Bonds Battered, Submerging Markets Slump, & Small Caps Hit Record High

Everything was awesome until Trump dropped the truth bomb about China trade talks…

Small Caps and Trannies outperformed…

 

S&P, Dow, and Nasdaq remain red for the week…

 

The S&P found support at its 100DMA…

 

VIX tested down to a 12 handle once again but bounced…

 

Small Caps  – which dominate the ‘most shorted’ – soared to another new record high as the short-squeeze continued on…

 

Italian banks remain under pressure…

 

US Homebuilders continue to get hammered

 

The Treasury complex was very mixed with the long-end continuing to get hammered (30Y +3bps) and the short-end bid (2Y -2bps)…

That was the first drop in 2Y Yields in 10 days.

10Y closed at 3.11% – highest since July 2011

 

30Y closed at 3.25% – highest since Sept 2014

 

Which pushed the yield curve to its steepest since the release of The Fed minutes in April…

 

 

 

Emerging Market FX dipped back lower after a brief dead cat bounce yesterday…

 

With the Colombian Peso pounded, Rand routed, and Lira lashed…

 

Crytpocurrencies also slid lower once again – so much for the Blockchain Week Bounce…only Ethereum remains green from last Friday’s close…

 

Copper and Silver managed modest gains on the day, oil was flat, gold was lower.,..

 

WTI/RBOB ended the day unchanged despite some vol… (WTI topped $72 and Brent topped $80 intraday)…

 

Silver is notably outperforming gold in the last few days…

 

Finally, we note that as Small Caps make new record highs, relative to The Dow, the Russell 2000 is back at the same level as when Trump was elected…

 

 

 

 

 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2rRBV2b Tyler Durden

Senate Confirms Gina Haspel To Head CIA

The CIA has a new boss, and for the first time, it’s a woman.

On Thursday afternoon, despite vocal opposition from many senators over her involvement in the Bush-era “enhanced interrogation”, i.e. torture, programs, the Senate confirmed Gina Haspel as the next head of the CIA. In the end, support from Senate Democrats, including the Senate Intelligence Committee’s vice chair Mark Warner, helped ensure Haspel’s confirmation. She was previously approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee in a 10-5 vote early Wednesday in a closed-door session, paving the way for her confirmation.

“Throughout the process, she demonstrated candor, integrity and a forthright approach to the committee’s questions. She displayed the talent and expertise that make her uniquely qualified to face America’s biggest national security challenges, whether in the area of counterterrorism or renewed international competition among great powers,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said ahead of Thursday’s vote.

Many disagreed: Republican Senators Rand Paul (Ky.) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.) sided with most Democrats in voting against Trump’s controversial pick to replace Mike Pompeo. Sen. John McCain also opposed her nomination but was in Arizona battling brain cancer. Meanwhile, several Democrats including Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and red-state Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) supported the nominee.

While Haspel’s nomination sparked renewed debate over brutal interrogation practices the CIA used on terror suspects after 9/11 mostly due to her involvement in supervising a secret CIA detention site in Thailand, it wasn’t enough to prevent her from becoming the next CIA head. Still, the veteran CIA official who has been with the agency for more than 30 years, received roughly half the support from Democrats that now-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a former House member, received last year when he was confirmed as President Trump’s first CIA chief.

Her nomination was immersed almost immediately by controversy because of her involvement in the agency’s post-Sept. 11 “enhanced interrogation” program — now widely viewed as torture. In particular, senators homed in on her time spent running a CIA black site and role in the destruction of videotapes documenting the interrogation of an al Qaeda suspect.

Meanwhile, as the Hill details, the CIA – and Trump – launched an all-out charm offensive in order to build support for Haspel’s nomination, playing up politically favorable aspects of her largely secret career, including her work on Russia. They also touted her support among former intelligence community officials, including James Clapper, former President Obama’s director of national intelligence.

In the end the deep state got what it wanted.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2IOS1nS Tyler Durden

David Vs Goliath? Einhorn’s Battle Against Fed-Insured-Market Is Costing Investors Dearly

Everybody already knows that David Einhorn is having a flat out terrible year, with Greenlight now reported to be down 15% YTD and down 25% since the end of 2014.

Now the media is starting to amplify the hedge fund manager’s struggles with Institutional Investor asking “What Happened to David Einhorn?” yesterday and today, Bloomberg releasing an article highlighting the manager’s underperformance and questioning whether or not he has evolved properly alongside of the markets to once again ever be successful.

In his defense, a lot of Einhorn’s struggles have come from the fact that the market has changed significantly since he started as a manager. With the Fed committing to lower interest rates, logic and reason – which used to be Einhorn’s key principle of value investing long and in shorting bubbles – has been thrown completely out the window. Stocks no longer trade on fundamentals and if you are a stock picker that focuses only on fundamentals, this is going to significantly alter your investing landscape. If you don’t change with it, you’re going to get run over, and David Einhorn is finding out this the hard way. Bloomberg reported today that he has faced $3 billion in redemptions:

Einhorn, who achieved widespread fame at moments of maximum danger, is no longer the enfant terrible he once was. For starters, he’s turning 50 this year. And, in middle age, he has clung to his old ways even as many in his industry have moved on.

The numbers tell the story. So far this year, his Greenlight Capital has handed its investors a 15 percent loss, bringing the total decline since the end of 2014 to a staggering 25 percent — one of the worst showings among his peers. Investors have bolted, pulling almost $3 billion out of the firm in the last two years.

Despite this, Einhorn seems to be resting on his laurels. The fund manager believes that reason will once again return to the market and that his investment style will eventually be vindicated again. The article continued:

Yet the baby-faced billionaire is unperturbed, no matter that he has been wrong about nearly every one of the top 40 positions in his $5.5 billion portfolio this year. He’s as cocksure as ever — some might say cocky — publicly and in conversations with colleagues. “We believe our investment theses remain intact,” he wrote in an April investor letter. “Despite recent results, our portfolio should perform well over time.”

Einhorn’s this-too-shall-pass attitude puts him in an interesting spot in a $3.2 trillion industry invented back in the day on strategies that don’t work so well now — after a decade of historically low interest rates and the rise of passive investing and quant trading. The Einhorn modus operandi of buying the beaten-down stocks of companies he expects to grow and selling those that are overvalued has fallen out of favor.

The article makes examples of his peers, too, noting how they have “evolved” – even noting that some short sellers have simply just given up:

Not surprisingly, many in Einhorn’s circuit have switched up approaches, at least on the margins. Lee Ainslie and Steve Cohen have added machine learning or other quant models to help in stock picking. Dan Loeb owns Facebook Inc. and Netflix Inc., even though in his early days as a value investor he would have never bought shares with such high prices relative to earnings.

On the short side, some no longer bet against bubbles. They’re careful about identifying catalysts that might move a stock or have stopped shorting individual stocks all together, using options on indexes instead.

And they’ve all performed better than Einhorn in the past few years.

“He’s chosen to stick with his approach in a massively shifting landscape, and I can’t help but admire his conviction,” said Brad Balter, who runs Balter Capital Management and is a long-time hedge fund investor. “But how do you survive when investors and the market are telling you they want you to change? It needs to turn into his kind of market fast.”

Despite his underperformance, Einhorn is stringent in his belief that at some point, at least some normalcy will return to the market:

Einhorn’s view would be that we’re due for value to assume the leadership mantle again soon. And many of his long-term investors agree there is reason to hang tough. Just consider: If you put $100,000 into Greenlight in 1996, you would today have $1.9 million. People who are sticking with the fund use basically the same language to defend their loyalty, something like: “David Einhorn is a smart guy — he didn’t go dumb overnight.”

For those who have lost faith, explanations vary. Some, for example, said they were put off because Einhorn allowed the firm to get too big — $12 billion at its peak — forcing it out of less-trafficked, smaller and mid-cap stocks where he originally made money and into larger cap names like General Motors and Bayer AG where it’s harder to have an edge.

We recently wrote about Einhorn‘s underperformance in the first quarter of 2018.

In the first quarter, the pain for David Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital reached unbearable proportions, as the iconic hedge fund manager lost 14%, one of the worst quarters in the fund’s history; paradoxically, as a result of Einhorn’s “bubble basket” which is a short basket consisting of high PE tech names, Einhorn should have had a great quarter as a result of the recent clubbing of the sector. Instead, the opposite happened.

In a letter to an investor that we reported on in early April, he confirmed the deplorable performance and explained what happened.

In a nutshell, it was not only an abysmal quarter, but one in which the billionaire fund manager still can’t figure out what exactly went wrong. As Einhorn writes in the investor letter, “in our history, we’ve had five other quarters with a greater than 5% loss. In four of those, there were clear world or market events that provided a simple explanation, and in one, a few positions in our portfolio went wrong at the same time. This period has not been like any of these.

Instead, as Einhorn noted, there were “no events or individual positions” that stood out; instead the fund’s “losses were broad throughout the portfolio, but generally shallow. We had nine positions (six longs and three shorts) that each cost more than 0.5% and only one (Micron Technology) that generated a gain of over 0.5%, despite our portfolio having a decent earnings season.”

It appears that what did go wrong, is that both Greenlight’s longs and short lost money. But where it gets truly vexing, is that Einhorn’s long positions lost money despite posting positive earnings, while his shorts climbed despite earnings.

And so, Einhorn doesn’t even seem to have luck on his side right. Even worse, he’s battling the Fed. This is literally a “David versus Goliath” story, as Einhorn has ignored the evolution of the markets and continues to dig his heels in with the strategy that made him into the household name that he has become.

In the fight of Einhorn versus an irrational market and insane monetary policy, we think he’ll be right in the long term and we want to root for him, but who knows if he has enough time, resources, capital or patient investors to see himself proven right.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2GvFBfG Tyler Durden

Trump Gives Merkel An Ultimatum: Drop Russian Gas Pipeline Or Trade War Begins

It became clear just how important it is to the US for Russia’s Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project to fail two months ago when, as we described in “US Threatens Sanctions For European Firms Participating In Russian Gas Pipeline Project“, the U.S. State Department warned European corporations that they will likely face penalties and sanctions if they participate in the construction of Russia’s Nord Stream 2 on the grounds that “the project undermines energy security in Europe”, when in reality Russia has for decades been a quasi-monopolist on European energy supplies and thus has unprecedented leverage over European politics, at least behind the scenes.

As many people know, we oppose the Nord Stream 2 project, the US government does,” State Department spokeswoman, Heather Nauert said during a late March press briefing adding that “the Nord Stream 2 project would undermine Europe’s overall energy security and stability. It would provide Russia [with] another tool to pressure European countries, especially countries such as Ukraine.” And speaking of Ukraine, recall that in 2014, shortly after the US State Department facilitated the presidential coup in Ukraine, Joe Biden’s son Hunter joined the board of directors of Burisma, Ukraine’s largest oil and gas company. Surely that was merely a coincidence.

Nauert also said that Washington may introduce punitive measures against participants in the pipeline project – which could be implemented using a provision in the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).

Fast forward to today, when the dreadfully named CAATSA act just made a repeat appearance; around the time Europe made it clear it would openly defy Trump’s Iran sanctions, the WSJ reported that Trump told Merkel that if she wants to avoid a trans-Atlantic trade war, the price would be to pull the break on Nord Stream 2, according to German, U.S. and European sources.

The officials said Mr. Trump told German Chancellor Angela Merkel in April that Germany should drop support for Nord Stream 2, an offshore pipeline that would bring gas directly from Russia via the Baltic Sea. This would be in exchange for the U.S. starting talks with the European Union on a new trade deal.

While it had long been suspected that Trump would push hard to dismantle Nord Stream 2 just so US nat gas exporters could grab a slice of the European market pie, the aggressive push comes as a surprise, and as the WSJ notes, “the White House pressure reflects its hard ball tactics on trade, moves that have contributed to rising tensions between Europe and the U.S. and raised fears in export-dependent Germany of a tit-for-tat on tariffs that could engulf its car industry.”

The Nord Stream II (or NS2) project was started in 2015 is a joint venture between Russia’s Gazprom and European partners, including German Uniper, Austria’s OMV, France’s Engie, Wintershall and the British-Dutch multinational Royal Dutch Shell. The pipeline is set to run from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea – doubling the existing pipeline’s capacity of 55 cubic meters per year, and is therefore critical for Europe’s future energy needs.

NS2 is the second phase of an existing pipeline that already channels smaller amount of gas from Russia to Germany. Construction for the second phase started this week in Germany, after investors committed €5 billion ($5.9 billion) to the venture.

Trump has publicly criticized the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, saying at a meeting with Baltic State leaders at the White House this year that “Germany hooks up a pipeline into Russia, where Germany is going to be paying billions of dollars for energy into Russia…That’s not right.”

“Donald Trump is a deal maker…there is a deal to be made if someone (in Germany) stood up and said ‘Help us protect our auto industry a little bit more, because we’re great at it and we’re going to help you on Nord Stream 2’,” said one U.S. official, who was present at the April meeting between Ms. Merkel and Mr. Trump.

Raising the pressure further, Sandra Oudkirk, a senior U.S. diplomat, told journalists in Berlin on Thursday that as a Russian energy project the pipeline could face U.S. sanctions, putting any company participating in it at risk.

* * *

The Kremlin shot back immediately as spokesman Dmitry Peskov called the U.S. efforts “a crude effort to hinder an international energy project that has an important role in energy security.”

“The Americans are simply trying crudely to promote their own gas producers,” he said.

He is, of course, right, even if the official explanation is that Washington opposes the pipeline because it would make Ukraine—currently the main transit route for Russian gas headed west—and other U.S. allies in the EU more vulnerable to Russian pressure. German officials also say the U.S. is eager to displace Russia as a provider of gas to Europe, hence confirming with the Russian said.

Of course, in the end it’s all a question of leverage, and who has more, and right now Trump believes that by threatening European auto exports hostage, he has all of it.

* * *

Still, that Trump thinks he can interject after three years of trade negotiations with an abrupt demand while providing no alternatives, is rather stunning, but understandable. As Alex Gorka of the Strategic Culture Foundation wrote, on March 15, a bipartisan group of 39 senators led by John Barrasso (R-WY) sent a letter to the Treasury Department. 

They oppose NS2 and are calling on the administration to bury it. Why? They don’t want Russia to be in a position to influence Europe, which would be “detrimental,” as they put it.  And, as Gorka wrote, their preferred tool to implement this obstructionist policy is the use of sanctions, precisely what we are seeing currently.

To be sure, 39 out of 100 is a number no president can ignore as powerful pressure emanating from US corporations and lobbies was being applied on the administration. Even before the senators wrote their letter, Kurt Volker, the US envoy to Ukraine, had claimed that NS2 was a purely political, not commercial, project.

As we said in March, “No doubt other steps to ratchet up the pressure on Europe will follow.” Little did we know that less than 2 months later, the US and Europe would be embroiled in a bruising trade war in which the fate of NS2 is suddenly the key variable.

* * *

So will Trump win, and will US LNG replace Russian exports?

While Merkel hasn’t yet dropped her support for the pipeline, she said on Thursday the EU had agreed at a summit Wednesday night to offer the U.S. “closer cooperation” in the field of gas in exchange for a permanent exemption from the steel and aluminum tariffs, suggesting that Nord Stream 2 may soon be a trade war casualty.

Should Europe fold, it should expect a surge in energy inflation: Liquefied gas from the U.S. needs to be shipped over the Atlantic and would be considerably more expensive than Russian gas delivered via pipelines. A senior EU official working on energy regulation said Russian gas would be at least 20% cheaper.

“Trump’s strategy seems to be to force us to buy their more expensive gas, but as long as LNG is not competitive, Europe will not agree to some sort of racket and pay extortionate prices,” an EU official said.

Which, amusingly, is precisely what Trump’s brute trade overture is: an global racket.

Germany’s pipeline plan has long been controversial with Ukraine, as well as several EU countries on the bloc’s eastern edge who fear it gives Russian President Vladimir Putin power over gas deliveries—which Berlin has so far largely ignored.

Trump has been pushing for better access for U.S. companies to an EU market he has criticized as over-protected. Barring an EU offer to address Mr. Trump’s grievances, the U.S. will hit Europe with punitive steel and aluminum tariffs on June 1. The EU has promised retaliatory tariffs.

* * *

So now that the ball is in Merkel’s court, how will she respond?  On Friday, the German chancellor is traveling to Russia on Friday to meet Vladimir Putin in hopes of brokering a compromise that would satisfy the U.S. and her European partners.

She will ask Mr. Putin for a deal that would preserve the lucrative transit trade—Ukraine gets a fee for letting Russian gas through its territory on the way to eastern Europe—even after Nord Stream 2 comes online in 2019, a German official said.

Meanwhile, German government officials say that since all the permits for Nord Stream 2 have been issued, the WSJ notes that there is no legal way to stop the project, which is run by Gazprom , the Russian energy giant, under financing agreements with international companies such as Engie, OMV, Shell, Uniper and Wintershall.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2ItjMyO Tyler Durden

No Strategy Works All The Time & The 10-Rules That Do

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

I was recently reviewing some old notes and ran across a comment made by David Merkel from the Aleph Blog back in 2013. The discussion centered around the impact of volatility on investment disciplines. The most important concept is that most investors tend to chase performance. Unfortunately, performance chasing occurs very late in the investment cycle as exuberance overtakes logic which leads to consistent underperformance. What David touches on is the importance of being disciplined when it comes to your investment approach, however, that is singularly the most difficult part of being a successful investor.

“One of the constants in investing is that investment theories are disbelieved, prosper, bloom, overshoot, die, and repeat. So is the only constant change? That’s not my view.

There are valid theories on investing, and they work on average. If you pursue them consistently, you will do well. If you pursue them after failure, you can do better still. How many times have you seen articles on investing entitled ‘The Death of ____.’ (fill in the blank) Strategies trend. There is an underlying kernel of validity; it makes economic sense, and has worked in the past. But any strategy can be overplayed, even my favorite strategy, value investing. 

Prepare yourself for volatility. It is the norm of the market. Focus on what you can control – margin of safety.By doing that you will be ready for most of the vicissitudes of the market, which stem from companies taking too much credit or operating risk.

Finally, don’t give up. Most people who give up do so at a time where stock investments are about to turn. It’s one of those informal indicators to me, when I hear people giving up on an asset class. It makes me want to look at the despised asset class, and see what bargains might be available.

Remember, valid strategies work on average, but they don’t work every month or year. Drawdowns shake out the weak-minded, and boost the performance of value investors willing to buy stocks when times are pessimistic.”

When it comes to investing it is important to remember that no investment strategy works all the time.

Most guys know that in baseball a player that is batting .300 is a really solid hitter. In fact, according to the “Baseball-Almanac,” the ALL-TIME leader was Ty Cobb with a lifetime average of .366. This means that every time that Ty Cobb stepped up to the plate he was only likely to get a hit a 36.6% of the time.  In other words he struck out, or walked, roughly 2 out of every three times at bat. All of a sudden that doesn’t sound as great, but compared to the performance of other players – it was fantastic.

The problem is a .366 average won’t get you into the “investor hall of fame”; it will likely leave you broke. When it comes to investing it requires about a .600 average to win the game long-term. No, you are not going to invest in the markets and win every time. You are going to have many more losers than you think. What separates the truly great investors from the average person is how they deal with their losses – not their winners.

10-Rules That Work

There are 10 basic investment rules that have historically kept investors out of trouble over the long term. These are not unique by any means but rather a list of investment rules that in some shape, or form, has been uttered by every great investor in history.

1) You are a speculator – not an investor

Unlike Warren Buffet who takes control of a company and can affect its financial direction – you can only speculate on the future price someone is willing to pay you for the pieces of paper you own today. Like any professional gambler – the secret to long-term success was best sung by Kenny Rogers; “You gotta know when to hold’em…know when to fold’em”

2) Asset allocation is the key to winning the “long game”

In today’s highly correlated world there is little diversification between equity classes. Therefore, including other asset classes, like fixed income which provides a return of capital function with an income stream, can reduce portfolio volatility. Lower volatility portfolios outperform over the long term by reducing the emotional mistakes caused by large portfolio swings.

3) You can’t “buy low” if you don’t “sell high”

Most investors do fairly well at “buying,” but stink at “selling.” The reason is purely emotional, which is driven primarily by “greed” and “fear.” Like pruning and weeding a garden; a solid discipline of regularly taking profits, selling laggards and rebalancing the allocation leads to a healthier portfolio over time.

4) No investment discipline works all the time – Sticking to a discipline works always.

Like everything in life, investment styles cycle. There are times when growth outperforms value, or international is the place to be, but then it changes. The problem is that by the time investors realize what is working they are late rotating into it. This is why the truly great investors stick to their discipline in good times and bad. Over the long term – sticking to what you know, and understand, will perform better than continually jumping from the “frying pan into the fire.”

5) Losing capital is destructive. Missing an opportunity is not.

As any good poker player knows – once you run out of chips you are out of the game. This is why knowing both “when” and “how much” to bet is critical to winning the game. The problem for most investors is that they are consistently betting “all in all of the time.” as they maintain an unhealthy level of the“fear of missing out.” The reality is that opportunities to invest in the market come along as often as taxi cabs in New York City. However, trying to make up lost capital by not paying attention to the risk is a much more difficult thing to do.

6) Your most valuable, and irreplaceable, commodity is “time.”

Since the turn of the century investors have recovered, theoretically, from two massive bear market corrections. It took 14- years for investors to get back to where they were in 2000 on an inflation-adjusted total return basis. Furthermore, despite the bullish advance from the 2009 lows, the compounded annual total return for the last 18-years remains below 3%.

The problem is that the one commodity which has been lost, and can never be recovered, is “time.” For investors getting back to even is not an investment strategy. We are all “savers” that have a limited amount of time within which to save money for our retirement. If you were 18 years from retirement in 2000 – you are now staring it in the face with a large shortfall between the promised 8% annualized return rate and reality. Do not discount the value of “time” in your investment strategy.

7) Don’t mistake a “cyclical trend” as an “infinite direction”

There is an old Wall Street axiom that says the “trend is your friend.”  Investors always tend to extrapolate the current trend into infinity. In 2007, the markets were expected to continue to grow as investors piled into the market top. In late 2008, individuals were convinced that the market was going to zero. Extremes are never the case.

It is important to remember that the “trend is your friend” as long as you are paying attention to, and respecting its direction. Get on the wrong side of the trend and it can become your worst enemy.

8) If you think you have it figured out – sell everything.

Individuals go to college to become doctors, lawyers, and even circus clowns. Yet, every day, individuals pile into one of the most complicated games on the planet with their hard earned savings with little, or no, education at all.

For most individuals, when the markets are rising, their success breeds confidence. The longer the market rises; the more individuals attribute their success to their own skill. The reality is that a rising market covers up the multitude of investment mistakes that individuals make by taking on excessive risk, poor asset selection or weak management skills.  These errors are revealed by the forthcoming correction.

9) Being a contrarian is tough, lonely and generally right.

Howard Marks once wrote that:

“Resisting – and thereby achieving success as a contrarian – isn’t easy. Things combine to make it difficult; including natural herd tendencies and the pain imposed by being out of step, since momentum invariably makes pro-cyclical actions look correct for a while. (That’s why it’s essential to remember that ‘being too far ahead of your time is indistinguishable from being wrong.’)

Given the uncertain nature of the future, and thus the difficulty of being confident your position is the right one – especially as price moves against you – it’s challenging to be a lonely contrarian.”

The best investments are generally made when going against the herd. Selling to the “greedy” and buying from the “fearful” are extremely difficult things to do without a very strong investment discipline, management protocol, and intestinal fortitude. For most investors, the reality is that they are inundated by “media chatter” which keeps them from making logical and intelligent investment decisions regarding their money which, unfortunately, leads to bad outcomes.

10) Benchmarking performance only benefits Wall Street

The best thing you can do for your portfolio is to quit benchmarking it against a random market index that has absolutely nothing to do with your goals, risk tolerance or time horizon.

Comparison in the financial arena is the main reason clients have trouble patiently sitting on their hands, letting whatever process they are comfortable with work for them. They get waylaid by some comparison along the way and lose their focus. If you tell a client that they made 12% on their account, they are very pleased. If you subsequently inform them that ‘everyone else’ made 14%, you have made them upset. The whole financial services industry, as it is constructed now, is predicated on making people upset so they will move their money around in a frenzy. Money in motion creates fees and commissions. The creation of more and more benchmarks and style boxes is nothing more than the creation of more things to COMPARE to, allowing clients to stay in a perpetual state of outrage.

The only benchmark that matters to you is the annual return that is specifically required to obtain your retirement goal in the future. If that rate is 4% then trying to obtain 6% more than doubles the risk you have to take to achieve that return. The end result is that by taking on more risk than is necessary will put your further away from your goal than you intended when something inevitably goes wrong.

It’s all about the risk

Most people are in denial about uncertainty. They assume they’re lucky, and that the unpredictable can be reliably forecasted. This keeps business brisk for palm readers, psychics, and stockbrokers, but it’s a terrible way to deal with uncertainty.

It should be obvious that an honest assessment of uncertainty leads to better decisions. It may seem contradictory, embracing uncertainty reduces risk while denial increases it. Another benefit of “acknowledged uncertainty” is it keeps you honest. A healthy respect for uncertainty, and a focus on probability, drives you never to be satisfied with your conclusions. It keeps you moving forward to seek out more information, to question conventional thinking and to continually refine your judgments and understanding that difference between certainty and likelihood can make all the difference.

The reality is that we can’t control outcomes; the most we can do is influence the probability of certain outcomes which is why the day to day management of risks and investing based on probabilities, rather than possibilities, is important not only to capital preservation but to investment success over time.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2IsZmpK Tyler Durden

Venezuelan Government Seizes Kellogg’s Factory After Closure: A Recipe For Failure

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

The socialist Venezuelan government has seized a closed Kellogg’s factory and decided to make the perfect storm for failure out of their theft.  The government has handed control of the factory over to the workers who will attempt to continue to produce Kellogg’s products.

Hold your laughter, because this actually happened. According to the BBC, the move comes as Kellogg’s announced it was pulling out of the dystopian communist country because of the worsening economic situation brought on by the disturbing socialist policies of President Nicolas Maduro.

Maduro, who has previously accused the United States of waging economic war against his government, and called the factory closure “absolutely unconstitutional and illegal,” even though his policies are the ones which caused the closure of the factory to begin with.

But in the meantime, Maduro has decided to hand the factory over to workerswho he thinks will continue production.  Interesting, considering most people won’t work long without being paid, and if Kellogg’s cannot find supplies to produce their infamous cereals, it’s unlikely the workers will be successful.  But socialists don’t think much more than one second about any decision anyway.

Venezuela’s battered economy has been hit by falling oil revenue and the plummeting value of its currency, the bolivar. It also has one of the highest rates of inflation in the world. Kellogg is simply the latest multinational company to close or heavily scale back operations in Venezuela, citing strict currency controls, a lack of raw materials and soaring inflation.

Kellogg’s said it hoped to return to Venezuela in the future and warned the Venezuelan government against sales of its brands “without the expressed authorization of the Kellogg Company.”

But the company probably doesn’t have to worry much.

 Worker-run businesses are the biggest recipe for failure in economics that has likely ever existed.

Just ask Venezuela how that’s working out…

For example, in 2016, Venezuela’s government took over a plant belonging to US-based hygiene products manufacturer Kimberly-Clark after it announced it was stopping operations because it could not obtain raw materials. The Texas-based firm recently requested the start of arbitration proceedings against Venezuela at the World Bank. The Texas-based company said in a statement:

“If the Venezuelan government takes control of Kimberly-Clark facilities and operations, it will be responsible for the well-being of the workers and the physical asset, equipment and machinery in the facilities going forward.”

Responsibility is a word socialists cannot readily define, however. And you would think with all this seizure of private businesses, Venezuela wouldn’t have food and toilet paper shortages if these policies were successful. But that’s the problem.  There is little success in Marxist ideals and yet they still insist on blaming capitalism.

“I would rather be subjected to the few failures of capitalism than the few successes of socialism.” -Unknown

via RSS https://ift.tt/2k7ct5z Tyler Durden

Reason Nominated for a Record 30 Southern California Journalism Awards

The Greater Los Angeles Press Club, whose coverage area reaches from Santa Barbara in the north to the border fencing down south, has announced finalists for its 60th annual Southern California Journalism Awards. Reason, your multipronged defender/explorer of “Free Minds and Free Markets,” has broken our previous record with 30 nominations.

The categories include Best Group Blog and Best Website of a traditional news organization (we’re up against The Hollywood Reporter, KCET, KPCC, and Variety), plus the following cross-platform nominations:

Best Humor/Satire Writing: Austin Bragg, Meredith Bragg, and Andrew Heaton, for “Game of Thrones: Libertarian Edition

Best Obituary/Appreciation, Politics/Business/Arts: Brian Doherty, for “Tom Petty, RIP

Best Activism Journalism: David Bier, for “Why the Wall Won’t Work

Best Health Journalism: Eric Boehm, for “A Baby Dies in Virginia

Best National Political/Government Reporting: Robert W. Poole Jr., for “Your Flight Is Delayed,” and Jesse Walker, for “The Indestructible Idea of the Basic Income

Best Educational Reporting: Lenore Skenazy and Jonathan Haidt, for “The Fragile Generation

Best Environmental Reporting: Shawn Regan, for “How Capitalism Saved the Bees

Best Minority/Immigration Reporting (print): Joe Coon, for “Bringing Bandar Home

Best Commentary on TV/Film: Zach Weissmueller, for “What HBO’s Veep Gets Right About Politics

Best Criticism on Books/Art/Architecture/Design: Brian Doherty, for “The Great James Buchanan Conspiracy

Best Criticism on Food/Culture: Peter Suderman, for “Government Almost Killed the Cocktail

Reason also pulled down a bunch of nominations in the Magazine category, including:

Best Investigative Story: Elizabeth Nolan Brown, for “American Sex Police

Best Columnist: Virginia Postrel (for “Love Your Homemade Quilt? Thank Capitalism,” “Umbrellas: The iPhones of the Victorian Age,” and “When Buying Life Insurance Was Deemed Immoral“); Deirdre Nansen McCloskey (for “One Woman’s Adventures in Gender Crossing and Civil Disobedience,” “The Myth of Technological Unemployment,” and “An Economist Goes to Shanghai“); and J.D. Tuccille (for “Your Handy Guide to Camping in Forbidden Places,” “RIP Jerome Tuccille, Author of It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand,” and “Where Radar Cameras Fear To Tread“)

Best Feature, Business/Government (over 1,000 words): Mike Riggs, for “How Washington Lost the War on Muscle

Best Entertainment News or Feature: Peter Suderman, for “Young Men Are Playing Video Games Instead of Getting Jobs. That’s OK. (For Now.)

We also have several nominations in the Television category, including:

Best Entertainment News or Feature: Meredith Bragg, for “Chinese Dissident Ai Weiwei Explores the Tragedy of the Refugee Crisis

Best Non-Entertainment Personality Profile/Interview: Justin Monticello, Alex Manning, and Zach Weissmueller, for “This Self-Taught Programmer Is Bringing Transparency to California Politics

Best Documentary Short (under 25 minutes): Paul Detrick and Alex Manning, for “Insane Clown Posse: ‘We’re First Amendment Warriors’ for Juggalo Nation

We received multiple Online nominations as well:

Best News Article, Government/Politics: Eric Boehm, for “After Challenging Red Light Cameras, Oregon Man Fined $500 for Practicing Engineering Without a License

Best Investigative Article: C.J. Ciaramella and Lauren Krisai, for “How Florida Entraps Pain Patients, Forces Them to Snitch, Then Locks Them Up for Decades

Best Lifestyle Feature: Mike Riggs, for “Medical Researchers Are Steps From Legalizing Ecstasy. Here’s How They Did It

Best Columnist: Scott Shackford, for “Chelsea Manning Showed Us the Consequences of War, and We Threw Her in Prison,” “People Who Called Snowden a Traitor Shocked to Learn About All This Domestic Surveillance,” and “The Government is Here to Make Sure Your Fidget Spinner Doesn’t Kill Everybody

Best Political Commentary, National: Matt Welch, for “The Neoliberal Era Is Over

Best Sports Commentary: Eric Boehm, for “Atlanta Braves’ New Stadium Is a Disaster for Taxpayers and Fans

Best Entertainment and Celebrity News: Elizabeth Nolan Brown, for “Hot Girls Wanted: Exploiting Sex Workers in the Name of Exposing Porn Exploitation?

Winners will be announced June 24; last year we won five gold medals after receiving 28 nominations.

Reason could not produce this work, let alone achieve such recognition, without your active support, whether through donations, subscriptions, comments, retweets, or leaving a stealth copy on the table at the dentist’s office. So thank you!

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2wPZe2t
via IFTTT

Inspector General Finds FBI, DOJ Broke Law In Clinton Email Probe, Refers To Criminal Prosecutor

As we reported earlier Thursday, a long-awaited report by the Department of Justice’s internal watchdog into the Hillary Clinton email investigation has moved into its final phase, as the DOJ notified multiple subjects mentioned in the document that they can privately review it by week’s end, and will have a “few days” to craft any response to criticism contained within the report, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Those invited to review the report were told they would have to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to read it, people familiar with the matter said. They are expected to have a few days to craft a response to any criticism in the report, which will then be incorporated in the final version to be released in coming weeks. –WSJ

Now, journalist Paul Sperry reports that “IG Horowitz has found “reasonable grounds” for believing there has been a violation of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ’s handling of the Clinton investigation/s and has referred his findings of potential criminal misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution.”

Sperry also noted on Twitter that the FBI and DOJ had been targeting former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn before his December 2016 phone call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, stemming from photos of Flynn at a December 2015 Moscow event with Vladimir Putin (and Jill Stein).

Who is Huber?

As we reported in March, Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber – Utah’s top federal prosecutor, to be paired with IG Horowitz to investigate the multitude of accusations of FBI misconduct surrounding the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The announcement came one day after Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed that he will also be investigating allegations of FBI FISA abuse

While Huber’s appointment fell short of the second special counsel demanded by Congressional investigators and concerned citizens alike, his appointment and subsequent pairing with Horowitz is notable – as many have pointed out that the Inspector General is significantly limited in his abilities to investigate. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) noted in March “the IG’s office does not have authority to compel witness interviews, including from past employees, so its investigation will be limited in scope in comparison to a Special Counsel investigation,”

Sessions’ pairing of Horowitz with Huber keeps the investigation under the DOJ’s roof and out of the hands of an independent investigator.

***

Who is Horowitz?

In January, we profiled Michael Horowitz based on thorough research assembled by independent investigators. For those who think the upcoming OIG report is just going to be “all part of the show” – take pause; there’s a good chance this is an actual happening, so you may want to read up on the man whose year-long investigation may lead to criminal charges against those involved. 

In short – Horowitz went to war with the Obama Administration to restore the OIG’s powers – and didn’t get them back until Trump took office.

Horowitz was appointed head of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in April, 2012 – after the Obama administration hobbled the OIG’s investigative powers in 2011 during the “Fast and Furious” scandal. The changes forced the various Inspectors General for all government agencies to request information while conducting investigations, as opposed to the authority to demand it. This allowed Holder (and other agency heads) to bog down OIG requests in bureaucratic red tape, and in some cases, deny them outright. 

What did Horowitz do? As one twitter commentators puts it, he went to war

In March of 2015, Horowitz’s office prepared a report for Congress  titled Open and Unimplemented IG Recommendations. It laid the Obama Admin bare before Congress – illustrating among other things how the administration was wasting tens-of-billions of dollars by ignoring the recommendations made by the OIG.

After several attempts by congress to restore the OIG’s investigative powers, Rep. Jason Chaffetz successfully introduced H.R.6450 – the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016 – signed by a defeated lame duck President Obama into law on December 16th, 2016cementing an alliance between Horrowitz and both houses of Congress. 

1) Due to the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016, the OIG has access to all of the information that the target agency possesses. This not only includes their internal documentation and data, but also that which the agency externally collected and documented.

TrumpSoldier (@DaveNYviii) January 3, 2018

See here for a complete overview of the OIG’s new and restored powers. And while the public won’t get to see classified details of the OIG report, Mr. Horowitz is also big on public disclosure: 

Horowitz’s efforts to roll back Eric Holder’s restrictions on the OIG sealed the working relationship between Congress and the Inspector General’s ofice, and they most certainly appear to be on the same page. Moreover, FBI Director Christopher Wray seems to be on the same page as well. Click here and keep scrolling for that and more insight into what’s going on behind the scenes. 

Here’s a preview: 

 

Which brings us back to the OIG report expected by Congress a week from Monday.

On January 12 of last year, Inspector Horowitz announced an OIG investigation based on “requests from numerous Chairmen and Ranking Members of Congressional oversight committees, various organizations (such as Judicial Watch?), and members of the public.” 

The initial focus ranged from the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation, to whether or not Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe should have been recused from the investigation (ostensibly over $700,000 his wife’s campaign took from Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe around the time of the email investigation), to potential collusion with the Clinton campaign and the timing of various FOIA releases.

Courtesy @DaveNYviii

On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in 14 questions pertaining to “actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.” 

The questions range from Loretta Lynch directing Mr. Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation, Secretary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information and the (mis)handling of her email investigation by the FBI, the DOJ’s failure to empanel a grand jury to investigate Clinton, and questions about the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, and whether the FBI relied on the “Trump-Russia” dossier created by Fusion GPS. 

On September 26, 2017, The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview. 

And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together – as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel.

As illustrated below by TrumpSoldier, the report will go from the Office of the Inspector General to both investigative committees of Congress, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and is expected within weeks.

DOJ Flowchart, Courtesy TrumpSoldier (@DaveNYviii)

Once congress has reviewed the OIG report, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees will use it to supplement their investigations, which will result in hearings with the end goal of requesting or demanding a Special Counsel investigation. The DOJ can appoint a Special Counsel at any point, or wait for Congress to demand one. If a request for a Special Counsel is ignored, Congress can pass legislation to force an the appointment. 

And while the DOJ could act on the OIG report and investigate / prosecute themselves without a Special Counsel, it is highly unlikely that Congress would stand for that given the subjects of the investigation. 

After the report’s completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis, the DOJ can take various actions regarding “Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded).” 

Meanwhile, recent events appear to correspond with bullet points in both the original OIG investigation letter and the 7/27/2017 letter forwarded to the Inspector General: 

With the wheels set in motion last week seemingly align with Congressional requests and the OIG mandate, and the upcoming OIG report likely to serve as a foundational opinion, the DOJ will finally be empowered to move forward with an impartially appointed Special Counsel.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2k5ZwbZ Tyler Durden

Hooray! U.S. Fertility Rate Falls to 40-Year Low

StorkBabyJamesSteidlDreamstimeThe U.S. fertility rate has fallen to a 40-year low, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “The 2017 provisional estimate of fertility for the entire U.S. indicates about 3.85 million births in 2017 and a total fertility rate of about 1.76 births per woman,” the pro-natalist Institute for Family Studies (IFS) notes. “These are low numbers: births were as high as 4.31 million in 2007, and the total fertility rate was 2.08 kids back then.” The last time fertility in the U.S. fell this low was in the 1970s, when it reached a nadir of 1.74 births per woman in 1976.

The decline in the U.S. total fertility rate (TFR) mirrors a global trend. The world TFR fell from 5.1 children per woman in 1964 to 2.4 in 2016. The U.S. rate is now about the same as TFRs in most European countries. It is well below the population replacement TFR, which is generally calculated as 2.1 children per woman. If the current TFR is sustained and immigration is halted, U.S. population will begin to fall later in this century.

Between 2008 and 2016, the IFS reports, the fertility rate dropped from 2.15 to 1.89 among black women, from 2.85 to 2.1 among Hispanic women, and from 1.95 to 1.72 among non-Hispanic white women.

FallingFertilityIFS

The continuing decline in the birth rate seems “inconsistent with the growing number of women of childbearing age,” The New York Times notes. “In 2017, women had nearly 500,000 fewer babies than in 2007, despite the fact that there were an estimated 7 percent more women in their prime childbearing years of 20 to 39.”

Back in 2014, I pointed out the strong correlation between women pursuing higher education and falling fertility rates. American women today earn around 60 percent of all college degrees. By age 31, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports, almost 36 percent of women hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with 28 percent of men. The Census Bureau notes that women with college degrees tend to have fewer children. That’s why I concluded that the U.S. TFR probably would never again rise above the replacement rate.

Because time and money are limited, more Americans are exercising their reproductive freedom, making the tradeoff between having more children and pursuing the satisfactions of career, travel, and lifestyle. That’s a good thing.

Disclosure: My wife and I try not to flaunt our voluntarily child-free lifestyles.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2ItaJ17
via IFTTT

The Housing ATM Is Back (And It Won’t Work Any Better This Time)

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

It makes little sense to refi at these rising rates. But here we are.

Refis at 8-Year Lows

With mortgage rates rising, one would expect refi activity to slow. And it has: Refi Applications are at an 8-Year Low.

But why is there any refi activity all at all?

In September 2017 the MND mortgage rate rate was 3.85%. In June 2016, the MND rate was 3.43%.

It makes little sense to refi at 4.70% when one could have done it less than two years ago a point and a quarter lower.

At these rates, refi activity should be in the low single digits. Yet, 36% of mortgage applications are refis.

Housing ATMs

Are people pulling money out of their houses to pay bills?

That’s how it appears, as Cash-Out Mortgage Refis are Back.

What’s Going On?

  1. People feel wealthy again and are willing to blow it on consumption

  2. People pulling money out to invest in stocks or Bitcoin

  3. People are further and further in debt and need to pull out cash to pay the bills

I suspect point number three is the primary reason.

Regardless, releveraging is as wrong now as it was in 2007. Totally wrong.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2IsOyIc Tyler Durden