Author: admin

It has been at least a few weeks since Deutsche Bank appeared in the flashing red breaking news sections of newswires, with news that was – mostly – negative. And while the stock has since rebounded materially, wiping out all losses since the DOJ’s $14 billion RMBS settlement leak, it appears that not everything is back to normal for the largest German lender. Because in what may be the worst news yet for DB’s employees, moments ago Bloomberg reported that the German Bank is exploring “alternatives to paying bonuses in cash” as Chief Executive Officer John Cryan seeks to boost capital buffers.

According to Bloomberg, DB executives have discussed options including giving some bankers shares in the non-core unit instead of cash bonuses. Another idea under review is replacing the cash component with more Deutsche Bank stock.

The supervisory board may discuss the topic of variable pay at a meeting on Wednesday though no final decisions are expected, the people said, the day before it reports third-quarter earnings. The measures, if pursued in the coming months, would mostly impact the investment bank, the people said. The Frankfurt-based lender is still considering other alternatives, they said.

As Bloomberg adds, any bonus-related decision will depend on the size and timing of Deutsche Bank’s settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice over a probe into the the sale of faulty real-estate securities. Last year, Deutsche Bank awarded staff 2.4 billion euros ($2.6 billion) of bonuses for 2015, 1.45 billion euros of which was for the combined investment banking and trading unit. Of the 2.4 billion euros, 49 percent was deferred stock and cash while the remainder was paid out immediately.  It appears that DB wants to take the 49% number and make it bigger.

The idea echoes a similar move by Credit Suisse Group AG at the height of the financial crisis, when the Swiss firm used its most illiquid loans and bonds to pay employees’ year-end bonuses.

The report is comparable to a similar announcement made exactly one year ago, when DB announced it may slash bonuses by as much as one third. Since then, however, DB’s aggressive cost cutting initative has made life for the bank’s employees progressively more miserable. Since taking over in 2015, Cryan has suspended the dividend, reduced bonuses, cut risky assets, frozen new hiring and announced plans to shed some 9,000 jobs. The CEO has already said Deutsche Bank may fail to be profitable this year after posting the first annual loss since 2008 last year. Now, DB bankers may end up getting “paid” in some of the billions in impaired tanker loans, carried quietly on the bank’s book, if not CDS or interest rate swaps. Those DB certainly has a lot of.

Should DB be successful with this significant shift in compensation strategy without leading to an exodus of workers, it will likely be attempted at other banks as the core problems facing Deutsche Bank, namely declining profitability, have now become systemic across the entire banking sector. Which is bad news for investment bankers everywhere.

via http://ift.tt/2eO88iN Tyler Durden

Submitted by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Yesterday, the markets opened higher but drifted lower into the afternoon as the support behind the markets as of late have continued to remain weak.

As shown in the chart below, the markets remain trapped between the downward price trend from the summer highs and the rising bottoms from the September sell-off. Importantly, the market has maintained support at the all-important breakout level of 2125, for now. This keeps the bull market intact momentarily, but the resolution of the current consolidation will be important as to where the market goes next. 

Importantly, the market has registered a confirmed weekly sell signal as shown in the bottom part of the chart. Considering this signal is being registered at fairly high levels, this suggests there is a potential for a rather deep correction at some point. However, as shown above, this process can take some months to play out.

However, in the longer-term, it is only fundamentals that matter. What is happening between the economic and earnings data is all you really need to know if you are truly a long-term investor.

Unfortunately, you aren’t.

I say that because I would be willing to bet before you even read this article you have already checked on your investments at least once today, looked at the market, and have fretted over some investment you have. True long-term investors don’t do that.

The emotional biases of being either bullish or bearish, primarily driven by the media, keep you from truly focusing on long-term outcomes. You either worry about the next downturn or are concerned you are missing the rally. Therefore, you wind up making short-term decisions which negate your long-term views.

Understanding this is the case, let’s take a look at the technical case for the markets from both a bullish and bearish perspective. From there you can decide what you do next.

THE BULL CASE

1) The Fed Won’t Let The Markets Crash

This is the primary support of the bullish case, and frankly, one that is difficult to argue with. Despite all of the hand-wringing over valuations, economics or fundamental underpinnings, stocks have been, and continue to be, elevated due either to “direct” or “verbal” accommodation.

I discussed this idea in “The Illusion of Permanent Liquidity:”

“But what ongoing liquidity interventions have accomplished, besides driving asset prices higher, is instilling a belief there is little risk in the markets as low interest rates will continue or only be gradually tightened.”

However, “verbal accommodations” have also been extremely supportive since the end of QE-3 in keeping asset prices elevated.

“Bad news is good news” has been the “siren’s song” for the bulls since the end of direct interventions as “low rates for longer” means the “chase for yield” continues.

 

2) Stocks Have Made Successful Retest Support

As I discussed in this weekend’s newsletter, support held at the levels where the markets previously broke out to all-time highs.

“The two dashed red lines show the tightening consolidation pattern more clearly.

 

Currently, the market has been able to defend crucial support at the level where the markets broke out to new highs earlier this year. However, the market now finds itself “trapped” between that very crucial support and a now declining 50-dma along with the previous bull trend support line. 

 

Importantly, the “sell signal,” which is shown in the lower part of the first chart above, suggests that pressure remains to the downside currently.

 

However, there is a concerted effort currently to keep prices elevated over the last week. Following the bounce off of the critical 2125 level this past week, the market has consistently fought off weak openings and have rallied back into the close. This is shown in the chart below.”

“The red circles denote when the market had reached extreme overbought levels during the trading day which typically denoted the limit of the upside advance for the day.

The broader point to be made here is that while the market is defending its current support level at 2125, the question is whether the market can muster the momentum to reconstitute the bullish trend into the end of the year. “

Despite weakness in momentum and trends currently, the market has continuously maintained support at 2125. The battle between “bulls” and “bears” is being waged at that level. 

 

3) Advance-Decline Line Is Improving

The participation by stocks in the recent bullish advance has been strong enough to push the advance-decline line well above the 34-week moving average.

However, it should be noted that such extreme deviations from the long-term moving average do not historically last long. But, the rise in participation supports the bullish momentum behind stocks currently and should not be dismissed.

Currently, as shown above, the short-term dynamics of the market remain bullishly biased. This suggests equity exposure in portfolios remains warranted for the time being. However, let me be VERY CLEAR – this is VERY SHORT-TERM analysis. From a TRADING perspective, this remains a bull market at the current time. This DOES NOT mean the markets are about to begin the next great secular bull market. Caution is highly advised if you are the type of person who doesn’t pay close attention to your portfolio or have an inherent disposition to “hoping things will get back to even” if things go wrong rather than selling.

---

THE BEAR CASE

The bear case is more grounded in longer-term price dynamics – weekly and monthly versus daily which suggests the current rally remains a reflexive rally within the confines of a more bearish backdrop.

1) Short-Term: Market Momentum Declining, Fails At Resistance

The market rally from the “Brexit” lows was quite impressive as Central Banks globally came to the rescue to offset the risks of the British vote. However, since then, the markets have gone quiet.

The ongoing attempts of the market to rally have consistently failed at the downtrend from the post-Brexit highs. In order for the market to reverse the “bearish” context a breakout above that downtrend resistance will need to occur.

 

2) Longer-Term Dynamics Still Bearish

If we step back and look at the market from a longer-term perspective, where true price trends are revealed, we see a very different picture emerge. As shown below, the current dynamics of the market are extremely similar to every previous bull market peak in history. Given the deterioration in revenues, bottom-line earnings, and weak economics, the backdrop between today and the end of previous bull markets remains consistent. 

 

3) Technical Topping Process Still In Play

As shown below, the market continues what appears to be a more distinct topping process with bearish implications. This expanding, or “megaphone,” pattern combined with longer term “sell signals” suggests a corrective action is underway. I have mapped out the possible retracement levels using a Fibonacci sequence.

If the market is able to sustain current levels, work off the longer-term over conditions and realign prices with underlying fundamentals, the resumption of the bull market is entirely feasible. It just hasn’t ever occurred previously without a rather severe corrective process first.

---

What you decide to do with this information is entirely up to you. As I stated, I do think there is enough of a bullish case remaining to warrant some equity risk on a very short-term basis. 

However, the longer-term dynamics are clearly bearish. When those negative price dynamics are combined with the fundamental and economic backdrop, the “risk” of having excessive exposure to the markets greatly outweighs the potential “reward. “

Could the markets rocket up to 2200, 2300 or 2400 as some analysts currently expect? It is quite possible given the ongoing interventions by global Central Banks.

The reality, of course, is that while the markets could reward you with 250 points of upside, there is a risk of 600 points of downside just to retest the previous breakout of 2007 highs

Those are odds that Las Vegas would just love to give you.

via http://ift.tt/2dGcqb3 Tyler Durden

In the past two quarters, AAPL found itself in an unfamiliar position. The world’s largest company by market, has been – over the past few years – also the biggest contributor to S&P500 and tech sector earnings, and as long as AAPL’s earnings were rising every quarter, this was not a problem. However, starting in Q4 of 2015, Apple found itself in the unenviable position of posting earnings which declined from a year ago. The drop was so acute in Q1 and Q2 that, AAPL alone was responsible for pushing the entire tech sector into the red on a Y/Y basis.

Which brings us to today’s upcoming AAPL earnings announcement, where according to consensus, AAPL is set to report a 3rd straight quarter of annual earnings declines. According to FactSet, for the calendar third quarter (fiscal fourth quarter for Apple), the current mean EPS estimate is $1.66, compared to year-ago actual EPS of $1.96. The last time Apple reported three consecutive quarters of year-over-year earnings declines was Q1 2013 through Q3 2013 (fiscal Q2 2013 through Q4 2013 for Apple).

What may come as a surprise to readers, is that as a result of this projected decline in EPS, Apple is expected to be the largest detractor to expected earnings growth for the S&P 500 Information Technology sector for Q3 2016. The blended (combines actual results for companies that have reported and estimated results for companies yet to report) earnings growth rate for the Information Technology sector is 4.2%. Excluding Apple, the blended earnings growth rate for the sector would improve to 10.9%.

As of today, if Apple reports actual EPS equal to or below the mean EPS estimate for the quarter, it will mark the first time that Apple has been the largest detractor to earnings growth for the Information Technology sector for three consecutive quarters since Q2 2013 through Q4 2013.

Of course, if AAPL beats materially, much of this will be irrelevant; however if AAPL misses, attention will once again turn to the driver behind Apple’s substantial contribution to the earnings decline for the Information Technology sector for Q3 2016.

Here are the key drivers behind Apple’s performance this quarter:

Since Q1 2014, the iPhone product segment has accounted for about 62% of the total revenues generated by Apple on average. From Q1 2014 through Q4 2015, the iPhone product segment reported average year-over-year revenue growth of 31%. However, the segment reported a year-over-year decline in revenues in Q1 2016 (-18%) and Q2 2016 (-23%). The declines in sales are expected to continue in Q3 2016, as the iPhone product segment is projected to report a year-over-year decline in revenues of -14% for the quarter.

Another red light in this regard came from a recent Bank of America report looking at credit and debit card spending, which found none of the familiar bound in tech store spending associated with new iPhone rollouts. As BofA explained, “The latest version of the iPhone was released in September, which likely contributed to a gain in electronic store sales, following the prior four months of contraction. However, we did not see a spike in electronic store sales akin to prior releases of Apple devices. It may be a reflection of the iPhone 7 or perhaps that the trend in electronic store sales ex-iPhone is sluggish.”

 

On the other hand, Samsung’s recent problems with the Galaxy 7 whose production was terminated due to batter problems, may well have boosted demand for the iPhone.

So it all comes down to this: was the iPhone 7 a success or a flop? We will know the answer in two hours when Tim Cook unveils AAPL’s Q3 numbers. Until then, here is a full breakdown of what Wall Street consensus expets.

• 4Q GAAP EPS est. $1.65 (range $1.58-$1.73)
• 4Q rev. est. $46.9b (range $45.7b-$48.3b), co. forecast $45.5b-$47.5b on July 26
• 4Q gross margin est. 37.9% (range 37.5%-38.4%), co. forecast 37.5%-38%
• 1Q rev. est. $75.3b
• 1Q gross margin est. 38.9%

UNIT BREAKDOWN

• 4Q iPhone unit est. 45.0m (10 ests. compiled by Bloomberg News)
• iPhone ASP est. $625 (5 ests.)
• 4Q iPad unit est. 9.1m (6 ests.)
• iPad ASP est. $495 (4 ests.)
• 4Q Mac unit est. 5.1m (5 ests.)
• 4Q Watch est. 2.4m (3 ests.)
• Watch ASP est. $418 (2 ests.)
• 1Q iPhone unit est. 74.9m (8 ests.)

ANALYSTS

• CLSA (buy): While investors are focused on iPhone units, it seems “far fewer” are focused on what appear to be “highly conservative” expectations for iPhone ASP. With potential for higher iPhone units and ASP, consensus estimates for FY1Q “have an upward bias,” sees FY1Q rev. forecast exceding est.
• Goldman Sachs (buy): Sees “beat-and-raise quarter” on strength of iPhone sales due to stronger than expected carrier promotions in U.S., China and other markets, Samsung’s Note 7 problems
• Cowen (outperform): Focus on gross margin forecast, SE impact on iPhone ASP, commentary on demand from China, Apple Pay, Watch and FX
• AAPL’s ability to gain share in $700 and higher iPhone segment and generate upgrades from base of 2-year-old iPhone 6s devices should help it restore growth in iPhone product line, Bloomberg Intelligence says.

via http://ift.tt/2fcHOTI Tyler Durden

It seems the lies about Russia will be never ending.  As we explain in our book Splitting Pennies, the world doesn’t work the way most people think.  We’ve covered this topic recently, if you haven’t read this article, read it first, “Russia key player US Democrat War on Intelligence for Election:”

Point 1.  Russia didn’t hack the DNC.  Listen to Putin’s response here.  Or ask Guccifer – the admitted hacker of many such data hacks.

Point 2.  It’s impossible for Russia to ‘hack’ the election and fix the results.  But, this is a meme that needs to be implanted because it’s actually the DNC that’s planning to fix the elections, with their establishement friends at Diebold.

In one sentence, the Establishment is using Russia as a key issue to confuse and manipulate voters on a number of levels.  MOST DISTURBINGLY, THE CURRENT DEMOCRATIC US PRESIDENT & VICE PRESIDENT ARE USING GULF OF TONKIN STYLE FALSE FLAG CYBER OPERATIONS TO CREATE A PROBLEM THAT DOESN’T EXIST, OR THAT DIDN’T EXIST BEFORE.  Why Is Obama Threatening Russia With World War 3 Right Before The Election?, and Vice President Joe Biden Announces War with Russia

Let’s use this one issue to ‘fact check’ the lies spewing from the Mainstream Media, Establishment, and its guardians.

Here’s the simple truth about RUSSIA that the US and European Elite DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW:

1. RUSSIA DOES NOT HAVE INDUSTRIAL GLOBAL WORLD CLASS CAPACITY Russia is struggling to rebuild its economy, post Soviet union and post 1998 default, the Russian economy hasn’t built up many sectors that it needs; most notably – healthcare, small business, technology, financial services, banking.. it’s a long list.  In fact, only a few sectors in Russia are very robust at the moment – Energy, Defense, Real Estate, and a few others.  The point is that Russia has serious issues of its own to worry about, without meddling in foreign affairs.  There is political corruption, a disfunctional tax system (they still have ‘white’ and ‘black’ salaries), a banking system from last century, consumer rights are non-existant, bankruptcy doesn’t exist – they have a long way to go on their own, and they will.  Russia is evolving.  But they are very busy, very very busy with their own problems – they could care less about what happens in USA!  They are much more concerned with what happens in their backyard, Europe – especially when it comes to NATO troop or missle movements.  But they’ve played a cool hand, or “????????” (Détente was known in Russian as ???????? (“razryadka”, loosely meaning “relaxation of tension”).   

2. RUSSIA IS NOT A ‘THREAT’ Russia has no plans, and never will have any plans – to hack into USA, invade another country, or pose any international threat of any kind whatsoever.  Russia’s military doctrine has been one of defense for hundreds of years, not ‘first strike’ – Russia was not a very good colonial power, unlike their European friends.  Their few ‘colonies’ like Alaska, ended in disaster creating more problems for Moscow than creating wealth.  If you look at the history of Russia you’ll see they were a land invaded many times, by nearly every global empire in the world (with a few exceptions, like the British).  Their population was decimated multiple times, starting with the invasion of the Golden Horde, then by the Swedes in 1707, the French in 1812, the Germans in 1941, and by Stalin (who was not Russian) through domestic cleansing policy.  And by the way, Stalin killed countless times more Russians than Hitler killed Jews, but there’s no statue for fallen Russians in Washington DC (or anywhere).  According to THIS BOOK, Unnatural Deaths in the U.S.S.R.: 1928-1954, I.G. Dyadkin estimated that the USSR suffered 56 to 62 million “unnatural deaths” during that period, with 34 to 49 million directly linked to Stalin.  Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev, a Soviet politician and historian, estimated 35 million deaths.  In “Europe A History,” British historian Norman Davies counted 50 million killed between 1924-53, excluding wartime casualties.

Practically, it’s impossible to know the exact number, because records also destroyed during this time, and they didn’t have fancy IBM counting machines.  This huge staggering number needs to be considered by anyone talking about how Russia this and Russia that.  No European country to date comes close to the slaughter of their own people.  And this happened IN RUSSIA, not in a foreign country.  Russia has no history for invading a foreign country and slaughtering people, but SOME COUNTRIES DO.

This nonsense about Russian hackers is exagerated from a truth of reality – since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been a huge number of computer geniuses not only from Russia, but also from Ukraine, East Germany, Belarus, and other Baltic states and from East Europe that have been faced with extreme poverty and lack of opportunity.  They couldn’t easily immigrate to USA and get jobs on Wall St. as many Russians did, they turned to what they could do – hacking.  Yes, there have been a number of hacking groups that are both Russian but also that operate from Russia simply because they are beyond the reach of US intelligence.  Russia is not the only such host of hackers, also there are countries in Asia, Africa, and South America that act as a host country for hackers (Brazil for example).  The reason for this, has nothing to do with Russia it has to do with USA enforcement of digital laws such as DCMA and in general a cleansing by US authorities of hackers on US territory (although a few arrests, it generally led to hackers going to areas where they were safer).  

For some references on the ‘fake threat’ from Russia here’s a good place to start:

This post looks at some new evidence (adding to the overwhelming pile), and provides a contrast — showing how easily the truth could be seen.  If only the CIA had looked.

1. New Study:  Previously Classified Interviews with Former Soviet Officials Reveal U.S. Strategic Intelligence Failure Over Decades, Posted at George Washington University’s National Security Archive, 11 September 2009.
2. “Exaggeration Of The Threat: Then And Now“, Melvin A. Goodman, The Public Record, 14 September 2009 — Summary of the above study.
3. Robert and Virginia Heinlein visited Moscow in 1960 and discovered Russia’s population crash, then in the early stages.  The CIA discovered this 2 or 3 decades later.
4. Articles about reforming the US intelligence apparatus
5. For More information on the FM website and an Afterword

3. RUSSIA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WIKILEAKS Wikileaks has been an established whistleblower service, that has released millions of documents on thousands of topics.  You can form an opinion about Wikileaks, is it political or not, a Rothschild plot, certainly – Julian Assange is not a deep undercover Russian agent.

4. RUSSIA IS A USEFUL ENEMY Terrorism doesn’t have the same political bang for the buck like it did 10 years ago.  And the other problem, is that every politician in the world agrees on this issue (even Russia and USA) we need to fight Terrorism.  So, with the decline of the manufactured enemy ‘terrorists’ a new, more saleable enemy needs to be created for the purpose of confusing the electorate – and Russia fits the bill perfectly.  Why does it fit perfectly, you ask?  Because 1) The DOD spent billions on propoganda during the 50’s and 60’s indoctrinating Americans that Russia is full of ‘criminals’ and other such nonsense.  See the below propoganda teaser:

Many voters maybe remember these videos from their youth, although they can’t recall – it’s deeply implanted in their subconscious.  The DOD knows this, and so they advised the DNC to exploit it.  They’ve been planning this for years – decades.  Now is the grand finale.  

Just to provide modern readers with the level of insanity in that time, the US Air Force had plans to ‘nuke the moon’ due to fear of Russian involvement.  And as you can see in this recently declassified document, the CIA investigated for years the ‘threat’ of Russia and found ‘NO THREAT’– but in a famous official speech by Donald Rumsfeld (a major founding father of the “Reality Based Community”), he says “Just because the CIA didn’t find a threat, it doesn’t mean that one doesn’t exist.”  Bravo, Bravo.  That is logically correct!  But highly misleading, and this isn’t an excercise in logic, it’s a practical excercise in security and intelligence.  In “reality” Rumsfeld was also a founding father of Washington’s pay for play system.  He and a group of his peers, sold a war to Washington and to the American people:

It wasn’t just this video, although for the people, they will remember such moments more than official reports.  After realizing there was no threat from Russia, they financed a “Team B:”

Team B was a competitive analysis exercise commissioned by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to analyze threats the Soviet Union posed to the security of the United States. It was created, in part, due to a 1974 publication by Albert Wohlstetter, who accused the CIA of chronically underestimating Soviet military capability. Years of National Intelligence Estimates that were later demonstrated to be very wrong was another motivating factor.

President Gerald Ford began the Team B project in May 1976, inviting a group of outside experts to evaluate classified intelligence on the Soviet Union. Team B, approved by then Director of Central Intelligence George H. W. Bush, was composed of “outside experts” who attempted to counter the positions of intelligence officials within the CIA.^[1] The intelligence community was in the process of putting together its own assessment at the same time.

 

Team B concluded that the NIE on the Soviet Union, generated yearly by the CIA, underestimated Soviet military power and misinterpreted Soviet strategic intentions. Its findings were leaked to the press shortly after Jimmy Carter‘s 1976 presidential election win in an attempt to appeal to anti-communists in both parties and not appear partisan.^[2][3] The Team B reports became the intellectual foundation for the idea of “the window of vulnerability” and of the massive arms buildup that began toward the end of the Carter administration and accelerated under President Ronald Reagan.^[4]

And, as such is the result with any government inquiry, their initial ‘hypothesis’ was proved ‘correct’ – and this led to 20 years of a new “Cold War” and billions upon billions of dollars spent.  The Cold War was really the first ‘artificial war’ – and Russia – the first artificial enemy.  Unfortunately for Russia though, they had to participate in this artificial war by building real weapons, as a form of militaristic detente, and to practically to protect themselves in the event that some Rumsfeld nutjob had his hand on the red button.

In a strange twist of reality, one of Russia’s most controversial politicians seems to understand US politics better than those in USA.

From Russia’s March to War :

Hard to believe they truly see the world this way? Then consider last week’s comments from Russian lawmaker Vladimir Zhirinovsky:

“Americans voting for a president on November 8 must realize that they are voting for peace on Planet Earth if they vote for Trump. But if they vote for Hillary, it’s war. It will be a short movie. There will be Hiroshimas and Nagasakis everywhere.”

If you believe everything you see on TV, you might want to checkout this book: A People’s History of the United States; in fact – this is a MUST READ for any investor, as it explains history from ‘another’ side, the side of the people.

Yes, the world really is operated based on large scale lies and public deceptions at the highest level – if you don’t know this or are interested to learn more checkout this book Splitting Pennies.

via http://ift.tt/2ekFQ1p globalintelhub

It should come as no great surprise to anyone that Silicon Valley’s tech billionaires are “in the tank” for Hillary.  That said, emails like the one below from Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer, Sheryl Sandberg, will never cease to be shocking, particularly because she oversees the operations of a social media giant that wields incredible power and influence over news media presented to America’s young voters.

 

 

Of course, the “cozy” relationship between Sandberg and Podesta is even more disturbing in light of the fact that former new curators for Facebook admitted that the company routinely suppressed conservative news on its news feed.  Per a previous post we wrote back in June:

After former news curators admitted that Facebook routinely suppressed conservative news on its news feed, a training manual was leaked that confirmed there was only one of ten “trusted” news sources by which trending news topics could come from with any type of conservative angle. In the wake of those bad public relations events, the company clumsily tried to save face. Facebook subsequently denied any wrongdoing but still introduced several changes in its policies – put another way, Facebook denied anti-conservative bias but changed policies that produce anti-conservative bias.

 

After all of the aforementioned events, one would assume that Facebook would lay low and let all of this fade with time, but one would be wrong. Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer recently announced that the company would be introducing a “political bias” training program in addition to the managing unconscious bias class the company offers employees.

 

“We have a managing bias class that all of our leaders and a lot of our employees have taken that I was part of helping to create. And we focused on racial bias, age bias, gender bias, national bias, and we’re going to add in a scenario now on political bias. So as we think about helping people understand different political points of view and being open to different points of view, we’re dealing with political bias as well going forward.” Sandberg said.

 

As the Daily Signal reports, Sandberg acknowledged that Facebook and other tech companies are perceived as being liberal: “That’s a pretty important accusation and it’s one we take seriously. It’s also one which frankly rang true to some people because there is a concern that Silicon Valley companies have a liberal bias. And so we took it very seriously and did a thorough investigation and we didn’t find a liberal bias.“

 

So Facebook has investigated itself, found absolutely no liberal bias, and then changed its policies and added a political bias training program to make sure there is no liberal bias – that sounds an awful lot like fixing something that isn’t broken, unless of course the company knows full well that it has a liberal bias and is trying to hide it, but that would be thinking way too outside the box.

That said, we’re sure this is all just another alt-right conspiracy theory that you should promptly ignore. 

via http://ift.tt/2eOKNPf Tyler Durden