Can You Curse On-Air During a Government Shutdown? Reason Investigates

National parks, new kinds of beer, and paychecks for hundreds of thousands of federal workers are just a few casualties of the ongoing partial government shutdown. And while the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security remain unfunded, the parts of the government authorized to shoot you are functioning just fine.

One agency that’s not functioning like normal is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is in charge of enforcing federal laws against “obscene, indecent and profane broadcasts” on the radio and television. “Due to the partial government shutdown,” the FCC notes at the top of its website, “the FCC suspended most operations at mid-day Thursday, Jan. 3, 2019.”

That raises some burning questions: What happens if you curse on the air during a government shutdown? Will the FCC hunt you down and dole out punishment? Hungry for answers, I started investigating.

Profanity, according to a page on the agency’s website, is banned on broadcast radio and TV from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. The same goes for “indecent” content, which involves “sexual or excretory organs or activities.”

But even when the government is functioning normally, the FCC doesn’t actively seek out violators. Instead, the agency relies on consumers to notice banned content and file complaints. It’s usually not until much later that the FCC takes punitive action. “Any enforcement that happens is way after the fact,” Bob Corn-Revere, an attorney specializing in First Amendment law and communications, media, and information technology law told me. “It isn’t instantaneous.”

There are two major kinds of complaints you can file with the FCC: formal and informal. Formal complaints cost $225 to file and “are heard very much like court proceedings,” according to FindLaw.com. “When [the FCC] receives a complaint, it looks [at] the complaint in due course and then makes a determination whether or not enforcement is warranted,” says Corn-Revere.

Informal complaints, on the other hand, cost nothing. While the FCC does look them over, it usually only takes action based on “trends or patterns,” reports Wired.

Both formal and informal complaints can normally be filed online. But links to the FCC’s “Consumer Complaint Center” appear to be redirecting users to a page titled: “Impact of Potential Lapse in Funding on Commission Operations.” Included on that page are links to the FCC’s “Public Notice” regarding the funding lapse.

According to the notice, “the systems unavailable” during a shutdown “include, among others, the Consumer Complaint Center (including the main FCC Call Center and the American Sign Language Consumer Support Video Line).”

So if consumers can’t file complaints with the FCC during the shutdown, does that mean you can curse on the air without fear of reprisal? Not necessarily. Angry consumers can wait until the shutdown’s over, or file a complaint via mail. That being said, the shutdown will certainly slow down the process. And it’s possible some folks who planned to file a complaint online will have forgotten by the time the shutdown is over.

Ultimately, I can’t know for sure what will happen to people who swear on the air while the shutdown is ongoing. I reached out to the FCC’s Office of Media Relations but did not hear back (probably because their representatives are furloughed). I also tweeted at FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, and will update this post if I hear back.

There’s still one way to find out what might happen. Broadcasters, I’m looking at you.

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2Hi3zQS
via IFTTT

Bezos’ Divorce Could Boost Amazon’s Share Price

It might seem counterintuitive to laymen, but the Bezos’ divorce – and the equitable division of assets that is likely to ensue – may end up boosting Amazon’s share price, particularly if Jeff and MacKenzie are forced to liquidate some of what is currently a 16% stake in the e-commerce behemoth.

That’s because – as Bloomberg explains – if the couple must sell shares as part of their divorce, then those shares will join Amazon’s free float. That would in turn boost Amazon’s weighing in indexes like the S&P 500.

Bezos

If that happens, index-fund managers will need to buy more Amazon shares to account for this change.

Regulatory filings show Jeff Bezos owns almost 79 million shares of the company, worth about $130 billion as of yesterday. If MacKenzie takes a chunk in a settlement – or either party needs to liquidate their assets to meet divorce expenses – those could become part of the company’s freely traded stock. In turn, that could boost the company’s weighting in indexes including the S&P 500 – sending tracker funds on a small Amazon shopping spree.

Considering that Amazon is one of the most liquid stocks traded in the US, it’s unlikely that any selling by the Bezos’ would have much of an impact on the share price. But it could hurt other stocks as index managers liquidate other holdings to buy Amazon.

“From the perspective of the index, you’d need to a sell a little of everything else and buy some Amazon,” said David Dziekanski, a portfolio manager at Toroso Investments. “The equity markets will absorb any Amazon additional shares without much impact on price.”

Amazon, which is the world’s most valuable publicly traded company, has a market cap of just over $800 billion. Compare that with $3.4 trillion pegged to the S&P 500, and another $6.5 trillion use the gauge as a benchmark. Indexes typically use a company’s available float – rather than the number of shares outstanding – to determine weighting (this measure excludes shares owned by the company’s officers).

But S&P methodology also excludes shares owned by “related individuals” of company officers and directors from its float calculation. The index provider declined to comment on whether that category would include ex-spouses, with a spokeswoman adding that the firm doesn’t typically comment on individual companies. More simply, the float could grow if either Bezos sells shares to raise cash. Because let’s face it, even Amazon can’t make divorces cheap.

And since MacKenzie Bezos didn’t sign a prenup, it looks like some of the stock will likely be sold as assets are divided and taxes are paid.

via RSS http://bit.ly/2AJ22xB Tyler Durden

The Crash Of The “Everything Bubble” Started In 2018 – Here’s What Comes Next In 2019

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

In 2018, a very significant economic change occurred which sealed the fate of the U.S. economy as well as numerous other economies around the globe. This change was the reversal of central bank policy. The era of stimulus and artificial support of various markets, including stocks, is beginning to fade away as the Federal Reserve pursues policy tightening, including higher interest rates and larger cuts to its balance sheet.

I warned of this change under new Chairman Jerome Powell at the beginning of 2018 in my article ‘New Fed Chairman Will Trigger Stock Market Crash In 2018’. The crash had a false start in February/March, as stocks were saved by massive corporate buybacks through the 2nd and 3rd quarters. However, as interest rates edged higher and Trump’s tax cut cash ran thin, corporate stock buybacks began to dwindle in the final quarter of the year.

As I predicted in September in my article ‘The Everything Bubble: When Will It Finally Crash?’, the crash accelerated in December, as the Fed raised interest rates to their neutral rate of inflation and increased balance sheet cuts to $50 billion per month.  In 2019, this crash will continue as the fed resumes cuts once again in mid-January.

It is important to note that when we speak of a crash in alternative economic circles, we are not only talking about stock markets. Mainstream economists often claim that stocks are a predictive indicator for the future health of the wider economy. This is incorrect. Stocks are actually a trailing indicator; they tend to crash well after all other fundamentals have started to decline.

Housing markets have been plunging in terms of sales as well as value. The Fed’s interest rate hikes are translating to much higher mortgage rates in the wake of overly inflated prices and weaker consumer wages. Corporate buyers in real estate, which have been propping up the housing market for years, are now unable to continue life support. Corporate debt across the board is at all-time highs not seen since the crash of 2008, and with higher interest rates, borrowing cheap capital is no longer an option.

In November 2018, home sales posted the steepest decline in over 7 years.

Auto markets, another major indicator of economic stability, have been plunging in extreme fashion. Autos saw steep declines throughout the last half of 2018, once again as higher Fed interest rates killed easy credit ARM-style car loans.

U.S. credit is also drying up as investors pull capital from volatile markets and interest rates rise. Liquidity is disappearing, which means debt is becoming more expensive, or inaccessible to most people and businesses.

A false narrative is being presented in the mainstream on these circumstances – by both the media and central bankers. There has been a considerable amount of “jawboning” by economic authorities and mainstream analysts in an attempt to keep the public distracted from the economic crisis as well as keep the investment world engaged in trading with blinders on. With the propaganda going into overdrive, we must cut through the fog and mirrors, gauging the most important threats within the system and determining when they might escalate.

Make no mistake, as erratic and unstable as 2018 was, 2019 will be far worse.

The Federal Reserve Will Continue Tightening

There is a lie circulating in the media that Jerome Powell and the Fed are “heroic” for “going against” past central bank regimes and removing easy money policies. This is the exact opposite motive behind what is happening. We have to remember that it was the Fed and other central banks that created the initial crash in 2008 through easy money policies. They then deliberately created an even bigger bubble (the “everything bubble”) through more monetary stimulus; a bubble so large that it would collapse the entire U.S. economy including bond markets and the dollar if it ever burst.

This circular process of crisis-stimulus-crisis is one that that the central bank has used for over a century. Former Fed officials like Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan have openly admitted to central bank culpability for the Great Depression as well as the crash of 2008. Though, as they do this they also assert that they were “not aware at the time” of the greater danger. I don’t buy that for a second.

In almost every instance during which the Fed created a crash environment, banking institutions were able to use the opportunity to snatch up hard assets for pennies on the dollar, as well as steal more political and social power. During the Great Depression, major banks absorbed thousands of smaller local banks as well as all the assets those banks held. In 2008, banks and corporations enjoyed a deluge of easy money paid for by American taxpayers for generations to come, while also vacuuming up hard assets like distressed home mortgages.

An even greater prize for banking elites is global centralization of economic authority, which is what I believe their goal is as the next engineered crash runs its course. As crisis leads to catastrophe, it will be institutions driven by globalism like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Bank for International Settlements (BIS) that step in to “save the day”.

As I have noted time and time again, Jerome Powell is well aware of what will happen as the Fed tightens. He is recorded in the Fed minutes of October 2012 discussing the consequences, including his hint of an impending crash if the Fed shut down stimulus measures, raised interest rates and cut the balance sheet.

Yet, Powell continues tightening all the same, indicating that Fed actions and the results are quite deliberate. Recent statements by Powell have been wrongly interpreted by the mainstream to indicate that the Fed might back off of tightening policies. I predict that this will not happen, at least not until the crash has already run its course.

I expect Powell to continue balance sheet cuts at around $50 billion per month through until perhaps the end of 2019. I also hold to my original prediction last year that the Fed will hike interest rates in 2019, at least two more times, with a hike in March.  The Fed has continued to show a propensity for double talk on “accommodation”, and there is a good reason for this…

Stock Markets Will Continue to Plunge

Many alternative economists have been pointing out over the years the direct correlation between the Fed balance sheet and stock market prices. As the Fed bought up assets, the stock market rose exactly in tandem. As the Fed dumps assets, stocks fall with increasing speed and volatility.

If you want a perfect example of this, simply examine the central bank’s FRED balance sheet totals and compare them with a year long graph of the S&P500. Do not only look at the stock plunges, but also the stock rallies.   Dramatic cuts in December facilitated the start of the crash; the recent bounce occurred in part due to end of the year investment by corporate pension funds, searching desperately for yield in an environment where bonds are no longer viable or safe.  However, take note that the first week of January also saw Fed cuts flatline.

What does this mean?  Without a massive alternative capital source like stock buybacks in play, every new large Fed asset cut will result in a steep decline around the middle of each month.  Every pause in cuts will result in a bounce, but to lower highs.  The ceiling for rallies and the expectations of investors will gradually dwindle until the reality that the party is over finally hits them.

The Fed’s recent “dovish” comments, in my view, are completely fraudulent and highly calculated. Because the central bank has cut stimulus and raised interest rates to the point that corporations can no longer afford massive buyback binges, there is nothing left to support stocks except disinformation, blind faith, and a 1-2 week pause in balance sheet cuts.

This is a controlled demolition of the economy and markets. The Fed will jawbone as much as possible to keep the system from imploding too fast, because jawboning is the only tool that is left. In the meantime, Powell will keep cutting assets and raising interest rates on schedule. This will inevitably translate into lower prices in equities as the system is “steam valved” down. Blind faith by investors will only go so far. They will be left holding the bag, right along with pensions.

I expect stocks will resume their steep decline through 2019, and will fall well below support levels seen in 2017. If December’s decline was any indication, as long as the Fed continues its current path of balance sheet cuts, I see the Dow in the 17,000 to 18,000 point range in March-April.

Trump Will Get The Blame For The Crash

Trump’s incessant propensity for taking credit for the bull rally in stocks makes him a perfect scapegoat for the ongoing crash. The acceleration in 2019 will be followed by numerous distractions. While Trump has blamed the Federal Reserve for recent stock instability, he has at the same time blamed his own trade war. Trump has attached the success of his presidency to the success of a stock market that he used to call a “big bubble” created by the Fed.

Trump’s trade war along with the government shutdown are just two factors that are already being targeted by the mainstream media and globalist commentators as the causes of the December plunge in equities.

The shutdown might not continue through January if Trump declares a state of emergency and begins the southern border wall, making the budget debate rather moot. That said, I suspect it may continue anyway; this time does feel different.  Consider that if the shutdown enters into February there is the threat that welfare programs like EBT will be delayed, which opens the door to a whole new kind of insanity.  I don’t necessarily have anything against the average person seeking welfare in times of personal crisis.  That said, there are millions of Americans who have made a career out of collecting government aid, and their attitude is often one of entitlement.  If and when their revenue and food source is cut off, their reaction may be violent.

The timing of the current shutdown makes it such a useful distraction away from central bank actions that I would be surprised if it was ended in the near term.  The threat of delays on EBT and government welfare would be a very juicy crisis that could be exploited by central banks and globalists

I predict the trade war will continue through 2019, as it has for the past year. Trump will announce “huge” progress on negotiations with China at times in order to jawbone stocks up, but days or weeks later this progress will once again come into question. I realize this is an easy prediction. The trade war farce has followed a rather predictable pattern lately.

Trump has been extraordinarily helpful to the banking elites in this regard. In fact, the Trump Administration seems to add a new escalation in the trade war a week after every major Fed balance sheet cut or rate hike; just in time for stocks to drop violently due to the Fed dump.

Other Predictions For 2019

A “Hard Brexit”: Look for the Brexit to enter a possible no-deal scenario with the EU followed by an aggressive economic downturn beyond what is already occurring in Europe.  While this outcome appears to be a longshot right now, it makes sense according to the false narrative globalists are building – the narrative that “populists” are a reckless and destructive influence that is leading to economic disaster.

Turkey Leaving NATO: This seems like a done deal already.  Turkey is positioning to couple to Eastern powers like China and Russia through various trade agreements and strategic deals, and abandoning ties to the West.  While this has the potential to drag on for a few more years, I believe it will happen quickly – by the end of 2019.

Martial Law Conditions In France: The “yellow vest” protests are going to continue through 2019, and will probably become more volatile as Emmanuel Macron attempts to tighten control.  Look for protests to grow in spring and summer as the weather warms up.  Macron has not been shy about using his totalitarian toolbox.  I expect him to declare a condition of national emergency with martial law-like powers in place as soon as the end of this year.  Whether or not this was an intended outcome by the globalists Macron so closely associates with, I do not yet know.  We have not heard much in terms of specific demands or ideological views from the Yellow Vests.  Understanding the goals and motives of both sides will determine if there is a false paradigm in play or if the Yellow Vests are a true grassroots movement.

Summary

To summarize, the crash of the “everything bubble” has been deliberately initiated by central bankers. The worst is yet to come in 2019.

Trump has made himself a sacrificial goat for the banking elites, and his administration will be taking the blame by the end of this year regardless of the facts surrounding the Federal Reserve’s program of controlled demolition.  The year of 2018 was the beginning of the next phase of engineered crisis, 2019 will see the crash hit the mainstream consciousness not to mention the doorsteps and wallets of the general public.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.

via RSS http://bit.ly/2RH9Yta Tyler Durden

Sorry, Paul Krugman, the Government Shutdown Is No Great Libertarian Experiment

In The New York Times, columnist Paul Krugman declares that the current government shutdown can be understood as “a big beautiful libertarian experiment.” Government programs have been forced to pause, federal workers aren’t being paid, the swamp of Washington is relatively quiet. Isn’t this exactly what libertarians want?

Even Krugman understands that it isn’t. As he acknowledges in the column, the sudden nature of a shutdown like this means private sector companies that might take over some of the federal government’s current activities “don’t exist now and can’t be conjured up in a matter of weeks. So even true libertarians wouldn’t necessarily celebrate a sudden government shutdown.” To be clear: A temporary, unplanned shutdown of an undetermined length that probably won’t save money is not what most libertarians have in mind when they talk about limited government.

For one thing, shutdowns like this one are shortlived and limited in scope: During the shutdown, much of the government—including automatic spending on the major entitlement programs that make up the bulk of government spending and the biggest drivers of long-term debt—remains open. And although it is at least theoretically possible that the impasse lasts for months, it increasingly looks as if President Donald Trump will declare a state of emergency, continue fighting for a border wall in the courts, and move on to ending the shutdown. So whether it lasts another two days or another two months, the rest of the government will eventually reopen. When it does, no significant long-term progress toward reducing the size of government will have been made.

Federal workers affected by the shutdown are almost certain to eventually receive backpay. That’s what happened during previous shutdowns, and given that the Senate has already approved a backpay resolution for after the current shutdown ends, that’s what is likely to happen this time as well.

At the same time, the federal government will, by law, owe interest on contract payments and other fiscal obligations it didn’t meet during the shutdown. Which means that ultimately, the shutdown won’t save taxpayers money. If anything, it might actually cost more than if the government had stayed open.

There’s also public opinion to consider: Government shutdowns tend to be unpopular, and, if anything, drive support for expanding government.

Consider what happened in October 2013, when Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) led a push to shut down the government over Obamacare.

The shutdown started the same day that the health law’s insurance exchanges opened for business. The federal exchange system, however, crashed on launch and was barely operable for months. But initially, the shutdown drew more attention, and Obamacare, despite its obvious technical problems, actually grew more popular.

It’s not too hard to imagine that keeping the government open would have led to even more intense scrutiny and criticism of the exchange failures, and stronger out-of-the-gate public disapproval. Instead, the shutdown served as a distraction. Forcing a shutdown was meant to serve as an impediment to Obamacare, but it probably made no difference, and might have been an own goal.

Which illustrates the biggest problem with shutdowns: As a tool for promoting limited government, they are nearly always tactically ineffective.

That’s why I largely agree with Jeff Miron, the director of economic studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, when he writes at Vox that “shutdowns distract from the serious conversations that need to be had about fiscal reform and the size of government.”

That’s particularly true of this shutdown, which is happening mostly because President Trump is demanding roughly $5 billion for a border wall (sorry, “steel barrier”). The border wall is a pointless boondoggle, premised on lies, that Trump wants mainly to fulfill an insipid campaign promise. The showdown over the wall is a partisan food fight, not a way of drawing attention to the problems with a government that is too expensive and too powerful.

Yes, some libertarians might appreciate shutdowns as form of political theater, but if your goal is to actually reduce the size of government, mere theatrics won’t get you very far. As Miron writes, “libertarians will only succeed in reducing the size of government when they convince non-libertarians that smaller government is better. A government shutdown does little to nothing to change minds.” If anything, the opposite is true. A shutdown comes across as chaotic, and creates the opportunity for someone like Krugman to declare that this haphazard, partial government closure is a demonstration of an ideal libertarian government.

The government should be smaller on a permanent basis, ideally with public buy-in and plenty of time for everyone to prepare. A shutdown that hijacks the federal government’s broken budget process so the president can make a futile attempt to fulfill a foolish and wasteful campaign promise is little more than a cheap political stunt, not a substantive libertarian victory.

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2QH8jz0
via IFTTT

BTFDove – Stocks Extend Best Run In 10 Years Off Mnuchin Massacre Lows

Slumping macro data, tumbling earnings expectations, and “substantial” Fed balance sheet run off to come, that explains why stocks at near-record levels of extension in the last few weeks…

Of course the algos had plenty to chew on still – Powell BTFDove, China RRR Cut, Trade talk optimism, Mnuchin calls PPT, and Saudis scramble to boost oil higher

 

Big week for China stocks but it was all dominated by Wednesday morning’s rescue bid…

 

Italy was Europe’s outperformer on the week…

 

US Equity markets stalled today but once again that dip was bought…

…and extended the post-Mnuchin Massacre buying frenzy…

That is the greatest 12-day rally for the S&P since July 2009…

 

On the week, Small Caps surged almost 5% – its best week since Dec 2016…

 

Biotechs are back in a bull market – soaring over 22% from the Xmas Eve lows…

 

FANG Stocks are up over 26% from the Mnuchin Massacre lows…

 

Banks have bounced back but not as much as the high-momo sectors above…

 

And everything was looking awesome for department stores and retailers until yesterday…

 

The VIX Index has fallen from the open to the close for 12 consecutive sessions. (h/t @selling_theta) That’s tied for the longest such streak since 2009 (which, at 13, was the longest stretch on record according to data going back to 1992).

 

Credit spreads compressed further on the week but found some resistance today…

 

Treasury bond yields were all higher on the week with the long-end underperforming despite a rally into the weekend…

 

However, 10Y Yields fell back into their 30-year channel – somewhat disrupting the bears’ claims that the bull is over…

 

The Dollar fell for the 4th week in a row (breaking down to its weakest since September)…

 

This was the yuan’s best week since 2005!!

 

Ugly week for cryptos, leaving Bitcoin in the red for 2019…

 

PMs and Copper trod water on the week as crude prices exploded…

 

Things initially looked good for WTI’s record win streak early on (ten consecutive daily gains would have marked the longest rally since the contract started trading in 1988), but once $53 was tagged, WTI tumbled…

 

Gold fell against the dollar and even more so against the yuan on the week…

 

Finally, amid all this exuberant stock buying and proclamations that “the bottom is in” – recession risk is at a seven year high…

Don’t forget “you are here”…

 

via RSS http://bit.ly/2FlCPxo Tyler Durden

70 Years After They Were Wrongly Imprisoned, the Groveland Four Have Been Pardoned

|||Everett Collection/NewscomNearly 70 years ago, four black men in Lake County, Florida, were accused and convicted of raping a white woman. Today, Charles Greenlee, Walter Irvin, Samuel Shepherd, and Earnest Thomas have received posthumous pardons from the state.

The men, commonly referred to as the “Groveland Four,” were accused of raping a 17-year-old in 1949. Greenlee, Irvin, and Shepherd were beaten into confessing after their arrest. According to the Innocence Project, documents from the case revealed that there was no evidence of a sexual assault. In addition to the documents, no physical evidence of the men’s involvement was presented in court, including a medical examination of the accuser.

After the first trial, Greenlee received a life sentence while the others were sentenced to death. A mob of 1,000 men hunted down Thomas and shot him over 400 times. The arrests also prompted white residents to commit violent acts against a black neighborhood, including burning down houses and shooting guns into homes of black residents.

Thurgood Marshall, who was with the NAACP at the time and would eventually become the first black Supreme Court justice, secured new trials on appeal for Irvin and Shepherd. While being transported for the second trial, Irvin and Shepherd were shot after Lake County Sheriff Willis McCall said they attempted to escape. Irvin survived and disputed McCall’s account, telling the FBI he was shot without provocation. He survived despite being denied an ambulance ride because of his skin color. Shepherd died of his injuries. McCall, meanwhile, was re-elected five times after the incident.

A former FBI agent who testified on Irvin’s behalf said prosecutors manufactured evidence. Despite this, Irvin was convicted a second time for the rape.

Both Greenlee and Irvin were eventually paroled. Greenlee, who was paroled in 1960, died in 2012. Irvin, who was paroled in 1968, was found dead in his car in 1969.

In 2017, the Florida legislature passed a measure that formally apologized to the Groveland Four and asked former Gov. Rick Scott to perform an “expedited clemency review of their cases” and “grant full pardons.” Historians have long held that the men were wrongfully convicted.

The state clemency board handed out posthumous pardons on Friday.

While no charges were brought against the prosecutors or local law enforcement, the family was able to confront accuser Norma Padgett, 86, in court. Padgett asked that the men not be pardoned. Beverly Robinson, Shepherd’s cousin, called Padgett a liar in court. Robinson claimed that she read a story written by Padgett’s niece indicating that the accusations were false.

Newly elected Gov. Ron DeSantis issued a statement on the pardons.

“For seventy years, these four men have had their history wrongly written for crimes they did not commit,” DeSantis said. “As I have said before, while that is a long time to wait, it is never too late to do the right thing. I believe the rule of law is society’s sacred bond. When it is trampled, we all suffer.”

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2H4QMRS
via IFTTT

L.A. Teachers to Strike After Rejecting Offered Pay Raise

After a temporary delay, teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District seem likely to go on strike Monday morning. They are demanding, among other things, a 6.5 percent pay increase after rejecting a 3 percent hike offered by the district.

About 30,000 teachers in the nation’s largest school district had originally planned to strike on January 10, but union leaders postponed the strike until Monday after a judge ruled that the union had failed to give the district adequate notice for the work stoppage. Even with a few extra days to reach an agreement, the two sides remain apart, according to the Los Angeles Times, despite the district offering to pay an additional $75 million to meet union demands regarding staffing levels and class sizes.

The main disagreement, of course, is about wages. The union wants a 6.5 percent raise immediately, while the district has offered a 3 percent raise followed by another 3 percent raise next year, the Times reports.

Even without handing out pay raises, the Los Angeles Unified School District finds itself in dire financial straits.

On its current trajectory, the school district will face a $422 million shortfall by 2020, driven in large part by its $15 billion in unfunded health care benefit liabilities for current workers and retirees. A task force that studied the district’s fiscal condition in 2018 concluded that the structural deficit “threatens its long-term viability and its ability to deliver basic education programs.”

A major driver of the budget problems at the LAUSD is employee pension and health care costs. According to the budget task force, those costs will consume more than half of the district’s annual budget by the end of the next decade. Since there is no way to give employees raises without also increasing the future liabilities owed by the pension system, boosting pay now will only add to the long-term problems facing the district.

“LAUSD has already offered much more than it can afford (increase teacher pay across the board, dollars for lower class sizes, and new positions) so either way the resolution will likely expedite the drawdown of the district’s reserves,” says Aaron Smith, an education policy analyst for the Reason Foundation, which publishes this blog.

The other major issue is class sizes. The union is demanding that the district hire more teachers and staff to reduce the average class size in Los Angeles schools—which currently range from an average of about 26 students per class in elementary schools to nearly 40 per class in the city’s high schools. In its most recent offer, the school district said it would set caps of 37 students for high school classes and 34 students for lower grades.

But while smaller class sizes would be nice, that’s far from the only consideration facing the LAUSD. As even former Obama-era Education Secretary Arne Duncan has argued, teacher quality matters far more than class size as a determinant of student outcomes.

Hiring more employees is unlikely to solve the district’s problems. Since 2004, the LAUSD has seen a 16 percent jump in administrative staffers while student enrollment has fallen by 10 percent. Increasingly, students (and their parents) are opting for charter schools, which have proven to be successful and efficient alternatives. More than 160,000 students already attend charter schools in Los Angeles, and another 41,000 are on waiting lists trying to get in.

The school district likes to blame its structural problems on the loss of students to charter schools—but the real problem is that LAUSD has failed to adapt to changing circumstances. In 2015, the district’s Independent Financial Review Panel made a series of recommendations to help the district adjust to competition from charters—for example, if employees and retirees had to cover just 10 percent of their health insurance premiums, the district could save $54 million annually. Those ideas have mostly been ignored.

A long strike will likely only exacerbate those problems, warns Smith. A protracted strike may encourage more families to seek out alternatives to the public schools.

“If anything,” he says, “the strike will further illustrate exactly why more (not fewer) charters are needed.”

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2FsaiFC
via IFTTT

Trump Makes History: Government Shutdown Will Be Longest On Record

After House Democrats pushed through a series of spending bills in a doomed attempt to end the shutdown (or at least crystallize their virtue-signaling in the Congressional record), the Senate decided to adjourn for the weekend on Friday without taking up debate on any of the bills (which had approximately zero chance of passing the upper chamber and being signed into law by the president), virtually guaranteeing that the partial government shutdown that is currently in its 21st day will surpass a shutdown that ended in December 1995 to become the longest in American history.

The shutdown is the third since the dawn of the Trump administration, but while the earlier shutdowns lasted for days or hours, this one has dragged on for three weeks already. And with Democrats refusing to accede to Trump’s demands for $5.7 billion in border wall funding, it’s possible that it could persist until Trump decides to declare a national emergency to begin construction on the border wall.

Shutdown

Roughly 800,000 federal workers have either been furloughed or are working without pay and have now missed a round of paychecks that were supposed to go out on Friday. Congress has passed a bill to guarantee back pay to all federal workers affected by the shutdown, and it’s awaiting a signature from the president.

But that won’t stop hundreds of thousands of workers from missing rent or mortgage payments, or falling behind on their bills or foregoing groceries.

After struggling on for weeks, the TSA said Friday that it would begin limiting security checkpoints at airports around the country, with Miami International Airport preparing to close an entire concourse. A union representing TSA employees has filed a lawsuit arguing that it’s illegal for the government to ask employees to work without pay, Bloomberg reported.

Separately, a union representing more than 10,000 air-traffic controllers filed suit in federal court in Washington on Friday, charging that it’s illegal to force them and other aviation employees to work without compensation.

The Transportation Security Administration plans to begin closing a handful of security checkpoints at airports around the U.S. as soon as this weekend in response to staff shortages triggered by a partial federal government shutdown now in its third week.

Miami International Airport expects to shut one of its concourses for several days starting Saturday afternoon and will move flights to other gates, according to a statement by the airport.

Ahead of their first missed paycheck this week, the TSA saw a spike in employees calling out sick, as more than 50,000 workers have been going without pay since Dec. 22, the day the shutdown began.

But that’s not all: Hundreds of affordable housing contracts that have expired during the shutdown mean that thousands of low-income senior citizens will go without essential services like repairs to HUD-funded homes, according to NBC News.

The few federal employees left at HUD have been scouring the books, looking for a last-minute solution to fund hundreds of affordable housing contracts that have expired under the shutdown.

More than 200 of the contracts that expired in December are for properties, like San Jose Manor II, that provide rental assistance for the elderly, according to LeadingAge, an association for nonprofit providers of aging services. Known as Section 202, the program houses about 400,000 low-income elderly people as part of HUD’s Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance.

Though it’s worth noting that HUD has found money to service other low-income housing contracts. Meanwhile, as volunteers have flocked to national parks to pick up trash and attend to the routine upkeep, CNN reported that vandals cut down a protected Joshua Trees in Joshua Tree national park in California.

As the fallout from the shutdown worsens, President Trump is reportedly considering a plan to use disaster-relief funding earmarked for California and Puerto Rico to order the Army Corps. of Engineers to begin building a large swath of the wall – though Congressional Republicans are split on whether this is a good idea (WSJ’s editorial board recently opined that using a national emergency as a subtext to build the wall would set a “bad precedent”).

Still, there’s at least one silver lining: Stocks have climbed more than 10% since the shutdown began – defying analysts’ warnings, though Fed Chairman Jerome Powell warned yesterday that it could negatively impact GDP growth for Q1.

In fact, according to an estimate from S&P Global Ratings, if the shutdown persists for another two weeks, the cost to the US economy will exceed $6 billion – more than the $5.7 billion Trump is asking of Congress, CNBC  reported.

via RSS http://bit.ly/2AJLXI7 Tyler Durden

Macquarie: Enjoy The Rally, But We’ll Revisit The Lows Of 2018

Earlier this week we asked if, just like in early 2016, a new “Shanghai Accord” was coming.

Implicitly responding to our rhetorical inquiry, Macquarie’s Victor Shvets published a report titled “Shanghai redux & Benjamin Graham” in which he agrees with us that “investors seem to be increasingly expecting that a new Shanghai Accord (a laFeb ’16) is on the horizon” an assessment which be in line with Macquarie’s view that asset-based economies are “utterly dependent on ample (excessive) liquidity, persistently low (declining over time) cost of capital, contained volatilities and regular public-sector-inspired reflationary momentums” which can be achieved only by pumping liquidity at a faster clip than nominal GDP, tightly co-ordinating monetary policies and China pumping a reflationary pulse while avoiding extreme geopolitical outcomes.

That – according to Shvetz – is exactly what occurred in early ’16, giving us two years of synchronized growth, collapse of volatilities and a weaker US$. This ended in ’18, and in ‘19 the rubber truly hits the road.

So with all that said, is a Shanghai Accord 2.0 indeed coming? Well, not so fast, because as Shvets explains below, while such an outcome is likely, “more pain needs to be endured first.” Here’s why:

The climb down by all parties (including the Fed) has always been as close as one gets to an absolute certainty. The only question that we have been raising is one of timing and how much pain would need to be endured. Neither CBs nor China are yet embracing our bleak view of the future of ever diminishing windows of acceptable cost of capital and volatilities, as private sectors atrophy under pressure of technological evolution and financialization. Instead, we see everyone (from IMF to PBoC) debating debt sustainability, reforms and returning to private sector primacy. Hence, neither US, Fed nor China want to ‘overreact’; as a result, they run the constant risk of ‘under-reacting’.

There’s more, because as the macro strategist further explains, “this time around, there are also significant differences with late ’15.”

  • First, the commodity complex (CRB), is ~20% higher.
  • Second, wage pressures in most key economies, though relatively tame, are stronger.
  • Third, inflation rates are higher (G7 CPI is ~1.9% vs 0.6% in Feb ’16), while China’s PPI is no longer negative (-5.3% in Jan ’16 vs 0.9% today).
  • Fourth, investors need to take into account far more unpredictable and nationalistic political background.
  • Fifth, Europe is potentially facing a revolution. But as in ’15, all measures of liquidity have turned negative, and global momentum is ebbing.

These in turn cause regular ‘heart palpitations’, testing ever higher levels of volatilities, while regularly closing market access for the most vulnerable players according to Macquarie.

What does this mean? According to Shvets, since today’s environment is more complex than early 2016, “we might have to revisit the 2018 lows” before some tangible action is taken, and here’s why.

We believe there is a high probability that investors might revisit lows of late ’18 as policy-makers dither. It seems unlikely that China would embark on a sufficiently large stimulus until later in ’19. As the state is on both sides of any transaction, nothing moves until the state significantly raises spending. At the same time, we don’t believe that just ending balance sheet reduction and pausing (Fed) is sufficient. Also, Europe might be paralysed until elections and changes in key portfolios (including ECB). The threshold required to go from normalization to liquidity injections is high; hence, pain is likely to rise.

Yet ultimately, Shvets contends that since no one is in a mutual suicide pact, the Macquarie strategist stays constructive for later ’19, yet concludes with the following lament that markets no longer function at all:

“If Benjamin Graham today applied to be a fund manager, he probably would be rejected. Investors no longer invest, but try to optimise (with limited success) against unpredictable & rapidly re-pricing signals.”

via RSS http://bit.ly/2SQSckg Tyler Durden

Risk-On Move Set To Dim?

Via Dana Lyons’ Tumblr,

The following is a complementary look at some of the evidence behind our recommendation to TLS members to trim some of their recently added long exposure.

Risk indicators are on the rise, but it may be time to take some risk off.

The so-called “risk-on” move in stocks continues, with the market building on gains made since we issued our “once a decade” short-term buying opportunity a few weeks ago. However, while the risk-on bounce certainly may have further to go, the evidence is starting to pile up in favor of at least reducing some long stock exposure at this juncture. Some of that evidence relates to various “risk indicators” tied to the stock market that we like to monitor.

As we have mentioned in the past, in analyzing risk in the market, we predominantly rely on quantitative models that we’ve developed over the years. However, there are other indicators that we’ve found helpful in instructing us as to the “risk-on” vs. “risk-off” situation in the market, including high yield bonds, high-beta stocks and small-cap pure value stocks. These indicators can provide helpful clues as to the potential strength or durability of market rallies.

For example, in mid-August, we noted the following regarding the gathering risk being signaled by these indicators.

“Taking stock of the combination of these 3 “risk-on/risk-off” measures, we find adequate reason for some concern. There are certainly enough positives in the market to maintain moderate long exposure to stocks. Furthermore, the broad market would appear to be setting up for a breakout to new highs. However, given the status of these risk indicators, an aggressive play on the potential breakout is probably not warranted. Furthermore, should the broad market break out, and these risk measures fail to follow along, it could be an indication of a likely failed, or temporary, breakout.”

Indeed, the broad stock market would break out to new highs in the final days of August — and immediately fail from there. The failure would, of course, precipitate the sharp fall selloff.

In late November, we shared another post assessing the message behind the behavior of these risk indicators. While stocks had already sold off a significant amount, our conclusion based on poor action in these risk indicators was that further downside was likely prior to a substantial low:

“While the stock market correction has certainly wrung out some of the excess risk that we were warning about in late summer, it does not appear to be enough to yet lay the foundation for an intermediate-term low and a new durable rally. The status of the 3 key risk indicators above each indicate a continued elevated level of risk in the stock market at this time. Therefore, our focus would not yet be on significantly increasing equity exposure in anticipation of an impending successful re-test of the October low. Rather, we will continue to be more focused in the near-term on reducing exposure, or hedging into any near-term market strength.”

Obviously the market plunge would continue — and even accelerate — throughout the month of December.

The first signs of life from the risk indicators occurred early this year as the market was attempting to find a bottom. Often it begins with some resilience in these measures, even in the face of overall market weakness. We tweeted evidence of that resilience during the first 2 days of the year when the market gapped down hard on consecutive days, yet the risk indicators held up well:

Sure enough, that resilience led to a 3%-4% jump in stocks the next day — and a continued rally since.

So what message are these risk indicators signaling now? Well, as we said, while the market can certainly continue its rally — especially given how washed-out it got — the prospects of adding significant risk at the current time are not nearly as attractive as they were just a few weeks ago. In fact, given the proximity of prices on each of the risk indicator charts, it seems an opportune time to remove some equity risk — in particular, if you added aggressively a few weeks ago. Here’s what we’re looking at.

High-Beta: (Status: RISK ON…but hitting resistance)

We normally focus on the “high-beta” area of the market in relation to the “low-volatility” area. At the moment, that ratio is still in a downtrend, signaling risk-off. However, on an absolute basis, high beta, as measured by the Invesco S&P 500 High Beta ETF (SPHB), has been on a solid run. It is some 15% off of its late December low.

That run, though, has brought it up to several layers of potential resistance near the 38.80 level, including:

  • The 38.2% Fibonacci Retracement of its September-December Decline
  • Its 50-Day Simple Moving Average
  • The Breakdown Level of its former lows from October-December

This might not be the end of the high-beta bounce — but this level very well could cause a temporary pause. Thus, it is a good spot, in our view, to remove some long exposure here.

Small-Cap Pure Value (Status: RISK ON…but hitting resistance)

When it comes to market “styles” (e.g., small, mid, large-cap and growth vs. value), the small-cap pure value style traditionally has the highest beta. And like the “high-beta” stock segment mentioned above, the S&P 600 Small-Cap Pure Value Index (SPSPV) typically leads the way in a legitimate risk-on market rally — and lower in a risk-off move. For example, the SPSPV led the market drawdown, first by topping in August, then with its relentless plunge.

Like the high-beta space, though, it too is enjoying a huge bounce — close to 20%, in fact, from its December low. However, it also is testing several layers of potential resistance near the 6430 level, including:

  • The 38.2% Fibonacci Retracement of its August-December Decline
  • Its 50-Day Simple Moving Average
  • Its 1000-Day (200-Week) Simple Moving Average

Again, while this resistance doesn’t have to be the death-knell of this bounce, it does signal to us a prudent spot to take some profits in this area as the going may get a bit tougher from here.

High Yield Bonds (Status: RISK ON…but hitting resistance)

Lastly, we have the high yield bond market. As high yield represents the riskiest of all bonds, the space actually trades in concert with equities much of the time. Thus, when high yield bonds are rallying, it is indicative of risk-taking, which generally includes a rallying stock market. That has been the case over the past few weeks, following a relentless autumn decline that hardly paused until the late December lows. As measured by the iShares High Yield Bond ETF (HYG), the space is up over 5% in just 2 weeks, an enormous move for high yield bonds.

However, like the prior 2 indicators, the HYG is also encountering potential resistance near the 83.85 level, including the important 61.8% Fibonacci Retracement of its August-December decline.

If you happen to be long this space, it makes sense to us to de-risk, or remove some exposure here as well.

*Bonus*: VIX (Status: Testing support)

While the volatility market isn’t necessarily one of the “risk indicators” that we track, it certainly can be useful in gauging appropriate risk. Presently, the S&P 500 Volatility Index, or VIX, is testing what may be key support near 20 in the form of the 61.8% Fibonacci Retracement of its August-December rise (stock volatility expectations generally move opposite price).

Should the VIX hold here, at least temporarily, it could signal at least a pause in the stock market bounce.

Aggregate Conclusion: RISK ON — but take some off

The stock market may well continue in the short or intermediate-term. However, to the extent that there was “easy” risk-on money to be made at the late December lows in the market — that has likely been realized. The proximity of the risk indicators suggest that the going may get tougher for stocks from here. Thus, while it doesn’t mean that we need to completely switch to risk-off mode, it does make sense to at least dim the risk-on levels a little bit here.

*  *  *

For updates on these risk indicators as well as market levels, timing and investment selection, continue to monitor our Daily Strategy Session videos. If you are interested in an “all-access” pass to our research and investment moves, we invite you to further check out The Lyons Share. Given an treacherous emerging market climate, there has never been a better time to reap the benefits of our risk-managed approach. Thanks for reading!

via RSS http://bit.ly/2Fs8jkE Tyler Durden