“Someone Going Through Your Underwear Without Permission” May Be “Highly Offensive”

In N.A.S. v. Morada-Haute Furniture Boutique LLC, plaintiff alleged that:

Plaintiff … hired Defendants, Morada and its co-founders Odenstein and Hernandez, to provide interior design services and to manufacture rugs and furnishings for a residence in Miami. Morada represented to Plaintiff that it is the owner of six factories in Italy and manufactures its goods there, including high-end furniture and rugs. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit claiming that things did not go well after that. Though Morada purported to perform under the agreement, certain items were late or missing; furniture dimensions were wrong; carpets and fabrics were stained; rugs fell apart inexplicitly; paint and cabinets were different than represented; Morada did not manufacture the goods itself as represented; and certain imported goods were noncompliant with U.S. law.

After Defendants were notified of these issues, they asked for a key to the Miami residence to fix what they could. Based on certain representations, including agreeing not to take videos or photos of the residence, Plaintiff provided one of the Defendants the key. Plaintiff later noticed that “on multiple occasions that all exterior doors were being forced open [and] locks were disabled because the keys and latches had tape over them so the locking system could not function.”  She also noticed that a maid service was present, that her personal items were moved, closets were rifled through, the kitchen was rearranged, and the refrigerator contained non-occupant items.

After Morada denied any knowledge of these issues, it hired a five-person photography crew and sent them to the Miami residence without Plaintiff’s knowledge or approval. Plaintiff discovered the crew in the residence, and “she found all exterior doors were jammed open and not closable, no Morada representative was on-site, and there was professional staging of $60,000.00 of items not owned by Plaintiff in the Miami residence.”  Plaintiff later found out that Defendants secretly conducted other photoshoots of the Miami residence without her approval….

The court concluded that this was enough to state a claim for invasion of privacy through intrusion on seclusion (though of course without deciding whether the allegations were correct):

Plaintiff’s allegations specifically claim that Defendants intruded into the Miami residence and the intrusion was highly offensive to the reasonable person. For instance, Plaintiff alleges that the intrusion included “the physical invasion of the Miami residence via the presence of a multiparty camera crew and staging crew conducting a photoshoot without authorization, as well as the intrusion into Plaintiff’s personal affairs, including moving and rifling through Plaintiff’s toiletries, underwear, pillows, beds, prescription drugs and personal items.” These are sufficient and plausible allegations to sustain a claim for invasion of privacy through intrusion upon seclusion. Whether any material damages may flow from such a claim is a matter for the trier of fact.

Defendants counter this showing by arguing that this was not a highly offensive intrusion so the claim should fail. But this too is clearly a question for a jury to answer, not the Court at this stage of litigation. And the Court does not agree that someone going through your underwear without permission (if true) is per se not highly offensive. At the very least a reasonable juror could certainly conclude that such an intimate adventure is highly offensive. Hence Plaintiff has established the elements for a proper invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion) claim ….

The magistrate judge’s report and recommendations (which I quote above) was filed Aug. 24 and adopted by the district court Oct. 12, but were just posted on Westlaw.

The post "Someone Going Through Your Underwear Without Permission" May Be "Highly Offensive" appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3E42qWa
via IFTTT

Market Correction Before The Santa Rally Has Started

Market Correction Before The Santa Rally Has Started

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Last week, we asked if there would be a market correction before “Santa visits Broad and Wall?”

Investors’ ‘wish lists’ are hung by the chimney with care, hopeful the ‘Santa Claus rally’ will soon be there. While they remain ‘snug in their beds, the historical data dances in the heads.’ The chart below from @themarketear shows the annual “seasonality” from 1985 through 2019.

It certainly seems there is little to worry about. However, notice that dip at the beginning of December.

We made the case that mutual fund distributions would provide additional selling pressure on a market already plagued by weak internals. To wit:

However, there is potentially a negative impact on the market. Such is particularly the case when volumes are weak, liquidity is low, and breadth is poor. As shown, during the entire advance from the September lows, the volume declined. Importantly, over the last week, breadth deteriorated.

All that was missing was a catalyst to create a market correction.

“Over the last couple of weeks, the market has been warning to the risk of a downturn, all that was needed was a catalyst to change sentiment.” – The Real Investment Report

Chart updated through Friday.

The Lack Of Liquidity

On Friday, news of a new “Covid” variant broke, and stocks marked “Black Friday” by plunging firmly through the 20-dma and support at recent lows.

“Notably, that downside break broke the consolidation pattern (blue box in the chart below) that began in early November. While there is some minor support around 4550, critical support lies at the 50-dma at 4527. That support level also corresponds to the September peak.” – Real Investment Report

As you will note, the market correction was swift. Such is because of the “lack of liquidity” in the markets.

As discussed previously, the stock market is a function of buyers and sellers agreeing to a transaction at a specific price. Or rather, “for every seller, there must be a buyer.”

The chart from last week’s discussion showed there was a lack of volume a lower prices. As I wrote:

“Buyers appear to be ‘living’ closer to the 50-dma (orange dashed line.) As the Wall Street axiom goes: ‘Sellers live higher. Buyers live lower.’”

These “gaps” between buyers and sellers lead to sharp price reversions in markets.

Breadth Suggests There May Be More Work To Do

While the market correction last Friday was sharp and did push several of our short-term indicators into oversold territory, any bounce this week could lead to more selling pressure near term. While we previously noted our concerns about the “bad breadth” of the market, SentimenTrader also suggests such may lead to a pause in the rally. To wit:

“For only the 6th time since 1926, declining issues outnumbered advancing issues for 7 consecutive days when the S&P 500 closed 2% or less from its 252-day high. If I eliminate the distance below the high condition, the study returns 123 instances when screening out repeats. Almost half of those signals occurred when the S&P 500 was down 10% or more from its 252-day high.”

“This signal triggered 5 other times over the past 96 years. After the others, future returns and win rates were weak in the 2-to-8-week time frame. If I optimize a short signal, the test returns 27 days as the best time frame to hold a negative view of the market. And, the S&P 500 closed down in 5 out of 6 instances. The sample size is small.”

Notably, weak breadth, light volumes on rallies, and speculative behaviors make the market vulnerable to sharp reversals. Moreover, as noted last week, with mutual funds adding to the selling pressure over the next two weeks, there is a risk of further downside.

However, such will provide a trading opportunity for year-end “window dressing.”

Trading The Santa Rally

I agree with Doug Kass’ recent comment:

While I am not bullish, I am less bearishOn a (tactical) trading and investing basis, markets probably overreacted to the Omicron news on Friday, It is likely time to consider being a bit more greedy when others are fearful. Many stocks, away from “The Nifty Seven,” have fallen dramatically and may represent both shorter and longer-term value“

We agree. After previously taking profits in overbought and extended equities, we are now looking for discounted positions in technology, energy, consumer, and financial-related sectors.

One other comment is that the “Omicron variant” could provide “cover” for the Federal Reserve to slow their monetary tightening. The majority of the rally on Monday was likely bulls coming around to this idea. As such, it was no surprise to see Jerome Powell already pivoting towards a more dovish stance in prepared remarks for the CARES Act Hearing.

“The recent rise in COVID-19 cases and the emergence of the Omicron variant pose downside risks to employment and economic activity and increased uncertainty for inflation.

Greater concerns about the virus could reduce people’s willingness to work in person, which would slow progress in the labor market and intensify supply-chain disruptions.” – Powell

Of course, this is the excuse Powell needs to slow tapering of the balance sheet and delay hiking interest rates.

For now, that keeps the bullish bias in stocks. But as we head into 2022, I would not be surprised to see a pick up in volatility as liquidity flows decline along with economic growth.

As an investor, always remember that making money in the market is only one-half of the job. Keeping it is the other.

“We can not direct the wind, but we can adjust the sail.” – Anonymous

Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/30/2021 – 08:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3o7oPw9 Tyler Durden

“Someone Going Through Your Underwear Without Permission” May Be “Highly Offensive”

In N.A.S. v. Morada-Haute Furniture Boutique LLC, plaintiff alleged that:

Plaintiff … hired Defendants, Morada and its co-founders Odenstein and Hernandez, to provide interior design services and to manufacture rugs and furnishings for a residence in Miami. Morada represented to Plaintiff that it is the owner of six factories in Italy and manufactures its goods there, including high-end furniture and rugs. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit claiming that things did not go well after that. Though Morada purported to perform under the agreement, certain items were late or missing; furniture dimensions were wrong; carpets and fabrics were stained; rugs fell apart inexplicitly; paint and cabinets were different than represented; Morada did not manufacture the goods itself as represented; and certain imported goods were noncompliant with U.S. law.

After Defendants were notified of these issues, they asked for a key to the Miami residence to fix what they could. Based on certain representations, including agreeing not to take videos or photos of the residence, Plaintiff provided one of the Defendants the key. Plaintiff later noticed that “on multiple occasions that all exterior doors were being forced open [and] locks were disabled because the keys and latches had tape over them so the locking system could not function.”  She also noticed that a maid service was present, that her personal items were moved, closets were rifled through, the kitchen was rearranged, and the refrigerator contained non-occupant items.

After Morada denied any knowledge of these issues, it hired a five-person photography crew and sent them to the Miami residence without Plaintiff’s knowledge or approval. Plaintiff discovered the crew in the residence, and “she found all exterior doors were jammed open and not closable, no Morada representative was on-site, and there was professional staging of $60,000.00 of items not owned by Plaintiff in the Miami residence.”  Plaintiff later found out that Defendants secretly conducted other photoshoots of the Miami residence without her approval….

The court concluded that this was enough to state a claim for invasion of privacy through intrusion on seclusion (though of course without deciding whether the allegations were correct):

Plaintiff’s allegations specifically claim that Defendants intruded into the Miami residence and the intrusion was highly offensive to the reasonable person. For instance, Plaintiff alleges that the intrusion included “the physical invasion of the Miami residence via the presence of a multiparty camera crew and staging crew conducting a photoshoot without authorization, as well as the intrusion into Plaintiff’s personal affairs, including moving and rifling through Plaintiff’s toiletries, underwear, pillows, beds, prescription drugs and personal items.” These are sufficient and plausible allegations to sustain a claim for invasion of privacy through intrusion upon seclusion. Whether any material damages may flow from such a claim is a matter for the trier of fact.

Defendants counter this showing by arguing that this was not a highly offensive intrusion so the claim should fail. But this too is clearly a question for a jury to answer, not the Court at this stage of litigation. And the Court does not agree that someone going through your underwear without permission (if true) is per se not highly offensive. At the very least a reasonable juror could certainly conclude that such an intimate adventure is highly offensive. Hence Plaintiff has established the elements for a proper invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion) claim ….

The magistrate judge’s report and recommendations (which I quote above) was filed Aug. 24 and adopted by the district court Oct. 12, but were just posted on Westlaw.

The post "Someone Going Through Your Underwear Without Permission" May Be "Highly Offensive" appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3E42qWa
via IFTTT

Risk Cracks After Moderna CEO Comments Spark Global Stock Rout

Risk Cracks After Moderna CEO Comments Spark Global Stock Rout

Ask a drug dealer if methadone helps cure a cocaine addition and – shockingly – you will hear that the answer is “hell no”, after all an affirmative response would mean the fixer needs to get a real job. Just as shocking was the “admission” of Moderna CEO, Stéphane Bancel, who in the latest stop on his media whirlwind tour of the past 48 hours gave the FT an interview in which he predicted that existing vaccines will be much less effective at tackling Omicron than earlier strains of coronavirus and warned it would take months before pharmaceutical companies could manufacture new variant-specific jabs at scale.

“There is no world, I think, where [the effectiveness] is the same level . . . we had with [the] Delta [variant],” Bancel told the Financial Times, claiming that the high number of Omicron mutations on the spike protein, which the virus uses to infect human cells, and the rapid spread of the variant in South Africa suggested that the current crop of vaccines may need to be modified next year. Here, the self-serving CEO whose sell-mode was fully engaged – after all what else would the maker of a vaccine for covid say than “yes, the world will need more of my product” – completely ignored the earlier comments from Barry Schoub, chairman of South Afruca’s Ministerial Advisory Committee on Vaccines, who over the weekend said that the large number of mutations found in the omicron variant appears to destabilize the virus, which might make it less “fit” than the dominant delta strain. As such, it would be a far less virulent strain… but of course that would also reduce the need for Moderna’s mRNA therapy and so Bancel failed to mention it.

What is grotesque is that the Moderna CEO’s comments on existing vaccines’ effectiveness against the omicron variant is “old news so should be a fade,” says Prashant Newnaha, a senior Asia-Pacific rates strategist at TD Securities in Singapore. Indeed as Bloomberg notes, Bancel reiterated comments made by Moderna’s Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton during the weekend.

Alas, the last thing algos care about is nuance and/or reading between the lines, and so moments after Bancel’s interview hit, markets hit risk off mode on Tuesday, and yesterday’s bounce in markets immediately reversed amid fresh worries about the efficacy of currently available vaccines with U.S. equity futures dropping along with stocks in Europe. Bonds gained as investors sought havens.

After dropping as much as 1.2%, S&P futures pared losses to -0.7%, down 37 points just above 4,600. Dow Eminis were down 339 points or 1% and Nasdaq was down -0.8%. Adding to concerns is Fed Chair Jerome Powell who today will speak, alongside Janet Yellen, at the Senate Banking Committee in congressional oversight hearings related to pandemic stimulus. Last night Powell made a dovish pivot saying the new variant poses downside risks to employment and growth while adding to uncertainty about inflation. Powell’s comments dragged yields lower and hit bank stocks overnight.

“The market’s reaction to reports such as Moderna’s suggest the ball is still very much in the court of proving that this will not escalate,” said Patrick Bennett, head of macro strategy for Asia at Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce in Hong Kong. “Until that time, mode is to sell recoveries in risk and not to try and pick the extent of the selloff”

U.S. airline and cruiseliner stocks dropped in premarket trading Tuesday, after vaccine maker Moderna’s top executives reiterated that the omicron variant of the coronavirus may require new vaccines. Most U.S. airline stocks were down: Alaska Air -5%, United -3.2%, American -3%, Spirit -2.7%, Delta -2.6%, JetBlue -2.6%, Southwest -1.7%. Here are some other notable movers today:

  • U.S. banks decline in premarket trading following comments from Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell that may push back bets on when the central bank will raise rates. Citigroup (C US) -2.4%, JPMorgan (JPM US) -2.2%, Morgan Stanley (MS US) -2.6%
  • Vaccine manufacturers mixed in U.S. premarket trading after rallying in recent days and following further comments from Moderna about treating the new omicron Covid-19 variant. Pfizer (PFE US) +1.6%, Novavax  (NVAS US) +1.3%, Moderna (MRNA US) -3.8%
  • U.S. airline and cruiseliner stocks dropped in premarket trading Tuesday, after vaccine maker Moderna’s top executives reiterated that the omicron variant of the coronavirus may require new vaccines. Alaska Air (ALK US) -5%, United (UAL US) -3.2%, American (AAL US) -3%
  • Krystal Biotech (KRYS US) jumped 4.3% in postmarket trading on Monday, extending gains after a 122% jump during the regular session. The company is offering $200m of shares via Goldman Sachs, BofA, Cowen, William Blair, according to a postmarket statement
  • MEI Pharma (MEIP US) gained 8% postmarket after the cancer-treatment company said it will hold a webcast Tuesday to report on data from the ongoing Phase 2 Tidal study evaluating zandelisib in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma
  • Intuit (INTU US) declined 3.4% postmarket after holder Dan Kurzius, co-founder of Mailchimp, offered the stake via Goldman Sachs

In Europe, the Stoxx 600 index fell to almost a seven-week low. Cyclical sectors including retail, travel and carmakers were among the biggest decliners, while energy stocks tumbled as crude oil headed for the worst monthly loss this year; every industry sector fell led by travel stocks.

Earlier in the session, the Asia Pacific Index dropped 0.6% while the Hang Seng China Enterprises Index lost 1.5% to finish at its weakest level since May 2016. Asian stocks erased early gains to head for a third day of losses on fresh concerns that existing Covid-19 vaccines will be less effective at tackling the omicron variant. The MSCI Asia Pacific Index extended its fall to nearly 1% after having risen as much as 0.8% earlier on Tuesday. The current crop of vaccines may need to be modified next year, Moderna Chief Executive Officer Stephane Bancel said in an interview with the Financial Times, adding that it may take months before pharmaceutical firms can manufacture new variant-specific jabs at scale. U.S. futures also reversed gains. Property and consumer staples were the worst-performing sectors on the regional benchmark. Key gauges in Hong Kong and South Korea were the biggest losers in Asia, with the Kospi index erasing all of its gains for this year. The Hang Seng China Enterprises Index lost 1.5% to finish at its weakest level since May 2016. The fresh bout of selling offset early optimism spurred by data showing China’s factory sentiment improved in November.

“With the slower vaccination rate and more limited health-care capacity in the region, uncertainty from the new omicron variant may seem to bring about higher economic risks for the region at a time where it is shifting towards further reopening,” said Jun Rong Yeap, a market strategist at IG Asia Pte. Asia’s stock benchmark is now down 3.5% for the month, set for its worst performance since July, as nervousness remains over the U.S. Federal Reserve’s tapering schedule and the potential economic impact of the omicron variant. “Moderna is one of the primary mRNA vaccines out there, so the risk-off sentiment is justified,” said Kelvin Wong, an analyst at CMC Markets (Singapore) Pte. Liquidity is thinner going into the end of the year, so investors are “thinking it’s wise to take some money off the table,” he added

Japanese equities fell, reversing an earlier gain to cap their third-straight daily loss, after a report cast doubt on hopes for a quick answer to the omicron variant of the coronavirus. Telecoms and electronics makers were the biggest drags on the Topix, which dropped 1%, erasing an earlier gain of as much as 1.5%. Fast Retailing and SoftBank Group were the largest contributors to a 1.6% loss in the Nikkei 225. The yen strengthened about 0.4% against the dollar, reversing an earlier loss. Japanese stocks advanced earlier in the day, following U.S. peers higher as a relative sense of calm returned to global markets. Tokyo share gains reversed quickly in late afternoon trading after a Financial Times report that Moderna’s Chief Executive Officer Stephane Bancel said a new vaccine may be needed to fight omicron. “The report of Moderna CEO’s remarks has bolstered an overall movement toward taking off risk,” said SMBC Trust Bank analyst Masahiro Yamaguchi. “Market participants will probably be analyzing information on vaccines and the new virus variant for the next couple of weeks, so shares will likely continue to fluctuate on these headlines.”

In FX, the dollar dropped alongside commodity-linked currencies while the yen and gold climbed and bitcoin surged as safe havens were bid. The yen swung to a gain after Moderna Inc.’s chief executive Stephane Bancel was quoted by the Financial Times saying existing vaccines may not be effective enough to tackle the omicron variant. Commodity-linked currencies including the Aussie, kiwi and Norwegian krone all declined, underperforming the dollar

In rates, treasuries held gains after flight-to-quality rally extended during Asia session and European morning, when bunds and gilts also benefited from haven flows. Stocks fell after Moderna CEO predicted waning vaccine efficacy. Intermediates lead gains, with yields richer by nearly 6bp across 7-year sector; 10-year Treasuries are richer by 5.6bp at 1.443%, vs 2.5bp for German 10-year, 4.7bp for U.K. Long-end may draw support from potential for month-end buying; Bloomberg Treasury index rebalancing was projected to extend duration by 0.11yr as of Nov. 22. Expectations of month-end flows may support the market, and Fed Chair Powell is slated to testify to a Senate panel.      

In commodities, crude futures are off their late-Asia lows but remain in the red. WTI trades close to $68.30, stalling near Friday’s lows; Brent is off over 2.5% near $71.50. Spot gold rises ~$11 near $1,796/oz. Base metals are mixed: LME zinc outperforms, rising as much as 1.6%. 

To the day ahead now, and the main central bank highlight will be Fed Chair Powell’s appearance before the Senate Banking Committee, alongside Treasury Secretary Yellen. In addition, we’ll hear from Fed Vice Chair Clarida, the Fed’s Williams, the ECB’s Villeroy and de Cos, and the BoE’s Mann. On the data side, we’ll get the flash November CPI reading for the Euro Area today, as well as the readings from France and Italy. In addition, there’s data on German unemployment for November, Canadian GDP for Q3, whilst in the US there’s the Conference Board’s consumer confidence measure for November, the FHFA house price index for September, and the MNI Chicago PMI for November.

Market Snapshot

  • S&P 500 futures down 1.2% to 4,595.00
  • STOXX Europe 600 down 1.4% to 460.47
  • MXAP down 0.5% to 190.51
  • MXAPJ down 0.6% to 620.60
  • Nikkei down 1.6% to 27,821.76
  • Topix down 1.0% to 1,928.35
  • Hang Seng Index down 1.6% to 23,475.26
  • Shanghai Composite little changed at 3,563.89
  • Sensex down 0.2% to 57,122.74
  • Australia S&P/ASX 200 up 0.2% to 7,255.97
  • Kospi down 2.4% to 2,839.01
  • German 10Y yield little changed at -0.36%
  • Euro up 0.6% to $1.1362
  • Brent Futures down 3.0% to $71.26/bbl
  • Brent Futures down 3.0% to $71.26/bbl
  • Gold spot up 0.7% to $1,796.41
  • U.S. Dollar Index down 0.65% to 95.72

Top Overnight News from Bloomberg

  • Euro-area inflation surged to a record for the era of the single currency and exceeded all forecasts, adding to the European Central Bank’s challenge before a crucial meeting next month on the future of monetary stimulus.
  • If the drop in government bond yields on Friday signaled how skittish markets were, fresh declines are leaving them looking no less nervous.
  • One of Germany’s most prominent economists is urging the European Central Bank to be more transparent in outlining its exit from unprecedented monetary stimulus and argues that ruling out an end to negative interest rates next year may be a mistake.
  • The Hong Kong dollar fell into the weak half of its trading band for the first time since December 2019 as the emergence of a new coronavirus variant hurt appetite for risk assets.

A more detailed look at global markets courtesy of Newsquawk

Asian equities traded mixed with early momentum seen following the rebound on Wall Street where risk assets recovered from Friday’s heavy selling pressure as liquidity conditions normalized post-Thanksgiving and after some of the Omicron fears abated given the mild nature in cases so far, while participants also digested a slew of data releases including better than expected Chinese Manufacturing PMI. However, markets were later spooked following comments from Moderna’s CEO that existing vaccines will be much less effective against the Omicron variant. ASX 200 (+0.2%) was underpinned by early strength across its sectors aside from utilities and with gold miners also hampered by the recent lacklustre mood in the precious metal which failed to reclaim the USD 1800/oz level but remained in proximity for another attempt. In addition, disappointing Building Approvals and inline Net Exports Contribution data had little impact on sentiment ahead of tomorrow’s Q3 GDP release, although the index then faded most its gains after the comments from Moderna’s CEO, while Nikkei 225 (-1.6%) was initially lifted by the recent rebound in USD/JPY but then slumped amid the broad risk aversion late in the session. Hang Seng (-1.6%) and Shanghai Comp. (Unch) were varied in which the mainland was kept afloat for most the session after a surprise expansion in Chinese Manufacturing PMI and a mild liquidity injection by the PBoC, with a central bank-backed publication also suggesting that recent open market operations demonstrates an ample liquidity goal, although Hong Kong underperformed on tech and property losses and with casino names pressured again as shares in junket operator Suncity slumped 37% on reopen from a trading halt in its first opportunity to react to the arrest of its Chairman. Finally, 10yr JGBs were initially contained following early momentum in stocks and somewhat inconclusive 2yr JGB auction which showed better results from the prior, albeit at just a marginal improvement, but then was underpinned on a haven bid after fears of the Omicron variant later resurfaced.

Top Asian News

  • China’s Biggest Crypto Exchange Picks Singapore as Asia Base
  • SoftBank-Backed Snapdeal Targets $250 Million IPO in 2022
  • Omicron Reaches Nations From U.K. to Japan in Widening Spread
  • Slump in China Gas Shows Spreading Impact of Property Slowdown

Major European bourses are on the backfoot (Euro Stoxx 50 -1.5%; Stoxx 600 -1.5%) as COVID fears again take the spotlight on month-end. APAC markets were firmer for a large part of the overnight session, but thereafter the risk-off trigger was attributed to comments from Moderna’s CEO suggesting that existing vaccines will be much less effective against the Omicron COVID strain. On this, some caveats worth keeping in mind – the commentary on the potential need for a vaccine does come from a vaccine maker, who could benefit from further global inoculation, whilst data on the new variant remains sparse. Meanwhile, WSJ reported Regeneron’s and Eli Lilly’s COVID antiviral cocktails had lost efficacy vs the Omicron variant – however, the extent to which will need to be subject to further testing. Furthermore, producers appear to be confident that they will be able to adjust their products to accommodate the new variant, albeit the timeline for mass production will not be immediate. Nonetheless, the sullied sentiment has persisted throughout the European morning and has also seeped into US equity futures: the cyclically bias RTY (-1.7%) lags the ES (-1.0%) and YM (-1.3%), whilst the tech-laden NQ (-0.5%) is cushioned by the slump in yields. Back to Europe, broad-based losses are seen across the majors. Sectors tilt defensive but to a lesser extent than seen at the European cash open. Travel & Leisure, Oil & Gas, and Retail all sit at the bottom of the bunch amid the potential implications of the new COVID variant. Tech benefits from the yield play, which subsequently weighs on the Banking sector. The retail sector is also weighed on by Spanish giant Inditex (-4.3%) following a CEO reshuffle. In terms of other movers, Glencore (-0.9%) is softer after Activist investor Bluebell Capital Partners called on the Co. to spin off its coal business and divest non-core assets. In a letter seen by the FT, Glencore was also asked to improve corporate governance. In terms of equity commentary, analysts at JPM suggest investors should take a more nuanced view on reopening as the bank expects post-COVID normalisation to gradually asset itself over the course of 2022. The bank highlights hawkish central bank policy shifts as the main risk to their outlook. Thus, the analysts see European equities outperforming the US, whilst China is seen outpacing EMs. JPM targets S&P 500 at 5,050 (closed at 4,655.27 yesterday) by the end of 2022 with EPS at USD 240 – marking a 14% increase in annual EPS.

Top European News

  • Omicron Reaches Nations From U.K. to Japan in Widening Spread
  • ECB Bosses Lack Full Diplomatic Immunity, EU’s Top Court Says
  • Adler Keeps Investors Waiting for Answers on Fraud Claims
  • European Gas Prices Surge Above 100 Euros With Eyes on Russia

In FX, the Greenback may well have been grounded amidst rebalancing flows on the final trading day of November, as bank models are flagging a net sell signal, albeit relatively weak aside from vs the Yen per Cit’s index, but renewed Omicron concerns stoked by Moderna’s CEO casting considerable doubt about the efficacy of current vaccines against the new SA strain have pushed the Buck back down in any case. Indeed, the index has now retreated further from its 2021 apex set less than a week ago and through 96.000 to 95.662, with only the Loonie and Swedish Krona underperforming within the basket, and the Antipodean Dollars plus Norwegian Crown in wider G10 circles. Looking at individual pairings, Usd/Jpy has reversed from the high 113.00 area and breached a Fib just below the round number on the way down to circa 112.68 for a marginal new m-t-d low, while Eur/Usd is back above 1.1350 having scaled a Fib at 1.1290 and both have left decent option expiries some distance behind in the process (1.6 bn at 113.80 and 1.3 bn between 1.1250-55 respectively). Elsewhere, Usd/Chf is eyeing 0.9175 irrespective of a slightly weaker than forecast Swiss KoF indicator and Cable has bounced firmly from the low 1.3300 zone towards 1.3375 awaiting commentary from BoE’s Mann.

  • NZD/AUD/CAD – As noted above, the tables have turned for the Kiwi, Aussie and Loonie along with risk sentiment in general, and Nzd/Usd is now pivoting 0.6800 with little help from a deterioration in NBNZ business confidence or a decline in the activity outlook. Similarly, Aud/Usd has been undermined by much weaker than forecast building approvals and a smaller than anticipated current account surplus, but mostly keeping hold of the 0.7100 handle ahead of Q3 GDP and Usd/Cad has shot up from around 1.2730 to top 1.2800 at one stage in advance of Canadian growth data for the prior quarter and month of September as oil recoils (WTI to an even deeper trough only cents off Usd 67/brl). Back down under, 1 bn option expiry interest at 1.0470 in Aud/Nzd could well come into play given that the cross is currently hovering near the base of a 1.0483-39 range.
  • SCANDI/EM – The aforementioned downturn in risk appetite after Monday’s brief revival has hit the Sek and Nok hard, but the latter is also bearing the brunt of Brent’s latest collapse to the brink of Usd 70/brl at worst, while also taking on board that the Norges Bank plans to refrain from foreign currency selling through December having stopped midway through this month. The Rub is also feeling the adverse effect of weaker crude prices and ongoing geopolitical angst to the extent that hawkish CBR rhetoric alluding to aggressive tightening next month is hardly keeping it propped, but the Cnh and Cny continue to defy the odds or gravity in wake of a surprise pop back above 50.0 in China’s official manufacturing PMI. Conversely, the Zar is struggling to contain losses sub-16.0000 vs the Usd on SA virus-related factors even though Gold is approaching Usd 1800/oz again, while the Try is striving to stay within sight of 13.0000 following a slender miss in Turkish Q3 y/y GDP.

In commodities, WTI and Brent front month futures are once again under pressure amid the aforementioned COVID jitters threatening the demand side of the equation, albeit the market remains in a state of uncertainty given how little is known about the new variant ahead of the OPEC+ confab. It is still unclear at this point in time which route OPEC+ members will opt for, but seemingly the feasible options on the table are 1) a pause in output hikes, 2) a smaller output hike, 3) maintaining current output hikes. Energy journalists have suggested the group will likely be influenced by oil price action, but nonetheless, the findings of the JTC and JMMC will be closely watched for the group’s updated forecasts against the backdrop of COVID and the recently coordinated SPR releases from net oil consumers – a move which the US pledged to repeat if needed. Elsewhere, Iranian nuclear talks were reportedly somewhat constructive – according to the Russian delegate – with working groups set to meet today and tomorrow regarding the sanctions on Iran. This sentiment, however, was not reciprocated by Western sources (cited by WSJ), which suggested there was no clarity yet on whether the teams were ready for serious negotiations and serious concessions. WTI Jan resides around session lows near USD 67.50/bbl (vs high USD 71.22/bbl), while Brent Feb dipped under USD 71/bbl (vs high USD 84.56/bb). Over to metals, spot gold remains underpinned in European trade by the cluster of DMA’s under USD 1,800/oz – including the 100 (USD 1,792/oz), 200 (USD 1,791/oz) and 50 (1,790/oz). Turning to base metals, LME copper is modestly softer around the USD 9,500/t mark, whilst Dalian iron ore futures meanwhile rose over 6% overnight, with traders citing increasing Chinese demand.

US Event Calendar

  • 9am: 3Q House Price Purchase Index QoQ, prior 4.9%
    • 9am: Sept. FHFA House Price Index MoM, est. 1.2%, prior 1.0%
  • 9am: Sept. Case Shiller Composite-20 YoY, est. 19.30%, prior 19.66%; S&P/CS 20 City MoM SA, est. 1.20%, prior 1.17%
  • 9:45am: Nov. MNI Chicago PMI, est. 67.0, prior 68.4
  • 10am: Nov. Conf. Board Consumer Confidenc, est. 111.0, prior 113.8
    • 10am: Nov. Conf. Board Present Situation, prior 147.4
    • 10am: Nov. Conf. Board Expectations, prior 91.3

Central Banks

  • 10am: Powell, Yellen Testify Before Senate Panel on CARES Act Relief
  • 10:30am: Fed’s Williams gives remarks at NY Fed food- insecurity event
  • 1pm: Fed’s Clarida Discusses Fed Independence

DB’s Jim Reid concludes the overnight wrap

Just as we go to print markets are reacting negatively to an interview with the Moderna CEO in the FT that has just landed where he said that with regards to Omicron, “There is no world, I think, where (the effectiveness) is the same level… we had with Delta…… I think it’s going to be a material drop (efficacy). I just don’t know how much because we need to wait for the data. But all the scientists I’ve talked to . . . are like ‘this is not going to be good’.”” This is not really new news relative to the last 3-4 days given what we know about the new mutation but the market is picking up on the explicit comments. In response S&P futures have gone from slightly up to down just over -0.5% and Treasury yields immediately dipped -4bps to 1.46%. The Nikkei has erased gains and is down around -1% and the Hang Seng is c.-1.8%. This is breaking news so check your screens after you read this.

In China the official November PMI data came in stronger than expected with the Manufacturing PMI at 50.1 (49.7 consensus vs 49.2 previous) and the non-manufacturing PMI at 52.3 (51.5 consensus vs 52.4 previous).

The negative headlines above as we go to print followed a market recovery yesterday as investors hoped that the Omicron variant wouldn’t prove as bad as initially feared. In reality, the evidence is still incredibly limited on this question, and nothing from the Moderna CEO overnight changes that. However the more positive sentiment was also evident from the results of our flash poll in yesterday’s EMR where we had 1569 responses so very many thanks. The poll showed that just 10% thought it would still be the biggest topic in financial markets by the end of the year, with 30% instead thinking it’ll largely be forgotten about. The other 60% thought it would still be an issue but only of moderate importance. So if that’s correct and our respondents are a fair reflection of broader market sentiment, then it points to some big downside risks ahead if we get notable bad news on the variant. For the record I would have been with the majority with tendencies towards the largely forgotten about answer. So I will be as off-side as much as most of you on the variant downside risk scenario. When I did a similar poll on Evergrande 2 and a half months ago, only 8% thought it would be significantly impacting markets a month later with 78% in aggregate thinking limited mention/impact, and 15% thinking it would have no impact. So broadly similar responses and back then the 15% were most correct although the next 78% weren’t far off.

In terms of the latest developments yesterday, we’re still waiting to find out some of the key pieces of information about this new strain, including how effective vaccines still are, and about the extent of any increased risk of transmission, hospitalisation and death. Nevertheless, countries around the world are continuing to ramp up their own responses as they await this information. President Biden laid out the US strategy for tackling Omicron in a public address yesterday, underscoring the variant was a cause for concern rather than panic. He noted travel bans from certain jurisdictions would remain in place to buy authorities time to evaluate the variant, but did not anticipate that further travel bans or domestic lockdowns would be implemented, instead urging citizens to get vaccinated or a booster shot.

Over in Europe, Bloomberg reported that EU leaders were discussing whether to have a virtual summit on Friday about the issue, and Poland moved to toughen up their own domestic restrictions, with a 50% capacity limit on restaurants, hotels, gyms and cinemas. In Germany, Chancellor Merkel and Vice Chancellor Scholz will be meeting with state premiers today, whilst the UK government’s vaccination committee recommended that every adult be eligible for a booster shot, rather than just the over-40s at present. Boosters have done a tremendous job in dramatically reducing cases in the elder cohort in the UK in recent weeks so one by product of Omicron is that it may accelerate protection in a wider age group everywhere. Assuming vaccines have some impact on Omicron this could be a positive development, especially if symptoms are less bad.

Markets recovered somewhat yesterday, with the S&P 500 gaining +1.32% to recover a large portion of Friday’s loss. The index was driven by mega-cap tech names, with the Nasdaq up +1.88% and small cap stocks underperforming, with the Russell 2000 down -0.18%, so the market wasn’t completely pricing out omicron risks by any means. Nevertheless, Covid-specific names performed how you would expect given the improved sentiment; stay-at-home trades that outperformed Friday fell, including Zoom (-0.56%), Peloton (-4.35%), and HelloFresh (-0.8%), while Moderna (+11.80%) was the biggest winner following the weekend news that a reformulated vaccine could be available in early 2022. Elsewhere, Twitter (-2.74%) initially gained after it was announced CEO and co-founder Jack Dorsey would be stepping down, but trended lower throughout the rest of the day. The broader moves put the index back in positive territory for the month as we hit November’s last trading day today. Europe saw its own bounceback too, with the STOXX 600 up +0.69%.

Over in rates, the partial unwind of Friday’s moves was even smaller, with yields on 10yr Treasuries moving up +2.6bps to 1.50%, driven predominantly by real rates, as inflation breakevens were a touch narrower across the curve. One part of the curve that didn’t retrace Friday’s move was the short end, where markets continued to push Fed rate hikes back ever so slightly, with the first full hike now being priced for September (though contracts as early as May still price some meaningful probability of Fed hikes). We may see some further movements today as well, with Fed Chair Powell set to appear before the Senate Banking Committee at 15:00 London time, where he may well be asked about whether the Fed plans to accelerate the tapering of their asset purchases although it’s hard to believe he’ll go too far with any guidance with the Omicron uncertainty. The Chair’s brief planned testimony was published on the Fed’s website last night. It struck a slightly more hawkish tone on inflation, noting that the Fed’s forecast was for elevated inflation to persist well into next year and recognition that high inflation imposes burdens on those least able to handle them. On omicron, the testimony predictably stated it posed risks that could slow the economy’s progress, but tellingly on the inflation front, it could intensify supply chain disruptions. The real fireworks will almost certainly come in the question and answer portion of the testimony.

The bond moves were more muted in Europe though, with yields on 10yr bunds (+2.0bps), OATs (+1.0bps) and BTPs (+0.4bps) only seeing a modest increase.

Crude oil prices also didn’t bounce back with as much rigor as equities. Brent gained +0.99% while WTI futures increased +2.64%. They are back down -1 to -1.5% this morning.

Elsewhere in DC, Senator Joe Manchin noted that Democrats could raise the debt ceiling on their own through the reconciliation process, but indicated a preference for the increase not to be included in the build back better bill, for which his support still seems lukewarm. We’re approaching crucial deadlines on the debt ceiling and financing the federal government, so these headlines should become more commonplace over the coming days.

There were some further developments on the inflation front yesterday as Germany reported that inflation had risen to +6.0% in November (vs. +5.5% expected) on the EU-harmonised measure, and up from +4.6% in October. The German national measure also rose to +5.2% (vs. +5.0% expected), which was the highest since 1992. Speaking of Germany, Bloomberg reported that the shortlist for the Bundesbank presidency had been narrowed down to 4 candidates, which included Isabel Schnabel of the ECB’s Executive Board, and Joachim Nagel, who’s currently the Deputy Head of the Banking Department at the Bank for International Settlements. Today we’ll likely get some further headlines on inflation as the flash estimate for the entire Euro Area comes out, as well as the numbers for France and Italy.

There wasn’t much in the way of other data yesterday, though UK mortgage approvals fell to 67.2k in October (vs. 70.0k expected), which is their lowest level since June 2020. Separately, US pending home sales were up +7.5% in October (vs. +1.0% expected), whilst the Dallas Fed’s manufacturing activity index for November unexpectedly fell to 11.8 (vs. 15.0 expected). Finally, the European Commission’s economic sentiment indicator for the Euro Area dipped to 117.5 in November as expected, its weakest level in 6 months.

To the day ahead now, and the main central bank highlight will be Fed Chair Powell’s appearance before the Senate Banking Committee, alongside Treasury Secretary Yellen. In addition, we’ll hear from Fed Vice Chair Clarida, the Fed’s Williams, the ECB’s Villeroy and de Cos, and the BoE’s Mann. On the data side, we’ll get the flash November CPI reading for the Euro Area today, as well as the readings from France and Italy. In addition, there’s data on German unemployment for November, Canadian GDP for Q3, whilst in the US there’s the Conference Board’s consumer confidence measure for November, the FHFA house price index for September, and the MNI Chicago PMI for November.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/30/2021 – 07:50

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3rn0wwc Tyler Durden

Markets Freak Out Again After Moderna CEO Repeats That Vaccine Won’t Work For Omicron

Markets Freak Out Again After Moderna CEO Repeats That Vaccine Won’t Work For Omicron

After spending yesterday doing interviews with practically every major American news organization, Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel on Tuesday tanked shares in his own company after telling Britain’s premier financial newspaper that he expects vaccines will “struggle” to stop the omicron variant.

Existing jabs will be less effective at tackling omicron than earlier strains of COVID, and it may take months before pharmaceutical companies can manufacture new variant-specific jabs at scale, Bancel warned in an interview with the FT.

The CEO predicted a “material drop” in the current jabs’ efficacy at fighting omicron.

Given the large number of mutations in omicron’s spike protein (which is critical to the virus’s ability to infect human cells), along with the “rapid spread” of the new variant in South Africa, Bancel believes the current crop of vaccines will need to be modified by next year.

Bancel told the FT that “there is no world where [the effectiveness] is the same level…we had with Delta,” during an interview at Moderna’s headquarters. Most experts believed such a highly mutated variant wouldn’t emerge for another year or two, Bancel added.

Some might ask themselves why Bancel seems so eager to raise doubts about his own product. Keep in mind: public service isn’t a factor here. Omicron is a blessing for Moderna and Pfizer, because ultimately it will enable them to sell more jabs.

The current crop of vaccines (including Moderna’s) focuses on the spike protein, which is why the large number of mutations seen in omicron could render the jabs ineffective at stopping it, even for patients who have received both the vaccine and the booster.

More data detailing whether omicron causes severe disease in vaccinated patients are expected to be released within the next two weeks, Bancel added. Once they have the new data, Moderna expects to have the next batch of vaccines ready in a matter of months.

It’s worth noting that Bancel wasn’t the only Moderna executive to reiterate concerns about omicron. Co-founder Noubar Afeyan told Bloomberg that the many mutations seen in omicron suggests new vaccines will be needed. “The number of mutations on this virus are surprising,” Afeyan said.

But it’s not just vaccines that may need to be reformulated.

WSJ reported on preliminary data Tuesday which appear to show that antibody cocktails from Regeneron and Eli Lilly might also need to be modified to ensure they’re able to defend against the new strains.

These findings are the result of the race to assess the impact of the new variant on COVID treatments that patients, doctors and hospitals have already been relying on. We’re also waiting to hear more about the pills being developed by Merck, Pfizer and others – these pills promise to keep patients at risk of severe COVID out of the hospital. It appears the deciding factor will be whether the drugs target the spike protein, which is the locus of the new variant’s mutations.

For those who are unfamiliar, monoclonal antibodies are lab-made molecules derived from survivors of COVID or mice engineered to have human immune systems. When given soon after infection, the drugs attach to the surface of the coronavirus and prevent it from replicating itself in new cells. The drugs differ from vaccines in this way: vaccines train the immune system how to protect against the virus. Regeneron says it will be able to quantify the impact of the variant in the coming weeks until further testing is done.

While these reports are new, none of this information is particularly surprising. Bancel has been pounding the alarm for the last week, and the preliminary results reported by WSJ appear to confirm scientists’ fears that some of the treatments developed to combat COVID might be less effective. But the WSJ report doesn’t tell us anything new about Merck’s molnupiravir or Pfizer’s as-yet-unnamed oral COVID treatment.

At any rate, after riding a wave of optimism higher on Monday, US equity futures pointed to a steep drop at the open on Tuesday, the latest sign that investors are still eager to hear more from the scientific community about omicron’s ability, or inability, to surpass vaccines and drugs.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/30/2021 – 07:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3xK57tF Tyler Durden

Should NATO Open Its Doors to Georgia?


georgia

Reason‘s December special issue marks the 30th anniversary of the collapse of the Soviet Union. This story is part of our exploration of the global legacy of that evil empire, and our effort to be certain that the dire consequences of communism are not forgotten.

Central to many of the thorny geopolitical issues that have surrounded Georgia since it gained independence three decades ago is what happened at NATO’s 2008 summit in Romania.

President George W. Bush, attending his final NATO summit before leaving office, arrived in Bucharest intent on nudging his fellow leaders toward accepting Georgia into the fold. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Georgia had pursued closer ties with Europe and the U.S. It was a key American ally during the early years of Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, contributing hundreds of troops to the effort and allowing the U.S. to use its airstrips. Why not make the relationship official?

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy led the opposition. Inviting Georgia to join NATO or even suggesting that it was the alliance’s long-term plan to do so, they warned, would needlessly spur Russian aggression. And Georgia’s location—next to Russia, in the Caucasus, outside the existing NATO borders—created a major vulnerability for the rest of the alliance, with little to be gained from the addition.

Bush won the argument in Bucharest. But it didn’t take long for Merkel and Sarkozy to be proven right.

Just hours after NATO published the Bucharest Summit Declaration, a statement that included vague language supporting Georgia’s (and Ukraine’s) eventual membership, the Russian government announced plans to provide military support to pro-Russia militias in Georgia.

Four months later, Russian tanks rolled across the border in response to a Georgian offensive against those now-emboldened militias. The war ended in less than two weeks. But it left 20,000 Georgians displaced from their homes in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, two breakaway provinces with large populations of ethnic Russians. More than a decade later, those two provinces remain under de facto Russian control, even though the Georgian government still claims them.

Now the Biden administration is once again suggesting that Georgia could join NATO—with a few important caveats.

Asked about the status of the former Soviet state during his confirmation hearing in January, Secretary of State Antony Blinken left the door decidedly ajar. “If a country like Georgia is able to meet the requirements of membership and if it can contribute to our collective security,” he said, then NATO should not foreclose the possibility.

“If you are successful,” interjected Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), “then we will be at war with Russia now.”

Conflict with Russia has been an ever-present threat in the three decades since Georgia broke away from the collapsing Soviet Union. For that reason, the Georgian government has long sought ties with the European Union (E.U.) and NATO—and recent surveys show that a majority of the Georgian people favor closer economic and military integration with both entities. Georgia has a free trade agreement with the E.U., which is its top trading partner, and Georgian passport holders have been allowed visa-free travel into Europe since 2017.

But even as European institutions have opened to Georgia economically, European leaders remain wary of officially extending a military alliance to the eastern edge of the Black Sea. “I don’t see Georgia becoming a NATO member anytime soon,” Merkel said during a diplomatic trip to Tbilisi in 2018.

It’s not that NATO is opposed to expansion. Indeed, 14 new states have been added as full members since the end of the Cold War. That includes former parts of the Soviet Union—the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—and former East bloc countries such as Hungary, Poland, and Romania.

Proponents of bringing Georgia into NATO argue that the U.S. has already pledged to support Georgia’s national security in other ways. Indeed, the U.S. signed the Charter on Strategic Partnership with Georgia in 2009 and has provided more than $200 million of military assistance to Georgia since 2010, including the sale of 400 anti-tank missiles in 2017, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Keeping Georgia in a semi-permanent state of “ambiguous limbo” only “reinforces the Russian narrative that the West does not want Georgia, thus advancing Moscow’s goals of discrediting liberal Euro-Atlantic values and establishing special zones of influence,” wrote Amanda Paul and Ana Andguladze, researchers at the European Policy Centre, in a briefing published in 2018 that argued for Georgia’s admission as a full NATO member.

There may even be security gains to be had. At the January hearing where Paul claimed that extending NATO membership to Georgia would be a “provocative” move tantamount to triggering hostilities with Russia, Blinken pushed back. “I think just the opposite,” he said. “I think we have seen that countries that join NATO have not been the same target of Russian aggression.”

This is the chicken-or-egg problem at the center of NATO expansion in the post-Soviet era. Russia has been more aggressive toward Georgia and Ukraine than it has been toward, for example, the Baltic states with which Russia also shares a border. Is NATO membership a deterrent to Russian aggression? Or is Russian aggression toward Ukraine and Georgia a natural response to NATO’s admission of the Baltic states, and an attempt to prevent what Russia sees as the alliance further encroaching on its borders?

Still, there are legitimate questions that should be asked about what NATO gains by continuing to expand. Full members of the alliance are committed to collective defense: An attack against one is regarded as an attack against all. The goal is geopolitical stability, but the leaders of France and Germany are probably right to question whether committing to defend Georgia is worth the risk, and whether it improves their own citizens’ security in any way.

“Extending a security commitment to…Georgia would extend NATO requirements beyond any degree of realism,” Henrik Larsen, a senior researcher at the Center for Security Studies, wrote in a June op-ed for the foreign policy blog War on the Rocks.

The inability to make serious security commitments to Georgia (and Ukraine) leaves NATO in a bind. Rescinding the Bucharest Summit Declaration would be a strategic retreat that would acknowledge de facto Russian influence over countries that are otherwise aligned with Europe and the United States. But moving forward with the promises made in 2008 would “expose enlargement as a gigantic bluff that would kill NATO’s credibility as a defense alliance in any theater,” Larsen wrote.

Georgia has for years existed in a sort of gray zone within the former Soviet realm—with a government that is firmly anti-Russian but cursed by geography to remain tethered in Russia’s orbit. It seems likely to remain stuck there, as the Biden administration’s approach to the situation is probably more nuanced than the January exchange between Paul and Blinken would make it appear.

For one thing, Georgia cannot currently meet “the requirements of membership,” as Blinken put it, because NATO views ongoing territorial disputes as a major impediment to granting membership. Unless Georgia or Russia is willing to drop its claims to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Georgia probably isn’t getting into NATO.

That brings us full circle to the events of 2008. Knowing that NATO was considering offering membership to Georgia, and knowing that membership is withheld from states with territorial disputes, Russia’s efforts to stoke a conflict on the border with Georgia can be seen more clearly. (It might very well have been a strategy that worked so well, Russia duplicated it in Ukraine in 2014.)

For an alliance like NATO to work, of course, concerns about Russia’s response to strategic moves cannot be a trump card. Sometimes you simply have to do things your geopolitical adversary doesn’t like.

But the benefits must outweigh the costs. If the price of backing Georgia’s membership in NATO is stressing American relationships in Europe and heightening the risk of war with a nuclear-armed opponent, the Biden administration should be in no rush to change the—admittedly imperfect and awkward—status quo.

The post Should NATO Open Its Doors to Georgia? appeared first on Reason.com.

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

Why Inflation Is A Runaway Freight Train

Why Inflation Is A Runaway Freight Train

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

The value of these super-abundant follies will trend rapidly to zero once margin calls and other bits of reality drastically reduce demand.

Inflation, deflation, stagflation–they’ve all got proponents. But who’s going to be right? The difficulty here is that supply and demand are dynamic and so there are always things going up in price that haven’t changed materially (and are therefore not worth the higher cost) and other things dropping in price even though they haven’t changed materially.

So proponents of inflation and deflation can always offer examples supporting their case. The stagflationist camp is delighted to offer a compromise case: yes, there are both deflationary and inflationary dynamics, and what we have is the worst of both worlds: stagnant growth and declining purchasing power.

What’s missing in most of these debates is a comparison of scale: deflationists point to things like big-screen TV prices dropping. OK, fine: we save $300 on a TV that we might buy once every two or three years. So we save $100 a year thanks to this deflation.

Meanwhile, on the inflationary side, healthcare insurance went up $3,000 a year, childcare went up $3,000 a year, rent (or property taxes) went up $3,000 a year and care for an elderly parent went up $3,000 a year: that’s $12,000. Now how many big-screen TVs, shoddy jeans, etc. that dropped a bit in price will we have to buy to offset $12,000 in higher costs?

This is the problem with abstractions like statistics: TVs dropped 20% in cost, while healthcare, childcare, assisted living and rent all went up 20%–so these all balance out, right?

There are two glaring omissions in all the back-and-forth on inflation and deflation:

1. Price is set on the margins.

2. Enterprises cannot lose money for very long and so they close down.

Let’s start with an observation about the dynamics of price/cost: supply and demand. As a general rule, things that are scarce and in high demand will go up in price, and things that are abundant and in low demand will drop in price.

Whatever is chronically scarce and necessary for life will have a ceaseless pressure to cost more, whatever is abundant and no longer desirable will have a ceaseless pressure to cost less.

Now we come to the overlooked mechanism #1: Price is set on the margins. Housing offers an example: take a neighborhood of 100 homes. The five sales last year were all around $600,000, and so appraisers set the value of the other 95 homes at $600,000.

Things change and the next sale is at $450,000. This is dismissed as an outlier, but then the next two sales are also well below $500,000. By the fifth sale at $450,000, the value of each of the 95 homes that did not change hands has been reset to $450,000. The five houses that traded hands set the price of the 95 houses that didn’t change hands. Price is set on the margins.

The biggest expense in many enterprises and agencies is labor. Those who own enterprises know that it’s not just the wage being paid that matters, it’s the labor overhead: the benefits, insurance and taxes paid on every employee. These are often 50% or more of the wages being paid. These labor overhead expenses have skyrocketed for many enterprises and agencies, increasing their labor costs in ways that are hidden from the employees and public.

It’s important to recall that roughly 3/4 of all local government expenses are for labor and labor overhead–healthcare, pensions, etc. Where do you think local taxes are heading as labor and labor-overhead costs rise? What happens to pension funds when all the speculative bubbles all pop?

The cost of labor is also set on the margins. The wage of the 100-person workforce is set by the five most recent hires, and if wages went up 20% to secure those employees, the cost of the labor of the other 95 workers also went up 20%. (Employers can hide a mismatch but not for long, and such deception will alienate the 95% who are getting paid less for doing the same work.)

Labor is scarce for fundamental reasons that aren’t going away:

1. Demographics: large generation is retiring, replacements are not guaranteed.

2. Catch-up: labor’s share of the economy has declined for 45 years. Now it’s catch-up time.

3. Cultural shift in values: Antiworkslow livingFIRE–all are manifestations of a profound cultural shift away from working for decades to pay debts and enrich billionaires to downshifting expenses and expectations in favor of leisure and agency (control of one’s work and life).

4. Long Covid and other chronic health issues: whether anyone cares to admit it or not, Long Covid is real and poorly tracked. A host of other chronic health issues resulting from overwork, stress and unhealthy lifestyles are also poorly tracked. All these reduce the supply of labor.

5. Competing demands of family and work. Work has won for 45 years, now family is pushing back.

Put these together–diminishing supply of labor and labor being priced on the margins–and you get a runaway freight train of higher labor costs. Add in runaway increases in labor overhead and you’ve got a runaway freight train with the throttle jammed to 11.

Deflationists make one fatally unrealistic assumption: that enterprises facing sharply higher costs for labor, components, shipping, taxes, etc. will continue making big-screen TVs, shoddy jeans, etc. even as the price the products and services fetch plummets below the costs of producing them.

The wholesale price of the TV can’t drop below production and shipping costs for very long. Then the manufacturers close down production and the over-abundance of TVs, etc. goes away. Nation-states can subsidize production of some things for a time, but selling at a loss is not a long-term winning strategy: subsidizing failing enterprises and money-losing state-owned companies is a form of malinvestment that bleeds the economy dry.

The only thing that will still be super-abundant as demand plummets is phantom-wealth “investments”, i.e. skims, scams, bubbles and frauds. The value of these super-abundant follies will trend rapidly to zero once margin calls and other bits of reality drastically reduce demand.

Real-world costs: much higher. Speculative gambles: much lower. As in zero.

*  *  *

Thank you, everyone who dropped a hard-earned coin in my begging bowl this week–you bolster my hope and refuel my spirits. If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/30/2021 – 06:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3E9uwPY Tyler Durden

Should NATO Open Its Doors to Georgia?


georgia

Reason‘s December special issue marks the 30th anniversary of the collapse of the Soviet Union. This story is part of our exploration of the global legacy of that evil empire, and our effort to be certain that the dire consequences of communism are not forgotten.

Central to many of the thorny geopolitical issues that have surrounded Georgia since it gained independence three decades ago is what happened at NATO’s 2008 summit in Romania.

President George W. Bush, attending his final NATO summit before leaving office, arrived in Bucharest intent on nudging his fellow leaders toward accepting Georgia into the fold. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Georgia had pursued closer ties with Europe and the U.S. It was a key American ally during the early years of Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, contributing hundreds of troops to the effort and allowing the U.S. to use its airstrips. Why not make the relationship official?

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy led the opposition. Inviting Georgia to join NATO or even suggesting that it was the alliance’s long-term plan to do so, they warned, would needlessly spur Russian aggression. And Georgia’s location—next to Russia, in the Caucasus, outside the existing NATO borders—created a major vulnerability for the rest of the alliance, with little to be gained from the addition.

Bush won the argument in Bucharest. But it didn’t take long for Merkel and Sarkozy to be proven right.

Just hours after NATO published the Bucharest Summit Declaration, a statement that included vague language supporting Georgia’s (and Ukraine’s) eventual membership, the Russian government announced plans to provide military support to pro-Russia militias in Georgia.

Four months later, Russian tanks rolled across the border in response to a Georgian offensive against those now-emboldened militias. The war ended in less than two weeks. But it left 20,000 Georgians displaced from their homes in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, two breakaway provinces with large populations of ethnic Russians. More than a decade later, those two provinces remain under de facto Russian control, even though the Georgian government still claims them.

Now the Biden administration is once again suggesting that Georgia could join NATO—with a few important caveats.

Asked about the status of the former Soviet state during his confirmation hearing in January, Secretary of State Antony Blinken left the door decidedly ajar. “If a country like Georgia is able to meet the requirements of membership and if it can contribute to our collective security,” he said, then NATO should not foreclose the possibility.

“If you are successful,” interjected Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), “then we will be at war with Russia now.”

Conflict with Russia has been an ever-present threat in the three decades since Georgia broke away from the collapsing Soviet Union. For that reason, the Georgian government has long sought ties with the European Union (E.U.) and NATO—and recent surveys show that a majority of the Georgian people favor closer economic and military integration with both entities. Georgia has a free trade agreement with the E.U., which is its top trading partner, and Georgian passport holders have been allowed visa-free travel into Europe since 2017.

But even as European institutions have opened to Georgia economically, European leaders remain wary of officially extending a military alliance to the eastern edge of the Black Sea. “I don’t see Georgia becoming a NATO member anytime soon,” Merkel said during a diplomatic trip to Tbilisi in 2018.

It’s not that NATO is opposed to expansion. Indeed, 14 new states have been added as full members since the end of the Cold War. That includes former parts of the Soviet Union—the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—and former East bloc countries such as Hungary, Poland, and Romania.

Proponents of bringing Georgia into NATO argue that the U.S. has already pledged to support Georgia’s national security in other ways. Indeed, the U.S. signed the Charter on Strategic Partnership with Georgia in 2009 and has provided more than $200 million of military assistance to Georgia since 2010, including the sale of 400 anti-tank missiles in 2017, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Keeping Georgia in a semi-permanent state of “ambiguous limbo” only “reinforces the Russian narrative that the West does not want Georgia, thus advancing Moscow’s goals of discrediting liberal Euro-Atlantic values and establishing special zones of influence,” wrote Amanda Paul and Ana Andguladze, researchers at the European Policy Centre, in a briefing published in 2018 that argued for Georgia’s admission as a full NATO member.

There may even be security gains to be had. At the January hearing where Paul claimed that extending NATO membership to Georgia would be a “provocative” move tantamount to triggering hostilities with Russia, Blinken pushed back. “I think just the opposite,” he said. “I think we have seen that countries that join NATO have not been the same target of Russian aggression.”

This is the chicken-or-egg problem at the center of NATO expansion in the post-Soviet era. Russia has been more aggressive toward Georgia and Ukraine than it has been toward, for example, the Baltic states with which Russia also shares a border. Is NATO membership a deterrent to Russian aggression? Or is Russian aggression toward Ukraine and Georgia a natural response to NATO’s admission of the Baltic states, and an attempt to prevent what Russia sees as the alliance further encroaching on its borders?

Still, there are legitimate questions that should be asked about what NATO gains by continuing to expand. Full members of the alliance are committed to collective defense: An attack against one is regarded as an attack against all. The goal is geopolitical stability, but the leaders of France and Germany are probably right to question whether committing to defend Georgia is worth the risk, and whether it improves their own citizens’ security in any way.

“Extending a security commitment to…Georgia would extend NATO requirements beyond any degree of realism,” Henrik Larsen, a senior researcher at the Center for Security Studies, wrote in a June op-ed for the foreign policy blog War on the Rocks.

The inability to make serious security commitments to Georgia (and Ukraine) leaves NATO in a bind. Rescinding the Bucharest Summit Declaration would be a strategic retreat that would acknowledge de facto Russian influence over countries that are otherwise aligned with Europe and the United States. But moving forward with the promises made in 2008 would “expose enlargement as a gigantic bluff that would kill NATO’s credibility as a defense alliance in any theater,” Larsen wrote.

Georgia has for years existed in a sort of gray zone within the former Soviet realm—with a government that is firmly anti-Russian but cursed by geography to remain tethered in Russia’s orbit. It seems likely to remain stuck there, as the Biden administration’s approach to the situation is probably more nuanced than the January exchange between Paul and Blinken would make it appear.

For one thing, Georgia cannot currently meet “the requirements of membership,” as Blinken put it, because NATO views ongoing territorial disputes as a major impediment to granting membership. Unless Georgia or Russia is willing to drop its claims to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Georgia probably isn’t getting into NATO.

That brings us full circle to the events of 2008. Knowing that NATO was considering offering membership to Georgia, and knowing that membership is withheld from states with territorial disputes, Russia’s efforts to stoke a conflict on the border with Georgia can be seen more clearly. (It might very well have been a strategy that worked so well, Russia duplicated it in Ukraine in 2014.)

For an alliance like NATO to work, of course, concerns about Russia’s response to strategic moves cannot be a trump card. Sometimes you simply have to do things your geopolitical adversary doesn’t like.

But the benefits must outweigh the costs. If the price of backing Georgia’s membership in NATO is stressing American relationships in Europe and heightening the risk of war with a nuclear-armed opponent, the Biden administration should be in no rush to change the—admittedly imperfect and awkward—status quo.

The post Should NATO Open Its Doors to Georgia? appeared first on Reason.com.

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