The Market Has Never Been More Fearful Of An Extreme Event

There’s something going on in derivatives land,” is the warning from ADM’s Andy Ash and as Paul Mylchreest notes the relationship between VIX and SKEW suggests the options market is pricing in the possibility of a major market event. The process enables professionals to maintain the illusion of calmness in VIX while hedging their positions (as they attempt to unwind as we have shown). Whether this ‘event’ is a crash or melt-up is historically unclear but given the taper and the trend of the last few years, we suspect the former more likely that the latter.

 

Via ADM Investor Services’ Paul Mylchreest,

A rather thought-provoking chart which we’ve been looking at is the ratio of the SKEW (the chance of an extreme or outlier event, i.e. OTM versus ATM options) versus the VIX (the expectations for more ‘normal’ day-today volatility – the price of hedging implied by ATM options)… and is an indicator of how the market is pricing the possibility of a potential black swan event.

You can see how extended we are right now… (actually at record highs)

 

We can’t help wondering when Bill Gross tells the world that he is selling volatility, whether he is, in fact, selling ATM vol and buying OTM vol ???

While (curiously) 2000 didn’t register, the two previous highs in the SKEW/VIX ratio were 1994 and 2007 which turned out to be pivotal dates in terms of changes in market direction.

One up and one down… Which does it look like this time?

*  *  *

Think briefly about who is buying and who is selling? Thiunk about who is buying deep OTM protection? Smells like the professionals are a little less sanguine than their chatter suggests…

Institutional clients are dumping equities off to retail clients… thank you very much…

 

and those that can’t dump their assets are hedging aggressively (while maintaining the illusion with VIX that all is well)




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/UB8FdX Tyler Durden

Vid: How Pot Went Legit – Q&A with Weed Land author Peter Hecht

“When you go from a product that has been illegal for
generations and you legalize it—in this case, under the medical
marijuana laws—you need rules and a framework…and California
never had that. And it left not only the state vulnerable, but
these individual businesses vulnerable to prosecution,” says Peter
Hecht, journalist and author of the book
Weed Land: Inside America’s Marijuana Epicenter and How Pot
Went Legit
.

Reason TV’s Zach Weissmueller interviews Hecht at our Los Angeles studio
for an internet livestream on Reason TV’s YouTube
Channel
on Wednesday, June 11 at 7pm. Hecht discusses the
economic, political, and social journey California has taken in the
legalization of medical marijuana and compares its relatively
unregulated and sometimes chaotic medical marijuana market to
markets in other states, such as Washington and Colorado.

Interview by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Alexander Manning and
Carlos Gutierrez. Edited by Carlos Gutierrez. Music by The Custodian of
Records
. Run time: 37 min.

Click the link below for downloadable versions of this video,
and subscribe to Reason TV’s
YouTube channel
for daily content like this.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1pETT12
via IFTTT

Russia Says Ukraine Took Gas Despite Cutoff; Sends More Tanks/Troops To Border

The deadline passed on June 16th for Ukraine’s payment for gas already provided and upfront ‘pre-payments’ for ongoing deliveries. So what the Russian Energy Minister wants to know is how Ukraine took 3.8mcm on June 19th, 4.5mcm on June 20th, and 1mcm on June 21st. It appears Ukraine is claiming the gas supplies are reverse flow from Europe but this has not stopped Russia as The Pentagon reports more Russian troops at the Ukraine border and that they are preparing to send more tanks.

 

Since the cutoff on June 16th, Ukraine has ‘taken’:

  • 3.8mcm on June 19
  • 4.5mcm June 20
  • 1mcm on June 21

According to Russia’s energy minister.

As it appears Russia sends gas to Europe (via Ukraine) and Ukraine holds on to it – claiming it is “reverse flow.”

Ukraine remains open…(of course)

Ukraine is ready to resolve a dispute with Russia over natural gas transit through bilateral negotiations, state-run energy company Naftogaz said Monday.

 

“I believe that we will try to resolve the issue through negotiations,” Naftogaz Chairman Andrey Kobolev told reporters.

But Russia does not seem in negotiating mood…

“Neither the situation nor the Russian position has changed during these days [since the gas cutoff],” Energy Minister Alexander Novak said June 19 in Moscow. “We are waiting for the payment for Russian gas.”

OilPrice.com explains the state of play…

In an effort to ensure the flow of gas to the West, Ukraine’s parliament is considering legislation that would allow the country’s gas transit and storage facilities to be leased as joint ventures with the United States or EU member countries. Under the proposal, Ukraine would have a 51 percent share and foreign investors would be offered 49 percent.

 

Ukraine is now enduring its third Gazprom cutoff since 2006, and is looking for ways to reduce its reliance on Russia for energy. Still, Kiev needs the income from delivering Russian gas to Europe and wants to make its transit system more reliable.

 

As a result, acting Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk told parliament on June 19 that the joint venture, if approved, would mean an unbroken flow of fees from EU gas customers as well as investment income. He added, “If Europeans join this company, Russia will not build Southstream.”

 

Southstream is a pipeline that Gazprom is building to ship gas through southeastern Europe, across the Black Sea and on to Western Europe, bypassing Ukraine altogether. That would deny Ukraine of any transit payments it’s been receiving from the West.

And as that discussion is underway, this is happening:

  • *U.S. ARMY COLONEL STEVE WARREN SAYS MORE EQUIPMENT MAY BE SENT
  • *PENTAGON SAYS RUSSIA PREPARING TO SEND MORE TANKS TO UKRAINE
  • *SEVERAL THOUSAND MORE RUSSIAN TROOPS AT UKRAINE BORDER: WARREN

“Russia has accumulated artillery at a deployment site in southwest Russia and we believe Russia might soon provide this equipment to separatist fighters” in Ukraine, Warren says

 

“It’s something that we’re concerned about”

 

He didn’t provide any estimate on numbers

 

DOD agrees with a NATO estimate that “at least a few thousand more troops” from Russia have been sent to Ukraine border, he says

And this is happening as Russian separatists accept the cease fire…

  • *UKRAINE SEPARATIST LEADER AGREES TO CEASE-FIRE THROUGH FRI.:WSJ
  • *DONETSK GROUP SEEKS TALKS WITH UKRAINE GOVT BY JUNE 27: IFX

Which makes one wonder, what happens on June 28th?




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/V5WBC6 Tyler Durden

Journalists and Filmmakers: Win Big $$ at the Reason Media Awards!

ReasonAttention writers and filmmakers of distinction!
Enter to win $$ at the 2014 Reason Media Awards!


  • The Bastiat Prize for Journalism
     honors writers from
    around the globe who explain the importance of freedom with
    originality, wit, and eloquence.
  • The
    Reason Video Prize
     honors short-form video and film that
    explores, investigates, or enriches our appreciation of individual
    rights, limited government, and the free market.

First place for each prize is $10,000. The deadline to enter is
July 31, 2014.

Find out more and enter at http://ift.tt/1rqVuXO

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/UB58w1
via IFTTT

‘Greenhouse’ Plug-in Lets You See Where Politicians Get Their Money

The
Internet has birthed a new useful tool to keep tabs on politicians.
It’s a browser plug-in called “Greenhouse” and it lets users easily
access information on where our public servants get their campaign
donations.

For example, if you were reading recent news about Rep. Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her views on Obamacare, simply hovering a
mouse over her name would bring up a political baseball card of
sorts. Greenhouse lists the top 10 industries from which a
politician receives money, and Pelosi’s number one comes from
health professionals. They gave her slightly over $200,000 in 2012
(see image right).

The software, which launched early in June for browsers Safari
and Google Chrome and just last week for Firefox, also highlights
what percentage of a politician’s funds come from presumably
grassroots supporters, those who make donations of $200 or less.
For Pelosi, that comes out to a mere 4.8 percent.

Greenhouse’s creator, Nicholas Rubin, explains on his website that “even
though I am only 16 years old, not quite old enough to vote, I am
old enough to know that our political system desperately needs
fixing. I hope that this tool is one step in that direction.”

Rubin says the name of his plug-in comes from a desire for
transparency, like the glass walls of a greenhouse. One may also
infer something about politicians and hot gas as well, but he
doesn’t explicitly make that point. The young coder gives some
insight into his own political philosophy and mission:

The influence of money on our government isn’t a partisan issue.
Whether Democrat or Republican, we should all want a political
system that is independent of the influence of big money and not
dependent on endless cycles of fundraising from special interests.
The United States of America was founded to serve individuals, not
big interests or big industries. Yet every year we seem to move
farther and farther away from our Founders’ vision.

Technology blog Engadget critiques the fact that the
Rubin’s data is a few years old. He replied
that “the information in the popup is from the last full election
cycle (ending in 2012) because it is most complete data available.”
Rubin pulls his information from the Center for Responsive Politics
Open Secrets website, which tracks lobbying and campaign
contributions, and “plan[s] to update the data in the popup itself
later in this election cycle as 2014 contributions are more
complete.” 

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

John Kerry “Shocked And Humiliated” On First Day Of Middle-East Tour

John Kerry came, saw and as usual made a horse ass out of himself.

From last night:

Secretary of State John Kerry voiced strong U.S. support for Egypt’s new president and signaled that Washington will continue the flow of military aid in an American welcome of the post-coup government.

 

Mr. Kerry said that the U.S. had recently released $575 million in assistance for Egypt’s military and that he was confident 10 Apache helicopters would be delivered to Egypt soon.

 

“I am confident that we will be able to ultimately get the full amount of aid,” Mr. Kerry said in his first stop on a regional tour focused largely on responding to the crisis in Iraq. “I am confident…that the Apaches will come and that they will come very, very soon.”

Then from this morning:

Three Al Jazeera journalists were sentenced to seven years in jail by an Egyptian judge on Monday for aiding a “terrorist organization”, drawing criticism from Western governments who said the verdict undermined freedom of expression.

And then:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that he had phoned Egypt’s Foreign Minister Sameh Shukri on Monday to register Washington’s “serious displeasure” with the sentencing of three Al Jazeera journalists to seven years in jail.

 

“Today’s conviction is obviously a chilling and draconian sentence,” he told reporters in Baghdad.

 

“When I heard the verdict today I was so concerned about it, frankly, disappointed in it, that I immediately picked up the telephone and talked to the foreign minister of Egypt and registered our serious displeasure at this kind of verdict,” he said.

So… Kerry immediately “picked up the phone and talked” to someone upon this latest public humiliation of the “top” US diplomat. Is it the same someone who will be signing the receipt on the delivery notice of the 10 US Apaches, and the confirmation of the $575 million inbound wire from the US Treasury?

The Guardian sums it up best:

Egypt’s military-dominated government has delivered a humiliating, public slap in the face to John Kerry, the US secretary of state, by sentencing three al-Jazeera journalists to long prison terms only hours after Kerry personally expressed his deep concern about the case in high-level meetings in Cairo. The snub represents a disastrous beginning to Kerry’s already fraught Middle East tour, which took him to Baghdad on Monday for crisis talks about the Islamist extremist uprising.

 

The verdict, by a court responsive to government wishes, will also be seen as a deliberate, crude signal to President Barack Obama, who criticised Egypt’s deteriorating human rights record after the former general, Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, seized power in a coup last year. Sisi has since had himself voted president. His elected predecessor, Mohammed Morsi, and thousands of his Muslim Brotherhood supporters remain in jail while hundreds of others have been killed.

 

In what US officials said were “candid” talks with Sisi, Kerry “emphasised our strong support for upholding the universal rights and freedoms of all Egyptians, including freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association”. He noted a number of promises by Egyptian leaders “are yet to be fulfilled”, but added that “the United States remains deeply committed to seeing Egypt succeed”.

 

The hollowness of all this careful diplomatic language was exposed for all to see by the court’s verdict, which diplomats and observers said was reached without the complication of supporting evidence. It seems clear now that Kerry was wasting his breath; the sentences were pre-determined, intended as a stark warning to Egyptian and foreign media and as a symbol of the regime’s determination to demonstrate its independence of Washington.

 

This is ironic given that, before the talks, the US had made available most of the $575m (£328m) in military aid frozen by Congress after the coup against Morsi. Kerry offered more blandishments in the form of 10 Apache attack helicopters, which he said would be supplied to Egypt “very soon”. This is exactly the sort of deadly air power that Iraq’s government has pleaded for but has so far been denied by Obama.

 

Kerry must now be asking himself whether it was entirely sensible to offer such diplomatic, financial and military support to Sisi unconditionally before their meeting and before the court announced its verdict. This is not the way hard-headed, worldly-wise American secretaries of state, such as Henry Kissinger, George Shultz and James Baker, would have gone about it. All old Middle East hands, they would surely have driven a tougher bargain. On the other hand, they would all probably have placed America’s and Israel’s strategic interest in a strong, stable pro-western Egypt above human rights issues. Perhaps this is what Kerry has done, too.

 

Whatever his reasoning, Kerry’s record in the region has been similarly uninspiring. He invested considerable personal prestige, time and effort in pursuing resumed peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, to no avail. This failure was entirely predictable, given the personalities involved on both sides and the lack of new ideas.

Artist’s rendering of John Kerry after said “humiliating, public slap.”

As for US “foreign policy”, just how many other ways can one describe a flaming, slow and increasingly faster-motion trainwreck?




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1wnLW2v Tyler Durden

It’s Official – German Gold is Staying in New York at The Federal Reserve

Screen Shot 2014-06-23 at 10.54.04 AMJust last week, I published a post titled, Video of the Day – “End the Fed” Rallies are Exploding Throughout Germany, which subsequently went viral. Interestingly, only a few days later we find out that Germany’s very own criminal political class has decided it will continue to store the nation’s gold in New York rather than bring it back home as had been the intention. It’s quite ironic that just as protests against the fascist Federal Reserve are spreading throughout the land, the political class officially decides to keep Germany’s treasure across the Atlantic, in care of none other than The Fed itself.

To be fair, this merely seems like a way for Angela Merkel and the rest of her German cronies to save face. After all, it was very clear that the Federal Reserve had already told them “no” when they asked for the gold back in the first place. Why else would it take almost a decade to transport the gold from the U.S. to Germany, which was the latest repatriation schedule.

We learn from Bloomberg that:

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/1lk5bXy
via IFTTT

Obamacare Covers the Uninsured (and Some Who Weren’t)

The
headline news from last week’s Kaiser Family Foundation
survey
of people who enrolled in individual market health
insurance was that more than half—57 percent—of those enrolled in
coverage through Obamacare’s exchanges were previously
uninsured.

That’s a marked improvement over previous outside surveys from

McKinsey
and
RAND
, which found that 24 percent and 36 percent of
Obamacare-era enrollees were previously uninsured. The surveys were
taken at different times, and they used different questions and
different methodologies, which almost certainly accounts for some
of the variation. But because the Kaiser report is the most recent,
and because it relies on a randomized survey sample, it’s likely to
be taken as the closest thing we have to a canonical number, at
least for now.

Kaiser estimate represents a significant improvement over the
previous estimates produced by McKinsey and RAND, and in that sense
it represents good news for the health law’s supporters. Certainly,
they will now be able to say that a majority of the people covered
through the law’s exchanges were previously uninsured.

But even still, the survey results suggest the potential
limitations of Obamacare’s coverage scheme.It’s not a
precise instrument: More than 40 percent of exchange enrollees were
already insured, suggesting that while Obamacare is expanding
coverage to the uninsured, it’s also resulting in a fair amount of
subsidized coverage going to people who already had coverage (the
vast majority of exchange beneficiaries got subsidies).

Digging a bit deeper into the survey also hints at the
difficulty in measuring who, exactly, counts as previously
uninsured. If someone had health insurance up until a month prior
to getting new coverage under the law, should that person count as
uninsured? Probably not. What about six months before? Or a year
before? These questions are legitimately difficult to answer.

Kaiser’s survey finds that the majority of previously uninsured
lacked coverage for two years, and that 45 percent reported not
having coverage for five years. Which means that more than half of
the previously uninsured were covered at some relatively recent
point.

Now, many of those people clearly were having difficulty getting
coverage for some reason—perhaps as a ripple effect of the
recession, perhaps because of some other factor. But many of them
appear not to be completely uninsurable. These are not people who
couldn’t get insurance under any circumstance. They’re people who
didn’t have it for the last several years.  

Obamacare’s supporters would no doubt say that the law was
designed to help those people just as much as it was designed to
help those who never had coverage at all. That’s an entirely
reasonable position. But when we talk about Obamacare’s coverage
effects, it’s important to be clear about who is being covered: a
sizable number of people who were already insured, as well as
people who were both eligible for coverage and covered at one
point, but had lost their coverage.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1j7lSAR
via IFTTT

Tax Carbon or Innovate to Save the Climate?

NoCarbonEnergyIn Sunday’s New York Times Bush
administration Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Jr. published an

op-ed advocating the adoption of a carbon tax
as a way to cut
greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels and stimulate
low-carbon and no-carbon energy production technology innovations.
Paulson has joined with former New York City major Michael
Bloomberg and hedge fund mogul, now climate warrior, Tom Steyer to
found the Risky Business
Project
that aims to quantify the costs of future climate
change to the economy. Their report will be issued later this week.
In his op-ed Paulson argues:

I’m a businessman, not a climatologist. But I’ve spent a
considerable amount of time with climate scientists and economists
who have devoted their careers to this issue. There is virtually no
debate among them that the planet is warming and that the burning
of fossil fuels is largely responsible…

We need to craft national policy that uses market forces to
provide incentives for the technological advances required to
address climate change. As I’ve said, we can do this by placing a
tax on carbon dioxide emissions. Many respected economists, of all
ideological persuasions, support this approach. We can debate the
appropriate pricing and policy design and how to use the money
generated. But a price on carbon would change the behavior of both
individuals and businesses. At the same time, all fossil fuel — and
renewable energy — subsidies should be phased out. Renewable energy
can outcompete dirty fuels once pollution costs are accounted
for.

But will a carbon tax actually stimulate the invention of new
no-carbon energy technologies? Theory suggests yes, but high
gasoline taxes in Europe that are
nearly the equivalent of a $500 per ton tax on carbon dioxide

emissions have not led to the invention of cars powered by
electricity generated by nuclear power plants and solar panels.

A June 13 op-ed, “Carbon
Pricing Won’t Solve Climate Change. Innovation Will
,” in the
Christian Science Monitor by analysts at the Information
Technology and Innovation Foundation argue that directly
subsidizing research and development aiming to make no-carbon
energy technologies cheaper than fossil fuels is a better way to
go. Why? First, because a carbon tax that would be sufficiently
high to encourage no-carbon energy R&D is politically
infeasible. Consequently, they argue:

The primary goal of both national and international climate
policy should be to make the unsubsidized cost of clean energy
cheaper than fossil fuels so that all countries deploy clean energy
because it makes economic sense. This means a fundamental focus on
innovation, including substantially more public investment in clean
energy research, development, and demonstration (RD&D), and
reforms of clean energy deployment policies so that subsidies
incentivize the development of better technologies. International
climate negotiations should also address innovation by offering
high-income and emerging economies the option to gradually increase
clean energy RD&D investment as a complement to an emissions
reduction target. To start, a modest 0.065 percent target would
increase global investment by $26 billion per year.

Points in favor of R&D subsidies: (1) they would be much
cheaper for consumers and producers than imposing a broad carbon
tax, and (2) if they do end up producing cheaper-than-fossil-fuel
energy production technologies, the process of imposing costs on
people would be replaced with one in which people enjoy benefits
instead.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/V5Nnpr
via IFTTT

Fed Policies Are Dangerous Claptrap: The Reason Why

Submitted by Bill Bonner via Acting-Man blog,

Whatever Happened to Wages?

When we left off on Friday, we promised to take up an important theme on the morrow. The morrow is here. True to our word, we will do so. The subject is wages. And we are digging in. On the surface, we lament the lack of any forward progress in US hourly compensation over the last half century.

Deeper down, in the clay and subsoil, we wonder how it is possible that the world’s richest and most technologically advanced economy ever, operating during a 50-year period that included the invention of the Internet … the triumph of capitalism in China and Russia … and a landing on the moon – that is the most bountiful half-century in human history – failed to make its most important component parts better off.

And at the bedrock level, we find the explanation: Fed policies are dangerous claptrap.

 

Average Earnings 2014-06C

Real hourly wages since 1965 via Mish / Doug Short – click to enlarge.

 

 

Quackery and Incompetence

On Friday, we described and illustrated the quackery and incompetence behind the Fed’s economic forecasts. Clearly, it never knows what is coming. Today, we show what its policies have wrought.

Let’s begin with a conclusion: Thomas Piketty is wrong about the way the world works. He sees the working man… and the investing man… competing for the material rewards of a capitalist society.

As an old-fashioned lefty, he presumes the man with overalls will always get the short end of the stick. The working man has only the time on his hands and the sweat on his brow to offer his employer. Generation after generation, he has no more time or sweat than he had in the time of Jacob and Ishmael.

Capital, on the other hand, compounds… year after year… growing larger by the day… with more and larger factories… darker and more satanic mills. Piketty even gives a number – on page 356 of his tome – for the rate at which capital annually compounds: 4.5%.

As Jim Grant of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer helpfully points out, this is mathematically absurd. If wealth had compounded at that rate from the time of Christ until today, we would all be bazillionaires. Instead, capital compounds… and then gets whacked by bear markets, depressions, wars, and central bank policies.

In fact, there is no competition between capital and labor. Both benefit, according to relative scarcity and abundance of what they have to offer, from each other's contributions.

 

labor-management

An imaginary conflict

(Image via symbologica.blogspot.co.at)

Cheating the Working Man

The capitalist puts up the resources. The working man turns them into something worth more – thanks to the value of his own time – than the resources he had to work with.

The richer the capitalist, the more pairs of skillful hands he needs to help him fructify his wealth. And the more the laborer has to work with – a backhoe, for example, rather than a shovel – the more new wealth he can create.

Generally, capitalists and laborers get wealthier, or poorer, together. When they don’t, something is wrong.

Readers of these pages already know what: The cronies always use the police power of government to cheat the working man, stifle competition, prevent progress… and generally strangle the public welfare with red tape, taxes, and regulation.

In the event, they have managed to keep wages more or less unchanged for 46 years. On this issue, we quote our favorite ex-White House budget director, David Stockman:

“Real hourly earnings of production workers at about $20.50 per hour in May were exactly the same as they were when President Lyndon Johnson was hauling his hunting dogs around by their ears back in 1968. [M]onetary inflation seemed to work for a few years because in those times of trade account surpluses organized labor was able to push up wage rates faster than the CPI – so real wages reached an all-time record of $22.30 per hour in the early 1970s.

 

Ironically, the catalysts for that final wage push were soaring construction wages in NYC obtained by the building unions working on the World Trade Center, and a 70-day strike at GM which resulted in the bountiful UAW “pattern agreement” that ultimately took Detroit down.

 

More importantly, the surge of Fed-fueled inflation in the late 1960s also took down the monetary system and paved the way for today’s destructive monetary central planning which erodes main street living standards and gifts the 1% with speculative windfalls on financial assets.

 

Specifically, the CPI had averaged about 1.2% annually between 1953 and 1965, but then soared to upwards of 6% by 1970-1971 (a level never seen outside of the two world wars and post-war demobilizations after the Fed’s opening in 1914).”

Amazing, isn’t it?

That is, in a period of apparent unrivaled progress, somehow the most important measure of economic success – the value of the working man’s time – went nowhere.

Short end of the stick? He got no part of the stick at all. Why? What went wrong?Nasty capitalist cheating? Or Fed policies?

 

capital and workers

In an unhampered, progressing economy, the more capital invested per worker, the higher real wages will go.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/ToqCeM Tyler Durden