Another US-Sponsored Coup? Brazil’s New President Was An Embassy Informant For US Intelligence

When we explained yesterday the next steps in the Dilma Rousseff impeachment process, we predicted that “Brazil’s problems are only just starting” for several reasons, chief among them being that the man who is now Brazil’s next active president, Michel Temer, is almost as unpopular as the president he is replacing, and is stained by scandals of his own.

As AP noted, “Michel Temer, who hasn’t won an election on his own in a decade, is famed as a backstage wheeler-dealer, and his critics say he’s leading the plot to replace his boss, embattled President Dilma Rousseff.” And with Temer now the acting president, the AP frames the big question as follows: can he avoid ouster himself.

Among his documented transgressions, he signed off on some of the allegedly illegal budget measures that led to the impeachment drive against Rousseff and has been implicated, though never charged, in several corruption investigations.

Best was AP’s snide addition that “the son of Lebanese immigrants, Temer is one of the country’s least popular politicians but has managed to climb his way to the top, in large part by building close relationships with fellow politicians as leader of the large but fractured Brazilian Democratic Movement Party.

However, as much as we would like to believe that Temer is simply the real world version of Frank Underwood, there is a much simpler explanation for the 75-year-old’s dramatic ascent to the peak of Brazil’s power elite.

As it turns out, the Temer presidency may be nothing more than the latest manifestation of the US state department’s implementation of yet another puppet government. We know this because earlier today, Wikileaks released evidence via a declassified cable that Brazil’s new interim president was an embassy informant for US intelligence and military.

 

According to the whistleblowing website, Temer communicated with the US embassy in Brazil, and such content would be classified as “sensitive” and “for official use only.” 

Wikileaks brought attention to two cables, one dated January 11, 2006, the other June 21, 2006. One shows a document sent from Sao Paolo, Brazil, to – among other recipients – the US Southern Command in Miami. In it, Temer discusses the political situation in Brazil during the presidency of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

Regarding the 2006 elections, when Lula was re-elected, Temer shared scenarios in which his party (PMDB) would win the elections.  He declined to predict the race, however, but said there would be a run-off and that “anything could happen.”

Temer said the PMDB would elect between 10 and 15 governors that year, and that the party would have the most representatives in the Senate and thus the House of Representatives. This would mean that the elected president would have to report to PMDB rule.  “Whoever wins the presidential election will have to come to us to do anything,” Temer reportedly said.

As a reminder, the last time the US instituted a puppet government, was in 2014 when in yet another “bloodless coup”, the president of Ukraine was overthrown and replaced with a billionaire oligarch, a scenario comparable to the one in Brazil.

We don’t have to remind readers that as a result of the Ukraine coup, relations between the US and Russia are multi-decade lows, the cold war is back and – as of yesterday, so is the nuclear arms race. We are curious what the consequence of yet another US state coup will be, this time in Latin America’s largest country.

via http://ift.tt/27koTsU Tyler Durden

Genscape: “Inventories At Cushing Are Close To Maximum Operating Capacity”

By Dylan White of Genscape

Cushing, OK, Crude Stocks, USGC Exports Hit Record Highs after U.S. Midcontinent Refinery Work

Cushing, OK, crude inventories reached a record high May 3, 2016 of more than 70mn bbls after refinery outages in the U.S. Midcontinent displaced barrels to both storage tanks and the U.S. Gulf Coast. Without significant new storage capacity, Midcontinent stocks could reach maximum operating capacity this year, according to Genscape.

Cushing inventories increased 1.3mn bbls week-on-week following the spring maintenance season, which also caused Patoka, IL, stocks to climb 1.4mn bbls to a record high above 11mn bbls week ending April 29, 2016.

Meanwhile, along the Gulf Coast, waterborne loadings to international and domestic destinations recently hit a 2016 high while stocks increased in the Midcontinent.

– See more at: http://ift.tt/1TL5A1u…

Cushing stocks border maximum capacity utilization

Inventories at Cushing are close to maximum operating capacity, and on May 3, 2016 reached utilization just shy of 80 percent, a record high since Genscape began monitoring the hub in 2009. Genscape has never observed capacity utilization higher than 80 percent based on historical data, though utilization may breach 80 percent depending on the utilization of merchant capacity, or capacity that is leased by an owner to other users.

Utilization of operational capacity has remained above 70 percent at Cushing since November 2015. Storage capacity at six of 16 operators at Cushing was utilized above 80 percent as of May 3, 2016.

There is little help on the horizon from new storage capacity to prevent Cushing from hitting maximum operating capacity. There are two tanks under construction at Cushing, totaling 540,000 bbls. No tank construction projects are underway at Patoka.

The record high May 3, 2016 was almost 600,000 bbls higher than the previous record high set March 15, 2016 and 5.0mn bbls more than the highest point reached in 2015.

Storage data reflecting Cushing and Patoka inventories for week ending May 5, 2016 was released to customers on May 9. The May 3, 2016 Cushing record high was the fifteenth this year, as stocks continue to grow.

Patoka stocks also reached a record high after increasing two consecutive weeks, up 2.2mn bbls between April 15 and April 29, 2016. The record high was 488,000 bbls higher than the previous record high of 10.6mn bbls reached November 13, 2015.

Capacity utilization at Patoka terminals was at 65 percent for the week of April 29, 2016, just below the record high utilization rate of 67 percent set April 2013. Capacity utilization at Patoka has fallen below 50 percent once in 2016.

In 2016, crude storage in Texas increased as storage capacity in the Midcontinent became scarce. Total monitored crude stocks in the Gulf Coast and West Texas region increased 18.5mn bbls between February 12 and March 18, 2016 to a record high above 122mn bbls. Stocks in the region remained just below the record high for the next month before dropping 2.4mn bbls the week ending April 29, 2016, coinciding with higher waterborne loadings out of the Gulf Coast.

Record-high exports ship from USGC

More than 4.5mn bbls of waterborne shipments left the Gulf Coast for foreign destinations the week ending April 29, 2016, the most since Genscape began monitoring in August 2014. On a weekly basis, crude exports from the Gulf Coast averaged about 888,000 bbls higher in March and April compared to January and February 2016.

Total U.S. Gulf Coast waterborne loadings reached a 2016 high of 7.5mn bbls week ending April 29, 2016, and have also increased since March 2016. Weekly loadings in March and April averaged 1.3mn bbls higher than in January and February 2016.


Waterborne loadings out of the Gulf Coast reach 2016 high for
week ending April 29.

During the week ending April 29, 2016, two export shipments left from St. James: one to Brazil and one to the Canadian East Coast, totaling 1.4mn bbls. In addition, more than 1.0mn bbls moved from Beaumont-Nederland, TX, to Caribbean locations. Total shipments from there increased to 1.9mn bbls. In Corpus Christi, TX, an export loaded from the Valero West refinery dock, expected to bring about 441,000 bbls to Pembroke, U.K. Total domestic loadings from Corpus Christi fell 501,000 bbls.

Total loadings also decreased from Houston, falling 630,000 bbls to 1.17mn bbls, which offset a 654,000-bbl increase from the previous week. A 550,000-bbl loading left Enterprise’s Houston Terminal for Bullen Bay, Curacao, on April 28, 2016, and 500,000 bbls loaded the next day from HFOTCO for Gibralter, U.K.

Midcontinent refinery utilization dips during seasonal maintenance

Refineries typically use the spring months to perform necessary repairs and maintenance on infrastructure before gearing back up for summer driving season. Units at several major refineries in the Midcontinent shut beginning in late February 2016. Primary processing utilization rates decreased 15 percent from the end of February to a 2016 low of 82 percent reached April 8, 2016.

The Midcontinent refinery maintenance season is coming to a close as several units return to service. Primary processing utilization rates were back to 93 percent week ending April 29, 2016. Record-high storage levels could decline if run rates continue to increase.

A 204,000 bpd crude distillation unit was brought back online at Marathon’s 206,000 bpd Robinson, IL, refinery April 28, 2016, after being offline since March 2, 2016. Activity at all monitored units at Husky’s 155,000 bpd Lima refinery has increased since April 27, 2016, after being shut since mid-March for a planned turnaround.

Although maintenance is being completed at several refineries, further outages are expected elsewhere. BP and Husky’s 160,000 bpd Toledo, OH, refinery recently started shutting units in preparation for 11 weeks of planned maintenance. The turnaround will reduce operating capacity at the facility by 75 percent.

via http://ift.tt/1X7LZ0X Tyler Durden

Did The Clinton Foundation Give $2 Million To Bill’s “Energizer” Mistress?

At Bill Clinton's behest, a $2 million commitment for Energy Pioneer Solutions was placed on the agenda during a September 2010 conference of the Clinton Global Initiative. As it turns out, the commitment is a bit of an issue…

At the heart of the issue is the foundation sent funding to a company that had significant ties to the Clinton family according to the WSJ. The IRS website states that any 501(c)(3) should not be operated for the benefit of private interests.

The WSJ explains the connections

Energy Pioneer Solutions was founded in 2009 by Scott Kleeb, a Democrat who twice ran for Congress from Nebraska. An internal document from that year showed it as owned 29% by Mr. Kleeb; 29% by Jane Eckert, the owner of an art gallery in Pine Plains, N.Y.; and 29% by Julie Tauber McMahon of Chappaqua, N.Y., a close friend of Mr. Clinton, who also lives in Chappaqua.
 

Owning 5% each were Democratic National Committee treasurer Andrew Tobias and Mark Weiner, a supplier to political campaigns and former Rhode Island Democratic chairman, both longtime friends of the Clintons.
 

The Clinton Global Initiative holds an annual conference at which it announces monetary commitments from corporations, individuals or nonprofit organizations to address global challenges—commitments on which it has acted in a matchmaking role. Typically, the commitments go to charities and nongovernmental organizations. The commitment to Energy Pioneer Solutions was atypical because it originated from a private individual who was making a personal financial investment in a for-profit company.

 

Not only did the Clinton's oversee $2 million being sent to friends at Energy Pioneer Solutions via the foundation, according to the WSJ, Bill also personally endorsed the company to then-Energy Secretary Steven Chu for a federal grant, ultimately leading to a grant in the amount of $812,000. Of course, Chu now says he doesn't remember the conversation. 

As it is no stranger to having to scramble and do damage control, the foundation has come out with the following narrative:

Asked about the commitment, foundation officials said, “President Clinton has forged an amazing universe of relationships and friendships throughout his life that endure to this day, and many of those individuals and friends are involved in CGI Commitments because they share a passion for making a positive impact in the world. As opposed to a conflict of interest, they share a common interest.”
 

A spokesman for Mr. Clinton, Angel Urena, said, “President Clinton counts many CGI participants as friends.” Mrs. Clinton’s campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment.
 

A Clinton Foundation spokesman, Craig Minassian, called the commitment an instance of “mission-driven investing…in and by for-profit companies,” which he said “is a common practice in the broader philanthropic space, as well as among CGI commitments.” Of thousands of CGI commitments, Mr. Minassian cited three other examples of what he described as mission-driven investing involving a private party and a for-profit company such as Energy Pioneer Solutions.

Energy Pioneer Solutions has struggled to operate profitably, and an audit found deficiencies in how the company accounted for expenses paid with federal grant money – surprise, surprise, another government funded (and Clinton funded) enterprise that can't make a profit and has lost taxpayer money.

Energy Pioneer Solutions has struggled to operate profitably. It lost more than $300,000 in 2010 and another $300,000 in the first half of 2011, said records submitted for an Energy Department audit. Mr. Kleeb noted that losses are common at startups.
 

The audit found deficiencies in how the company accounted for expenses paid with federal grant money, Energy Department records show. The company addressed the deficiencies, and a revised cost proposal was approved in 2011, said an Energy Department spokeswoman, Joshunda Sanders.
 

Recently, Mr. Kleeb laid off most of his staff, closed his offices, sold a fleet of trucks and changed his business strategy, promising to launch a national effort instead. “We are right now gearing up to start under this new model,” he said.
 

Asked if Energy Pioneer Solutions has ever broken even, Mr. Kleeb said, “We’re at that stage…We are expanding and doing well. We have partnerships, and it’s good.”

Partnerships indeed. Speaking of partnerships, there is a connection that is noteworthy in this tangled web of cronyism…

One of the owners of Energy Pioneer Solutions was Julie Tauber McMahon. She described Bill as a "close family friend" in an interview, but perhaps there is a bit more to that story.

As the NY Post reports

The fit, blond mother of three, who lives just minutes from Bill and Hillary Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, West­chester, is the daughter of Joel Tauber, a millionaire donor to the Democratic Party.
 

McMahon, 54, is rumored to be the woman dubbed “Energizer” by the Secret Service at the Clinton home because of her frequent visits, according to RadarOnline.

 

Secret Service agents were even given special instructions to abandon usual protocol when the woman came by, according to journalist Ronald Kessler’s tell-all book, “The First Family Detail.”
 

 

“You don’t stop her, you don’t approach her, you just let her go in,” says the book, based on agents’ accounts.
 

“Energizer” is described in the book as a charming visitor who sometimes brought cookies to the agents.
 

The book describes one sun-drenched afternoon when agents took notice of the woman’s revealing attire.
 

“It was a warm day, and she was wearing a low-cut tank top, and as she leaned over, her breasts were very exposed,” an agent is quoted in the book.
 

“They appeared to be very perky and very new and full . . . There was no doubt in my mind they were enhanced.”
 

“Energizer” reportedly timed her arrivals and departures around Hillary Clinton’s schedule.
 

McMahon has denied in reports having an intimate relationship with Bill Clinton.

* * *

While nobody knows for certain if Bill was funding a mistress (which really wouldn't surprise anyone), the fact remains that this is yet another stunning example that cronyism is alive and well.

via http://ift.tt/1XpncGm Tyler Durden

Satyajit Das Is “Astonished Investors Haven’t Raised Pitchforks At Policy-Makers”

Via Financial Repression Authority,

FRA Co-founder Gordon T. Long is joined by Satyajit Das in discussing the consequences of financial repression and current policy making, along with the effects of the Chinese economy.

SATYAJIT DAS is an internationally respected expert in finance, with over 35 years’ experience. Das presciently anticipated many aspects of the global financial crisis in 2006. He subsequently proved accurate in his warnings about the ineffectiveness of policy responses and the risk of low growth, sovereign debt problems (anticipating the restructuring of Greek debt), and the increasing problems of China and emerging economies. In 2014 Bloomberg nominated him as one of the fifty most influential financial thinkers in the world.

 

Mr. Das is the author of a number of key reference works on derivatives and risk management. Das is the author of two international bestsellers, Traders, Guns & Money (2006) and Extreme Money (2011). His latest book is A Banquet of Consequences (2015) (published in North America as Age of Stagnation).

 

He was featured in Charles Ferguson’s 2010 Oscar-winning documentary Inside Job, the 2012 PBS Frontline series Money, Power & Wall Street, the 2009 BBC TV documentary Tricks with Risk, and the 2015 German film Who’s Saving Whom.

VIEWS ON FINANCIAL REPRESSION

Slide1

It started around 2008 and prices relate to debt. Fundamentally, the way the surprises were dealt with were in a very old fashioned way to grow and inflate their way out of debt. As we know, this process hasn’t really worked, and there’s really only two choices left. One of them is to default, which is hugely unpalatable because writing off peoples’ savings like that has consequences for future consumption, and a huge amount of wealth loss in the world. The other option is financial repression, which is a way of managing excess debt. The most common way is by very high levels of taxation.

“I don’t think people, when talking about financial repression, are talking about taxation as being something that shouldn’t happen.”

There’s obviously a point of taxation which is to run social services and infrastructure and government, but at some point under the condition of high debt it starts to bring taxation rates up for the simple reason of using the state to absorb everyone’s debt, in other words socialize the debt and then try to use the taxes to pay it off. That can be hugely unproductive for the economy but we’re starting to see it happen around the world.

The next stage is what we call financial repression, where we start to devalue the debt. The most important way we can see that is through a period of low interest rates.

“People forget that since 2008, we’ve had over 600 interest rate cuts globally. Interest rates are pretty much around zero around the world.”

Slide2

Roughly 30% of global government bonds are trading at negative yields. Either you have nominal yields that are positive but below the rate of inflation to use that to try and ease the purchasing power of debt. Alternatively as we’re now finding that because inflation is low and the debt levels are so high, we’ve gone to negative interest rates. There’s something perverse about negative interest rates because people get very technical about it. This is actually a way of writing down the debt, and are very dangerous, as the market’s reaction to the negative interest rates in Japan and Europe have proven.

Firstly, there’s no real proof that these types of policies are going to create growth or inflation. They’ve been put in place to write down the debt. First we have -5% interest rates, and after ten years we’ve written off half the debt. That’s now a sort of stealth tactic the central banks and policy makers have put in place. Everybody knows that they said, look, in the next crisis we’re going to cut interest rates and interest rates are so low that we’re going to have to go to negative territory, but we all know that if we go to negative territory people are just going to take money out of the bank and just hold the cash.

“They’re going to have to stop people from taking out cash, and the interesting way that’s being channeled by policy makers is that they’re pretending that banning cash is necessary to prevent criminality or terrorism.”

There are also other forms of financial repression as well, like redirecting investment. There’s a whole variety of these measures that we see come into play, and it all has to do with the fact that they try to use these measures to deal with the debt crisis.

“I would argue that it’s not going to be able to be dealt with, and it creates enormous social and political pressures… What we’re going to see is a period of financial repression, which is very, very dangerous.”

POLITICAL EXTREMISM AND POLICY MAKING

We’re starting to see signs of this via the political extremism that’s starting to come about. The reason these popular extremist policies are being promoted in the United States and elsewhere is because financial repression and the lack of honesty of dealing with the world’s financial and economic problems.

If you look at this period of history and the way the Europeans have deal with the European Debt Crisis, it’s almost single-handedly created parties like Ciudadanos in Spain, but in Germany these policies would never have gotten any sort of traction. Even the German Finance Minister has said that these parties are really the creation of the economic policies that people are playing around with, and that’s setting up this confrontation we see in play between Germany and the European Central Bank.

“I honestly don’t know how it’s going to end. In the 1920s and 1930 when similar pressures built up, it didn’t actually have a very good ending.”

THOUGHTS FOR THE NEXT YEAR (12-14 MONTHS)

“I think, fundamentally, we know what the problems are: it’s debt.”

It built up in the system, it’s not properly funded, we know the global imbalances are unsustainable, and add on top of that the financialization of the economy where people are rewarded for trading claims on real cash flows and real assets.

“You have financial institutions which are too big to fail but too big to jail, and frankly, too big to regulate or too big to manage.”

So all of those we know, and on top of that there’s climate issues, resource scarcity, so we’ve got a very toxic set of problems. Things are going to play out in one of three scenarios. One is the ‘Lazarus economy’, where all the skeptics are wrong and everything goes back to normal. It’s not likely, but it might happen. The most likely one is a period of stagnation, which might happen with a 70% chance. What happens is we’re stuck in this environment of very low growth, disinflation, the debt keeps building up, we use policies like financial repression and low interest rates in a predominant way, and we stretch this out for as long as we possibly can. One lesson we learned from Japan is that we can’t do this for a very long time. The policy makers are going to try to keep this game going for as long as possible. The problem is that it’s not sustainable.

Slide3

The last scenario is the one with the 30% chance, which is the crash. The question is whether that happens suddenly, or if we get gradually to where the system breaks down. You have all these nodes of instability going on and it’s all held together by chicken wire, which is basically central banks putting more and more money in and coming up with more and more far fetched and less effective schemes.

The crucial thing that people forget is that this is the ultimate act of faith. The central bankers who completely misread things in the lead-up to 2007 and contributed to the crisis have suddenly after that becomes the saviors.

“At some point in time it’ll turn into, ‘oh dear, the emperor has no clothes, they don’t actually know what they’re doing’.”

What people need to keep in mind is that it’ll be very different from 2007-2008. The problem is much bigger, and the emerging markets that were a source of strength in 2008 and provided demand for the people in advanced economies, along with abundant savings that helped push the problem, are no longer a source of strength. The third thing is the fact that the policy makers are all wrong. The social and political pressures are in a much worse place than 2007-2008 and socially the tensions are starting to build up.

“Whatever happens now will be far more difficult to control than they were in 2007-2008 and I think essentially we are at a very dangerous inflection point… And the one thing I do know is if something cannot go on, it won’t go on, and if something happens it happens suddenly.”

The central banks have this under control for the moment, but in complex systems they tip over extremely suddenly and extremely quickly, and none of us know what the trigger will be, but there will be a trigger and in hindsight it would be obvious it was the trigger.

“Everyone now is chasing risky assets because it’s the only way they can feed themselves.”

INVESTMENT DIRECTION AND PREPARATION

“In this crazy world of the 1980s onward, we sort of reversed priority and put capital gains first, income next, and security of capital last.

You have to think about how to recover, rather than worry about capital gain. One of the key things is to find things that people need: food, oil, scarce resources, and guns (security).

“You’re looking for areas that are absolutely crucial in the terms of the actual needs of ordinary people, and that will be protected.”

The policies are hugely repressive because they’re forcing people to take risks with their savings, and intentionally they’re going to go broke or grow poorer over time.

“I’m actually astonished, when you mentioned pitchforks earlier, that investors haven’t picked up their pitchforks and gone after some of these policy makers, though given time I suspect that’s going to happen.”

VIEWS ON CHINA

The pre-2008 period was very sound, but after that the Chinese Public Bureau placed a strong emphasis on social stability and launched a program to create employment opportunities. What that’s done is increased the amount of debt in China. In 2000 the amount of debt was $2T. In 2007 it went to $7T. In 2014 it’s $28T. It’s gone up by a factor of 14 times.

“You can’t have that kind of growth being leveraged by debt in a financial system without consequences.”

Slide4

If you look at where the money’s gone, it’s this massive overcapacity in their industries, there’s a lot of real estate; about 15-20% of China’s GDP is tied up in real estate. It’s inevitable that they’re going to have some problems. The last few debt crises that happened in China, the States stepped in, created asset management companies, bought the bad loans to the banks, selected government guarantees on some bonds, and sold it back to the same banks and let time to take care of the problem.

The problem now is the bad debt problem is much larger, and they’re not going to have the same GDP growth that they had. The way that they’re trying to deal with this is by keeping deposit rates low and the system very liquid so the banks can gradually absorb these losses.

“I think the best case is that China becomes like Japan, which is putting all these bad debts on their balance sheet and gradually slowing down.”

The problem is if they miscalculate, the problem is bigger and comes upon them in a way that is much quicker that you could potentially get a banking meltdown. The problem with that is that would spread from China out very quickly because there’s about a trillion dollars of exposure that far end lenders have to Chinese banks and Chinese companies.

 

via http://ift.tt/27kgSEc Tyler Durden

The OPEC Epoch is Over – Where are oil prices headed now?

 

By Tech. Sgt. David McLeod (Defenseimagery.mil, VIRIN DF-ST-92-09166) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

The fate of oil companies and nations hangs in the balance of oil prices. Russia could go broke. Some think that’s by US design. Saudi Arabia could experience its Arab Spring if oil prices remain too low too long. And OPEC is dead. That’s the biggest news in this new century for oil.

The House of Saud has stated clearly many times now and again this week in an even more emphatic manner that it intends to move the oil market from decades of OPEC price manipulation to a raw supply-and-demand equation. Rigging the price of oil was the raison d’être of the cartel known as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and that function has now ended. But people are slow to get their heads around such big news.

Saudi Arabians enjoyed a tax-free environment as long as oil paid the bills and cheap subsidized fuel. Huge revenue from oil enabled constant pay-offs to the powerful that stabilized the state. All of that has ended or is at risk of ending as the Saudis seek to rebalance their state budget in the face of huge declines in revenue. So, changing the pricing structure of oil is a perilous change of course for the House of Saud, which tells you how serious they are about transforming the market back to a free market.

It’s fraught with peril for all. Among oil companies and banks, it’s not just the little leaguers that are hurting. Royal Dutch Shell reported an 83% decline in profits year on year. Most oil companies reported significant drops in profit for the first quarter of 2016, though many saw their stock values soar upon reporting because investors had feared an even worse hit. Their banks have reported the same.

 

Oil’s big bang on banking

 

As I speculated in a recent article, the oil market may be entirely rigged by central banks. We know from experience the Federal Reserve will buy anything in any quantity to save its member banks. So, if low oil prices are hurting major banks, why wouldn’t the Fed start buying oil … if nothing else, through proxies? And why would it tell us if it did?

We learned months ago that trouble in the tar pits was bad enough that the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank was telling its member banks not to foreclose on bad oil loans because they’d just drown themselves in oil debt if they started writing down their balance sheets to match the fire-sale values they’d be creating by foreclosing.

 

The latest survey by the Federal Reserve … has revealed a pessimistic picture. Banks … are still skeptical about the ability of their energy industry clients to pay back their loans, and they are taking a variety of steps now to minimize the damage…. American banks are saddled with over $140 billion in unfunded loans … in oil and gas…. This will very likely weigh down on banks … and plunge them even deeper into the abyss of unfunded, non-repayable debt…. Basically, the lenders are doing whatever they can to sustain potential losses, apparently having learned a valuable lesson from the Great Recession. (Oilprice.com)

 

In other words, energy debt will rapidly spiral downward if banks start foreclosing on all the bad debt. It will play out like the collapse of housing debt in 2008 when foreclosures created fire-sale prices throughout the housing market. Banks couldn’t unload the houses as fast as foreclosures were piling up without crashing the market value of all their collateral. So … they stopped foreclosing.

This time they are a little smarter and are avoiding foreclosures as much as possible to prevent the same kind of death spiral with energy loans. If oil prices don’t continue rise, however, the amount of time banks can forestall on foreclosures will run out. Sooner or later, you have to admit the debt is bad if it doesn’t turn around and write it off, selling the collateral for whatever you can get in auction (into a market where few oil companies want to buy more capital assets).

And that downward spiral is picking up speed:

 

In just the first four months of 2016 there had already been double the amount of bankrupt energy debt than in all of 2015, with the total secured and unsecured defaults rising to $34 billion, double the $17 billion total for all of 2015.

 

…The only real impact [of Chapter 11 bankruptcies] … will be that their all in production costs will decline substantially, allowing [them] to pump more oil at even lower prices, and thus adding to the global supply imbalance, something that will infuriate Saudi Arabia and add even more output to a market that remains chronically oversupplied. (Oilprice.com)

 

Moreover, the current crisis is bigger than bad oil debts due to the spillover effect: In regions where oil companies cannot repay their debts, laid off employees also cannot pay theirs, resulting in a rise of mortgage defaults, credit-card defaults and car-loan defaults. There is contagion to all aspects of banking. So, this is a problem big enough for the Fed to secretly intervene, as it did during the housing crisis.

If the oil market is not rigged, it is certainly climbing on speculation that is irrationally exuberant, and nothing looks more like lemmings about to run off a cliff so much as irrational exuberance. It is irrational (if not rigged) because, as I’ve pointed out in previous articles, the price of oil goes up with every scrap of hope for a decline in production or increase in demand but then holds stable against major news that clearly indicates oversupply is likely to worsen.

In light of my failed prediction that March would bring the perfect storm against oil prices, I want to reassess the major forces currently pressuring oil prices –those that should tend to drive prices back down into the oil pits and those that should light oil prices on fire — to see where the balance of power lies (absent market interference by entities like central banks).

 

Pressures that could depress the price of oil again

 

OPEC is dead

 

The end of OPEC price manipulation in oil has to be the most significant factor of all when contemplating where oil prices are likely to go. Russia’s biggest oil CEO, Igor Sechin, scorned OPEC with some of his harshest words ever this week:

 

At the moment a number of objective factors exclude the possibility for any cartels to dictate their will to the market. … As for OPEC, it has practically stopped existing as a united organization. The company (Rosneft) was skeptical from the very beginning about the possibility of reaching any sort of joint agreement with OPEC’s involvement in current conditions. (Newsmax)

 

Sechin is a close friend of Putin who argued constantly against even trying for a production limit with Saudi Arabia, never believing (just as I argued continuously here) that Saudi Arabia would ever go through with a production cap. He sees the whole Doha meeting as an embarrassment to Russia who spearheaded the meeting (which is why I referred to it as Dohaha), and he hopes to help Russia avoid such embarrassment in the future. The chance of additional talks about production limits has been iced by realization in Russia of how frivolous such hopes were in the first place.

Sechin sees the breakup of the Doha meeting as the effective end of OPEC, and said Russia should abandon any hope of price fixing through production caps, which has been OPEC’s modus operandi. Saudi Arabia seems content to simply agree with that.

That should be clear by Saudi Arabia’s appointment last weekend of a new energy minister, Khaled al-Falih, who offers even less hope of production caps than his predecessor. His words have been consistently clear … if people are willing to listen to them and stop saying “The Saudi’s don’t really mean it.” Yes, they do:

 

Falih, who took over on Saturday from long-serving Ali al-Naimi, has been very vocal in the past year about his views that the oil market needs to rebalance through low prices and that the Saudis have the resources to wait.

 

Falih’s ultimate boss, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who oversees Saudi oil policies, has also signaled that the world is moving to a new era where supply and demand rather than OPEC will determine prices. (Newsmax)

 

Al-Naimi’s days appeared to be nearing an end at Doha when he was ordered by the new Saudi crown prince to back down from making the production freeze deal that he had been championing. Then, last weekend, the prince retired the veteran oil minister, whose mere whispers could drive the price of oil, and put Falih in his place.

Clearly, Falih wouldn’t have gotten the position if his outspoken views about letting a free market set the price of oil from this point forward were not the direction the House of Saud intends to move. To think otherwise is to chose denial. The crown prince has clearly stated his intention and has put someone in place to carry that out.

This means the end of the OPEC’s role in capping or lifting the cap on production as a way of fixing oil prices. The rest of OPEC’s member states are powerless to set prices if Saudi Arabia is done doing the lion’s share of the work. The House of Saud’s resolve as social pressures rise around it may be another matter; but for the time being they are resolute, as all of their planning matches their words:

 

Prince bin Salman has spearheaded a historic initiative to wean the nation from its dependence on oil revenues over the next decade and a half. His “Vision 2030” for the country calls for a partial IPO of Saudi Aramco, using proceeds to setup the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund in order to invest in sectors of the economy not linked to oil. He also is seeking to raise revenues from other sources besides hydrocarbons, implementing new taxes for the first time. (Oilprice.com)

 

The new prince has clearly taken the reins of the oil industry. He has replaced the old guard with new blood, the former head of Aramco, Saudi Arabia’s state-owned oil company, and he is rebuilding Saudi society to be less dependent on oil.

 

A new era of oil pricing has begun, in which balancing global supply and demand matters less to Saudi Arabia than it used to. That suggests we’re in for an bumpy ride. (Quartz)

 

 

Saudi Arabia’s balancing act

 

It would be foolish to think the new prince would reverse course from such sweeping changes anytime soon.

 

Why should Saudi Arabia or OPEC change course? Saudi Arabia decided not to reduce production in the face of oversupply in late 2014…. While it has taken much longer than expected, forcing prices to crash due to high levels of output is finally beginning to bear fruit. Some sixty-odd U.S. shale companies have declared bankruptcy and U.S. oil production is down almost 800,000 barrels per day from a year ago. More declines are forthcoming.

 

Why would Saudi Arabia do anything that lessens the pain of other oil producers just as their strategy for regaining market share is starting to bear fruit?

To underline their resolve, the new head of Saudi Arabia’s state oil company Aramco, Amin Nasser, said that Aramco, which controls all Saudi oil, intends to meet all future global demand increases He said he expects global demand to grow this year by 1.2 million barrels per day. Nasser believes the company can meet all of that with its current capacity, so will not be increasing capacity immediately, but it has room with its present capacity to expand production and sales.

 

“Saudi Aramco will continue to expand,” Nasser said at the company headquarters in Dhahran in eastern Saudi Arabia. “We will soon be publishing our annual book and you will see there is significant growth in our annual oil production compared to previous years.” (Bloomberg)

 

Falih said the same thing over the weekend:

 

“We are committed to meeting existing and additional hydrocarbons demand from our expanding global customer base, backed by our current maximum sustainable capacity….” The emphasis on maximum sustainable capacity once again hints that any incremental increase in global demand will be promptly met by a boost in Saudi output. (Oilprice.com)

 

So, do not expect an increase in global demand to reduce the oversupply problem. Saudi Arabia produced an average of 10.2 million barrels per day in 2015, and Aramco has the capacity to produce 12 million per day at a sustainable rate, 12.5 million all-out maximum capacity. Nasser also said the company will expand in the future if it needs to in order to meet future capacity requirements.

Current production increases at some fields have been seen as a force that could suppress prices back down to where they were, but Saudi Arabia says those increases have been aimed at compensating for declining production at other fields.

 

The latest stage of its expansion project at the southeastern Shaybah oil field would be finished “in a couple of weeks.” The increased capacity of 250,000 bpd … is aimed at rebalancing Saudi Arabia’s crude oil quality and at compensating for falling output at other fields as they mature. (Newsmax)

 

“Mohammed bin Salman has changed everything,” Helima Croft, head of commodities strategy at RBC Capital Markets, told the WSJ. “He doesn’t feel the economic burden to have to cooperate with OPEC.”  (Oilprice.com)

 

The combination of the new prince ascending in power and the new oil minister means Saudi Arabia has doubled down on maintaining production at a high enough level to the recapture market share it lost to producers in other nations (such as the US) and to meet any increase in future demand.

 

More than an oil price war, it’s all-out war

 

There is a larger balance-of-power struggle here that supersedes everything else in the Saudi mind. The House of Saud, a bastion of Sunni Muslims, perceives Shiite Iran as its greatest threat, not the Saudi people. The Saudis see Iran as a nation hell-bent on creating an Iranian Islamic caliphate while they see themselves as being the natural center for control of any Islamic kingdom because Mecca and Medina are under their government.

 

The connection between Islam and Saudi Arabia … is uniquely strong. The kingdom, which sometimes is called the “home of Islam” … is … the only one to have been created by jihad, the only one to claim the Quran as its constitution…. Muhammad bin Saud, brought a fiercely puritanical strain of Sunni Islam … to the Arabian Peninsula…. This interpretation of Islam became the state religion … espoused by Muhammad bin Saud and his successors (the Al Saud family), who eventually created the modern kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932…. [Saudi Arabia] has influence well beyond its borders, thanks in large part to the country’s largess towards Islamic causes funded by its oil exports since 1970s. (Wikipedia)

 

With Iran hurting from years of sanctions, the Saudis want to do all they can to keep their greatest Islamic competitor from regaining market share in oil that will restore their economy and fund future military development. So, this is far more than a price war. It is a political and religious war with deep roots of hatred, ideological competition and distrust.

Ask yourself, which forces are most likely to control Saudi Arabia’s production decisions (as the world’s largest oil producer) — budgetary problems (which can be handled with loans) or hundreds of years of religious and political rivalry when there is finally opportunity to see the rival melt into their own desert sands? That’s adds a whole new meaning to “price war” where oil prices become ammunition.

Iran is charging into the oil price war head on, not about to capitulate to Saudi insistence that Iran agree to freeze production if Saudi Arabia is to do so. At the start of this year, many market gurus said it would take Iran a long time to ramp up production as it was threatening to do, so that Iran didn’t matter much in this equation. Some even thought Iran might sign on to the Doha deal. I said consistently that Iran will definitely not sign on to the deal and that it will rapidly succeed in upping its production so that will be a significant factor in oil pricing very soon. It is now clear Iran is well on its way to higher production goals:

 

Helima Croft, chief commodity strategist at RBC Capital Markets [said,] “Iran came back much faster than expected…. And if it’s bigger and stronger consistentlyto me that’s the most bearish supply story….” If Iran succeeds with reaching and sustaining production at those levels, it could upset the balance of the entire oil market, according to Croft. (Marketwatch)

 

 

Russia not about to reduce production

 

The Saudis are also in an oil price war with Russia for market share in China where they have been losing ground, which is one more reason talk with Russia of a production freeze was never anything more than talk.

 

While China’s oil imports grew 13.4 percent year-over-year to 7.3 million barrels a day in the first quarter of 2016, its imports from Saudi Arabia grew just 7.3 percent…. Meanwhile, Chinese oil imports from Russia surged 42 percent…. If the Saudis want to regain Chinese market share from the Russians, they may well have no choice but to either aggressively boost production or cut prices, or both, once again. (Oilprice.com)

 

Russia is committed to maintaining high production so long as prices are low in order to keep building its Chinese market. In fact, some of Russia’s oil executives say the costs Russian companies have already paid out in capacity expansion and exploration practically force their hand to maintain production during this time of low prices to try to make back in volume a small part of their decrease in profit margins (in that there is still a tiny bit of profit in the margin):

 

“We must understand that the oil prices cannot change drastically because we are now reaching the projected output level that we set out to achieve with the investments that we historically made six, five, four years ago, and the production cannot be curtailed,” said Vagit Alekperov, LUKoil’s Chief Executive Officer….

 

“What we see here, is that amidst the oil prices slump the Persian Gulf countries attempt to increase their production output to cover their budget deficits caused by slashed oil revenues, including compensating for the part of budget they need for procuring arms”, Alekperov noted.

 

However, LUKoil’s CEO believes oil prices are passed [sic.] their lowest point, and the equilibrium price should fluctuate around $50 per barrel for the rest of 2016 (Oilprice.com)

 

The Chairman of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, Alexander Shohin, says

 

As we have seen, the oil price did not react to the Doha agreement derailment, and in my opinion, the price of $40, $41, $42 per barrel shall remain as an equilibrium price under current market situation through 2016.

 

Industry leaders in Russia expect the price has stabilized in its current $40-50 range, which is still low enough to keep squeezing out US shale-oil producers, putting a tighter crimp on their already worried bankers.

 


“I almost couldn’t finish [watching The Big Fix] because the more I watched, the angrier I got. This is unconscionable. They start with B.P.’s history in the middle east and how they recruited the U.S. to help destabilize Iran which eventually lead to many of the problems we experience there today. Then it delves into their track record for being the most unsafe of all the big oil companies. Then, of course, to the [Gulf of Mexico] incident…. The thwarting of safety inspectors, and loosening of safety regulations to drill, drill, drill. Then came their inability to cap the well. (It’s still leaking to this day).”


 

Forces that could ignite the price of oil

 

Global oil rig count continues to fall

 

Baker Hughes’s “International Rig Count” (http://ift.tt/1pGbneO) reported that the global oil rig count dropped again in April. Total International Rigs (which does not include the US, Canada or China) dropped dropped by 39, putting the total count at 964 oil rigs. That is a drop of 436 from its July, 2014, peak.

The US rig count dropped by another 41 in April, bringing the total number of operating oil rigs down to 437. That is a huge overall decline from its peak of 1,925 in November, 2014.

Canadian rig count has taken the worst plunge percentage-wise: The total count has gone down from a peak of 626 operating rigs at its peak in February, 2014, to just 41 rigs total!

Bear in mind, however, this primarily affects the future of oil and gas supply. Rigs are for drilling, not pumping. So, these declines mean that, in light of low oil prices, there is much less oil and gas exploration and much less drilling of new wells in areas already known to produce oil and gas. That, by itself, doesn’t diminish current oil supply because there are still roughly enough wells coming online to make up for wells running out of oil and going out of production.

It does mean that, once a number of players are completely out of business, we could see (in a year or two) a huge increase in oil prices due to a supply shortage as the pendulum swings the other way. While the lower rig count doesn’t do much to lower today’s supply, it definitely reduce’s tomorrow’s … if you look far enough down the road.

Drilling is a massive cost that can be cut without any immediate effect on revenue. Therefore, stopping exploration and new well expansion is a measure taken when companies have to worry more about immediate survival than long-term survival. In the oil business, it’s like stopping R&D.

 

The new era of arctic deep-sea drilling pronounced dead on arrival

 

One area of reduction in rig counts is the Arctic Ocean. The dawning era of deep-sea exploration and drilling in the arctic has been issued its toe tag. Drilling costs are exceptionally high in the arctic due to austere conditions, environmental concerns, and remote location. As a result, it’s become the area of first total retreat by major oil companies, who have now ended their arctic drilling, even though that means sacrificing government leases that give them drilling rights.

 

Several companies officially forfeited their rights to drill in the Arctic on May 1, having declined to pay the U.S. government to renew licenses…. Shell, Eni, Statoil, and ConocoPhillips all decided against paying to hold onto those drilling rights in recent weeks. “Hopefully, today marks the end of the ecologically and economically risky push to drill in the Arctic Ocean,” Michael LeVine, senior regional counsel for Oceana…. Arctic drilling is now dead for years at least…. The Interior Department could theoretically hold another auction for drilling rights, but even if it did so, it would be years away. (Oilprice.com)

 

 

Libyan oil production could hit the zero bound

 

While it doesn’t amount to much on a global scale, Libyan production could go all the way down to nothing within a month. Libya’s Hariga port is under blockade over a dispute between rival governments. The Tripoli government says it will have to halt oil production within a month if the port does not soon reopen.

 

“In less than four weeks we will have to shut production completely because the tanks at Hariga will be full,”  Mohamed Harari, a spokesman for the National Oil Company, said in an e-mailed statement late on Monday. (Oilprice.com)

 

International Energy Agency says oversupply slowing down

 

The [IEA] projects that oversupply will be at 1.3 million bpd through the first half of this year (down from last month’s projection of 1.5 million bpd), as demand has been stronger than expected from China, India and Russia. It maintains its demand growth expectation for this year at 1.2 million bpd, but sees oversupply dropping to only 200,000 bpd in the latter half of the year. (Oilprice.com)

 

While the IEA is feeling more optimistic, oversupply is still oversupply, even if it is revised lower than what they were projecting. Continued oversupply still means, sooner or later tanks in storage facilities start to overflow.

 

Short-term factors raising oil prices

 

Nigeria has reported over 3,100 breaks in its oil pipeline system as a result of “vandalism.” The reduction of Nigerian supply from this could increase if the violence against the state-run system continues. This could be just a short-term reduction in global supply from Africa’s largest oil exporter that ends as soon as the leaks can be fixed; but militancy has been on the rise.

Canadian oil production is down by a whopping 1.6 million barrels per day due to wildfires in Alberta. That is enough to completely wipe out the world’s oversupply situation and was enough to keep prices up, even with all the bad news about Saudi Arabia staying in the price war.

However, the fall-off in Canadian supply may be short-lived reprieve for oil companies and banks worried about oil prices because the fire could be out in a matter of weeks. Or course, it could rage on into the summer; so, as with Libya the length of its effect is unknown. Local winds changed this week to blow the fire back away from the oil sands area, giving, at least, some temporary reprieve from the threat of destruction of oil production and storage facilities.

Some are looking for increased demand from China to help lift crude oil prices. I think they are dreaming. China has recently tried spending its way back up to higher manufacturing, and the results so far have not been good.

The summer season is here when gasoline demand normally rises.

 

So, where are oil prices headed?

 

Oil oversupply continues to fill tank farms. The report this week of a 1.4-million barrel build at Cushing, Oklahoma, one of the nation’s major oil storage regions, exceeded expectations and temporarily drove oil prices down at the start of the week, but they quickly recovered. It also could mean the IEA is already off on its optimistic revisions of its oversupply projections.

Prices will take a drop from which they cannot recover right away if tank farms actually fill up. Some weeks we’ve heard the build-up has slowed or reduced, but then the next week, we hear the build up was worse than feared. On balance, the build continues toward that point of total market saturation for crude oil.

In my mind, the forces pressing back toward lower oil prices — or, in the very least, oil prices that stagnate in the low to mid forties for the rest of the year — are larger and more plentiful than the forces that have recently pushed prices up.

There is, of course, the normal summer increase in gasoline demand, which is about to begin. Even that, however, is just a seasonal improvement, while the Saudis and Russians are clearly planning for a longterm battle for greater market share. I expect defaults in the energy sector to continue to add pressure against banks throughout the year.

I also expect the Fed and other central banks are already doing anything they have to in order to mitigate this threat to banks, which they will continue to do. That may be what the recent emergency Federal Reserve board meetings were about. The bigger question is how many plates can central banks keep spinning, as their recovery unwinds. The energy sector is only one area in which banks are facing increased stress.

 

From The Great Recession Blog

via http://ift.tt/1NtjDN8 Knave Dave

ObamaCare Employer Mandate Set to Cripple Small Businesses

With transition relief ending to the employer mandate for small businesses in 2016 (and their larger brethren in 2015 – though still classified as small businesses by the SBA) and the rise of employment costs, small businesses which account for ~70% of new private sector jobs and 50% of existing employment, are set to face a whole new level of costs.

 

As reported today, with insurance costs skyrocketing, employers are set to face a massive loss.  If we take ZH’s reported $500/month increase on top of these stats, we see that the average family insurance plan sits at around $1,950 a month now.  Of that, employers are going to be set to pay about half, or $975 a month.  At fifty employees that’s $50,000 monthly, or $600,000 annually.  This sits in stark contrast to the operating environment before the legislation was passed when “employers offered health insurance voluntarily”.

 

Even if, arguendo, there were other federal or state laws mandating insurance, the cost has risen sharply in the last years leaving both employers and employees saddled with a larger bill – a $500 net raise per month is $3000 more expensive, yearly, per employee for small businesses; at 50 people that’s a $150,000 spend. – or three full time employees.

 

Most importantly, at the end of the day the administration moved the onus of responsibly from the person to the employer.  And notably, it’s not a cost employers can pass on to funding entities – so it’s going to have to be borne by consumers by way of price increases, or by cutting costs (human capital). 

 

Note, we’ve dissmissed the U.S. Treasury report that 96% of employers were exempted from these provisions as somewhat misleading: a random sample of the data provided by the SBA has 3x more people working in the 100+ firm size than the 0 – 20 person firm size (notably, 20 – 99 is clumped together and is therefore unintelligible in this analysis).

[Fundist Small Business Loans]

 

via http://ift.tt/1OrZt0S Fundist

Is A “Lehman-Style Shock” Coming: Abe Announces Sales Tax Delay

Over the past several months, a recurring topic about Japan’s economy has been whether Abe would delay Japan’s planned consumption tax due in April 2017.

As a reminder, in late 2014, Abe caught markets and voters off-guard when he postponed an unpopular sales tax hike and called a snap election. And, as Reuters wrote in March, “less than two years later, the only surprise will be if he doesn’t repeat the play. With consumption weak, wage growth limp and emerging economy slowdowns clouding Japan’s growth, economists bet Abe will again delay raising the tax to 10 percent from 8 percent. Currently due in April 2017, the hike is seen by fiscal conservatives as vital to rein in bulging public debt and social security costs.”

Furthermore, breaking an end-2014 promise not to delay the tax hike again would give Abe cause to call an election for parliament’s lower house to coincide with a July poll for the upper chamber. His ruling bloc already holds a super majority in the lower house.

What is more surprising, is that also over the past few months Abe has insisted that he would not delay the consumption tax increase for a second time, explaining repeatedly that the increase would go ahead unless a global economic contraction or a Lehman-style market shock jolted Japan’s economy.”

Well, inquiring minds want to know if a Lehman-style economic contraction is about to hit Japan because moments ago Nikkei just reported what many had expected for months, to wit: “Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has decided to postpone a consumption tax increase set for next April, judging it to threaten efforts to pull the world’s third-largest economy out of deflation.”

More:

Abe is expected to announce the delay after further consideration, including talks with fellow Group of Seven leaders at a summit in Japan later in the month. The economic impact of April’s earthquakes in southern Japan has become clear, adding to uncertainty over domestic and global growth.

 

The prime minister informed senior government and ruling coalition officials Friday of his intention to postpone the tax hike a second time. The 8% rate was originally scheduled to go up to 10% last October, following the 3-percentage-point rise of April 2014.

 

How long Abe wants to delay the increase this time is unclear. Some officials say that if Japan waited until April 2019, it could count on a more buoyant economy thanks to the Summer Olympics in Tokyo the following year.

Curiously, the economic impact of every recent olympic games has been to lead to an economic crisis, either before or after, although somehow Japan will be different. 

Junior coalition member Komeito had wanted to go ahead with the April 2017 hike as scheduled to fulfill a campaign promise of introducing a reduced tax rate on food and other necessities.

 

“If that’s the prime minister’s decision, there’s nothing we can do,” a senior Komeito official said.

 

Abe will hold a news conference June 1 following the close of the current legislative session. Government and ruling coalition officials see this as a possible opportunity to announce his decision.

 

Postponing the hike does not require a referendum, but voters would have an indirect opportunity to weigh in on the move in an upper house election already set for July. Abe does not intend to call a snap lower house election for the same day.

 

Legislation needed to delay the tax increase would follow during a special session sometime after the election.

The Yen originally liked the news, but with the USDJPY suddenly sliding it appears that the market is now asking the same question as we posed in the title.

via http://ift.tt/1OrZu4M Tyler Durden

US Rig Count Continues To Crash

The total US rig count declined yet again this week, down 9 to 406 – a new record low. The last four times rig counts collapsed anything like this, the US economy was in recession.

 

Oil rigs dropped 10 to a new cycle low at 318, but appear near a turning point if lagged oil prices remain any indication…

via http://ift.tt/1ZNCeEo Tyler Durden

Drug Prices Soar Most In The 21st Century

Back in 1998, when Pfizer introduced Viagra it charged so much for the novelty, much needed drug (which millions of men would literally pay anything for) that it sent the entire pharma/drug price index soaring by nearly 15% for about a year. This can be seen, appropriately enough, in the spike on the chart below.

But, what is more troubling for Americans these days is while the 1998 Viagra “spike” came and went, in recent years, pharmaceutical preparation, i.e., drug prices have been soaring higher with every passing year, and according to today’s PPI report, at the wholesale level, drug prices in April surged by 9.6% over the past year, the biggest increase since 1982 when excluding the Viagra outlier, and certainly the most in the 21st century.

 

This is an issue, because while much of these prices are passed on to consumers at the individual level, this is not reflected in broader core inflation. In fact, when comparing core CPI with drug prices, one sees that while in the early 1980s the two series were both astronomically high, since then – according to the BLS – core inflation has been tame and subdued even as drug prices have been rising, initially slowly and in recent months, exponentially.

 

And while one can debate how much of PPI has or should be reflected in CPI – in this case virtually none of it – despite exploding Obamacare premiums (which also magically are never accounted for in the CPI report even if they certainly boost GDP), we wonder: how long before the BLS at least admits that its shelter/rent inflation data is woefully inaccurate, because as the Census department itself admits, in recent months, the increase in average asking rents is about 4x higher than the core CPI peddled by the BLS.

 

So yes, when one excludes soaring rents and astronomical drug prices (and non-processed food, and the cost of college, etc) core inflation sure is low enough – thanks to plunging prices of flat screen TVs and iPads – to desperately require many more years of near-0% rates.

via http://ift.tt/1R1aJB7 Tyler Durden