The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
2014-08-12 15:27 by Karl Denninger
in Earnings , 275 references
 

One-hit wunderkind horsecrap hype-based IPOs are a good way to get your teeth kicked in.

The company attempted to play financial engineering (with a "special dividend") to blunt the impact of their earnings release but it didn't help; the shares got crushed for 20% after the close.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2014-08-12 14:08 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 1424 references
 

Well, duh!

U.S. jobs pay an average 23% less today than they did before the 2008 recession, according to a new report released on Monday by the United States Conference of Mayors.

What did you expect, idiots?

You want, promote, elected and cheer on a Congress and President who have exactly two goals:

  • Deficit spending -- that is, counterfeiting of the currency, albeit via legal means.  This makes the value in real terms of every dollar less.  Productivity and technology improvements should mean that each hour of labor buys more goods and services; that is, you need fewer hours of work to buy the same number of pounds of hamburger, shelter for your home, gallons of gasoline and surgeries in the local hospital.  The exact opposite has happened because the government had $5 trillion in unbacked currency issued by deficit spending in the system in 2007; today it has $12.57 trillion, or 2.5x as much.  That entire $7,570 billion, or over $22,000 per man, woman and child in this country, has come directly out of your hide and the worst of the impact has been taken by the poor and lower middle class.

  • Asset (stock and home, specifically) prices are the only thing that matters.  It does not matter if the "prices" result from ridiculous speculation or even fraud; intentionally inflated appraisals, derivatives and securities that are sold by banks as "good values" even when their own employees call them "vomit" internally, thousands of appraisers file a petition demanding an investigation of alleged extortion by lenders and agents demanding that they press values higher without response and more!  Further, that counterfeiting by definition pressures "asset prices" higher for the simple reason that when you can issue unbacked credit nobody has to actually back their hot checks to buy assets with money!

There is this common belief that one can have a "free lunch" but that is false; you can press price higher but if you're a common person and want to buy a house you want lower prices, just like you want lower prices for cars, steak, gasoline and medical care.

The only people who want those higher prices are those who wish to sell a greater sucker what they allegedly "own", even though they never put any real excess capital - that is, actual earned funds from economic activity - into their allegedly "owned" assets.

The problem is that by asset-stripping the ordinary person those prices become unsustainable; the only way the consumer can keep up the charade is by borrowing more and more money either directly or indirectly (e.g. via government handouts) and when the check is presented and cannot be paid for said behavior prices will correct -- violently -- toward value.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

"After that controversial shooting"....

What was controversial about it?  You mean the apparent fact that the kid was shot in the back?

It is alleged that the deceased assaulted the cop and attempted to grab his gun.  However, it appears that the suspect was shot multiple times outside of the vehicle and he was unarmed and leaving -- that is, after the confrontation in the vehicle.

Can you shoot someone who's fleeing?  Maybe yes, maybe no -- that's very circumstantial, but the general rule is "No" unless you have reason to believe the person targeted is armed and imminently dangerous to others.

The former "fleeing felon" (which is in and of itself in question here) standard has pretty-much been removed by various court cases, and what's pretty clear at this point is that at the time the officer unloaded on him he was not an imminent threat to anyone.

But -- that's what appears to have been the case.  We don't know what was the case, at this point.

We also don't know why the officer involved the kid (that is, grabbed him) in the first place; that's not being disclosed. Why not?

Nor is there apparently any video of the incident itself despite the PD having recently bought cameras -- they "haven't yet been put into use."

Shooting unarmed people that are not actively attacking you tends to be a pretty good way to rile up the population.  After all the ordinary citizen who does that sort of thing is usually staring down a Murder or Manslaugher charge, but when the cops do it the worst thing that usually happens is that they get paid leave off for a while.

At the core what cops nationally, not just in a racially-divided area near St. Louis, ought to be asking themselves is this:  When you claim special privileges for yourself nobody else has, when you actively campaign for people to be helpless against armed felony violence except to call you when it happens and then when you shoot someone that is unarmed, becoming the aggressor after promising to be the defender and promoting yourself as one, can you realistically expect anything different than what you got in this instance?

More to the point if this doesn't point out the stupidity of "up-arming and armoring" the cops into paramilitary forces what do you need to see in order for that to become apparent - an entire city sacked simply due to grossly superior numbers of*****ed-off citizens?

There is exactly one way for law enforcement to be effective: The cops must have the trust and engagement of the population at large.  There is no other option.  There wasn't 50 years ago, there wasn't 20 years ago and there isn't now.  Technology and lots of guns (including really big ones) don't change a damn thing; there aren't enough cops, and never can be, for it to matter if the people refuse to cooperate or worse actively act against the police, even if they're only armed with (comparatively) sticks and bottles.

You can't get where you need to be from here when you stick a red-light camera on every light pole, interrogate everyone who walks around and decide that someone smoking a joint ought to do 20 years in prison while the bankster that bilks people out of billions and the hospital CEO who bankrupts damn near everyone his organization "treats" not only walks free but get to keep their plunder and add to it on a daily basis.

Yeah, I know, that's a bunch of stereotypes but those come about because there's a kernel of truth in all of them, and everyone knows it too.

Maybe if we started prosecuting everyone who shoots someone that isn't actively attacking someone else, cop or not, instead of placing them on "administrative leave", the people might be far less inclined to riot and would be willing to wait for a proper trial on the evidence to take place.

Maybe if we started arresting all the people who had destroyed the economic security and purchasing power of the people in this city and across the country, starting with banksters, hospital CEOs and Federal Reserve board members, there might be a stronger belief that one could find justice before the law and the ability to earn a fair living through their own efforts -- and far less economic malaise in the first place.

And maybe -- just maybe -- if we started treating ordinary people as the first responders that they actually are, and left them alone whether or not they decided to carry whatever they wanted for personal defense right up until they attempted to commit a felony against another person or someone's property (with or without such a device), we wouldn't be trying to stuff nearly so many young people into cop cars in the first place either.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Oh please.

Business Insider: What did you hope to accomplish by publishing your resignation letter?

Max Schireson: I wanted to publicly talk about the challenges of work/life balance I think many people face, not only women. I hope it will help in a couple of ways, to help men feel more comfortable talking about these issues.

Horsecrap.

First off, a CEO in a silly valley startup is hardly the "model" that anyone ought to be considering or talking about.  Simply on the numbers this is such an outlying example that it will apply to virtually nobody, and yet if you internalize it you'll likely make a serious error in your evaluative process.

The far more common entrepreneurial model is the small businessman or woman who sets up a company and it grows from one or two people to a couple of dozen.  There are hundreds of thousands of such examples, and that is well within the ordinary person's reach.

But here's the "balance" problem you have to deal with -- there is an enormous amount of sacrifice required to achieve success in that endeavor.  You cannot back off.  You do not have a life.  Anyone who gets involved with you has to understand that this is the deal; you're trading away a decade or two of your life for potential success and the ability to relax down the road -- but you can't have it all now, and some of those things you'll never have, because they're time dependent and you've committed your time elsewhere. Worse, there's no guarantee you'll get to enjoy any of it at all; more than a few people who push this hard (and it is hard) wind up falling over dead from a heart attack at 40.  If you can't take a vow that will last a couple of decades and keep it, even when it means not getting what you want, you're ill-suited to this sort of path forward.

Further, when you embark on such a path you have to understand that the odds of success on the first try are very small.  You can succeed, but you'll probably fail, likely more than once, before you find that success.  "Fail" means near-destitution financially, complete with eating pork-n-beans and Ramen for a while, it probably means taking a job working for someone else (and quite-possibly from someone who is a real ******* as a boss too) because you need to eat, and it means re-grouping and taking another shot at it, which in turn means you do your 8 hours in the office and then come home and spend 4 more writing your next business plan!

In other words, you still have no life.

The oft-heard mantra of "balance" from women's groups is horse**** and it is equally horse**** coming from a guy like this.  As someone who has been there and done that, I'm qualified to speak on this topic.

In our narcissistic world this is a tough grape to choke down and it is the rare person indeed who wants a partner that's honest about this path, the challenges and risks it presents, and the opportunity along with it.  Everyone wants it "now" -- that is, just the opportunity -- but you can't have it all now, unless you're one of the anointed few (or just lucky.)  Oh sure, there are exceptions, but most of them are either dumb luck, chicanery or outright fraud, all of which come with terrible risk; more than a few people who have tried that route have wound up in prison instead of sucking down MaiTais, and even more have lost everything when their "dream", which was really nothing more than gross abuse of financial leverage, blew up in their face.

This is why most people want a "safe, secure job."  Well, guess what -- you can't have that either!  Major corporations are importing huge numbers of Indians (yes, from India!) on H1B visas to the point that in many offices they're the majority of their employees.  Why?  Because they can get someone who will work for $50,000 a year or less while you, with the same skills, would demand twice that.  The problem is that it's not just the money -- it's your narcissism and demand to have balance in your life, which means when you're on deadline, well, the kid's soccer match has to be attended instead of the extra four hours at the computer.

We, the people of this nation, need to pull our heads out of our asses.  We have demanded it all and yet that's impossible.  We cannot have a welfare state that spends more than it takes in via government without destroying the purchasing power of our money, and guess what -- this is why two-income families are now often worse off than a single-income one was 30 years ago.  Years ago one person in a family went out and earned money, usually (but not always) the man, and the other adult (usually the woman) stayed home and took care of the other half of the equation.  The so-called "revolution" that "equalized" the genders did no such thing; it was an open and notorious fraud, in that it came about with and as a result of a demand to spend ever more than we taken in through government programs to make everyone equal, or at least ok. 

But you can't get there from here and as a result despite the overwhelming technological progress in the last 50 years it is now basically impossible for a common laborer to provide for a family of four in a decent house, where it was not that long ago that such was ordinary.

It's our fault, nobody else's.  Companies like Infosys are responding to the environment they're given, just as are all those firms doing the "tax inversion" thing.  

You cannot have it all and neither can our nation.  As a nation we have stop kidding ourselves and stop voting for a living; there is no such thing as a free lunch, and the worst part of those who sell that to you are that the poor and lower-middle classes, to whom that is marketing the loudest and longest, get the worst part of the impact that deficit spending has.

But in the personal sense this sort of article infuriates because it is at its core a lie.  The lie is that you can be like Mike (Jordan.)

No, for 99.9% of the people, you can't.  Michael Jordan has a capability that neither you or I can emulate.  If the harm done to you is that you bought an overpriced set of shoes that's what marketing does.  

But if it destroys your family and future then someone needs to be hung up by the balls for their deception.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

~30% off across the board on all the current models.  That puts the Z10 at just over $200 and the Z30 at $349.

The Passport is coming, obviously... which I am lusting after.

Good deals to be had if you want one.... all unlocked and carrier-agnostic.

Go to Store.Shopblackberry.com....

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.

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.