Author: admin

Authored by Irina Slav via OilPrice.com,

A couple of weeks ago, comments from the UAE’s energy minister spurred the oil price rally higher. What the minister said – or rather, hinted – was that the oil production cut deal that OPEC agreed to at the end of 2016 with Russia could continue beyond its December 2018 deadline. The rise, however, may have been too high for OPEC and Russia’s liking.

In a market that runs on rumor and comments, prices were bound to jump higher after Suhail Al-Mazrouei’s comments and a string of bullish forecasts on oil demand.

 

They are now apparently too high, and OPEC might be considering ending the deal at the June meeting of the so-called Vienna Club that includes Russia and the other countries that agreed to cap their oil production. 

A growing number of commodity analysts are predicting that this is how events will unfold. Citi’s Ed Morse, for example, told Bloomberg recently that OPEC and Russia have reason to “want to talk the price down” because they fear how U.S. shale will respond to Brent above $70. What’s more, Morse noted, U.S. shale is not the only threat for OPEC’s peace of mind: deepwater oil and Canadian oil sands can be just as dangerous at the right price level. 

Then there’s Russia, of course, which, as Morse says, is particularly concerned about high oil prices lifting the ruble — and Russia doesn’t want an expensive ruble, as it would diminish the competitiveness of its exports. As a result, the Russian central bank is currently on a dollar-buying spree to help keep the local currency cheap. 

Morse is part of a growing company that also includes the commodity analysts of Societe Generale and JPMorgan. Deutsche Bank analyst Michael Hsueh said earlier this week that Brent hitting $70 would accelerate the process of devising an exit strategy. 

Commerzbank’s Head of Commodity Research, Eugen Weinberg, is cautious in comparison. He told Oilprice that “at least Saudi Arabia would stay its course. Since they re-emerged as a clear group leader they are likely to support the others to fulfill the deal this year. As to Russia the situation is unclear but at the moment they are likely to stick to OPEC’s strategy.” 

Bank of America’s analyst team seems to share that view. The bank recently forecast that the cartel and its partners are more likely to start phasing out the cuts in the beginning of 2019 and no earlier. What’s more, the phasing out will take the form of small monthly production increases, the lender said, much like the Federal Reserve did with its QE program in the U.S.

Meanwhile, two banks have raised their price targets for oil for this year. BofA said it had revised its supply and demand forecast for the year and now expected a deficit of 430,000 bpd versus an earlier one of 100,000 bpd. As a result, BofA now expects Brent crude to average $64 a barrel and WTI to hover around $60 a barrel. That’s up from $56 and $52 a barrel, respectively. 

Morgan Stanley equity analyst Martijn Rats was even more upbeat, expecting Brent to jump as high as $75 occasionally during the year. He also raised his price target for Brent in the third quarter of this year to $75 a barrel from $63.

Goldman Sachs is playing it safe this time: It hasn’t raised its price targets yet, but has warned that it might happen soon. Though the investment bank’s analysts share the overwhelming opinion that higher prices will inevitably drive an increase in U.S. oil production, they also believe the price response will be delayed, allowing for a further price increase before the decline. 

As usual, there is no unanimity, but several factors seem to point to an early exit. Russia wants it, and has the upper hand over Middle Eastern producers in the deal. The global glut is by most accounts gone, so the goal of the deal has been accomplished. And finally, Aramco’s IPO is scheduled for the second half of the year. It would probably look better to prospective buyers of the 5 percent listing if the company doesn’t shoulder too heavy a burden of cuts, as it has been doing so far to compensate for the laggards. 

It looks like the banks might have to prepare for another price target revision around June. 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2FT6Stj Tyler Durden

As we noted this morning, the one dominant sentiment in the market right now is irrational euphoria, also known as “buying panic”, as demonstrated in the following Bank of America chart, which shows that in the past 4 weeks, a record $58 billion has flown into stocks.

But while it is accepted by virtually everyone that markets are now in the irrational, melt-up, “blow off top” phase, and even the WSJ writes “‘Melt-Up’ Rally Propels Dow Above 26000 as Fear Turns to Greed“, the truth is that nobody knows how long this phase can last. Earlier this month, Jeremy Grantham – who also warned that a market meltup has arrived – calculated that the average time of the final bubble phase of the “great equity bubbles” shown in Exhibit 1 is just under 3.5 years (with the average upcycle of real acceleration just 21 months; in that time they had gains between 58% and 104%.)

 

Needless to say, an estimate of “3.5 years” before the market bubble finally bursts is hardly helpful, especially if there are no other markers of indicators to keep an eye for.

So, to help the anti-bubble crusaders, Bank of America’s Michael Hartnett has come up with not one, but three distinct indicators to keep an eye on, which – when triggered – would suggest that the days of the market bubble are finally numbered.

• First – credit, which as the chart below shows is already rolling over:

As Hartnett explains, “credit is “glue” keeping cross-asset bull market together but flows rolling over and price action looking fatigued.” This to Bank of America is “the clear bear catalyst for us.“

 

* * *

• Second, “the wings of Icarus”: this is the “sundry” category which dumps all possible fat-tail risks together, including the risk of economic overheating.

 

Here the euphoria is obvious: Jan/Feb investor conviction in fresh upside to stocks driven by: 1. low interest rates (implied Fed, ECB, BoJ tightening next 3 years 80bps, 73bps, 10bps), & 2. high corporate earnings (US macro surveys consistent with 5-6% US real GDP growth (Chart 4) & 20% US EPS growth); NAFTA, China trade war, US government shutdowns, Nov Democratic sweep, surge in inflation, oil prices… “noise” to worry about, but needs to translate into higher rates & lower EPS to change bull positioning.

* * *

• Third, and appropriately, “Three Is The Magic Number“

Finallty,for those curious what others on the street believe will finally pop the bubble, BofA’s CIO writes that client marketing feedback suggests the correction will occur only once real GDP forecasts >3%, wage inflation >3%, 10-year Treasury yields >3% & SPX >3000.

 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2DrrLyf Tyler Durden

Authored by Joseph Calhoun via Alhambra Investment Partners,

I find the article laughable. I should point out I am a millennial male though, so I would think that. We invest in bitcoin because we are BROKE, and you cannot earn any significant amount by working. And honestly, this entire market proves what we all suspected. Working is for suckers, it will not get you ahead, and money makes money. I have said on here before I made several times my salary in bitcoin last year, and I have a small group of friends who have all made $200,000+ in this market…for doing NOTHING…..Risks are socialized and gains are privatized, act accordingly. The attraction here is the lack of regulation.  No one is under any illusion that these are risky markets and that you can lose your whole investment, but at least I can get in on the market early. All I remember about the .com bubble is that Mark Cuban unloaded a bunch of companies I have never heard of and became a billionaire. Bubbles create winners and losers. (Emphasis added)

 

From the comments section of the Financial Times article, A bitcoin bubble made in Millenial Heaven 

There is a very serious debate underway at the Fed these days concerning how to conduct monetary policy. You see, the Fed set an inflation target a few years back of 2% and despite their heroic efforts, they just can’t seem to hit it. It’s almost like they don’t know what they are doing, inflation seemingly oblivious to their ministrations. So the latest debate is whether the inflation targeting regime should be replaced with price level targeting. If price level targeting sounds a lot like inflation targeting that’s because it is. But it is inflation targeting with a memory. It says that if your long term goal is 2% and you have a year that comes in at 1%, you should aim for 3% the following year to get back on the preferred track. So, obvious question I suppose but apparently it needs to be asked: how is the Fed going to hit 3% when it can’t hit 2%? 

I don’t know exactly the origin of the epistemological question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin but if ever that phrase applied to a debate it is this one. (Anders Sandberg “calculated” the upper limit as 8.6766×10⁴⁹  angels by the way.) While the Fed is busy debating the merits of adopting a slightly modified inflation targeting system, we are in the midst of our third asset bubble in the last twenty years. It is as if the Fed is trapped in one of its own models unable to see what is plain to anyone with even a smidgen of historical awareness. Bubbles do not develop out of thin air. They are now and have always been monetary phenomena, a clear case of too much money chasing too few assets. Asset bubbles are monetary and denying it by ignoring the prices that are inconvenient doesn’t change that. 

How do I know we are in a bubble? Heck, for that matter how do I know the two previous widely acknowledged bubbles were bubbles? Was the late nineties run up in dot com stocks a bubble? Was the run up in real estate prices in the middle of the last decade a bubble? The economic conditions that prevailed during those two episodes were very different so it is easy to dismiss the idea that they have a common cause. The earlier period featured a strong dollar, rapid productivity growth and falling commodity prices. The second time featured a falling dollar, lousy productivity growth and booming commodities. But both featured what we have all come to realize were pretty obvious asset bubbles in technology stocks and real estate (and some might add commodities). How could monetary policy be the cause if the economic conditions and bubble assets were so much different? But those economic conditions and the two very different bubble assets do point to a common cause and the answer is actually revealed, in some ways, by the current bubble in bitcoin (and other assets).

The Fed’s position on bubbles is that you never know one existed until after it has burst and caused widespread financial and economic damage. And since you can’t know when one is forming, the Fed can’t do anything about them except try to clean up the aftermath. That’s just a little too convenient, a rationalization wrapped in a veneer of efficient markets faith. True, there are no agreed upon parameters that define a “bubble” and the concept is foreign to economists who believe in homo economicus. The rational actor of economists’ models always acts in his own best interest. Economic man is the market and he has the wisdom of crowds, a basic and gross misunderstanding of human behavior in my estimation. I have a career of evidence that says the crowd is usually right except at the most important times when it turns out they can be spectacularly wrong. Economists may not know how to define a bubble but, like Justice Potter Stewart observed about obscenity, I know it when I see it. 

I have no doubt that monetary policy is the source of our serial bubble economy. I also know I can’t prove that with certainty and that there are those who disagree. There are plenty of people who, for whatever reason, are perfectly happy blaming the real estate bubble on the Democrats or Republicans for various misdeeds that allowed Wall Street to fleece Main Street. They are happy to blame, again and not without cause, Wall Street for selling a bunch of worthless securities with dot com in their name. And yet, we see stocks rising today for no other reason than a name change to include the word blockchain. And we see a metaphorical line around the block wanting in on the latest ICO, the right to purchase a token which may or may not entitle the holder to something of value.

If there is a difference between today’s bubbles and the late 90s version it is only in terminology. The likelihood of these bubbles being driven by disparate forces or just the malevolent nature of Wall Street is approaching nil I think. We’ve had plenty of bubbles in history and during each of them existed both Wall Street (or some other marketplace) and political shenanigans. That doesn’t mean the bubbles were caused by them. Indeed, either we are just a gullible lot that keeps getting fleeced by an amoral Wall Street or, as I certainly believe, the causation runs the other way. 

 

 

The appeal of bitcoin tells us quite a lot about the origins of our bubble economy. Bitcoin didn’t just spring from nowhere; it rose from the smoking ruins of the global economy after the great financial crisis of 2008. A message embedded in the genesis block, the first block of bitcoin, says:

The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks

One of bitcoin’s most attractive attributes, the one I hear cited most often, is its finite quantity. There will only ever be 21 million bitcoins and that amount is far in the future. In the meantime, adding to the supply is difficult and expensive. It seems the designer of bitcoin, the ever elusive Satoshi, had some ideas about the origins of the financial crisis and set out to correct them. Bitcoin is designed to act as a hard currency – finite quantity – and a means of payment that bypasses the traditional banking system. Regardless of whether you believe bitcoin can function in the real world, its design specifically addresses what its designer(s) and owners see as the root problems plaguing the global financial system. Bitcoin’s success proves one thing I think beyond a shadow of doubt – people want an honest monetary system, one that can’t be manipulated for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many.

Imagine for a moment an economy with bitcoin as its national currency. The currency is an asset whose available supply grows slowly from year to year until all of it has been mined. It is hard and expensive to mine and so it will take a long time to mine it all. In the meantime the quantity available for transactions grows by a diminishing amount each year as mining of new supply gets more difficult.

If the demand grows faster than the supply its value will rise and the economy will experience deflation. If the supply grows faster than demand the value will fall and the economy will experience inflation. That, if you haven’t figured it out yet, is a pretty good description of a country operating on a gold standard.

Ironic isn’t it, that millenials have used technology to create a monetary system that approximates one that requires no technology at all. Millenials, thinking they have designed something new for the 21st century have actually copied a monetary system from the far past.

Bitcoin is the most obvious bubble today but I don’t think it is the only one.

It is very, very hard to justify the level of the US stock market unless one assumes a very rapid acceleration in US economic growth and earnings. Certainly, the reduction in the corporate tax rate will positively impact some companies and those are the ones we’re hearing from now. But some companies will pay more and that will only be revealed in time as earnings are reported. Even many of the companies that will benefit ultimately will pay a price up front. Apple made headlines yesterday with a vague promise of US investments and jobs but the headline everyone is ignoring was their $38 billion tax bill. The promised investments may or may not happen but the tax bill definitely will be paid and that is real money. I’ve never seen so many Republicans cheer for companies sending billions to the US Treasury. The total tax bill on those foreign earnings, just for the S&P 500, is going to be well in excess of $200 billion. 

There are plenty of other examples of bubbles around the world. The behavior in today’s credit markets – standards reminiscent of the last bubble – will likely look absurd in retrospect. The relative pricing of European bonds – corporate especially but also some sovereigns – make no sense. In what world does Greece pay a lower rate to borrow for two years than the US? How can it possibly make sense for a low investment grade company to be able to issue bonds with a negative yield as happened recently? Is it a rational market that oversubscribes a 100 year bond from Argentina? That would be the same Argentina that has defaulted on its international obligations seven times in its history and twice since the turn of this century (2001 & 2014). I’ve written previously about the unicorn bubble of still private, unprofitable companies like WeWork as well as the silliness of the art market where a “da Vinci” of dubious provenance goes for nearly a half billion dollars.

So, yes I think it is safe to say that we have bubbles right now and they aren’t confined to bitcoin or the borders of the US. Indeed, this bubble may be the worst of the three in that it encompasses a much wider array of assets. The technology bubble was confined primarily to NASDAQ stocks. The real estate bubble was confined primarily to the finance sector (although the bust certainly had a wider impact). This bubble is worldwide and covers assets from across the spectrum. I think the fact that it is widespread points to the common cause too. It isn’t just US monetary policy that is causing this global problem. And while they certainly deserve some of the blame I don’t think it is strictly caused by the world’s other central banks either. The problem is the one that bitcoin attempts, in a very clumsy way, to address. The problem is our global currency system.

I do not come to this conclusion via an elegant economic theory but rather through several decades now of trading markets. I’ve seen how capital flows impact national economies and markets by observing Latin America from my perch here in Miami for nearly 30 years. It wasn’t monetary policy by itself that caused the dot com bubble. It was a strong dollar policy taken too far by the Clinton administration. My Latin American clients in the 90s didn’t care much how their money was invested as long as it was in dollars. A strong dollar attracted capital inflows that further strengthened the dollar attracting more capital until it was so plentiful that it was being thrown at anything with a business plan and a domain name. 

And it wasn’t just Greenspan’s too low for too long policies that blew the real estate and commodity bubble in the ’00s. It was the sotto voce weak dollar policy of the Bush administration that forced capital into real assets in an effort to protect purchasing power. And the weak dollar also powered the emerging market boom as those same Latin American clients took their capital back home to protect it from devaluation, something with which they have a plethora of experience. And all that reversed again sometime after the 2008 crisis, capital again abandoning the emerging world in favor of a US economy seen as the cleanest shirt in a very dirty laundry. And that episode of dollar strength in turn reduced the price of oil nearly to the point of causing a US recession as the shale boom deflated.

And so it is today that we find ourselves with bubbles built in a world of maximum liquidity, minimum volatility and unpredictable changes in currency values. A year ago everyone knew the dollar had to go up and it has done nothing but go down since. Shale companies on the verge of bankruptcy a couple of years ago now thrive with $60 oil. Emerging markets are again the darlings, the favorites of strategists everywhere until the next time the dollar goes on an extended rally, driven by a change in ECB, BOJ, PBOC or Fed policy. Success isn’t driven by hard work and intelligence but is rather a function of currency fluctuations over which a businessman in Rio has no more control than the oil man in West Texas.

Who wants to make long term commitments to actual on the ground investments in an environment where capital can move from Paris to London to Buenos Aries to NYC with the click of a mouse over the course of a trading day?  How does one invest in a world where your investment can be diminished by a change in monetary policy half way around the world? Why work when a little capital and a dash of luck can provide you with a lifetime’s income in a few years – or months maybe in the case of bitcoin?

This floating rate, rotating global bubble economy we’ve built since the early ’70s is one where speculation and luck are rewarded while work is scorned as a sucker’s bet. It is this system, more than anything, that is the source of our inequality issues and political turmoil.

Most people have no problem celebrating someone who has gained success through hard work and intelligence. But when success is seen as purely a function of luck or political connections, it rends the social fabric, politics driven by anger and envy.

I don’t pretend to know what system should replace the current one that is, more than anything, a complete lack of one. But we need to find a solution so we can create an economy, a nation, a world where success is once again available to anyone with the drive to achieve it. The bitcoin mania offers a clue though that I think we should consider.

To paraphrase Churchill, the gold standard is the worst form of monetary system except for all those others that have been tried from time to time. We could do a lot worse….and have.

Maybe the third time is the charm and when this bubble is finally deflated we will come together to create a new monetary system. Or maybe return to an old one.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2rnXuKR Tyler Durden

House GOP members have approached Speaker Paul Ryan about incorporating a vote to make public an explosive new FISA abuse memo as part of government shutdown negotiations. 

The four-page document, circulated to the full House yesterday, is said to detail egregious abuses of surveillance by the FBI, DOJ and Obama administration against the Trump campaign during and after the 2016 US presidential election. 

The facts contained in the Republican majority-authored report is said to be “jaw-dropping and demand full transparency,” according to Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), while the top ranking Democrat on the House Intel Committee, Adam Schiff (D-CA) dismissed the memo as “profoundly misleading” talking points drafted by Republican staffers. 

“Rife with factual inaccuracies and referencing highly classified materials that most Republican Intelligence Committee members were forced to acknowledge they had never read, this is meant only to give Republican House members a distorted view of the FBI,” said Schiff, adding “This may help carry White House water, but it is a deep disservice to our law enforcement professionals.”

The effort to integrate the Memo’s public release with the stopgap government shutdown bill is being led by Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows of North Carolina along with caucus co-founder Jim Jordan of Ohio.

Jordan confirmed that some conservatives had “highlighted” in continuing resolution talks that it was “extremely important” that the memo go public. He said it was not something they were requiring of the Republican leadership in return for votes. “But it was something we definitely talked about — that needs to happen,” Jordan added.

Meadows earlier referred to “subplots” of promises the Freedom Caucus was able to extract from the leadership before he agreed to support the continuing resolution.

“Mr Meadows and Mr. Jordan and many conservatives want to include in this negotiation a requirement that the House make public intelligence documents that highlight the unfair treatment of the president” by the FBI and the Justice Department, Gaetz said. –Bloomberg

 “Part of me wishes that I didn’t read it, because I don’t want to believe that those kinds of things could be happening in this country that I call home and love so much,” said Meadows. 

Several other GOP Congressmembers have weighed in as well. “I have read the memo,” tweeted Rep. Steve King (R-IA), adding “The sickening reality has set in. I no longer hold out hope there is an innocent explanation for the information the public has seen. I have long said it is worse than Watergate. It was #neverTrump & #alwaysHillary. #releasethememo.”

Calls for the memo’s release have dominated social media since its existence was made known, with many suggesting it be leaked in similar fashion to Dianne Feinstein’s publication of transcripts of a closed-door testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by opposition research firm Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson. 

.@SenFeinstein is it possible for you to get a bladder infection long enough to leak 💦 the FISA Memo?
America is asking. #ReleaseTheMemo #MAGA pic.twitter.com/uKwSmvkKSV

— Carrie❤️America🇺🇸 (@carrieksada) January 19, 2018

So leak the memo. What’s all this nonsense. Leak it.

— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) January 19, 2018

Dear conservatives: you cannot fall for this fraud they’re perpetrating on you. They want you to focus on a memo that *only they* (Trump & GOP leaders) have the power to let you see. The only reason you can’t see it is because they’re concealing it. You must realize this, right? https://t.co/QQU16vcfZp

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 19, 2018

Meanwhile…

Please be on lookout for the following individuals buying one-way tickets out of the US:
– Hillary Clinton
– James Comey
– Andrew McCabe
– Peter Strzok
– Bruce Ohr
– Barack Obama
– Nellie Ohr
– Susan Rice
– James Clapper
– Lisa Page
– Huma Abedin
🇺🇸 #ReleaseTheMemo #ObamaGate

— thebradfordfile (@thebradfordfile) January 19, 2018

 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2BeQ0cU Tyler Durden

The US oil rig count dropped 5 last week to 747, but continues to track the lagged WTI price…

 

 

This week saw US crude production rebound from weather-related slowdowns, but has notably decoupled from the lagged rig count…

 

Leading to the question, as OilPrice.com’s Irina Slav asks, is the rig count still relevant?

The weekly rig count report that Baker Hughes releases is probably on everyone’s not-to-miss schedule. However, its days as one of the most reliable U.S. oil industry growth metrics seem to be numbered: the shale industry has advanced beyond rigs.

Just a few years ago, the number of rigs was conclusively indicative of oil production growth: more rigs equaled more oil. But over the past couple of years, forced by low prices, drillers have sought and found other ways to increase production without adding more rigs. That’s why in recent months production figures and Baker Hughes rig counts have sometimes been in conflict: rigs falling and production growing, or rigs flat but production still growing. 

The reason for the confusion is that drillers have learned how to boost production from one single well without adding more rigs. They have learned to make longer laterals—the horizontal part of the well in the shale rock—and they have learned to pump more sand and chemicals into these laterals. 

This has become a problem for analysts: if you can’t trust the rig count report, what should you trust? Fortunately, in the tech era there is no shortage of data. So, analysts are now watching the length of the laterals, the frac sand quantities used per well, and the frac stages per well to gain the insight they need to predict future developments. There is even something called a frac spread count – counting fracking equipment. Basically, analysts are now counting everything around the well that can be counted, including frac crew hiring numbers in the shale plays.

While most of these metrics are indeed useful in painting a picture of the shale industry, one could be tricky: the length of the laterals. A December story by Bloomberg’s David Wethe warned that horizontal wells are becoming too long and retrieving the oil and gas from them is becoming more difficult and less efficient. Wethe compared trying to pull oil and gas from these long laterals to “trying to slurp a thick chocolate shake through a J-shaped straw four miles long.”

To date, the average length of the lateral part of a fracked well is 7,500 feet, Wethe writes in a more recent story. That’s about 50 percent longer than the average lateral length was three years ago. But the pumps that bring the crude and the gas to the surface are still pretty much the same as they were not just three, but ten and twenty years ago. These pumps are now having a problem that is costing drillers. 

This problem is that pumpjacks cannot retrieve as much oil from the superlong laterals, which means that lateral length is not a reliable metric of production. So, how reliable are the other metrics? Well, given that frac sand use has been growing consistently and that the link between the amount of proppants used and the amount of oil and gas produced is a straightforward one, the answer for frac sand would be: “pretty reliable.” 

Counting frac crews and equipment could also be relatively reliable, especially when taken together. All in all, however, it seems that the U.S. shale industry has reached a stage where analysts need to watch every metric they can think of, rather than just wait for the Friday report from Baker Hughes and the EIA’s monthly drilled but uncompleted well numbers.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2rm8PuS Tyler Durden

Authored by Derek Hunter via The Daily Caller,

Any business in California that cooperates with federal immigration officials will face prosecution, according to state Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

Addressing rumors of raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, Becerra said at a Thursday press conference,

“It’s important, given these rumors out there, to let people and more specifically employers know that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws.”

The state has two new laws that took effect in 2018, AB 450 and SB 54, that protect illegal aliens, effectively making California a sanctuary state that ignores federal immigration law.

 

SHOCK: California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) threatens employers who cooperate with ICE raids on illegal aliens will be prosecuted pic.twitter.com/Jm0ummMEJM

— Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) January 18, 2018

 

Becerra added,

“AB 450, in particular, deals with the workplace, in particular, and how we go about treating the information about the workplace and employees of the workplace by employers such that we try to protect the privacy interest of people who work there, and that we aren’t sharing information in ways that would violate the rights, the privacy rights of individuals. and the ability of folks to work free of coercion and free of fear at the workplace.”

“Ignorance of the law is no excuse if you violate it,” Becerra said.

Asked if his office was prepared to prosecute companies that cooperate with ICE, the state attorney general made clear he was.

“If there are violators of California law out there, law enforcement will investigate and prosecuting authorities, could be the local prosecuting authorities or it could be the attorney general’s office, will prosecute those who violate the law.”

Virtue-Signaling at its very best.

Is it any wonder that so many Californians are pushing for a “New California”?

via RSS http://ift.tt/2mSpAbM Tyler Durden