D’oh Canada – Jody Wilson-Raybould Has Tapes of Being Pressured to Take Legal Action Based on Politics….


Oh boy, if you’ve been following the Justin Trudeau scandal surrounding the SNC-Lavalin bribery and corruption case, well, things just got more interesting.  Former Justice Minister, Canadian Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould, has stated, repeatedly, she felt pressured by Justin Trudeau to interfere in a criminal prosecution to help a business based on politics.  [Backstory Here – and Here – and Here]

Obviously Ms. Wilson-Raybould knew Trudeau was putting her in a legally precarious position because she took the unprecedented step of recording a conversation with Trudeau’s aide, Michael Wernick, while he was applying the pressure.  LISTEN:

CANADA – […] The recording shows Trudeau aide Michael Wernick telling the Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould that Trudeau “is determined, quite firm,” in finding a way to avoid a prosecution that could put 9,000 jobs at risk.

It also shows Wilson-Raybould, who was also attorney general, saying she regards the pressure as “inappropriate.”

[…] Wilson-Raybould was demoted from her role as attorney general and justice minister in January as part of a Cabinet shuffle by Trudeau. She has testified that she believes she lost the justice job because she did not give in to “sustained” pressure to instruct the director of public prosecutions to negotiate a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin.

Wilson-Raybould said in a written submission that she took the “extraordinary and otherwise inappropriate step” of secretly recording a phone call with the country’s top public servant in December because she feared the conversation would cross ethical lines and she wanted an exact account.

“This is something that I have never done before this phone call and have not done since,” she wrote. (read more)

Are 95% of Bitcoin Trades Fake?


 

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I love the fact you always stand in the middle. Do you believe that 95% of Bitcoin Trading is fake?

Thank you

KL

ANSWER: I did not conduct that study. It does sound a bit high. However, manipulation has been a historical problem in the commodity world. As I stated before, the manipulations were common practice in commodities during the 1970s. It was brought to Wall Street when Phibro took over Solomon Brothers in the early 80s. By 1991, they were charged with manipulating the US government bond market. How did they do that? The very same way these allegations of fake Bitcoin trades are taking place. You put in bids to pretend the market is deep and so you buy ever increasing the price.

Do I personally believe there is fake trading in Bitcoin taking place off-exchange? Absolutely. Would I assume that 95% is fake? I would question that high of a number. I would have to review their criteria for classifying a trade as fake. I would probably place it at the 50%+ level but not 95%. That is just my opinion based upon historical levels of manipulations in commodities.

For example, I knew the Hunt brothers as clients in the early 1970s. Only a few months before the high, the world suddenly knew what they were up to. That info was spread by the dealers to get everyone in the retail market to rush in and buy silver with claims it was heading to $100. But the dealers, I believe, bribed the CFTC and the exchange into raising margins to be long on silver and making shorts required to put up a fraction of that margin requirement. The dealers shorted silver, the public lost, and they bankrupted the Hunts. They made so much money that they then began to buy Wall Street.

Inverted Yield Curve Points to Recession?


Last week, the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury bill fell below that of the 3-month note for the first time since 2007. This is what everyone calls an Inverted Yield Curve, and is seen as an early indicator of a recession. In that regard, it is conforming to the Economic Confidence Model (ECM) which has been warning that this last leg should be a hard landing economically for most of the world. Nonetheless, while the yield curve has inverted, it has done so in a rather unusual manner. This is NOT suggesting a major recession in the United States. Instead, it is a reflection of global uncertainty outside the USA.

This Inverted Yield Curve is confirming that as the political chaos emerging around the world, and that more and more foreign capital is parking in the dollar. With the May elections on the horizon in Europe, and the October elections in even Canada, April elections in Israel … etc. etc., the capital flows are still pointing ever stronger into the dollar right now. The foreign capital has been buying the 10-year notes driving the spread lower.

 

We can see that the 10-year premium to the 2-years has been in a major decline ever since our War Cycle turned in 2014. The Yield Curve (10-2yr) has not inverted. This is clearly showing the capital flight to the dollar that has been going on post-2014. This is not reflecting a major recession in the USA, but it is inferring that the ECM will be turning soon

Facebook to Launch a Cryptocurrency & Compete Against Banks?


QUESTION: Why is Facebook going to issue a cryptocurrency? Doesn’t that confirm the evolutionary path of technology?

ND

ANSWER: The term “cryptocurrency” is being thrown around very loosely. It is true that there is increasing hype and speculation regarding a theoretical Facebook Coin. However, this is not a “cryptocurrency” it is simply a digital entry and nothing more. The proposed Facebook Coin is the polar opposite of Bitcoin. AFacebook is creating a pretend cryptocurrency for WhatsApp. This is not a real cryptocurrency. The cryptocurrency enthusiasts are only looking at the label. The Facebook Coin is nothing like Bitcoin (BTC).

Thet Facebook Coin will be pegged to a fiat currency similar to that of Tether (USDT) and USD Coin (USDC) and it will use blockchain technology. The only real unique aspect about Facebook Coin versus a regular stablecoin is that it could be backed by a basket of fiat currencies, all held in Facebook bank accounts. This is more along the lines of the ultimate evolution of what I would expect to become the next reserve currency – a basket of currencies rather than a single currency.

If our sources are correct, this means that a Facebook Coin would easily compete with the rest of the $2-3 billion stablecoin markets where the biggest stablecoin remains Tether (USDT). Tether (USDT) has had some problems with its backing which resulted in its decline by as much as 10% below the value of a U.S. dollar.

That said, since Facebook Coin would be a stablecoin, it will not be possible to invest in it so it would not be a trading vehicle like Bitcoin. That means it would be more of a store of value which is quite different from Bitcoin (BTC) and most other cryptocurrencies where fluctuating prices really prevent them from becoming a true currency digital or otherwise. Clearly, Facebook has no intention of launching a trading cryptocurrency. If they did, it would probably blow Bitcoin out of the water. Facebook is not going this route for it is looking to get into really the digital currency world, not cryptocurrency. However, Facebook’s total stock has a market cap of $463 billion is closer to 4 times that of the entire crypto market cap of $130 billion.

If we pull back the curtain, Facebook is much more interested in a real-world market by creating its own payment network independent of Visa and PayPal. Effectively, venturing into a digital currency world backed by a basket of currencies or allowing clients to select their currency means they would compete for deposits like banks but globally. With Facebook’s immense user base, such as a payment network would be extremely competitive in the banking world. Obviously, Facebook sees that a digital payment network will be unique out of all the other big name fiat payment networks since it will use blockchain technology and its client base to launch it into the future..

 

Keeping it Simple Keeps you Stupid


There was a 14th-century Franciscan friar by the name of William of Ockham who is credited with having formalized the principle that “simpler solutions are likely to be more correct than complex ones.” Hence, we seem to always try to reduce everything to a single cause and effect. Some have rephrased this as “keep it simple, stupid,” and it has emerged with the label “Ockham’s razor,” which is supposed to be a tool that cuts through complexity to get from point A to point B. However, is this the very problem that prevents us from seeing reality? It was, after all, this very principle that supported the flat earth theory. It prevailed and even led to the execution of people such as Giordano Bruno (1548–1600)  for daring to propose that the universe was not revolving around a flat Earth. Even Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was charged in 1633 by the Roman Inquisition and forced to sign the confession or suffer the same fate of Bruno that the Earth was flat.

In funds management, the statement that proves there is complexity is a legal requirement: Past performance is not a predictor of future success. All investing involves the risk of loss.While there is a desire to make complexity simple and understandable, this is really completely misguided. Clearly, simplicity rather than complexity is by no means the proper course of action for we then cannot see the interconnections of how everything truly functions. The greatest mistake in the analysis is always trying to reduce any effect down to a single cause. The world is a complex mechanism. It is indeed like a rainforest. There are countless species and each is interconnected. Exterminate one and you will find that it was the food source for another. That species, in turn, was the food source for yet another and so on. The world economy is equally complex. This is why I say we are ALL CONNECTED. Create a war in one region, we may not be involved with troops, but the capital flows shift. How can we forecast anything by ignoring all the interrelated influences?

There are those who advocate that the best way to achieve your long-term investment objectives is to keep in simple. Yet they are looking at history and banking everything on a continuation of inflation. I have told the story at conferences how I bought a 328 Ferrari when I lived in London in 1985 when the British pound fell to $1.03. The Italians were getting $60,000 for the car in the states. It was still priced in pounds when it was $2. I bought the car for about $35,000. The Italians could no longer sell cars at that price so they doubled the price in pounds. Then the pound rallied and went to almost $2. I drove the car for 2 years, sold it used, and nearly doubled my money. Then people were buying Ferraris as an investment, thinking it was the car that appreciated when in fact it was just a currency play. If you did not look at the currency, you missed the whole point, so keeping it simple indeed made you stupid.

Rapid technological development in recent years across industries has helped to expose the fact that we live in a global economy and are all interconnected. Fund managers, because of regulation, are blinded by this interconnected world for they are not allowed to invest globally in a diversified portfolio. This is why we have so many specified funds and people claiming to “just keep it simple” with a hold policy because it always comes back.

Markets, on the one hand, appear deep and complex, rendering them impossible to understand fully when limited even by law to a purely domestic view. This has resulted in the advice of buy and hold as a strategy to fight against complexity with simplicity. Then there are investors who believe they need investment solutions that are nimble and flip positions based upon the talking heads on TV. They are brainwashed by their market myths. This has merely become grand sophistry trying to fight complexity with a simplicity that sounds logical by reducing all activity to a single cause and effect.

Asset allocation philosophies have emerged which invest other diverse market sectors knowing that they are polar opposites. They assume that the world is too complex beyond their comprehension so spread the wealth and hope for the best. These strategies have expanded as of late beyond the traditional stock/bond mix that was really exclusively domestic-oriented. In modern times post-1985, alternative strategies emerged introducing hedge funds that also incorporated foreign exchange, commodities, options, private debt, venture capital, and even real estate.

As hedge funds began to report their 2018 performance, an abyss quickly emerged between managers who outperformed the index and those who saw staggering losses with a third group landing somewhere in between. Overall, the industry saw its biggest annual loss since 2011, declining 4.1% on a fund-weighted basis, according to Hedge Fund Research Inc. Mostly, the smaller funds were able to flip portfolios quickly and that allowed them to trade around the big funds that can no longer maneuver. Most were unable to navigate the market turbulence in what became the worst year for the S&P 500 Index since the financial crisis. Most took “views” of what they thought would unfold and it cost them dearly. The funds that relied upon a personal opinion proved to be the worst for the vast majority kept viewing the stock market would crash any day, which never happened.

The illusion that simplicity provides the best long-term investment return is really predicated upon an assumption since the Great Depression that if you just held through all the 50-70% corrections you would be OK at the end of the day. The problem with this argument is that we are all human. I have never met someone who can actually do that. Then there is the problem of surviving the long-term. The city of Detroit suspended its debt payments in 1937 and resumed in 1963. If you owned such bonds for retirement, perhaps your heirs benefited, but you would have died broke and starving. It all depends where you are in the business cycle.