http://www.marketwatch.com/story/house-panel-passes-bill-to-audit-the-fed-2017-03-28
Rand thinks he is getting close. I'll believe it when I see it but Trump could definitely help his #DrainTheSwamp cred by getting behind this. Said he was on the campaign trail but being Prez is a whole different story.
Rand thinks he is getting close. I'll believe it when I see it but Trump could definitely help his #DrainTheSwamp cred by getting behind this. Said he was on the campaign trail but being Prez is a whole different story.
Only took a few months for trump to show what was obvious all along.. that he's a fake backstabbing flip flopper that is beholden to the one party establishment of big government/liberalism/fascism/corporatism.. luckily congress now has several members to call him out on it..
--------
The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!
--------
Raúl R. Labrador
@Raul_Labrador
@realDonaldTrump Freedom Caucus stood with u when others ran. Remember who your real friends are. We're trying to help u succeed.2:27 PM · Mar 30, 2017
7hJustin Amash
@justinamash
It didn't take long for the swamp to drain @realDonaldTrump. No shame, Mr. President. Almost everyone succumbs to the D.C. Establishment.
Justin Amash Retweeted
7hThomas Massie
@RepThomasMassie
.@realDonaldTrump it's a swamp not a hot tub. We both came here to drain it. #SwampCare polls 17%. Sad!
--------
The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!
--------
Raúl R. Labrador
@Raul_Labrador
@realDonaldTrump Freedom Caucus stood with u when others ran. Remember who your real friends are. We're trying to help u succeed.2:27 PM · Mar 30, 2017
7hJustin Amash
@justinamash
It didn't take long for the swamp to drain @realDonaldTrump. No shame, Mr. President. Almost everyone succumbs to the D.C. Establishment.
Justin Amash Retweeted
7hThomas Massie
@RepThomasMassie
.@realDonaldTrump it's a swamp not a hot tub. We both came here to drain it. #SwampCare polls 17%. Sad!
I don't even think he is beholden per se. I think the reason he sides with the establishment liberals is not really because of any ideological reasons.
The reason he sides with them is much simpler: Because it is easy. It's easy to tell people what they wanna hear, it's easier to spend money than cut spending, it's easier to have all plans that everyone will like even with consequences be damned.
To align against the HFC is to choose comfort and stability rather than shaking things up. He doesn't have the appetite for that.
Not many do obviously.
Atleast that is a bigger part of it than any real political motives. I don't even think he has much political ideology.
The reason he sides with them is much simpler: Because it is easy. It's easy to tell people what they wanna hear, it's easier to spend money than cut spending, it's easier to have all plans that everyone will like even with consequences be damned.
To align against the HFC is to choose comfort and stability rather than shaking things up. He doesn't have the appetite for that.
Not many do obviously.
Atleast that is a bigger part of it than any real political motives. I don't even think he has much political ideology.
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
If @RepMarkMeadows, @Jim_Jordan and @Raul_Labrador would get on board we would have both great healthcare and massive tax cuts & reform.
5:20 PM - 30 Mar 2017
✔@realDonaldTrump
If @RepMarkMeadows, @Jim_Jordan and @Raul_Labrador would get on board we would have both great healthcare and massive tax cuts & reform.
5:20 PM - 30 Mar 2017
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
Where are @RepMarkMeadows, @Jim_Jordan and @Raul_Labrador?#RepealANDReplace #Obamacare
Guess he wasn't playing "4D chess to embarrass Ryan"
he used to be a NY democrat.. it was all one big ruse.. just like obama was the liberals hope and change candidate.. rednecks thought and self centered narcissistic billionaire was going to be their savior.. establishment just puts on one big circus and regardless of who wins Hillary or trump it's good for them and bad for the average joe..
now trump is throwing a Twitter tantrum cause freedom caucus won't let him and edtablishment do anytbimg they want..
only hope for this coutry is the freedom caucus faction keeps increasing with time and eventually give power back to the people vs vested interests corporations and big goverenment whores.. not holding my breath..
down to 35% in Gallup for trump approval.. lowest ever for this early in presidency..
Even the media that has been behind trump has started to turn against him..
reason being many of the foxnews crowd is getting restless now that they beginning to realize that he's yet another fake conservative that isn't going to take on the establishment and change Washington.. with the first piece of major legislation he got behind being swampcare with them trying to pull the status quo move.. and ram a corporate lobbiest bill created behind closed doors through congress as quickly as possible
------------------
"Now in my opinion, it's not the Freedom Caucus that's responsible for the GOP failure in this case to repeal and replace Obamacare," Hannity said on his eponymous program. "Now this legislation was flawed from the beginning. It was created behind closed doors. Not one single member saw the bill until it was rolled out. And that made it a disaster."
reason being many of the foxnews crowd is getting restless now that they beginning to realize that he's yet another fake conservative that isn't going to take on the establishment and change Washington.. with the first piece of major legislation he got behind being swampcare with them trying to pull the status quo move.. and ram a corporate lobbiest bill created behind closed doors through congress as quickly as possible
------------------
"Now in my opinion, it's not the Freedom Caucus that's responsible for the GOP failure in this case to repeal and replace Obamacare," Hannity said on his eponymous program. "Now this legislation was flawed from the beginning. It was created behind closed doors. Not one single member saw the bill until it was rolled out. And that made it a disaster."
Drudge too..
----------
[h=1]'We share a strong mutual admiration': Rand Paul praises Matt Drudge after meeting in Washington[/h]
www.drudgereport.com
The conservative internet-news mogul Matt Drudge met with Republican Sen. Rand Paul in Washington, DC, earlier this week and praised him as "bold" and "brave."
"Intriguing lunch in hill office of America's best senator, Rand Paul," Drudge tweetedon Thursday. "He's bold, brave and has somehow kept his heart in such a corrupt city."
Paul's spokesman returned the compliment.
"Matt Drudge has a phenomenal take on the news and is a leader who others in the business can only hope to emulate," Sergio Gor told Business Insider in a statement. "We enjoyed visiting with him, and we share a strong mutual admiration!"
He has also ripped the Republican establishment as of late, true to what was his form during the presidential election.
In a recent tweet, Drudge contended the GOP "lied about wanting tax cuts."
"Can we get our votes back?" he asked.
----------
[h=1]'We share a strong mutual admiration': Rand Paul praises Matt Drudge after meeting in Washington[/h]
- Pamela Engel
- Mar. 30, 2017, 12:56 PM
- 108,029
www.drudgereport.com
The conservative internet-news mogul Matt Drudge met with Republican Sen. Rand Paul in Washington, DC, earlier this week and praised him as "bold" and "brave."
"Intriguing lunch in hill office of America's best senator, Rand Paul," Drudge tweetedon Thursday. "He's bold, brave and has somehow kept his heart in such a corrupt city."
Paul's spokesman returned the compliment.
"Matt Drudge has a phenomenal take on the news and is a leader who others in the business can only hope to emulate," Sergio Gor told Business Insider in a statement. "We enjoyed visiting with him, and we share a strong mutual admiration!"
Drudge has been taking what some have interpreted as subtle shots at President Donald Trump's administration recently through his website and Twitter account.
Drudge is the founder and editor of the Drudge Report, a popular and influential conservative news-aggregation website visited by millions of readers each month.
He has also ripped the Republican establishment as of late, true to what was his form during the presidential election.
In a recent tweet, Drudge contended the GOP "lied about wanting tax cuts."
"Can we get our votes back?" he asked.
As I've said before I wouldn't bet against musk long term.. but think stock is really overextended and overall market looking very toppy..
and now we have a potential musk top signal trolling shorts lol
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
Stormy weather in Shortville ...12:30 PM · Apr 3, 2017
and now we have a potential musk top signal trolling shorts lol
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
Stormy weather in Shortville ...12:30 PM · Apr 3, 2017
Higher market cap than Ford and for what? Selling 25k cars this quarter? The prospect in 10 years of roofs coming with solar pre-installed? Energy storage which has many competitors? Batteries which is a cutthroat industry with billions in capital flowing into it? Their automated technology doesn't seem very cutting edge from what I've seen.
The world needs more Elon's but a big reason his cult of personality and salesmanship is allowed to run so wild is because the world is starved for real innovative change (sound familiar?)
Starting to become like '99 where any growth story sounds plausible enough.
Mobileye sold to Intel for 16 billion a few weeks ago. If that is worth 16 then I suppose TSLA is worth 50, I guess.
The world needs more Elon's but a big reason his cult of personality and salesmanship is allowed to run so wild is because the world is starved for real innovative change (sound familiar?)
Starting to become like '99 where any growth story sounds plausible enough.
Mobileye sold to Intel for 16 billion a few weeks ago. If that is worth 16 then I suppose TSLA is worth 50, I guess.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/business/dealbook/tencent-tesla-wechat-stake.html
This moved the stock 4% last week. Definitely big news given how much of a capital infusion they are going to need to make 500k cars in 2018 like they say.
This moved the stock 4% last week. Definitely big news given how much of a capital infusion they are going to need to make 500k cars in 2018 like they say.
Yeah just another we in a obvious bubble sign..
check out panera's valuation .. soaring today as management syaing they exploring buyout options.. can't imagine who would buy them at this valuation with the restaurant bubble so saturated now..
i see bubble signs all around me.. pop inevitably coming.. hard part is when..
check out panera's valuation .. soaring today as management syaing they exploring buyout options.. can't imagine who would buy them at this valuation with the restaurant bubble so saturated now..
i see bubble signs all around me.. pop inevitably coming.. hard part is when..
[h=1]Richmond Fed President Lacker Resigns After Admitting He Leaked Confidential Fed Information[/h]We can now close the case on who leaked that confidential, market-moving data to Medley global back in 2012: it was Richmond Fed's Jeffrey Lacker, who previously was expected to retire in October, and is resigning immediately.
In a statement, Lacker confirms he revealed confidential FOMC information to Medley Global and that he lied to the Fed's general counsel on at least two occasions. His full statement is below:
As CNBC's Steve Liesman adds, Lacker's resignation was the result of negotiations with law enforcement officials.
While that does not make it clear if Lacker will now not face criminal prosecution for leaking material information - recall the FBI has been probing the Fed's 2012 leak to Medley since 2015 - this is great news for Janet Yellen, who was personally close with Medley's Regina Schleiger, ther person at the center of the Fed leak scandal, as the Fed Chair is now off the hook.
Or maybe not: while Lacker has taken blame for the Medley leak from October 3, 2012, recall that the Fed was also investigating a second leak, involving a September 28, 2012 article in the WSJ by Jon Hilsenrath titled "How Bernanke Pulled the Fed His Way" in which Bernanke's planning to launch QE3 was described in great detail.
As the Fed revealed in a FOIA seeking information on the internal probes, the WSJ leak is ongoing:
* * *
Update: No charges will be brought against Lacker.
No further comment, although maybe Ben Bernanke can blog about it one day.
In a statement, Lacker confirms he revealed confidential FOMC information to Medley Global and that he lied to the Fed's general counsel on at least two occasions. His full statement is below:
Statement Of Dr. Jeffrey Lacker
During the past 13 years it has been my privilege to serve as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. It has also been an honor to contribute to the development of our nation's monetary policy as a member of the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee ("FOMC").
While transparency of the monetary policy process is important, equally important are the confidentiality policies that protect the internal deliberations of the FOMC and ensure the integrity of our financial markets. The Federal Reserve's confidentiality policies seek to guide participants in maintaining the balance between transparency and confidentiality. The FOMC has had in place for many years two specific policies relating to confidentiality. the FOMC Policy on External Communications of Committee Participants (the "External Communications Policy-) and the Program for Security of FOMC Information (the "Information Security Policy").
In 2012, my conduct was inconsistent with those important confidentiality policies. Specifically, on October 2, 2012, I spoke by phone with an analyst ("the Analyst") concerning the September 2012 meeting of the FOMC. The Analyst authors reports on Federal Reserve matters on behalf of Medley Global Advisors ("Medley'). Medley publishes macro-economic policy intelligence for institutions such as hedge funds and asset managers and is owned by the Financial Times Limited.
During that October 2, 2012 discussion, the Analyst introduced into the conversation an important non-public detail about one of the policy options considered by participants prior to the meeting. Due to the highly confidential and sensitive nature of this information, I should have declined to comment and perhaps have ended the phone call. Instead, I did not refuse or express my inability to comment and the interview continued. Additionally, after that phone call I did not, as required by the Information Security Policy, report to any FOMC personnel that the Analyst was in possession of confidential FOMC information. When Medley published a report by the Analyst the following day, October 3, 2012, it contained this important detail about one of the policy options and I realized that my failure to decline comment on the information could have been taken by the Analyst, in the context of the conversation, as an acknowledgment or confirmation of the information.
I deeply regret the role I may have played in confirming this confidential information and in its dissemination to Medley's subscribers. In this episode, as in all of my communications with analysts, journalists and the public, it was never my intention to reveal confidential information. I further acknowledge that through this and other conversations with the Analyst, I may have contravened the External Communications Policy, which prohibits providing any profit-making person or organization with a prestige advantage over its competitors.
Following these events, I was interviewed on December 10, 2012, as part of an internal review conducted by the General Counsel of the FOMC. In advance of that interview, on December 6, 2012, I provided written responses to a questionnaire issued by the General Counsel seeking, among other things, all relevant information regarding my communications with the Analyst. Althoug it was my intention to cooperate fully with the internal review, I regret that I did not disclose to the General Counsel, either in my December 6, 2012 questionnaire or the December 10, 2012 interview, that the Analyst was in possession of confidential information during my conversation with her on October 2,2012.
In 2015, I was interviewed again as part of a separate investigation conducted by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, the Office of the Inspector General of the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In this subsequent 2015 interview with law enforcement officials, I did disclose that the Analyst was in possession of confidential information during my October 2. 2012 conversation with her.
I apologize to my colleagues and to the public I have been privileged to serve. I have always strived to maintain the appropriate balance between transparency and confidentiality, but I regret that in this instance I crossed the line to confirming information that should have remained confidential. I previously announced my intention to retire as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond in October 2017, and in light of these matters I have decided to make my departure from the Federal Reserve effective today.
The Richmond Fed made the following announcement moments ago, which suggests that Lacker did not leave voluntarily:During the past 13 years it has been my privilege to serve as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. It has also been an honor to contribute to the development of our nation's monetary policy as a member of the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee ("FOMC").
While transparency of the monetary policy process is important, equally important are the confidentiality policies that protect the internal deliberations of the FOMC and ensure the integrity of our financial markets. The Federal Reserve's confidentiality policies seek to guide participants in maintaining the balance between transparency and confidentiality. The FOMC has had in place for many years two specific policies relating to confidentiality. the FOMC Policy on External Communications of Committee Participants (the "External Communications Policy-) and the Program for Security of FOMC Information (the "Information Security Policy").
In 2012, my conduct was inconsistent with those important confidentiality policies. Specifically, on October 2, 2012, I spoke by phone with an analyst ("the Analyst") concerning the September 2012 meeting of the FOMC. The Analyst authors reports on Federal Reserve matters on behalf of Medley Global Advisors ("Medley'). Medley publishes macro-economic policy intelligence for institutions such as hedge funds and asset managers and is owned by the Financial Times Limited.
During that October 2, 2012 discussion, the Analyst introduced into the conversation an important non-public detail about one of the policy options considered by participants prior to the meeting. Due to the highly confidential and sensitive nature of this information, I should have declined to comment and perhaps have ended the phone call. Instead, I did not refuse or express my inability to comment and the interview continued. Additionally, after that phone call I did not, as required by the Information Security Policy, report to any FOMC personnel that the Analyst was in possession of confidential FOMC information. When Medley published a report by the Analyst the following day, October 3, 2012, it contained this important detail about one of the policy options and I realized that my failure to decline comment on the information could have been taken by the Analyst, in the context of the conversation, as an acknowledgment or confirmation of the information.
I deeply regret the role I may have played in confirming this confidential information and in its dissemination to Medley's subscribers. In this episode, as in all of my communications with analysts, journalists and the public, it was never my intention to reveal confidential information. I further acknowledge that through this and other conversations with the Analyst, I may have contravened the External Communications Policy, which prohibits providing any profit-making person or organization with a prestige advantage over its competitors.
Following these events, I was interviewed on December 10, 2012, as part of an internal review conducted by the General Counsel of the FOMC. In advance of that interview, on December 6, 2012, I provided written responses to a questionnaire issued by the General Counsel seeking, among other things, all relevant information regarding my communications with the Analyst. Althoug it was my intention to cooperate fully with the internal review, I regret that I did not disclose to the General Counsel, either in my December 6, 2012 questionnaire or the December 10, 2012 interview, that the Analyst was in possession of confidential information during my conversation with her on October 2,2012.
In 2015, I was interviewed again as part of a separate investigation conducted by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, the Office of the Inspector General of the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In this subsequent 2015 interview with law enforcement officials, I did disclose that the Analyst was in possession of confidential information during my October 2. 2012 conversation with her.
I apologize to my colleagues and to the public I have been privileged to serve. I have always strived to maintain the appropriate balance between transparency and confidentiality, but I regret that in this instance I crossed the line to confirming information that should have remained confidential. I previously announced my intention to retire as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond in October 2017, and in light of these matters I have decided to make my departure from the Federal Reserve effective today.
The Federal Reserve places a high priority on safeguarding information. We expect every employee to comply with all relevant policies and procedures, as well as our standards of conduct. Employees must review and acknowledge our policies annually. Once our Bank’s Board of Directors learned of the outcome of the government investigations, they took appropriate actions.
We are focused on moving forward within our organization—and were already underway with our presidential search, following Jeffrey Lacker’s announcement in January to retire in 2017. This search process will continue as scheduled. In the interim, First Vice President Mark Mullinix is serving as the Bank’s acting president.
This shocking event comes just hours after Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Jeb Hensarling demanded that "American Households Should Demand a More Reliable Governance Structure for the Fed."We are focused on moving forward within our organization—and were already underway with our presidential search, following Jeffrey Lacker’s announcement in January to retire in 2017. This search process will continue as scheduled. In the interim, First Vice President Mark Mullinix is serving as the Bank’s acting president.
As CNBC's Steve Liesman adds, Lacker's resignation was the result of negotiations with law enforcement officials.
While that does not make it clear if Lacker will now not face criminal prosecution for leaking material information - recall the FBI has been probing the Fed's 2012 leak to Medley since 2015 - this is great news for Janet Yellen, who was personally close with Medley's Regina Schleiger, ther person at the center of the Fed leak scandal, as the Fed Chair is now off the hook.
Or maybe not: while Lacker has taken blame for the Medley leak from October 3, 2012, recall that the Fed was also investigating a second leak, involving a September 28, 2012 article in the WSJ by Jon Hilsenrath titled "How Bernanke Pulled the Fed His Way" in which Bernanke's planning to launch QE3 was described in great detail.
As the Fed revealed in a FOIA seeking information on the internal probes, the WSJ leak is ongoing:
One article was published in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on September 28, 2012, and appeared to disclose information about discussions of Committee participants around the June, August and September, 2012, FOMC meetings in apparent violation of the FOMC’s policies regarding security of FOMC information. In particular, this first article included:
As for who will replace Lacker, Trump will surely have some thoughts on that, as Lacker's seat becomes a voting one in 2018.- Descriptions of the non-public views of some participants that appeared to have been disclosed by other participants. (As described below, all participants are permitted to disclose their own views about monetary policy, but participants are not permitted under the FOMC’s policies to describe the views of another participant unless that participant has already expressed those views publicly.)
- The number of policy alternatives considered by the Committee at its September meeting.
- The roles of various participants in the policy development.
* * *
Update: No charges will be brought against Lacker.
No further comment, although maybe Ben Bernanke can blog about it one day.
New automobile bubble (cheap credit too long) popping..
----------
[h=1]Danger Of Sell-off In U.S. Stocks Grows With Car Demand Collapse[/h]• Adam Haigh, Christopher Anstey, Mark Cudmore
You might put it as “what’s bad for General Motors is bad for the stock market.”
Recent history suggests American automobile sales indicate subsequent moves in U.S. equities. Declines in 2011 and 2012 were followed by a retreat in the S&P 500 index, and gains in the fall of 2015 came before a market rally. While the relationship isn’t exact, and correlation doesn’t equal causation, the surprising slump in vehicle sales last month comes just as investors are questioning how much to believe off-the-charts surveys of American confidence levels.
The retreat in the auto sector reported Monday mirrors lackluster broader consumer spending data released Friday. Both readings fly in the face of the two most-followed gauges of consumer sentiment, now at 17- and 11-year highs. It also contrasts with an index of optimism among small businesses -- local car dealers among them -- holding near levels unseen since the mid-2000s.
There’s more hard data coming this week to put the soft data to the test -- read about that here.
On the eve of the car-sales data, one veteran money manager warned that investors may be getting ahead of themselves on their confidence in the economy, with the chance of a sell-off increasing. Bob Doll, chief equity strategist and senior portfolio manager at Nuveen Asset Management LLC, wrote in an April 3 letter to clients that economic concerns were greater than worries over President Donald Trump’s relations with Congress in his effort to enact his agenda of stimulus.
‘Increasingly Cautious’
“We remain constructive in the medium-and long-term toward risk assets, but are growing increasingly cautious about the short-term outlook,” said Doll at Chicago-based Nuveen, which oversees about $230 billion. “At some point, a setback will likely be triggered by a manufacturing decline, soft oil prices, weakening data from China or some other factor, which could spark a risk-off phase.”
Others have also cautioned that investors mustn’t forget that sharp, short-term sell-offs aren’t unusual. But it’s been a while since traders have been hit with such a drop. Stock-watchers last month highlighted how the S&P 500 had its longest streak of days without a decline of at least 1 percent since 1995. The run ended with a 1.2 percent drop on March 21, but that’s been more than made up by subsequent gains.
One sobering observation came from Morgan Stanley analysts in February, when they presented analysis going back to 1950 that showed the chance of a 15 percent tumble in the S&P 500 within any 12-month period was almost one-in-five, at 18 percent.
Declines in car sales didn’t prompt any such drops in recent years, but they might be one sign that the eight-year bull run in equities has some hurdles to overcome before breaking the all-time record in August 2018.
This article was provided by Bloomberg News.
----------
[h=1]Danger Of Sell-off In U.S. Stocks Grows With Car Demand Collapse[/h]• Adam Haigh, Christopher Anstey, Mark Cudmore
You might put it as “what’s bad for General Motors is bad for the stock market.”
Recent history suggests American automobile sales indicate subsequent moves in U.S. equities. Declines in 2011 and 2012 were followed by a retreat in the S&P 500 index, and gains in the fall of 2015 came before a market rally. While the relationship isn’t exact, and correlation doesn’t equal causation, the surprising slump in vehicle sales last month comes just as investors are questioning how much to believe off-the-charts surveys of American confidence levels.
The retreat in the auto sector reported Monday mirrors lackluster broader consumer spending data released Friday. Both readings fly in the face of the two most-followed gauges of consumer sentiment, now at 17- and 11-year highs. It also contrasts with an index of optimism among small businesses -- local car dealers among them -- holding near levels unseen since the mid-2000s.
There’s more hard data coming this week to put the soft data to the test -- read about that here.
On the eve of the car-sales data, one veteran money manager warned that investors may be getting ahead of themselves on their confidence in the economy, with the chance of a sell-off increasing. Bob Doll, chief equity strategist and senior portfolio manager at Nuveen Asset Management LLC, wrote in an April 3 letter to clients that economic concerns were greater than worries over President Donald Trump’s relations with Congress in his effort to enact his agenda of stimulus.
‘Increasingly Cautious’
“We remain constructive in the medium-and long-term toward risk assets, but are growing increasingly cautious about the short-term outlook,” said Doll at Chicago-based Nuveen, which oversees about $230 billion. “At some point, a setback will likely be triggered by a manufacturing decline, soft oil prices, weakening data from China or some other factor, which could spark a risk-off phase.”
Others have also cautioned that investors mustn’t forget that sharp, short-term sell-offs aren’t unusual. But it’s been a while since traders have been hit with such a drop. Stock-watchers last month highlighted how the S&P 500 had its longest streak of days without a decline of at least 1 percent since 1995. The run ended with a 1.2 percent drop on March 21, but that’s been more than made up by subsequent gains.
One sobering observation came from Morgan Stanley analysts in February, when they presented analysis going back to 1950 that showed the chance of a 15 percent tumble in the S&P 500 within any 12-month period was almost one-in-five, at 18 percent.
Declines in car sales didn’t prompt any such drops in recent years, but they might be one sign that the eight-year bull run in equities has some hurdles to overcome before breaking the all-time record in August 2018.
This article was provided by Bloomberg News.
Fed minutes basically says some starting to worry about bubbles.. also talking about reducing balance sheet.. sounds like they hoping to pop the bubble with a soft landing..
too late fed.. you've already blown it up too big.. damage already done.. crash coming..
too late fed.. you've already blown it up too big.. damage already done.. crash coming..
[h=1]Suddenly, Both Obamacare Repeal And Trump Tax Reform Are Dead[/h]It was a one-two knockout punch for anyone still holding out hope that Trump's domestic economic policies will take place in the near, or not even so near, future.
First, Rep. Patrick McHenry, a member of House Republican leadership, said on Wednesday afternoon that conservatives' proposals to reach a compromise on healthcare are a "bridge too far" to win support from colleagues. McHenry, the chief deputy whip, told reporters that calls from the conservative House Freedom Caucus to allow states to apply for waivers to repeal ObamaCare protections for people with pre-existing conditions are a "bridge too far for our members" and can't get enough votes to pass.
The comments come after a late-night meeting among House GOP groups on Tuesday fell flat, and lawmakers appear to be heading home at the end of the week for a recess without any tangible progress toward a deal to revive their healthcare bill.
McHenry said lawmakers need a "cooling off period" over the two-week break. "We need people to stop, take a deep breath, and think through the way to yes," he said.
In other words, despite the White House's stated desire to get a vote off by Friday, Obamacare repeal is dead for the foreseeable future.
Sharethrough Placement Integrated
Click button for next steps
Next Steps
* * *
And then it weas Ryaun's turn: the House Speaker, also on Wednesday afternoon, said that tax reform will take longer to accomplish than repealing and replacing Obamacare would, saying Congress and the White House were initially closer to agreement on healthcare legislation than on tax policy.
"The House has a (tax reform) plan but the Senate doesn't quite have one yet. They're working on one. The White House hasn't nailed it down," Ryan told an audience in Washington.
"So even the three entities aren't on the same page yet on tax reform," he added.
Translation: both healthcare and tax reform are now indefinitely dead, which means that a suddenly pivoting Trump, who earlier today said he had "changed his mind" on Syria, may have no choice but to begin war with Assad to distract from everything else that is going on in the US.
First, Rep. Patrick McHenry, a member of House Republican leadership, said on Wednesday afternoon that conservatives' proposals to reach a compromise on healthcare are a "bridge too far" to win support from colleagues. McHenry, the chief deputy whip, told reporters that calls from the conservative House Freedom Caucus to allow states to apply for waivers to repeal ObamaCare protections for people with pre-existing conditions are a "bridge too far for our members" and can't get enough votes to pass.
The comments come after a late-night meeting among House GOP groups on Tuesday fell flat, and lawmakers appear to be heading home at the end of the week for a recess without any tangible progress toward a deal to revive their healthcare bill.
McHenry said lawmakers need a "cooling off period" over the two-week break. "We need people to stop, take a deep breath, and think through the way to yes," he said.
In other words, despite the White House's stated desire to get a vote off by Friday, Obamacare repeal is dead for the foreseeable future.
Sharethrough Placement Integrated
Click button for next steps
Next Steps
* * *
And then it weas Ryaun's turn: the House Speaker, also on Wednesday afternoon, said that tax reform will take longer to accomplish than repealing and replacing Obamacare would, saying Congress and the White House were initially closer to agreement on healthcare legislation than on tax policy.
"The House has a (tax reform) plan but the Senate doesn't quite have one yet. They're working on one. The White House hasn't nailed it down," Ryan told an audience in Washington.
"So even the three entities aren't on the same page yet on tax reform," he added.
Translation: both healthcare and tax reform are now indefinitely dead, which means that a suddenly pivoting Trump, who earlier today said he had "changed his mind" on Syria, may have no choice but to begin war with Assad to distract from everything else that is going on in the US.
Tax reform always gonna be a long shot. I said that in this thread like a week ago. Typical 10-15% of GDP tax cuts likely but doubt we getting real reform. Too many parasites.
It's funny to me how nobody mentions that Trump told massive crowds for a year and a half straight that he was going to replace Obamacare with something "cheaper and terrific" Gee, I wonder why all these plans that don't do that only poll at 20%? Americans now have the expectation that the gov't is going to fix healthcare. Single-payer or Medicare for all stuff gonna start gaining more and more support if this isn't solved soon, which it won't be. Special interests more likely to get behind that than free market reform as well I think, maintains profit better if most of the payments from 3rd party.
I wouldn't think anything is too imminent based on the fed comments though. They've said we're in a bubble plenty of times in the past, Greenspan most notably in '96 with "irrational exuberance" and it ran quite a bit after that.
It's funny to me how nobody mentions that Trump told massive crowds for a year and a half straight that he was going to replace Obamacare with something "cheaper and terrific" Gee, I wonder why all these plans that don't do that only poll at 20%? Americans now have the expectation that the gov't is going to fix healthcare. Single-payer or Medicare for all stuff gonna start gaining more and more support if this isn't solved soon, which it won't be. Special interests more likely to get behind that than free market reform as well I think, maintains profit better if most of the payments from 3rd party.
I wouldn't think anything is too imminent based on the fed comments though. They've said we're in a bubble plenty of times in the past, Greenspan most notably in '96 with "irrational exuberance" and it ran quite a bit after that.
