Feed Aggregator Page 583
Rendered on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 00:00:08 GMT
2 Stocks That Could Burn Investors in 2017
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 23:39:00 GMT
Dead Giveaway The 35 Page Dossier Was A Hoax? The British Don't Use "Classified," They use "Official"
via by ZeroPointNow on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 23:36:26 GMT
The identity of the British intelligence officer responsible for preparing and delivering the now infamous 35 page hoax has been revealed as Christopher Steele, courtesy of the Wall St. Journal. If you want to dig into his profile, click here.
As people piece together this rapidly unfolding quagmire - which will be in the history books, it's important to address as many facets as possible in order to avoid perpetuating #FakeNews. As Oliver Stone said, more or less, the MSM is biased - and alternative news has the real deal, so let's discuss.
A friend pointed this out earlier:
--------------------
It has come out that the dossier and supporting documentation were fabricated by an anonymous 4Chan user, who sent the hoax to a RINO named Rick Wilson back in the Fall of last year. Rick Wilson is (in)famous for his description of Trump supporters as “single white males who masturbate to anime”. The 4Chan user wanted to embarrass Rick Wilson, who apparently tried to shop the fabrication to MSM without success (cuz they couldn’t “source” it, given that the entire documentation is a fake).
The alleged origination of a British agent as the source can be considered a “trap for the unwary,” which would easily demonstrate the documentation was an obvious forgery because the UK does not use the “Classified” designation, although US intelligence agencies do. In the US, classified information is designated as “Classified”, “Secret” and “Top Secret” (along with a whole host of other designations for more highly sensitive information such as nuclear weapons designs). The British use “Official”, “Secret” and “Top Secret”. Anyone who checked on the story would instantly recognize this defect if they knew (or discovered) anything about British classification schemes, but if someone didn’t check they’d simply assume the British uses the same classification designations as the US.
[let's take a look]
US Designations:
UK Designations
HOAX Dossier:
Apparently, Wilson also sent the falsified documentation to the CIA and they may, or may not have, bought it. The CIA subsequently “leaked” it to various news agencies, and both CNN and Buzz Feed bought the CIA leak. The CIA also admitted to briefing both Obama & Trump on the false documentation, but now claim they only cited it as an example of “disinformation” that’s floating around out there. Seemingly, whomever at the CIA leaked this story and its documentation to CNN and Buzz Feed didn’t identify it as “disinformation”. For extra brownie points McCain claims he received a classified briefing on the bed wetting episode in December and asked FBI’s head Comey to investigate! It should be obvious McCain would not have done so had the CIA had told him the information was known to be fake.
--------------------
Now, it's possible that Steele - an ex-UK intelligence officer in private practice, simply used the US designation for the convenience of US intel (or to mask the origination) - BUT, we're also talking about the same guy who bought the #GoldenShower story that several journalists and news outlets wouldn't touch.
So, by the transitive properties of "the guy who bought the 4chan hoax," I think we can assume Steele would have defaulted to a career-long habit of using the UK designation on this 35 page dossier he cobbled together.
On the other side of the pond, what are we left to assume? Let's ignore the classification thing for a moment. For one, the CIA could have easily looked into Michael Cohen's travel records (the Trump lawyer the dossier accuses of going to Prague to meet with Russians) and ruled that out - immediately discrediting the document. Second, Trump is apparently a bit of a germaphobe. I don't blame him, people are filthy. Shouldn't the CIA know something that obvious about such a well known figure?
We are left to conclude:
- The CIA figured out this was a hoax and just let McCain, CNN, and Buzzfeed make McAss. That's an interesting conversation, if so.
- The CIA didn't know - as in, nobody who handled this document knew or checked into why a doc from a Brit would have US classification markings, or the Prague visit, or Golden Showers. A frightening thought.
- Steele didn't prepare the report.
What say you?
Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com * Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow
Artist's Impression Of Obama-Trump Transition
via by Tyler Durden on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 23:30:00 GMT
"Smooth" transition...
Why Fitbit Stock Crashed 75% in 2016
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 23:27:00 GMT
Cost Basis and Your Taxes
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 23:23:00 GMT
3 Catalysts for PayPal Holdings Inc in 2017
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 23:21:00 GMT
Why OPEC Should Fear The Trump Administration
via by Tyler Durden on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 23:05:30 GMT
Submitted by Emad Mostaque via GovernmentsAndMarkets.com,
Oil prices have risen over 20% since the OPEC production cut agreement at the end of November. While concerns abound on quota cheating and increased production from Libya, Nigeria and US shale, the incoming US administration could change the market completely through strategic oil sales and new import taxes.
The paralysis of OPEC between the summer of 2014 and November of 2016 was primarily due to the uncertainty in the equation introduced by US shale oil production.
Shale had much shorter production cycles than other forms of oil and had been financed by a huge debt and equity boom in the sector spurred by low interest rates, piling into exploration and production.
To the Saudis, who would have to lead any cut, this presented a conundrum as it was uncertain if shale producers would rapidly step in to fill any production cuts. This would have been a wealth transfer from Saudi to the shale producers, which was intolerable.
The equation has now changed for Saudi as they tap capital markets for sovereign debt and the upcoming Aramco IPO, meaning they would come out ahead regardless of shale and cheating.
The next few months are vital for the oil market as adherence to OPEC quotas and a potential supply resurgence from disruptions in Libya and Nigeria are monitored, particularly as Russian participation is conditional on no cheating.
However, an unexpected shift in the balance of the oil market in the next few months could be the actions of the incoming US administration under President Trump.
While the President-elect has shown flexibility on many of his pledges, the one area he has shown consistency and made appointments in line with his stated stance is on trade, moving the US in an mercantilist direction.
If trillions of dollars leaving US shores for cheap goods from China is intolerable, the idea of being dependent on OPEC oil, produced at a significant discount, is even worse.
An “America First” stance and renewed focus on North American energy independence could lead to two significant changes: a resizing of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and introduction of a border adjustment tax.
The SPR was established in 1975 after the 1973–74 oil embargo to mitigate against future temporary supply disruptions. The SPR holds 695 million barrels of oil, with a maximum withdrawal rate of 4.4 million barrels per day.
As a member of the International Energy Agency, the US must stock an amount of petroleum equivalent to 90 days of imports. Due to the surge in local production, net oil imports are now oil 4.8 million barrels a day versus a peak of 13.3 million barrels per day in 2005. As such, the SPR now holds 265 million excess barrels of excess oil.
A mercantilist administration could legitimately authorize a release of a million barrels a day to rebalance the SPR.
A drawdown of 190 million barrels has already been announced by the Department of Energy over the next 8 years, but there is no reason this could not be accelerated.
This would completely undo the OPEC deal, based on cuts of 1.2 million barrels a day and likely lead to a rush for market share. This would also drop gasoline prices, helping the US consumer.
While this would pressure US shale producers, many of these companies have taken the opportunity of the recent oil rally to hedge future production. The proceeds from the SPR release, likely over $10 billion, could be used to kick start energy infrastructure investment designed to further increase US energy independence, such as outlined in the “Pickens Plan” from 2008.
This fits with Trump’s plans for a trillion dollars of infrastructure spending, but another of his proposed policies, a border adjustment tax, part of the “Better Way” reform package, could cushion the blow of an SPR release for shale producers.
Under this policy, imports would be taxed at the new corporate income tax rate of 20% and income earned from exports would be tax exempt. While the impacts of this proposal are far-reaching, it gives domestic US oil producers an immediate 25% price advantage over imported oil and would most likely cause the dollar to spike by double digits.
This could cause gasoline prices to increase by as much as 30 cents to a gallon per a recent paper by Philip Verleger and the Brattle Group, but an SPR release would offset this.
Imports from the Gulf would collapse to almost zero in this scenario, with a resurgence of US energy investment potentially leading to a supply surge to fill this gap in future. SPR sale revenue could also discount gasoline taxes in the adjustment period.
While the oil market is anticipating an orderly tightening of supply conditions, these actions would change the game, placing the balance of power firmly with the USA absent a significant change in strategy by OPEC and other major producers.
As such it may now prove wise to be wary on the potential for oil prices in the near term, with demand dependent on whether Trump follows through on his planned mercantalist stance on trade.
Apple, Inc. Continues to Slip in China
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 22:57:00 GMT
Hedge Fund Net Short Exposure Drops To Lowest On Record
via by Tyler Durden on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 22:40:51 GMT
We have frequently written about the underwhelming performance of hedge funds over the last several years and continue to be perplexed by the seemingly misinformed decisions of the largest pensions and endowments to pay ridiculous fees for consistently lackluster performance (for example, see "Why Hedge Funds Remain The Worst Performing Asset Class Of 2016"). As Bloomberg recently noted, long-short funds tracked by Credit Suisse returned negative 4.3% in 2016 compared to a positive 9.5% return for the S&P, the worst relative performance for hedgies since 2011.
Of course, nothing illustrates the idiocy of the "2 and 20" hedge fund fee structure better than Warren Buffett's $1 million bet with a hedge fund manager in 2008, in which Buffett bet that the S&P would outperform hedge funds over a 10-year period. (see "The Traditional "2 & 20" Fee Structure Is Taking A Hit As Hedge Funds Continue To Underperform"). And, for those who like to keep score, the S&P is currently winning by well over 40%, on a cumulative basis.
So, after years of underperforming their benchmarks, hedge fund managers have apparently decided that if they can't beat the S&P they might as well match it. As Bloomberg notes, at the end of 2016 the net exposure of long-short hedge funds tracked by Credit Suisse soared to all-time highs. That said, gross exposures barely budged which means managers simply took off shorts and added long positions to their portfolios. And while effectively buying the S&P will help dress up the relative performance of these funds, we're not sure it's is a strategy worthy of a "2 and 20" fee structure.
Meanwhile, as the S&P continues to soar to new highs on a daily basis, earnings trends for the past couple of years would seem to suggest that hedge funds may be dropping their shorts at precisely the wrong time.
Of course, when your lack of short exposure blows up your "hedge" fund, it's not really a big deal because you'll be able to point to all the other funds that did the same thing and simply raise a fresh billion dollar fund and start the game all over again.
Why Vonage Holdings Corp. Gained 21.3% in 2016
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 22:33:00 GMT
Why Perrigo, Novadaq Technologies, and Ethan Allen Interiors Slumped Today
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 22:29:00 GMT
The "Curse" Of Labor-Saving Machinery Is Nothing New
via by Tyler Durden on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 22:17:50 GMT
Submitted by Brittany Hunter via The Mises Institute,
At the end of last year, Amazon unveiled, “Amazon Go,” a futuristic, fully-automated convenience store set to open its doors in Seattle, Washington, within the next few months. While this exciting new venture promises to make quick-stop shopping trips easier for busy consumers, critics are wary of this type of advanced automation, and fear its widespread use could jeopardize a vast amount of jobs.
Amazon Go is a truly unique shopping experience free of lines, registers, and checkouts of any kind. Instead, the store utilizes its customers’ smartphones and “grab and go technology,” which allows the consumer to simply walk in, grab desired items, and then get on with the rest of their day.
However, since this modern convenience store does not require human employees, labor activists fear the negative implications Amazon Go could potentially have on employment rates, especially if more companies begin moving toward automation.
These concerns in regards to employment are not necessarily unwarranted, nor are they specific to our modern world. In fact, mankind actually has a long track record of fearing mechanical progress and blaming it for high unemployment rates throughout history.
During the Industrial Revolution, many workers resented mechanical innovation, believing it would result in mass unemployment across sectors which traditionally relied on manual labor. In the stocking industry, for example, fear of machines was so intense, massive riots erupted as soon as workers were introduced to the new mechanical knitting machines known as, “stocking frames.” In the midst of all the chaos, new machines were destroyed, houses were burned, inventors were threatened, and peace was not restored until the military eventually intervened.
Unfortunately, the stocking industry example is not an isolated instance of machines causing mass hysteria over employment concerns. In fact, similar outrage was experienced across the globe throughout the entire Industrial Revolution. In the United States, the Great Depression caused another wave of mechanical skepticism, when a group calling themselves the “Technocrats” blamed mechanical advancements for high unemployment rates.
So widely-held was this fear of machines, economist Henry Hazlitt felt compelled to dedicate an entire chapter to debunking the myth that machines cause mass unemployment in his economic manifesto, Economics in One Lesson. In his chapter entitled, The Curse of The Machinery he writes:
The belief that machines cause unemployment, when held with any logical consistency, leads to preposterous conclusions. Not only must we be causing unemployment with every technological improvement we make today, but primitive man must have started causing it with the first efforts he made to save himself from needless toil and sweat.
To the credit of these mechanical skeptics Hazlitt called, “technophobes,” their fears of unemployment were not entirely incorrect.
In the case of the British stocking knitters, it is true that as many as 50,000 were left jobless in the wake of mechanical stocking frames. However, as Hazlitt points out, “But in so far as the rioters believed, as most of them undoubtedly did, that the machine was permanently displacing men, they were mistaken, for before the end of the nineteenth century the stocking industry was employing at least 100 men for every man it employed at the beginning of the century.”
Likewise, 27 years after the invention of the cotton-spinning machine, which was met with similar hostility as the mechanical stocking frame, the number of workers employed in the industry had grown from 7,900 to 320,000, a rate of 4,400 percent.
Yet, no matter how applicable Hazlitt’s words of wisdom may be in our modern world, there are still those who fear technological progress, rather than celebrate it.
Unfortunately for the naysayers, automation is likely to play a greater role in our lives in the very near future. Already, several fast food companies have begun replacing human cashiers with automated kiosks in order to cut back on costs. Additionally, Uber began piloting its fleet of self-driving cars last year and plans to eventually use these autonomous vehicles to replace its human drivers.
However, there is no need to fear this change. As the great Frédéric Bastiat reminds us, there are positive market elements which may be unseen to many, especially critics of automation.
Uber, for example, may soon be significantly decreasing its need for human Uber drivers, but that does not mean these drivers will be left destitute or jobless. Instead, Uber has simultaneously been expanding its delivery services. From flu shots, meals, and even puppies, Uber offers a variety of services that, at this point in time, still require human employees. If, in the future, drones are capable of replacing human delivery services, it will only be a matter of time before new opportunities become available on the market.
Many may be surprised to learn that despite the advanced weaponry available today, there are more blacksmiths now than at any other point in history. Progress does not come without an initial shakeup of traditional norms as the market adjusts to new technology, but this change should be embraced. As the stocking makers and cotton spinners have taught us, innovation should never be discouraged because with technological progress comes more opportunities for the human race.
Why Shares of Sears Holdings Crashed 55% in 2016
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 22:10:00 GMT
Why Chipotle Stock Tumbled 21% in 2016
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 22:04:00 GMT
Why Kornit Digital, Workday, and Atwood Oceanics Jumped Today
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 22:01:00 GMT
What Happened in the Stock Market Today
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 22:00:00 GMT
Trump Impeachment Now Even Odds At Bookies
via by Tyler Durden on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 21:51:40 GMT
Ladbrokes are offering bettors 'even' odds that president-elect Donald Trump will leave office via impeachment or resignation by the end of his first term...
Interestingly, they are also offering 5/1 odds that Obama is still the sitting President on February 1st 2017.
However, PaddyPower appears to have 'jumped the shark' with its Trump proposition bets.
From 4/1 odds of being impeached in the first 6 months to 500/1 odds that Trump will paint the entire White House gold, there is something for everyone here...
Why Zoe's Kitchen and Habit Restaurants Inc Declined in 2016
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 21:55:00 GMT
Why Red Hat, Inc. Fell 16% in 2016
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 21:43:00 GMT
Valeant Pharmaceuticals: Separating Fact From Fiction
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 21:41:00 GMT