New York’s Progressive Rent Regulations Having the Exact Same Negative Consequence That Skeptics Predicted

When the New York legislature passed major changes to the state’s rent regulations in June 2019, critics warned the new law would reduce investment in, and renovations of, rental properties in New York City. Six months later, those predictions are bearing out.

Bloomberg reported this morning that sales of apartment buildings in the Big Apple fell by 36 percent in 2019, and that the money spent on those sales fell by 40 percent. The prices investors were paying for rent-stabilized units—where allowable rent increases are set by the government and usually capped at around 1 or 2 percent per year—fell by 7 percent.

“The fact that there’s no correlation between the amount you put into a building and the amount of rent you can charge has completely shifted investment interest in rent-stabilized buildings,” Shimon Shkury, president of the brokerage Ariel Property Advisors, told Bloomberg.

Shkury was referring to provisions of the state’s 2019 rent regulations that make it much more difficult to pass along the costs of apartment renovations (such as adding a new oven) and major capital improvements (such as adding a new roof) to tenants.

That law also eliminated landlords’ ability to “deregulate” (that is, charge market rates) for rent-stabilized apartments once rents reach certain levels. There are about a million rent-stabilized units in New York City.

In addition to a decline in sales, landlords are reportedly cutting back on the money that they’re putting into the buildings that they do own.

According to a January survey conducted by the Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP)—a trade association representing owners of rent-stabilized buildings in New York City—69 percent of building owners have cut their spending on apartment upgrades by more than 75 percent since the passage of the state’s rent regulations. Another 11 percent of the landlords in the survey decreased investments in their properties by more than 50 percent.

The new law’s limits on recuperating the costs of renovating apartments mean it is often more financially feasible to leave old apartments vacant.

“A big majority of our housing stock of stabilized units have been occupied between 40 and 50 years. These units require up to $100,000 and sometimes more, to complete a gut rehabilitation. You don’t need to be a genius to understand it makes no sense to invest that much only to get an $83.00 rent increase,” one survey respondent told CHIP.

CHIP, alongside the Rent Stabilization Association, is suing state and city officials over the new regulations.

The Commercial Observer reports that the new rent laws are encouraging small- and mid-sized landlords to exit the market entirely, writing that “many property owners have woken up to a world where their buildings are worth 30 to 50 percent less than they were a year ago.”

All of this conforms with predictions made by the Manhattan Institute’s Howard Husock, who warned that limiting rent increases would lead to less maintenance and to deterioration of existing rental housing.

“The opposite of gentrification—call it shabbification—would emerge, as city housing stock becomes more and more degraded,” Husock wrote last May. “Middle-class and working-class neighborhoods, where rents are often not that high (in some outer-borough neighborhoods, market rents are lower than permitted by law) would be at particular risk.”

New York City does have serious housing affordability issues. But much of that can be blamed on the local leaders’ failure to allow for enough new housing development to accommodate the city’s growth. Rather than issuing market-destroying price regulations, the city authorities should help the city’s tenants with zoning reforms that allow more housing construction. In other words, by letting markets work.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38HZTAY
via IFTTT

Ken Starr, Who Led Clinton’s Partisan Impeachment, Says Impeachment Should Be ‘Powerfully Bipartisan’

Ken Starr, a member of President Donald Trump’s impeachment legal defense team, argued during Trump’s Senate trial today that the process must be “powerfully bipartisan” to be legitimate.

“Those of us who lived through the Clinton impeachment, including members of this body, full well understand that a presidential impeachment is tantamount to domestic war,” he said. 

Starr didn’t just live through Bill Clinton’s impeachment. He was the independent counsel whose investigation led to the charges levied against the former president. The House impeached Clinton in December 1998 on two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice, and one count of abuse of power pertaining to his affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

It was not bipartisan.

On the first three articles, just five Democratic House reps defected from party lines and voted alongside Republicans. On the last article, only one did. A heavier bipartisan consensus actually cut against impeachment, with five Republicans voting against article one, 28 against article two, 12 against article three, and 81 against article four.

So was Starr bringing up the Clinton case in a “lessons learned” manner, suggesting that it shouldn’t have been pursued at all? Not really. At most, his arguments today seemed to oscillate between a defense of the Clinton impeachment and a repudiation of it.

“The nation’s most recent experience, the Clinton impeachment, even though severely and roundly criticized, charged crimes,” Starr said—and those crimes were committed “beyond any reasonable observer’s doubt.” Trump’s impeachment, he said in contrast, risks being “dominated by partisan considerations” because his articles contain no formal accusations of criminal misconduct.

But later, in a puzzling pivot, he seemed to say that not even criminal allegations merit the boot: “The very divisive Clinton impeachment demonstrates that, while highly relevant, the commission of a crime is by no means sufficient to warrant the removal of our duly elected president.”

Meanwhile, Starr’s 2018 book Contempt declared that “Abuse of Power stood at the center of The President’s behavior.”

This confusion may explain why the former independent counsel chose to focus instead on President Richard Nixon’s impeachment inquiry when he drove his point home. 

“In an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 410–4, the House of Representatives authorized an impeachment inquiry” into Nixon, Starr noted. “It bears emphasis before this high court: This was the first presidential impeachment in over 100 years.”

The next one would come two decades later, with Starr at the helm. 

Yet the removal of Richard Nixon was a fairly partisan affair too. “Contra Starr, presidential impeachments have always been partisan,” notes the Cato Institute’s Gene Healy. “Even in the Nixon near-impeachment, a majority of Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee voted against every article.”

Partisanship is a powerful drug. Whether Trump deserves a guilty verdict has nothing to do with the political animus surrounding the process—something Starr should be acutely aware of.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2GttfXD
via IFTTT

What’s Behind Bernie Sanders’ Surge? The Same Discontent That Caused Trump’s 2016 Rise.

What do people see in Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)?

“Nobody likes him,” Hillary Clinton said recently. And yet with the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary rapidly approaching, the 78-year-old socialist senator from Vermont is at or near the top of most polls for the Democratic nomination.

Anyone relying on the mainstream media will find it hard to understand the appeal of Sanders. That’s one of many ways that Sanders resembles President Trump. The press doesn’t like him; it doesn’t even pretend to like him. And the feeling is mutual.

Earlier this month, Sanders accused The Washington Post, owned by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, of hostility related to Sanders’ views of Amazon. Trump has had similar complaints about the Post, which has been similarly hostile to Trump.

In 2015, I wrote a column calling for a Trump-Sanders ticket, noting that they were both tapping into voter frustration with politics-as-usual.

“Both are from the outer boroughs of New York City. Mr. Sanders is from Brooklyn; Mr. Trump, from Queens,” I wrote. “Both are children of immigrants. Mr. Sanders’ father was born in Poland; Mr. Trump’s mother is from Scotland. Neither candidate served in the Vietnam War.”

On trade and immigration, neither Trump nor Sanders are globalists. Both Trump and Sanders realize that open borders have worked better for MIT and Princeton economists than for low-skilled residents of fading northern manufacturing cities.

Both Trump and Sanders are instinctively antiwar. Sanders would cut military spending more than Trump has, and Sanders would favor a more multilateral approach to diplomacy. But both politicians have made it clear that they opposed the Iraq War and that they don’t want to be lured into anything that looks at all like a repeat of that.

One dynamic that works in favor of both Trump and Sanders is that voters discount their extreme stances, figuring that they just represent opening offers that will eventually be watered down in compromises with powerful interest groups and with establishment lawmakers. Both have simple stories to tell about who is to blame for America’s problems. Trump blames illegal immigrants, who do not vote. Sanders blames “billionaires,” who represent only a tiny fraction of the electorate (though, between Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, they do represent a substantial fraction of the field of Democratic presidential candidates.)

From a policy perspective, Sanders is not at all my cup of tea. His proposed wealth tax is punitive, confiscatory, and probably unconstitutional. His health care plan and his other proposals demonstrate, in my view, naïve and unfounded confidence that centralized big-government programs can solve problems better than decentralized or private-sector initiatives.

But the panic that Sanders engenders in a certain class of New York and Washington types—the sort of people that Hillary Clinton is talking about when she says “Nobody likes him”—is a similar panic to the one those people feel about President Trump. Do I need to feel guilty about admitting that I not-so-secretly enjoy it?

Sure, some of the Sanders voters are holier-than-thou poseurs or outright sexists. Some of them are just naïve or ignorant, too young to have lived through the Cold War against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But plenty of Sanders voters, too, are legitimately fed up. The free-trade, easy money policies of the George W. Bush and Obama administrations didn’t work for them. They feel insecure because of immigration, the opioid epidemic, the mental health crisis, the erosion of social capital, the decline of organized religion, and the concentration of economic growth in Silicon Valley, Boston, Northern Virginia, and Seattle rather than the rest of the country. It’s a protest vote, a cry of frustration with the status quo. It’s an “I’ve had enough and I’m not going to take it anymore” vote.

Sanders is a more credible voice of that message than is wealthy Harvard law school professor Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), or Obama’s vice president Joe Biden, or Rhodes Scholar Pete Buttigieg, or billionaire businessman Bloomberg. Whether he’s a more credible voice of it than Trump himself—or whether the feeling even accurately represents the sentiments of most Americans in a moment of relative peace and prosperity—is something that we may yet discover in a general election campaign.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2TYOpVs
via IFTTT

How Does the John Bolton Bombshell Change Impeachment?

Now that John Bolton’s pick me! exertions have gotten so loud that even Republican senators are saying that they might consider issuing a subpoena to a materially relevant witness in the impeachment trial, some natural follow-up questions tumble forth, such as: Should the mustachioed former national security advisor be summoned to testify? Does his account, however disputed, change the way people interpret the Trump administration’s 2019 actions vis-à-vis Ukraine? Does any of it excuse the attempt by the lead House manager, Rep. Adam Schiff (D–Calif.), to justify not subpoenaing Bolton in the first place by saying that they needed to stop Trump before he could election again?

These questions and more lead today’s episode of the Reason Roundtable podcast, featuring Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, Nick Gillespie, and Matt Welch. The roundtablists also volunteer their biggest critiques of suddenly re-rising presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), try to dampen the panic about the latest global coronavirus, and discuss the bountiful local goings-on of National School Choice Week. And yes, Kobe Bryant gets a mention.

Audio production by Ian Keyser and Regan Taylor.

Music: “Here Come The Raindrops” by Reed Mathis

Relevant links from the show:

My Conversations with John Bolton,” by Matt Welch

John Bolton Says He Would Comply With Senate Subpoena to Testify in Impeachment Trial,” by Scott Shackford

Trump’s Failed Impeachment Is Still Worth It,” by Shikha Dalmia

4 Key Republican Senators To Watch as Trump’s Trial Rolls Into the Weekend,” by Eric Boehm

Did Trump Just Admit To Withholding Material From the Impeachment Process? ” by Peter Suderman

Does an Impeachment Overturn an Election?” by Keith E. Whittington

The Senate Can (but Probably Won’t) Fill the Gaps in the Case for a Ukraine Quid Pro Quo,” by Jacob Sullum

As Progressive Twitter Erupts at Joe Rogan Endorsing Bernie Sanders, a Reminder: Elizabeth Warren’s Sexism Gambit Backfired,” by Matt Welch

Bernie Sanders Thinks Medicare for All Would Solve America’s Health Care Problems. It Would Make Them Worse,” by Peter Suderman

Bernie J. Trump: Nationalism and Socialism Are Two Sides of the Same Statist Coin,” by Shikha Dalmia

Bernie’s Bad Ideas,” by Matt Welch

No More Pandemics?” by Ronald Bailey

Pennsylvania Bill Would Toss 35,000 Kids Out of Their Cyber Charter Schools,” by Eric Boehm

The Story Behind Miss Virginia Exemplifies the Moral Case for School Choice,” by Nick Gillespie

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2vpFVMV
via IFTTT

Ken Starr, Who Led Clinton’s Partisan Impeachment, Says Impeachment Should Be ‘Powerfully Bipartisan’

Ken Starr, a member of President Donald Trump’s impeachment legal defense team, argued during Trump’s Senate trial today that the process must be “powerfully bipartisan” to be legitimate.

“Those of us who lived through the Clinton impeachment, including members of this body, full well understand that a presidential impeachment is tantamount to domestic war,” he said. 

Starr didn’t just live through Bill Clinton’s impeachment. He was the independent counsel whose investigation led to the charges levied against the former president. The House impeached Clinton in December 1998 on two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice, and one count of abuse of power pertaining to his affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

It was not bipartisan.

On the first three articles, just five Democratic House reps defected from party lines and voted alongside Republicans. On the last article, only one did. A heavier bipartisan consensus actually cut against impeachment, with five Republicans voting against article one, 28 against article two, 12 against article three, and 81 against article four.

So was Starr bringing up the Clinton case in a “lessons learned” manner, suggesting that it shouldn’t have been pursued at all? Not really. At most, his arguments today seemed to oscillate between a defense of the Clinton impeachment and a repudiation of it.

“The nation’s most recent experience, the Clinton impeachment, even though severely and roundly criticized, charged crimes,” Starr said—and those crimes were committed “beyond any reasonable observer’s doubt.” Trump’s impeachment, he said in contrast, risks being “dominated by partisan considerations” because his articles contain no formal accusations of criminal misconduct.

But later, in a puzzling pivot, he seemed to say that not even criminal allegations merit the boot: “The very divisive Clinton impeachment demonstrates that, while highly relevant, the commission of a crime is by no means sufficient to warrant the removal of our duly elected president.”

Meanwhile, Starr’s 2018 book Contempt declared that “Abuse of Power stood at the center of The President’s behavior.”

This confusion may explain why the former independent counsel chose to focus instead on President Richard Nixon’s impeachment inquiry when he drove his point home. 

“In an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 410–4, the House of Representatives authorized an impeachment inquiry” into Nixon, Starr noted. “It bears emphasis before this high court: This was the first presidential impeachment in over 100 years.”

The next one would come two decades later, with Starr at the helm. 

Yet the removal of Richard Nixon was a fairly partisan affair too. “Contra Starr, presidential impeachments have always been partisan,” notes the Cato Institute’s Gene Healy. “Even in the Nixon near-impeachment, a majority of Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee voted against every article.”

Partisanship is a powerful drug. Whether Trump deserves a guilty verdict has nothing to do with the political animus surrounding the process—something Starr should be acutely aware of.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2GttfXD
via IFTTT

What’s Behind Bernie Sanders’ Surge? The Same Discontent That Caused Trump’s 2016 Rise.

What do people see in Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)?

“Nobody likes him,” Hillary Clinton said recently. And yet with the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary rapidly approaching, the 78-year-old socialist senator from Vermont is at or near the top of most polls for the Democratic nomination.

Anyone relying on the mainstream media will find it hard to understand the appeal of Sanders. That’s one of many ways that Sanders resembles President Trump. The press doesn’t like him; it doesn’t even pretend to like him. And the feeling is mutual.

Earlier this month, Sanders accused The Washington Post, owned by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, of hostility related to Sanders’ views of Amazon. Trump has had similar complaints about the Post, which has been similarly hostile to Trump.

In 2015, I wrote a column calling for a Trump-Sanders ticket, noting that they were both tapping into voter frustration with politics-as-usual.

“Both are from the outer boroughs of New York City. Mr. Sanders is from Brooklyn; Mr. Trump, from Queens,” I wrote. “Both are children of immigrants. Mr. Sanders’ father was born in Poland; Mr. Trump’s mother is from Scotland. Neither candidate served in the Vietnam War.”

On trade and immigration, neither Trump nor Sanders are globalists. Both Trump and Sanders realize that open borders have worked better for MIT and Princeton economists than for low-skilled residents of fading northern manufacturing cities.

Both Trump and Sanders are instinctively antiwar. Sanders would cut military spending more than Trump has, and Sanders would favor a more multilateral approach to diplomacy. But both politicians have made it clear that they opposed the Iraq War and that they don’t want to be lured into anything that looks at all like a repeat of that.

One dynamic that works in favor of both Trump and Sanders is that voters discount their extreme stances, figuring that they just represent opening offers that will eventually be watered down in compromises with powerful interest groups and with establishment lawmakers. Both have simple stories to tell about who is to blame for America’s problems. Trump blames illegal immigrants, who do not vote. Sanders blames “billionaires,” who represent only a tiny fraction of the electorate (though, between Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, they do represent a substantial fraction of the field of Democratic presidential candidates.)

From a policy perspective, Sanders is not at all my cup of tea. His proposed wealth tax is punitive, confiscatory, and probably unconstitutional. His health care plan and his other proposals demonstrate, in my view, naïve and unfounded confidence that centralized big-government programs can solve problems better than decentralized or private-sector initiatives.

But the panic that Sanders engenders in a certain class of New York and Washington types—the sort of people that Hillary Clinton is talking about when she says “Nobody likes him”—is a similar panic to the one those people feel about President Trump. Do I need to feel guilty about admitting that I not-so-secretly enjoy it?

Sure, some of the Sanders voters are holier-than-thou poseurs or outright sexists. Some of them are just naïve or ignorant, too young to have lived through the Cold War against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But plenty of Sanders voters, too, are legitimately fed up. The free-trade, easy money policies of the George W. Bush and Obama administrations didn’t work for them. They feel insecure because of immigration, the opioid epidemic, the mental health crisis, the erosion of social capital, the decline of organized religion, and the concentration of economic growth in Silicon Valley, Boston, Northern Virginia, and Seattle rather than the rest of the country. It’s a protest vote, a cry of frustration with the status quo. It’s an “I’ve had enough and I’m not going to take it anymore” vote.

Sanders is a more credible voice of that message than is wealthy Harvard law school professor Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), or Obama’s vice president Joe Biden, or Rhodes Scholar Pete Buttigieg, or billionaire businessman Bloomberg. Whether he’s a more credible voice of it than Trump himself—or whether the feeling even accurately represents the sentiments of most Americans in a moment of relative peace and prosperity—is something that we may yet discover in a general election campaign.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2TYOpVs
via IFTTT

How Does the John Bolton Bombshell Change Impeachment?

Now that John Bolton’s pick me! exertions have gotten so loud that even Republican senators are saying that they might consider issuing a subpoena to a materially relevant witness in the impeachment trial, some natural follow-up questions tumble forth, such as: Should the mustachioed former national security advisor be summoned to testify? Does his account, however disputed, change the way people interpret the Trump administration’s 2019 actions vis-à-vis Ukraine? Does any of it excuse the attempt by the lead House manager, Rep. Adam Schiff (D–Calif.), to justify not subpoenaing Bolton in the first place by saying that they needed to stop Trump before he could election again?

These questions and more lead today’s episode of the Reason Roundtable podcast, featuring Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, Nick Gillespie, and Matt Welch. The roundtablists also volunteer their biggest critiques of suddenly re-rising presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), try to dampen the panic about the latest global coronavirus, and discuss the bountiful local goings-on of National School Choice Week. And yes, Kobe Bryant gets a mention.

Audio production by Ian Keyser and Regan Taylor.

Music: “Here Come The Raindrops” by Reed Mathis

Relevant links from the show:

My Conversations with John Bolton,” by Matt Welch

John Bolton Says He Would Comply With Senate Subpoena to Testify in Impeachment Trial,” by Scott Shackford

Trump’s Failed Impeachment Is Still Worth It,” by Shikha Dalmia

4 Key Republican Senators To Watch as Trump’s Trial Rolls Into the Weekend,” by Eric Boehm

Did Trump Just Admit To Withholding Material From the Impeachment Process? ” by Peter Suderman

Does an Impeachment Overturn an Election?” by Keith E. Whittington

The Senate Can (but Probably Won’t) Fill the Gaps in the Case for a Ukraine Quid Pro Quo,” by Jacob Sullum

As Progressive Twitter Erupts at Joe Rogan Endorsing Bernie Sanders, a Reminder: Elizabeth Warren’s Sexism Gambit Backfired,” by Matt Welch

Bernie Sanders Thinks Medicare for All Would Solve America’s Health Care Problems. It Would Make Them Worse,” by Peter Suderman

Bernie J. Trump: Nationalism and Socialism Are Two Sides of the Same Statist Coin,” by Shikha Dalmia

Bernie’s Bad Ideas,” by Matt Welch

No More Pandemics?” by Ronald Bailey

Pennsylvania Bill Would Toss 35,000 Kids Out of Their Cyber Charter Schools,” by Eric Boehm

The Story Behind Miss Virginia Exemplifies the Moral Case for School Choice,” by Nick Gillespie

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2vpFVMV
via IFTTT

Markets In Turmoil: Corona-Chaos Sparks Carnage In Crude, Credit, & The Yield Curve

Markets In Turmoil: Corona-Chaos Sparks Carnage In Crude, Credit, & The Yield Curve

JPM and MS (and almost every asset-gatherer on CNBC): “probably nothing, BTFD”

Rest of world sees “Outbreak”

China cash markets remain closed for the lunar new year but futures crashed overnight…

Source: Bloomberg

Europe gapped down at the open, the machines tried hard to bid it back but all the majors ended notably lower…

Source: Bloomberg

US markets were all ugly – Dow and S&P worst day since October – Trannies worst, Small Caps best today though all ended with a weak close…

Futures show the opening gap down, then another lurch lower as Europe opened, and the standard magical bid at the US open…

With Small Caps, Transports, and The Dow all dipping red for 2020 intraday…

Source: Bloomberg

This was the first 1%-plus loss for the S&P in 76 days! (since The Fed started its shenanigans)

Source: Bloomberg

Trannies and Small Caps broke their 50DMAs today…

Source: Bloomberg

 

 

Source: Bloomberg

Cyclicals have plunged into the red year-to-date with Defensives bid (even though they were sold today)…

Source: Bloomberg

“Most Shorted” stocks are down 6 of the last 7 days (biggest drop since early October)…

Source: Bloomberg

Flu-shot makers soared again led by NNVC…

Source: Bloomberg

VIX spiked above 19 intraday…

The VIX term structure inverted today…

Source: Bloomberg

And as equity protection costs spike, so do credit risk premia…

Source: Bloomberg

Credit markets crashed in the last few days (and perhaps most ominously the market may be closing down as five IG issuers put bond deals on hold Monday)…

Source: Bloomberg

Investors pulled close to $1.4 billion – a record outflow – from the biggest junk bond ETF on Friday. The $18.1b iShares iBoxx High Yield Corporate Bond ETF fund, known by its ticker HYG, is on pace for its third straight month of outflows.

Source: Bloomberg

None of which should be a big surprise given that net downgrades are at their worst in 4 years…

Stocks started to catch down to bonds’ version of reality but yields are still leading the charge lower…

Source: Bloomberg

The entire Treasury curve accelerated lower in yields today, leaving 30Y now down 35bps in 2020…

Source: Bloomberg

30Y Yields tumbled to their lowest since Oct 9th (this is the biggest 30Y Yield drop to start a year since 2015)

Source: Bloomberg

Yield curve collapsed as yields dropped with 2s10s at 2-month flats…

Source: Bloomberg

And 2s5s inverted once again…

Source: Bloomberg

The Dollar extended its gains, pushing up to the Dec FOMC highs (USD’s best start to a year since 2016)…

Source: Bloomberg

Yuan was clubbed like a baby seal today…

Source: Bloomberg

Cryptos were all higher over the weekend and extended gains

Source: Bloomberg

Copper and crude once again hit hard on China demand fears as those same fears sparked a bid in PMs…

Source: Bloomberg

Gold is up 6 days in a row…

Source: Bloomberg

As oil drops for the 5th day in a row to its lowest since early October…

Source: Bloomberg

Gold priced in yuan has soared back to early Jan highs (near its highest since 2012)

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, we note that global negative yielding debt is on the rise once again – up $1.5 trillion in the last 7 days…

Source: Bloomberg

And Greed has been replaced by fear rapidly…

Source: CNN

Of course, it could be worse…


Tyler Durden

Mon, 01/27/2020 – 16:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/37yMo6j Tyler Durden

Avenatti’s Criminal Trial On Extortion And Fraud Charges Begins Next Week

Avenatti’s Criminal Trial On Extortion And Fraud Charges Begins Next Week

As far as we know, Michael Avenatti is still sitting in solitary confinement in the MCC. But fortunately for the “creepy porn lawyer,” he won’t need to wait too much longer for his day in court.

Reuters reports that lawyers in Avenatti’s extortion case in Manhattan are expected to begin voir dire – the process of selecting jurors – next week.

Avenatti is best known as an antagonist to President Trump, a one-time presidential candidate and darling CNN & MSNBC contributor. He represented porn star Stormy Daniels in her fight to break an NDA she apparently signed after an alleged affair with the president more than a decade ago. Daniels’ legal battle with Trump over allegations of defamation ended with a judgment against Daniels, who later accused Avenatti of cheating her.

The 48-year-old lawyer is charged with trying to extort Nike by threatening to publicize allegations that the sportswear company illegally paid families of college basketball recruits. According to recordings made by lawyers representing Nike (who wore a wire to the meeting after reporting his conduct to the FBI), Avenatti wanted Nike to pay him as much as $25 million to lead an ‘internal investigation’ into the company’s behavior.

In a sign that Avenatti has a propensity to lie to and cheat his clients, the lawyer is also being charged with defrauding his client, Gary Franklin, a coach in a youth basketball league and Avenatti’s ‘source’ for the Nike allegations.

He has pleaded not guilty, but the lawyer could face up to 40 years in prison if convicted on all counts.

Lawyers will start surveying potential jurors from the Bronx and Manhattan (two democratic strongholds) as they begin what will be a difficult selection process given Avenatti’s notoriety. The trial is expected to last three weeks.

But even if he is acquitted on all counts (which is unlikely, seeing as the judge already dropped a few of the weaker counts), Avenatti must still face a separate case in California on a completely different set of charges.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 01/27/2020 – 15:50

Tags

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2O3mFv0 Tyler Durden

“Buybacks Secured”: Boeing Obtains $12 Billion Financing From Over Dozen Banks

“Buybacks Secured”: Boeing Obtains $12 Billion Financing From Over Dozen Banks

For all the flawed, cost-gutted and, on at least two occasions, deadly engineering of the 737 MAX which has indefinitely grounded the seemingly doomed plane, what investors and traders were much more concerned about was whether the company that had repurchased over $100 billion in stock in the past decade…

… would keep the Kool-Aid coming and its stock price if not rising then at least above $300, especially with Boeing’s total debt ballooning, and its free cash flow crashing just as fast as its badly designed airplanes.

Those investors got an answer, if only a short-term one, when moments ago CNBC’s Leslie Josephs reported that Boeing has secured more than $12 billion in financing from more than a dozen banks “as the industrial giant shores up its balance sheet.”

Last week, CNBC first reported that the US aerospace and military giant was trying to secure a loan of at least $10 billion, with the final size of the loan, some $2 billion more than originally sought, said to be “a vote of confidence” in the manufacturer from Wall Street, according to CNBC.

That’s one way to look at it – another is that Boeing will promptly turn around and engage in even more financial engineering, using the proceeds from the delayed-draw loan to repurchase Boeing stock currently held by its “generous” Wall Street lenders who will not only get their money back from the company, but will find themselves far, far higher in the capital structure, priming virtually every asset below them with a new secured loan ahead of taking control of the company should a worst case scenario happen, and Boeing is forced to file Chapter 11.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 01/27/2020 – 15:36

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2vulxul Tyler Durden