Behind the scenes is an event unfolding that has the market shaking in its boots. Yet you don’t hear this discussed by the mainstream media, let alone investment bankers.
The reason? It is an event that has been talked about throughout China’s rise to prominence. It has been pondered and feared by Western bankers and politicians. The event I am talking about is the dumping of US treasuries by China. Continue reading »
At this point, anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention to the central planning economic totalitarians running the fraudulent global financial system is aware of the blatant push in the media to acclimate the masses to accepting a “cashless society.”
The size of the epic RMB carry trade could be as high as $1.1 trillion. If China were to liquidate $1 trillion in reserves (i.e. USTs) in order to stabilize the yuan in the face of the carry unwind, it would effectively offset 60% of QE3 and put around 200 bps of upward pressure on 10Y yields. So in effect, China’s UST dumping is QE in reverse – and on a massive scale.
Fasten your seat belts, this ride is getting interesting. Last week the Dow Jones Industrial Average was down more than 1,000 points, notching its worst weekly performance in four years. The sell-off took the Dow Jones down more than 10% from its peak valuations, thereby constituting the first official correction in four years. One third of all S&P 500 companies are already in bear market territory, having declined more than 20% from their peaks. Scarier still, the selling intensified as the week drew to a close, with the Dow losing 530 points on Friday, after falling 350 points on Thursday. The new week is even worse, with the Dow dropping almost 1,100 points near the open today before cutting its losses significantly. However, no one should expect that this selling is over. The correction may soon morph into a full-fledged bear market if the Fed makes good on its supposed intentions to raise interest rates this year. Have no illusions, while most market observers are quick to blame the sell-off on China, this market was given life by the Fed, and the Fed is the only force that will keep it alive.
The Dow has now blown through the lows from October 2014, when fears over life without quantitative easing and zero percent interest rates had caused the markets to pull back about 5%. Back then when market fear began spreading, St. Louis Fed President James Bullard publically issued a few choice words which reassured the markets that the Fed stood ready to reignite the QE engines if the economy really needed a fresh dose of stimulus. By the end of the year the Dow had rallied 10%.Continue reading »
In a just released letter to clients, the head of the world’s largest hedge fund delivers one of his usual sermons about the economy as a perpetual motion machine, affected by central banks, and where interest rates are supposed to boost asset returns by being below “the rates of return of longer-term assets.”
None of that is terribly exciting and it is in fitting with what Bridgewater has said for a long time (incidentally, it is curious that just over the weekend, the FT released a piece in which a “US asset manager warns over risk parity” which is what Bridgewater’s bread and butter is all about). Continue reading »
Hookernomices: In less than 10 years, the Federal Reserve Has Driven Millions of American Women into Prostitution
Mainstreaming Prostitution: Beginning last year, the Bank of England included prostitution in GDP measurements. According to the Office of National Statistics, prostitution generated $9B a year, adding 0.7% to the UK GDP. They aren’t alone: Sweden, Norway and a few other European countries already include it. And if you can measure it, you can tax it. And legalization is necessary for measurement.
Prostitution is legal in most of the developed world. In fact, of the G20 countries, prostitution is illegal in just 5: China, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and, of course, the United States.
Back in August 2007, just as the quant funds had their first taste of what the upcoming collapse would look like and when the Fed for the first time realized that the subprime woes were “not contained” despite what Ben Bernanke had promised previously to Congress, financial comedy TV’s best known mascot, Jim Cramer had a meltdown on CNBC following Bear Stearns’ CFO admission that the fixed-income market turmoil was the worst in 22 years, ranting how the Fed “knows nothing” and how it should promptly bail out the financial system.
Little did Bear Stearns know that less than 9 months later it would no longer exist, but not before the same Jim Cramer proclaimed Bear Stearns was “fine” and is not in trouble when it was trading at $62/share. A week later the company was insolvent and was handed to JPM for a forced take-out at $2/share.
Fast forward 8 years when we just witnessed the biggest weekly market rout in 4 years and largest VIX surge in history, and when – like clockwork – the financial “experts” come crawling out demanding, you guessed it, another Fed bailout.
This was a difficult piece to write, and an equally difficult piece to title, because the people who most need to see this message are simultaneously the least-likely to read it. How do you steal anything? Boiled down, there are only two procedures: doing so via brute-force (i.e. robbery), or doing so by deception (i.e. fraud).
This is primarily a warning about the latter form of stealing, although ultimately there will be brute-force employed, for any who attempt to resist the mass-foreclosures and mass-evictions which are now imminent. To explain how your land will be stolen from (most of) you – by fraud – first requires a brief lesson in economics, conducted via a simple, hypothetical scenario. Continue reading »
It’s getting downright hazardous out there, and not just because the robo-machines were slamming the “sell” key today. The real danger comes from the loose assemblage of official institutions which claim to be running the world.
“Evidence in support of Bernanke’s view of the channels through which QE works is at best mixed. There is no work, to my knowledge, that establishes a link from QE to the ultimate goals of the Fed inflation and real economic activity. Indeed, casual evidence suggests that QE has been ineffective in increasing inflation.”
As you’re no doubt aware, the Fed is fond of using the research departments at its various branches to validate policy and analyze away bad economic outcomes. For instance, earlier this year, the San Francisco Fed came up with an academic justification for the now infamous double seasonally adjusted GDP print – they call it “residual seasonality.” Then there’s the NY Fed, where researchers recently took to the bank’s blog to explain why, despite all evidence to the contrary, Treasury liquidity is “fairly favorable.” Continue reading »
After China’s shocking currency devaluation, which some more conspiratorially-minded observers have concluded was China’s retaliation to the west for the IMF’s recent snub that pushed back China’s evaluation for inclusion into the SDR to some indefinite point in 2016, the only question on everyone’s mind is whether the Fed will delay or outright cancel any imminent “data-dependent” rate hikes as a result of the implicit tightening of monetary conditions thanks to China, and the dramatic appreciation of the USD which would not have taken place without China.
“…they’re in a kind of silly loop where they did QE expecting a reaction… didn’t get it.. and then they did QE again because it didn’t live up to their expectations… but I think they have no other options, if things get negative on the economy, QE is all they can do.”
As we reported on June 17, Pedro Da Costa, one of the more determined and controversial Fed reporters, was shocked to learn he was no longer welcome to ask Janet Yellen uncomfortable questions, questions related to the biggest scandal currently gripping the Fed: its leaks of proprietary information to “expert network” Medley Global (recently sold by Pearson to Japan’s Nikkei) and one which has since morphed into a criminal investigation.
On December 23 of this year, the Federal Reserve will be 99 years old. And throughout that 99 years, regardless of boom, bust, recession or Great Depression, the biggest Wall Street banks have been enjoying a 6 percent, risk-free return on the capital they hold at the Fed in the form of dividends.
Have you looked at your checking or money market bank statement lately from JPMorgan Chase or Citibank? How about the statement showing the interest you’re earning on your mortgage escrow account with the big banks? While the country suffers through the lingering effects of the Great Recession caused by the biggest Wall Street banks, the public typically receives less than 1 percent on their deposits at the big banks, while the government has legislated a permanent, risk-free 6 percent guarantee to the Wall Street banks for their capital on deposit at the Fed. Now that’s an entitlement program that needs to die!
This corporate welfare program gets even better: if the shares of stock were acquired prior to March 28, 1942, the 6 percent risk-free dividend is tax exempt and the bank doesn’t have to pay corporate taxes on it.
Did you know that the Federal Reserve pays an annual 6% dividend to its shareholders, i.e., the member banks of the cartel? Must be nice, considering savers who had nothing to do with cratering the world economy, and failed to receive a taxpayer funded bailout, can barely earn 0.5% on their money. It’s also quite bizarre. How many other “public institutions” have private shareholders to whom they pay 6% risk free dividends? Continue reading »
Recently “retired” Dallas Fed chief Richard Fisher — who really, really believed that talk of falling oil prices negatively affecting the Texas economy amounted to “bull droppings” until a JP Morgan analyst reminded him that the “only thing dropping in the Texas economy [was] jobs” — is following proudly in the footsteps of Ben Bernanke, Jeremy Stein, and Janet Yellen (if you count unofficial, off-the-record ‘consultations’) by becoming the latest Fed policymaker to ink a lucrative deal ‘advising’ the private sector.