Watch This Orwellian Pentagon Briefing On Syria: “Over 4000 Troops… No, Sorry… Just 500…”

Whether it's the Middle East, Africa, or Eastern Europe, the familiar pattern of American military expansion goes something like this: first we are promised that US troops are merely in a country for limited "training" missions with "partner" forces; next we are told of "counter-terror" operations which require an increased "footprint"; after which we are assured once again that there are "no boots on the ground" but a "minimal" increase of train and assist missions; finally, US soldiers begin to come home in body bags at which point the 9/11 era AUMF is cynically invoked (Authorization For Use of Military Force).  

On Tuesday the whole Orwellian cycle of American non-deployment to non-wars (by our politicians' standards) was on display during a single Pentagon press briefing, when Army spokesman Maj. Gen. James B. Jarrard told reporters that 4,000 US troops were deployed to Syria, but then awkwardly attempted to walk back the statement less than 30 seconds later:

Army spokesman: I think it's a little over 4,000 US troops in Syria right now that are supporting efforts against Daesh, and supporting the SDF.

 

Reporter: So you have 4,000 US troops in Syria, cause I thought that publicly, previously the number was 1,000. So this would be four times – well it was actually 500, but your saying 4000 US troops are currently in Syria?

 

Army spokesman: I'm sorry I mispoke there – there are approximately 500 troops in Syria.

 

…[press pool breaks out in laughter…]

Interestingly, Major Jarrard appeared to have thought carefully as he struggled to articulate the initial "over 4,000" number. Though he begins his response by stumbling over his words, he actually appears firm and confident when he finally asserts the 4,000 number. It is only after the incredulous reporter points out the colossal leap in numbers (compared to previous official Pentagon statements) that the US coalition spokesman quickly walks it back and says, "I'm sorry I mispoke there – there are approximately 500 troops in Syria." 


American boots on the ground in Syria: 500 or 4000+, or more? Image source: The Arab Weekly

Though the DoD has long stuck to its official "503 U.S. troops, which mostly covers special operations units", it appears that not even the usually tame and docile Pentagon press pool is buying this, as the reporters broke out into loud laughter, after which long awkwardness and silence followed. 

And even the Military Times, in its coverage, isn't buying it:

However, those numbers don’t paint the actual picture of the size and scope of the U.S. footprint in either country. U.S. commanders on the ground have leeway to bring in extra troops for limited periods of time that don’t count towards the total FML.

 

The current number of troops in Syria is above the FML, Eric Pahon, a Pentagon spokesperson told Military Times. But the number of U.S. boots on the ground in Syria is “not anywhere near” the 4,000 figure Jarrard mistakenly told reporters on Tuesday.

 

The special operations commander “is only human; he just made a mistake,” Pahon told Military Times.

Last summer, in a move that angered the US administration, Turkish state media leaked the locations of no less than ten small scale American military bases in northern Syria alone (revelations of US bases in southern Syria began surfacing as well). As the Military Times further acknowledges, these bases – though likely special forces forward operating bases – require a broad support base of US personnel operating in various logistical roles inside Syria. 

And with the recent US-SDF build up in and around Raqqa after its recent liberation from ISIS, there is no doubt that this support base of US personnel on the ground in Syria has necessarily increased on a significant scale.

According to Military Times:

Images of massive convoys carrying coalition trucks and weapons and supplies to Syrian Democratic Forces could be seen on an almost daily occurrence, hinting that U.S. involvement in the Syrian battlefield was much higher than the 503 telegraphed in daily press briefings.

 

Moreover, U.S. forces have been operating in a number of capacities to include security presence patrols to keep the peace between Turkey and U.S.-backed Kurdish militants. Images of rangers steam rolling through the northern Syria countryside in Stryker vehicles brandishing American flags during the spring was a common sight for several months.

 

A task force of U.S. Marines has also been providing 24-hour all-weather artillery support to Syrian fighters. And U.S. special operations forces are actively advising and supporting SDF fighters as they continue to take ground from ISIS.

As we noted previously, even the former senior national security adviser to the Obama administration, Colin Kahl, (among the very architects of Obama's dangerous and disastrous Syria policy) admitted that that the United States has entered a “quagmire” and will inevitably climb “further up the escalation ladder in Syria.” It is perhaps an obvious sign that we have already long been in the midst of a quagmire in Syria (the result of failed regime change plans) when the Pentagon spokesman comically spouts obvious lies, which elicits press pool laughter at the obvious absurdity of it all.

Of course, the US was already very far up the “escalation ladder” from the moment it attempted to save face regarding the failed regime change war against Assad by investing itself in the war to the point of having to defend its SDF assets on the ground – a "plan B" of sorts: embed with the SDF  (or Kurdish-Arab Syrian Democratic Forces). This "plan B" will no doubt lead to more and more troop deployments, which itself will likely result in more absurdly comical (and tragic) displays of Orwellian Pentagon press briefings.

via http://ift.tt/2z5hiW1 Tyler Durden

Meet New Fed Chair Jerome Powell, In His Own Words

It’s official: according to most news sources, tomorrow Trump will announce that Fed governor Jerome “Jay” Powell is Janet Yellen’s replacement as the next bank-friendly Fed chair. Since Powell has served as Federal Reserve governor for the past five years, starting May 2012, he has had ample opportunities to express his views about the policies he will oversee if the Senate confirms him as the central bank’s next chairman. For those who want a detailed breakdown of each of the 48 speeches he has given since May 12, 2012, here’s a link to a WSJ speech analyzer breaking down all of his spoken public appearances.

For those pressed for time, below are samples of what he has said on important policy issues along the way. First, we look at the big picture items, courtesy of the WSJ’s David Harrison:

On Interest Rates

 

Mr. Powell, 64 years old, has backed Ms. Yellen’s policy of gradually raising interest rates if the economy improves as projected. In recent public remarks he has sounded an optimistic note, saying he expects inflation to move up to the Fed’s 2% target, economic growth to remain steady and the unemployment rate to fall further. “I would view it as appropriate to continue to gradually raise rates,” he said in June. 

 

On Shrinking the Fed’s Portfolio

 

Mr. Powell in September voted in favor of beginning the yearslong process of winding down the central bank’s $4.5 trillion portfolio. Like Ms. Yellen, Mr. Powell has said the Fed could resort to new rounds of asset purchases in another crisis if the economy needs more stimulus. Putting new assets on the Fed’s balance sheet should be an option “only in extraordinary circumstances,” he said in February.

 

On Monetary Policy Rules

 

Mr. Powell has joined several of his Fed colleagues in warning against relying too heavily on mathematical rules such as the so-called Taylor Rule to guide monetary policy. That could put him at odds with congressional Republicans who have pushed the Fed to adopt such a formula in an attempt to make Fed policy-making more transparent and predictable. “Simple policy rules are widely thought to be both interesting and useful, but to represent only a small part of the analysis needed to assess the appropriate path for policy,” he said February. “I am unable to think of any critical, complex human activity that could be safely reduced to a simple summary equation.”

 

On Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

 

Mr. Powell has called on Congress to overhaul the housing finance system, saying he’d like to see the country’s two large mortgage-finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, move out from under government conservatorship. More private capital in those firms would reduce the risk of a taxpayer-funded bailout in the event of a downturn, he said in a speech in July.  Although the Fed isn’t responsible for housing finance, it supervises some of the country’s largest lenders who frequently sell their loan to the two agencies. “No single housing finance institution should be too big to fail,” he said.

Ffor a more nuanced take, also via the WSJ, here are explicit thematic summaries of his speeches on a variety of topics:

June 2013: ‘Volatility is unavoidable’

 

Mr. Powell spoke after a Fed policy meeting where officials signaled they would start cutting back a bond-buying program designed to boost the economy, which led to volatility in financial markets that became known as the “taper tantrum.” “Some volatility is unavoidable, and indeed is a necessary part of the process by which markets and the economy adjust to incoming information … I want to emphasize the importance of data over date … The path of [bond] purchases is in no way predetermined; we will monitor economic data and adjust our purchases as appropriate.”

 

March 2014: ‘As long as necessary’

 

Mr. Powell gave his views about the future of monetary policy at a Senate hearing: “Today, our economy continues to recover from the effects of the global financial crisis, unevenly and at a frustratingly slow pace. The task for monetary policy will be to provide continued support as long as necessary, and to return policy to a normal stance over time without sparking inflation or financial instability. This will require a careful balancing, as there are risks from removing monetary accommodation too soon as well as too late.”

 

June 2014: On ‘forward guidance’

 

Mr. Powell defended the Fed’s practice of using verbal guidance about the likely path of policy to affect long-term interest rates. “My view is that forward guidance has generally been effective in providing support for the economy at a time when the federal-funds rate has been pinned at its effective lower bound…To be sure, there have also been times when forward guidance and market expectations have diverged, with resulting spikes in volatility. Such situations may be difficult to avoid, given the use of new, unconventional policy tools, although we always try to communicate policy as clearly as possible.”

 

February 2015: Defending Fed emergency programs

 

With Republicans in Congress considering legislation to increase scrutiny of the Fed’s decision-making, Mr. Powell defended the Fed’s response to the financial crisis. He opposed congressional audits of monetary-policy decisions, requirements that the Fed hew more closely to a specific equation in setting policy and limits on its ability to lend to financial firms in a crisis. “The evidence as of today is very strong that the Fed’s actions generally succeeded and are a major reason why the U.S. economy is now outperforming those of other advanced nations … Given the scale of the Fed’s actions during the crisis, it has been not only appropriate but essential that these actions be transparent to the public and subject to close and careful scrutiny by the Congress. And that is exactly what happened. So it is jarring to hear it asserted that the Fed carries out its duties in secret and is unaccountable to the public and its elected representatives. The Federal Reserve is highly transparent and accountable to the public and to the Congress.”

 

February 2015: On activist regulation

 

In early 2015, the Fed and other regulators were cracking down on lending standards at big banks in the leveraged-loan market, where the borrowers are companies with high levels of debt. Mr. Powell supported the policy, but warily. “I believe there should be a high bar for ‘leaning against the credit cycle’ in the absence of credible threats to the core or the re-emergence of run-prone funding structures. In my view, the Fed and other prudential and market regulators should resist interfering with the role of markets in allocating capital to issuers and risk to investors unless the case for doing so is strong and the available tools can achieve the objective in a targeted manner and with a high degree of confidence.”

 

February 2016: ‘Let incoming data do the heavy lifting’

 

In December 2015, the Fed raised its benchmark interest rate for the first time in nearly a decade. Mr. Powell later explained the decision by the Federal Open Market Committee as driven by financial data. “In the statement released after its October 2015 meeting, the committee re-emphasized data dependence and focused on the importance of incoming data for the committee’s decision ‘at its next meeting,’ which led the market to increase its estimated probability of a December rate increase from 38% to 50%. The October and November nonfarm payroll reports came in strong and above expectations, raising that probability by the time of the December meeting to about 90%. In other words, the committee used modest time-based guidance to set the stage and then let incoming data do the heavy lifting.”

 

May 2016: On the risks of gradual rate rises

 

As officials talked about raising rates again, Mr. Powell advocated for moving gradually, while acknowledging the risks involved. “If incoming data continue to support [my] expectations, I would see it as appropriate to continue to gradually raise the federal-funds rate … There are potential concerns with such a gradual approach. It is possible that monetary policy could push resource utilization too high, and that inflation would move temporarily above target. In an era of anchored inflation expectations, undershooting the natural rate of unemployment should result in only a small and temporary increase in the inflation rate. But running the economy above its potential growth rate for an extended period could involve significant risks even if inflation does not move meaningfully above target. A long period of very low interest rates could lead to excessive risk-taking and, over time, to unsustainably high asset prices and credit growth.”

 

June 2016: Why low rates?

 

The following month, Mr. Powell explained why he believes the Fed is operating in a different climate than before the 2008 financial crisis. “I am often asked why rates remain so low now that we are near full employment. A big part of the answer is that, at least for the time being, the appropriate level of rates is simply lower than it was before the crisis. As a result, policy is not as stimulative as it might appear to be…I expect our economy to continue to make progress. Monetary policy will need to remain supportive of growth, as we work through the challenging global environment.”

 

November 2016: On Fed communications

 

Mr. Powell spoke last year about how members of the Fed’s policy committee should communicate with the public. “In my view, communications should do more to emphasize the uncertainty that surrounds all economic forecasts, should downplay short-term tactical questions such as the timing of the next rate increase, and should focus the public’s attention instead on the considerations that go into making policy across the range of plausible paths for the economy.”

 

January 2017: On limits of Fed power

 

He spoke in January about the limits of the Fed’s power to increase economic growth. “A period of low rates for a long time could present significant challenges for monetary policy. It could also put pressure on the business models of some financial institutions. Ultimately, the only way to get sustainably higher interest rates is to improve the broader environment for growth, by adopting policies designed to increase productivity and potential output over the long term—policies that are mainly outside the scope of our work at the Federal Reserve.”

 

February 2017: ‘Gradually tighten’

 

Mr. Powell praised the Fed’s patience and said it would be appropriate for the Fed to gradually tighten monetary policy over time. “I expect the economy to continue broadly along its current path, which implies further labor market tightening and inflation edging closer to 2%. On this path, unemployment would decline modestly below current estimates of the natural rate and remain there for some time. I see that as a desirable outcome and do not see data suggesting that we are behind the curve. In recent years, the economy has faced significant downside risks, particularly from weak global conditions. The [rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee] has been quite patient, and I believe that has served us well. But risks now seems to me to be more in balance. Going forward, I see it as appropriate to gradually tighten policy as long as the economy continues to behave roughly as expected. As always, the actual path could be faster or slower than expected and will depend on developments in the economy.”

 

February 2017: On flaws in rules-based policy

 

Mr. Powell commented on whether the Fed should follow more explicit rules when setting monetary policy. “Simple policy rules are widely thought to be both interesting and useful, but to represent only a small part of the analysis needed to assess the appropriate path for policy. I am unable to think of any critical, complex human activity that could be safely reduced to a simple summary equation. In particular, no major central bank uses policy rules in a prescriptive way, and it is hard to predict the consequences of requiring the [Federal Open Market Committee] to do so, as some have proposed. policy should be systematic, but not automatic.”

 

April 2017: Defending Wall Street regulation

 

Mr. Powell defended regulatory policies adopted after the financial crisis but left room for changing some of them. “Some aspects of the new regulation are proving unnecessarily burdensome and should be better tailored to meet our objectives. Some provisions may not need—may not be needed at all, given the broad scope of what we’ve put in place. I will support and I do support adjustments designed to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of regulation without sacrificing safety and soundness or undermining macro-prudential goals.”

 

August 2017: The Mystery of Inflation

 

“Inflation is a little bit below target, and it’s kind of a mystery,” he said in August in a CNBC appearance. “You would have expected, given that we’re getting tighter labor markets, that we’d have a little higher inflation. I think that what that gives us is the ability to be patient.”

Source: WSJ

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

Knowing The Policy Stance Of An Incoming Fed Chairman, How It Paid To Do The Opposite

With the appointment of the next Fed Chairman imminent, the WSJ investigated whether knowing his/her identity and policy stance would have led to successful investment decisions. Spoiler alert – it’s often paid to do the opposite.

As The Wall Street Journal reports, President Donald Trump’s The Apprentice-style hiring process for the Federal Reserve chair is due to end this week, and it looks like the message to Janet Yellen is: “You’re fired!” Jerome Powell, a Fed governor, is the leading candidate to take the world’s leading economic job—and he isn’t an economist. Investors following the process have been raking over the past pronouncements of the five main candidates, in an effort to understand the direction of Fed policy over the next four years. History suggests that it is tough to make money from betting on a new chairman’s hawkishness or dovishness, even if you knew who it was going to be. Political betting site PredictIt has Mr. Powell’s chances at 80%, with Ms. Yellen at 8% and academic economist John Taylor at 7%. Outsiders include former Governor Kevin Warsh ; Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis President Neel Kashkari ; and Gary Cohn, Mr. Trump’s top economic adviser.

Assuming an incoming Fed Chairman’s identity is known, the WSJ argues that the “most obvious ways to make money” would be trading Treasuries, the dollar and gold. Okay, we won’t disagree with that, but how about back-testing some prominent examples. Paul Volcker should have been relatively straightforward, shouldn’t he? This is what the WSJ found…

The clearest example of bets on a Fed chair was in August 1979, when President Jimmy Carter appointed the hawkish Paul Volcker in a sharp break with his predecessor during the inflationary 1970s. Investors expected Mr. Volcker to tackle runaway inflation with tighter monetary policy, meaning higher short-term rates, and they were right. But after his appointment, many bet that a Fed chair committed to bringing down inflation meant lower long-term bond yields, a lower gold price and a stronger dollar. They made money for about two weeks, before being crushed.

 

As inflation soared Mr. Volcker stayed true to forecasts, and short-term rates peaked at 22%, the highest ever, pushing the U.S. into double-dip recessions. Contrary to the expectations of investors, bond yields also jumped, with the 10-year reaching almost 16% in 1981, and far from falling, there was a bubble in the price of gold. Gold was at $304 on the day Mr. Volcker was nominated and fell to $282 as investors bet on his hawkishness. Just five months later gold had nearly tripled to $835, the dollar was weaker and the early Volcker trade was dead and buried. Mr. Volcker’s appointment was a case of investors getting the policy positioning of the new chairman right, but their bets on what that meant for asset prices wrong, at least over the next few years.

Bad Bets on Volcker

What about the “Maestro”? The Journal sets the scene when the (then) Ayn Rand disciple was appointed.

Alan Greenspan’s selection was a quite different matter. Conservatives welcomed his appointment in 1987, thinking he shared the hawkish inflation-fighting mind-set of Mr. Volcker, his predecessor. The main point of difference was Mr. Greenspan’s willingness to support financial deregulation—something now espoused by Mr. Powell.

As we remember only two well, however, Greenspan changed his spots as the WSJ notes…

Mr. Greenspan does seem to have started out hawkish, raising new concerns about inflation at his first Fed policy meeting, according to the transcript. But his hawkish credentials lasted just two months, until the Black Monday stock market crash of October 1987.

 

The new Fed chairman said the central bank stood ready to “serve as a source of liquidity”—thus ushering in the infamous “Greenspan put,” the idea that the Fed would step in to support markets in a crisis. A repeat after the Russian default and Wall Street chaos of 1998 helped fuel the final stages of the dot-com bubble, and many believe that Mr. Greenspan pushed up rates too slowly and too predictably during the 2000s, contributing to the excessive risk-taking that ended in the 2008 crisis.

 

Investors might have been wrong about Mr. Greenspan’s commitment to tight money, let alone his devotion to the views of right-wing novelist Ayn Rand, but they were right about his support for financial deregulation.

Ironically, current candidate, John Taylor, was not a fan of “Easy Al’s” policies, which stoked the bull market in gold and bear market in the dollar during the 2000s. The WSJ continues…

One prominent critic of the Fed’s pre-crisis policies is Mr. Taylor, whose “Taylor rule” suggested rates should be higher during the 2000s. The market backed up his view: Gold prices began to rise and the dollar fall from 2002, when the Fed set rates well below what the Taylor rule suggested for the first time since the 1970s. Democratic and Republican presidents stripped the financial sector of the burden of rules introduced in the Great Depression, working wonders on the sector’s share prices—at least for a while. By the time Mr. Greenspan left office in 2006 the U.S. financial sector was up 653% since his 1987 appointment, gaining more than double the 319% of nonfinancial stocks, according to Thomson Reuters Datastream.

The Maestro’s legacy was tainted shortly afterwards.

Having concluded that knowing whether an incoming Fed Chairman is hawkish or dovish was essentially a contraindicator for asset allocation, the WSJ discusses current front runner, Jerome Powell.

We can tentatively say two things about Mr. Powell, assuming he is appointed: he will be friendlier to Wall Street than Ms. Yellen, and he will take a similarly dovish approach to monetary policy. In the short run, less red tape will support bank stocks a bit, but banks surely won’t return to their wild pre-crisis leverage any time soon. Equally, a continuation of Ms. Yellen’s cautious approach to rate increases will avoid shocking the market, while leaving unchecked the danger that a bubble develops in the already-expensive stock market. Given investors’ dire history of predicting how Fed chairmen will use their power, the wisest approach may be to wait and see how he turns out.

So, using the WSJ’s insights, we might invest on the basis that Powell will be anti-Wall Street and hawkish? If so, we are struggling to think of asset classes which aren’t horrendously mispriced at this point.

via http://ift.tt/2h5ot9D Tyler Durden

Papa John’s Pulls NFL Ads Due To “Negative Consumer Sentiment”

Having unleashed on NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell during the Papa John's earnings call this morning

“The NFL has hurt us by not resolving the current debacle to the players’ and owners’ satisfaction,” Schnatter, who serves as the pizza chain’s chairman and chief executive officer, said on a conference call. “NFL leadership has hurt Papa John’s shareholders.”

 

“Leadership starts at the top, and this is an example of poor leadership,” Schnatter said.

 

“This should have been nipped in the bud a year and a half ago,” Schnatter said on the call.

 

He concluded that “like many sponsors, we’re in touch with the NFL. Once the issue is resolved, we’re optimistic the NFL’s best years are ahead.”

It appears Papa John's founder John Schnatter was serious about that last line… as ESPN's Darren Rovell reports that "Papa John’s says it has been pulling advertising associated with the NFL."

While the last few sponsors/advertisers to pull their money from The NFL (here and here) were shrugged off by some, the decision by the major pizza chain – which is a mainstay of almost every commercial break as far as we can remember – will perhaps shock a few more owners.

Papa John's is deeply rooted in the NFL since it has a deal with the league and 23 of its individual teams, according to Rovell.

In exchange for pulling current ads, Schnatter said the NFL has given Papa John's additional future spots moving forward.

Per Jonathan Maze of Nation's Restaurant News, Papa John's founder John Schnatter said sales are down due to "negative consumer sentiment" regarding the company's relationship with the NFL.

Schnatter also called the NFL "an example of poor leadership," according to Maze.

This is not the first time that Schnatter has been outspoken. As BI notes, Schnatter came under fire in 2012 for saying that the Affordable Care Act could be "lose-lose" for Papa John's franchisees and employees

Schnatter argued that Obamacare would cost Papa John's $5-8 million annually and ultimately drive up the price of pizza.

 

In his 2017 book "Papa: The Story of Papa John's Pizza," Schnatter argued that regulations are steering the US away from the system of free enterprise he believes is crucial to the nation's success.

 

"America in 2016 is on the path to becoming what Germany was in 1867," Schnatter writes in "Papa." 1867 is the year that Schnatter's great-grandfather immigrated to the US from Germany as a young craftsman seeking work. The US was a land of opportunity where people were free to become successful without fear of attack or government interference.

 

In January 2017, Schnatter emphasized that he believes that regulation in the US needs to be dialed back to help businesses thrive.

 

"You've got to have free markets with limited government, with the proper amount of regulation where you don't jam entrepreneurship," Schnatter said.

It appears the mainstream media would prefer to once again kill the messenger than pay any attention to the message.

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

Twitter Admits It Buried “Podesta Email”, DNC Tweets Ahead Of The Presidential Election

It was approximately one year ago, when angry tweeters alleged that Jack Dorsey et al., were purposefully censoring and "suppressing" certain content on Twitter, namely anything to do with the leaked DNC and John Podesta emails, as well as hashtags critical of Hillary Clinton while "shadow-banning" pro-Donald Trump content. We can now confirm that at least one part of the above was true, because during today's Senate hearing, Twitter admitted it "buried", which is another word for censored, significant portions of tweets related to hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta in the months heading into the 2016 presidential campaign.

As Daily Caller's Peter Hasson reports, Twitter’s systems hid 48 percent of tweets using the #DNCLeak hashtag and 25 percent of tweets using #PodestaEmails, Twitter general counsel Sean Edgett said in his written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

Before the election, we also detected and took action on activity relating to hashtags that have since been reported as manifestations of efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. For example, our automated spam detection systems helped mitigate the impact of automated Tweets promoting the #PodestaEmails hashtag, which originated with Wikileaks’ publication of thousands of emails from the Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s Gmail account.

 

The core of the hashtag was propagated by Wikileaks, whose account sent out a series of 118 original Tweets containing variants on the hashtag #PodestaEmails referencing the daily installments of the emails released on the Wikileaks website. In the two months preceding the election, around 57,000 users posted approximately 426,000 unique Tweets containing variations of the #PodestaEmails hashtag.

 

Approximately one quarter (25%) of those Tweets received internal tags from our automation detection systems that hid them from searches.

 

As described in greater detail below, our systems detected and hid just under half (48%) of the Tweets relating to variants of another notable hashtag, #DNCLeak, which concerned the disclosure of leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee.

And yet, this glaring act of censorship was not aimed at the sources of the alleged propaganda, but the content: Just 2% of the tweets using the #DNCLeak hashtag came from “potentially Russian-linked accounts,” Edgett said.

He also explained that Twitter hid the tweets as “part of our general efforts at the time to fight automation and spam on our platform across all areas.

…And Hillary still lost?

Just over a year ago, on the same day that Donald Trump's "grab them by the pussy tape" was released, WikiLeaks dumped over 30,000 hacked Podesta emails, which were damaging to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, throughout the election. A prior Wikileak of DNC emails, which revealed party officials secretly aided Hillary Clinton during her primary battle against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders , eventually cost then-DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz her job. The leaks also exposed supposedly "neutral" journalists as pro-Clinton partisans.

The U.S. intelligence community concluded that Russian operatives were behind the original hacking of both the DNC and Podesta emails, which were part of Russian influence operations meant to disrupt the American electoral system.

*  *  *
A question emerges: did Jack Dorsey, with his arbitrary decision to censor specific content damaging to Democrats, interfere with the election, and a funnier question: if Hillary lost with Twitter censoring anti-Hillary content, what would the outcome have been if Twitter actually respected the First Amendment?

via http://ift.tt/2lGLwt6 Tyler Durden

Futures Slide On Report Corporate Tax Cuts To Be Temporary, Phase Out After A Decade

When the NAR won the battle over keeping State and Local Tax deductions “as is”, in the process denying the proposed GOP tax reform more than a trillion in revenue over the next ten years, it effectively doomed the most important provision of the republican tax bill set to be unveiled tomorrow: the reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%. Or rather the permanent reduction in the corporate tax rate. Because according to House Ways and Means Chairman, Kevin Brady, what will be revealed on Thursday is a tax proposal with a temporary corporate cut, one which reverts back to the original 35% tax rate after a decade.

As Bloomberg confirms there have been conflicting reports about when the rate cut would take effect, or how long it would last, and according to a Republican lawmaker, House tax writers will phase out the proposed corporate rate of 20% after a decade. While cutting the corporate tax rate to 20% from 35% is a key provision of the Republican tax legislation that set to be unveiled tomorrow, no matter how hard they tried, GOP legislators could not get over a key hurdle: lack of revenue.

According to Bloomberg, “Congressional tax writers are struggling to find enough revenue to help the tax package adhere to the 2018 budget Congress adopted last month. That budget would allow the legislation to add no more than $1.5 trillion to the federal deficit — before accounting for any economic growth that might result.

The problem is that the corporate tax cut is estimated to cost just over that, or $1.6 trillion over the next decade according to the Tax Foundation. One solution to the dilemma, is the notion of phasing in the corporate rate cut.  Furthermore, the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation said in an April letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan that a corporate tax rate of 20 percent would create deficits in the long run even if it remained in effect for just three years, adding further complication to the current revenue-less predicament.

Another problem: making the rate-cut temporary would limit its ability to spur economic growth, a key selling point cited by President Donald Trump and others. It is also a key factor in explaining the recent market surge, especially since Trump’s “Biggest tax cut ever” would have a 10 year shelf life, at which point things would revert back to the way they were.

And while stocks have been slow to grasp the significance of this major disruption to the GOP tax bill, the USDJPY is – gradually – waking up, or rather down, and so are futures…

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

Deutsche Asks A Stunning Question: “Is This The Beginning Of The End Of Fiat Money?”

One month ago, Deutsche Bank’s unorthodox credit analyst, Jim Reid published a phenomenal report, one which just a few years ago would have been anathema, as it dealt with two formerly taboo topics: is a financial crisis coming (yes), and what are the catalysts that have led the world to its current pre-crisis state, to which Reid had three simple answers: central banks, financial bubbles and record amounts of debt. 

Just as striking was Reid’s nuanced observation that it was the modern fiat system itself that has encouraged and perpetuated the current boom-bust cycle, and was itself in jeopardy when the next crash hits:

We think the final break with precious metal currency systems from the early 1970s (after centuries of adhering to such regimes) and to a fiat currency world has encouraged budget deficits, rising debts, huge credit creation, ultra loose monetary policy, global build-up of imbalances, financial deregulation and more unstable markets.

 

The various breaks with gold based currencies over the last century or so has correlated well with our financial shocks/crises indicator. It shows that you are more likely to see crises/shocks when we break from hard currency systems. Some of the devaluation to Gold has been mindboggling over the last 100 years.

The implications of this allegation were tremendous, especially coming from a reputable professional who works in a company which only exists thanks to the current fiat regime: after all, much has been said about Deutsche Bank’s tens of trillions  in gross liabilities, mostly in the form of various rate derivatives, backed by hundreds of billions in deposits and, implicitly, the backstop of the German government as Deutsche Bank discovered the hard way one year ago.

However, what shocked most readers was that at its core, Reid’s report was dead accurate, and as Reid writes in a follow up report published this morning, it is the topic of the fiat system itself as potentially the weakest link in any future crisis that generated the most debate.

In the report titled, “The Start of the End of Fiat Money?” Reid writes that “as we road-showed the document a theme that had minor billing in the report started to gain more and more prominence in the discussions and as such we wanted to expand upon it in this short follow-up thematic note. The basic premise is that a fiat currency system – the likes of which we’ve had since 1971 – is inherently unstable and prone to high inflation all other things being equal. However, for the current system to have survived this long perhaps we’ve needed a huge offsetting disinflationary shock. We think that since around 1980 we’ve had such a force and there is evidence that this influence is now slowly reversing.”

And here comes the shocking punchline: not only does Reid concede that the fiat system “may be seriously tested over the coming decade and ultimately we may need to find an alternative” but that one such alternative is none other than cryptocurrencues, i.e. bitcoin, ethereum and so on. Which, while it may be a surprise to institutional investors appears to have been all too obvious to buyers of cryptocurrencies.

If we’re correct, the fiat currency system may be seriously tested over the coming decade and ultimately we may need to find an alternative. This is not necessarily a story for the next few months or quarters but we think the trend reversal is already slowly in place. Maybe we can explore future alternatives to the current monetary system in a second part sometime in the future. Cryptocurriencies are all the rage at the moment and are as much about blockchain as anything else but there could be an increasing desire for alternative medians of exchange in the years to come if we are correct. 

Below we excerpt some of the key observations from Reid’s note:

* * *

The Future of Money Part 1 – The Start of the End of Fiat Money?

Background

In “The Next Financial Crisis” we suggested how China’s fairly sudden integration into the global economy at the end of the 1970s and a very favourable once-in-alifetime shift in demographics from around 1980 onwards could have contributed to the modern boom/bust culture that has made financial crises more regular in recent decades. The argument is based around a view that a positive labour supply shock from China and developed countries’ demographics between 1980-2015 has allowed inflation to be controlled externally as the surge in the global labour supply at a time of rapid globalisation has suppressed wages. With inflation controlled externally it has allowed governments and central banks the luxury of responding to every crisis and shock with more leverage, loose policy and latterly more and more money printing. Its not usually this easy as inflation would have normally increased with such stimulus and credit creation.

It could be argued that this external disinflation shock has perhaps ‘saved’ fiat currencies after the runaway inflation of the 1970s in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Bretton Woods quasi Gold Standard from 1971 onwards. If this theory is correct then any reversals in this demographic super cycle could spell problems for the fiat currency system. Under this scenario inflation would pick up externally due to working age populations no longer rising and labour pricing power returning. Central banks and governments which have ‘dined out’ on the 35 year secular, structural decline in inflation are not able to prevent it rising as raising interest rates to suitable levels would risk serious economic contraction given the huge debt burden economies face. As such they are forced to prioritise low interest rates and nominal growth over inflation control which could herald in the beginning of the end of the global fiat currency system that begun with the abandonment of Bretton Woods back in 1971.

Fiat currencies and inflation

For virtually all of financial history up to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, most currencies were backed by precious metals for the vast majority of times. Over the preceding century or so these systems periodically broke down for many countries due to wars and notably during the Depression years of the 1930s. However, countries generally reverted to some kind of precious metal fix after experiencing high inflation in the years where they suspended membership. Figure 1 shows our global median inflation index back over 800 years and then isolates the period post 1900 where inflation exploded relative to long-term history

Figure 2 then shows this in year-on-year terms and as can be seen, in the 700 years before the twentieth century inflation and deflation were near equal bedfellows with only a gradual upward creep in inflation as new precious metals were mined or governments periodically punched holes in existing coins and thus slightly debasing the currency.

As someone that has studied economic history it always amuses me to hear that we live in times of extremely low inflation when history would suggest these are relatively high inflation times. Indeed a look at the right hand chart of Figure 2 shows we haven’t had a single year of negative (median) global inflation since 1933. What has happened though is that we saw a 35 year disinflationary period start in 1980 that took inflation down from the extremes at the start of that decade to what we think will be the secular lows around the middle of this decade.

Inflation since 1971 – a loss of control and then a positive disinflationary shock

In the first decade of global fiat currencies post 1971, global inflation saw one of its biggest climbs in history. Although the oil shocks were partly to blame, the fact that the shackles of the Bretton Woods system were removed and countries were freer to borrow and find ways of liberalising finance and credit surely contributed to the inflation surge. Gold saw an annualised nominal return of 32.2% p.a. in the 1970s way above the long term return of 1.97% p.a. from 1800.

However a miracle occurred post 1980 which many have attributed to the Volker Fed taming the inflationary dragon. Clearly their tighter policies helped but was the global structural story providing phenomenal disinflation  tailwinds from this point and is it now slowly reversing?

China and Developed Country demographics to the rescue

We think that the effective global labour force exploded from around 1980 due to natural global demographics and China opening up its economy to the outside world at the end of the 1970s. Figure 3 shows the 15-64 year olds  (working age population proxy) in the More Developed Regions + China where the second bars repeat the exercise with China zeroed before 1980 to reflect its virtually closed economy before this point and the effective surge in the global labour supply thereafter. So we first see the impact in 1990 on this graph.

Obviously, this is highly simplified and in a globalised world we should probably include more countries than China as various lower labour cost nations have transformed from relatively closed low income countries to more developed globalised ones. However, China dwarfs all these by its size. It’s also simplistic to include all of the working age population increase from China in one decade as we do in the chart. It should probably be spread out over time but it’s hard to assess the increments that they should be added over the last 35 years. The disinflationary journey would be the same though. At a developed world level there’s little doubt that labour’s share of GDP has declined over the last few decades. Figure 4 shows this decline for a selection of G20 countries from 1980.

In addition Figure 5 shows real wage growth (YoY change) over the last few decades for a selection of the largest countries around the world. As can be seen in the two decades we have data for prior to 1980, real wage growth was much higher than the post 1980-period. It’s interesting that China’s wage growth over the period was much higher which fits with our thesis that the EM workers that integrated into the global economy benefitted most from this globalisation period.

So will a falling working age population increase inflation?

As can be seen in Figure 3 above, the peak of the ‘working age population’ in the MDW plus China occurred around the middle of this decade. Going forward the supply of labour will in aggregate start to decline after rising for the last three and a half decades.

While the pace of decline will be slow, the fact that it’s not increasing at the rapid pace of the last 35 years surely must have an impact on labour costs. If economic growth simply increases at trend over the next few years and decades then all other things being equal a flat to declining labour force should bring upward pressure on wage costs.

Would fiat currencies survive if labour’s share of GDP reversed?

In terms of addressing inequality and the increasing gap between capital and labour, higher wages would undoubtedly be good news. However the problem for the current global monetary system is that over the last 45 years it has relied on governments and central banks being able to turn on the stimulus spigots at the drop of a hat when a crisis has come. This has enabled each crisis to be dealt with via increasing leverage rather than creative  destruction type policies. For this to be possible you’ve needed an offset to such stimulus to prevent such policies being inflationary. Fortunately (or unfortunately if you believe it’s an inherently unstable equilibrium) the external  global downward pressure on labour costs ensured that this has happened.

So what would happen to the global monetary system if labour costs started to reverse their 35 year trend? If central banks had their current mandates of keeping inflation around 2% then they would be duty bound to tighten policy more often regardless of the external environment. However, such an outcome is probably unrealistic given how much debt there is at a global level. Governments would surely first change their mandates to allow higher inflation or look to reduce their independence rather than allow interest rates to rise to economically uncomfortable levels given high debt levels. Ultimately, if and when labour costs rise at the margin rather than fall at the margin, we will likely have a much more difficult environment for policy makers and in a democracy where politicians have to be elected it is likely that inflation will be the casualty.

If we get higher trending inflation then bond yields would be very vulnerable, especially relative to current near record (multi-century) lows. Given the near record level debt burdens around the world, it is likely that central banks would be forced to buy more securities again to ensure that yields stayed comfortably below nominal GDP. This would likely lock in higher inflation as you would have negative real yields, very loose financial conditions and higher wages.

Eventually, it’s possible that inflation becomes more and more uncontrollable and the era of fiat currencies looks vulnerable as people lose faith in paper money. Once the value of debt has been eroded the debate would likely be live as to what replaces fiat currencies as surely the backlash would be severe against the system that allowed us to get to such a situation. Although the current speculative interest in cryptocurrencies is more to do with blockchain technology than a loss of faith in paper money, at some point there will likely be some median of exchange that becomes more universal and a competitor of paper money.

It’s far too early to fully speculate on the future of money but if there is demand we will look to add a part 2 to this series where we look at the alternatives and perhaps a more in-depth look at cryptocurriences going forward.

What if people retire later?

If populations extended their retirement well beyond 65 years old then the working age population will get a boost. However, while this is undoubtedly happening, in democracies this is proving incredibly hard to legislate on a big enough scale to seriously impact the overall natural demographic story. Maybe one day retirement ages will go up significantly and change the argument but this probably requires a major global shock and subsequent rewriting of contractual agreements between governments and their populations.

Conclusion

We would argue that fiat currencies are the rarity in financial history and are always associated with higher inflation. Perhaps the now 46 year experience with fiat currencies can be broken down into two periods; 1) The 1970s where inflation rose around the word at the fastest pace on record; and 2) the last 35 years where inflation has always been positive at a global level but has progressively fallen largely due to demographics, China and the associated globalisation trend.

Given we know that demographics are now slowly turning, it’s possible that a new era is slowly emerging towards higher wages, which will perhaps be encouraged by the rise in populism. As such, will fiat currencies survive the policy dilemma that the authorities will experience as they try to balance higher yields with record levels of debt?

That’s the multi-trillion dollar question for the years ahead.

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

US Air Force Admits To Harvesting Russian Tissue

A day after Russian President Vladimir Putin surprised members of Russia’s human rights council by informing them that some shadowy entity – possibly with ties to the United States – had been collecting biological tissues from Russians from different ethnic groups, the group responsible for harvesting the tissue has revealed itself.

While some initially discounted Putin's remars as another loony conspiracy theory, as it turns out, he was right: The group responsible for the tissue collection was none other than the US Air Force, proving that yet another conspiracy theory has become a conspiracy fact.

A representative for the US Air Force Education and Training Command explained to Russia Today that the choice of the Russian population was not intentional, and is related to research the Air Force is conducting on the human musculoskeletal system.

Eyebrows were first raised in July when the AETC issued a tender seeking to acquire samples of ribonucleic acid and synovial fluid from Russians, adding that all samples (12 RNA and 27 synovial fluid) “shall be collected from Russia and must be Caucasian.” The Air Force said it wouldn’t collect samples from Ukrainians, but didn’t specify why.

According to AETC spokesman Capt. Beau Downey, the 59th medical group’s molecular research center is currently conducting “locomotor studies to identify various biomarkers associated with trauma.”

Downey told Russian media that the study required two sets of samples: disease and control samples of RNA and synovial membrane. The first set was provided by a “US-based company.”

Since the first set of tissue, provided by a US company, was sourced from Russia, the Air Force opted to collect the second set of data from Russians, too, to eliminate any confounding variables that could skew the results of the study. He did not say which set – the control or the diseased set – was collected first, and neglected to provide any further details about the study.

However, some suspect that this explanation is merely a ruse, and that the Pentagon is collecting the tissue for a much more sinister purpose, according to RT.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Monday that Russian genetic material is being harvested all over the country. “Do you know that biological material is being collected all over the country, from different ethnic groups and people living in different geographical regions of the Russian Federation? The question is – why is it being done? It’s being done purposefully and professionally. We are a kind of object of great interest,” Putin told Russia’s Human Rights Council, without specifying who might be behind the activities involving Russians’ biological samples. “Let them do what they want, and we must do what we must,” he said.

 

The fact that Russian tissue samples specifically are on the wanted list made some wonder whether the Pentagon is working on a biological weapon to target Russians. “I’m not saying that it is about preparing a biological war against Russia. But its scenarios, are, no doubt, being worked on. That is to say, in case the need suddenly arises,” Franz Klintsevich, the first deputy chairman of the Federation Council’s Committee for Defense and Security, wrote on Facebook. “It is also no secret that different ethnic groups react differently to biological weapons. Hence the collection of the biological material from Russians living in different geographical locations. In the west, everything is done extremely scrupulously and is verified up to the tiniest detail.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed on Tuesday that Russian special services are in possession of intelligence suggesting that NGOs are collecting the genetic material – intelligence that presumably prompted Putin’s initial speculation about who might be behind the collections.

“Some emissaries are really carrying out such activities, representatives of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and other bodies. Such cases were registered, and security services, the president naturally have this information,” he said.

This is not the first attempt to collect samples of Russian genetic material by foreign agencies in Russia, Igor Nikulin, a former member of the UN biological weapons commission, told RT.

“Such attempts were made back in the 90s, when there was a Human Genome program, then there were various programs in the 2000s too… under different pretexts, including the most noble, but for some reason all this happens in the interests of the US military department, and this raises suspicion,” Nikulin said.

He noted that, as a rule, “samples of Europeans of the Slavic group, mostly Russians” are sought-after. “Blood samples are taken for analysis, and if an organization is foreign, what they are doing with the results is always unknown,” he said.
 

via http://ift.tt/2im3Fr7 Tyler Durden

China Has Practiced Bombing Runs On Guam

Just as President Donald Trump is preparing to embark on a nearly two-week tour of Asia – his first since taking office – where he is expected to discuss, among other topics, the regional threat posed by North Korea, Defense News is reporting that China has reportedly been conducting bombing drills targeting the US territory of Guam.

Reports of China’s aggressive expansion of its air force – an attempt to exert its dominance over contested territories in the South China and East China seas – were relayed by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford during a briefing with reporters.

China “is very much the long-term challenge in the region,” Dunford said. “When we look at the capabilities China is developing, we’ve got to make sure we maintain the ability to meet our alliance commitments in the Pacific.”

The notion that both North Korea and China have threatened Guam, either explicitly or tacitly, speaks to the fact that China is the biggest threat to US security in the Pacific, nuclear standoff with North Korea notwithstanding, Dunford said.

To wit, a conflict with North Korea is still viewed as “a fight we can win,” military officials said during the briefing. With China, they said they “worry about the way things are going.”

Followers of US activities in the Pacific may have noticed the increase in confrontations between US and Chinese forces, both in the water and in the sky. While it hasn’t been nearly as widely publicized as the Chinese military’s buildup in the South China Sea, China has also been building its fleet of fighter jets, operating daily, aggressive campaigns to contest airspace over the East China Sea, South China Sea and further out into the Pacific, Defense News reported.

The officials described the escalatory behaviors by China in a briefing they provided to reporters traveling with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford.

China’s willingness to test boundaries has caused the number of confrontations between Japanese and Chinese fighter jets to escalate dramatically…

Over the last year Japan has scrambled 900 sorties to intercept Chinese fighters challenging Japan’s air defense identification zone, or ADIZ. In 2013 China announced borders for its own ADIZ, borders which overlapped Japan’s zone and included the disputed Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea. Since then, increased interactions between Japanese and Chinese aircraft ultimately resulted in Japan relocating two fighter squadrons to Naha Air Base on Okinawa to more easily meet the incursions, the officials said.

 

“We now have, on a daily basis, armed Chinese Flankers and Japanese aircraft” coming in close proximity of each other, the officials said, adding that intercepts between the U.S. and China are also increasing.

…While US military officials have accused the Chinese air force of provoking the US by staging intercepts of US aircraft.

“It’s very common for PRC aircraft to intercept U.S. aircraft” these days, the officials said, referring to the People’s Republic of China.

 

Chinese aircraft are also testing U.S. air defense identification zones, the officials said. Chinese H-6K “Badger” bombers upgraded with 1,000 mile range air launched cruise missiles are testing U.S. defense zones around Guam.

 

The Badgers run “not infrequent” flights to get within range of the U.S. territory, they said.

 

“The PRC is practicing attacks on Guam,” the officials said.

 

The vast majority of the flights occur without an incident, such as a report of unsafe flying, for example. The officials said they follow U.S. Pacific Command guidance on how to respond in those events, so they do not further escalate.

DefenseNews noted that the military relationship between the US and China remains open, if guarded. US officials meet twice a year at the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement conference, where the incursions are discussed along with other security topics.

However, officials described China’s repeated confrontations as part of a strategy of normalization, whereby Chinese officials repeatedly test boundaries until regional gradually come to accept their expanded presence. Ultimately, the strategy is aimed at forcing the international community to accept “the nine-dash line” – the contest maritime border surrounding islands in the South China Sea that China has claimed and developed, but have been the subject of an international dispute with several of China’s regional neighbors. Last year, an international court ruled in favor of the Philippines’ claim of ownership, but the ruling was promptly ignored by the Chinese.

The expanded Chinese fighter and bomber runs are just one part of the country’s effort to “win without fighting” to gradually normalize the gains China has made in the South China Sea, the officials said.

 

There are other pressures. For example, the officials said they estimate the People’s Liberation Army Navy has placed as many as 150,000 Chinese commercial fishing vessels under its direction, even though they are not official Chinese navy. The Chinese fishing vessels make coordinated attacks on Vietnamese fishermen, the officials said, ramming and sometimes sinking boats near the Paracel Islands. China took the territory from Vietnam in the 1970s and has militarized some of the islands. The area remains a traditional fishing area for the Vietnamese.

 

Taken together, China’s activities suggest it is preparing to defend expanded boundaries, the U.S. officials worry.

 

“I think they will be ready to enforce it when they decide to declare the Nine-Dash line as theirs,” one of the officials said, referring to the territorial line China has identified that would notionally put the entire South China Sea under Chinese control if enforced.

Ultimately, the US fears that Chinese systemic provocations will erode the so-called “rules-based order” – the system of international codes and treaties that governs military relationships between sovereign states.

If unchallenged, the U.S. officials worry that China could slowly force countries away from what they describe as the “rules based order” — essentially the standing international treaties and norms — in the region and make them shift their security alliances to Beijing for their own economic survival.

 

Dunford said the U.S. would not allow that to happen.

 

“We view ourselves as a Pacific power,” Dunford said.

 

There are some who try to create a narrative that we are not in the Pacific to stay,” he said. “Our message is that we are a Pacific power. We intend to stay in the Pacific. Our future economic prosperity is inextricably linked to our security and political relationships in the region.”

 

While all of the officials stressed that there is no imminent danger of a conflict with China, U.S. forces in the region are rethinking what a Pacific fight would look like.

 

“If we find ourselves in conflict out there we will be under air attack,” the official said.

While North Korea will likely be the main topic of discussion during Trump’s Asia tour, Dunford said he expects Trump will convey the US’s displeasure with China’s increasingly aggressive posture in the Pacific.

Of course, while China has cooperated with the US in passing sanctions against North Korea, while partly acquiescing to US demands that Beijing curtail economic support for the Kim regime, Dunford seems to suggest that China’s cooperation on these issues is nothing more than a ploy to create a buffer of goodwill as it gradually expands its reach in the Pacific. The question now is: Will the US seek to more boldly counter China’s advance? Or, like the famous analogy of the frog in the pot of boiling water, will US reticence allow China to keep pushing until it is the dominant military power in the Pacific?

What do you think?
 

via http://ift.tt/2A9wZt4 Tyler Durden

Dinar Devaluation Looms As Bahrain Begs Richer Neigbors For Bailout

Despite the recent rise in oil prices, all is not well among the allies in the Gulf. The 'pegged-to-the-dollar' Bharaini Dinar has tumbled in the last few days as Bloomberg reports the nation has asked Gulf Arab allies for financial assistance as it seeks to replenish its foreign-exchange reserves and avert a currency devaluation – which could spread contagiously through MidEast markets.

Bloomber notes that the slump in oil prices has battered the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council, at times raising questions over whether a dollar peg seen as a bedrock for economic stability for more than three decades was sustainable. And while bets against the region’s currencies have subsided this year, a devaluation of a GCC member would risk shifting the attention to others. Gulf central banks, including Bahrain’s, have repeatedly brushed aside talk of abandoning their exchange-rate regimes.

But Bahrain has seen its central bank's foreign reserves collapse over 75% from 2014 highs as they have defended the currency peg.

And so, as Bloomberg reports, according to people with knowledge of the talks, Bahrain has asked for a bailout.

The request was made to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, two of the people said.

 

A third person said Kuwait was also asked.

 

The countries responded by requesting the island kingdom do more to bring its finances under control in return for the money, the people said on condition of anonymity because the discussions were private.

 

The talks are at an early stage, one person said.

It appears the FX markets are not convinced as the Dinar tumbled…

The IMF estimates that Bahrain needs oil prices at $99 a barrel to balance its budget this year, compared with $73.1 a barrel for Saudi Arabia, which is overhauling its economy.

While Brent crude is trading at the highest level in more than two years, it’s still almost $40 below Bahrain’s breakeven price.

But, Bloomberg points out that economists say that a Saudi-led bailout of Bahrain will be less costly than cleaning up the mess of a devaluation.

“Most people are fully expecting the other Gulf countries to come to Bahrain’s aid,” said Jason Tuvey, a London-based economist at Capital Economics.

 

“If Bahrain was forced to devalue its currency it would probably start to raise questions about other currency pegs.”

Will this be the next ripple to spook markets? Or just another dip to buy?

via http://ift.tt/2z4IbJD Tyler Durden