If Sen. Feinstein Loses Re-Election, It Certainly Won’t Be Because She’s Not ‘Left’ Enough

Sen. Dianne FeinsteinEver since Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) announced she was going to run for re-election, there’s been a buzz about whether she’d face a primary challenger from the left.

The answer to that is obviously yes. She’s going to probably face several Democrats—and Republicans and independents—in the primary. What’s not clear is whether a fragmented group of opponents could draw enough support to genuinely threaten her incumbency.

It’s also not clear whether the folks publicly stroking their chins about Feinstein’s chances adequately understand how California’s primaries work. The result is some awfully ill-fitting, if typical, “horse race” journalism.

California has a top-two primary system for congressional and statewide races. All candidates from all parties face off in a big rugby scrum (look at this Puppy Bowl of people in last year’s primary to replace Barbara Boxer). The two candidates with the most votes, regardless of party, face off again in November.

This frequently means voters are selecting between candidates from the same party. And this is by design. U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris won her seat by defeating a fellow Democrat.

Any story suggesting Feinstein could get bounced out in the primary needs to be treated skeptically. It could happen, but because of the top-two system she’d have to come in third place in the vote, not second. So a Democrat could beat her in the primary, but still have to face her again in November.

Much of the analysis of Feinstein’s chances makes no mention of this incumbent-protecting quirk. Two pieces from FiveThirtyEight talk about potential primary challengers, but one of them assumes the winner will be facing a Republican the next fall. This CNN piece about state Senate leader Kevin de Leon taking her on as a challenger from the left grasps how California’s primary system works … now. According to the correction at the bottom, both the headline and the story had to be edited because the original version did not accurately reflect the nature of California’s primaries.

The reformists who ushered in California’s top-two primary system insisted it would make races more competitive and, in cases where two candidates were of the same party, they’d have to work to get votes from elsewhere in order to win. The idea was that a top-two election system would prevent party polarization (watch a ReasonTV interview with a proponent of the system here) and create a more “functional” legislature.

In reality, election participation has dropped. Faced with two Democrats on the ballot, at least 2.2 million Californians who voted for president last fall did not bother voting for a senator.

That means Feinstein is possibly vulnerable, but not in the way the pundits think. Arguing that Feinstein is more “conservative” than Californians is based on how frequently her votes align with what President Donald Trump wants, which is a terrible measure (Trump is an authoritarian with no real discernable political philosophy).

Feinstein holds positions that align with perceptions of conservatism. After all this time, she opposes marijuana legalization. She supports government surveillance of citizens. She’s with the law-and-order types in trying to force tech companies to break encryption privacy in order to serve the government’s information needs.

But she’s also a noted gun grabber and college campus free speech and protest censor. She’s not a conservative—she’s a statist, in the Michael Bloomberg, nanny-style “government knows what’s best for you,” vein, which tracks pretty well with how the California government treats its citizens. To the extent that her votes align with Trump’s desires, it’s likely because neither of them has much respect for the Bill of Rights.

This also means Feinstein is going to have a tough time capturing cross-over votes. With her history of opposition to gun rights, conservatives are more likely not to vote than cross the aisle and vote for her come next November.

If that happens, Feinstein could lose to a Democratic populist, but it would because of who didn’t vote, not because of who did.

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

Conservatives Pose New Threat to Free Markets: New at Reason

There’s a war on business on the way.

Steven Greenhut writes:

t almost goes without saying that liberal Democrats are hostile to private industry and entrepreneurship, as they introduce tax-raising, regulation-laden, job-killing bills that earn the ire of the hard-pressed business community.

The anti-business rhetoric has gotten particularly vicious, especially regarding tech firms. Guess which far-out-there leftist made the following statements: “Well, size matters, and Silicon Valley’s giants are just too darn big. Time to chop them up like old Ma Bell.” He also argued that “no corporation should be too big to fail—or to nail” and called for the government to “regulate Google and all of Silicon Valley into submission.”

This was a trick question. It wasn’t a leftist Democrat who called for nailing businesses. It was conservative writer Kurt Schlichter, in an August column on the conservative Townhall. Since then, other conservatives have touted that idea and that column. For instance, Mark Pulliam, writing on the “pro-Trumpism” American Greatness site, called for the kind of “trust busting” that went on during the Progressive Era.

View this article.

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

British Banks Forecast Biggest Consumer Credit Collapse In 10 Years

As if Theresa May did not face enough challenges, the latest survey from The Bank of England (BoE) suggests the British consumer is about to face the biggest credit crunch since the great financial crisis.

After repeated warnings from BoE about the surging pace of lending to households, British lenders are planning the biggest cutback in consumer loans in nearly 10 years (BoE's quarterly net balance of lenders' expectations for the availability of unsecured lending over the next three months fell to -28.6 from -16.2.)

Earlier this year the BoE warned lenders may be dicing with a "spiral of complacency", with car loans a particular area of worry, and now, as The New York Times reports, this latest survey signals the steepest contraction since the fourth quarter of 2008, when the economy was in the depths of its worst post-war recession.

Thursday's survey figures showed Britain's consumer economy is running out of steam, said Joanna Davies, economist at Fathom Consulting, the only forecaster in recent Reuters polls to predict a recession.

 

"We're quite concerned about the consumer squeeze," Davies said, citing falling wages in inflation adjusted terms and historically low household savings.

 

"If you add tightening credit conditions onto that, it doesn't bode well."

Pouring more cold water on Britain's recoveryt hopes, after seven years of persisting with a forecast of rebounding productivity, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has thrown in the towel.

“As the period of historically weak productivity growth lengthens, it seems less plausible to assume that potential and actual productivity growth will recover over the medium term to the extent assumed in our most recent forecasts,” the watchdog said.

 

“Over the past five years, growth in output per hour has averaged 0.2 per cent. This looks set to be a better guide to productivity growth in 2017 than our March forecast.”

That paints a gloomy picture for future economic growth, pay rises and the government’s finances.

The report notes that “some commentators have argued that advanced economies have entered an era of permanently subdued productivity growth for structural reasons”.

via http://ift.tt/2gDx9AW Tyler Durden

Europe Braces For End Of Iran Nuclear Deal

Authored by Damir Kaletovic vias OilPrice.com,

Europe is scrambling to come up with a contingency plan in the face of a U.S. threat to end the nuclear deal with Iran – a move that lends a high level of uncertainty to European megadeals, including French Total SA’s $5-billion oil deal with Tehran.

At stake if Trump refuses to certify Tehran’s compliance with the nuclear accord on 15 October and sanctions are re-imposed are deals with European companies worth over $55 billion in total, according to figures from the Financial Times.

If Trump refuses certification on 15 October, Congress would then have 60 days to make a decision on new sanctions, giving Europe two months tome come up with a contingency plan. 

Right now, there isn’t one.

“People in Brussels are looking at whether blocking statutes need to be upgraded or updated,” David O’Sullivan, EU ambassador to the US, told the Financial Times on Thursday.

 

“There’s no definitive plan yet. But if the US were to do something which impinged on the ability of Europeans to do what we could consider legitimate business with Iran, this is something we would like to look at.”

Earlier in October, the French oil giant shrugged off the US sanctions threat, with Total CEO Patrick Pouyanne telling media,

“We knew when we signed that it will not be an easy road. But I prefer to have a problem to solve and to have the opportunity rather than having not signed [and] no opportunities.”

Total signed its deal with Iran in July, making recent history. This was the first deal Iran signed with a foreign energy company since sanctions were lifted in January 2016.

The $4.8-billion deal is to develop Iran’s prolific South Pars natural gas field—the largest gas field in the world, shared with Qatar. Total would lead the consortium.

Iran was the European Union’s top trading partner before sanctions were slapped on Tehran in 2010.

Since sanctions were lifted, trade has still been hampered due to some U.S. financial sanctions that make Western banking institutions still wary of doing business with Iran.

Europe’s options are limited as it seeks a contingency plan. According to analysts interviewed by the Financial Times, one option could be an effort to block legislation related to a new imposition of sanctions by the US, but this would be a complicated “by the international reach of U.S. laws on financial transactions”. 

Trump is expected to have a decision on the nuclear deal this afternoon.

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

Angry San Juan Mayor Lashes Out (Again): “Big Mouth” President “Taking All His Anger Out On Puerto Rico”

Last night, an angry mayor of San Juan, Carmen Yulín Cruz, and CNN once again teamed up to bash President Trump for using his “big mouth” to “spread his hate all over the place.”  Asked by a goading Don Lemon whether she thought “the President is treating Puerto Rico differently than Texas and Florida after the hurricanes,” here is what Cruz had to say:

“Most definitely.  He’s treating Puerto Rico differently than the U.S. treated Haiti.  For some reason, he’s taking all of his anger out on Puerto Rico.”

 

“There’s a big disconnect between the big heart of the volunteers and the people that are here working on the ground and frankly the big mouth of the President of the United States who continues to add insult to injury.”

Earlier in the interview, after confusing Don Lemon for someone named ‘Juan’, Cruz said that Trump is “exuding behavior unbecoming of a leader of the free world” and once again referred to him as the “hater-in-chief.”

“Well, you know Juan [presumably she meant Don], I think when the President makes this personal he really is exuding behavior unbecoming of a leader of the free world.”

 

“This isn’t personal.  This is life saving.  This isn’t politics.  This is about saving lives.  There are thousands of people out there who still don’t have drinking water.  They don’t have food.  They don’t have access to the appropriate medication.”

 

“Rather than be a commander-in-chief he continues to be a ‘hater-in-chief’.  He continues to tweet his hate all over the place.  And rather than offering comforting words…hey, if you can’t be a president, be an executive…make sure that all ducks are straight in a row and that you’re getting things done.”

Meanwhile, and not surprisingly, the interview got a little awkward, and Cruz had to be cut off, when she started to praise FEMA’s efforts in San Juan…

“And I have to say, in the past week, FEMA’s response, at least in San Juan, has been a lot better…” 

Of course, this all follows a Twitter feud that erupted yesterday when Cruz first coined the “Hater-in-Chief” title for Trump…

…which was seemingly a response to the President’s early morning tweet storm that lashed out at the Puerto Rico recovery effort and said the federal response to the crisis in the U.S. territory couldn’t last “forever.”

Meanwhile, if you haven’t noticed, all of this back and forth bickering has made it almost impossible for CNN to dedicate the resources required to efficiently track down every last detail about those $100,000 worth of Facebook ads which changed the course of human history forever.

via http://ift.tt/2z5CtUe Tyler Durden

Goldman Lowers December Rate Hike Odds After CPI Miss

Having been ahead of the market anywhere between 4 and 8 weeks as consensus caught up to Goldman’s view on December rate hike odds, which for months were materially higher than what the market implied, Jan Hatzius quietly emerged as one of the very rare Fed whisperers (this year) who has actually gotten what the Fed would do right. Which is why the street will be interested to know that as of moments ago, Hatzius – for the first time – has cut his odds of a December rate hike from 80% to 75%, as a result of today’s CPI miss, and specifically the Shelter Weakness and Surprising Decline in Car Price.

Here is the explanation:

The consumer price index rose 0.5% in September on higher energy prices, but core CPI rose by less than expected, with the year-over-year rate remaining stable at +1.7%. While weakness in auto prices may prove temporary given improving supply/demand dynamics and sharply higher used car auction prices, the slowdown in the more-persistent shelter category is more discouraging for the near-term inflation outlook. The BLS mentioned that Hurricane Irma “had a small impact” on data collection in Florida in this report, but it’s unclear whether this had a meaningful effect on the inflation data. We now estimate that the core PCE price index rose 0.13% month-over-month in September, or 1.32% from a year earlier (vs. +1.29% in August). Retail sales rose in line with expectations in September, reflecting a rebound from recent hurricanes, and the level in prior months was revised up.

 

* * *

 

Today’s CPI report was clearly weaker than expectations, and the renewed weakness in shelter categories was particularly discouraging. However, we continue to believe that year-over-year core PCE inflation probably bottomed in August (in part due to easier comparison). Taken together, we lowered our Fed probabilities modestly. We now place 75% odds of a hike in December (vs. 80% previously).

Judging by the market’s prompt reaction, which already saw FF slide to an implied rate of 73% for December, down from 80% before the CPI report, it appears that the market actually rad Hatzius’ mind on this occasion.

via http://ift.tt/2z4LAVk Tyler Durden

Only China Can Restore Stability In The Global Economy

Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

For those of you who don’t know Andy Xie, he’s an MIT-educated former IMF economist and was once Morgan Stanley’s chief Asia-Pacific economist. Xie is known for a bearish view of China, and not Beijing’s favorite person. He’s now an ‘independent’ economist based in Shanghai. He gained respect for multiple bubble predictions, including the 1997 Asian crisis and the 2008 US subprime crisis.

Andy Xie posted an article in the South China Morning Post a few days ago that warrants attention. Quite a lot of it, actually. In it, he mentions some pretty stunning numbers and predictions. Perhaps most significant are:

“only China can restore stability in the global economy”

 

and

 

“The festering political tension [in the West] could boil over. Radical politicians aiming for class struggle may rise to the top. The US midterm elections in 2018 and presidential election in 2020 are the events that could upend the applecart.”

Here are some highlights.

The bubble economy is set to burst, and US elections may well be the trigger

Central banks continue to focus on consumption inflation, not asset inflation, in their decisions. Their attitude has supported one bubble after another. These bubbles have led to rising inequality and made mass consumer inflation less likely. Since the 2008 financial crisis, asset inflation has fully recovered, and then some.

 

The US household net worth is 34% above the peak in 2007, versus 30% for nominal GDP. China’s property value may have surpassed the total in the rest of the world combined. The world is stuck in a vicious cycle of asset bubbles, low consumer inflation, stagnant productivity and low wage growth.

Let that sink in.

If Xie is right, and I would put my money on that, despite all the housing bubbles elsewhere in the world, the Chinese, who make a lot less money than westerners, have pushed up the ‘value’ of Chinese residential real estate so massively that their homes are now ‘worth’ more than all other houses on the planet. Xie returns to this point later in the article, and says:

In tier-one cities, property costs are likely to be between 50 and 100 years of household income. At the peak of Japan’s property bubble, it was about 20 in Tokyo. “.

We’ll get back to that. But it suggests that Chinese, if they spend half their income on housing, which is probably not that crazy an assumption, must work 100 to 200 years to pay off their mortgages. Again, let that sink in.

The US Federal Reserve has indicated that it will begin to unwind its QE assets this month and raise the interest rate by another 25 basis points to 1.5%. China has been clipping the debt wings of grey rhinos and pouring cold water on property speculation. They are worried about asset bubbles. But, if recent history is any guide, when asset markets begin to tumble, they will reverse their actions and encourage debt binges again. [..] most powerful people in the world operate on flimsy assumptions.

 

Despite low unemployment and widespread labour shortages, wage increases and inflation in Japan have been around zero for a quarter of a century. Western central bankers assumed that the same wouldn’t happen to them, without understanding the underlying reasons. The loss of competitiveness changes how macro policy works.

 

The mistaken stimulus has the unintended consequences of dissipating real wealth and increasing inequality. American household net worth is at an all-time high of 5 times GDP, significantly higher than the bubble peaks of 4.1 times in 2000 and 4.7 in 2007, and far higher than the historical norm of three times GDP. On the other hand, US capital formation has stagnated for decades. The outlandish paper wealth is just the same asset at ever higher prices.

That is the very definition of a bubble: “The outlandish paper wealth is just the same asset at ever higher prices.” American household net ‘worth’ is in a huge bubble, some 66% higher than the historical average. And that’s in a time when for many their net worth is way below that average, a time when more than half live paycheck to paycheck and can’t afford medical bills and/or car repair bills without borrowing. And that is the very definition of inequality:

The inflation of paper wealth has a serious impact on inequality. The top 1% in the US owns one-third of the wealth and the top 10% owns three-quarters. Half of the people don’t even own stocks. Asset inflation will increase inequality by definition. Moreover, 90% of the income growth since 2008 has gone to the top 1%, partly due to their ability to cash out in the inflated asset market.

An economy that depends on asset inflation always disproportionately benefits the asset-rich top 1%. [..] Germany and Japan do not have significant asset bubbles. Their inequality is far less than in the Anglo-Saxon economies that have succumbed to the allure of financial speculation.

True, largely, but Japan both has major economic troubles today (deflation), and will have worse ones going forward (demographics). While Germany can unload its losses on the EU periphery (and does). Japan can’t ‘afford’ a housing bubble, its people have refused to raise spending for many years, scared as they are through stagnant wages and falling prices. While Germany doesn’t need a housing bubble to keep its economy growing: it exports whatever’s negative about it to its neighbors. China, however, DOES need bubbles, and blows them with abandon:

While Western central bankers can stop making things worse, only China can restore stability in the global economy. Consider that 800 million Chinese workers have become as productive as their Western counterparts, but are not even close in terms of consumption. This is the fundamental reason for the global imbalance.

Note: as we saw before, while the Chinese may not consume as much as Westerners when it comes to consumer products, they DO -on average- put a far higher percentage of their wages into real estate. And that is because Beijing encourages such behavior. The politburo needs the bubbles to keep things moving. And therefore creates them on purpose. Presumably with the idea that incomes will come up so much that all these homes become more affordable compared to wages. That looks like a big gamble.

Property costs of between 50 and 100 years of household income are not manageable, and rising rates and/or an outright crisis will expose that. And then on top of that, the government wants, needs, an ever bigger take of people’s incomes. Because its whole model is based on its investing in the economy, even if a large part of it is not efficient or profitable.

China’s model is to subsidise investment. The resulting overcapacity inevitably devalues whatever its workers produce. That slows down wage rises and prolongs the deflationary pull. [..] Overinvestment means destroying capital. The model can only be sustained through taxing the household sector to fill the gap.

 

In addition to taking nearly half of the business labour outlay, China has invented the unique model of taxing the household sector through asset bubbles. The stock market was started with the explicit intention to subsidise state-owned enterprises. The most important asset bubble is the property market. It redistributes about 10% of GDP to the government sector from the household sector. The levies for subsidising investment keep consumption down and make the economy more dependent on investment and export.

In order to prevent a huge real estate crash, Beijing will have to make sure wages rise, across the board, and substantially, for hundreds of millions of people. And there we get back to what Xie said above:

The government finds an ever-increasing need to raise levies and, hence, make the property bubble bigger. In tier-one cities, property costs are likely to be between 50 and 100 years of household income. At the peak of Japan’s property bubble, it was about 20 in Tokyo. China’s residential property value may have surpassed the total in the rest of the world combined.

The 800 million pound elephant here is that what Beijing pushes its citizens to put in real estate, they can no longer spend on other things. Their consumption will flatline or even fall. Unless the Party manages to raise their wages, but it would have to raise them by a lot, because it needs more and more taxes to be paid by the same wages.

And here’s where Andy Xie gets most interesting:

How is this all going to end? Rising interest rates are usually the trigger. But we know the current bubble economy tends to keep inflation low through suppressing mass consumption and increasing overcapacity. It gives central bankers the excuse to keep the printing press on.

 

In 1929, Joseph Kennedy thought that, when a shoeshine boy was giving stock tips, the market had run out of fools. Today, that shoeshine boy would be a genius. In today’s bubble, central bankers and governments are fools. They can mobilise more resources to become bigger fools. In 2000, the dotcom bubble burst because some firms were caught making up numbers. Today, you don’t need to make up numbers. What one needs is stories.

Those are some pretty impressive insights, and they go way beyond China. Today’s fools are not yesterday’s fools. Only, today’s fools have been given the rights, and the tools, to keep blowing ever larger bubbles. The only conclusion can be that when the bubbles burst, it’ll be much much worse than the Great Depression. And this time, China will blow up along with the west. Take cover!

Hot stocks or property are sold like Hollywood stars. Rumour and innuendo will do the job. Nothing real is necessary. In 2007, structured mortgage products exposed cash-short borrowers. The defaults snowballed. But, in China, leverage is always rolled over. Default is usually considered a political act. And it never snowballs: the government makes sure of it.

Can China continue to roll over its leveraged debt when the west is in crisis, is forced to heavily cut its imports, just as Beijing needs more tax revenue to keep its miracle model alive? WIll it be able to export its over-leverage and over-capacity through the new Silk Road project? It looks very doubtful. And we shouldn’t expect the Party Congress this month to address these issues. They know better.

Xie finishes with most original predictions. Class struggle in the US. It sounds like something straight out of Karl Marx, but perhaps we are already seeing the first signs today.

In the US, the leverage is mostly in the government. It won’t default, because it can print money. The most likely cause for the bubble to burst would be the rising political tension in the West. The bubble economy keeps squeezing the middle class, with more debt and less wages. The festering political tension could boil over. Radical politicians aiming for class struggle may rise to the top. The US midterm elections in 2018 and presidential election in 2020 are the events that could upend the applecart.

Maybe class struggle is something we’ll see first in Europe, both at a national and at a pan-European level. Too many countries keep their systems humming not by being productive, but by encouraging their citizens to sink deeper into debt. Low interest rates may be attractive for signing up to new loans, but the ‘trajectory’ gets shorter all the time, because those same low rates absolutely murder savings and pensions.

The only thing that can keep the whole caboodle from exploding would be absolutely stunning economic growth at least somewhere in the world, but every single somewhere is far too deep in debt for that to happen.

Take cover.

 

via http://ift.tt/2kMIB1x Tyler Durden

Bridgewater Unveil New $700 Million Short

While in recent days Bridgewater has been in the news not for its investing acumen (or lack thereof), or the outspoken, contrarian views of its founder Ray Dalio, but rather the recent spirited attack by Jim Grant who in not so many words hinted, if not explicitly stated, that there is something very rotten in the state of (Westport) Connecticut (a theatrically sponsored defense was inevitable), it is still the case that any major investing move the hedge fund… pardon the algo-driven investing hedge fund with no prime brokers and lots of ETFs, makes is sure to result in headlines, and today was no exception, because as Bloomberg reports, Bridgewater has amassed a “$713 million wager against Italian financial stocks, its biggest disclosed bearish bet in Europe.”

In addition to shorting five banks and one insurer, public filings disclose that the $160 billion hedge fund is also betting on a decline in the stock price of Milan-based Prysmian SpA, the world’s largest cable maker.

Bridgewater’s biggest short is against Intesa Sanpaolo, followed by UniCredit and insurer Assicurazioni Generali, all names very familiar to anyone who covered the endless European crisis from 2010 until the launch of QE by the ECB, and which were constantly on the verge of collapse.

While it is unclear what may have prompted the recent bearishness at the world’s biggest hedge fund, it likely has to do with recent proposed revisions to the ECB’s treatment of bad debt held on bank balance sheets. Under the ECB’s new proposal, banks will have to provision against the entire potential loss on newly-classified nonperforming loans that aren’t backed by collateral after two years. While details are still scarce and the ECB has promised to publish plans for existing bad loans, including “appropriate transitional arrangements,” by the end of the first quarter, Italian banks are expected to be hit hardest by the revised treatment of NPLs.

Why Italy? Because the country’s banking industry remains saddled with €318 billion in bad loans – a third of Europe’s total. Indeed, concerns about the impact of the ECB’s bad-loan proposal on the  earnings of European banks, prompted a 7% percent drop in an index of Italian banks in the six days through Tuesday, pulling Italy’s FTSE MIB Index down from two year highs. Italy’s FTSE Italia All-Share Banks Index has dropped 4.5 percent since the ECB’s Oct. 4 announcement that it plans to revise bad loan provisioning standards.

Various (mostly long-only) investors were quick to defend Italian banks, suggesting that the ECB proposal is a tempest in a teapot:

“The market over-reacted because the ECB’s new rule is only for new non-performing loans,” said Ronald Petitjean, a fund manager at LA Francaise Inflection Point. “An improving macro will lead to a marked improvement in banks’ asset quality,” he said, adding that the rule is unlikely to be applied to existing bad loans.

“After UniCredit’s huge capital increase, the Monte dei Paschi resolution and the solution on Veneto’s banks, the terrain is becoming more fruitful, unless the ECB kills it,” Matteo Brancolini, a fund manager at BPER Banca SpA, told Bloomberg. “This ECB rule will only affect Italian banks. But I do think they will find some compromise on the issue.”

As Bloomberg reported yesterday, the European Commission on Wednesday helped reduce concerns, saying in a report that it considered introducing new provisioning policies on soured debt arising from newly-originated loans and not from the existing pile of loans. The commission didn’t define specific provisioning policy and limited the impact of the ECB proposal to individual cases.

“The European Commission has clarified the limit of the SSM mandate and implicitly reduced uncertainty on the treatment of the back book,” Mediobanca SpA analysts led by Andrea Filtri wrote in a note. “Overall, perceived regulatory risk in Italian banks should reduce, for now.”

Others remain skeptical. “Italian banks may face higher loan losses as well as potentially being discouraged from lending”, according to Societe Generale SA analysts including Aldo Comi. While most countries on the ECB’s Supervisory Board support giving banks firm deadlines for setting aside cash to cover potential losses from uncollected loans and loan payments, Italy and some others are said to be pushing back.

For now at least, the market seems to agree with the bearish view: in addition to Bridgewater, more investors have pounced ahead of the recent drop in Italian bank stocks. As Blomberg notes, “the trend is a reversal from the third quarter, when Italian banks were among Europe’s best performers as the rescue of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA and the liquidation of two smaller regional lenders reduced the systemic risk of the nation’s financial system.” Marshall Wace and Oceanwood Capital Management are among other hedge funds shorting Italian lenders.

What happens next?

“The Italian market will be a beta market this year and next year,” said Brancolinim, fund manager at BPER Banca. “If Europe keeps improving — and that is an unknown — Italy will outperform. That’s true also on the opposite. Italy needs some European political and economic stability.”

Of course, it’s not just Italy, because as Reuters writes overnight, “German and French banks have together amassed almost 230 billion euros ($272 billion) of bad loans, according to regulators’ data, underscoring the scale of a problem often linked solely to Italy that is now causing worry across the region.

The tally puts the combined total of problem loans in the euro zone’s largest economies, France and Germany, close to that of Italy’s bad debt pile.  It lays bare the extent of the pan-European problem although it is far easier for banks in France and Germany to cope with because bad debts there account for a smaller proportion of overall credit.

For now however, Bridgewater’s algos appears to only be concerned with the situation in Italy. As for the investment, this provides yet another opportunity for Ray Dalio to refute Jim Grant’s allegations: should the trade outperform, the billionaire hedge fund manager will finally have a P&L hit to point to and say “see, we aren’t charlatans.” The problem is that for that to happen, the ECB would have to close its eyes and allow havoc and mayhem to be unleashed in Italy – and Europe – again, as the banking sector remains the continent’s weakest link which can’t exist without constant central bank support. 

Neddless to say, the ECB won’t do that, which is also why our money is, once again, on Grant.

via http://ift.tt/2g6rUss Tyler Durden

Cases Dropped Against California Cops Accused of Statutory Rape, Prostitution With Police Dispatcher’s Daughter

“Celeste Guap,” the daughter of an Oakland police dispatcher, says she was sexually exploited by local cops from a young age and had been paid for and/or extorted into sex with dozens of Bay Area officers by the time she turned 19. Oakland bungled the investigation into this activity, then shipped her off to drug rehab in Florida for a while; there she was jailed for getting in an altercation with a security officer before she made it back to the west coast to testify. But for a minute at least it looked like some of these men might be held accountable in criminal court.

Last week, however, Judge Jon Rolefson dismissed charges against former Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Deputy Ricardo Perez and Alameda County prosecutors dropped their case against Oakland officer Giovanni LoVerde. LoVerde was charged with felony oral copulation with a minor. He is still employed with the Oakland Police Department (OPD).

Perez was charged with felony unlawful sex with a minor, felony oral copulation with a minor, and two misdemeanor counts of engaging in lewd conduct. But Rolefson decided there was insufficient evidence Perez knew that Guap was under age 18.

Last month Rolefson also dropped the charges against former officer Brian Bunton, who was accused of paying Guap for sex once she was 18 and conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Bunton, LoVerde, and Perez were three of only six officers criminally charged, though there was evidence implicating many more cops in Oakland and neighboring areas. “Some of the officers still work at OPD despite social media evidence they sexually exploited the girl or ignored signs of wrongdoing by fellow officers,” notes the East Bay Express.

The OPD has fired four cops over allegations related to Guap. Twelve officers were disciplined in other ways, another committed suicide, and a longtime police chief was forced to resign.

Ultimately, only three men have been convicted: Oakland Sgt. Leroy Johnson, accused of knowing about what other Oakland cops were doing with Guap but not reporting it; Oakland Capt. Al Perrodin, accused of paying Guap for sex when she was 18; and Livermore cop Daniel Black, also accused of paying Guap for sex. The case against one more Oakland cop, accused of illegally using a police database, remains open.

Johnson pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge and was sentenced to three years’ probation. Perrodin pled guilty and was sentenced to five days’ house arrest and two years’ probation. Black pled no contest to one count of engaging in a lewd act, in a deal that saw three prostitution charges dropped and will allow his record to be wiped clean if he doesn’t get arrested again in within 15 months.

Alameda County District Attorney Spokeswoman Teresa Drenick said prosecutors dropped the case against LoVerde because of its similarity to the Perez case, which Judge Rolefson had already rejected. But the county plans to appeal Rolefson’s decision on Perez. She told the East Bay Times “there exists a conflict in the law interpreting the criminal statutes that govern the crimes charged, and we have determined that we will seek an appellate remedy.”

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2kLdHq9
via IFTTT

Energy stocks testing key breakout level, says Joe Friday

 

Just The Facts- Energy ETF (XLE) has lagged the S&P 500 by a large margin over the past three years, reflected in the chart below-

CLICK ON CHART TO ENLARGE

The chart above reflects that XLE has underperformed the S&P 500 by nearly 60% over the past three years. Could this large underperformance turn into an opportunity? Sure could! Check out the key test that is in play with XLE.


CLICK ON CHART TO ENLARGE

Joe Friday Just The Facts Ma’am– XLE is testing dual resistance this week at (2), at the top of falling channel (1). If XLE breaks out at (2), it should attract buyers!

 

Why do you see very few comments from me?  Because I believe the Power of the Pattern provides all you need to see what is taking place in an asset and determine the action to take

Receive my free research posted on the blog daily here 

Better yet, send an email if you would like to see sample research and take me up on a trial of my premium or weekly research where I provide actionable alerts on breakouts and reversals in broad market indices, sectors, commodities, the miners and select individual stocks 

 

 

Email services@kimblechartingsolutions.com 

Call us Toll free 877-721-7217 international 714-941-9381

Website: KIMBLECHARTINGSOLUTIONS.COM

 

 

 

 


via http://ift.tt/2wTAfXe kimblecharting