5 Things You Probably Don’t Know About Fracking

Submitted by Martin Tillier of OilPrice.com,

I would hazard a guess that most people in the developed world are now aware of what hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is. For those who aren’t, it is a technique used to extract oil and gas from previously inaccessible underground shale (rock) formations.

Fracking has had profound effects on the energy industry, so far mostly in the U.S., where it has created oil and gas booms in non-traditional places, moved the country closer to energy independence, and resulted in a huge reduction in the cost of energy, particularly natural gas.

It is, however, not without controversy. Environmental groups worry that we don’t know the possible effects of chemicals used in the process, and that contamination of the water supply could cause major environmental problems at some point in the future. Breaking up subterranean rock formations just sounds like a harmful thing to do and many believe that earthquakes have been or will be caused.

I have no interest in taking sides in the debate, but any debate benefits from knowledge, so here are 5 things that you may not know about fracking.

It isn’t new.

Hydraulic fracturing has risen to prominence over the last five or six years, but the technique itself has been around a lot longer. The first hydraulic fracturing experiment was conducted in Kansas in 1947. It was not successful, but a patent on the process was granted in 1949 and the licensed user of the technique, Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company, began commercial operations later that year. Since then about 90 percent of U.S. wells have been fracked.

It mainly uses sand and water.

Environmental concerns about fracking center on the possibility of contamination by chemicals used in the process. This leads many people to believe that it is just a chemical cocktail that is being pumped into the ground. In fact, over 99 percent of what is pumped typically consists of sand and water. That doesn’t mean that contamination and environmental damage isn’t possible, but it may not be what you envisage.

It makes your ice cream more expensive.

One component of the small percentage of fracking fluid that is not sand or water is guar gum. This natural product of the seeds of the guar plant is also used to improve the texture of ice cream. A chart of guar gum prices since 2000 looks like this:

Guar gum prices

Ice cream and other foods that utilize the product have seen significant increases in cost. For those of us with a sweet tooth, this alone may be reason enough to be wary of any more rapid expansion of fracking.

The biggest environmental threat could be from the amount of water used, not chemical contamination.

If the benign nature of guar gum and the small percentage of chemicals used in fracking fluid has you believing that the environmental concerns have been massively exaggerated, think again. Fracking just one well uses somewhere in the region of 3 to 8 million gallons of water. Using 2011 data, this article by Jesse Jenkins calculates that to mean that the amount of freshwater consumed by all the shale wells in the U.S. was about 0.3 percent of total U.S. freshwater consumption. That doesn’t sound like a lot, but in a world where water scarcity is becoming more of an issue it has to be considered as fracking use spreads.

It has uses beyond oil and gas.

Hydraulic fracturing of rock formations is not just used to extract oil and gas. It is also used to stimulate production from water wells, to enhance geothermal production of electricity and, most surprisingly of all, used by the EPA to clean up superfund sites.

Proponents and opponents of fracking will no doubt cherry pick from these lesser-known facts about the process to support their arguments. As I said, I have no interest in taking sides here. My only hope is that everybody who reads this will learn something that they didn’t know before. The debate will continue to rage, but the more informed that debate is, the better for all of us.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/URX3DL Tyler Durden

Atlantic City’s Revel Casino Files For Second Bankruptcy 16 Months After The First One

It feels like it was only yesterday when we wrote about the plight of what was once supposed to be the ultramodern east-coast competitor to the glitzy kitsch of Las Vegas: Atlantic City’s Revel casino which back in February 2013 “filed for bankruptcy ten months after opening.” Well, a short 16 months later it is time for an update because Revel, which was supposed to have a viable balance sheet upon emergence from its first Chapter 11 filing, just filed for bankruptcy for a second, and most likely final time: the dreaded “Chapter 22.” And not only did the company admit its business model is not viable not due to its overlevered balance sheet, but because of the sad state of the economy and the AC gambling market, it also warned it may shut down permanently if it can’t find a buyer in bankruptcy court (its odds of selling may be higher if it includes the cast from the original Revel ad shown below, in the transaction).

As a reminder, and as we reported last year, as part of the first debt for equity bankruptcy exchange, Revel wiped out $1.5 billion or the bulk of its debt. Apparently, not enough, because the casino is again on the verge of liquidation a year later. 

Back in February 2013 when explaining why more bad money was being thrown after good, we said that…

…the continuation of the abandoned investment was the brainchild, and pride and glory of one Chris Christie who then said “the $2.4 billion Revel is one of the most spectacular resorts he’s ever seen and expects it will motivate other Atlantic City casinos to revitalize their properties. “I think that one of the things that Revel will be is a catalyst for additional modernization and investment by the other casinos to say, listen, if we grow more people here coming to the region and we’re offering something that looks nice further down the boardwalk, maybe people will want to look there as well.” As it now stands, the Revel will only be a catalyst for further bankruptcies as industry after industry finds out what a tapped out consumer with no access to $1.8 trillion in excess reserves truly means.

We were right.

From AP:

In warning letters given to employees and obtained by The Associated Press, Revel said it is seeking a buyer for the struggling $2.4 billion casino, but can’t guarantee one will be found. If not, employees could be terminated as soon as Aug. 18, Revel said in the letter.

 

“If Revel is unable to complete such a sale promptly, Revel expects to close its entire facility,” the letters read. The company also said it plans to stay open while it searches for a buyer, operating as usual, honoring player comps and paying employees and vendors.

 

Shortly after distributing the letters, Revel filed a Chapter 11 petition with the federal bankruptcy court, its second in as many years.

Will Revel find buyers in a liquidation sale? Maybe, if the price is right. As in far, far lower than its original valuation, which as a reminder was just shy of $1 billion in equity investment by its original investor Morgan Stanley. And that of course excludes the billions in debt that has now been impaired not once but twice.

 It could not be determined how much Revel might sell for in a bankruptcy auction, but it is sure to be a steep discount. Wall Street analysts and some casino executives said last month that $300 million was too high a price for the casino. A union that has been at odds with Revel since before it opened pegged its value in April at $25 million to $73 million, based on public filings.

 

For much of the past year, Revel has sought a buyer for the property, which has remained eighth out of Atlantic City’s 11 casinos in terms of the amount of money won from gamblers. But it also kept the option of a second bankruptcy filing as potential buyers expressed interest but failed to pursue a deal.

In other words, the twice bankrupt casino, that in 2007 was worth billions, and saw a $932 million investment by Morgan Stanley, is now worth between $25 and $73 million. Sounds about right for the “recovery.”

Then again who could have possibly foreseen it: Revel has never been profitable since it opened in 2012. It posted a gross operating loss of $21.7 million in the first quarter this year. For all of 2013, it lost $130 million, up from the $110 million it lost during the nine months it was open in 2012.

But perhaps the biggest irony, as we pointed out over a year ago, was that in the press release surrounding the first bankruptcy, the new, now wiped out, investors were proud to point out that:

No tax payer funds will be used to finance the restructuring.

What about the second restructuring? And perhaps in retrospect, taxpayer funds should have been used: maybe only then the casino would have survived a few extra months. Or perhaps unlike the GM bailout, where it cost taxpayers only a few billions to make sure Obama would get the benefit of a few hundred thousands teamsters votes, the hospitality-worker union in Atlantic City just didn’t offer enough vote for sale.

Joking aside, it is increasingly becoming the case that insolvent projects can sustain their money-losing existence only when they have taxpayer-funded generosity breathing new life into them again, and again, and again.

In conclusion, below is an artist’s rendering of what Revel could have looked like in an economy that actually was recovering:




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

Did Saddam Have WMDs After All: ISIS Overruns Iraq Chemical Weapons ‘Mega-Facility’

With all eyes firmly focused on what really matters (the oil refineries), The Telegraph reports that ISIS has over-run a Saddam Hussein-era chemical weapons (CW) complex. The al-Muhanna ‘mega-facility‘, about 60 miles south of Baghdad, gives the jihadists access to disused stores of hundreds of tonnes of potentially deadly poisons including mustard gas and sarin. The US state department is ‘concerned’ but “do not believe that the complex contains CW materials of military value.” However, as a former commander of Britain’s chemical weapons regiment warned, “we have seen that ISIS has used chemicals in explosions in Iraq before and has carried out experiments in Syria.” This is likely great for ISIS 2014 Annual Report; but, of course, the other awkward question is: does this mean Saddam did have WMDs (and ISIS found them) after all?

As The Telegraph reports, the jihadist group bringing terror to Iraq overran a Saddam Hussein chemical weapons complex on Thursday…

Isis invaded the al-Muthanna mega-facility 60 miles north of Baghdad in a rapid takeover that the US government said was a matter of concern.

 

The facility was notorious in the 1980s and 1990s as the locus of Saddam’s industrial scale efforts to develop a chemical weapons development programme.

 

During its peak in the late 1980s to early 1990s, Iraq produced bunkers full of chemical munitions.

 

A CIA report on the facility said that 150 tons of mustard were produced each year at the peak from 1983 and pilot-scale production of Sarin began in 1984.

 

Its most recent description of al-Muthanna in 2007 paints a disturbing picture of chemicals strewn throughout the area.

 

“Two wars, sanctions and UN oversight reduced Iraqi’s premier production facility to a stockpile of old damaged and contaminated chemical munitions (sealed in bunkers), a wasteland full of destroyed chemical munitions, razed structures, and unusable war-ravaged facilities,” it said.

 

“Some of the bunkers contained large quantities of unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment and other hazardous industrial chemicals.”

 

Britain has previously acknowledgeded that the nature of the material contained in the two bunkers would make the destruction process difficult and technically challenging.

Should we be worried?

US officials revealed that the group had occupied the sprawling site which has two bunkers encased in a concrete seal. Much of the sarin is believed to be redundant.
“We remain concerned about the seizure of any military site by the [Isis],” Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said. “We do not believe that the complex contains CW materials of military value and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to safely move the materials.

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commander of Britain’s chemical weapons regiment, said that al-Muthanna has large stores of weaponized and bulk mustard gas and sarin, most of which has been put beyond ready use in concrete stores.

It is doubtful that Isis have the expertise to use a fully functioning chemical munition but there are materials on site that could be used in an improvised explosive device,” he told the Telegraph.

 

“We have seen that Isis has used chemicals in explosions in Iraq before and has carried out experiments in Syria.”

One US official told the Wall Street Journal yesterday that Isis fighters could be contaminated by the chemicals at the site.

“The only people who would likely be harmed by these chemical materials would be the people who tried to use or move them,” the military officer said.

This asset growth is likely great for ISIS 2014 Annual Report…




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

A Peek Inside The Secret World Of Currency Manipulation

We already know that Wall Street manipulates everything (not conspiracy theory, but now open conspiracy fact), but Reuters' Jamie McGeever exposes the ugly chatroom realities of just how FX traders shared orders, split trades, front-ran clients in million of electronic messages providing fresh evidence of collusion among top currency traders. Traders pooled order details and discussed the 'spread' they would offer, "I don't like this guy…I'd show 6 to good guys but guys like that I'm going to show 7 in future," the trader added. Unrigged?

 

To summarize just how, who and where this manipulation takes places is the following series of charts from Bloomberg demonstrating Wall Street at its best – breaking the rules and making a killing.

Foreign Exchanges

Regulators are looking into whether currency traders have conspired through instant messages to manipulate foreign exchange rates. The currency rates are used to calculate the value of stock and bond indexes.

 

Energy Trading

Banks have been accused of manipulating energy markets in California and other states.

 

Libor

Since early 2008 banks have been caught up in investigations and litigation over alleged manipulations of Libor.

 

Mortgages

Banks have been accused of improper foreclosure practices, selling bonds backed by shoddy mortgages, and misleading investors about the quality of the loans.

 

* * *

And in the latest news on manipulation, according to the FT, "The UK’s financial regulator is probing the use of private accounts by foreign exchange traders amid allegations they traded their own money ahead of clients orders, in a serious twist in the global probe into possible currency market manipulation. The Financial Conduct Authority has asked several banks to investigate whether traders used undeclared personal accounts, two people close to the situation said.

Guess what they found…

As Reuters explains, British investigators are examining millions of electronic messages which include fresh evidence of possible collusion by a small group of top currency traders, sources say.

The investigators have been handed chatroom transcripts showing senior dealers at the big banks that dominate the largely unregulated foreign exchange market routinely sharing intelligence on orders they were about to place for clients.

 

The traders pooled order details from hedge funds and discussed the prices they should be offered, said the sources, who have seen some of the messages at the centre of an international probe into alleged collusion in world foreign exchange markets.

 

In a chatroom transcript from April 2012, two traders discussed the "spread" that should be given to a certain hedge fund. The fund wanted a spread of five basis points on its foreign exchange order, but the first trader offered a spread of six.

A wider spread is effectively a less advantageous price to the customer, in this case the hedge fund, and a more attractive price to the market-making bank.

"I don't like this guy, as he's asking two or three banks at the same time," said the second trader in the chat, according to a person familiar with the contents of the transcript.

 

"I'd show 6 to good guys but guys like that I'm going to show 7 in future," the trader added.

 

The first trader then decided to quote a spread of 7 basis points, said the person familiar with the transcript.   

Of course, a swarm of senior FX traders have stepped down over the last few months…

Some 40 FX employees at many of the world's biggest banks have been placed on leave, suspended or fired as part of the global investigation – including one employee at the Bank of England – although no individual or institution has been accused of any wrongdoing.

…but regulators decline to comment on the ongoing investigation (which appears 100% cut and dried)…

Any evidence of collusion would be another blow to some of the world's largest banks, already hit by big fines and new regulations in the wake of world financial meltdown five years ago. The latest estimates by banking sector analysts of likely fines for such anti-competitive practices in the currency market now far exceed the $6 billion levied to date in the Libor interest rate rigging scandal – some by up to six times.

 

The chatroom transcripts from 2011 and 2012, which are in the hands of the FCA, are between three senior traders at three of the world's largest FX banks. All three traders have since been sanctioned to one extent or another by their banks, sources have told Reuters.

 

Between them the three banks account for around 30 percent of the $5.3 trillion global daily average turnover, according to Euromoney magazine.

So they represent at least 30% of the market – which given the momentum in FX means all of the market when they want to move it…




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

Door-to-Door Dope Delivery: “Pot Is the New Pizza” in Washington State

bakingMeet Evan Cox, who left his gig
as a pizza delivery dude and
now employs 50 people in Washington state as part of his pot
delivery company, Winterlife
:

Although it is legal to buy marijuana in Washington state, the
person who delivers it could be guilty of a felony. That hasn’t
stopped Winterlife from attracting competitors.

Mr Cox has registered as a business with the city and state, but
he cannot open a bank account, thanks to federal rules.

In April, he paid $167,000 in sales tax to the Washington State
Department of Revenue—in cash.

cover

Of course, Reason‘s own Jacob Sullum already covered
all the angles in his great feature on
Washington’s legal marijuana mess
in our last issue, plus a
sidebar on how entrepreneurs are being forced to keep their

marijuana money in the mattress
.

There are certainly still hurdles to clear, but
when The Economist declares
that “pot in the new pizza,”
we can all rejoice.

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

George Will Was Right: Victimhood Undeniably Confers Privilege on Campuses

George WillSyndicated conservative columnist
George Will was widely condemned for an article he penned about
sexual assault and victimhood on college campuses. Critics have
signed petitions calling on news outlets to stop carrying his
column, and yesterday, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch

did just that.

What was the problem? Here is the section of the column that the
Dispatch cited in its decision to axe Will:

Colleges and universities are being educated by Washington and
are finding the experience excruciating. They are learning that
when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous
(“micro-aggressions,” often not discernible to the untutored eye,
are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted
status that confers privileges, victims proliferate. And academia’s
progressivism has rendered it intellectually defenseless now that
progressivism’s achievement, the regulatory state, has decided it
is academia’s turn to be broken to government’s saddle.

The Volokh Conspiracy’s David Bernstein
writes
that while other criticisms of Will’s
perspective
may have merit, the above section—far from being
unsayable heresy—certainly rings true:

So Will is making two points here. First, that university
culture encourages students to perceive themselves as victims, and
those that can credibly claim victimhood are sometimes given higher
status. I don’t think that’s reasonably debatable, as it’s exactly
what the apparently common trope, “check your privilege” is about;
students seen as “privileged” by dint of skin color, sex, wealth,
etc., should shut up and let the more authentic and wise voices of
members of societies’ victim classes proliferate. And the general
rule is, if you subsidize something, you get more of it, and
there’s no reason to think this wouldn’t
include self-perceptions of victimhood
or self-identification as a victim. It’s notable
that a
recent well-circulated column by a Princeton student taking
exception to the “check your privilege” meme
 took pains to
note that the author himself is the grandchild of Holocaust
survivors, the quintessential victims.

Even back in my day, Yale Law School had a “student strike for
diversity,” at a rally for which students were encouraged to tell
their individual tales of woe. I thought it striking that one
student actually got up to discuss what a victim he was because he
was a “first-generation professional.” Thus, for example, while
seemingly everyone else knew how to dress for a job interview, he
did not. The horror of being on the cusp of a six-figure salary and
having to ask the clerk at Brooks Brothers for assistance! (I could
sympathize with the student–for my first “desk” job, I showed up,
on advice of my parents, in short sleeve dress shirts and a tie,
leading to subsequent teasing from co-workers–but a member of a
victim class? No.)

Is it really controversial to suggest that college campuses
encourage their students to see themselves as victims, given the
policies many universities enact to prevent their students’

delicate emotions
from being shattered by
unfamiliar ideas
and
troubling memories
?

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/URx13u
via IFTTT

Video of the Day – “End the Fed” Rallies are Exploding Throughout Germany

Screen Shot 2014-06-19 at 3.14.21 PMThis is a fascinating development and one that I had no idea was happening until today. It seems that rallies are spreading throughout Germany protesting the corrupt and dying global status quo. One of the key targets of these groups is the U.S. Federal Reserve system, which as I and many others have maintained, is the core cancer infecting the entire planet.

As I tweeted earlier today:

According to the organizer of these rallies, they have now spread to up to 100 cities and have a combined attendee base of around 20,000. What is also interesting, is that the mainstream media in Germany is calling them Nazis. In Germany, if you don’t support Central Banking, this apparently means you are a Nazi. What a joke. Just more proof mainstream media everywhere is complete and total propaganda. It is also a good sign, since it shows the desperate lengths to which the power structure will go to keep their criminal ponzi alive.

Do these folks seem like Nazis to you?

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 1LefuVV2eCnW9VKjJGJzgZWa9vHg7Rc3r1

 Follow me on Twitter.

Video of the Day – “End the Fed” Rallies are Exploding Throughout Germany originally appeared on Liberty Blitzkrieg on June 19, 2014.

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/URyBT1
via IFTTT

Bull vs Bear vs Right vs Wrong: And Does It Really Matter

Submitted by Mark St.Cyr,

Currently there is a great debate within the financial media on the who’s right – who’s wrong, as both sides stare at a financial market that seems to go ever higher with every morning bell.

In actuality, it’s both, and neither. While I am being somewhat cheeky, I do believe I’m not that far off the mark. However, the consequences of this dilemma is where the broader argument is getting lost on far too many.

Currently the macro economy is being expressed via circumstances resulting from a myopic view of participation. i.e., The financial markets.

If one were to step back and look at the true macro view, one can clearly see they do not support the reasoning’s lauded by so many why stock indices are once again setting all time never before seen in the history of humanity highs.

The issue at hand is many of us are forgetting what drives “economic theory” It’s just that: theory.

We can look at clues within the construct of what one would expect to take place within a given set of parameters based on hard data to support some form of conclusion. e.g., When fewer people have jobs, they have less money to spend, hence the economy will suffer or slow causing a ripple effects within the financial markets where companies sales and profits will be reduced resulting in lower stock prices and valuations.

All simple stuff. Been true as long as the markets have existed. Until now.

All of those fundamental based principles have been annexed to what one solitary person will do – then say. That person was Ben Bernanke. Now it’s been codified via the markets recent reactions to Janet Yellen.

Ms. Yellen equals more of the same: Back up the truck because everything’s on sale when you’re buying it with “free money.” And that my friends is one fact that will lay waste to centuries of market fundamentals let alone theories.

What is a Bull or Bear today? Before the financial collapse of 2008 it was pretty clear. In basic parlance Bulls stampeded their way to ever higher valuations at times turning a blind eye to basic fundamentals (i.e., valuations – shmaluations: let’s run!) as to push higher, to then find themselves running straight into the waiting claws of Bears willing and eager to remind them that fundamentals do matter. i.e., Bring on the bbq!

That scenario has basically been sidestepped. Today, with all the liquidity still sloshing around within the markets, Bulls have had a never before seen ability to negate the inevitable running off a cliff: They can now build ramps and overpasses on the fly. Paid for of course via the QE credit card. (Gives a whole new meaning to what’s in one’s wallet wouldn’t you say?)

Right vs wrong has also been thrown on its proverbial head. With the advent of such monetary manipulation it’s very hard to think rationally about what one believes should take place when fundamental principles are no longer even contemplated – let alone have relevance.

Two names come to mind that clarify why I believe the “right vs wrong” argument is also morphing into something I find rather dangerous, and for the casual observer possibly even more so. James Grant, and Mark Faber.

James Grant founder of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer® has been arguing monetary policies and its effects for decades. There isn’t a more cogent and articulate person professing what implications many of the policies taking place may have on the economy as a whole. Yet, one can make the argument he’s been wrong. However, is he?

Personally I have great respect for his work, views, and insights. I believe the timing of many of the arguments is what has been adulterated by the Federal Reserves actions. Not the eventual outcome. Although, yet again, no one knows, for the fundamentals have been wiped aside.

We could very well find ourselves living through some version of a groundhog day reenactment such as when Nixon took us off the gold standard.

Again, centuries if not millennia of fundamental sound money policies were laid bare. Everything we thought we knew or understood was turned on its head. Arguments based on fundamentals that had more in line with 1+1=2 let alone the 1+1= (whatever you like) we have today never materialized. Again I must ask: Who was right and who was wrong? Answer – we just don’t know. Yet.

We may (for many of us) never know within our lifetimes. It is a very disconcerting premise for anyone thinking about how or where one is to build or expand a business. The implications of making the wrong decision can be devastating to far more than the original risk taker. Although many can’t see past the headline (or teleprompter) of “another new record high!” So of course they all believe: “You should build it, for they will come! Just look at these markets!” I wish it worked that way – but it doesn’t.

As noted above the other person that came to my mind was Marc Faber, editor and publisher of the Gloom Boom & Doom Report™. In what is once again increasingly apparent is the sheer contempt by many of the financial television media as to portray or paint into a box anyone not doe eyed by the siren call of “Don’t fight the Fed!”

As far as they’re concerned, if you suggest anything other than buying equities, you just don’t get it. You’re some type of curmudgeon who just doesn’t understand or “believe” what they do. i.e., “The Fed’s got your back!”

In great form Mr. Faber takes issue with the ever-increasing spin as to shun fundamentally based thinking. You can argue against it if you wish, that’s always fair game. But when the so-called “smart crowd” display publicly their dismissive attitude with underlying tones of mockery: arguing right or wrong seems futile within this environment. Let alone trying to prove it.

Now (in my view) the only way to look at these markets is with an eye towards safety. And the term “safety” is going to mean many things to an even greater amount of people.

In May of 2010 when all this “new reality” took hold in earnest with then Chair Ben Bernanke’s (to some infamous) Jackson Hole speech where he basically signaled a QE4eva styled approach to monetary policies and intervention, the markets never looked back.

The real issue that brought about more reasons for concern than many will admit is both current business owners as well as future entrepreneurs began receiving more than mixed signals. Not only were some mixed but far more were indecipherable.

Indecipherable for all intents and purposes might as well mean “sit on your hands” in the business world. It’s hard to make moves in business when you don’t know or can’t tell what your cost of anything will be. Let alone if your potential customers will have the money to buy it.

Reasoning argued by many paraded across the media point to only one thing as proof why “one shouldn’t be worried” They keep pointing to the ever-increasing higher market print. I sometimes wonder if they look at the debt clock with the same doe eyed reverence, but I digress.

Owning gold as some form of insurance policy is looked upon as foolish. Arguments made that if one was to have 10, 20, 30%, or more in precious metal as compared to today’s stocks: well you’re missing out on all the gains that money could have made. So obviously, you must not be that well-informed and more.

Yet, would one of them do the same in earnest cancelling their own insurance policies of any and all types and “get in the game” with those proceeds? Hardly. They would just brush you off as “nuts” or “just crazy talk.”

However, based on today’s funimentals that’s exactly what one should do. After all, who needs insurance when ObamaCare’s got your back?

The argument is not that far removed or differing in my view. Yet, again, who is to say who’ll be right or wrong in the end in this scenario also.

We think we know, we believe we can see, but so far, arguments parallel the same results as the markets: Some are right, some are wrong.

Those who make brilliant arguments for, or against, have at times been shown correct. Those who have absolutely no understanding and make idiotic assumptions so far they too – have not been disproved. Such is this “new normal” many of us find ourselves within. Again, we’ll just have to take a seat while we wait and see. Only time is going to solve this debate.

Just to show how everything you thought you knew has changed in just these past five years, here’s something I also find a little ironic.

While all this great debating of “equal rights, equal pay” et al is going on. The media are all a buzz and focused on another woman who professes there’s some “glass ceiling,” while at the same time is debating whether or not to run for president.

All the while simultaneously, a rather innocuous looking, seemingly mild-mannered woman is more or less single handily controlling the finances of the world with the ability to lay waste another nations wealth. Or, can bring forth gardens of Eden seemingly upon command just by saying, “for a considerable period of time.”

This is real power, and quite possibly the “true” new leader of the free world.

And I don’t think she even has a book out.




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

Obama Declares Plans for Iraq, Supreme Court Limits Idea-Based Patents, Ron Paul to Appear in Atlas Shrugged: P.M. Links

Follow us on Facebook
and Twitter,
and don’t forget to
sign
up
 for Reason’s daily updates for more
content.

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

The Most Stunning Chart From Oracle's Earnings Report

Moments ago Oracle reported that it missed on both the top line ($11.33 billion vs Exp. $11.48 billion), and the bottom line (EPS $0.92 billion, Exp. $0.95). The company didn’t blame snow, but it may as well have blamed Snowden, and yet despite the 6% tumble in the stock price, the miss in operating results was not the most surprising aspect of the company’s Q4 earnings release.

What was? The following chart breaking down Oracle’s quarterly spending on stock buybacks versus capital expenditures. It speaks for itself, and also explains very succinctly why despite all the propaganda, the stock market surge is completely fake, driven by nothing more than the Fed and companies buying back their own stock, as is the so-called “economic recovery.”

Indeed, despite ORCL buying back $2 billion of its stock in Q4, $10 billion in Fiscal 2014, and nearly $21 billion in the past two years, a massive surge compared to the company’s pre-Lehman buyback pattern, the company still missed.

Of course, our readers already knew this: it was a month ago when we presented the “Mystery, And Completely Indiscriminate, Buyer Of Stocks In The First Quarter.” Today, with a 1 month delay, the FT figured it out too.




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