In a 43-page research report, the Federal Reserve has authored a rather concerning tome warning that the mechanical positive-feedback rebalancing of Leverage ETFs (LETFs) resembles the portfolio insurance strategies, which contributed to the stock market crash of October 19, 1987. The impact of LETFs on broad stock-market indexes become significant during periods of high volatility (shown empirically in 2008/9 and H2 2011) as they show that LETF rebalancing in response to a large market move could amplify the move and force them to further rebalance which may trigger a “cascade” reaction. Furthermore, executing orders within a short period of time, such as the last hour of trading, may cause disproportionate price changes (especially in financial stocks). The Fed warns that a significant price reduction at market close may also impair investor confidence with accelerating depressed prices at the close potentially driving large investor outflows overnight.
ETF-rebalancing implied price effects are most egregious at times of stress...
ETF rebalancing flows have grown dramatically...
BUT - what is most concerning is that LETF rebalancing flows as a fraction of stock volume in the last hour is surging - especially for small-caps...
The frequency of a large price move in the last hour of trading is zero until 2007 when the first financial LETF is launched. Consistent with the implied price impact results, the frequency of a large price move is elevated when the price volatility is high, reaching 0.8 in the 2008-2009 financial crisis and 0.6 in the second half of 2011. These results, combined with the implied price impact estimates, suggest that LETF rebalancing contributed to the stock market volatility in the 2008-2009 financial crisis and in the second half of 2011.
A couple weeks ago we wrote about the fact that the US is coming up to an unusual of significant econo-political events unlike anything we can recall.
Starting sometime in September, we can expect to see the following:
A fight over the government's budget, leading to a possible government shutdown.
A fight over the debt ceiling.
The beginning of Fed tapering (the reduction of large-scale asset purchases, known as Quantitative Easing)
A nomination for a Fed Chair to replace Ben Bernanke.
Each one of these could be economically significant to varying degrees. Together they're likely to be very exciting.
Over at POLITICO, Ben White and MJ Lee have a big story up about why this time, Wall Street should be afraid of the fiscal fight.
Of course the street expects that everything will get resolved at the last second (like it always does) but White and Lee argue that this time could be different.
The reasons why:
The GOP is even more fractured than it has been in recent fights, and
this time the Democrats may go to the mat as well, as they refuse to give an inch.
That the Democrats may not be willing to bargain at all over the debt ceiling seems like the big dynamic that makes this time different than those other times.
And even if the two parties find a path past Oct. 1 and avoid a government shutdown, raising the debt ceiling will be no easy task. Republicans have not backed off their mantra of a dollar in spending cuts for every dollar of debt-ceiling increase. But if they pass such a bill out of the House, it is going nowhere in the Senate. Democrats have no appetite for more cuts, given that annual deficits have been sliced in half and the sequester spending cuts are already taking a bite out of economic growth with no compromise on the horizon.
“It’s not negotiable. It should be done,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) about raising the debt ceiling. “Business everywhere believes that this is a bad thing for the country. The Republicans, they call themselves the pro-business party. They should act that way.”
The White House is also likely to stick hard to its vow not to negotiate over the debt ceiling.
Democrats are increasingly convinced that this is the moment to "break the fever" of sequestration and debt ceiling pay-offs. They will attempt to break up the upcoming deadlines by cutting a short-term deal on the 30 Septembercontinuing resolution-insisting on a clean debt ceiling increase with no pay-off for Republicans-and then gearing up for battle later in the fall when the short-term CR expires if necessary to get a sequester deal before January. In reality, Democrats would prefer to trade mandatory cuts and other piecemeal fiscal reforms for a sequester offset that can be implemented around the same time as the debt ceiling, without a direct negotiation on the latter issue. But Democrats have less appetite to agree to large-scale reforms amid a declining deficit: If Republicans demand too high a price for the Democrats' key goal of offsetting the sequester, Democrats, are willing to threaten shutdown even though they don't actually want it.
Anyway, lots coming up. Enjoy the rest of your summer.
GMTP US FISCAL
1 - Risk Reversal
EU - Eurozone Funding Shortfall Rises To Over $4 Trillion
Back in April 2012, Zero Hedge pointed out something rather disturbing for the European banking sector and defenders of the European monetary myth: the "aggregate shortfall of required stable funding Is €2.78 trillion" which was the number estimated by the BIS' Basel III rules needed to return to some semblance of balance sheet stability in Europe. More importantly, this was a number so big, it was obvious that there was only one way to deal with it: cover it up deeply under the rug and pray it never reemerged.
What happened next was inevitable: Basel III's implementation was delayed as there was no way Europe's banks could satisfy their deleveraging requirements, while the actual capital shortfall hole became bigger and bigger. Today, 16 months later, the FT discovers what Zero Hedge readers knew long ago in "Eurozone banks need to shed €3.2tn in assets to meet Basel III." In other words, not only has Europe not fixed anything in the past year, but the liquidity tsunami injected by the central banks merely taped over the epic capital shortfall that just got epic-er, increasing from €2.8 trillion to €3.2 trillion, an increase of half a trillion to over $4 trillion in one short year.
Sadly, just like back in April 2012, so now, Europe has no hope of actually addressing this much needed deleveraging and so the can kicking will continue until the number rises to $5 trillion, $6, $7 etc until one day the market's "head in the sand" strategy finally fails and every emperor around the world is found to be naked.
Europe’s biggest banks will have to cut €661bn of assets and generate €47bn of fresh capital over the next five years to comply with forthcoming regulations aimed at reducing the likelihood of another taxpayer funded bailout.
The figures form part of an analysis by the UK’s Royal Bank of Scotland – which singles out Deutsche Bank, Crédit Agricole and Barclays as the banks most in need of fresh capital – highlighting that five years on since the financial crisis, Europe’s banks are still “too big to fail”.
Overall, the region’s banks need to shed €3.2tn in assets by 2018 to comply with Basel III regulations on capital and leverage, according to RBS.
The burden is greatest on smaller banks, which need to shed €2.6tn from their balance sheets, raising fears that lending to the region’s small and medium size enterprises will be sharply reduced as a result.
“There is too much debt still across Europe’s economies and the manifestation of that is on bank balance sheets,” said James Chappell, an analyst at Berenberg bank. “The major issue is that the banks still don’t have enough capital to write down those loans.”
Eurozone banks have already shrunk their balance sheets by €2.9tn since May 2012 – by renewing fewer loans, repurchase and derivatives contracts and selling non-core businesses – according to data from the Frankfurt-based European Central Bank.
Deutsche Bank recently said it would seek to cut its assets by about a fifth over the next two and a half years. Barclays, which announced a £5.8bn rights issue last month, said it wants to shrink its balance sheet by £65bn-£80bn.
Europe’s banking sector assets are worth €32tn, or more than three times the single currency zone’s annual gross domestic product.
Of course, if Europe's banking sector actually does take its deleveraging obligations seriously, what will happen to Europe's economy, where private sector loan creation is already at a record low level, will be nothing short of a stunning contraction, unlike anything seen in the past 5 years. And yet, that is precisely the path Europe most take in order to emerge on the other side with a healthy beating financial heart. That it won't is a given because doing the right thing would mean a complete wipe out for the banker oligarchy. And, as always, it will be the common man who will suffer when the forced deleveraging day finally comes.
As shown here previously, there is a direct correlation between the excess reserves created by the Fed, and the cash holdings of domestic and foreign banks (operating in the US) disclosed by the Fed's weekly H.8 statement. So with the Fed's reserves reaching new all time highs with every week courtesy of the $85 billion in monthly flow injected by the Fed...
... some wonder where is this cash ending up. The answer: in the week ended July 31, a record $1,157 billion was parked with foreign banks in the US, while "just" $1,112 of the Fed's created reserves was allocated to US banks.
This breakdown is shown in the chart below:
Or, in short, the Fed's QE-created reserves have gone to:
Foreign banks: 51%
Large-domestic banks: 36%
Small domestic banks: 13%
At least someone is benefiting from the Fed's generosity, in that order.
There goes the tax hike (and any expectation of fiscal balance). Japanese GDP grew at a miserly 0.6% QoQ, missing expectations of +0.9% (the biggest miss in a year) and slowing from an already revised lower 0.9% growth in Q1. So much for Abenomics breathing life back into a balance-sheet-recessed nation. Typically this kind of miss would be met with cheers as bad is good but in the case of Japan where they are so far down the rabbit hole, there is no moar left. The already collapsing JPY-carry trade is unwinding in a hurry as JPY surges to a 95 handle on the news; the USD is dropping, Nikkei futures are down 200 points, S&P futures are down a few handles, and gold is holding notable gains.
Between 1978, the year Deng Xiaoping’s sweeping economic reforms were launched, and 2011, China’s GDP increased by an average of 10 percent annually, three times that of the global economy. Now the boom times may be over.
By mid-2013, economic growth had slowed to 7.7 percent. That’s still a roaring pace compared to the rest of the world. Europeans, Americans and even Japanese might say about China’s slippage, “We should all have such problems.” Still, in thirty-five years, the Chinese polity hasn’t had to handle a prolonged economic slowdown and one may be in the offing. Hence the debate on what the deceleration could portend should it get worse and linger.
Is China headed for upheaval? The argument that it is seems plausible. Eye-popping growth rates and the accompanying increase in living standards—and of course the state’s massive machinery of repression—have been critical to maintaining political stability and public support for the Communist Party. Or is Beijing so skillful, so flush with foreign-exchange reserves—and hence with the capital needed for priming the economy and managing financial crises—that slower economic growth is no big deal? Don’t look to the experts for enlightenment on which take is true: they see the same data but draw different conclusions.
We’ll get to those incongruous assessments soon, but first, some context on China’s remarkable achievements since 1978. (While some China watchers think Beijing cooks the books, they do concur that the country’s economic transformation has been breathtaking.) China’s GDP, measured in purchasing-power parity using current dollars, was $248 billion in 1980; by 2012 it had soared to $12.3 trillion. Per-capita GDP—a useful measure of prosperity, even though it doesn’t reveal income distribution, the inequality of which has soared in China—has likewise surged, from $205 (at purchasing-power parity) in 1980 to $11,316 in 2011. Together, massive investment, breakneck economic growth, sharp declines in population growth, the advent of universal literacy and big increases in the number of people with a higher education have helped pulled six hundred million Chinese out of poverty.
Other numbers illustrate China’s economic makeover. In 1978 China accounted for about 2 percent of the value of global exports. By 2010 its share had risen to 10 percent, and the total value was $1.5 trillion. This success in the global marketplace was achieved to no small extent at the expense of the world’s other economic behemoths, Japan and the United States, whose shares declined. What makes this particularly noteworthy is that China’s GDP, though it recently surpassed Japan’s, is still smaller America’s, which was $15.7 trillion in 2012. Yet the value of China’s trade last year was $3.87 trillion, eclipsing America’s total of $3.82 trillion. Even allowing for differences in the two economies’ relative dependence on trade this was headline-grabbing news. And it’s not just the value of what China sells the world but the difference that’s emerged in what it sells. Staples such as apparel, toys, shoes and basic electronics have been replaced by machinery and equipment, which account for over 50 percent of China’s exports, compared to just over 25 percent in 1995. Whether it’s energy, banking or telecommunications, Chinese companies have a global presence and are competing with American, European, South Korean and Japanese multinational corporations.
Okay, so what’s the problem then? It’s on this question that informed opinion is split. Paul Krugman is sure that the decrease in China’s economic-growth rate portends “big trouble” and that the signs are “unmistakable.” He and others pessimists chalk up China’s economic success to a combination of a vast rural population that has been available for induction into the industrial sector; low wages for workers, a function of an abundant supply of labor from the countryside; massive investment at the expense of consumption; and an exchange-rate policy that keeps the value of China’s currency low and its export earnings high.
The old paradigm, effective though it was, is starting to crumble. We’ve seen this before. The Soviet economy started slowing in the 1960s once it became harder - because of falling population-growth rates and the drying of the rural labor reservoir - to rack up big growth rates by pumping more people and money into manufacturing. The big difference is that while total-factor productivity (output per composite unit of labor and capital) didn’t pick up the slack in the USSR, in China it has increased significantly over the past two decades. Still, with Europe mired in recession, America posting anemic economic-growth rates and adding few jobs, and India’s and Brazil’s economies slowing down, it’s going to be harder for China to continue banking on big sales abroad to sustain rapid growth. So a lot hinges on whether Beijing finds a new way to sustain high growth, one that goes beyond basic industrialization and catching up to the West and sets trends in innovation.
The experts who reject Krugman’s apocalypse soon scenario are confident that Beijing will adapt to slower growth and diminished demand abroad by “rebalancing.” They don’t deny that China’s economy is slowing or that that could pose problems. They insist that China will simply shift to growth that’s slower and less reliant on investment and exports and that relies more on domestic consumption, with the government using its cash bonanza to boost employment and income as needed.
Sounds nice, but it may not be so easy. To begin with, the “rebalancing” metaphor is too pat. It conjures up the image of a bicyclist who’s tilting too far left or right and merely needs to adjust body weight a bit before pedaling happily onward. Would that it were so simple. Despite the huge increase in China’s per-capita income over the past three decades, today it is still only $9,300. It remains well behind America, Europe, Japan and South Korea and ranks 123rd in the world, closely trailing the Dominican Republic and the Maldive Islands. It also doesn’t help that 12 percent of China’s population lives below the officially established poverty line ($3,630). That’s not a big proportion; it’s smaller than America’s and represents a huge decline from over 80 percent in 1981, but it amounts to 130 million people who can’t generate much of what economists call “effective demand.” If you’re going to rely on consumers to power growth it helps to have a population with abundant disposable income.
Then there’s income inequality, another barrier to rebalancing. The greater it is in a country with a low per-capita income, the harder it will be to foster consumption-driven economic growth quickly. And China’s income distribution is highly skewed. One common measure of economic inequality is the Gini Index, which measures income distribution. The lower a country’s score, the more equal its income distribution, and vice versa. Sweden’s Gini score is 23, Germany’s 27, the EU’s as a whole 30, Japan’s 37, and America’s 45 (nothing to be proud about). China’s is 47.4. This is another reason why rosy forecasts involving rebalancing should occasion skepticism, the more so because in China high inequality (the super-rich elite can consume only so much) and low per-capita income are accompanied meager retirement and health-insurance benefits that don’t offer most Chinese much protection during adversity or old age.
Speaking of aging, China is doing so rapidly. And its total fertility rate, the average number of children a woman is projected to have during her childbearing years, is now 1.55 (2.11 is required to maintain the size of a population). This means that labor shortages loom, an increasing proportion of the workforce will consist of retirees, and revenue will have to be reallocated to care for the growing proportion of elderly. Yes, Europe and Japan also have aging populations, but the difference is that these are (despite Europe’s current problems) relatively wealthy places. Moreover, they confronted the demographic transition after they became prosperous. China is facing it now, when it’s not.
China’s challenges aren’t limited to its economy. Protests - sparked by outrage over corruption, environmental degradation, and the abuse of political authority - have risen sharply: the number of incidents reached 180,000 in 2010, double that of 2006. Despite big investments that have produced a literate and wealthier population in China’s minority regions, unrest among Tibetans and the Uighurs of Muslim-Turkic Xinjiang continues, not surprising given the vital role that the intelligentsia has played in producing nationalism. Chinese leaders no longer deny the dangers of separatism or whisper about it in secret conclaves. They speak about it openly and seem flummoxed as Tibetans continue to immolate themselves and riots and bombings persist in Xinjiang.
Now, the Chinese state has a massive a coercive apparatus to quell rebellions and spends more on it than on the People’s Liberation Army. Revolution is not around the corner. What we don’t know is how and to what extent the economic slowdown could produce instability and whether non-economic sources of discontent will prove harder to manage in times of hardship, especially in an age in which social-media-savvy youth have shown that they can communicate and mobilize in multiple ways.
Some commentators - Ian Bremmer among them - argue not just that China’s leaders can manage fine with a 7.5 percent rate of economic growth or even less but also that they may even welcome it. The proof presented to back up this claim is shaky at best. Bremmer assures us that Chinese officials have stated that they’re comfortable with the slowdown (I guess that settles it then) and he adds that slower growth will provide them an opportunity to ram through much-needed reforms. But the reforms being discussed will all require sacrifices by the elite and the masses and will therefore be harder to implement in (relatively) tough times. The rich and powerful will offer more resistance than the masses; they have more to lose and greater influence to use.
Then there are China’s main banks, which have been the source of credit for state-owned industries (SOEs), many of which are running red ink, and local governments that have borrowed heavily—they owed $1.7 trillion in 2011—to launch mega construction projects. It’s hard to believe that these banks, companies, and local political bosses won’t find it much tougher, albeit for different reasons, to conduct business as usual as the economy slows. With $3 trillion in reserves, the Chinese government has plenty of cash to throw at problems, and its central bank can step in when it’s a matter of bad loans made in local currency by local banks. Besides, China has a respectable debt-to-GDP ratio to boot: 50 percent. That’s up from 37.8 percent in 2011, but a far cry from Japan’s at 236 percent or ours at 107 percent. But with China’s banks having extended, at the government’s urging, trillions of dollars in stimulus following the 2008 global economic slowdown, banks’ adeptness at circumventing official lending limits, in a variety of ways and off the books, and the huge expansion of “shadow banks,” the true magnitude of a financial crisis that could be triggered by a sluggish (by Chinese standards) economy may be hard gauge.
No matter their phlegmatic public pronouncements, China’s leaders don’t regard bad bank loans and debt-laden companies and local governments with equanimity. They can’t be unruffled by a slowing economy that could aggravate the problems of creditors and debtors who are already in distress. The government already did a $650 billion bank bailout between 1998 and 2005, and now there are murmurs that another is in the works. Leaders everywhere are good at whistling in the dark and putting a gloss on things. China’s are no exception.
What’s the upshot? No one can predict accurately at what point slower growth will start producing political turmoil on a scale that’s unprecedented in the China that Deng made, what the magic number is, or even whether there’s an iron connection between economic and political crises. Yet the increase in capital flight from China and soaring applications for American and European residential visas by well-heeled Chinese suggest that the elite is hedging its bets. Krugman may be overstating things, but the rebalancing camp is too sanguine.
This much is certain: China’s leaders are in uncharted waters, and because of the diminishing utility of the established formula for rapid growth their maps may be of questionable value. There will be disagreements among them, not just about the appropriate the solutions but also about the roots of the problem. The one point of agreement will be that that tough decisions loom and will have to be taken under circumstances far less favorable than those that have existed during the last thirty-five years.
Should we broadcast a message to the rest of the world that anyone that can find a way to enter this country and somehow get to a “sanctuary city” can sign up for a plethora of welfare benefits and live a life of leisure at the expense of hard working American citizens? Yes, this question sounds absurd, but what I have just described will essentially be official U.S. government policy if the immigration bill going through Congress becomes law. And unfortunately, Democrats now say that they have the Republican votes that they need to get “immigration reform” through the House of Representatives.
If this amnesty bill becomes law, it will encourage even more illegal immigration and it will be one more step toward making the U.S. border essentially meaningless.
The following are 19 very disturbing facts about illegal immigration that every American should know…
#157 percent of all households that are led by an immigrant (legal or illegal) are enrolled in at least one welfare program.
#2 According to one study, the cost to U.S. taxpayers of legalizing current illegal immigrants would be approximately 6.3 trillion dollars over the next 50 years.
#3 The Obama administration has distributed flyers that tell illegal immigrants that their immigration status will not be checked when they apply for food stamps.
#4 The Department of Homeland Security says that it has lost track of a million people that have entered this country but that appear never to have left.
#7 Thanks to illegal immigration, California’s overstretched health care system is on the verge of collapse. Dozens of California hospitals and emergency rooms have shut down over the past decade because they could not afford to stay open after being endlessly swamped by illegal immigrants who were simply not able to pay for the services that they were receiving. As a result, the remainder of the health care system in the state of California is now beyond overloaded. This had led to brutally long waits, diverted ambulances and even unnecessary patient deaths. At this point, the state of California now ranks dead last out of all 50 states in the number of emergency rooms per million people.
#8 It has been estimated that U.S. taxpayers spend $12,000,000,000 a year on primary and secondary school education for the children of illegal immigrants.
#16 It is an open secret that Mexican drug cartels are openly conducting military operations inside the United States. The handful of border patrol agents that we have guarding the border are massively outgunned and outmanned.
#17 According to the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center, Mexican drug cartels were actively operating in 50 different U.S. cities in 2006. By 2010, that number had skyrocketed to 1,286.
#18 Overall, more than 55,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico since 2006. That same level of violence will eventually show up in major U.S. cities unless something dramatic is done about illegal immigration.
#19 It is being projected that the Senate immigration bill will bring 33 million more people to the United States over the next decade.
One of the very few things that the federal government is actually required to do by the U.S. Constitution is to defend our borders, and unfortunately the Obama administration has willingly chosen to leave our borders completely wide open. In fact, you can go down to the Texas border right now and watch illegal immigrants hop right across the Rio Grande.
Several retired Border Patrol agents recently drafted an open letter to the American people on the subject of illegal immigration, and what they had to say was quite startling. The following is an excerpt from that letter that was in a recent Breitbart article…
“Transnational criminal enterprises have annually invested millions of dollars to create and staff international drug and human smuggling networks inside the United States; thus it is no surprise that they continue to accelerate their efforts to get trusted representatives in place as a means to guarantee continued success,” the Border Patrol agents wrote.
“We must never lose sight of the fact that the United States is the market place for the bulk of transnational criminal businesses engaged in human trafficking and the smuggling, distribution and sale of illegal drugs. Organized crime on this scale we are speaking about cannot exist without political protection.”
According to those retired border agents, by refusing to secure our border the Obama administration is openly facilitating the trafficking of drugs into the United States…
“Most heroin, cocaine, meth, and marijuana marketed in the United States is produced outside of our country, and then smuggled into the United States,” they wrote. “The placement of trusted foreign employees inside the United States is imperative to insure success in continuing to supply the demand, and returning the profits to the foreign organization. Members of these vicious transnational crime syndicates are already well established in more than 2,000 American cities and their numbers are increasing as networks expand and demands accelerate. These transnational criminals present a real and present danger to all Americans, and they live among us.”
Sadly, in politically correct America you can’t even talk about the problem of illegal immigration these days without being labeled as a “racist”.
For the record, I believe that all people deserve love and respect no matter what they look like or where they are born. God created us all and He loves us all very much. I have long been a very strong advocate for racial reconciliation in this country, and I will continue to be.
And there are tens of millions of Latino-Americans in this country that are hard working, law-abiding citizens. They have done things the right way, and it is extremely unfortunate that they often get lumped in with millions of illegal immigrants that willingly choose to break our laws.
Unfortunately, we have a system of immigration today that greatly rewards lawless behavior. We have made coming into this country through the front door exceedingly difficult, but we have left the back door completely wide open.
So hard working, law-abiding people that want to do things the right way are kept out, but those that want to come here and commit crimes or abuse the system are free to come on over any time that they would like.
What sense does that make?
Our immigration system is completely broken, but these days we cannot even have a rational debate about these issues. In politically correct America, illegal immigrants have become a “favored class” of people that you are never supposed to say anything bad about.
In the July 26, 2013 edition of the Bank Credit Analyst, editor Jim Grant notes that when Ben Bernanke was beginning the second round of “quantitative easing,” he described it in February 2011 Congressional testimony as equivalent to an interest rate cut. In recent Congressional testimony explaining what might be ( or might not be) a forthcoming “taper” in ” quantitative easing,” he suggested that it would not be equivalent to a rate hike.
This blatant double talk just further compounds the basic dishonesty of the underlying term “quantitative easing”. It is of course intended to disguise the truth which is that the Fed is creating money. Another favorite circumlocution, favored by nearly all mainstream journalists, is “bond buying.” Nobody ever mentions that the Fed is “bond buying” with newly created money, which is the relevant point.
The origin of today’s monetary policy of course lies in Keynesian economics, and Keynes was quite explicit that monetary authorities should intentionally use deception as a primary tool. He spoke of the need to gull workers into thinking that wages were going up even if net of inflation they were going down. At least he had a sense of humor about it, calling a central bank a "green cheese factory" that would persuade the public to accept "green cheese" (newly created money) as the real thing.
Keynes’s disciple Bernanke is lacking in both honesty and wit, although he earnestly talks about the need for more openness in monetary policy, and even gives press conferences. There is alas a logical inconsistency inherent in the idea of lying more openly. It is similar to the conundrum that Gorbachev faced when he tried to reconcile classical liberal values with Soviet communism.
TECHNICALS & MARKET ANALYTICS
COMMODITY CORNER - HARD ASSETS
PRIVATE EQUITY - REAL ASSETS
2013 - STATISM
2012 - FINANCIAL REPRESSION
2011 - BEGGAR-THY-NEIGHBOR -- CURRENCY WARS
2010 - EXTEN D & PRETEND
CORPORATOCRACY - CRONY CAPITALSIM
GLOBAL FINANCIAL IMBALANCE
STANDARD OF LIVING
CORRUPTION & MALFEASANCE
NATURE OF WORK
CATALYSTS - FEAR & GREED
Learn more about Gold & Silver-Backed, Absolute Return Alternative Investments
with these complimentary educational materials
Tipping Points Life Cycle - Explained Click on image to enlarge
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in
our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human
rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond
'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DISCLOSURE Gordon T Long is not a registered advisor and does not give investment advice. His comments are an expression of opinion only and should not be construed in any manner whatsoever as recommendations to buy or sell a stock, option, future, bond, commodity or any other financial instrument at any time. While he believes his statements to be true, they always depend on the reliability of his own credible sources. Of course, he recommends that you consult with a qualified investment advisor, one licensed by appropriate regulatory agencies in your legal jurisdiction, before making any investment decisions, and barring that, we encourage you confirm the facts on your own before making important investment commitments.