FAA Halts Flights Into New York’s LaGuardia Over Air Traffic Controller Staff Shortage

The Federal Aviation Administration halted flights into New York’s LaGuardia Airport on Friday due to a shortage of Air Traffic Control (ATC) staff. 

On Wednesday night Air Traffic Controllers Association President Paul Rinaldi told CNN‘s Chris Cuomo that ATC workers are making “routine mistakes” due to high stress brought on by the partial government shutdown, which entered its 35th day on Friday. 

“The biggest toll I have right now is the human toll, the fatigue in my work environment right now where I’m seeing routine mistakes because they’re thinking about which credit cards can I consolidate up for zero interest?” said Rinaldi. 

Rinaldi also pointed to growing equipment concerns caused by staffing shortages at air traffic controlling facilities.

    “Our equipment is not being fixed,” Rinaldi said. “Equipment that we’re relying on to make sure that planes line up on the right surface that they’re supposed to land on … equipment like being able to relay to the pilot that dangerous weather is ahead.” –CNN

    Shares of Delta and JetBlue took immediate hits on the news: 

    Developing…

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

    FBI and CNN Turn Roger Stone Arrest Into a Media Event: Reason Roundup

    The FBI executed an early morning raid on the home of Roger Stone, arresting the former Trump campaign adviser for allegedly communicating with the campaign about Democratic Party emails acquired by Wikileaks. The indictment charges Stone with one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, one count of witness tampering, and five counts of making false statements, and it alleges that Stone threatened a man’s dog and made Godfather references in his instructions to “Person 2,” Pacifica radio host and comedian Randy Credico.

    Stone’s arrest itself comes as no surprise (“Stone has said himself he expected to be indicted by Mueller,” notes Axios), but CNN’s video of the arrest seems to have ignited additional interest. CNN was there for the whole Fort Lauderdale, Florida, affair, which has media Twitter speculating about who tipped the network off.

    “It’s possible this tip-off came from FBI rather than Mueller’s office, but either way, nobody should be comfortable having law enforcement engineer with media outlets the filming of someone’s arrest at their home like a reality TV circus,” The Intercept‘s Glenn Greenwald said this morning.

    “CNN either acted on a tip…or had been camped out there (either is good journalism.),” tweeted Greta Van Susteren. “What is most interesting is why it was a raid and not a surrender. Fear of flight or destruction of evidence or prosecutors really not like Stone?”

    The indictment notes that during Stone’s tenure as a Trump campaign adviser, he “was claiming both publicly and privately to have communicated with Organization 1,” a.k.a. WikiLeaks. In August 2016, WikiLeaks denied direct communication with Stone. Stone then said his communication had been though a “mutual friend” and “go-between,” and he “continued to communicate with members of the Trump Campaign” about what WikiLeaks might have from Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.

    The indictment further alleges that Stone “made multiple false statements” to the U.S. House Permanent Committee on Intelligence about communications with WikiLeaks, and that he “falsely denied possessing records that contained evidence of these interactions.” It also says that he “attempted to persuade a witness”—that would be “Person 2,” Credico—”to provide false testimony to and withold pertinent information from the investigations” about his efforts as an intermediary between WikiLeaks and Stone.

    You can read the whole indictment here.

    FREE MINDS

    An anti-boycotting law in Arkansas has been upheld. The law bans state entities from doing business with or investing in companies that boycott Israel.

    FREE MARKETS

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and The Washington Post‘s Fact Checker have been battling over wages, wealth transfer, and Walmart. In a column headlined “Ocasio-Cortez’s misfired facts on living wage and minimum wage,” Glenn Kessler explores a comment Ocasio-Cortez made during a recent interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates:

    I think it’s wrong that a vast majority of the country doesn’t make a living wage, I think it’s wrong that you can work 100 hours and not feed your kids. I think it’s wrong that corporations like Walmart and Amazon can get paid by the government, essentially experience a wealth transfer from the public, for paying people less than a minimum wage.

    After pointing out that “Both Walmart and Amazon do pay more than the minimum wage,” Kessler writes that Ocasio-Cortez’s

    spokesman supplied a Washington Post article about a proposal by [Bernie] Sanders that would require large employers such as Amazon and Walmart to fully cover the cost of food stamps, public housing, Medicaid and other federal assistance received by their employees. The article cited a report that as many as 1 in 3 Amazon employees in Arizona—and about 1 in 10 in Pennsylvania and Ohio—receive food stamps.

    The companies say the figures are misleading and reflect the fact that either the employees are choosing to work part time or that the entry-level workers may have been on public assistance when they first started. “We think we help move more people off public assistance than any company out there,” Lundberg said.

    Ocasio-Cortez then accused Kessler of relying on a Walmart-funded paper to make his point. In fact it was from an NYU professor for a Center for American Progress–hosted forum.

    QUICK HITS

    Starting on Friday, Central Americans who attempt to enter the US without papers at the port of entry at San Ysidro—the most popular official border crossing for migrants seeking asylum in the United States—are going to be turned back to Mexico while their cases are pending. The shift was initially reported by Reuters, citing a Mexican official. A DHS official confirmed the plan to Vox.

    The policy change means that people who are trying to exercise their legal right to seek asylum will be barred from the US for as much as a year while they wait for their claim to come before a judge. It is the most sweeping development in Trump’s ongoing crackdown on asylum seekers, who are largely from Central America, and disproportionately children and families.

    • “If all goes well, we may end up with a little more Fourth Amendment here in the USA,” Tim Cushing writes optimistically at Techdirt. “The Supreme Court is currently considering reviewing a case that will more clearly define what Fourth Amendment implications cops’ four-legged friends bring to the (search) party.”
    • Cheers:

    from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2B5z1N0
    via IFTTT

    The Magic’s Gone – Central Bankers Will Be “Surprised” & “Shocked”

    Authored by Jeffrey Snider via Alhambra Investment Partners,

    For the magic trick to work, it has to be credible. The audience has to be given something concrete upon which they will suspend their disbelief. Quantitative Easing was just such a trick, though only the public held onto any basis for success. You still hear it all the time, how QE was “money printing.” That was the trick.

    It doesn’t work if there is the slightest doubt. We know as late as 2013 even policymakers had them, the Dallas Fed President’s hushed “monetary head fake.” That actually makes it sound better than it was, that officials were doing the faking rather than being in the group who fell for it.

    No, QE didn’t work. Not in the slightest. Even as a technical matter it was pure failure. Proponents say that it lowered interest rates at the very least, no matter what might’ve been the results further down the line. Again, nonsense. Everywhere QE was instituted bond rates had already fallen often quite substantially long before whichever central bank booked its first purchase.

    In Germany, for example, the 10-year bund yield was near 3.60% in April 2011 and heading higher. By the time the ECB was forced into rate cuts later that year, it was already under 2.00% for the first time. When QE was begun about three and a half years later, the benchmark 10s were near zero without requiring a single transaction against any of the NCB’s accounts (Europe’s PSPP was carried out by National Central Banks).

    In early 2019, now as QE has ended the yield for Germany’s 10s is practically zero once again. In trading today, it fell to just 18 bps, almost exactly where it was in April 2015. Mario Draghi says Europe was booming in 2017, yet Germany’s yield trajectory reflects a very, very different economic interpretation.

    Notice how the further Europe’s economy falls behind its pre-crisis baseline, the lower interest rates tend to stay no matter what or how much “stimulus.” This is no magic trick, nor is it coincidence.

    Low yields were only the theoretical first step, however. We are taught how low interest rates signal stimulus when in fact they declare its very opposite.

    According the ECB, it would buy German bunds, bobls, and schaetzes as well as paper issued by other European sovereigns from European banks. It was a simple asset swap, government bonds in exchange for bank reserves (parked at either a reserve account or on deposit with the ECB). Having given up a yielding asset for a non-yielding one, these banks were expected to do something productive (like loans) with those reserves

    Instead, banks used them combined with their own capacities to buy more bunds, bobls, and schaetzes (as well as paper issued by other European sovereigns). They did very little lending. Very little.

    Persistently low interest rates tell us everything we need to know about the true state of any economy. If banks are not convinced of economic growth, therefore the financial opportunity to do something with these bank reserves, then that’s the end of the story as far as the chances for any recovery. Rather than go into risky assets, they continue to favor the most highly liquid instruments even if (especially if) the central bank is buying them, too.

    The reason is simple; banks know what central banks don’t. The monetary system globally remains hugely risky even after eleven years and so many central bank attempts I’ve lost count (they are on QE 24 just in Japan, for instance). Liquidity preferences rule every consideration, because financial institutions know from recent experience what matters is being able to survive when one of these monetary events strikes – because it always does.

    Even at its best in 2017, no one was really buying the boom schtick. The media ate it up actively cheering for technocratic competence to be proven, wanting and needing it to be true. Europe’s economy, like Japan’s and America’s, was doomed (eurodollar system) from the beginning and the bond market knew it.

    Now comes the data to demonstrate once again they really don’t know what they are doing. It starts in market doubt that becomes validated by more and more economic statistics.

    According to IHS Markit, France’s composite PMI (which includes both manufacturing and services industries) for January was 48.7, well below the 50 dividing line supposedly marking the difference between growth and contraction. That’s just the Yellow Vests, some will say; only they are reversing cause and effect.

    French protests sure don’t explain Germany, the composite PMI in France’s neighbor was up slightly to 52.1, being held down by the manufacturing sector. Markit’s index for that segment dropped below 50 for the first time in 50 months.

    As a result, the composite for all Europe came in under 51.0 for the first time in five and a half years. The last time the index was at or near 50.7 as it is in January 2019 was the last time Europe was coming out of full-scale recession.

    This trend isn’t contained within European misfortunes. I particularly liked the bluntness, for once, with which Markit’s commentary spoke of Japan’s manufacturing sector.

    Flash Japan Manufacturing PMI® falls to 50.0 in January (52.6 – December), ending longest expansionary run for over a decade… Production scaled back for first time since July 2016, while confidence lowest in over six years.

    The US composite ticked up slightly, registering 54.5 in January up from 54.4 in December. That may seem to indicate US strength or the American economy as the cleanest dirty shirt. There is no decoupling, however, only variances in time before the global downturn strikes everywhere.

    We already know what’s going on in China.

    The inverted UST curve and eurodollar futures, like Germany’s 10s, suggest the matter has been settled. Sour, not soar.

    Central bankers will be surprised and shocked if only because more than anyone they fooled themselves with their third-rate magic trick. Recovery is only possible once the media and the public stop buying tickets to see it.

    Here we go again. Eurodollar #4 turning into Worldwide Downturn #4.

    via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2sL74VV Tyler Durden

    China Quietly Announces Quasi QE To “Keep Ponzi Scheme Afloat”

    On Thursday, to little fanfare, China’s central bank announced its latest liquidity injection scheme, which many analysts saw as a quasi Quantitative Easing program and a potential precursor to full-blown QE.

    Just like QE in the US, where financial system liquidity was boosted by the Fed injecting reserves into banks in exchange for sales of Treasurys and MBS, which fungible liquidity was then used for a variety of purposes including directly investing in risk assets as the JPM London Whale fiasco demonstrated, the PBOC announced that it will allow China’s primary dealers to swap their holdings of perpetual bonds for central bank bills, and directly use those bonds as collateral to access certain PBOC liquidity operations.

    By directly intermediating in the market, and effectively backstopping securities issued by local banks, this measure will increase the appeal of perpetual bonds to be issued by banks making them riskless for all intents and purposes, which can then be used to bolster capital cushions and thereby help relax a key current constraint on credit supply.

    In other words, the PBOC just unveiled a roundabout way of injecting even more “risk-free” liquidity directly into the system, or as Rabobank’s Michael Every (more below) writes “Chinese banks, desperate for cash to keep the Ponzi scheme afloat, can issue perpetuals that nobody in their right mind would want to hold; and the PBOC will swap them for its bills.”

    * * *

    First, some background: In December, China’s financial authorities permitted banks to issue perpetual bonds as a way to bolster their capital base, and on Thursday Bank of China launched the first ever batch of perpetual bonds – which are the functional equivalent of preferred equity as they never have to be repaid – issued by Chinese banks, with an officially approved quota at 40 billion yuan. These bonds count toward banks’ (non-core) tier 1 capital, thereby boosting the bank’s capital cushion and allowing the bank to issue more loans into China’s increasingly cash-starved system.

    Why did Beijing take this aggressive step? Because as Goldman explains, banks’ increased consideration of their capital cushion had weighed on monetary policy transmission and loan extension. So, by adding to the banking system’s capital buffer, the issuance of perpetual bonds should in turn help ease a main current constraint on credit supply.

    But that wasn’t enough, and just to make sure there is sufficient demand for “perpetual bonds” issued by banks, the PBOC launched the Central Bank Bill Swap (CBS), which just like QE, is an asset swap where the central bank injects high powered liquidity to backstop bank balance sheets, enabling them to pursue riskier credit transformation operations, in this particular case, issue more loans with the intention of reflating the system.

    Below we summarize some of the key features of these Bill Swaps:

    • The new tool works by giving primary dealers bills that can be used as high-quality collateral in exchange for perpetual bonds purchased from banks
    • China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission will also allow Chinese insurance firms to invest in banks’ tier 2 capital debt and capital bonds without fixed terms
    • Capital charges will be applied on perpetual bond holdings on Chinese banks’ balance sheet, even after they swap the securities for central bank bills using a new PBOC tool.

    Regarding the PBOC’s measures, the duration of the central bank bill swap was initially set at three years.  While the swapped central bank bills cannot be directly converted into cash, and can only be used as collateral for borrowing from the PBOC (e.g., via OMOs) or other financial institutions, once said repo operation takes place, the proceeds from the CBS are effectively the equivalent of cash as banks face no further limitations on what to do with the funds received from the perpetual bonds issuance. There are some modest limitations on eligible collateral: the perpetual bonds that qualify for CBS need to be issued by banks that meet some minimum prudential requirements (such as CAR not lower than 8%) but generally this operation is meant to be inclusive and allow as many banks as possible to participate. As Goldman notes, more implementation details such as the risk weight of this new tool are still not released yet.

    And just to make sure enough liquidity reaches the banks, the PBOC will also allow perpetual bonds that are rated AA or above to be used as collateral for MLF, TMLF, SLF, and relending monetary operations, i.e., once the bank issues the PBOC-backstopped perpetuals – which makes them the risk-equivalent of cash for downstream investors thanks to their central bank backstop – it can use the proceeds for pretty much anything.

    Of course, this is not full-blown QE because the announced move are not monetary measures per se, in that they do not involve creation of money; they do however involve the central bank backstopping a bond-like instrument, which then has all the functional equivalents of money. Meanwhile, as Goldman also notes, the CBS “does not mean that the PBOC is indirectly providing capital to banks, as the CBS is of limited duration”, which while true, does provide banks with virtually risk-free capital for a period of three years, so the “limited duration” argument in a world where investors only care about day to day liquidity is somewhat naive.

    * * *

    Naturally, with China launching such a “novel” mechanism to boost liquidity in the system, there were quite a few analyst reactions, and courtesy of Bloomberg, we present some of these:

    Ming Ming, head of fixed income research at CITIC Securities

    • The new policies addressed two issues that had been major obstacles for the development of banks’ perpetual bonds: the poor liquidity of perpetual bonds and the need to include insurance firms, who are key investors for long-term bonds, as eligible perp buyers
    • There could be three possible ways to boost bank perps liquidity:
      • Investors who buy bank perps can sell the securities to primary dealers, who are able to swap the perps into central bank bills
      • Primary dealers could use central bank bills as collateral for repurchase transactions with other institutions
      • Primary dealers can borrow from PBOC against perpetual bonds or central bank bills

    Li Qilin, chief economist at Lianxun Securities

    • The introduction of Central Bank Bill Swap brings PBOC into the market as a buyer, boosting liquidity of perpetual bonds
    • The ultimate goal of such a new tool is to expand credit supply. Perpetual bonds can replenish banks’ capital, therefore helping expand their loan books
    • There are about 65 banks whose perpetual bonds can be eligible for central bank bill swap. The total loan size of the 65 banks makes up over 65% of that of all financial institutions

    Ji Linghao, analyst at Huachuang Securities

    • It makes primary dealers more willing to buy perpetual bonds and ensures successful issuance of such debt
    • Allowing insurance firms to buy perpetual bonds helps diversify the investor base for such securities, making it easier to sell those notes
    • Allowing primary dealers to swap perpetual bonds into central bank bills effectively means that PBOC throws itself behind such securities, easing market concern over risks of perpetual bonds

    Liu Li Gang, at Citigroup

    • The new Central Bank Bill Swap may make itself both a market player and a regulator, potentially leading to conflict of interests
    • It may be better for the PBOC to “play just a facilitating role together with other market players”
    • PBOC may have been “over reaching” in the market, and such interventions could make China’s monetary policy implementation extremely complex, monetary policy less transparent and policy transmission less effective

    But the best, if also most cynical recap, of what quietly took place in China, comes from Rabobank’s Michael Every, which we present below:

    China just announced “US banks can start operating there in six months.” I am sure useful-idiot headline-followers will say China is opening up. They probably won’t notice the PBOC also announced a Central Bank Bills Swap that will give primary dealers bills they can use as collateral in exchange for a flood of new perpetual bonds that Chinese banks are about to issue, following the lead of the Bank of China (which is offering CNy40bn at around 4.5% for people who never want to get their money back).

    In other words, Chinese banks, desperate for cash to keep the Ponzi scheme afloat, can issue perpetuals that nobody in their right mind would want to hold; and the PBOC will swap them for its bills. Add that to MLF operations already underway and chatter of outright QE and one finds it hard to see where the real business model for Wall Street is in China, or to argue the part of Soros’ speech where he underlines how fragile China really is (which is why it needs that Wall Street cash-flow).

    And, as Every hints, should the Bill Swap fail to boost credit creation and/or sentiment sufficiently, there is always good, old “outright QE” to fall back on…

    via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2Tebv7z Tyler Durden

    Unpaid TSA and FBI Agents Don’t Deserve Your Sympathy

    The partial shutdown of the federal government is entering its second month, with few signs that it will end anytime soon. Continuing right along with it is the national outpouring of sympathy and material support for the some 800,000 federal workers who’ve either been furloughed or forced to work without pay.

    That’s been most evident in the one-company town of Washington, D.C., where businesses have been giving away everything from free pizza and beet burgers to heavily discounted microbrews that get cheaper the longer the government shutdown goes on.

    Outside the Beltway, state governments are starting to pitch in. In Connecticut, furloughed feds can now apply for zero-interest loans during the shutdown. The Oregon legislature is drafting a bill that would extend eligibility for unemployment benefits to these same folks, while the coastal town of Astoria, Oregon, is waiving their water and sewage bills.

    Average citizens are donating free food to TSA agents around the country, while A-list celebrities like Jon Bon Jovi and Gene Simmons have said agents could eat for free at their respective restaurant chains.

    This outpouring of sympathy is perfectly understandable on a human level: People are losing out on pay through no real fault of their own, forcing many families to ask how they’re going to pay for rent or needed medical care. The unfairness is particularly rankling for the 10,000 air traffic controllers who’re being forced to work a demanding, crucial job without being paid.

    And yet none of that very real pain erases the fact that we are seeing an incredible outpouring of grief over something private sector workers have to contend with everyday, and who are not guaranteed backpay once the federal government gets itself together. Worse still, this charity is being directed at people whose current jobs—pay or no—are often unnecessary, ineffectual, or even actively harmful.

    That’s true of the FBI agents, who’re fretting that they’re less able to entrap people during the shutdown thanks to their snitches having been furloughed.

    It’s even more true for TSA agents, who are both incredibly ineffectual even when they’re being paid in full (the agency’s fail rate at catching contraband hovers somewhere between 80 and 95 percent) and whose job requires the violation of the flying public’s privacy and dignity on a daily basis.

    To be sure, forcing people to work without pay is a pretty messed up thing to do, even if the underlying job is bogus.

    Nevertheless, the solution we should be embracing isn’t restoring these professional molesters’ compensation to 100 percent, but rather to fire all of them, and turn over security to more capable, less handsy private contractors—or, in the case of bureaucrats at the Department of Education, abandoning the work they do altogether.

    Instead, the hyper-partisan attitudes the government shutdown has evoked have seen an increasing number of people lionize them, while ignoring a more fundamental question of whether some of these workers should be on the federal payroll in the first place.

    Public sector unions are trying to recast an attack on workers everywhere, while labor activists argue in the opinion pages of The New York Times that TSA agents could kickstart a new wave of working class activism. Over at The Seattle Times, columnist Danny Westneat wonders aloud if “the humble TSA agent” could be the key to saving democracy.

    The contrast between this near deification of TSA agents and the reality of their jobs is glaring, and hopefully short-lived. Nevertheless, it servers as a reminder of just how overtly political—and misplaced—all the thoughts, prayers, and free pizza flowing toward federal workers really are.

    from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2B6ObS1
    via IFTTT

    Was CNN Tipped Off By FBI Ahead Of Stone Arrest?

    The pre-dawn arrest of former Trump adviser Roger Stone in connection with the Mueller investigation has many scratching their heads over how it went down. Not only did the FBI surprise Stone at 6am Friday morning with a knock on his door – as opposed to simply notifying his attorney and letting Stone turn himself in, but CNN was there to film the entire thing going down. 

    This begs the question; did the FBI tip off CNN for their dramatic “takedown” of Stone? 

    Former Fox News host Greta Van Susteren certainly thought so on first take, tweeting: “CNN cameras were at the raid of Roger Stone…so FBI obviously tipped off CNN…even if you don’t like Stone, it is curious why Mueller’s office tipped off CNN instead of trying to quietly arrest Stone;quiet arrests are more likely to be safe to the FBI and the person arrested.” 

    Others shared her sentiment: 

    CNN claims that they staked out Stone’s house based on “unusual grand jury activity in Washington yesterday” along with other information.  

    Van Susteren, upon further reflection, acknowledged that there were others would could have tipped off CNN, including Stone himself. 

    Meanwhile, many are questioning the decision to conduct a “heavy raid” on Stone for lying to Congress, while others connected to the Trump campaign such as Paul Manafort have been allowed to simply turn themselves in. 

    via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2TcK3H3 Tyler Durden

    What Shutdown? Federal Spending Per Day Is Down Only 7%

    Authored by Mark Brandly via The Mises Institute,

    In our Principles of Microeconomics courses, we sometimes consider whether a firm should shutdown some line of production. A firm shuts down when it ceases operations, when it closes down and stops its production. The firm stops spending money on everything except its fixed costs.

    A federal government “shutdown” has a completely different meaning.

    There has been much hand wringing over the current government shutdown that began on December 22 of last year. The Treasury department, with its Daily Treasury Statements, has provided us with details regarding federal spending through January 18. So we have the data on the first four weeks of the shutdown. Let’s try to determine the definition of a government shutdown.

    In order to have some baseline for comparison, consider the budget for Fiscal Year 2018. The Treasury Department reports on all of the dollars withdrawn from federal accounts. In one sense, this is all federal spending. In FY 2018, withdrawals from federal accounts totaled $13,961.9 billion. That works out to a daily average of $38.3 billion.

    In the first 28 days of the shutdown, the feds total withdrawals were $1,163 billion. That’s a daily average of $41.5 billion. If we define federal spending as the total withdrawals from federal accounts, then average daily spending during the shutdown is about 8.5% higher than it was in Fiscal Year 2018.

    However, the federal government is rolling over a large amount of its debt. It is issuing new government securities and using the funds from this sale of these securities to pay for previous securities that have come due. These withdrawals are under the line item Public Debt Cash Redemptions. It’s analogous to a firm borrowing money to make the principal payments on its debt.

    The bulk of federal spending is this type of spending. The reason this spending number is so high is because of this debt service.

    Most everyone, all households and businesses, would classify loan payments as spending, even if they financed the loan payments by borrowing money. However, most analysts, when they discuss federal spending, omit this debt service. They usually only include the other types of spending. So let’s take a look at that.

    In FY 2018, federal withdrawals (spending) not including the debt service (PDCR) totaled $4,757.8 billion. That’s a daily average of $13 billion. (As an aside, please note that two-thirds of federal spending in FY 2018 was debt payments. This should make us uneasy regarding the federal government’s long term financial viability.)

    For the first four weeks of the shutdown, December 22, 2018 to January 18 of this year, withdrawals less PDCR totaled $338.5 billion for a daily average of a little more than $12 billion.

    So by this measure of federal spending, the feds are spending on average 7.3% less per day during this shutdown than they did in FY 2018.

    Regardless of your position on the shutdown, we should recognize the deceit involved in calling this a shutdown. Spending $12 billion per day is not a shut down. Spending 7% less than you spent last year is not a shutdown.

    Calling the current budget impasse a shutdown is just another example of the political corruption of our language.

    via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2RMZ0TE Tyler Durden

    Futures Rally On Report Chinese Vice Ministers Heading To Washington For Trade Talks

    Given that algos aren’t widely regarded for their ability to detect nuance, Wilbur Ross’s comment yesterday that the US and China remained “miles and miles” apart on trade (though he clarified that this “shouldn’t be too surprising” since the most important talks had yet to take place) ignited a selloff that prompted one of the worst daily selloffs in US stocks since the earliest trading days of the year.

    It was only the latest example of Trump administration officials seemingly taking turns talking up – and talking down – the prospects for a trade deal. But with the administration fearful of a sustained selloff – particularly when trade optimism is seemingly the only bulwark against more market chaos – the White House has found a way to reassure investors once again that everything is as it should be with the deadline for a trade agreement looming in the not too distant future.

    Wang

    And ironically, the news that’s sparking optimism in the equity space on Friday is confirmation that a delegation led by two senior Chinese ministers would head to Washington next week to prime the pump for a visit by Liu He, China’s top trade negotiator, and a group of other senior officials later this month.

    Though they would seem to undermine the credibility of all future trade-related denials, the report published by Bloomberg, which follows denials by both the White House and Beijing of an  FT report claiming that the US had cancelled the meeting (which sent markets into a tailspin early this week), has helped renew optimism in the trade-talk process on Friday.

    A Chinese delegation including deputy ministers will arrive in Washington on Monday to prepare for high-level trade talks led by Vice Premier Liu He, according to people briefed on the matter.

    Vice Commerce Minister Wang Shouwen and Vice Finance Minister Liao Min will arrive in the U.S. on Jan 28, according to two of the people who asked not to be named as the discussions aren’t public. China’s central bank governor Yi Gang will join the talks, one of the people said. It wasn’t immediately clear which other officials will attend.

    Liu will arrive in the US on Jan. 30 to meet with Trade Rep Robert Lighthizer for talks that the US has billed as “very, very important”. At that point, with only five weeks remaining until the deadline for escalating tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods, investors should start to get an idea of the likelihood of an amicable outcome.

    As of Friday, the US and China did not appear close to agreement on a range of key issues, from China’s handling of intellectual property to China’s trade surplus with the US. It’s unclear what other Chinese officials will accompany Liu, but what China threatening to crash US markets if Trump doesn’t make a deal, one thing is clear: The situation is growing more dire every day.

    via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2UgEI1D Tyler Durden

    Fed Considering Earlier End To Quantitative Tightening

    Over the weekend, we showed the one chart that every trader should have “taped to their screen“, namely Nomura’s latest recap of the key Fed balance sheet roll-off dates, or those days in which there is a tangible decline in system liquidity as billions in Fed holdings of Treasurys and MBS mature, and the resultant proceeds as the Treasury repays the Fed in cold, hard cash are subsequently destroyed by the Federal Reserve which, as part of Quantiative Tightening, is now in the process of shrinking the money currently in the system.

    Well, it now appears that the chart above may have to be substantially truncated, because according to a d anticipated. That is, assuming the bank’s top policy makers follow through on speculation reported Friday morning by the Wall Street Journal report, the Fed might acquiesce to President Trump’s demands that they “stop with the 50 Bs” – a reference to the central bank’s monthly peak balance sheet runoff, which as we explained previously is really 36.2 Bs…

    … sooner than many investors had anticipated.

    Just a few weeks after Fed Chair Jerome Powell backtracked on his claim, articulated during the press conference that followed the December Fed meeting, that the runoff of the Fed’s balance sheet was on “autopilot”, the WSJ said Friday that the central bank’s top policy makers are seriously considering maintaining a larger balance sheet than what the central bank had initially anticipated when it stopped reinvesting the proceeds from expiring holdings.

    Federal Reserve officials are close to deciding they will maintain a larger portfolio of Treasury securities than they’d expected when they began shrinking those holdings two years ago, putting an end to the central bank’s portfolio wind-down closer into sight.

    Officials are still resolving details of their strategy and how to communicate it to the public, according to their recent public comments and interviews. With interest rate increases on hold for now, planning for the bond portfolio could take center stage at a two-day policy meeting of the central bank’s Federal Open Market Committee next week.

    Yet nothing is certain yet, as Kansas City Fed President Esther George in a Jan. 15 interview: “A lot of the heavy lifting has been done. We’re waiting for the committee to be satisfied that they have reached sufficient understanding of what all the moving pieces are.”

    Curiously, when the balance sheet unwind began, few – and certainly not Chicago Fed president Charles Evans – expected it would become such an important issue in the eyes of the market… which is of course bizarre considering it was the expansion of said balance sheet from under $1 trillion to its peak of $4.5 trillion that was the key catalyst behind the market’s rebound from the “generational low” in 2009.

    The Fed began gradually shrinking its mortgage and Treasurys portfolio in 2017 by allowing securities to mature without reinvesting the proceeds into other assets. At the time officials said the slow unwind would fade into the background – the equivalent of watching paint dry.

    As a result, the Fed expected the process to take up to four years to play out, with many expecting it to conclude some time in 2020. When the runoff began in October 2017, various officials estimated the portfolio—then around $4.5 trillion – could shrink to anywhere between $1.5 trillion and $3 trillion. New York Fed President John Williams went one better in April 2017, when he was the San Francisco Fed’s president, and said that runoff could last five years. Powell himself gave a tentaive ETA of 2020/2021.

    “In about three or four years, we’ll be down to a new normal,” said Fed Chairman Jerome Powell at his Senate confirmation hearing in Nov. 2017.

    But according to WSJ, the Fed now expects the runoff to end much sooner, though the paper hedged that many policy makers still “don’t understand why the market has placed so much emphasis on the balance sheet lately.” When Esther George surprised markets by calling for a pause on rate hikes, she added that it’s “unclear” whether the balance sheet shrinkage had accomplished much in the way of removing accommodation.

    Apparently to the residents of the Marriner Eccles building, inflating the balance sheet is a major market stimulative effect, but its shrinkage should somehow be ignored by the market. And these are the people who set the price of money for the world’s biggest economy…

    Whether Powell offers a similar take during the press conference after next week’s meeting will depend on the conversations that take place during the meeting. According to WSJ, the internal debate over the proper size of the balance sheet has focused on the necessary level of reserves in the banking system. Some believe that holding a large amount in reserve would help the Fed better control volatility in short-term credit markets.

    Powell

    Regardless of where the runoff ends, Lorie Logan, one of the officials responsible for managing the portfolio and an executive at the New York Fed, said in a speech last May that she saw “virtually no chance of going back to the precrisis balance sheet size”, which of course is logical: by 2020 there will be roughly $2 trillion in currency in circulation (and rising) which will be the new floor of the Fed’s balance sheet. Ultimately, the Fed hopes to dump practically all of the MBS it accumulated during QE and shift toward a portfolio consisting almost exclusively of Treasurys.

    “The conversation is really about the relative amount of reserves,” she said.

    This is a concept that many analysts believe isn’t well-understood by investors.

    The idea that the Fed won’t return to its precrisis balance sheet size isn’t well appreciated by some stock investors, creating one potential source of market confusion, said Tom Porcelli, chief U.S. economist at RBC Capital Markets. “Equity investors think the runoff is going to continue in perpetuity,” he said.

    Well, no. As we discussed last week, investors are only doing what they did during QE and POMO days, only in reverse, and on days when the Fed withdraws liquidity, the market drops, in what JPM’s Marko Kolanovic explained recently has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Ultimately, the WSJ report could just be a trial balloon to see how markets – and maybe the president – react to signs of a more dovish take to shrinking the balance sheet. If it works, that should tell markets – and the Fed – everything they need to know. and so far, futures are solidly in the green…

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

    2-Year-Old Falls Out of Vehicle After Car Seat Mishap. The Kid Is Fine. Mom Could Be Headed to Jail.

    CarseatThere but for the grace of God go I, and anyone who has ever used a car seat wrong: A Minnesota mom strapped her child into a car seat, but somehow didn’t manage to strap the seat to the car. Then, the car door opened, either because it wasn’t slammed shut all the way or somehow the child opened it. Result? As mom drives, the car door opens, and the child, in her car seat, falls out.

    Another driver witnessed what happened and scooped the child up—who’s fine, thank god. The mother turned around, came back in hysterics, and was slapped with child endangerment charges.

    Accotding to Yahoo News:

    Maimuna Hassan, 40, faces a gross misdemeanor charge of child endangerment, a permit violation misdemeanor charge and a petty misdemeanor charge for child passenger restraint not fastened, according to a criminal complaint from Blue Earth County, Minnesota. The child endangerment charge carries up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine, or both, and the other two charges carry up to 90 days or a $1,000 fine or both.

    On the one hand, yes, this child was endangered. On the other hand, by the time you are strapping your child into a car seat, you are not a reckless, devil-may-care parent. One study found that up to 93 percent of new parents don’t secure their kids in those confounding car seats correctly. And 75 percent of parents turn their kids face-forward too soon. Doing that kind of thing does not make us bad parents. That makes us humans, confused by something that is not inherently user-friendly.

    A friend who has a PhD in education just told me that she remembers a time when her daughter was one and she drove for an hour before realizing that she’d neglected to actually buckle the kid in.

    That that Minnesota child was perfectly fine is thanks, ironically, to her mom dutifully having strapped her into the protective car seat. To treat a mistake like a crime is the kind of reaction that does not take into account reality. It’s like when cops charge parents with negligence because their 3-year-old suddenly learned to unlock the front door and let himself out in the middle of the night, or because an 8-year-old ditched Sunday School and went to the Dollar Store. Parenting is impossible to do perfectly. To imagine that parents can and must never make a single misjudgment or mistake turns all parents into potential criminals just because they are human, not because they are evil, cruel or careless.

    The comments below the article very much tended toward a burn the witch! mentality. The one thing that she did consciously do wrong was drive on a learner’s permit, not a full license. In a country where it’s hard to get around without a car, I can understand the desperation, but still, the state licenses drivers for a reason.

    Be that as it may, the consequences she might face—including a year or more in jail and a possible $5,000 in fines—are hardly going to make her children safer. With mom in jail or in debt, they are not better off. Hassan coud have been let off with a warning and a mandate to attend one of those car seat safety clinics that are ubiquitous precisely because car seats are confusing to us all.

    from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2B353Jf
    via IFTTT