North Korea Releases US Prisoners Ahead Of Historic Trump Summit

North Korea has released three U.S. citizens from years-long detentions in a suspected labor camp, giving them medical treatment and “ideological education” at a hotel near Pyongyang, says human rights advocate Choi Sung-ryong, as reported by the Financial Times

Choi Sung-ryong, a representative of the families of the prisoners, told South Korean news outlet Naver: “We talked with a source in North Korea today. North Korean authorities released Kim Dong-cheol, Kim Sang-deok and Kim Hak-seong, who were in jail at the labor correction center in early April, and they are currently in a ‘course’ where they are treated and educated at a hotel outside Pyongyang.” –IB Times

“We heard it through our sources in North Korea late last month. We believe that Mr Trump can take them back on the day of the US-North Korea summit or he can send an envoy to take them back to the US before the summit,” said Mr Choi.

Among the three detainees, Kim Dong-cheol, a South Korean-born American pastor, was arrested by North Korea in 2015 on charges of spying and sentenced in 2016 to 10 years of hard labour. Kim Hak-seong and Kim Sang-deok, both working for Pyongyang University of Science and Technology, were detained last year on suspicion of “hostile acts”. –FT

Newly minted National Security Advisor John R. Bolton told Fox News on Sunday “If North Korea releases the detained Americans before the North-US summit, it will be an opportunity to demonstrate their authenticity.” 

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is believed to have discussed the release of the three Americans during his clandestine meeting in Pyongyang with the North Korean leader over Easter Weekend – while President Trump confirmed last week that the two countries had been negotiating for their release.

Those watching North Korea say Pyongyang has been very careful to monitor the American detainees’ health following the mysterious death of US university student Otto Warmbier – who died six days after he was released by North Korea last June. 

Otto was taken hostage, kept as a prisoner for political purposes, used as a pawn and singled out for exceptionally harsh and brutal treatment by Kim Jong Un,” his father said in a press conference held one day before North and South Korea held their historic summit.

The Warmbier family is currently suing North Korea over the death of Otto, who “suffered extensive brain damage following interrupted blood flow and a lack of oxygen,” according to the coroner who examined his body. 

North Korean officials said Mr. Warmbier’s condition was caused by sleeping pills and botulism, a diagnosis that medical experts doubted. He died six days later at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center.

M.R.I. scans were done at the medical center after he arrived, which also performed a whole-body CT scan after Mr. Warmbier’s death.

The images clearly showed that his brain had been starved of oxygen and that large tracts of cells had died, Dr. Sammarco said. The medical diagnosis is anoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.

His parents requested that a full autopsy not be performed. On Tuesday, during an appearance on the television show “Fox & Friends,” Fred Warmbier said that his son had been “tortured” and described North Korean officials as “terrorists.” –New York Times

The two Koreas reaffirmed an agreement to denuclearize the peninsula, pledging to declare an official end to the Korean war. FT reports that South Korea’s presidential advisor, Moon Chung-in said on Monday that it would be “difficult to justify the presence of 28,500 US troops in South Korea, if a peace treaty was signed,” however President Moon Jae-in dismissed Chung-in’s views the next day. 

“US troops stationed in South Korea are an issue regarding the alliance between South Korea and the US. It has nothing to do with signing a peace treaty,” his spokesman Kim Eui-keyom quoted the president as saying. (FT)

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

Viewing Employment Without Rose-Colored Glasses

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Fed Officials Worry Economy Is Too Good. Workers Still Feel Left Behind” – New York Times 4/27/2018

This coming Friday the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) will release the monthly employment report. Consensus expectations from economists are for an unemployment rate (U3) of 4.1% which is nearly unprecedented in the last fifty years.

On April 26, 2018, the Department of Labor reported that a mere 209,000 people filed for initial jobless claims. This weekly amount was the lowest since 1969. The data point is the lowest in almost 50 years and remarkable when normalized for the number of people considered to be of working age (ages 15-64).

Low initial jobless claims coupled with the historically low unemployment rate are leading many economists to warn of tight labor markets and impending wage inflation. If there is no one to hire, employees have more negotiating leverage according to prevalent theory. While this seems reasonable on its face, further analysis into the employment data suggests these conclusions are not so straightforward. This was recently raised by the New York Times as highlighted in the lead quote above.

Strong Labor Statistics

The following chart highlights initial jobless claims adjusted for the working age population (ages 15-64).

Data Courtesy: St. Louis Federal Reserve

As shown above, there is only one person filing an initial jobless claim for every thousand people in the workforce. This is less than half the average (dotted line) of the last 50 years. Further, when one considers seasonal workers that will always be filing claims, regardless of the health of the economy, this number may be reaching the lowest point conceivable.  Regardless, the current low rate of jobless claims is unprecedented.

The U-3 unemployment rate, as calculated by the BLS, is also at a level that implies an incredibly strong labor market. Except for the year 2000 when it dipped to a low of 3.8%, the most recent reading of 4.1% is the lowest since 1969.

Adjusting Labor Statistics for Reality

The data mentioned above suggests that the job market is on fire. While we would like nothing more than to agree, there is other employment data that contradicts that premise.

If there are very few workers in need of a job, then current workers should have pricing leverage over their employers.  This does not seem to be the case as shown in the graph of personal income below.

Data Courtesy: St. Louis Federal Reserve

In addition to the weak wage growth, we are also troubled by another labor statistic, the participation rate. This indicator measures employed people and those “looking for work” as a percentage of those aged 16 and older. During economic recessions, the ratio tends to decline as unemployed workers get discouraged and stop looking for work. Conversely, it tends to increase when the labor market is healthy.

The participation rate graphed below shows that, despite nine years of economic recovery since the 2008 financial crisis, the participation rate has trended lower and clearly broken the trend from the prior 20 years.

Data Courtesy: St. Louis Federal Reserve

Closer inspection of the BLS data reveals that, since 2008, 16 million people were reclassified as “leaving the workforce”. To put those 16 million people into context, from 1985 to 2008, a period almost three times longer than the post-crisis recovery, a similar number of people left the work force.

Some economists may be tempted to push back on this analysis by claiming the drop in the participation rate is attributable to a large number of baby boomers retiring. While it is true 10,000 boomers will reach age 65 daily from the year 2011 to 2030, we must also consider that 11,500 children a day will turn 16 during that same period. Not all 16-year-olds will seek work or be gainfully employed, but we must also consider that many baby boomers will stay in the workforce.  According to recent Pew Research surveys, boomers do not believe “old age” begins until the age of 72. Taken together, this suggests the demographic explanation may not explain the inconsistencies found in the “full-employment” assumption.

Why are so many people struggling to find a job and terminating their search if, as we are repeatedly told, the labor market is so healthy? To explain the juxtaposition of the low jobless claims number and unemployment rate with the low participation rate and weak wage growth, a calculation of the participation rate adjusted unemployment rate is revealing.

When people stop looking for a job, they are still unemployed, but they are not included in the U-3 unemployment calculation. If we include those who quit looking for work in the data, the employment situation is quite different. The graph below compares the U-3 unemployment rate to one that assumes a constant participation rate from 2008 to today. Contrary to the U-3 unemployment rate of 4.1%, this metric implies an adjusted unemployment rate of 9.1%.

Data Courtesy: St. Louis Federal Reserve and Real Investment Advise

Enter the Phillips Curve

The Phillips curve, named after William Phillips, is a simple measure describing the inverse relationship between the unemployment rate and wage inflation. The logical premise behind the Phillips Curve is that, as unemployment drops and workers become harder to find, workers can demand higher wages. Conversely, when unemployment rises, the supply of workers is greater, and therefore wages fall. The Phillips curve follows the basic tenets of the supply and demand curves for most goods and services.

Many economists and media pundits have pronounced the Phillips curve relationship dead as it relates to employment. They deem it an economic relic that has ceased to provide reliable results. Has a basic, time-tested law of supply and demand ceased to work in the labor markets, or are economists measuring the inputs incorrectly? 

There are a large number of social and economic factors that affect wages and the supply of workers. We do not ignore those factors, but it is a good exercise to observe the Phillips curve relationship if one uses the more “realistic” unemployment rate (9.1%) shown above. Further, we substitute wage growth one-year forward for the traditional method of using current wage growth. The logic here is that it takes time for employees to apply the leverage they gain over employers to boost their income.

The first graph below shows the traditional Phillips curve as typically displayed (U-3 and recent three-month wage growth). The second is a modified Phillips curve which uses the adjusted U-3 from above and one-year forward wage growth.

Both graphs contain their respective R-squared (R²), which shows the statistical relationship between the two factors. The traditionally calculated Phillips Curve (first graph) demonstrates that only 28.84% of the change in wages was due to the change in the unemployment rate. Visual inspection also tells us the relationship between wages and unemployment is weak. It is this graph that has many economists declaring the Phillips curve to be irrelevant. The second graph, with our adjustments, is statistically significant as 70.47% of the changes in wages were due to the change in the unemployment rate. This graph visibly confirms that the Phillips curve relationship for employment continues to hold when more representative data is used.

Recently, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago President Charles Evans stated, in relation to the Phillips curve, “We don’t have a great understanding of why it’s gotten to be so flat.” Mr. Evans, perhaps employment is not as strong as you and your Fed colleagues think it is.

If one believes that the laws of supply and demand continue to hold true, then the revised Phillips curve graph above argues that the unemployment rate is in reality much closer to 9% than 4.1%. To believe that the Phillips curve is useless, one must be willing to ignore a more rigorous assessment of labor market and wage data. The only reason economists and Fed officials voluntarily ignore this data is that it belies the prettier picture of the economy they wish to paint.

Summary

One of the main factors driving the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates and reduce its balance sheet is the perceived low level of unemployment. Simultaneously, multiple comments from Fed officials suggest they are justifiably confused by some of the signals emanating from the jobs data. As we have argued in the past, the current monetary policy experiment has short-circuited the economy’s traditional traffic signals. None of these signals is more important than employment. Logic and evidence argue that, despite the self-congratulations of central bankers, good wage-paying jobs are not as plentiful as advertised and the embedded risks in the economy are higher. We must consider the effects that these sequences of policy error might have on the economy – one where growth remains anemic and jobs deceptively elusive.

Given that wages translate directly to personal consumption, a reliable interpretation of employment data has never been more important. Oddly enough, it appears as though that interpretation has never been more misleading. If we are correct that employment is weak, then future rate hikes and the planned reduction in the Fed’s balance sheet will begin to reveal this weakness soon.

As an aside, it is worth noting that in November of 1969 jobless claims stood at 211,000, having risen slightly from the lows recorded earlier that year. Despite the low number of claims, a recession started a month later, and jobless claims would nearly double within six months. This episode serves as a reminder that every recession followed interim lows in jobless claims and the unemployment rate. We are confident that the dynamics leading into the next recession will not be any different.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2I9t3z6 Tyler Durden

“It’s Just Bullshit”: Crypto Brawl Breaks Out After Roubini Unloads On Bitcoin

What was supposed to be a “sober discussion” about blockchain technology at the Milken Institute Global Conference on Thursday will instead be remembered as the first public “cryptobrawl” of 2018, and it was instigated by none other than famed crypto skeptic Nouriel Roubini, the NYU economics professor-cum-party organizer,  better known as “Dr. Doom” for his pro-Keynesian/fiat, anti-crypto views.

Roubini

The verbal feud started when Roubini infuriated cryptoevangelists by accusing them of doing precisely what they accuse fiat fanatics of doing: “You’re just making stuff up.”

“Why don’t you buy one coin, then you can tell us how it works,” Mashinsky said.

As if that weren’t enough to send his blockchain evangelist co-panelists into a rage, Roubini followed it up with another equally provocative statement.

“All this talk of decentralization is just bullshit,” he said.

According to a Bloomberg report, the discussion quickly unraveled from there, with a shouting match erupting between Roubini and blockchain entrepreneur Alex Mashinsky, who exclaimed that “everything you just said is irrelevant.’ Before he became involved with blockchain, Mashinsky helped develop the Voice over Internet Protocol standard.

Mashinsky wasn’t the only panel member who pushed back against Roubini.

“I don’t even know where to begin,” Bill Barhydt, who worked on cryptography for the CIA, responded to Roubini.

Roubini was one of the first big-name academics in the world of economics to express serious doubts about blockchain.

But while pessimism is effectively Roubini’s default mode, it appears “Dr. Doom” might’ve had an ulterior motive when he instigated today’s commotion: it appears that Roubini is participating in a debate later this month at Fluidity Summit 2018 where he will play crypto-skeptic to Consensys Founder Joe Lubin’s crypto advocate.

Tickets are on sale now.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2KwKU1h Tyler Durden

Charles Nenner Warns “The Whole Thing Will Come Tumbling Down”

Via Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog blog,

Renowned geopolitical and financial cycle expert Charles Nenner says, “The mainstream media talking heads are telling you to buy, but never tell you to sell.” Nenner says the time to sell stocks is getting close and explains,

“It’s just a hopeless situation. I feel sorry for people who invest their money. We have had a nice ride, but soon the whole thing will come tumbling down.

They listen to all these things and have no clue on how to invest… I think soon… this will become the longest expansion in financial history…

So, this could be the longest expansion ever, what are you playing with? You are gambling with nonsense. So, it’s over.

Nenner goes on to say, “Then, you have the inflation story. The inflation story is brought about by people who don’t do their historical homework. “

They remember for the last 30 years, there was always inflation. So, they continue to talk about inflation. I proved that in most of the financial history that deflation is the norm

They have talked about inflation for two years, and there is still no inflation. . . . Copper is going down. Crude is going down, and we have a deflation problem, not an inflation problem.”

Nenner is predicting interest rates “are going down” and not up in the foreseeable future.

Nenner is also calling for the stock market to go on a “downward slide through the year 2020.” Nenner says, “I can’t explain it, but the cycle topped, and the cycle is down until 2021.”

How bad will it be? Nenner says, “Very bad.”

I called for Dow Jones 5,000, and I still call for Dow Jones 5,000…

It’s going to be a blood bath, but as I said the last time, in the 1990’s when the Dow was 5,000, the world still looked okay.”

Is there a big debt reset coming? Nenner says,

“The last time we were in this situation was when Roosevelt was President. It was very interesting because they paid off only 25% on the dollar because the inflation that came.

Now, the problem is if you don’t have inflation, you still owe the whole amount of money. This is why they urgently need this inflation. So, the value of the money goes down, and you have to pay off less. There is no inflation. So, it is a big problem, but they can keep this going forever. I don’t think it’s a problem because countries can keep printing money as long as they want.”

The other big cycle Nenner has been seeing is the so-called “war cycle.” Nenner says,

“The next four or five years in this war cycle is very dangerous.”

On gold and silver, Nenner is bullish, but “not until after this summer.”

Join Greg Hunter as goes One-on-One with renowned analyst Charles Nenner.

(To Donate to USAWatchdog.com Click Here)

After the Interview: 

Charles Nenner points out if you look back every year that ended in the number 7, it was a market top year. He said, “2017 will follow the same pattern as 2007, 1997, 1987, 1977, 1967, 1957, 1947 and 1937.”  Nenner contends 1927 was supposed to be a market top year, but things got distorted and it was pushed off until 1929.

Nenner predicts the next market crash will not be quite as bad as 1929, but it will be bad.

There is free information and videos on CharlesNenner.com. To sign up for a free trial of Nenner’s detailed analysis, click here.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2HL4y86 Tyler Durden

Tesla Burns $12 Million Per Day As It Scrambles To Ramp Model 3 Production

Amid reports of a slowing ramp up in Model 3 production, and Elon Musk’s own repeated warnings that manufacturing challenges during a production ramp such as this “makes it difficult to predict exactly how long it will take for all bottlenecks to be cleared or when new ones will appear” and that his overreliance on automation meant he himself is now back on the factory floor…

… in addition to numerous other debacles, including Musk joke-tweeting about bankruptcy, or admitting he made a mistake in betting on “excessive automation'”, not to mention the departure of Tesla’s Autopilot chief last month, following a fatal crash in California in March, investors were looking ahead with borderline terror to today’s Tesla Q1 earnings report despite the stock rising in recent days on hopes that the company will finally be able to hit its new, reduced target of 5,000 cars per week as it is now reportedly making 2,000 Model 3s per week.

Well, they can all breathe a sigh of relief because contrary to growing skepticism, there was no immediate bad news, when Tesla reported a Q1 (non-GAAP) loss of $568 million, or an adjusted EPS of ($3.35) (and $4.19 on a GAAP basis), better than the $3.41 expected, if nearly 3 times more than the $1.33 loss one year ago.

There was more good news hiding in Tesla’s top line: the company reported revenue of $3.41bn, also magically just above the $3.32 billion expected, which was further boosted by an increase in the non-GAAP automotive gross margin which rose sequentially from 13.8% to 18.8%,well above the 14.3% estimate, if dropping from 27.8% one year ago (also, on a GAAP basis, consolidated gross profit was naturally far lower, at 13.4%). Meanwhile, GAAP automotive gross margins fell from a quarter a year ago to 19.7% from 27.4%

Echoing what Elon Musk said on the Q4 call, Tesla said it will reach full GAAP profitability in Q3 and Q4. That said, there was a major caveat, with Tesla warning that it would do so only if it “execute according to our plans.” What are the plans?

This is primarily based on our ability to reach Model 3 production volume of 5,000 units per week and to grow Model  3 gross margin from slightly negative in Q1 2018 to close to breakeven in Q2 and then to highly positive in Q3 and Q4.

Well, good luck with those 5,000 units per week.

But once again the biggest (non) surprise was in Tesla’s cash burn which after plunging from a record $1.4 billion in Q3 to just $276.8 million in Q4, far below the $900 million expected, is baaaack, and soared to $1.05 billion in Q1, or roughly $12 million per day. This means that Musk’s plan of being cash flow positive by the second half is pretty much scrapped.

Also amusing: with everyone now suddenly talking about Tesla’s cash burn, the company pulled the oldest trick in the book, and declined to include a line item on free cash flow this quarter, something it has regularly done int he past, which means algos have to do the math on their own to calculate the $1.05 billion cash burn.

What is also notable is that in its outlook, Tesla said it has “significantly cut back its capex projections by focusing on the critical near-term needs that benefit us primarily in the next couple of years” and that at this stage it is “expecting total 2018 capex to be slightly below $3 billion, which is below the total 2017 level of $3.4 billion.”

Unfortunately, as Bloomberg’s David Welch notes, it is unclear “how Tesla will pull back on capex while building capacity for another 5,000 of the Model 3 a week, developing the new roadster, the semi and Model Y sport utility. Perhaps we wil get more detail on the call.

More importantly, it is now clear that cash burn is certainly becoming a concern for both Elon Musk, and his shareholders.

* * *

Then we get to the all important auto deliveries: here, we learn that Tesla just delivered its highest-ever number Models S and X. As Tesla notes, in Q1, it produced 24,728 Model S and X and 9,766 Model 3 vehicles, and delivered 21,815 Model S and Model X vehicles. More importantly, Tesla delivered 8,182 Model 3 vehicles, totaling 29,997 deliveries for the quarter.

Musk also proudly informed investors that prior to a planned shutdown in mid-April to further increase production, “we produced more than 2,000 Model 3 vehicles for three straight weeks, and we hit 2,270 in the last of those weeks.”

Looking ahead, Tesla says it continues to target Model 3 production of 5,000 per week in about two months, although notes that prior experience has shown the difficulty of accurately forecasting specific production rates because of the “exponential nature” of the ramp.

Tesla also said it will begin offering new options such as all-wheel-drive and the base model with a standard-sized battery pack, after achieving a production rate of 5,000 per week.

The company also unveiled that Model 3 net reservations, including configured orders that had not yet been delivered, continued to exceed 450,000 at the end of 1Q. During 2Q, Tesla expects to shut down production for about 10 days, which includes the shutdown taken in April, to address bottlenecks across the lines and increase production to new levels.

There is a problem however: according to Musk, short-term operational and logistical issues once again led to an increase in the number of Model S and Model X vehicles in transit to customers at the end of Q1.

Focusing on Model 3 production, the company said that its “Model 3 general assembly line consists of fewer than 50 steps, which is about 70% less than conventional assembly lines. All Model 3 vehicles use only one standard body frame, down from more than 80 for Model S, a wiring harness that has 50% less mass than average vehicles, and a fraction of the number of controllers, connectors and CPUs.”

Another problem emerges in terms of near term growth, with Tesla admitting that “in the medium term, we expect to achieve slightly lower margin due to higher labor content in certain areas of manufacturing where we have  temporarily dialed back automation.

Some more good news: customer deposits for future deliveries jumped once again in Q1 from $854 million to a record $984 million, the highest yet and is largely the result of November’s debut of the Semi and Roadster, and represents what Bloomberg dubbed “unconventional fundraising”

 

What is notable is that even as cash burn slowed, total long-term debt jumped to a nausea inducing – for a cash flow negative company – to $10.8  billion from just under $6 billion at the end of 2016.

Going back to the company’s all important cash burn, here is what Musk said:

  • Cash outflow from operating activities in Q1 2018 was $398 million primarily due to an increase in inventory and accounts receivable balances as a result of the timing of deliveries. Higher number of Model S and Model X vehicles in transit at the end of Q1 2018 compared to Q4 2017 had a negative impact of about $120 million on our working capital. Additionally, due to a substantial increase in our deliveries in the last few days of the quarter, our accounts receivables negatively impacted our operating cash flow by $169 million in Q1. Both of these factors provided cash inflows during April.
  • We received $112 million in net funding from our vehicle lease warehouse lines, automotive asset-backed notes, auto tax equity fund and collateralized lease borrowings. When combined with free cash flow, this is a better indicator of the cash consumed in the quarter.
  • More than half of our capex in Q1 was related to completion of work for Model 3 production capacity at Fremont and Gigafactory 1 plus payments to suppliers for tooling.

Once again, taking it all togetgher, the company burned just over $1 billion this quarter. This is a problem because as Bloomberg notes, “Musk has to come through with his plans to be cash flow positive in the second half of the year.”

Some more on Tesla’s outlook, from the release:

During Q2, we expect to shut down production for about 10 days, which includes the  shutdown we took in April, to address bottlenecks across the lines and increase production to new levels. Our goal is to produce approximately 5,000 Model 3 vehicles per week in about two months.

We are in the process of changing the quarterly production pattern of Model S and X vehicles for the various worldwide regions to ensure a more linear flow of deliveries through the  quarter. We believe this will provide a better customer experience and reduce the stress on our delivery system. Consequently, Model S and X deliveries in Q2 will likely be similar to Q1 but should pick up considerably in Q3 to achieve our goal of 100,000 deliveries for the full year.

Our long-term gross margin target of 25% for Model 3 has not changed. In the medium term, we expect to achieve slightly lower margin due to higher labor content in certain areas of manufacturing where we have temporarily dialed back automation, as well as higher material costs from recently imposed tariffs, commodity price increases and a weaker US dollar. On the other hand, our average selling price is significantly higher than prior projections, so we expect to achieve higher gross profit per vehicle than we previously estimated.

Quarterly non-GAAP operating expenses should grow sequentially at approximately the same rate as in the past four quarters, with our gross profit expected to grow much faster than our operating expenses. Thus, provided that we hit the 5,000 unit milestone in our projected timeframe and execute to the rest of our plan, we will at least be profitable in Q3 and Q4 excluding non-cash stock based compensation and we expect to achieve full GAAP profitability in each of those quarters as well. Also, considering our capex targets, we expect to generate positive cash in Q3 and Q4, including the inflow of cash that we receive in the normal course of our business from financing activities on leased vehicle and solar products.

We have significantly cut back our capex projections by focusing on the critical near-term needs that benefit us primarily in the next couple of years. At this stage, we are expecting total 2018 capex to be slightly below $3 billion, which is below the total 2017 level of $3.4 billion. Ultimately, our capex guidance will develop in line with Model 3 production and profitability. We will be able to adjust our capital expenditures significantly depending on our operating cash generation.

Interest expenses in Q2 should amount to roughly $160 million and losses attributable to non-controlling interest should remain in line with the last quarter.

Musk closed optimistically: “We have good visibility of our path to fully ramp and stabilize Model 3 production this year. Model 3 is already the best-selling electric vehicle and, more importantly, on the cusp of becoming the best-selling premium sedan in the US. The path to an electrified revolution is not easy, but what we’re trying to achieve is worth fighting for.”

There is just one very big problem: as we showed earlier, the competition is coming.

So with the benefit of no further cuts in the delivery calendar, the modest top and bottom line beats, and rising customer deposits, offset by the surge surge in cash burn the company’s stock after dropping lower initially is now… largely unchanged.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2jnol2U Tyler Durden

The Latest Panic Over “Assault Weapons”

Authored by José Niño via The Mises Institute,

Taking a page straight out of 1984, Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, recently changed the definition of assault rifle to fit pro-gun control talking points.

Bre Payton of the Federalist highlights how the online dictionary modified the entry for “assault rifle” with the following definition: 

“noun: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire”

Curiously, an earlier version of the same entry from June 13, 2016 only included the traditionally accepted definition of assault rifle:

“noun: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use”

After the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in February, the pro-gun control crowd has had a field day exploiting this tragedy. Part of their revived push for gun control consists of advancing bans and restrictions on so-called “assault weapons” like the much maligned AR-15.

A whipping boy for gun control advocates, the AR-15 and its cosmetic features generate polarizing emotions among the general populace. Add a little bit of fearmongering and sprinkle in some ambiguous political language, and you have the recipe for a national disinformation campaign.

For starters, “assault weapon” is a politically invented term gun control advocates like Senator Dianne Feinstein have used over the past few decades to instill fear among the general populace.

The media enjoys creating lurid images of criminals toting “military-grade” weapons after every shooting, but any serious analysis of these incidents will quickly pick apart this myth.

Cosmetics notwithstanding, firearms like the AR-15 function no differently from regular handguns. To add even more confusion, media talking heads use the terms “assault rifle” and “assault weapon” interchangeably.

Assault rifle actually refers to a military firearm that possesses semi-automatic and automatic settings. AR-15s can’t be classified as assault rifles due to only featuring a semi-automatic setting.

Alas, hard-hitting facts don’t jive well with sensationalist media figures and demagogic politicians hell-bent on advancing an anti-gun crusade at all costs.

Gun controllers had their way during Bill Clinton’s presidency when the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was enacted. Coolers heads eventually prevailed during the Bush years, when George W. Bush let the Assault Weapons Ban expire in 2004. The FBI reported a 3.6 percent decline in the national murder rate from 2003 to 2004 much to the chagrin of gun control advocates, who warned that the repeal of the 1994 AWB would lead to an upswing in crime.

However, this trend did not stop there. Declining crimes rates became the norm from 1993 to 2013, when gun ownership per person increased by 56% and gun violence correspondingly decreased by 49%.

While correlation is not causation, this statistical finding demonstrates that laxer gun laws which allow more people to carry and own firearms do not necessarily produce large spikes in violence like many gun controllers fear.

But gun controllers have remained persistent and they currently have a favorable political environment in which they can operate in.

With a Republican controlled Governor’s office and legislature in Florida kowtowing to anti-gun pressure and the federal government passing the largest piece of gun control legislation since the 1994 Brady Act, supposedly “pro-gun” politicians can no longer be counted on to defend gun rights.

And it doesn’t stop there.

Now that political figures like retired Supreme Court Justice Paul Stevens are calling for the outright repeal of the Second Amendment, gun controllers smell blood in the water.

Merriam-Webster’s latest move to change the definition of assault rifle just serves as another stark reminder of the tide shift towards gun control.

Many will scoff at this development and claim that it’s much ado about nothing, but the significance of this lexical change cannot be overstated.

Author George Orwell understood the power of words and warned how the English language could be corrupted to serve a more nefarious, statist agenda.

In his famous essay, Politics and the English Language, Orwell argued that if “thoughts can corrupt language, language can also corrupt thought”. This very same language could be used “to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind”. Then the stage is set for the rise of Newspeak, where every day speech is filled with politically approved vocabulary that contains ambiguous and empty meanings.

Of all individual activities in the United States, the right to bear arms has stood relatively strong in the face of the unprecedented levels of government intervention over the past century. However, Second Amendment supporters currently face a completely different political scenario where this precious right now hangs in the balance. 

Not only are gun rights activists starting to lose battles on the public policy front, but the very rhetorical battles that shape these debates could also be in jeopardy.

The words we use in common parlance matter and when their definitions are changed to fit a misleading political narrative, the floodgates are open for all sorts of rhetorical abuse and inevitable policy defeats.

It’s high time we took back control of our language and re-frame the terms of the gun debate in America.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2rhOHa0 Tyler Durden

Fed Stagflation Signal Sparks Stock Slump, Yield Hump, Dollar Dump’n’Pump

Wait what…

The Fed made its statement and the machines tried to make sense of it…

It took markets about 15 minutes to figure it out….

Stocks seemed to like the message of The Fed to start with, then…

And this happened…

As investors and algos alike realized this…

On the day…Futures show the Mueller subpoena offset AAPL’s exuberant impact overnight, then The FOMC hit…

On the day Small Caps clung to gains…

The Dow closed in correction territory at a one-month low close…

 

The Dollar was the only winner post-FOMC…

 

Banks did not like The Fed statement…

 

The Dollar was wild today… Dumping and Pumping after The Fed statement as algos studied the word “symmetrical”…

 

Cryptocurrencies rallied on the day (with Bitcoin Cash jumping on admission to a UK exchange)…

 

Treasuries were mixed today with the long-end higher in yield and short-end lower in yield…

 

Which meant the yield curve steepened modestly…

 

A chaotic day in commodityland with WTI confused by inventory data and PMs confused by FOMC…

 

Gold jumped out of the gate but as the markets realized what The Fed said, things reversed with gold back to unch from FOMC…

 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2I7UmtY Tyler Durden

Trump Formally Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize

A group of 18 GOP lawmakers led by Rep. Luke Messer of Indiana, have signed a letter formally nominating President Trump for the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize.

The letter is addressed to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, and states that President Trump has worked “tirelessly to apply maximum pressure to North Korea to end its illicit weapons programs and bring peace to the region.” 

“His Administration successfully united the international community, including China, to impose one of the most successful international sanctions regimes in history,” the letter says. “The sanctions have decimated the North Korean economy and have been largely credited for bringing North Korea to the negotiating table.”

Other signatories include Reps Mark Meadows, R-N.C., Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., Diane Black, R-Tenn., and Steve King, R-Iowa.

“Although North Korea has evaded demands from the international community to cease its aggression for decades, President Trump’s peace through strength policies are working and bringing peace to the Korean peninsula,” the letter reads. “We can think of no one more deserving of the Committee’s recognition in 2019 than President Trump for his tireless work to bring peace to our world.”

“The only reason the North Korean dictator is coming to the table is because President Trump has stared him down and shown him that we have a leader in America who means business and who has changed the dynamic in major ways,” Rep. Messer told Fox News. “That’s why I think he has to be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize.”

The letter follows a Monday proclamation by South Korean leader, Moon Jae-in, who said that Trump deserves the prize just a few short hours after North Korean leader Kim Jong-un crossed south of the border and pledged to end hostilities between the two countries – including a “complete denuclearization” of the Korean peninsula. 

“President Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize. What we need is only peace.”

Moon’s Nobel Prize comment came in response to a congratulatory message from Lee Hee-ho, the widow of late South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, in which she said Moon deserved to win the prize in recognition of his efforts, the Blue House official said.

Moon responded by saying Trump should get it.

Moon’s made similar comments in January, saying that Trump “deserves big credit for bringing about the inter-Korean talks. It could be a resulting work of the U.S.-led sanctions and pressure.”

As a reminder, in December of 2009 – less than one year after taking office, President Obama – to many people’s surprise – won the Nobel Peace Prize for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”.

In 2015, Geir Lundestad – ex-secretary of the Nobel committee from 1990 to 2015, told the AP news agency that awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to US President Barack Obama in 2009 failed to achieve what the committee hoped it would, its ex-secretary has said.

Mr Lundestad, writing in his memoir, Secretary of Peace, said even Mr Obama himself had been surprised.

“No Nobel Peace Prize ever elicited more attention than the 2009 prize to Barack Obama,” Mr Lundestad writes.

“Even many of Obama’s supporters believed that the prize was a mistake,” he says. “In that sense the committee didn’t achieve what it had hoped for”.

Awarding Trump the Nobel Peace Price would likely be controversial to peace activists, whose firely language sent shockwaves throughout the international community in 2017. That said, Rep. Messer says Trump’s approach has been solid. 

“The peace through strength approach to national security is delivering results, not just in North Korea,” Messer said. “ISIS is on the run and I think the world is waking up to the fact that there’s a new sheriff in town and the world’s most important leader today is Donald Trump.

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

PayPal Tumbles As Amazon Muscles Into Digital Payments

Amazon is breaking out the classic Jeff Bezos playbook as it seeks to steal some more market share and claw business away from PayPal and credit-card issuing banks, while establishing itself as master of the “single button” digital-payment solution of the future.

Case in point: Bloomberg reports that the e-commerce giant is offering retailers who sell products on its platform a discount if they use Amazon’s own system for processing digital payments.

AMZN

Amazon’s ultimate goal: To capture a piece of the “swipe fee” market, which is a $90 billion-a-year business for banks like JPMorgan and Citigroup. Networks including Visa Inc. and Mastercard Inc., and payment processors like First Data Corp. and Stripe Inc., pocket a tiny fraction of every sale whenever investors swipe or click “buy now.”

Retailers like Wal-Mart and Amazon have typically been able to negotiate discounts from payment processors because of their market heft. Now, Amazon is offering to pass its discount along to retailers that agree to use its system. Typically, the financial industry’s fees amount to about 2% of credit-card transactions and 24 cents for debit.

An Amazon spokeswoman declined to comment. It couldn’t be determined how many retailers have received Amazon’s offer for discounts. The company typically tests such initiatives before rolling them out broadly.

Previously, online merchants using Amazon’s service have paid about 2.9 percent of each credit-card transaction plus 30 cents, which is divvied up among Amazon, card issuers and payment networks. As part of its experiment, Amazon is offering to negotiate lower fees with merchants making long-term commitments to use the service, according to one person familiar with the matter.

Amazon is able to export the rates it has negotiated with banks and payment networks because, like PayPal, it’s acting as a so-called payments facilitator. That means it aggregates smaller merchants to help them reduce the cost of accepting electronic payments.

Amazon Pay has attracted more than 30 million users since the company revived it back in 2013. The service allows users to load in their Amazon Pay info on other sites, allowing Amazon to grab a piece of e-commerce sales on other websites.

As Bloomberg explains, Amazon’s aggressive push into the space is part of a battle between tech and traditional financial firms to develop the dominant digital payments system, something similar to Alibaba’s Alipay or Tencent Holding’s WeChat Pay in China.

Last month, Visa and Mastercard announced a partnership to create their own online checkout button as Visa abandoned a separate venture called Visa Checkout and Mastercard abandoned its Masterpass initiative.

The news sent PayPal shares spiraling lower in late-day trade:

AMZN

via RSS https://ift.tt/2I8lZCT Tyler Durden

Tesla’s “Other” Biggest Risk

With Tesla set to report results after the close, most investors will be focusing on two key risk factors: i) the often-delayed production Model 3 production ramp, and ii) the company’s cash burn, which in Q3 of 2017 hit an all time high of $1.4 billion.  And whereas in the past, Elon Musk could easily slide between these two concerns, his recent erratic behavior coupled with growing rumblings that there may be terminal complications involving the company’s “make or break” Model 3 rollout, has resulted in an increasing sensitivity to both the details of the Model 3 production ramp, as well as to the company’s trademark gargantuan cash burn.

But while these two problems are well known, and mostly priced in, a recent Barclays report (which as the firm joked was a little too long for its US and tech clients at 89 pages), noted a third, less appreciated concern: with every quarter of delays, the competition is catching up.

Recall Barclays’ own “tweetsized” summary of its report in just 5 bullet points, all of which scream one thing: the (German) competition is coming as Tesla delays:

  1. Hey @elonmusk: German OEMs & other dinos you have mocked will be rolling out exciting new BEVs — 6 new models in ’18, & 13 in’ 19
  2. Production hell, nein; Industrie 4.0, ja: German mfg is state of the art now & gets better w/ a harmonious blend of humans + robots, AI, IoT
  3. TSLA went a robot too far? Despite the quest for an “Alien Dreadnought” @elonmusk admitted that automation needs to be dialed back, is that good for gross margins?
  4. Showdown on scale: German OEMs will leverage scale economies either thru large native EV platforms (VW) or modular approaches (BMW)
  5. With solid & profitable EVs coming while TSLA struggles, legacy OEMs deserve

And yes, Barclays is rather bearish on Tesla as a result. This is what it said two weeks ago:

“We give credit for the leadership tesla has displayed in accelerating global EV uptake, and indeed we acknowledge that at this time the model 3 is clearly the most attractive EV option at its price point. However, we continue to remain bearish on Tesla, with an UW rating and $210 price target, as we believe investors have not adequately appreciated the myriad risks involved in Tesla’s aggressive ramp. Margins are likely to remain compressed, while cash burn remains an issue. And while there may be some merit to the simplicity of the Model 3 structure and to Tesla’s lead in battery cost, any such advantages over legacy OEMs are likely more than offset by the legacy OEMs’ cost advantages in scale and other efficiencies.”

To be sure, there was much more in the full report, but for the sake of prompt decision-making ahead of earnings, here is the punchline: a breakdown of the rapidly approaching competition, simplified in a few charts and tables.

First, the tipping point for EV from the standpoint of battery pricing:

This means that some competitors are already more cost-efficient:

Still, Tesla has a large sales lead over its peers… for now.

Meanwhile, the Chinese market is “much more diverse” and advanced, and dominated by locals:

China and non-China EVs in context:

China aside, the market is about to be flooded with OEM EVs:

What BEV products are hitting the market imminently?

The competition is heating up for TSLA and we see that competition is accelerating in the coming years.  Importantly, we are now seeing some of the concept cars of the past coming to showrooms. While we concede that the Model 3 doesn’t face competition yet in the ~$50k fully loaded segment (which is smaller than the $35k segment), competitors are coming in both at the model S⁄X ~$80-100k price point, and also at the more affordable EV price point. Just in the US and Europe (never mind the profusion of Chinese EVs) key scheduled launches include:

Upper end

  • Jaguar IPace (on sale 2q18 in europe, 3q18 in us)
  • Audi eTron (on sale 2h18 in europe then us)
  • Porsche Mission e (2q19)
  • Mercedes EQC (late 2019)
  • BMW iX3 (early 2020)

Middle⁄lower end

  • Chevy Bolt (on sale now)
  • Nissan Leaf (on sale now)
  • Hyundai IONQ EV (2018)
  • Hyundai Kona EV SUV (summer 2018 in europe, 4q18 in us)
  • GM Buick variant of bolt
  • VW ID Neo (2020)

A comparison of upcoming BEV product offerings

And the pipeline of EV offerings over the next 2 years.

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