Thursday Humor: The Last Time John “Carry” Was Involved In Iraq

Over 7 years ago, John Kerry had his last public encounter with the military forces in Iraq; and it didn’t go down so well…

 

 

As CBS noted at the time…

A group of Minnesota National Guard soldiers in Iraq has made a comically misspelled sign mocking Sen. John Kerry’s recent comments about the education level of troops, and their handiwork is getting plenty of attention.

 

 

The photo shows eight soldiers holding a white sign with heavy blue letters spelling out, “Halp us Jon Carry – We R stuck hear n Irak.”

 

 

The war of words started when Kerry was talking to a group of students about education.

 

“If you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq,”

And this is the ‘diplomat’ who will bring Shia, Sunni, and Kurd to the table to “rise above” for a group hug?




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

Surveillance Video Contradicts Cop’s Claim Overhead Lights Were On When He Ran a Stop Sign and T-Boned Another Car

bustedJames
McLaughlin is suing the city of Buffalo, New York, after he was
injured two years ago when his car was T-boned by a police cruiser
that ran through a stop sign at an intersection. A police report
claimed the cop car was “using overhead lights and siren,” but
surveillance footage (no audio) of the accident shows the car
turning its overhead lights on only after the accident. WGRZ, the
NBC affiliate in Buffalo,
reports
:

Attorneys Steve Boyd and John Elmore represent James McLaughlin,
the driver of the car that was hit. They’re suing the city and
looking for any witnesses to the accident.

“The tape is obvious that the lights weren’t on and our client
certainly could not hear any sirens, so it’s very important that
these witnesses come forward,” Elmore said.

McLaughlin did not want to appear on camera, but in a statement
said, “I was shocked when I read the police reports that indicated
the police car had its lights and siren on …it did not.”

You can watch the surveillance footage in the WGRZ segment

here
.

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

A Reminder Of What Happens When HFTs Decide To Sell

Larry Fink told the world this morning that central banks are holding a floor under stock prices (but wouldn't expect to see large price increases) – and judging by the gamma imbalances in volatility-land, they are using options markets to unriggedly manage that implicit put. However, given the utter dominance of the machines in the market and any reaction when real volume hits stocks (always down), we thought, courtesy of Nanex, a gentle reminder of just how quickly the Fed put disappears would be useful in this new "we can never get hurt, valuations are within norms, there is no complacency" normal.

 

Via Nanex,

This is a supplemental update to (a must read report): Reexamining HFT's Role in The Flash Crash.

Plotting short sale data (Reg SHO) for trades executed on the day of the flash crash, we found several surprises.

1. There were large short sales in QQQQ during the hour preceding the crash. This is the Nasdaq 100 ETF  (the symbol later changed to QQQ).
Each circle represents a short sale in QQQQ, sized by the number of shares in that trade.



2. Another view of the data in Chart 1 above, but includes a histogram (blue) showing the total dollar value of short sales in QQQQ for each second.
Many seconds show $25 million or more of QQQQ shorted, with two seconds showing over $100 million. Most of these occur shortly before, but not during the time the Waddell & Reed Algo was active (14:32 – 14:53). Curious that no mention of this was made in the SEC flash crash report.



3. SPY also had many seconds with high short sales, but not as stark as QQQQ.



4. Total value of short sales each second for NMS stocks between 14:30 and 14:52 along with prices for the eMini (ES) futures contract for reference. 
Note that 14:42:44 stands out as one of the peak seconds – a point we previously identified as the very beginning of the flash crash.





via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1pjDa1x Tyler Durden

Iraq 3.0: Obama Sends "Military Advisors" To Iraq; Kerry Tasked With Making Iraq Sects "Rise Above"

Moments ago, president Obama announced what was informally known for days but only today was officially disclose to the public: namely that he’s sending up to 300 American troops to Iraq in the wake of escalating chaos in that nation. Actually: correction, make that “military advisors.” Please don’t call them troops because otherwise the US public may realize that Obama has just become only the third president in as many decades to launch his own private Iraq war.

Specifically, Obama said that “American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again… We do not have the ability to simply solve this problem by sending in thousands of troops and committing the kind of blood and treasure that has already been expended.”

He is right: this time the fighting will be done by “military advisors” soon to be far more numerous than merely “thousands”, operating under the watchful, remote controlled eyes of America’s drone army.

As Politico succinctly summarizes, “It’s a politically uncomfortable move for a president who won election in large part due to his opposition to the Iraq War and who has touted the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq in 2011 as one of the key achievements of his presidency.”

Naturally, coming from the president who has made the focus of his second term to rule via Executive Orders, this latest escalation would be just that – another unilateral action. Only this time Nancy Pelosi agreed to abdicate Congressional checks and balances on private presidential wars:

Obama added he would consult with Congress as he goes, but did not indicate he would return for another authorization vote.

 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she and the other congressional leaders who met with Obama at the White House Wednesday told him that he does not need any additional authority to act if the action is being taken in the interests of national security, and that no one in the meeting raised an objection. According to Pelosi, Obama said his lawyers were studying that question, but that she hoped another vote wouldn’t be required.

That was just the beginning. Where things got bizarre, is when Obama said that “we are not looking to control their assets and their energy.” The stupidity of this comment hardly deserve a comment: so why is Obama going in: as the pro bono mercenary army of an Iraqi president whom as we reported earlier Obama now wants replaced? Or maybe it is just to fight the ISIS rebels that the US has been secretly arming and training across the border in Syria.

But where things got outright surreal is when Obama announced that he’s sending John Kerry to Iraq consultations around a political solution. Kerry’s mission? To help resolve 1400 years of infighting, sectarian hatred, violence and animosity and generally assure that, as Obama put it, the next leader will unite the sects and that Iraqi leaders must, wait for it, “rise above their differences.”

Just because US Congress, where the left and the right hardly shoot at each other on sight, apparently has been so successful at rising above an ideological divide that has never been wider, it is now Iraq’s turn to unite, overcome countless centuries of sectarian hatred, and come in a righteous circle singing Kumbaya. And if they refuse, US “military advisors” on the ground will help them.

That, in a nutshell, is the pretext for the latest US war in Iraq – Obama’s own private foray into a conflict that he will no longer be able to blame on “Bush.”




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1pnHS00 Tyler Durden

Iraq 3.0: Obama Sends “Military Advisors” To Iraq; Kerry Tasked With Making Iraq Sects “Rise Above”

Moments ago, president Obama announced what was informally known for days but only today was officially disclose to the public: namely that he’s sending up to 300 American troops to Iraq in the wake of escalating chaos in that nation. Actually: correction, make that “military advisors.” Please don’t call them troops because otherwise the US public may realize that Obama has just become only the third president in as many decades to launch his own private Iraq war.

Specifically, Obama said that “American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again… We do not have the ability to simply solve this problem by sending in thousands of troops and committing the kind of blood and treasure that has already been expended.”

He is right: this time the fighting will be done by “military advisors” soon to be far more numerous than merely “thousands”, operating under the watchful, remote controlled eyes of America’s drone army.

As Politico succinctly summarizes, “It’s a politically uncomfortable move for a president who won election in large part due to his opposition to the Iraq War and who has touted the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq in 2011 as one of the key achievements of his presidency.”

Naturally, coming from the president who has made the focus of his second term to rule via Executive Orders, this latest escalation would be just that – another unilateral action. Only this time Nancy Pelosi agreed to abdicate Congressional checks and balances on private presidential wars:

Obama added he would consult with Congress as he goes, but did not indicate he would return for another authorization vote.

 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she and the other congressional leaders who met with Obama at the White House Wednesday told him that he does not need any additional authority to act if the action is being taken in the interests of national security, and that no one in the meeting raised an objection. According to Pelosi, Obama said his lawyers were studying that question, but that she hoped another vote wouldn’t be required.

That was just the beginning. Where things got bizarre, is when Obama said that “we are not looking to control their assets and their energy.” The stupidity of this comment hardly deserve a comment: so why is Obama going in: as the pro bono mercenary army of an Iraqi president whom as we reported earlier Obama now wants replaced? Or maybe it is just to fight the ISIS rebels that the US has been secretly arming and training across the border in Syria.

But where things got outright surreal is when Obama announced that he’s sending John Kerry to Iraq consultations around a political solution. Kerry’s mission? To help resolve 1400 years of infighting, sectarian hatred, violence and animosity and generally assure that, as Obama put it, the next leader will unite the sects and that Iraqi leaders must, wait for it, “rise above their differences.”

Just because US Congress, where the left and the right hardly shoot at each other on sight, apparently has been so successful at rising above an ideological divide that has never been wider, it is now Iraq’s turn to unite, overcome countless centuries of sectarian hatred, and come in a righteous circle singing Kumbaya. And if they refuse, US “military advisors” on the ground will help them.

That, in a nutshell, is the pretext for the latest US war in Iraq – Obama’s own private foray into a conflict that he will no longer be able to blame on “Bush.”




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1pnHS00 Tyler Durden

Jesse Walker: 'The Superpower Should Retire'

As Barack Obama
announces that he’s sending up to 300 military advisors to Iraq,
his neoconservative critics are pushing for a deeper intervention.
One of those critics—Robert Kagan—has been the talk of D.C. lately,
thanks to his New Republic feature “Superpowers
Don’t Get to Retire.” Kagan’s article is deeply wrong, Jesse
Walker writes, but it is wrong in an informative way: This really
is how a lot of America’s foreign policy elite sees the world.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1l79RQd
via IFTTT

Jesse Walker: ‘The Superpower Should Retire’

As Barack Obama
announces that he’s sending up to 300 military advisors to Iraq,
his neoconservative critics are pushing for a deeper intervention.
One of those critics—Robert Kagan—has been the talk of D.C. lately,
thanks to his New Republic feature “Superpowers
Don’t Get to Retire.” Kagan’s article is deeply wrong, Jesse
Walker writes, but it is wrong in an informative way: This really
is how a lot of America’s foreign policy elite sees the world.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1l79RQd
via IFTTT

As Ukraine Launches A Debt Restructuring, Is Russia About To Become A "Holdout" Activist Investor?

With Argentina suddenly no longer able to kick the can any longer in its decade long fight with holdout investors, and warning that unless the covenants of the foreign law bonds are stripped in effect making them local-law bonds (and undergoing an event of default for CDS purposes), everyone is focusing on how soon until the sovereign default parade will again resume, following the Greek technical bankruptcy two years ago. Yet the next sovereign restructuring may not come from Argentina first, but from the Ukraine, which as Reuters reports is holding talks with creditors on the restructuring of its foreign debt. Unfortunately for the country, this attempt at a “voluntary” restructuring is coming at the worst possible time.

From Reuters:

Ukraine is holding talks with creditors on restructuring its foreign currency debts, an official from an international finance association said on Thursday following recent meetings with Ukrainian officials.

 

Lubomir Mitov, an economist with the Institute of International Finance, said that while Ukraine’s finances were precarious, it was too soon to say whether it would need to change the terms of its debt.

 

Mitov said Ukrainian officials stressed they would avoid forcing any so-called haircuts on bondholders in a restructuring.

Taking a page from the Greek playbook, Ukraine is fixated on making it quite clear that creditors would be, make that should be, unanimous in agreening to a restructuring. Which is clear: as the endless days of Greek bondholder negotiations taught us, the inability to have the vast majority of holders agree on a change in bond terms, i.e., a restructuring, would mean an event of default.

“The Ukrainians authorities made very clear to us that they would consider this only as a really, truly voluntary operation agreed by the bondholders,” Mitov told journalists by phone. “A voluntary exchange or maturity extension could be one of the sources for financing.”

Basically, the only question is whether the restructuring of insolvent Ukraine which has lost its industrial eastern regions to “separatists” and is no longer capable of servicing its existing debt, takes place during a sovereign default or without one, allowing the country to seamless continue its existence as if it was the country that issued the original bond, under the original conditions (hint: it isn’t).

Alas, this attempt to renegotiate its bonds comes at the worst possible time because just this week the US Supreme Court gave a green light to “voluntary” exchange offer holdouts everywhere to demand priority treatment when holding out from to such “enforced” exchange offers as what Argentina did back then… and what Ukraine is trying to do now.

So absent some major “carrot”, most likely coming from Uncle Sam, we wouldn’t be surprised if Ukraine was unable to find even a simple majority of participants that would agree to the terms of its exchange offer.

Which leads to another question: which will be the fulcrum Ukraine security, and who will be the vulture investors – here the usual suspect Elliott comes to mind – preparing to “hold out” and scuttle the deal, demanding a pound of flesh in exchange for not holding out.

For now the answer is unclear, which is why once the Reuters news hit, Ukraine bonds tumbled:

But what will make the Ukraine restructuring fascinating is if the “activist” bondholder investors, aka vultures, aka holdouts, are not your usual hedge funds, but none other than the Kremlin, which after accumulating a sufficient stake to scuttle any prenegotiated, voluntary transaction can demand virtually anything from Kiev in order to allow the country to make the required adjustments on its bonds to avoid an outright sovereign default.

Because who else can’t wait for Putin Capital Management LP?




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

As Ukraine Launches A Debt Restructuring, Is Russia About To Become A “Holdout” Activist Investor?

With Argentina suddenly no longer able to kick the can any longer in its decade long fight with holdout investors, and warning that unless the covenants of the foreign law bonds are stripped in effect making them local-law bonds (and undergoing an event of default for CDS purposes), everyone is focusing on how soon until the sovereign default parade will again resume, following the Greek technical bankruptcy two years ago. Yet the next sovereign restructuring may not come from Argentina first, but from the Ukraine, which as Reuters reports is holding talks with creditors on the restructuring of its foreign debt. Unfortunately for the country, this attempt at a “voluntary” restructuring is coming at the worst possible time.

From Reuters:

Ukraine is holding talks with creditors on restructuring its foreign currency debts, an official from an international finance association said on Thursday following recent meetings with Ukrainian officials.

 

Lubomir Mitov, an economist with the Institute of International Finance, said that while Ukraine’s finances were precarious, it was too soon to say whether it would need to change the terms of its debt.

 

Mitov said Ukrainian officials stressed they would avoid forcing any so-called haircuts on bondholders in a restructuring.

Taking a page from the Greek playbook, Ukraine is fixated on making it quite clear that creditors would be, make that should be, unanimous in agreening to a restructuring. Which is clear: as the endless days of Greek bondholder negotiations taught us, the inability to have the vast majority of holders agree on a change in bond terms, i.e., a restructuring, would mean an event of default.

“The Ukrainians authorities made very clear to us that they would consider this only as a really, truly voluntary operation agreed by the bondholders,” Mitov told journalists by phone. “A voluntary exchange or maturity extension could be one of the sources for financing.”

Basically, the only question is whether the restructuring of insolvent Ukraine which has lost its industrial eastern regions to “separatists” and is no longer capable of servicing its existing debt, takes place during a sovereign default or without one, allowing the country to seamless continue its existence as if it was the country that issued the original bond, under the original conditions (hint: it isn’t).

Alas, this attempt to renegotiate its bonds comes at the worst possible time because just this week the US Supreme Court gave a green light to “voluntary” exchange offer holdouts everywhere to demand priority treatment when holding out from to such “enforced” exchange offers as what Argentina did back then… and what Ukraine is trying to do now.

So absent some major “carrot”, most likely coming from Uncle Sam, we wouldn’t be surprised if Ukraine was unable to find even a simple majority of participants that would agree to the terms of its exchange offer.

Which leads to another question: which will be the fulcrum Ukraine security, and who will be the vulture investors – here the usual suspect Elliott comes to mind – preparing to “hold out” and scuttle the deal, demanding a pound of flesh in exchange for not holding out.

For now the answer is unclear, which is why once the Reuters news hit, Ukraine bonds tumbled:

But what will make the Ukraine restructuring fascinating is if the “activist” bondholder investors, aka vultures, aka holdouts, are not your usual hedge funds, but none other than the Kremlin, which after accumulating a sufficient stake to scuttle any prenegotiated, voluntary transaction can demand virtually anything from Kiev in order to allow the country to make the required adjustments on its bonds to avoid an outright sovereign default.

Because who else can’t wait for Putin Capital Management LP?




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

Gold And Silver Surge Over 3% And 4% Respectively On Iraq, The Fed and Commodities Ponzi

Gold has surged over $41 and silver over 70 cents to over $1,314 and $20.46 per ounce or 3% and 4.2% respectively.


Gold and silver have surged and added to overnight gains as geopolitical risk raised its ugly head once again. The situaiton in Iraq has deteriorated leading to deepening tensions in the region and oil prices steadily marching higher. There are also concerns that the Chinese commodities collateral fraud could lead to a scramble for physical metals – both base and precious.

Stocks and the dollar have weakened after the U.S. Federal Reserve confirmed ultra loose monetary policies are set to continue due to slowing economic growth and despite inflation pressures building. The Fed cut its U.S. growth forecast for 2014 from 2.9% to a range of between 2.1% and 2.3%.


Oil prices rose again today and remain near multi month highs on concerns of supply disruption. The violence gripping energy producer Iraq continued to create supply fears, with global crude pushing higher after hitting a nine-month high.  Army troops and Islamic militants battled for control of Iraq’s largest oil refinery, which by late Wednesday remained in government hands.

However, this morning AP reports that ISIS militants are flying their black flag over the Iraqi Baiji refinery. Tensions over Iraq and Ukraine are attracting some safe haven bids for gold.

Platinum and palladium rose as new hurdles emerged in settling South Africa’s industrial unrest and doubts remain about the viability of Russian supplies.


The smart money continues to dollar cost average into gold and is getting into position. The half year and full year weakness we saw in 2013 may be seen again and create a buying opportunity for bullion buyers.

?Bullion Coin And Bar Global Price Match Guarantee



Faber Advises 25% Allocation To Gold And Says “Media Doesn’t Like Gold”
Dr Marc Faber told CNBC in an interview yesterday that the “media does not like gold.” Dr Faber, the author of the Gloom Boom Doom Report sought to explain gold’s poor price action recently and suggested it is due to poor sentiment and the fact that “the media doesn’t like gold.”

“Investors should have some exposure to gold” and Dr Faber has been adding recently as gold (and gold stocks) are so much cheaper than “over-inflated stocks”.

“I have an exposure of approximately 25%, and just recently when it dropped, I bought some more,” he said. “Nothing is particularly cheap, [but] gold is relatively cheap compared to equities at the present time.”



Faber holds around 25% of his assets in gold because he believes we have a “colossal asset inflation” and eventually the monetary policies of central banks will lead to a further loss of purchasing power in the value of paper money.

When asked by the CNBC anchor why investors are shunning gold, Faber suggested one reason is  “because the media doesn’t like gold, nobody at CNBC owns gold. Nobody at Bloomberg owns gold. Gold is being constantly talked down by the media, and Fed officials, and economists, who also don’t own any gold. They’re all stocked up in equities.”

This is an interesting point as we know from conversations with financial journalists in London that many of them are actually banned from owning gold by their employers as it would create a “conflict of interest.” Bizarrely, at the same time they are allowed to own other asset classes such as stocks and bonds and can have cash deposit accounts.

Therefore, there is the possibility that there is a cognitive bias towards certain asset classes and against other asset classes amongst journalists. This is unfair to gold and indeed to the journalists in question as it means that they cannot own a properly diversified portfolio.

It was funny that in the CNBC coverage of the interview, the producer confirmed Dr Faber’s assertion and disclosed at the bottom of the piece that he does not own any gold:

“Disclosure: The writer of this article indeed does not own any gold.

—By CNBC’s Alex Rosenberg”


Dr Faber, pointed out the bias against gold in the very language used to describe gold proponents. “When people talk about people who are optimistic about gold, they call them ‘gold bugs.’ A bug is an insect. I don’t call equity bulls ‘cockroaches.’ Do you understand? There is already a negative connotation with the expression of ‘gold bug.'”

The somewhat pejorative language used regarding those who advocate owning gold is another very interesting point and one we have pointed out before. People who are bullish on stocks or the dollar are not called stock ‘bug’s or paper ‘bugs’ rather they are stock bulls and dollar bulls.

Faber recently told GoldCore in a webinar how he will “never sell his gold”, he buys “more every month” and believes storing gold in Singapore “is safest”.



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1qwcG0u GoldCore