The Real Reason For Oil’s Crazy Volatility This Week

The volatility in crude oil trading has reached the highest levels since Lehman's systemic crisis in 2008. Intraday swings of 5-10% are now de rigeur with OPEC and geopolitical headlines jockeying for narrative amid collapsing fundamentals.. but there is another, much bigger driver of this sudden chaos. As Reuters reports, the sudden liquidation of a $600 million triple-levered fund bet on falling prices wreaked havoc through the entire crude complex.

Intrday volatility in oil has been incredible to say the least…

 

 

But this week's epic rips – in the face of dire data – was just "odd"…

 

Plenty of narratives were assigned but none made any sense. So what really happened? As Reuters reports,

Unknown investors in the VelocityShares 3x Inverse Crude Oil Exchange Traded Note (ETN) – which offers the ability to make a bearish bet on prices magnified threefold, with gut-churning ups and downs – bailed out early this week after jumping into the fund in January, ETN data show.

 

Some 1.8 million shares worth more than $602 million were redeemed on Tuesday, the largest outflow from the ETN in history, according to data from FactSet Research.

 

 

The selloff suggests that at least some big investors are betting that the worst of an 18-month oil market rout is over after U.S. prices fell to $26 a barrel last month for the first time since 2003. Trading activity has also jumped to the highest levels on record.

The DWTI note inversely tracks the S&P GSCI Crude Oil Index ER, which follows movements in the oil market. And because it offers investors three times the exposure, the impact on the underlying futures is magnified – as is the volatility in the ETN, whose price more than doubled in the first three weeks of January before halving again as oil futures rebounded.

The net asset value of the fund – one of a handful of exchange funds that allows investors to trade oil without the complexity of a futures exchange – fell from close to $1 billion to $417 million on Tuesday and to $322 million on Wednesday, according VelocityShares' website.

 

As a result, the mass exodus likely forced the ETN's issuer, Credit Suisse, to quickly buy back short positions as investors redeemed shares.

 

VelocityShares, a unit of Janus Capital Group, was unable to comment on the trading activity.

 

To unwind alone may have amounted to upwards of 40,000 futures contracts on Tuesday, according to estimates by analysts.

 

There is a day's lag between when redemptions and creations are ordered and when they show up in share figures, according to Nadig, meaning that Tuesday's flows were ordered on Monday, when oil reversed a three-day rally to close $2 a barrel lower.

On Wednesday, oil prices surged more than 8 percent to $32.28 a barrel, despite a seemingly bearish report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration showing nationwide crude inventories rose by 7.8 million barrels last week.

Volume in the March West Texas Intermediate futures contract surged on Wednesday to more than 777,000 lots traded, its second highest volume on record, according to data via ThomsonReuters' Eikon. DWTI volume was also unusually heavy on Wednesday, with more than 1.9 million shares traded.

So that explains the sudden squeeze carnage yesterday…

And why today's follow-through has failed as that unwind pressure disappears as DWTI's NAV disappears.

 


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1NSzYE9 Tyler Durden

There’s Just One Known Recording of the First Super Bowl Broadcast, and the NFL Wants to Keep a Man From Selling It

A Quadruplex video reel. It's like a thumb drive, if a severe genetic defect gave you enormous thumbs.There is only one known recording of the original broadcast of Super Bowl I. It belongs to Troy Haupt, a middle-aged nurse in North Carolina who wasn’t alive when the game was played. His dad taped it at work on a Quadruplex video machine, and eight years later, as the man was dying of cancer, he gave the reels to his ex-wife. “He said maybe they could help pay for the kids’ education,” she told The New York Times, which just ran a fascinating story about the tapes.

The reels spent a few decades deteriorating in her attic before Haupt arranged for the Paley Center for Media to restore them. Meanwhile, the networks wiped their own recordings of the broadcast. (The first Super Bowl was televised by both CBS and NBC; the surviving recording comes from CBS.) The National Football League recently reconstructed the game from NFL Films’ original footage, and that aired on cable last month.

Haupt offered to sell the tapes to the league for $1 million. The NFL offered $30,000 instead, then decided that it didn’t want to purchase them at all. That’s fine: No one is obliged to buy an old recording of a football game, and this one isn’t even a complete recording. (Halftime and a chunk of the third quarter are missing, as are some bits around the commercial breaks.) What’s not so fine is that the NFL is trying to keep Haupt from selling his artifact to anyone else.

I’m not convinced the league is on solid legal ground here, but the Times writer seems to think it is. Here’s how he describes the situation:

All my rowdy friends are coming over to sue your ass.Haupt owns the recording but not its content, which belongs to the N.F.L. If the league refuses to buy it, he cannot sell the tapes to a third party, like CBS or a collector who would like to own a piece of sports history that was believed to be lost….

A letter from the league to [Haupt’s attorney Steve] Harwood last year provided a sharp warning to Haupt. “Since you have already indicated that your client is exploring opportunities for exploitation of the N.F.L.’s Super Bowl I copyrighted footage with yet-unidentified third parties,” Dolores DiBella, a league counsel, wrote, “please be aware that any resulting copyright infringement will be considered intentional, subjecting your client and those parties to injunctive relief and special damages, among other remedies.”

The law favors the league, said Jodi Balsam, a professor at Brooklyn Law School.

“What the league technically has is a property right in the game information and they are the only ones who can profit from that,” said Balsam, a former N.F.L. lawyer.

As David Post points out at The Volokh Conspiracy, there are three problems here:

I don't think my dad ever shared any memories of watching the first Super Bowl. But oh, how he loved to tell the tale of the Heidi game.1. The NFL does not own the “game information.” It owns the broadcast. Not a major point, but worth noting.

2. Under the first sale doctrine, “the owner of a particular copy lawfully made under [the 1976 Copyright Act], or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy.” And in 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that private noncommercial video recordings are indeed lawfully made. Post acknowledges that “a 1984 case construing the 1976 Copyright Act has a somewhat uncertain application to events taking place in 1967.” But he adds that he’d “much, much rather be arguing Haupt’s side of that case than the NFL’s, if it came to that.”

Needless to say, this does not mean that the law allows Haupt to make a bunch of copies of his recording and sell those. But it does mean he can sell the specific tapes he inherited, much as one can sell a paperback to a used bookstore or an LP to a music shop.

3. Haupt can’t be held liable for copyright infringement that takes place after he sells the recording. (Yes, of course: If he went on to participate in some sort of infringement after the sale, he’d be on the hook for that. But he wouldn’t be held liable simply for selling it.) The NFL’s claim to the contrary is, in Post’s words, “just bluster, the sort of nonsense that we see all too frequently these days from copyright owners.”

Enough about the law; how about the recording itself? I haven’t seen it, but based on the Times‘ description, I want to:

The recording is a relic that shows the signs of exposure to the heat and cold in the attic in Shamokin. Colors fade in and out. The picture is grainy and skips. And it suffers somewhat from [Haupt’s father’s] decision to stop or pause before most commercial breaks and hitting play when the break ended, which caused him to miss parts of the action when play resumed. The stops and starts give the tapes an occasional herky-jerky feel.

And more important, he did not tape halftime and about half of the third quarter.

“It’s like he thought he would run out of tape,” Troy Haupt said.

But it is still a viewable document, a vintage broadcast by CBS….A 1960s sensibility is preserved, helping to separate the tape from the NFL Films reconstruction.

Each replay is labeled “Video Tape” and each slow-motion shot is noted as “Slow Motion.” The effect continues with network promos; an ad read by [CBS sportscaster Jack] Whitaker (United States savings bonds that were recommended by President Johnson) and the commercials Haupt did not cut out (like the anchorman-like announcer promoting the taste and other benefits of True cigarettes).

As the game entered its final seconds, Whitaker started to count down. “Nine, eight,” he said, and the game ended. A marching band ran onto the field. It played “Seventy-Six Trombones.”

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/20c6HLy
via IFTTT

S&P Downgrades Glencore To Lowest Investment Grade Rating

The one catalyst many Glencore bears have been eagerly waiting for, is the downgrade of the troubled independent energy trader to junk status, a catalyst which as previously explained, will likely spring various, heretofore unknown margin calls and collateral “waterfalls” a la AIG.

Overnight, one of the two rating agencies, Standard and Poors, came one step closer to that fateful moment when it downgraded Glencore, however it decided to throw the company one last lifeline by keeping it at the very lowest investment grade rating, and instead of cutting it from BBB to single B or CCC where its CDS and bond yield implies the company should be trading, it kept it a BBB-.

This is what it said:

Glencore PLC Ratings Lowered To ‘BBB-/A-3’ On Price And Sector Review; Outlook Stable

  • Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services has recently lowered its price  assumptions for copper and other metals, reflecting the very challenging  market outlook and the increased uncertainty about demand. 
  • These heightened operating risks, reported EBITDA declines, and increased volatility of earnings lead us to a more cautious assessment of global mining company Glencore PLC and its financial leverage.
  • We are therefore lowering our long- and short-term corporate credit ratings on Glencore to ‘BBB-/A-3’ from ‘BBB/A-2’.
  • The outlook is stable as we believe Glencore’s meaningful continuing free cash generation, strong liquidity, and active balance sheet deleveraging should mitigate downside risk.

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services  today said it has lowered its long- and short-term corporate credit ratings on global diversified mining and trading company Glencore PLC to ‘BBB-/A-3’ from  ‘BBB/A-2’. The outlook is stable.

We also lowered the rating on the debt issued or guaranteed by Glencore and  Glencore International AG to ‘BBB-‘ from ‘BBB’.

The downgrade reflects both our view of the material challenges the mining industry faces, with increased uncertainty about future operating performance in 2016 and 2017, as well as our assessment that Glencore’s 2015 financial profile was below our earlier expectations with funds from operations (FFO) to debt closer to 20%, notwithstanding material debt reduction. This compares to a range of 23%-28% which we previously saw as commensurate with the ‘BBB’ rating. The rating action follows a modest negative re-evaluation of both business and financial factors for Glencore, as reflected in our negative comparative rating assessments. We believe the ‘BBB-‘ rating has more sustainable headroom, particularly in the prevailing low price environment, and we anticipate significant further debt reduction in 2016.

We recently lowered our price assumption for most commodities, including some of the key commodities for Glencore, such as copper, zinc, and nickel (see “Standard & Poor’s Revises Its Price Assumptions For Metals On Continuing Price Weakness,” published on Jan. 22, 2016). This was after metal prices came under pressure because of fears of lower demand from China, combined with excess supply. We believe that commodity prices will remain very unsettled while the impact of China’s slowdown plays out. This environment results in reduced visibility of future profits for Glencore and its peers. For Glencore, in particular, this also has, and may continue to result in, greater reported earnings volatility than we had previously anticipated, even if we recognize the relative stability over time of trading profits compared with those from mining activities. Glencore’s EBITDA in the first half of 2015 was down 29%, broadly in line with BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto.

Nonetheless, under our revised base-case scenario, we project that Glencore’s FFO to debt is likely to recover to above 23%-25%, although this is dependent on our price, foreign exchange, and other assumptions including the company’s December 2015 guidance for lower unit costs and capital expenditure (capex). Critically, we foresee continued delivery of Glencore’s debt reduction plan in 2016 and, in our view, likely disposals in the near term, as well as forecast free cash flow from operations of $2 billion-$3 billion, supported by expected resilient trading profits.

Our forecast of reducing leverage is also underpinned by the debt reduction plan of more than $10 billion that Glencore has been delivering since September 2015. This included a $2.5 billion equity raise, cancellation of the 2016 dividend payments, the further release of working capital, and other steps including disposals.

Key assumptions in 2016 and 2017 include:

  • Annual copper production of 1.4 million tonnes-1.6 million tonnes at prices of $2.1 per pound (/lb)-$2.2/lb;
  • Annual zinc production of 1.1 million tonnes at prices of $0.7/lb-$0.8/lb;
  • Marketing EBITDA of $2.7 billion;
  • A moderate net working capital release of $0.5 billion-$1.0 billion;
  • Capex of $3.5 billion-$4.0 billion;
  • No dividends; and
  • Disposals of $1 billion-$2 billion.

Under our baseline, these assumptions result in proportionately consolidated EBITDA of $7.0 billion-$8.0 billion in 2016 and just over $8.0 billion in 2017, compared to $13 billion in 2014. Consequently, we foresee FFO to debt improving to over 23%-25% in 2016 and possibly approaching 30% in 2017.

The stable outlook reflects our assessment that Glencore’s meaningful continuing free cash generation of over $2 billion, strong liquidity, and active balance sheet deleveraging should support the ratings, even in a modestly weaker commodity price environment than our base case assumes. We believe FFO to debt consistently over 20% is compatible with the ratings. We expect rating headroom to materially increase over the coming quarters, as we anticipate significant further debt reduction through disposals. Glencore is targeting disposals of at least $3.0 billion-$4.0 billion, which the company has been delivering since September 2015.

We see the potential for a negative rating action as low, given the expected continued deleveraging in 2016-2017, supported by management’s strong commitment to strengthening its credit metrics and decisive actions to date. Key risk factors would stem from a further prolonged fall in commodity prices, notably if economic developments in China worsened and absent material offsetting factors. A downgrade of Glencore would become likely if FFO to debt remained below 20%. As an example, we estimate that if copper prices averaged below about $1.8/lb over 2016 and 2017, it could be difficult for Glencore to maintain FFO to debt above 20% without compensating measures or factors such as foreign exchange.

Rating constraints could stem from a material acquisition, without comparable offsetting disposals, or a more fundamental adverse reassessment of the resilience of the business mix and profile compared with peers.

The likelihood of an upgrade could increase if we perceived a sustainable improvement in the mining operating environment and Glencore’s earnings performance is stable. We could consider a positive rating action if we anticipate that FFO to debt will remain comfortably above 23%, while seeing continued positive discretionary cash flow.

* * *

To summarize, this is what according to S&P, represents an investment grade rating:

 

And now we look forward to Moody’s to likewise downgrade Glencore, although we won’t be holding our breath: as a reminder, back in December Moody’s already downgraded GLEN to Baa3, the lowest IG rating there is: any more downgrades would automatically mean the start of any latent junk “waterfalls” that may be hidden deep in the company’s $100 billion in total liabilities.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1QfiN1l Tyler Durden

When Mother Market Force Takes Over Central Banking! Watch Rates Rise Even Though the Fed Doesn’t

  • CNN reports the US running out of space to store oil.
  • At the same time, OPEC actually ramps up oil production…
  • oil pricesOPEC oil supply

 Many “smart guys” allege that the drop in oil is bad for the ecomomy. I call BS. Oil prices are an input costs. Input costs are what strip revenues down to profits and potentially losses. The lower the input cost, the higher profit. What has occured was a decades long credit bubble that fueld a profligate binging on debt.

10 year treasury historical rates

It is hard to get off of that drug called free money, particuarly as your dope pusher (those that push rates outside of market force bounds) continues to give you more of that smack. The problem is, eventually, it will catch up to you. The Central Banks have signaled higher rates, and have raised rates 25 bp (roughly 2% of retracement – whoo hoo!).

 The market (well, the fed funds rates futures, not the market per se) is quite skeptical on the Fed raising rates any time soon. So am I, as you have seen above.

FED FUNDS RATE FUTURES

Alas, as rates scrape against the zero barrier for sometime now, and break through towards negative,  the party is over and the punchbowl is being removed by the grownups, aka the natural market forces. The Financial Times reports:

The sharp drop in commodity prices and a rising expectation of defaults by highly indebted companies have shaken investors and closed the door on new debt sales. Investors say the dearth of liquidity has made it even more difficult to own paper rated triple C. Late last year several bond funds closed that held high amounts of low-rated and unrated debt. 

“You are seeing a lack of appetite in the new issue market for these types of issuers,” said Matthew Mish, credit strategist with UBS. “[Funds] have outflows and the Federal Reserve is no longer printing money.

Portfolio managers are also experiencing a wave of redemptions from investors. US junk bond mutual and exchange traded funds have counted more than $20bn of withdrawals since mid-November, according to Lipper.

You know what that means. Those oil producers with higher than OPEC costs and high yield debt financing are GUARANTEED to meltdown as oil drops below their breakeven costs (I’d wager somewhere around $50 – $60/bbl if I was a betting man), and stays there. Recent financial reporting seems to corroborate this hunch…

“We expect a shakeout this year in the US oil and gas market, as highly leveraged companies will be forced to declare bankruptcy,” said Bronka Rzepkowski, an economist with Oxford Economics.

A Q&A: Using Veritaseum to take positiions in energy companies through multiple markets. Please be aware that Veritaseum is currently in beta, and the current Java client will be deprecated in lieu of a ubiquitous HTML5 client by the end of the quarter. The info below is for illustrative purposes only.

  • How do I enter the trade via Veritaseum? Am I using the web client? My own client that consumes Veritaseum APIs? Place the trade over the phone / fax with Veritaseum’s sales team?

    1. If you are an advanced player you can simply go to our site and conduct the trade yourself using the system and/or your own network to find a counterparty.

    2. As an institution, you can purchase Veritas (ex. $50,000 blocks) to redeem them for advisory services such as setting up trades and finding bespoke counterparties.

    3. Large institutions with their own IT infrastructure can integrate Veritaseum into their system via API. This can also entail a Veritas purchase to assist in the integration, customizations and feature requests.

  • Where does the counterparty for the trade come from?

    1. Japan is the largest consumer of Kuwaiti oil, followed by India, Singapore, and South Korea. Since Asia is such a large consumer of OPEC oil in general (and Kuwaiti oil in particular), they can be very aggressive in their purchasing terms, resulting in material concessions from the oil (and risk) producers – the most painful of which are price discounts. We can offer the oil consumers in these markets the ability to directly hedge their purchase risks – both in terms of currency and oil price fluctuation (or oil price volatility, as illustrated above) accentuating the benefits of discounts while simultaneously making discounts potentially less painful by hedging risks for the oil (risk) producers. Their (the Asian companies) purchase of said risks is the counterpart of the sale of the risk from KOC. The oil refineries of Japan, India, Singapore, and South Korea are the most likely potential counterparties but you can also include the money center banks within these countries, not not to mention the major hedge and trading funds and corporations who consume the finished product en masse. Remember, the USD component of the swap can easily be replaced with the Japanese yen, Chinese Remnibi/yuan, Indian rupee or the Korean won.

This same chart expressed in USD shows where the hedge benefits, particularly in December…

Entities that aren’t exposed to the Kuwaiti Dinar can still benefit by buying the oil risk and selling their local currency with Veritaseum via a separate swap. The Kuwaiti dinar can also be substituted for Saudia Arabian native currency, or Iraqi dinars, etc.

  • Who are the specific counterparties (consumers) of OPEC (producer, of which Kuwait is a major member) oil risk?

  1. A joint venture between PetroChina Co. (Chinese), Aramco (Saudi Arabian) and Yunnan Yuntianhua Co. (Chinese) is currently building a 260,000 barrel-a-day refinery in the southwest of the Asian nation.

  2. Aramco already manages a 280,000 barrel-a-day refinery and petrochemical complex in China’s Fujian province along with China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., known as Sinopec, and Exxon Mobil Corp.

China is the largest oil consumer after the U.S.

  •  IF you are interested in finding about more about this new way of accessing exposure and laying off risk, read the Pathogenic Finance research report, then contact me at reggie AT veritaseum.com.

  • Here are the highlights from the report in this most excellent interview with Max Keiser of RT’s Kesier Report.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1Qffze8 Reggie Middleton

Is The Fed “Seriously Considering” Negative Interest Rates?

The Fed may "seriously consider" negative rates after moving rates back to zero, reintroducing forward guidance and making "stronger pleas" to Congress for fiscal policy action as there are complications for money markets, according to BofAML strategist Mark Cabana.

This would not be a total surprise as Mises Institute's Joseph Salerno warns recent Fed commentary suggests they want to test-drive negative interest rates…

In 2016, the Fed's annual stress test on banks will include a scenario in which the interest rate on the three-month U.S. Treasury bill becomes negative in the second quarter of 2016 and then declines to -0.5%, remaining at that level until the first quarter of 2019.  According to the Fed, "The severely adverse scenario is characterized by a severe global recession, accompanied by a period of heightened corporate financial stress and negative yields for short-term U.S. Treasury securities."  In other words, including this scenario in its stress test is not supposed to signal that the Fed is contemplating adopting a deliberate policy of negative interest rates.  It is simply testing the resilience of big banks in the face of  a severe recession that precipitates a "flight to safety" which spontaneously drives rates on short-term Treasury securities into negative territory.  Or so they would have us believe.

Recent remarks by those associated with the Fed, however, seem to suggest otherwise.  For example, former Fed official Roberto Perli, now a partner at Cornerstone Macro LLC, commented "It doesn’t signal anything" about future monetary policy, but then added, it is "another sign that the Fed would not be entirely adverse" to reducing its target rate below zero if economic conditions should warrant.  In mid-January, New York Fed President William Dudley denied that policy makers were "thinking at all seriously of moving to negative interest rates."  However, he conceded, "I suppose if the economy were to unexpectedly weaken dramatically, and we decided that we needed to use a full array of monetary policy tools to provide stimulus, it’s something that we would contemplate as a potential action."  Most tellingly, just this past Monday, Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer gave a talk to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in which he approvingly discussed negative interest rates in some detail.  Because a speech by a Fed Vice Chairman sometimes turns out to be a bellwether of a radical shift in monetary policy–recall Bernanke's infamous speech on deflation and unconventional monetary policy in November 2002–Fischer's remarks are worth quoting:

[W]e believed that we could not get interest rates to go below zero. Well, it turns out that . . . four European and one Asian country have now done that. And how can you do that when currency has a zero rate of return? You can do it because it turns out that holding currency is not so easy. If you’re going to keep your billion dollars in currency, you’re going to have to find a place to store it, you’re going to have to insure it, and you’re going to have to have it guarded. And by the time that’s done . . . zero is no longer the lower bound. All those costs are the lower bound, and those costs seem to be significantly below zero in the sense that we have a Denmark and one other country having a negative 75 basis point interest rate, which worked. . . . So that idea is there. And that’s what they’re pursuing. And, you know, everybody is looking at . . . how that works. . . .  [W]e have actual experience of countries that have used negative interest rates. . . . Countries that have used it continue to use it. They haven’t given it up. . . . So it’s working more than I can say that I expected in 2012. . . . 

And, lest we forget, Fed Chairman Yellen went on record as conditionally favoring negative interest rates as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco in 2010: 

If it were positive to take interest rates into negative territory I would be voting for that. 

Of course, as we noted previously, NIRP in America is becoming more inevitable…

When stripping away all the philosophy, the pompous rhetoric, and the jawboning, all central banks do, or are supposed to do, is to influence capital allocations and spending behavior by adjusting the liquidity preference of the population by adjusting interest rates and thus the demand for money.

To be sure, over the past 7 years central banks around the globe have gone absolutely overboard when it comes to their primary directive and have engaged every possible legal (and in the case of Europe, illegal) policy at their disposal to force consumers away from a "saving" mindset, and into purchasing risk(free) assets or otherwise burning through savings in hopes of stimulating inflation.

Today's action by the Bank of Japan, which is meant to force banks, and consumers, to spend their cash which will now carry a penalty of -0.1% if "inert" was proof of just that.

Ironically, and perversely from a classical economic standpoint, as we showed before in the case of Europe's NIRP bastions, Denmark, Sweden, and Switzerland, the more negative rates are, the higher the amount of household savings!

 

This is what Bank of America said back in October: "Yet, household savings rates have also risen. For Switzerland and Sweden this appears to have happened at the tail end of 2013 (before the oil price decline). As the BIS have highlighted, ultra-low rates may perversely be driving a greater propensity for consumers to save as retirement income becomes more uncertain."

Bingo: that is precisely the fatal flaw in all central planning models, one which not a single tenured economist appears capable of grasping yet which even a child could easily understand.

This is how Bank of America politely concluded that NIRP is a failure:

 
 

For now, negative rates as a policy tool remain a “work in progress”, judging by the current inflation levels across Europe. But the rise in household savings rates amid so much central bank support is paradoxical to us, and mimics what we highlighted in the credit market earlier this year. Companies in Europe are deleveraging, not releveraging, and are buying back bonds not stock.

One can now add Japan to the equation.

And soon the US, because as the chart below shows, the Fed has likewise dramatically failed in shifting the liquidity preference of US investors. First, here is what Bank of America finds when looking at recent fund flows:

 
 

4 straight weeks of robust inflows to govt/tsy bond funds; 19 straight weeks of muni bond inflows; since 2H’15, cash has been the most popular asset class by far ($208bn inflows – Chart 1) vs a lackluster $7bn inflows for equities & $46bn outflows from fixed income (dogged by redemptions from credit)

And here is the one chart which in our opinion virtually assures that the Fed will follow in the footsteps of Sweden, Denmark, Europe, Switzerland and now Japan.

Since the middle of 2015, US investors have bought a big fat net zero of either bonds or equities (in fact, they have been net sellers of risk) and have parked all incremental cash in money-market funds instead, precisely the inert non-investment that is almost as hated by central banks as gold.

To Yellen, this behavior will have to stop, and she will make sure it does sooner rather than later. Just ask Kocherlakota.

Will this crush money markets as we know them, and unleash even more volatility and havoc around the world?

Absolutely. But at this point, when evey other central bank has lost credibility, to paraphrase Hillary Clinton loosely, "what difference will it make" if the Fed joins the party on the central bank Titanic?

 


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1Qffze2 Tyler Durden

Former Head of the NAACP to Endorse Bernie Sanders

In its endorsement of Hillary, the New York Times editorial board did such a sloppy job I can’t help but think it may have done permanent damage to its brand. Upon reading it, my initial conclusion was that the editorial board was either suffering from Stockholm syndrome or merely concerned about losing advertising revenues should they endorse Sanders. Then I thought some more and I realized my initial conclusions were wrong. Something else is going on here, something far more subtle, subconscious and illuminating. The New York Times is defending the establishment candidate simply because the New York Times is the establishment.

One of the biggest trends of the post financial crisis period has been a plunge in the American public’s perception of the country’s powerful institutions. The establishment often admits this reality with a mixture of bewilderment and erroneous conclusions, ultimately settling on the idea people are upset because “Washington can’t get anything done.” However, nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to corruption and serving big monied interests, both Congress and the President are very, very good at getting things done. Yes it’s true Congress doesn’t get anything done on behalf of the people, but this is no accident. The government doesn’t work for the people.

With its dishonest and shifty endorsement of Hillary Clinton, I believe the New York Times has finally come out of the closet as an unabashed gatekeeper of the status quo. I suppose this makes sense since the paper has become the ultimate status quo journalistic publication. The sad truth is the publication has been living on borrowed time and a borrowed reputation for a long time. Long on prestige, it remains very short on substance when it comes to fighting difficult battles in the public interest. Content with its position of power and influence within the current paradigm, the paper doesn’t want to rock the boat. What the New York Times is actually telling its readers with the Hillary Clinton endorsement is that it likes things just the way they are, and will fight hard to keep them that way. It is as much a part of the American establishment as any government institution.

– From the article: A Detailed Look at The New York Times’ Embarrassing, Deceitful and Illogical Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

Why the black community supports Hillary Clinton is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps someone can rectify my ignorance in the comment section, but it appears irrational to support a person so single-mindedly focused on her own wealth and power, as opposed to someone genuinely interested in helping poor and struggling communities.

Perhaps it’s merely a name recognition thing, or the fact that her husband was so popular with the black community. I don’t know, but what I do know is Hillary Clinton is running for President because she wants the Presidency. In contrast, Bernie Sanders is running because he sees America in deep trouble. There’s a huge difference.

That said, the tide may be starting to turn. Time will tell, but an expected endorsement from Ben Jealous, former head of the NAACP, is a good sign.

CNN reports:

Ben Jealous, the former head of the NAACP, will endorse Bernie Sanders, a source familiar with the campaign told CNN.

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/1L0H4GI
via IFTTT

The Full Summary Of U.S. Banks’ Energy And Commodity Exposure

As this website exclusively reported three weeks ago, under explicit guidance by the Dallas Fed and associated regulatory pressure, US lenders have been instructed to not only not accelerate energy company counterparty defaults but to suspend energy loan book MTM entirely in distressed cases to avoid contagion concerns.

Questionable marks notwithstanding, in their fourth quarter earnings reports and conference calls banks had no choice but to reveal what their existing “publicly appropriate” exposure to oil and gas companies looks like.

As Janney analyst Jody Lurie wites, “banks devoted more attention to provisions, which caused some margin deterioration. Below, we included a chart laying out each firm’s energy and commodities related exposure.”

So for all those looking for a comprehensive summary of publicly available data of the bank sector’s exposure to oil and gas firms, here is Janney’s comprehensive summary of US bank energy and commodity exposure, with the caveat that should depressed oil prices persist, all of these indicators will undoubtedly be revised drastically worse as model marks have no choice but to catch up to market reality, despite any pressure the Dallas or any other Fed may wish to exert on the US banking system.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1S36NFS Tyler Durden

The Opaque Process Of Collapse

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

The ultimate cost of protecting the privileges of the few at the expense of the many is the dissolution of the social order that enabled the rule of the privileged few.

When I write about the demise of unsustainable systems, readers often ask me to describe the collapse I see as inevitable. This is a tough assignment, as there are as many kinds of collapse as there are systems: fragile ones can collapse suddenly, and resilient ones can decay for years or even decades before finally imploding or withering away.

Another way of describing collapse is: complex systems become much less complex.

Certain features of modern life could collapse without affecting everyday life much–for example, the derivatives markets could stop working and the impact would be enormous on those playing financial games and those who entrusted money to the gamblers, but the consequences would be extremely concentrated in the gambler/speculator class. Despite the usual cries that financial losses in the gambler/speculator class will destroy civilization, the disruptions and losses would be widely dispersed for the economy as a whole.

Other collapses–in food or energy distribution, digital communications, etc.–would have immediate and severe impacts on daily life.

My three primary models of decay and collapse are:

1. Historian David Hackett Fischer's masterwork The Great Wave: Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History (given to me by longtime correspondent Cheryl A.)

2. Thomas Homer-Dixon's The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization

3. The decline of the Western Roman Empire (the process, not Edward Gibbon's epic 6-volume history). My recommended book on the topic (a short read): The Fall of the Roman Empire

Fischer's primary thesis is that society and the economy expand in times of plentiful resources and credit, and this increased demand eventually consumes all available resources. When demand exceeds supply and excesses of credit reach extremes, inflation and social disorder arise together.

Though we have yet to see inflation on a global scale, it is inescapable that demand will soon outstrip supply of essential resources and that the global credit bubble will pop, depriving the economy of the means to buy resources regardless of cost.

The Upside of Down describes the process of increasing complexity adding fixed costs to the system, and the way in which this diminishes returns: more and more labor, capital and resources must be devoted to maintain production. At some point, the yield is negative–costs are higher than the output.

At that point, systems start unraveling, and people simply abandon costly complex systems because the means to support them no are no longer readily available.

This is similar to John Michael Greer's process of catabolic collapse, in which costly complex systems go through a re-set to a much lower energy consumption and less complexity. The system stabilizes at that level for a time, and then as costs rise and resources dwindle, it goes through another downsizing.

The Western Roman Empire (along with the Tang Dynasty in China) is the premier historical template for slow decline/decay leading to an eventual collapse. (Recall that the Eastern Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, endured for another 1,000 years.)

Depending on how you slice it, Western Rome's Imperial decline took a few hundred years to play out. Unusually competent and energetic leaders arose at critical junctures in the early stages, and these leaders managed to stem the encroachment of other empires and "barbarian" forces and effectively re-order Rome's dwindling resources.

By the end, The Western Roman Empire was still issuing a flood of edicts to the various regions, but there was no one left to follow the edicts or enforce them: the Roman legions existed only on parchment. The legion had a name and a structure, but there were no longer any soldiers in the field.

A number of real-world examples of decline/collapse are playing out in real time. Venezuela is one; Greece is another. Both demonstrate the opacity of the process of collapse; it is not as clear as we might imagine. A recent first-hand account of a sympathetic visitor to Venzuela captures the flavor and despair of slow-moving, uneven collapse:

Venezuela: Is There A Driver At The Wheel? (via Arshad A.)

"A dollar traded in the bank officially, or pulled out of an ATM machine, however, is worth about six bolivars only. This is how big the gap is between the black market rate (600-700 to the USD) and the official rate.

Despite the fact that the price of petrol is incredibly cheap, the government has not raised the prices even a slight amount, although this would create revenue for the state and despite the health risks of pollution.This suggests that the government is engaging in populism by refusing to take a step demanded by common sense due to its need to get reelected in December when parliamentary elections will take place.

One can easily get assassinated, as Venezuela has one of the highest homicide rates in Latin America and there are enough people who would not mind killing someone for the fee of $200.

However, when there is massive violence in the streets and many in the government seem to be corrupt, while a sense of anarchy prevails and it seems that the government turns a blind eye to violence when it takes place by local bandits, preferring to continuously blame outsiders, then there is indeed a source for concern."

Reports out of Greece demonstrate the dynamics of decline and collapse: medicines are unavailable, pensions have been slashed and many households are now below the EU poverty level in income.

But we also hear that life goes on; the social order does not appear to have broken down into anarchy.

Clearly, the Greek economy has contracted, and millions of households have less income than they did before. But has daily life broken down? Have the institutions of public order collapsed?

Perhaps not, but what is collapsing is public trust in these institutions' ability and willingness to manage the financial crisis and the political disorder that follows.

There is no good solution to the multiple crises in Greece, and the small circle of financial and political elites that benefited from Greece's entry into the Eurozone remains largely untouched by the crisis. When the status quo is rigid and unbending, the odds of sudden collapse rise: what doesn't bend will snap.

The process of collapse is thus heavily dependent on how the financial and political elites respond to the decline of resources and credit. If they manage the contraction skillfully and absorb their share of the inevitable losses, then the re-set will likely be successful and the pain short-lived.

If however the ruling elites cling to every scrap of their power and wealth, and begin fighting over the spoils while forcing the underclasses to absorb the losses of the re-set, then the fragility of the system rises in direct proportion to the policy extremes being pursued by vested interests focused on protecting their privileges regardless of cost.

The ultimate cost of protecting the privileges of the few at the expense of the many is the dissolution of the social order that enabled the rule of the privileged few.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1o9Wkw0 Tyler Durden

Missouri May Free Birth-Control Pills From Doctor’s Prescription

Following in the wake of similar changes in California and Oregon, Missouri lawmakers may strip hormonal birth-control of its prescription-only status. A bill sponsored by statehouse Republican Rep. Sheila Solon (District 31) would add “the prescribing and dispensing of hormonal contraceptive patches and self-administered oral hormonal contraceptives to the definition of the practice of pharmacy.” This means that while birth control pills and patches would not technically be “prescription free,” nor sold over the counter, people could purchase them in one visit to Target or the local drugstore.

As it stands, getting birth control in most of the U.S. requires yearly—or sometimes more frequently, depending on the doctor, clinic, or health insurance plan—visits to a physician to renew one’s prescription. This demands women take time off things like work or childcare in order to get a permission slip for something safe and routine, drives up overall health care expenses, and makes avoiding unintended pregnancy more difficult

Preventing unintended pregnancies is Rep. Solon’s aim, according to the Associated Press. Someone whose website proudly touts “Conservative Values” near the top of its homepage, Solon opposes abortion and thinks making it easier for women to get contraception can help reduce the need for women to go that route.  

This probably sounds like common sense to you, but it’s taken Republican politicians a long time to come around to the idea that “endorsing” the use of birth control by making it easier to get would actually work toward their pro-family and anti-abortion aims, rather than merely encourage more ladies to start slutting it up. The past few years, however, have seen glimmers of hope that while some contraceptive methods may remain controversial (mostly emergency contraception and intrauterine devices), birth control more broadly is losing its luster in the culture wars. 

Republican lawmakers have been the biggest drivers of recent moves to make birth control pills available without a doctor’s visit. And several other states (including Washington state and Tennesee) are considering similar measures. Most proposals stop short of recommending over-the-counter access and offer some variation on the pharmacist consultation route.

Solon’s proposal would still require women to see a doctor within three years of receiving a pharmacist’s prescription. Women under 18 could renew a prescription through a pharmacist but would have to show them an initial doctor’s prescription first. It would also allow birth control supplies to be sold in one-year increments after an initial three-month prescription.

The measure, House Bill 1679, was introduced in December 2015 and received an initial hearing this week. Co-sponsors include one male Republican, one female Republican, and one female Democrat, Reps. Shamed Dogan (District 98), Chrissy Sommer (District 106), and Bonnaye Mims (District 27). 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1Pl6sc3
via IFTTT

Congress wants to turn the US Postal Service… into a bank

It’s news that seems ripped from the pages of The Onion. Or perhaps Atlas Shrugged.

But incredibly enough it’s actually true: earlier this week, Congress proposed a new law authorizing the US Postal Service to provide banking and financial services.

It’s called the “Providing Opportunities for Savings, Transactions, and Lending” Act, abbreviated as… wait for it… the POSTAL Act.

And it provides explicit authorization for them to provide banking services including checking and savings accounts, money transfers, and “other basic financial services as the Postal Service deems appropriate in the public interest.”

Bank of the Post Office. It’s incredible when you think about it.

The US Postal Service hasn’t turned a profit in a decade.

As a matter of fact, its total accumulated losses now exceed $51 billion, easily ranking it among the least successful companies in history.

And the only way USPS can continue to maintain its operations is with regular bailouts from the American taxpayer.

The statistics are just horrendous. Mail volume is down dramatically, which means that revenue continues to fall.

Yet the Postal Service’s expenses and pension costs keep growing, along with its debt.

Just like the US government, the US Postal Service has its own debt ceiling that’s set by Congress.

USPS reached this debt ceiling back in 2012 and has remained at that level for years.

The only way they survive is by moving liabilities off-balance sheet and regularly going back to Congress with hat in hand.

Wow, talk about a responsible financial partner– this sounds like EXACTLY the place we should want to deposit our hard-earned savings!

Seriously, why would these people even consider an idea so absurd as to let an organization with a history of failed operations take over people’s savings?

Simple. It’s a cheap source of capital.

The Postal Service desperately needs cash. So what better way to raise capital than to sucker unsuspecting Americans into opening up Postal bank accounts?

When you deposit money in a bank, you are effectively loaning the bank your money.

In exchange, they pay you a whopping 0.01% interest.

This is what almost all banks do– they borrow money from depositors and (hopefully) make credible investments and loans with other people’s money.

Except in this case, the Postal Service needs to ‘borrow’ depositors’ savings to cover losses from its other operations.

There’s a term for this. It’s called a Ponzi Scheme.

from Sovereign Man http://ift.tt/1PUIYde
via IFTTT