Month: July 2017

The Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has personally sanctioned Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, adding him to the list of specially designated nationals, freezing any U.S. assets he may have and generally blocking U.S. persons from transactions involving him.

Today’s sanction is a follow up to last week’s announcement by the Trump administration in which the Treasuey revealed sanctions on 13 senior Venezuelan officials in an attempt to deter Maduro from moving forward with plan to rewrite Venezuela’s constitution in what opponents regard as a potential power grab move. Needless to say, that particular attempt failed.

From the Treasury Department:

Venezuela-related Designation
7/31/2017

 

OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL
Specially Designated Nationals List Update
The following individual has been added to OFAC’s SDN List: 

 

MADURO MOROS, Nicolas (Latin: MADURO MOROS, Nicolás), Caracas, Capital District, Venezuela; DOB 23 Nov 1962; POB Caracas, Venezuela; citizen Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. 5892464 (Venezuela); President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (individual).

As we noted yesterday, and as observed earlier today, oil has spiked on concerns that escalating US sanctions against Venezuela could cripple the local oil industry, sending oil prices as much as $5-7/b higher according to a calculations by Barclays.

As discussed previously, Barclays Warren Russell explained what could happen should Trump expand Venezuela’s sanctions to impact its oil sector: “a sharper and longer disruption (eg, exceeding three months) could raise oil prices at least $5-7/b and flatten the curve structure despite an assumed return of some OPEC supply, a more robust US shale response, and weaker demand. It may be just the opportunity OPEC needs to exit its current strategy. US producer hedging activity would pick up if WTI moves to $50-55, limiting price upside potential.”

More here

via http://ift.tt/2uQXZLD Tyler Durden

The stock market's unusually low level of volatility could mark the "quiet before the storm," warns Robert Shiller, the famed Nobel laureate and economics professor at Yale University, who shared some alarming facts about the stock market that cause him to "lie awake worrying."

The Nobel laureate says low volatility paired with a questionable price-earnings ratio could wipe out a chunk of the stock market's value.

"The price increase just went step-by-step with the earnings increase. I think it's an overreaction to good earnings."

The ratio of P/E-to-VIX is euphoric…

His Shiller PE Ratio, also known as CAPE, shows the price-earnings ratio based on average inflation-adjusted earnings from the last 10 years is over 30.

The number carries significance because the only times it's been higher was just before the Great Depression in 1929 and mid-1997 to mid-2001.

"I worry that historically earnings have been trend-reverting," said Shiller.

 

"Admittedly, we do have a president who's going to 'make America great again.' So if he's right, maybe then we're launching out in a whole new path. But it would be the first time in American history."

Shiller's latest analysis shouldn't be taken lightly. His forecasting skills were recognized in 2013 when he won the Nobel Prize in Economics. He's known for predicting both the dot-com bubble and the housing bubble in his book "Irrational Exuberance."

If Shiller is right and the stock market ultimately goes back to trend, it could create havoc.

"It would definitely be a negative for equities. It would be pretty big. We are at a high valuation. The only time we've had a higher valuation than where we are now was around 1929 and around 2000," Shiller said.

 

"We could see a major correction," he said.

 

"This is not a forecast. It's a worry."

To visually comprehend the decoupling from reality (and multiple expansion), here is the Russell 200 this year…

via http://ift.tt/2vmr6cV Tyler Durden

How shocking wa the Scaramucci news to pundits, traders, media and everyone else? So shocking that the PredictIt contract “Will Anthony Scaramucci’s role as WH communications director end in August 2017 or earlier?” exploded from 15 cents as of this afternoon to 100 in the blink of an eye.

To those who just made 7x their money, congratulations. To the shorts, our condolences.

via http://ift.tt/2udpihr Tyler Durden

Authored by Lakshman Achuthan via BusinessCycle.com,

Under Ms. Yellen’s leadership, the preemption of inflation based on the Phillips curve has become the lodestar of monetary policy. Accordingly, last week’s Fed statement, while allowing that inflation “is expected to remain somewhat below 2 percent in the near term,” reaffirms the view that it will “stabilize around the Committee's 2 percent objective over the medium term.”

The Phillips curve is a graphical representation of the ostensible inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment, implying that it should be downward-sloping. Yet, following the post-recession rebound in inflation in 2009, as Chart 1 shows, the relationship between the unemployment rate (horizontal axis) and the PCE inflation measure favored by the Fed (vertical axis) has been nothing of the sort.

Each dot on the chart represents the combination of the jobless rate and the inflation rate seen in every month since the end of 2009. While there is no obvious pattern in the data, the best-fit line is actually upward-sloping, as evident from the chart.

In other words, the Phillips curve is badly broken. Yet, this should not be a novel insight.

As we wrote at the end of the last century, “[t]he ‘Phillips curve’ relationship between unemployment and inflation has long been a dubious proposition. The Future Inflation Gauge remains a better guide to the direction of inflation” (U.S. Cyclical Outlook, December 1999). That 20th-century insight has remained valid in the years since the financial crisis that have so baffled mainstream economists, including Ms. Yellen.

Chart 2 shows the exact same data points as Chart 1, the difference being that they are now color-coded; and inflation cycle (IC) peak and trough dates, depicted by larger diamonds, have also been added to the chart. Monthly data falling within IC downturns are marked by blue diamonds, and data covered by IC upturns are marked by red diamonds. The corresponding red and blue arrows indicate IC upturns and downturns, respectively.

The patterns in the data now become self-evident. Regardless of the unemployment rate, inflation falls during IC downturns (blue arrows) and rises during IC upturns (red arrows). Of course, ECRI’s U.S. Future Inflation Gauge (USFIG) is designed specifically to anticipate these IC downturns and upturns, and is therefore “a better guide to the direction of inflation” than the Phillips curve or its variants.

The USFIG is in a cyclical downturn. Following that downswing, a fresh IC downturn has begun (leftmost blue arrow), which is why inflation, as measured by PCE deflator growth, is falling. Given the downturn in the USFIG, it will continue to decline in the coming months, regardless of the decline in the unemployment rate below “full employment” this year.

Eventually, of course, the inflation cycle will turn back up. But it is the USFIG – not the Phillips curve – that will provide early warning of that directional shift.

via http://ift.tt/2weXOJI Tyler Durden

Back in March 2016, Elon Musk triggered every snowflake in America into action with the announcement of his ‘affordable’ Model 3 that would deliver at least 215 miles of driving, starting at just $35,000.  Within a matter of weeks, pretty much everyone in the country who could afford to scrape together $1,000 managed to put down a deposit on a car they wouldn’t be able to drive for a couple of years as if they were simply buying the latest version of the iPhone.

But while Tesla was all too eager to take in those $1,000 deposits, if you count yourself among the growing number of people who suddenly want their money back you shouldn’t expect the return process to be quite as seamless. 

As Wired points out today, while customers have been promised that their Model 3 deposits are refundable in 3 weeks and right up until their car goes into production, many are finding out that it’s not quite that easy in reality.  In fact, one customer interviewed by Wired, Shashank Chitti, has been waiting for his deposit for 2.5 months now and still has no idea when his claim will be rectified.

Fortunately, Tesla makes it easy to ask for your money back; the company’s website says deposit holders can cancel at any time. Per the company’s Model 3 Reservation FAQ, “Refunds can take up to three weeks depending on your country of delivery.”

 

At least that’s how it’s supposed to work.

 

Shashank Chitti, who still has not received his refund, disagrees. “Tesla seems disorganized,” he says. “Based on this experience and
others that I’ve read about, it sounds like when things go well, owning a Tesla would be awesome — but they would be a nightmare to deal with otherwise.”

 

Chitti cancelled his reservation on May 17, 2017. He says he was tired of waiting and frustrated by Tesla’s lack of transparency. Yet more than two months later, he hasn’t received his refund. “Every time I reach out I get the same explanation: They have a lot of cancellations to process, they’ll prioritize my request, and that my refund should go out in the next batch,” he says.

 

Meanwhile, Chitti’s experience has hardly been unique as many customers have recently taken to Twitter to complain about similar problems with getting their refunds returned on a timely basis.

In a poll posted to the popular Tesla Motors Forum, a majority of respondents reported waiting more than a month to receive their reimbursement. On other message boards, claims of 5-, 6-, and 7-week waits are common, and many say they’ve held out even longer. “It has been three months,” wrote /r/teslamotors user UnDosTresPescao on Reddit on July 3. “I have called/emailed them several times over the last month and a half asking about status. Every time they ask for my address and say that a check will be promptly on its way. The check never comes.”

 

This seems as good a place as any to disclose that I, too, was once a Model 3 reservation holder. I cancelled my deposit in April, when an honest evaluation of my transportation needs forced me to concede that the last thing I need in life is a new car. Tesla took just shy of three months to refund my deposit, which I received soon after the company caught wind of me reporting this piece.

3 mths, 14 emails, 6 support tickets and 4 phone calls later, still no refund from @TeslaMotors on cancelled Model 3 order #scam #lawsuit

— Jakob Pizzera (@pizzeraj) July 20, 2017

 

So, what’s the issue?  Apparently it’s just a series of very unfortunate “system failures,” “IT issues” and/or “database errors.”

In email correspondence between Tesla and deposit-holders that WIRED reviewed, customer service representatives supplied a variety of explanations for late refunds. Two blamed a third-party error. Others said Tesla had received more reimbursement requests than it could see to in a timely fashion. Several stated that a “system failure,” “IT issue,” or “database error” within Tesla had interfered with the company’s ability to process payments.

Of course, we’re quite certain that the issue has nothing to do with the fact that the perpetually cash hemorrhaging company essentially managed to fund their business plan with a free $400 million dollar loan from customers and are now unwilling to part with their 0% financing.

via http://ift.tt/2udeWhp Tyler Durden

That didn’t take long: just over a week after Anthony Scaramucci was appointed as the new White House communications director, and just three days after Trump fired the Mooch’s arch nemesis Reince Priebus, the NYT reports that Trump has removed Scaramucci from the role of Communications Director, under instruction from Trump’s new chief of staff, Gen. Kelly.

According to the NYT, Scaramucci’s abrupt removal came just 10 days after the wealthy New York financier was brought on to the West Wing staff, a move that convulsed an already chaotic White House and led to the departures of Sean Spicer, the former press secretary, and Reince Priebus, the president’s first chief of staff.

The decision to remove Mr. Scaramucci, who had boasted about reporting directly to the president not the chief of staff, John F. Kelly, came at Mr. Kelly’s request, the people said. Mr. Kelly made clear to members of the White House staff at a meeting Monday morning that he is in charge.

 

It was not clear whether Mr. Scaramucci will remain employed at the White House in another position or will leave altogether.

ABC adds that Scaramucci offered his resignation to Gen. Kelly this morning, with a request to be moved to the Ex-Im bank.

WH sources tell ABC that @Scaramucci offered his resignation this morning to Gen. Kelly w/ request to move to Ex-Im bank.

— Katherine Faulders (@KFaulders) July 31, 2017

And so, having first lost his now ex-wife to Trump, Scaramucci has also lost Trump himself.

Or, as Trump would say, no chaos at all, just look at the stock market.

Highest Stock Market EVER, best economic numbers in years, unemployment lowest in 17 years, wages raising, border secure, S.C.: No WH chaos!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2017

Finally, with the ouster of Scarmucci, the list of high-ranking personnel fired by Trump rises to 12:

• Yates
• Flynn
• Walsh
• Bharara
• Comey
• Dubke
• Shaub
• Corralo
• Spicer
• Short
• Priebus
• Scaramucci

Meanwhile, live footage of Sean Spicer:

LIVE: Footage of Sean Spicer http://pic.twitter.com/pqXhA0LgYM

— Chazz Reinhold (@ChazzCapital) July 31, 2017

via http://ift.tt/2vYMO3A Tyler Durden

When we reported yesterday about Putin’s surprisingly harsh response to last week’s House legislation to launch new sanctions against Russia, which also binds Trump from unilaterally removing sanctions without getting Congressional approval, we concluded that “now we await the US re-retaliation in what is once again the same tit-for-tat escalation that marked the latter years of the Obama regime, as the US Military Industrial Complex breathes out a sigh of relief that for all the posturing by Trump, things between Russia and the US are back on autopilot.“

We didn’t have long to wait.

The WSJ reports that, in what appears to be the next gambit by the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex (or “deep state” for those so inclined) to force Trump to “prove” that he did not, in fact, collude or have any ties with Russia or Vladimir Putin, Pentagon and State Department officials have devised plans to hit Russia where it hurts the most, and supply Ukraine with antitank missiles and other weaponry, and are now seeking White House approval at a time when ties between Moscow and Washington are as bad as during any point under the Obama administration.

American military officials and diplomats say the arms, which they characterized as defensive, are meant to deter aggressive actions by Moscow, which the U.S. and others say has provided tanks and other sophisticated armaments as well as military advisers to rebels fighting the Kiev government.

Ukrainian national guardsmen are instructed on the proper technique for
using a grenade launcher by an American soldier, on April 21, 2015

The question of course is, “why now?” Since the start of the Crimean conflict, which in turn was the byproduct of a State Department-facilitiated presidential coup in Ukraine, the US has been supporting Russian-speaking insurgents in the country’s east however Washington, wary of escalating the conflict, has largely limited its support for Kiev’s military to so-called non-lethal aid and training.

So one attempt at “why now”, is because with Trump reeling, and having already caved on the latest Congressional anti-Russia bill, why not push the president to escalate the Russia conflict to a point where not even his predecessor dared to take it. For now, Trump is unaware of the plan:

A senior administration official said there has been no decision on the armaments proposal and it wasn’t discussed at a high-level White House meeting on Russia last week. The official said President Donald Trump hasn’t been briefed on the plan and his position isn’t known.

Of course, that will change once the president, now with a veteran general by his side as new Chief of Staff reads the WSJ report, and starts debating whether it is worth to further deteriorate Russian relations if it means getting Mueller of his back, by showing just how committed Trump is to “containing Russian aggression.”

Meanwhile, setting the stage for the escalation, a Pentagon spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Michelle L. Baldanza, said the U.S. has not “ruled out the option” of providing “lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine.” U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis has endorsed the plan, according to U.S. officials quoted by the WSJ.

Going back three years, when the Obama administration considered supplying arms to Ukraine – and ultimately refused to do so –  it faced considerable opposition from German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other allied leaders and instead provided Kiev with short-range radar, night-vision goggles and other equipment.

So, ironically, just as Trump’s imminent signing into law of the Congressional sanctions against Russia, which as we explained before, have already infuriated Europe, so any further escalation in Ukraine will likely add to Europe’s animosity toward the US.

Germany and France remain deeply skeptical about providing arms to Ukraine, fearing that such moves would raise tensions and deepen the conflict there. But U.S. officials said they expect allies, possibly including the U.K., Canada, Poland and Lithuania to be open to increased military support.

 

“It is really important we don’t inflame the situation,” said British National Security Adviser Mark Sedwell. “There has been quite a lot of agitation from across the border in the east.”

Alas it may be too late for that. Enter, the US warhawks, who now feel that after being shut out for nearly a year, it’s their turn to shine.

As the WSJ notes, U.S. officials say they “worry” that the conflict has intensified, with a rising number of cease-fire violations as progress on peace efforts has faltered. “The level of violence is up a bit of late,” said Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, the top U.S. and NATO military commander. “The Russians provide equipment, some of their most modern equipment, and they provide proxy forces with advisers.”

Meanwhile, NATO continues to deploy even more troops to countries in the Baltics, Central and Eastern Europe, something which Russia has warned it takes as an act of aggression. Over weapons deliveries to Ukraine rebels may be just the spark that finally launches an armed conflict between Russia and NATO.

Under the Pentagon and State Department proposal, the U.S. would provide anti-tank weapons, most likely Javelin missiles, as well as possibly anti-aircraft weapons, in addition to other arms. Ukraine has long sought Javelins to counter Russian-made armored vehicles in rebel-held areas.

 

U.S. officials, however, said the plan would be to deploy the anti-tank missiles with Ukrainian troops stationed away from the front lines of the conflict —part of an effort by policy makers to limit the risks of escalation and defuse criticism that the moves could encourage offensive action by Kiev.

 

Javelin missiles and launchers are lightweight and usually carried by two-man teams, so they are highly mobile.

And the best bit: just like in Syria, the Pentago has said that “should Ukraine use the weapons improperly, Washington could decide to withdraw its support or technical assistance.”

It was not immediately clear what ‘improper use of weapons’ would consist of, but probably taking down another Malaysian Airlines airplane over Ukraine would be not be among the actions permitted.

Needless to say, the Ukraine is delighted by this latest development:

A senior Ukrainian official said Monday that the fact of the Pentagon’s proposal could help persuade Russia to scale back actions in Ukraine’s east. The official also said it was widely accepted in Kiev that any advanced weapons from the U.S. would be used only in an “emergency” and not during regular combat with separatist forces.

And another amusing detour: the WSJ writes that “U.S. and European officials are divided on how Moscow would respond to new arms shipments. Some believe it would push Moscow back to the bargaining table and others think it would prompt the Russian military to escalate the situation further.”

Spoiler alert: it would be the latter, and most likely with devastating consequences. John McCain, for one, is delighted.

It’s about time. @WSJ: “Pentagon Offers Plan to Arm #Ukraine” https://t.co/JoOyRv5U63

— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) July 31, 2017

via http://ift.tt/2f1uNO0 Tyler Durden

Authored by Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity.com,

This week we talk with Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com, and rare courageous voice within corporate America raising concern that powerful interests on Wall Street are destroying US companies for profit, robbing investors and destabilizing our financial system in the process. 

Byrne has been an early advocate for digital currencies and their potential to protect financial wealth from the massive policy missteps being undertaken by the Federal Reserve. (In 2014, Overstock.com became the first major retailer to accept Bitcoin payments.) 

In this week's podcast, Byrne details out the promising potential of cryptocurrencies and the blockchain, as well as his thoughts as to whether they will be able or not to evade subversion by the world central authorities:

In the 1980s, I was a graduate student at Stanford in philosophy, but with a heavy quantitative and logic approach. I studied the mathematics that underlies cryptography. It’s called computation theory. It was a fascinating field, probably the only religious experience I’ve ever had in my life. I felt like I was seeing the face of God — I loved it.

 

So, in about 2012, I was reading Fast Company or Wired, and I saw this blurb about this new form of money that no government was behind, based on cryptography. And, I realized, Gee, this is like an application of that math I’d studied 30 years earlier. Someday I want Overstock.com to be one of the first companies to take it.

 

So, on December 19^th, 2013, a journalist interviewed me. Near the end of the interview, she asked, “Are you ever going to accept Bitcoin?” And, at the time I thought in maybe a year and a half I’d get around to doing it, so I said, “Yeah, I hope someday that we'll do that.” She put that in her article, and I started getting Google alerts from newspapers in Thailand, in South Korea, in Africa. I mean, that little mention got picked up all over the world. And I realized, Geez, there’s a subculture around the world who is waiting for this.

 

So on January 1^st, 2014, we started working on it. We put 40 guys in a room, sliding pizzas under the door so they could work day and night. And, by January 9^th, we got Bitcoin up. As soon as we announced it, it became global news. At that point I realized that the world was ready for this earlier than I had expected it to be.

 

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are a form of money that's a stable field that the government can’t destroy and can’t distort. Because its creation is governed by the laws of mathematics. It can’t happen any faster or slower than a certain rate, and it all sort of self-adjusts. What that means is — unlike Janet Yellen, who can sign something and whisk 85 billion new U.S. dollars into existence — there’s nothing she can sign that will whisk new Bitcoin into existence. So, cryptocurrencies in general give us a stable medium through which we can communicate our information about values and prices in a way that no government mandarin can distort or usurp.

 

For the predators who have used our central institutions to predate on the rest of humanity, it’s a very bad development. 

Special note: at the end of the podcast, Patrick extends an offer to listeners. Those interested in taking him up on it can click here to do so.

Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Patrick Byrne (46m:35s).

via http://ift.tt/2vfWpFs Tyler Durden

Via The Daily Bell

New technology can be scary. It certainly presents risks and challenges. But I have to admit, one technology I am very excited about is autonomous vehicles or self-driving cars.

We’ve talked about the potential for the Internet of Thing to leave us with nowhere to hide, and self-driving cars are part of that. We have also mused about the possibility of the government ruining self-driving cars.

But let’s take a moment to balance those positions with the benefits of autonomous vehicles.

First, it frees up so much valuable time for humans. Time is the most precious resource and morbidly limited. As many as 90% of working Americans drive a car to work. The average commute is about 25 minutes. This means an average American worker would get over 4 hours of their life back each week!

Granted, they would still be in a car, but most people have pressing tasks that can be accomplished on a smartphone or laptop. Over the course of a lifetime, this amounts to getting a full year of your life back, that would otherwise be spent flipping off other commuters, and beeping the horn in frustration. Nevermind that most people will use that year to scroll Facebook.

Second, way fewer people will die in car accidents. I know it is scary to let go of control, but automation of traffic patterns will lead to far fewer roadway fatalities. Currently, about 1.3 million people worldwide day each year in traffic accidents. Many more are seriously injured.

The possibility that cars will be hacked is scary. But seeing as this is a pressing concern for consumers, it would be very bad publicity for whatever company has their car taken over by hackers. So far no hacker has been able to do so in industry tests which reward hackers for finding vulnerabilities in their systems.

Also, most cars can already be hacked. It is much easier to make a murder look like an accident when humans are behind the wheel.

Third, economic resources that were once spent on cars and insurance will be freed up! Most people will not have to buy a car, they will simply use rideshare programs. The ones who do buy cars will likely have a much lower cost to insure the vehicle.

Fourth, we no longer have to worry about drunks, elderly, teen drivers, or distracted drivers. Think of all the social problems this immediately removes! No more debates about taking driver’s licenses away at a certain age. No more tweaking regulations and legislation in a fruitless attempt to curb teen accidents.

Go ahead and text in your car, talk on the phone, mess around with friends, and even crack open a beer! It doesn’t matter, the technology is in control.

In America, over 10,000 deaths per year from drunk driving accidents will be prevented when all cars on the road are self-driving.

Fifth, and possibly widely overlooked, is that autonomous vehicles really throw a wrench in most excuses for the police to engage you. Police can currently pull you over when driving for almost anything. If they see a taillight out, if you cross the center line, if you are driving a bit too fast, if you speed up for a yellow light, if you swerve, and so on and so forth.

Most people will be able to go from their own private property to the private property of a car. Then they will exit onto a business or individual’s private property, and never give the government a chance to violate their rights.

About 1.5 million people are arrested each year in the U.S. for Driving Under the Influence. Think of how much it costs taxpayers to send those people through the court system.

Then there are all the people arrested for drugs after the police search their vehicles during a traffic stop. Again, the court system is unburdened. Fewer rights will be violated. Fewer illegal searches will be conducted.

Cops will be safer since they won’t constantly be walking up to strangers in vehicles. People will be safer and not have to worry about being shot when a cop can’t see their hands for a split second. This removes entire swaths of dangerous interactions between the police and the public.

Autonomous vehicles might prove instrumental in changing the cultural acceptance of being stopped, questioned, and searched by officers for no real reason.

Like with any other new technology, there will be difficulties and unforeseen dangers to autonomous vehicles. But these five benefits only scratch the surface.

There will be changes in the landscape, social activity, and recreation. There will be new opportunities for shipping, selling, and conducting business.

What are you most worried or excited about for the advent of autonomous vehicles?

via http://ift.tt/2vg9myX TDB