks before he was set to go on trial. He had pleaded not guilty to fraud charges.

 

“I take full responsibility and accept the consequences of the actions I took,” Buenrostro, in a blue jail outfit and leg irons, told the judge before he was sentenced. “I’m humiliated, embarrassed and deeply ashamed of my actions.”

The sentencing is the result of a years-long investigation into money management middlemen who helped clients win investment business from the fund which as about $290 billion in assets. Buenrostro faced up to five years in prison but the US attorney’s office asked for a four year term, citing Buenrostro’s cooperation.  As part of a plea deal, Buenrostro acknowledged giving Villalobos access to confidential investment information and forging letters that enabled firms connected with Villalobos to collect a $14 million commission on $3 billion worth of pension fund investments. The former CEO has also agreed to pay back $250,000 to the state.

This was one of the most startling and serious cases of public corruption in the history of the state of California. That being said, Mr. Buenrostro did come forward and admit to what he had done.” said Tim Lucey, representing the US attorney’s office.

As far as Villalobos, after pleading not guilty to fraud, he took his own life just weeks before he was set to go on trial.

Sadly, this isn’t something that members of CalPERS needed to experience. With the fund already severely underfunded as it is, learning that the CEO was crooked and diverted funds to investment managers due to bribes instead of performance and strategy is just kicking the members while they are down.

Funding ratio estimates for CalPERS

via http://ift.tt/1WYIGKF Tyler Durden

A New Libertarian Moment?: New at Reason

Could Gary Johnson’s Libertarian candidacy signal a new libertarian moment?

A. Barton Hinkle writes:

The answer might depend on what happens in November. For a while it looked as if the GOP was heading for a historic drubbing. If Trump loses by McGovernite proportions, the Republican Party might regain its senses and regroup. But recent polls show Donald Trump roughly even with Hillary Clinton. Political professionals are starting to think he might actually win—and a lot of Republican officials who put party loyalty above all else have begun to welcome their new wingnut overlord.

If Trump wins, or even comes reasonably close, at least some of the Never-Trump crowd will leave the GOP—and might find a home in the Libertarian Party, which aligns with conservatives on issues such as economics, trade, affirmative action, and gun rights. (The party aligns with liberals on other issues such as war, immigration and LGBTQ rights.)

Libertarians understandably hope the dynamics will favor them

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1P5ARLA
via IFTTT

The $6 TRILLION Corporate Debt Implosion Begins in T-Minus 3…2…

The corporate bond market is a $6 trillion time bomb waiting to go off.

 

It took the US half a century to grow its corporate bond market to $3 trillion.

 

Thanks to the Fed implementing ZIRP and holding rates there for seven years, we’ve doubled the corporate bond market, adding another $3 trillion in corporate debt… since 2009.

 

 

These bonds are junk… literally. The average credit rating is junk. All told, since 2012, 75% of companies accessing the bond market have had a credit rating of single-B.

 

So… if the corporate bond market is now TWICE as large as it was in 2008. And the quality of the bonds is lower than it was at the PEAK of the previous bubble… what does that tell us about the state of affairs for the markets in 2016?

 

And look… delinquencies are spiking on corporate loans from commercial banks… indicating that businesses (the same businesses that are issuing record amounts of garbage debt) are not paying banks back for corporate loans.

 

 

More and more this environment feels like late 2007/ early 2008: when the economy was in collapse but stocks held up on hopes that the Fed could maintain the bubble.

 

The time to prepare for this bubble to burst is now. Imagine if you'd prepared for the 2008 Crash back in late 2007? We did, and our clients made triple digit returns when the markets imploded.

 

On that note, we are already preparing our clients for this with a 21-page investment report titled the Stock Market Crash Survival Guide.

 

In it, we outline the coming crash will unfold…which investments will perform best… and how to take out “crash” insurance trades that will pay out huge returns during a market collapse.

 

We are giving away just 1,000 copies of this report for FREE to the public.

 

To pick up yours, swing by:

http://ift.tt/1HW1LSz

 

Best Regards

 

Graham Summers

 

via http://ift.tt/1P5w1hy Phoenix Capital Research

Oil Spikes On Yet Another OPEC “Oil Freeze” Headline

Just when you thought the February through April recurring headline nightmare is over, in which an “unnamed source” repeatedly promised that an OPEC oil output freeze is imminent, it has come back to life just hours ahead of the OPEC meeting.

  •     OPEC MAY CONSIDER NEW OIL OUTPUT CEILING AT THURS MTG: RTRS
  •     REUTERS CITES 4 OPEC SOURCES ON NEW CEILING CONSIDERATION

The “sources” no longer even bother including Russia as being part of the deliberations for one simple reason: Russia will not only not be present in Vienna, but is no longer seeking a freeze in global output because prices have risen close to $50 a barrel without one.

So while there is nothing new here at all, the algos love it and bid WTI back up to $49.

Most likely next step: a denial from other “sources”, although probably not before the actualy meeting takes place. Expect more of this folly until the statement on Thursday. And ironically, the idea of a ceiling on production is occurring at near-record levels of output and PMIs worldwide flashing red.

via http://ift.tt/25AXxQM Tyler Durden

The Message From The Collapsing Yield Curve

With the Treasury yield curve collapsing – 2s10s now at 92bps, its lowest since Dec 2007, AcrossTheCurve.com's John Jansen offers Ed Yardeni's insights into the problems the curve is suggesting are here…

Ed Yardeni has been around for a long time (for that matter so have I). I think that he is the fellow who coined the term “bond vigilantes” in the 1980s. Back in the day he was the chief economist at the venerable investment bank EFHutton (defunct). He has digitally penned an interesting piece on the message conveyed by the flattening of the 2s 10s spread in Treasury space.

Via Dr. Ed Yardeni and a tip of the hat to Steve Feiss at Government Perspectives:

US Yield Curve: Global Yellow Light?

The spread between the 10-year US Treasury bond yield and the federal funds rate is one of the 10 components of the Index of Leading Economic Indicators compiled monthly by the Conference Board. There is no trend in this series, which tends to cycle around zero. It is widely deemed to be one of the more accurate business-cycle indicators, predicting economic growth when it is positive and a recession when it is negative. The spread does tend to lead the y/y growth cycle in the Index of Coincident Economic Indicators.

Of course, the spread is also available on a daily basis. A more sensitive version of this leading indicator is the spread between the 10-year Treasury yield and the 2-year Treasury yield. That’s because the latter tends to anticipate moves in the federal funds rate, which is managed by the Fed. Currently, the spread is still positive but narrowing. It was 96bps on Friday, May 20, down from the most recent cyclical high of 266bps during December 31, 2013.

Interestingly, the spread has been narrowing as the Fed has been moving toward normalizing monetary policy. When QE was terminated at the end of October 2014, the spread was 185bps. It was down to 128bps on December 16, 2015, when the Fed hiked the federal funds rate by 25bps. It was down to 93bps following the release on Wednesday, May 18, of April’s FOMC minutes, which heightened expectations of a rate hike at the June 14-15 meeting of the FOMC.

The FOMC is tightening monetary policy because Fed officials believe that the US economy is showing more signs of sustainable growth with inflation rising back near their 2% target. Yet the yield curve is warning that the Fed’s moves could slow the US economy and halt the desired upturn in the inflation rate. Another possibility is that while the US economy might be strong enough to tolerate the normalization of US monetary policy, the global economy is much more vulnerable to Fed tightening moves.

 Consider the following:

(1) World business-cycle indicators. The yield curve spread is often shown on a chart as a leading indicator for the y/y growth in US industrial production, which is one of the four components of the US Index of Coincident Economic Indicators. Given the size and importance of the US economy, it isn’t surprising to see that the US yield spread sometimes has been a good leading indicator of the growth rates of both global industrial production and the volume of world exports. It may be increasingly so now thanks to the ongoing globalization of national economies and financial markets.

 

(2) S&P 500 revenues & earnings. It also isn’t surprising to see that the growth rate of S&P 500 revenues per share is highly correlated with the growth rates of world industrial production and the volume of global exports. Roughly half of S&P 500 revenues comes from abroad. The global economic slowdown over the past couple of years certainly has weighed on US company revenues, which have weakened further due to the strong dollar since late 2014. In turn, the weakness in revenues and earnings has undoubtedly weighed on US companies’ spending in the US and overseas.

 

The yield curve spread on a weekly basis has been highly correlated with the y/y growth rates in both the forward revenues and forward earnings of the S&P 500. The recent narrowing of the spread isn’t a good omen for either of them.

 

(3) Central banks’ policy divergence. All of the above suggests that the US yield curve may be a good leading indicator not only for the US economy but also increasingly the world economy. The Fed’s monetary normalization has pushed up the 2-year Treasury yield from a 2014 low of 0.34% on October 15 to 0.91% on May 23. This reflects the relative strength of the US economy, particularly compared to the weakness in the Eurozone and Japan, which has forced both the ECB and BOJ to double down on their ultra-easy monetary policies, with more QE and negative interest rates.

 

The result has been that global fixed-income investors have been buying more US bonds because their yields exceed those available in the Eurozone and Japan. In other words, the short end of the yield curve may reflect the relative strength of the US economy and Fed tightening, while the longer end reflects weak global economic activity and easing by the other major central banks.

 

The divergence between the tightening of the Fed’s monetary policy and the ultra-easy policies of the ECB and BOJ has certainly contributed to the strength in the dollar and weakness in both the euro and yen since mid-2014. However, so far, the latter have failed to boost exports in the Eurozone and Japan, while the strong dollar has weighed on US exports.

 

Could it be that while the US economy can handle a gradual normalization of monetary policy in the US, the rest of the world cannot do so? That may be the message conveyed by the US yield curve.

 

(4) Kuroda’s kabuki. Japan’s economy certainly remains fragile. The BOJ adopted negative interest-rate policy (NIRP) at the end of January. The Japanese 10-year government bond yield was -0.10% on May 23. Yet the yen is 15% above last year’s low on June 5. On May 23, we learned that Japan’s flash M-PMI fell for the fifth consecutive month in May to 47.6, the lowest since December 2012. We also learned that Japan’s exports (in yen) fell 9.5% y/y during April to the lowest since January 2014. Imports plummeted 20.0% to the lowest since December 2010!

 

(5) Draghi’s drag. The ECB first introduced NIRP on June 5, 2014. The German 10-year government bond yield was only 0.18% on May 23. Yet the Eurozone’s industrial production rose just 0.2% over the 12 months through March. Just as frustrating for the ECB is that the CPI inflation rate remains just below zero. It was just -0.2% y/y during April, according to the flash estimate, while the core rate was 0.7%.

It’s a small world after all, and it seems that national economies and financial markets have become more interdependent than ever as a result of globalization. Fed officials are still operating as though the US economy is relatively independent of the rest of the world. Until recent FOMC minutes, overseas economic and financial developments were almost never mentioned in the minutes. Nor was the foreign-exchange value of the dollar. The US economy may still be relatively independent, but that’s not to say that other national economies and their financial markets aren’t more dependent on the US and on Fed policy than ever before.

via http://ift.tt/1PjXhyg Tyler Durden

Supreme Court Rules 8-0 for Landowners Fighting Clean Water Act Regulations

In an important victory for property rights nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 on Monday that landowners have the right to seek judicial review of federal determinations which say that their properties contain “waters of the United States” subject to stringent regulations under the Clean Water Act.

The case of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc. centered on a peat-mining business that has been prevented from using some of its property because the Army Corps of Engineers determined that the land in question contained federally protected wetlands. The Hawkes Co. disagreed with that determination and set out to challenge it in federal court. But the federal government maintained that judicial review was not an option for landowners at this stage under the Clean Water Act.

In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected the federal government’s position. “If respondents discharged fill material without a permit, in the mistaken belief that their property did not contain jurisdictional waters, they would expose themselves to civil penalties of up to $37,500 for each day they violated the [Clean Water] Act, to say nothing of potential criminal liability,” Roberts observed “Respondents need not assume such risks while waiting for EPA to ‘drop the hammer’ in order to have their day in court.”

All eight justices concurred in Roberts’ judgment. However, Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, wrote separately in order to criticize the “ominous reach” of the Clean Water Act itself. The act, Kennedy wrote, “continues to raise troubling questions regarding the Government’s power to cast doubt on the full use and enjoyment of private property throughout the Nation.” In effect, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito just invited future litigants to file more property rights cases against the Clean Water Act.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2839T2N
via IFTTT

Forbes Slashes Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes’ Net Worth From $4.5 Billion To Zero

It was just a matter of time: shortly after none other than “youngest ever billionaire” Elizabeth Holmes herself admitted that the technology of her “innovative” company Theranos had been effectively a fraud, when several weeks ago the company voided and restated years of test results, the valuation of the company has finally been adjusted to reflect the underlying value of the company. And Holmes’ own net worth. As Forbes reports today, after Elizabeth Holmes topped the Forbes list of America’s Richest Self-Made Women with a net worth of $4.5 billion, today, the magazine lowered its estimate of her net worth  to nothing.

Theranos, Forbes notes, had no comment.

This is what Forbes said:

Our estimate of Holmes’ wealth is based entirely on her 50% stake in Theranos, the blood-testing company she founded in 2003 with plans of revolutionizing the diagnostic test market. Theranos shares are not traded on any stock market; private investors purchased stakes in 2014 at a price that implied a $9 billion valuation for the company.

 

Since then, Theranos has been hit with allegations that its tests are inaccurate and is being investigated by an alphabet soup of federal agencies. That, plus new information indicating Theranos’ annual revenues are less than $100 million, has led FORBES to come up with a new, lower estimate of Theranos’ value.

Forbes added that it had spoken to a dozen venture capitalists, analysts and industry experts and concluded that a more realistic value for Theranos is $800 million, rather than $9 billion. That gives the company credit for its intellectual property and the $724 million that it has raised.

In other words, net of cash, the actual company is virtually worthless.

Forbes adds that the revision “represents a generous multiple of the company’s sales, which FORBES learned about from a person familiar with Theranos’ finances.”

Forbes’ conclusion: “At such a low valuation, Holmes’ stake is essentially worth nothing. Theranos investors own preferred shares, which means they get paid back before Holmes, who owns common stock. According to VC Experts, investors in Theranos own a particular kind of preferred equity, called participating preferred shares, which take precedence to common stock in the event of a liquidation. FORBES is not aware of any plans to liquidate. If that were to happen, participating preferred investors would get their money back and more before Holmes gets a cent.”

Just in case Theranos’ army of fawning fans is disturbed by this dramatic fall from grace, Forbes gave the following three reasons why it its estimated value of the blood testing company:

  • Too much is unknown. Everything but the $9 billion valuation is secret. Theranos said it would replace traditional blood tests, in which a needle is used to extract blood into a vial, with machines that could do dozens of tests on a drop of blood taken from a finger. But it has presented no data proving its systems work.
  • Theranos has not delivered. Holmes has been promising to publish data for six months, but hadn’t submitted a single paper as of April. She initially presented the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of a single test for herpes virus as proof that her technology worked, and that a startling 120 more approvals would follow. Instead, the FDA introduced restrictions that led Theranos to stop using its finger-stick tests, and no approvals have followed. Theranos has voided thousands of the finger stick tests, according to a May report from The Wall Street Journal.
  • Theranos’ target market may not exist. Outside experts are skeptical of the idea that Theranos could be worth nearly as much as incumbents like Laboratory Corp. of America (market capitalization: $13 billion) and Quest Diagnostics DGX -0.05% (market capitalization: $15 billion). Theranos, which charges less per test, would need to dramatically improve margins on its tests (which it has said it can do), as well as get many more people to take its blood tests.

“Trying to displace low-cost lab tests is just such a tough area,” says Robert Nelsen of ARCH Ventures, the top-ranked healthcare venture capitalist on the Forbes Midas List. Margins are low, and it is difficult for new technologies to become established. Robert Kocher, a healthcare-focused partner at venture capital firm Venrock, says if Theranos’ technology works, it will find more value selling its machines than trying to recreate LabCorp LH -0.05% and Quest’s infrastructure from scratch.

Forbes concludes by nothing that Holmes will be making a presentation on Theranos’ data at the annual meeting of the AACC, formerly the American Association for Clinical Chemistry, in August. Perhaps that will shed some light on what data Theranos has to support the use of its technology. In the meantime, given the difficulties at Theranos, Holmes falls off the list of America’s Richest Self-Made Women and off all of FORBES’ other wealth lists.

Surprisingly, a zero net worth for Holmes may end up being generous: in light of the coming legal lawsuits by former users of the company’s products whose use the company has admitted may have implicitly put people’s lives in danger, Holmes will likely end up spending millions to defend herself, money she most likely does not have, unless somehow Theranos’ own funds end up being commingled with her own…

via http://ift.tt/1RN53ee Tyler Durden

GM, Ford US Auto Sales Tumble In “Bellwether” Month Of May

You can’t say we weren’t warned. As reported over a month ago, the biggest drag on recent consumer spending was auto sales. 

 

And this is happening as Automaker inventories are at their second highest in 23 years. If sales are collapsing, then the violent spike in relative inventories as seen in 2008 is not far away.

 

 

One month later, this is finally starting to materialize in the OEM numbers, when earlier today both GM and Ford’s US vehicle sales fell more than analysts had estimated in May. According to Bloomberg this “raises questions about stalling consumer demand.”

Not really: as we also warned a month ago when looking at stalling use car price changes, it was only a matter of time before the lack of demand for every low priced autos spilled over to new car sales, which it now has.

 

GM sales plunged 18 percent, missing estimates for a 13 percent drop, with all four brands reporting declines of at least 14 percent. Ford’s light-vehicle sales slid 6.1 percent, according to Bloomberg, compared with an average estimate for a 4.9 percent decline. GM projects a sales pace for the month that is slower than analysts had predicted. GM said retail sales fell 13 percent and it continued to pull back on deliveries to rental-car fleets. The largest U.S. automaker said it sold 22,000 fewer rental cars in the month, the biggest reduction in the past two years. 

Sales of Ford and Lincoln passenger cars plunged 25 percent, led by a 37 percent slide for the Taurus sedan, once the company’s flagship. Even the redesigned Mustang saw its momentum fade as deliveries dropped 24 percent. Sales of the recently restyled Ford Edge sport utility vehicle fell 14 percent. F-Series truck sales rose 9 percent and van sales had their best May since 1978 on the strength of a 16 percent gain by the full-size Transit.

To be sure, all of the six largest carmakers were estimated to report declines for May, but the severity of the drop has taken many by surprise. As Bloomberg notes, “even as auto sales gained in April and the U.S. consumer continues to spend, there have been signs of wavering economic confidence, and the industry may struggle to maintain its record pace. As a kickoff into summer on the back of Memorial Day weekend promotions, May is a bellwether for gauging buyer appetite.

May deliveries “are set to fall year-over-year with two fewer selling days combined with retail demand that is holding steady, but not growing,” Tim Fleming, an analyst at Kelley Blue Book said in a statement before the monthly results.

And the spin from Fleming: “While this year may not bring the growth the industry has become accustomed to, it is important to remember that sales are still at record levels.” Yes, but they are now rapidly tumbling.

via http://ift.tt/1t1ifIp Tyler Durden