Federal Reserve Bank

Because when the rape and pillaging of the US middle-class begins at the very top, it won't end until the sharp metal objects finally start falling.

Despite the promise of increased transparency, if you felt that deciphering Fed policy (other than uber-dovish, lower-for-longer, willing-to-wait, BTFD) became more and more confusing as the last few years progressed, you would not be alone. In fact, the complexity of the Fed's statements (not just the wordcount which we have noted numerous times) has surged from "Secondary School" reading level throughout Greenspan's era to "Post-Grad" comprehension at the peak of Bernanke's reign. Yellen, so far, has reverted modestly. As The Economist notes, this increased baffle-em-with-bullshit "Fedspeak" complexity is very reminiscent of the George Orwell's 1984-esque "oldspeak" or "doublespeak" used to keep a quiescent public bemused.

With the Swiss gold stored at the Bank of Canada, now having been transferred out of the Bank of Canada’s Ottawa vault to an unknown location, the Swiss public would be wise to question the SNB on this move. The Swiss gold stored at the Bank of England in London seemingly being ‘actively managed’ one of the world’s largest centres for unallocated gold trading, the Swiss public would also be wise to enquire on this issue. And with significant historical quantities of Swiss gold that were stored with the US Federal Reserve Bank in New York no longer there after the SNB seemingly brought their US vaulted gold holdings to zero, the Swiss public need to question why these particular holdings were targeted for sales from 2000-2005 and not domestically held gold.

Central banks are printing rules almost as fast as they’re printing money. The consequences of these fast-multiplying directives — complicated, long-winded, and sometimes self-contradictory — is one topic at hand. Manipulated interest rates is a second. Distortion and mispricing of stocks, bonds, and currencies is a third. Skipping to the conclusion of this essay, Jim Grant is worried: "The more they tried, the less they succeeded. The less they succeeded, the more they tried. There is no 'exit.'"

"Remember, the Fed has injected into the market nearly 4 Trillion dollars. That’s $4,000,000,000,000.00. To put this into perspective... the equivalent in dollar amounts to have purchased 510 B-2 Stealth Bombers, 72 Nimitz Class Air Craft Carriers, 120 Ohio Class Submarines. and still have Two TRILLION or so left in my pocket left to spend." As far as what we have to show for all this spending at the end of QE this month? Who knows, but I do know – we didn’t even get a lousy T-shirt.

Deutsche Bank executives are dropping like flies. Just days after receiving a clean bill of health from Europe's oh-so-stressful stress-tests, Deutsche Bank has decided that longtime finance chief Stefan Krause needs to be replaced. Perhaps most interesting is the bank that faces 'serious financial reporting problems' in the US and has a derivatives book literally the size of (actually 20 times bigger) than Germany, has decided the right man for the job is an ex-Goldman Sachs partner. Marcus Schenck, according to WSJ, will replace Krause, having worked at German utility E.ON until last year when he joined Goldman.

“More than Forgiven, This Evil Must Be CURED”

There's something we 'regular' citizens wrestle with that the elites never seem to: a sense of moral duty.

Congress gave the Fed a mandate to “promote maximum employment, production, and price stability”; it never explicitly authorized propping up stocks. Yet through a remarkable theoretical stretch called the “wealth effect,” that’s exactly what the Fed is doing.

"as part of its continuous monitoring activities at JPMC, FRBNY effectively identified risks related to the CIO's trading activities, governance framework, risk appetite, and risk management practices in 2010. Additionally, a Federal Reserve System team conducting a horizontal examination at JPMC recommended a full-scope examination of the CIO in 2009. However, FRBNY did not discuss the risks that resulted in the planned or recommended activities... As a result, there was a missed opportunity for the consolidated supervisor and the primary supervisor to discuss risks related to the CIO."

• Total CEO de Margerie killed in Moscow as jet hits snow plough (Reuters)
• China GDP Growth Rate Is Slowest in Five Years (WSJ)
• Oil at $80 a Barrel Muffles Forecasts for U.S. Shale Boom (BBG)
• Carney Faces Scrutiny on Worst Payments Outage Since 2007 (BBG)
• Ebola crisis turns a corner as U.S. issues new treatment protocols (Reuters)
• Gold Buying Rebounds in India on Diwali Jewelry Sales (BBG)
• China-backed hackers may have infiltrated Apple's iCloud (Reuters)
• Greece Said to Seek Recycling of Bank Funds for Exit (BBG)

The confidence in the people who are supposedly, as well as supposed to be “in charge” is doing more than just dwindling. It’s crumbling in Humpty Dumpty like fashion. For no matter how they try – it too may never go back together. Once confidence wanes, or is lost, regaining it can be just as monumental of a task than the actual crisis itself.

Ever since Abenomics was announced in late 2012, we have explained very clearly that the whole "shock and awe" approach to stimulating the economy by sending inflation into borderline "hyper" mode was doomed to failure. Very serious sellsiders, economists and pundits disagreed and commended Abe on his second attempt at fixing the country by doing more of what has not only failed to work for 30 years, but made the problem worse and worse. Well, nearly two years later, or roughly the usual delay before the rest of the world catches up to this website's "conspiratorial" ramblings, the leader of the very serious economist crew, none other than Goldman Sachs, formally admits that Abenomics was a failure. So what happened with Abenomics, and why did Goldman, initially a fervent supporter and huge fan - and beneficiary because those trillions in fungible BOJ liquidity injections made their way first and foremost into Goldman year end bonuses  - change its tune so dramatically? Here is the answer from Goldman Sachs.

"I see deflation flirting with America." Retail sales equals consumer spending equals velocity of money. And unless the money supply is rising, hardly likely in the taper, less spending is deflation by definition. Forget about PMI and all that kind of data, it’s much simpler than that. Central banks can do all kinds of stuff, but they can’t make us spend our money on things we don’t want or need. Let alone make us borrow to do so. And if we don’t, deflation is an inevitable fact. That doesn’t mean prices for some items won’t go up, but that’s not what counts. It’s about how fast we either spend the money we have – if we have any left – or how much we borrow. And if time is money, then borrowed money is borrowed time. So we really shouldn’t.