Huge Death Toll After US-Supplied Himars Leveled Russian Barracks In Donetsk, Possibly Hundreds Killed

Huge Death Toll After US-Supplied Himars Leveled Russian Barracks In Donetsk, Possibly Hundreds Killed

Russian forces have just suffered what may be their single biggest loss of the war in an attack, after a Ukrainian strike killed multiple dozens, or possibly hundreds, of newly mobilized troops in the east of the country. Moscow is now pointing to a US role in the devastating attack.

“Russia’s Defense Ministry said Monday that Ukrainian forces used a U.S.-supplied Himars rocket system to destroy a facility used as a base for mobilized troops in the city of Makiivka,” The Wall Street Journal reports of the attack in Russian-occupied Donbas.

The leveled Russian troop facilities, described as a training school for conscripts, in Makiivka. RIA Novosti/Sputnik via AP

The defense ministry confirmed that 63 Russian troops died in the blast, saying that a wave of HIMARS rockets delivering “high-explosive warheads” struck the facility that housed the troops.

A statement by top Russian commanders carried in state-run TASS reads: “The Kiev regime delivered a strike firing six projectiles from the US-made HIMARS multiple rocket launcher on a Russian unit near Makeyevka in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). The attack left 63 Russian service members killed.”

Though only reveled for the first time Monday, the strike reportedly took place soon after midnight on Sunday, New Year’s Day. Some Russian sources are suggesting an ammunition depot was next to the targeted facility, which likely resulted in a deadlier, expanded blast. 

The Ukrainian side is meanwhile claiming the true numbers among the Russian dead is much higher, with the Ukrainian military asserting that some 400 were killed and other 300 wounded – though Kiev didn’t directly take responsibility in the immediate aftermath.

Blasts at an oil depot after missiles struck the facility in Russian-held Makiivka, via AP.

Western media, including CNN and Reuters, have acknowledged being unable to independently verify the casualty numbers, however, some notable pro-Russian separatist officials have suggested it is more that the 63 dead officially cited by the Kremlin

Igor Girkin, a former Federal Security Service officer who helped Russia annex the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea in 2014 and then organize pro-Russian separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, said on Monday that “the number of dead and wounded runs into many hundreds.”

That same official is one among several Russian military commentators who lashed out at top commanders for the apparent lack of protection for the hundreds of personnel staying in a small area. Russian sources say at least two of the inbound missiles among the six fired by the Ukrainians were shot down by anti-air defenses.

Girkin said on Telegram: “This is not the only such [extremely dense] deployment of personnel and equipment in the destruction zone of HIMARS missiles,” also in reference to reports of ammunition stored dangerously close.

Other pundits are saying troops’ use of cellular phones or other possible open source communications could have tipped off the Ukrainians as to the presence and location of the base, given the potential for intercepted signals…

Additionally, Reuters references the following source from the Russian side:

One Russian pro-war military blogger known as Rybar, who has more than one million subscribers on the Telegram messaging app, said more than 100 people had been wounded in the strike and that rubble was still being cleared.

Rybar said there had been about 600 people in the building, and that ammunition had been stored in the same facility.

And The Telegraph points out this could surpass the prior single most disastrous event from early on in the invasion:

Ukraine estimated the death toll at “about 400”, with some pro-Russian separatists in the region agreeing “hundreds” had died. The Kremlin, in a rare admission, said 63 men had been killed – far outweighing the official death toll from the sinking of the flagship Moskva.

Beyond the issue of the disputed death toll, another question is whether the Ukrainians had targeting assistance from US intelligence.

Interestingly, Ukraine’s defense ministry on the same day as the attack posted footage of what appears to be Himars system launching a strike in the dark.

In the past months, mainstream US press has increasingly acknowledged that the Ukrainians are receiving direct battlefield targeting help, based on the admissions of anonymous Pentagon and US intelligence officials. 

However, there’s currently no confirmation or clear evidence that US-supplied HIMARS were indeed used, as the Russians allege. But the fact that the facility struck was significantly behind the front lines may point to a longer range weapon being used, such as has been supplied by Western powers. Ukraine also seems to now be openly boasting of its US-supplied capabilities in the wake of the mass casualty attack on Makiivka.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/02/2023 – 14:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/UbENrQ8 Tyler Durden

2023 Outlook: Pain

2023 Outlook: Pain

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

2023 Outlook – PAIN

First, I need to apologize for last weekend’s Bah Humbug! T-Report. I meant to give a shout out to “Christmas Wrapping” by the Waitresses, which starts with the line “Bah Humbug, now that’s too strong”. If I had to listen to one holiday song on infinite replay all December, that song would be the one (apologies to Mariah Carey). But enough delaying, let’s get to the heart of the matter, which is why I think that 2023 (at least for the start of the year) will be a big bust! Maybe, much like the A-Team always won in the end, this year could finish well (for markets and the economy), but it will start with “PAIN” (okay, I’m mixing Mr. T lines, but let’s just roll with it).

  • Not much help from the bond markets. I’m a bond bull and expect a “risk-off” trade early in the year, but bonds just aren’t going to help portfolios or the economy enough to stem the tide.

  • The wealth effect (on individuals, companies, and governments) will weigh on the economy and markets. The amount of wealth destruction was large by historical standards and was more “circular” than in previous bouts of wealth destruction.

  • Unlike Weebles (which wobble, but don’t fall down), economic data will fall down. Consumers and jobs, two areas that have given many people reasons to support an optimistic outlook, will succumb to the same problems that the rest of the economy is facing and it will finally show up in the data.

  • There is a chance for some geopolitical respite, but globalization in 2023 and beyond will never go back to where it was in 2017.

  • The valuation re-valuation is not done, and that will reduce whatever earnings (or free cash flow) we have to multiply these metrics by to calculate valuations. Credit contraction is a risk.

Those are the main points driving much of this very bleak outlook (but just because it is bleak, doesn’t mean that it is pessimistic because bad things can and do happen).

The Foundation – Key Building Blocks

There are some ongoing themes in last year’s work that set the stage for some of this analysis. We will refine the points listed in the first section, but it is important to lay the foundation.

We had several non-traditional factors that drove inflation, many of which are gone. Using responses that worked for “traditional” inflation when we have a unique fact set this time around is going to lead to large and difficult policy mistakes.

  • See Rise and Fall of Inflation Risk Factors which examines the roles of the Fed, Stimulus, Supply Chains, War, and “Disruption” on inflation.

  • 2 + 2 = 5 explores why the Fed seems to be looking at data very “weirdly” and the problems that these views are likely to cause.

  • The last piece in this series, the Path to Q1 Deflation, lays out how this comes together to shock the system (deflation is not healthy when it is caused by an economy hitting a wall).

These are important pieces of the “PAIN” outlook, but they are not the only elements. Even if you disagree with the above, there is plenty of wiggle room to come to the “PAIN” conclusion and those arguments just help make the case stronger.

Relationships with China have changed and aren’t going to revert to what passed as “normal” any time soon. It isn’t just at the government level (where national security concerns are paramount), but at the company level where there is a threat to IP and supply chains. There is also unwillingness to truly provide open and equal access to the domestic economy. All these factors have left C-Suites working on alternatives to China.

It is almost sad (but true) that by the time markets and the mainstream media catch up to Academy’s view on China, our view will have become more negative. However, the gap is finally narrowing for most investors and corporations.

  • The Beijing Olympics as Cultural Bookends is a “thought” piece but looks at the changes since China’s “coming out” party at the Beijing Summer Olympics and their “going away” party at the Winter Olympics last year. Topics include the reassertion of the Communist Party, Digital Yuan, Debt Diplomacy/Economic Colonization, Military Expansion, and the Real-Estate bubble. While that report is almost a year old, it sets the tone for much of how people should think about China.

  • The Recentralization of China (August 2021) set the stage for the move from seeing China as a Strategic Competitor (December 2019) to more of an enemy across the globe.

  • China’s zero-COVID policy. I dismissed the re-opening as being a “big deal” on national TV just a couple weeks ago (supply chain issues have been largely dealt with and the last thing this economy needs is more cheap goods). However, it is still interesting that it failed to help markets rally. Maybe that is because few people want to risk travelling to China at this stage (getting COVID there seems precarious at best in terms of treatment). Maybe it is because China’s importance to our economy has been greatly diminished. The full story hasn’t played out here, but I remain in the camp that China’s re-opening is only helpful at the margins given how companies and countries have adapted to the past few years of behavior.

Again, this “foundation” isn’t critical in coming to the “PAIN” conclusion, but it is an important building block.

Bond Market – Supply/Demand Imbalances?

I want to be bullish on bonds despite the fact that this is rapidly becoming a consensus view. I’m fully committed to the high probability of a “risk-off” trade that brings bond yields lower and takes stocks below their 2022 lows. Yet, things seem “off” in the bond world.

It is somewhat “difficult” (at least from this seat) to put a finger on exactly what is wrong, but let’s highlight a few potential risks to the bond world. These are primarily risks to the Treasury market, but many of those risks would cause problems for credit especially if the economy slows as rapidly as I expect it to (it is already slowing rapidly based on PMI data and other reports).

  • Will foreign buyers of dollar denominated debt continue to buy? This question first got some serious attention as dollar strength and FX volatility made it more difficult for foreigners to buy dollar denominated debt and hedge out the FX risk (primarily a Treasury and investment grade bond issue). With Japan starting to increase the target levels on their bonds, will we see more buying of yen denominated bonds vs. buying dollar denominated bonds with the associated FX hedging? I am a strong believer that the “0% bound” is non-linear. Basically, a number of market participants will do a lot to avoid 0 or near-0 returns and will quickly revert to “simpler” strategies once they can achieve even a modicum of yield. Large/sophisticated institutions don’t think that way, but many smaller institutions seem to.

  • Japanese investors (for the first time in well over 5 years) can achieve a little over 20 bps by investing in 5-year JGBs. Certainly not an earth-shattering return, but it isn’t a particularly long maturity and it alleviates the need to run FX hedging strategies. This will be a small problem for bond markets, not material, but not entirely inconsequential. It is a risk that increases as Japanese yields rise (presumably while global bond yields are also rising) creating a negative feedback loop. This isn’t keeping me awake at night, but I am keeping an eye on it.

  • Higher deficits? As yields rise, the cost of running existing debt burdens for countries goes up. Yes, it takes a long time for rising yields to have a significant impact on average coupons outstanding, but the U.S. has $3.8 trillion of bills and $2.6 trillion of bonds maturing in 2023, all of which will need to be refinanced at higher coupons than the bonds that are maturing. In 2021, the Federal Reserve helped reduce the government deficit by $107 billion. Since the Fed uses accrual accounting, the higher cost of borrowing impacted the remittance for 2022 (guessing around breakeven). This means that at the end of 2022, the Treasury Department did not receive the $100 billion it got in 2021. Unless the Fed does some form of “Operation Twist”, where they work with Treasury to retire longer-dated bonds (trading well below par) to book profits, this year’s number will end up being a significant loss. We could also see decreased remittances, especially if financial assets continue to struggle (which is my base case). Lots of moving parts, but we could see increased supply from governments which won’t be completely offset by lower supply from corporates.

  • Quantitative Tightening. Quantitative tightening does not behave like rate hikes (see Rube Goldberg Translating QT to bps). I find quantitative easing much easier to explain. Every day, investors in every asset class get forced to take on more risk to get a similar expected return. If a T-bill is bought by the Fed, someone who used to be able to buy that T-bill now either needs a longer T-bill or something with slightly more risk (say Agency Discount Notes or CP) or something slightly less liquid (maybe ABS related or private credit). Their decision thrusts the same decision on the investors who used to buy what they are now buying. That goes on and on until it impacts the riskiest of assets (unprofitable tech and crypto certainly seemed to fit the bill). This is Newton’s Cradle in action (where you drop a ball at one end and the ball it hits doesn’t move, but the ball at the far end of the chain moves). Quantitative tightening acts in reverse (though with less impact since it is relying on bonds that are maturing, limiting the “duration” being taken out of the market). But every day investors seem to wake up with the ability to take less risk (less credit risk, shorter maturities, or more liquidity) for similar expected returns.

  • This is not the “best” chart (and I’m sure that there are some Chart Crimes committed here). However my view is that QE is extremely prone to asset price inflation and the Fed knows it (even if they don’t harp on it) and they will keep QT even when they are done hiking rates because they want to “fix” this “problem”. This doesn’t get enough discussion in the inflation dialogue. This point also bothers me when thinking about the potential for bond or stock strength this year.
  • The shape of the yield curve is not conducive to a great year for bonds. With 2s vs 10s still inverted by 55 bps, we need one heck of a bull market across the entire curve to generate big returns. While 20-year bonds seem to offer some respite, no one wants to touch them because the long bond only highlights these issues. As much as bond investors want long duration, the pickup in yield (relative to the risk/reward by moving to shorter-dated bonds) could be attractive and would be completely in line with how we see QT working.
  • Corporate bond risk/reward. High end corporates should do “okay”, but if our theory plays out, there will be pressure on credit spreads. My “rough” thinking is that for every basis point Treasury yields rise, corporate spreads will tighten by less than a ½ of a bp. Overall yields on corporates will go up if Treasury yields rise. For every bp Treasury yields fall, beyond a threshold of say 10 to 20 bps from current levels, spreads will widen 1:1 or worse (it will be a risk-off trade, not as bad as in March 2020 or 2008, but still serious considering the IG level of risk). From an all-in yield basis, the risk/reward for corporates seems slightly worse than for Treasuries themselves. Less supply will help corporate credit, but liquidity is worse, which amplifies any hiccup. If I was an issuer I’d start the year trying to issue, but if I was an investor, I’d start the year reducing exposure.

I want to be a “pound the table” bond bull, but I struggle due to all these risks (5-year, highest quality paper is the best option here.)

The “Circular Error” in “Disruption”

Company XYZ raises money (public or private) at a new (and higher) valuation.

Company XYZ’s employees feel richer as the new valuation increases the value of their options.

Company XYZ’s other investors are also richer based on these new valuations.

Company XYZ’s employees spend money because they are (in some cases) “rich”. They buy fancy cars (mostly EV), big houses, and expensive vacations. They also take some of their newfound wealth to invest in companies similar to XYZ (and apparently in crypto).

  • Real estate agents, lawyers, house sellers, auto dealers, etc., benefit from this surge in spending.

Company XYZ spends money on equipment (mostly tech), office spaces (to highlight their prowess in a physical manifestation), and on advertising so people hear about their product. Their mentality is “the faster I spend, the sooner I can do my next raise at an even higher valuation”.

  • Real estate agents, lawyers, big tech, small tech, venues, ad sites, etc., all benefit from this spending.

The “second” order effect of this spending is smaller, but not only do the outside investors spend more, so do the real estate agents, lawyers, house sellers, tech companies, etc. The money multiplier increases the wealth “shock” that spreads throughout the economy.

Peloton, a company whose product I’m trying to use with more regularity this winter, went from $6 billion to $49 billion in market cap. This was one of hundreds of public companies that saw that sort of gain! That doesn’t include crypto/private equity investments and doesn’t even try to put a number on SPACs (though NKLA hit a market cap of $28 billion and is now at $1 billion). This is a good segue to the “circular” nature of all this.

If there was a “virtuous cycle” on the way up, it seems plausible that the cycle will be “unvirtuous” on the way down. That is the problem with “circularity”. Things circle back on themselves and you do not have the ability to get the correct answer.

This is probably the area on which I seem to differ most from many economists (I’m just a strategist). I see circularity and spirals where others see straight line extrapolations. Maybe I’m wrong, but this feels an awful lot like 2000/2001 (tech bubble), 2007/2008 (housing was the main culprit), and 2015/2016 (energy boom/bust), but with the focus being on “disruption” this time around in 2022/2023.

This keeps me awake at night.

Weebles

We will get a lot more information on jobs in the first week of January. I expect that the data will disappoint and we can do a retrospective on that in next weekend’s T-Report. At that point, it will hopefully be clear whether we were right or wrong (though given the quality of the data collected, the week will probably prove to be far less conclusive on the job front than it should be).

The health of the consumer is a big question mark.

  • 2022 hurt low wage earners the most. Low income households were hit by inflation, but they had benefitted the most from stimulus (as a percentage of income) and an incredibly robust job market.
  • 2023 may play out as the “high income” hit year. The wealth effect is taking a toll, but more importantly this part of the work force seems to be facing the brunt of recent layoffs. This year won’t be about the number of jobs lost, but it will be a function of the number of jobs lost multiplied by the average income (which could be surprisingly high). Employees at the “granular” level are still in high demand (though that could tail off too), but it will be a combination of job fears (even if unfounded) coupled with the wealth effect that will make the consumer seem much weaker in 2023 than in 2022.

I need to improve my charting capability on the “consumer” health side of things, but this chart caught my eye.

Similar to the alleged “inventory” build story (which we will revisit next week), this is just playing catch-up to the “excess savings”. But what if consumers are living beyond their means to an uncomfortable degree? Will Q4 and the holiday season be the last binge as the consumer embarks on a “dry January”?

I’m not optimistic on the consumer coming into 2023. Again, not keeping me up at night, but a definite concern and one that we need to do a lot more work on in the coming days and weeks.

“Positive” Geopolitical Surprises?

Last year we saw a shock to the system with a war in Europe! A year into this, it is still difficult to conceptualize that there is a war in Europe.

Academy’s current take is that Russia will make one more big push this winter, but if that fails, some sort of negotiations should begin, which would be a boost to global markets. But, like so many other things, nothing is returning to how it used to be! Russia has found new buyers for its energy products. These buyers care little about their behavior and are in no rush to shift away from traditional energy products. Probably, from the Russian perspective, this is a better client base.

I need to highlight that the U.S. changed the nature of global commerce permanently the minute “we” weaponized Russia’s dollar reserves. That was not lost on any country, but was most noticed by autocratic nations swimming in natural resources. This will impact policies and trade negotiations for decades to come and will put “us” at a distinct disadvantage to China and India. As we deal with the reality of what resources we will need in the future, this will be another hurdle.

So, the situation in Russia could result in some change globally, but more of a “Potemkin village” than a real change to the global commodity industry (and therefore to the global economy).

China may back down on some rhetoric (they are good at taking “5 steps forward, 1 step back” and highlighting their “1 step back” hoping that no one noticed they gained 4 steps.)

There is the opportunity to work with China, but they are now truly viewed as a competitor and a possible threat, so we cannot and will not go back to how it was (this applies to both nations and companies).

Geopolitics might provide some boosts, but they will be mild and temporary, and we will need to remain vigilant with China, Taiwan, Russia, Turkey and many other regions in the world as the geopolitical landscape continues to evolve, and not in a good direction!

Bottom Line

I’m not optimistic on risk (equities will do worse than IG credit spreads, but risk across the continuum is still not priced cheaply enough).

I’m not as optimistic on bonds as I’d like to be. That, sadly, is not comforting.

Hopefully I’m wrong! Maybe like Mr. T, we can go from being the adversary to a much-loved character, but for now my New Year’s message is anything but happy.

I’ll be looking for reasons to become more optimistic and a “pound the table bull” (I’m okay being “long for a trade” here), but think that we are best served by being cautious and seeing if whether the “straight line extrapolation” people were correct or there is a spiral effect that has been put in motion and has its own energy.

Good luck and on behalf of Academy Securities; we look forward to working with you in 2023.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/02/2023 – 13:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/WH4eJ9p Tyler Durden

Tesla Delivers Record 405,278 Vehicles In Q4 2022, But Misses Wall Street Estimates

Tesla Delivers Record 405,278 Vehicles In Q4 2022, But Misses Wall Street Estimates

In a press release put out midday on Monday, Tesla announced it had delivered a record 405,278 vehicles for the Q4 2022 quarter. The number marks a record for the company, but comes in below most Wall Street estimates, even some that were revised lower. Consensus estimates for deliveries stood at 420,760 into the report, according to Bloomberg.

“In 2022, vehicle deliveries grew 40% YoY to 1.31 million,” the company’s press release says. This falls short of the 50% growth figure the company had once projected for the year. 

Tesla commented: “We continued to transition towards a more even regional mix of vehicle builds which again led to a further increase in cars in transit at the end of the quarter. Thank you to all of our customers, employees, suppliers, shareholders and supporters who helped us achieve a great 2022 in light of significant COVID and supply chain related challenges throughout the year.”

The breakdown of vehicles included 388,131 Model 3 and Model Y deliveries, which fell short of the 405,597 estimated:

And 17,147 Model S/X deliveries, which fell short of the 18,578 estimate:

Perhaps an interesting delta to keep an eye on is the company’s production versus delivery – production numbers all beat Wall Street estimates across the board, per Bloomberg:

*TESLA 4Q PRODUCTION 439,701 VEHICLES, EST. 438,840

*TESLA 4Q MODEL S/X PRODUCTION 20,613, EST. 18,611

*TESLA 4Q MODEL 3/Y PRODUCTION 419,088, EST. 411,828

Despite the delivery number missing most consensus estimates, we noted days ago that Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas had actually revised his Q4 delivery estimate to as low as 399,000 vehicles. 

Jonas seems to think headwinds out of China, which have been cited as part of the reason for Tesla’s recent share price plunge, may continue: “According to Morgan Stanley lead China auto analyst Tim Hsiao, Nio just announced a cut to its 4Q delivery target given Covid-related disruption to production and registrations. Despite sequential volume improvement MTD, the uptick of auto/NEV sales has come in weaker than expected given a surge in Covid cases following reopening.”

Jonas also continues to believe that Tesla is well suited to face macro headwinds heading into 2023. He wrote last week:

“On a relative basis, the reiteration of our OW rating must be seen vs. more challenged EV-related peers such as EW-rated Fisker (FSR), UW-rated Lucid (LCID),and UW-rated QuantumScape (QS). Between a worsening macro backdrop, record high unafforability,and increasing competition, there are hurdles to overcome. Yet we do believe that in the face of all these pressures, TSLA will widen its lead in the EV race, as it leverages its cost and scale advantages to further itself from the competition.”

Tesla has also started 2023 by continuing to offer 10,000 yuan incentives in China in a bid to help boost sales, we noted this weekend. The company may also see another subsidy shot-in-the-arm in the U.S. heading into the new year. 

Days ago we asked whether or not the Biden administration could work as a tailwind heading into 2023: “At the start of the new year, buyers will once again enjoy a tax credit when they purchase a Tesla vehicle. The original 2010 EV tax credit had a quota of 400K units. For Tesla, the tax credits fully disappeared in early 2020 when Tesla reached that unit sales quota. But thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that Congress passed earlier this year and Biden signed [last week], the tax credits are back in 2023.”

We continued:

“In the IRA there is a $7,500 tax credit for buyers of EVs, including TSLA and GM, who lost their previous tax credits. However, there are other strict limits on which brands would be eligible for the full credit, based on the selling price and where the cars and components are made. Unless the car is made in North America (NAFTA), the buyer is not eligible for the full tax credit. In addition, at least 50% of the battery parts will need to be made in North America. Lastly, a minimum of 40% of minerals used in the batteries must be sourced from the US or countries with free trade agreements with the US. So even buyers of GM and Tesla cars might only be eligible for half ($3,750) of the tax credit because their batteries and minerals come from a “foreign entity of concern” (China/Russia).”

To finish the year, Tesla has traded the furthest below its 200DMA (61% lower) in the company’s history – whether or not this is a sign of continued bearishness or a setup for a whipsaw higher remains to be seen…

Shares initially fell, before bouncing, in Europe where equity futures trading is open, versus the U.S. where markets are closed for the New Year’s holiday.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/02/2023 – 13:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Y4wBocj Tyler Durden

Should the “Duress” Defense Be Available in Cases of Extremely Reckless Homicide?

From Michigan Supreme Court Justice Bridget McCormack’s majority opinion (for four of the seven Justices) delivered Thursday in People v. Gafken:

[W]hile fleeing from police, Theresa Gafken ran a red light at speeds topping 100 miles per hour and collided with other vehicles, killing one person and causing severe injuries to several others; Gafken was also injured. The prosecution charged her with second-degree murder, and two counts of operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) causing serious impairment of a body function.

Before trial, Gafken moved to allow certain testimony. Specifically, she asked to be allowed to testify that she intended to pull over when the police officer activated his overheard lights and that she didn’t do so because Michael Scandalito, who was sitting behind her, then thrust a gun into her ribs and threatened to kill her if she stopped the car. She also wanted to testify that Scandalito was on parole and being sought for a parole-violation warrant and had committed aggravated assault against his mother while in a methamphetamine rage….

The majority held that the testimony should have been admitted, and Gafken should have been able to use the duress defense based on that testimony. Here’s the heart of the short majority opinion, though there is also an interesting and much more detailed concurrence, plus three detailed dissents.

“The elements of second-degree murder are: (1) a death, (2) caused by an act of the defendant, (3) with malice, and (4) without justification or excuse.” Malice may be established in three ways: by showing (1) the intent to kill, (2) the intent to cause great bodily harm, or (3) the intent to do an act in wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of such behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm…. The prosecution charged Gafken only under the third theory of malice, commonly referred to as depraved-heart murder.

“Duress is a common-law affirmative defense.” … “The rationale of the defense of duress is that, for reasons of social policy, it is better that the defendant, faced with a choice of evils, choose to do the lesser evil (violate the criminal law) in order to avoid the greater evil threatened by the other person.” …

“[H]istorically, duress was not permitted as an affirmative defense to murder.” [In the words of] Lord Matthew Hale and William Blackstone, “[T]hough a man be violently assaulted, and hath no other possible means of escaping death, but by killing an innocent person; this fear and force shall not acquit him of murder; for he ought rather to die himself, than escape by the murder of an innocent.”‘ … The rationale for the no-duress-defense-for-murder rule is … absent when depraved-heart murder is charged. Depraved-heart murder does not present the choice between sparing one’s own life or taking the life of an innocent. It is not kill or be killed. Rather, the choice presented here is …: lose one’s life or commit a lesser felony than intentional murder (here, reckless driving and fleeing from law enforcement).

Although it has often been repeated that duress is not a defense to “homicide” or “murder,” we have recognized that this is an overly broad statement of the rule. Instead, the no-duress-defense-for-murder rule has been limited to cases of intentional murder historically.

To be sure, some authority from other jurisdictions sounds in a broad rule—that duress is not a defense to “murder” without qualification. See, e.g., People v Anderson (Cal. 2002) (“duress is not a defense to any form of murder”); Am Jur 2d, Homicide (it is “generally held” that duress is not a defense to murder and that “duress [does not] mitigate murder to manslaughter”). But generally, this authority involves interpretation of a statute providing under what terms a duress defense can be raised. Of course, a state legislature may dictate the terms in which the duress defense may be raised. Because our Legislature has not done so, we apply the common-law rule. And we are aware of no court that has considered the issue of whether duress can be raised as a defense to an unintentional homicide….

Understanding the foundation of the no-duress-defense-for-murder rule, we believe that Hale and Blackstone would not have intended to withhold the duress defense on these facts. Because Gafken alleges that she chose to do the lesser evil, a duress defense is available.

The prosecution doesn’t offer many arguments to the contrary. Instead, it argues that this Court should not allow a duress defense for depraved-heart murder because the facts will make it very difficult for Gafken to succeed under a duress defense. But that argument confuses whether the law permits a duress defense (our job) with whether the defendant will be able to prevail on such a defense before a jury (not our job). A jury may agree with the prosecution—Gafken has a right to find out.

A defendant is constitutionally guaranteed the right to a “meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” The trial court’s order preventing Gafken from raising a duress defense to a second-degree murder charge that relied on a depraved-heart theory of malice was error, and it was not harmless. The denial of the defense, coupled with the trial court’s exclusion of any evidence that Scandalito threatened Gafken, effectively left Gafken with no defense at all. The jury heard Gafken concede that she engaged in the conduct leading to the victim’s death but was never able to consider whether “the law excused [her] conduct ….” …

The post Should the "Duress" Defense Be Available in Cases of Extremely Reckless Homicide? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/6zZI0TH
via IFTTT

The Final “Tale Of The Tape”: The 13 Most Striking Market Facts Of 2022

The Final “Tale Of The Tape”: The 13 Most Striking Market Facts Of 2022

By Tony Pasquariello, Goldman head of hedge fund sales

For only the third time since 1926, both US stocks and bonds lost money in 2022 (the other two occurrences were 1931 and 1969).

The intra-year path was extraordinary — be it the high print on inflation (I wonder when we’ll see a 9.1% headline on CPI again), the Fed’s response (425 bps of hikes across just seven meetings) or the geopolitical backdrop (one variable that very much carries through to 2023).

Then consider this fundamental oddity: US real GDP growth should only amount to +0.7% this year (Q4/Q4) … yet, there’s been over 4.5mm new jobs created (payrolls survey) [ZH: with even the Philly Fed confirming our speculation that the BLS is fabricating job numbers it’s no longer much of an oddity].

In that context, I’ll borrow a line from Barton Biggs, which I think captures the raw material of what served folks well in 2022:

Although those quantitatively inclined would disagree, to me, investing is much more an art than a science … experience, diligence, a knowledge of history, an open mind, and an obsessive nature are all important ingredients for the successful [investor] … as are intuition, imagination, flexibility and maybe just a touch of the seeing eye.

What of 2023?

For the macro crowd, my instinct is these tensions won’t go quietly into the night and the opportunity set will remain decently target rich (e.g. China and Japan could be very actionable theaters).

At the same time, I concede that the broad setup across asset prices today is far less asymmetric than it was at the start of this year.

Therefore, I suspect we’re shifting from a macro environment that favored aggressive trading (see chart below) and brute force (i.e. US 2-year notes surged from 70 bps to 470 bps, that’s about as good as it gets for trend following strategies) to one that is more nuanced, featuring less volatility and more dispersion across markets (which should play to the strengths of RV and equity long/short).

With thanks to Ben Snider in Goldman Research, what follows from here is a check-down of the score board … I also included the recap on last year at the very bottom of this note, if only for a compare-and-contrast that speaks (quite loudly) for itself.

* * *

The tale of the tape in 2022:

1. The S&P 500 fell by 19%. Including dividends, the total return was -18%. This ranks in the 5th percentile of all annual returns since 1962.

2. Realized volatility was 24%. This ranks in the 92nd historical percentile.

3. Putting those together, the ratio of S&P return-to-vol was -0.7, ranking in the 12th historical percentile.

4. The largest S&P peak-to-trough drawdown during the year was 25%, almost 2x the median historical annual drawdown.

5. The market traded higher on just 43% of days in 2022, the second worst year since WWII (after 1974). This is interesting: the median gain on those days was 115 bps, the highest in postwar history.

6. 31% of S&P stocks posted positive returns, including 66 names up 20% or more and 18 names up 50% or more. On the other side, 188 stocks closed down more than 20% and 26 names were down 50% or more.

7. NDX returned -32%, lagging S&P by 14 percentage points and registering the worst year of underperformance since 2002.

8. US Treasury 10-year notes returned -16%, the worst return on record.

9. Only two of the GICS level one sectors generated positive returns: energy +65%, utilities +2%.

10. The worst sectors: communication services -40%, consumer discretionary -37%, information technology -28%.

11. The best global markets (in local FX): Venezuela +254%, Turkey +207%, Argentina +142%.

12. The worst: Russia -37%, South Korea -24%, China A-shares -20%.

13. Finally, I’ll conclude with a chart, from Ryan Hammond in GIR: as mentioned before, you have probably seen work suggesting that one should not try to time the markets, as missing the best days is a serious drag on returns. While that rang true again (see the gray line), for the world’s best traders, note how dodging the worst days this year generated an immense amount of alpha (see the light blue line):

More in the full Pasquariello note available to pro subs.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/02/2023 – 12:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/TFHMfX5 Tyler Durden

Juan Guaido Ousted By Venezuelan Opposition As ‘Interim President’

Juan Guaido Ousted By Venezuelan Opposition As ‘Interim President’

2023 now effectively marks the end of the whole “Interim President Juan Guaidó” fiction of the previous years, after Venezuela’s opposition on Friday voted to remove him from this role.

Starting in 2019, Guaidó declared himself as interim president of Venezuela while seeking to invalidate President Nicolas Maduro’s controversial 2018 re-election. He had received the full backing of the United States, followed by other countries who can be counted on to mimic Washington policy.

AFP via Getty Images

For the latter part of the Trump administration it was official US policy to recognize Guaidó with the “interim president” title, even with Maduro’s diplomatic officials at the embassy in Washington being considered persona non grata

During the Trump years there were even widespread reports of a US-sponsored coup attempt against Maduro, as Guaidó waited in the wings to take over, but which failed and with subsequent efforts to stoke anti-Maduro unrest gaining no traction and ultimately waning. 

This was despite Guaidó and his opposition officials not having any real level of power inside Caracas or the country, despite a period of what might be called super star status outside the country and some decree of international or Western recognition.

But since November of 2022, the opposition has been in deepening talks with the Maduro government, coinciding with Maduro officials seeking rapprochement with Washington.

Those unprecedented talks led to the White House unveiling a monumental shift in its Venezuela policy,  namely the easing of oil sanctions which allowed Chevron to pump Venezuelan crude and export it to the United States.

Chevron was forced to halt all drilling there just under three years ago due to Trump administration sanctions, also amid the aforementioned US policy that recognized only the opposition leader Guaidó.  “Chevron received a six-month license that authorizes the company to produce petroleum or petroleum products in Venezuela,” a White House statement indicated.

Chevron as the last major US oil company to operate in Venezuela had before the oil embargo invested in Venezuela’s oil fields and machinery over the last century to the tune of an estimated $2.6 billion. But it’s expected to take much more than just six months, possibly even years, for Chevron to get its necessary oil field infrastructure, machinery, and logistics chain up and running again to get back to its earlier Venezuela production levels.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/02/2023 – 12:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/490EHLj Tyler Durden

Migrant-Fueled New Year Mayhem Turns Berlin Into Warzone

Migrant-Fueled New Year Mayhem Turns Berlin Into Warzone

Authored by John Cody via Remix News,

German youth in migrant-heavy neighborhoods once again turned Berlin and other German cities into war zones on New Year’s Day, but this year, news reports indicate that attacks were especially brutal and targeted rescue services, including ambulance workers.

In Berlin, police and firefighters responded to 3,943 incidents, with 15 firefighters and 18 police officers injured. According to Bild newspaper, there were “particularly bad attacks in the hotspot neighborhoods of Kreuzberg and Neukölln with a high proportion of migrants.”

“There were dozens of attacks,” says Interior Senator Iris Spranger, of the Social Democrats (SPD).

In Kreuzberg, for example, after young men set fire to barricades, firefighters who arrived to extinguish the fire were attacked by 200 hooded men. In Neukölln, which is one of the most multicultural neighborhoods in Germany, 50 perpetrators fired rockets at emergency force services.

In one disturbing scene, a group of men were filmed attacking an ambulance, hurling objects inside the vehicle’s open rear doors.

Other videos show youths hurling rockets at ambulances as they attempt to drive down Berlin streets.

Many of the incidents were caught on film, with the clips featuring burning vehicles, fires in tall apartment blocks, and one police officer being struck by a rocket directly on his helmet, which then burst into flames. One officer and one firefighter suffered from severe injuries and remain hospitalized.

“Our vehicles were fired at with birdshot ammunition,” says Thomas Kirstein of the Berlin Fire Department. Police report that an “illegal bullet bomb” was thrown at a fully occupied police car. In another video, a man shoots out a police car window.

In the ensuing chaos, 103 people (98 men and five women) were arrested. The Berlin police wrote on Twitter, “The violence that our colleagues had to experience on New Year’s Eve is unbearable. It is a task for society as a whole to clearly counteract this. We thank you all for your commitment and wish the injured a speedy recovery.”

Another video showed migrant youth mocking a firefighter as he attempted to give an interview to news outlets.

The next morning, burned-out buses and automobiles could be seen across Berlin.

Georg Pazdersk, former AfD parliamentary group leader in the Berlin House of Representatives, wrote: “When are we finally going to admit that we have a huge problem with young male migrants from archaic societies who don’t want to integrate. Silencing the problem means continuing to promote it.”

Other cities, such as Duisburg, were hit with violence as well, including attacks on rescue services.

“One can only shake one’s head. The political leadership in Berlin takes no responsibility for this disaster. It has sympathy for people who break rules,” Neukölln’s former mayor, Social-Demcrat (SPD) Heinz Buschkowsky, told Bild.

“The lunatics are becoming are appearing more and more. Every festive event is a welcome occasion to attack the authorities…That’s the enemy, and they must be fought.”

“Even experienced emergency personnel are shocked by the extent of the brutality. This must finally come to an end. The state must no longer stand by while chaotic people repeatedly attack police officers and firefighters. These are not trivial offenses, they are crimes,” CDU Berlin chapter leader Kai Wegner told Bild.

Previous years also featured extreme violence, especially in Neukölln.

In a statement released by the AfD, the party wrote, “Anarchy reigned in Berlin on New Year’s Eve. It was a first foretaste of future everyday life in German cities because although the authorities and the press are adamantly silent when it comes to the specific naming of the perpetrators, the countless videos of that night speak volumes: They are young, violent men with a southern appearance who hardly speak German. And not only can they immigrate unhindered, they also get paid for a nice life by the traffic-light government with tax money.

The conclusion that is now being drawn from the riots is as typical as it is naïve: a ban on firecrackers and cameras on the rescue vehicles should fix it. As if the corresponding clientele would be impressed by these measures. There is only one effective remedy against such scenes: finally protect the borders and deport criminal migrants immediately,.”

In 2016, approximately 2,500 German women were raped and sexually assaulted by North African and Middle Eastern men in Cologne and other cities in an event that fueled the rise of the Alternative for Germany party and anti-immigration sentiment in Germany.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/02/2023 – 11:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Ou0iLnM Tyler Durden

The New Year Brings a New Formula for US News Law School Rankings

Today the Wall Street Journal reports that U.S. News & World Report is making some dramatic changes to the formula it uses to rank law schools, partially in response to complaints from law schools that objected to aspects of the rankings.

In a letter sent Monday to deans of the 188 law schools it currently ranks, U.S. News said it would give less weight in its next release to reputational surveys completed by deans, faculty, lawyers and judges and won’t take into account per-student expenditures that favor the wealthiest schools. The new ranking also will count graduates with school-funded public-interest legal fellowships or who go on to additional graduate programs the same as they would other employed graduates.

U.S. News said its rankings team held meetings with more than 100 deans and other law-school administrators in recent weeks. They embarked on the listening tour after Yale Law School—perennially ranked at No. 1—said it would no longer provide information to help U.S. News compile its list. . . .

The shift in methodology may be due in part to necessity. Though U.S. News pulls much of its data from the American Bar Association and said it would rank schools whether or not they cooperated, it relies on schools to provide the spending figures and to complete peer-review surveys. . . .

Mr. Morse and Ms. Salmon said they also heard concerns in their meetings about how U.S. News considers diversity and loan forgiveness and potentially encourages awarding scholarships based on LSAT scores rather than on financial need. They wrote in the Monday letter that those issues “will require additional time and collaboration to address” so won’t be overhauled now.

At his Excess of Democracy blog, Professor Derek Muller has some preliminary analysis of how these changes could effect the rankings, naming schools he expects to win and lose from the new formula. He concludes:

I feel fairly confident that a handful of the schools identified above as winners in several categories, including Alabama, BYU, Georgia, and Texas A&M, will benefit significantly in the end, but one never knows for sure. It also has the potential to disrupt some of the more “entrenched” schools from their positions, as the more “legacy”-oriented factors, including spending and the echo chamber of reputational surveys, will receive less value. Law schools must increasingly face the value proposition for students (e.g., lower debt, better employment outcomes), with some other potential factors in the mix, in the years ahead.

The post The New Year Brings a New Formula for US News Law School Rankings appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/wn9lR4r
via IFTTT

This family escaped… because they had a second passport

On November 26, 1927, a 47-year old Austrian naval officer stood at the altar of the Nonnberg Abbey in Salzburg to marry his young, 22-year old bride. His name was Commander Georg Ritter von Trapp; and hers– Maria.

They were the couple who would become famous from the 1965 movie The Sound of Music, a popular musical which was loosely based on their true story.

Von Trapp came from a naval family; his father was a decorated officer who had been elevated into nobility for his service, and Georg followed in his father’s footsteps when he entered Austria-Hungary’s Imperial Naval Academy in 1894 at the age of 14.

And more than 20 years later, von Trapp distinguished himself as one of the most successful submarine commanders of World War I.

But Austria Hungary was on the losing side, and the war had devastated the empire.

By the time the war ended in 1918, Austria-Hungary’s economy was near collapse. Food supplies had dwindled, plus the famous Spanish flu pandemic had set in (which nearly killed the Emperor).

The empire disintegrated in a matter of months; its former territories became independent states, including the newly landlocked Republic of Austria. So Commander von Trapp had suddenly become a naval officer with neither a navy, nor even a coastline.

He initially retired and enjoyed a life of leisure; his first wife was a wealthy heiress, so the von Trapps had money. When she died in 1922, she left him with a vast fortune… along with seven children.

Five years later von Trapp married his children’s nanny, Maria, who was just 22 at the time.

At first the family continued to live comfortably on their estate near Salzburg. But von Trapp lost his fortune in the early 1930s during the Great Depression, and the family was forced to make ends meet by singing at concerts.

They became relatively famous and went on tour, singing their way across Europe during the late 1930s. But when Germany invaded Austria in 1938, von Trapp could see the writing on the wall and knew it was time to leave.

The Sound of Music ends with the von Trapp family dramatically escaping the Nazis and fleeing Austria by literally walking over the mountains into Switzerland. But the filmmakers completely made that up.

In reality, the von Trapps simply went to the local station and boarded a train for Italy.

But the reason they were able to do so amid the Nazi’s occupation of Austria is because Commander von Trapp had a second passport.

Georg von Trapp was born in the city of Zadar (modern day Croatia), where his father was stationed at the time.

Back then, Zadar was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. But after the empire was formally dissolved following World War I, Zadar became (strangely) part of the Kingdom of Italy.

And since von Trapp had been born in a city that was now part of Italy, he was eligible for Italian citizenship.

Commander von Trapp was famously a staunch Austrian. But even a patriot like him could see the value in having a second passport; it’s like an insurance policy to mitigate the what-if’s. The unknown. The unexpected. The unthinkable.

And if there’s anything we should have learned from the past few years, it’s that the unthinkable absolutely happens. Life can change fundamentally, overnight. And having a second passport, or at least foreign residency, can really help mitigate those unthinkable risks.

Von Trapp probably wasn’t contemplating Nazi occupation of Austria when he became eligible for Italian nationality in 1918. In fact the Nazi party wouldn’t even become prominent in Germany for at least a decade.

But as a former submarine commander, Von Trapp understood risk and uncertainty. And he knew that having Italian nationality would help his family be better prepared for a world full of unknowns.

This made their departure quite simple. Instead of a dramatic escape, they merely used their Italian papers to leave Austria and cross the border into Italy.

(They didn’t remain in Italy for very long; almost immediately they traveled to London, and then finally to the United States where the family eventually settled in Vermont.)

I was able to do the same thing for my in-laws recently; my wife’s family is from Ukraine, and we were able to get them out of Kiev, across the border to Poland, and eventually to Cancun, because they have legal residency in Mexico.

And the reason they have legal residency in Mexico is because both of my kids were born there. Under Mexico’s nationality law, whenever foreigners give birth in Mexico, the child automatically becomes a Mexican citizen, plus both parents AND both sets of grandparents are eligible for permanent residency.

So because my kids were born in Mexico, my in-laws became Mexican residents. And this really smoothed their departure from Ukraine.

(Once they arrived in Mexico, we applied for US visas for them, which were quickly granted. And they are now at my home in Puerto Rico under a two-year refugee status.)

Another benefit of a second passport is that it often passes down to the next generation. My kids, for example, have five passports. Their children will inherit all of them, as will their children’s children.

So even if the unthinkable doesn’t happen again in my lifetime, my kids will still have the insurance policy, as will their children and grandchildren.

But a second passport isn’t just for warzones and catastrophes.

A second passport ensures you always have another place to go. It gives you more options for retirement. More places to live. More places to do business and invest. Better ease of travel. Often there may even be tax, healthcare, legal, and pension benefits.

And, with very few exceptions, there’s no downside whatsoever.

(A handful of places, like Israel, require citizens to serve in the military, but this is very rare.)

Now, I don’t want to give you the impression that a second passport is some Panacea that’s going to solve all of your problems. That’s not the idea.

But it can be a great help to mitigate crazy, unforeseen, life-wrecking risks. Both for you, and for future generations of your family.

It’s a rare thing to be able to put in a little bit of effort today, and have that effort create lasting benefit for generations to come. But you can absolutely do this with a second passport.

Best of all, you might even be entitled to one already; one of the best ways to obtain a second passport is through ancestry, or bizarre accidents of birth like Georg von Trapp.

Italy is one of those places; if you have grandparents from the old country, you might very well be eligible for Italian citizenship and a second passport. And there are many other countries too, including Ireland, Greece, and more.

You can read more about citizenship by ancestry here, including a number of countries that offer it.

If you’re inclined towards New Year’s Resolutions, I’d definitely encourage you to putting citizenship by ancestry on your list for this year. Again, it takes some up-front effort. But the benefits can truly last for generations.

Source

from Sovereign Research https://ift.tt/Qrh0vsy
via IFTTT

Quake Prediction Says “Signal Just Hit,” Warns Of Potential Big Earthquake From San Francisco To LA

Quake Prediction Says “Signal Just Hit,” Warns Of Potential Big Earthquake From San Francisco To LA

An earthquake rattled parts of Northern California on Sunday for the second time in two weeks. The 5.4-magnitude quake was centered about 30 miles south of Eureka. On Dec. 20, a 6.4-magnitude earthquake also struck near Eureka.

Now one quake prediction research firm warned that the next big one could be imminent. 

On Monday morning, Quake Predictions published a warning that read for the next two days — there is a “dangerous situation” of the likelihood of a 7.0-magnitude “in the San Francisco Bay to NW of Los Angeles area.” 

The warning comes after two sizeable quakes hit Northern California in less than two weeks. 

Sunday morning’s earthquake was described as “more violent this time,” Rio Dell Mayor Debra Garnes told CNN in an interview. 

“It was shorter but more violent. My refrigerator moved two feet. Things came out of the refrigerator. There’s a crack in my wall from the violence of it,” Garnes said. 

California has an average of five earthquakes per year with magnitudes between 5 and 6, according to LATimes. And the latest shakings might suggest a long overdue big quake could be nearing. 

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/02/2023 – 11:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/DBuQvAM Tyler Durden