For Once, the TSA Is Right

A passenger sneaked a firearm through airport security in Atlanta earlier this month before flying with it to Tokyo. This has attracted a lot of media attention, with CNN, Time, CBS, The Hill, The Washington Post, and others publishing write-ups of the incident.

Meanwhile, we’ve seen a lot of stories about Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees, who are working without pay during the partial government shutdown, calling in sick. Airports in Houston and Miami have even closed down some security checkpoints.

So is the shutdown making airports less safe? Was it the stalemate in Washington, D.C., that allowed someone to slip a gun past TSA screeners?

The short answer: probably not. The story about the firearm appears to have been first reported by WSB-TV, an ABC affiliate based in the Atlanta area. Earlier this month (on either January 2 or January 3, depending on which outlet you read; the TSA has not yet responded to Reason‘s inquiry about the correct date), a man boarded his Delta flight to Japan with a firearm. Once he landed, he informed Delta workers that he had a gun. Delta in turn informed the TSA, who said in a statement that “standard procedures were not followed.”

The TSA insists the shutdown had nothing to do with the incident. “The perception that this might have occurred as a result of the partial government shutdown would be false,” the agency said in a statement to the press. “The national unscheduled absence rate of TSA staff on Thursday, January 3, 2019, was 4.8% compared to 6.3% last year, Thursday, January 4, 2018. So in fact, the national call out rate was higher a year ago than this year on that date.”

In other words, this wasn’t the shutdown; it was just normal TSA incompetence.

Sounds plausible to me. The TSA has a pretty bad track record when it comes to identifying items that could actually pose a threat. A 2015 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) investigation, for instance, revealed that in 67 out of 70 cases, undercover investigators succeeded in smuggling weapons or explosives through security.

Acting TSA Administrator Melvin Carraway lost his job as a result of that investigation, but things didn’t get much better. In March 2017, a woman made it through airport security in Charlotte, North Carolina, before realizing she had forgotten to remove a loaded gun from her purse. In July of that year, KMSP reported that undercover investigators had been able to smuggle explosives or fake weapons through Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport security 16 out of 17 times. And in November 2017, another DHS investigation revealed that TSA screeners were still failing to identify test weapons at a high rate. The failure rate was “in the ballpark” of 80 percent, a source told ABC News at the time.

The TSA just isn’t very good at evaluating risk. It may be great at confiscating plastic toys and bullet-shaped ice cubes. But firearms and explosives are a completely different story, shutdown or no shutdown.

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2FziJz4
via IFTTT

If America Stopped Destroying The World, The Bad Guys Might Win!

Authored by Cailtin Johnstone via Medium.com,

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters on Saturday that the government under Venezuela’s recently re-inaugurated president Nicolas Maduro is “illegitimate”, and that “the United States will work diligently to restore a real democracy to that country.”

Pompeo’s remarks, which were echoed by Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton, are interesting for a couple of reasons. The first is because Venezuela’s presidential election in May of last year (which incidentally was found to have been perfectly legitimate by the international Council of Electoral Experts of Latin America) was actively and aggressively meddled inby the US and its allies. The second is that while the US government is openly broadcasting its intention to keep interfering in Venezuela’s political system, it continues to scream bloody murder about alleged Russian interference in its own democratic process two years ago.

What is the difference between the behavior of the United States, which remains far and away the single worst offender in foreign election meddlingon the planet, and what Russia is accused of having done in 2016? According to a comment made by former CIA Director James Woolsey last year, it’s that the US interferes in foreign democracies “for a very good cause.”

And that’s really the only argument that empire loyalists have going for them on this subject. The US is different because the US has moral authority. It’s okay for the US to continue to interfere in the political affairs of foreign nations while it would be an unforgivable and outrageous “act of war” for a nation like Russia to do the exact same thing, because the US is countering the interests of the Bad Guys while Russia is countering the interests of the Good Guys. Who decided who the Good Guys and Bad Guys are in this argument? The US.

This “What we do is good because we’re the Good Guys” faith-based doctrine was regurgitated with full-throated zealotry in a recent speech given by Pompeo in Cairo, in which he cited “America’s innate goodness” in making the absolutely ridiculous claim that “America is a force for good in the Middle East” which has been “absent too much” from the region previously. America’s nonstop deadly interventionism in the Middle East is “good”, because America is “innately good”.

America’s constant military interventionism, election interference and other nastiness are painted as Good Things done by Good Guys to fight the Bad Guys. The argument, when you boil it right down, is that if America wasn’t constantly starting wars, invading sovereign nations, staging coups, sponsoring proxy conflicts, arming terrorists, bombing civilians, torturing people, implementing starvation sanctions on impoverished populations, pointing nuclear weapons everywhere, spying on us all with a globe-spanning Orwellian surveillance network, interfering in foreign elections, and patrolling the skies with flying death robots, the Bad Guys might win.

Sort of makes you wonder who the Bad Guys really are, huh?

The theme of Good Guys fighting Bad Guys resonates with a population that has been raised for generations on Hollywood films featuring a handsome action hero emerging victorious after a ninety-minute struggle and karate kicking an ugly villain off a cliff before kissing the pretty girl, but it doesn’t accurately reflect the reality we actually live in. Our world is dominated by extremely powerful people who are motivated not out of interest in good or evil but a drive toward power and profit which is completely disinterested in morality of any kind, and the empires they build for themselves have their foundations on the backs of ordinary people who are just trying to get by. The majority of those extremely powerful people either live in the United States or have formed alliances with US power structures, and all their agendas in Asia, South America, the Middle East and elsewhere have nothing to do with “protecting democracy” or being a “force of good”, and everything to do with amassing more power.

Even among those who recognize that the US-centralized empire isn’t a shining beacon of virtue in our world, the notion remains prevalent that if American power ceases to be a unipolar dominator then someone worse will take over the world. This fear-based mindset ultimately underlies all establishment manipulation and all educated support for it: the idea that someone needs to rule and dominate the world to prevent someone else from doing the same. But what are the fruits of this mindset? A corporatist Orwellian dystopia hurtling toward climate collapse if nuclear war doesn’t kill us all first.

We can’t keep doing this. We literally can’t; we’ll evolve beyond this fear-based dominator paradigm or we’ll all perish beneath its feet very soon. We are now in a position where our irrational fear of being invaded by China has pushed us to the brink of extinction, so it isn’t even a gamble to step off that train and try something else instead.

It is entirely possible that the US is capable of functioning like a normal nation and simply defending its own shores and sustaining itself without interfering in world affairs. It is entirely possible that the threat everyone imagines of some foreign power stepping in as the unipolar dominator should America vacate that role is the product of fearful imaginings with no bearing on reality and a fundamental misunderstanding of humanity. It is entirely possible that we are capable of creating a world where nobody dominates anybody, and no iron-fisted world leader of any kind is needed. Either way, the train we’re on is headed for a brick wall, so we’ve now got nothing to lose by stepping off.

*  *  *

The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalpurchasing some of my sweet new merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

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

Fights in Washington Sow Chaos in Syria: New at Reason

|||Bureaucratic Fights in Washington Sow Chaos in Syria

“Starting the long overdue pullout from Syria while hitting the little remaining ISIS territorial caliphate…Will attack again from existing nearby base if [ISIS] reforms. Will devastate Turkey economically if they hit Kurds. Create 20 mile safe zone….”

This fragmented January 13 tweet by President Donald Trump suggests that he is trying the impossible: helping Turkey create its proposed “safe zone” in Syria without fighting Kurdish rebels along the border. But it’s the most recent guidance the public has on America’s policy in Syria.

Nicholas Heras, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, believes that “no decisions have been made on Syria yet.” Instead, he suggests, the president is “leaking [the executive branch’s] internal discussions” in order “to test the water of public opinion.”

In the absence of congressional oversight, unelected bureaucrats have been privately feuding to determine how to carry out Trump’s decision to pull all U.S. troops out of the country. And without clear signals from Washington, the Self-Administration of Northeast Syria—an unrecognized statelet carved out of former ISIS territory—is running out of time to negotiate for its future, writes Matthew Petti in his latest for Reason.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2Fw6t24
via IFTTT

Morgan Stanley: It’s Time To Start Selling Again

Heading into the end of the of 2018, Morgan Stanley’s chief equity strategist Michael Wilson – best known for his “rolling bear market” call and his accurate claim that BTFD no longer works – made a good, bearish call… Only in retrospect it was too good, and as Wilson writes this morning, while he had “always expected” the S&P 500 to hit his bear case of 2400, he thought it would be in 1Q 2019… not at the end of 2018 as “we thought the market would need to actually see the earnings and economic data disappointments before reaching 2400.

However, a confluence of exogenous events, including perceptions of Fed miscommunication, Government shut down, poor year end liquidity and most notably a furious hedge fund liquidation to meet redemption requests, “conspired” to take the stock market to valuations we hadn’t see since the post-Brexit reaction in 2016, culminating in what the press called the “Christmas Eve Massacre” (and we called the “Mnuchin Massacre”)and “conspired to create one of the worst Decembers in history”.

As a result, Wilson thinks the market embraced his earnings recession call as earnings revision breadth rolled over. In short, after ignoring Morgan Stanley’s bearishness for nearly a year the market is now discounting the bank’s (formerly) out of consensus views on growth and “it may have even discounted a modest economic recession.” Or, as Howard Marks summarized earlier on Monday, “Nothing much changed except people were first ignoring the bad news and then they were obsessing about the bad news.

Yet while initially, it appeared as if equity markets sold off for technical reasons more than fundamental ones, “on further inspection we think the market was simply pricing in the more growing risk of an earnings, and even an economic, recession. After all, if we could see that risk increasing, surely the market could too.”

At roughly this time, Wilson and Morgan Stanley turned tactically bullish as “sentiment and positioning got washed out to levels we typically see during good buying opportunities.” Yet, as we noted last week, it’s not an all clear yet: “The issues we still need to deal with include the fact that we are in the midst of a fairly steep and broad negative earnings revision cycle, and there is significant technical resistance/overhead not far above current prices.”

In other words, there are two key risks preventing Wilson from turning outright bullish, namely that (1) valuations are still too high or (2) where earnings downside is even greater than what has been priced.

So in a twist, Wilson is once again leaning bearish, because “as we deal with these issues during 4Q earnings season and perhaps see some further deterioration in US economic data, we think the S&P 500 will suffer a re-test of the lows we experienced in December, but on less negative momentum and better breadth.

Should that happen, and should the S&P slide back to Wilson’s bear case support level of 2,400, the MS strategist says he would be an “aggressive buyer” and “if we actually suffer the re-test we are expecting, we would be buyers of that almost regardless of what is going on, assuming it happens on less momentum and better breadth.”

To sum up, we think the broader market achieved our downside targets on valuation as well as on sentiment and positioning.

But what if the rally persists? In a word: sell, “since the fundamentals remain murky at best with earnings visibility deteriorating and revisions decidedly negative at the moment” and with economic data surprises turning negative, Morgan Stanley thinks “it could get worse in the near term, especially if the government shutdown persists.”

There is another reason why Morgan Stanley expects another drawdown in equities: analysts forecasts will soon reprice to reality, and in fact, will soon forecast an earnings recession, the first one since the 2016 commodity collapse episode.

As shown in the chart below, the recent y/y decline in the S&P 500 is close to what we observed in 1990; and if we get a full re-test and break as Wilson expects in the next few months, it will likely be equivalent. In other words, between here and there, the S&P 500 would be pricing in our earnings recession and perhaps a shallow economic recession. Consistent with Morgan Stanley’s 2019 earnings call, the strategist now expects the blue line in Exhibit 2 (NTM EPS growth) to rapidly catch-down to the yellow line (price change) as markets lead the fundamentals.  Wilson suspects “such a rapid decline in forward earnings will provide a reason for stocks to revisit the December lows” but as he adds, “that’s the trap and the time to buy, not sell.”

Finally, the bank is also wary of the “significant overhead resistance created by the 4Q sell off”, and the lack of a weekly positive divergence during the December capitulation (Exhibit 1). As such, Wilson advises clients that “2600-2650 on the S&P 500 is a good level to start lightening up as we enter what is likely to be a period of negative news flow on earnings and the economy.”

via RSS http://bit.ly/2HaL8xJ Tyler Durden

Thanks To Their Student Loans, Millennials Expect To Die In Debt

Authored by Chloe Anagnos via The American Institute for Economic Research,

Adulting, the now common idiom goes, is hard. And to many millennials, the grim realization that debt will always be part of their lives is not making it any easier.

In some cases, their debt load is so soul-crushing they expect to die without ever paying what they owe back. So how much does this problem have to do with the higher-education crisis the country is facing? As it turns out, everything.

According to a study by Northwestern Mutual, educational loans are the leading source of debt for millennials ages 18 to 24. And according to a CreditCards.com report, over 60 percent of millennials aged 18 to 37 are completely unsure when, or if, they will be able to pay their debt off. Among those who responded they are uncertain about their ability to pay off debt, 20 percent said they expected to die in debt.

But to those with only credit card debt, the prospects aren’t as grim, as 79 percent of millennials said they had a plan to pay it all off, expecting to be completely debt-free by age 43.

While many of the news outlets reporting on these findings urge young people to get a plan in place so they can pay off their debt, the reality is that government’s push to give everyone a college education is what has greatly contributed to young people’s debt load. And what’s worse, degreesare not actually helping many young people get a job.

Will bureaucrats and those who pushed for more government-subsidized education ever admit they created a monster that has finally gotten out of control?

Government’s Role in Millennials’ Bad Choices

When government and elected officials push college education as a right, they imply that the government has the duty to help provide it to the populace. With grants, subsidies, and easy, risk-free loans going out to 17-year-olds with no credit history, young people think pursuing the career of their dreams is a piece of cake. But once school is out and all they have is a diploma, they finally realize things weren’t as easy as they expected.

The problem is that when government enters the picture and makes it easier for consumers to pay for college, it artificially increases the demand for college. With a greater number of students demanding higher education, schools have to raise their prices. After all, they have a limited supply of what they offer.

As explained by economist Ryan McMaken, “Were it not for the subsidized loans and — in the case of public colleges — directly subsidized tuition, the number of students able to afford such degrees would shrink considerably.” With fewer students knocking on their doors, colleges would have to slash costs and, consequently, prices, just so they could fill up their empty classrooms. But to bureaucrats, the solution doesn’t lie with letting the market work. Instead, they want more government interference.

Pushing for better loan deals, more regulation, or penalties for students who can’t pay the loans back, bureaucrats and their supporters are only worsening the problem they created.

In an age in which more and more employers are ditching degree requirements, paying for a piece of paper proving you finished college is becoming increasingly unnecessary.

The governmentcontinues to head in the wrong direction, giving young people the idea that college is for everyone. If this doesn’t prove the government doesn’t have our best interests at heart, nothing else does.

via RSS http://bit.ly/2TMxn9N Tyler Durden

Yet another MAJOR reason to buy gold

For almost a year now, I’ve been advising you that gold production is plunging…

By itself, declining gold production isn’t a huge deal.

It takes hundreds of millions of years for minerals to form deep in the earth’s crust… but humans only need a few decades to extract it.

That’s why mining companies need to constantly explore for new deposits.

And that’s where the problem comes in… mining companies haven’t been exploring.

Large mining companies have been cutting their exploration budgets for years. By the end of 2016, exploration budgets hit an 11-year low.

Part of the reason for the decline in exploration has been the stagnant gold price and general, investor disinterest toward the gold mining sector.

If you look at a chart of the Gold Miners ETF (GDX), the price hasn’t gone anywhere for five years.

And gold prices have likewise languished; today’s price of $1,290 per ounce is down 30% from the 2011.

To fight the tough times, miners slashed their exploration budgets.

That means, when the demand for gold picks up again (which I think we’re starting to see now), there won’t be enough gold supply.

You don’t have to just take my word for it…

Pierre Lassonde, the billionaire founder of gold royalty giant Franco-Nevada and former head of Newmont Mining –

If you look back to the 70s, 80s and 90s, in every one of those decades, the industry found at least one 50+ million-ounce gold deposit, at least ten 30+ million ounce deposits, and countless 5 to 10 million ounce deposits.

But if you look at the last 15 years, we found no 50-million-ounce deposit, no 30 million ounce deposit and only very few 15 million ounce deposits.

So where are those great big deposits we found in the past? How are they going to be replaced? We don’t know.

Lassonde isn’t the big gold player warning about the falling gold production. You can read some other warnings in this piece I wrote in July of last year.

One of the legends we quoted was Ian Telfer, chairman of Goldcorp, who told the Financial Post:

“If I could give one sentence about the gold mining business … it’s that in my life, gold produced from mines has gone up pretty steadily for 40 years. Well, either this year it starts to go down, or next year it starts to go down, or it’s already going down… We’re right at peak gold here.

If gold production is peaking, and the mining companies aren’t spending money to find new deposits, that means one thing… when demand picks up, we’ll see a wave of consolidation in the industry.

Mining companies will be forced to acquire one another in order increase their production and meet a rising gold demand.

These consolidations are already happening. Literally just today, Telfer’s $8.5 billion Goldcorp was acquired by Newmont Mining for $10 billion.

This isn’t the first deal like this: back in September, Barrick Gold bought Randgold Resources in a $6 billion deal.

This is exactly what you’d expect to see in an era where gold miners are acquiring each other and consolidating their production.

And all of this should be quite favorable for gold prices over the long-term.

Now, at least for me, gold has never really been an investment. I don’t trade paper currency for gold, hoping to trade gold back for more paper currency down the road.

Instead, gold for me has always been always a hedge against all the risks in the world that just don’t make sense.

And there are plenty of those:

The US debt is now nearly $22 trillion and growing at more than $1 trillion a year.

Interest rates across the world’s other largest economies– Europe and Japan– are still negative. China is rapidly slowing.

Governments around the world, it seems, are in a coordinated effort to destroy paper money and inflate their massive debts away.

Meanwhile, interest rates are slowly rising from the bottom, putting the huge stock and bond rally of the past decade at risk.

All of these are very prudent reasons to own gold.

And with today’s news, we’ve now seen several of the largest gold miners in the world spending a combined $16 billion to increase their gold reserves. They’re admitting there’s a big shortage of the metal. And this trend is just getting started.

Source

from Sovereign Man http://bit.ly/2AMMclB
via IFTTT

Police Responding To ‘Active Shooter Situation’ At New Jersey UPS Facility

Police are responding to an “active shooter situation” at a UPS supply chain processing facility in Logan Township, New Jersey, according to local media reports.

UPS said it’s working with law enforcement. Though no shots have been confirmed, police are swarming the streets and a loading ramp.

“We cannot provide information about the identity of people involved at this time,” UPS said in a statement.

Shooter

New Jersey State Police said “local and county authorities” were responding to the incident.

This is a developing story…

 

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

Trump’s AG Nominee: ‘Vitally Important’ Mueller Finish Probe, Public Sees Report

William Barr, President Trump’s pick for attorney general, will tell senators at his confirmation hearing that it is “vitally important” that special counsel Robert Mueller is allowed to finish his investigation, according to prepared remarks obtained by the Associated Press on Monday. 

“I believe it is in the best interest of everyone — the President, Congress, and, most importantly, the American people – that this matter be resolved by allowing the Special Counsel to complete his work,” Barr is set to tell lawmakers. 

Barr also says that it’s “very important” that Congress and the public be informed of the special counsel’s findings into potential coordination between the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and Russia. 

“For that reason, my goal will be to provide as much transparency as I can consistent with the law,” Barr will say. “I can assure you that, where judgments are to be made by me, I will make those judgments based solely on the law and will let no personal, political, or other improper interests influence my decisions.”

The remarks are an acknowledgment that Barr’s handling of Mueller’s investigation will take center stage at Tuesday’s hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. They’re intended to reassure Democratic senators troubled by Barr’s past comments on the special counsel’s probe, including an unsolicited memo he sent the Justice Department last year criticizing the inquiry into whether the president had obstructed justice.

He also previously said the president’s firing of FBI director James Comey was appropriate and that the Mueller team, criticized by Trump for including prosecutors who have contributed to Democrats, should have had more “balance.” –Bloomberg

Barr’s previous comments criticizing the Mueller probe raised alarms among Democrats that he might stifle or end the seemingly-endless investigation. Some have questioned whether Barr would approve a subpoena for Trump if he refuses to answer additional questions, and whether Congress should see whatever conclusion Mueller’s team reaches. 

During private meetings last week, Barr told lawmakers that Trump had “sought no assurances, promises, or commitments from me of any kind, either express or implied.” 

“As Attorney General, my allegiance will be to the rule of law, the Constitution, and the American people,” Barr’s statement reads. “That is how it should be. That is how it must be. And, if you confirm me, that is how it will be.” 

Barr’s supervisory role may be especially important since Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller in May 2017 and has overseen his day-to-day work, expects to leave the Justice Department soon after Barr is confirmed. It is not clear how much of the investigation will be left by that point.

Barr would replace acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, who declined to recuse himself from the investigation over past critical comments on it — despite calls from Democrats and the advice of a Justice Department ethics official. –Bloomberg

Barr’s memo in June, sent to Rosenstein and the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, criticized the “fatally misconceived” theory of obstruction that Mueller appeared to be pursuing. Barr noted that presidents cannot be criminally investigated for actions they are allowed to take under the Constitution, such as firing an official who works for them – just because of a subjective determination that they may have had a corrupt state of mind. 

DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec noted that Barr wrote the memo on his own accord, only relying on publicly available information – and that senior ethics officials have given it a green light in terms of conflict of interest relating to Barr’s work as attorney general. 

Barr will say in his memo that it was narrowly focused on a single theory of obstruction in media reports, and that “The memo did not address – or in any way question – the Special Counsel’s core investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.” 

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

“Buy Bonds And Chill”

Via Pervalle,

Below is a piece we put together about a month ago that was sent around to our network. Given recent market action and the thesis still largely playing out, we decided to share it, which we are likely to do more of in the future. If you like the work below, feel free to subscribe to our mailing list at the bottom of the page.

*  *  *

The probabilities of US rates falling materially over the next six to eight months are the highest of the cycle. While global equities and commodities have begun to price in slowing growth, US rates are marginally off the highs – with the 10-year trading at 3.06%. The disconnect is likely due to supply and demand worries surrounding the Fed’s balance sheet run off, expanding US fiscal deficits, and the lack of demand from European and Japanese investors as hedged yields turn negative.

We see these concerns being largely priced into the market; however, the following line items seem they are not:

  • China will continue to pressure the global economy, with no real signs of stimulus coming through the system until the back half of 2019 under the assumption they will be able to expand credit at similar historical rates

  • The US economy will slow materially due to crude oil pulling down industrial production, as well as higher interest rates weighing on the consumer and US housing

  • US and Global Excess liquidity will drag equities lower, resulting in a bid for bonds

  • The Federal Reserve will likely get cold feet and backtrack as they recognize the economy is slowing

  • CTA and momentum players should continue to cover their shorts, in turn flipping momentum positive

  • Technically, US bonds are bottoming and have very favorable risk reward profiles over the following months

Given the above, we assign an 84% probability to 10 year rates falling to 2.3% from 3.06% over the next 6-8 months, before pausing and ultimately moving lower if our thesis is correct. Below we outline this thesis and seek to disprove the current bear argument.

WHAT THE MARKETS ARE SAYING

A large part of our process is relying on factions of the market to give us a pulse of the global economy, as well as our thesis. Currently, many of these market groups and ratios are indicating that rates should be materially lower. We can see this domestically via US leadership, as defensive sectors like utilities and staples have been out performing cyclicals such as financials and industrials. This ratio has historically been highly correlated to US rates and is currently indicating the US 10 year should trade closer to 2.3%, as shown below.

Regional banks (KRE) are also providing the same indication, as KRE/SPY puts the US 10 year closer to 2.2%.

Copper to gold says something similar, with rates around 2.4%.

And our bond proxy – utilities – puts bonds prices significantly higher, thus rates lower.

We believe the markets are beginning to price in the current and developing slowdown in China, as well as higher rates in the US, which are weighing on housing and the US consumer. We see the bonds responding over the next six to eight months.

CHINA

In our view, China is the most important driver of global growth and the cycle. From 2012-2016 it made up ~34% of global GDP growth, more than the US, Europe, and Japan combined. It now represents roughly 70% of all manufacturing in Asian emerging markets, and is the largest importer of ~50 countries, up from 5 a decade ago. This growth has primarily been driven by an unprecedented amount of credit creation, which over the past two years has become much more of an interest to us.

Breaking down the credit data below, we can see that Chinese credit creation has fallen from its peak of 21.3% YoY in Q216 to 8.34% YoY. While 8.34% YoY is still quite high, it is the rate of change that drives the cycle.

To put this in perspective, let’s look at the past year. The difference in the rate of change of credit created from October 2017 (+12.8% YoY) to October 2018 (+8.34% YoY) is equivalent to $940bn dollars, or roughly 7.7% of China’s GDP and 17% of their stock market. From the high in Q216, the rate of change has fallen by $1.9T, or 34% of China’s market cap.

This, however, is just the rate of change. Total credit creation over the past year is still strong at $2.55T YoY, equivalent to 21% of GDP and 11% of the S&P500.

We see this as the primary driver of the global cycle and it is backed up by the data. As you can see below, China’s credit creation leads our global industrial production breadth indicator by roughly 8 months. This indicator is designed to measure the strength of 23 OECD countries by taking the percentage that are growing over the prior year (breadth). Currently, the indicator stands at only 20% that are growing over the prior year and will likely trend lower over the next 8 months given the historical lead.

We are monitoring China’s credit creation over the next few months as there is a decent probability that it turns higher given the leading relationship of China’s bank reserve rate requirements (RRR). As you can see below, China’s RRR cuts typically leads total credit creation by roughly 5 months, which lines up with January (+/- 1 mo) being the turning point. Should we see an uptick in credit creation, this will likely start filtering through the economic data roughly 9-12 months later or towards the end of 2019. The prior uptick in credit started in June of 2015, which then found its way in the global PMI data in June of 2016. Equities began to price this uptick in in February of 2016, leading by roughly 4 months. Assuming the data follows this historical cycle, international equities should begin to sniff out a pickup in global growth in the second half of 2019, which is when excess liquidity also begins to improve as well (elaborated on below).

US ECONOMY

Over the next 12 months we see the US economy slowing materially, as the recent move in crude drags down industrial production and rising interest rates continue to hamper housing and the consumer. Crude’s 26% decline should have a material adverse effect on US industrial production given roughly 70% of IP growth over the past year has been concentrated in crude related line items. The move implies IP should fall to ~2.2% from 4.1% in October, which is consistent with 2.3% on the 10yr — in line with where most other markets are currently pricing rates.

We are also beginning to see signs of deterioration in the housing market and retail sales, which will likely continue for the next 12 months, as higher interest rates further pressure consumption. Below we’ve overlaid consumer buying conditions for homes versus new homes sales. As you can see, buying conditions lead new home sales by roughly 2 years, indicating sales will continue to be pressured for the foreseeable future. This is showing up in the lumber market, with prices roughly 44% of their highs. Historically, lumber has been one of the best leads on the economy and US interest rates. It is currently pricing in the 10yr closer to 2.2%.

The same relationship is true for autos, as buying conditions have deteriorated, which will likely further pressure retail sales, as autos make up 20% of the aggregate. While auto sales have recently weighed on retail sales, top line numbers have remained resilient; however, we see some volume deterioration under the surface. As shown below, retail sales volumes – or retail sales adjusting for the price of inflation – have fallen materially. We derive this by taking the individual line items of retail sales and adjusting them for respective gains in inflation. For example, furniture, electronics and appliances were up 1.24% YoY in the most recent retail sales report, but inflation of those items was up 3.07%, indicating volume growth was negative. As you can see below, volumes are growing marginally above 1%, which is near the lowest level of this cycle.

There is a high probability that those volumes continue to deteriorate given HY spreads YoY lead retail sales by roughly six months, as shown below.

While the economic data looks to be deteriorating, we are also seeing a significant drop in excess liquidity.

LIQUIDITY

Global liquidity should cap gains and pull equities lower over the next 12 months, as it is currently the lowest of the cycle. We can see this below via our excess liquidity indicator, which seeks to measure the dollars freely available to flow into markets. As excess liquidity rises, equities rise as there is ample money around, and vice versa. We are now witnessing the largest liquidity contraction in the past five years, which has historically led US equities by roughly 12-14 months – indicating that returns in 2019 should be quite poor. We see this providing a bid for bonds and an increase in flows, which the market is currently not discounting, specifically over the next 6 months.

On top of this, we see the largest bidder – US corporates – going dark over the next 12 months as BBB spreads are indicating that buybacks should slow significantly, shown below. This is quite concerning as buybacks have totaled roughly $4.4 T since the beginning of the cycle, and ~$655Bn over the past year, representing over 80% of the bid to the market according to Bridgewater.

FED

Given the scenario outlined above, it seems highly probably that the Fed will begin to reverse course over the next 3-4 months, as both the equity market and fundamental data give them pause. But just like a large ship, it takes time for the Fed to move from one direction to the next, so the next step will be to walk back hikes in 2019 and possibly their balance sheet unwind. We see this scenario as being quite bullish for bonds, as most of the damage of the rate hikes is already filtering through the system. While the current perception of the fundamental backdrop is quite positive, we see the Fed’s reversal as a catalyst for the questioning of current conditions, and during this twilight period, the economic data should continue to deteriorate, which will then likely lead to a participant understanding that their thesis is likely incorrect.

CTA/Momentum players

We see the first 1/3 of the move in rates happening in short order due to the recent dynamics of CTAs and algos in the markets. Recent price action has been quite interesting, as bonds have failed to be bid despite risk off in equities and most markets implying rates much lower. We think this is due to CTA and algo momentum models driving price to a directional extreme, leading to record positioning that is then subsequently reversed in quick order. We have seen this over the past year in S&Ps, the Vix, copper, gold and recently in crude. We think bonds are next.

Technicals

Technically, bonds look quite attractive as they’ve recently completed a weekly downside Demark 9. Historically, weekly downside 9’s have had an 85% positive hit rate over 60 trading days, which brings us into early February – where we see the majority of the move in yields happening by.

We are also seeing some positive divergences on our Bermuda Vol model, as shown below. This tracks momentum across multiple time frames and has flipped positive from the lower bands across the 20, 40, and 60 day.

Bear Thesis

Treasury Issuance 

The market is currently very concerned about the fiscal deficit leading to large increases in treasury issuance. Estimates are for deficits of roughly ~$900bn on average per year out to 2023. Assuming this operating thesis and the numbers are correct, 10 and 30 year supply will only see a marginal increase, as they represent roughly 4.4% of gross issuances. Bills on the other hand represent roughly 78% of total issuance. Therefore, a large scale deficit blow out will pressure short rates, which is debatably bullish for the long end, as higher short rates squeeze economic growth.

Lack of Foreign Demand

The second leg of the bearish case for bonds is that foreign demand is slowing due to hedged returns that are now negative. This is factually correct and a concern on the demand side. That said, looking out over the next 12-14 months we do not see this being an issue. Hedging costs are essentially the difference between Fed Funds and the European Deposit rate, as well as the BOJ’s overnight call rate. During the past few cycles, hedged yields have compressed similar to the yield curve and then reversed as the Fed began to cut rates. Given our economic view, there is a high probability that these reverse as well and provide positive returns to foreign investors as the spread between Central bank rates have reached what look like their historical limits.

It should also be noted that the unhedged rate differentials between the US 10yr and the Bund recently hit an all time high of  2.78%, and 3.05% for JGBs – the highest of this cycle

Fed Balance Sheet 

Last, but not least. is the Fed’s balance sheet unwind causing a large increase in supply, thus sending rates higher. Intuitively this would make sense, but historically looking at the data from periods of QE does not support this assertion. For example, from the beginning to end of QE1, the Fed purchased $277bn of treasury bonds, and rates rose by 22% (2.77% to 3.38%). QE3 saw the same thing, as $763bn in purchases led to a 31% rise in rates. QE2’s $844bn purchases did see rates move lower; however, it was only towards the tail end of the purchase program that they went negative – the first $803bn saw rates rise by 20%.

The point here is that we see rates being driven by the economic cycle versus changes in supply. We do not see the Fed unwind leading to a sharp rise in rates due to our view that the US economic data will continue to deteriorate through Q219. There is also a decent chance that the Fed begins to pause on unwinding its balance sheet; however, this is not integral to our thesis.

Conclusion

Given our thesis above, we see rates falling materially over the next 6-8 months before pausing or taking a brief time out. The next leg will largely be determined by China’s ability to expand credit and drive growth, which will be apparent in the data over the subsequent months. Looking out into the second half of 2019, there is still a high probability that the S&P 500 (2,736) moves lower due to poor liquidity conditions and falling EPS estimates – this is very supportive of bonds, which are technically set up for a strong move higher.

Over the next 8 months, we think it is safe to buy bonds and chill.

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

Trump Says He “Never Worked For Russia” After “Disgraceful” NYT, WaPo Reports

President Trump on Monday said he “never worked for Russia” after reports in the New York Times and Washington Post revived the dying collusion narrative. The Times on Friday revealed that the FBI retaliated against Trump for lawfully firing FBI Director James Comey – focusing on potential Kremlin ties, while the Post reported that Trump went to great lengths to conceal the details of his face-to-face encounters with Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

Speaking at the White House before departing for New Orleans, Trump told reporters that he never worked for Russia, and that the WaPo report was false. 

On Saturday, Trump tweeted “Wow, just learned in the Failing New York Times that the corrupt former leaders of the FBI, almost all fired or forced to leave the agency for some very bad reasons, opened up an investigation on me, for no reason & with no proof, after I fired Lyin’ James Comey, a total sleaze!”

Speaking with Fox News’ Jeanine Pirro on Saturday, Trump called the Times article “the most insulting thing I’ve ever had written.” 

Trump went on an epic tweetstorm Saturday following the Times article, defending his 2017 firing of former FBI Director James Comey, and tweeting that he has been “FAR tougher on Russia than Obama, Bush or Clinton. Maybe tougher than any other President. At the same time, & as I have often said, getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. I fully expect that someday we will have good relations with Russia again!” 

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