Sears Enters Death Spiral: Vendors Halt Shipments, Insurers Bail

When we commented yesterday morning on the unexpected “going concern” notice in Sears’ just filed 10-K which sent the stock crashing, we pointed out the immediate spin provided by Eddie Lampert’s distressed retailer which promised that its comeback plan may help alleviate the concerns, “satisfying our estimated liquidity needs 12 months from the issuance of the financial statements”, to which however we added the footnote that “the question is what happens when vendors start demanding cash on delivery as concerns about SHLD.’s liquidity concerns continue to grow.

As it turned out, we wouldn’t have long to wait, because overnight Reuters reported that the worst case Sears scenario we envisioned for Sears is now taking shape and that suppliers to Sears have told Reuters they are doubling down on defensive measures, such as reducing shipments and asking for better payment terms, to protect against the risk of nonpayment as the company warned about its finances.

The company’s disclosure turned the focus to its vendors as tension is expected to mount ahead of the key fourth-quarter selling season amid rising concern about a potential bankruptcy, they said.

Quoted by Reuters, the managing director of a Bangladesh-based textile firm said his company is using only a handful of its production lines to manufacture products for Sears’ 2017 holiday sales. Last year, nearly half of the company’s lines in its four factories were producing for Sears. “We have to protect ourselves from the risk of nonpayment,” said the managing director, who declined to be identified for fear of disrupting his company’s relationship with Sears.

Furthermore, precisely as we predicted, Mark Cohen, the former CEO of Sears Canada and director of retail studies at Columbia Business School said vendors will keep a close eye on Sears’ finances. “Whatever vendors continue to support them are now going to put them on even more of a short string. That means they’ll ship them smaller quantities and demand payment either in advance or immediately upon delivery.”

He added: “Sears stores are pathetically badly inventoried today and they will become worse.

Another supplier to Sears, Arnold Kamler, CEO of New Jersey-based bicycle manufacturer and importer Kent International Inc, said he was not surprised by Sears’ Tuesday announcement. He said he noticed a warning sign last year when Sears pushed to increase its purchases, which occurred “because a lot of their current suppliers were either cutting them off or limited them on credit.”

Kamler said he declined to sell Sears more product and that he receives a report once a week from his accounting department because of concerns around billing, payments and deductions.

The Bangladesh-based clothing supplier said Sears’ announcement is making him re-evaluate accepting new orders.

“So far there was only speculation that they would declare bankruptcy in 2017. But now they are acknowledging it, which definitely complicates our relationship with them and our decision to accept future orders from Sears,” the executive said.

A second clothing supplier from Bangladesh who did not wish to be named said he renegotiated payment terms with Sears a year ago and was being paid within 15 days of sending a shipment, compared with the traditional 60 days. He is considering asking the company for an advance payment on orders going forward.

* * *

Sears disagreed, and according to Jason Hollar, the company’s CFO, Sears’ move to raise capital in recent months is helping strengthen the company’s balance sheet he claimed in a blog post.

Sears is “a viable business that can meet its financial and other obligations for the foreseeable future,” Hollar said. He cited a $1 billion increase in liquidity from a new secured loan facility and a new asset-based loan that provided $250 million more in “financial flexibility.” The only problem with this is that Sears continues to be a melting ice cube which while not as bad as Tesla, is burning through hundreds of millions each year, money which in recent years has come out of Eddie Lampert’s pocket, either directly or indirectly, with loan gurantees. At some point even Lampert will realize that throwing away billions to sustain the Sears zombie is no longer a viable strategy, especially if the vendor freak out prompts a sudden need for cash which the company does not have.

Speaking of Sears’ cash, here are some more details from Reuters:

Sears’ cash position has shrunk dramatically in recent years. Sears, which lost $2.22 billion in the year ended Jan. 28, 2017, had $286 million in cash on hand, down from $609 million in 2012. Retailers in distress often use their accounts receivable to finance operations, and Sears had $466 million in receivables, down from $635 million in 2012.

So is a bankrtupcy inevitable? Well, yes, and increasingly so with every passing day that the company avoids filing.

Neil Saunders, managing director at retail research firm GlobalData, said tension will grow as the year goes on. “As we move towards the last quarter, I think we’ll find there are more and more suppliers that are not necessarily willing to engage with Sears” and will demand cash up-front.

 

Another sign of Sears’ weakness is that insurance companies that once provided policies to Sears vendors – insuring against nonpayment for their goods – are no longer doing so.

 

Doug Collins, regional director for risk services at Atradius Trade Credit Insurance, said his firm has stopped providing insurance to Sears vendors. “We tried to hang in as long as we could,” he said. “Vendors may try to get a few more cycles in before the worst happens, and then it just depends if they’re lucky or not.”

Of course, if that’s the case, then Sears has nothing to worry about: if the past 9 years of trading this “market” has shown, is that luck – or hope – is the only strategy that matters for this market, and courtesy of central banks, it always somehow shows up in the last moment.

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

A New Trend Emerges – Digital Gold ‘Gifting’ Gains Popularity in China

I rarely write about gold these days, but the following from Reuters caught my attention.

BEIJING/SHANGHAI, March 7 China’s virtual gifting market, typically the domain of plugged-in young consumers celebrating special occasions or flirting, is luring major financial institutions keen to boost trade of another auspicious commodity: gold.

Tencent’s digital gold packets, known as “microgold”, are backed by the country’s biggest bank, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC). They allow users to send funds that track the real-time value of gold to friends over the firm’s popular messaging platform WeChat.

It’s a financial innovation on the concept of virtual gifts, such as digital roses and chocolates, more commonly used in online communities and which have more sentimental value than any tangible economic worth.

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/2nhrWSN
via IFTTT

Dow Slides: Gasparino Says “No Deal” After Freedom Caucus Leaves White House

Having rallied on news that The Freedom Caucus gave President a ‘standing ovation’ upon his entry, Fox Business’ Charlie Gasparino reports that The Freedom Caucus has just left without agreement

Stocks are not happy.

 

 

And some conetxt for the drop…

 

The bottom line is for now, the market thinks the vote will be a “no” or won’t happen.

via http://ift.tt/2nN6V4a Tyler Durden

Trader Warns: Forget The Healthcare Bill, “The Psychological Damage Has Been Done”

"The psychological damage done to U.S. equities and the dollar should not be underestimated," warns Bloomberg's Mark Cudmore, adding that "the good times for both won’t be returning soon."

I originally thought today was all about the fate of the health care bill, but I now think that’s a red herring. It’s helping the market consolidate. Macro investors are right to pause until the outcome is known, but it’s just delaying the inevitable.

 

As outlined yesterday, I’m neither worried about the long-term global economic outlook nor about a major new bear market in the U.S. However, there’s certainly room for a healthy correction stateside.

 

The latest news reports suggest the bill will struggle to pass. If it does get through, the short-term relief rally may be powerful as it should mean that Trump can finally focus on real economic stimulus.

 

But the gloss of the new administration is already fading for investors. It’s clear that, rather than revolutionize the U.S., Trump will in fact need to struggle for every little change.

 

This isn’t to say he won’t fundamentally change things, but just that it won’t be happening soon enough to be a reason to hold expensive equities that are heavily owned and no longer trading consistently higher.

 

This means that any relief rally will be used as an opportunity for longs to take profit, not a catalyst to build positions further.

 

If the bill fails, then this dynamic just kicks in much sooner. Either way, I stand by my column from March 8 that U.S. equities topped out at the start of this month.

 

 

The global economy is not in trouble, and the U.S. isn’t at risk of a recession. There will be a time in the future to buy the dip, but a positive political outcome today will only prompt short-term bears to close out their positions – it won’t trigger genuine new topside enthusiasm.

Certainly judging by the dollar and the bond, hope is fading fast…

Somewhat confirming this 'red herring' persepctive, Bloomberg's Mike Regan thinks this is how the myopic fixation on the health-care vote transpired:

  • Markets hit risk-off mode on Tuesday in a big way for the first time in a while.
  • Everyone scrambled through the available headlines to determine the catalyst, saw the news about the health bill being in peril and decided “Eureka! The market obviously views this as a referendum on the prospects for Trump’s entire agenda and his ability to use Congress as a rubber stamp."

Maybe. But the lack of follow through yesterday and today suggests either most of its potential failure was all priced in on Tuesday, or something else was behind the move.

That day, after all, had the feeling of a big player(s) making some big position changes for reasons we may never find out about.

Could it have been the health care bill’s prospects? Sure.

  • Or it could’ve been the previous day’s acknowledgment by the FBI director of a Trump-Russia probe,
  • the Ally Financial profit warning,
  • Morgan Stanley’s warning on FICC trading exuberance,
  • a delayed response to the drop in bank lending,
  • or all of the above.

Or, there was no news at all and it was simply a giant redemption request from a whale of an investor — as Mohamed A. El-Erian argues.

via http://ift.tt/2nN2Gp1 Tyler Durden

Will the Prospect of Taking Trump Down Ruin Chances for Surveillance Reform?

NunesIt looks like whatever House Intel Committee Chair Rep. Devin Nunes (R-California) might have been attempting to accomplish yesterday when he held a press conference to reveal some post-election surveillance of Trump’s transition team may have backfired.

Nunes, a Trump ally, was clearly attempting to draw attention to the argument that the intelligence community was violating the privacy of the incoming Trump administration in its data and information collection. He said the information he had received showed that the surveillance and data collection of Trump team communications was “incidental,” meaning they likely were not surveillance targets themselves.

But Nunes running to the press and not actually informing the rest of his peers in the House Committee first subsequently made the story about Nunes and what he was trying to accomplish instead. Trump’s critics, both on the left and the right, worry that Nunes’ behavior is an attempt to interfere with a congressional investigation of any possible ties between Trump and the Russian government and whether anything possibly illegal has happened. Was this all about trying to help Trump? Trump himself immediately jumped on Nunes’ comments in a Time interview to defend his wiretap conspiracy tweets, which at least suggests some interesting timing. Nunes has since apologized to his Democratic counterparts in the House for not telling them first before going to the press.

There is likely a very noncontroversial explanation for the data collection that implicates nobody in particular and helps inform Americans about how federal surveillance actually works if people are willing to—for however briefly—set aside their feelings about Trump. Folks may recall that prior to taking office, Trump and his transition team decided to start contacting and communicating with world leaders. In all likelihood the National Security Agency (NSA) had active permission to engage in surveillance of such people. It’s not necessarily an indicator of a criminal investigation; it’s the business of international intelligence.

So members of Trump’s team may have ended up dragged into “incidental” surveillance because of the people they were talking to. As such, what happened with Trump’s folks is a perfect opportunity for Americans to understand how “incidental” surveillance of citizens’ works, what happened to the data, and the inherit risks of this level of collection for all of our privacy so at least we’re all informed about how all of this works.

Privacy and civil liberties activists are calling for reforms to surveillance authorities in order to reduce the likelihood that private data or communications get retained and exposed the way it might have happened with Trump’s team.

Also of interest: Nunes has said that actually, some of the names in these reports were still “masked” (redacted), but he was able to tell who the reports were talking about based on the context. In the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations about mass collection of data from Americans’ phone and online communications, government officials (all the way up to President Barack Obama himself) attempted to assure people that nobody was reading through all of our emails or listening in to all of our phone calls. But they were collecting loads of metadata (where and who we were communicating with, for how long, when and how frequently, et cetera), and experiments have shown that enough metadata is available out there to extrapolate a lot about our private behavior.

But as long as this is a fight only over the behavior of Trump and his team, it’s going to be tough to have a discussion or call for reform of these tools. As I noted yesterday, even vocal Democratic critics of the extent of federal surveillance are using all this to try to attack Trump’s administration as potentially breaking the law even knowing full well that’s not necessarily what the information collection means.

Mind you, it could very well be that Nunes is indeed trying to taint an investigation and that the Trump team might have been involved in some unseemly, even illegal behavior. That he’s doing a terrible job at it probably says more about Nunes’ poor political savvy than anything else. I’m not here to assist in defending Trump (not that he needs me to). I’m here to warn about the politically driven false choices tainting the debate. What the two “sides” in this fight are presenting to the public are not contradictory claims, and I’m going to keep trying to hammer that through. It’s possible that Trump and/or his allies are involved in corrupt or illegal dealings with a foreign country and that it’s normal and expected for our federal intelligence agencies to be using surveillance tools to get at the truth. It’s also possible that the intelligence community is abusing access to surveillance data and leaking information for the deliberate purpose of discrediting and hamstringing the Trump administration. And this administration is—like it or not—legally and democratically in charge of the executive branch of the government.

If Trump’s foes are fine with data collected by surveillance possibly being abused to discredit him, that doesn’t bode well for the possibility of ratcheting back the surveillance of all the rest of us.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2mwKPSU
via IFTTT

Are Banks About To Derail The New U.S. Shale Boom?

Authored by Irinia Slav via OIlPrice.com,

Just when international oil benchmarks are sliding down, banks are preparing to review the credit lines of U.S. E&Ps. Starting in April, lenders will reassess companies’ creditworthiness on the basis of reserves, production trends, current prices, and future prospects for the industry, among others. Should anything spark worry, banks will be quick to start reducing their exposure, cutting credit lines and arresting producers’ recovery at a crucial point.

This year, U.S. E&Ps have announced an overall spending increase of $25 billion from 2016, an 11-percent rise, as a clear sign of continuing optimism after the November OPEC-non-OPEC deal that aimed to shave 1.8 million barrels of crude off daily global supply.

Besides boosting spending plans, producers have been adding rigs at a respectable pace: at the end of last week, active oil and gas rigs in the United States totaled 789, an increase of 313 over a year ago. They are also investing in more efficient drilling technologies, aiming for ever lower production prices in the aftermath of the oil price crash.

The banks could put a stop to all this if they deem the outlook for oil prices or any other element of their assessment methodology unfavorable. For oil prices, more bad news seems to be on the way if we are to trust Goldman Sachs.

The investment bank said in a note yesterday that record-high investments in 2011-2013 could start bearing fruit this year and the next two, adding around a million barrels of crude to global daily production on an annual basis in the period 2017-2019. That will only happen if the mega projects that swallowed the huge investments deliver as expected, which is by no means certain.

This message contrasts with an earlier one, contained in another note to investors, which saw global oil supply tightening thanks to the OPEC deal. In fact, at the time – a month ago – Goldman was of the opinion that the draw in global stockpiles would completely offset the rise in U.S. shale output.

But for now, Brent crude is now trading below $51 and WTI has dropped below $48 a barrel. Investors are watching OPEC again for a possible extension of the production cut deal, but it’s still uncertain if it will happen, and even if it does, no one knows what the effect of an extension would be.

via http://ift.tt/2nHBV4P Tyler Durden

Eric Mindich’s $12 Billion Eton Park Is Returning Capital To Investors: Here Are His Biggest Holdings

Once upon a time Eric Mindich was best known for being the Goldman “wunderkind” – the youngest-ever Goldman partner, who parlayed his reputation into the 2004 launch of his hedge fund Eton Park. Unfortunately for Mindich, after over a decade of running other people’s money, the hedge fund apocalypse caught up with the ex-youngest partner, and after a year of losses, which led to an exodus of investors from Mindich’s $12 billion Eton Park Capital Management, which fell about 11% last year, the hedge fund is now said to be returning capital to investors.

According to Bloomberg, Eric Mindich, whose hedge fund startup in 2004 was among the largest in the industry, is returning client capital after 13 years.

Mindich, 49, plans to return all outside funds in New York-based Eton Park Capital Management because he doesn’t believe he’ll be able to run a global, multi-disciplinary investment firm under current conditions, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.

Readers may recall Eric Mindich for two other notable accomplishments: as we first reported back in September 2009, Mindich was none other than the president of the infamous Plunge Protection Team, as discussed in  “What Is Goldman Alum Eric Mindich’s Role As Chair Of The Asset Managers’ Committee Of The President’s Working Group?”

The other notable event involving Mindich was the 2011 report that he was among the hedge fund managers getting direct inside information about the fate of Fannie and Freddie ahead of their bailout, from none other than Hank Paulson, as we discussed in “Hank Paulson Tipped Off The Goldman-Led “Plunge Protection Team” About Fannie Bankruptcy 7 Weeks In Advance.

Paulson… went on to describe a possible scenario for placing Fannie and Freddie into “conservatorship” — a government seizure designed to allow the firms to continue operations despite heavy losses in the mortgage markets.”

 

The gathering comprised some of Wall Street’s most storied investors. Mindich, a former chief strategy officer of New York- based Goldman Sachs, started Eton Park in 2004 with $3.5 billion, at the time one of the biggest hedge-fund launches ever. [Dinakar] Singh, a former head of Goldman’s proprietary-trading desk, also began his fund in 2004, in partnership with private- equity firm Texas Pacific Group Ltd. Lone Pine’s [Stephen] Mandel worked as a retail analyst at Goldman before joining Julian Robertson’s Tiger Management LLC, one of the most successful hedge funds of the 1980s and 1990s. He started his own firm in 1997. [Daniel] Och was co-head of U.S. equity trading at Goldman before founding Och-Ziff in 1994. The publicly listed firm managed $28.9 billion in November. One other Goldman Sachs alumnus was at the meeting: Frank Brosens, founder and principal of Taconic Capital Advisors LP, who worked at Goldman as an arbitrageur and who was a protege of Robert Rubin, who went on to become Treasury secretary.

 

In other words the point of the meeting was nothing short of the former Goldman CEO telling all his former Goldman colleagues just what he was planning on doing in his capacity as Treasury Secretary.

In any case, while we await details as to how this formerly high-flying Icarus crashed so low, here are his biggest holdings:

it is worth noting that NXP, MSFT, and BAC – some of Eton Park’s biggest holdings, tumbled on Tuesday, and one wonders if Mindich was the big redemption mentioned earlier this week by Mohamed El-Erian.

via http://ift.tt/2ns2E58 Tyler Durden

Neil Gorsuch Vows to ‘Respect’ Supreme Court Precedent. That Does Not Mean He Will Always Uphold Precedent.

Neil Gorsuch has survived his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee and now, barring some unforeseen (and unlikely) disaster, he is well on his way to being confirmed as the next associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Gorsuch was interrogated for two full days by the 11 Republicans and nine Democrats of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Regrettably, just like most other recent SCOTUS nominees, Gorsuch mostly dodged the biggest questions, refusing to express his own legal views on most subjects that might conceivably come before him as a judge, including the propriety of various Supreme Court precedents.

What that meant was that almost every time that Gorsuch was asked about a hot-button legal issue—such as the constitutionality of abortion or the legality of gay marriage—he fell back on the same well-rehearsed answer. That issue has been decided by a “precedent of the Supreme Court,” Gorsuch said again and again, and was therefore “due all the weight of a precedent of the Supreme Court.”

What does that mean? Consider the 2009 Senate confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor. She too was repeatedly asked about hot-button legal issues, particularly when it came to her views on the Supreme Court’s 2008 Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. And her answers were also consistent. Heller is an “established” Supreme Court precedent, Sotomayor repeatedly told the Senate Judiciary Committee, and she “accepted” it.

Fast-forward one year later to the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. Sotomayor is now a sitting justice of the Supreme Court and she joined the dissenting opinion filed in that case by Justice Stephen Breyer, in which Breyer asserted that “the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense.” That statement is the exact opposite of what the Court held in Heller.

In sum, giving “weight” or “respect” or “acceptance” to “established” precedent is not the same thing as upholding and affirming that precedent. As Neil Gorsuch himself noted this week, the law of precedent has always included the option of overturning precedent in an appropriate case.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2nVPRpa
via IFTTT

Do a Jewish Teenager’s Bomb Threats Against Jews Count As Hate Crimes?

Today Israeli police revealed the arrest of a Jewish teenager in connection with bogus bomb threats that have rattled Jewish communities across the United States in recent months. The unnamed 19-year-old, who was identified with help from the FBI, is a dual citizen of Israel and the United States who lives in the Ashkelon area. “Investigating hate crimes is a top priority for the FBI,” a bureau spokeswoman said, “and we will continue to work to make sure all races and religions feel safe in their communities and in their places of worship.”

If the reference to “hate crimes” strikes you as strange in the context of a Jew’s threats against fellow Jews, that is probably because you are under the impression that hate crimes are defined by hate. Not so. Under federal law, a person who injures or attempts to injure someone “because of” the victim’s “actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin” is guilty of a hate crime, regardless of his motive. The definition includes, for example, people who assault coreligionists based on doctrinal disagreements, as in the case of the Amish beard cutters.

The motives of the Israeli-American bomb threat suspect, whom police blame for dozens of frightening phone calls received by JCCs and other Jewish institutions in the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand, remain mysterious. Maybe he is a chaos-loving prankster. Maybe he is a self-hating Jew. Maybe he is a Trump-hating Jew, deliberately reinforcing the claim that the president’s election has encouraged a rise in anti-Semitic speech and acts. As far has the federal hate crime statute goes, it does not matter, although the last possibility would lend credibility to Trump’s widely derided suggestion that the aim of the bomb threats might be “to make people…look bad.”

Then again, since there were no actual bombs, the phone calls may not qualify as attempts to cause “bodily injury,” which “does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim.” Other federal laws, such as 18 USC 875 (threatening interstate communications) and 18 USC 2333b (terrorist threats), would seem to be a closer fit.

It’s not clear whether the suspect will be extradited. Although the effects of his alleged crimes were felt mainly in the United States, the communications were initiated in Israel. Ha’aretz reports that “police are accusing the suspect of extortion through threats and of false reporting sowing panic.” The newspaper says “investigators are attempting to determine if he actually received money in connection with any of the threats attributed to him.”

According to the Israeli police, “The investigation began in several countries simultaneously after dozens of threatening calls were received at public places, events, synagogues and community buildings that caused panic and disrupted events and activities in various organizations.” The police says the suspect used “advanced camouflage technologies” to disguise the source of his calls, which he made over the internet using a voice-distorting device and other people’s WiFi connections.

Ha’aretz quotes one of the calls: “It’s a C-4 bomb with a lot of shrapnel, surrounded by a bag….In a short time, a large number of Jews are going to be slaughtered. Their heads are going to [sic] blown off from the shrapnel. There’s a lot of shrapnel. There’s going to be a bloodbath that’s going to take place in a short time. I think I told you enough. I must go.”

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2nHBQhM
via IFTTT

The Center Folds – GOP Loses Obamacare Reform Votes From ‘Tuesday Group’

It is not just the Freedom Caucus tails of the Republican Party that are holding out from the Obamacare reform vote, GOP centrists in the House are fleeing from their party’s first major legislative test of President Trump’s reign.

As The Hill reports, centrist defections in the last 24 hours include Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), the co-chairman of the moderate Tuesday Group, which has roughly 50 members.

Reps. Dan Donovan (R-N.Y.), David Young (R-Iowa), Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.), and Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.), all centrists, have also announced their opposition to the bill. 

 

Reps. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.) and John Katko (R-N.Y.), two other centrists, earlier announced their opposition.

 

That brings the number of centrist no votes to at least eight, though there could be more.

Republican leaders can afford 22 defections and still pass their legislation, which all House Democrats are expected to oppose.

Centrists warn that their constituents would lose coverage under the repeal bill, and some have even said that ObamaCare is better than the Republican bill. A group of centrists met with leadership in Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) office Wednesday night to discuss where they are on the legislation and their concerns.

“Everybody’s frustrated, but some moved, some stayed the same, and some got more equivocal,” said a GOP lawmaker who attended the meeting.

Finally, The Hill points out that deep cuts to Medicaid in the GOP bill, and the end of ObamaCare’s expansion of the program, are also major sources of centrist objections.

“The overriding concern I have is the Medicaid expansion being significantly altered,” Smith, whose home state of New Jersey accepted the expansion, told the Asbury Park Press. “It affects so many of our disabled individuals and families, and the working poor.”

Many centrists remain undecided, including electorally vulnerable members like Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.).

The center is not holding as RINOs emerge everywhere when the vote actually means something.

Ironically the Freedom Caucus seems to be coming around…

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