Tag: finance

After ruling as unconstitutional Chicago ordinances that aim to reduce gun violence by banning their sale within the city’s limits, U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang said Monday that while the government has a duty to protect its citizens, it’s also obligated to protect constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. As AP reports, the decision is just the latest to attack what were some of the toughest gun-control laws in the nation; with the NRA noting it "shows how out of step and outrageous Chicago’s ordinances really are." Despite the city's ban "to protect its citizens," Chicago last year had more homicides than any city in the nation.

Via AP,

A federal judge has potentially opened a new market to gun dealers after ruling as unconstitutional Chicago ordinances that aim to reduce gun violence by banning their sale within the city’s limits.

 

U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang said Monday that while the government has a duty to protect its citizens, it’s also obligated to protect constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. However, Chang said he would temporarily stay the effects of his ruling, meaning the ordinances can stand while the city decides whether to appeal.

 

The decision is just the latest to attack what were some of the toughest gun-control laws in the nation.

 

…

 

National Rifle Association lobbyist Todd Vandermyde applauded Chang’s decision, saying it “shows how out of step and outrageous Chicago’s ordinances really are.”

 

…

 

“Every year Chicago police recover more illegal guns than officers in any city in the country, a factor of lax federal laws as well as lax laws in Illinois and surrounding states related to straw purchasing and the transfer of guns,” Drew said. “We need stronger gun safety laws, not increased access to firearms within the city.”

 

…

 

“That is one of the fundamental duties of government: to protect its citizens,” he wrote. “But on the other side of this case is another feature of government: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government’s reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment.”

 

Chicago last year had more homicides than any city in the nation. City officials have long acknowledged the ban on gun sales has been weakened due to the legal sale of guns in some surrounding suburbs and states.

 

…

 

“All the people I know who own guns legally are really careful,” said Pacholski, whose wife, also was a plaintiff. “I’m a collector; my guns are not going anywhere unless I know where they’re going because I don’t want to be responsible for someone’s death.”

 

Illinois Council Against Hand Gun Violence campaign coordinator Mark Walsh said he wasn’t surprised by the ruling.

 

“I’m not sure what the city’s plan is (following the ruling), but I think obviously there is a need to make sure gun dealers coming into the city are aware of those who have restrictions on gun ownership and don’t sell to them,” he said.

 

Chicago still has a ban on assault weapons.

As we noted previously, the facts are problematic for the anti-gun lobbyists (no matter how much common sense they believe they have)…

In an inconvenient truth moment for the anti-gun lobby, Harvard's Don Kates and Gary Mauser expose the facts behind gun control and violent crime. While not the first time we have discussed this awkward reality, the depth of the academics' datasets and the findings are unquestionable that there is in fact a "negative correlation" between violence and gun ownership. As they state,

"where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest,"

The burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.

To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Wi2qxhh9kx4/story01.htm Tyler Durden

With 1.3 million Americans having lost (or about to lose) their emergency unemployment benefits, President Obama is back from vacation and ready to re-start the blame-and-shame game (supported with the now ubiquitous crowd of needy entitled onlookers, ready to faint on command). As he explains, “this is money that helps pay the bills while folks work hard to find their next job…” as long as it’s well-paying and not at McDonalds. Of course, the uncomfortable truth is…

• *BOEHNER SAYS EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT AID MUST BE PAID FOR

But that’s what the rich are for, right?

 

Here is Jason Furman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, explaining why the world will end if congress does not extend UI…

 

And President Obama is due to speak at 1140ET

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/7J6nbP6QYRc/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Moments ago shots were fired when a (French) bank broke the unspoken Omerta code among sellside bankers: it downgraded another bank in a time when the S&P is just shy its all time highs (downgrading banks when the market is tumbling is usually a-ok). The note came from SocGen’s Andrew Lim, whse thesis is rather simple: “Valuation too expensive in light of regulatory and revenue challenges.”

From the note:

Initiation of coverage We initiate coverage of Goldman Sachs with a Sell rating and target price of $138. This is part of our Global Investment Banks initiation.

 

Key investment themes GS is a top-tier bank in primary and secondary capital markets business. However, with expectations of rising US 10-year yields, we fear the  prospect of a credit bear market will pressure FICC trading revenues.

 

We see GS as already strong on B3 leverage (and B3 common equity). However, in endeavouring to maximise ROE by maximising share buybacks, we feel that management’s capital return policy is too aggressive and needs to be scaled back. Dividends and buybacks combined should account for just over 100% of earnings in 2013.

 

We see a risk of GS continuing to be impacted more than peers by regulations. The Volcker rule, while manageable for the bank, should nonetheless put pressure on revenues as it forces GS to scale back investments in covered funds. Meanwhile, we see the risk of market RWA inflation from the BCBS’s review of the trading book.

 

How we value the stock We use an SPFV approach to obtain a target price for GS of €138. We include on top of this the expected 12m forward DPS of $2.20, which results in a total shareholder return of -21%. Our full SPFV model is available on page 68 of our global investment banks initiation report. Looking at the valuation from another perspective, an ROE of only c.10% does not support a P/BV rating of over 1.0x in our view.

 

Risks to our target price and rating Pressure on the credit market may prove temporary rather than structural and longer term in nature as we model. On top of this, GS may be able to take much more market share from competitors than we estimate. GS may be able to reduce leverage and RWA considerably without hurting revenues. Management may be able to mitigate the impact of the Volcker rule with much less detriment to group ROE than we expect.

Sorry Andrew, no Goldman “elves” Christmas party invitation for you this year.

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

Moments ago shots were fired when a (French) bank broke the unspoken Omerta code among sellside bankers: it downgraded another bank in a time when the S&P is just shy its all time highs (downgrading banks when the market is tumbling is usually a-ok). The note came from SocGen’s Andrew Lim, whse thesis is rather simple: “Valuation too expensive in light of regulatory and revenue challenges.”

From the note:

Initiation of coverage We initiate coverage of Goldman Sachs with a Sell rating and target price of $138. This is part of our Global Investment Banks initiation.

 

Key investment themes GS is a top-tier bank in primary and secondary capital markets business. However, with expectations of rising US 10-year yields, we fear the  prospect of a credit bear market will pressure FICC trading revenues.

 

We see GS as already strong on B3 leverage (and B3 common equity). However, in endeavouring to maximise ROE by maximising share buybacks, we feel that management’s capital return policy is too aggressive and needs to be scaled back. Dividends and buybacks combined should account for just over 100% of earnings in 2013.

 

We see a risk of GS continuing to be impacted more than peers by regulations. The Volcker rule, while manageable for the bank, should nonetheless put pressure on revenues as it forces GS to scale back investments in covered funds. Meanwhile, we see the risk of market RWA inflation from the BCBS’s review of the trading book.

 

How we value the stock We use an SPFV approach to obtain a target price for GS of €138. We include on top of this the expected 12m forward DPS of $2.20, which results in a total shareholder return of -21%. Our full SPFV model is available on page 68 of our global investment banks initiation report. Looking at the valuation from another perspective, an ROE of only c.10% does not support a P/BV rating of over 1.0x in our view.

 

Risks to our target price and rating Pressure on the credit market may prove temporary rather than structural and longer term in nature as we model. On top of this, GS may be able to take much more market share from competitors than we estimate. GS may be able to reduce leverage and RWA considerably without hurting revenues. Management may be able to mitigate the impact of the Volcker rule with much less detriment to group ROE than we expect.

Sorry Andrew, no Goldman “elves” Christmas party invitation for you this year.

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

 

I believe that sex is best when it is one on one.  However, is physical touch your spouse’s, or significant other’s, love language?  Does buying your wife that diamond really say to her, “I love you?”  Or, perhaps, she would be more satisfied with you spending some time with her in the garden.

Consider taking a few moments with your spouse or significant other to determine each other’s love language,
and then discuss ways to fill each other up with the love we all need. 
Mrs. Horseman and I did this, recently, in concert with discovery and sharing of
our Myers-Briggs personality types, and it was very informative, even after decades of marriage.

The official Myers-Briggs tests cost a nominal fee.  We originally took it as part of the pre-cana counseling required by our church before we were married.  We just took it again, decades later, from licensed/trained clergy as part of a couples workshop offered by our church.

I
am ENTJ and her primary love language is Quality Time. Unless a
conscious effort is made on my part, an ENTJ is unlikley to schedule
activites she considers quality time.

She is a INTP and my love language is Words of Affirmation.  Unless a conscious effort is made on her part, an INTP is highly unlikely to communicate words of affirmation.

Knowing what each other needs sounds so simple.  Unfortunately, like most people, we each thought that our own love language is how the other is best filled with love.  Nothing could have been further from the truth.

Click here to take the free Love Language test.

 

—————————————————————————–

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT:
Long monogamous relationship and sobriety.

—————————————————————————–

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/-6TvxWv_WQM/story01.htm hedgeless_horseman

 

I believe that sex is best when it is one on one.  However, is physical touch your spouse’s, or significant other’s, love language?  Does buying your wife that diamond really say to her, “I love you?”  Or, perhaps, she would be more satisfied with you spending some time with her in the garden.

Consider taking a few moments with your spouse or significant other to determine each other’s love language,
and then discuss ways to fill each other up with the love we all need. 
Mrs. Horseman and I did this, recently, in concert with discovery and sharing of
our Myers-Briggs personality types, and it was very informative, even after decades of marriage.

The official Myers-Briggs tests cost a nominal fee.  We originally took it as part of the pre-cana counseling required by our church before we were married.  We just took it again, decades later, from licensed/trained clergy as part of a couples workshop offered by our church.

I
am ENTJ and her primary love language is Quality Time. Unless a
conscious effort is made on my part, an ENTJ is unlikley to schedule
activites she considers quality time.

She is a INTP and my love language is Words of Affirmation.  Unless a conscious effort is made on her part, an INTP is highly unlikely to communicate words of affirmation.

Knowing what each other needs sounds so simple.  Unfortunately, like most people, we each thought that our own love language is how the other is best filled with love.  Nothing could have been further from the truth.

Click here to take the free Love Language test.

 

—————————————————————————–

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT:
Long monogamous relationship and sobriety.

—————————————————————————–

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/-6TvxWv_WQM/story01.htm hedgeless_horseman

Much has been writtien about the latest straight to YouTube humanitarian conflict (France involvement comment and then the US ) this time not in the middle east but in Africa, specifically the Central African Republic, which has so far pitted French troops and US drones against… it is unclear whom exactly, but supposedly the perpetual strawman, Al Qaeda, is once again involved. So instead of more talking, here is a simple infographic courtesy of AFP (more here) that lays out who is who in the latest hot bed set to escalate, especially if China, as some expect, gets involved.

Source

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

Collectively, the world’s Central Banks have put more than $10 trillion into the financial system since 2008. To put that number into perspective, it’s equal to roughly 15% of global GDP.

 

Despite this rampant money printing, the price of Gold has in fact fallen against every major world currency since 2011.

 

 

 

In a time in which every major central bank is expanding its balance sheet through money printing, Gold has fallen against every major currency.

 

Indeed, in the US, the Federal Reserve is now expanding its balance sheet at a pace of nearly $1 trillion per year. The Fed balance sheet is already at $3.8 trillion and will likely surpass $4 trillion in early 2014.

 

Any yet, the price of Gold, denominated in US Dollars is lower today than it was when back in early 2011, when the Fed’s balance sheet was just $2.4 trillion.

 

 

 

 

Does this make sense? Gold falling in value at a time when balance sheets expanded by multiple TRILLION dollars?

 

Make no mistake, gold is not dead. Not by any means. The day is coming when its price will soar again.

 

For a FREE Special Report on a uniquely profitable inflation hedge, swing by….

http://phoenixcapitalmarketing.com/goldmountain.html

 

Best Regards

Graham Summers

 

 

 

 

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/fSbmGSeS4mA/story01.htm Phoenix Capital Research

That didn’t take long.

On December 2, in its fourth Top Trade recommendation of the year, Goldman urged its clients to go “Long China Stocks, Short Copper.” This is how we decribed the trade: “Goldman is selling China equities (via the HSCWI Index), while buying copper (via Dec 2014 futs), or at least advising its flow clients to do the opposite while admitting that “for the long China equity/short commodity pair trade to “work” best, these two assets, which are usually positively correlated, will have to move in opposite directions.” For that and many other reasons why betting on a divergence of two very closely correlating assets will lead to suffering, read on. Finally – do as Goldman says, or as it does? That is the eternal question, one whose answer is a tad more problematic since the author in this case is not Tom Stolper but Noah Weisberger.” One week into the new year we have the answer.

Yesterday, less than one week into the new year, Goldman closed this “Top Trade for 2014” following a loss of 13.5%. Actually, correction: 13.5% loss to “clients” means a 13.5% profit to Goldman, and all those who followed our advice to trade alongside Goldman, not as a counterparty.

To wit:

Close long HSCEI Index and short Copper Dec 14 LME future, opened at 0.0% (on return basis, corresponding to respective price levels of 11542.1 and 7064.5 in two instruments) on 02 Dec 2013, for a potential loss of -13.5%.

So, as always, losers: Goldman clients. Winners: Goldman’s “flow” desk which took the opposite side of the trades, very much as we expected.

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/E3uJqs-ZGMM/story01.htm Tyler Durden

That didn’t take long.

On December 2, in its fourth Top Trade recommendation of the year, Goldman urged its clients to go “Long China Stocks, Short Copper.” This is how we decribed the trade: “Goldman is selling China equities (via the HSCWI Index), while buying copper (via Dec 2014 futs), or at least advising its flow clients to do the opposite while admitting that “for the long China equity/short commodity pair trade to “work” best, these two assets, which are usually positively correlated, will have to move in opposite directions.” For that and many other reasons why betting on a divergence of two very closely correlating assets will lead to suffering, read on. Finally – do as Goldman says, or as it does? That is the eternal question, one whose answer is a tad more problematic since the author in this case is not Tom Stolper but Noah Weisberger.” One week into the new year we have the answer.

Yesterday, less than one week into the new year, Goldman closed this “Top Trade for 2014” following a loss of 13.5%. Actually, correction: 13.5% loss to “clients” means a 13.5% profit to Goldman, and all those who followed our advice to trade alongside Goldman, not as a counterparty.

To wit:

Close long HSCEI Index and short Copper Dec 14 LME future, opened at 0.0% (on return basis, corresponding to respective price levels of 11542.1 and 7064.5 in two instruments) on 02 Dec 2013, for a potential loss of -13.5%.

So, as always, losers: Goldman clients. Winners: Goldman’s “flow” desk which took the opposite side of the trades, very much as we expected.

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/E3uJqs-ZGMM/story01.htm Tyler Durden