FitBit Crashes 31% To Record Lows After Missing Revenues, Slashing Guidance

Fitbit share are in freefall – crashing to single-digits after hours, down over 31% to record lows, after missing on revenues and slashing guidance.

FIT missed revenues:

  • *FITBIT 3Q REV. $503.8M, EST. $508.7M

and slashed Q4 expectations…

  • *FITBIT SEES 4Q ADJ EPS 14C TO 18C, EST. 75C
  • *FITBIT SEES 4Q REV. $725M TO $750M, EST. $981.3M

Leaving the shares in utter freefall…

 

So given the above – here is what the CEO said…

“I am pleased to see positive reception for our new products launched in the third quarter. We are attracting new customers while our existing ones are upgrading their devices, underscoring the strength of the Fitbit brand and growing relevancy of wearables as part of consumers’ everyday lives,” said James Park, Fitbit co-founder and CEO.

 

“We continue to grow and are profitable, however not at the pace previously expected. We are focused on improving the utility of our products and integrating more deeply into the healthcare ecosystem and believe we can leverage our brand and community to unlock new avenues and adjacencies of growth.”

Cognitive dissonance?

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

Watch Obama Mildly Throw the Palest of Shade at Comey’s Clinton Letter!

Watch this brief clip of an interview with President Barack Obama from NowThisNews and decide for yourself if he’s, as a Daily Beast headline suggests, “smacking down” FBI Director James Comey for his letter to members of Congress that his agency was investigating newly discovered emails connected to Hillary Clinton’s private email servers:

Granted, Obama is not one to allow anger or frustration to creep into his pedantic tone except in very particularly calculated cases (being upset over mass shootings, for example). Even so, his response here seems relatively mild and doesn’t really justify the Daily Beast’s “Look who is destroying somebody else!” headlines. I wouldn’t even describe him as “sharply” criticizing Comey as The New York Times does.

It’s clear Obama doesn’t agree with the decision but that’s about it. He says about the timing of Comey’s letter, “There is a norm that when we are investigating, we don’t operate on innuendo. We don’t operate on incomplete information. We don’t operate on leaks.”

Yeah, I would love Politifact to go through eight years of either The Washington Post or The New York Times (or both) and count the number of unnamed sources from somewhere within the Department of Justice who have talked about an investigation or case (here’s one that took me about 30 seconds to find via Google).

And, of course, the further irony here is that Comey’s letter makes it clear he has no plans to “operate” on innuendo, incomplete information, or leaks. “Leaks” is a particularly odd choice because this whole part of the scandal is because Comey went public about the state of the investigation, probably because of the administration’s problems with containing leaks.

This brief clip of the interview also ends oddly, with Obama saying, “When this was investigated thoroughly the last time, the conclusion of the FBI, the conclusion of the Justice Department, the conclusion of repeated congressional investigations, was that she had made some mistakes, but that there wasn’t a thing there that was prosecutable.”

Er … yes … but … the entire point of Comey’s letter is to let Congress know that after all those investigations and those conclusions, they discovered additional information that may end up being relevant. One does not have to agree or disagree with the investigation’s conclusion to understand precisely why they now have to take a second look.

I do think there is a genuine, honest concern about the FBI in general talking publicly about the state of investigations. But the transparency here is pretty much justified by exactly how relentlessly political the entire fight has become. And Clinton didn’t just make a mistake on how she handled her emails. Her responses have been misleading every step of the way. I really don’t think Comey had the option of keeping his mouth shut that there would have to be additional investigations.

I am absolutely no fan of Comey’s, whatsoever. He is completely dismissive (and insulting, even) in regards to the needs of citizens to protect their data from both governments and private hackers. But this is a mess entirely of Clinton’s making, not Comey’s, not the GOP cashing in on it politically, and not the media pursuing page views off it (don’t judge me!).

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2f210QS
via IFTTT

Obama Criticizes FBI for ‘Innuendo,’ Gawker Settles With Hulk Hogan, World Series Ends Tonight in Cleveland: P.M. Links

  • President Obama criticized the FBI for operating on “innuendo” in a reference to the agency’s Hillary Clinton investigations.
  • Gawker settled with Hulk Hogan for $31 million.
  • A former police chief in New York was sentenced to less than 4 years in prison for beating a handcuffed man who stole from him and trying to cover the incident up.
  • The sexual assault victim of Brock Turner was named Glamour‘s woman of the year.
  • Microsoft launches a service to compete with Slack.
  • Game 7 of the World Series will be played in Cleveland tonight.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2f22dI7
via IFTTT

Fed Fails To Save Stocks From Worst Losing Streak In 5 Years

Stocks (4mo lows) and HY Bonds (3mo lows) down 7 days in a row… the longest losing streak since Nov 2011

 

"Fleshwound"...

 

Post-Fed, gold and bonds were sold and oil bid which dragged stocks up a smidge…

 

On the day, Trannies held on to green but all stocks ended with an ugly close with Small Caps notably weak again (highest beta to credit) – Dow closed below 18,000 and S&P below 2100…

Notice The Fed bounce failed…

 

VIX held above 19 and S&P ended below 2100…

 

As a reminder, stocks remain green for the year but are falling fast… (Small Caps down almost 10% from the year's highs)

 

Treasury yields ended the day marginally lower (long-end better than short-end)…

 

The USD Index fell for the 3rd day of the last 4 to one month lows…

 

Although it did rally after the Fed…

 

With Swissy and Yen strength dominant but all losing ground during the US day session to the USD

 

But it was Mexican Peso vol that exploded…

 

Silver remains the week's biggest gainer (and oil the loser)…

 

WTI Crude briefly traded with a $44 handle before bouncing on the The Fed…

 

Erasing all the Algiers OPEC "deal" hope gains…

 

Gold (back above $1300) and Silver spiked back to October plunge levels (remember that was the China Golden Week annual plunge)…

 

via http://ift.tt/2fFfNV8 Tyler Durden

Eagles’ Josh Huff Latest NFL Player with Marijuana Problem

Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver Josh Huff was reportedly pulled over while speeding across the Walt Whitman Bridge into New Jersey, with police citing him for possession of a small amount of marijuana (under 50 grams) and unlawful possession of a handgun and hollow-point bullets. He was issued two warrants for the weapons offenses and a criminal summons for the marijuana, and received traffic tickets.

Despite calls in local sports media for Huff to be benched or even cut, Eagles coach Doug Pedersen expects Huff to play in this weekend’s game. Huff’s alleged speeding (and tinted windows) are traffic offenses. While the marijuana and gun charges are more serious, they are no more inherently violent or harmful to others than the traffic charges. Hollow-point bullets are even legal in Pennsylvania and many other states, but New Jersey has specific laws prohibiting the bullets and it appears authorities claim Huff was already in New Jersey when he was pulled over. That didn’t stop one local columnist who called for Huff to be cut from treating hollow point bullets like a war crime. They were “bullets banned for use in warfare by most major powers,” Marcus Hayes wrote breathlessly at Philly.com, and Huff should be cut for acting like a “dumbass.” Hollow point bullets can also be described as among the most popular bullets in the U.S. for law enforcement and civilians. Even the Social Security Administration orders hundreds of thousands of them.

While legal attitudes about marijuana are shifting toward acceptance, when it comes to the National Football League, Huff may be in more trouble for the possession of marijuana than anything else. While marijuana has been mostly decriminalized in Philadelphia, where the Eagles play, and legalized in a number of jurisdictions where the NFL plays, the NFL has the toughest rules against marijuana of any of the major American sports leagues, as Tom Junod noted in ESPN Magazine in a profile on Eugene Monroe, a former NFL player who has become a medical marijuana advocate. Monroe was actually the first active NFL player to speak out against the NFL’s restrictive marijuana rules but retired shortly after, citing health concerns. Among them was Monroe’s concern about the effect of painkillers, often prescribed by NFL doctors for the various injuries sustained by players as well as recovery from surgeries.

Given how much more strenuous and physically demanding and damaging football can be than, say, the NHL (where only a third of players are tested for marijuana every year), the NFL should have been on the cutting edge of marijuana reform advocacy and research into medical marijuana. Instead, it took players like Monroe, who has funded research into medical marijuana, for the NFL to even look at the possibility of marijuana as a pain management tool. A growing number of NFL veterans, including two-time Super Bowl champion Jim McMahon, have been pushing for the NFL to allow players to explore marijuana for medical and other reasons.

Watch Reason TV’s “The NFL Should Let Players Use Marijuana”:

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2e35OJ0
via IFTTT

Unexpected Chart Of The Day: USA Default Risk Tumbles As Trump Gains

While every establishment politician and mainstream media pundit has proclaimed the end of the world as we know it if Donald Trump were to win next week, it appears – perhaps throwing off the narrative of exactly who is the “most dangerous” candidate – that the risk of the US Dollar has dropped along with Trump’s resurgence

 

Chart: Bloomberg

Of course, there is plenty of noise and illiquidity in that sovereign CDS contract as it combines default and devaluation risk of the US Dollar, but it appears the risk premium associated with buying protection on the USA has fallen notably as Donald Trump gains on Hillary Clinton.

via http://ift.tt/2f1Stxy Tyler Durden

Citi Explains What Time Traders Can Go Home On Election Night

It’s all about Florida, North Carolina and Ohio.

For traders hoping to capitalize on volatility next Tuesday as the election results come trickling in, it may all be over by early evening, at least if Trump loses.

That is the calculation of Citi’s Steven Englander, who determined that if Trump loses either Florida or North Carolina or Ohio “the math doesn’t work and it tells us that the shift to Trump was not as pronounced as feared.”

Those states, marked in yellow in the table below, close at 7:00 or 7:30 ET. As Citi adds, even if Trump loses by a little in one of these states, it becomes almost impossible for him to win. It would take a tidal wave in a couple of states that look firmly Democrat.

Citi helpfully adds that “the odds that he loses, say a Florida or North Carolina, but wins a Pennsylvania do not seem high” at which point “vol collapses, MXN rallies and we go home early.”

On the other hand, if Trump wins all these states then he still has to win a Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado or New Mexico (shown in brown).

What happens then? Citi explains:

  • Many of these close later and the odds are the outcomes will be tighter.
  • Virginia also possible but less likely than some of the others.
  • Asset markets will be very sensitive to news
  • Market still not really pricing in substantial risk of Trump win, so we could see huge volatility both in MXN and in asset classes that so far have moved modestly on poll shifts.
  • So we go home very late.

As a reminder, it took shocked markets a few hours to swing from a “priced-in” Remain victory, to the realization that Brexit was a winner, at which point S&P futures were briefly locked limit down, prompting an emergency announcement by the Bank of England and ECB that this aggression against the wealth effect would not stand, before everything returned largely to normal.

Here are Englander’s parting words:

FWIW – the RCP electoral vote no-toss-up  is now 273 for Clinton to 265 for Trump http://ift.tt/2ayCl4F . Probably overstates Trump odds, but map makes it clear both that trend is shifting, but that he still  has to win at least one state that so far looks firmly Democrat.

Perhaps, the take home message here is that Wall Street is still firmly convinced that Hillary Clinton will be the next president.

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

Should Libertarians Vote For Trump? Nick Gillespie vs. Walter Block

Reason’s Nick Gillespie and libertarian economist Walter Block had a raucous debate in New York City last night over whether libertarians should vote for Donald Trump. It was hosted by the SoHo Forum and moderated by Gene Epstein, who’s the economics and book review editor at Barron’s (and also happens to be my father). Audience members voted their positions at the outset and conclusion of the debate, and Block, who was arguing in favor of Trump, prevailed by convincing more audience members to come over to his side.

The debate turned nasty almost immediately, with Block refusing to shake Nick’s hand, referring to him as “Dr. Gillespie,” and at one point calling him “vile” and a “nasty man.” Block attributes his hostility to a blog post Nick wrote about a 2014 New York Times article, in which Block was quoted as saying that slavery was “not so bad.” After the article appeared, Block filed a lawsuit against the Times for misrepresenting his views. Nick’s post, which was critical of the Times article for a different reason, included a block quote from the piece with one of the sentences about Block.

At another point in the debate, Block criticized Reason’s brand of libertarianism (jump to about 55:30):

What these scoundrels do, and I include Dr. Gillespie here, is try to hijack libertarianism away from the “thin” libertarianism by adding all sorts of other irelevancies. Like, say, mixed marriages. Somehow mixed marriages are libertarian because in addition to the non-aggression principle, you can’t look down on other races, you can’t be hateful. That’s got nothing to do with libertarianism. Now these guys are left-wing “thick” libertarians, but there are right-wing “thick” libertarians too.

Listen to the debate here, or better yet subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

For more on the monthly debates hosted by the SoHo Forum, visit the website. Next month’s features Richard Epstein of NYU Law vs. Cato’s Chris Preble on foreign policy.

Don’t miss a single Reason podcast or video! Subscribe, rate, and review!

Follow us at Soundcloud.

Subscribe to our video channel at iTunes.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2eoFEz3
via IFTTT

How Politics Poisoned The Economy

Authored by Bonner & Partners' Bill Bonner, annotated by Acting-Man's Pater Tenebrarum,

Deep State in Control

What is going on in the markets? Well, nothing much. The U.S. stock and bond markets have been as dull as a teetotaler’s funeral. No dancing. But no teary breakdowns, either.

 

1-spx-and-tlt

S&P 500 Index and the long term (20 yr. +) bond ETF TLT – both have weakened recently, but not dramatically (at least not yet) – click to enlarge.

 

Investors seem to be awaiting the results of the upcoming elections as if they were waiting for him to die. They look at their watches. They check their cell phones. Pollsters tell us it is a “done deal.” But you never know; the old boy might surprise us.

So, while we’re waiting, let us continue – rounding on our subject, trying to understand it, trying to see how the dots connect.  Today, we step back to get a better view.

We have been looking at the way the feds’ post-1971 fake money changed our whole society: our economy, our government, and our home life, too. Gone is the wealth-producing economy; now we have one that adds debt and subtracts real wealth.

As we noted, if you calculated “real” (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth according to the methodology used during the Reagan era, you would see that the nation has been getting poorer since 1989.

 

deep-state

Everything is gone – all that is left is the Deep State

 

Gone is the Old Republic, too, with its bleeding-heart liberals and foot-dragging, tightwad conservatives. Now we have only the Deep State Party – firmly in control of Congress, Wall Street, defense, health care, academia, and the mainstream press.

Gone, too, are the home-cooked meals… the Father Knows Best households… the one-car families… the breadwinners… and the homemakers. Today, the problems that used to afflict the inner city – drug addiction, broken homes – have spread to the suburbs and rural areas.

 

Godawful Mess

How did all this happen?    There are only two ways to get what you want in a community: Give and take. Or just take. Either you work, add value, negotiate, and trade for what you want; or you pull out a pistol. It’s either markets or politics, in other words.

But politics is more than just running for office. It is not fixed and well-contained. Instead, it’s a dangerous and volatile fluid – a noxious enzyme that comes out of man’s most primitive urges and leaks into the economy and society.

People are all, to some degree, as capable of “politics” just as they are capable of murder. Some are prone to it. And sometimes, a whole society gets taken over by it.

 

the-state-oppenheimer

As Franz Oppenheimer noted in his analysis of the State (full title: The State – Its History and Development Viewed Sociologically), there are two ways of obtaining wealth and income: by economic means or by political means. The latter means essentially forcibly  taking wealth under the color of law from those who have obtained it by economic means.

 

First, the vapors make people giddy thinking about the possibilities. With the government and its phony money behind them, it’s hard to imagine a good thing they cannot do.

Then they go a little mad, waving their pistols and pesos, proclaiming rights and rigmarole, and undertaking projects that ought to be left alone – all while mismanaging those few things they should do well.

Finally, they end up with a godawful mess and give everyone a terrible headache.

Today, if you run a business in the medical field – insurance, ambulances, hospitals, drugs, private practice, medical devices and tests – you are in a partnership, of sorts, with the feds. Like it or not.

They can tell you what you can do and what you can’t. They approve your drugs. In many cases, they determine how much you can charge. They can put you out of business, or make you rich. The entire industry has been politicized. If you want to enter the field, the first thing you should probably do is hire a lawyer and a lobbyist, not a doctor.

 

branches-of-government

The three main branches of government

 

When a business falls under the spell of politics, the interests of the customer or of the owner are no longer paramount. Instead, satisfying the customer gives way to lobbying, bullying, pressuring, menacing, backstabbing, and seducing. And the business turns inward. Its primary mission now: to reward the insiders.

In a free market, politics is self-limiting. Anything that takes your eyes off providing better products and better services puts you at a disadvantage to your competitors. Politics will ruin your business. But when the feds gain control of the economy, politics runs wild.

Then, as economic growth stalls, the relative payoff from politics increases. We don’t know which is the chicken and which is the egg. Does growth slow down first, leaving politics as the best way to get ahead? Or does politics slow down growth? We don’t know. Maybe both.

 

The Triumph of Politics

In the case of medical care, for example, the share of the U.S. GDP that went into the healthcare industry increased from less than 7% in 1970 to over 17% today. How did that happen? Politics. Since 1970, the number of doctors has barely doubled. But the number of “administrative employees” has gone up 3,000%.

The same is true in education. Teachers provide real value for the money; administrators play politics. Since 1970, the number of teachers has risen about 60%. The number of non-teaching administrators has gone up more than twice as much.

 

2-la-me-g-adv-uc-spending

An example of the shift: administrative vs. faculty personnel at the University of California.

 

You can see the same trend in the military, too. The military is pure politics, in a sense. It is intended to use violence. And yet, even the military can be undermined and diverted from its real mission – by politics.

The ideal fighting force is “lean and mean.” Fighting men need to be young and vigorous. So, as they aged, the Pentagon used to say it was “up or out.” Old soldiers were dead wood, unless they were destined for the top. And dead wood at the top was fatal. They slowed down decision-making. They wanted to “fight the last war.” They got in the way.

There was only one officer for every 10 enlisted men when the U.S. won World War II. Now there are twice as many officers and four times as many generals –  and we haven’t won a war since.

As President Reagan’s chief budget advisor David Stockman foresaw 30 years ago: we are seeing the final “triumph of politics.” The elections are just a sideshow.

via http://ift.tt/2eAN3bS Tyler Durden

DOJ Responds To Kadzik’s Email To Clinton Campaign; Finds Nothing Wrong

After the revelation that the DOJ’s assistant attorney general, Peter Kadzik, was exposed as sending information about upcoming DOJ events to his friend, Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta, from a private, non-government gmail account, many were confused, asking if this is i) legal and ii) grounds for termination, if not criminal proceedings.

As a reminder, on May 19, 2015, from his personal gmail account, Peter Kadzik emailed the gmail account of John Podesta (who then promptly forwarded it onward to everyone on the Clinton campaign) the following:

Heads Up

 

There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the emails.


Kadzik

Perhaps it was the clearly laid out partisan intent to assist the Clinton campaign, coupled with the obvious dissemination of DOJ information using un-FOIAble methods, namely a private email account, that prompted Americans to demand an answer from the DOJ regarding the fate of Kadzik.

However, at least according to an initial statement from the DOJ, absolutely nothing will emerge from today’s leak.As the Daily Caller reports, a spokesman for the Justice Department who reached out to the website, downplayed the significance of the email.

He argued that Kadzik was not using his Gmail account for work-related business because, the spokesman said, he was sharing public information in a personal capacity. The congressional hearing under discussion was in the public domain for several weeks and the FOIA request was publicized in a news article the night before Kadzik’s email, the spokesman asserted.

Furthermore, the flak added that the email is also not evidence that Kadzik was back-channeling to the Clinton campaign because it did not contain any new or confidential information.

Finally, he declined to speculate on whether Kadzik used Gmail for work-related matters, or Kadzik’s personal inference that “it will be awhile before the State department posts the emails“, something which certainly not in the public domain.

In other words, nothing to see here, move along, and meanwhile Kadzik – who appears to have no intention of recusing himself – may be one of the key DOJ officials supervising the department’s probe into Huma Abedin emails, despite his extensive and ongoing relationship with John Podesta and the Clinton Campaign.

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