Amazon Crashes After Missing On Revenue, Poor Guidance

After two days of dramatic volatility in its stock, which saw the share price of Amazon first drop then soar by over $100, Jeff Bezos’ online retailing titan was expected to report blow out earnings, and while it indeed reported EPS which smashed expectations, it missed on revenue while guiding well below consensus, in a mirror image of what it did last quarter.

In kneejerk response, the stock tumbled as much as 6%.

Here are the details from Amazon’s just concluded third quarter:

  • EPS of $5.75, smashing estimates of $3.11
  • Operating income of $3.72, also beating consensus estimates of  $2.13 billion
  • However, revenue of $56.576BN, missed the estimate $57.06 billion. Amazon in July forecast revenue of $54 billion to $57.5 billion

More importantly, Amazon guided Q4 net sales to be between $66.5 billion and $72.5 billion, which however was far below the consensus est. $73.78B. Meanwhile, operating income is expected to come in between $2.1 and $3.6 billion, compared with $2.1 billion in Q4 2017, and also well below the consensus estimate of $3.9 billion.

As a reminder, at the end of last quarter, Amazon did the exact same thing: beat on Earnings and Operating Income, while missing on revenue and guiding lower, yet the stock soared. Why the opposite reaction this time? Perhaps due to heightened concerns about “peak earnings” and with the company once again guiding well below consensus, even if it is due to sandbagging, the market is not happy and has sent the stock sharply lower after hours.

In his remarks in the press release, CEO Jeff Bezos indicated that he is focusing on Amazon Business, noting that the segment has reached a $10 billion annual sales run rate.

“And we’re not slowing down – Amazon Business is adding customers rapidly, including large educational institutions, local governments, and more than half of the Fortune 100. These organizations are choosing Amazon Business because it increases transparency into business spending and streamlines purchasing, with increased control. The team is doing a fantastic job building and innovating for customers.”

As noted above, the kneejerk reaction was negative, and the stock has plunged much as 6% after hours.

Developing

via RSS https://ift.tt/2CGn6qv Tyler Durden

US Markets ‘Dead-Cat-Bounce’ As ‘Smart Money’ Collapses To Lehman Lows

What goes down, dead-cat-bounces back up on negligible volume… because…

China opened ugly but was rescued into the close of the afternoon session…

It is not entirely surprising that European markets bounced today…

European bank stocks were the most oversold in over a decade as of last night’s close…

 

US Markets also ‘dead-cat-bounced’ after Nasdaq’s RSI reached extreme oversold levels again…

 

Nasdaq led the way with an incredible 3.5% surge (best day since March)…before another weak close…

 

For some context with yesterday’s tumble, we see futures started to rally the moment the cash markets closed yesterday…

 

But US stocks remain down on the week…

 

And October is still ugly…

 

The Dow surged over 500 points desperate to get back to its 200DMA – but failed…

 

And as stocks dead-cat-bounce for the umpteenth time in this October onslaught, Bloomberg’s Smart Money Flow Index (which aggregate opening and closing price trends) has collapsed to its weakest since Lehman…

As Bloomberg notes, regardless of its predictive value, the index is useful for its reflective value: it paints a picture of how the U.S. stock market has tended to be much stronger at the open than the close this year. Perhaps that lends credence to the theories that the return of volatility in 2018 has created de-risking by market makers and systematic quant strategies that react to price swings, rather than discretionary bearish selling.

The equal-weight S&P 500 has seen a notable regime shift from the ‘bounce off the 200DMA’ uptrend…

And hedge funds are really suffering as their favorite stocks have collapsed once again…

 

For a sense of just how chaotic things have become in US markets – here is the Nasdaq 100’s realized volatility…

 

Another day, another big short-squeeze…

 

FANG Stocks surged today, after yesterday’s bloodbath, but were unable to get near to retracing the losses…

 

Although some incredible market cap moves in AMZN and so on…

 

A day after posting its worst day relative to staples since the financial crisis, the consumer discretionary sector is having its second best day of the decade versus its safer

 

 

Financials had a positive day after 5 straight down days…

 

Blackrock’s HY Bond ETF discount is at its highest since 2016 (as liquidity preferences dominate the ETF flows over cash)…

NOTE – HYG also dropped into discount to NAV

Treasury yields were higher on the day as yesterday’s belly outperformance was unwound…

 

Thanks to Euro weakness (driven by Brexit comments from Draghi), the US Dollar jumped to new cycle highs…

 

Cable dropped notably on the day after Draghi and kneejerked late on after headlines that May’s group cannot agree (not exactly earth shattering news)

 

Offshore Yuan mini-flash-crashed overnight and ended the day weaker…

 

Cryptos were modestly higher on the day leaving Bitcoin barely green for the week…

 

Despite further dollar gains, WTI managed gains as PMs faded very modestly…

 

WTI Futures bounced off their 200DMA for the 3rd day in a row…

 

Finally, we note that the commodity with the real PhD in economics – Lumber – is trading at Nov 2016 lows…

Which fits with the plunge in actual hard economic data and the collapse in financial conditions…

S&P 2,300?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2D8I0zw Tyler Durden

Several “Hoax” Mail Bombs “Not Capable Of Exploding” According To Officials

Several of the 10 suspected mail bombs sent to high-profile Democrats and noted anti-Trumpers were flawed and incapable of exploding, invesigators said Thursday, adding that others have yet to be fully analyzed, reports NBC. In some cases the flaws were significant, while others were more subtle. 

The news, expected to be detailed at a joint NYPD/FBI briefing in New York shortly, comes after investigators said the devices appeared poorly made and that it was unclear if they were hoaxes or simply cases of bad construction. Earlier in the investigation, officials in multiple states had described the items as live explosives and a number of senior bomb techs briefed on the probe said they had all the components necessary for successful explosions.

Investigators cautioned that the analysis is far from complete, and they say anyone who encounters one of the parcels should treat it as dangerous. –NBC

None of the devices have detonated, and nobody has been hurt in what appears to be a not-so elaborate hoax. 

So far there are no leads on a potential suspect, however authorities say they have been investigating whether the packages were mailed from Florida. While they did not elaborate on the lead, the return address for each package went to Congresswoman and former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D). 

Of the 10 packages intercepted thus far, three were discovered early Thursday morning – addressed to actor Robert De Niro and former Vice President Joe Biden. 

The others came in the prior 72 hours: two were addressed to Rep. Maxine Waters of California; ones were also addressed to Hillary Clinton, former President Obama, ex-Attorney General Eric Holder and former CIA Director John Brennan. The first in the series was a mailbox pipe bomb left at the Westchester County home of billionaire philanthropist George Soros. 

According to sources, the explosive devices were made from PVC pipe and contained a timer (likely a digital alarm clock) to set off the detonator. The powder contained in the bombs comes from pyrotechnics. X-rays show there was likely shrapnel inside the PVC pipe, law enforcement officials say. –NBC

Investigators are diligently working to gather any fingerprints or DNA evidence from the devices. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2O4uD4l Tyler Durden

Brexit Talks On Hold As “May’s Team Can’t Agree”, Cable Slides

The neverending Brexit saga, replete with endless trial balloons and head fake headlines, took its latest detour into the unknown, and sent cable sliding, after the latest report from Bloomberg that U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May’s Cabinet is not close enough to agreeing a way forward for top level Brexit negotiations to resume, even as time to reach a deal is running short.

According to Bloomberg sources, “there will almost certainly be no new plan put forward by the British side before next Monday’s budget, the annual statement setting out the government’s tax and spending plans for the next year.”

The latest disappointing, if expected, assessment followed a “stormy meeting” of May’s cabinet on Tuesday, when two factions battled each other over the question of how to avoid customs checks at the Irish border without tying the U.K. into the European Union’s trade regime forever. Two days later, a meeting that was called to discuss the issue on Thursday was canceled because agreement within May’s team is still out of reach, according to a report in the Evening Standard newspaper.

Divisions within the U.K. negotiating team meant a draft agreement was vetoed by May’s ministers, notably Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab, the people said. At the summit in Brussels, May offered further compromises, pledging to consider extending the transition period and to drop her demand for a strict end-date to the so-called backstop arrangement for the Irish border.

Predictably, the pound dipped on the news, and is now trading well below its 50 and 100-DMA, although much of its losses have been a function of the stronger dollar.

That said, with kneejerk reactions such as this one it would be difficult to claim that a hard Brexit is fully baked into the cake.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2CFpAFC Tyler Durden

“It Looks Like We’re Doomed” – Pros Are Perplexed As S&P Heads For Worst Month Since 2009 Crash Lows

“It looks like we are doomed…”

That is the ominous warning from Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at MUFG Union Bank in New York, as he reflects on the ugly reality that is slowing revealing itself from behind Oz’s curtain of disinformation about how awesome the economy and earnings really are.

He’s not wrong – one glimpse at the ugliness of real ‘hard’ economic data (at its lowest in a year) opposed to the hope-strewn surge in ‘soft’ survey data, suggests reality remains a long way from most people’s perceptions for now…

Certainly in the short-term, things have suddenly escalated quickly as US markets catch down violently to the rest of the world (no, not decoupled, just lagged)…

In fact, “if history is any guide, traders should proceed with caution,” Will Geisdorf, technical strategist at Ned Davis Research, told clients in a note this morning.

The S&P fell in 13 out of the past 15 sessions, which happened 21 other times since 1931. When such sell-off has occurred, the S&P fell on average 0.2% five days and 0.8% 10 days later, 1.7% 21 days later, before gaining 2.1% 63 days later.

“What do we need to feel confident that a bottom is in place? A breadth thrust, which we haven’t seen since just after the 2016 election”

“What makes this case unique is that it is occurring within a secular bull market. Typically, this type of negative price action is associated with a secular bear.”

And as Bloomberg reports, bad days are coming in waves. Of the five worst sessions since 2015, two have come in the last two weeks, with the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average erasing gains for the year on Wednesday.

The S&P is on track for its worst monthly loss since 2009…

Bloomberg adds “The pros are perplexed — why now?”

“I’ll be honest, I have a hard time explaining this,” said Patrick Palfrey, equity strategist at Credit Suisse.

“There isn’t a single item that is the smoking gun behind the selloff. Concerns around trade or tariffs, concerns around valuations, concerns around peak earnings — you name it, and I promise you I’ve heard a client trying to attribute it to that. I don’t think any of them fit.”

The charts suggest there are a few reasons to believe the best is behind us…

Valuations are extreme to say the least…

The biggest global financials are collapsing…

A Double-Top in the US?

And Semis trading at 13-month lows suggest the Double-Top is in…

Inflation fears, rate spike trajectories, The Fed making a policy error, China? Certainly it appears China is losing control of various parts of their ponzi…

But, as Bloomberg notes, while volatility may feel out of control, there are real problems in the economy: rising financing rates and evidence companies can’t pass costs along. Interest rates may be depressed by historical standards but they’re not low compared with where they’ve been through most of the bull market.

“The market is starting to believe that we won’t have any growth at all next year and that’s just wrong,” said Paul Zemsky, chief investment officer of multi-asset strategies at Voya Investment Management LLC in New York. “It’s starting to price in significant interest rate increases and a significant slowdown in earnings growth. It’s getting to a point where it’s overdone.

But still, the narrative remains that ‘nothing has changed’ and this is sentiment-driven…

“People have been tiptoeing to 2018 largely with their eyes wide open, but the markets are clearly overreacting,” said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Cresset Asset Management. “The selling activity is heavily influenced by emotion. I’m not really seeing other factors confirming the markets rout, and I’ve been trying really hard.”

Isn’t the whole 2009-lows-onward rally about sentiment? Sparked by the biggest inflation of central bank balance sheets in the history of man?

But it’s actually different this time, as in fact, something significant snapped in 2018 as Bloomberg’s SMART Money Flow Index shows (which tracks the relative performance of the open to the close on an aggregate daily basis)…

As Bloomberg notes, regardless of its predictive value, the index is useful for its reflective value: it paints a picture of how the U.S. stock market has tended to be much stronger at the open than the close this year. Perhaps that lends credence to the theories that the return of volatility in 2018 has created de-risking by market makers and systematic quant strategies that react to price swings, rather than discretionary bearish selling.

We give the last word to Chris Rupkey, who had the first word above, as he warns:

“Why shouldn’t stocks fall nearly 10 percent? New home sales tumble on the Fed’s rate hikes and promises of higher rates to come. Trump calls monetary policy loco, and the stock market is saying maybe the president is right.”

Maybe so – especially as the ultimate ‘put’ under all global asset markets (blue line below) has started to collapse and drag the world’s wealth with it…

But, but, but, rates were going up for the right reason, right?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2O6h4kN Tyler Durden

Chuck Grassley Asks the Justice Department to Investigate Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnick for False Statements

AvenattiThe Senate Judiciary Committee has referred Julie Swetnick and her attorney, Michael Avenatti, to the Justice Department for investigation.

Chairman Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) would like the feds to determine whether Swetnick and Avenatti engaged in a conspiracy to make false sexual misconduct allegations about Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

“While the Committee was in the middle of its extensive investigation of the late-breaking sexual-assault allegations made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Avenatti publicized his client’s allegations of drug- and alcohol-fueled gang rapes in the 1980s,” said Grassley in the statement. “The obvious, subsequent contradictions along with the suspicious timing of the allegations necessitate a criminal investigation by the Justice Department.”

This request does not amount to a formal charge of wrongdoing—that’s for the Justice Department to decide. But it’s not hard to see why Grassley decided to take this step: Swetnick subsequently contradicted her sworn statements about Kavanaugh’s alleged misbehavior when she discussed the matter with NBC News.

As I wrote at the time, Swetnick jumbled the timeline of her decision to come forward, changed her mind about whether she actually saw Kavanaugh spiking girls’ drinks, and could not state that Kavanaugh was involved in her own assault. Swetnick provided names of people she believed would back up her account, but these leads did not pan out—alleged witnesses either couldn’t be reached, or didn’t remember Swetnick at all.

Whether anything will come of this matter remains to be seen. I tend to think false allegations, when made in an official or formal capacity, ought to be punished if they can be definitively disproven. I don’t know if that’s the case here—and it may be difficult to determine that the things Swetnick alleged absolutely never happened—but we’ll see.

Of course, there’s a political angle: Avenatti, who also represents Stormy Daniels, is a well-known critic of President Donald Trump, and he may even run for president in the 2020 Democratic primary. If he does, he will be the gift that keeps on giving, at least for Republicans.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2O5k8xN
via IFTTT

What A Bunch Of Idiots!?

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

Tell me this isn’t crazy…

A few days ago the creator of the most famous consumer ‘credit score’ in the United States announced a major overhaul in how it rates borrowers.

Consumers live and die by this ‘FICO score’. A high FICO score means that it’s easy to obtain loans at lower interest rates.

And a bad FICO score (in theory) means that you have a history of not paying your debts… hence making it difficult to obtain loans.

Well it turns out there are tens of millions of people in the US who either don’t have FICO scores at all (i.e. NO credit history), or they have BAD credit.

So FICO decided that they would reinvent the way they calculate the scores– giving a big boost to people with bad credit.

Virtually overnight, people who have a history of not paying their bills will immediately be deemed creditworthy.

And poof… they’ll have access to more debt than ever before.

No offense, but what a bunch of idiots.

This company is deliberately lowering its standards and pretending that people with a terrible credit history are actually top quality borrowers.

Gee where have we seen this before?

Oh that’s right… just before the massive financial crisis ten years ago! It’s genius!

It wasn’t even that long ago during the housing boom in the early 2000s that banks were doing EXACTLY the same thing– deliberately lowering their lending standards and providing loans (WITH NO MONEY DOWN) to borrowers with bad credit.

Everyone was in on it. The big ratings agencies like S&P and Moody’s all played along.

Even the federal government gave its seal of approval to this ridiculous charade.

But eventually the bubble burst. Interest rates started rising and the borrowers could no longer pay.

Housing prices tanked. Banks lost billions. The stock market plummetted. The economy went into a tailspin.

It unraveled so quickly… and it all started with a system that churned out far too much debt, far too easily, to borrowers who had no hope of paying it back.

And that’s precisely what we’re seeing now.

It starts at the top: the US government is sitting on a record $21.7 trillion in debt.

That’s several trillion dollars more than the size of the entire US economy.

Each year the government burns around a trillion dollars, and the Treasury Department expects to sustain those grim deficits for the foreseeable future.

State and local governments are in a similar position– in debt up to their eyeballs and drowning in unfunded pension obligations.

And each year it gets worse. The government’s own projections show the debt only increasing– they have no chance of paying it off.

Even in the private sector, most corporations aren’t much better off.

Not including banks, companies in the US have around $7 trillion in total debt.

Go figure, that’s the highest amount on record. Ever.

More than 40% of all corporate debt is rated just one notch above ‘junk’ status.

And a full 14% of companies in the S&P 500 don’t even generate enough revenue to make interest payments.

Then there’s the consumer– supposedly the rock solid pillar that drives the US economy.

Consumer debt is on pace to reach a record $4 trillion this year.

Credit card debt is at an all-time high. Auto loans are at an all time high. Student debt is at an all time high.

And the average American has little chance of repaying that debt.

According to a recent study published by the Federal Reserve, 40% of adults don’t have enough money to cover a $400 emergency expense like a medical bill or flat tire.

 And 21% of Americans have ZERO savings.

Neither governments, nor most businesses, nor the consumer, has any chance of paying down these debts.

And yet the money keeps flowing.

Companies like FICO are even lowering their standards to give even MORE debt to consumers who are already too heavily indebted.

And investors across global financial markets clamor to buy bonds of companies and governments that routinely burn through billions of dollars in cash.

It’s pretty extraordinary how history repeats itself.

The financial system creates gigantic problems caused by too much debt… then tries to solve that problem with more debt.

The house of cards eventually collapses… people lick their wounds for a few years… and the whole cycle begins anew.

If you’re looking for a great book on the topic, check out Howard Marks’ Mastering the Market Cycle: Getting the Odds on Your Side.

Marks is the billionaire founder of Oaktree Capital and one of the most successful investors in history.

In short, his book describes what we have been discussing for months–  There are always ups and downs, booms and busts. NOTHING moves in a straight line forever.

The economy (and financial markets) have been moving UP in a straight line for most of the last ten years.

And by any historical perspective, this is one of the LONGEST up cycles on record.

We’re seeing the same foolish shenanigans that we almost always see– too much money, too much debt, too much stupidity.

Could it last for several more months, or even years? Absolutely.

Or perhaps it’s possible that the tide has already started to turn.

We won’t know until some point in the future when we look back and say, ‘Oh yeah, that was the top. Duh. Shoulda seen that coming… All the signs were there.’

Just remember last time– the US stock market peaked in October 2007. The big meltdown didn’t take place until almost a year later.

And all along the way– the pundits, the government, the Federal Reserve– everyone kept saying that the economy was strong and healthy… right up until the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression hit.

We’re seeing so many of the same signs that we saw ten years ago.

It would be foolish to think that it will be rainbows and buttercups forever… that this time will be any different.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2O7fWxs Tyler Durden

‘Fairness’ Outweighs Objective Data When Americans Evaluate Risks

TSADreamstimeThe U.S. government spends over $100 billion a year fighting terrorism, a risk that kills about as many Americans as lightning strikes or accidents involving home appliances, notes the Dartmouth political scientist Jeffrey A. Friedman in a fascinating new study, “Priorities for Preventive Action: Explaining Americans’ Divergent Reactions to 100 Public Risks.”

Actually, he got that slightly wrong. In 2017, the government spent $175 billion on counterterrorism.

Like many other earnest media explainers, I have believed that many of my fellow Americans simply don’t understand how minuscule the risk of dying in a terrorist attack is and that providing them with the relevant data would calm them down. Once voters understand how low the terrorism risk really is, I thought, surely they will want some of those social resources to go to addressing higher mortality risks, such as heart disease and traffic accidents. I was puzzled why this strategy has not worked. Friedman’s research has gone a long way toward dispelling my puzzlement.

Friedman surveyed 3,000 Americans about how they perceive 100 life-threatening risks along nine dimensions:

RiskPriorityQuestions

He found that Americans actually have a pretty good idea about which risks cause more harm than others. But he also found that “Americans’ risk priorities reflect value judgments, particularly regarding the extent to which some victims deserve more protection than others and the degree to which it is (in)appropriate for government to intervene in different areas of social life. These subjective beliefs shape the perceived benefits and costs of government spending in ways that go beyond objective metrics like lives saved or dollars spent.”

For example, perceptions of agency shape citizens’ willingness to tolerate public risk. He points out that “the mortality rate among motorcyclists is far larger than the probability that a randomly-chosen American will be killed by a terrorist. Yet motorcyclists knowingly accept risk, whereas terrorists’ victims bear no responsibility for their deaths.” The “unfairness” of terrorist attacks leads many Americans to judge that it is reasonable that government should prioritize counterterrorism over motorcycle safety, even with the knowledge that terrorism claims many fewer lives.

Consequently, in his survey of 100 risks, Americans assign addressing motorcycle accidents to 79th place as a priority, whereas terrorism is in third place. As it happens, 5,286 people died in motorcycle accidents in 2016, and 59 people died in terrorist attacks in the U.S. that year. (The latter figure includes the 49 people killed in the Pulse nightclub attack in Orlando, Florida.)

Friedman concludes that his “findings raise clear questions about how voters develop the subjective beliefs that appear to drive their policy preferences. What makes some people think that dying in a terrorist attack is more ‘unfair’ than dying from a preventable disease? What makes some people think that governments have more responsibility to avert potential future harm caused by climate change rather than funding proven methods for saving lives today? And how malleable are these judgments? The answers to these questions have major significance for debates like what it would take to convince the American public to accept lower defense expenditures, to ramp up efforts to combat global warming, or to pursue any other major recalibration in risk priorities.”

Nevertheless, silly people like me remain deluded into thinking that there is such a thing as objective risk data that should be given substantial weight when choosing among public policy proposals. I hope still that my fellow citizens will recalibrate their views on whether it’s wise to spend tens of billions of dollars on counterterrorism measures.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2RfggMv
via IFTTT

$5 Billion Hedge Fund SPO Shutters: “We Find It Exceedingly Difficult To Deploy Capital”

While growth stocks are suffering one of their worst bouts in recent history, the recent rebound in “value” has come too late to help one venerable asset manager.

According to Bloomberg, the Mill Valley, CA-based SPO Partners, a $5 billion hedge fund that’s managed money for almost five decades, is closing. The company which lists the billionaire Bass family among its numerous clients, will return a quarter of its assets next month and most of the rest early next year. SPO said clients had asked to pull about 7% of its assets, or $344 million, by the end of the year. It returned about $3.3 billion to investors over the past six years after investments matured.

The challenges, and the reason for the fund’s shuttering are the same as those faced by so many other value investors: “Today, we are finding it exceedingly difficult to deploy capital with an acceptable margin of safety,” wrote Eli Weinberg, SPO co-managing partner, in a letter to investors seen by Bloomberg.

“Businesses we admire, in well-positioned sectors with attractive growth prospects, are priced to perfection“, and in some cases, thanks to central banks, well beyond.

“SPO’s approach – buying discounted dollars with embedded margins of safety to drive attractive returns – is proving difficult to execute, and our recent returns bear witness to that” Weinberg admitted.

SPO was founded in 1969 when investor John Scully launched San Francisco Partners and was later joined by Bill Patterson and Bill Oberndorf. Patterson died in 2010, while Oberndorf retired in 2012 to invest his family’s money. Weinberg became co-managing partner with Scully, 74, three years ago.

SPO’s closure underscores the difficulties faced by value investors in a time when central planning has flipped the world of investing on its head; other prominent names who have found the current environment impossible to create alpha include John Griffin, who headed Blue Ridge Capital, and closed his fund in 2017 while David Einhorn lost about 35% in the last three years. More recently, Eddie Lampert also foundered after his bet on Sears Holdings Corp. went awry. Meanwhile, growth stocks which have attracted the fascination of a new generation of traders, have rushed ahead of their inexpensive brethren. 

It isn’t just value investors however: as the Goldman Hedge Fund VIP basket reveals, it has been an abysmal year for the most widely held stocks by the hedge fund industry which funds itself in a crisis period, scrambling to find ways to outperform the market.

The recent period of underperformance was a striking reversal for SPO, which since its founding posted an average annual return of 23% across its investments, the fund’s letter said. Worse, its YTD performance wasn’t even that bad: the SPO Partners II fund has gained 1.3% in the first nine months this year.

In the end it wasn’t enough.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2SkDGBr Tyler Durden

Los Angeles Owes Billions in Pension Debts. Now It’s Asking Citizens for Permission to Run a Bank.

L.A. Mayor Eric GarcettiHow inept is the Los Angeles City Council when it comes to economics?

Well, it cartelized L.A.’s commercial and apartment building trash pick-up, completely and deliberately destroying competition in the process. To the surprise of no one but city council, prices skyrocketed and service declined.

The city’s stranglehold on construction keeps housing development far below the community’s needs. Instead of loosening its grip, the government blames the city’s high rents on insufficient rent control. The City Council and Mayor Eric Garcetti are supporters of Proposition 10, a statewide initiative that will expand the ability of cities to further implement more rent controls if passed.

L.A. owes billions in pension obligations, and its payments to its own employees’ retirement funds are consuming more and more of the city’s budget—about a fifth of it at the moment. That number is expected to rise to more than $1 billion a year by the next decade.

Now the city government is asking Los Angeles residents for permission to start its own bank. You have to admire the chutzpah!

On the November ballot is Measure B, which simply asks Los Angeles voters, “Shall the City Charter be amended to allow the City to establish a municipal financial institute or bank?”

The good news is that the ballot measure would not actually launch the bank. The city would have to go through a lengthy process to present a plan to city leaders to vote on actually create the institutions.

But look at the city’s record when it comes to economic issues. Would you trust your money in a bank put together by these people?

Unfortunately, as a Los Angeles resident, I might not have any choice. If the city gets to build the bank, it will almost certainly have to use taxpayers’ dollars (including mine) to create it.

People who support this “public bank” imagine that they’re going to be sticking it to Wall Street and using the money for socially conscious investments that serve “the public.” (And by “the public,” they mean the part of the public that agrees with their priorities and not jerks like me or other Reason writers who like to point out how poorly Los Angeles leaders manage taxpayers’ money.)

In reality, Los Angeles, just like most major cities, directs its financial decisions to benefit the connected and the powerful within its borders. That’s how that trash cartel that I mentioned came into being. The program included all sorts of financial demands on trash haulers that aligned quite well with what local union leaders wanted.

There’s no reason to think a bank operated by the City of Los Angeles would be any different. In fact, as the Los Angeles Times notes, one excellent example of the city’s tendency toward cronyism was the now-deceased L.A. Community Development Bank. This wasn’t a full bank; it was a loan program. Auditors found that it “distorted decisions to favor politically connected borrowers.”

Now seems like a good time to point out that Los Angeles will be hosting the Summer Olympics in 2028, a costly boondoggle of more than $5 billion. The city also wants to spend more on improving its mass transit infrastructure, even though L.A. has stupidly committed to spending hundreds of millions of dollars on bicycle lanes that people are not using. They’re also spending hundreds of millions doing an incompetent job of electrifying the city’s bus fleet (but much more competently cashing in on it). They’re not really “improving mass transit” so much as catering to certain politically connected people’s fantasies about what urban transit should be, actual citizen behavior be damned.

The one potential plus side is that a city-owned bank could be a place for people in the cannabis industry to deposit their money. Even though several states have developed a massive legal marijuana economy, the federal government’s continued ban makes banking a challenge.

But would you want to put your money in a bank where people are decrying Wall Street for investing in things that actually earn a profit and instead call for catering to various special interests? You might, if there’s a chance you could be one of those special interests. No doubt the city would be quite appreciative of those who park their money there to make sure the bank actually works.

The rest of us, as with the city’s pensions and infrastructure boondoggles, would be financially on the hook for whatever disaster plays out with this bank. This particular Angeleno will be voting no.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2z6MbXZ
via IFTTT