Trump Celebrates “Market Up Big” As S&P Surges Back Above 3,000; Shrugs Off Vaccine Disappointment

Trump Celebrates “Market Up Big” As S&P Surges Back Above 3,000; Shrugs Off Vaccine Disappointment

Tyler Durden

Tue, 05/26/2020 – 09:35

For the first time since early March, the S&P 500 is back above 3,000 as headlines about pharma firm mergers, anti-viral hype, and phase 1 vaccine trial starts trump the utter disappointment of remdesivir (the previous holy grail reason to buy stocks).

President Trump is excited to say the least…

The S&P valuation is now back near record highs…

As earnings expectations continue to collapse…

Don’t be a bagholder.

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

Helicopter Money Could Be Coming To New Zealand

Helicopter Money Could Be Coming To New Zealand

Tyler Durden

Tue, 05/26/2020 – 09:35

The latest on the list of Central Banks to do away with any thoughts of moral hazard in favor of simply printing and distributing money comes from New Zealand. 

Finance minister Grant Robertson said late last week that the country is considering “distributing free cash directly to individuals as a way of policy stimulus” to deal with the effects of the coronavirus pandemic, according to Reuters

He was asked about the government’s ideas for “helicopter money” and exactly how the central bank would get the money to the country’s citizens. While he says the concept is still being discussed, “it’s not something that has got to that level of discussion at all,” he told the media.

“I am pretty keen on making sure that fiscal policy remains the role of the government,” he said.

We’ll give it a couple more days and ask again…

The idea of helicopter money continues to gain in popularity with Central Banks across the globe as governments look to a way to try and stimulate their way out of a pandemic-induced recession that has made even some numbers from the Great Depression look meaningless. 

Despite its appeal, no major countries have embarked on direct helicopter money (money has been issued from the state after Central Bank asset purcahses, but not directly from Central Banks), as it calls further into question Central Bank independence (we’ll pause for laughter) and – even for the MMT crowd – raises the question of inflation.

New Zealand’s economy is export-reliant and expected to contract a stunning 21.8% in the current quarter due to the pandemic.

For now, New Zealand’s Central Bank has cut interest rates to a record low of 0.25% as a result and has doubled its bond buying program to NZ$60 billion. It has also telegraphed a potential coming shift to negative rates.

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

Michael Luttig on How the D.C. Circuit Should Handle the Flynn Case

There are no shortage of opinions on the Michael Flynn case. President Trump’s former National Security Advisor wants to withdraw his guilty plea and the Department of Justice now wants to dismiss the case, despite Flynn’s prior plea and a judicial ruling affirming the Department’s original theory of the case. Rather than grant the government’s motion to dismiss, Judge Emmet Sullivan has sought briefing from amici and appointed retired judge John Gleeson to argue against the motion. In response, Flynn’s attorneys are seeking a writ of mandamus from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to force dismissal of the case, and the D.C. Circuit has ordered Judge Sullivan to respond to this petition.

What should the D.C. Circuit do? Today’s Washington Post features an op-ed by the Honorable J. Michael Luttig, a former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit appointed by President George H. W. Bush and one-time Supreme Court short-lister.

Judge Luttig is critical of Judge Sullivan’s handling of the case. At the same time, he rejects the core argument of Judge Sullivan’s critics, that Sullivan is obligated to grant the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss. After all, that’s not what Rule 48 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure says or means.

Judge Luttig writes:

The rule of law instructs that U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has the power — indeed, the obligation — to determine whether dismissal of Flynn’s case would be in the public interest and whether the integrity of the judicial process would be compromised by granting the government’s dismissal request. This authority stems from the federal criminal rules of procedure and the trial judge’s inherent authority. If this authority were properly exercised, the judge’s refusal to dismiss the case would not impermissibly usurp the executive’s exclusive constitutional power to decide whether to bring or maintain a criminal prosecution.

Judge Luttig believes Judge Sullivan erred by inviting amici submissions and appointing Judge Gleeson to argue against dismissal. In his view the D.C. Circuit should grant the writ insofar as it seeks a reversal of these orders. According to Judge Luttig, the D.C. Circuit should also consider whether the case should be remanded to a different district court judge.

Judge Luttig concludes:

Were either Sullivan or another judge eventually to decide that it would be contrary to the public interest to dismiss the prosecution or that to do so would undermine the integrity of the judicial process, that judgment could be appealed.

The appeals court would then confront a novel and nettlesome question. The trial court has indisputable, but very limited, power to refuse the government’s request. Here, because the government contends that the case should be dismissed because of its own confessed misconduct, and therefore the government’s prosecutorial interest is at its zenith, it would be exceedingly difficult for a court to substitute its view and override the government’s contrary assessment. Under our Constitution, the decision whether to prosecute to the final stages of conviction and sentence is committed wholly and exclusively to the executive branch of the government — almost.

 

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

Michael Luttig on How the D.C. Circuit Should Handle the Flynn Case

There are no shortage of opinions on the Michael Flynn case. President Trump’s former National Security Advisor wants to withdraw his guilty plea and the Department of Justice now wants to dismiss the case, despite Flynn’s prior plea and a judicial ruling affirming the Department’s original theory of the case. Rather than grant the government’s motion to dismiss, Judge Emmet Sullivan has sought briefing from amici and appointed retired judge John Gleeson to argue against the motion. In response, Flynn’s attorneys are seeking a writ of mandamus from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to force dismissal of the case, and the D.C. Circuit has ordered Judge Sullivan to respond to this petition.

What should the D.C. Circuit do? Today’s Washington Post features an op-ed by the Honorable J. Michael Luttig, a former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit appointed by President George H. W. Bush and one-time Supreme Court short-lister.

Judge Luttig is critical of Judge Sullivan’s handling of the case. At the same time, he rejects the core argument of Judge Sullivan’s critics, that Sullivan is obligated to grant the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss. After all, that’s not what Rule 48 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure says or means.

Judge Luttig writes:

The rule of law instructs that U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has the power — indeed, the obligation — to determine whether dismissal of Flynn’s case would be in the public interest and whether the integrity of the judicial process would be compromised by granting the government’s dismissal request. This authority stems from the federal criminal rules of procedure and the trial judge’s inherent authority. If this authority were properly exercised, the judge’s refusal to dismiss the case would not impermissibly usurp the executive’s exclusive constitutional power to decide whether to bring or maintain a criminal prosecution.

Judge Luttig believes Judge Sullivan erred by inviting amici submissions and appointing Judge Gleeson to argue against dismissal. In his view the D.C. Circuit should grant the writ insofar as it seeks a reversal of these orders. According to Judge Luttig, the D.C. Circuit should also consider whether the case should be remanded to a different district court judge.

Judge Luttig concludes:

Were either Sullivan or another judge eventually to decide that it would be contrary to the public interest to dismiss the prosecution or that to do so would undermine the integrity of the judicial process, that judgment could be appealed.

The appeals court would then confront a novel and nettlesome question. The trial court has indisputable, but very limited, power to refuse the government’s request. Here, because the government contends that the case should be dismissed because of its own confessed misconduct, and therefore the government’s prosecutorial interest is at its zenith, it would be exceedingly difficult for a court to substitute its view and override the government’s contrary assessment. Under our Constitution, the decision whether to prosecute to the final stages of conviction and sentence is committed wholly and exclusively to the executive branch of the government — almost.

 

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

Rabobank: “Public Anger Is As High In Many Other Countries As It Is In The UK”

Rabobank: “Public Anger Is As High In Many Other Countries As It Is In The UK”

Tyler Durden

Tue, 05/26/2020 – 09:15

Submitted by Michael Every of Rabobank

“Still arrogant and offensive”. Not today’s Daily – again, or not not deliberately and/or any more than yesterday.

Rather those four words reflect the entire British media’s response to PM Boris Johnson’s special advisor Dominic Cummings, who clearly broke the lockdown rules, but who then refused to apologise in a car-crash surreal press conference held in the sunny Downing Street rose garden, instead creating various excuses to justify his behaviour.

Indicative of how the public anger over Covid-19 and the lockdown has been channelled into this issue, the on-line version of the pro-Conservative Daily Telegraph has Cummings as the first TEN stories, including “Do not drive to test your eyesight like Dominic Cummings, police warn” and, more worryingly, “Beach-goers cite Dominic Cummings breaches as reason for packed resort”; he is the first SEVEN stories in the left-leaning Guardian; and via Twitter I even received a cut-out wearable Cummings face mask, with instructions that using it gives one license to break the lockdown rules at will.

All of this pushed news that “Project Birch” will now see the UK government take equity stakes in key industries, as in France and Germany, starting with carmakers and airlines right off the front pages. Somehow this Rubicon-crossing return to industrial policy in Britain was far less newsworthy on a quiet Bank Holiday/Memorial Day. The public and press both wanted to vent instead.

I would imagine that public anger is probably as high in many other countries as it is in the UK: the shock and strain of lockdown; the fear and/or reality of actual and looming economic deprivation; the lingering danger of the virus itself – all of this needs an outlet. In country after country we will likely see governments either be the conduit for this anger, or provide one externally, with unpredictable political and geopolitical consequences.

An obvious example is still the US and China. Yesterday US National Security Advisor O’ Brien publicly repeated reports that China has been engaging in espionage on US virus vaccine efforts. This generated a Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs tweet with equal politesse that read:

Interesting to hear some US official talking about the story of the vaccine. Is this the new normal logic that if anyone has something better than mine then it must be stolen from me? Remember, China has 5000 years of history while the US has less than 250.

More importantly, China’s acerbic Global Daily has just called US threats to impose sanctions on Hong Kong and China or to remove the territory’s special status a “nothingburger. This is because “as the US is entangled in the COVID-19 epidemic, its actual ability to intervene externally is weakening…it is only bluffing”. Moreover, “the entire Western world will not follow the US. China is a huge market and the US is unable to provide enough compensation to offset the losses if Western countries become alienated from China.” A more conciliatory approach was being taken by China this morning, promising that Hong Kong’s judiciary would remain independent under the new proposed legislation – to much scepticism from critics. However, we won’t have to wait long to see if the US is bluffing or not – and the market risks are still all in one direction.

One area where the Global Times may be right, however, is on the West not necessarily following the US. Yesterday saw the EU’s top diplomat Josep Borrell call for a “more robust strategy” towards Beijing. However, he also chose Memorial Day, which commemorates the many lives the US sacrificed to free Europe, to note “analysts have long talked about the end of an American-led system and the arrival of an Asian century. This is now happening in front of our eyes….pressure to choose sides is growing.” No doubt who the EU sees as ascendant in this struggle. Moreover, rather than going with the US, the EU should “follow our own interests and values and avoid being instrumentalised by one or the other.

This sounds rather like wanting to be a giant European Rick’s Café in ‘Casablanca’ as the rest of the world goes mad around it. Yet who is it who physically defends Europe in an uncertain world? It appears good ol’ mercantile Europe is unable to recall, even on US Memorial Day. Importantly, Borrell also noted that for the EU to successfully stand up to China it will require internal unity. How is that working out on the debt-sharing issue? “Play it again, Sam.

Indeed, is it realistic to say ‘not with the US or China’ when this is a binary choice both sides can impose? Consider that the Global Times just published another editorial for Australia stating: “If the Trump administration plunges the world into a ‘new Cold War,’ forcing China to take countermeasures against the US and its allies, it would be extremely dangerous for Canberra to become a player in a diplomatic club led by the US, given Australia’s high dependence on the Chinese economy. Once Australia is regarded as a supporter of the US in a ‘new Cold War,’ China-Australia economic ties will inevitably suffer a fatal blow.” When does the EU get the same missive?

The time for pretending that these binary geopolitical threats to markets–which are like a series of ‘Brexit votes’ waiting to happen–is over’; unless one thinks that both the US AND Beijing are bluffing despite the rise in public anger, arrogance, and offense.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2X2M7G3 Tyler Durden

US Home Prices Surged In March, But…

US Home Prices Surged In March, But…

Tyler Durden

Tue, 05/26/2020 – 09:07

Home prices in the top 20 cities in America rose at a stunning 3.92% YoY in March (according to the admittedly lagged latest data from S&P Case-Shiller). This is the fastest acceleration in home prices since Dec 2018.

Overall home prices rose at 4.35% YoY with Phoenix, Seattle, Charlotte reported highest year-over-year gains among 19 cities surveyed.

That prices are continuing to rise may provide solace for some but we note that S&P CoreLogic removed the data for Detroit for virus-related reasons… which is likely to dramatically skew the data.

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

Fed’s “National Activity Index” Crashes By Most In At Least 50 Years

Fed’s “National Activity Index” Crashes By Most In At Least 50 Years

Tyler Durden

Tue, 05/26/2020 – 09:00

Just another macro data point for so-called investors to ignore

US economic activity collapsed in April, according to the Chicago Fed. The national index, which draws on 85 economic indicators, crashed to a record low -16.74 in April versus -4.97 in March (and massively worse than the expected level of -3.50).

  • 6 of the 85 monthly individual indicators made positive contributions

  • 79 of the 85 monthly individual indicators made negative contributions

If that does not provide some context for the level of carnage imposed on the US economy, we do not know what does.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2X3E7Vb Tyler Durden

Virgin Orbit’s First Air-Launch Of Space Rocket Fails 

Virgin Orbit’s First Air-Launch Of Space Rocket Fails 

Tyler Durden

Tue, 05/26/2020 – 08:35

Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Orbit’s first demonstration of air-launching a rocket into space ended in a very abrupt fashion.

The spaceflight firm reported the rocket, also called LauncherOne, was released from the wing of a Boeing 747 on Sunday, as the rocket booster ignited seconds later, the flight was “terminated shortly” as there was no chance of it reaching orbit. 

“We’ve confirmed a clean release from the aircraft. However, the mission terminated shortly into the flight,” the company announced in a tweet.

“Cosmic Girl [the Boeing 747 plane] and our flight crew are safe and returning to base.” It added, “The team’s already hard at work digging into the data, and we’re eager to hop into our next big test ASAP. Thankfully, instead of waiting until after our 1st flight to tackle our 2nd rocket, we’ve already completed a ton of work to get us back in the air and keep moving forward.”

The mishap suggests it will be a while before Virgin Orbit can reach its goal of sending rockets into orbit regularly. It’s not entirely clear what went wrong, but the company did warn beforehand that the chances of success were around 50%. 

“Test flights are instrumented to yield data and we now have a treasure trove of that. We accomplished many of the goals we set for ourselves, though not as many as we would have liked,” said Virgin Orbit CEO Dan Hart.

“Nevertheless, we took a big step forward today. Our engineers are already poring through the data. Our next rocket is waiting. We will learn, adjust, and begin preparing for our next test, which is coming up soon.”

    Sunday’s flight route illustrated in the chart below: 

    “The 747, known as Cosmic Girl, left Mojave Air and Space Port to the north of Los Angeles shortly before midday Pacific time (19:00 GMT / 20:00 BST), carrying the rocket, dubbed LauncherOne, under its left wing.

    “At 35,000ft (10km), just west of the Channel Islands, the jet unlatched the liquid-fuelled booster to let it go into freefall.

    “LauncherOne ignited its NewtonThree engine four seconds later to start the climb to orbit. But it seems it didn’t get very far,” said BBC News. 

    Diagram of the LauncherOne rocket

    Other pictures of the rocket

    Some scenes from the air-launch 

    Branson was not attendance at the time of the failed launch but was monitoring the events at a remote location. On Monday evening, Elon Musk tweeted at Virgin Orbit: “Sorry to hear that. Orbit is hard. Took us four attempts with Falcon 1.”

    Virgin Orbit responded to Musk: “We appreciate that, Elon. We’re excited about the data we were able to get today.”

    The goal of LauncherOne is to catapult small satellites into low Earth orbit via a Boeing 747, supposedly easier than launching a rocket from the ground… 

    via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2X0eXXE Tyler Durden

    German Government Offers Lufthansa $10 Billion Bailout

    German Government Offers Lufthansa $10 Billion Bailout

    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 05/26/2020 – 08:30

    Authored by Eric Kulisch of FreightWaves

    After fully privatizing Deutsche Lufthansa AG a quarter-century ago, the German government will become a minority owner in an effort to rescue the country’s largest airline from economic devastation wrought by coronavirus travel restrictions.

    The airline group, which includes Lufthansa Airlines, SWISS International Air Lines and Austrian Airlines, agreed Monday to a 9 billion euro ($9.8 billion) bailout package in which the federal government will receive a 20% stake in the company in return for two board seats and veto power over any hostile takeover bid. Lufthansa agreed to limit dividends and management pay.

    The government will also give Lufthansa 5.7 billion euros in nonvoting capital, part of which could be converted to an additional 5% stake in the event of a hostile takeover or the company is unable to make coupon payments. The loan carries interest of 4% through 2021 and increases to 9.5% by 2027.

    Lufthansa will separately receive a 3 billion-euro three-year loan from a quasi-private lender and private banks.

    Germany  said it planned to sell its shares by the end of 2023.

    The deal, which is designed to preserve thousands of jobs, still requires approval by Lufthansa shareholders and the European Commission.

    Lufthansa has been negotiating for weeks with the government on an emergency aid package. Meanwhile, it has taken drastic self-help measures such as slashing about 95% of its schedule, encouraging workers to take unpaid leave and accept fewer hours, cutting training, decommissioning aircraft, terminating aircraft operating leases with third-party carriers, and halting other discretionary expenses. It also is converting passenger planes for dedicated cargo operations to earn revenue.

    The German aid represents the largest rescue for any airline so far. The U.S. government has approved $25 billion in direct grants for domestic passenger carriers to prevent involuntary furloughs through September, with another $25 billion in loans also available. American Airlines is the largest recipient of U.S. aid at $5.8 billion, followed by Delta Air Lines at $5.4 billion.

    The International Air Transport Association has estimated airlines are on track for revenue to be $314 billion lower than budgeted this year. It has urged governments to provide cash infusions, loans and tax relief for the industry, saying it is a foundational part of the global economy and will be essential to restarting economic activity once the pandemic calms down.

    Some airlines are already in trouble. Virgin Australia and Latin American carrier Avianca recently filed for bankruptcy protection, El Al warns it could fold without a bailout from Israel’s government, and U.K. regional carrier Flybe has ceased operations.

    via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3d5ynjg Tyler Durden

    “The Question Is Whether Delta [Airlines] Can Bring the Court a Dispute to Adjudicate in Secret”

    From Judge Gregory H. Woods’ decision Friday in Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Bombardier, Inc., 2020 WL 2614704 (S.D.N.Y.):

    One distinguishing facet of the American legal system is its commitment to public access to the trial process. This legacy of “open justice” is as old as America itself. Delta Air Lines, Inc. … has chosen to bring its breach of contract claim in one of these open, federal courts, but asks that all of the details of the contract at issue remain sealed. Because Delta has not overcome the strong presumption to public access that attaches to its complaint, its motion to seal is DENIED….

    Delta has failed to meet its burden of proof that its complaint should be sealed…. [T]he presumption of public access to the information Delta seeks to shield from the public has extraordinarily substantial weight. Any decision that the Court makes in this matter will necessarily touch on its interpretation of the contract at issue and its terms—including the specific language that Plaintiff has requested be redacted. Delta recognizes that fact. Indeed, in its own words, the details of the “unique and multi-faceted pricing structure” in the purchasing contract “is integral to Delta’s claims.”

    The Court cannot reach a decision regarding a contract’s interpretation without examining the contract; Delta cannot expect the Court to decide the principle issue in its case in secret. The presumption of public access to the structure and operation of the disputed contractual provisions at issue in this case is therefore extremely high. The weight of the presumption is arguably less with respect to the few references to the approximate amount at issue in the dispute that Delta proposes to shelter….

    [The test for when a document may be sealed] requires that the Court consider the countervailing interests that weigh against public disclosure. The motion to seal is surprisingly lacking in particularity, despite the Court’s invitation to submit supplemental briefing in support of the application. Regardless, Delta relies primarily on two countervailing interests: 1) the fact that disclosure would cause both Delta and Bombardier, Inc. (“Bombardier”) competitive harm, and 2) an unqualified confidentiality provision in the purchasing contract at issue forbidding either party from disclosing its terms or conditions.

    First, the Court acknowledges that courts “routinely permit parties to redact sensitive financial information” from public filings. But Delta has provided the Court with only a single affidavit from the Head of Legal Services at Bombardier, reiterating that the terms and conditions of this contract are heavily negotiated and must remain confidential lest the parties “be at a decided disadvantage in negotiation transactions with other purchasers.”

    Although this argument is compelling, it does not override the extraordinary substantial weight this Court accords to the presumption of public access given the centrality of nearly all the proposed redactions to the parties’ dispute. And there is no support for Delta’s conclusory assertions that all of the proposed redactions—even those seeking to conceal generic references to the amount of money at stake in this litigation—are necessary to avoid causing either party competitive harm. Many of the redactions are broad, non-specific references to general terms in the contract. And the references to the dollar amounts involved in the dispute are only generic references to their order of magnitude.

    Second, though Delta asserts that “[t]he Purchase Agreement contains an unqualified confidentiality provision forbidding either party from disclosing the terms or conditions of the Agreement,” the mere “existence of a confidentiality agreement covering judicial documents is insufficient to overcome the First Amendment presumption of access.” Courts in this district have long held that bargained-for confidentiality does not overcome the presumption of access to judicial documents.

    And the text of the clause itself provides that the agreement “is confidential between the parties … except … as may be required by any statute, court or administrative order or decree or governmental ruling or regulation of any applicable jurisdiction ….” In other words, while the agreement might prohibit the parties from disclosing its terms, contrary legal obligations, including the presumption of public access, can qualify that prohibition. If the Court was to read the agreement as contracting away or rebutting the presumption of public access, “then it would not only eviscerate an express exception to that prohibition, but also sanction a loophole under which contracting parties could insert confidentiality clauses in their agreements in order to thwart the common law right of public access to judicial documents that is said to predate the Constitution.”

    Delta argues that the Court can adjudicate the contractual provisions in dispute in this case without disclosing them to the public because it is not required to disclose that information in its public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. As Delta put it, “[t]he same considerations that exempt contract prices from public disclosure to the investing public also support confidential treatment of this lawsuit. The general public’s interest in monitoring civil litigation dockets should be no greater than the investing public’s interest in knowing the details of multi-billion dollar transactions.”

    Of course, Delta offers no legal citation in support of this airy statement. Instead, this position seems to reflect the personal opinion of the company or its counsel. Id. (“The general public’s interest … should be ….” (emphasis added)). This take suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the presumption of public access to judicial documents in federal litigation—a doctrine with longer pedigree than the federal securities laws, and one with Constitutional import.

    The question here is not whether Delta is required to disclose this information to the investing public regardless of whether or not it wants to do so—the question is whether Delta can bring the Court a dispute to adjudicate in secret. The answer to that question is clear: “The act of bringing suit in a United States District Court is inherently a public act. It invokes the Court’s jurisdiction and asks that a constitutional officer, an Article III judge whose compensation is paid by the public, preside over a case or controversy in a public courthouse.” …

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