In Latest Blow To Hedge Funds, Largest US Life Insurer Is Redeeming Most Of Its Investments

It has been a terrible year for hedge funds, not only in terms of performance but more importantly when it comes to keeping LPs and investors happy and invested, and it is only getting worse.

Recall that in recent weeks some very prominent alternative money managers have been slammed with major substantial requests such as Brevan Howard which was served with an cash call for $1.4 billion, and Tudor which has seen $1 billion in redemptions, while New York City’s pension for civil employees voted this month to pull $1.5 billion from hedge funds.

Then, just three days ago, AIG joined the anti-hedge fund fray when it announced it would redeem $4 billion from its hedge fund investments, while Chris Ailman, who runs investments at the $187 billion California State Teachers’ Retirement System, or CALSTRS, said that the hedge fund industry’s two-and-twenty fee model is “broken” and “off the table” for large institutional investors.

Moments ago we the latest confirmation that the hedge fund business model is indeed suffering through an existential battle when MetLife Inc., the largest U.S. life insurer, said was seeking to exit most of its hedge-fund portfolio after a slump in the investments. According to Bloomberg, the insurer is seeking to redeem $1.2 billion of the $1.8 billion in holdings, a process that may take a couple of years to complete, Chief Investment OfficerSteven Goulart said Thursday in a conference call discussing first-quarter results at the New York-based company. The portfolio, which posted negative returns in the quarter, was cut by about $600 million in 2015, he said.

“It’s had up-and-down years and really it’s just too inconsistent, we think, in actual performance,” Goulart said. “What we’ll be left with is a small portfolio of really our most consistently performing managers in hedge funds.”

Oh, so past performance is indicative of future performance after all?

As Bloomberg adds, MetLife, which has an investment portfolio of more than $520 billion, has been looking in recent years for alternatives to bonds because interest rates are so low. While results from private equity have been satisfactory, hedge funds have been more volatile, Goulart said.

Chief Executive Officer Steve Kandarian added that he is seeking to increase the portion of earnings that can be returned to shareholders. That focus on free cash flow factored into the decision to cut the hedge-fund investments, Goulart said.

In other news, MetLife reported profit Wednesday that missed analysts’ estimates. Investment income fell 17% to $4.56 billion, hurt by both hedge funds and low bond yields. Kandarian said Thursday that the insurer will continue to hold some investments beyond bonds.

“Some earnings variability is an acceptable risk, as these asset classes have provided strong returns to MetLife shareholders over time,” Kandarian said. Variable investment income, which includes hedge funds and private equity, “was better than planned in 7 of the past 10 years.”

In other words, the surprising redemption is as much as an attempt to scapegoat hedge funds as it is a statement on the alternative asset management industry. But whatever the reason, the reality is that now that the process is in motion, we expect billions more in redemptions as the great “wash out” predicted by Dan Loeb takes place. It also means more forced sales and liquidations, which in the current illiquid market will only result in even more volatility and even more underperformance by those other hedge funds who have matched positions to those being unwound.

Finally, for those seeking the ultimate culprit why the hedge fund industry has been on such a poor roll in recent years, look no further than the Fed, which continues to intervene any and every time there is even a modest correction in the process crushing the short books and leading to unprecedented short squeezes such as the ones experienced in February and March of this year.

via http://ift.tt/1rsQuao Tyler Durden

“Rich” Americans Confidence Crashes Most Since 2013

Despite equity prices soaring to within inches of all-time record highs, it appears ‘rich’ Americans are no longer impressed by The Fed’s handiwork. As Bloomberg’s Consumer Comfort index slumps to its weakest since Dec 2015, high-income (over $75k) Americans suffered their biggest plunge in confidence since October 2013 seemingly unable to revive their animal spirits as much as CFOs and their buybacks.

High income Americans confidence typically lags stock market performance by about 4 weeks but has broken this time…

 

As their comfort collapses at the fastest rate in 3 years…

 

It appears Janet has lost control of the only monetary transmission mechanism she has left.

via http://ift.tt/1T0AndE Tyler Durden

“I Can Only Say I’m Sorry” – Self-Professed Bitcoin “Creator” Can’t Provide Proof, Backs Out

Two years after Newsweek wrote an inaugural article upon returning to print in which it “unmasked” bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto and which turned out be a hoax (the author “found” Nakamoto using a white pages search), earlier this week the world was fixated on the story of another self-professed bitcoin “creator”, this time Australian entrepreneuer Craig Wright, who “came out” concurrently to both BBC and the Economist, claiming he was the elusive creator of bitcoin.

However, just three days later the entrepreneur reneged on a promise to present new “proof” to support his case, effectively proving all his skeptics correct. He had pledged to move some of the virtual currency from one of its early address blocks, an act many believe can only be done by the tech’s creator. This would have addressed complaints that earlier evidence he had published online was misleading.

Wright said he did not “have the courage” to prove he is Satoshi Nakamoto.
Or the facts.

Wright said that he was “sorry” adding that “I believed that I could put years of anonymity and hiding behind me” he put up in a short blog.

“But, as the events of this week unfolded and I prepared to publish the proof of access to the earliest keys, I broke. I do not have the courage. I cannot.

When the rumours began, my qualifications and character were attacked. When those allegations were proven false, new allegations have already begun. I know now that I am not strong enough for this.”

The full statement from his blog.

After doubt emerged that Wright was indeed Nakamoto, the Australian indicated that he would transfer some bitcoins from “block 9” by using a private key thought to be known only to Satoshi Nakamoto. Satoshi is known to have used the address in 2009 to send coins to a computer scientist.

Dr Wright had promised the “extraordinary proof” in light of a growing backlash against one of his blogs.

On Monday, the Australian had posted what seemed to be evidence that he had Satoshi’s key by describing a process that led to the creation of a “digital signature”. But soon after, this was attacked by security researchers who linked the signature to an earlier Satoshi Bitcoin transaction that could be found via a search engine.

Dr Wright subsequently wrote that he was the victim of “false allegations” and would prove his case by both moving the coins and by sharing “independently verifiable documents”.

Wright’s claims had initially been bolstered by the fact that two senior members of the Bitcoin Foundation – an organisation set up to protect and promote the virtual currency – had said they were convinced he was indeed behind the technology.

Dr Wright had shown Gavin Andresen and Jon Matonis other evidence in private before the BBC, the Economist and GQ magazine reported his claims at the start of the week.

He apologised to the two men in his latest blog.

In short, as we concluded in Is The “Unmasking” Of Bitcoin’s Satoshi Nakamoto Just A Publicity Stunt, “the bottom line, if Wright wants to convince the community, he’s picked a bad way to do it. So far, his case has been all authority and no math.”

Meanwhile, the search for the real Satoshi will continue.

And, for the record, it was just a publicity stunt.

via http://ift.tt/1SP1k5d Tyler Durden

The Reagan Recovery vs. the Obama Economy: New at Reason

ReaganIn an interview about his legacy recently published by The New York Times, President Barack Obama took a shot at the Reagan revolution to make the case that contrary to conservative dogma, tax cuts, and other free market policies—such as cutting spending—weren’t good at jump-starting the economy. The implication seems to be that his preference for big-government policies produced superior results.

Now, not everything about the Reagan revolution was as free market as we think. For instance, Reagan wasn’t as big of a spender as George W. Bush, but he still presided over large spending increases during his two terms in office—23 percent in real terms (though the federal government shrank slightly as a share of gross domestic product). A lot of the growth came from defense spending increases. Contrary to what some conservatives believe, defense spending is still spending, and not every dime spent by the Department of Defense is productive. Reagan also expanded Social Security taxes and failed to deliver on much of his promise to devolve powers to the states.

Yet he did deliver on major tax reforms, writes Veronique de Rugy.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/24zLU8P
via IFTTT

Shariah Gold Cometh – $2 Trillion In Assets “Could Send Price Soaring”

The coming ‘sharia gold standard’ or shariah compliant gold could lead to a very significant source of  new demand for physical gold coins and bars in the Islamic world. It is believed that this will contribute to much higher prices and gold “soaring” as some of the $2 trillion of assets held in Islamic financial institutions are allocated to the very small physical global gold market.
 

Fifty gram gold bars sit across a one kilo gold bar at bullion dealers Goldcore, in London, U.K., on Thursday, March 11, 2010. Gold priced in euros reached a record on March 5 as investors, concerned that a Greek debt default may devalue the currency, purchased the metal as an alternative asset. Photographer: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg

Fifty gram gold bars sit across a one kilo gold bar at bullion dealers Goldcore, in London, U.K., on Thursday, March 11, 2010.
Gold priced in euros reached a new record on March 5, 2010 as investors, concerned that a Greek debt default may devalue the
currency, purchased gold for diversification purposes. Photographer: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg


“The Islamic finance entry into gold market could definitely shake the gold market as Islamic financial institutions around the world, which hold around $2 trillion in assets and are expected to double that asset base up to 2020, would certainly unleash large funds to participate in the Shariah-compliant gold trade”
according to the Gulf Times:

“On the outlook for new investment opportunities, the rapidly growing Islamic finance industry has set sight on the gold market as initiatives are underway to establish a new standard to make the metal tradable under Shariah finance rules, eliminating disputes among scholars whether gold is to be treated as a currency or as a commodity.


So far, Islamic investors have been reluctant to invest in gold because to do so, they would need the metal in physical form as an underlying asset, which is rarely the case in conventional gold trade. Because of that, broadly traded gold futures do not qualify as a Shariah-compliant investment. Other conventional gold-based financial offerings in the form of derivatives are also widely viewed as unacceptable for Islamic scholars.


London-headquartered World Gold Council (WGC), together with Kuala Lumpur-based Amanie Advisors, an independent advisory firm on Shariah investments and the Accounting and Auditing Organisation for Islamic Financial Institutions in Bahrain, now have been developing a “Shariah Standard on Gold” which aims at “providing guidance from the Shariah perspective on the usage of gold in financial and investment transactions for Islamic financial institutions and participants,” as WGC head Natalie Dempster puts it.


There are still different opinions among scholars about the classification of gold either as a commodity or a currency, referring to its previous use as gold coins.


“We found that there is overwhelming demand for gold to play a greater role in Islamic finance,” Dempster says, adding that “our discussions with industry participants signal that it will act as a major catalyst for the development of a broad range of Shariah-compliant gold products such as gold accumulation plans and physically-backed gold funds.”


If the standard goes through, it could definitely shake the gold market as Islamic financial institutions around the world, which hold around $2tn in assets and are expected to double that asset base up to 2020, would certainly unleash large funds to participate in the Shariah-compliant gold trade and represent a tremendously bullish force for the metal’s price with demand coming from investment funds, wealth managers, retail banks, liquidity managers, treasurers and takaful institutions.


Furthermore, gold, as an important tool to manage financial risk and volatility, could also help Islamic finance institutions to offset credit risk and diversify their exposure to commonly used, but limited Shariah-compliant assets such as real estate, Islamic bonds or certain stocks.”

Full article by can be read on Gulf Times here


Gold and Silver Prices and News
Gold Investors Bet on Resilient Rally as Open Interest Surges (Bloomberg)
Gold Snaps Three-Day Decline as Investors Weigh Fed Rate Outlook (Bloomberg)
Gold firms after three days of losses as equities drop (Reuters)
Gold settles lower as dollar shrugs off weak data (Marketwatch)

Due to central banks, gold remains “good bet for 2016” (Money Week)
How Gold and Silver Can Protect Your Money from the Coming “Bank Account Tax” (Casey Research)
Currency War Battle That Europe and Japan Can’t Afford To Lose (Dollar Collapse)
SILVER: Prospects for the Birth of a New Bull Run (Elliot Wave)
Read More Here

Gold Prices (LBMA)
05 May: USD 1,275.75, EUR 1,114.95 and GBP 879.23 per ounce
04 May: USD 1,280.30, EUR 1,114.18 and GBP 883.59 per ounce
03 May: USD 1,296.50, EUR 1,118.15 and GBP 881.32 per ounce
29 April: USD 1,274.50, EUR 1,119.45 and GBP 873.80 per ounce
28 April: USD 1,256.60, EUR 1,106.45 and GBP 861.43 per ounce

Silver Prices (LBMA)
05 May: USD 17.38, EUR 15.21 and GBP 12.01 per ounce
04 May: USD 17.18, EUR 14.96 and GBP 11.86 per ounce
03 May: USD 17.49, EUR 15.10 and GBP 11.92 per ounce
29 April: USD 17.85, EUR 15.67 and GBP 12.22 per ounce
28 April: USD 17.35, EUR 15.29 and GBP 11.92 per ounce

 

www.GoldCore.com

via http://ift.tt/26Wzl9H GoldCore

Trumped! Why It Happened And What Comes Next, Part 1

Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

First there were seventeen. At length, there was one.

Donald Trump’s wildly improbable capture of the GOP nomination, therefore, is the most significant upheaval in American politics since Ronald Reagan. And the proximate cause is essentially the same. Like back then, an era of drastic bipartisan mis-governance has finally generated an electoral impulse to sweep out the stables.

Accordingly, the Donald’s patented phrase that “we aren’t winning anymore” is striking a deep nerve on main street. But that is not on account of giant trade deficits or a faltering foreign policy and failed military adventures per se.

Indeed, it has very little to do with any patriotic impulse with respect to America’s collective polity, and everything to do with voter perceptions that they personally are not winning economically anymore, either.

What is winning is Washington, Wall Street and the bicoastal elites. The latter prosper off finance, the LA branch of entertainment (movies and TV), the SF/technology branch of entertainment (social media) and the great rackets of the Imperial City—including the military/industrial/surveillance complex, the health and education cartels, the plaintiffs and patent bar, the tax loophole farmers and the endless lesser K-Street racketeers.

Consequently, most of America’s vast flyover zone has been left behind. Thus, the bottom 90% of families have no more real net worth than they had 30 years ago. By contrast, the real net worth of the top 9% stands at 150% its 1985 level, and the very top 1% is at 300% of its level three decades ago.

Moreover, the wealth round trip of the bottom 90% depicted in the chart below was hardly real in the first place. Main Street net worth temporarily soared owing to Greenspan’s 15-year housing bubble which culminated in the great financial crisis. What is left is mainly the mortgage debt.

The same pattern is evident in real household incomes and average real earnings of full time workers. In this case, the metric displayed in the chart encompasses men over 16 to control for changes in the work force mix, but the result is unmistakable. To wit, real median household incomes in 2014 were no higher than the level first reached in 1989, and real weekly full-time wages were actually 4% lower.

In a similar vein, Indiana was supposed to be Senator Cruz’ last stand, but according to the pundits he ended up getting blown away by the “Carrier” vote. United Technology’s plan to move its air conditioner factory to Mexico became Donald Trumps whipping boy, but the metaphor had deep resonance.

Since the year 2000, the US has lost 20% of its highest paying full-time jobs in the goods producing economy—–that is, energy and mining, construction and manufacturing.

Goods Producing Economy Jobs- Click to enlarge

Even when you allow for the supposed shift to white collar jobs in finance, technology, entertainment and other domestic services, the story is pretty much the same. There are still nearly 2 million fewer full-time, full pay “breadwinner jobs” in the US today than when Bill Clinton was packing his bags to leave the White House in January 2001.

These jobs currently pay an equivalent annual wage of $50,000 on average, which isn’t affluence by any means. But the point is, these jobs are the best of what we have and the total has been going nowhere for the last decade and one-half, even as the adult population (over 16 years) has risen from 212 million to 250 million.

Breadwinner Economy Jobs- Click to enlarge

Stated differently, the Trump voters don’t watch CNBC. Or if they do, they are savvy enough to dismiss it’s specious celebration of America’s phony bicoastal prosperity, and especially the monotonously stupid and profoundly misleading ritual of Jobs Friday. The voters know from experience that those millions of “new jobs” are mainly part-time gigs that come and go between the financial crashes that arise every seven years or so out of Wall Street and Washington.

Indeed, these bread and circuses jobs may all be part of the “print” according to Keynesian windbags like Mark Zandi, but the flyover zone voters know the real truth. They pay cash wages of less than $20,000 per year on a full-time equivalent basis, offer virtually no benefits and are scheduled by the day and hour.

Bread and Circuses Economy Jobs - Click to enlarge

In fact, nearly 40% of all the net payroll jobs created since the year 2000 are in what we have called the Part Time Economy. Trump voters have gotten stuck in them, fear they will end up there or have friends and family who have no other opportunities.

Needless to day, they know they are not winning.

Part Time Economy Jobs - Click to enlarge

Meanwhile, the bicoastal elites tend to their increasingly fanciful projects and provocations. That is to say, Imperial Washington’s completely trumped up campaign against Russia and Putin is cut from the same cloth as Silicon Valley’s pretension that there are ( or were until February) 147 “unicorn” start-ups that are each worth a billion dollars or more—notwithstanding that few of them have meaningful revenues, cognizable business models or any prospect of earning a profit.

Everywhere the governing institutions are whistling past the graveyard, yet have become so insular and removed from accountability that they are clueless about their own impending doom. The Federal Reserve, for example, has now fueled the mother of all financial bubbles after seven years of non-stop money printing and radical interest rate repression, but nevertheless believes that the nirvana of full employment prosperity is just around the corner.

Likewise, US military intervention has failed in every Muslim land it has bombed, droned or occupied. Yet the White House is still sending more bootless boots to these decimated lands, thereby insuring even more blowback and gifting jihadist recruiters with endless fodder for outrage and revenge.

So too, a seven year “recovery” cycle has been squandered on the fiscal front. While Obama was taking bows for cutting the deficit in half and Republicans were joining in to gut the discretionary spending sequester, the fiscal time bomb of entitlements continued to tick unattended.

The fact is, nominal GDP is now growing at only 3% per year, and in a world of relentless deflation owing to the end of the great central bank credit bubble, there is no prospect that it will accelerate. Accordingly, by 2026 GDP will be $24 trillion under the best of circumstances, while the national debt will rise by $9 trillion per CBO’s Keynesian reckoning or upwards of $15 trillion if you believe the Fed has not abolished the business cycle.

That’s right. The virtually guaranteed national debt of $30-$35 trillion will reach an Italian style 140% of GDP just as the baby boom retirement wave hits full stride.

So when Trump says that Uncle Sucker is broke, the public believes him. It happens to be true.

Finally, the greatest bicoastal scam is the rampant Bubble Finance prosperity of Wall Street and Silicon Valley. Let’s face it. Facebook——along with Instagram, Whatsapp, Oculus VR and the 45 other testaments to social media drivel that Mark Zuckerberg has acquired with insanely inflated Wall Street play money during the last few years——-is not simply a sinkhole of lost productivity and low-grade self-indulgent entertainment. Faceplant is also a colossal valuation hoax.

Why? Because at bottom, FB is just an Internet billboard. It’s a place where mostly millennials idle their time in or out of their parents’ basement. Whether they grow tired of Facebook or not remains to be seen, but one thing is certain.

To wit, Facebook has invented nothing, has no significant patents, delivers no products and generates no customer subscriptions or service contracts. Its purported 1.8 billion “MAUs” (monthly average users) are fiercely devoted to “free stuff” in their use of social media.

Therefore, virtually all of its revenue comes from advertising. But ads are nothing like a revolutionary new product such as Apple’s iPhone, which can generate tens of billions of sales out of nowhere.

The pool of advertising dollars, by contrast, is relatively fixed at about $175 billion in the U.S. and $575 billion worldwide. And it is subject to severe cyclical fluctuations. For instance, during the Great Recession, the U.S. advertising spend declined by 15% and the worldwide spend dropped by 11%.

And therein lies the skunk in the woodpile. Due to its sharp cyclicality, the trend growth in U.S. ad spending has been about 0.5% per annum. Likewise, the global ad spend increased from about $490 billion in 2008 to $575 billion in 2015, reflecting a growth rate of 2.3% annually.

Yes, there has been a rapid migration of dollars from TV, newspapers and other traditional media to the digital space in recent years. But the big shift there is already over.

Besides that, you can’t capitalize a one-time gain in sales of this sort with even an average market multiple. And that’s to saying nothing of FB’s of the fact that FB’s current $340 billion market cap represents a preposterous multiple of 211 times its $1.6 billion of LTM free cash flow.

In any event, the digital share of the U.S. ad pool rose from 13.5% in 2008 to an estimated 32.5% last year. But even industry optimists do not expect the digital share to gain more than a point or so per year going forward. After all, television, newspapers, magazines and radio and highway billboards are not going to disappear entirely.

Consequently, there are not remotely enough advertising dollars in the world to permit the endless gaggle of social media space entrants to earn revenue and profits commensurate with their towering valuations and the sell side’s hockey stick growth projections. In social media alone, therefore, there is more than $1 trillion of bottled air.

But the social media billionaire brats are not the half of it. The central bank money printers have transformed Wall Street into a nonstop casino that has showered a tiny slice of hedge funds and speculators with unspeakable windfalls from the likes of monstrosities like Valeant and hundreds of similar momentum bubbles.

Just consider the shameless mountebank who has conjured the insane valuation of Tesla from the gambling pits of Wall Street. The company has never made a profit, never hit a production or sales target and has no chance whatsoever of becoming a volume auto producer.

Yet after posting another wider than expected $283 million loss in the first quarter, which was nearly twice last year’s red ink, Elon Musk doubled-down on his snake oil offering.  His promise that Tesla would become cash flow positive in 2016, after burning through $4 billion in cash since 2008, was abruptly declared inoperative. Instead, Tesla will do another giant dilutive capital raise in order to fund an acceleration of the Model 3 so that it can deliver 500,000 vehicles in 2018.

That’s a con job worthy of the seediest use car lot in America. In auto production land, today is already 2018 in the case of a mass production vehicle that has barely been designed, and which has not yet been production engineered, tooled, tested or sourced for components and materials.

Indeed, the idea that a company which produced just 50,000 vehicles in the last 12 months can scale up to 10X that volume virtually over night on a production line and supply system that does not even exist is a laughable fiction. But what isn’t laughable is that the Wall Street casino is so blinded by speculation, greed and Fed puts and liquidity pumping that it is enabling dozens of circus barkers like Elon Musk to inflate spectacular bubbles which will end up destroying the main street homegamers who fall for them, and dissipating loads of scarce capital in the process.

The fact is, the bicoastal elites have been showered with stupendous windfalls since the March 2009 bottom because the Fed has engineered through ZIRP, QEs, puts and open mouth cheerleading a systematic falsification of financial prices and the diversion of massive amounts of new debt and other capital into rank financial speculation.

On a net basis, for example, virtually the entirety of the $2 trillion in incremental business debt raised since 2007 (from $11 trillion to $13 trillion) has been cycled into stock buybacks, wildly over-priced M&A deals and other forms of financial engineering which result in the bidding up of existing equities, not the investment of new funds into productive assets. Indeed, the C-Suites of corporate America have been transformed into stock trading rooms.

via http://ift.tt/23rPfVa Tyler Durden

Fiscal Policy: Trump Is Not Reagan

It is a comparison that many are making.  Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, is very similar to Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States and icon of modern conservatism.  While these two men share some cosmetic similarities on the surface, in reality they are very different in many ways.  Thus, those that are seeking to conclude that a Trump presidency might follow a similar course to that of Reagan’s are likely to discover a much different outcome than they might expect.

Before going any further, it is important to note that this is not an article about promoting or refuting a political view.  Instead, this article is intended to be an exploration of facts and their associated implications for U.S. fiscal policy, which is executed by the President in through the legislation provided by Congress.

Surface Level Similarities

So what exactly is the source of the comparisons between Trump and Reagan.  First, while Trump was first a businessman while Reagan was an actor, both were celebrities before they became Republican presidential candidates.  Both Trump and Reagan were former Democrats that eventually converted to the Republican party.  Both men also were also greeted with apprehension from some in the electorate and in the global community that thought they may be less than capable and potentially unpredictable upon entering office.  And yes, both men shared the campaign slogan that it was time to “make America great again”.

But these are largely cosmetic comparisons.  For one even begins to look under the surface, some notably vast differences quickly present themselves.

Prior Political Experience

The first aspect that makes Reagan meaningfully different than Trump was his prior political experience.  Reagan first emerged on the political landscape in 1964 with his now legendary “A Time For Choosing” speech, which established the foundation of his conservative political philosophy that carried forward over the next several decades.  Reagan went on to serve two terms as Governor of California from 1967 to 1975.  Along the way he ran for the 1968 Republican nomination, losing to eventual nominee Richard Nixon despite winning a plurality of the national primary vote (37.93% for Reagan versus 37.54% for Nixon).  Reagan contended for the Republican nomination once again in 1976, eventually losing to incumbent President Gerald Ford following what has recently been a frequently recalled contested convention.  Reagan finally won the Republican nomination in 1980 on his third try.  But by the time he won the presidency later that same year, he had been a major player on the Republican political scene for 16 years including two prior presidential runs and eight years of executive experience as Governor of California.

By comparison, Trump’s only prior political experience beyond two separate flirtations with the idea of running for the Republican nomination in 1988 and 2012 was his fleeting candidacy for the Reform Party nomination in 2000.  Despite campaigning for a few months starting in October 1999, Trump never officially moved past the exploratory phase of his campaign and eventually ended his campaign in February 2000.  The primary issues of the Trump campaign that year were promoting fair trade, eliminating the national debt and establishing universal healthcare.  Of course, some of these prior platforms stand in stark contrast to his current campaign positioning.

Fiscal Policy Views
   
Reagan’s fiscal policy views were well established and generally consistent throughout his several decades in politics.  Reagan promoted the ideals of capitalism, free trade and immigration.  And his policy objectives included the reduction of government spending, lowering taxes and reducing regulation.  He was also an advocate of restrictive monetary policy and limiting money supply growth to combat the inflationary challenges at the time.  Reagan’s success in achieving all of these goals once in office is certainly subject to debate, but his views were generally well known and fairly consistent in their conservatism for several decades.

In contrast, the details of Trump’s fiscal policy views remain rather uncertain despite the fact that he has been on the campaign trail for the better part of a year and is the presumptive Republican nominee for president.  But what is generally known at this point is that he has more populist inclinations including increasing regulations, taking a more isolationist approach to international trade, and restricting immigration.  While Trump’s fiscal policy views are likely to evolve and take a clearer form as we move closer to the general election in November, the fact that the substance of his views remain largely unknown stands in stark contrast to Reagan.  Moreover, those Trump fiscal policy views that are known are vastly different than those of Reagan.

More Like Wendell Willkie Than Ronald Reagan

If anything, Trump bears a much greater resemblance to Wendell Willkie, the Republican nomination for president in the 1940 campaign, than Ronald Reagan.  Willkie was also a Democrat that converted to the Republican party in 1939.  He was a successful businessman who was politically active but had never run for public office prior to his presidential run in 1940.  Willkie was also viewed as a fiscal policy moderate including his intent to keep many New Deal programs in place, but in contrast to Trump he was a supporter of global trade and taking a more interventionist approach overseas at least initially in his campaign.  And much like Trump thus far, Willkie’s campaign faced opposition from conservatives, some of which considered turning to a third party candidate.

Bottom Line

Those that wish to draw similarities between Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan are likely looking too quickly past the many contrasts between these two men.  In fact, Donald Trump bears little resemblance to Ronald Reagan when it comes to the key elements of political experience and core fiscal policy views.  This is not to suggest that Trump’s policies will fail for this reason if he ascends to the presidency, as his policies if implemented may prove most successful at the end of the day.  Only time will tell.  But it should be noted at least to this point that his known fiscal policy views are far less established and decidedly different than Reagan’s.  And such uncertainty has the potential to spark periods of volatility for the U.S. stock market as we draw closer to the election.

A Final Editorial Point

One final editorial point bears mentioning.  The 2016 presidential election is one that screams for the entry of a third party candidate.  Both the Republicans and Democrats have presumptive nominees that the public views with scorn.  According to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 65% of registered voters have a negative views on Donald Trump, while 56% have a negative views on Hillary Clinton, and these negatives have the potential to get even worse once the general election campaign gets underway.  Moreover, according to Gallup, only 25% or one in four Americans identify themselves as Republican while only 31% or less than one in three Americans view themselves as Democrat.  Instead, a historically high 44% of Americans view themselves as Independent.  Putting this all together, both political parties are headed toward nominating candidates that the broader American public simply do not like in a measurable way.  And with nearly half of all Americans not identifying with either party (and a number of those that do identify with a political party vocally expressing their dissatisfaction with their candidates), this implies that the general election offers a gapingly wide open opportunity to a third party candidate that is sufficiently well known enough by the American public that they can hit the ground running with a national campaign, has a last name that is sufficiently easy to write in on a ballot if necessary (former California Governor George Deukmejian need not apply in this case), and has nothing to lose in their political future by striking out on their own with a presidential run outside of the two major parties (people such as Speaker Paul Ryan or Senator Marco Rubio would likely stay out of it on this measure).  What is the best profile for a candidate that could succeed in this scenario?  A more experienced and balanced, right leaning moderate most likely from the Republican party that can appeal to independent voters but also has the ability to win a vote in the House of Representatives if no candidate were to receive a majority of the votes from the Electoral College.  A handful of people come to mind that might fit the bill in this regard, but I will leave out the mention of any individual names to avoid the risk of injecting any political bias into the discussion.  While the idea of a viable third party candidate would be considered madness in most years, 2016 has been anything but ordinary and predictable.  As a result, if there was ever a time to take a shot at a legitimate third party run, this is the year to do it.
 
Disclosure: This article is for information purposes only. There are risks involved with investing including loss of principal. Gerring Capital Partners makes no explicit or implicit guarantee with respect to performance or the outcome of any investment or projections made. There is no guarantee that the goals of the strategies discussed by Gerring Capital Partners will be met.

via http://ift.tt/1SR11Di Eric Parnell

Glenn Ford Spent 30 Years on Death Row, Was Exonerated, Died, Yet is Still on Trial

Glenn Ford, exonerated, dead, still on trial.Glenn Ford spent 30 years on Louisiana’s death row for a murder he didn’t commit, only to die of cancer a year after being exonerated and released from prison in 2014.

The prosecutor who put him there, A.M. “Marty” Stroud III, has apologized for relying on “junk science” during the trial and for pursuing a court victory at all costs, at the expense of justice. Stroud even went so far as to admit that knowing what he knows now, Ford should never have even been arrested, since the hardest evidence against him was a statement from a witness who later recanted. 

Yet, somehow, members of the Louisiana legal establishment still insist on questioning Ford’s innocence and even accuse him of things which were either never proven or proven to be false, all to protect the state from having to bear the modest financial cost of paying for the life they stole. 

Last month, an appeals court ruled Ford’s family could not collect the $330,000 which state law says a wrongfully convicted person is entitled to, because even though Ford was exonerated, he could not prove he was “factually innocent” of any involvement in the crime. In response, Louisiana state Rep. Cedric Glover introduced a bill to correct what he described as “a technical over-interpretation of the law.” 

But as Andrew Cohen writes at The Marshall Project, the introduction of this bill may have “spooked” Judge Joe Bleich, who wrote that the appeals court’s decision denying Ford’s family compensation would be amended, essentially as a means of destroying Glover’s bill before the legislature even has a chance to vote on it.

In his memo, Bleich claims the state would be subject to “automatic financial liability” if Glover’s bill (which by design would make it harder for the state to shirk its monetary obligations to compensate the wrongfully convicted) were to pass. 

Calling Bleich’s memo “one of the most remarkable examples of judicial activism I have ever seen in nearly 20 years as a legal analyst,” Cohen characterizes the rest of the amended decision: 

It’s essentially an ad hominem attack on Ford in which assertions that were never proven at trial, or which were later refuted by state prosecutors, are leveled at a man no longer alive to defend himself. The “summary” labels Ford a “sinister guardian of the killers,” for example. Not even the state lawyers fighting to deny compensation to Ford’s family have made that allegation.

When people say they don’t trust the system, this is precisely what they mean.

It’s bad enough that Ford was wrongfully convicted by an all-white jury on shoddy evidence. It’s worse that he spent 30 years on death row, then died a sad, impoverished, cancerous death before he had a chance to resume his life. It’s appalling that his family is denied even modest compensation for the profound tragedy they suffered at the hands of the state. 

But it is simply unconscionable for a judge to slander a dead man, and try to pre-emptively destroy legislation from the bench, all to save the state money. 

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

‘There Are Dumpster Fires In My Town More Popular’ Than Clinton or Trump, Complains Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse

Republican Ben Sasse, a freshman U.S. Senator from Nebraska, has written one of the best Facebook political rants of the 2016 election season. Not only is it frank, passionate, and as critical of his own party as it is of the Democrats, but it contains lines like “There are dumpster fires in my town more popular than” either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, the two current presidential frontrunners. “WHY,” asks Sasse (all caps his), “is that the only choice?” 

In the “open letter to majority America” that Sasse posted to Facebook Wednesday, it’s pretty clear he’s testing the waters for an independent presidential run (if not by himself, than by someone). Yet somehow the standard ranting and raving about “Washington dysfunction” and the need for unity comes off not like a stilted, empty tirade but … honest. Righteously angry. Maybe even a tiny bit substantive. Sure, there’s the hokey dialogues he allegedly had at the Fremont, Nebraska, Walmart that morning, but there’s also a willingness to engage with the idea—oft touted by the likes of all of us here at Reason—that people’s dissatisfaction with both Republicans and Democrats is totally warranted, because both parties failed the people long before Trump vs. Clinton 2016. 

Maybe it’s just because I was reading along before I had any coffee this morning, but I found my jaded, cynical little libertarian heart filled with some excitement while reading Sasse’s letter. So I’m going to highlight the better parts for you, and generously pair them some complementary Reason reading as well. We’ll skip right past the Conversations at Walmart series and get right to the “dozen-ish observations” these conversations provoked in Sasse.

The major parties might be worth saving, but not in their current forms. Republicans and Democrats are “like a couple arguing about what color to paint the living room, and meanwhile, their house is on fire,” writes Sasse. “They resort to character attacks as step one because they think voters are too dumb for a real debate.”

“I signed up for the Party of Abraham Lincoln—and I will work to reform and restore the GOP—but let’s tell the plain truth that right now both parties lack vision,” he continues. Later, Sasse adds that the “two national political parties are enough of a mess that I believe they will come apart,” and that this is probably deserved.

“Remember,” adds Sasse, “our Founders didn’t want entrenched political parties. So why should we accept this terrible choice?” 

See also: 
Donald Trump Has Wrecked the Republican Party. Here’s What a Better GOP Could Look Like
In the Age of Trump, Republicans Are In for a Reckoning—Or a Realignment
Donald Trump & Bernie Sanders Are Burning the GOP & Democratic Party To The Ground, Thank God

More and more Americans are identifying as politically independent. Most people in the U.S. “don’t like either party,” admits Sasse. “If you ask Americans if they identify as Democrat or Republican, almost half of the nation interrupts to say: ‘Neither.'”

See also: 
The Surprising Weakness of Invincible Institutions
The Triumph of Independents
Third Parties: A Beginner’s Guide

Millennials hate Republicans and Democrats even more than their elders. “Young people despise the two parties even more than the general electorate,” writes Sasse. “And why shouldn’t they? The main thing that unites most Democrats is being anti-Republican; the main thing that unites most Republicans is being anti-Democrat. No one knows what either party is for—but almost everyone knows neither party has any solutions for our problems.”

But far from being an issue, Sasses suggests that maybe millennials’ partisan apathy is as asset. “One of the bright spots with the rising generation,” he writes, “is that they really would like to rethink the often knee-jerk partisanship of their parents and grandparents. We should encourage this rethinking.”

See also: 
Generation Independent 
Melding Socially Liberal Businesspeople, Non-Warmongering Democrats, and Avowed Libertarians Into a New Party 
Libertarian Gary Johnson Could Pull Support From Both Clinton and Trump

#NeverTrump, #NeverClinton. “In the history of polling, we’ve basically never had a candidate viewed negatively by half of the electorate,” but “this year, we have two,” points out Sasse. “In fact, we now have the two most unpopular candidates ever—Hillary by a little, and Trump by miles (including now 3 out of 4 women—who vote more and influence more votes than men). There are dumpster fires in my town more popular than these two ‘leaders.'”

See also: 
Most Americans Dislike Hillary Clinton, But They Like Her More Than Donald Trump 
Trump Is the Second Most Unpopular Presidential Candidate Since 1984

The federal government should stick to the big issues. “Washington isn’t competent to micromanage the lives of free people,” writes Sasse. Our next president should instead commit to “focusing on 3 or 4 big national problems,” such sa national security, budgeting and entirlement reform, “empowering states and local governments to improve K-12 education,” and “retiring career politicians by ending all the incumbency protections, special rules, and revolving door opportunities.” 

See also:
The Worst Campaign Promises of 2016
Why Are We Expecting the Next President to Fix the Economy?
Hillary Clinton Just Turned the Democratic Party Into the Party of the $15 an Hour Minimum Wage

The one indication that Sasse might not be talking about himself as the great savior here is a claim that “such a leader should be able to campaign 24/7 for the next six months. Therefore he/she likely can’t be an engaged parent with little kids.” Sasse and his wife have a three young children, all home-schooled.   

From a libertarian perspective, this is probably a good thing. While Sasse diagnoses the disease right, his cures leave a lot to be desired. Though he claims to be for limited government, Sasse supports things like federal subsidies for farmers in the form of crop insurance, has fought against amnesty and Social Security numbers for illegal immigrants, opposes gay people getting married and adopting children, and is hawkish on foreign policy (“to protect our national security, we will be engaged in a decades-long battle against jihadis“), among other not-so-terribly small government positions. But keep the Facebook rants coming, Ben! 

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