By Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution. "As always, unlike the NFL, the author grants full permission to allow any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings of this article to your blog or anywhere else in order to promote the Restoration of our Republic."
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."
– Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s
[This article is updated with more infomation and the March 2009 figures released from this February article in response to a couple press requests. The figures were calculated from the FED data here, using the same method described here.]
So, who owns the Federal Reserve? Well, it certainly is not the US government, as many would suppose. In fact, I have found that quite a few – including myself last year – who are roughly aware of how the FED works but believe that the owners of the FED is a secret. Well, it is not. The FED’s Purposes and Functions (page 21/146) reads:
"As of March 2004, of the nation’s approximately 7,700 commercial banks approximately 2,900 were members of the Federal Reserve Systema – approximately 2,000 national banks and 900 state banks. Member banks must subscribe to stock in their regional Federal Reserve Bank in an amount equal…
First, I have respect for Dennis – he lays out his beliefs (regardless if these beliefs are based on completely flawed foundations or not) and defends them, on prime time TV, in a “financial news” medium whose very existence every viewer realizes is contingent on not only the continued viability of massively bad debt-laden GE (due to its inextricable ties with GE Capital, which lent out more toxic second liens than virtually any other entity), but by implication, the well-being of the overall economy, as well as the continued financial support by PIMCO and other financial company sponsors who have explicit and implicit ties with the current administration, and who profit exclusively from a rising market. In retrospect, one can see where Dennis’ viewers may get confused by the blurry line between a hopelessly severe conflict of interest and honest personal opinion.
Second, I want to address some points that Dennis made in his monologue. Zero Hedge received an invite from Dennis’ producer Dave at 1:34 pm to appear on the show. Of course, our frequent readers realize this is a non-starter for anyone at Zero Hedge due to the nature of our operation. We countered by offering a telephonic interview at an indeterminate point in the future (and desirous of at least a 24 hour advance notice: again, frequent readers will attest that I tend to post constantly, for about 18 hours a day), and even offered Dennis a forum on Zero Hedge to directly address our readers, whom he, we assume affectionately, had some florid words for. Nowhere did we give the impression we would have a call today, and offered up a date in two weeks for an extended call, which would take place upon my return from a reconnaissance trip to Europe (ironically to check up on some of GECC’s major investments in the region: stay tuned for my observations). Our overture was denied, yet somehow Dennis decided to make a point of misrepresenting the communication that took place. We provide a transcript of the email exchange earlier for our readers’ convenience.
As Cap and Trade races through Congress, here is a question – Who will benefit? The environment and us or Government Sachs?
Courtesy of Jake Towne. "As always, unlike the NFL, the author grants full permission to allow any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings of this article to your blog or anywhere else in order to promote the Restoration of our Republic."
Last week the House voted 219-212 to pass HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, whose intent is to "create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy." I’ve only had time to browse the 1,092 page bill and sincerely believe it will not achieve a single one of its purposes.
The creation of clean energy jobs is very vague and the parts that are clear center not on industry but on educating people about global warming – this appears to signal the creation of a new class of bureaucrat-teachers, not industrial jobs.
Energy independence? Transition to a clean energy economy? Get real, there is nothing of substance in the document that details such a plan, and this is a pipe dream for government to create this. What will you ask? Only a free market, driven by the consumer and free from government interventions can do so, in my opinion.
"Reduce global warming pollution?" Somehow I missed the scientific debate where the global warmers square off against the global coolers and those who believe that ‘the weather just changes, weather you want it to or not’ as I suggested here "Anthropogenic Global Warming or an Ice Age, Which Is It? (PART 2/2)". Is carbon dioxide really a pollutant? Don’t plants need it to live and don’t we all respire it? It would be a lot cheaper and a lot more useful than HR 2454!
My own private analysis of HR 2454 can be summarized up with:
Inefficient energy sources will instead be propped up and buffered from free market competition by the government.
The taxed companies will pass down the taxes to We the People, and energy costs will rise for us, the consumers.
The State will subsidize and hence sponsor, mandated education that "global warming" is fact, stifling debate.
Wall Street will have a great time doing all the carbon credits trading using
In approving the mergers, the directors considered, among other things, each fund’s investment objectives, net asset value and stock price performance, income-generating strategy and expenses, and potential cost savings based on operational efficiencies. The mergers will permit fund shareholders to pursue substantially similar investment objectives in a larger fund that has similar investment policies and anticipated lower expenses.
Zero Hedge is anxiously waiting to see the proxy information that will accompany this transaction in order to get justification for the move.
The board also has approved removal of UTF’s 20% limit on investing in foreign securities, so that the fund can invest without limit in foreign securities, including securities of companies in emerging market countries, to the extent consistent with the fund’s investment objective and other investment policies. The changes will broaden UTF’s geographic investment universe and open up potentially higher-growth sub-sectors while maintaining similar investment characteristics.
Nothing like having no size limits in a $1.4 billion fund. Visions of Bill Ackman’s PSIV (Target) adventure, and its dramatic returns, start floating. Of course, one needs dry powder for when Merrill strats upgrading and issuing secondaries for the Honduras mall REIT that is ‘almost’ guaranteed to generate 1000% return once the Honduras SEC pulls all borrow.
An unexpected drop in consumer confidence data saw equity indices fall on concerns the economic recovery will be slow. Lower WTI prices weighed on the major US averages after the release of consumer confidence sparked a flight to safety in the USD. In turn this saw Exxon (-0.95%) top the laggers table in the S&P 500 index. Following the initial downward move in equity indices, prices were range bound and trading sideways, though did move slightly higher after positive comments on the economy by Fed’s Bullard. Finally, at the closing bell DJI closed down 0.96% at 84447.53, S&P 500 closed down 0.85% at 919.34 and NASDAQ100 closed down 0.44% at 1477.25
Treasury prices came under pressure in the closing stages of the session to finish lower after Fed’s Bullard said that Fed’s exit strategies are ‘unclear’. Initially, at the open prices plunged after a better than expected improvement in Case-Shiller housing data, though retraced that downward move after the release of disappointing consumer confidence data. Also, the Fed carried out its first coupon purchase of the week which yielded a lower than expected offer/cover ratio and supported a lift in prices. Finally, the closing hour saw Treasuries retreat on the back of comments from Fed’s Bullard after he said demand for liquidity programs is diminishing. At the pit close T-notes finished down 6+ ticks at 116.085.
More and more economic data manipulation is coming to the fore, none of which as blatantly obvious as the California housing market. Some of it is palatable, but when home sales in San Diego get revised from 89% to 6.5% due to a “data glitch”, it is no wonder that increasingly more Americans realize every single day they are being blatantly lied to by an Administration whose sole purpose in life is to give out 10 pair of rose-colored glasses to every possible voter in the next election. For the most recent take on this the WSJ chimes in:
The California Association of Realtors expects to make sharp downward revisions in its recent monthly reports of soaring home sales in the San Diego area, Robert Kleinhenz, deputy chief economist of the trade group, said in an interview. Those revisions will mean modest downward revisions in statewide sales, he added.
The revisions are likely to be announced in late July, when the Realtor group reports home sales for June. The problem resulted from a glitch in data from a multiple-listing service in San Diego, Mr. Kleinhenz said. He said a change in computer systems used there resulted in incorrect data being sent to the Realtor association over the past year or so.
Thomas Lawler, an independent economist in Leesburg, Va., who tracks home sales nationwide, raised questions about the San Diego data in a report last week. Mr. Lawler noted that the numbers reported by the Realtors vastly exceeded those from MDA DataQuick, a research firm in La Jolla, Calif., and other sources.
The California Realtors have reported that San Diego sales in April were up about 63% from a year earlier. Mr. Kleinhenz said that is expected to be revised downward to a gain of about 20%. For May, the group reported an 89% increase in sales in San Diego; that will be slashed to about 6.5%, the economist said.
As a result, he said, the state-wide sales gain for May — reported last week as 35% — also will be revised down, though it probably will remain above 30%,
Zero Hedge is happy to present readers with the NYSE’s response to the earlier post on dropping program trading data. I would love to see clarity on what it is that the NYSE classifies “account type indicator data” as opposed to old reliable DPTR. I sure hope this does not mean the source will be the actual account as opposed to the Exchange sourcing the data. I imagine there will be significant statistical data adjustment post fact.
Furthermore, in allowing the SLP program to go into effect on an expedited basis, the SEC said it did so because the program did not affect the protection of investors and impose any significant burden on competition. See page 2 of the linked doc.
“The Exchange believes that this rebate program will encourage the additional utilization of, and interaction with, the NYSE and provide customers with the premier venue for price discovery, liquidity, competitive quotes and price improvement.”
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–NYSE–2008–108. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission’s Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any
This is outrageous. Do what you can, there are numbers at the bottom to call to voice your opinion. Update: Here’s a subsequent note from ZH – The NYSE Responds to Zero Hedge - I read but did not understand it. Update 2: It seems they are proposing another type of tracking with no details.
In a move set to infuriate and send many Zero Hedge readers over the top, the NYSE has taken action to make sure that nobody will henceforth be able to keep track of the complete dominance that Goldman Sachs exerts over the New York Stock Exchange. This basically ends our weekly Program Trading updates disclosed every Thursday indicating that Goldman has singlehandedly captured all of NYSE’s program trading.
The New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) will be decommissioning the requirement to report program trading activity via the Daily Program Trading Report (“DPTR”), which was previously approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”).1 The last trade date for which member organizations will be required to file the DPTR with the Exchange will be July 10, 2009 and therefore the last required date to submit the DPTR will be July 14, 2009.
In the 2007 rule filing, the Exchange proposed to eliminate DPTR. The 2007 filing noted that there was some duplication between the DPTR data and the audit trail information that member organizations provide to the Exchange via account-type indicators at the time that they submit program trades to the Exchange… [A]fter consulting with the SEC, the Exchange announced that it would delay implementation of the two redefined account type indicators, and pending such implementation, member organizations would be required to continue filing the DPTR with the Exchange. The current delayed implementation date of the redefined J and K account type indicators is June 30, 2009. Accordingly, the Exchange still requires member organizations to submit DPTR.
The Exchange has filed with the SEC to implement the decommissioning of the
Royalty Pharma announced today that Elan voluntarily (NYSE: ELN) withdrew the lawsuit it had filed on an expedited basis only one week ago in New York federal court. That suit claimed that Royal Pharma's tender offer disclosures were inadequate. As explained in Royalty Pharma's response to Elan's complaint, served on Elan just yesterday, Elan's claims were entirely without merit, and in any event were rendered irrelevant by the amended disclosures Royalty Pharma filed Friday, June 7. Faced with the prospect of an embarrassing loss, Elan has chosen to walk away. The voluntary withdrawal confirms that Royalty Pharma's disclosures have been full and accurate, and that investors have all the information they require to consider Royalty Pharma's highly compelling tender offer.
In response to the revelation that the NSA has been illegally spying on all Americans for more than a decade, NSA chief General Keith Alexander claimed that the spying prevented a terrorist attack on Wall Street and the New York subway.
There’s only one problem: the claim is completely false.
LZB - La-Z-Boy, Inc. – Shares in furniture producer, La-Z-Boy, Inc., increased as much as 3.9% to $19.80 at the start of the session, the highest level since 2004, ahead of the company’s fourth-quarter earnings report after the closing bell today. Options volume is up ahead of the report, with roughly 400 contracts in play this afternoon versus average daily volume of around 80 contracts. Trading in La-Z-Boy call options is outpacing puts, with the call/put ratio up above 4.3 as of the time of this writing. Some traders appear to be p...
Today's market meme was "pleasant trading ahead of the Fed." The recently troublesome and highly volatile Nikkei finished the day with a minor slip of -0.20%, and the eurozone was on hold with the EURO STOXX 50 closing a hair below flat at -0.07%. On the home front, the June CPI report for May offered no surprises and the housing numbers (permits and starts) were a bit light but not statistically significant. With no news from June FOMC until tomorrow afternoon, the S&P 500 opened at its intraday low, 0.04% above yesterday's close, and traded with no drama to its intraday high, up 0.92%, in the mid-afternoon. The buying eased in the last 45 minutes of trading and the index closed with a modestly trimmed gain of 0.78%.
After the volatile session yesterday, the S&P 500 has broken back above the channel we have been discussing for a few weeks and now the Russell 2000 and NASDAQ appear to be joining (was not the case yesterday). If not for the focus on the FOMC presser tomorrow you'd have a nice clean breakout starting here. Tomorrow is of course a major wildcard.
On a related note – the 50 day moving average has been quite the support in 2013. In fact no year other than 1995 in the past 30 comes close to what we are seeing this year. ...
The market responded well today to good economic news and to the positive and somewhat surprising response to the election of a moderate Iranian President. Some moderation in Turkey didn’t hurt either, and overnight positive markets in Asia and Europe gave bullish investors enough encouragement to buy equities broadly.
This drove all three major domestic indices up about 1% before a late small selloff left the S&P 500 Index up nearly 1% and the Nasdaq and Dow Jones Industrial Average both up well over 0.5%. We think it likely this week that the market will challenge highs set in late May.
Reminder: OpTrader is available to chat with Members, comments are found below each post.
This post is for all our live virtual trade ideas and daily comments. Please click on "comments" below to follow our live discussion. All of our current trades are listed in the spreadsheet below, with entry price (1/2 in and All in), and exit prices (1/3 out, 2/3 out, and All out).
We also indicate our stop, which is most of the time the "5 day moving average". All trades, unless indicated, are front-month ATM options.
Please feel free to participate in the discussion and ask any questions you might have about this virtual portfolio, by clicking on the "comments" link right below.
To learn more about the swing trading virtual portfolio (strategy, performance, FAQ, etc.), please click here
Reminder: Craigzooka is available to chat with Members regarding his virtual portfolio performance, comments are found below each post.
I am going to share with you how I manage my IRA and the power of reducing your cost basis. My goal each year is a 20% return in my IRA. Sometimes I make it and sometimes I don't, but I believe that all of my success is due to reducing my cost basis. To illustrate the power of reducing your cost basis here are some trades we did last year. These trades are taken from an educational portfolio we ran in a paper-trading account for a little more than a year.
We bought RIG on 5/15/2012 for $44.13, sold it on 1/18/2013 for $46 but booked a profit of $1,154.
We bought MT on 1/4/2012 for $19.24, sold it on 12/21/2012 for $15 but booked a profit of $454.
We bought CHK on 1/27/2012 for $21.93, sold it on 10/19/2012 for $18 b...
Stock market posts another record setting week, but the big news came after Friday’s close.
Courtesy of NASA
The stock market put on another record setting show with the Dow Jones Industrial Average (NYSEARCA:DIA) closing at a record high 15,118 and the S&P 500 (NYSEARCA:SPY) closing at 1633.70, another all time closing high.
For the week, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (NYSEARCA:DIA) gained 1%, the S&P 500 (NYSEARCA:SPY) climbed 1.2%, the Nasdaq Composite (NYSEARCA:...
Reminder: Pharmboy is available to chat with Members, comments are found below each post.
Well, well, well....it is good to know that there are others in the scientific arena who believed that YMI Bioscience's data (cough - Gilead) is a better drug than Incyte's Jakafi. Now, the definitive data are still unknown, but there was enough evidence from a Phase 2 trial to take a small risk for a huge reward. So, let's forget about Apple (AAPL), and do nothing but biotechs from now until Congress passes universal health care coverage for prescriptions....and drive the prices down so that research and development is no longer feasible to conduct in the US. Even Seattle Genetics (SGEN) has been on a tear as of late...
Note: The material presented in this commentary is provided for informational purposes only and is based upon information that is considered to be reliable. However, neither Philstockworld, LLC (PSW) nor its affiliates warrant its completeness, accuracy or adequacy and it should not be relied upon as such. Neither PSW nor its affiliates are responsible for any errors or omissions or for results obtained from the use of this information. Past performance, including the tracking of virtual trades and portfolios for educational purposes, is not necessarily indicative of future results. Neither Phil, Optrader, or anyone related to PSW is a registered financial adviser and they may hold positions in the stocks mentioned, which may change at any time without notice. Do not buy or sell based on anything that is written here, the risk of loss in trading is great.
This material is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any security or other financial instrument. Securities or other financial instruments mentioned in this material are not suitable for all investors. Any opinions expressed herein are given in good faith, are subject to change without notice, and are only intended at the moment of their issue as conditions quickly change. The information contained herein does not constitute advice on the tax consequences of making any particular investment decision. This material does not take into account your particular investment objectives, financial situations or needs and is not intended as a recommendation to you of any particular securities, financial instruments or strategies. Before investing, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice.