Too Much Bubble-Love… Likely To Bring Regret

Authored by Pater Tenebrarum via Acting-Man.com,

Unprecedented Extremes in Overbought Readings

Readers may recall our recent articles on the blow-off move in the stock market, entitled Punch-Drunk Investors and Extinct Bears (see Part 1 & Part 2 for the details). Bears remained firmly extinct as of last week – in fact, some of the sentiment indicators we are keeping tabs on have become even more stretched, as incredible as that may sound. For instance, assets in bullish Rydex funds exceeded bear assets by a factor of more than 37 at one point last week.

Bullish investors had every reason to feel smug in recent months. And while there are a number of bears of varying degrees of prominence who have become cautious much too early (many of whom have fallen silent over the past year or so, but that is how it always works…), there are very few traders who are actively betting on a downturn. And yet, we know that the main bubble fuel – namely, broad true money supply growth – is faltering.

Last Friday, after discussing with friends of ours what the best way to play tail risk currently probably is, we updated a few of the charts we showed in those articles. More on the former topic follows further below, but first here are a few charts we made on Friday, just before the recent minor dip began – i.e., the charts are not showing this dip yet, but this is actually not relevant for our purpose. The first chart is a weekly chart of the DJIA as of Friday last week (we are focusing on the DJIA because it is the “bubble leader”).

 

A weekly chart of the DJIA as of Friday last week. To be perfectly honest, we are actually not 100% sure if a weekly RSI exceeding 92 is entirely “unprecedented”, although we strongly suspect it is. What we do know for certain is that it has not happened in at least 45 years. As noted in the insert, this manic RSI reading has coincided with DSI readings (daily sentiment index of futures traders) on stock index futures that were the exact opposite of the extreme DSI readings recorded at the low in March of 2009.

When it comes to charts, we like to keep things simple – cluttering them up with all kinds of oscillators and overlays is not really our thing. We do however traditionally use RSI and MACD as overbought/oversold indicators, mainly in order to spot divergences, which are often helpful for short to medium term timing. When we looked at longer term charts to see whether the DJIA had ever posted a weekly RSI above 92 before, it occurred to us that this was probably extremely rare for any stock market index.

It turns out we were right about that. As an example, when the great tech mania of the late 1990s topped out in March of 2000, the Nasdaq’s weekly RSI stood “only” at 84. In the DJIA, even the monthly RSI finally exceeded the 90 level last week – which we believe is a first as well:

 

DJIA monthly – we are aware that it looks slightly less intimidating on a log chart. In view of the uniqueness of the situation, it should look scary though (in a number of ways valuations have never been more stretched, so this is not only an extraordinary juncture in technical terms). When we see charts like this one, we always wonder what people buying the top tick are actually thinking – that stocks are a bargain here? They control money, so they have to be thinking something, right?

A Lone Precedent

After ascertaining that indexes are indeed almost never posting such extreme RSI readings in weekly and monthly time frames, we looked around to see if we could perhaps find a precedent anyway. In the end we actually did find one, even if it is not ideal as a comparison, namely the Shenzhen ChiNext Index in 2015.

Unfortunately this index has very little in common with the DJIA beyond the ominous weekly RSI reading above the 90 threshold, but it is still interesting to see what happened to it after it had managed to attain such rarefied heights. As one would expectm it wasn’t pretty, but we are mainly interested in how precisely  the reversal from euphoria to panic played out.

 

Shenzhen ChiNext, weekly – several things are worth noting: the weekly RSI peak was actually recorded in the week after the price peak, at a slightly lower high. As can be seen, just one week passed between the top and the first week of the crash (a 40% decline in four weeks and ultimately a 55% decline in three months surely qualifies for the moniker). On a more granular daily chart (see further below) one can see that this one week of hesitation during which a “hanging man” candle was built on the weekly chart, consisted of two big down days, a “pause day” and a three day rebound with waning momentum; and that was all she wrote.  Also noteworthy: more than two years after crashing, the market remains 55% below its peak, and has intermittently traded at even lower levels. So instead of making a comeback, this market has apparently fallen into a state of long-term despondency.

We find this rapid reversal quite interesting, because it is something that almost never happens in stock markets either. Stocks usually tend to top out in lengthy “distribution” patterns (as rallies are driven by greed) while they often bottom in spike lows (as sharp downturns are driven by fear). The exact opposite behavior is usually observed in commodities, i.e., they tend to make spike tops, while bottoming patterns are usually tedious, lengthy affairs, with many false starts.

We are of course not saying that precisely the same sequence of events is going to happen in the case of the DJIA – normally we would actually deem this a highly unlikely prospect. But recall what we pointed out in December of last year when we pondered how the bubble might end. We conjectured that the handful of bigger corrections we have seen since the 2009 low are likely providing important clues.

This applies particularly the May 2010 “flash crash” and the August 2015 mini-crash, which were evidently driven by market-immanent, structural issues. These structural issues remain with us. While the sharp three day decline in 2015 happened several weeks after a market peak, it started with very little warning from a level less than 5% below said peak (see the annotated chart). It was a highly unusual pattern.

Our suspicion is that in some way, the reversal of the current bubble will also be marked by an unusual pattern. It may lack the “normal” warning signs, it may happen faster than generally expected – we obviously cannot know. We believe though that similar to the many unprecedented things have happened on the way up, we should expect to see unusual behavior on the way down as well.

 

Here is the above mentioned close-up showing the daily action in the ChiNext Index during the 2015 blow-off and subsequent denouement.

As an aside, whether this week’s dip is actually meaningful remains to be seen; keep in mind that what looks like a fairly large loss in terms of points by recent standards is really nothing special in percentage terms, so it may well mean absolutely nothing – but one should be on one’s toes and keep one’s eyes peeled anyway.

Addendum: Tail Risk Play

We already remarked on the VIX at the end of our last article discussing the stock market. The VIX recently represented a fairly reasonable way of speculating on a correction (or something worse). If one wants to take advantage of tail risk potential with options – a low risk way of doing so – a blow-off represents a problem: since it is unknowable how far it will go, the strike prices of options one happens to buy too early will move further and further out of the money. Paying up for more time can mitigate this problem, but isn’t a truly satisfactory solution either.

However, in recent months the VIX has stopped falling – it is no longer trending lower in a kind of mirror image of the market’s uptrend. For calls on the VIX  that are bought near the lower end of its recent range, the danger that strike prices will move too far out of the money has become negligible.

Since mid 2017 the VIX no longer makes lower lows – despite the market’s continued advance, it has transitioned from a downward trending channel that was operative for almost two years into a sideways channel.

 

Of course, VIX options come with their own drawbacks and caveats. Moreover, selling volatility is still in fashion as far as we can tell, and any surges in the VIX will presumably tend to invite more of it. But one of these days this is no longer going to work and then such tail risk plays can pay off quite nicely.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2DUZTOW Tyler Durden

Virginia Rail Crash Highlights Media, Government’s Lopsided Approach to Rail Safety

Rail crossingAn iron law of safety hysteria is that it is drawn to incredibly rare and spectacular events while ignoring far more common causes of death and injury. Nothing illustrates this better than the media’s drastically different treatment of two recent high-profile Amtrak accidents.

On Wednesday, a chartered Amtrak train carrying a large number of Republican congressmen hit a garbage truck in Virginia, killing the driver and seriously injuring the truck’s passenger.

The media certainly covered the accident: Cable news devoted a healthy amount of airtime to the crash, and articles about it appeared in The Washington Post and The New York Times. But that was because the lawmakers were present. Remarkably little of the coverage addressed either the cause of the crash or how it could be prevented. (The Wall Street Journal was a notable exception.)

Contrast this with CNN’s coverage of an Amtrak derailment outside Seattle in December, which killed three people. Though this kind of derailment death is exceedingly rare—it accounts for about one percent of all American rail deaths in 2016—the network dedicated an article and multiple news segments to how such a derailment could have been prevented with staggeringly expensive “positive train control” (PTC) technology. This wasn’t unusual: That technological fix was the driving theme of most reports on the accident.

Meanwhile, a third of railroad deaths are caused by accidents at highway-railway crossings. According to the Federal Rail Administration (FRA), 777 people were killed in rail incidents in 2016, of whom 260 died at highway grade crossings like the Virginia crash. Another 509—mostly trespassers—were killed in “other events.” (The Research and Innovative Technology Administration puts the number slightly higher. The FRA number also does not count the roughly 255 people who committed suicide via train in 2016.)

Try to remember the last highway-railway crossing death that attracted a ton of national media coverage without a trainful of Republican legislators being involved.

The misplaced media focus has been matched by a misplaced policy focus. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao identified PTC implementation as a top safety priority for 2018 in a letter to railroad executives. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) has introduced a bill that would require PTC to be installed on all rail tracks in the country by the end of the year, and would provide $2.5 billion to get the job done.

That’s about 10 times the $235 million federal appropriation being made to eliminate hazards at railway-highway crossings. The freight and passenger rail lines have collectively spent some $11.5 billion implementing PTC since Congress first mandated the technology in 2008.

This is not to say that PTC has no value. The technology really does work. But every dollar spent implementing positive train control is a dollar not spent addressing far more common causes of rail fatalities, which are also far cheaper to fix. Installing double-arm crossing guards at highway-railway intersections could go a long way toward preventing vehicle collisions. Fencing off more miles of track would cut down on trespasser deaths.

The more common a type of accident is, the more the press and the politicians shrug it off as just a matter of course. The more unusual or shocking an accident, the more airtime and federal dollars are spent puzzling about how to make sure it never happens again.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2s01jGs
via IFTTT

FBI Agents Issue Statement In Support Of FBI Director

With just hours to go until the allegedly public release of the FISA memo – unless either the White House or Congress gets cold and decide to halt the public distribution of the memo – on Thuesday afternoon, the FBI Agents Association joined the fray, when it issued a statement of support for FBI Director Christopher Wray, who according to CNN has hinted he may resign if the memo is released.

This is what the 3-tweet statement said:

“The FBI Agents Association appreciates FBI Director Chris Wray standing shoulder to shoulder with the men and women of the FBI as we work together to protect our country from criminal and national security threats.

As Director Wray noted, FBI Special Agents have remained steadfast in their dedication to professionalism, and we remain focused on our important work to protect the country from terrorists and criminals—both domestic and international.

Special Agents take a solemn oath to our country and to the Constitution, and the American public continues to be well-served by the world’s preeminent law enforcement agency.”

It was not immediately clear how releasing a memo which allegedly reveals how the FBI “was weaponized by the Obama officials/DNC/HRC to target political adversaries” prevents the FBI from continuing to serve the American public.

As reported today, Trump is expected to allow the release of the 4-page memo crafted by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee. As Rep. Jeff Duncan claimed most recently, the document, once declassified, will show bias against the president within the bureau.

Having read “The Memo,” the FBI is right to have “grave concerns” – as it will shake the organization down to its core – showing Americans just how the agency was weaponized by the Obama officials/DNC/HRC to target political adversaries.

On Wednesday, the FBI issued a rare statement saying it had “grave concerns” about the memo, adding that some information in the document was inaccurate. Wray reportedly reiterated those concerns directly to the White House.
CNN reported Thursday that Wray feels his advice on the memo is being ignored, and that some White House officials are concerned he may quit if the document is made public.

The memo is the latest instance in the conflict between Trump and the FBI.

The president tweeted late last year that the bureau’s reputation “is in tatters – worst in History!”

Two weeks later, he said it’s “a shame what’s happened with the FBI” just before giving a speech to law enforcement leaders graduating from the bureau’s training program. “The president of the United States has your back 100 percent.”

At this moment it does not appear that the sentiment is reciprocal.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2EwI61O Tyler Durden

WTF Chart Of The Day: VIX-Selling Frenzy Erupts As Stocks Sink

There’s “buying-the-dip”… and then there’s this!!!

After a couple of days of volatility in stocks, prices falling and VIX rising, ‘investors’ – if that’s what one calls them – have decided to pile back into one ETF in a size that is utterly unprecedented.

They’ve poured a record $520 million into an exchange-traded note that gains when VIX drops

With the number of shares outstanding jumping to levels not seen since September.

Additionally, bullish equity ETFs saw close to $4 billion a day in inflows even on the stock market’s down days, according to Eric Balchunas, a Bloomberg Intelligence senior ETF analyst, who cited the example of the index-tracking SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY).

“This is unusual, especially for the highly liquid ETFs such as SPY, where flows usually correlate to the market,” Balchunas said.

He identified two reasons for the divergence:

“First, the low ETF volume during the selloff foreshadowed that it wasn’t that much of a panic situation and would be a ‘buy the dip’ type of selloff. Second, many investors may have used it as an excuse to move out of their mutual funds into an ETF.”

This won’t end well!

via RSS http://ift.tt/2ExD9Wu Tyler Durden

Trump Diminishes the Power of the State in Our Heads: Wired Co-Founder Louis Rossetto on Heroism, Politics, and the Dot-Com Bubble (New at Reason)

“Trump is a refreshing reminder that the guy that’s in the White House is another human being,” says Louis Rossetto, the co-founder of Wired and author of the new book Change Is Good: A Story of the Heroic Era of the Internet. “The power of the state is way too exalted [and] bringing that power back to human scale is an important part of what needs to be done to correct the insanity that’s been going on in the post-war era.”

In 2013, Rossetto was the co-recipient of Reason’s very first Lanny Friedlander Prize, an award named after the magazine’s founder that’s handed out annually to an individual or group who has created a publication, medium, or distribution platform that vastly expands human freedom. Rossetto is also a longtime libertarian who knew Friedlander personally.

While still an undergraduate at Columbia University, Rossetto co-authored a 1971 cover story in the New York Times Magazine titled “The New Right Credo—Libertarianism,” writing that “[l]iberalism, conservatism, and leftist radicalism are all bankrupt philosophies,” and “refugees from the Old Right, the Old Left and the New Left, they are organizing independently under the New Right banner of libertarianism.”

Reason’s Nick Gillespie sat down with Rossetto to talk about his new book (the paper version was lavishly designed and crowdfunded on Kickstarter), the 1990s tech boom, and why Trump “diminishes the power of the state” in our heads.

Click here for full text, a transcript, and downloadable versions.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

View this article.

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

Canadian Stocks Tumble Into Red Year-To-Date As Energy Industry Slumps

Canadian stocks are now trading at their lowest since October…

Canada’s Oil & Gas Industry stocks are tumbling in 2018 – down over 6% YTD – and are weighing on the broad Canadian stock market, which has also given up any of its 2018 gains…

 

Which raises the question, as OilPrice.com’s Peter Tertzakian, are Canadian oil prices set to rebound and rescue stocks?

“How’s the Canadian oil and gas industry doing?” a friend recently asked me.

People on the sidelines expect a positive answer, knowing that a barrel of oil now trades above $70 on global markets and 65-ish in Texas.

“Not bad,” I reply. “The top line numbers are improving.”

In fact, as a whole, the upstream oil and gas business is doing better than before. Added up, Canadian producers should pull in about $2 billion Canadian dollars a week in 2018, for a yearly total of CA$105 billion. That’s up 9 percent from last year, and 27 percent from the recent 2016 low of CA$82 billion (see Figure 1).

(Click to enlarge)

But I’m quick to point out that broad statistics about industry health are misleading and need qualifying.

“Yet it depends,” I continue to say, “on what you’re selling; where you’re located; who you’re selling to; and what your discounts are. And it depends on how you are deploying innovation to handle cost competition.”

After a brief pause, I muse, “It sounds a lot like the retail business, doesn’t it?” And then I add the drama: “It depends if you are talking about Amazon, or Sears Canada.”

As a side note, retail sales in Canada were close to CA$590 billion, up 7 percent year-over-year in 2017. But again, the big numbers are misleading.

Let’s face it, if you’re Amazon you’re smiling ear-to-ear. If you’re a hip boutique, selling high-margin clothing, you may be doing OK. If you’re selling cheap shoes on perpetual sale at the back of an expensive mall, you’re in trouble … and if you don’t have any online presence, you may as well put on a pair of those cheap sneakers and run.

That’s how it is in the oil and gas business: Just because headline prices are rising into the clouds doesn’t mean everything is universally peachy. Variations in performance are wide. For one thing, there are a lot of January sales. Price discounts in oil and gas are rife due to too much product being pushed out narrow doors.

Lighter oils and condensates are the place to be in Canada. Productivity has increased dramatically over the past three years, helping to lower costs. Temporary price discounts in the three to five percent range are bothersome, but are being offset by rising global prices. Three-quarters of this year’s total CA$44 billion in spending — about CA$32 billion — will be spent on these high value plays.

On the other side of the oil business, heavy barrels are being heavily discounted. Depending on the day of the week, the market price for Western Canada Select (WCS) is trading 25 percent below normal. The discounts are due to another slug of oil sands production that’s come on line, clogging up pipelines, especially those that carry the heavy grades.

Heavy oil discounts should narrow once rail cars debottleneck the glut (again). Extra capacity from approved but yet-to-be-constructed pipelines like Keystone XL and Trans Mountain will help avoid congestion over the longer term. For now, it’s like waiting for another mall to be built.

What about natural gas? It’s a great Canadian product. In fact, our rocks are so good — among the best in the world — that we’re able to produce more volume than fidget spinners in a dollar store.

At the moment, too much gas is coming out of the ground from companies that are in the right, low-cost postal codes. Fire-sale market prices around CA$1.50/GJ represent a discount of 35 percent off the label. So, if you are a high-cost natural gas producer in the back of the basin with no contracted pipeline access — well, you may as well be selling shoes in the mall.

Historically, regional price discounts in oil and gas have always been temporary. Arbitrages don’t last when there are big dollars involved, so sale season will eventually end. In the meantime, discounts are painful. Yet, learning how to make a buck under price pressure is a skill that’s needed in this era of deflating manufacturing costs.

Deflation is pervasive. Producing more stuff at progressively lower prices is happening everywhere. For fun, I picked up a 30-year-old Sears Canada catalog at a used bookstore. I flipped to the durable goods section and pointed out refrigerators to my friend. “Check it out,” I said, “a high-quality, 18-cubic foot fridge used to cost $1,249 in 1988.”

(Click to enlarge)

I challenged him to go to the Amazon website and find a similar fridge. With a few smartphone swipes, he replied, “An 18-cuber is still priced at $1,249 after three decades.”

“Sounds like the natural gas business;” I said, “little price appreciation since the 1980s,”

Price pressure. New technology. Changing processes. Changing market access and sales channels. Changing locations. Changing customers. And of course, changing regulations.

How is the oil and gas industry really doing? Like any other industry, the answer depends on who you ask.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2DThPxn Tyler Durden

Immigration Restrictionists Seek to Weaponize the Census

Keeping the wheat separated from the chaff. ||| Kris KobachKansas Secretary of State and gubernatorial candidate Kris Kobach, arguably the country’s most influential conspiracy theorist about ever-illusory illegal-immigrant voter fraud, has not let last month’s dissolution of his debacle-plagued Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity set back his crusade against alien non-voters. In a Breitbart News op-ed yesterday, Kobach argued that Census Bureau’s decennial survey should ask forthrightly about citizenship for the first time since 1950 (a position shared by the Jeff Sessions-led Justice Department), but also that the House of Representatives break with historical precedent by excluding illegal-immigrant aliens from its post-Census reapportionment.

We’ll get to the unconstitutional nature of Kobach’s latter proposal down below, but first, let’s address this historically ignorant claim:

There’s no good reason to keep the citizenship question off the census. Nevertheless, the liberal media and liberal groups are calling the question “controversial.” But the only justification they offer for keeping the federal government ignorant of how many citizens there are is their ridiculous claim that some people might be afraid to fill out the census form. It’s hard to see why anyone would be afraid, when the federal government is prohibited from using census answers against anyone and when the form itself states very prominently that a person’s answers “are protected by law.”

It is not remotely hard to see why households containing illegal immigrants would be afraid of volunteering that information to agents of the Donald Trump-run federal government. First of all, there’s the historical precedent, as pointed out by Glenn Garvin in Reason back in 1995:

Even the supposedly apolitical head counters at the U.S. Census Bureau have been unable to keep their promises not to share their most intimate data with anyone else. During World War I, the Census Bureau provided the Justice Department with names and addresses of conscription-age young men to aid in the apprehension of draft dodgers.

And in an even more infamous case, it helped carry out the internment of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor. Each time a roundup of Japanese was planned in a new city, Census Bureau statisticians joined the meeting. They “would lay out on a table various city blocks where the Japanese lived and they would tell me how many were living in each block,” recounted Tom Clark, the Justice Department’s coordinator of alien control at the time. (Clark, later a Supreme Court justice, gave his account in an oral history for the University of California.) From there it was a simple matter for the U.S. Army to conduct block-by-block sweeps until all the Japanese were safely penned up in barbed wire.

More recent Census shenanigans include “provid[ing] the Department of Homeland Security with a massive report on how many Arab Americans live in each ZIP code.” That latter bit sounds similar to an effort by Kobach’s Election Integrity Commission to (in the words of the Washington Post) request “Texas records that identify all voters with Hispanic surnames.” Given that Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been prowling local courthouses for aliens to deport, and threatening all jurisdictions that don’t cough up immigration-status data to the feds, it is not irrational for illegal immigrants to avoid contact with any government official, let alone those from Washington asking for proof of citizenship. Kobach is on firmer ground when he points that the Census’s annual American Community Survey asks about citizenship status, though that is an extrapolative sample, not a total headcount, and has a far lesser impact on government policy.

The chances of Kobach being unaware of the many disincentives for governmental cooperation are roughly zero. After all, he has been a leading national advocate against “sanctuary cities,” which means he has heard earfuls of the opposing argument—that, in the 1996 words of then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, sharing citizenship information with the feds will dissuade “undocumented immigrants…[from] using city services that are critical for their health and safety, and for the health and safety of the entire city.” In fact, Kobach was the advisor who in 2012 helped Mitt Romney come up with the idea of “self-deportation,” the whole basis of which is to make conditions for illegal immigrants so fraught and intolerable that they’d prefer to leave. (Romney’s immigration stance, never forget, was once called “crazy” and “maniacal” by one Donald J. Trump.)

Since Kobach-style restrictionism is favored by the sitting U.S. president and attorney general, it’s well worth taking his views seriously, as a harbinger for what might come soon. That’s why his call to upend the way the House of Representatives reapportions seats after each Census is particularly instructive. Immigration hawks just do not accept the Supreme Court’s clear interpretation that reapportionment be based on all residents, and so in addition to backing fruitless legal challenges, they will do whatever is in their power to produce an undercount.

The complaints about illegal immigrants unfairly tilting the composition of the House are nothing new: You can find the restrictionist Center for Immigration Studies criticizing the practice back in the 1980s, and there was a round of similar talk in 2010. Back then, National Review—no stranger to restrictionist arguments—published a Bench Memos piece by Matthew J. Franck spelling out pretty convincingly why excluding illegal immigrants and other non-voters was a constitutional non-starter. Excerpt:

After the Thirteenth Amendment’s abolition of slavery rendered the “three fifths of all other Persons” a dead letter, the Fourteenth Amendment revised the census clause’s language to read (in the amendment’s second section) that “[r]epresentatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” […]

[V]oting rights are not and never have been the relevant consideration in counting population for congressional representation. Like women in most states before the Nineteenth Amendment, and like minor children even today, the alien is counted because he is represented in Congress, even if he cannot participate in electing members of it. […]

“the whole number of persons in each State” would seem, on its face, to include everyone residing therein, illegally and legally alike. […]

[I]f the result is some advantage to states with more illegals and some disadvantage to those with fewer, the solution to the problem is to do something about our immigration crisis, not to mangle the plain meaning of the Constitution.

Since then, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous 2016 decision, endorsed the notion of adult nonvoter representation in the drawing of political districts. While Evenwel v. Abbott concerned the district-mapping within a state (Texas), not the whole country; and while SCOTUS was careful to narrow the applicability of its ruling, the majority opinion by Ruth Bader Ginsburg made it clear where the Court’s sympathies continue to lie. “Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates—children, their parents, even their grandparents, for example, have a stake in a strong public-education system—and in receiving constituent services,” she wrote. “Total population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation.”

Had Evenwel gone the other way, and should that logic have been applied nationally in a way that Kris Kobach desires, it would have a dramatic impact on the balance of power between Democrats and Republicans, a fact that has not escaped the attention of partisans on either side. “[O]f the 50 districts with the lowest share of adult citizens,” RealClearPolitics elections analyst Sean Trende wrote after the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case, “82 percent are represented by Democrats, while Republicans represent 38 of the 50 districts with the highest share of adult citizens. Redistricting would probably move five or 10 House seats toward the Republicans, with proportional gains likely in the state legislatures.”

As ratified by Evenwel, Trumpworld chronicler Salena Zito wrote a year ago, “those states with large numbers of illegal immigrants get extra seats (and more power to determine appropriations, electoral votes, etc.) at the expense of others. States like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania.” You think this hasn’t attracted Donald Trump’s attention?

As I wrote here a month ago, Trump’s controversial pick to run the 2020 Census is Thomas Brunell, a pro-GOP academic gerrymanderer and author of the 2008 book, Redistricting and Representation: Why Competitive Elections Are Bad for America.

So: A partisan immigration restrictionist whose day-job is protecting voter integrity is advocating that the Census ask discomforting questions to illegal immigrants as an intermediate step before overhauling constitutional/historical doctrine of congressional representation; meanwhile a man whose career interest has involved partisan redrawing of electoral maps is set to be in charge of that very same Census. All while the fate of 700,000 illegal immigrants (most of them children) who volunteered their information to the federal government hangs in the balance; congressmen are calling to arrest such people on sight, and ICE’s courthouse raids intensify.

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the Trump administration wants illegal immigrants and their families to be undercounted by the Census in a way that helps Republican electoral fortunes, and contributes to the fulfillment of Mitt Romney’s once-“maniacal” dream of self-deportation.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2rTU9U0
via IFTTT

Kolanovic: “Clients Are Asking If This Selloff Will Make The Quants Puke”

Having maintained radiosilence for much of 2018, on Thursday afternoon JPM’s top quant reemerged, and pointed out that “many clients are asking if the recent risk-off move was significant enough to drive broader de-risking of such ‘delayed response” systematic investors as CTAs, Volatility Targeting and others.”

And while the two-day selloff at the start of the week was indeed unexpected, and quite violent, resulting in numerous sharp position reversals as Nomura’s Charlie McElligott wrote on Tuesday, Kolanovic is far more sanguine, and writes that the recent market sell-off and spike in volatility was not large enough to trigger broad deleveraging among systematic investors, as the following excerpt reveals:

After a few days of market sell-off and an increase in market volatility, many clients are asking if the move is significant enough to drive broader de-risking of systematic investors such as CTAs, Volatility Targeting and others.

Consistent with our previous research, we think that the move was not large enough to trigger broad deleveraging. Equity price momentum is positive and trend followers are not likely to reduce equity exposure. While the recent move was concerning for its correlation properties (bonds, equities and commodities all going lower), overall the volatility of multi-asset portfolio is still very low, and the increase was relatively small (e.g., increased from —4% to —5%).

Also, there are other circumstances that are not in favor of a continued sell-off — we are in the midst of one of the strongest earnings seasons in the US, and global growth continues to be strong.

He also notes that while the sharp 2-day move was concerning for its correlation properties, overall the volatility of multi-asset portfolio is still very low, and the increase was relatively small.

“That we are in the midst of one of the strongest earnings seasons in the US, and global growth continues to be strong” also does not favor a continued sell off Kolanovic says.

Kolanovic on bond yields: “We think that the current level of rates do not yet pose a major risk for equity multiples.”

So if JPM’s clients shouldn’t be nervous now, then when? To that, JPMorgan’s Gandalf also has a response: give it a few weeks.

“In terms of timing market downside risk, we would be more concerned about the period after the Q1 earnings season, when fiscal reforms are likely to be priced in and central banks make further progress on the normalization of monetary policy.”

via RSS http://ift.tt/2BNnrTZ Tyler Durden

FISA Memo “Will Shake FBI To The Core” As Director Wray Said To Consider Quitting

With the nation’s attention transfixed on the fate of the “bombshell” 4-page FISA memo, and when (and if) it will be released to the public, moments ago Congressman Jeff Duncan (R-SC), unveiled another big hint about not only the contents of the memo, but why the FBI is fighting valiantly to prevents its release, to wit:

“Having read “The Memo,” the FBI is right to have “grave concerns” – as it will shake the organization down to its core – showing Americans just how the agency was weaponized by the Obama officials/DNC/HRC to target political adversaries.”

And, appropriately enough, moments later CNN reported that “according to multiple sources”, White House aides are worried FBI Director Christopher Wray could quit if the highly controversial Republican memo alleging the FBI abused its surveillance tools is released.

Wray has made clear he is frustrated that President Donald Trump picked him to lead the FBI after he fired FBI Director James Comey in May, yet his advice on the Nunes memo is being disregarded and cast as part of the purported partisan leadership of the FBI, according to a senior law enforcement official.

Wray’s stance is “raising hell,” one source familiar with the matter said.

 

The potential release of the memo penned by House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes has set up a standoff with Trump against both the FBI and Department of Justice. Although the President has signaled that he is inclined to release the memo, as part of an effort to undercut the special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, senior officials inside the White House are trying to come up with a solution that satisfies both the President and law enforcement officials like Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

CNN caveats that Wray “has not directly threatened to resign after clashing with Trump over the possible release of the memo, the source added, because that is not his style of dealing with conflict” which likely means that the CNN report is just another trial balloon attempt to escalate the situation, and prevent Trump from greenlighting the memo’s release, although considering earlier reports from the White House that Trump will approve the memo, it is unclear how he can reverse now; if he does, Wray may now have no choice but to resign once the memo is made public.

In any case, should the FISA memo go public, Trump’s standoff with the deep state is about to go nuclear.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2nsZHjX Tyler Durden

Dow ‘Dead-Cat-Bounce’ Dies As 30Y Bond Yield Spikes Above 3.00%

As Treasury yields push to new cycle highs (10Y 2.76 and 30Y above 3.00%), it appears US equities’ post-open panic-buying has disappeared and stocks have sunk back into the red for the day…

 

Another v-shaped recovery fades…

It appears bond yields spiking sparked stock selling once again…

30Y just broke above 3.00%

 

As we noted previously, 30Y at 3% was DoubleLine’s Jeff Gundlach’s Second Trigger for bonds to damage stocks (after his first trigger -10Y crossing 2.63% – hit earlier in the month):

Reminding his audience of the rivalry between himself and Bill Gross, Gundlach disagreed with the former bond king, who made headlines today with his statement that the bond bull market is over, and said that “Gross is too early with his TSY bear market call.”

What is the catalyst for Gundlach? As he explained, one “needs to see the 30Y at 2.99% or above for the trendline to break.”

And it just did…

 

 

And the Dollar is getting hammered…

 

But, with AAPL, AMZN, and GOOG reporting tonight, it’s anyone’s guess where we open tomorrow.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2E3l0Cd Tyler Durden