This Rap-Based School Curriculum Is Teaching Kids That John Locke Was Cool Like Che Guevera

Che Guevara was many things: a bloodthirsty executioner, a propagandist, an admirer of mass murderer Mao Zedong. But he was not a big fan of the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke, whose support for the rights to life, liberty, and property helped inspire the American Revolution.

Curiously, the curriculum company Flocabulary—best known for producing educational rap videos that teach history, vocabulary, and other subjects—thinks Guevara’s a great example of Locke’s influence and that students of all ages should know about it.

A parent of students enrolled in Alexandria City Public Schools in Alexandria, Virginia, has passed along a sample quiz question from one of Flocabulary’s units on the American Revolution. The unit, intended for grades 5–12, purports to teach kids about Locke and how his ideas inspired Thomas Jefferson and the American founding. Much of the content is fine, though the accompanying rap begins like this:

I’m the thinker with theories ’bout the government
Got the Enlightenment on lock because I’m running it
You wannabe Beyonces—change your clothes
I wrote down thoughts and I changed the globe.

The Locke rap also includes the lyric “I advocate revolution like Che.” And drawing a connection between Locke and Che turns out the be an idiosyncratic focus of the unit. Take a look at this bizarre reading section:

Where to begin? The reading implies that Locke’s thinking inspired Guevara’s revolutionary activities in South America and Africa, but there’s no evidence this is the case. Che’s revolution was based on Marxist-Leninism, and when he spoke about liberty he did not mean it in any Lockean sense.

Even setting Che aside, the question is a poor one. The correct answer must be A, but “the ability to blink” is not really “innate” in the same sense that rights are innate. Rights are abstract; the ability to blink is not.

Sadly, this sloppiness is characteristic of most—not all, but most—of the questions. Minor typos and awkward wording abound. Several items are duplicative. A few are so vastly superior to the others (an item about James Madison, for instance, is perfectly fine) that they must have been written by someone else.

I don’t intend to characterize the company’s entire curriculum based on one unit, but this unit was quite unimpressive. I realize that many lefties like Che Guevera: Frustratingly, his violent fanaticism is often overlooked by his T-shirt-wearing fans. But he’s hardly a compelling illustration of the ideas of John Locke.

A spokesperson for Flocabulary did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2X2sFJX
via IFTTT

Anti-Trump Democrats Learn That Internet Censorship Blocks Them Too

Last fall, the most-enlightened folks among us praised the move by some tech giants to police and even censor political ads. Sure, back in the day, Barack Obama had used Facebook and micro-targeting to good effect. Indeed, his campaign’s embrace of new ways of reaching young people (including using data from “unknowing users“) showed how liberals generally were so much more tech-savvy and forward-looking than old-school campaigns run by the likes of John McCain and Mitt Romney, who might as well have been wearing spats and sporting pocket watches. Then 2016 happened and it turned out that Donald Trump was a master of social media and Hillary Clinton was revealed as the hapless grandma who couldn’t even work her Jitterbug phone.  The super-retro real-estate mogul from Queens—who doesn’t even use email, fer chrissakes!—connected tremendously with all the mouth-breathers out there on Facebook, Twitter, Pornhub, whatever, and squeaked into the White House. Trump’s digital-media guy, Brad Parscale (Brad!) was the genius, while Clinton’s Robby Mook, once-always described as a guru, was the chump, a digital-era Joe Shlabotnik.

To the technoscenti, the obvious answer to such a turn of affairs was to ban or restrict political advertising online, often in the name of saving the Republic. Jack Dorsey of Twitter paused from taking meditation retreats in genocide-scarred Myanmar long enough to announce that he was banning political ads from his microblogging site, and people who only belatedly realized that non-liberals could be savvy at making memes breathed a sigh of relief. The same people lost their shit when Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg said he would continue to allow ads and he wasn’t even going to fact check them, either. Hadn’t this alien lifeform done enough damage to America already? When Google, the 800-lb. gorilla of online advertising, announced plans to restrict various forms of targeting and to police “false claims,” there was much rejoicing. As Kara Swisher, the founder of the great Recode platform who now writes for The New York Times, put it, Google’s decision to heavily restrict meant that Parscale “will now have one less weapon in his digital arsenal to wage his scorched-earth re-election campaign.”

But as Techdirt’s Mike Masnick writes, it turns out that censorship tends to work in mysterious ways, at least if you don’t understand that you won’t always be the censor. Here we are, in an election year during a full-blown pandemic whose severity many want to blame on Donald Trump’s inaction. Trump’s political opponents understandably want to flood the internet with messages about just how bad the “cheeto in chief” really is, but they’re running into the very restrictions they were applauding last fall. “Content moderation at scale is impossible to do well, writes Masnick,

and…things are especially tricky when it comes to content moderation and political advertising. Now, when you mix into that content moderation to try to stop disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic and you run up against… politicians facing blocks in trying to advertise about Trump’s leadership failures in response to the pandemic.

He cites a report from Protocol that reads in part:

Staffers of several Democratic nonprofits and digital ad firms realized this week that they would not be able to use Google’s dominant ad tools to spread true information about President Trump’s handling of the outbreak on YouTube and other Google platforms. The company only allows PSA-style ads from government agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and trusted health bodies like the World Health Organization. Multiple Democratic and progressive strategists were rebuked when they tried to place Google ads criticizing the Trump administration’s response to coronavirus, officials within the firms told Protocol. (emphasis in original.)

Masnick notes that while political orgs face various forms of blocking and restriction, federal agencies do not and they are pumping out all sorts of public-service announcements and other ads geared around preventing the spread of coronavirus. Given that “this administration appears to view the entire apparatus of the federal government as solely part and parcel of the Trump re-election campaign, that basically means that Trump gets free reign over Google ads.” He stresses that he’s not criticizing Google but rather trying to underscore a point that always needs to be made when talking about online speech:

If you do content moderation, almost every “policy” you put in place will come back to bite you when you realize that, in practice, something will happen that seems insane even when you have a perfectly logical policy in place.

Masnick’s whole piece is here.

Let’s take this a step further: Yes, every individual platform has a right to ban or suspend whoever or whatever it wants (and thanks to much-beleaguered Section 230, every platform has the right to moderate some user-generated content without putting itself at legal risk, too). I’m sympathetic to the argument that some platforms want to limit viewpoint diversity or exclude certain types of speech and information as a way of creating or maintaining community.

But as you approach the size and scope of a Facebook, YouTube (owned by Google), and Twitter, the only real way forward is to trust your users to practice media literacy and to give them the tools they need to create the user experience they want. Masnick is right that content moderation, including picking what political ads are acceptable and which ones aren’t, is virtually impossible to do at scale. You either end up spending all of your time chasing down complaints or you create filters that simply block a ton of content in which your users are actually interested.

Just as it is in meatspace, the answer to bad, misleading, stupid, hateful speech is more and better speech. The power of online persuasion, including and possibly especially the role of Russian trolls in the 2016 election, has been wildly overstated. In an age of deepfakes, good-faith arguments, all sorts of data and versions of reality, and the growing participation of more types of people with all sorts of viewpoints, consensus will be harder to reach than ever. The beauty of online forums is that they give us more control over what we encounter even as they force us to check our premises. That all goes away if and when we cede control to gatekeepers who may not be any smarter or disinterested than we are.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3bM2gnI
via IFTTT

Dozens Of Spring Breakers Have Tested Positive For Coronavirus

Dozens Of Spring Breakers Have Tested Positive For Coronavirus

Two weeks ago, around 70 spring breakers from the University of Texas at Austin went against the advice of the White House and chartered a plane to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico to party. Now, 44 of them have tested positive for coronavirus according to a university spokesman.

Perhaps even more alarming is that some of the students took commercial flights home, according to CNN, citing the Austin Public Health Department.

Those who tested positive are now in self-isolation (or at least they’re supposed to be).

“Quit being an a**,” Texas House Speaker Dennis Bonnen told CNN affiliate KXAN, adding “Get over yourselves. Whether you think this is an issue or not, it is. Whether you think it could affect you or not, it does. The reality of it is, if I’m a college kid who’s going to spring break in Mexico, you’re affecting a lot of people. Grow up.

Dozens of other passengers from the chartered flight are being monitored, public health officials said.

The virus often hides in the healthy and is given to those who are at grave risk of being hospitalized or dying,” Austin-Travis County Interim Health Authority Dr. Mark Escott said in a statement. “While younger people have less risk for complications, they are not immune from severe illness and death from COVID-19.”

The local public health department and UT Health UT Health Austin and University Health Services have contacted all of the passengers on the plane using flight manifests from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The University of Texas at Austin is working to help public health officials. –CNN

 University officials are now scrambling to assist Austin Public Health to trace the students’ contacts, according to university spokesman J.B. Bird, who added “The incident is a reminder of the vital importance of taking seriously the warnings of public health authorities on the risks of becoming infected with COVID-19 and spreading it to others.”

University president Gregory L. Fenves has urged students to practice good judgement and think about how their actions affect others.

“(It) is our responsibility to follow local, state and national public health orders, and use good judgment during this crisis,” Fenves said in a statement Wednesday. “Our conduct and the decisions we make have direct ramifications on our own health and the health of everyone in our city and beyond. We must do everything we can to limit the spread of this virus — the consequences of reckless actions at this time could not be clearer.”


Tyler Durden

Thu, 04/02/2020 – 13:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2R4pSfC Tyler Durden

If The Virus Hadn’t Caused The Crash, Something Else Would Have

If The Virus Hadn’t Caused The Crash, Something Else Would Have

Authored by Satyajit Das, op-ed via Bloomberg.com,

The novel coronavirus has already had a significant impact on the global economy, which will worsen if the outbreak and the shutdowns designed to contain it continue for very long. But it’s only an accelerant: If not Covid-19, as the disease caused by the virus is known, something else would have started the conflagration. Shortfalls in revenue and cash flows, caused by the shutdowns, have simply exposed the vulnerabilities of a structurally unsound economic and financial system.

A fall in revenue is problematic but manageable without debt. Unfortunately, in the aftermath of the 2008 crash, debt levels were increased rather than reduced, encouraged in part by low policy rates and the abundant liquidity engineered by central banks globally. Global debt as a percentage of GDP rose from around 250% in 2007 to 325% in 2019.

Current debt levels are triple what they were in 1999. Businesses and households, with declining or no income and high levels of borrowing, now face an existential struggle to meet large financial commitments.

A second problem is that, in the “everything bubble,” asset prices were priced for perfection. Policymakers boosted the values of financial assets to increase economic activity via the wealth effect, and to support borrowing to protect financial institutions.

High asset prices reflected high leverage, in the form of leveraged loans for private equity or structured investments such as collateralized loan obligations. Debt-financed share buybacks and distributions to shareholders inflated equity values by increasing earnings per share, but simultaneously raised corporate leverage. Toxic layers of debt were heavily exposed to significant revenue downturns.

Third, the weaknesses of the banking system were ignored. Regulatory rollbacks and tolerance for large dividends and capital buybacks undermined steps to strengthen bank capital and liquidity. In Europe and many emerging markets, non-performing loans were not appropriately recognized. The growth of the shadow banking sector was not checked. The current problems in the inter-bank market, reflecting increased counterparty risk concerns, are testament to these missteps.

Fourth, declines in trading liquidity were disregarded. In the search for returns, investors assumed liquidity risk, sometimes unwittingly. Redemption terms offered by investment funds to investors were inconsistent with their illiquid holdings. As traditional market makers reduced activity, market-following structures, such as ETFs, and algorithmic traders were relied on for liquidity. In a crisis, these entities are users rather than providers of liquidity—as the current inability to trade even modest parcels of many securities shows.

In a parallel move, investors moved to private markets and unlisted securities, which are difficult to value or liquefy in anything other favorable markets. Gated funds, suspended redemptions and concern about accuracy of valuations were always going to create problems in any financial disturbance.

Finally, over the last decade, most economic actors did not build enough buffers against shocks. 

Corporations, convinced that they could access cheap capital at will, reduced shareholders’ equity and increased refinancing risk. Households reduced savings and went into debt to consume and purchase houses. In the case of the economically disadvantaged, this was compounded by low wage growth, lack of employment security and inequality. In the United States, the Federal Reserve found that many would struggle to raise $400 in an emergency.

Government banks and central banks steadily eroded their war chests and weapons, leaving them with limited ability to deal with a major dislocation.

Even the spread of Covid-19 reflects a lack of preparedness. Given the lengthy history of virulent pathogens, from SARS to Ebola, countries should have expected some sort of global pandemic to hit sooner or later. Their struggles to cope now reflect the lack of a cogent health policy, as well as diminished spending on health, due variously to austerity policies and privatization.

Investors expecting a rapid recovery are trying to time markets and catch falling knives. But dealing with these deep-seated systemic flaws will require time.

Given the state of public finances, it is unlikely that governments, especially heavily indebted ones, will be able to sustain the level of support required to keep economies in total lockdown for months. Deleveraging and cleaning out financial excesses will be slow and may not be feasible even if the will to tackle the task is found.

The long-term damage will be great. Hysteresis refers to effects that persist after the initial causes are removed. The current crisis will compound persistent financial and economic weakness; structural damage to industry, employment and public finances; and savings and consumption behaviors which are difficult to foresee. While the Covid-19 crisis will probably pass, our fragile economic and financial system will take longer to recover.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 04/02/2020 – 12:50

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2wLiUoV Tyler Durden

Anti-Trump Democrats Learn That Internet Censorship Blocks Them Too

Last fall, the most-enlightened folks among us praised the move by some tech giants to police and even censor political ads. Sure, back in the day, Barack Obama had used Facebook and micro-targeting to good effect. Indeed, his campaign’s embrace of new ways of reaching young people (including using data from “unknowing users“) showed how liberals generally were so much more tech-savvy and forward-looking than old-school campaigns run by the likes of John McCain and Mitt Romney, who might as well have been wearing spats and sporting pocket watches. Then 2016 happened and it turned out that Donald Trump was a master of social media and Hillary Clinton was revealed as the hapless grandma who couldn’t even work her Jitterbug phone.  The super-retro real-estate mogul from Queens—who doesn’t even use email, fer chrissakes!—connected tremendously with all the mouth-breathers out there on Facebook, Twitter, Pornhub, whatever, and squeaked into the White House. Trump’s digital-media guy, Brad Parscale (Brad!) was the genius, while Clinton’s Robby Mook, once-always described as a guru, was the chump, a digital-era Joe Shlabotnik.

To the technoscenti, the obvious answer to such a turn of affairs was to ban or restrict political advertising online, often in the name of saving the Republic. Jack Dorsey of Twitter paused from taking meditation retreats in genocide-scarred Myanmar long enough to announce that he was banning political ads from his microblogging site, and people who only belatedly realized that non-liberals could be savvy at making memes breathed a sigh of relief. The same people lost their shit when Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg said he would continue to allow ads and he wasn’t even going to fact check them, either. Hadn’t this alien lifeform done enough damage to America already? When Google, the 800-lb. gorilla of online advertising, announced plans to restrict various forms of targeting and to police “false claims,” there was much rejoicing. As Kara Swisher, the founder of the great Recode platform who now writes for The New York Times, put it, Google’s decision to heavily restrict meant that Parscale “will now have one less weapon in his digital arsenal to wage his scorched-earth re-election campaign.”

But as Techdirt’s Mike Masnick writes, it turns out that censorship tends to work in mysterious ways, at least if you don’t understand that you won’t always be the censor. Here we are, in an election year during a full-blown pandemic whose severity many want to blame on Donald Trump’s inaction. Trump’s political opponents understandably want to flood the internet with messages about just how bad the “cheeto in chief” really is, but they’re running into the very restrictions they were applauding last fall. “Content moderation at scale is impossible to do well, writes Masnick,

and…things are especially tricky when it comes to content moderation and political advertising. Now, when you mix into that content moderation to try to stop disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic and you run up against… politicians facing blocks in trying to advertise about Trump’s leadership failures in response to the pandemic.

He cites a report from Protocol that reads in part:

Staffers of several Democratic nonprofits and digital ad firms realized this week that they would not be able to use Google’s dominant ad tools to spread true information about President Trump’s handling of the outbreak on YouTube and other Google platforms. The company only allows PSA-style ads from government agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and trusted health bodies like the World Health Organization. Multiple Democratic and progressive strategists were rebuked when they tried to place Google ads criticizing the Trump administration’s response to coronavirus, officials within the firms told Protocol. (emphasis in original.)

Masnick notes that while political orgs face various forms of blocking and restriction, federal agencies do not and they are pumping out all sorts of public-service announcements and other ads geared around preventing the spread of coronavirus. Given that “this administration appears to view the entire apparatus of the federal government as solely part and parcel of the Trump re-election campaign, that basically means that Trump gets free reign over Google ads.” He stresses that he’s not criticizing Google but rather trying to underscore a point that always needs to be made when talking about online speech:

If you do content moderation, almost every “policy” you put in place will come back to bite you when you realize that, in practice, something will happen that seems insane even when you have a perfectly logical policy in place.

Masnick’s whole piece is here.

Let’s take this a step further: Yes, every individual platform has a right to ban or suspend whoever or whatever it wants (and thanks to much-beleaguered Section 230, every platform has the right to moderate some user-generated content without putting itself at legal risk, too). I’m sympathetic to the argument that some platforms want to limit viewpoint diversity or exclude certain types of speech and information as a way of creating or maintaining community.

But as you approach the size and scope of a Facebook, YouTube (owned by Google), and Twitter, the only real way forward is to trust your users to practice media literacy and to give them the tools they need to create the user experience they want. Masnick is right that content moderation, including picking what political ads are acceptable and which ones aren’t, is virtually impossible to do at scale. You either end up spending all of your time chasing down complaints or you create filters that simply block a ton of content in which your users are actually interested.

Just as it is in meatspace, the answer to bad, misleading, stupid, hateful speech is more and better speech. The power of online persuasion, including and possibly especially the role of Russian trolls in the 2016 election, has been wildly overstated. In an age of deepfakes, good-faith arguments, all sorts of data and versions of reality, and the growing participation of more types of people with all sorts of viewpoints, consensus will be harder to reach than ever. The beauty of online forums is that they give us more control over what we encounter even as they force us to check our premises. That all goes away if and when we cede control to gatekeepers who may not be any smarter or disinterested than we are.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3bM2gnI
via IFTTT

There’s a major sovereign debt crisis looming

By the mid 1300s, the Republic of Florence in modern day Italy had experienced one of the greatest economic booms in human history.

In less than a century, Florence had grown from a tiny, irrelevant backwater to become one of Europe’s largest cities and preeminent financial center.

The expansion was truly impressive. Florence’s population had grown 10x. It had become a leading manufacturer in both weapons and textiles.

(Many etymologists believe the word ‘pistol’ is derived from the name of a town near Florence called Pistoia, which was renowned for its quality arms.)

And the city’s innovations in the banking industry were revolutionizing business across Europe.

Florence’s phenomenal economic success is quite similar to what the United States experienced in its early history.

Naturally, though, they managed to screw it up.

At the turn of the century in the year 1300, the Republic of Florence’s public debt was quite manageable at just 50,000 gold florins. That’s less than $100 per capita in today’s money.

By 1338, after a series of costly wars and expensive public works projects, Florence’s debt had ballooned to 450,000 gold florins. Four years later (after yet another war) it had grown to 600,000 gold florins.

This was crippling to public finances given that the government of Florence was paying between 10% and 15% interest on its debt.

To make matters worse, some of Florence’s most prominent banks had made bad loans to foreign governments– most notably to King Edward III of England, who had suffered terrible defeat against France in what would become known as the Hundred Years War.

Edward would ultimately default on his Italian bank loans, sparking a terrible banking crisis in Florence.

News traveled quickly that the most powerful financial center in Europe was in trouble. The government was near ruin, and the banks were collapsing.

And then came the plague.

In 1348, the Black Death ravaged Florence, wiping out at least 25% of its population. The famed Italian author Giovanni Boccaccio was living in the city at the time, and he wrote about his first-hand experiences in the Decameron:

“[S]uch terror was struck into the hearts of men and women by this calamity, that brother abandoned brother, and the uncle his nephew, and the sister her brother, and very often the wife her husband. What is even worse and nearly incredible is that fathers and mothers refused to see and tend their children, as if they had not been theirs.”

Business and commerce ground to a halt. Tax revenue dried up. Florence’s government was unable to pay its debts. People were wiped out.

As local politician Giovanni Villani described the situation, “Our republic has lost all its power and our citizens have nearly all been impoverished.”

Amazingly enough, Florence’s misfortune didn’t stop there.

In the late 1340s, torrential rains destroyed local agricultural production, resulting in widespread famine.

City managers tried desperately to import food, but because Florence’s credit was so poor, few traders were willing to do business with them.

It was a historic and unprecedented fall from power; Florence had gone from being one of the wealthiest cities in Europe to literally begging for food in less than a decade.

I can’t help but wonder which countries are going to be begging as a result of our modern crisis.

Just like Florence in the 1300s, there are dozens of countries who were already in severe financial hardship going into this pandemic.

Now their tax revenues are dwindling, and they’re forced to spend absurd amounts of money to stimulate their economies.

A few years back our holding company acquired a private business in Australia that, thankfully, is holding up extremely well.

The CEO of that company called me a few days ago to tell me about some of Australia’s stimulus efforts; in addition to waiving payroll taxes, extending tax deadlines, and making direct loans to businesses, the Australian government is now directly subsidizing certain employee wages, up to $3,000 per month.

We’re seeing similar stimulus packages all over the world.

In the United States, of course, the government recently passed a $2 trillion stimulus plan… though I expect they’ll quickly realize that $2 trillion buys them about 4-6 weeks.

So if this pandemic drags on, they’re going to have to spend another $2 trillion, and another $2 trillion after that.

Remember that US government debt increased by $10 trillion in the first few years following the last financial crisis. It certainly seems reasonable to expect a repeat performance.

Some places will be able to afford such prodigious spending.

Norway, for example, has ZERO net debt. Norway’s government has such a massive financial surplus that they could tell every citizen, “Stay home and do nothing for the next six months,” and just write a check for everything. They wouldn’t need to go into debt by a single penny.

Italy, on the other hand, is a basket case.

The Italian government has no savings, and its debt burden even before this crisis was more than 120% of GDP.

Moreover, Italian banks were also teetering on the edge of disaster before the pandemic hit. I suspect most of them are completely insolvent now.

Making any forecast right now is remarkably difficult. Every scenario is on the table, and absolutely anything can happen.

But it seems pretty clear that the most heavily indebted countries are in big trouble… and we may be looking at a major sovereign debt crisis over the next few months.

Source

from Sovereign Man https://ift.tt/2UUHXxR
via IFTTT

WeWork Founder Loses ‘Billionaire’ Status, Threatens Lawsuit As SoftBank Pulls $3BN Investor Bailout

WeWork Founder Loses ‘Billionaire’ Status, Threatens Lawsuit As SoftBank Pulls $3BN Investor Bailout

We would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the room where former WeWork CEO and co-founder Adam Neumann received the news that SoftBank was officially walking away from a promised $3 billion purchase of WeWork shares, pledged as part of a deal to oust Neumann and save the struggling rental-space startup after investors backed out of a planned IPO, robbing the company of more than $6 billion in short-term funding.

Without that money, and now, with the global travel business at a standstill and the whole world working from home for the foreseeable future, WeWork is very likely doomed. Now, SoftBank’s billionaire founder Masayoshi Son is facing serious pressure from a litany of adversaries including the US ratings agencies (Moody’s recently cut the company’s credit rating two notches deep into junk territory), notorious activist investor Paul Singer, whose Elliott Capital Management has been pressing the Japanese conglomerate to improve its performance as SoftBank, or at least buy back more stock, and the global banks to whom Masa Son has now pledged 40% of his SoftBank shares.

The ratings cut led to a repricing of SoftBank debt to all-time lows, coupled with a surge in the company’s borrowing costs. 

The news that SoftBank was preparing to pull the WeWork money (only a fraction of which was expected to go directly into the company’s coffers) is hardly a surprise: WeWork board members representing the investors who will now be left with soon-to-be-worthless WeWork shares have angrily threatened to sue SoftBank if it pulls the money, claiming the contractual justification cited by SoftBank is “dishonest.”

According to Bloomberg, SoftBank had agreed to buy the shares from Neumann, Benchmark Capital and others. After the deal’s deadline passed, SoftBank confirmed Thursday that it would pull the money, citing five conditions that hadn’t been satisfied, including ongoing investigations by the SEC and others in the US.

A WeWork committee of two independent directors expressed “disappointment” at SoftBank’s decision, and hinted that the angry investors would respond with lawsuits.

The Special Committee is surprised and disappointed at this development, and remains committed to reaching a resolution that is in the best interest of WeWork and its minority shareholders, including WeWork’s employees and former employees. The Special Committee will evaluate all of its legal options, including litigation,” the committee, made up of Benchmark’s Bruce Dunlevie and another director, Lew Frankfort, said in an emailed statement.

A SoftBank spokesman insisted that the decision didn’t mean SoftBank was “walking away” from WeWork.

After all, at this point, nothing can change the fact that Masa Son and SoftBank pumped tens of billions of dollars, only to watch Adam Neumann recklessly expand, pushing into markets like China, where the company’s buildings have sat empty, and drive what could have been a modestly profitable enterprise (there are similar businesses operating profitably elsewhere) directly into the dirt.

“SoftBank remains fully committed to the success of WeWork and has taken significant steps to strengthen the company since October, including newly committed capital, the development of a new strategic plan for WeWork and the hiring of a new, world-class management team,” said Rob Townsend, chief legal officer at the company. “The tender offer was an offer to buy shares directly from other major stockholders and its termination has no impact on WeWork’s operations or customers.”

But the company said it would be irresponsible to SoftBank shareholders if it didn’t pull the money, which Neumann would have used to pay back his many debts (something that’s about to become significantly more difficult), accrued while buying up real estate like a house with a room shaped like a guitar. Bloomberg reported that rescinding the offer will likely drive Neumann’s personal wealth back below $1 billion, essentially robbing him of his membership in the ‘Tres Commas’ club…possibly for life.

“Given our fiduciary duty to our shareholders, it would be irresponsible of SoftBank to ignore the fact that the conditions were not satisfied and to nevertheless consummate the tender offer,” Townsend said.

The money is completely separate from the $5 billion SoftBank already plowed directly into the company to keep it capitalized, at least for a few more months, while SB brought in new management to figure out a turnaround plan.

But like Mike Tyson used to say “everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.” We suspect that turnaround plan probably already needs some reworking.  But at least SoftBank can breath a little easier knowing it took some steps to cut its losses.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 04/02/2020 – 12:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3aEuPmW Tyler Durden

Markets Now At Tipping Point

Markets Now At Tipping Point

Authored by Michael Markowski via RealInvestmentadvice.com,

The market indices of the US, Japan, South Korea, Canada, France and Germany and the share prices for many of the world’s largest companies including Apple and Microsoft are at the tipping point.  Stocks and indices reached their post-crash and relief rally closing highs from March 25th through March 27th.

None of the indices for the six countries has since closed above their highs.  Since making their relief rally highs all eight of the indices have declined by 4.2% to 7.4%.

With each new passing day that the indices are unable to get new post-crash highs, the probability increases that they will careen back to and through their March 2020 lows.

Investors now need to make a decision; stay in the roller coaster or get out?

From my empirical research on the prior notable market crashes in early March 2020, I discovered that the 1929 crash and the bursting of the NASDAQ dotcom bubble in 2000 share the same genealogy as the crashes of the markets of the six countries which have been underway.  The discovery was significant. It enabled the events chronology throughout the lives of the 1929 and 2000 crashes to be utilized to forecast the events for the crashes of six countries which are now underway and future crashes. For more about the genealogy read 03/23/20 “Probability 87% that market is at interim bottom” article.

The table below contains the first four precisely accurate forecasts that were made from the statistical crash probability analysis’ (SCPA).  The SCPA was developed from the findings from my empirical research of the most notable market crashes since 1929.

The charts below depict the almost identical chronology for the post-crash events that occurred after the Dow Jones crashed in 1929 and the NASDAQ dotcom bubble burst in 2000.  The journey to the final bottom took the Dow 32 months and the NASDAQ 31 months. The NASDAQ declined by 78% and the Dow by 89% from their highs.

The “2020”, year to date charts of the US’ Dow Jones, S&P 500 and NASDAQ indices below depict their crash chronologies from February 20th through March 27th.  Again, the chronologies of the 2020 crashes and the 1929 Dow and 2000 NASDAQ crashes though their initial correction and relief rally periods are very similar.

It was no surprise that the chart patterns for Microsoft and Apple mimic the three US indices.  The two companies are the largest members of all three. Since they have significant index weightings, wherever the indices go, they will follow.

The above charts and tables provide the rationale as to why the eight indices of the six countries will soon begin their marches to the following in sequence:

  • new lows 

  • interim bottoms 

  • interim highs 

  • final bottoms in Q4 2022 with declines ranging from 78% to 89% below 2020 highs

According the Statistical Crash Probability Analysis’ (SCPA) forecasts the probability is 100% that:

  • The relief rally highs for markets of the six countries have either already occurred or will occur by Friday, April 3, 2020.  

  • The eight indices will reach new 2020 lows by April 30, 2020.

To be clear.  Those who are still invested in stocks, mutual funds, and ETFs need to give serious consideration as to whether or not they want to stay on the wild roller coaster.  The ride will take everyone to the interim bottoms which will be within 41% to 44% of the eight indices’ 2020 highs.

After reaching the bottom the indices will then ricochet back to and through the recent relief rally highs and to the post-crash highs according to the SCPA’s forecast.  What will likely power the heart-pounding ride to the top is news about a cure or vaccine for the Coronavirus. This is will enable those who choose to stay on the rollercoaster to be able to liquidate at higher prices.  After the post-crash high has occurred the SCPA’s probability is 100% that the indices will then reverse to begin their descents to the final bottom which will 79% below their 2020 highs. The probability is 50% for the bottom to be within 89%

The virus did not cause the crash.   It caused the correction for markets which were ripe for an epic market crash.  Therefore, the probability is extremely low that good news about the virus will be enough to drive the markets back to new all-time highs.  See my March 5, 2020 article “Overvalued stocks, freefalling US Dollar to soon cause epic market crash!”.

The SCPA is also forecasting a 100% probability for the key on the horizon events of the crash of 2020 below to occur in the sequence below.  The events and their probabilities are applicable to the eight indices of the six countries and for their largest members including Microsoft and Apple, etc.

  • Interim bottom by or before May 4, 2020

  • At interim bottom market will be 41% to 44% below 2020 highs

  • Post-crash high before the journey begins to final Q 4 2022 bottom will occur by as early as June 24, 2020 and by as late as September 18, 2020.

  • Post-crash highs to get market to within 17% of 2020 highs.

My only argument with the SCPA’s statistical probability analyses is can the markets get back to above or even to their March/April 2020 post-crash relief rally highs?  The simultaneous crashes in multiple markets for more than one country, let alone six countries, is historically unprecedented.

My hunch is that the damage to the markets and economies of the world’s leading developed countries will be much more severe than the damage caused by the 1929 crash.  The relief rally highs could prove to be the post-crash highs.

Should the recent highs be the post-crash highs, according to the SCPA the probability is 100% that it will take the markets a minimum of 15 years to get back above the highs reached during the week ended March 27, 2020.  Additionally, the findings from my extensive research on all of the secular bear markets since 1929 further support the SCPA’s forecast.

In addition to my empirical research of notable crashes, I also have been conducting empirical research on the Dow’s biggest one day gains from 1901 to 2020.  Based on my findings the probability is 94.4% that the Dow’s media sensationalized gains for the week ended March 27, 2020 were bear market rallies. See, “The TRUTH about Dow’s ‘… one day jump since 1933”.

Everyone should take advantage of markets being in close proximity of their post correction highs to exit the markets.  All mutual funds and stocks over $5.00 per share should be liquidated. I will provide my rationale for holding and also for buying low priced and penny shares in a future article.  My suggestion is to utilize a methodical approach by liquidating 20% of all holdings per day from April 1st to April 8th.

There are only three reasons why anyone would want to hold on to their stocks and mutual funds:

  1. Waiting to get back to break even.  It’s against human nature to take losses.  I knew investors in the 1970s who had been waiting for 10 to 20 years for a blue chip to get back to their purchase price.  Bite the bullet.

  2. Not wanting to pay capital gains.  Securities with gains can be “sold short against the box” to delay a taxable capital gain.   Capital gains taxes will only go up from here.

  3. Financial advisor advising otherwise.  Beware of the following:

a) An advisor’s largest percentage fee that can be charged is for the amount that an investor has in stocks.  If the investor is in cash the advisor can-not charge the fee.

b) The majority of financial advisors are affiliated with big brand name firms including Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and UBS, etc.  These advisors have to follow the party line. They do not have the independence to get their clients out of the market even if they wanted to.

c) The financial services industry utilizes propaganda to keep clients in the market during volatile periods.  Read “No One Saw It Coming’ – Should You Worry About The 10-Best Days” by Lance Roberts. He is among a few of the independent advisors who I know which had his clients’ 90% out of the market.

*  *  *

Michael Markowski has been involved in the Capital Markets since 1977. He spent the first 15 years of his career in the Financial Services Industry as a Stockbroker, Portfolio Manager, Venture Capitalist, Investment Banker and Analyst. Since 1996 Markowski has been involved in the Financial Information Industry and has produced research, information and products that have been used by investors to increase their performance and reduce their risk. Read more at BullsNBears.com


Tyler Durden

Thu, 04/02/2020 – 12:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2UVvSZ9 Tyler Durden

DNC Postpones Presidential Convention Until August 17

DNC Postpones Presidential Convention Until August 17

While hardly a big surprise with the country on indefinite lockdown, moments ago Politico reported that the Democratic National Committee is postponing the party’s presidential convention in Milwaukee by one month to August 17, the week before the Republican Party’s convention.

The party out of power typically holds its convention about a month before the incumbent’s party.

The delay from July 13-16 came after likely Dem nominee Joe Biden publicly called for the convention to be rescheduled in response to the coronavirus pandemic.

The Republican National Convention, where President Trump will be nominated, is scheduled to take place between Aug. 24 to 27 in Charlotte, N.C.

The decision comes as many states have stay-at-home orders in place through June, and Democrats had been grappling over the question of whether the nation will have returned to normal by mid-July.

The convention would bring thousands of people to Milwaukee, packing them closely together into a basketball arena. Political operatives and thousands of reporters descend on the host cities every four years, staying in local hotels and going out to restaurants and bars.

The host committee has said that ensuring the safety of convention-goers is its top priority. The committee has met regularly with local, state and federal officials to follow their guidance.

Democrats got an opening to move their convention to August after the Olympics were postponed earlier this week. The Olympics had been scheduled to take place over two weeks in late July through mid-August

The question is whether August is far enough in the future to assume that a nationwide all clear will be given by then.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 04/02/2020 – 12:08

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Jv330t Tyler Durden

US Auto Sales Plunge To Lowest In A Decade, But The Worst Is Yet To Come In Q2

US Auto Sales Plunge To Lowest In A Decade, But The Worst Is Yet To Come In Q2

As we predicted in a a report we published just days ago, the U.S. auto industry is on the verge of total collapse. Numbers out of major automakers on Wednesday this week confirmed a worst case scenario: that the global pandemic is doing severe (and potentially irreversible) damage to an industry that was in ugly shape even before the coronavirus outbreak began.

GM saw sales plunge 7.1% and Fiat saw sales drop 10% for the first quarter of 2020, both larger than expected declines, according to Bloomberg. It’s also worth noting that the industry didn’t quite grind to a halt until March, and so Q2 numbers could wind up being far worse. 

Toyota’s sales fell 37% in March, with even its best-selling RAV4 dropping 25%. Nissan had the weakest quarterly results, posting a 30% drop in sales for the first three months of the year. More than 25% of Nissan’s dealers are being negatively affected by state ordinances limiting sales. 

David Kershaw, division vice president of the Nissan brand in North America, said: “We obviously saw quite a big tail-off in business. We’re feeling it in arguably one of our best regions, which is the northeast. They are obviously significantly impacted.”

Names like Volkswagen, Honda, Hyundai and Mazda all saw drops of over 40% for March. If automakers that report quarterly continue to follow this trend, Q2 numbers may be a sight to behold.

The things that were barely holding the industry up to start 2020, namely low rates and modest consumer confidence, don’t matter. Businesses are closed, would-be buyers are strapped for cash and the country’s economy has simply been turned off.

The industry’s annualized selling rate has slowed to just 11.4 million, marking its lowest point since April 2010.

Recall, just 2 days ago we highlighted predictions that the SAAR could continue to plummet to between 9 million and 10 million vehicles. Those numbers are well below the 10.4 million autos sold in 2009, the year GM and Chrysler both filed for bankruptcy. J.P. Morgan has an even more pessimistic view, with estimates of a pace of 6 million to 7 million vehicles over the next month.

 

And things simply may have to get worse before they get better. Just yesterday we had reported that Ford was suspending production at its North American plants “indefinitely”. 

 

Citing risks associated with the coronavirus, the automaker has not set a timeline to bring its facilities back online. The company is currently working with the UAW to establish new guidelines for safety procedures before re-opening. 

The union announced the death of two Ford plant workers on March 28 as a result of the coronavirus. 

And today’s sales numbers should not come as a surprise to Zero Hedge readers, as we noted days prior that the entire U.S. auto industry had basically entered full collapse. 

Jessica Caldwell, executive director of insights for market researcher Edmunds, told Bloomberg“The whole world is turned upside down right now.”

Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas put it simply: “There are basically no U.S. auto sales right now. Investors have fully embraced the reality that the U.S. auto industry may be shut down for one or two full months. We’re now being asked to run scenarios of six-month or nine-month shutdowns.”

Caldwell concluded:

“Automakers reacted quickly to the coronavirus crisis with attractive incentive offers and payment programs, but these unfortunately appear to fall on deaf ears. Consumers were understandably distracted by the rapidly changing news cycle and changes to everyday life.”


Tyler Durden

Thu, 04/02/2020 – 12:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2wN4fcU Tyler Durden