Will “Inflated” FICO Scores Be The Catalyst For The Next Meltdown

Consumer credit scores have been artificially inflated over the last decade ears and are covering up a very real danger lurking behind hundreds of billions of dollars in debt. And when Goldman Sachs is the one ringing the alarm bell, you know the issue may actually be serious.

Joined by Moody’s Analytics and supported by “research” from the Federal Reserve, the steady rise of credit scores during our last decade of “economic expansion” has led to a dangerous concept called “grade inflation”, according to Bloomberg

Grade inflation is the idea that debtors are actually riskier than their scores indicate, due to metrics not accounting for the “robust” economy, which may negatively affect the perception of borrowers’ ability to pay back bills on time. This means that when a recession finally happens, there could be a larger than expected fallout for both lenders and investors. 

There are around 15 million more consumers with credit scores above 740 today than there were in 2006, and about 15 million fewer consumers with scores below 660, according to Moody’s.

On the surface, this disappearance of subprime borrowers is good news. But is there more than meets the eye to the American consumer’s FICO score renaissance?

Cris deRitis, deputy chief economist at Moody’s Analytics said: “Borrowers with low credit scores in 2019 pose a much higher relative risk. Because loss rates today are low and competition for high-score borrowers is fierce, lenders may be tempted to lower their credit standards without appreciating that the 660 credit-score borrower today may be relatively worse than a 660-score borrower in 2009.”

The problem is most acute for smaller firms that tend to lend more to people with poor credit histories. Many of these firms rely on FICO scores and are unable to account for other metrics, like debt-to-income levels and macroeconomic data. Among the most exposed outstanding debts are car loans, consumer retail credit and personal loans that are doled out online. These types of debt total about $400 billion – and about $100 billion of that sum has been bundled into securities that have been sold to ravenous yield chasers “investors”. 

Meanwhile, cracks are already starting to show on the surface: there has been a rising number of missed payments by borrowers with the highest risk, despite the past decade of “growth”. And now that the economy is starting to show weakness, these delinquencies could accelerate and lead to larger than expected losses. 

Goldman Sachs analyst Marty Young said in an interview: “Every credit model that just relies on credit score now – and there’s a lot of them – is possibly understating the risk. There are a whole bunch of other variables, including the business cycle, that need to be taken into account.”

FICO credit scores are used by more than 90% of U.S. lenders to determine whether a borrower is an acceptable risk. Most scores range from 300 to 850, with a higher score purporting to show that someone is more likely to pay back their debts. Some big banks and lenders have recognized the problem and have included other factors in their underwriting decisions. 

“Borrowers’ scores may have migrated up, but inherently their individual risk, and their attitude towards credit and ability to pay their bills, has stayed the same. You might have thought 700 was a good score, but now it’s just average,” deRitis continued.

Ethan Dornhelm, vice president of scores and predictive analytics at FICO magically doesn’t seem to notice score inflation and blames the issue on underwriters: “The relationship between FICO score and delinquency levels can and does shift over time. We recognize there’s a lot more context you can obtain beyond a consumer’s credit file. We do not think that score inflation is the issue, but the risk layering on underwriting factors outside of credit scores, such as DTI, loan terms, and even trends in macroeconomic cycles, for example.”

Goldman’s Young attributes the rise in missed auto loan payments to the change in scores. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York said the number of auto loans at least 90 days late topped 7 million at the end of last year.

Michelle Russell-Dowe, who invests in consumer asset-backed securities at Schroder Investment Management, said: “Some deep-subprime auto lenders may be deeply reliant on credit scores, although there’s a pretty wide range within the auto industry of how lenders use scores and other metrics. For marketplace lending, regardless of the statistics you collect on borrowers, there is something adversely selective about somebody looking for loans online.”

Marketplace and peer to peer lending has also been showing signs of stress. Missed payments and writedowns increased last year, according to NY data and analytic firm PeerIQ. “We don’t see the purported improvement in underwriting just yet,” PeerIQ wrote in a recent report.

And the pressure isn’t just showing up in auto loans and marketplace lending. Private label credit cards, those issued by stores, instead of big banks, saw the highest number of missed payments in seven years last year. 

“As an investor it’s incumbent on you to do that deep credit work, which means you have to know as much as possible about how things should pay off or default. If you don’t think you’re being paid for the risk, you have no business investing in it,” Russell-Dowe concluded, stating what should be – but isn’t – the obvious. 

    via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2VzQC7S Tyler Durden

    RaboBank: It’s All Starting To Sound Very 1930s…

    Submitted by Michael Every of RaboBank

    Where to start? How about with US President Trump, as is often the case. He has not only nominated Stephen Moore, an opinionated Wall Street Journal opinion writer, and Herman Cain, a former pizza CEO, and both of whom have previously been in favour of restoring the gold standard, to join the FOMC and set rates; he has also echoed Moore in talking about the Fed needing to cut rates immediately and reverse Quantitative Tightening (QT) in favour of QE4 (ever?). Specifically, Trump said “I personally think the Fed should drop rates. I think they really slowed us down. There’s no inflation. I would say in terms of QT it really should be QE.” So where does this end? Obviously the polite delusion that central banks are independent. Yet it was always a delusion: read up on how past presidents treated past Fed Chairs. And not coincidentally this is happening just as the equal delusions that central banks aren’t political is also ending, as is that they at least know how to get us out of what looks like another looming downturn or a further deflationary episode. We have warned about all of the above risks for some time: a downturn, lower inflation, and politicised central banks.

    But does this mean that Trump will control the Fed ahead? No! But given the market actually agrees with what he is saying in pricing for a rate cut in 2019, Trump is taking out a political call option. If the economy powers through, everyone will soon forget what he said. If the economy tanks, then guess who can say “I told you so” and have someone to blame (and THEN have more influence over the Fed)? Consider that as hedge-fund manager Ray Dalio comes out to say that US capitalism is structurally broken and income inequality is a “national emergency” –a thesis we’ve been exploring for years with our “Lower for longer” US rates view and “Asset-rich, income-poor” calls– and argues that part of the response should be a joining of fiscal and monetary policy to address it (which again regular readers will know we are no strangers to here.) That prospect is likely to keep US bond yields low/lower and, conversely, the USD strong despite periods of volatility: let’s repeat that if the US is in this kind of mess, where does everyone else sit? Somewhere worse is the answer.

    Let’s stick with Trump re: trade, which is the other big issue ostensibly on the market’s mind. Besides threatening to close the Mexican border, or impose 25% tariffs if drugs don’t stop flowing over the border, last week also saw the prospect of a US-China trade deal kicked further down the road. If you read enough stories on what is going on, all the hard parts have yet to be signed off on, apparently, and where there is agreement is merely that a deal needs to be made. The latest suggestion is that there might be a 2025 or 2029 target date for China to adopt some of the reforms being pushed by the US. Seize on that date with a wry smile: do you really think any US president, and especially this one, is going to give Beijing until after his term in office is finished (presuming a win in 2020) to deliver on the goods? Exactly. Focus more on the Chinese promise to buy lots of US gas/food/agri commodities in 2020 pre-election, and you have a better handle on what is really going on – or so it would appear. As many observers note, the US view on China has changed, and it isn’t changing back anytime soon; and even the EU may be finally getting tough(er), given suggestions it is reportedly ready to refuse signing a joint statement with China at a bilateral summit tomorrow, as Europeans request stronger commitments on the economy, trade and human rights. I wonder how China will take that snub? With its usual grace? That prospect is also likely to keep bond yields low/lower and, conversely, the USD strong despite periods of volatility.

    But talking of the EU being tough, let’s move to Brexit, where this week is going to prove truly pivotal. Where to start? Last week some saw PM May finally reaching out across the aisle to try to build a consensus with the opposition Labour party re: the form a Brexit deal could take given her withdrawal agreement (WA) has been rejected heavily three times now. As May might have chuckled to herself Bugs Bunny style, “He don’t know me very well, do he?” Because those discussions have of course come to nothing with Labour stating it has yet to learn even the basics of what concessions May is prepared to make: in short, it was a trap to try to share Brexit blame on Jeremy Corbyn and scare Tory hardliners into backing her hated WA. May is trying to do the same thing in a new video that says that Brexit itself is at risk if her deal isn’t backed, and that it’s WA or No Brexit. This deliberately, and delusionally(?), overlooks the fact that unless May revokes Article 50, it’s actually still the WA, which is dead, or Hard Brexit this Friday – unless the EU grants a new delay.

    Even on that front May has shot herself in the foot with both barrels. Everyone recognises the UK needs a long extension to try to work out where to go next. And yet May deliberately asked until 30 June to ensure the EU is made to look the bogeyman for UK voters. One has to wonder how much EU patience there is for such obvious self-serving incompetence; doubly so when Brexiteer Reese-Mogg openly states that if the UK is forced to stay in the EU for the parliamentary elections it should use the opportunity to sabotage everything it can from the inside; triply so when the rumours are of Boris Johnson as the next PM, whom the EU trusts less than May, and whom is on the front page of the Telegraph raging against May talking to Labour.

    In practical terms that leaves May with today to come up with a new plan that Labour can agree to; and which won’t split her party, where the knives are not just out but are being licked on tongues; and which won’t split the Labour party, where the knives are also out over insisting on a second referendum and yet more allegations of institutional antisemitism. By tomorrow, when the sherpas arrive for the EU summit, the UK position is going to have to be better than “We just need more time.” Where does this end? Let’s just say that the market continues to price for a happy ending and I don’t know why, because the odds are not clearly in that direction.

    Oh, and let me just throw this into the mix. Hansard has released a survey today which states that public attitudes are emerging that “challenge core tenets of our democracy”. Public faith in the political system has reached a new low, and almost three-quarters of those asked said the system of governance needed significant improvement; when people were asked whether “Britain needs a strong ruler willing to break the rules”, 54% agreed and only 23% said no. Together with institutional antisemitism, and Big Men getting the trains running on time while building concentration camps, how 1930s (or The Age of Rage) does that all sound? And tell me again, oh Mr Market, where this ends?

    via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2Ik1h2J Tyler Durden

    Trump Cares About Two Things – Empire and the Stock Market

    Though not surprising, it’s nevertheless extraordinary to watch Donald Trump publicly and shamelessly morph into a George W. Bush era neocon when it comes to foreign policy, and a CNBC stock market cheerleader when it comes to the economy. Just like Barack Obama before him, Trump talked a good populist game on two issues of monumental importance (foreign policy and the rigged economy), but once elected immediately turned around and prioritized the core interests of oligarchy.

    Trump doesn’t even give lip service to big picture populist topics anymore unless they’re somehow related to the culture war, which works out perfectly for the entrenched oligarchy since the culture war primarily serves as a useful distraction to keep the rabble squabbling while apex societal predators loot whatever’s left of this hollowed out neo-feudal economy.

    continue reading

    from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://bit.ly/2KkZGfH
    via IFTTT

    Felicity Huffman, 13 Others Plead Guilty in College Admissions Scandal

    HuffmanThe actress Felicity Huffman, accused of bribing SAT officials in order to improve her daughter’s chances of getting into an elite college, joined 13 other defendants in pleading guilty to all charges Monday.

    “I am in full acceptance of my guilt, and with deep regret and shame over what I have done, I accept full responsibility for my actions and will accept the consequences that stem from those actions,” said Huffman. “I am ashamed of the pain I have caused my daughter, my family, my friends, my colleagues and the educational community. I want to apologize to them and, especially, I want to apologize to the students who work hard every day to get into college, and to their parents who make tremendous sacrifices to support their children and do so honestly.”

    Not among those pleading guilty: actress Lori Loughlin, who portrayed “Aunt Becky” on Full House, and is accused of making a $500,000 bribe to help her daughter gain admittance to the University of Southern California. The difference between Huffman’s tone and Loughlin’s could not be more stark: The latter actually signed autographs on her way to court last week.

    Huffman has probably agreed to admit her guilt in exchange for a reduced sentence. Those involved in the conspiracy are likely facing hefty fines, community services, probation, and possibly short stints in prison. Most are wealthy enough that fines may not be a significant punishment—which is an issue, if the goal is to deter this kind of behavior in the future. On the other hand, it’s hard to argue that public safety necessitates locking up a bunch of non-violent first-time offenders—the U.S. needs to imprison vastly fewer people—and the humiliation and other consequences for the kids (including loss of enrollment) will certainly sting.

    The bigger issue is what to do about the college admissions system itself. This scandal has revealed how the wealthy were able to cheat their way in by bribing standardized testing officials and taking advantage of the athletic-industrial complex. The sheer amount of bureaucracy evidently makes higher education an easy target for grifters. As I wrote in my previous article about the scandal, “Time to Put the College Admissions System on a Rocket and Shoot It Into the Sun”:

    Indeed, athletic administrative bloat appears to be a significant contributing factor to the success of this scam. Many of the bribe-takers were coaches, and it’s fairly worrying they have so much sway over the admissions process. One downside of forcing universities to hire a bunch of administrators—something federal guidance has encouraged for decades—is that there are more potential targets for Singer’s schemes.

    Unfortunately, colleges and universities routinely prioritize factors other than academic ability when making admissions decisions. Athletic considerations matter far too much, as do legacy connections. And of course, donating a new wing to the university’s hospital or library is a good way to make sure your kid gets a second look. Singer took things much further, but it’s a difference of degrees. As Frank Bruni wrote in The New York Times, “It may be legal to pledge $2.5 million to Harvard just as your son is applying—which is what Jared Kushner’s father did for him—and illegal to bribe a coach to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars,but how much of a difference is there, really? Both elevate money over accomplishment. Both are ways of cutting in line.”

    The best remedy to this problem might be to admit that college is, to some degree, a scam. Note that these parents were evidently unconcerned that their kids—who were often coached to fake learning disabilities so they could get more time on the ACT and SAT—might struggle with their course loads. It’s because college is a joke, and it’s easy enough for an academically disinclined grifter—an Olivia Jade, if you will—to get by studying nonsense subjects. They’re paying for the experience and the diploma, not the actual education.

    from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2WUO4RT
    via IFTTT

    California Judge Blocks White House Plan To Return Some Asylum Seekers To Mexico

    In yet another annoyance for the Trump Administration as it seeks to implement its immigration reforms to end what’s become an undeniable crisis at the southern border, a federal judge in San Francisco has issued an injunction blocking a Trump administration policy that would have returned non-Mexican asylum seekers to Mexico while their cases were pending.

    San Francisco judges have been a persistent thorn in the administration’s side when it comes to immigration policy, contributing to the White House’s six percent win rate on legal challenges surrounding its policies.

    via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2I7nGBa Tyler Durden

    White House Tightens Rules On Recruiting Cuban Baseball Talent

    As the Trump administration cracks down on supporters of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, it is reportedly planning a new waiver system that could seriously restrict Cuba’s most important (and probably only) export to the US.

    Top baseball talent.

    Cuba

    Initially reported by WSJ and later confirmed by the White House, the Trump administration has informed MLB that it could impose a waiver system making it tougher for Cuban baseball players to play professional baseball in the US, citing “the dangers of doing business with Havana.”

    “Major League Baseball has been informed of the dangers of dealing with Cuba,” a senior administration official said, adding that more details would be released on Monday.

    In a sign of things to come, National Security Advisor John Bolton tweeted on Sunday that “America’s national pastime should not enable the Cuban regime‘s support for Maduro in Venezuela.”

    The crackdown follows an agreement struck between MLB and the Cuban government in December that allowed for the creation of a “safe, legal path” for Cuban players to travel to the US with their families and return to Cuba in the offseason.

    Baseball and its players’ union reached an agreement with Cuba’s baseball federation in December designed to create a safe, legal path for players from the island nation to play professionally in the U.S. The pact called for Cuba to release players who had achieved certain age or professional service time requirements, allowing MLB teams to sign them directly. The team that acquired the player would then pay a fee to the Cuban federation—similar to arrangements MLB already had in place with Japan and South Korea. It also allowed players to travel to the U.S. with their families and return to Cuba in the off-season.

    The decision to crack down on MLB’s relationship with Cuba could be part of a broader effort to punish what the administration calls the “Troika of Tyranny” – Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.

    According to Rolling Stone, baseball has been Cuba’s national obsession since the mid-19th century, and has been played professionally on the island since 1878. But until very recently, Cuban players hoping to make it big in the US have had to defect from their homeland.

    One of the best-known Havana-born players to make it big in MLB is Jose Canseco.  In retirement, Canseco has earned notoriety on twitter for his sporadic market calls and economic analysis.

    via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2WXeulZ Tyler Durden

    The Looking-Glass Splinters…

    Authored by Alastair Crooke via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Wherever one looks, it is evident that the post-war Establishment élites are on the backfoot.

    They maintain a studied panglossian hauteur…

    But whether it is in Britain, where a PM seems ready to sacrifice her own party’s future on the altar of maintaining the cosy nexus between big business and Brussels’ smug ambitions to be a global economic player, rivalling the US or China.

    Or, whether it is Trump’s readiness to put America’s financial system into fiscal and debt jeopardy, in order to keep the cogs and wheels of the Military Industrial Complex whirring and spinning comfortably – at a time when US government over-spending already threatens to break dollar ‘trust’.

    Or, whether it is Europe, where the abrupt ECB reversal marks a huge conceptual failure… [i.e. the destruction and transfer of wealth from Eurozone savers, to rescue debtors; and from the general public to the banks, government and large corporations to rescue their balance sheets]. This has contributed materially to having turned the Eurozone into an economic zombie, and having radicalised a large and hostile constituency.

    Or, whether it is manifest with the EU’s evident befuddlement upon China’s tectonic ‘landing’ at Rome last month, heralding the shift of the global trade ‘plates’. Maybe the EU leaders do ‘get it’ – that the EU is already on the slipway, gliding down towards ‘new waters’, slipping towards its sibling separation from the erstwhile ‘parental home’ of the trans–Atlantic relationship, to a new life in which a Chinese partner features. But if so, strategic thinking is not evident.

    Or, whether it relates to Washington’s foreign-policy Establishment’s surprise at China and Russia’s assertive ‘spanner’ thrust into the ‘game’ of regime change being played-out in Venezuela; or by NATO-member Turkey insisting to buy Russia’s S400s, despite Washington’s threats; or (unimaginably), by tiny Jordan and Lebanon actually saying ‘no’ to the US (over Kushner’s plan to strip King Abdullah of his custodianship of Jerusalem’s al-Quds, or in Lebanon’s case, by declining to wage sanctions ‘war’ on its co-citizens).

    The studied ‘front’ persists, but the cracks show. What is significant, and so interesting, is that the resistance now is percolating into the ranks of the ‘Establishment’ itself. (The Establishment was never homogenous, but internal revolt within its ranks was always cauterised easily, and the wound quickly healed-over). Not now – at least not so easily.

    All in all, the post-war élites are shaken: the reaction to the Mueller Inquiry outturn (by Establishment outlier Trump), and EU Michel Barnier’s outburst that there are mischief-makers (Nigel Farage in particular), who actually “want to destroy the EU from inside; and others from outside”- are but two symptoms of psychic fracture in an erstwhile, sealed Cartesian mental retort. Core concepts are being challenged on many fronts.

    An ancient European war of two ‘visions’ – between old-style conservatives (with a small ‘c’) that are instinctively suspicious of grand, utopian projects, and who prize autonomy and native institutions – is rebelling against the contemporary embrace of millenarianism.

    This has re-emerged most furiously with Brexit; with Macron’s Jupiter-like conceit; with the scorn and non-conformism coming out from Italy; and from the undisguised disdain for EU ‘values’ emanating from Warsaw, Budapest, and other Visegrad capitals. Is it truly feasible for the EU to maintain their unbending stance, as challenges proliferate?

    Yet, in spite of this catalogue; in spite of all the evidence surrounding us that we stand at the edge of one of those substantive inflection points, we just amble on, continuing as usual – sure that we will muddle through, somehow ‘okay’.

    But will we? Why the unfurrowed sanguinity? We may be entering global recession. Yet neither the Fed, nor the ECB, have the weapons to deal with it (as they freely admit), beyond reverting to more money-printing, interest rate suppression and asset purchases. What will be the outcome then, this time? The Central Banks will print (already collectively $1 Trillion this first quarter). In past rounds of monetary inflation, cheap Chinese imports did repress western inflation. We could ‘print’ the cash, with seemingly no adverse blowback. And China effectively ‘lent us’ its growth stimulus, too.

    But the adverse blowback was always there, just less visible. The ‘printing’ represented a huge transfer of wealth from one component of the public – to another. Can the fabric of our polity really assimilate any greater inequalities, without tearing apart, without exploding? Are not the Gillets Jaunes flashing a red warning signal? Apparently not. Markets continue to soar away. For sure, the consequences however, to the inevitable (now fully locked-in) monetary authorities’ response to stagnation, this time will be that the 60% will sink closer to the economic ‘cliff edge’, (whilst the 40% fly high) – and the young will become the new long-term unemployed.

    More fundamentally, the question is rarely asked: can America truly Be Made Great Again (MAGA), its military totally renewed, and its civil infrastructure refurbished, when starting out from a position today (year to date) where its shortfall of Federal revenue to expenditure is 30%; where its debt is now so great that the US may only survive by again repressing interest rates to a (zombifying) near zero?

    And again, is it truly feasible to force manufacturing jobs back to a high-cost base America, from their low-cost, offshoring in Asia – against the backdrop of an America made progressively ‘higher-cost’, through its locked-in monetary inflation policies – except by crashing the value of the dollar to make this high cost base platform globally competitive again? Is MAGA realistic; or will the re-capture of jobs back to the US from the low-cost world end by triggering the very recession which the Central Banks so fear?

    And as the post-war élites in America and Europe become more and more desperate to maintain the illusion of being the vanguard of global civilisation, how will they cope with the re-appearance of a ‘civilization-state’ in its own right: i.e. China? How will the EU respond to a Pentagon obsessed with China, China, China, when that China is building its BRI right into Europe? Will it – like America – opt for protectionism, and promote mergers and mega entities to compete with heavy US and Chinese corporations? Is Europe even capable of restraining the US, as the latter builds its military containment of China, and expects Europe to play along?

    In Europe, the push-back against an entrenched élite French ‘system’ benefitting the few, and failing the many, threatens to upturn the political coherence of France. In the UK, Brexit threatens to blow the British political party system apart. Differences over the UK’s relationship with the EU have never been deeper, more salient, and more entrenched than they are now. The differences between the urban cosmopolitan élite of London and rest of the country have never been more marked. The question now of whether, and to what degree, Britain should belong to a Europe, which is (in Der Spiegel’s “a dominion … a central power exerting control over many different peoples … and as a German Reich in the economic realm” – has become a fundamental cleavage.

    Brexit is becoming bigger than ‘Brexit’. Old party allegiances no longer operate, and are being surpassed. The two major parties are split. Formerly loyal activists are calling their party leaderships treacherous – or worse. The party signifier is no longer class, or historic family adherence: It is ‘Leave’ or ‘Remain’.

    Tectonic shifts like this, are rare. But when they do occur, they throw up the possibility of profound change and realignment. Many Britons are exiting loyalties and preferences in which they once had lived. New parties and new contenders are emerging. Existing parties are fracturing – or trying to reinvent themselves – as disdain for the parties and their leaders reaches epidemic proportions. All that seemed solid is melting into air, with profound consequences for the political future and even for the system of governance – as the UK parliament turned ‘rogue’, as parliament moved to usurp the prerogative of government.

    Normally mild-mannered party members in Britain are saying in the wake of what has occurred in parliament this last week, that only a “political revolution” can restore legitimate governance to the UK. Incredible. Take this as one example:

    “We stand agog at the daily, in fact hourly, political machinations of the Prime Minister, Parliament and the establishment. We have witnessed the rewriting of constitutional precedent, a blatant disregard for manifesto commitments, the bending of rules and lies on an industrial scale.

    All this to keep the UK a prisoner of the EU system and a milch cow for Germany and Brussels bureaucracy. No heresy allowed in the new inquisition. What is astonishing is the apparent continued belief amongst our superior classes that “ordinary people” aren’t watching and understanding what is afoot.”

    From some radical, perhaps? No it is a quote from the former Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce, with 30 years’ experience of UK and EU government. Establishment personified. When the resistance start from within the élite, historically it suggests that we must expect a long conflict coming.

    It may be satisfying to think that this is an insular British reaction to Brexit, of little wider import. But that would be wrong. We are on the cusp of inflection. Is not similar occurring in the US, with the ‘deplorables’ (as latter day ‘Confederates’) facing-off against the northern urban liberals, much as in the US Civil War?

    Is not the stand-off taking place within the EU somehow a re-run of the struggles (by mostly Protestant) nation states, that were precisely opposed to the notion of an European Empire imposing its rigid ‘Lex Europa’ over diverse peoples, by a centralized and aloof, authority?

    This is occurring at a moment when the US and European economies are fragile. Why is the inherent risk in all this so difficult to perceive, or acknowledge?

    via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2KtJrwK Tyler Durden

    Bill Clinton Honoree Thrown In Jail Over “Biggest Clean Energy Scam In American History”

    One of three scam artists behind a $54 million ponzi scheme was sentenced to prison for her role in the biggest ‘green energy’ scams in US history, according to NBC New York.

    Troy Wragg and Amanda Knorr in their Mantria Corp. offices in 2009

    35-year-old Amanda Knorr of Hellertown, Pennsylvania received just 30 months in federal prison for a ponzi scheme involving her 2005 startup, Mantria, in which “many people lost their life savings,” according to assistant US Attorney Robert Livermore following Knorr’s sentencing. 

    Knorr co-founded a company called Mantria Corp., which with the help of a slick-talking Colorado “wealth advisor” raised millions for a supposed clean energy product called “biochar.”

    Knorr and fellow Mantria co-founder Troy Wragg both graduated in 2005 from Temple University and within four years had raised $54 million from hundreds of investors. Most of the investors were wooed through seminars run by Wayde McKelvey, of Colorado.

    Their pitch about producing biochar, however, turned out to be completely baked, according to prosecutors, and eventually proved to be a giant Ponzi scheme. –NBC New York

    According to federal prosecutors, Mantria never came close to producing biochar at their Tennessee facility. At seminars run by “wealth advisor” Wayde McKelvy of Colorado, investors were told a different story. “These investors, husbands and wives nearing retirement, retirees looking to invest their savings, and other small-time prospectors, were wooed by the idea of big profits from clean energy: getting rich and saving the world,” according to the report. 

    McKelvy was convicted in October on charges of wire fraud and securities fraud, and is currently appealing his conviction. Wragg’s sentencing is set for June. 

    Co-conspirator Wayde McKelvy

    “Instead of high returns, the over 300 victims of this fraud unwittingly invested in uninhabitable land and a bogus trash-to-green energy business idea based on bogus scientific methodology, said US Attorney William McSwain last October after McKelvy’s conviction. 

    The fraudsters were honored by former President Bill Clinton in a 2009 ceremony for the Clinton Global Initiative before the scam came to light. After Mantria was first charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission for selling millions in unlicensed securities in 2009, the case was known as “the biggest green scam” in the history of the United States, according to the report.

    Troy Wragg, right, on stage in 2009 with former President Bill Clinton during a ceremony of the Clinton Global Initiative.
    Photo credit: Youtube via NBC New York

    Of the $54 million thought to have been invested in Mantria, $17 million was returned to early investors to keep the Ponzi scheme going, while misleading new investors into thinking the venture was hugely profitable. By the time they were shut down by the SEC in 2009, Mantria had just $790,000 of the remaining $37 million

    Wragg, in an interview with Metro newspaper in 2009, said he didn’t spend lavishly despite the influx of millions to his company.

    “I live in a 1,200-square-foot [home],” he told Metro in the only interview he has given. “I don’t drive a Lamborghini.”

    But the newspaper noted that he did drive around in a Mercedes SLK350 with a “MANTRIA” vanity license plate.

    A class action lawsuit filed in federal court eventually recovered about $6 million for victims of the scheme. Another $800,000 was placed in a receivership, overseen by a Colorado accountant John Paul Anderson. –NBC New York

    Anderson – the accountant tasked with dispersing funds recovered in the class action lawsuit, has yet to distribute the money which remains in receivership. 

    via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2FXK6Bf Tyler Durden

    Pete Buttigieg Is the Most Interesting Democrat Running for President: New at Reason

    The most interesting Democrat running for president may just be Pete Buttigieg, the 37-year-old, gay mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

    He visited Boston earlier this month, appearing before a crowd of more than 1,000 at Northeastern University. In more than a few moments, he was downright impressive.

    Facing a question from a tenant-rights activist complaining about Northeastern fueling “gentrification,” he pivoted to an answer about affordable housing that included the words “rethinking exclusionary zoning.”

    That is a big deal coming from a Democratic politician. Left-leaning economists and journalists such as Eduardo Porter, Paul Krugman, and Lawrence Summers have been making this point about zoning restrictions artificially constraining the supply of housing. It’s ideologically consistent with libertarian aversion to regulatory interference in free markets. But politicians have been slow to seize the issue.

    And he talks about freedom. “We need to start to talk about freedom more on our side of the aisle,” he said, in response to a question about a faculty labor union, suggesting that benefits such as retirement and health care should move away from “being entirely dependent on your employer.”

    Early though it is, though, it’s not too early to say that having Buttigieg in the presidential race urging “talk about freedom more” has the potential to be a positive development not just for the Democrats but for the country, writes Ira Stoll.

    View this article.

    from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2Ih4MqN
    via IFTTT

    Theresa May Considering Vote On Second Referendum As Brexit Talks Stall

    Ahead of a fifth day of talks between No. 10 and the opposition on Tuesday, the Daily Telegraph reports that Prime Minister Theresa May is considering amending her withdrawal agreement to include a Commons vote on authorizing a second ‘confirmatory’ Brexit referendum as a ploy to break the deadlock over a revised Brexit deal.

    With the prime minister planning to head to Europe to meet with Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron, the word out of Brussels is that the Europeans are leaning toward a longer Brexit ‘flextension’ instead of the short-term Article 50 delay that May has formally requested,. However, the prime minister is still reportedly trying to hammer out a deal with the opposition ahead of a European summit that begins on Wednesday.

    May

    May reportedly discussed the possibility of the confirmatory vote with a few members of her cabinet during a meeting on Monday. Her team is confident that they would have the votes to win the vote.

    Commons leader Andrea Leadsom was said to be “absolutely furious” over May’s negotiations with Labour.

    Over the weekend, May reportedly discussed a compromise with Labour that would have included a “future lock” on any deal making it impossible for May’s successor to tear it up (some have jokingly referred to it as a “Boris lock”). But Labour was ultimately wary that such a deal could be reached. Meanwhile, Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer said last night that May’s negotiating strategy has mostly consisted of “telling us everything we had ever wanted” is already in her deal. Starmer added that negotiations were focused on a measure to vote on a second referendum, and the above mentioned ‘future lock’.

    Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn accused the prime minister of holding to her ‘red lines’, though there has reportedly been some progress on offering Labour continued alignment with EU ‘workers rights’ and ‘environmental protections.’

    “The exchanges with the Government have been serious, but our shadow cabinet expressed frustration that the Prime Minister has not yet moved off her red lines so we can reach a compromise. The key issues that we must see real movement on to secure an agreement are a customs union with the EU, alignment with the single market and full dynamic alignment of workers’ rights, environmental protections and consumer standards.”

    While May is convinced that she could win a vote on holding a second referendum, losing the vote wouldn’t be the first major miscalculation since she arrived at No. 10. Though, considering recent polling showing a majority of Brits just want to leave without a deal on Friday, even if it won the vote, a second referendum might not be the political slam dunk that Labour hopes it would be.

    via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2GaWuz9 Tyler Durden