China Drains CNY715 Billion In Liquidity After Fifth Day Without Reverse Repo

What a difference three weeks makes. On January 18, heading into the Lunar New Year holidays, we reported that the PBOC had injected a record 1.04 trillion yuan into the liquidity-starved banking system in an attempt to avoid a liquidity crunch as telegraphed just days prior by dramatic surge in short-term repo rates.

Since then, however, between the end of the holidays, and the stated Chinese intention to tighten the monetary system, things have changed drastically.

First of all, last Friday, China announced an unexpected tightening of policy when it raised rates on 7, 14 and 28-day reverse repos by 10bps to 2.35%, 2.50% and 2.65% respectively. That was first increase in the 28-day contracts since 2015 and since 2013 for the other two tenors. As this was the first working day following the New Year holiday in China, it was a decent “statement of intent” by the PBoC.

At the same time, as we explained on Sunday, in a parallel tightening eipsode, the PBOC also increased Standing Lending Facility rates on overnight/7-day/1-month tenors by 35bp/10bp/10bp (to 3.10%/3.35%/3.7%), sending Chinese government bond futures sliding as fears rose that China is actually serious about tightening this time.

Then on Thursday morning, an article in China’s Securities Journal said that China may keep tightening monetary policy this year amid pressure from yuan rate stabilization, financial de-leveraging, curbs on real estate and faster inflation. In other words, China may have reached the phase where it admits it has a problem, and is ready to do something about it. What was notable is that the article hinted that while even more could be done, the economic basis and inflation situation don’t yet support China entering interest rate hike cycle.

Translation: if inflation picks up more from here, the PBOC will use the shotgun approach and hike rates. For now however, the piece concluded that the central bank is focusing more on price tools, which means “an increase in open market rates may be considered guidance.”

And sure enough, 20 days after the PBOC had injected a record CNY1+ trillion in liquidity, it is now draining it just as fast, and as the PBOC just reported, the Central Bank did not conduct any Reverse Repo open market operations for the fifth consecutive trading day “in order to maintain a stable level of liquidity in the interbank market”, the PBOC said in a statement on its website.

With CNY150 billion of reverse repos maturing today, the PBOC’s lack of action had the effect of draining CNY150 billion from the market today.

The PBOC also added that “while the central bank has started to gradually drain liquidity from the interbank market after the end of the Chinese New Year holiday, liquidity is still at an adequate level” repeating the explanation it used in the past three days.

According to Market News, the market sees the lack of open market operations as a clear signal of tighter monetary policy. Furthermore, the consecutive stops of OMOs show PBOC’s bias for a prudent tilted to neutral monetary policy in a bid to prevent risks and reduce leverage ratio, said Ming Ming, chief analyst with CITIC Securities in a research note.

In total, the PBOC has drained a total of CNY715 billion in liquidity so far this week, primarily as a result of maturing reverse repos which the central bank refuses to roll over. A total of CNY80 billion in reverse repos will mature later this week and the market will be watching the PBOC’s response closely. Should it perceive that the PBOC has withdrawn too much liquidity, another liquidity tantrum is inevitable.

via http://ift.tt/2kop6rq Tyler Durden

What Is Trump’s Approval Rating? It Depends On Who You Ask

While we would never be the ones to question the integrity of “independent” pollsters, how could we given the amazing job they did predicting the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, we’re starting to grow a bit curious about the ever-widening gap in Trump’s approval ratings between the various polling institutions.

For example, the latest Rasmussen daily tracking poll found that 53% of likely U.S. voters approve of President Trump’s job performance while 47% disapprove.

Rasmussen

 

Meanwhile, even the notorious “oversamplers” at Reuters found that Trump’s approval rating is just over 50%.

Reuters

 

That said, the vehemently impartial folks at ABC/WaPo recently drew a very different conclusion, finding that President Trump is basically the least popular candidate to take the White House in modern history, with a 40% approval rating… 

ABC / Wapo Poll

 

…while CNN came up with similar results finding that only 44% approve of President Trump.

CNN

 

And while we know what you’re thinking, we’re sure the divergent results from ABC/Wapo and CNN were in no way a disingenuous attempt to artificially manufacture a poor approval rating for President Trump, a candidate whose political views couldn’t be more divergent from their own.  After all, utilizing an aggressive 8-point sampling margin for Democrats, with only 23% of respondents identifying themselves as Republicans may call into question a pollster’s credibility…

ABC Poll

 

…which is probably why CNN decided to get smart by only showing a 4-point sampling advantage for Democrats while loading up their poll with independents instead...

“A total of 1,002 adults were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers calling both landline and cell phones. Among the entire sample, 29% described themselves as Democrats, 25% described themselves as Republicans, and 45% described themselves as independents or members of another party.”

Of course, as we’ve repeatedly pointed out, these sampling mixes couldn’t be further from reality.

Polling

 

In conclusion:

via http://ift.tt/2kV0xFy Tyler Durden

Iranian Oil Will Not Be Stopped By Trump

Submitted by Gregory Brew via OilPrice.com,

Despite new sanctions by the Trump Administration and an escalating war of words regarding its ballistic missile program, Iran is continuing to push ahead with plans to maintain oil production at around 3.8 million bpd, the level agreed upon at the November OPEC meeting last year. In order to do so, Iran will need to attract billions in new investment, as its current production is based on aging fields and crumbling infrastructure.

To maintain the current production level while continuing to export and meet domestic demand, Iran will need at least $100 billion in new investment. New U.S. sanctions, which target 25 Iranian individuals and entities said to be associated with the country’s missile program, is being touted as an “initial step” in the administration’s plan to push back hard on Iran’s regional ambitions, with National Security Advisor Michael Flynn announcing last week that the U.S. was “putting Iran on notice.” The Iranian response to the U.S. rhetoric has been mostly dismissive, with one Iranian official characterizing the Trump Administration as “inexperienced.”

The question is how these new sanctions or future U.S. actions against Iran may inhibit the country’s recovering oil and gas industry. The announcement of the new sanctions caused a slight tremor in prices, which was offset by inventory reports and reviving U.S. output. If tensions between the U.S. and Iran were to escalate, it would place upward pressure on prices.

Iran is set to announce a round of tenders in mid-February. Originally set for January, the tenders were delayed several weeks, in part due to disagreements within the Iranian government (which oversees the National Iranian Oil Company, or NIOC) over how best to attract foreign investment. Debates over new oil contracts raged all last summer, as the question of inviting more foreign companies into Iran is beset with political significance in a country still considerably isolated from international capital, as well as one that has a long history of distrusting foreign oil companies.

According to Reuters, the first round of tenders has been repeatedly delayed, while major companies have made only hesitant inroads into Iran. Shell signed a provisional deal in December to develop three large oil and gas fields, but has yet to act on it. French company Total agreed in principle to a $2 billion deal to develop the South Pars natural gas field, with a 50.1 percent stake in the project

The new round of U.S. sanctions, though they are limited in nature, are acting to deter U.S. companies from seeking new contracts. Deputy oil minister Amirhossein Zamaninia has welcomed interest from U.S. companies, but has warned that as long as the primary sanctions remain, “U.S. firms cannot play any role in Iran’s oil and gas industry.”

Zamainnia has expressed hope that President Trump, as a “non-conventional politician,” will seek to revise U.S.-Iranian relations and seek business deals, which could potentially serve the U.S. economy. Yet Trump’s hard stance on Iran thus far, and the imposition of new sanctions, would make that appear unlikely. The Iranian press claims the new sanctions are isolating the U.S., rather than Iran, which is still free to pursue deals with European companies. “Iran has placed no limitations on American companies, but based on their own laws they are not allowed to attend oil tenders in Iran," Zamaninia told the press.

Without U.S. companies participating, Iran could probably attract the investment it needs in the short-term. The tenders to be offered in February will include twenty-nine companies, most of them Chinese or East Asian, though Total and Shell have both been permitted to participate. BP was encouraged in January to bid once contracts became available, though the company has not said one way or the other whether it will participate.

Iran remains primarily interested in attracting European capital. This makes sense, both from an economic and political perspective (and with the U.S. sanctions and new administration, politics will matter just as much as economics). Iran wants to start exporting in large quantities to Europe again, and last month it dispatched the first major tanker shipments to a European port in five years. Should U.S. antagonism towards Iran increase, to the point that President Trump considers imposing new sanctions or even backing out of the July 2015 nuclear deal, it would place no restraint on European countries like Germany, Great Britain and France, who were all parties to the deal.

Germany company BASF, along with two other German petrochemical firms, has expressed an interest in investing as much as $12 billion in Iran, according to Iranian press sources. Total, for its part, has said that it is still ready to go through with its plan, now worth $4.8 billion, to develop South Pars.

It should be noted that a lot of the enthusiasm being generated about possible investments in Iran are coming from Iran-affiliated news sources. It may take some time to see if the confidence being projected around Iran’s ability to attract ample investment accurately reflects industry confidence in the country’s ability to work with foreign companies.

Nevertheless, should the February tenders be a success, and should Iran overcome its own political divisions regarding attracting foreign investment, there’s a strong chance the country will continue to develop its untapped oil and gas fields and continue the on-going recovery of its domestic energy industry, regardless of punitive actions taken by the United States.

via http://ift.tt/2lqe8lr Tyler Durden

Poll Finds Trump Administration Seen As More Truthful Than News Media

An Emerson College poll found that in the early days of the Trump administration, the nation remains almost evenly split on Donald Trump’s performance as President, with 48% of registered voters approving of the job Trump is doing, versus 47% who disapprove. The variance falls largely along party lines: Republicans approve of Trump  89%/5%, while Democrats disapprove of the President by a margin of 81% to 17%. What is keeping Trump’s from passing the 50% threshold in the poll is his standing among independents, who disapprove of him 52%/42%.

Yet despite the initial confusion about Trump’s approval, a more interesting observations from the same poll is that according to voters, the Trump administration was viewed as vastly more trustworthy than the news media. The Trump administration is considered truthful by 49% of voters, to 48%  of voters who consider it untruthful. Meanwhile, the news media is considered untruthful by a  53% – majority of voters, to only 39% who find them truthful (a 14 – point gap).

The partisan split on this topic is clear: 89% of Republicans find the Trump administration truthful, versus 77% of Democrats who find the administration untruthful. Conversely, 69% of Democrats find the news media truthful, while a whopping 91% of Republicans consider them untruthful, which may explain the origin of the “liberal media” moniker. Meanwhile, independents consider both untruthful  – the Trump administration by a margin of 42%/52% and the news media by a  margin of 45%/47%.

A recent Gallup poll on the public’s trust in media revealed an even more disturbing picture: before the election, a paltry 32% of Americans trusted the fourth estate, with only 14% of Republicans.

The national Emerson College poll was conducted February 5-6 under. The sample consisted of 617 registered voters, and has a margin of error of +/- 3.9%. The full poll can be read here.

via http://ift.tt/2k4RAKR Tyler Durden

“The Media Coverage On Syria Is The Biggest Media Lie Of Our Time”

Via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

Flemish Father Daniël Maes (78) lives in Syria in the sixth-century-old Mar Yakub monastery in the city of Qara, 90 kilometers north of the capital Damascus. Father Daniel has been a witness to the “civil war” and according to him, Western reports on the conflict in Syria are very misleading. In short: “the Americans and their allies want to completely ruin the country.”

 

 Interviewer: You are very critical of the media coverage on Syria. What is bothering you?

Father Daniel: “The idea that a popular uprising took place against President Assad is completely false. I’ve been in Qara since 2010 and I have seen with my own eyes how agitators from outside Syria organized protests against the government and recruited young people. That was filmed and aired by Al Jazeera to give the impression that a rebellion was taking place. Murders were committed by foreign terrorists, against the Sunni and Christian communities, in an effort to sow religious and ethnic discord among the Syrian people. While in my experience, the Syrian people were actually very united.

Before the war, this was a harmonious country: a secular state in which different religious communities lived side by side peacefully. There was hardly any poverty, education was free, and health care was good. It was only not possible to freely express your political views. But most people did not care about that.”

Interviewer: Mother Agnès-Mariam, of your Mar Yakub (“Saint Jacob”) monastery, is accused of siding with the regime. She has friends at the highest level.

Father Daniel: “Mother Agnès-Mariam helps the population: she has recently opened a soup kitchen in Aleppo, where 25,000 meals are prepared five times a week. Look, it is miraculous that we are still alive. We owe that to the army of Assad’s government and to Vladimir Putin, because he decided to intervene when the rebels threatened to take power.

When thousands of terrorists settled in Qara, we became afraid for our lives. They came from the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Europe, Turkey, Libya, there were many Chechens. They formed a foreign occupation force, all allied to al-Qaeda and other terrorists. Armed to the teeth by the West and their allies with the intention to act against us, they literally said: “This country belongs to us now.” Often, they were drugged, they fought each other, in the evening they fired randomly. We had to hide in the crypts of the monastery for a long time. When the Syrian army chased them away, everybody was happy: the Syrian citizens because they hate the foreign rebels, and we because peace had returned.”

Interviewer: You say that the Syrian Army protects civilians, yet there are all sorts of reports about war crimes committed by Assad’s forces, such as the bombardments with barrel bombs.

Father Daniel: “Do you not know that the media coverage on Syria is the biggest media lie of our time? They have sold pure nonsense about Assad. It was actually the rebels who plundered and killed. Do you think that the Syrian people are stupid? Do you think those people were forced to cheer for Assad and Putin? It is the Americans who have a hand in all of this, for pipelines and natural resources in this region and to thwart Putin.”

Saudi Arabia and Qatar want to establish a Sunni state in Syria, without religious freedom. Therefore, Assad must go. You know, when the Syrian army was preparing for the battle in Aleppo, Muslim soldiers came to me to be blessed. Between ordinary Muslims and Christians, there is no problem. It is those radical Islamic, Western-backed rebels who want to massacre us. They are all al Qaeda and IS. There are not any moderate fighters anymore.”

Interviewer: You once mentioned Hillary Clinton to be a "devil in holy water," because as Secretary of State she deliberately worsened the conflict.

Father Daniel: “I am happy with Trump. He sees what every normal person understands: That the United States should stop undermining countries which possess natural resources. The Americans’ attempt to impose a unipolar world is the biggest problem. Trump understands that radical Islam is a bigger threat than Russia.

What do I care whether he occasionally takes off his pants? If Trump practices geopolitics the way he has promised to do so, then the future looks bright. Then it will become similar to Putin’s approach. And hopefully then, there will be a solution for Syria, and peace will return.”

Interviewer: You understand that your analysis is controversial and will encounter much criticism?

Father Daniel: “I speak from personal observation. And no one has to believe me, right? But I know one thing: The media can either contribute to the massacre of the Syrian people or help the Syrian people, with their media coverage. Unfortunately, there are too many followers and cowards among journalists.”

via http://ift.tt/2k51b42 Tyler Durden

Elizabeth Warren ‘Silenced’ Again After Video Surfaces Of MLK’s Wife Thanking Senator Sessions

After being silenced last night on the Senate floor during her desperate racial stunt to read disparaging remarks about now-confirmed Attorney-General Jeff Sessions, we suspect Senator Elizabeth Warren is lost for words as video surfaces of Coretta Scott King thanking Senator Sessions at the launching of the Rosa Parks Library and Museum.

The racially-divisive stunt that Senator Warren tried to pull last night – by  quoting a letter from the late Coretta Scott King, civil rights activist and wife of Martin Luther King Jr., who wrote in 1986, during Sessions' failed confirmation hearing for a federal judgeship, that he “had used the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens" as a U.S. attorney in Alabama – ended with her being silenced by Senate vote.

Tonight, we suspect she will choose to silence herself as more recent video of Coretta Scott King surfaces destroying her warrant-less claim was that King’s wife’s words framed Sessions as a bigot, as she thanks Senator Sessions for his help in the construction of the Rosa Parks Library and Museum…

As far as Senator Warren is concerned, even MLK's niece lambasted her for playing the race card…

Still what would one expect, when all you have is an 'identity politics' hammer, every 'problem' is a nail.

via http://ift.tt/2koxeIp Tyler Durden

Donald Trump Is Right About The Need For Term Limits

Authored by Caroline Baum, originally posted at MarketWatch.com,

To clean up Washington, send the swamp creatures packing

When they run for re-election, more than 90% of House members win.

When we said that an authority conferred by the free suffrages of the people never harmed a republic, we presupposed that the people, in giving that power, would limit, as well the time during which it was to be exercised. – Niccoló Machiavelli, “The Discourses,”. 1517.

Ronald Reagan famously said that “the nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.” In the same vein, he might have said that the nearest thing to lifetime employment we will ever see on this earth is a seat in the U.S. Congress.

Since 1964, the incumbency rate has averaged 93% in the House of Representatives and 82% in the Senate, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Low approval ratings are clearly no obstacle to re-election.

Anyone watching the bi-party obstructionism and hypocrisy in Washington these days would surely conclude that it’s time to clean house. To the extent that the 2016 presidential election reflected a populist rejection of the status quo, what institution better encapsulates “more of the same” than Congress?

Donald Trump came out in favor of term limits during the 2016 presidential election campaign.

“If I’m elected president, I will push for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress,” Trump said at a campaign rally in Colorado in October. He subsequently quantified those limits: six years in the House and 12 years in the Senate. If such a law were applied to the current Congress, almost half the sitting members would be out of a job.

House Speaker Paul Ryan has pledged to bring term limits to the floor for a vote. Even if he does, no one expects lawmakers to vote themselves out of a secure job that comes with generous benefits, including health care and a pension (five years of service required to qualify), and minimal demands on one’s time. The House has logged an average of 139 days in session a year since 2001.

(To be fair, representatives have duties to fulfill in their home districts as well.)

The public is on board with the idea of term limits. An October 2016 Rasmussen survey found that 74% of likely voters favored establishing term limits for members of Congress. The other 26% were equally divided between opposed and undecided.

That’s a pretty solid starting point, but history urges caution.

Term limits were included in the Republicans’ 1994 “Contract with America,” but the measure failed to garner the required votes.

Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia served more than 51 years in the U.S. Senate, longer than anyone in history.

Besides, voters may say they want to throw the bums out, but the evidence on re-election rates suggests they give their particular bum a pass!

What is to be done? Term limits have had great success on the state and local level. Fifteen states have term-limited legislatures. Thirty-six state governors have some form of term limits. Nine of the U.S.’s 10 largest cities have enacted term limits for mayor. And half of large-city governments limit the number of terms an individual may serve.

The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1951, limited the president and vice president to two terms in office. The only elected officials immune to term limits, it seems, are members of Congress. Self-interest argues that the thrust to impose them will have to come from the states.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides the guidelines for amending the original document in either of two ways. Congress may propose amendments, with the approval of two-thirds of both Houses, or the legislatures of two-thirds of the states may call a convention for that purpose. To date, the states have never exercised that option.

Phillip Blumel, president of U.S. Term Limits, a single-issue advocacy organization, reports some encouraging developments on that front. While a term-limits amendment is regularly introduced in each session, “this year it was almost a competition from members of Congress to introduce the bill,” Blumel says.

And for the first time in 2016, U.S. Term Limits turned its focus away from the national level to the states in a effort to get them to exercise their option to call for a convention.

“Our test case was Florida,” Blumel says. “The bill passed. The vote on the floor was overwhelmingly in favor.”

This year, U.S. Term Limits is targeting eight states to enact applications for a convention. That’s still a long way from the two-thirds, or 34 states, required.

“For us to be successful, the states do not have to have a convention,” Blumel explains. “Passing applications in the states will get Congress to act. Congress would write its own amendment.”

I am skeptical that these lifers will legislate themselves out of office. But Blumel cites a precedent: the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, which established the popular election of two senators from each state for a six-year term.

Prior to 1913, senators were elected by state legislatures. The House had passed several measures proposing an amendment on the direct election of senators, but “the bills could not get out of Senate committee,” Blumel says.

Then the states got into the act. Once 30 states had passed applications for a convention to amend the Constitution — close to the 32 needed at the time — Congress wrote and passed its own amendment.

“It took a decade back then,” Blumel says. Things happen a lot faster nowadays, which means “we’ll know in the next five years whether it’s going to happen or not.”

Many of the Founding Fathers, including James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, were in favor of term limits. They feared creating a permanent ruling class that would pursue its own interests at the expense of the public’s. Jefferson stressed “the necessity of rotation in office” as a means to prevent abuse.

But term limits, which were included in the Articles of Confederation, never made it into the Constitution based on the belief that regular elections were the best form of term limits.

In theory, elections should be the best form of term limits. But it hasn’t worked out that way. Many House seats are uncontested. The odds are so stacked against challengers that serious candidates are discouraged from running for office. Voters have a choice between an incumbent and a non-entity. Or the lesser of two evils.

And as for our public servants, the idea that they are self-sacrificing individuals interested in the common good is a fantasy. They are, like the rest of us, interested in advancing their own careers and financial security.

Because the public sector doesn’t offer open-ended monetary rewards, at least in terms of salary and bonus, power becomes its own reward, leading to unethical behavior, abuse and even corruption. Term limits would prevent special interests from completely overwhelming the public interest.

If the 2016 presidential election is any guide, the American public’s disgust with the political class has reached such an extreme that voters are willing to take a chance with devil they don’t know. Grass-roots organizations need to harness that “outsider” preference and build momentum for congressional term limits quickly before that enchantment with the devil starts to wane.

via http://ift.tt/2kJDXhc Tyler Durden

Rand Paul To Tucker Carlson: Let’s Audit The Fed – Oh And WTF Is Up With The Neocon Iraq War Architect Trump’s About To Appoint?

ss1n7Ul

After a Democrat filibuster of Rand Paul’s “Audit the Fed” bill – reintroduced in January along with 8 co-sponsors and passed by 53 Senators including Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Kentucky believes he may find a friend in President Trump, who has previously endorsed the idea. Opponents to the audit, also known as establishment shills, suggest that transparency might lead to scrutiny. You don’t say?  On Tucker Carlson Tonight, Paul explained how the Fed hurts people:

The reason I want oversight is people get hurt in the downturn,” Paul said. “So in 2008, when the housing market went bust, I blamed that on the Federal Reserve. We’re right in the middle of another boom. Anybody seen the stock market lately? It is a boom, just like the real estate boom of 2008, and it will come to an end. I wish I knew exactly when, so I could give your viewers some investment advice, but it will end. There will be a correction.” RealClearPolitics

Given the Trump’s rollback of Dodd-Frank, which included provisions to audit dark money emergency lending facilities (yet harmed small businesses and community banks) – Auditing the Fed is perhaps more important than ever.

Just as interesting: Carlson, a patriot, brought up another issue which Rand Paul and many others feel strongly about; rumors of Neoconservative Never-Trumper Elliott Abrams imminent appointment as second in command at the State Department. As Paul writes in a Rare op-ed yesterday:

Crack the door to admit Elliott Abrams and the neocons will scurry in by the hundreds.

Neoconservative interventionists have had us at perpetual war for 25 years. While President Trump has repeatedly stated his belief that the Iraq War was a mistake, the neocons (all of them Never-Trumpers) continue to maintain that the Iraq and Libyan Wars were brilliant ideas. These are the same people who think we must blow up half the Middle East, then rebuild it and police it for decades.

As Think Progress writes of Abrams:

Abrams was one of the defendants in the Iran-Contra Affair, and he pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress. He was appointed Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs during Bush’s first term, where he served as Bush’s chief advisor on the Middle East.

That’s about as swampy as it gets, and contrary to just about everything Trump campaigned on.

Paul had the following to say on Tucker about Abrams:

Someone who was a never-Trumper should never be in a Trump state department – for goodness sakes! President Trump has been different than many. He said that Nation building hasn’t worked. When he said that, Elliot Abrams said “He’s absolutely wrong, Nation building is exactly what we need to do.”

 

Regime change, Iraq War; Elliot Abrams was one of the key architects of the Iraq War. We don’t need people with a failed policy back in. Donald Trump represents something new and different, and is I think, a welcome relief from the Neocons.

Tucker: “I’m baffled by it, to be honest.” 

 

via http://ift.tt/2konAWk ZeroPointNow

Why Abe Is So Nervous Ahead Of His Meeting With Trump

From reports that Japan’s giant pension fund, the GPIF, will invest in US infrastructure, to promises that Japan will present a “package” to create 700,000 US jobs, there is a distinct smell of appeasement and nervousness oozing out of Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s every pore two days before his summit meeting, golf game and dinner with Donald Trump on Friday (it is unclear who will pay for Abe’s trip, and it could be an issue).

The reason for that is simple: the promises to help create U.S. jobs and bolster Japan’s military are meant to persuade Trump to turn down the heat on trade and stand by the decades-old alliance. But of all all concerns, Abe’s biggest worry is for Trump to not accuse – or act on – Japan relentless currency devaluation, which is the bedrock of Abenomics, and without which Abe’s career is doomed and he knows it.

For the clearest indication of just how much Japan has intervened against its currency, look no further than the BOJ’s balance sheet. As Nikkei reported today, the Bank of Japan’s holdings of Japanese government bonds has now topped 40% of the outstanding balance for the first time, the central bank said Wednesday. The BOJ has been snapping up JGBs in large quantities since it implemented drastic monetary easing measures in April 2013, the primary purpose of which is to keep pressuring the Yen lower. Statistics released by the bank show that its JGB holdings stood at about 358 trillion yen ($3.19 trillion) as of the end of January, or about 40% of the outstanding total of some 894 trillion yen.

While last September, the BOJ switched its policy focus from quantity to interest rates, aiming to keep long-term rates at around 0% to achieve its inflation target, the BOJ’s JGB holdings continue to rise, with the bank sticking to its annual target of 80 trillion yen for JGB purchases

An ill-fated attempt at launching negative rates last year led to disastrous results, and a prompt strengthening of the currency, which has left bond monetization as the only recourse for the Bank of Japan, and for Japan’s prime minister. Of course, a Trump crackdown on Abenomics will merely accelerate the inevitable: with the amount of such bonds circulating in the market declining, Nomura calculated that “the bank will reach the limits of its bond purchase program as early as the first half of 2019.” In other words, Abe has at most two more years before the endgame, whatever it may be. However, he certainly does not want that timeframe truncated.

Trump on Jan. 31 blamed the U.S. trade deficit on money supply policies in foreign countries, singling out China and Japan as guiding their currencies lower. “If the money supply continues to increase due to the BOJ’s large-scale JGB purchases, Trump may step up his criticism of Japan,” said Yasunari Ueno of Mizuho Securities.

Ealrier today, Abe’s fears about a Trump crackdown on Japanese monetary policy was confirmed by Japan’s Kyodo which reported that Abe will an understanding from Trump that Japan’s monetary easing policy is meant to escape deflation and not influence the yen, which of course is ridiculous, and explains the attempts to appease Trump with promises of jobs and investments.

And while Trump may be placated, he will still have to explain Japan’s role as the second biggest contributor to the US trade deficit. As was revealed earlier this week, Japan accounted for $68.9 billion of the U.S. goods trade deficit in 2016, re-emerging as the second-largest US trade deficit contributor for the first time in three years – a potential flashpoint during the Trump-Abe meeting. 

The goods deficit with Japan remained roughly flat and accounted for 9% of the U.S. total. However, the deficit on motor vehicles and parts – an area in which President Donald Trump claims Japan engages in unfair practices – jumped to $52.6 billion from $48.9 billion in 2015, making up nearly 80% of the total American deficit with Japan.

It’s not just monetary policy and trade that are making Abe nervous.

Japanese officials have been soothed by security assurances from Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and others. But they worry Trump may go off script when the two leaders meet, first for a summit in Washington on Friday and then for a round of golf near the “Winter White House”, Mar-A-Lago in Florida, Reuters notes. Some in Tokyo even worry that Trump, a global businessman and author of “The Art of the Deal”, might eventually make some sort of pact with rival China that leaves Japan out in the cold. During his election campaign, Trump complained that Tokyo and Seoul were not sharing enough of the cost of the U.S. security umbrella.

“What we want to know is Mr. Trump’s attitude towards China,” said Yukio Okamoto, a former Japanese diplomat with ties to the government. “If it becomes only an economic one, then a deal might be made at some point without the consideration of security issues in the region.”

Japanese politicians are also concerned that Abe might make hard-to-keep promises when the two play a round of golf that has echoes of one between Abe’s prime minister grandfather, Nobusuke Kishi, and President Dwight Eisenhower in 1957. U.S. newspapers then dubbed the golf game a “triumph of diplomacy” between the former World War Two enemies. Three years later, Kishi had to resign because of a public furor over the 1960 U.S.-Japan security pact.

“The symbolism of playing golf is very important to the Japanese,” said Dennis Wilder, a former National Security Council official. “Abe is very proud of his grandfather and has worked hard to fulfill his unrealized dream of building a full strategic partnership with Washington.”

* * *

So how does Abe hope to placate the irascible US president?

As we reported last week, Abe, who will be accompanied by Finance Minister Taro Aso and Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, will bring a package of steps Tokyo says could create up to 700,000 new American jobs through private-public investment in infrastructure such as high-speed trains, government sources say. Speculation is also simmering that Japanese manufacturers like Toyota, whose president Akio Toyoda met Abe last week, could time announcements about investment – either already planned or new – to coincide with the summit. Additionally, Japanese display maker Sharp may start building a $7 billion plant in the United States this year, a person with knowledge of the plan said on Wednesday.

As the FT amusingly adds, Abe is pushing companies and investors to hand over details of their US investment plans so Shinzo Abe can deliver a “tweetable” figure to Donald Trump when they meet. Executives at three top Japanese companies said officials had been in touch asking for investment numbers. Public investment institutions say the prime minister is also leaning on them to pledge tens of billions of dollars to US infrastructure projects such as high-speed rail.

“The most important thing is to reconfirm the importance of the US-Japan relationship in politics, economics and security,” said Sadayuki Sakakibara, chairman of Japan’s Keidanren business federation. Given friction over trade and the yen, Mr Sakakibara urged Mr Abe to tell the president about the $400 billion of direct investment and 1.7 million jobs that he says Japanese companies support in the US. “We’re contributing to the expansion of US exports and want to let him know that,” he said.

That said, some companies have pushed back: “Just because Donald Trump has been elected doesn’t mean we immediately change our business plan,” said one senior executive at a large Japanese manufacturer. “We can only invest in factories we actually need.”

Taking his preparation to the extreme, hoping to update what Japan believes is Trump’s outdated image of Japan forged in decades-old trade wars, Abe will also be armed with data, showing, for example, that Japanese firms are the biggest direct foreign investor and foreign employer in the United States second only to Britain (see chart above).

Meanwhile, to address the gaping trade discrepancy Trump, who abandoned the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact championed by his predecessor Barack Obama, wants to open talks on a bilateral free trade deal with Tokyo. He also wants to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) binding Mexico, the United States and Canada, the basis of many Japanese firms’ investment plans. Abe prefers multilateral trade deals, but has left the door open to talks on a bilateral pact – despite misgivings by some officials that Tokyo would come under intense pressure to open further politically sensitive sectors such as agriculture, while gaining scant economic benefits.

“I don’t think Mr. Abe will say ‘no’ to the bilateral option but I don’t think he will say it is a good idea, either,” one Japanese official said.

All throughout the meeting, markets will be keenly watching to see whether Trump repeats his criticism of Japan for using money supply to devalue the yen to boost exports. As noted above, Japanese sources have made clear Tokyo will push back on any attempts to bind its hands on a hyper-easy monetary policy central to “Abenomics” growth prescriptions. Should Trump “go there”, the yen will surge. However, if Trump avoids any mention of the weaker Yen, it is possible that the USDJPY will spike higher, although it will be contingent on what, if anything, Trump says about his interest in a weaker dollar.

Finally, there is the question of the disputed islands in the East China Sea, which were the source of much geopolitical sabre rattling in 2013.

Abe will be eager for Trump to repeat assurances that his administration will adhere to Washington’s commitment to defend disputed East China Sea islands under Japanese control but claimed also by China. The islands are called the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China.  Abe is likely to reassure Trump that Japan is willing to play a bigger regional defense role and beef up its military capabilities. A pledge to boost defense spending, however, could be contentious at home in view of Japan’s huge public debt, Reuters cautions.

Finally, despite all of Abe’s preparations, there is the biggest wild card of all: Donald Trump himself. 

Some experts cautioned that too subservient a response by Abe, such as a
government-inspired jobs creation package, risks confirming Trump’s
view that old-style Japan bashing works. “It’s a very difficult line to walk to satisfy Trump at the same time not giving the impression that it’s Japan Inc all over again,” said Jun Okumura, a former trade negotiator who is a visiting scholar at the Meiji Institute for Global Affairs.

Others, though, said Japan has little choice. As the Japanese official put it, “We have no choice but to ride with the United States, whoever the president is.”

And Trump knows it very well, which is why Abe is so very nervous.

via http://ift.tt/2konuhb Tyler Durden

Federal Judge Blocks “Anticompetitive” Anthem Aquisition Of Cigna

Moments ago a federal judge blocked health insurer Anthem from acquiring rival Cigna, the second court ruling in recent weeks to deal a decisive blow to health insurers seeking consolidation as a cure to the substantially higher operating costs plaguing the industry as a result of Obamacare.  The ruling echoed a decision by a different judge last month who blocked Aetna’s plans to take over Humana.  Though the two proposed insurer combinations were different in many ways, both judges found that merging top industry rivals threatened higher prices without the necessary patient benefits to offset those higher costs.  Per the Wall Street Journal:

The decision, by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, said the proposed $48 billion deal violated federal antitrust law because it would create an unacceptable reduction in the number of companies that can serve large national employers that insure their workers.

 

Anthem Cigna

 

Of course, as the Journal notes, while the decision could be challenged by Aetna, rising tensions between the two companies make an appeal unlikely. 

While Aetna is considering a possible appeal in its case, Wednesday’s ruling almost certainly kills the Anthem-Cigna transaction, as discord between the companies has grown considerably since they announced their deal in July 2015.

 

At the deal’s inception, the insurers said their marriage would create a diversified, innovative and more efficient health insurer. But the two sides’ relationship soured over time as they clashed over leadership styles and visions for the future.

 

The companies squabbled during the Justice Department’s review of the transaction and eventually accused each other of violating the merger agreement.

As we noted last summer, several massive health insurers were forced to pull out of Obamacare exchanges all around the country after losing $100’s of millions of dollars serving unprofitable markets in 2016.  Aetna even warned that failure to close proposed mega-mergers in the industry would only result in further withdrawals and less customer options. 

In a July 5 letter to the Justice Department, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Aetna said that if the Humana deal drew a legal challenge, “instead of expanding to 20 states next year, we would reduce our presence to no more than 10 states.” In addition, the letter, signed by Aetna Chief Executive Mark T. Bertolini, said the insurer believed “it is very likely that we would need to leave the public exchange business entirely and plan for additional business efficiencies should our deal ultimately be blocked.”

 

Sure enough, one month later, Aetna executed on its warning with a dramatic reduction of its Obamacare offerings. It may only escalate from there.

 

The company said in the letter that an antitrust suit or a successful prevention of its deal would create financial strains that would force it to pull back from the exchanges, where it was losing money. “Although we remain supportive of the Administration’s efforts to expand coverage, we must also face market realities. Our customers expect us to keep their insurance products affordable and continually improving, and our shareholders expect that we will generate a market return on invested capital for them,” the letter said.

 

While it is undisputed that contrary to expectations, Obamacare has ended up being a far greater drain on profits than insurance providers had expected – on August 2, Aetna disclosed that its ACA plans had lost approximately $200 million in the second quarter of 2016 and were expected to lose more than $300 million this year – this type of “bargaining” with the government is disturbing, as it suggests a quid-pro-quo arrangement with the government is not only possible but expected when making corporate decisions.

The two maps below prove the point above beautifully by illustrating the epic collapse of Obamacare coverage in just 1 year.  A collapse that has left a stunning number of people across the country with only 1 option for health insurance.  Meanwhile, healthcare shoppers in Pinal County, Arizona will actually be left with no options in 2017 as all carriers have abandoned service there. (charts per the New York Times)

2016 healthcare insurance carriers by county:

Obamacare 2016

 

2017 healthcare insurance carriers by county:

Obamacare 2017

 

Of course, if Republicans have their way then the entire original premise of this merger may be rendered moot in a few months anyway.

via http://ift.tt/2koxl6H Tyler Durden