A.M. Links: Shooting at Maryland Mall, Rand Paul Says Women are Winning ‘War on Women,’ Ukraine’s Justice Minister Threatens To Call For State of Emergency

Get Reason.com and Reason 24/7
content 
widgets for your
websites.

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/L207Hu
via IFTTT

Gold & Silver Sold As Benoit Gilson Gets Back To Work

What goes up (and tests $1,280 overnight)… must not be allowed to go up for the sake of the children of the status quo. It would appear the BIS’ Benoit Gilson took over the reins from Michel Charoze this morning and the precious metal pilfering has begun. Why not? What else would you do faced with an Emerging Market FX crisis, various nations in mass upheaval, China’s liquidity crisis front-and-center, and growth hopes around the developed and emerging world collapsing… buy US stocks and sell gold…

 

The BIS head of FX and Gold trading is hard at work

 


    



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

Gold & Silver Sold As Benoit Gilson Gets Back To Work

What goes up (and tests $1,280 overnight)… must not be allowed to go up for the sake of the children of the status quo. It would appear the BIS’ Benoit Gilson took over the reins from Michel Charoze this morning and the precious metal pilfering has begun. Why not? What else would you do faced with an Emerging Market FX crisis, various nations in mass upheaval, China’s liquidity crisis front-and-center, and growth hopes around the developed and emerging world collapsing… buy US stocks and sell gold…

 

The BIS head of FX and Gold trading is hard at work

 


    



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

BiLLioNaiRe DouCHe WaTCH: ToM PerKiNS, FeaRLeSS BiLLIONaiRe NaZi HuNTeR…

BLOOMBERG NEWS–“Tom Perkins, 82, wrote in a three-paragraph letter in the Jan. 25 Wall Street Journal that resentment of the very rich in the U.S. amounts to a “progressive war on the American one percent” paralleling attacks on Jews in the 1930s. Perkins, who co-founded Venture Capital  Firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers in 1972, said the “Occupy movement,” outrage about Google Inc.’s busing of employees from San Francisco to Silicon Valley and the anger over rising real estate prices represents a “very dangerous drift in our American thinking.”

Perkins reiterated his “American thinking” in a subsequent email to Bloomberg news…

 

.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1es8rrV williambanzai7

Bundesbank’s Stunner To Broke Eurozone Nations: First “Bail In” Your Rich Citizens

In what is sure to be met with cries of derision across the European Union, in line with what the IMF had previously recommended (and we had previously warned as inevitable), the Bundesbank said on Monday that countries about to go bankrupt should draw on the private wealth of their citizens through a one-off capital levy before asking other states for help. As Reuters reports, the Bundesbank states, "(A capital levy) corresponds to the principle of national responsibility, according to which tax payers are responsible for their government's obligations before solidarity of other states is required." However, they note that they will not support an implementation of a recurrent wealth tax in Germany, saying it would harm growth. We await the refutation (or Draghi's jawbone solution to this line in the sand.)

 

Via Reuters,

Germany's Bundesbank said on Monday that countries about to go bankrupt should draw on the private wealth of their citizens through a one-off capital levy before asking other states for help.

 

The Bundesbank's tough stance comes after years of euro zone crisis that saw five government bailouts. There have also bond market interventions by the European Central Bank in, for example, Italy where households' average net wealth is higher than in Germany.

 

"(A capital levy) corresponds to the principle of national responsibility, according to which tax payers are responsible for their government's obligations before solidarity of other states is required," the Bundesbank said in its monthly report.

 

It warned that such a levy carried significant risks and its implementation would not be easy, adding it should only be considered in absolute exceptional cases, for example to avert a looming sovereign insolvency.

 

 

The German Institute for Economic Research calculated in 2012 that in Germany a 10-percent levy on a tax base derived from a personal allowance of 250,000 euros would add up to around 230 billion euros. It did not give a figure for crisis countries due to lack of sufficient data.

 

Greece has been granted bailout funds of 240 billion euros from the euro area, its national central banks and IMF to protect it from a chaotic default and possible exit from the euro zone. Not all funds have been paid out yet.

 

In Germany, however, the Bundesbank said it would not support an implementation of a recurrent wealth tax, saying it would harm growth.

 

 

"It is not the purpose of European monetary policy to ensure solvency of national banking systems or governments and it cannot replace necessary economic adjustments or bank balance sheet clean ups," the Bundesbank said.

 

As BCG concluded previously:

In considering some of the potential measures likely to be required, the reader may be struck by the essential problem facing politicians: there may be only painful ways out of the crisis.

 

 

There is one thing we would like to bring to our readers' attention because we are confident, that one way or another, sooner or later, it will be implemented. Namely a one-time wealth tax: in other words, instead of stealth inflation, the government will be forced to proceed with over transfer of wealth. According to BCG, the amount of developed world debt between household, corporate and government that needs to be eliminated is just over $21 trillion. Which unfortunately means that there is an equity shortfall that will have to be funded with incremental cash which will have to come from somewhere. That somewhere is tax of the middle and upper classes, which are in possession of $74 trillion in financial assets, which in turn will have to be taxed at a blended rate of 28.7%.

 

 

The programs BCG (and the Bundesbank) described would be drastic. They would not be popular, and they would require broad political coordinate and leadership – something that politicians have replaced up til now with playing for time, in spite of a deteriorating outlook. Acknowledgment of the facts may be the biggest hurdle. Politicians and central bankers still do not agree on the full scale of the crisis and are therefore placing too much hope on easy solutions. We need to understand that balance sheet recessions are very different from normal recessions.  The longer the politicians and bankers wait, the more necessary will be the response outlined in this paper.  Unfortunately, reaching consensus on such tough action might requiring an environment last seen in the 1930s

 

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1es8rrR Tyler Durden

Bundesbank's Stunner To Broke Eurozone Nations: First "Bail In" Your Rich Citizens

In what is sure to be met with cries of derision across the European Union, in line with what the IMF had previously recommended (and we had previously warned as inevitable), the Bundesbank said on Monday that countries about to go bankrupt should draw on the private wealth of their citizens through a one-off capital levy before asking other states for help. As Reuters reports, the Bundesbank states, "(A capital levy) corresponds to the principle of national responsibility, according to which tax payers are responsible for their government's obligations before solidarity of other states is required." However, they note that they will not support an implementation of a recurrent wealth tax in Germany, saying it would harm growth. We await the refutation (or Draghi's jawbone solution to this line in the sand.)

 

Via Reuters,

Germany's Bundesbank said on Monday that countries about to go bankrupt should draw on the private wealth of their citizens through a one-off capital levy before asking other states for help.

 

The Bundesbank's tough stance comes after years of euro zone crisis that saw five government bailouts. There have also bond market interventions by the European Central Bank in, for example, Italy where households' average net wealth is higher than in Germany.

 

"(A capital levy) corresponds to the principle of national responsibility, according to which tax payers are responsible for their government's obligations before solidarity of other states is required," the Bundesbank said in its monthly report.

 

It warned that such a levy carried significant risks and its implementation would not be easy, adding it should only be considered in absolute exceptional cases, for example to avert a looming sovereign insolvency.

 

 

The German Institute for Economic Research calculated in 2012 that in Germany a 10-percent levy on a tax base derived from a personal allowance of 250,000 euros would add up to around 230 billion euros. It did not give a figure for crisis countries due to lack of sufficient data.

 

Greece has been granted bailout funds of 240 billion euros from the euro area, its national central banks and IMF to protect it from a chaotic default and possible exit from the euro zone. Not all funds have been paid out yet.

 

In Germany, however, the Bundesbank said it would not support an implementation of a recurrent wealth tax, saying it would harm growth.

 

 

"It is not the purpose of European monetary policy to ensure solvency of national banking systems or governments and it cannot replace necessary economic adjustments or bank balance sheet clean ups," the Bundesbank said.

 

As BCG concluded previously:

In considering some of the potential measures likely to be required, the reader may be struck by the essential problem facing politicians: there may be only painful ways out of the crisis.

 

 

There is one thing we would like to bring to our readers' attention because we are confident, that one way or another, sooner or later, it will be implemented. Namely a one-time wealth tax: in other words, instead of stealth inflation, the government will be forced to proceed with over transfer of wealth. According to BCG, the amount of developed world debt between household, corporate and government that needs to be eliminated is just over $21 trillion. Which unfortunately means that there is an equity shortfall that will have to be funded with incremental cash which will have to come from somewhere. That somewhere is tax of the middle and upper classes, which are in possession of $74 trillion in financial assets, which in turn will have to be taxed at a blended rate of 28.7%.

 

 

The programs BCG (and the Bundesbank) described would be drastic. They would not be popular, and they would require broad political coordinate and leadership – something that politicians have replaced up til now with playing for time, in spite of a deteriorating outlook. Acknowledgment of the facts may be the biggest hurdle. Politicians and central bankers still do not agree on the full scale of the crisis and are therefore placing too much hope on easy solutions. We need to understand that balance sheet recessions are very different from normal recessions.  The longer the politicians and bankers wait, the more necessary will be the response outlined in this paper.  Unfortunately, reaching consensus on such tough action might requiring an environment last seen in the 1930s

 

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1es8rrR Tyler Durden

Bob Janjuah’s Prompt Return: “Is It Bear O’Clock Now?”

Define irony: literally hours after one of the world’s most renowned bears says it is “not yet bear o’clock“, markets have their worst daily crash in months. So what is Bob to do? Why issue a follow up opinion of course…

Bob’s World: Is it bear o’clock now?

It’s funny how – after not writing for over two months – I put a note out last week (highlighting some key levels) and within hours of publishing we have gone on to test and break some of these key levels. So in the spirit of the ongoing narrative:

1 – I remain firmly and resolutely structurally BEARISH the post-2008/09 QE driven rally in risk assets. So no change there. As the year unfolds in both EM and DM we will I think see that most major and relevant data (economic) and earnings trends will be weak or deflationary. QE has so far failed to create the broad-based real economy inflation in incomes, earnings and productivity needed to get growth going again and thus has largely failed to achieve its primary objective, which was to drive the much-needed post-2008/09 debt deleveraging – heavy indebtedness, now also including the EM bloc, still dominates.

2 – Of course QE has been a friend for the paper wealth of the top 1%, at the expense of the many, through boosting speculation and financial engineering. But as we can all see, QE stopped being a friend of commodities in 2010/11, it stopped being a positive for EM around late 2012/13, has I think stopped being a positive for housing assets from around mid-2013/early 2014, and in 2014/15 the ‘last man standing’ in the QE fan club – equities – will also fall out of love with QE. Why? Because as 2014 unwinds the data will I think expose policymakers as falling far behind the curve, persisting with a policy tool, whose ‘success’ is increasingly narrowly based and which is failing to deliver broad-based inflation, growth or any other meaningful positives to the real economy, whose incomes, earnings and cashflows must ultimately validate all financial market asset valuations. I think later in 2014 the themes of deflation and recession will dominate, and in the middle of this it will I think be painful to watch Ms Janet Yellen and other policymakers flip flop and attempt to extract themselves from their policy errors.

3 – Focusing on the shorter term we think that weak Chinese data are just an excuse for last week’s price action. The reality is that the pressure behind the dam had been building for weeks – there was excessively bullish positioning and sentiment coming into 2014. Fear and greed was at work again. Investors were too hopeful coming into 2014, and last week fear dominated as, so far in 2014, the global data points to very mediocre global growth at best, mediocre earnings, and generally deflationary economic data. The important thing for me now is that after failing to see a weekly close above 1850 on the S&P500, last week there was a weekly close below 1800, which forces me to rethink my timing. My best guess from here now is:

A – Using the S&P500 as a risk proxy, 1800 and 1770 as weekly closes are now key levels. Intra-week we can bounce around, but we need to see – this week or next week latest, a weekly close above 1800 if we are going to see a quick turnaround and rally back to 1850. In such a case, and as per my note from last week, once we see a weekly close above 1850, then 1950 S&P by April remains the target.

B – If we cannot recapture 1800 this week or next, then a weekly close below 1770 points to a much more bearish picture for February. A weekly close below 1770 this week or next tells me that the risk/rewards favour a meaningful risk-off move to the low-1700s in the S&P during February, with even 1650 and 1600 possible. In this more bearish short-term scenario I’d expect Ms Yellen and her late February testimony on the Hill to be a catalyst for a bullish turnaround – if the S&P drops 100/150 points in the next 2-3 weeks I suspect that she will then send out extremely dovish signals, which the market will not be able to resist responding to! At this point in time, if this is indeed how it plays out, then from late February through to April I’d look to recapture 1800 and then aim for a weekly S&P close above 1850 into end Q1 2013 or April.

C – As per 3A above, upon a weekly close above 1850, then 1950 still attracts. But clearly 1950 is more likely under scenario 3A rather than under scenario 3B – under scenario 3B 1850 may act like a major double top. Based on last week’s closes I am now 60/40 in favour of scenario 3B.

Let’s see, but either way 2014 is already proving to be more challenging, more volatile, more illiquid and more bearish than the significantly bullish positioning and sentiment indicators warranted as we came into this year, and way more bearish than the enormously bullish consensus emanating from the sell-side. We will see painful counter-trend rallies, perhaps even to marginal new highs (3A above) – never underestimate the willingness and ability of central bankers to persist with flawed policies – but overall I think the end of the post-2009 QE-driven bull is at hand (or very soon to be at hand) and the onset of the next significant (post-QE) deflationary bear market, which I think will run deep into 2015, should now begin to guide all investment decisions.
 
Regards

Bob


    



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

Bob Janjuah's Prompt Return: "Is It Bear O'Clock Now?"

Define irony: literally hours after one of the world’s most renowned bears says it is “not yet bear o’clock“, markets have their worst daily crash in months. So what is Bob to do? Why issue a follow up opinion of course…

Bob’s World: Is it bear o’clock now?

It’s funny how – after not writing for over two months – I put a note out last week (highlighting some key levels) and within hours of publishing we have gone on to test and break some of these key levels. So in the spirit of the ongoing narrative:

1 – I remain firmly and resolutely structurally BEARISH the post-2008/09 QE driven rally in risk assets. So no change there. As the year unfolds in both EM and DM we will I think see that most major and relevant data (economic) and earnings trends will be weak or deflationary. QE has so far failed to create the broad-based real economy inflation in incomes, earnings and productivity needed to get growth going again and thus has largely failed to achieve its primary objective, which was to drive the much-needed post-2008/09 debt deleveraging – heavy indebtedness, now also including the EM bloc, still dominates.

2 – Of course QE has been a friend for the paper wealth of the top 1%, at the expense of the many, through boosting speculation and financial engineering. But as we can all see, QE stopped being a friend of commodities in 2010/11, it stopped being a positive for EM around late 2012/13, has I think stopped being a positive for housing assets from around mid-2013/early 2014, and in 2014/15 the ‘last man standing’ in the QE fan club – equities – will also fall out of love with QE. Why? Because as 2014 unwinds the data will I think expose policymakers as falling far behind the curve, persisting with a policy tool, whose ‘success’ is increasingly narrowly based and which is failing to deliver broad-based inflation, growth or any other meaningful positives to the real economy, whose incomes, earnings and cashflows must ultimately validate all financial market asset valuations. I think later in 2014 the themes of deflation and recession will dominate, and in the middle of this it will I think be painful to watch Ms Janet Yellen and other policymakers flip flop and attempt to extract themselves from their policy errors.

3 – Focusing on the shorter term we think that weak Chinese data are just an excuse for last week’s price action. The reality is that the pressure behind the dam had been building for weeks – there was excessively bullish positioning and sentiment coming into 2014. Fear and greed was at work again. Investors were too hopeful coming into 2014, and last week fear dominated as, so far in 2014, the global data points to very mediocre global growth at best, mediocre earnings, and generally deflationary economic data. The important thing for me now is that after failing to see a weekly close above 1850 on the S&P500, last week there was a weekly close below 1800, which forces me to rethink my timing. My best guess from here now is:

A – Using the S&P500 as a risk proxy, 1800 and 1770 as weekly closes are now key levels. Intra-week we can bounce around, but we need to see – this week or next week latest, a weekly close above 1800 if we are going to see a quick turnaround and rally back to 1850. In such a case, and as per my note from last week, once we see a weekly close above 1850, then 1950 S&P by April remains the target.

B – If we cannot recapture 1800 this week or next, then a weekly close below 1770 points to a much more bearish picture for February. A weekly close below 1770 this week or next tells me that the risk/rewards favour a meaningful risk-off move to the low-1700s in the S&P during February, with even 1650 and 1600 possible. In this more bearish short-term scenario I’d expect Ms Yellen and her late February testimony on the Hill to be a catalyst for a bullish turnaround – if the S&P drops 100/150 points in the next 2-3 weeks I suspect that she will then send out extremely dovish signals, which the market will not be able to resist responding to! At this point in time, if this is indeed how it plays out, then from late February through to April I’d look to recapture 1800 and then aim for a weekly S&P close above 1850 into end Q1 2013 or April.

C – As per 3A above, upon a weekly close above 1850, then 1950 still attracts. But clearly 1950 is more likely under scenario 3A rather than under scenario 3B – under scenario 3B 1850 may act like a major double top. Based on last week’s closes I am now 60/40 in favour of scenario 3B.

Let’s see, but either way 2014 is already proving to be more challenging, more volatile, more illiquid and more bearish than the significantly bullish positioning and sentiment indicators warranted as we came into this year, and way more bearish than the enormously bullish consensus emanating from the sell-side. We will see painful counter-trend rallies, perhaps even to marginal new highs (3A above) – never underestimate the willingness and ability of central bankers to persist with flawed policies – but overall I think the end of the post-2009 QE-driven bull is at hand (or very soon to be at hand) and the onset of the next significant (post-QE) deflationary bear market, which I think will run deep into 2015, should now begin to guide all investment decisions.
 
Regards

Bob


    



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

HSBC’s Four Reasons Why Current EM Jitters May Last

While HSBC itself may be having some rather substantial capital outflow issues, that does not prevent its head of EM research, Pablo Goldberg, to list four reasons why the current series of “painful though unrelated flare-ups” in key markets may last. To wit:

1) Reinforcement of preference for DM vs EM

    –  While EM have cheapened vs DM, value might not be enough as long as the flow continues to favor DM

2) Potential short-term solutions leading to longer-term problems

3) FX depreciation leading to outflows from local markets

4) Due to decentralized nature of these shocks, no silver bullet can restore appetite for risk

Of course, he saved the best for last: “Unlike the market shocks of recent years, QE or IMF bailouts unlikely to come to rescue this time.” Which really is all that matters in a time when the Fed has begun tapering and any market not economy data-driven untapering, will merely serve to kill its credibility that much faster.1

Finally, in order to assess EM demand, Goldberg recommends tracking 1Y/1Y swaps, China PMIs and EPFR flows data to see when/if the capital outflow trend will reverse.

Source: Bloomberg


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1mNJ8Fa Tyler Durden

HSBC's Four Reasons Why Current EM Jitters May Last

While HSBC itself may be having some rather substantial capital outflow issues, that does not prevent its head of EM research, Pablo Goldberg, to list four reasons why the current series of “painful though unrelated flare-ups” in key markets may last. To wit:

1) Reinforcement of preference for DM vs EM

    –  While EM have cheapened vs DM, value might not be enough as long as the flow continues to favor DM

2) Potential short-term solutions leading to longer-term problems

3) FX depreciation leading to outflows from local markets

4) Due to decentralized nature of these shocks, no silver bullet can restore appetite for risk

Of course, he saved the best for last: “Unlike the market shocks of recent years, QE or IMF bailouts unlikely to come to rescue this time.” Which really is all that matters in a time when the Fed has begun tapering and any market not economy data-driven untapering, will merely serve to kill its credibility that much faster.1

Finally, in order to assess EM demand, Goldberg recommends tracking 1Y/1Y swaps, China PMIs and EPFR flows data to see when/if the capital outflow trend will reverse.

Source: Bloomberg


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1mNJ8Fa Tyler Durden