As Manhattan Apartment Prices Soar, The Devil Is In The Details

As Bloomberg notes, apartment prices in Manhattan are at record levels. Q1 Mean and median prices are up 15% and 22% y/y respectively. Drilling into the detail a little further, the median price for 3+ bedroom apartments skyrocketed to $4.0mm, a whopping 30% y/y.

 

On the surface the aforementioned would indicate a market that’s hot, and about to get hotter, but be careful with that assumption. While Q1 saw record high prices, it’s important to remember that prices are a relatively lagged number. Prices that hit now are a reflection of deals that just recently closed, but contracts entered into months ago. A different way to gauge the residential real estate market is to take a look at the number of contracts signed (is activity picking up or slowing down), and months of supply (is the market over supplied).

First, when you look at contracts signed, you see indications that the market is steady but cooling, at least as it relates to the past few years. Signed contracts dropped of 11% y/y.

Secondly, when you look at months of supply, you see perhaps an even more disturbing number. In each category, months of supply is trending up y/y, and even more significantly when you look sequentially. This means that there is a glut of residential real estate out there, and if economics holds true at all, prices will inevitably come down, perhaps quite a bit.

 

As we pointed out, the Treasury started to crack down on “secret” buyers of luxury real estate back in January, who as we have been warning since August 2012, has been the primary source of funds for the ultraluxury housing segment. This is presumably one reason for the recent slowdown in contracts signed. We wonder who is going to get burned by positioning themselves to flip a luxury apartment to the next wave of hot money entering the US.

The ultimate question we have, in the aftermath of the Panama Papers revelation, is this:

Charts: Corcoran Group


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1MO7l16 Tyler Durden

On the I.M.F.’s Nefarious Activities – Greece, Indonesia, and Who Knows What Else

Authored by Steve H. Hanke of the Johns Hopkins University. Follow him on Twitter @Steve_Hanke.

Over the weekend, the New York Times reported that WikiLeaks transcripts suggested that the International Monetary Fund (I.M.F.) had discussed the possibility of hatching nefarious plots against Greece. Immediately, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras accused the I.M.F. of trying to “politically destabilize Europe.”

While this current flap is wrapped in conjecture and speculation at this point, past experience with the I.M.F.’s role in destabilizing Indonesia during the Asian Financial Crisis and promoting regime change are facts.

On August 14, 1997, shortly after the Thai baht collapsed on July 2, Indonesia floated the rupiah. This prompted Stanley Fischer, Deputy Managing Director of the I.M.F., to proclaim that “the management of the I.M.F. welcomes the timely decision of the Indonesian authorities. The floating of the Rupiah, in combination with Indonesia’s strong fundamentals, supported by prudent fiscal and monetary policies, will allow its economy to continue its impressive economic performance of the last several years.”

Contrary to the I.M.F.’s expectations, the rupiah did not float on a sea of tranquility. It plunged from 2,700 rupiahs per U.S. dollar at the time of the float to lows of nearly 16,000 rupiahs per U.S. dollar in 1998. Indonesia was caught up in the maelstrom of the Asian crisis.

By late January 1998, President Suharto realized that the I.M.F. medicine was not working and sought a second opinion. In February, I was invited to offer that opinion and began to operate as Suharto’s Special Counselor. Although I did not have any opinions on the Suharto government, I did have definite ones on the matter at hand. After many discussions with the President, I prescribed the following antidote: an orthodox currency board in which the rupiah would be fully convertible into the U.S. dollar at a fixed exchange rate and would be fully backed by U.S. dollar reserves. On the day that news hit the street, the rupiah soared by 28 percent against the U.S. dollar on both the spot and forward markets. These developments infuriated the U.S. government and the I.M.F..

Ruthless attacks on the currency board idea and the Special Counselor ensued. Suharto was told in no uncertain terms – by both the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, and the Managing Director of the I.M.F., Michel Camdessus – that he would have to drop the currency board idea or forego $43 billion in foreign assistance. He was also aware that his days as President would be numbered if the rupiah was not stabilized.

Economists jumped on the bandwagon, too. Every half-truth and non-truth imaginable was trotted out against the currency board idea. In my opinion, those oft-repeated canards were outweighed by the full support for an Indonesian currency board (which received very little press) by four Nobel Laureates in Economics: Gary Becker, Milton Friedman, Merton Miller, and Robert Mundell.

Why all the fuss over a currency board for Indonesia? Merton Miller understood the great game immediately. He wrote to me when, Mrs. Hanke and I were in residence at the Shangri-La Hotel in Jakarta, saying the Clinton administration’s objection to the currency board was “not that it wouldn’t work but that it would, and if it worked, they would be stuck with Suharto.” Much the same argument was articulated by Australia’s former Prime Minister Paul Keating: “The United States Treasury quite deliberately used the economic collapse as a means of bringing about the ouster of President Suharto.” Former U.S. Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleberger weighed in with a similar diagnosis: “We were fairly clever in that we supported the I.M.F. as it overthrew [Suharto]. Whether that was a wise way to proceed is another question. I’m not saying Mr. Suharto should have stayed, but I kind of wish he had left on terms other than because the I.M.F. pushed him out.” Even Michel Camdessus could not find fault with these assessments. On the occasion of his retirement, he proudly proclaimed: “We created the conditions that obliged President Suharto to leave his job.”

To depose Suharto, two deceptions were necessary. The first involved forging an I.M.F. public position of open hostility to currency boards. This deception was required to convince Suharto that he was acting heretically and that, if he continued, it would be costly. The I.M.F.’s hostility required a quick about-face: Less than a year before the Indonesian uproar, Bulgaria (where I was President Stoyanov’s advisor) had installed a currency board on July 1, 1997 with the enthusiastic endorsement of the I.M.F.; Bosnia and Herzegovina (where I advised the government on currency board implementation) followed suit under the mandate of the Dayton Peace Agreement and with I.M.F. support on August 11, 1997.

Shortly after Suharto departed, the I.M.F.’s currency board deception became transparent. On August 28, 1998, Michel Camdessus announced that the I.M.F. would give Russia the green light if it chose to adopt a currency board. This was followed on January 16, 1999 with a little-known meeting in Camdessus’ office at the I.M.F. headquarters in Washington, D.C.. The assembled group included I.M.F. top brass, Brazil’s Finance Minister Pedro Malan, and the central bank’s Director of Monetary Policy Francisco Lopes. It was at that meeting that Camdessus suggested that Brazil adopt a currency board.

The second deception involved the widely-circulated story that I had proposed to set the rupiah’s exchange rate at an overvalued level so that Suharto and his cronies could loot the central bank’s reserves. This take-the-money-and-run scenario was the linchpin of the Clinton administration’s campaign against Suharto. It was intended to “confirm” Suharto’s devious intentions and rally international political support against the currency board idea and for Suharto’s ouster.

The overvaluation story was enshrined by the Wall Street Journal on February 10, 1998. The Journal reported that Peter Gontha had summoned me to Jakarta and that I had prepared a working paper for the government recommending that the rupiah-U.S. dollar exchange rate be set at 5,500. This was news to me. I did not meet, nor know of, Peter Gontha, nor had I authored any reports about Indonesia or proposed an exchange rate for the rupiah.

I immediately attempted to have this fabrication corrected. It was a difficult, slow, and ultimately an unsatisfactory process. Although the Wall Street Journal reluctantly published a half-baked correction on February 14, the damage had been done.

The Journal’s original fabrication (or some variant of it) was repeated in virtually every major magazine and newspaper in the world, and it continues to reverberate to this day, even in so-called scholarly books and journals. 

Setting the record straight has been complicated by the official spinners at the I.M.F.. Indeed, they have been busy as little bees rewriting monetary history to cover up the I.M.F.’s mistakes, and Indonesia represents one of its biggest blunders. To this end, the I.M.F. issued a 139-page working paper “Indonesia: Anatomy of a Banking Crisis: Two Years of Living Dangerously 1997–99” in 2001. The authors include a “politically correct” version of the currency board episode asserting, among other things, that I counseled President Suharto to set the rupiah-dollar exchange rate at 5000. This pseudoscholarly account, which includes 115 footnotes, fails to document that assertion because it simply cannot be done. That official I.M.F. version of events also noticeably avoids referencing any of my published works or interviews based on my Indonesian experience.

That episode and its manipulations are not unique in the political world. It is useful, though, after time and events unfold, to set facts straight in order to understand the situation then and now. Other countries, such as Greece, are currently experiencing some of the vagaries of similar treatments. Let’s hope that they, and all of us, do not have to pay later for such nefarious activity.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1S3vzAu Steve H. Hanke

Good News For Trump? Not A Single “Credible Prediction” Has Him Winning Wisconsin

When it comes to predicting the trajectory of Trump’s presidential campaign (in which he currently has a nearly 60% lead over Ted Cruz in number of delegates), “credible predictors”, the media, pundits, and other self-appointed experts, have been dead wrong every step of the way, calling for his demise so many times even they themselves no longer believe their narrative. 

So perhaps it is good news for the independent Republican candidate that ahead of Tuesday’s Wisconsin primary, where he first had a sizable lead, than last week was trailing by double digits, before being virtually tied with Cruz, and then trailing again per the latest CBS poll…

btwirep.jpg

 

… not a single “credible prediction” has him winning tomorrow’s primary.

According to Bloomberg, here are the six forecasts it used used in its sample, of which every single one has Cruz winning the Badger State:

PredictWise: Cruz and Sanders

 

The research project led by David Rothschild, an economist at Microsoft Research in New York City which aggregates betting-market data and polling, has successfully predicted the winner in 53 of 64 individual nominating contests so far this year. As of Sunday, PredictWise gave Cruz an 83 percent chance of winning in Wisconsin, with Trump at 15 percent and Ohio Governor John Kasich at 1 percent.

 

“Trump is not going to get many delegates on Tuesday. He is unlikely to win the state and recent polling puts him down in every single congressional district,” says Rothschild, who notes that Trump’s chances of winning the nomination are down to 54 percent from a recent high of around 80 percent. “Sanders will likely win Wisconsin, but Clinton will pick up enough delegates to keep her ahead of pace to get the nomination.” 

 

RealClearPolitics: Cruz and Sanders

 

As of Sunday, the poll averaging and aggregating site RealClearPolitics had Cruz ahead in Wisconsin by nearly 7 points, on average, and up by as much as 10 points in two recent polls. As for the Democrats, Sanders enjoyed a narrower 2.2-point lead, according to the site’s average. Pollsters only examined the state sporadically until late March, but both likely winners on Tuesday appear to have surged in recent weeks.

 

Bing: Cruz and Sanders

 

With a roughly 78-percent accuracy rating so far this cycle, Bing Predicts also projects a Cruz win on Tuesday, and predicts he’ll carry a bit more than 41 percent of the vote. That’s a shift from last Thursday, when the site expected Ohio Governor John Kasich to eke out a victory with just barely more than a third of total votes, according to the “machine-learned predictive model” that the Microsoft search engine created. It parses data from polls, prediction markets, search engine queries, and social media posts.
Sanders, meanwhile, is projected to win about 54 percent of the vote.

 

FiveThirtyEight: Cruz and Toss-Up

 

On Sunday, FiveThirtyEight, which is run by former New York Times stats guru Nate Silver, gave Cruz as high as a 95 percent chance of winning Wisconsin. Trump, meanwhile, has just an 11-percent chance when looking at recent state polls; his chances actually dip to 5 percent when national polls and endorsements are factored in. Kasich has a less-than-1-percent chance of winning Wisconsin under either scenario. 

 

Political Insiders: Cruz and Clinton

 

Cruz failed to win over his Republican Wisconsin Senate colleague, Ron Johnson, who avoided making a formal endorsement even as he said he’d be willing to campaign with Trump. Still, Cruz has the most impressive roster of Badger State endorsements: Governor Scott Walker, Representative Glenn Grothman, state Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, and Assembly Majority Leader Jim Steineke. Vos was one of at least 20 state legislators who’d earlier supported Florida Senator Marco Rubio. When Rubio dropped out in March, several of those lawmakers swung to Cruz. Kasich, meanwhile, was endorsed by the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the state’s largest newspaper.

 

Ballotcraft: Cruz and Sanders

 

This fantasy politics game, founded by two Stanford grads, has thousands of players who use fake money to buy “shares” in candidates. So far, it has correctly predicted 55 of the 68 nominating contests it has covered. As of Sunday, Cruz was expected to win in Wisconsin, where the site’s users give him roughly 76-percent chance of winning.

Still, if just once every single pundit actually does get it right this time, what comes after Wisconsin is far more crucial, and it is there, in the next two big delegate-right states, New York and Pennsylvania, that Trump retains a comfortable lead. In New York, his home state, Trump bests Cruz by 31 points, with 52 percent support to Cruz’s 21 percent support.

btnyrep.jpg

In Pennsylvania, Trump receives 47 percent  support to Cruz’s 29 percent support.

btparep.jpg

In short, the latest round of media predictions of Trump’s imminent demise may once again be greatly exagerated.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1S3vzjS Tyler Durden

Coming Out of the Drug War Haze: New at Reason

Could America finally, mercifully, be coming out of its drug war haze? A. Barton Hinkle writes:

Unfortunately, as the Drug Policy Alliance points out, while the Obama administration has given lip service to addressing drug addiction as a medical issue, it continues to follow the law-enforcement model. The same holds true for most of the rest of the country. In 1980 America locked up about 50,000 people for drug-related violations. Now we lock up more than half a million, under the ignorant delusion that drug use is a character flaw correctable through the infliction of unpleasant consequences. Well.

The possibility of going to prison six months or a year from now does not weigh heavily on the mind—it does not even enter the mind—of an addict who is jonesing for a fix so badly she wants to rip off her own skin and so sick from withdrawal she can hardly stand up.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1q0l8r4
via IFTTT

Panama Papers Previews What Donald Trump’s Jacksonian Economics Would Look Like

You can't unsee. ||| PanamaVanHalenTribute.comFor years we have been warning you about the odious 2010 Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), which has been driving Americans to renounce their citizenship in record numbers because of the law’s incredibly onerous disclosure requirements on U.S. citizens who have the bad manners to maintain financial accounts abroad, and because foreign banks in most halfway decent countries no longer want the hassle of serving any of the estimated 7.6 million American expatriates, since doing so essentially gives the IRS carte blanche to investigate the bank’s innards and seize assets. For the dubious prize of shaking a paltry $1 billion extra in annual tax receipts, the United States has been systematically destroying the notion of international financial privacy.

Except in the United States itself.

The massive Panama Papers reporting project, which the world is still trying to digest this morning, puts one idea in sharp relief: America is benefiting greatly from exempting itself from the rules it is imposing on the rest of the world. Here’s how The Economist describes it, in a piece headlined “The biggest loophole of all“:

America seems not to feel bound by the global rules being crafted as a result of its own war on tax-dodging. It is also failing to tackle the anonymous shell companies often used to hide money. The Tax Justice Network, a lobby group, calls the United States one of the world’s top three “secrecy jurisdictions”, behind Switzerland and Hong Kong. All this adds up to “another example of how the US has elevated exceptionalism to a constitutional principle,” says Richard Hay of Stikeman Elliott, a law firm. “Europe has been outfoxed.” […]

No one knows how much undeclared money is stashed offshore. Estimates range from a couple of trillion dollars to $30 trillion. What is clear is that America’s share is growing. Already the largest location for managing foreign wealth, it has picked up business as regulators have increased information-exchange and scrutiny of banks and trust companies in Europe and the Caribbean. Money is said to be flowing in from the Bahamas and Bermuda, as well as from Switzerland.

Or as Bloomberg Businessweek put it in January, “The World’s Favorite New Tax Have Is the United States.” It’s a good deal for Miami luxury real estate developers, Delaware corporate lawyers, and for people of any nationality who can afford to shop for favorable (and favorably complex) financial jurisdiction. The rest of us schmoes have to continue bending over for the IRS.

The FATCA/Panama Papers state of international financial hypocrisy falls squarely on the shoulders of President Barack Obama (with assists from drug warriors and their enablers from both parties, stretching back to Richard Nixon). But it’s fair to consider it as the model excretion of Donald Trump’s international economic ideas. Why? Because this, at long last, is a deal that America has unquestionably “won.”To the extent that we can decipher Trumponomics, the constant through-line is that America doesn’t win anymore because we negotiate terrible deals, so dealmaker extraordinaire Trump will get in there to make sure that America wins again. He will threaten Mexico and China with steep tariffs in an attempt to halt U.S. companies from opening new production facilities in those two countries, discourage China from manipulating its currency, and (presumably) to get more favorable terms for American exporters. If in the process he has to rip up international treaties or disband multilateral institutions (or at least threaten to do both), well, that’s the price of doing better business.

We normally use the term “Jacksonian” to describe belligerent, go-it-alone foreign policy, and “mercantilist” to characterize nationalistic economics, but I think the former word better captures the spirit of the latter concept in 2016. Trump’s attacks on Mexico, China, Iran, Muslims, and other concentrations of foreigners are viscerally personal, as is the constant complaint (of dubious accuracy) that Americans are singularly getting screwed in every transaction with outsiders. So what would Jacksonian economics look like in practice?

A lot like FATCA, only more open about how the system is deliberately rigged in Washington’s favor. Regular Americans, just like the middle-class dual citizens in Canada being screwed over by the new tax rules, would take it in the shorts, by having to pay considerably more for their consumer goods. The super-rich, as per usual, will be able to buy their way out of jurisdictional hassles. Accountants and lawyers will not be harmed in the process. There might be some temporal, zero-sum nationalistic victories, and there might also be punitive backlashes and the unpredictable unraveling of liberal international norms.

The Economist reported that:

Frustration with America has grown in Europe, which forms the core of the [Common Reporting Standard]. A group in the European Parliament argues that, if America refuses to reciprocate fully, it should be hit with a reverse FATCA: a levy on payments originating in the EU that flow through American banks. “We don’t want a tax war, but nor can the US have it all its own way,” says Molly Scott Cato, one of the MEPs.

For now, no one need quake in their boots at the discomforts of European parliamentarians. But even without the open-faced America-firstness championed by Trump, Washington under the allegedly genteel Obama is breeding resentment around the world with its exceptionalist policies. Which, as these things almost inevitably do, hurt Americans first of all.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1ovkjW3
via IFTTT

ISIS In Europe: How Deep Is The “Gray Zone”?

Submitted by Giulio Melli via The Gatestone Institute,

  • Among young European Muslims, support for suicide bombings range from 22% in Germany to 29% in Spain, 35% in Britain and 42% in France, according to a Pew poll. In the UK, one in five Muslims have sympathy for the Caliphate. Today more British Muslims join ISIS than the British army. In the Netherlands, a survey shows that the 80% of Dutch Turks see "nothing wrong" in ISIS.

  • Even if these polls and surveys must be taken with some caution, they all indicate a deep and vibrant "gray zone," which is feeding the Islamic jihad in Europe and the Middle East. We are talking about millions of Muslims who show sympathy, understanding and affinity with the ideology and goals of ISIS.

  • How many Muslims will this ISIS virus be able to infect in the vast European "gray zone"? The answer will determine our future.

In the 1970s and '80s, Europe was terrorized by a war declared by Communist armed groups, such as the Germany's Baader Meinhof or Italy's Red Brigades. Terrorists seemed determined to undermine democracy and capitalism. They targeted dozens of journalists, public officials, professors, economists and politicians, and in Italy in 1978, even kidnapped and executed Italy's former prime minister, Aldo Moro.

The big question then was: "How deep is the 'gray zone'?" — the sympathizers of terrorism in the industrial factories, labor unions and universities.

In the last year, the Islamic State's henchmen slaughtered hundreds of Europeans and Westerners. Their last assault, in Brussels, struck at the heart of the West: the postmodern mecca of NATO and the European Union.

We should now answer the same question: How deep is the "gray zone" of the Islamic State in Europe?

Peggy Noonan recently tried to give an answer in the Wall Street Journal:

"There are said to be 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. … Let's say only 10% of the 1.6 billion harbor feelings of grievance toward 'the West', or desire to expunge the infidel, or hope to re-establish the caliphate. That 10% is 160 million people. Let's say of that group only 10% would be inclined toward jihad. That's 16 million. Assume that of that group only 10% really means it — would really become jihadis or give them aid and sustenance. That's 1.6 million."

That is a lot.

According to a ComRes report commissioned by the BBC, 27% of British Muslims have sympathy for the terrorists who attacked the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris (12 killed). An ICM poll, released by Newsweek, revealed that 16% of French Muslims support ISIS. The number rises to 27% percent for those aged 18-24. In dozens of French schools, the "minute of silence" to commemorate the murdered Charlie Hebdo's journalists was interrupted by Muslim pupils who protested it.

How deep is ISIS's popularity in Belgium? Very deep. The most accurate study is a report from Voices From the Blogs, which highlights the high degree of pro-ISIS sympathy in Belgium. The report monitored and analyzed more than two million Arabic messages around the world via Twitter, Facebook and blogs regarding ISIS's actions in the Middle East.

The most enthusiastic comments about ISIS come from Qatar at 47%; then Pakistan, at 35%; third overall is Belgium, where 31% of tweets in Arabic on the Islamic State are positive — more than Libya (24%), Oman (25%), Jordan (19%), Saudi Arabia (20%) and Iraq (20%). This shocking data exposes the success of the network and its easy pro-ISIS recruitment in Belgium.

In other European countries, after Belgium, Britain is at 24%, Spain 21%, France 20%.

In the UK, one in five Muslims have sympathy for the Caliphate. Today more British Muslims join ISIS than the British army.

In the Netherlands, a survey conducted by Motivaction shows that the 80% of Dutch Turks see "nothing wrong" in ISIS.

Among young European Muslims, support for suicide bombings range from 22% in Germany to 29% in Spain, 35% in Britain and 42% in France, according to a Pew poll.

The level of ISIS's popularity in the Arab world has been exposed by many surveys: the Clarion Project published a report based on multiple sources a March 2015 poll by the Iraqi Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies, a November 2014 poll by Zogby Research Services, a November 2014 poll by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, and an October 2014 poll by the Fikra Forum. The result: 42 million people in the Arab world sympathize with ISIS.

After the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, Al-Jazeera conducted a survey asking, "Do you support Isis's victories?" 81% of respondents voted "yes."

Even if these polls and surveys must be taken with some caution, they all indicate a deep and vibrant "gray zone," which is feeding the Islamic jihad in Europe and the Middle East. We are talking about millions of Muslims who show sympathy, understanding and affinity with the ideology and goals of ISIS.

Anthony Glees, an English scholar of political radicalism, revealed the "gray zone" of Germany's Baader-Meinhof terror group: "By 1977, the West German Federal Criminal Agency had a terrorist index which contained the names of some 4.7 million suspects and sympathisers, many of them university students."

The terrorist leaders at that time all came from good German families: Andreas Baader was the son of a professor of history, Ulrike Meinhof was the daughter of a museum director and a famous journalist, Gudrun Ensslin was the daughter of an evangelical pastor, Horst Mahler was the son of a judge.

The Islamic State today has a much deeper gray zone of sympathizers in the Muslim communities of Europe.

In the 1970s and '80s, Europe was terrorized by Communist armed groups, such as the Germany's Baader Meinhof (pictured in black and white), which had a "gray zone" of millions of suspected sympathizers. Today's European jihadists, such the late Paris attack mastermind Abdelhamid Abaaoud (right), have a much deeper "gray zone" of sympathizers in the Muslim communities of Europe.

If Baader-Meinhof was at war with the "schweine" (bourgeois "pigs") and targeted specific political figures, the Caliphate's volunteers are at war with all the "kuffar" (unbelievers). ISIS loyalists target the patrons of restaurants, theaters and stadiums in Paris; a café in Copenhagen which held a debate on freedom of expression and Islam; Western tourists at a resort in Tunisia; commuters at the Maelbeek metro station and passengers at the Brussels airport.

For ISIS, it is an eternal war in the name of the prophet. As Graeme Wood explained in "What ISIS Really Wants," ISIS "hungers for genocide … and it considers itself a harbinger of — and headline player in — the imminent end of the world."

A book just published in French by Ivan Rioufol, a journalist for the newspaper Le Figaro, eloquently titled "The Coming Civil War," details the dangers posed by the "apocalyptic ideology" of radical Islam in Europe. How many Muslims will this ISIS virus be able to infect in the vast European "gray zone"? The answer will determine our future.


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

In Bizarre, Schizophrenic Note Morgan Stanley Compares Rally Chasers To “Cockroaches”

Morgan Stanley’s Adam Parker double, quasi-metamorphosis from bear to full fledged bull (as of about two years ago), and then back to outright skeptic (as of a month ago), has been a sight to behold, or perhaps text to read. Two months ago he admitted that “Our Advice Has Been Horrendous”, blaming “Bizarro World”, and then one month ago he sink deeper into cognitive dissonance when he advised “When You Think Of Something, Do The Opposite.”

His latest report, in which he tries to justify his ongoing bearish stance (or maybe it’s bullish – we aren’t sure after reading the note below), is not only no less bizarre, it is downright schizophrenic as you can read below, because not only does he compare chasers of the current market rally to cockroaches, and says that “we are in “sell the rip,” not “buy the dip” mode for US equities” adding that “for now, we want to be cockroaches so we can survive, but we are only human”, and then completely loses it when saying “we don’t want to be cockroaches, even though that has been the right strategy year-to-date.

Alas, we can not do full justice to his latest stream of consciousness, so here it is:

Cockroaches survive because they travel with the wind at their backs, not into the wind, reversing course when the wind changes directions so they don’t fight the elements. Their adaptability has enabled cockroaches to survive nuclear explosions and even function for long periods of time with their heads cut off. Most investors want to survive, but prefer to keep their heads on during the process. Certainly the investors who have done well this year have been acting like cockroaches, reversing course when the winds changed direction in mid-February. The fundamentals haven’t really changed that much, but prices certainly have. The cockroach mindset is admittedly tempting during sustained “gusts” like those the market has experienced over the last 7 weeks.

Then things get bizarre. Initially, Parker says that he refuses to be a cockroach, and that he has been bullish…

Try as we might, however, we just can’t be cockroaches: we remained bullish early in 2016, while markets sank, and we are increasingly cautious now, as markets have roared back to essentially all-time highs. Our natural disposition is always tilted towards anticipating (or at least trying to anticipate) wind shifts, rather than simply reacting to the change. It was certainly painful for us to remain bullish in January and into early February when the market continued to decline, as we were in essence crawling into the wind at that point. Obviously, we are now happy we stayed the course and remained positive, but there is no doubt that our heads almost blew off. But today, given the huge market rally, we can’t help but start wondering when we will get the next reversal, and when we should become more cautious again. After all, the S&P500 is just a few NYC-sized cockroaches from its all-time high.

… And then, right after that, he contends he was no longer bullish:

We have been arguing since our Spring Outlook a few weeks ago that we are no longer bullish and have a more balanced view of the market than we did late last year. As the market continues to rise, we are getting more negative, not more positive. The underlying fundamentals, in our view, were not as negative in early February as price action indicated. Today, we don’t think fundamentals are as positive as price action is indicating. Our base case is for earnings to grow around 4% this year.

The reason Parker refuses to be a cockroach is presented below:

The consensus may still be structurally bearish, but many investors are now tactically bullish, confident the wind will keep blowing in a positive direction for a while. Positioning data showing more exposure to markets from hedge funds seems to be the main signpost many investors are evaluating to determine whether and when the rally will end. These data show that investors could still be more offensively positioned than they currently are, and hence, it is hard for short-term oriented investors to see the rally ending soon. In addition, our sense is that investors think the February lows are unlikely to be seen again this year, and that the risk-reward is more balanced today than it was earlier in the year. In February the consensus seemed to be that there was more downside to the bear case than upside to the bull case, and that the bear case was more probable. Now, the S&P500 has rallied strongly to near all-time highs, and some investors seem to think the risk-reward has improved. We disagree. How can investors think that markets will remain volatile and also be more bullish after a market rally? The cockroaches will turn around as soon as the wind blows in the other direction,  which is likely to happen in the second quarter. It is hard to forecast what will cause it, but we think it is prudent to expect the S&P500 will pull back some from today’s levels. We don’t want to be cockroaches, even though that has been the right strategy year-to-date.

And then things get even more bizarre, because just a few paragraphs after this he says precisely the opposite:

Absent a further improvement to our already above-consensus view of earnings, we see risk-reward as skewed to the downside. We think the market rally is probably a bit more tenuous and subject to a reversal. We recommend investors start to change course, as we are assuming the winds start to blow from a different direction in coming weeks. In short, we are in “sell the rip,” not “buy the dip” mode for US equities. For now, we want to be cockroaches so we can survive, but we are only human.

So… which is it, Adam: you do, or don’t want to be a rally-chasing cockroach, because your readers have no clue. Finally, if anyone still cares, this is what Parker thinks will change the narrative. Er, something.

So what’s the catalyst that will cause the wind to change course again? This is always hard to call, just as it was difficult to call the market drawdown in December and January and the subsequent rally since mid-February. It just seems prudent to think that if winds are blowing back and forth, and they just blew pretty hard from one direction, they may reverse course. The cockroach would wait, but we just can’t; we are not as experienced – after all, we are only human.

And there you have it: in the span of 3 pages, a market strategist for a major Wall Street bank first compares rally chasers to cockroaches, and says that he himself is a cockroach, then just a few lines lower contends he is not a cockroach, and finally says he is only human.

Is it any wonder that nobody has any idea what is going on.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1RIIj05 Tyler Durden

Three Snowstorms to Hit Northeast – Heating Oil Prices to Spike (Video)

By EconMatters

Winter is blasting the Northeast in April. Three snowstorms back to back to hit the Northeast, it appears winter is lasting longer than usual for this part of the country. Natural gas futures have spiked, HO Futures haven`t moved much yet.

© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle  


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/25GvwF2 EconMatters

The Boomer Retirement Meme: One Big Lie

By Jim Quinn of the Burning Platform

The Boomer Retirement Meme: One Big Lie

As the labor participation rate and employment to population ratio linger near three decade lows, the mouthpieces for the establishment continue to perpetuate the Big Lie this is solely due to the retirement of Boomers. It’s their storyline and they’ll stick to it, no matter what the facts show to be the truth. Even CNBC lackeys, government apparatchiks, and Ivy League educated Keynesian economists should be able to admit that people between the ages of 25 and 54 should be working, unless they are home raising children.

In the year 2000, at the height of the first Federal Reserve induced bubble, there were 120 million Americans between the ages of 25 and 54, with 78 million of them employed full-time. That equated to a 65% full-time participation rate. By the height of the second Federal Reserve induced bubble, there were 80 million full-time employed 25 to 54 year olds out of 126 million, a 63.5% participation rate. The full-time participation rate bottomed at 57% in 2010, and still lingers below 62% as we are at the height of a third Federal Reserve induced bubble.

Over the last 16 years the percentage of 25 to 54 full-time employed Americans has fallen from 65% to 62%. I guess people are retiring much younger, if you believe the MSM storyline. Over this same time period the total full-time employment to population ratio has fallen from 53% to 48.8%. The overall labor participation rate peaked in 2000 at 67.1% and stayed steady between 66% and 67% for the next eight years. But this disguised the ongoing decline in the participation rate of men.

In 1970, the labor participation rate of all men was 80%, while the participation rate of women was just below 43%. Then Nixon closed the gold window, setting in motion a further debasing of the currency, unleashing politicians to promise voters goodies without consequences, and giving Wall Street bankers and Madison Avenue free rein to use propaganda to bury Americans in debt, while convincing them trinkets and baubles were actually wealth.

The relentless inflation released by Nixon and the Federal Reserve, and perpetuated by Washington D.C. politicians, forced more women into the workforce over the next 30 years, as families could no longer make ends meet with just the husband working. Over the next 30 years the labor participation rate of women soared to 60%, with the expected negative consequences from having tens of millions of children raised by strangers rather than their mothers. The resultant decline in the family unit and kids being brainwashed by government public school indoctrination has left generations of non-critical thinking zombies, easily manipulated by emotional appeals and false storylines.

As women entered the workforce in great numbers, the participation rate of men gradually declined from 80% to 75% by the 2000. It then began a rapid descent and accelerated after the Federal Reserve created 2008 financial disaster. It now stands at 69.3%, just above its record low in 2015. In the 1950’s when 87% of men participated in the labor market, the country’s economy grew strongly, we produced rather than consumed, we saved before we spent, the family unit was strong, and men’s purpose in life was clear.

When over 30% of working age men aren’t participating in the labor force, trouble is brewing. It’s even worse when you consider the 25 to 54 year old male participation rate has declined from 97% in the 1950’s and 1960’s to below 88% today. Much of the anger building in this country is the result of men in their prime earning years seeing their jobs shipped overseas, outsourced, or taken by HB1 workers. The backlash against illegal immigrants is understandable.

Then there are the young men aged 16 to 24, who have seen their participation rate fall from over 70% in the early 1990’s to below 51% today. The 70% participation rate was consistent from the mid 1970’s through 2000. The precipitous decline is not due to mass enrollment in college, as college students worked when I was their age. There is nothing more volatile than millions of unemployed young men, an imploding economy, growing wealth inequality, and porous borders allowing millions of illegals to invade the country, taking jobs and straining the already bankrupt social welfare net.

The facts obliterate the false storyline of Boomers retiring as the primary cause for the labor participation rate plummeting to three decade low levels. In fact, the number of full-time workers over the age of 55 numbered only 11 million in 2000, representing 18.6% of the over 55 population. Today, over 21 million full-time employed over 55 year olds, represent close to 25% of the rapidly growing over 55 year old category.

The overall labor force participation rate of the over 55 population, which had lingered in the 30% range from the mid 1980’s until the mid 1990’s, now stands just above 40% at levels last seen in the early 1960’s. The Boomer retirement meme, peddled by the corporate media, is pure propaganda designed to obscure the fact millions of people, especially men, in their prime working years are not working. The fact is there are 253 million working age Americans and 102 million of them are not working.

Of the 151 million working Americans, only 123 million are employed full-time (now 35 hours, then 40 hours), 10 million are self-employed, 7 million work multiple jobs, and 21 million produce nothing as they work for the government. The strong and growing job market mantra being sold to the American people is a complete falsehood, and average Americans know it.

We know 10,000 Americans per day are turning 65 and will be for decades to come. Some of them are retiring as they had planned for the last 40 years to do. The fact is very few planned. They were sucked into the easy debt vortex sold by the establishment and lived in the present, never planning for the future. When 50% of all households over the age of 55 have $12,000 or less in retirement savings, they aren’t retiring. When even the over 55 households that did save only have $100,000 of retirement savings, they aren’t retiring. That will last them a couple years at most, when their life expectancy is 20 to 30 years. Very few households can survive on their Social Security pittance, as Yellen and her band of merry men provide 0.25% returns on savings and the cost of food, rent and healthcare surge ever higher.

Boomers aren’t retiring en mass because they can’t afford to retire. The labor participation rate of the younger generations is being negatively impacted by the non-retirement of Boomers. This is called the trickle down effect from unintended consequences. The establishment has strip mined the wealth of the country, leaving a barren wasteland in its wake, creating a seething populace, seeking perpetrators to blame. The populist uprising which propels Trump and Sanders has been spurred by the destruction of the working middle class as the corporate fascists, global elite, and banking cabal have pushed their game of financialization roulette to its limit.

The corporate mainstream media machine, whose job is to keep the establishment in power, scorns Trump when he references a true unemployment rate above 20%, while the BLS reports a beyond laughable rate of 5%. In fact, 24% of all Americans between the ages of 20 and 54 are not working. In fact, 18% of all American men between the ages of 20 and 54 are not working. What are these 13 million men doing on a daily basis? They aren’t retired. A large percentage have been screwed over by a system designed to enrich the few at the expense of the many. Of the 35 million 20 to 54 year old Americans not working, many have found they can suckle more from the welfare and disability systems than they can by working. This generates animosity between the middle and lower classes, to the delight of the ruling class, as it takes the focus off their never ending criminal activities.

The Big Lie can work for longer than rational people might think, but eventually the revelation of its falsehood leads to revolutionary change. The average person in middle America is waking up to the lies of the establishment. They know the unemployment rate is closer to 20% than 5%. They know their own personal inflation rate is 5% to 10%, and not the reported 1% to 2%. They know the banker bailout, TARP, ZIRP, QE, and trillion dollar budget deficits weren’t designed to benefit Main Street USA. They know the media is in the back pocket of the establishment. They are sick and tired of getting screwed by a system designed by a wealthy elitist class to shake them down at every opportunity. They are starting to get up out of their chairs and yelling:


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/25GvyNb Tyler Durden

Silver Is Coiled Spring and Will “Explode Higher”

Silver Is Coiled Spring and Will “Explode Higher”

Silver bullion’s reluctant, sluggish participation in early 2016’s powerful gold rally has been glaringly obvious. Instead of amplifying the yellow metal’s big gains as in the past, silver largely failed to even keep pace. The lack of silver confirmation for gold’s big move has certainly raised concerns. But despite silver’s vexing torpidity in recent months, it is a coiled spring ready to explode higher to catch and surpass gold.

silver_bullion_April2016
Gold (Red), Silver (Blue) ZealLLC

The bottom line is silver is a coiled spring today ready to explode higher. Silver was battered so low in recent years’ gold bear that it’s spent 2016 trading near stock-panic levels relative to gold. Such super-low prices aren’t sustainable, so silver is due for a massive mean reversion higher as investors start to return. Their lagging buying finally began in March, and will soon accelerate and become self-feeding.

Read article here

 

Gold Prices (LBMA)
4 April: USD 1,215.00, EUR 1,068.80 and GBP 854.58 per ounce
1 April: USD 1,232.10, EUR 1,080.69 and GBP 860.20 per ounce
31 Mar: USD 1,233.60, EUR 1,085.50 and GBP 857.62 per ounce
30 Mar: USD 1,238.20, EUR 1,094.12 and GBP 860.23 per ounce
29 Mar: USD 1,216.45, EUR 1,087.71 and GBP 853.04 per ounce

Silver Prices (LBMA)
4 April: USD 14.96, EUR 13.17 and GBP 10.52 per ounce
1 April: USD 15.58, EUR 13.92 and GBP 10.99 per ounce
31 Mar: USD 15.38, EUR 13.52 and GBP 10.68 per ounce
30 Mar: USD 15.38, EUR 13.58 and GBP 10.68 per ounce
29 Mar: USD 15.06, EUR 13.44 and GBP 10.56 per ounce

Gold News and Commentary
– Gold Rush by Russia Makes Up for Billions Lost in Currency Rout (Bloomberg)
– Gold nurses losses after robust U.S. jobs report (Reuters)
– Stars Align for Gold as Holdings Increase, Dollar Weaken (Bloomberg)
– Irish shadow banking system over 10 times size of the economy (RTE)
– Gold Scores Best Quarter in Nearly 30 Years; 2016 Silver Eagles Hit 14.8M (Coin News)

– Why The ‘Million Dollar Coin’? “Because We Can” (King5)
– Central bankers suppressing gold markets? (CNBC)
– Gold suppression have failed thruout history – Rickards (Seeking Alpha)
– Open Letter to the Next President (Gold Seek)
– Gold Lovers Bet Party Isn’t Over After Big First-Quarter Gain (Bloomberg)

Read More Here

 

Silver Coins – Delivered VAT Free in Ireland, UK and EU
You can now buy silver coins, VAT free, throughout the EU. You can take delivery of silver bullion, legal tender coins anywhere in the UK and the EU and not pay VAT or sales tax.

silver_kangaroo
2016 Silver Nuggets or Kangaroos (1 oz)

Silver bullion coins – like Silver Nuggets (Kangaroos), Eagles, Maples, Philharmonics and Britannias are great forms of insurance against currency debasement and financial collapse. They also make very nice gifts for loved ones and are a great way to pass on wealth to the next generation.

Silver coins and bars can also be owned tax free with GoldCore in vaults in Zurich, Singapore and Hong Kong. We have very competitive prices – some of the most competitive in the industry. We do not report client buy or sell transactions. Secure your allocation of silver bullion coins by contacting us today.

www.GoldCore.com 


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1UPTGK7 GoldCore