Join our Cash Back program and get the best rebate payouts on the market!
Whether you are trading large or small volumes, we will give you generous rebates.
No doubt, our Cash Back program is one of the best on the market.
Funds withdrawal within 30 minutes - Outstanding dealing - eToken security technology - Withdrawal via SMS - 3 Trading Platforms - Free VPS servers - Without requotes! - Traders contests with prizes up to $20,000 - My Safe - 5% annually to your deposit - Automatic account funding - 4 level Partner Program
Best Forex Broker Russia 2011 • Best Broker in Asia, 2012 • Best Forex Broker, Russia 2012 • Best Standard Forex Broker Asia 2012 • Best Forex Broker, Middle East 2012 • Best Trade Executions, 2013 • Best Mini Broker • Best Order Management 2013
Free demo trading competition every day, every week, every month. Free entry registration and win real prize (money) for the winner.
No restrictions for trading (scalping, hedging, news, EAs, etc) - low spreads from 0.2 pips and up to 1:500 leverage with microlots (0.01 size) available for everyone - Client Oriented True ECN Broker - Free VPS
Submitted by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,
Last week two prominent Ukrainian opposition figures were gunned down in broad daylight. They join as many as ten others who have been killed or committed suicide under suspicious circumstances just this year. These individuals have one important thing in common: they were either part of or friendly with the Yanukovych government, which a US-backed coup overthrew last year. They include members of the Ukrainian parliament and former chief editors of major opposition newspapers.
While some journalists here in the US have started to notice the strange series of opposition killings in Ukraine, the US government has yet to say a word.
Compare this to the US reaction when a single opposition figure was killed in Russia earlier this year. Boris Nemtsov was a member of a minor political party that was not even represented in the Russian parliament. Nevertheless the US government immediately demanded that Russia conduct a thorough investigation of his murder, suggesting the killers had a political motive.
As news of the Russian killing broke, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Ed Royce (R-CA) did not wait for evidence to blame the killing on Russian president Vladimir Putin. On the very day of Nemtsov’s murder, Royce told the US media that, “this shocking murder is the latest assault on those who dare to oppose the Putin regime.”
Neither Royce, nor Secretary of State John Kerry, nor President Obama, nor any US government figure has said a word about the series of apparently political murders in Ukraine.
On the contrary, instead of questioning the state of democracy in what looks like a lawless Ukraine, the Administration is sending in the US military to help train Ukrainian troops!
Last week, just as the two political murders were taking place, the US 173rd Airborne Brigade landed in Ukraine to begin training Ukrainian national guard forces – and to leave behind some useful military equipment. Though the civil unrest continues in Ukraine, the US military is assisting one side in the conflict – even as the US slaps sanctions on Russia over accusations it is helping out the other side!
As the ceasefire continues to hold, though shakily, what kind of message does it send to the US-backed government in Kiev to have US troops arrive with training and equipment and an authorization to gift Kiev with some $350 million in weapons? Might they not take this as a green light to begin new hostilities against the breakaway regions in the east?
The Obama administration is so inconsistent in its foreign policy. In some places, particularly Cuba and Iran, the administration is pursuing a policy that looks to diplomacy and compromise to help improve decades of bad relations. In these two cases the administration realizes that the path of confrontation has led nowhere. When the president announced his desire to see the end of Cuba sanctions, he stated very correctly that, "…we are ending a policy that was long past its expiration date. When what you’re doing doesn’t work for fifty years, it’s time to try something new.”
So while Obama is correctly talking about sanctions relief for Iran and Cuba, he is adding more sanctions on Russia, backing Saudi Arabia’s brutal attack on Yemen, and pushing ever harder for regime change in Syria. Does he really believe the rest of the world does not see these double standards? A wise consistency of non-interventionism in all foreign affairs would be the correct course for this and future US administrations. Let us hope they will eventually follow Obama’s observation that, “it’s time to try something new.”
With economic growth decelerating markedly and with capital flowing the wrong way for four consecutive quarters (to the tune of $300 billion), China needs its margin-fueled equity mania to continue in order to distract everyone from the fact that the fundamental picture is, to quote Bloomberg metals analyst Kenneth Hoffman who recently visited the country, “a lot worse than you think.” The PBoC looks set to step up their easing efforts in an attempt to keep the music playing as evidenced by last weekend’s RRR cut and indeed the rumor now seems to be that the central bank will conduct ECB-style LTROs to ensure a new plan to (essentially) bailout deeply indebted local governments doesn’t end up working at cross purposes with efforts to keep liquidity flowing.
Meanwhile, southbound flows (i.e. money flowing from the mainland into Hong Kong shares on the back of new regulations in China that allow mutual funds to invest in Hong Kong-listed equities) hit $10 billion in Q1 while the pace of new stock trading account creation has continued to accelerate with data from the China Securities Depository and Clearing Co. showing more than 3 million new accounts were opened in the first two weeks of April alone. This helped shares of Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing to go “interstellar” last week as analysts and investors alike are betting that record turnover portends big gains ahead for the exchange operator with Citi looking for EPS gains of over 40% over the next two years.
As we noted on Thursday, Citi also believes we may be only halfway to peak mania because even though daily turnover is at unprecedented levels in absolute terms, it rose 10 fold from 2006-2007 and has “only” managed a 5X move this time around.
Meanwhile, on the mainland, turnover associated with the country’s self-driven stock frenzy has now propelled the Shanghai Exchange to the top spot worldwide in terms of volume and in fact, turnover was so high on Monday at 1 trillion yuan, that the exchange’s software was incapable of reporting it. Here’s Reuters:
The exchange's trading turnover exceeded 1 trillion yuan ($161.28 billion) for the first time on Monday, but the data could not be properly displayed because its software was not designed to report numbers that high.
"This is a software configuration issue, not a technical glitch," the Shanghai Stock Exchange said in a statement, adding that trading and price quotes for individual stocks were not affected.
The exchange said it would need to replace its current software files that handle volume reporting to resolve the issue.
China's stock market has nearly doubled over the past six months on hopes of monetary easing, with the world-beating performance luring retail investors who have been opening accounts at a record pace.
Trading turnover on the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges totalled $1.85 trillion and $1.56 trillion respectively in March, making the two bourses the world's biggest that month, according to the World Federation of Exchanges.
* * *
So there you have it. China's day trading hordes — whose numbers are currently growing at a clip of around 1.6 million per week — have officially overwhelmed the software that tracks volume in Shanghai. It's worth repeating that if you believe statistics (and Jamie Dimon doesn't think you should), around one in three of the millions of new "investors" in China have an elementary school education or less and let's not forget this chart which is perhaps the scariest visual of them all:
On the bright side, it's not often in today's market that man overcomes software, so score one for human traders.
Few individuals polarize the public with their opinions, statements and mere presence, like Noam Chomsky. The 86 year old linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, logician, political commentator, social justice activist, and anarcho-syndicalist advocate, has strong opinions (and in some cases, entire schools of thought) on everything from philosophy, to sociology, to linguistics, but he is perhaps best known in recent years for his political activism which has led to death threats due to his staunch and far-reaching criticism of US foreign policy (allegedly the Anti-Defamation League "spied on" Chomsky's appearances).
His broader outlook is a peculiar version of libertarianism (he describes himself as an anacrho-syndicalist), in which he asserts that authority is inherently illegitimate, and that the burden of proof is on those in authority. If this burden can't be met, the authority in question should be dismantled. Authority for its own sake is inherently unjustified. He contends that there is little moral difference between chattel slavery and renting one's self to an owner or "wage slavery." He holds that workers should own and control their workplace.
He is has also repeatedly stated his opposition to ruling elites, among them institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and GATT.
In other words, the present, in which ruling elites (whether the BIS and "Troika) and ubiquitous US intervention in every possible foreign affair (courtesy of a State Department which, as it has now been revealed, had until recently worked on behalf of the highest foreign bidder) determine the fate of the entire world, should provide Chomsky with endless material for contemplation.
Conveniently, overnight we got a glimpse into his current thought process, courtesy of the following extended interview conducted by RT with the famed linguist and anti-establishmentarian, in which topics such as the "weaponization" of media and information, America's paradoxical propaganda machine, the immunity of the US from the set of rules it creates for everyone else (but itself), and America's conversion from a democracy into a plutocracy, as well as many more, are touched upon.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with Chomsky, he always provides a unique and interesting perspective on current (and future) events.
While the International Criminal Court investigates and sentences African dictators, any of the crimes the US commits like the invasion of Iraq, which has destabilized an entire region, go unpunished, philosopher Noam Chomsky tells RT.
RT: During a congressional hearing [on April 15, officially titled ‘Confronting Russia’s Weaponization of Information’], House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Ed Royce said, “The Russian media is now dividing societies abroad and, in fact, weaponizing information.” Where is that coming from? Is it a genuine fear or fear of alternative opinions?
Noam Chomsky: He’s talking about the Russian media but if there were any imaginable possibility of honesty, he could be talking about the American media, for which that is correct. Take the New York Times -- the greatest newspaper in the world. Take one example, at the first article that appeared today, that the tentative [nuclear] agreement with Iran was reached. It’s a thinkpiece, by Peter Baker, one of their main analysts. He discusses in it the main reasons to distrust Iran, the crimes of Iran. It’s very interesting to look at. The most interesting one is the charge that Iran is destabilizing the Middle East because it’s supporting militias which have killed American soldiers in Iraq. That’s kind of as if, in 1943, the Nazi press had criticized England because it was destabilizing Europe for supporting partisans who were killing German soldiers. In other words, the assumption is, when the United States invades, it kills a couple hundred thousand people, destroys the country, elicits sectarian conflicts that are now tearing Iraq and the region apart, that’s stabilization. If someone resists that tact, that’s destabilization.
That’s characteristic. The Summit of the Americas is meeting now in Panama. Take a look at the commentary on it here [in the US]. The big question is how much credit Obama will get for his move towards helping Cuba escape from its isolation in the hemisphere. It’s exactly the opposite. The United States is isolated in the hemisphere. You look back at the last hemisphere meeting in Colombia, a US ally. The United States was totally isolated. There were two big issues. One was admitting Cuba into the hemisphere. Everyone wanted it. The US refused, along with Canada. The other was the drug war, which the US insists on, and the Latin American countries who are being seriously harmed by it, they want it significantly modified, decriminalized and so on. And, again, the US was totally isolated. Those were the two main issues.
As for the steps towards Cuba, they’re described as noble gestures. The picture is that we’ve -- exactly as Obama said -- we’ve tried for 50 years to bring freedom, justice, and democracy to Cuba, but our methods have failed, so we might try some other methods to achieve these noble goals. The facts are very clear. This is a free and open society, so we have access to internal documents at an extraordinary level. You can’t claim you don’t know. It’s not like a totalitarian state where there are no records. We know what happened. The Kennedy administration launched a very serious terrorist war against Cuba. It was one of the factors that led to the missile crisis. It was a war that was planned to lead to an invasion in October 1962, which Cuba and Russia presumably knew about. It’s now assumed by scholarship that that’s one of the reasons for the placement of the missiles. That war went on for years. No mention of it is permissible. The only thing you can mention is that there were some attempts to assassinate [Fidel] Castro. And those can be written off as ridiculous CIA shenanigans. But the terrorist war itself was very serious. That was a footnote to it.
The other, of course, was a crushing embargo. We also know the reasons, because they’re stated explicitly in the internal documents. Go back to the early ‘60s, as the State Department explained, the problem with Castro was his successful defiance of US policies that go back to the Monroe Doctrine -- 1823. The Doctrine asserted that the United States has the right to control the hemisphere. They couldn’t implement it at the time, but that’s the Doctrine. And Cuba was successfully defying that Doctrine. Therefore, we have to carry out a terrorist war and crushing embargo that have nothing to do with bringing freedom and justice to the Cubans. And there is no noble gesture, just Obama’s recognition that the United States is practically being thrown out of the hemisphere because of its isolation on this topic.
But you can’t discuss that [in the US]. It’s all public information, nothing secret, all available in public documents, but undiscussable. Like the idea -- and you can’t contemplate the idea -- that when the US invades another country and the other resists, it’s not the resistors who are committing the crime, it’s the invaders. And we, of course, understand that very well when, say, Russia invaded Afghanistan. If somebody resisted it, we don’t say they’re criminals, they are destabilizing Afghanistan. Maybe Pravda said that, I doubt it. But here, it’s normal.
So if the House wants to study the weaponization of the media, they can look right at the front pages of the newspapers that they get every day.
RT: Our network has come repeatedly under attack, even from State secretary John Kerry. Recently, he said, “RT’s influence is growing,” while his very own deputy, Victoria Nuland, said that nobody watches RT in America, which is probably not true. Do you think this is about money? Because we know that the BBG -- the Broadcasting Board of Governors -- has a budget of $750 million as opposed to RT’s $250 million, which has never been a secret. Or is it something else?
NC: I think it’s something else. I don’t think they care about the money. The idea that there should be a network reaching people which does not repeat the US propaganda system is intolerable.
RT: To them.
NC: Yes. That’s normal.
RT: As for US-Russia relations, are we really in Cold War version 2.0?
NC: It’s dangerous. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has a famous doomsday clock. It goes back to the late 1940s. The clock is placed several minutes before “midnight.” Midnight means we’re done, finished. They just moved it two minutes closer to midnight -- three minutes from midnight. That’s the closest it’s been since the early 1980s when there was a major war scare. We now know how serious that war scare was. It wasn’t quite understood at the time, but it was very serious. Now it’s moved that close. One of the reasons is the deterioration in Russia-US relations, which is quite threatening. The other is environmental catastrophe, which we weren’t thinking about then. But, yes, that’s serious.
RT: Is it all because of the Ukrainian crisis?
NC: Partly. It’s also because of other domains in which Russia and the United States don’t see eye to eye. Just as there is a US-Iranian crisis. Everyone in the United States -- every leading commentator, every presidential candidate and so on, recently Jeb Bush -- says Iran is the greatest threat to world peace. That’s repeated over and over.
There’s also another opinion on the matter. Namely, the world’s opinion, and we know what that is because there are polls taken by the leading US polling agencies. The Gallup organization has international polls. And they ask the question, “Which country is the greatest threat to world peace?” The United States is way ahead of anyone else. No other country is even close. But Americans are protected from that. The US media simply refused to print it. This major poll, I think it was December 2013, it was reported by BBC. But not a single word in the major American media. So if the world thinks that, so much for the world. We say Iran is the greatest threat to world peace, therefore that is true. We can repeat it over and over.
The major newspapers in the United States -- the New York Times and the Washington Post -- have recently published op-eds by prominent figures calling for bombing Iran right now. How would we react if Kayhan, say, or Pravda, or any newspaper, published articles by leading figures saying ‘let’s bomb the United States right now’? I mean, there would be a reaction. There would. But if this happens here, it’s perfectly fine. It’s normal.
If we look closely at the conflicts, we can find plenty of problems with both sides. But the way they’re interpreted here is that we’re necessarily right about everything, and if anyone’s in the way, they are wrong about everything. I wouldn’t say there’s no disagreement on that, there’s some. Take for example Ukraine. The standard position here is that it’s all the fault of the Russians, it’s Russian aggression and so on. However, you can read -- not in the mainstream press, but in prominent journals -- different opinions. So in Foreign Affairs, the leading establishment journal, you can read a lead article on the front, the West is responsible for the Ukraine crisis.
RT: The West or particularly the United States?
NC: Well, the West means the United States and everyone else goes along. What’s called the international community in the United States is the United States and anyone who happens to be going along with it. Take, say, for example, the question of Iran’s right to carry out its current nuclear policies, whatever they are. The standard line is that the international community objects to this. Who is the international community? What the United States determines it to be. The latest meeting of non-aligned countries -- the large majority of the world’s population -- the last meeting happened to be in Tehran, where they once again -- they’d done it before -- vigorously endorsed Iran’s right to pursue its nuclear programs in accord with the provisions of the non-proliferation treaty, which allow that. But they’re not part of the international community [to the US]. They may be the majority of the world, but that’s not the international community. Any reader of [George] Orwell would be perfectly familiar with this. But it continues virtually without comment.
RT: If we are to assume that the US is the root of the problem in Ukraine, what is the endgame? What would Washington want out of this? Destroying Russia-Europe ties?
NC: I wouldn’t say it’s just the US. I don’t agree with that. I think it’s more complex. But a large part of the problem is what [John] Mearsheimer [author of the Foreign Affairs piece on Ukraine] described. It goes back to the breakup of the Soviet Union -- roughly 1990. At the time, there were many questions. One question was, what happens to NATO? If you had accepted the propaganda of the past -- since the late 1940s or 1950 -- you would’ve said ‘NATO should disappear.’ NATO was supposed to protect Western Europe from the Russian hordes. Okay, no more Russian hordes, now what happens to NATO? The question of its disappearance didn’t even arise. [Mikhail] Gorbachev made a pretty remarkable proposal. He offered to let Germany be unified and to join NATO, a hostile military alliance. You look at the history of the century, that’s a pretty astonishing move.
There was a quid pro quo, that NATO not expand one inch to the east. That was the phrase that was used in diplomatic interchanges. That meant East Germany. There was no thought of it expanding beyond. Of course, NATO, at once, moved to East Germany. Gorbachev was infuriated, he objected, but he was informed by the United States that this was only a verbal agreement, there was nothing on paper. So, too bad. [President Bill] Clinton came along and expanded NATO to the borders of Russia to, as Mearsheimer points out.
To the current threat to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, it’s a various serious threat that no Russian leader, whoever it is, could easily tolerate. It’s as if Mexico in the 1980s had overthrown the government, and the new government called for joining the Warsaw Pact. It’s inconceivable. So it’s a real problem. Not the whole problem, but part of it.
The Ukrainian parliament, as you know, recently overwhelmingly passed a resolution to move towards joining NATO. That’s pretty serious. Now there is -- I think, anyone who thinks about it, including the negotiators on all sides, knows what a resolution ought to be. Ukraine ought to be neutralized, with a recognition on all sides that it won’t join any hostile military alliance. That’s perfectly feasible, even good for Ukraine. And then steps have to be taken to some kind of devolution of power. You can discuss exactly how much should be done, but the basic outlines are clear. That could be a partial resolution to the crisis, but, unfortunately, there are other voices.
RT: We saw, at the end of last year, without any consent of the United Nations, the US started operations in Syria on ISIS positions. Pretty much the same thing is happening right now in Yemen. Professor, would this mean that international law, as we’ve always known it, is pretty much dead, is pretty much gone, is not used and considered anymore ?
NC: To say that it’s dead implies it was ever alive. Has it ever been alive? Go back to, say, the 1980s. There were two resolutions brought to the UN security council calling on all states to observe international law. They both were vetoed by the United States with the support of Britain and France, its allies. Why? Because the hidden understanding, not expressed, was the intent was to call on the United States to accept the judgment of the world court, which condemned what it called the unlawful use of force by the United States against Nicaragua. It called on the United States to terminate the attack and pay enormous reparations. The US refused. Then came these two UN security council resolutions, which the US vetoed. That tells you what international law is, but we can go much beyond.
International law cannot be enforced against great powers. There’s no enforcement mechanism. Take a look at the International Criminal Court, who has investigated and sentenced African leaders who the US doesn’t like. The major crime of this millennium, certainly, is the US invasion of Iraq. Could that be brought to the international court? I mean, it’s beyond inconceivable. In fact, as you may know, there’s a law in the United States, passed by Congress and accepted by the president, which, in Europe, it’s called the Netherlands Invasion Act. It’s a law that authorizes the president to use force to rescue any American that might be brought to The Hague for trial. Does international law have anything to say about this? Well, it does. Actually international law has something to say about a standard comment made over and over again by Western leaders, by Obama and others, with regard to Iran: ‘All options are open.’ That includes attack, the kind of attack which is called for in the major press. There happens to be a UN charter, which, in Article II, bans the threat or use of force on international affairs. Does anybody care? No. International law is kind of like the United Nations. It can work up to the point where the great powers permit it. Beyond that, unfortunately, it can’t.
RT: Finally, the documentary about you which is about to premiere -- called Requiem for an American Dream. Do you think the American dream is gone?
NC: It’s certainly declined. So the US has close to the lowest social mobility in the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] -- you know, rich countries. If you look at OECD measures of social justice -- accessibility to health care, obvious measures -- the United States ranks near the bottom, I think right next to Turkey. These are serious attacks on what’s called the American dream. It’s still the richest and most powerful country in world, there are extraordinary advantages. In many respects, it’s the most free country in the world, as I’ve already mentioned.
So there’s plenty of positive aspects, but it’s a very serious decline. In fact, even American democracy -- which is presented as a model to the world -- is very remote from democracy. In fact, that’s one of the major topics of academic social-political science, the study of relation between public opinion and public policy, which is pretty easy to study. You see the policy, there’s extensive polling, you know what people’s opinions are. And basically most of the population is disenfranchised. Their representatives pay no attention to their opinion. That’s roughly the lowest three-quarters on the bottom of the income scale. Move up the scale, you get a little more influence. At the top, essentially policy is made. That’s plutocracy, not democracy.
Democracy functions formally: you’re free, I’m free, anyone’s free to express their opinions. I can vote any way I like in the coming election. If I feel like voting Green [Party], I can vote Green. There’s not going to be very much fraud, it’s mostly honest. So the formal trappings of democracy do exist, which is not a small point. But the functioning of democracy has very severely declined.
Over the past several months we’ve built on several narratives out of China certainly not the least of which is the idea that economic growth in the country is decelerating quickly at a time when accelerating capital outflows make devaluation an unpalatable (if inevitable) proposition. Signs of a dramatic slowdown were on full display earlier this month when GDP growth slipped to 7%, the slowest pace in six years, while key indicators such as rail freight volume have fallen completely off a cliff:
With the country’s tough transition to a service-based economy being made all the more difficult by the hit industrial production will likely take as Beijing ramps up efforts to fight a pollution problem that was thrust back into the spotlight early last month thanks to a viral documentary, it’s reasonable to suspect we’ll be seeing a lot more of the idle cranes, empty construction sites, and half-finished abandoned buildings that greeted Bloomberg metals analyst Kenneth Hoffman who returned from a tour of the country earlier this month. Ultimately, Hoffman’s assessment was that metals demand in China is collapsing and isn’t likely to pick back up for the foreseeable future.
This is bad news for the Chinese economic machine and it’s also bad news for any iron ore miner out there whose marginal costs aren’t low enough to stay profitable in the face of a protracted downturn in prices because if you can’t convince the big guys that your price collusion idea will pass regulatory muster, well, they’ll likely take the opportunity to keep right on producing despite the slump and run you out of business. With the stage thus set, we bring you the following from BNP who explains why iron ore prices aren’t likely to rebound any time soon, and why the economic outlook for China is indeed “as bad as the data looks, if not worse” (to quote Mr. Hoffman).
Via BNP:
Global commodity prices have fallen sharply since last summer, dragged down by a cocktail of fading Chinese industrial demand, surging supply and a strong USD. Oil has inevitably garnered the majority of headlines but iron ore prices have fallen even further. Iron ore prices have collapsed by close to 50% since last July and over 65% since the beginning of 2014. Falls have accelerated in recent weeks, almost becoming a rout, with prices down over 30% year-to-date.
The analogue of China’s unprecedented construction bonanza has been extraordinary levels of both cement and steel production and consumption. We have documented the epic nature of the former with China incredibly producing more than twice as much cement in the last five years than the United States managed in the previous century (China: Cementing The Bear Case).
The increases in China’s steel production and consumption post-GFC have been almost as, but inevitably not quite, so spectacular. Since the end of 2007, China’s steel production has leapt by over 300 million tonnes while production in the rest of the world has slightly slipped. As will be discussed below, China’s steel production has started to flatten out over the last 12-15 months but, at around 810 million tons over the last year, China’s steel production has now accounted for 50% of total global production..
The surge in Chinese steel production has inevitably required a counterpart in much higher rates of global iron ore production. China’s own, typically low grade iron ore production, has not been able to keep pace with demand growth, meaning huge increases in demand for iron ore from the rest of the world. This demand has been fed largely by huge increases in Australian supply and, to a lesser extent, Brazil...
The collapse in iron ore prices over the last 15 months or so reflects the interplay of a levelling off in Chinese demand in 2014 for the first time since the GFC and, given the inevitably long lags between investment decision and output, continued strong gains in global supply. Our calculations suggest that China’s apparent steel use grew by less than 3% in 2014; slower than even 2008’s 4% growth (Chart 5). The latest industrial production data suggest that downward pressure has intensified in the final months of 2014 and early 2015 with crude steel production down -1.5% y/y on average in January and February.
On the supply side, optimistic assumptions over the potential for Chinese steel demand growth to continue strongly for the rest of the decade has led to steady increases in productive capacity which are forecast to come on line in the next few years. Australian iron ore production alone is expected to increase by a further 196 million tonnes between 2014 and 2018….
Even as the risks for global iron ore supply are strongly tilted to the upside for the time being, the outlook for Chinese demand, in contrast to optimistic forecasts of producers, is skewed heavily to the downside. The key downside risk is of course the prospect of a multi-year and deep correction in real estate investment. Given the epic nature of the ‘stock’ and ‘flow’ adjustment that China’s real estate market faces, the best case scenario is probably that real estate investment (c.151?2% of GDP), bolstered by considerable policy support, could achieve a soft landing with zero growth over the next 2-3 years…
The worst case is that increasingly entrenched deflationary dynamics and the unprecedented weight of excess supply (the value of unfinished real estate projects at market prices reached a mind-boggling 75% of GDP in 2014) mean the real estate sector is relatively impervious to stimulus and real estate investment likely to fall sharply for several years.
Another critical dimension is China’s increasingly unsustainable levels of air pollution which is generating mounting political pressure for sharp reductions in steel, cement and, of course, coal output. As with the real estate sector, the best that can be said is that China’s pollution problem has perhaps stopped getting worse over the last year. The tough decisions and the real economic pain continue to lie ahead, however, with some estimates finding that China’s industrial production might need to fall by as much as 40% to meet global pollution standards.
As a reminder, here’s the graphic on the relationship between industrial production and efforts to remedy the country’s pollution problem:
China’s domestic steel prices have fallen to near record discount of c.25% vs. global prices. Meanwhile, China’s steel exports have soared by over 40 million tonnes over the last year; easily the biggest annual gain on record with growth of nearly 60%...
Chinese producers have been able to slash steel export prices (which appear to follow domestic prices with a lag of about five months) as the collapse in iron ore prices is (temporarily) boosting margins…
As already emphasized, there appears to be little to interrupt these strongly deflationary dynamics any time soon. With the large iron ore producers likely to keep increasing supply until prices fall to close to their estimated marginal cost of $35 per tonne, further falls in iron prices look inevitable. China’s continuing real estate correction and anti-pollution drive will continue to weigh on domestic demand although sharp reductions in domestic output ultimately required are likely to continue to be resisted in the short term by the authorities given their high cost in terms of output and employment. Domestic steel prices should fall sharply while China’s steel exports look set to continue soaring, procuring further strong downward pressure on global prices…
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the decisively precarious situation that Beijing finds itself in as China attempts to project its economic and military prowess to the rest of the world. Call it the growing pains of a rising superpower, but don't call it an enviable position and don't be surprised to discover that contrary to what the Ministry of Finance steadfastly proclaims, there may indeed be such a thing as Chinese QE.
Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,
As if anyone actually needed another reason to move out of the crazy state of California, now it is being reported that conditions in some areas of the state “are like a third-world country” due to the multi-year megadrought that has hit the state. In one California county alone, more than 1,000 wells have gone dry as the groundwater has disappeared. The state is turning back into a desert, and an increasing number of homes no longer have any water coming out of their taps or showerheads.
So if you weren’t scared away by the wildfires, mudslides, high taxes, crime, gang violence, traffic, insane political correctness, the nightmarish business environment or the constant threat of “the big one” reducing your home to a pile of rubble, perhaps the fact that much of the state could soon be facing Dust Bowl conditions may finally convince you to pack up and leave. And if you do decide to go, you won’t be alone. Millions of Californians have fled the state in recent years, and this water crisis could soon spark the greatest migration out of the state that we have ever seen.
Back in 1972, Albert Hammond released a song entitled “It Never Rains In Southern California“, and back then that was considered to be a good thing.
But today, years of very little rain are really starting to take a toll. In fact, one government official says that conditions in Tulare Country “are like a third-world country”…
Near California’s Success Lake, more than 1,000 water wells have failed. Farmers are spending $750,000 to drill 1,800 feet down to keep fields from going fallow. Makeshift showers have sprouted near the church parking lot.
“The conditions are like a third-world country,” said Andrew Lockman, a manager at the Office of Emergency Services in Tulare County, in the heart of the state’s agricultural Central Valley about 175 miles (282 kilometers) north of Los Angeles.
As California enters the fourth year of a record drought, its residents and $43 billion agriculture industry have drawn groundwater so low that it’s beyond the reach of existing wells. That’s left thousands with dry taps and pushed farmers to dig deeper as Governor Jerry Brown, a 77-year-old Democrat, orders the first mandatory water rationing in state history.
The mandatory water restrictions that Governor Brown is imposing are going to be very painful for a lot of people. We have just learned that some California communities will be required to cut their water usage by up to 36 percent…
Californians are going to have to start preparing for a dry summer as the dehydrated state prepares for a water crackdown.
In a somewhat controversial move, California water officials drafted a set of mandatory conservation regulations outlining varying degrees to which communities will be required to cut back on water use, ranging from 8 to 36 percent, depending on their history of water consumption.
The regulations — slated for approval in early May — are part of California’s first-ever attempt at mandatory rationing. Earlier this month, Gov. Jerry Brown issued an executive order requiring a 25 percent reduction in urban water use, a historic step in a series of measures aimed at conservation ahead of the state’s fourth consecutive year of drought.
And of course it isn’t just the state of California that is dealing with drought.
All over the southwest United States, we are seeing conditions that we have not witnessed since the days of the Dust Bowl in the 1930s.
In fact, the water level in Lake Mead is now the lowest that it has been since those days, and it is expected to drop even lower in the months ahead…
One of the most stunning places to see its impact is at the nation’s largest reservoir, Lake Mead, near Las Vegas. At about 40 percent of capacity, it’s the lowest it’s been since it was built in the 1930s.
“Just to see the rings around it, it’s just … kind of scary, you know,” says Darlene Paige, a visitor from New York. She’s standing at a vista point above the Hoover Dam on the Arizona side of Lake Mead.
That “ring” is the infamous bathtub ring around the rim of the reservoir. The levels have dropped 140 feet over the past 15 years, exposing a white stain on the gravelly brown mountains above the water. The level is forecast to fall an additional 10 feet by this summer.
According to the Government Accountability Office, it is being projected that a total of 40 U.S. states will be dealing with a shortage of water by the end of the next decade.
It has been said that “water is the new oil”, and this is just the beginning. The truth is that as bad as things are here, we are actually in far better shape than almost everyone else in the world to deal with the emerging global water crisis. All over the planet supplies of fresh water are disappearing, and the availability of water is going to increasingly become a major geopolitical issue in the years to come.
And even now, the U.S. government is taking all of this very seriously. In fact, the EPA is already trying to train our kids to take showers instead of baths…
Parents across America who struggle to keep their young rambunctious kids clean now have a new obstacle: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
As part of its effort to help save the planet from the dangers of taking too many baths, the EPA’s WaterSense program is trying to convince kids they should avoid bathtubs in favor of showers, which it says is a far more efficient use of water.
“To save even more water, keep your shower under five minutes long—try timing yourself with a clock next time you hop in!” the “WaterSense for Kids” website says.
For most of our lives, most of us have been able to take water for granted.
But now things are changing, and we are going to have to adjust to these new realities.
That the Clintons have made millions of dollars from speaking fees is no secret: just last summer it was revealed that the former president was paid $104.9 million for delivering 542 speeches around the world between January 2001 and January 2013, when Hillary left her job as secretary of state.
What is not known, and what will be revealed in a new book "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer, is something far more sinister: foreign entities made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees expected, and received, favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.
As the NYT reports, the "186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities — is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy."
“We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes.
His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department.
This means that during her tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton may or may not have been working in the best interest of the US population; she was, however, certainly working in the best interest of the biggest Clinton Foundation donor du jour. And she was communicating on her personal, unsupervised, and unrecorded Blackberry while she was doing it.
Slowly, all the pieces of Hillary's public service are falling into place. Very lucrative public service.
Naturally, the Hillary campaign has a prepared "response", a response we have heard countless times when faced with a challenger who has no facts on their side: immediate accusations of "conspiracy theories."
"A campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, called the book part of the Republicans’ coordinated attack strategy on Mrs. Clinton “twisting previously known facts into absurd conspiracy theories,” and he said “it will not be the first work of partisan-fueled fiction about the Clintons’ record, and we know it will not be the last.”
There is one problem: Schweizer "writes mainly in the voice of a neutral journalist and meticulously documents his sources, including tax records and government documents."
We for one can't wait to get access to said sources, especially when it comes to tracking down the motivation and impetus behind the biggest foreign donor to the Clinton Foundation of them all, the one listed below...
... and further uncovering just what "favors" the State Department under Hillary (and later) returned to said donor... although we do have an idea or two.
Submitted by Jeff Thomas via Doug Casey's InternationalMan.com,
Readers of this publication will know that for some time, I’ve forecasted the creation of a new monetary system by which governments and banks gain total control over all monetary transactions.
On the surface of it, this may seem an impossible goal, as it would be so all-encompassing and would eliminate economic freedom entirely. Surely, it would not be tolerated. However, I believe that it’s not only relatively easy to create, but it will be sold in such a way that the public will see it as an absolute panacea to their economic woes. Only those who are far-sighted will understand its level of destruction in advance of its implementation.
It might transpire like this:
It would be easy to present the above as a boon to all citizens. Indeed, it might well be peddled as “the only possibility for a return to prosperity.” It will take a while for the fact to sink in that citizens have entered into a state of complete economic bondage to their bank and government, and that to operate outside the system is difficult in the extreme.
There can be no doubt that barter would become more common (whether legal or not), but virtually all other transactions would be centrally controlled and audited.
David Stockman, in a recent edition of Zero Hedge, stated,
Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff even argues in the daily paper FAZ that cash currency should be banned altogether. Central banks could impose negative interest rates more easily that way, he explained. Tax evaders and criminals would also find life more difficult. From this perspective, banknotes and coins appear superfluous, he said at a presentation at the IFO institute in Munich. Measures to spur the economy could be implemented more easily that way.
This, of course, is the concept detailed above, although he adds two nice touches. First, he suggests that negative interest rates are desirable; that cashless currency is the answer. He also adds that a new system will help to eliminate criminal behaviour.
In 1936, John Maynard Keynes published his signature book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. It was an instant success with both socialists and governments around the world—the latter, because his new “economic principles” stated that governments should control the monetary system—full stop. It was music to their ears, and most governments have been devotees ever since.
Mister Keynes was, first and foremost, a socialist. Although he received his education in economics, right from the start, he treated economics as a philosophy, not a science. By his own admission, he sought to redraft the laws of economics to serve an unrelated end: the advancement of socialism. Like the best socialists, he believed that truth was irrelevant; all that mattered was the objective.
However, in recent years, we’ve seen a small rebirth in the popularity of Classical Economics. More and more people, observing the repeated failures of Keynesian Economics, have been crediting Adam Smith and likeminded economists as having had the right idea all along. After all, economics is the science of how money works, not an art form that may be altered at the whim of the theorist to fit some political preference.
And so, there are many (myself included) who are eager to see what we believe would be the well-deserved downfall of Keynesianism, as the debt-ridden, entitlement-driven economies of the world collapse under their own ponderous weight.
But this hope may well be premature. In my belief, there is a final rabbit in the Keynesian hat, and that rabbit is the electronic currency described above. And if such a currency could be sold to a gullible public in one country, it could be sold just as easily in other jurisdictions.
This being the case, it would not be much of a leap if the concept were to be discussed universally and many governments were to announce that an international electronic currency, issued by the IMF, would solve all the currency problems, including those of currency exchange and international trade.
For at least one hundred years, there have been those who have hoped for and worked toward a one-world currency. There can be no doubt that the push for such a creation would receive support at the highest levels, internationally. If so, daydreams of a return to Adam Smith or a realisation of the dreams of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek may, for the foreseeable future, be just that: daydreams.
As to what the overall effect might be, we might consider the words of uber-financier Mayer Rothschild:
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”
Herr Rothschild knew whereof he spoke. This principle led him and his descendants to become immensely wealthy and powerful on an international scale.
An electronic currency leads directly toward the bondage of the people—directly away from freedom. As a hedge against such controls, diversification into hard assets such as precious metals and real estate might be considered. Just as important, assets held outside any country that is increasing its controls might be a positive move.
The ultimate way to diversify your savings internationally is to transfer it out of the immediate reach of your home government and into something tangible. Something that cannot be easily confiscated, nationalized, frozen, or devalued at the drop of a hat or with a couple of taps on the keyboard—while retaining as much privacy as legally possible. Physical gold and silver stored abroad in a non-bank vault fits the bill.
Gold and silver have served as money for centuries and across many different civilizations. They have always been inherently international assets. There is nothing at all particularly American, Chinese, Russian, or European about gold or silver. Buying gold and silver is perhaps the easiest step you can take toward internationalizing your savings. The next step is to store your precious metals in a safe foreign jurisdiction.
Today it is easy and convenient to own physical gold and silver offshore in places like Singapore and Switzerland in a non-bank private vault. Find out how you can internationally diversify your precious metals by downloading this guide.
A Cabarrus County, North Carolina man died last week, but Larry Upright, 81, made one final request in his obituary - written by his family.
"Also, the family respectfully asks that you do not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. R.I.P. Grandaddy."
Judging by the condolences, he is not alone in his request. It seems "everyday Americans" does not include North Carolinans...
Via Whitley's Funeral Home...
And the condolences include the following...
* * *
The Condolence book has now become a multiple page political pissing contest - all done 'respectfully' of course.
* * *
One word... "Polarized"
Pew notes:
For most of the 1990s and the subsequent decade, a substantial majority of Americans believed it was more important to control gun ownership than to protect gun owners’ rights. But in December 2014, the balance of opinion flipped: For the first time, more Americans say that protecting gun rights is more important than controlling gun ownership, 52% to 46%.
***
Most believe gun ownership – not gun control – makes people safer.
***
Other recent data confirm this pattern. A 2013 Pew Research survey showed that protection is now the top reason gun owners offer for why they choose to own a gun (in 1999, hunting was the top reason). And among the public at large, the latest Gallup survey finds that 63% of Americans now say having a gun in the home makes it a safer place compared with 30% who say it makes a home more dangerous. Fifteen years ago, more said the presence of a gun made a home more dangerous (51%) than safer (35%).
Are Americans right that guns help prevent crime?
There are dueling statistics. Everyone has heard the argument that guns increase murder.
But Boston Magazine notes:
A study from 2007 published in a Harvard University journal … claims that more control over firearms doesn’t necessarily mean their will be a dip in serious crimes.
In an independent research paper titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?,” first published in Harvard’s Journal of Public Law and Policy, Don B. Kates, a criminologist and constitutional lawyer, and Gary Mauser, Ph.D., a Canadian criminologist and professor at Simon Fraser University, examined the correlation between gun laws and death rates.
***
“International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions [have] all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative,” the researchers wrote in their introduction of their findings.
In the 46-page study, which can be read in its entirety here, Kates and Mauser looked at and compared data from the U.S. and parts of Europe to show that stricter laws don’t mean there is less crime. As an example, when looking at “intentional deaths,” or murder, on an international scope, the U.S. falls behind Russia, Estonia, and four other countries, ranking it seventh. More specifically, data shows that in Russia, where guns are banned, the murder rate is significantly higher than in the U.S in comparison. “There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, [the latter] is, in fact, false and [the former] is substantially so,” the authors point out, based on their research.
Kates and Mauser clarify that they are not suggesting that gun control causes nations to have higher murder rates, rather, they “observed correlations that nations with stringent gun controls tend to have much higher murder rates than nations that allow guns.”
The study goes on to say:
…the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world. ***
“If more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death, areas within nations with higher gun ownership should in general have more murders than those with less gun ownership in a similar area. But, in fact, the reverse pattern prevails,” the authors wrote.
And see this.
In any event, even a top liberal Constitutional law expert reluctantly admits that the right to own a gun is as important a Constitutional right as freedom of speech or religion:
Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda.
***
It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.
Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.
***
More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.
Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.
None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that … here’s the really hard part … the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.
Indeed, the Founding Fathers’ own words prove Professor Turley right:
What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.
– Thomas Jefferson
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
– George Washington
(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
–James Madison.
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government…
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28) .
To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.
– George Mason
The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
–Noah Webster, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787) in Pamplets on the Constitution of the United States (P.Ford, 1888)
The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
–Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.
–Patrick Henry.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t.
– Ben Franklin
Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
–Thomas Paine
Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
– Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…
–James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-B.
[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.
– Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
And even pacifist leaders like Gandhi and the Dalai Lama are opposed to gun control.
Submitted by Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity.com,
Economist Steen Jakobsen, Chief Investment Officer of Saxo Bank, believes 2015 will be another "lost year" for the economy. And he predicts the Federal Reserve will indeed start to raise rates later this year, surprising the market and taking the wind of out asset prices.
He recommends building cash and waiting to see how the coming storm -- which he calls the "greatest margin call in history" -- plays out:
0% interest rates at $0 down has not created the additional momentum to the economy The Fed was hoping for. The trickle down effect, the wealth effect, has instead made for bigger inequality in society. So I think we’re set for a rate hike in either in June or in September. I think this will be the biggest margin call in history on the asset inflation created by the Fed .
That’s where I differ from most Fed watchers. Everyone else is looking at employment, inflation targeting. I don’t think Fed is at all looking at those. They are saying “Listen, the 0% interest rate is getting us absolutely nowhere, we think it’s very, very important for us to move to a more neutral place”. At the same time we will communicate that we are open-minded to additional programs or whatever needs to be done to secure the long term growth of the economy. But that will be on the down side, not on the up side. And as year has progressed, and I’ve said this publicly, I think 2015 is already lost in terms of recovery here. And that will take the market by surprise.
The market will ask in September when the Fed hikes: “Why are you hiking interest rate when growth is below target, inflation below target”? Well, the Fed's response will be “Because this is the biggest asset inflation we’ve seen in human history and we need to address it”.
...
What the Fed is saying is that we have unintended consequences of low interest rates. Money is chasing yield: it's going to real estate making it over-valued, and flowing into the equity markets making them over-valued. And then the Fed says “Well. we have two choices. We can allow the market to run into a bubble, or we can burst the bubble and start all over again”. But they wrongly, in my opinion, believe they can actually micro manage that, even macro manage this. So what they would rather do is "lean up against the market". To take some of the excess out of prices by going in and telling in the market “We are concerned, we don’t want you to have more leverage. We want you to have less. And we certainly would like to see that market become flat-lined for a while in terms of return." Which by all metrics of measurements is actually also the expected return of the stock market. Don’t forget three, five and seven years expected return at the present multiples is exactly 0%.
Given this, at a bare minimum, I recommend taking the leverage out of your own portfolio so you sit with a nice pot of cash if the market does correct. If it doesn’t, you’re not really losing out much because again, they expect a return is 0% for the next couple of years.
Some time the best advice to anybody is to do nothing. And of course being, part of an online bank I’m not exactly popular with management for putting this advice out there. But I have to give the advice I believe in and share what I do myself; and I’m certainly reducing whatever equity I have in my portfolio to a minimum. So I’m scaling back to where I was in January last year.
I'll put it another way. I’m advising a hedge fund in London, analyzing 10,500 stocks from the bottom up. How many do you think of these 10,500 world stocks are cheap? Only 23. Which means 98% of all stocks are either fairly-priced or expensive.
Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Steen Jakobsen (40m:27s)
With lumber prices plunging to fresh 3 year lows, the divergence between homebuilders and the most economically-sensitive commodity is starting to suggest a rather scary case of deja vu all over again.
4-Step-Deja-Vu...
Chart: Bloomberg
Step 1: Homebuilders rally but physical lumber supply limited sparks boom in futures prices... mills restarted, mal-investment invested, supply surge, demand met...
Step 2: Same again... but this time there is already supply so the brief futures spike in prices fades as the market realizes that the move in builders was not really reflective of actual development demand...
Step 3: Massive over-supply meets under-demand driving lumber prices to collapse... builder remain buoyed by financial-engineering, Fedspeak, and algos hair-triggers on NAHB surveys...
Step 4: Homebuilder catch up to the ugly reality that there is no recovery...
* * *
As @Not_Jim_Cramer shows, this move in Lumber suggests forward returns for homebuilders will not be as exuberant...
and that macro-economic data will greatly disappoint...
* * *
Of course, it could be different this time... just the weather... Or Not!
