How Wall Street Is Preparing For “President Trump”

While the market has had its share of bogeymen to worry about so far in 2016, mostly along the lines of the "Four Cs", namely China, Crude, Credit and Currencies, it has so far largely ignored one letter: the Big D, for Donald, as in how would a Trump presidency affect the market. And, as Reuters writes, it is time for Wall Street to add "the juggernaut that is Donald J. Trump to the list of what-ifs that is worrying Wall Street."

The kneejerk, conventional wisdom reaction is that the non-establishment outsider would be a big risk for stocks: "a growing realization that the unpredictable New York real estate developer is in a position to win the Republican nomination and then battle Hillary Clinton for the White House in November's election has caused some investors to sell U.S. stocks. They fear having such a wild-card president could trigger trade wars, hurt the economy and add a lot of market volatility."

AS Doug Kass notes, "as the market rarely feasts on lack of predictability – Trump represents a nightmare for investors this year." Kass said last week that he was adding to his existing short bet on the U.S. stock market in part because of Trump's increasingly strong position in the race.

The problem is that it is difficult to pigeonhole Trump's market policies: according to Reuters, "his statements on business and Wall Street don't neatly fit into one ideological worldview, but if anything, they are seen as isolationist in a globally connected world. He can also suddenly pick on businesses over various issues, such as his call for a boycott of Apple’s products after the tech giant refused to help the FBI unlock the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters."

It's not just the usual "year eight" of the presidential cycle jitters when the market tends to underperform: "The election this year is the height of uncertainty," said Phil Orlando, a senior portfolio manager and chief equity strategist at Federated Investors in New York, which manages $351 billion. He said political concerns – personified by Trump's emergence as a frontrunner – are one of the main reasons why he began reducing equity exposure in mid-January.

Others are concerned about Trump's "lack of substance" such as Dave Lafferty, chief market strategist at Natixis Global Asset Management who said that "Trump has been light on policy substance so it’s very difficult for the markets to handicap." He expects market volatility to rise if Trump extends his lead in Tuesday’s elections.

Then there are fears about Trump's domestic policies. Some investors are particularly concerned about Trump's nationalist rhetoric, saying it is potentially destructive to a global economy that is already struggling. If it reduces trade flows then it could also hamper U.S. and global growth and hurt U.S. company profits.

As Trump has noted several times during recent speeches, he proposes labeling China a currency manipulator and ending what he calls China's illegal export subsidies and theft of U.S. intellectual property. He also wants to penalize companies who move jobs from the U.S. to Mexico by hitting them with high tariffs if they want to export back to the U.S., as well as build a wall at the Mexican border to prevent the flow of illegal immigrants. Then again considering the US just announced a 266% duty on Chinese steel imports, it may be that Obama is merely frontrunning Trump's policies.

In response, Trump’s spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in an email to Reuters that the same crowd criticizing the Republican Party's top candidate had been responsible for causing the last worldwide recession and economic meltdown in 2007-2008. 

"They have zero credibility," said Hicks. "Mr. Trump will restore confidence to the global markets by ending runaway spending and borrowing, restoring trade balance and fairness, and bringing wealth to America's middle class."

One can't say that he is wrong.

What is surprising, is that among his other proposals, Trump would bring forth some very market-friendly policies: plans include ideas that traditionally come from Republican candidates, such as lowering the corporate tax rate, simplifying the tax code, and as his web site puts it, cutting the deficit through "eliminating waste, fraud and abuse" and "growing the economy to increase tax revenues.”

"I think markets will like Trump on the taxes issue since he favors lower rates and a permanent change in repatriation rules," said David Kotok, chairman and chief investment officer at Cumberland Advisors.

On the other hand, some on Wall Street are worried that Trump's plans to do away with the so-called carried interest tax loophole – which gives hedge fund and private equity managers preferential tax treatment on much of their income – would prompt more selling if he begins to climb in national polls against Clinton.

Then there are questions about Trump's fiscal policies. David Ader, chief government bond strategist at CRT Capital Group in Stamford, Connecticut, said Trump's history raises questions about his ability to run an organization as unwieldy and complex as the government. The businessman has in the past filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for the Trump Taj Mahal casino and Trump Plaza Hotel. Ader says the uncertainty would cause investors to flock to safe-haven U.S. Treasuries should Trump take office. "It's one thing to run casinos that have gone bankrupt, it's another to run a country and its foreign policy," he said.

To this one can respond that if the Fed is unsuccessful at inflating away the debt, default would be the next option (if not very likely), and someone who is familiar with balance sheet restructurings, such as Trump, is precisely what America needs.

However, that may not be enough for Todd Morgan, senior managing partner at wealth management firm Bel Air Investments Advisors in Los Angeles, who is already taking action: he said that the increasing likelihood that Trump will be the Republican nominee is one reason why he has raised cash in some client portfolios over the past four months. He would likely sell more if it looks like Trump will win the general election, he said.

"It's like a scale and you keep dropping more weights on the balance everyday, and the political uncertainty is becoming a bigger and bigger weight," he said.

Some are far more optimistic, and as Carl Icahn told Neil Cavuto last night, "I do believe Donald Trump is what this country needs right now."

But the best and most pragmatic response came from DoubleLine's Jeffrey Gundlach, who said that Trump has a history of being ”comfortable with a lot of debt and leverage," and that won't impede him from spending heavily. He said he believes Trump’s pledge to spend heavily on the military makes defense stocks a good investment play.

In other words, for all the rhetoric and all the bluster, at the end of the day, America under president Trump will be… very much the same.


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

What Percent Are You?

Are you the 1% or the 99%? How about among millennials? Or high-school dropouts? The Wall Street Journal shows how your income compares with your fellow Americans.

Earning $25,780 would put you below 50% of Americans reporting individual income in 2014. What percent are you?

 

Click image below for interactive version


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

Billionaire Koch Brothers Won’t Attack Trump In Primaries After Murdoch Calls For Party Unity

It appears it is not just the bookies that see Trump’s nomination as a done deal. Even the money behind the establishment is folding now as Reuters reports the mega-donor billionaire Koch brothers have said they have “no plans to get involved in the primary.” This follows another mega-donor, Rupert Murdoch’s call to “unify the party” as Trump tries to make peace with the “establishment.”

Before Super Tuesday – as the rhetoric reached 1st grade – Murdoch (cum peacekeeper) tweeted…

And then earlier this evening, following Trump’s success, he followed up with…

Which, as Reuters reports, appears to have forced some to stop the denial and move forward…

The billionaire industrialist Koch brothers, the most powerful conservative mega donors in the United States, will not deploy their $400 million political arsenal to attack Republican front-runner Donald Trump in the U.S. presidential primary election, according to an official from the brother’s political umbrella group.

 

“We have no plans to get involved in the primary,” said James Davis, spokesman for Freedom Partners, the Koch brothers’ political umbrella group.

 

Donors and media reports have speculated since a Koch summit in January that the brothers would launch a “Trump Intervention,” a strategy that would involve deploying the Koch’s vast political network to target the billionaire reality TV star in hopes of removing him from the race.

It is hardly surprising as throwing good money after bad (ask Jeb) just isn’t going to change the minds of an angry electorate…


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

Are You A ‘Religious Extremist’?

Submitted by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

Are you a religious extremist?  For years, world leaders have been endlessly proclaiming that we need to eradicate “extremism”, but what actually is “extremism”?  Many would point to the ISIS jihadists over in the Middle East that are beheading people that don’t agree with them as examples of religious extremists, and I think that very few people would argue with that.  But our politicians (especially the liberal ones) rarely use the term “Islamic terrorists” anymore.  Instead, they tend to use the term “religious extremists”, and that has a much, much broader connotation.  In fact, if you are a Bible-believing Christian, you are probably included in that category.

Most Bible-believing Christians would never think of themselves as being similar to radical jihadists in the Middle East, but that is precisely how many of their fellow Americans very them.  The Barna Group has just released a shocking new study which found that 45 percent of all “non-religious” Americans believe that “Christianity is extremist”…

The perception that the Christian faith is extreme is now firmly entrenched among the nation’s non-Christians. A full forty-five percent of atheists, agnostics, and religiously unaffiliated in America agree with the statement “Christianity is extremist.” Almost as troubling is the fact that only 14 percent of atheists and agnostics strongly disagree that Christianity is extremist. The remaining four in ten (41%) disagree only somewhat. So even non-Christians who are reluctant to fully label Christianity as extremist, still harbor some hesitations and negative perceptions toward the religion.

Even more troubling is what the study discovered about how the general population views specific religious activities.  There has been a tremendous shift in society, and behaviors that were considered to be completely mainstream a few decades ago are now considered to be “extremism”.

Are you ready to take a test? Look over the Barna infographic that I have shared below very carefully.  Have you ever participated in any of these “extremist activities”?…

If you have ever participated in any of the activities listed in category 1 or category 2, you are a “religious extremist” according to most Americans.

Of course every single one of the behaviors in category 2 would potentially apply to me, so I guess that would make me an “extremist” according to this definition.

This is where our society is heading.  Of course “Christian extremists” are not normally put into prison in the United States quite yet, but hatred toward our faith in rapidly rising in society.  Church attendance is dropping like a rock, the Christian faith is relentlessly mocked in movies and on television, and incidents of hostility toward Christians have doubled over the past three years.

And the truth is that even the federal government and the military are rapidly turning against Bible-believing Christians.  For example, the slide that I have posted below comes from a U.S. Army Reserve Equal Opportunity training brief that described “Evangelical Christianity” and “Catholicism” as examples of “religious extremism”…

Once this came out, there was a huge uproar and some people got into trouble over this.  But it should be exceedingly alarming to people of faith that U.S. military personnel were being trained that evangelical Christians are on the same level as the Ku Klux Klan.

And of course this is far from the only example of this phenomenon.  In fact, Christians have regularly been described as “extremists” and “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents since the day that Barack Obama first stepped into the White House.

The following is an extended excerpt from my previous article entitled “72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered ‘Potential Terrorists’ In Official Government Documents“…

*****

Below is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents.  To see the original source document for each point, just click on the link.  As you can see, this list covers most of the country…

1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”

2. Those that advocate for states’ rights

3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”

4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”

5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”

6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”

7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”

8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”

9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”

10. “Anti-Gay”

11. “Anti-Immigrant”

12. “Anti-Muslim”

13. “The Patriot Movement”

14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”

15. Members of the Family Research Council

16. Members of the American Family Association

17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”

18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol

19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform

20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition

21. Members of the Christian Action Network

22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”

23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”

24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21

25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps

26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”

27. The militia movement

28. The sovereign citizen movement

29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”

30. Anyone that “complains about bias”

31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”

32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”

33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”

34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”

35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”

36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”

37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”

38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”

39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”

40. “Militia or unorganized militia”

41. “General right-wing extremist”

42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.

43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”

44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”

45. Those that are “anti-global”

46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”

47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”

48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”

49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”

50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”

51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”

52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”

53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”

54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”

55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”

56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”

57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”

58. “Rightwing extremists”

59. “Returning veterans”

60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”

61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”

62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”

63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”

64. “Anti-abortion activists”

65. Those that are against illegal immigration

66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner

67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations

68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”

69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr

70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)

71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies

72. Evangelical Christians

*****

Are you starting to get the picture?


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/24CjNqw Tyler Durden

The Next Cockroach Emerges: Including Undrawn Loans, Canadian Banks Exposure To Oil Doubles

One month ago, when we looked at the (very opaque) European banking sector and the pains it was undergoing as a result of its China and commodity exposure, we asked whether Canadian banks are next, focusing on the uncharacteristically low reserves local banks have to the loans in the oil and gas sector.

As we summarized, using an RBC report, if using the same average reserve level as that applied by US banks, Canadian banks’ current loss allowance excluding RBC would surge from $170MM to over $2.5 billion, resulting in a substantial hit to earnings, and potentially impairing the banks’ ability to service dividends and future cash distributions.

We also wondered what other cockroaches may be hiding inside the uncharacteristically optimistic Canadian banks’ balance sheets.

One answer was revealed today when Bloomberg reported that if one includes untapped loans in the form of undrawn revolvers and other committed but unused credit facilities, Canadian banks’ exposure to the struggling oil-and-gas industry more than doubles from the current C$50 billion in outstanding loans generally highlighted by Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-Dominion Bank and the country’s four other large lenders in quarterly earnings calls and presentations, to C$107 billion ($80 billion).

 

As Bloomberg explains for those unfamiliar with how gross exposure works, in addition to existing loans and drawn credit facilities, banks also have exposure in the form of commitments, such as credit lines. They can potentially increase a bank’s risk, because the weakest borrowers often tap their entire credit line when nearing default. The banks’ exposure to oil-and-gas companies from outstanding loans and commitments range from about C$5 billion for National Bank of Canada to C$32 billion for Bank of Nova Scotia.

And when a liquidity shortage arrives as it most certainly will should oil continue to trade at current prices, distressed energy companies will promptly fully draw the last dollar available under untapped credit lines.

Borrowing the full amount before the credit line is cut helps companies preserve liquidity to keep paying their bills, and gives them leverage to negotiate with their creditors. For example, Royal Bank is among the lead lenders to SandRidge Energy Inc., which drew its entire $500 million credit line in January. The Oklahoma City-based company then missed a bond interest payment on Feb. 16, starting a 30-day countdown to default unless the coupon is paid or an agreement is reached with its lenders.

Remember when in late 2013 this website was warning about the unprecedented surge in issuance of covenant-lite loans? This is the reason.

Barring breaching contracts, “the banks really don’t have a lot of recourse to prevent you from drawing the credit line,” said Jason Wangler, an energy analyst at Wunderlich Securities in Houston. “They were really lax last year on covenants and it’s starting to cost them.”

Putting Canada’s energy loans in context, European banks disclosed during the most recent earnings season that they have almost $200 billion in oil-and-gas loans, while U.S. banks have an estimated $123 billion of outstanding loans and commitments to the industry. In other words when adding the committed but undrawn exposure, total Canadian bank exposure of $80 billion is fast approaching that of the entire US banking sector.

Not surprisingly, it was bank analysts who promptly tried to put liptsick on this pig:

Including oil-and-gas lending commitments overstates the banks’ risks, since the borrowers may not fully draw down those credit lines in times of trouble, said Peter Routledge, an analyst with National Bank Financial.

 

“The banks will lower the undrawn commitments before the borrowers go bankrupt,” Routledge said in an interview. “There will be some lines cut so it’s not going to be as big.”

Incidentally, this is precisely what US banks are quietly doing right now as we also reported two months ago, when we first explained that U.S. banks have been quietly shrinking the credit facilities of numerous oil and gas companies.

However, the banks better hurry: with every passing day energy company liquidity is getting increasingly more dire, to the point where they will soon scramble to take out as much cash as they possibly can before the banks perform their periodic redeterimation, and cut the borrowing bases based on new strip assumptions.

Who is most exposed?

According to Bloomberg, Scotiabank, Canada’s third-largest lender, has the highest credit exposure to oil-and-gas, including C$17.9 billion in outstanding loans and C$14.1 billion of commitments, according to March 1 disclosures. About 60 percent of the drawn exposure is investment grade, compared with about 75 percent for the undrawn commitments, the bank said.

“When you back out the investment grade, what’s left is a very small portion that is an area of focus, but we’re very comfortable,” Chief Financial Officer Sean McGuckin said Tuesday in telephone interview from Toronto. “We do a name-by-name analysis on a regular basis and we’ve got a good handle on this portfolio.”

Royal Bank, Canada’s largest lender, had the second-highest exposure. Chief Risk Officer Mark Hughes said on a Feb. 24 call that the bank’s drawn wholesale loan book to the oil-and-gas industry represented about 1.6 percent of its total, with an accompanying presentation showing the amount was C$8.4 billion. Gross exposure to oil-and-gas firms was C$22.1 billion, including C$13.7 billion of undrawn commitments, according to a report to shareholders.

Some banks, such as RBC are hoping their covenants will provide sufficient protection. Royal Bank’s Chief Risk Officer Mark Hughes said that “The vast majority of our clients’ credit profiles are strong and have remained stable over the past year,” Hughes said in an e-mailed statement. “We have covenants in place as safeguards, such as liquidity and coverage requirements, which serve to restrict drawings in times of stress. If the company can demonstrate their compliance with these requirements, they can continue to draw on their facilities.”

“We do remain very comfortable because our oil and gas exposure is below our peers,” CFO Riaz Ahmed said in a Feb. 25 phone interview.

The other Canadian banks are just as optimistic that these credit facilities, most of which were drafted when oil was at $100, will prevent capital losses.

Oil-and-gas loans at Bank of Montreal were C$7.4 billion in the first quarter, representing about 2 percent of its portfolio, the Toronto-based firm said in a Feb. 23 disclosure. The undrawn exposure shows that the lender had an additional C$8.24 billion of undrawn commitments, raising its exposure to C$16.3 billion.

 

“We evaluate the risk on both drawn and undrawn basis,” Chief Executive Officer Bill Downe said in a Feb. 29 interview in Florida. “We assume that lines will be drawn under periods of stress. I think our disclosure is fair.”

 

National Bank reported C$3.2 billion of outstanding oil-and-gas loans in the first quarter, a “low and manageable” exposure representing about 2.7 percent of its loan book, Chief Risk Officer William Bonnell said during a Feb. 23 earnings call.

Unless oil rebounds, the entire world will find out very soon just how contained this particular “cockroach” is, even as we look forward to discovering the next one.


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

Hacking Democracy – Welcome To The Jungle Of Non-Cooperative Nations

Submitted by Ben Hunt via Salient Partners' Epsilon Theory blog,

There is one great positive-sum game in all of human economic history — trade. But there are periods of time in human history when this core engine of growth and prosperity falters, when it becomes, at best, a zero-sum game of equal winners and equal losers. We are entering one of those times.
 
Why? Because this is what ALWAYS happens as independent nations struggle with the domestic political consequences of massive debt. Debt begets wealth inequality. Wealth inequality begets political polarization. Political polarization begets shocking electoral outcomes as the median voter theorem fails and shocking market outcomes as the central tendency fails. So go ahead … ask Nate Silver how well his electoral models are working. Ask any Fed staffer how well their econometric models are working. Democracy is hacked, not in the sense of some Mr. Robot f-society conspiracy, but in the sense of what Sen. Lindsey Graham appropriately calls “bats**t crazy” domestic political behavior, behavior that ALWAYS emerges under these circumstances. It happened in the 1870s. It happened in the 1930s. It's happening today. As George Soros would say, I'm not expecting it. I'm observing it.
 
Under the strain of domestic policy errors and domestic policy uncertainty (uncertainty in the technical sense of the word, where neither outcomes nor probability distributions can be known), global trade volumes and global trade prices ALWAYS roll over. Again, this happened in the 1870s, it happened in the 1930s, and it's happening today. And when this global economic pie begins to shrink, the strategic interaction between nations inexorably changes from a Cooperative game to a Competitive game (read "The Silver Age of the Central Banker" for more). This is the moment where trade activity — in goods, services, and capital — shifts from a positive-sum game to a zero-sum game, where domestic political institutions ALWAYS shift towards protectionist policies. In the modern context, this political shift takes place primarily in monetary policy, specifically monetary policy that impacts currency exchange rates. Why? Because currencies are the linchpin for both trade in goods and trade in capital. Currency intervention is the quickest and most direct way to protect your slice of a smaller and smaller pie, even though it's exactly this currency intervention, when done by everyone, that is making the pie shrink. 
 
I can't emphasize strongly enough how this politically-driven shift in the equilibrium payoffs of global trade and capital flows — and its expression in monetary policy focused on currency exchange rates — changes everything for investors.
 
But I also can't tell you how this all ends up. I know this is a really disappointing statement I'm about to make, but the outcome of most Competitive Games is not predictable. And by "not predictable" I don't mean that there's an equal chance of this or that outcome. I mean that any attachment of any probability distribution to any set of potential outcomes just doesn't work in a predictive sense. Or if it does work, then it worked by pure luck. For example, there are two equilibrium outcomes in a game of Chicken, but that doesn't mean that each equilibrium is equally likely. It means that the entire concept of likelihood or probability functions has no meaning here (read "Inherent Vice" for more). It means that the entire econometric toolkit is about as useful as a socket wrench kit is useful in baking a cake. Again, I know how hard it is to wrap one's head around this fact, and I know that many readers will just reject it out of hand. But it's still true.
 
So I can't tell you what the ultimate outcome of this Competitive Game between nations will be. But I can tell you what the process of this game will be. I can tell you what the dynamic of this game will be. I can give you a perspective that works for the times we're in, and I can identify specific asymmetric risk/reward set-ups (but call them by their proper name — trades — not "investments"). That's the most that is possible here, and I think anyone who says otherwise is mistaking luck for skill.
 
What is the dynamic of the Competitive Game of nations here in 2016? Specifically, what's next? I think I can sum up my views in two pictures.
 
First, here's a group shot from the G-20 meeting that just concluded in Shanghai. There's Christine Lagarde of the IMF on the left, the belle of the ball … and then there's Janet Yellen on the right, looking about as uncomfortable as it's possible for a human to look.
 

[Photo: Rolex Dela Pena / AFP]
 
Frankly, as an American … and as someone who recognizes that the nature of the international game has changed from Cooperation to Competition … I'm pleased that Yellen isn't all buddy-buddy with her fellow conferees. That's no slight on Lagarde — her institution is intentionally designed to promote the Cooperation game, she offers carrots rather than swings a big stick, and it makes perfect sense that anyone who runs the IMF would be highly charismatic and the life of the party (true for her predecessor, DSK, too, although maybe he was too much the life of the party … just sayin'). Yellen, on the other hand, has no institutional mandate for international cooperation and swings the meanest stick, by far, in the global economy. Yellen is the big stack, to use a poker playing analogy (poker being a zero-sum game, of course), and short of wearing a hoodie and mirrored shades to convey intimidation and an intentional separation from the crowd — an effective big stack strategy, by the way — I can't think of more effective game-playing body language than Yellen displays here.
 
So what's next for this high-stakes poker game? A series of raises (in the poker sense!) from Europe and Japan, with the US calling and checking down every step of the way, until ultimately China goes all-in by floating the yuan or otherwise sharply devaluing their currency. Less metaphorically, that means I expect the ECB to lower its negative interest rates significantly this week, and the Bank of Japan will do … something … of similar or greater magnitude later in March. The US will be dragged from its current tightening bias to a neutral bias (maybe as early as the March meeting, but probably not), and then to an easing bias, and then to actual easing. But the US won't be initiating any of these moves, they will be responding to the actions of the ECB and the BOJ.
 
With every action by the ECB and the BOJ, the dollar gets stronger, oil and commodities go lower, and S&P 500 earnings get hit. That's bad for the US and it's bad for China and it's bad for global trade and it's bad for the global industrial and commodity complexes, but if you're Draghi or Kuroda you really don't care. Or rather, they might care, but when the payoff from being a currency "defector" becomes potentially greater than the payoff from being a currency "cooperator", there's a dominant strategy and it's called beggar-thy-neighbor.
 
That same dominant strategy exists for the US and China. For the US that means turning the monetary policy barge around from tightening to easing, and with every move Yellen makes, the dollar will go down, oil and commodities will go up, S&P 500 earnings will look better, and equity markets will rally. But it's a short-term rally because this will only spark further currency-weakening actions by the ECB and the BOJ, starting another leg down in the protectionist spiral. Wash, rinse, repeat.
 
The big loser in this spiraling dynamic is China. To torture the poker analogy a bit more, they're the short stack at this table — not from a purely economic perspective (that's Japan), but from a political perspective (where Japan may actually be the strongest). It's political strength that matters most in this game, and the Chinese political regime is existentially vulnerable to declining volumes of global trade. They have no choice but to go all-in here to spur exports and domestic industrial production, and at some point they will. There are several ways China can shove their chips into the pot, but my guess is that they go all-in by floating the yuan. That will be the risk-off moment of this or any other year, an atomic bomb of deflationary power, and I think it's an easy putt from there to negative rates in the US.
 
Yes, that's right. Negative rates in the US. It's coming. It's inevitable, really, not because the FOMC wants negative rates — they don't — but because they must pursue negative rates out of national self-interest and sheer self-defense in a Competitive game where your adversaries (get used to that word) have rolled out the equivalent of mustard gas in the trench warfare that we're going to endure.
 
And that brings me to my second photo that's worth a thousand words, this from a recent meeting of Sweden's central bank, prior to their February reduction of interest rates to -0.5%.

 

“We have become seasoned. Things which once made us say ‘oh my God’ don’t seem that dramatic anymore.”
– Sweden Riksbank Deputy Gov. Per Jansson (on left)

[Photo: Associated Press]
 
I mean, this is what it's come to, right? Where smirking Ph.Ds who have never spent a day of their adult lives outside of the governmental or academic womb, where earringed, pony-tailed apparatchiks who have never managed a dime, who have never counseled a retired couple trying to live on their savings, now unilaterally and without limitation make political decisions that determine the fate of that retired couple. Not just in Sweden, but everywhere in the world. Yeah, I shouldn't mention the whole earring and pony-tail thing, but you know what? It's an intentional statement of identity, an identity that I recognize from my decade as a political science professor, an identity that not only elevates elegant theory over practical experience, but more than that, dismisses practical experience as inherently inferior to the tenets of an academic faith. It's the hubris, the overweening pride that oozes from this photo that makes me cringe. We've seen this movie before, and it always ends in tears. There's a reason that Pride is one of the Seven Deadly Sins, and nowhere is pride more dangerous than when it comes to financial "innovation." What the Gaussian copula was to securitized mortgages in 2008, negative rates are to monetary policy in 2016.
 

But here's the thing, and this is true for any Competitive game, whether it's poker or World War I or a Republican primary or strategic monetary policy — once one player enjoys some success with a new strategy or a new weapon, ALL players must adopt that strategy or weapon, regardless of whether or not a player thinks it's distasteful or misguided. Even if you think you're doing the wrong thing in the long run, if you don't adopt the new strategy you're going to lose in the short run, and that's something no politician and no central banker can stomach. I'm reminded of the (in)famous line from Chuck Prince, former Citigroup CEO, in 2007: "When the music stops, in terms of liquidity, things will be complicated. But as long as the music is playing, you've got to get up and dance." Just as all of the big banks were dancing to the music of Alt-A mortgages and trillions of dollars in mortgage-backed securitizations in 2007, so are all central bankers dancing to the music of negative rates and currency devaluation today. It was the rational move for Prince and Fuld and Thain and Mozilo then, and it's the rational move for Yellen and Draghi and Kuroda and Zhou today. Once negative rates (or liar loans or Trump-esque campaign tactics) are introduced into the field of battle you can't wish them away. You have to fight fire with fire until a big structure burns down, with the hope that at that point everyone can get together and rebuild. Or you can surrender. Welcome to the jungle.


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

U.S. Unintended Pregnancy Rate Falls 18 Percent

UnintendedPregnanciesThe New England Journal of Medicine is reporting that between 2008 and 2011 (most recent data) that the U.S. unintended pregnancy rate has begun falling after being stuck on a plateau since 2001. An unintended pregnancy is defined as one that is either unwanted or mistimed. The NEJM article reports:

Less than half (45%) of pregnancies were unintended in 2011, as compared with 51% in 2008. The rate of unintended pregnancy among women and girls 15 to 44 years of age declined by 18%, from 54 per 1000 in 2008 to 45 per 1000 in 2011. Rates of unintended pregnancy among those who were below the federal poverty level or cohabiting were two to three times the national average.

Across population subgroups, disparities in the rates of unintended pregnancy persisted but narrowed between 2008 and 2011; the incidence of unintended pregnancy declined by more than 25% among girls who were 15 to 17 years of age, women who were cohabiting, those whose incomes were between 100% and 199% of the federal poverty level, those who did not have a high school education, and Hispanics. The percentage of unintended pregnancies that ended in abortion remained stable during the period studied (40% in 2008 and 42% in 2011). Among women and girls 15 to 44 years of age, the rate of unintended pregnancies that ended in birth declined from 27 per 1000 in 2008 to 22 per 1000 in 2011.

After a previous period of minimal change, the rate of unintended pregnancy in the United States declined substantially between 2008 and 2011, but unintended pregnancies remained most common among women and girls who were poor and those who were cohabiting.

This is very good news since that means that more Americans are successfully making reproductive decisions in line with their plans and values. My Reason colleagues Elizabeth Nolan Brown and Stephanie Slade have reported that a number of states that are moving toward over-the-counter availability of birth control medications. This trend needs to be encouraged and sped up.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1QUoVlR
via IFTTT

“I’m Very Sad”: Peso Collapse Triggers Despair At Mexican Border Towns

“When the Mexican peso gets a cold, Laredo sneezes,” Les Norton, head of the Downtown Merchants Association says.

Despite the fact that Banxico managed to take MXN shorts out into the alley and execute them earlier this month in an epic “franc moment,” the trend, so to speak, is not your friend here.

 

Mexico’s currency has taken a dramatic hit from the slump in crude. Like other EM FX pairs, the USDMXN hasn’t been the place to be over the past year (again, recent weakness notwithstanding).

And much like what we’ve seen with the loonie, the FX malaise has real implications for people’s purchasing decisions. Need proof? Look no further than Silvia Guerra’s store in Laredo, Texas which is on the state-side of the Rio Grande. As Bloomberg notes, Guerra sells “dresses and colorful rolls of fabric,” but these days, the collapsing peso means “she’ll be out of business by May.” 

As Bloomberg goes on to recount, Silvia is a poster child for the malaise that’s accrued from the collapse in oil prices. “Her husband lost his job leasing drilling equipment for Weatherford [and] their daughter, an administrator for Baker Hughes in San Antonio, was told her position is at risk after more than 700 firings recently at the oil-services company.” Furthermore, “their son, who supervises fracking operations for C&J Energy Services, has seen his paycheck shrink so much he’s looking for side work.”

Earlier this month, Weatherford fired 15% of its workforce or, around 6,000 people. Guerra’s husband was fired after 16 years at the company. 

“The news hit us like a bomb,” she said. 

“Most of the 115 million people who cross into Texas legally from Mexico every year are on shopping expeditions, and by some estimates are responsible for one of every two retail dollars spent in Laredo,” Bloomberg notes. “They buy everything from jeans to smart phones to toys.”

Well, unless the exchange rate crashes. Then they don’t buy anything. 

Now with the peso, my customers are not coming anymore,” Kush Samtani who owns a 27-year-old electronics shop bemoans.

As Bloomberg goes on to note, around a third of Laredo’s residents live below the poverty line. Per capita income is less than $16K. “What’s different this time is that Laredo is also taking a hit from the bust in the Eagle Ford, one of the fields behind the surge in U.S. oil output in the past half-decade,” Bloomberg adds. 

For those who might have missed it, here’s what the situation looks like: 

But that’s ok, because Robert Kaplan is on the job. 

And he’ll definitley make things right again. Besides, there’s nothing wrong in the first place (i.e. there are no struggling financial institutions, just ask the Dallas Fed, who told Zero Hedge that there’s nothing to worry about when it comes to O&G reserves). 

On second thought, you should worry. At least if you’re Silvia Guerra. Because a surging dollar is going to continue to pressure EM. And thanks to Saudi Arabia (and Iran, through no fault of their own), commodity prices are going to remain subdued. As will EM FX. In fact the correlation between EM FX and commodities has intensified: 

So good luck Silvia.

I’m very sad that I have to close my store,” she told Bloomberg. 

Tell it to King Salman. And then maybe see if he’ll lend you some gold to cover your bills.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1Y2PhS2 Tyler Durden

Human Trafficking Is the New ‘Crack-Cocaine Epidemic,’ Says California Lawmaker

At a hearing on new measures to address human trafficking, California Assemblyman Reggie-Jones Sawyer (D-Los Angeles) told fellow lawmakers that “the last time we’ve had this kind of emergency was when we had the crack-cocaine epidemic.” 

Sadly, Sawyer was not referencing the ways in which the current popular panic about sex trafficking and governmental responses to it mirror the outlandish, hysteria-based, and detrimental state approach to the war on drugs. Rather, Sawyer sees our attention to the “crack-cocaine epidemic” as something we should now strive to emulate with human trafficking. 

In many, many respects, lawmakers, police, and federal officials already are treating sex trafficking in the same way they did the drug war. The dominant legislative response has been increased criminalization of all sorts of commercial sexual activity, as a report commissioned by the Department of Justice noted recently—although there’s no evidence that this corresponds to less commercial sexual activity or more human-trafficking arrests or prosecutions. 

One way this increased criminalization plays out is in more stings on sex buyers, rather than sex sellers. In at least 21 states, “sex trafficking laws have been amended or originally enacted with the intent to decisively reach the action of buyers of sex,” according to the anti-trafficking nonprofit Shared Hope International. The crack down on sex buyers operates under the theory that if we “end demand” for commercial sexual activity there will be no market for trafficked individuals. As I pointed out in a November 2015 Reason story on U.S. sex trafficking, it was also a popular drug-war rallying cry. 

“Ending the demand for drugs is how, in the end, we will win” the drug war, said then-President Ronald Reagan in 1988. In fact, he declared, ending demand was how we were already winning:

“The tide of the battle has turned, and we’re beginning to win the crusade for a drug-free America,” Reagan claimed.

In reality, the number of illicit drug users in America has only risen since then, despite the billions of dollars spent and hundreds of thousands of people locked away. In 1990, for instance, 7.1 percent of Americans had used some sort of illegal drug in the past month, according to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. By 2002 it had risen to 8.3 percent, and by 2013 to 9.4 percent.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1Y2Ob8Y
via IFTTT