Business Customers Are Tired Of Being Bilked Of Billions; Demand Rate Increases On Their Bank Deposits

As we’re all well aware by now, once Trump was elected on November 8th the Fed suddenly decided it was no longer necessary to prop up asset prices in the United States with artificially low interest rates.  As such, they’ve embarked on their first rate-hiking spree since the last one ended just over a decade ago. 

 

Meanwhile, in light of the fact that the Fed has raised rates by 75bps over the past 6 months, we recently wondered aloud just how long the big banks could continue to stiff Americans out of interest payments on their deposits.  As the Wall Street Journal points out today, despite three Fed rate hikes over the past several months, the average rate paid on deposits at the 16 largest banks in the U.S. has risen a paltry 10 bps.

Meanwhile, with nearly $12 trillion held in deposit accounts at U.S. commercial banks, each 25bps of foregone interest is costing depositors about $30 billion a year, all of which is flowing straight to the bottom line of the large banks.

 

In the end, we concluded that the banks would continue to suppress deposit rates for as long as their customers continued to ignore the fact that they were getting shafted but that, over the long haul, math and greed would prevail and depositors would demand higher rates.

Alas, it seems as though the “long haul” that we predicted has arrived well ahead of schedule…at least for business customers anyway.  As the Wall Street Journal points out today, corporate customers are starting to demand higher rates on deposits and, for the most part, the large banks are acquiescing.

Consumers are giving banks a pass when it comes to shopping for higher interest rates on deposit accounts. Businesses, on the other hand, are becoming more demanding.

 

With short-term interest rates on the rise, corporate depositors are seeking bigger payouts for their deposits, and big banks have started capitulating.

 

The reason: Small rate increases are often worth just pennies to many consumers, but they can translate into meaningful dollars on large corporate deposits of millions or even billions of dollars.

 

And companies have greater leverage with banks since in many cases they also bring in lucrative investment banking and trading business.

 

“The jig is up,” said James Gilligan, assistant treasurer at Kansas City, Mo.-based power company Great Plains Energy Inc. He said many companies, including his, have negotiated better deposit pricing with banks where they also borrow. Treasurers who have the flexibility to move their money are also seeking out higher rates.

Of course, the reality is that banking institutions offer fairly commoditized products with minimal differentiation and barriers to switching, aside from the pure hassle, are not that extensive.  So while banking executives may tout their position of power in negotiating to keep deposit rates lower for longer, in the end they’ll be forced to take whatever rate the market demands…

“The way we approach pricing these days is, we defend our turf,” says Tayfun Tuzun, chief financial officer at Fifth Third Bancorp , the Cincinnati-based bank. Mr. Tuzun said U.S. banks are also being pressured by competition from overseas banks that want to build their deposits. Some are willing to pay 1.25% or 1.3%, he said, while a typical corporate deposit rate for a large account in the U.S. currently is about 0.9% to 1%.

 

More corporate customers say that day is now passing. “A year ago, it was not worth the time it takes to make a phone call” and push for a higher rate, said Jeff Glenzer, vice president at the Association for Financial Professionals, an industry group for corporate treasurers. “The higher the rate becomes, the more attractive it is to worry about where the money sits.”

 

Most banks are already awash in more deposits than they need, causing some analysts to predict they’ll be stingy on corporate deposit rates, especially with loan growth softening in recent months.

 

“We’ll use pricing to start relationships,” said Darren King, CFO of M&T Bank Corp. , based in Buffalo, N.Y. “But over time, relationships need to work for both us and the customer.”

And, then again, maybe Yellen will completely cave on rate hikes if equity markets ever decide to decline for more than 30 minutes at a time and this whole discussion will be moot.

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

“Psycho”

Gold remains inside its 5 year wedge with no clear trend yet revealed.

But there are a number of near-term potential catalysts such as the German Elections, Debt Ceiling Debate & Commitment of Traders positioning  which may help give some clarity.

In the meantime, "People are literally losing their minds.”

So says Santiago Capital's Brent Johnson in this clip regarding gold, global markets and cognitive dissonance.

 Whether it's those on the Left that cannot handle Trump in the White House, or those on the Right who can’t understand how CNN is still in business.  Whether it's the gold bugs who can’t understand why gold is not over $10k/ounce, or the equity bears who think equities are overvalued by at least 50%.   They cannot reconcile the fact that their minds are saying one thing while simultaneously trying to comprehend the information being broadcast on their T.V.s and computer monitors.

Tracing the source of this cognitive dissonance back to the real “Seven Psychopaths” (voting members of the FOMC), Johnson asks you to just listen (and keep an open mind) to see whether you are guilty of psychotic thinking as well.

While referencing characters from real life and the movies,  Johnson wonders whether the bears are overly focused on the equity market (symptom) rather than where the real psychos are focused, which is the bond market (problem). 

And also wonders, based on studies showing that “The feeling of knowing” is based on an involuntary brain mechanism much like lover or anger, is it reason or biology that is determining our opinions on the markets?

Johnson believes the danger that most people don’t see is in interest rates.  And whether due to a currency crisis, sovereign debt crisis, or the simple forgiveness of G20 sovereign debt,  rates may very well rise further and faster than most currently see possible. 

In the end, fundamentals always win.  But in the short term, markets are Psycho.

 

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

Politics Of The Next 4 Years: Part 2 (Last Chance For The Democrats)

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

In yesterday’s post, Politics of the Next 4 Years – Part 1 (Rise of the ‘Dirtbag Left’), I discussed the fact that a very potent grassroots movement has emerged to the left of corporate, neoliberal Democrats. This self-described “Dirtbag Left” and its allies have the potential to not just drive the Democratic Party into extinction, but also ultimately challenge Trump on the national stage. Although I’m not a Democrat or a leftist (I’m not a Republican or conservative either), I welcome this development for a number of reasons.

First, if economic populism becomes aggressively embraced by those who lean left, it will force Trump to become genuinely populist on at least some issues in order to compete in 2020, as opposed to the fake populism he has enthusiastically embraced since the election.

Second, it will present corporate Democrats with a choice, either “bend the knee” as the folks at Chapo suggested, or die. Nobody believes in neoliberal ideology other than donors and their corporate media spokespeople. The entire thing is a discredited failure and isn’t coming back. As such, today’s post will explain why this is the last chance for the Democratic Party.

The political world was abuzz yesterday with chatter related to Charles “Chucky” Schumer’s op-ed in The New York Times in which he suddenly proclaims himself an economic populist, and disingenuously claims the Democratic Party has somehow changed. It consisted of many comforting phrases, but I wouldn’t believe a single line of it until I see actual action on the ground. It’s easy to talk a big game when you have zero power, but talk is cheap, as we all should have learned from both Barrack Obama and Donald Trump.

Before I get into some specifics about what I think all of this means, let’s take a look at some excerpts.

Americans are clamoring for bold changes to our politics and our economy. They feel, rightfully, that both systems are rigged against them, and they made that clear in last year’s election. American families deserve a better deal so that this country works for everyone again, not just the elites and special interests. Today, Democrats will start presenting that better deal to the American people.

What took you so long? Serious question, considering this deplorable situation has been obvious for a very long time, and was already entrenched when Obama was President and Democrats controlled Congress.

Today’s working Americans and the young are justified in having greater doubts about the future than any generation since the Depression. Americans believe they’re getting a raw deal from both the economic and political systems in our country. And they are right. The wealthiest special interests can spend an unlimited, undisclosed amount of money to influence elections and protect their special deals in Washington. As a result, our system favors short-term gains for shareholders instead of long-term benefits for workers.

 

And for far too long, government has gone along, tilting the economic playing field in favor of the wealthy and powerful while putting new burdens on the backs of hard-working Americans.

 

Democrats have too often hesitated from taking on those misguided policies directly and unflinchingly — so much so that many Americans don’t know what we stand for. Not after today. Democrats will show the country that we’re the party on the side of working people — and that we stand for three simple things.

 

First, we’re going to increase people’s pay. Second, we’re going to reduce their everyday expenses. And third, we’re going to provide workers with the tools they need for the 21st-century economy.

 

We are in the minority in both houses of Congress; we cannot promise anyone that this Congress will begin passing our priorities tomorrow. But we have to start raising our voices to present our vision for the country’s future. We will seek the support of any Republicans willing to work with us, but more important, we must start rallying the American people to support our ideas.

This is key. It’s easy to make Santa Claus level promises when you have no power and can’t actually deliver. He’s basically using the same old tired language of Obama and saying “it’ll be different this time.” Why should anyone believe him?

In the last two elections, Democrats, including in the Senate, failed to articulate a strong, bold economic program for the middle class and those working hard to get there. We also failed to communicate our values to show that we were on the side of working people, not the special interests. We will not repeat the same mistake. This is the start of a new vision for the party, one strongly supported by House and Senate Democrats.

It’s not so much that Democrats have “failed to articulate” stuff. It’s that Democrats constantly fail to take action on what they articulate. David Sirota put it perfectly yesterday:

It takes quite a bit of nerve for Chucky Schumer, the consummate corporate Democrat to pivot toward populism. While he mentions various industries in his piece, he fails to mention financial institutions or Wall Street even once. This is extremely telling considering the grave danger this industry presents to the wellbeing of the nation.

To see why Schumer doesn’t dare mention “too big to fail or jail banks,” let’s take a look at excerpts from a piece published back in 2015 titled, Four “Too Big to Fail/Jail” Banks Threaten to Hold Back Funds to Democrats Over Elizabeth Warren:

WASHINGTON — As the financial crisis jolted the nation in September, Senator Charles E. Schumer was consumed. He traded telephone calls with bankers, then became one of the first officials to promote a Wall Street bailout. He spent hours in closed-door briefings and a weekend helping Congressional leaders nail down details of the $700 billion rescue package.

 

The next day, Mr. Schumer appeared at a breakfast fund-raiser in Midtown Manhattan for Senate Democrats. Addressing Henry R. Kravis, the buyout billionaire, and about 20 other finance industry executives, he warned that a bailout would be a hard sell on Capitol Hill. Then he offered some reassurance: The businessmen could count on the Democrats to help steer the nation through the financial turmoil.

 

“We are not going to be a bunch of crazy, anti-business liberals,” one executive said, summarizing Mr. Schumer’s remarks. “We are going to be effective, moderate advocates for sound economic policies, good responsible stewards you can trust.”

 

The message clearly resonated. The next week, executives at firms represented at the breakfast sent in more than $135,000 in campaign donations.

 

But Mr. Schumer, a member of the Banking and Finance Committees, repeatedly took other steps to protect industry players from government oversight and tougher rules, a review of his record shows. Over the years, he has also helped save financial institutions billions of dollars in higher taxes or fees.

 

He succeeded in limiting efforts to regulate credit-rating agencies, for example, sponsored legislation that cut fees paid by Wall Street firms to finance government oversight, pushed to allow banks to have lower capital reserves and called for the revision of regulations to make corporations’ balance sheets more transparent.

 

At times in Congress, Mr. Schumer has teamed up with Republicans, like former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who aggressively promoted a free-market agenda. Mr. Schumer pushed for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley law, passed in November 1999, which knocked down the walls between investment banks and commercial banks and allowed financial supermarkets to flourish. The law also weakened regulatory oversight by fracturing it among different agencies.

 

In 2001, Mr. Schumer and Mr. Gramm jointly proposed legislation that would cut fees paid by Wall Street firms and others to the S.E.C. in half, or by $14 billion, over the coming decade. Their proposal included some extra money for salaries of commission employees.

 

Mr. Schumer’s argument prevailed, and the fee cut passed overwhelmingly.

 

“He built his career in large part based on his ties to Wall Street,” said Christopher Whalen, managing director of Institutional Risk Analytics, which advises investors on the regulatory system. “And he has given the Street what it wanted.”

 

And he is seeking some regulatory concessions for some Wall Street supporters. He has proposed, for example, that the government lift a cap on how big the giant banks can get, an issue important to institutions like JPMorgan Chase. Lifting the cap would allow the biggest banks to absorb weaker ones, but it would also limit competition and increase the risks to the financial system posed by failure of one of the giants.

 

In recent weeks, Mr. Schumer has listened to Wall Street leaders for advice on what should come next. At a dinner at Morgan Stanley’s headquarters the night before the presidential election, John Mack, the chief executive, and a dozen top hedge fund officials talked with Mr. Schumer about possible changes affecting their industry.

The idea that this guy could somehow be a champion of “the people” is not merely laughable, it’s insulting and dangerous.

Fine, so what are you supposed to do if you’re a left-leaning American who doesn’t want to be played for a fool for the thousandth time? I have some simple advice, and it consists of focusing on the donors. Any politician who claims to be for the people yet takes massive amounts of money from Wall Street, assorted billionaires and other special interests is entirely full of shit and should not receive a vote or any support whatsoever.

If Bernie Sanders can fund his campaign with small donations, others can do it too. There’s enough demand from the public for politicians to stick it to corrupt oligarchs, and if a politician isn’t funded by the people, he or she will not work for the people. It’s that simple.

That being said, there’s one small positive about Schumer’s op-ed and the overall attempt to rebrand the Democratic Party, irrespective of how dishonest and superficial all of it is. Democratic leadership is on the ropes and they know it. If you let them off the hook because of a few soothing paragraphs in the New York Times, you know what’s going to happen. The same thing that’s happened every other time.

Just take a look at how aggressively Hillary donors are rallying around Kamala Harris for 2020. This is no accident. They’re already mobilizing their media mouthpieces to propagandize this puppet all the way to winning the Democratic nomination. This merely proves the point I made earlier. Unless you deal with the donor problem, you will never, ever take control of this party.

To conclude, the Democratic Party as we know it is finished. The only question is whether or not grassroots Americans can take over the party from the donors and run an economic populist in 2020. If not, and donors once again force a terrible candidate like Kamala Harris, the party will cease to exist as a political force from that moment, transitioning into a fascinating subject for historians to ponder.

Finally, considering I do not identify with any political ideology, tomorrow’s post will discuss how I see myself participating in the political landscape going forward.

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

Federal Appeals Court Castigates Kansas Cops for Pot Raid Triggered by Tea

Today a federal appeals court revived a lawsuit filed by Robert and Adlynn Harte, the Kansas couple whose Leawood home was raided in 2012 based on a visit to a garden store and discarded tea leaves that police claimed tested positive for marijuana. While all three members of the 10th Circuit panel agreed that a federal judge erred when he dismissed the Hartes’ lawsuit in 2015, each wrote separately. Judge Carlos Lucero best sums up the fiasco that led to the lawsuit in a blistering rebuke of reckless police practices:

Law-abiding tea drinkers and gardeners beware: One visit to a garden store and some loose tea leaves in your trash may subject you to an early-morning, SWAT-style raid, complete with battering ram, bulletproof vests, and assault rifles. Perhaps the officers will intentionally conduct the terrifying raid while your children are home, and keep the entire family under armed guard for two and a half hours while concerned residents of your quiet, family-oriented neighborhood wonder what nefarious crime you have committed. This is neither hyperbole nor metaphor—it is precisely what happened to the Harte family in the case before us.

As Lucero explains, the case began with Sgt. James Wingo of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, whose “pet project” involved staking out the Green Circle Garden Store in Kansas City, “keeping meticulous notes on all of the customers,” often for “three or four hours a day.” Robert Harte ended up on Wingo’s list because he visited the store on August 9, 2011, with his two children. Harte was buying supplies to grow tomatoes and other vegetables in the basement as an educational project for his 13-year-old son.

More than seven months later, on March 20, 2012, Wingo shared Harte’s name and information with Sgt. Thomas Reddin of the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office (JCSO) in neighboring Kansas. Reddin was planning to raid local marijuana growers on April 20, the unofficial stoner’s holiday, as part of a publicity stunt. “Despite not yet having probable cause for search warrants, and with only four weeks to investigate, the JCSO began planning a press conference to celebrate the success of their operation,” Lucero notes. “The pressure was on for JCSO officers to find probable cause by April 20.”

They tried to do that by rooting through the Hartes’ garbage on three separate occasions from April 3 to April 17. During the first “trash pull,” Deputies Edward Blake and Mark Burns found wet green vegetable matter that they deemed of no interest. Burns found the same stuff when he returned to the Hartes’ house a week later with Deputy Nate Denton, and suddenly it seemed suspicious. Burns, who testified that he had never seen loose tea before, said it looked like marijuana that had been soaked to extract THC. (A lab technician consulted months later disagreed, saying the leaves didn’t “appear to be marijuana” to the unaided eye and didn’t “look anything like marijuana leaves or stems” under a microscope.) Trusting his instincts, Burns decided to perform a field drug test, which indicated the presence of THC, marijuana’s main psychoactive ingredient. Burns and Blake came back one more time a week later, just three days before a raid that had already been scheduled, and examined more of the wet leaves, which again tested positive for marijuana.

Or so Burns and Blake said. Whether they actually performed the field tests, which they neglected to photograph or otherwise document, is a matter of dispute. As Lucero points out, the circumstances gave them a strong motive to lie, since they were tasked with justifying an increasingly imminent search that for publicity reasons had to happen on April 20. But even if they did perform the tests and correctly interpreted the results, it would be weak evidence at best that the Hartes were growing marijuana in their home. The Lynn Peavey KN reagent test they supposedly used is notoriously unreliable. “One study,” Lucero notes, “found a 70% false positive rate using this field test, with positive results obtained from substances including vanilla, peppermint, ginger, eucalyptus, cinnamon leaf, basil, thyme, lemon grass, lavender, organic oregano, organic spearmint, organic clove, patchouli, ginseng, a strip of newspaper, and even air.” The label on the test kit warns that its results “are only presumptive in nature” and should be confirmed by laboratory analysis.

The deputies ignored that recommendation. “Had the officers taken that extra step,” Lucero observes, “they would have saved the Hartes a traumatic and invasive experience and themselves the embarrassment of a botched investigation. The ‘marijuana,’ officers would soon learn, was nothing more than loose-leaf Teavana tea.”

The police also failed to take several other elementary steps that would have cast doubt on their belief that the Hartes were cannabis kingpins. “The JCSO did not conduct surveillance, check utility records, look for fans or other alterations typically used to conceal grow operations, or notice the tomato garden readily visible through a front-facing basement window,” Lucero writes. Nor did the cops bother to conduct a background check, which would have revealed that the Hartes had no criminal records and “were both former CIA employees with the highest level of security clearance.” Instead the deputies obtained a search warrant based on nothing more than gardening supplies in a bag and wet tea leaves in the garbage.

In addition to criticizing the cops for their comically inadequate investigation, Lucero faults them for conducting “an excessive, SWAT-style raid” that gratuitously exposed the Hartes and their two young children to the trauma and risk of having seven armed men storm into their home early in the morning and forcibly confine them to their living room for two and a half hours while conducting an increasingly desperate search for nonexistent evidence of a marijuana grow. The officers took this aggressive approach even though there was no reason to think the Hartes posed a threat to them. “Even more concerning,” Lucero says, “the officers timed the raid for when the Hartes’ children would be home but failed to create any safety plan in anticipation of risks to the children.” They even rebuffed a neighbor’s offer to look after the children during the search.

“The defendants in this case caused an unjustified governmental intrusion into the Hartes’ home based on nothing more than junk science, an incompetent investigation, and a publicity stunt,” Lucero writes. “The Fourth Amendment does not condone this conduct, and neither can I.”

Lucero got enough agreement from his colleagues to reinstate several claims that were dismissed in 2015, including unlawful search-and-seizure claims against Reddin, Burns, Blake, seven other deputies, Sheriff Frank Denning, and the Johnson County Board of Commissioners. The 10th Circuit also is letting the Hartes try to prove their allegation that Burns, Blake, or both lied about the field tests, which would invalidate the warrant used to search the house, and several claims under state law, including trespass, assault, and false imprisonment.

Lucero cites two policy decisions that arguably make Denning and the county commissioners legally responsible for this debacle. One is “Sheriff Denning’s decision to authorize the use of
inconclusive field tests with a high false positive rate, and without the laboratory confirmation expressly required by the manufacturer’s label, as the sole basis for probable cause.” As I noted in a 2016 piece about faulty field tests, Denning is remarkably ignorant about that issue, or at least pretends to be. After four decades in law enforcement, he claimed the Harte case was the only time he had heard that false-positive results were possible.

Lucero also faults “the JCSO’s investigatory policy under which the targets, deadline, and even success of the April 20 drug raid were pre-determined,” which “placed enormous pressure on the deputies to find probable cause in time to make the raid publicity-worthy, thereby creating incentives for the deputies to cut corners and fabricate probable cause.” The upshot, he says, was that “the Hartes’ home was subject to an invasive search as a direct result of a JCSO publicity stunt that lacked any legitimate law enforcement rationale.”

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2v5SVWH
via IFTTT

The Virtues Of Discrimination

By Chris at http://ift.tt/12YmHT5

I deserve to be punished!

Yesterday, I received some mail from subscribers in response to my article about the end of the empire:

“More buggered than an alter boy at the Vatican”. This is a witch hunt against the clergy. Can’t you see that? You perpetuate the lies and I hope God punishes you for it. What’s more I’m British, and proud of it and your article is racist. I’ve unsubscribed from your stupid discriminating blog.

Not everyone wants me dead, though… which is nice:

“God, I love these essays!”

And:

Hi Chris

 

Just a quick thanks to you and your team for all the updates and your insights. Having a feed of well thought through investment advice mixed with highly entertaining commentaries which cut through the thickest layers of the BS right to the essence of the matter is more than I had expected when I signed up for this and I really appreciate it.

 

 

Regards

And:

“I just shared this around the office here in London, where I have to tell you…we’re having a cup of tea:-) Love your take on the world and your unashamed way of dealing with reality. I first came across your work when a friend forwarded this one to me. It is so rare to find clarity of thinking and I really appreciate your ability to bring together the complexity of economics, human behaviour, history and everything in between. Keep up the fantastic truly insightful work.”

I’m reminded that you can’t please everyone… and neither should you try. It’s also useful to weed out morons so it’s got that going for it.

As much as I find amusement from hate mail and am humbled by well wishers, it made me think about this problem of political correctness. It’s an incredibly important topic and, in fact, was a significant factor in correctly predicting the ascension of Trump to the throne.

The people, like the disgruntled Brit above, who refuse to acknowledge things like the epidemic of pedophilia in the church are dangerous. The selective bias is appalling. They look at themselves and others not as individual human beings… which is how we should interact with one another, but rather as some group. Everything to them is pigeon holed into some category: white, black, male, female, left, right, capitalist, globalist, and so on.

They actually define themselves and others as a class, not as an individual. It’s lazy thinking at its finest. This is seriously problematic for a simple reason: it subjugates the individual in favour of the group. Some humour about Brits (who I secretly love) is immediately classed as racist. It’s completely absurd to the point of bordering on mentally ill.

Everything that doesn’t fit into their world view finds a label with “discrimination” being extremely popular. This is because it’s so loosely defined – literally anything can (and is) jammed into the discriminatory jar.

Have you ever bought a new car and then found that everywhere you look you seem to see the same car and colour?

In a similar fashion, these people search for discrimination, find it everywhere, and then attack it.

Say after me: we need discrimination. It is what keeps society ordered and civilised.

An example:

Some time ago my wife and I were out having dinner with a group of friends – 3 other couples. One of the guests, who I’ll call Harry (not his real name), had shoddy manners, cut people off in mid-conversation in order to put his point across, and was generally overbearing, loud, and obnoxious. Even when I cut him down and told him, in no uncertain terms, that he was being rude and offensive, this washed over him like water off a duck’s back. When a shared plate of food arrived, Harry proceeded to scoop literally half of the plate straight onto his own plate and eat it… without the slightest acknowledgement that his bahaviour may not be exactly acceptable.

Have we and the other couples subsequently discriminated against Harry? Hell, yeah! We won’t be inviting him and his poor wife over anytime soon.

Discrimination? Sure.

Necessary? Absolutely.

It’s what keeps society civilised. It comes as no surprise that Harry has few friends, is constantly “in between” jobs, and survives, as far as I can tell, by the grace of his wife, who for whatever reason, continues to support him. That, too, may at some point become too much, and Harry will find that, in order for him to not starve, he’ll need to change his ways. This is how things should work.

Do you discriminate when you steer clear of a group of young men with an aggressive swagger walking at night?

I sure hope so. This is not prejudice it’s bloody prudence.

Multiculturalism

It’s got such a nice ring to it but those using it don’t actually understand its true meaning. The dictionary tells us it’s the preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within unified society. 

Discrimination is closely tied with multiculturalism, which is easily one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted terms in our modern lexicon. From my experience – and I’ve lived in 7 different countries, traveled to over 50, and do business with, have employees, colleagues, and business associates that traverse not only the globe but all the major religions and ethic groups – I can tell you this: those who live and work with many cultures and across geographies never, and I mean never, have an issue with this.

Those who do are inevitably the ones who have never traveled or travel little, and they wish to actually enforce on others their own world view. These are the worst sort of people. Those who not only believe things which are false but are not content until you, too, adhere to their beliefs. It’s an ideology, and ideologies are more dangerous than nuclear weapons.

Peter Thiel saw this coming a full 20 years ago. I would urge you to spend 15 minutes and listen to this speech he gave:

He quite correctly mentions that

“Multiculturalism has nothing to do with the study of other cultures.” He goes on to say that “You do not see students protesting on college campuses demanding missionary postings in third world countries, to learn more about other societies. You do not have people protesting to learn Chinese or Swahili.”

 

“You cannot have diversity on a college campus with people who look different but think alike.”

Peter discusses the threat to Western civilisation, which ironically is not posed by any other civilisation but rather comes from within. Those who have been reared in the warm bosom of Western civilisation providing freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and a host of freedoms, which have allowed for unparalleled wealth and opportunity. This is where the threat comes from. It’s not unlike a spoilt child who has been given too much by well-meaning parents… only to invite drug dealers and gangsters into the homestead to destroy it and rape and pillage.

This is not non-Western but anti-Western and advocating the destruction of Western civilisation.

Multiculturalism joins the ranks of a long list of junk words that have crawled into popular vocabulary but which infest our brain and are used by self-righteous pompous pseudo intellectuals to further goals which have little to do with what we’re told they do.

Words such as “islamophobia”, a nonsensical word if ever there was one (which I’ll write about in a separate article… because nobody else will)… and another pet hate: “marginalized”, which if you look carefully, is a term used to describe any minority group that enjoys support from multimillion dollar lobby groups where the objective is to destroy criticism of the particular group and to garner favours which would, if the group couldn’t muster being “marginalised” would NOT receive largess. Interestingly, these “marginalised” groups cannot ever be white and male. Think about why that is.

Be careful of using these rubbish euphemisms and fight back against those who throw them out as accusations, because they are the epitome of lazy thinking and are being used as weapons to destroy what is often common sense. In this world or irrationality, when a rational statement is made that it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, society runs the risk of being to afraid to say that yes, it’s a duck. That, my friends, is dangerous territory indeed.

– Chris

“If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.” — George S. Patton

 

————————————–

Liked this article? Then you’ll probably like my other missives on

this topic as well. Go here to access them (free, of course).

————————————–

via http://ift.tt/2h17RPB Capitalist Exploits

Central Bankers ‘Are’ The Crisis

Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

If there’s one myth – and there are many – that we should invalidate in the cross-over world of politics and economics, it‘s that central banks have saved us from a financial crisis. It’s a carefully construed myth, but it’s as false as can be. Our central banks have caused our financial crises, not saved us from them.

It really should -but doesn’t- make us cringe uncontrollably to see Bank of England governor-for-hire Mark Carney announce -straightfaced- that:

“A decade after the start of the global financial crisis, G20 reforms are building a safer, simpler and fairer financial system. “We have fixed the issues that caused the last crisis. They were fundamental and deep-seated, which is why it was such a major job.”

Or, for that matter, to see Fed chief Janet Yellen declare that there won’t be another financial crisis in her lifetime, while she’s busy-bee busy building that next crisis as we speak. These people are now saying increasingly crazy things, and that should make us pause.

Central banks don’t serve people, or even societies, as that same myth claims. They serve banks. Even if central bankers themselves believe that this is one and the same thing, that doesn’t make it true. And if they don’t understand this, they should never be let anywhere near the positions they hold.

You can pin the moment central banks went awry at any point in time you like. The Bank of England’s foundation in 1694, the Federal Reserve’s in 1913, the ECB much more recently. What’s crucial in the timing is where and when the best interests of the banks split off from those of their societies. Because that is when central banks will stop serving those societies. We are at such a -turning?!- point right now. And it’s been coming for some time, ‘slowly’ working its way towards an inevitable abyss.

Over the past few years the Automatic Earth has argues repeatedly, along several different avenues, that American society was at its richest between the late 1960s and early 1980s. Yet another illustration of this came only yesterday in a Lance Roberts graph:

Anyone see a recovery in there? Lance uses 1981 as a ‘cut-off’ date, but the GDP growth rate as represented by the dotted line doesn’t really begin to go ‘bad’ until 1986 or so. At the tail end of the late 1960s to early 1980s period, as the American economy was inexorably getting poorer, Alan Greenspan took over as Federal Reserve governor in 1987. A narrative was carefully crafted by and for the media with Greenspan as an ‘oracle’ or even a ‘rock star’, but in reality he has been instrumental in saddling the economy with what will turn out to be insurmountable problems.

Greenspan was a major driving force behind the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which was finally established through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act of 1999. This was an open political act by the Federal Reserve governor, something that everyone should have then protested, and still should now, but didn’t and doesn’t. Central bankers should be kept far removed from politics, anywhere and everywhere, because they represent a small segment of society, banks, not society as a whole.

Because of the ‘oracle’ narrative, Greenspan was instead praised for saving the world. But all that Greenspan and his accomplices, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, actually did in getting rid of the 1933 Glass-Steagall act separation between investment- and consumer banking was to open the floodgates of debt, and even more importantly, leveraged debt. All part of the ‘financial innovations’ Greenspan famously lauded for saving and growing economies. It was all just more debt on top of more debt.

Greenspan et al ‘simply’ did what central bankers do: they represent the best interests of banks. And the world’s central bankers have never looked back. That most people still find it hard to believe that America -and the west- has been getting poorer for the past 30-40 years, goes to show how effective the narratives have been. The world looks richer instead of poorer, after all. That this is exclusively because of rising debt numbers wherever you look is not part of the narratives. Indeed, ruling economic models and theories ignore the role played by both banks and credit in an economy, almost entirely.

Alan Greenspan left as Fed head in 2006, after having wreaked his havoc on America for almost two decades, right before the financial crisis that took off in 2007-2008 became apparent to the world at large. The crisis was largely his doing, but he has escaped just about all the blame for it. Good PR.

With Ben Bernanke, an alleged academic genius on the Great Depression, as Greenspan’s replacement, the Fed just kept going and turned it up a notch. It was no longer possible in the financial world to pretend that banks and people had the same interests, so the former were bailed out at the expense of the latter. The illusionary narrative for the public, however, remained intact. What do people know about finance, anyway? Just make sure the S&P goes up. Easy as pie.

The narrative has switched to Bernanke, and Yellen after him, as well as Mario Draghi at the ECB and Haruhiko Kuroda at the Bank of Japan, saving the world from doom. But once again, they are the ones who are creating the crisis, not the ones saving us from it. They are saving the banks, and saddling the people with the costs.

In the past decade, these central bankers have purchased $20-$50 trillion in bonds, securities and stocks.

The only intention, and indeed the only result, is to keep banks from falling over, increase their profits, and maintain the illusion that economies are recovering and growing.

They can only achieve this by creating bubbles wherever they can. Apart from the QE programs under which they bought all those ‘assets’, they used -and still do- another tool: lowering interest rates to the point where borrowing money becomes so cheap everyone can do it, and then do it some more. It has worked miracles in blowing stock market valuations out of all realistic proportions, and in doing the same for housing markets in locations all over the globe.

The role of China’s central bank in this is interesting too, but it is such an open and obvious political tool that it really deserves its own discussion and narrative. Basically, Beijing did what it saw Washington do and thought: why hold back?

Fast forward to today and we see that we’ve landed in a whole new, and next, phase of the story. The world’s central banks are all stuck in their own – self-created – bubbles and narratives. They all talk about how they solved all the issues, and how they will now return to normal, but the sad truth is they can’t and they know it.

The Fed stopped purchasing assets through its QE program a while back, but it could only do that because Frankfurt and Japan took over. And now they, too, talk about quitting QE. Slowly, yada yada, because of control, yada yada, but they know they must. They also know they can’t. Because the entire recovery narrative is a mirage, a fata morgana, a sleight of hand.

And that means we have arrived at a point that is new and very dangerous for the entire global economy and all of its people.

That is, the world’s central bankers now have an incentive to create the next crisis. This is because they know this crisis is inevitable, and they know their masters and protégés, the banks, risk suffering immensely or even going under. ‘Tapering’, or whatever you might call the -slow- end to QE and the -slow- hiking of interest rates, will prick and blow up bubbles one by one, and often in violent fashion.

When housing bubbles burst, economies lose the primary ingredient for maintaining -let alone increasing- their money supply: banks creating money out of thin hot air. Since the money supply is one of the key components of inflation, along with velocity of money, there will be fantastic outbursts of debt deflation. You’ve never seen -let alone imagined- anything like it.

The worst part of it is not government debt, though that, when financed with bond sales, is not not an instrument to infinity and beyond either. But the big hit to economies will be private debt. Where in many bubble areas, and they’re too numerous too mention, eager potential buyers today fret over affordable housing supply, it’ll all turn on a dime and owners won’t be able to sell without being suffocated by crippling losses.

Pension funds, which have already suffered perhaps more than any other parties because of low interest ZIRP and NIRP policies, have switched en masse to riskier assets like stocks. Well, another whammy, and a bigger one, is waiting just outside the door. Pensions will be so last century.

That another crisis is waiting to happen, and that politics and media have made sure that just about no-one at all is aware of it, is one thing. We already knew this, a few of us. That the world’s main central bankers have an active incentive to bring about the crisis, if only by sitting on their hands long enough, is new. But they do.

Yellen, Draghi and Kuroda may opt to leave before pulling the trigger, or be fired soon enough. But whoever is in the governor seats will realize that unleashing a crisis sooner rather than later is the only option left not to be blamed for it. Let the house of dominoes crumble now, and they can say “nobody could have seen this coming”, while at the same time saving what they can for the banks and bankers they serve. That option will not be on the table for much longer.

We should have never given them, let alone their member/master banks, the power to conjure up trillions out of nothing, and use that power as a political tool. But it is too late now.

via http://ift.tt/2tXg7Bi Tyler Durden

Is Venezuela In Danger Of Becoming Another Syria?

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

You may recall this bizarre incident that occurred last month in Venezuela. A rogue police officer by the name of Oscar Perez, who is also well known in Venezuela for starring in several B-rated action movies, commandeered a helicopter, before dropping grenades on the nation’s Supreme Court building and strafing the Interior Ministry with gunfire. It was without a doubt, the strangest moment to come out of that nation’s ongoing civil unrest.

But this brazen attack isn’t just odd. In fact, it may portend something much more serious that is simmering under the surface of Venezuela’s slow motion social collapse.

It’s a sign that Venezuela is very close to erupting into a full-blown civil war.

Recently, a stolen police helicopter attacked the Venezuelan Supreme Court with grenades and automatic weapons.

 

While no one was hurt, the incident should serve as a wake-up call for the entire Western Hemisphere, including the United States.

 

The attack demonstrates a quantum escalation of the hunger-fueled conflict that has consumed the country for close to a year. Hunger is the key word. Hunger is the most basic of human suffering. Remember that rising food prices helped fuel the Arab Spring, which has left the world with a chaotic, fractured, refugee-hemorrhaging Middle East.

Obviously, the lack of food in Venezuela is a key factor in that nation’s unrest. Multiple studies have shown in the past that when food prices escalate to a certain point, riots and revolutions become very likely, even in cases where the population isn’t specifically revolting over the price of food. But in any case the lack of food, skyrocketing crime, rampant corruption, and flippant tyranny that are all fueling the unrest, and giving people like Oscar Perez lots of support in both high and low places.

Is Venezuela in danger of becoming another Syria? Maybe.

 

The helicopter pilot, Oscar Perez, posted a bare-faced declaration online describing himself as representative of a group of “nationalists, patriots, and institutionalists.” The fact that he has been allowed to slip quietly back into the shadows illustrates how much of the population is willing to hide him. Even more distressing is the fact that his group even had access to a helicopter, a fact illustrating how much support they may have within Venezuela’s government institutions.

We can deduce from Perez’s attack that there are battle lines being drawn in Venezuela right now, and those lines run right through the middle of the civilian population, the military, the police, and the political class (and yes, that line does run through the middle of society, because there are still millions of people who support President Maduro).

And that’s what makes civil wars possible. They don’t usually occur in countries where millions of unarmed civilians hate the government, and the government is staffed by plenty of loyalists. These wars tend to happen in places where the soldiers and cops are also divided along partisan lines. That way, you have a lot of people armed to the teeth with the best weapons government tax dollars can buy, and those people become two separate armed camps with divergent views and political goals.

You can’t have a war unless there are two sides with a lot of firepower, and that’s what we see in Venezuela right now. That nation is a powder keg, and it could blow at any time.

via http://ift.tt/2tXw6zC Tyler Durden

If The VIX Goes Bananas, This Is What It Might Look Like

From Chris Metli of Morgan Stanley

It’s easy to become numb to the low volatility environment and the risks it presents.  While trying to pick a trough in vol has been a fool’s errand, focusing on the risks resulting from vol being so low is not.  Low volatility has produced a regime where the risks are asymmetric and negatively convex, so being prepared for an unwind is critical.  This is not a call that vol is about to spike, but you need a plan if it does.

This note details how a short vol unwind might develop. A violent rise in volatility could be driven by just a 3% to 4% one-day S&P 500 selloff.  Right now the risk is greatest in the VIX complex, and demand for VIX futures from three main sources could result in 100,000 contracts ($100mm vega) to buy in a down 3.5% SPX move.  For context VIX futures ADV over the last year is 230,000 (although has risen to as high as 700,000 in big selloffs).

It’s important to note that this only happens if there is a large 1-day move lower in equities starting when VIX is very low – a slower drawdown, or a selloff from higher starting levels of vol, would not create as much demand.  The biggest S&P 500 selloff when VIX was less than 12 was 3.5% (Feb 2007), so this type of move would be on par with the worst-case historical move for a low vol environment.

Why highlight this now?  Simply because as volatility goes lower, these risks rise.   In April and May QDS acknowledged that the short vol base was large, but viewed the risk as manageable (‘Keep Calm and Carry On’).  In June the team’s stance on volatility turned neutral.  And since then volatility levels have only gone lower.

What happens if the S&P 500 were to fall 3.5% today?

1) First, the VIX could rise as much as 12 points.  When volatility is low it tends to move a lot for a given change in the S&P 500.  That effect is likely to be exacerbated now because a) skew is steep (and VIX rolls up the skew in a selloff) and b) many players in the VIX market are short.  Taking these dynamics into account QDS estimates VIX could rise ~12 points for a 3.5% 1-day decline in SPX.

If VIX rises 12 points, 1-month VIX futures are likely up 5.5 points, a ~50% increase.  The 1-day percentage change is a big deal in the VIX complex because the levered and inverse VIX ETFs and ETNs rebalance daily based on the percentage change, and some of the thresholds for forced unwinds are based on the percentage change.  This is why lower vol creates higher risk.

2) In a 50% increase in VIX futures, the levered and inverse VIX ETFs and ETNs need to buy ~70,000 VIX futures to rebalance their portfolios and maintain target exposures (this estimate is net of redemptions – long vol ETPs are generally sold by their holders as vol rises, offsetting the levered rebalance).  While these flows likely occur near the close, the dynamic is well known, and many traders will bring forward those flows to the middle of the day.

3) A VIX futures level in the high teens (up from 11 – 12 now) means dealers get short VIX call gamma.  There has been considerable buying of VIX calls and call spreads, with much of the hedging flow in the last month focused on VIX (instead of SPX).  As VIX futures rise, dealers will get more and more short delta, which needs to be hedged by buying VIX futures.  In a 3.5% SPX selloff QDS estimates there could be 25,000 VIX futures to buy from dealers hedging.

4) If VIX futures approach +100% in a single day, there is a risk that the providers of inverse VIX ETPs cover the VIX futures that they sold to hedge the products.  This is because there is a mismatch in the hedge if VIX futures rise more than 100% – the inverse ETPs can’t go below zero (-100%) but the loss on a short VIX futures position can be more than -100%.

There are two inverse ETPs that sell the front of the VIX futures curve – XIV (an ETN) and SVXY (an ETF).  For XIV (holding ~73,000 contracts short) the prospectus indicates that it will unwind if the NAV falls more than 80% intraday, with investors receiving the end of day value.  Given this is a known threshold, anything close to a +80% move in VIX futures would likely trigger buying (by the ETN provider and/or market participants) in anticipation of the unwind.  Note that because XIV is an ETN, investors receive the theoretical value of the index based on its rules, not what the provider actually trades.

SVXY (holding ~37,000 contracts short) does not have a set threshold to unwind according to its prospectus.  That said VIX futures currently have a margin requirement of ~45% of notional for the average of the front two contracts, and any decline in value of the inverse ETPs to those levels could trigger a rapid forced unwind.   Note that SVXY is an ETF, so the NAV is based on the actual holdings of the fund at the end of the day.

5)  The 2nd derivative impacts are likely large.  An overnight gap higher that doesn’t give investors the opportunity to hedge is the worst case.  Consider if there is an overnight gap in VIX futures of +150% (VIX futures to ~29, VIX to 35+):

  • The holders of the inverse ETPs lose the $1.4bn as the AUM of inverse ETPs goes to zero.
  • The providers (hedge counterparties / clearers) of the ETPs lose $600mm due to the mismatched hedge if VIX futures more than double.
  • Investors that sold long vol ETPs against short vol ETPs (a somewhat common carry trade) have the same unhedged gap risk in a +100% VIX futures move as the ETP providers.  Assuming they are 20% of the shorts in the inverse ETPs (a guess) – they lose $250mm.
  • Dealers who can’t hedge their delta on the way up could lose $500mm on our estimates.
  • Hedge funds who are short VIX futures ($250mm vega on just the short leg per CFTC) playing the rolldown trade lose over $4bn.
  • Investors who are wrong way in VXX, SVXY, and UVXY options could lose hundreds of millions – estimating loss here is hard, but assuming 20% of the open interest is wrong way, the loss would be ~$1bn.
  • Investors who have sold vol in other forms (options, variance, etc.) would take losses and likely look to cover as well.

With a buyer for every seller someone is making this money too, and some of the above could be hedged as well.  But the point is that when there are losses, ‘sell what you can’ will take over and drive further supply.  While the point of max pain in volatility would likely be the first day of the spike, the knock on effects could mean equity markets take longer to recover.

6)   Adding to the pain – on days after the initial shock – would be the flow from annuity and risk parity deleveraging.  Both of those investors are slow by comparison to the VIX market – annuities will sell over several days, starting the day after a selloff.  Risk parity funds are more discretionary, and the supply could come over a matter of weeks.  But given high leverage resulting from the low vol environment, their potential supply is large and could prolong any downturn.

Investors have been crying wolf about the VIX complex for years, and have been wrong so far.  And it’s important to note that the odds are still heavily stacked against the above scenario playing out and the most likely scenario is still a graceful unwind of the short vol trade:

  • If volatility is just a little bit higher, the unwind potential is much less – there needs to be a shock when volatility starts at these very low levels
  • The unwind in VIX only happens in a 1-day gap lower in stocks – a slow bleed would not create as much supply
  • History suggests a gap from low vol levels is unlikely:  the biggest selloff in S&P 500 when VIX was less than 12 was -3.5%, and -2.2% when VIX was less than 11, not enough to trigger this type of unwind.  That -2.2% selloff occurred on Feb 4th 1994 when the Fed raised interest rates – bond volatility remains the major risk factor.
  • Investors are still not all-in on stocks, with exposures moderate and many hiding out in defensives and Tech – raising the bar for a big selloff in stocks
  • Active manager performance this year has been strong, meaning funds are less likely to become forced sellers of positions, which helps keeps volatility tame and can limit the speed of a selloff
  • Correlation remains low due to both fundamentals and positioning, and for the index to sell off sharply it would need to rise

The point is simply that if there is an external market shock that nobody is prepared for (and this likely coincides with a selloff across asset classes), the risks of a quick unwind are higher than in the past.  QDS favors staying long equities, but does not view the risk / reward on simply selling volatility as attractive anymore.  Instead consider:

  • Replacing long stock with S&P 500 upside calls that look very cheap given low volatility – buy the SPX Dec 2550 call (30^) for ~1% (sub-9% implied vol)
  • Buying VIX puts instead of selling VIX futures to collect rolldown – buy the VIX Sept 10.5 put for $0.25, which offers attractive leverage if futures roll down to current spot levels of VIX with a 9 handle.
  • Hedging this potential tail event with OTM VIX calls – buy the Sept 20 calls (17^) for $0.45.  VIX calls are not cheap by any measure, but they are reasonably priced given these potential risks, and for those that see a shock occurring in the next few months VIX calls are the best hedge.

via http://ift.tt/2uvDYM7 Tyler Durden

Bolivia’s President Declares “Total Independence” From World Bank And IMF

Via The American Herald Tribune,

Bolivia's President Evo Morales has been highlighting his government's independence from international money lending organizations and their detrimental impact the nation, the Telesur TV reported.

"A day like today in 1944 ended Bretton Woods Economic Conference (USA), in which the IMF and WB were established," Morales tweeted.

 

"These organizations dictated the economic fate of Bolivia and the world. Today we can say that we have total independence of them."

Morales has said Bolivia's past dependence on the agencies was so great that the International Monetary Fund had an office in government headquarters and even participated in their meetings.

Bolivia is now in the process of becoming a member of the Southern Common Market, Mercosur and Morales attended the group's summit in Argentina last week.

Bolivia’s popular uprising known as the The Cochabamba Water War in 2000 against United States-based Bechtel Corporation over water privatization and the associated World Bank policies shed light on some of the debt issues facing the region.

Some of Bolivia’s largest resistance struggles in the last 60 years have targeted the economic policies carried out by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. 

Most of the protests focused on opposing privatization policies and austerity measures, including cuts to public services, privatization decrees, wage reductions, as well the weakening of labor rights. 

Since 2006, a year after Morales came to power, social spending on health, education, and poverty programs has increased by over 45 percent.

The Morales administration made enormous transformations in the Andean nation. The figures speak for themselves: the nationalization of hydrocarbons, poverty reduction from 60% to less than 40%, a decrease in the rate of illiteracy from 13% to 3%, the tripling the GDP with an average growth of 5% annually, the quadrupling of the minimum wage, the increasing of state coverage on all fronts, and the development of infrastructure in communications, transportation, energy and industry.

And above all, stability, an unusual word in the troubled political history Bolivia, of which today, with the economic slowdown experienced by many countries in the region, is a real privilege.

 

via http://ift.tt/2uzld8W Tyler Durden