Category: zerohedge

While the US obssesses over the taxable Adjusted Gross Income of real-estate billionaire Donald Trump (and has to be content with his just released 104 personal financial statement posted here), another just as (if not more) important number was revealed in a financial disclosure form filed on Tuesday night by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.  Accordingly, Bill and Hillary Clinton have earned $6.7 million from paid speeches since the beginning of 2015, including $2.7 million from speeches the former president gave after his wife officially kicked off her White House bid last April.

As MarketWatch adds, Bill Clinton was paid $285,000 to speak to America’s Health Insurance Plans, the trade association for health insurers, in June 2015. He was paid $200,000 to speak at Stephens Inc., an Arkansas financial-services firm run by Warren Stephens, a major Republican donor. And in September 2015, he was paid $225,000 to speak to Computer Design & Integration LLC, a New Jersey information technology firm.

Hillary Clinton stopped giving paid speeches when she started her 2016 campaign, and Bill Clinton hasn’t given any since a November 2015 event in Toronto, according to the form. He has said he didn’t think he would continue to give paid speeches if his wife became president; instead he made it clear he wants to have an “economic role” under president Hillary.

In addition to the speech income, Hillary Clinton received more than $5 million in book royalties since the beginning of 2015, and Bill Clinton was paid by the Varkey GEMS Foundation, an education charity, and Laureate Education Inc., a for-profit company. Bill Clinton isn’t required to reveal his exact earnings from that consulting work. The couple hasn’t yet released their 2015 tax returns, though they have released decades of past returns.

The 2015 disclosure is in addition to previously released speech details which we had broken out previously. From 2013 until 2015 Bill Clinton has been paid $26.6 million for 94 speeches; Hillary’s grand total is slightly less: $21.7 million for 92 private appearances.

 Below we present the full breakdown of every publicly disclosed speech event by Hillary Clinton, together with the associated fee for the 2013-2015 period.

And likewise for Bill Clinton:

And a visual way of showing the above data.

Hillary:

Bill:

Source: Hillaryclinton.con and Politco

The grand total comes down to just about $55 million in speech fees for the two Clintons since 2013.

The Clinton campaign was quick to take a jab at Trump following her disclosure. “Despite Donald Trump’s boasting, submitting his personal financial disclosure form is no breakthrough for transparency,” Christina Reynolds, a Clinton spokeswoman, said in a statement.

“The true test for Donald Trump,” she continued, “is whether he will adhere to the precedent followed by every presidential candidate in the modern era and make his tax returns available, as Hillary Clinton has done.”

Trump should simply respond by saying he will reveal his tax return the moment Hillary releases her Goldman transcripts.

via http://ift.tt/1TfIZAn Tyler Durden

On Tuesday, the US Senate passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. The bill allows victims of terror attacks on U.S. soil or surviving family members to bring lawsuits against nation-states for activities supporting terrorism. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) explained that the bill is very near and dear to his heart, and would "allow the victims of 9/11 to pursue some small measure of justice."

Everyone understands that the purpose of the bill, at least in the immediate term, is to enable victims of 9/11 and remaining family members to sue Saudi Arabia. A 60-minutes special on the now infamous "28 pages" renewed interest in the role the Saudi's may or may not have played in the attacks. The segment implied that there are pages of an investigation into the 9/11 attacks that are being hidden from from the public in order to cover up evidence that links the Saudi government to the attacks.

Pushing back on the criticisms that the bill was only passed to specifically target Saudi Arabia (which it was of course), Schumer stated "Look, if the Saudis did not participate in this terrorism, they have nothing to fear about going to court."

President Obama has already said he intends to veto any such bill, and as the bill heads over to the House, it may encounter resistance as well. Speaker Paul Ryan has voiced skepticism about the legislation, saying "I think we need to look at it. I think we need to review it to make sure we are not making mistakes with our allies and we're not catching people in this that shouldn't be caught up in it."

Saudi Arabia has come out strongly against such legislation, and have threatened to sell $750 billion in US treasury securities and other assets if such a bill is ever passed. While we're not certain if Saudi Arabia has $750 billion to sell, we are certain that as we warned previously, if such legislation does pass, it will open up the US to reciprocal lawsuits which will undoubtedly open many people's eyes to the role the US has played in what others may perceive as terrorism around the world. Something tells us that the bill miraculously won't end up getting enough support to pass the House, and if it does, it certainly will not get enough support to override an Obama Veto once these types of messages have been clearly conveyed to lawmakers.

While that may disappoint many hoping get a glimpse of the 28-pages, as TheAntiMedia's Claire Bernish notes, they may have found a preview of the redcated pages…

On Tuesday, the New York Times revealed a document published by the National Archives that appears to offer a glimpse into potentially damning information contained in the so-called ‘missing’ 28 pages concerning the attacks on September 11, 2001.

 

Those 28 pages are “an entire section within the official report of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks … Conducted by the House and Senate intelligence committees, its 838-page report was published in December 2002.”

 

Over the past several weeks, discussion has reignited debate over the need to release the redacted section for several reasons — the most striking being a bill to allow the families of 9/11 victims sue Saudi Arabia over its potential involvement in the attacks. In what cannot be considered a coincidence, also on Tuesday, the Senate voted to approve that exact legislation — called Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) — in direct defiance of vows from Pres. Obama that he will summarily veto the bill should it land on his desk.

 

“I think we easily get the two-thirds override if the president should veto,” stated Sen. Charles Schumer on the bill’s passage.

 

Separate legislation, which coincides with JASTA — S.B. 1471, Transparency for the Families of 9/11 Victims and Survivors Act of 2015 — would require the president to declassify those currently-redacted pages. This would almost certainly be imperative for JASTA to have the teeth necessary for affected families to pursue justice.

 

Tuesday’s disclosure from the National Archives appears to show why those families might, indeed, have a justifiable reason to hold the Saudis at least partly responsible for damages — despite its contents only hinting at information potentially contained in the 28 pages.

 

Former member of the 9/11 Commission, John Lehman, came forward in the past week calling for a new and thorough investigation into Saudi involvement in the attacks. In measured and precise language, Lehman noted that “we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization” — but also stressed “our report should never have been read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia.”

 

Perhaps, as Lehman suggested, the institution of the Saudi government did not play a role; however, as found in the document in the Times, at least a partial connection already stands.

 

A shady cast of characters are briefly outlined in the document under the heading, “A Brief Overview of Possible Saudi Government Connections to the September 11th attacks” — and simply in context it appears a number of notable associations may have been made.

 

Omar Al-Bayoumi, a Saudi national, encouraged two of the hijackers to move to the San Diego area where he was located. As the document describes:

 

“Al-Bayoumi has extensive ties to the Saudi Government and many in the local Muslim community in San Diego believed that he was a Saudi intelligence officer. The FBI believes it is possible that he was an agent of the Saudi government and that he may have been reporting on the local community to Saudi Government officials.”

 

Osama Bassnan “received considerable funding from Prince Bandar and Princess Haifa, supposedly for his wife’s medical treatments. According to FBI documents, Bassnan is a former employee of the Saudi Government’s Educational Mission in Washington, D.C.”

 

Though some officials privy to the redacted section have claimed any connection to kingdom officials is tenuous, at best, one solid link already stands. Fahad al-Thumairy, a former diplomat at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles, associated himself with al-Bayoumi in San Diego before the revocation of his visa and his subsequent return to Saudi Arabia in May 2003.

 

In fact, the document lists a pilot for the Saudi royal family who ferried Osama bin Laden back and forth between Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia during his “exile.” A number of others are listed with less than questionable ties to either the Saudi government, the royal family, or both.

 

But perhaps most telling are the questions the document appears to be proposing for the investigation — or, more specifically, what seems to be implied in those questions.

 

“1. How aggressively has the U.S. Government investigated possible ties between the Saudi Government and/or Royal Family and the September 11th attacks?

 

“2. To what extent have the U.S. Government’s efforts to investigate possible ties between the Saudi Government and/or Royal Family and the September 11th attacks been affected by political, economic, or other considerations?”

 

On their own, such questions seem basic, obvious, and even mundane as so essential to the investigation to be needless to state — but taken with the details of this outline and the context of what their answers may constitute in those redacted 28 pages, the repercussions become apparent. If, for instance, the U.S. decided not to thoroughly pursue avenues of investigation due to economic interests in Saudi affairs, that would show fealty to another country over the best interests of the victims of those attacks.

 

Perhaps that murky obstruction is best seen in the document’s discussion of an FBI informant located in San Diego. Buried among other questions, the document asks: “Why did the FBI, Department of Justice, and White House refuse to allow the Joint Inquiry to interview or depose the informant?”

 

With the firestorm swirling once again around the redacted 28 pages, this basic outline of a document offers a serious glimpse into what might prove to be a fundamental shift in the narrative of 9/11 the U.S. government has spoonfed for over a decade.

As U.S.-Saudi relations have recently deteriorated to an arguable new low, perhaps it remains just a matter of time before we all know the truth.

via http://ift.tt/27zTW40 Tyler Durden

Presented with no comment… ok one word – “seriously!”

Because there’s only one way to stop markets falling… stop people trading!!

2 NYSE “glitches” and 2 US equity market ramps…

Source: NYSE

Pure coincidence we are sure.

via http://ift.tt/27zQzKj Tyler Durden

With Donald Trump’s tax return dominating this part of the republican presidential candidate’s news cycle, in an attempt to deflect attention from his IRS filing which Turmp has said he won’t disclose, last night Trump filed a personal financial statement with the FEC. According to a Trump statement accompanying the release, “the newly filed PFD shows a tremendous cash flow, and a revenue increase of approximately $190 million dollars (which does not include dividends, interest, capital gains, rents and royalties),” Trump said in the release, and it was used to fund construction projects, reduce debt and fund his presidential campaign.

Trump told the FEC that his income is in excess of $557 million. “This income was utilized, among other things, for the funding of construction projects at various multi-million dollar developments, reduction of debt and the funding” of his GOP presidential campaign said the statement.

“As of this date, Mr. Trump’s net worth is in excess of $10b”: Trump statement

“Despite the fact that I am allowed extensions, I have again filed my report, which is 104 pages, on time,” Trump concluded.

The full report is below (link)

Source: WaPo

via http://ift.tt/23XglUc Tyler Durden

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

The fallacy in this assumption is that homeowners' incomes do not automatically rise along with housing valuations.

In my recent entry Dear Homeowner: If You're Paying $260,000 in Property Taxes Over 20 Years, What Exactly Do You "Own"?, I questioned the consequences of high property taxes. Some readers wondered if I was saying all property taxes should be abolished. The short answer is no–what I was questioning is local government reliance on property taxes to the point that owning a home no longer makes financial sense because the property taxes consume any appreciation other than the transitory "wealth" generated by a housing bubble.

In effect, local tax authorities are capturing all future appreciation for themselves. Note that applies to areas with high property taxes–in excess of $10,000 annually, not locales with annual property taxes of $2,000.

State and local taxes–sales, income and property–tax very different events. Sales taxes are based on consumption, and are typically highly regressive, as low-income households pay a higher percentage of their income on sales taxes than higher-income households.

Income taxes are typically progressive, as the higher one's income, the more income tax one pays.

Property tax is not based on consumption or income, but on the presumed wealth and income of property owners. In effect, property taxes are a wealth tax: if you can afford a house, you can afford property taxes.

The fallacy in this assumption is that homeowners' incomes do not automatically rise along with housing valuations. Consider the 35% increase in the Case-Shiller 20-City Index since 2012: in a four-year period that officially experienced a mere 4% inflation, housing leaped 35%.

Meanwhile, real median household incomes rose a paltry 5%. Local tax authorities love housing bubbles because rising valuations justify higher property taxes. But the homeowners' income needed to pay higher property taxes may well have declined during the bubble due to layoffs, shortened hours, medical emergency, reduced bonus, etc.

Real estate professional EB described the consequences of this mismatch of earnings need to pay property taxes and soaring property taxes:

You are correct that property taxes are an oft-forgotten cost of homeownership that many buyers fail to properly evaluate when determining how much house they can afford over the long term.

 

Perhaps a better way to view property taxes is as an inefficient proxy for income taxes — state and local governments assuming that people who can afford a home of a certain value, must have sufficient income to pay ad valorem taxes and per foot and per parcel charges at a given rate.

 

In a volatile economy, that assumption is often invalid. When the Fed runs out of monetary games to play, and asset values across the economy normalize, both state and local governments and homeowners will all be in a pinch — governments because the valuation-based portion of the tax base will crash, and homeowners because the fixed charges will no longer fit within their diminished incomes.

 

This is already occurring in suburban Chicago, where annual property taxes can approach 10% (!) of property values.

In a recession, earnings can decline very quickly indeed. Meanwhile, property taxes are "sticky": they only decline grudgingly (if ever), and only if homeowners pursue bureaucratic appeals based on the declining value of their home.

Owning your house free and clear (no mortgage) is no guarantee you'll be able to live there once property taxes are $1,000 per month. One of the emotional triggers of Prop 13 limitations on property tax increases in California was the stories of elderly pensioners having to sell their homes because they could no longer afford the skyrocketing property taxes.

A wealth tax based on housing valuations applies equally to homeowners with diminishing income, i.e. the decidedly non-wealthy.

As pensions dry up and blow away under the relentless erosion of the Federal Reserve's zero-interest rate policy (ZIRP), unaffordable property taxes may well start evicting homeowners from the "asset" they mistakenly thought they "owned." If your Social Security pension can barely pay your property tax, never mind your Medicare, healthcare costs, food and other living expenses, then what exactly do you own?

As I noted before, as far as the tax authorities are concerned, all you really own is an obligation to pay property taxes and an option to profit from the next housing bubble. If the bubble pops in a recession that also costs you your job, well tough luck, Bucko–your "asset" reverts to the state/county as payment for property taxes you can't possibly pay.

If politicos and tax authorities think people will passively watch their neighbors lose their homes to sky-high property taxes, they will soon discover their mistake.

My new book is #3 on Kindle short reads -> politics and social science: Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle ebook, $8.95 print edition) For more, please visit the book's website.

via http://ift.tt/1rTVDJe Tyler Durden

Previously we documented that as a result of the still low oil prices, largely a result of Saudi Arabian strategy to put high cost producers out of business and to remove excess supply, none other than Saudi Arabia has been substantially impacted, with the result being dramatic state budget cuts and mass layoffs. Just three weeks ago we reported that the biggest construction conglomerate in the middle east, the Saudi Binladin Group had announced it would layoff 50,000 workers ot a quarter of its workforce, slammed by the weak economy.

Now, Saudi economic (and liquidity) problems just spilled out into the open, because Bloomberg reported moments ago, Saudi Arabia has told banks it is considering paying some outstanding bills to contractors with government-issued bonds, citing people with knowledge of matter say.

Contractors would be able to hold bond-like instruments until maturity.

Bloomberg adds that issuing bonds is one of several options being considered.

Contractors so far received some payments of outstanding bills from government in cash.

Saudi Arabia’s finance ministry declines to comment, while central bank didn’t immediately return calls seeking comment

What this means is simple: as a result of the budget imbalance driven by low oil prices, largely a Saudi doing, the kingdom is forced to give workers an implicit pay cut. It also means that since the government has to “pay” through the issuance of debt, that the liquidity crisis in the kingdom is far worse than many had anticipated.

Which brings up the question of devaluation: how long until the SAR has to follow the Yuan and see a substantial haircut. According to the market, 12 month SAR forward are now trading at a price which implies a 12% devaluation in the coming months.

When that happens is, of course, up to the King Salman.

What it also means is that as Saudi Arabia is now scrambling to generate any incremental cash, it too wil be caught in the deflationary spiral of excess production as it will have no choice but to outsell its competitors, especially those rushing to grab Chinese market share such as Russia, as it seeks to make up with volume what it has lost due to lower prices. It also means that any hopes of a production freeze by Saudi Arabia – and thus OPEC – are hereby snuffed for the indefinite future.

via http://ift.tt/1NynF6P Tyler Durden

Following API's smaller than expected draw overnight, DOE data showed an unexpedted 1.31m barrel build (3.5m draw expectations). This was offset by considerably bigger than expected draws in Gasoline and Distillates and Cushing oinventories rose less than expected. Crude production also fell once again, to its lowest since Sept 2014. The initial kneejerk was a mini-flash-crash in crude prices.. but that was rapidly bid back to unch…

API:

• Crude -1.1m (-3.5mm exp, last week -3.4mm)
• Cushing +508k (+1.1m exp)
• Gasoline -1.9mm (-1m exp)
• Distillates -2m (-1m exp)

DOE

• Crude +1.31m (-3.5mm exp, last week -3.4mm)
• Cushing +460k (+1.1m exp)
• Gasoline -2.5mm (-1m exp)
• Distillates -3.17m (-1m exp)

Production dropped for the 17th week in a row to its lowest since Sept 2014…

And the reaction was an immediate flash crash in crude…but BTFD'ers could not resist…

Charts: Bloomberg

via http://ift.tt/27zuFXB Tyler Durden

Submitted by Michael Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Not satisfied with economic distortions resulting from the redefinition of full-time employment to 30 hours for Obamacare purposes but 32 hours for every other purpose, President Obama is back at it.

Today, by executive order, Obama doubled the threshold for overtime pay to $47,476 a year.

The Labor Department estimates the ruling will affect 4.2 million workers.

Please consider Obama Administration Extends Overtime Pay to Millions.

Millions more Americans are set to qualify for overtime pay under a final Labor Department regulation, in what could be President Barack Obama’s last big push to shore up workers’ wages.

 

The threshold will be doubled to $47,476 a year from $23,660, a level last updated in 2004, administration officials said Tuesday. That means workers who earn annual salaries of less than $47,476 will be eligible for overtime pay, while eligibility for those with salaries of that much or more will depend on their job duties.

 

The new level is a few thousand dollars less than the $50,440 regulators proposed last year. At that level, the Labor Department estimated 4.6 million workers would be newly eligible. On Tuesday, they said 4.2 million workers would newly qualify for the added pay, with 35% of full-time salaried workers expected to fall below the threshold under the new rule. They also said the rule is expected to boost wages for workers by $12 billion over the next 10 years.

 

Companies will face a choice about how they implement the regulation, including paying their workers overtime or possibly capping their hours, Mr. Biden said. “Either way, the workers win” by either getting paid more or getting their time back to help raise their families or go to school, he said.

 

The administration also took the unprecedented step of ensuring the threshold will be updated automatically, every three years, by indexing it to salary growth in the lowest income region of the country. Also for the first time, the rule will allow bonuses and incentive payments to count toward up to 10% of the new salary level. The rule takes effect on Dec. 1.

 

Even the scaled-back threshold likely won’t satisfy employers who flooded the Labor Department with pleas to lower the amount more sharply. The agency received 270,000 public comments on its proposal, many from employers and industry groups who said the rule would force employers to cut workers’ hours, slow hiring of full-time employees and shift salaried workers to hourly employees who have to punch a clock.

 

The overtime rule is likely to change how businesses compensate employees. The Texas Roadhouse Inc. steak house chain tends to offer lower base salaries, but “a lot of incentive compensation,” President Scott Colosi told investors earlier this month. “It doesn’t sound like the Department of Labor is going to give us much credit for the incentive compensation that we pay.”

 

Before knowing the specifics of the rule, he said bonuses could be reduced by 25% to 50%, so that base salaries for managers could be increased above the threshold.

 

Jeff Lawrence, Domino’s Pizza Inc.’s chief financial officer, said during a recent investor conference call that the company is going to have to see how the rule shakes out. The rule change is primarily “going to cause you to be far more efficient about not having overtime in your stores.”

 

Of the 2.2 million retail and restaurant workers the retail federation expects to be affected, it estimates about 104,000 whose pay is closest to the new likely threshold would see an increase in their base salaries by a total of nearly $159 million, or more than $1,500 for each worker. However, it expects those workers would also see an equivalent decrease in their benefits and bonuses.

 

Likewise, the group estimates hundreds of thousands of workers would be reclassified as hourly employees instead of salaried workers. Many could then have their hours cut to 38 hours a week in order for their employers to avoid paying them any overtime.

Four Likely Consequences

1. Less Overtime
2. Reduced benefits
3. More incentives to dump employees
4. Reduced bonuses to those most deserving of them

Defining Issue of Our Time

Vice President Biden: The rule “goes to the heart of the defining issue of our time, that is restoring and expanding access to the middle class”.

Obama Administration: A sizable jump is needed because inflation has eroded the value of the current threshold, leaving too few eligible for added pay in an economy where wages have stagnated.

Mish: Are wages the problem or is inflation the problem?

Bernanke, Yellen, Larry Summers, and most of mainstream media has everyone convinced that lack of inflation is a problem.

Real-life results suggest otherwise.

It seems to me, wages would keep up with inflation. if there was no inflation

— Mike Shedlock (@MishGEA) May 18, 2016

via http://ift.tt/1To7XeY Tyler Durden

It all started with a speech by the Atlanta Fed’s Dennis Lockhart and San Francisco Fed’s John Williams yesterday who said that two rate hikes may be warranted this year. Both Fed presidents suggested that they continue to see two to three rate hikes this year. Lockhart also added that markets are currently more pessimistic than he is, while Williams made mention of June being a live meeting and even went as far as to say that his view of gradual hikes also means 3-4 hikes in 2017.

That promptly led a notable repricing in the implied probability of a June and July rate hike, as well as a steep drop in both stocks and equities, bust most importantly Eurodollar futures which were quick spooked by the sudden shift in Fed rhetoric.

And with the (already quite stale) Fed minutes due later today, as well as all important speeches by Yellen’s right hand men, Fischer and Dudlely tomorrow, the market is clearly on edge. But is there really a risk of Yellen slamming the breaks on the Fed’s relent so soon after the Fed’s April announcement which once again reiterated “global” issues as a stumbling block for further tightening?

Here is the take of CitiFX’ Brent Donnelly who, while skeptical of a surprising U-turn by the Fed admits he has “squared up” all his trades, and is waiting for guidance from both the minutes, but especiall Fischer.

Fool me n times

There is decent downside momentum in the US front end, equities and EM as various advisers, CNBC and the market in general pile on the belief that the Fed has begun a coordinated effort to get June or July priced in so they can hike. There is particular focus on the following events:
 
         Today    14:00                FOMC Minutes
         5/19      09:15                Fischer delivers remarks at an event in NYC
         5/19      10:30                Dudley remarks on macroeconomic trends at press briefing
         6/3        03:45                Evans speaks on Economy and Policy in London
         6/6        12:30                Yellen to address World Affairs Council at a luncheon
 

As ridiculous as I feel getting dragged into yet another round of Fed hype after so many past failures to launch, it is hard to deny that there seems to be something going on here. It could either be a bored market triggering a momentum trade that feeds the narrative or it could be the market has sniffed out a change of tone from the Fed as these new Fed events get scheduled. The idea that the Fed would leak info to the advisers is particularly hard to swallow given the Fed is already under investigation by the Justice Department because of possible adviser-related leaks in 2012. So my best guess is that this is just a bunch of people taking a punt and the more the front end moves, the more the story seems credible. Either way, the five events listed above should give us a clear idea pretty soon.
 
I squared up all my trades and I’m going to see how the Minutes and Fischer go. There is plenty of room for disappointment and plenty of room for these USD and rates moves to follow through depending on the outcomes so I think the trade is to go into these events flat with an open mind and trade aggressively in either direction. With the Yellen speech not coming until June 6, and the UK Referendum a week after the FOMC, I can’t see much logic to a June hike. Hiking a week before the UK vote seems like a totally unnecessary risk that this extremely risk-averse Fed would never take. But July makes perfect sense if they want to get a hike out of the way before election mania.
 
If the Fed decides to ratify this new theme, this chart could matter:

US 10-year yield vs. oil since mid-2015

via http://ift.tt/1Tfu6Op Tyler Durden

After yesterday's plunge was unable to be stopped by a late day VIX slam; and this morning pre-open puke, there was only one thing left to do to stall the weakness…

Break The Market…

via http://ift.tt/1WCFy7W Tyler Durden