Showing posts with label 85%. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 85%. Show all posts

Saturday, December 9, 2017

QE Unwind is Really Happening: Fed Assets Drop To Lowest Level In Over Three Years

Submitted by Wolf Richter of Wolf Street


The Fed’s balance sheet for the week ending December 6, completes the second month of the QE-unwind. Total assets initially zigzagged within a tight range to end October where it started, at $4,456 billion. But in November, holdings drifted lower, and by December 6 were at $4,437 billion, the lowest since September 17, 2014:



“Balance sheet normalization?” Well, in baby steps. But the devil is in the details.


The Fed’s announced plan is to shrink the balance sheet by $10 billion a month in October, November, and December, then accelerate the pace every three months. By October 2018, the Fed would reduce its holdings by up to $50 billion a month (= $600 billion a year) and continue at that rate until it deems the level of its holdings “normal” – the new normal, whatever that may turn out to be.


Still, the decline so far, given the gargantuan size of the balance sheet, barely shows up:



The Fed is unloading its Treasuries alright.


As part of the $10-billion-a-month unwind from October through December, the Fed is supposed to unload $6 billion in Treasury securities a month plus $4 billion in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) a month.


The Fed doesn’t actually sell Treasury securities outright. Instead, it allows some of them, when they mature, to “roll off” the balance sheet without replacement. When the securities mature, the Treasury Department pays the holder the face value. But the Fed, instead of reinvesting the money in new Treasuries, destroys the money – the opposite process of QE, when the Fed created the money to buy securities.


This happens only on dates when Treasuries that the Fed holds mature, usually once or twice a month.


In October, the big day was October 31, when $8.5 billion of Treasuries on the Fed’s books matured. The Fed reinvested $2.5 billion and let $6 billion “roll off.” Hence, the amount of Treasuries fell by about $6 billion from an all-time record $2,465.7 billion on October 25 to $2,459.8 billion on November 1.


In November, there were two big maturity dates:


  • November 15, about $11 billion in Treasuries matured. The Fed allowed $3.4 billion to “roll off” without replacement.

  • November 30, about $7.9 billion matured. The Fed allowed $2.5 billion to roll off without replacement.

For all of November, the balance of Treasuries fell by $5.3 billion to $2,454.5 billion, in line with the plan, and the lowest level since October 8, 2014:



Mortgage-backed securities are a different animal.


As part of QE, the Fed acquired residential MBS guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae. Now, as part of its $10-billion-a-month QE-unwind, the Fed is supposed to shed up to $4 billion a month in these MBS. And?


At the beginning of October, the Fed held $1,768.2 billion in MBS. The balances then jumped up and down on a weekly basis and ended October at $1,770.6 billion, or $2.4 billion higher than at the beginning of the QE-unwind.


Same scenario in November, though they have started to edge down overall just a tiny bit to $1,767 billion, the lowest by a smidgen since March 8, 2017:



Residential MBS differ from bonds. Fannie Mae et al. regularly pass through principal payments to MBS holders as underlying mortgages get paid down or get paid off. Thus, the principal shrinks until the remainder is redeemed at maturity.


To keep the MBS balance steady, the Fed, via the New York Fed’s Open Market Operations (OMO), buys MBS in the “to-be-announced market,” or “TBA market.” This is a trade where the actual MBS is not designated at the time of the trade but will be announced 48 hours before the established settlement date, which can be two to three months later.


But the Fed books its MBS holdings on a settlement-date basis. So there is a mismatch between the date the Fed receives principal payments and the date reinvestment trades settle. Hence the jagged line in the chart above.


So when will the $4-billion-a-month in MBS reductions show up on the Fed’s balance sheet?


The first MBS reinvestment trades under the QE-unwind plan were conducted in October. Given the lag to settlement date of two to three months, the first visible impact on the balance sheet would start no earlier than December. This is where we are now, on the verge of seeing it.


The line in the MBS chart will always bounce up and down due to the mismatch between the date the Fed receives principal payments and the date reinvestment trades settle. But the line should start trending down, with noticeably lower lows and lower highs.


For the first three months, the QE unwind only removes about $10 billion a month, a negligible amount, given the vast markets and excess liquidity. But it picks up steam every three months. By October 2018, if the plan is still on, the QE unwind will remove $50 billion a month from the markets. This process will do the opposite of what QE had done: it will gradually destroy some of the $3.6 trillion that the Fed had created during QE. And by that time the broader effects of QE – asset price inflation – should also start to reverse.









Sunday, December 3, 2017

Frustrated Investors File Lawsuits Against World"s Largest ICO

Here"s the latest sign that the massively fraudulent ICO market is headed for a collapse.


Tezos’s investors are still waiting to learn when they can expect to receive the digital tokens that they paid a premium for during the company’s record-setting crowdsale. But as reports of abuse, internal strife and outright embezzlement have surfaced in the press, three groups of angry investors have filed class action lawsuits accusing the company of fraud and securities violations.


In response, Arthur and Kathleen Breitman, the young couple that founded the Tezos project, are asking the Switzerland-based Tezos Foundation to foot the bill for their legal defense – a controversial move, seeing as that money is supposed to seed the Tezos coin ecosystem, according to Reuters.



Tezos set a new sales record in the white-hot IPO market this summer when it raised more than $230 million in a hotly anticipated ICO that saw several behemoth firms in the northern California venture capital scene invest millions while thousands of individual investors followed suit, enticed by the astronomical returns of digital currencies like bitcoin and ethereum?



However, anybody who stopped to scrutinize the Tezos whitepaper – where the company’s founder laid out his “vision” for a product that he has yet to build – would recognize that the company’s business plan sounds like gibberish.


Despite this, the company raised more than $200 million during the first week of its July crowdsale.


To help shore up investors’ faith in the company, the leaders of Tezos promised to entrust the money they raised during the token sale to a nonprofit organization set up in Switzerland. The Tezos Foundation, is supposed to keep the company on budget until the product is finished. The company initially promised investors that it would deliver their tokens – informally known as Tezzies – by the end of the year.


The Tezos project and its founders, Arthur and Kathleen Breitman, are facing three class-action lawsuits in the United States. Plaintiffs allege federal securities law violations and that the fundraiser defrauded participants, who were told they were making non-refundable donations to the Swiss foundation. The lawsuits are seeking refunds and damages.


 


The project has yet to launch, which is required for contributors to receive new Tezos digital coins, called Tezzies. Meanwhile, their contributions – made in bitcoins and ether – have soared in value.Both lawsuits name as defendants the project’s young founders, their Delaware-based company, Dynamic Ledger Solutions Inc (DLS), which owns the Tezos source code, as well as the Zug-based Tezos Foundation.


 


A Reuters investigation in October found that the couple was in a bitter dispute with Johann Gevers, the foundation’s president, over control of the project.


 


Arthur Breitman told Reuters in Zurich on Thursday that he would not answer any questions. Gevers said he could not comment on the Breitmans’ request that the foundation indemnify them against legal actions.



According to legal experts who are familiar with the arcane rules governing Swiss nonprofits say the legal argument for the Tezos Foundation covering its founders’ litigation expenses is flimsy, at best.


Georg von Schnurbein, co-author of a book on Swiss foundation governance, said he saw no reason for the Tezos Foundation to cover the Breitmans’ legal costs.


 


“In my opinion, there is no reason for that because their activities were connected to their Delaware company, not to the foundation,” he said.


 


The foundation’s three board members could be held liable by Swiss regulators if they were to agree “because the lawsuits have nothing to do with the foundation purpose, only with the collection of money prior to that,” von Schnurbein added.



Unfortunately for investors, Tezos neglected to disclose many of the details about the relationship between the foundation and Dynamic Ledger Solutions Inc, Tezos’s corporate entity.


Further complicating matters is the contractual agreement between DLS and the foundation that was signed in June. The agreement, which is not public, governs the sale of DLS and its intellectual property to the foundation.


 


The agreement, a copy of which was reviewed by Reuters, states that the Swiss federal supervisory authority for foundations must approve the agreement. It also indicates the approval was required before the fundraiser took place.



However, a spokesman for the department that oversees the Swiss authority told Reuters that approving these types of agreements lies outside the authority’s scope of influence: “It is not the Foundation Authority’s task nor its responsibility to approve private law agreements."



The contract also says that some Tezos software code would be put in the public domain prior to the fundraiser. But the foundation later said that it has a license to release the code and will do so “at an appropriate time before the launch of the main network.” Conveniently,  documents provided to investors didn’t mention the required approval by the Swiss authority or the timing of the source code’s release.


Stephen Palley, an attorney at Anderson Kill in Washington who focuses on software development, told Reuters after reviewing the investor agreement that it may help plaintiffs’ lawyers show that contributors to the Tezos fundraiser were purchasing securities, not making donations. According to the agreement, the contributions were needed to launch the Tezos network, he said. Over the summer, the SEC issued a ruling in an inquiry into the implosion of the DAO that effectively deemed all ICOs securities offerings. This means companies that launch ICOs must register their tokens as securities and abide by all pertinent securities laws.


“This weakens the argument that tokens were a discretionary gift, akin to a tote bag given to people who donate to a public radio fundraising drive,” he said.


 


Kathleen Breitman told Reuters in June that participating in the Tezos fundraiser was like making a donation to a public broadcaster and receiving a tote bag.


 


The agreement was signed on June 27 by Gevers and DLS’s shareholders, who are the Breitmans and an investment firm founded by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper. The shareholders eventually stand to receive 8.5 percent of the funds raised in the initial coin offering in cash, and additional Tezos coins distributed over four years.


 


Reuters also reviewed a separate agreement between DLS and the foundation. It lists 11 early backers of Tezos, including the living trust of Frederick Ernest Ehrsam III, a co-founder of Coinbase, which operates a U.S. cryptocurrency exchange; Meta Stable Capital and CoinFund LLC.


 


Jake Brukhman, CoinFund’s managing partner, said the fund initially backed the Tezos project but received a refund in May before the fundraiser. “Our teams came to a mutual decision to part ways,” he said.


 


Ehrsam declined to comment through a spokesperson for Coinbase. Other early backers did not respond to requests for comment.



The internal strife at Tezos spilled into public view back in October when the Breitmans accused Johann Gevers, the head of a Swiss foundation which oversees their funds, of attempting to overpay himself using the massive pot of investor capital - despite the fact that the company will likely blow through its promised deadline of allocating tokens to buyers by December (the tokens have yet to be created). The news sent Tezos futures contracts trading on BitMEX spiraling lower.



Of course, Tezos isn’t the only major ICO that’s in trouble: Last month, we reported that Bancor, the world’s fifth-largest ICO by funds raised, has plunged by more than 50% since the company’s June ICO as investors have become disillusioned with its obscure product.


The question remains: Would Tezos’s failure help pacify the investing fervor surrounding ICOs? Or will investors in these products continue to be victimized by fraudsters until the offerings are banned outright?


Luckily for Tezos, if the owners can"t remedy the company"s many intractable problems, PwC is now accepting payment in bitcoin for its consulting services...









Friday, November 24, 2017

Just 10 Companies Account For 33% Of All Market Gains Since Trump"s Election

Yesterday we laid out the reasons why French bank SocGen unveiled a surprisingly contrarian forecast, according to which the S&P would tumble from its current level over 2,600 to 2,000 in 2018, representing a more than 20% bear market drop...



... the drop catalyzed by rising interest rates pressuring P/E multiples, a late cycle economy nearing recession, equities trading at record valuations, and with everyone short vol begging for a vol short squeeze. Not surprisingly, SocGen"s unspoken advice was to get out now.


And while many of the negative factors highlighted by SocGen had already been discussed here in the past, there were two we warned to bring attention to: the market"s multiple expansion since Trump"s election, and the narrow leadership in the S&P.


As we noted yesterday, contrary to the widely accepted narrative, while the S&P 500 has risen 24% since Trump"s election, only half of this performance has been driven by earnings growth; the other half is from P/E expansion. But why would P/Es rise at a time when the Fed is tightening? As SocGen speculated, assuming that analysts have not factored tax reform into their earnings forecasts, tax reform expectations have been the driver of P/E expansion. There is a problem with this: while the S&P 500 index tax rate is currently 26.6%, assuming that US companies generate 43% of their profits abroad (here) and pay 35% of their US profits on taxes (i.e. with no loopholes for US profits), the average tax rate outside the US would be 15.5%. A decrease in the US tax from 35% to 20% as planned by Trump’s tax reform would thus theoretically boost earnings by 8.5%. The 12-month forward P/E has risen 12% over the last 12 months. In other words, roughly 150% of Trump"s tax cuts have been priced in!



However, another especially interesting observations goes to the leadership of this 24% rally since Trump"s election, which - while hardly a surprise - was largely driven by a handfull of companies, or ten to be precise.


As SocGen calculates, just 10 contributors of the S&P 500’s bull run have accounted for 33% of the S&P 500 performance. Tying to the above, the bank also points out that all of the companies listed below have seen their P/Es expand over the last 12  months, in some cases - like Nvidia, WalMart, Boeing and Amazon - dramatically. In fact, only three companies (Apple and the two banks) have 12-month P/Es that are below the market average (18x). Lastly, keep in mind that except Amazon, all of the companies already pay a  corporate tax rate below the current US federal tax rate (35%), and five companies even pay a tax rate that is below the 20% rate targeted by Trump’s tax reform.



As we asked two days ago when we showed that the bulk of hedge funds gains in 2017 have come from holding this same handful of companies, what happens to hedge fund performance - and the S&P 500 - when, for whatever reason, the tide turns and the winners are the first to be sold?









Get Out Now: SocGen Predicts Market Crash, Bear Market For The S&P

While the charade of sellside analysts releasing optimistic, and in the case of Barclays and Goldman "rationally exuberant"previews of the year ahead...




... is a familiar, long-running tradition on Wall Street, rarely has the intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance been quite so glaring: take Goldman, which while admitting that valuations have never been higher, and the upside case never more reliant on just one piece of legislation which has a significant chance of not passing (GOP tax reform for those unaware), Goldman still has to temerity to predict not only no bear market in the next three years, but goes so far as to suggest an "irrationally exuberant" target of 5,300 in three years.


And as of this morning, the penguins are on full parade, with virtually not a single big bank predicting the market will drop in the coming year. Here are the latest S&P price targets, EPS forecasts and implied PE multiples, for the year ahead:


  • Bank of Montreal, Brian Belski, 2,950, EPS $145.00, P/E 20.3x

  • UBS, Keith Parker, 2,900, EPS $141.00, P/E  20.6x

  • Canaccord, Tony Dwyer, 2,800, EPS $140.00, P/E 20.0x

  • Credit Suisse, Jonathan Golub, 2,875, EPS $139.00, P/E 20.7x

  • Deutsche Bank, Binky Chadha, 2,850, EPS $140.00, P/E 20.4x

  • Goldman Sachs, David Kostin, 2,850, EPS $150.00, P/E 19x

  • Citigroup, Tobias Levkovich, 2,675, EPS $141.00, P/E 19.0x

  • HSBC, Ben Laidler, 2,650, EPS $142.00, P/E 18.7x

Good luck with all those 20x P/Es in a world in which rates are rising and central bank balance sheets will start contracting in one year.


Luckily, there is the occasional honest bank, like Macquarie (whose Viktor Shvets has become one of our favorite commentators for his objective, no nonsence analysis) and - as of this morning - SocGen, whose strategist Roland Kaloyan has written a note which warns that with bond yields rising (see the crash in China overnight, where the Shanghai Composite tumbled the most in 17 months on the realization that rising rates is bad for stocks), there is effectively no upside left in stocks, which coupled with the prospect of a US economy recession in 2020 will "crimp returns in 2019" Furthermore, in light of the record vol shorts, SocGen jumps on the VIX-squeeze crash bandwaon, warning vol positioning could "strongly deteriorate the risk reward profile of equity markets."


In not so many words: with little stock upside left, with the threat of rising interest rates slamming P/E multiples, with the economy in deep in late cycle, with equities trading at record valuations, with everyone short vol and just begging for a vol short squeeze, SocGen"s advice is simple: get out now.


Here is SocGen:








We are less enthusiastic about equities heading into 2018 – We do not see much upside on our major equity targets for the next 12 months. We expect stretched valuations and rising bond  yields to limit equity index performances in 2018 and the prospect of a US economic slowdown in 2020 to further cramp returns in 2019. We also raise some concerns about the quantity of shorts on volatility, which could potentially strongly deteriorate the risk reward profile of equity markets.



Specifically, with regards to the S&P, SocGen reports that US equities are now at - or rather about 100 points above - their fair value:








The S&P 500 has reached our target for the end of this cycle (2,500pts) and is now entering expensive territory. Indeed, on all the metrics, US equities are trading at levels only seen during the late-90s bubble. Since Trump’s election, the US equity market has risen 24%, but only half of this came from earnings growth. The other half has been driven by P/E expansion. According to our calculations, the US equity market is already pricing in potential tax reform. The rise in bond yields and Fed repricing should be headwinds against further US equity rerating.



If that wasn"t enough, SocGen also notes that its valuation model suggests "that upside on the S&P 500 is limited: the US equity market is already pricing in a rebound in growth and inflation. The rise in bond yields and Fed repricing should be a headwind against further US equity rerating."


In practical terms, this means that SocGen is predicting that the S&P, which is already 100 points above the bank"s year end target of 2,500, will tumble to 2,000, or more than 20%, before rebounding modestly to 2,200 just as the US economy succumbs to a recession, at which point all bets are off. And not just the S&P, but virtually all major European bourses are due for a bear market in the coming 12 months.



Here are some of the key arguments behind SocGen"s bearish outlook, first a familiar discussion of the risk posted by the biggest vol short ever observed.








Equity volatility, both realised and implied, has been edging ever lower for quite some time now. Being invested in a simple systematic short VIX future volatility has been strongly rewarding: +290% over the last two years. However, when the tide turns (i.e. VIX spikes), the drawdown can be significant. The quantity of short positioning on VIX open in the market (see right chart) would potentially amplify any spike of the VIX.




The risk of a VIX surge ties into the question of how the market"s risk/return profile will be shaped in the coming year based on what the prevalent VIX level is:








The risk /reward ratio as measured by the Sharpe ratio has been very attractive for US equities: good expected return supported by reasonable valuation and EPS growth, a very low Fed fund rate and an ultra-low volatility regime. At the current 12-month forward P/E, we factor in our Fed Fund scenario (2.25% by end-2018) and a different volatility regime. A change of VIX regime from 10% to 15% would push the US equity Sharpe ratio back to its historical average.




Then there is the already record stretched valuations, something even Goldman admitted earlier this week, with "US equities trading above their long-term average and at a level only seen during the dotcom bubble."








US equities have not been in attractive territory valuation-wise for a while. Indeed, on all the main valuation metrics, US equities are trading above their long-term average and at a level only seen during the dotcom bubble. However, expected earnings growth for the next 12 months (12%) is below the 20y annual earnings growth average (14%).




The last risk is that bond yields are going higher, forcing a contraction to PE multiples, as investors shift away from equities into bonds, as the dividend yield on US stocks at 2.0%, is now lower than the 10Y yield  of 2.3%.








Under our scenario, US Treasures will reach 2.70% at the end of 2018. This should be a headwind for equity markets. Indeed, our US equity risk premium is at 2.9%, one standard deviation below the long-term average . Any increase in bond yields would push the equity market further into expensive territory relative to bonds The dividend yield offered by US equities (2.0%) is already lower than the current US longterm bond yield (2.3%).




Finally, SocGen points out something that few other analysts  have admitted: half the S&P rally since the Trump election has been on the back of multiple expansion, with just 48% the result of earnings growth. Furthermore, as SocGen calculates, assuming tax reform passes, a decrease in the US tax from 35% to 20% as planned by Trump’s tax reform would theoretically boost earnings by 8.5%. The 12-month forward P/E has risen 12% over the last 12 months. In other words, contrary to conventional wisdom, more than 100% of Trump"s tax reform is already priced in.








Since Trump’s election, the S&P 500 has risen 24%. Only half of this performance has been driven by earnings growth; the other half is from P/E expansion. Assuming that analysts have not factored tax reform into their earnings forecasts, tax reform expectations have been the driver of P/E expansion. The S&P 500 index tax rate is currently 26.6%. Assuming that US companies generate 43% of their profits abroad (here) and pay 35% of their US profits on taxes (i.e. with no loopholes for US profits), the average tax rate outside the US would be 15.5%. A decrease in the US tax from 35% to 20% as planned by Trump’s tax reform would thus theoretically boost earnings by 8.5%. The 12-month forward P/E has risen 12% over the last 12 months.




Separately, turning to Europe, Socgen acknowledges the euro zone"s economic recovery is in full swing but - in yet another bearish thesis - argues that the current valuations don"t leave "much meat on the bone" and that the expected rise in the Euro could also weigh on exporters in particular, and European stocks in general. Additionally, with the European Central Bank set to progressively unwind its stimulus package, investors are increasingly wary of the amount of debt some companies have accumulated thanks to historically low interest rates.


Cable group Altice, whose shares have collapsed more than 50% in the last 30 days due to concerns on its €50 billion euros pile of debt, and whose debt plunge has been seen by some as the catalyst for the recent junk bond swoon, is an example of what is likely to come, Societe Generale said.


And while the French bank saw pockets of growth in Germany, France and in sectors such as financials, but warned that political risks are still present, notably in Spain with the Catalonia crisis and Italy which faces general elections in 2018. Oh, and the UK too: "We also recommend staying away from the UK as Brexit negotiations are accelerating and several scenarios are possible: only a soft Brexit would be supportive for the FTSE 100.


And yet, after all that, not even Socgen is willing to bite the bullet, and warn that ahead of what clearly is "a bear market is coming" call, investors should dump risk: so ingrained is the desire to run with the penguin herd, that even the most contrarian calls are doused in such a big layer of caveats, Arnold could easily driver his hummer on top of.


To wit: "But then again, should we be outright bears? After all, we do see some value pockets in the market and some specific themes (M&A, consumer in the eurozone)."


Which almost explains the report"s cover page...











Thursday, November 23, 2017

The Cardinal Sin Of International Finance

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,


As Doug Casey has correctly noted, the prime directive of any organism - whether it’s an amoeba or a person or a corporation or a government - is to survive.



That’s why the US government protects the petrodollar so zealously. It needs the system to survive.


Why Everyone Uses the US Dollar… for Now


In the 1970s, the US government struck a series of deals with Saudi Arabia, creating the petrodollar system. The US promised to coddle and protect the Saudi kingdom. And, in exchange, Saudi Arabia would use its dominant position in OPEC to ensure that all oil transactions happened in US dollars.


 


Until recently, virtually anyone who wanted to import oil from any country needed US dollars to pay for it.


 


The dollar is just a middleman here. But countries and businesses use it in countless transactions amounting to trillions of dollars that have nothing to do with US products or services.


 


Plus, if foreign countries are already using dollars for oil, it’s just easier to use the dollar for other international trade. That’s why, in addition to oil sales, the US dollar is used for about 80% of all international transactions.



World leaders who have challenged the petrodollar recently have ended up dead…


Take Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, for example. Each led a large oil-producing country—Iraq and Libya, respectively. And both tried to sell their oil for something other than US dollars, before US military interventions led to their deaths.


In October 2000, Saddam had started to sell Iraqi oil for euros only. Iraq said it would no longer accept dollars for oil because it did not want to deal “in the currency of the enemy.”


A little over two years later, the US invaded. Immediately after Baghdad fell to US forces, all Iraqi oil sales were switched back to dollars.


Thanks to WikiLeaks’ release of Hillary Clinton’s emails, we know that protecting the petrodollar—not humanitarian concerns—was a primary reason for overthrowing Libya’s Gaddafi.


According to her leaked emails, the US (and France) feared that Gaddafi would use Libya’s vast gold reserves to back a pan-African currency. This gold-backed currency would have been used to buy and sell oil in global markets. Also, it would have likely displaced a version of the French franc that’s used in Central and Western Africa.


The US and France backed a rebellion, both militarily and financially, that overthrew Gaddafi in 2011.


After Gaddafi’s death, plans for the gold-backed currency—along with Libya’s 4.6 million ounces of gold—vanished.


Of course there were other reasons the US toppled Saddam and Gaddafi. But protecting the petrodollar was a serious consideration, at the very least.


Putin Is a Tougher Adversary


The dollar’s special status gives Uncle Sam tremendous leverage. So it’s no surprise that Russia wants to undermine the petrodollar system.


Russian President Vladimir Putin summed it up this way:


Russia shares the BRICS countries’ concerns over the unfairness of the global financial and economic architecture, which does not give due regard to the growing weight of the emerging economies. We are ready to work together with our partners to promote international financial regulation reforms and to overcome the excessive domination of the limited number of reserve currencies.


Essentially, Putin is saying they all want to ditch the dollar.


That’s largely because the US uses the dollar as a political weapon. For example, the US tried to sanction Russia for its actions in Crimea and Ukraine. These sanctions made it harder for Russia to access the US dollar–based financial system. So of course Russia is going to push for an alternative.


Shortly after the sanctions, Russia struck a massive deal to sell oil and gas to China for yuan. The deal totally bypassed the US financial system… and any sanctions.


China’s Permanent Bypass Around the US Dollar


Russia is the world’s largest energy producer. China is the world’s largest energy importer. Normally, they would trade with each other exclusively in US dollars.


But, as I’ve told you in recent weeks, China is now introducing a more permanent way around that.


I call it China’s “Golden Alternative” to the petrodollar. It’s a streamlined way for Russia and everyone else to sell oil to China for yuan—or effectively gold.


China’s “Golden Alternative” to the Petrodollar


China is launching a practical and attractive alternative to the petrodollar system. It will allow anyone in the world to trade oil for gold. It will also totally bypass the US dollar.


 


Here’s how it will work…


 


The Shanghai International Energy Exchange (INE) is introducing a crude oil futures contract denominated in Chinese yuan. It will allow oil producers to sell their oil for yuan.


 


Of course, China knows most oil producers don’t want a large reserve of yuan. So producers will be able to efficiently convert it into physical gold through gold exchanges in Shanghai and Hong Kong.



Bottom line, two of the biggest players in the global energy market are totally bypassing the petrodollar system.


Informed observers say Russia is already converting a large portion of its yuan earnings to gold.


Of course, other countries are interested in sidestepping the US financial system and US sanctions, too. China’s Golden Alternative will give anyone the option to do just that.


This will make the US dollar a much less effective political weapon.


Other countries on Washington’s naughty list are enthusiastically signing up. Iran, another major oil producer, is accepting yuan as payment. So is Venezuela, which has the world’s largest oil reserves.


I think others will soon follow. From the perspective of an oil producer, it’s a no-brainer.


With China’s Golden Alternative, an oil producer can participate in the world’s largest market and try to capture more market share. It can also easily convert and repatriate its proceeds into gold, an international form of money with no political risk.


But this doesn’t apply to one critical holdout… Saudi Arabia.


Twisting the Saudis’ Arm


Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest oil exporter. A lot of that oil goes to China, the world’s largest importer.


Beijing still reluctantly pays for Saudi crude in US dollars. The Saudis won’t have it any other way, at least for now.


This bothers China. It can only import Saudi crude by obtaining and then using US dollars. And that, of course, means it has to stay in Washington’s good graces.


Trump’s Treasury secretary really drove this point home recently. He threatened to kick China out of the US dollar system if it didn’t crack down on North Korea.


China would rather not depend on an adversary like this. This is one of the main reasons it’s launching the Golden Alternative.


Saudi Arabia, however, refuses to participate. It won’t sell its oil in anything but US dollars because that would break its longstanding petrodollar agreement with the US.


When China, Russia, and others trade oil for yuan, it’s a significant blow to the petrodollar. But if Saudi Arabia switched to yuan, it would take out the petrodollar… and cause an immediate financial panic in the US.



The truth is selling oil for yuan would cost Saudi Arabia a whole lot.


It would immediately lose American diplomatic and military protection. Then the media and think tanks would quickly start pounding the table for the US military to force democracy on Riyadh.


Last year Trump said, “If Saudi Arabia was without the cloak of American protection, I don’t think it would be around.”


He’s absolutely correct.


Of course, the Saudis know all of this. So they’ve been on a short leash… until recently.


In a surprise move, Saudi King Salman recently became the first sitting Saudi monarch to ever visit Russia.


Until recently, the visit would have been unthinkable. Saudi Arabia has been one of the US’ closest allies since the petrodollar system started in the 1970s.


Meanwhile, Russia and Saudi Arabia have been enemies for decades. Most recently, the Saudis and Russians have been on opposite sides of the Syrian Civil War.


That’s why King Salman’s historic visit to Moscow is so remarkable. The Saudis are clearly hedging their bets against the US and the petrodollar system.


Saudi Arabia is now drifting closer to Russia.


The Saudis have committed to invest up to $10 billion in various Russian sectors. But, even more significantly, they’ve agreed to buy the S-400 missile system, Russia’s top line air defense system, as part of a $3 billion weapons purchase.


This deal signals a geopolitical earthquake. The Saudis have never bought Russian military equipment before.


Ever since the birth of the petrodollar, the Saudis have depended on American military protection. After all, it’s what they get in return for pricing their oil in dollars.


The S-400 system deal suggests the Saudis are hedging their bets. First, they’re not buying an American system. Second, they’re buying a Russian system that’s capable of deterring an American attack.


Saudi Arabia is making significant moves to give itself alternatives to American protection.


At the same time, China is cutting back on Saudi crude.


A few years ago, Saudi oil made up over 25% of Chinese oil imports. They were Beijing’s No. 1 supplier. Today, the Saudis’ market share has dropped below 15%.


In other words, the Saudis are losing massive market share and getting pushed out of the biggest oil market in the world. This is mainly because they refuse to sell oil to China in yuan.


China has made itself clear. It’s willing to expand business with anyone who will accept yuan as payment.


Today, Russia has overtaken Saudi Arabia as China’s top supplier. Its share of the lucrative Chinese market has grown from 5% to over 15%.


Russia’s enthusiastic acceptance of yuan as payment is the main reason for this shift.


In the meantime, Angola, an African oil producer, has also come on board. The country now accepts yuan as payment for its oil exports to China. It even made the Chinese yuan its second legal currency in 2015.


Chinese imports from Angola have shot up since. It’s now China’s No. 2 supplier, after Russia.


None of this bodes well for the petrodollar system.


The Saudis have two choices… rip up the petrodollar or get shut out of the world’s most lucrative oil market.


One way or another—and probably soon—the Chinese will find a way to compel the Saudis to accept yuan. The sheer size of the Chinese market makes it impossible for Saudi Arabia to ignore China’s demands indefinitely.


What to Watch For…


China might not convince the Saudis to ditch the petrodollar system tomorrow. But it’s making significant progress.


A few months ago, Saudi Arabia announced it was willing to issue Panda bonds to finance its government spending deficit. (Panda bonds are yuan-denominated bonds from non-Chinese issuers that are sold in China.)


This is remarkable. The Saudis’ currency is pegged to the US dollar. Up until this point, they’ve exclusively used US dollars for all of their major financial initiatives.


Issuing debt in yuan—instead of US dollars—is a significant move. It means Saudi Arabia is drifting closer to China.


Also, the Saudis recently inaugurated the massive Yasref refinery in the Saudi city of Yanbu. The refinery is an $8.5 billion joint venture between Saudi Aramco and China’s Sinopec.


These are noticeable steps. But the Saudis still haven’t given China what it really wants—oil for yuan.


However, it could happen soon…


The Largest IPO in History


In the coming months, the Saudis plan to float a 5% stake in Saudi Aramco, the state oil company.


Saudi Aramco is the most valuable company in the world. It will likely be the biggest equity offering ever. It could triple, or even quadruple, Alibaba’s current record initial public offering (IPO) of $25 billion.


The IPO’s success will depend on Saudi Arabia recruiting big cornerstone investors. But so far, Western investors haven’t shown a lot of enthusiasm.


For China, however, it could be the perfect opportunity to buy political influence in Saudi Arabia.


If China bought a large stake in the Aramco IPO, it would help cement its relationship with Saudi Arabia. It would also put more distance between the Saudis and the Americans.


And critically, it would give the Chinese more leverage to compel the Saudis to accept yuan for oil.


China is in the process of negotiating not just a 5% stake, but potentially a larger one.


Bottom line…the Saudis haven’t made a clean break with the US yet. However, they are drifting toward China financially and Russia militarily.


The Saudis are clearly setting up the option to dump the petrodollar.


If the Saudis sell oil to China in yuan, it would kill the petrodollar overnight. However, short of that, things still look very dire for the petrodollar.


The petrodollar system is facing serious erosion, thanks in large part to China’s Golden Alternative. That’s already baked into the cake.


And with that, severe inflation in the US is a certainty.


This will likely be the tipping point…


After the collapse of the petrodollar, the US government will be desperate enough to implement capital controls, people controls, nationalization of retirement savings, and other forms of wealth confiscation.


I urge you to prepare for the economic and sociopolitical fallout while you still can. Expect bigger government, less freedom, shrinking prosperity… and possibly worse.


It’s probably not going to happen tomorrow. But we know where this trend is headed.


It’s possible that one day soon, Americans will wake up to a new reality. Once the petrodollar kicks the bucket and the dollar loses its status as the world’s premier reserve currency, you will have few, if any, options.


The sad truth is, most people have no idea how bad things could get, let alone how to prepare…


Yet there are straightforward steps you can start taking today to protect your savings and yourself from the financial and sociopolitical effects of the collapse of the petrodollar.


We recently released a special Guide to Surviving and Thriving During an Economic Collapse. Click here to download the PDF now.









Sunday, November 19, 2017

Russia-Gate Spreads To Europe

Authored by Robert Parry via ConsortiumNews.com,


Ever since the U.S. government dangled $160 million last December to combat Russian propaganda and disinformation, obscure academics and eager think tanks have been lining up for a shot at the loot, an unseemly rush to profit that is spreading the Russia-gate hysteria beyond the United States to Europe...




British Prime Minister Theresa May



Now, it seems that every development, which is unwelcomed by the Establishment – from Brexit to the Catalonia independence referendum – gets blamed on Russia! Russia! Russia!


The methodology of these “studies” is to find some Twitter accounts or Facebook pages somehow “linked” to Russia (although it’s never exactly clear how that is determined) and complain about the “Russian-linked” comments on political developments in the West. The assumption is that the gullible people of the United States, United Kingdom and Catalonia were either waiting for some secret Kremlin guidance to decide how to vote or were easily duped.


Oddly, however, most of this alleged “interference” seems to have come after the event in question. For instance, more than half (56 percent) of the famous $100,000 in Facebook ads in 2015-2017 supposedly to help elect Donald Trump came after last year’s U.S. election (and the total sum compares to Facebook’s annual revenue of $27 billion).


Similarly, a new British study at the University of Edinburgh blaming the Brexit vote on Russia discovered that more than 70 percent of the Brexit-related tweets from allegedly Russian-linked sites came after the referendum on whether the U.K. should leave the European Union. But, hey, don’t let facts and logic get in the way of a useful narrative to suggest that anyone who voted for Trump or favored Brexit or wants independence for Catalonia is Moscow’s “useful idiot”!


This week, British Prime Minister Theresa May accused Russia of seeking to “undermine free societies” and to “sow discord in the West.”


What About Israel?


Yet, another core problem with these “studies” is that they don’t come with any “controls,” i.e., what is used in science to test a hypothesis against some base line to determine if you are finding something unusual or just some normal occurrence.




Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015, in opposition to President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. (Screen shot from CNN broadcast)



In this case, for instance, it would be useful to find some other country that, like Russia, has a significant number of English speakers but where English is not the native language – and that has a significant interest in foreign affairs – and then see whether people from that country weigh in on social media with their opinions and perspectives about political events in the U.S., U.K., etc.


Perhaps, the U.S. government could devote some of that $160 million to, say, a study of the Twitter/Facebook behavior of Israelis and whether they jump in on U.S./U.K. controversies that might directly or indirectly affect Israel. We could see how many Twitter/Facebook accounts are “linked” to Israel; we could study whether any Israeli “trolls” harass journalists and news sites that oppose neoconservative policies and politicians in the West; we could check on whether Israel does anything to undermine candidates who are viewed as hostile to Israeli interests; if so, we could calculate how much money these “Israeli-linked” activists and bloggers invest in Facebook ads; and we could track any Twitter bots that might be reinforcing the Israeli-favored message.


No Chance


If we had this Israeli baseline, then perhaps we could judge how unusual it is for Russians to voice their opinions about controversies in the West. It’s true that Israel is a much smaller country with 8.5 million people compared to Russia’s 144 million, but you could adjust for those per capita numbers — and even if you didn’t, it wouldn’t be surprising to find that Israel’s interference in U.S. policymaking still exceeds Russian influence.




Russian President Vladimir Putin with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on May 10, 2015, at the Kremlin. (Photo from Russian government)



It’s also true that Israeli leaders have often advocated policies that have proved disastrous for the United States, such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s encouragement of  the Iraq War, which Russia opposed. Indeed, although Russia is now regularly called an American enemy, it’s hard to think of any policy that President Vladimir Putin has pushed on the U.S. that is even a fraction as harmful to U.S. interests as the Iraq War has been.


And, while we’re at it, maybe we could have an accounting of how much “U.S.-linked” entities have spent to influence politics and policies in Russia, Ukraine, Syria and other international hot spots.


But, of course, neither of those things will happen. If you even tried to gauge the role of “Israeli-linked” operations in influencing Western decision-making, you’d be accused of anti-Semitism. And if that didn’t stop you, there would be furious editorials in The New York Times, The Washington Post and the rest of the U.S. mainstream media denouncing you as a “conspiracy theorist.” Who could possibly think that Israel would do anything underhanded to shape Western attitudes?


And, if you sought the comparative figures for the West interfering in the affairs of other nations, you’d be faulted for engaging in “false moral equivalence.” After all, whatever the U.S. government and its allies do is good for the world; whereas Russia is the fount of evil.


So, let’s just get back to developing those algorithms to sniff out, isolate and eradicate “Russian propaganda” or other deviant points of view, all the better to make sure that Americans, Britons and Catalonians vote the right way.









Friday, November 10, 2017

Venezuela Officially Declared In Default

Today at 11am, the ISDA Determinations Committee sits down to decide whether an event of default has occurred due to the delayed principal payment on the Petroleos de Venezuela SA, or PDVSA, bond that matured Nov. 2, in the process triggering PDVSA (and perhaps Venezuela) CDS, and officially declaring Venezuela in default.


We won"t have to wait that long: moments ago, Wilmington Trust, the Trustee of the 8.5% bonds due 2018, issued by Corpoelec, Venezuela"s electricity company, declared that the missed interest payment originally due October 10, and whose 30 day grace period expired on November 9, and for which no pament was sent or received, officially constitutes an event of default.


From Bloomberg:



From the statement:








Wilmington Trust, National Association is communicating the following to you in its capacity as successor trustee (the “Trustee”) to The Bank of New York, as trustee, under the Indenture dated as of April 10, 2008 (the “Indenture”) for the $650,000,000 8.50% Senior Notes due 2018 (the “Notes”) of C.A. La Electricidad de Caracas (the “Issuer”). In a letter to the Trustee and various other parties dated November 30, 2012, National Electricity Corporation, S.A. (CORPOELEC) advised that it is the successor by merger to the Issuer. Capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein shall have the respective meanings set forth in the Indenture.


 


Please be advised that the Paying Agent with respect to the Notes has advised the Trustee that the payment of interest on the Notes that was due on October 10, 2017 was not received by the Paying Agent. The Issuer’s failure to pay interest on the Notes when due on October 10, 2017 constitutes a Default under the Indenture. The Paying Agent has further notified the Trustee that the interest payment was not received by November 9, 2017.


 


The Issuer’s failure to pay the overdue interest on the Notes on or before November 9, 2017 constitutes an Event of Default under Section 5.1(ii) of the Indenture. Pursuant to Section 5.1(b) of the Indenture, if an Event of Default shall occur and be continuing and has not been waived, the Holders of at least 25% in principal amount of Outstanding Notes may declare the principal of, and premium, if any, accrued interest and Additional Amounts, if any, on all the Notes to be due and payable by notice in writing to the Issuer and the Trustee specifying the Event of Default and that such notice is a “notice of acceleration”, and the same shall become immediately due and payable.



It is unclear if this formal default declaration makes today"s ISDA determinations committee decision moot, however it now looks quite certain that Monday"s meeting between creditors and the country"s vice president and chief debt negotiatior, who also happens to be a US-sanctioned drug kingpin, will no longer be necessary.


Today"s news will not come as a surprise to CDS holders, who had already priced in a 99.99% probability of default in 5 years.



The full statement is below:











Thursday, November 9, 2017

Uh-Oh...Draghi"s Ammunition To Buy Italian Bonds Before The Election Is Less Than We Thought

Having successfully pulled off the announcement of the ECB’s “dovish taper” – where monthly bond purchases will be halved to Euro 30 billion from January 2018 – last month, a challenge for Mario Draghi in Q1 2018 has appeared on his radar. The ECB’s bond buying ammunition is slightly less than analysts thought and there is the small matter of the looming Italian election. The latter is likely to be held in March 2018, although it could take place as late as May. Veteran strategist, now Bloomberg columnist, Marcus Ashworth explains in "Italy"s Shrinking Safety Net".


One of Mario Draghi"s hands is being tied behind his back just as bond markets may need his help the most. Data released by the European Central Bank this week show the ECB president will have reduced scope to buy Italian bonds if markets start convulsing ahead of the country"s general election in the spring. From January, the ECB"s Quantitative Easing program will pare its monthly bond purchases by 50 percent to 30 billion euros ($35 billion). Draghi has sought to soften this so-called tapering by emphasizing how the ECB can reinvest maturing bonds to pick up the shortfall.


 


There"s a hitch -- the central bank said it intends only to reinvest proceeds from maturing bonds in debt of the same country. That leaves Draghi with only limited flexibility to use his buying power to the benefit of one country over another.



Monday"s release showed that proceeds from these maturing securities, which could then fund new purchases of Italian bonds is both less than expected and likely skewed until after the election. Ashworth provides us with the numbers.


Monday’s release showed that proceeds from these maturing securities which could then fund further purchases of government bonds, will only be about 8.5 billion euros, less than analyst expectations of as much as 12 billion euros. This means the pace of bond purchases under the QE program will fall by about a third from this year"s rate of 60 billion euros a month. The first quarter will be noticeably lighter in monthly redemptions compared with the rest of 2018. The big months for Italian redemptions won"t come until April and October.




This is inconvenient, especially as the ECB had already been “pushing the envelope” in terms of Italian purchases (and French), as Ashworth laments.


The ECB has already spent most of 2017 buying more Italian bonds than the capital key, a formula that determines how much of each nation"s debt the central bank can buy, would suggest. That variation is allowable - but it leaves little extra available slack to cut Italy.




Ashworth notes that the fragmented nature of Italian politics could lead to problems for the Italian bond market in the run up to the election. While the anti-Euro 5-Star is the largest party, its reluctance to form coalitions has significantly reduced its chances of forming the next government. While that’s a positive, Ashworth’s biggest concern is the reaction of the bond market if Silvio Berlusconi returns to, “or even near”, power. As we discussed in “Berlusconi: The Greatest Comeback Since Lazarus?” here, last Sunday’s Sicilian elections were seen as an important barometer for the upcoming national election and Silvio is on the comeback trail.


Nationally, the PD (center-left) is just behind 5-Star, which has 28% support. In the center-right bloc, Forza Italia and the anti-immigrant, Northern League, have 14% each, while the far-right Brothers of Italy have 5%. As media outlets emphasised, much of the Sicilian election campaign focused on the personalities of those involved, rather than the “big issues”, like the economy, jobs and immigration. Ironically, we suspect that Mr Berlusconi will revel in such a situation if it continues in the upcoming national election campaign. Besides cementing the alliance between his Forza Italia, Brothers of Italy and the Northern League, we will be watching as Berlusconi seeks to overturn the ban on his running for public office. Berlusconi, of course, denies any wrongdoing.



Super Mario (Draghi) has enjoyed a charmed existence as President of the ECB. There would be a comic irony if his legacy was tainted by his corrupt, octogenarian countryman so late in his tenure. As Ashworth concludes.


Draghi"s toolbox has been downsized. Investors can"t say they weren"t given fair warning. Their only consolation: his ability to pull a surprise at the very last moment.










Monday, November 6, 2017

Matt Taibbi Exposes The Great College Loan Swindle

Authored by Matt Taibbi via RollingStone.com,


How universities, banks and the government turned student debt into America"s next financial black hole...



On a wind-swept, frigid night in February 2009, a 37-year-old schoolteacher named Scott Nailor parked his rusted "92 Toyota Tercel in the parking lot of a Fireside Inn in Auburn, Maine. He picked this spot to have a final reckoning with himself. He was going to end his life.


Beaten down after more than a decade of struggle with student debt, after years of taking false doors and slipping into various puddles of bureaucratic quicksand, he was giving up the fight. "This is it, I"m done," he remembers thinking. "I sat there and just sort of felt like I"m going to take my life. I"m going to find a way to park this car in the garage, with it running or whatever."


Nailor"s problems began at 19 years old, when he borrowed for tuition so that he could pursue a bachelor"s degree at the University of Southern Maine. He graduated summa cum laude four years later and immediately got a job in his field, as an English teacher.


But he graduated with $35,000 in debt, a big hill to climb on a part-time teacher"s $18,000 salary. He struggled with payments, and he and his wife then consolidated their student debt, which soon totaled more than $50,000. They declared bankruptcy and defaulted on the loans. From there he found himself in a loan "rehabilitation" program that added to his overall balance. "That"s when the noose began to tighten," he says.


The collectors called day and night, at work and at home. "In the middle of class too, while I was teaching," he says. He ended up in another rehabilitation program that put him on a road toward an essentially endless cycle of rising payments. Today, he pays $471 a month toward "rehabilitation," and, like countless other borrowers, he pays nothing at all toward his real debt, which he now calculates would cost more than $100,000 to extinguish. "Not one dollar of it goes to principal," says Nailor. "I will never be able to pay it off. My only hope to escape from this crushing debt is to die."


After repeated phone calls with lending agencies about his ever-rising interest payments, Nailor now believes things will only get worse with time. "At this rate, I may easily break $1 million in debt before I retire from teaching," he says.


Nailor had more than once reached the stage in his thoughts where he was thinking about how to physically pull off his suicide. "I"d been there before, that just was the worst of it," he says. "It scared me, bad."


He had a young son and a younger daughter, but Nailor had been so broken by the experience of financial failure that he managed to convince himself they would be better off without him. What saved him is that he called his wife to say goodbye. "I don"t know why I called my wife. I"m glad I did," he says. "I just wanted her or someone to tell me to pick it up, keep fighting, it"s going to be all right. And she did."


From that moment, Nailor managed to focus on his family. Still, the core problem – the spiraling debt that has taken over his life, as it has for millions of other Americans – remains.


Horror stories about student debt are nothing new. But this school year marks a considerable worsening of a tale that ought to have been a national emergency years ago. The government in charge of regulating this mess is now filled with predatory monsters who have extensive ties to the exploitative for-profit education industry – from Donald Trump himself to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who sets much of the federal loan policy, to Julian Schmoke, onetime dean of the infamous DeVry University, whom Trump appointed to police fraud in education.


Americans don"t understand the student-loan crisis because they"ve been trained to view the issue in terms of a series of separate, unrelated problems.


They will read in one place that as of the summer of 2017, a record 8.5 million Americans are in default on their student debt, with about $1.3 trillion in loans still outstanding.


In another place, voters will read that the cost of higher education is skyrocketing, soaring in a seemingly market-defying arc that for nearly a decade now has run almost double the rate of inflation. Tuition for a halfway decent school now frequently surpasses $50,000 a year. How, the average newsreader wonders, can any child not born in a yacht afford to go to school these days?


In a third place, that same reader will see some heartless monster, usually a Republican, threatening to cut federal student lending. The current bogeyman is Trump, who is threatening to slash the Pell Grant program by $3.9 billion, which would seem to put higher education even further out of reach for poor and middle-income families. This too seems appalling, and triggers a different kind of response, encouraging progressive voters to lobby for increased availability for educational lending.


But the separateness of these stories clouds the unifying issue underneath: The education industry as a whole is a con. In fact, since the mortgage business blew up in 2008, education and student debt is probably our reigning unexposed nation-wide scam.


It"s a multiparty affair, what shakedown artists call a "big store scheme," like in the movie The Sting: a complex deception requiring a big cast to string the mark along every step of the way. In higher education, every party you meet, from the moment you first set foot on campus, is in on the game.


America as a country has evolved in recent decades into a confederacy of widescale industrial scams. The biggest slices of our economic pie – sectors like health care, military production, banking, even commercial and residential real estate – have become crude income-redistribution schemes, often untethered from the market by subsidies or bailouts, with the richest companies benefiting from gamed or denuded regulatory systems that make profits almost as assured as taxes. Guaranteed-profit scams – that"s the last thing America makes with any level of consistent competence. In that light, Trump, among other things, the former head of a schlock diploma mill called Trump University, is a perfect president for these times. He"s the scammer-in-chief in the Great American Ripoff Age, a time in which fleecing students is one of our signature achievements.


It starts with the sales pitch colleges make to kids. The thrust of it is usually that people who go to college make lots more money than the unfortunate dunces who don"t. "A bachelor"s degree is worth $2.8 million on average over a lifetime" is how Georgetown University put it. The Census Bureau tells us similarly that a master"s degree is worth on average about $1.3 million more than a high school diploma.


But these stats say more about the increasing uselessness of a high school degree than they do about the value of a college diploma. Moreover, since virtually everyone at the very highest strata of society has a college degree, the stats are skewed by a handful of financial titans. A college degree has become a minimal status marker as much as anything else. "I"m sure people who take polo lessons or sailing lessons earn a lot more on average too," says Alan Collinge of Student Loan Justice, which advocates for debt forgiveness and other reforms. "Does that mean you should send your kids to sailing school?"


But the pitch works on everyone these days, especially since good jobs for Trump"s beloved "poorly educated" are scarce to nonexistent. Going to college doesn"t guarantee a good job, far from it, but the data show that not going dooms most young people to an increasingly shallow pool of the very crappiest, lowest-paying jobs. There"s a lot of stick, but not much carrot, in the education game.


It"s a vicious cycle. Since everyone feels obligated to go to college, most everyone who can go, does, creating a glut of graduates. And as that glut of degree recipients grows, the squeeze on the un-degreed grows tighter, increasing further that original negative incentive: Don"t go to college, and you"ll be standing on soup lines by age 25.


With that inducement in place, colleges can charge almost any amount, and kids will pay – so long as they can get the money. And here we run into problem number two: It"s too easy to find that money.


Parents, not wanting their kids to fall behind, will pay every dollar they have. But if they don"t have the cash, there is a virtually unlimited amount of credit available to young people. Proposed cuts to Pell Grants aside, the landscape is filled with public and private lending, and students gobble it up. Kids who walk into financial-aid offices are often not told what signing their names on the various aid forms will mean down the line. A lot of kids don"t even understand the concept of interest or amortization tables – they think if they"re borrowing $8,000, they"re paying back $8,000.


Nailor certainly was unaware of what he was getting into when he was 19. "I had no idea [about interest]," he says. "I just remember thinking, "I don"t have to worry about it right now. I want to go to school." " He pauses in disgust. "It"s unsettling to remember how it was like, "Here, just sign this and you"re all set." I wish I could take the time machine back and slap myself in the face."


The average amount of debt for a student leaving school is skyrocketing even faster than the rate of tuition increase.


In 2016, for instance, the average amount of debt for an exiting college graduate was a staggering $37,172. That"s a rise of six percent over just the previous year. With the average undergraduate interest rate at about 3.7 percent, the interest alone costs around $115 per month, meaning anyone who can"t afford to pay into the principal faces the prospect of $69,000 in payments over 50 years.


So here"s the con so far.


You must go to college because you"re screwed if you don"t.


 


Costs are outrageously high, but you pay them because you have to, and because the system makes it easy to borrow massive amounts of money.


 


The third part of the con is the worst: You can"t get out of the debt.



Since government lenders in particular have virtually unlimited power to collect on student debt – preying on everything from salary to income-tax returns – even running is not an option. And since most young people find themselves unable to make their full payments early on, they often find themselves perpetually paying down interest only, never touching the principal. Our billionaire president can declare bankruptcy four times, but students are the one class of citizen that may not do it even once.



October 2017 was supposed to represent the first glimmer of light at the end of this tunnel. This month marks the 10th anniversary of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, one of the few avenues for wiping out student debt. The idea, launched by George W. Bush, was pretty simple: Students could pledge to work 10 years for the government or a nonprofit and have their debt forgiven. In order to qualify, borrowers had to make payments for 10 years using a complex formula. This month, then, was to start the first mass wipeouts of debt in the history of American student lending. But more than half of the 700,000 enrollees have already been expunged from the program for, among other things, failing to certify their incomes on time, one of many bureaucratic tricks employed to limit forgiveness eligibility. To date, fewer than 500 participants are scheduled to receive loan forgiveness in this first round.


Moreover, Trump has called for the program"s elimination by 2018, meaning that any relief that begins this month is likely only temporary. The only thing that is guaranteed to remain real for the immediate future are the massive profits being generated on the backs of young people, who before long become old people who, all too often, remain ensnared until their last days in one of the country"s most brilliant and devious moneymaking schemes.


Everybody wins in this madness, except students. Even though many of the loans are originated by the state, most of them are serviced by private or quasi-private companies like Navient – which until 2014 was the student-loan arm of Sallie Mae – or Nelnet, companies that reported a combined profit of around $1 billion last year (the U.S. government made a profit of $1.6 billion in 2016!). Debt-collector companies like Performant (which generated $141.4 million in revenues; the family of Betsy DeVos is a major investor), and most particularly the colleges and universities, get to prey on the desperation and terror of parents and young people, and in the process rake in vast sums virtually without fear of market consequence.


About that: Universities, especially public institutions, have successfully defended rising tuition in recent years by blaming the hikes on reduced support from states. But this explanation was blown to bits in large part due to a bizarre slip-up in the middle of a controversy over state support of the University of Wisconsin system a few years ago.


In that incident, UW raised tuition by 5.5 percent six years in a row after 2007. The school blamed stresses from the financial crisis and decreased state aid. But when pressed during a state committee hearing in 2013 about the university"s finances, UW system president Kevin Reilly admitted they held $648 million in reserve, including $414 million in tuition payments. This was excess hidey-hole cash the school was sitting on, separate and distinct from, say, an endowment fund.


After the university was showered with criticism for hoarding cash at a time when it was gouging students with huge price increases every year, the school responded by saying, essentially, it only did what all the other kids were doing. UW released data showing that other major state-school systems across the country were similarly stashing huge amounts of cash. While Wisconsin"s surplus was only 25 percent of its operating budget, for instance, Minnesota"s was 29 percent, and Illinois maintained a whopping 34 percent reserve.


When Collinge, of Student Loan Justice, looked into it, he found that the phenomenon wasn"t confined to state schools. Private schools, too, have been hoarding cash even as they plead poverty and jack up tuition fees. "They"re all doing it," he says.


While universities sit on their stockpiles of cash and the loan industry generates record profits, the pain of living in debilitating debt for many lasts into retirement. Take Veronica Martish. She"s a 68-year-old veteran, having served in the armed forces in the Vietnam era. She"s also a grandmother who"s never been in trouble and consid?ers herself a patriot. "The thing is, I tried to do everything right in my life," she says. "But this ruined my life."


This is an $8,000 student loan she took out in 1989, through Sallie Mae. She borrowed the money so she could take courses at Quinebaug Valley Community College in Connecticut. Five years later, after deaths in her family, she fell behind on her payments and entered a loan-rehabilitation program. "That"s when my nightmare began," she says.


In rehabilitation, Martish"s $8,000 loan, with fees and interest, ballooned into a $27,000 debt, which she has been carrying ever since. She says she"s paid more than $63,000 to date and is nowhere near discharging the principal. "By the time I die," she says, "I will probably pay more than $200,000 toward an $8,000 loan." She pauses. "It"s a scam, you see. Nothing ever comes off the loan. It"s all interest and fees. And they chase you until you"re old, like me. They never stop. Ever."


And that"s the other thing about lending to students: It"s the safest grift around.


There"s probably no better symbol of the bankruptcy of the education industry than Trump University. The half-literate president"s effort at higher learning drew in suckers with pathetic promises of great real-estate insights (for instance, that Trump "hand-picked" the instructors) and then charged them truckfuls of cash for get-rich-quick tutorials that students and faculty later described as "almost completely worthless" and a "total lie." That Trump got to settle a lawsuit on this matter for $25 million and still managed to be elected president is, ironically, a remarkable testament to the failure of our education system. About the only example that might be worse is DeVry University, which told students that 90 percent of graduates seeking jobs found them in their fields within six months of graduation. The FTC found those claims "false and unsubstantiated," and ordered $100 million in refunds and debt relief, but that was in 2016 – before Trump put DeVry chief Schmoke, of all people, in charge of rooting out education fraud. Like a lot of things connected to politics lately, it would be funny if it weren"t somehow actually happening.?"Yeah, it"s the fox guarding the henhouse," says Collinge. "You could probably find a worse analogy."


But the real problem with the student-loan story is that it"s so poorly understood by people not living the nightmare. There"s so much propaganda that blames the borrowers for taking on the debt in the first place that there"s often little sympathy for people in hopeless situations. To make matters worse, band-aid programs that supposedly offer help hypnotize the public into thinking there are ways out, when the "help" is usually just another trick to add to the balance.


"That"s part of the problem with the narrative," says Nailor, the schoolteacher. "People think that there"s help, so what are you complaining about? All you got to do is apply for help."


But the help, he says, coming from a for-profit predatory system, often just makes things worse. "It did for me," he says. "It does for a lot of people."









Saturday, November 4, 2017

BITCOIN vs. GOLD: Which One"s A Bubble & How Much Energy Do They Really Consume

SRSrocco


By the SRSrocco Report,


If you are investing in either Bitcoin or Gold, it"s important to understand which asset is behaving more like a bubble than the other.  While it"s impossible to understand how the market will value these two very different assets in the future, we can provide some logical analysis that might remove some of the mystery associated with the market price of Bitcoin versus Gold.


I"ve read some analysis on Bitcoin profitability and energy consumption that seemed unreliable, so I thought I would put my two cents in on the subject.


For example, many sites are using the Digiconomist"s work on Bitcoin energy consumption.  However, I believe this analysis has overstated Bitcoin"s energy consumption by a large degree.  According to the Digiconomist, Bitcoin"s annual electric use is approximately 24 TerraWatts per year (TWh/yr):



In a recent article that was forwarded to me by one of my readers, How Many Barrels Of Oil Are Needed To Mine One Bitcoin, the author used the information in the chart above to calculate the energy cost to produce each Bitcoin.  He stated that the average energy cost for each Bitcoin equals 20 barrels of oil equivalent.  Unfortunately, that data is grossly overstated.


If we look at another website, the author explains in great detail the actual energy cost to produce each Bitcoin.  According to Marc Bevand, he calculated on July 28th, that the average electric consumption of Bitcoin was 7.7 TWh/yr, one-third of the Digiconomist"s figure.  Here is a chart and table from Marc Bevand"s site showing how he arrived at the figures:



This graph shows the increase in Bitcoin"s hash rate and the efficiency of the Bitcoin Miners at the bottom.  If you want to read more detail of the analysis, I suggest you click on the link (Marc Bevand: Electricity consumption of Bitcoin: a market-based and technical analysis)



The table above shows the Bitcoin energy consumption analysis on Feb 26th at a Best Guess (average) of 4.12-4.73 TWh/yr.  However, Marc updated the data again on July 28th, as the hash rate increased, to show total Bitcoin energy consumption rose to 7.15-8.27 TWh/yr.  I took the average of his range to be 7.7 TWh/yr.


Nonetheless, I had to update the number once again because it has been three months since Marc calculated his figures.  I decided to increase the 7.7 TWh/yr rate by 45% to account for the past three months.  I arrived at the 45% figure by using the 75% increase in Marc"s energy consumption figures from Feb to July.  His energy consumption figures increased approximately 15% per month.  Thus, three months equals 45%.


Okay, after taking all these estimates into consideration, I arrived at a total of 11.2 TWh/yr for Bitcoin mining.  As you can see, this is much less than the 24 TWh/yr by the Digiconomist.  Now, if we compare the annual amount of Bitcoin energy consumption to other countries total electric consumption, Bitcoin uses more electricity than Uraguay, Kyrgyzstan, and Paraguay:



I would recommend those who want to understand the differing opinions on the Bitcoin energy consumption figures by these two analysts to go to the link I provided at Marc"s blog.  If you go to that page, you will see a long debate between Marc and the Digiconomist on why they disagree.


Regardless, I believe Marc Bevand did a much better job at crunching the numbers and details of the Bitcoin Miners and their efficiencies to arrive at a much more accurate figure than the Digiconomist.  Either way, Bitcoin does consume one hell of a lot of electricity to produce each digital coin.


Bitcoin vs. Gold:  Energy Consumption 


Now that we have a more realistic figure for Bitcoin"s energy consumption, we can compare it to gold.  According to the statistics published by the top two gold mining companies in the world, Barrick and Newmont, they consumed approximately 8.5 Gigajoules of energy to produce each ounce of gold in 2016.  Yes, I realize these energy metrics are a bit difficult to understand, but these are the figures used by the industry.  If we convert all these energy figures from Bitcoin mining and the Gold Industry to barrels of oil equivalent, we end up with the following results:



While it only takes 1.4 barrels of oil equivalent to produce an ounce of gold, it takes 10.1 barrels of oil equivalent to produce one Bitcoin.  Thus, Bitcoin consumes seven times more energy to produce each digital coin than it does for each gold oz.  Even though it takes a lot more energy to produce each Bitcoin, the Gold Mining Industry consumes one hell of a lot more energy overall.


If we assume that 85% of total global gold production comes from primary gold mining only, then the 88 million oz (Moz) produced in 2016 consumed the energy value of an estimated 123.2 million barrels of oil equivalent versus 6.6 million barrels of oil equivalent for all Bitcoin production.



Now, the reason Bitcoin consumes less overall energy than the global primary gold mining industry is due to the much small annual number of Bitcoins produced versus gold.  In 2016, the primary gold mining industry produced 88 Moz versus an estimated 650,000 Bitcoins in 2017 (based on data showing 1,800 Bitcoins mined each day).  Which means, the primary gold mining industry is currently producing approximately 135 times more gold than the Bitcoin mining industry.


While some precious metals analysts have switched over to investing more in Bitcoin (and cryptos) than gold, I don"t belong to that group.  Unfortunately, these analysts seem to have forgotten about energy and the Falling EROI - Energy Returned On Invested.  One of these analysts recently put out a video suggesting that silver only had about ten years to be removed from the shackles of Central Bank manipulation before new high-technology would produce silver for next to nothing.  I believe this analyst used the Star Trek replicator as an example.


I can assure you, the world isn"t anywhere near to producing silver for pennies on the dollar.  On the contrary, the world economy is much closer to collapsing under the weight of the Falling EROI than heading into a new JETSON"s high-tech age:



I will be publishing detailed information in the future why I believe Gold and Silver will still be the GO TO ASSETS to own versus Bitcoin and the Cryptocurrencies.


Bitcoin vs. Gold: Which One"s In A Bubble?


So, the big question on the minds of many investors is... which asset is more of a bubble, Bitcoin or Gold?  If we use the cost of production as a guide, my answer is Bitcoin.  Again, according to the data put out by Marc Bevand, he estimated that the total cost to produce Bitcoin on May 31st, 2017 was approximately $1,010:



Actually, the text above came from Marc as he was replying to my question on his blog.  However, this Bitcoin break-even cost is now outdated.  So, I sent Marc an email back at the beginning of August to see what his new estimate for the cost to produce Bitcoin.  He replied on August 8th stating his best estimate was about $1,500.  By adjusting for the increased cost to produce Bitcoin over the past two months, I came up with a figure of $1,800.  Yes, it"s a ball-park figure, but it"s the best estimate we can go by.


Now, if we compare the estimated Bitcoin cost and profit versus the same for gold, Bitcoin is the clear BUBBLE WINNER:



Currently, Bitcoin is fetching an estimated $4,700 profit per coin versus $136 for gold.  Here"s how I arrived at those figures:


Bitcoin vs. Gold Cost & Profit


Top 2 Gold Miners"s Total Cost of Production 2016 = $1,115


Gold Average Annual Price 2016 = $1,251


Estimated Gold Profit = $136


Bitcoin Current Cost 2017 = $1,800


Bitcoin Current Market Price = $6,500 (based on previous trading data) 


Estimated Bitcoin Profit = $4,700


If we compare the estimated profit margin in these two assets, we can clearly see that Bitcoin has a great deal more FROTH than gold.  Yes, I realize I took some liberties in providing the Bitcoin production cost, but I believe it"s a pretty accurate figure.  While other articles have stated that Bitcoin mining is no longer profitable, I disagree.  I believe it is exceedingly profitable to produce Bitcoin if you have purchased the most recent mining equipment and have set up the operation in an area that provides low electric utility rates.


Alright, I imagine there are some (maybe many.. LOL) that don"t agree with my analysis.  First, many people in the precious metals industry still do not agree with the overriding factor that determines the price of gold is its cost of production.  Second, while supply and demand forces do impact the gold price over the short-term, the cost of production has always been the number one factor over the longer-term.


This last chart shows the estimated Bitcoin production cost versus the market price:



If we go back to the end of 2013, we can see a spike up and then consolidation lower in 2014.  The present Bitcoin price spike in 2017 has lasted longer than the one at the end of 2013, but we can clearly see a pattern.  Who knows how long Bitcoin will continue higher before it consolidates lower.  Some precious metals analysts now turned Bitcoin specialists are suggesting that Bitcoin will reach $13,000 by the first half of 2018.  Hell, I don"t know if that will happen.  Maybe it will; perhaps it won"t.  I really don"t care.


I have nothing against Bitcoin.  However, Bitcoin needs a very high-tech electronic system to function.  On the other hand, any poor slob in the country owning some gold can walk into town and use it as money.  Now, when I say, "poor slob," I am using that term in jest.  Actually, I am a poor slob just like the next person.  Regardless, Bitcoin functions as an electronic asset if the machines keep working.  Now, go down to Puerto Rico and see how many people will take Bitcoin.  However, if you have cash, gold, and silver... you are ready to do some business.


If a person wants to own and speculate in Bitcoin... that"s fine.  But, it is much more prudent to hold most of one"s wealth in physical gold and silver rather than Bitcoin.


Check back for new articles and updates at the SRSrocco Report.