Category: zerohedge

From Russell Napier of ERIC

It is with regret and sadness we announce the death of money on November 16th 2014 in Brisbane, Australia

‘A mark, a yen, a buck, or a pound
A buck or a pound
A buck or a pound
Is all that makes the world go ’round;
That clinking, clanking sound
Can make the world go ’round.’

      “Money” from Cabaret by Kander & Ebb

In the musical Cabaret, Sally Bowles and the Emcee sing about money from the perspective of those witnessing its collapse in value in real terms in the great German hyperinflation of 1923.

Less than a decade later, and a continent away, a young lawyer from Youngstown, Ohio noted on July 25th 1932 how money’s value could also fall in nominal terms:

“A considerable traffic has grown up in Youngstown in purchase and sale at a discount of Pass-Books on the Dollar Bank, City Trust and Home Savings Banks. Prices vary from 60% to 70% cash. All of these banks are now open but are not paying out funds.”

      The Great Depression – A Diary: Benjamin Roth (first published 2009)

In Youngstown the bank deposit, an asset previously referred to as “money”, had fallen by up to 40% relative to the value of cash. The G20 announcement in Brisbane on November 16th will formalize a “bail in” for large-scale depositors raising the spectre that their deposits are, as many were in 1932, worth less than banknotes. It will be very clear that the value of bank deposits can fall in nominal terms.

On Sunday in Brisbane the G20 will announce that bank deposits are just part of commercial banks’ capital structure, and also that they are far from the most senior portion of that structure. With deposits then subjected to a decline in nominal value following a bank failure, it is self-evident that a bank deposit is no longer money in the way a banknote is. If a banknote cannot be subjected to a decline in nominal value, we need to ask whether banknotes can act as a superior store of value than bank deposits? If that is the case, will some investors prefer banknotes to bank deposits as a form of savings? Such a change in preference is known as a “bank run.”

Each country will introduce its own legislation to effect the ‘ bail-in’ agreed by the G20 this coming weekend. The consultation document from the UK’s Treasury lists the following bank creditors who will rank ABOVE depositors in a ‘failing’ financial institution:

• Liabilities representing protected deposits (in the UK the government guarantee protects 100% of deposits up to the value of GBP85,000)
• any liability, so far as it is secured
• Liabilities that the bank has by virtue of holding client assets
• Liabilities arising with an original maturity of less than 7 days owed by the banks to a credit institution or investment firm
• Liabilities arising from participation in designated settlement systems
• Liabilities owed to central counterparties recognized by the European Securities and Markets Authorities… on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade depositaries
• Liabilities owed to an employee or former employee in relation to salary or other remuneration, except variable remuneration
• Liabilities owed to an employee or former employee in relation to rights under a pension scheme, except rights to discretionary benefits
• Liabilities owed to creditors arising from the provision to the bank of goods or service (other than financial services) that are critical to the daily functioning of its operations

The above list makes it clear that deposits larger than GBP85,000 will rank ahead of the bond holders of banks, but they will rank above little else. Importantly, both borrowings of the banks of less than 7 days maturity from other financial institutions and sums owed by banks in their role as counterparties to OTC derivatives will rank above large deposits.

Large deposits at banks are no longer money, as this legislation will formally push them down through the capital structure to a position of material capital risk in any “failing” institution. In our last financial crisis, deposits were de facto guaranteed by the state, but from November 16th holders of large-scale deposits will be, both de facto and de jure, just another creditor squabbling over their share of the assets of a failed bank.

Interestingly, HM Treasury uses the word ‘failing’ rather than “failed” in its consultation document and investors could find their large deposits frozen for a prolonged period in any “failing” institution while the courts unpick the capital structure and decide exactly where any losses should fall.

If we have another Lehman Brothers collapse, large-scale depositors could find themselves in the courts for years before final adjudication on the scale of their losses could be established. During this period would this illiquid asset, formerly called a deposit and now subject to an unknown capital loss, be considered money? Clearly it would not, as its illiquidity and likely decline in nominal value would make it unacceptable as a medium of exchange.

From November 16th 2014 the large-scale deposit at a commercial bank is, at best, a lesser form of money, and to many it will cease to be money at all as its nominal value can fall and it could cease to be accepted as a medium of exchange.

Fortunately, the developed world’s commercial banks are flush with central bank reserves and these are instantly convertible into the banknotes which they may need to meet demand from depositors. While the huge level of reserves on the balance sheet is a buffer, the funding of fractional reserve banks is still very negatively impacted by a shift from deposits to bank notes. With deflationary forces gathering momentum, this further impediment to the extension of commercial bank credit would be another factor preventing central bank monetary largesse translating into growth and inflation.

As the world’s smartest lawyer Charlie Munger is fond of saying, “Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome.” Some simple mathematics reveals that the November 16th announcement will create a very major incentive for investors to change deposits into banknotes.

Consider that the standard pallet measures 1 metre by 1.2 metres and will take 84 piles of Euro 500 banknotes. The UK’s Health and Safety Executive recommends that the height of a pallet should not exceed the widest side of its base. A 1.2 metre high pile of banknotes contains 11,000 notes and thus each pallet can safely hold 84 piles of 11,000 banknotes. A pallet of safely stacked 924,000 Euro 500 banknotes is therefore worth Euro462m.

There is a small warehouse for rent near Newry, at the foot of the Mourne Mountains in Northern Ireland. Given its dimensions (16.5m x 9.0m x 5.6m) one could stack 468 pallets of 500 Euro notes representing Euro 216bn. At the current bank deposit rate of minus 50bp per annum, the cost of carry to have Euro 216bn on deposit with a commercial bank would be Euro 1,081m. The annual cost of the warehousing space is around Euro 7,000!

Now clearly this warehouse will need significant private security, but in Northern Ireland there is an over supply of such security due to a structural change in market conditions, and prices are reasonable. Anyway, just how much security could you afford if you charged clients 20bp to hold their Euro 216bn, and generated an annual fee of Euro432 million, with an annual saving to your clients of about Euro 648 million?

This represents both a yield improvement and a significant improvement in capital risk compared to bank deposits, as bank notes cannot be “bailed in.” There is therefore an annual profit of around Euro432 million for the manager with a warehouse and friends in low places. Anyone for the “Mourne Or Newry Enhanced Yield Banknote Actively Guarded Security”, or MONEY BAGS for short?

As ever, there is a first-mover advantage. There are only about 600 million 500 Euro notes available, though sizeable arbitrage profits still exist on warehouses full of 200 Euro notes. As the function of such warehouses is focused on the role of money as a store of value, a role no longer fulfilled by the large-scale deposit, one should expect a premium to develop, and potentially a secondary market in note-filled, well-protected warehouses. For warehouses full of German Euro notes — those are the ones with a serial number beginning in X — a particularly high premium may arise due to risks of a future Euro break-up.

Irish legend tells of an X at the end of the rainbow marking the position of a pot of gold. In our post- Brisbane world, investors may be content to find just a bundle of paper marked with an X.

Oh, Mary, this London’s a wonderful sight
With people here working by day and by night.
They don’t sow potatoes nor barley nor wheat,
But there’s gangs of them diggin’ for gold in the street

 

At least when I asked them, that’s what I was told,
So I just took a hand at this diggin’ for gold,
But for all that I’ve found there, I might as well be
In the place where the dark Mourne sweeps down to
the sea.’

      Percy French 1854-1920

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1yzBiG8 Tyler Durden

The “compromise” refrain from last week’s devastating, for the democrats, midterm election result lasted about one week. Because according to the NYT, here comes Obama with a package of executive actions which will assure Congress full of furious Republicans, which will result in a broad overhaul of the nation’s immigration enforcement system but more importantly, will result in up to five million potential democrat voter illegal immigrants “from the threat of deportation and provide many of them with work permits, according to administration officials who have direct knowledge of the plan.”

Here are the key details of the latest set of Obama executive orders, which are assured to throw the nation into another politial crisis:

One key piece of the order, officials said, will allow many parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents to obtain legal work documents and no longer worry about being discovered, separated from their families and sent away.

 

That part of Mr. Obama’s plan alone could affect as many as 3.3 million people who have been living in the United States illegally for at least five years, according to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute, an immigration research organization in Washington. But the White House is also considering a stricter policy that would limit the benefits to people who have lived in the country for at least 10 years, or about 2.5 million people

 

Extending protections to more undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children, and to their parents, could affect an additional one million or more if they are included in the final plan that the president announces.

So are deportations about to become thing of the past? Not exactly: “A new enforcement memorandum, which will direct the actions of Border Patrol agents and judges at the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and other federal law enforcement and judicial agencies, will make clear that deportations should still proceed for convicted criminals, foreigners who pose national security risks and recent border crossers, officials said.“

So for the tens of millions of illegals currently in the US, as well as their extended families residing abroad, you are in luck, and soon to be in possession of a green card providing you with all the benefits of America’s insolvent welfare state. And not to mention a fair chance at those 4.7 million job openings that the BLS’ JOLTS report revealed earlier today.

For US citizens who were born here, and who did not illegally cross the border to get inside the country: better luck next time.

Far more amusing for everyone is that the plan was conceived and finalized while president “Chewbama” was being mocked for his Nicorette habit, and belittled during his most recent trip to APEC in Beijing, where his crowning achievement was agreeing with China not to launch World War III.

White House officials declined to comment publicly before a formal announcement by Mr. Obama, who will return from an eight-day trip to Asia on Sunday. Administration officials said details about the package of executive actions were still being finished and could change. An announcement could be pushed off until next month but will not be delayed into next year, officials said.

As for the US, which is supposedly expected to grow at a above trendline 3% growth rate, through the harsh polar vortex 2.0 winter and in a world in which all major economies are rapidly crashing, what appears to be on the horizong is yet another constitutional crisis, and perhaps, finally, the dreader “impeachment” word:

The decision to move forward sets in motion a political confrontation between Mr. Obama and his Republican adversaries that is likely to affect budget negotiations and debate about Loretta E. Lynch, the president’s nominee to be attorney general, during the lame-duck session of Congress that began this week. It is certain to further enrage Republicans as they take control of both chambers of Congress early next year.

 

A group of Republicans — led by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Senator Mike Lee of Utah and Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama — is already planning to thwart any executive action by the president on immigration. The senators are hoping to rally their fellow Republicans to oppose efforts to pass a budget next month unless it explicitly prohibits the president from enacting what they call “executive amnesty” for people in the country illegally.

 

“Our office stands ready to use any procedural means available to make sure the president can’t enact his illegal executive amnesty,” said Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Mr. Cruz.

 

But the president and his top aides have concluded that acting unilaterally is in the interest of the country and the only way to increase political pressure on Republicans to eventually support a legislative overhaul that could put millions of illegal immigrants on a path to legal status and perhaps citizenship. Mr. Obama has told lawmakers privately and publicly that he will reverse his executive orders if they pass a comprehensive bill that he agrees to sign.

 

***

 

“I think it will create a backlash in the country that could actually set the cause back and inflame our politics in a way that I don’t think will be conducive to solving the problem,” said Senator Angus King of Maine, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats and supports an immigration overhaul.

Hispanics disagree:

Many pro-immigration groups and advocates — as well as the Hispanic voters who could be crucial for Democrats’ hopes of winning the White House in 2016 — are expecting bold action, having grown increasingly frustrated after watching a sweeping bipartisan immigration bill fall prey to a gridlocked Congress last year.

 

Some groups, like the United We Dream network, the largest organization of young undocumented immigrants, are preparing to deploy teams to early 2016 states like Iowa and New Hampshire to hold presidential candidates accountable and press for more action.

 

“From our perspective, the president has the power, the precedent and the priority for action on his side,” said Clarissa Martínez-De-Castro, deputy vice president of the National Council of La Raza. The opportunity “to go big and bold is what will allow the country to derive the biggest benefit on both the economic side and the national security side.”

And if that fails, America’s not so smart voters (according to the creator of Obamacare of course), can always just go back to staring at Kim Kardashian’ass.

Most impotantly, all of the above is bullish for stocks, as is everything else.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1uqnv5s Tyler Durden

Today is a ‘beautiful day’ for U2’s front-man Bono as a ‘miracle’ saved him from what could easily have become ‘Wednesday bloody Wednesday’ for him and his friends as they flew from Dublin to Berlin. As NBC News reports, Bono had a mid-air scare on Wednesday when the rear door of his private jet plummeted at least 15,000 feet to the ground. The pilots said they noticed a rumble similar to turbulence during a right-hand turn on approach, but that they felt no major change in how the plane was flying even as luggage and door fell to earth… The search for the missing door continues but investigators were overheard saying they ‘still hadn’t found what they’re looking for’.

 

 

As NBC News reports,

U2 singer Bono had a mid-air scare on Wednesday when the rear door of his private jet plummeted at least 15,000 feet to the ground. The rock star and four friends were aboard the Learjet 60 traveling from Dublin to Berlin when the mishap occurred over Germany, authorities said. The plane landed safely and the two pilots only found out on the ground that the aircraft had lost its door and two suitcases from the luggage compartment.

 

 

The door has not been found. “The aircraft and its rear door are painted black, so the search in the wooded area will be difficult,” said Germout Freitag, a spokesman for the German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation. U2 is in Berlin to receive a Bambi entertainment award. After he landed on Wednesday, Bono met with a German lawmaker.

*  *  *

The question is… is Bono also friends with Putin?

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1wtgi1n Tyler Durden

WTI has now dropped over $2 today with December futures trading below $75 for the first time in over 4 years… “unequivocally good news” right?

 

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

A month ago we wrote that with oil plunging, the flipside of the widely documented “secret” deal by Obama/Kerry with the Saudis to crush Russia with low, low oil prices, is that none other than America’s own shale industry would be placed under the microscope soon, as its viability at a price well below the shale industry’s cost curve is suddenly put in doubt.

We concluded that “while we understand if Saudi Arabia is employing a dumping strategy to punish the Kremlin as per the “deal” with Obama’s White House, very soon there will be a very vocal, very insolvent and very domestic shale community demanding answers from the Obama administration, as once again the “costs” meant to punish Russia end up crippling the only truly viable industry under the current presidency. As a reminder, the last time Obama threatened Russia with “costs”, he sent Europe into a triple-dip recession. It would truly be the crowning achievement of Obama’s career if, amazingly, he manages to bankrupt the US shale “miracle” next.”

Since then crude has continued to slide, and both Brent and WTI are now trading at a price where just a year ago would seem ludicrous: in the mid-$70s. And the future of America’s “shale miracle” has only gotten ever murkier since a month ago.

But suddenly it is not just the shale companies that are starting to look impaired. According to a Deutsche Bank analysis looking at what the “tipping point” for highly levered companies is in “oil price terms”, things start to get really ugly should crude drop another $15 or so per barrell. Its conclusion: “we would expect to see 1/3rd of US energy Bs/CCCs to restructure, which would imply a 15% default rate for overall US HY energy, and a 2.5% contribution to the broad US HY default rate…. A shock of that magnitude could be sufficient to trigger a  broader HY market default cycle, if materialized. “

Here are the details:

So how big of an impact on fundamentals should we expect from the move in oil price so far and where is the true tipping point for the sector? Let’s start with some basic datapoint describing the energy sector – it is the largest single industry component of the USD DM HY index, however, given this market’s relatively good sector diversification, it only represents 16% of its market value (figure 2). Energy is noticeably tilted towards higher quality, with BB/B/CCC proportions at 53/35/12, compared to overall market at 47/37/17. We find further confirmation to this higher-quality tilt by looking at Figure 3 below, which shows its leverage being around 3.4x compared to 4.0x for overall market. Similarly, their interest coverage stands at noticeably higher levels, even having declined substantially in recent years (Figure 4).

 

 

Energy issuer leverage has increased faster than that of the rest of the market in recent years, but this trend has largely exhausted itself in recent quarters. As Figure 5 demonstrates, growth rates in total debt outstanding among US HY energy names have been only slightly higher relative to the rest of HY market. It is almost certain in our mind that with the current shakeout in this space further incremental leverage will be a lot harder to come by going forward.

 

Perhaps the most unsustainable trend that existed in energy going into this episode shown in Figure 6, which plots the sector’s overall capex expenditure, as a pct of EBITDAs. The graph averaged 150% level over the past four years, clearly the kind of development that could not sustain itself over a longer-term horizon. Our 45%-full sample of issuers reporting Q3 numbers has shown this figure coming down to 110%, a move in the right direction, and  yet a level that suggests further capacity for decline. This chart also shows, perhaps better than any other we have seen, the extent to which current economic  recovery in the US has in fact been driven by the energy development story alone.

 

 

The next question we would like to address here is to what extent the move in oil so far could translate into actual credit losses across the energy sector. To help us approach this question we are borrowing from the material we are going to discuss in-depth in next week’s report on our views on timing/extent of the upcoming default cycle. For the purposes of the current exercise we will limit ourselves to saying that we have identified total debt/enterprise value (D/EV) as an important factor helping us narrow down the list of potential defaulters. Specifically, our historical analysis shows that names that go into restructuring, on average, have their D/EV ratio at 65% two years prior to default, and, expectedly, this ratio rises all the way to 100% at the time of restructuring. From experiences in 2008-09 credit cycle we have also determined that there was a 1:3 relationship between the number of defaulting issuers and the number of issuers trading at 65%+ D/EV prior to the cycle. Again, we are going to present detailed evidence behind these assumptions in the next week’s report.

 

For the time being, we will limit ourselves to applying these metrics to current valuations in the US HY energy sector, and specifically, its single-B/CCC segment. At the moment, average D/EV metric here is 55%, up from 43% in late June, before the 26% move lower in oil. About 28 pct of energy B/CCC names are trading at 65%+ D/EV, implying an 8.5% default rate among them, assuming historical 1/3rd default probability holds. This would translate into a 4.3% default rate for the overall US HY energy sector (including BBs), and 0.7% across the US HY bond market.

 

Looking at the bond side of valuation picture, we find that energy Bs/CCCs are trading at a 270bp premium over non-Energy Bs/CCCs today (Figure 7). This premium implies incremental default rate of 4.5% (= spread * (1 – recovery) = 270 * (1-0.4) = 4.5%). Actual default rate among US HY Bs/CCCs is currently running at 3%, a level that we expect to increase to 5% next year (not to be confused with overall US HY default rate, currently running at 1.7% and expected to increase to 3.0% next year).

 

The bottom line is hardly as pretty as all those preaching that the lower the oil the better for the economy:

In the next step we are attempting to perform a stress-test on oil, defined this way: what would it take for overall US energy Bs/CCCs segment to start trading at 65%+ total debt/enterprise value? Our logic in modeling this scenario goes along the following lines: if a 25% drop in WTI since June 30th was sufficient to push their average D/EV from 43 to 55, then it would take a further 0.8x similar move in oil to get the whole sector to average 65 = (65-55)/(55-43) = 0.8x, which translates into another 20% decline in WTI from its recent low of $77 to roughly $60/bbl. If this scenario were to materialize, based on historical default incidence, we would expect to see 1/3rd of US energy Bs/CCCs to restructure, which would imply a 15% default rate for overall US HY energy, and a 2.5% contribution to the broad US HY default rate.

How should one trade an ongoing collapse in oil prices? Simple: sell B/CCC-rated energy bonds and wait to pick up 10%.

If this scenario were to materialize, the US energy Bs/CCCs would have to trade at spreads north of 1,800bp, or about a 1,000bps away from its current levels. Such a spread widening translates into a 40pt drop in average dollar price from its current level of 92pts for energy Bs/CCCs.

It gets worse, because energy CapEx is about to tumble, which means far less exploration (and US fixed investment thus GDP), far less supply, and ultimately a higher oil price.

As the market adjusts to realities of sharply lower oil prices, it is important for to remember that the US HY energy sector is a higher quality part of the market. Higher credit quality will help many of them absorb an oil price shock without jeopardizing production plans or ability to service debt. Their capex rates, expressed as a pct of EBITDAs, have already declined from an average of 150% over the past four years to roughly 110% today. We still consider this level to be high and thus subject to further pressures. This in turn should work towards slower rates of supply growth, and thus ultimately towards supporting a new floor for oil prices. A 25% in oil price so far has pushed debt/enterprise valuations among US energy B/CCC names to a point suggesting 8.5% future default probability, while their bonds are pricing in a 9.5% default probability.

And the scariest conclusion of all:

Finally, our stress-test shows that a further 20% drop in WTI to $60/bbl is likely to push the whole sector into distress, a scenario where average B/CCC  energy name will start trading at 65% D/EV, implying a 30% default rate for the whole segment. A shock of that magnitude could be sufficient to trigger a  broader HY market default cycle, if materialized.

And now back to the old “plunging oil prices are good for the economy” spin cycle.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1EGH10N Tyler Durden

Submitted by Dr. Constantin Gurdgiev via True Economics blog,

Ireland has been basking in the spot of an unusual sunshine this October. The cold spell, that normally takes the island over at the end of the month and into early November, coating it in a wet blanket of wind-swept and never ending rains was nowhere to be seen, replaced by the strangely regular appearances of the sun, blue skies and sight of the still leafy, colour-turned trees.
 
Similarly, the markets have been kind to Ireland too. There is not a day going by without a praise for the country reforms or recovery or both from some European leader or a Wall Street analyst or a hired gun from the ‘official’ sectors of the Irish state gracing international newspapers and media screens. CDS are down, estimated probabilities of default are down, bond yields are down. Sales of new bonds are up. Foreign direct investment figures are up. Jobs announcements are up. And forecasts… well, forecasts just keep on climbing.
 
In the latest round, the European Commission weighed in with its prediction that Ireland will outgrow its euro area peers by some 3-fold in 2014 and 2015.
 
Truth is, all of this is largely nonsense. Ireland is a small open economy with trade and investment exposures to the Euro area, the US and the UK. In almost even shares.
 
This means three things, relating to the Irish economy forecasts. 

Firstly, Ireland benefits from the accommodative monetary policy in the Euro area (making its gargantuan public and private debts overhang more manageable, for now, and its exports cheaper).

 

Secondly, due to the geographic distribution of its trade and investment links, Ireland is also benefitting from the faster growth in demand in the UK and the US.

 

Both points translate into more robust exports performance for Ireland than for its European peers. But both also mean that most of Ireland’s trade in goods and services is nothing more than transfer pricing and tax optimisation-driven shifting of digits across the borders. Yes, the multinational companies provide some employment – roughly 10 percent of the country total. But beyond that, they deliver little. The hiring they are doing is increasingly about bringing people with skills from abroad rather than taking people for training from within. And while in January-October 2013 corporation taxes accounted for just 9.46% of total tax revenues collected in Ireland, over the same period this year, the number is 9.24%.

 

So whilst the external trade tends to boost Ireland’s GDP, the fact that over 3/4 of the country exports are accounted for by the multinationals, making Ireland’s GDP / GNP gap the largest of all advanced economies. That’s “growth in and profits out” model of an economy run on FDI.

 

Which brings us to the third point about Ireland’s growth outlook: it is highly unpredictable. Whilst exports are volatile because they are dominated by the considerations of tax optimisation rather than actual production, the domestic economy is desperately searching for a growth catalyst, and to-date, finding none strong enough.

 

In H1 2014 the GDP / GNP gap was actually slightly lowered. But not by a pick up in the domestic activity. The reclassifications of R&D spending as investment in ESA 2010 standards adopted by Ireland ahead of all other countries in the euro area generated a significant uplift in GNP. Overnight, Irish ‘investment’ side of the National Accounts boomed by almost EUR10 billion (in full year 2013 terms). And surprisingly high retention of profits by the Multinationals in Ireland (most likely prompted by the sluggish capex spending in the stagnating global economy) further helped to temporarily and superficially boost the GNP.

Meanwhile, in the real Irish economy, the country remains the second worst hit by the crisis in the euro area. As shown below, Ireland’s real GDP in per capita terms is down off the 2007 peaks and all the miracles of the recovery are unlikely to get it anywhere near the euro area averages any time soon.

 

 
Of course, the real long-run question for Ireland is whether the current rates of growth observed in 2014 to-date (closer to 5% per annum) are sustainable in the medium term.
 
The answer rests with the potential growth rates in the two sectors that make up Ireland’s bipolar economy:

1) Domestic demand: Domestic demand is starting to show some signs of revival, exactly in the areas where one would expect these signs to materialise at this early stage of the recovery: first domestic investment, then domestic consumption.

 

Domestic spending is rising (at 1-2% per annum rate) on both household consumption and public spending uplifts. We can expect this trend to continue, without significant acceleration until H1 2016, as domestic spending is being held back by slow growth in wages and continued high rates of tax extraction from personal incomes.

 

Domestic investment has been a beneficiary (at the aggregate level) of institutional investors and some domestic cash buyers flooding into the distressed property markets since H2 2012. Accounting gimmickry of ESA 2010 standards is boosting this side of the National Accounts too. The property markets cash-buying spree is now tapering off, and is being partially replaced by the banks starting to issue new mortgages. I suspect this trend will lose more momentum over H1 2015. Aside from this, there is no uplift in domestic investment. Corporate investment is weak, stripping out foreign companies tax inversions. Demand for capital goods is weak. Which underpins the nature of jobs creation claims presented by the Government. Official figures for new jobs created include adjustments made to the labour force surveys in the wake of the last Census, resulting in a massive uplift in the numbers declaring themselves as being employed as farmers back in 2013. Stripping these adjustments out, instead of ca 70,000 new jobs ‘created’ claimed by the Government, real private sector non-farm payrolls are up roughly 27,000 on 2011 levels. No wonder capital investment is running weak. Meanwhile, labour force participation rate is falling due to exits from the workforce, early retirements, and emigration.

 

2) External demand picture is more complex. Rates of growth in exports of services – the factor that drove up Irish current account surpluses in 2010-2013 – are slowing down as Ireland exhausts large FDI sources in the ICT and Financial services sectors, and as negative reputation of Ireland’s tax optimisation policies sets in. In the short run, however, we can see an acceleration in FDI inflows as some of the MNCs rush in to lock into Irish ‘domicile’ before it becomes obsolete. Volatility of exports growth figures will be high in 2015-2016. But in the longer run, we can expect a downward trend in the rates of growth in exports and a pick up in the rates of growth in imports, assuming domestic demand picks up. On manufacturing side, things have been improving due to weakening of the euro. However, there are few new catalysts for growth in the sector at this point in time. Over the longer time horizon there are adverse potential headwinds coming up as patent-cliff-hit pharma companies are gradually starting to bypass Ireland in locating new activities.

In brief, there is little clarity on the future potential growth dynamics. Key ingredients for sustained optimism that are lacking include actual structural reforms (virtually none have been implemented to date and even fewer have been properly planned and resourced) and clear catalysts for growth (there are no broadly-based sectoral drivers for growth other than “things are so bad, they can only get better” argument for domestic demand and “we have lots of FDI” argument for externally trading sectors).
 
One last caveat – we are already witnessing the process of unwinding of reforms that aimed to deliver moderate savings in public spending. The Government is aggressively trading down any expectations that savings in public expenditure secured in 2009-2013 will continue into the future, beyond 2015. Political cycle does not favour continuation of the past reforms as deeply unpopular and internally torn governing coalition is facing general elections before April 2016.
 
As Europe gets hungrier and hungrier for a feel-good story, as Brussels longs more and more for a poster child for its ‘crisis management’ efforts of 2008-2013, as Dublin politicians get closer and closer to facing the crisis-hit electorate, the sunshine being lavished by politicians and the media onto Ireland’s economy is likely to get only brighter. It might not feel much warmer, though, on the ground. Nor will it stave off the onset of winter.

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

While investors are told day after day that low oil prices are “unequivocally” good for America’s economy (pick your number $20, $30, $40 billion tax cut for consumers), it appears they are not buying this big lie (that appears to forget the other side of the equation of capex, jobs, and spending from the Shale Oil miracle). As oil prices push to levels where the majority of US Shale plays become non-economic on a half-cycle basis, markets are voting withtheir money and shale-based stocks are pressing to new lows (down 50-70% in the last few months).

 

At $75, oil prices are crushing more and more economic scenarios for Tight-Oil…

 

and equity investors know it…

 

Charts: Barclays and Bloomberg

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

Robo-Verifier Lona Hunt Admits, Twice, to Not Reading Foreclosure Complaint Before Signing Under Penalty of Perjury

The entire reasoning behind the Florida Supreme court taking unprecedented, historic action to amend rule 1.100(b) back in 2011 was because of the financial industry’s well documented illegal behavior. It was enacted around the time that the “robo signing” scandal had broken wide open. We now know that “robo-signing” is used to describe the process of having a person sign a document without authority to do so and/or knowledge as to that which she/he is signing, despite swearing otherwise. The “robo-signing” scandal set off a nation-wide foreclosure moratorium and ultimately led to settlements with 49 states, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency consent orders, and numerous class action and shareholder lawsuits. Mortgage foreclosure related settlements with Ocwen, LPS, Chase and others continue to roll in. Yet, no matter the amount and severity of lawsuits, settlements, and bad publicity, it appears, at least in this case, that the act of signing without proper authority or knowledge as to that which one is signing, continues. Ms. Hunt freely admitted, twice, to not reading the foreclosure complaint before signing it. Further, with her limited knowledge, it was impossible for her to truthfully and accurately verify all the facts alleged in the complaint.

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(b) states in relevant part:

When filing an action for foreclosure of a mortgage on residential real property the complaint shall be verified. When verification of a document is required, the document shall include an oath, affirmation, or the following statement: “Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing, and the facts alleged therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.”

The complaint in this case contained the above quoted language and was signed by Lona Hunt, Foreclosure Specialist for Seterus, Inc., the alleged servicer and foreclosure arm for Plaintiff, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae).

The deposition of Lona Hunt took place on October 17, 2014, during which time Ms. Hunt was questioned about her knowledge of the truth and accuracy of the facts in the foreclosure complaint, which she allegedly verified. During the deposition, Ms. Hunt admitted twice that she did not read the complaint, even though she swore in the complaint, under penalty of perjury, that she had.

Mr. Rosen: Q. Let’s take a look at the complaint. First of all, before you signed, did you read the complaint?

Lona Hunt: A. No

(Hunt Depo, P. 43 Ln. 10-13).

Later, when questioned by Plaintiff’s counsel, Ms. Hunt again admitted to not reading the complaint.

P’s Counsel: Q. Okay. Now, when you received that complaint, the draft to review for execution, did you read it first?

Lona Hunt: A. No.

(Hunt Depo, P. 55 Ln. 18-21).

It is clear that the witness understood the question posed and answered truthfully; she did not read the complaint before signing the verification. At the beginning of the deposition, Defendants’ counsel advised Ms. Hunt to verbalize when she didn’t understand a question and Ms. Hunt agreed. (Hunt Depo, P. 13 Ln. 19-25). At least twenty-three times during the relatively short deposition, Ms. Hunt stated that she either did not understand certain questions or asked counsel to repeat. (Hunt Depo, P. 8 Ln. 10, P. 9 Ln. 21, P. 11 Ln. 4, P. 19 Ln. 15, P. 20 Ln. 11, P. 20 Ln. 17, P. 22 Ln. 6, P. 22 Ln. 18, P. 25 Ln. 23, P. 26 Ln. 23, P. 31 Ln. 18, P. 38 Ln. 1, P. 42 Ln. 12, P. 42 Ln. 24, P. 44 Ln. 5, P. 44 Ln. 9, P. 45 Ln. 11, P. 48 Ln. 24, P. 52 Ln. 2, P. 53 Ln. 10, P. 53, Ln. 16, P. 57 Ln. 9, P. 59 Ln. 3). However, when asked if she read the complaint, once by Defense counsel and once by Plaintiff’s counsel, Ms. Hunt did not need clarification and did not hesitate to answer. The answer and the truth came right out.

Plaintiff’s counsel then lead Ms. Hunt to agree that she had read it as she was going through to “verify the various facts.”

P’s Counsel: Q. Did you read it as you were going through to verify the various facts that are set forth in the complaint?

. . .

Lona Hunt: A. Yes.

(Hunt Depo. P. 55 Ln. 22 – Pg. 56 Ln. 3)

Ms. Hunt’s agreement that she read it as she was going through to “verify the various facts” related only to the fact that Ms. Hunt scanned the complaint to verify Defendant’s name, the county, the UPB, and the date of default.

Mr. Rosen: Q. What is it that you were looking for to compare between the verified complaint and what was on the computer?

Lona Hunt: A. Defendant’s name, the county.

. . .

Mr. Rosen: Q. The defendant’s name, the county?

Lona Hunt: A. The UPB and the date.

Mr. Rosen: Q. And that’s the date of?

Lona Hunt: A. The default.

Mr. Rosen: Q. Okay. Anything else that you were looking at between the verified complaint and what was on the computer screen?

. . .

Lona Hunt: A. No.

Mr. Rosen: Q. What was on the computer screen?

Lona Hunt: A. Their loan number, their name, their address, their UPB and the default date.

Mr. Rosen: Q. And was that through that PULS system as well?

Lona Hunt: A. Yes

(Hunt Depo, P. 36 Ln. 15 – P. 37 Ln. 16).

Mr. Rosen: Q. Was there anything else you looked at other than the PULS report when also looking at the complaint?

. . .

Lona Hunt: A. The note and mortgage.

Mr. Rosen: Q. Anything else?

Lona Hunt: A. No.

(Hunt Depo, P. 38 Ln. 3-10).

Even if Ms. Hunt had read the complaint before signing it, she admitted that she could not verify the truth and accuracy of the alleged facts in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 as well as in the “wherefore” clause of the Complaint. Although Ms. Hunt signed the verification on the Complaint under penalty of perjury and swore that all of the facts alleged in the Complaint were true and correct to the best of her knowledge and belief, she admitted numerous times in her deposition that she did not know the facts she was verifying, did not understand the words used in the complaint, and/or could not accurately describe where the information for those facts came from.

The Complaint and Ms. Hunt’s testimony are as follows, respectively.

Paragraph 1 of Complaint states “. . . All conditions precedent to the filing of this matter have been completed and/or waived.” Ms. Hunt admitted that she did not know what this meant:

Mr. Rosen: Q. And also in paragraph 1 there is the word “condition precedent.” What does condition precedent mean?

. . .

Lona Hunt: A. I’m not sure.

. . .

Mr. Rosen: Q. I just want to know if you know what that means?

Lona Hunt: A. I don’t understand, no.

Mr. Rosen: Q. Okay. You understand my question, you just don’t understand what condition precedent means, is that what you’re saying?

Lona Hunt: A. Yes.

Mr. Rosen: Q. How did you know, if at all, whether or not conditions precedent to the filing of this matter had been completed or waived, if you knew?

. . .

Lona Hunt: A. I didn’t know. I don’t know.

(Hunt Depo, P. 43 Ln. 20 – P. 45 Ln. 3).

Paragraph 2 of the Complaint states that “[t]he subject-property is owned by Defendant(s), Redacted, who hold(s) possession.” Ms. Hunt’s testimony regarding paragraph 2 reveals that she is not familiar with very the basic principles of Plaintiff’s business, such as ownership of property, as she could not properly identify the document which indicated that Defendant was the record owner of the subject property.

Mr. Rosen: Q. Okay. In paragraph 2 it says subject property owned by defendant Redacted. How do you know that or do you know that?

Lona Hunt: A. The mortgage and the note.

Mr. Rosen: Q. And something in the mortgage and note tells you that they own – that Redacted owns the subject property?

. . .

Lona Hunt: A. Yes

(Hunt Depo, P. 45 Ln. 4-15).

Paragraph 3 of the Complaint states that unknown tenants in possession may claim an interest in the subject property by virtue of possession or occupancy; however their claims are subordinate, junior and inferior to the Plaintiff’s interests. Ms. Hunt admitted that she did not know if tenants were in possession and further did not know what it meant to be subordinate, junior or inferior to Plaintiff’s lien. After reading paragraph 3, Ms. Hunt was asked:

Mr. Rosen: Q. Did you know if that was the case that there were any tenants in possession of the property?

Lona Hunt: A. No.

Mr. Rosen: Q. And what does it mean to be subordinate, junior and inferior to the lien of plaintiff’s mortgage?

. . .

Lona Hunt: A. I’m not sure.

(Hunt Depo, P. 45 Ln. 25 – P. 46 Ln. 7).

Similarly, Ms. Hunt did not know the truth or accuracy of Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, which states that unknown spouses, heirs, devisees, etc. may have an interest in the subject property which is subordinate, junior and inferior to Plaintiff’s.

Mr. Rosen: Q. And in the next paragraph, paragraph 4, that in addition to all other defendants and it says, “Unknown spouses heirs, devisees, grantees, assignees, creditors, trustees, successors in interest or other parties claiming interest in the subject property by, through or against any said defendants, whether natural or corporate, who are not known to be alive or dead, dissolved or existing, are joined as defendants herein.” How did you know about those other specifically – how did you know that that was the case?

. . .

Lona Hunt: A. I don’t know.

Mr. Rosen: Q. Okay. It then says, “The claims of said parties are subject, subordinate and inferior to the interest of the plaintiff.” How did you know that that was correct?

. . .

Lona Hunt: A. I didn’t know.

(Hunt Depo, P. 46 Ln. 9 – P. 47 Ln. 3).

Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Complaint states that Defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Redacted, “executed and delivered a mortgage securing payment of the note to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.” Ms. Hunt did not know what that meant.

Mr. Rosen: Q. What does it mean securing payment of the note to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., what does that mean?

Lona Hunt: A. That’s who had it. I’m not for sure.

(Hunt Depo, P. 48 Ln. 3-6).

Paragraph 5 further alleged that the mortgage mortgaged the property “then owned and in possession of the mortgagor(s).”

Mr. Rosen: Q. And how did you know that the property described in the mortgage was owned and in possession –or who owned it and who was in possession of it?

Lona Hunt: A. Fannie Mae.

Mr. Rosen: Q. How did you know that?

. . .

Lona Hunt: A. The Note.

Mr. Rosen: Q. So, just to clarify, I’m asking you how did you know who owned and was in possession of the property at the time of – at the time of origination?

Lona Hunt: A. Please repeat.

Mr. Rosen: Q. Sure. I’m asking how did you know who owned the property and who possessed the property at the time of origination?

Lona Hunt: A. By the note. I can’t look at the page.

Mr. Rosen: Q. Let’s take a look at the note. It’s attached to the complaint, Exhibit B. Can you show me where in the note it says who owned and possesses the property?

. .

Lona Hunt: A. Federal National Mortgage Association, the back page.

Mr. Rosen: Q. The back page it’s telling you who owns the property?

Lona Hunt: A. It says pay to the order of Federal National Mortgage Association.

(Hunt Depo, P. 48 Ln. 11 – P. 49 Ln. 15).

Here, Ms. Hunt further demonstrated her lack of competency to verify the Complaint as she was clearly confused with the concept of ownership of the property versus ownership of the note, despite the fact that Defendants’ counsel asked Ms. Hunt multiple times specifically about the property. Further, Ms. Hunt could not have verified paragraph 5 as she admitted that she did not even understand the term “mortgagor.”

Mr. Rosen: Q. Okay. What does it mean to be the mortgagor?

. . .

Lona Hunt: A. I’m not sure.

(Hunt Depo, P. 49 Ln. 16-23).

Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Complaint states that “Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the note.” Although Ms. Hunt correctly identified the endorsement on the note as payable to Fannie Mae, she admitted that she had no idea what that meant.

Mr. Rosen: Q. How did you know that Fannie Mae is the owner and holder of the note?

Lona Hunt: A. The note where it’s stamped at the back saying that Fannie Mae – pay to the order of Fannie Mae in our system.

Mr. Rosen: Q. Okay. What does it mean to be an owner and holder of a note?

. . .

Lona Hunt: A. I’m not – I’m not quite sure. Don’t know.

(Hunt Depo, P. 49 Ln. 25 – P. 50 Ln. 9).

Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Complaint states that “Plaintiff declares the full amount payable under the note and mortgage to be due.” Ms. Hunt did not know what that meant.

Mr. Rosen: Q. Okay. What does it mean in number 8 that the plaintiff declares the fill amount payable on the note and mortgage to be due?

. . .

Lona Hunt: A. I’m not sure.

(Hunt Depo, P. 51 Ln. 7-13).

Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Complaint states in part that “[s]aid indebtedness has been accelerated pursuant to the terms of the subject note and mortgage.” Ms. Hunt also did not know what that meant.

Mr. Rosen: Q. What does indebtedness has been accelerated, what does that mean? It’s in paragraph 9, second sentence there.

. .

Lona Hunt: A. I’m not sure.

(Hunt Depo, P. 51 Ln. 18-22).

She later admits twice that she did not know whether a notice of default/acceleration letter had been sent.

(Hunt Depo, P. 58 Ln. 22 – P.59 Ln.12).

Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is obligated to pay its attorneys a reasonable fee for their services and that Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s fees to statute and the promissory note. Again, Ms. Hunt did not know that to be true.

Mr. Rosen: Q. How did you know the plaintiff is obligated to pay its attorneys a reasonable fee for their services?

Lona Hunt: A. I don’t know. Can you repeat what you mean?

Mr. Rosen: Q. Sure. I’m just asking paragraph 10, how do you know that plaintiff is obligated to pay its attorneys a reasonable fee for their services?

Lona Hunt: A. I don’t know.

Mr. Rosen: Q. And how do you know the plaintiff is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees pursuant to Florida statute and the promissory note?

Lona Hunt: A. I’m not sure.

(Hunt Depo, P. 51 Ln. 24 – P. 52 Ln. 10).

Additionally, Ms. Hunt did not understand the term “deficiency judgment” found in Plaintiff’s pray for relief, the wherefore clause.

Mr. Rosen: Q. What is a deficiency judgment? In the wherefore clause it says deficiency judgment. What is that?

. . .

Lona Hunt: A. Not sure.

Some may argue that the terms which Ms. Hunt was unfamiliar with are “legal conclusions” and that she does not have to be familiar with those terms. However, this argument is preposterous! The document Ms. Hunt was verifying is a legal document, with legal terms to describe the factual allegations to which Ms. Hunt swore were true and correct. If Ms. Hunt does not understand the very basic terms of her employers business, she cannot possibly truthfully and accurately verify the allegations of the complaint and must not sign, under penalty of perjury, otherwise.

As a very astute judge once said to me, until someone goes to jail, nothing will change. It’s infuriating that banks continue to break the law. However, in this instance, no words can describe how outrageous this conduct is. Here Fannie Mae and Seterus, through their robo verifier, are breaking the very law with the same conduct that necessitated this particular law in the first place. It’s like a ponzi schemer, raising money to pay investors by ripping off new ones, or a drug dealer posting bond by raising money selling more drugs. Quite simply, if swearing under penalty of perjury, that you read something while later freely admitting, twice, that you did not, is not a crime, I don’t know anymore what is. If I did this, I’d expect to be charged with a crime but for the banks, I suspect this will just be treated as another “mistake” or “paperwork irregularity.” It is neither of those things. THIS IS A CRIME AND IT SHOULD BE PROSECUTED LIKE ONE, FROM THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF FANNIE MAE AND SETERUS, WHO ARE PUTTING ROBO-SIGNERS IN A POSITION TO COMMIT THEM. Here it is Pam Bondi and others, crystal clear proof that a crime has been committed. QUESTION IS – ARE YOU GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?

http://ift.tt/ZwvWP5

 

Full Deposition of Lona Hunt

 

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1EzfKLP 4closureFraud

Russell 2000 rolls over red…

 

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1oRe1Q9 Tyler Durden

Jeff Nielson for Sprott Money

 

For centuries, humanity has utilized “colloidal silver” to treat disease and infection, and to prevent disease and infection. Colloidal silver is (primarily) an internal medical treatment, created by immersing particles of silver in a colloidal solution.

 

Before the invention of antibacterial soap, colloidal silver was used as a disinfectant. It is still commonly used to kill bacteria…In ancient times silver was used in wound dressings and it was frequently used for the same purposes in America following the Civil War. It is also why churches use silver chalices in Communion to stop disease spreading through the congregation…

 

Even thousands of years ago, Ancient Greeks realized that the rich families who ate, drank, and stored food in silverware were much less likely to be ill than the commoners who ate from ceramics and used iron utensils. The rich people developed a slight blue tinge to their skin from years of silver ingestion, hence the term Blue Bloods was born…

 

With its popularity once again rising in our own societies (along with other herbal and natural tonics and remedies), not surprisingly we see “push-back” from the non-natural, chemical-pushing, pharmaceutical industry. While anti-microbial silver coatings and silver fabrics are spreading through our societies in a multitude of commercial applications – because of silver’s proven, superior anti-microbial properties – this is what we hear from the charlatans of mainstream medicine, in this case the Mayo Clinic:

 

Colloidal silver isn’t considered safe or effective for any of the health claims manufacturers make. Silver has no known purpose in the body.  [emphasis mine]

 

Note the devious nature of this smear. The Mayo Clinic itself undoubtedly uses silver-coated/silver-laced materials and/or equipment in its own facilities to utilize silver’s known properties to externally fight infection in general, and the “super-bugs” which are becoming an increasing health-care menace (in particular).

 

…at the 40th annual Association of Professionals for Infection Control conference in Florida earlier this month. NMI Health exhibited its suite of SilverCare Plus performance fabrics including scrub and lab coat material, patient gowns, linens, blankets, and cubicle curtains. Collectively these products account for over 90 percent of soft surfaces found in the patient environment.

 

However, if the Mayo Clinic charlatans (and the rest of the mainstream medicine frauds) truly wish to insist that colloidal silver “isn’t considered safe” and “has no known purpose in the body”; then why are catheters (a piece of medical equipment inserted into the body) now being coated with silver?

 

Furthermore, medical science fully understands exactly how and why silver is so effective in killing a wide range of microbial organisms, thus combating disease and infection:

 

Scientific studies have shown that pure silver quickly kills bacteria. It even kills the super-bacteria that evolve after conventional disinfecting agents kill the weak strains of bacteria. Silver acts as a catalyst and disables an enzyme that facilitates actions inside cells. It is not consumed in this process so it is available to keep working again and again. The enzyme silver destroys is required by anaerobic bacteria, viruses yeast, and molds. (Unfriendly bacteria tend to be anaerobic and friendly bacteria aerobic.) This is the action that destroys pathogens. It stops them from using the body’s own cells as vehicles for replication. Colloidal silver creates an environment that makes it impossible for pathogens to survive and multiply.

 

Since it is not designed to combat a specific pathogen but rather works against the very nature of their life cycles, it is an effective preventative agent against all illnesses caused by all pathogens including future mutations. There is no known disease-causing organism that can live in the presence of even minute traces of colloidal silver.  [emphasis mine]

 

Here we see the essence of the pharmaceutical industry’s hatred of silver-based medical applications, in general, and colloidal silver in particular. The antibiotics with which the pharmaceutical industry has saturated our societies are only effective against certain types of bacteria.

 

Worse, because they cause resistance to develop within these bacteria, it is commonly known that antibiotics are the creators of the new/dreaded “super-bugs” – requiring yet more new drugs to battle them. Meanwhile, not only is it impossible for silver to produce any “resistance” to its own properties in bacteria or other micro-organisms (and thus create more deadly mutations), it kills the Super Bugs against which the pharmaceutical industry is increasingly ineffective.

 

These ultra-greedy, drug-pushers want to design (and sell) a different chemical for each/every pathogen in existence – and preferably several. But silver is effective against all of them, permanently. Furthermore, because it is a relatively natural/organic treatment, these drug-manufacturers can be bypassed completely.

 

They can’t make any money from colloidal silver themselves. Worse still, it eats into their ill-gotten gains by replacing the use of their own (often toxic) chemicals. And so, yet again, Big Pharma condemns what it cannot (mis)appropriate for itself.

 

It is with this context in mind that we can consider the recent news (hushed-up by the mainstream media) that “nano silver” (i.e. colloidal silver) is now the officially recognized treatment for the Ebola virus in Sierra Leone, one of the African nations hit hardest by this killer-disease. This is despite efforts by the WHO to prevent Sierra Leone’s victims from getting access to colloidal silver.

The Hon. Alpha Kanu, Minister of Information, Republic of Sierra Leone (October 11th, 2014), in touting the impressive results of colloidal silver against Ebola:

“There is no illness that doesn’t have a cure. If you say that this illness does not get better then that’s a lie because 500 people have gotten better.”

 

Much has been written (in the Alternative Media) speculating on whether the African “Ebola epidemic” is truly as bad as depicted, or whether this has been exaggerated (by the mainstream media) in order to spread fear in our own populations. This skepticism has been further reinforced by the suspicious manner (to the point of absurdity) in which Ebola has ‘leaked’ (been allowed to leak?) into the United States.

However, irrespective of whether the “Ebola epidemic” is (even partially) a hoax, or whether this outbreak is every bit as serious and menacing as it has been depicted by the mainstream media; if colloidal silver is now proven/demonstrated as the cure/treatment for the Ebola virus, its use and popularity will spread – like the virus itself.

 

Beyond the present; if colloidal silver becomes known (by the people) as a safe/reliable means to combat the most-dreaded killer-disease in the world today, it will automatically become the first remedy people reach for in any future epidemic (or hoax).

 

As we become increasingly aware of the perils of the pharmaceutical industry’s “vaccines” – medical treatments which our laws do not require the pharmaceutical industry to thoroughly/properly test – the expression of “the cure being worse than the disease” is evolving from a mere colloquialism to a real, medical danger. For those amongst the world’s population of 7+ billion who refuse to be “lab rats” for the pharmaceutical industry’s semi-tested vaccines; colloidal silver represents nothing short of a potential “medical revolution”.

 

While Big Pharma trots-out new vaccines on a nearly monthly basis, each time insisting that this isn’t a treatment which we should use, but a treatment which we must use; now people will realize they do have a choice.

 

We can continue to be pin-cushions for the pharmaceutical industry, allowing them to inject us with vaccine after vaccine – until one of their semi-tested “cures” kills us. Or, we can rely upon a single (relatively inexpensive) remedy/treatment which (unlike their vaccines) has been used by humanity for centuries.

 

Even before the current Ebola outbreak; previous commentaries have strongly suggested that silver-based anti-microbial products would continue to sweep through our societies (and consumer shelves). Now, as humanity is warned of a potential “new plague” which menaces us; the motivation for this silver-based Medical Revolution just got much, much greater.

 

Jeff Nielson for Sprott Money

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1oRe12x Sprott Money