Tag: finance

Asset markets aren't prepared for a hawkish Fed. As Bloomberg's Richard Breslow notes Fed speakers have even taken to the Sunday talk shows to beat the rate-rise drum as economics is morphing into punditry. They’re going to raise rates because they can, are independent, apolitical and can’t be bullied by foreigners. The numbers notwithstanding…

Hallelujah

 

Perhaps we’ll know more when Chair Janet Yellen speaks on Friday in the more rarefied surroundings of Radcliffe Yard. For all the talk, one thing is true: asset markets aren’t priced for a FOMC ready to raise rates and looking to do more.

 

 

The yield curve continues to flatten, reaching its tightest levels since 2007. That’s a sign of low medium-term inflation expectations and concern that the economic cycle is closer to recession than boom.

 

It also reflects investors continuing to extend duration in search for yield, exactly what the Fed has forced them to do.

Simply put, as BofAML warns, a lack of credibility constrains Fed effectiveness drastically as they have "cried hawk" one too many times…

The policy mistake angle assigned to the Fed is visible in more areas than the yield curve.

 

As we have said repeatedly stated before, the TIPS market continues to believe that the Fed will deliver real rates that are far too high and miss on its long-term inflation target by at least 50bp.

 

To us, the lack of focus and the inability of the Fed to improve longerterm expectations priced-in to the rates market the line of igniting a bigger concern: getting dangerously close to the market pricing in inverted yield curves, two to three years forward.

 

 

The policy mistake feedback loop in the rates market will unwind only when the focus shifts to boosting longer-term global growth and inflation expectations as opposed to shifting near-term hike probabilities in an environment where structural risks remain (China, potential growth).

Therefore, as Breslow concludes, if the Fed plans to preemptively tighten, many investors will be caught massively off side doing the central bank’s bidding. Unless the Fed immediately starts intoning the mantra of “gradualism” in every speech.

Which raises the question, “why tighten now?” Inflation below target, but too many jobs being created seems an odd rationale after so many lean years.

 

With equities still hovering near all-time highs despite earnings being suspect, and global trade under attack, it’s hard to argue anything priced in.

 

What cost are they prepared to pay to give banks better net-interest-margins?

 

The dollar has been bouncing in the last three weeks from silly levels and amid further global economic weakness. A hawkish Fed could see the rally pick up a head of steam.

 

 

Dollar strength protesting as game theory: Get it low so it can go up from a lower level.

If the Fed wants to rack up a success, they should let the economy continue to improve. Raising rates when they aren’t sure risks being a “Mission Accomplished” moment.

via http://ift.tt/1RlSC95 Tyler Durden

Ask any trader what they believe to be the hallmark feature of any “rigged market” and the most frequent response(in addition to flagrant crime of the type supposedly demonstrated every day by Deutsche Bank and which should not exist in a regulated market) will be an institutionally bifurcated and legitimized playing field, one in which those who can afford faster, bigger, more effective data pipes, collocated servers and response times – and thus riskless trades – outperform everyone else who may or may not know that the market is legally rigged against them.

Think of it as baseball game for those who take steroids vs a ‘roid free game, only here the steroids are perfectly legal for those who can afford them. Or like a casino where the house, or in this case the HFTs, always win.

However, as it turned out, the vast majority of the public had no idea that a small subset of the market was juicing, despite our constant reports on the topic since 2009, until the arrival of Michael Lewis’ book Flash Boys, which explained the secret sauce that made all those HFT prop shops into unbeatable “trading titans“: frontrunning.

That’s really all one had to know about the mystical inner working of the modern market. All Reg NMS did was legitimize and legalize frontrunning at a massive scale for those who could afford (and hide) it, all the while the technology race ran in the background making it increasingly more expensive to stay at the top: fiber optics, microwaves, lasers, FPGAs, PCI-Express and so on.

And, as we have also discovered in recent years especially since the advent of IEX, for many exchanges providing a two-tiered marketplace was the lifeblood of the business model: the bulk of the revenues for “exchanges” such as BATS and Nasdaq would come from selling non-HFT retail and institutional orderflow to HFT clients. Since the HFTs made far more than the invested cost in permitting such perfectly legal frontrunning, they were happy, the exchanges were happy too as they betrayed only those clients who didn’t pay up the “extra fee”, and only the true outsiders lost. And any time they complained how rigged the system was against them, the HFTs would scream that “they provide liquidity” as they are the real modern-day market makers.

Except that’s not true: the only time HFTs provide liquidity it when it is not needed. When liquidity is truly scarce and required in the market, such as on days like the May 2010 flash crash, or August 2015…  they disappear.

Meanwhile, nothing changes, because the regulators are just as corrupt as the exchanges and the HFTs, and their role is not to bring transparency to a broken, manipulated market, but to keep retail investors in the dark about just how rigged everything is.

It appears that the CME was doing just that as well.

According to Bloomberg, the CME Group – the world’s largest exchange operator – just completed an “upgrade” traders said would eliminate a shortcoming that gave some participants an advantage.

Under the old system, data connections that linked customers to CME – where key products like Treasury futures and contracts tied to the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index trade – had noticeably different speeds, opening up the potential for gaming, according to traders and other experts. Those who knew how to gain faster access could increase their odds of being first in line to trade.

The new design supposedly stamps that out.

Oh, so it was a design glitch that allowed those who “knew” how to frontrun everyone else to do so. That’s the first time we have heard of the particular excuse. Usually the scapegoat is a “glitch”, only in this case the CME didn’t even bother.

“It’s an excellent step forward,” said Matthew Andresen, co-owner of Headlands Technologies LLC, a quantitative trading firm. “The new architecture is flat and fair, a great improvement,” said Andresen, whose knowledge of market infrastructure goes back to the 1990s, when he worked for electronic trading pioneer Island ECN.

But, wait… if it is an “excellent step” that some traders can no longer frontrun other traders on the CME, why is it not a “poor step” that virtually every other exchange still enables precisely this kind of tiered marketplace, which is neither flat nor fair?

Actually, scratch that: that’s precisely what IEX is trying to resolve. The reaction? An exchange which explicitly profits from providing a two-tiered market and charging an arm and a leg for those who can afford it (and thus frontrun everyone else) namely the Nasdaq, has threatened to sue the SEC if it permits IEX to become a full-fledged stock exchange.

As Bloomberg adds, the situation involving CME’s data connections highlights a fresh set of difficulties ensuring a level playing field in the era of light-speed markets, in which even the smallest bits of a second matter. The race to shave off milliseconds has spurred efforts to carve through mountains, span continents with microwave networks and prompted a backlash championed by the likes of IEX Group Inc., the upstart stock market that delays trading to impose fairness.

Unlike some of today’s state of the art means of being faster than everyone else, frontrunning orderflow on the CME was more of a “brute force” mechanism: CME customers are allotted data connections to the exchange. Some have more, some have less. Given that their speeds varied noticeably under the old architecture, the more lines a trading firm had, the better odds it could find a faster one. Trading firms with a lot of links had the chance to fish around for the fastest way to get trades done. Other firms that didn’t have as many connections or the computer programming resources to test around and find the quickest, most efficient way in were at the mercy of the connections they had.

“The performance could vary widely” with data connections under the former CME architecture, Andresen said. By which he meant that those who could afford to pay much more than everyone else, would also be able to frontrun almost everyone else.

But no more. The new system “is an important innovation that will set a new standard for fair and efficient access to the futures markets,” said Benjamin Blander, managing member of Radix Trading, a Chicago-based trading firm.

CME declined to comment on claims the old system was unfair, Bloomberg adds. “We are continuously enhancing our infrastructure in order to provide the latest and best technology architecture for our clients,” said Michael Shore, a spokesman for CME.

CME has been installing the new architecture since February. The last group of futures and options became available on the new system last week, according to CME. Traders aren’t required to switch over to the new system and can keep trading the old way if they want.

This isn’t the first time CME revamped its systems to stamp out an imperfection. Before an upgrade more than two years ago, traders were notified that their own orders were completed before everyone else found out, potentially giving initiators of transactions time to buy or sell on other exchanges with knowledge of their executions.

We expect more violations of “accidentally” rigged markets to be uncovered in time, both on the CME and elsewhere, although we wonder at this time does it even matter: besides central banks trading with other central banks (especially courtesy of the CME’s own Central Bank Incentive Program), does anyone else even bother? If judging by the total collapse in trading volumes over the past decade in virtually every product class, the answer is clear.

via http://ift.tt/1OK30Yl Tyler Durden

Submitted by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

In 2014, we published an article entitled “Watch the Movie Before It Is Filmed.” In that article, I described the situation in Venezuela at that time. The effects of fifteen years of collectivism were threatening to collapse the economy. The government was reacting by printing bolivares (Venezuelan currency) on a large scale—a knee-jerk solution that has been utilized by over twenty other countries in the last century—always with the same outcome: hyperinflation, resulting in economic collapse.

At the time, I recommended to readers that they “watch the movie” as it was being played out in Venezuela, as it would offer them insight into what was on the way in their own country, should they reside in Europe or North America.

The pattern followed by Venezuela is roughly the same as for the other jurisdictions; Venezuela is just a bit more advanced in the progression. Therefore, what we are observing in Venezuela is likely to be played out in other countries that have made the same mistake of taking on more debt than they can ever pay back.

As predicted, Venezuela is now well along with regard to hyperinflation.

The traditional definition of “inflation” is “the increase of the amount of money in circulation.” Today, we think of inflation as an increase in the cost of goods, but this is merely a predictable by-product of inflation. If the amount of money increases, the cost of goods will always rise to meet it. Therefore, the issuance of large amounts of paper money has only a very temporary positive effect. Ultimately, it creates an increase in the price of goods and services, which, in turn, calls for further printing.

In 1922, Germany was up to its eyes in debt, to the point that it was beyond repayment. The government, in attempting to overcome the dire poverty that had developed, decided to print more paper banknotes. The printing didn’t (and couldn’t) solve the problem, so they printed more. Then more again. They kept up the printing, until, by the autumn of 1922, the reichsmark was worth so little that new bills were being delivered to the banks in boxcars. A story of the time describes a man bringing a wheelbarrow of reichsmarks to a baker to buy a loaf of bread. Whilst in the shop, making the deal with the baker, he was robbed—the wheelbarrow full of money that he had left out on the sidewalk had been stolen. The thief dumped the reichsmarks on the pavement and made off with the wheelbarrow.

Above, we see a photo from the time—a wheelbarrow full of reichsmarks. Next to it, we see a photo from present-day Venezuela—a wheelbarrow full of bolivares.

So, are the leaders of Venezuela learning from the mistakes of other countries that have followed this pattern? Far from it. Recently, they took delivery of over five billion banknotes—enough to fill three dozen 747 cargo planes. At the same time, Venezuela is selling off its gold in order to pay for the new currency and other debts. Venezuela will soon run out of real money to pay for the fiat money, and that will bring the charade to a disastrous end.

The reader may say to himself, “When will people learn?” Sadly, they don’t. Incredibly, when the reichsmark collapsed in 1923, no one blamed the excessive printing. In fact, many people felt that if only the printing had continued just a bit longer, everything might have been all right.

What we can take away from this is that what happened in Weimar Germany in 1922–1923 is happening now in Venezuela in 2016. (And has happened in some twenty other countries over the last hundred years, most recently in Argentina in 2000 and in Zimbabwe in 2008.)

The same will occur in Europe and America in the fairly near future. That’s not a “Chicken Little” overreaction; it’s a virtual certainty. The same economic errors always bring the same catastrophic results.

Ben Bernanke, just two years prior to being named head of the Federal Reserve, assured an audience that the Fed would react to any deflationary trend by printing as many currency notes as necessary. This was no idle threat. Remember, the owners of the Fed profit heavily from the hidden tax of inflation, but lose money if there is deflation. That assures us that, with the present unsustainable level of U.S. national debt (nominally, some nineteen trillion dollars, but actually some hundred trillion dollars, including unfunded liabilities), a collapse in the dollar is a given.

And, of course, the severity of the crash is always commensurate with the level of the debt, which promises us that, since this debt load is by far the greatest the world has ever seen, the crash will be the greatest the world has ever seen.

Those who have studied the histories of countries after they’ve experienced a hyperinflationary collapse will be aware of what’s headed their way, if they reside in Europe or North America. Those who have not undertaken such a study might choose instead to watch the movie—to observe what happens in Venezuela as its hyperinflation plays out and learn what their own fate might be.

Our predicted outcome, which may have seemed hypothetical in 2014, is now right around the corner in Venezuela. This will be of value to the reader who watches as the collapse occurs, then observes what follows. The events that unfold will be essentially the events that will unfold in Europe and North America when their respective collapses occur.

This “movie” is not meant to be entertainment at the expense of others’ suffering; watching it is a way to forewarn oneself as to what’s coming to those countries that are irrevocably on the same path, but have not yet reached the same point.

By watching, the reader may be forewarned as to how to prepare himself so that, whilst his country may be headed toward economic collapse, he may take action to assure that the impact to himself, his family and his investments are diminished.

via http://ift.tt/1OK2M3C Tyler Durden

Submitted by Michael Krieger of LibertyBlitzkrieg

Here’s How the U.S. Government Treats Whistleblowers

What is it about whistleblowers that the powers that be can’t stand?

 

When I blew the whistle on the CIA’s illegal torture program, I was derided in many quarters as a traitor. My detractors in the government attacked me for violating my secrecy agreement, even as they ignored the oath we’d all taken to protect and defend the Constitution.

 

All of this happened despite the fact that the torture I helped expose is illegal in the United States. Torture also violates a number of international laws and treaties to which our country is signatory — some of which the United States itself was the driving force in drafting.

 

I was charged with three counts of espionage, all of which were eventually dropped when I took a plea to a lesser count. I had to choose between spending up to 30 months in prison and rolling the dice to risk a 45-year sentence. With five kids, and three of them under the age of 10, I took the plea.

 

Tom Drake — the NSA whistleblower who went through the agency’s chain of command to report its illegal program to spy on American citizens — was thanked for his honesty and hard work by being charged with 10 felonies, including five counts of espionage. The government eventually dropped the charges, but not before Drake had suffered terrible financial, professional, and personal distress.

This is an ongoing theme, especially in government

     – From the post: CIA Torture Program Whistleblower Speaks – “The Sad Fate of America’s Whistleblowers”

While we always knew the U.S. government’s line that Snowden had avenues for effective whistleblowing through official channels was a heaping pile of bullshit, it’s always good to prove the point.

The Guardian reports:

Edward Snowden has called for a complete overhaul of US whistleblower protections after a new source from deep inside the Pentagon came forward with a startling account of how the system became a “trap” for those seeking to expose wrongdoing.

 

The account of John Crane, a former senior Pentagon investigator, appears to undermine Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other major establishment figures who argue that there were established routes for Snowden other than leaking to the media.

 

Crane, a longtime assistant inspector general at the Pentagon, has accused his old office of retaliating against a major surveillance whistleblower, Thomas Drake, in an episode that helps explain Snowden’s 2013 National Security Agency disclosures. Not only did Pentagon officials provide Drake’s name to criminal investigators, Crane told the Guardian, they destroyed documents relevant to his defense.

 

Snowden, responding to Crane’s revelations, said he had tried to raise his concerns with colleagues, supervisors and lawyers and been told by all of them: “You’re playing with fire.”

 

Thomas Drake’s legal ordeal ruined him financially and ended in 2011 with all serious accusations against him dropped. His case served as a prologue to Snowden’s. Now Crane’s account has led to a new investigation at the US justice department into whistleblower retaliation at the Pentagon that may serve as an epilogue – one Crane hopes will make the Pentagon a safe place for insiders to expose wrongdoing and illegality.

 

Snowden cited Drake’s case as a reason for his lack of faith in the government’s official whistleblower channels.

 

“When I was at NSA, everybody knew that for anything more serious than workplace harassment, going through the official process was a career-ender at best. It’s part of the culture,” Snowden told the Guardian.

 

“If your boss in the mailroom lies on his timesheets, the IG might look into it. But if you’re Thomas Drake, and you find out the president of the United States ordered the warrantless wiretapping of everyone in the country, what’s the IG going to do? They’re going to flush it, and you with it.”

Thanks for playin’.

For related articles, see:

The “Insider Threat Program” and the Government’s War on Whistleblowers
The 3 Key Takeaways from the Ridiculous “Insider Threat Program”
CIA Torture Program Whistleblower Speaks on – “The Sad Fate of America’s Whistleblowers”
Have You Heard of John Kiriakou?
Revelations from the Torture Report – CIA Lies, Nazi Methods and the $81 Million No-Bid Torture Contract
CIA Torture Victims Launch Lawsuit Against Psychologist Masterminds Behind the Program

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

In Chicago, where homicides are out of control and estimated to top 550 in 2016 (the most since 2012), police are so desperate to correct the problem that they are throwing good old fashioned police work to the wind, and turning to 'Minority Report'-esque algorithms to do the work for them.

The Chicago PD is using an algorithm in order to generate a list of people from police databases in order to figure out who to "target." Each individual on the list is provided a score based on arrests, shootings, affiliations with gangs, and other variables. The intent of the list is to predict who is next to be shot, or shoot someone, and once the list is updated, authorities then go visit individuals with the highest scores at their home. The individuals are then told that they're on the list, and that they are being monitored the NYT reports.

In this city’s urgent push to rein in gun and gang violence, the Police Department is keeping a list. Derived from a computer algorithm that assigns scores based on arrests, shootings, affiliations with gang members and other variables, the list aims to predict who is most likely to be shot soon or to shoot someone.

 

The police have been using the list, in part, to choose individuals for visits, known as “custom notifications.” Over the past three years, police officers, social workers and community leaders have gone to the homes of more than 1,300 people with high numbers on the list. Mr. Johnson, the police superintendent, says that officials this year are stepping up those visits, with at least 1,000 more people.

 

During these visits — with those on the list and with their families, girlfriends and mothers — the police bluntly warn that the person is on the department’s radar. Social workers who visit offer ways out of gangs, including drug treatment programs, housing and job training.

 

“We let you know that we know what’s going on,” said Christopher Mallette, the executive director of the Chicago Violence Reduction Strategy, a leader in the effort. “You know why we’re here. We don’t want you to get killed.”

Authorities assume that by narrowing down the key players that are most likely to be involved in violence will allow them to stop it. Of course, civil liberties being irrelevant in today's world, the program is in use already. Police superintendent Eddie Johnson says that there is a small segment of people driving the violence, and although homicides are on the rise after three years of the program, the "Strategic Subject List" generated by the fourth revision of the algorithm is the answer to stopping them. Supporters of the program point to statistics such as 117 of the 140 people arrested in a drug and gang raid last week being on the list.

“We know we have a lot of violence in Chicago, but we also know there’s a small segment that’s driving this stuff,” Eddie Johnson, the police superintendent, said in a recent interview.

 

The authorities hope that knowing who is most likely to be involved in violence can bring them a step closer to curtailing it. They are warning those highest on the list that they are under intense scrutiny, while offering social services to those who want a path away from the bloodshed.

 

About three years into the program and on a fourth revision of the computer algorithm that generates the list, critics are raising pointed questions about potential breaches to civil liberties in the creation of such a ranking. And the list’s efficacy remains in doubt as killings and shootings have continued to rise this year.

 

In a city of 2.7 million people, about 1,400 are responsible for much of the violence, Mr. Johnson said, and all of them are on the department’s “Strategic Subject List.”

 

In a broad drug and gang raid carried out last week amid a disturbing uptick this year in shootings and murders, the Police Department said that 117 of the 140 people arrested were on the list. And in one recent report on homicides and shootings over a two-day stretch, nearly everyone involved was on the list.

 

“We are targeting the correct individuals,” Mr. Johnson said. “We just need our judicial partners and our state legislators to hold these people accountable.”

The algorithm was created by Miles Wernick, a professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology. Wernick says that while many variables are used to generate the list, the model avoids race, gender, ethnicity, and geography.

Miles Wernick, a professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology, created the algorithm.

 

It draws, the police say, on variables tied to a person’s past behavior, particularly arrests and convictions, to predict who is most likely to become a “party to violence.”

 

The police cite proprietary technology as the reason they will not make public the 10 variables used to create the list, but say that some examples include questions like: Have you been shot before? Is your “trend line” for crimes increasing or decreasing? Do you have an arrest for weapons?

 

Dr. Wernick says the model intentionally avoids using variables that could discriminate in some way, like race, gender, ethnicity and geography.

* * *

While it makes sense to use technology in order to prevent and solve crimes, the use of a 'Minority Report'-esque algorithm to generate "strategic subject lists" wreaks of infringing on individual's civil liberties. Then again, since when do civil liberties matter anymore. Also, as everything is now just being funneled into one big data warehouse that nobody is allowed to know anything about anyway, at least the Chicago Police Department admits to the targeting.

via http://ift.tt/25cVZJl Tyler Durden

Submitted by Duane Norman via SingleDudeTravel.com,

If Americans are so happy, then why do we consume 80 percent of the entire global supply of prescription painkillers?  Less than 5 percent of the world’s population lives in this country, and yet we buy four-fifths of these highly addictive drugs.  In the United States today, approximately 4.7 million Americans are addicted to prescription pain relievers, and that represents about a 300 percent increase since 1999. If you personally know someone that is suffering from this addiction, then you probably already know how immensely destructive these drugs can be. Someone that was formally living a very healthy and normal life can be reduced to a total basket case within a matter of weeks.

 

And of course many don’t make it back at all. According to the CDC, more than 28,000 Americans died from opioid overdoses in 2014.  Incredibly, those deaths represented 60 percent of all drug overdose deaths in the United States for that year… [Read more]

One of the most beat to death gun control arguments is “Your odds of dying go WAY higher if you have a gun in the home! No one should own guns, guns are deadly!”

Now replace the word “gun” with “opioid-based painkillers” – yes, I mean the Percocets, Vicodins, Oxycontins, and all the others. Now your argument is somewhere between 5 and 107 times as pertinent, depending on the classification of suicide, and addiction/accessibility.

Most people who use these arguments are simply regurgitating what they hear second-hand and/or are spoonfed by the mainstream media or whatever progressive outlet they choose to read. The truth is, they are largely ignoring or do not know about the danger of painkillers and other drugs in the home.

They are also ignoring obvious statistical trends, which show that while gun death rates are falling and have been for years…

Arriving at any number on total opioid-based prescription drug usage is extremely difficult, as there is no conclusive data as to the number of people who use them annually. The black market resale value of prescriptions, size and duration of prescriptions, and the potential access of household members to the drugs, makes any measure difficult, and I haven’t found any outlet that’s even attempted to try to measure the percentage of households with prescribed opioid-based painkillers. Its also important to note that a household with a gun has the gun year round, at risk to anyone in the household, while the opioids have much more limited household accessibility, as the addiction numbers show.

There are about 4.7 million people “addicted” to opioid-based prescription pain relievers, as per the cited Zero Hedge article. If we calculate a death rate only for those addicted to opioid-based prescription painkillers, and use the figure in the above chart citing 18,893 deaths from prescription opioid-based pain relievers, we come up with 402 per 100,000. While this number is obviously extremely high, this example is pertinent solely because it is indicative of the types of calculations used by progressive media to inflate the danger of guns in the home, which usually use the assumption that you can only die via gunshot if your home has a gun.

The addiction statistics aren’t accurate, however, and there are no conclusive numbers on the number of people prescribed to opioid-based painkillers in the US, and not in treatment for abuse. A roughshod calculation, citing 7 out of 10 of the 320 million Americans taking prescription drugs (yes, you read that right), and 13% of those being opioid-based painkillers, puts you at slightly over 29 million Americans prescribed opioid-based pain medications annually. In addition, the majority of opioid-based prescriptions have very limited durations; my younger brother had one for a broken wrist, I had one for wisdom teeth removal, each prescription provided only about 10 low strength pills with no refill. Despite the true number of households per annum with access to painkillers in the medicine cabinet being much lower, we will go with 29 million as the number of people whose household has an opioid-based prescription painkiller, in lieu of more conclusive data.

Using that figure, you get a household opioid-based prescription death rate of 65 per 100,000. And that assumes the high number of 29 million people with access. Also, suicides need to be broken out of both opioids and gun deaths – you can kill yourself any way you choose, and neither guns nor opioid-based painkillers are a prerequisite to do so. The CDC cites that 77% of poisoning deaths are unintentional accidents, 13% are suicide, and 9% are of “undetermined intent.” To give the benefit of the doubt, we’ll say just one third of the deaths of “undetermined intent” are indeed accidental, and go with an even 80% being accidental. That figure gives you 15,114 of last year’s opioid-based prescription deaths as accidental overdoses or homicide, or a rate of 52 per 100,000 within households with opioid-based painkillers in the medicine cabinet.

We’ll do the same exercise for guns, assuming that only people whose households own a gun can die as a result of one. To boot, we’ll use the low number of 34% of households with a gun (slightly under 109 million people), even though the NRA and other sources dispute this and put the estimate as high as 40-45% of households with a gun. Given that about 33,000 people die on average annually due to firearms related injuries, your death rate for households with one or more guns is 30 people per 100,000. If you break out the approximately 21,000 suicide gun deaths annually from these statistics, the household gun death rate is 11 people per 100,000. If you use a low estimate of 25% of gun victims not having a gun in the house, now you have a death rate of 7.5 per 100,000 for households with one or more guns. This is all using gun the highly questionable ownership and fatality rates from the progressive media, of course.

Editor’s note:

Live Science has a great article about your odds of dying from various causes and a lovely accompanying chart. You will notice that “suicide” is a tiny 2% of the pie. To put this all in perspective consider that in the US there were 41,149 suicides in 2013 of which 21,175 were committed using firearms. Compare this with “homicide by firearm” which is only 11,208 (see page 41).

 

This means the risk for death by homicide involving a firearm for general population at large was approximately 3.5 per 100,000 in 2013. You can imagine what happens to this number if you were to deduct all the homicides that occur in liberal gun control zones like Chicago (455 or more than 4% of the national total for 2013), Detroit, Baltimore, Washington DC, New York City, the entire state of California and so many others where it is nearly impossible to own and carry a handgun. The simple fact the liberal progressive parasites are always trying to obscure is that more [legal] gun ownership along with the right to carry results in less crime, not more.

 

However, as I pointed out above, those household gun death figures are completely bogus and are much higher than reality. For the obvious reason – you can’t die from prescription painkillers if you don’t take them, but anyone can kill you with a gun (including your local police, who kill 1,100 annually with guns Editor’s note: 2015 saw more than 1,200 killed by police.) Including suicides, the gun death rate for all Americans is about 10 per 100,000 Americans annually. Breaking out suicides and including solely homicides, accidents, and “other” sources of gun deaths annually, you get a gun death rate of 3.75 per 100,000.

Even if you take the figures including suicide, and you assume that you can only die from a gun if your home has one, you’re still more than twice as likely to die from prescription opioids. Pull out suicides, and you are about 5 times as likely to die from opioid-based painkillers than a gunshot. Say 75% of gun victims had a household gun, and now you’re 7 times as likely to die from a gunshot as opioid-based painkillers.

And all this is not even factoring in that my calculation of 29 million people with access to prescription opioid-based painkillers annually is likely extremely high. Or the fact that I’ve taken all of the progressive media estimates on gun ownership and fatality rates. I challenge anyone to tell me that my number is low and that there are more people with access to painkillers in the home at any given time than the figure I’ve cited; the truth is, a more accurate measure would likely push the number of households with access to these painkillers even lower. Higher estimates on gun ownership, which has likely gone up in the past few years, using the increase to over 20 million background checks per year as a measure, would show that painkillers are far more deadly in the home than guns are. And remember, even if the gun saved your life from a violent attacker, the gun control outlets and their statistics I’ve used will include that in their gun death data. Good luck getting the painkillers to do that.

So before you give me the same recycled argument from the progressive websites about how unsafe it is to have a gun at home, check your own medicine cabinet for whatever Perocets, Vicodins and Oxycontins might be in your house first. Even if you need the medications to listen to your argument about guns in the home, statistically speaking, you’d be much safer if you flush the medications down the toilet than you ever would be by removing your gun, regardless of your opinion on the causes of gun deaths.

Note: The numbers in this article are solely focused on deaths caused by legal opioid-based painkillers (19,000 annually as of 2014). Total overdose deaths are about 47,000 annually – Illegal opioids (heroin) account for another 9,000 deaths annually, and there are about another 19,000 whose overdose deaths are any other substance, whether its Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), cleaning solvent, or any number of prescription medications in your cabinet. Despite my focus on opioid-based painkillers, there are plenty of other substances you should toss out of the medicine cabinet and under the kitchen sink before you sell your gun, as the everyday household is filled with things besides painkillers that are far more likely to kill you than the gun is.

via http://ift.tt/25iQaxk Tyler Durden

South Africa's Standard Bank has confirmed that it is the latest bank to be hacked into, admitting that it had credit card data stolen and used in an elaborate scheme carried out in Japan.

On May 15th, between 5am and 8am, more than 100 people withdrew $13 million from 1400 ATMs across Japan in less than three hours. The coordinated heist involved forged credit cards, and data stolen from South Africa's Standard Bank. As The BBC reports,

The withdrawals targeted 7-Eleven cash machines, which unlike most in Japan accept foreign cards.

 

 

South Africa's Standard Bank estimated its total losses at $19.25m.

 

"Standard Bank has taken swift action to contain the matter" it said in a statement.

 

Japanese police are now examining security camera footage to identify suspects, and both countries are working with world police body Interpol to investigate how the data was stolen and how the heist was co-ordinated.

Standard Bank described the heist as "a sophisticated, coordinated fraud incident."

This is the latest in a series of incidents where bank cyber security measures have been insufficient to thwart hackers. Recall that just a few months ago $100 million was stolen from the Bangladesh central bank via the New York Fed, and just recently hackers stole another $12 million by rerouting "secure" global payment system transactions of Banco del Austro, an Ecuadorean bank.

At what point banks begin to get serious about cyber security remains to be seen, but one thing is clear, they are losing the game… and depositors money.

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

Submitted by Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity.com,

via http://ift.tt/20sU0gF Tyler Durden

Having been paid $90,000 in bonuses over the last 13 months, Kelly Hoggan – the head of security for TSA – has been fired…

UPDATE: Kelly Hoggan has been removed from his position as head of security at TSA, following our hearing on May 12 on mismanagement at TSA.

— Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) May 23, 2016

Whether he was responsible for the chaos that has led to 1000s of missed flights (or just following orders to force government deeper into the pre-check registrations) is unclear but for now we have a first scapegoat under the bus.

More @TSA. The official replaced is identified as Kelly Hoggan, the assistant administrator for the office of Security Operations.

— Charlie Kaye (@CharlieKayeCBS) May 23, 2016

Here is Airports Group today:

• *AIRPORTS GROUP: TSA SAYS SHORT 5,400 OFFICERS NATIONWIDE NOW
• *AIRPORTS GROUP: STOP SENDING PART OF 9-11 FEE TO PAY U.S. DEBT
• *AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTL CALLS FOR PERIOD OF REDUCED PRECHECK FEE

As Reuters reports,

The head of security for the U.S. Transportation Security Administration has been removed from his position, the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight Committee said on Monday on Twitter.

 

The House panel, which held a hearing last week on long lines at airport security checkpoints, did not give a reason for Kelly Hoggan's dismissal as TSA assistant administrator for security operations.

 

Members of the committee criticized the TSA for awarding over $90,000 in bonuses and awards to Hoggan over a 13-month period.

Remember this – it is an unusual event – a Federal employee being held accountable for some lack of performance.

via http://ift.tt/1YTqn7z Tyler Durden

A quick note from Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management, which explains in very simply terms how as oil tumbled and its volatility soared, virtually everyone who manages large amounts of money missed the oil price rebound.

“Oil is a 60 vol instrument,” said the CIO. “If you’re targeting 10 vol for your fund, how much oil could you own?” he asked. “At most you put 15% of your fund in the trade.” Meaning you had nothing else in the book. “So imagine you caught 50% of the 70% crude rally. Your absolute best case would’ve been a 7.5% gross return.” But of course, few people target 10% vol even if they say they do, and no one puts 100% of their risk in one trade. “So realistically your best case was more likely +2.5% on this heroic rally, which is why the industry is broken.”

As the chart below show, oil vol has dropped to 40 now, which means on a risk adjusted basis it is only modestly more attractive.

Ironically, the higher oil goes, the more attractive it is for those who stayed away when it was at $25 (at a vol of 80), just as the next leg lower – if DB is corect – is about to arrive.

via http://ift.tt/1s5Op4J Tyler Durden