en Russian Hackers Breached Democrats' Cell Phones: FBI <p>Those Russian hackers never sleep. </p> <p>Having had most of their computers hacked, a new threat has emerged for Democrats. <a href="">Reuters reports </a>that FBI investigators believe "foreign hackers" have targeted mobile phones used by "a small number of Democratic Party figures, possibly including elected officials" according to four political and government sources said on Tuesday. </p> <p>Reuters notes that the hacking attempts occurred within the last month or so, and adds that two sources said investigators believe that, like hackers who earlier attacked the central data servers of key Democratic Party organizations, <strong>the mobile phone attacks were carried out by hackers connected to the Russian government.</strong></p> <p>One source said that some of those whose phones were targeted by hackers had been asked by the FBI to turn over their phones so that investigators can "image" them.</p> <p>While this amusing, and seemingly never-ending barrage, of accusations aimed at the Kremlin long ago entered the twilight zone of McCarthyist paranoia, we point out that such media "warnings" - most recently in the case of the DC Leaks hack of Soros' Open Society Foundation - usually take place just before a major data dump is revealed or leaked. Which suggests that we may be due for another such notable disclosure.</p> <p>There is of course, a more conspiratorial explanation: should enough compromising data leak, especially if it includes information that can pressure Hillary in the polls, then the DHS can simply accuse Russia of electoral interference and call off the elections as a matter of national security. We can only hope that this particular conspiracy theory will remain purely in the realm of "theory", and not "fact."</p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="400" height="225" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> FBI national security Reuters Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:54:15 +0000 Tyler Durden 573423 at The Onion Fact-Checks Last Night's Debate <p>Addressing issues ranging from national security to trade to their personal controversies, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump squared off in the first presidential debate Monday. <em><strong>The Onion takes a look at the validity of their bolder claims:</strong></em></p> <p><em><strong>&quot;I don&rsquo;t believe she does have the stamina. To be president of this country, you need tremendous stamina.&rdquo;</strong></em> -Donald Trump</p> <ul> <li>Stamina is actually one of Clinton&rsquo;s highest attribute categories in terms of skill points, after agility and metallurgy.</li> </ul> <p><em><strong>&ldquo;I was against [the Trans-Pacific Partnership] once it was finally negotiated and the terms were laid out.&rdquo;</strong></em> -Hillary Clinton</p> <ul> <li>False. She was against the TPP once it was finally negotiated and it was clearly electorally unviable.</li> </ul> <p><em><strong>&ldquo;My father gave me a very small loan.&rdquo;</strong></em> -Donald Trump</p> <ul> <li>It is true that $1 million does not get you far in New York City.</li> </ul> <p><em><strong>&ldquo;Manufacturing jobs went up also in the 1990s, if we&rsquo;re actually going to look at the facts.&rdquo;</strong></em> -Hillary Clinton</p> <ul> <li>No one is actually looking at the facts.?</li> </ul> <p><em><strong>&ldquo;No wonder you&rsquo;ve been fighting ISIS your entire adult life.&rdquo;</strong></em> -Donald Trump</p> <ul> <li>It is well-documented that Hillary Clinton was pro-ISIS from 1982 to 1985.</li> </ul> <p><em><strong>&ldquo;We need to move on.&rdquo; </strong></em>-Lester Holt</p> <ul> <li>True.</li> </ul> <p><strong><em>&ldquo;[NAFTA] is the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country.&rdquo;</em></strong> -Donald Trump</p> <ul> <li>This is false. The worst trade deal in this country&rsquo;s history was when the SuperSonics dealt Scottie Pippen to the Bulls for Olden Polynice.</li> </ul> <p><em><strong>&ldquo;We were born before the wind, also younger than the sun.&rdquo; </strong></em>-Hillary Clinton</p> <ul> <li>Confirmed by Van Morrison in 1970.</li> </ul> <p><strong><em>&ldquo;The 28 countries of NATO.&rdquo; </em></strong>-Donald Trump</p> <ul> <li>You&rsquo;ve got to give credit where credit is due; there are in fact 28 countries in NATO.</li> </ul> <p><em><strong>&ldquo;Violent crime is one half of what it was in 1991.&rdquo;</strong></em> -Hillary Clinton</p> <ul> <li>Come on, is this really going to change what you think one way or another?</li> </ul> <p><strong><em>&ldquo;I say who makes these? We lose on everything. All I said, that it&rsquo;s very possible that if they don&rsquo;t pay a fair share, because this isn&rsquo;t 40 years ago where we could do what we&rsquo;re doing. We can&rsquo;t defend Japan, a behemoth, selling us cars by the million.&rdquo; </em></strong>-Donald Trump</p> <ul> <li>What he doesn&rsquo;t tell you is, and this by the way, if you have any doubt in your whatever mind, look it up, because anyone can know this or tell this as the case had been, that you have these alliances and they are making America to where we lose.</li> </ul> <p><a href="">Source: The Onion</a></p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="628" height="303" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> Donald Trump Japan national security New York City The Onion Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:30:00 +0000 Tyler Durden 573418 at Hillary vs Donald: So Who Won? <p>The question everyone is asking this morning is who won the debate. The answer is: <em>it depends who you ask. </em></p> <p>To be sure, <a href="">conservative website Drudge Report </a>had Trump a blow out winner with over 82% of the nearly 500,000 votes cast, which however can probably be explained by the self-fulfilling ideology of most of the site's visitors. </p> <p>Alternatively, the left-leaning CNN, conducted a snap poll, which gave Clinton the win with 62% to Trump's 27%. It was the biggest, and fastest, exercise conducted by an opinion polling firm.&nbsp; The poll of 521 registered voters who watched the debate was a sample which the network warned leaned more Democratic than the average - starting the night with Clinton ahead 26 per cent among the sample. While CNN handed the victory overwhelmingly to Clinton, it was more mixed on whether the debate will make a difference, with 47 per cent saying it would not affect their vote, 34 per cent saying it moved them towards Clinton, and 18% towards Trump.</p> <p>More surprising was a <a href="">poll by CNBC</a>, where of the 748,000 votes cast as of this morning, Trump had collected nearly two-thirds of the votes, although Trump's outperformance here may be explained by the fact that this, too, was linked off the Drudge main page, the same as a <a href="">Time poll</a>. </p> <p><a href=""><img src="" width="500" height="384" /></a></p> <p>Many other snap polls also showed a preference for Trump:</p> <div id="share-pictures-1" class="share-pictures-overlay"> </div> <div class="overlay-icon mobile-gallery"><span>+15</span></div> <p> <img src="" width="501" height="354" class="blkBorder img-share" id="i-5c0a031559223664" /></p> <div class="mol-img"> <div class="image-wrap fff-pic"><img src="" width="498" height="160" class="blkBorder img-share" id="i-cfc43a6503dfd228" /></div> <div class="image-wrap fff-pic"> <div class="mol-img"> <div class="image-wrap fff-pic"><img src="" width="499" height="214" class="blkBorder img-share" id="i-289d7b13e510e57f" /></div> <div class="image-wrap fff-pic"><img src="" width="503" height="458" class="blkBorder img-share" id="i-a9cb00d343de02ee" /></div> <div class="image-wrap fff-pic"><img src="" width="500" height="529" class="blkBorder img-share" id="i-93a0f9f12d27f526" /></div> <div class="image-wrap fff-pic"><img src="" width="501" height="356" class="blkBorder img-share" id="i-c2b37f8188838578" /></div> </div> </div> </div> <p>* * *</p> <p>And so on.</p> <p>To be sure, the markets' take was different, and as we noted last night, looking at the most direct proxy of Trump performance in recent weeks, namely the move in the Mexican Peso, traders "handed" it to Hillary. </p> <p>As WSJ noted <a href="">this morning</a>, the Mexican currency was up roughly 1.5% against the U.S. dollar Tuesday, showing a sharp surge during&nbsp; the debate, which pitted Mrs. Clinton against Donald Trump. Other emerging market currencies, from the South African rand to Indonesia’s rupiah, also rallied on a belief that Trump presidency is now less likely. </p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"> <div></div> </div> <div class="quote_end"> <div></div> </div> <p>Amid the confusion, the Mexican peso has emerged as a market proxy for the chances of a Trump’s presidency on Nov. 8. Mexico is seen as a likely victim of his professed dislike of trade deals, including deals between the U.S. and its southern neighbor. Mr. Trump has also pledged to build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico to prevent the entrance of illegal immigrants.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The implied volatility of the peso against the dollar, which is a gauge of how much money investors are paying to either insure themselves—or bet—against large swings in the currency, has also spiked up for those contracts expiring after the election.</p> </blockquote> <p>Tuesday’s rally in emerging market currencies, particularly the peso, was widely interpreted by analysts as a sign that investors thought Clinton won the debate.&nbsp; <strong>“Anyone who had wondered what had caused [peso] weakness over the past few weeks received a clear answer last night,” </strong>said Esther Reichelt, analyst at German lender Commerzbank.</p> <p><a href=""><img src="" width="498" height="258" /></a><br />* * * </p> <p>And then there were the online betting markets, according to which Clinton's probability of winning the White House gained in online betting following the first debate of the campaign on Monday night between her and Republican Donald Trump. </p> <p>A <a href="">Clinton contract </a>on the popular PredictIt betting market gained 6 cents from the previous day's level to 69 cents, though fading modestly after peaking... </p> <p><a href=""><img src="" width="500" height="274" /></a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>... while a contract <a href="">favoring Donald Trump</a>'s prospects for victory tumbled<br /> 7 cents to 31 cents, after which it rebounded modestly to 34. Contracts are priced from 0 cents to 100 cents,<br /> with the contract price equating to a probability of whether that<br /> candidate will win the Nov. 8 election. </p> <p><a href=""><img src="" width="500" height="274" /></a></p> <p>The price swings for both candidates were the largest since early August, and placed Clinton's lead in that market at the widest in about two weeks. </p> <p>Clinton's prospects also improved on the Irish betting site Paddy Power. About halfway through Monday's debate, she was shown as a 1-to-2 favorite, and those odds shortened to 4-to-9 in the moments after the debate ended. Trump's odds lengthened to 23-to-10 from 9-to-4.</p> <p>The swing following the debate put the brakes on a big Trump price rally on PredictIt that coincided with a tightening in most public opinion polls. The implied probability of him winning had risen to 38 cents on Sunday from just 28 cents at the end of August. Bets on Trump fell as low as 5 cents on February but went up as high as 44 cents in May. Bets on Clinton, the persistent favorite in most wagering markets, went as low as 37 cents in January and as high as 79 cents in August.</p> <p>The big caveat here, of course, is that virtually all online bookmakers had Brexit as a sure-on non-event, only to be proven wrong as the Brexit vote unfolded.</p> <p>Perhaps the biggest take home message from last night's debate was <em><strong>the lack of a clear winner</strong></em>, and the absence of a "knock out punch" by either candidate. As such the only question is how, if at all, did undecided candidates change their opinion toward either candidate. The answer to that will have to wait until the next set of official polls is released.</p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="3150" height="400" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> Donald Trump Mexico Volatility White House Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:08:32 +0000 Tyler Durden 573376 at Elon Musk Reveals The Spaceship For Colonizing Mars - Live Feed <p>Having found his earth-based inventions and investments somewhat constricting. not to mention cash-burning, at this moment Elon Musk is speaking at the 67th annual International Astronautical Congress in Guadalajara, Mexico, an annual gathering of engineers and scientists devoted to tackling the grandiose and technical questions shaping the future of space exploration. Speakers this year also include NASA’s Scott Kelly, who spent a year at the International Space Station, and Buzz Aldrin, the second person to walk on the moon. </p> <p>The event is most notable because for the first time, Musk will describe his long-anticipated plans for how to colonize Mars. </p> <p>For those gathered today at the International Astronautical Conference in Guadalajara, Mexico, an animated video showing SpaceX's new rocket - known as "Big Falcon Rocket" - presented in the clip below, provides a sneak peek of this ambitious initiative.</p> <p> <iframe src="" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0"></iframe> </p> <p>It was not immediately clear how many trillions in taxpayer subsidies, or follow-on equity and convertible offering the project would require to be brought to completion, although we do salute Musk's vision.</p> <p>* * * </p> <p>Here are some of Musk's initial comments: </p> <p>"What I really want to achieve here is make Mars seem possible," he says.</p> <p>Musk says there are two fundamental paths for humanity: We stay on Earth forever until an eventual extinction event or we become a multi-planet species.</p> <p>Musk says he wants to create a "self-sustaining city" on Mars.</p> <p>Musk says using traditional methods to get to Mars would cost about $10 billion per person. Musk argues that if we can decrease the cost of going to Mars to around $200,000 per ticket, or about the average cost of a house in the US, more people would want to go.</p> <p>Musk says that eventually there will be an extinction-level event on Earth. (Surely he means, beyond the "sixth extinction" that humans are currently bringing about.) But Mars is just as likely to be hit by an asteroid, proportional to its size. And when the Sun engulfs the Earth, Mars won't be far behind.</p> <p>"Early Mars was a lot like Earth," Musk says, comparing the two planets. "It's a little cold, but we could warm it up."</p> <p>Musk says it would be "quite fun" to be on Mars, since it has 62.5% less gravity than Earth, which would allow humans to lift heavy things.</p> <p>Musk has been successful is in the way he characterizes huge problems and the ability to address them. Need an atmosphere? Yes, we can adjust that. Need it warmer? We can warm the planet, just like we have Earth.</p> <p>And so on.</p> <p>* * * </p> <p>For those interested, watch him live below, while a live blog of the event can be followed at <a href="">Bloomberg </a>and <a href="">Reuters</a>.</p> <p> <iframe src="//;wmode=opaque" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0"></iframe></p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="652" height="368" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> Falcon Mars Mexico Reuters Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:06:52 +0000 Tyler Durden 573420 at Deutsche Bank Fears Spark Buying Panic In Bunds (Despite Rising Germany Sovereign Risk) <p>Investors have piled into global developed market sovereign bonds as fears of Deutsche Bank collapse ripple through global markets. Interestingly,<strong> despite rising default risk concerns in Germany CDS, Bunds have been aggressively bid</strong> with negative yields now out to 15 years (and Finland NIRP to 10 years).</p> <p>As Deutsche Bank risk explodes to record highs, Germany&#39;s sovereign risk has been rising...</p> <p><a href=""><img alt="" src="" style="width: 600px; height: 320px;" /></a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>But that rising risk has done nothing to hold back buyers of Bunds as the &quot;global growth is awesome, bond curves are steepening&quot; narrative is destroyed...</p> <p><a href=""><img height="315" src="" width="600" /></a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Driving the entire Bund curve below zero out to 15 years...</p> <p><a href=""><img height="293" src="" width="600" /></a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>And Finland now NIRP to 10 years...</p> <p><a href=""><img alt="" src="" style="width: 600px; height: 295px;" /></a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em>Charts: Bloomberg</em></p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="962" height="505" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> Bond CDS default Deutsche Bank Finland Germany Sovereign Risk Sovereign Risk Tue, 27 Sep 2016 18:58:02 +0000 Tyler Durden 573417 at $356 Billion Fund Manager: "Now Is The Most Treacherous Time Ever. I've Never Seen This In My Career" <p>Last week <a href="">we reported </a>that Tad Rivelle, fund manager at the $195 billion TCW Group, uttered a harsh warning, telling readers of his newsletter that "<em>the time has come to leave the dance floor</em>", providing numerous examples and anecdotes as to why that is the case. </p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><img src="" width="500" height="392" /></p> <p>Today it was the turn of Joe Baratta, the top dealmaker at Steve Schwarzmann's $356 billion Blackstone Group, to follow up with a comparable warning. </p> <p>Speaking at the WSJ Pro Private Equity Analyst Conference in New York, Baratta said that "for any professional investor, <strong>this is the most difficult period we’ve ever experienced"</strong>, adding that “You have historically high multiples of cash flows, low yields. <strong>I’ve never seen it in my career. It’s the most treacherous moment.” </strong></p> <p>Unlike strategic buyers who have used their inflated stocks as the acquisition currency of choice to engage in what until recently was a record M&amp;A scramble, PE firms have been largely left out, as they have to invest their own equity which has not levitated at the same rate as the overall market, and are forced to plug the purchase gap with ever more greater amounts of debt. As <a href="">Bloomberg notes</a>, "the same lofty valuations that created ideal conditions to sell holdings and pocket profits have made it exceedingly difficult to deploy money into new deals at attractive entry prices."&nbsp;</p> <p>Just like in the case of the global housing bubble, now openly blamed on central bank policies as UBS did overnight, several executives, including Blackstone Chief Executive Officer Steve Schwarzman, have pinned those unprecedented conditions squarely on the Federal Reserve’s near-zero interest rate policies."</p> <p>As a result of the prevailing asset bubble, Baratta said that Blackstone isn’t finding value in large leveraged buyouts of publicly traded companies. Instead, the New York-based asset manager is targeting smaller companies with low leverage, he said. </p> <p>Still, when not buying Blackstone is mostly selling. In a separate interview with Bloomberg TV, Blackstone COO Tony James said that the firm is still selling more assets than it’s buying, </p> <p><strong>“We’re net sellers on most things right now -- prices are high,” </strong>James said in a Bloomberg Television interview Tuesday. “Interest rates are so low and there’s so much capital sloshing around the world.” So much capital in fact, that Blackstone had no problem gathering $18 billion for its latest private equity fund last year. The firm also has an energy private equity vehicle, which finished raising $4.5 billion last year. </p> <p><iframe src="" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0"></iframe></p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="853" height="480" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> Housing Bubble Private Equity Tue, 27 Sep 2016 18:33:56 +0000 Tyler Durden 573414 at This Is What Trump Should Do In The Second Debate <p>Last night&#39;s debate has sparked a tsunami of conversations over who won, who looked more presidential, who coughed more, and who had bigger hands. What is more useful, however, is <strong>what can the candidates learn from this debate. </strong>Here are three readers&#39; comments that summed up perfectly what trump should do in the second debate.</p> <p>&quot;The_Dude&quot; was disappointed but had some useful questions for Trump to ask...</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><strong>Do your homework Donald!&nbsp; This isn&#39;t a game...</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Does this guy prep at all or is he trying to throw it?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Question: Internet play into her hand discussing Russia and you don&#39;t fucking mention her server.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Question: Policing...she talks &quot;training&quot; cops...and you don&#39;t raise the issue of Fed overreach into local police forces?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Question: Iran..took him 3/4 if his time before mentioning $150B that will be used to build them nukes?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Question: Your taxes...hmm...I can show mine. about we discuss the taxes of the Clinton Foundation and misappropriation?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Question: Your business bankruptcy...shit happens, let&#39;s talk about how this cunt made $150M without even having a business.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I could go on and on. ..WTF!!!!!!!!!</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em><strong>PS...Donald. next time Lester says anything outside of a question,&nbsp; point out to him that it is not his fucking job.</strong></em></p> </blockquote> <p>But &quot;VinceFostersGhost&quot; offers a less aggressive suggestion of what the Trump casmpaign should do between now and the next debate...</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><strong>Fuck all these skewed polls. The debate didn&#39;t matter, and it didn&#39;t change anyone&#39;s mind. </strong>That said, Hillary was well prepared for Trump, while Trump performed as if didn&#39;t prepare at all. Hillary kept Trump on the defensive all night long. Trump defends his ego against anything that makes him look small, and Hillary used that character flaw against him.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Trump should have been hammering the Clintons (that&#39;s right, Hillary and Bill) on putting Wall Street in change of America&#39;s economy, but he spent far too much time defending himself, so he didn&#39;t get that message out. Bernie Sanders proved that going after Hillary&#39;s being in Goldman Sachs&#39; pocket was the most effective way to keep her on the ropes. When Sanders let up on those Wall Street attacks, his campaign, that had been succeeding against all the odds, crashed and burned.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Trump needs to paint the Clintons as the tag team that gave the country away to the banksters, and forced 76% of Americans into living a paycheck to paycheck lives.</strong> The Clintons allowed the banksters to steal not just the interest on our savings, but our savings in total, our pensions, our homes, our futures, and our children&#39;s children&#39;s futures. Proving this should not be difficult for Trump to do, if he would just spend more time exposing the Wall Street criminals, that own the Clintons, and less time defending his ego.</p> </blockquote> <p>But &quot;sessinpo&quot; sees the endgame...</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><strong>The country is already lost. </strong>The simple fact is we have a national debt that is unrepayable and <strong>no potus can change that.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Even if every current politician were removed, the FRB system were audited and changed, it would not change the fact we have an unrepayable debt and based upon that, a doomed us dollar. So many would agree that thrid world status is inevitable for this nation yet they still think trump can change that. That is not an awake person. That is a person frustrated and desperate. <strong>Some are just wanting trump for spite, to get those corrupt people that have destroyed this nation and I understand that. I want them punished too.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>But if you are awake, you know where america is heading and you have been preparing no matter who is potus.</p> </blockquote> <p>GOP republicans, unhappy with Trump&#39;s lack of preparedness, quipped what Trump should have hammered Hillary on, <a href="">courtesy of The HIll</a>:</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>&ldquo;Trump got off to a good start, but it was obvious he wasn&#39;t prepared,&rdquo; one House Republican who publicly supports Trump told The Hill. &ldquo;His performance was scattered. <strong>He didn&#39;t drive home [questions about Clinton&rsquo;s] honesty and missed great opportunities.&rdquo; </strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>&ldquo;He only mentioned her email scandal once,&rdquo; </strong>the GOP lawmaker lamented.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>&ldquo;There is no better question to be able to pivot on when she completely failed on her own cybersecurity when she was secretary of State,&rdquo; </strong>added Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.). Davis, who backed Trump after he won the nomination, said the businessman should have done a better job prosecuting foreign policy failures that occurred while her husband, Bill Clinton, was president and while she was running the State Department.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&ldquo;<strong>If Hillary Clinton is trying to own the successes of the Bill Clinton presidency, she&rsquo;s gonna have to own the failures</strong>,&quot; Davis said. &quot;<strong>And a complete failure was negotiating with North Korea.&rdquo;</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&ldquo;Those are two points I think [Trump] could have hit and he didn&rsquo;t,&rdquo; Davis continued. &ldquo;<strong>And I think he took things a little too personal and missed a lot of opportunities to make very good debate points that could have scored him much higher in the eyes of the American public.&rdquo;&nbsp; </strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&ldquo;I wish that he&rsquo;d say something, stick with it, and then move on to something else instead of saying the same thing over and over and over,&rdquo; Salmon said in an interview Tuesday without giving specific examples. &ldquo;It was just throughout the entire debate.&rdquo;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Speaker Paul Ryan who has denounced Trump&rsquo;s comments on Muslims, Mexicans and white supremacists, argued that Trump &ldquo;met expectations&rdquo; and gave a &ldquo;spirited argument&rdquo; against Democrats&rsquo; tired policies.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Other Republicans on Capitol Hill argued that their constituents had crowned Trump the winner of Monday&rsquo;s 90-minute debate, regardless of what Beltway pundits were saying. &ldquo;Most of my constituents have said that Trump won based solely on one recurring theme: &lsquo;<strong>You have been there for 30 years and nothing has changed</strong>,&rsquo; &rdquo; Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a member of the ultraconservative Freedom Caucus, told The Hill. &ldquo;It expressed their frustration with nothing but talk occurring in Washington, D.C.&quot;</p> </blockquote> <p>Then there was FBR analyst Benjamin Salibury who points out that while <em>birtherism </em>was closely covered last night, key topics were notably missing from the debate:</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>Mr. Trump questioned the independence of the Federal Reserve in last night&rsquo;s debate, but did seem to support a &ldquo;low for longer&rdquo; interest rate environment. We have argued that a Clinton presidency would allow more consistency among the Fed&#39;s leadership, allowing it to continue accommodative monetary policy&mdash;and viewed as more positive by the market...<strong>The debate was almost as notable for what was not covered as for what was covered: Healthcare, immigration, veterans, labor, and homeland security were not mentioned in any meaningful way.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>If you have your own opinions of <u><strong>what you would ask the candidates...</strong></u></p> <p><a href=""><img alt="" src="" style="width: 600px; height: 746px;" /></a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><a href="">Finally we leave it to Dilbert creator Scott Adams</a>, who notes that the most interesting question has to do with what problem both of them were trying to solve with the debate.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><strong>Clinton tried to look healthy, and as I mentioned, I don&rsquo;t think she completely succeeded.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>But Trump needed to solve exactly one problem: Look less scary. </strong>Trump needed to counter Clinton&rsquo;s successful branding of him as having a bad temperament to the point of being dangerous to the country. Trump accomplished exactly that&hellip;by&hellip;losing the debate.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Trump was defensive, and debated poorly at points, but he did not look crazy.</strong> And pundits noticed that he intentionally avoided using his strongest attacks regarding Bill Clinton&rsquo;s scandals. In other words, he showed control. He stayed in the presidential zone under pressure. And in so doing, he solved for his only remaining problem. He looked safer.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>By tomorrow, no one will remember what either of them said during the debate. </strong>But we will remember how they made us feel.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong><u>Clinton won the debate last night. And while she was doing it, Trump won the election.</u> He had one thing to accomplish &ndash; being less scary &ndash; and he did it.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><a href="">Read more here...</a></p> </blockquote> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="744" height="502" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> Bernie Sanders Federal Reserve goldman sachs Goldman Sachs Iran Monetary Policy National Debt Nomination North Korea Washington D.C. Tue, 27 Sep 2016 18:17:07 +0000 Tyler Durden 573415 at Crude Chaos Strikes: Saudis Admit "No Deal" But "Hopeful" For November <p>Having failed completely to consumate a freeze deal in Algiers, the Saudi oil minister throws out a bone of hope to crude bulls that November's OPEC meeting may see a freeze deal. Crude is testing its lows of the day but <strong>bouncing around like Hillary's eyes as the minister desperately tries to keep the dream alive.</strong></p> <p>Headlines:</p> <ul> <li><strong>*SAUDI OIL MINISTER DOESN'T SEE OPEC DEAL ON WEDNESDAY (WTF! oh no!!)</strong></li> <li><strong>*SAUDI OIL MINISTER SAYS SEVERAL FREEZE DEALS BEING DISCUSSED (phew so there's hope!)</strong></li> <li><strong>*SAUDI MINISTER SEES OPEC FREEZE DEAL POSSIBLE AT NOV. MEETING (great so buy?)</strong></li> <li><strong>*FALIH: POSSIBLE OPEC DEAL MAY MAKE EXCEPTIONS FOR SOME MEMBERS (except you just blew out Iran?)</strong></li> <li><strong>*NOVAK: RUSSIA AIMS TO KEEP OUTPUT AT CURRENT LEVELS (So Russia is out?)</strong></li> <li><strong>*ALGERIAN OIL MINISTER SAYS OUTPUT CUT AMONG ALTERNATIVES (what a load of shit!)</strong></li> <li><strong>*FALIH: IRAN, LIBYA, NIGERIA POSSIBLY TO BE ALLOWED MAX. OUTPUT (yeah, like that will happen!)</strong></li> </ul> <p>And crude's reaction...</p> <p><a href=""><img src="" width="600" height="460" /></a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>So prepare yourself for 2 more months of rumors and denials as we head towards the November meeting which will once again produce nothing.. unless oil is at $20 going in.</p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="1337" height="1024" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> Crude headlines Iran OPEC Tue, 27 Sep 2016 18:04:34 +0000 Tyler Durden 573412 at It's Not Really About Deutsche Bank <p><a href=""><em>Submitted by Jeffrey Snider via Alhambra Investment Partners,</em></a></p> <p><span style="color: #000000;">It is never a good thing when official sources either named or unnamed are quoted in the media as <strong>denying bailout discussions.</strong> For any bank such rumors and <strong>denials are harmful because, obviously, they are a reflection of common perception</strong>. Furthermore, most people know all-too-well the <strong>true nature of any denials</strong>, thus reinforcing only that much more the troubling perceptions in the first place.</span></p> <p><span style="color: #000000;">For Deutsche Bank to be the institution in question is altogether different. When Germany&rsquo;s Commerzbank, for example, was forced to request a capital injection from the state&rsquo;s bailout fund SOFFIN in November 2008 that was a sign of the times. It was just another bad sign in an ocean of them. <strong>Should Deutsche Bank even get connected to something like that is perhaps a sign of renewal of those times.</strong></span></p> <p><span style="color: #000000;">Deutsche Bank is not Commerzbank; in many ways <u><strong>Deutsche is the last remaining remnant of what is left of the reigning wholesale, eurodollar system.</strong></u> Where other banks long ago saw <a href="">this depression</a> for what it was (all risk, no reward), DB was siding with central bankers and <a href="">deploying &ldquo;capital&rdquo;</a> into EM&rsquo;s and junk bonds. The bank was reticent to reject its derivatives book, once a source of nearly all its power and strength. And it was dreams of reclaiming lost grandeur that drove the bank into its currently perilous state. When the firm first announced estimates for its coming loss in October last year, <a href="">I wrote</a>:</span></p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><span style="color: #000000;">The net result of this toxic stew of bastardized banking is a highly negative return (revenue) environment for CB&amp;S in 2015 beyond all scale of 2013, while its efforts to reduce assets (especially risk weighted calculations) continue to fly against its &ldquo;dollar&rdquo; activities. </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="color: #000000;">The firm managed to take the worst course possible by thinking the shrinking eurodollar system particularly post-May 2013 was an opportunity to replay lost pre-2007 financialism glory. To do that, the bank kept up its leverage and then went after the junk and EM bond bubbles with enthusiasm.</span></p> </blockquote> <p><span style="color: #000000;"><strong>All that is forgotten in the mainstream media that wants to frame a systemically important bank&rsquo;s troubles on once again regulation, or at least government action intruding into what it is supposed to be an otherwise stable and healthy environment. </strong>This weekend it was reported that Germany&rsquo;s Chancellor Angela Merkel denied that the state would consider a rescue of Deutsche, even though the bank&rsquo;s name literally means <a href="">Germany&rsquo;s bank</a>.</span></p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><span style="color: #000000;">Deutsche Bank AG shares fell sharply Monday morning on investor concerns about the German lender&rsquo;s capital position ahead of an anticipated legal settlement with the U.S. Justice Department.</span></p> </blockquote> <p><span style="color: #000000;"><strong>Any settlement with the US on fraud charges will not help, of course, but this is so much more than a legacy issue of the &ldquo;dollar&rsquo;s&rdquo; role in the housing bubble/debacle. Lest anyone forget, it wasn&rsquo;t strictly legal charges that pushed the bank into a tremendous loss and capital preservation mode last year.</strong> The media refuses to admit these facts because they fatally damage (yet again) both sides of QE &ndash; as a recovery &ldquo;stimulus&rdquo; and as a massive liquidity buffer denying any possibility of a global &ldquo;dollar&rdquo; shortage. The mainstream convention still views quantitative easing as &ldquo;money printing&rdquo; when Deutsche Bank shows quite clearly it wasn&rsquo;t.</span></p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><span style="color: #000000;">My own interest here is less about Deutsche Bank than it is the continued trajectory of the eurodollar system. I wrote not long ago about my thinking with regard to Deutsche Bank&rsquo;s central role in the &ldquo;dollar&rdquo; run that started July 6 or so; today&rsquo;s announcement is pretty bad, and likely just the beginning without some miracle turnaround, which adds up to nothing good about the &ldquo;dollar&rdquo; moving forward. Whatever negative effect Deutsche may have been having already in eurodollar liquidity, these results will quite likely speed that up.</span></p> </blockquote> <p><span style="color: #000000;">In general terms, eurodollar liquidity is the ease or hardship of balance sheet capacity; the &ldquo;bank reserves&rdquo; that are a byproduct of quantitative easing whether dollars, euros, or yen just don&rsquo;t factor all that much (I would write &ldquo;not at all&rdquo; except that there is some limited value to central bankers in perpetuating the myth&rsquo;s effects on expectations). <strong>As balance sheet capacity goes, so does the whole global system. And though the eurodollar is often impenetrably complex and obscured, there are a few pieces of evidence that unambiguously substantiate its increasing illiquidity.</strong></span></p> <p><img alt="abook-sept-2016-db-10s-swap-spread" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-40714" height="481" src="" width="641" /></p> <p><span style="color: #000000;"><u><strong>The close correlation of &ldquo;global turmoil&rdquo; and negative swap spreads is not some accident of nature.</strong></u> Both are symptoms of the same chronic money disease. Given Deutsche Bank&rsquo;s status as the largest single purveyor of balance sheet factors through derivatives and FX, we would expect such a close relationship with its own share price. It isn&rsquo;t a bank run at least in the manner the general public or economists might recognize, but the processes are remarkably, dangerously similar &ndash; especially how they become self-reinforcing beyond some unknowable tipping point.</span></p> <p><strong><em><span style="color: #000000;">In a traditional bank run, perceptions of the bank drive depositors to withdraw from the bank&rsquo;s vault of money and cash rather than trust that the bank can meet all withdrawals, sticking the depositor with some unknown scale of loss. The intensity of the run, really illiquidity, is driven by further rumors about the bank&rsquo;s position. At some point, the withdrawals themselves just confirm the negative perceptions, thus locking the bank into a downward spiral toward failure.</span></em></strong></p> <p><span style="color: #000000;"><u><strong>This process recurred in 2007 and 2008, only wholesale in nature and interbank in format;</strong></u> it was the rare occasion that depositors were involved (Northern Rock in September 2007 being most prominent). Liquidity providers in all kinds of eurodollar formats would react to &ldquo;capital&rdquo; loss perceptions by withdrawing liquidity to the point that the act of liquidity withdrawal (rather than losses by the target) itself was the agent of destruction &ndash; just as in the traditional bank run scenario. That is what ultimately took down Lehman, Bear Stearns, AIG, etc.</span></p> <p><span style="color: #000000;">As has been the typical mainstream reaction, Deutsche Bank is being written about right now in a vacuum as if the actions and behavior (and losses) of last year were left only to last year. When global illiquidity first popped up (again) in the second half of 2014, it was regarded in the same way &ndash; a series of purportedly random, unrelated events. They <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><em>had</em> </strong></span>to be strung together in a benign chain of distinct actions because convention still holds QE to be money printing. Ditching that convention has the effect of <a href="">connecting all these dots</a> as a logical and <em>ongoing</em> progression of a &ldquo;rising dollar&rdquo; that is really a euphemism for &ldquo;dollar shortage.&rdquo;</span></p> <p><span style="color: #000000;"><u><strong>And it really doesn&rsquo;t take too many dots to connect.</strong></u> This isn&rsquo;t to say that Deutsche Bank is in danger of a wholesale liquidity run, only that the bank is perhaps far closer to it than anyone in the mainstream will ever admit.<u><strong> As I wrote last year, it really isn&rsquo;t even about Deutsche Bank.</strong></u></span></p> <p><img alt="abook-sept-2016-db-10s-30s-swap-spread" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-40713" height="481" src="" width="641" /></p> <p><img alt="abook-sept-2016-db-ted2" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-40715" height="481" src="" width="641" /></p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="604" height="427" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> AIG Bank Run Bear Stearns Bond Deutsche Bank ETC EuroDollar Germany Housing Bubble Lehman Quantitative Easing recovery Yen Tue, 27 Sep 2016 17:53:43 +0000 Tyler Durden 573411 at Trump vs Clinton Head-To-Head Was The Most Watched Presidential Debate In History <p>While the <a href="">unscientific polls say otherwise</a>, capital markets and the online bettors <a href="">say that Hillary dominated last night's debate</a>. However, Trump was the undisputed winner when it comes to another metric: social media engagement. According to Twitter, "<strong>the debate was the most tweeted-about political event in the social media company's history</strong>." <a href="">Reuters adds</a> that Trump was the focus of 62% of the conversation on the social media platform, Twitter said. Likewise on Facebook, conversations about Trump made up 79% of debate chat, while Clinton’s share of the conversation was a modest 21%.</p> <p>As <a href="">Reuters confirms </a>"Trump stole the social media spotlight during Monday night's U.S. presidential debate", although in a surprising twist he did so on what Twitter users branded his #Trumpsniffle. </p> <p>Confirming America's fascination with the trivial&nbsp; - and perhaps issues "health-related" - Reuters adds that "the wealthy businessman sniffed repeatedly as he faced off against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in their first debate, giving rise to the hashtag and a surge of interest on social media what might be causing his nose to run. Parody accounts, Donald's Sinuses (@TrumpsSinuses) and Trump sniff (@TrumpSniff), gained a large following."</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"> <div></div> </div> <div class="quote_end"> <div></div> </div> <p>Trump, 70, told Fox News on Tuesday morning he did not have a cold. "No, no sniffles, no," he said. "No cold." He complained he had a faulty microphone and joked that maybe it was picking up breathing. </p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Several tweeters seized on the sniffling to hit back at Trump over his repeated digs at the health and stamina of Clinton, 68, who had pneumonia earlier this month.</p> </blockquote> <p>A compilation tweet showed every instance of Trump's sniffles:</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Is Donald Trump sick? Either way, <a href="">#TrumpSniffles</a> is now a thing <a href=""></a> <a href=""></a></p> <p>— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) <a href="">September 27, 2016</a></p></blockquote> <script src="//"></script><p>In an unexpected twist, former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean on Monday mentioned cocaine in a tweet discussing Donald Trump’s sniffling during his first presidential debate.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Notice Trump sniffing all the time. Coke user?</p> <p>— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) <a href="">September 27, 2016</a></p></blockquote> <script src="//"></script><p>According to <a href="">the Hill</a>, "Dean’s tweet may prove controversial for mentioning — without evidence — illicit drug use and the Republican presidential nominee in the same breath."</p> <p>Going back to media engagement, Reuters adds that sentiment appeared to go Clinton's way. Social media analytics firm Zoomph said tweets mentioning Clinton ended at a ratio of about 1.5 to 1, which meant that for every negative mention, there were 1.5 positive mentions, Zoomph said. Sentiment toward Trump fluctuated, but ended nearly flat at a ratio of one positive mention to every negative one.</p> <p>As for what drew social media participants, the most tweeted-about topics were the economy, foreign affairs, energy and the environment, terrorism and guns.</p> <p>And then there is legacy media. <a href="">According to Nielsen</a>, more than 80 million people viewed Monday's first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The previous record was the only debate between Republican Ronald Reagan and President Jimmy Carter in 1980, which drew 80 million in an era with far few channels and no Internet. In 2012, the first debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012 drew 67 million viewers. That 80 million number doesn't include numerous streaming options made available. </p> <p>That said, the population of the United States is also much bigger than it was in 1980, which puts the Reagan-Carter debate in a different context. In 1980, the population was 225 million while today's U.S. population is 320 million. </p> <p>Some analysts were expecting as many as 100 million viewers to tune in for the Clinton-Trump showdown. The debate drew fewer viewers than the Super Bowl, which in recent years has attracted more than 100 million viewers. The debate easily beat Monday Night Football on ESPN, which is generally the top-rated program on Monday nights.</p> <p>While it is unclear if just being the most "buzzed" candidate has helped or hurt Trump - after all being a constant source of notoriety is nothing new to the billionaire -&nbsp; one thing is sure, with little resolved and with no definitive winner emerging, the next debate in two weeks time is likely to be as engaging. And just to make sure of that, moments ago Trump already vowed "<a href="">to hit Clinton harder in next U.S. presidential debate</a>." His supporters are probably asking why he did not do that last night.</p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="870" height="562" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> Capital Markets Donald Trump Fox News Nielsen President Obama Reuters Twitter Twitter Tue, 27 Sep 2016 17:28:58 +0000 Tyler Durden 573408 at