UBS Blames Fed For “Crisis High” Subprime Defaults; Says Auto Is Just The Beginnning

For months now we’ve been writing about the mysteriously rising subprime delinquencies afflicting auto ABS structures despite repeated confirmations from the Fed and equity markets that ‘everything is awesome’ (see “Auto Bubble Burst Begins As Subprime Delinquencies Soar To 2009 Levels” and “Signs Of An Auto Bubble: Soaring Delinquencies In These 266 Subprime ABS Deals Can’t Be Good” for a couple of recent examples).

Shockingly, as confirmed by the chart below, 2016 vintage subprime auto ABS structures are even underperforming 2007/2008 vintage securitizations.

 

And while most have attributed the rising delinquencies solely to deteriorating lending standards and an increasing mix of ‘deep subprime’ loans, UBS Global Macro Strategist, Matthew Mish, thinks there is a better answer, namely failed Fed policies. 

As we’ve also argued over the years, while the Fed’s misguided QE and interest rate policies have done a masterful job of creating asset bubbles around the world they’ve done precious little to actually stimulate economic/wage growth, in real terms.

In our view, the root causes of the rise in delinquency rates can be traced back to US consumer income inequality and aggressive easing in lending conditions, primarily from non-bank lenders. In short, the mosaic we see is one where central bank reflation efforts, namely QE and low interest rate policies, have been more successful at fuelling higher asset prices and wealth creation for a subset of the consumer and less effective in stimulating real income growth (particularly at the median and below). Wealth creation becomes self-reinforcing in an environment of financial repression, with more cash looking for opportunities for deployment. For the financial sector that means more loan growth, and many less regulated, non-bank financial intermediaries have happily filled the void, incentivized by low interest rates that help sustain a lower cost of capital for themselves and lower funding costs for their borrowers.

 

However, the overall credit quality of borrowers has not kept pace with improvement in the aggregate economy. Our prior Evidence Lab work posits that about 38% of US consumers do not generate positive cash flow and roughly 25-30% of US consumers have not seen improving consumer finances (i.e. they do not own their own home or have significant wealth tied to stock markets). As of Q4’16, 18% of US consumers indicated they were likely to default on one loan payment over the next 12 months vs. 13% in Q3’16. This cohort of at-risk consumers reported being about 4x as likely to embark on a major durable goods purchase (e.g. house, car) in the next year.

 

This is not just a theoretical issue, but perhaps a problem already. 37% of those aged 21-34 in Q4’16 stated they were likely to default on one loan over the next 12 months, up from 27% in Q3, and outpacing other age brackets. We have only asked this specific question twice before in our Evidence Lab Survey and will be keen if these trends continue in our Q1 survey

 

And while the subprime auto market, on a standalone basis, may not represent the ‘systemic risk’ that subprime housing did in 2007, when combined with outstanding subprime balances on student loans and other types of debt it’s a $1.3 trillion issue.

Is subprime auto lending too small to matter from a financial stability point of view? In isolation, yes. According to TransUnion, subprime auto lending balances outstanding total $179bn, or 16% of all auto loans outstanding. And subprime balances are about 1.2x above balances as of Q3’09. However, our earlier thesis would suggest subprime auto may be too narrow a lens to view the debate. More broadly, the good news is that subprime mortgage debt outstanding totals $567bn, or 7% of all mortgage loans. Subprime balances are about 0.4x 2009 levels. The bad news is subprime student loans balances total $370bn, or 30% of all loans outstanding. And balances are 2.3x 2009 levels. Subprime credit card debt totals $113bn ($88bn bankcard, $25bn private label) – reflecting 12% and 20% of all loan balances, respectively, and about 0.8x 2009 levels. And subprime personal loan balances total $17bn, or 16% of all debt, and 1.1x levels seen in 2009 (Figure 7).

 

In short, we estimate subprime consumer debt outstanding totals a still significant $1.25tn, comprised primarily of mortgage, student and auto loans.

 

But, as UBS concludes, the next massive subprime debt unwind won’t be that big of a deal because this time around all of the risk has been laid off on taxpayers…

Comparatively, however, debt levels outstanding are down from 2009 peak levels near $1.9tn. In addition, loan loss risk is increasingly borne by the government (e.g., student, FHAbacked mortgage loans), not the banks.

via http://ift.tt/2n8E8H9 Tyler Durden

Trump Blames Obama For Syrian Chemical Attack

Back in 2013, the catalyst used by the US to intervene in the Syrian conflict which started in the aftermath of the Arab Spring (which according to some was inspired by CIA intervention), was a YouTube clip allegedly showing a sarin gas attack by Assad troops on his own people in the town of Ghouta, which reportedly led to hundreds of casualties. Subsequently, the video was shown to have been a hoax, but by then it was too late as the US was actively involved in the proxy war, which in the summer of 2013 nearly escalated to a naval conflict between the US and Russia. The war has since continued, although it may be finally tapering now that the Obama administration is on its way out.

Then, in January, Reuters reported that a still unpublished report by international investigators said President Bashar al-Assad and his brother “are responsible for the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict.”

A joint inquiry for the United Nations and global watchdog the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had previously identified only military units and did not name any commanders or officials. Now a list has been produced of individuals whom the investigators have linked to a series of chlorine bomb attacks in 2014-15 – including Assad, his younger brother Maher and other high-ranking figures – indicating the decision to use toxic weapons came from the very top, according to a source familiar with the inquiry.

We suggested at the time that this was a rehearsal for another imminent “chemical attack” in Syria, meant to achieve the same goal as the 2013 (non) attack: turning popular opinion via the press, against Assad.

We didn’t have long to wait, because today Reuters reported that “a suspected Syrian government chemical attack killed scores of people, including children, in the northwestern province of Idlib on Tuesday, a monitoring group, medics and rescue workers in the rebel-held area said.”

Of course, having seen a US invasion over the last such “use” of chemical weapons, one would wonder why Assad – who recently turned the tide of war against the local US-backed rebels after retaking Aleppo – would do this knowing well, what the reaction would be, and sure enough the Syrian military denied responsibility and said it would never use chemical weapons; it certainly did not in the 2013 “false flag” sarin gas attack.

However, as in 2013, it was Assad’s word versus that of The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a one-man, UK-funded organization whose only purpose is to stoke western sentiment against Assad, said the attack killed at least 58 people and “was believed to have been carried out by Syrian government jets. It caused many people to choke and some to foam at the mouth.”

Director Rami Abdulrahman told Reuters the assessment that Syrian government warplanes were to blame was based on several factors such as the type of aircraft, including Sukhoi 22 jets, that carried out the raid.

 

“We deny completely the use of any chemical or toxic material in Khan Sheikhoun town today and the army has not used nor will use in any place or time neither in past or in future,” the Syrian army command said in a statement.

 

The Russian Defence Ministry said its aircraft had not carried out the attack. The U.N. Security Council was expected to meet on Wednesday to discuss the incident.

Later in the day, a US Intel official said that the suspected poison gas attack in Syria’s Idlib province has ‘fingerprints’ of attack by Assad regime; it was not clear what the proof was, or why Assad would seek to antagonize the entire world with a mass attack that has his “fingerprints.”

Was there any actual evidence Assad was behind the attack? Well no, especially since a chemical attack is the easiest “false flag” imaginable, and comes just one week after the Trump administration said it no longer plans on removing Assad, a radical departure from the foreign policy of the Obama administration.

And yet, just like last time, the media swallowed the full story and ran with it without asking a single question if maybe this was once again an attempt to escalate the conflict by the , and on Tuesday afternoon, the Trump White House was quick to blame the chemical weapons attack in Syria’s Idlib province on the government of President Bashar al-Assad and said the incident was “reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world.”

However, in an attempt to score some quick political points, instead of questioning the entire attack, the administration which just one week ago said it would no longer seek to oust Assad, promptly blamed the Obama administration for the attack.

“These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the last administration’s weakness and irresolution,” White House spokesman Sean Spicer told a briefing. “President Obama said in 2012 that he would establish a ‘red line’ against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing.”

Spicer declined to say what the U.S. administration would do about the attack but added President Donald Trump had spoken on Tuesday with his national security team about the issue.

An official statement by the White House released later in the day echoed Spicer, with Trump putting the blame on today’s attack on Obama.

“Today’s chemical attack in Syria against innocent people, including women and children, is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world,” Trump said in a statement, faulting his predecessor for helping create the conditions for the attack when he backed away from his 2012 “red line” on Assad’s use of chemical weapons. 

Trump criticized Obama’s approach, even though he personally urged his predecessor not to intervene in the Syrian civil war on numerous occasions. 

“AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA – IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!” he tweeted in September 2013.

“President Obama, do not attack Syria,” he tweeted days later. “There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your ‘powder’ for another (and more important) day!”

Alas, Obama did not take Trump’s advice, and the US has been involved in the Syria conflict ever since.

* * *

Meanwhile, Trump did not say how the U.S. would respond to the attack. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called on Russia and Iran, both allies of Assad, to discourage him from using chemical weapons on his own people.

“We call upon Russia and Iran, yet again, to exercise their influence over the Syrian regime and to guarantee that this sort of horrific attack never happens again,” Tillerson said in a statement. “Russia and Iran also bear great moral responsibility for these deaths.”

The attack posed a sharp challenge to the Trump administration, which has said it wants to shift its focus away from the civil war and onto the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

* * *

And so, an attack which may have killed scores of people has been quickly used for political purposes by all involved: by the rebels to further antagonize global opinion against Assad, and by Trump to slam Obama’s “weakness and irresolution.”

What was lost in all of today’s conflicting narratives is that it was an almost identical alleged chemical attack by Assad in 2013 that got the Obama administration involved in the Syria proxy war in the first place; the motive behind today’s attack is hardly any different.

* * *

For those interested in the underlying propaganda behind the narrative, we urge you to read “Here We Go Again: YouTube Clips Of Syrian “Chemical Attacks” Are Back – Meet The Man Behind The Propaganda

via http://ift.tt/2oFFjuZ Tyler Durden

If What Susan Rice Did Wasn’t Illegal, It Should Be

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers.

 

From the 2013 post, Martin Luther King: “Everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was Legal”

The fact that most of the debate surrounding the unmasking of Trump personnel revolves around whether it was legal or not highlights just how superficial and ethically deranged our culture has become. If what she did was indeed legal, this is an enormous problem in the first place, one that privacy advocates and opponents of Big Brother surveillance have been warning about constantly since the gulag spying panopticon was put in place following 9/11. For the purposes of this post, let’s assume that what Susan Rice did was legal.

If her actions were indeed totally by the books, we need to use this incident as a rallying call to reform the laws immediately. Likewise, Donald Trump should be pushing such reform tirelessly from his bully pulpit, but given his authoritarian nature I doubt he will. Fortunately, Rand Paul is heeding the call.

As reported by The Hill:

U.S. citizens who are caught up incidentally in foreign intelligence surveillance are typically subject to minimization rules to conceal their identities, though there are some exceptions.

 

But individuals can be exempt from the minimization rules if their identities are necessary to understand the value of the foreign intelligence.

 

Paul used Monday’s development to renew his push for reform of a controversial provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that allows the U.S. intelligence community to target non-Americans outside the United States without a warrant. The provision, Section 702, is up for renewal later this year.

 

Paul also signaled that he sees Nunes — who has long been an advocate for the foreign intelligence law — as a potential ally for reform. 

Sad that most people are ok with rampant surveillance until it’s used against their team, but I’ll take it.

Nunes previously took issue with the fact that Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, had his communications monitored by the intelligence community, which were later the subject of media reports. 

Paul’s emphasis on reforming the law is exactly where it ought to be. For example, Susan Rice herself explained during a recent MSNBC interview, how the unmasking process works. Basically, she sees an intelligence report containing surveilled conversations between a foreigner and an American, and if she decides she wants to unmask the American, she makes that request to the intelligence community, which then approves or denies the request. That’s all it takes. Think about how potentially abusive this is. What happened when you have a situation where the deep state and the President are adamantly united against a candidate, as they were against Trump? Naturally they’re going to approve the unmasking of a political enemy, and it appears that is precisely what happened.

As The Daily Caller noted:

Michael Doran, former NSC senior director, told TheDCNF Monday that “somebody blew a hole in the wall between national security secrets and partisan politics.” This “was a stream of information that was supposed to be hermetically sealed from politics and the Obama administration found a way to blow a hole in that wall,” he said.

 

Doran charged that potential serious crimes were undertaken because “this is a leaking of signal intelligence.”

 

“That’s a felony,” he told TheDCNF. “And you can get 10 years for that. It is a tremendous abuse of the system. We’re not supposed to be monitoring American citizens. Bigger than the crime, is the breach of public trust.”

 

Waurishuk said he was most dismayed that “this is now using national intelligence assets and capabilities to spy on the elected, yet-to-be-seated president.”

 

“We’re looking at a potential constitutional crisis from the standpoint that we used an extremely strong capability that’s supposed to be used to safeguard and protect the country,” he said. “And we used it for political purposes by a sitting president. That takes on a new precedent.”

Tucker Carlson summarized the situation perfectly on his show.

 

Finally, when it comes to illegality, while the unmasking may have been legal, the leaking to the press certainly wasn’t. As Glenn Greenwald noted, Obama prosecuted leakers for the exact same behavior.

We live in fascinating times.

 

via http://ift.tt/2nUsigV Tyler Durden

WTI/RBOB Slide Despite Biggest Crude Draw Since 2016

With oil surging back above $51 on hopes of a seasonal inventory drawdown, tonight's API data showed a bigger than expected draw in crude (biggest since 2016 and gasoline. The reaction was a kneejerk higher in WTI as RBOB slipped lower, but amid a big build at Cushing (+1.3mm), WTI also slipped.

 

API

  • Crude -1.8mm (-150k exp)
  • Cushing +1.3mm
  • Gasoline -2.6mm (-1.75mm exp)
  • Distillates -2mm

Biggest draw of 2017 for crude but Cushing saw a notable build…

 

And the reaction was a kneejerk higher in crude as RBOB dropped.. but then crude gave it all back…

“The market’s starting to realize that we’re going to be seeing total petroleum stock draws throughout the summer, so things are starting to look a little bit better from a fundamental standpoint in the U.S,” Michael Loewen, commodities strategist at Scotiabank in Toronto, says by phone

via http://ift.tt/2n8uQeq Tyler Durden

Susan Rice Denies Trump Spying Rumor, Mattress Girl’s Accuser Loses Again, the Blameless President: P.M. Links

  • RiceFormer National Security Advisor Susan Rice says no member of the Obama administration spied on Donald Trump inappropriately.
  • Read William Deresiewicz on political correctness and self-censorship at American universities.
  • Independent movie theaters are screening the film version of 1984 as a kind of protest against Donald Trump.
  • Trump’s supporters don’t blame him for series of stumbles.
  • Paul Nungesser, who was accused of sexual misconduct by “mattress girl” Emma Sulkowicz, lost again in court.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2nUBD8q
via IFTTT

The Fed Has Shifted (And The Market Missed It)

Authored by Kevin Muir via The Macro Tourist blog,

The Fed has a new message. So far the market is not listening, but it should be, as the shift will have a profound effect on financial markets.

It started with the dissent at the last FOMC meeting from Neel Kashkari. In an unusual move, Kashkari published a blog piece explaining his dissent. Although he presented plenty of the usual reasons for not going along with the hike (mostly centered around the whole idea of the 2% inflation being a target, not a ceiling), Kashkari introduced the idea the Fed should be thinking about unwinding its balance sheet. Proving that stopped clocks are right twice a day, I have written about the possibility the Fed would shift their tightening bias through traditional Fed Funds raises, to balance sheet wind down – (The End of Calm Bond Markets). Continuing to raise rates while maintaining the large balance sheet could create a negative cash flow situation for the Federal Reserve. Given this worry, it makes no sense for them to tighten policy through rates when they can accomplish the same thing through the unwinding of their balance sheet.

It looks as if the Fed has taken this idea to heart. From Business Insider:

Today it was New York Fed President William Dudley’s job to hammer home the message. He’s one of the most influential members on the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee. His New York Fed deals with the securities that are on the Fed’s balance sheet as a result of QE. And he said the Fed might start reversing QE this year.

With this call to shrink the Fed’s balance sheet, he is following in the footsteps of other Fed heads, including Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester, San Francisco Fed President John Williams, and most notably Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren – a former “dove” who has been publicly fretting about bubbles in commercial real estate and housing and the risks they pose to “financial stability.”

So this theme unraveling QE, not in the foggy future but this year, is picking up momentum.

I disagree with Business Insider that the theme is picking up momentum. The Fed is bashing the message over our heads with a stick. That’s not momentum, that’s a pedal to the metal press.

The Federal Reserve is signaling that although they are not retracting the guidance for 3 hikes this year (meaning two more as we have already done one), any further tightening will be done from the unwinding of the Fed’s balance sheet. We had QE. Now we are going to have reverse QE. From Business Insider again – quoting NY Fed President Bill Dudley:

“It wouldn’t surprise me if sometime later this year or sometime in 2018, should the economy perform in line with our expectations, that we’ll start to gradually let securities mature rather than reinvesting them.”

“If we start to normalize the balance sheet, that’s a substitute for short-term rate hikes because it would also work in the direction of tightening financial conditions.”

“If and when we decide to begin to normalize the balance sheet we might actually decide at the same time to take a little pause in terms of raising short-term interest rates.”

http://ift.tt/2oXaTDG

BAM! There it is. The Fed will stop raising rates, and will instead start using the balance sheet to tighten policy.

I can’t say I disagree with anything good old Bill has said so far, but then he trotted out this gem:

And he is “not that worried that the markets are going to react to the changes in our balance sheet in a violent way because it’s already factored in.”

Bullshit. This policy is not factored in at all. Not even close. This whole Fed communication push is the first attempt to have the market understand the policy shift.

So what does it mean? And more importantly, how do we profit from it?

Let’s start with the obvious trade. If the Federal Reserve shifts from tightening monetary policy through Fed Funds rate hikes to balance sheet wind down, short rates will not rise as much as would otherwise be the case. At its extreme, the Federal Reserve would also be selling long dated securities. All of this adds up to a steeper yield curve.

Since Yellen has taken over as Fed Chairperson, the yield curve has been continually flattening as she has steadily withdrawn monetary accommodation.

http://ift.tt/2nZPmfX

Market participants are convinced the Fed will continue with this policy for some time to come. Speculators have never been more short 3 month Eurodollar futures contracts. These contracts are not foreign exchange contracts and have nothing to do with the European currency, but instead represent the best way to hedge US dollar short term rates.

http://ift.tt/2oWSK98

So let me get this straight. Speculators are betting heavily on higher US short term rates, meanwhile, the Federal Reserve is signaling they might slow down rate hikes and replace it with balance sheet reduction?

There are many different ways to play this potentail unwind, but I certainly wouldn’t want to be short any US dollar fixed income instrument shorter than five years.

Yet yield curve shifts aren’t the only opportunities offered up from the Fed’s policy change.

The Federal Reserve owns $2.4 trillion of US Treasuries and $1.8 trillion in mortgage backed bonds. If I were a member of the FOMC board, I would push to wind down the mortgage back bonds first, but even if they choose a pro-rata wind down, the Fed will no longer be purchasing a large amount of mortgage backed securities that they were previously rolling.

Mortgage backed securities are different from US Treasuries. As rates decline, more homeowners refinance, so the mortgage instrument’s duration declines – right when you want the opposite to happen. When rates rise, fewer homeowners refinance, so the duration extends – again, right at the worse time. Mortgages are therefore negative volatility securities.

When the Fed was buying mortgages, they were removing volatility from the bond market. Conversely, when they sell, they would be demanding volatility. This is a good argument for owning fixed income volatility, but there is another aspect to the Fed’s change that might present an even better opportunity.

Ben Melkman from Light Sky Macro was recently interviewed on RealVision TV. There have been some really smart people on RealVision, but I think Ben might be at the top of my list. Instead of trying to rehash his point, here is his argument from that interview:

“The Fed has been a whole flow of mortgages for many years. And when the Fed buys mortgages, they don’t hedge any of the extension duration characteristics of mortgages… If the Fed stops buying mortgages, the private sector will have to start buying those mortgages, just as yields are going higher (ie: away from the average coupon). As you do that, those mortgages extend pretty quickly in duration. In that environment, those private sector holders have to hedge that duration extension risk by paying swap. So not only is the Fed making the private sector buy more duration as the mortgages extend that increases rapidly, and so I think two things happen. The curve sells off and steepens, and this becomes a good catalyst for what has been a very distorted swap spread curve (usually swaps trade at a lower yield than bonds, LIBOR risk should trade at a higher risk than government risk.)”

I have spoken about the strange anomalies in the swap market before – “How many other could never happens are out there?”. Heck, I even chronicled how, like an idiot, I was buying the swap spread “Only for the bravest and stupidest”

Back then I didn’t have a reason to bet on a return to normalcy except that negative swap spreads were dumb. But now I have a catalyst. The Fed’s shift in policy should cause the previously negative swap spreads to expand back to more normal levels.

Not only that, but there is another tailwind that Melkman did not mention. Theoretically swap spreads should never go negative. The counter party risk of the bank on the other side of the swap is higher than the risk free US treasuries. It makes no sense for swaps to trade lower than Treasuries. Yet they did.

Although no one knows with certainty the reasons, the lack of bank balance sheet availability was definitely a contributing factor. After the great credit crisis 2008, as regulations tightened, banks were less willing to extend credit for swap trades. Therefore demand for swaps outpaced supply, pushing the yield below Treasuries.

With Trump’s victory, it is safe to say that regulation is only headed one way. Banks are already opening up their balance sheets. And when combined with the recent rate rises, swaps have finally started to trade at levels more appropriate.

US 5 year swap spreads have even gone from negative to positive levels once again.

http://ift.tt/2nZVzsl

That means the US 5 year swap rate is above the 5 year treasury yield. Professor Malkiel can once again put that portion of the swap curve back into his lesson plan of efficient markets.

Farther out the curve, swap spreads are doing their best, but have not yet crossed out of “illogical” levels.

http://ift.tt/2oWWZ4q

But, at the long end of the curve, the streams are still crossed.

http://ift.tt/2o02e5T

Putting it all together, with the Fed signaling a move away from rate hikes as their preferred method of removing accommodation towards letting their balance sheet wind down, this should mean a steeper yield curve with widening swap spreads. Buying the 5/30 steepener, but instead of shorting 30 year Treasuries, replacing it with short 30 year swaps, means you can pick up an extra 40 basis points (for us hacks that don’t have ISDA’s, there is a swap future you can trade. See my previous post about swaps to learn how to hedge it properly.)

The Fed is communicating a big shift in policy. So far the market has not responded, but that just means there is more opportunity for those who understand how to profit from it.

via http://ift.tt/2nZKEyC Tyler Durden

Live: Jeff Gundlach Asset Allocation Webcast

It’s that time of the month again where the “New Bond King” Jeff Gundlach, CEO of DoubleLine, sits down for his periodic open address to investors and the broader public, to discuss his latest views on the market and everything else.

As usual, we will present the full slideshow shortly after the presentation begins. Meanwhile, readers can sign up for the slideshow at the following link.

 

Gundlach starts off by talking about the “most coordinated global upturn in years”

… which for a while suggested that the Fed may not be the only bank to hike in 2017, but the ECB could join too although that speculation is now largely over.

The reason for the optimism was the dramatic surge in the Citigroup global inflation surprise index, although even that now appears to be fading.

Gundlach touches on the upcoming French elections where he says the odds of Le Pen are fading, although he does not think the tension is gone especially with French unemployment differentials to Germany continuing to rise.

More notable is the collapse in bond price of the recently issued 50Y French bonds which have lost a third of their value in 6 months.

via http://ift.tt/2nZNG62 Tyler Durden

Video of the Day – Roger Stone Claims Jared Kushner is Surreptitiously Throwing Steve Bannon Under the Bus

This is an absolutely fascinating interview. It proves something that many of us have speculated on for some time, namely that there’s a major battle going on within the Trump administration between the Goldman Sachs, establishment-type parasites and the economic-nationalists.

Who wins this battle will determine the fate of the Trump administration.

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/2nH6C6U
via IFTTT

You Don’t Have to Be a Foreigner to Have Privacy Violated by Trump’s ‘Extreme Vetting’

FBI AppLest we need a reminder that the Donald Trump administration’s support for tech privacy seems limited to the members of the Trump administration, take note of how a proposed “extreme vetting” plan from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would blow back on U.S. citizens.

A proposal has been referenced before, but a Wall Street Journal story today has DHS officials explaining more specifically that they want to try to force travelers to the United States to disclose the contacts and communications on their phones and provide access to their social media accounts and financial records in order to visit the United States.

This is not a plan just for anybody trying to move here from a war-torn country or a refugee seeking sanctuary for long periods. The administration is considering demanding (or at least reserving the authority to demand) this information from any foreign travelers attempting to come to the United States, even for short visits and even from friendly countries. From the story:

The goal is to “figure out who you are communicating with,” the senior DHS official said. “What you can get on the average person’s phone can be invaluable.”

A second change would ask applicants for their social-media handles and passwords so that officials could see information posted privately in addition to public posts. DHS has experimented with asking for people’s handles so they can read public posts, but not those restricted to friends.

This naturally would then also include potentially private communications with and private information about American citizens. A traveler from another country who happens to be a friend of yours could be required to pass along private information about communications with you to the government in order to gain entry.

So at the exact same time that the Trump administration is complaining about the incidental collection of private communications data of his transition team earlier in the year, they’re perfectly fine with implementing policies that would lead to dramatic increases in the amount of incidental collection of your personal data.

Meanwhile, there’s been a noted increase in attempts by federal officials to gain access to phones and tech devices of even American citizens traveling across the borders, not just foreign visitors. This trend preceded the Trump administration but shows no sign of stopping.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has previously said he wanted to introduce legislation that would stop the feds from searching the phones of Americans without warrants and to prohibit the government from demanding that Americans provide access to phones in order to regain entry.

Wyden is now introducing that bill, assisted by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) in the Senate, and Reps. Jared Polis (D-Colorado) and Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) in the House. From Buzzfeed:

Wyden, Paul, Polis, and Farenthold say that some law enforcement agencies have asserted “broad authority to search or seize digital devices at the border without any level of suspicion” using an exception to the Fourth Amendment that covers border searches. They argue that searching devices — even after obtaining permission to do so — is a “massive invasion of privacy without physical analogs and should be strictly controlled.”

The bill would require law enforcement to establish probable cause before searching or seizing a phone belonging to an American. “Manual searches,” in which a border agent flips through a person’s stored pictures would be covered under the proposed law as well. But the bill does allow for broad emergency exceptions.

“The government should not have the right to access your personal electronic devices without probable cause,” Rep. Polis told BuzzFeed news in a statement. “Whether you are at home, walking down the street, or at the border, we must make it perfectly clear that our Fourth Amendment protections extend regardless of location. This bill is overdue, and I am glad we can come together in a bicameral, bipartisan manner to ensure that Customs and Border Patrol agents don’t continue to violate essential privacy safeguards.”

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2ozUgRP
via IFTTT

VIX Panic-Sellers Barely Manage To Rescue Stocks’ Green Close

The machines used every tick of USDJPY and VIX today to ensure The Dow ended green…

 

After yesterday's dump and pump, The Dow and Nasdaq clung to April Gains… as Small Caps were slammed then the BTFDers arrived and it went exponential…

 

Despite a VIX crushing slam to an 11 handle, stocks just would not behave and ramp until the close

 

The Dow bounced once again off its 50DMA yesterday and rolled back over again today…

 

The Dow just scraped into the green for April…

 

After inverting for the first time ever in a sub-14 spot VIX environment yesterday…

 

The VIX curve over the next month is once again upward-sloping but notably flatter than the rest of the curve as short-term anxiety (French election, Trump tax reform) remain…

 

Tesla finally topped $300 for the first time ever…

 

Retail stocks suffered due to speculation Trump moving away from BAT to VAT

 

Treasury yields inched higher on the day but remain lower on the week…

 

 

The Dollar index followed a similar pattern to yesterday with strength overnight and weakness during EU/US day

 

WTI climbs to one-month highs over $51 as U.S. crude and gasoline inventories seen declining in coming inventory report and as North Sea Buzzard oil field said to have unplanned halt…

 

Gold held on to gains above $1250 today…

via http://ift.tt/2nB8FsB Tyler Durden