Two Dozen Sad Nazis Cost D.C. at Least $2.6 Million

Sunday’s Unite the Right II rally in Washington, D.C., may have been sparsely attended by white nationalists, but it still cost the city at least $2.6 million.

The core Unite the Right group consisted of about two dozen people, although thousands showed up in response, including plenty of anti-fascist (antifa) and Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters. All those counterprotesters made for a chaotic scene outside the White House. Unsurprisingly, there was a huge police presence in Lafayette Square, where the rally was held, and the surrounding area. Cops guarded the white nationalist protesters wherever they went, and the D.C. Metro even set aside a special train car for them.

According to The Washington Post, the Metropolitan Police Department ran up a bill of $2.5 million on staffing and overtime costs for the event. The remainder of the cost was attributed to other city agencies, including Public Works, Fire and Emergency Medical Services, and Homeland Security and Emergency Management.

Unite the Right II was a sequel to last year’s Unite the Right event in Charlottesville, Virginia, where violent clashes broke out and one counterprotester was killed. In an attempt to prevent a repeat of Charlottesville, D.C. authorities pulled out all the stops. Now the city is hoping it won’t have to pay the $2.6 million out of its own pocket. The Post reports:

The city plans to ask the federal government to reimburse those costs. Congress budgeted $13 million this year for a fund to help the District pay for responses to large-scale protests and events, which are common in the nation’s capital but have become more frequent during the Trump administration.

It’s worth noting that $2.6 million is only an early estimate, according to Anu Rangappa, a spokesperson for D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser. Plus that figure doesn’t take into account what other police departments—including Virginia State Police, Fairfax police, and U.S. Park Police—had to spend. It’s likely the actual cost will be higher.

Some people seemed to think the massive response only validated the white nationalists. “I really think we should just ignore them,” counterprotester Glen Hellman told Reason outside the Vienna Metro station on Sunday morning, where Unite the Right rally participants boarded a subway headed into downtown D.C. “We’re validating them, and that is a problem,” he added, describing himself as “torn” over whether to ignore the rally or protest it

The rally’s tiny size did not stop antifa protesters from getting all riled up. Decked out in black with their faces covered, they screamed chants like, “Any time, any place, punch a Nazi in the face.”

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

Japan, US Authorities Investigate Apple Under Anti-Monopoly Act

Japanese and US authorities are investigating allegations that Apple pressured Yahoo Japan to pull back from a game platform which competes with the App store, according to Nikkei.

The move is the latest effort by regulators to address suspected anti-competitive behavior by American tech titans. 

The Fair Trade Commission and the industry ministry began receiving reports from Yahoo last fall about issues surrounding its Game Plus platform. The web-based service, launched in July 2017, lets users play games without needing to download apps. For developers, the service features much looser restrictions surrounding sales, fees and software updates than Apple’s App Store.

Yahoo told multiple business partners that it was forced to cut back because of pressure behind the scenes from Apple. The Japanese company relies on the U.S. tech giant for part of its profits in the form of sales through the App Store. –Nikkei

A total of 52 companies agreed to participate in Yahoo’s platform, including role-playing game maker Square Enix Holdings, while Yahoo would offer the companies value-added data from its more than 60 million monthly active users – “such as search history, ads and payment information” which could help game makers sell merchandise and create new titles. Yahoo sought to expand the platform into non-gaming applications, such as business software. 

Last fall, however, Yahoo abruptly slashed its budget for Game Plus, and has virtually ceased all promotion of the service. Square Enix, meanwhile, pulled a title developed exclusively for the platform, “Antique Carnevale,” from Game Plus. 

In 2017, Japan’s app market reached $13 billion, according to American research firm App Annie. Apple’s app store is a large part of that, and a cash cow for the Silicon Valley behemoth. Yahoo’s model posed a direct threat. 

The FTC has been gathering information on the situation, which it believes may constitute interference in Yahoo’s business prohibited by the Anti-Monopoly Act. But its investigation seems to be getting bogged down. 

In many cases like this, businesses often hesitate to work with authorities, prioritizing their own interests instead. “If the parties involved don’t cooperate, it’s hard to prove” wrongdoing, said an attorney with experience at the FTC. –Nikkei

SoftBank, meanwhile, has stepped in to mediate according to a Nikkei source. As Yahoo’s largest shareholder, the investment powerhouse collects payments made by its cellular subscribers to the App store for Apple while keeping a portion of the revenue as an intermediary. 

Antitrust authorities around the world have taken aim at the “big four” tech titans; Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon – however progress has been slow. 

AAPL shares are still outperforming the broad market for now (helped by filings that showed Buffett continuing to pile in) and holding above the magic trillion dollar market cap level…

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

Kass: Global Potholes Threaten Decade-Long Bull Market

Authored by Doug Kass via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

  • Peak Housing, Peak Autos, a Pivot in Monetary Policy Spell Peak Global GDP and an Economic Slowdown in late 2018 and in 2019

  • Watch the Fixed-Income Markets (and the flattening yield curve) That Are Providing the “Tell” that Slower Growth Lies Ahead

  • The Buzz of Synchronized Global Growth Has Faded

  • What Makes Equities Even More Vulnerable is that the Leading Component of the Markets, ‘FANG,’ Has Become Diminished and Is Now ‘GA’

  • Tops Are Processes, and We May Be in That Process Now

“In one corner, U.S. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin in a truly out-of-character gaudy, shiny white satin robe brandishing a big 3%. Opposite the optimist is the old guard Federal Reserve representing nearly 800 of the country’s PhDs. They’ve donned black as night robes with a difficult-to-make-out 2% on the back. In the case you get out more than we do, you’ve arrived at the battle royal for potential gross domestic product (GDP) growth! Mnuchin contends the U.S. economy is “well on the path” to sustained annual growth of 3% for “several years.” The Fed’s army of economists foresees a much lower speed limit of 1.8%.” Danielle Dimartino Booth, The Daily Feather

While the global markets have generally ignored terrorist attacks, a series of currency crises, trade concerns, an arguably untethered President Trump (who has conflated hastily crafted policy with politics) as well as other adverse political, geopolitical and market-unfriendly “big picture” events over the last several years, it is my view that the growing ambiguity seen in the high-frequency economic data around the world forms the principal risk to equities.

Peak Housing

In case you missed this from last Friday, Redfin (RDFN) , the residential real estate brokerage firm, fell 22%.

On the conference call Redfin CEO Glenn Kelman said this: “For the first time in years, we are getting reports from managers of some markets that homebuyer demand is waning, especially in some of Redfin’s largest markets.” He specifically cited Seattle, Portland and San Jose, but also said “The trend is continuing in July and reports are now coming in from Washington, D.C., Boston, VIrginia and parts of Chicago as well that the homes there are getting harder to sell.”

We know the reasons and it’s been stated in my Diary for weeks:

  • Mortgage applications are turning negative on a year-over-year basis

  • Mortgage rate resets and higher mortgage rates are a headwind to new home sales and refinancings (at an 18-year low)

As reported by my pal Peter Boockvar, the U.S. housing market outlook is moderating:

With mortgage rates at a 7 year high and the average price of a home at a record high, mortgage applications to buy a home fell 2% w/o/w and down for the 4th straight week. It is now down by 1.6% y/o/y and the index is at the lowest level since mid-February. Refi’s fell by 4.5% w/o/w and 35% y/o/y. This index stands at the weakest level since December 2000. This follows new home sales, existing home sales, and housing starts reflecting a plateauing in the pace of transactions.

PURCHASE APPLICATIONS

From my perch, a combination of sky-high home prices (which in many areas of the country are back above mid-2000s cyclical highs) and rising mortgage rates are squeezing home affordability, and a Peak Housing moment is upon us.

In the recently reported robust second-quarter GDP print of 4.1%, residential construction was the only category that turned negative. That follows a contraction also seen in the year’s first quarter.

Peak Autos

“(Auto) sales in the last month will underscore investor fears that auto sales have peaked and that, without ever-higher incentives to keep consumers interested, demand will continue to soften.” –Bloomberg

Ward’s Automotive reported a 16.7 million U.S. SAAR (seasonally adjusted annual rate) of sales for the month of July; that is the weakest July sales month in four years:

Source: Zero Hedge

Auto industry sales are likely to get much worse in the year ahead.

As I mentioned in a recent Bloomberg interview, the recent consumer confidence report was noteworthy for the depressed spending intentions. According to my economist pal David “Rosie” Rosenberg: 

“Plans to buy an automobile (over the last two readings) exhibited the weakest back-to-back showing in over five years.”

“Peak Autos” has been a theme of mine over the last 12 months; General Motors GM is on my Best Ideas List as a short, placed on that list at $43.43 in October 2017.

Remember: Cyclical stocks always look cheap at the top of a cycle.

Despite the hedge fund community’s endorsements by Ed Wachenheim and others, and the business media’s almost universal optimism on these name, it remains my view that GM and Ford F are “value traps.” (Note: Both companies recently guided lower in sales and profits).

Despite stagnating real personal incomes and large household debt loads, the proliferation and the popular extension of subprime auto debt (“a dollar down and off to the races” and the perpetual extension of loan maturities) and large auto price incentives have served to lift car sales over the last few years well above replacement needs. For several reasons, the favorable gap previously seen between auto sales and replacement needs is likely to reverse over the next few years.

Most importantly, with interest rates rising and likely to rise further, it is getting prohibitively expensive for manufacturers to offer incentives and deals tied to loans, so the consumer will be faced with fewer discounts on new cars. Indeed, J.D. Power reports that for the first time in almost five years the auto industry recently has cut back spending on incentives.

What makes things worse is the large number of cars coming off lease and ending up for sale in the used car lots of dealers. The “lease bubble” (below) is providing auto buyers with lower-priced alternatives to the new models.

Here are 10 troublesome charts on auto loans from Zero Hedge. If you are long the auto stocks, read the material closely.

Perhaps the most significant is the record level of average vehicle new and used car loans, at $31,100 and $19,500, respectively. But, with rates rising, so do dollar payments per month — on average, at more than $515 per month on new vehicles, which is stretching affordability for most borrowers. Meanwhile the average loan terms of 69 months for new cars and 64 months for used cars are also likely stretching limits.

Banks and other financial institutions are seeing the risks to the above loans and aggressively are slashing their auto loan origination activity, leaving captive original equipment manufacturer (OEM) finance companies to fill the void.

Look out below, and brace for a sharp fall in auto industry sales over the next year.

A Monetary Pivot

From Rosie this morning:

“All of the monetary aggregates have slowed substantially, and real M1 growth is flagging a 1% stall-speed growth economy once we get passed all the pre-tariff buying activity and fiscal sugar-high that skewed Q2.”

The monetary pivot is not a concession to the U.S.; global central bankers are also reversing course.

Peak GDP

  • A services slowdown may already be occurring as a July economic pivot may be in place

  • Peak auto sales is not a sector outlier

  • Look for consensus estimates of GDP to be revised lowered in the months ahead

Investment and economic wisdom is always 20/20 when viewed in the rear-view mirror.

The recent weak growth in nonfarm payrolls points to the issue of slowing domestic economic growth, already seen in a weakening auto sector.

But, to me, there are other more powerful July signposts that indicate that economic growth is becoming more ambiguous:

  • According to National Association of Credit Management data, which measure both manufacturing and services, July’s GDP proxy slowed by almost 1% to 3% from June’s strong rate of nearly 4%.

  • The July ISM Manufacturing/Services growth proxy has halved to 2%.

  • The July ISM Manufacturing survey for new orders fell to the lowest pace in 14 months.

  • ISM Services, reported on Friday morning, missed big, falling to the lowest level in nearly a year.

  • ISM Services backlogs dropped to a two-year low in July (51.5). We are in a services economy — 80% of the population resides there — and in our evolving economy a services downturn, rather than manufacturing, can presage an economic slowdown.

  • In the Friday jobs report, July services job creation was the slowest month in 2018.

  • July business activity, a dependable indicator, fell by 7.4 points from June; that’s the sharpest drop since late 2008.

  • The spread between business activity and employment has narrowed to 0.4 points; when it turns negative, companies are overstaffed.

Not only do we face Peak GDP, we are seeing Peak Global GDP growth, as witnessed by a two-year low in Citigroup‘s European economic surprise index. It was only seven months ago that synchronized global growth was the buzz.

Bottom Line

While bulls are anticipating acceleration in the rates of U.S. and non-U.S. economic growth and an extension in the expansion in corporate profits, the reality, based on recent high-frequency economic data, is that the global economy is slowing in its trajectory and that growth in corporate profits will tail off shortly.

This is a non-consensus view and forms the basis for my ursine market view.

Tops are processes and it is my continued view that a 2018 high in the S&P 500 Index was made in late January.

What makes equities even more vulnerable is that FANG has become GA. (Note the narrowing markets: Microsoft (MSFT) , Netflix (NFLX) and Amazon (AMZN) have accounted for more than 70% of the rise in the S&P Index year to date).

I remain at my largest net short exposure in quite a long time.

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

Elizabeth Warren Plans To Destroy Capitalism By Pretending To ‘Save’ It

Elizabeth WarrenSen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) thinks she knows what ails capitalism: There aren’t enough people telling the biggest businesses what to do.

Try to contain your surprise that Warren believes the profit motive is ruining capitalism. She wants the largest corporations in the United States to be legally answerable to people other than their shareholders, and she’s introducing a bill to force it.

Warren’s “Accountable Capitalism Act” would require that corporations that earn more than $1 billion in revenue a year (note “revenue,” not “profits”) would need a federal “charter” in order to operate. This charter would obligate these companies to consider all “stakeholders,” not just shareholders, when making decisions. The bill would also require these corporations to permit employees to elect 40 percent of the company’s board of directors; a super majority of 75 percent of directors and shareholders would have to approve political donations. (Gee, I wonder if somebody will propose something similar for unions?) Shareholders would be permitted to sue the company if they felt its actions were driven purely by profit and did not reflect the desires of its many “stakeholders.”

The justification for all this is the common, economically sketchy claim of income inequality; that the rich are getting richer and that wages are stagnating. Warren complains in a Wall Street Journal commentary that shareholders have “extracted” $7 trillion in profits since 1985 that “might otherwise have been reinvested in the workers who helped produce them.”

That number may look huge when presented this way, but it breaks down to $233 billion a year when calculated over 30 years. The United States’ total Gross Domestic Product for 2016 was more than $18 trillion. (For extra fun homework, imagine taking this to its logical socialist conclusion, and calculate how much money each American would get from that $7 trillion profit figure if it were forcibly redistributed annually over that 30-year period.) Furthermore, Warren’s argument assumes that because the money didn’t get “reinvested” back into workers—in the form of, say, increased wages—those workers did not benefit from whatever it was that money did instead—like improvements to the machinery or software they use.

It’s interesting that progressives (and many nominal conservatives) invoke “economic multipliers” when the government spends our tax dollars on subsidies and grants within the private sector. Entire communities, we are told, benefit when tax dollars are given to just a handful of politically connected firms. That money must acquire some special magic when it passes through a legislator’s hands, because private sector profits apparently just get buried in a great big hole.

The truth is that our marketplace looks nothing like it did in 1985, and this is a good thing. Our options and our technologies have expanded dramatically and are increasingly accessible to more and more people. It’s telling that none of that seems to be a consideration in Warren’s proposal. Here’s a reminder about the entire “growing income inequality” nonsense: Our middle class is shrinking because more people are moving up the economic ladder, not down.

Warren explains that she wants to essentially force these companies to use the “benefit corporation” model, which prizes a set of values above just profits. She notes that successful companies like Kickstarter and Patagonia have embraced such a model, and that it’s legal in several states.

So, stay with me here: If these types of business models are so successful in the American market, then why wouldn’t corporations adopt such a model voluntarily? We shouldn’t need a federal bill at all! And what about companies that are reinvesting? Amazon brings in billions in revenue annually, but has operated for most of its lifetime barely making a profit. That it has recently started to increase its profit margin has inspired headlines over how dramatically their profits have increased. But here’s what it actually looks like over time, courtesy of ReCode:

Amazon profits

Amazon made the decision to invest in growth over profits for the long term, and the market has rewarded that decision. Now, it’s getting the profits it passed up for years. Amazon is not legally operating under the public benefit corporation business model, but it certainly did operate for most of its lifespan with priorities other than profit. Yet Warren doesn’t mention Amazon at all in her commentary. Why aren’t they an example of a model corporation?

Warren even complains in her commentary that “companies are setting themselves up to fail” by funneling earnings to shareholders rather than reinvesting them. Assuming this is true, what does this have to do with her? Let them fail. This is why there is a marketplace. Why keep a poorly managed company alive if it’s not creating value and drawing customers?

But Warren isn’t really concerned about businesses failing. She’s worried about the ones that succeed despite operating in ways that she doesn’t like. What she really wants to is put the federal government in a position of evaluating and approving how companies grow. She wants to substitute the decisions of people who run businesses with the prejudices and preferences of people who think like she does. And she wants to use the courts to enforce her ideas of how corporations should be managed.

I brought up Amazon for a reason. Even though Amazon heavily reinvests in its own growth over profits it has constantly been getting crap over its low wages. Under Warren’s bill, employees could essentially use the government to force Amazon to raise its wages. This would have benefited a certain number of employees, but it also would have done so at the expense of the company’s growth. It would be creating fewer jobs. It would be smaller. There are some people who would see this as a good thing, but it could also result in a marketplace where people don’t have the broad access to products and supplies that we have today. And that is not even getting into all the technology investments Amazon is responsible for that are making our lives better in any number of ways and will continue to do so in the future.

Warren says she wants American corporations to be looking out for “American interests.” They are. They’re just not always the same as Warren’s political interests. She doesn’t grasp the difference.

She has an apparently champion for her bill in Matt Yglesias over at Vox. Yglesias has also noted how frequently zoning regulations and NIMBY types keep much-needed urban housing development at bay. So he realizes when too many people have regulatory veto power over market decisions, stagnation is the outcome, and it ends up hurting any number of people. Why would this be any different?

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2vKCi1y
via IFTTT

Trump Picks Record Number of New Judges

President Donald Trump has set a new record. Since entering the White House in January 2016, Trump has had 24 judicial nominees confirmed to the federal appellate bench by the U.S. Senate. That’s the highest number of federal appellate court judges ever confirmed during a president’s first two years in office.

What do these new judges mean for the future of American law? It depends on the judge.

Take Joan Larsen, who was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in November 2017. Among her past writings is a strong defense of executive power, including the use of presidential signing statements by her old boss, President George W. Bush. “If circumstances arose in which the law would prevent him from protecting the nation,” Larsen wrote, summarizing the thrust of one such signing statement, Bush “would choose the nation over the statute.”

In other words, Larsen defended Bush for claiming the unilateral authority to ignore the text of the very statute he had just signed into law. This suggests that Judge Larsen will be inclined to vote in favor of expansive theories of executive power while on the 6th Circuit.

Trump’s appellate court picks also include some explicit critics of libertarian legal thinking. Amy Coney Barrett, for example, who was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in October 2017, has faulted the libertarian legal scholar Randy Barnett for championing a theory of economic liberty that she considers to be unsupported by the text of the Constitution. Furthermore, she has argued in support of the Supreme Court’s current approach in economic regulatory cases, in which the regulation at issue is judged under the highly deferential “rational-basis test.” In Barrett’s view, “deferential judicial review of run-of-the-mill legislation” makes sense because it “is consistent with the reality that the harm inflicted by the Supreme Court’s erroneous interference in the democratic process is harder to remedy than the harm inflicted by an ill-advised statute.”

Along similar lines, Kevin Newsom, who was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in August 2017, has argued that the federal courts have no business protecting economic liberty from state regulation. This view led Newsom to praise the Supreme Court’s 1873 ruling in The Slaughter-House Cases for its “judicial restraint,” its rejection of “the constitutionalization of laissez-faire economic theory,” and its conclusion that “the 14th Amendment did not safeguard [economic liberties] against state interference.”

Trump’s picks are not all bad news for libertarians, however. Don Willett, who was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in December 2017, has characterized Slaughter-House as wrongly decided because the 14th Amendment does indeed contain judicially enforceable protections for “the right to earn a living free from unreasonable government intrusion.” As for the sort of judicial deference praised by Newsom, Barrett, and other like-minded conservatives, Willett countered: “Majorities don’t possess an untrammeled right to trammel.”

For better or worse, these new judges are going to leave a mark on the judicial branch. Keep in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court only decides around 75 cases each term, while the federal appellate courts handle thousands, most of which are of course never reviewed by SCOTUS. For all practical purposes, federal appellate judges often preside over the real court of last resort.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2KW1Pt9
via IFTTT

Investor Sues AT&T For $224 Million For Cryptocurrency Loss

In light of the crypto-crash and ongoing cases of crypto-thefts, it was only a matter of time before a headline-grabbing lawsuit emerged. And sure enough, Reuters reports that entrepreneur and cryptocurrency investor Michael Terpin filed a $224 million lawsuit on Wednesday against AT&T, accusing the telecom giant “of fraud and gross negligence in connection with the theft of digital currency tokens from his personal account.”

In the 69-page complaint filed with the District Court in Los Angeles, Terpin alleged that on January 7, 2018, the tokens were stolen from him through what he alleged was a “digital identity theft” of his cellphone account while AT&T was his service provider.

At the time of the theft, the three million stolen tokens were worth $23.8 million, the complaint said. Terpin is also seeking $200 million in punitive damages. Terpin also claims that AT&T had been previously contacted by law enforcement authorities about such frauds, but did nothing to prevent it.

The lawsuit alleges that the theft of the tokens occurred through what is called a SIM swap fraud.

SIM swapping consists of tricking a provider into transferring a subscriber’s phone number to a SIM card controlled by someone else. Once that person gets the phone number, it can be used to reset the subscriber’s passwords and access online accounts.

Terpin said that after the theft of the digital currency, his cellphone account was transferred to an international criminal gang (it remains to be seen if Russians are implicated).

Terpin, a pioneer in the crypto space, co-founded the first angel group for bitcoin investors, BitAngels, in early 2013, and the first digital currency fund, the BitAngels/Dapps Fund, in March 2014. He is a senior advisor to Alphabit Fund, one of the world’s largest digital currency hedge funds. Which means he is not be having a good year, and probably explains why he waited until Bitcoin hit its 2018 lows before finally deciding to sue.

For its part, AT&T denied everything and told Reuters that “we dispute these allegations and look forward to presenting our case in court.”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2vNi8nA Tyler Durden

New Mexico Judge Cries Islamophobia In Decision To Free Jihadi Compound Suspects

Reactions have ranged from shock to disbelief at a New Mexico judge’s decision to free five suspects operating a heavily armed camp where prosecutors allege 11 malnourished children were being trained for jihad while on the FBI’s radar.

Despite authorities finding the decomposing body of a three-year-old boy who was reportedly killed in a ritual ceremony by his father – the son of a famous Imam, who claimed the seizure-stricken child would resurrect as Jesus and use his psychic powers to help the group target “corrupt institutions and people” with “violent actions,” and despite a letter from one suspect to his brother inviting him to “die as a martyr,” New Mexico judge Sarah Backus on Monday released five alleged Muslim extremists on a $20,000 “signature bond” (meaning they don’t have to pay it) – while effectively admonishing the prosecution for Islamophobia. 

A smiling Siraj Ibn Wahhaj, 40, is released on bail

Backus – who survived a petition to replace her in 2016 with a “Qualified judge,” wrote that the State of New Mexico “apparently expected the court to take the individuals’ faith into account” in determining whether or not the defendants accused of operating a radical Islamic training camp pose a danger to the community, notes the Daily Caller

Judge Sarah Backus

“The defendants are apparently of the Muslim faith,” read the order. “The Court was asked by the State to make a finding of dangerousness and a finding of no conditions of release could ensure the safety of the community. The State apparently expected the court to take the individuals’ faith into account in making such a determination. The Court has never been asked to take any other person’s faith into account in making a determination of dangerousness. The Court is not aware of any law that allows the Court to take a person’s faith into consideration in making a dangerousness determination.”

“The state alleges there was a big plan afoot but the state has not shown to my satisfaction by clear and convincing evidence what in fact that plan was,” Backus said Monday according to CNN. “The state wants me to make a leap and it’s a large leap and that would be to hold people in jail without bond based on — again — troubling facts but I didn’t hear any choate [sic] plan that was being alleged by the state.”

Taos County Sheriff Jerry Hogrefe said that during the initial serving of the search warrant, their tactical team came upon children holding boxes of ammo, and at least one child was armed when he was found. 

While cross-examining of Hogrefe, the suspects’ defense attorneys each took their chance to try and distance the suspects as far from the weapons as possible, and the connotations of violence they imply. One defense attorney suggested it’s “prudent” that children learn how to use firearms safely, which Hogrefe agreed to.

The sheriff also confirmed that Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is investigating the legalities surrounding the occupants’ possession of firearms. 

Another defense attorney pointed out, and Hogrefe confirmed, that the compound’s occupants did not shoot at the tactical team as they raided the compound. He did say, however, that Morton was “struggling” and “resisting” while being arrested by deputies. –KOB.com

In reaction to Judge Backus’s decision, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez said she “strongly disagreed” with the outcome of the hearing, stating “Unfortunately, it highlights how extreme the New Mexico Supreme Court has been in dictating pretrial release for all kinds of dangerous criminals.” 

So despite the dead child found at the heavily armed Islamist compound, where one of the 11 malnourished children told authorities they would be kidnapped or killed if they didn’t commit jihad at the behest of their reincarnated Jesus – Judge Backus could not be compelled to deny bail.

For her decision, Backus says she has received over 200 threats, including death threats, which resulted in the evacuation of a New Mexico courthouse on Tuesday. 

Backus has received more than 200 threats, according to Barry Massey, a spokesman for New Mexico Courts. Callers have threatened physical violence against Backus, including some people who threatened to slit Backus’ throat and smash her head, Massey said. People also lashed out on social media and also threatened court staff, Massey said. –CNN

Baccus has been called an “Islamic terrorist sympathizer” and a “disgusting garbage human,” according to Massey. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2MN3HWY Tyler Durden

Why One Bank Thinks The Fed Has No Choice But To Launch QE4 Next Year

With the current Emerging Market rout growing stronger by the day as the dollar surges, crushing carry trades left and right and sending EM currencies plunging, in the process validating the June warning from RBI governor Urjit Patel who warned the Fed that continued liquidity extraction in the form of balance sheet shrinkage will only make contagion worse, there has been a growing debate just when the Fed will be forced to halt its quantitative tightening.

Yesterday, none other than former NY Fed strategist and current Credit Suisse analyst Zoltan Pozsar, acknowledged by many as the authority on repo market dynamics, shadow liquidity and Fed balance sheet strategy, warned that the U.S. central bank may soon have to make a choice between activating an overnight facility for repurchase agreements or halting its balance-sheet reduction earlier than many market participants expect. And, as Bloomberg reported, Pozsar said that policy makers are unlikely to pursue the option of a new facility until alternatives have been exhausted, meaning a premature end to the taper is the most likely outcome. Meanwhile, both Morgan Stanley and Royal Bank of Canada analysts said last month the balance-sheet runoff could end as early as 2019, while Goldman Sachs strategists in May said they’re assuming an end around April 2020.

“A rethink of the Fed’s operating regime will be necessary,” Pozsar wrote. “We are transitioning from an environment where reserves are excess to an environment where collateral is excess. The Fed’s monetary toolkit has to adapt.”

The dilemma facing the Fed is how to keep the overnight fed funds rate within its target band as it tries to normalize policy. The task has been complicated, as Bloomberg adds, by the Treasury’s need to finance the growing federal budget deficit and a deluge of bill issuance that’s helped push higher a whole swath of short-term funding rates, including the effective fed funds rate and forced the Fed to decouple the IOER from the upper band of its fed funds rate corridor.

But Pozsar believes that reductions in this rate won’t push overnight rates lower and there are “more effective and less disruptive ways of dealing with the glut of bills.”

So what is the alternative? Pozsar argues that bank reserves, while still in the trillions, aren’t overly abundant and thus there isn’t a lot of room for the Fed to shrink its balance sheet. To validate his point, Poszar shows the lack of use of the Fed’s overnight reverse repurchase facility, which “tells us that every penny of reserves is bid and that balance sheet taper from here will cut right into the system’s liquidity bone.”

Which, of course, is problematic: if the US financial system is facing a liquidity shortage when Fed Reserves held at banks is just under $2 trillion…

… then there is very little space for further rate hikes without a “disruptive market event” emerging.

Meanwhile core US inflation running at 2.4%, is now well above the Fed’s target, and with tariffs threatening to push prices even higher, the Fed suddenly finds itself in a very unpleasant situation: how to tighten further without crashing the market.

The only option, as the above considerations suggest, is for the Fed to keep hiking rates in hopes of keeping inflation in check even as it gradually brings its balance sheet shrinkage. But what happens next? Well, according to BMO analyst Ian Lyngen, the Fed may have no choice but to begin expanding its balance sheet some time in the next year.

In a note to clients sent overnight, Lyngen writes that continued balance sheet shrinkage has only negative and little to no positive consequences, to wit:

We typically try not to venture too far into the deep end of the academic policy pool, but we donned our floaties to take a look at a speech the New York Fed’s Simon Potter given earlier this month entitled “Confidence in the Implementation of U.S. Monetary Policy Normalization” which we think is informative about how far the Fed will run down excess reserves in the system. Because the volatility in reserves is drastically higher than it was pre-crisis, and the Fed doesn’t control all the factors, it seems reasonable that they would want to avoid risking the reserve volatility feeding through into overnight rate swings. We struggle to think of any macroeconomic benefit resulting from a world with dramatically higher volatility in overnight interest rates – or even running the risk of entering that world – and can only assume that the Fed would prefer to avoid that outcome as well.

So what is the alternative? Same as Pozsar, Lyngen believes that it wouldn’t be “prudent risk management for the Fed to run a serious risk of hitting a non-linear kink point in the reserves demand curve, so would expect them to cease balance sheet roll-off with a sizable buffer.”

This would “imply a 2019 end-date to the balance sheet run-off program; markedly earlier than market appreciates.” And the punchline: QE4 is now on deck.

In fact, relatively soon afterwards the Fed may need to begin expanding its balance sheet once again to maintain sizable excess reserves in the system.

The implication for markets?

This should be incrementally bullish for Treasuries, and relieve some of the pressure on the market resulting from the recent record setting Treasury issuance. Furthermore, we get the sense we may be reading more about this in coming weeks as this year’s Jackson Hole topic is “Changing Market Structure and Implications for Monetary Policy”.

Of course, it’s not just repo considerations that would be relevant: with Trump facing reelecation in 2020, the one thing the president would want to avoid at all costs is a sharp drop in the stock market. And what better way to avoid that than to bring back the best friend of BTFDers everywhere: QE in general, and daily POMO in particular; expect to see some tweets from Trump on the topic in the coming months if not weeks.

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

New CDC Numbers Show the Drug War Continues to Make Opioids Deadlier

The CDC’s latest estimates of opioid-related fatalities in 2017 show that the war on drugs continues to drive people toward deadlier substances. Based on preliminary estimates, the total number of deaths involving opioids (the blue line below) rose by 8.5 percent last year, from about 45,000 to about 49,000. Yet deaths involving heroin (gray line) and prescription analgesics (yellow) fell by 4 percent and 2 percent, respectively. The increase was due entirely to a 37 percent jump in deaths involving synthetic opioids other than methadone (orange), a category that nowadays consists mainly of illicit fentanyl and fentanyl analogs. That increase follows even bigger jumps of more than 70 percent in 2015 and more than 100 percent in 2016.“The death toll reflects two major factors,” writes New York Times health reporter Margot Sanger-Katz. “A growing number of Americans are using opioids, and those drugs are becoming more deadly. Experts who are closely monitoring the epidemic say the second factor most likely explains the bulk of the increased number of overdoses last year.” That much seems clear, since in recent years opioid-related deaths have been rising much faster than the number of opioid users.

Between 2010 and 2016, for example, the number of heroin deaths increased roughly eight times as fast as the number of heroin users. To put it another way, heroin was eight times deadlier in 2016 than it was in 2010. The proliferation of fentanyl-fortified heroin is the most obvious explanation. The most recent numbers suggest that such mixtures have been eclipsed by “heroin” that consists entirely of fentanyl (which is much more potent than heroin) or its analogs (which are even more potent).

“Unlike heroin, which is derived from poppy plants,” Sanger-Katz notes, “fentanyl can be manufactured in a laboratory, and it is often easier to transport because it is more concentrated.” Not only has the crackdown on pain pills driven opioid users toward black-market substitutes that are more lethal because their potency is unpredictable, but the crackdown on heroin has pushed traffickers toward fentanyl, which is easier to make and smuggle, thereby magnifying the uncertainty that can lead to fatal dosing errors. Fentanyl analogs such as carfentanil, which is something like 5,000 times as potent as heroin, further reduce the amount that must be manufactured and smuggled for a given number of doses.

“Unexpected combinations of those drugs can overwhelm even experienced drug users,” Sanger-Katz writes. “In some places, the type of synthetic drugs mixed into heroin changes often, increasing the risk for users. While the opioid epidemic was originally concentrated in rural, white populations, the death toll is becoming more widespread. The penetration of fentanyl into more heroin markets may explain recent increases in overdose deaths among older, urban black Americans; those who used heroin before the recent changes to the drug supply might be unprepared for the strength of the new mixtures.”

The lethal effects of the government’s anti-opioid efforts were entirely predictable and by now should be obvious to anyone who is paying attention. Which apparently does not include the legislators crafting a response. Congress is “debating a variety of bills to fight the epidemic,” Sanger-Katz notes. “Many of the measures, which have passed the House but have not reached the Senate floor, are focused on reducing medical prescriptions of opioids.”

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2MQX9GO
via IFTTT

Silver Slammed To Lowest Since April 2009

As the dollar surges, precious metals are under notable pressure, but silver is dramatically underperforming gold as its industrial-usage weighs it down to its lowest price since April 2009…

Gold is back at its lowest since Dec 2016…

 

But silver is getting monkeyhammered…

 

Smashing silver to its weakest relative to gold since Feb 2016…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Mnz6Cz Tyler Durden