The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

Pull the other one, ****ers.

That's the official government "claim"; let's square it against...

A recent survey of 148 insurance brokers shows that ObamaCare is sending premiums rising at the fastest clip in decades.

"For the last, about, five years they've been doing this survey, so this was the largest percentage increase in any quarter since they've been doing (it)," says Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute.


"There are specific states with exorbitant increases," says Gottlieb.  "Delaware had 100 percent increase, Florida had a 37 percent increase, Pennsylvania 28 percent increase, California had a 53 percent increase in their premiums."   

Someone is lying.  

Guess who it is....

For extra credit you may hazard a guess as to the odds that the rest of the report so-presented this morning is truthful.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

How often do you sit down and think about this?

If you're a W2 employee, it should be every payday, but it probably isn't.  Indeed, you probably only think about it once a year, when you file your taxes, and then you get it exactly backward when the IRS sends back your money that you foolishly overpaid and let them have free for the entire rest of the year.

If you're an independent (such as myself) then you probably think about it four times a year, because you're making estimated payments.  But in that case most of you probably don't think about it the right way either, because in your quest to not get penalized you intentionally overpay to remain in the "safe harbor" instead of taking your best guess (which can be wrong and if it is will result in a penalty for underpayment.)  You then wind up with either an overpayment that is "refunded" (again, you let the government have the money without paying for its time value) or you let them keep it for two years (applying it against the next year's tax liability.)

Have you ever considered exactly how insane it is that we allow either situation to exist?  In what sort of other environment do we have a circumstance where you are expected to overpay for a good or service -- without being compensated for the other party having free use of your money?

Never would we allow this in auto repairs, new roofs, water heaters or air conditioners.  But we not only tolerate it when it comes to our taxes we actively celebrate when the overpayment is returned to us without interest!

And that's just the first bit of stupidity.

The second is found here, in the GDP tables -- and that materially understates the truth.

Federal government is claimed to be $1,224.7 billion (that is, just over $1.2 trillion) on an annualized basis.  This is an outright fraud; Federal spending alone for FY 2014 will be $3,650 billion or three times the claimed rate from the GDP tables!

That is more than one dollar in five.  Yet that one dollar in five of every dollar spent in America is doled out by 536 people who quite-clearly believe they're better than God himself, to the point that they then employ legions of individuals who are tasked with making sure they can continue to collect those funds -- at gunpoint, should you not willingly turn them over.

Now let's think about exactly what we get for our money.

First and foremost, we get a group of people in DC who believe they don't have to follow the same laws the rest of us do.  They can (and do) drive drunk, hit their spouses, bounce checks ("postal bank" anyone?) and grossly cheat on their taxes.  All of these offenses and more would (and do) land common people like you or I in jail or prison.  Oh sure, not all the time to be certain, but often enough.  When was the last time you saw a Congressperson or Senator wind up actually go to jail for any of the above?  Has it happened?  Well, yeah, once or twice (e.g. Jackson) but the better question is how often does it not happen (that would be "nearly always.")  Further, in what other profession is using your former job as a means of extracting favors from others after you quit legal?  In most professions this would be considered bribery and prosecuted.  In Washington DC it's called lobbying and is not only legal it's arguably the largest "industry" in the city!

Next, we get a group that passes laws and then intentionally and blatantly refuses to enforce them.  Obamacare is just one example that has been in the news of late; arguably the worst is in fact The Federal Reserve Act, a law that specifically lays forth a duty to regulate both money and credit supply so as to prohibit inflation.  This law is in fact exactly correct in that it identifies both money and credit as fungible and imposes the correct duty upon the FOMC.

Congress and the Executive have, however, factually not only permitted but egged on the willful and intentional violation of that law for over 100 years serially by our banks, allegedly regulated by The Fed, and not once has that law been enforced against the banks nor has sanction been applied to The Fed for their willful and intentional refusal to enforce the law despite the fact that they publicly and loudly proclaim their willful and intentional violation of same.

This is why a dollar earned when you're 20 only buys 26 cents worth of product in constant terms when you turn 65.  This is not an accident, it is in fact a stated policy of The Fed in direct and blatant violation of the very statute that enables The Fed to exist.

We, the people of this nation, deserve what we get from our government.  It would be one thing if these abuses were hidden and not blatantly in your face, as one could claim ignorance.  But over the years these rank violations of law and refusal to enforce them equally, including against Congress and the Executive itself, have become so openly brazen that we factually allowed an entire county (Jefferson County, Alabama to be precise) to be robbed through hinky derivative deals that were proved in a court of law to be undertaken in part as a consequence of outright bribery and yet the entities that were beneficiaries of the outcome of those bribes were not prosecuted and the people who live there, totaling roughly a million citizens, are still being forced to pay, in perpetuity, for the outcome of that corruption!

There comes a time when one must concede that a people abused are in fact masochists, for they are openly and notoriously consenting to the gross and outrageous acts that are perpetrated against them.

As we pass Tax Day perhaps it's time to reflect and ask that singular question: Are we there yet?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

It's over folks.

Samsung quite-clearly has soft sales on their new GS-5.  How do I know?  Because Verizon is giving away one with a purchase (on contract.)  That is, "buy one, get one."  That's unprecedented for a new flagship device.

Apple has seen soft demand as well against their expectations.

And now there are rumors that Amazon wants "in" that market.  Oh yeah, that'll work out well.  Facebook's venture into phones anyone?

If you have an angle -- something unique -- then you might be able to make it stick.  But in the main handsets are a commodity, and one that is now going to undergo rapid depreciation in price as everyone races toward the bottom of the margin barrel.

This same process happened with personal computers, and indeed it eventually happens with all technology.  You start with an "exclusive" on something "new", but eventually the "panache" fades with the teens, the tweenies and twenty-somethings waving around their latest bling, leaving you with a business that becomes increasingly cut-throat.

T-Mobile is in trouble in this regard too.  Many look at their recent "hidden" $200 offer to upgrade people out of BlackBerry handsets and into Samsung's 5 as yet another attack on BlackBerry.  Nope.  It's yet more evidence of soft demand; why would you otherwise double the previous offer on the newest "hot" device?  Note too that his offer is not open-ended either; it only applies to people on contracted plans who are still "upgrade eligible", which tells me quite a lot about motivation.  Someone fears being stuck with a lot of high-priced "zero day" launch inventory, and that inventory doesn't say "BlackBerry" on its face.

T-Mobile's petulant child Lagere is headed for some fun of the difficult sort.  He may think that there's something magical about the size of his manhood, matched only by the volume of his mouth, but he's wrong.  The simple fact is that he's trying to play margin games in a business where service quality has deteriorated to the point that people will accept cheap but not cheap and crappy.  Oh sure, the "underdog" and "scrappy gamester" motif looks good up front, but under the covers T-Mobile is actually raising prices and cutting feature set as their customer acquisition strategy "at all costs" hasn't done a thing for the red ink they're generating.  That's bad, by the way.

One of the bigger problems with US carriers is the lack of interoperability of hardware and the tying arrangements that result -- and that is bad for customers.  We put up with it in the US pretty much because we have to; it's been the legacy of the business in this nation.  That doesn't mean it makes sense; it simply means that monopoly behavior going back to the "A" and "B" carriers in the AMPS world has been the order of the day for so long that there literally was never a different model here in the US.

Legere is trying to claim he's "different" but that's horsecrap; all he is really doing is trying to buy share in a mature market by raiding other people.  Unfortunately he's up against the same reality as is everyone else -- hardware has transitioned to a commodity business, service expansion is expensive and trying to drive sales through various gimmicks and raids on other players (along with petulant displays of hubris) is all you have left in a market where everyone over the age of 10 already has a cellphone.

Add to this the "must make the quarter" Wall Street focus and you have a recipe for much hilarity in the upcoming months and years.  While AT&T and Verizon have sort of "responded" the key here is "sort of"; neither has mounted a clean response as of yet but you can bet they will, and when they do Lagere is going to look like the mouse that tried to roar but the sound you heard was the squeak of being crushed underfoot.  The market seems to sense this is coming too; after a clean double from the spin-off IPO last year the firm's stock is down over 10% thus far in 2014.

The problem, in the end, is that you need profits in business and I've yet to see a concise plan for how Lagere intends to achieve those aims.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Oh oh.....

Braman vs CME

The CME has categorically denied that this "enhanced" or "first look" data feed exists.  Further, there have been multiple statements made by the media and various participants on the floor of these exchanges in which the claim has been made that these venues are not polluted by the sort of "HFT direct connection" cancer that appears to be all over the stock exchanges.

This lawsuit alleges otherwise, and further lays forth a very-specific statement of misconduct (read starting near the bottom of page 6.)

Either these folks are full of it or they're not.  

There is little middle ground possible.

This one bears watching folks.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

This is one of those stories that is very difficult to get anything approaching accurate full-scope information on, especially with everyone on all sides of the issue spinning like plates on sticks.  With that said, I'll take a crack at it.

Federal land managers say "escalating tensions" led them to release all 400 or so head of cattle rounded up on public land in southern Nevada from a rancher who has refused to recognize their authority.

Bureau of Land Management Chief Neil Kornze announced an abrupt halt to the weeklong roundup just hours before the release.

"Based on information about conditions on the ground and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concerns about the safety of employees and members of the public," Kornze said in a statement.

The apparent beginning of this came when the BLM decided many years ago that a specific endangered tortoise meant it could seize land from Nevada and "protect" it -- land that historically (and the history is very, very long, apparently dating back to the 1870s!) had been used by Bundy's family to graze cattle.

There's an inherent problem here with Federalism that nobody appears to be taking on face-first, and that's no surprise.  First principles no longer seem to be principles at all when it comes to this nation.  Mr. Bundy's refusal to recognize what amounted to federalization of land his family had used in a non-destructive and renewable fashion, and to which he had made material improvements over the years without trying to claim exclusive rights, facially appears to be rather reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances.

BLM claims that Bundy owes the government over $1 million in "grazing fees."  But BLM arguably owes Bundy for the appreciated value to the land that his improvements conferred and which they confiscated; the 5th Amendment prohibits this sort of "taking" without compensation.  How does this all pencil out?  I don't know -- we don't have an accurate accounting and nobody is looking at that angle of this dispute at all.

Then there is the attempted impoundment and impending destruction of the cattle that BLM tried to implement.  There were allegations that BLM intended to not just remove the cattle but steal and sell them into the commercial meat market, an act for which nobody has produced anything approaching judicially-valid process to back up.  An order to remove (which a judge allegedly issued) is not the same thing as an order to seize and dispose.  

Note carefully that cattle rustling has historically been an offense over which one can get shot.  And theft is theft no matter who commits the offense; absent a judicial order of seizure and disposal, which BLM has not produced, that is in fact exactly what they did.

Irrespective of all of this, and I'm still trying to get my arms around the full extent of where rationality would come down in light of it, the BLM was challenged by a modest but rapidly-growing group of citizens who simply said "No, you have gone too far and you're not going to do this.  End of discussion."  BLM then unilaterally decided that speech was not something to be respected either and tried to play "time, place and manner" games in the Nevada desert with an alleged "protest zone."  The people said nuts to that as well, and apparently were willing to defend themselves if accosted.

For now the BLM has capitulated and released the cattle they appear to have stolen, along with withdrawing their massed armed agents and equipment.  They have vowed to continue the fight in the courts, which of course they have the right to do.

Finally, as a backdrop to all of this mess, there are allegations that Harry Reid (yes, Mr. Senator) is involved in attempting to steal some of this land at a well-below-market-value price for some sort of solar energy project (run by one of his alleged pals) and that there are apparently mineral interests that would like to drill on it too, all of which would be incompatible with cattle grazing.  At this point I've been unable to validate the alleged corruption aspects of this to a degree that I'm comfortable with considering them driving forces behind this move, but they have been raised by multiple individuals and there does at least appear to be a facial appearance of impropriety.

I'm continuing to investigate this situation and, I will add, it looks a lot more complicated than many have made it appear at first blush.  I can't be certain how I'll come down on the facts when it is all "aired out", but for now it appears that an outbreak of violence is off the table, and that is an unquestionable good.

Let's hope that whatever the final resolution things stay that way.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
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.


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.