In Today’s Layoff News: Microsoft Fires 1,850; Intel Cuts 350; Shell Terminating 2,200

How do you know the Fed is justified in hiking again, the economy is recovering, and the market are zooming higher? One hint is the just announced thousands in layoffs in both the energy and tech sector, among which are Shell, which announced it would layoff 2,200 jobs; Microsoft reporting it would cut 1,850; and Intel terminating up to 350 jobs in Germany.

The details:

Shell Cuts 2,200 More Jobs, Bringing Total Losses to 12,500

  • Co. to make additional 2,200 job cuts by end of 2016, according to e-mailed statement.
  • Brings total number of staff and direct contractor roles leaving Shell from start of 2015 to the end of 2016 to at least 12,500
  • Will reduce size of the organization supporting U.K. and Ireland upstream business by ~475 people  
  • “These are tough times for our industry and we have to take further difficult decisions to ensure Shell remains competitive through the current, prolonged downturn,” Paul Goodfellow, Shell’s vice president for U.K. & Ireland, says in statement

Microsoft Unveils as Many as 1,850 Job Cuts, Phone Unit Charge, Microsoft to take $950m impairment and restructuring charge.

  • Charge includes $200m for severance payments: statement
  • CEO Satya Nadella pares back the company’s ambitions in smartphones
  • About 1,350 jobs will be cut in Finland, base of the handset business co. acquired from Nokia in 2014
  • Further details to be released with 4Q earnings in July

Intel to Cut 300-350 Jobs in Germany, WirtschaftsWoche Says

  • No forced redundancies are planned, WirtschaftsWoche says, citing unidentified co. employees.
  • Job-cut program to be in place by end of June
  • Co. also to close site in Ulm
  • Co. employs about 3,500 staff in Germany
  • Note April 20: Intel to Cut 12,000 Jobs, Forecast Misses Amid PC Blight

Source: Bloomberg

via http://ift.tt/1YZfkd6 Tyler Durden

US Services PMI Tumbles, Misses By Most On Record “Dealing Blow To Q2 Rebound Hopes”

After a brief dead cat bounce, the US services economy has tumbled back to 3-month (near 7 year) lows, missing expectations by the most on record. With the slowest pace of hiring since Dec 2014 (signalling a mere 128k rise in payrolls for May), business optimism plunged to record lows (since the survey began in Oct 2009).

When hope fades…

May data highlighted a renewed fall in business optimism across the service economy. Reflecting this, the balance of service sector firms forecasting a rise in business activity over the year-ahead eased to its lowest since the survey began in October 2009.

Anecdotal evidence suggested that uncertainty related to the presidential election and concerns about the general economic outlook had continued to weigh on business confidence.

Commenting on the flash PMI data, Chris Williamson, chief economist at Markit said: 
A deterioration in the survey data for May deal a blow to hopes that the US economy will rebound in the second quarter after the dismal start to the year. 
 
“Service sector growth has slowed in May to one of the weakest rates seen since 2009, and manufacturing is already in its steepest downturn since the recession. 
 
“Having correctly forewarned of the near-stalling of the economy in the first quarter, the surveys are now pointing to just 0.7% annualised GDP growth in the second quarter, notwithstanding any sudden change in June. 
 
“A deteriorating order book situation and waning business optimism have meanwhile led to a further pull-back in hiring as companies scaled down their expansion plans. The surveys are signalling a non-farm payroll rise of just 128,000 in May. 
 
With no sign of any growth rebound and the labour market cooling, only one of the Fed’s three tests for a June rate hike – rising price pressures – is passed according to the PMI data. However, with prices rising largely on the back of higher oil prices rather than a fundamental improvement in demand, it seems that even core inflationary pressures remain subdued.”

 

via http://ift.tt/20B6d2F Tyler Durden

Are Investors Idiots?

Submitted by Bill Bonner of Bonner & Partners (annotated by Acting-Man's Pater Tenebrarum),

Black-and-Blue Crash Alert Flag

Let us  begin the week “on message.” The Diary is about money. Today, we’ll stick to the subject.  Old friend Mark Hulbert has done some research on the likelihood of a crash in the stock market.

 

tattered flag bb.

Ye olde tattered Crash Alert flag… should it be unfurled again?

 

 

Writing in Barron’s, he points out that the risk – or, more properly, the incidence – of crashes, historically, has been very small:

“[…] consider that the 1987 and 1929 crashes were the two worst one-day plunges since the Dow Jones Industrial Average was created in 1896. Given that there have been more than 32,000 trading sessions since then, the judgment of at least this swath of history is that in any given six-month period, there is a 0.79% chance of a daily crash that severe.

 

And there’s no reason to believe that the frequency of future crashes will be significantly higher. Xavier Gabaix, a finance professor at New York University, has derived a crash-frequency formula that he believes captures a universal trait of all markets, not just equity markets or those in the U.S. According to that formula, the odds of a 12.8% crash in any given six-month period are 0.92%, almost as low as the actual frequency in the U.S. stock market over the last century.

 

This means that the average investor over the last three decades has believed a severe crash to be more than 24 times more likely than U.S. history would suggest, and that investors currently believe the risks to be 28 times more likely.”

 Whoa! Are investors idiots, or what? Maybe not. Your editor is among those who happily over-estimate the risk of a crash. He expected one in 1998…and again in 1999…and when it came in 2000, he was as surprised as anyone.

Then, prices went up again. And again, he raised the old black-and-blue Crash Alert flag. In 2005… in 2006… in 2007… finally, in 2008, he got what he expected. And now that the market has recovered again, he expects another one.

 

Investors and Turkeys

Statistically, as Mark points out, the likelihood of a crash coming on any given day is small. But that is a little like telling a turkey not to worry because the likelihood of Thanksgiving is only 1 out of 365.

 

disappeared

Really, what are the odds?

 

Eventually, all turkeys and all investors get whacked. And, generally, the longer a market goes without a correction, the more it needs one. Besides, there is something a little fishy about these numbers.

In the last 20 years, there were the aforementioned  sell-offs in the stock market – one in 2000, heavily concentrated in the Nasdaq and the other across the board in 2008. But people don’t think of investing in terms of avoiding the specific day of crash.

Investors don’t really care if a crash happens on a Wednesday or a Thursday. If they think a crash will happen any time within six months, they usually want to stay out of the market – realizing that they can’t time these sorts of things with any precision. So if we look at it in these terms, there were 40 six-month periods in the last 20 years. And crashes happened in two of them – or one in 20.

If investors truly believed that the odds of a crash were 28 times higher than one in 20, they would have believed that there would be a crash every six months. And they would have been out of stocks all the time.

 

shoved 2

You don’t want this to happen, even if the chances that it will are fairly small…

 

 

It’s Like Russian Roulette

Also, the statistics Mark cites do not really gauge the “risk” of a crash. They speak only to the frequency. Imagine the drunken imbecile who puts a bullet into a revolver, spins the chamber, and puts the gun to his temple.

 

Print

Statistically speaking, Lady Luck is likely to be on your side in Russian Roulette…but it’s probably still not the best idea to do it.

 

“There’s only one chance in six that this will kill me,” he says. Statistically, he is right. The odds are in his favor. But what a bad bet! The true measure of risk involves more than just statistical probability. The frequency needs to be multiplied by the gravity in order to get the true picture.
 
The typical investor is in his 50s. If the next stock crash is followed by a big bounce, like the other two crashes in the last 20 years. He will be glad he paid no attention to our warnings and just kept his money in stocks.
 
But what if the stock market crash of 2016 is more like the crash of 1929, or the bear market of ’66? He could have to wait 20 years to break even. Or if it is like the crash that happened in Japan in 1990, he’ll still be waiting in 2042.

 

Nikkei

The Nikkei, monthly since 1987. It’s been a long wait, and the waiting continues…most buy and hold investors who got into the market in the late 80s are only likely to reach breakeven in the afterlife – click to enlarge.

via http://ift.tt/247sUwq Tyler Durden

Getting the Libertarians Into Presidential Debates Via Lawsuit

Gary Johnson, likely to be the Libertarian Party’s (L.P.) presidential nominee after the Party’s National Convention which begins in Orlando on Friday, has consistently said his chances of doing very well in the general election depend on getting into a nationally televised debate with his major party opponents.

The front door in to those debates requires being on the ballot in enough states that an Electoral College victory is technically possible. That’s a hurdle the L.P. will have no trouble meeting. (They have 32 states already in the bag and with signature deadlines still ahead in the others, feel reasonably confident they will get all 50 plus the District of Columbia.)

The other criteria to get in set by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is that a candidate must be polling at least 15 percent in five national polls, said polls not specifically named.  

But those polls will, according to the CPD, “be selected based on the quality of the methodology employed, the reputation of the polling organizations and the frequency of the polling conducted. CPD will identify the selected polling organizations well in advance of the time the criteria are applied.”

Johnson has, as far as I know, been included in three national polls so far, earning 11 percent in March in a Monmouth University poll, 10 percent this month in a Fox News poll, and 10 percent this week in a Morning Consult poll.

Part of the problem, Johnson thinks, is that he is, after all, not yet officially the L.P. candidate. He anticipates that if the two-governor team of Johnson-William Weld come out of Orlando triumphant, pollsters will start including him more regularly.

A virtuous circle of polling and media will then ideally get him into the debates, which will feed more media and more polling and then, well, if not victory, at least something unprecedented to the Libertarian Party. Johnson’s 1.27 million votes in 2012, less than a full percentage point, was their best raw number total in their 44 year history so far. Johnson very much wants to beat that.

The L.P. has not been counting on just following the CPD’s existing rules as a way into the vitally important debates. Two distinct lawsuits are in process to try to achieve the same results.

One, which I reported on last September when it was filed in U.S. District Court in D.C., has the L.P., Johnson, and the Green Party and its candidate Jill Stein among the plaintiffs.  

That case makes what is as near as I can tell a fresh legal claim, that what the CPD does in collusion with the two major parties is in effect an antitrust violation of “political markets” in how they are “exercising duopoly control over presidential and vice presidential debates in general election campaigns for the presidency of the United States.”

This amounts, the suit argues, to an illegal domination of “cognizable ‘presidential elections market’ [and] cognizable ‘political campaign market’ for purposes of the antitrust laws.” 

The suit, in its own language:

challenges the per se illegal continuing horizontal boycott of Plaintiffs by the RNC and the DNC utilizing their jointly created and maintained Commission [on Presidential Debates], as the barrier to entry in each of the above-referenced cognizable markets.

The suit seeks treble damages based on what the defendants claim they lost by being barred from the debates, the dissolution of the CPD itself, and an injunction against “further barriers, boycotts or other agreements in restraint of trade….that cause the exclusion from presidential debates of presidential candidates who have obtained ballot access in a sufficient number of states to win an electoral-college majority.”

Bruce Fein, the lawyer in the case, said in an email regarding its status that “We filed our Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, they filed Replies, we filed a motion for oral argument which Defendants opposed. We await a ruling from Judge [Rosemary] Collyer.” He declined to elaborate.

Another outstanding suit to get the L.P. in debates was filed against the Federal Election Commission last June. 

A recent motion for summary judgment in the case for the plaintiffs, including the L.P., sums up the argument, after pointing out CPD has always been a deliberate duopoly for the Republicans and Democrats, always led by a team from both parties:

For years, the CPD has been violating FECA and FEC regulations limiting debate-sponsoring organizations’ ability to use corporate funds to finance their activities. To accept corporate contributions and expenditures, a debate staging organization must be “nonpartisan,” meaning it may not “endorse, support, or oppose” political candidates or parties, and it must use pre-established objective criteria to determine which candidates may participate. The specific, detailed, and extensive evidence Plaintiffs presented in their administrative complaints shows that the CPD does not remotely meet these requirements. Nevertheless, the FEC refused to enforce the law and ignored virtually all of this evidence in conclusorily dismissing the complaints even though there is plainly reason to believe that the CPD is violating FECA….

….a debate staging organization cannot use a criterion that only the Democratic and Republican candidates can realistically satisfy. But that is precisely what the CPD has done.

The CPD requires a candidate to poll at 15% in an average of five unspecified national polls taken in mid-September. This level of support is virtually impossible for an independent candidate who is not a self-funded billionaire to achieve. Candidates who do not participate in the major party primaries lack access to free media coverage and must rely instead on paid media to garner the necessary name recognition to satisfy the rule. Studies show that to gain sufficient name recognition to poll at 15%, an independent candidate would have to spend over $250 million. This is an unheard-of amount of money for an independent candidate to raise, especially before appearing in any televised debates….

And even if it were possible for an independent candidate to raise this amount of money, it would not matter because the CPD’s polling criterion works to the systematic disadvantage of non-major-party candidates…

That all should be enough to get the FEC to do something, the suit argues. But:

Despite these allegations and the detailed evidence substantiating them, the FEC – itself by statute a bipartisan organization – simply turned a blind eye, as it has in the past, to protect the CPD and the major parties. The FEC relied on an interpretation of its debate staging regulation that is at odds with the text of the regulation and inconsistent with FECA. The FEC ignored virtually all of Plaintiffs’ allegations that the CPD is biased in favor of the two major parties. Its cursory analysis of Plaintiffs’ detailed evidence that the polling criterion disproportionately disadvantages independent candidates was conclusory and illogical, and failed to actually consider Plaintiffs’ allegations. This was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law…..

the mid-September timing of the CPD’s 15% determination disadvantages independent candidates. The CPD has never and would never exclude a Republican or Democratic nominee from the debates. By contrast, independent candidates cannot be certain that they will be eligible for the debates until the CPD makes its determination two months before the election. But participation in the debates is a prerequisite for victory. The CPD’s timing requires independent candidates to campaign and fundraise for months without even knowing whether or not they will ultimately be eligible for the debates and thus even have a shot at winning. This uncertainty creates a serious and concrete obstacle to independent campaigns. Donors, volunteers, and voters are much less likely to support, and the media much less likely to cover, any candidate whose participation in the debates is still up in the air…..

the FEC has consistently rejected challenges to the CPD’s 15% polling threshold….including the administrative complaints in the present action. If the FEC interprets its existing regulations to permit a polling threshold that is not reasonably possible for anyone other than a major-party candidate to satisfy, it is doubtful that the FEC is willing or able to police the use of polling at all.

The motion for summary judgment requests that:

The Court should grant summary judgment for Plaintiffs, and direct the FEC to do its job, which is to enforce the law and put an end to the CPD’s biased, anti-democratic, and fundamentally corrupt and exclusionary polling rule.

That second case is before Judge Tanya Chutkan, also in U.S. District Court for D.C., and also awaiting a decision on the motions for summary judgment.

Time is obviously of the essence in both cases, but the lawyers involved cannot predict or be sure whether the judges in the two cases will act in a timely enough fashion.

Not to be a bummer, but no one can force the other candidates to participate in debates if they don’t want to. It remains to be seen how Trump and Clinton would react to being required to stand up in public against Johnson or any Libertarian. In 1980, incumbent Jimmy Carter refused to show up at a debate with Reagan and that year’s third party star, John Anderson, and either Trump or Clinton could do the same.

As I wrote last September, “Ross Perot in presidential debates did amazingly well for non-major party candidates in 1992, then was excluded from the debates in ’96 and did far less well, with his vote percentage dropping by 10 points, more than 50 percent.”

In 1992, both George Bush and Bill Clinton wanted Perot in the debates, each thinking they’d be helped. In 1996, neither Clinton nor Bob Dole wanted him, so he wasn’t there. If the majors see no benefit to debating a Libertarian, even these legal victories could become Pyrrhic if the majors just choose to take their own debating ball and go home.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/25gPfdq
via IFTTT

Anti-Trump Crowd Causes Ruckus, Senate Passes Rape-Kit Bill, ‘The Fappening’ Hacker Pleads Guilty: A.M. Links

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and dont forget to sign up for Reasons daily updates for more content.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/27Sk7mL
via IFTTT

“Run For Cover If You’re Short” Gartman Pleads One Day After Saying “2,025 Is A Given”

For today’s dose of pre-market entertainment, we go once again to Dennis Gartman, who clearly perturbed by the violent turnaround in global stocks yesterday appeared on CNBC where the “closely followed market-watcher” said the early week’s market gains could continue for the next couple of weeks.

“Historically when that happens, we carry through. So I think you’re likely to trade better — maybe not today, particularly — but I bet by Friday we’re higher and I bet by next week we’re higher again,” Gartman told CNBC in London.

Anybody who’s short – and there are a lot of smart people who are in fact heavily short – they have to run for cover, and I think it could get ugly.

Gartman comically added that he reversed his short and turned long on the Euro STOXX 50 following Tuesday’s rally, confirming his infamous “retirement fund” is nothing but a momentum chasing pile of virtual cash.

“When the Euro STOXX 50 reversed to the upside, after having opened lower and then gotten higher on the day, I said to myself, ‘this is turning better, something’s taking place,'” Gartman told CNBC.

“Perhaps it was the agreement that was reached between the EU (European Union) fiscal authorities and Greece… that seemed to me to be the turning point and once you got higher on the day, it’s as if the shorts, I being included, had to rush to get long and I actually ended the day long here, which is unusual for me to turn my position that quickly,” he said.

 

As a reminder, this is what the “closely followed market-watcher” said exactly 24 hours ago, which as we comically mused, precipitated the surge in stocks:

In our retirement account here at TGL we have simplified our position taking in the equity market: we have only a position in derivatives on the short side, and although it is not a material position it is one-sided. We’ve cast our long positions aside. We’ve simplified; we’ve gotten smaller; but we are bearishly inclined, and we are intent upon adding to those bearishly inclined positions the very moment in the futures markets that 17,400 is given in the Dow futures; the moment that 2025 is “given” in the S&P futures; the moment that 4290 is “given” in the NASDAQ futures and the moment that 1085 is “given” in the Russell. These will all happen almost simultaneously. Our antennae are up; so too should everyone’s be.

So many givens… so little time. And some more amusement from his latest note:

We begin then by noting firstly that we were obviously uncommonly wrong in being even modestly net short of equities coming into yesterday’s trading session. That became abundantly and swiftly clear to us about one hour after we had sent yesterday’s TGL to our clients around the world as the EUR STOXX 50 and the DAX indices both had opened lower; turned higher on the day and were taking out the previous day’s highs in what seemed to be only a matter of a very few moments... Indeed, we cannot recall having seen a more violent or emphatic “reversal” in European shares ever.

 

We have learned over the years to pay attention to “reversal” such as this one circled here this morning, and any weakness that might develop later today or even later this week is to be bought. This is a big change of opinion on our part, but history mandates that we change accordingly.

 

As is always… ALWAYS…the case, we pay heed to reversals, whether in the equity markets, the commodity markets, the forex markets and/or the debt markets. When market’s “reverse” we pay heed and more often than not we take action. We’ve learned over the years that when such things occur it is better to “shoot first and ask questions later.”

 

We did exactly that as we moved quickly to get from net short in our retirement funds to net long and by mid-day here in North American we  had gotten that way. We covered in half of our short position in derivatives and we began buying both high tech and low tech companies’ shares as we were able, ending the day net long of equities…and rather aggressively so. We cannot recall having turned this radically and this swiftly in the equity market in many, many years, but the “reversal” in Europe forced our hand. We truly had no choice.

 

What caused the rush higher? If we must point to one fundamental reason for the rush upward it was that the European Union fiscal authorities, led by Mr. Dijsselbloem, the current President of the EU, along with Mr. Schäuble, the usually taciturn Finance Minister of Germany, and Mr. Gramegna, Luxembourg’s Finance Minister, had agreed with the IMF and with Greece that the latter had succeeded in its fiscal reforms and that the Fund and the Troika would help Greece meet her debt problems. They had agreed that the left-of-centre Greek government led by Mr. Tsipras had actually met its commitments on a promised austere budget and that it was meet and right for the Fund and the Troika to release €10.3 billion in financial aid. Mr. Dijsselbloem actually referred to the agreement reached between the various parties as a “Breakthrough,” and indeed it was. From that point on, stock prices were bid up; shorts ran for cover and the skies had cleared.

 

In our account here, we quite literally were grasping for almost anything we could to reverse our position. Covering… or actually greatly reducing… our short position in the derivatives market was the first course of action. Then we chose to buy high-tech, high beta equities to “catch up” as quickly as we could, and by the day’s end were back buying prosaic, old-guard, dividend payers… but we did indeed end the day net long. Now we shall see if the “reversals” hold; we shall see if stock prices continue higher; we have bet that they shall.

Surely, Gartman’s remains the best comedy newsletter money can buy. As for the market, and Gartman’s bet that “by Friday we’re higher and I bet by next week we’re higher again”, trade accordingly.

via http://ift.tt/1YZ3SOH Tyler Durden

Feds Probing Potential Insider Trading By Senator Bob Corker

Back in December the topic of insider trading by prominent members of Congress hit new highs when as we reported at the time a “Prominent Tennessee Senator Fails To Disclose Millions In Hedge Fund, Real Estate Investments.” The politician in question, Tennessee republican Senator Bob Corker, who according to Roll Call was recently the 23rd richest member of Congress

… and the company under focus: a Tennessee-based REIT, CBL & Associates.

As a reminder, last November, the Campaign for Accountability (CFA), a D.C. watchdog, called for an SEC and ethics investigation of Corker in connection with his family’s trading in shares of CBL & Associates (a REIT based in Tennessee). According to CFA, between 2008 and 2015, Sen. Corker, his wife and daughters made an astonishing 70 trades of stock in the real estate investment giant CBL & Associates Properties – more than triple the number of transactions he made of any other stock. Some of the trades closely preceded company announcements that led to changes in the stock’s price and seemingly resulted in the senator making millions of dollars.

CfA Executive Director Anne Weismann stated, “Sen. Corker’s trades followed a consistent pattern — he bought low and sold high. It beggars belief to suggest these trades – netting the senator and his family millions – were mere coincidences.”

As the Wall Street Journal has reported, Sen. Corker failed to report numerous trades of CBL stock. Federal law requires members of Congress to report stock trades and file reports disclosing their assets. Many of Sen. Corker’s profitable trades were made in advance of his broker, UBS, issuing reports impacting CBL’s trading price.

Sen. Corker then amended his filings to reveal a 2009 purchase of between $1 and $5 million of CBL stock, sold just five months later in 2010 at a 42% profit. Similarly, Sen. Corker made purchases worth between $3 and $15 million in 2010 and, just after his last trade, UBS said it was upgrading its outlook. The stock went up 18%. Shortly thereafter, Sen. Corker began selling; a week later, UBS downgraded the stock and the share price soon declined about 10%.

As the CBA also wrote, “as a member of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Corker has advanced legislation that would financially benefit UBS and CBL.” This is what Vanity Fair added to this curious story:

As the complaint—filed with the SEC and the Senate Select Committee on Ethics—details, Corker and CBL go way back. Corker began his career at a company whose primary business was subcontracting for CBL and which is now substantially owned by CBL. CBL executives were Corker’s “first and most generous donors,” as the complaint put it, when Corker filed to run for Congress in 2006.

 

Both directly and indirectly, CBL have given generously to Corker. According to the complaint, CBL’s executives, directors and their spouses rank among the senator’s top campaign donors, contributing $88,706 to his campaign committee and PAC since his 2006 run. Since Corker’s arrival in the Senate, CBL executives have contributed more than $50,000 each to NAREIT and ICSC—which, in turn, were part of a nine-PAC consortium that held a fundraiser for Corker in Washington in 2011. NAREIT and ICSC also donated $15,000 directly to his campaign committee since his arrival in the Senate.

* * *

All these questionable revelations proved too much for the Feds to ignore, and as the WSJ reports overnight, CBL is now under investigation by federal law-enforcement officials for alleged accounting fraud.

As the paper adds, the FBI and the SEC are focusing their examination of CBL & Associates Properties Inc. on whether officials at the Chattanooga, Tenn., company falsified information on financial statements to banks when applying for financing arrangements, the people said. Law-enforcement officials have talked to former CBL employees who allege the company inflated its rental income and its properties’ occupancy rates when reporting those figures to banks, the people said.

More importantly, the focus of the investigation is not just whether CBL cooked its books, but the REIT’s cozy relationship with Corker and his dozens of oddly profitable trades involving CBL stock:

The FBI and SEC officials have also separately asked questions about the relationship between the company and Mr. Corker, who is close with senior executives at the firm and has made millions of dollars in profits trading the company’s stock in recent years. Authorities don’t believe that Mr. Corker was involved in the company’s potential accounting issues, but they are interested in learning more about the senator’s trading in CBL’s stock, the people said.

So far, the WSJ reports, “they have found no evidence to suggest that Mr. Corker has committed wrongdoing” and to be sure Corker’s camp denies any wrongdoing. Micah Johnson, a spokeswoman for Mr. Corker, decried the “baseless charges against Senator Corker.”

Stephen Lebovitz, president and chief executive of CBL, said in a statement that the company “has not been contacted by the FBI, the SEC or any other regulatory agency regarding any accounting or financial issues.” He said the company has “stringent policies regarding our accounting and financial practices in keeping with applicable laws, rules, and regulations to which we strictly adhere.”

The investigation is being run by the FBI’s Washington field office and SEC staff at its Washington headquarters, which tend to handle higher-profile investigations, as opposed to the agencies’ local offices.

What makes the probe especially grotesque is that Corker is not only a chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but also a senior member of the Senate Banking Committee which is directly involved in crafting legislation aimed at regulating entities such as the CBL REIT. He has close personal, business and political ties with several members of the family that founded CBL and runs it. That includes founder Charles Lebovitz and his sons, Stephen Lebovitz and Executive Vice President Michael Lebovitz.

The relationship between Corker and the REIT’s owners runs deep. After graduating from college in 1974, Mr. Corker worked for a small company that helped construct buildings for CBL. Corker has a home in the same upscale Chattanooga suburb as three of the Lebovitz family members. “He’s a friend,” Stephen Lebovitz said of Mr. Corker in an interview in November with The Wall Street Journal. “Chattanooga’s not that big a city.” 

Michael Lebovitz served as a vice chairman of Mr. Corker’s initial Senate campaign and records show that CBL executives are major donors to his campaigns.

Perhaps aware that his trades would eventually be probed, in a 2011 article on Corker’s CBL investments, Corker preemptively said that by tracking the company’s stock for many years, he noticed that its shares traded within a range. “I’ve bought it heavily when it is at the low end of that range and then I hold it until there is upward movement, when I sell,” he said in a statement at the time.

Surprisingly, the vast majority of these “rangebound” trades were very profitable.

In one of these purchases, Mr. Corker bought between $1 million and $5 million in CBL shares on Nov. 29, 2011, according to updated financial-disclosure statements that he filed after questions from the Journal. The stock rose nearly 7% the next day and continued to climb. He sold the stock in May 2012 for between $5 million and $25 million after the stock had risen 42%, representing a gain of between $420,000 and $2.1 million, according to a Journal analysis of the trade.

And, just in case Corker’s “trading explanation” does not work, Corker’s spokesman decided to attack the messenger, casting doubt on the motives of the group that brought attention to his trades.

Ms. Johnson, the Corker spokeswoman, said she believes the questions into Mr. Corker have been prompted by the Campaign for Accountability, a nonpartisan organization that has filed several complaints with the Senate Ethics Committee about Mr. Corker’s financial activity. She said the group is a “politically motivated special-interest group that refuses to disclose its donors. We know that any effort to examine [Mr. Corker’s] actions will result in this smear campaign being discredited.”

 

“I wish we had that much authority,” said Anne Weismann, executive director of the organization. “We don’t have the ability to tell the FBI or SEC what to do.”

Well thank god for that, because if in addition to legal insider trading by members of Congress, these same Congressmen, such as Corker, could also wish away any probe into their trades, then the corruption at the very top would be clear for all to see. As it stands, the FBI and the SEC will actually have to go through Corker’s trades one by one. At the end of the day, we must note, even though Corker “does not have the ability to tell the FBI or SEC what to do”, we are confident there will be no punishment and at best Corkers will be given the “Mickelson” treatment, in which he has to forfeit a part of his illegal profits with absolutely no consequences whatsoever.

via http://ift.tt/1Rqcfge Tyler Durden

Emerging Markets Turmoil Signal Pain Ahead For US Stocks

Follow EM or not? That is the big question that BofAML asks as once again Emerging Market stocks are decoupling (lower) from an exuberant US equity market.

After a big rally in risk assets today the S&P 500 is up and credit tighter (CDX IG)/ higher (CDX HY) relative to the levels on May 16th – the day before speeches by Fed officials and later the FOMC minutes re-priced the probably of a June rate hike materially higher. After today’s strong new home sales report and a decline in Brexit risks (GBP up 1.0%), the implied probability of a June rate hike increased further to 34%, the dollar rallied (DXY dollar index is up 0.4%), 5s30s Treasury curve flattened by 1.5bps and financials outperformed (up 1.55% vs. 1.37% increase for the S&P 500).

However, we are seeing the same decoupling between US and EM stocks that that turned out a leading indicator for the decline in US risk assets in August last year and again in December/January this year…

 

As we noted last night, we suspect this is China-driven volatility rippling through from EM equities and FX inevitably spreading to US equity markets through various carry trades.

So the question is – will the Yuan turmoil ripple through markets enough to spook The Fed once more and dissolve what little credibility they have left or will Janet and her henchmen stand up to the foreign forces, hike rates to spit their own face, and deal with the aftermath through some more Citadel-driven VIXtermination? With VIX futures near record shorts and S&P futures at their longest in almost 2 years – there's not much easy leveraged money to squeeze there – like there was in August.

via http://ift.tt/20AGE1O Tyler Durden

Hillary Clinton’s Second Amendment: New at Reason

Accepting the National Rifle Association’s endorsement last week, Donald Trump warned that Hillary Clinton “wants to abolish the Second Amendment.” CNN corrected him, noting that Clinton “has never called for the abolition of the 2nd Amendment.” Although that’s technically true, writes Jacob Sullum, Clinton has done what amounts to the same thing. Clinton has interpreted the Second Amendment so narrowly that it imposes no practical limits on gun control laws, and that interpretation is sure to guide her Supreme Court nominations if she is elected president. 

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1s9w4DV
via IFTTT

Just Stop It!

Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

The posse of fools in the Eccles Building is so petrified of a stock market hissy fit that it has more or less created a Wall Street doomsday machine.

After trolling on the zero bound for 89 straight months now, the FOMC falsely believes that it has levitated the U.S. economy to the cusp of full-employment via massive liquidity and wealth effects pumping.

As a consequence, it refuses to let the market have breathing room for even a modest correction, insisting that just a few more months of this monetary lunacy will permit a return to some semblance of normalcy.

But it never gets there. The truth is, this so-called recovery cycle is now visibly dying of old age and being crushed by the headwinds of global deflation. Rather than acknowledge that the jig is up, our feckless monetary politburo just equivocates, procrastinates and prevaricates about the monumental policy failure it has superintended.

So the casino punters just won’t go home. They hang around against all odds, failing to liquidate and thereby enabling the robo machines to engage in endless and pointless cycling between chart points. As shown in the graph below, this has been going on for nearly 600 days now.

But of late the churning has been occurring in an increasingly narrow channel. Accordingly, the spring is being coiled ever more tightly.

When this 83-month long simulacrum of a economic recovery finally rolls over into recession someday soon, therefore, the implosion will be thunderous. The robo-machines will chase the punters out the casino exits in an epic stampede of selling.
^SPX Chart

^SPX data by YCharts

Indeed, given the headwinds emanating from all corners of the global economy and financial system it is hard to believe that any sentient carbon units actually participated in today’s 19th nervous short squeeze in as many weeks. Among other things, first quarter results have been fully posted and it turns out that the S&P 500 companies earned $87 per share during the last 12 months (LTM).

That’s down from the $99 per share LTM figure posted in Q1 last year and the peak of $106 per share recorded in the year ended in September 2014.

In short, reported GAAP earnings—–the honest kind companies report to the SEC on penalty of jail—— are now down 18% from their recent bubble cycle peak. But since the S&P 500 has remained within 3% of its May 2015 all-time high (2130), it  means that the PE ratio has been rapidly inflating right into the teeth of falling profits and a rapidly cooling domestic and global economy.

In fact, the market closed today at 23.9X, which is a truly ludicrous valuation level. We are in the waning days of the third bubble cycle of the 21st century, yet the casino is pricing current earnings as if recessions have been outlawed and that the long-term growth trend of earnings is in double digits..

So here’s a spoiler alert.  When S&P 500 earnings peaked prior to the financial crisis in the June 2007 LTM period, they clocked in at $85 per share.

The arithmetic of the matter, therefore, is that corporate earnings have grown at a miniscule 0.2% annual rate during the last nine years. Take the inflation out of that and adjust for nearly $3 trillion of stock buybacks and shrinkage of the share count in the interim, and you have less than no growth at all.

The worse thing is that we have been here before – at this same juncture exactly eight years ago in May 2008. The just completed earnings season had generated S&P profits of about $61 per share. That was down more than 25% from the prior year peak of $85, but the casino punters ignored the warning signs. The S&P 500 index remained within 3% of its November 2007 high (1570) for a few more months.

Then the sky fell. Nine months later the market was down by 57% and the U.S. economy was in the worst recession since the 1930s.

More crucially, the sell-side assurance that the severe earnings decline then underway was just the “pause that refreshes” and that profits would rebound to $100 per share in no time, proved to be dead wrong.

By the following spring, LTM profits for the S&P 500 companies posted at just $7 per share!

Now, we have no idea how far earnings will fall this time, but we do note that on the eve of the cyclical contraction in May 2008, the S&P 500 was trading at the same drastically inflated multiple as today——- 24X LTM earnings.

We also note that recessions are precipitated not by lagging indicators such as the dubious BLS monthly jobs surveys, but by the accumulation of excess inventories in the face of weakening sales. Here is what happened last time the punters insisted on staying in the nosebleed section of the casino when earnings were already falling rapidly.

 

Nor is this time any different. As of March, total business sales in the U.S. economy—manufacturing, wholesale and retail——were down 5.5% from their July 2014 peak, while the inventory ratio has soared back up into the recession zone.

That’s right. The scarlet “X” is back.

It means not merely that recession is just around the corner. That eventuality is guaranteed by the fact that this tepid recovery is already very long in the tooth by historical standards and by the reality that global trade, industrial production and PMI’s are slipping into recession mode virtually everywhere.

What is also proves is that the Fed and other central banks have absolutely destroyed the last semblance of honest price discovery. How is any other conclusion possible?

That is, with headwinds ranging from the tottering Red Ponzi of China, to the collapse in Brazil, the depression in the Baaken and Texas shale patch, the plunge in Japan’s trade accounts, the swirling liquidity crisis in the petro-states, the slump in German exports, the double digit decline of US freight volumes, the flat-lining of temp agency employment levels and much more, why would any rational investor pay 23.9X for the S&P 500 at this juncture—–and especially after nine years of no earnings growth?

Alas, they wouldn’t.

Wall Street has indeed become a doomsday machine and the Fed has zero chance of stopping its eventual implosion.

So in the interim the posse of monetary cranks in the Eccles Building ought to just stop their dangerous charade; it’s only feeding the robo-machines and putting everyone else deeper into harms’ way.

via http://ift.tt/20ABTFn Tyler Durden