Stocks Close At Record High On Russian ICBM Launch

It would appear the BFTATH mentaility has morphed into a BTFICBMD perspective as the "market" shrugs off an 'apparently expected' ICBM launch to soar to new record highs with the best day in stocks for months (if not years). USDJPY was in charge intraday as 102 was flushed through (with JPY's biggest drop in 2 months) and dragged stocks (led by the "most-shorted") non-stop. Equity volumes were 20-30% below yesterday's. The USD was relatively unmoved on the day (modestly higher oddly on a risk-on day). Gold and oil prices slipped (but remain in the green on the week) as Silver slipped into the red. Copper rallied. Treasury yields surged 6-8bps (the biggest jump in 4 months) as 2s10s steepened 6bps. VIX was cracked 2 vols lower to 14%. The S&P closed at 1873, just 27 points shy of Goldman's 2014 year-end target.

 

For a brief few minutes, stocks actually sold off – when Russia launched an ICBM – but what a great opportunity to buy that was:

 

and across all the indices – the launch of an ICBM was hardly noticed (especially Trannies)… evidently the bulk of gains wer ein the US open to EU close session…

 

USDJPY was in charge… fun-durr-mentals!!!

 

Which smashed the Russell to all-time-highs, the S&P to all-time highs (and therefore green for 2014) with only the Dow in the red still since the end of 2013…

 

Financials pushed back into the green for 2014 leading the way along with Healthcare (Biotechs) today…

 

The Fantastic-Five were mixed today with all of them weak after Europe closed…

 

Treasury yields smashed higher with the biggest yield rise in 4 months… with notable steepening in 2s10s

 

The USD went dead-stick after Europe's close to end up around 0.5% on the week…

 

While correlations across risk assets were high, the afternoon – post US open, gold decoupled – not selling off as much as would have been expected…

 

Gold and oil sold off and recoupled with copper as Silver slid into the red on the week…

 

Since its 1979 inception, the small-cap Russell 2000 has been +3% to a 52-week high only 1 other time, Feb 29, 2000… that didn't end well…

Charts: Bloomberg

Bonus Chart: Stocks are the most divergent from broad risk sentiment since the big correction in 2012 (h/t @Not_Jim_Cramer)


    



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

Official Who Set Guidelines For British Internet Porn Filters Arrested On Child Porn Charges

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Last summer, I wrote an article titled: How Internet in the UK is “Sleepwalking into Censorship.” That post detailed how plans in the UK to unveil default internet filters, sold to the public under the guise of “blocking child porn” and all sorts of other unethical and illegal activities, would actually provide a backdoor to censoring the internet.

Well it turns out it is even worse than that. Apparently, Patrick Rock, an official who helped draw up guidelines on Internet porn filters, has been arrested for child porn. You can’t make this stuff up.

From Raw Story:

A senior aide to British Prime Minister David Cameron has resigned after being arrested on suspicion of child pornography offenses, Downing Street confirmed Monday.

 

Patrick Rock, 62, was arrested by officers from the National Crime Agency last month.

 

“On the evening of February 12, Downing Street was first made aware of a potential offense relating to child abuse imagery,” said a Downing Street spokesman.

 

Rock, who helped draw up guidelines on Internet porn filters, was an adviser to the Conservative party for 30 years.

 

A friend of Cameron told the Daily Mail, which uncovered the arrest, that the prime minister was “extremely shocked.”

Full article here.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/NsOj2W Tyler Durden

Russia and its Dollar Reserves: Going Nowhere Fast

Provided the military situation in Ukraine and Crimea does not escalate from here, it is likely the Russia will get a proverbial slap on its wrists for bearing its canines and the military display of what largely amounts to a shot across the Ukrainian bow.  

 

The democratic coup against a corrupt, but elected pro-Russia president, took on a strident anti-Russian posture that the EU and US seemed to be encouraging.  The effort to drop Russian as the second official language in the Ukraine was too much for Putin who had made it clear, according to various press reports, that Ukraine was of strategic importance to Moscow.   

 

The recent sequence of events went something like this:  After being on the verge of signing an agreement of closer economic ties with the EU, Ukraine President Yanukovich reversed himself, no doubt under both promises of a carrot and the threat of the Russian stick, and appeared to have reached a deal with Moscow.  A protest in the Kiev ensued that ended up toppling Yanukovich and ushering a pro-Europe and anti-Russian unelected government.  Russia claims the EU, the US and Poland were behind the protests.   

 

Following Russia’s military incursion, the US want to hit back hard, in non-military means.  Amid the inevitable comparisons with Hitler, various sanctions aired, including personal travel bans, an ejection from Russia from the G8, and trade and finance measures.  Europe, which appeared to have taken more aggressive position than  the US in terms of Libya and Syria,  drew back from the US retaliation.   It is more willing to make an accommodation with Russia.  After all, its naval base has been in Crimea for than a couple hundred years and through that base, and Stalin’s forced migration (Tatars out Russians in), Moscow has dominated.    

 

Fighting its own civil war in the 19th century, the US was late to the imperialist game of carving up the world into spheres of influence.  The Open Door Notes, penned by then Secretary of State John Hay, was a refutation of the entire spheres of influence approach to international relations and offered an alternative view.  Instead of fixed spheres of interest, there would be variable shares whose variability was a function of economic prowess rather than political concessions.  Hay was talking specifically about the territorial integrity of China, but the general view has been globalized.   

 

Europe is more sympathetic to the traditional spheres of influence approach.  It has extended the EU and has supported the expansion of NATO to reduce the Russian sphere of influence in the post-Soviet Union era.    By trying to win the Ukraine, it over-reached and Russia’s show of force was a sufficient resistance for Europe to quickly return to political reality.    

 

A Putin adviser was quoted on the news wires, indicating that Russia could respond to any US-sponsored sanctions with actions of its own, which could include abandoning the dollar as a reserve currency and/or defaulting on loans to US banks.  Although the adviser Sergei Glazyev views were said to be his own and not the government,  the implicit threat is there.  

 

However, it is a hollow threat; a bluff,  little more than bluster.    Russia does not hold dollar in reserves out of some kind of ill-placed generosity to the US.  It is not a favor to the US.  It is forced upon Russia by circumstances, some of which reflect Russia’s own self-interest.  First, it gets dollars for most of its exports.  Second, it adopted a currency regime in which the dollar plays an important role.  The dollar is 55% of the basket (euro is the other 45%) by which it manages its currency.    

 

Third, Russia has the fourth largest currency reserves in the world (behind China, Japan and Saudi Arabia ) at the end of January, which excluding gold , stood near $486 bln.   A little less than half the reserves were in dollars a year ago or roughly $225 bln.  Given the relative size of alternative bond markets, a move of this amount out of the US Treasury market, where we assume most is invested in, might be marginally disruptive, but would be exceptionally disruptive to where ever it was going.In order to defend the rouble, reports suggest that it has sold dollars.  

 

There is some talk that it may have to sell euros to maintain its reserve allocation.  This obviously not the same abandoning the dollar as a reserve asset.  Indeed, Russia’s own intervention underscores the important role of the dollar. 

 

The threat of selected default against US creditors is also bluster.  The hit US banks, which appear to have less than $20 bln of Russian exposure, would be minor compared to the likely market response, which would include demanding a much higher risk premium for lending to Russia.    

 

The effectiveness of US sanctions against Russia are almost toothless if they are unilateral.  With Russia threatening to raise energy prices to Ukraine, ostensibly because it is in arrears, may force the US and/or Europe to subsidize Ukraine more than it intended, which will ultimately go into the Russian coffers.    The conditions that the IMF will likely require to put Ukraine on more sustainable fiscal footing will mean economic hardship and may do more to push Ukraine away from the West than nearly anything Russia could do. 


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1dnwNqi Marc To Market

Russia and its Dollar Reserves: Going Nowhere Fast

Provided the military situation in Ukraine and Crimea does not escalate from here, it is likely the Russia will get a proverbial slap on its wrists for bearing its canines and the military display of what largely amounts to a shot across the Ukrainian bow.  

 

The democratic coup against a corrupt, but elected pro-Russia president, took on a strident anti-Russian posture that the EU and US seemed to be encouraging.  The effort to drop Russian as the second official language in the Ukraine was too much for Putin who had made it clear, according to various press reports, that Ukraine was of strategic importance to Moscow.   

 

The recent sequence of events went something like this:  After being on the verge of signing an agreement of closer economic ties with the EU, Ukraine President Yanukovich reversed himself, no doubt under both promises of a carrot and the threat of the Russian stick, and appeared to have reached a deal with Moscow.  A protest in the Kiev ensued that ended up toppling Yanukovich and ushering a pro-Europe and anti-Russian unelected government.  Russia claims the EU, the US and Poland were behind the protests.   

 

Following Russia’s military incursion, the US want to hit back hard, in non-military means.  Amid the inevitable comparisons with Hitler, various sanctions aired, including personal travel bans, an ejection from Russia from the G8, and trade and finance measures.  Europe, which appeared to have taken more aggressive position than  the US in terms of Libya and Syria,  drew back from the US retaliation.   It is more willing to make an accommodation with Russia.  After all, its naval base has been in Crimea for than a couple hundred years and through that base, and Stalin’s forced migration (Tatars out Russians in), Moscow has dominated.    

 

Fighting its own civil war in the 19th century, the US was late to the imperialist game of carving up the world into spheres of influence.  The Open Door Notes, penned by then Secretary of State John Hay, was a refutation of the entire spheres of influence approach to international relations and offered an alternative view.  Instead of fixed spheres of interest, there would be variable shares whose variability was a function of economic prowess rather than political concessions.  Hay was talking specifically about the territorial integrity of China, but the general view has been globalized.   

 

Europe is more sympathetic to the traditional spheres of influence approach.  It has extended the EU and has supported the expansion of NATO to reduce the Russian sphere of influence in the post-Soviet Union era.    By trying to win the Ukraine, it over-reached and Russia’s show of force was a sufficient resistance for Europe to quickly return to political reality.    

 

A Putin adviser was quoted on the news wires, indicating that Russia could respond to any US-sponsored sanctions with actions of its own, which could include abandoning the dollar as a reserve currency and/or defaulting on loans to US banks.  Although the adviser Sergei Glazyev views were said to be his own and not the government,  the implicit threat is there.  

 

However, it is a hollow threat; a bluff,  little more than bluster.    Russia does not hold dollar in reserves out of some kind of ill-placed generosity to the US.  It is not a favor to the US.  It is forced upon Russia by circumstances, some of which reflect Russia’s own self-interest.  First, it gets dollars for most of its exports.  Second, it adopted a currency regime in which the dollar plays an important role.  The dollar is 55% of the basket (euro is the other 45%) by which it manages its currency.    

 

Third, Russia has the fourth largest currency reserves in the world (behind China, Japan and Saudi Arabia ) at the end of January, which excluding gold , stood near $486 bln.   A little less than half the reserves were in dollars a year ago or roughly $225 bln.  Given the relative size of alternative bond markets, a move of this amount out of the US Treasury market, where we assume most is invested in, might be marginally disruptive, but would be exceptionally disruptive to where ever it was going.In order to defend the rouble, reports suggest that it has sold dollars.  

 

There is some talk that it may have to sell euros to maintain its reserve allocation.  This obviously not the same abandoning the dollar as a reserve asset.  Indeed, Russia’s own intervention underscores the important role of the dollar. 

 

The threat of selected default against US creditors is also bluster.  The hit US banks, which appear to have less than $20 bln of Russian exposure, would be minor compared to the likely market response, which would include demanding a much higher risk premium for lending to Russia.    

 

The effectiveness of US sanctions against Russia are almost toothless if they are unilateral.  With Russia threatening to raise energy prices to Ukraine, ostensibly because it is in arrears, may force the US and/or Europe to subsidize Ukraine more than it intended, which will ultimately go into the Russian coffers.    The conditions that the IMF will likely require to put Ukraine on more sustainable fiscal footing will mean economic hardship and may do more to push Ukraine away from the West than nearly anything Russia could do. 


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1f3kIDa Marc To Market

Ukraine Defense Ministry Says Repelled Armed Attempt To Capture Warship

Truth, propaganda, or outright lies? Nobody knows anymore, but if an ICBM launch, which apparently the US had been aware of yet which came at the worst possible time even though Putin could have easily delayed, can barely dent the stock surge, who cares anymore.

From the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense:

Ukraine’s Navy Slavutych crew prevented the capture attempt by armed persons.

 

“Armed persons in a boat came to the ship but the crew repelled their attack. There was even the attempt to board the ship, capture her, arms, and sailors,” informed Capt. 2nd Rank Vitaliy Zvyahintsev, Commander of Surface Ships Brigade, Ukraine’s Navy.

 

Now, the ships of the Russian Federation Black Sea Fleet continue blocking the Ukrainian Navy ships in Crimea.

 

All the military units and ships of the Ukrainian Armed forces deployed in Crimea follow the orders of the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

The Slavutych large intelligence ship shown in calmer times:


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1f3kKLp Tyler Durden

50% Profit Growth And Historical Realities

Submitted by Lance Roberts of STA Wealth Management,

As the markets push once again into record territory the question of valuations becomes ever more important.  While valuations are a poor timing tool in the short term for investors, in the long run valuation levels have everything to do with future returns.  The reason I bring this up is that in 2013 reported earnings per share for the S&P 500 rose by 15.9% to a record of $100.28 per share with roughly 40% of that increase occurring in the 4th quarter alone.  That late surge in corporate profits was a bit of a surprise as estimates had been lowered going into the end of last year.  The question, however, remains the ongoing sustainability of that growth rate of earnings going forward.  John Hussman, via Hussman Funds, made an interesting point in this regard in a recent note:

"I’ve noted frequently that after-tax corporate profits as a share of national income are about 70% above historical norms; that these profit shares are heavily mean-reverting and strongly (inversely) associated with subsequent profit growth over the following 3-4 year period; and that the current surplus of corporate profits is the mirror-image of corresponding deficits in household and government savings (a relationship detailed in prior weekly comments). Recent profits data, as well as the entire historical record, are tightly explained by these factors.

 

Notably, this data is derived from the national income accounts computed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and it’s worth understanding how the BEA computes profits. Specifically, the BEA points out, 'Because national income is defined as the income of U.S. residents, its profits component includes income earned abroad by U.S. corporations and excludes income earned in the United States by foreigners.'”

The chart below shows corporate profits, per the BEA, divided by GDP.  (You can substitute GNP but the result is virtually identical between the two measures.)

Corporate-Profits-GDP-030414

The current levels of profits, as a share of GDP, are at record levels.  This is interesting because corporate profits should be a reflection of the underlying economic strength.  However, in recent years, due to financial engineering, wage and employment suppression and increase in productivity, corporate profits have become extremely deviated.

This deviation begs the question of sustainability.  Currently, according to the S&P website, reported corporate earnings are expected to grow by 20.26% in 2014, and by an additional 20.28% in 2015.  In total, reported earnings are expected to grow by almost 50% ($100.28/share as of 2013 to $147.50/share in 2015) over the next two years.

If we assume that these projections are accurate, and we assume a continued growth rate of 2% annually in the economy (as has been witness the average since 1999) we can put the current environment into perspective.  The chart below shows real, inflation adjusted, GDP and reported earnings, both actual and estimates, through 2015.

S&P-500-Earnings-GrowthvsEst-030314

I also notated the previous earnings trendline estimates that existed prior to each market peak.  

The sustainability of corporate profits is dependent on two primary factors; sustained revenue growth and cost controls.  From each dollar of sales is subtracted the operating costs of the business to achieve net profitability.  The chart below shows the percentage change of sales, what happens at the top line of the income statement, as compared to actual earnings (reported and operating) growth. 

S&P-500-AccountingMagic-030414

Since 2000, each dollar of gross sales has been increased into more than $1 in operating and reported profits through financial engineering and cost suppression.  The next chart shows that the surge in corporate profitability in recent years is a result of a consistent reduction of both employment and wage growth.  This has been achieved by increases in productivity, technology and offshoring of labor.  However, it is important to note that benefits from such actions are finite.

Wages-to-Profits-030414-2

As asset prices continue to surge higher in hopes of an "economic revival," the question of "sustainability" of corporate profitability looms large.

As John Hussman concludes:

"Given the economic landscape of recent years, large offsetting sectoral deficits and surpluses are not surprising, but they should not be taken as evidence that the long-term profitability of the corporate sector has permanently shifted higher. Stocks are not a claim to a few years of cash flows, but decades and decades of them. By pricing stocks as if current profits are representative of the indefinite future, investors have ensured themselves a rude awakening over time. Equity valuations are decidedly a long-term proposition, and from present levels, the implied long-term returns are quite dim.

 

The chart below (CPATAX/GNP) provides a good summary of the present situation, and a reasonable sense of what we expect for corporate profit growth over the coming several years."

Profit-Growth-GNP-ForwardGrowth-030314

As we know from repeatedly from history, extrapolated projections rarely happen.  Could this time be different?  Sure.  However, believing that historical tendencies have evolved into a new paradigm will likely have the same results as playing leapfrog with a Unicorn

There is mounting evidence, from valuations being paid in M&A deals, junk bond yields, margin debt and price extensions from long term means, "irrational exuberance" is once again returning to the financial markets.  However, that does not mean that a mean reversion process in imminent.  It was in 1996 when Alan Greenspan first uttered those famous words, it was 4 years later before investors regretted not paying attention them.  It is likely that the same will be true this time.  With the Federal Reserve still pushing liquidity into the markets, there is little to deter the "bullish bias" presently.  However, as John noted above, investors that fail to heed the warning signs will likely ensure themselves a rude awakening over time


    



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

Ukraine Steps Up Protection Of Its Nuclear Power Plants, Cites “Grave Russian Threat”

This one should be intuitive: with Ukraine scrambling to load up on natgas ahead of the price surge once Gazprom ends its discount pricing, and unclear what if any access it will have to Russian gas in the future and at what cost, it was only a matter of time before the Ukraine stepped up the protection of its only true energy asset: its 15 nuclear power plant, which supply nearly half of the country’s energy needs. Ukraine told as much to the U.N. atomic watchdog on Tuesday, although it framed it as a result of the “grave threat to the security” of the country posed by the Russian military.

From Reuters:

Ukraine has 15 nuclear power reactors in operation, accounting for nearly 44 percent of its electricity production in 2013, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) website.  Ukraine’s envoy to the IAEA said in a letter to IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano: “Illegal actions of the Russian armed forces on Ukrainian territory and the threat of use of force amount to a grave threat to security of Ukraine with its potential consequences for its nuclear power infrastructure.”

 

Ambassador Ihor Prokopchuk’s letter, dated March 4, was circulated among delegations attending a week-long meeting of the IAEA’s 35-nation governing board in Vienna. It was given to Reuters by a diplomat from another country.

 

Prokopchuk’s letter to Amano, apparently written before Putin’s comments, said: “Under these circumstances, the competent authorities of Ukraine make every effort to ensure physical security, including reinforced physical protection of 15 power units in operation at four sites of Ukrainian NPPs (nuclear power plants).

 

“However, consequences of the use of military force by the Russian federation against Ukraine will be unpredictable.”

 

On Sunday, Ukraine’s parliament called for international monitors to help protect its nuclear power plants, as tension mounted with its neighbor. Prokopchuk urged Amano to “join international efforts in de-escalating the crisis around Ukraine and to urgently raise the issue of nuclear security” with Russia.

 

Amano said on Monday there were 31 nuclear-related facilities in Ukraine that were being monitored by the IAEA to make sure there was no diversion of material for military purposes, as it does in other countries with nuclear plants.

Whether or not the protection surge is a result of Russian fears is irrelevant: one thing that is certain is that it is quite welcome, when one recalls that it was in the Ukraine where 28 years ago Chernobyl exploded in what was unti then the worst nuclear disaster in history.

In fact, perhaps instead of Crimea, Putin should have gone for one of the Japanese isles several years ago. Maybe only then could the great Fukushima disaster, which continues billowing alpha, beta and gamma rays to this day having surpassed Chernobyl in the worst radioactive catastrophes of all time record, would have been avoided.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1fF8JSh Tyler Durden

Ron Paul: “Hagel’s ‘Defense Cuts’ Are Smoke & Mirrors”

Submitted by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute,

Last week Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel proposed an additional 40,000 reduction in active duty US Army personnel, down to 450,000 soldiers. As US troops are being withdrawn from the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it might make sense to reduce not only the active duty military but the entire military budget. However, from the interventionists’ reaction to Hagel’s announcement you might think President Obama announced he was shutting down the Pentagon!
 
Rep. Michael McCaul, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, claimed that this slight reduction in personnel would hurt our military readiness. He blamed the exploding spending on welfare entitlements for the proposed military cuts, stating, “It’s all being sacrificed … on the altar of entitlements. This president cannot take on mandatory spending, so all we’ve done in the Congress — and this president — is basically cut discretionary spending.”
 
McCaul is partly right. Welfare spending is bankrupting the country. But military spending is also welfare: it is welfare for the well-connected military-industrial complex, which enriches itself manufacturing useless boondoggles like the F-35 fighter. We should never confuse legitimate defense spending – which I support – with military spending, which promotes interventionism overseas and actually undermines our national security.
 
Neoconservative Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain were also quick to criticize Hagel’s announcement. They said the cuts were dead on arrival in the US Senate. “We are going to kill it, not let it happen,” said Graham. McCain added, “We live in an ever-increasingly dangerous world and this budget is out of touch with reality.”
 
What McCain and Graham won’t admit is that much of the reason we are in an increasingly-dangerous world is that the neocons keep inviting blowback with the interventions they are constantly pushing. If we minded our own business we would live in a far less dangerous world.
 
Nevertheless, although the neocons make a big deal about this small cut in military personnel, in reality these are not military cuts at all. These are token proposed cuts in troop levels which Congress won’t allow the administration to do anyway. What Hagel proposes is not cuts, but instead a shift in spending away from personnel and toward new high-tech weapons which are favored by and profitable to the military-industrial complex.
 
The F-35, for example, will continue in production according to Hagel’s plan, despite the numerous cost over-runs and design flaws. This is likely because the F-35 is built in 46 US states and nine foreign countries! That makes it particularly popular in Congress, regardless of its flaws and expense.
 
We do need real cuts in military spending, not just moving spending around from troops to new weapons systems. But what we really need is for the president to downsize US foreign policy. Maintaining a military presence in 140 countries while continuing to stir up trouble can lead to problems when the military is downsized. So, it’s our intervention that needs downsizing.

A proper foreign policy would mean a strong national defense, but a huge reduction in interventions and commitments overseas. Why are we stirring up trouble in Ukraine? In Syria? In Africa? Why are we defending South Korea and Japan when they are wealthy enough to defend themselves? A proper sized foreign policy would defend the United States instead of provoking the rest of the world.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/NszGg7 Tyler Durden

Russian Nat Gas Game Theory

The question many are asking this morning is what is the iron-first of Putin thinking? With his "military exercise" over, does he believe it enough to have shown the world his potential for disruption? We suspect another reason may have been weighing on his mind. As we noted previously, Europe accounts for around a third of Gazprom's total gas sales, and around half of Russia's total budget revenue comes from oil and gas… and whatever Putin's geo-political ambitions, we suspect he did not want to jeopardize that source of revenue – no matter how much sabre-rattling and Gazprom-fear-mongering. As the following chart shows, Europe should be sighing a huge relief this morning – but remain cognizant that this, we suspect, is far from over.

And here's some helpful advice from the EU…

So – follow the money… US to IMF; IMF to Ukraine; Ukraine to Russia; Russia buys US Treasuries again?

Or the EU looks at this chart…

Source: @ReutersGMF

and that's why this happens…

Remember, as we noted in detail hereRussia receives around $100 million per day from Europe for Natural Gas

And these are the nations (via Morgan Stanley) who are the most dependent on that flow of natural gas…

 

But while we noted the dependencies last night, it is worth noting that thanks to a warmer than expected winter in Europe, EU states have significant gas stocks…

 

The game is only just beginning…just as explained in great detail here.


    



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

Bernanke’s Not Wasting Any Time – Earns $250,000+ for a Speech in Abu Dhabi

Ben Bernanke isn’t wasting any time cashing in on what might be the greatest transfer of wealth in history from 99.9% of the world’s population to a handful of connected oligarchs and their political minions. Cronyism does indeed pay well, even if bureaucrats have to wait until they leave office to collect.

The Bernank isn’t wasting any time ringing the register.

From Reuters:

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the U.S. central bank could have done more to fight the country’s financial crisis and that he struggled to find the right way to communicate with markets.

“We could have done some things on the margin to mitigate somewhat the crisis,” Bernanke, 60, said on Tuesday in his first public speaking engagement since he stepped down in January after eight years heading the Fed.

“Although we have been very aggressive, I think on the monetary policy front we could have been even more aggressive.”

“This is going to sound very obvious but the first thing we learned is that the U.S. is not invulnerable to financial crises,” Bernanke said.

Um, so you thought it was? Never forget that these are the clowns running the show.

Bernanke said he could now speak more freely about the crisis than he could while at the Fed – “I can say whatever I want” – and in remarks to over 1,000 bankers and financial professionals in the capital of the United Arab Emirates, he made clear that he had regrets.

Bernanke received at least $250,000 for his appearance at the financial conference staged by National Bank of Abu Dhabi NBAD.AD, the UAE’s largest bank, according to sources familiar the matter. NBAD did not announce the fee.

continue reading

from A Lightning War for Liberty http://ift.tt/1f302Ls
via IFTTT