by ilene - February 23rd, 2017 1:10 pm
Note: Cincarious Research contributed the article LifeLock Willing To Give FireEye $16 Per Share In Takeover Offer – Sources to Zero Hedge. It appears to be fake – or at least old – news.
Read this: Who or what is “Cincarious Research?”
Cincarious Research writes,
LifeLock is looking to revamp itself with a purchase of FireEye according to a few of our sources in the security space that are privy to the on-going conversation. We were told the company is seeking to expand offerings and the added cyber-security depth from FireEye on the government level is what LifeLock wants, badly. The deal is set for $16 per share for a total valuation of $2.7 billion.
Key sell-side comment from this morning supporting the idea that FireEye is struggling comes from Gabelli & Co which noted "What matters in 2017: FireEye’s execution to demonstrate growth and achieve its profitability improvement target, cybersecurity market demand, and sales performance of the company’s new products and initiatives."
Update from Reuters,
(Reuters) – Security software provider Symantec Corp held talks to acquire FireEye Inc about six months ago, but is not currently pursuing a deal with the cyber security company, people familiar with the matter said on Thursday.
The two companies could not reach a deal because of disagreements over price, the sources said, asking not to be identified because the negotiations were confidential. Symantec and FireEye declined to comment.
Shares of FireEye had jumped earlier on Thursday after financial blog Zero Hedge published an article based on anonymous sources stating that Symantec's LifeLock unit was willing to offer $16 per share for FireEye. (my emphasis)
by ilene - February 23rd, 2017 11:55 am
Half of biomedical research studies don't stand up to scrutiny – and what we need to do about that
What if I told you that half of the studies published in scientific journals today – the ones upon which news coverage of medical advances is often based – won’t hold up under scrutiny? You might say I had gone mad. No one would ever tolerate that kind of waste in a field as important – and expensive, to the tune of roughly US$30 billion in federal spending per year – as biomedical research, right? After all, this is the crucial work that hunts for explanations for diseases so they can better be treated or even cured.
Wrong. The rate of what is referred to as “irreproducible research” – more on what that means in a moment – exceeds 50%, according to a recent paper. Some estimates are even higher. In one analysis, just 11% of preclinical cancer research studies could be confirmed. That means that an awful lot of “promising” results aren’t very promising at all, and that a lot of researchers who could be solving critical problems based on previously published work end up just spinning their wheels.
So what gives? And how can we fix this problem?
What worms tell us about reproducibility
Although definitions of reproducibility and replication vary somewhat, for a study to be reproducible, another researcher needs to be able to replicate it, meaning use the same data and analysis to come to the same conclusions. There are lots of reasons why a study may not pass the replication test, from flat-out errors to a failure to adequately describe the methodology used. A researcher may have forgotten about a step in the process when he wrote up the methodology, for example, counted data in the wrong category, or written the wrong code for her statistics program.
by clarisezoleta - February 23rd, 2017 11:18 am
PhilStockWorld.com Weekly Trading Webinar – 02-22-17
For LIVE access on Wednesday afternoons, join us at Phil's Stock World – click here
00:02:30 Checking on the Markets
00:05:18 FOMC Meeting
00:23:47 Tesla Powerwall
00:43:27 NGJ7 Trade Ideas
00:46:19 Natural Gas Chart
00:52:17 ESRX on Long-Term Portfolio
00:54:11 QCOM on Long-Term Portfolio
00:56:25 Trade Ideas
01:01:30 TEVA Trade Ideas
01:04:10 LNG Charts
01:10:26 PFE Charts
01:11:49 Crude Oil
01:21:38 PFE Trade Ideas
01:22:55 Checking on the Markets
01:39:41 LL Charts
01:42:28 Checking on the Markets
Phil's Weekly Trading Webinars provide a great opportunity to learn what we do at PSW. Subscribe to our YouTube channel and view past webinars, here. For LIVE access to PSW's Weekly Webinars – demonstrating trading strategies in real time – join us at PSW — click here!
by ilene - February 23rd, 2017 9:47 am
Courtesy of The Automatic Earth
Times Square New York City, 1958
A few days ago, I wrote an essay entitled “Not Nearly Enough Growth To Keep Growing”, in which I posited, among many other things, that “..the Automatic Earth has said for many years that the peak of our wealth was sometime in the 1970’s or even late 1960’s” along with the question “..was America at its richest right before or right after Nixon took the country off the gold standard in 1971?”
That same day, I received an email from (very) long time Automatic Earth reader and afficionado Ken Latta, who implied he thought the peak of American wealth was even earlier. That turned into a nice conversation. I really like the way his head works to frame his words. And Ken knows what he’s talking about by grace of the fact that he was a witness to it all.
I like that he defines wealth as “best measured by the capacity to be utterly wasteful”, and the early 1960’s in America as “a golden age, overshadowed, of course, by excess hubris.”. And I wonder many of you would agree that America was at the summit of its wealth perhaps as much as 55-60 years ago?
Here’s his first mail:
Ken Latta: Ilargi, A darned good editorial, but I would like to suggest a different baseline for America’s peak wealth. As experienced by the common man, now pronounced “deplorable”.
In my humble estimation based on having been there at the time. Peak wealth occurred somewhere in the neighborhood of 1963. It was a time when the Beach Boys and their music biz competitors were making money with songs about hi-powered cars and a life of surfing waves. Working Joes bought those cars and drove them on the street. Those on the coasts spent inordinate amounts of time surfing. A lot of ordinary car buyers were committed to trading in every three years. Some of the better off even thought every two years was the way to go. We wuz feelin invincible and we enjoyed such a comfortable way of life without forcing the majority of our wimmin into wage slavery. It was a golden age, overshadowed, of course, by excess
by ilene - February 23rd, 2017 9:42 am
Courtesy of Pam Martens
Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, Testifying Before Congress on the London Whale Trading Losses at His Bank
On September 8, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) fined Wells Fargo $185 million following an investigation that found that its employees had engaged in a widespread practice of “secretly opening unauthorized deposit and credit card accounts” in order to meet sales quotas or qualify for bonuses. An estimated 2 million accounts were involved. One month later, the Chairman and CEO of Wells Fargo, John Stumpf, was gone.
Consider that swift action to acknowledge and punish egregious abuse of clients with how the Boards of Directors of JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup have responded to criminal felony charges and seemingly endless regulatory fines for abusing clients’ trust. The Boards have kept their CEOs in place, paid the monster fines and moved on to the next settlement.
Jamie Dimon became the CEO of JPMorgan Chase on January 1, 2006. At that point, the bank was more than a century old and had never been charged with a criminal felony. In 2014, the Justice Department charged JPMorgan Chase with two felony counts in connection with their role in facilitating the Madoff Ponzi scheme. The bank was given a two-year deferred prosecution agreement.
The very next year, in May 2015, JPMorgan Chase was hit with a new felony count for its role in rigging foreign currency markets as part of a banking cartel. That’s three felony counts in two years and yet Jamie Dimon kept his job. Before the felony counts there was a $13 billion settlement with the Justice Department and Federal and State regulators in 2013 for JPMorgan Chase’s role in selling toxic mortgage investments to investors as worthwhile products when the bank had good reason to believe they would blow up.
In 2012, Dimon himself was hauled before Congress to explain why his bank was making speculative bets with depositors’ money in high risk derivatives in London. The bank eventually owned up to losing $6.2 billion in the wild trades. The scandal became infamously known as the London Whale. In 2013, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released…
by Market Shadows - February 23rd, 2017 8:26 am
Financial Markets and Economy
Oil-sands investments in Western Canada that gobbled tens of billions of dollars over the past decade are proving an Achilles heel for some of the world’s biggest energy producers.
A definitive breakdown of the gloomy state of Wall Street (Business Insider)
Don't be fooled by the strong rebound in Wall Street trading revenues at the end of 2016: Investment banks still had a lousy year.
South Korea pushed back against U.S. pressure over its foreign exchange policy and current account surplus, with the central bank governor maintaining that the nation only acts to check extreme swings in the won.
European oil majors given a taste of Brazil may soon be ready for more.
The Bank of England gave a robust defence of London's euro clearing business, saying it offered lower costs and greater financial stability over plans to move it to continental Europe after Brexit.
Several failed attempts by the Topix index to climb past a key technical level have left investors nervous, even amid signs the benchmark may eventually succeed, according to Nomura Holdings Inc.
Emerging-market hedge-fund assets reached a record at the end of last year, thanks to gains in energy prices and a strengthening dollar, according to Hedge Fund Research Inc.
The FTSE 100 is dropping on a busy day for company results (Business Insider)
The FTSE 100 is lower on Thursday morning on a busy day of results for the UK's biggest companies.
U.S. stock futures pointed to small gains for Wall Street on Thursday, setting the Dow average on
by ilene - February 23rd, 2017 4:13 am
Courtesy of Mish.
Here are two different looks at Fed rate hikes since Volcker. The charts are the same, but one presentation is a lot funnier than the other.
the above image from the New York Times article A History of Fed Leaders and Interest Rates.
Here’s an alternative view courtesy of @HedgeEye.
Let’s take the fist chart and see what correlations exist between rate hikes and the US dollar index.
Rate Hike Cycle vs. the US Dollar
Conventional wisdom suggests rate hikes will support the US dollar.
by ilene - February 22nd, 2017 11:13 pm
Want a stronger economy? Give immigrants a warm welcome
Immigrants have long been a scapegoat when economies are sputtering, jobs are being lost or security is a concern.
President Donald Trump’s planned wall along the Mexican border, for example, is premised on the notion that immigrants are pouring across the border (they’re not), taking Americans’ jobs (they haven’t) and committing a disproportionate share of crimes (they don’t).
The presumed threats of immigration were also front and center in Trump’s recently announced plan to deport millions of people who were in the U.S. illegally.
We saw something similar when U.K. voters opted for a “Brexit” from the European Union last year, when many British politicians cast immigrants as a threat to the physical, social and economic welfare of natives.
While it has become a popular notion in the West that immigrants jeopardize the job prospects of natives, over 30 years of economic research (including my own) give strong reason to believe otherwise.
And in fact, the opposite may be more likely: There’s evidence immigrants actually promote economic growth.
Why we blame immigrants for our troubles
Extensive reviews of research on the topic (like this one) show that most studies of how immigration affects native wages and employment found very little effect.
Although economists have yet to arrive at a complete consensus, decades of studies generally do not support the notion that immigration harms the economy, market wages or native employment. So why do so many believe it when research suggests otherwise?
A central issue is that it is easy to think that the labor market is a zero-sum game and the number of jobs available is fixed. If everyone were competing over a finite number of jobs, more immigrants would mean fewer opportunities for natives, and vice versa, right? The reality, however, is much more complex, as I will show. Further, it is simply false to think of the number of jobs as fixed in the first place. Employment has been generally rising since 2010, which means more jobs for everyone.
by Market Shadows - February 22nd, 2017 10:13 pm
Financial Markets and Economy
Fed may raise interest rates ‘fairly soon’ thanks to economy’s continued growth (The Washington Post)
The Federal Reserve said the economy’s continued growth might persuade it to raise its benchmark interest rate “fairly soon,” according to minutes from its policy meeting released Wednesday, even as it acknowledged that the ambitious policies proposed by the Trump administration could have unforeseen effects on the U.S. economy.
The Dow Is More than 2000 Points Above Its 200-Day Moving Average (The Wall Street Journal)
Chartwatchers take note: The Dow Jones Industrial Average just did something it’s never done before. The blue-chip index that holds names like Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and closed more than 2000 points above its 200-day moving average for the first time in its 120-year plus history, according to WSJ Market Data Group.
When copper went haywire late Monday evening in London, all but a few die-hard traders in China were asleep. The European workday was ending and Americans had a public holiday.
Investors may be banking too much on Trump lifting earnings (Market Watch)
The U.S. stock market has been in rally mode since President Donald Trump’s election victory, with the gains largely coming on the back of two ideas: that the new administration’s policies on taxes and regulation will accelerate economic growth, and that that will lead to improved corporate profits.
Oil prices ended about 1 percent higher after touching three-week highs on Tuesday on OPEC's optimism for greater compliance with its deal with other producers including Russia to curb output in an effort to clear a glut that has weighed on the market.
Chinese banks had more than 26 trillion yuan ($3.8 trillion) of wealth-management products held off their balance sheets at the end of December, a 30 percent increase from a year earlier, according to the central bank.
China tweaked its formula for setting daily reference
by ilene - February 22nd, 2017 9:52 pm
Courtesy of Mish.
As a direct result of Sweden’s tax laws in conjunction with negative interest rates by the central bank, Sweden’s citizens now purposely overpay their tax bills in record amounts as a savings vehicle.
Here’s the peculiar result: The Swedish Government Complains it Collects Too Much Tax.
Data released on Wednesday showed Sweden’s government generated a budget surplus of SKr85bn ($9.5bn) in 2016, with approximately SKr40bn coming from tax overpayments. The government will have to repay more than £3.5bn to businesses and individuals who purposely paid too much tax in 2016.
The government wants to discourage further overpayments but the national debt office has admitted its efforts will probably not be enough.
While bank interest rates plummeted, Swedish tax rules meant that excess deposits in taxpayers’ payment accounts continued to earn a minimum of 0.56 percent annual interest, leading many people to use them like makeshift bank accounts.
Most governments would be pleased with an annual budget surplus more than twice the forecast size. But Stockholm has complained that this “involuntary borrowing” from residents will cost it around SKr800m more over 2016 and 2017 than if they had borrowed the money at market rates.
Unfortunately for the debt office, there is little chance that the problem will go away anytime soon. At its latest policy meeting last week the central bank said it was more likely to cut rates further into negative territory than increase them in the short term.
Given negative interest rates, even if Sweden paid zero percent on overpayments, the Swedish government would lose money vs. borrowing from the central bank.
I suppose the government could charge money for excess payments, but officials might be worried about voter backlash.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock