another site
HHS Secretary Sebelius faces up to the self-described “debacle” that is Obamacare in fron the The Senate Finance Committee this morning. We should expect much “mid-November”-ing as the new replacement for “plead da fif.”
Live Stream via Bloomberg:
Stream via CSPAN, (click image)
     |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/j98x_lURNDI/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Because those record offshore (tax-haven) corporate cash balances will not grow themselves, obviously.
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/u7-UQAHKABE/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Even though a meager 3 of 70 economists actually expected Mario Draghi to announce some sort of rate cut at tomorrow’s ECB press conference, moments ago MarketNews reported that according to “sources” a rate change tomorrow is unlikely even amid a dip in Europe’s inflation.
ECB SOURCES: RATE CHANGE THURSDAY UNLIKELY EVEN AMID INFLATION DIP
— MNI Eurozone (@MNIEurozone) November 6, 2013
Bloomberg adds:
The flashing red headline, as this non-news was picked up by the algos, was enough to send the EUR, and naturally the all important EURJPY spiking by another 40 pips, and taking the correlated US equity markets, right along with it pushing the Dow Jones to a fresh record high.
And that concludes your “fundamental trading” lesson for the day.
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/kOTvwwuF3_4/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Even though a meager 3 of 70 economists actually expected Mario Draghi to announce some sort of rate cut at tomorrow’s ECB press conference, moments ago MarketNews reported that according to “sources” a rate change tomorrow is unlikely even amid a dip in Europe’s inflation.
ECB SOURCES: RATE CHANGE THURSDAY UNLIKELY EVEN AMID INFLATION DIP
— MNI Eurozone (@MNIEurozone) November 6, 2013
Bloomberg adds:
The flashing red headline, as this non-news was picked up by the algos, was enough to send the EUR, and naturally the all important EURJPY spiking by another 40 pips, and taking the correlated US equity markets, right along with it pushing the Dow Jones to a fresh record high.
And that concludes your “fundamental trading” lesson for the day.
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/kOTvwwuF3_4/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Still living with the misguided idea that the bulk of government spending goes to defense? Wrong. As the just released Treasury refunding presentation shows, for yet another year in a row, the bulk of government outlays was for Medicare and Medicaid, as well as Social Security, both amounting to just shy of $900 billion in 2013, a sizable increase compared to the prior year. Defense spending? It declined once again to just over $600 billion, as did Interest outlays, which net of the Fed’s remittances on interest payments, declined from under $500 billion to just about $400 billion in the past year.
The other tiems were largely in line, and far less material to the US government’s spending addiction.
So how did the government fund these outlays? Well in addition to net debt issuance of just over $1 trillion in the 2013 fiscal year, the other more traditional sources of funding – tax receipts – were the following:
Notably, while monthly individual income taxes rose on an LTM basis to a record $110 billion as a result of changes to the tax code in early 2013, corporations continue to see their overall income taxes decline as more seek offshore tax shelters, and avoid paying US taxes while building up record cash hoards.
This is also visible on the following chart of Y/Y percentage changes in tax receipts, showing that for the first time in years, corporate taxes are about to decline compared to the previous year.
Ironically, corporations may be people as per the SCOTUS, but people are increasingly corporations, at least for IRS purposes.
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/ByDN8p5l8Sw/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Submitted by F.F.Wiley of Cyniconomics blog,
Bit by bit, we’re learning more about President Obama’s broken promise that you can keep your health insurance if you like it, which was repeated at least two dozen times in recent years.
As reported last week by NBC’s Lisa Myers and Hannah Rappleye, the administration knew to expect the current wave of policy cancellations for “at least three years.” NBC cited estimates of about 7 to 11 million cancellations:
Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC News that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law.
One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”
None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration.
Last weekend, The Wall Street Journal added the news that Obama’s pledge was actively debated by his advisory team. Some advisers objected to the pledge, knowing it wasn’t accurate, only to be overruled by “political aides.”
All of this raises the question: What should we call such a deliberate deception?
Did Obama merely misspeak, as claimed by The New York Times editorial board?
Or, is he guilty of an out-and-out lie?
The WSJ’s James Taranto stopped short of the “L” word in his “Best of the Web” column yesterday, but otherwise hit the nail on the head:
To misspeak means to express oneself imperfectly or incorrectly. It implies either a careless choice of words or an unintended candor (as in a “Freudian slip”). Obama did not misspeak. As The Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend, the slogan was the result of careful deliberation.
…
Suppose the deliberations the Journal describes had taken place in a corporate suite rather than a government one and had concerned a commercial rather than a political advertising slogan. In that case, we’d be talking about a criminal conspiracy to defraud consumers.
In other words, Obama’s pledge was no different to, say, JPMorgan’s misrepresentations about the toxic mortgages it sold to unwitting investors. Fraudulent mortgage claims were surely discussed within JPM, just as Obama’s team debated the health insurance promise. Moreover, any internal concerns about the mortgage fraud were certainly squashed, just like the reservations expressed by Obama’s more truthful advisers.
But the consequences of Obama’s false advertisements are worse than those of private institutions such as JPM. In an economy that’s awash in misinformation – which is basically any economy – we can at least protect our interests against those of other private entities. We can walk away from claims that don’t pass the sniff test. If we learn we’ve been fooled, we can take our business elsewhere. Finally, we can turn to the courts for compensation.
None of these options are realistic, though, when the transgressor happens to hold the title, President of the United States. Under our new, more socialistic approach to health care, our only choice is to play by Obama’s rules. We also have to accept that information about those rules is tightly controlled by his team. Which means it’s crafted to protect his popularity and legacy above other considerations including the truth.
Just as Taranto didn’t go so far as to use the “L” word in his column yesterday, neither did any of the other mainstream media reports we reviewed. There were plenty of carefully worded euphemisms, but presumably it’s not polite to say the president told a lie.
We’ll show no such restraint: Obama told a blatant lie, which he then continued to repeat. It’s not the first time he’s lied, but this was an absolute whopper.
And while Taranto was right to compare his deceit to corporate fraud, we’ll add that we have no recourse against the president’s lies, unlike in the private sector. Therefore, Obama’s actions are more demoralizing and destructive than those of corporate fraudsters.
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/VZFyKbjTg3E/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Submitted by F.F.Wiley of Cyniconomics blog,
Bit by bit, we’re learning more about President Obama’s broken promise that you can keep your health insurance if you like it, which was repeated at least two dozen times in recent years.
As reported last week by NBC’s Lisa Myers and Hannah Rappleye, the administration knew to expect the current wave of policy cancellations for “at least three years.” NBC cited estimates of about 7 to 11 million cancellations:
Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC News that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law.
One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”
None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration.
Last weekend, The Wall Street Journal added the news that Obama’s pledge was actively debated by his advisory team. Some advisers objected to the pledge, knowing it wasn’t accurate, only to be overruled by “political aides.”
All of this raises the question: What should we call such a deliberate deception?
Did Obama merely misspeak, as claimed by The New York Times editorial board?
Or, is he guilty of an out-and-out lie?
The WSJ’s James Taranto stopped short of the “L” word in his “Best of the Web” column yesterday, but otherwise hit the nail on the head:
To misspeak means to express oneself imperfectly or incorrectly. It implies either a careless choice of words or an unintended candor (as in a “Freudian slip”). Obama did not misspeak. As The Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend, the slogan was the result of careful deliberation.
…
Suppose the deliberations the Journal describes had taken place in a corporate suite rather than a government one and had concerned a commercial rather than a political advertising slogan. In that case, we’d be talking about a criminal conspiracy to defraud consumers.
In other words, Obama’s pledge was no different to, say, JPMorgan’s misrepresentations about the toxic mortgages it sold to unwitting investors. Fraudulent mortgage claims were surely discussed within JPM, just as Obama’s team debated the health insurance promise. Moreover, any internal concerns about the mortgage fraud were certainly squashed, just like the reservations expressed by Obama’s more truthful advisers.
But the consequences of Obama’s false advertisements are worse than those of private institutions such as JPM. In an economy that’s awash in misinformation – which is basically any economy – we can at least protect our interests against those of other private entities. We can walk away from claims that don’t pass the sniff test. If we learn we’ve been fooled, we can take our business elsewhere. Finally, we can turn to the courts for compensation.
None of these options are realistic, though, when the transgressor happens to hold the title, President of the United States. Under our new, more socialistic approach to health care, our only choice is to play by Obama’s rules. We also have to accept that information about those rules is tightly controlled by his team. Which means it’s crafted to protect his popularity and legacy above other considerations including the truth.
Just as Taranto didn’t go so far as to use the “L” word in his column yesterday, neither did any of the other mainstream media reports we reviewed. There were plenty of carefully worded euphemisms, but presumably it’s not polite to say the president told a lie.
We’ll show no such restraint: Obama told a blatant lie, which he then continued to repeat. It’s not the first time he’s lied, but this was an absolute whopper.
And while Taranto was right to compare his deceit to corporate fraud, we’ll add that we have no recourse against the president’s lies, unlike in the private sector. Therefore, Obama’s actions are more demoralizing and destructive than those of corporate fraudsters.
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/VZFyKbjTg3E/story01.htm Tyler Durden
As was long predicted and foreshadowed (and analyzed here previously with the proposed FRN term sheet shown half a year ago), after nearly two years of foreplay with the idea of issuing inflation-friendly floating rate notes, moments ago as part of its refunding announcement, the Treasury announced the first floater issuance in history would take place on January 29, 2014, will have a 2 year tenor, and will amount to between $10 and $15 billion.
From the press release:
Floating Rate Notes (FRNs)
Treasury intends to announce the details of the initial Floating Rate Note (FRN) auction on Thursday, January 23, 2014, with the first auction occurring on Wednesday, January 29, 2014. Settlement of the security will occur on Friday, January 31, 2014.
The FRN is the first new product that Treasury has brought to market in 17 years. The FRN will have a maturity of two years and Treasury anticipates that the size of the first auction will be between $10 and $15 billion.
Specific terms and conditions of each FRN issue, including the auction date, issue date, and public offering amount, will be announced prior to each auction. For more details about the new Treasury FRN product, including a term sheet, FRN auction rules, and Frequently Asked Question, please see:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/instit/statreg/auctreg/auctreg.htm
In addition, a tentative auction calendar that includes Treasury FRNs can be found at:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/quarterly-refunding/Pages/default.aspx
As posted previously, here is what the Treasury proposes for an indicative FRN term sheet:
Away from the topic of FRNs, the TSY also indicated it will offer $70 billion in new paper to refund $63.5 billion, for net new cash proceeds of $6.5 billion. Recall that a few days ago, the Treasury announced it would increase its cash build by a whopping $60 billion in the quarter, hoping to leave it with $140 billion in total cash by December 31. Which begs the question: is the Treasury, in order to keep net collateral roughly flat in light of no Fed monetizing, now simply issuing more gross debt to build up cash with the proceeds? If so, this would mean that the Treasury and the Fed which is monetizing the bulk of its issuance, have reached a level of synchronicity unseen before, all of it simply to preserve the upward ramp in stocks.
Finally, and as largely expected, the Treasury once again reminded Congress to fix itself promptly (i.e., ignore the enabling impact of the Fed), and to lift the debt ceiling ahead of February 7, 2014.
Debt Limit
The debt limit places a limitation on the total amount of money that the United States government is authorized to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the national debt, tax refunds, and other payments. Raising the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments; it simply allows the government to finance existing legal obligations that Congresses and presidents of both parties have made in the past.
The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 suspended the debt limit through February 7, 2014. A new debt limit will be calculated on February 8, 2014 in the manner prescribed by the Act. At that time, Treasury will have extraordinary measures available, which will allow the government to continue to finance its obligations for a period of time.
During the recent debt limit impasse, concerns that the debt limit would not be increased before extraordinary measures were exhausted led to significant disruptions in the secondary market for short-dated Treasury securities and a measurable increase in borrowing costs for newly issued Treasury bills. As such, Treasury respectfully urges Congress to provide certainty and stability to the economy and financial markets by acting to raise the debt limit well before February 7, 2014.
Good luck with getting a functioning congress as long as the Fed is around.
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/WJYK11862e8/story01.htm Tyler Durden
The last month has seen the USD price of Bitcoins double from $130 to $270 as a combination of wider acceptance (in China and even ebay/Paypal ‘watching’) and concerns over ongoing global money printing (delayed taper) have sent the cryptocurrency to new record highs. With most ‘markets’ now manipulated or repressed by government mandate, one wonders whether Bitcoin represents the last bastion of free market expression for concern at the fiat status quo? Or is it already ‘broken‘?
Charts: Bitcoincharts.com
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/MNFRAr7e7ZI/story01.htm Tyler Durden
While it took Japan over two years to admit the Fukushima situation on the ground is “out of control“, a development many had predicted for years, a just as important topic is what are the implications of this uncontrolled radioactive disaster on not only the local environment and society but also globally, particularly Japan’s neighbor across the Pacific – the US.
To be sure, there has been much speculation, much of it unjustified, in the past two years debating when, how substantial and how acute any potential debris from Fukushima would be on the US. Which is why it was somewhat surprising to see the NOAA come out with its own modeling effort, which shows that not only “some buoyant items first reached the Pacific Northwest coast during winter 2011-2012” but to openly confirm that a debris field weighing over 1 million tons, and larger than Texas is now on the verge of hitting the American coastline, just west off the state of California.
Obviously, the NOAA in releasing such a stunner could well be hammered by the administration for “inciting panic” which is why it caveated its disclosure carefully:
Many variables affect where the debris will go and when. Items will sink, disperse, and break up along the way, and winds and ocean currents constantly change, making it very difficult to predict an exact date and location for the debris’ arrival on our shores.
The model gives NOAA an understanding of where debris from the tsunami may be located today, because it incorporates how winds and ocean currents since the event may have moved items through the Pacific Ocean. This model is a snapshot of where debris may be now, but it does not predict when debris will reach U.S. shores in the future. It’s a “hindcast,” rather than a “forecast.” The model also takes into account the fact that winds can move different types of debris at different speeds. For example, wind may push an upright boat (large portion above water) faster than a piece of lumber (floating mostly at and below the surface).
Still despite this “indemnity” the NOAA does come stunningly close with an estimate of both the location and size of the debris field. One look at the map below shows clearly why, while the Fed may have the economy and markets grasped firmly in its central-planning fist, when it comes to the environment it may be time to panic:
Source: NOAA
Some of the disclosures surrounding the map:
In light of these “revelations” which come not from some tinfoil website but the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, it becomes clear why there has been virtually zero mention of any of these debris traffic patterns on the mainstream media in recent history, or ever.
Appropriately enough, since the US media will not breach this topic with a radioactive 10 foot pole, one has to go to the Russian RT.com website to learn some more:
Over a million tons of Fukushima debris could be just 1,700 miles off the American coast, floating between Hawaii and California, according to research by a US government agency.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently updated its report on the movement of the Japanese debris, generated by the March 2011 tsunami, which killed 16,000 people and led to the Fukushima nuclear power plant meltdown.
Seventy percent of an estimated 5 million tons of debris sank near the coast of Japan, according to the Ministry of Environment. The rest presumably floated out into the Pacific.
While there are no accurate estimates as to where the post-tsunami junk has traveled so far, the NOAA has come up with a computer model of the debris movement, which gives an idea of where its highest concentration could be found.
Having released the radioactive genie from the bottle, the NOAA is now doing all it can to avoid the inevitable social response. RT has more:
The agency was forced to alleviate the concerns in an article saying there was “no solid mass of debris from Japan heading to the United States.”
“At this point, nearly three years after the earthquake and tsunami struck Japan, whatever debris remains floating is very spread out. It is spread out so much that you could fly a plane over the Pacific Ocean and not see any debris since it is spread over a huge area, and most of the debris is small, hard-to-see objects,” NOAA explains on its official webpage.
The agency has stressed its research is just computer simulation, adding that “observations of the area with satellites have not shown any debris.”
Scientists are particularly interested in the organisms that could be living on objects from Japan reaching the west coast.
“At first we were only thinking about objects like the floating docks, but now we’re finding that all kinds of Japanese organisms are growing on the debris,” John Chapman of the Marine Science Center at Oregon State University told Fox News.
“We’ve found over 165 non-native species so far,” he continued. “One type of insect, and almost all the others are marine organisms … we found the European blue mussel, which was introduced to Asia long ago, and then it grew on a lot of these things that are coming across the Pacific … we’d never seen it here, and we don’t particularly want it here.”
What is the worst-case scenario:
The worst-case scenario would be that the trash is housing invasive organisms that could disrupt the local environment’s current balance of life. Such was the case in Guam, where earlier this year it was announced that the US government intended to parachute dead mice laced with sedatives on to the island in order to deal with an invasive species of brown tree snake that was believed
to have been brought to the American territory on a military ship over 60 years ago. In a little over half a century, a few snakes spawned what became an estimated 2 million animals, the likes of which ravaged the island’s native bird population and warranted government intervention.
Other concerns such as radiation, meanwhile, have been downplayed. On its website, the NOAA says, “Radiation experts agree that it is highly unlikely that any tsunami-generated marine debris will hold harmful levels of radiation from the Fukushima nuclear emergency.”
Independent groups like the 5 Gyres Institute, which tracks pollution at sea, have echoed the NOAA’s findings, saying that radiation readings have been “inconsequential.” Even the release of radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear reactor shouldn’t be a grave concern, since scientists say it will be diluted to the point of being harmless by the time it reaches American shores in 2014.
Which is great news: since even the worst case scenario is inconsequential, we expect the broader media will promptly report on the NOAA’s findings: after all, the general public surely has nothing to fear.
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/vaZl1vxAC2k/story01.htm Tyler Durden
