Biggest Squeeze In 2 Months Sends ‘Most Shorted’ Stocks To Critical Resistance

Biggest Squeeze In 2 Months Sends ‘Most Shorted’ Stocks To Critical Resistance

Tyler Durden

Sun, 08/09/2020 – 08:45

One outlier in Wall Street’s monster rally since mid-March is that the “Most Shorted” Stocks Index is still well off its peak while the broad-market (led by mega-techs) has shot to the moon, powering overall main equity indexes to record highs, or at least to near all-time-highs. 

A handful of mega  stocks in S&P500 now account for 22% of market cap have been responsible for the latest melt-up in main equity indexes. 

This week’s massive squeeze in “most shorted” stocks appears to confirm conventional wisdom that the latest recovery-ignorant (as the shape of the economic recovery is quickly transforming from a “V” to a “U” or even “L”) parabolic move higher in stocks is yet another engineered short-cover rally…

An index constituent analysis of the Most Shorted Index reveals, on a market cap by sector basis, most of the bearish bets are in consumer cyclicals (47.48%), healthcare (13.89%), technology (12.72%), and financials (7.80%). 

Here’s the latest leavers and joiners of the index since the start of July.  

A complete list of all constituents in the Most Shorted Index (as of Saturday, Aug. 8). 

And this week’s surge leaves The Most Shorted Index back at the upper-end of its multi-year down-channel, where historically it has been violently rejected. 

With short-covering responsible for major bounces in the main equity indexes earlier this year, did this week’s surge cause the ‘squeeze’ ammo to run out?

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3gHMkpn Tyler Durden

The COVID Crisis Has Helped Make The Blueprint For A European Superstate

The COVID Crisis Has Helped Make The Blueprint For A European Superstate

Tyler Durden

Sun, 08/09/2020 – 08:10

Authored by Claudio Grass via The Mises Institute,

After intense negotiations, long days and nights of clashes, and a distinctly sour note underlying the entire summit, European Union leaders finally agreed on an unprecedented €1.82 trillion ($2.1 trillion) budget and covid recovery package. This agreement provides €750 billion in funding meant to counter the impact of the pandemic and also includes €390 billion in nonrepayable grants to the hardest-hit EU members, with Italy and Spain being the main recipients.

The harsh negotiations brought to the surface once again the deep economic, structural, and cultural divide between north and south. This divide has been at the core of every serious political and economic crisis in the bloc so far, and its reemergence served as yet another reminder of how unnatural, forced, and unsustainable the integration vision of the Europhiles really is. Their wider strategic aims, much like this covid relief package itself, are nothing more than a massive redistribution of wealth and a vain effort to impose uniformity on a radically diverse group of national identities, economic profiles, and local political realities.

As we have seen so many times in past crises, the main sticking point in these most recent “rescue” talks were the legitimate grievances and concerns of the richer countries in the north, including the Netherlands and Austria, about having to foot the bill yet again and bail out their cash-strapped southern neighbors. In this case, the disagreement centered on the question of loans vs. grants, as the richer members initially insisted that the immense sums of money they were forced to give away should at least be repaid at some point in future. And so, in the name of “solidarity,” the nations that put up some opposition, the “frugal four”—Sweden, Denmark, Austria, and the Netherlands—were named and shamed in the media, portrayed as heartless, Dickensian misers. Naturally, the fact that the chief beneficiaries of all that free money were in deep, chronic financial trouble long before the coronavirus even emerged was conveniently left out of the debate. Instead, the “frugal” were put under immense pressure to “do the right thing,” namely to agree that the majority of the support funding would be in the form of pure cash gifts. Apparently, these “persuasion” tactics also included histrionic outbursts: according to the BBC, “at one point French President Emmanuel Macron reportedly banged his fists on the table, as he told the ‘frugal four’ they were putting the European project in danger.”

The main problem with this record-breaking stimulus package is essentially the same one of all its predecessors over the last decade. Not only does the EU like to redistribute wealth from the north to the south with clockwork regularity, but all these plans also fail to incorporate any kind of serious checks and balances about where and how the money is spent. As a result, we keep seeing massive waste and levels of corruption that are normally associated with developing economies. The scale of this most recent package alone brings this issue into sharper focus, especially as it is underlaid by a joint borrowing scheme that enables poorer EU countries to take out cheap loans using the creditworthiness of their richer neighbors, which act as guarantors.

This brings us to the very practical shortcomings of the mechanics of this relief plan.

All these loans and handouts will be financed through an unprecedented amount of debt, which is unsustainable and myopic in and of itself. The fact that this debt is shared, however, makes this “historic deal” all the more insidious, intensely political, and dooms it to failure. This deal signaled the official adoption of the idea of debt mutualization as a funding tool, which clearly paves the way for far deeper EU centralization, even greater powers of taxation and, Brussels’s much more direct political power over national governments. This is already evident in the early drafts of the terms and conditions of the loans and grants in the package. There no real strings attached when it comes to transparency and the all practical aspects of how the funds will be used, but there are heavily political requirements. For example, 30 percent of the aid must be spent on a “green” agenda and on combating climate change. There’s also clear language in the agreements that ties the distribution of the aid to compliance with “the rule of law.” That’s a thinly veiled threat against conservative member states like Poland and Hungary, where the democratically elected national governments are known to pass laws that the EU frowns upon. There is, therefore, clear and purely political conditionality attached to that great “unifying” plan.

It might be wrapped in idealistic and melodramatic language, e.g., “rescuing our shared European future,” but what this deal is really about is a blatant power grab. The self-inflicted damage caused by the shutdowns and the lockdowns has been effectively misattributed to the coronavirus itself, which has allowed politicians and Eurocrats to present this recession, that was already evident since the end of last year, as a natural disaster and therefore nobody’s fault. In turn, the resulting economic fallout and the deep financial crisis affecting countless households has been used as an excuse to usher in policies geared towards more centralization. Thus, the answer to all our current problems is “a stronger EU,” even though it was that exact mindset that caused them in the first place.

In this light, the “cure” that is forced upon all Europeans now is not just worse than the disease; it is the disease.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3a6VnxS Tyler Durden

Back To School? A Billion Students Still Hit By Closures

Back To School? A Billion Students Still Hit By Closures

Tyler Durden

Sun, 08/09/2020 – 07:35

1,058,547,236…

Back to school season is just around the corner and, as Statista’s Niall McCarthy reports, that’s the number of learners who still aren’t able to attend class (as of early August) due to the pandemic. 

Infographic: Back To School: A Billion Students Still Hit By Closures | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

According to UNESCO, that figure represents 60.5 percent of all learners worldwide though it is an improvement on the 1.4 billion students kept out of school in mid March.

At that point, there were national school closures in 138 countries and that has now fallen to 105.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3fP7p0d Tyler Durden

British Man Arrested For Filming Migrants Being Loaded Onto Coaches In Dover

British Man Arrested For Filming Migrants Being Loaded Onto Coaches In Dover

Tyler Durden

Sun, 08/09/2020 – 07:00

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

A British YouTuber was arrested after he tried to live stream footage of boat migrants being loaded onto coaches in Dover before they are taken to be accommodated in hotels at taxpayer expense.

A citizen reporter who goes by the name Active Patriot was recording the scene from a public car park when he was aggressively approached by police.

“I’m showing the world what is going on mate,” says the reporter, to which the officer responds, ” I think the world knows.”

“Do they really? They don’t know what extent, though do they?” Active Patriot responds.

At first the officer claims he is arresting the man for trespassing but then suddenly changes the reason to “breaching the peace.”

After the man complains that his arm hurts even though he is not resisting arrest, the officer responds, “Give me your arm, or I’ll put you on the ground.”

Steve Laws, another citizen reporter who has been documenting the migrant arrivals, told Politicalite, “I saw 74 illegals being toed into port by the border force from 8am to 11am.”

“They were so busy they didn’t get the time to unload one boatload before another arrived,” he added.

“My sources told me it as over 100 after I had left. I saw 3 coaches parked waiting since 8am. It almost seems like it was pre planned.”

French navy vessels are escorting migrant boats into British waters, where they are then handed over to British border authorities who provide the illegal aliens a de facto taxi service and free residency while they prepare asylum claims. Migrants pay criminal people smugglers thousands of pounds to reach Europe, dispelling the idea that they are destitute.

“More than double the number of migrants have landed in the first eight months of 2020 (nearly 3,950) than the whole of 2019 (1,850). Migration Watch UK has warned that more than 7,500 could land by Christmas,” reports Breitbart.

The alarming migrant crisis on the south coast of England has finally started to receive attention following months of former Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage drawing attention to it.

After exposing how a packed hotel was being used to house illegal migrants in Bromsgrove, Farage revealed yesterday how others got VIP tours of Anfield Stadium after Liverpool’s Premier League title win.

Farage revealed how at least four hotels in the north west of England were full of migrants, with Brits being unable to book them.

“It’s completely one-sided,” said Farage.

“I’m doing my best to get this out because the Government don’t want you to know about it; Serco, who’ll be paid two billion quid over the next ten years [to accommodate migrants] certainly don’t want you to know about it.”

“All these people will be sending selfies and pictures back to their countries, wherever they come from, and the message is: ‘Come on down, get into the country, hotels, 40 quid a week spending money, full board, trips to Anfield… It’s stone bonkers,” Farage said.

The taxi and hotel accommodation service for migrants is being overseen by the same “conservative” government that just announced Brits currently on holiday in Spain and other countries would have to quarantine for 2 weeks upon their return, a de facto house arrest which will strip many of two weeks unpaid wages.

*  *  *

There is a war on free speech. Without your support, my voice will be silenced. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2XKLTTX Tyler Durden

The Statutory Authorization for President Trump’s Memorandum Deferring Payroll Tax Obligations

Yesterday, I blogged about President Trump’s Payroll Tax Deferral Memorandum. I’ll presume familiarity with the mechanics of the memorandum. This post will consider whether the President has the statutory authority to implement this memorandum.

There are three primary statutes referenced in the memorandum.

Sec. 2.  Deferring Certain Payroll Tax Obligations.  The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to use his authority pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7508A to defer the withholding, deposit, and payment of the tax imposed by 26 U.S.C. 3101(a), and so much of the tax imposed by 26 U.S.C. 3201 as is attributable to the rate in effect under 26 U.S.C. 3101(a), on wages or compensation, as applicable, paid during the period of September 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, subject to the following conditions.

I’ll consider these three statutes in reverse order.

First, 26 U.S.C. 3101(a) imposes a 6.2% payroll tax:

In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to 6.2 percent of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by the individual with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)).

Second, 26 U.S.C. 3201 establishes the percentage of compensation for certain taxes. It provides, in relevant part:

In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of each employee a tax equal to the applicable percentage of the compensation received during any calendar year by such employee for services rendered by such employee.

Third, 26 U.S.C. 7508A is the most important provision. The section is titled, “Authority to postpone certain deadlines by reason of Presidentially declared disaster or terroristic or military actions.” The IRS relied on this statute to extend the filing date for income taxes from April 15 to July 15.

Section 7508A(a) provides:

In the case of a taxpayer determined by the Secretary to be affected by a federally declared disaster (as defined by section 165(i)(5)(A)) or a terroristic or military action (as defined in section 692(c)(2)), the Secretary may specify a period of up to 1 year that may be disregarded in determining, under the internal revenue laws, in respect of any tax liability of such taxpayer—

(1) whether any of the acts described in paragraph (1) of section 7508(a) were performed within the time prescribed therefor (determined without regard to extension under any other provision of this subtitle for periods after the date (determined by the Secretary) of such disaster or action),

(2) the amount of any interest, penalty, additional amount, or addition to the tax for periods after such date, and

(3) the amount of any credit or refund.

There are a few relevant cross references. Section 165(i)(5)(A) refers to 26 U.S.C. 165(i)(5)(A). That section provides:

The term “Federally  declared disaster” means any disaster subsequently determined by the President of the United States to warrant assistance by the Federal Government under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.

In this case, President Trump has declared a disaster pursuant to the Stafford Act.

Section 7508(a) refers to Paragraph 1 of 26 U.S.C. 7508(a). This section provides that certain tax deadlines may be postponed when a person is serving in a combat zone. But more important are the eleven specific acts listed in Paragraph 1 of Section 7508(a). They are:

(A) Filing any return of income, estate, gift, employment, or excise tax;
(B) Payment of any income, estate, gift, employment, or excise tax or any installment thereof or of any other liability to the United States in respect thereof;
(C) Filing a petition with the Tax Court for redetermination of a deficiency, or for review of a decision rendered by the Tax Court;
(D) Allowance of a credit or refund of any tax;
(E) Filing a claim for credit or refund of any tax;
(F) Bringing suit upon any such claim for credit or refund;
(G) Assessment of any tax;
(H) Giving or making any notice or demand for the payment of any tax, or with respect to any liability to the United States in respect of any tax;
(I) Collection, by the Secretary, by levy or otherwise, of the amount of any liability in respect of any tax;
(J) Bringing suit by the United States, or any officer on its behalf, in respect of any liability in respect of any tax; and
(K) Any other act required or permitted under the internal revenue laws specified by the Secretary;

The most important act is subparagraph (B): “Payment of any income, estate, gift, employment, or excise tax or any installment thereof or of any other liability to the United States in respect thereof.”

Let’s put these sections together. 26 U.S.C. 7508A gives the Secretary the authority to “specify a period of up to 1 year that may be disregarded in determining, under the internal revenue laws, in respect of any tax liability of such taxpayer” whether the “Payment of any income, estate, gift, employment, or excise tax or any installment thereof or of any other liability to the United States in respect thereof” was “performed within the time prescribed therefor . . . of such disaster or action.”

Does the act in subparagraph (B) embrace the acts referenced in the memorandum: “withholding, deposit, and payment” of payroll taxes? I am not familiar enough with the mechanics of how payroll tax “withholding, deposit, and payment” works. But if those actions fit within subparagraph (B), then the Secretary can postpone the deadlines for up to a year. The memorandum only includes a four month extension (from September 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020).

These are my tentative thoughts. Please email me if you have a better grasp of tax law than I do.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2XFUzes
via IFTTT

The Statutory Authorization for President Trump’s Memorandum Deferring Payroll Tax Obligations

Yesterday, I blogged about President Trump’s Payroll Tax Deferral Memorandum. I’ll presume familiarity with the mechanics of the memorandum. This post will consider whether the President has the statutory authority to implement this memorandum.

There are three primary statutes referenced in the memorandum.

Sec. 2.  Deferring Certain Payroll Tax Obligations.  The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to use his authority pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7508A to defer the withholding, deposit, and payment of the tax imposed by 26 U.S.C. 3101(a), and so much of the tax imposed by 26 U.S.C. 3201 as is attributable to the rate in effect under 26 U.S.C. 3101(a), on wages or compensation, as applicable, paid during the period of September 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, subject to the following conditions.

I’ll consider these three statutes in reverse order.

First, 26 U.S.C. 3101(a) imposes a 6.2% payroll tax:

In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to 6.2 percent of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by the individual with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)).

Second, 26 U.S.C. 3201 establishes the percentage of compensation for certain taxes. It provides, in relevant part:

In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of each employee a tax equal to the applicable percentage of the compensation received during any calendar year by such employee for services rendered by such employee.

Third, 26 U.S.C. 7508A is the most important provision. The section is titled, “Authority to postpone certain deadlines by reason of Presidentially declared disaster or terroristic or military actions.” The IRS relied on this statute to extend the filing date for income taxes from April 15 to July 15.

Section 7508A(a) provides:

In the case of a taxpayer determined by the Secretary to be affected by a federally declared disaster (as defined by section 165(i)(5)(A)) or a terroristic or military action (as defined in section 692(c)(2)), the Secretary may specify a period of up to 1 year that may be disregarded in determining, under the internal revenue laws, in respect of any tax liability of such taxpayer—

(1) whether any of the acts described in paragraph (1) of section 7508(a) were performed within the time prescribed therefor (determined without regard to extension under any other provision of this subtitle for periods after the date (determined by the Secretary) of such disaster or action),

(2) the amount of any interest, penalty, additional amount, or addition to the tax for periods after such date, and

(3) the amount of any credit or refund.

There are a few relevant cross references. Section 165(i)(5)(A) refers to 26 U.S.C. 165(i)(5)(A). That section provides:

The term “Federally  declared disaster” means any disaster subsequently determined by the President of the United States to warrant assistance by the Federal Government under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.

In this case, President Trump has declared a disaster pursuant to the Stafford Act.

Section 7508(a) refers to Paragraph 1 of 26 U.S.C. 7508(a). This section provides that certain tax deadlines may be postponed when a person is serving in a combat zone. But more important are the eleven specific acts listed in Paragraph 1 of Section 7508(a). They are:

(A) Filing any return of income, estate, gift, employment, or excise tax;
(B) Payment of any income, estate, gift, employment, or excise tax or any installment thereof or of any other liability to the United States in respect thereof;
(C) Filing a petition with the Tax Court for redetermination of a deficiency, or for review of a decision rendered by the Tax Court;
(D) Allowance of a credit or refund of any tax;
(E) Filing a claim for credit or refund of any tax;
(F) Bringing suit upon any such claim for credit or refund;
(G) Assessment of any tax;
(H) Giving or making any notice or demand for the payment of any tax, or with respect to any liability to the United States in respect of any tax;
(I) Collection, by the Secretary, by levy or otherwise, of the amount of any liability in respect of any tax;
(J) Bringing suit by the United States, or any officer on its behalf, in respect of any liability in respect of any tax; and
(K) Any other act required or permitted under the internal revenue laws specified by the Secretary;

The most important act is subparagraph (B): “Payment of any income, estate, gift, employment, or excise tax or any installment thereof or of any other liability to the United States in respect thereof.”

Let’s put these sections together. 26 U.S.C. 7508A gives the Secretary the authority to “specify a period of up to 1 year that may be disregarded in determining, under the internal revenue laws, in respect of any tax liability of such taxpayer” whether the “Payment of any income, estate, gift, employment, or excise tax or any installment thereof or of any other liability to the United States in respect thereof” was “performed within the time prescribed therefor . . . of such disaster or action.”

Does the act in subparagraph (B) embrace the acts referenced in the memorandum: “withholding, deposit, and payment” of payroll taxes? I am not familiar enough with the mechanics of how payroll tax “withholding, deposit, and payment” works. But if those actions fit within subparagraph (B), then the Secretary can postpone the deadlines for up to a year. The memorandum only includes a four month extension (from September 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020).

These are my tentative thoughts. Please email me if you have a better grasp of tax law than I do.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2XFUzes
via IFTTT