U.S. Marshals Will Auction $52 Million of Bitcoin Seized Through Asset Forfeiture

The U.S. Marshals will auction off more than 3,800 bitcoins seized with criminal and civil asset forfeiture in connection to a variety of investigations by the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and other federal law enforcement agencies.

The bitcoins will be auctioned off January 22. There will be 11 blocks of bitoins for sale, ranging in size from 100 bitcoins to 813 bitcoins per block, the U.S. Marshals said in a statement. Anyone who wants to participate in the auction has until January 19 to register.

It’s not clear how much of the bitcoin was seized via civil asset forfeiture or without first obtaining a convinction.

This month’s auction will include bitcoins seized from Aaron Schamo, who was arrested in 2016 and accused of running an international fentanyl ring from his home in suburban Salt Lake City, Utah. Federal prosecutors seized more than $1 million in cash from Schamo’s home along with a stash of bitcoin. That bitcoin was worth only about $500,000 at the time of Schamo’s arrest, according to the Associated Press, but was estimated at more than $8 million in December, at the height of the recent bitcoin surge.

Other bitcoins on auction were once owned by David Summerfield, who pleaded guilty in September to drug conspiracy charges. He was busted during a federal crackdown on now-shuttered dark web sites like Silk Road and AlphaBay. According to Ars Technica, Summerfield sold bitcoins to undercover federal agents and told them he used the cryptocurrency to facilitate his marijuana-selling operations. Summerfield told the agents he preferred bitcoin to traditional banks because it “keeps the government off your back.”

This is the sixth time the federal government has offered blocks of bitcoin for auction, but given the cryptocurrency’s recent surge in price, it figures to be the government’s largest windfall by a wide margin.

The Department of Justice sold 2,700 bitcoins with an estimated value of about $1.5 million during the most recent auction in August 2016. The largest-ever auction took place in December 2014, when the DOJ sold about 50,000 bitcoins with an estimated value, at the time, of about $18.6 million.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2mjkqFy
via IFTTT

New D.A. Larry Krasner Cleans House in Philadelphia

As a candidate for district attorney, career civil rights and criminal defense attorney Larry Krasner promised to shake up Philadelphia’s justice system. On that score, at least, he seems to be delivering.

Just a few days after his inauguration, Krasner asked for the resignations of 31 career prosecutors, including a number of upper-level supervisors. The office’s homicide division, which has drawn attention in recent decades for its aggressive pursuit of death sentences, appeared to be a major target. Local media reports suggest that the unit may have lost as much as a third of its staff, some of whom joined the office during the tenure of former top prosecutor Lynne Abraham, elected to several terms on her record as “America’s Deadliest D.A.”

Though the mass dismissal drew criticism from some in the city—including Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police boss John McNesby, a repeated antagonist of Krasner’s campaign—Krasner downplayed the event, noting that past incumbents, including D.A.-turned-governor Ed Rendell, had made personnel changes on a similar scale. “The coach gets to pick the team,” Krasner told reporters, admitting that many of the dismissed staff “did not fit the mission” he envisions for the office.

Krasner has also made changes among the remaining staff. Drew Jenneman, who has been with the office since 2002, was named interim supervisor of the unit that handles civil asset forfeiture—a practice Philadelphia has used extensively in the past, and which Krasner has pledged to significantly rein in.

New hires include several professional criminal justice reformers. Arun Prabakharan, a former vice president of the Urban Affairs Coalition, will be Krasner’s chief of staff, for example; Mike Lee, who co-founded the local civil rights nonprofit Lawyers for Social Equity, will serve as interim director of legislation. Though many of the new hires are, like Lee, on an “interim” basis, Krasner has said their employment is flexible but not necessarily temporary.

But reforming an office with such a history of tough-on-crime intransigence will not be easy, and it is too early to say how significant an impact Krasner’s tenure will have. These early actions are promising signs, but candidates with big promises have failed in Philadelphia before. The last district attorney, Seth Williams, also ran as a progressive reformer. Williams is now serving a five-year federal prison term for corruption.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2CREhmi
via IFTTT

Bipartisan Senate Group Is “Extremely Close” To DACA Deal

A second Senator and member of the bipartisan working group working to iron out the details of the great immigration compromise bill has confirmed that Democrats and Republicans are on the verge of a deal.

Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake said that, while the group is still working on a border security package, the details of the deal are nearly finalized.

“We’ve got this bipartisan group. We are at a deal. … It’s the only game in town,” Flake told reporters, according to  the Hill.

Earlier in the day, Flake’s Democratic colleague Dick Durban, both a member of the working group and the Democratic leadership, said lawmakers were “very close” to a deal, according to a separate Hill  report.

Of course, it’s important to take these pronouncements with a grain of salt, as deals that were purportedly “finalized” are reworked again and again.

A spokesman it’s worth noting that Sen. Bob Menendez immediately clarified Flake’s comments. He said that although the group of senators are making progress, they do not yet have an agreement.

“We are extremely close to a strong bipartisan deal to help dreamers. However, nothing is final yet and there is no legislative text to share yet,” the spokesman said.  

The group of senators – which also includes Lindsey Graham and Michael Bennet – have been negotiating for months on a deal that would include a DACA fix.

 

Flake

After canceling the so-called DACA protections back in September, Trump famously struck a deal with “Chuck and Nancy” – Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi – to enshrine the DACA protections into law while also securing funding to fortify border defenses.

But this deal unraveled as Democrats insisted they wouldn’t approve funding for Trump’s promised border wall, while Trump walked back his support for DACA, an issue on which he has wavered, though there is bipartisan support for preserving the protections – a decision that will affect 690,000 people, most of whom have spent nearly their entire lives in the US.

The final agreement is expected to include legalization for DACA recipients and a border security package. It’s also expected to address changes to the State Department’s diversity visa lottery program to curb so-called “chain migration” – a practice that Trump has railed against even as outraged liberals have insisted it isn’t a problem.

To be sure, even if the group hammers out an agreement, they don’t have final authority on the deal – Republican leaders have reserved that power.

Sen. John Cornyn, the Republican whip, said that while it was fine for the bipartisan group to negotiate, they would not be able to single-handily decide what the final DACA agreement is.

Durbin, Graham and GOP Sens. Tom Cotton and David Perdue all met with Trump at the White House on Thursday for a bipartisan meeting on the immigration deal.

Details of the legislation are still unknown, though Flake said the group has discussed shifting the diversity lottery visas to Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipients. In recent months, the administration has canceled TPS protections for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Ecuadorean migrants living in the US.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has committed to giving a DACA bill a vote if Trump indicates he would be willing to sign the legislation. Trump reiterated his call for a “wall” on Wednesday, saying it “must be part of any DACA approval.”

However, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters at the daily press briefing that “there has not been a deal reached yet” but that “we still think we can get there.”

 

Earlier this week, a federal judge on the ninth circuit ruled that DACA protections – which were initially set to expire in March – must remain in place until lawsuits challenging Trump’s decision are resolved.

This theoretically gives lawmakers more time to finalize a deal, though Republican leaders have insisted it would be taken care of early in the year.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2D1PYuJ Tyler Durden

Walmart Abruptly Closing 260 Sam’s Club Stores, Firing Thousands On Same Day It Raised Minimum Wages

Wal-Mart was quick to make a media splash with the news that it was raising the starting hourly wages to $11/hour, expanding employee benefits and offering worker bonuses of up to $1000 in response to the Trump tax cuts; it was far more covert, however, with the news that on the very same day it was also closing hundreds of Sam’s Club stores nationwide and laying off thousands of workers according to numerous media reports.

Jessica Buckner, an audit team lead at a Sam’s Club location in Anchorage, told local TV station KTVA that all Alaska stores are closing as part of a larger downsizing across the U.S. “From what I heard, there’s over 260 stores that have been closed down,” she said according to CBS News.

The wholesale clubs’ official closure date is Jan. 26, Buckner said.

The closures also affect stores in New Jersey, upstate New York, Georgia, IllinoisIndiana, Ohio, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. In some locations, per social media, people showed up to work only to be told that their location was closing, with nearly no advance notice.

The chain, which competes with Costco , has more than 650 locations employing more than 100,000 people, with an average of 175 employees per store, according to the company. 

No formal announcement was posted Thursday morning by Sam’s Club, but the company acknowledged the closures on Twitter with a general statement. 

The company drew criticism from people on Twitter who objected to the lack of notice about the closings. 

And yes, we will repeat it because it bears repeating: the closures come on the same day that Walmart announced it was raising its minimum wage to $11 per hour.

 

Meanwhile, Gordon Haskett analyst Chuck Grom calculated that Wal-Mart’s wage investment is just 15% of the tax gain. According to Haskett, “Wal-Mart may see tax rate of ~23% in FY19 (year ended Jan. 2019) vs current 32%, which would provide $2b windfall”. As such, he adds, the “labor investment of ~$300m represents just 15% of total; assumes a similar amount will go toward investments in price.”

What will the company use the rest of the money on: why higher dividend payments and accelerated buybacks of course.

Oh, and free advertising: “with WMT being first retailer “out of the gate,” it should get some “free media.

 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2qUkjFI Tyler Durden

New York City Unleashes Eminent Domain Abuse on Immigrant Dry Cleaners in East Harlem

Eminent domain abuse has reared its ugly head in East Harlem. As Ginger Adams Otis reports in the New York Daily News, city officials plan to seize a family-owned dry cleaning business and then hand the forcibly vacated land to a wealthy private developer.

Damon Bae, whose parents opened the Fancy Cleaners business after immigrating to the United States from Korea in 1981, told the Daily News that “the city has offered my family about 30 cents on the dollar on the market value for what our three lots are worth—that’s not enough to buy anything comparable in East Harlem today….The city’s working so hard to meet the developer’s timeline; meanwhile, we’re trying to stay in business.”

According to city officials, Bae’s property is “blighted,” the condition of severe disrepair required to trigger a taking under state eminent domain law. Yet as Bae told the Daily News, “the only ‘blight’ was in the [city-owned] vacant lots the city allowed to sit empty” nearby. In other words, the local government created the very conditions that it is now using as a pretext for seizing the Bae family’s property.

Unfortunately for the Baes and others like them, the U.S. Supreme Court turned a blind eye to this sort of abuse in the 2005 case of Kelo v. City of New London. On the state level, New York’s highest court—the Court of Appeals—ruled 6-1 in 2009 to let the state seize property on behalf of the real estate tycoon Bruce Ratner and his Atlantic Yards/Barclay’s Center basketball stadium project in Brooklyn.

In that case, state officials described the 22-acre project site as “blighted,” thereby setting the stage for the bulldozers to clear away homes and businesses. What was the evidence of this alleged blight? The state’s report cited such factors as “weeds,” “graffiti,” and “underutilization.” Needless to say, pretty much any block in the city could be seized under those standards.

What’s worse, the court basically admitted that the whole thing was a sham. “It may be that the bar has now been set too low—that what will now pass as ‘blight,’ as that expression has come to be understood and used by political appointees to public corporations relying upon studies paid for by developers, should not be permitted to constitute a predicate for the invasion of property rights and the razing of homes and businesses,” the majority said in Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corporation. “But any such limitation upon the sovereign power of eminent domain as it has come to be defined in the urban renewal context is a matter for the Legislature, not the courts.”

In his lone dissent, Judge Robert Smith rightly blasted his colleagues for abdicating their judicial duty. “The right not to have one’s property taken for other than public use is a constitutional right like others,” Smith wrote. “It is hard to imagine any court saying that a decision about whether an utterance is constitutionally protected speech, or whether a search was unreasonable, or whether a school district has been guilty of racial discrimination, is not primarily a judicial exercise.”

One year later, in Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, New York’s high court cited its Goldstein ruling to support yet another shady eminent domain taking. This time the court ruled in favor of the “Manhattanville” project, a government scheme to seize a bunch of West Harlem homes and businesses in order to make room for a new research campus that Columbia University wanted to build. Despite significant evidence of cronyism and other misconduct, including the manufacturing of “blight” conditions by the school, the court upheld this land grab too.

In New York City, sadly, eminent domain abuse has been given the green light to proceed.

Related from Reason TV: “Billionaires vs. Brooklyn’s Best Bar: Eminent Domain Abuse & the Atlantic Yards Project”

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2Fr0sBl
via IFTTT

Global Networks Are Necessary to Overcome Abusive Governments and Oligarchy

The world around us is changing at an incredible pace, and with such change come many pitfalls as well as immeasurable opportunities. At the same time, the more things change the more some things stay the same. For example, the most important issue humans will have to confront in the years ahead is the age old issue of concentrated power.

One of the most destructive side effects of the financial crisis and the corrupt official response to it, has been an even greater concentration of wealth and power in the hands of some of the most unsavory characters planet earth has to offer. If we are to evolve and create a better paradigm, we’ll need to address this forcefully and thoughtfully.

I say thoughtfully, because what history has shown is that the typical response to a small group of crooked elites seizing all money and power is to launch a violent revolt that merely empowers another small group who said all the right things during their crusade, but then act as viciously and unethically as those they replaced once in power. This situation can and should be avoided at all costs. The idea isn’t to swap one group of rulers for another. We need to think about building a world characterized by networks governed by rules, but with no rulers.

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/2FrcoTA
via IFTTT

“They’re Back” – David Stockman Heralds “Long Live The Bond Vigilantes”

Authored by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

Most of today’s stock speculators don’t remember the bond vigilantes and wouldn’t even recognize one in the flesh. They were just too scary to have been a character on Sesame Street.

But last night some strange riders were spotted galloping eastward from China and Japan. While their visage may be somewhat foggy to the uninitiated, the boys and girls on Wall Street are about to discover that it’s not exactly Big Bird swooping onto their playground.

And at precisely the worst time. After all, the 150 Dow point melt-up each day since the turn of the year was fueled by pure speculative momentum. As Heisenberg noted this AM, the S&P 500 has posted one of the longest stretches without a 5% drawdown in recorded history.

Boom

Likewise, the weekly RSI for the S&P 500 is now the most overbought since 1959. That is to say, since the days when the great team of President Dwight Eisenhower and Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin saw to it that the Federal budget was balanced and that the Fed’s punch bowl didn’t linger down on Wall Street when the revilers got too frisky.

Needless to say, back then there were no bond vigilantes, either, because they weren’t needed. UST’s got priced in the bond pits by investors and savers who didn’t cotton to either inflation or fiscal profligacy. And after the Treasury-Fed Accord of 1951, they would have been just plain horrified by any attempt from the Eccles Building to tamper with UST bond prices or the yield curve.

That’s another way to say that the bond market was healthy, stable and efficient because it was driven by real money investors deploying private savings from income and production, not fiat credits issued by the Fed’s printing presses in the manner of QE.

Overbought

As it happened, real money savers were destroyed by Arthur Burns and William Miller during the 1970s. That’s because these two Fed chairman—one cowardly and the other clueless—-bent to White House based political bullying and Keynesian economic advice, which was approximately the same thing.

So the bond vigilantes emerged on the free market because real money savers were not about to see double-digit inflation devour their principal. Indeed, so ferocious were they in demanding that the present value of their coupon and maturity redemption remain money good that they relentlessly dumped the bond until its soaring yield promised to make them whole.

To his great credit, the Mighty Paul Volcker fully understood that his job was not to break the bond market or crush the vigilantes, but to break the back of commodity and labor inflation that had been unleashed by Burns/Miller. So he did not flinch—even when the 10-year note reached the incredible yield of 15.8% in September 1981.

At length, the CPI plunged in response to the Volcker medicine –and far faster than expected—from nearly a 11% Y/Y rate in the summer of 1981 to a range of 2-4% by late 1983 and thereafter. So the bond vigilantes retreated, as shown in the chart below.

But they were not done. That’s because what Volcker was accomplishing on the inflation front was trashed on the fiscal side when the Reagan supply side tax cut of 1981 became the occasion for a partisan “bidding war” on Capitol Hill, which literally monkey-hammered the Federal revenue base. Your editor was on hand for the carnage and lost his supply-side virginity in the melee.

To this day, the Reagan hagiographers and Republican revisionist have no clue about what really happened, but here it is in living color in the chart below. The only saving grace is that unlike the asinine front-loaded tax bill enacted by the GOP on Christmas Eve, the 1981 Act was back-loaded, thereby giving time for cooler heads to prevail and for some of the 6.2% of GDP revenue loss (when fully effective) to be recouped.

It also afforded a reprieve before the bond vigilantes felt compelled to get militant again, but without remedial action they surely would have. That’s because the 6.2% bar shown below would compute to a $1.2 trillion per year revenue loss in today’s economy.

And, yes, that’s per year!

As it happened, your editor helped lead a bipartisan campaign to recoup some of this massive and unintended revenue loss. And parenthetically, we weren’t entirely crazy at the time.

The original and true Kemp-Roth supply side cut of marginal rates for individuals only cost 3.0% of GDP (per the inset table in the chart) on a static basis and well less after the incentive effect. Moreover, the notion of more investment, work, production and government revenue was real when you started at 70% marginal rates, cut them by 25% and were also in an inflationary bracket creep environment (indexing of the brackets did not come until 1986).

In any event, by hook and crook (substantially the latter) a group of White House insiders led by the now legendary Jim Baker and including your editor as the numbers man, persuaded the Gipper to sign tax increases bills three years in a row (1982, 1983 and 1984).

And two of these came during the worst recession since WWII—so we had obviously not lapsed into latter-day Keynesianism. What we were overcome with was actually common sense, and the absolute certainty that in the absence of a big revenue recovery initiative the bond vigilantes would have stormed the trading pits of Wall Street with malice aforethought.

When it was all done, we had recouped about 40% of the 1981 tax cut, and that amounted to a lot more than loose change. In fact, the three bills combined added up to about 2.5% of GDP, which, again, in today’s economy would amount to a $500 billion per year tax increase!

And, honest to goodness, Ronald Reagan signed them all.

Needless to say, our reward for staving off the bond vigilantes was that your editor and his accomplices were ex-communicated from the supply side church. We also got charged with being “tax grabbers” which stung a bit back then. But in the fullness of time it has become evident that was a good kind of grabbing compared to the kind the Donald was (self) charged with in October 2016.

In any event, it still turned out that notwithstanding the recoupment of trillions of revenue, the deficit exploded to north of $200 billion per year in the dollars of the day ($1.4 trillion today). That’s how bad the fiscal hole was, and why the bond vigilantes would have shown the Gipper no mercy.

Still, as pictured below, Ronald Reagan did accomplish the singular feat of adding $1.8 trillion to the national debt during his eight years. And, oh, that was double what his 39 predecessor had generated during the previous 200 years of the republic.

fredgraph-13

Even then, however, the bond vigilantes were not entirely satisfied. As the US economy worked up a powerful head of steam by 1987 owing to the regenerative powers of capitalism and the added-boost of the inadvertent Reagan experiment with a supply-side/Keynesian hybrid fiscal policy, the bond vigilantes went to town.

Interest rates began to soar, rising from 7.0% to more than 10.1% in the run-up to the October 1987 stock market meltdown. The latter was the inevitable result of the reasonably honest stock traders of the day “pricing-in” dramatically higher interest rates—along with the collapse of the Wall Street gimmick of the day called “portfolio insurance”, which was a primitive version of today’s vol selling and risk parity models.

Either way, the still massive Federal deficits were beginning to “crowd-out” private investment. Under those circumstances, the bond vigilantes were just performing their appointed job of honest price discovery.

Indeed, after the stock market crashed by 30% within a few weeks, the handwriting was on the wall. The bond vigilantes had rebuked the free lunch economics of the Reagan era, and were thereby driving the US economy into a thundering recession in 1988. Ronald Reagan would have trundled out of town—-an economic failure and fiscal reprobate.

Unfortunately, he got tricked a second time, and this one wasn’t in a good way. When it came to a choice between a GOP-destroying recession or sound money, the pols in the White House choose….well, Alan Greenspan!

That is to say, Paul Volcker was not about to give free lunch economics its due and would have permitted the vigilantes to have their way with the bond market. So he got shoved aside at the top Fed post for Alan Greenspan, who the Gipper mistakenly thought was a solid gold standard man.

Not exactly. The future Maestro had been that while getting his PhD at Columbia in the 1950s and playing clarinet in the swing bands of the day at night.

But Greenspan’s lodestone wasn’t Au on the periodic table, but acclaim in the salons of New York and Washington. So when push-came-to-shove in late October 1987, the nerd who never got the girls—-even Ayn Rand, apparently—-went in for the score, turning up the Fed printing presses to hyper-drive. And to add insult to free market injury, he sent his henchman down to Wall Street to order the locals not to commit any inconvenient acts of capitalism. That is, liquidation of the accounts of punters and dead-beats who were in over their heads.

The resulting flood of liquidity and Fed muscle, of course, did send the bond vigilantes back to their locker rooms. That enabled the traumatized stock market to recovery quickly, and the notion of a Greenspan Put to take solid root in the canyons of Wall Street.

Still, the free market had not yet been entirely strangled in lower Manhattan—-and even Greenspan had not yet dreamed up excuses for perpetual repression of interest rates, and conversion of the capital markets into a wealth effects tool of monetary central planning.

So after the Fed slashed the funds rate from nearly 10% in 1989, where it had been boosted to stem a resurgent inflation, to 3.0% in order to combat the 1990-1991 recession, Greenspan attempted to do the right thing. That is, let the money market rate find its level as the US economy recovered.

Alas, the rate increases which began in February 1994 were short-lived, and soon thereafter the Greenspan Fed was off to the races in what became a new monetary regime of full-on Bubble Finance. The funds rate was pegged at a 6.0% maximum, and except for a few months during the 24-years since then has never breached that level; and, in fact, has spent the vast majority of the time bouncing along the zero bound.

During the course of Greenspan’s aborted normalization campaign in 1994, of course, the bond vigilantes had come back to the trading pits for an obvious and appropriate reason. To wit, a rapidly expanding economy and a still large fiscal deficit required a much higher level of yield to clear the market. So in less than 10 months, the bond yield jumped from 5% to 8%, thereby eliciting flashing red warnings of 1987 redux in the Eccles Building.

Needless to say, this time the Maestro did not wait around for the stock market to “re-price” the underlying fiscal and macroeconomic fundamentals. He simply threw in the towel of financial discipline and turned the rumored Greenspan Put into a tangible fact.

Thereafter the bond vigilantes did not really disappear, however. They simple went into a long hibernation.

But during the 24 years since Greenspan folded in the face of their wrath in 1994, something epochal happened. That is, after the Fed adopted money printing and monetization of the public debt a way of life—-virtually every central bank in the world fell in-line.

One after another joined Greenspan’s UST (U.S. Treasury) bond buying campaign because in some sense they had no choice. By the standards of the day, Greenspan’s printing press adventure was some kind of campaign. The Maestro expanded the Fed’s balance sheet nearly 300% during his tenure, whereas even by the lights of Milton Friedman it should have only expanded by perhaps 60%; and based on the mobilization of low cost workers in their hundreds of millions from the rice paddies of East Asia, it should not have expanded at all.

As it happened, a great caravan of central bank printing presses soon fell in line with the Greenspan Fed. For instance, having proclaimed it is “glorious to be rich” and that China could get that way erecting spanking new factories that exported $0.50/hour labor in the form of shoes, sheets and shawls, Mr. Deng was not about to let Greenspan’s flood of dollar liabilities drive the RMB higher. So his central bank bought treasuries and sold domestic currency, eventually sequestering trillions of USTs at the Peoples’ Printing Press of China.

Likewise, the Japan Inc. juggernaut had just been busted in the great bubble collapse of the early 1990s. Consequently, the mandarins at the MOF and BOJ were not about to permit their shaky export-swollen economy to be whacked by another yen shock. They, too, bought USTs hand-0ver-fist from there forward.

As shown below, just during the first 14 years of this century, China’s holdings of USTs soared by 5X and Japan’s more than tripled.

Needless to say, this wasn’t honest finance at work. No alternative user of real money savings got crowded out—either in New York or their home markets. Instead, real money spenders simply issued sovereign and quasi-sovereign IOU paper that was promptly shoved into the vaults of foreign central banks.

Image result for image of japan's holdings of USTs

You can say the same thing about the petro-states in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere (Norway). In their case, the precedent had already been established in the 1970s to swap the geologic endowments of their lands for the debt emissions of Uncle Sam. Thereafter, they, too, pegged their currencies, thereby creating more sequester vaults for laying away US debt and keeping the bond vigilantes ensconced in their deep slumber.

In all, the central banks of the world expanded their balance sheets by more than 11X during the two decades after 1995. And it is the picture below, and only the picture below, that kept the vigilantes in their epic hibernation.

12-08-16_chart09

Last night, of course, the bond vigilantes began to stir and a spring emergence from their caves is not far ahead. The Japanese finally indicated that at 95% of GDP, the BOJ balance sheet has possibly grown far enough.

And the Red Suzerains of Beijing let the Donald know in no uncertain terms (i.e. through a leak to Bloomberg!) that protectionist iniatives or not—- they have no compelling need to sit permanently on their $1.3 trillion of acknowledged US treasury paper (and probably a lot more through nominees in Belgium and other jurisdictions.)

But what’s really happening, of course, is that the Fed has made an epochal pivot back to QT—-even as the Donald is attempting to pose as the second coming of Ronald Reagan. And the fact is, Uncle Sam’s $1.2 trillion borrowing requirement for FY 2019 in the face of the Fed’s planned $600 billion bond dump-a-thon incepting on October 1 does indeed resemble the conditions of the very same month of 1987—- all over again.

That is to say, the long era of monetization is over and done—even as America’s fiscal condition is morphing from a long-running disaster into an out-right catastrophe.

So the bond vigilantes are back.

We say, welcome fellows!

You’ve got god’s work to do. Again.

And not just on these favored shores. As the $22 trillion footings of the global central bank cartel begins to shrink, the entire developed world will be facing a long deferred day of reckoning.Related image

In this context, however, we have been hearing some pretty hilarious things from the bubblevision perma-bulls. One of them was even thanking Bloomberg for intermediating the China leak, and was backing-up the truck as he spoke.

Why?

Because rising interest rates mean a booming economy, he averred, and therefore rising profits and soaring stocks.

No they don’t. The world never had enough real money savers to fund solid growth and the insatiable fiscal appetites of most of the planet’s sovereign states. Or at least not at the absurdly low interest rates priced-in the stock market by a generation of punters who do not know the difference between real money savings and fiat credit.

So they would do well to mind the treasury yield coming back to life—to say nothing of Bill Gross’ prescient short call.

 

http://ift.tt/2ms9gPk

Them bond vigilantes are the nemesis of growth, not its herald.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2qXLK1k Tyler Durden

These Are The People Going With Trump To Davos

Two days after the NYT reported that Trump would attend the 48th World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland this month, making him the first sitting US president since the Clinton administration to attend the annual photo-op boondoggle of world leaders, billionaires, and captains of industry, Bloomberg leaked the people Trump will be taking with him to Davos (one year after the main topic at the Swiss village was how to avoid a Trump presidency and avoid populism).

According to Bloomberg, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer will go with Trump. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao will also accompany him, one of the people said.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Energy Secretary Rick Perry are also attending the World Economic Forum the week of Jan. 22 but as part of a separate U.S. delegation, one of the people said. They will arrive on Monday and leave Wednesday in part to free hotel rooms for Trump’s delegation, which arrives on Thursday.

What is notable is that while the main topic this year will surely be trade protectionism (and globalization), the delegation is made of half trade hawks and half doves. It is also worth remembering that Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and Cohn have been trying to convince President Trump not to pursue too aggressive trade policies.This is against the supposed advice of Ross, Lighthizer, and not mentioned for the Davos delegation, Peter Navarro.

Also notable is a report by Axios from last week, according to which “Cohn and (Treasury Secretary) Mnuchin are now appealing to Trump’s obsession with the record-breaking run of the stock market under his presidency, according to four sources with direct knowledge.” Cohn and Mnuchin have argued that an attack on trade would hurt stocks and the middle class, undoing the tax cut. However, “though Cohn and Mnuchin don’t like tariffs, they’re comparatively comfortable with targeted actions against truly bad actors, as in this case.”

As a reminder, Trump’s administration is embracing Davos this year after previously spurning the gathering of the world’s economic elite. His former chief strategist, Steve Bannon, has derided people who attend the conference as the “party of Davos,” describing them as anathema to the nationalist, populist voters who put Trump in the White House. Last year, before he was inaugurated, none of Trump’s aides or Cabinet nominees attended the conference, except for Anthony Scaramucci. Incidentally, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has said Trump seeks to “advance his ‘America First’ agenda with world leaders” at the conference.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2msAiq5 Tyler Durden

Climate Lawsuits Against Big Oil Are Likely a Useless Distraction

ExxonTimBinghamDreamstimeNew York City has joined seven California jurisdictions in filing public nuisance lawsuits against five major oil companies. The suit says BP, Chevron, Conoco-Phillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell are responsible for 11 percent of the greenhouse gases that have accumulated in the atmosphere. The plaintiffs want to “shift the costs of protecting the City from climate change impacts back onto the companies that have done nearly all they could to create this existential threat.”

New York specifically cites the costs of protecting its citizens against future sea level rise that will result chiefly from melting glaciers draining into the oceans and storms worsened by rising temperatures. “To deal with what the future will inevitably bring, the City must build sea walls, levees, dunes, and other coastal armament, and elevate and harden a vast array of City-owned structures, properties, and parks along its coastline,” the suit says. “The costs of these largely unfunded projects run to many billions of dollars and far exceed the City’s resources.”

Turning the tables on its municipal antagonists, ExxonMobil has filed a countersuit in a Texas court that aims to call out the hypocrisy of the California jurisdictions for issuing bonds without themselves mentioning any risks from climate change or sea level rise. “Notwithstanding their claims of imminent, allegedly near-certain harm,” the lawsuit argues,

none of the municipalities disclosed to investors such risks in their respective bond offerings, which collectively netted over $8 billion for these local governments over the last 27 years.

To the contrary, some of the disclosures affirmatively denied any ability to measure those risks; the others virtually ignored them. At least two municipal governments reassured investors that they were “unable to predict whether sea-level rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a major storm will occur, when they may occur, and if any such events occur, whether they will have a material adverse effect….”

The stark and irreconcilable conflict between what these municipal governments alleged in their respective complaints and what they disclosed to investors in their bond offerings indicates that the allegations in the complaints are not honestly held and were not made in good faith. It is reasonable to infer that the municipalities brought these lawsuits not because of a bona fide belief in any tortious conduct by the defendants or actual damage to their jurisdictions, but instead to coerce ExxonMobil and others operating in the Texas energy sector to adopt policies aligned with those favored by local politicians in California.

ExxonMobil seeks to depose various officials from the California cities and counties suing the company, to “investigate potential claims of abuse of process, civil conspiracy, and constitutional violations.” Naturally, the cities are outraged that the honesty and integrity of their civil servants are being questioned. The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

“It is repugnant that oil companies might sue public servants personally in an attempt to intimidate them from protecting their communities and environment,” said John Beiers, county counsel for San Mateo County. “We will not be intimidated.”

Assuming that the emissions from the products sold by the oil companies are contributing significantly to the costs of adapting to climate change, are public nuisance lawsuits an effective remedy to the problem?

Not really, suggests Case Western University law professor Jonathan Adler in his 2011 analysis of American Electric Power vs. Connecticut. In that case, several states and environmental groups sued five major power companies for the damages allegedly caused by their emissions of greenhouse gases from the generation of electricity. The dispute reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which narrowly decided that the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency was promulgating carbon dioxide regulations precluded the lawsuit.

Adler observes:

Libertarians and others have argued that using the common law to address environmental pollution concerns is better than resorting to decision-making by centralized administrative agencies. While global climate change is anything but a typical environmental pollution concern, even a modest warming could produce the sorts of harms common-law nuisance actions have addressed. The common law has long recognized actions that cause the flooding of a neighbor’s land as a trespass or nuisance, and even so-called skeptics recognize global warming could produce a measurable increase in sea level.

Yet opening the door to climate-based nuisance suits could unleash a torrent of litigation. Given the ubiquity of GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions, allowing suits against one set of firms inevitably opens the door to suits against others—without any prospect of addressing the underlying concern. Given the global nature of the problem, climate change can only be mitigated or averted on a global scale. Reducing emissions from the 5, 50, or 500 largest GHG emitters within the United States will have no appreciable effect on the accumulation of GHGs in the broader atmosphere.

Adler consequently concludes that “such questions lie far beyond the capability of common-law courts. For better or worse, then, we have to leave climate change in the hands of the political process, to be addressed—if at all—by legislative and (duly authorized) administrative action.”

Disclosure: I have not yet divested my minor stock holdings in oil company stocks (which I purchased with my own funds).

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2AQoQJa
via IFTTT

Blackstone’s Byron Wien Says “10% To 15% Correction” In 2018 Is “Virtually Unavoidable”

Byron Wien, the reliably bullish vice chairman of Blackstone’s Private Wealth Solutions Group, change tack slightly in an interview with CNBC  Thursday: He now believes a 10% to 15% stock-market correction this year is “virtually unavoidable.”

Now, lest you interpret this call as a major reversal in Wien’s long-held view that the market will continue its inexorable march higher, Wien quickly clarifies that he still believes the market will finish 2018 higher.

Blackstone’s Wien: ‘Sentiment is bordering on the euphoric state’ from CNBC.

Of course, if the market’s performance during the first five sessions of the year are a determining factor (and, judging by the historical data, it appears they often are) the market is almost guaranteed to finish higher this year, as Ryan Detrick pointed out when he noted that when the market climbs more than 2% during the first five trading sessions of the year, it has finished higher in an astounding 15 out of 15 cases.

“The year will end higher than it started no matter what happens along the way,” he said, adding that he’d “absolutely buy” stocks on a correction because underlying fundamentals remain strong.

Still, Wien believes that “sentiment is bordering on the euphoric state” and that the market needs to let out some steam.

“When investors think they can’t get into trouble, they usually do,” Wien said Wednesday on CNBC‘s “Trading Nation.” “We’re vulnerable to a correction.”

Surely, it’s no coincidence that Byron took the slightest step back from his permabullishness (which has obviously bolstered his reputation in recent years) the morning after the S&P 500 finished three points lower – its first retreat of the New Year – after Bloomberg reported (erroneously, as it turns out) that China was considering reining in its purchases of US Treasuries. Meanwhile, bond yields climbed to multiyear highs, recalling the warnings of Bill Gross and Jeff Gundlach.

“The market needs to have some kind of correction. There are some excesses in it. So I fully expect it to happen,” he said.

When the selloff comes, it’ll be tech stocks that lead the main indexes lower – just as they helped propel markets to all-time-highs.

The big tech names are the most vulnerable to a selloff, Wein said.

Luckily for the bulls (and there are still plenty of bulls on Wall Street), Wein expects the correction to be immediately bought, as every dip inevitably is during the era of centrally planned markets.

Ultimately, he sees the S&P 500 finishing 2018 9 percentage points higher – as long as the 10-year Treasury yield stays below 3 percent.

But regardless of the US performance, Wien says there are more opportunities overseas (even with global stocks at all-time highs).

“India is still attractive. I think Japan is still attractive,” Wien said.

Though readers might want to take Wien’s prognostications with a grain of salt: As we noted earlier this month, aside from his bullish view on equities, Wien got little else right in 2017.

 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2EvVGkU Tyler Durden