The bullish case is pretty well established right now and there is no sense repeating them but what may be ignored are these half-dozen risks: 1. How much of 2011 growth was borrowed from 2012 (the payroll tax cut and bonus depreciation allowance end in December 2011). This may be an issue heading into Q4….Read More
By now, you should be well aware of my NFP data views: The Employment situation has been gradually improving, but at a slow rate that suggests it will take a long time before we recover all the lost jobs of the 2007-09 Great Recession. The 2001 recession took 47 months for that full jobs recovery…Read More
Global Macro Monitor produces informed opinion about markets and the global economy. This was originally published on January 3, 2011 ~~~ Like others, we can’t help but notice the massive outperformance of small caps in 2010, with the Russell 2000 doubling the performance of the S&P500. The Russell was up over 25 percent in 2010. …Read More
U.S. stocks were mixed today, holding onto most of this week’s gains ahead of tomorrow’s highly anticipated nonfarm payroll figures. Anticipation is running high because the vast majority of economic data points have been strong in recent weeks, and economists have been busily revising higher their expectations for job growth in December. Weekly jobless claims…Read More
Its been a while since our last site upgrade. In the intervening months, a number of good suggestions were made by readers, colleagues and random strangers stopping me on the streets of Manhattan. Some of these ideas were great . . . some were impossible . . . but all revealed a degree of involvement…Read More
Chris Whalen and Dylan Ratigan chat about Bank of America:
“What’s going on with Bank of America, and why does it matter? ”They recently announced a settlement of potential claims from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These are agencies in Washington that bought over a trillion dollars in loans that Bank of America originated, or agents for Bank of America originated. So a they had portion of these loans that have gone bad or had some defect. And some of these agencies demanded that Bank of America buy a portion of these loans back. The settlement, however, is very small compared to what we actually thought this would be, I had a number close to $40 billion, and at the end of the day, the settlement is going to be high single-digit billions. So, it’s an order of magnitude smaller than most people expected. Frankly, I think it’s a gift in the magnitude of maybe $10 to $15 billion. If we had a settlement that said $20 billion or $15 billion, I think that would have been in the right ballpark. You can give the Secretary of the Treasury discretion with how agressive he’s going to be. But when Fannie Mae tells us that three out of four reps and warranties claims were essentially cured by Bank of America giving them more documents, I think that indicates that they were not very agressive,” says Chris.”
Here are the latest additions to my Instapaper: • Shadow inventory backlog still growing (FT Alphaville) • The Tyranny of Defense Inc. (The Atlantic) Hey, I was just discussing this! • Why You Shouldn’t Trust Wall Street’s Top Stocks for 2011 (WSJ) • Is Fannie bailing out the banks? (Fortune) • How Wall St. execs…Read More
Category: Financial Press
We’ve taken many longer term looks at the markets (See, for example, this, this, this or this) but the following chart from UBS Technical Analyst Peter Lee really tickled my fancy: > click for larger graphic > Source: 2011 Technical Market Outlook Peter Lee – Chief Technical Strategist Wealth Management Research December 2010
I have been rather dismissive of the agnatology from global warming deniers and hacks like Pat Michaels.
The notorious climate skeptic of the CATO Institute has admitted on CNN this weekend that 40 percent of his funding comes from Big Oil. Note that is what he admits to; his disinformation campaigns might be funded in considerably greater amounts than that.
When the media quotes him, they should disclose where the funding for his “skepticism” came from. As the ExxonSecrets profile of Pat Michaels sums up well, he is “possibly the most prolific and widely-quoted climate change skeptic scientist.”
Fareed Zakaria deserves a round of applause for challenging Michaels directly to cough up a figure for how much oil money he receives to defend the status quo:
ZAKARIA: Let me ask you what people wonder about, advocates like you. They say —
MICHAELS: I’m advocating for efficiency.
ZAKARIA: Right. But people say that you’re advocating also for the current petroleum-based industry to stand pat, to stay as it is, and that a lot of your research is funded by these industries.
MICHAELS: Oh, no, no. First of all, what I’m saying is —
ZAKARIA: Well, is your research funded by these industries?
MICHAELS: Not largely. The fact of the matter is —
ZAKARIA: Can I ask you what percentage of your work is funded by the petroleum industry?
MICHAELS: I don’t know. 40 percent? I don’t know.
Not a bad investment by the oil industry: Put up 40% of the funds, but use 100% of the junk science . . .
DISCLOSURE: We are long Arch Coal (ACI) and Suncor (SU) As I have said, you can burn fossil fuels and own V12 cars, or even invest in the energy sector, but please don’t be hypocritical by pretending that you are not impacting the climate.