news – Page 26306

Cable Crashes Below 1.40 For First Time In 7 Years, Brexit Risks Soar As Farage Crushes Cameron

For the first time since March 2009, GBPUSD is back below 1.40. Despite Camron's "Project Fear" and desperate attempts to spin British opinion (2 different polls yesterday showed 37% want to leave and 51% want to leave), investors are growing increasingly concerned as Nigel Farage exposes the ugly truths about Cameron's so-called "deal and FX and credit markets spike to extreme relative risk levels.

From hope to nope…

Plunging cable to 7 year lows…

And FX volatility markets are increasingly priced for significant pain…

As are British credit markets…

As Citi explained, Brexit risk is rising…

So far, polls still suggest that the UK is more likely to vote to stay in the EU than to leave, and indeed "Remain" is still our base case scenario. We expect the campaign between now and June to shift the debate from the nature of the UK's relationship with the EU to the economic and political risks of Brexit.

Having said that, following the decision of credible and popular leaders like Johnson and Gove to back the Out campaign, we now increase the probability that the UK votes for Brexit to 30-40%. Markets are likely to become increasingly nervous on the issue, and lack confidence in polling data following the margin of failure to predict the UK GE 2015 outcome by a wide margin.

The risk of UK breakup was also underscored by comments by Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who stated over the weekend that a vote for Brexit would "almost certainly" be followed by a second independence referendum for Scotland.

Furthermore, Cameron's deal with Brussels has sparked wider concerns that other governments will seek similar re-negotiation, with political parties in France and the Netherlands raising fears of campaigns for "Frexit" and "Nexit". With this in mind, the UK referendum will have wider implications for the EU beyond the UK.

Perhaps this is also why risk is rising, as none other than Nigel Farage explains the reality behind Cameron's so-called "deal"…

Charts: Bloomberg

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

Hillary Clinton’s Struggles on Gay Issues Are About Her Honesty, Not Her Transformation

If your candidate says she loves you, check it out. Dan Savage is increasingly frustrated with those who want to continue to treat Hillary Clinton as though she’s the same politician as the woman who once vocally campaigned against gay marriage recognition when she was running for Senate.

Savage, who is openly supporting both Clinton and Bernie Sanders as potential candidates, blogged that he is tired of those who want to hold Clinton to a standard of past ideological purity that is honestly not very reasonable given the history involved:

A lot of progressives are slamming Hillary for her past position on marriage equality and the rather noxious comments she made back then—which, again, are similar to the rather noxious comments made by most Dems at the time, including Barack Obama (who said the exact same shit, in fewer words)—and … they hammer and hammer away at it. And you know what? Most of the people I see out there hammering away at this—most of them, not all of them—are straight. Oh, there are queer folks doing it too. But it’s mostly straight people and, man, are they losing their patience with queers who support Hillary. But straight or gay, here’s what I have to say to those who can’t understand why any gay person could possibly support Hillary over Bernie—or, like me, support Hillary and/or Bernie—when Bernie Always Had the Right Position On Marriage Equality and Hillary Used To Have the Wrong Position on Marriage Equality.

We’re taking motherfucking yes for a motherfucking answer.

Hillary Clinton’s support for marriage equality may be a political calculation. And you know what? We worked hard to change the math so that those political calculations would start adding up in our favor. So sincere change of heart or political calculation—either way—I will take it.

Savage is absolutely correct about the application of these weird purity tests when it comes to those who have come around to support gay issues. And they’re not confined to Clinton. Whenever a political figure or celebrity or other public figure of any political leaning has announced a change of position toward gay marriage or supporting other gay issues, there is frequently an odd undercurrent of resentment expressed because they did not hold the correct position all along. There was, for example, Caitlyn Jenner, who was heavily criticized following an interview with Ellen DeGeneres last September where she admitted that, despite now openly identifying as transgender, she actually opposed gay marriage until more recently. She says she’s on board now because she realizes that it’s important to the people who want access to it (which is how a conservative comes to accept gay marriage), but somehow that wasn’t enough of an endorsement for some folks.

Savage notes that this is not exactly the kind of attitude that encourages political transformation: “If pols who are currently on the wrong side of any of those issues see no benefit to changing their positions—if they see no political benefit—they’re going to be harder to persuade. Why should they come around on our issues, why should they switch sides or change their votes, if we’re going to go after them hammer and tongs for the positions they used to hold?”

But there’s a larger issue with Clinton that Savage isn’t addressing here: It’s not whether Clinton’s positions on gay issues are formed by political calculations now but rather whether they were formed by political calculations then, what that means for the promises she’s making now, and how the way she talks about gay issues can be placed contextually into criticisms of her overall honesty.

For example, was Clinton’s opposition to gay marriage a political calculation in the first place? Clinton insisted that 2013 that her position had “evolved,” just like President Obama’s. Statistician Nate Silver looked at the positions of other women from her demographic and political background and found that the vast, vast majority of them (potentially as high as 90 percent) were supporters of same-sex marriage recognition by 2008. Was Clinton an outlier back then? Or an opportunist?

Then there is the matter that she was caught out recently by leaders in the gay community attempting to mislead the public about why President Bill Clinton originally signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which forbid federal recognition of same-sex marriage even when legally recognized by individual states. She is now attempting to claim that the reason President Clinton signed the legislation was to “protect” gays from a possible constitutional amendment in the works to ban same-sex marriage. But there was no amendment being discussed at the time at all. It simply wasn’t true. Either the president actually opposed same-sex marriage recognition, or it was politically important for him to be on the record doing so.

As such, Clinton’s positions on gay issues have to be considered not just on their own, but with the other issues of honesty and transparency that seem to be a top problem for her candidacy. Her many issues with the private e-mail server to conduct government business as secretary of state highlight problems with her honesty and her reluctance to be open and forthright (and I’m being diplomatic). Just last night she said she’ll only release transcripts from her speeches to big banks if other candidates (including the Republicans) do, too.

Ignore the “Never read the comments!” web warning and read some of the replies to Savage. You’ll see that the issue driving some progressive voters away from Clinton is not that she recently “evolved” on gay issues, but rather whether even progressive voters trust what she says. She has put out a lengthy agenda on LGBT issues that endorses every single item progressive community leaders want to happen, but if you don’t see her as being honest, would you believe she’s going to actually push for any of these things? (Not that I personally support most of the items on the agenda, which make a federal matter out of many issues that should be handled privately.)

Since Savage supports both Sanders and Clinton, one may well ask why he is even frustrated about the situation. After all, it’s probably unlikely that Sanders’ primary voters are going to turn around and vote for the Republican candidate should he fail to get the nomination. Rather, that Clinton is getting criticism for the same change of position over which Obama was heavily praised is a potential warning sign that she may have problem getting out voters who ran to the polls for Obama. There is a group of people on the left looking for reasons not to vote for Clinton, and they could just stay home come November. Her history on gay issues is really more of a symptom of the dislike, not the root cause. You can’t take those issues out of the context of the other concerns about Clinton as a candidate and politician.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1QdaN1s
via IFTTT

Is This Why Stocks Are Suddenly Surging: NY Fed Cancels Today’s POMO Due To “Technical Difficulties”

Just at the market began its torrid ramp higher today at 11:15 am on the dot, something else was expected to happen: the Fed’s open market buying, or POMO, of Agency MBS (yes, those still continue despite the end of QE because the Fed has to keep the level of its balance sheet flat and offset maturities).

Only today this did not happen. Instead, this is what the NY Fed said:

Wed, February, 24, 2016

Due to technical difficulties, the Wed, February, 24, 2016 (11:15 – 11:45am) agency MBS outright operation was cancelled. The operation will be rescheduled for a later time. Please continue to check this website for updates.

As Bloomberg writes, there has been no explanation what the “technical difficulties” are, however it is somewhat perplexing that just as the POMO was supposed to start, what happened instead was a surge in 10 Year yields, the USDJPY and, of course, the S&P 500 which has wiped out more than half the day’s losses in minutes.

We doubt the Fed wil have an explanation for that either.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1p4HEPi Tyler Durden

Algos Panic-Buy Crude After Europe Closes

Presented with little comment but one glance at this idiocy – which ignited the moment European stock markets closed at 1130ET, running stops to last night’s API cliff-dive and which snapped US equities higher – and you know what a farce our markets have become…

Seriously…

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1XMRLE3 Tyler Durden

Hillary Clinton, Friend and Foe of Democracy: New at Reason

Hillary Clinton is a fair-weather friend to democracy, and a foe, as A. Barton Hinkle writes:

Hillary Clinton is a huge fan of democracy—just so long as it doesn’t get in her way.

HRC—Her Royal Clintonness—has not driven a car in two decades. Her list of speaking-engagement demands includes special pillows onstage and hummus and crudités offstage (crudités is a fancy word for veggies). She has been paid more than a half-million dollars for speaking to the swells at Goldman Sachs.

But that doesn’t mean she no longer cares about the little people! She does care. Deeply. We know this because she says so—and if there is anything Clinton is known for, it’s always telling the straight-up truth.

View this article.

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

Is The Stock Rally Glass Half Full Or Half Empty?

Via Dana Lyons' Tumblr,

The February stock market bounce has reached a crossroads – will there be another leg higher or has the rally run its course?

The rally in stocks has reached an key juncture it would seem in many of the major indices. That includes our favorite index: the Value Line Geometric Composite (VLG). Once again, the VLG is an unweighted average of approximately 1700 stocks. The calculation of the index amounts to essentially the median stock performance among that universe. Thus, in our view, it is probably the best gauge of the true health of the broad stock market. If that is the case, the market’s health is truly up in the air at this point.

Consider first where the VLG is coming from. On January 6, the VLG broke down from what we determined to be a pass/fail line of support around 436, based on key Fibonacci Retracement levels of the post-2009 bull market. Indeed, the index plunged immediately and severely upon breaking that level. The next support we earmarked below stood at 382, or about 12% lower. It took the VLG just 2 weeks to hit that level, which we noted on January 20.

The index held that 382 level on January 20, as well as on a subsequent re-test on February 11. Since then, the VLG has bounced solidly, moving as high as 415 yesterday before encountering multiple resistance layers. Today, the VLG, settled at 409.85. As quant-oriented managers, this is an interesting juncture to us. To wit: a move from 409 back up to 436 would mark a rise of +6.6015%. Meanwhile, a drop back down to 382 from 409 would signify a loss of -6.6015%. So which spot is the next destination? Or, in other words, is the rally glass half full or half empty?

First off, what sort of potential resistance are we seeing in this vicinity? The layers of potential resistance are plentiful and formidable, enough to engender a “half-empty” attitude. Among others, they include

The 23.6% Fibonacci Retracement of the May-February decline
The 38.2% Fibonacci Retracement of the December-February decline
The late January bounce highs
The post-December Down trendline
The 50-day simple moving average

Price is truth, as they say, and the onus is certainly on the bulls to prove that they can vault the VLG over this area of resistance. That said, there are plenty of clues to be found beyond price that often serve instructively in determining where prices are likely to go. This includes price-based derivative indicators (e.g., Relative Strength Index,or RSI) that measure the degree of momentum within a move. While we do not typically use these classical technical analysis tools, they are very popular among traders and can prove useful at times.

For example, traders often use RSI to spot divergences in price vs. momentum. For example, note on the chart how the VLG made a lower closing low in February versus its January 20 low, while RSI held above that initial low. This positive divergence can (but not always) give a head’s up regarding a potential upside reversal. In this case, prices did indeed turn up, leading to this late February rally. Note also the post-December down trendlines on price and RSI. The VLG is bumping into the trendline while the RSI has broken above. This is another potential positive divergence that could be a harbinger of a trendline break in prices as well. Mark one down for the glass “half-full” crowd.

Lastly, while price is the final arbiter of market action, it is not exactly predictive. That is why we use a stable of indicators based on various measures of breadth and momentum of breadth, et al. to instruct us as to the likely course of future prices. While this approach does not always hold true, particularly for indices that are heavily weighted toward a relatively small number of constituents, it is especially helpful on a broad, equal-weight index like the VLG. Currently, we would assess the status of most of these proprietary indicators as “constructive”. That is, they are positively oriented and supportive of potentially higher prices.

So where’s the next stop for stock prices, 6.6015% higher or lower? While the immediate resistance is considerable, there is ample evidence to suggest that prices could overcome that resistance eventually. We understand that a rally of that magnitude represents a fairly modest goal for investors. However, if our longer-term assessment of the stock market is close to accurate, considering the likely potential range of prices over the next 6 months to several years, we would take that gain in a heartbeat.

Consider it a bearish “glass half-full” view.

* * *

More from Dana Lyons, JLFMI and My401kPro.

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

2016 Refugee Level is Eight Times the Rate Witnessed During Same Period Last Year

Screen Shot 2016-02-24 at 9.40.19 AM

Although everyone watching has been convinced that Europe’s disastrous economy and related debt crisis would be the spark to unravel the European Union project, it appears history has its own plans.

While EU technocrats have demonstrated an uncanny ability to scheme, threaten, kick the can and lie their way around the debt crisis, the migrant crisis will prove to be a much graver threat to the project. Strikingly, all it took was a few weeks of unrelenting migrants crossing into EU borders to put an end what is essentially the only achievement of the European Union — the Schengen system of borderless travel.

Without that, what is the EU really? A collection of nation-states forced by bureaucrats to pretend they are part of an artificial fantasy superstate called Europe? An amalgamation of debt serfs and technocratic overlords? See what I’m getting at?

– From the post: Does the Migrant Crisis Represent the End of the European Union?

Conventional wisdom told us that refugee levels would plunge to a manageable level over the winter months before picking up again in the spring and summer. While they certainly have come down, they appear to be much higher than expected at a shocking eight times the level compared to the same period last year.

The Telegraph reports:

More than 100,000 refugees and migrants have arrived in Europe so far this year – more than eight times the rate seen during the same period in 2015.

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/1TG01GT
via IFTTT

Google’s “SkyNet” Robots Are All Grown Up, And Downright Terrifying

The last time we looked at the fascinating robotic products of Boston Dynamics, a company which Google prudently acquired quietly in 2013, it was a cute petting zoo of clumsy robotic “animals” including a “big dog”, a “wild cat”, and a “cheetah.” They could barely walk for a few minutes without collapsing or suffering some terminal failure.

Barely over two years later Google’s robots, no longer cute little animals, are not only all grown up but judging by the progress revealed in the company’s latest progress video, are a few months from being full 5’9″, 180 lbs humanoid automatons who can not only walk, pick themselves up, open doors, and carry heavy loads, but are this close from replacing millions of workers in menial, repetitive occupations as well as forming an army of robots best seen until recently in the science fiction section of your favorite streaming movie provider.

Worse, they are downright terrifying because after watching the clip below we can’t decide which flashbacks are stronger: to SkyNet or RoboCop.

This is how Boston Dynamics intros the following disturbing video:

A new version of Atlas, designed to operate outdoors and inside buildings. It is specialized for mobile manipulation. It is electrically powered and hydraulically actuated. It uses sensors in its body and legs to balance and LIDAR and stereo sensors in its head to avoid obstacles, assess the terrain, help with navigation and manipulate objects. This version of Atlas is about 5′ 9″ tall (about a head shorter than the DRC Atlas) and weighs 180 lbs.

In other words the “Atlas” is cheaper, faster, more efficient, and never complaining version of most minimum wage workers and soon, army soldiers.

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

NIRP Was a Dud, Are Central Banks Out of Options?

A growing number of investors are beginning to realize that Central Banks are effectively out of ammo (for now).

Last week I noted that the Bank of Japan’s implementation of NIRP only generated a brief rally in Japanese stocks. That rally has since been obliterated as Japanese stocks collapsed 10%.

This collapse has finally prompted the mainstream financial media to question NIRP. It’s a shame no one bothered to question NIRP, ZIRP, and QE when the markets were still rallying!

HSBC: Sweden's Experience Shows Negative Rates Haven't Worked

The ‘Monetary Madness’ That’s Pushing Japanese Bonds Negative

Negative Interest Rates Can Hurt Global Stocks

COLUMN-Banks drink from NIRP's poisoned well: James Saft

H/T Bill King for noting the change in media tone.

I point this out because it indicates that we are at a critical turning point. Between 2009 and last week, the financial media rarely questioned Central Bank policy, if ever.

The fact that we are now seeing numerous articles criticizing NIRP and Central Banks, tells us that psychologically a significant shift has taken place. That shift will see growing criticism of Central Banks along with an increase in bearish sentiment amongst investors.

This shift was also evident in today’s Q&A session between Fed Chair Janet Yellen and Congress. For the first time in recent memory, a Fed Chair was grilled on the legality and legitimacy of Fed Policy by members of Congress (with the exception of former Congressman Ron Paul).

Does this mean that Central Banks will simply “give up and go home?”

Yes and No.

For certain, the bar has been set much higher for Central Bank monetary policy. Interest rate cuts alone won’t cut it anymore. The ECB has cut rates into NIRP three times. None of these cuts produced a significant stock rally. Only QE did.

Similarly, the Bank of Japan has obtained its best results with QE programs. As I noted previously NIRP barely even bought 24 hours’ worth of market gains.

In simple terms, unless a new large-scale QE program or direct money printing is announced, markets are unlikely to react strongly to new monetary policy from Central Banks.

Another Crisis is coming. Smart investors are preparing now.

We just published a 21-page investment report titled Stock Market Crash Survival Guide.

In it, we outline precisely how the crash will unfold as well as which investments will perform best during a stock market crash.

We are giving away just 1,000 copies for FREE to the public.

To pick up yours, swing by:

http://ift.tt/1HW1LSz

Best Regards

Graham Summers

Chief Market Strategist

Phoenix Capital Research

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1Q0hrKp Phoenix Capital Research

So long and thanks for all the fish.

Last week the Canadian Island of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, off the Atlantic Seaboard near Maine, made an unusual offer to the American public.

If Donald Trump wins, move to Cape Breton.

There’s even a whole website about this, though not one officially affiliated with the local government.

This is something that happens in every election cycle.

Politics is invariably polarizing. Strong candidates have an uncanny ability to strike tremendous hope in their supporters and incredible fear in their detractors, and it’s commonplace for people to threaten strong responses if someone they don’t like is elected.

Johnny Depp famously threatened to move overseas if George W. Bush won the election.

Bush won. Depp left.

With this year’s election we’re sure to see much more of this, as emotions are already boiling.

There are so many people right now amazed that they lived to see the day when a card-carrying socialist is a leading contender to become President of the United States.

Of course, it’s not about any single person.

As Douglas Adams wrote in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (from which this headline also comes), “anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

Throughout my travels I’ve met a lot of people who have done the same, having reached their breaking points with one national election or another.

That feeling is totally understandable. Sometimes it requires powerful emotions of shock and astonishment to make us reach our breaking point, to shake us from our apathy, and to finally propel us into taking action.

But there’s a big danger here. These are important decisions. And such decisions should not be made emotionally. They should be rational, data-driven, and well-planned.

To say “I’m leaving the country if [insert most despised candidate] wins” is a knee-jerk, emotional response.

Look, moving abroad may very well the right answer for many.

There are tremendous tax and legal benefits of doing so, unique financial opportunities, and a host of other advantages that can lead to having a nearly unparalleled lifestyle abroad that is richer, fuller, and healthier.

But again, this should not be done emotionally and haphazardly. It should be based on rational analysis and a credible plan.

Where would you go? Where would you live once you got there? Where would your kids go to school? How would you establish legal residency? And so on.

These are important details and require research and careful thought.

The bottom line is—it makes a lot of sense to have a place to go if things in your home country ever got really uncomfortable.

Maybe you never even need to exercise that Plan B. But even if nothing ever gets as bad as you fear, you won’t be worse off for having a backup option.

Yet if the trend continues and the day ever came when you did need to get out of Dodge, you don’t want to start figuring it all out while you’re packing your bags.

from Sovereign Man http://ift.tt/21ggPJ1
via IFTTT