Category: zerohedge

Video Captures Cruise Missile Strike On Militants That Shot Down Russian Fighter Jet In Syria

The Russian Ministry of Defense has released footage showing a precision strike against terrorists in the northwest Syria province of Idlib, following the downing of an Su-25 jet. The pilot, Roman Nikolaevich Filippov safely ejected – only to be killed by militants on the ground, according to the Ministry. 

Earlier, Ebaa Agency released a video of the moment the Russian Su-25SM was shot down by MANPADS over Saraqib, in Idlib. According to Ebaa, the AlQaeda affiliated Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) backed by Qatar, was responsible. The MANPADS was probably an FN-6 delivered through Turkey, the agency speculated.

Russia promptly responded: The aerial night-vision footage shows a barrage of cruise missiles hitting ground targets, which are believed to have killed around 30 terrorists. 

More footage reveals a heavy cluster bomb attack on the village of Maasaran, near the site of the downed Su-25:

As we reported earlier, the Su-25 warplane was the first Russian fighter jet downed above Syria since 2015. A Russian defense ministry official confirmed the plane was shot down, stating “The plane was flying around the de-escalation zone of Idlib.”

a

The extremist group Tahrir al-Sham has claimed responsibility for the downing of the Ruissian Su-25, according to Reuters – while another militant group, Jaysh al-Nasr, took credit as well – posting pictures and videos celebrating the downed aircraft to its twitter account. 

The group posted a video with an unknown date containing footage of a 23mm Anti-Aircraft gun ostensibly used to shoot down the Russian jet. 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2sboVZ1 Tyler Durden

How Do You Hide Stolen Cryptocurrency?

The anonymous nature of digital wallets continues to stymie investigators in last week’s theft of 58 billion yen ($530 million) worth of NEM cryptocurrency from a Tokyo exchange, the biggest cryptocurrency heist in history.

Authorities know which user accounts were affected by the Jan. 26 hacking, and the accounts holding the pilfered funds can be immediately identified because the virtual coins are traceable. And, as the Nikkei writes, if the Coincheck exchange case were a regular bank robbery, identifying the bank accounts holding the stolen money would let law enforcement easily return the funds to victims.

But individuals who open a bank account must identify themselves, and no such requirement exists for opening a digital wallet. Anyone can obtain an anonymous digital wallet as easily as walking into a store and paying cash for an actual wallet.

That helps explain why Coincheck and the NEM Foundation, the international organization that manages and promotes the currency, are having trouble identifying the owners of the wallets and demanding the restoration of funds.

The foundation, which tags the NEM coins, could rewrite the blockchain virtual ledgers and forcibly return the stolen funds to Coincheck. But the NEM group has pledged never to rewrite blockchain records, so even those “transactions” resulting from a hack will remain valid.

The Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department had received communication logs maintained by Coincheck as of Thursday. The logs are being analyzed for any violation of Japanese anti-hacking laws, but the investigation is expected to encounter challenges similar to those in past cybercrime cases.

In 2015, servers belonging to the state-run Japan Pension Service sustained a cyberattack in which computer viruses were used to obtain names, identification numbers and other data belonging to some 1.25 million people. The next year, travel agency JTB suffered a data breach affecting 6.79 million customers. In both cases, the hackers may have infiltrated systems via offshore servers, but no suspects have been named to date.

When Mt. Gox went bankrupt in February 2014 after a massive amount of cryptocurrency went missing from its exchange, it took about a year and a half for authorities to arrest CEO Mark Karpeles, who was suspected of falsifying account data. Investigators went as far as crunching data in servers located in the U.S.

Meanwhile, on Saturday, the infamous Coincheck exchange said it was preparing to announce a timeframe when yen withdrawals can begin. All yen deposits registered to customer accounts are being stored in a customer-specific account in a major financial institution, the exchange said adding that cryptocurrencies registered to customer accounts have been transferred out of hot wallets and are being stored in cold wallets, etc. And Google translated in its entirety:

As we are announcing at the release on January 30, 2018, we are currently undergoing verification and verification of technical safety etc. accompanying Japanese yen withdrawal, and we are preparing for resumption We are. Based on the confirmation / verification that we are doing with the cooperation of outside experts, we will inform you of the timing of resumption of Japanese yen withdrawal.

The Japanese yen held by the customer in the account is preserved in the customer exclusive account of the financial institution. Also, with respect to the virtual currency (BTC / ETH / ETC / LSK / FCT / XMR / REP / XRP / ZEC / LTC / DASH / BCH) which the customer has in the account, evacuate from the hot wallet, We keep it.

We are sorry for the inconvenience for a while, thank you for your consideration.

Meanwhile, someone is half a billion richer following the Coincheck theft, and nobody has any clue who it is.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2s37fhX Tyler Durden

The 1% Gets A Scare – More To Come?

Authored by John Rubino via DollarCollapse.com,

Most Americans have spent the last few years pressed up against the proverbial bakery window, watching the 1% enjoy a life of ever-increasing wealth and seemingly total indifference to the multitudes who aren’t favored by zero interest rates, big trust funds and political/corporate connections.

The one consolation for the have-nots has been that, by owning few stocks and bonds, they would suffer less when those bubble markets did what bubbles always do, which is burst.

Friday was a small but satisfying taste of that eventuality.

From Bloomberg:

World’s Richest People Lose $68.5 Billion in Stock Selloff

The fortunes of the world’s 500-richest people dropped by $73.9 billion Friday as equity markets swooned with investor worries about the pace of interest rate hikes in the U.S. Warren Buffett led the declines, shedding $3.3 billion to end the day at No. 3 on the Bloomberg Billionaire Index with $90.1 billion.

The chart shows about $100 billion of play money evaporating in the past week. Not enough to seriously inconvenience most of the people on Bloomberg’s billionaires list, but still a nice reversal of fortune versus the average person with a house, small bank account and not much more – who didn’t lose a thing.

As for whether Friday was just a blip in an ongoing “secular bull market” or a sign that fundamentals are at last gaining the upper hand on “liquidity,” that remains to be seen. Longer-term though, there can’t be much doubt that today’s stock and bond valuations are higher than they’ll be during the next downturn.

Here’s a chart from John Hussman’s latest (Measuring the Bubble) that illustrates the point.

 

The adjusted price/earnings ratio on US stocks is now higher than before both the Great Depression and the dot-com bust.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2EBWW71 Tyler Durden

Crypto Conference Facing Backlash After Holding “Networking Event” At Miami Strip Club

The organizer of one of North America’s most popular cryptocurrency conferences provoked a minor controversy in cryptoland when he booked a conference networking event (and de facto afterparty) at a massive Miami strip club, Bloomberg reports.

The North American Bitcoin Conference wrapped up 10 hours of speeches by inviting 5,000 attendees to what was billed as a “networking party.”

“It’s been a long day,” read the description. “Join us at E11even for some networking and R&R. Or dancing.”

But what the description didn’t say was that E11even is a 20,000 foot strip club – the largest in the city of Miami. Even though there were no dancers performing during the event, female waitresses traversed the floor in skimpy lingerie outfits.

After the event ended, many of the attendees stayed and enjoyed the dancers’ performance – and bottle service, of course.

Strip

The few women who attended the conference – of the 98 speakers on its panels, only 3 were women – said the venue, and the behavior of their fellow conference attendees, made them uncomfortable and some chose not to attend.

Those who did said they were worried about their peers taking them seriously if they tried to act like “one of the boys.”

When word got back to the event’s sponsors, they were not pleased.

The agenda didn’t mention that the networking event would be held in a 20,000-square-foot Miami strip club, praised on review sites for aerial acrobats and a relatively permissive attitude toward touching. During the mixer, waitresses in revealing tops and lingerie served drinks, and when the event technically ended at 11 p.m., plenty of attendees kept their conference badges on and stayed to party.

“We’re a bunch of dudes with a lot of money in our 20s. We like naked girls,” said Jeff Scott, a cryptocurrency trader from New York. He got a table for 12 with a hedge fund analyst and the heads of two startups, and said the evening wasn’t much different than his typical night in a strip club. “If you don’t like it, that’s fine, but you’re not going to expect us to change.”

Not everyone agreed. As financial wizards and tech entrepreneurs before them, cryptocurrency’s early enthusiasts are confronting more mainstream expectations for decency and decorum. The chief executive officer of Dash Core Group Inc., the corporate sponsor of the event, said he hadn’t known the venue was a strip club and was “deeply disappointed.” Several women who attended the conference said the party made them uncomfortable; many chose not to go.

Unsurprisingly, as cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology have become more mainstream, the gender balance has shifted from being almost exclusively comprised of men (98% in 2015) to including more women as mom and pop investors piled into bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

The earliest days of cryptocurrencies were dominated almost entirely by men, but that’s changing, at least slowly. A 2015 survey indicated that more than 90 percent of Bitcoin users were male; a different survey a year later put the share around 87 percent. Then last year’s price surge transformed Bitcoin into a more mainstream investment, and a January survey found men made up 71 percent of users in the U.S.

And some of the women who attended the conference clarified that they aren’t uncomfortable in strip clubs – they’re uncomfortable networking in strip clubs.

After the Miami conference, one of the biggest such gatherings in the world, some women chose their words carefully. Zineb Belmkaddem, a cryptocurrency trader in Washington, noted that she doesn’t have a problem with strip clubs, per se. She just wasn’t comfortable networking in one.

“There was a message being sent to women, that, ‘OK, this isn’t really your place,”’ said Belmkaddem, who spent about $1,000 to attend the conference, and then skipped the party. “‘This is where the boys roll.’”

Hadjar Homaei, a co-founder of a Seattle tech startup, wrote about her experience and posted some photos on Twitter. A fellow attendee suggested she get on a stage for strippers. Another offered her a lap dance for Ether. She offered him a Bitcoin to “fork off.”

“There were no strippers before 11 but all the servers were in lingerie, even that was enough to set the tone in how my male peers behaved towards me there,” she wrote. “Will a conference attendee who tells me to go on the stage … take me seriously the next day?”

One attendee even implied that a market crash might help stamp out sexist behavior and gender discrimination in crypto land.

Several women said they think crypto culture has gotten worse, not better, while churning out quick riches. But it may be hard to stage more events like the night at E11even.

“It was a bunch of newly minted millionaires getting drunk and rowdy, and then you introduce naked or half-naked women into the equation, and that’s what happens,” said Veronica McGregor, a financial-technology lawyer at Goodwin Procter who spoke on a regulation panel at the conference. “So maybe we need to eliminate one of those factors.”

And given that bitcoin just endured its worst weekly selloff in four years, bringing the rest of the crypto space with it, it’s looking like we might soon have a chance to test that thesis…

btc

 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2nCsKS7 Tyler Durden

Goldman’s Clients Have Just One Question: Is It Really 1987 All Over Again?

Until last Friday, there was one ominous comparison being thrown around for the stock market: the burst in the S&P for the month of January was the best start to a year going back all the way to the infamous 1987, when the year ended sharply lower despite its own January euphoria.

Now, one week later, there are other, more troubling comparisons to 1987, and specifically that year’s “Black Monday” crash. First, from a purely economic perspective, David Rosenberg summarized it best last week noting the sharply “rising bond yields. Full employment.  Fed tightening. Trade frictions. Weak dollar. Rising twin deficits, spurred by tax reform. Sound familiar? It should. This was 1987.”

Then, last week’s widely telegraphed market drop finally happened, one which sent the Dow Jones lower by 1,000 point in the span of 5 days and which with its demonic 666 point plunge on Friday, was also the 6th biggest daily point drop in Dow Jones history.

All of the above appears to have spooked Goldman’s clients who – as David Kostin writes in his latest weekly Weekly Kickstart – have one nagging question: is this 1987 all over again.

Despite market volatility this week, the S&P 500 has risen by 3% YTD. The 3.9% decline from last Friday’s close eclipses the 2.8% max drawdown of 2017. Nonetheless, 2018 ranks as just one of 13 years since 1950 to start with a January return greater than 5%. The volatile start of 2018 surprised many investors and caused clients to ask if they should [A] raise their return expectations for the full year, or [B] expect a sharp correction. In particular, investors ask about the likelihood of a repeat of 1987, when a 13% January return and additional 20% rise through August were destroyed on Black Monday, Oct. 19, when the index fell by 20%. The full-year return was 2%

Here Goldman is put in the awkward position of having to defend its year-end price target of 2850, which was briefly eclipsed in the past week, as the S&P was melting up in an unprecedented “blow off top” eruption. So on one hand, Goldman’s chief strategist has to explain why he is still bullish, and on the other, why there is virtually no upside left yet why Goldman’s clients shouldn’t sell their holdings and pack it in for the year. This is how he does it.

In November we described our outlook for 2018 as one of “rational exuberance.”  Our expectation was that EPS growth of 14% would lift S&P 500 to 2850 by year-end, but that valuations would remain flat in contrast to the bull market that ended in 2000. With S&P 500 sitting just 3% below our year-end target, significant further appreciation will require either an upward revision to our EPS growth forecast or belief that “irrational exuberance” will lift multiples. The latter scenario would increase the likelihood of a subsequent correction, in our view. Of course, as our colleagues recently noted, a third possibility is that the market suffers a near-term correction before the bull market resumes.

Ok, so, upside is capped because the alternative is a full-blown bubble meltup which will result in a crash. On the other hand, Goldman wants you – its client – to know that a more methodical grind higher should not provoke flashbacks to 1987, preventing it from becoming a sell-fulfilling prophecy as everyone dumps at the same time, something we saw on Friday.

This is how Goldman makes the case that what we saw is not 1987.

Unlike in 1987, the equity market’s YTD rise has been driven primarily by accelerating earnings growth. Record revision sentiment has lifted the consensus bottom-up 2018 EPS estimate by 7% since November. It now stands at $156, representing 18% growth vs. 2017. The bulk of the optimism reflects the incorporation of tax reform into analyst estimates. EPS growth and revisions have contributed all of the S&P 500 YTD return, whereas P/E expansion drove the entire index rise in January 1987.

Goldman then really doubles down, and desperately hopes to reassure you, its skittish client, that not only were there notable differences between 1987 and now, but that other years had just a strong start as 2018 and did not end in a fiery inferno.

By focusing on 1987, investors overlook other historical episodes that suggest a much better outlook for US equities in 2018. Of the 12 other years since 1950 that started with a January return greater than 5%, 1987 is the only one in which the February-December return was negative. Across all episodes, the median 11-month return was 17%

At the risk of pointing out that Goldman is protesting just a little too much, it is perhaps worth asking why are Goldman’s clients so eager to compare the current environment to 1987: is it because of all those economic similarities listed by David Rosenberg last week, or because the “muppets” dumb as they may be, realize that without the Fed backstopping this whole charade, the crash that is coming will make 1987 seems like a dress rehearsal.

Ironically, in the very next paragraph Goldman admits that left on their own devices, a crash is inevitable, here’s why:

A further market rise is unlikely to stem from valuation expansion. The median S&P 500 firm currently trades in the 99th percentile of historical valuation on a variety of metrics. Although near-record valuations suggest disappointing long-term returns, multiples are typically poor predictors of short-term performance. Nonetheless,  rising short-term and long-term interest rates should limit further P/E multiple expansion. At 2.8%, the US 10-year Treasury yield has risen by 40 bp in the last two months and now stands at the highest level since 2014. We expect it will reach 3.0% by year- end as the term premium rises and the market moves toward our economists’ forecast of four Fed rates hikes in each of 2018 and 2019.

But the biggest risk to a coordinated liquidation is neither fundamentals, nor vivid recollections of Black Monday (by those traders who were at least alive when it happened), but investor positioning. As of this moment, institutions and hedge funds have never – ever – been more bullish:

CFTC equity futures positioning data show that investors increased long US equity positions by $40 billion this year, bringing long and net positions to new record highs(see Exhibit 4).  Similarly, NYSE net margin debt is at its highest level relative to market cap since at least 1980. 

And after a week like the last, if what was until recently going only up no longer goes up, there is just one alternative: down, express elevator style. It will be amusing to watch as the record net long exposure turns not so net long, especially with traders having forgotten how to sell thanks to sentiment at the highest on record.

Which brings us to Goldman’s tacit hint what happens next: “Investors who are already long cash equities could instead consider purchasing puts as protection”, which ‘curiously’ is precisely what Morgan Stanley said two weeks ago.


NYSE, October 19, 1987.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2Ed9KDf Tyler Durden

Rod Rosenstein Reportedly Threatened Nunes, House Intel Members With Subpoena: Report

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatened to subpoena the “texts and messages” of House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and other members of Congress, according to legal analyst Greg Jarrett.

I can tell you a congressional source tells me that Rod Rosenstein in a meeting three weeks ago threatened Chairman Nunes and members of Congress he was going to subpoena their texts and messages because he was tired of dealing with the intel committee. That’s threats and intimidation and retaliation. –Greg Jarrett

Watch:

Rosenstein was named in the four-page FISA memo as both signing off on one or more FISA applications on behalf of the DOJ, and working closely with then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr – who was demoted for failing to reveal his ties to the author of the infamous 35-page “Trump-Russia” dossier. 

Moments after the announcement that the memo was declassified, Trump spoke to reporters and was asked if the memo makes it more likely that he will fire Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, to which Trump responded:

via RSS http://ift.tt/2E0VFoX Tyler Durden

Today’s Market Is Anything But Normal

Authored by Bill Bonner via InternationalMan.com,

In this issue, we aim to develop a compass… to help us figure out where we are and where we are going.

On Planet Earth, we can find our direction by reference to the Magnetic North. For investing, we use the most reliable force in finance – the relentless return to “normal” – to get our bearings.

And searching for normal, we may have stumbled upon what could be the Trade of the Century. More on that later…

Reversion to the Mean

As economists describe it, reversion to the mean is merely a recognition of the tendency for things to stay in a range that we recognize as “normal.”

Trees do not grow 1,000 feet high. People don’t run 100 mph. You don’t get something for nothing.

Normal exists because things tend to follow certain familiar patterns, shapes, and routines.

When people go out in the morning, they know, generally, whether to wear a winter coat or a pair of shorts. The temperature is not 100 degrees one day and zero the next.

Occasionally, of course, odd things happen. And sometimes, things change in a fundamental way. But usually, when people say “this time is different”… it’s time to bet on normal.

This phenomenon – reversion to the mean – has been thoroughly tested and studied in the investment world. It seems to apply to just about everything – stocks, bonds, strategies, markets, sectors… you name it.

But let’s push on. What is unusual in the chart below? What is so abnormal that the mean is likely to revert against it?

 

You will note that global debt was only $30 trillion in 1994. Now it is $230 trillion. That $200 trillion in extra credit is probably the whirlwind that sent equities spinning up to the top right.

Those gusts blew stock and other asset prices up to heights never seen before. The Dow reached over 26,000. Houses went on the market for more than $100 million. Gold rose above $1,900.

But while stocks and bonds may have the wind at their backs, it seems to blow in the economy’s face… making forward progress almost impossible. The real economy – as depicted by GDP at the bottom of the chart – has grown in a rather normal way, but at a slower and slower rate.

Its steady, plodding increase gives no hint of the chaos going on above it. The real economy and the financial world are as different as the eye of a hurricane and the swirling clouds and storms around it.

Another thing you notice is that until the mid-’90s… and again between 2008 and 2012… the average investor got essentially no benefit in exchange for the added risk of putting his money into equities (the chart above includes dividends). He might just as well have left his money in U.S. Treasury bonds.

In theory, he is supposed to be able to earn some return – over pure cash – by lending his money to the U.S. government (with the 10-year Treasury bond as the benchmark). He should be able to earn even more, a premium (more than he would earn from risk-free Treasurys), by investing in stocks. The premium is supposed to compensate him for the risk that his stocks could go down at an inconvenient time.

In practice, we find that risk-free Treasurys gave him less than nothing. He has earned less from Treasurys than he would have from gold (which pays zero interest) – over the entire 48-year period.

Stocks, meanwhile, earned him nothing for the first 24 years. Then they exploded to the upside, along with debt, until the financial crisis brought them back in line with gold.

By 2008, the average investor was again earning less on stocks – despite all the risk and bother of market investing – than on gold. It continued like that until 2012, when his stock investments shot up.

But there is a time to be in stocks… and a time to be out of them. Without knowing the future, you can still know when something is not normal. And when something is not normal… it is just biding its time until it becomes normal again.

 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2BSssL2 Tyler Durden

CIA, FBI Agents Respond To Nunes’ Memo

We already noted the opposing perspectives of those in the media with regard the Nunes’ memo as being on the one hand “a nothing-burger” and on the other “we have never ever in history seen anything like this.”

And we have heard from current (“talk is cheap… keep calm and tackle hard”) and former (“dishonest and misleading”) heads of The FBI.

But now we get to hear from the rank-and-file of America’s intelligence agencies and, once again, the perspectives could not be further apart…

First, as The Hill reports, a former FBI agent says in a new op-ed that he has left the nation’s top law enforcement agency due to the “relentless” attacks on the bureau from critics such as President Trump and congressional Republicans.

In an op-ed for The New York Times, former supervisory special agent Josh Campbell wrote that “political attacks on the bureau must stop.”

“After more than a decade of service, which included investigating terrorism, working to rescue kidnapping victims overseas and being special assistant to the director, I am reluctantly turning in my badge and leaving an organization I love.” Campbell wrote.

“Why? So I can join the growing chorus of people who believe that the relentless attacks on the bureau undermine not just America’s premier law enforcement agency but also the nation’s security,” he continued.

“My resignation is painful, but the alternative of remaining quiet while the bureau is tarnished for political gain is impossible.”

Campbell also defended the agency’s involvement in the events described in the memo, which alleges the FBI and Department of Justice abused their surveillance powers.

“[E]very statement of fact included in an affidavit for foreign intelligence collection must withstand the scrutiny of at least 10 people in the Department of Justice hierarchy before it is reviewed by an independent court,” he wrote.

Campbell goes on to argue it would be “disingenuous” for Republicans to argue that the FBI is “plotting from within” against Trump or in favor of his 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, despite text messages between FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page seeming to confirm Strzok’s political bias against Trump.

“These political attacks on the bureau must stop. If those critics of the agency persuade the public that the FBI cannot be trusted, they will also have succeeded in making our nation less safe,” he said.

Campbell’s op-ed comes after the publication Friday of Nunes’ memo allegedly detailing abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by the FBI.

However, another former intelligence agency operative saw things very differently.

Ray McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), exclaims the newly released “Nunes Memo” reveals felony wrongdoing by top members of the FBI and DOJ for misrepresenting evidence to obtain a FISA warrant and may implicate other intelligence officials.

The long-awaited House Intelligence Committee report made public today identifies current and former top officials of the FBI and the Department of Justice as guilty of the felony of misrepresenting evidence required to obtain a court warrant before surveilling American citizens. The target was candidate Donald Trump’s adviser Carter Page.

The main points of what is widely known as the “Nunes Memo,” after the House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), have been nicely summarized by blogger Publius Tacitus, who noted that the following very senior officials are now liable for contempt-of-court charges; namely, the current and former members of the FBI and the Department of Justice who signed off on fraudulent applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court: James Comey, Andy McCabe, Sally Yates, Dana Boente and Rob Rosenstein. The following is Publius Tacitus’s summary of the main points:

  • The dubious but celebrated Steele Dossier played a critical role in obtaining approval from the FISA court to carry out surveillance of Carter Page according to former FBI Deputy Director Andy McCabe.
  • Christopher Steele was getting paid by the DNC and the FBI for the same information.
  • No one at the FBI or the DOJ disclosed to the court that the Steele dossier was paid for by an opposition political campaign.
  • The first FISA warrant was obtained on October 21, 2016 based on a story written by Michael Isikoff for Yahoo News based on information he received directly from Christopher Steele — the FBI did not disclose in the FISA application that Steele was the original source of the information.
  • Christopher Steele was a long-standing FBI “source” but was terminated as a source after telling Mother Jones reporter David Corn that he had a relationship with the FBI.
  • The FBI signers of the FISA applications/renewals were James Comey (three times) and Andrew McCabe.
  • The DOJ signers of the FISA applications/renewals were Sally Yates, Dana Boente and Rod Rosenstein.
  • Even after Steele was terminated by the FBI, he remained in contact with Deputy Attorney General Bruce Our, whose wife worked for FUSION GPS, a contractor that was deeply involved with the Steele dossier.

From what Michael Isikoff reported in September 2016 it appears that the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence (as well as the FBI) are implicated in spreading the disinformation about Trump and Russia. Isikoff wrote:

“U.S. intelligence officials are seeking to determine whether an American businessman identified by Donald Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers has opened up private communications with senior Russian officials — including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president, according to multiple sources who have been briefed on the issue. […]

“But U.S. officials have since received intelligence reports that during that same three-day trip, Page met with Igor Sechin, a longtime Putin associate and former Russian deputy prime minister who is now the executive chairman of Rosneft, Russian’s leading oil company, a well-placed Western intelligence source tells Yahoo News.”

Who were the “intelligence officials” briefing the select members of the House and Senate? That will be one of the next shoes to drop. We are likely to learn in the coming days that John Brennan and Jim Clapper were also trying to help the FBI build a fallacious case against Trump, adds Tacitus.

Indeed, Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has already indicated that his disclosures in the Nunes Memo represent just “one piece of a probably much larger mosaic of what went on.”

The Media Will Determine What Comes Next

As for Congressman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, it is now abundantly clear why he went to ridiculous lengths, as did the entire Democratic congressional leadership, to block or impugn the House Intelligence Committee report.

Until the mid-December revelations of the text messages between FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page turned Russia-gate into FBI/DOJ-gate, Schiff had been riding high, often hiding behind what he said “he could not tell” the rest of us.

With the media, including what used to be the progressive media, fully supporting the likes of Adam Schiff, and the FBI/CIA/NSA deep state likely to pull out all the stops, the die is now cast. We are in for a highly interesting time over the next months.

*  *  *

So – which is it? Crime of the century, or political grandstanding, or both?

via RSS http://ift.tt/2nDXm51 Tyler Durden

Algorithms Are Fine – Until Governments Use Them Against Us

Authored by Robert McKeown via The Mises Institute,

If you’re a frequent user of social media platforms you’ve probably noticed something akin to being watched or even monitored. Suddenly, an advertisement appears for a product you might have reviewed on Amazon or eBay. A series of videos appears to the right of your YouTube page relating to something you’ve watched days earlier. Facebook only shows you news feeds for posts you may have interacted with and ignores all of your other friends. The examples go on and on.

The answer lays in algorithms. These are logical mathematic equations which are designed to produce a certain outcome. A simple example would be if A>B and B>C then A>C. Putting it another way, if John prefers bananas to oranges and oranges to apples, then John prefers bananas to apples. But, does he always?

Positivism in Economics

In the study of economics, the Chicago school, Harvard, and MIT have long been advocates of what is known as economic positivism. This mathematical model-based theory of economics relies on certain normative and also certain positive assumptions. If an anomaly doesn’t fit the normative assumption, it is simply ignored. The economist continues ignoring certain “outliers” and comes to some definitive conclusion. These conclusions are then implemented as public policy by the state or banking institutions, like the Federal Reserve. Not unlike the algorithms used by social media, economic positivism is almost entirely mathematically based and relies heavily on “all things being equal” or better put, “all things being quantifiable.”

Just like in our above example, how can an economist quantify John’s taste in fruit? In proper economic terms, how can an economist quantify a utility? That is, how can an economist assign a numerical value to someone’s satisfaction or preferences? But, that is what the mainstream has been doing for over 100 years.

By making certain “one size fits all” assumptions, mainstream economics has been treating consumers as herd animals. This “feed at the trough” mentality ignores the individual in the vastness of the market. They do so because our myriad of different preferences and choices are not quantifiable. It would be an impossible task to mathematically reduce all of our choices and preferences to a simple equation. But, by dismissing individuality, mainstream economics can positively determine the success or failure of public policy decisions. Ergo, we end up with housing bubbles, bond market bubbles, college loan bubbles, stock market bubbles, and on and on.

Back to Algorithms

So what does economic positivism have to do with Facebook? Similarly, these algorithms reduce a social media user’s preferences to something quantifiable, determinant and predictable. Did you really want to read that post? What about the hundreds of others that were kept from you?

Matt Stoller of the Open Market Institute says that these algorithms are harmful and can lead people to make bad choices. They expose a reader or YouTube viewer to content they wouldn’t have otherwise been looking for. YouTube is notorious for putting related videos in a column on the right of the page. Some making even more outlandish claims than the one you’re currently watching. Suddenly, a viewer finds themselves down a very deep rabbit hole that they had no intention to follow.

Moreover, these social media algorithms attempt to assess a user as a predefined type such as conspiracy theorists, sports fanatics, pop culture sycophants, and more. This user will see content that will steer them down a predetermined road. With each mouse click, the user is unwittingly being categorized in a specific subset of society. According to Matt Stoller, this limited exposure to content can only be harmful to society as a whole.

Algorithms and AI

Artificial intelligence is also an algorithmic-based science. Just as was previously stated, these algorithms rely on certain axiomatic human behavior and responses to different situations. Albeit, always predictable and determinant.

The big commercial search engines are heavily dependent on AI to reveal your search results. The data gathered on each of us by Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo is being used to determine your likes and dislikes, what interests you have or not and ordered accordingly. It’s the content that is kept from you that determines the type of internet user you’ll become. Your internet activity is predetermined and you don’t even know it. We are being shoe-horned into specific sets and subsets of people by algorithmic AI on the internet.

Automated services are heavily reliant on these algorithms. Your favorite Starbucks coffee will be dispensed by an AI device. How you like your Big Mac, pizza, and a myriad of other consumer services are already transitioning to AI-controlled processes. A technocratic revolution has begun under our very noses and we didn’t notice. Most of these are positive and lead to a convenient and enjoyable consumer experience. But that is just the beginning.

Conclusion

So, what is wrong with algorithms? In of themselves, they can be a useful tool. But, when they are used to arrange society into specific sets and subsets of people groups and attempt to determine outcomes, then we run into problems. When algorithms are depended on to make laws, perform medical diagnoses and recommendations, determine our allowed energy consumption, what we eat, our career choices, if we marry or have children or any other personal decision, then they have become our masters. These examples are being discussed today by the technocrats in government who run our daily lives.

Relying on algorithms to make the correct choice for each individual is a dangerous path. The results will be no different than what econometricians have done to the economy. By reducing humanity to a set of equations, algorithmic AI will create a warped version of society every bit as bad as the artificial economy we live with. Artificial, I believe, will be the new buzz word for the foreseeable future.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2GICOB7 Tyler Durden

“It’s The Turning Point” – Bond, Stock Slump Sparks Worst Week For ‘Risk-Parity’ Since 2013 Tantrum

Yesterday’s US equity market collapse and simultaneous bond market bloodbath was the biggest combined loss since December 2015, but perhaps more ominously, the week’s combined loss in bonds and stocks was the worst since Feb 2009.

Many suggested that Friday’s slump was GOP-memo-related, and it may well have removed some froth, but judging by the major correlation regime shift between stocks and bonds that started on Monday, we suspect this is something considerably more worrisome for investors.

Even JPMorgan admits that the bond market sell-off gathered pace over the past week raising concerns about its impact on equity markets. This is especially because the bond-equity correlation, which has been predominantly negative since theLehman crisis, has started creeping up towards positive territory.

The 90-day correlation between stock (SPY) and bond (TLT) markets has surged ominously in the last few weeks…

In turn this raises concerns about de-risking by multi-asset investors who depend on this correlation staying in negative territory such as risk parity funds and balanced mutual funds? How worried should we be about de-risking by these two types of investors?

Very.

Judging by the impact on Risk-Parity funds yesterday (worst single-day performance since August 2015’s flash-crash)…

And this week (worst weekly drop in Risk-Parity funds since June 2013’s Bernanke Taper Tantrum)…

As mentioned above, these types of investors benefit from the structurally negative correlation between bonds and equities as this negative correlation suppresses the volatility of bond/equity portfolios allowing these investors to apply higher leverage and thus boost their returns. But, as JPMorgan points out, the opposite takes place when this correlation turns positive: the volatility of bond/equity portfolios increases, inducing these investors to de-lever.

In the past, just as we have seen this year, these risk-parity-correlation tantrums have been cushioned by equity market inflows, and we note that, in particular, YTD equity ETF flows have surpassed the $100bn mark, a record high pace.

If these equity ETF flows, which JPMorgan believes are largely driven by retail investors, start reversing, not only would the equity market retrench, but the resultant rise in bond-equity correlation would likely induce de-risking by risk parity funds and balanced mutual funds, magnifying the eventual equity market sell-off.

Which could be a problem…

Yesterday was the first day of the year when equity ETFs saw significant outflows of $3.7bn.

While JPMorgan states that they are “reluctant to attach too much importance to the outflows of only one day,” the risk of a more significant equity market correction will naturally rise if these outflows extend into next week.

Put more simply – either we get a major equity ETF inflow to offset the risk parity hit, or markets are going a lot lower, a lot faster as the forced deleveraging accelerates.

Even Bloomberg is worried, looking at the week’s drumbeat, you can’t help but wonder, is this the start of something big? Warnings about valuations have been pouring forth from bears for so long that barely anyone listens anymore. With the S&P 500 up almost 50 percent in less than two years, some see the end of the blissfully easy money that equities have spewed out for 13 straight months.

“It’s the turning point of volatility,” said Jeffrey Schulze, chief investment strategist at Clearbridge Investments, which manages $137 billion. “We were all very fortunate to go through a year like 2017. But there’s a number of different dynamics this year that will make volatility more part of the equation than it has been in quite some time.”

The problem is likely not helped by record-high valuations (but as Yellen says “don’t call it a bubble”)…

And record-high leveraged positioning…

“The list of growing challenges have caught up to stocks,” said Jim Paulsen, chief investment strategist at Leuthold Weeden Capital Management LLC. “We probably need a valuation correction for both stocks and bonds to be more appropriately priced for an economy now growing at 3% real/5% nominal at full employment with rising labor costs and capital costs.”

And the potential for a quant-fund-driven forced-liquidation is growing every day with bond-stock correlations.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2EFg30g Tyler Durden