Baltic Dry Index. 1846 -09 Brent
Crude 58.92 Spot Gold 1485
Never ending Brexit now October 31, maybe. 9 days away.
Trump’s Nuclear China Tariffs Now In Effect.
The USA v EU trade war starts October 18. Underway.
Sir, I have found you an argument. I am not
obliged to find you an understanding.
Dr. Samuel Johnson.
With US stock markets churning away near the highs, and
suspicions raised about US v China trade war statements being gamed, time to
ask the question, are stock markets rigged. More precisely, is the US stock
market rigged, by whom, why, and for who’s benefit?
With stocks trading near the highs, why are so many in
America poor? If the American economy is “the best ever,” why are US voters
flirting with electing a Democrat Socialist President?
What happens to stocks when the next recession hits? Will
the Fed monetise stocks via repos “to infinity and beyond.”
To this old dinosaur market follower, something “big” has gone “bigly”
wrong in the financial system.
Asian markets up on fresh hopes for U.S.-China ‘phase-one’ trade deal
By Marketwatch
and Associated
Press Published: Oct 21, 2019 11:46
p.m. ET
“Unlike previous trade talks where expectations centered on the view that something is better than nothing, this time around there appears to be a tangible and workable roadmap in place which is supported by official confirmation that the U.S. and China were both on the same page about the intent to work towards Phase 1 of a ‘deal’ by mid-November,” Stephen Innes, Asia Pacific market strategist for AxiTrader, wrote in a note. “And the fact that Phase 2 is even being discussed at this time, which contains ‘actual meat’ according to United States Secretary of Commerce, suggesting that both U.S. and China may have finally found a bridge that isn’t too far.”
More
Oil steady on weak demand concerns despite U.S.-China trade optimism
October 22, 2019 /
2:03 AM
SEOUL
(Reuters) - Oil prices were little changed Tuesday as lingering worries over a
global economic slowdown that could hurt oil demand offset some signs of
progress in U.S.-China trade talks.
Brent
crude oil futures LCOc1 were down 6 cents, or 0.1% to $58.90 a barrel by 0309
GMT, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures CLc1 were flat at
$53.31 per barrel.
“Crude oil prices remained in the doldrums, with ongoing economic
weakness weighing on sentiment,” it added.
Brent has fallen 22% from its April peak, while WTI is down 20%.
Although there are some signs of easing tensions between the world’s two
largest economies, U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said on Monday that an
initial trade deal doesn’t need to be finalised next month, emphasising the
need to get the right deal.
Adding to tensions, China is seeking $2.4 billion in retaliatory
sanctions against the United States for non-compliance with a WTO ruling in a
tariffs case dating back to the era of President Barack Obama.
“In the short term, a possibility of the United States and China signing
an initial deal could support prices, but it remains to see whether tariffs set
for December will be removed,” said Kim Kwang-rae, commodity analyst at Samsung
Futures in Seoul.
Russia’s missed target for cutting its September oil output was also
putting downward pressure on prices, along with talks between Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait to resume oil production from joint oil fields in the Neutral Zone, Kim
said.
More
How an ‘astonishing’ decline in S&P 500 trading volume could pose risks for investors
By Chris
Matthews Published: Oct 21, 2019
5:06 p.m. ET
As the major equity benchmarks hover close to all-time
highs, enthusiasm for the ongoing bull market appears to be mild, based on
trading volume. Some analysts fear dwindling volume could spell trouble for investors during the next selloff, setting equity investors up for a repeat of last year’s fourth-quarter swoon of nearly 20%.
Average daily trading volume in S&P 500 index SPX, +0.69% stocks over the previous 90 days has fallen toward a 10-year low, declining to 7% of total market capitalization during the three months ended Oct. 19, versus 21% average volume between 2010 and 2013.
“The numbers are astonishing,” Tim Quast, president of market analytics firm ModernIR told MarketWatch. “One potential risk is that there will be a lack of buyers during times of stress and that the absence of liquidity will lead to fire sales.”
Quast pointed to other figures reflecting declining liquidity in S&P 500 stocks, including data from ModerIR that showed the average number of shares per trade has fallen from 248 in 2015 to 133 today. “A great illustration of the risks here is what happened in the fourth quarter of 2018,” he said, arguing that the nearly 20% decline in the S&P 500 index last year was exacerbated by a lack of willing buyers even as stock prices fell to attractive valuations.
These data dovetail with a recent report from Bank of America’s chief equity and quant strategist Savita Subramanian, who wrote that she worried that trading volume for large cap U.S. stocks is increasingly reliant on “non-fundamental investors,” including algorithmic investment funds, passive investment funds and high-frequency traders.
“Banks no longer provide the same liquidity as [before the Great Financial Crisis]. The result is a bid-ask spread for the average S&P 500 stock that is close to a multi-year high,” she wrote. The bid-ask spread is the difference between the prices quoted for an immediate purchase (the bid) and the immediate sale (the ask) of an asset.
Jerry Lucas, senior trading strategist at UBS Global Wealth Management, said that the rise of high-frequency trading algorithms, which increasingly serve as market makers, are “also causing headaches for traders.”
“The algos provide great liquidity when there is no news, but when a big new comes in the algos go away until things stabilize,” he said.
More
Could this be what’s gone wrong? Warning, very
complicated and amusing at the same time.
Friday,
October 18, 2019Repo-Acalypse Now....
---- In all probability, if you are reading
this post and follow my work, you are also probably well aware of the recent
implementation of the FED's
brand spanking new overnight ($75 Billion) and 14 day ($45 Billion) Repo
program which they've announced October 4th, to continue (at
this time) through November 4th. If you aren't
aware of this expanding/accelerating ($75+ Billion of Overnight plus another
"up to" $205+ Billion, if fully subscribed, since the multiple 14 Day
$35 Billion and $45 Billion Funding rounds will overlap) Monetary Policy
announcement you should be. To put this figure in perspective, this
figure ($280 Billion) is roughly equivalent of the combined Shareholder Equity
of Goldman Sachs (GS) ($90 Billion) and JP Morgan ($220 Billion) for YE
2018.....and the US Financial system seems to need this emergency funding to
function effectively over the next few weeks. Ouch!...
----
At the risk of oversimplification, I'll try to put today's material in a format
that even technocratic, myopic, closed minded, "data driven" Central
Bankers can understand. The reason the FED needs to make
"overnight/short-term money" available to the financial system is
that there is suddenly some sort of mysterious hiccup in the financial plumbing
where a systemic player (or close to it) suddenly needs money
(liquidity). Hopefully, the FED folks know exactly who it is and how/why
it happened. Here are the specifics as to why this player (or players)
must indeed be a "systemic" player/players:
1.) The cost of "Overnight money" spiked to 10% on Sept 17th, indicating that Banks (with spare money/reserves) were unwilling to lend to a particular Entity or Entities under current conditions, so the FED (Through Dealers they are implicitly guaranteeing) are instructed to step in as the lender of last resort.
2.) The Bank(s)/Entity/Entities in question are likely systemic otherwise the FED/FDIC would have simply "done their thing", as they often do, on a Friday night, at close of business, showed up at the problem Bank/Entity's door step and closed it down, only to open, recapitalized, the following Monday under a new banner. There would be no Repo Facility needed.
3.) The expansion of this Repo facility is likely just buying time for the FED to come up with a game plan on how to resolve/unwind this particular, presumably systemic problem.
4.) The identity of this Bank/Banks/Entity/Entities is always a closely guarded secret since the disclosure of same would most likely make matters worse, causing a "run" and/or involved counter-parties to make decisions not to play in the sandbox (e.g. Bear Sterns/Lehman/etc.)
5.) There are insiders and government bankers/officials who know exactly who the suspected culprit(s) is/are and there are (hopefully) meetings taking place as I type, to come up with a resolution plan to deal with it. At least we all hope so.
To continue my "oversimplification theme" there are only two (2) reasons a bank gets into trouble and suddenly needs significant infusions of "overnight money". The first is a a macro dislocation of some type, i.e.) a bank dedicated/over-weighted in a specific market niche, e.g.) significant lending to an industry or customer base that suddenly experiences severe headwinds or disruptions (Oil, Commodities, Manufacturing Supply Chains, Farming, Commercial Real Estate lending concentrated in a specific bubble-iscious market, etc. all might come to mind) the loans (Bank Assets) go bad and need to be restructured. Usually, these disruptions take place in, or more likely near, the end of a long recession or down business/debt cycle. The bank(s) has/have been juggling the books/funds for a while and it all finally comes home to roost. Given the current length of the expansion and the lack of significant disruption in the US Economy and financial markets, it's unlikely that this is the problem causing the current Repo facility requirement, at least for the time being.
So let's focus on the other possible cause for the disruption, which is, a rapid, immediate dislocation/shortage of deposits at a particular large institution (or two/three). i.e.) a "run" where only a few folks in the know, decide that, perhaps, for whatever reason, they're not doing business with a particular institution and they pull their deposits. The bank(s) in question would have four choices to continue to meet their immediate obligations when they get the avalanche of withdrawals, wire transfer and SWIFT request(s):
1.) The cost of "Overnight money" spiked to 10% on Sept 17th, indicating that Banks (with spare money/reserves) were unwilling to lend to a particular Entity or Entities under current conditions, so the FED (Through Dealers they are implicitly guaranteeing) are instructed to step in as the lender of last resort.
2.) The Bank(s)/Entity/Entities in question are likely systemic otherwise the FED/FDIC would have simply "done their thing", as they often do, on a Friday night, at close of business, showed up at the problem Bank/Entity's door step and closed it down, only to open, recapitalized, the following Monday under a new banner. There would be no Repo Facility needed.
3.) The expansion of this Repo facility is likely just buying time for the FED to come up with a game plan on how to resolve/unwind this particular, presumably systemic problem.
4.) The identity of this Bank/Banks/Entity/Entities is always a closely guarded secret since the disclosure of same would most likely make matters worse, causing a "run" and/or involved counter-parties to make decisions not to play in the sandbox (e.g. Bear Sterns/Lehman/etc.)
5.) There are insiders and government bankers/officials who know exactly who the suspected culprit(s) is/are and there are (hopefully) meetings taking place as I type, to come up with a resolution plan to deal with it. At least we all hope so.
To continue my "oversimplification theme" there are only two (2) reasons a bank gets into trouble and suddenly needs significant infusions of "overnight money". The first is a a macro dislocation of some type, i.e.) a bank dedicated/over-weighted in a specific market niche, e.g.) significant lending to an industry or customer base that suddenly experiences severe headwinds or disruptions (Oil, Commodities, Manufacturing Supply Chains, Farming, Commercial Real Estate lending concentrated in a specific bubble-iscious market, etc. all might come to mind) the loans (Bank Assets) go bad and need to be restructured. Usually, these disruptions take place in, or more likely near, the end of a long recession or down business/debt cycle. The bank(s) has/have been juggling the books/funds for a while and it all finally comes home to roost. Given the current length of the expansion and the lack of significant disruption in the US Economy and financial markets, it's unlikely that this is the problem causing the current Repo facility requirement, at least for the time being.
So let's focus on the other possible cause for the disruption, which is, a rapid, immediate dislocation/shortage of deposits at a particular large institution (or two/three). i.e.) a "run" where only a few folks in the know, decide that, perhaps, for whatever reason, they're not doing business with a particular institution and they pull their deposits. The bank(s) in question would have four choices to continue to meet their immediate obligations when they get the avalanche of withdrawals, wire transfer and SWIFT request(s):
More, much, much more.
Next, are the USA v China trade war statements being
gamed in the markets by insiders? Of
course not, who would even think of such a thing, let alone do a thing like
that?
Democrats Seek Insider Trading Probe After ‘Trump Chaos’ Article
Ben Bain and Matt Robinson, Bloomberg•
(Bloomberg) -- Democratic lawmakers are increasingly demanding that U.S.
authorities investigate allegations raised in a recent magazine article that
traders might be using non-public government information to reap huge illegal
profits, even as the exchange where the transactions purportedly took place
called the story “patently false.”
In a Monday letter, 14 Democratic senators urged the heads of the
Justice Department, FBI, Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities
and Exchange Commission to probe “disturbing reports of suspicious trading in
our futures and equities markets” described in a Vanity Fair piece. The
magazine referred to the transactions as “Trump Chaos Trades.”
Since the story’s publication, the suggestion that White House leaks
could be a factor in futures traders making billions of dollars from well-timed
bets ahead of major geopolitical announcements has fueled endless chatter from
Washington to Wall Street. Still, the article has been met with widespread
skepticism from the financial industry.
CME Group Inc., the world’s biggest futures exchange, has dismissed the
claims, arguing that the trades highlighted in the story couldn’t have been
based on inside information because too many market participants were involved.
The article describes five big transactions in S&P 500 e-mini futures from
June 28 to Sept. 13, ranging from 55,000 to 420,000 contracts.
“As it relates to the Vanity Fair article published on October 17, 2019,
regarding activities in the E-mini S&P futures contract, the allegations
about the trading activity are patently false,” CME said in an Oct. 18
statement.
In Monday’s letter, Democrats said they wanted federal authorities “to
investigate immediately whether any rules, laws or regulations were violated.”
The lawmakers added that “if any wrongdoing is uncovered, we demand that you
swiftly hold violators accountable to the fullest extent possible.”
Spokesmen for the SEC and Justice Department declined to comment, while
spokesmen for the FBI and CFTC didn’t immediately respond to requests for
comment.
The wagers cited by Vanity Fair were made shortly before market-moving
news -- three times involving the U.S.-China trade war, once involving the
bombing of Saudi oil fields and once involving Hong Kong politics. Thanks to
market reactions, the magazine said, people involved in the transactions
could’ve booked gains of between $82.5 million on the smallest to $1.8 billion
on the biggest.
More
I
was borrowing money from 30 leading banks. How could they all be wrong? I’m
only a simple businessman.
Sir
Freddie Laker. The Laker Airways crash.
Crooks and Scoundrels Corner.
The bent, the seriously bent, and the totally doubled
over.
Today, China catching the USA, but only because of the Great Nixonian
Error of fiat money. How real is China’s fiat money? Then again, how real is
the fiat dollar? Why is the Fed monetising like spinning banshee again?
Is the Great Nixonian Error of
fiat money behind our world of increasing wealth disparity, economic
instability, and rising social disorder?
Rich Chinese outnumber wealthy Americans for first time: Credit Suisse
October 21, 2019
/ 8:52 AM
ZURICH, (Reuters) - The number of rich
Chinese has surpassed the count of wealthy Americans for the first time as both
countries keep churning out millionaires, a study by Credit Suisse showed.
The Swiss bank’s annual wealth survey released on Monday found 100
million Chinese ranked in the global top 10% as of the middle of this year
versus 99 million in the United States.
“Despite the trade tension between the United States and China over the
past 12 months, both countries have fared strongly in wealth creation,
contributing $3.8 trillion and $1.9 trillion respectively,” said Nannette
Hechler-Fayd’herbe, global head of economics and research at Credit Suisse
CSGN.S.
The ranks of the world’s millionaires have risen by 1.1 million to an
estimated 46.8 million, collectively owning $158.3 trillion in net assets, 44%
of the global total, the study found.
The United States added more than half of this number –675,000 new
millionaires – to its sizeable stock.
A decline in average wealth in Australia — largely due to exchange rates
— resulted in 124,000 fewer millionaires there, while Britain lost 27,000 and
Turkey 24,000.
The report estimates that 55,920 adults are worth at least $100 million
and 4,830 have net assets above $500 million.
It forecast global wealth — which increased 2.6% over the past year —
would rise by 27% over the next five years to $459 trillion by 2024. The number
of millionaires would also grow over this period to almost 63 million.
The share of the world’s bottom 90% accounts for 18% of global wealth,
compared to 11% in the 2000.
“While it is too early to say wealth inequality is now in a downward
phase, the prevailing evidence suggests that 2016 may have been the peak for
the near future,” it said.
The boomer generation is becoming one of haves and have-nots
By Richard
Eisenberg Published: Oct 21, 2019 6:32 a.m. ET
In her piercing new book “Unbound: How Inequality
Constricts Our Economy and What We Can Do About It,” economist Heather
Boushey writes: “The trend toward greater economic inequality continues its
seemingly inexorable march.” Four recent studies reveal that wealth inequality
among boomers specifically has been growing, turning this massive generation
into one of haves and have nots.The nonpartisan reports, which analyzed boomers’ retirement security, financial assets and housing status, come from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO); the National Institute on Retirement Security think tank; the St. Louis Fed’s Center for Household Financial Stability and the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies.
Their key findings:
Wealth disparities continue as we age. The GAO reviewed the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances data for households with people 55 or older and said that although disparities in income decreased as older Americans aged from their 50s into their 70s, “disparities in wealth persisted.” The continued wealth disparities among older Americans, the GAO noted, “may be due to significant differences in the median value of retirement accounts and home equity between higher- and lower-earning households.”
This finding echoes what the St. Louis Fed determined looking at wealth inequality overall in America. It determined that “wealth inequality has grown tremendously from 1989 to 2016, to the point where the top 10% of families ranked by household wealth own 77% of the wealth ‘pie.’ The bottom half of families ranked by household wealth own only 1% of the pie.”
And, the St. Louis Fed noted, the generational wealth gap has also widened.
More
In his heart everyone knows that the only people
who get rich from the get rich quick books are those who write them.
Richard Nixon.
Technology Update.
With events happening
fast in the development of solar power and graphene, I’ve added this section.
Updates as they get reported. Is converting sunlight to usable cheap AC or DC
energy mankind’s future from the 21st century onwards?
Easy-to-use technique to measure the hydrophobicity of micro- and nanoparticle
Date:
October 17, 2019
Source:
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Summary:
The technique may have a far-reaching implication for many scientific and
industrial applications and disciplines that involve particulate matter.
The scientific and industrial communities who work with micro- and
nanoparticles continue to labor with the challenge of effective particle dispersion.
Most particles that disperse in liquids aggregate rapidly, and eventually
precipitate, thereby separating from the liquid phase. While it is commonly
accepted that the hydrophobicity of particles -- how quickly water repels off a
surface -- determines their dispersion and aggregation potential, there has
been no easy-to-use method to quantitatively determine the hydrophobicity of
these tiny particles.
Yi Zuo, University of Hawaii at Manoa College of Engineering and
pediatrics professor, has invented a groundbreaking method that allows for easy
determination of the surface free energy of particles as a quantitative measure
of particle hydrophobicity. The research "An Optical Method for
Quantitatively Determining the Surface Free Energy of Micro- and Nanoparticles,"
was published in the October 2019 issue of the scientific journal Analytical
Chemistry.
"The major advantage of this method resides in its
simplicity," said Zuo. "For the first time, the scientific and
industrial community will have access to an inexpensive and easy-to-use method
for quantitatively determining the hydrophobicity of particulate matter. Our
method relies on a novel measuring principle and common laboratory procedures
and equipment such as pipetting and visible-light spectroscopy."
Zuo has demonstrated the feasibility of this method in determining the
surface free energy of various micro- and nanoparticles, such as carbon
nanotubes, graphene and polystyrene particles.
The study may have a far-reaching implication for many scientific and
industrial applications and disciplines that involve particulate matter.
"For example, our method can be used to quantify the hydrophobicity of
nanoparticles, which is of crucial importance for the study of potential health
risks and biomedical applications of nanomaterials." Zuo said. "It
may also find application in microbial science because the surface free energy
of bacterial cells determines the cellular adhesion and proliferation in
biofilms."
This research was supported by a National Science Foundation award
(CBET-1604119). With this grant, as well as with support from the Hawaii
Community Foundation, Zuo is studying the potential health effects of
nanomaterials and their biomedical applications using novel experimental
techniques developed in Zuo's Laboratory of Biocolloids and Biointerfaces.
Public
calamity is a mighty leveller.
Edmund
Burke.
The monthly Coppock Indicators finished September
DJIA: 26,917 +57 Up. NASDAQ: 7,999 +62 Up. SP500: 2,977 +61 Up.
Another inconclusive month,
but all three moved up weakly. I would not rely on nor take such a weak buy
signal.
No comments:
Post a Comment