SIBOR Forex Banking Fraud EXPOSED – another FX rate rigging scandal

Forex has been the big banks secret gold mine, supporting their other losing operations (like normal banking business, lending, etc.).  To a large extent this has been unraveling, and this SIBOR lawsuit is another attack on their risk free profit center (FX).  Read the entire lawsuit released by Elite E Services here in full.  More than 50 unknown defendants and about 20 known FX banks are named in the case, submitted in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.  Most notably:

C. The CFTC, FSA, and MAS Found that Defendants Manipulated SIBOR and SOR

109. Multiple government investigations conducted by the MAS, CFTC, and the FSA

revealed Defendants’ agreement to illegally manipulate SIBOR and SOR.

110. MAS’ Findings. MAS uncovered a widespread conspiracy in which 133 of

Defendants’ traders sought to manipulate both SIBOR and SOR.

111. As punishment for their manipulative conduct, MAS forced all of the Defendants

to make massive interest-free deposits of between 100 million and 1.2 billion Singapore dollars

each, or 9.6 billion U.S. dollars collectively, preventing the conspiracy from using these funds

(and stripping its profit-making potential) for a full year.75

The common purpose of the enterprise was simple: profiteering. By engaging in

the predicate acts alleged including, but not limited to, transmitting or causing false and artificial

SIBOR submissions to be transmitted to Thomson Reuters as Agent for the ABS, and by

exchanging SIBOR- and SOR-based derivatives positions and prices, Defendants affected the

prices of SIBOR- and SOR-based derivatives, rendering them artificial. This directly resulted in

Defendants reaping hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars in illicit trading profits on

their SIBOR- and SOR-based derivatives positions.

Technically, anyone who traded USD/SGD would have been affected by such manipulation – but any trader knows that the FX markets are completely manipulated (specifically, FX markets are manipulated because central banks set the M3 and interest rate).  

It seems that the WM/Reuters fines & settlements opened a can of worms for the FX banks, who may be forced to find another, more savvy way of fleecing clients, as referenced in the lawsuit:

Specifically, the CFTC found that:

(a) Deutsche Bank engaged in systemic and pervasive misconduct directed at

manipulating these international financial benchmark rates over a six-year period,

including manipulating SIBOR.79

(b) UBS derivatives traders manipulated the official fixings of LIBORs for

multiple currencies, including SIBOR, SOR, Yen LIBOR, Swiss Franc LIBOR,

Sterling LIBOR, and Euro LIBOR.80 The CFTC noted that

misconduct for SIBOR and SOR was “similar” to that found in UBS’

manipulation of other interbank offered rates.81

(c) RBS derivatives and money market traders manipulated SIBOR and SOR

from May 2010 – August 2011, even as RBS was being investigated for (and

conducting its own internal investigation related to) manipulating other interbank

offered rates.82

116. As a result of their manipulation of multiple interbank offered rates, Deutsche

Bank, RBS, and UBS collectively paid nearly $2 billion in fines as part of their settlement

agreements with the CFTC.

So here we have it in black and white – FX markets are manipulated.  

..To learn more about Forex checkout Splitting Pennies – Understanding Forex, or Open a Forex Account with Oanda

via http://ift.tt/29iCwnf globalintelhub

Banana Republic: One System of Justice for the Powerful (Like Clinton) … and Another For Everyone Else

FBI Director Comey’s announcement that he doesn’t think Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted for sharing government documents on her private, unsecured email server is very troubling …

The FBI Re-Wrote 6 Criminal Laws to Let Clinton Off the Hook

Former FBI director Chris Swecker said Comey should have brought charges against Clinton:

He seemed to be building a case for that and he laid out what I thought were the elements under the gross negligence aspect of it, so I was very surprised at the end when he said that there was a recommendation of no prosecution and also given the fact-based nature of this and the statement that no reasonable prosecutor would entertain prosecution, I don’t think that’s the standard.

Andrew McCarthy – former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, obtaining convictions for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing – notes:

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

Shannen Coffin – who served in senior legal positions in the U.S. Department of Justice – writes:

Comey simply ignored — or rewrote — the plain language of § 793(f), which does not require any showing of criminal intent. There is a reason that Congress did not require a showing of intent in this provision of the Espionage Act: to protect against even inadvertent disclosure or risk of disclosure of protected information where the perpetrator demonstrated gross disregard for the national security. How Comey could conclude that “no reasonable prosecutor” could make this case is inexplicable in light of his own words.
 
Even where the statutes prohibiting mishandling of classified information require intent, it is not exclusively intent to harm the national security (though that does play into some relevant statutes). Comey noted that his investigation looked at “a second statute, making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.” That statute is 18 U.S.C. §1924(a), which provides that any federal official who “becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, [and] knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both [emphasis added].” Section 1924(a) does not require an intent to profit, to harm the United States, or otherwise to act in a manner disloyal to the United States. It only requires “intent to retain” classified documents at an unauthorized location, something Comey’s own comments suggest was the case here. Again, the case for prosecuting in light of these facts was more than simply fairly debatable it was quite strong.

Indeed, the FBI rewrote 6 criminal laws in announcing that Clinton shouldn’t be prosecuted.

Prosecutors HAVE Indicted For MUCH LESS

Less than a year ago, the FBI prosecuted a naval reservist for  “unauthorized removal & retention of classified materials” … without any showing of malicious intent.

NSA whistleblower Kirk Wiebe told Washington’s Blog today:

I felt that the flame of “equal justice for all” in the US died today when Hillary is freed from prosecution having sent multiple, highly classified emails on a non-classified network, while [CIA whistleblower] Jeffery Sterling sits in jail having been prosecuted for contacting a reporter, and while [NSA whistleblowers] Ed Loomis, Bill Binney, Diane Roark, Tom Drake and I have our clearances suspended or revoked for simply blowing the whistle on non-Constitutional governmental activities, mismanagement, and widespread corruption.

John Kirakou – former CIA counterterrorism operations officer and former senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who blew the whistle on illegal torture by CIA officers, and was thrown in jail for it – points out:

In my very first hearing, my judge … said that she would not respect precedent from theTom Drake case, saying that a defendant in a national security case had to have criminal intent to be prosecuted for espionage. That begged the question of whether a defendant could then “accidentally” commit espionage. “That’s exactly what it means,” the judge said. I didn’t stand a chance.

 

But in Hillary Clinton’s case, it seems that everything rests on the notion of criminal intent. Did Hillary, then, set up her email server specifically to subvert the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)? Did she set up her email server for the express purpose of passing classified information to people not entitled to receive it? … But that’s not the standard ….

 

***

 

I don’t care whether or not she had criminal intent. My own trial judge says that it doesn’t matter. But if Hillary didn’t have criminal intent, and that’s the reason the Justice Department uses to not prosecute her, then Tom Drake and I, at the very least, deserve a pardon. Otherwise, the system really is as corrupt as so many Americans say it is.

Kirakou also points out:

She revealed the names of undercover CIA officers by using her unclassified and unprotected personal email server. That may be a violation both of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Intelligence Identities Act of 1982 (IIPA).

Clinton’s Security Clearance Should Be Revoked …

Diane Roark – a former top staff member on the House Intelligence Committee – explained to Washington’s Blog why Clinton should be disqualified from serving as president:

Though nothing was found against any of us [high-level whistleblowers on mass surveillance by the NSA] after an investigation of over four years, and [Pulitzer prize-winning] reporter Risen even said publicly several times that he had not known any of us, our clearances were never returned. Obviously one cannot be POTUS without clearances, so Hillary should be disqualified on that ground alone. Though the President is the chief intel consumer, I would think agencies would withhold particularly sensitive items given her clear subordination of security to the goal of keeping her records private so she cannot be criticized and to enhance her political career.

NEVER BEFORE Has the FBI Publicized Its Recommendation

Former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker said:

I’ve been involved in the criminal investigation for the FBI of Congressmen, Senators, and officials of every description …. I cannot ever remember any FBI director – or any FBI official – coming out with a referral and the substance of a recommendation. So that it in itself is highly, highly unusual.

Alex Emmons notes:

Matthew Miller, who was a spokesman for the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder, called Comey’s press conference an “absolutely unprecedented, appalling, and a flagrant violation of Justice Department regulations.” He told The Intercept: “The thing that’s so damaging about this is that the Department of Justice is supposed to reach conclusions and put them in court filings. There’s a certain amount of due process there.”

 

Legal experts could not recall another time that the FBI had made its recommendation so publicly.

 

“It’s not unusual for the FBI to take a strong positions on whether charges should be brought in a case,” said University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck. “The unusual part is publicizing it.”

The Rule of Law Is Dead In America

CIA whistleblower Kirakou notes:

Comey’s decision reflects the utter hypocrisy of the justice system in matters of national security.

 

***

 

If you are a whistleblower you can expect the entire weight of the US government to fall on your head. But if you are a well-connected political figure, or a friend of the president, you can violate the country’s espionage laws with impunity and know that you’ll get away with it.

Glenn Greenwald writes:

What happened here is glaringly obvious. It is the tawdry by-product of a criminal justice mentality in which – as I documented in my 2011 book With Liberty and Justice for Some – those who wield the greatest political and economic power are virtually exempt from the rule of law even when they commit the most egregious crimes, while only those who are powerless and marginalized are harshly punished, often for the most trivial transgressions.

 

Had someone who was obscure and unimportant and powerless done what Hillary Clinton did – recklessly and secretly install a shoddy home server and worked with Top Secret information on it, then outright lied to the public about it when they were caught – they would have been criminally charged long ago, with little fuss or objection. But Hillary Clinton is the opposite of unimportant. She’s the multi-millionaire former First Lady, Senator from New York, and Secretary of State, supported by virtually the entire political, financial and media establishment to be the next President, arguably the only person standing between Donald Trump and the White House.

 

Like the Wall Street tycoons whose systemic fraud triggered the 2008 global financial crisis, and like the military and political officials who instituted a worldwide regime of torture, Hillary Clinton is too important to be treated the same as everyone else under the law. “Felony charges appear to be reserved for people of the lowest ranks. Everyone else who does it either doesn’t get charged or gets charged with a misdemeanor,” Virginia defense attorney Edward MacMahon told Politico last year about secrecy prosecutions. Washington defense attorney Abbe Lowell has similarly denounced the “profound double standard” governing how the Obama DOJ prosecutes secrecy cases: “lower-level employees are prosecuted . . . because they are easy targets and lack the resources and political connections to fight back.”

 

The fact that Clinton is who she is undoubtedly what caused the FBI to accord her the massive benefit of the doubt when assessing her motives, when finding nothing that was – in the words of Comey – “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.”

 

But a system that accords treatment based on who someone is, rather than what they’ve done, is the opposite of one conducted under the rule of law.

Indeed, there are two systems of justice in America … one for the fatcats … and one for everyone else.

After all, the government protects criminal wrongdoing by prosecuting whistleblowers. The Obama administration has sentenced whistleblowers to dozens of times the jail time of all other presidents COMBINED). And the government has framed whistleblowers with false evidence.

And yet the government goes to great lengths to protect the elites against charges of criminal wrongdoing.

As former prosecutor (and Clinton supporter) Chuck Hobbs puts it:

With Comey indicating that over 100 emails analyzed by his agents contained some level of classified information, and with him further indicating that Clinton used her private servers in areas where “hostile actors” could have easily accessed her account, as a former prosecutor, I would think that a prosecution should be forthcoming; such would be the logical conclusion considering the facts that Clinton agreed not to break the law and that she broke the law either knowingly or negligently.

 

Comey’s comments constitute a form of legal sophistry in that prosecutors did not need to prove that Clinton intended to commit a criminal act. Comey and staunch Clinton apologists keep providing cover by adding that element — intent — that simply is not needed. Indeed, under federal and state laws, negligence roughly means an “indifference” or careless attitude toward the proscribed conduct and with Comey calling the conduct “extremely careless,” an argument can be made that Clinton was grossly negligent in her acts.

 

But the fact that no prosecution is pending this day is so not because Clinton was right or has been vindicated, but because the Washington elites in both major political parties protect their own. Generally, I am not prone to conspiracy theories, but I do not find it coincidental that last week, former President Bill Clinton just happened to force a meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch — in private — on an airport tarmac in Arizona only days before Lynch’s employee, James Comey, announces his recommendation that no charges should be pursued. Or that on the same day that Comey announces his decision, that his big boss — President Obama — just happens to be campaigning with Clinton in Charlotte, North Carolina.

 

But even if each of the above were coincidental, we cannot ignore that any other career Foreign Service officer or governmental official with security clearances would have been charged with a criminal offense, fired or bothMost would have faced arrest and indictment by federal agents and prosecutors, not a public press conference where the head of the FBI makes arguments usually proffered by defense counsel that has been retained at great expense by the accused. If for no other reason, this is disconcerting because the only thing that keeps our nation of laws intact is belief that no person is above the law. But since the two major parties’ presumptive candidates — Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump — both have skeletons in their closets, ranging from public corruption to marital assault, and with neither ever having had to endure a peregrination through the justice system at any point in their adult lives, it becomes more obvious than ever that the rich and powerful seem to know instinctively that when accused of wrongdoing, absolutely nothing will come of it, no matter how serious the allegations.

via http://ift.tt/29z5ZYk George Washington

Welcome To Planet Debt

Authored by Bonner & Partners' Bill Bonner (annotated by Acting-Man's Pater Tenebrarum),

Low Interest Rate Persons

She is a low-interest-rate person. She has always been a low-interest-rate person. And I must be honest. I am a low-interest-rate person. If we raise interest rates, and if the dollar starts getting too strong, we’re going to have some very major problems.

— Donald Trump

TrumpoYell

Two low interest rate persons! The Trumpsumptive president (Donald the Tremendous) can be seen here indicating the approximate size of the interest rate that will still keep us out of “major problems”.

 

With startling clarity, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee described himself – and Fed chief Janet Yellen.  But he could have just as easily been talking about his rival in this year’s presidential elections, Hillary Clinton.

Donald Trump had already gone broke – twice – by the time Bill Clinton took office. But then, the combination of lower interest rates and rising asset prices saved him.

And extraordinary abundance and prosperity of the Clinton years owes little to Mr.  and Mrs. Clinton and much to the fact that Alan Greenspan had inaugurated his famous “Greenspan Put” in 1987.

 

DJIA, 1987

1987 – the year of Greenspan’s original sin – click to enlarge.

 

Greenspan reassured investors that he had their backs with a rate cut whenever the stock market took a turn for the worse. This led to an “illusion of prosperity,” as stock prices rose, helping Bill get reelected… and gaining national prominence for Hillary as the aggrieved wife in the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Stock prices filled with hot air, until the bubble in the Nasdaq blew up in Clinton’s last year in office. Both of this year’s presumptive candidates are “low interest rate” people, all right. Their adult lives were marked by the credit cycle and their careers shaped by ballooning debt. And now, almost the entire world economy depends on low rates.

We live on Planet Debt.

 

Subzero Yields

The amount of government debt trading below zero yield rose to $10 trillion last week. In Japan, negative yields run out the yield curve until 2051. Overall, interest rates are said to be lower than they’ve been in 5,000 years.

This is a fanciful but entertaining factoid; you can’t compare the apples of Sargon the Great to those of Donald the Tremendous.

 

sargon

The famous (more or less) Sargon the Great, ruler of Akkad. What were interest rates in his time? And why did he get punched in the eye?

 

“How cometh it to be that interest rates ride so low… while the hack and the hustler ride so high?” you might wonder. We are glad you asked.

We have been connecting dots. These are dots that others do not want to connect. Because they connect to too many reputations, too many fortunes, and too many opinions.

We are talking about the line that runs from the post-1971 money system to the Deep State, passing through the spectacular rise of China… the spectacular fall of the U.S. (where the average man has made no financial progress in the last 40 years)… to the remarkable luck of the 1% (who got richer and richer, as most people around them lost ground).

Yes, the line ties together the great kvetches of our time: inequality, stagnation, alienation, globalization, debt, the failure of the economy, the failure of democracy… and the failure of our own culture.

According to political scientist Charles Murray, white middle- and lower-middle-class Americans now suffer from the ills that were once confined to ghettos – broken homes, drug addiction, unemployment, and violence. Surely, we’re not going to try to pin that on the Deep State, too?

Yes  –  we are.

 

eye-4

Deep State eye, nearly all-seeing these days (it is said)

 

Deep State Money

“Our” money system is not “ours.” It is the money system created by, for, and of the financial insiders. It is the Deep State’s money system! But wait… we sense an objection: “Isn’t it the money system set up by our elected representatives – and supposed to serve us all?”

Oh, dear reader, sometimes you make us laugh. Really, where have you been? America’s money system is largely under the control of one organization – the Fed.

And the Fed was set up at a secret meeting of plutocrats and bankers (no kidding they rode down to Georgia in a private train, using phony names so they wouldn’t be identified).

 

FRB

The boys who hatched out the Federal Reserve in a secret meeting at Jekyll Island in 1910. The Fed was so obviously in the public interest, they were going there in secret, using fake names. Later, the Federal Reserve Act was passed in a vote held in the middle of the night on 23. December 1913 (just before Christmas), allegedly to make sure it would pass (no, that was of course sheer coincidence…).

 

It is not owned by the people, nor by their government. It is owned by private banks. And it is controlled by a small group of unelected insiders – mostly bankers and their economists. It has never been audited. And no member of Congress really knows what it is up to.

 

Miracle-Gro

On August 15, 1971, President Nixon made the fateful announcement that the world’s reserve currency, the U.S. dollar, would no longer be directly convertible to gold. But do you think Mr. Nixon came up with that on his own? Do you think he was advised by our elected representatives? No chance.

Instead, the insiders, the bankers, and the deepest of the Deep State elite had his ear. The president – and probably almost everyone else – had no real idea of what was going on, or why.

 

nixon2

If one listens closely to Nixon’s speech in which he announced the “temporary closing of the gold window” (the temporary suspension of the dollar-gold conversion that has now lasted a cool 45 years), a good case can be made that he was probably utterly clueless… he definitely wasn’t graced with a whole lot of economic literacy, let’s put it that way.

 

But that was 45 years ago. A lot has happened since. The new money was a Sahara for the common American; his income growth dried up… his wealth ceased growing. But it was Miracle-Gro for the Deep State.

The insiders sank their roots deeper and deeper into the U.S. economy, sucking out more and more wealth and power. Whether the insiders fully realized what they were doing in August 1971, we don’t know. But as the system developed, they liked it. More than that, they became dependent on it.

And now, almost the entire world – its stocks, bonds, real estate, and collectibles; along with its businesses, retailers, factories, investors, bonused-up executives, papered-up speculators, Ph.D. economists, and politicians – almost everybody with wealth or power depends on the insiders’ cheap money.

 

DeepState

In the case of the Deep State, the post-Nixon Miracle-Gro has been especially effective with respect to the root system. It is now so deeply rooted, it can no longer be uprooted, at least as long as the Miracle-Gro is still working (and probably there’s already a plan B for the day after as well).

 

“Government can have no more than two legitimate purposes,” wrote the 18th-century English political philosopher William Godwin, “the suppression of injustice against individuals within the community and the common defense against external invasion.”

But now it has another purpose – a goal it is desperate to achieve – keeping the low-interest rate planet spinning.

 

via http://ift.tt/29ielQR Tyler Durden

Domestic Trade Is Disintegrating: Heavy Truck Orders Plunge To Lowest Since 2010

Who says you need trade and logistics to maintain the S&P within 2% of its all time high? Not the Fed, that’s who, and it’s a wonderful thing because the collapse in US heavy trucking – the backbone of domestic trade infrastructure and logistical supply chains – is in a state of absolute freefall.

According to the latest data from ACT Research released today, June orders for new heavy-duty, or Class 8, trucks plunged to just 13,100, the lowest number since 2010 according to the WSJ (and since 2012 according to Bloomberg, but no need to split hairs here) indicating that trucking companies – the forward-looking bedrock of any viable recovery along with rails – expect little relief from a weak freight market and sluggish economic growth. This month’s order activity was the lowest monthly total since July 2012 and the worst June since 2009.

As the WSJ reports, Trucking companies ordered 13,100 Class 8 trucks, which are used for long-haul routes, the fewest orders since the third quarter of 2010 and a more-than 30% drop from last year. With the manufacturing levels depressed thanks in part due to the strong dollar, and retail inventory levels high, freight volumes have not kept up with the ramp up in truck orders in recent years, leading to overcapacity, said Kenny Vieth, ACT’s president. Truck orders plummeted last fall and have held at low levels throughout 2016.

“In a nutshell, Class 8 sales far outpaced freight creation through 2015 and early 2016, causing a capacity glut, which the industry is now paying for” with lower profits, Mr. Vieth said.

That is one explanation. Another is that traditional clients of the OEMs have far better visibility into the order book, and contrary to the rosy projections presented by the Institute for Supply Management, the future is quite dreadful.

Meanwhile, trucking companies including Swift Transportation have said in recent months they are shifting some vehicles to the spot market and idling others in order to manage the tougher market.

“Fleets are cautious as freight demand has cooled off this year,” said Don Ake, vice president of commercial vehicles at FTR, another research firm which reported similar order numbers. “There are enough trucks to handle freight right now with carriers [in] a wait-and-see mode before adding trucks or replacing older units.”

Which is another way of saying nobody wants to spend on growth because it simply is not there.

Ake added that “the Class 8 market is stuck in a holding pattern, at the bottom end of this cycle. This is what the summer looks like in a market down cycle, so we can expect this level of activity for a couple more months.”

There was some optimism: “We do anticipate higher orders later this year.  However, the volume of orders will be determined by the strength of the economy and freight activity at that time.”

As the WSJ adds, in another sign of a weakened freight market, the American Trucking Associations said Wednesday that driver turnover at large truckload fleets, which traditionally have trouble keeping drivers, decreased 13 percentage points in the first quarter to 89%–the lowest level since the second quarter of 2015.

“The decline in turnover is reflective of the softening in the freight economy during the first quarter,” said Bob Costello, chief economist at the ATA. And that, in turn, is reflective of the softening in the US and global economy, a softening which today appears set to push the S&P500 back over 2,100 yet again.

via http://ift.tt/29mz78m Tyler Durden

Europe Wasn’t “Fixed” and Now It Is Even MORE Bankrupt Than It Was in 2012.

So the world has woken up and realized what we’ve been pointing out for four years now… that Europe wasn’t fixed in 2012.

European Financials have fallen back to levels not seen since the Crisis was raging to the point that France and Germany floated the idea of imposing capital and border controls.

 

The whole mess was “saved” based on a lie. Mario Draghi claimed he’d do “whatever it takes… and believe me it will be enough” and the markets took him at his word.

Unfortunately the math doesn’t support this. The EU banking system is leveraged at 26 to 1. Many banks are leveraged far above this. Lehman was leveraged at 30 to 1 when it imploded. People laugh that somehow that was allowed to happen in 2007… without realizing that Europe’s entire €46 trillion banking system is just below that.

Since Draghi “saved” Europe in 2012, he’s cut interest rates to negative FOUR times and has implemented over €1 trillion in QE expanding the ECB’s balance sheet well above its previous record high set at the depth of the crisis.

Meanwhile, EU GDP has remained below its pre-crisis highs (both 2008 and 2011).

Meanwhile, Debt to GDP has risen to 90% for the whole of the union, with problem countries like Italy and Spain seeing their Debt to GDP ratios soar to new record highs.

The whole mess is one giant house of cards. Bankrupt nations whose debt is owned by insolvent banks which use said debt to backstop trillions of Euros worth of derivatives trades.

If Lehman was an obvious disaster waiting to happen what are the EU banks? And with the ECB itself now leveraged at over 36 to 1… who’s going to bailout this mess out?

More and more the financial system feels like it did in late 2007/ early 2008: the obvious cracks have emerged, but 99% of investors are ignoring them.

Smart investors, however, are preparing for what’s to come.

On that note, we are already preparing our clients for this with a 21-page investment report titled the Stock Market Crash Survival Guide.

In it, we outline the coming crash will unfold…which investments will perform best… and how to take out “crash” insurance trades that will pay out huge returns during a market collapse.

We are giving away just 1,000 copies of this report for FREE to the public.

To pick up yours, swing by:

http://ift.tt/1HW1LSz

Best Regards

Graham Summers

Chief Market Strategist

Phoenix Capital Research

 

 

 

via http://ift.tt/29owyhQ Phoenix Capital Research

The FBI’s Decision Could Ultimately Be An Advantage For Trump

As everyone is well aware, Donald Trump has always had difficulty getting the GOP to unify and rally behind a Trump presidential candidacy – not that it was a main priority of course. The divide in the party seemingly climaxed late in the GOP primary when Trump was leading by a relatively wide margin, yet the GOP establishment tried in a clumsy and desperate effort to form an alliance between Cruz and Kasich in order to stop Trump – obviously that effort failed miserably.

While it has still been a slow grind to gain support, those such as Paul Ryan have eventually made their way over to support a Trump candidacy. However, all of that difficulty that the Trump campaign has had unifying the party could change as a result of the FBI's decision not to recommend charges be brought against Hillary Clinton.

Upon learning of the news that the FBI wasn't recommending charges, Trump made a point that it was going to continue to be a topic of discussion, even if as Bloomberg notes, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta said "we're moving on." Paul Ryan followed suit, saying that FBI director Jim Comey would be called to hearings on the matter, as well as making it known that "no one should be above the law."

If those in the GOP continue to join in the chorus, Trump could find this development as a way to finally unify the party and have everyone rally behind the campaign for the first time – the momentum could be huge. Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign chairman said "Running against Clinton is good on a lot of fronts. She is the epitome of the establishment and what people see as what's wrong with the country, and what they want changed. From the standpoint of our party, no one wants a third Obama term and that's what the country sees her as."

Trump will look to continue to build on the momentum by putting together an upcoming speech that will unveil new changes to his tax plan, as well as perhaps announcing his running mate next week. As former Senator Scott Brown, a surrogate for Trump points out, "The unifying person of the party may not be Donald Trump, but Hillary. While many people may not like him, they are going to vote for him, because they don't like or trust her."

As a reminder, Trump surged ahead of Clinton in the latest Rasmussen poll, a signal that Trump's push on an "us vs the elites" type of mentality appears to be working already as well.

Both Kellyanne Conway, a Trump adviser, and Jim Manley, a Democratic strategist agree that Comey's remarks would be turned into Republican television advertisements (if Trump ever decides to run any ads). "If you listen real carefully you can hear the sound of 30-second attack ads being crafted all over town. Comey gave Republicans plenty of ammunition." Manley said.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus let out what the rallying cry would be by saying "What is it about Hillary Clinton that allows her to get away with all this stuff? She's a terrific liar." Priebus also said he's confident that Trump can stay focused on Clinton, adding "There's plenty of material to focus on Hillary Clinton. And if he does that, he's going to win."

Predictably the Democrats are downplaying questions surrounding the FBI's decision, and the momentum that Trump may be able to gain from it.

"We think the matter is done. It's like many other things – Benghazi. They go after her, go after her, go after her. But It's done." Podesta said.

* * *

How all of this will ultimately play out remains to be seen, but given that Trump has already demonstrated the ability to use Brexit to his advantage, it would be wise of the Democrats to acknowledge that this may in fact unify the GOP and create a surge of momentum heading into the fall for the Trump campaign. On the other hand, does a completely disengaged and apathetic electorate truly care about any of this? That may be the most important question of the entire campaign.

via http://ift.tt/29mx8AH Tyler Durden

Americans & Canadians Face Silver Shortages As The Investment Deficit Surges

SRSrocco

By the SRSrocco Report,

Americans and Canadians will likely face silver shortages in the future as investment demand continues to surge higher.  This will come at time as the silver price skyrockets, thus making it even harder for investors to acquire physical metal.

The U.S. and Royal Canadian Mints produce most of the Official Silver coins in the world.  In 2015, the combined total of Silver Eagles and Maples sales equaled 81.3 million ounces (Moz).  This is a stunning amount as their total sales in 2001 were only 9.2 Moz:

U.S. & Canadian Silver Production vs Official Coin sales

This chart was first published in my THE SILVER CHART REPORT.  It was one of 48 charts in the report on five sections of the Global Silver Market & Industry.

The Silver Chart ReportAs the price of silver skyrockets during the next global financial collapse, the Silver Market will become one of the world’s most explosive markets in the future.

The Silver Chart Report is a must-read for the new and experienced precious metals investor. Most analysts focus on a certain area or sector of the silver market.

However, the information in this report illuminates a holistic view of many sectors of the silver industry, capturing the relationships that connect many parts of the market.

CLICK HERE to lean more about THE SILVER CHART REPORT.

As the chart above shows, U.S. and Canada had to import nearly 34 Moz of silver in 2015 just to supply the surging Silver Eagle & Maple demand of 81.3 Moz, as their combined silver production of 47.6 Moz fell significantly short.  This was a huge change since 2001, as the U.S. and Canada had 87.4 Moz of their domestic silver mine supply remaining after 9.2 Moz went to their U.S. Eagle and Maple sales.

Even though the U.S. and Canada had to import 34 Moz in 2015 just to supply their Official Silver coin program, this is only part of the total net physical silver investment deficit.  If we include total U.S. and Canadian Silver Bar & Coin demand, the silver investment deficit is much larger.

Surging U.S. & Canadian Silver Bar & Coin Demand Cause The Investment Deficit To Balloon Higher

If we add the revised Silver Bar demand published in the 2016 World Silver Survey, now including “Private silver bars & rounds”, this would be the result:

U.S. & Canada Silver Production vs Silver Bar & Coin

I only revised the data for 2014 and 2015 which includes Silver Bar demand.  I could not revise the data for 2001-2013 as there isn’t enough detailed information in the World Silver Surveys to provide accurate figures.  However, we can now see just how much more physical silver investment demand there is in the U.S. and Canada when we include Silver Bar demand.

If I take these figures, now including private silver bars and rounds, we can see the huge impact on domestic mine supply since 2001:

U.S. Silver Mine Supply vs Investment Deficit

In 2001, the U.S. and Canada enjoyed a 86.1 Moz domestic silver mine supply surplus when total Silver Bar & Coin demand was deducted (Silver Eagle & Maple sales were 9.2 Moz and I estimated Silver Bar was 1.3 Moz for a total of 10.5 Moz).  However, the situation has totally reversed as U.S. and Canadian Silver Bar & Coin demand hit a record 133.1 Moz in 2015.

NOTE:  The World Silver Surveys do not provide actual Official Silver coin demand figures for the U.S. or Canada (or for any other country).  What they publish are total sales of each country’s Official Silver coin sales.  Many Silver Eagles & Maples are purchased by foreigners.  However, I believe Americans and Canadians purchase higher quantities of foreign Official Silver coins (Australian Kangaroos and Austrian Philharmonics) to offset Silver Eagles and Maples shipped abroad.

That 133.1 Moz Silver Bar & Coin demand figure for the U.S. and Canada includes 81.3 Moz of Silver Eagles and Maples as well as 51.8 Moz of reported U.S. Silver Bar demand (which now includes private bars and rounds).  GFMS did not include any data for Canadian Silver Bar demand.  Which means, the 133.1 Moz figure for the U.S. and Canada may be conservative.

That being said, the U.S. and Canada suffered a 85.5 Moz net physical silver investment deficit.  Which means, these two countries had to import 85.5 Moz of silver just to supply Silver Bar & Coin demand.  This is a big deal if we compare the change since 2001.

Total U.S. & Canada Silver Fabrication Supply Shortfall Triples Since 2001

According to the data from the 2010 World Silver Survey, total U.S. and Canadian silver fabrication demand in 2001 was 177 Moz.  Total silver fabrication demand includes industrial, jewelry, silverware and silver bar & coin.  Thus, the U.S. and Canada only had to import 80 Moz of silver to supply all their silver needs in 2001.

U.S. & Canada Mine Supply vs Total Fabrication

However, in 2015…. the situation changed drastically.  The 2016 World Silver Survey reports that total silver fabrication demand for these two countries was a staggering 307 Moz–Silver Bar & Coin demand accounted for 133 Moz (43% of the total).  Now that U.S. and Canadian domestic silver mine supply has fallen to only 47.6 Moz (in 2015), these two countries had to import nearly 260 Moz to supply all their silver needs.  This is more than three times what they had to import in 2001.

The white dotted lines in the total fabrication blue bars in the chart represent Silver Bar & Coin Demand.  In 2001, total Silver Bar & Coin demand was estimated to be 10.5 Moz, accounting for only 6% of total silver fabrication demand.  However, total Silver Bar & Coin demand in 2015 shot up to 133 Moz, which represents 43% of the total 307 Moz in total fabrication demand of these two countries.

Here is the CLINCHER.  Total U.S. and Canadian silver industrial, jewelry and silverware demand (minus Silver Bar & Coin), only increased from 166.5 Moz in 2001 to 174 Moz in 2015.  The big increase came from Silver Bar & Coin demand that jumped from 10.5 Moz in 2001 to 133 Moz in 2015.

The United States and Canada will be in serious trouble when the world wakes up to the “SILVER STORY.”  When institutions and hedge funds start to move into silver in a big way, there just won’t be enough silver to go around.  The biggest squeeze will occur in the U.S. and Canadian market, where silver investment demand is now the highest in the world.

Unfortunately, the U.S. and Canada will not be able to import enough silver to supply all of its silver needs…. only at much higher prices.  Even then, I believe we are going to experience severe silver shortages.

Some analysts say there is no such thing as a shortage.  They claim that a higher price will satisfy any shortages.  While that makes sense in FINANCE 101, it won’t work in the real market as investment demand skyrockets.

The Silver Threshold Line Will Likely Be Defended By The Bullion Banks

For those investors who thought we would continue to see much higher silver prices in early Asian trading today or in the Western markets tomorrow, don’t forget that the bullion banks will likely defend the 50 MA of $20.50.  Here is Kitco’s silver chart showing early Asian trading:

Silver Chart 50 MA

The yellow dotted line represents the $20.50 Threshold trend-line that I wrote about in my previous article, WATCH OUT If Silver Breaks Through This Threshold Line:

Silver 20 Year chart

While I don’t pay much attention to short-term technical analysis, a lot of traders most certainly do.  Once silver closes well above that 50 MA (Blue Line), I believe we will see a lot more hedge funds and big investors pile into the silver market.  However, this is not something the Bullion banks would like to see as they are holding onto a lot of UNDERWATER short contracts.

So, don’t despair, as this is just part of the game.  At some point, an onslaught of traders moving into silver will totally overwhelm the bullion banks and we will finally see that Commercial Bank Short Squeeze from hell.  Investors need to realize that the Chinese who are now piling into Bitcoin, will likely make their way into silver.

……. it’s just a matter of time.

Lastly, if you haven’t checked out our new PRECIOUS METALS INVESTING section or our new LOWEST COST PRECIOUS METALS STORAGE page, I highly recommend you do.

Check back for new articles and updates at the SRSrocco Report.

via http://ift.tt/29owxdY SRSrocco

Here We Go Again – Stockman Warns Of August 2007 Redux

Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

Nearly everywhere on the planet the giant financial bubbles created by the central banks during the last two decades are fracturing. The latest examples are the crashing bank stocks in Italy and elsewhere in Europe and the sudden trading suspensions by four UK commercial property funds.

If this is beginning to sound like August 2007 that’s because it is. And the denials from the casino operators are coming in just as thick and fast.

Back then, the perma-bulls were out in full force peddling what can be called the “one-off” bromide. That is, evidence of a brewing storm was spun as just a few isolated mistakes that had no bearing on the broad market trends because the “goldilocks” economy was purportedly rock solid.

Thus, the unexpected collapse of Countrywide Financial was blamed on the empire building excesses of the Orange Man (Angelo Mozillo)  and the collapse of the Bear Stearns mortgage funds was purportedly owing to a lapse in supervision.

So it boiled down to an injunction of “nothing to see here”.  Just move along and keep buying.

In fact, after reaching a peak of 1550 on July 18, 2007, the S&P 500 stumbled by about 9% during the August crisis, but the dip-buyers kept coming back in force on the one-off assurances of the sell-side “experts”. By October 9 the index was back up to the pre-crisis peak at 1565 and then drifted lower in sideways fashion until September 2008.

The bromides were false, of  course. Upon the Lehman event the fractures exploded, and the hammer dropped on the stock market in violent fashion.

During the next 160 days, the S&P 500 plunged by a further 50%. Altogether, more than $10 trillion of market cap was ionized.
^SPX Chart

^SPX data by YCharts

The supreme irony of the present moment is that the perma-bulls insist that there is no lesson to be learned from the Great Financial Crisis. That’s because the single greatest risk asset liquidation of modern times, it turns out, was also, purportedly, a one-off event.

It can’t happen again, we are assured. After all, the major causes have been rectified and 100-year floods don’t recur, anyway.

In that vein it is insisted that U.S. banks have all been fixed and now have “fortress” balance sheets. Likewise, the housing market has staged a healthy recovery, but remains lukewarm and stable without any signs of bubble excesses. And stock market PE multiples are purportedly within their historic range and fully warranted by current ultra-low interest rates.

This is complete daytraders’ nonsense, of course. During the past year, for example, the core CPI has increased by 2.20% while the 10-year treasury this morning penetrated its all-time low of 1.38%.  The real yield is effectively negative 1%, and that’s ignoring taxes on interest payments.

The claim that you can capitalize the stock market at an unusually high PE multiple owing to ultra-low interest rates, therefore, implies that deep negative real rates are a permanent condition, and that governments will be able to destroy savers until the end of time.

The truth of the matter is that interest rates have nowhere to go in the longer-run except up, meaning that the current cap rates are just plain absurd. Indeed, after last’s week’s “bre-lief” rally the S&P 500 was trading at 24.3X LTM reported earnings

Moreover, the $87 per share reported for the period ending in March was actually down by 18% from the $106 per share peak recorded in September 2014. So in the face of falling earnings and inexorably rising interest rates, the casino punters are being urged to close their eyes and buy the dip one more time.

And that’s not the half of it. This time is actually different, but not in a good way. Last time around the post-August 2007 dead-cat bounce was against $85 per share of S&P LTM earnings, meaning that on the eve of the 2008 crash the trailing multiple was only 18.4X.

That’s right. After the near-death experience of 2008-2009 and a recovery so halting and tepid as to literally scream-out that the main street economy is impaired and broken, the casino gamblers have dramatically upped the valuation ante yet again.

There is a reason for such reckless obduracy, however, that goes well beyond the propensity of Wall Street punters and robo-traders to stay at the tables until they see blood on the floor. Namely, their failure to understand that the current central banking regime of Bubble Finance inherently and inexorably generates financial boom and bust cycles that must, and always do, end in spectacular crashes.

Bubble Finance is based on the systematic falsification of financial prices. That’s the essence of ZIRP and NIRP.

It’s also the inherent result of massive QE bond-buying with central banks credits conjured from thin air. And it’s the purpose of the wealth effects doctrine and stock market puts. The latter are designed to inflate stock prices and net worths, thereby encouraging households to borrow (against rising collateral values) and spend on the expectation of permanently higher real wealth.

The trouble is, financial prices cannot be falsified indefinitely. At length, they become the subject of a pure confidence game and the risk of shocks and black swans that even the central banks are unable to off-set. Then the day of reckoning arrives in traumatic and violent aspect.

And that brings us to the father of Bubble Finance, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. In a word, he systematically misused the power of the Fed to short-circuit every single attempt at old-fashion financial market corrections and bubble liquidations during his entire 19-year tenure in the Eccles Building.

That includes his inaugural panic in October 1987 when he flooded the market with liquidity after Black Monday. Worse still, he also sent the monetary gendarmes of the New York Fed out to demand that Wall Street houses trade with parties they knew to be insolvent and to prop up stock prices and other financial valuations that were wholly unwarranted by the fundamentals.

Greenspan went on to make a career of countermanding market forces and destroying the process of honest price discovery in the capital and money markets. Certainty, that’s what he did when he slashed interest rates in 1989-1990, and when he crushed the justified revolt of the bond vigilantes in 1994 with a renewed burst of money printing.

Ditto, when he bailed out Long-Term capital and goosed the stock market in the fall of 1998—-a maneuver that generated the speculator dotcom bubble and subsequent collapse.

And then he applied the coup de grace to what remained of honest price discovery on Wall Street. During the 30 months after December 2000, he slashed interest rates from 6.25% to 1.0% in a relentless flood of liquidity. The latter, in turn, ignited the most insane housing market bubble the world had ever seen.

During the second quarter of 2003, for example, as rates were brought down to a previously unheard of 1.0%, the financial system generated mortgage financings at upwards of a $5 trillion annual rate. Even a few years earlier, a $1 trillion rate of mortgage financing had been on the high side.

Needless to say, housing prices and housing finance costs were systematically and radically distorted. The crash of 2008-2009 was but the inexorable outcome of Greenspan’s policy of financial asset price falsification—–a policy that his successor, Bubbles Ben, doubled down upon when the brown stuff hit the fan.

So as we sit on the cusp of the next Bubble Finance crash, now comes Alan Greenspan to explain once again that he knows nothing about financial bubbles at all.  According to the unrepentant ex-Maestro, it’s all due to the irrationalities of “human nature”.

Why, central banks have nothing to do with it at all!

“The 2000 bubble collapsed. We barely could see a change in economic activity. On October 19, 1987, the Dow Jones went down 23% in one day. You will not find the slightest indication of that collapse of that bubble in the GDP number – or in industrial production or anything else. So I think that you have to basically decide what is causing what. I think the major issue in the financial models has got to be to capture the bubble effect. Bubbles are essentially part of of the fact that human nature is not wholly rational. And you can see it in the data very clearly.”

No you can’t.  As Doug Noland observed in his most recent post:

At their core, Bubbles are about Credit excess and market distortions. Major Bubbles almost certainly have a major government component. They are indeed toxic, seductively so. Had the Greenspan Fed not backstopped the markets and flooded the system with liquidity post the ’87 Crash, Credit would have tightened and bursting Bubble effects would have been readily apparent throughout the data. Instead, late-eighties (“decade of greed”) excess ensured spectacular Bubbles in junk debt, M&A and coastal real estate. It’s been serial Bubbles ever since.

Noland is completely correct. During the early part of the Bubble Finance era, the main street economy was goosed time and again by cheap credit, which induced household and business spending from the proceeds of steadily higher leverage.

At length, the American economy essentially performed an LBO upon itself. The historic leverage ratio of 1.5X total credit market debt to national income soared to 3.5X on the eve of the financial crisis. That meant that the US economy was lugging around $52 trillion of debt in December 2007——or $30 trillion more than would have been outstanding under the historic golden mean of 1.5X.

Needless to say, the one-time leveraging of the US economy’s collective balance sheet did indeed generate incremental GDP, albeit debt fueled spending growth that was unsustainable and ultimately stolen from the future.

Greenspan’s claim, therefore, that earlier bubble collapses did not cause GDP to falter gives sophistry an altogether new definition. In fact, the Fed just rolled one bubble into the next, making the eventual payback all the more traumatic and destructive.

Yet at the time, Greenspan even applauded the exploding and unstable leveraging of household balance sheets. He actually bragged about how he had induced higher consumption expenditures and GDP by encouraging American families to to refinance their castles and then spend the MEW (mortgage equity withdrawal) on a new car or trip to Disneyland.

Here is what happened to the household leverage ratio during Greenspan’s destructive MEW campaign. Does he really think that the nearly parabolic rise of the leverage ratio during his tenure to nearly double the stable historic average was due to the irrationalities of human nature?

Household Leverage Ratio

In fact, the limpid recovery of household consumption spending even by the Fed’s Keynesian measuring sticks is not about human nature at all. It is the consequence of central bank policies that first drove the household sector to a unsustainable balance sheet condition of Peak Debt, and has now left it high and dry under a crushing debt burden of $14.5 trillion.

In short, by its very nature Bubble Finance impregnates the system with FEDs (financial explosive devices). And worse still, what Greenspan started in the US has been exported to the rest of the world.

In part that was owing to the emulation of Bubble Finance policies by all of the world’s central banks. And it was compounded by the often defensive rationalizations for money printing that has been forced upon them by the massive flow of excess dollar liabilities into the global financial system.

That we are now entering August 2007 redux is evident in the rapidly growing crisis in the Italian banking system. What happens near the end of a bubble cycle is that the high flyers that never merited their bloated valuations in the first place are finally abandoned by the punters, as happened with Countrywide and Bear Stearns in late 2007.

In the case of Italy’s third largest bank, Banca Monte dei Paschi Siena, the jig is now up. It is completely insolvent and has been for years. Yet as recently as two years ago it was trading at 225X its current virtually worthless stock price.

But the collapse shown below was not the market at work; it was merely the speculative ethers fueled by Mario Draghi’s printing press finally rushing out of the bubble.
BMDPF Chart

BMDPF data by YCharts

Nor is this an isolated example. As we pointed out last week, the Italian banking system as a whole is the massively bloated and insolvent off-spring of Bubble Finance. Since the turn of the century, its footings have nearly tripled and now stand at an incredible EUR 4 trillion.

Italy Banks Balance Sheet

That happens to represent 2X Italy’s languishing GDP, and a full turn more than the approximate 1X ratio in the year 2000. Yet the only thing more off the charts than this kind of bank asset explosion is the degree to which bad assets were enabled to be accumulated in the banking system without a corrective crisis years ago.

In fact, there are now about $3 trillion of loans in the Italian banking system and upwards of 13% are non-performing. In relative terms, that is nearly 3X the bad debt ratio which prevailed in the US banking system at the peak of the subprime crisis.

Needless to say, these EUR 400 billion of NPLs are growing rapidly, but are not even close to being fully reserved. In fact, Monte Paschi, Unicredit and three other big Italian banks have EUR 119 billion of NPLs that are unprovisioned. That compares to total book equity of just EUR 125 billion in Italy’s entire banking system at the end of Q1.

Italian banks are essentially insolvent. That shares have been clobbered since the Brexit event, and are down by 50% to 70% since the beginning of the year is simply the belated recognition by speculators that neither the Italian government nor the ECB is in a position to do whatever it takes to sustain this particularly eregious Bubble Finance scam.

The former has come smack-up against the EU bail-in rules, while even the latter’s printing press will not be allowed by the Germans to extend QE to the EUR 187 billion of Italian bank bonds that are headed for a massive haircut.

Indeed, as recently as two years ago the traded equity and debt of the Italian banking system was valued at upwards of $400 billion. In fact, it is essentially worthless.

The battle of the Italian government to rescue this catastrophe from a complete meltdown will undoubtedly create the next crisis of governance and survival for the imploding EU. But even before that eventuality fully materializes, the larger point has already been proven.

To wit, like Countrywide and its 2007 compatriots, the implosion of the Italian banking system is not a one-off occurrence. Instead, it is the part and parcel consequence of Bubble Finance.

And there are a lot more Italian Banking Jobs still to come.

via http://ift.tt/29l1xu8 Tyler Durden

Just One Word Describes This Fed

A simple word count of the Fed’s minutes reveals that the prevailing mood at the Federal Reserve right now can be described with just one word. With exactly 13 instances in the latest, June, FOMC Minutes, it becomes clear that the Fed has never been more “uncertain”…

 

… which is ironic, because in these very minutes, one lament voiced by Fed governors was the following:

Several participants expressed concern that the Committee’s communications had not been fully effective in informing the public how incoming information affected the Committee’s view of the economic outlook, its degree of confidence in the outlook, or the implications for the trajectory of monetary policy.

In other words, the Fed has no clue what is going on, but is concerned that its communications are confusing the “public” about its “degree of confidence” in the economic outlook.

One really couldn’t make this up.

via http://ift.tt/29og0ck Tyler Durden