This Is The Huge Anti-Trump Protest That Was Organized By… The Russians

From November 2016

Protesters demonstrating against the election of Donald Trump made their voices heard again Saturday – taking to the streets of New York for the fourth straight day. A crowd of over 5,000 people gathered in Union Square around noon, their ranks rapidly growing and spilling out of the park.

 

Hand-drawn signs floated above the crowd, carrying messages like “Love Trumps Hate,” “Unacceptable,” and “Dump Trump.”

 

 

Chants of “black lives matter,” “popular vote,” and “America was never great” rang from the sea of dissenters.

So which 'leftist', anti-Trump group organized these 1000s of people to protest against their democratically-elected President?

Simple.

As The Hill reports, sixteen thousand Facebook users said that they planned to attend a Trump protest on Nov. 12, 2016 organized by the Facebook page for BlackMattersUS.

The event was shared with 61,000 users.

“Join us in the streets! Stop Trump and his bigoted agenda!” reads the Facebook event page for the rally.

 

“Divided is the reason we just fell. We must unite despite our differences to stop HATE from ruling the land.”

There's just one thing… BlackMattersUS is a Russian-linked group.

How do we know the organizers are "Russians"?

Simple, "The Russians" said so…

The BlackMatters organizing group was connected to the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian “troll farm” with ties to the Kremlin, according to a recent investigation by the Russian Magazine RBC.

 

Facebook has identified the IRA as the group responsible for purchasing 3,000 political ads on Facebook’s platform and operating 470 accounts that appear to have attempted to influence the perspectives of Americans during the 2016 elections.

So to clarify…

The Russians spent $100,000 and created 0.004% of social media content to influence the election… and then the same Russians continued to help President Trump by unifying black and white Americans to protest against him.

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

U.K. Anti-Terror Censorship Law Stupidly Used Against Guy Who Fights Terrorism

Joshua WalkerProsecutors in the United Kingdom didn’t think Josh Walker was an actual terrorist. But they treated him as if he were one anyway, because of a book they found in his bedroom.

Fortunately, they failed. But the case, highlighted at The Intercept, details some of the terrible consequences of trying to criminalize dangerous thoughts or ideas rather than actions.

Walker was prosecuted for downloading and having in his possession a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook, an infamous guide to homemade explosives (and other tools for lawbreaking) that was first published in 1971.

Walker wasn’t plotting a terrorist attack. He was, in fact, doing the opposite. According to The Intercept and the court case, he was using the book as a reference material for a terror crisis management simulation at a college.

The United Kingdom does not have the same broad First Amendment freedom of speech protections that Americans have. The Terrorism Act of 2000 in Section 58 criminalizes the ownership of “information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.” There is a defense that a person has a “reasonable excuse” for having the material, and that’s what Walker had to lean on during the trial.

The whole thing seemed particularly absurd because Walker had returned to the United Kingdom from Syria, where he was helping a Kurdish militia fight the Islamic State. I wasn’t kidding when I said he was the opposite of a terrorist. And prosecutors knew that.

From The Intercept:

As the case moved forward, the prosecution acknowledged that Walker was not suspected of plotting any kind of terrorist atrocity. The government was instead arguing that his mere possession of the book was a violation of the Terrorism Act’s Section 58 because it contained information that could have been useful to a terrorist if discovered. The book is freely available to anyone on the internet, and versions of it can even be purchased on Amazon. Regardless, prosecution lawyer Robin Sellers said it was possible a “radicalized” person could find Walker’s copy of the book and use it to prepare an attack.

The prosecution’s argument seemed bizarre and without precedent. People in the U.K. have been prosecuted before under the Terrorism Act for possessing the “Anarchist Cookbook,” but usually the defendants have been involved in some other kind of nefarious activity as well. In 2010, for example, a member of a violent neo-Nazi group called the “Wolf Pack” was convicted of a terrorism offense for possessing the book. He was linked, through his father, to a plot to overthrow the government and poison people. In another case, in 2011, a man was sentenced to three years in prison for selling the “Cookbook” and Al Qaeda training manuals, pocketing $113,000 in the process. Walker’s case was different: He was being prosecuted solely because he downloaded and stored a copy of the book.

Fortunately for Walker, the jury also found the prosecution’s argument bizarre. Last week they found him not guilty.

Despite the absurdity of this prosecution, the U.K.’s home secretary (essentially the equivalent of the head of America’s Department of Homeland Security) actually wants to expand this anti-terror censorship law.

Section 58 doesn’t currently cover viewing or reading content online. So this month Secretary Amber Rudd said she wants to expand the law’s reach to cover people who view “terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions.” (If you’d like to know how the U.K. government would be able to know what you’ve been viewing online, they’ve covered that with the Investigatory Powers Act that went into effect at the start of the year.)

Rudd says that the “reasonable excuse” exemption will remain for people such as journalists and academics who write about ideas the government has classified as “extremist.” But even when prosecutors acknowledged that Walker was not a terrorist, they still put him on trial.

This law is obviously open to prosecutorial abuse already. That’s a good reason not to give the government the power to punish yet more speech, as if the speech itself is some sort of magic spell that causes terrorism just by being read.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2znERK8
via IFTTT

Will America’s Prosperity Be Completely Wiped Out By Our Growing Debt?

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

The federal government is now 20.4 trillion dollars in debt, and most Americans don’t seem to care that the economic prosperity that we are enjoying today could be completely destroyed by our exploding national debt. 

Over the past decade, the national debt has been growing at a rate of more than 100 million dollars an hour, and this is a debt that all of us owe.  When you break it down, each American citizen’s share of the debt is more than $60,000, and so if you have a family of five your share is more than $300,000.  And when you throw in more than 6 trillion dollars of corporate debt and nearly 13 trillion dollars of consumer debt, it is not inaccurate to say that we are facing a crisis of unprecedented magnitude.

Debt cannot grow much faster than GDP indefinitely.  At some point the bubble bursts, and when it does the pain that the middle class is going to experience is going to be off the charts.  Back in 2015, the middle class in the U.S. became a minority of the population for the first time ever.  Never before in our history has the middle class accounted for less than 50 percent of the population, and all over the country formerly middle class families are under a great deal of stress as they attempt to make ends meet.  The following comes from an absolutely outstanding piece that was just put out by Charles Hugh Smith

If you talk to young people struggling to make ends meet and raise children, or read articles about retirees who can’t afford to retire, you can’t help but detect the fading scent of prosperity.

 

It has steadily been lost to stagnation, under-reported inflation and soaring inequality, a substitution of illusion for reality bolstered by the systemic corruption of authentic measures of prosperity and well-being.

 

In other words, the American-Dream idea that life should get easier and more prosperous as the natural course of progress is still embedded in our collective memory, even though the collective reality has changed.

The reality that most of us are facing today is a reality where many are working two or three jobs just to make it from month to month.

The reality that most of us are facing today is a reality where debts never seem to get repaid and credit card balances just continue to grow.

The reality that most of us are facing today is a reality where we work day after day just to pay the bills, and yet we never seem to get anywhere financially.

The truth is that most people out there are deeply struggling.  The Washington Post says that the “middle class” encompasses anyone that makes between $35,000 and $122,500 a year, but very few of us are near the top end of that scale

It’s also situation specific. “The more people in a family, the more money they typically need to live a comfortable middle-class lifestyle,” writes the Post. Likewise, the more expensive your area, the more you need to make to qualify. Overall, “America’s middle-class ranges from $35,000 to $122,500 in annual income, according to The Post’s calculation” approved by the Pew Research Center.

“The bottom line is: $100,000 is on the middle-class spectrum, but barely: 75 percent of U.S. households make less than that,” writes the Post.

In a previous article, I noted that the bottom 90 percent of income earners in the U.S. brought home more than 60 percent of the nation’s income back in the early 1970s, but last year that number fell to just 49.7 percent.

The middle class is shrinking year after year, and the really bad news is that it appears that this decline may soon accelerate.  In fact, one major European investment bank is warning that the U.S. economy will “slow down substantially” in 2018.

But we can’t afford any slow down at all.  As it is, there is no possible way that we are going to be able to deal with our exploding debts at the rate the economy is growing right now.  According to Boston University professor Larry Kotlikoff, we are facing a “fiscal gap” of 210 trillion dollars over the next 75 years…

We have all these unofficial debts that are massive compared to the official debt. We’re focused just on the official debt, so we’re trying to balance the wrong books…

 

If you add up all the promises that have been made for spending obligations, including defense expenditures, and you subtract all the taxes that we expect to collect, the difference is $210 trillion. That’s the fiscal gap. That’s our true indebtedness.

Where in the world is all of that money going to come from?

Are you willing to pay much higher taxes?

Are you willing to see government programs slashed to a degree that we have never seen before in U.S. history?

If your answer to both of those questions is no, then what would you do to solve the fiscal nightmare that we are facing?

According to Brian Maher, author Robert Benchley once sat down to write an article about this fiscal mess, and what he came up with sums up the situation perfectly…

Benchley sat at his typewriter one day to tackle a vexing subject.

 

He opened his piece with “The”… when the full weight of his burden collapsed upon his shoulders.

 

He abandoned his typewriter in frustration.

 

He returned shortly thereafter and resumed the task anew…

 

With only “The” to work with… Benchley immediately knocked out the article, presented here in its entirety:

 

“The hell with it.”

Unfortunately, we can’t afford to say that.

Our exploding debt is a crisis that we must tackle, and the first step is to understand that our current financial system was literally designed to create as much debt as possible Once we abolish the Federal Reserve, our endless debt spiral will end, but until we do our debt problems are only going to continue to grow until the system completely implodes in upon itself.

*  *  *

Michael Snyder is a Republican candidate for Congress in Idaho’s First Congressional District, and you can learn how you can get involved in the campaign on his official website. His new book entitled “Living A Life That Really Matters” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.

via http://ift.tt/2ykxdA6 Tyler Durden

Watch Live: Social Media Lawyers Explain To Politicians How 0.004% Of Traffic Swung The Election

Nearly two months after Facebook first confirmed that it had identified some 3,000 paid posts that had been clandestinely financed by purported Russia-linked troll farms, the companys' general counsel, Colin Stretch, and his counterparts at Twitter and Google, are heading down to the Hart Senate Office Building for a long-awaited hearing hosted by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on crime and terrorism. According to the description on the committee's website, the hearing is meant to help lawmakers and the companies “find solutions” that will allow them to filter out attempts by foreign powers like Russia to influence US elections.

South Carolina Senator and former presidential candidate Lindsey Graham will preside over the hearings, which are expected to begin at 2:30 ET.

Watch the hearing live below;

By late Monday night, the contents of the prepared testimony for all three companies had already leaked to the press. And for anybody who’s been following the Russian interference narrative, the testimony contains few surprises.

As we reported yesterday, Facebook plans to testify that Russia’s $100,000 in ad spending may have helped their posts be seen by as many as 126 million people over more than two years (of course, some of this ads ran after the election).

Of course, while the 126 million headline number may appear astonishingly large – without context it appears to suggest that the Russian disinformation campaign achieved one of the highest marketing IRRs in human history – in context, it’s actually negligible.

That’s because Americans were fed a total of 33 trillion stories by Facebook via their news feeds, meaning the tainted Russia content represents just 0.004% of total stories circulated on Facebook’s platform.

Meanwhile, Google’s director of law enforcement and information security is preparing to testify that he has found 18 English-language channels with 1,108 videos uploaded, totaling about 43 hours of content, that originated with Russian operatives.

The company also found that two accounts linked to the Russian troll farm spent a total of $4,700 on search and display ads during the 2016 election cycle.

Meanwhile, Twitter is preparing to tell Congress this week that Russia-linked accounts "generated approximately 1.4 million automated, election-related tweets, which collectively received approximately 288 million impressions" between Sept. 1 and Nov. 15, 2016.

At one point in the testimony, Twitter's acting general counsel, Sean Edgett, wrote that the company "identified 36,746 accounts that generated automated, election-related content and had at least one of the characteristics we used to associate an account with Russia,” Business Insider reported.

That is far higher than the number of Russia-linked accounts Twitter initially disclosed to the Senate Intelligence Committee in a closed-door interview last month. Still, like Facebook, Twitter is preparing to emphasize in its prepared remarks that the nearly 37,000 accounts represented "1/100th of a percent (0.012%) of the total accounts on Twitter at the time." Meanwhile, roughly 9% of the tweets from the 2,752 IRA-linked accounts were election-related, Twitter said, and more than 47% of those tweets were automated.

Of course, Democratic lawmakers who have pushed this latest narrative have been unfazed by these numbers. Instead, they've maintained that any evidence of "interference" is too much. And while Facebook said yesterday that is was devising sophisticated tools to completely filter out disingenuous posts, it might be more effective if they just blocked people with their browser language set to Russian from paying for ads – or posting anything, really – on their platforms.

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of today's hearing is that trio of Silicon Valley lawyers will get to do it all again tomorrow during a hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Ranking member Sen. Mark Warner – who recently introduced a law that would require social media companies to expand ad-related disclosures – has tweeted a series of questions he intends to ask:

 

 

 

 

via http://ift.tt/2gPNi5I Tyler Durden

Republican Chair Of House Financial Services Committee To Retire

One of the most powerful and longest serving Congressmen, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Dallas), won’t run for re-election next year according to the Dallas News. Hensarling – who chairs the powerful Financial Services Committee and has been a strong voice in regulating the financial industry – has represented Congressional District 5 in the Dallas area since 2003.

“Today I am announcing that I will not seek reelection to the US Congress in 2018. Although service in Congress remains the greatest privilege of my life, I never intended to make it a lifetime commitment, and I have already stayed far longer than I had originally planned,” Hensarling wrote to supporters today. A staunch Constitutional conservative, Hensarling has long believed that Congress was not a place for career politicians. Yet. his announcement comes as a surprise to those who felt that he would be in line for more influential leadership posts. But Hensarling said Tuesday he wanted to spend more time with his family.

“Since my term as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee comes to an end next year, the time seems right for my departure,” he wrote in a statement. “Although I will not be running for reelection, there are 14 months left in my congressional term to continue the fight for individual liberty, free  enterprise, and limited constitutional government – the causes for which I remain passionate.”

He said he will continue the work of his committee until his term ends.

“Much work remains at the House Financial Services Committee in the areas of housing finance reform, regulatory relief, cyber security and capital formation to name just a few,” he said. “Furthermore, important work remains in the Congress as a whole – especially pro-growth tax reform. I look forward to continuing this work on behalf of the people of the 5th District of Texas and all Americans.”

Hensarling is the second North Texas congressman to opt against another term in Congress. In January Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Plano, announced that he would retire when his term ends next year.

According to The Hill, several GOP lawmakers and aides on the Hill, before Hensarling’s statement to the Dallas Morning News, had said there was an “expectation” that this will be Hensarling’s last term in Congress.

Hensarling has chaired the Financial Services panel since 2013, leading the House GOP fight against the strict Dodd-Frank Act finance rules passed after the financial crisis. The committee produced dozens of bills to restrict or eliminate major portions of Dodd-Frank. Many of those laid the foundation for Hensarling’s Financial CHOICE Act, the most ambitious attempt to reshape the Obama-era law. Hensarling has advanced a slew of other fixes to Dodd-Frank through the committee, several with major bipartisan support, earning high marks from the financial services industry. “He has had – and continues to have – a tremendous impact on the financial sector,” said a financial services industry lobbyist of Hensarling, calling him “the leader in Republicans efforts to reduce financial regulation under President Trump.”

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

“Never Buying From You Again”: Best Buy Halts Sales of Some iPhones After Angry Customer Backlash

Best Buy just got an Uber-sized lesson in surge pricing, and how not to do it.

Hoping to capitalize on the (reportedly) pent up interest in the iPhone X, Best Buy, which also sells all iPhone models via carrier installment plans that let customers pay for the devices over several months, decided to hike the full, upfront price by $100, with the retailer charging $1,099 and $1,249 for the two iPhone X configurations; Apple’s pricing is $999 and $1,149.

Danielle Schumann, a spokesperson for Best Buy, tried to explain the fact that the company is overcharging for the iPhone X in a statement to Bloomberg, which courtesy of The Verge is included below for its sheer ridiculousness.

“Our prices reflect the fact that no matter a customer’s desired plan or carrier, or whether a customer is on a business or personal plan, they are able to get a phone the way they want at Best Buy. Our customers have told us they want this flexibility and sometimes that has a cost.”

In other words, Best Buy was under the impression that its customers would like to pay more to buy phones from it, as opposed to the cheaper retail cost offered everywhere else the iPhone X is sold.

That impression was dead wrong.

As Bloomberg reports today, Best Buy has stopped some sales of the iPhone X and iPhone 8 after consumers complained about the retailer charging a $100 premium on the already record expensive smartphones.

Fast forward to today, when a much less funny Danielle Schumann makes a repeat appearance:

“Although there was clearly demand for the un-activated iPhone X, selling it that way cost more money, causing some confusion with our customers and noise in the media. That’s why we decided a few days ago to only sell the phone the traditional way, through installment billing plans.”

By then it was too late, and last week consumers took to Twitter to slam the completely unwarranted surcharge: “Never buying from you again,” one Twitter user wrote. “Charging $100 premium due to demand is treating your customer like dirt.”

Whereas Best Buy would get rebates from carriers when it sold phones that are already set up to work on the carriers’ networks, it doesn’t get that money when devices are sold without carrier activation. And yet, Apple, carriers and some other retailers stick to the official pricing. Best Buy thought it was better, and the result is the blowback it is facing now.

Then again, perhaps it still hasn’t learned its lesson: a check on Best Buy’s website shows that the retailer is still selling older iPhone models, including the iPhone 7…. at a $50 premium.

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

House Of Cards Production Suspended After Spacey Sex Assaut Scandal

One day after Netflix announced that it would end House of Cards after the upcoming 6th season, it appears that the blowback against Spacey has been far greater than expected and according to the Hollywood Reporter, production on the current, sixth season of House of Cards has been suspended indefinitely following the sexual assault claims made against star and exec producer Kevin Spacey.

“MRC and Netflix have decided to suspend production on House of Cards season six, until further notice, to give us time to review the current situation and to address any concerns of our cast and crew,” Netflix and producer Media Rights Capital said in a joint statement Tuesday.

The suspension comes two days after Star Trek actor Anthony Rapp alleged in that Spacey made sexual advances towards him when Rapp was 14 and Spacey was 26. Spacey immediately offered his “sincerest apology” to Rapp via Twitter and used his statement to deflect attention as flagrantly as possible, coming out as gay for the first time. By doing so he also managed to infurate the gay community, with his move immediately criticized by many in Hollywood as well as GLAAD.

As reported yesterday, on Monday, Netflix and MRC issued a statement saying they were “deeply troubled” by the allegations. Executives from both of our companies arrived in Baltimore Monday afternoon to meet with the cast and crew of the political drama “to ensure that they continue to feel safe and supported,” the statement continued. Spacey was not on set at the time, as was previously scheduled.

via http://ift.tt/2iSbM2N Tyler Durden

It’s Past Time for a New Vote on the War on Terror

The White House is pushing back against the idea that it needs a renewed authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) to cover the ongoing military response to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The administration is apparently concerned that a new AUMF would impose limits on its military actions around the world.

Well, yes. That’s the whole point.

The AUMF passed after 9/11 was meant to target Al Qaeda, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and their “associated forces”—the groups the U.S. held responsible for the September 11 attacks. Since then, the executive branch has invoked the AUMF to justify almost every military intervention that Washington has undertaken.

The two major exceptions are the Iraq War of 2003–2011, for which President George W. Bush sought and received a specific AUMF, and the intervention in Libya, which saw President Barack Obama waving away his lack of authorization by citing support from the United Nations and other international bodies. Both misadventures show why it’s important for Congress to assert its role in the war-making process.

In the first case, the Iraq-specific AUMF helped to define the administration’s rationales and goals for war, and it placed members of Congress on the record for or against the conflict. This made it easier to hold the administration accountable to its own terms, and it gave voters some insight into their representatives’ stances.

The lack of an AUMF in Libya, on the other hand, made it even more difficult for Congress to exercise substantive oversight of the conflict. It also ensured that there would be little to no accountability for anyone in the Obama administration for the failures in the Libya campaign and the mess the U.S. helped to make.

Unfortunately, if a Republican-controlled Congress was unable to exert any oversight over the wars of a Democratic president they campaigned against in almost every other policy domain, and who said he welcomed a new AUMF, it’s even less likely to do any of those things with a Republican president in charge.

This is particularly disappointing given that both Obama and the 114th Congress knew pretty early last year that there was a 99.99 percent chance the next president would be either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Obama spent the campaign warning Americans that Trump was “uniquely unqualified” for the office of the president, while Republicans had spent years up to that point investigating Clinton’s blunders in Libya and elsewhere. Yet they did nothing to impose those missing limits.

Even after the “uniquely unqualified” Trump was elected, Obama made no effort to impose any limits on his successor. Instead he declared that the 9/11 AUMF also covers U.S. operations in Somalia. As he has elsewhere in the war on terror, Trump then ramped up the intervention.

At this point Trump, who on the campaign trail said he’d be open to an AUMF—Trump took a lot of positions on the campaign trail, not all of them consistent with one another—may be the only one who could make congressional oversight or limits on the war on terror possible. Not by supporting for such a move again (that’s highly unlikely) but by alienating members of Congress enough that they finally assert their constitutional role.

The most recent effort to pass a new AUMF is being led by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who last tried to pass a new AUMF in mid-2015.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2zkdiBr
via IFTTT

City Claims Binding Restrictions on Eminent Domain Are Merely ‘Guidelines’

Capt. BarbossaThere is a scene in the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie where a captain is accused of violating the much vaunted “Pirate’s Code.” He responds that the code is “more what’d you call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.”

Someone from the city of Marietta, Georgia, must have been taking notes, because the town just made essentially the same argument in a case before the state Supreme Court.

At issue was whether the City of Marietta had violated the state’s 2006 “Landowner’s Bill of Rights” when it attempted to seize Ray Summerour’s grocery store to expand an adjacent public park. Summerour, who had owned the store for a quarter century, claimed that the local government failed to provide him with a timely justification for the city’s valuation of his land when it first tried to purchase his property. The 2006 law requires such an appraisal.

The city copped to violating the provision. But the law’s strictures, it argued, were “merely suggested guidelines for condemnations, which are not mandatory or, at the least, judicially enforceable.” Since the introductory language in the Landowner’s Bill of Rights says the law is to be followed “to the greatest extent practicable,” the city said, that meant that the statute was entirely voluntary.

Yesterday the Georgia Supreme Court responded with a collective eyeroll, ruling that if the basic guarantees included in the Landowner’s Bill of Rights were “as the City urges, entirely optional, the protective function of the Act as a whole would be impaired significantly.”

The Court also noted that the city’s focus on the word “practicable” would have made Brown v. Board of Education voluntary as well, since it required desegregation to be done “as soon as practicable.”

“It’s been kinda like a long, hard ordeal. The main thing is from this point on nobody will have to go through what I went through,” Summerour told the Atlanta Constitution-Journal after Monday’s decision.

That Summerour had to go through the ordeal in the first place is a scandal, given that the entire purpose of the Landowner’s Bill of Rights was to create explicit and binding restrictions on the government’s ability to take citizens’ property without their consent.

The law was passed in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous 2005 Kelo decision, which allowed the city of New London, Connecticut, to seize a house, to demolish it, and hand the property over the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. In the aftermath of the decision, 42 states passed laws restricting eminent domain. When Gov. Sonny Perdue signed Georgia’s bill in 2006, he declared it “wrong for your house, your land and your property to be held in jeopardy at the sway of a powerful government.” A local governments has to operate with a few more restrictions than a fictional pirate when it wants to go a-plundering.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2gQzIiA
via IFTTT

Mexico’s “Legendary” Oil Hedging Desk Spent $1.25 Billion On 2018 Puts

Mexico’s "legendary" oil hedgers (profiled her emost recently one year ago and by Bloomberg in this exhaustive article) are confident that prices won’t linger above $50 a barrel, because this summer, which is why the world’s most-active sovereign oil-trading desk spent a near record $1.25 billion on put options to lock in export prices for next year, Bloomberg reported, citing data from the country’s Ministry of Finance.

The news is especially notable because, as we pointed out yesterday, with WTI prices holding at 6-month highs around $54 (and Brent at $60), hedge funds have never been more bullish on the entire energy complex, having accumulated a record 1.189 billion barrel equivalent long positions in the five major petroleum contracts (Brent, WTI (x2), RBOB, HO)…

Source: Reuters, John Kemp

…and that surge comes as oil analysts are following the trend and raising their oil-price forecasts.

Last year, Mexican hedging desk spent $1.03 billion to protect itself from a downturn in prices, according to data released in the quarterly budget balance. In recent years, Mexico has spent an average $1 billion buying the hedges. The hedge first appeare in 2001, when Mexico made a tentative showing, spending just $217.3 million on put options, a fraction of the approximately $1 billion a year it would spend later. In 2003 and 2004, with oil prices rising, the country opted not to hedge at all.  The strategy came into its own in 2005: Mexico has hedged every year since without interruption. Agustín Carstens, who later became head of the central bank, was finance minister when a massive $5.1 billion payout came in 2009; some government officials also refer to the annual oil bet as “the Agustínian hedge.”

As previously discussed, Mexico's uncanny ability to hedge ahead of major price moves has left rival traders marveling at the traders’ market-reading prowess, dubbing the desk a “legendary” participant in global commodity markets.

News of Mexico’s massive hedge – the mere "net" direction of which moves markets – comes as the narrative in the oil market has experienced a surprising shift since Mexico started buying up hedges, a shift that, ironically, would’ve made those options much cheaper if the traders had just waited. The Mexican finance industry proposed a 2018 public budget in September projecting oil exports revenue at $46 per barrel. Lawmakers increased that assumption earlier this month to $48.5.

Just a few of months ago, analysts and investment banks slashed their oil price forecasts as OPEC’s production cuts drew down the global oil oversupply slower than initially expected, and rising U.S. shale production capped any short-lived oil price gains.

But by the end of the summer, as OPEC and the IEA – once again – magically started reporting stronger-than expected global oil demand growth and an accelerated pace of inventory declines, the market sentiment began to change… just as the discussion of Aramco's mega-IPO started swirling again (and which, as a reminder, will simply not take place, if oil is not above a given threshold price). As 2018 and the November 30 OPEC meeting draw nigh, the cartel is said to be favoring a 9-month extension of the deal through the end of next year.

The possibility of such supply restriction throughout the whole of 2018 – combined with expectations of strong oil demand growth and concerns over few new sources of supply due to years of underinvestment after the 2014 oil price crash – has prompted some analysts to warn that fear of the glut will turn into fear of a supply crunch next year. Some investment banks expect the U.S. crude oil production in 2018 to underperform forecasts, which could remove some part of the cap on oil prices that American shale has kept since the start of this year.

The Mexicans, however, don't think so.

Circling back to the desk's hedging activities, Mexican Finance Minister Vanessa Rubio had previously revealed in mid-October that Mexico had completed its annual oil hedge for 2018.

We reported in June that Mexico’s trading desk had begun the process of checking with Wall Street banks for final rates on put options for next year. The hedging deal, conducted through a handful of banks, is typically the New York investment community’s largest annual oil deal. And, like any forward transaction, the government then has the option to sell oil at the price determined in the contract, or the higher rate determined by market supply and demand.

Mexico, via its state-owned oil company Pemex, is one of the few sovereign oil producers that hedges export prices. Other producers that have tried it, such as Ecuador, which hedged oil sales in 1993, have experienced losses that triggered a political backlash. More recently, oil importers Morocco, Jamaica and Uruguay bought protection against rising energy prices.

As Bloomberg pointed out, Mexican Finance Minister Jose Antonio Meade said in an interview in September that Mexico would likely expand its oil hedge marginally for 2018 as it liberalizes gasoline prices. Meade has said the cost of the hedge for 2018 would likely be about the same as last year, but on this, he miscalculated: This year’s hedge was roughly 25% higher. The Mexican oil hedge runs from the beginning of December until the end of November. The country has made money three times on the hedge since it started to lock-in prices every year in 2000, including a record payout of $6.4 billion in 2015 after oil prices crashed.

Given the price of the put options, the trading desk’s reputation as savvy operators could be at risk. If oil prices continue to climb, the whole hedge could expire worthless, possibly triggering the type of political fallout that other exporters who have tried the strategy have experienced. Right now, analysts at Jeffries see WTI at $55 a barrel by end 2018 and Brent at $58 – both well above the government's projections over the summer, when the hedging program was ongoing.

That said, Mexico isn't alone in bracing for a drop in prices.


Meanwhile, oil prices are on track to post their second straight monthly gain for the first time in 2017.

via http://ift.tt/2h0P3kx Tyler Durden