iftttwall

If you don’t like the frequency of your air-quality alerts, you don’t have to keep them. That is the message that the Chinese government has made loud and clear as Bloomberg reports, Shanghai’s environmental authority took decisive action to address the pollution – it cynically adjusted the threshold for “alerts” to ensure there won’t be so many. In a move remininscent of Japan’s raising of the “safe” radioactive threshold level, China has apparently decided – rather than accept responsibility for the disaster – to avoid it by making the “safe” pollution level over 50% more polluted (up from 75 to 115 micrograms per cubic meter) – almost 5 times the WHO’s “safe” level of 25 micrograms.

 

 

Via Bloomberg,

As the smog that has choked Shanghai for much of the last week reached hazardous levels, the city’s environmental authority took decisive action to address the frequent air-quality alerts: It adjusted standards downward to ensure that there won’t be so many.

 

It was a cynical move, surely made to protect the bureau’s image in the face of unrelenting pollution that only seems to grow worse, despite government promises to address it. At this advanced stage in China’s development, nobody in the country (or elsewhere) — not even the loyal state news media — seems to believe that the problem is solvable, at least not any time soon. Even worse, nobody — not the state and certainly not the growing number of middle-class consumers (and car buyers) — seems ready to take responsibility for the mess.

 

…

 

If you can’t fix it, you might as well try to avoid responsibility for it, the thinking seems to go. It therefore comes as no surprise that Shanghai’s Environmental Protection Bureau decided to lower the benchmark for alerting the public about pollution risks. It will now issue alerts only when the concentration of the most dangerous particulates in the city’s air, known as PM2.5 (particulates smaller than 2.5 micometers in diameter) reach 115 micrograms per cubic meter. The previous standard was 75 micrograms per cubic meter. (The World Health Organization recommends not exceeding 25 micrograms per cubic meter in a 24-hour period.)

 

…

 

The state-owned English-language China Daily explained the decision in tone that almost obscured the absurdity of the maneuver: “The bureau said it believes the original standard is too strict, given that haze is common in the Yangtze River Delta region in winter.”

 

…

 

“On social networks like Weibo and Wechat, Beijingers now show photos of blue skies and white clouds as if they’re on vacation.” This show-off behavior left a bad taste, he concedes, before concluding with a final sentence that ought to serve as a rallying cry in China: “I really hope that someday people will resume reacting to blue skies and white clouds in a ‘normal’ manner.”

 

That’s a hope that probably won’t be fulfilled in this decade or even the next.

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/N_3CCAogWeo/story01.htm Tyler Durden

If you don’t like the frequency of your air-quality alerts, you don’t have to keep them. That is the message that the Chinese government has made loud and clear as Bloomberg reports, Shanghai’s environmental authority took decisive action to address the pollution – it cynically adjusted the threshold for “alerts” to ensure there won’t be so many. In a move remininscent of Japan’s raising of the “safe” radioactive threshold level, China has apparently decided – rather than accept responsibility for the disaster – to avoid it by making the “safe” pollution level over 50% more polluted (up from 75 to 115 micrograms per cubic meter) – almost 5 times the WHO’s “safe” level of 25 micrograms.

 

 

Via Bloomberg,

As the smog that has choked Shanghai for much of the last week reached hazardous levels, the city’s environmental authority took decisive action to address the frequent air-quality alerts: It adjusted standards downward to ensure that there won’t be so many.

 

It was a cynical move, surely made to protect the bureau’s image in the face of unrelenting pollution that only seems to grow worse, despite government promises to address it. At this advanced stage in China’s development, nobody in the country (or elsewhere) — not even the loyal state news media — seems to believe that the problem is solvable, at least not any time soon. Even worse, nobody — not the state and certainly not the growing number of middle-class consumers (and car buyers) — seems ready to take responsibility for the mess.

 

…

 

If you can’t fix it, you might as well try to avoid responsibility for it, the thinking seems to go. It therefore comes as no surprise that Shanghai’s Environmental Protection Bureau decided to lower the benchmark for alerting the public about pollution risks. It will now issue alerts only when the concentration of the most dangerous particulates in the city’s air, known as PM2.5 (particulates smaller than 2.5 micometers in diameter) reach 115 micrograms per cubic meter. The previous standard was 75 micrograms per cubic meter. (The World Health Organization recommends not exceeding 25 micrograms per cubic meter in a 24-hour period.)

 

…

 

The state-owned English-language China Daily explained the decision in tone that almost obscured the absurdity of the maneuver: “The bureau said it believes the original standard is too strict, given that haze is common in the Yangtze River Delta region in winter.”

 

…

 

“On social networks like Weibo and Wechat, Beijingers now show photos of blue skies and white clouds as if they’re on vacation.” This show-off behavior left a bad taste, he concedes, before concluding with a final sentence that ought to serve as a rallying cry in China: “I really hope that someday people will resume reacting to blue skies and white clouds in a ‘normal’ manner.”

 

That’s a hope that probably won’t be fulfilled in this decade or even the next.

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/N_3CCAogWeo/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Absent the “obvious” bubble in the late 90s, the US equity market is at its most expensive valuation since right before the ’30s crash. As Bloomberg notes, thanks to the exuberance of stocks in the last quarter, Pavilion Global Markets has calculated Tobin’s Q (a valuation indicator based on market ‘price’ versus ‘asset value’ for non-financial companies) has only been higher at the peak of bubble exuberance. Still want to BTFATH? Afraid of missing out?

The index posted a dramatic 7.5% rise in Q4 so far pressing it to near-record levels absent the euphoria of the late 90s.

 

Chart: Bloomberg

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Xm74MHkAbAg/story01.htm Tyler Durden

A stunning 64% of American say the US no longer offers everyone an equal chance of ‘getting ahead’, according to a new poll by Bloomberg. The widening gap between rich and poor – as we have previously noted as wide as during the roaring 20s – has eroded faith in the American dream. The lack of faith, Bloomberg reports, is especially pronounced among those making less than $50,000 a year with 73% of those saying the economy is unfair. As class warfare is stoked, by none other than the President himself in his recent speech, noting economic trends have “jeopardized middle-class America’s basic bargain, that if you work hard, you have a chance to get ahead,” man-of-the-year Pope Francis recently commented, “such an economy kills.”

 

Inequality wider than during the Roaring 20s…

 

Via Bloomberg,

“Everyone on both sides of the aisle talks about the American dream,” says Sekac. “Right now, that’s not something everyone in this country can aspire to.”

 

Still, respondents are almost evenly split on the need for government action to narrow the income gap: 45 percent say new policies are needed, while 46 percent say it would be better to allow the market to operate freely even if the gap gets wider.

 

…

 

“More people who are of color get opportunities now than they did,” but a lack of education holds too many back, says David Bakker, 56, a model-train builder in Baltimore.

 

In the Bloomberg poll, 68 percent of Americans say the income gap is growing, while 18 percent say it is unchanged and 10 percent say it’s shrinking.

 

…

 

While the public is divided over whether the government should take steps to close the income gap, support for greater action is strongest among lower-income Americans, with 52 percent saying officials should do something and 35 percent putting their faith in the market.

 

…

 

“The government keeps taking and taking and taking from us,” she says. “Eventually, people are going to strike back.”

 

…

 

By 56 percent to 35 percent, they endorse [The Pope’s] criticism of “trickle-down” economics, which provides tax cuts for the wealthy as a means to spur job growth. And 66 percent say they have a favorable view of the pontiff compared with just 13 percent who view him unfavorably.

 

…

 

“If we don’t address it, it’ll just continue to deteriorate, the gap will just continue to get bigger,” says Marini. “And who knows what that will lead to in 10 or 15 years? Social unrest? Economic unrest?”

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/rXNxP-Zeivc/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Today’s AM fix was USD 1,255.25, EUR 912.05 and GBP 765.49 per ounce.
Yesterday’s AM fix was USD 1,245.75, EUR 906.13 and GBP 757.76 per ounce.

Gold rose $21.90 or 1.77% yesterday, closing at $1,262.50/oz. Silver soared $0.53 or 2.67% closing at $20.40/oz. Platinum climbed $15.25, or 1.1%, to $1,386.99/oz and palladium also rose $1.50 or 0.2%, to $735.20/oz.

Gold in U.S. Dollars, 5 Years – (Bloomberg)

Gold neared a three week high after climbing the most in 7 weeks, on strong physical buying in China and a weak dollar. Gold has recovered from a 5 month low on December 6 to reach $1,268/oz yesterday, its highest price since November 20. Physical demand, especially from Asia seems to be outweighing the jitters regarding the Federal Reserve’s much mooted ‘tapering’.

 
Silver in U.S. Dollars, 5 Years – (Bloomberg)

Shanghai Gold Exchange’s spot contract, rose for a third day to 15,224 kilograms yesterday showing continuing robust demand in the emerging global economic powerhouse.

Markets may have already priced in the possibility of a December tapering as prices did not show any weakness after last week’s stronger than expected non-farm payrolls data. Rather, gold has risen and hedge funds have rushed to cover their short positions ahead of the Fed meeting next week and due to growing concerns of a short squeeze.

However, market participants may again be proved wrong regarding tapering as there is a real risk that the Fed’s $85 billion bond buying programme continues. There is even a chance that the Fed’s bond buying programme increases due to the very fragile U.S. economy. 

The dollar index is trading near a six-week low today as investors evaluate the uncertain outlook for the U.S. economy and dollar in 2014.

BOE Says U.S. “Could Do Today” And U.S Authorities Doing Simulation Exercises
The U.S. already has in place plans for bail-ins in the event of banks failing. Indeed, the U.S. has conducted simulation exercises with the U.K. in recent weeks and will do so again in 2014.

On October 12, Art Murton, the FDIC official in charge of planning for resolutions, and the Bank of England’s Deputy Governor Paul Tucker, both confirmed that the U.S. system is ready to handle a big-bank collapse.

The Bank of England’s Tucker, who has worked with U.S. regulators on the cross-border hurdles to taking down an international firm said that “U.S. authorities could do it today — and I mean today.” 

The Bank of England

“A global financial system will not survive if we don’t crack this problem”, said Tucker.

The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act empowered the  Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) to seize a company or bank and dismantle it if regulators think a bankruptcy would pose a significant threat to the financial system.

This resolution authority hasn’t been tested, and the FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, said his agency will disclose a full description of its approach by year-end — opening the idea to public comment.

Gruenberg said that China, Switzerland, Germany and Japan are among nations close to reaching arrangements with U.S. regulators with regard to dealing with mechanisms for failed banks.

U.S. regulators are working with German and Swiss counterparts on joint white papers similar to agreements already in place with the U.K. for how banks governed by multiple jurisdictions could be unwound by their host nations, Gruenberg said in remarks prepared for a speech in Washington on October 13. The FDIC will secure memorandums of understanding on bank resolutions with China and Japan soon, he said.

“It is critical that home and host jurisdictions understand well the approach to resolution of their counterpart and work together to develop a cooperative approach,” he said.

Germany and Switzerland share the U.S. preference for a so-called single point of entry, in which the host nation takes over a failed bank’s holding company, imposes losses on shareholders and lets healthy subsidiaries stay open. The approach depends on long term debt held in the parent to absorb losses and capitalise a healthy bridge company, Gruenberg said.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC)

The agency is consulting with the Federal Reserve on a future rule to set a minimum and importantly it has conducted and is conducting simulation exercises.

U.S. regulators will run simulation exercises with U.K. counterparts this year and in 2014, Gruenberg said.

Gruenberg appeared to warn that the UK was vulnerable to bail-ins when he said that
“Nearly 70 percent of the on- and off-balance sheet assets of our major institutions are held in the U.K,” he said. “There is no close second.”

How Likely Are Bail-Ins?
There are differing opinions as to the severity of the on-going financial crisis, and whether it has turned a corner. There are two very broad ‘schools of thought’.

The first school believes that the U.S. Federal Reserve, along with partner central banks internationally, has successfully stabilised the global financial system through low interest rates and quantitative easing, while the EU has managed to help recapitalise banks and avoid bank insolvencies in the European Union and and the breakup of the European Monetary Union (EMU).

The second school is more skeptical of this view and believes that many banks globally remain vulnerable to insolvency because they are being kept on life-support due to extremely accommodating central bank measures including near zero percent interest rates and quantitative easing. Banks are also being supported through the use of almost fictional, though internationally endorsed, accounting treatment for their asset books, such as mark-to-model valuations for their over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives exposures and by failing to have realistic valuations on problematic property loan portfolios.

Many sovereigns nations remain vulnerable to sovereign debt crises. The Eurozone debt crisis and other sovereign debt crises have been solved for the moment through various forms of ultra loose monetary policies, quantitative easing or debt monetisation.

All short term panaceas have not addressed the root cause of the global debt crisis – too much debt.

Indeed, the concern is that the solution of socialising the debt and transferring it to the sovereign and taxpayers, has simply bought some time and may make the crisis much worse in the long term.

We believe the second school will be proved right in the coming months and years; therefore, depositors with deposits in certain banks, or planning to place deposits, must look at the likelihood of and how likely that bank is to get bailed in.

This likelihood would be a function of the strength of the individual bank, which jurisdiction that bank is governed by, which financial systems and economies the bank is exposed to, the extent to which the bank has potentially problematic property or derivatives exposure, and whether deposits are insured by deposit protection schemes
, and to what extent are they insured.

In practice, the financial markets would normally do this analysis, but the previous approach of bail-outs and across the board central bank support appears to have clouded the analysis.

The movement by international monetary and financial institutions towards a bail-in regime and the extent of preparation for bail-ins suggest that bail-ins will happen should banks get into trouble again.

Recent statements by Mario Draghi suggest that depositors might be bailed-in in the future.

In a letter on the July 30th to Joaquín Almunia, the Vice President of the European Commission, Draghi suggested that bondholders might be spared in future, for fear that once burned bond investors may not return.

This would strongly suggest that sovereign governments would be required to make a decision as to whether they would absorb losses or instead force bailins on depositors. As do the preparations being put in place by the Bank of England and the FDIC.

Download our Bail-In Guide: Protecting your Savings In The Coming Bail-In Era(11 pages)

Download our Bail-In Research: From Bail-Outs to Bail-Ins: Risks and Ramifications –
Including 60 Safest Banks In The World List  (51 pages)

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Pfkk0Ch11n0/story01.htm GoldCore

The 21st century has proven interesting when it comes to Time’s choices for person of the year: George Dubya, twice, Barack Obama, twice, Vladimir Putin, Ben Bernanke, and of course, Mark Zuckerberg. And now, moments ago, the Time person of the year 2013 has been revealed: the winner – Pope Francis, best known recently for bashing materialists and those who cry over a 2 point drop in stocks everywhere. Sorry Miley Cyrus – more twerking will be required in 2014 to make up for this epic loss.

From CNN:

Time has named Pope Francis its person of the year.

 

Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina is known as a humble man, a capable administrator and — as expected of a new Pope — a man of great faith.

 

He is also a man of many firsts: the first non-European Pope in the modern era; the first pontiff from South America; and the first Jesuit to be elected head of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

In his first public act, the new Pope broke with tradition by asking the estimated 150,000 people packed into St. Peter’s Square to pray for him, rather than bless the crowd first.

 

Francis, 76, was born in Buenos Aires on December 17, 1936. The son of an Italian immigrant, he trained as a chemist before deciding to become a priest.

 

He was ordained by the Jesuits in 1969 and became co-archbishop of Buenos Aires in 1997, then sole archbishop of that city one year later. He was made a cardinal in 2001 and was president of the Argentine bishops conference from 2005 to 2011.

 

As cardinal, Francis clashed with the government of Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner over his opposition to gay marriage and free distribution of contraceptives.

 

He was runner-up in the 2005 papal conclave, behind then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, according to a profile by CNN Vatican analyst John Allen published by the National Catholic Reporter.

 

The new Pope brings together the first and the developing worlds, Allen writes. Besides his Italian roots, Francis studied theology in Germany.

 

His career coincided with the so-called Dirty War in Argentina, which lasted from 1976 to 1983. It is estimated that as many as 30,000 people were killed or disappeared during the country’s military dictatorship.

 

The church was seen by some as not having done enough in that period. In particular, Francis was accused in a complaint filed three days before the 2005 conclave of complicity in the 1976 kidnapping of two liberal Jesuit priests, Allen writes. Francis reportedly denied the charge.

 

He is known for his simplicity and has a reputation of being a voice for the poor.

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/VNauKguj7AQ/story01.htm Tyler Durden

The last time the housing bubble popped, the “frontier” marginal market of Las Vegas was the first harbinger of what was about to come. It is that again, and as real estate expert Mark Hanson explains, “Las Vegas housing demand has crashed.” This is hardly an auspicious sign for the rest of the epically reflated housing market which as we have been tirelelessly pointing out for the past two years, has not recovered, but has merely had its 4th dead cat bounce on the back of i) the implicit bank subsidy of foreclosure stuffing, ii) money laundering by “all cash” foreign buyers using the NAR’s anti-money laundering exemption loophole, and iii) private equity zero cost of credit REO-to-Rent programs which are now in their last days.

From Mark Hanson: Lost Vegas

Las Vegas housing demand has crashed.  “Crash”…there is no other word to use.  This is not hyperbole.  “Crashed” is absolutely the appropriate word to use here given sales are suddenly the weakest levels since Armageddon 2009.  I mean come on…sales at the same pace as when the stock market was in the midst of one of the greatest plunges in history speaks loudly…at least to me.  Volume precedes price.

Supply is surging in Vegas with “months-supply” back to nearly 7 months (over 7 for condos), and at 2010/11 levels.  There certainly is NO LACK OF SUPPLY in this market.  And ponder about this for a minute…and apply it to all these other “investor-centric” regions around the nation.  That is, in Vegas there are 10s of thousands of single-family houses being readied for rent by new-era “investors”.  This flood of freshly rehabbed “for rent” supply will competes at some level with resale and builder “for sale” supply.  Even if it competes at a factor of .4, then Las Vegas “normalized” month’s supply could right now be back to a year.

Lastly, houses are as expensive on a monthly payment basis — and relative to the income needed to qualify for a loan — then they were at the peak of the bubble in 2006.  But, this is a fact masked over for the past year by the plethora of all-cash buyers who are not governed by employment, income and safe & sound mortgage lending requirements.  Like Sacramento, Phoenix, regions in the Inland Empire, and a dozen other “hot” real estate markets around the nation — that, “not”-coincidentally are the regions in which private and new-era “investors” swarmed with cash regularly paying 10% to 20% over appraised value / list price using flawed cap rate models as a guide — when the stimulus go-go juice ran out this market hit a literal “brick wall” the size of 2007.

With house as expensive on a monthly payment basis than they were in 2007, when this market turns back towards “organic” being the incremental demand driver (people that can only buy as much house as their job, earnings, and mortgage qualifications dictate) serious double-digit percent points of house price downside will occur.  That’s in the process of happening now.

The next year in Vegas could easily bring a 50% retracement of the past two years historic annualized gains, which to all the investor models predicting 10% appreciation in perpetuity, will feel like a crash.

So, question is, what businesses are levered to the past couple of years of resale house volume momentum and energy?  Those are the stocks that will shock the most amount of people in 2014.  Companies levered to Existing Sales typically feel trend changes two to three quarters afterward meaning Q1/Q2 will usher in a hard downshift — especially relative to Q1/Q2 2013 when volume was going parabolic — since 2008 and the period following the expiration of the Homebuyer Tax Credit.

November Existing Sales/Supply Stats

Demand plunging

Sales…

• down 17% MoM
• down 20% YoY
• down 32% from peak summer
• down 33% from Nov 2011, down 24% from Nov 2010, and down 45% from Nov 2009
• lowest sales volume since Jan 2009

Supply Soaring

• Highest “months supply” metric since 2011
• SFR at 6.5 months, up 11% YoY
• Condo at 7.4 months, up 23% YoY

Item 1)  Las Vegas November House Sales down 20% YoY and at their lowest levels since Jan 2009

Item 2)  Broken out, Condo are performing slightly better but sales are still at 2009 lows.

Item 3)  Month’s supply surging…back to 2010/11 levels

Item 4)  It costs the same per month and requires the same monthly income today to buy the Nov median priced house as in 2006 at the bubble peak.

If that was a bubble then…

h/t Doug Kass

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/vs7mjxBfrsw/story01.htm Tyler Durden