Democrats Debate Whether Trump Has Been Impeached

Democrats Debate Whether Trump Has Been Impeached

Authored by Alan Dershowitz via The Gatestone Institute,

Speaker Pelosi’s unconstitutional decision to delay transmission of the articles of impeachment to the Senate in order to gain partisan advantage raises the following question: has President Trump been impeached, or did the House vote merely represent an authorization or intention to impeach — which becomes an actual impeachment only when the articles are transmitted?

This highly technical constitutional issue is being debated by two of my former Harvard Law School colleagues — Professors Laurence Tribe and Noah Feldman — both liberal Democrats who support President Trump’s impeachment.

Tribe believes that Trump has been impeached and that it would be perfectly proper to leave it at that: by declining to transmit the articles of impeachment, the Democrats get a win-win. President Trump remains impeached but he gets no opportunity to be tried and acquitted by the Senate. This cynical, partisan ploy is acceptable to Tribe because it brings about the partisan result he prefers: Trump bears forever the stigma of impeachment without having the opportunity to challenge that stigma by a Senate acquittal. Under the Tribe scenario, the House Democrats get to “obstruct” the Senate and “abuse” their power (to borrow terms from the articles of impeachment).

Feldman disagrees with Tribe, arguing — quite correctly — that impeachment and a removal trial go together. If a president is impeached, he must be tried. Impeachment, in his view, is not merely a vote; it is the first step in a constitutionally mandated two-step process. He goes so far as to say that if the articles of impeachment are not forwarded to the Senate for trial, there has been no valid impeachment.

In my opinion, both of my colleagues are wrong, though Feldman’s approach is more consistent with the structure of the Constitution and the intent of its Framers. I believe that the Senate need not wait for articles of impeachment to be transmitted. Senators are empowered by the constitution to begin a trial now— with or without further action by the House.

Just as the House has the “sole power of impeachment,” so too the Senate has the “sole power to try all impeachments.” The Senate can make its own rules (as long as they are consistent with the constitution) and establish its own timetables.

The only possible rejoinder to this constitutional verity is the argument put forward by Feldman that the House has not yet concluded the process of impeachment, and so the Senate has no jurisdiction to proceed to trial. What follows from that argument is the conclusion — utterly unacceptable to Tribe — that President Trump has not been impeached and if the articles are never transmitted he will not go down in history as the third president to be impeached, because the House never completed the necessary process by sending the articles to the senate.

Tribe and the Democratic House majority, led by Speaker Pelosi, want to have their constitutional cake and eat it too: they want Trump impeached but not acquitted. Sorry, but the Constitution does not permit that partisan, result-oriented ploy. Either Trump has been impeached and is entitled to a Senate trial; or he has not been impeached and is entitled to a clean slate.

My own view is that in the public eye, President Trump has been impeached by a partisan vote and he is now entitled to be acquitted, even if the Senate vote is as partisan as the House vote. The partisans who voted his impeachment along party lines in the House, have no principled argument against a party-line acquittal. The Democrats devised the partisan rules of engagement in the House. They can’t suddenly demand a change in those rules because they are a minority in the Senate.

So there are only two constitutionally viable alternatives:

  1. either Pelosi must announce that Trump has not been impeached;

  2. or the Senate must initiate a trial.

Preserving the status quo indefinitely – Trump remaining impeached without having a trial – is unconstitutional and should not be tolerated by the American people.


Tyler Durden

Tue, 12/24/2019 – 14:45

Tags

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2slzj11 Tyler Durden

‘I Felt I Was Innocent’ – Former SAC Trader Explains How He Got His Insider Trading Conviction Thrown Out

‘I Felt I Was Innocent’ – Former SAC Trader Explains How He Got His Insider Trading Conviction Thrown Out

If somebody were to write a history of white collar crime on Wall Street, they would need to devote at least one chapter to SAC Capital, and the golden days of insider trading in the hedge-fund world, where firms like SAC routinely posted world-beating returns thanks to the endless flow of material non-public information passing to its traders from an army of analysts, executives, consultants, researchers, etc.

It was just over a decade ago that then-US attorney Preet Bharara decided to start a war by going after Cohen, starting a legal fight that lasted for for years, culminating with Cohen’s decision to accept a temporary ban from managing outside money, and the conversion of SAC into a family office.

Now, Cohen is back with a new firm (they’re about to wrap up their first year of managing outside money, and the Street will no doubt be curious to see those returns). And Bharara is settling into a new career as a podcast host after being unceremoniously fired by President Trump back in 2017.

Richard Lee

The crackdown on SAC never touched Cohen. But some of his former employees really took it on the chin. Matthew Martoma, one former SAC trader believed to have extracted the largest insider-trading payout in history, is still in prison. But six months ago, a federal judge in Manhattan vacated the guilty plea of former SAC trader Richard Lee in Bharara’s insider-trading case. That was a huge blow to the case’s legacy: Lee was one of the first guilty pleas, and a crucial government witness.

Now, in his first interview since his guilty plea was vacated, Lee opened up to Bloomberg about why he thinks he was railroaded by Bharara, and insisted that, even though his lawyers convinced him to plead guilty, he always believed in his innocence.

Of course, the reversal of Lee’s plea was made possible by two things: New case law that raised the bar for prosecutors in insider trading cases, and the emergence of new evidence which seriously undermined the government’s case against Lee.

Lee said he agreed to the interview because he wants to explain to the public why he truly believes he never did anything wrong, and that he started asking his lawyers about how he could reverse his guilty plea almost from the minute that he made it official.

“Most people don’t understand,” said Lee, 40. “Why would anyone plead guilty to something that they hadn’t done?”

Lee insisted that when he was firs approached by FBI agents on the street and asked about the alleged insider trades, he had no recollection of the trades that the agents were talking about. And that shouldn’t be a surprise, he said: He made those trades more than four years prior. How many people remember what they did on a given workday four years ago?

“There’s a misconception that portfolio managers and analysts and trading professionals remember every single trade that they did, regardless of whether it is completely lawful, in the gray area or illegal,” said Greg Morvillo, Lee’s lawyer. “You’re talking about four, four and a half years later. It’s very hard to remember the details of how a day evolved.”

The guilty plea was ultimately tied to trades in Yahoo back in 2009. Prosecutors alleged that Lee made the trades with input from an analyst who told him that a rumored alliance between Microsoft and Yahoo to develop a search-engine rival to Google would be announced in the coming weeks.

Lee said he traded Yahoo frequently at the time. And the evidence that eventually exonerated him found that he had purchased the bulk of his Yahoo shares that day before speaking to the analyst who allegedly passed him the insider info. 

Still, Lee feared many would simply assume he was in denial when he protested about his innocence.

Lee said he moved in and out of Yahoo almost constantly in 2009, both before and after the Microsoft partnership. He said he didn’t remember his July 10 trades when he was approached on the street in Chicago by two FBI agents four years later, and he doesn’t remember them now. But he’s certain no one would have believed that.

“I felt very deeply that I had not committed insider trading,” said Lee, “but I couldn’t assert that to people because I knew I would just come across like somebody who was actually guilty of it but in denial.”

Ahead of his guilty plea, Lee’s lawyer pushed his client to swiftly plead guilty and strike a deal to cooperate with prosecutors.

Lee said Richard Owens, his lawyer at the time, advised against that, saying the former portfolio manager’s cooperation could help him avoid prison, where many convicted in the crackdown ended up. Owens declined to comment.

Two days after pleading guilty, Lee found himself cited by then-Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in his announcement of his big case against SAC. Bharara said Lee was part of a group that made SAC a “magnet for market cheaters.”

“I was at home watching it on TV,” Lee said. “It was surreal.”

But after the appeals court ruling in 2014 that moved the goalposts for prosecutors in insider trading cases, Lee decided to seek a second opinion.

After that ruling, Lee decided to get a second opinion on his case. A minister who works with white-collar defendants introduced him to Morvillo, who represented one of the fund managers in the 2014 appeals court case.

But Lee’s new lawyer said there wasn’t an immediate way around the guilty plea. The problem, Morvillo said, was that Lee never got to see most of the government’s evidence against him because he pleaded guilty so quickly. It was only in May 2017, after the government provided documents so that Lee could prepare for sentencing, that they saw an instant message Lee sent Cohen the day of the Yahoo trade.

And now, Lee has his life back.

It was tough focusing on a career as the legal fight dragged on. “At times I felt very guilty because I just didn’t feel like I was mentally present,” he said. “I was in my head much of the time.”

But he doesn’t think he deserves anyone’s pity. “I have a family, fine friends. Everyone has a hard life. This is mine,” Lee said.

Certainly, we applaud Lee for clearing his name. But we have a question that Bloomberg apparently didn’t touch on during its interview: What happened to those whom Lee provided evidence against? After all, he admits to cooperating with prosecutors to lessen his sentence and avoid jail. Will any of them see their convictions reduced or thrown out?


Tyler Durden

Tue, 12/24/2019 – 14:25

Tags

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/35Pw9B7 Tyler Durden

Pictures Of Santa Coming Down The Chimney In Blackface Surface

Pictures Of Santa Coming Down The Chimney In Blackface Surface

Via The Babylon Bee,

Santa Claus has become embroiled in controversy yet again, this time as new pictures have emerged of the magical fat man sliding down a chimney in blackface.

The pictures, sent to news outlets by the Easter Bunny, clearly show Santa Claus popping out of multiple chimneys with his face covered in offensive dark makeup.

“Santa is canceled!” one blue checkmark wrote on Twitter.

“Christmas was already an oppressive holiday celebrating the birth of a child when our climate is in peril and there should be no more humans coming into the world. This is just the last straw.”

“This is extremely offensive,” said Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“Rather than dress up in an authentic African-American disguise that respects their culture, Mr. Claus has culturally appropriated dark skin and incorporated it into his European-inspired red outfit. He didn’t even get the skin tone right!”

Trudeau then offered to help Santa Claus apply makeup correctly the next time he decides to dress in blackface.

Santa Claus has apologized for the gaffe, though he was then seen eating non-gluten-free cookies and was canceled again.


Tyler Durden

Tue, 12/24/2019 – 14:05

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

A Christmas Miracle: Washington Court Overturns Marijuana Sign Rules That Banned String Lights Spelling ‘Pot’

The continued illegality of marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act complicates any attempt to claim that the First Amendment protects a state-licensed pot store’s right to advertise its wares. But state constitutional protections for freedom of expression can still be used to overturn inadequately justified regulations of cannabis-related commercial speech, as demonstrated by a recent King County, Washington, ruling in favor of a marijuana shop that dared to hang Christmas lights spelling out the word POT in its window.

After Hashtag Cannabis in Redmond displayed that festive decoration during the 2017–18 holiday season, the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) cited the store for violating state restrictions on the size, number, and nature of retail signs. The regulations limit marijuana merchants to no more than two signs “identifying the retail outlet by the licensee’s business name or trade name,” each of which must be “affixed to a building or permanent structure” and no larger than 1,600 square inches. Hashtag already had two regular signs, pot was not part of its trade name, the string of lights was not “affixed,” and it exceeded the allowed size by about 2,300 square inches.

Hashtag challenged the citation on free speech grounds. While the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions of commercial speech “related to illegal activity,” King County Superior Court Judge David Keenan noted in his ruling last month, state law allows cannabis sales to adults 21 or older by licensed retailers such as Hashtag. While conceding that “the issue is novel,” Keenan concluded that the cannabis industry’s legal status in Washington means state regulations of marijuana advertising must comply with Article I, Section 5 of Washington’s constitution, which says “every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.”

In applying that provision to restrictions on commercial speech, Washington courts use the test laid out in the 1980 Supreme Court case Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission. To be constitutional under the Central Hudson test, a regulation of nonmisleading commercial speech must “directly and materially advance” a “substantial governmental interest,” and it must be “narrowly drawn” to advance that interest.

The LCB defended its rules as a precaution against encouraging minors to consume cannabis. Keenan acknowledged that the state’s asserted interest was “substantial,” as Hashtag conceded. But he concluded that “the advertising restrictions do not directly and materially advance the State’s substantial interest in preventing underage consumption” and “are not sufficiently tailored to advance the State’s interest.”

Keenan reached that conclusion based on seemingly inconsistent aspects of Washington’s advertising rules. “Given other provisions in the advertising restrictions which continue to expose potential underage consumers to marijuana advertising,” he said, “the restrictions are a poor fit with the State’s substantial interest in preventing underage consumption.”

Notwithstanding its picayune restrictions on store signs, Keenan noted, Washington’s rules allow marijuana billboards that are much bigger. In fact, such billboards must be at least 55 square feet, or 7,920 square inches, five times the maximum size for store signs. A marijuana merchant might even rent a billboard right near his store, which would be a far more conspicuous advertisement than Hashtag’s string of lights.

“Hashtag could have a sign using the word Pot if it just registers that business or trade name, and it could conceivably have an entire billboard next door to its store with the word Pot,” Keenan observed. “If the State wishes to minimize the risk of capturing the attention of children, restricting retailers to two permanently affixed signs displaying the business or trade name of no more than 1,600 inches on premises, but allowing billboards off premises, and allowing businesses to register business or trade names such as Pot, does not directly advance that goal.”

Keenan drew an analogy to the old federal rule prohibiting information about alcohol content on beer labels, which the Supreme Court overturned in the 1995 case Rubin v. Coors Brewing. “As the court put it in Rubin, where the government’s asserted interest was to ‘suppress strength wars,’ it made ‘no rational sense’ to prohibit alcohol content advertising on labels, but allow it in advertising, where advertising ‘would seem to constitute a more influential weapon in any strength war than labels,'” Keenan wrote. “As in Rubin, where the state’s asserted interest is to prevent underage consumption of marijuana, it makes no rational sense to restrict advertising in marijuana retailers where underage consumers are not allowed to enter or make purchases, but not restrict billboards, where billboards would seem more effective at capturing the attention of potential underage consumers.”

Although Keenan does not mention it, the Supreme Court overturned state restrictions on outdoor advertising of cigars and smokeless tobacco in the 2001 case Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly, finding that the goal of preventing underage consumption did not justify rules that severely impeded communications between manufacturers and adult consumers. Hence it seems unlikely that a ban on marijuana billboards aimed at making Washington’s rules more consistent would survive the Central Hudson test.

Hashtag co-owner Logan Bowers told The Stranger‘s Lester Black it cost $30,000 in legal fees to challenge the rules prohibiting his shop’s string of lights. “I was just really pissed,” he said. “We were frustrated with being dicked around. Sometimes doing the right thing costs a ton, and it’s a little bit of a bummer. Even when you win, you still kind of lose, because you have to spend a lot of money, and it means if you don’t have money, you don’t get justice.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34WifvE
via IFTTT

Trump Campaign Offers Tips For Winning Arguments With ‘Snowflake’ Relatives This Xmas

Trump Campaign Offers Tips For Winning Arguments With ‘Snowflake’ Relatives This Xmas

As we sit down to celebrate Christmas during perhaps the most divided holiday season in modern American history, political arguments are inevitable.

And as liberal family members arrive packing a battery of Maddow-approved, Media Matters talking points beamed directly into their outrage cortex, conservatives may find themselves ill equipped to handle the firehose of vitriol pouring out of their loved ones.

In anticipation of holiday triggerings, the 2020 Trump campaign reserved the website “snowflakevictory.com” two weeks ago, filling it with all sorts of facts and logic that can be deployed to “win an argument with your liberal relatives,” which can also be viewed in short video clips set to patriotic background music.

And here they are… (emphasis ours)

  • The Trump Economy is Strong

We are enjoying the hottest and strongest economy this country has seen in 50 years—and this is due to President Trump’s common-sense, job-creating.

Here are some points you can highlight for your liberal friends and family and it’s all backed up by facts, not feelings:

The U.S. has added more than 7 million new jobs since President Trump was elected.

This includes over 500,000 new manufacturing jobs and nearly 4 million jobs for women.

And, monthly jobs reports are showing that the Trump economy is still soaring.

The unemployment rate continues to be at a historically low level, recently ticking down to 3.5%. That is a 50 year low!

  • It is important to enforce immigration law & Build the Wall

Like most of us, President Trump’s ancestors were immigrants, and he is married to our amazing First Lady who is herself an immigrant. So let’s be clear that President Trump is opposed to ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

Which is exactly why he wants to secure our borders and communities with a wall on our Southern border. Not only do walls work, but they are safer both for border communities on both sides who experience a decrease of trafficking and violence.

Consider this: After A Triple-Layer Barrier was built in the San Diego Border Sector Border Patrol Arrests dropped 96%.

This administration’s efforts to stop illegal immigration are working.

  • Other countries are finally paying their fair share

Some liberals seem to think it’s a big deal if people in other countries get mad at President Trump.

Look, Donald Trump wasn’t elected President of the World. He was elected President of the United States and so that’s what he cares about. He’s on a mission to protect America’s interests and assets, and the facts show he’s doing exactly that.

Because of President Trump’s leadership, NATO members are expected to add more than $130 billion in defense spending by the end of 2020. When looking at the effects of this increase over time, the NATO Secretary General said, “This is unprecedented progress and it is making NATO stronger.” I’d say that’s a pretty ringing endorsement by someone who knows a lot more about the world stage than your liberal friends.

Justin Trudeau and European leaders can laugh if they want to, but thanks to President Trump’s leadership, Europe and Canada had the LARGEST defense spending increase in a quarter century from 2016 to 2018.

  • Trump is improving our trade deals

President Trump is the biggest advocate, defender, and fighter for the American worker that we’ve had in the White House in generations. He is delivering on his promise to renegotiate unfair trade agreements.

President Trump is the FIRST President to stand up to China when past presidents did not have the courage to! Because of President Trump’s tough negotiating, he has secured a monumental phase one trade deal that benefits the American worker. Thanks to President Trump, China has agreed to many structural changes and massive purchases of agriculture, and energy, and other products and manufactured goods, plus a whole lot more.

He also renegotiated a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada – called USMCA – to replace the outdated, unfair NAFTA deal.

The President’s USMCA trade deal – which Nancy Pelosi and Democrats in Congress held up for over a year – would grow the U.S. economy by $68 billion and creates hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

While Democrats have done nothing in Congress but obsess over impeachment, President Trump is fighting for fairer trade deals for American workers and farmers, and delivering results.

In fact, it was Obama and Biden who failed workers nationwide, losing almost 200,000 manufacturing jobs, supporting job-killing trade dealslike NAFTA and the TPP.

Bottomline: Democrats TALK about trade. President Trump ACTS on it.

  • Trump approach to healthcare much better than Dems, who would kill employer-provided healthcare

Democrats like to squawk a lot about President Trump, Republicans, and healthcare, but the truth is, the 2020 Democrats are the ones who want to strip you of your private, employer-provided health insurance!

Remind your relative that Democrats’ proposed government takeover of healthcare plan would take away the health insurance plans of 180 million Americans and more than 20 million seniors would lose Medicare Advantage.

Elizabeth Warren’s plan alone would cost taxpayers 52 TRILLION DOLLARS – undoubtedly raising taxes on the middle class to pay for it.

Some of your relatives might say, “Well I support Joe Biden and Mayor Pete’s ‘public option’ alternatives,” but don’t let these proposals fool you. Their plans are designed to kill employer-provided health plans too.

If you offer a government plan, some people will take it. And that will leave fewer people in the employer provided plan, which will cause rates to rise. Which will drive more people into the government plan, which will raise rates in the employer plans. Which will … you get the idea.

Ask your relative if they like going to the DMV? Now tell them to imagine the government controlling their healthcare system because that’s
exactly what it would be like.

  • Trump is expanding his reach to beyond just his base – Women, Latinos & Black support is growing

The unemployment rate for all America has reached a 50-year low. And that includes incredible, historically low unemployment rates for Women, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Veterans.

President Trump has a record of success. The campaign has a robust, well-oiled machine, and a coalitions department that engages black, Latinos, and women voters…
because we aim to share the truth about the President’s record.

For example, President Trump signed the First Step Act, which gives people who have been incarcerated a second chance at life and the American dream. 90% of the people who were released early from prison under the program are black.

  • Tax cuts fueled the economy, Dems would raise taxes on everybody by repealing the Trump tax cuts

Americans are experiencing the best economy in at least 50 years. And fueling that strong and growing economy, has been President Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Democrats always dismiss tax cuts as “tax cuts for the rich!” In fact, that’s the opposite of the truth.

As a result of President Trump’s Tax Cuts, 90% of Americans saw their paychecks increase!

Under President Trump, Americans are receiving an average of over $2,200 from the Child Tax Credit, saving American families almost $90 billion.

And as a result of the historic tax cuts, nearly 9,000 Opportunity Zones were created across the country in communities that need it most. These Opportunity Zones will spur $100 billion in private capital investment and help nearly 35 million Americans.

Another bonus, is American families in all 50 states have seen lower utility bills as a result of rate reductions tied to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

  • There was no quid pro quo, Democrats always obsessed with impeachment

Impeaching President Trump has been all that Democrats can think of since day one; literally the first article about this was printed by the Washington Post 19 minutes after the President was sworn-into office.

First, there was the Russian hoax, two years and over $35 million of hard-working taxpayer dollars wasted and nothing found. Then, there was the “earth-shattering” Mueller report, that was a flop.

The Russian hoax blew up in Democrats’ faces, so they had to figure out something else, and they settled on Ukraine.

They cried about a “quid pro quo,” but they didn’t count on President Trump releasing the transcript of his phone call with the Ukraine president. It showed there was nothing there!

So when that didn’t work, Democrats did some polls and focus groups and came up with “extortion” and “bribery.”

So let’s look at the facts:

President Trump asked for nothing in exchange for lethal military aid to Ukraine.

He didn’t tie the aid to any actions by the Ukrainians.

The Ukrainian president didn’t know the aid was under any delay.

And he himself said, he didn’t feel under pressure. And then the aid flowed to Ukraine. Without the Ukrainians doing anything in exchange.

And, to top it off, under President Obama, Ukraine never received this kind of lethal military aid AT ALL.

  • Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in aid from Ukraine unless they fired a prosecutor looking into the company where his son worked. That has NOT been debunked.

No matter what the fake news tells you, nothing about Joe Biden withholding aid from Ukraine – unless the prosecutor who was looking into Burisma was fired – has been “debunked.”

That is what the fake news does. Takes Democrat talking points and says – DEBUNKED! Nothing to see here. Well, they are wrong and here is why:

Joe Biden – on video – is seen bragging that he threatened to withhold humanitarian aid from Ukraine unless a special prosecutor was fired.

The prosecutor Biden demanded be fired was investigating Burisma – the energy company his son Hunter had an $83,000 a month job working for.

That is the very definition of quid pro quo. Demanding an action be taken in return for something else.

In this case, it was $1 billion in humanitarian aid would be released to Ukraine if and only if the prosecutor investigating Burisma was fired.

See the rest here.


Tyler Durden

Tue, 12/24/2019 – 13:45

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

A Christmas Miracle: Washington Court Overturns Marijuana Sign Rules That Banned String Lights Spelling ‘Pot’

The continued illegality of marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act complicates any attempt to claim that the First Amendment protects a state-licensed pot store’s right to advertise its wares. But state constitutional protections for freedom of expression can still be used to overturn inadequately justified regulations of cannabis-related commercial speech, as demonstrated by a recent King County, Washington, ruling in favor of a marijuana shop that dared to hang Christmas lights spelling out the word POT in its window.

After Hashtag Cannabis in Redmond displayed that festive decoration during the 2017–18 holiday season, the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) cited the store for violating state restrictions on the size, number, and nature of retail signs. The regulations limit marijuana merchants to no more than two signs “identifying the retail outlet by the licensee’s business name or trade name,” each of which must be “affixed to a building or permanent structure” and no larger than 1,600 square inches. Hashtag already had two regular signs, pot was not part of its trade name, the string of lights was not “affixed,” and it exceeded the allowed size by about 2,300 square inches.

Hashtag challenged the citation on free speech grounds. While the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions of commercial speech “related to illegal activity,” King County Superior Court Judge David Keenan noted in his ruling last month, state law allows cannabis sales to adults 21 or older by licensed retailers such as Hashtag. While conceding that “the issue is novel,” Keenan concluded that the cannabis industry’s legal status in Washington means state regulations of marijuana advertising must comply with Article I, Section 5 of Washington’s constitution, which says “every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.”

In applying that provision to restrictions on commercial speech, Washington courts use the test laid out in the 1980 Supreme Court case Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission. To be constitutional under the Central Hudson test, a regulation of nonmisleading commercial speech must “directly and materially advance” a “substantial governmental interest,” and it must be “narrowly drawn” to advance that interest.

The LCB defended its rules as a precaution against encouraging minors to consume cannabis. Keenan acknowledged that the state’s asserted interest was “substantial,” as Hashtag conceded. But he concluded that “the advertising restrictions do not directly and materially advance the State’s substantial interest in preventing underage consumption” and “are not sufficiently tailored to advance the State’s interest.”

Keenan reached that conclusion based on seemingly inconsistent aspects of Washington’s advertising rules. “Given other provisions in the advertising restrictions which continue to expose potential underage consumers to marijuana advertising,” he said, “the restrictions are a poor fit with the State’s substantial interest in preventing underage consumption.”

Notwithstanding its picayune restrictions on store signs, Keenan noted, Washington’s rules allow marijuana billboards that are much bigger. In fact, such billboards must be at least 55 square feet, or 7,920 square inches, five times the maximum size for store signs. A marijuana merchant might even rent a billboard right near his store, which would be a far more conspicuous advertisement than Hashtag’s string of lights.

“Hashtag could have a sign using the word Pot if it just registers that business or trade name, and it could conceivably have an entire billboard next door to its store with the word Pot,” Keenan observed. “If the State wishes to minimize the risk of capturing the attention of children, restricting retailers to two permanently affixed signs displaying the business or trade name of no more than 1,600 inches on premises, but allowing billboards off premises, and allowing businesses to register business or trade names such as Pot, does not directly advance that goal.”

Keenan drew an analogy to the old federal rule prohibiting information about alcohol content on beer labels, which the Supreme Court overturned in the 1995 case Rubin v. Coors Brewing. “As the court put it in Rubin, where the government’s asserted interest was to ‘suppress strength wars,’ it made ‘no rational sense’ to prohibit alcohol content advertising on labels, but allow it in advertising, where advertising ‘would seem to constitute a more influential weapon in any strength war than labels,'” Keenan wrote. “As in Rubin, where the state’s asserted interest is to prevent underage consumption of marijuana, it makes no rational sense to restrict advertising in marijuana retailers where underage consumers are not allowed to enter or make purchases, but not restrict billboards, where billboards would seem more effective at capturing the attention of potential underage consumers.”

Although Keenan does not mention it, the Supreme Court overturned state restrictions on outdoor advertising of cigars and smokeless tobacco in the 2001 case Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly, finding that the goal of preventing underage consumption did not justify rules that severely impeded communications between manufacturers and adult consumers. Hence it seems unlikely that a ban on marijuana billboards aimed at making Washington’s rules more consistent would survive the Central Hudson test.

Hashtag co-owner Logan Bowers told The Stranger‘s Lester Black it cost $30,000 in legal fees to challenge the rules prohibiting his shop’s string of lights. “I was just really pissed,” he said. “We were frustrated with being dicked around. Sometimes doing the right thing costs a ton, and it’s a little bit of a bummer. Even when you win, you still kind of lose, because you have to spend a lot of money, and it means if you don’t have money, you don’t get justice.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34WifvE
via IFTTT

Apocalyptic Thinking Is Wrong

“Let’s not teach our children that apocalyptic thinking is right thinking,” says Laurence Siegel. Apocalypticism “has always been wrong as a forecast, and it will continue to be wrong.”

Siegel is a business consultant and the director of research at the CFA Institute Research Foundation. In Fewer, Richer, Greener, he argues convincingly that humanity has spent two centuries rising from our natural state of abject poverty, and that most of the credit for that goes market institutions and democracy. Parsing current trends, Siegel foresees world population peaking and then stabilizing by the end of this century. (Hence the “fewer.”) He argues that economic growth will bring humanity much greater wealth and more adept technologies. (Hence the “richer.”) And thanks to increased urbanization and steadily improving material efficiency, he thinks our species will tred more lightly on many natural ecosystems. (Hence the “greener.”)

Let’s take a closer look at each of those three forecasts.

“High death rates are the cause of high birth rates,” explains Siegel. World population grew very slowly in the Malthusian past because, although people had lots of babies, more than half of them died before reaching adulthood. Modern sanitation and medicine and greater supplies of food meant falling death rates; that combined with still-high birth rates to produce a population explosion, with the number of people in the world rising from 1 billion in 1800 to 7.7 billion now.

The global total fertility rate—that is, the number of children each woman is likely to bear over her lifetime—has fallen from around 5 in 1960 to 2.42 now. The United Nations forecasts that world’s total fertility rate will eventually fall below the conventionally defined replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman; the U.N. says population will then stabilize around 11 billion, and Siegel basically agrees.

So humanity is demographically transitioning from its natural state of high birth and high death rates to a more recent stage of high birth and low death rates to the low birth and low death rates seen in much of the world now. About half of the world’s population currently lives in countries with below replacement fertility. The U.S.’s total fertility rate, for example, has dropped to a record low of 1.73 children per woman.

Why are more people around the world having fewer children? Incentives, explains Siegel. Rearing children in modern societies costs a lot, both in money and in foregone opportunities and pleasures. Given that about 99 percent of kids born in countries like the U.S. will make it to age 20, parents are choosing to spend more resources on fewer children, who will thereby be more likely to enjoy successful lives. “To put it just a little too crassly, in wealthy societies and increasingly in less wealthy ones, children have become a cost center (some would even say a luxury good), not a profit center,” Siegel observes.

Siegel’s projections of future population growth may in fact be excessively high. In a 2018 study, demographer Wolfgang Lutz and his colleagues at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis offer an alternative scenario projecting rapid economic growth, rising levels of educational attainment for both sexes, and technological advancement—all factors that tend to lower fertility. They expect that world population could peak at about 8.9 billion by 2060 and then decline to 7.8 billion by the end of the century.

In any case, these trends mean that there will be many more old people in the future. Having worked most of his life in finance, Siegel offers some good advice how to prepare for retirement. He recommends that one “save a predetermined percentage of one’s income escalating over time, until enough money has been accumulated to replace (when Social Security benefits are also included) 70% of the pay rate one has been earning just before retirement.” At retirement he suggests using 15 percent of your savings to buy a deferred life annuity that kicks in at age 85, thus making sure that you still have income once you’ve spent down your savings.

As world population exploded, so too did economic growth, resulting in what the University of Illinois at Chicago economist Deirdre McCloskey calls the Great Enrichment. Siegel cites urbanist Jane Jacobs’ trenchant observation: “Poverty has no causes. Only prosperity has causes.”

The economic historian Angus Maddison calculated that global per capita income in 1 A.D. was $467 per year (in 1990 dollars). By 1820, global per capita income had risen to nearly $1,200 per year. Over the next two centuries, per capita GDP in current U.S. dollars rose to $11,300—or, taking purchasing power into account, to nearly $18,000 per person.

Income, of course, is not equally distributed across the world. Some places—Somalia, Niger, Malawi—are sadly stuck in Malthusian traps where per capita incomes are still below that global average from 1 A.D. The good news is that economic growth has taken off in many poor countries in recent decades, so their incomes are rising to converge with those of already developed nations. Inequality between countries is falling, and the global rate of abject poverty (people living on less than $1.90 per day) has fallen from 42 in 1981 to 8.6 percent in 2018. By one measure, half of the world’s population is now middle-class or wealthier.

Siegel provides reams of solid data for similarly heartening global trends. Crop productivity, food availability, life expectancy, and education are increasing; violence is in decline.

So that explains fewer and richer. But is Siegel right that the world will be greener?

Economists have identified an inverted U-shaped relationship—the environmental Kuznets curve—in which environmental conditions initially deteriorate as economic growth takes off, then improve when citizens with rising incomes demand better environmental amenities. For example, research has found that rising incomes eventually lead to falling air and water pollution and the expansion of forests. Generally speaking, richer is cleaner.

These curves do not peak and turn downward by themselves. They do so with a mixture of private and government action, with the details differing from one country to another. In the U.S., the levels of six common air pollutants—soot, ozone, lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide—have fallen by an average of 74 percent since 1970. Meanwhile, gross domestic product grew by 380 percent.

Siegel acknowledges that man-made climate change could pose significant problems for humanity as this century advances. But he notes that billions of relatively poor people face more immediate problems, including unsafe drinking water, uncertain food supplies, a dearth of educational opportunities, excessive local pollution, a lack of sanitation, and—importantly—no access to modern energy services. With respect to how best to prioritize between longer term environmental threats and fulfilling urgent needs, he writes, “There is no single answer. Economic growth will help—a lot.”

Siegel sees ecomodernism as the way forward to a greener world. “Intensifying many human activities—particularly farming, energy extraction, forestry, and settlement—so that they use less land and interfere less with the natural world is the key to decoupling human development from environmental impacts,” states An Ecomodernist Manifesto, a document written by 18 scientists and activists in 2015. “These socioeconomic and technological processes are central to economic modernization and environmental protection. Together they allow people to mitigate climate change, to spare nature, and to alleviate global poverty.”

Humanity may already be approaching peak farmland, as we grow ever more food on ever less land. Although Siegel doesn’t mention it, global tree cover has expanded between 1981 and 2016 by 7 percent. That’s a territory of about 865,000 square miles, more than three times the size of Texas.

In 1960, only one third of people lived in cities. This has now increased to 55 percent, making this the first time in history that more folks live in cities than in the countryside. By 2050, nearly 70 percent of people will be city dwellers. Compact cities are much more energy-efficient, in addition to providing people with much better access to economic opportunities, education, and medical care.

While energy efficiency and renewables will play significant roles in helping humanity to decouple from nature, Siegel is also clear-eyed about the need for greater supplies of energy to alleviate poverty through economic growth. His solution: modern nuclear power. “For most applications, nuclear power dominates both fossil fuels and renewables in almost every aspect: efficiency, safety, reliability, carbon neutrality, fuel abundance, and eventually, price,” he argues.

If we can maintain and spread the institutions—free markets, the rule of law, property rights, free speech, and democratic governance—that underpin the Great Enrichment, Siegel’s forecast of fewer, richer, and greener will come to pass.

“Life has improved tremendously in the last 250 years; this book argues that it will continue to improve in almost every dimension; health, wealth, longevity, nutrition, literacy, peace, freedom, and so forth,” he writes. “Without overlooking the many obstacles on the path of progress, my aim is to reinforce and help restore people’s faith in the future—and help them understand why optimism is amply justified.”

(Disclosure: Siegel quotes me in his book. Immodestly, I will note that my book The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-First Century addresses many of these same issues and trends.)

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34UOg7r
via IFTTT

Apocalyptic Thinking Is Wrong

“Let’s not teach our children that apocalyptic thinking is right thinking,” says Laurence Siegel. Apocalypticism “has always been wrong as a forecast, and it will continue to be wrong.”

Siegel is a business consultant and the director of research at the CFA Institute Research Foundation. In Fewer, Richer, Greener, he argues convincingly that humanity has spent two centuries rising from our natural state of abject poverty, and that most of the credit for that goes market institutions and democracy. Parsing current trends, Siegel foresees world population peaking and then stabilizing by the end of this century. (Hence the “fewer.”) He argues that economic growth will bring humanity much greater wealth and more adept technologies. (Hence the “richer.”) And thanks to increased urbanization and steadily improving material efficiency, he thinks our species will tred more lightly on many natural ecosystems. (Hence the “greener.”)

Let’s take a closer look at each of those three forecasts.

“High death rates are the cause of high birth rates,” explains Siegel. World population grew very slowly in the Malthusian past because, although people had lots of babies, more than half of them died before reaching adulthood. Modern sanitation and medicine and greater supplies of food meant falling death rates; that combined with still-high birth rates to produce a population explosion, with the number of people in the world rising from 1 billion in 1800 to 7.7 billion now.

The global total fertility rate—that is, the number of children each woman is likely to bear over her lifetime—has fallen from around 5 in 1960 to 2.42 now. The United Nations forecasts that world’s total fertility rate will eventually fall below the conventionally defined replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman; the U.N. says population will then stabilize around 11 billion, and Siegel basically agrees.

So humanity is demographically transitioning from its natural state of high birth and high death rates to a more recent stage of high birth and low death rates to the low birth and low death rates seen in much of the world now. About half of the world’s population currently lives in countries with below replacement fertility. The U.S.’s total fertility rate, for example, has dropped to a record low of 1.73 children per woman.

Why are more people around the world having fewer children? Incentives, explains Siegel. Rearing children in modern societies costs a lot, both in money and in foregone opportunities and pleasures. Given that about 99 percent of kids born in countries like the U.S. will make it to age 20, parents are choosing to spend more resources on fewer children, who will thereby be more likely to enjoy successful lives. “To put it just a little too crassly, in wealthy societies and increasingly in less wealthy ones, children have become a cost center (some would even say a luxury good), not a profit center,” Siegel observes.

Siegel’s projections of future population growth may in fact be excessively high. In a 2018 study, demographer Wolfgang Lutz and his colleagues at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis offer an alternative scenario projecting rapid economic growth, rising levels of educational attainment for both sexes, and technological advancement—all factors that tend to lower fertility. They expect that world population could peak at about 8.9 billion by 2060 and then decline to 7.8 billion by the end of the century.

In any case, these trends mean that there will be many more old people in the future. Having worked most of his life in finance, Siegel offers some good advice how to prepare for retirement. He recommends that one “save a predetermined percentage of one’s income escalating over time, until enough money has been accumulated to replace (when Social Security benefits are also included) 70% of the pay rate one has been earning just before retirement.” At retirement he suggests using 15 percent of your savings to buy a deferred life annuity that kicks in at age 85, thus making sure that you still have income once you’ve spent down your savings.

As world population exploded, so too did economic growth, resulting in what the University of Illinois at Chicago economist Deirdre McCloskey calls the Great Enrichment. Siegel cites urbanist Jane Jacobs’ trenchant observation: “Poverty has no causes. Only prosperity has causes.”

The economic historian Angus Maddison calculated that global per capita income in 1 A.D. was $467 per year (in 1990 dollars). By 1820, global per capita income had risen to nearly $1,200 per year. Over the next two centuries, per capita GDP in current U.S. dollars rose to $11,300—or, taking purchasing power into account, to nearly $18,000 per person.

Income, of course, is not equally distributed across the world. Some places—Somalia, Niger, Malawi—are sadly stuck in Malthusian traps where per capita incomes are still below that global average from 1 A.D. The good news is that economic growth has taken off in many poor countries in recent decades, so their incomes are rising to converge with those of already developed nations. Inequality between countries is falling, and the global rate of abject poverty (people living on less than $1.90 per day) has fallen from 42 in 1981 to 8.6 percent in 2018. By one measure, half of the world’s population is now middle-class or wealthier.

Siegel provides reams of solid data for similarly heartening global trends. Crop productivity, food availability, life expectancy, and education are increasing; violence is in decline.

So that explains fewer and richer. But is Siegel right that the world will be greener?

Economists have identified an inverted U-shaped relationship—the environmental Kuznets curve—in which environmental conditions initially deteriorate as economic growth takes off, then improve when citizens with rising incomes demand better environmental amenities. For example, research has found that rising incomes eventually lead to falling air and water pollution and the expansion of forests. Generally speaking, richer is cleaner.

These curves do not peak and turn downward by themselves. They do so with a mixture of private and government action, with the details differing from one country to another. In the U.S., the levels of six common air pollutants—soot, ozone, lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide—have fallen by an average of 74 percent since 1970. Meanwhile, gross domestic product grew by 380 percent.

Siegel acknowledges that man-made climate change could pose significant problems for humanity as this century advances. But he notes that billions of relatively poor people face more immediate problems, including unsafe drinking water, uncertain food supplies, a dearth of educational opportunities, excessive local pollution, a lack of sanitation, and—importantly—no access to modern energy services. With respect to how best to prioritize between longer term environmental threats and fulfilling urgent needs, he writes, “There is no single answer. Economic growth will help—a lot.”

Siegel sees ecomodernism as the way forward to a greener world. “Intensifying many human activities—particularly farming, energy extraction, forestry, and settlement—so that they use less land and interfere less with the natural world is the key to decoupling human development from environmental impacts,” states An Ecomodernist Manifesto, a document written by 18 scientists and activists in 2015. “These socioeconomic and technological processes are central to economic modernization and environmental protection. Together they allow people to mitigate climate change, to spare nature, and to alleviate global poverty.”

Humanity may already be approaching peak farmland, as we grow ever more food on ever less land. Although Siegel doesn’t mention it, global tree cover has expanded between 1981 and 2016 by 7 percent. That’s a territory of about 865,000 square miles, more than three times the size of Texas.

In 1960, only one third of people lived in cities. This has now increased to 55 percent, making this the first time in history that more folks live in cities than in the countryside. By 2050, nearly 70 percent of people will be city dwellers. Compact cities are much more energy-efficient, in addition to providing people with much better access to economic opportunities, education, and medical care.

While energy efficiency and renewables will play significant roles in helping humanity to decouple from nature, Siegel is also clear-eyed about the need for greater supplies of energy to alleviate poverty through economic growth. His solution: modern nuclear power. “For most applications, nuclear power dominates both fossil fuels and renewables in almost every aspect: efficiency, safety, reliability, carbon neutrality, fuel abundance, and eventually, price,” he argues.

If we can maintain and spread the institutions—free markets, the rule of law, property rights, free speech, and democratic governance—that underpin the Great Enrichment, Siegel’s forecast of fewer, richer, and greener will come to pass.

“Life has improved tremendously in the last 250 years; this book argues that it will continue to improve in almost every dimension; health, wealth, longevity, nutrition, literacy, peace, freedom, and so forth,” he writes. “Without overlooking the many obstacles on the path of progress, my aim is to reinforce and help restore people’s faith in the future—and help them understand why optimism is amply justified.”

(Disclosure: Siegel quotes me in his book. Immodestly, I will note that my book The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-First Century addresses many of these same issues and trends.)

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34UOg7r
via IFTTT

What Do The Next 2 Decades Hold For The S&P500?

What Do The Next 2 Decades Hold For The S&P500?

Submitted by Nicholas Colas of DataTrek Research

Even with a strong 2019, trailing 20-year returns for the S&P 500 are some of the worst in the last +90 years. What do the next 2 decades hold?

With just days to go in the decade of the 2010s, the S&P 500 is up 250% on a total return basis from December 31st 2009, compounding at an average of 13.3%/year. How does that compare to history? Here is the data going back to the end of 1929 (link to source material below):

  • 1930s: total return of -8.9%, compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of -0.9%

  • 1940s: +126%, CAGR of 8.5%

  • 1950s: +492%, CAGR of 19.5%

  • 1960s: +111%, CAGR of 7.7%

  • 1970s: +78%, CAGR of 5.9%

  • 1980s: +395%, CAGR of 17.3%

  • 1990s: +426%, CAGR of 18.0%

  • 2000s: -9.0%, CAGR of -1.0%

  • Average of these decades: 201% total return and a CAGR of 9.4%.

So, yes… the 2010s were good – better than the average decade – but:

  • It came after the worst round-number decade in measured history (the data here starts in 1928).

  • And it pales in comparison to the post World War II period (1950s) and the long expansion from 1980 to 2000.

  • The math here also ignores inflation, which silently compounds at positive rates regardless of what stock markets do.

In short, a decade of headline performance data is a noisy measure of long-run stock returns, which is why our approach is to look at 20-year returns on both a nominal and real (inflation adjusted) basis. A few points to expand on that thought:

  • Unlike 10-year timeframes, the S&P 500 has ALWAYS generated a positive return over any trailing 2-decade period going back to 1948 as an endpoint. This is true on both a nominal and real basis.

  • Put another way, 20 years is pretty much the shortest period of time necessary to own US stocks and be assured of a positive real return. There are 2 instances, with end points of 1949 and 1982, where CAGRs showed less than a 1% real return but at least they were positive.

  • Rolling 20-year historical CAGRs from 1948 – 2019 do still show wide variations in return profiles.

    For example, over the 20 years ending in the early 1960s or late 1990s, US stocks compounded at better than 15% annually. That means they doubled in value every 5 years. Adjusted for inflation, the CAGRs here were still +12% in those timeframes, so shareholders saw a doubling of real value every 7 years.

    Conversely, there have been long stretches where US equities compounded at much lower rates, like the 20 years ending in the early 1980s or the most recent 2 decades. Here, nominal CAGRs of 5-7% only yield a doubling of value every 11-15 years and real CAGRs of 1-3% means less than a 2x return over our 20-year window.

There is a chart with all the data below, and through its lens we see several important issues:

#1: Boom times come against very specific macro backdrops…

  • From 1942 to 1961 the S&P 500 compounded at 16.7%, the best result until the late 1990s. The causes of that run: 1) the Allies’ victory in WW II 2) America’s still-intact post-War infrastructure and 3) remarkable US demographic and economic growth in the 1950s.

  • The only better run – 1980 to 1999’s 17.7% nominal return – stemmed from Paul Volcker’s successful efforts to tame inflation (with commensurately lower interest rates/higher equity valuations over time) and the 1990s’ stock market bubble created by enthusiasm over Internet 1.0.

#2: … And so do periods of low structural returns:

  • Holding US stocks from the late 1920s through the dawn of the 1950s yielded just low-single-digit long run returns in both nominal and real terms. That’s not the fault of the 1929 Crash per se: stocks were only down 8.3% that year. Rather, it was the Great Depression that hit equities. If you bought the dip at the end of 1929, you weren’t whole on a nominal basis until the end of 1936. Inflation-adjusted, you didn’t get back to par until 1942.

  • And, believe it or not, the 20 years ending 2018 was similarly bad, compounding at just 5.6% nominal (the worst since 1930 – 1949) and 3.4% real (worst since 1970 – 1989 due to record high US inflation). The reason: 2 stock market bubbles bursting, the first in Tech stocks and the second in US housing. The second, of course, caused the Great Recession.

#3: This latest period of low returns have fundamentally remade capital markets:

  • Investors anchor expectations of future long-run returns on the recent-ish past (like the 20-year horizon we’re looking at today).

  • They are logically reluctant to pay for active management if expected structural returns are low. That’s why passive investing has boomed in the last 20 years, which coincides exactly with the decline in 20-year trailing CAGRs from 18% in 2000 to 6% now. You can’t pay an active manager 100 basis points if you think future returns will be 6%…

  • On top of that, asset owners will look for alternative, non-public equity opportunities to offset expected lower future stock market returns. Enter the growing popularity of private equity and venture capital over the last decade. This phenomenon also partly explains the recent enthusiasm for assets like crypto currencies. Any port in a low-return storm…

  • Investors will also seek to hedge their equity market exposure the longer a bull market continues. As we wrote recently, the CBOE SKEW Index (the cost of insuring against “tail risk”) took a step function increase in 2014 and hasn’t really looked back since.

  • Lastly, investors who still need a 10% return from equities (basically the very long run average) will tend to add beta to their portfolios to juice performance. Over the last 5 years, that has meant owning as much Technology as one can reasonably bear.

Now, the $64 question: what does the next 20 years hold for US stocks? A few thoughts:

#1: We can safely exclude a repeat of the decline in interest rates that aided domestic equities during their long bull run in the 1980s/1990s. Ten-year Treasuries yield just 2%, not the +15% of 1981. And Europe’s recent experience with negative rates shows these don’t help equity valuations.

#2: We also start the next 20-year cycle with relatively high US equity valuations. This is one place (maybe the only one) where the Shiller “Cyclically Adjusted PE Ratio” (CAPE), based on trailing 10-year actual earnings, can inform an investment discussion:

  • Current Shiller CAPE: 31

  • CAPE in 1981: 9

  • CAPE in 1942: 10

  • Bottom line: US stocks are far from the valuation ranges where they started generating +15% CAGRs in the following 20 years.

So what prior periods does the current CAPE of 31 resemble? Using start-of-year numbers, here are the 2 most relevant comps:

  • 1998’s 33x, with future 20-year CAGRs of 7.1% nominal and 5.0% real.

  • 1929’s 27x, with future 20-year CAGRs of 2.4% nominal and 0.6% real.

Worth noting: that 7% CAGR from the late 1990s looks pretty good, but one must remember that 10-year Treasuries yielded 5% at the start of 1999. We’ve had a nice valuation tailwind over the last 2 decades as yields have declined. As noted in the prior point, that is unlikely to recur. On a more positive note, the 1929 comp is (hopefully) irrelevant for all the historical reasons noted above.

#3: Valuations and future returns share one common driver – sustainable corporate reinvestment rates (both in terms of marginal returns on capital and total incremental capital deployed):

  • The growth in stock buybacks during the current cycle has been helpful to equity returns. According to S&P, well over half of the 500 (334 companies) have fewer shares outstanding now than a year ago and almost a quarter (115 names) are down on share count by at least 4%. In one year…

  • On the plus side, that keeps corporate reinvestment rates at the cost of equity capital and supports high valuations. On the downside, companies have taken advantage of low interest rates to lever up, essentially playing an arbitrage between yields and their equity cost of capital. That only works until a recession, which drives operating cash flow lower.

  • Since so much of the S&P 500 is the Tech sector plus Google, Facebook and Amazon (31% in total), these companies’ future reinvestment rates are central to any discussion of how the next 20 years will play out. If you can tell a story about how Apple or Microsoft will have $5 trillion market caps in 2040 – a 7.4% CAGR from their current $1.2 trillion valuations – then you have a philosophical pathway for similar gains for the S&P 500. That would require each to climb even further from their already-commanding heights with new technologies and services, of course. But that’s what reinvestment rates measure… 

    Alternatively, one might believe that the next Apple, Microsoft, Google or other disruptive technology is currently sitting in some venture capitalist’s portfolio right now and will eventually IPO. It might be a quantum computing company, or one that has an edge in artificial intelligence, or a promising biotech startup with a cure for cancer or the key to eternal youth. All would offer fantastically high returns on capital and opportunities for large-scale capital investment.

Where we come out: we do think US equities can post 10% compounded returns over the next 20 years, inline with their long run average, even though our 2020 valuation starting point is certainly far from optimal. To be right, all we need is for the American engine of innovation to maintain its historical global preeminence and productivity. The low equity returns of the last 20 years has forced money into venture capital at unprecedented rates, which is our ace in the hole for this argument. Even if much of that capital will end up in the dustbin (it always does), there’s more than enough to fund the next wave of economic growth and sustainable corporate earnings and return on capital.

Sources: Long run historical S&P 500 returns (courtesy of NYU professor Aswath Damodaran):  http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html; Shiller PE:  https://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe


Tyler Durden

Tue, 12/24/2019 – 13:25

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

Dow Dips As Wise Men Buy Bonds, Bullion, & Biotech

Dow Dips As Wise Men Buy Bonds, Bullion, & Biotech

As one would expect volumes today were dismal, around 50% below average (pro-rata) ahead of the early close…

Source: Bloomberg

Gold and Silver were bid today…

Source: Bloomberg

“What is myrrh anyway?”

Biotechs (is that myrrh or frankincense?) have had only 4 down days since the start of November, rocketing back towards record highs once again…

Source: Bloomberg

Bonds were bid after a very strong 5Y auction

Source: Bloomberg

Today’s drop in yields erased yesterday’s price losses…

Source: Bloomberg

Stocks were mixed with Small Caps squeezed higher and The Dow lower (Nasdaq up 10 days in a row) S&P closed down by less than 1 point, breaking its 8-day win streak…

Here’s why Small Caps were bid – Shorts squeezed out of the gate again…

Source: Bloomberg

Defensives outperformed Cyclicals today…

Source: Bloomberg

Nasdaq was higher for the 10th straight day, but as Bloomberg reports, the surge in the Nasdaq Composite Index as the year draws to an end may give stock bulls some pause. In just a few trading days, its GTI Global Strength Indicator — a technical measure of upward and downward movements of successive closing prices — has rocketed through 70, a level indicating overbought, and is a hair shy of 80 through Monday. Previous readings at this level over the last two years have been followed by deep reversals.

Source: Bloomberg

Chinese investors failed to hold the key 3,000 level for Shanghai Composite…

Source: Bloomberg

The Dollar trod water once again – following a similar pattern to yesterday…

Source: Bloomberg

Cryptos were flat-ish today, despite a quick drop early on…

Source: Bloomberg

WTI pushed back above $61 today…

Source: Bloomberg

And oil vol is less than half what it was last Xmas Eve…

Source: Bloomberg

And silver’s ongoing outperformance of golds has pushed its to its strongest relative to the barbarous relic since early November…

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, we note the difference between now and one year ago exactly…


Tyler Durden

Tue, 12/24/2019 – 13:01

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/35UJS9S Tyler Durden