Tag: news

Lindsey Graham Asked Amy Coney Barrett About Polygamy and People Got Mad Online

grahambarrett_1161x653

During this morning’s questioning of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) asked Barrett whether there was a constitutional right to polygamy.

Barrett didn’t answer because, she explained, “it’s an issue that somebody might litigate before the court at some point.” Graham wasn’t truly trying to pin her down on polygamy. He was actually bringing up Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decision from 2015 that mandated the states and the federal government recognize same-sex marriages.

Graham brought up Obergefell because he wanted to discuss how likely it might be that the Supreme Court may reconsider the ruling. Just last week, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, wrote a statement calling on the Supreme Court to take another look at Obergefell to make sure that the court properly protected the right of people to express religious objections to gay marriage.

That’s also not what Graham is after here. He was getting Barrett on the record explaining the circumstances by which the court would revisit Obergefell. He is pointing out that reliance on the decision to determine other cases might prompt the Court to reconsider Obergefell (or Roe v. Wade, or other Supreme Court precedents) if the Court believes that the case was wrongly decided. Barrett agreed that’s how the Court would work, though to be clear, she did not say or agree that Obergefell was decided “wrongly.”

Graham, though, has a bit of an obsession with insisting that same-sex marriage recognition may eventually open the door for legal recognition of polygamous marriages. He previously asked Loretta Lynch during her hearings to be confirmed as attorney general under President Barack Obama what the difference was between legally recognizing same-sex marriage and legally recognizing polygamous marriage.

This morning, Graham’s line of questioning has produced outrage in LGBT quarters that comparing gay marriage equality to polygamy is absurd and homophobic. Here’s the clip of the exchange along with framing by LGBT law nonprofit Lambda Legal that the comparison is uncalled for:

Here’s a question though: Why are these LGBT or LGBT-friendly voices essentially agreeing with Graham that legal recognition of polygamous relationships is something ultimately bad and unwanted? The Obergefell ruling does, in fact, include a very lengthy analysis and recognition that our country’s legal and social framework for marriage is ever-evolving. Here’s a paragraph from the ruling:

The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. Changes, such as the decline of arranged marriages and the abandonment of the law of coverture, have worked deep transformations in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of marriage once viewed as essential. These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution. Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations.

The decision makes it clear that the court believes “The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person,” and while the ruling itself is entirely focused on couples, there is nothing about the ruling that suggests its logic wouldn’t apply to polygamous relationships, which Chief Justice John Roberts noted in his dissent.

So Graham’s fears actually do have a foundation in the Obergefell ruling, which states that our country’s concept of marriage evolves over time. But why are people treating Graham’s framing as though it’s something we should all be afraid of and resist? At one point, the idea that the government would recognize same-sex marriage was absurd. Then it was something to organize and fight against. And now, for most Americans, it’s uncontroversial.

If two men want to get married, it’s no big deal. If three men want to get married, then… what’s the big deal? A significant amount of perception and analysis of polygamy is based on stereotypes of religious cult groups with one powerful patriarch having many wives. But that’s just one framework and not the entire story of polygamy or polyamory.

Organizations like Lambda Legal can and should oppose Graham’s fearmongering about the Obergefell decision, but they should also consider whether they are themselves embracing a stereotype that polygamous relationships are or should be treated illegitimately under the law. There are LGBT people who also pursue them, after all, not just straight men looking to control women.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3nNeL9w
via IFTTT

$10.6 Billion Hedge Fund Closing After Massive “Value” Losses

$10.6 Billion Hedge Fund Closing After Massive “Value” Losses

Tyler Durden

Wed, 10/14/2020 – 14:30

After keeping up neck and neck with “growth” for much of the first half of the past decade, the past five years have been nothing short of a living hell for value investors, underperforming the recent and still ongoing surge in “growth” by more than 50%.

And nowhere has the pain been more acute than for pureplay quant funds who had the misfortune of overallocating to the value factor, which however as shown above, has generated virtually any alpha for the past four years. In retrospect, it is surprising that more funds didn’t shutter amid an exodus of disgusted investors who failed to grasp that in a centrally-planned world, value strategies – which rely on properly functioning markets and arbitrage neither of which exists in manipulated, planned markets – no longer work.

As such it is certainly not surprising that one prominent quant fund, the $10.6 billion Philadelphia-based AJO Partners (which bizarrely even names all of its 51 clients), will shutter after suffering “steep losses from its value strategy” according to Bloomberg. In a letter from founder Ted Aronson, the firm announced it would stop trading on Nov 30, putting the 36-year-old firm out to pasture.

“We still believe there is a future for value investing; sadly, the future is unlikely to arrive fast enough — for us,” wrote Aronson who plans to retire.

“The better part of valor is to return the assets and call it a day,” Aronson added, “Our clients are exclusively large sophisticated institutional clients, so they have superior alternatives. C’est la vie.”

The culprit behind the shutdown was the fund’s $5.1 billion AJO Large Cap Absolute Value strategy, which tumbled 15% this year through September (the fund’s biggest holding as of June 30 was Intel which has had a terrible year), which in isolation is not disastrous: the Russell 1000 Value is down 12% – but when compared to the massive outperformance of growth, well… one has to be impressed with the patience of the fund’s LPs.

AJO, which was established in 1984, offered a range of systematic strategies built from factors including value, which however has proved to be a dismal strategy in a deflationary world where over $10 trillion bonds trade with a negative yield.

A summary of the top 25 publicly disclosed holdings of AJO as of June 30 is shown below. We expect many if not all of these, are currently being aggressively sold off.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3j15l6J Tyler Durden

Interview with David Ignatius

In our latest episode I interview David Ignatius about the technology in his latest spy novel, The Paladin. Actually, while we do cover such tech issues as deepfakes, hacking back, Wikileaks, and internet journalism, the interview ranges more widely, from the steel industry of the 1970s, the roots of Donald Trump’s political worldview, and the surprisingly important role played in the Trump-Obama-Russia investigation by one of David Ignatius’s own opinion pieces.

Download the 333rd Episode (mp3)

You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! Our thanks to Ken Weissman of Weissman Sound Design for the new theme music.

The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34VH2lz
via IFTTT

Lindsey Graham Asked Amy Coney Barrett About Polygamy and People Got Mad Online

grahambarrett_1161x653

During this morning’s questioning of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) asked Barrett whether there was a constitutional right to polygamy.

Barrett didn’t answer because, she explained, “it’s an issue that somebody might litigate before the court at some point.” Graham wasn’t truly trying to pin her down on polygamy. He was actually bringing up Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decision from 2015 that mandated the states and the federal government recognize same-sex marriages.

Graham brought up Obergefell because he wanted to discuss how likely it might be that the Supreme Court may reconsider the ruling. Just last week, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, wrote a statement calling on the Supreme Court to take another look at Obergefell to make sure that the court properly protected the right of people to express religious objections to gay marriage.

That’s also not what Graham is after here. He was getting Barrett on the record explaining the circumstances by which the court would revisit Obergefell. He is pointing out that reliance on the decision to determine other cases might prompt the Court to reconsider Obergefell (or Roe v. Wade, or other Supreme Court precedents) if the Court believes that the case was wrongly decided. Barrett agreed that’s how the Court would work, though to be clear, she did not say or agree that Obergefell was decided “wrongly.”

Graham, though, has a bit of an obsession with insisting that same-sex marriage recognition may eventually open the door for legal recognition of polygamous marriages. He previously asked Loretta Lynch during her hearings to be confirmed as attorney general under President Barack Obama what the difference was between legally recognizing same-sex marriage and legally recognizing polygamous marriage.

This morning, Graham’s line of questioning has produced outrage in LGBT quarters that comparing gay marriage equality to polygamy is absurd and homophobic. Here’s the clip of the exchange along with framing by LGBT law nonprofit Lambda Legal that the comparison is uncalled for:

Here’s a question though: Why are these LGBT or LGBT-friendly voices essentially agreeing with Graham that legal recognition of polygamous relationships is something ultimately bad and unwanted? The Obergefell ruling does, in fact, include a very lengthy analysis and recognition that our country’s legal and social framework for marriage is ever-evolving. Here’s a paragraph from the ruling:

The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. Changes, such as the decline of arranged marriages and the abandonment of the law of coverture, have worked deep transformations in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of marriage once viewed as essential. These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution. Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations.

The decision makes it clear that the court believes “The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person,” and while the ruling itself is entirely focused on couples, there is nothing about the ruling that suggests its logic wouldn’t apply to polygamous relationships, which Chief Justice John Roberts noted in his dissent.

So Graham’s fears actually do have a foundation in the Obergefell ruling, which states that our country’s concept of marriage evolves over time. But why are people treating Graham’s framing as though it’s something we should all be afraid of and resist? At one point, the idea that the government would recognize same-sex marriage was absurd. Then it was something to organize and fight against. And now, for most Americans, it’s uncontroversial.

If two men want to get married, it’s no big deal. If three men want to get married, then… what’s the big deal? A significant amount of perception and analysis of polygamy is based on stereotypes of religious cult groups with one powerful patriarch having many wives. But that’s just one framework and not the entire story of polygamy or polyamory.

Organizations like Lambda Legal can and should oppose Graham’s fearmongering about the Obergefell decision, but they should also consider whether they are themselves embracing a stereotype that polygamous relationships are or should be treated illegitimately under the law. There are LGBT people who also pursue them, after all, not just straight men looking to control women.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3nNeL9w
via IFTTT

Mind The Gaps!

Mind The Gaps!

Tyler Durden

Wed, 10/14/2020 – 14:20

Authored by Sven Henrich via NorthmanTrader.com,

As our see no risks market continues chugging along near all time highs again you may have noticed that many of the gains since the September lows are again coming via magic overnight gaps.

So what you say? If the market doesn’t mind it doesn’t matter. And it’s true as Art Cashin once said: “All gaps fill, if ever”. A cheeky hint that gaps can remain unfilled for a long time or never fill.

But if the entire rally construct is dependent on open overnight gaps one has to wonder.

To make my point here’s a chart of the $SOXX since the September lows:

Gap after gap after gap. All unfilled making a mockery of the concept of intra-day price discovery. Gap, ramp & camp.

If this all looks somewhat familiar, it is. After all we saw the same nonsense during the August squeeze to new highs:

What happened to all these gaps?

They all got filled in September, every single one of them.

Yes, gaps matter. Individual gaps may not matter, but consecutive clusters of them increase reversion risk to backfill the gaps.

And note this rally here is no different other than it being even more steep:

There is of course still the matter of the September down gap that is still open an it may well fill, but as you can see this market has some backing and filling work to do.

But for added twist and giggles these are just the gaps in the last 14 trading days.

What about the gaps since the March low? For a reference check $DIA, the ETF that tracks the $DJIA:

That’s a lot of open gaps. A lot.

This market is working really hard to convince everybody that nothing matters and that things are different this time. Well, they have to be, because there is no technical history that suggests that this many open gaps are sustainable without some backing and filling. None.

And because of this history the message is clear: Mind the gaps.

*  *  *

For the latest public analysis please visit NorthmanTrader. To subscribe to our market products please visit Services.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/372bBc5 Tyler Durden

Mitt Romney’s Lament Highlights Trump’s Swing-State Mormon Problem

MittRomney

It says something about the frazzed-out state of American politics that a statement released three weeks before election day by a senior GOP senator and recent Republican presidential nominee decrying the “vile, vituperative, hate-filled morass” of contemporary discourse and singling out the Republican president by name generated about 90 minutes worth of reaction, then was quickly superseded by the usual clamor and splat.

Yet the broadside from Sen. Mitt Romney (R–Utah)—the only GOP senator to vote for impeaching Donald Trump—reflects a practical problem facing the president’s re-election campaign: Mormons, traditionally among the most rock-solid blocs within the conservative base, are defecting from the Republican Party. As a result, previously reliable red states could soon swing blue.

“A 2010 Gallup survey found that ‘Mormons are both the most Republican and the most conservative of any of the major religious groups in the U.S. today,'” Politico reported last month. But: “Mormon support for the Republican ticket dropped from 80 percent in 2004 and 78 percent in 2012, to 61 percent in 2016, even as most other Christians moved further to the right, according to Pew.”

A 2019 PRRI survey found that just 55 percent of Mormons hold favorable views of Trump, compared to 73 percent of white evangelical Protestants and 82 percent of Republicans overall. (Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints [LDS] represent 2 percent of the U.S. population.)

Compared to other political and religious blocs, Mormons are among the most likely to prefer personal morality, limiting government in economic affairs, deploying the military abroad, and offering a welcome mat to immigrants. Each value puts them at odds with Trump.

Romney is no LDS outlier. When a behind-the-scenes Access Hollywood tape from 2005 surfaced four years ago last week showing then-celebrity Donald Trump bragging that, as a “star,” he could just “grab” women “by the pussy,” and they just “let you do it,” it was elected Mormons—Sen. Mike Crapo (R–Idaho), Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah), Sen. Jeff Flake (R–Arizona)—who led the GOP defection from the party’s standard-bearer. Even before that, Trump had clashed frequently with both Flake and Lee, on grounds of both policy (they prefer to constrain government) and personal comportment.

The three most Mormon states—Utah (66 percent of the population), Idaho (26 percent), and Wyoming (12 percent)—have backed Republicans for president in the past 13 elections, by double-digit percentages in each case except for Wyoming in 1992. They are unanimously projected to do so again in 2020.

But it’s the number four and five LDS states, Arizona and Nevada (with 6 percent each), where the Great Mormon Battle of 2020 is being waged.

“It’s not going to be shocking that Trump wins the Mormon vote,” Y2 Analytics partner and Brigham Young University political science professor Quin Monson told Politico. “But if it’s 10 to 15 points off of the norm in Nevada and Arizona, that’s a big deal….It’s the equivalent of Republicans suddenly getting a quarter of the African American vote, and I do think it’s within the realm of possibility.”

Trump won Arizona and its 11 electoral votes by 3.5 percentage points in 2016; lost Nevada (and its six votes) by 2.4 percentage points. Current polling has Democratic nominee Joe Biden up by 3.9 percentage points in Arizona and 6.4 in Nevada. Both states are currently projected by most prognosticators to go Democrat.

One of the unanswered questions this cycle is where the 732,000 voters in 2016 for independent (and Mormon) Evan McMullin will go. We already know that Biden has a sizable polling advantage among 2016 voters for Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein—a New York Times/Siena College poll released this week of six northern battleground states shows Biden beating Trump among Stein voters 59 percent to 9 percent, while Johnson voters went 38 percent Biden, 29 percent Libertarian nominee Jo Jorgensen, and 14 percent for Trump.

McMullin, who was on the ballot in 11 states, got 21.5 percent in Utah, 6.7 percent in Idaho, and between 0.7 percent and 1.8 percent in the other nine states. (Perhaps more impressively, he received 221,000 write-in votes, with a high of 0.7 percent in Arizona.) He received more votes than the margin between Trump and Hillary Clinton in both Utah and Minnesota, the latter of which was his third-best state.

McMullin or no, there has long been a correlation between the percentage of Mormon population and interest in third party/independent candidates. Seven of the top eight states in 2016 for combined voting percentages of nontraditional presidential candidates came from among the 10 most Mormon polities, and four of those seven states didn’t have McMullin on the ballot.

Alaska, for example, with a Mormon population of 4.6 percent, voted 12.2 percent for non-Democrat/Republicans in 2016, and despite not even polling any third-party candidates so far this year, currently shows a FiveThirtyEight Trump lead of just 4.8 percentage points, in a state that during my lifetime has never backed a Republican for president by fewer than 9 points. Montana (4.7 percent Mormon), which has given Republicans an average 16.4-point margin this century, is currently polling at +8.6 for Trump.

Any way you look at it, the president’s re-election prospects are looking increasingly grim. And as ever, the biggest blocs of anti-Trump sentiment on the right are coming from Mormons, foreign policy interventionists, and libertarians (and various combinations thereof). For the next three weeks, the GOP’s focus will be on bringing those strays back home. Should Trump lose, the question will transition to: Can those groups be reconciled?

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3iWIysH
via IFTTT

Elizabeth Holmes Loses Last Ditch Bid To Have Criminal Charges Against Her Thrown Out

Elizabeth Holmes Loses Last Ditch Bid To Have Criminal Charges Against Her Thrown Out

Tyler Durden

Wed, 10/14/2020 – 14:03

Disgraced Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes lost her most recent challenge to throw out the criminal charges against her this week. She had been seeking dismissal of “various counts” of the charges against her, stemming from the allegations that she engaged in a massive fraud while running Theranos.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California denied Holmes’ motions in an order issued Tuesday.

The judge did, however, re-iterate a previous ruling that physicians were not victims of the alleged fraud by Holmes, according to Bloomberg Law. The judge said he expects prosecutors not to argue that Holmes, or her ex-boyfriend Sunny Balwani, should be convicted of wire fraud based on any scheme to defraud doctors. 

Recall, back in February, we noted that the same judge had dropped several charges against Holmes, but had allowed wire fraud charges to stand. 

 

The court ruled that since the tests were paid by customers’ medical insurance companies, that the patients were not deprived of any money or property in using Theranos’ blood testing services. The court also found back in February that there was “no evidence” to show that Holmes and Balwani directed doctors to make misrepresentations to their patients. 

The original indictment alleges that Holmes and Balwani knew that Theranos was not capable of consistently producing accurate results, yet they encouraged doctors and patients to use their tests regardless. They were both indicted in June of 2018 on 11 counts of conspiracy and wire fraud. 

Recall, at the beginning of 2020, we had also noted that Holmes literally phoned in her defense in an Arizona fraud lawsuit after her civil lawyers quit due to non-payment. 

Holmes still maintains a team of “high caliber” attorneys for her criminal case in San Jose federal court.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3nPJfHQ Tyler Durden

Mitt Romney’s Lament Highlights Trump’s Swing-State Mormon Problem

MittRomney

It says something about the frazzed-out state of American politics that a statement released three weeks before election day by a senior GOP senator and recent Republican presidential nominee decrying the “vile, vituperative, hate-filled morass” of contemporary discourse and singling out the Republican president by name generated about 90 minutes worth of reaction, then was quickly superseded by the usual clamor and splat.

Yet the broadside from Sen. Mitt Romney (R–Utah)—the only GOP senator to vote for impeaching Donald Trump—reflects a practical problem facing the president’s re-election campaign: Mormons, traditionally among the most rock-solid blocs within the conservative base, are defecting from the Republican Party. As a result, previously reliable red states could soon swing blue.

“A 2010 Gallup survey found that ‘Mormons are both the most Republican and the most conservative of any of the major religious groups in the U.S. today,'” Politico reported last month. But: “Mormon support for the Republican ticket dropped from 80 percent in 2004 and 78 percent in 2012, to 61 percent in 2016, even as most other Christians moved further to the right, according to Pew.”

A 2019 PRRI survey found that just 55 percent of Mormons hold favorable views of Trump, compared to 73 percent of white evangelical Protestants and 82 percent of Republicans overall. (Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints [LDS] represent 2 percent of the U.S. population.)

Compared to other political and religious blocs, Mormons are among the most likely to prefer personal morality, limiting government in economic affairs, deploying the military abroad, and offering a welcome mat to immigrants. Each value puts them at odds with Trump.

Romney is no LDS outlier. When a behind-the-scenes Access Hollywood tape from 2005 surfaced four years ago last week showing then-celebrity Donald Trump bragging that, as a “star,” he could just “grab” women “by the pussy,” and they just “let you do it,” it was elected Mormons—Sen. Mike Crapo (R–Idaho), Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah), Sen. Jeff Flake (R–Arizona)—who led the GOP defection from the party’s standard-bearer. Even before that, Trump had clashed frequently with both Flake and Lee, on grounds of both policy (they prefer to constrain government) and personal comportment.

The three most Mormon states—Utah (66 percent of the population), Idaho (26 percent), and Wyoming (12 percent)—have backed Republicans for president in the past 13 elections, by double-digit percentages in each case except for Wyoming in 1992. They are unanimously projected to do so again in 2020.

But it’s the number four and five LDS states, Arizona and Nevada (with 6 percent each), where the Great Mormon Battle of 2020 is being waged.

“It’s not going to be shocking that Trump wins the Mormon vote,” Y2 Analytics partner and Brigham Young University political science professor Quin Monson told Politico. “But if it’s 10 to 15 points off of the norm in Nevada and Arizona, that’s a big deal….It’s the equivalent of Republicans suddenly getting a quarter of the African American vote, and I do think it’s within the realm of possibility.”

Trump won Arizona and its 11 electoral votes by 3.5 percentage points in 2016; lost Nevada (and its six votes) by 2.4 percentage points. Current polling has Democratic nominee Joe Biden up by 3.9 percentage points in Arizona and 6.4 in Nevada. Both states are currently projected by most prognosticators to go Democrat.

One of the unanswered questions this cycle is where the 732,000 voters in 2016 for independent (and Mormon) Evan McMullin will go. We already know that Biden has a sizable polling advantage among 2016 voters for Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein—a New York Times/Siena College poll released this week of six northern battleground states shows Biden beating Trump among Stein voters 59 percent to 9 percent, while Johnson voters went 38 percent Biden, 29 percent Libertarian nominee Jo Jorgensen, and 14 percent for Trump.

McMullin, who was on the ballot in 11 states, got 21.5 percent in Utah, 6.7 percent in Idaho, and between 0.7 percent and 1.8 percent in the other nine states. (Perhaps more impressively, he received 221,000 write-in votes, with a high of 0.7 percent in Arizona.) He received more votes than the margin between Trump and Hillary Clinton in both Utah and Minnesota, the latter of which was his third-best state.

McMullin or no, there has long been a correlation between the percentage of Mormon population and interest in third party/independent candidates. Seven of the top eight states in 2016 for combined voting percentages of nontraditional presidential candidates came from among the 10 most Mormon polities, and four of those seven states didn’t have McMullin on the ballot.

Alaska, for example, with a Mormon population of 4.6 percent, voted 12.2 percent for non-Democrat/Republicans in 2016, and despite not even polling any third-party candidates so far this year, currently shows a FiveThirtyEight Trump lead of just 4.8 percentage points, in a state that during my lifetime has never backed a Republican for president by fewer than 9 points. Montana (4.7 percent Mormon), which has given Republicans an average 16.4-point margin this century, is currently polling at +8.6 for Trump.

Any way you look at it, the president’s re-election prospects are looking increasingly grim. And as ever, the biggest blocs of anti-Trump sentiment on the right are coming from Mormons, foreign policy interventionists, and libertarians (and various combinations thereof). For the next three weeks, the GOP’s focus will be on bringing those strays back home. Should Trump lose, the question will transition to: Can those groups be reconciled?

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3iWIysH
via IFTTT

Why Saudi Arabia May Be Forced To Start Another Oil Price War

Why Saudi Arabia May Be Forced To Start Another Oil Price War

Tyler Durden

Wed, 10/14/2020 – 13:45

Authored by Cyril Widdershoven via OilPrice.com,

The ongoing weakness of global oil markets seems to be stoking tensions within OPEC+, and a split within its leadership is now imminent. From the start of this year’s Moscow-Riyadh brokered OPEC+ production cut deal, internal differences have been kept at bay by a global pandemic and high crude oil storage volume. Market optimism now seems to be growing, from bullish reports about next year’s crude oil prices and even today’s IEA World Energy 2020 Report. But the reality of oil markets is far bleaker. 

The threat of European lockdowns is real, hitting global demand again while taking a heavy toll on the economy. Financial easing and subsidies worldwide have kept some demand in place, but the financials of major economies are bleak, which can be seen in the rising level of unemployment. This will not only remove OECD demand for oil but also for Asian manufacturing. OPEC+ seems to be looking at things differently though, with oil taps in Saudi Arabia, Russia, and other OPEC+ member countries opening once again. OPEC production cuts compliance is still around 100%, but the coming months will see that figure fall.

Nobody is speaking about a new oil price war yet, but the writing is on the wall with some producers now fed up with strangling their own production to counter the overproduction of others. Asian importers, especially China and India, have been reaping the rewards of this low price environment, filling their oil storage tanks to the brim. Although most Asian importers now seem to be content with storage. An OECD economic downturn will put several million barrels per day of expected Asian demand at risk.

In contrast to former assessments, Q32020-Q12021 is not forecast to see a healthy upturn of oil and petroleum products demand worldwide. Global oil storage levels are still high, while the world is awash with oil and gas. International traders are openly questioning the current OPEC+ move to put extra oil on the market, as there is no current need for these barrels. In January 2021, the former production cut of around 10 million bpd (May 2020) will fall to 6 million bpd. As stated in May, not even the existing cuts are sufficient and an easing of cuts will only prolong the current weak market conditions.

It is a worrying time for the two main architects of the OPEC+ agreement. One could say that Riyadh and Moscow are caught in a Catch22 situation, as whatever they try to do, the market is likely too weak to react and will come back to hurt both parties. Saudi Arabia, supported by its main ally UAE, and Russia are both looking at a financial crash of unknown magnitude if oil markets don’t recover soon. Oil prices are currently too low to sustain the government strategy of both nations. The latest reports on the Saudi government budget, which is based on a $50 per barrel scenario, is realistically too optimistic, as prices right now are in the low $40s.

For Russia, its economy has been hit from all sides, as oil and gas is weak, demand worldwide is down, and the diversification of its economy is stalling. Putin’s maneuverability, however, is higher than that of the Saudi rulers. Russia’s global power position still opens doors to make life bearable in the coming months.

Saudi Arabia, however, is looking at a situation in which a straightforward strategy does not seem to exist. Without higher crude oil prices, not only is the Kingdom’s flagship Saudi Aramco suffering but most government projects too. The world’s largest oil company has already put several major new projects on hold, while at the same time reassessing investment levels of others. High-profile offshore projects, such as the Red Sea or the setup of the new shipyard in Ras Al Khair, are not progressing as fast anymore, showing some internal constraints.

Aramco is also being squeezed by Riyadh for cash to fund the ongoing Saudi Vision 2030 projects. Diversification of the economy is needed, but without cash, projects are being delayed or even put on ice. The Kingdom’s finances are struggling, already shown by the fact that international interest for Saudi (and Russian) government bonds is waning. Last week’s US$ -denominated government bonds to Russia and Saudi Arabia have fallen, mainly due to lower oil prices and U.S. election issues. If capital markets are getting worried, then Riyadh and Moscow really are in trouble. Drastic measures will need to be taken.

With an internal crisis looming, the Bear and the Kingdom could be forced to take totally different roads. If the threats made by Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Energy Prince Abdulaziz Bin Salman that the Kingdom has had enough of profit takers, short investors, or lack of support of members, are to be taken face value, the market should not be surprised if the OPEC leader decides again to go its own way. A more aggressive move by Riyadh towards market-share or oil prices is not at all unthinkable. The ongoing financial onslaught wreaking havoc on IOCs and oilfield services is also hitting NOCs. Revenues and profits are still high, but their respective governments are in dire need of cash. The relationship between Russia and Saudi Arabia may have appeared to be a marriage made in heaven, but now it is all falling apart.

With internal financial pressures and increased unemployment, especially amongst young people, young leaders in the Middle East are likely to follow their hearts. If cooperation will not bring the necessary rewards, the old option of a new oil price war is not unimaginable. The global energy transition and fossil fuel divestments are already removing the weak for the oil and gas industry. There is a need for consolidation, maybe Russia and Saudi Arabia will follow a Malthusian-Darwinian approach in the future. This time, both IOCs-independents and some weaker OPEC+ producers will suffer. Statements made these weeks that Saudi Arabia wants to be the last oil producer standing or the “Sole Survivor” should not be taken lightly. This implicit threat needs to be taken at face value. The gloves are likely to come off in the coming months, and oil markets will have to be ready.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3dynKqn Tyler Durden

Does Owning a Gun Make a Judge’s Second Amendment Rulings Suspect?

Amy-Coney-Barrett-hearing-10-13-20-C-SPAN

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) was trying to help out Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett when he asked her whether she owns a gun during her confirmation hearing yesterday. But the premise of his question—that gun ownership might be viewed as disqualifying a judge from dealing fairly with cases involving the Second Amendment—could not be more absurd. Here is the relevant exchange:

Lindsey: When it comes to your personal views about this topic, do you own a gun?

Barrett: We do own a gun.

Lindsey: OK. All right. Do you think you could fairly decide a [Second Amendment] case even though you own a gun?

Barrett: Yes.

CNN highlighted that exchange in a headline and tweet, noting that “Barrett says she owns a gun, but could fairly judge a case on gun rights.” The Independent also considered the point noteworthy: “Nominee owns a gun, but says she would rule ‘fairly’ on gun control cases.” So did Fox News: “Barrett admits to owning a gun, says she can set aside beliefs to rule on 2nd Amendment fairly.”

As the Fox News example suggests, this framing is probably not simply a matter of anti-gun bias. But it does suggest that, more than a decade after the Supreme Court explicitly recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed self-defense, that right is still treated as “second-class” in the press as well as the courts. Try to imagine headlines like these:

• Barrett Has Expressed Her Opinions in Print but Says She Could Fairly Judge a Case on Freedom of the Press

• Barrett Has Cast Ballots in Elections but Says She Could Fairly Judge a Case on Voting Rights

• Barrett Drives a Car but Says She Could Fairly Judge a Case Involving the Right to Travel

• Barrett Values Her Liberty but Says She Could Fairly Judge a Case Involving Due Process

Graham’s general point was that judges and justices, regardless of who appoints them, are expected to set aside their policy preferences and personal beliefs when they interpret and apply the law. Since there is no such thing as a judge without opinions about policy and politics, such self-discipline is a basic job requirement. It is therefore not reasonable to reject a nominee simply because she took positions on controversial issues (such as abortion) before becoming a judge.

The doubt implied by these headlines goes even further, suggesting that a judge’s rulings are suspect when they involve constitutional rights she herself has exercised. If that standard were applied consistently, no one would be left to enforce those rights.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3134zzN
via IFTTT