FTC Launches Investigation Into Herbalife: Check To Uncle Carl

A week ago, we highlighted something that very few had noticed– an FTC retweet regarding Herbalife. To wit:

Retweets are not endorsements… but they really usually are. Which is the reason some are wondering just why did the FTC show a specific appreciation of this particular tweet sent out yesterday by a user who appears to have a bone to pick with Herbalife, Nu Skin and other alleged pyramid schemes:

Seen here in the FTC’s twitter stream, where incidentally there are virtually no other retweets:

 

We wondered out loud:

So which is it: is the FTC proud of its lack of action on alleged
pyramid schemes and decided to call attention to this tweet, or is it a
hint that something bigger is coming
in the stock that otherwise is
quite irrelevant, if it weren’t for the epic billionaire pissing match
between Carl Icahn and Bill Ackman, which we be resolved either when HLF
is LBOed and Ackman’s biggest loss of all time gets even bigger, or
when Icahn faces a loss of a few hundred million, which to him is
nothing, but losing face to Ackman – everything?

Turns out the tweet was not an accident, and moments ago Herbalife after being halted, announced that indeed the FTC is going after it:

Herbalife (NYSE: HLF) announced it received today a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  In response, Herbalife issued the following statement:

 

Herbalife welcomes the inquiry given the tremendous amount of misinformation   in the marketplace, and will cooperate fully with the FTC.  We are confident   that Herbalife is in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.  Herbalife is a financially strong and successful company, having created meaningful value for shareholders, significant opportunities for distributors and positively impacted the lives and health of its consumers for over 34 years.  

 

Herbalife does not intend to make any additional comments regarding this matter unless and until there are material developments.

Looks like all that lobby spending by Ackman finally worked. And now, Uncle Carl has to outspend Ackman’s lobbyists to impress the whores in Washington even more and to shut up the FTC.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1nMRsaO Tyler Durden

Bitcoin Was 2013’s Best “Risk-Adjusted” Performer

US equities surged… Japanese stocks soared.. and Europe recovered greatly but on a risk-adjusted-return basis, Goldman Sachs notes, nothing beat Bitcoin in 2013…

 

 

2014… not so much…

Daniel Masters of Global Advisors sums up his allocation to Bitcoin:

I am optimistic about its prospects for success, but I am not unrealistic. I have a personal and professional investment in Bitcoin, so clearly I am talking my own position. But I have invested precisely what I am prepared to lose 100% of. That is how risky I think it is. I do not normally go around making investments thinking I might lose 100%. I only do so when I think I have a chance of making many multiples of that.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1nMRpeW Tyler Durden

Stellar 10 Year Auction Stop1.4 bps Through, Highest Bid To Cover, Lowest Dealer Award In One Year

Moments ago the Treasury sold $21 billion in benchmark OTRs in the form of a 9-year-11-month reopening of Cusip B66, in a whopper of an auction that saw the high yield of 2.729% price 1.4 bps through the 2.743% When Issued. But more than just blistering demand at the pricing, all the internals were solid across the board: the Bid to Cover of 2.92x was well above the 2.54x from February, and the 2.68x TTM average. In fact, this was the highest BTC since March of last year. And in keeping with one year anniversary records, the Dealer Award was a paltry 29.1% which also was the lowest in a year. Indirects were 43.4%, down from 49.7% in February, which means that Direct soared, and sure enough they did, from 16.2% to 27.5%. Overall a stellar auction, and one confirming that the smart money continues to prefer allocation to fixed income, instead of believing the latest “growth stories” explaining away the second coming of the dot com bubble in Bernanke’s centrally-planned farce of a market.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/OmpLc1 Tyler Durden

Guest Post: Why The Wealth Effect Doesn’t Work

Submitted by Chris Casey of the Ludwig von Mises Institute,

Higher equity prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can spur spending. — Ben Bernanke, 2010

Across all financial media, between both political parties, and among most mainstream economists, the “wealth effect” is noted, promoted, and touted. The refrain is constant and the message seemingly simple: by increasing people wealth through rising stock and housing prices, the populace will increase their consumer spending which will spur economic growth. Its acceptance is as widespread as its justification is important, for it provides the rationale for the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented monetary expansion since 2008. While critics may dispute the wealth effect’s magnitude, few have challenged its conceptual soundness. Such is the purpose of this article. The wealth effect is but a mantra without merit.

The overarching pervasiveness of wealth effect acceptance is not wholly surprising, for it is a perfect blend of the Monetarist and Keynesian Schools. While its exact parentage and origin appears uncertain, its godfather is surely Milton Friedman who published his permanent income theory of consumption in 1957. In bifurcating disposable income into “transitory” and “permanent” income, Friedman argued the latter dictates our spending and consists of our expected income in perpetuity. If consumer spending is generated by expected income, then surely it must also be supported by current wealth?

But this may or may not be true. It will vary across time, place, and among various economic actors whose decisions about consumer spending are dictated by their time preferences. And time preferences — the degree to which an individual favors a good or service today (consumption) relative to future enjoyment — take into account far more variables than the current, unrealized wealth reported in brokerage statements and housing appraisals.

Regardless as to whether or not increased wealth will actually spur increased consumer spending, the most important component of the wealth effect is the assumption that increased consumer spending stimulates economic growth. It is this Keynesian concept which is critical to the wealth effect’s validity. If increased consumer spending fails to stimulate the economy, the theory of the wealth effect fails. Wealth effect turns into wealth defect.

Will increased consumer spending improve the economy? On one side of the argument, we have the aggregate individual conclusions of hundreds of millions of economic actors, each acting in their own best interest. These individuals and businesses are attempting to reduce consumer spending and increase savings.

Dissenting from their views are the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. Each member believes in the paradox of thrift — the belief that increased savings, while beneficial for any particular economic actor, have deleterious effects for the economy as a whole. The paradox of thrift can essentially be described as such: decreased consumer spending lowers aggregate demand which reduces employment levels which negatively affects consumption which in turn lowers aggregate demand. The paradox predicts an economic death spiral from diminished demand. And mainstream economists believe we were (and potentially are) mired in such a spiral. As noted econo-sadist Paul Krugman noted in 2009: “we won’t always face the paradox of thrift. But right now it’s very, very real.”

The inverse of this “reality” predicts flourishing economic prosperity when a society increases its consumer spending. But history suggests the opposite: it is higher savings rates which lead to economic prosperity. Examine any economic success story such as modern China, nineteenth century America, or post-World War II Japan and South Korea: did their economic rise derive from unbridled consumption, or strict frugality? The answer is self-evident: it is the savings from the curtailment of consumption, combined with minimal government involvement in economic affairs, which generates economic growth.

So why do so many “preeminent” economists falsely believe in the paradox of thrift, and thus the wealth effect? It is because of their mistaken understanding of the nature of savings. The Austrian economist Mark Skousen addressed this in writing:

    Savings do not disappear from the economy; they are merely channeled into a different avenue. Savings are spent on investment capital now and then spent on consumer goods later.

Savings are spent. Not directly by consumers on electronics and espressos, but indirectly by businesses via banks on more efficient machinery and capital expansions. Increased savings may (initially) negatively affect retail shops, but it benefits producers who create the goods demanded from the increased pool of savings. On the whole, the economy is more efficient and prosperous.

Does this economic maxim hold even when the economy is in a recession? Even more so. As all Austrian economists know, business cycles derive from government manipulation of the money supply which artificially lowers and distorts the structure of interest rates.[9] To minimize the length and severity of a recession, economic actors should save more which will reduce the gap between artificial and natural rates of interest.

Regrettably, this is not merely an academic discussion. Due to their mistaken economic beliefs, the Federal Reserve has quadrupled the money supply while bringing interest rates to historic lows. The results will inevitably arise: significant price inflation, volatile financial markets, and severe economic downturns. In many respects, Sir Francis Bacon’s aphorism that “knowledge is power” is true. Unfortunately, in the economic realm, the Austrian economist F.A. Hayek was closer to the truth: those in power possess the pretense of knowledge.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/N6NRqh Tyler Durden

Bond Trading Grinds To A Halt: Goldman Set To Report Weakest Q1 Since 2005; Revenues Down As Much As 25% Elsewhere

The topic of disappearing bond market liquidity and volume has been beaten to death on this site over the past several years. Nothing new here: thanks to the Fed’s central-planning mission creep which has made efficient and fair markets into a surreal mockery, first equity, and then fixed income trading has been made irrelevant as there is no longer such a thing as price discovery, and with it have disappeared liquidity in the two largest equity and fixed income markets in the world.

It got so bad even the TBAC was openly complaining to the Treasury last August that there is no longer a bond market in the conventional sense, with the clear implication that since there are barely any fixed income transactions, Wall Street can’t make money on either flow or prop trading side of things (and also warned that if and when the selling starts in earnest, watch out below). Alas, since Wall Street was explicitly fighting the Fed (remember: the main reason there is no volume is because nobody is selling) Wall Street has once again lost, and despite its appeals, the time to pay the piper has come. Said payment will be taken out of bank Q1 earnings which as everyone knows, will continue the declining trend seen in recent years (so much for that whole Net Interest Margin fable), but to learn just how bad, we go to the FT which reports that fixed income groups across Wall Street “are set for their worst start to the year since before the financial crisis, with revenue declines of up to 25%.”

The punchline: “Analysts now expect Goldman Sachs to record its weakest first quarter since 2005 and JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America are forecast to see their lowest revenues since they bought Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch, respectively, in 2008.

More from FT:

The weakness is expected to be even more severe among European banks such as Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse, which are looking to meet new capital requirements by shrinking their balance sheets. “Anecdotally it seems Europeans are losing most share in the US itself and so are losing global diversification,” said Huw van Steenis, analyst at Morgan Stanley.

 

Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase have warned publicly that fixed income revenues – the engine of most investment banks’ profits since 2000 – will be down by double digits when they report first-quarter earnings next month. But other banks privately warn that their year-on-year declines could exceed 25 per cent after both institutional investors and banks shied away from trading. The first quarter is traditionally a high point for revenues.

 

The top 10 banks are expected to make a combined $24.8bn of revenues in fixed income trading, which includes bonds, currencies and commodities, according to Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse estimates, more than 40 per cent below the first quarter of 2009 when the market rebounded sharply from the crisis.

 

Christian Bolu, analyst at Credit Suisse, estimated that US government bond trading volumes are down about 8 per cent so far this year compared with the same period in 2013. Trading of mortgage-backed securities backed by the US government is down 41 per cent, while corporate bond trading has increased by 12 per cent.

And why wouldn’t it be? Recall that not even HFTs make incremental money in stocks and bonds, having been forced into that wild west of FX and options (and the result is that even cash cows like Virtu are now selling equity, as the trading top is obviously in). Who do banks have to thank for this? Why the Fed of course, which has made volatility a thing of the past, and with it, has essentially made selling of any kind borderline illegal.

Also keepin mind that 2013 wasn’t exactly a blockbuster year: as was reported today by NY State, total 2013 Wall Street profits were $16.7 billion, down 30% from 2012, and the second lowest since the Lehman collapse. At this rate 2014 will be the second year in a row in which Wall Street profits have declined (if not bonuses), and may be the worst year for bank profitability since 2008.

So what happens next:

Two of the top five fixed income divisions told the Financial Times they expected to respond by cutting more jobs because the market is worse than expected, with traders blaming patchy macroeconomic data, interest rate uncertainty, regulation that limits risk taking and worries about the situation in Ukraine.

 

“Effectively, the casino is empty this quarter,” said Brad Hintz, analyst at AllianceBernstein.

The good news: as the NY State comptroller reported today, 2013 bonuses of $26.7 billion were the highest since the Lehman crisis. So for everyone who has a job: enjoy your near-record bonus. For everyone else, repeat after us: “but… but… the recovery”


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1g9omf4 Tyler Durden

Stocks Follow Copper Bounce, Ignore Bond, Bullion Safe-Haven Bid

Between AUDJPY and and VIX slamming, the S&P 500 is pushing back up towards green. However, a glance at gold prices (at six-month highs $1365), Treasuries (retraced all of Friday's non-farm-payrolls losses), and Swiss 2Y rates shows a safe-haven bid is alive and well. Yuan offshore rates are modestly strengthening and copper prices are bouncing as hopes remain that the unwind of the multi-trillion-dollar inflation of the Chinese shadow-banking system has run its course and all is well again. Perhaps the algos are confused once again that Europe does not close for another hour.

 

It seems the algos were not told about the shift to DST in the US (and not Europe) as they try to ramp into the European close that doesn't happen for another hour…

 

AUDJPY running the show with stocks…

 

Bonds are well bid…

 

And copper is bouncing as China's NPC closes (and the Yuan rises modestly)

 

As a reminder – this is a long way from being over given the re-mortgaging of Chinese collateral. As a gentle reminder – here is how the Chinese cash-for-copper deals work (and are unwound)…

 

 

Charts: Bloomberg


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1kixmne Tyler Durden

How The Fed Has Failed America, Part 2

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

The only way to eliminate the financial parasites is to stop subsidizing their skimming and scamming, and the only way to stop subsidizing the financial parasites is to shut down the Fed.

Before I explain how the Federal Reserve has failed America, let's do a little thought experiment. Let's imagine that instead of creating $3.2 trillion and giving it to the banking sector to play with–funding carry trades and high-frequency trading, for example–the Fed had invested in carry trades itself and returned the profits directly to taxpayers.

Before we go through the math, let's recall how a carry trade works: Financiers borrow billions at near-zero interest from the Fed and then use the free money to buy bonds in other countries where the return is (say) 5%. The financiers are skimming 4.75% or more for doing nothing other than having access to the Fed's free money.

If the bonds rise in value (because interest rates decline in the nation issuing the bonds), the financiers skim additional profit. If the trade can be leveraged via derivatives, then the annual return can be bumped up from 5% to 10%.

OK, back to the experiment. The Fed created $3.2 trillion in its quantitative easing (QE) programs. let's say the Fed's money managers (or gunslingers hired by the Fed to handle the trading) earn around 5% annually with various low-risk carry trades.

That works out to an annual profit of $160 billion (5% of $3.2 trillion). Now let's say the Fed divvied the profit up among everyone who paid Social Security taxes the previous year. That's around 140 million wage earners. Every person who paid Social Security taxes would receive $1,100 from the Fed's carry trade profits.

The point of this experiment is to suggest that there were plenty of things the Fed could have done with its $3.2 trillion that would have directly benefited taxpaying Americans, but instead the Fed funneled all those profits to financiers and banks.

The Fed apologists claim that lowering interest rates to zero benefited American who saw their interest payments decline. Nice, but not necessarily true. Try asking a student paying 9% for his student loans how much his interest rate dropped due to Fed policy. Or ask someone paying 19.9% in credit card interest (gotta love that .1% that keeps it under 20%)–how much did your interest drop as a result of Fed policy?

Answer: zip, zero, nada. The Fed's zero interest rate policy (ZIRP)funneled profits to the banks, not to borrowers.

And let's not forget that many Americans chose not to borrow at all. What did the Fed do for them? It stole the interest they once earned on their savings. Estimates vary, but it is clear that the Fed's ZIRP transferred hundreds of billions of dollars in interest to the banking sector, income forceably "donated" by savers to the banks.

Lowering interest rates to zero is effectively a forced subsidy of borrowers by savers. But that's not the only subsidy: who makes money from originating and managing loans? Banks. The more loans that are originated, the higher the transaction fees and profits flowing to banks. So incentivizing borrowing generates more profits for banks.

Humans make decisions based on the incentives and disincentives in place at the time of their decision. Lowering the cost of money (interest) to zero creates an incentive to gamble the money on low-yield bets. After all, if you can earn 3% on the free money, then why not skim the free 3%?

If speculators had to pay 6% for money and 7.5% for mortgages (the going rate in the go-go 1990s), then the number of available carry trades plummets. The only carry trades that make sense when you're paying 6% for money are those with yields of 10%–and any bond paying 10% carries a high risk of default (otherwise, the issuer wouldn't have to offer such a high rate of interest to lure buyers).

All of these incentives to borrow money at zero interest rate are only available to banks and financiers. And that's the point of the Fed's policies: to stripmine the bottom 99.5% and transfer the wealth to banks and financiers. Lowering interest rates to zero incentivizes carry trades and speculative bets that do absolutely nothing for America or the bottom 99.5% of taxpayers.

A self-employed worker pays 50% more tax than a hedge funder skimming billions of dollars in carry trades. A self-employed worker pays 15.3% in Social Security and Medicare taxes and a minimum of 15% Federal income tax for a minimum of 30.3%. (The higher your income, the higher your tax rate, which quickly rises to 25% and up.) The hedge funder pays no Social Security tax at all because the carry trade profits are "long-term capital gains" which are taxed at 15% (20% if the Hedgie skims more than $400,000 a year).

Despite the Fed apologists' claims that ZIRP and free money handed to banks and financiers create jobs and start businesses, there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. The only beneficiaries of Fed policies are tax accountants for the banks and financiers and luxury auto dealerships. Since Porsches and Maseratis are not made in the U.S., the benefits of the top .5% buying costly gew-gaws and evading taxes is extremely limited.

Attention, all apologists, lackeys, toadies, minions and factotums of the Fed: is there any plausible explanation for the wealthiest .5% pulling away from everyone else since the Fed launched ZIRP and QE other than Fed policies? And while we're at it, how about publishing a verifiable list of companies that were founded and now employ hundreds of people because the owners could borrow millions of dollars at zero interest?

Get real–no new business can borrow Fed money for zero interest. The only entities that can borrow the Fed's free money are banks and other financial parasites.

The truth is the Fed incentivizes and rewards the most parasitic, least productive sector of the economy and forcibly transfers the interest that was once earned by the productive middle class to the parasites. Though the multitudes of apologists, lackeys, toadies, minions and factotums of the Fed will frantically deny it, the inescapable truth is that the nation and the bottom 99.5% would be instantly and forever better off were the Fed closed down and its assets liquidated.

The only way to eliminate the financial parasites is to stop subsidizing their skimming and scamming, and the only way to stop subsidizing the financial parasites is to shut down the Fed.


Source: Wealth, Income, and Power (G. William Domhoff)


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/PtnAEI Tyler Durden

Conan O’Brien Does Bitcoin

This is the second humorous Bitcoin related video I have posted within the past week. The last one being the very funny: Shit Bitcoin Fanatics Say.

Well now the always hilarious Conan O’Brien is having a go at it. Unfortunately, the way he pokes fun at Bitcoin is actually how the majority of people out there still see it. Nevertheless, it’s great stuff as always. Enjoy!

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 1LefuVV2eCnW9VKjJGJzgZWa9vHg7Rc3r1

 Follow me on Twitter.

Conan O’Brien Does Bitcoin originally appeared on A Lightning War for Liberty on March 12, 2014.

continue reading

from A Lightning War for Liberty http://ift.tt/1hckkoG
via IFTTT

Bank Of England Warns Of Dangers Of Rising House Prices – “Temporary Self-Fulfilling Prophecy”

DAILY PRICE REPORT

Today’s AM fix was USD 1355.75, EUR 977.47 and GBP 817.01 per ounce.
Yesterday’s AM fix was USD 1,348.00, EUR 973.57 and GBP 810.44 per ounce.

Gold rose $7.10 or 0.5% yesterday to $1,347/oz. Silver closed unchanged on the day at $20.81/oz.

UK Bank Base Rate (1694-2014) – BOE, Church House

Gold is higher in all currencies again today and has surged to the highest level in almost six months, as increasing geopolitical tension leads to safe haven demand. Concerns about the Chinese and indeed the global economy is also supporting gold. Gold has been particularly strong in sterling in recent days and is nearly 3% higher in sterling this week.

Russia, the world’s largest energy exporter, having taken control of Crimea is contributing to the worst crisis between Russia and the West since the Cold War. Overnight, Ukraine’s deposed Russian backed president warned of a possible civil war. The U.S. and EU have said that Russia must switch course in Crimea by next week or risk more sanctions.

Gold in British Pounds – 5 Years (Bloomberg)

Bank Of England Warns Of Dangers Of Rising House Prices – “Temporary Self-Fulfilling Prophecy”

The speed UK property prices are surging at is “approaching madness”, analysts have warned, after UK data showed house prices jumped 2.4% in February alone, the biggest monthly increase in five years.

According to the Halifax House Price Index, prices also surged 7.9% year on year to an average of £179,872. This marks the strongest price gains since October 2007, prior to the global financial crisis.

Speaking to the Telegraph, Oliver Atkinson, director at urbansalesandlettings.co.uk, said in parts of Britain “the momentum is approaching madness, as price rises continue to accelerate”.

The rise, revealed in the latest Halifax House Price Index, outstripped analysts’ expectations of a 0.7% rise, renewing fears of a house price bubble.

Interest rates will rise six fold by 2017, the Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said yesterday.

The increase to more “normal” levels is likely to plunge many borrowers into financial difficulty and put pressure on over extended mortgage borrowers and on the property market.

Carney said that Bank rate could reach 3% within three years, six times the current 0.5% rate.

Carney admitted that there were concerns that spiralling property prices could encourage people in other parts of London and Britain to take out mortgages that they would be unable to afford once interest rates start rising from their historic low of 0.5%.

“Our concern would also be that a rising housing market, occasioned in part because of the dynamics in prime central london, would encourage individuals to take greater risk without fully incorporating entire interest rate cycles that would transpire over the life of a mortgage,” he added.

He warned of the dangers of a “temporary self-fulfilling prophecy” of house prices just continuing to rise which could lead to many households taking on too much debt and leaving them in “vulnerable” positions for many years.

GoldCore believe that ultimately, London property prices are unsustainable and may be subject to a violent correction.

Given that interest rates are at historical lows, London property prices are vulnerable to any upward movement in interest rates. A material slowdown in the UK or in the global economy or even another global financial crisis would curtail international cash buyers leading to falls in London property prices.

Our most recent report looked at the London property market.
Download your copy here: Is London’s Property Bubble Set To Burst?


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1idd92d GoldCore