Feds Show Up at ICE Whistleblower’s CBS Interview

Screenshot via CBS NewsA Wednesday interview between James Schwab, the former Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spokesperson-turned-whistleblower, and CBS News’ Jamie Yuccas was interrupted by the arrival of federal agents. According to CBS News, which caught the visit on camera, the guests identified themselves as agents with the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General’s Office and questioned Schwab about the events that ultimately led to his resignation.

Schwab resigned from his position in March after strongly disagreeing with Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ media campaign against Oakland, California, Mayor Libby Schaaf. In February, Schaaf warned immigrants in her city of upcoming ICE raids. She later released a statement regarding the “law-abiding immigrants and families who deserve to live free from the constant threat of arrest and deportation” and believed it to be her “duty and moral obligation as Mayor to give those families fair warning when that threat appears imminent.”

The raids resulted in the arrest of 232 immigrants out of 1,000 possible targets. As Schwab explained in his CBS interview, the arrest results were actually “16 percent higher” than ICE’s estimates. Despite this, Sessions claimed in March that Schaaf was personally responsible for “needlessly [endangering] the lives of our law enforcement officers to promote a radical open-borders agenda.” The attorney general said the warning led to ICE’s failure to make an additional 800 arrests, classifying the unarrested as “800 wanted criminals that are at large.”

Schwab told Yuccas that the statement was “completely false” and said it made him “extremely uncomfortable.” He once argued in March “We were never going to pick up that many people. To say that 100 percent are dangerous criminals on the street, or that those people weren’t picked up because of the misguided actions of the mayor, is just wrong.” When presented with opportunities to clarify, Schwab said that his Washington, D.C., higher-ups instructed him not to dispute Sessions.

“I could not fathom staying at an organization that was OK with lying to the American public. I hate that. In 17 years in the military, at the Department of Defense as a civilian, at NASA, and now at Homeland Security, I have never been asked to lie. I have never been asked to perpetuate a lie, which is the same as lying,” he said, speaking of the eventual decision to resign.

As Schwab and Yuccas were conversing, two men dressed in suits knocked on the door. The men, who introduced themselves as federal agents, told Yuccas their visit was confidential. Following the visit, Schwab revealed that he was asked about Schaaf’s leak. Schwab maintained that he neither met nor contacted the mayor.

Schwab said the interaction as “intimidation.” He then reaffirmed his decision to speak up and empower others in the federal government facing similar dilemmas.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2Kub30s
via IFTTT

Is China Part Of The “Emerging Market Crisis”?

Authored by John Rubino via DollarCollapse.com,

Being huge, consequential and technologically advanced, China isn’t normally lumped into the “emerging” category with Brazil and Argentina. To most observers they’ve already left the kids table and are now seated with the developed-world adults.

But that might be premature. A big part of China’s economic ascendance was purchased with borrowed money – including a lot of US dollars – and came at the perceived expense of US well-being. And the US now wants to redress what it sees as unfair terms of trade in the most abrupt way possible.

This leaves China with huge debts to service and – possibly – a declining trade surplus with which to do it. Here’s how today’s Wall Street Journal summarizes the situation:

Has the Big Yuan Short Finally Arrived?

Chinese markets are in trouble once again.

China’s currency is down nearly 1% from Friday’s close, wiping out the yuan’s gains for the year, after the People’s Bank of China cut reserve requirements for banks over the weekend. Slowing growth and rising trade tensions are pummeling Chinese shares, with the Shanghai Composite entering a bear market Tuesday. And rising defaults are testing the country’s gargantuan debt market.

To investors with a long memory, this may sound uncomfortably familiar. The last big yuan selloff, beginning in mid-2015, was heralded by a historic stock-market collapse, a rash of corporate bond defaults and Chinese monetary easing.

As in 2015, the U.S. and Chinese central banks are moving in opposite directions, making yuan assets less attractive. Investors owning Chinese rather than U.S. 10-year government bonds pocketed a measly 0.6 percentage-point yield premium in May, the smallest since late 2016.

China is now gradually easing monetary policy, while the Federal Reserve is tightening. Trade tensions are rising, and China posted its first current-account deficit since 2001 in the first quarter. Growth will probably slow further in the second half.

Panic or no panic, a weaker Chinese currency in the months ahead still seems likely.

It’s logical for China to respond to US trade sanctions by weakening its currency, allowing its export industries to cut prices to offset the higher tariffs. And a lot of people seem to expect an explicit devaluation as the dance progresses. From CNBC a few days ago:

China’s sudden currency slide sparks rumors of an anti-Trump policy move

China’s currency has slipped markedly in the last week, to the point where it’s trading at December lows against the dollar, and that’s prompting speculation that China would be willing to use a weakened currency to fight U.S. tariffs and trade threats.

China has often been accused by the U.S. government of intentionally keeping its currency depressed to cheapen its goods in the world market, making them more attractive than those from countries with stronger currencies. The Trump administration this year stopped short of calling China a ‘currency manipulator,’ and China’s currency has actually been fairly steady for most of the year.

“It looked like they were impeding the dollar’s rise against the remnimbi, in line with what you normally expect given the general strength of the dollar. That caught up last week,” said Robert Sinche, the chief global strategist at Amherst Pierpont. “They weren’t letting the currency weaken as much as it should have, so the trade-weighted remnimbi was actually rising in that environment. I think they might have said, ‘The U.S. is not going to play nice, we’ll let the remnimbi trade as it should.’”

Nonetheless, rumors circulated that China could go further and actually become aggressive in forcing a decline in the remnimbi, also known as the yuan.

“The yuan is controlled. They allow it to trade in a band. In order to make sure they don’t have a runaway trade. What you’re seeing is the [speculators] took it by the upper limit of its band,” said Boris Schlossberg, managing director at BK Asset Management. “I think the market is anticipating something, or they feel it’s going to be a natural policy response if this keeps up.”

But there’s another side – the emerging market side – to a Chinese devaluation: All those dollars that Chinese companies and local governments have borrowed would – with a rising dollar – become a lot harder to pay off. The following chart illustrates the magnitude of China’s dollar obligations relative to other emerging countries. $100 billion isn’t unmanageable for a several-trillion-dollar economy, but it’s definitely a problem in a world of many other problems.

To sum up, a Chinese devaluation helps with trade but hurts with debt repayment. And it’s not clear which side of that equation outweighs the other – or whether this kind of currency war escalation might get out of hand.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2lHDy04 Tyler Durden

Kennedy’s Departure Probably Will Give Us a Court More Inclined to Defend Gun Rights

Although Anthony Kennedy joined all three decisions in which the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, his retirement probably means the Court will be less reluctant to define the contours of that right. In the decade since the Court first ruled that a law was inconsistent with the Second Amendment, it has passed up almost every opportunity to resolve lingering questions about which forms of gun control are constitutional. It seems clear that Kennedy bears much of the responsibility for that reticence.

It takes four votes to grant Supreme Court review. Two justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, are on record as criticizing the Court’s neglect of the Second Amendment. On three occasions, Thomas has written dissents arguing that the Court should have agreed to hear a challenge to a gun control law. Last year, in a case involving California’s prohibitive restrictions on carrying guns in public, Gorsuch added his name to one those dissents.

While Samuel Alito did not join any of those dissents, he seems to favor a more aggressive defense of the right to arms recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, the landmark 2008 decision that overturned a handgun ban in the nation’s capital. Alito wrote the majority opinion in the 2010 case McDonald v. Chicago, which overturned that city’s handgun ban and confirmed that “the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.” Chicago “ask[s] us to treat the right recognized in Heller as a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Claus,” Alito observed in that case. Thomas argues that his colleagues have in effect been doing what Chicago wanted it to do: treating the right to armed self-defense as a second-class right, “this Court’s constitutional orphan.” Alito’s concurring opinion in Caetano v. Massachusetts, a 2016 case involving a state ban on stun guns, suggests he is sympathetic to that view.

Ther Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts had upheld the law based on the mistaken premise that weapons are covered by the Second Amendment only if they are appropriate for military use and were familiar to Americans in 1791. That assumption was plainly inconsistent with Heller, and the Supreme Court said so in a brief per curiam opinion that stopped short of overturning the law (a step the Massachusetts court took a month later). Alito’s concurring opinion, which Thomas joined, faulted his colleagues for their “grudging” decision and eloquently sympathized with Jaime Caetano, the woman who challenged the ban on stun guns after she was convicted of violating it.

Caetano bought a stun gun to defend herself against an abusive boyfriend and brandished it in a confrontation that might otherwise have ended in serious injury or death. “Under Massachusetts law,” Alito observed, “Caetano’s mere possession of the stun gun that may have saved her life made her a criminal….If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.”

It seems reasonable to assume that Alito is not one of the justices who is stopping the Court from hearing Second Amendment cases. That leaves Chief Justice John Roberts and Kennedy, both of whom joined the majority in Heller and McDonald but seem disinclined to address important issues those decisions left unresolved, including the right to bear arms outside the home, the constitutionality of bans on particular kinds of firearms (such as “assault weapons”), and the appropriate level of scrutiny for gun control laws.

Given Donald Trump’s avowed intent to pick a replacement for Kennedy from a list of candidates favored by conservatives and the president’s commitment to defending the Second Amendment (which he views as politically important even if he does not really care much about it), his nominee probably will be more inclined than Kennedy to take on these questions. Assuming Alito also wants to hear more Second Amendment cases, Kennedy’s replacement would provide a crucial fourth vote to review decisions upholding gun control laws, forcing Roberts to take sides on controversies he seems keen to avoid.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2lI9Ojy
via IFTTT

House Passes Measure To Force DOJ Documents While Rosenstein Grilled In Heated Testimony

The House passed a resolution on Thursday demanding that the Department of Justice (DOJ) hand over a trove of sensitive documents related to the FBI’s investigations into both Hillary Clinton’s email probe and the Russia investigation.

The floor vote passed 226-183, representing a further escalation in an ongoing feud between Congressional investigators and the DOJ. The demand sets a July 6 deadline for outstanding materials, which Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) said on Wednesday that failure to comply could result in holding Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in contempt, or even impeachment. 

Moments before the resolution was passed, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein traded barbs in a fiery exchange during Congressional testimony – with Jordan accusing Rosenstein of keeping information from Congress. 

“I am not keeping any information from Congress,” Rostenstein insisted, before being cut off.

“In a few minutes, Mr. Rosenstein, I think the House of Representatives is gonna say something different,” Jordan fired back.

“I don’t agree with you … If they do, they will be mistaken,” replied Rosenstein.

Rosenstein then launched into Jordan – defending redactions in various documents, and said “the use of this to attack me personally, is deeply wrong,” adding “I’m telling the truth and I’m under oath.” 

The House panels have been feuding with Rosenstein for months over the documents.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte said in his opening statement in a hearing with Rosenstein on Thursday that his panel’s oversight “has been hampered” by the Justice Department and FBI’s “lack of consistent and vigorous production” of documents. –Washington Examiner

“[I]t has felt like pulling teeth much of the time to obtain and review relevant documents,” said Goodlatte (R-VA). 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2yS2paB Tyler Durden

Sadly, Ross Ulbricht’s Case Will Not Be Heard by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced this morning that it will not reconsider the conviction and life sentence without parole of Ross Ulbricht, convicted for various crimes associated with founding and operating the darkweb site Silk Road. The Supreme Court typically does not explain such rejections.

It’s a shame they aren’t required to explain themselves, because the sea change in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence the Supremes effected with last week’s Carpenter decision definitely means that the ways the government used warrantless searches of Ulbricht’s computer use in arresting and convicting him are far less obviously legal than the 2nd Court of Appeals in considering Ulbricht’s appeal were required to see them by pre-Carpenter precedent.

It’s not that Carpenter, which was about cellphone records and not internet data, unequivocally dictates that Ulbricht should have won on appeal had the Court considered his case. But the entire Fourth Amendment environment under which he was arrested and convicted is so different now that a thorough rethinking was definitely in order.

The Fourth Amendment wasn’t the only issue the Court had an apposite opportunity to rethink with Ulbricht’s case. His life sentence without parole was based on accusations he was never actually tried on—namely that he was involved in planning (uncommitted) murders for hire. That raises important Sixth Amendment questions that at least Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have shown past interest in rethinking if the right case came along.

Ulbricht’s lawyer Kannon Shanmugam wrote in an earlier memo to amici in the case that for the actual crimes he was convicted on, “Ulbricht’s Sentencing Guidelines range would have resulted in a recommended sentence of, at most, 30 years in prison.” Despite the manifest injustice of sentencing based on crimes never proven in court, “the Court has previously declined to grant certiorari on petitions presenting this question” (of sentences based on unadjudicated accusations).

As the cert petition for Ulbricht explained, “it is hard to imagine a better example of the consequences of runaway judicial factfinding than this case. Petitioner, a young man with no criminal history, was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for drug crimes that do not ordinarily carry that sentence, based substantially on numerous factual findings made by the sentencing judge by a preponderance of the evidence.”

Most reasonable people would agree judges shouldn’t hand down sentences for crimes never proven in court. It’s a question that, in addition to the very important Fourth Amendment implications, made Ulbricht’s case one urgently requiring rethinking. Unfortunately and for reasons unknown, the Supreme Court did not agree.

Ulbricht’s mother Lyn has been a tireless crusader explaining the injustices involved in the investigation and sentencing of her son. (See an interview with her in the July print issue of Reason.) In a written statement this morning, she says “This is devastating news for Ross and our family.”

She goes on to explain why even Americans who might have no particular sympathy for her or her son personally should also be discouraged. The Court’s declining to reconsider his case “is also a blow to privacy rights and protections. While the Carpenter decision establishes that the government must obtain a warrant to search our cell phone records, Ross’s case is much more far reaching. With this denial of certiorari and its arguments, the Court continues to permit the government to secretly track our internet browsing history and activity with no warrant, oversight or probable cause. Internet activity offers up a wide range of personal and relevant information, including religious and political affiliations, sexual orientation and activity, medical information, apps, etc. Surely it is in the spirit of the Fourth Amendment that obtaining and using this information, at the least, should require a warrant. Today’s order puts all our privacy in peril and bolsters the surveillance state.”

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2lEZ31m
via IFTTT

Amazon Is Raising An Army Of Delivery Vans To Deliver Its Packages

While President Trump complains that Amazon is taking advantage of the US Postal Service, Amazon is continuing its push to cut out its competitors entirely. In its bid to control every step of the delivery process – from distribution center to doorstep – Amazon is launching a new program to entice entrepreneurs around the US to build their own Amazon-focused delivery services. These drivers will transport packages during the “last mile” of their journey – an industry term that describes the leg of a package’s journey from local distribution center to doorstep.

Amazon

The Associated Press reported Thursday that the online retailing is rolling out a program that will provide entrepreneurs around the country with all the tools they need – including leasing blue vans marked with the Amazon logo directly from Amazon. The company will also sell uniforms and provide entrepreneurs with “support” as they grow their businesses.

In terms of improving customer service, the advantages of controlling the “last mile” of delivery are substantial: Amazon customers will soon be able to track their packages on a map once they’ve been put out for delivery. Customers can even contact their drivers to ask for a last-minute change of their drop-off location. None of this would be possible with FedEx and UPS. And for customers who’d like their packages delivered while they’re at work, Amazon announced back in April that it would partner with GM and Volvo to build a system allowing their packages to be placed in the trunk of their cars. 

Amazon sent shares of UPS and Fedex reeling earlier this year when it announced “Shipping with Amazon” – a new program that allowed third-party merchants using Amazon’s platform to pay Amazon, instead of its competitors, to handle deliver. Over the past two years, Amazon has expanded into ocean freight and has leased up to 40 aircraft while building its first air transport hub in Kentucky.

One Amazon contractor in the program’s test market said he’s already hired 40 employees to work at his company, and that Amazon provides more than enough business to keep them all busy.

“We don’t have to go make sales speeches,” said Olaoluwa Abimbola, who has hired 40 workers in five months.

“There’s constant work, every day. All we have to do is show up.”

But with the unemployment already at a multi-decade low 3.8%, we can’t help but wonder: Where does Amazon expect to find all of these new low-wage workers?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2tN6GGL Tyler Durden

Money-Supply Growth Slides Again As Recession Looms

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

Money supply growth fell to a three-month low in May this year, continuing a general downward slide in growth rates that’s been in place since late 2016.

In May, year-over-year growth in the money supply fell to a 3-month low, growing 4.2 percent. That was down from April 2018’s rate of 4.3 percent, but remains up from November 2017’s low of 2.6 percent:

The money-supply metric used here — an Austrian or “true” money supply measure — is the metric developed by Murray Rothbard and Joseph Salerno, and is designed to provide a better measure than M2. The Mises Institute now offers regular updates on this metric and its growth.

The “Austrian” measure of the money supply differs from M2 in that it includes treasury deposits at the Fed (and excludes short time deposits, traveler’s checks, and retail money funds).

M2 growth accelerated in May 2018, rising to 3.8 percent, compared to April’s rate of 3.7 percent. Overall, though, the M2 growth rates has fallen considerably since late 2016.

Money supply growth can often be a helpful measure of economic activity. During periods of economic boom, money supply tends to grow quickly as banks make more loans. Recessions, on the other hand, tend to be preceded by periods of falling money-supply growth.

Factors at work in differences between M2 and the Rothbard-Salerno measure include treasury deposits at the Fed , which have climbed again in recent months back to near all-time highs. Rothbard-Salerno calculates money supply including these deposits as money, although M2 does not. Thus, these recent increases in treasury deposits will result — all else being equal — in more money-supply growth in the Austrian measure of the money supply, than in M2.

The Rothbard-Salerno method also removes retail money funds and small time deposits from the money supply. In recent months, both retail money funds and small time deposits have been increasing. So these increases, which show up in M2, are not reflected in the Austrian measure.

The overall result has been slightly more moderation in the Austrian measure of money supply over the past 18 months, than we see in the M2 measure. We can see that in the orange line here showing the total money supply in billions of dollars:

What should we take away from this? Falling growth rates — not necessarily into negative territory — often precede economic crises. It nevertheless remains impossible to say with any precision as to how long after a sizable drop in money-supply growth a recession is likely.

2017’s declines in money supply, however, were the largest we’ve seen since 2007, and do point toward a worsening in economic activity.

We can see this partly, for example, in falling loan activity, since loan activity is a major factor in money creation:

via RSS https://ift.tt/2tCekVd Tyler Durden

Feds Arrest ‘Occupy ICE’ Protesters in Portland

More than a week after protesters forced the closure of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) headquarters in Portland, federal officers in riot gear moved in on the demonstrators Thursday in an attempt to reopen the facility.

The Occupy ICE PDX protest started early last week, as demonstrators set up camp along the building and blocked the entrance. They were protesting the Trump administration’s zero tolerance immigration policy which triggered separations of undocumented families apprehended while trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border.

After issuing several notices reminding the protesters they were breaking the law by blocking the entrance to the building and ordering them to vacate, federal officers made their move early Thursday morning.

“At approximately 5:30 a.m. today, federal law enforcement officers initiated a law enforcement action to reopen the federal facility at 4310 SW Macadam Avenue in Portland,” Federal Protective Service spokesman Robert Sperling said in a statement.

According to KGW News, federal officers only took action to clear the entrance so the facility could be reopened. Many protesters camped along the side of the building were left alone. Still, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told KATU News that several protesters were arrested.

The demonstrators, who successfully shut down the facility on June 20, have previously said they have no intention of leaving. “This group here is ready to move forward and continue doing what we need to do to make sure we abolish ICE,” said Danialle James, a member of the Occupy ICE PDX movement.

Several hundred people were involved in the protest, some of whom carried signs that said things like “Refugees Welcome” and “Abolish ICE.”

The protest outside ICE headquarters in Portland has sparked similar demonstrations in other major cities across the nation.

Outside ICE’s office in Detroit, for example, demonstrators gathered on Monday with signs, tents, and folding chairs. According to an ICE spokesperson, the protest caused normal operations to be “briefly disrupted.” In Los Angeles, protesters set up camp outside an ICE facility on Saturday, and in New York on Monday, protesters forced the cancellation of all hearings at an ICE processing center.

However, the Occupy ICE movement has attracted the ire of at least one Republican lawmaker. In a Sunday tweet, Rep. Steve King (R–Iowa) suggested that the protests could serve as a lead-up to civil war.

“America is heading in the direction of another Harpers Ferry. After that comes Ft. Sumter,” King wrote, referring to the 1859 attack that served as a precursor to the Civil War.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2KuUHop
via IFTTT

Scott Pruitt’s Newest Scandal Involves a Salty Practice Called ‘Ratfucking’

KEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/NewscomWhile being scrutinized for exorbitant spending habits, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt faces new controversy as a report from The Daily Beast alleges that Pruitt was personally involved in the “ratfucking” of a former aide.

“Ratfucking,” as described by former EPA officials, is a retaliatory campaign that involves calling potential employers to tarnish a former employee’s reputation. The practice is generally used after said employee falls out of favor with an influential boss. In the case of former EPA Scheduling Director Millan Hupp, this moment may have occurred after she testified before Congress that Pruitt had her perform odd personal tasks such as a buying a used mattress from the Trump International Hotel.

The fallout from the testimony nearly cost Hupp her reputation:

According to three sources familiar with the conversations, Pruitt was livid over Hupp’s testimony, which he felt had been particularly humiliating. And he personally reached out to allies in the conservative movement, including some at the influential legal group the Federalist Society, to insist that she had lied about, or at least misunderstood, the request for a used Trump mattress. He also stressed that Hupp could not be trusted—the implication being that she should not be hired at their perspective institutions.

The report goes on to claim that Hupp is not the only aide to receive such treatment. Kevin Chmielewski, Pruitt’s former deputy chief of staff, accused Pruitt of retaliation following accusations that he leaked information on Pruitt’s egregious spending. The Daily Beast‘s source claimed that Pruitt tasked current employees with leaking information about Chmielewski’s own work habits.

The allegation of retaliation joins growing list of Pruitt scandals, which include the commissioning of a $43,000 phone booth and the use of his position to try to obtain a Chick-fil-A franchise for his wife. Pruitt is also accused of excluding certain journalists, namely those perceived to be ‘unfriendly,’ from covering a National Leadership Summit.

Reason‘s Ronald Bailey observed in May that Pruitt’s tactics have quickly undermined his reputation as a deregulatory reformer in the EPA.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2IAGuEB
via IFTTT

Bank Of America Spots An €800 Billion Cliff “That Fills Us With Fear”

Ever since the ECB commenced buying tens of billions of sovereign and corporate bonds, it is undeniable that Europe’s economic picture brightened substantially, eliminating occasional flash crises such as Greece and Italy which had a contagious event on the rest of the Eurozone, and why not: after all there was a definitive backstop to all the risk – nothing bad was allowed to happen, or as Draghi said, any adverse outcomes would be fixed “whatever it takes.”

But in recent months Europe’s economic picture has turned decidedly dour, if not so much in the primary data where things are still stable, then certainly in manufacturing surveys, and especially for Europe’s economic dynamo, the export economy. As the chart below shows, PMI trends for new export orders have fallen notably in 2018 – and not just for Europe, but also for Japan and the US. This, according to BofA’s Barnaby Martin, “may point to less vibrant export activity across the world. For Europe, whether this is really the case, or just a reflection of €-strength earlier in the year, remains to be seen. But for now we think the economic data has not been convincing enough to ignite enough of a rally in European risk assets

Which brings us to the next logical thought: could Europe be approaching a recession, especially if trade wars with the US cripple Europe’s exports which forms that backbone of the German economy, without which Europe is lost. Anecdotally, the following colorful snippet from Martin explains why a US-Europe trade war would really be Europe at war against itself.

If US-EU trade tensions escalate, we would view it as akin to pitting Europe vs. Europe. The US trade deficit with the EU-28 is far from homogenous. Germany exports cars to the US…but France doesn’t, and while Italy is a net exporter to the US, the Netherlands is a net importer. Therefore, growing trade tensions are likely to further fragment the Eurozone, just at a time when ECB QE is drawing to a close.

To be sure, Europe’s current growth trajectory remains far from a recession. According to BofA’s economist team, which recently took down their 2018 Eurozone growth outlook from 2.4% to 2.1%, partly marking-to-market given the weak Q1 momentum, they acknowledge the downside risks posed by Italy and trade tensions. At the same time, however, they calculate that “a trade war coupled with a confidence shock could push the US economy to the brink of recession.

It’s not just trade however that is a defining risk for Europe’s highly “connected” economy: a far bigger risk is what happens to the ECB’s QE… and what, if anything will replace it?

As Martin explains in a note titled The “next” recession, we worry that the ECB is ending QE…but nothing else is being instigated to take up the slack. In particular, fiscal stimulus is not on the cards in Europe, despite the positive effects of it being evident now in the US (see Q1 US earnings, for instance).”

This is demonstrated in the next chart which shows just how different the US and Europe are in regard to fiscal generosity vs austerity.

So what happens if the worst case scenario emerges and after several months, not only QE ends but European trade concerns are realized, and a recession becomes unavoidable?

This is where things get complicated, not so much for the economy itself, but for how such a slowdown would impact hundreds of billions of debt that exists largely thanks to the ECB’s QE, and which is currently on the cusp between investment grade and junk. Here is Martin:

The idea of the “next” Eurozone recession fills us with a lot of fear however. Not just because many central banks would be relatively constrained in their ability to cut rates after their big post-GFC easing, but more because of how disruptive it could possibly be to the Euro credit market.

As the BofA strategist explains, the disruption would manifest itself first and foremost in how Europe’s “QE years” have profoundly altered the structure of the Euro credit market, to wit:

“Not only, on the one side, have they encouraged the more credit-constrained issuers to embrace bond financing, but on the other side the strict eligibility rules of CSPP have motivated high-yield companies to deleverage and return to an IG-status, where possible.”

The outcome has been an unprecedented increase in BBB-rated debt to fund Europe’s recent growth, debt which however is now also Europe’s Achilles heel.

The net result of these two themes in Europe is depicted, starkly, in Chart 4. Since the beginning of 2015 (PSPP  started in March ’15) the size of the BBB-rated non-financial sector has grown from €450bn to €755bn (66%). Conversely, the size of the Euro high-yield market has shrunk from €310bn to €285bn over this period.

As a result, this has left the non-financial BBB-market now 2.5x bigger than the high-yield market in Europe…a ratio not seen since before 2008.

Said otherwise, there is close to €800bn of BBB-rated non-financial bonds, but the HY market is just €285bn in size (as a reminder, the ECB is technically prohibited from purchasing junk bonds in the open market).

Martin then shows what has been behind this dramatic increase in the size of the Euro-denominated BBB market over the last few years: it is demonstrated in the next chart which breaks down the components of market growth: here, around €200bn of growth comes from debut BBB-rated issuers, or said otherwise, “QE drove debt costs so low that many issuers who had previously never raised debt joined the party…

It is here that the impact of a recession would be most acute: should a Eurozone recession become a more plausible event down the line, then the prospect of negative rating migration would have overwhelming consequences for the credit market in Europe, as the “the potential for such a vast amount of Fallen Angels (BBBs being downgraded to high-yield) at a time when Euro high-yield bonds are shrinking would cause enormous ructions and indigestion in the market.”

Even in a best case scenario in which some BBB-rated issuers staved-off a downgrade with rights issues or emergency asset sales, the potential Fallen Angel quantum is still dramatic.

For reference, the largest expansion of ICE BofAML’s European Fallen Angel bond index was from €20bn to €110bn – but this took almost 7yrs to transpire (from September 2008 until April 2015). But in the “next” European recession, rating downgrades would not take 7yrs, in our view.

For the reductionists, there is a far simpler way to describe the above dynamic: the ECB’s punchbowl led to an unsustainable credit bubble, especially among investment grade companies that are on the cusp of a downgrade should a recession hit, which would cascade into the capital markets resulting in “enormous ructions and indigestion in the market.”

In this light, it is easy to see why BofA is “filled with a lot of fear” from what is coming, and why it’s conclusion is that “a Eurozone recession can’t (be allowed to) happen

However, it is only a matter of time before one does hit, and it will be the fallen angels that are hit first. Which explains why there are already those who, like Oaktree and Horseman Capital, are preparing to capitalize on what we recently called the “$1 Trillion Opportunity In The Coming Bond Crash.”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Kr1BLd Tyler Durden