The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Corruption]
2017-08-01 13:25 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 215 references
[Comments enabled]  

The latest.....

A Portland man accused of brutally attacking a 65-year-old woman has a history of arrests, at least 20 deportations and was released by local authorities in defiance of a federal immigration hold.

....

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lodged an immigration detainer against Martinez in December 2016, asking local authorities to notify them before releasing Martinez. However, he was released into the community and ICE was not notified.

So in other words ICE knew he was in custody.

But, because they are ****ing lazy, they didn't show up and camp there until he was released, which would have ended with him being arrested on the steps of the jail, he was "released into the community" and allegedly went on to******a 65 year old woman.

For this we blame..... everyone but ICE.

Note that in these cases there is never an allegation that ICE didn't know that the alleged perpetrator was in custody; in fact to issue a detainer they had to know, otherwise how would they be aware of the need or desire to issue one?

No, what's being alleged is that Portland is responsible for ICE's incompetence or unwillingness to sit a federal officer with arresting authority at wherever this guy was and pick him up when Portland is done with him.

In other words ICE IS LAZY -- instead of doing their job they're jacking off while collecting a paycheck.

There is a difference between refusal to proactively cooperate and active concealment.  One is your right, the other is a felony.  I have yet to hear of a jurisdiction that is actively concealing the fact that they have persons in custody; ICE seems to find out about them just fine, and quickly too -- quickly enough to issue their so-called "detainers."

Well, if they can issue a "detainer" they can also issue an agent to the location where said person is and immediately arrest him or her when they are released.

Put the blame where it belongs folks -- this woman was raped because our federal government intentionally, with full knowledge of the fact that this jackass had been deported 20 times while being only 31 years old, was in custody and instead of sending an agent to arrest him they sent an email.

Just like instead of investigating when the FBI was called by a flight simulator owner prior to 9/11 with the information that a bunch of towel-heads were buying time with $100 bills, had prayer mats with them and didn't want to learn how to land they jacked off in their offices and collected their salaries resulting in the death of 3,000 Americans.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2017-07-31 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 611 references
[Comments enabled]  

Read this one folks.

More evidence-based options have emerged for secondary prevention. The Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial (IMPROVE-IT)4 reported that adding ezetimibe to effective statin therapy in stable patients who experienced an acute coronary syndrome reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) from 70 mg/dL to 54 mg/dL (to convert LDL-C from mg/dL to mmol/L, multiply by 0.0259), and reduced risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease outcome at 7 years from 34.7% to 32.7%. The Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects with Elevated Risk (FOURIER) trial5 reported that the addition of evolocumab, a proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, to effective statin therapy reduced LDL-C from 92 mg/dL to 30 mg/dL and decreased the composite cardiovascular outcome over 2.2 years from 11.3% to 9.8%, a 15% relative reduction. Of note, both drugs were only tested in high-risk individuals.

There are some caveats to the new evidence. Although no significant safety signals emerged with either drug, some consider the benefits to be relatively small. The US Food and Drug Administration determined in 2016 that the IMPROVE-IT trial was insufficient to expand the label for ezetimibe to include reducing the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke. 

Left unmentioned is the meta-analysis that I recently reported on in which all-cause mortality was not decreased by any of these "therapies."

So yeah, you might get a 15% relative reduction in heart attack risk (but a real reduction of about 1.5%!but other causes of mortality go up by enough to erase the alleged "benefit."

May I remind you that dead is dead and the reason is only of interest to people who have a reason to pump "interventions" that cost money?

Speaking of which, let's talk conflicts:

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The author has completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and reported that he received research grants from Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), the US Food and Drug Administration, all through Yale; works under contract with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; chairs a cardiac scientific advisory board for UnitedHealth; is a participant and participant representative of the IBM Watson Health Life Sciences Board; is a member of the Advisory Board for Element Science and the Physician Advisory Board for Aetna; and is the founder of Hugo, a personal health information platform.

Two sources of funds make and sell things in the medical space, and what's worse two more are regulated insurance companies who can only make more money, since their operating margins are regulated, if the cost of health care goes up.

You got that one folks?  Let it sink in -- companies that are limited to a "X" operating margin (for insurance firms it's typically 10%) can only make more money if the gross amount of loss in whatever is being insured against rises.

There is no other way to make more because their margins are fixed; there is no opportunity to make more money by becoming more efficient as a firm because that will simply be clawed back through forcible reduction of premiums charged by the states.

Therefore they are incentivized to waste money (rather than save it) and to see the underlying expense of whatever they're insuring against go up instead of down.

This is not a function of whether someone's an ******* it is a simple fact of arithmetic that nobody can change so long as the firm in question is regulated insurer!

Then there's this, which at this point is nearly 10 years old in print:

When asked why, he gave the Journal a cryptic answer in the form of a Japanese proverb: "The indigo dyer wears white trousers."

That's the guy who invented statins -- he was at the time up for the Lasker Award, often called "America's Nobel."

The question asked him of him was why won't he take them since his cholesterol was elevated and they were recommended to him?

The answer he gave, quoted above, is one that only an intelligent individual understands -- which, presumably, all doctors are or their credential, a PhD, is worthless.

Here's what that quote means, if you happen to be unaware: Indigo dye is inherently toxic and a residual from the process remains on the clothes and thus harms the wearerwhich the dyer is fully aware of. He thus won't wear his own product because he knows it will harm or kill him but he finds no problem selling that problem to others despite actual knowledge of its harm.

Given these facts and the lack of disclosure of the recent published work showing no reduction in all-cause mortality for this class of drugs, along with the now ten year old quote from the guy who discovered them, perhaps you can explain why the rope hasn't come out and the search for lampposts begun in earnest by the general public, with the strong implication made that either politicians fix this rank exploitation and outrageous asset-stripping (not to mention intentional harm) by the medical industry, putting a stop to both using existing, 100+ year old law, or the people WILL using far less-pleasant means.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2017-07-30 13:23 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 239 references
[Comments enabled]  

.... from Payola, which the government went after in spades in years gone by?

 (Under U.S. law and FCC regulations, Payola is illegal on radio, but those laws do not apply to digital streaming platforms.) According to a 2015 Billboard article, a major-label marketing executive confirmed that pay-for-play is (or was) definitely happening.“According to a source, the price can range from $2,000 for a playlist with tens of thousands of fans to $10,000 for the more well-followed playlists.” And many are already calling the platform’s new “Sponsored Songs” endeavor a 2017 incarnation of payola.

Oh wait -- it's not illegal "on streaming."

See how that works?  You simply put "Internet" in front of something, an old scam is revived and nobody goes to prison.

Ain't that special......

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2017-07-28 06:36 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 313 references
[Comments enabled]  

It's often said that there is an economy of scale to larger operations, and this forms the basis on which people think that mergers often lead to efficiency improvements and thus benefit consumers and the economy in general.

But those who have run a business have seen a far less-pleasant side -- one that is never talked about on Tout TV, irrespective of the particular channel you might be on.

It's simply this: In a nation where the law is routinely ignored by executives and others size simply means you get to rip people off through illegal acts that a smaller competitor wouldn't dream of attempting.

When I ran MCSNet I saw this sort of crap on occasion with certain suppliers and others with whom I did business.  A few times I was able to stick my boot up someone's ass and neuter the impact that it was going to have on my firm but doing so required my inner ******* to be prominently displayed.  But there were other times that the entity doing it simply didn't give a damn; they had bought off the right people or were simply smug in their seats, knowing that nobody was going to go to jail in their outfit and thus the outcome was a middle finger in my face, laws and regulations be damned.

As consolidation and the Internet have grown this problem has gotten much worse.  Advertising has always been a snake-pit; it's expensive as hell no matter the media and it's also very hard to measure effectiveness.  When I ran MCSNet we had all sorts of media outlets that wanted us as customers, of course -- radio, TV, newspapers, billboards and more.  The only media that ever worked on a demonstrable basis was a certain set of radio timeslots and channels and, not-surprisingly, when a trade show came into town and we could get booth space at a reasonable price.  The in-person press-the-flesh and handing out of various premium items, whether they be pens or coffee mugs had a fantastic ROI -- everything else, not so much.

The Internet ad space has made it a lot worse in terms of measurement.  They all claim they can "prove" effectiveness, but that's not true.  The facts are that if you ran Internet ads years ago you got a lot of clicks -- and conversions.  Now you get damn near zero clicks, and while those you do get may convert what you can't measure is the number of people you provoke a revulsion response in instead of an interest.

That's a big problem; it only takes once where you produce that response in a potential customer and you've lost them forever.  As more and more ads hit someone's screen and more of them become intrusive the risk of this response goes up.

Now take P&G.  They've massively pulled back from Internet ads and just reported earnings.  The net impact on their sales from not spending all that money?  Zero.  Not minor, not a bit, not a measurable amount, zero.

What does this tell you about the value that an Internet ad had for their company?

There was none; they had a cash bonfire in handing said cash to Zuckerpig!

Of course nobody is talking about that.  If they did Facebook wouldn't have an ad market worth much of anything.  How do you think these guys actually manage to get the sort of ARPU they claim?  Is the alleged value claimed actually possible, when one considers that for any ad campaign the profit generated from the additional sales resulting from the campaign must exceed the campaign's cost or you're literally setting bonfires in your back yard with $100 bills!

Think about this folks -- Facebook claims they made about $20 per user in the United States and Canada.  Remember, this is the same company that claims that more than 80% of all persons over the age of 16 in the US and Canada are on their system monthly. I don't believe that to be true for one second, but the "ad folks" all tell you (especially Facebook execs!) that they don't have a "click robot" problem.  Uh huh.  Look folks, I know they have plenty of people with two, three or more "profiles" -- that is, there really isn't 80+% penetration, but exactly how many so-called "active users" are cats, dogs, robots and simply people who maintain more than one account I don't know.

Note that Facebook's ARPU hasn't changed much in the last three quarters in the US but the ad load has gone ballistic.  In other words they're spamming you more and getting less per spam and someone is paying them for those ads in the US and Canada.  Is this a "good" or "growing" business when you're increasing ad load dramatically but can't convert it into more money?  No; you in fact have a degenerating business.

Now let's look at Spamazon.  I will forever call them that, by the way, because very early in their existence they actually earned an entry in MCSNet's system spamblock list.  We were the first ISP that I'm aware of to offer incoming spam email filtering to all of our customers along with a default list that we maintained that each user could use, decline, or customize as they wished.  Not long after Spamazon came on the scene I placed them in the system's blacklist, which drew an immediate response from them and protest that they "hadn't" spammed anyone.

There was a problem with their claim: It was a lie, and the reason I knew it was a lie was that in addition to spamming several of the customers on my ISP who reported it to me they actually spammed ME personally as well!  At the time I had never bought anything from the company, so they had no business relationship with me of any sort; as such it was as clean a definition of "spam" as one could find.  They shut up fast when they realized that I actually had them dead cold with the full emails in my possession, including the headers.  They stopped doing it shortly thereafter but the point here was that the company did this because they thought they could get away with it and they lied directly to me about it because they though they could get away with that too.

Has that sort of behavior changed?  No.

Remember, Amazon as a retailer makes less profit than a grocery store on a margin basis. This not new either; their retail operations ex-media have never made any material amount of profit.  Ever.  Wall Street has given Jeff Bezos a pass on this for more than two decades because they have always maintained "we can make a profit any time we want to; we'd just rather grow sales instead."

Really?

Where's the evidence for that?  More than two decades in you'd think there would be some, but there isn't.  When does someone in the media stand up and call Beelzebub by his proper name and point out that zero times anything is still zero!

I'll tell you where evidence for their "ability" to succeed in turning a profit is not -- it's not in their pricing policies and with AWS turning into a commodity soon the ability for it to subsidize the rest of their money losing operation will disappear too.  Then what?

Don't talk to me about all the "other bets" Amazon supposedly has done so well with.  Remember the Fire phone?  How about the Fire tablet?  Both were going to take over the world, remember?  One was going to destroy Samsung and the other Apple's iPad.  Neither amounted to anything; they were both flat-out zeros in terms of sales and operating income.  When you can't find the sales percentage left of the decimal point in the quarterly report it's a waste of time.

When it comes to pricing Amazon has been caught repeatedly misleading customers on the pricing history of things they sell in an attempt to make you think you're getting a "deal" when in fact you're not.  They've been sued a few times over it too, and when they settled or paid fines they have of course vowed to "sin no more", while never really admitting fault -- that is, they never admit to having sinned in the first place.  That's the corporate way, you see -- when you're big enough.

The truth appears to be something else entirely.  Here are two pieces (here and here), both by Consumerwatchdog, on Amazon's pricing.  Notice something interesting -- of the so-called "Sale" prices, that is, items Amazon claims are "on sale" (marked down) in all but one case the "Sale" price is not actually a reduced price.  That is the claim of a "Sale" is a lie, it's a lie intended to induce you to purchase and if the report is true that's ILLEGAL specifically under FTC regulations and state consumer protection laws.

Never mind their other "marked" types of prices -- "List" or "Previously" or whatever, which also appear to be fictitious.  In fact there is only one set of "strike through" prices on Amazon that actually reflect a previously charged price -- those with no labels at all.

People often claim that some business has been "Amazoned".  In fact that's the rallying cry that has been responsible for the huge run-up in the company's stock.

Well, yes, perhaps they have been "Amazoned."  But is that because Amazon is a better retailer?  On the evidence when it comes to beating competitors on price, in other words benefiting consumers, the answer appears to be no.  On the evidence when it comes to profit margins in the retail business the answer is also demonstrably no by their own quarterly reports and in fact from my own going through their quarterly and annual reports Amazon has never made a decent margin on product sales, other than in media (books.)  And finally when it comes to AWS their margins are collapsing as well, which means there the answer is also "No."

But what being "Amazoned" does appear to mean is that like all large companies the middle finger goes up a lot when it comes to Amazon actually obeying the law and there they really do enjoy an advantage.

Folks, if you or I set up shop somewhere and started posting fictitious "Sale" prices our asses would be in a sling in weeks if not days.  Yet Jeff Beezlebub has been doing this for years, has been caught multiple times, fined multiple times and yet the practice continues with the company "testing" various ways to mislead people into thinking they're getting a deal when in fact they're not.

Why?

Because Jeff Beelzebub is confident there will never be an effective corrective action taken by federal or state authorities, that's why.  It's the same reason he thinks it's all cool to squeeze suppliers by pitting them against each other to the point that none of them can make any profit at all, especially when the Chinese counterfeits start showing up.  Oh, need I remind you that a small firm that imports counterfeit goods and sells them risks having their door padlocked by the government for blatantly trafficking in counterfeit trademarked goods yet Beelzebub has exactly zero fear of that happening to him.

Not even a market crash will bother Beelzebub much at this point. In the last few months alone he's sold nearly a billion worth of stock to the suckers (that would be you) who now are going to get stuck with it.  Thank people like Cramer and all the so-called "analysts" in the so-called "investment houses" for pumping up the bubble and issuing "buys" on stocks with P/Es beyond the limits of the solar system so the favored few can take your money -- again.

This same sort of corporate horse**** is also why your local hospital thinks they can charge one person 10x as much as another, buy up all the local clinics and then raise their prices, collude to keep people from setting up a competing MRI center and more.  It's why the entire medical system thinks it can get away with extorting you into buying worthless "health insurance" with a $6,000 deductible and then hammering you for the entire $6,000 when you need five stitches in the ER, with the procedure requiring all of 15 minutes of time and a dollar's worth of supplies.  It's why drug makers think they can get away with charging $80,000 for a drug in the United States and $2,000 in another country, and they back that belief up with actually getting laws passed to block you from going over to the other nation with an extra suitcase!

None of this is economy of scale folks.

It's eCONomy of SCAM.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2017-07-23 09:04 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 310 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is what happens folks.

It's why I keep telling people who think they're going to "flee" America for some land of milk and honey to stay away from the mess here that they're just jumping from the frying pan into the fire -- and while the protections here are few, there they don't exist at all.

The scene at the swim-up bar at the Mexican resort where Abbey Conner was pulled listless from the pool in January was full of young tourists last month when an attorney hired by Conner’s family showed up.

It wasn’t surprising. It was a typical scene at an all-inclusive five-star resort where foreigners from both sides of the equator flock to escape their cold winters.

But as he watched, the attorney noticed something disturbing.

“They serve alcoholic drinks with alcohol of bad quality and in great amounts, mixing different types of drinks,” he wrote in his native Spanish.

So basically the allegation here is that the booze is being tainted, either deliberately (by bartenders in cahoots with thugs who then rob the target or worse) or as a means of cost-cutting, damn the consequences.

I tend to believe it's not the latter, by the way.  But the statistics are sobering: 

A 2015 report from Mexico’s Tax Administration Service found that 43% of all the alcohol consumed in the nation is illegal, produced under unregulated circumstances resulting in potentially dangerous concoctions.

What?  More than 40%?!  Yet you want to go to this country and party?

I had no idea -- my daughter and I were there on a cruise over the Christmas holidays.  That's flat-out nuts.

No, I will not be back.  No, I don't want to find out the hard way that I'm an extortion target -- or just a victim of a corrupt government and business environment that cares so little about anything but money that they'll adulterate the booze they sell.  As if the money isn't good enough just selling honest liquor, right?

Folks, this is what a degenerating society looks like.  It's here too, in the United States.  You can find it in your local doctor's office or hospital -- the same sort of extortion racket.  Oh sure, it's a bit "softer" in that it doesn't feature (most of the time anyway) adulterated drugs.  It doesn't have to -- instead they prescribe worthless medications such a Statins that have a list of known side effects that screw your health up -- and of course they then charge you to fix what they broke.

No thank you.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
A One-Sentence Bill To Force The Health-Care Issue

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 sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means 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, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

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.