No Sealing of Photos and Plans of $20M, 29,000 Sq. Ft. House (with 55,000 Sq. Ft. of Improvements)

Vernon W. Hill and Shirley Hill own “what [they] describe as the largest single-family home in Southern New Jersey, consisting of 29,236 square feet of living space and an additional 55,543 square feet of improvements on a 7.21-acre portion of a 44-acre parcel. Its 2008 assessment was $20,814,500.

Completed in 2002, the home is built in an Italianate style and boasts a Barre granite facade, granite terraces, cascading waterfalls and several reflecting pools. There are six bedrooms and eleven full bathrooms. The walls and floor of the two-story foyer are marble. A fountain of black onyx marble anchors a circular marble staircase to the second floor. The living room is topped by a large circular dome with a Venetian plaster finish. There are three kitchens (two on the first floor and a full-size commercial kitchen in the basement), a gym, a library, two massage rooms, a hair salon, a billiards room, six storage or pantry rooms, laundry and trash rooms, a wine cellar, and two “viewing rooms” for admiring the landscape. The two-story “Lemon Room,” a sort of orangery for lemon trees, was added in 2006.

Hill, as I understand it, is a past chairman and CEO of Commerce Bancorp, and founder of Metro Bank UK; a Fortune article called him “the P.T. Barnum of banking.” (He was also a party to an interesting copyright / work-for-hire / injunction case, TD Bank N.A. v. Hill (3d Cir. 2019), related to a business book that he wrote.)

The Hills sued in N.J. Tax Court to challenge their 2008 tax assessment, and litigated the case up to the state’s intermediate appellate court, the Appellate Division. They lost, though it sounds like they could have lost more, had the assessor so argued: “[A]lthough the property was assessed at $20,814,500, [the tax] court determined its true market value to be $34,426,812 and, because the municipality did not file a counterclaim, the court did not raise the assessment on the property.”

Now, though, the financial dispute is over, and what’s left is the sealing dispute. The case apparently wasn’t supposed to be sealed:

Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this court challenging the tax year 2008 assessment. At the request of the parties, the court entered a consent protective order in which the parties agreed to maintain the confidentiality of documents and information exchanged during discovery. The consent protective order did not provide that documents and information filed with the court would be sealed from public disclosure pursuant to Rule 1:38-11…. [T]his court denied plaintiffs’ post-trial motion pursuant to Rule 1:38-11 to seal the trial court record ….

But the record appears to have been treated as sealed, so the Appellate Division case was marked “Record Impounded,” which drew the interest of Larry S. Loigman, a New Jersey lawyer who had litigated state public records cases before. He then intervened to unseal the case, and Monday Tax Court Judge Patrick DeAlmeida agreed (Hill v. Township of Moorestown, 2020 WL 116112 (N.J. Tax Ct.)), though the decision won’t take effect for 30 days, to give the parties the time to appeal.

Indeed, the court largely rejected even the Hills’ much-narrowed request (they “no longer request that the entire record be sealed,” but focus only on a few items). The court concluded that, under New Jersey law (and especially the New Jersey open court rules, drafted by the Supreme Court Special Committee on Public Access to Court Records), nearly everything in the record should be unsealed, except some personal e-mail addresses and information about the location of a security system on the property:

The Special Committee’s rejection of an exemption for appraisal reports submitted to this court highlights two salient points. First, the public interest in judicial resolution of local property tax appeals outweighs the privacy interests of the taxpayer to information in an appraisal report submitted to this court, at least in the context of proprietary business information. Second, public disclosure of appraisal reports submitted to this court is favored whenever the court uses the reports to facilitate resolution of the appeal, even when the reports are not admitted into evidence. This is significant because it is apparent to this court that the Special Committee’s discussion of appraisal reports was premised on the assumption the reports would be subject to public disclosure if admitted into evidence at trial….

Plaintiffs argue they have a constitutional right to privacy that includes the right to exclude the public from viewing their home and its contents and to prevent public disclosure of the details of their premises … [including the appraisal report that must be submitted with a challenge, and that contains] a detailed description of the property, interior and exterior photographs, and a floor plan…. While recognizing the Special Committee considered and rejected recommending excluding appraisal reports submitted in Tax Court matters from public disclosure, plaintiffs argue the Special Committee considered only those reports containing proprietary commercial information and not appraisal reports concerning the privacy interest of a taxpayer in their residence.

Plaintiffs also argue that … the information that is the subject of their motion is of limited value to the public, because this court issued a written decision explaining at length how it determined the true market value of plaintiffs’ home for tax year 2008 and most of the Hill Appeal record, including portions of the parties’ appraisal reports, is available for public disclosure.

In addition, plaintiffs submitted a certification asserting the construction of their home was “the subject of intense public scrutiny and media attention[,]” including “attempts by the paparazzi to invade the privacy of the home[,]” which is not wholly visible from the street.

Plaintiffs have hosted events at the home at which Governors and the Speaker of the House of Representatives were guests. On those occasions, a secret service detail and security personnel were required to secure the property. Plaintiffs have taken steps to ensure the privacy, safety, and security of the property for themselves and their guests by regularly requiring those who visit the property, including the appraisers involved in this matter, to sign a confidentiality agreement.

According to plaintiffs, “the interior home photographs and in depth descriptions” of the property “are extremely sensitive and private, and release could jeopardize not only the safety, health and security of [their] family, but of those honored guests [they] choose to invite into [the] home.” Plaintiffs recognize this court’s opinion affirming the tax year 2008 assessment contains a description of their home, but argue “the items [they] seek to protect are much more descriptive, personal and intrusive and could be used by someone wishing to breach the security systems [they have] taken steps to provide.”

Loigman argues this matter is a “garden variety” appeal of an assessment on a residential property, of the type routinely tried in the Tax Court without a sealed record. He argues the grand nature of plaintiffs’ home is insufficient to distinguish it from any other residential property and the potential injuries asserted by plaintiffs are speculative. He notes plaintiffs should have expected their decision to challenge the tax year 2008 assessment on their property would result in public scrutiny of their home, as is the case with any taxpayer who files a residential tax appeal.

Loigman argues the public has a right to know plaintiffs have not been treated with favoritism by the municipal tax assessor and how this court determined the true market value of plaintiffs’ home for local property tax purposes. He points out that although the property was assessed at $20,814,500, this court determined its true market value to be $34,426,812 and, because the municipality did not file a counterclaim, the court did not raise the assessment on the property….

The court almost entirely sided with Loigman, reasoning in particular:

[A.] [A]erial photographs of the property included in an appraisal report submitted at trial. The photographs each contain the word “Google” in the lower righthand corner, suggesting they were obtained from a commonly available resource.

The court concludes plaintiffs have not established disclosure of the photographs “will likely cause a clearly defined and serious injury to any person or entity” under Rule 1:38-11. While the court finds plaintiffs and their home have been the subject of intense public interest and scrutiny, there is nothing in the motion record establishing by a preponderance of the evidence how plaintiffs would be injured by release of the aerial photographs or that any injury would be serious or likely to occur.

Moreover, this court adopts the rationale of the Special Committee that the public interest in assuring the fairness of the process by which property taxes are levied outweighs the taxpayers’ privacy interest in personal information contained in appraisal reports submitted to this court. While the Special Committee considered appraisal reports containing proprietary commercial information, this court concludes its rationale is equally applicable to appraisal reports containing information about a taxpayer’s residence, absent a showing disclosure will likely cause serious injury to the taxpayer or any other person….

[B.] [F]loor plans of the house. Again, the court concludes plaintiffs have not established release of the floor plans “will likely cause a clearly defined and serious injury to any person or entity” under Rule 1:38-11. The court acknowledges plaintiffs’ interest in maintaining their privacy and the security of their home. The floor plans, while detailed, are on small scale and are difficult to read. Plaintiffs do not identify any depiction on the floor plans of security systems protecting the home. In addition, as noted above, the public interest in disclosure of appraisal reports submitted to, and used by, this court to determine true market value is significant and outweighs plaintiffs’ purported privacy interest in these documents….

[C.] [T]he expert’s detailed description of the interior and exterior characteristics of the home. The pages describe the history of the construction of the home, various materials used to build the house, finishes, ceiling heights, room features, amenities, and exterior improvements. In addition, the documents provide a detailed description of the tax year 2008 assessment and the zoning restrictions applicable to the property. Plaintiffs have not established the disclosure of this information is likely to cause a clearly defined and serious injury to them or others….

[D.] [T]he expert’s detailed discussion of how he formulated his opinion of the true market value of the property under the cost approach to valuation. The discussion includes details of the actual costs incurred by plaintiffs when constructing the home, the expert’s estimate of some costs, and his opinion of the hypothetical cost to replace the home. This page contain a description of the expert’s analysis of a type routinely submitted to this court to determine true market value under the cost approach. There is nothing in this document suggesting its disclosure is likely to cause a clearly defined and serious injury to plaintiffs or any other person….

[E.] [P]hotographs of the interior and exterior of the home, the roadways near the home, entrance gates to the property, an aerial photograph of the property marked “Microsoft Virtual Earth[,]” a map of the neighborhood in which the property is located marked “Microsoft Virtual Earth[,]” a tax map (which most certainly is a public document), a topographical map of the property, floor plans (with no interior walls or features depicted), a letter from an architect stating his opinion of the amount of the livable square footage of the home, floor plans with interior walls and features depicted, a summary of expenses incurred by plaintiffs when constructing the home, and a flood hazard map of the area surrounding the property.

These documents are typical of those submitted to this court with appraisal reports and do not contain confidential information. The only aspect of these documents that cause the court pause are the photographs of the interior of the home. Some of the photographs depict plaintiffs’ furniture, table settings, and other personal property, none of which is obviously embarrassing or of an intimate nature.

Those photographs, however, also depict features of the home. The appearance of plaintiffs’ personal property in the photographs is incidental to the depiction of the interior of the home. The court used the photographs when determining the true market value of the home, as the house’s characteristics are relevant to its value in the marketplace. While disclosure of the photographs will expose some of plaintiffs’ personal property to public view, the court concludes plaintiffs have not established disclosure is likely to cause a clearly defined and serious injury to them or others. The court, therefore, finds plaintiffs have not established good cause for sealing these documents under Rule 1:38-11….

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

No Sealing of Photos and Plans of $20M, 29,000 Sq. Ft. House (with 55,000 Sq. Ft. of Improvements)

Vernon W. Hill and Shirley Hill own “what [they] describe as the largest single-family home in Southern New Jersey, consisting of 29,236 square feet of living space and an additional 55,543 square feet of improvements on a 7.21-acre portion of a 44-acre parcel. Its 2008 assessment was $20,814,500.

Completed in 2002, the home is built in an Italianate style and boasts a Barre granite facade, granite terraces, cascading waterfalls and several reflecting pools. There are six bedrooms and eleven full bathrooms. The walls and floor of the two-story foyer are marble. A fountain of black onyx marble anchors a circular marble staircase to the second floor. The living room is topped by a large circular dome with a Venetian plaster finish. There are three kitchens (two on the first floor and a full-size commercial kitchen in the basement), a gym, a library, two massage rooms, a hair salon, a billiards room, six storage or pantry rooms, laundry and trash rooms, a wine cellar, and two “viewing rooms” for admiring the landscape. The two-story “Lemon Room,” a sort of orangery for lemon trees, was added in 2006.

Hill, as I understand it, is a past chairman and CEO of Commerce Bancorp, and founder of Metro Bank UK; a Fortune article called him “the P.T. Barnum of banking.” (He was also a party to an interesting copyright / work-for-hire / injunction case, TD Bank N.A. v. Hill (3d Cir. 2019), related to a business book that he wrote.)

The Hills sued in N.J. Tax Court to challenge their 2008 tax assessment, and litigated the case up to the state’s intermediate appellate court, the Appellate Division. They lost, though it sounds like they could have lost more, had the assessor so argued: “[A]lthough the property was assessed at $20,814,500, [the tax] court determined its true market value to be $34,426,812 and, because the municipality did not file a counterclaim, the court did not raise the assessment on the property.”

Now, though, the financial dispute is over, and what’s left is the sealing dispute. The case apparently wasn’t supposed to be sealed:

Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this court challenging the tax year 2008 assessment. At the request of the parties, the court entered a consent protective order in which the parties agreed to maintain the confidentiality of documents and information exchanged during discovery. The consent protective order did not provide that documents and information filed with the court would be sealed from public disclosure pursuant to Rule 1:38-11…. [T]his court denied plaintiffs’ post-trial motion pursuant to Rule 1:38-11 to seal the trial court record ….

But the record appears to have been treated as sealed, so the Appellate Division case was marked “Record Impounded,” which drew the interest of Larry S. Loigman, a New Jersey lawyer who had litigated state public records cases before. He then intervened to unseal the case, and Monday Tax Court Judge Patrick DeAlmeida agreed (Hill v. Township of Moorestown, 2020 WL 116112 (N.J. Tax Ct.)), though the decision won’t take effect for 30 days, to give the parties the time to appeal.

Indeed, the court largely rejected even the Hills’ much-narrowed request (they “no longer request that the entire record be sealed,” but focus only on a few items). The court concluded that, under New Jersey law (and especially the New Jersey open court rules, drafted by the Supreme Court Special Committee on Public Access to Court Records), nearly everything in the record should be unsealed, except some personal e-mail addresses and information about the location of a security system on the property:

The Special Committee’s rejection of an exemption for appraisal reports submitted to this court highlights two salient points. First, the public interest in judicial resolution of local property tax appeals outweighs the privacy interests of the taxpayer to information in an appraisal report submitted to this court, at least in the context of proprietary business information. Second, public disclosure of appraisal reports submitted to this court is favored whenever the court uses the reports to facilitate resolution of the appeal, even when the reports are not admitted into evidence. This is significant because it is apparent to this court that the Special Committee’s discussion of appraisal reports was premised on the assumption the reports would be subject to public disclosure if admitted into evidence at trial….

Plaintiffs argue they have a constitutional right to privacy that includes the right to exclude the public from viewing their home and its contents and to prevent public disclosure of the details of their premises … [including the appraisal report that must be submitted with a challenge, and that contains] a detailed description of the property, interior and exterior photographs, and a floor plan…. While recognizing the Special Committee considered and rejected recommending excluding appraisal reports submitted in Tax Court matters from public disclosure, plaintiffs argue the Special Committee considered only those reports containing proprietary commercial information and not appraisal reports concerning the privacy interest of a taxpayer in their residence.

Plaintiffs also argue that … the information that is the subject of their motion is of limited value to the public, because this court issued a written decision explaining at length how it determined the true market value of plaintiffs’ home for tax year 2008 and most of the Hill Appeal record, including portions of the parties’ appraisal reports, is available for public disclosure.

In addition, plaintiffs submitted a certification asserting the construction of their home was “the subject of intense public scrutiny and media attention[,]” including “attempts by the paparazzi to invade the privacy of the home[,]” which is not wholly visible from the street.

Plaintiffs have hosted events at the home at which Governors and the Speaker of the House of Representatives were guests. On those occasions, a secret service detail and security personnel were required to secure the property. Plaintiffs have taken steps to ensure the privacy, safety, and security of the property for themselves and their guests by regularly requiring those who visit the property, including the appraisers involved in this matter, to sign a confidentiality agreement.

According to plaintiffs, “the interior home photographs and in depth descriptions” of the property “are extremely sensitive and private, and release could jeopardize not only the safety, health and security of [their] family, but of those honored guests [they] choose to invite into [the] home.” Plaintiffs recognize this court’s opinion affirming the tax year 2008 assessment contains a description of their home, but argue “the items [they] seek to protect are much more descriptive, personal and intrusive and could be used by someone wishing to breach the security systems [they have] taken steps to provide.”

Loigman argues this matter is a “garden variety” appeal of an assessment on a residential property, of the type routinely tried in the Tax Court without a sealed record. He argues the grand nature of plaintiffs’ home is insufficient to distinguish it from any other residential property and the potential injuries asserted by plaintiffs are speculative. He notes plaintiffs should have expected their decision to challenge the tax year 2008 assessment on their property would result in public scrutiny of their home, as is the case with any taxpayer who files a residential tax appeal.

Loigman argues the public has a right to know plaintiffs have not been treated with favoritism by the municipal tax assessor and how this court determined the true market value of plaintiffs’ home for local property tax purposes. He points out that although the property was assessed at $20,814,500, this court determined its true market value to be $34,426,812 and, because the municipality did not file a counterclaim, the court did not raise the assessment on the property….

The court almost entirely sided with Loigman, reasoning in particular:

[A.] [A]erial photographs of the property included in an appraisal report submitted at trial. The photographs each contain the word “Google” in the lower righthand corner, suggesting they were obtained from a commonly available resource.

The court concludes plaintiffs have not established disclosure of the photographs “will likely cause a clearly defined and serious injury to any person or entity” under Rule 1:38-11. While the court finds plaintiffs and their home have been the subject of intense public interest and scrutiny, there is nothing in the motion record establishing by a preponderance of the evidence how plaintiffs would be injured by release of the aerial photographs or that any injury would be serious or likely to occur.

Moreover, this court adopts the rationale of the Special Committee that the public interest in assuring the fairness of the process by which property taxes are levied outweighs the taxpayers’ privacy interest in personal information contained in appraisal reports submitted to this court. While the Special Committee considered appraisal reports containing proprietary commercial information, this court concludes its rationale is equally applicable to appraisal reports containing information about a taxpayer’s residence, absent a showing disclosure will likely cause serious injury to the taxpayer or any other person….

[B.] [F]loor plans of the house. Again, the court concludes plaintiffs have not established release of the floor plans “will likely cause a clearly defined and serious injury to any person or entity” under Rule 1:38-11. The court acknowledges plaintiffs’ interest in maintaining their privacy and the security of their home. The floor plans, while detailed, are on small scale and are difficult to read. Plaintiffs do not identify any depiction on the floor plans of security systems protecting the home. In addition, as noted above, the public interest in disclosure of appraisal reports submitted to, and used by, this court to determine true market value is significant and outweighs plaintiffs’ purported privacy interest in these documents….

[C.] [T]he expert’s detailed description of the interior and exterior characteristics of the home. The pages describe the history of the construction of the home, various materials used to build the house, finishes, ceiling heights, room features, amenities, and exterior improvements. In addition, the documents provide a detailed description of the tax year 2008 assessment and the zoning restrictions applicable to the property. Plaintiffs have not established the disclosure of this information is likely to cause a clearly defined and serious injury to them or others….

[D.] [T]he expert’s detailed discussion of how he formulated his opinion of the true market value of the property under the cost approach to valuation. The discussion includes details of the actual costs incurred by plaintiffs when constructing the home, the expert’s estimate of some costs, and his opinion of the hypothetical cost to replace the home. This page contain a description of the expert’s analysis of a type routinely submitted to this court to determine true market value under the cost approach. There is nothing in this document suggesting its disclosure is likely to cause a clearly defined and serious injury to plaintiffs or any other person….

[E.] [P]hotographs of the interior and exterior of the home, the roadways near the home, entrance gates to the property, an aerial photograph of the property marked “Microsoft Virtual Earth[,]” a map of the neighborhood in which the property is located marked “Microsoft Virtual Earth[,]” a tax map (which most certainly is a public document), a topographical map of the property, floor plans (with no interior walls or features depicted), a letter from an architect stating his opinion of the amount of the livable square footage of the home, floor plans with interior walls and features depicted, a summary of expenses incurred by plaintiffs when constructing the home, and a flood hazard map of the area surrounding the property.

These documents are typical of those submitted to this court with appraisal reports and do not contain confidential information. The only aspect of these documents that cause the court pause are the photographs of the interior of the home. Some of the photographs depict plaintiffs’ furniture, table settings, and other personal property, none of which is obviously embarrassing or of an intimate nature.

Those photographs, however, also depict features of the home. The appearance of plaintiffs’ personal property in the photographs is incidental to the depiction of the interior of the home. The court used the photographs when determining the true market value of the home, as the house’s characteristics are relevant to its value in the marketplace. While disclosure of the photographs will expose some of plaintiffs’ personal property to public view, the court concludes plaintiffs have not established disclosure is likely to cause a clearly defined and serious injury to them or others. The court, therefore, finds plaintiffs have not established good cause for sealing these documents under Rule 1:38-11….

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

Do you have a backup generator?

The news headlines read, “Deadly 6.4 Magnitude Earthquake Plunges Puerto Rico into Darkness”; and “Powerful Puerto Rico Earthquake Knocks Out Entire Island’s Power.”

It was enough to prompt my mother to call, four times, to make sure I was OK.

There’s been a string of fairly strong earthquakes lately in Puerto Rico… which is incredibly unusual for this part of the world. It’s been more than a century since the island was rocked by anything of this magnitude.

But I explained to my parents that the press had blown things out of proportion as usual. They were running video footage that made it seem as if the island had been blasted back into the Stone Age.

It’s true that there were some displaced families and property damage near the epicenter.

But most of the island was not substantially affected. None of the major news organizations bothered to show footage of busy shopping malls, crowded restaurants, and packed movie theaters teeming with consumers.

It’s also true that the electrical grid went down: the island was without power for some time. Here in my community, the power came back on after 2 days. Some people had it on after a day, some after 3 or 4 days.

But here’s what people don’t realize– the electricity problems in Puerto Rico have a lot less to do with the seismic activity, and a lot more to do with the island’s decade-long economic depression.

Puerto Rico’s economy has been in the dumps since at least 2006. The government is bankrupt and defaulted on many of its debts as far back as 2015. And Puerto Rico’s Electric Power Authority (PREPA) is bankrupt as well, having defaulted on billions of dollars worth of bond obligations.

All of this financial insolvency means that neither the government nor PREPA has the resources to invest in the electrical grid.

And most of PREPA’s electrical production assets are in desperate need of replacement.

The largest power plant in Puerto Rico is the 820 MW Costa Sur facility, and according to PREPA, it was built in the 1950s!

This makes Costa Sur more than twice as old as the average power plant in the US.

They simply don’t have the money to modernize or upgrade their facilities. And people who live here understand this reality: the electrical grid in Puerto Rico is incredibly weak.

I’m serious. Power outages are commonplace here. The power at my house goes out at least 2-3 times a month, usually for a couple of hours.

That’s because every time a mouse farts on this island, something goes haywire at the electrical plants and the power goes out.

But again, Puerto Ricans know this. They have little confidence in their government, and even less confidence in the electrical grid.

So everyone who has the means in Puerto Rico owns a generator. It’s their Plan B. The power goes out, the generator comes on, and everything is OK.

My house is equipped with a huge generator… plus a backup cistern in case the water company goes down too.

This isn’t some wild conspiracy theory. In Puerto Rico, there’s nearly a 100% certainty that the system is going to fail… so having a backup generator is a perfectly sensible precaution to take.

And people who take this precaution are well-protected in the event that disaster strikes.

This way of thinking can obviously be applied to a lot of things… like retirement planning.

It’s no secret that government pension funds around the world are woefully underfunded.

University studies, non-profit research groups, mainstream financial press, and even government agencies themselves have reached the same conclusion: national, state, and local pension funds are trillions of dollars in the hole.

They simply do not have enough cash, nor will they have enough cash in the future, to pay the retirement benefits they owe.

Social Security in the United States is a great example.

Social Security’s Board of Trustees, which includes the United States Secretary of the Treasury, states quite plainly in their annual reports that Social Security’s primary trust funds will run out of money in 15 years.

Specifically, on page 5 of the 2019 Social Security Trustees Report, they state:

“Trust Fund asset reserves become depleted and unable to pay scheduled benefits in full on a timely basis in 2035.”

This isn’t some crazy conspiracy theory either. This is the US Treasury Secretary stating that in just 15 years, Social Security’s trust funds will be out of money and unable to pay the benefits that they’ve been promising people for decades.

This is just like Puerto Rico’s electrical issue: you know there’s nearly a 100% certainty that the program is going to run out of money.

I mean, seriously, the people in charge of program are telling you that it’s going to run out of money. It couldn’t be any more clear than that.

So it seems fairly sensible to have a backup generator for your retirement.

Everyone has a different situation– but there are plenty of options.

In the US, for example, tax deferred structures like a SEP IRA or Solo 401(k) can help you put away $50,000+ each year for your retirement in a really tax efficient way.

It’s even possible to use these structures combined with a side business like selling products on Amazon, renting out Airbnb units, etc. This means that you can channel income from your side business into your retirement account, helping you accumulate the savings you need to be comfortable in the future.

And, hey, even if Social Security is magically bailed out by benevolent space aliens, or some other crazy scenario, it’s not like you’ll be worse off having more retirement savings.

This is definitely worth considering and speaking to your tax adviser about.

Source

from Sovereign Man https://ift.tt/2TuOPTB
via IFTTT

Royal Family Holds Emergency Conclave To Discuss Prince Harry And Meghan

Royal Family Holds Emergency Conclave To Discuss Prince Harry And Meghan

Key players in Britain’s Royal Family are holding emergency crisis talks on Monday to discuss the future of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex after the couple announced last week that they would step down from their roles as senior members of the family.

Prince Charles flew back from Oman Sunday night to attend the conclave, held at Sandringham, the Queen’s private estate in Norfolk. Also in attendance will be the Queen, William, and Harry – while Meghan is expected to join them in a conference call from Canada, where she is flew last week with their baby, Archie.

An insider has told The Times that the pair both feel “tethered” by their responsibilities. The source added that the couple regarded themselves as having been pushed away by what they saw as a bullying attitude from the Duke of Cambridge. These claims have been strongly contested by sources close to the Cambridges, as well as some close to Prince Harry.

“She wants to leave,” the source said of the duchess. “She thinks, ‘It’s not working for me.’

“He is under intense pressure to choose. It is sad. He loves the Queen. He loves this country. He loves all his military stuff. I think it will genuinely break his heart to leave. I don’t think that’s what he really wants. I think they want some halfway house.” –The Times

Prince William, meanwhile, has expressed “sadness” over the strained relations – telling the Times that the royal family was no longer “a team.”

“I’ve put my arm around my brother all our lives and I can’t do that any more; we’re separate entities,” William – the Duke of Cambridge, reportedly told a friend.

According to the Page Six, Harry and Meghan have been ‘hiding out’ at a home owned by Canadian billionaire and Clinton pal Frank Giustra – the former owner of Uranium One who donated $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation – which was later followed by a pledge of at least $100 million.

According to the report, “The main house, called Mille Fleurs, was bought in 2014 and registered under a local country club to shield the identity of the owner. Even the neighbors haven’t known who the buyer is. The home is11,416 square feet, with five bedrooms and eight bathrooms, and the property also boasts a 2,349-square-foot guest cottage with three beds and two baths.”

On Thursday, Meghan flew back to the waterfront bolt-hole to join baby Archie, who was under the care of a nanny, following a trip to London earlier in the week, when she and Harry made their shocking announcement to quit the British royal family. Harry has stayed behind in the UK to deal with the fallout from “Megxit” but is expected to join Meghan in Canada later this week, after a pre-scheduled public engagement Thursday. –Page Six

Harry, who embarrassingly hit up Disney CEO Bob Iger to try and score Meghan a voice acting job, says they want to be financially independent and no longer wish to receive taxpayer money.

Observers say the couple is likely to generate income from a UK trademark from their brand, ‘Sussex Royal,’ which they applied for in June – along with sponsorships and speaking tours.

According to the Times, senior royal officials – including secretaries, press advisers and Sir Michael Stevens who handles royal finances, have been locked in talks for two days to work out various solutions to discuss on Monday.

The alternatives will cover central issues such as how much work the couple will carry out for the royal family and where they will live.

The Sussexes want to divide their time between Britain and Canada but their place of residence will have significant tax repercussions. Also on the table is Frogmore Cottage, the house in Windsor that was controversially renovated for at least £2.4 million at taxpayers’ expense. The couple are said to be prepared to give that up, although it is possible that they will remain there but pay a commercial rent.

The question of how much royal work they carry out may have an impact on the extent to which the Prince of Wales continues to fund them with the money he receives from the Duchy of Cornwall. –The Times

Also to be addressed on Monday will be security for the pair.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 01/13/2020 – 09:56

Tags
Human Interest

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30f8b02 Tyler Durden

TSLA Tops $500 For First Time

TSLA Tops $500 For First Time

With a market cap over $90 billion now (almost as big as VW – the world’s largest market cap automaker – which sold 10.9mm cars in 2019, compared to TSLA’s 367,500…)

Source: Bloomberg

TSLA shares have gone even more parabolic-er, opening up over 5%, topping $500 for the first time in its history, as the algos run the stops from last week’s highs…

So what’s driving the surge?

It’s not fun-durr-mentals…

Source: Bloomberg

Even though Oppenheimer & Co analyst Colin Rusch raised his target on the stock to $612 from $385

“While TSLA has stumbled through growing pains, we believe the company has reached critical scale sufficient to support sustainable positive FCF,” Oppenheimer’s Rusch wrote.

“At the same time, we believe the company’s risk tolerance, ability to implement learnings from past errors, and larger ambition than peers are beginning to pose an existential threat to transportation companies that are unable or unwilling to innovate at a faster pace.”

Not everyone is a gung-ho…

Whatever is driving TSLA higher seems to be the same thing that is forcing AAPL higher every day…

Source: Bloomberg

Correlation is not causation when your salary depends on it…

Source: Bloomberg


Tyler Durden

Mon, 01/13/2020 – 09:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3a6nEEk Tyler Durden

More Holes in the ‘Imminent Threat’ Story on Soleimani

NBC is reporting that President Donald Trump was mulling the hit on Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani seven months ago, with war hawks such as John Bolton urging him to go for it. This further erodes the administration’s claim that the assassination was done to stop an “imminent” attack on U.S. lives.

“According to five current and senior administration officials,” NBC reports, Trump gave the order in June 2019, “with the condition that Trump would have final signoff on any specific operation to kill Soleimani.” Trump said that signoff would come if any Americans were killed, their sources said, which “explains why assassinating Soleimani was on the menu of options that the military presented to Trump two weeks ago for responding to an attack by Iranian proxies in Iraq.” That proxy attack killed a U.S. contractor.

The strike was carried out on January 3. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo quickly and repeatedly attributed it not to retribution but to an alleged imminent threat to dozens (sometimes “hundreds”) of American lives.

The killing looked like something former National Security Advisor John Bolton would have hatced, but Bolton has been gone since September. Now it seems that Bolton’s imprint may have been on this operation after all. From NBC:

After Iran shot down a U.S. drone in June, John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser at the time, urged Trump to retaliate by signing off on an operation to kill Soleimani, officials said. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also wanted Trump to authorize the assassination, officials said.

Yesterday, Defense Secretary Mark Esper told Face the Nation that he knew of no “specific evidence” to support the claim that Iran was planning embassy attacks. Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.) has been blasting the Trump administration for continuing to push this story:

FREE MINDS

Anti-Catholic law in Montana comes to Supreme Court. When it considers Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court “has the opportunity to do more than just settle the fate of one controversial tax credit; it could also junk Montana’s Blaine Amendment, finding it in violation of the Constitution’s religious-freedom and equal-protection clauses,” writes Nick Sibilla at The Atlantic. “In doing so, it would set a strong precedent against any law born of bigotry.”

The case concerns “a modest tax-credit scholarship program in Montana,” notes Sibilla, but it “could have major ramifications for educational-choice programs across America, which help nearly half a million students attend private schools.”

FREE MARKETS

Times editorial board lays out plans to “fortify” the FDA. On Sunday, the New York Times editorial board praised the Food and Drug Administration while worrying over its (lack of) leadership and admitting that it often fails. Its proposed solutions for “fortifying” the agency? Giving it even more power, of course. (Sigh.) To fix the FDA’s flaws, the paper claims, “the agency needs to be made stronger, not weaker.”

“Fortunately,” they write, “options for fortifying the F.D.A. abound”:

For instance, laws that would make it easier for regulators to police the cosmetics industry and to hold medical device companies to account have been floating through Congress for years. A group of former F.D.A. commissioners last year proposed an even bolder fix: Restore the agency’s autonomy by extracting it from the Department of Health and Human Services. The F.D.A.’s decisions used to be final, but for decades now they have been subject to layers of political interference. Making the agency independent, as the Federal Reserve and the Social Security Administration are, could help reverse that trend.

ELECTION 2020

Vermin Supreme won the New Hampshire Libertarian Party convention’s pick for the party’s presidential nomination. Heavy explains what this means:

The Libertarian Party hosts a series of primaries and caucuses where non-binding votes are cast, indicating a state party’s preference for its presidential candidate. These preferences are not binding and delegates who are sent to the national convention can vote for whichever candidate they prefer. New Hampshire had the first primary. This self-funded presidential preference primary was actually conducted by mail, with results announced on January 11….

So the voting of Vermin Supreme was a statement of preference, but it does not bind the delegates when they vote at the national convention on May 21-25, 2020 in Austin, Texas.

QUICK HITS

  • It was sunny and reached 70 degrees in Washington, D.C., yesterday. The White House then tweeted this picture:

Presumably, it’s a picture from earlier last week, when it did snow, although the conspiracy theorists of Twitter are having a field day:

  • Baylen Linnekin explores the FDA’s changes to food nutrition labels.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36Qfu0O
via IFTTT

More Holes in the ‘Imminent Threat’ Story on Soleimani

NBC is reporting that President Donald Trump was mulling the hit on Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani seven months ago, with war hawks such as John Bolton urging him to go for it. This further erodes the administration’s claim that the assassination was done to stop an “imminent” attack on U.S. lives.

“According to five current and senior administration officials,” NBC reports, Trump gave the order in June 2019, “with the condition that Trump would have final signoff on any specific operation to kill Soleimani.” Trump said that signoff would come if any Americans were killed, their sources said, which “explains why assassinating Soleimani was on the menu of options that the military presented to Trump two weeks ago for responding to an attack by Iranian proxies in Iraq.” That proxy attack killed a U.S. contractor.

The strike was carried out on January 3. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo quickly and repeatedly attributed it not to retribution but to an alleged imminent threat to dozens (sometimes “hundreds”) of American lives.

The killing looked like something former National Security Advisor John Bolton would have hatced, but Bolton has been gone since September. Now it seems that Bolton’s imprint may have been on this operation after all. From NBC:

After Iran shot down a U.S. drone in June, John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser at the time, urged Trump to retaliate by signing off on an operation to kill Soleimani, officials said. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also wanted Trump to authorize the assassination, officials said.

Yesterday, Defense Secretary Mark Esper told Face the Nation that he knew of no “specific evidence” to support the claim that Iran was planning embassy attacks. Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.) has been blasting the Trump administration for continuing to push this story:

FREE MINDS

Anti-Catholic law in Montana comes to Supreme Court. When it considers Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court “has the opportunity to do more than just settle the fate of one controversial tax credit; it could also junk Montana’s Blaine Amendment, finding it in violation of the Constitution’s religious-freedom and equal-protection clauses,” writes Nick Sibilla at The Atlantic. “In doing so, it would set a strong precedent against any law born of bigotry.”

The case concerns “a modest tax-credit scholarship program in Montana,” notes Sibilla, but it “could have major ramifications for educational-choice programs across America, which help nearly half a million students attend private schools.”

FREE MARKETS

Times editorial board lays out plans to “fortify” the FDA. On Sunday, the New York Times editorial board praised the Food and Drug Administration while worrying over its (lack of) leadership and admitting that it often fails. Its proposed solutions for “fortifying” the agency? Giving it even more power, of course. (Sigh.) To fix the FDA’s flaws, the paper claims, “the agency needs to be made stronger, not weaker.”

“Fortunately,” they write, “options for fortifying the F.D.A. abound”:

For instance, laws that would make it easier for regulators to police the cosmetics industry and to hold medical device companies to account have been floating through Congress for years. A group of former F.D.A. commissioners last year proposed an even bolder fix: Restore the agency’s autonomy by extracting it from the Department of Health and Human Services. The F.D.A.’s decisions used to be final, but for decades now they have been subject to layers of political interference. Making the agency independent, as the Federal Reserve and the Social Security Administration are, could help reverse that trend.

ELECTION 2020

Vermin Supreme won the New Hampshire Libertarian Party convention’s pick for the party’s presidential nomination. Heavy explains what this means:

The Libertarian Party hosts a series of primaries and caucuses where non-binding votes are cast, indicating a state party’s preference for its presidential candidate. These preferences are not binding and delegates who are sent to the national convention can vote for whichever candidate they prefer. New Hampshire had the first primary. This self-funded presidential preference primary was actually conducted by mail, with results announced on January 11….

So the voting of Vermin Supreme was a statement of preference, but it does not bind the delegates when they vote at the national convention on May 21-25, 2020 in Austin, Texas.

QUICK HITS

  • It was sunny and reached 70 degrees in Washington, D.C., yesterday. The White House then tweeted this picture:

Presumably, it’s a picture from earlier last week, when it did snow, although the conspiracy theorists of Twitter are having a field day:

  • Baylen Linnekin explores the FDA’s changes to food nutrition labels.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36Qfu0O
via IFTTT

Popping The Bubble

Popping The Bubble

Authored by Sven Henrich via NorthmanTrader.com,

Now that we have an open admission from the Fed that their balance sheet expansion is exacerbating asset prices and creating excess and imbalances (see Ghosts of 2000) the term bubble can no longer be dismissed as some fringe rantings by cranks like me, but rather a recognition for what any bubble is: An overpricing of asset prices far above where they should be based on earnings, fundamentals or the growth basis of the economy.

The question on everybody’s mind of course: When does the rally end, when will the bubble get popped? You know it’s bad when even bulls call for corrections but can’t get any. In December what seemed an aggressive call for 3,333 $SPX by March 3rd by BAML already looks overly conservative as $SPX got within a stone’s throw of 3,300 on January 10.

Current sentiment:

And that’s the sentiment in every bubble. Until it pops.

But for now there’s little doubt that the Fed’s liquidity machine maintains full control over the asset price inflation equation seeing again multiple daily repo operations this week in the $70B to $100B range.

Yet this week also offered an example of how quickly the bid can disappear.

You couldn’t tell by the $VIX closing at 12.56 at the end of the week, nor by the cash charts, but this week was actually pretty wild:

An 800 point drop in the $DJIA followed by a 1,000 point rally.

While all focus was on the again swift recovery lost in the shuffle was how quickly markets can drop out of the blue for any reason. Unprotected investors (as evidenced by extreme low put/call ratios and the lowest $SPY short position since January 2018) could take comfort in that the aggressive drop in overnight was erased in overnight and markets gapped up and raced higher in what can only be described as indiscriminate panic buying. Classic bubble behavior. The desperation to buy.

None of this is new. We’ve seen bubbles before that brought about major pain when the excess and imbalances were wrought out following a period of extreme greed and complacency.

And it’s fair to say that this the environment we’re in now as CNN’s fear and greed model appears to now have settled into what seems an unprecedented permanent full greed mode:

What can we learn from the bubbles of the past? What do the technicals suggest how this might unfold? What are the risks to the upside and downside?

Join me for the latest market review offering perspective on all of these questions:

*  *  *

To get notified of future videos feel free to subscribe to our YouTube Channel. For the latest public analysis please visit NorthmanTrader. To subscribe to our market products please visit Services.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 01/13/2020 – 09:33

Tags
Business Finance

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2tg9JLb Tyler Durden

Trump Blasts Bloomberg’s “False Advertising”, ‘Mini Mike’ Responds

Trump Blasts Bloomberg’s “False Advertising”, ‘Mini Mike’ Responds

Having spent more money on ads than the rest of the Democrat field combined (as we noted , Bloomberg admitted over the weekend that he’s “spending all his money to beat Trump”, Mike Bloomberg’s media presence may be starting to get to President Trump.

In a twin-tweet to kick off the week, the president took aim at “Mini Mike” claiming “false advertising” over his healthcare plan:

Mini Mike Bloomberg is spending a lot of money on False Advertising. 

I was the person who saved Pre-Existing Conditions in your Healthcare, you have it now, while at the same time winning the fight to rid you of the expensive, unfair and very unpopular Individual Mandate, and, if Republicans win in court and take back the House of Represenatives, your healthcare, that I have now brought to the best place in many years, will become the best ever, by far.

I will always protect your Pre-Existing Conditions, the Dems will not!

But Bloomberg (or rather his team we suspect), responded, calling for the president to address them directly next time…

We suspect it won’t be long before he does.

 


Tyler Durden

Mon, 01/13/2020 – 09:17

Tags
Health Medical Pharma
Business Finance
Politics

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/382OVFI Tyler Durden

Phase One And Done: Key Events In The Busy Week Ahead

Phase One And Done: Key Events In The Busy Week Ahead

With the market’s fascination with events in the middle east appears to be fading fast in the absence of any material escalation, the main highlights for the week ahead will be the signing of the Phase One trade deal between the US and China (Wednesday). Even though Steven Mnuchin said over the weekend that an English-language version of the agreement will be released this week, DB’s Jim Reid notes that it’s quite remarkable that we still don’t know much in the way of details so eyes will be on this.

We’ll also see the start of US earnings season with a number of banks reporting. On Tuesday we’ll hear from JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Citigroup. Then on Wednesday we’ll get Bank of America, UnitedHealth Group, Goldman Sachs, US Bancorp and BlackRock. Finally on Thursday, we’ll hear from Morgan Stanley and BNY Mellon.

In terms of data CPI (Tuesday), retail sales (Thursday), and consumer confidence (Friday) are the main highlights in the US. In China we have trade data (Tuesday) and Q4 GDP/retail sales/industrial production (Friday). So we’ll have quite a good idea about momentum in the Chinese economy by the end of the week. In Europe industrial production numbers (Tuesday), and the flash CPI (Friday) are the highlights. The UK also sees CPI (Wednesday) and retail sales (Friday).

In terms of central banks over the coming week, publications to watch for include the Beige Book from the Fed on Wednesday, and then the ECB’s monetary policy account of its December meeting (and Christine Lagarde’s first as ECB President) on Thursday.

Over to politics now, and there’s a number of upcoming events this week. In the US, it’s the last Democratic primary debate on Tuesday before primary voting kicks off in February. Former Vice President Biden is currently ahead in the national polling according to the average on RealClear Politics. However, the polls in the first two states to vote in February, Iowa and New Hampshire, are much tighter, with the RealClear Politics average putting the 3 top candidates in Iowa between 20% and 22%, so it’s a tight race going into the caucuses there on 3rd February.

A Des Moines Register/Mediacom/CNN poll out from Iowa (the first state to vote) put Senator Bernie Sanders in first place on 20%, a 5-point jump for Sanders since their last poll in November. Elizabeth Warren was in 2nd place on 17%, while Pete Buttigieg was on 16%, and Joe Biden on 15%. As discussed above, nationally Biden remains the frontrunner, but the big question will be whether he can maintain his momentum were he not to win either of the first 2 states. Given how quickly Warren’s support has fallen, and also the impressive rally in Sanders’s ratings over a relatively short period of time, its clear that it remains all to play for in this race.

Below is a day by day guide to the week ahead, courtesy of Deutsche Bank:

Monday

  • Data: UK November GDP, trade balance, industrial production, manufacturing production, US December monthly budget statement, Japan November current account balance
  • Central Banks: Fed’s Rosengren and Bostic speak
  • Politics: House of Lords begins debate on Brexit Withdrawal Agreement Bill, deadline for UK Labour leadership contenders to receive nominations from at least 10% of MPs and MEPs

Tuesday

  • Data: US December NFIB small business optimism index, December CPI, Japan December M2 money stock, M3 money stock, China December trade balance
  • Central Banks: ECB’s Mersch, Fed’s Williams and George speak
  • Politics: US Democratic primary debate
  • Earnings: JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup

Wednesday

  • Data: Japan preliminary December machine tool orders, France final December CPI, UK December CPI, RPI, PPI, Euro Area November industrial production, trade balance, US weekly MBA mortgage applications, US December PPI
  • Central Banks: BoJ’s Kuroda, ECB’s Holzmann, BoE’s Saunders and Fed’s Harker and Kaplan speak, Federal Reserve releases Beige Book
  • Earnings: Bank of America, UnitedHealth Group, Goldman Sachs, US Bancorp, BlackRock
  • Other: Signing of the US-China Phase One trade deal

Thursday

  • Data: EU27 December new car registrations, Germany final December CPI, US December retail sales, January Philadelphia Fed business outlook, weekly initial jobless claims, November business inventories, January NAHB housing market index, November net long-term TIC flows
  • Central Banks: Policy decisions from the Central Bank of Turkey and the South African Reserve Bank, monetary policy account of the ECB’s December meeting released
  • Earnings: Morgan Stanley, BNY Mellon

Friday

  • Data: China Q4 GDP, retail sales, industrial production, Japan November tertiary industry index, Euro Area November current account, Italy November trade balance, UK December retail sales, Euro Area December CPI, Canada November international securities transactions, US December building permits, housing starts, capacity utilisation, industrial production, preliminary January University of Michigan sentiment, November job openings
  • Central Banks: Policy decision from the Bank of Korea, Fed’s Harker speaks

Finally, looking at the key economic data releases in the US, Goldman notes that this week all eyes are on the CPI report on Tuesday and the retail sales report on Thursday. There are several scheduled speaking engagements by Fed officials this week.

Monday, January 13

10:00 AM Boston Fed President Rosengren (FOMC non-voter) speaks: Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren will speak at a Connecticut Business and Industry Association event in Hartford, Connecticut. Prepared text and audience Q&A are expected.

12:40 PM Atlanta Fed President Bostic (FOMC non-voter) speaks: Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic will discuss the economic outlook and monetary policy with the Rotary Club of Atlanta. Audience and media Q&A are expected.

Tuesday, January 14

  • 06:00 AM NFIB small business optimism, January (consensus 104.8, last 104.7)
  • 08:30 AM CPI (mom), December (GS +0.33%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.3%); Core CPI (mom), December (GS +0.16%, consensus +0.2%, last +0.2%); CPI (yoy), December (GS +2.41%, consensus +2.4%, last +2.1%); Core CPI (yoy), December (GS +2.30%, consensus +2.3%, last +2.3%): We estimate a 0.16% increase in December core CPI (mom sa), which would leave the year-on-year rate unchanged at +2.3%. Our monthly core inflation forecast reflects a pullback in used car prices and a holiday-season-related decline in household furnishing prices. On the positive side, we expect a rebound in apparel and footwear prices reflecting residual seasonality and Nike price increases. We estimate a 0.33% increase in headline CPI (mom sa), mainly reflecting higher energy prices.
  • 09:00 AM New York Fed President Williams (FOMC voter) speaks: New York Fed President John Williams will discuss behavioral science and organizational culture at an event organized by the Banking Standards Board, the New York Fed, and the London School of Economics. Prepared text and audience Q&A are expected.
  • 1:00 PM Kansas City Fed President Esther George (FOMC non-voter) speaks: Kansas City Fed President Esther George will discuss the economic outlook and monetary policy at an event hosted by the Kansas City Fed. Audience Q&A is expected.

Wednesday, January 15

  • 08:30 AM PPI final demand, December (GS +0.2%, consensus +0.2%, last flat); PPI ex-food and energy, December (GS +0.1%, consensus +0.2%, last -0.2%); PPI ex-food, energy, and trade, December (GS +0.1%, consensus +0.2%, last flat); We estimate that headline PPI increased 0.2% in December, reflecting stronger energy prices but somewhat softer core prices. We expect a 0.1% increase in the core measure excluding food and energy, and also a 0.1% increase in the core measure excluding food, energy, and trade.
  • 08:30 AM Empire State manufacturing index, January (consensus +3.6, last +3.5)
  • 11:00 AM Philadelphia Fed President Harker (FOMC voter) speaks; Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker will discuss “Monetary Policy Normalization: Low Interest Rates and the New Normal” at the Harvard Club of New York. Prepared text and audience Q&A are expected.
  • 12:00 PM Dallas Fed President Kaplan (FOMC voter) speaks; Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan will speak to the Economic Club of New York. Audience and media Q&A are expected.
  • 02:00 PM Beige Book, January FOMC meeting period; The Fed’s Beige Book is a summary of regional economic anecdotes from the 12 Federal Reserve districts. In the January Beige Book, we look for anecdotes related to growth, labor markets, wages, price inflation, and trade policy.

Thursday, January 16

  • 08:30 AM Retail sales, December (GS +0.5%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.2%); Retail sales ex-auto, December (GS +0.6%, consensus +0.5%, last +0.1%); Retail sales ex-auto & gas, December (GS +0.5%, consensus +0.4%, last flat); Core retail sales, December (GS +0.5%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.1%): We estimate that core retail sales (ex-autos, gasoline, and building materials) increased 0.5% in December (mom sa), reflecting the solid monthly sales results of general merchandisers as well as a boost from the late Thanksgiving holiday, which may have shifted some holiday shopping into December. That being said, we believe uncertainty around this report is higher than usual, as the underlying cause of last December’s sharp and short-lived drop in retail spending remains unclear (potential explanations include the government shutdown, a particularly early Thanksgiving, and the secular trend towards earlier holiday shopping). We estimate a 0.5% increase in the headline measure in this week’s report, reflecting a rise in gas prices but a pullback in auto sales.
  • 08:30 AM Philadelphia Fed manufacturing index, January (GS +4.4, consensus +3.1, last +2.4): We estimate that the Philadelphia Fed manufacturing index rebounded by 2.0pt to +4.4 in January after declining by 6.0pt in the prior month.
  • 08:30 AM Initial jobless claims, week ended January 11 (GS 220k, consensus 217k, last 214k): Continuing jobless claims, week ended January 4 (last 1,803k); We estimate jobless claims ticked up 6k to 220k in the week that ended January 11. We expect a persistent winter seasonal bias to continue to exert upward pressure on the continuing claims measure between now and February.
  • 08:30 AM Import price index, December (consensus +0.4%, last +0.2%)
  • 10:00 AM Business inventories, November (consensus -0.1%, last +0.2%)
  • 10:00 AM NAHB housing market index, January (consensus 74, last 76)

Friday, January 17

  • 08:30 AM Housing starts, December (GS +2.5%, consensus +1.1%, last +3.2%); Building permits, December (consensus -1.5%, last +1.4%): We estimate housing starts increased by 2.5% in December. Our forecast incorporates stronger construction job growth but a drag from likely mean reversion in the noisy multifamily category.
  • 09:00 AM Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker (FOMC voter) speaks: Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker will discuss the economic outlook at the New Jersey Bankers Association Leader Forum in Somerset, New Jersey. Prepared text and audience Q&A are expected.
  • 09:15 AM Industrial production, December (GS -0.2%, consensus -0.1%, last +1.1%); Manufacturing production, December (GS flat, consensus +0.1%, last +1.1%); Capacity utilization, December (GS 77.0%, consensus 77.1%, last 77.3%): We estimate industrial production declined modestly in December, reflecting a pullback in the utilities category and a slight decrease in auto manufacturing. We estimate capacity utilization declined by three tenths in November to 77.0%.
  • 10:00 AM University of Michigan consumer sentiment, January preliminary (GS 99.6, consensus 99.3, last 99.3): We expect University of Michigan consumer sentiment edged 0.3pt higher in the preliminary January reading to 99.6, reflecting increases in other confidence measures and higher stock prices.
  • 10:00 AM JOLTS Job Openings, May (consensus 7,267k, last 7,267k)

Source: Deutsche Bank, SocGen, Goldman


Tyler Durden

Mon, 01/13/2020 – 09:02

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