Trump Is About To Crush Home Prices In Counties That Voted For Hillary: Here’s Why

As discussed last Friday, several notable surprises in the proposed GOP tax bill involved real estate, and would have an explicit – and adverse – impact on not only proprietors’ tax bills, but also on future real estate values if the republican tax bill is passed. And, as the following analysis by Barclays suggests, they may have a secondary purpose: to slam real estate values in counties that by and large voted for Hillary Clinton.

Going back to Friday, the biggest surprise was that mortgage interest would only be deductible on mortgage balances up to $500K for new home purchases, down from the current $1mn threshold. Existing mortgages would be grandfathered, such that borrowers with existing loans would still be allowed to deduct interest on the first $1mn of their mortgage balances. In addition, only the first $10K of local and state property taxes would be allowed to be deducted from income. Finally, married couples seeking a tax exemption on the first $500K of capital gains upon a sale of their primary residence will need to have lived in their home for five of the past eight years, versus two out of the past five years under current rules. This capital gains tax exemption would also be gradually phased out for households that have more than $500K of income a year.

As might be expected, the above provisions caused an uproar in the realtor and homebuilding industries, as Barclays Dennis Lee points out. The National Association of Realtors (NAR) released a statement commenting that “the bill represents a tax increase on middle-class homeowners”, with the NAR President stating that “[t]he nation’s 1.3 million Realtors cannot support a bill that takes homeownership off the table for millions of middle-class families”. Meanwhile, the chairman of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) stated that “[t]he House Republican tax reform plan abandons middle-class taxpayers in favor of high-income Americans and wealthy corporations”. Given the strong resistance from these two powerful housing groups, there may be changes made to these provisions in the final version of the bill.

What is more interesting, however, is a detailed analysis looking at who would be most affected by Trump’s real estate tax changes. Here, an interest pattern emerges, courtesy of Barclays.

According to CoreLogic, the median home price in the US is around $224K while the average property tax paid by homeowners in the country is around $3,300. This suggests that only a minority of homeowners are likely to be affected by the proposed mortgage interest and property tax deduction caps. Indeed, according to preliminary analysis by the NAHB, only about 7mn homes will be affected by the $500K mortgage interest deduction, and since these homeowners will receive the grandfathering benefit, they will not experience any immediate increase in taxes as a result of the mortgage interest deduction cap.

Meanwhile, approximately 3.7mn homeowners pay more than $10K in property taxes according to the NAHB. These homeowners will experience an immediate increase in taxes from the property tax deduction cap; however, to put this number in perspective, the US Census estimates that there are approximately 76mn owner-occupied homes in the country, indicating that fewer than 5% of households may experience a rise in taxes as a result of the property tax cap.

Who is most impacted?

As expected, the homeowners who will be most negatively affected by the proposed caps primarily reside along the coasts, particularly in California. Using estimated median home prices provided by the NAR, Barclays found that of the 20 counties in the country with the highest median home prices, eight were located in California (Figure 3). Perhaps not surprisingly, a majority of voters in all 20 counties voted for Clinton in last year’s presidential election. In fact, Clinton won the vote in the top 45 counties in the country with the highest median home prices. Suddenly the method behind Trump’s madness becomes readily apparent…

And while we now know who will be largely impacted, there is a broader implication: not only will these pro-Clinton counties pay more in taxes, it is there that real estate values will tumbles the most. Hers’ Barclays:

We can also use the above median home prices to estimate the potential increase in taxes from the deduction caps in the first 12 months for would-be homeowners looking to purchase a home in these counties. Using the simplifying assumption that all borrowers purchase their homes at the median home price in each county and take out an 80% LTV, 30y mortgage at a 4% rate, we can come up with estimates for the monthly P&I payment for each of these areas (Figure 4). We can also estimate the average property tax burden in these counties using average state-level property tax rates.

As Dennis Lee calculates, “assuming that all of these homeowners are taxed at a marginal rate of 39.6%, we find that the increase in tax burden during the first 12 months of homeownership driven solely by the mortgage interest and property tax deduction caps varies from $0 for the county with the 20th highest median home price (San Miguel County, Colorado) to approximately $7,200 for the highest-priced county (San Francisco County, California).” Barclays’ conclusion: these counties – all of which are largely pro-Clinton – would need a 0-11% decline in their median home prices to keep the after-tax monthly mortgage and property tax payments the same for would-be buyers.

And that’s how Trump is about to punish the “bicoastals” for voting against him: by sending their real estate values tumbling as much as 11%, while serving them with a higher tax bill to boot.

via http://ift.tt/2hfUSdJ Tyler Durden

PBOC’s Zhou Warns Of “Sudden, Complex, Hidden, Contagious, Hazardous” Risks In Global Markets

Just two weeks after warning of the potential for an imminent 'Minsky Moment', Chinese central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan has penned a lengthy article on The PBOC's website that warns ominously of latent risks accumulating, including some that are "hidden, complex, sudden, contagious and hazardous," even as the overall health of the financial system appears good.

The imminence of China's Minksy Moment is something we have discussed numerous times this year.

The three credit bubbles shown in the chart above are connected. Canada and Australia export raw materials to China and have been part of China’s excessive housing and infrastructure expansion over the last two decades. In turn, these countries have been significant recipients of capital inflows from Chinese real estate speculators that have contributed to Canadian and Australian housing bubbles. In all three countries, domestic credit-to-GDP expansion financed by banks has created asset bubbles in self-reinforcing but unsustainable fashion.

And then at the latest Communist Party Congress meeting in Beijing, the governor of the PBoC (People’s Bank of China) said the following;

“If we are too optimistic when things go smoothly, tensions build up, which could lead to a sharp correction, what we call a ‘Minsky moment’. That’s what we should particularly defend against.”

Yet, stock markets shrugged off his warning… while the Chinese yield curve has now been inverted for 10 straight days – the longest period of inversion ever…

Which appears to be why he wrote his most recent and most ominous warning yet… (as Bloomberg reports)

The nation should toughen regulation and let markets serve the real economy better, according to Zhou.

 

The government should also open up financial markets by relaxing capital controls and reducing restrictions on non-Chinese financial institutions that want to operate on the mainland, he wrote.

 

“High leverage is the ultimate origin of macro financial vulnerability," wrote Zhou, 69, who is widely expected to retire soon after a record 15-year tenure.

 

“In sectors of the real economy, this is reflected as excessive debt, and in the financial system, this is reflected as credit that has been expanding too quickly."

Zhou’s comments signal that policy makers remain committed to a campaign to reduce borrowing levels across the economy.

Concern that regulators may intensify the deleveraging drive after the twice-a-decade Communist Party Congress has helped push yields on 10-year government bonds to a three-year high.

Still, measures of credit continue to show expansion, with aggregate financing surging to a six-month high of 1.82 trillion yuan ($274 billion) in September. China’s corporate debt surged to 159 percent of the economy in 2016, compared with 104 percent 10 years ago, while overall borrowing climbed to 260 percent.

Bloomberg notes the key highlights from Zhou's note:

  • China’s financial system faces domestic and overseas pressures; structural imbalance is a serious problem and regulations are frequently violated
  • Some state-owned enterprises face severe debt risks, the problem of "zombie companies" is being solved slowly, and some local governments are adding leverage
  • Financial institutions are not competitive and pricing of risk is weak; the financial system cannot soothe herd behaviors, asset bubbles and risks by itself
  • Some high-risk activities are creating market bubbles under the cover of "financial innovation"
  • More companies have been defaulting on bonds, and issuance has been slowing; credit risks are impacting the public’s and even foreigners’ confidence in China’s financial health
  • Some Internet companies that claim to help people access finance are actually Ponzi schemes; and some regulators are too close to the firms and people they are supposed to oversee
  • China’s financial regulation lags behind international standards and focuses too much on fostering certain industries; there’s a lack of clarity in what central and regional government should be responsible for, so some activities are not well regulated
  • China should increase direct financing as well as expand the bond market; reduce intervention in the equity market and reform the initial public offering system; pursue yuan internationalization and capital account convertibility
  • China should let the market play a decisive role in the allocation of financial resources, and reduce the distortion effect of any intervention
  • China should improve coordination among financial regulators

Which all sounds very ominous and very positive in ending this facade..but just like the promises/threats ofprevious deleveragings – at the first sign of market jitters, the bankers will fold. As Kyle Bass recently concluded

"…it’s the biggest bubble we have ever seen in the history of financial markets. $40 trillion of assets in a system with $2 trillion in equity."

Aside from China's credit bubble, the simmering conflict in North Korea and tensions between the US and China related to the latter's insistence on building in the Spratly Islands also threaten China's economy, as well as global risk assets.

“We’re now in a bubble of epic proportions for Chinese credit…everything seems to be bubbling to the top and reaching a boiling point almost concurrently."

To be sure, there are a lot of powerful interests around the world that would suffer if China’s economy collapsed. But despite this, because he believes in the position, Bass is going to stay on his side of the trade – even as other longtime China bears like Mark Hart announced this week that he was abandoning a seven-year long bet on a massive yuan devaluation.

“People so want for everything to be okay. Nobody in their right mind wants us to be right because if I’m right were going to see a global growth slowdown you think about the concentric circles of how it affects each participant.

 

The economy may really slow down and we might have additional problems…so I’m going to keep investing the way I am and hope it all works out.”

via http://ift.tt/2yAaNLp Tyler Durden

Yen Tumbles On Trump, Kuroda Comments As Japan Comes Back From Long Weekend

Amid President Trump's visit, Abe's calls for more sanction and general militarization, the Japanese came back from their long weekend and decided it was time to panic-sell JPY in favor of the dollar the open. The yen slumped as much as 0.6% moments ago to an 8-month low against the dollar…

… for two parallel reasons: first, Trump complained about the US-Japan trade relationship while in Tokyo for the first stop of his tour of the region. Trump was speaking to business leaders in Tokyo and said that US trade with Japan is "not fair” and isn’t open. He said it’s “not free and not reciprocal” and that the Trans-Pacific Partnership “was not the right idea”. Trump also complained that the US had experienced “massive trade deficits” with Japan.

Following the comments, the USDJPY jumped as much as ¥114.73 per dollar, the weakest level for the Yen since March 15, before exporters started selling dollars, according to an Asia-based FX trader.

An additional driver of the weakness in JPY was a speech by BOJ Governor Kuroda meant to further weaken the Yen – and which ironically came as Trump was indirectly bashing the weak Japanese currency – who confirmed the BoJ will continue with powerful easing, saying that "there’s still a long way to getting to the 2% inflation target" and added that it is "crucial for people to actually experience inflation above 2%."

Stock futures initially kneejerked higher with them but quickly reversed it all…

TSY yields – with which USDJPY has a high correlation – are also ticking higher, and as Citi concludes, the "JPY seems to be under attack from all sides – BoJ, Trump, Treasuries."

via http://ift.tt/2j3Au00 Tyler Durden

FX Weekly Preview: USD Turnaround Hard Fought; Still A Correction Despite Stronger Data

Submitted by Shant Movsesian and Rajan Dhall MSTA fxdailyterminal.com

In recent weeks, we have continued to look to further gains in the USD, initially led by a belief that the bearish scenario had been exhausted, but later on improving data.  Time frame is a key factor in our metrics for where we see currencies finding value, and given that we have seen some strong gains against the CAD and JPY in recent weeks, we may be close to congestion levels, which these days tend to develop into significant tops.  

On Friday we saw the employment report missing on expectations, but the disruptive factors from Hurricane season saw the negative impact on the USD as temporary, with traders responding to the stronger ISM non manufacturing PMIs later in the day.  Wage inflation was something we could not determine this time around with the return of workers on the lower end of the pay scale dragging hourly earning back to 0.0% on the month, the yearly rate at 2.4% still down on the previous year.  Factory orders were also strong, and we can put this down to – in part – USD weakness seen over the large part of the summer.

Looking ahead, we have little in the way of US data to provide immediate drive for the greenback, so focus will be on the tax reform proposals, and whether much of the recent economic improvement is now largely priced in – not easy for an algo dominated market reliant on specific prompts.  

Selective gains suggested the EUR and GBP could come under pressure at the hands of the greenback in the week again, with EUR/USD set to grapple with demand into the mid 1.1500's and Cable eyeing a move on 1.3000 at some point.  

In Europe, we have German factory orders first thing on Monday followed up by final readings in the services and composite PMIs across the Euro zone as well as the Sentix indices.  German industrial production and trade stats later in the week will show us if economic momentum is as strong as recent data has shown us, and as we have seen with excessive currency strength within certain time frames, this can impact considerably.  Case in point is the Canadian economy, which had to weather a 10% appreciation, albeit from overextended levels, but all in the space of 3 months.  Quite how the market expected EUR/USD to push on from 1.2000 to 1.2500 after such a sharp change in tide from calls for parity at the start of the year continues to surprise me.  

The crosses could also come under a little pressure off the back of the data, but EUR/CHF will continue to be smoothed off on the downside, while Japanese investment flow keeps EUR/JPY in the running.  

EUR/GBP however is one on its own as attention in the UK turns away from the interest rate perspective; the BoE following through on its rate hike but doing well to calm some of the euphoria on expectations of more to come.  The longer end of the Gilts curve duly took a hit as 2 more rate hikes over the next 3 year horizon will be open to plenty of buffering from what may or may not develop over the EU negotiations.  As we pointed out last week, the crux of the stall in talks is purely down to commitment over the divorce bill, with the UK insisting this should be agreed on at the end of discussions.  The EU 27 clearly want this resolved before a move on to talks on trade agreements, and herein lies the stalemate.  

Domestically though, the UK data is holding up, and Friday's UK services PMI moved higher and above the 55.0 mark, containing the downside and keeping the 1.3000 intact for now.  Next week's numbers are all stacked up on Friday, where we get construction output, industrial and manufacturing production as well as trade, but Brexit talks resume the day before, with another press conference to contend with the day after.  Sub 1.3000 should see limited mileage in the interim, with 1.2950 and 1.2825-50 all levels the optimists will point to on the charts, but we see little prospect of a material breakout in EUR/GBP beyond 0.8750 and 0.9025 either side of current market. 

Also tightly range bound has been the JPY, with last week's inflation downgrades by the BoJ a recipe for continued weakness as the central bank show no signs of deviating from their current stimulus measures.  At the (BoJ) meeting at the start of the week, we heard some members effectively calling for some moderation, pre-empting an acceleration in CPI rates on the back of such aggressive expansion in money supply.  Economic activity is improving in Japan, but after decades of low growth and low inflation, the central bank will be loath to unsettle this gradual recovery, so the carry trade continues with relative ease.  As such, spot and cross JPY rates are shallow in any dips, but with Japanese investor outflows prevalent in the run up to the election, we have seen little evidence of any fresh movement in this direction and we sense the USD can benefit little more with Wall Street at current levels.  114.50-115.50 is a major resistance area which based on recent price action, looks unlikely to be breached. 

Japanese data of note next week includes core machinery orders and bank lending, while foreign investment numbers are also due for release.  

Risk sentiment naturally dictates also, but with equity markets in the developed nations practically immune to everything, JPY shorts feel comfortable enough for now.  

Chinese trade data out on Wednesday, where the export/import balance is expected to widen the surplus back out to nearly $40bln.  President Trump will naturally have something to say if it does. 

Central bank meetings in both Australia and New Zealand next week, and we are not expecting any changes at either event.  Despite some strong data out of Australia of late, sluggish inflation has reared its ugly head in this part of the world also, with CPI rates slipping out of the RBA's target range where the lower bound is 2.0%.  Retail sales also came in on the soft side lately, and comes alongside current 'sensitivity' to weak wage growth.  On these bases, we expect governor Lowe and the rest of the board to maintain steady policy for some time, and last week's data release alone saw expectations for the next move (up) delayed until H2 2018 at the earliest.  This could pull AUD/USD below the recent 0.7625 base, but much like the EUR, downshifts will be hard fought and 0.7450-7500 is a stronger area which traders (still wary on the USD) will look to buy against.  

The comparative level in NZ looks to be at 0.6815-20, and while we have seen some healthy employment numbers from Q3, there looks to be a lack of conviction on the upside until we get more clarity on the new government's policy profile which is expected to favour social investment over business.  On RBNZ mandate reform, where full employment is now set to be included in central bank considerations, the Q3 data mentioned above should take some of the pressure off NZD.  Above 0.6900, we are running into resistance just ahead of the half way mark, but have seen a decent reversal in AUD/NZD which could now extend closer to 1.0900 or so.  

No change in policy from the RBNZ anticipated, where the 1.75% base rate still stands out in the list of most actively traded currencies, but in GDP terms ranks 50th in the world.  Liquidity issues therefore apply to some degree, but the domestic finances are strong despite how the government decide to put their surpluses to use.  

It was another surprise in the Canadian data, where both July and August GDP reads have disappointed – a minor contraction seen in Aug.  As alluded to above, the rapid acceleration in CAD buying after rate hike expectations will have contributed to some of the economic fade, especially with Canadian exports a major contributor, but looking at the labour stats, another strong rise in full time jobs shows it is not all doom and gloom.  The BoC have tempered some of the exuberance which has lifted longer end rates significantly, but the currency has at least pulled back some way.  1.2900-1.3000 was highlighted as a strong resistance zone which has held well, and we continue to expect it to do so.  

Just as the AUD has not been reacting to the strong pick up in industrial metals prices, CAD has also been ignoring Oil, but here perhaps traders are anticipating highs close by.  WTI is still pressing on levels for $55.0, but shale production will be back on track soon, and are watching Oil imports in the DoE report, which are falling again, and this should rein in some of the strength seen which has already surprised large parts of the market.  OPEC are clearly happy, but want to see a 'floor' at $60.0.  Wishful thinking some will say; $50.0+ an achievement in itself, but influenced to a significant degree by the disruptions in the US.

Inflation data out in Norway at the end of next week, and this could put a fresh dent in the pick up in NOK/SEK seen in the past week.  Nothing really changes materially unless we break out of 1.0350 or so, with the move last Friday rejected pretty emphatically.  Swedish industrial production of note in the early part of the week.  

via http://ift.tt/2hf1Rnw Tyler Durden

Goldman On Tax Reform: “Now Comes The Hard Part”

The ink wasn’t even dry yet on the just published Republican Tax Cut And Jobs Act, and within the hour UBS was already confident that it has virtually no chance of passing: As UBS chief economist Seth Carpenter wrote shortly after the publication, “to our read, the release confirms our view that tax reform is far from being a done deal. The bill contains several specifics that we believe will prove sticking points, which increase the difficulty of finding the votes to support the plan in both the House and the Senate.” Fast forwarding to Carpenter’s conclusion: “We maintain our view that tax reform is unlikely this year or next.”

To be sure, banks have a right to be skeptical: after all with the economy already growing above 3%, the last thing financial institutions want is for another burst of output courtesy of fiscal stimulus. Last week, Lloyd Blankfein said as much when the Goldman CEO warned “now’s not the best time for tax cuts”, a view diametrically opposite that of his former “right hand man”, Gary Cohn, currently Trump’s chief economic advisor, who said this is precisely the right time for more tax cuts.

“I can’t say this is the moment where you want the most fiscal stimulus in the market, when we’re mostly at full employment, when GDP last registered at 3 percent,” Blankfein said Thursday in a Bloomberg Television interview. “I don’t know that this is the moment that you provide the biggest stimulus.”

Goldman CEO’s skepticism was obvious in a report released this afternoon by economic Alec Phillips, who looked at the tax plan released on Friday, and said that while Goldman still assigns a two-thirds chance of tax reform passing, it conceded that “now comes the hard part.”

First, here are the big picture details:

Tax Reform: Now Comes the Hard Part

  • The recent release of the House tax reform bill marks the start of the second, harder, stage of tax reform. The plan cuts the corporate tax rate to 20% and reduces taxes on individual and “personal business” income while  staying within the $1.5 trillion (over 10 years) cost limit recently agreed to in the House and Senate. Achieving all three goals had appeared quite difficult in our view but the proposal does it, according to the official estimates.
  • The House proposal includes substantial reforms. However, this greater-than-expected base broadening has already generated some political opposition, which is likely to lead to changes to the House bill as it moves forward.  The Senate is likely to release its own version with even greater differences within the next week or so, in our view.
  • The proposed tax cut is more front-loaded than we have expected; official estimates suggest a tax cut of 0.75% of GDP in 2018. However, we expect the final version to have a smaller near-term effect as competing priorities lead tax-writers to phase in some cuts—particularly corporate rate cuts—over time. Senate Republican centrists have already expressed concerns about the cost and might balk at tax cuts that expire after five years, since the true ten- year fiscal cost would rise if they were extended.
  • The net tax cut appears to be weighted more heavily toward individual and “pass-through” income than to the corporate sector. This is surprising considering the proposed immediate and permanent 20% corporate tax rate, but appears to be the result of substantial base-broadening, new restrictions on cross-border corporate activity, and the fact that several existing tax incentives are set to expire, which offsets a portion of the net tax cut under the legislation.
  • We continue to believe that tax legislation has around a two-thirds chance of becoming law by early 2018. The release of the House legislation is a positive step in that it moves the process forward. It also demonstrates that  meaningful base-broadening might be more achievable than we have believed. However, it does not alter our outlook for the odds of enactment, since the Senate is likely to release its own bill shortly and the vote in that chamber represents the greater obstacle to passing tax reform.

Hatzius lays out the key underlying details for his current outlook:

There are good reasons to believe that tax legislation will become law in the next few months and we believe there is a 65% chance of enactment by Q1 2018. First, tax reform—and a net tax cut—is an area where the President and most congressional Republicans generally agree. This is notable, since there are substantial differences within the Republican Party on a number of other issues, including immigration, infrastructure, international trade and health reform.

 

Second, congressional Republicans face a difficult midterm election in 2018 and many lawmakers believe Republican prospects would be improved by a major legislative achievement before voters head to the polls. As Exhibit 1 shows, Republicans tend to be more supportive of most of the general aspects of tax reform than Democratic voters, though some tax changes are more popular than others; middle-class tax cuts and small-business relief enjoys broad support, while corporate tax cuts do not.

 

Third, tax legislation can pass in the Senate with only 51 votes, instead of the customary 60 votes, through the budget reconciliation process. Now that a majority of the House and Senate have passed a budget resolution calling for a tax cut of up to $1.5 trillion over ten years, the odds would seem low that they would fail to follow through in passing the tax legislation itself.

 

Nevertheless, there are still a number of ways that the effort could run off the rails. First, tax reform is much harder than tax cuts. The recently introduced House proposal is a case in point. While the proposal achieves meaningful reductions in individual and corporate tax rates, it also targets a number of specific tax benefits and several important constituencies have come out against the bill. This is the main risk to passing tax reform with only Republican votes, in light of the slim Republican majorities in both chambers.

 

Second, although House and Senate majorities voted in favor of a budget resolution including an instruction to cut taxes by up to $1.5 trillion over ten years, a few of these lawmakers have expressed some hesitation regarding the tax legislation itself. Senator McCain (R-AZ), for example, has called for the legislation to be considered under “regular order” and might not support a tax bill passed via the reconciliation process. Senator Corker (R-TN) supported the budget resolution but has left open the possibility that he would oppose the tax bill itself if he feels it would add to the deficit beyond the estimated revenue gain from economic growth effects and the cost of extending expiring provisions.

 

Third, while few argue against the concept of revenue neutral reform that lowers statutory tax rates and broadens the tax base, there are good arguments against a large net tax cut at the moment, including a high debt-to-GDP ratio, growing fiscal imbalances projected over the coming decade, and an economy with little remaining slack. This stands in contrast to the 1981 and 2001 tax cuts, when the federal budget was projected to run surpluses, the debt-to-GDP ratio stood at less than half of its current level, and the economy was in recession.

 

That said, the tax cut is not that large; nearly $500 billion in expiring tax provisions were likely to be extended regardless of tax reform, so the net revenue loss over ten years compared to our and most other realistic projections is only around $1 trillion (0.4% of GDP). The increase in GDP that would result from a tax cut would reduce the net cost slightly further.

Next, Phillips breaks down the key components of the Tax Cut And Jobs Act, whose core principles are summarized as follows:

On November 2, the House Ways and Means Committee released its Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). The proposal makes more substantial changes than are implied by its estimated cost. The House plan achieves a 20% corporate tax rate and tax relief for individuals and “personal business income” while staying within the $1.5 trillion (over 10 years) limitation on cost recently agreed to in the House and Senate. Achieving all three goals had appeared quite difficult but the proposal managed to do this, according to estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT); the most recent estimate puts the total revenue loss at just over $1.4 trillion over ten years.

Here, instead of repeating Goldman’s take on all the core aspects of the TCJA, we summarize the progression of tax reform courtesy of the following summary chart:

Which the brings us to Goldman’s critical discussion on “the way forward”, or what happens next. Exhibit 8 below summarizes Goldman’s expectations regarding the timeline for consideration of tax reform over the next few months.

The House Ways and Means Committee is scheduled to begin its “mark up” of the TCJA on Monday, November 6. This is likely to take several days, and will involve the consideration of dozens (potentially over 100) amendments to the proposal, followed by a vote on the package as amended. House Republican leaders hope to pass the bill on the House floor the week of November 13, but might have to postpone the vote until after the Thanksgiving recess (the week of November 20) if there is insufficient support and further changes become necessary. In our view, there is little risk that the committee will fail to pass the bill, but a good chance that objections from some Republicans could delay passage by the full House until after Thanksgiving. That said, we believe there is a high probability of House passage by December.

How about the Senate?

The Senate Finance Committee might release its own proposal late in the week of November 6, though it is also quite possible this could be delayed. Although Senate Republican leaders have expressed hope that the Senate might be able to pass tax reform legislation by the end of November, this seems unlikely to us. Passage in December is certainly possible, however, in our view. We assume that a conference committee between the House and Senate will be necessary to resolve differences between the two bodies, which would probably delay final enactment until early 2018. That said, it is conceivable that the House could instead simply pass the Senate’s version of tax reform, which might allow for enactment before year-end. We continue to see enactment in early 2018 as the base case, though we note that market perceptions could shift substantially before then. For example, a successful Senate vote in December could lead market participants to place a high probability on eventual enactment, since the Senate vote is widely seen as the greatest risk to passage.

In summary, Goldman continues to believe there is a 65% chance that Congress will approve a tax bill by Q1 that results in a net tax cut of about $1 trillion (0.4% of GDP) over ten years (an amount similar to the tax cut under the TCJA, adjusting for scheduled expiration of tax incentives under current law) by Q1 2018. By comparison, prices in the online prediction market PredictIt imply a 60% probability that a corporate tax cut will be enacted by the end of Q1 2018, and around a 30% chance it would be enacted prior to year-end, down from over 80% early in the year.

What about the market?

The relative performance of our equity strategists’ basket of high tax stocks vs. the S&P 500 suggests that expectations have come down further. Even after adjusting for dollar depreciation—low tax stocks tend to have more foreign exposure so the relative performance might also be driven by the value of the dollar— the basket suggests that market expectations for tax reform that benefits high tax companies more than low-tax companies are not much greater now than they were prior to the election.

What may be taking place, according to Phillips, is that In light of the House proposal’s 20% rate combined with substantial base broadening and base-erosion protections, the market might soon assign a higher probability that the high tax rates faced by some companies— particularly those with a largely domestic focus— might converge with the low effective tax rates that some US-based multinationals pay. As a reminder, while the statutory US tax rate is 39%, the effective US tax rate of 27% has never been lower. In this light, the Trump tax cuts, contrary to Steven Mnuchin’s observations, will soon be seen as a non-event, especially if Goldman is correct, and the agreed upon corporate tax rate end up being 25%…

via http://ift.tt/2Abhz6K Tyler Durden

Pentagon Says Securing North Korean Nuclear Sites Would Require “Ground Invasion”

With President Donald Trump arriving in Japan today to kick off a 10-day Asia tour, the Washington Post is reporting that the only way to locate and secure all of North Korea’s nuclear weapons sites “with complete certainty” would be a ground invasion, and in the event of conflict, Pyongyang could use biological and chemical weapons, the Pentagon told lawmakers in a newly released assessment of what war on the Korean Peninsula might look like.

The Pentagon, in a letter to lawmakers, said that a full discussion of U.S. capabilities to “counter North Korea’s ability to respond with a nuclear weapon and to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons located in deeply buried, underground facilities” is best suited for a classified briefing.

 

The letter also said that Pentagon leaders “assess that North Korea may consider the use of biological weapons” and that the country “has a long-standing chemical weapons program with the capability to produce nerve, blister, blood and choking agents."

 

The Pentagon repeated that a detailed discussion of how the United States would respond to the threat could not be discussed in public.

 

The letter noted that Seoul, the South Korean capital, is a densely populated area with 25 million residents. 

The Pentagon’s candid assessment appears to validate claims made by former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, who famously said in an interview with the American Prospect before he was forced out of his White House job that there are no “good” military options for toppling the Kim regime. A ground invasion, he said, would lead to millions of casualties in the South Korean capital of Seoul from conventional weapons fire.

It’s release also coincides with the president’s push to rally the North’s neighbors in the region to do more to punish the restive Kim regime, which conducted a test of a hydrogen bomb – also its sixth nuclear test overall – in early September.

The North has been notably quiet since Sept. 15, when it launched a medium-range missile over the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido. Aside from the usual condemnations of military drills involving US and South Korean, and threats that the North is seriously considering testing a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific. Some have speculated that a partial collapse at the North’s Pyunggye-ri nuclear testing facility has been partly responsible for the delays.

The letter to lawmakers was written by Rear Adm. Michael J. Dumont, the vice director of the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, in response to a request for information from two House members about “expected casualty assessments in a conflict with North Korea,” including for civilians and U.S. and allied forces in South Korea, Japan and Guam.

In the letter, Dumont explains how a ground invasion would unfold.

Any operation to pursue North Korean nuclear weapons would likely be spearheaded by U.S. Special Operations troops. Last year, President Barack Obama and then-Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter gave U.S. Special Operations Command a new, leading role coordinating the Pentagon’s effort to counter weapons of mass destruction. SOCOM did not receive any new legal authorities for the mission but gained influence in how the military responds to such threats.

 

Elite U.S. forces have long trained to respond in the case of a so-called “loose nuke” in the hands of terrorists. But senior officials said SOCOM is increasingly focused on North Korea.

Given the difficulty and tremendous potential for casualities that would accompany a ground invasion, Dumont affirmed that the military supports the present strategy of pursuing a diplomatic solution to the simmering standoff between the North and the US.

Dumont said the military backs the current U.S. strategy on North Korea, which is led by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and focuses on ratcheting up economic and diplomatic pressure as the primary effort to get North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to stop developing nuclear weapons. Tillerson, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., have emphasized that during trips to Seoul this year.

 

In contrast, President Trump, who goes unmentioned in the Pentagon letter, has taunted Kim as “Rocket Man” and expressed frustration with diplomatic efforts, hinting that he is considering preemptive military force.

 

“I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man,” Trump tweeted on Oct. 1, adding, “Save your energy Rex, we’ll do what has to be done!"

 

On Oct. 7, Trump added in additional tweets that North Korea had “made fools” of U.S. negotiators. “Sorry, but only one thing will work!” he said. 

Defense Secretary James Mattis and the Pentagon has often pointed to the massive risk that North Korean weaponry pose to South Koreans living In Seoul. But the military has never before publicly revealed so much about its plans for a hunt for North Korea’s underground weapons.

Air Force Col. Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, said that Dumont and other Pentagon officials had no additional comment about the letter.

A senior US military official in South Korea told WaPo that while the 28,500 US troops in South Korea maintain a high degree of readiness, he “has to believe” that North Korea does not want a war, given all of the nations aligned against it.

“If you open the history books, this is not the first time that we’ve been in a heavy provocation cycle,” the official said. On the side of South Korea and the United States, he said, “there is no action taken without extreme consideration of not putting this in a position where a fight is going to happen."

Dumont’s letter also notes that “we have not seen any change in the offensive posture of North Korea’s forces."

A statement by 16 lawmakers, released simultaneously with the Pentagon letter, urged Trump to stop making “provocative statements” that impede diplomatic efforts and risk the lives of U.S. troops.

One lawmaker cited estimates that a ground invasion of the North would leave 300,000 people dead in the first couple of days.

The Pentagon’s “assessment underscores what we’ve known all along: There are no good military options for North Korea,” said the statement, organized by Lieu and Gallego and signed by 14 other members of Congress who are veterans, all but one of them Democrats. In a telephone interview, Lieu said that the intent of asking the Pentagon for information was to spell out the cataclysmic consequences of war with North Korea and the aftermath.

 

“It’s important for people to understand what a war with a nuclear power would look like,” said Lieu, citing estimates of 300,000 dead in the first few days alone. More than 100,000 Americans are potentially at risk.

 

Lieu, who spent part of his time in the Air Force on Guam preparing for military action against North Korea, called the letter a confirmation that a conflict would result in a “bloody, protracted ground war.” The Joint Chiefs, he believes, are “trying to send a message to the American public,” he said.

 

“This is grim,” Lieu said. “We need to understand what war means. And it hasn’t been articulated very well. I think they’re trying to articulate some of that."

The question now is: Will this report undermine Trump’s efforts to push the US’s allies in the Pacific to do more to peacefully pressure the Kim regime to abandon its nuclear weapons program. China and Russia have for months been pushing a plan that would see the North freeze its nuclear program in exchange for the US withdrawing its THAAD missile defense systems from South Korea.

The Kim regime has repeatedly said it will never give up its nuclear weapons, which it believes are essential for the survival of the regime.

via http://ift.tt/2Ab3JkZ Tyler Durden

Saudis Call Missile Attack “Blatant Act Of Aggression” By Iran, “Could Be Considered Act Of War”

War is coming…

This weekend's chaos in the middle east just got considerably more serious.

Yesterday we detailed reports that the Saudis intercepted a ballistic missile over the nation's capital Riyadh…

At the time, Al Jazeera reported that Yemen's Houthi rebels claimed responsibility for the attack, saying they launched the Yemeni-made, long-range ballistic missile Burqan 2-H (with a range of 500 kilometers) from the Saudi-Yemeni border before being intercepted.

But tonight, according to a statement from the Saudi coailition carried by the state-run Saudi Press Agency, the missile that targeted Riyadh has been called "a direct military aggresion" by Iran against Sauid Arabia,  that "could rise to be considered an act of war." Furthermore, the Saudi-led coalition has closed all Yemen's land, sea and air ports after missile targeted Riyadh.

Following on what the Coalition had previously announced regarding the ballistic missiles launched by the Iranian-controlled Houthi militias from within Yemeni territory that targeted the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the most recent of which was the flagrant military aggression by the Iranian-controlled Houthi militias which targeted the city of Riyadh on November 11, 2017 (Corresponding to 15/2/1439 Hijri) using a ballistic missile with a range of more than 900 Km.

 

And, after the thorough examination of the debris of these missiles, including the missile launched on July 22, 2017 (Corresponding to 28/10/1438 Hijri) by experts in military technology, has confirmed the role of Iran's regime in manufacturing these missiles and smuggling them to the Houthi militias in Yemen for the purpose of attacking the Kingdom, its people, and vital interests.

 

The Coalition's command considers the Iranian regime's action in supplying the Houthi militias that it commands with these missiles to be a blatant violation of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions that prohibit nations from arming these militias, specifically UNSC Resolution (2216). Further, Iran's role and its direct command of its Houthi proxy in this matter constitutes a clear act of aggression that targets neighboring countries, and threatens peace and security in the region and globally.

 

Therefore, the Coalition's Command considers this a blatant act of military aggression by the Iranian regime, and could rise to be considered as an act of war against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and thus affirms the legitimate right of the Kingdom to defend its territory and people in accordance with Article (51) of the U.N. Charter. The Coalition Command also affirms that the Kingdom reserves its right to respond to Iran in the appropriate time and manner, in accordance with international law and based upon the right of self-defense, including the defense of its territory, its people, and its vital interests, which is enshrined in international agreements and conventions including the UN Charter.

 

To address the vulnerabilities in the current inspection procedures that led to the continuation of the supply of ballistic missiles and military equipment to the Houthi militias which enabled them to continue to commit crimes against the Kingdom, the Yemeni people, and the peoples of countries in the region, which constitutes blatant violations to international humanitarian laws, the Coalition’s Command has decided to temporarily close all Yemeni ground, air, and sea ports. These measures will be implemented while taking into consideration the continuation of the entry and exit of humanitarian supplies and crews in accordance with the Coalition’s updated procedures.

 

The Coalition Command calls upon all relevant parties to adhere to the inspections, entry, and exit procedures to and from Yemeni ports of entry designated by the Coalition that will be announced later. All necessary legal steps will be taken against violators of these procedures. The Coalition Command calls upon the brethren Yemeni people and all civilian and humanitarian crews to avoid areas of combat operations, areas populated by the Houthi armed militia, areas and ports exploited by this Iranian-controlled militia to smuggle weapons, and areas from which this militia launch its attacks against the Kingdom. The Coalition also calls upon diplomatic missions to avoid areas that are not controlled by the Legitimate Government of Yemen.

 

The Coalition Command calls upon the international community and the United Nations Security Council including the sanctions committee established by the Council for the implementation of UNSC Resolution 2216, to take all necessary legal measures to hold Iran accountable for its violation of UN Security Council Resolutions, primarily resolution 2216, in addition to its violations of provisions and principles of international law that criminalize the aggression against other states, due to: Iran's direct involvement in the unlawful smuggling of weapons to the Houthi Militia under its control, which threatens international peace and security; its aggression against the territory and people of Saudi Arabia and other neighboring countries; and its continued support for the Houthi militia in violation of international resolutions that aim to restore legitimacy in Yemen.

The timing is fascinating.

What better way to get the price of oil up before an Aramco IPO – which President Trump just happened to mention out of the blue.

And amid increasing evidence of Saudi rapprochement with Russia and China – and the growing de-dollarization of the anti-unipolar world – a Saudi war with Iran would require the latter to be supported by Washington to survive… which perhaps could be quid pro quo for ending any chatter about the death of the petrodollar.

via http://ift.tt/2Abpz7T Tyler Durden

Matt Taibbi Exposes The Great College Loan Swindle

Authored by Matt Taibbi via RollingStone.com,

How universities, banks and the government turned student debt into America's next financial black hole…

On a wind-swept, frigid night in February 2009, a 37-year-old schoolteacher named Scott Nailor parked his rusted '92 Toyota Tercel in the parking lot of a Fireside Inn in Auburn, Maine. He picked this spot to have a final reckoning with himself. He was going to end his life.

Beaten down after more than a decade of struggle with student debt, after years of taking false doors and slipping into various puddles of bureaucratic quicksand, he was giving up the fight. "This is it, I'm done," he remembers thinking. "I sat there and just sort of felt like I'm going to take my life. I'm going to find a way to park this car in the garage, with it running or whatever."

Nailor's problems began at 19 years old, when he borrowed for tuition so that he could pursue a bachelor's degree at the University of Southern Maine. He graduated summa cum laude four years later and immediately got a job in his field, as an English teacher.

But he graduated with $35,000 in debt, a big hill to climb on a part-time teacher's $18,000 salary. He struggled with payments, and he and his wife then consolidated their student debt, which soon totaled more than $50,000. They declared bankruptcy and defaulted on the loans. From there he found himself in a loan "rehabilitation" program that added to his overall balance. "That's when the noose began to tighten," he says.

The collectors called day and night, at work and at home. "In the middle of class too, while I was teaching," he says. He ended up in another rehabilitation program that put him on a road toward an essentially endless cycle of rising payments. Today, he pays $471 a month toward "rehabilitation," and, like countless other borrowers, he pays nothing at all toward his real debt, which he now calculates would cost more than $100,000 to extinguish. "Not one dollar of it goes to principal," says Nailor. "I will never be able to pay it off. My only hope to escape from this crushing debt is to die."

After repeated phone calls with lending agencies about his ever-rising interest payments, Nailor now believes things will only get worse with time. "At this rate, I may easily break $1 million in debt before I retire from teaching," he says.

Nailor had more than once reached the stage in his thoughts where he was thinking about how to physically pull off his suicide. "I'd been there before, that just was the worst of it," he says. "It scared me, bad."

He had a young son and a younger daughter, but Nailor had been so broken by the experience of financial failure that he managed to convince himself they would be better off without him. What saved him is that he called his wife to say goodbye. "I don't know why I called my wife. I'm glad I did," he says. "I just wanted her or someone to tell me to pick it up, keep fighting, it's going to be all right. And she did."

From that moment, Nailor managed to focus on his family. Still, the core problem – the spiraling debt that has taken over his life, as it has for millions of other Americans – remains.

Horror stories about student debt are nothing new. But this school year marks a considerable worsening of a tale that ought to have been a national emergency years ago. The government in charge of regulating this mess is now filled with predatory monsters who have extensive ties to the exploitative for-profit education industry – from Donald Trump himself to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who sets much of the federal loan policy, to Julian Schmoke, onetime dean of the infamous DeVry University, whom Trump appointed to police fraud in education.

Americans don't understand the student-loan crisis because they've been trained to view the issue in terms of a series of separate, unrelated problems.

They will read in one place that as of the summer of 2017, a record 8.5 million Americans are in default on their student debt, with about $1.3 trillion in loans still outstanding.

In another place, voters will read that the cost of higher education is skyrocketing, soaring in a seemingly market-defying arc that for nearly a decade now has run almost double the rate of inflation. Tuition for a halfway decent school now frequently surpasses $50,000 a year. How, the average newsreader wonders, can any child not born in a yacht afford to go to school these days?

In a third place, that same reader will see some heartless monster, usually a Republican, threatening to cut federal student lending. The current bogeyman is Trump, who is threatening to slash the Pell Grant program by $3.9 billion, which would seem to put higher education even further out of reach for poor and middle-income families. This too seems appalling, and triggers a different kind of response, encouraging progressive voters to lobby for increased availability for educational lending.

But the separateness of these stories clouds the unifying issue underneath: The education industry as a whole is a con. In fact, since the mortgage business blew up in 2008, education and student debt is probably our reigning unexposed nation-wide scam.

It's a multiparty affair, what shakedown artists call a "big store scheme," like in the movie The Sting: a complex deception requiring a big cast to string the mark along every step of the way. In higher education, every party you meet, from the moment you first set foot on campus, is in on the game.

America as a country has evolved in recent decades into a confederacy of widescale industrial scams. The biggest slices of our economic pie – sectors like health care, military production, banking, even commercial and residential real estate – have become crude income-redistribution schemes, often untethered from the market by subsidies or bailouts, with the richest companies benefiting from gamed or denuded regulatory systems that make profits almost as assured as taxes. Guaranteed-profit scams – that's the last thing America makes with any level of consistent competence. In that light, Trump, among other things, the former head of a schlock diploma mill called Trump University, is a perfect president for these times. He's the scammer-in-chief in the Great American Ripoff Age, a time in which fleecing students is one of our signature achievements.

It starts with the sales pitch colleges make to kids. The thrust of it is usually that people who go to college make lots more money than the unfortunate dunces who don't. "A bachelor's degree is worth $2.8 million on average over a lifetime" is how Georgetown University put it. The Census Bureau tells us similarly that a master's degree is worth on average about $1.3 million more than a high school diploma.

But these stats say more about the increasing uselessness of a high school degree than they do about the value of a college diploma. Moreover, since virtually everyone at the very highest strata of society has a college degree, the stats are skewed by a handful of financial titans. A college degree has become a minimal status marker as much as anything else. "I'm sure people who take polo lessons or sailing lessons earn a lot more on average too," says Alan Collinge of Student Loan Justice, which advocates for debt forgiveness and other reforms. "Does that mean you should send your kids to sailing school?"

But the pitch works on everyone these days, especially since good jobs for Trump's beloved "poorly educated" are scarce to nonexistent. Going to college doesn't guarantee a good job, far from it, but the data show that not going dooms most young people to an increasingly shallow pool of the very crappiest, lowest-paying jobs. There's a lot of stick, but not much carrot, in the education game.

It's a vicious cycle. Since everyone feels obligated to go to college, most everyone who can go, does, creating a glut of graduates. And as that glut of degree recipients grows, the squeeze on the un-degreed grows tighter, increasing further that original negative incentive: Don't go to college, and you'll be standing on soup lines by age 25.

With that inducement in place, colleges can charge almost any amount, and kids will pay – so long as they can get the money. And here we run into problem number two: It's too easy to find that money.

Parents, not wanting their kids to fall behind, will pay every dollar they have. But if they don't have the cash, there is a virtually unlimited amount of credit available to young people. Proposed cuts to Pell Grants aside, the landscape is filled with public and private lending, and students gobble it up. Kids who walk into financial-aid offices are often not told what signing their names on the various aid forms will mean down the line. A lot of kids don't even understand the concept of interest or amortization tables – they think if they're borrowing $8,000, they're paying back $8,000.

Nailor certainly was unaware of what he was getting into when he was 19. "I had no idea [about interest]," he says. "I just remember thinking, 'I don't have to worry about it right now. I want to go to school.' " He pauses in disgust. "It's unsettling to remember how it was like, 'Here, just sign this and you're all set.' I wish I could take the time machine back and slap myself in the face."

The average amount of debt for a student leaving school is skyrocketing even faster than the rate of tuition increase.

In 2016, for instance, the average amount of debt for an exiting college graduate was a staggering $37,172. That's a rise of six percent over just the previous year. With the average undergraduate interest rate at about 3.7 percent, the interest alone costs around $115 per month, meaning anyone who can't afford to pay into the principal faces the prospect of $69,000 in payments over 50 years.

So here's the con so far.

You must go to college because you're screwed if you don't.

 

Costs are outrageously high, but you pay them because you have to, and because the system makes it easy to borrow massive amounts of money.

 

The third part of the con is the worst: You can't get out of the debt.

Since government lenders in particular have virtually unlimited power to collect on student debt – preying on everything from salary to income-tax returns – even running is not an option. And since most young people find themselves unable to make their full payments early on, they often find themselves perpetually paying down interest only, never touching the principal. Our billionaire president can declare bankruptcy four times, but students are the one class of citizen that may not do it even once.

October 2017 was supposed to represent the first glimmer of light at the end of this tunnel. This month marks the 10th anniversary of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, one of the few avenues for wiping out student debt. The idea, launched by George W. Bush, was pretty simple: Students could pledge to work 10 years for the government or a nonprofit and have their debt forgiven. In order to qualify, borrowers had to make payments for 10 years using a complex formula. This month, then, was to start the first mass wipeouts of debt in the history of American student lending. But more than half of the 700,000 enrollees have already been expunged from the program for, among other things, failing to certify their incomes on time, one of many bureaucratic tricks employed to limit forgiveness eligibility. To date, fewer than 500 participants are scheduled to receive loan forgiveness in this first round.

Moreover, Trump has called for the program's elimination by 2018, meaning that any relief that begins this month is likely only temporary. The only thing that is guaranteed to remain real for the immediate future are the massive profits being generated on the backs of young people, who before long become old people who, all too often, remain ensnared until their last days in one of the country's most brilliant and devious moneymaking schemes.

Everybody wins in this madness, except students. Even though many of the loans are originated by the state, most of them are serviced by private or quasi-private companies like Navient – which until 2014 was the student-loan arm of Sallie Mae – or Nelnet, companies that reported a combined profit of around $1 billion last year (the U.S. government made a profit of $1.6 billion in 2016!). Debt-collector companies like Performant (which generated $141.4 million in revenues; the family of Betsy DeVos is a major investor), and most particularly the colleges and universities, get to prey on the desperation and terror of parents and young people, and in the process rake in vast sums virtually without fear of market consequence.

About that: Universities, especially public institutions, have successfully defended rising tuition in recent years by blaming the hikes on reduced support from states. But this explanation was blown to bits in large part due to a bizarre slip-up in the middle of a controversy over state support of the University of Wisconsin system a few years ago.

In that incident, UW raised tuition by 5.5 percent six years in a row after 2007. The school blamed stresses from the financial crisis and decreased state aid. But when pressed during a state committee hearing in 2013 about the university's finances, UW system president Kevin Reilly admitted they held $648 million in reserve, including $414 million in tuition payments. This was excess hidey-hole cash the school was sitting on, separate and distinct from, say, an endowment fund.

After the university was showered with criticism for hoarding cash at a time when it was gouging students with huge price increases every year, the school responded by saying, essentially, it only did what all the other kids were doing. UW released data showing that other major state-school systems across the country were similarly stashing huge amounts of cash. While Wisconsin's surplus was only 25 percent of its operating budget, for instance, Minnesota's was 29 percent, and Illinois maintained a whopping 34 percent reserve.

When Collinge, of Student Loan Justice, looked into it, he found that the phenomenon wasn't confined to state schools. Private schools, too, have been hoarding cash even as they plead poverty and jack up tuition fees. "They're all doing it," he says.

While universities sit on their stockpiles of cash and the loan industry generates record profits, the pain of living in debilitating debt for many lasts into retirement. Take Veronica Martish. She's a 68-year-old veteran, having served in the armed forces in the Vietnam era. She's also a grandmother who's never been in trouble and consid?ers herself a patriot. "The thing is, I tried to do everything right in my life," she says. "But this ruined my life."

This is an $8,000 student loan she took out in 1989, through Sallie Mae. She borrowed the money so she could take courses at Quinebaug Valley Community College in Connecticut. Five years later, after deaths in her family, she fell behind on her payments and entered a loan-rehabilitation program. "That's when my nightmare began," she says.

In rehabilitation, Martish's $8,000 loan, with fees and interest, ballooned into a $27,000 debt, which she has been carrying ever since. She says she's paid more than $63,000 to date and is nowhere near discharging the principal. "By the time I die," she says, "I will probably pay more than $200,000 toward an $8,000 loan." She pauses. "It's a scam, you see. Nothing ever comes off the loan. It's all interest and fees. And they chase you until you're old, like me. They never stop. Ever."

And that's the other thing about lending to students: It's the safest grift around.

There's probably no better symbol of the bankruptcy of the education industry than Trump University. The half-literate president's effort at higher learning drew in suckers with pathetic promises of great real-estate insights (for instance, that Trump "hand-picked" the instructors) and then charged them truckfuls of cash for get-rich-quick tutorials that students and faculty later described as "almost completely worthless" and a "total lie." That Trump got to settle a lawsuit on this matter for $25 million and still managed to be elected president is, ironically, a remarkable testament to the failure of our education system. About the only example that might be worse is DeVry University, which told students that 90 percent of graduates seeking jobs found them in their fields within six months of graduation. The FTC found those claims "false and unsubstantiated," and ordered $100 million in refunds and debt relief, but that was in 2016 – before Trump put DeVry chief Schmoke, of all people, in charge of rooting out education fraud. Like a lot of things connected to politics lately, it would be funny if it weren't somehow actually happening.?"Yeah, it's the fox guarding the henhouse," says Collinge. "You could probably find a worse analogy."

But the real problem with the student-loan story is that it's so poorly understood by people not living the nightmare. There's so much propaganda that blames the borrowers for taking on the debt in the first place that there's often little sympathy for people in hopeless situations. To make matters worse, band-aid programs that supposedly offer help hypnotize the public into thinking there are ways out, when the "help" is usually just another trick to add to the balance.

"That's part of the problem with the narrative," says Nailor, the schoolteacher. "People think that there's help, so what are you complaining about? All you got to do is apply for help."

But the help, he says, coming from a for-profit predatory system, often just makes things worse. "It did for me," he says. "It does for a lot of people."

via http://ift.tt/2h9wt5P Tyler Durden

Each Bitcoin Transaction Uses As Much Energy As Your House In A Week

While Bitcoin bulls will probably never have it so good as they have in 2017, we wonder whether many of them have stopped to think about the environmental downside of this roaring bull market. After all, back in the dot.com boom, people had ideas about potential internet businesses, issued pieces of paper representing ownership and watched their prices go parabolic parabolic. All it took was a Powerpoint presentation, some computer programming expertise and a “research” report, courtesy of Mary Meeker, Henry Blodgett et al.

The environmental downside we’re referring to in Bitcoin is, of course, is energy.

We alluded to this in a constructive way here when we noted that a new Bitcoin mining hub is developing in Iceland, where the natural temperature dramatically reduces the cost of cooling computing hardware.

The primary energy requirement, however, goes into the computing power to “mine” the Bitcoins. The Bitcoin mining industry can consume 24 terawatt hours of electricity and still be profitable – the Motherboard website provides some context…  

Bitcoin's incredible price run to break over $7,000 this year has sent its overall electricity consumption soaring, as people worldwide bring more energy-hungry computers online to mine the digital currency. An index from cryptocurrency analyst Alex de Vries, aka Digiconomist, estimates that with prices the way they are now, it would be profitable for Bitcoin miners to burn through over 24 terawatt-hours of electricity annually as they compete to solve increasingly difficult cryptographic puzzles to "mine" more Bitcoins. That's about as much as Nigeria, a country of 186 million people, uses in a year… De Vries also estimates that the worldwide Bitcoin mining industry is now using enough electricity to power 2.26 million American homes.

A rapid “Google” later and we discovered that there are 125.8 million American households, so almost 2%.

Another way of looking at Bitcoin’s energy consumption is divide the electricity use in Bitcoin mining each day by the number of daily Bitcoin transactions. As the Motherboard notes, each Bitcoin transaction now requires the same amount of electricity needed to power the average American household for one week.

Expressing Bitcoin's energy use on a per-transaction basis is a useful abstraction. Bitcoin uses x energy in total, and this energy verifies/secures roughly 300k transactions per day. So this measure shows the value we get for all that electricity, since the verified transaction (and our confidence in it) is ultimately the end product…This averages out to a shocking 215 kilowatt-hours (KWh) of juice used by miners for each Bitcoin transaction (there are currently about 300,000 transactions per day). Since the average American household consumes 901 KWh per month, each Bitcoin transfer represents enough energy to run a comfortable house, and everything in it, for nearly a week. Since 2015, Bitcoin's electricity consumption has been very high compared to conventional digital payment methods. This is because the dollar price of Bitcoin is directly proportional to the amount of electricity that can profitably be used to mine it.

Unfortunately for the environmentalists, the Bitcoin price – as every bull knows – entered the parabolic phase in 2017. This Bloomberg chart calculates the number of days for each $1,000 rise in price.

While Motherboard states that De Vries model isn’t perfect and “makes assumptions about the economic incentives available to miners at a given price level”, the website makes the point that there is clearly a “problem”. According to Motherboard…

That problem is carbon emissions. De Vries has come up with some estimates by diving into data made available on a coal-powered Bitcoin mine in Mongolia. He concluded that this single mine is responsible for 8,000 to 13,000 kg CO2 emissions per Bitcoin it mines, and 24,000 – 40,000 kg of CO2 per hour. As Twitter user Matthias Bartosik noted in some similar estimates, the average European car emits 0.1181 kg of CO2 per kilometer driven.

 

So for every hour the Mongolian Bitcoin mine operates, it's responsible for (at least) the CO2 equivalent of over 203,000 car kilometers travelled.

However, you’ve probably been thinking what we’ve been thinking. While the price is going parabolic now, Bitcoin usage might go parabolic in the future, problem solved. While it might help, De Vries pointed out the structural flaw…

As goes the Bitcoin price, so goes its electricity consumption, and therefore its overall carbon emissions. I asked de Vries whether it was possible for Bitcoin to scale its way out of this problem.

 

"Blockchain is inefficient tech by design, as we create trust by building a system based on distrust. If you only trust yourself and a set of rules (the software), then you have to validate everything that happens against these rules yourself. That is the life of a blockchain node," he said via direct message.

Motherboard reflects on the cost of Bitcoin’s environmental footprint versus the benefits of a decentralized payment system which avoids the “Too Big To Fails” and their smaller brethren.

This gets to the heart of Bitcoin's core innovation, and also its core compromise. In order to achieve a functional, trustworthy decentralized payment system, Bitcoin imposes some very costly inefficiencies on participants, for example voracious electricity consumption and low transaction capacity. Proposed improvements, like SegWit2x, do promise to increase the number of transactions Bitcoin can handle by at least double, and decrease network congestion. But since Bitcoin is thousands of times less efficient per transaction than a credit card network, it will need to get thousands of times better. In the context of climate change, raging wildfires, and record-breaking hurricanes, it's worth asking ourselves hard questions about Bitcoin's environmental footprint, and what we want to use it for. Do most transactions actually need to bypass trusted third parties like banks and credit card companies, which can operate much more efficiently than Bitcoin's decentralized network? Imperfect as these financial institutions are, for most of us, the answer is very likely no.

It’s certainly food for thought, even for die-hard libertarians, like ourselves. Then again, perhaps less so for libertarians who’ve been loaded up with Bitcoins in the past few weeks. They would likely be more interested in the bull, bear and neutral cases for Bitcoin in the Bloomberg article linked above. Here is the summary.

With the rhetoric for and against heating up this week amid bitcoin’s barrelling gains, here’s a look at where some big names in finance stand — from those who see it as the natural evolution of money, to the naysayers waiting for the asset to crash and burn.

Bitcoin’s Backers

  • The digital currency’s evangelists are led by Roger Ver, known in the industry as “Bitcoin Jesus.” Ver remains optimistic about bitcoin’s sustainability amid attempts from governments like China to curb some of the more speculative elements of trading. “The only way to stop (bitcoin) is to turn off the entire Internet in the entire world and keep it turned off,” he said in a September interview with Bloomberg News.
  • Some countries are jumping on the bitcoin bandwagon, with Argentina’s most important futures market considering offering services to investors in digital currencies, while Turkish Central Bank Governor Murat Cetinkaya said digital currencies may contribute to financial stability if designed well.
  • Ronnie Moas, who for the past 13 years has made more than 900 stock recommendations via his one-man show at Standpoint Research, upped his 2018 price forecast to $11,000 from $7,500 on Friday. He maintained his $50,000 target for 2027, though he said it was conservative.

Bitcoin’s Detractors

  • Severin Cabannes, deputy chief executive officer at Societe Generale SA, was the latest big bank official to weigh in, saying that “Bitcoin today is in my view very clearly in a bubble,” in a Bloomberg Television interview Friday.
  • Speculation around bitcoin is the “very definition of a bubble,” Credit Suisse Group AG CEO Tidjane Thiam told reporters in Zurich on Thursday. “The only reason today to buy or sell bitcoin is to make money,” and such speculation “has rarely led to a happy end,” Thiam said.
  • Themis Trading LLC raised a red flag this week after CME Group Inc. announced plans to introduce bitcoin futures, saying the world’s largest exchange owner appeared to have “caved in” to pressure from clients. “A bitcoin future would be placing a seal of approval around a very risky, unregulated instrument that has a history of fraud and manipulation,” the firm said in a blog post.
  • JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon remains one of Wall Street’s most strident bitcoin opponents, saying in October that people who buy the currency are “stupid” and that governments will eventually crush it.

On the Fence

  • While CME’s decision to offer bitcoin futures by the end of the year appears to be an endorsement of the currency’s viability, CEO Terry Duffy demurred when asked whether he’s concerned about a potential bubble. “I’ve seen a lot of different bubbles over the last 37 years,” he said on Bloomberg TV. “It’s not up to me to predict if it’s a bubble or not — what I’m here to do is to help people manage risk.”
  • Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein isn’t sure what to make of bitcoin and is unwilling to reject the digital currency just yet. “I know that once upon a time, a coin was worth $5 if it had $5 worth of gold in it,” Blankfein said in another Bloomberg TV interview. “Now we have paper that is just backed by fiat … maybe in the new world, something gets backed by consensus.”
  • While Thomas J. Lee of Fundstrat Global Advisors has turned cautious on bitcoin in the short term because of its big gains, he remains a long-term bull on the digital currency — maintaining a 2022 price target of $25,000.

Unfortunately for the environmentalists, we suspect the Bitcoin horse has bolted and only the dreaded hand of government can rein it back.

via http://ift.tt/2ixbQkF Tyler Durden

Oil Jumps To $56, Highest Since July 2015 Following Saudi Turmoil

With the launch of electronic trading, WTI crude has jumped from the highest close since July 2015 amid Saudi turmoil which over the weekend included a crackdown on 11 Saudi princes – including billionaire Alwaleed – and dozens of current and former ministers as Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, i.e. MbS, who’s backed policy of capping oil output to raise prices, consolidates power with anti-graft probe, and shortly after a helicopter that carried 8 high-ranking Saudi officials inexplicably crashed near the Yemen border

As shown in the chart below, December WTI briefly touched $56, and was up +0.5% to $55.87/bbl shortly after 6pm ET, the highest price since July 6, 2015…

… while January Brent was also higher by 0.5% to $62.39/bbl.

via http://ift.tt/2hI9ek6 Tyler Durden