Month: February 2016

Submitted by Shane Obata & Richardson GMP

The Golden Age

Some people say that gold is dead. They point to deflationary pressures and a bear market that started back in September of 2011. The bulls have been wrong for years; however, that may be about to change…

At present, there a multiple reasons to consider gold:

• Sentiment is very negative and almost everyone is underweight
• Supply & demand fundamentals are positive
• Chinese demand continues to rise
• Gold is a means to portfolio diversification
• The main risks to prices are overblown

In the next sections, we will examine the bull case for gold and the risks facing it. In conclusion, we will try to answer the following question: Is this the beginning of a new golden age?

 

Sentiment & Positioning

In the latest Barron’s Big Money Poll, only 3% of respondents thought that gold was the most attractive asset class. Moreover, 71% were bearish on the yellow metal. Volume traded in $GLD (the SPDR Gold Trust ETF) has come down dramatically, which indicates a lack of interest in gold bullion. Volume traded in $GDX (miners) and $GDXJ (junior miners) has been increasing; however, interest in “gold mining stocks” has been falling since mid-2011. This suggests that traders are trying to catch the falling knife, even though investors are not convinced that gold is undervalued.

In terms of positioning, market participants are heavily underweight materials and commodity stocks. Is this a contrarian buying opportunity? It could be. Especially because the current bear market is getting old. The following table shows the 5 most recent bull and bear markets:

 

Gold prices fell by 44% over the 52 months from September of 2011 to January 7^th of 2016. Those numbers match the median length and average cumulative return of the previous 4 bear markets. Gold may continue to fall from here; however, we are probably closer to the end of the bear market than to the beginning…

 

Supply & Demand

~46% of gold production is FCF negative at current prices. In other words, $1100 is not the equilibrium price. If we stay at these levels then supply will likely decline. Analysts at Credit Suisse ($CS) are projecting a deficit to begin in 2016. They expect that mine supply will fall by 11.5% from 2015 to 2018:

 

Even at higher prices, gold miners will be unable to replace all of their depleting reserves. Also, it will be very expensive for them to bring new projects online. Lastly, it is important to note that major gold discoveries have become scarce. These trends are negative for supply and positive for prices.

On the demand side, Asia and Europe should continue to support the market. Total bar and coin demand (in tonnes) increased 33% YoY from Q3’14 to Q3’15. Furthermore, consumer demand was up across the board, with exceptionally big numbers in the US. According to the World Gold Council (WGC), “coin sales by the US mint during the quarter were on par with that of Q4 2008.” Another key source of demand is central banks. They have continued to buy as they look to diversify their reserve assets. This speaks to gold’s utility as a portfolio diversifier. Total demand has been falling; however, the quarterly numbers suggest it could be stabilizing. Going forward, consumer demand is likely to offset ETF outflows.

India & China are the main drivers of demand for gold. In 2014, they accounted for ~1710 tonnes of demand. To put that in perspective, 1700 tonnes = 53% of total consumer demand:

 

 

Gold is a big part of both India’s and China’s culture. As such, it is likely that demand will remain strong.

 

China’s Gold Market

There is an interesting divergence taking place in the physical gold market. China’s demand numbers, as measured by withdrawals from the Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE) are much higher than those reported by the World Gold Council (WGC). SGE withdrawals exceeded the WGC’s demand estimates by 3,193 tonnes from 2007 to 2014.

The following passage is from Bullion Star’s Koos Jansen helps to explain the discrepancy. “The difference was labeled as net investment (in the CGA Gold Yearbook 2013 at 1,022.44 tonnes), which is calculated by the China Gold Association (CGA) as a residual between what is withdrawn from the SGE vaults and gold sold at retail level (jewelry shops and banks). The WGC doesn’t count net investment on its demand balance, but only measures what is being sold at retail level. Net investment, which roughly equals the difference, can only be caused by direct purchases from individual and institutional customers at the SGE that withdraw their metal.”

In China, gold imports must pass through the SGE before entering the market place. In addition, bullion exports are prohibited. It follows that Imports + Mine Supply + Scrap = Total Supply = SGE Withdrawals. Said another way, SGE withdrawals are equivalent to domestic wholesale demand. The preceding formula is supported by reports from the CGA and the SGE. For example, the SGE reported that 2197 tonnes were withdrawn its vaults in 2013. That is the same number that the CGA reported for total demand in 2013. More evidence comes from the SGE’s chairman, Xu Luode, who said the following in 2014:

The main conclusion is that the SGE’s measure of Chinese gold demand is much higher than the WGC’s. If the SGE’s number are correct then China is absorbing most of the world’s mine supply. Gold withdrawals from the SGE for 2015 amounted to 2596 tonnes, or 91% of world gold production:

 

Diversification & Protection

Gold has a negative correlation with US stocks during expansions. More importantly, its correlation with both global and US stocks is more negative during contractions:

As a result, gold tends to rise when stocks fall, which is good for portfolio diversification.

Gold is also an FX hedge for foreign investors. In 2015, it performed relatively well in non-dollar currencies such as the Brazilian Real, the Russian Ruble, the Chinese Yuan and the Canadian dollar. This is important because non-US countries are the main consumers of gold.

Loose monetary policy is here to stay. This cycle, every central bank that tried to raise rates has had to reverse course. That is bad for currencies and good for gold, since no one controls its supply.

Gold can also protect us against a rising cost of living because it tends to hold its value over time. If you look at the CPI then inflation seems relatively low. That said, the CPI is a utility index, not a measure of the cost of living. Most people would agree that cost of living is rising. For example, education and medical care costs have been outpacing the CPI for years.

 

Risks

Gold’s main threats are…

1) A stronger USD

Typically, the US dollar index and gold are negatively correlated. Said differently, when the dollar index does up, gold goes down. Even so, last year, the US dollar (USD) influenced gold prices more than it usually does. In 2015, the correlation between the two was -0.50 in 2015, much higher than -0.36, which is the 30-year average. Going forward, it’s likely that the correlation between gold and the USD will revert back to normal.

An additional concern is rising rates. One may assume that higher interest rates are good for the dollar. Actually, that is not the case. Historically, the dollar has stopped appreciated when the US raised rates. If the USD index has peaked then that would be good for gold prices.

2) Rising rates

Despite the fed’s intentions, the yield curve (2s10s) has flattened to its lowest levels of the expansion. The short end has increased but the long end, which is driven by growth expectations, has not. Basically, the market is not convinced that era of low rates is over.

Even if rates do increase, gold may perform well. According to Sundial Capital Research, gold actually does quite well in rising rate environments. Gold prices increased by an average of 25.2% in each of the rising rate environments from Dec31’76 to Dec27’13. The median gain was 5.2%, which is much less impressive but still positive. Low rates are probably better for gold than high ones. That said, it may show good returns either way.

3) Leverage

In the US, the paper gold market is much bigger than the physical one is. In other words, many contracts are traded but not much gold changes hands. The level of gold dilution has reached unprecedented levels. In a recent blog post, zerohedge showed that there are 40 million ounces worth of open interest but only 74 thousand ounces of register gold at the Comex. This works out to a gold cover ratio (open interest/registered gold) of 542! The takeaway point is that the amount of gold that is traded is much greater than the amount that actually exists.

The downside risk is that supply in the futures market overshadows demand in the physical market, thereby weighing on prices. Still, there is an upside risk. If demand for physical gold remains strong and inventories continue to fall then then the Comex may run out of supply. If that happens then gold prices will rise as market participants start to question the divergence between the paper and physical markets.

 

Conclusion

Gold should be considered as a contra buy…

• It is hated
• Its fundamentals are improving
• Demand from the east is robust
• It is negatively correlated with stocks
• The benefits outweigh the risks

Gold is massively under owned. If sentiment improves then it could easily outperform other asset classes in 2016…

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1X6Td3T Tyler Durden

If there’s one thing China hates, it’s a nefarious “manipulator” spreading innuendo, and fear in an already nervous market.

When these evildoers are Chinese citizens, the problem is easily solved. Beijing simply arrests them and beats a confession out them or else simply locks them away in the bowels of the Politburo for the remainder of their days. This is what we saw late last summer when Xi moved to crackdown on what the government claimed were multiple bad actors creating volatility and exacerbating the stock market rout.

However, when the “manipulators” aren’t Chinese citizens and don’t reside within the country’s borders, officials have fewer options. Now that a bevy of well known fund managers have the yuan in their crosshairs, China is using the only tool is has to combat foreign “speculators” intent on spreading “information that does not conform to the facts”: the captive press.

China is particularly keen on using the Party’s various media mouthpieces to counter perceived threats to the country and to calm the masses whose nerves are increasingly frayed amid the equity market collapse and the decelerating economy.

Last month for instance, a hilariously absurd “op-ed” appeared in People’s Daily carrying the title “Declaring war on China’s currency? Ha ha.” In it, Beijing calls George Soros – who said at Davos that he’s betting against Asian currencies and that China is experiencing a hard landing – a “financial crocodile” whose “war on the renminbi cannot possibly succeed.”

Of course Soros isn’t the only one waging “war” on the yuan. Kyle Bass is also betting against the currency.

China’s banking system, Bass told CNBC on Wednesday, is a $34 trillion ticking time bomb, and when it explodes, Beijing will need to plug the holes. $3.3 trillion in FX reserves will be woefully inadequate, he contends.

“Very few people have looked at what the cause of the problem is,” Bass begins. “They’ve let their banking system grow 1000% in 10 years. It’s now $34.5 trillion.”

Bass then goes on to note that special mention loans (which we’ve discussed on any number of occasions) are around 3% of total assets. “If they lose 3%, that’s a trillion dollars,” Bass exclaims. Ultimately, Bass’s argument is that when China is forced to rescue the banking system by expanding the PBoC’s balance sheet, the yuan will for all intents and purposes collapse. This is of course exacerbated by persistent capital flight.

Below, find some other soundbites from the interview. Notably, towards the end, Bass says that if China is right and speculation around a much larger devaluation is indeed unfounded, then it’s curious why China seems to care so much about what “one fund manager in Texas thinks.”

From Kyle Bass:

“The IMF says they need $2.7 trillion in FX reserves to operate the economy. They’ll hit that number in the next five months. Those who think they can burn it to zero and they have a few years ahead of them, they really only have a few months ahead of them.”

 

“When they lose money in their banks they’re going to have to recap their banks. They’ll have to expand the PBoC balance sheet by trillions and trillions of dollars.”

 

“No one’s focused on the banking system. Focus will swing to it this year.”

 

“A Chinese devaluation of 10% is a pipe dream. It will be 30-40% by the end.”

 

“If some fund manager in Texas is saying that your currency is dramatically overvalued, you shouldn’t care on a $10 trillion economy with $34 trillion in your banks. I have, call it a billion –  it’s so small it should be irrelevant and yet somehow it’s really relevant.”

 

“If 4% of the population takes out their $50,000 quota, the FX reserves are gone. We lose ourselves in the numbers. $3.3 trillion is a big number, but the reserves to bank assets number is one of the worst in the world.”

Kyle Bass is devoting much of his hedge fund’s capital to shorting the Chinese currency. He explains why:https://t.co/pLMkaNfdgC

— David Faber (@davidfaber) February 3, 2016

Lest you should be inclined to believe Bass, we close with yet another amusing “Op-Ed” from Chinese media, this time courtesy of Xinhua, who will patiently explain why the “doom predictors” always get it wrong on China.

*  *  *

From Xinhua

The first month of 2016 witnessed the Chinese stock market in panic selling mode and the RMB depreciating unexpectedly against the greenback. China’s GDP growth in 2015 also hit a 25-year low.

There seems to be a new surge of predictions about the “coming collapse of the Chinese economy and the end of the Chinese model”. However, looking back at China’s development journey from the late 1970s up to today, many pessimistic predictions, especially forecasting the “China breakdown”, have been proved wrong.

In 1996, Lester Brown, an American agricultural economist predicted that China would not be able to feed its large and fast-growing population and economic reforms would lead to malnutrition and hunger.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, many Chinese pessimists predicted that economic reform without political reform would lead to a total collapse of China. In the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-98 and the World Financial Crisis of 2007-08, many Chinese pessimists predicted that the Chinese model would not be able to sustain those drastic external shocks.

All those predictions were wrong. Since 2012, China has changed its economic development strategy from export and foreign direct investment driven to endogenous growth which emphasizes internal structural change, innovation and industrial upgrading to escape the so-called middle income trap.

In doing so, China has to eliminate excess industrial production capacity of steel, coal and other environmentally polluting products, and to promote high-end manufacturing, services, urbanization and rural modernization.

Economic slowdown is an inevitable outcome of the new development strategy, but given the tough external economic environment and surging domestic factor costs, China’s growth of 6.9% in 2015 was still the best among the world’s 10 largest economies except India. In particular, while the Russian and Brazilian economies are contracting sharply, and while many other developed economies are still struggling to move out of their own crisis, China continues to be a potent engine of growth for the global economy.

So why do doom predictors always get it wrong when it comes to China?

Firstly, some pessimists always look at China’s short term challenges and ignore its long term development capability and potential. Short term challenges and difficulties are temporal, they can be overcome if the government and the people have a strong will for success.

Secondly, some pessimists do not understand that the Chinese government is far better than they thought, and that political stability is the basic foundation of China’s success.

Thirdly, doom predictors of China underestimate the ability and determination of the Chinese people who are not only hard working and intelligent, but also resilient to all kinds of challenges and shocks.

China today is different from its past. The economy is well above 10 trillion US dollars, second only to the US, twice as large as Japan, and four times as large as India. A 6.9% growth is more than one-quarter of India’s annual GDP, and bigger than a medium-sized economy in the world.

China’s richest city, Shenzhen, erected from a small fishing village in 1980, now has a population of over 10 million people. Its per capita GDP is higher than that of Taiwan and is still growing at nearly 8% per year. China’s biggest city by population, Chongqing, has over 30 million people. The city’s GDP expanded by 11% in 2015 and the government’s plan is to achieve 10% growth in 2016.

The Chinese economic fundamentals are sound and robust: unemployment rate is low, people’s incomes are growing faster than GDP, income inequality is narrowing and energy intensity is declining.

If those pessimists were in China, they would see that all the Chinese regions are still ambitious in making their 13th Five Year Plan, which is to sustain China’s economic growth at a much higher rate than many other economies in the world. The policy objective is to build an all-round well-off society and to eliminate absolute poverty by 2020.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/20cXgeQ Tyler Durden

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

The following article from the New York Times is shameful in many ways. While the paper is forced to cover the undeniable fact that real wages for the lowest income Americans have plunged during the so-called “economic recovery” over the past six years, it fails to actually pin blame on the undemocratic, oligarch institution most responsible for this humanitarian crisis: The Federal Reserve.

 

Of course, I and many others have been saying this for years, but now more than half a decade into what is supposed to be a recovery, people are finally being forced to admit what this really is —  large scale theft.

 

In fact, Ben Bernanke and his crew of upward wealth distributing academics have pulled off the greatest wealth heist in American history. In its wake we have been left with a hollowed out, asset striped Banana Republic. Thanks for playin’ Main Street. Or more accurately, thanks for being played.

 

– From the post: The Oligarch Recovery – Study Shows Real Wages Have Plunged for Low Income Workers During the “Recovery”

More than six years into Dear Leader’s glorious economic recovery, 45.5 million Americans, or one in seven, remain on food stamps.

I’d say that’s a problem, but I don’t want to be accused of “peddling economic fiction.”

From Bloomberg:

During the 2007-2009 recession, state and federal governments actively encouraged people like Crofoot to take advantage of the aid. Millions did, and many are still claiming benefits. Enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the formal name for food stamps, remains near record levels, even as the unemployment rate has fallen by half.

 

“When unemployment was rising people said enrollment would fall sharply when things got better,” said Parke Wilde, an associate professor of nutrition policy at Tufts University in Boston. “That hasn’t happened.”

 

About 45.4 million Americans, roughly one-seventh of the population, received nutrition aid last October, the most recent month of data. Unemployment was 5 percent that month. The last time joblessness fell to that level, in April 2008, 28 million Americans used food stamps, and the program cost less than half of what the government paid out last year.

There goes Bloomberg News, “peddling that economic fiction” again.

The uneven recovery has swelled the ranks of long-term unemployed and reduced the number of people working or looking for work, further boosting demand. Even for those with jobs, pay may be lower than in the past: In real dollars, SNAP recipients in 2014 had net incomes of $335 a month, the lowest since at least 1989.

Read that over and over and over again. Since 1989. Now here’s a chart of what a gradual transition into oligarch serfdom looks like:

Able-bodied, unemployed adults aged 18-49 who don’t have children are supposed to be limited to three months of food stamp benefits during a 36-month period. That can be extended during tough job markets, a provision that’s boosted the percentage of recipients who fit that description to 10.3 percent in 2014 from 6.7 percent in 2007.

But isn’t the job market supposed to be strong?

I think it’s clear who’s actually peddling economic fiction, and it’s not me.

For more on the oligarch recovery, see:

The Oligarch Recovery – U.S. Military Veterans are Selling Their Pensions in Order to Pay the Bills

Use of Alternative Financial Services, Such as Payday Loans, Continues to Increase Despite the “Recovery”

The Oligarch Recovery – 30 Million Americans Have Tapped Retirement Savings Early in Last 12 Months

The Oligarch Recovery – Study Shows Real Wages Have Plunged for Low Income Workers During the “Recovery”

Another Tale from the Oligarch Recovery – How a $1,500 Sofa Costs $4,150 When You’re Poor

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/20K4lWw Tyler Durden

Crazy, right? Perhaps not. For the first time since the financial crisis credit conditions have tightened for two consecutive quarters, something which have never happened without preceding a recession. That's all well and good, however, most problematic is its extremely tight correlation to nonfarm payrolls through the cycle… and that is flashing the 'reddest' since 2009.

We have seen this pattern of last ditch desperation hiring before – at the peak in 2007…

 

As we noted earlier, two consecutive quarters of tightening standards "has never happened before without it signalling an eventual move into recession and a notable default cycle. Once we have 2 such quarters lending standards don't net loosen again until the start of the next cycle."

Still think a zero print is crazy? Sonner rather than later it's coming… and the question is – will the market see that dismal news as good news (no Fed) and buy stocks? Or does it confirm the utter impotence of central banks?

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1nQvzNk Tyler Durden

Submitted by Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity.com,

 

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1mgYvfL Tyler Durden

Just four days ago, on Monday afternoon, “legendary” oilman T Boone Pickens said that crude has hit bottom at $26 per barrel, and predicting that prices should double within 12 months.

Pickens then doubled-down on his wrong call from last year, telling CNBC’s “Squawk Box” that oil prices will rise to at least $52 per barrel by the end of the year. That said, he was at least honest enough to admit that his virtually identical call from last year, when he thought prices would strongly rebound, was wrong.

Whether it’s $50 or $70 by the end of 2016 will largely be determined by the global economy, he added reiterating the same flawed thesis he used to justify his bullishness a year ago: “We’re still building inventories, and we will for the next several months. And then we’ll start to draw,” Pickens said. “Once you start to draw, you’re not going to start back building again. The draw will come here in the next few months. It’ll become pretty clear.”

He was wrong then, and he will be wrong this time again for the simple fact that while historically OPEC exercised a rational production strategy, as of the 2014 OPEC Thanksgiving massacre, there is no more OPEC, as can be seen by the relentless attempts by roughly half the members to call an OPEC meeting unsuccessfully, confirming what we said in late 2014 – OPEC no longer exists, which means it is every oil produer for themselves.

Putting T Boone’s forecasts in context, in a CNBC commentary in October, Pickens conceded his prediction for $70 oil by the end of 2015 wasn’t going to happen, because worldwide demand did not go up as much as he thought and supply did not markedly go down. Oil closed the year at $37: his prediction was off by 50%.

* * *

Yet while being merely wrong is excusable, being a “legendary” hypocrite is not.

Earlier today, literally days after he predicted oil would double from its $26 “bottom”, Pickens told Bloomberg that he has cashed out.

But, but, what happened to oil prices will double from their bottom? And did he just liquidate all his holdings just $4 above this so-called bottom?

Well… yes.

Pickens has sold all his oil holdings and is waiting for the best moment to get back in, he said Thursday in an interview on “Bloomberg Go.” With prices low, mid-size U.S. oil companies such as Pioneer Natural Resources Co., Anadarko Petroleum Corp. and Apache Corp. are acquisition targets for larger firms like Exxon Mobil Corp., he said.

So low, that he would be delighted if others first took advantage of these low, low, offers.

But what is most fascinating is that the broken record continues:

“The low is in,” he said. “Just don’t get in a rush here. You’re going to have plenty of opportunity. The market is going to be volatile. it’s not going to go straight up, so there will be good entry points.”

And, at least as far as Pickens is concerned, exit points.

So for anyone who listened to the CNBC and BBG commentator, and bought oil thinking he knows what he is talking about, our condolences: 

Pickens won’t start investing again until crude inventories start to fall. In the U.S., commercial stockpiles have risen in 16 of the past 19 weeks and now stand at more than 500 million barrels for the first time since 1930, at the height of the East Texas oil boom.

 

“I will not re-enter, I’m sure, until we start to draw on inventories,” Pickens said. “That’s a key point.”

And just like that another rider of the dumb-luck momentum trade has been exposed for the “expert” charlatain he is.

Those who wish to waste 10 minutes of their life, can watch the clip below.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1QJr0xq Tyler Durden

The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) would be horrible for Americans and the people of the world.

But most politicians are thoroughly corrupt.  Neither the Democratic or Republican parties represent the interests of the American people. Elections have become nothing but scripted beauty contests, with both parties ignoring the desires of their own bases.

So today, 12 countries – Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Singapore, Australia      Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, United States and Vietnam – signed the TPP.

They never followed through on their promise of an open and lively debate.

Only by raising hell can we stop this monster.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1PXA2Kc George Washington

In early December, Ding Ning and his girlfriend Zhang Min were planning to make a run for it.

The couple had come to the end of the road with the massive fraud they were running through P2P lender Ezubo, which bilked some 900,000 people out money making it the largest ponzi scheme by number of victims in history.

Ultimately, the amount of money coming in was no longer sufficient to cover interest payments to existing clients. The pair attempted to bury the evidence in the backyard (literally) but police, using two excavators, managed to dig up 80 bags of documents buried 20 feet underground. 

As a reminder, the company lured investors in with the promise of returns between 9% and 14%. In the end, nearly all of the “projects” featured on the site turned out to be fictitious.

We documented the story on Monday when we warned that this was just the type of event that could serve as the straw that breaks the camel’s back for a populace that’s already on edge thanks to a horrendous equity market meltdown and worries about the prospects for China’s currency and economy. Sure enough, the very next day, a bulletin began to make the rounds on Chinese social media calling for defrauded Chinese to “rise up” and stage nationwide protests until their money is refunded. The demonstrations would be called the “rights protection movement.” 

“So stay tuned, because judging from the tone of the ‘rights protection movement’ bulletin the villagers are restless in China,” we said, before noting that Ezubo is probably just one of many P2P frauds in the country given that by November, there were over 3,600 such platforms in operation.

Bloomberg is out with a bit of color on China’s internet financing industry which was apparently allowed to flourish as Beijing attempted to figure out how to rein in shadow banking without choking off credit growth as the economy decelerated.

“China’s plan in allowing online lenders to flourish was to allow additional ways for small business to get financing rather than turn to back-alley shadow bankers — a shady world that was flourishing outside of government control when P2P lending began taking off in China in 2012 and only 3 percent of China’s 42 million small business owners could get bank loans,” Bloomberg wrote on Wednesday. “Online lending was a way for the government to encourage further economic stimulus in an economy growing at the slowest rate in a quarter century, and in theory it should be more transparent to regulators because it uses a real-time digital ledger of accounts.”

Yes, “in theory.” But in reality, these outfits are just as opaque as WMPs, trusts, channel loans, and the laundry list of other vehicles China uses to keep the credit impulse alive. 

“I think the government allowed this all to happen because it was desperate to pump money into the private economy as all the other slowdowns started to happen,” Steve Dickinson, a Qingdao-based lawyer for Seattle firm Harris Moure PLLC, told Bloomberg by e-mail. “It is likely that the regulators at the top simply turned a blind eye to the risks in the desperate hope that this kind of lending vehicle would get them through a rough patch.”

“It was just a matter of time before we saw something this big keel over,” Zennon Kapron, managing director of Kapronasia, remarked.

And that means it’s “just a matter of time” before it happens again. Indeed, out of the 3,600 P2P operations in China, around 1,000 of them are deemed “problematic,” the China Banking Regulatory Commission says.

According to Xinhua, transactions on Chinese P2P sites topped $150 billion in 2015 up nearly 300% from the previous year. Sensing trouble, the CBRC published draft rules in December designed to control risk. “Due to the lack of necessary regulation, many P2P platforms play in the area between legal and illegal, using Internet concepts to brand themselves, fraudulent advertising and illegal deposit-taking to hurt public interest,” the body said.

“The harm is obvious. It’s going to damage financial reforms, cause social unrest and destabilize the regime to some extent,” Yang Dong, vice-dean at Renmin Law School and an expert on finance and securities law told Reuters this week.

We close with the following rather inauspicious headline from Bloomberg which hit the wires Thursday afternoon:

Bocom Halts Payments From Clients to Chinese P2P Lender

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1THmnqt Tyler Durden

• SHARES OF LIONS GATE ENTERTAINMENT FALL 5 PCT IN EXTENDED TRADE AFTER QUARTERLY RESULTS – RTRS
• TABLEAU SOFTWARE SHARES TUMBLE 40 PCT IN AFTER HOURS TRADING – RTRS
• YRC WORLDWIDE SHARES DOWN 16.4 PCT AFTER THE BALL FOLLOWING RESULTS – RTRS
• SPLUNK INC SHARES DOWN 7.6 PCT IN AFTER HOURS TRADING – RTRS
• LINKEDIN SHARES EXTEND DECLINE, DOWN 24 PCT AFTER RESULTS, GUIDANCE – RTRS
• HANESBRANDS SHARES FURTHER ADD TO LOSSES IN EXTENDED TRADE, LAST DOWN 14.9 PCT – RTRS
• OUTERWALL SHARES FALL 11 PCT IN EXTENDED TRADING AFTER QUARTERLY RESULTS – RTRS

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1nKhJeK Tyler Durden

Submitted by Andrea Germanos via TheAntiMedia.org,

Former U.S. President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter has taken aim at the “erroneous” Supreme Court ruling that “gives legal bribery a chance to prevail.”

Carter made the comments, an apparent reference to the 2010 Citizens United ruling, in an interview Wednesday with the BBC’s “Today” program.

Carter told interviewer John Humphrys that the ruling would have prevented a “relatively unknown farmer” like himself from emerging as a serious candidate. “Now,” he said, “there’s a massive infusion of hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns for all the candidates.”

“Some candidates like [Donald] Trump can put in his own money but others have to be able to raise, I’d say, a hundred to two hundred million dollars just to get the Democratic or Republican nomination. That’s the biggest change in America,” he said, and one for the worse, adding that “the erroneous ruling of the Supreme Court where millionaires, billionaires can put in unlimited amounts of money directly into the campaign.”

“In a way,” Carter said, “it gives legal bribery a chance to prevail because almost all the candidates, whether they are honest or not, and whether they are Democratic or Republican, depend on these massive infusions of money from very rich people in order to have money to campaign.”

Carter contrasted today’s elections from when he was running for office, saying, “In those days when I ran against Gerald Ford, who was incumbent president, or later Ronald Reagan, who challenged me, we didn’t raise a single penny to finance our campaign to run against each other. We just used the $1 per person checkoff that every taxpayer indicates at the end of his or her income tax return. But nowadays, you have to have many hundreds of millions of dollars to prevail.”

Humphrys said that another change that seems to have occurred over the decades is that “many members of the middle class and working class, white people, have been disaffected form the political process” — something that Carter attributed to the fact that “they have, in effect, been cheated out of a proper opportunity to improve their lot in life” because “rich people finance the campaigns,” and “then when candidates get in office they do what the rich people want.”

Carter’s comments to BBC are similar to ones he made in September 2015, when he talked to Oprah Winfrey about the influence of money on elections, saying, “We’ve become, now, an oligarchy instead of a democracy.”

They also echo ones he made in 2012 when he denounced the “financial corruption” of elections and referred to “that stupid ruling” by the Supreme Court. “We have one of the worst election processes in the world right in the United States of America, and it’s almost entirely because of the excessive influx of money,” he said at the time.

Carter’s interview on BBC also covered the eradication campaign his foundation, the Carter Center, has been waging against guinea worm, a parasitic infection.

Carter, who’s 91 and has been undergoing treatment for cancer, said his hope is that he “can outlive the last guinea worm.”

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1mgRc7M Tyler Durden