America Loves Gay Marriage (and Weed)


gaycaketopper_1161x653

Support for same-sex marriage in the United States has reached a record high of 70 percent, according to a new Gallup poll, conducted in May.

For the first time, support for same-sex marriage among Republicans has passed the 50 percent threshold, jumping all the way up to 55 percent.

Support for same-sex marriage has been steadily increasing since Gallup started asking about it in 1997. When Gallup first asked, support was at just 27 percent. In just a quarter of a century, the numbers have reversed entirely. Support continues to grow among all age groups.

It’s a wonderful reminder, during Pride Month, of how quickly life has gotten better for LGBT people in America. It’s a win for liberty because it’s a result not of government mandates but of people genuinely and honestly changing their minds, realizing that allowing gay people to define their own relationships and families is not some threat to society. The growth in support started well before the Supreme Court mandated in 2015 that the federal government and states recognize same-sex marriage and, as Jonathan Rauch noted in Reason in 2018, tracked with Americans slowly changing their minds about the morality of same-sex relationships as well.

In fact, you can’t even tell when that ruling came down from looking at polling data. The Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges probably didn’t cause greater numbers of Americans to support same-sex marriage; it merely reflected what Americans had already come to conclude—that the government had no legitimate reason to treat same-sex marriages differently from heterosexual ones. It was the logical outcome once people by and large concluded that homosexuality was not a moral threat after all.

Support for legalizing marijuana is just a couple of points behind gay marriage. Gallup’s poll from 2020 has support at 68 percent. Republicans in the most recent polling remain below the 50 percent threshold. Only 48 percent support legalization, but it did cross that threshold in two previous polls, only to decline.

Marijuana has taken a much longer time to reach this point. The harsh drug war Americans were sold kept support for marijuana legalization below 30 percent all the way until the end of the 20th century.

As many at Reason have previously noted, state experimentation through the mechanism of federalism has played a major role in shifting public opinion toward accepting both same-sex marriage and recreational marijuana use. In each case, a handful of states led the way. Citizens in other states could see the results. Gay marriage didn’t destabilize families. Marijuana use didn’t destroy lives, and it did seem to help people with certain illnesses feel better.

President Joe Biden, unfortunately, remains well behind the curve in marijuana legalization and does not seem terribly interested in actually doing much about it remaining a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law. But Americans continue to see, every day, that marijuana is no more of a moral threat than same-sex marriage. Rauch wrote in 2018:

Over time, it became evident that marijuana and marriage, like most political issues today, were primarily about morals and values, and only secondarily about policy trade-offs. For marriage equality, the real hang-up was the majority’s belief that same-sex relations, in or out of marriage, are morally wrong, something most Americans told Gallup they believed until 2010. Attitudes toward same-sex marriage closely tracked with attitudes toward same-sex morality. People regarded support for legalization as a form of personal approval.

Much the same is true for marijuana. In 2006, most Americans told Pew Research that using marijuana was morally wrong. That figure had declined to only a third in 2013, a crucial breakthrough, given that most Americans do not distinguish clearly between public policy and personal morality. “As long as they saw marijuana as a threat to the safety of their children, we couldn’t win,” Stroup says. “As long as it was considered sinful or bad conduct or immoral, they were not about to” support legalization.

In other words, it was not enough to show that getting married or high is my right; activists needed to show that it is right—or at least not wrong.

Both advocates of same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization have succeeded wonderfully here, and slowly but surely, Americans are becoming more able to define their own relationships and consume what they want without the government attempting to punish them for it.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3pADpLX
via IFTTT

Surge In Foreign Demand Sparks Stellar 10Y Treasury Auction Ahead Of Tomorrow’s CPI

Surge In Foreign Demand Sparks Stellar 10Y Treasury Auction Ahead Of Tomorrow’s CPI

Having seen yields in the secondary market plunge to 3-month lows during the morning, Treasuries were sold ahead of the $38 billion reopening 10-year sale (backup to a When Issued yield of 1.507% – from 1.4705% intraday lows).

Demand was stellar with the bid-to-cover (2.58x) surging to its highest since July 2020…

Source: Bloomberg

Today’s high yield was 1.497% (almost 20bps below the 1.684% at the last auction), trading through the WI yield by a very significant 1bps

Source: Bloomberg

Indirect demand (65%) surged to its highest since mid 2020…

Source: Bloomberg

Due to the surge in indirect demand, dealers were allocated the lowest amount since May 2016

Source: Bloomberg

And bonds were well bid after the auction, with 10Y back below 1.50%…

Source: Bloomberg

That is a very aggressive auction ahead of tomorrow’s CPI print.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/09/2021 – 13:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/354HIG0 Tyler Durden

Credit Suisse Abandons Plan To Back Former Bond Trader’s New Fund After He Turned Down Citadel

Credit Suisse Abandons Plan To Back Former Bond Trader’s New Fund After He Turned Down Citadel

Imagine turning down a job at Citadel’s extremely lucrative hedge fund division after being promised seed money to start your own credit-focused fund under the auspices of Credit Suisse’s asset-management division (after earning the bank millions of dollars a year as a trader), only to see the bank reneged on its promise and kick you out the door following two embarrassing incidents that you had nothing to do with.

According to Bloomberg, that’s exactly what’s happening to former Credit Suisse star trader Hamza Lemssouguer and his new Arini European Credit fund, which is being moved “outside” the bank, and will no longer be seeded with CS capital (though presumably the bank will help Lemssouguer find some clients). Lemssouguer will now run the fund outside the bank, according to an internal memo seen by Bloomberg. Credit Suisse will not invest any money or retain an ownership stake, according to BBG’s sources.

CS spokeswoman Sofia Rehman confirmed the memo’s contents. The fund launch has already been delayed as the bank re-evaluated its “risk appetite” for using its own cash to finance risky trading strategies.

When CS first convinced Lemssouguer not to leave, it promised him $500MM in assets to manage and his own European credit fund that would be managed as part of the bank’s asset-management division. However, this was before the collapse of Greensill and the Archegos blowup, two unrelated incidents that saddled CS with billions of dollars in losses. In the aftermath, CEO Thomas Gottstein fired the bank’s risk-management head and a raft of other senior executives, while promising to completely overhaul the bank’s risk-management practices.

For what its’ worth, Lemssouguer has been holding presentations for prospective investors. Lemssouguer has already held investor presentations to raise money for his absolute return credit fund, which aims to take advantage of distortions in credit markets with long and short positions, stressed opportunities, and the capability to single-name shorting, according to a presentation.

Junk bonds have already been a favorite of fund managers this year who are willing to take bigger risks in search for yield as central banks keep supporting markets, though expectations for higher inflation may complicate such trades.

“Hamza and the Arini team have engaged with clients and would like to capitalize on current dislocations in European credit,” according to the bank. “Given the timing, we have agreed with Hamza that it would be in the best interest of prospective investors and the team for Arini to proceed outside of Credit Suisse.

Apparently, CS’s other top employees are getting anxious. As Bloomberg reported Wednesday morning, Credit Suisse has started offering top bankers retention bonuses as more are looking to jump ship after the recent losses. Now, the bank is even considering whether it should spin off its asset management division, where the Greensill trade finance funds were housed. CEO Gottstein also cut CS’s dividend and the bank’s longtime chairman Urs Rohner, was pushed out with a rare apology at the start of May. He has since been replaced by former Lloyds Bank boss Antonio Horta-Osorio.

The bank is also “curbing risk” – ie cutting ties with certain clients or demanding more collateral – in its prime brokerage division, where the bank’s outsize exposure to Archegos saddled the bank with nearly $5 billion in losses, making it the worst-hit out of a handful of megabanks who were financing the fund’s trades. It was later revealed that CS’s business with Archegos brought in less than $20MM in fee revenue, a tiny sum compared to the outsize losses it generated.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/09/2021 – 13:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3pBOSuA Tyler Durden

Biden Won’t Close the ‘Tax Gap,’ but He Will Snoop on Your Bank Records


BidenBinoculars

When the Group of Seven (G-7) wealthy democracies agreed in principle June 5 to establish a global minimum corporate tax of 15 percent and an “excess profit” surcharge on large corporations with annual margins above 10 percent, you could almost hear the sound of the world’s political elites rubbing their hands together at visions of pillowy new billions.

“Huge sums of money are at stake,” gushed The New York Times. “A report this month from the E.U. Tax Observatory estimated that a 15 percent minimum tax would yield an additional 48 billion euros, or $58 billion, a year. The Biden administration projected in its budget last month that the new global minimum tax system could help bring in $500 billion in tax revenue over a decade to the United States.”

Those numbers, however plausible (or not), are all in the future, contingent on tricky G-20 negotiations, pesky tax competition abroad, and congressional skepticism back home. Surely there’s some other massive pot of free money hiding just out of view?

Yes, claims President Joe Biden’s Treasury Department, in a bluntly titled May 20 document called The American Families Plan Tax Compliance Agenda. A staggering $700 billion in currently undetected taxpayer IOUs is grabbable over the next decade, and $1.6 trillion the decade after, if only we give the IRS an extra $80 billion worth of rope with which to close the “tax gap.”

“Even partly closing that gulf,” noted the Washington Post, “could go a long way toward paying for President Biden’s spending proposals, which include trillions of dollars for infrastructure, child care, manufacturing and other domestic spending priorities.”

If such promises look naggingly familiar, that’s because we were hearing similar vows, and reading equally credulous headlines, the last time a Democratic administration was enjoying its media honeymoon. “Obama cracks down on overseas tax loopholes,” asserted NBC News in May 2009. Echoed NPR, “Obama: Tax Haven Curbs To Generate $210 Billion.”

Back then, there was a common, vaguely sourced claim that, in the words of then–Sen. Carl Levin (D–Mich.), “Offshore tax evasion produces an estimated $100 billion in unpaid taxes each year.” President Barack Obama name-checked the influential Levin while announcing his 2009 plan to end “indefensible tax breaks and loopholes” and “crack down on the abuse of tax havens by individuals,” promising a resulting bounty of “savings we can use to reduce the deficit, cut taxes…and provide meaningful relief for hard-working families.”

So before we assess Biden’s new enforcement proposals, it’s worth asking: What happened to that $210 billion?

The vast majority of Obama’s projected haul, the multinational corporations portion, was scuttled before it got started, after successful pressure on centrist Democrats by Silicon Valley companies and Chamber of Commerce types. What remained, getting passed into law in 2010, was the individual taxpayer component, known as the Foreign Account Tax Compliant Act, or—because Washington is filled with grown-ups—FATCA.

FATCA, which unilaterally foisted upon foreign financial institutions (FFIs) the customer-unfriendly duty to rat out their U.S.-citizen clients to the IRS or face 30 percent account-garnishes, while also imposing proctology-level annual reporting requirements on Americans (I am one of them) who have at least five figures parked overseas, was projected by supporters to bring in a more modest but still measurable $8.7 billion in total new tax collections by 2020, or $870 million per year.

So how’d that work out?

“The actual amount of tax collected by FATCA is statistically insignificant,” concluded Texas A&M University School of Law’s William Byrnes and Robert Munro in an extensive March 2017 paper. “FATCA has probably generated $300 million extra tax revenue a year that otherwise would go unreported…[though] this figure will continue to decrease.”

An Inspector General report from July 2018 was titled, “Despite Spending Nearly $380 Million, the Internal Revenue Service Is Still Not Prepared to Enforce Compliance With the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.” An April 2019 Government Accountability Office (GAO) assessment found that, “Data quality and management issues have limited the effectiveness” of FATCA, and that “overlapping requirements increase the compliance burden on U.S. persons,” leading to expatriates increasingly being denied financial services and seeking to revoke their citizenship.

Yet this is the template that Biden, despite his late-campaign promise to the estimated nine million Americans living outside the country to “work in partnership with you on all the issues that impact your lives and well-being as Americans resident abroad, including reviewing the barriers to accessing banking and financial services,” is seeking not just to maintain but expand into the lives and ledgers of every U.S. citizen.

Biden’s American Families Plan Tax Compliance Agenda seeks to build on the model of FATCA’s intrusive third-party reporting requirements, constructing a “comprehensive financial account reporting regime” that would force a wider grouping of financial institutions and platforms (PayPal, settlement companies, “crypto asset exchanges,” etc.) to “report gross inflows and outflows on all business and personal accounts…including bank, loan, and investment accounts.”

But there’s no need to worry if you’ve got nothing to hide.

“For already compliant taxpayers, the only effect of this regime is to provide easy access to summary information on financial accounts and to decrease the likelihood of costly ‘no fault’ examinations once the IRS is able to better target its enforcement efforts,” Treasury reassures us. “For noncompliant taxpayers, this regime would encourage voluntary compliance as evaders realize that the risk of evasion being detected has risen noticeably.”

For successive Democratic administrations (Donald Trump was rhetorically against FATCA, though neither he nor the GOP-led Congress did much of anything about it), increased financial surveillance is critical to ratcheting up “voluntary” tax compliance. Indeed, the bulk of revenue generated from FATCA has come not from the IRS discovering new taxable income, but from spooked expatriates voluntarily paying fines as part of various limited amnesties on filing post-dated IRS reports, many of which contain zero new tax liability in and of themselves. Turns out when you threaten law-abiding middle-class U.S. citizens with massive fines and even prison time while conscripting their banks into tax collectors, they will hastily throw smaller amounts of money at making Leviathan go away.

That is if they don’t turn in their passports. As was repeatedly predicted in this space in 2011, 2012, and beyond, the burdens placed on non–fat cat expatriates are so life-rattlingly onerous that record numbers continue to de-Americanize themselves. This could change, if the United States joined literally every other country on earth besides Eritrea in taxing people based on residence and not citizenship, but it has long since become clear that Washington enjoys the ability not just to bully its own diaspora around, but to impose financial reporting rules on the rest of the world while brazenly refusing to reciprocate when it comes to the international tax havens of Florida, Delaware, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Now that Biden is turning his attention inward to the financial nethers of non-expatriate Americans, it’s worth pondering the possible consequences on those of us not rich enough to afford the finest in creative, penalty-free tax compliance. For that, check out this June 2 letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen from some canaries in the bank-surveillance coal mine, the group Democrats Abroad.

“We are deeply concerned that the need for additional investment in FATCA compliance frameworks will motivate even more [FFIs] to close the accounts of, or deny new accounts to, of customers deemed U.S. Persons,” Democrats Abroad International Chair Candice Kerestan wrote. “[Since FATCA], the number of Americans locked out of banking services in the country where they live has grown from one in approximately fourteen to one in three.” More:

Ordinary law-abiding Americans living abroad – the unintended objects of FATCA – have suffered an extraordinary amount of personal and financial disruption, anxiety, and distress, and yet, after ten years, the IRS has not been able to use FATCA reports to identify and apprehend genuine lawbreakers….There have been at least three Congressional hearings this year discussing the need to capture the tax that is lost due to “offshoring,” and at no time have lawmakers noted the predicament of Americans abroad caught in the unintended adverse consequences of well-intentioned tax-enforcement measures.

At some point, the reality of Washington governance, and the coverage thereof, requires a reassessment of the idea that invasive new financial-snooping schemes sold with facially unattainable revenue promises are in fact “well-intentioned.” The Biden administration, like the Obama administration under which he served, wants to scare Americans into “voluntary” compliance and penalty payments using a massive surveillance apparatus that turns all third-party financial players into narcs. To adapt a popular phrase about the previous administration, the obedience is the point.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Sp0N2P
via IFTTT

America Loves Gay Marriage (and Weed)


gaycaketopper_1161x653

Support for same-sex marriage in the United States has reached a record high of 70 percent, according to a new Gallup poll, conducted in May.

For the first time, support for same-sex marriage among Republicans has passed the 50 percent threshold, jumping all the way up to 55 percent.

Support for same-sex marriage has been steadily increasing since Gallup started asking about it in 1997. When Gallup first asked, support was at just 27 percent. In just a quarter of a century, the numbers have reversed entirely. Support continues to grow among all age groups.

It’s a wonderful reminder, during Pride Month, of how quickly life has gotten better for LGBT people in America. It’s a win for liberty because it’s a result not of government mandates but of people genuinely and honestly changing their minds, realizing that allowing gay people to define their own relationships and families is not some threat to society. The growth in support started well before the Supreme Court mandated in 2015 that the federal government and states recognize same-sex marriage and, as Jonathan Rauch noted in Reason in 2018, tracked with Americans slowly changing their minds about the morality of same-sex relationships as well.

In fact, you can’t even tell when that ruling came down from looking at polling data. The Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges probably didn’t cause greater numbers of Americans to support same-sex marriage; it merely reflected what Americans had already come to conclude—that the government had no legitimate reason to treat same-sex marriages differently from heterosexual ones. It was the logical outcome once people by and large concluded that homosexuality was not a moral threat after all.

Support for legalizing marijuana is just a couple of points behind gay marriage. Gallup’s poll from 2020 has support at 68 percent. Republicans in the most recent polling remain below the 50 percent threshold. Only 48 percent support legalization, but it did cross that threshold in two previous polls, only to decline.

Marijuana has taken a much longer time to reach this point. The harsh drug war Americans were sold kept support for marijuana legalization below 30 percent all the way until the end of the 20th century.

As many at Reason have previously noted, state experimentation through the mechanism of federalism has played a major role in shifting public opinion toward accepting both same-sex marriage and recreational marijuana use. In each case, a handful of states led the way. Citizens in other states could see the results. Gay marriage didn’t destabilize families. Marijuana use didn’t destroy lives, and it did seem to help people with certain illnesses feel better.

President Joe Biden, unfortunately, remains well behind the curve in marijuana legalization and does not seem terribly interested in actually doing much about it remaining a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law. But Americans continue to see, every day, that marijuana is no more of a moral threat than same-sex marriage. Rauch wrote in 2018:

Over time, it became evident that marijuana and marriage, like most political issues today, were primarily about morals and values, and only secondarily about policy trade-offs. For marriage equality, the real hang-up was the majority’s belief that same-sex relations, in or out of marriage, are morally wrong, something most Americans told Gallup they believed until 2010. Attitudes toward same-sex marriage closely tracked with attitudes toward same-sex morality. People regarded support for legalization as a form of personal approval.

Much the same is true for marijuana. In 2006, most Americans told Pew Research that using marijuana was morally wrong. That figure had declined to only a third in 2013, a crucial breakthrough, given that most Americans do not distinguish clearly between public policy and personal morality. “As long as they saw marijuana as a threat to the safety of their children, we couldn’t win,” Stroup says. “As long as it was considered sinful or bad conduct or immoral, they were not about to” support legalization.

In other words, it was not enough to show that getting married or high is my right; activists needed to show that it is right—or at least not wrong.

Both advocates of same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization have succeeded wonderfully here, and slowly but surely, Americans are becoming more able to define their own relationships and consume what they want without the government attempting to punish them for it.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3pADpLX
via IFTTT

“It’s Coming!”

“It’s Coming!”

Authored by Sven Henrich via NorthmanTrader.com,

Bored by the benign chop in markets drifting ever closer to all time highs again? With almost programmed certainty new highs are coming every month after all. New highs Fed balance sheet, new highs $SPX. Every month since November. Tit for tat.

While volatility is found in the chase of meme stocks from $CME, to $AMC to now Clover Health the broader market is barely moving intra-day and the occasional dips are ferociously saved and bought followed by hours of tight range chop action:

With most market gains entirely driven by overnight gap ups:

No, it’s all rather mundane action ahead of this week’s closely watched CPI print and next week’s quad witch OPEX and the Fed meeting.

New highs are very possible and consistent with the backtest scenario described in The Trap and even with the emergent divergence in Transports.

However, new highs or not, one of our favorite charts to track is again warning of the coming end to the calm. The $VIX has again compressed into a tightening pattern that is foreboding a coming end to the low volatility regime:

This chart suggests remaining risk lower into filling the open gap from April still, but the pattern is tightening and looks to come to a resolution at any moment between now and in the next week.

This smaller pattern suggests room for a $VIX breakout into the low to high 20s.

The longer term structures continue building for a much larger move still to come in the future:

It’s all part and parcel for a market that continues to live off excessive liquidity and extreme complacency:

The main message: New highs or not, volatility, it’s coming. At least for a while.

*  *  *

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

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/09/2021 – 12:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2RHoq6q Tyler Durden

Anatomy Of A Short Squeeze: This Is How Hedge Funds Pounce On Retail Meme Stonks

Anatomy Of A Short Squeeze: This Is How Hedge Funds Pounce On Retail Meme Stonks

In the ‘old normal’ – when dinosaurs roamed the earth – history suggested that when retail investors piled into stocks with both hands and feet, a major top in prices was usually not far behind.

But, in the ‘new normal’ of Reddit Rebels and Meme Stock Manias, it is the ‘little guy’ that is making the “Smart” money look “Dumb” as stock after stock is lifted out of obscurity – or from the brink of bankruptcy – by a wave of WSB-buyers, crushing the well-reasoned theses of asset-gatherers and commission-takers everywhere as ‘worthless’ stonks go to the moon.

Retail piling in…

…and hedgies hammered…

In fact, what has been only anecdotally observed, is now confirmed by Goldman Sachs’ latest research note that suggests retail trading activity continues to be a leading indicator (rather than contrarian).

Specifically Goldman’s Derivatives Research group believe retail trading activity is an indication of a large number of traders “paying attention” to a stock.

When a retail investor pays attention to a stock, they generally choose between “buying” or “not-buying” the stock (retail investors are generally not short sellers).

This results in temporary net-buying flow from retail investors and pushes the stock up temporarily.

Volatile stocks then attract the attention of institutional investors as they see opportunities to use their understanding of option market positioning, delta hedging requirements of market makers and fundamental valuation to position for outsized profits.

At some point, retail traders become a smaller percentage of overall volume and the tailwind inherent in this “attention” signal fades.

This is the point where institutional investors position for a (partial) mean reversion.

In fact, many of the high profile retail trading names show a significant drop in retail trading as a percentage of total volume in the days ahead of the ultimate peak and subsequent decline.

Translation:

1) Retail investors ignite the momentum, squeezing shorts out;

2) …which grabs the attention of institutional/hedge funds, who then deploy leverage to spark the gamma squeeze meltup…

3) …which further squeezes the shorts out…

4) …enabling hedgies to implement shorts at much higher prices, slamming the stock lower…

5) …setting the stage for the next retail-ignited squeeze.

Rinse… Repeat.

The charts below show the outsized retail investor participation in the past month…

Here is the retail stock investor fading as the stock explodes higher (and hedge funds take over)…

And here are retail option investors doing the same…

So, with all that said, the question is will it end badly…

…again?

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/09/2021 – 12:31

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3g8F9ZE Tyler Durden

Biden Won’t Close the ‘Tax Gap,’ but He Will Snoop on Your Bank Records


BidenBinoculars

When the Group of Seven (G-7) wealthy democracies agreed in principle June 5 to establish a global minimum corporate tax of 15 percent and an “excess profit” surcharge on large corporations with annual margins above 10 percent, you could almost hear the sound of the world’s political elites rubbing their hands together at visions of pillowy new billions.

“Huge sums of money are at stake,” gushed The New York Times. “A report this month from the E.U. Tax Observatory estimated that a 15 percent minimum tax would yield an additional 48 billion euros, or $58 billion, a year. The Biden administration projected in its budget last month that the new global minimum tax system could help bring in $500 billion in tax revenue over a decade to the United States.”

Those numbers, however plausible (or not), are all in the future, contingent on tricky G-20 negotiations, pesky tax competition abroad, and congressional skepticism back home. Surely there’s some other massive pot of free money hiding just out of view?

Yes, claims President Joe Biden’s Treasury Department, in a bluntly titled May 20 document called The American Families Plan Tax Compliance Agenda. A staggering $700 billion in currently undetected taxpayer IOUs is grabbable over the next decade, and $1.6 trillion the decade after, if only we give the IRS an extra $80 billion worth of rope with which to close the “tax gap.”

“Even partly closing that gulf,” noted the Washington Post, “could go a long way toward paying for President Biden’s spending proposals, which include trillions of dollars for infrastructure, child care, manufacturing and other domestic spending priorities.”

If such promises look naggingly familiar, that’s because we were hearing similar vows, and reading equally credulous headlines, the last time a Democratic administration was enjoying its media honeymoon. “Obama cracks down on overseas tax loopholes,” asserted NBC News in May 2009. Echoed NPR, “Obama: Tax Haven Curbs To Generate $210 Billion.”

Back then, there was a common, vaguely sourced claim that, in the words of then–Sen. Carl Levin (D–Mich.), “Offshore tax evasion produces an estimated $100 billion in unpaid taxes each year.” President Barack Obama name-checked the influential Levin while announcing his 2009 plan to end “indefensible tax breaks and loopholes” and “crack down on the abuse of tax havens by individuals,” promising a resulting bounty of “savings we can use to reduce the deficit, cut taxes…and provide meaningful relief for hard-working families.”

So before we assess Biden’s new enforcement proposals, it’s worth asking: What happened to that $210 billion?

The vast majority of Obama’s projected haul, the multinational corporations portion, was scuttled before it got started, after successful pressure on centrist Democrats by Silicon Valley companies and Chamber of Commerce types. What remained, getting passed into law in 2010, was the individual taxpayer component, known as the Foreign Account Tax Compliant Act, or—because Washington is filled with grown-ups—FATCA.

FATCA, which unilaterally foisted upon foreign financial institutions (FFIs) the customer-unfriendly duty to rat out their U.S.-citizen clients to the IRS or face 30 percent account-garnishes, while also imposing proctology-level annual reporting requirements on Americans (I am one of them) who have at least five figures parked overseas, was projected by supporters to bring in a more modest but still measurable $8.7 billion in total new tax collections by 2020, or $870 million per year.

So how’d that work out?

“The actual amount of tax collected by FATCA is statistically insignificant,” concluded Texas A&M University School of Law’s William Byrnes and Robert Munro in an extensive March 2017 paper. “FATCA has probably generated $300 million extra tax revenue a year that otherwise would go unreported…[though] this figure will continue to decrease.”

An Inspector General report from July 2018 was titled, “Despite Spending Nearly $380 Million, the Internal Revenue Service Is Still Not Prepared to Enforce Compliance With the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.” An April 2019 Government Accountability Office (GAO) assessment found that, “Data quality and management issues have limited the effectiveness” of FATCA, and that “overlapping requirements increase the compliance burden on U.S. persons,” leading to expatriates increasingly being denied financial services and seeking to revoke their citizenship.

Yet this is the template that Biden, despite his late-campaign promise to the estimated nine million Americans living outside the country to “work in partnership with you on all the issues that impact your lives and well-being as Americans resident abroad, including reviewing the barriers to accessing banking and financial services,” is seeking not just to maintain but expand into the lives and ledgers of every U.S. citizen.

Biden’s American Families Plan Tax Compliance Agenda seeks to build on the model of FATCA’s intrusive third-party reporting requirements, constructing a “comprehensive financial account reporting regime” that would force a wider grouping of financial institutions and platforms (PayPal, settlement companies, “crypto asset exchanges,” etc.) to “report gross inflows and outflows on all business and personal accounts…including bank, loan, and investment accounts.”

But there’s no need to worry if you’ve got nothing to hide.

“For already compliant taxpayers, the only effect of this regime is to provide easy access to summary information on financial accounts and to decrease the likelihood of costly ‘no fault’ examinations once the IRS is able to better target its enforcement efforts,” Treasury reassures us. “For noncompliant taxpayers, this regime would encourage voluntary compliance as evaders realize that the risk of evasion being detected has risen noticeably.”

For successive Democratic administrations (Donald Trump was rhetorically against FATCA, though neither he nor the GOP-led Congress did much of anything about it), increased financial surveillance is critical to ratcheting up “voluntary” tax compliance. Indeed, the bulk of revenue generated from FATCA has come not from the IRS discovering new taxable income, but from spooked expatriates voluntarily paying fines as part of various limited amnesties on filing post-dated IRS reports, many of which contain zero new tax liability in and of themselves. Turns out when you threaten law-abiding middle-class U.S. citizens with massive fines and even prison time while conscripting their banks into tax collectors, they will hastily throw smaller amounts of money at making Leviathan go away.

That is if they don’t turn in their passports. As was repeatedly predicted in this space in 2011, 2012, and beyond, the burdens placed on non–fat cat expatriates are so life-rattlingly onerous that record numbers continue to de-Americanize themselves. This could change, if the United States joined literally every other country on earth besides Eritrea in taxing people based on residence and not citizenship, but it has long since become clear that Washington enjoys the ability not just to bully its own diaspora around, but to impose financial reporting rules on the rest of the world while brazenly refusing to reciprocate when it comes to the international tax havens of Florida, Delaware, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Now that Biden is turning his attention inward to the financial nethers of non-expatriate Americans, it’s worth pondering the possible consequences on those of us not rich enough to afford the finest in creative, penalty-free tax compliance. For that, check out this June 2 letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen from some canaries in the bank-surveillance coal mine, the group Democrats Abroad.

“We are deeply concerned that the need for additional investment in FATCA compliance frameworks will motivate even more [FFIs] to close the accounts of, or deny new accounts to, of customers deemed U.S. Persons,” Democrats Abroad International Chair Candice Kerestan wrote. “[Since FATCA], the number of Americans locked out of banking services in the country where they live has grown from one in approximately fourteen to one in three.” More:

Ordinary law-abiding Americans living abroad – the unintended objects of FATCA – have suffered an extraordinary amount of personal and financial disruption, anxiety, and distress, and yet, after ten years, the IRS has not been able to use FATCA reports to identify and apprehend genuine lawbreakers….There have been at least three Congressional hearings this year discussing the need to capture the tax that is lost due to “offshoring,” and at no time have lawmakers noted the predicament of Americans abroad caught in the unintended adverse consequences of well-intentioned tax-enforcement measures.

At some point, the reality of Washington governance, and the coverage thereof, requires a reassessment of the idea that invasive new financial-snooping schemes sold with facially unattainable revenue promises are in fact “well-intentioned.” The Biden administration, like the Obama administration under which he served, wants to scare Americans into “voluntary” compliance and penalty payments using a massive surveillance apparatus that turns all third-party financial players into narcs. To adapt a popular phrase about the previous administration, the obedience is the point.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Sp0N2P
via IFTTT

Accelerating Wages Early In The Upturn Resemble The ’70s Business Cycles

Accelerating Wages Early In The Upturn Resemble The ’70s Business Cycles

Authored by Joe Carson via TheCarsonReport.com,

Investors and businesses viewed the recent jobs and wage data differently. Investors saw the below-consensus gain in employment as friendly to risk-based assets. Companies would counter, saying it took three times the consensus gain (0.6%) in average hourly earnings, and probably other compensation-sweeteners, to attract the 559,000 workers in May.

Rising wages so early in a business cycle resemble the US economy of the 1970s, not the one investors and policymakers have seen since 1980. Rising labor costs will continue to put downward pressure on firms operating margins, which have already declined for the past two quarters, and add to general inflation pressures that policymakers would soon discover are not “transitory.” Investors and policymakers forewarned.

Evidence of A Fast Wage Cycle

In May, average hourly earnings for private-sector workers, excluding supervisory staff, rose 0.6%, three faster than consensus estimates. That comes on the heels of an even more significant 0.8% increase in April. That two-month increase is the fastest in this wage series since 1983 (excluding the wage distortions during the pandemic).

More importantly, it extends the rising wage cycle that has been quickly emerging for several months and runs counter to the early cycle decelerating wage pattern that has been a recurring feature for the past 40 years.

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) has yet to date the end of the 2020 recession. Based on a long list of economic data, it’s reasonable to conclude that the recession’s end occurred in late 2020.

Comparing the wage data of the past six months shows a close resemblance to the 1970 economic cycles and not the business cycles the current generation of policymakers and investors has grown accustomed to seeing.

In the 1970s, wage growth started to accelerate immediately when the economy began to recover, similar to what is happening nowadays. Each period has unique features, but the common themes are the lack of labor supply and the need to raise pay to attract workers.

Both episodes contrast to the wage pattern that emerged in the four economic upturns from 1980 to 2020. In each of the four economic upturns since 1980, wage gains for private-sector workers decelerated for several years, enabling companies to source cheap labor and expand profit margins. Part of that deceleration also reflects the shift in hiring from relatively higher-paid to lower-paid workers.

Yet, in the past six months, over one-third of new jobs were created in the lower-paid industries (i.e., leisure and hospitality), and average hourly earnings growth still accelerated to its fastest rate since 1983.

Once started, wage cycles gain momentum of their own. Faced with a shrinking supply of skilled and unskilled labor, companies start competing with each other. And employed workers, along with people sitting on the sidelines, become well aware of the more worker-friendly environment and use it as leverage to gain more pay and benefits.

Record job vacancies say the wage cycle has a long life ahead and is not “transitory” or temporary.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/09/2021 – 12:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2SoWJzB Tyler Durden

With Fed’s Reverse Repo Hitting Half A Trillion, Wall Street Scrambles To Figure Out What Comes Next

With Fed’s Reverse Repo Hitting Half A Trillion, Wall Street Scrambles To Figure Out What Comes Next

With usage of the Fed’s overnight reverse repo facility again hitting a new record high on Tuesday, rising to an all-time high of $497.4 billion…

… rates traders are trying to decide if the Fed will tweak the rate on either the IOER (Interest on Excess Reserves) or the Reverse Repo Facility, collectively the Fed’s “administered rates” in order to ease the liquidity congestion that has parked half a trillion dollars at the Fed where it is sitting inert, doing nothing.

One strategist who believes there is a “small chance” the Fed will adjust its IOER/RRP rate is Deutsche Bank’s Steven Zeng, who also cited concern about the quarter-end balance sheet squeeze, which is less than the futures market is currently pricing.

As a reminder, the Fed’s ongoing $120BN in monthly QE and Treasury’s continued drawdown of its cash balance, create permanent reserves that are sitting on bank balance sheets.

At the same time, demand for deposits adds to the bloat and forces banks to supply these liabilities and hold lower-yielding assets.

This puts downward pressure on banks’ supplementary leverage ratios, so now institutions must either raise capital or reduce loans. In this context, the Fed’s RRP acts as a “release valve” for deposits to leave banks’ balance sheets via inflows into money funds, which are then deposited at the facility.

According to Zeng, and as we have explained previously, the main merit of raising the RRP rate is to make money funds a “more attractive option to bank deposits,” which can allow institutions to push out more deposits and better manage their balance-sheet size until a “more permanent change to bank capital rules is made.”

Currently, money-market yields are low and their margins are squeezed, so a boost to the RRP rate would make money funds a “more attractive option than bank deposits,” allowing more cash to leave the banking sector. Separately, JPMorgan writes that most money-market funds have not reached their counterparty limits at the Federal Reserve’s overnight reverse repurchase agreement facility so they may not have to adjust their thresholds at the moment.

Of course, one can’t have an increase in one rate without the other, since in the fed funds market, lenders who have access to the RRP will demand higher rates, but borrowers may respond with reduced demand leading to a “more erratic fed funds rate.” This means an increase in the RRP rate “needs to be accompanied by an equal or larger increase to the IOER.”

Zeng conveniently summarizes the costs and benefits of an administered rate tweak in the table below:

On the other end of the spectrum are Jefferies economists Thomas Simons and Aneta Markowska who pointed to recent rise in yields at Treasury bill auctions in anticipation of potential Federal Reserve adjustments to its adminstered rates, but according to the duo, “the rise could compel the central bank to stay put.” (earlier this week, the Treasury sold 3-month bills at 0.025% and 6-month bills at 0.04%, which were both the highest stopout yields since April 19).

Simons and Markowska explain the reflexive paradox as follows: “concerns about an IOER hike are preventing yields from falling any further, despite the huge amount of cash looking for a home in the front-end.” As a result, “perversely, this concern may actually prevent an IOER hike, should yields continue to hover at these levels.”

Another paradox: the two conclude that “it is hard to see the Fed judging that there is ‘undue pressure’ on the front-end even” even as the Fed reverse repo is expected to rise above $500 billion today.

So what does the market think? Well, according to Curvature’s repo guru Scott Skyrm, as of this moment the market does not appear to be expecting an IOER hike by the Fed next week, meaning that consensus expected Powell & Co. to do nothing to ease the record liquidity parked at the Fed.

As the Curvature strategist wrote in a Tuesday note, “the market is pricing two things from the Fed. First, it’s pricing the first tightening in 2023 – according to the fed funds futures contracts [graph upper right]. Too far out to even guess the month! Second, the market is pricing the GC/fed funds spread to gradually narrow over the next year. Whereas GC is averaging between 5 and 6 basis points below fed funds now, it’s expected to trade flat to fed funds within a year.”

As Skyrm concludes, “there are only two possible Fed “technical adjustments” that can raise Repo rates: QE tapering and an RRP rate increase. An increase in the IOER would raise both fed funds and Repo GC, so we could say the market is NOT pricing an IOER increase.

One final reason why the Fed is almost guaranteed to do nothing to administered rates and allow the liquidity glut to keep rising is that as the Fed’s new whisperer at the WSJ, Michael Darby wrote yesterday “Fed Is Fine With Reverse Repos Nearing Half a Trillion ” in which he wrote:

Many market participants have looked at the reverse repo activity with some unease. Financial firms have been willing to take the zero percent the Fed offers them through the facility in large part because there are few other short-term investments available, and in some cases, these private market investments actually cost money to invest in. That makes the Fed’s zero percent repo rate attractive on a relative basis.

“The system is working exactly as designed,” New York Fed President John Williams said in a video interview on Yahoo Finance last Thursday. The reverse repo facility, he added, is “working really well and the fact that funds are flowing between the banking system and our overnight reverse repos, this is kind of how we would expect that to happen” given the level of money coursing through short-term markets.

The growing use of the reverse repo facility follows Lorie Logan, who manages the Fed’s massive $7.9 trillion holdings of cash and securities, having said recently that the central bank would rely on it more and expand the number of firms that could access it. The timing of that shift lined up with the wall of cash that started flowing to the Fed.

What is happening at the reverse repo facility doesn’t have much of a broader economic impact. Meanwhile, central bankers have become confident enough in the general health of financial markets to debate pulling back on their $120 billion a month in bond buying stimulus.

And so, with the Fed facility set to keep rising, the question is will we hit $1 trillion in inert liquidity at the Fed before the Fed does agree that someone is wrong, or will an amount of cash greater than the market cap of bitcoin and ethereum remain frozen inside some Fed server…

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/09/2021 – 11:46

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3gkioRw Tyler Durden