After reading months of ridiculously goalseeked Wall Street commentary, where first a Trump victory was the best outcome for stocks (at a time when Trump was seen as a favorite to win), then a Biden victory becoming the best-case outcome for risk assets (this predictably emerged around the time Biden took a lead in the polls), then a Blue Wave emerging as the most bullish outcome (around the time a Democratic sweep became the most likely outcome according to polls), and then following a brief detour when Wall Street briefly freaked out about Congressional gridlock when a split Congress suddenly became an all too real possibility, we went full circle and a Trump victory once again became the most bullish outcome (according to JPMorgan), traders and analysts would simply roll their eyes and snicker whenever a new “scenario” emerged from Wall Street’s strategy desks.
There was a simple reason for that: as One River’s Eric Peters explained earlier, ever since the arrival of MMT in March, the simple reality is that for stocks it no longer matters who is president, to wit:
When stocks bottomed on March 23rd, Trump narrowly led Biden in betting markets. But pandemics have consequences and this catastrophe hit a nation that had spent decades optimizing its economy to spur asset price appreciation. America’s financial system was as overleveraged as it was unstable. A depression was inevitable in the absence of something utterly unprecedented.
On March 27th Trump signed the $2.2trln CARES Act, and this, combined with a breathtaking array of asset purchase programs marked the effective start of MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) – with the Fed and Treasury coordinating policy.
And ever since, it has mattered less who wins this election. Because you see, once the link is broken between what the government must collect and what it can spend, who leads the nation is less consequential – at least to stock markets in the near-term.
Of course, cynics will say that the presidency – which long ago devolved into a mere symbolic figurehead position – stopped mattering for markets long before March, and the data will certainly back that up. As the following chart from Ed Yardeni shows, no matter who is president or what whether Congress is united or divided,
» Lees verder
In het weekend van 10 oktober vond in Berlijn een conferentie plaats van de World Doctors Alliance. Artsen, wetenschappers en vrijheidsstrijders van over de hele wereld kwamen hier bijeen.
Enerzijds om met elkaar te delen wat de stand van zaken is rondom de Corona situatie in alle landen. Anderzijds om met elkaar vooruit te kijken naar de wereld waar we wél in willen leven. De bijeenkomst werd geïnitieerd door arts Heiko Schöning en professor moleculaire biologie en immunologie Dolores Cahill. Zij stellen al sinds het begin van de Corona crisis kritische vragen over de maatregelen die overheden wereldwijd nemen. De aanwezigen tijdens deze conferentie in Berlijn spraken onder meer over de omvang van de censuur, de onbetrouwbaarheid van de PCR testen en de extreme maatregelen die in geen enkele verhouding liggen met de mensen die aan het Covid-19 virus overlijden.
De beelden van het bijgaande filmpje, waarin een aantal van de aanwezigen tijdens de conferentie zich voorstelt, ging de wereld over. Wil je meer informatie over wat tijdens de conferentie besproken is? Bekijk dan de website acu2020.org voor meer opnames van deze bijzondere conferentie.
» Lees verder
By Truthstream Media
In the video below, Melissa Dykes of Truthstream Media explains her thoughts about the current crisis and how the media is causing fear about a future that doesn’t even exist yet. Yes, the future looks very uncertain, but watching this video from the comfort of your home indicates that you’re not in immediate danger worthy of constant fear. Fear is keeping us in a box.
Aaron & Melissa Dykes are the founders of TruthstreamMedia.com, Subscribe to them on YouTube, like on Facebook, follow on Twitter, support on Patreon. Watch their mini-documentary Obsolete here and their full-length documentary THE MINDS OF MEN here.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Prosper during this crisis! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.
» Lees verder
On Monday, when the market hit its absolute blow off top phase and Robinhooders sent the stock of bankrupt Hertz as high as $6.25, resulting in a market cap of just under $900 million – a testament to the absolute idiocy of capital markets – we decided to double down on this idiocy and said that “we hope the company sells a few hundred million worth of stock – after all there is apparently endless demand for its shares – just so we can test the so-called “price discovery” of Powell’s latest and greatest FOMO bubble.”
Well, it turns out that some banker at Jefferies read us, however ignoring the clear sarcasm of this proposal decided to turn it into what may soon be the most insane and/or stunning, maybe even legendary capital markets product ever proposed: an Initial Bankruptcy Offering. You see, after the close on Thursday, Jefferies filed a motion in the Hertz bankruptcy case, seeking to sell $500 million in bankrupt Hertz stock (or 246,775,008 HTZ shares) in a “unique opportunity” to “raise capital on terms that are far superior to any debtor-in-possession financing.“
Why is Jefferies proposing this deal? Because “the recent market prices of and the trading volumes in Hertz’s common stock potentially present a unique opportunity for the Debtors to raise capital on terms that are far superior to any debtor-in-possession financing.”
In other words, the feverish retail participation in the most ridiculous asset bubble ever created by the Fed is just the opportunity Jefferies – and Hertz – needed to turn the bankruptcy process on its head.
It gets better: according to the filing, “if successful, Hertz could potentially offer up to and including an aggregate of $1.0 billion of common stock, the net proceeds of which would be available for general working capital purposes. Unlike typical debtor-in-possession financing, the common stock issuance would not impose restrictive covenants on the Debtors and would not impair any of the creditors of the Debtors. Moreover, the stock issuance would carry no repayment obligations, and the Debtors would not pay any interest or fees to those who provide the funding by buying shares at the market.”
While something like this has never been done before for the simple reason that in a bankruptcy,
» Lees verder