Time For A Break

You know how they say that dogs can sense an impending earthquake? Don't you kind of feel that way these days? I know I do.

First, it seems that everything is down. Stocks. Bonds. Commodities. Every currency. If there's a market for it, it's being sold. The only thing that is consistently rising this past week is The Pig. And once those dollars are bought, where are they going? Apparently nowhere. Very strange. Almost ominous.

Then you've got very knowledgeable folks like Bill Holter at MilesFranklin blaring the alarm with columns like this: http://blog.milesfranklin.com/the-great-unwind-has-finally-arrived and this: http://blog.milesfranklin.com/the-button-has-been-pushed-ready-or-not

We've got Santa, who is clearly very, very nervous. He's practically begging you to meet him somewhere for a discussion: http://www.jsmineset.com/2013/06/24/chicago-vancouver-and-scottsdale-qa-session-tickets-still-available/ And he keeps posting messages urging you to Get Out of The System (GOTS) as quickly as possible. Just yesterday, he linked two articles which you really do need to take some time to consider:

http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-76-is-available-Alert-for-the-second-half-of-2013-Global-systemic-crisis-II-second-devastating-explosion-social_a14266.html  &

http://www.valuewalk.com/2013/06/u-s-banks-crisis-plan-fed/

There are items such as this, which I found at ZeroHedge: http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/mid-year-digest/

And Chris Martenson, who I know to be a very wise and sober fellow, got into the act, too: http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/82210/everything-being-sold

So here we are. Look, I don't know if the financial world is ending this week or next or even this year, but I do know that the current system is unsustainable. To that end, your only financial protection is the physical possession of gold and silver. Not paper derivatives. Not ETFs. Not a basket of mining stocks. Physical metal, in your own two hands.

For those of you upset about the current, eight-month decline of fiat-conversion value, I'm sorry. If having gold and silver consistently move higher in terms of dollars would make you feel more comfortable, I regret that that hasn't happened for you. If you are sitting upon unrealized losses which makes you feel uncomfortable, I apologize and I wish I could make it different for you. But I can't.

However, you need to remember that we live in extraordinary times. Those spouting disinformation about the future price of gold are either hopelessly misinformed or deliberately trying to mislead you. The global forces at work behind the scenes have been in control and remain in control of the paper metal market. The past eight months have been a coordinated effort to crush price, thereby freeing physical for immediate delivery and allowing The Bullion Banks to cover paper short positions, transferring the future risk and liability to the Specs. This has now been accomplished and I firmly believe that we are very near a price bottom.

One day, very soon, paper price will reverse and head higher. Then, one day in the future, paper price will no longer exist as price resets multiples higher with the emergence of a new global financial paradigm. Please understand: THIS IS NOT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR "PROFIT". This is simply an opportunity to protect and defend all that you have accumulated to this point in your life.

To that end and to personally prepare, I'm going to be taking a few days off. Over the next two weeks, I'll still post from time to time but I'll also be sharing some "guest posts" from a handful of your favorite site regulars. Then, come next month, I plan to make a few changes to the way we do things around here. Nothing earth-shattering but necessary changes, nonetheless.

In the meantime, stay alert. Now is not the time to be complacent. Trust your instincts and use your brain. Double-check that you have acquired enough physical metal and consider buying even more. The End of The Great Keynesian is upon us. Please continue to prepare accordingly.

TF

617 Comments

Istack's picture

I'll take a break

once i get one of these.  My instinct to take shelter is strong right now as well.  If I think about it too much i start getting a feeling of hopelessness.  This world is one messed up place.

OC15's picture

Next!

Yes.

OC15's picture

2nd and Thurd?

xx

Istack's picture

My summer home

hai's picture

Changes In The Silver Market: Part 1

Changes In The Silver Market: Part 1

In 1999, the photographic market was to hit its peak of silver production. In the United States alone, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, this market consumed over 93 million ounces. Globally, the photographic industry needed 267 million ounces that year, around 1 silver ounce in every four traded worldwide. So photography carried real buying power as an industry. But the turn of the century was the beginning of the end.

http://www.hardassetsinvestor.com/columns-a-opinions/4930-changes-in-the-silver-market-part-1.html

wildstylechef's picture

sixth

need a break here , I mean come on this is just brutal

AlienEyes's picture

Top ten !

Top ten !

tyberious's picture

See you on the other side!

Enjoy your well deserved break TF!

GuerrillaCapitalist's picture

Time for a Break

Turd: Good for you. I've been following your lead all year and gave up following each beat of the market. The days of three monitors and two computers are thankfully passed. It was fun while it lasted.

Now, I'm spending more time with my grandchildren, life viewed through the lens of a gaggle of boys(and their dogs) under the age of 5 is refreshing, calming and scary as all hell.

Now is the time to double down on all of our preparations and check everything twice. The door is about to slam shut.

The Green Manalishi's picture

Regarding TTM

Turd, I don't know if you have seen this, but Steve Keen has had the same trouble with Gonzalo Lira as outlined here:

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/debunking-economics/

"So I sud­denly real­ized that the site was far from profitable—given my pro­duc­tion costs of about $2500 a month—and asked Lira to shut down yearly mem­ber­ships while I decided what to do. This is why the videos stopped being made—on top of the time I was los­ing to the indus­trial rela­tions dis­pute with UWS, and get­ting ready for the Kick­starter cam­paign to raise devel­op­ment funds for my Min­sky soft­ware (which ran from Feb­ru­ary 9 to March 18). I was now con­scious that the site was cost­ing me more than I was actu­ally earn­ing from it. My objec­tive had never been the money itself—first and fore­most, I was hop­ing to “buy time” using its rev­enue stream so that I could focus on my research—so the fact that it was los­ing money as well as cost­ing my time made it a dou­bly bad project. I there­fore stopped record­ing videos and cut back to just pro­vid­ing my weekly blog col­umn here prior to its pub­li­ca­tion on Busi­ness Spec­ta­tor (more about this below) and asked Lira to ter­mi­nate the yearly mem­ber­ship option immediately—since this made it harder to ulti­mately ter­mi­nate this site. Then I received the Jan­u­ary state­ment on March 2nd—and saw that yearly mem­ber­ships were still being taken."

Lamenting Laverne's picture

Fred Charts - Longer perspective and a hmmm

Several posters (Hrunner, Ivars, Eric O, Spartacus, Pining, Ctob, and Green Lantern off the top of my head) have pointed to the importance of the Velocity Chart recently. Once again I got curious, because Hrunner was kind enough to explain in simple terms what it actually meant.

GDP in relation to Monetary Base or one of the other Money Supply metrics. So when Monetary Base is flat and GDP goes up - Velocity goes up. When Monetary Base goes up and GDP is flat - Velocity goes down. When both moves up or down proportionately with each other - Velocity is flat. This is my understanding.  

It was interesting to take a look at these metrics in several ways. It is not the subject of this post, but just take a quick look at the historic perspective. For all of us, who are feeling the pain of doubt these days, it is a good view of just how long time ago the problems with our monetary system began to bite. It seems to me that the "beneficial" characteristics of the fiat money system stopped paying off in 1980..... as in NINE-TEEN-EIGHTY.

Is that because that was the point in time, when real economic expansion slowed decisively, because the big shift for most families from rentals to own house, from bus to own car, from hand washing diapers to washing machine etc. etc. had been completed. Apart from some booster effect from new technology during the 1990'ies, we shifted to credit driven consumption and an economy weighted heavier on the service-side than manufacturing side.

Could it be that service does not have the same transmission power as manufacturing?

Anyways - back to the focus of this post: Technicalities. This is what I cannot reconcile, and that I hope fellow Turdites will help clarifying:

Baring in mind the expected Velocity behavior mentioned at the top, it is clear from this chart that Velocity dropped significantly - BEFORE we went into recession after the credit crunch in 2008. We were told that the problem started with a run on the money market funds, because of rumors and subsequent confirmation of the Lehman Brothers collapse.

Well - this Velocity Chart relates to the Adjusted Monetary Base. So in order for this chart to produce a drop like that - either Base Money has risen significantly more than GDP or GDP has fallen of a cliff with constant Base Money - right? 

(Fed Definition: "Velocity is a ratio of nominal GDP to a measure of the money supply. It can be thought of as the rate of turnover in the money supply--that is, the number of times one dollar is used to purchase final goods and services included in GDP.")

When we look at the Adjusted Monetary Base chart, it is clear that it did a bend-off - not drop - but bend-off some time before the recession started. When you look at the GDP chart further below, it can be seen that GDP continued upwards with the virtually same slope until the start of the recession and did not drop off significantly before well into the recession.

(Fed Definition: "The Adjusted Monetary Base is the sum of currency (including coin) in circulation outside Federal Reserve Banks and the U.S. Treasury, plus deposits held by depository institutions at Federal Reserve Banks. These data are adjusted for the effects of changes in statutory reserve requirements on the quantity of base money held by depositories. This series has been reconstructed starting July 14, 2003.") 

Here is my first question - how can a formula that must be GDP divided by Base Money (when you look how it behaves elsewhere on the chart) produce a significant drop in velocity when the number below the division line rises much slower and the number above the division line continues to rise, with at most a very slight temper? With that formula, the velocity should have risen before the recession. Or at least - just have been up-sloping flatter.

I know it is difficult to see details out of a chart like that, but if you compare with the velocity movements for the GDP drop in the 1980 and 1990 recessions - that was more pronounced with a steeper Base Money up-slope than just before the 2008 recession - and produced less velocity change than the drop before 2008.

I don't understand this. It leads me to think that either GDP is misrepresented or Base Money is misrepresented. But which one? Or is it Velocity, that is misrepresented?

The GDP chart suggests that there was no growth slowdown, but the velocity chart suggests that there was either a growth in Base Money or a reduction in GDP. A housing crash due to defaulting subprime mortgages most likely due to jobloss of the most vulnerable workers, who are always the first to be fired, when sales and revenues get sluggish, initially suggests that the GDP number is the odd one out. But is that it? Let's take a closer look at the number below the division line.

Roughly speaking - again if I understand the definitions correctly - a bend-off in Base Money growth rate can either be because the Commercial Banks have withdrawn deposits from the Federal Reserve Banks, or it can be because the growth rate of addition to currency in circulation had been reduced. Looking at the Adjusted Reserves chart, it looks as if the reserves were completely flat during the timeframe in question. Ergo - I assume the rate of introduction of new currency in circulation was reduced.

Next oddity: We were told that the credit crunch and subsequent recession was caused by a run on the money market funds. Money market funds are included in M2 but not in M1.

Taking a look at M1 first, which to my understanding does not include the part of Base Money that is commercial bank deposits with the Federal Reserve and what they keep in their vaults, but instead merely consists of currency in circulation plus various forms of short term demand deposits. It went notably flat at approx. 1,4 T before and during the timeframe in question.

(Fed Definition: "M1 includes funds that are readily accessible for spending. M1 consists of: (1) currency outside the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions; (2) traveler's checks of nonbank issuers; (3) demand deposits; and (4) other checkable deposits (OCDs), which consist primarily of negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts at depository institutions and credit union share draft accounts.")

At first I thought that this is not so weird, because the housing crash 2006 is likely to have caused a lot of people to draw down on their deposit accounts in the commercial banks and not put as many employment cheques in, when they had lost their jobs and defaulted on their mortgages.

However, since the Base Money had a bend-off at roughly the same time, it was also possible that the the bend-off in M1 was simply inherited from the Base Money bend-off. Checking a more detailed zoomed-in Base Money chart again, see below, it appears that the bend-off started in 2005 or possibly even at the end of 2004. 

This suggests that the bend-off in M1 was not caused by a reduction of private deposits due to a housing bust, that only happened later, but instead that it was a result of reduced pace of introduction to currency in circulation.

(I just remembered now, that someone mentioned in connection with a Turdite discussion about the many false 100 Dollar notes in circulation and the new Gold 100$ notes, that this person had noticed that the newest notes he/she had seen recently was issued in 2006.)

Note also that from 2005 to 2007, when Base Money reduced its growth pace, and GDP was rising with unchanged pace, the  velocity chart was going up as expected - re my first point of confusion above.

OK - so the bend-off in M1 was likely due to the Fed holding back issuance of new currency and coins in circulation. Why would they taper the currency in circulation, when everything was going great and there was no bubbles in sight according to Mr. Bernanke at the time.

Tinfoil: Did the Fed do a repeat of the alleged draining of currency that triggered the Great Depression?

And why is the M1 Money Multiplier, that shows how much bang-for-the-base-money-buck we get, suggesting that our problems with transmission into the real economy started in early 1980'ies. And why are the Velocity Chart suggesting the same, despite continuously rising GDP?

(I know the Velocity chart is falling after 1980, because of rising base money - but why is it necessary? The multiplier tells me that increasingly more Base Money is needed to produce a rising M1 - what happened to the transmission from Base Money to M1 in the early 1980'ies? Is it because an increasing proportion of GDP is derived from the service sector, and is this not multiplying a base dollar as well as manufacturing, as mentioned in the introduction?). I would love to hear opinions on those last two questions.

(Fed definition: "The M1 multiplier is the ratio of M1 to the St. Louis Adjusted Monetary Base. Multiplicator 2013-06-12: 0.790 Ratio". )

So if currency in circulation was tapered. The question is again why? The tapering started in the beginning of 2005 - possibly with a small flat piece in the very end of 2004 as seen from this zoomed-in chart above. This was before the housing bubble bursted with a housing price peak in early 2006.

OK - So what happened to M2 during the velocity drop - the aggregate that holds the money market funds that was said to have experienced a run in 2008.

(Fed definition: "M2 includes a broader set of financial assets held principally by households. M2 consists of M1 plus: (1) savings deposits (which include money market deposit accounts, or MMDAs); (2) small-denomination time deposits (time deposits in amounts of less than $100,000); and (3) balances in retail money market mutual funds (MMMFs).")

Not much. In fact, since M2 includes M1, it must have experienced inflows, because M1 was growing at a slower pace from 2005. The M2 Velocity Chart is also quite different from the Base Money Velocity Chart. During the reduction in M2 in the early 1990'ies, the M1 rose quite a bit, and the M1 multiplier rose as well, suggesting that money was moved from M2 to M1 back then. From 2005 it looks as if the opposite occurred, and money moved from M1 to M2.

So to recap:

GDP did not budge its uptrend, despite severe housing crash - how can that be?

Base Money bended off with rising GDP - yet Velocity fell significantly even before the recession - If the Base Money chart and the GDP chart is to be believed, how is that possible, unless there is a third component to Velocity?

Did the Fed reduce currency in circulation on purpose to produce a crisis, or was it an economy  cooling policy gone bad, or was the drop of on Base Money organic, because of lack of need?   

I took a look at the Effective Federal Funds Rate as defined by Wikipedia (my emphasis in bold):

>>"In the United States, the federal funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions actively trade balances held at the Federal Reserve, called federal funds, with each other, usually overnight, on an uncollateralized basis. Institutions with surplus balances in their accounts lend those balances to institutions in need of larger balances. The federal funds rate is an important benchmark in financial markets.

The interest rate that the borrowing bank pays to the lending bank to borrow the funds is negotiated between the two banks, and the weighted average of this rate across all such transactions is the federal funds effective rate.

The federal funds target rate is determined by a meeting of the members of the Federal Open Market Committee which normally occurs eight times a year about seven weeks apart. The committee may also hold additional meetings and implement target rate changes outside of its normal schedule.

The Federal Reserve uses open market operations to influence the supply of money in the U.S. economy to make the federal funds effective rate follow the federal funds target rate."<<

It sounds a lot like that interbank lending, we have been discussing before. A bit like the SHIBOR rate that just spiked because of liquidity issues - or should we say bad-bank-around- so-want-more-dough-to-take-on-interbank-lending-risk. 

Doesn't this Effective Funds Rate chart look a bit like the Velocity chart? But the Fed Funds Rate is not a part of the Velocity calculation, so that must be a coincidence 

Anyways, from approximately 2005 the Fed funds rate rose quite quickly - then flatlines at the same time the Velocity fell hard. Based on the Wikipedia description it can be assumed that this interest rate rise was accompanied with FOMC actions to adjust money supply to achieve this outcome.

So interbank lending was made more expensive for those banks that needed overnight funding. If there is a connection between banks in need of overnight liquidity and more vulnerable banks, then this action would appear to be making the problem worse.

If the earlier published Alhambra paper (haven't read the recent one, that Icarus wrote about yet) is correct that Gold is used as the ultimate liquidity provider because of the quality of Gold as collateral, could that explain why there was a notable sell off in Gold in May 2006. That the interbank lending had become too expensive at 5% in 2006-2007 - and that the banks had to turn to Gold leasing to get liquidity?

Gold had had a pretty nice run, just prior to this sell off, so maybe the Fed tapered the money supply and raised the Fed funds rate to achieve a tempering of Gold?    

I don't know the answers to these questions, but what this suggests to me is that:

A) The real economy appear to have been in fire-fighting mode since the early 1980'ies, and subsequent advances has taken an increasingly big proportion of Base Money to achieve a positive effect on M1 as evidenced by the M1 Multiplier. Cheaper and cheaper credit has been the name of the game - as we all know by now.

B) GDP number does not tally with the other values. Tinfoil: Could it be that the GDP was rolling over hard, and that the numbers could only be fudged for so long, so "an excuse" needed to be manufactured to keep the party going for a few years more. Remembering, the GDP number is an important factor in the spin around sovereign debt sustainability, so a hard dropping GDP for the "leader of the free world" would be very bad publicity.

C) The Velocity Chart shows something that should not be possible - given the information about what goes into the formula.

D) Tinfoil: The Fed possibly resorted to the rumored good ole tried mechanism to set off a correction - withdrawal of money from the system, at a time when it was running on all credit pistons - with the desired (?) effect clear for all to see. Including 2 much needed Gold corrections.

D) Zerohedge mentioned sometime back that the final nail in the coffin for Lehman, was due to a mispriced credit derivatives portfolio at JPM's allegedly not-to-be-believed amateurish fault (hence on purpose?), that produced a massive margin call, that would later be admitted as wrong, but by then it was too late. The Fed moving interest rates in general would produce larger repricing of derivatives for potentially vulnerable banks.

Is the current taper talk evidence of the same need to get "an excuse" (=irrational market participants misunderstanding Mr. Bernanke) for trouble already in the pipeline?. Is that why almost every central bank around the world have "unexpectedly" lowered their interest rates during the last couple of months - because the liquidity squeeze has been serious for as long as that?

E) The M2 chart does not suggest a massive withdrawal from Money Market funds as we have been told. Was it other money market funds than retail - or is the chart useless for seeing these things in detail on - or have we been told something that was incorrect? If it was "other" money market funds - why are they not a part of the M2 or another published aggregate that reveals this?

More questions than answers - as always ;-) But going forward, I will take the information in those charts with a slightly larger grain of salt than previously.

And have a great holiday Mr. T!! 

Turd Ferguson's picture

Oh my gosh

MODERATOR

Unbelievable.

PLEASE, if anyone receives some sort of notice of charge or impending charge from Gonzalo's "Echo Chamber Media", contact your credit card company at once and inform them that you are being fraudulently charged and ask them to immediately reverse the charge.

I am so very sorry for this fiasco and inconvenience.

Response to: Regarding TTM
unthought known's picture

Bill Holter

Reading Bill Holters articles are akin to reading how great the real estate market is written by the National Realtors Association. So far, the only guy to listen to is Martin Armstrong. Guy has been dead on..

The Green Manalishi's picture

RE:Oh my gosh

Don't worry Turd - not down to you, it appears Gonzalo Lira is nothing more than a con man.

Willy's picture

This is crazy

As a holder of a lot of PM Miners, it's just another day where I want to yell Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaakkk!  The HUI is currently at 218.  It was trading at 218 back in 2003!!!!  What was gold then $350 I'm guessing???  All I can say is are you serious?

silver66's picture

Sprott online conference call

   
         
       

If you are having difficulty viewing this email properly, please click here:
 

spacer.gif
GOLD: Dead Cat or Raging Bull
spacer.gif
 
Eric-155.gif

Gold prices are falling, but gold sales are going through the roof – what is the real truth behind these puzzling developments? 

Join an exclusive, free online event: "GOLD: Dead Cat or Raging Bull?" featuring Eric Sprott, Founder and Chairman of Sprott Inc.; Jim Cramerhost of CNBC's Mad Money and Chairman of TheStreet.com; Steven Feldman, Co-founder and CEO, Gold Bullion International; Rob McEwen, Chairman and CEO of McEwen Mining Inc.; Doug Casey, Chairman of Casey Research; and Jeff Clark, Senior Editor of Big Gold.

These experts will go beyond the headlines and reveal what their sources say is really going on with gold:

1.

Is gold likely to drop further or make an aggressive comeback in the near future? How should investors prepare themselves?

2.

Why is there such an intense demand for physical gold, despite the fact that the major gold ETFs have been crashing?

3.

Should you own gold assets, and if so, which ones? Are ETFs, gold stocks, or mutual funds still safe to buy?

4.

Why have gold stocks been absolutely slaughtered compared to physical gold? The surprising reasons why mining stocks are (literally) cheaper than dirt...

5.

What will be the "grand finale" of the current market and economic situation? How is it all going to play out?

Free Online Video Event: Tuesday, June 25, 2013, 2:00 pm ET

 REGISTER NOW 

The conference webinar will be available from Tuesday, June 25, 2013, 2:00 pm ET. It is free of charge, however, to ensure that we have adequate bandwidth to accommodate all viewers, please sign up in advance.


Sprott Inc., a public company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, operates through its wholly-owned direct and indirect subsidiaries, including: Sprott Asset Management LP, an adviser registered with the Ontario Securities Commission; Sprott Private Wealth LP, an investment dealer and member of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada; Sprott Global Resource Investments Ltd., a US full service broker-dealer and member FINRA/SIPC; Sprott Asset Management USA Inc., an SEC Registered Investment Advisor. We refer to the above entities collectively as “Sprott”.

The information contained herein does not constitute an offer or solicitation by anyone in any jurisdiction in which such an offer or solicitation is not authorized or to any person to whom it is unlawful to make such an offer or solicitation. 

Forward-Looking Statement 
This report contains forward-looking statements which reflect the current expectations of management regarding future growth, results of operations, performance and business prospects and opportunities. Wherever possible, words such as “may”, “would”, “could”, “will”, “anticipate”, “believe”, “plan”, “expect”, “intend”, “estimate”, and similar expressions have been used to identify these forward-looking statements. These statements reflect management’s current beliefs with respect to future events and are based on information currently available to management. Forward-looking statements involve significant known and unknown risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Many factors could cause actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements that may be expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should assumptions underlying the forward-looking statements prove incorrect, actual results, performance or achievements could vary materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements contained in this document. These factors should be considered carefully and undue reliance should not be placed on these forward-looking statements. Although the forward-looking statements contained in this document are based upon what management currently believes to be reasonable assumptions, there is no assurance that actual results, performance or achievements will be consistent with these forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this presentation and Sprott does not assume any obligation to update or revise.

Views expressed regarding a particular company, security, industry or market sector should not be considered an indication of trading intent of any fund or account managed by Sprott. Any reference to a particular company is for illustrative purposes only and should not to be considered as investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell nor should it be considered as an indication of how the portfolio of any fund or account managed by Sprott will be invested.

Subscribe | Unsubscribe | Send this to a friend

     

Sprott Asset Management
200 Bay Street, Suite 2700
Toronto ON, M5J 2J1
Canada

This email was created and delivered using Industry Mailout
W.aspx?q=605978823&qz=fae0fd0f8afdda0016

spacer.gif spacer.gif spacer.gif

You may have to go to their website to register(edit the link works in the article)

I think it will be of value

Silver66

Excalibur's picture

Should be able to raise a posse

I’ll get to the punch-line of this page imme­di­ately: I have lost con­trol of the Debunk­ing Eco­nom­ics sub­scrip­tion web­site to my so-called part­ner Gon­zalo Lira, and I want to shut it down. Since I am unable to do so (as I will explain below), I can only advise peo­ple NOT to sign up to this site. When I man­age to regain con­trol of it, it will revert to sup­port­ing my book Debunk­ing Economics. - See more at: http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/debunking-economics/#sthash.ctWIDvSa.dpuf

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/debunking-economics/

Hagarth's picture

Agree with unworkable markets

This news is as odd as I can imagine, Barclays and Royal Bank want non HFT trading platforms?  Kick me in the teeth and call me Nancy, my guess was they liked and used HFTs.

Royal Bank, Barclays among backers of new Canadian market to rival TMX Group

TORONTO - Several major financial services companies, including Canada's largest bank and two major Canadian mutual fund operators, are planning to set up a new stock market that they say will provide meaningful competition to TMX Group (TSX:X).

Among the companies behind Aequitas Innovations Inc. is Royal Bank of Canada (TSX:RY), mutual fund operators CI Investments Inc. (TSX:CIX) and IGM Financial Inc. (TSX:IGM) and the U.K.-based Barclays banking group.

The venture would be an alternative to the Toronto Stock Exchange and other markets owned by TMX Group, which is controlled by a different group of banks, pension funds and financial services companies.

Aequitas says it intends to introduce meaningful competition, reduce costs and improve market efficiency through innovation.

In particular, it's promising to promote "true and reliable liquidity" to traditional investors that it says are at a disadvantage with current markets that cater to high-volume trading activities to generate revenue.

"Through Aequitas, we have a compelling opportunity to create a level playing field for both retail and institutional investors by challenging certain predatory high frequency trading strategies which have impacted the quality of existing equity markets," said Greg Mills, who is chairman of Aequitas and co-head of Global Equities for RBC Capital Markets.

Aequitas makes a distinction between "predatory" and other high-frequency trading activities, saying some types impair small-scale retail investors and institutional investors representing pension plans and mutual funds.

"As marketplaces cater to volume, they can damage the quality of execution for those who actually want to hold something at the end of the day," Scott Penman, vice-chair of Aequitas and chief investment officer for IGM's Investors Group.

http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/royal-bank-barclays-among-backers-canadian-market-rival-123640632.html;_ylt=AleUDwhTBP9IkASfGDYPtEtyzJpG;_ylu=X3oDMTNlbjMyZGtkBG1pdAMEcGtnAzhmOGY2YTEwLTAyZjMtMzVjMi04NmE0LWZjOWNjM2VjMTYzMARwb3MDNgRzZWMDbG5fQ2FuYWRhX2dhbAR2ZXIDNmY5MjllYTAtZGQ5ZC0xMWUyLWJmZGYtMTQxMjU5YjM0Yzdk;_ylg=X3oDMTBhdnVpNmo3BGxhbmcDZW4tQ0E-;_ylv=3

meegoreng1's picture

Time for a break

My summer home...I wish.

realitybiter's picture

"Bail In"

The "Bail In" situation is right there, in your face, pointing to the fence, and yet, no one cares. Like Nazi Germany, laws were changed and then it was all legal. Folks just went along...."Bail In" is just MF Global, but with paperwork. They take your deposit and you get to own shares in a bank you never wanted.
I am amazed that this is not a bigger issue with folks. If your bank deposit is at risk (returnless risk is the Jim Grantism on treasuries) then all is at risk. Without sound banking you have nothing. Yet, Wiley Coyote happily spins his legs with nothing but -7000 points of DJIA underneath him.

There was Cypress. Last week there was an academic presentation by an American banker stating the virtue of the Bail in. Now there is this Citi, HSBC, and other mega bank presentation.

Its right there, in your face. Want to buy some bank stock at 1000 times its worth? Leave your money in the system.

Bankers could not care less about their stock price. All they care about is making a couple 10s of million dollars a year. They are not motivated by share price. Hence, they only want to keep the corpse alive, forget the stench of the dead beast....just give me my bonus.

So what can you do? Get away from banks. Be your own central bank. And wait until the wreckage quits moving. In 2011 Santa said "you cant handle the volatility that the gold market has in store for us, both up and down".....pretty much nailed it.

Willy's picture

Hui

When I did my little whiny post about 20 mins ago about the HUI it was down -1.15%.  Now she's up .04%?  Party!  :p

dgstage's picture

Miners

Anyone want to guess who will be buying all those broke miners?

dudestacker's picture

Fix and AB4Guy re: last thread posts

Do your homework before you post such utterly ignorant inanities. I watched the first few minutes of the vid (raining cats and dogs here and I can't be outside) you say proves depopulation conspiracy. I found myself wondering what are the credentials of this grandma and why should I listen to her?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=K5vLuGPV-lU

So I went to the source: http://fedgeno.com/documents/future-strategic-issues-and-warfare.pdf

You really have to be addled and/or lazy to fall for that b.s. She reads: "humans have rapidly decreasing-to-negative value" end of her quote. But look what it really says:

Increasingly Critical Human
Limitations/Downsides
Large
Heavy
Tender
Slow (
Pysically
, Mentally)
Require Huge Logistic Train(s)
i.e.
Humans have rapidly decreasing-to-
negative “Value Added”
 
 
which is why the next page argues for using robotics rather than humans in future warfare:
 
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01
ROBOTICS “IN THE LARGE”
(saves lives, enhances affordability,
redefines risk/threat environment,
enhances effectiveness)
“Unattended”
Munitions
Sensors
Platforms
Air (UAV’s)
Sea (UUV’s)
Land (UGV’s)
Logistics
Spoofing/obscurants
RSTA (including NBC)
Defense (across the board
including counter
recon/ambush)
Offense
Obstacle breaching
“The Shooter” (especially
Mout)
Mine Clearing
 
 

This stupid fucking shit is killing this site for me and many others. JY896 tried to reasonably refute this in the last thread and Eric and XTY made well reasoned posts not particular to this. We need more of that and NONE of this. 

Eric Original's picture

Why I'm an Optimist

Found this link this morning.  It's a reasonable follow up to my post on the earlier thread.

Yes, I'm subject to some pretty pessimistic moods myself.   5-10 years ago, Peak Oil Theory had apocalyptic visions dancing in my head.  But I've pretty much overcome it, based in large part on the ideas on my previous post, and on those in this article.  That also explains why I feel more and more out of step with this blog.  But that's OK.  We are all just trying to find our own way forward.

Why I'm an Optimist

EDIT:  Hello, Dudestacker!  Nicely done.

2x2's picture

schiesse!

Just read the Steve Keen blog drama. Sorry to hear Turd and a few Turdites had been dragged into a similar mess. reminds me that the community here is overwhelmingly kind of heart, I've posted the odd comment saying as much here and there but really it does bear repeating. A troll or two isn't as bad as that Lira character seems to be. And a huge thanks to Turd - again often said but can't be said enough - for putting such effort into this for us to utilize free of charge.

Turd, you know it as well as anyone, we all have a bigger authority to answer to one day. Lira's ill gotten funds will never be worth it.

Prize Fighter's picture

TTM charge

My $140 charge is currently "pending".  Called customer service and was told until it clears there isn't anything they can do.  Explained the situation and was told it may never actually clear but if and when it does, likely tomorrow, to go down to my local branch and sign some kind of form and they will perform the chargeback right away.

ReachWest's picture

Echo Chamber Media - Gonzalo Lira

I also continue to get the email notification from TTM (Echo Chamber Media) that my credit card has been charged. I had personally disabled my TTM account the day that I heard Turd was not being paid by Lira and that no further podcasts would be published.

I forgot about it in May and now got another email last night. Will have to check my Credit Card statement and determine whether I was "in fact" charged or if this is just some out of control script that keeps running to send email notifications (while charges are not actually being made).

Don't feel bad about this Turd - you are just as much a victim as the rest of us. If Lira is actually alive and well, then he is a very dishonorable, unscrupulous character. If he has succumbed to some nasty illness or accident, then I apologize to him for disparaging his reputation. (At this point that is the only valid excuse for his actions - or lack thereof.)

The Green Manalishi's picture

RE: TTM Charge

I've just got off the phone to Barclaycard (in India sigh) and I have to phone them back in a week!!!?? as they can't do anything until then for some reason even though it is on their system going out today.

realitybiter's picture

Miners are going to be bought

by tptb

and they never pay retail.  Free would be good.

Like Rothschilds destroying  all of the Bank of England as Napoleon got defeated....massive sleight of hand.  That is history, not conspiracy theory.

If PMs are to become money do you really think that tptb (bankers) want the proletariat owning money production (mines)?  

Silly rabbit.

Syndicate contentComments for "Time For A Break"