The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

I hate when that happens.

The man arrested in connection with the seemingly random killing of a woman who was out for a stroll with her father along the San Francisco waterfront is an illegal immigrant who previously had been deported five times, federal immigration officials say. 

Further, immigration officials say San Francisco had him in their custody earlier this year but failed to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement when he was released. 

But they just want to come here for a "better life", right?

Yeah, and to commit murder, it would appear.

Further, our "catch and release" system, along with a refusal to put a stop to the invasion routinely leads to this sort of result.

On Friday, ICE revealed their records indicate the individual has been previously deported five times, most recently in 2009, and is from Mexico. 

"His criminal history includes seven prior felony convictions, four involving narcotics charges," ICE said in a statement. 

Oh, so Trump was right about him twice -- not only is he apparently a murderer but he's a convicted felon and drug dealer.

San Francisco, by the way, was the jurisdiction that let him go the last time.

Their so-called "justice department", mayor and chief of police all need to be indicted as accessories before the fact to murder.

Trump is right, and since we now have proof in the contemporary time I call for a boycott of every firm and organization that is ditching him as a result of his comments.

The list includes but is not limited to NBC, Macy's and Serta.

To all three, I say: You're fired!

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Oh boy.

If this isn't enough to hand up an indictment and put Merkel in prison for the rest of her natural life, what would be?

Merkel's fear was that Athens would be unable to overcome its problems even with an additional haircut, since it would not be able to handle the remaining debt.

In other words Merkel knew at the time of the original bailout that the terms were not sustainable.  That is, Greece, even with the original haircut that was put in the debt and the bailout loans they would not be able to pay.

But she pushed for it anyway and to this day has not admitted this.

What is knowingly handing someone a noose, claiming that it's a rope to climb out of a hole with?  What is it when the leader of a nation does that intentionally to the people of another nation?

It gets better.  The IMF, which at that time wasn't sure whether Greece could make it work or not, now is of the same opinion.

Coming on top of the very high existing debt, these new financing needs render the debt dynamics unsustainable. This conclusion holds whether one examines the stock of debt under the November 2012 framework or switches the focus to debt servicing or gross financing needs. To ensure that debt is sustainable with high probability, Greek policies will need to come back on track but also, at a minimum, the maturities of existing European loans will need to be extended significantly while new European financing to meet financing needs over the coming years will need to be provided on similar concessional terms. But if the package of reforms under consideration is weakened further—in particular, through a further lowering of primary surplus targets and even weaker structural reforms—haircuts on debt will become necessary

In other words the existing "bailout terms" will not suffice.

Further, this was known in 2014 to be under extremely high risk and the proceeds from privatization efforts, much of which were supposed to come from state holdings in the banking sector, have been derailed due to non-performing loans -- loans that were on the books before the bailout and thus, had they been examined with any sort of dispassionate analysis.... (in other words this was known to be true as well and intentionally ignored.)

What's worse is that even if there is a "third" program of concessionary loans extreme vulnerability to shocks (say, a recession?) will remain.

Assuming official (concessional) financing through end–2018, the debt-to-GDP ratio is projected at about 150 percent in 2020, and close to 140 percent in 2022 (see Figure 4ii). Using the thresholds agreed in November 2012, a haircut that yields a reduction in debt of over 30 percent of GDP would be required to meet the November 2012 debt targets. With debt remaining very high, any further deterioration in growth rates or in the mediumterm primary surplus relative to the revised baseline scenario discussed here would result in significant increases in debt and gross financing needs (see robustness tests in the next section below). This points to the high vulnerability of the debt dynamics.

To be blunt: About €100 billion of the 300 outstanding has to be flushed down the drain.

Guess what?  That's a problem because the ECB has most of it at this point and less than a tenth of that in actual capital, which means that doing so would require direct payments for recapitalization purposes from the remaining EU members to the ECB!

Ouch.

Now take all this together and tell me why the Greeks should vote to continue under the present program.  There is utterly no upside for them to do so; the present program that is in place cannot succeed according to the analysis, which means that a YES vote is a vote for economic suicide with certainty.

This does not mean that a "NO" vote guarantees success, but voting for something certain to fail, overseen by someone who appears to have known it would fail four years agois asinine.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Janet T sent me an interesting article recently and I think we should have a discussion on it.

In light of that, I referred to my own childhood to highlight the magical thinking of children:

“This is really about our projection of our issues as adults onto children, and we have to consider that. Look, when I was a child, I thought I was a cocker spaniel, and there’s a point where we have these fantasies, we think we are Superman, we can fly, we’re the cat. This is childhood … .”

Reverting to their own magical thinking, various gay-establishment bloggers and activists, likely adorned in their “NOH8” gear, apparently appalled at my argument that kids are, well, kids, posted desperate stories with headlines like “Tammy Bruce compares transgendered people to dogs!” and “Fox News pundit compares being transgender to thinking that you’re a cocker spaniel.”

Uh, no. But welcome to the adult world of magical thinking. I was referring to children and how they think. Yet, for the malignant narcissists on the left, everything has to be about them. It’s also a headline that shamelessly misleads their own base into acting like fools.

Tammy goes on about liberals and magical thinking, but this mental disease is not limited to liberals.  Let's take Paul Ryan's "budget", which he has published annually for a number of years now as a right-side-of-aisle (Republican) "talking point."

It postulates an unbroken string of economic expansion that has never occurred in the modern history of the United States -- ever.  There is utterly no reason to believe that his projections are based in anything approaching reasonable predicates; they are akin to believing that he is Superman and can jump over the Empire State building.

Yet the entire Republican establishment in Congress has signed onto and promotes this view, despite the fact that even if he got his way and enacted every single policy pronouncement contained therein the results would not be as he stated, and he knows it.

What's particularly offensive about this sort of thing is that if I can look at those projections and compare them against the historical record of the nation's economic performance (because the data to do so is publicly available) so can anyone else who cares to.  You just have to care to do so, whether you're a politician or a journalist.

Yet nobody on either side of the aisle in the many years I've been reading these "budget proposals", whether they be politician or reporter, has done so and then spoken of the disconnect between the claims and reality -- except in this publication.

The 2011 debt ceiling debate was another example.  I pointed out to McMorris-Rogers staff, and that of a few other key congressfolk, that mathematically continued deficit spending on a grossed-up basis (that is, simple subtraction on the amount of debt out both to the public and intergovernmental on a given day less than that one year earlier) as a percentage of the economy that exceeds the growth of the economy ultimately must end in disaster.  This is not, once again, about politics or beliefs, it is instead a mathematical fact in that two compound growth functions will always diverge over time.  That is, you can never get away with that over the intermediate and long term because the faster-growing component will always swallow the slower whole no matter how far apart they start.  Yet I was told by McMorris-Rogers staff that the Republican Congress would not stop deficit spending -- period -- and that my presentation that inevitably led to the need to do so was unrealistic.  Needless to say there was no point to any further discussion with her office on this point -- or anyone else's, since that was the position of the entire Republican caucus!

More-recently the Employment Report came out on the 2nd and CNBC had multiple commentators claiming that we need "100,000" new jobs every month to take up the new entrants to the labor force.  This is a factual lie and even trivial perusal of the BLS data confirms it:

Can you subtract?  There are 2,849,000 more people in the civilian non-institutional (working-age) population this month than in June of 2014.  100,000 per month for 12 months is 1,200,000 -- or fewer than half of the required add rate to keep even with new entrants to the labor force.  The so-called commentators lied outright; the only other way to read this is that the persons speaking (and it was all of them in that segment) are infused with magical thinking to the point that they no longer believe that subtraction produces a valid and truthful result!

Or perhaps you'd like to look at much of what people call "value" these days in the markets.  Facebook at a P/E of 84, that is, a dollar in earnings and roughly $86 in price.  This is allegedly due to an expectation that it can double earnings over the next year.  What?  Or how about Netflix; P/E of 170 and there the so-called "value" analysts assign doesn't even include an unreasonably-rosy next-year earnings projection -- they actually expect earnings on a 1-year basis to fall, driving the P/E to 207.  Then there's Amazon with negative current earnings and a roughly 10 year claim that "just around the corner" it will stop spending money like our government does and earnings will appear -- but it never does, and yet the price continues to advance -- now at $434/each.  Oh, and if next year's "earnings" materialize it will be a whole 39 cents/share, for a "forward" P/E of 163!

But you, Dear Reader, keep buying and holding such "stocks" even when someone (or lots of someones!) make a claim of impending "huge profits" for 10 years that never come to pass.  In other words, to be blunt, you are holding shares that are virtually all "worth less" and many are literally worthless by any rational measurement you care to employ.

There are also plenty of examples found of magical thinking in all sorts of other circumstances, with some of the most-glaring being in matters related to social issues.  The recent so-called "debate" on gay marriage is one of them, but hardly the only one.  And while some of these may be "quaint and amusing" there is nothing amusing at all about it when it turns to mendacity and then is used to either call upon the government to shove a gun up your nose or organize what amounts to a lynch mob, and it damn near always does.

The article I cited above contains an example.  Nowhere is there an "attack" in that article; it simply makes the point that presenting these sorts of "issues" to young children is inappropriate because they are incapable of discerning the difference between fantasy and reality and often inhabit the space of fantasy.  But this author was attacked in the Huffington Post with the claim that she (I believe the author is a lesbian, by the way) attacked transgendered people.

She did no such thing.

Or how about Donald Trump?  He made a legitimate observation that a large number of people coming into this country illegally are in fact criminals and that is harming our nation.  Indeed, the claim is facially true; anyone coming into this country without going through lawful procedures commits their first crime as they set foot over the border.  For this he has been relentlessly attacked but nobody is debating him on the point of whether or not his claim is true; they simply consider any debate on illegal immigration and pointing out the harm done in this nation by said people to be invalid.

The dishonest presentation of social issues such as this is tremendously disruptive to our society and need to be addressed.  It's hard to get in someone's head and discern motive -- but motive doesn't matter when facts are ignored and agenda overrules reality to the point that you're willing to lie repeatedly and with ever-more-strenuous shouting.  Witness the so-called "rape" of Tawana Brawley, that by the Duke Lacrosse team and countless other similar screamfests that were complete fabrications.

This sort of thing, whether in the social or economic realm, is an exhibition of mental illness.  When it goes intentionally unchecked then there are only two conclusions to be drawn; either the people who refuse to do anything about it are themselves mentally ill or they're intentionally enabling mental illness and its exhibition irrespective of the severe consequence served up on the rest of us.

This must stop -- both in the social realm where it leads to people being persecuted under false claim but also in the economic realm where it threatens to literally destroy our nation's economic future.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Amusing.....

There is now a very nice lady on CNBS saying that you should "look carefully" at what's in your bond funds, in reference to Puerto Rico and their debt troubles.

Ok, so how about the people who are allegedly professionals and decided what to buy?  Why is it that those people who hold themselves out as professionals and get paid a fee for their services are not held to a higher standard than someone in the general public?  After all, that's what the fee is for, right?

Anyone who bothered to simply sit down with a copy of Excel and graphed out the debt and GDP situations for any of these locations (e.g. Detroit, Puerto Rico, Greece, The United States Treasury) would have discerned many years ago that the path these entities were on was utterly impossible to sustain.  And oh by the way, of those that haven't defaulted yet they are still on said unsustainable path.

That is, it was extremely likely that purchasing these "bonds" were in fact doing nothing more than handing someone cash to burn up as they wish as on their current fiscal path there was utterly no way that the principal and interest could be paid in full.

So as a consequence of this convenient blindness those bonds were issued and bought without the demand for any sort of covenant restraining behavior on the part of these government entities -- like, for instance, a cessation of further deficit spending!

These fund managers thus handed over investor money to these entities without extracting in exchange legally enforceable promises to alter behavior so that the bonds would actually be payable.

In other words they didn't do their job.

A job that they hold themselves out as experts in.

But the fault is yours, as a non-expert, you see, and so should the loss be, instead of falling back on the people who held themselves out as experts and were actually paid by you to analyze and discern such things.

Uh huh....

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

China is crashing (again); the Shanghai is off another 4+%.

That's about a 30% decline, more or less.... and it appears it's not slowing down either.

Naw, it won't come over here; this is a totally-isolated incident......

Ah, there's the fireworks!

smiley

smiley

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
If You're Older Than 40 And Reading This...

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.