Connect with us

Government

Barrage Of Central Bankers Warn Markets Powell Hasn’t “Pivoted” But Is It Too Late

Barrage Of Central Bankers Warn Markets Powell Hasn’t "Pivoted" But Is It Too Late

After last Friday’s close, when stocks just completed their…

Published

on

Barrage Of Central Bankers Warn Markets Powell Hasn't "Pivoted" But Is It Too Late

After last Friday's close, when stocks just completed their best month since November 2020 following a torrid week which saw risk assets explode higher after the US entered a technical recession, after the Fed hiked 75bps, and even after PCE came in hotter than expected, as traders became convinced that a Fed pivot is coming, we published a must-read note from BofA's Michael Hartnett - Wall Street's most accurate and bearish analyst - who warned that while a dovish Fed pivot is certainly on the calendar, it's not coming nearly as fast as the market expects it, and cautioned that there will be at least one more trapdoor in risk assets before Powell is forced to unleash the monetary firehose, most likely some time in early 2023 (Hartnett also detailed the conditions for the real pivot and how to gauge when to sell just ahead of it; our take on his note is is here while his full must read analysts is available to pro subscribers at the usual place). 

And while some disagreed, most notably Morgan Stanley which said that "bad is good " again...

... others sided with Hartnett, starting with former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers had some very harsh words over the weekend suggesting the Fed is engaging in "wishful thinking" in what it will take to tame inflation and that “Jay Powell said things that, to be blunt, were analytically indefensible ...." and that “...there is no conceivable way that a 2.5% interest rate, in an economy inflating like this, is anywhere near neutral.”

He echoed a similar complaint by Bill Ackman who, true to form, took to twitter to explain to the Fed how it is doing a terrible job by not unleashing a depression and instead has led to multiple alleged margin calls on what appears to be another massive treasury and/or Eurodollar short position judging by how often Ackman has slammed Powell for not hiking by... say... .10%.

But wait, there's more: the groupthink parade - because really this is just a bunch of axed hedge fund managers and career economists failing to grasp what the market clearly has realized, namely that if you hike enough you will get a recession - expanded over the weekend when even the Fed's biggest dove, Neel Kashkari, said that the Fed is "committed to doing what’s necessary to bring down demand" in order to reach policy makers’ 2% long-term inflation goal, a target that remains far off.

“We are committed to bringing inflation down and we’re going to do what we need to do,” he told CBS’s “Face the Nation” in an interview on Sunday. “We are a long way away from achieving an economy that is back at 2% inflation, and that’s where we need to get to.”

Inflation that has continued to exceed the Fed’s expectations is “very concerning,” Kashkari said. Faster cost-of-living increases are becoming more broad-based and aren’t limited to just a few categories, and that explains why the Fed is “acting with such urgency to get it under control and bring it back down,” Kashkari, who is a non-voting member this year and thus his opinion is even more irrelevant than usual, said.

Faster inflation is being driven by supply chains disrupted by the war in Ukraine and other factors, Kashkari said, adding that while wages are increasing, they’re not keeping pace with surging goods prices. So for most Americans, “real incomes are going down,” and there’s no “self-fulfilling spiral” of wage-driven inflation yet, he said.

“Families are finding it increasingly hard to make ends meet,” said Kashkari, who served in a key financial stability post at the Treasury Department during the 2008-2009 global crisis. “When they go to the grocery store, when they buy necessities, they’re not able to buy as much because they’re getting a real wage cut.”

Kashkari said that the Fed will do everything it can to avoid a recession, while acknowledging that it doesn’t have a “great record” of being able to do so.

“Whether we are technically in a recession or not doesn’t change my analysis,” Kashkari said. “I’m focused on the inflation data. I’m focused on wage data. And so far, inflation continues to surprise us to the upside. Wages continue to grow. So far, the labor market is very, very strong.”

Finally, it was Bill "edible iPads" Dudley, who joined the circus bandwagon this morning, and in a Bloomberg oped, that other former Goldman banker (Goldman is best known for populating central banks with its alumni, whether it is Dudley, Kashkari, or countless others) and NY Fed president echoed what he said in an interview last week, warning that "wishful thinking won't help The Fed beat inflation."

Investors have lately become strangely optimistic that the Federal Reserve won’t have to tighten monetary policy much further, bidding up stocks and bonds amid hopes that the Federal Reserve will soon get inflation under control.

This wishful thinking is both unfounded and counterproductive.

The market’s exuberance appears to stem in part from Jerome Powell’s latest news conference, in which the Fed chair observed that growth had slowed, didn’t commit to another 75-basis-point rate increase in September and suggested that monetary tightening might curb excess demand for workers without doing too much harm to those currently employed. This has fueled speculation of a “pivot” to smaller interest-rate increases, with some even arguing that the Fed has done enough already.

Don’t be confident about such an outcome. For one, Powell repeatedly referred to Fed officials’ projections from June, which show the federal funds rate reaching 3.8% in 2023 — more than 50 basis points higher than what financial markets currently expect, and difficult to reconcile with the pivot hypothesis.

As regards the labor market, monetary policy tightening is far too blunt a tool to target demand only for workers not yet employed. It affects all parts of the economy that are sensitive to interest rates, and hence inevitably reaches workers who have jobs, too. The greater the excess demand for labor, the more tightening the Fed must do and the more people will be put out of work. The latest reading from the employment cost index underscores how tight the labor market is: Wages for private sector workers are up 5.7% from a year earlier. Also, Fed officials believe that the unemployment rate consistent with price stability is significantly higher than it was during the last economic expansion. This means more jobs will need to be sacrificed to get inflation under control.

Some argue that the Fed doesn’t need to induce such job losses — that inflation will subside on its own along with the supply disruptions created by the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. But the central bank must contend with the world as it is: If demand exceeds supply, the Fed must act to reduce the former even if the latter is constrained. Beyond that, supply disruptions are far from the whole story. Inflation pressures have broadened, as evidenced by the 6% year-over-year increase in the Cleveland Fed’s median consumer price index, up from 3.8% six months earlier.

All told, the outlook hasn’t changed. Inflation is too high, the labor market is too tight and the Fed must respond — most likely by pushing the economy into an actual recession, as opposed to the two quarters of minor GDP shrinkage that has occurred so far. Wishful thinking in markets only makes the job harder, by loosening financial conditions and requiring more monetary tightening to compensate.

The biggest mistake the Fed can make is to fail to push inflation back down to 2%. Fortunately, Powell recognizes this, even if he understates how difficult the task will be given the economic environment and the Fed’s very late start.

Remember what Dudley said back in April - Investors should pay closer attention to what Powell has said: Financial conditions need to tighten. If this doesn’t happen on its own (which seems unlikely), the Fed will have to shock markets to achieve the desired response.

For now, the financial conditions index has rebounded back to the same levels it was at in April (relatively easy), but as the chart below shows, The Fed has seemingly been willing to only allow a ratcheting down of tightness - presumably because it feels the market and the economy couldn't take any faster hawkishness...

As Dudley concluded in April: This would mean hiking the federal funds rate considerably higher than currently anticipated. One way or another, to get inflation under control, the Fed will need to push bond yields higher and stock prices lower.

* * *

So yes, those short bonds and various secondary (and former) Fed bankers are  making the case that the Fed will (or at least should) keep hiking until inflation finally relents. There are two issues with that:

  • First, as today's PMI report confirmed, inflation has already peaked, and any additional aggressive tightening from this point one will do little to reduce inflation which is already on the way down, but will only make the coming recession far more painful.
  • Second, and tied to that, the political outcry against Fed tightening has begun as we noted in  "The Politics Of Growth Are Trumping Inflation", Sen Elizabeth Warren penned: “If Messrs. Powell and Summers have their way, the resulting recession will be brutal. As in past downturns, Republicans in Congress will press for austerity.” Combating Summers’ argument on the need for higher unemployment to tame inflation, Warren countered “this is the comment of someone who has never worried about where his next paycheck will come from.

In other words, Democrats have made their political calculus (as a reminder Biden is a superfluous and very old figurehead who doesn't actually matter when it comes to actual decision-making), and have realized that at this point a recession would poll far worse than inflation.

Expect Biden to eventually figure this out in the next 3-6 months, and Powell to get the official memo, at which point the real dovish pivot can begin. Assuming, of course, Nancy Pelosi doesn't start World War 3 between China and the US in the next 48 hours.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/01/2022 - 11:45

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Beloved mall retailer files Chapter 7 bankruptcy, will liquidate

The struggling chain has given up the fight and will close hundreds of stores around the world.

Published

on

It has been a brutal period for several popular retailers. The fallout from the covid pandemic and a challenging economic environment have pushed numerous chains into bankruptcy with Tuesday Morning, Christmas Tree Shops, and Bed Bath & Beyond all moving from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation.

In all three of those cases, the companies faced clear financial pressures that led to inventory problems and vendors demanding faster, or even upfront payment. That creates a sort of inevitability.

Related: Beloved retailer finds life after bankruptcy, new famous owner

When a retailer faces financial pressure it sets off a cycle where vendors become wary of selling them items. That leads to barren shelves and no ability for the chain to sell its way out of its financial problems. 

Once that happens bankruptcy generally becomes the only option. Sometimes that means a Chapter 11 filing which gives the company a chance to negotiate with its creditors. In some cases, deals can be worked out where vendors extend longer terms or even forgive some debts, and banks offer an extension of loan terms.

In other cases, new funding can be secured which assuages vendor concerns or the company might be taken over by its vendors. Sometimes, as was the case with David's Bridal, a new owner steps in, adds new money, and makes deals with creditors in order to give the company a new lease on life.

It's rare that a retailer moves directly into Chapter 7 bankruptcy and decides to liquidate without trying to find a new source of funding.

Mall traffic has varied depending upon the type of mall.

Image source: Getty Images

The Body Shop has bad news for customers  

The Body Shop has been in a very public fight for survival. Fears began when the company closed half of its locations in the United Kingdom. That was followed by a bankruptcy-style filing in Canada and an abrupt closure of its U.S. stores on March 4.

"The Canadian subsidiary of the global beauty and cosmetics brand announced it has started restructuring proceedings by filing a Notice of Intention (NOI) to Make a Proposal pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada). In the same release, the company said that, as of March 1, 2024, The Body Shop US Limited has ceased operations," Chain Store Age reported.

A message on the company's U.S. website shared a simple message that does not appear to be the entire story.

"We're currently undergoing planned maintenance, but don't worry we're due to be back online soon."

That same message is still on the company's website, but a new filing makes it clear that the site is not down for maintenance, it's down for good.

The Body Shop files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy

While the future appeared bleak for The Body Shop, fans of the brand held out hope that a savior would step in. That's not going to be the case. 

The Body Shop filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States.

"The US arm of the ethical cosmetics group has ceased trading at its 50 outlets. On Saturday (March 9), it filed for Chapter 7 insolvency, under which assets are sold off to clear debts, putting about 400 jobs at risk including those in a distribution center that still holds millions of dollars worth of stock," The Guardian reported.

After its closure in the United States, the survival of the brand remains very much in doubt. About half of the chain's stores in the United Kingdom remain open along with its Australian stores. 

The future of those stores remains very much in doubt and the chain has shared that it needs new funding in order for them to continue operating.

The Body Shop did not respond to a request for comment from TheStreet.   

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super…

Published

on

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super Tuesday primaries have got it right. Barring cataclysmic changes, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be the Republican and Democratic nominees for president in 2024.

(Left) President Joe Biden delivers remarks on canceling student debt at Culver City Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, Calif., on Feb. 21, 2024. (Right) Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump stands on stage during a campaign event at Big League Dreams Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 27, 2024. (Mario Tama/Getty Images; David Becker/Getty Images)

With Nikki Haley’s withdrawal, there will be no more significantly contested primaries or caucuses—the earliest both parties’ races have been over since something like the current primary-dominated system was put in place in 1972.

The primary results have spotlighted some of both nominees’ weaknesses.

Donald Trump lost high-income, high-educated constituencies, including the entire metro area—aka the Swamp. Many but by no means all Haley votes there were cast by Biden Democrats. Mr. Trump can’t afford to lose too many of the others in target states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Majorities and large minorities of voters in overwhelmingly Latino counties in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley and some in Houston voted against Joe Biden, and even more against Senate nominee Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas).

Returns from Hispanic precincts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts show the same thing. Mr. Biden can’t afford to lose too many Latino votes in target states like Arizona and Georgia.

When Mr. Trump rode down that escalator in 2015, commentators assumed he’d repel Latinos. Instead, Latino voters nationally, and especially the closest eyewitnesses of Biden’s open-border policy, have been trending heavily Republican.

High-income liberal Democrats may sport lawn signs proclaiming, “In this house, we believe ... no human is illegal.” The logical consequence of that belief is an open border. But modest-income folks in border counties know that flows of illegal immigrants result in disorder, disease, and crime.

There is plenty of impatience with increased disorder in election returns below the presidential level. Consider Los Angeles County, America’s largest county, with nearly 10 million people, more people than 40 of the 50 states. It voted 71 percent for Mr. Biden in 2020.

Current returns show county District Attorney George Gascon winning only 21 percent of the vote in the nonpartisan primary. He’ll apparently face Republican Nathan Hochman, a critic of his liberal policies, in November.

Gascon, elected after the May 2020 death of counterfeit-passing suspect George Floyd in Minneapolis, is one of many county prosecutors supported by billionaire George Soros. His policies include not charging juveniles as adults, not seeking higher penalties for gang membership or use of firearms, and bringing fewer misdemeanor cases.

The predictable result has been increased car thefts, burglaries, and personal robberies. Some 120 assistant district attorneys have left the office, and there’s a backlog of 10,000 unprosecuted cases.

More than a dozen other Soros-backed and similarly liberal prosecutors have faced strong opposition or have left office.

St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner resigned last May amid lawsuits seeking her removal, Milwaukee’s John Chisholm retired in January, and Baltimore’s Marilyn Mosby was defeated in July 2022 and convicted of perjury in September 2023. Last November, Loudoun County, Virginia, voters (62 percent Biden) ousted liberal Buta Biberaj, who declined to prosecute a transgender student for assault, and in June 2022 voters in San Francisco (85 percent Biden) recalled famed radical Chesa Boudin.

Similarly, this Tuesday, voters in San Francisco passed ballot measures strengthening police powers and requiring treatment of drug-addicted welfare recipients.

In retrospect, it appears the Floyd video, appearing after three months of COVID-19 confinement, sparked a frenzied, even crazed reaction, especially among the highly educated and articulate. One fatal incident was seen as proof that America’s “systemic racism” was worse than ever and that police forces should be defunded and perhaps abolished.

2020 was “the year America went crazy,” I wrote in January 2021, a year in which police funding was actually cut by Democrats in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. A year in which young New York Times (NYT) staffers claimed they were endangered by the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) opinion article advocating calling in military forces if necessary to stop rioting, as had been done in Detroit in 1967 and Los Angeles in 1992. A craven NYT publisher even fired the editorial page editor for running the article.

Evidence of visible and tangible discontent with increasing violence and its consequences—barren and locked shelves in Manhattan chain drugstores, skyrocketing carjackings in Washington, D.C.—is as unmistakable in polls and election results as it is in daily life in large metropolitan areas. Maybe 2024 will turn out to be the year even liberal America stopped acting crazy.

Chaos and disorder work against incumbents, as they did in 1968 when Democrats saw their party’s popular vote fall from 61 percent to 43 percent.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The…

Published

on

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

Doses of a COVID-19 vaccine in Washington in a file image. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”

Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”

The agency searched for such data and did not find any.

The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.

“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.

The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.

The VA’s website claims that vaccines “help protect you from getting severe illness” and “offer good protection against most COVID-19 variants,” pointing in part to observational data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimate the vaccines provide poor protection against symptomatic infection and transient shielding against hospitalization.

There have also been increasing concerns among outside scientists about confirmed side effects like heart inflammation—the VA hid a safety signal it detected for the inflammation—and possible side effects such as tinnitus, which shift the benefit-risk calculus.

President Joe Biden imposed a slate of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021. The VA was the first federal agency to implement a mandate.

President Biden rescinded the mandates in May 2023, citing a drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. His administration maintains the choice to require vaccines was the right one and saved lives.

“Our administration’s vaccination requirements helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” the White House said.

Some experts said requiring vaccination meant many younger people were forced to get a vaccine despite the risks potentially outweighing the benefits, leaving fewer doses for older adults.

By mandating the vaccines to younger people and those with natural immunity from having had COVID, older people in the U.S. and other countries did not have access to them, and many people might have died because of that,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine on leave from Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times previously.

The VA was one of just a handful of agencies to keep its mandate in place following the removal of many federal mandates.

“At this time, the vaccine requirement will remain in effect for VA health care personnel, including VA psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, nursing assistants, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, peer specialists, medical support assistants, engineers, housekeepers, and other clinical, administrative, and infrastructure support employees,” Mr. McDonough wrote to VA employees at the time.

This also includes VA volunteers and contractors. Effectively, this means that any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee, volunteer, or contractor who works in VHA facilities, visits VHA facilities, or provides direct care to those we serve will still be subject to the vaccine requirement at this time,” he said. “We continue to monitor and discuss this requirement, and we will provide more information about the vaccination requirements for VA health care employees soon. As always, we will process requests for vaccination exceptions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.”

The version of the shots cleared in the fall of 2022, and available through the fall of 2023, did not have any clinical trial data supporting them.

A new version was approved in the fall of 2023 because there were indications that the shots not only offered temporary protection but also that the level of protection was lower than what was observed during earlier stages of the pandemic.

Ms. Manookian, whose group has challenged several of the federal mandates, said that the mandate “illustrates the dangers of the administrative state and how these federal agencies have become a law unto themselves.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 22:10

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending