60 Reasons Why Oil Investors Should Hang On

Submitted by Dan Doyle via OilPrice.com,

Inventories will continue to rise, but the momentum is slowing.

The following are some observations as to how we got here and how we’re gonna get out.

9 reasons why oil has taken so long to bottom:

1. OPEC increased production in 2015 to multiyear highs, principally in Saudi Arabia and Iraq where production between the two added 1.5 million barrels per day (mb/d) to inventories after the no cut stance was adopted.

2. Russian production increased in 2015 to post Soviet highs.

3. Long planned Gulf of Mexico production began coming on in late 2015.

4. An overhang of 3,000 or 4,000 shale wells that were drilled but uncompleted (“ducks”) entered a completion cycle in 2015.

5. Service companies and suppliers went to zero margin survival pricing (not to be confused with efficiency). The result has been an artificial boost to completions that cannot be sustained.

6. Resilience among a few operators in the Permian who felt the need to thump their chests, creating the rally that killed the rally last spring (disclosure: I own stock in Pioneer Resources but am going to dump it if they don’t cut it out!).

7. The dollar strengthened.

8. Iranian exports are coming.

9. And, finally, China.

5 Demand-Side Reasons Why We Need to Hang-On:

1. Chinese oil demand is up year-over-year by 8 percent. It is expected to slow in 2016 to as low as 2 percent (maybe) but it is still growth in a tightening market.

2. Watch Chinese car sales. They were sluggish in early 2015 but finished very strong in what could be a 2016 V-shaped recovery.

3. The Indian economy is on a tear. The IMF has it as the world’s fastest growing large economy. GDP growth was 7.3 percent in 2015 and is projected to be 7.5 percent in 2016. That trumps Chinese growth. Although India’s oil demand is only one-third that of China, it is the growth picture that should be better covered by analysts and headlines. India is about to be the world’s most populous nation with a middle class that is likely to double over the next 15 years. 40 cars now service 1,000 people but that is rapidly changing. And this is not something that will occur sometime, someday in the future. 2015 Indian consumption grew by 300,000 barrels per day (bpd).

4. U.S. consumption has been increasing with higher employment and lower fuel costs. Truck and full size SUV sales have been extraordinary.

5. Europe, the world’s largest oil market, is in a decade long decline but not as steeply as it was. Asia demand is strong with Vietnam’s GDP growing 7.5 percent in 2015. Middle East countries are seeing increases in consumption. And as a final observation, go back one year when most oil analysts were looking at supply as the means to a correction. Demand was thought to be too inelastic and would thus take too long to play out. But it was demand that responded first. When the story is written, it will be demand that outplayed supply 2 to 1 on our way to parity. Thereafter, if we go into imbalance, it will be the damage done to supply that really moves prices.

16 Supply-Side Reasons Why We Need to Hang On

1. Earlier in 2015 global supply exceeded demand by about 2.2 mb/d according to the EIA. Others had it at 2.5 mb/d. The EIA now has it down to 1.3 mb/d and change. We are still nowhere near an inflection point but we are converging.

2. The rig count in OPEC’s GCC countries has not corrected down with prices. It is mostly maintenance drilling and somewhat additive in Saudi Arabia. The level of production that we have seen lately likely means the GCC is close to or at capacity.

3. There is near universal acknowledgement that there will be another 300,000 to 500,000 bpd decline in U.S. production this year. It could be more given the struggles of the onshore conventional market which alone should give up 150,000 bpd. Shale’s steep decline rates will easily make up the rest even against increasing Gulf of Mexico production.

4. Global non OPEC, non U.S. production will decline by 300,000 to 400,000 bpd in 2016 according to the IEA. This number could increase as marginal production at current low prices comes off line due to lifting costs.

5. After an upside surprise in 2015 Russian production, there is a building consensus that 2016 results will be off with further declines thereafter. Russian oil giant Lukoil is stacking contractor rigs which will show up fairly soon in the numbers. State backed Rosneft is showing financial strain.

6. Pemex production is down 10 percent.

7. North Sea production, which has increased over the last few years, will slip in 2016.

8. Long-term Canadian oil sands projects will come on in 2016 as will some production in Brazil, but even collectively the amounts are small. It’s probable too that some of the oil miners will put a hold on production due to lower product costs (about $15/bbl less than WTI) and extraordinarily high lifting and processing costs (some of the sands are subjected to subsurface CO2 drives, others are surface mined).

9. Anticipated Iranian exports are here, but the projections are all over the place from the Iranian government’s claim of 1 million b/day in 6 to 12 months to Rystad Energy’s claim of 150,000 b/day. Even the middle ground argument of 500,000 b/day assumes Iran can get back to their long term trend line, which had been declining during the 5 years prior to 2011 sanctions. Fields are in poor repair and the gas drives essential to production have been mostly abandoned. All in, it’s most likely that production will stutter step up to the trend line due to delays caused by political process and infrastructure funding. This, like all things, will take longer than expected but watch out for early sales. You will be seeing more inventory than production as Iran unloads the 30 to 45 million barrels of oil in storage. Allow some time to work off stocks to get an idea of the actual production numbers which will likely disappoint.

10. Depending on the source, $140 to $200 billion of expenditures has come off of long term projects in 2015 with calls for another $40 to $150 billion in cancellations and postponements in 2016. This won’t be made up by renewables. The current and projected crude and natural gas prices have dis-incentivized consumers from wind and solar. Governments after the Paris accord may throw money around but consumers will likely not follow until commodity prices make them.

11. All said, these capex cuts will result in a loss of at least 5 mb/d in long-horizon production. These are the goliath type projects that we absolutely need to match to current plus anticipated consumption increases.

12. Existing wells have natural decline curves. Some hold up better than others but all said the global yearly decline rate without additional drilling is right around 4 mb/d.

13. Hedged bets started coming off in late 2015 and will continue in early 2016. Accompanying this could be the capitulation in activity and production that the market has been looking for.

14. Global capex declines have occurred here and there over the past 20 years but always rebound the following year. For the first time in recent history, the global oil complex has charted two consecutive years of declining budgets. 2014 showed a small constriction but 2015’s 20 percent capex decline is unprecedented in terms of size and is the highest by percentage in 20 years. And right now, 2016 doesn’t look like it’s going to have much bounce to it.

15. The world seems to be moving closer to a supply side disruption. Middle East wars, skirmishes and terrorist attacks are increasing in size and frequency. Libyan oilfields are a constant target. Nigerian installations are vulnerable. ISIS controls most of Syria’s small oilfields. Yeminis missiles are targeting Saudi oil installations and would have hit their targets in December launches had the Saudi’s not shot most of them down. Iraqi production is somewhat safe, but only somewhat. Venezuela’s PDVSA is teetering in its ability to pay for the imported diluents needed to export its crude. Tankers are stacking up in the Jose Petroterminal demanding payment up front before unloading up to 3 million b/month of naphtha. And then there’s the torched embassies, mass beheadings, a resurgent Shiite state and a hardening Sunni stance amid a claw back of freebies to Saudi Arabia’s citizens. It’s not good. Not at all. Our best hope is that price rebalancing will occur quickly through supply and demand metrics rather than bloody supply-side shocks.

16. At $25 oil, the Bakken is at $13 to $15 after transportation which puts operators up there underwater after lifting costs, taxes and carrying royalty owner costs. Sub $30 oil will not only kill development drilling, but it will be where production stops. In cases where operators are committed to selling natural gas produced alongside oil there may be a reason to continue due to supply obligations, but otherwise what’s the point? If you want to lose money buy a boat. It’s more fun.

6 Things to Ignore

1. This is not the 1980’s with 14+ mb/d spare capacity. In 2016, we are oversupplied by about 1.5 percent and it will be at zero by early to mid-2017. The last time we were at zero was late 2013/early 2014 when WTI was at $100 and Brent up around $105+.

2. Lower for longer is true but $29 oil is not. This is a classic over-sold scenario and likely somewhere in the realm of capitulation. Operators and service companies can find a footing at $50 oil. We won’t prosper but we’ll survive. $100 may be a long way off and that’s because ridiculously high, sustained oil prices only leads to ridiculously low sustained oil prices. But who wants $100? It will only get us back to $30. The industry makes no sense at the top or the bottom. The high middle is best.

3. Demand is dropping. Not true. Demand growth may be slowing but not by much. Consumption is up and it is increasing.

4. Chinese demand is down. The rate of growth may slow in 2016 but it will still be up year-over-year. A 6.8 percent Chinese economy is consuming more oil now than a 10 percent economy was 5 years ago. A lot more.

5. We’re going to float the lids right off our oil tanks. Don’t worry. You can sleep tight. We’re not.

6. Efficiency gains are offsetting the declining rig count. This one is always amusing. Give me the rig count and higher density fracking and you take all the recent efficiency gains and let’s see who gets invited to the bank’s Christmas party.

6 Things You Shouldn’t Ignore

1. Q1 oil prices are going to be ugly. Try and ignore them if you can. The market will remain uncertain over Iran as it determines and adjusts to how much oil is coming on.

2. Hedges coming off will not bode well for producers and the service companies looking to them for a lifeline.

3. Spring debt redeterminations may knock the wind out of the E&Ps. If capitulation hasn’t already occurred, it will then.

4. China. The sinking Shanghai Composite Index is oil’s anchor.

5. Pioneer and other chest thumpers getting too aggressive. Any recovery will be short lived if they jump the rig count as they did in the short-lived Spring 2015 rally. Traders are fixated on even meaningless moves in the rig count. Best to play it cool. We all want to work but operators need to practice some restraint.

6. Lack of capitulation. There will be no recovery until there is general agreement that the shorts cannot drag the market any lower. The Saudi’s, with Russia following, can always point to a large U.S. failure as proof that they did not blink first.

14 Things We Owe Ourselves:

1. The water wars of 3 or so years ago are mostly solved. Recycling frac water is now a ‘’gimme’’. Marcellus operators like Shell and Cabot are able to boast of 99 percent recycle rates. We still have hurdles with deep well brine injection but the issues are getting defined and will be addressed.

2. Progress is being made on recognizing and reducing methane emissions from well sites. Ultimately, this could slow drilling in places like the Bakken until infrastructure is in place, but it will also move operators to effectively use lease gas to power operations.

3. No government agency provided directives for Halliburton and Pattison to build dual fuel frac fleets that run on clean burning lease gas. They just did it in cooperation with their customers.

4. We’ve proven than natural gas is beyond abundant.

5. There have been fewer bankruptcies than anticipated.

6. No one has been arrested yet for fracking.

7. Harold Hamm was still able to write a billion dollar personal check.

8. Aubrey McClendon was still able to raise fresh money.

9. T. Boone Pickens overshot the mark with an $80 call but his optimism helped us – a lot.

10. Even President Obama jumped in and did us a favor with the elimination of the 40 year old export ban. It might have been done grudgingly but we got it.

11. LNG exports will set sail by March 2016.

12. Coal miners displaced by the current administration’s EPA in Kentucky and West Virginia have been finding work in oil and gas fields. Hopefully they’ll find more soon enough.

13. We can celebrate the abrupt end of the glossy multicolored booklets from fawning jewelers and art auctioneers arriving in the mail.

14. David Einhorn’s crass and predictable “mother fracker” short on Pioneer Resources was a yawn. The stock even climbed after the news. If this was a political statement, which was my read of the subtext, then short the stock now big guy.

The inevitable will occur. Supply and demand will cross. The question is will Wall Street notice? Some of the analysts caught the cross in early 2014 but most didn’t. For full disclosure, I missed it too.

The question this time around is will we see it coming and if so will it be an orderly reaction? Or will the market miss the coming wake-up call and instead deliver a severe supply disruption with skyrocketing prices and a political response along the lines of windfall profits taxes? My worry is that everything takes longer than you think, from recognizing coming imbalances in the global crude complex to painting the house. In the meantime, just hang on and keep your equipment running. You’re going to need it. Until then, all the best of luck.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1SIqcMm Tyler Durden

Donald Trump Earns Coveted Endorsement from John Rocker

In an exclusive interview,You're f**ing out! former Atlanta Braves closer John Rocker tells The Daily Caller he supports Donald Trump for president. And why not? The retired pitcher shares Trump’s xenophobic sensibilities as well as what Peter Suderman described as The Donald’s “gleeful, unapolagetic incivility.”

Rocker explains his support for the billionaire New Yorker:

I wish someone, excuse the frankness here, would have the sack, would have the backbone to make unpopular comments, and when folks come out — mainly media, special interest groups, factions, things like that — and just start hammering them and demanding apologies… I’ve always wanted to see the person that’s like, ‘Yeah, I’ve made these comments, these are my beliefs, and you know what, if you don’t like it stick it. I’m not apologizing, I’m not changing.

In 1999, a moment that was arguably the peak of his six-year career in major league baseball, Rocker was quoted by Sports Illustrated (SI) discussing his visceral horror at the idea of playing for a New York-based team:

I would retire first. It’s the most hectic, nerve-racking city. Imagine having to take the [Number] 7 train to the ballpark, looking like you’re [riding through] Beirut next to some kid with purple hair next to some queer with AIDS right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the fourth time right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It’s depressing.

Later, Rocker got more specific about New York values:

The biggest thing I don’t like about New York are the foreigners. I’m not a very big fan of foreigners. You can walk an entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English. Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish people and everything up there. How the hell did they get in this country

Shortly after the SI interview was published, Rocker was suspended by then-MLB Commissioner Bud Selig for his comments, becoming the first player ever disciplined for off-the-field speech. But in the decade and a half since, the bombastic pitcher who served as the model for Kenny Powers, the loathsome lead character in HBO’s show Eastbound and Down, appears to have experienced an evolution of sorts.  

Rocker tells the Daily Caller that Trump does indeed represent “New York values,” but that he thinks that’s a good thing:

[New Yorkers] are always striving for the best. ‘We want to be the best.’ The best. It can get a little obnoxious and arrogant but at the same time, it can be a good thing…Yes it’s a bit of a racket living in New York because everything is so expensive but people who live there, they love it and they’re willing to work damn hard and get callouses on their hands and elbow grease on their elbows just to live there, and I think that’s very commendable in a lot of areas.

In 2014, Vice tried to get to know the real John Rocker. Watch below.

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

Oprah Announces Dramatic Weight Loss, Generates $460,000 Per Pound In WTW Stock Profits

Back in October, after it was revealed that Oprah Winfrey had bought a 10% stake (subsequently boosted to 15%) in fad food diet company Weight Watchers, and after the media diva swallowed the margin accounts of thousands of shorts (75% of WTW’s float was short at the time), we said that a simple way to profit from Oprah Winfrey gaining weight was to go short WTW stock.

Considering that the stock was then trading around $15, and had since dropped back to a far more realistic level of $11, one could imagine that Oprah did in fact gain a little weight.

Of course, the trade could also easily go the other way as well, and as Bloomberg reports, Oprah proudly announced today that she had lost 26 pounds while on the Weight Watcher diet:

“I lost 26 pounds, and I have eaten bread every single day,” Winfrey said in a video posted to Twitter.

As shown in the chart below, WTW shares climbed as high as $12.49 after the video was released, continuing a trend of Weight Watchers’ stock rising when Winfrey’s weight goes down.

 

As Bloomberg adds, “investors are betting that Winfrey can help turn around the company, which has struggled to compete with fitness apps and other programs in recent years.”

What they are more aggressively betting on is that Oprah continues to lose weight.

Oprah began appearing in ads endorsing Weight Watchers in December. The latest clip, which she posted with the tweet “Eat bread. Lose weight. Whaaatttt?” focused on her love of bread.

 

“This is the joy for me,” Winfrey said. “I don’t deny myself bread. I have bread everyday.”

Then again, this being Oprah whose tendency to yo-yo following diets has been well documented, one can be certain that the shorts are licking their chops at the opportunity to double down now in hopes that the next time the diva appears in public having promptly regained her weight, that the price of WTW will plunge accordingly.

But while we wait to see who has the last laugh, one thing is clear: of the $12 million in unbooked intraday WTW gains for Oprah’s 15% stake, this amounts to about $460,000 per pound of weight lost:. If only the rest of the mere mortals had a comparable incentive to get fit again, American obesity epidemic would disappear overnight.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1QqjJTd Tyler Durden

The Luxury Housing Bubble Pops – Overseas Investors Struggle to Sell Overpriced Mansions

Screen Shot 2016-01-26 at 10.50.22 AM

It appears the music may have finally stopped for one of the world’s largest luxury real estate bubbles: London.

It’s well known that foreign oligarchs love London real estate as a means to launder funds, typically “earned” by soaking their host countries dry via corruption and fraud. This has caused absurd and irrational spikes in high-end residential real estate in the English capital, as well as a flood of new construction.

With emerging markets now completely collapsing, the seemingly endless flood of foreign money is drying up, and with it, London real estate.

So has the London real estate bubble popped? Probably.

– From the September 9, 2015 article: Luxury London Home Sales Plunge 26% – Has this Mega Real Estate Bubble Finally Burst?

The first real signs that the global luxury home price bubble had popped emerged last fall in the world’s capital of oligarch money laundering: London.

Since then, we have seen weakness in high end Manhattan real estate, but the trend has now spread and is starting to make itself apparent all over the place.

Yesterday’s Bloomberg article titled,The Surge in U.S. Mansion Prices Is Now Over, is really interesting. Here are a few choice excerpts:

The six-bedroom mansion in the shadow of Southern California’s Sierra Madre Mountains has lime trees and a swimming pool, tennis courts and a sauna — the kind of place that would have sold quickly just a year ago, according to real estate agent Kanney Zhang.

Not now.

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/1PQ7wnY
via IFTTT

“Zombie Ships” – Why Global Shipping Is Even Worse Than The Baltic Dry Suggests

One glance at The Baltic Dry Index's collapse is all that most need to see the painful state of the global shipping industry. However, as gCaptain reports, reality is even worse as the boom in so-called "zombie ships" suggests there is no recovery in sight for the beleaguered containership charter market, which is facing its biggest crisis since the 2008 financial crash.

 

It looks bad…

 

And it's not just over-supply… (trade is slowing rapidly)…World trade volume rose by only 0.5% YoY in October and was up 2.4% YoY in the first 10 months of 2015, while world trade value in USdollar terms declined by 12.2% YoY in October and was down 11.8% YoY in the first 10 months of 2015.

 

But, as gCaptain details, reality is even worse for the world's shipping industry

Analysts agree there is no recovery in sight for the beleaguered containership charter market, which is facing its biggest crisis since the 2008 financial crash.

 

However, unlike that bleak period for shipping, which ultimately resulted in a strong recovery for charter rates, this time the fundamentals are quite different.

 

Overcapacity, stemming from the ordering strategy of carriers has been exacerbated by a growth slowdown in China and ultra-low oil prices. And according to the latest report from Alphaliner, with the possible exception of very small feeders, all containership sectors are struggling badly, with owners obliged to accept sub-economic charter rates and pay for positioning costs just to keep their ships busy.

 

The revenue earned in charter hire is seen by owners as a “contribution” to vessel overheads, but is often insufficient to cover mortgage payments on the ship.

 

Thus “zombie ships”, as they have become known in shipbroking circles, are masking the perilous state of container shipping.

 

Commentators generally point to laid-up tonnage and ship deletions as health barometers of the industry, but in the past year, these have proved to be less than reliable as indicators. Despite chronic overcapacity and weak demand the number of laid-up containerships has only inched up relatively, with Alphaliner’s idle tonnage register at 11 January reflecting a net increase of just six ships in the previous two weeks.

 

In fact, the total number of idled ships, 337 (1.35m teu), represents only 6.8% of the world’s cellular fleet; a figure that is clearly artificially low given current industry fundamentals.

 

While some smaller ships were added to the laid-up fleet during the period, Alphaliner notes that several ships of 7,500 teu and above were returned to service ahead of the Chinese New Year holiday, albeit that after the peak pre-CNY weeks these ships are again likely to become surplus to carrier requirements.

 

The demand for 7,500-9,500 teu ships is “next to zero”, said Alphaliner, adding that there are still 12 vessels of 7,800-8,800 teu seeking employment in Asia.

*  *  *

As we noted previously, given these trends, the crummy performance of our heavily internationalized revenue-challenged corporate heroes is starting to make sense: it’s tough out there.

And further, as the baltic dry index continues to plumb new record lows, how long until central banks realize that for all their omnipotence and all their attempts to restore growth, inflation and the "wealth effect" they never mastered the only thing worth printing in a globalized world: printing trade?


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/20qYtBg Tyler Durden

I Bite My Thumb At You, Sir

If anyone is wondering what the reason is for the nearly 50 point reversal (which is huge) on the ES since last night, ZeroHedge identified it earlier today. I think we’re all quite weary of all things Gartman, but I must be plain on this one point: more than anything else, it’s his writing style that drives me right up the tree. Here’s the excerpt from last night, as quoted by our friends over in Tyler-ville. Please take note of the flowery, faux-elegant language:

This bear run is not over. There is more to be gotten on the downside. If we must put forth a target to the market’ downside we can suggest accepting Goldman Sachs’ latest estimate for earnings by the S&P listed companies of $110-$115 this year. If we apply a still higher than average P/e of 15 compared to the present level, that give us a target to the downside of 1690; a 16 P/e gives us a target of 1800 and in the broad scheme of things those are not illogical targets to the downside.

We shall strongly urge those who are still aggressively long of equities to become less so; we shall urge those who are upon the sidelines and are “punters” rather than long term investors to err obviously on the short side and we shall urge long term investors who’ve been fortunate enough to have gone to the sidelines to do what they can and what they must to convince themselves that things are not yet “cheap” enough to warrant even nibbling at equities. Patience and discretion shall be… as they always are… the far better parts of investment valor.

Word count: 193. Now allow me to write exactly the same thing using what Slope patron saint George Carlin lovingly described as “simple, direct, honest language”. Take note that there isn’t a single concept or idea that is absent when you compare my words to those above:

The bear run is not over. If earnings for S&P listed companies is $115 this year, as Goldman suggests, and we apply an average P/E of 15, that gives us a downside target of 1690.

Those who are long equities should consider reducing their exposure, and speculators should consider shorting. As always, patience and discretion are worthy virtues.

Word count: 58, a savings of nearly three-quarters. Plus you are spared any nausea that might be induced from trying to cut through any obfuscations on my part. You’re welcome.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/20qXq4s Tim Knight from Slope of Hope

A Constant Short Squeeze Threat: Oil Shorts Are At All-Time Highs

While market participants will hardly need the caution, having experienced historic moves in the oil complex over the past few days including the biggest two-day surge in seven years at the end of last week, one reason why oil remains so remarkably jumpy on even the tiniest hint of supply rationalization as demonstrated this morning by the latest comments by the Iraqi oil minister, is that the short interest in both WTI and Brent is at nosebleed record highs and continues to rise with every passing week.

As SocGen writes this morning, “we have seen extreme short positioning building up in the oil futures market. The quantity of short positions opened is at an all-time high for Brent, and still high for WTI futures.”

 

SocGen correctly notes that there is now an asymmetric profile on oil: “a positive surprise could happen quite sharply, as short positions are likely to be squeezed by a profit-taking move. On WTI, the in-the-money short positions are really dominating at the front end of the curve while out-of-the-money long positions are dominating at the long end of the curve: the front end of oil curve could thus be more exposed to some profit-taking.”

SocGen’s conclusion is that “deflation fears could turn around rapidly and give more room to reflation and inflation talks” which considering all central banks are now actively blaming low oil prices for their monetary incompetence, is indeed notable.

However, a bigger point is that a sudden jump in oil, one which reprices inflation expectations due to the increasingly more benign base effect, would also therefore revert the hawkish Fed to its original rate hike forecast, one of 4 increases in the Fed Funds rate in 2016, which as a reminder is what unleashed the market volatility in the first place by forcing China to devalue both relative to the USD and relative to a basket of currencies.

As such, perhaps it is only a matter of time before a sharp oil squeeze forces the now record price correlation between oil and risk assets to reverse dramatically on concerns of even more tightening by the Fed and an even more aggressive reaction by the PBOC. Indeed, as SocGen itself admits, “If the strength of the US dollar is the main reason behind the collapse of the commodity/emerging markets complex, a more dovish Fed stance would help.”

Alternatively, a dramatic squeeze higher in oil prices would make a more dovish Fed far less likely.

Perhaps Citi, and as of today Deutsche Bank, are right: perhaps we are indeed approaching the day when central bank intervention is not only not stimulative but in fact pushes equity prices lower.

Perhaps.

Until then, we leave readers with what is the simplest catalyst for today’s surge: the chart showing that the days ahead of FOMC announcements (like the one tomorrow) almost without fail lead to a dramatic stock market outperformance.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/20qXq4o Tyler Durden

Republicans Try to Torpedo Sentencing Reform

They keep coming. ||| Bill Kristol's Twitter feedIt’s not enough that they’re blowing the long-term debt and deficit sky high (by ditching sequestration cuts, boosting spending, cramming unseemlies into omnibuses, and just waving away the debt ceiling like an irksome gnat), but now the Republicans who control both houses of Congress are gathering forces to undermine one of their last chances to not be terrible: criminal justice reform.

As Anthony Fisher wrote about this morning, reform is a thing that’s happening around the country as we speak. But the long-promised payout of these efforts, a bipartisan mandatory minimum rollback designed for the legacy-seeking pen of President Barack Obama, is being threatened by surveillance-loving interventionist nightmare Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). Reports Politico:

GOP tensions over a bill that would effectively loosen some mandatory minimum sentences spilled over during a party lunch last week, when Cotton (R-Ark.), the outspoken Senate freshman, lobbied his colleagues heavily against the legislation, according to people familiar with the closed-door conversation. The measure passed the Senate Judiciary Committee last fall with bipartisan support.

“It would be very dangerous and unwise to proceed with the Senate Judiciary bill, which would lead to the release of thousands of violent felons,” Cotton said later in an interview with POLITICO. “I think it’s no surprise that Republicans are divided on this question … [but] I don’t think any Republicans want legislation that is going to let out violent felons, which this bill would do.” […]

Conservatives opposing the legislation are coalescing around Cotton’s view — despite strong pushback from bill supporters — that the measure could lead to the early release of people convicted and imprisoned for violent crimes. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), once a supporter of easing mandatory minimums for nonviolent drug offenders, has also made this argument.

Definitely the latter, in this case. ||| ReasonThe turnabout ju-jitsu from Ted Cruz, who once could be accurately described as a criminal justice reformer, is especially galling. A new Atlantic piece describes how the Texas Tea Partier plunged the knife into the ribs of his best friend in the Senate, bill sponsor Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah):

When Lee brought up his bill in the committee hearing, he wasn’t sure if he’d have Cruz’s support. But he certainly didn’t anticipate what came next.

Cruz attacked the bill as dangerous and politically poisonous. He said it would lead to more than 7,000 federal prisoners let out on the street. “I for one, at a time when police officers across this country are under assault right now, being vilified right now, when we’re seeing violent crime spiking in our cities across the country, I think it would be a serious mistake for the Senate to pass legislation providing for 7,082 criminals to be released early,” he said. The bill, he claimed, “could result in more violent criminals being let out on the streets, and potentially more lives being lost.”

Cruz went on to warn his fellow senators that if they voted for the bill, they would imperil their careers. “We know to an absolute certainty that an unfortunately high percentage of those offenders will go and commit subsequent crimes,” he said. “And every one of us who votes to release violent criminals from prison prior to the expiration of their sentence can fully expect to be held accountable by our constituents.” Essentially, Cruz was saying that the legislation would let dangerous people out of prison, they would commit more crimes, and the senators would be subject to Willie Horton-style attack ads.

Lee, who was sitting right next to Cruz, could not believe what he was hearing. The bill, he responded, wouldn’t actually release any violent criminals from prison, and its sentence reduction for gun crimes was to reduce the minimum for felons caught with guns or ammunition from 15 years to 10 years—a provision that had once sent a man to prison for 15 years when he picked up a stray bullet in order to clean a carpet. “It is simply incorrect to say that this suddenly releases a bunch of violent criminals. It is tougher on violent offenders,” Lee sputtered. “That statement is inaccurate…. We’re not letting out violent offenders. That is false.”

When I interviewed the reform-supporting Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) two weeks ago about potential obstacles to the legislation, he said the biggest impediments were coming from his own team:

Never forget! ||| Fox Business NetworkMassie: Um, you know, it’s really up to our leadership here in Congress. And—

Q: Uh-oh.

Massie: Yeah I know (laughs). Sometimes it’s like pushing a string uphill, in terms of trying to get bills through committee, you know they die in committee, or trying to get them to the floor for a vote. If the leadership doesn’t want it, then it doesn’t happen. And frankly there’s really nobody on K Street, there’s no moneyed interests up here putting money in the pockets of congressman’s campaigns that’s pushing this issue.

Now ironically the Koch brothers have gotten involved as an asset in this battle for repealing mandatory minimums, and they’ve teamed up with some of the left-leaning groups. And so there is a little push. But there’s, you know, as far as moneyed interests on Wall Street being interested in it, they’re just not. And so those folks are displacing a lot of the floor time here. It’s going to be hard to get it to the president.

So what can reformers hope for? Either that Cruz changes his mind (fat chance), or that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) gets off the mat in Iowa, and retains a puncher’s chance at the nomination. More Massie:

I think the prospects are good if this becomes part of the presidential debate. If you have all the presidential candidates supporting [reforming] mandatory minimums, or at least the Republican that wins the nomination and the Democrat that wins the nomination, then there’s a good chance that this issue stays fresh and in the public debate. And then when they are sworn into office, presumably there’s a mandate[.]

Reason on sentencing reform here.

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

The Self-Serving Apologists For Student Debt-Serfdom

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

Mankiw's claim that college costs are the inevitable result of Baumol's Disease is pure self-serving rubbish.

Everyone who isn't blinded by self-interest sees that the cost of higher education in America–and the way we pay for it, by turning students into debt-serfs– is unsustainable. Those benefiting richly from the bloated, ineffective bureaucracy see no alternative, of course; their self-serving handwringing would be laughable if it wasn't so destructive to the nation and the economy.

Greg Mankiw, professor at Harvard, recently offered up a typical helping of self-serving handwringing: Three Reasons for Those Hefty College Tuition Bills. Mankiw squeezes out a few insincere (but necessary for PR purposes) alligator tears over the soaring costs of a college degree, and then trots out the usual justifications for maintaining the status quo, which just so happens to reward him so well.

Let's dismantle his bogus justifications one by one.

1. Mankiw predictably trots out the Gold Standard of justifying the absurdly high cost of an often-ineffective and useless college degree: those with college degrees earn $1.5 million more over a lifetime of work than those without degrees.

On the face of it, this offers plenty of justification for $120,000 piles of debt for degrees in Critical Studies, etc.: that extra $1.5 million will easily fund the cost of a 4-year degree.

But this data is completely out of date. Yes, a college degree offered substantial lifetime wage increases back when four years of college cost about as much as a new car, not a new house, i.e. the current cost; but as recent graduates have discovered, a four-year college degree offers little advantage, and substantially underperforms journey-person wages for skilled trades workers such as pipefitters, plumbers, etc.

The exception is of course highly technical degrees in engineering, computer science, biotechnology, etc. But this reality has led to a systemic over-supply of graduates with STEM degrees (science, technology, engineering, math), as the economy does not create paid positions in these fields simply because more people have studied these subjects.

As I often note here (and in my book that proposes a much cheaper and more effective system of higher education, The Nearly Free University and the Emerging Economy: The Revolution in Higher Education), employers can only hire employees if the business will earn a profit from their labor–and opportunities to earn a profit in STEM fields are not as abundant as boosters of the status quo claim.

The economy has changed profoundly and structurally in the past 15 years, and the breezy cliche that a college degree automatically boosts lifetime earnings by $1.5 million is no longer supported by current realities. Just having a college diploma offers little advantage, especially when compared to those with real-world skills. Even those with STEM degrees find themselves in a Darwinian struggle to get a job in these fields, a struggle that forces many to get deeper in debt to secure a Masters or PhD.

But alas, tens of thousands of other under-employed college graduates had the same idea, and the job market is over-supplied with graduates holding Masters and PhDs.

Yes, if a student slaves away for 7 years to secure a PhD in computer security, he/she will likely enjoy multiple job offers. But the number of such positions is vanishingly small in an economy of 140+ million workers.

The reality is a college degree no longer offers the leverage it once did, due to simple supply and demand: millions of other people have degrees now, too, including advanced degrees, and the job market doesn't create jobs just because people have degrees.

2. Next, Mankiw claims (with zero factual justification) that teachers enlightening a small groups of students in a classroom (i.e. the standard educrat model that pays Mankiw his fat salary and hefty benefits) is the best and thus the only way to teach.

In other words: garsh, I'm sorry costs are soaring (phony handwringing), but this is the way it has to be; there is no alternative (TINA). This is self-serving rubbish: the better and much more cost-effective way to teach real skills that employers actually need is directed apprenticeships taught by working professionals, accompanied by nearly free digital resources and courses.

I describe this model in detail in my book The Nearly Free University and the Emerging Economy. Not only does this model offer an order of magnitude reduction in cost (there is no longer any need for a costly campus or hundreds of highly paid administrative staff), it also teaches students real skills in the emerging (i.e. real) economy.

Yes, there will still be a need for the top 200 research universities, but these institutions offer little to nothing to the vast majority of undergraduates who are currently entering debt-serfdom for ineffective or even useless 4-year degrees.

3. Mankiw then invokes every entrenched special interest's favorite high-concept defense for their morbidly high-cost/ineffective bureaucracy: Baumol's Disease, which holds that the cost of violin lessons rises because as the productivity of manufacturing and commoditized services rises, alas, teaching violin is a one-on-one process that is necessarily unchanged from 1741.

Mankiw conveniently overlooks the sordid reality that the academic establishment that rewards him and his fellow smug handwringers so amply depends on an underpaid army of academic ronin, teachers with few benefits and zero security known in the polite self-serving circles of academia as adjunct professors.

Please consider this chart of the University of California system's employment of professors and administration. If we extrapolate the lines into the present, it appears that there are far more highly-compensated seat-warmers in the university administration than there are professors teaching in the classrooms.

In 13 short years, the number of senior administrators shot up by 142% while the number of tenure track professors rose by 29%.

The shortfall in classroom staff has been filled by adjunct professors, educrat doublespeak for poorly paid academic ronin, academics with Masters Degrees and Doctorates who have few realistic chances to secure a tenured teaching position. These academic ronin are typically paid $40,000 or less and receive few if any benefits and no security. Their total compensation (wage/salary plus benefits) is a third or even a quarter of what tenured professors receive.

Their career track has little future; they may be able to switch universities, just as Samurai ronin in Japan might attach themselves to a feudal lord for a time, but their employment will always be contingent and short-term.

Mankiw's claim that college costs are the inevitable result of Baumol's Disease is pure self-serving rubbish: Mankiw's grandiose position atop the academic heap is supported by the toil of a vast army of poorly paid academic ronin, while soaring costs can largely be attributed to entirely useless (in terms of actual learning of useful skills and knowledge) administration and lavish campus facilities–costs that have nothing to do with Baumol's Disease and everything to do with American higher education being a cartel, i.e. an exploitive, parasitic racket that fails most of its students miserably.

The emerging economy enables a 90% reduction in the costs of higher education and a highly adaptive structure of directed apprenticeships in every academic field. The way to learn how to do anything, from journalism to multimedia to pipefitting to philosophy is to start right in under the guidance of a working professional in the field: as Emerson noted, do the thing and you shall have the power.

If we want a vibrant, adaptive, resilient economy, we need to ditch Mankiw and his entire parasitic cartel for a higher education system that actually serves the economy and the nation, rather than an entrenched cabal of self-serving insiders.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1Qzr5FU Tyler Durden

Swiss Franc Plunges To One-Year Lows Amid SNB Intervention Chatter

With the biggest drop in 3 months, EURCHF has broken above last September’s highs, plunging below 1.06. Amid chatter of SNB intervention, this is the weakest Swissy has been since the removakl of the ceiling a year ago.

EURCHF reached  1.10592…

 

The weakest since the Swiss National Bank unexpectedly removed its 1.20 vs EUR ceiling on Jan. 15, 2015


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1RLg1Xi Tyler Durden