Retails Stocks Crash into the Hard, Cold Rocks; The Dow Trades Down a Smidge

Look at these god damned retail stocks. They’re crashing I tell ya, crashing!

retail

But no one really cares anymore. Investors know the risks associated with hiking rates into a weak economy, but are consciously choosing to ignore said risks in order to partake in the grand experiment of a centrally planned global economy. We need slave labor, lots of it, and plenty of open borders.

In spite of the most important part of the U.S. economy getting nailed today, after November’s consumer spending came in must less than expected, the Dow is hardly down. Everything is just meh.

Incidentally, President elect Trump will have his hands full come January 20th, specifically with a central bank whose stated goal is now to hedge against any fiscal stimulus he enacts in office. Janet Yellen just wants to fight inflation. There’s nothing political about it, naturally.

Since election night, the 10yr bond yield has risen from 1.75% to 2.55% on the premise of stronger than expected American GDP under Trump. Pray tell me, how will this occur is the Fed continues to hike rates into a very meek consumer spending environment, one hampered by rising oil prices rigged by OPEC?

You do the math.

You do the math.

Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

via http://ift.tt/2hMN4hu The_Real_Fly

Investors ‘Shocked’ As Dow Suffers Longest Losing Streak Since Election

TWO DOWN DAYS IN A ROW…

 

The Dow Jones Industrial Average shocked investors today as it suffered a second consecutive day of losses – the first time since before the election…

 

Despite best efforts at slamming VIX once again (for the 5th day in a row), Dow 20k eludes…

 

Another disappointed trader…

US Stock market breadth remains weak…

 

Small Caps and Trannies slipped into the red for the week, S&P (green) managed to bounce off unch for the week…

 

Retail stocks were monkey-hammered – worst day since May – on personal income weakness and reported holiday spending drop…

 

Off the pre-Election lows, Small Caps remain the biggest winner (and Nasdaq the laggard)…

 

As a reminder all of the market's gains of the last two years are in this post-Trump period…

 

Financials slipped lower for a 2nd day (now red post-Fed)…

 

Monte Paschi Sub bonds bloodbath'd as the bailout/bailin looms (20c on the dollar?)

 

But post-Referendum, Unicredit has exploded…

 

Slightly off topic, we note that Indian stocks are now red year-to-date…

 

And Philippines stocks have plunged since Duterte slammed Obama…

 

The USD index limped higher on the day thanks to Sterling and Aussie weakness…

 

4th day in a row of overnight Treasury selling and US day session buying…

 

Silver took a tumble today after panic bids around the US open, crude fell back into the red for the week…

Bitcoin was aggressively bid to 3 years highs (China and India)…

 

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

Chart(s) Of The Week: ‘Lombard Street’ For A New Age

Submitted by Jeffrey Snider via Alhambra Investment Partners,

At one point in time not all that long ago, basic economics (small “e”) ruled central banking. There was really no other choice, as out of necessity bred change and understanding. The English were perhaps first in that lead, as the Empire with greatest economic and financial reach. It is interesting what we take for granted today as if it had been intellectually settled for all human history, but in the revolutionary times of the 19th century they still struggled to understand what would be considered a modern economy.

Bank and money panics were nothing new, of course, nor were asset bubbles. For the first time, however, money and economy seemed to be more and more intertwined. In the agrarian roots of any economy, there was no business cycle to speak of. Widespread unemployment was a new development, with competing ideals setting out in all directions to explain it, and, if possible, eliminate it. At one end was people like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who thought they could do away with the business cycle by doing away with business; at the other end were those who sought out money and its role in revolution, industrial as well as social.

Walter Bagehot was one such researcher who in 1873 published Lombard Street: A Description of the Money Market. Written in part as a response to widespread panic in 1866, it is the first to have issued what was once central banking’s great dictum: lend freely on good collateral at high interest rates. Bagehot never wrote those words, but his meaning resonated and still does. In 2014 when former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker called for a new Bretton Woods, it was Bagehot he had in mind, particularly his admonishment that “money will not manage itself.”

Whether or not that is actually true is up for debate; what is less contentious is that money cannot manage itself under unstable and unclear terms. In our current construction, the global monetary system is a hybrid, where Bagehot’s principles supposedly guide central banks under the banner still of “currency elasticity” that for a great amount of time money markets believed in. It should be clear by now that they don’t so much anymore. Thus, the current hybrid is where private money markets know that central banks claim to manage money but also know in many cases, if not all, they really don’t or can’t. Central bankers don’t seem to know any of this.

In 1873, there was good reason for the ignorance. In Lombard Street, Bagehot felt compelled to describe the basics because at that time they weren’t fundamentally accepted propositions from among those inside, let alone known in broad fashion:

Many persons believe that the Bank of England has some peculiar power of fixing the value of money. They see that the Bank of England varies its minimum rate of discount from time to time, and that, more or less, all other banks follow its lead, and charge much as it charges; and they are puzzled why this should be. ‘Money,’ as economists teach, ‘is a commodity, and only a commodity;’ why then, it is asked, is its value fixed in so odd a way, and not the way in which the value of all other commodities is fixed?

 

There is at bottom, however, no difficulty in the matter. The value of money is settled, like that of all other commodities, by supply and demand, and only the form is essentially different. In other commodities all the large dealers fix their own price; they try to underbid one another, and that keeps down the price; they try to get as much as they can out of the buyer, and that keeps up the price. Between the two what Adam Smith calls the higgling of the market settles it. And this is the most simple and natural mode of doing business, but it is not the only mode. If circumstances make it convenient another may be adopted. A single large holder—especially if he be by far the greatest holder—may fix his price, and other dealers may say whether or not they will undersell him, or whether or not they will ask more than he does. A very considerable holder of an article may, for a time, vitally affect its value if he lay down the minimum price which he will take, and obstinately adhere to it. This is the way in which the value of money in Lombard Street is settled. The Bank of England used to be a predominant, and is still a most important, dealer in money. It lays down the least price at which alone it will dispose of its stock, and this, for the most part, enables other dealers to obtain that price, or something near it.

 

The reason is obvious. At all ordinary moments there is not money enough in Lombard Street to discount all the bills in Lombard Street without taking some money from the Bank of England. As soon as the Bank rate is fixed, a great many persons who have bills to discount try how much cheaper than the Bank they can get these bills discounted. But they seldom can get them discounted very much cheaper, for if they did everyone would leave the Bank, and the outer market would have more bills than it could bear.

By holding special privilege, the Bank of England was simply the biggest in money markets and could therefore outdistance any other prices, bids, and discounts. The money market was bigger than any single or even group of competing institutions, and therefore order could be imposed by simple economics.

But central banks are themselves constrained, by both dictum as well as operational realities. In 2007 and 2008, as well as several times thereafter, the world’s central banks felt it necessary to bend the “rules” by lending freely at low rates on pretty much any paper that might be posted by anybody demanding funds, especially if that anybody was big and systemic. Several people have called this a transformation from “lender of last resort” to “market of last resort.” Central bankers found themselves supporting not just liquidity but prices even. That would propose they failed disastrously in money, and therefore tried to “correct” the error(s) by doing far more than money.  A simpler solution might have been more proficiency in money, and not just on the way down.

To my knowledge the official sector has yet to answer why. It’s not enough to simply say “2008 was bad” because we all know 2008 was bad. To undertake examination of “market of last resort” is to begin to answer why 2008 was bad and furthermore why everything after 2008 remains bad.

One of the primary issues has certainly been collateral itself, the repo market lifeblood that dictates the fluidity of so many parts of the global system. In very simple terms, the repo market exploded in the 2000’s because it was efficient on all sides (or at least appeared to be under pre-2008 assumptions). The housing bubble manufactured its own financial collateral, a form of monetary expansion, qualitative as well as quantitative, that was in many ways greater than the credit that flowed from it. When that prior collateral, MBS, was repudiated, so too was the means to resume creating more.

Worse than that, regulations that preferred any kind of government bond led a great many eurodollar institutions from “toxic” MBS straight to PIIGS “risk-free.” The repudiation of that collateral in 2010 and 2011 was in many ways a similar strain to 2007 and 2008 from which the monetary system has never recovered; there is simply no capacity left by which to satisfy continued repo demand. There was surely some attempt in the aftermath of 2011 under “collateral transformation” to turn junk bonds and even EM corporates into that role, but that all ended badly all over again starting in 2014. You get the sense that the repo market of the past few years is coming to terms with no way to solve what is really a supply problem.

Repo collateral has thus behaved in money-like ways, only in this kind of interbank money there is no huge player who has undertaken the assignment to set the market rate for collateral, good times and bad, and therefore mediate and redistribute irregularities. The Federal Reserve through its quantitative easing programs actually made it quantitatively worse, a condition that the Open Market Desk seems to have after the fact made itself aware in the early months of 2013 under QE’s 3 and 4 after stripping the on-the-run markets of too much supply. Its SOMA portfolio today is brimming with trillions in securities, including $2.463 trillion in UST’s and $1.756 trillion MBS at last update, but there is no Bagehot mandate applied in UST or MBS collateral. Instead, the repo markets are left with the RRP, which seems to have been crafted from an equal helping of ignorance and arrogance.

And so it is often difficult to think about all this in any other way. Whereas Bagehot was trying to explain the money markets and how they really worked even to the central bankers of his time, we are right back in the same position all over again today. My colleague Joe Calhoun always says that everything has happened before and in this case it might be the literal truth, trying to explain to central bankers the small truths of how things actually work in money. This time “dollars” rather than sterling, or even dollars.

Gold is collateral of last resort as it is near-universally accepted. Repo fails indicate, very strongly, collateral shortage. Put the two together and you get yet more evidence that central bankers really don’t know what they are doing. And, also like in Bagehot’s day, the repercussions are global.

sabook-dec-2016-china-copper-gold

abook-dec-2016-china-2013-again-hibor-cny

via http://ift.tt/2i6w2J8 Tyler Durden

For Trump And Icahn, Experts Say Regulatory Reform Should Be More Than a Numbers Game

President-elect Donald Trump has promised to tackle the federal regulatory state and on Thursday appointed billionaire investor Carl Icahn as a sort of anti-regulation czar who will lead the incoming administration’s efforts.

On the campaign trail, Trump promised to repeal two federal regulations for every new one added to the books. Icahn, who was previously in the running to be Trump’s Treasury Secretary but will instead serve as special adviser, has been a vocal critic of federal regulations—particularly those imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency.

“Cut a lot of this regulation, just cut it out. Its run amuck,” Icahn told Bloomberg in an interview last month, as he was advising Trump on cabinet picks. “Let a businessman know that when he builds a factory, builds machinery, when he’s going to invest the money, that he’s got the government behind him.”

In announcing the appointment on Thursday, Trump said Icahn’s assistance would be invaluable. Perhaps so, since Icahn will not be paid for the special advisory role within the Trump administration. However, that also means the investor will not have to give up his position as chairman of Icahn Enterprises, which owns stakes in industries including railroads, casinos, hotels, rental car companies, and health care providers. The insider role in the administration was quickly criticized by Democrats who worry that Icahn could use it to benefit his businesses, Politico reported.

If Trump and Icahn want to make meaningful reforms to federal regulatory policy, though, they will need targets that are more specific than repeal-two-for-every-one-added and will have to get Congress to reassert its authority over the federal bureaucracies, policy experts tell Reason.

Chris Koopman, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center, applauded Trump’s instinct to target regulatory overreach, but said focusing on the number of regulations could miss another dangerous piece of federal regulations: informal regulation that agencies rely on before they go to regulations in the traditional sense.

These informal regulations include things like guidance documents published by federal agencies that offer suggestions—with a wink attached—for how companies should act, and how the Federal Communications Commission mandates certain behavior through so-called “transaction reviews” before approving license transfers. The FCC has used that process to mandate parts of the Obama administration’s net neutrality regulations.

Those informal regulations could become even more common if the Trump administration starts hacking away at written rules without focusing on the underlying processes.

“There is a huge problem with the amount of federal regulations that are put out. The intuition here—get rid of the thicket—should be applauded, but that’s just the surface of the quagmire here,” Koopman said.

To get below the surface, Trump’s team could look to the Competitive Enterprise Institute—including regulatory policy guru Clyde Wayne Crews, who coined the apt descriptor “regulatory dark matter” for all those off-the-books regulations—which last week published a new report with five steps the next administration and Congress can take to reform the federal regulatory state.

The first thing the new administration should do is implement a better review process within the White House Office of Management and Budget. In theory, the OMB is supposed to make sure that proposed regulations’ benefits outweigh the potential costs, but in reality this process is fraught with problems. Of the approximately 3,500 rules issued by dozens of federal agencies each year, only a few handfuls are subject to cost-benefit analysis.

Beyond that, Congress probably has to get involved.

The CEI report calls for Congress to assert itself by threatening to defund agencies that overstep their statutory authority and to use the Congressional Review Act to bring more accountability to executive branch agencies and commissions. The CRA was passed in 1996 and gives Congress the option of pausing any new regulation for up to 60 days of public scrutiny.

The law has been used sparingly and has only once, in 2001, resulted in the repeal of a federal regulation.

Congress also should reverse a decades-long trend of abdicating responsibilities to the executive branch agencies and over-delegating decision-making processes.

“Congress is poised to make great strides in returning a balance of power to the federal government through reining in the regulatory state,” said Kent Lassman, president of CEI, in a statement.

Icahn and Trump have talked a good game about trimming back the federal government’s control over individuals and businesses. It’s clear that many Americans are in favor of reform—”draining the swamp,” as some Trump supporters might put it—and limiting the power of the federal government’s alphabet soup of various agencies and commissions.

The first thing Trump should do, Icahn told Bloomberg on Thursday, is “get rid of a number of these, what I consider to be, crazy regulations.”

The “crazy” regulations are one thing. Fixing the roots of the problem will take more work.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2hXP7gU
via IFTTT

Red Flag For Markets: Pension Funds To Sell “Near Record” Amount Of Stocks In The Next Few Days

One of the recurring comments about the “Trumpflation” rally, which has sent US stock markets to constant record highs and pushed the Dow Jones just shy of 20,000 has been that there is virtually nobody selling. According to a poll released today by Reuters, which surveyed 45 fund managers and CIOs around the globe, investors’ equity holdings rose to six-month highs in December on bets that buying at all time highs would mean selling even higher.

“Be ready to buy dips,” Trevor Greetham, head of multi-asset at Royal London Asset Management, told Reuters however for the most part there have been no dips. In fact, as Carl Icahn lamented earlier on CNBC, “nobody is selling.”

However, according to a new analysis from Credit Suisse, a “seller” may emerge, and a very determined one at that.

In a report by the Swiss Bank’s Victor Lin, pension funds that rebalance monthly and quarterly would need to sell $38 billion of U.S. equities in coming days to rebalance to prior asset allocation levels.

While regular readers are well aware, there has been a massive capital shift out of global bonds and into stocks in the 4th quarter, leading ironically to a mirror image result: while the value of global stocks has risen by $3 trillion since the US election according to Deutsche Bank, the value of debt has declined by an identical amount.

But while Mark-To- Market values of key asset holdings in pension portfolios have shifted violently, pensions have specific quotas to adhere to, which in this case means selling winners and buying losers to return to their mandated allocation percentages.

As a result, according to Lin’s analysis, the “estimated rotation out of domestic U.S. equities would be one of the largest on record” with relatively large outperformance versus other asset classes both on a monthly and quarterly basis.  Additionally, Lin estimates selling of $864 million in developed market international stocks.

While the exodus from US and International stocks would be substantial, the offset to this would be an aggressively buying of more than $6.3 billion in emerging market equities. Another offset would be the purchase of that “other” formerly beloved asset class: bonds, where pensions could end up buying approximately $22 billion.

There is more bad news: the Credit Suisse analysts believes the selling in U.S. equities could increase to nearly $58 billion (and bond buying to over $35 billion) should equity-bond relative performance continue to widen before year-end.

Assuming his analysis is correct, the question is how will this exaggerated selling take place in the five remaining trading days of 2016 during what is already extremely thin and illiquid tape, where most traders are now gone on holiday, and in which HFTs are just salivating at the thought of frontrunning major block orders: remember, HFT works both on the way up and, in some very rare occasions, on the way down.

We expect an answer in the next several days; should Lin be right one can cancel that Dow 20,000 hat order, if only for the balance of this year.

via http://ift.tt/2hMLzA6 Tyler Durden

Snopes Co-Founder Embezzles $98,000, Drops Weight, Leaves Fat Wife And Marries Actual Whore

The aristocrats!

Isn’t it interesting how a little money can change a person? According to divorce papers, Snopes co-founder David Mikkelson started taking all sorts of trips around the world to bang whores after that sweet liberal shill money started rolling in. While engaging in this debauchery, Mikkelson wrote off just about everything as a business expense, embezzling a reported $98,000. The Snopes co-founder has since settled down and married a [NSFW] part time porn actress, Snopes.com administrator (spicy!), and sex worker. As in, she has a website devoted to being a whore.  Apparently she’s a pretty good one despite being “past her time as an adult model.” In the same divorce papers, David Mikkelson fires back, claiming his hog of an ex-wife took millions from their joint account and bought property in Las Vegas. No word on who got their obese cat, or if it’s still alive.

The Daily Mail reports:

“…a DailyMail.com investigation reveals that Snopes.com’s founders, former husband and wife David and Barbara Mikkelson, are embroiled in a lengthy and bitter legal dispute in the wake of their divorce.

He has since remarried, to a former escort and porn actress who is one of the site’s staff members.

They are accusing each other of financial impropriety, with Barbara claiming her ex-husband is guilty of ’embezzlement’ and suggesting he is attempting a ‘boondoggle’ to change tax arrangements, while David claims she took millions from their joint accounts and bought property in Las Vegas.

She claimed he spent nearly $10,000 on a 24-day ‘personal vacation’ in India this year and expensed his girlfriend’s plane ticket to Buenos Aires.” Daily Mail

As one of the five fact-checkers selected by Facebook to determine FAKE NEWS, and one of the most widely referenced “debunking” websites, is even a tiny moral compass too much to expect? We already know that Snopes staff are militantly liberal fact checkers who love insulting conservatives. Proven liberal bias aside, can we trust an organization co-founded by an embezzling, whore mongering, possibly cat abandoning shill? Plus, he’s a fucking moron because he fell for the oldest whore trick in the book.

Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

via http://ift.tt/2ikyryX ZeroPointNow

C, AIG, BBRY, FCX, NRG, GPRO – Nothing Lasts Forever (Video)

By EconMatters


We discuss Sallie Krawcheck and how she like a lot of corporate executives didn`t properly hedge their wealth, and gave away fortunes of gains back to the market in the form of destroyed capital. Money is made out of thin air, it doesn`t actually exist when we are speaking in terms of paper created financial market wealth, you haven`t made anything until you close out positions, sell your stock options, take this money out of the market, diversify your resources from an exposure standpoint, and buy something that will retain some form of financial value.

Whether it is physical Gold, Real Estate, Tree Forests, Businesses, Factories, Ownership Stakes in Companies, Art, Rare Antiques, Fine Wine, Swiss Watches, Collectables, Alternative Investments, Savings Accounts, etc. but factor in all the associated costs involved in these investments like taxes, storage costs, insurance, and security (research the depreciation factor of your diversified investment choices) and avoid the “money pits” investment vehicles. There are tradeoffs all along this spectrum of diversification investment choices, know the tradeoffs, but get your money diversified from electronic, paper markets where capital is destroyed and lost many times over in the history of financial markets!

© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle   

via http://ift.tt/2hXLeIJ EconMatters

Carl Icahn “Concerned” About “Lack Of Stock Selling” Last Few Weeks

Newly announced special advisor to Donald Trump on regulation, billionaire Catli Icahn, is worried. During a lengthy interview with CNBC's "Fast Money Halftime Report," Icahn was repeatedly asked if he was concerned about the market – which has shot up considerably since Trump won the presidency – "it's nuts that the market's up 12% in a couple weeks."

  • *ICAHN: BECOMING MORE HEDGED AS STOCK MARKET RUNS UP
  • *ICAHN: CONCERNED LACK OF STOCK SELLING LAST FEW WEEKS
  • *ICAHN REITERATES CRITICISM LOW INTEREST RATES CAUSED BUBBLES
  • *ICAHN: ILL THOUGHT-OUT TO KEEP INTEREST RATES SO LOW THIS LONG
  • *ICAHN SAYS BE WARY, MANY UNCERTAINTIES AHEAD FOR STOCK MARKET
  • *ICAHN: YEAH I’M CONCERNED ABOUT THE MARKET IN THE SHORT TERM

Note that all of the market's gains of the last two years are in this post-Trump period…

Icahn admitted he was "concerned about the market in the short term" because there are "so many factors here that you have to worry about," warning about China…

"If you get into a trade war with China, sooner or later we'll have to come to grips with that," he said. "And maybe it's better to do it sooner, but that's not my decision at all."

 

"I remember the day something like that would really knock the hell out of the market," he continued. "But maybe if you're going to do it, you should get it over with, right?"

Icahn was, however, not finished, as he warned that it was "dangerous to have all the money 'dammed up' in ETFs" slamming companies who deferred capital investment to buyback more stocks – Icahn called for government to "control" companies and implicitly prevent them from using borrowed money to buy back stock

Finally, on questions relating to conflicts-of-interest for Icahn, who will be providing advice on an SEC head and a regulatory agenda that, in many cases, effect his investments, the billionaire told CNBC such sentiment was "crazy."

via http://ift.tt/2i6g9SG Tyler Durden

Sixth Circuit Court: Police Can Shoot Dogs For Nothing More Than Barking

When is it constitutional for a police officer to shoot a dog during a raid? Any time it moves or barks, according to a federal appeals court.

In a ruling released Monday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found Battle Creek, Mich. police officers were justified in shooting two pit bulls while executing a search warrant for drugs on the home of Mark and Cheryl Brown in 2013. The Brown’s sued the police department in 2015, arguing the killing of their dogs violated their constitutional rights.

The ruling creates a similar legal standard in the Sixth Circuit—which includes Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee—that several other federal appeals courts have established, but it also appears to expand when it is acceptable for an officer to shoot a dog.

After breaking through the Brown’s door, one Battle Creek officer testified that the first dog “had only moved a few inches” toward him before he shot it. The second dog ran into the basement.

“The second dog was not moving towards the officers when they discovered her in the basement, but rather she was ‘just standing there,’ barking and was turned sideways to the officers,” the court narrative continues. “Klein then fired the first two rounds at the second dog.”

Police departments around the country have been hit with expensive lawsuits for shooting family pets in recent years, following a 2005 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the unreasonable killing of a dog by a police officer is an unconstitutional “seizure” of property under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. In September, a federal jury ordered the city of Hartford, Connecticut, to pay a whopping $200,000 to a family whose St. Bernard was shot by city police in 2006. Commerce City, Colorado, settled a dog shooting case in January for $262,500.

The Sixth Circuit readily agreed with its sister court’s constitutional standard, but it found the Battle Creek officers’ actions were reasonable because they had no knowledge of the dogs until they arrived at the house, and because there was no witness testimony rebutting the officers’ narrative of what happened inside.

“The standard we set out today is that a police officer’s use of deadly force against a dog while executing a warrant to search a home for illegal drug activity is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when, given the totality of the circumstances and viewed from the perspective of an objectively reasonable officer, the dog poses an imminent threat to the officer’s safety,” the court wrote.

As I reported in my November investigation of several ongoing lawsuits against the Detroit Police department for shooting family dogs, owners’ accounts often differed wildly from the official police narrative of events. The officers almost always described dogs as “lunging” and “vicious” to justify their status as an imminent threat.

Yet, this is the totality of the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning for the reasonableness of the shooting of the second dog:

“Officer Klein testified that the dog, a 53-pound unleashed pit bull, was standing in the middle of the basement, barking, when he fired the first two rounds,” the court wrote. “The officers testified that they were unable to safely clear the basement with both dogs there. Therefore, we find that it was reasonable for Officer Klein to shoot the second dog.”

The Sixth Circuit’s definition of “reasonableness” here is so broad that it would it appear to classify any dog that is not standing still and silent as an imminent threat.

Detroit attorney Chris Olson, who is representing several dog owners suing the Detroit Police Department, says that while the ruling in many ways hews to the established Ninth Circuit standard, it departs significantly enough that it could be considered a circuit split—often a favorable factor in the Supreme Court’s decisions on whether to review cases.

“To the extent that the case suggests that you can shoot a dog just because it’s not moving and you have to clear a room, I just don’t buy it,” Olson says. “And I don’t think the Ninth Circuit case supports that kind of activity.”

Michael Oz is the director of a documentary examining police shootings of dogs, Of Dogs and Men, that was released this summer. He says the case would set an objectively unreasonable standard for dogs who end up in the line of fire.

“The greatest dog trainer in the world will not be able to keep a dog still and silent in the case of a dynamic entry like that,” Oz says. “That’s just not in their nature. If the standard that needs to be met to shoot is either moving or barking, then we can just assume that standard fits every dog [police] will ever encounter. It’s the same as no standard.”

Battle Creek Police Chief Jim Blocker told the Battle Creek Enquirer he was pleased with the ruling:

“It was a good ruling,” Police Chief Jim Blocker said. “It pointed out some things we have to improve upon, but supported our operating concept that officers must act within reason.”

Blocker said “officers have milliseconds to make a decision and it is a judgment call and based on too many variables. Ensuring officer safety and preventing the destruction of evidence must be protected.”

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2i6rDG1
via IFTTT

Italy Proves That Banks Are Not The Risk-Free Fantasy We’re Told To Believe

Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

In the late 1400s, the city-states of Italy were among most dominant powers in the world.

Most of the city-states had abandoned the feudal system that persisted across Europe.

So Italy was one of the only places on the continent where anyone, including foreigners, could work hard, take risks, and become wealthy.

People could start businesses and own private property– revolutionary concepts in the 1400s.

Italy was truly the America of its day, and people from all over Europe flocked to the city-states in search of wealth and freedom.

Scientific, medical, and technological advancement flourished, as did commerce and banking.

The Medici Bank in Florence was by far the largest bank in Europe in the 1400s, and they helped popularize a double-entry system of accounting and the widespread use of credit, both of which still define modern banking.

Early Renaissance banks realized that hauling giant bags of gold coins across the countryside to settle payments with one another was expensive and risky.

Instead, every time they made or received a payment, the banks would adjust their accounting ledgers and then periodically get together to make sure everyone’s numbers matched up.

Italian banks perfected this technique and developed a comprehensive set of accounting rules that everyone followed.

When the bank Monte dei Paschi di Siena was founded in 1472, they adopted this system as well.

What’s interesting is that Monte dei Paschi di Siena still exists today (just barely).

And they’re basically still using the same system.

Despite all of our modern technology, commercial banking has changed very little over the past 5+ centuries.

Even today, whenever banks transact with one another, they’re merely making accounting entries in their ledgers.

It’s not like there’s actually any money that changes hands. Banks don’t FedEx cash or coin to one another to settle up. It’s all just digits on an electronic balance sheet.

The biggest “advance” in modern banking has been the involvement of government and central banks.

Back in the Renaissance, banks spent years building up a solid reputation as conservative, responsible custodians of other people’s money.

They had to earn their customer’s trust the old-fashioned way. It wasn’t handed to them by some government agency.

Today, few people give a single thought about their bank.

We’ve been programmed to sign over our life’s savings to a complete stranger simply because the government says it’s OK.

That same government has lied to us about everything else imaginable, ranging from the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction to whether or not he had “sexual relations with that woman.”

Yet this government-sanctioned trust is routinely abused.

Hardly a month goes by these days without a major banking scandal.

Wells Fargo is in the spotlight right now for having fraudulently manufactured new accounts without customers’ consent (and then charging FEES on top of that).

And right this moment Wells Fargo is scrambling once again for submitting a questionable solvency plan to the Federal Reserve.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Banks have been caught red-handed colluding to manipulate interest rates, exchange rates, and commodities prices.

They force law-abiding customers to jump through bureaucratic hoops to prove that we aren’t criminal terrorists, but then giant banks like HSBC and Barclays literally do business with terrorist groups.

They maintain very loose controls, allowing “rogue traders” to lose billions of dollars on stupid bets.

And they maintain a strict culture of secrecy.

As depositors, we don’t have the foggiest idea what our banks are actually doing with our money.

Their financial statements provide cursory summary numbers for categories like “LOANS” or “INVESTMENTS”.

But there’s no detail for us to see whether those loans and investments are safe and conservative… or whether they’ve put our savings in danger once again.

Banks also notoriously abuse accounting tricks to massage their numbers and hide losses.

One common technique that banks have used over the last few years is reclassifying their bond investments.

Typically a bank has to report the gains and losses of its bond investments each quarter.

But banks have the option to reclassify their bond investments into a different category called “hold to maturity,” in which they no longer have to report the losses.

As you can imagine, when bond values decline, many banks conveniently reclassify their portfolios, thus hiding the losses.

Amazingly enough, this deceit is totally legal under modern accounting rules.

Look, I’m not suggesting that banks are about to collapse. Some of them are in great shape.

And others… yeah, they’re about to collapse. Like Monte dei Paschi di Siena, and most of the rest of the Italian banking system.

What’s important is to realize that banking is a black box with zero transparency, NOT the risk-free fantasy that we have been told.

We can see this right now in Italy.

If a bank goes under, shareholders will be wiped out first.

But as a depositor, you’re actually a creditor of the bank– an unsecured creditor who has nothing more than a claim on your account balance.

Most countries, including Canada, the United States, and most of Europe, have passed “bail-in” legislation to penalize a bank’s creditors in the event they collapse.

Europe’s Union Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive became effective on January 1st, and the Federal Reserve is issuing a new bail-in rule next week.

So, depositors can be on the hook for a bank’s losses as well, just as we saw in Cyprus back in 2013.

Depositors are supposedly protected by deposit insurance like the FDIC.

But a single bank failure can easily wipe out these insurance funds (which happened in 2008).

And most governments are now too broke to recapitalize them.

Bottom line: It matters where you put your money. They evidence is pretty obvious that banks are not risk-free.

Why take the chance?

You can quickly mitigate these risks at practically zero cost by holding a portion of your savings in a safer, better capitalized bank… or outside the banking system in physical cash or gold.

Do you have a Plan B?

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