Doug Casey On Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: “Evil On A Basic Level”

Via CaseyResearch.com,

Justin’s note: America can’t stop talking about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC).

AOC, if you haven’t heard, is a 29-year-old democratic socialist. Earlier this month, she became the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.

And that concerns me. I say this because her platform is every socialist’s dream. She wants Medicare to be free. She wants college education to be free. She wants to cancel student debt. She wants to hike the minimum wage to $15. And she wants to replace oil and gas with green energy by 2030.

Now, I realize these ideas might sound good to some people. But none of this would come free. It would require massive tax hikes and a lot more national debt.

In short, she’s advocating for policies that often destroy entire economies.

Yet, she’s one of today’s most popular political figures.

I wanted to see what Casey Research founder Doug Casey thinks of AOC and her policies. So I got him on the phone to discuss his thoughts for this week’s Conversations With Casey…

Justin: Doug, AOC has been getting a lot of press lately. What are your thoughts on her? Specifically, what do you think of her platform and her idea for a Green New Deal?

Doug: Most likely she’s the future of the Democratic Party – and of the U.S. Why? She’s cute, vivacious, charming, different, outspoken, and has a plan to Make America Great Again. And she’s shrewd. She realized she could win by ringing doorbells in her district, where voter turnout was very low, and about 70% are non-white. There was zero motivation for residents to turn out for the tired, corrupt, old hack of a white man she ran against.

She’s certainly politically astute – but doesn’t seem very intelligent. In fact, she’s probably quite stupid. But let’s define the word stupid, otherwise, it’s just a meaningless pejorative – name-calling.

But in fact it doesn’t seem like she has a very high IQ. I suspect that if she took a standardized IQ test, she’d be someplace in the low end of the normal range. But that’s just conjecture on my part, entirely apart from the fact a high IQ doesn’t necessarily correlate with success. Besides, there are many kinds of intelligence – athletic, aesthetic, emotional, situational…

A high IQ can actually be a disadvantage in getting elected. Remember it’s a bell-shaped curve; the “average” person isn’t terribly smart, compounded by the fact half the population has an IQ of less than 100. And they’re suspicious of anyone who’s more than, say, 15 points smarter than they are.

However, there are better ways to define stupid than “a low score on an IQ test,” that apply to Alexandria. Stupid is the inability to not just predict the immediate and direct consequences of actions, but especially the indirect and delayed consequences of your actions.

She’s clearly unable to do that. She can predict the immediate and direct consequences of the policies she’s promoting – everybody getting excited about liberating all other people’s wealth that just seems to be sitting around. Power to the People, and Alexandria! But she’s unable to see the indirect and delayed consequences of her policies – which I hope I don’t have to explain to anyone now reading this.

If you promise people unicorns, lollipops, and free everything, they’re going to say, “Gee, I like that, let’s do it.” She’s clever on about a third grade level.

But there’s an even better definition of stupid. Namely, “an unwitting tendency to self-destruction.” All the economic ideas that she’s proposing are going to wind up absolutely destroying the country.

It’s as if she thinks that what’s happened recently in Venezuela, Zimbabwe – not to mention Mao’s China, the Soviet Union, and a hundred other places – was a good thing.

That’s my argument for her being stupid. And ignorant as well. But perhaps I’m missing something. After all, Karl Marx was both highly intelligent, and extremely knowledgeable; he was actually a polymath. The same can be said of many academics, left-wing economists, and socialist theoreticians.

So perhaps a desire for “socialism” isn’t just an intellectual failing. It’s actually a moral failing.

Justin: What do you mean?

Doug: Socialism is basically about the forceful control of other people’s lives and property.

I’m afraid Alexandria is evil on a basic level. I know that sounds silly. How can that be true of a cute young girl who says she wants just sunshine and unicorns for everybody? It’s too bad the word “evil” has been so compromised, so discredited, by the people who use it all the time – bible-thumpers, hysterics, and religious fanatics. Evil shouldn’t be associated with horned demons and eternal perdition. It just means something destructive, or recklessly injurious.

The world would be better off if she went back to waitressing and bartending.

Justin: Why do you think she’s resonating with so many people then? Is it because she represents something different from status quo, or is it because people actually like her ideas?

Doug: It really helps to be young, good looking, and have a nice smile. But there are immense problems in the U.S., at least just under the surface. Wouldn’t it be nice if everybody had a job paying at least $15 an hour, free schooling, housing was a basic human right, free medical, free food, and 100% green energy? I know it doesn’t sound evil – it just sounds stupid. But it’s actually both.

The problem isn’t just that she got elected on this platform in a benighted – but increasingly typical – district. The problem is that most young people in the U.S. have her beliefs and values.

The free market, individualism, personal liberty, personal responsibility, hard work, free speech – the values of western civilization – are being washed away, everywhere. But it’s hard to defend them, because the argument for them is intellectual, economic, and historical. While the mob, the capita censi, the “head count” as the Romans called them, is swayed by emotions. They feel, they don’t think. Arguments are limited to Twitter feeds. Or 30-second TV sound bites.

Justin: Can you elaborate?

Doug: When somebody says, for instance, “Why can’t we have free school for everybody? The university buildings are already built. The professors are already there. So why can’t everybody just go to class, and learn about gender studies?” The same arguments are made for food, shelter, clothing, entertainment, communication – everything in fact.

To counter that, you have to come up with specific reasons for why not. You end up sounding like a Negative Nelly because you’re telling people they can’t have something.

I guess I’ve given too much credit to the goodwill and the common sense of the average American. The proof of that is the success of AOC. The psychological aberrations of the average human are being brought to the fore.

It’s exactly the type of thing the Founders tried to guard against by restricting the vote to property owners over 21, going through the Electoral College. Now, welfare recipients who are only 18 can vote, and the Electoral College is toothless. Some want to totally abolish the College, and have even 16-year-olds and illegal aliens voting.

Justin: What are the chances that the U.S. adopts her Green New Deal plan or something similar? It seems increasingly likely that America will head in that direction in the coming years.

Doug: The U.S. will absolutely adopt something like that once Trump is out of office. They’ll do it for a half dozen cockamamie reasons that aren’t germane to this conversation. For the last couple of generations, everybody who’s gone to college has been indoctrinated with leftist ideas. Almost all of the professors hold these ideas. They place an intellectual patina on top of nonsensical emotion and fantasy-driven ideas.

Nobody, except for a few libertarians and conservatives, are countering the ideas AOC represents. And they have a very limited audience. The spirit of the new century is overwhelming the values of the past.

When the economy collapses – likely in 2019 – everybody will blame capitalism, because Trump is somehow, incorrectly, associated with capitalism. The country – especially the young, the poor, and the non-white – will look to the government to do something. They see the government as a cornucopia, and socialism as a kind and gentle answer. Everyone will be able to drink lattes all day at Starbucks while they play with their iPhones.

The people that will control the government definitely won’t want to be seen as “do nothings.” Especially while the ship of state is sinking in The Greater Depression. They’ll want to be seen as forward thinkers and problem solvers.

So we’re going to see much higher taxes, among other things. There’s no other way to pay for these programs, except sell more debt to the Fed – which they’ll also do, by necessity.

The government is bankrupt. But like all living things from an amoeba to a person to a corporation, its prime directive is to survive. The only way a bankrupt government can survive is by higher tax revenue and money printing. Of course, don’t discount a war; these fools actually believe that would stimulate the economy – the way only turning lots of cities into smoking ruins can.

I don’t see any way out of this.

Justin: Doug, AOC is proposing a 70% marginal tax rate to finance the Green New Deal? Could something like that actually happen?

Doug: Of course, you’ve got to remember that as recently as the Eisenhower administration the top marginal tax rate was 91%. The average person didn’t pay that because it was a steeply progressive tax rate. Nobody did, frankly, because there were loads of tax shelters, which no longer exist, including hiding money offshore.

In Sweden during the 1970s, the marginal tax rate, including their wealth tax, was something like 102%. So, almost anything is possible in today’s world.

Of course they’ll raise taxes. It’s time to eat the rich. But, perversely, many of the rich will deserve it, since many made their money as cronies during the long inflationary boom.

But look at the bright side. Look at this from AOC’s point of view. She doesn’t just get $200,000 a year plus massive benefits. That’s chicken feed. But lucrative speaking fees, director’s fees, consulting fees, emoluments from the inevitable Ocasio-Cortez Foundation, multimillion-dollar book deals, and sweetheart investment deals. Not counting undisclosed bribes. She’ll be worth $100 million in no time, like Clinton and Obama.

That’s not even the best part. She’ll be idealized, lionized, and apotheosized by an adoring public. The media will hang on her every word. That’s pretty rich for a stupid, evil dingbat. Other young socialist idealists will try – and succeed – in replicating her success. Congress will increasingly be filled with her clones.

Frankly, at this point, resistance is futile.

Justin: Thanks for speaking with me today, Doug.

Doug: You’re welcome.

via RSS http://bit.ly/2VRRhBZ Tyler Durden

Houston Airport First To Close Terminal Over Shutdown-Driven TSA Worker Shortage

Due to a staffing shortage caused by the partial government shutdown, George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston was forced to shut down Terminal B at 3:30 p.m. for the remainder of the day. The airport made the announcement over Twitter, telling passengers they would be routed to either Terminal C or E. 

Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner suggested that passengers arrive at the airport two hours before their flight, noting that a “shortage of TSA workers, unpaid during the US gov’t shutdown, is causing the change.” 

There appears to be no end in sight to the shutdown which is now the longest in modern US history at 23-days-long. With Congress out of town for the weekend, President Trump tweeted: “I’m in the White House, waiting. The Democrats are everywhere but Washington as people await their pay. They are having fun and not even talking!”

At issue is more than $5 billion Trump is demanding to fund construction of his long-promised wall at the US-Mexico border. Democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) have refused to provide the funding – insisting that Trump reopen the government and table the border discussion for later. Trump, meanwhile, has rejected their offers. 

via RSS http://bit.ly/2sySiBT Tyler Durden

Why The Manafort Revelation Is Not A Smoking Gun

Authored by Aaron Maté via The Nation,

Proponents of the Trump-Russia collusion theory wildly overstate their case, again…

Partisans of the theory that Donald Trump conspired with the Kremlin to win the 2016 election believe that they have found their smoking gun. On Tuesday, defense attorneys inadvertently revealed that special counsel Robert Mueller has claimed that former Trump-campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied to prosecutors about sharing polling data with a Russian associate. Now we’re being told that the revelation “is the closest thing we have seen to collusion,” (former FBI agent Clint Watts), “makes the no-collusion scenario even more remote,” (New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait), and, “effectively end[s] the debate about whether there was ‘collusion.’” (Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall). But like prior developments in the Mueller probe that sparked similar declarations, the latest information about Manafort is hardly proof of collusion.

According to an accidentally unredacted passage, Mueller believes that Manafort “lied about sharing polling data…related to the 2016 presidential campaign,” with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian national who worked as Manafort’s fixer and translator in Ukraine. Manafort’s employment of Kilimnik has fueled speculation because Mueller has stated that Kilimnik has “ties to a Russian intelligence service and had such ties in 2016.”

Yet Mueller’s only references that Kilmnik has Kremlin “ties” came in two court filings in 2017 and 2018, and it’s not clear what Mueller meant in either case. In April 2018, Manafort’s attorneys told a Virginia judge that they have made “multiple discovery requests” seeking any contacts between Manafort and “Russian intelligence officials,” but that the special counsel informed them that “there are no materials responsive to [those] requests.”

Kilimnik insists that he has “no relation to the Russian or any other intelligence service.” According to a lengthy profile in The Atlantic, “insinuations” that Kilimnik has worked for Russian intelligence during his years in Ukraine “were never backed by more than a smattering of circumstantial evidence.” All of this has been lost on US media outlets, who routinely portray Kilimnik as a “Russian operative” or an “alleged Russian spy.”

That same creative license that makes Kilimnik part of the Russian-intelligence apparatus is now being applied to the claim that Manafort shared polling data with Kilimnik. The New York Times initially reportedthat Manafort instructed Kilimnik in the spring of 2016 to forward the polling data to Oleg Deripaska, a Russian tycoon to whom Manafort owed a reported $20 million. The Times also reported that “[m]ost of the data was public,” but that didn’t stop pundits from letting their imaginations run wild.

“Deripaska is close to Putin, and he has zero use for campaign data about a US election, other than to use it for the then on-going Russian campaign to elect Donald Trump,” wrote TPM’s Josh Marshall. “There is only on reason I can think of: to help direct the covert social-media propaganda campaign that Russian intelligence was running on Trump’s behalf,” declared The Washington Post’s Max Boot.

The fervent speculation suffered a setback when it was revealed that the polling data was not intended to be passed to Deripaska or any other wealthy Russian. The New York Times corrected its story to inform us that Manafort actually wanted the polling data sent to two Ukrainian tycoons, Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov. That correction came long after viral tweets and articles from liberal outlets amplified the Times’ initial false claim about Deripaska. Most egregiously, New York magazine’s Chait doubled down on the initial error by incorrectly claiming that the Timeswas now reporting that Manafort’s intended recipient was “different Russian oligarchs.” For his part, Akhmetov says he “never requested nor received any polling data or any other information about the 2016 US elections” from Manafort or Kilimnik.

That two Ukrainian tycoons were confused with a Russian one reflects a broader error that has transmuted Manafort’s business dealings in Ukraine into grounds for a Trump-Russia conspiracy. Because Manafort worked for Ukraine’s Russia-aligned Party of Regions, it is widely presumed that he was doing the Kremlin’s bidding. But internal documents and court testimony underscore that Manafort tried to push his client, then–Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, to enter the European Union and turn away from Russia. As Manafort’s former partner and current special-counsel witness Rick Gates testified in August, Manafort crafted “the strategy for helping Ukraine enter the European Union,” in the lead-up to the 2013-2014 Euromaidan crisis. The aims, Manafort explained in several memos, were to “[encourage] EU integration with Ukraine” so that the latter does not “fall to Russia,” and “reinforce the key geopolitical messaging of how ‘Europe and the U.S. should not risk losing Ukraine to Russia.’” As his strategy got underway, Manafort stressed to colleagues—including Kilimnik—the importance of promoting the “constant actions taken by the Govt of Ukraine to comply with Western demands” and “the changes made to comply with the EU Association Agreement,” the very agreement that Russia opposed.

Rather than imagining it as part of some grand Trump-Russia conspiracy, there’s a more plausible explanation for why Manafort wanted public polling data to be forwarded to Ukrainian oligarchs. Manafort was heavily in debt when he joined Trump’s team. Being able to show former Ukrainian clients “that he was managing a winning candidate,” the Times noted, “would help [Manafort] collect money he claimed to be owed for his work on behalf of the Ukrainian parties.”

All of this highlights another inconvenient fact about Mueller’s case against Manafort: It is not about Russia, but about tax, bank, and lobbying violations stemming from his time in Ukraine. The Virginia judge who presided over Manafort’s first trial said the charges against him “manifestly don’t have anything to do with the [2016] campaign or with Russian collusion.” The collusion probe, the DC judge in Manafort’s second trial concurred, was “wholly irrelevant” to these charges.

The same could be argued about the entirety of Mueller’s indictments to date. Not a single Trump official has been accused of colluding with the Russian government or even of committing any crimes during the 2016 campaign. As The New York Times recently noted, “no public evidence has emerged showing that [Trump’s] campaign conspired with Russia.” The latest error-ridden hoopla generated by an inadvertent disclosure from Manafort’s attorneys does nothing to change that picture. If anything, it underscores that after two years there is still no strong case for Trump-Russia collusion—and that only shoddy evidentiary standards have misled its proponents into believing otherwise.

via RSS http://bit.ly/2AMvmmS Tyler Durden

Powell May Not Know It Yet, But The Fed Is Now Trapped

With even Morgan Stanley openly discussing whether the Fed will “make the market happy“, it now appears that the Fed tightening is effectively over with the Fed Funds rate barely above 2%, and the only question is whether the Fed will cut rates in 2019 or 2020 – roughly around the time the next recession is expected to strike – and whether the balance sheet shrinkage will stop at roughly the same time (and perhaps be followed by more QE).

To be sure this new consensus was reflected in both equity and credit markets, both of which cheered the Fed’s recent U-Turn, and recouped all their losses since mid-December. And yet, market paradoxes quickly emerged: for one, rates markets yawned. On December 31, rates were pricing no Fed hikes over the next two years. Today, after the Fed’s big ‘change of tone’, expectations are almost exactly the same.

Second, a material disconnect has emerged between front-end pricing (no hikes) and the level of 10-year real rates (near seven-year highs). If, as Morgan Stanley’s Andrew Sheets notes, “one of these is right, the other seems hard to justify.”

Then there is, of course, the lament about the neutral rate being so low – and the potential output of the US economy so weak – that it can’t sustain nominal rates above 2.25% – incidentally we explained back in 2015 the very simple reason why r-star, or the real neutral rate, is stuck at such a low level and is only set to drift even lower: record amounts of debt are depressing economic output, as the following sensitivity analysis showed.

Bank of America touched on this key concern last week when it said mused rhetorically that “if the US rates market is right, this would suggest that potential growth is much, much lower than generally accepted.” Which, to anyone who read our 2015 analysis, should have been obvious: after all there is too much debt in the system to be able to sustain material rate increases.

Bank of America continued:

If Fed Funds target rates of 2.00-2.50% are enough to cause the economy to go into recession, with inflation having normalised at around 2%, then potential growth would seem to be less than 50bp. Alternatively, when looking at where the USD OIS curve regains positive shape and flattens out (in the 7-10 year forwards) the market price for neutral rates again seems to be as low as 2.00-2.50%, leading to the same conclusion. If the above were true, every asset bar rates is massively mispriced.

And the punchline: “If we accept market pricing, then there is no shortage of inconsistencies to take advantage of. If the world is going into a severe slowdown, then the Fed is unlikely to wait until next year to cut rate.”

What this means stated simply, is that while stocks may be rejoicing that the Fed shifted from hawkish to dovish, this may prove dangerously near-sighted, especially if the Fed is indeed concerned about about a major recession breaking out, an outcome which will have devastating consequences once the current short squeeze ends as does the vicious snapback bear market rally, and stocks resume pricing in a global contraction.

All of this brings us to a note from Citi’s Jeremy Hale, who like Morgan Stanley, agrees that while equities may indeed need Fed help, it is indeed the question whether the Fed will help, and frames the response as follows: “Maybe if the equity market portends weakness in the economy. Does it?”

And this is where we find why the Fed is now trapped, at least when it comes to the Fed’s reaction function… and the market’s response to the Fed’s response.

The problem is simple: for the Fed, the sequence of events during past recessions has been: Fed cuts, the SPX crashes, Fed cuts. So, as Citi notes, the SPX crash is a symptom of greater economic weakness rather than the cause.

Of course, it’s a bit more nuanced than this, because as Citi also shows, for all three slowdown periods the sequence of events is: Fed hikes, equity market crashes, Fed cuts.

In other words, traders – who hold the market hostage (as Powell first discovered back in 2013) – force the Fed’s hand, a conclusion supported by the surprisingly short lag time of the Fed reaction function. Indeed, as shown in the chart below, it usually takes 1 month on average – and no longer than three months – between the first 20% drop and an appropriate Fed reaction. Then, once the Fed gives in and cuts, it takes at most 4 months for equities to find a bottom, as the economic backdrop and Fed are supportive. This story seems to fit fairly well with the current environment: i.e. the Fed hiked in December, and then the equity market fell 20%. Meanwhile, current economic conditions remain relatively robust, and in line with previous slowdowns (and stronger than prior recessions), so the logical next step is that the Fed flinches – they have always in the past after all.

The obvious problem is that the Fed is cutting because the economy is indeed entering a recession, even as market have already rebounded by over 10% from the recent “bear market” low, effectively cutting the drop in half expecting the Fed to react precisely to this drop, while ignoring the potential underlying economic reality (the one noted above by the bizarrely low neutral rate, suggesting that the US economy is far weaker than most expect).

Ultimately, what this all boils down to is whether the economy is entering a recession, and – some reflexively – whether the suddenly dovish Fed, trapped by the market, has started a chain of events that inevitably ends with a recession. The historical record is ambivalent: as Bloomberg notes, similar to 1998 and 1987, the S&P fell into a bear market last month (from which it immediately rebounded) following a Fed rate hike. The difference is that in the previous two periods, the Fed cut rates in response to market crises – the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management in 1998 and the Black Monday stock crash in 1987 – without the economy slipping into a recession. In comparison, the meltdown in December occurred without a similar market event.

But the real reason why the Fed is now trapped, whether Powell knows it or not, is also the result of the most troubling observation of all: while many analysts will caution that it is the Fed’s rate hikes that ultimately catalyze the next recession and the every Fed tightening ends with a financial “event”, the truth is that there is one step missing from this analysis, and it may come as a surprise to many that the last three recessions all took place with 3 months of the first rate cut after a hiking cycle!

In other words, one can argue that it was the Fed’s official admission of economic weakness – by cutting rates – that triggered the economic contraction that was gathering pace as a result of higher rates and tighter financial conditions. If that is indeed the case, then the next US recession will begin just a few months after the Fed cuts rates.

There is still a tiny chance that Powell will attempt to escape this trap, and instead of cutting rates will resume hiking, but the odds of that happening are tiny: as Bloomberg calculates, if the Fed does resume rate tightening later this year, it will be the first time in the recent history it did so after a drop in stocks this large.

via RSS http://bit.ly/2FtZTsY Tyler Durden

“Secret Money For Private Armies” Austin Fitts Exposes America’s “Open Running Bailout”

Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,

Investment advisor and former Assistant Secretary of Housing Catherine Austin Fitts says it looks like a “global recession is coming.”

Is that going to cause the debt reset we’ve been hearing about for years? Fitts says, “Make no mistake about it, there is no reason for the federal government to default or monkey with any debt because they can literally print the currency…”

The question is how do they make sure whatever they are printing really holds any kind of store of value. I think the reason you are seeing them reengineer the federal bureaucracy and financial transactions infrastructure is because they want much greater and tighter control to do whatever they do, and that includes to continue to debase the currency. They could do this (reset) entirely by debasing the currency…

What we are watching . . . is essentially a coup. We had a financial coup, and now we are watching a legal coup to consolidate that financial coup. I would keep my eye on the fundamental governance structure of the U.S. The important thing is not what they do. The important thing is who controls no matter what they do. Now, we have created a mechanism for them to control entirely in secret and create policies entirely in secret, including around the back of a U.S. President… It’s pirating by the ‘just do it’ method. I said to someone the other day, what is it about secret money for secret private armies that you don ‘t understand?

$21 trillion in “missing money” at the DOD and HUD that was discovered by Dr. Mark Skidmore and Catherine Austin Fitts in 2017 has now become a national security issue.

The federal government is not talking or answering questions, even though the DOD recently failed its first ever audit. Fitts says, “This is basically an open running bailout…”

“Under this structure, you can transfer assets out of the federal government into private ownership, and nobody will know and nobody can stop it. There is no oversight whatsoever. You can’t even know who is doing it. I’m telling you they just took the United States government, they just changed the governance model by accounting policy to a fascist government. If you are an investor, you don’t know who owns those assets, and there is no evidence that you do…

If the law says you have to produce audited financial statements and you refuse to do so for 20 years, and then when somebody calls you on it, you proceed to change the accounting laws that say you can now run secret books for all the agencies and over 100 related entities.”

In closing, Fitts says, “We cannot sit around and passively depend on a guy we elected President…”

“The President cannot fix this. We need to fix this…

This is Main Street versus Wall Street. This is honest books versus dirty books. If you want the United States in 10 years to resemble anything what it looked like 20 years ago, you are going to have to do it, and there is no one else who can do it. You have to first get the intelligence to know what is happening.”

Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Catherine Austin Fitts, Publisher of “The Solari Report.”

To Donate to USAWatchdog.com Click Here

via RSS http://bit.ly/2QI1Xzu Tyler Durden

“Swimming In An Ocean Of Debt”: Gundlach Sounds The Alarm Over $122 Trillion In Unfunded Liabilities

After laying out the reasoning behind his considerably more pessimistic view on the US economy during his widely watched “Just Markets” podcast, DoubleLine Capital Founder Jeffrey Gundlach – whose flagship Total Return Fund outperformed the benchmark again in 2018 – delved into some of the same themes from his year-ahead podcast this week during a round table discussion hosted by Barron’s, during which the legendary bond trader warned that record levels of corporate debt – particularly in the lower-rungs of the investment-grade universe, which has swollen as companies binged on debt to buy back stock during the ZIRP years, could create problems for the equity  market.

But an even bigger long-term threat to markets is emanating from the supposedly “safe” market for US Treasury debt.

Gundlach

As we’ve warned and Gundlach has also highlighted, the risks posed by companies that could soon become “fallen angels” is rising as the US economy is “swimming in an ocean of debt.” But though the risks posed by corporate debt are serious, during the round table Gundlach was more focused on the risks posed by the ever-expanding US debt – which he argued is even bigger than most Americans realize.

 

Leverage

While the US government reported a budget deficit of $800 billion during the fiscal year ended on Sept. 30, the national debt increased by some $1.3 trillion dollars. The difference, as Gundlach explained, represents the cost of national disaster relief and other expenditures that are considered one-offs.

“Fiscal year for the federal government ends Sept. 30 and the official reported deficit was $800 billion dollars. The national debt increased by $1.3 trillion dollars. The differences can be things like national disaster relief and other things that are considered one off. Also there’s the lending from the social security system so that’s real debt too.”

The upshot, is the “debt has been going up a lot more than people think.” And what’s worse, is that, according to Gundlach’s calculations, the total unfunded liabilities for welfare programs like social security amount to some $122 trillion – roughly six times annual GDP. The answer put forward by most politicians is that this is a long term problem, and that the day of reckoning can perpetually be delayed by more borrowing. But there’s one problem with that. Every year, the share of the US federal budget consumed by debt service is rising.

“If you put enough short terms together, you get a long term. The CDO, they project that by 2025, the interest expense could be 5% of GDP. The near-term is turning into the long term in the next few years unfortunately.”

Meanwhile, Gundlach reiterated his view that equities have entered a bear market, saying he expects stocks to continue to weaken before a rebound begins during the second half of the year.

“So now we are in a bear market, which isn’t defined by me as stocks being down 20 percent. A bear market is determined by the way stocks are acting,” he said.

Gundlach also warned that, for all Trump’s gloating about a strong economy, most of this growth has been artificial and fueled by unsustainable debt.

“I’m not looking for a terrible economy, but an artificially strong one, due to stimulus spending,” Gundlach told the panel. “We have floated incremental debt when we should be doing the opposite if the economy is so strong.”

In other words, Gundlach expects fiscal policies to overtake monetary policy as the primary locus of concern for investors.

Watch a clip from Gundlach’s interview below:

via RSS http://bit.ly/2RtHSST Tyler Durden

Hedge Fund CIO: People Are Losing Faith In The System

Submitted by Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

The ratio of US household financial assets to GDP has never been higher. Today, that ratio stands at 4.4x. In 1979 at the dawn of history’s greatest secular bull market, it was 2.3x (roughly half of where it is today). A decade later, in 1989, it was 2.7x. In the 1999 dot com bubble the ratio jumped to 3.6x. At the 2009 bear market lows, it was 3.4x. And in these past 10yrs, as the ratio jumped to 4.4x, households increased their financial assets by an amount equal to 1x US GDP. Which is $21trln. If you didn’t own/buy any assets, tough luck, you missed out.

As the value of household financial assets relative to GDP surged to historic highs over the past decade, the quantity of US equities shrank. Yet the supply of so many other things expanded during the decade. US gov’t debt grew 115% to $21.5trln, household debt jumped 49% to $4trln, and corporate debt increased by 78% to $6.3trln. But while corporations borrowed $2.8trln, the net supply of US equities contracted by $3.8trln, as CEOs borrowed money and diverted profits to repurchase their shares in quantities that dwarfed new issuance.

CEOs are paid in shares, so they naturally buy them back. But that’s not the only way to boost their value. Expanding earnings does it too – increasing revenues, cutting costs, lifting profit margins. Profit margins grew from 10% at the 2007 peak to today’s 12.5% record highs (and 6% in 1979). Reducing the tax you pay also helps. In the past decade over 20 companies redomiciled to reduce their tax burden. Countless other opaque structures helped lessen tax payments too. Then they got a huge tax cut. It’s been an extraordinary decade.

Another powerful way to lift equities is to reduce the discount rate that investors use to value them. Every major global central bank did just that. Over the decade, central banks cut rates to zero and below. Their balance sheets grew by over $14trln through printing money, further depressing yields and in some cases buying stocks directly. Wealth and income inequality naturally rose, achieving levels last seen in the late-1920s. In the 4 decades since 1979, Labor’s share of US national income fell inexorably from 64% to today’s 57%. Capital receives the rest.

Americans all want to get rich. We understand risk/reward. We also get right/wrong, fairness, justice. In the past decade, virtually everyone who took reckless risk got bailed out. Practically no one at the center of the greatest financial fiasco since the Great Depression went to jail. This undermined faith in the fundamental relationship between reward/risk, wrong/right, fairness, justice. Capitalism. To top it off, American labor read in the newspapers that US public pensions – despite 10yrs of equity gains that made others rich – were underfunded by $6trln.

Anecdote:

Let’s go back a decade, I told the CIO. We were discussing where to put money for the coming years. Most often investors look backward for trends and extrapolate their trajectories into the future, or they search for beaten down assets, hoping for mean reversion. But what should you do after a year where nearly everything declined? Treasury bills outperformed virtually all assets last year.

Such broad outperformance happened only in the early-1980s under Volcker, during the Great Depression, and at the outset of WWI. So before thinking about what to buy, it’s important to explore why such a rare event happened and what it might mean.

Imagine we were talking in 2009 and could foresee the decade to come:

  • The household financial asset-to-GDP ratio would hit a record 4.4x.
  • Corporations would borrow $2.7trln.
  • Buybacks would shrink the supply of US equities by $3.8trln.
  • Profit margins would hit historic highs.
  • Labor’s share of national income would decline to record lows.
  • Central banks would bail out overleveraged speculators and amplify economic inequality.
  • Tax policy would favor redomiciling.
  • Politicians would hold no one to account for wrongdoing.
  • Despite the historic rise in wealth, worker’s pensions would remain underfunded by $6trln.

And as people lose faith in the system, there would be a dramatic political shift that catches the beneficiaries of these trends by utter surprise. It would be a protest vote. It would be a vote to redistribute the economic pie. To slash corporate profit margins. This trend would go global. And if we had known all this in 2009, would we have expected the trends and investment strategies that would dominate up through 2019 to then extend beyond? Or would we have expected them to face profound challenges?

And so today, shouldn’t we look to those strategies that have performed worst to begin to perform best?

via RSS http://bit.ly/2FqmN5s Tyler Durden

A Massive Winter Storm Buries Parts Of The US, Kills Seven 

After what was a quiet but abnormally warm start to 2019, a severe winter storm has left seven people dead as it charged across the Midwestern US, striking the Mid-Atlantic coast on Sunday.

By late Saturday night, the storm had shifted over the Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Baltimore region, where 4 to 7 inches of snow is on the ground.

Weather models suggest the snow could get heavier around 2:30 p.m. for a few hours, especially in the Washington metropolitan area.

The Weather Prediction Center (WPC) warned that freezing rain would also be a big concern for the region into the overnight. 

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency on Saturday in anticipation of the storm.

“I am declaring a state of emergency in order to prepare and coordinate the Commonwealth’s response to anticipated winter storm impacts, including snow and ice accumulations, transportation issues, and power outages,” said Northam.

The state of emergency allows officials to “mobilize resources and to deploy people and equipment to assist in response and recovery efforts,” according to the press release.

St. Louis, which was pounded the hardest by the storm so far, recorded almost 11 inches, forcing closures of Interstates 44, 64 and 70 around the city.

Parts of central Missouri, around Harrisburg, recorded almost 20 inches of snow.

Columbia, Missouri, saw more than one foot of snow, more than doubling a 109-year-old record for snowfall.

A Winter Storm Warning remains in effect for much of the Baltimore–Washington metropolitan area through 6 p.m. Sunday.

Vallee Weather Consulting meteorologist Ed Valle suggests that a “classic El Nino pattern” is developing, which combined with cold air, could mean additional storms for the East Coast into Feburary.

Valle made the point that natgas could be the greatest beneficiary of a significant cold pattern change coming to the East Coast in the second half of January into Feburary.

“The warm pattern much of the United States has been enduring to end December and start January is gradually changing now, and will continue to progress colder toward the end of January. We are seeing the beginnings of this change as a winter storm pushes through the Midwest, Ohio Valley, and Mid-Atlantic this weekend. This system has delivered locally up to 20 inches of snow in the St. Louis, MO metro area, and has already delivered up to 8 inches of snow in the DC metro area. As we push through the rest of January, a more classic “El Nino” pattern looks to develop, including a strong southern jet stream, which, combined with some cold, can likely bring additional winter storms to the Ohio Valley and East Coast into early February.

Another area impacted by this shift colder will be natural gas – after a strong start to the demand season, a bearish pattern with plenty of warmth has stifled early season cold, pushing natgas lower over the last 4-6 weeks. However, with this cold coming to end the month, we expect heating demand to continue to rise as populated areas of the southern Plains, Midwest, and East shift colder and stormier.”

Heating degree day (HDD), a measurement designed to quantify the demand for energy needed to heat a building, is already signaling that natgas demand is likely to increase in the lower 48 over the coming week. 

After a near -41% collapse in natgas from November’s 4.92 high, the current shift in cold and snowy weather is expected to blanket the East Coast in the coming weeks, could be a relieving sign for energy bulls. 

Valle warns that another snowmaker for the East Coast is dead ahead. 

via RSS http://bit.ly/2Fvhhxt Tyler Durden

Trump Threatens To “Devastate Turkey Economically” If Kurds Attacked, Sends Lira Sliding

In the fiercest words directed at Turkey in a long time, and certainly since Trump and Erdogan managed to patch up the rocky diplomatic relationship between the two nations over the fate of (since released) Pastor Brunson, President Trump on Sunday evening put President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on notice, threatening to “devastate Turkey economically if they hit Kurds” — which has sent the Turkish lira sliding. 

Trump further confirmed in no uncertain terms that his announced “long overdue” troop pullout from Syria has begun, but that it’s been initiated while “hitting the little remaining ISIS territorial caliphate hard” and “from many directions”.

The warning to Turkey came as Ankara has mustered military forces, including tank regiments, along the Syrian border and deep in Afrin after last year’s ‘Operation Olive Branch’ plunged pro-Turkish forces accross the border inside Syrian Kurdish enclaves.

Last week Turkey’s leaders, including the defense minister, described preparations underway for another major Turkish assault on US-backed Kurdish positions east of the Euphrates, following the exit of American advisers based on Trump’s previously announced pullout. But it appears Trump is now putting Ankara on notice, and is prepared to thwart any Turkish invasion plans by establishing a “20 mile safe zone”. 

Presumably this “safe zone” will be towards protecting American forces while a precise exit logistics take shape, and will occur simultaneously to the US pounding remnant ISIS positions; however the details remain uncertain. 

Trump followed his tweet threatening to “devastate Turkey economically” if the Kurds are hit with another promise to “stop the endless wars!” in what appears another sign he’s currently in a fight with the deep state and hawks within his own administration over Syria policy

Among those recently accused of “going rogue” after weeks of mixed and contradictory messages coming from administration and Pentagon officials over the Syria draw down is National Security Advisor John Bolton. 

In possibly an attempt to clean up the mess made by his latest trip to Israel and Turkey, the latter country in which he was snubbed by President Erdogan, Bolton said during an interview with the Hugh Hewitt radio show on Friday that Trump elicited a guarantee from Erdogan to not attack those particular Kurdish militias that have assisted the US in the anti-ISIS campaign. This was reportedly during the Dec. 14th call that appears the catalyst for Trump’s full US troop draw down in Syria.

Predictably, the mainstream media has expressed “outrage” that Trump could speak so aggressively with “a NATO ally”…

Bolton explained that Erdogan agreed; however, it could come down to definitions and labels as the Kurdish core of the US-armed and trained Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) — the YPG — is officially designated by Turkey a terrorist extension of the outlawed PKK. 

But given Trump’s power to send the Turkish lira tumbling with a mere Tweet – already after it hit new lows last week – the Turks (or at least TRY trader) no doubt believe that Trump is capable of following up on threats. 

via RSS http://bit.ly/2RrzZgv Tyler Durden

Markets Have “Returned To The Scene Of The Crime” – What Happens Next?

Authored by Sven Henrich via NorthmanTrader.com,

Markets have returned to the scene of the crime and participants act like nothing’s happened. After an 11 day rally propelling $ES futures nearly 11% off of the December lows happy days are here again.

The lows are in, any retest will be bought, the Fed’s turned dovish, slashed earnings projections are the basis for future gains, get a China deal and there’s nothing but blue skies ahead. I put myself at the mercy of readers and correct me if I’m wrong, but this is generally the current consensus of analysts and pundits that did not see the Q4 2018 drubbing coming in the first place. And, to be fair, that is an acknowledged possibility I outlined myself in my 2019 Market Outlook.

And frankly I can’t blame them for taking this view, indeed, if you take a linear view of markets, then we’re just simply repeating the same script we’ve become accustomed to over the last 10 years. Markets tank and the systemic rescue patrol gets active at just the right time and the bull market trend gets saved again:

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin’s emergency calls just before the lows followed up by over a dozen dovish speeches and appearances by FOMC members on the heels of the now famous Powell cave on January 4th had an immediate and violent reaction in credit and stock markets.

No chart probably better highlights this point than that of high yield credit:

Whether words, and that’s all there has been so far, are enough remains to be seen. After all QT remains on schedule although the Fed’s rate hike schedule is over for now. Again. And right at this moment in time:

The observable fact remains: When markets drop hard the Fed reacts. Either in policy action or in words. And the Fed has reacted by pausing the rate hike schedule away from the advertised rate hike schedule for 2019. In short: They have altered policy by managing expectations. Again. Because that’s what you do when unemployment is below 4%, the economy is strong and there’s no risk of recession. Oh yes, that’s what Jerome Powell said this week again. Things are awesome, but let’s stop rate hikes and be flexible on the balance sheet. Please.

However, if you take a log view of markets, maybe things are not so awesome:

This is a view that suggests that this market is technically broken and that markets have topped and look to pursue a historical path with a recession and a larger bear market to emerge.

And this view is not only supported by the break of log trend lines, but also by the concurrent rejection of the 10 year yield at its multi decade trend line:

Let’s review the technical state of the recent rally.

Firstly let me state clearly:

I don’t blame central bankers for the rally. The rally was technical and the technicals told us a big rally was coming. What central bankers did was juice the slope and speed of the rally.

In Dirty Rally I had outlined the case for a 10% rally to emerge around a near Christmas time bottom based on the 2000/2001 analog, but back then it took until the end of January from December 21. Now we had a 10% move from December 24th to January 10th.

In my previous Weekly Market Brief I outlined imbalances that demanded technical reconnects and I stated:

“As of now we have massive imbalances to the downside and these disconnects will cause an effort at a reconnect… Despite technical extensions bulls kept screaming for every higher targets in September. Bears are now screaming for ever lower targets in December. Ignore the screaming. Focus on the technicals. Everybody chill. Imbalances don’t last.”

And here we are returning to the crime scene, the December breakdown zone, and are seeing reconnects with some key moving averages such as the 50MA.

Example $RUT:

To reiterate, despite the speed of this move, NOTHING here so far is surprising. We moved into technical reconnects and there is room to connect higher still into MAs, gap fills, etc. And while we have some short term overbought readings, there’s nothing overbought on the 2 hour, daily, or weekly time frames. Indeed, many of these have plenty of room to run to the point where this move can go on for some time. Add a China deal and $SPX could be back tat the 2750-2800 zone in a flash.

What we just witnessed so far was a technical move higher alleviating some of the historic oversold conditions we saw in December:

The influence of the Fed however has helped bring about another historic abnormality and I highlighted this in “Intrigue” the massive squeeze on the $NYMO. The oscillator closed the week at its 2nd highest weekly closing print ever:

In 2016 we saw a similar read as central banks went into intervention overdrive and embarked on a $5.5 trillion+ intervention schedule in the 2 years that followed. There is no such expectation this time.

In 2008 we saw the highest $NYMO print ever right near the top of the counter rally before markets reverted to significant new lows.

And perhaps that’s the key question here: Is this current technical rally a counter rally that will produce new lows or have we seen a significant low in markets?

I remain open minded either way at this juncture as we still need confirming evidence. Over the next few weeks we will get some significant new information to evaluate. Earnings will come in full force next week. So far the earnings seasons has brought about plenty of warnings and downgrades which have been ignored by markets in context of this current rally.

Fact is markets have begun to enter a significant zone of resistance:

$WLSH:

$NYSE:

$DJIA:

Key indices are approaching key MAs, trend lines, gap fills and previous support all of which are technical resistance.

It is what happens from there that will be key to determine whether the historical script plays out of whether the bull market can resume its regularly ordained path higher.

In fact, bears now have to prove their case and the only path forward for them is new lows. Not a retrace, not a retest with even temporary new lows, but sustained new lows.

And with the Fed now being easy on the rate hike front and a potential China deal still looming that is a challenging path.

After all one can envision all kinds of bullish scenarios.

For example, a technical retrace could potentially set up for a cup and handle pattern:

Or a retest with new lows could set up for a positive divergence and produce a formidable “W” bottom:

The message of all of these speculative examples offer the prospect of wide price ranges and plenty of opportunities for active participants.

I can even imagine us remaining within the larger 2018 price range and producing an inside year rendering all larger bullish and bearish debates unresolved.

Much will depend on the evolution of the larger macro picture. Germany and France just saw large reversals in their industrial production numbers raising well founded concerns that Europe is heading into a recession:

Retailers have just produced rather unimpressive earnings suggesting perhaps that the inventory builds of Q4 vastly overstated underlying GDP growth which in return could set up for a rather disappointing Q1 GDP print.

There is no China deal still, Brexit remains under a big cloud of uncertainty, the government remains shut down, deficit spending and government debt financing remains on a historic accelerated path and political drama and uncertainty appear to continue unabated. If the Fed had any confidence in the economic outlook they project they would not have paused their rate hike path and not felt it necessary to placate markets with dovish talk. Unless of course they saw the drop in equity prices  to be a direct threat to their economic outlook, which of course is the ugly truth they would never admit to.

While the rally has improved recent sentiment that in itself is not evidence of future market gains. Indeed in recent months it’s been the polar opposite:

Remember: Violent rallies are the hallmark of emerging bear markets and so far all we’ve seen is technical reconnects returning to scene of the crime. As much as bears may have to prove so do bulls and it’s still very early into the year.

Fact is major technical damage has been inflicted on markets in 2018. We remain in a structure of lower highs and lower lows on the macro front and one could even imagine a larger structure that leaves room for lower prices to come in the months ahead:

And if a bear market is to unfold and the Fed’s jawboning fails then participants may come to realize that the lows are not in, rather we’re just at the first inning of the historical script:

For now markets have still room higher as many charts are not anywhere near overbought on the daily or weekly time frames, but this rally has not yet been tested. Earnings reports, economic reports and coming liquidity withdrawals will likely put this rally to the test during the rest of January and the test could come at any moment for any reason as none of the structural causes of the Q4 drop have disappeared or solved.

See the thing is, as marvelous as this rally appears, its structure leaves room for a decidedly bearish interpretation:

A rising wedge with weakening internals beneath new highs. So buckle in, nothing’s been proven either way yet and it’s early in 2019. Lots can and will happen.

*  *  *

For the latest public analysis please visit NorthmanTrader. To subscribe to our market products please visit Services.

via RSS http://bit.ly/2QLxKPU Tyler Durden