Author: admin

Bankrupt Philadelphia Plunders Its Property-Owners For Cash

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

Like a lot of major cities in the United States, Philadelphia is in pretty rough financial condition.

One of the city’s biggest problems is its woefully underfunded public pension, which has a multi-billion dollar funding gap.

In 2001, Philadelphia’s pension fund was still in decent shape with a funding level of 77%, meaning that it had sufficient assets to meet 77% of its long-term obligations.

By 2017 the funding level had dropped to less than 50%.

Part of this is just blatant mismanagement; while most of the market soared in 2016, for example, Philadelphia’s pension fund lost about $150 million on its investments, roughly 3.17% of its capital.

It’s interesting that, along the way, the city has actually tried to fix the problem. Between 2001 and 2017, the amount of money that the city contributed to the pension fund actually increased by 230%.

Yet despite increasing contributions to the fund, the fund’s solvency level keeps shrinking.

Mayor Jim Kenny summed up the grim situation in his budget address last year:

The City’s annual pension contribution has grown by over 230 percent since fiscal year 2001. . . These increasing pension costs have caused us to cut important public services while the pension fund’s health has grown weaker. In fact, our pension fund has actually dropped from 77 percent funded to less than 50 percent funded during the same time our contributions were so rapidly increasing.

So, desperate for revenue, the local government has been relying on an old tactic to get their hands on every spare penny they can.

The city of Philadelphia owns the local gas company – Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW). It’s essentially a local government monopoly.

And over the last few years, PGW developed an automated system to comb its billing records, find delinquent accounts, and file a lien on those properties.

If you’re not familiar with real estate law, a ‘lien’ is a formally-registered security interest in which your property serves as collateral for a debt.

When you borrow money from the bank to buy a home, for example, the bank registers a lien over your home for the value of the mortgage.

The lien prevents you from selling the home until you satisfy the debt. It also means that if you don’t pay the debt, the lienholder (the bank, or the gas company) can seize the property.

In PGW’s case, the gas company is filing liens over people’s properties due to unpaid gas bills for as little as $300.

There is essentially zero due process here.

It’s not like the gas company has to go in front a jury and prove that there’s an unsatisfied debt.

They just have their automated system file some papers, and, poof, the lien is registered.

So someone could have their home encumbered for a $300 late bill that ended up being an administrative error.

More importantly, it’s curious why the gas company is filing a lien against the property… because it’s entirely possible that the delinquent customer isn’t even the property owner.

Let’s say you’re a landlord and renting out your investment property to a tenant… and the tenant doesn’t pay his gas bill: PGW will put a lien on your property, even though it’s not your bill.

Even worse, you wouldn’t even know about it, because PGW would be sending the late notices to the tenant… not to you.

At that point it turns into a total bureaucratic nightmare.

If you’re lucky enough to even find out about it, you call PGW to try and get the lien removed.

But (according to court documents), PGW tells angry landlords that they have no control over the lien process, and tell people to file a complaint with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

But then the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission tells you that they have no jurisdiction over liens in Philadelphia, and that you should talk to the utility company.

Classic government bureaucracy. You just get bounced around between various departments and nothing ever gets resolved from a problem that you didn’t even create.

Well, a bunch of landlords finally had enough of this nonsense, so they got together and sued the city in federal court.

It seemed like a slam dunk case. Why should property owners be held liable for the actions of their tenants?

If tenants don’t pay for their own gas, the tenants should be held responsible… not the property owners.

Common sense, right?

Wrong. The landlords lost the case.

Two weeks ago the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that the City of Philadelphia was well within its rights to hold property owners responsible… and to file a lien on the property without even notifying the owner to begin with.

This is a pretty strong reminder of how low governments will sink when they become financially desperate.

And to continue learning how to ensure you thrive no matter what happens next in the world, I encourage you to download our free Perfect Plan B Guide.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2v6iGEx Tyler Durden

Pentagon Moves Forward With Space Force, Though Congress Hasn’t Approved It Yet

Congress has yet to approve President Donald Trump’s proposed Space Force, but that hasn’t kept the Defense Department from moving forward as far as it can with the idea.

Defense One reports:

In coming months, Defense Department leaders plan to stand up three of the four components of the new Space Force: a new combatant command for space, a new joint agency to buy satellites for the military, and a new warfighting community that draws space operators from all service branches. These sweeping changes—on par with the past decade’s establishment of cyber forces—are the part the Pentagon can do without lawmakers’ approval.

The 2019 National Defense Authorization Act directed the Pentagon to come up with a plan for how the Space Force would work. Defense One has obtained a 14-page draft of the plan that lawmakers will receive tomorrow. It says the new branch will “protect our economy through deterrence of malicious activities, ensure our space systems meet national security requirements and provide vital capabilities to joint and coalition forces across the spectrum of conflict.”

By the end of 2018, the Pentagon plans to have launched a U.S. Space Command to “oversee space forces from across the military,” Defense One says. Around the beginning of 2019, military officials hope to send to Congress a “legislative proposal for the authorities necessary to fully establish the Space Force,” according to the draft report.

It sounds like the Pentagon shares Trump’s enthusiasm for the Space Force. But it’s not a good idea, for several reasons. According to The Wall Street Journal, which cited a 2016 study from the Government Accountability Office, there are already “60 distinct entities that deal with assets in space.” And the U.S. already has a kind of Space Force: the Air Force Space Command, which employs more than 36,000 people. Is there really a need to make the Space Command larger, or to add to the alphabet soup of space agencies?

Furthermore, as I explained earlier this month:

The U.N. Outer Space Treaty puts some limits on the militarization of space: It bans the use of weapons of mass destruction outside the Earth’s atmosphere, and it prohibits the installation of military bases on asteroids or the moon. But as the University of Kent’s Gbenga Oduntan writes, the treaty does not preclude member countries from deploying other kinds of weapons in space. If the Space Force triggers an extraterrestrial arms race, we could see “a total disruption of the agreed law that outer space is the common heritage of all humankind.”

If the Pentagon is rushing forward with the idea, it’ll fall to Congress to apply the brakes and think harder about the negative ramifications.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2LWF11j
via IFTTT

John Kelly Agrees To Remain As Chief Of Staff Until 2020 At Trump’s Request

The end is near for those oh so frequent “will he, won’t he quit” rumors regarding White House chief of staff John Kelly.

Kelly told staff on Monday that President Trump had asked him to remain in his post through the 2020 election, a request that comes as tensions between the two men have eased in recent months, and that Kelly had agreed to the president’s request, the WSJ reported.

Kelly, who on Monday marked his one-year anniversary as chief of staff when he replaced Steve Bannon, has frequently been expected to leave the White House some time this summer. Ahead of the imminent departure, Trump has in recent months consulted with advisers about whom he should tap as his next chief of staff, with possible successors named as Nick Ayers, who serves as chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, and Mick Mulvaney, who heads the Office of Management and Budget and the CFPB.

As the WSJ adds, Kelly had told colleagues in recent months that he didn’t intend to stay in the role beyond his one-year mark, a position which Trump did not seem to mind. Which is why it is not clear what prompted Trump to have a change of heart, and request that Kelly remain until 2020.

The president has offered conflicting views in recent months on how long he sees Mr. Kelly staying on the job. After The Wall Street Journal reported last month that Mr. Trump was consulting with advisers on successors to Mr. Kelly, a White House spokeswoman called the report “fake news” and said Mr. Kelly said “this was news to him.”

Trump, asked later that same day whether Mr. Kelly was leaving the White House, replied: “That I don’t know.”

Amusingly, the WSJ notes that if Kelly stays in his post through 2020, he would be among the longest-serving White House chiefs of staff in U.S. history, which would be quite a U-turn for a president who infamously fired dozens of advisors and staffers in his first year. The longest serving chief of staff in U.S. history is John Steelman, who spent six years in the post under President Harry Truman.

That said, with Trump things are always “fluid” and the arrangement could change: “a White House official cautioned that while the plan is for Mr. Kelly to remain in his post through 2020, unforeseen circumstances could cause the plan to change.”

Kelly’s departure appeared near certain earlier this year, when Trump privately criticized his chief of staff for the handling of accusations of domestic assault against former staff secretary Rob Porter, who resigned in February after graphic photos emerged of the alleged abuse.

Kelly had initially defended Mr. Porter, vouching for his integrity publicly and privately. In his own public comments on the matter, Mr. Trump emphasized Mr. Porter’s denial of abuse without addressing his staff’s handling of the matter.

Trump on Monday tweeted a photo of himself with Mr. Kelly and wrote: “Congratulations to General John Kelly. Today we celebrate his first full year as @WhiteHouse Chief of Staff!”

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

Portland’s Clean Energy Tax Is Direct Democracy at Its Worst

Voters in Portland, Oregon, will soon decide whether they want to raise the cost of retail purchases to pay for ill-defined clean energy grants and job training programs.

On Monday OregonLive reported that proponents of the Clean Energy Community Benefits Initiative (otherwise known as PDX 04) had gathered enough signatures to be put on the city’s November ballot. If passed, the measure—backed by a coalition of minority rights and environmentalist groups including the local chapters of the NAACP, Sierra Club, Asian Pacific American Network, and Audubon Society—would impose a 1 percent tax on gross sales revenue of larger retailers.

This tax is estimated by proponents to pull in $30 million a year, which would then be spent on grants to minority rights and environmental groups to pay for clean energy programs, energy efficiency projects, urban farming initiatives, and job training for low-income and minority Portlanders and the “chronically unemployed.”

A new committee, comprised in part of minority rights and environmental activists, would make recommendations on how these grants would be allocated. The mayor and city council would be encouraged, but not strictly required to accept the committee’s recommendations.

Despite what might seem like some pretty parochial self-interest at play, backers of PDX 04 insist that taxing large retailers to fund groups very much like their own is necessary if Portland is to meet its ambitious environmental goals of using 100 percent renewable energy by 2035.

“To meet the city’s Climate Action Plan,” reads the initiative’s text, “there is an urgent need to fund and accelerate greenhouse gas reductions and energy efficiencies.” That such funding should come from the city’s large retailers is only fair, it continues, given how these businesses both “encourage the consumption of heavily packaged and non-recyclable products” and have “have an inherent responsibility and financial capacity” to support the city’s climate goals.

Despite the fingering of retailers as responsible for climate change, the PDX 04 initiative gives them remarkably little incentive to clean their act up. Its chosen method of soaking retailers—a gross receipts tax—leaves companies with the same tax burden regardless of whether they’re selling plastic-wrapped coal or solar panels.

Nor do the targets of the proposal match up with its own stated environmental goals. Carbon-spewing utility companies would be exempt from the tax. Carbon-lite internet service providers and banks would not.

Indeed, the bluntness of gross receipts taxes is one of the reasons why such taxes have fallen out of favor with policymakers. Given that there is little businesses can do to avoid the tax, they will have to absorb it either by raising prices, or by passing the costs back in the form of reduced wages, hours, and benefits to employees, or via lower prices paid to vendors and suppliers.

Business groups are stressing this point in their opposition to the PDX 04 initiative.

“This new tax on sales is just going to be passed on to families in the form of higher prices on everyday essential items. We all agree that more must be done to address climate change, but making it harder to live here isn’t the right answer,” said a spokesperson for Keep Portland Affordable, a business-backed group set up to fight the tax initiative.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler has also come out against the tax proposal.

Whether these arguments will prove persuasive in November remains to be seen. Taxing big corporations to pay for a grab bag of environmental goodies is pretty dynamite politicking in a famously progressive city like Portland. PDX 04 also makes a number of politically expedient carve outs for medical service providers and most grocery store items that’ll make it an easier sell to voters worried about the regressive impacts on lower income residents.

One might hope that the transparent cash grab at play in PDX 04—whereby money from retailers and consumers is siphoned off to pay for the pet projects of the initiative’s backers—would be enough to turn off most voters.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2Kj2Pau
via IFTTT

Facebook Has Discovered “Ongoing Political Influence Campaign” Just In Time For Midterms

Facebook will announce on Tuesday afternoon that it has identified a “coordinated political influence campaign,” comprised of “dozens of inauthentic accounts and pages that are believed to be engaging in political activity ahead of November’s miderm elections,” reports the New York Times, citing three people briefed on the matter. 

While they aren’t sure it’s those pesky Russians, company officials told lawmakers that it might be. 

In a series of briefings on Capitol Hill this week, the company told lawmakers that it detected the influence campaign as part of its investigations into election interference. It has been unable to tie the accounts to Russia, whose Internet Research Agency was at the center of an indictment earlier this year for interfering in the 2016 election, but company officials told Capitol Hill that Russia was possibly involved, according to two of the officials. –New York Times

Facebook says it discovered “coordinated activity” promoting politically charged issues such as “Abolish ICE,” championed by Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as well as an upcoming sequel to last year’s “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, VA. The Times notes that the efforts echo those in 2016 to stoke racial tensions surrounding the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. 

And according to Bloomberg, the social media giant removed a whopping 32 such accounts today, saving countless Americans from having their thoughts manipulated. 

In February, following the indictment of 13 Russian nationals and two businesses for election meddling (one of which has shown up in US court to fight), Facebook VP of advertising, Rob Goldman pointed out that the majority of advertising purchased by Russians on Facebook occurred after the election – and was designed to “sow discord and divide Americans”, something which Americans have been quite adept at doing on their own ever since the Fed decided to unleash a record class, wealth, income divide by keeping capital markets artificially afloat at any cost.

And while Goldman was smited by his tech overlords and forced to retract his claim that swaying the election was *not* the main goal, President Trump happily used it to his advantage.

Facebook’s army of arbiters

In order to combat the “discord” allegedly sewn by Russians, most of which happened after the election, Facebook has hired a fleet of people to review content, added to its security team, hired counterterrorism experts and recruited workers with government security clearances. 

They’re also employing artificial intelligence to detect automated accounts and suspicious election-related activity. 

It has also tried to make it harder for Russian-style influence campaigns to use covert Facebook ads to sway public opinion, by requiring political advertisers in the United States to register with a domestic mailing address and by making all political ads visible in a public database. –New York Times

Facebook’s head of cybersecurity policy, Nathanial Gleicher, would not say whether they have found evidence of new Russian information campaigns. 

“We know that Russians and other bad actors are going to continue to try to abuse our platform — before the midterms, probably during the midterms, after the midterms, and around other events and elections,” Mr. Gleicher said. “We are continually looking for that type of activity, and as and when we find things, which we think is inevitable, we’ll notify law enforcement, and where we can, the public.”

“We think it’s inevitable that we will find evidence, and we will find other actors, whether these are from Russia, from other countries, or domestic actors that are looking to continue to try and abuse the platform,” Mr. Gleicher said.

In short, Facebook and other social media platforms are under tremendous pressure from lawmakers and their political comrades to ensure that evil foreign actors don’t influence hearts and minds in the upcoming midterms. Of course, it would be a shame if the free flow of genuine opinions was somehow destroyed in the process. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2mWFr9s Tyler Durden

Trump Comes Out Against 3-D Printed Guns

President Trump appeared to voice his opposition to 3-D printed guns being sold to the public, in a tweet this morning, saying that he had already spoken to the National Rifle Association about the issue and that it did not appear to make much sense…

As The Daily Caller notes, the issue of 3-D printed guns has reached a fever pitch in recent days after a Texas non-profit organization won the right to post the plans for such weapons online for public consumption.

The downloadable plans range from rudimentary handguns to rifles similar to an AR-15. The plans can be used by anyone with a 3D printer and minimal outside materials to create an untraceable firearm.


A selection of 3-D printed gun files already available on the Defense Distributed website, Defcad.com.

Several states have intervened to ask the Trump administration to federally ban such firearms.

“These downloadable guns are unregistered and very difficult to detect, even with metal detectors, and will be available to anyone regardless of age, mental health or criminal history. If the Trump Administration won’t keep us safe, we will,” said Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D), who represents one of the eight states suing the Trump administration.

The fight over 3-D printed guns stems back to 2013 when the U.S. Department of State banned the Texas non-profit from posting plans for such firearms online because it was in violation of export control trade practices.

The non-profit argued that the ban stifled its freedom of speech and eventually forced the government to back down. The plans will be posted online Aug. 1.

As The Hill reports, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer chimed in, saying that Trump’s tweet was a display of “incompetence and dangerous governing.”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2M2RkWt Tyler Durden

Colorado Police Mistakenly Kill an Armed Man Defending His Home

|||Eduardo Ripoll/agefotostock/NewscomAn investigation is underway after Colorado police mistakenly shot an armed resident in confusion. The unidentified man was killed by the Aurora Police Department (APD) after he shot an intruder in his home.

According to a statement released on behalf of Police Chief Nick Metz, emergency services received “multiple calls” about a disturbance on Monday. Among the callers was a female alleging that a man was breaking into her home. APD responded to the calls.

Metz described a “very chaotic and violent scene” when officers arrived. Officers heard gunshots inside of the home. Metz said that his officers encountered an “armed adult male,” though it is not immediately clear if he was inside or outside of the residency. An unidentified officer shot the armed adult male. Officers found another adult male dead on the bathroom floor and an injured juvenile.

The armed adult male shot by police was taken to the hospital and died from his injuries.

An investigation later found that the male in the bathroom was the suspected intruder. Police also discovered that they mistakenly shot the resident of the home, who used his firearm to kill the suspected intruder.

The Denver Post reports that Colorado law grants immunity to homeowners exercising their right to armed defense. As explained, under the 1985 Homeowners Protection Act, a shooting is justifiable if a homeowner believes that an intruder has intention to cause bodily harm or death against the homeowner or someone else inside of the residence. The protection does not apply if the shooting occurred in a yard or on a porch.

APD confirmed that the juvenile inside of the home sustained non-life-threatening injuries from the deceased intruder.

“This is a very heartbreaking and tragic situation for everyone involved. We are providing assistance through our victim advocates to help the family of the deceased resident through this very difficult time,” Metz said.

He explained that the officer has since been placed on paid “administrative reassignment” in accordance with APD policy. The department has promised to cooperate with the Aurora Police Major Crimes Unit and the Denver Police Department, the two entities conducting the investigation.

Names will be released after the family of the deceased has been notified. Neighbors told reporters that the man killed by police was a long-time resident of the neighborhood, a grandfather, and a retiree. One neighbor, Brad Maestas, described him as a “family man” and a “grandpa that was protecting his family.”

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2LGSU4f
via IFTTT

The Nation Apologies for Publishing an ‘Ableist’ Poem

WeeThe Nation‘s poetry editors have added a lengthy apology to a short poem published in its pages a week ago. The poem “contains disparaging and ableist language that has given offense and caused harm to members of several communities,” for which they are very, very sorry.

Indeed, the apology is longer than the poem itself.

The poem’s author, Anders Carlson-Wee, has apologized as well. “I am listening closely and I am reflecting deeply,” he noted on Twitter. “The fact that I did not foresee this reading and the harm it could cause is humbling and eye-opening.” The first reply to this post is from a Twitter user complaining that the use of the term “eye-opening” in the apology is ableist as well. This user does not appear to be a parody account, but the fact that it’s quite difficult to tell is sort of the point.

As for the poem itself, please give it a read. I wouldn’t call it my favorite poem ever, but it’s clearly not trying to communicate anything nefarious. I read it as calling out the hypocrisy of people who claim to care about the poor, the homeless, and the disabled, but don’t do anything meaningful to help them. (“It’s about who they believe they is / you hardly even there.”) You know, like people who relentlessly try to enforce politically correct language on social media, as if stopping people from using body metaphors will have an actual, tangible positive impact on the disabled community.

Others criticized Carlson-Wee for seemingly writing in the voice of a homeless person (possibly a person of color), even though he is an affluent white person. But this is the writer’s task: to center oneself in the minds of other people, and make their desires and struggles seem genuine rather than imagined. I don’t think anyone would have been able to tell that the author was white without looking at the name. This should be a credit to Carlson-Wee’s work, not a thoughtcrime.

The editors’ apology notes that the poem has not just “given offense,” but also “caused harm to members of several communities.” This seems in-keeping with the view, increasingly popular in universities, that words do not just have the power to inspire violence, but are themselves equal to violence. No wonder so many observers of campus culture worry that formal policies intended to prevent emotional harm are making young people less resilient.

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

“Hidden Debt Loophole Could be Widespread”: Fitch

Authored by Wolf Richter via WolfStreet.com,

Use of this financial instrument has ballooned. No one knows to what extent because there’s no disclosure. But it was a “key contributor” to the sudden collapse of outsourcing giant Carillion.

As regulators and stiffed creditors were poking through the debris of collapsed outsourcing giant Carillion – once employing 43,000 people worldwide – they found that the UK company had hidden much of its debts. And Fitch Ratings warned that this “technique” – a “debt loophole” – may be “widespread” in the US and Europe.

Carillion provided services to governments. It didn’t manufacture anything, didn’t have a lot of assets, and didn’t have a lot of debt – at least not disclosed on its books. Net debt on its balance sheet amounted to £219 million. But Fitch estimates that it had an additional financial debt of £400 million to £500 million.

This debt was hidden by a “technique commonly referred to as reverse factoring,” Fitch says. And it was “a key contributor to Carillion’s liquidation.”

This “reverse factoring” – part of supply chain financing – allowed Carillion to hide a debt of £400 million to £500 million in “other payables,” such as money owed suppliers. There were indications that something was off: Over a four-year period, “other payables” had nearly tripled, from £263 million to £761 million. According to Fitch, “This appears largely to have been the result of a reverse factoring program.”

But this was financial debt owed to banks – not trade accounts payable.

Any disclosure?

Almost none. Fitch explained in the report (press release here):

There was one passing reference to the company’s early payment program in the non-financial section of the accounts, but nothing in the audited financial statements and no numbers.

The only clue to the scale of the supply chain financing was the growth in “other payables,” the implications of which do not appear to have been appreciated by many in Carillion’s broader stakeholder group.

Carillion was no exception. Disclosure rules are “complex” and “highly dependent on specific circumstances, auditor, and jurisdiction,” Fitch says:

Promotional literature in the field regularly cites as a benefit the fact that supply chain financing – and reverse factoring in particular – can be shown as accounts payable rather than debt. Companies borrow cash while avoiding its inclusion in financial covenants or debt reported on the balance sheet.

A review of a number of companies with supply chain financing program shows precious little by way of disclosure.

Reverse factoring programs are aggressively marketed by banks and specialized financial institutions in the supply chain finance industry. And this lack of disclosure requirements is one of the key selling points.

How much reverse factoring is going on?

“We believe the magnitude of this unreported debt-like financing could be considerable in individual cases and may have negative credit implications,” Fitch says. But due to lacking disclosures, no one knows the magnitude.

Greensil, which provides supply-chain financing and claims to have financed $30 billion to date, estimates in its promotional literature that about $3.5 trillion globally is tied up in working capital. But not all of it can be leveraged in supply-chain finance.

Fitch tried to estimate if “reverse factoring” is increasing. It looked at a sample of 337 companies and found that the metric “payable days” – the average number of days companies were stringing out their suppliers – had grown by 17% since 2014, to 96 days in 2017.  Fitch believes that in 2017 alone, payables days rose 6%.

“Assuming all of this increase was reverse factoring, then this could be as much as $327 billion additional reverse factoring since 2014” among the 337 companies, Fitch said. That’s an average increase of about $1 billion per company in the sample.

But not all of this growth is reverse factoring. Other dynamics play a role too, including the “ongoing cash management efforts by the companies in the sample, with supplier terms being squeezed.”  But due to lacking disclosures, it’s “impossible for a third party to tell one way or another.”

How does reverse factoring work?

Supply chain finance in general describes working capital management techniques with which a company extracts financial benefits from its supply chain. The “most publicized” of these techniques is reverse factoring. Fitch explains how it works and the reasons for doing it:

Company A, the buyer, purchases goods in the normal course of business from company B [often not rated or junk rated]. Company A, typically a large well-rated corporate, will arrange a reverse factoring program with a financial institution.

Once it has been on-boarded into the program and negotiated terms with the bank, B will be able to submit the invoices it has issued to A, once A has validated (or confirmed) them, to the bank for accelerated payment. It could get paid after 15 days rather than its usual 60 days.

The supplier benefits because it gets quicker access to cash but at the lower borrowing cost associated with the stronger credit rating of its customer.

The buyer benefits because reverse factoring allows it to borrow without disclosing it as debt:

As part of this process, the bank will also often allow company A longer to pay the invoice than B would have accepted without the supply chain finance arrangement. So rather than paying in 60 days it may pay only after 120 days. This is effectively using a bank to extend payment terms….

Thus, the buyer is borrowing 120 days of its accounts payable from the bank, while the bank pays the supplier. None of this debt that the buyer owes the bank shows up as “debt” on the buyer’s balance sheet but remains in “accounts payable” or “other payables.” The money borrowed from the bank becomes cash inflow on the cash-flow statement. And the highly touted figure “cash” increases. Hallelujah.

How does Fitch treat reverse factoring — if it’s disclosed?

If a company provides “sufficient and reliably consistent disclosure,” Fitch adds the dollar amount resulting from an extension in “payable days” – for example from 60 days to 180 days – to the amount of the debt.

If the buyer has $100 million in unpaid invoices after an extension of payables days from 60 days to 180 days, Fitch assumes that 120 days of that outstanding invoice amount, or 66.7%, is due to a reverse factoring program. It would therefore treat $66.7 million of that $100 million as financial debt, rather than trade payables, and adjust its credit metrics accordingly.

But that increase in financial debt might put the buyer in violation of its debt covenants or impact negatively other credit metrics that would increase its costs of borrowing. Hence, this “sufficient and reliably consistent disclosure” is precisely what few companies do. And this financial debt remains hidden in trade accounts payable.

Creditors and shareholders are at risk without knowing it – see Carillion

The fact that this financial debt is not disclosed, “combined with the potentially serious consequences where companies’ use of factoring programs goes unnoticed, is cause for concern,” Fitch says tersely.

“As seen in the case of Carillion, reverse factoring could have a potentially large impact on vulnerability to default for specific issuers, making awareness critical.”

Cash obtained via reverse factoring is particularly fragile because when this company gets into financial distress, the bank simple cancels the reverse factoring program, and the company will have to come up with funding to pay down its accounts payable to the terms agreed to with suppliers.

To use our example above, the buyer would have to come up with $66.7 million to pay down its payables from 180 days to 60 days – and this would happen as the buyer is already under financial stress, just when it can no longer borrow money at survivable rates. This is how reverse factoring increases the likelihood of a sudden default and Carillion-style collapse.

“Sectors that are large users of reverse factoring include consumer packaged goods, telecommunications, chemicals, retail, and aerospace,” Fitch says.

GM, Fiat Chrysler, and Ford all got ugly in unison, in one day, something we haven’t seen since the Financial Crisis. Read…  Carmageddon in Detroit  

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

Nomura Has A Very Bad Feeling About Tomorrow’s Market: Here’s Why

Back in the heyday of the Fed’s QE, it had become a trader mantra: buy stocks on POMO days, or when the Fed was actively purchasing bonds in the open market, and generate risk-free, outsized returns. It got to the point where even Goldman advised its clients to frontrun the Fed, as we documented back in October 2010, when  Goldman’s trading desk sent out the following note.

On the interplay between the FED and STOCKS: Since Sept 1 – when QE was becoming a mainstream focus – if you only owned S&P on days when the Fed conducted Open Market Operations (in US Treasuries), your cumulative return is over 11%.  in addition, 6 of the 7 times when S&P rallied 1% or more, OMO was conducted that day. this compares to a YTD return of 5.8%.  the point: you would have outperformed the market 2x by being long on just the 16 days when – this is the important part – you knew in advance that OMO was to be conducted. The market’s performance on the 19 non-OMO days: +70bps.

Many years later, POMO is long forgotten (at least until Trump forces the Fed to relaunch POMO after the next market crash) and instead of Quantiative Easing we have Quantiative Tightening. But unlike back then, few traders care about days when the Fed’s balance sheet shrinks, or anti-POMO.

That may soon change.

As Nomura’s rates strategist George Goncalves writes, “for years macro-mavens the world over would track the size of the Fed’s balance sheet vs equities (notably the SP500 index) to draw the comparison that QE policy was driving stock markets upwards.”

Obviously there was more to it than just “the Fed is driving money into risk assets” but the added liquidity of buying MBS/USTs helped cure other assets from the financial crisis overhang through the “portfolio rebalancing effect.”

Fast forward to the present, in the QT world the reduction of the Fed’s balance sheet has not resulted in as clean of an analogy or connection to risk assets, or anti-POMO. Perhaps because no clear correlation has emerged yet: after all, the Fed’s portfolio has already shrunk by roughly $200bn, while the SP500 market capitalization is up over $2trn.

To be sure, it’s quite possible that the Fed’s QT has been offset by other major CBs that are still easing. That plus financial engineering (stock buybacks) have eased the drag of QT.

However, with the Fed’s balance sheet unwind accelerating, it may be just a matter of time before the Fed’s liquidity absorption becomes the dominante force in the market. As Goncalves writes, “QT-caps max out in 4Q18 so the jury is still out.”

So to give a sense of what the underlying market micro-structure dynamics may be, the Nomura rates strategist reviews the recent QT-unwinds as well as market reactions that have occurred on unwind days. Most of the recent weekly declines in the size of Fed’s SOMA holdings have been relatively small. However, as notes that “the largest drop to date happened around the February market correction. October could see another sizeable drop in SOMA, which could point to market volatility around this period.“

First, the basics:

The Fed’s QT-caps – in regards to its reinvestments of MBS and USTs – are set at $16bn and $24bn, respectively in the third quarter. Starting October, the MBS and UST caps move to $20bn and $30bn, respectively and peak at a total $50 billion going forward. We are in the peak period of sizeable reductions. When viewed from afar, the Fed’s balance sheet looks as if it’s grinding lower in a linear downward fashion. However, up close we can see that the reductions vary by product and timing of the month, or as Goncalves notes, “we can describe the Fed’s balance sheet as being shrunk in “chunks” at a time.“

In the chart below, we can see the weekly changes of the Fed’s balance sheet (B/S) vs equity returns. Although the QT-caps have increased over time, the actual biggest weekly B/S decline (over $20bn) took place on 31 Jan 2018, one week before the major equity declines of the year and the historic spike in vol.

What was unique about February was that both UST and MBS holdings (Fig 2) declined during the same QT-unwind week. And with larger caps ahead, the likelihood that some of the weekly QT-unwinds are super-sized increases too, according to Nomura.

Next, Nomura does some statistical backtesting to see if a pattern emerges:

Figs 1 and 2 demonstrate the visual correlation of equity market returns to QT-unwind weeks; however, the most glaring episode was in late January/early February, which saw both the Fed’s MBS and UST shrink over the last weekly period. In late April there was a large UST-only maturity week (nearly $18bn, where data are reflected as of Wed 2 May); however, it barely moved market valuations, whereas in late June there was another UST-only reduction of $18bn (but in that period stocks declined). There were other factors at work then (market concerns over tariffs, etc) so we would not strictly rely on this sort of analysis for gauging future market movements. That said, in Figs 3, 4 and 6 we highlight that when there is a MBS or MBS/UST QT-unwind week, those periods on average see larger moves, in particular to the downside for broader risk assets.

And while there does appear to be some “signal” when looking at past correlations between Fed unwind and market returns, as a result of the “noisy” changing size of the unwinds, it is difficult to reach a specific conclusion. Still, the inference that the market is extra jittery on days when the Fed yanks tens of billions in liquidity is intuitive and a logical extension of the “POMO effect.”

So how is this information actionable?

Simple: if one knows on what days the Fed will be rolling-off substantial amounts of debt, one can bet on a downward drift in risk assets as a result of the liquidity shrinkage. To facilitate this, Nomura has counted the total number of weekly reinvestment and roll-off periods that have transpired and are still projected to occur ahead, where it counts the number of occurrences based total balance sheet size changes (as seen from the chart, they are still reinvesting sizeable amounts).

The first observation is that the majority of the weekly changes, or anti-POMOs, are sized between positive $5bn to negative $10bn. The second key finding is that there has only been one week of greater than $20bn reduction thus far – just days before the February VIXtermination event that sent the S&P on the verge of a 10% correction. However, looking ahead there are more than 11 occurrences that are even larger.

In other words, on days when the Fed removes sizable amounts of liquidity: $20BN or more, there is a distinct possibility that the market reaction would be similar to what was observed on February 5.

Still, Nomura again hedges, and writes that: 

“given there has only been a handful of key SOMA QT-unwind weeks that have led to market corrections, we cannot definitively state that SOMA swings will always lead to market sways.”

Well, maybe not always, but certainly on days when there is a substantial weekly roll-off, the risks grow significantly.

And, here we get to the punchline, because according to Goncalves, the next large QT-weekly reduction ironically enough is happening smack in the middle of this action-packed week, when on 1 Aug the Fed’s UST holdings will decline by $24bn, the same day that the Fed’s announcement may exacerbate already shrunken liquidity conditions, and add to the market’s fragility.

Then again, maybe nothing happens tomorrow, and stocks will somehow manage to levitate, either on a short squeeze or after Powell surprises to the dovish side. Which is why, Goncalves notes that if markets do come under pressure, it would be easy to dismiss this occurrence. However, things get more exciting later on in the year, especially since as Nomura writes, “our findings show that the more important QT-weeks are when both UST and MBS roll-off. That happens to be in a category 3 week, concluding during the week of 31 Oct.“

If Nomura is correct, and a market “event” occurs then, it would come at a very unpleasant time for Donald Trump: just as the BEA announces Q3 GDP which, by most estimates, will be a sharp drop from the stellar Q2 print, but more importantly, a Fed-orchestrated crash would happen just days before the midterm elections.

And it Trump needed a reason to launch all out war against the Fed – something he has already hinted at on several occasions – the GOP losing control over Congress as a result of what Trump may come to see as a Fed action, will assure that the war Fed between Trump and Powell escalates into a bloody, deadly spectacle the likes of which have never been seen before.

* * *

For reference, here is Fed’s complete QT calendar until the end of the 2019.

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